From Lambeau to Lombardi, Holmgren, McCarthy and LaFleur and from Starr to Favre, Rodgers and now Jordan Love we’re talking Super Bowl Champion Green Bay Packers football. This Packers Forum is the place to talk NFL football and everything Packers. So, pull up a keyboard, make yourself at home and let’s talk some Packers football.
I’m sure the Chiefs expected more from Mahomes against the Buccs in the SB the year before as well but when you’re down both your OTs and play an injured Turner at LT against a good defense that’s kind of what you get from an offense.
If 13 points is "what you get" then we had no shot at a SB regardless.
13 points is not winning football. It was only close to winning football because our defense was elite, elite, elite level that night and Jimmy G's receivers dropped a number of passes in the first half to not execute on plays that were there.
We didn’t have a shot. I said in October if the team didn’t figure out it’s special teams issue it would be a quick 1 game playoff exit. It was.
The outcome to the season was obvious and inevitable. Many, while recognizing the STs was awful, had not come to grips with this reality. We had no shot.
The weather gets cold, the defenses get great, and the margins for error get tiny...STs matters that time of year. It was always bound to doom us.
If 13 points is "what you get" then we had no shot at a SB regardless.
13 points is not winning football. It was only close to winning football because our defense was elite, elite, elite level that night and Jimmy G's receivers dropped a number of passes in the first half to not execute on plays that were there.
We didn’t have a shot. I said in October if the team didn’t figure out it’s special teams issue it would be a quick 1 game playoff exit. It was.
The outcome to the season was obvious and inevitable. Many, while recognizing the STs was awful, had not come to grips with this reality. We had no shot.
The weather gets cold, the defenses get great, and the margins for error get tiny...STs matters that time of year. It was always bound to doom us.
If 13 points is "what you get" then we had no shot at a SB regardless.
13 points is not winning football. It was only close to winning football because our defense was elite, elite, elite level that night and Jimmy G's receivers dropped a number of passes in the first half to not execute on plays that were there.
We didn’t have a shot. I said in October if the team didn’t figure out it’s special teams issue it would be a quick 1 game playoff exit. It was.
The outcome to the season was obvious and inevitable. Many, while recognizing the STs was awful, had not come to grips with this reality. We had no shot.
The weather gets cold, the defenses get great, and the margins for error get tiny...STs matters that time of year. It was always bound to doom us.
I don't remember you being the all seeing wizard the night of the game.
You were in the same boat as the rest of us. Which is fine. But I don't get this road you are trying to track for yourself.
The reason I still believed we could win a SB even with our poor STs was because our defense was so good and offense had playmakers.
STs is the one group where a bad unit can escape with no impact because it's the easiest to "just get by". It has the most safe alternatives by kicking in the endzone, booting punts high and you expect to be able to block your guy for 2 seconds.
It's just that our STs literally couldn't even do the bear minimum basics when it came to it.
please list offensive play makers, I come up with 4, Rodgers, Adams, Jones, and Dillon, Dillon was hurt early, Rodgers was under pressure most of the game, Adams had double and even triple coverage at times, about the same with Jones, both did there part for plus 200 yrds, so we did lack play makers imo, we could not afford to lose Dillon, and even with him we where still short play makers, those four get it done during the season and against a average opponent, PO opponents bring there A game, there A defense, against that theres no such thing as to many playmakers.
If Adams had triple coverage, then 2 WRs were wide open.
And the strange thing is...there are specific plays where that was the case.
your right, and Jones was the most open and caught 9 passes for a buck 29, Adams triple covered had 90 yrds, Lazard 1 for 6 yrds, thing is under heavy pass pressure the QB doesn'r have time to wait for receivers to clear, and better receivers tend to be able to get open sooner, Lazard needs broken coverage to get open, hows a QB to deal with that? duhh, and it was basically the same for anyone not names Adams and Jones, if your not open when the QB gets to your read, chances are he'll never have time to look your way again, anyone with a lic of common sense knows this stuff, and it's been evident to be the case often with Rodgers, he simply has to either get rid of the ball, take a sack, or run, the once in a while that he does have time, and doesn't spot a open receivers gets blown out of proportion in the blame game, it's your excuse to defend the WR position our QB has had to put up with for the last 5 years
please list offensive play makers, I come up with 4, Rodgers, Adams, Jones, and Dillon, Dillon was hurt early, Rodgers was under pressure most of the game, Adams had double and even triple coverage at times, about the same with Jones, both did there part for plus 200 yrds, so we did lack play makers imo, we could not afford to lose Dillon, and even with him we where still short play makers, those four get it done during the season and against a average opponent, PO opponents bring there A game, there A defense, against that theres no such thing as to many playmakers.
If Adams had triple coverage, then 2 WRs were wide open.
And the strange thing is...there are specific plays where that was the case.
your right, and Jones was the most open and caught 9 passes for a buck 29, Adams triple covered had 90 yrds, Lazard 1 for 6 yrds, thing is under heavy pass pressure the QB doesn'r have time to wait for receivers to clear, and better receivers tend to be able to get open sooner, Lazard needs broken coverage to get open, hows a QB to deal with that? duhh, and it was basically the same for anyone not names Adams and Jones, if your not open when the QB gets to your read, chances are he'll never have time to look your way again, anyone with a lic of common sense knows this stuff, and it's been evident to be the case often with Rodgers, he simply has to either get rid of the ball, take a sack, or run, the once in a while that he does have time, and doesn't spot a open receivers gets blown out of proportion in the blame game, it's your excuse to defend the WR position our QB has had to put up with for the last 5 years
Yoop. It's a simple math formula.
If a player is triple covered like you continue to like to spout, it literally means there is a receiver who has zero coverage on him. It's 8 defenders vs 9 offensive players if Adams was triple covered.
If Adams had triple coverage, then 2 WRs were wide open.
And the strange thing is...there are specific plays where that was the case.
your right, and Jones was the most open and caught 9 passes for a buck 29, Adams triple covered had 90 yrds, Lazard 1 for 6 yrds, thing is under heavy pass pressure the QB doesn'r have time to wait for receivers to clear, and better receivers tend to be able to get open sooner, Lazard needs broken coverage to get open, hows a QB to deal with that? duhh, and it was basically the same for anyone not names Adams and Jones, if your not open when the QB gets to your read, chances are he'll never have time to look your way again, anyone with a lic of common sense knows this stuff, and it's been evident to be the case often with Rodgers, he simply has to either get rid of the ball, take a sack, or run, the once in a while that he does have time, and doesn't spot a open receivers gets blown out of proportion in the blame game, it's your excuse to defend the WR position our QB has had to put up with for the last 5 years
Yoop. It's a simple math formula.
If a player is triple covered like you continue to like to spout, it literally means there is a receiver who has zero coverage on him. It's 8 defenders vs 9 offensive players if Adams was triple covered.
no it isn't, your trying to reduce this to simple math and it isn't anything of the sort, there is a time frame that you want to neglect because it blows your theory right out of the water, a QB has the time allowed depending on how well the blocking holds up, in that 1.5 to 2 seconds he has to read the route tree, if receivers are not getting a step on the coverage he has to move to the next read, and so on, he doesn't automatically get to the last receiver ( Lazard??????) or go back a second or so later to see if he got open.
and when Adams was doubled, the triple was the deep safety support who also can cover others, but I'd think you already new that, point is Rodgers shouldn't have to be super hero, he was 20 for 29 passing, if 66 % completion rate isn't good enough then something else is causing the loss besides just ST's
Honestly, [mention]lupedafiasco[/mention] and [mention]Drj820[/mention], are you really trying to make the case that it is unrealistic to expect more than 13 points from our offense? That seems to be the case you're both making. In my view, the defense played well enough to overcome STs mistakes and the offense, pure and simple, did not.
The 49ers game had five crucial possessions on offense.
1) With tons of early momentum and approaching realistic FG range, Lewis fumbles a little dumpoff. Lewis is not a dynamic player but he is a safe outlet. He has 2 fumbles in the past 11 regular seasons.
2) at the end of the half, Aaron Jones went 75 yards and failed to go out of bounds at the end, forcing the team to burn their 3rd timeout setting up 1st and 10 at the 14 yardline with 26 seconds left. This is a scenario where a sack is 100% unacceptable. You should have 3 shots into the end zone or throwaways. Dennis Kelly got trucked by Bosa and Rodgers not only failed to feel the pressure and get rid of the ball, but fumbled it. Fortunately Lucas Patrick got the ball back but instead of 3 shots into the end zone or throwaways we got one sack-fumble and a spike with 3 seconds left before the FG block.
That series was unacceptable by the offense--Jones, Kelly, and Rodgers made crucial mistakes. One of those guys is an overmatched backup due to massive injury issues. The other two are top players on our team and the league and should have had better situational awareness.
2) The team drives down to a first and goal early in the 4th quarter while up 7-3. A FG keeps it a one-score game while a TD would make it a two-score game and given the way the defense is playing, drastically increase winning odds. The team goes 2-yard run, false start by Kelley, 2-yard pass, Rodgers takes a sack on 3rd and goal. And while the OL was not clean at all on that sack, it wasn't a 2-second sack or anything where Rodgers had no time. It was 3rd down so a throwaway doesn't help, so maybe it's not a bad sack, but the offense absolutely needed more from that opportunity and came up short as a unit.
3) 4th quarter, up 10-3 the team gets the ball with 6 minutes to go. A couple first downs would burn the clock. A FG on this drive ends the game. Instead, the team goes 3&out and crucially, again, Rodgers takes an 11-yard loss on a sack, backing up the punt unit into the end zone. We know what happens next, tie game.
4) After the blocked punt for a TD, the offense gets the ball back, tie game, 10-10, with 4:30 minutes left. They go three and out for -6 yards and immediately return the ball to the 49ers, who kick the winning FG on the ensuing possession. Tied, backed up, and holding the ball, if you can't count on your offense to at least get a couple first downs, you're in a world of trouble.
So yes, absolutely, had the ST simply played their part and held up without major errors, the Packers almost definitely win that game. I have no issue pointing out the ST flaws. But at the same time, the offense had multiple opportunities to put the game away themselves and key players made crucial errors or simply failed to make the plays we needed. We all know we had massive injury issues, the OL and MVS being pointed out routinely. That's one of those flukey luck things we talk about around here. The roster held up resoundingly well for the amount of injuries we had. The coaching decision to bench Nijman looks to have been an error, as well. There are plenty of things to point to here.
But you don't get to only pick the issues that back your narrative. You have to accept and evaluate all the issues. The Packers' offense failed in that last playoff game, plain and simple. Here is their list of yards per possession:
And you're telling me we can't expect more from the offense? That we can't expect/hope for at least one of those 5 above scenarios to turn into a winning play? That we can't place blame anywhere but the ST errors? Give me a break.
If 13 points is "what you get" then we had no shot at a SB regardless.
13 points is not winning football. It was only close to winning football because our defense was elite, elite, elite level that night and Jimmy G's receivers dropped a number of passes in the first half to not execute on plays that were there.
We didn’t have a shot. I said in October if the team didn’t figure out it’s special teams issue it would be a quick 1 game playoff exit. It was.
The outcome to the season was obvious and inevitable. Many, while recognizing the STs was awful, had not come to grips with this reality. We had no shot.
Been said many times, but it isn't bold to predict we won't win the Super Bowl. Maybe the best teams have like an 6-8% chance? So you have like a 94% chance of being correct, well congrats on your soothsayer ability. Average team should be around 3%, Bengals surely way below that to start the year.
And of course we had a shot, 49ers game came down to pretty much a coin flip and we had already beaten them in the regular season and we had already beaten the next two teams we would have played during the regular season.
I think it was a mistake to not fire Drayton after the Bears game, but still to say we lacked the talent to win or we didn't have a shot.
Coverage sacks happen because receivers can't clear, as GPG said, if Adams and Jones are doubled then others should have been open, problem is they weren't or Rodgers wouldn't have taken plus 3 seconds and gotten sacked.
blocked punts and FG's robbed us of points, and only having TWO quality receivers assured us that scoring wouldn't be easy.
We didn’t have a shot. I said in October if the team didn’t figure out it’s special teams issue it would be a quick 1 game playoff exit. It was.
The outcome to the season was obvious and inevitable. Many, while recognizing the STs was awful, had not come to grips with this reality. We had no shot.
Been said many times, but it isn't bold to predict we won't win the Super Bowl. Maybe the best teams have like an 6-8% chance? So you have like a 94% chance of being correct, well congrats on your soothsayer ability. Average team should be around 3%, Bengals surely way below that to start the year.
And of course we had a shot, 49ers game came down to pretty much a coin flip and we had already beaten them in the regular season and we had already beaten the next two teams we would have played during the regular season.
I think it was a mistake to not fire Drayton after the Bears game, but still to say we lacked the talent to win or we didn't have a shot.
I agree we did have the talent to win, but we couldn't lose anyone and we had to play mistake free ball, as we had when we beat those teams prior, however Lewis fumbled for the 2nd time in 11 years, ( who could possibly expect that to happen, and the dependable Dillon became undependable, both huge reason for our lose.
we simply couldn't afford to lose a skill position player because we where short on skill position players as it was, even though we couldn't get the run going, Dillon still forced the defense to honor it, once he was gone SF didn't and played max coverage, and with only Adams and Jones to worry about defending us became much easier.
Coverage sacks happen because receivers can't clear, as GPG said, if Adams and Jones are doubled then others should have been open, problem is they weren't or Rodgers wouldn't have taken plus 3 seconds and gotten sacked.
blocked punts and FG's robbed us of points, and only having TWO quality receivers assured us that scoring wouldn't be easy.
I don't care why a sack happens. When there's 26 seconds on the clock and no timeouts, you can't take one. Period. You HAVE to sense the pressure and throw the ball. Also, Rodgers was winding up to throw into the end zone, so clearly he had a target in mind. He just didn't see/feel the pressure despite it coming from his front side. You also can't fumble, and he fumbled.
I'm not putting the blame all on Rodgers. Obviously, the line struggled, other players struggled. But you can't look at the offensive performances above and just excuse it away. The offense did not execute when it absolutely needed to. Period. There's no debate. It's as apparent as the STs gaffes. There's no reason to see one and not see the other.
Coverage sacks happen because receivers can't clear, as GPG said, if Adams and Jones are doubled then others should have been open, problem is they weren't or Rodgers wouldn't have taken plus 3 seconds and gotten sacked.
blocked punts and FG's robbed us of points, and only having TWO quality receivers assured us that scoring wouldn't be easy.
I don't care why a sack happens. When there's 26 seconds on the clock and no timeouts, you can't take one. Period. You HAVE to sense the pressure and throw the ball. Also, Rodgers was winding up to throw into the end zone, so clearly he had a target in mind. He just didn't see/feel the pressure despite it coming from his front side. You also can't fumble, and he fumbled.
I'm not putting the blame all on Rodgers. Obviously, the line struggled, other players struggled. But you can't look at the offensive performances above and just excuse it away. The offense did not execute when it absolutely needed to. Period. There's no debate. It's as apparent as the STs gaffes. There's no reason to see one and not see the other.
you don't care? time matters, with 26 seconds he was in desperation, so he extended the play as long as he could, whats he suppose to do, when everyone is covered he can't just throw it away, NO Tonyan, No Cobb, No MVS, Blaming Rodgers for this loss is so lame, but it's normal, blame Rodgers rather then look at the crap situation our WR group has been in for years
Funny how everyone just picks and chooses little aspects of the game, simply to support their preconcluded thoughts.
And the most extreme arguments too.
30,000 foot view...Yoho hit it on the head.
Yes. I expect our offense to put up more than 13 points. I honestly expect the offense to put up more than 21 points if they have a great defense. You need to do that to have a shot. I don't care how cold it is.
The offense put up 13 points. That is not winning football. Period.
The defense allowed little enough points to absolutely and unequivocally play winning football and even play winning football to compensate a possession loss by another unit of the team. But when you combine the offense playing 1 possession less where it needed to be and then the STs to play minus two possessions of where it needed to be, you end up losing a game you should have won by 17 points.
Coverage sacks happen because receivers can't clear, as GPG said, if Adams and Jones are doubled then others should have been open, problem is they weren't or Rodgers wouldn't have taken plus 3 seconds and gotten sacked.
blocked punts and FG's robbed us of points, and only having TWO quality receivers assured us that scoring wouldn't be easy.
I don't care why a sack happens. When there's 26 seconds on the clock and no timeouts, you can't take one. Period. You HAVE to sense the pressure and throw the ball. Also, Rodgers was winding up to throw into the end zone, so clearly he had a target in mind. He just didn't see/feel the pressure despite it coming from his front side. You also can't fumble, and he fumbled.
I'm not putting the blame all on Rodgers. Obviously, the line struggled, other players struggled. But you can't look at the offensive performances above and just excuse it away. The offense did not execute when it absolutely needed to. Period. There's no debate. It's as apparent as the STs gaffes. There's no reason to see one and not see the other.
you don't care? time matters, with 26 seconds he was in desperation, so he extended the play as long as he could, whats he suppose to do, when everyone is covered he can't just throw it away, NO Tonyan, No Cobb, No MVS, Blaming Rodgers for this loss is so lame, but it's normal, blame Rodgers rather then look at the crap situation our WR group has been in for years
When you are that close to the EZ and have only 1 timeout...there are literally 2 things you absolutely cannot have happen.
1. Turn over the ball.
2. Get hit with the ball in your hand.
Throwing the ball away when in the RZ is a gimme. You cannot take a play where you lose 10 yards and keep the clock rolling.
So to answer your question:
whats he suppose to do, when everyone is covered he can't just throw it away,
Yes. He absolutely and unequivocally needs to throw that ball away in the back of the EZ and give yourself more cracks at the whip.
I don't care why a sack happens. When there's 26 seconds on the clock and no timeouts, you can't take one. Period. You HAVE to sense the pressure and throw the ball. Also, Rodgers was winding up to throw into the end zone, so clearly he had a target in mind. He just didn't see/feel the pressure despite it coming from his front side. You also can't fumble, and he fumbled.
I'm not putting the blame all on Rodgers. Obviously, the line struggled, other players struggled. But you can't look at the offensive performances above and just excuse it away. The offense did not execute when it absolutely needed to. Period. There's no debate. It's as apparent as the STs gaffes. There's no reason to see one and not see the other.
you don't care? time matters, with 26 seconds he was in desperation, so he extended the play as long as he could, whats he suppose to do, when everyone is covered he can't just throw it away, NO Tonyan, No Cobb, No MVS, Blaming Rodgers for this loss is so lame, but it's normal, blame Rodgers rather then look at the crap situation our WR group has been in for years
When you are that close to the EZ and have only 1 timeout...there are literally 2 things you absolutely cannot have happen.
1. Turn over the ball.
2. Get hit with the ball in your hand.
Throwing the ball away when in the RZ is a gimme. You cannot take a play where you lose 10 yards and keep the clock rolling.
So to answer your question:
whats he suppose to do, when everyone is covered he can't just throw it away,
Yes. He absolutely and unequivocally needs to throw that ball away in the back of the EZ and give yourself more cracks at the whip.
BS, you and yoho both know it doesn't work that way, nothing had went our way on offense since Lewis fumbled the ball, Rodgers was desperate to make something happen, your both over looking 59 minutes of frustration in order to over look not having enough skill players that could have actually made a difference.
you don't care? time matters, with 26 seconds he was in desperation, so he extended the play as long as he could, whats he suppose to do, when everyone is covered he can't just throw it away, NO Tonyan, No Cobb, No MVS, Blaming Rodgers for this loss is so lame, but it's normal, blame Rodgers rather then look at the crap situation our WR group has been in for years
When you are that close to the EZ and have only 1 timeout...there are literally 2 things you absolutely cannot have happen.
1. Turn over the ball.
2. Get hit with the ball in your hand.
Throwing the ball away when in the RZ is a gimme. You cannot take a play where you lose 10 yards and keep the clock rolling.
So to answer your question:
whats he suppose to do, when everyone is covered he can't just throw it away,
Yes. He absolutely and unequivocally needs to throw that ball away in the back of the EZ and give yourself more cracks at the whip.
BS, you and yoho both know it doesn't work that way, nothing had went our way on offense since Lewis fumbled the ball, Rodgers was desperate to make something happen, your both over looking 59 minutes of frustration in order to over look not having enough skill players that could have actually made a difference.
Well then that's just stupid football. You can't let desperation reduce your amount of potential plays. It was a bad play and it cost the Packers chances at the EZ.
We saw the same desperation at the end of the game where he heaved to a double covered Adams on our final play when we had wide open receivers on the end of the field.
What we are describing is a variable of the things that went wrong. It's not the reason. There are always multiple plays that shift games. But it was a reason nonetheless.
Last edited by go pak go on 06 Jun 2022 12:14, edited 1 time in total.
