Packers @ Saints GDT - 9/12/2021 3:25 CST

[lupedafiasco]

3rd and 7, 11 personnel again, all split wide. Jones to the left wide. Runs a crosser at 1 yard. He gets the first if Rodgers hits him earlier. By the time he catches and turns up field he only has 3-4 yards to work with before running OB. Fine play design there, poor execution.

OK blame Rodgers for that but we both know that he was looking for Adams to clear deeper and just waited a tad to long, but agree thats on Rodgers for not just taking what was available.

again we didn't do anything we know we are capable of, almost no PA, or mis direction, motion, we used a small play book, very vanilla.

McCarthy often did the same thing to start the seasons.

Rodgers shouldn’t have been waiting for anyone on that play but Jones. He hits him sooner over the middle and it’s a 15 yard gain. That one was 100% on Rodgers.

[go pak go]

Just FYI those measurables I posted are Tonyan and Kelce.

MVS had a decent game on Sunday, by most accounts.

This is going to be controversial, but I will say it. The Packers 2021 offensive weapons (RB, WR, TE) are equal to the Chiefs offensive weapons.

Oh. Absolutely. If not more lethal. Our RBs are better.

[NCF]

3rd and 7, 11 personnel again, all split wide. Jones to the left wide. Runs a crosser at 1 yard. He gets the first if Rodgers hits him earlier. By the time he catches and turns up field he only has 3-4 yards to work with before running OB. Fine play design there, poor execution.

OK blame Rodgers for that but we both know that he was looking for Adams to clear deeper and just waited a tad to long, but agree thats on Rodgers for not just taking what was available.

again we didn't do anything we know we are capable of, almost no PA, or mis direction, motion, we used a small play book, very vanilla.

McCarthy often did the same thing to start the seasons.

Rodgers shouldn’t have been waiting for anyone on that play but Jones. He hits him sooner over the middle and it’s a 15 yard gain. That one was 100% on Rodgers.

Yep. This is the play. Boom, right there.

[Yoop]

we don't have two receivers capable of beating doubles

And I don't understand why we need to. Beating double coverage (especially having 2 players do it) is a pretty ridiculous and unnecessary ask.

If you have 2 players being "doubled", that means 4 players in the 2ndary are being used on 2 wideouts. If the defense is rushing even just 4 players, that means only 3 more defensive guys are free to cover the remaining the Packers and one of them is likely a LB that is matched vs Aaron Jones or Tonyan and your final receiver is faced up single coverage.

I mean come on. Our offense should find a way to beat that as long as the QB is okay with throwing the ball in the middle of the field. And that is where our issues lie. Rodgers hates doing that. And his INT in the middle of the field week 1 may make him thing twice even more about doing that moving forward.

why do you continue to try and explain stuff that really no one here understands do to so much scheme fluctuation with all these defenses, it's not nearly as simple as you want to make it be?????? seriously the point of two hat safety is just that, to double cover your best receivers on any given play and not always the same two, sure one could be locked all game on Adams, but the other is free to flow where needed, so now if say Tonyan is covered tight, same with MVS the second safety can free lance, and that is our problem, to often Tonyan, MVS, Lazard are to easily covered by one DB.
that alows the free safety and ILB's to clog interior passing lanes.

you should reread that article, specially concerning the the D concepts that beat us last year.

[Pckfn23]

The purpose of 2 high safety is to not get beat over the top and to allow corners to play more aggressively on underneath routes as they know they have help over the top. This generally means the pass rush will have more time to get pressure as it may take more time for the offensive skill players to get open. To combat it, run the ball and scheme guys open underneath. We did neither on Sunday.

[lupedafiasco]

OK blame Rodgers for that but we both know that he was looking for Adams to clear deeper and just waited a tad to long, but agree thats on Rodgers for not just taking what was available.

again we didn't do anything we know we are capable of, almost no PA, or mis direction, motion, we used a small play book, very vanilla.

McCarthy often did the same thing to start the seasons.

Rodgers shouldn’t have been waiting for anyone on that play but Jones. He hits him sooner over the middle and it’s a 15 yard gain. That one was 100% on Rodgers.

Yep. This is the play. Boom, right there.

That is mesh route 101. Crossing routes got a pieces of Kwon and jacked up his balance for a second. No excuse for not hitting Jones earlier. I think Rodgers underestimated Kwons speed but still have to hit that.

[Yoop]

OK blame Rodgers for that but we both know that he was looking for Adams to clear deeper and just waited a tad to long, but agree thats on Rodgers for not just taking what was available.

again we didn't do anything we know we are capable of, almost no PA, or mis direction, motion, we used a small play book, very vanilla.

McCarthy often did the same thing to start the seasons.

Rodgers shouldn’t have been waiting for anyone on that play but Jones. He hits him sooner over the middle and it’s a 15 yard gain. That one was 100% on Rodgers.

Yep. This is the play. Boom, right there.

Jones may have gotten a first down, but he sure as hell wasn't going for 15 yrds, it's even debatable that he would have gotten a first down.

u guys seem hell bent on blaming Rodgers for this loss, and not at all willing to read this very informative article, I gathered as much since NO one brought it yesterday when it first hit the media, I know it's a bit complicated, and long, but it deals with the same type of defense we hope to have by hiring Barry, the same type of defense that beat us 3 out of our 4 losses last year, I was hoping we'd discuss that and less so about single plays that Rodgers didn't perform well.

ya we should have run more against that 4 man front, but then NO might have switched to a 5 man front, and as the article said, if your receivers cant get open under neath ( I admit Jones was on that rare occasion) then a team will just play 2 deep and take that away as well.

[lupedafiasco]

I’m one of the biggest Rodgers supporters on this bird but he was bad Sunday. If I place blame anywhere I put it on the defense for the loss on Sunday but defending Rodgers performance last Sunday is impossible. Even if I wanted to troll I couldn’t do it.

[go pak go]

we don't have two receivers capable of beating doubles

And I don't understand why we need to. Beating double coverage (especially having 2 players do it) is a pretty ridiculous and unnecessary ask.

If you have 2 players being "doubled", that means 4 players in the 2ndary are being used on 2 wideouts. If the defense is rushing even just 4 players, that means only 3 more defensive guys are free to cover the remaining the Packers and one of them is likely a LB that is matched vs Aaron Jones or Tonyan and your final receiver is faced up single coverage.

I mean come on. Our offense should find a way to beat that as long as the QB is okay with throwing the ball in the middle of the field. And that is where our issues lie. Rodgers hates doing that. And his INT in the middle of the field week 1 may make him thing twice even more about doing that moving forward.

why do you continue to try and explain stuff that really no one here understands do to so much scheme fluctuation with all these defenses, it's not nearly as simple as you want to make it be?????? seriously the point of two hat safety is just that, to double cover your best receivers on any given play and not always the same two, sure one could be locked all game on Adams, but the other is free to flow where needed, so now if say Tonyan is covered tight, same with MVS the second safety can free lance, and that is our problem, to often Tonyan, MVS, Lazard are to easily covered by one DB.
that alows the free safety and ILB's to clog interior passing lanes.

you should reread that article, specially concerning the the D concepts that beat us last year.

I think 2 high safety is more about how the name is implied, "2 safeties cover a deep zone" (basically each safety takes half of their side of the field) in order to not allow a receiver to beat them over the top. The safeties aren't really "switiching up a specified WR to double cover" instead they just help with their area if a receiver enters it.

So to beat it, you run the ball and/or attack the short stuff where the safeties aren't (the Aaron Jones 3rd and 7 play is a prime example).

[Scott4Pack]

I hate how everytime we get our teeth kicked in either Lafleur or Rodgers will be like "Well we just came out with low energy..". Like ya, you had all offseason to be low energy and get energized, lets stop being lazy on sundays please!!

Yeah. This is the type of thing that I think we'd see a big difference between AR12 and TB12. Sure they aren't the same. But after getting whooped like this, I think there's a part of TB12 that would make it entirely clear that he wasn't going to stand for that even one more time. We've seen his rants after he or team members mess up. And you know what, his team usually responds!

[Yoop]

Just FYI those measurables I posted are Tonyan and Kelce.

MVS had a decent game on Sunday, by most accounts.

This is going to be controversial, but I will say it. The Packers 2021 offensive weapons (RB, WR, TE) are equal to the Chiefs offensive weapons.

accounts by who? and your right, it is controversial, just put Tonyan and Kelce on the trade block and see who gets paid, not knocking Tonyan but Kelce is near un stoppable.

to make things simpler you should just put names next to that stas so I don't have to guess about what your referencing, as I said long long ago this isn't your fking class room 23, if ya want to continue having a conversation with me throw all your cards on the table.

the article points out why Mahomes is successful against two shell defenses and why Rodgers has struggled, I disagree with you that the problem is Rodgers, and not our receivers, there are doz. of articles that tend to agree, we lack the receiver talent of a team like KC, so ya, your opinion is controversial.

you and others will continue to defend these receivers till hell freezes over, so funny

[Scott4Pack]

Rodgers shouldn’t have been waiting for anyone on that play but Jones. He hits him sooner over the middle and it’s a 15 yard gain. That one was 100% on Rodgers.

Yep. This is the play. Boom, right there.

Jones may have gotten a first down, but he sure as hell wasn't going for 15 yrds, it's even debatable that he would have gotten a first down.

u guys seem hell bent on blaming Rodgers for this loss, and not at all willing to read this very informative article, I gathered as much since NO one brought it yesterday when it first hit the media, I know it's a bit complicated, and long, but it deals with the same type of defense we hope to have by hiring Barry, the same type of defense that beat us 3 out of our 4 losses last year, I was hoping we'd discuss that and less so about single plays that Rodgers didn't perform well.

ya we should have run more against that 4 man front, but then NO might have switched to a 5 man front, and as the article said, if your receivers cant get open under neath ( I admit Jones was on that rare occasion) then a team will just play 2 deep and take that away as well.

If Jones gets the ball 2 seconds sooner, he wouldn't be fighting against the sideline. He would've had clear sailing to the first down. But where he actually got the ball, he was already confined by the sideline.

[Yoop]

I’m one of the biggest Rodgers supporters on this bird but he was bad Sunday. If I place blame anywhere I put it on the defense for the loss on Sunday but defending Rodgers performance last Sunday is impossible. Even if I wanted to troll I couldn’t do it.

whi is defending Rodgers?? I'am simply trying to explain why what we did on both sides of the ball didn't work, this had very little to do with Rodgers

[Yoop]

Yep. This is the play. Boom, right there.

Jones may have gotten a first down, but he sure as hell wasn't going for 15 yrds, it's even debatable that he would have gotten a first down.

u guys seem hell bent on blaming Rodgers for this loss, and not at all willing to read this very informative article, I gathered as much since NO one brought it yesterday when it first hit the media, I know it's a bit complicated, and long, but it deals with the same type of defense we hope to have by hiring Barry, the same type of defense that beat us 3 out of our 4 losses last year, I was hoping we'd discuss that and less so about single plays that Rodgers didn't perform well.

ya we should have run more against that 4 man front, but then NO might have switched to a 5 man front, and as the article said, if your receivers cant get open under neath ( I admit Jones was on that rare occasion) then a team will just play 2 deep and take that away as well.

If Jones gets the ball 2 seconds sooner, he wouldn't be fighting against the sideline. He would've had clear sailing to the first down. But where he actually got the ball, he was already confined by the sideline.

maybe, still he wouldn't have gotten any more without breaking a tackle from a very good lber.

[Pckfn23]

accounts by who?

By anyone who objectively watched the game, plus the all-22. MVS had a decent game, as I said.

it is controversial, just put Tonyan and Kelce on the trade block and see who gets paid, not knocking Tonyan but Kelce is near un stoppable.

No one said that Kelce was not a vastly better TE than Tonyan... Kelce is the best TE in the game and has been for years.

to make things simpler you should just put names next to that stas so I don't have to guess about what your referencing, as I said long long ago this isn't your fking class room 23, if ya want to continue having a conversation with me throw all your cards on the table.

We have been posting measurables without names for years. Nothing new, nothing controversial. It helps people more objectively look at player comparisons.

the article points out why Mahomes is successful against two shell defenses and why Rodgers has struggled, I disagree with you that the problem is Rodgers, and not our receivers, there are doz. of articles that tend to agree, we lack the receiver talent of a team like KC, so ya, your opinion is controversial.

Who are the receivers after Tyreek Hill, don't look it up. Also, I didn't say just receivers, I said offensive weapons.

you and others will continue to defend these receivers till hell freezes over, so funny

I didn't defend the receivers...

I see we are already into yoop not reading and full argue over everything mode... Fun...

[go pak go]

You can beat a 2 high safety pretty easy because you will have the opportunities underneath.

But you can't make mistakes.

Tonyan dropped a ball. Rodgers miss-timed the Jones throw. Rodgers took an unnecessary sack.

Those 3 plays were gafs by the Packers in the 1st half that resulted in us either not moving the chains or staying behind the chains.

And that's all it took. You just can't recover against 2 high that you can vs other defenses because the home run ball is likely not gonna happen. Honestly it was risky by the Saints because it could have/should have just as easily been our offense having the ball for 9 minute drives tiring out their defense and then beating over the top after they got tired as the Saints did to us.

It's just that the Packers and the passing game weren't sharp.

[NCF]

maybe, still he wouldn't have gotten any more without breaking a tackle from a very good lber.

It was 3rd and 7... who gives a &%$@? The point is get the 1st down. If Rodgers lets it rip when it's there, it's an easy 1st down.

[Yoop]

We have been posting measurables without names for years. Nothing new, nothing controversial. It helps people more objectively look at player comparisons.

NO NO, your the one who doesn't put names next to player stats, and you do it to confuse people, it doesn't help anyone pay closer attn. to the stats, this is you trying to get the upper hand in these conversations and thats it.

and why in the heck do have to memorize the names of the KC receivers? Kelce is better then Tonyan and the other two are about equal, so the KC duo is better.

[Yoop]

maybe, still he wouldn't have gotten any more without breaking a tackle from a very good lber.

It was 3rd and 7... who gives a &%$@? The point is get the 1st down. If Rodgers lets it rip when it's there, it's an easy 1st down.

Jones wasn't the first read, if he had been what you suggest may have happened, look do you want to bench Rodgers and put Love in? Rodgers didn't play a good game, Lafluer didn't have a game plan to combat the defenses NO used, that one play is not why we lost, yet here you are all bent out of shape on this one play, did you even read that article? probably not, because it dealt with much biggwer issue then Rodgers not getting that first down throw to Jones.

[Yoop]

You can beat a 2 high safety pretty easy because you will have the opportunities underneath.

But you can't make mistakes.

Tonyan dropped a ball. Rodgers miss-timed the Jones throw. Rodgers took an unnecessary sack.

Those 3 plays were gafs by the Packers in the 1st half that resulted in us either not moving the chains or staying behind the chains.

And that's all it took. You just can't recover against 2 high that you can vs other defenses because the home run ball is likely not gonna happen. Honestly it was risky by the Saints because it could have/should have just as easily been our offense having the ball for 9 minute drives tiring out their defense and then beating over the top after they got tired as the Saints did to us.

It's just that the Packers and the passing game weren't sharp.

the best and most successful defenses in the league use 2 high safety, and teams , all teams struggle to beat them with small ball and under neath passing, again read about these defenses that show one thing pre snap and roll out of that post snap, that was the context of that article, you always say I don't comprehend what I read, and I admit to that, but you and practically every other post from others here didn't even bother to read it or you people are the ones that didn't understand it's message.

last year our 4 losses wher e against these type defenses, and as of Sunday we have not shown a answer to combat them.