Packers Huddle

Yoop wrote: ↑

16 Sep 2021 10:32

NCF wrote: ↑

16 Sep 2021 10:16

Yoop wrote: ↑

16 Sep 2021 09:44

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.

NCF wrote: ↑

16 Sep 2021 10:43

ones is absolutely the read on that play. It was 1st quarter. The score was 3 to 0. It's a big play in the game before everything went to &%$@. Get a 1st down there to extend an early drive and who knows what happens. Of course I am not calling for a change at QB, just pointing out there was a play to be made early in the game that really could have impacted the way the rest of the game went.

Yoop wrote: ↑

16 Sep 2021 11:07

NCF wrote: ↑

16 Sep 2021 10:43

ones is absolutely the read on that play. It was 1st quarter. The score was 3 to 0. It's a big play in the game before everything went to &%$@. Get a 1st down there to extend an early drive and who knows what happens. Of course I am not calling for a change at QB, just pointing out there was a play to be made early in the game that really could have impacted the way the rest of the game went.

Where did you hear Jones was the first read? I doubt that very much, it was a stacked set, so it's hard to know for sure who was #1, but my money is on Adams or that other receiver, or both depending on receiver advantage, and Jones being the 3rd read, other wise Rodgers would have flipped him the ball sooner, instead he waited on Adams and Lazard ( I think) to get open.

come on now do you think Rodgers was thinking about the rest of the game that went badly on that play as being super important? I admit Rodgers didn't play well, but I'am not into castrating him because of that particuler play.

Yoop wrote: ↑

16 Sep 2021 10:39

go pak go wrote: ↑

16 Sep 2021 09:47

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.

go pak go wrote: ↑

16 Sep 2021 11:40

Your stance is I can sense you are trying to shift blame again to the Packers not having enough weapons to be 2 high safety whereas I believe we absolutely have the horses to beat two high safety. It just needs to be executed.

BSA wrote: ↑

16 Sep 2021 12:20

go pak go wrote: ↑

16 Sep 2021 11:40

Your stance is I can sense you are trying to shift blame again to the Packers not having enough weapons to be 2 high safety whereas I believe we absolutely have the horses to beat two high safety. It just needs to be executed.

Agree
The Packers went against the number 1 defense in the NFL last year in the playoffs - the Rams. And the Rams are the number 1 team in terms of playing 2 high safety. Nobody plays it more than they do. So this idea that the Packers can't beat it is demonstrably false.

If Rodgers stays in rhythm, they carve it up.

Yoop wrote: ↑

16 Sep 2021 11:07

NCF wrote: ↑

16 Sep 2021 10:43

ones is absolutely the read on that play. It was 1st quarter. The score was 3 to 0. It's a big play in the game before everything went to &%$@. Get a 1st down there to extend an early drive and who knows what happens. Of course I am not calling for a change at QB, just pointing out there was a play to be made early in the game that really could have impacted the way the rest of the game went.

Where did you hear Jones was the first read? I doubt that very much, it was a stacked set, so it's hard to know for sure who was #1, but my money is on Adams or that other receiver, or both depending on receiver advantage, and Jones being the 3rd read, other wise Rodgers would have flipped him the ball sooner, instead he waited on Adams and Lazard ( I think) to get open.

come on now do you think Rodgers was thinking about the rest of the game that went badly on that play as being super important? I admit Rodgers didn't play well, but I'am not into castrating him because of that particuler play.

BF004 wrote: ↑

16 Sep 2021 16:35

that simply doesn't work in the NFL.

go pak go wrote: ↑

16 Sep 2021 11:40

I actually did read a lot of it.

Your stance is I can sense you are trying to shift blame again to the Packers not having enough weapons to be 2 high safety whereas I believe we absolutely have the horses to beat two high safety. It just needs to be executed.

The benefit of continuing to get beat by it is it will allow MLF and Rodgers to study how to beat it moving forward. The more teams run it on you, the more you will figure it out.

As for the Chiefs having more weapons than the Packers argument, I think the Chiefs beating two high (except the SB) has a lot more to do with Mahommes having the athleticism to extend plays to 6+ seconds and just playing backyard ball. It is something Russell Wilson is able to do too. That is more of a QB thing than it is a weapons thing.
2

Yoop wrote: ↑

16 Sep 2021 17:38

we may have the receivers to beat weaker defenses that are trying to use these defensive schemes, that s true, but we havn't beat any to my knowledge that had there full competent of Healthy high end talent on the field, and everything has to go near perfect for us, so no we do not have the receivers, in fact losing anyone like Jones or Adams will make it even more difficult, we have to hope that one of Cobb or Amari Rodgers excel in the slot, Adams stays healthy, an d the rest increase production, and the run blocking gets better, again we should have spent resources with with draft picks or UFA to get a better #2 then we have

the two hat safety that NO used is not just your basic 2 high scheme, it's based on deception, it hides coverages, it rely's on very good ILB play, your idea that it allows open zones underneath can be deceptive if Rodgers doesn't read it right, which he admited to struggling with Sunday and everytime we lost to it last year.

I do think if our run blocking improves then we can do better, however we had one of the best run blocking OL in the league last year and still lost to this D scheme 4 times, defenses slow the run, take away Adams and we where screwed, so Ya, I think a better #2 would help us to over come this issue.

Yoop wrote: ↑

16 Sep 2021 17:38

the two hat safety that NO used is not just your basic 2 high scheme, it's based on deception, it hides coverages, it rely's on very good ILB play, your idea that it allows open zones underneath can be deceptive if Rodgers doesn't read it right, which he admited to struggling with Sunday and everytime we lost to it last year.

Labrev wrote: ↑

16 Sep 2021 16:24

This is one of the worst things about Rodgers -- the insistence on getting the ball to the star receiver. Star players can also help the team by taking attention away from guys like MVS, Cobb, Tonyan, Jones and Dillon so that they can get the ball more easily than they otherwise would.

Adams is good, but some teams will have the personnel to cover him. Forcing the ball to Adams is no small part of what lost us the game against Tampa.

Talk about taking away the wrong lessons entirely...

Drj820 wrote: ↑

16 Sep 2021 19:15

I personally am very meh on seeing this as a proper answer to our problems. In fact, it’s a hair selfish but that’s okay. I won’t beat adams up to much for the answer bc maybe it’s not how he meant it, and I love the guy.

But we have an answer for this defense. Everyone knows it but Rodgers, Lafleur and I guess Adams.

The answer has a name too...

Second round pick power back Quadzilla, oops I meant,

AJ Dillon.

Yoop wrote: ↑

16 Sep 2021 20:34

thing is everyone except Adams and Tonyan can't be trusted to catch the ball, run a crisp route, or get separation, that s why Rodgers force feeds Adams, the last NFCCG is evidence of that.

GPG: obviously I expect our two slot receiver additions to help our receiver group, they may be able to draw some safety help to cover, hard to know till we see it happen, however what boggles my mind is that you and others continue to deny the reality that we lost four games because we could not stretch those defenses with the talent we had, and there lack of ability played a huge part in us losing those games.

when you say our best guys need to play better, no one is flaw less, what you seem to neglect to include is that they bring a lot to the party, the others bring far less, so when they blow it it doesn't balance out, Sure Adams dropped a TD pass, but he also caught 9 others, MVS was near perfect, and thats what we need more of, Lazard caught what 2 passes, yet didn't pay attention on the biggest play to him that game, point is the better receivers like Adams make mistakes to, but they also bring more mistake free ball and production, so imo that consistency is what forces double coverage, when it takes 4 DB's to cover 2 receivers thats when the underneath receivers can be more successful, those 2 lbers become over matched.

no one needs to double Lazard or Tonyan, hell even MVS, they lack the route running ability to shake off most CB's unless there slower then our guys, not likely except for MVS if he gets a jump of the line, his issue is lack of success ratio, if ya drop 50% of targets a DC will take more chances with 1x1 coverage, hopefully that changes this year, a little more catch consistency would really help.

me, as the arm chair GM thinks there is no such thing as to many offensive weapons, I'd of spent a high pick on a receiver two years ago, and I think with the Adams cost to resign it would have made sense to do so, but thats me

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

16 Sep 2021 19:46

Labrev wrote: ↑

16 Sep 2021 16:24

This is one of the worst things about Rodgers -- the insistence on getting the ball to the star receiver. Star players can also help the team by taking attention away from guys like MVS, Cobb, Tonyan, Jones and Dillon so that they can get the ball more easily than they otherwise would.

Adams is good, but some teams will have the personnel to cover him. Forcing the ball to Adams is no small part of what lost us the game against Tampa.

Talk about taking away the wrong lessons entirely...

If this is the plan LaFleur needs to step in and get these guys to play within the offense. Adams is gonna be pissy because this is how his season is going to go but coach needs to get him to buy in to making space for his team. Rodgers as well.

A lot of what I’m seeing and hearing from the team is making me very nervous that this is just going to be a mediocre year. I think coach is being a little to soft on the players and the players have their egos going wild between Z, Adams, and Rodgers. On top of that you have a proven failure at DC and an idiot at GM.

go pak go wrote: ↑

16 Sep 2021 21:18

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

16 Sep 2021 19:46

Labrev wrote: ↑

16 Sep 2021 16:24

This is one of the worst things about Rodgers -- the insistence on getting the ball to the star receiver. Star players can also help the team by taking attention away from guys like MVS, Cobb, Tonyan, Jones and Dillon so that they can get the ball more easily than they otherwise would.

Adams is good, but some teams will have the personnel to cover him. Forcing the ball to Adams is no small part of what lost us the game against Tampa.

Talk about taking away the wrong lessons entirely...

If this is the plan LaFleur needs to step in and get these guys to play within the offense. Adams is gonna be pissy because this is how his season is going to go but coach needs to get him to buy in to making space for his team. Rodgers as well.

A lot of what I’m seeing and hearing from the team is making me very nervous that this is just going to be a mediocre year. I think coach is being a little to soft on the players and the players have their egos going wild between Z, Adams, and Rodgers. On top of that you have a proven failure at DC and an idiot at GM.

I agree with this (except that final sentence as that is too premature) but I too share in the rest of your sentiment.