Get a Clue
By JohnRehor on Mar 10, 2011 with 20 Comments
It is sad that for my morning sports radio, I have only two options. One is local Chicago radio, pumping their chests while talking about how great every local team is when they win, only to tear them to pieces when they lose. Since I am not a huge fan of any local team, I usually tune to option B, which is generally more vanilla and even more frustrating.
Mike and Mike in the Morning.
Day after day, I tune into them, hoping that this will be the day that they can complete an entire show without me shaking my head about something was said by them. Today, sadly, was not the day.
The Packers were having their “two a day” treatment, Mike and Mike’s effort to look at what each NFL teams needs were heading into the offseason, a few player questions, and finally whether their stock was rising or falling. As I sat with baited breath, my entire life’s existence depending on what analysis the two Mikes would add to the Packers, the two a day started with the following question:
“What part of Aaron Rodgers game needs improvement?”
Attempting to keep an open mind, I waited patiently for their first answer. The head shaking began with the answer of “He holds onto the ball too long.”
Really? Ok Mikes, explain.
After attempting to convince me (and everyone else listening) that because of holding onto the ball too long, Rodgers is concussion prone, the head shaking began.
If memory serves, Rodgers suffered two concussions in 2010. One was against the Redskins, on the last play on offense for the Packers that day. OK, fine, I’ll give you that one. The second one was against the Lions, running in the open field. Last time I checked, a quarterback cannot throw the ball past the line of scrimmage, so I don’t think the one against the Lions tackle was a case of him holding onto the ball too long. It was more a case of Rodgers doing what he does best-creating plays. On this particular play, it cost him, but that is not the point.
Remember, they said he holds onto the ball too long. So I interpret this as they are not looking at the facts. What they are doing is relying on their writers to give them information to read. I guess the information they received today was from 2009, when it was clear that Rodgers was holding onto the ball too long. I could point out that he cut his sacks from 50 in 2009 to 31 in 2010, but why bother? They are who they are.
In the future, if you are going to do an analysis on the Packers, please get a clue, and know what you are talking about.
Filed Under: John Rehor
Comments (20)
Leave a Reply
Cheesehead TV- How’s Bryan Bulaga’s Hip? Good Enough to Shoot a 39 Round of Golf
- Railbird Central Podcast: Tailgate Tour Invades Iowa
- Woodson to Visit to Oakland Raiders
- Packers Daily Links: Palmer Leaves Lasting Impression at Illinois State
- Packers Calendar: James Jones’ Toast 2 Success Charity Fundraiser
- Brandon Jackson Re-Signs with Cleveland Browns
- Eddie Lacy on Rushing for 1,000 Yards: “I Really Think I Can”
- Meet the Packers 2013 Rookies—David Bakhtiari & JC Tretter – OT/OG
- Hargrove Signs with Cowboys
- Railbird Central Podcast: Breaking Down Cobb, Green & Bush
You need to get Sirius NFL Radio (Ch. 124).
Birthday is in a few months-good idea
Funny how two people can listen to the same thing and hear things differently.
I for one, was, like you under-impressed with the Packers two-a-day mostly because, like you-said, I don’t think they know enough in depth wise to really analyze it. They’re, and I hate to use a Cowherd-ism here, but they are the tree top level of analyzing a team.
But I also think it was boring because the Packers just WON the super bowl; unlike many other teams that Mike and Mike analyzed, there are less BIG questions facing the Packers.
As for the Rodgers thing, I did not get the feeling on my first listen that they were blaming his concussions on the holding on to the ball. I did dislike the “concussion prone” feeling that I got, so I decided to take another listen to the segment.
Upon re-listening, I got the feeling that they both struggled to really find anything that Rodgers really needed to improve on, Golic (almost stammering the whole time), “he kind of improved upon it, but the one thing talked about is him holding on to the ball too long. uh, he would do that at times. there’s not a lot to pick on his game about anymore. but if there is one, it MIGHT be that, that he holds on to it too long, but he did do that better this year than the year before.”
And Greeny stated that the concussions were not something that he needed to work on, but that they are a concern. And honestly they are, simply because the more you get the worse they are. “You have to wonder if he needs to be a little more careful about not taking hits” Golic “feet first.” And then they went on to explain how Rodgers has put himself in an elite level, and that its hard to find someone definitely better than him.
To me, those sentiments are things that I can agree with.
I will agree that the segment was on the hole, boring. Ryan Grant is the starter, Clay Matthews is valuable, “I tell you what, I like that Greg Jennings” SHOCKING!
They definitely dodged the draft question. Put it all on Kiper and basically said, there’s really nothing that they need.
I did appreciate though, their discussion about the stock rising or falling. It is worth noting that the Packers barely made the playoffs, that without that Jackson punt return, the whole playoffs situation would have been different.
Great input Jayme.
I was ready to blast both Mikes, but what they said was nowhere near the “tone” John portrayed.
Cmon John. Give the whole thing. You lose credit when you don’t. It’s a completely different story what you and Jayme told.
Vic Ketchman of packers.com said eariler this week that Rodgers needs to be more consistent.
I just get so tired of their ho-hum approach to everything. They almost never provide anything of substance, instead taking the national ESPN approach of lets not rock the boat on anything, because it might affect ratings.
Maybe I’m just getting cranky in my old age, but they annoy me daily. And yet I continue to listen.
Okay, that’s fine, and I agree with it. All of ESPN is too little in depth to my liking (except for the NFCNorth blog), so I tend to stay away from it anyway.
Like Jayme said, they don’t have enough knowledge about all teams, yet they talk about them.
But I don’t think you were fair in this article.
You don’t realize just how clueless those guys are until they start talking about the Packers. Earlier in the year they had McCarthy on and Golic mentioned the defensive struggles (clearly remembering the previous season’s problems against the Steelers and the playoff loss to the Cardinals). It was another one of those…”wait…what!?” moments.
The thing is, in their job they have to try to talk intellegently on the NFL, NBA, MLB, college football and basketball as well as other sports and leagues. They simply don’t have the time to be knowledgable about hundreds of teams. So they fake it. And for the most part, they get away with it. Most of the fans from the “other 31″ probably think Aaron Rodgers still does hold the ball too long.
“They simply don’t have the time to be knowledgable about hundreds of teams. So they fake it.”
Then they need better researchers and writers
ESPN as a rule of thumb is slow analysis. They usually notice teams a year too late, unless they’re from the major markets.
Regarding Rodgers (a.k.a. the Photobomber), this guy is unbelievable. In 08, he had problems with the 2 minute drill, with short accuracy, with pocket presence and with protection adjustement.
In 09, he solved the 2 minute and the protection adjustement problems, making those his strenghts, but still hold onto the ball too long and still was shaky in easy, short passes.
Last year, he mastered his pocket awareness, evolving what has become one of the quickest releases EVER, and developing what can only be a third eye in the back of his head.
I’m pretty sure he will be able to work on those dumpoffs, screens and slants that he struggles with, and will work a lot on facing cover 2/cover 3 teams defenses like the Bears’, that gives him the fits.
Now all of that I’ll agree to
Can we still be friends?
I was going to get seriously pissed…at your first comment. Then I read this one, and I’m a little more level headed.
What annoys me to no end is when they, and by they I’m referring to any member of the national media, speak in generalities and have no real substance to what they are talking about. Yes, they have to cover a number of different sports; yes, they are talking heads for a larger voice. But, they do have research people, who can do a better job of research before dropping a 2-5 minute segment on them.
Does that explain my perspective a little better?
Score 1 for Jayme, I guess
Yeah, I agree 100% with that, specially the researcher part. It’s completely ridiculous that such a powerful company can’t provide that service to make their own employees look knowledgeable. But I didn’t like the method you used to illustrate that point.
And regarding being friends, no. You didn’t give me a thumbs up, so…
Thumbs up corrected, and just for you
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEMjeYPfqSg
Don’t know if I crossed the line in here… Probably so.
LOL
Literally fell out of my chair at work laughing. Well done.
[...] Rehor of Packers Lounge was disappointed by Mike and Mike's Packers two-a-day [...]
I always found it hilarious when game commentators would talke about how the Packers were “great” at the screen pass and throwing a whole bunch of slant routes.
These people are obviously still stuck in the 90′s and haven’t made their way to the present.
The Packers suck lately at screen passes, and Rodgers actually isn’t that good at throwing slant routes.
This is the problem with national media, which is why I love getting my Packers info from JSOnline, the NFC North Blog, CheeseheadTV, and the like.
I was one of the people last year screaming “Throw the damn ball Aaron” at least 5 times a game. Hardly ever happened this year. Even when we lost.
Maybe I should have my own radio show.