Ailing Packers' Offense Struggling to Hit Volume Expectations

The Packers said they wanted to run 75 plays a game this season. The offense has come up short after three games. 

Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers is sacked by Lions defensive lineman Nick Fairley. Andrew Weber—USA TODAY Sports.

Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers is sacked by Lions defensive lineman Nick Fairley. Andrew Weber—USA TODAY Sports.

Lost in the struggles of the Green Bay Packers' offense during the first three weeks has been the unit's utter failure to live up to the lofty play-volume expectations set by head coach Mike McCarthy back in August. 

Citing Aaron Rodgers and his belief in the ability of Green Bay's other skill players to play all three downs, McCarthy divulged that his goal was for the Packers to run 75 plays a game in 2014. On paper, the theory was not easy to disrepute: Rodgers can run the show at the line of scrimmage, Lacy was being groomed as a three-down back and the Packers' three-receiver set of Jordy Nelson, Randall Cobb and Jarrett Boykin had the inside-out versatility to keep the substitutions at a minimum and the plays coming in at a lightning pace.

The 75-play goal always felt high—the Denver Broncos only averaged 71.6 in 2013—but with all the pieces in place, especially at quarterback, it did not seem unattainable.  

Yet instead of improving on the offense's 67 plays per contest last season, the Packers in 2014 have sharply regressed—by almost 10 plays. Green Bay is currently averaging only 57.5 plays a game so far this season, which ranks 28th in the NFL. In 2013, the Dallas Cowboys finished last in the NFL at 59.8 plays per game. 

The offense bottomed out Sunday, running just 51 plays against the Detroit Lions. 

During the preseason, it appeared as if McCarthy's declaration would be a smart one. In St. Louis, Rodgers and the first-team offense blitzed the Rams, running 24 plays over just two series. Every snap came off the no huddle. The offense required little to no substitution, with the Packers staying in a three-receiver, one-back, one-tight end formations almost exclusively.

The result was 178 yards and 10 points. 

A week later, the Packers played just as fast and possibly more furious. 

With Rodgers in the game, Green Bay ran 39 offensive plays over six series and roughly 25 minutes. The Packers scored 22 points and totaled 213 yards. Even with Matt Flynn and Scott Tolzien playing the final five minutes of the first half and the entire second half, the Packers finished the third preseason game with 80 total plays. 

The racehorse known as the Packers offense entered the starting gates of the regular season seemingly ready to run at blazing speed, California Chrome style. 

But with the vanilla defenses of the preseason long gone, the Packers have struggled to keep this thoroughbred running at anything close to top speed. 

57 plays against the Seahawks. 68 against the Jets. Only 51 Sunday. 

The Packers have given away a possession in back-to-back games. A botched snap on the first play from scrimmage against the Jets wiped out the opportunity of having the football first, and Eddie Lacy's fumble on the offense's second play gave the Lions a quick 7-0 lead in Detroit. 

The Packers have 12 drives—or roughly 40 percent of their total this season—featuring four or fewer plays. Averaging only 4.9 yards per play—which ranks 25th in the NFL—hasn't helped. 

It's not a matter of usage. Green Bay has utilized the no huddle, or some variation of a hurry-up offense, on a significant percentage of its 2014 drives. But when an offense can't sustain drives, while also turning the football over and generally playing ineffectively, the pace of the play-calling really doesn't matter. In fact, it can become a detriment. 

Not surprisingly, the Packers rank 30th in average time of possession at 26:00 per game. As a result, only two defenses have been on the field more in 2014. 

Randall Cobb said this past week that he thought the Packers could wear down the Lions with the no-huddle. But when you have only three drives lasting more than eight plays, and zero series taking up more than five minutes of the game clock, it's difficult to achieve the desired effect.

Much has gone wrong. The run game is averaging 3.6 yards per carry. Rodgers is averaging a career-low 6.8 yards per attempt. Jordy Nelson is the only receiver consistently getting open. The Packers are 23rd in total first downs. 

"There's a lot missing," Rodgers said Sunday. "There's execution missing." 

In McCarthy's ideal view of the offense, about 18 plays a game have also been noticeably absent. 

 

Zach Kruse contributes to Cheesehead TV. He is also the Lead Writer for the NFC North at Bleacher Report. You can reach him on Twitter @zachkruse2 or by email at [email protected]. 

NFL Categories: 
0 points

Comments (66)

Fan-Friendly This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.
RCPackerFan's picture

September 23, 2014 at 08:51 am

I think there are multiple problems on offense right now.

First the execution has been bad. Players have to be more accountable. Not going to win many games when you turnover the ball within the first 2 plays of the game offensively. Can't be having these critical turnovers early in the games. Also can't keep dropping passes.
Also players have to simple play better. Lacy needs to quit running east and west and start running north and south. Rodgers has to start trusting other WR's, TE's and RB's other then Nelson.

Second, play calling and game planning has to be better. That includes Rodgers changing plays at the line.
One thing I am starting to hate is the over commitment to the run. I didn't think i would say that with a McCarthy ran offense, because I have always wanted to see more running. But I really hate seeing on 2nd and 5-7 the offense running the ball and leaving it with a 3rd and 3 or whatever, leaving Rodgers 1 throw for a first down. I would like to see Rodgers have more then 1 opportunity to get it done. It reminds me of my old baseball coach not wanting us to swing at the first strike to wear out the pitcher. Problem with that was it only left us with 2 swings and usually at not as good pitches. I would rather have 3 swings.

I think the idea on paper of the hurry up works, however, it needs to be used when the correct personnel is on the field to exploit the defense.
I think this is the first thing that needs to happen to get the offense on track. They need to start using multiple formations and personnel to get the defense where they want them then go to hurry up and not change anyone. The key is to get the match ups they like and exploit it. I would like to see them start with 3 WR's, 1 TE, 1 RB. Then bring in 2 WR's, 2 TE's, 1 RB. Then go to 4 WR's, 1 RB. Then go to 3 WR's, 2 RB's. And as soon as they get the matchup they like hurry up and not let the defense regroup. That to me is the part that has been missing in the hurry up.

Third thing, is I would like to see them do is to simply take what the defense gives them. Use the RB's on swing passes, check-downs, and dump-offs. Get them more involved in the passing game. (I think Harris would be perfect in this role).
Also when you have 3rd and 3 or less, lets finally just go for 3-5 yards. We can stop going for the 20+ yard play on 3rd downs. Unless a WR breaks wide open, I just want to get the first down.

That is what I think needs to be done to fix the offense.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
jeremyjjbrown's picture

September 23, 2014 at 09:26 am

"need to start using multiple formations "

Reminds me of 2011 when they were multiple, efficient and the execution was excellent.

This season I am really astonished by the lack of creativity in this offense. They seem monomaniacal about running a huge number of plays even if the quality is very low. It worked ok against preseason defenses, but with 10 out of 12 quarters of bad play by the offense obviously it's not going to work.

"One thing I am starting to hate is the over commitment to the run."

I don't know if they are over committed to the run or just have a foolish commitment to it. It's almost like McCarthy over calls running plays and then if the defense keys in on the run they just start throwing deep. No screens, no slants, no drags, no waggles, just completely ignoring any throw that does not get Rodgers on Sportscenter.

The one bright point so far has been the defense. I like the mixed 3-4/4-3under look. I've been wanting them to use a more Ravens style defense for years.

I'm a Packers fan. Not a Rodgers or McCarthy fan. One Day they will be gone and I will still be here. If this is the kind of product they are going to offer I hope they don't extent McCarthy. He can take his unimaginative game planning and Peter Principle Assistant Coaches to the NCAA.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

September 23, 2014 at 10:41 am

Thanks for sharing that. That is very true.

They basically are echoing what most of us have been saying.

The biggest thing I take from it, which is what I have said, is they have to get more creative on offense. They need to start using more personnel and formations.

This all being said, I do expect to see the offense improving.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
jeremyjjbrown's picture

September 23, 2014 at 04:29 pm

Wow, they are laughing at the Packers Offensive Coaching Staff as if they are a total joke.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

September 24, 2014 at 02:58 am

Yes, that is a bit disturbing. Three things stand out to me from the Bleacher Report segment.

First, they suggest that MM will be more creative because he has to. So true; MM rarely makes any changes until the absolute need to do so is patently obvious.

Second, they suggest some changes that are mostly conventional wisdom, including using bunch formations and more motion. I note that Aaron Rodgers just said on ESPN that he is not a fan of motion.

Third, Bleacher Reports' last prescription to fix GB is a suggestion to return to zone blocking. I found that advice very funny!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Idiot Fan's picture

September 23, 2014 at 10:43 am

"One thing I am starting to hate is the over commitment to the run."

Given that we have Rodgers and receiving weapons, I get what you're saying. But based on what I read, it seems that the Lions loaded up against the pass and only committed 6 guys against the run. With Lacy plus at least a solid middle of the line for run-blocking, we should be able to run against that, which will then open up the pass. There's a very fine line I guess between giving up too early and sticking with something too long. Apparently nobody has been able to run against the Jets or Lions this year, so I'm not giving up on the run game.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Evan's picture

September 23, 2014 at 10:52 am

For what it's worth - Lacy and Starks combined for 19 runs for 74 yards. 3.8 yards per carry. Pretty pedestrian, but not terrible.

During the game, it definitely felt like they ran a lot more than 19 times and for a lot less than 3.8 yards per.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

September 23, 2014 at 10:52 am

The only thing I mean by that is if they are having success running, then run it. When they aren't, don't run as much. Stick with it, but don't stick with it as much. I mean if your trying to break down a block wall, how many times do you hit it with your hammer until you realize its just not going to work and have to get another tool to do the job?
Try some other things. A pass to a RB does about the same thing as a run. So use the RB's in the passing game.

I'm not giving up on the run game for the season at all... We have faced 3 very good run defenses so we have to keep that in mind. Possibly the best 3 in the league. So no need to panic.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Idiot Fan's picture

September 23, 2014 at 10:57 am

"A pass to a RB does about the same thing as a run. So use the RB's in the passing game"

This I totally agree with.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

September 24, 2014 at 02:04 am

"It reminds me of my old baseball coach not wanting us to swing at the first strike to wear out the pitcher. Problem with that was it only left us with 2 swings and usually at not as good pitches. I would rather have 3 swings."

So, how is that working out for the Milwaukee Brewers' offense?

[Sorry, couldn't resist! I agree with much of what you wrote, RC.]

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

September 24, 2014 at 06:20 am

Lol, so true... I am still trying to figure out what is going on with the Brewers...

Problem with them and swinging at the first pitch or strike is they aren't always swinging at good pitches. Gomez is terrible at that.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Spiderpack's picture

September 23, 2014 at 09:24 am

I think the main problem is McCarthy does not have a feel for the game. He doesn't make wise choices with his play calling that reflect an awareness of changing momentum in given situations. There is very little upper level instinct and intuition for him right now. And I think Rogers knows this. McCarthy has always been subpar with this judgment ability, and has lost games for us before, but it's just far worse the season. It's nearly all "matchups" and very little strategy and awareness. In a lot of incidents, it's as though he is not an active participant in the game. The strange thing is, I believe it is a strength of McCarthy's to be aware of his players capabilities as they emerge and capitalize on them. Maybe things will get better, but I feel he's in way over his head trying to coach and play call these games.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
jeremyjjbrown's picture

September 23, 2014 at 09:31 am

Yep, I feel it's much worse with Tom Clements as Offensive Coordinator. McCarthy and Philbin were a good combination, they (at least partially) covered each others weaknesses.

I keep waiting for it to get better with Clements but he does not seem to offer much value or creativity.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
BradHTX's picture

September 23, 2014 at 12:46 pm

Jeremy: yes, this. Since Philbin left, the Packers have gone from a 75% winning percentage to 55%. See my comment on this article:

http://cheeseheadtv.com/blog/mikes-best-worst-week-3#comments-list

I am really starting to believe that Clements is not the right man for the job of OC. Maybe with another HC he would be fine, but not with McCarthy. I think McCarthy needs something from his OC that Philbin could provide but Clements can't.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
BradHTX's picture

September 23, 2014 at 12:59 pm

Danny, thanks for calling me out. I have preached here on more than one occasion that correlation and causation are not the same thing. The comment here on this particular article is an over-simplification. I would suggest you read my longer comment about McCarthy here...

http://cheeseheadtv.com/blog/mikes-best-worst-week-3#comments-list

...and in particular here...

http://allgbp.com/2014/09/21/packers-vs-lions-first-impressions-2014-gam...

...in which I do say that the losses of Jennings, Finley and Jones also shouldn't be overlooked, and that obviously Rodgers' injury last season was a factor. There's probably also something to be said for the Chiefs having figured out the formula to beat the Packers' offense in 2011, and everyone else took a page from their play book.

But what I stand by is my assertion that McCarthy simply seemed (to my admittedly not-so-great memory) to make fewer in-game gaffes before Philbin left, the game plans seemed more solid, there was more creativity in the play calling, and there were better in-game adjustments.

Is Philbinlessness the sole reason the Packers' offense is constantly sputtering these days? Of course not. But I don't think you can dismiss out if hand the possibility that it is a contributing factor. That's all I'm saying.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
jeremyjjbrown's picture

September 23, 2014 at 01:17 pm

"the game plans seemed more solid, there was more creativity in the play calling, and there were better in-game adjustments"

These things are undeniable, the current offensive game planning is NCAA Division 2 level. If Philbin's missing value is not a huge piece of it then I'm not sure what it is. Perhaps it's the arrogance and rigidness of Mike McCarthy and/or Aaron Rodgers focus on building an elite advertising brand.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Ruppert's picture

September 24, 2014 at 07:06 pm

Philbinlessness? I like it.

I never thought of correlating poor in-game coaching and Philbin's presence. Interesting. I do think McCarthy got better in-game from his first 3 or 4 years as coach of this team. I used to complain a lot that McCarthy was a much better gameplanner than he was in-game coach. And I still think that is true to some extent.

It would stand to reason that, at some point, assistant coaches leaving the program would leave the team with lower quality coaches. You can't replace guys with better guys all the time. Nobody can.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
BradHTX's picture

September 24, 2014 at 07:37 pm

Although I coined "Philbinlessness," I haven't copyrighted it. So feel free to borrow it. *smile*

It's hard to create chemistry; you can't force it, either it's there or it's not.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Nick Perry's picture

September 23, 2014 at 07:58 pm

Clements Always seemed to have that same stone look on his face. The only time you see him is when he's looking at photos of the defense with Rodgers after another 3 and out. Brad is right and I've been mentioning it since last year. McCarthy and his coaching staff are out coached week in and week out. Cobb has lost 2 steps since he broke his leg, jones, jennings, and Finley have all gone or been injured. To go into this season this unprepared at TE, WR, OL depth, and expect Rodgers to perform at a high level was a mistake. If I was Rodgers I'd be pissed the Packer organization wasted another year of my career with mental Mike. I just hope Murphy figures it out before Rodgers is 36 and busted up from 55 sacks per year.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Tundraboy's picture

September 24, 2014 at 07:32 pm

Well put. Seems like the script is more important than the results, and has to be followed rigidly, presumably to set something up later in the game. To me a sign of over coaching. How many times have we seen a pattern of plays really work and then we go to something different to the point where we are doing the other team a favor. Never liked running up the score type coaching but with our D .....

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
zoellner25's picture

September 23, 2014 at 09:31 am

If you can't sustain drives and get first downs by dinking and dunking when you NEED to, you won't run 75 plays a game. Throwing deep on most 3rd and longs doesn't work.

We'd be better off if ARod could run no huddle and call his own plays.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Evan's picture

September 23, 2014 at 09:35 am

"Throwing deep on most 3rd and longs doesn't work."

Throwing deep on 3rd and long I don't have a problem with. It's throwing deep on 3rd and SHORT that drives me insane.

"We'd be better off if ARod could run no huddle and call his own plays."

Isn't that pretty much what we have right now?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
zoellner25's picture

September 23, 2014 at 10:24 am

sorry, I meant "3rd and short". nice catch Evan. I don't think MM has let ARod call much of own plays, audibles sure, but not the plays. Matt Ryan was pretty much calling his own plays vs TB on Thursday night last week and look at the result.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Evan's picture

September 23, 2014 at 10:37 am

I'm honestly not sure.

As for the 3rd and short nonsense, yeah, it's infuriating. 2-3 times the Lions ran a simple swing pass to Bush that picked up 8+ yards easily. You're telling me Harris couldn't do that? Or Cobb? Last Sunday it seemed to be all run, run, bomb, punt.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

September 23, 2014 at 10:46 am

That is exactly what I want to see. Run Lacy or Harris on a simple swing pass. Get them the ball in space. I would love to see Harris with the ball in space.

I like the idea of putting Harris and Lacy in the backfield at the same time in the shotgun because it gives you 2 options for receivers or blockers. Pending on where the defense shows they can change the protection.
Plus it creates a little deception for the defense because they won't know for sure which will be going out for a pass or staying into block.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Tundraboy's picture

September 24, 2014 at 07:38 pm

Yes!!!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Idiot Fan's picture

September 23, 2014 at 10:52 am

+100000000000000

(Although, as a side note, the short swing/dump off passes do seem to be one of the weaker tools in QB1's arsenal. For some reason he can throw pin-point 40-yard passes, but those short ones can be wildly erratic at times.)

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
DrealynWilliams's picture

September 23, 2014 at 02:08 pm

*sheds single tear*

I've been asking for different looks in the backfield for so long.

Rodgers under center with Cobb playing RB is not going to cut it. That screams "RUN!".

Bring back "Cobra"

Let's go 5-wide from time to time (ONLY if Rodgers commits to short-to-medium passes)

Flank D.Harris or Lacy out wide and place Cobb next to Rodgers.
(OMG,I love this one)
No way defenses would put a safety (and damn sure not a CB) on one of our RBs,so that eliminates 1 LB. Run Cobb against a spread out defense or pass with Cobb going up against an LB. If the defense decideds to drop a safety to cover Cobb,that leaves a single high safety. Right?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Tundraboy's picture

September 24, 2014 at 07:36 pm

Like that , well not really but that is what we see way too much. run,run, bomb punt. What the hell happened with getting a few first downs in a row first, or wait til we have a lead anyway

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
DrealynWilliams's picture

September 25, 2014 at 08:03 am

The "Cobra" has short routes built inside. I vividly remeber first seeing it against the 49ers and Cobb was working Bowman (their best covering LB). Cobb only had a few receptions out of that formation,but he didn't run many routes. Just about 2 different routes. I forgot who was calling that game but one of them said something along the line of the Packers in that formation can work magic with Cobb coming out o the backfield and running a number of different routes for huge plays.

Surely a Jordy Nelson back-shoulder or a purposely low thrown hitch route (to Jordy Nelson) can't be the only go-to play in the arsenal.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Charvid's picture

September 23, 2014 at 10:27 am

How 'bout the Offensive Line play??

On the safety Sunday, there were 5 blue jersies at least 2 yards deep in the end zone. Lacy didn't have a chance and it wasn't his fault.

Sherrod looks pretty damn bad, but it's not just him...the whole O line has underwhelmed significantly.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Evan's picture

September 23, 2014 at 10:30 am

Sherrod didn't play Sunday...

I actually don't think the o-line has played that bad thus far. Rodgers will always take his share of sacks - we know that - but considering the front 7s they've played so far, I think they've played pretty well.

The safety play was a terrible play from get-go - pulling a guard on the 1-yard line?? But, yes, Lang and Richard Rogers primarily didn't get their blocks.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Evan's picture

September 23, 2014 at 11:32 am

Yeah, this offense desperately needs some more production out of the TEs. Quarless had a pretty nice game - hopefully he can keep it up.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
jeremyjjbrown's picture

September 23, 2014 at 12:13 pm

Actually Quarless is a very good blocker. Not as good as Crabtree was but still very good. One thing the Packers had in 2010 was good blocking at the TE position

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Evan's picture

September 23, 2014 at 12:20 pm

They have an open roster spot. Bring back Crabtree!

Hell, bring back Crabtree and cut Taylor.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

September 24, 2014 at 06:22 am

So why do they still have an open roster spot?

I'm starting a conspiracy theory. They are bringing back Finley. They are waiting for the tests to come back. That's why they are keep the 53 roster spot warmed up for him...
Or maybe its not Finley and its Jolly.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Nick Perry's picture

September 23, 2014 at 08:02 pm

Only McCarthy would run his back from 7 yards deep. Play never had a chance.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Tundraboy's picture

September 24, 2014 at 07:45 pm

Yes but with this team and the current state of the line and the field position it was a stupid call. What did he expect ?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Nick Perry's picture

September 25, 2014 at 07:03 am

They've been getting their ass kicked all season! Why would you try against a team that's kicked your ass for the last 8 quarters!!!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Tundraboy's picture

September 25, 2014 at 11:18 am

Exactly. I can not even remember a play where we successfully ran it in that situation and if we did it it gained only enough for room to punt.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

September 24, 2014 at 02:47 am

I gave you (jeremyjbrown) a couple of thumbs up so far, but with all due respect, Quarless IMO is roughly adequate as far as blocking goes. He was better pre-injury. I guess we just disagree on this point. I would give Quarless a C as a blocker and as a receiver. Richard Rodgers is still learning to block. While I hated TT drafting RRodgers in the 3rd round, there is a reasonable chance that he will learn and get better at blocking and become a reliable though probably not a playmaking receiver.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Evan's picture

September 23, 2014 at 10:38 am

As for one bright spot from Sunday...about time they look to extend House?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Idiot Fan's picture

September 23, 2014 at 11:05 am

Extend House, re-sign Tramon at the right price.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Idiot Fan's picture

September 23, 2014 at 10:55 am

I actually agree with large portions of this. Especially this:

"It looks like the thought going in was that they had such high level talent on offense that they could trot out the same formation every play and simply beat their opponent with execution and ability."

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
jeremyjjbrown's picture

September 23, 2014 at 12:20 pm

Yep, and I'd like to hear about examples of teams from the last 20 years who did that and it actually worked, because I can't even fathom why it's being attempted.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Idiot Fan's picture

September 23, 2014 at 01:16 pm

I can see how it would be powerful if you had a wide array of plays, including both runs and passes, that could be run out of the same formation. In that case, it would be very difficult for the defense to know what's coming, especially in a fast-paced, no-huddle drive. But for various reasons it seems, they haven't been able to pull that off yet.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
BradHTX's picture

September 23, 2014 at 12:45 pm

Cow, I'm always happy to give you some (mostly) good-natured ribbing when I think your pessimism is unwarranted, but I will always gladly pat you on the back when you're right. And this is spot on.

Now I just wish I wasn't feeling the rest of your pessimism might be correct as well! Ugh.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

September 24, 2014 at 02:27 am

Nah, the rest of his pessimism is misplaced. I totally agree with you that Cow sometimes (when he or she is not simply trolling) can be insightful.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Imma Fubared's picture

September 23, 2014 at 11:24 am

My only two cents, I wonder if MM deliberately ran certain plays in pre season with the idea they would can those and come up with different schemes during the reg season? The only thing that makes any sense. My observation is that the new guys looked confused and there may be a good reason for it.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
packsmack's picture

September 23, 2014 at 12:14 pm

Please, everyone, step away from the ledge. The Packers have played 3 top 10 defenses (including #s 1 and 2) thus far, 2 of them on the road.
Those defenses are all top 5 rushing defenses.
2 of them are top 10 passing defenses (surprisingly Seattle isn't in the top 10 there, but they've also played Rodgers-Rivers-Manning).

Yes, the offense has struggled. Yes, this week is almost must-win. But let's see what happens against the #23 defense this week before we decide we're doomed. Obviously this isn't the outcome the offense wants, no matter the defense, but playing 3 top 10 defenses in a row is gonna be hard on anyone.

Breathe.

Edit: Oh and by the way, those were also 3 of the top 14 offenses. Those are very good teams. 1-2 is nothing to worry about yet.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

September 23, 2014 at 12:30 pm

While I agree with you that the Packers have faced really good defenses and it always takes time for the Packers offense a few weeks to get going, I just get tired of seeing things they could do to help themselves and they don't do it.

For example, using the RB's in the passing game (screens, check-downs), changing formations (4 WR, 1 RB/3 WR, 1 TE, 1 RB/3 WR 2 RB/2 WR, 2 TE, 1 RB), switch blocking scheme's from man to a zone blocking scheme. Other things they could have done, put players into motion to try and confuse the defense a bit, or get players in better positions. How about putting Cobb in the backfield, or using him on the Jet sweep.

There are a lot of things they can do differently to have better success.

But honestly what it comes down to, Rodgers has to play better. I don't have stats, but what is his record when throwing for less then 200 yards?

We have faced 3 very good defenses. And I do believe they will get it turned around.
The silver lining in this is that the defense played very well... They only gave up 10 points in this game. Very good showing for them. And that was against one of the most explosive offenses in the league.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
FITZCORE1252's picture

September 23, 2014 at 12:33 pm

Smacky McSmackerson dropping knowledge. Good looking out.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Samson's picture

September 23, 2014 at 04:59 pm

"Please, everyone, step away from the ledge. "
"Breathe."
".....before we decide we're doomed. "
"1-2 is nothing to worry about yet."

All great lines if you own a bumper sticker making company. However, the Pack have not defeated a team who finished the season with a winning record since 2012. ---- This is not good.

I'll say it again. Beating up on scrub-teams does little to boost my confidence.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
packsmack's picture

September 23, 2014 at 05:28 pm

So they didn't beat a winning team last year when Rodgers missed half the year. Got it. Thanks for the input.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Samson's picture

September 23, 2014 at 07:56 pm

They didn't beat ANY winning team with or without AR.

Thanks for your input, also.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
BradHTX's picture

September 23, 2014 at 09:57 pm

Packsmack's points are well taken; it's still early in a long season. Problem is, those teams that we lost to who are "very good teams" aren't likely to get a lot worse as the season moved along.

I find it hard to believe that even if the offense starts firing on all cylinders the Packers would be able to beat a team of the Seahags' calibre. They might beat the LOLions, but really, would any of us expect them to go into Seattle a second time and get a much different result?

At the end of every season there is one team that is the winner, and 31 who are losers. If the Packers were on a trajectory that I saw as moving closer to being that winner, I'd feel better, but right now I don't see it. Somewhat better defense, a worse offense, and the same BS from the sidelines doesn't give me warm fuzzies.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
packsmack's picture

September 24, 2014 at 09:35 am

It's very clear that both the Chargers and Broncos saw things on tape that work against the Seahawks. It's unfortunate the Packers had to be the guinea pigs, but I have a feeling the Seahawks aren't going to look quite so invincible this season now that the tape shows weakness.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
barutanseijin's picture

September 23, 2014 at 10:54 pm

Ok, so they can't beat teams with good defenses. I guess they'll be one and done in the playoffs -- assuming they even make it this year.

In 2010 they beat teams with good defenses. If your going to be the best, or even just elite, you have to beat some tough teams.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
packsmack's picture

September 24, 2014 at 09:32 am

They beat the Jets, who have the #2 defense. Not sure what you mean by "can't beat teams with good defenses." They did. They lost 2 tough early road games against good defenses. So what? The 2010 team was 3-5 on the road and started 3-3 overall on the year.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
barutanseijin's picture

September 23, 2014 at 10:56 pm

Ok, so they can't beat teams with good defenses. I guess they'll be one and done in the playoffs -- assuming they even make it this year.

In 2010 they beat teams with good defenses. If your going to be the best, or even just elite, you have to beat some tough teams. H)

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
FITZCORE1252's picture

September 24, 2014 at 12:47 pm

Did anybody see Kurt Warner on NFLTA yesterday?

He was asked about our ailing offense. He probably said "Stagnant" 3-4 times when describing play calling and formations. He mentioned the lack of any motion, bunch/stack sets...

Dude absolutely nailed the current state of the offense.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Bohj's picture

September 24, 2014 at 03:39 pm

I will add to Packsmacks argument here.
It's the trams that grow together and become hot at the end that win in the playoffs. We won our Superbowl by being scrappy and coming together and playing our tails off after a mediocre start and overcoming injuries like a mo fo. The best teams find a way to build their talent by the end of the year.
Seattle didn't just start dominant. They built it (over several years). Lions....built it (been building for decades). What team did you like better? Packers scraping by to make the playoffs and win it all after a crap start......or 15-1 Packers lopsided and feeling dominant with a one and done playoff?

I'll take our chances with the scrappy get it together when it matters team when we hit our stride. And watch teams that are supposedly dominant now..... fall apart as the season unfolds. Youth grows....and we are young. Be patient. I said I would be happy coming out 2-2 after our first four game stretch before the season began........ still possible. 3 away games against 2 divisionals and the superbowl champ? 2-2 would be awesome.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Bohj's picture

September 24, 2014 at 03:39 pm

* Teams not trams

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
BradHTX's picture

September 24, 2014 at 06:53 pm

Nope. Close, but no cigar. Packers' average age is 25.65, Seahawks' is 25.77:

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/sports/eagles/Ranking-NFL-teams-by-ag...

Of course, that .12 probably equates to one year difference for one player.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Tundraboy's picture

September 25, 2014 at 11:21 am

Cow is right on this one

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0

Log in to comment and more!

Not a member yet? Join free.

If you have already commented on Cheesehead TV in the past, we've created an account for you. Just verify your email, set a password and you're golden.