RE: RE:The Packers (Full Version)

All Forums >> [The Minnesota Vikings] >> General NFL Talk



Message

John Childress -> RE: RE:The Packers (12/7/2010 11:07:18 PM)

You can probably guess who leads NFL quarterbacks in rushing yards.

Yes, the Philadelphia Eagles' Michael Vick stands atop that list.

If your horizons extend beyond the NFC North, you might know that Josh Freeman of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers ranks second.

But unless you cheated and looked at the chart, you might not have realized that the next two players both play in this division. With three quarters of the season in the books, the Green Bay Packers' Aaron Rodgers and Chicago Bears' Jay Cutler are the third- and fourth-most proficient quarterbacks on their feet this season, respectively. They are converting key first downs via scrambles and, in the case of Rodgers, capitalizing on play calls designed specifically for him to run.

Longtime observers know that both quarterbacks have displayed nimble feet and been productive scramblers throughout their careers. However, I think we can agree that the dynamic has shifted to a higher and more critical level this season. As both players approach their career highs in rushing yards, they have assumed additional roles in their offenses. Scrambles are no longer a bonus or a measure of last resort, but instead part of the flow in each scheme -- especially in Rodgers' case.

"If I'm moving and I feel like I can get us a positive gain, I'm going to take off," Rodgers said recently.

It sounds simple, but history shows it doesn't happen very often at this rate. Rodgers is on pace for 378 rushing yards this season. That total has been surpassed by 16 NFL quarterbacks over the 22 full seasons since the NFL moved to a 16-game season in 1978. (Hat tip to pro-football-reference.com's user-friendly database.)

NFL QBs by rushing yards: 2010
Rank QB Team Att. Yards TD First downs First down pct.
1 Michael Vick Philadelphia 74 467 6 27 36.5
2 Josh Freeman Tampa Bay 49 291 0 24 49.0
3 Aaron Rodgers Green Bay 53 284 4 18 34.0
4 Jay Cutler Chicago 41 201 0 12 29.3

Defenses continue to be surprised by Rodgers' speed and nose for the first-down marker, an oversight Rodgers clearly relishes. But it's one thing to scramble away from pressure. It's quite another to call designed runs or build in run options to pass plays, both of which Packers coach Mike McCarthy has done for Rodgers this season.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth



marty -> RE: RE:The Packers (12/12/2010 12:18:49 AM)

I'm not sure it's a good idea, but OC Joe Philbin seems quite creative at times, or should we be all the credit to Mike McCarthy ?

I like the Packer offense, they do NOT seem predictable, and I think they would be even MORE effective if there were better execution.

Maybe Packer OC JOE PHILBIN is a guy the Vikes should consider for HC next year if they decide against Frazier ?



Lynn G. -> RE: RE:The Packers (12/12/2010 11:47:50 AM)

The Packers catch a break. Detroit, which is honestly coming on this season as a contender and fought the Packers to a very close end when they played earlier this season, has to start their third string quarterback today.



John Childress -> RE: RE:The Packers (12/12/2010 12:15:58 PM)

I still think the Packers win this division

Chicago has

Patriots
@ Vikings
Jets
@ Packers

I think at best the Bears go 2-2 and could go 1-3 in that stretch easily



Jim Frenette -> RE: RE:The Packers (12/12/2010 12:24:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Childress

I still think the Packers win this division

Chicago has

Patriots
@ Vikings (or maybe neutral site)
Jets
@ Packers

I think at best the Bears go 2-2 and could go 1-3 in that stretch easily



John Childress -> RE: RE:The Packers (12/12/2010 12:34:38 PM)

Moving that game to a neutral site would be a huge boost to the Bears playoff chances



Jim Frenette -> RE: RE:The Packers (12/12/2010 1:38:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Childress

Moving that game to a neutral site would be a huge boost to the Bears playoff chances


agree



John Childress -> RE: RE:The Packers (12/12/2010 2:02:14 PM)

Rodgers with a concussion - if he misses next week the Packers could be in trouble also

Without Rodgers, they have no shot at New England and then they get the Giants



Lynn G. -> RE: The Packers (12/12/2010 2:10:54 PM)

Rodgers didn't miss a game with his concussion earlier this season, and based on his demeanor on the sideline today, I'll predict he won't miss next week.



Cheesehead Craig -> RE: The Packers (12/12/2010 3:16:34 PM)

Packers 3 - Lions 7
What a damn pathetic showing by Green Bay. This loss can very likely spell the end of their playoff hopes right here.

Offense
  • Rodgers out with a concussion, but let's be honest that he wasn't all that good when in there.
  • Flynn did ok given he had no prep time. The INT in the end zone was a game turner.
  • The OL was absolutely brutal, they couldn't block for shit for either running or passing.
  • Once again the short yardage plays are deep passes.
  • How Jennings dropped that deep pass that turned into an INT is beyond me. Another huge opportunity missed.
  • MM completely sh*t the bed this game with his play calling.

    Defense
  • Gave up a ton of yards on the ground.
  • Pass defense was good. Stanton isn't all that good of a QB, but still a good job by the secondary.

    Special Teams
  • Good job all around.

    The Packers gave another game away that they should have won. There was no fire in that team today. None. The offense figured they could just show up and win and they got their asses handed to them. MM had a bad game playcalling and it showed. The Packers have to win out to get in the playoffs and I don't see a real good chance of that happening. It's possible, but they have to play a lot better, especially on offense for that to happen.



    • David Levine -> RE: The Packers (12/12/2010 3:19:39 PM)

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Cheesehead Craig


  • MM completely sh*t the bed this game with his play calling.



    • I'm not an MM fan, but I was floored by that final play call. With 1:30 left and needing a TD, to call a bomb on 4th and 1?



    John Childress -> RE: The Packers (12/12/2010 3:25:43 PM)

    The Packers now need the Vikings to beat the Bears next week and then the Packers have to beat the Bears last game of the season



    SoMnFan -> RE: The Packers (12/12/2010 3:42:32 PM)

    Anyone watch the HBO feature on Lombardi yet?
    Fascinating.
    Awesome pics, film, inside info on the life and times of the man.
    Great stuff.



    Lynn G. -> RE: The Packers (12/12/2010 3:54:31 PM)

    People have said it before, but kudos to you Craig for coming in here win or lose. You haven't had many bad games this season, but this one was a stinker. And it doesn't get any easier next week.

    We'll try to do our part and beat the Giants and the Bears back to back. [:D] (Fat chance given we won't even get our home field advantage).



    SoMnFan -> RE: The Packers (12/12/2010 5:34:35 PM)

    Yep, well said Lynn.
    Craig does such a nice job reporting on his team, it makes you wish we had a guy from every team.
    Very honest and insightful info on his club. Appreciate it/you Craig.



    marty -> RE: The Packers (12/12/2010 7:10:29 PM)

    I think it's cool that Craig presents his opinion on his team, and although he's presented plenty of information in past posts, I don't feel this one provided much. I could give a little more insight on the Packers, but it would have a VIKINGS' fan bias.

    I DISAGREE with Craig on the playcalling, I think it was once again good as usual, but the execution was VERY poor.

    Where I DO agree with Craig is passing long on 3rd or 4th and short is a stupid idea. I've said in the past, even though it has been successful in the past for the Pack (for example, against the Bears last year, and the dagger against the Vikings in Minnesota this year) it will probably come back to bite them, and it did today. It is low percentage, even if it DOES work, you're SO much better off just throwing a quick pass and picking up the 1st down. Then you get a fresh set of downs, 4 downs to go deep (unless of course the next 3rd and 4th down aren't 2 yards or less) like you could have on that 3rd or 4th and short, but NOT the pressure to pick it up, it's not as crucial.



    Cheesehead Craig -> RE: The Packers (12/12/2010 11:19:19 PM)

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: SoMnFan

    Yep, well said Lynn.
    Craig does such a nice job reporting on his team, it makes you wish we had a guy from every team.
    Very honest and insightful info on his club. Appreciate it/you Craig.

    Thanks gang. I like to try and call it how I see it. I may be wrong on occasion but, oh well.

    If I'm going to be here when the Pack does well, I gotta be here when they lay an egg (or get steamrolled).



    John Childress -> RE: The Packers (12/12/2010 11:21:48 PM)

    Craig my friend you are always a stand up guy.



    Cheesehead Craig -> RE: The Packers (12/13/2010 9:39:41 AM)

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: John Childress

    Craig my friend you are always a stand up guy.

    If you ever get to the Cites buddy let me know.  Definately would love to get together.



    John Childress -> RE: The Packers (12/13/2010 5:33:12 PM)

    FOR SURE!



    marty -> RE: The Packers (12/16/2010 8:51:08 AM)

    I think the Packers have a real shot of beating the Patriots.

    Why ?

    1) Because their season is on the line, and the Patriots' season is NOT.
    2) The Patriots have have won 5 straight, might be ready for a loss.
    3) They are due to lose at home.
    4) All of their home games have been close, except the last one, which was a revenge game as the Jets beat them earlier in the year.
    5) Perfect game for a 'sway'

    I would guess plenty of bettors thought Chicago had a chance at home, while I suspect MOST will bet N.E., figuring GB is too beat up to give them a game.

    The Packers are the perfect team to pull an upset like this with a little help from the officials. The Packers 2ndary have NO regards for the PI rules, and holding WRs after 5 yards. Should the refs not call several of these, you'll find the Patriot WRs are just not getting open for some strange reason. Brady will be forcing things, and you could see Nick Collins, Charles Woodson, or others getting some picks.

    The perfect thing to beat a well prepared team is athleticism. Belichick MIGHT have his 2ndary guys in the right place, but if Driver, Jennings and Jones break tackles, they can make some HUGE plays on the Patriot 2ndary. I think the Pats WILL underestimate the Packers.



    Lynn G. -> RE: The Packers (12/16/2010 9:03:52 AM)

    Big point - Rodgers may not be playing.



    Cheesehead Craig -> RE: The Packers (12/16/2010 9:35:01 AM)

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Lynn G.

    Big point - Rodgers may not be playing.

    He's not.  Flynn is going to start.  Backup is the QB from the practice squad Graham Harrell.  This game is not going to be pretty for Packer fans.  A loss to NE combined with a Chicago win pretty much eliminates us from the playoffs.



    Lynn G. -> RE: The Packers (12/16/2010 9:42:36 AM)

    First time in 20 years that the Packers have to start a second string QB. Join the rest of the league finally!

    Who will they bring in for Flynn's backup?



    thebigo -> RE: The Packers (12/16/2010 12:23:12 PM)

    Obviously this is premature, but you have to wonder if Rodgers will now be more and more prone to concussions as the medical evidence about concussions seems to indicate. You would think it would affect his play as he would be advised (by his coaches and common sense) to curtail his freewheeling it down the field to guard against future recurrences.



    Page: <<   < prev  85 86 [87] 88 89   next >   >>



    Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5.5 Unicode