ImageImage

Game 2: Seattle at Green Bay

Moderators: paulpressey25, MickeyDavis, humanrefutation

jimmybones
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,220
And1: 2,671
Joined: May 29, 2009
Location: MKE
     

Re: Game 2: Seattle at Green Bay 

Post#621 » by jimmybones » Mon Sep 21, 2015 9:18 pm

jimmybones wrote:
thomchatt3rton wrote:
I also think it's an issue of not wanting to overuse those sets and 1. give more film on it and 2. give a defense more time/chances to adjust to it. I liken it to pitching. Stay with me. I'm a pitcher and when you start a game the goal is to go through the lineup 2-3 times so you can get through 6+ innings. I have 3 pitches(4th if you count a 2 seam as a separate pitch) and I like to save one of them as long as I can. For example, I like to try to make it through the full batting order using primarily fastball and some sliders. The second time through, I'll throw a 2 strike circle change and the hitters timing is mind blown.

I think the Packers offense does something similar in that they have certain sets, looks or plays that they will save until they need them in a game. If they can win the game running more basic stuff, there's less film out there on the exotic stuff. If they have to go to that stuff, at least save it until there's a crucial drive and you give the defense little chance to make an adjustment. You throw something at them they haven't seen all game, with a no huddle and no halftime or even in between drives for coaches to make strategic adjustments, and it's that much harder to stop. The question is, how long do you wait to pull out your good stuff? The get the impression that the Packers are very confident, almost stubborn, and think their base stuff is always good enough to win. So they will run that stuff until the very last moment the other looks are needed. I understand the thinking, if we can keep a lot in our back pocket for a big moment or drive late in the playoffs, it can be that much more effective and at a time where it's most needed. But, if you save too much you may never even reach that moment. There's a very fine line between showing too much and saving too much and I think the Packers are very big on playing the long game and saving as much ammo as possible, probably more than any other team.


Yep, you make good points and I think I buy why they would wait to use that specific package (no-huddle, empty backfield, moving Cobb around a bit etc) sparingly and late. But I'd still like to see them incorporate some more variety into their everyday playcalling, and I guess that was the larger point I wanted to make. Maybe Clements is the man to do that.


I agree with you. Overall, I agree with the Packers approach to many things, both in game and in roster assembly. But, one of the main things I'd like to see is a tad bit more aggressive, cut throat going for it mentality and a tad less saving bullets. Not a huge shift, but just a little more going for it now mentality. I like that they think big picture, and are confident they can beat teams straight up. But, it's a risky and ballsy move to save something in your back pocket that could help you win today for the sake of winning later. (Whether that be saving things for the end of the game or the end of a season)
User avatar
BUCKnation
RealGM
Posts: 17,036
And1: 2,850
Joined: Jun 15, 2011
       

Re: Game 2: Seattle at Green Bay 

Post#622 » by BUCKnation » Mon Sep 21, 2015 9:26 pm

Kerb Hohl wrote:It seems watching other games of the past few weeks that they are cracking down on the "swing to WR while all other WR/TE block before he catches it" that the Packers love to run...especially if the other coach asks them to do so.

Seems like last night the Packers modified it to be perfectly timed so that the blocking begins just as Cobb or Montgomery were catching it.

It certainly helps when Rodgers has a ridiculously quick release.

Also, the RB/WR or a big version of Harvin were very evident last night. Look forward to seeing him more on those types of screens.
User avatar
rilamann
RealGM
Posts: 25,536
And1: 13,004
Joined: Jun 20, 2003
Location: Bobby!! Bobby!! Bobby!!
     

Re: Game 2: Seattle at Green Bay 

Post#623 » by rilamann » Mon Sep 21, 2015 11:09 pm

I felt it before last night's game,but the team seems to have a new genuine confidence and toughness that they haven't had in the past and it was on display last night.

This is a different team this year,in the past against a team like Seattle you could sense an intimidation factor and a physicality to the game that the Packers couldn't match.At no point in the game last night did I sense any of that.When Seattle tried to take the Packers lunch money,the Packers knocked them the **** out.

There is a lot to be excited and optimistic about,lets just hope we stay healthy.
Giannis Antetokounmpo wrote:You're out here reffing like Marc Davis and ****
HKPackFan
RealGM
Posts: 14,635
And1: 10,091
Joined: Jan 14, 2014
Location: Hong Kong
   

Re: RE: Re: Game 2: Seattle at Green Bay 

Post#624 » by HKPackFan » Mon Sep 21, 2015 11:15 pm

rilamann wrote:I felt it before last night's game,but the team seems to have a new genuine confidence and toughness that they haven't had in the past and it was on display last night.

This is a different team this year,in the past against a team like Seattle you could sense an intimidation factor and a physicality to the game that the Packers couldn't match.At no point in the game last night did I sense any of that.When Seattle tried to take the Packers lunch money,the Packers knocked them the **** out.

There is a lot to be excited and optimistic about,lets just hope we stay healthy.


I noticed it too. It was like they were just mentally tougher.
#FreeChuckDiesel
User avatar
rilamann
RealGM
Posts: 25,536
And1: 13,004
Joined: Jun 20, 2003
Location: Bobby!! Bobby!! Bobby!!
     

Re: RE: Re: Game 2: Seattle at Green Bay 

Post#625 » by rilamann » Mon Sep 21, 2015 11:25 pm

HKPackFan wrote:
rilamann wrote:I felt it before last night's game,but the team seems to have a new genuine confidence and toughness that they haven't had in the past and it was on display last night.

This is a different team this year,in the past against a team like Seattle you could sense an intimidation factor and a physicality to the game that the Packers couldn't match.At no point in the game last night did I sense any of that.When Seattle tried to take the Packers lunch money,the Packers knocked them the **** out.

There is a lot to be excited and optimistic about,lets just hope we stay healthy.


I noticed it too. It was like they were just mentally tougher.


I don't know if you're being genuine or sarcastic here but this team does have a new toughness that wasn't there before.

Our defense was tough and psychical,they punished Lynch.Stop and think about that for a second,the Packers defense got physical with Marshawn **** Lynch and shut his ass down.

And on offense the Packers stayed smart and aggressive and didn't let Seattle dictate how they played.The Packers finally seemed to have that mentality of ''we don't care who you are,we're going to be who we are.''

I think you can sum it up the fact that last season in week 1 the Packers were too intimidated to throw the ball at Richard Sherman 1 **** time.Week 2 this season the Packers said we don't care that you have Richard Sherman,we have Aaron Rodgers and made Richard Sherman look like a fool.

It's about damn time.
Giannis Antetokounmpo wrote:You're out here reffing like Marc Davis and ****
midranger
RealGM
Posts: 38,344
And1: 9,919
Joined: May 12, 2002

Re: Game 2: Seattle at Green Bay 

Post#626 » by midranger » Tue Sep 22, 2015 2:26 am

How many times did we throw at Sherman last night? Twice? Both on free plays?
Please reconsider your animal consumption.
User avatar
Mags FTW
RealGM
Posts: 34,443
And1: 7,253
Joined: Feb 16, 2006
Location: Flickin' It

Re: Game 2: Seattle at Green Bay 

Post#627 » by Mags FTW » Tue Sep 22, 2015 3:23 am

midranger wrote:How many times did we throw at Sherman last night? Twice? Both on free plays?

I think this highlights how conservative Aaron is sometimes. His high TD/INT ratio his partially due to his hesitancy to put up a 50/50 ball except on a free play scenario.

Not complaining. Just saying he's not a risk taker that will throw the ball up for the receiver to make a play. Can't blame him. Most of his receivers have been speedsters or quick guys. If TT could get him another big target like he had in Finley, that would be awesome.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnWzc-PnvUE[/youtube]
User avatar
M-C-G
RealGM
Posts: 22,829
And1: 9,347
Joined: Jan 13, 2013
     

Re: Game 2: Seattle at Green Bay 

Post#628 » by M-C-G » Tue Sep 22, 2015 3:51 am

Mags FTW wrote:
midranger wrote:How many times did we throw at Sherman last night? Twice? Both on free plays?

I think this highlights how conservative Aaron is sometimes. His high TD/INT ratio his partially due to his hesitancy to put up a 50/50 ball except on a free play scenario.

Not complaining. Just saying he's not a risk taker that will throw the ball up for the receiver to make a play. Can't blame him. Most of his receivers have been speedsters or quick guys. If TT could get him another big target like he had in Finley, that would be awesome.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnWzc-PnvUE[/youtube]



I think that used to be a much bigger issue with Rodgers, but in the last few years, he makes 4 or 5 attempts that no other QB on the planet would try and no coach would ever suggest you try.

The play in Chicago last season kind of epitomizes what I am talking about. The James Jones touchdowns in week 1 are another example. He is giving his guys a chance to make contested plays.
User avatar
Kerb Hohl
RealGM
Posts: 34,430
And1: 4,141
Joined: Jun 17, 2005
Location: Hmmmm...how many 1sts would Jason Richardson cost...?

Game 2: Seattle at Green Bay 

Post#629 » by Kerb Hohl » Tue Sep 22, 2015 3:58 am

rilamann wrote:
HKPackFan wrote:
rilamann wrote:I felt it before last night's game,but the team seems to have a new genuine confidence and toughness that they haven't had in the past and it was on display last night.

This is a different team this year,in the past against a team like Seattle you could sense an intimidation factor and a physicality to the game that the Packers couldn't match.At no point in the game last night did I sense any of that.When Seattle tried to take the Packers lunch money,the Packers knocked them the **** out.

There is a lot to be excited and optimistic about,lets just hope we stay healthy.


I noticed it too. It was like they were just mentally tougher.


I don't know if you're being genuine or sarcastic here but this team does have a new toughness that wasn't there before.

Our defense was tough and psychical,they punished Lynch.Stop and think about that for a second,the Packers defense got physical with Marshawn **** Lynch and shut his ass down.

And on offense the Packers stayed smart and aggressive and didn't let Seattle dictate how they played.The Packers finally seemed to have that mentality of ''we don't care who you are,we're going to be who we are.''

I think you can sum it up the fact that last season in week 1 the Packers were too intimidated to throw the ball at Richard Sherman 1 **** time.Week 2 this season the Packers said we don't care that you have Richard Sherman,we have Aaron Rodgers and made Richard Sherman look like a fool.

It's about damn time.


I'll take, "narrative to match the outcome" for $500, Alex.
User avatar
trwi7
RealGM
Posts: 110,797
And1: 26,283
Joined: Jul 12, 2006
Location: Aussie bias
         

Re: Game 2: Seattle at Green Bay 

Post#630 » by trwi7 » Tue Sep 22, 2015 4:18 am

We're tough now. Like Bounty paper towel.
stellation wrote:What's the difference between Gery Woelful and this glass of mineral water? The mineral water actually has a source."


I Hate Manure wrote:We look to be awful next season without Beasley.
User avatar
thomchatt3rton
Head Coach
Posts: 6,386
And1: 2,228
Joined: Jun 11, 2009
 

Re: Game 2: Seattle at Green Bay 

Post#631 » by thomchatt3rton » Tue Sep 22, 2015 4:21 am

jimmybones wrote:
jimmybones wrote:
thomchatt3rton wrote:
I also think it's an issue of not wanting to overuse those sets and 1. give more film on it and 2. give a defense more time/chances to adjust to it. I liken it to pitching. Stay with me. I'm a pitcher and when you start a game the goal is to go through the lineup 2-3 times so you can get through 6+ innings. I have 3 pitches(4th if you count a 2 seam as a separate pitch) and I like to save one of them as long as I can. For example, I like to try to make it through the full batting order using primarily fastball and some sliders. The second time through, I'll throw a 2 strike circle change and the hitters timing is mind blown.

I think the Packers offense does something similar in that they have certain sets, looks or plays that they will save until they need them in a game. If they can win the game running more basic stuff, there's less film out there on the exotic stuff. If they have to go to that stuff, at least save it until there's a crucial drive and you give the defense little chance to make an adjustment. You throw something at them they haven't seen all game, with a no huddle and no halftime or even in between drives for coaches to make strategic adjustments, and it's that much harder to stop. The question is, how long do you wait to pull out your good stuff? The get the impression that the Packers are very confident, almost stubborn, and think their base stuff is always good enough to win. So they will run that stuff until the very last moment the other looks are needed. I understand the thinking, if we can keep a lot in our back pocket for a big moment or drive late in the playoffs, it can be that much more effective and at a time where it's most needed. But, if you save too much you may never even reach that moment. There's a very fine line between showing too much and saving too much and I think the Packers are very big on playing the long game and saving as much ammo as possible, probably more than any other team.


Yep, you make good points and I think I buy why they would wait to use that specific package (no-huddle, empty backfield, moving Cobb around a bit etc) sparingly and late. But I'd still like to see them incorporate some more variety into their everyday playcalling, and I guess that was the larger point I wanted to make. Maybe Clements is the man to do that.


I agree with you. Overall, I agree with the Packers approach to many things, both in game and in roster assembly. But, one of the main things I'd like to see is a tad bit more aggressive, cut throat going for it mentality and a tad less saving bullets. Not a huge shift, but just a little more going for it now mentality. I like that they think big picture, and are confident they can beat teams straight up. But, it's a risky and ballsy move to save something in your back pocket that could help you win today for the sake of winning later. (Whether that be saving things for the end of the game or the end of a season)


I'm in the minority, but I don't see lack of aggression as the culprit. I think the problem is inability to be mutable, adaptable. Trying to run the same offense against team X as they do team Y. Failure to acknowledge and change in mid-game the things that aren't working. Falling in love too much with the long pass when their D is giving you short stuff. Stuff like that.
Case in point would be the BUF game last year. Lacy's averaging 6 yards a carry, its a close game, and Rodgers is playing the worst game of his life- what do they do? Rodgers throws it 40plus times, MM is incapable or unwilling to change up the game plan until late, and they lose. There's a certain inflexibility at work with this team- you see it in higher levels of the organization too (see,"TT, free agency").
User avatar
rilamann
RealGM
Posts: 25,536
And1: 13,004
Joined: Jun 20, 2003
Location: Bobby!! Bobby!! Bobby!!
     

Re: Game 2: Seattle at Green Bay 

Post#632 » by rilamann » Tue Sep 22, 2015 10:04 am

midranger wrote:How many times did we throw at Sherman last night? Twice? Both on free plays?



Free play or not,it doesn't take away the fact that Rodgers' still challenged Sherman multiple times and burned him multiple times.Once for a TD and once for 52 yard penalty which lead to a total of 10pts,the Packers' margin of victory.

But my point wasn't necessarily how many times Rodgers' threw at Sherman.The point I was making was more that I got a sense that throughout the game the Packers didn't let Seattle's defense dictate their offense like the in the previous meetings.

Not attempting a single throw in Sherman's area last season in week 1 was a glaring example of Seattle's defense dictating the Packers' offense.Kicking FGs both times when you were on Seattle's 1 yard line in the Championship game was another glaring example of Seattle dictating the Packers' offense.

I just feel that if you have a great offense that is balanced and lead by one of the greatest QBs to ever step on an NFL field you should never let any defense dictate how you run your offense.You should be aggressive,be who you are and who you have been up that point and force the defense to react.If you do that and the defense stops you then you tip your hat and live with the fact they were the better team.

Basically my view is **** Seattle and their defense,we have Aaron Rodgers and you're not going to dictate how we play.

You're welcome to disagree but that's my view.

If the Packers had a lesser QB I would feel differently.
Giannis Antetokounmpo wrote:You're out here reffing like Marc Davis and ****
User avatar
rilamann
RealGM
Posts: 25,536
And1: 13,004
Joined: Jun 20, 2003
Location: Bobby!! Bobby!! Bobby!!
     

Re: Game 2: Seattle at Green Bay 

Post#633 » by rilamann » Tue Sep 22, 2015 10:31 am

trwi7 wrote:We're tough now. Like Bounty paper towel.


Yeah,thank God we weren't dollar store toilet paper in the final 5 minutes this time.

But we're still not as tough as Brawny paper towel until we beat the 49ers.
Giannis Antetokounmpo wrote:You're out here reffing like Marc Davis and ****
User avatar
MickeyDavis
Global Mod
Global Mod
Posts: 92,100
And1: 44,779
Joined: May 02, 2002
Location: The Craps Table
     

Re: Game 2: Seattle at Green Bay 

Post#634 » by MickeyDavis » Tue Sep 22, 2015 12:33 pm

I'm against picketing but I don't know how to show it.
User avatar
Iheartfootball
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,742
And1: 4,168
Joined: May 09, 2014
Location: The Bay Area, but not back down
     

Re: Game 2: Seattle at Green Bay 

Post#635 » by Iheartfootball » Tue Sep 22, 2015 6:03 pm

The Packers really did show poise and resilience. I think it will bode well for them as the season progresses. That's a definite SB contender that they beat with quite a few injuries on their side and some iffy penalties.
User avatar
LikeABosh
RealGM
Posts: 18,886
And1: 8,632
Joined: Jun 15, 2011
     

Re: Game 2: Seattle at Green Bay 

Post#636 » by LikeABosh » Thu Sep 24, 2015 5:02 pm

rilamann wrote:
trwi7 wrote:We're tough now. Like Bounty paper towel.


Yeah,thank God we weren't dollar store toilet paper in the final 5 minutes this time.

But we're still not as tough as Brawny paper towel until we beat the 49ers.


Why?
User avatar
trwi7
RealGM
Posts: 110,797
And1: 26,283
Joined: Jul 12, 2006
Location: Aussie bias
         

Re: Game 2: Seattle at Green Bay 

Post#637 » by trwi7 » Thu Sep 24, 2015 6:47 pm

So I was watching the NFL Replay of this game on NFL Network. Pete Carroll is the absolute worst. Seriously, **** that guy.

On K.J. Wright getting ejected.

"You know they got tangled up and went to the ground and hard and it was kind of one of those stand ups where they're both holding each other and uh I don't know, they decided to throw our guy out. I don't know, I didn't see it but that's what he said. He was disappointed that happened. He didn't want to do that in that situation at all."

You **** dolt. If you didn't see it, then just say you didn't see it and you'll look at it on tape and leave it at that. Don't say they "got tangled up" when anybody with eyes could see that he grabbed him by the facemask, pushed up, tackled him and then slammed his hand down on his helmet.
stellation wrote:What's the difference between Gery Woelful and this glass of mineral water? The mineral water actually has a source."


I Hate Manure wrote:We look to be awful next season without Beasley.
User avatar
thomchatt3rton
Head Coach
Posts: 6,386
And1: 2,228
Joined: Jun 11, 2009
 

Re: Game 2: Seattle at Green Bay 

Post#638 » by thomchatt3rton » Sun Sep 27, 2015 10:05 pm

Maybe it was in the game thread and I missed it, but I cant remember seeing anybody here criticize the coaching staff for being "too conservative" and "lacking that killer instinct to put teams away" etc (a la the NFCCG).


Were these games just 2 different situations? Or is it a case of the ends justifying the means? :)

I expected to at least hear something about the play calling after the jayrone pick (and possibly even some gripes about not going for it on 4th at end of 1st half).






Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Return to Green Bay Packers