|
|
Post by TW on Nov 3, 2015 15:36:34 GMT -5
Packers poor at making adjustments during games. Anyhow, that's what Aaron Rodgers brother thinks. Now we should wait for the sounds of those who think McCarthy walks on water to call the guy an idiot? Don't think so! He's dead on! Aaron Rodgers brother tells it like it is |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2015 23:03:12 GMT -5
He nailed it!
|
|
|
|
Post by tnpackfan7 on Nov 3, 2015 23:42:48 GMT -5
Or perhaps McCarthy should be calling plays again.
And nobody thinks he walks on water.
|
|
|
|
Post by happypacker on Nov 4, 2015 6:21:16 GMT -5
sounds about right to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by TW on Nov 4, 2015 11:24:24 GMT -5
Adjustments. The key to winning big time in the NFL. You got that ability, you steal wins. You don't have it, you lose games to inferior teams that do have that ability. McCarthy has been the loser in these contests. It becomes apparent that it has happened in GB, since McCarthy got there.
To be honest, it's that inability to change on the fly that makes it appear that the offensive play caller doesn't know what he's doing. You can see the disgust building on Rodgers face each time he feels the game slipping away because of it. Being the ultimate pro, he keeps his mouth shut. But, his brother echoed what Aaron himself has wanted to say for a long time.
To just blindly accept McCarthy as being the "great coach," without the Lombardi trophies (notice it's plural) for the years he's had as good a team as he has, makes McCarthy an above average coach, but nowhere in the realm of guys like Belicheck. There are young guys, who seem to know how to build on the ability to change, and they are the ones who end up being the winners. Look at Belichek's season where he lost the guy who was arguably one of the best QBs in the league, and stuck Brady, who was unknown, into the spot, and kept right on winning, including a Lombardi trophy.
Everyone needs to recognize McCarthy and his coaches weaknesses, and stress that that has to change, or they will be complacent, and allow it to continue like they have. I was a loyal fan, who spent the bucks during the 70s & 0s, and finally demanded they move forward instead of the stagnancy they had. The name of the game in the NFL is win the big one, not just have a good season and pat yourself on the back, because a lot of fans who don't know the game see only what they want to see.
|
|
|
|
Post by tnpackfan7 on Nov 4, 2015 20:05:00 GMT -5
Who is blindly calling him a great coach?
I think he is a very good coach, and a very good playcaller.
And nobody is coming close to putting him in the same class with Belichick.
BTW...Rodgers can have disgust build on his face...he has opportunity to talk to coaches about game plan...leeway to change things as the game goes on and at the line. He also needs to play better because what he has done lately has not been good enough. Whether its lack of trust with the WRs, or him taking his want to keep from throwing INTs...at some point he needs to let it fly (especially when down as much as they were). Him holding the ball is leading to more pressure and penalties out of the Oline as well.
And the Oline really needs to play better.
|
|
|
|
Post by TW on Nov 4, 2015 20:59:50 GMT -5
Rodgers can't throw the ball when the defense is on him before he can even complete his drop. Our guys aren't even getting into their routes and he's getting hit.
Yet, when he's being pressured like that, they've done absolutely nothing to create roll-out opportunities, where they can overload blocking to one side, to give him time to get rid of the ball. They keep right on dropping into a 3, and 5 step drop, and watch him get hit. That's on the coaches, and since the coaches work under McC, that's on him. Rodgers hasn't got the personnel on the field to make an effective change in the plays in most cases.
Then, there's no #30 on the field either, to act as a blocker. It's like they think Rodgers can just throw it and it's automatically fine. He can't when they are in his face. Obvious against the Broncos, and it's obvious that the Broncos do not have better talent than the Packers. Just better coaching from at least a game plan point of view.
If McC called the plays, why would anyone think it would be better? The game plan stunk, and no matter who was calling the plays, if there wasn't a direction they could go outside of the plan.... dead meat!
I joined a facebook group. Lombardi Nation. I'm almost to the point where I want to leave it. Too many blindly loyal fans that think every guy who puts on a Packer uniform is destined for Canton. Then, after one loss, they want to fire all the coaches, let half the team go and replace them with.... not a clue..... because they don't know what they're saying. I think I'm going to dump that place real soon.
|
|
|
|
Post by tnpackfan7 on Nov 4, 2015 22:27:22 GMT -5
He had time several times to get through at least 2 reads...he pulled the ball down.
Even he will admit he didn't play well.
It wasn't all just the pass rush.
His play was not great...and he has leeway to change things too...even personnel if they are not just in hurry up.
If McC called plays why would anyone think it would be better? His track record as a play caller?
Its not just this one game. THe offense has been sputtering for weeks now.
My guess is you think any praise is blind loyalty (at least it seems that way here)
|
|
|
|
Post by happypacker on Nov 5, 2015 6:38:34 GMT -5
a big TE and a big fast receiver would cure most of Rodgers problems. Plus they should have traded for Joe Thomas the left tackle in Cleveland.
|
|
|
|
Post by TW on Nov 5, 2015 6:42:40 GMT -5
Actually I don't believe that praising someone's play in a game is blind loyalty. I believe in praising what's done right, and criticizing what is done wrong. But when you criticize, have a darned good idea as to what could have been done, to correct the issue. You can't just sit there and say; "Lack of execution."
Think about WWI. The Allies would send up to 100,000 men charging across no-man's land to attack the German trenches. They had to go through mine fields, row after row of razor wire, some their own, and a hail of bullets and artillery rounds being rained down on them. "If," and usually it was if, they lost so many men that the attack failed, and they retreated, the General's staff would randomly draw out the names of several soldiers and have them executed for cowardice, blaming them for the failure of the charge, instead of accepting what happened as their responsibility, because the plan was flawed in the first place. Their execution of these soldiers was the same thing as saying; "A failure to execute." It's where the darned statement comes from, and shows how ignorant it is to even make that statement. It is not the reality of what actually happened.
If the plan isn't flawed, or if you have one or two alternate plans that you can swing into action, you can correct the problem and stop the bleeding, before it becomes epidemic. In the case of McC, they don't bring that many options to the table, prior to game day, therefore it's not there, to fall back on.
I keep thinking about something that happened during WWI. A young French soldier had his name submitted for the Croix de Guerre, and was also nominated for a Silver Star from the US, because of his actions during an attack on an enemy position. This was done by his superiors, but before it got to the Generals Staff, the young man had been singled out as a scapegoat for the failed charge, simply by the luck of the draw, and been shot to death by a firing squad. Since that had already happened, they covered up the fact that the man had been heroic in the battle, because it would "look bad," and be "bad for morale."
Why do I get the impression I keep seeing this story replayed way too often by the Packers coaching staff?
|
|
|
|
Post by happypacker on Nov 5, 2015 14:14:35 GMT -5
Like when the U.S.A. went over in 91 to take out the leader of Iraq? that was a well formed plan to help cut down injury and death to our military. it worked,That is what we are looking for with our leaders. This team has some elite and very good players who are running out of time.hey have been working the same way for five years with HC of the defense and still cannot get a solid "D" At least MM has made changes on offense, but he needs to look at himself for still being o predictable on "O"
|
|
|
|
Post by TW on Nov 5, 2015 14:34:43 GMT -5
It was a good plan going into Iraq, as far as casualties. But the game plan was flawed because they had no game plan as to how the power structure would be revitalized in Iraq. Kind of like the Packers. Sometimes a good offensive game plan, but a defense that stinks. Lots of analogies to compare with, no doubt about
|
|
