| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ChicagoAl
Joined: 10 Jan 2008
Posts: 8390
|
 Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 1:10 am Post subject: WHY COULDN'T OUR WRs GET OPEN?? |
 |
|
|
| Any ideas? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
WindyCity
Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 13300
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 8:53 am Post subject: Re: WHY COULDN'T OUR WRs GET OPEN?? |
|
|
|
| ChicagoAl wrote: | | Any ideas? |
They did.
Mayock showed a couple of plays where Alshon Jeffery was running down the sideline for a TD uncovered.
The problem was that our QB was either being hit, throwing a tantrum or staring down Brandon Marshall.
Also Kellen Davis got open all day, he just sucks.
_________________
In Nkemdiche vs the window, I side with the window. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Madmike90
Joined: 25 Jan 2009
Posts: 25746
Location: Scotland
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 8:56 am Post subject: Re: WHY COULDN'T OUR WRs GET OPEN?? |
|
|
|
| WindyCity wrote: | | ChicagoAl wrote: | | Any ideas? |
They did.
Mayock showed a couple of plays where Alshon Jeffery was running down the sideline for a TD uncovered.
The problem was that our QB was either being hit, throwing a tantrum or staring down Brandon Marshall.
Also Kellen Davis got open all day, he just sucks. |
That was the biggest problem…Marshall was drawing bracket coverage basically all game…Jay has to look elsewhere even when he is under pressure.
_________________
Adopt-a-Bear...Adrian Amos |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WindyCity
Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 13300
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 9:21 am Post subject: Re: WHY COULDN'T OUR WRs GET OPEN?? |
|
|
|
| Madmike90 wrote: | | WindyCity wrote: | | ChicagoAl wrote: | | Any ideas? |
They did.
Mayock showed a couple of plays where Alshon Jeffery was running down the sideline for a TD uncovered.
The problem was that our QB was either being hit, throwing a tantrum or staring down Brandon Marshall.
Also Kellen Davis got open all day, he just sucks. |
That was the biggest problem…Marshall was drawing bracket coverage basically all game…Jay has to look elsewhere even when he is under pressure. |
To play consistent bracket coverage on 1 guy and blitz in the exotic ways they did you are gambling in other coverages.
The best way to stop the blitz would have been to find Jeffery for a long gain and force them back or out of the zone.
_________________
In Nkemdiche vs the window, I side with the window. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMike
Joined: 21 Nov 2010
Posts: 7020
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 9:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| With the way the Packers D played us we had a good passing gameplan. Hit the TEs and slot receivers. To bad they and our OL [inappropriate/removed] themselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
51to54
Joined: 29 Jun 2008
Posts: 1661
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
It's becoming obvious to me what we have in Cutler.
Elite level.
He's got a great arm, regardless of how many bad passes he threw against the Pack. He has touch along with rocket passes.
He's tough.
He's mobile.
Non-elite level.
He doesn't read coverages well enough to allow him to get rid of the ball soon enough or find the 3rd or 4th option running free (Jefferies) to make defenses pay for pressuring.
He doesn't feel pressure in the pocket to buy enough time or to extend plays. Given how mobile he is, this is surprising.
He's probably towards the top of the mid level QB's who can only be effective if their Oline can give him the time against the defensive rush, either by having a good Oline or by facing a non-elite pass rushing defense.
It's probably too late to install more moving pockets or rollouts to take advantage of his mobility and extend plays that way. It's almost certainly too late to upgrade the Oline. This offense and thus this team is fatally flawed against defenses that can bring pressure until they find a way to bolster the protection or slow the pass rush. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChicagoAl
Joined: 10 Jan 2008
Posts: 8390
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 12:41 pm Post subject: Re: WHY COULDN'T OUR WRs GET OPEN?? |
|
|
|
| WindyCity wrote: | | ChicagoAl wrote: | | Any ideas? |
They did.
Mayock showed a couple of plays where Alshon Jeffery was running down the sideline for a TD uncovered.
The problem was that our QB was either being hit, throwing a tantrum or staring down Brandon Marshall.
Also Kellen Davis got open all day, he just sucks. |
Is there anyone here who did not believe Marshall would get blanketed after the first game?
Since this was TOTALLY obvious, how is it that the coaches did not hammer this into Jay's head? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChicagoAl
Joined: 10 Jan 2008
Posts: 8390
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 12:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| 51to54 wrote: | It's becoming obvious to me what we have in Cutler.
Elite level.
He's got a great arm, regardless of how many bad passes he threw against the Pack. He has touch along with rocket passes.
He's tough.
He's mobile.
Non-elite level.
He doesn't read coverages well enough to allow him to get rid of the ball soon enough or find the 3rd or 4th option running free (Jefferies) to make defenses pay for pressuring.
He doesn't feel pressure in the pocket to buy enough time or to extend plays. Given how mobile he is, this is surprising.
He's probably towards the top of the mid level QB's who can only be effective if their Oline can give him the time against the defensive rush, either by having a good Oline or by facing a non-elite pass rushing defense.
It's probably too late to install more moving pockets or rollouts to take advantage of his mobility and extend plays that way. It's almost certainly too late to upgrade the Oline. This offense and thus this team is fatally flawed against defenses that can bring pressure until they find a way to bolster the protection or slow the pass rush. |
We have known ever since Jay got here that we needed to roll him out and move the pocket. Not even Smith could be ignorant of this.
There have to be plays in the playbook which will do this or he is a much worse coach than even I think. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChicagoAl
Joined: 10 Jan 2008
Posts: 8390
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 12:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| DaMike wrote: | | With the way the Packers D played us we had a good passing gameplan. Hit the TEs and slot receivers. To bad they and our OL [inappropriate/removed] themselves. |
We had a terrible game plan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Badger75
Joined: 08 Apr 2008
Posts: 8255
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 1:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
As if Jay isn't getting hit too much in games, he takes all the heat for this too?
Hester is a terrific punt and kick returner. Not a starting WR. Bennett keeps vanishing in games. Jefferies is a rookie with two game played. Marshall isn't fighting for the ball and gets turned around too easily. Get the TE's involved. Short routes. Every defense is crowding the line.
Tice does the running game and some gerbil calls passes? Guaranteed confusion.
_________________
"I have to keep playing so people over 40 will have somebody to root for on Sunday afternoons." George Blanda who played until he was 46 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMike
Joined: 21 Nov 2010
Posts: 7020
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 4:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| ChicagoAl wrote: | | DaMike wrote: | | With the way the Packers D played us we had a good passing gameplan. Hit the TEs and slot receivers. To bad they and our OL [inappropriate/removed] themselves. |
We had a terrible game plan. |
You want to attack the middle of the field against the D they run. We should've ran a bit more but it was the players that played horribly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Madmike90
Joined: 25 Jan 2009
Posts: 25746
Location: Scotland
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 5:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| DaMike wrote: | | ChicagoAl wrote: | | DaMike wrote: | | With the way the Packers D played us we had a good passing gameplan. Hit the TEs and slot receivers. To bad they and our OL [inappropriate/removed] themselves. |
We had a terrible game plan. |
You want to attack the middle of the field against the D they run. We should've ran a bit more but it was the players that played horribly. |
Yeah the game plan was solid...the execution of the game plan wasn't.
_________________
Adopt-a-Bear...Adrian Amos |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChicagoAl
Joined: 10 Jan 2008
Posts: 8390
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2012 2:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| DaMike wrote: | | ChicagoAl wrote: | | DaMike wrote: | | With the way the Packers D played us we had a good passing gameplan. Hit the TEs and slot receivers. To bad they and our OL [inappropriate/removed] themselves. |
We had a terrible game plan. |
You want to attack the middle of the field against the D they run. We should've ran a bit more but it was the players that played horribly. |
A lot of that goes away if you get rolling with the right plays at the beginning. We should have started out running the ball, let Cutler settle down, let the line put the pass rush on its heels. Start out simple and get more complex.
There are running plays to counter any defense GB can run but you have to adapt. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChicagoAl
Joined: 10 Jan 2008
Posts: 8390
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2012 2:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Madmike90 wrote: | | DaMike wrote: | | ChicagoAl wrote: | | DaMike wrote: | | With the way the Packers D played us we had a good passing gameplan. Hit the TEs and slot receivers. To bad they and our OL [inappropriate/removed] themselves. |
We had a terrible game plan. |
You want to attack the middle of the field against the D they run. We should've ran a bit more but it was the players that played horribly. |
Yeah the game plan was solid...the execution of the game plan wasn't. |
Oh, it was too brilliant for words. It just got more and more brilliant as the game went on.
The prior week Cutler took charge and changed lot of plays as needed. This week he seemed to be in a coma and changed nothing. So I don't even know if the first game plan was any good but this one was not.
It had been repeatedly indicated by almost everyone here that we were going to have to run the ball and keep Rodgers off the field. What do we see? - Giving Rodgers the ball first and doing little or nothing with our offense to keep him off the field. Exactly the opposite of what should have been done. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Madmike90
Joined: 25 Jan 2009
Posts: 25746
Location: Scotland
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2012 2:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| ChicagoAl wrote: | | Madmike90 wrote: | | DaMike wrote: | | ChicagoAl wrote: | | DaMike wrote: | | With the way the Packers D played us we had a good passing gameplan. Hit the TEs and slot receivers. To bad they and our OL [inappropriate/removed] themselves. |
We had a terrible game plan. |
You want to attack the middle of the field against the D they run. We should've ran a bit more but it was the players that played horribly. |
Yeah the game plan was solid...the execution of the game plan wasn't. |
Oh, it was too brilliant for words. It just got more and more brilliant as the game went on.
The prior week Cutler took charge and changed lot of plays as needed. This week he seemed to be in a coma and changed nothing. So I don't even know if the first game plan was any good but this one was not.
It had been repeatedly indicated by almost everyone here that we were going to have to run the ball and keep Rodgers off the field. What do we see? - Giving Rodgers the ball first and doing little or nothing with our offense to keep him off the field. Exactly the opposite of what should have been done. |
Clearly you are struggling with the difference between planning & executing…
Cutler not changing out of bad plays is an execution issue…not a game planning one…
And I don’t know how many people have to say this but we gave Rodgers the ball and he did exactly zero with it…we took the ball straight back off him…the offence was balanced & we did run the ball enough…28 pass drop backs…22 planned runs…that is todays NFL…no one runs more than they pass and has successes.
_________________
Adopt-a-Bear...Adrian Amos |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
