First, I tip my hat to Brett Favre and the Vikings, coming into Lambeau with 71,000 fans in his chili and playing like that, well done. He's in a perfect situation for him for the Vikings. If he was playing for Green Bay they'd be measuring him for a coffin with our line.

This game was decided on the lines. Rodgers got the crap beat out of him, and Favre's jersey looked like it just came out of a laundry commercial. Enough said there.

I'm starting to question whether this team has a motivational problem. Why two completely different halfs? What was said at halftime that got them to play to in the second half? Why was it needed??

Penalties didnt help us. Some of the stupidest personal fouls Ive seen in awhile. I'm sure "We will get that cleaned up"

Im about ready to blow up our running backs. We need a home run threat to take some prssure off Rodgers, and not having a decent third down back really hurts this team. Grant use to break off big runs all of the time. Now 10 yards is the long. Thats not going to work. Its not something you can fix overnight but I dont think any of these guys
are running backs I'd rely on in 2010 and beyond.

Huge few weeks coming up, first its to Tampa, then we get two potential wildcard contenders Dallas and SF at home. We will know a lot more after those games.

The better team won today, they beat us offensively, defensively and with special teams, and I think the Packers learned a few things today. 1. They can come back from being in a big hole. 2. They can beat up the doormats of the league, but they have a ways to go to be a serious contender.

There's a few things that need to be fixed.

But there's no denying that if the Packers has a respectable offensive line, the Packers would be on the of the power houses of the NFL. Things like a running game and penalties are a weakness, but there isn't a more glaring hole on this team then the offensive line.

There is so much talent on this team, especially on the offensive side of the ball. I feel that we would give New Orleans a run for their money if Rodgers was given some protection.

People are giving MM credit for turning things around after halftime, but like you I question why it was needed. This team should have been ready to play from the start, and instead they came out flat. That's on the coach. The division is on the line, you are playing at home, and you come out and lay an egg. I can handle a loss if we come out and play hard for 60 minutes, but you can't play 1/2 game and expect to win.

If my $1 bills were $100 dollar bills I would be richer. There is no point in what ifs. TT came here and stated that he doesn't believe O-line are big dollar players and he would not 'overpay' for guards tackles etc. Whelp.

Favre played behind such lines under the TT era, he just didn't have to hold the ball all day to make a decision to throw.

I heard on the local news post game show, "the Packers Blitz" that McCarthy told the team at half that this, "Will be the turning point of the season" and that it got the guys fired up.

Wait.... why didn't he say that before the game? Because really, that's what it could have been. A real turning point. The takedown of a big fish for once this season. They could have made the NFC North a LOT more interesting.

How can you honestly give in to that BS the media's spewing about Rodgers holding onto the ball to long?

I would only say 4-5 of the sacks on Rodgers this year are on him (2 of those being last night). Almost every single one of those 30+ sacks are done in 3 or less seconds.

Because the guys saying it are guys who know what they are talking about like Aikman (former and hall of fame QB), Dungy, Jimmy Johnson, etc. and even McCarthy hinted to it after the first game. Heck this year in one of his interviews Rogers talked about the biggest thing and the one thing he worked on in the off season was "having a clock in his head" to help him get the ball out quickly.

Why do people see that these two things are related?

If the QB is getting sacked because the o line can't block long enough for him to get the pass off, then what makes people thing that that same o line is going to open good enough holes for a successful running game at the line, much less get up field to open up the longer runs.

On a side not If you take out peterson's one 33 yard run then he was held to 2.6 ypc. Grant with his terrible? effort supposedly averaged 3 ypc on only 10 carries.

Also the run plays last night were terrible calls, the runs that were working were the runs off tackle, why McCarthey kept calling the stretch plays trying to run outside with the d ends shooting up the field is beyond me, if he would have stuck with running it up underneath the ends it would have helped slow down the pass rush a whole lot.

First of all, I'm not going to listen to anything from Aikman, Dungy, Jimmy Johnson, etc. who only follow the Packers when it's their broadcast game or they're the lead story.

Second, McCarthy and Rodgers playing the blame on Rodgers is the RIGHT thing to do. Rodgers is the leader of the team. He's going to take the fall no matter what.

Now realistically, if you don't believe me, just go back and replay the games. I only have about 4-5 sacks pinned on Rodgers. 2 of them from the MIN game. Almost every single sack, and I'm not even exaggerating here guys, has been 3 seconds or less. The rule of the thumb for lineman is about 3.5-4 seconds of protection time. Rodgers isn't holding on to the ball to long if he's being sacked before he even drops back all the way or his receivers can't even run routes before he's sacked.

The analysts on TV saying he's holding onto the ball to long is laughable, because he's CLEARLY not. Rodgers accepting the blame for the sacks is what most QB's do. Always place the blame on themselves.

So Aikman saying he is holding the ball too long, what has that got to do with him only broadcasting THE PACKER GAMES occasionally? Isn't he a HOF QB? And I would think a football person would respect his opinion a little bit.

The other two are just Super Bowl winning coaches so I can understand not putting stock into thier opinions.

It doesn't matter to me what your credentials are. On this issue, anyone can go back and watch the games and see that on the sacks and pressures, Rodgers is only getting 2-3 seconds (sometimes 1 second).

To me, if Aikman or any of those other guys wants to make those statements. Fine. But I'm just going to laugh at them.

It really sucks that we gotta face Tampa next. The worst team in the league. I woulda rather seen the Packers play a contender and see where they stack up after a bad loss.

True but you can't help who's scheduled and how well they are playing. You take each team that's on the schedule and do the best you can. I t could be a huge confidence builder to go in and get some things cleaned up against the Bucs. Sort of like when they played the Lions, Rams and Browns. They were able to gain some positives out of those games.

Rather than being surprised by someone believing it, I'm much more surprised that you don't see it.



I think every GB beat writer has mentioned Rodgers holding the ball too long multiple times. McGinn & Baranczyk on JSO mention it regularly when they break down the games.

I honestly remember quite a few times where Rodgers gets out of the pocket, is scrambling, yet can't find anyone open and ends of taking a sack. I'd like to see him throw it away, more often, and Rodgers probably does hold on to the ball a little too long. I mean, it is not like we're seeing the quick slants or dump offs that often.

I'm absolutely with you 110% on that comment. All this talk about how the Vikings are better, blah, blah, blah - horse manure. They beat the hell out of us in field position and sacks, otherwise forget it. But the motivation, ahhh, there's the rub. It's hard to know whose head(s) that falls upon, but in the end, you're right, it's on the coach. I have no idea what it takes to turn it around, but I have no doubt this team has it in them if a way can only be found to bring it out.

Again, a really superb comment, MI.

While I tend to mostly agree with your position, I'm questioning the players accountability in the flatness. If they couldn't motivate themselves for this game, what does that say about them? That extra motivation has to come from within. That's what I'm more worried about.

Uh Terry, aren't sacks and kick returns a part of the game? And rather big parts?

Do we have anyone like Jared Allen? AK comes close, but he is playing LB.

Do we have a player with the all around ability of Harvin? If we do I do not see him.

Minny traded for Allen and drafted Harvin number one.

They get no credit for that in your book?

Wow.

I'm not going to quibble about the source, but if it doesn't come from within, the coach had better do something about it.

All great coaches are master psychologists. Well... maybe most of them.

'Gregg' date='Nov 4 2009, 01:04 AM' post='276369':

Uh Terry, aren't sacks and kick returns a part of the game? And rather big parts?
Yes. And Yes. As are turnovers.

Do we have anyone like Jared Allen? AK comes close, but he is playing LB.
No. Do they have anyone like Woodson?

Do we have a player with the all around ability of Harvin?
Well, I don't know what all around ability means exactly, but we have Woodson who is multi-talented and we have Havner who plays several positions. He got two TD's Sunday. Did Harvin? You're a bit in love with your own idea of the draft choice, Gregg and now you're harping on it a bit much.

Minny traded for Allen and drafted Harvin number one.
If they didn't have Favre, we might never even be hearing of Harvin, except for kickoff returns. As for Allen, fine, they traded for him. What's your point exactly? Did you hear me say that Thompson should not have traded for him?

They get no credit for that in your book?
Did I say that? Did I say they get no credit in any book at all? Stop putting words in my mouth, Gregg.

Wow.
Is that an answer to your own straw dog question? Or did you just jump the gun and figure I'd say 'yes' to a flimsy question, just like that? Besides, 'wow'? WOW??? Don't you think you should save your 'wows' for, you know, like slightly more momentous occasions than your fantasies about how your rhetorical questions might get answered by cartoon figures? I mean, if you use 'wow' for that, what do you have in reserve for, say, an earthquake, never mind Armageddon?

Are you always this arrogant, condescending, and obnoxious?

Wow.

See Steven Jackson.

There were a few (more than 2 probably) in the game this week where Rodgers could have not taken a sack. Rolling out, every one covered and instead of throwing it at the feet of his dump-off guy or out of bounds (he's outside the pocket, it's ok to do that) he drops down and lets the sack happen. Another, he's in the pocket and it collapses around his back right, opening up quite a bit of field to his right. He stands there too long and takes a sack.

While there are options for him, I'm not concerned yet. He's only starting his 2nd season. He's not a 16 year pro, or even 8 or 4. This will get worked out, sometime. Kurt 'The Statue' Warner even manages to get rid of the ball, sometimes.

Vots, I just don't think that everyone is delusional except you in this case. I think there's more merit to him taking unnecessary sacks than you believe.

Listen, I may not be a professional analyst. But...

If Rodgers is sacked in 3 or less seconds, I count it against the line.

If Rodgers is sacked at 4 seconds or just before, it depends on how it's unfolding, mostly Rodgers' fault.

If Rodgers is sacked at 4 seconds or more, facing no pressure, definitely against Rodgers.

If Rodgers is sacked at 4 seconds or more, but he had to roll out because of defensive pressure before 4 seconds, and gets one of those sacks where he rolled out and had the ball for 8 seconds, that's against the line.

That's where the misconception probably lays. You see Rodgers get sacked quite a bit when he rolls out, and the play has been going for 6-8 seconds. Then he gets sacked. But a lot of times, people tend to forget that he was forced out and already getting pressured by the defense within just a couple of seconds after the snap.

I have been working on a little something, to go in depth and show that Rodgers is getting wrongfully blamed for most of these sacks. I will have it done and posted hopefully within a week.

I've timed most of the sacks this year. It is rare he is sacked in less than three seconds. With all due respect, if the play doesn't develop, he needs to throw the ball away. I've timed other QB's as well this year. As I've posted before, on average if you are holding the ball a long time bad things happen, not good things. Even Favre, when holding the ball a long time, has had more bad than good. We simply choose to dwell on a couple of rare plays where he was successful holding it a long time. In the nfl, if you hold it more than 3 seconds, the play has broken down and the QB and receivers are now improvising.

Aikman was right, taking an 8 yd loss on first down is just dumb. Throw the ball over everyone's head and out of bounds. Second and 10 is better than second and 18.

Rodgers is a good QB, and our line does suck. Those facts however, do not absolve him of the responsibility to play smart football.

I would love it if he could be like Tom Brady a few years back, where he could stand in one spot forever, and then throw the ball, but that is not reality with this line.

Yeah, but on these sacks where he's rolling out, he's at least got the option of dumping the ball. How many times have we seen him doing that this season? I haven't been able to see every game, but in the ones I have watched, I can count on one hand the number of times I've seen him outside the tackles and throwing the ball out of bounds. I understand he wants to make plays, and avoid mistakes, but he's got to learn when and how to get rid of the ball and stop taking both the drive-killing negative yardage and the Aaron-killing pounding. He can't lead the team from a wheelchair.

McCarthy turned it around at halftime?? Well last I looked Favre threw a TD pass to Harvin right after the opening kickoff to make it 24-3 great job Mike!! The we came down and only put 3 on the board. The game and momentum turned on the fumble. If Minny does not fumble on that kickoff they had the ball on the 40-45 yd line. Great field position and the way Favre was playing it could have been 31-3 very easy.

Get a new watch is what I'll say. I've got every play on my computer, I've got a compilation of every single sack this year and using the time marker when the ball was snapped to the time when the pressure and/or sack occurred, 3 or less seconds on the majority of sacks. I can post the numbers, but it's not as good as video. And I can't convert the file types for editing unless I buy a program.

Now there are sometimes when Rodgers rolls out they're his fault. But I don't see how you can blame him for a sack on a roll out when he's forced out of the pocket 1-3 seconds after the snap. Most plays won't be developed at this stage. And a roll out is when a QB is most vulnerable. No protection. No eyes in the back of his head. No original play call. Everything changes the moment the QB steps out of the pocket voluntarily or involuntarily. And more times then not, Rodgers is unwillingly having to roll out because of his protection up front. No way am I going to blame that on Rodgers.

Cute, but I dont need a new watch. I have the entire games, not just clips of the sacks. Its the original game so I can time it by frame, and at 24 frames per second its pretty damn accurate. I've timed entire games, not just a couple of sacks. I've posted time numbers in threads a couple of weeks ago. Your three second hypothesis just doesn't hold up when you time these guys. As I posted with Favre, if he holds the ball 2.5 seconds or less, his numbers are great, If he holds it longer then picks, sacks and incompletions go up. As I pointed out weeks ago, a pass rush almost can't get there faster than 2.5 seconds if anyone tries to get in their way.

So what if he's forced to roll out. You are avoiding the issue of him not throwing the ball away when he can't find a receiver. Even a hall of fame quarterback is saying the same thing.

It's over simplification to say that it is one or the other. Fact is he isn't going to get 4, 5, or 6 seconds to throw. A bad line requires the ball to come out quickly. The line is guilty of not giving him time, but he has to respond appropriately to that fact. So far, it appears he would rather take the sack than the intentional incompletion, and that is costing us drives and field position. Sure, fixing the line will improve the situation, but until that happens, he has to play smarter and faster.

I don't why you think I just have clips. I have the entire games as well as stated. I have everything you have available.

Your taught from Pop Waner, through high school, through college, to have a mental clock in your head as a lineman. 4 seconds is the magic number. If you can't hold a guy for 4 seconds, you're taught to try harder.

As far as he has to compensate for bad O-line play and get the ball out quicker? How about looking at the person who calls the plays? The person who should be responding appropriately is Michael J. McCarthy and calling more quick, 3-step drop plays. If this QB is not to get sacked at a record pace anymore, MM needs to change some things not AR.

This is true. There were some plays where the receiver caught the ball and was just itching to make a play with the ball. Do some short routes, get the ball in play and see what happens.

As far as the sacks, I'm not going to claim a majority are on Rodgers but there are some where experience will only help him throwing the ball away on rollouts when no one is open.

While I agree regarding the play calling, go back and look at the first sack against minnesota this week. Rodgers is sacked 7 seconds into the play, the whole time ignoring James Jones standing wide open, uncovered at the first down marker. It was remarkably similar to his first sack in the dome where he ignored Ryan Grant in the same position.

On the first drive against Minne where edwards gets the pressure, tipping the ball causing an incompletion on 3rd and 17, Rodgers hasn't even cocked his arm to throw at three seconds.

This isn't pop warner, high school, or even college. The NFL is a faster game, and it takes a while to get to that pace. Rodgers is a very good QB, but he needs to play faster. I think your working awfully hard to defend our QB, which is appropriate as he is a very good one indeed. I just don't see whats wrong with pointing out how he could be better, which in my mind is playing faster.

Edit: Just got to the second sack- called roll out to start the second quarter- sacked by edwards 4.5 seconds into the play, outside the tackle box where he could throw it away, not forced there by a rush.

I'm as big an Aaron Rodgers fan as any but two of the 6 sacks on Sunday against Minnesota were completely Rodgers' fault and were in inexcusable. There was one where he was trying to outrun Edwards that really made me scratch my head. What the heck was he thinking on that play? He could see the rusher coming from a distance and simply chose to take the sack. He had plenty of time to get rid of the ball. There was another where Rodgers left the pocket and could have scrambled for 1st down yardage. Instead he sat there indecisive and took a sack. Again, what was he thinking? This was right after Favre turned the ball over. It was 3rd and 5. We really could have used that first down. It could have led to a TD. Instead we had to settle for a FG. When the opposing team spots you really good field position you need to capitalize.

A good chunk of the 31 sacks taken by Rodgers are his fault. Maybe a good 1/3 of them. One of the commentators said that a lot of those sacks came on plays where Rodgers definitely could have got the ball out. What I don't understand is that when we are playing Minnesota Rodgers has to know that he can't stand around and hold the ball. He knows that the Vikings have a ferocious pass rush yet he thinks he can just hang around and hold onto the ball. Some of those sacks very well could have costed us both games and not all of them were on the OL. There were two plays in particular that really had a huge impact on the game. Both inside or near the red zone with a chance to put points on the board. Instead, we turned the ball over on a Rodgers sack and fumble and had to settle for a FG on the other. Rodgers has to realize that he can't outrun every defender in the NFL and learn how to get rid of the ball. There are times for scrambling and there are times to throw the ball away. Some of the sacks he has taken are simply inexplicable. The safety against Chicago was another one. Sorry but Aaron Rodgers can't outrun a DB. He has to know this. He actually ran deep into the end zone knowing a DB is chasing him. I understand him trying to make a play with his feet but he can't run into the end zone knowing a defender is chasing him. I don't know what he is thinking sometimes.

I don't understand the points about MM firing the troops up at halftime either. Not only is this game HUGE but you have Favre coming back to Green Bay. If the team can't be fired up before the half with all those factors, they are dead. If this is indeed true, I really think it is time for MM to go.

I know Aaron holds on to the ball too long sometimes. But c'mon guys...Favre had what?...8+ seconds on one of the plays in Minny? Aaron needs to get rid of it in three or he gets hammered? Even the talking heads were going on and on about how much time Brett had compared to Rodgers. This OL is horrible. Period. I hope Ted didn't really say he wouldn't spend good money on an OL. I've never heard that before reading it in this thread. If he did, he needs to go with MM as soon as possible. Hard to imagine, but the line is sure reflecting it.

I'm not denying that Rodgers shouldn't be blamed for any of the sacks. But all I've said is that the majority of sacks should be credited towards his offensive line.

This whole, "holding on the ball to long" is blown way out of proportion. When he had a half-way decent line last year, he was sacked 34(?) times. Compared to the Favre years where Favre would get sacked 20 times.

But this year is ridiculous. He's pretty much matches last season's total already and it's because of the pitiful O-line play. He's not doing anything different compared to last year, in terms of how he plays QB.

There's thing Rodgers needs to fix, but it's not even as close as being as bad, like people make it out to be. Especially the media. Because when they bring up Rodgers holding on to the ball to long when the sacks come up, my eyes roll.

The line is the main sack problem. Fix it and Rodgers will only be getting sacked 25-35 times a year with his style of play. Not 70 sacks a year. 70 sacks this year because he's doing exactly what he did last year? Yeah, the O-line definitely isn't the problem here.

So you admit Rodgers is part of the problem.

Sure, but I call it trying to make a play rather than turning over the ball via an INT, which we use to see and expect, a lot.

I never denied he wasn't. I made that clear in the beginning.

But Rodgers hasn't changed from last year, he's still doing the same things he did the year before. Going from 34 sacks to 70 and putting the majority blame on him? Please...

There are 3 choices;

1. Throw the ball = INT, INCOMP, or COMPLT

2. Sack = 8 yard loss

3. Throw it away = keep the LOS the same, nothing positive, but nothing negative either.

At some point he needs to reconize when there is no play and toss it away. Hopefully as his career moves forward he can sense these things.

Please show me the posts that put the majority of blame on Rodgers.

I've read all of them and my perception is Rodgers is adding to the sack problem and is not the mainstay of the problem.

You seem highly sensitive about anyone including Rodgers in the sack problem.

Me personally, I see it as the line sucks and Rodgers holds the ball too long at times. Neither of which I really like.

And I think that's all anyone is saying. That's a big change that I see this year in Rodgers' play. Last year he was conservative and threw the ball away when nothing developed, especially early on. This year he's trying to make the play as LMG points out. With the line play having been bad, I would just like to see him throw it away more. Last year in the opener, with the better line, and throwing some away, Allen had zero sacks. Would like to go back to that type of performance-- no sacks, beat the Vikings.

He does however, actually make the play sometimes as well, which adds to the different view points.

According to McGinn at JSO, 16.5 of the 31 sacks allowed so far have been assigned to the OL. I'd guess the RB's would be charged with a few of them, but that leaves quite a few that would presumably be assigned to Rodgers.

According to Dougherty at GBPG, Rodgers is at least partially responsible for 12 of the 31 sacks.

That's two of the primary Packer beat writers, not broadcasters or coaches playing the blame game.

Well, at least now I can see why we disagree to such a large extent. If Rodgers escapes the pocket to buy time, but is then sacked b/c he doesn't get rid of the ball outside the pocket, IMO that sack is on Rodgers. I would agree that he has taken quite a few sacks that way, and if you're putting those on the OL, then I understand why you see Rodgers as being less at fault for the total sack count.