ReadyToThump Posted November 4, 2019 Share Posted November 4, 2019 Whoever got me fired up about this defense at the beginning of the season should be charged with fraud. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted November 4, 2019 Author Share Posted November 4, 2019 Just now, ReadyToThump said: Whoever got me fired up about this defense at the beginning of the season should be charged with fraud. Pettine should be charged with theft then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted November 4, 2019 Author Share Posted November 4, 2019 I’m just hoping LaFleur kept Pettine only for advice on head coaching and to see what he had on defense before he hires a different coordinator. No longer a fan of Pettine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howler Posted November 4, 2019 Share Posted November 4, 2019 1 minute ago, Outpost31 said: I’m just hoping LaFleur kept Pettine only for advice on head coaching and to see what he had on defense before he hires a different coordinator. No longer a fan of Pettine. I wouldn't go that far. But besides the glut of yards, his unit has held up in the red zone. There has been a method to his madness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReadyToThump Posted November 4, 2019 Share Posted November 4, 2019 1 minute ago, Outpost31 said: Pettine should be charged with theft then. What about MLF/Rodgers force feeding Adams? All I could think about was how Adams comes back and instantly our offense sucks again. If you were the DA, what charges would you hit them with? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howler Posted November 4, 2019 Share Posted November 4, 2019 Just now, ReadyToThump said: What about MLF/Rodgers force feeding Adams? All I could think about was how Adams comes back and instantly our offense sucks again. If you were the DA, what charges would you hit them with? I read somewhere that excluding the Oakland game, the packers wrs have only compiled 329 yards in the games against Dallas, Oakland & KC. This is a major problem. Yes, our backs are good, but they shouldn't be outproducing the wrs on a weekly basis. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted November 4, 2019 Share Posted November 4, 2019 It's all because we didn't sign Connor Barwin, Zach Brown, and DJ Swearinger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted November 4, 2019 Author Share Posted November 4, 2019 Just now, ReadyToThump said: What about MLF/Rodgers force feeding Adams? All I could think about was how Adams comes back and instantly our offense sucks again. If you were the DA, what charges would you hit them with? Well, I said exactly that would happen. The best thing to happen to Favre in Favre's career was losing Sterling Sharpe. Once Favre lost him and could not key in on him every single game, Favre became a legend with a three year stretch that, considering the time, might be a top 5 three year stretch for any QB ever. Davante Adams was targeted 11 times yesterday. One third of Aaron's targets. That cannot happen. Rodgers has his (literally) best two game stretch of his career (this is literally true, LITERALLY) without Adams. Adams comes back and he has 4.6 yards per attempt. I just really hope people see that as anything other than mere coincidence. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReadyToThump Posted November 4, 2019 Share Posted November 4, 2019 Just now, Howler said: I read somewhere that excluding the Oakland game, the packers wrs have only compiled 329 yards in the games against Dallas, Oakland & KC. This is a major problem. Yes, our backs are good, but they shouldn't be outproducing the wrs on a weekly basis. I agree, but the offense looked great schematically, getting mismatches, hell even Graham looked good. Yesterday was the worst offensive ball we've played all year, I'm not sure if it was because the Chargers have a great defense or if the gameplan got scuffed and that having to do with Adams returning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted November 4, 2019 Share Posted November 4, 2019 1 minute ago, Outpost31 said: One third of Aaron's targets. I don't even have a problem with this TBH, in theory. But it was just ugly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenrik Posted November 4, 2019 Share Posted November 4, 2019 15 minutes ago, Howler said: I read somewhere that excluding the Oakland game, the packers wrs have only compiled 329 yards in the games against Dallas, Oakland & KC. This is a major problem. Yes, our backs are good, but they shouldn't be outproducing the wrs on a weekly basis. I wonder how close this stat is to the Patriots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted November 4, 2019 Author Share Posted November 4, 2019 (edited) Just now, Kenrik said: I wonder how close this stat is to the Patriots. Dorsett alone has 299 receiving yards. Probably because this crazy thing happens in New England. Not sure how it works, but it looks like when Tom Brady throws to open receivers, they gain yards. I think what might be missing is that Brady seems to throw it in such a way as it is possible for them to catch it. Also seems like the act of throwing the ball when they are open is important, too. I wonder if this would work in Green Bay. I feel like one opportunity to test this was two weeks ago on a flea flicker where MVS was open for about a 40 yard TD, but instead Rodgers tried the not throwing it method and for whatever reason it didn't work out. I know yesterday Rodgers tried the throw it 2 yards short of MVS method and that didn't work either. Would need a football expert to tell me more. This method also seems to work for undrafted rookies in New England as Jakobi Meyers has 172 receiving yards. Also, the 329 yards by our receivers excluding Oakland game isn't accurate at all. Lol. MVS has 420 yards. Allison has 205. Kumerow has 140. Lazard has 193. MVS - 133 versus Oakland, Lazard 42, Allison 33, Kumerow 54. That's 696 yards from our receivers excluding the Oakland game. Edited November 4, 2019 by Outpost31 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malfatron Posted November 4, 2019 Share Posted November 4, 2019 We had a defense. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOnlyThing Posted November 4, 2019 Share Posted November 4, 2019 (edited) Wrong thread. Edited November 4, 2019 by TheOnlyThing 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KFP7 Posted November 4, 2019 Share Posted November 4, 2019 8 minutes ago, Outpost31 said: Dorsett alone has 299 receiving yards. Probably because this crazy thing happens in New England. Not sure how it works, but it looks like when Tom Brady throws to open receivers, they gain yards. I think what might be missing is that Brady seems to throw it in such a way as it is possible for them to catch it. Also seems like the act of throwing the ball when they are open is important, too. I wonder if this would work in Green Bay. I feel like one opportunity to test this was two weeks ago on a flea flicker where MVS was open for about a 40 yard TD, but instead Rodgers tried the not throwing it method and for whatever reason it didn't work out. I know yesterday Rodgers tried the throw it 2 yards short of MVS method and that didn't work either. Would need a football expert to tell me more. This method also seems to work for undrafted rookies in New England as Jakobi Meyers has 172 receiving yards. Also, the 329 yards by our receivers excluding Oakland game isn't accurate at all. Lol. MVS has 420 yards. Allison has 205. Kumerow has 140. Lazard has 193. MVS - 133 versus Oakland, Lazard 42, Allison 33, Kumerow 54. That's 696 yards from our receivers excluding the Oakland game. The original quote said in games against Dallas, Oakland and KC...but excluding Oakland.....so only looking at the Dallas and KC games? Weird way of wording that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.