Re: Start looking for a new coach...

by RingoCStarrQB Sun May 05, 2013 7:23 am

Well then don't forget the greatest running play of all time.......the 31 wedge on the goal line in sub-zero temperatures on Dec 31, 1967. You know dang well that if that same scenario played out in January 2014 amidst the new southendzone backdrop that Rodgers would NOT BE dropping back or rolling out looking for fuckin' Finley <<>>. Thanks for the memories Duck. Well Rodgers, McM, TT, Murphy, etc know it our not........the Packers need a running game and a swing pass/screen pass play (at least what Dorsey Levens gave us). GO PACKERs

by PackFanKnowItAll Sun May 05, 2013 8:25 am

duck wrote:
milani wrote:
MB20 wrote:
duck wrote:
_HD_ wrote:
duck wrote:HD and FF, it's not that outrageous; in fact I think it's a reasonable and perhaps even sensible coaching move.

First, I'm on record for being appalled at the fact that we didn't get a stud LT somewhere and were seemingly planning to go forward with Newhouse protecting the franchise. However, that's on TT not MM.

MM has no choice now but to utilize his existing players most advantageously. Clearly LT is the most important position and clearly Bulaga (if healthy) is his best tackle. It makes sense to try him out there. I even suggested yesterday that that's what they might do.

As far as the other moving parts, it's not that shocking. Offensive linemen frequently flip sides; we've seen it many times on the Packers when starters went down with injuries. I'm not saying I would propose such wholesale changes, but I'm not appalled or shocked by it either.

Put down the torches and pitchforks, guys. These guys have months to work out the new arrangement. It might even be an improvement.

One thing is for sure... it's better than having Marshall Newhouse protecting Rodgers blind side.

You're missing the point, Duck... The whole reason the Shrekker finds a yes--radical--wholesale disruption of this line necessary is because of the failure to, by all accounts, even make the effort to properly secure a legit LT through any means at their disposal. Instead--they're busy throwing $13M/year at Greg Jennings. Now he is resorting to the extreme of what maybe even has never been done in the NFL... Ridiculous. If they found LT to be that important (as they should) then they should have gone out and made it a priority in the off-season to score someone who can play it, eh?

I understand what you're saying, HD. However, your beef should be with TT not MM. It was the general manager who failed to fill the LT spot appropriately and all the coach is trying to do is make the best of his existing players.

Yet your post is entitled "Start Looking for a New Coach."

I guess the reasoning is that if one side of the line must absolutely suck, it might as well be the side that Rodgers can see.

Aside from Sitton, the TT/MM regime hasn't produced a truly good offensive lineman. I don't know if it's because TT isn't getting good talent, or MM/Campen and their stupid zone blocking scheme (can they please just ditch that bullshit already- it doesn't work) failing to develop talent, but this whole thing is just absurd.

I thought we were moving in a good direction with DeJuan Harris. When you bust one for 20 yards and a TD against the 9ers you've done something right. But we have been a passing team for the last 5 years. We stop running the ball even when we do run it with some success. Rodgers even asked last season if we really need to run the ball well. Our line has not been much of a run blocking group for many years. Pass protection has been their no.1 motivation.

Lombardi ran, ran, ran in Starr's early years. He built a line to do just that. But in Starr's later years as Hornung and Taylor were not as swift he moved the offense to just as much passing and play action. Teams had to pick their poison. We need to move our offense into that blend mode just like teams that were in the last SB.

Milani, with your encyclopedia-like memory I'm surprised you didn't flush this out a little bit more. It wasn't so much that Hornung and Taylor had slowed down at the end of the Lombardi era. They were gone. Neither played with the 1967 Packer Super Bowl team. Injuries at running back decimated the ground game that year too, as castoff Chuck Mercein became the go-to guy in the playoffs.

In both the 1966 and 1967 playoffs it was Bart Starr's passing that carried the team -- NOT the running game. I had a long discussion with the Captain about this many years ago. After I pointed out to him that Bart Starr's playoff QB rating of 104.8 dwarfed Joe Montana's 95.6, he countered that the Packers were a primarily running team and the defenses weren't ready for Starr's passing. I tried to explain to him that that may have been true for the first couple of Packer titles but in the later years, the Packers relied on Starr.

Naturally, the stubborn Montana-worshiper wouldn't acknowledged the facts and likewise, most historians continue to suck Montana's dick while minimizing Starr's achievement. However, the truth is that Bart Starr had a playoff QB rating almost ten points higher than "Super" Joe -- and Starr played in an era in which those ratings league-wise were about 20 points lower than they were in Montana's era, after the NFL instituted rules to favor the passing game. Starr, who threw a grand total of three picks in ten playoff games, also made Montana look like an interception machine. Even better, Starr's 9-1 record gives him a .900 winning percentage -- the best in NFL history and way way ahead of "Super" Joe. Starr also tops Montana in 5 NFL titles to 4.

Starr's 104.8 playoff QB rating remains #1 in NFL history, slightly ahead of Drew Brees and Aaron Rodgers.

OMG, yes, yes, YES!!! I have watched, witnessed, read about, studied, analyzed and played flag, touch, and even one or two games of tackle football for the past 50+ years and this is SO spot on, duck! You must be some kind of GENIUS, duck! But of course you are, guys like us as Packer fans as SO smart, funny, successful, good looking and SMART! Oh man, Starr is SO much better than ANY QB, especially that bum Montanna. God, he is SO overrated! Noodle arm, great talent around him, HOF coach - he basically just had to not screw things up and those teams would win! I know when I wear my Starr and/or Rogers jersey to the local Safeway that people, especially in the San Fran area where I visit often, bow down and tell me how SPECIAL I am and how much better Rogers and Star are then crappy old Joe! It's AWESOME! They even think I AM Rogers most times, asking for autographs and pictures! Oh, it's GREAT! High five, duck! You and I, we're the coolest guys we know! YEAH!!!!!

by duck Sun May 05, 2013 9:00 am

PackFanKnowItAll wrote:
duck wrote:
milani wrote:
MB20 wrote:
duck wrote:
_HD_ wrote:
duck wrote:HD and FF, it's not that outrageous; in fact I think it's a reasonable and perhaps even sensible coaching move.

First, I'm on record for being appalled at the fact that we didn't get a stud LT somewhere and were seemingly planning to go forward with Newhouse protecting the franchise. However, that's on TT not MM.

MM has no choice now but to utilize his existing players most advantageously. Clearly LT is the most important position and clearly Bulaga (if healthy) is his best tackle. It makes sense to try him out there. I even suggested yesterday that that's what they might do.

As far as the other moving parts, it's not that shocking. Offensive linemen frequently flip sides; we've seen it many times on the Packers when starters went down with injuries. I'm not saying I would propose such wholesale changes, but I'm not appalled or shocked by it either.

Put down the torches and pitchforks, guys. These guys have months to work out the new arrangement. It might even be an improvement.

One thing is for sure... it's better than having Marshall Newhouse protecting Rodgers blind side.

You're missing the point, Duck... The whole reason the Shrekker finds a yes--radical--wholesale disruption of this line necessary is because of the failure to, by all accounts, even make the effort to properly secure a legit LT through any means at their disposal. Instead--they're busy throwing $13M/year at Greg Jennings. Now he is resorting to the extreme of what maybe even has never been done in the NFL... Ridiculous. If they found LT to be that important (as they should) then they should have gone out and made it a priority in the off-season to score someone who can play it, eh?

I understand what you're saying, HD. However, your beef should be with TT not MM. It was the general manager who failed to fill the LT spot appropriately and all the coach is trying to do is make the best of his existing players.

Yet your post is entitled "Start Looking for a New Coach."

I guess the reasoning is that if one side of the line must absolutely suck, it might as well be the side that Rodgers can see.

Aside from Sitton, the TT/MM regime hasn't produced a truly good offensive lineman. I don't know if it's because TT isn't getting good talent, or MM/Campen and their stupid zone blocking scheme (can they please just ditch that bullshit already- it doesn't work) failing to develop talent, but this whole thing is just absurd.

I thought we were moving in a good direction with DeJuan Harris. When you bust one for 20 yards and a TD against the 9ers you've done something right. But we have been a passing team for the last 5 years. We stop running the ball even when we do run it with some success. Rodgers even asked last season if we really need to run the ball well. Our line has not been much of a run blocking group for many years. Pass protection has been their no.1 motivation.

Lombardi ran, ran, ran in Starr's early years. He built a line to do just that. But in Starr's later years as Hornung and Taylor were not as swift he moved the offense to just as much passing and play action. Teams had to pick their poison. We need to move our offense into that blend mode just like teams that were in the last SB.

Milani, with your encyclopedia-like memory I'm surprised you didn't flush this out a little bit more. It wasn't so much that Hornung and Taylor had slowed down at the end of the Lombardi era. They were gone. Neither played with the 1967 Packer Super Bowl team. Injuries at running back decimated the ground game that year too, as castoff Chuck Mercein became the go-to guy in the playoffs.

In both the 1966 and 1967 playoffs it was Bart Starr's passing that carried the team -- NOT the running game. I had a long discussion with the Captain about this many years ago. After I pointed out to him that Bart Starr's playoff QB rating of 104.8 dwarfed Joe Montana's 95.6, he countered that the Packers were a primarily running team and the defenses weren't ready for Starr's passing. I tried to explain to him that that may have been true for the first couple of Packer titles but in the later years, the Packers relied on Starr.

Naturally, the stubborn Montana-worshiper wouldn't acknowledged the facts and likewise, most historians continue to suck Montana's dick while minimizing Starr's achievement. However, the truth is that Bart Starr had a playoff QB rating almost ten points higher than "Super" Joe -- and Starr played in an era in which those ratings league-wise were about 20 points lower than they were in Montana's era, after the NFL instituted rules to favor the passing game. Starr, who threw a grand total of three picks in ten playoff games, also made Montana look like an interception machine. Even better, Starr's 9-1 record gives him a .900 winning percentage -- the best in NFL history and way way ahead of "Super" Joe. Starr also tops Montana in 5 NFL titles to 4.

Starr's 104.8 playoff QB rating remains #1 in NFL history, slightly ahead of Drew Brees and Aaron Rodgers.

OMG, yes, yes, YES!!! I have watched, witnessed, read about, studied, analyzed and played flag, touch, and even one or two games of tackle football for the past 50+ years and this is SO spot on, duck! You must be some kind of GENIUS, duck! But of course you are, guys like us as Packer fans as SO smart, funny, successful, good looking and SMART! Oh man, Starr is SO much better than ANY QB, especially that bum Montanna. God, he is SO overrated! Noodle arm, great talent around him, HOF coach - he basically just had to not screw things up and those teams would win! I know when I wear my Starr and/or Rogers jersey to the local Safeway that people, especially in the San Fran area where I visit often, bow down and tell me how SPECIAL I am and how much better Rogers and Star are then crappy old Joe! It's AWESOME! They even think I AM Rogers most times, asking for autographs and pictures! Oh, it's GREAT! High five, duck! You and I, we're the coolest guys we know! YEAH!!!!!

What a surprise... a "Super" Joe Montana post gets the first response from PFKIA in a couple of weeks. Hits you where it hurts, right, PFKIA?

So, I assume you're with me when I say that, while Montana was a great QB, he also benefits from a lot of media worship, and that when you look objectively at the data, relatively unsung Bart Starr clearly out-performed him in the playoffs.

Now, go back to your alley. There are a couple of unzipped sailors waiting for you.

by milani Sun May 05, 2013 3:07 pm

Great talking points, Packer Faithful.

Actually, the change in offense really started in 1965.

We amassed a lot of running yardage in 1964 despite only going 8-5-1. We still lined up in the same formations. Lombardi had Starr using play action on 3rd and short which was unheard of if you were facing a Packer defense prior to then. He even successfully used it on 4th and short. Throw in a bootleg by Bart Kaepernick and reporters were starting to question Lombardi's about face from his past history. But don't think just because it was 1966 and 1967 we abandoned the running game. You can still look at the number of carries per game and it was still equal to or greater than the number of passes we threw.

As to Hornung and Taylor being done..we'll that depends how you look at it. Yes, they had lost a step and they were getting banged up more. But the Packer offense was not just about the runner and his speed. It was about following blockers, knowing when to cut, and reading the direction of the play. If you look at our final TD drive in the 1965 championsip in the mud and snow vs. Cleveland it was all on the ground. All 70+ yards were all Tayor, Hornung, and the blocking. None of it was AP, OJ, or Barry Sanders. It was all Lombardi running game.

And although Elijah Pitts was faster than Hornung neither he nor Anderson, Grabowski, Williams, or Mercein nor any other running back in the league could pass block or run block as well as Thunder and Lightning. Not even the great Jim Brown.

And both Taylor and Hornung were an integral part of the passing game including the run after the catch. They still had this ability. And look at the number of fumbles per carry lost in the Hornung-Taylor history and you can see why Lombardi was so worried in 1967 when they were gone.

They really were not gone as you would say at least up til then. What did Hornung in came on his final TD at Wrigley field when he was sandwiched in between a Taylor block and a Butkus crunch. His pinched nerve had seen its last and he could no longer do what he did so well. Taylor still would have been a Packer in 1967 and maybe 1968. But Lombardi had forked all the cash on Anderson and Grabowski and Jim was not going to play for $30-35,000 when he knew he would be in the HOF some day. It was an insult to him.

by RingoCStarrQB Mon May 06, 2013 7:48 pm

We had a glimpse of greatness with Brockington and Lane. Then Terdell Middleton........Eddie Lee Ivery and Gerry Ellis........Brent Fullwood.......Darrell Thompson......Paul Ott.......Kenneth Davis. Finally got something good going with Edgar Bennett and Dorsey Levens......then Ahman Green. Starks got it done for one year only. Realistically we haven't had what we want since Taylor and Hornung (and Pitts and Moore).

by Sponsored content