GEEEeeezzz... lose to them?...GB?

[John63]

Had we been close to full health we would have embarrassed them on their turf. Good thing we had one hand tied behind our backs so they could advance to get their @sses handed to them in Santa Clara.

we had 2 hands tied behind our back for a half injuries and play calling/design/system. Then in the 2nd half only 1

 

[xray]

Maybe ..just maybe...the Hawks have lots of work to do in the off season .

 

[Tical21]

Yeah, I'm sure that's exactly what happens. Pete goes up to him before every game "hey, if we call a dig route, we get the coverage we anticipated, and it's wide open, don't you dare throw that ball."

reading its fundamental if its wide open it is not a gamble now, is it? try reading what's written for once.

then why doesn't he throw it?

Well lets see, oh wait you did not prove that it was there, wide open, and the right down and distance, and he did not throw it, and he has never thrown it. So prove it.

Dude, there are examples all over Twitter of wide open primary targets that Russ was staring at this week and wouldn’t pull the trigger. I’m pretty sure even the most ardent of Wilson supporters would concede this point.

 

[John63]

reading its fundamental if its wide open it is not a gamble now, is it? try reading what's written for once.

then why doesn't he throw it?

Well lets see, oh wait you did not prove that it was there, wide open, and the right down and distance, and he did not throw it, and he has never thrown it. So prove it.

Dude, there are examples all over Twitter of wide open primary targets that Russ was staring at this week and wouldn’t pull the trigger. I’m pretty sure even the most ardent of Wilson supporters would concede this point.

So in other wrods you have nothing, got it.

 

[MontanaHawk05]

then why doesn't he throw it?

Well lets see, oh wait you did not prove that it was there, wide open, and the right down and distance, and he did not throw it, and he has never thrown it. So prove it.

Dude, there are examples all over Twitter of wide open primary targets that Russ was staring at this week and wouldn’t pull the trigger. I’m pretty sure even the most ardent of Wilson supporters would concede this point.

So in other wrods you have nothing, got it.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/cmikesspinmove/status/1218250710753533952[/tweet]

Here's one good example. He makes throws like this all the time, so we know he can do it. But he didn't make the play there.

 

[BITTER ROOT]

Played Lynch too much. His only value is a one yard plunge. Travis Homer and his speed would have given the Seahawks a better chance to win.

 

[John63]

Well lets see, oh wait you did not prove that it was there, wide open, and the right down and distance, and he did not throw it, and he has never thrown it. So prove it.

Dude, there are examples all over Twitter of wide open primary targets that Russ was staring at this week and wouldn’t pull the trigger. I’m pretty sure even the most ardent of Wilson supporters would concede this point.

So in other wrods you have nothing, got it.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/cmikesspinmove/status/1218250710753533952[/tweet]

Here's one good example. He makes throws like this all the time, so we know he can do it. But he didn't make the play there.

Well for one the poster said Kenny clark killed it so it was not wide open as the criteria Tical said. Also if he makes the throws all time but kissed one then again tical criteria does not work as he eluded he never does it.

 

[KiwiHawk]

Had we been close to full health we would have embarrassed them on their turf. Good thing we had one hand tied behind our backs so they could advance to get their @sses handed to them in Santa Clara.

we had 2 hands tied behind our back for a half injuries and play calling/design/system. Then in the 2nd half only 1

And if you keep repeating he was hampered by play calls and the system, it might even come true! Except it's not supported by the *actual* play calls on the day. Minor problem, but I am sure repetition will overcome it and it will go down in Seahawks lore as All Pete's Fault.

I mean, isn't that what you're taught these days? Repeat the same lie over and over and people will believe it?

 

[John63]

Had we been close to full health we would have embarrassed them on their turf. Good thing we had one hand tied behind our backs so they could advance to get their @sses handed to them in Santa Clara.

we had 2 hands tied behind our back for a half injuries and play calling/design/system. Then in the 2nd half only 1

And if you keep repeating he was hampered by play calls and the system, it might even come true! Except it's not supported by the *actual* play calls on the day. Minor problem, but I am sure repetition will overcome it and it will go down in Seahawks lore as All Pete's Fault.

I mean, isn't that what you're taught these days? Repeat the same lie over and over and people will believe it?

Lol whatever you day mr blissful.

 

[RolandDeschain]

Good post. I appreciate when people bring actual stats to the conversation.

There's a major problem with the assertion from his post, and yours backing it: you guys think passing is aggressive and running is conservative, by and large.

Which is, of course, not true...

Taking exception to a poster's choice of adjectives in no way deflects from the usefulness of actual drive summaries and run/pass counts provided.

Actual content matters ........ especially when it puts a spot light on suspect assertions or inferences.

How else can I put it? Run/pass counts is not indicative of much, and CERTAINLY not aggressiveness vs. conservatism on offense.

 

[Scorpion05]

Getting tired of the revisionist history/bovine faeces coming from some of you.

We didn't have a conservative game plan to open against Green Bay. Here's our first series:
1: 11-yard pass to Hollister
2: Lynch for no gain
3: Wilson sacked
4: Wilson incomplete deep left to Metcalf
5: Punt

That's 4 offensive plays - 3 pass and one run.

6: Lynch for 8 yards
7: Lynch for 1 yard
8: Lynch for no gain
9: Punt

Before you start the celebration that you got a conservative series to wave around, let me ask you this: When you have one yard to gain and Marshawn Lynch in the backfield, do you run or pass? If passing is the Worst Play Call In All of NFL History, then you hand it to Lynch, right?

10: Wilson incomplete deep left to Turner
11: Wilson deep left to Lockett for 28 yards
12: Wilson incomplete deep right
13: Lynch for 4
14: Wilson incomplete short left to Hollister
15: Field goal

4 out of 5 plays were passes. Just one run.

16: Lynch for 1 yard
17: Wilson deep left to Lockett for 31
18: Wilson scrambles for 3 (play call was a pass, Wilson had to scramble)
19: Wilson to Metcalf for 13
20: Moore right end for 6
21: Wilson sacked for -4
22: Wilson incomplete short left to Homer
23: Field goal missed

5 out of 7 pass plays. Just two runs, for 10 yards.

24: Wilson to Lockett for 14
25: Wilson to Metcalf for 8
26: Wilson sacked for -2
27: Wilson scrambles for 13
28: Wilson spikes the ball to stop the clock
29: Wilson pass incomplete (Hail Mary)

6 consecutive pass plays to finish out the half.

So far, it's 18-7 pass to run, and some of the runs were situational 2nd-and-2, 3rd-and-1. After this expansive passing offense, letting Wilson loose, what's the score? 21-3 Green Bay.

So spare me the bovine excrement about how we called too conservative a game in the first half. We called pass plays, and we only ran situationally, and the offense didn't get the job done.

Your argument ended the moment you excused 3 straight runs by Lynch on a drive.

It’s easy to paint propaganda and a narrative, if your only goal is to win an argument. Try seeking TRUTH instead, and maybe, even if we all disagree you won’t come across as stubborn. Let’s review the play by play:

The first 4 out of 7 plays were run. Off the bat, coming into Lambeau field with a gameplan that conservative is..weak. Use the pass to set up the run, especially if your 3 running backs were injured. Green Bay was already up by 7.

After those 3 straight runs, it was a 4th & 1. A “conservative” gameplan is not going for it. The Chiefs, Ravens, etc. go for it there.


The conservative gameplan wasn’t the only criticism of the offense. It was the long developing routes instead of a quick passing game. It was wasting even one drive on an RB who came off the street 2 weeks ago. Saying that the offense didn’t get it done, and failing to critique the scheme, the lack of motion and play action, the lack of a quick passing game with two high safeties, THAT was the issue. If you’re just here to declare a point instead of having a genuine football debate why are you here? The gameplan should have been centered around a diverse passing game. Literally no one with decent football IQ believes the Seahawks call pass plays with any rhythm.

Our scoring drives came only AFTER the first two wasted drives, and everyone knows Pete wants Schotty and Russell to play conservatively and “feel out” the defense. Without taking risks. The extended streak of passing plays came only after we fell 14-3, and our only scoring drives in the red zone came when we mainly focused on passing. That should have been the game plan from the start, as opposed to going down 7 IMMEDIATELY and calling FOUR run plays out of SEVEN. With Lynch and Homer.

To pretend that conservative or poor game planning is ONLY about run plays is absurd and a complete distortion of what people have been arguing.

 

[Scorpion05]

Had we been close to full health we would have embarrassed them on their turf. Good thing we had one hand tied behind our backs so they could advance to get their @sses handed to them in Santa Clara.

we had 2 hands tied behind our back for a half injuries and play calling/design/system. Then in the 2nd half only 1

And if you keep repeating he was hampered by play calls and the system, it might even come true! Except it's not supported by the *actual* play calls on the day. Minor problem, but I am sure repetition will overcome it and it will go down in Seahawks lore as All Pete's Fault.

I mean, isn't that what you're taught these days? Repeat the same lie over and over and people will believe it?

It’s supported by Pete’s pattern with all of his teams, even pre-Wilson. I guess if you ignore context and facts it will be true. The Seahawks are the only fan base with a QB at Russell’s level of play to have fans like yourself ignore context at all costs to bash their QB. Hyperbole? Prove me wrong.

The Packers got the opening drive, scored 7-0. We had two drives to start, and 4 out of those 7 plays were run. By the time we went pass heavy on the 3rd drive we made it to the red zone, and scored a field goal, then the Packers answered the drive after. 14-3.

Oh, and we didn’t go for it on 4th down.

So off the bat, we’re in a hole, because our first two drives were FACTUALLY conservative. Three straight runs on the second drive, down 7-0, and your critique Wilson at all costs logic is, what??

 

[Scorpion05]

Getting tired of the revisionist history/bovine faeces coming from some of you.

We didn't have a conservative game plan to open against Green Bay. Here's our first series:
1: 11-yard pass to Hollister
2: Lynch for no gain
3: Wilson sacked
4: Wilson incomplete deep left to Metcalf
5: Punt

That's 4 offensive plays - 3 pass and one run.

6: Lynch for 8 yards
7: Lynch for 1 yard
8: Lynch for no gain
9: Punt

Before you start the celebration that you got a conservative series to wave around, let me ask you this: When you have one yard to gain and Marshawn Lynch in the backfield, do you run or pass? If passing is the Worst Play Call In All of NFL History, then you hand it to Lynch, right?

10: Wilson incomplete deep left to Turner
11: Wilson deep left to Lockett for 28 yards
12: Wilson incomplete deep right
13: Lynch for 4
14: Wilson incomplete short left to Hollister
15: Field goal

4 out of 5 plays were passes. Just one run.

16: Lynch for 1 yard
17: Wilson deep left to Lockett for 31
18: Wilson scrambles for 3 (play call was a pass, Wilson had to scramble)
19: Wilson to Metcalf for 13
20: Moore right end for 6
21: Wilson sacked for -4
22: Wilson incomplete short left to Homer
23: Field goal missed

5 out of 7 pass plays. Just two runs, for 10 yards.

24: Wilson to Lockett for 14
25: Wilson to Metcalf for 8
26: Wilson sacked for -2
27: Wilson scrambles for 13
28: Wilson spikes the ball to stop the clock
29: Wilson pass incomplete (Hail Mary)

6 consecutive pass plays to finish out the half.

So far, it's 18-7 pass to run, and some of the runs were situational 2nd-and-2, 3rd-and-1. After this expansive passing offense, letting Wilson loose, what's the score? 21-3 Green Bay.

So spare me the bovine excrement about how we called too conservative a game in the first half. We called pass plays, and we only ran situationally, and the offense didn't get the job done.

You can write that down all day long in every thread but it won't matter much. Once people get a hold of a narrative, they'll keep moving the goal posts to satisfy it. First it was "we force the run too much early", until it's shown we pass more than run in the first half. Then it's " we throw deep too much ", until it's shown we aren't running all receivers on 9 routes every pass play. Then it's "we don't game plan to score in the first half", until it's shown that our scoring splits by half are virtually equal. All that boils down to the coaches suck because they keep running plays that don't work when they should just call plays that work. The don't watch every offensive play of other teams all year long, so they don't notice that every team has the same issues over a whole season. Every year there are a couple of teams that mostly have things go their way and roll just about every game (Ravens or Rams last year). Even those teams don't sustain it from year to year very often for any number of reasons. It's very similar to the hyper critical fans of Russell. They don't see all the bad throws and missed reads of other QB throughout a year. They only see the highlights or the final stat line.
I don't think anyone would argue that it would be nice for the offense to more efficient, but there are some things yo can't scheme your way out of. A bad O-line is one of them.

Yea well, I’m gonna be that guy.

The Packers scored on their opening drive. We were down 7-0.

The Seahawks responded by going two straight drives, conservatively.

On the 1st drive, we ran Lynch for 1 yard, putting Russell in an uncomfortable 2nd & 10, behind that O-line.

2nd & 10, no play action, Russell is pressured in just under 3 seconds. No play action, misdirection, nothing. Sack. 3rd & 10, which is another long down and distance... Punt

Second drive, 3 straight runs. Punt. Didn’t even go for it on 4th and 1.

3rd drive, Pass heavy approach, yay! Finally some points on the board. No quick strike passing game with pressure in Russell’s face, but whatever. Bad O-lines and injuries are irrelevant.

4th drive, already down 14-3. More passing plays to inflate the narrative that we were “aggressive.” Hard not to be when you’re down 14-3.

End of half, down 21-3. So to review, on our first two drives...already down a touchdown, in one of the hardest places to play, you all are justifying...four runs out of seven plays on the first two drives and punting on 4th & 1?? That is your argument that some of us love “narratives??”

Let’s use common sense here, and be willing to acknowledge when any of us are right, or wrong. How exactly are you able to justify the first two drives and the play calling, especially when the opposing team is already up by a touchdown? No one is here to argue Russell doesn’t make mistakes, or miss throws. As MontanaHawk pointed out, Russ might have missed a couple even with pressure in his face. But again, how...HOW do you justify the first two drives, and then spin the narrative that we weren’t conservative to start?

 

[chris98251]

Getting tired of the revisionist history/bovine faeces coming from some of you.

We didn't have a conservative game plan to open against Green Bay. Here's our first series:
1: 11-yard pass to Hollister
2: Lynch for no gain
3: Wilson sacked
4: Wilson incomplete deep left to Metcalf
5: Punt

That's 4 offensive plays - 3 pass and one run.

6: Lynch for 8 yards
7: Lynch for 1 yard
8: Lynch for no gain
9: Punt

Before you start the celebration that you got a conservative series to wave around, let me ask you this: When you have one yard to gain and Marshawn Lynch in the backfield, do you run or pass? If passing is the Worst Play Call In All of NFL History, then you hand it to Lynch, right?

10: Wilson incomplete deep left to Turner
11: Wilson deep left to Lockett for 28 yards
12: Wilson incomplete deep right
13: Lynch for 4
14: Wilson incomplete short left to Hollister
15: Field goal

4 out of 5 plays were passes. Just one run.

16: Lynch for 1 yard
17: Wilson deep left to Lockett for 31
18: Wilson scrambles for 3 (play call was a pass, Wilson had to scramble)
19: Wilson to Metcalf for 13
20: Moore right end for 6
21: Wilson sacked for -4
22: Wilson incomplete short left to Homer
23: Field goal missed

5 out of 7 pass plays. Just two runs, for 10 yards.

24: Wilson to Lockett for 14
25: Wilson to Metcalf for 8
26: Wilson sacked for -2
27: Wilson scrambles for 13
28: Wilson spikes the ball to stop the clock
29: Wilson pass incomplete (Hail Mary)

6 consecutive pass plays to finish out the half.

So far, it's 18-7 pass to run, and some of the runs were situational 2nd-and-2, 3rd-and-1. After this expansive passing offense, letting Wilson loose, what's the score? 21-3 Green Bay.

So spare me the bovine excrement about how we called too conservative a game in the first half. We called pass plays, and we only ran situationally, and the offense didn't get the job done.

You can write that down all day long in every thread but it won't matter much. Once people get a hold of a narrative, they'll keep moving the goal posts to satisfy it. First it was "we force the run too much early", until it's shown we pass more than run in the first half. Then it's " we throw deep too much ", until it's shown we aren't running all receivers on 9 routes every pass play. Then it's "we don't game plan to score in the first half", until it's shown that our scoring splits by half are virtually equal. All that boils down to the coaches suck because they keep running plays that don't work when they should just call plays that work. The don't watch every offensive play of other teams all year long, so they don't notice that every team has the same issues over a whole season. Every year there are a couple of teams that mostly have things go their way and roll just about every game (Ravens or Rams last year). Even those teams don't sustain it from year to year very often for any number of reasons. It's very similar to the hyper critical fans of Russell. They don't see all the bad throws and missed reads of other QB throughout a year. They only see the highlights or the final stat line.
I don't think anyone would argue that it would be nice for the offense to more efficient, but there are some things yo can't scheme your way out of. A bad O-line is one of them.

Yea well, I’m gonna be that guy.

The Packers scored on their opening drive. We were down 7-0.

The Seahawks responded by going two straight drives, conservatively.

On the 1st drive, we ran Lynch for 1 yard, putting Russell in an uncomfortable 2nd & 10, behind that O-line.

2nd & 10, no play action, Russell is pressured in just under 3 seconds. No play action, misdirection, nothing. Sack. 3rd & 10, which is another long down and distance... Punt

Second drive, 3 straight runs. Punt. Didn’t even go for it on 4th and 1.

3rd drive, Pass heavy approach, yay! Finally some points on the board. No quick strike passing game with pressure in Russell’s face, but whatever. Bad O-lines and injuries are irrelevant.

4th drive, already down 14-3.

Let’s use common sense here, and be willing to acknowledge when any of us are right, or wrong. How exactly are you able to justify the first two drives and the play calling, especially when the opposing team is already up by a touchdown? No one is here to argue Russell doesn’t make mistakes, or miss throws. As MontanaHawk pointed out, Russ might have missed a couple even with pressure in his face. But again, how...HOW do you justify the first two drives, and then spin the narrative that we weren’t conservative to start?

It's called a game plan, script plays to supposedly see how they are defending you so you can install plays that will work against the looks you get. But I get it, damn down by a touchdown in the first quarter to hell with running the ball pass pass pass and we win I guess.

 

[John63]

Getting tired of the revisionist history/bovine faeces coming from some of you.

We didn't have a conservative game plan to open against Green Bay. Here's our first series:
1: 11-yard pass to Hollister
2: Lynch for no gain
3: Wilson sacked
4: Wilson incomplete deep left to Metcalf
5: Punt

That's 4 offensive plays - 3 pass and one run.

6: Lynch for 8 yards
7: Lynch for 1 yard
8: Lynch for no gain
9: Punt

Before you start the celebration that you got a conservative series to wave around, let me ask you this: When you have one yard to gain and Marshawn Lynch in the backfield, do you run or pass? If passing is the Worst Play Call In All of NFL History, then you hand it to Lynch, right?

10: Wilson incomplete deep left to Turner
11: Wilson deep left to Lockett for 28 yards
12: Wilson incomplete deep right
13: Lynch for 4
14: Wilson incomplete short left to Hollister
15: Field goal

4 out of 5 plays were passes. Just one run.

16: Lynch for 1 yard
17: Wilson deep left to Lockett for 31
18: Wilson scrambles for 3 (play call was a pass, Wilson had to scramble)
19: Wilson to Metcalf for 13
20: Moore right end for 6
21: Wilson sacked for -4
22: Wilson incomplete short left to Homer
23: Field goal missed

5 out of 7 pass plays. Just two runs, for 10 yards.

24: Wilson to Lockett for 14
25: Wilson to Metcalf for 8
26: Wilson sacked for -2
27: Wilson scrambles for 13
28: Wilson spikes the ball to stop the clock
29: Wilson pass incomplete (Hail Mary)

6 consecutive pass plays to finish out the half.

So far, it's 18-7 pass to run, and some of the runs were situational 2nd-and-2, 3rd-and-1. After this expansive passing offense, letting Wilson loose, what's the score? 21-3 Green Bay.

So spare me the bovine excrement about how we called too conservative a game in the first half. We called pass plays, and we only ran situationally, and the offense didn't get the job done.

You can write that down all day long in every thread but it won't matter much. Once people get a hold of a narrative, they'll keep moving the goal posts to satisfy it. First it was "we force the run too much early", until it's shown we pass more than run in the first half. Then it's " we throw deep too much ", until it's shown we aren't running all receivers on 9 routes every pass play. Then it's "we don't game plan to score in the first half", until it's shown that our scoring splits by half are virtually equal. All that boils down to the coaches suck because they keep running plays that don't work when they should just call plays that work. The don't watch every offensive play of other teams all year long, so they don't notice that every team has the same issues over a whole season. Every year there are a couple of teams that mostly have things go their way and roll just about every game (Ravens or Rams last year). Even those teams don't sustain it from year to year very often for any number of reasons. It's very similar to the hyper critical fans of Russell. They don't see all the bad throws and missed reads of other QB throughout a year. They only see the highlights or the final stat line.
I don't think anyone would argue that it would be nice for the offense to more efficient, but there are some things yo can't scheme your way out of. A bad O-line is one of them.

Yea well, I’m gonna be that guy.

The Packers scored on their opening drive. We were down 7-0.

The Seahawks responded by going two straight drives, conservatively.

On the 1st drive, we ran Lynch for 1 yard, putting Russell in an uncomfortable 2nd & 10, behind that O-line.

2nd & 10, no play action, Russell is pressured in just under 3 seconds. No play action, misdirection, nothing. Sack. 3rd & 10, which is another long down and distance... Punt

Second drive, 3 straight runs. Punt. Didn’t even go for it on 4th and 1.

3rd drive, Pass heavy approach, yay! Finally some points on the board. No quick strike passing game with pressure in Russell’s face, but whatever. Bad O-lines and injuries are irrelevant.

4th drive, already down 14-3.

Let’s use common sense here, and be willing to acknowledge when any of us are right, or wrong. How exactly are you able to justify the first two drives and the play calling, especially when the opposing team is already up by a touchdown? No one is here to argue Russell doesn’t make mistakes, or miss throws. As MontanaHawk pointed out, Russ might have missed a couple even with pressure in his face. But again, how...HOW do you justify the first two drives, and then spin the narrative that we weren’t conservative to start?

It's called a game plan, script plays to supposedly see how they are defending you so you can install plays that will work against the looks you get. But I get it, damn down by a touchdown in the first quarter to hell with running the ball pass pass pass and we win I guess.

Ahh except they did not "install" plays that would work till the 2nd half and the plays that they "installed" might have worked in the 1st half, and let's add after doing what most coaches do. Or supposedly doing it, that being watching film, they should have a pretty good idea what should work. For instances pretty sure after the end drive they should have k ow running between the center and guard on the left side was not working, but they kept doing it, also isn't it amazing how every game what works is uptempo/change tempo. Quick passing game. After 17 games of it working one would think they might run it for a while game. I mean you would think we should run what works rather than wasting a half of football.

 

[Scorpion05]

It's called a game plan, script plays to supposedly see how they are defending you so you can install plays that will work against the looks you get. But I get it, damn down by a touchdown in the first quarter to hell with running the ball pass pass pass and we win I guess.

That’s the point. It was a bad game plan.

The pass should have been used to set up the run. There should have been more creativity, mixing it up. Our offense isn’t creative and Pete has a philosophy. I don’t know why many in here are stubbornly ignoring that.

We started out conservatively, as we always do and only got aggressive when we fell behind. The idea that we passed for most of the first half is a false narrative. Literally none of the posters here pointed out the CONTEXT of in game situation. We’re down by a touchdown, and we waste two early drives with a sketchy defense playing the field position game. We could have easily gone down 14-0 early, and that would have been a problem. We went down 14-3, largely because we wasted early drives being conservative. At Lambeau field.

The only time we scored points was when we went pass heavy, and aggressive. The game should have started out that way.

In week 17, with Lynch coming off the street, half of our first 15 plays were runs. This makes zero sense, and we were down 13-0. That isn’t “aggressive.” The second half offense was when it got a little creative and aggressive with a mix of strikes. Pete creates a “body blows” plan and then asks Russ to save the day when the plan doesn’t work. This is exacerbated by the fact that the offense is built around the running philosophy and NOT the best player on offense.

 

[chris98251]

It's called a game plan, script plays to supposedly see how they are defending you so you can install plays that will work against the looks you get. But I get it, damn down by a touchdown in the first quarter to hell with running the ball pass pass pass and we win I guess.

That’s the point. It was a bad game plan.

The pass should have been used to set up the run. There should have been more creativity, mixing it up. Our offense isn’t creative and Pete has a philosophy. I don’t know why many in here are stubbornly ignoring that.

We started out conservatively, as we always do and only got aggressive when we fell behind. The idea that we passed for most of the first half is a false narrative. Literally none of the posters here pointed out the CONTEXT of in game situation. We’re down by a touchdown, and we waste two early drives with a sketchy defense playing the field position game. We could have easily gone down 14-0 early, and that would have been a problem. We went down 14-3, largely because we wasted early drives being conservative. At Lambeau field.

The only time we scored points was when we went pass heavy, and aggressive. The game should have started out that way.

In week 17, with Lynch coming off the street, half of our first 15 plays were runs. This makes zero sense, and we were down 13-0. That isn’t “aggressive.” The second half offense was when it got a little creative and aggressive with a mix of strikes. Pete creates a “body blows” plan and then asks Russ to save the day when the plan doesn’t work. This is exacerbated by the fact that the offense is built around the running philosophy and NOT the best player on offense.

So where do you get that offensive line to pass block all game when GB knows your just going to pass, Hunt had a broken leg and then multiple dislocations of a finger, Brown should not have been out there and was playing on guts, a Rookie at LG, Ifedi the human revolving door and Fluker who only has a forward gear and no back peddle.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

If we still had Carson and Penny, they win that game in GB, period.

 

[John63]

It's called a game plan, script plays to supposedly see how they are defending you so you can install plays that will work against the looks you get. But I get it, damn down by a touchdown in the first quarter to hell with running the ball pass pass pass and we win I guess.

That’s the point. It was a bad game plan.

The pass should have been used to set up the run. There should have been more creativity, mixing it up. Our offense isn’t creative and Pete has a philosophy. I don’t know why many in here are stubbornly ignoring that.

We started out conservatively, as we always do and only got aggressive when we fell behind. The idea that we passed for most of the first half is a false narrative. Literally none of the posters here pointed out the CONTEXT of in game situation. We’re down by a touchdown, and we waste two early drives with a sketchy defense playing the field position game. We could have easily gone down 14-0 early, and that would have been a problem. We went down 14-3, largely because we wasted early drives being conservative. At Lambeau field.

The only time we scored points was when we went pass heavy, and aggressive. The game should have started out that way.

In week 17, with Lynch coming off the street, half of our first 15 plays were runs. This makes zero sense, and we were down 13-0. That isn’t “aggressive.” The second half offense was when it got a little creative and aggressive with a mix of strikes. Pete creates a “body blows” plan and then asks Russ to save the day when the plan doesn’t work. This is exacerbated by the fact that the offense is built around the running philosophy and NOT the best player on offense.

So where do you get that offensive line to pass block all game when GB knows your just going to pass, Hunt had a broken leg and then multiple dislocations of a finger, Brown should not have been out there and was playing on guts, a Rookie at LG, Ifedi the human revolving door and Fluker who only has a forward gear and no back peddle.

well for one we still run when we go change tempo, for 2 these are usually quicker passes, so they do not have to block long, and for 3 we don't always wait to the last seconds to snap it, which allows the defense to tee of, in the last game we in the 2nd half we did it with 10 left, 3 left, as soon as we got to the line and at different times. this keep the defense off balance and make sit hard to substitute and actually helps our oline.

 

[Tical21]

Just re-watched the first half of the all-22. Man, we left too many points out there, sacked ourselves too often.