McCarthy: We didn't avoid Sherman on purpose

hawknation2014 · Sep 6, 2014

GREEN BAY, Wis. -- Aaron Rodgers and the Green Bay Packers didn't challenge cornerback Richard Sherman once in Thursday's 36-16 loss to the Seattle Seahawks. On Friday, coach Mike McCarthy said his quarterback wasn't intentionally avoiding one of the league's top cover men.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11473 ... rd-sherman

rubyweapon7 · Sep 6, 2014

As a Packers fan, I call bullcrap on that. Just watch the game and you know the real truth.

hawknation2014 · Sep 6, 2014

This is really more of a question for Aaron Rodgers. I have no idea if it was in the game plan, but Rodgers appeared to have told Sherman after the game "yup" in response to whether he was intentionally avoiding Sherman's side of the field. Honestly, I don't understand the controversy. Rodgers was smart to avoid Sherman and attack the other corners.

chris98251 · Sep 6, 2014

Rodgers may not have, but the staff sure was and I'm sure he was doing as he was directed. He was given a six gun but only three bullets the whole game, run, dink, and dunk.

Scottemojo · Sep 6, 2014

McCarthy also said they were trying to see if Seattle would move Sherman over to the other side. HAHAHA. Really? C'mon Mike, you are better than that, don't fib.

Sherman will get his chances, not every team will be so wimpy.

Pandion Haliaetus · Sep 6, 2014

hawknation2014":1562iylx said:
This is really more of a question for Aaron Rodgers. I have no idea if it was in the game plan, but Rodgers appeared to have told Sherman after the game "yup" in response to whether he was intentionally avoiding Sherman's side of the field. Honestly, I don't understand the controversy. Rodgers was smart to avoid Sherman and attack the other corners.

Wrong, IF you want to beat Seattle's Passing D , you can't be afraid of Sherman's side of the field. You also won't win playing conservative, you have to take shots down-field and either hope you get lucky and the WR makes an unbelievable play OR you get lucky and the Defense makes a mistake.

Its not smart what-so-ever allowing Sherman to take away 1/3rd of your field.

1. You're not going to beat Thomas over the top and you're allowing Thomas to shade to Maxwell's side more often than not.
2. You allow Kam to patrol the middle zone and he'll destroy everything in his path.
3. All our LBers have good range and excel in zone coverages
4. The RT becomes the blindside protector, a realization that many are putting out there now.

And thinking about it... I now understand the genius of Quinn's defense and why he essentially flipped the strongside and weakside personnel the way he did last year and why the Seahawks could let Clemons and Bryant walk. Because Sherman shuts down his 3rd of the field, nothing is getting past Thomas, you don't want to cross paths with Chancellor, Wagner could have the best range out of all LBs, it leaves the left side of the field where QBs have to throw across their bodies =,more mistakes and the dump-off where our OLBs are prepared to eat you up. But best of all it turns the right side of the O-Line into the blindside protection.

Teams spend tens of millions of dollars investing in top level LTs and LGs to protect the blindside, and here's Seattle, and you don't want to throw at Richard Sherman because he's the most dangerous CB in the NFL. Well, we are going to line up Avril on your RT, and Bennett on your RG.

You want to know why the Seahawks were so successful with just a 4 man rush, and why Avril and Bennett were so effective, its because the Seahawks have the best 2ndary in the NFL, it has a great LBer corps and a very active D-Line. But the Seahawks D dictates what the offense can do and if your a team who is going to try to dink and dunk, you're not going to beat the Seahawks.

Those offenses only end up tiring themselves out quickly where they are useless by the 4th QTR. Only end up burning a lot of clock, running a lot of plays, only to walk away with a Turnover in the RZ or just 3 points to show for it.

Pandion Haliaetus · Sep 6, 2014

Also, McCarthy is Mother Teresa compared to the BS, Hines Ward was trying shove down America's throats after the game. I used to have respect for Ward but over the years he has become a tool.

bigskydoc · Sep 6, 2014

I suppose it is theoretically possible that they didn't scheme away from RS and it was simply that he had his side of the field so well covered that there was never an opportunity to throw that way, but if so then why was Boykin always on Sherman's side and never Nelson?

Whether you actually schemed in advance to avoid that side or not (and I think the fact that you never lined up your best receiver(s) on that side says you did), the result was the same.

- bsd

Mick063 · Sep 6, 2014

Want to beat the Seahawks at home?

Cardinals showed the blueprint. Although you gotta let the QB eat four interceptions to get it done, you let the football rip deep across the whole landscape and hope for the best. Odds are it won't work (Maxwell was so close to tipping that winning reception), but it is your best chance.

Sarlacc83 · Sep 6, 2014

Oh man, that is rich.

We put our 3rd receiver over there and had every play to the left! But we weren't *consciously* avoiding him.

McCarthy just admitted he's scared of the Seahawks, by the way. Let that sink in.

Mick063 · Sep 6, 2014

Pandion Haliaetus":k0ot6ewa said:
hawknation2014":k0ot6ewa said:

This is really more of a question for Aaron Rodgers. I have no idea if it was in the game plan, but Rodgers appeared to have told Sherman after the game "yup" in response to whether he was intentionally avoiding Sherman's side of the field. Honestly, I don't understand the controversy. Rodgers was smart to avoid Sherman and attack the other corners.

Click to expand...

Wrong, IF you want to beat Seattle's Passing D , you can't be afraid of Sherman's side of the field. You also won't win playing conservative, you have to take shots down-field and either hope you get lucky and the WR makes an unbelievable play OR you get lucky and the Defense makes a mistake.

Its not smart what-so-ever allowing Sherman to take away 1/3rd of your field.

1. You're not going to beat Thomas over the top and you're allowing Thomas to shade to Maxwell's side more often than not.
2. You allow Kam to patrol the middle zone and he'll destroy everything in his path.
3. All our LBers have good range and excel in zone coverages
4. The RT becomes the blindside protector, a realization that many are putting out there now.

And thinking about it... I now understand the genius of Quinn's defense and why he essentially flipped the strongside and weakside personnel the way he did last year and why the Seahawks could let Clemons and Bryant walk. Because Sherman shuts down his 3rd of the field, nothing is getting past Thomas, you don't want to cross paths with Chancellor, Wagner could have the best range out of all LBs, it leaves the left side of the field where QBs have to throw across their bodies =,more mistakes and the dump-off where our OLBs are prepared to eat you up. But best of all it turns the right side of the O-Line into the blindside protection.

Teams spend tens of millions of dollars investing in top level LTs and LGs to protect the blindside, and here's Seattle, and you don't want to throw at Richard Sherman because he's the most dangerous CB in the NFL. Well, we are going to line up Avril on your RT, and Bennett on your RG.

You want to know why the Seahawks were so successful with just a 4 man rush, and why Avril and Bennett were so effective, its because the Seahawks have the best 2ndary in the NFL, it has a great LBer corps and a very active D-Line. But the Seahawks D dictates what the offense can do and if your a team who is going to try to dink and dunk, you're not going to beat the Seahawks.

Those offenses only end up tiring themselves out quickly where they are useless by the 4th QTR. Only end up burning a lot of clock, running a lot of plays, only to walk away with a Turnover in the RZ or just 3 points to show for it.

This about sums it up perfectly and I agree with every single point. It took the Packer game for me to completely understand what the Seahawks have really been doing for a long time. Eating up right tackles across the league. The Leo is a diversion. It is the mismatch on the right side, against the weaker pass blockers, where Seattle is winning with the four man front.

This is because....Sherman. The argument that the pass rush creates Sherman is a big misconception. Sherman creates the pass rush by recreating the blindside while inducing right handed quarterbacks to throw across their body to the left. Let Patrick Peterson chase players all over the place and lose. Bill Belichick figured out what Seattle is doing. Revis will no longer be an island, guard one side of the field, and New England will come closest to replicating the Seahawks. Emulation is the perfect form of flattery.

NINEster · Sep 6, 2014

Mick063":2uium7te said:
Want to beat the Seahawks at home?

Cardinals showed the blueprint. Although you gotta let the QB eat four interceptions to get it done, you let the football rip deep across the whole landscape and hope for the best. Odds are it won't work (Maxwell was so close to tipping that winning reception), but it is your best chance.

To beat the Seahawks in that stadium, gotta have a really good defense to give your team opportunities over the long haul to score some points. Is it any surprise that the toughest matchups the last two years have been against NFC West teams?

In 2012 the Seahawks would have beaten the Packers and Patriots more convincingly had their offense (Wilson?) been as good as it is now.

The Seahawks have a great defense but in that stadium, the pass rush is probably 20-30% better than it would be on the road, making it really tough on passing attacks to function. I think the crowd energy helps in the run game defense, which seems to be a bit stronger at home than on the road.

It's also clear that you have to get over the mental hump of playing "at Seattle", and allowing the Seahawks to dictate everything. In all of my years watching football, I don't think I've ever seen opposing teams show as much reverence for an opponent as they do these Hawks, at home.

Notice the difference between the playoff rematches with Saints and 49ers versus regular season games. My guess is that if the Packers return in the playoffs they will most likely play a lot differently. Probably still lose, but won't be as scared.

HawkFan72 · Sep 6, 2014

NINEster":381ye7at said:
Mick063":381ye7at said:

Want to beat the Seahawks at home?

It's also clear that you have to get over the mental hump of playing "at Seattle", and allowing the Seahawks to dictate everything. In all of my years watching football, I don't think I've ever seen opposing teams show as much reverence for an opponent as they do these Hawks, at home.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it's starting to have the feel of "having to go to Lambeau in January" only the Hawks have that advantage every home game of the season.

NINEster · Sep 6, 2014

Mick063":xdyeqrur said:
Pandion Haliaetus":xdyeqrur said:

hawknation2014":xdyeqrur said:

This is really more of a question for Aaron Rodgers. I have no idea if it was in the game plan, but Rodgers appeared to have told Sherman after the game "yup" in response to whether he was intentionally avoiding Sherman's side of the field. Honestly, I don't understand the controversy. Rodgers was smart to avoid Sherman and attack the other corners.

Click to expand...

Wrong, IF you want to beat Seattle's Passing D , you can't be afraid of Sherman's side of the field. You also won't win playing conservative, you have to take shots down-field and either hope you get lucky and the WR makes an unbelievable play OR you get lucky and the Defense makes a mistake.

Its not smart what-so-ever allowing Sherman to take away 1/3rd of your field.

1. You're not going to beat Thomas over the top and you're allowing Thomas to shade to Maxwell's side more often than not.
2. You allow Kam to patrol the middle zone and he'll destroy everything in his path.
3. All our LBers have good range and excel in zone coverages
4. The RT becomes the blindside protector, a realization that many are putting out there now.

And thinking about it... I now understand the genius of Quinn's defense and why he essentially flipped the strongside and weakside personnel the way he did last year and why the Seahawks could let Clemons and Bryant walk. Because Sherman shuts down his 3rd of the field, nothing is getting past Thomas, you don't want to cross paths with Chancellor, Wagner could have the best range out of all LBs, it leaves the left side of the field where QBs have to throw across their bodies =,more mistakes and the dump-off where our OLBs are prepared to eat you up. But best of all it turns the right side of the O-Line into the blindside protection.

Teams spend tens of millions of dollars investing in top level LTs and LGs to protect the blindside, and here's Seattle, and you don't want to throw at Richard Sherman because he's the most dangerous CB in the NFL. Well, we are going to line up Avril on your RT, and Bennett on your RG.

You want to know why the Seahawks were so successful with just a 4 man rush, and why Avril and Bennett were so effective, its because the Seahawks have the best 2ndary in the NFL, it has a great LBer corps and a very active D-Line. But the Seahawks D dictates what the offense can do and if your a team who is going to try to dink and dunk, you're not going to beat the Seahawks.

Those offenses only end up tiring themselves out quickly where they are useless by the 4th QTR. Only end up burning a lot of clock, running a lot of plays, only to walk away with a Turnover in the RZ or just 3 points to show for it.

Click to expand...

This about sums it up perfectly and I agree with every single point. It took the Packer game for me to completely understand what the Seahawks have really been doing for a long time. Eating up right tackles across the league. The Leo is a diversion. It is the mismatch on the right side, against the weaker pass blockers, where Seattle is winning with the four man front.

This is because....Sherman. The argument that the pass rush creates Sherman is a big misconception. Sherman creates the pass rush by recreating the blindside. Let Patrick Peterson chase players all over the place and lose. Bill Belichick figured out what Seattle is doing. Revis will no longer be an island, guard one side of the field, and New England will come closest to replicating the Seahawks. Emulation is the perfect form of flattery.

You know what I was wondering.....

How hard is it to flip tackles for an OL? It sounds like it's a big deal, but I don't think it should be.

When a team transitions to a left handed QB, you have to do this flip. The Niners still had Harris Barton and Steve Wallace at tackles when they switched between Montana and Young -- I'm not sure if they swapped guys, I'll have to check.

Michael Strahan used to play DE on the QB's right side, and had a great career. I believe the Giants used JPP in that role occasionally back when he was good.

As for the Niners, I don't think the scheme affects them as much as the matchup with the Seahawk left end is usually tough for Anthony Davis to deal with. Outside of that, I don't think this scheme affects SF much at all.

Kaepernick isn't afraid of Sherman. It's funny that Rodgers takes s*** for it, but Kaep did too for forcing it on him (only once the whole game). Had Rodgers thrown a pick against him I'm sure he would be criticized heavily for it.

With Stevie Johnson on the team I'd imagine he would be lined up against Sherman the most of anybody on the roster. No reason not to line up a bunch of guys against him either.....Davis, Crabtree, Boldin, Lloyd -- there's no real standout #1 on the Niners, more like 1a/b/c. It's not like we are putting Kyle Williams out against him.

Should be a fun season.

Mick063 · Sep 6, 2014

NINEster":1fgrl0q3 said:
Mick063":1fgrl0q3 said:

Want to beat the Seahawks at home?

Cardinals showed the blueprint. Although you gotta let the QB eat four interceptions to get it done, you let the football rip deep across the whole landscape and hope for the best. Odds are it won't work (Maxwell was so close to tipping that winning reception), but it is your best chance.

Click to expand...

To beat the Seahawks in that stadium, gotta have a really good defense to give your team opportunities over the long haul to score some points. Is it any surprise that the toughest matchups the last two years have been against NFC West teams?

In 2012 the Seahawks would have beaten the Packers and Patriots more convincingly had their offense (Wilson?) been as good as it is now.

The Seahawks have a great defense but in that stadium, the pass rush is probably 20-30% better than it would be on the road, making it really tough on passing attacks to function. I think the crowd energy helps in the run game defense, which seems to be a bit stronger at home than on the road.

It's also clear that you have to get over the mental hump of playing "at Seattle", and allowing the Seahawks to dictate everything. In all of my years watching football, I don't think I've ever seen opposing teams show as much reverence for an opponent as they do these Hawks, at home.

Notice the difference between the playoff rematches with Saints and 49ers versus regular season games. My guess is that if the Packers return in the playoffs they will most likely play a lot differently. Probably still lose, but won't be as scared.

The point I was trying to make is that no one is better at preventing YAC than Seattle. Dink and dunk is a dangerous proposition. It took Denver umpteen plays to drive 49 yards until Malcom Smith took it to the house. Later, it took Denver umpteen plays to drive to the Seahawk 30 until Maxwell punched it out. It took umpteen plays for Green Bay to drive it deep on Seattle to get offensive holding and eventually fail on a chaotic 4th down attempt (sack). It took San Francisco quite a few plays to drive down the field only to realize "the tip".

Indeed, Green Bay scored by letting it fly and getting a PI on Wagner. The odds are long for completing the long ball, but it really is the best chance to beat Seattle in it's current defensive form.

zhawk · Sep 6, 2014

I call BS

Cartire · Sep 6, 2014

NINEster":35wvr0sl said:
You know what I was wondering.....

How hard is it to flip tackles for an OL? It sounds like it's a big deal, but I don't think it should be.

:34853_doh: :177692: :dummy:

SeatownJay · Sep 6, 2014

Jordy Nelson kind of contradicts his coach in that article.

Mike McCarthy":ecuwsbi5 said:
"I don't think you ever make a conscious decision not to throw to one side of the field," McCarthy said Friday. "Frankly, it was more of a decision to put Jordy on the left and see if he would come over and play him."

Jordy Nelson":ecuwsbi5 said:
"Obviously we liked the matchup on the other side, and if they wanted to bring [Sherman] over we were going to put him in an uncomfortable spot," Nelson said. "They stayed with their defense, which I was expecting the whole time."

Hasselbeck · Sep 6, 2014

Mick063":iyzg87mo said:
Want to beat the Seahawks at home?

Cardinals showed the blueprint. Although you gotta let the QB eat four interceptions to get it done, you let the football rip deep across the whole landscape and hope for the best. Odds are it won't work (Maxwell was so close to tipping that winning reception), but it is your best chance.

Also helps having the Seahawks play their worst offensive game in the Pete Carroll era.

Sports Hernia · Sep 6, 2014

Scottemojo":3epyimrq said:
McCarthy also said they were trying to see if Seattle would move Sherman over to the other side. HAHAHA. Really? C'mon Mike, you are better than that, don't fib.

Sherman will get his chances, not every team will be so wimpy.

Starting next week in SD. Don't think River's ego will stop him from throwing Sherman's way one or twice.

McCarthy: We didn't avoid Sherman on purpose

New member

New member

New member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

New member

Active member

New member

Well-known member

Similar threads