Through the first three weeks of
the NFL season, questions abounded whether Aaron Rodgers and Matt LaFleur’s
offensive scheme were a good “fit”—especially when one recalls the sometimes
acrimonious relations between Rodgers and Mike McCarthy the past few seasons in
regard to the latter’s handling of the offense. Thursday’s game appeared to be
an opportunity for Rodgers to either get more “comfortable” in LaFleur’s
“system” against an Eagles’ defense that had not recorded a single sack all
season and had a suspect secondary—either that, or Rodgers would simply revert
to instinct and play his own game. Whichever scenario was played out—I suspect
the latter—the result was a more typical Rodgers performance for the most part
statistically. But with a still suspect running game that LaFleur’s offensive
philosophy is largely predicated on, Rodgers clearly felt the need to carry the
entire offense on his shoulders, throwing for 422 yards and rushing for a team
high 46 yards. On paper, he was the Aaron Rodgers that Packer fans know and
love.
Yet this game also bore out the
frustration that Packer fans have with a team that simply hasn’t played at a
consistently high level on both sides of the ball since the 2010 team, or
perhaps more accurately the 1996 team. The 2011 team that won 15 games mostly
just outscored their opponents than having a good defense, and since then the
Packers’ fortunes mostly depended on Rodgers and his health status. Through the
first three games of this season, it was the defense that kept the team afloat
while Rodgers has been fitfully attempting to adjust his thinking to a new
style of play. The problem is that for an offensive scheme that relies on a
consistent running game (unlike New England, which largely uses short passes to
compensate for the lack of one), the Packers haven’t had much success despite
doggedly trying to make it work. Ahman Green was really the only consistently
dependable running back the Packers have had since Jim Taylor, and they have
been plagued with backs who played well one year and then tanked. In the past
two games Aaron Jones has rushed for 40 yards on 23 carries; with Jamaal
Williams knocked out of the game early, Rodgers at critical moments in this
game apparently did not trust Jones to get the job done.
But I also have my questions
about this year’s defense, which has received many plaudits. I have observed
before that the Packer defense has not played well against the run, is prone to
give-up big plays, and has largely depended on takeaways to mitigate their
lapses. Against the Eagles, the Packer defense again was sieve-like against the
run, and after recording 12 sacks in the previous three games, did not record a
single one against Carson Wentz. Worse, the defense had no takeaways; this was
the recipe of defeat that the Packers had avoided in their victories,
particularly against the Vikings when Kirk Cousins basically lost the game for
them with just one too many bad plays.
Nevertheless, it is Rodgers who
ultimately must own the 34-27 loss to the Eagles. His second quarter fumble led
to a short-field touchdown; he failed to convert on six plays from within the
Eagles’ five yard line in the fourth quarter, including four incomplete passes
from the one-yard line. As unproductive as Jones was playing (just 21 yards on
13 carries), he should have been good for one yard instead of trying to throw
into a crowded end zone four times. On the Packers final possession and needing
a touchdown to force OT, Rodgers took the opportunity to throw his first
interception of the year to end the game. This time it was the opponent who
made the opportunistic plays that covered their deficiencies, turning what
should have been a loss into victory. The Packers didn’t receive much help from
officials, especially on a clear pass interference on third down in the third
quarter that wasn’t called and was quickly followed by an Eagle touchdown. But
there were other lapses such as settling twice for field goals in the red zone when
they could have put more pressure on the Eagles early in the game.
On the “positive” side, the
Packers moved the ball evenly well offensively during both halves of the game,
but they came away with just six points on four of their red zone
opportunities, which just isn’t going to cut it. Defensively, the Packers were
exposed as relying too much on takeaways. This was a game that the Packer could
have built on from both sides of the ball; instead, it just left different
questions to answer.
No comments:
Post a Comment