Thread: Gameplanning that needs to change from here on out...

Ric - you know what I meant. LT and LG are our weakness. Tice isn't going to or can't change them now. So Clutts was a person to stay back and block for the two lumps on the line. With LT and LG being weak, we needed someone like Clutts.

And to directly answer your question, yes I think he could play either better than who we have

Originally Posted by Riczaj01

Clutts played LT and LG? That is our weakness.

Bad game plan and bad execution starting with that first pass play where Forte blew his block on the blitzing LB and Cutler got dumped for a big loss. Right then and there the Packers told Tice they were gonna throw every blitz at them they had which is exactly what I said Capers would do. Then he ran a simple man with a Safety on top of Marshall all night long. So how long should it take a good OC to realize that and exploit what opened up because of it?

Weapons do you no good if you don't know how to load and fire them. When you play an aggressive gambling defense with a weak secondary then you should have a better idea of how to exploit that than we saw last night. Putting aside a bad call or two the real problem was a lousy game plan and poor execution across the board. The offense came out unprepared again and they stayed that way which is why Cutler got frustrated again. The needed adjustments were never made.

Until it changes I'll keep saying the same thing. We lose to the Packers more often than not simply because we get out coached. It happened again last night. The defense played good ball but I'm beginning to believe Lovie knows too little about offensive football to demand better of his OCs. It's plain that the offensive line once again wasn't prepared to handle that pass rush. How many times have we faced it before? You think by now they'd have come up with an effective way to block it or exploit it.

The Packers were well prepared to stop Cutler and Marshall and we did nothing to counter it. You can lay that one at the feet of Tice and Lovie.

I agree with everyone that we need to run 1st to setup the play action passes. Tice has had in backwards for both our games. If you are going to come out throwing use the short passing game.
The game plan we had in my opinion was the wrong game plan to use but what really pisses me off is our inability to adjust our game plan according to what the other team is doing. This has been a problem since Lovie has been here. When your opponent is using what Cutler calls "2 man" or doubling our WRs to take away our downfield passing game you have to throw slants, crossing routes etc. When a team is coming hard at you on the pass rush you have to chip with your backs & TEs, then dump it off to them for 5-10 yard gains or run more screens & draws to get them out of that defense. It looked like we just kept running the same plays against the same defense & expected different results. We looked like we had never seen this defense before. Unbelievable! Why do we even have coaches. Most good staffs can see by the 3rd series exactly what the opponent is doing & adjust the game plan according. It's called taking what the defense gives you. Tice, Cutler & company need to figure this out. It's not rocket science.

Originally Posted by soulman

Bad game plan and bad execution starting with that first pass play where Forte blew his block on the blitzing LB and Cutler got dumped for a big loss. Right then and there the Packers told Tice they were gonna throw every blitz at them they had which is exactly what I said Capers would do. Then he ran a simple man with a Safety on top of Marshall all night long. So how long should it take a good OC to realize that and exploit what opened up because of it?

Weapons do you no good if you don't know how to load and fire them. When you play an aggressive gambling defense with a weak secondary then you should have a better idea of how to exploit that than we saw last night. Putting aside a bad call or two the real problem was a lousy game plan and poor execution across the board. The offense came out unprepared again and they stayed that way which is why Cutler got frustrated again. The needed adjustments were never made.

Until it changes I'll keep saying the same thing. We lose to the Packers more often than not simply because we get out coached. It happened again last night. The defense played good ball but I'm beginning to believe Lovie knows too little about offensive football to demand better of his OCs. It's plain that the offensive line once again wasn't prepared to handle that pass rush. How many times have we faced it before? You think by now they'd have come up with an effective way to block it or exploit it.

The Packers were well prepared to stop Cutler and Marshall and we did nothing to counter it. You can lay that one at the feet of Tice and Lovie.

We must have posted about the same time Soul. But ya what you said. I find it mind boggling & it's been happening since the SB against the Colts & I wanna F-ing scream!

Establishing the run is needed first and foremost. The Packers weren't worried about it at all last night and we abandoned on it early. If we get teams committing an extra man inside the box to protect against the run numerous opportunities for our WRs will open up down field especially when you can get them to bite on pack action.

Also whatever happened to Tice's talk about changing Cutler's launching points. So far that has only come into play when Cutty is running for his life.

I'm going to say that better protection (blocking) may have changed the outcome of the game - at least before Cutler went into meltdown mode. And if he had time he may not have gone into meltdown mode.

Would Clutts have made the difference between a loss and a win? I highly doubt it. But I also firmly believe that better protection and blocking would have. And that Clutts would have helped there. This is focusing on Clutts and I'm not sure I agree with that. I think the focus should be on the team understanding their protection weakness and wanting to address it. Letting Clutts go - for me anyway - is a symbol that they either don't get it or don't think they need the help. That the guys they have can do it. No matter what Tice thinks, they can't. So Clutts being let go is a part of the systemic problem more than it is about Clutts himself. We need some good blocking because of our weakness. Clutts happened to be a guy that played to that weakness. That's all I'm saying.

Originally Posted by Riczaj01

Again guys, Clutts isn't out there enough to have made a difference. He's not lining up at LG/LT or TE. A Rod or the other HBacks/ weren't near the issue that Davis, Spence, Webb were. Clutts doens't change the outcome of that game and if you think he does, your lying to yourselves.