Who Should be “That Guy”
Written by GreenBay Packer Nation Tuesday, 24 November 2009 19:00
Tuesday, this conversation posted on Packer Transplants: It then inspired a post by Alex Tallitsch to open up a much needed conversation of who, if anyone on the Packers team is going to be “that guy”. The conversation (from the posts) went like this:
Packers Lounge: I got a question what's up with Greg Jennings not being a stud?
Packers Lounge: Is it Greg? Play calling? Not getting the looks?
Greg A. Bedard: On Jennings...It seems like the Packers have a lot of guys on offense that are very good...provided everything around them is good as well. I don't see anybody who can take the team on their back in tough times.
Packers Lounge: I remember when we had a guy like that. Just saying, without saying.
Brady Augustine: Yes Greg, this is a team with no identity. Nobody or attitude on which they can hang their hat. We will need that to get us through.
There were many thought-provoking responses to this post which led me to comment at length and expand those comments to a two-part post of my own. This post will deal with my thoughts on who “that guy” can and cannot be and the next will deal with what I think is the deeper question: Why are none of our players stepping up into leadership roles. But first, a small disclaimer that every poster in the Packer blogosphere should admit to even as we speak of who should be “that guy” on our team and lay the finger of accountability on this person or that. I will phrase this in the form of this maxim:
“Where one is the solution, many are the problem”
In football, there are certain players who play certain positions or have certain body types, skill sets, or attributes who can be the difference between a win and a loss (more on the specifics later). Our team is good enough that one person playing out of their head, taking the team on their back, bringing it play in and play out may, in fact, turn what might have been a loss into a win. If this team did not have talent, we would not even be having this conversation right now because all of our losses would have been expected but the talent level of the Packers right now is at that point where one player can make the difference. That is why Packers fans are wishing for “that guy” for Christmas this year. The perfect example is Charles Woodson who last year in game 2 against the Lions turned what was almost an embarrassing Detroit comeback into a 48-25 barnburner for the Packers by practically taking the defense on his shoulders. By virtue of his position, however, Charles Woodson was not able to do the same thing in this season’s game against the Cincinnati Bengals even though he played a better game than the one last year against Detroit.
Sometimes one person can be the solution, but in being “that guy” a player is overcoming not just his own shortcomings but the problems of others on the team as well. “Where one is the solution many are the problem” means that there will be times like the Bengals game where even the Charles Woodsons of the world cannot get it done because offensive coordinators have ways to minimize their impact. That is why it is important to remember that in football, “that guy” is not necessarily the best player on the team.
“Where one is the solution, many are the problem” is most important to remember when talking about the quarterback as “the guy”. I posted that the quarterback, by nature of his position is the guy on our team who has to take the team on his back. No one else on the entire team influences more of the field at one time than the quarterback. I related him to the queen on a chessboard but with the added power to leap over defenders in the way and throw over them if that doesn’t work. The quarterback is the only player on a football field can influence any corner of the field. Why is he different from the free safety or middle linebackers that are sometimes called the “quarterback” of the defense? Because the offense is predicated upon a ball and a ball can be thrown sixty yards one way at the drop of a hat. No single defender has anything like that kind of ability because defense is predicated on having a tackler where the ball is so until Troy Polamalu, coming on a blitz, can turn around and teleport himself into the endzone to cover that sixty yard bomb, he will not quite have the same game-changing ability as a quarterback (what a credit to him that he is known as such a game changer even without that ability – moreso than many quarterbacks in the league!). Add to this the fact that the ball is required to put points on the board and points are required to win games and it is easy to see why the quarterback is expected to be “that guy” most of the time and in our case that is Aaron Rodgers.
But, as noted, the quarterback is not always on the field. “Where one is the solution, many are the problem” Aaron Rodgers played great last year, the O-line was better than they are now, and we went 6-10. Too often the defense gave up leads late but here were times when A-Rod had chances to win games and failed to be “that guy” in those games. Even though he wasn’t the solution in those particular games, doesn’t mean he was the only problem. A quarterback has to throw it to somebody, has to have line play that gives him time, has to be in the right situation where a pass is the optimum solution to the set the defense has on, etc. I wish to talk specifics about the one (solution- “that guy”) in relation to the many (the problem). Because the quarterback can only be on the field when the defense is not, I will speak of offense and defense separately.
Offense: “That guy” = Aaron Rodgers
The Packers are fortunate to have a quarterback in Aaron Rodgers who can take over after a “previous, very successful” quarterback and make the team work for the long run. Aaron Rodgers is “that guy” for the Packers if there is one on offense. Greg Jennings has seen a lot of doubles and rolled coverage and though that has not stopped him, it has made it much more difficult to be the game changer on a regular basis than in years past. He still has the ability to make the one play a game that turns the tide but if one player is going to take this team on his shoulders, there can be no question, it is A-Rod. “That guy” on the Packers team, is not the best player we have, Greg Jennings, Charles Woodson, and even Aaron Kampman when he has his hand in the ground may arguably be better players than A-Rod who is only a mid-second-season starter.
“Where one is the solution, many are the problem”
To be “that guy” Aaron has to account for the fact that our offensive line is possibly the worst line in the history of the Packers organization. This is a line made up of Jacks of all trades and masters of none, picked for value and versatility as “developmental projects” rather than “gone after” and gotten at all costs because they were that good. Add to this the fact that, contrary to all statements made by the coaches this offseason and training camp, we still employ a rotation of seconds from within the starting lineup rather than having seconds behind firsts that can go in and play if a lineman is injured. Why is this the case? Just go back to value and versatility. Now, no one expects our entire line to be made up of expensive free agents but since TT let Rivera and Wahle go, there is no question we have needed leadership and better players.
The line also contributes to the problems the receivers have had getting open because extra people have to be left in to solve the protection problems. The one criticism the receivers cannot escape is the drops. Ryan Grant out of the backfield drops the ball too much and that makes our screen/swing pass game ineffective which is another reason we cannot slow down a pass rush (by throwing over it/exploiting it). The rest of the receiver corps has pretty much stopped dropping balls at this point but is still victim of our other problems, including the play calling that refuses to operate in the West Coast style with any consistency.
There have been times when we have play called A-Rod to the ground. These problems are manifold as well:
- Our line is so bad we once again have to employ “max protect” too much, which severely hampers the amount of available receivers.
- If we don’t have max protect, we have guys chipping which again takes from the patterns receivers can run though it does not take them out of the passing game altogether
- When we run everybody on routes, they are too often too deep and A-Rod is just now learning to throw to his check-downs.
This makes it very difficult for Aaron, choosing between protection and having enough receivers out to cross up the DB’s. Rodgers, for his part, has some corrections to make. To think that this guy, having started 24 games in his career, is not part of the problem, is ridiculous. The problems are many, and that includes a good look inside Here are the problems:
- No quarterback in the NFL can hold the ball for five seconds and expect to be successful, regardless of how good his feet are. There are times when A-Rod steps up into space extends the play and gets a first down when there wasn’t one there initially. There are times when the pocket collapses from the outside in and he tries to escape back and out. Rodgers needs to learn the difference – one works, the other does not. I am not saying Aaron does this all the time, I am saying that he needs to learn the difference between extending the play with his feet and running backwards in a futile attempt that results in a 10+ yard sack for loss. Aaron needs to learn from experience with a line that is giving up pressure. Sometimes you escape out and sometimes you step up.
- Aaron needs to hone a basic skill of great quarterbacks – anticipation. Anticipation is recognizing the soft spots in zones, the one-on-one in man-to-man coverage and throwing receivers open by getting the ball to that spot. Aaron has to realize that he is accurate enough to throw receivers open (which he does on long plays) and start doing it on the slants (when slants are called – back to play calling).
To summarize I believe that Aaron Rodgers has to be “that guy” for the Green Bay Packers. Here are a few notes about our defense that will illuminate why I believe no one on the defense can be that guy for us. To put it another way, our best players are not in the right positions to be “that guy” in a 3-4 scheme:
- In the 3-4, “that guy” is usually going to be either the nose tackle or a safety. Let’s discuss the nose tackle. This is a guy who will never get the credit but if a 3-4 has a nose that can take on a double team and get pressure on the quarterback, they open lanes for the LB’s while at the same time taking away the ability to easily check down on a blitz and themselves create disruption for the quarterback. The linebackers get credit for the sacks most of the time in a 3-4 but the reality is that the nose takes up the blockers that make the sacks happen. If you have a guy that occasionally gets a sack themselves…they are “that guy” and those teams win Super Bowls. The Packers may have one of those guys in BJ Raji but he is not there yet. Jury is out on that one if he can or will develop to be that kind of player.
The other player in the 3-4 that has the potential to be “that guy” is the safety. The number of blitzes in the 3-4 means a lot of zone coverage and having a guy who can time his hit and lay the wood can be game changing. Also, to have a guy that can come up to the line and blitz or drop back in coverage and have the range to pick balls off along with the big hit potential is imperative in the 3-4. This is part of the reason the Packers do not, and cannot have “that guy” on defense. Atari Bigby is no Troy Polamalu and Nick Collins is great about every other play. They are good players but they are not game changers, they are not “that guy”. We need a safety who is extremely physical and extremely fast (great range) to make receivers know there is a price to be paid for every ball thrown their way.
- Aaron Kampman – Cannot be “that guy” because he is playing out of position and is more of a lunch pail guy than a vocal, emotional leader. But mostly because he is out of position because sacks are game changing and he got plenty of those in the 4-3
- Charles Woodson – He plays cornerback and cannot be everywhere at once. If we could clone Charles Woodson and put him at every position on the field, we would win every game. We only get one Woodson though and he can be schemed around.
- Al Harris – Great player but same reasons as above. Harris is physical and great at press/bump and run. In this scheme he is passing off receivers to safeties he does not trust. Better with Atari Bigby back in the lineup, but still not good enough and can be schemed around.
Well, those are my thoughts on why we do not have “that guy” right now. Next time I will probe the deeper question “Why is no one stepping up?” which goes to the systemic question, “What’s wrong in Green Bay?” See you then.
