
What's Going on with Aaron Rodgers, Packers' Suddenly Sputtering Offense?
The Green Bay Packers have been heralded all season for their outstanding play on offense.
For the first few weeks of the year, that seemed like a fitting way to talk about the Packers, as they posted 300-plus yards and at least 27 points in each of their first three games.
However, in more recent weeks, the offense, and particularly Aaron Rodgers, seems to have fallen from their immortal perch atop the NFL, right back down to earth. Tonight, their blowout, 29-10 loss to the Denver Broncos has us wondering, what happened to the Packers and their offense?
TOP NEWS
.jpg)
Post-Lawrence Trade Mock Draft 📝

1 Prospect Each Team Must Avoid in 2026 NFL Draft
.jpg)
Bengals Extending Lawrence
Well, to start, consider the Packers' offensive output in each of their last four games.
| San Francisco 49ers | 200 | 162 | 362 | 17 |
| St. Louis Rams | 236 | 86 | 322 | 24 |
| San Diego Chargers | 237 | 133 | 370 | 27 |
| Denver Broncos | 50 | 90 | 140 | 10 |
| Average | 180.75 | 117.75 | 298.5 | 19.5 |
In the chart above, you see both the general struggle on the part of the offense and also a possible answer to the question posed at the top of this article.
One of the most notable reasons for the Packers' recent struggles on offense is their lack of a consistent running game.
Eddie Lacy was supposed to be the bell cow, but instead, has been an albatross on a potentially outstanding offense. The University of Alabama product has been downright terrible this season, averaging just 3.9 yards per carry, and a paltry 43.3 yards per game. Both of those marks place Lacy squarely in the bottom half of qualified NFC running backs, per ESPN.com.
James Starks has filled in well at times, but is averaging just 47.7 yards per game, even with his 95-yard effort back on Sept 20.
So the running game has been terrible—it was again tonight—but that isn't the only cause for concern with this offense, as the lack of a viable receiving corps has also been an issue.
Everyone knew that it was going to be a vastly different unit after Jordy Nelson went down with a season-ending knee injury, but tonight the group was completely overwhelmed.
Against their first great defense since facing the Seattle Seahawks in Week 2, Green Bay receivers were limited to just 77 yards on 14 receptions, by far their lowest total to date. The lack of yardage wasn't the result of inefficiencies on the part of Rodgers, though, as the 11-year-pro connected on 63.6 percent of his 22 passing attempts.

The problem here is the lack of quality options. James Jones caught four touchdowns in his first three games, but has been just an average outlet since his 139-yard, one touchdown performance against the Kansas City Chiefs back in Week 4.
Randall Cobb, meanwhile, has struggled mightily this season as he's been tasked with beating the opposing team's top corner. In seven games this year, Cobb has managed just 350 yards receiving and four touchdowns on 30 receptions.
It sounds like Cobb is just one big game away from getting back on track, but his game-by-game output has been in rapid decline since Week 4, when the University of Kentucky product put up a 91-yard, three-touchdown effort against the Chiefs.
| Week 5 | 49ers | 8 | 5 | 44 | 0 |
| Week 6 | Rams | 6 | 3 | 23 | 0 |
| Week 7 | Chargers | 5 | 2 | 38 | 0 |
| Week 8 | Broncos | 9 | 6 | 27 | 0 |
The Packers have been limited on offense. With Nelson out, the Packers lack the ability to pop the top off a defense and are unable to take the big strikes downfield that we've become so accustomed to seeing from a Rodgers-led-offense.
This showed in the loss tonight, where the longest passing play of the night went for just 17 yards.
With their bye week having come just last week, the Packers will need to make some major adjustments on the fly.
It won't get any easier moving forward, though. Consider the defenses the Packers will take on in the coming weeks.
| 9 | @Panthers | 229.8 | 110 | 7th |
| 10 | Lions | 268.9 | 123.4 | 27th |
| 11 | @Vikings | 232.8 | 106 | 5th |
| 12 | Bears | 220 | 124.8 | 9th |
| 13 | @Lions | 268.9 | 123.4 | 27th |
| 14 | Cowboys | 238 | 101.3 | 6th |
| 15 | @Raiders | 303.8 | 84.3 | 14th |
| 16 | @Cardinals | 223.7 | 97.4 | 13th |
| 17 | Vikings | 232.8 | 106 | 5th |
The Packers will face teams that rank in the top-10 in total defense in five of their remaining eight contests. In fact, aside from their two meetings with the Lions, the Packers won't face a team the rest of the way that doesn't currently rank in the NFL's top half in total defense.
The Packers o-line will be tested over the next few weeks, and that's bad news for Green Bay. The unit has allowed eight sacks of Rodgers in their last three games, and DeMarcus Ware highlighted their issues in his post-game comments, per ESPN.com:
"We may not be able to get the sacks, but getting the pressure and making sure that maybe he's running around in the pocket making indecisive throws, and that's what we did in the first half.
"
The Broncos get after it on defense, and were able to take advantage of the Packers offensive line. With that in mind, it looks as though this will be an incredibly difficult stretch of games for the Packers, and one that should prove a big test for this reeling offense.
So, what's wrong with the Packers? Well, the best answer is probably a little bit of everything.

However, this team, and particularly Aaron Rodgers, are too good to let this season continue to slip away.
We've seen in the past that great quarterbacks can make the players around them better. Rodgers certainly fits into that "great quarterback" qualification, and he definitely makes his teammates better.
At the moment, this looks like a team that's underachieving and needs a kick in the backside.
Maybe that'll come in the form of better coaching on the part of Mike McCarthy, Edgar Bennett and Tom Clements. Or, maybe this embarrassing loss at the hands of the Broncos will serve as the spark they need to turn things around.
Either way, don't count the Packers out for long.
Follow me on Twitter! Follow @TylerDuma









_0.png)
