Jump to content

Week 5 GDT - Green Bay (2-1-1) @ Detroit (1-3)


Leader

Recommended Posts

Just throw the ball accurately - the WRs catch the ball (or lose the drops) - run the ball a third of the time - and we'll be fine.
Our RedZone's gotta get better - its not killer yet and we have the weapons that it should be. Our D is coming along- we gotta stay healthy. 
Its called execution. Just execute and we'll be fine.
IMO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A little worried about our receivers in this game. Geronimo is in the concussion protocol, and Cobb said he "wasn't close" to playing against the Bills. Obviously we're all waiting for one of the rookies to break out, but it's clear Rodgers doesn't really trust those guys. Graham and Kendricks could see a lot of action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, rthom348 said:

Honestly curious...

Have we ever ran a formation that has Davante, G-Mo, and Jimmy out wide. With Cobb AND Jamaal Williams in the backfield? I feel like that'd be a great formation. Specifically on 3rd downs

It's one of our most common running formations, though Cobb is usually in a wing back set up behind the TE. It's like our go to short yardage running play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Lodestar said:

A little worried about our receivers in this game. Geronimo is in the concussion protocol, and Cobb said he "wasn't close" to playing against the Bills. Obviously we're all waiting for one of the rookies to break out, but it's clear Rodgers doesn't really trust those guys. Graham and Kendricks could see a lot of action.

Gameplan should revolve around the RBs this week. It's Detroit's biggest weakness and going back to NE, Patricia's defenses have been horrible against the run. Commit to the run and get them in space in the passing game and we should have success. 

Outside of the Patriots game where they were playing ahead the whole game they have been gashed by opposing RBs. The question is can MM/Rodgers commit to what the defense is giving them. 

Player Tm Cmp Att Yds TD Int Sk Yds Lng Rate Att Yds TD Lng Tgt Rec Yds TD Lng Fmb FL
Sam Darnold NYJ 16 21 198 2 1 2 18 41 116.8 6 -1 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Isaiah Crowell NYJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0   10 102 2 62 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bilal Powell NYJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0   12 60 0 14 2 1 5 0 5 0

 

Player Tm Cmp Att Yds TD Int Sk Yds Lng Rate Att Yds TD Lng Tgt Rec Yds TD Lng Fmb FL
Jimmy Garoppolo SFO 18 26 206 2 0 6 50 35 118.4 3 4 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Matt Breida SFO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0   11 138 1 66 4 3 21 0 9 0 0
Alfred Morris SFO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0   14 48 0 9 2 2 32 0 16 0 0

 

Player Tm Cmp Att Yds TD Int Sk Yds Lng Rate Att Yds TD Lng Tgt Rec Yds TD Lng Fmb FL
Tom Brady NWE 14 26 133 1 1 2 13 19 65.1 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sony Michel NWE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0   14 50 0 12 3 1 -1 0 -1 0 0
James White NWE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0   4 37 0 15 3 3 14 1 10 0 0

 

Player Tm Cmp Att Yds TD Int Sk Yds Lng Rate Att Yds TD Lng Tgt Rec Yds TD Lng Fmb FL
Dak Prescott DAL 17 27 255 2 0 3 24 38 118.6 3 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Ezekiel Elliott DAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0   25 152 0 41 4 4 88 1 38 1 0
Rod Smith DAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0   6 22 0 9 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
Edited by TheBitzMan
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, packfanfb said:

This post tells me you see Jones as an overall equal to Williams and Monty, which is where we will fundamentally disagree. He's not. He's our Davante Adams at RB. You going to play Adams for 1/3 of the game? It's the same for Jones. He has Pro Bowl potential. He needs to be on the field. The Packers shouldn't just be using him more, they should be focusing the offense around him as one of our play-makers. He should be a focal point in this offense, not a 3rd stringer. For example, he should be used like the Chiefs use Kareem Hunt both in terms of play design and snap count. 

No.  I see them as fundamentally different backs.  Jamaal Williams is your grind it out back whose probably not going to have a bunch of big plays, but he's going to consistently get those 3-4 yard runs to keep the drive going, provide good pass protection, and capable of catching the ball out of the backfield at a reasonable rate.  Nothing against Aaron Jones, but I don't view him as a good pass protector yet at least not as good as Jamaal Williams.  He's not our Davante Adams, because he hasn't produced at a high level for an extended period of time.  He started to look good last year, and then he ended up getting hurt.  The last thing the Packers want to do is to throw a HUGE workload at him right away, and see him get injured again.  Calling Aaron Jones a 3rd stringer is you being disingenuous.  He played 29 out of the possible 76 snaps.  Jamaal Williams had 28 and Ty Montgomery had 20.  You don't play your 3rd stringer the most amount of snaps.  We essentially have 3 backs that all split carries.  So if you're wanting to give more snaps to Aaron Jones, who are you taking snaps away from?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I almost view Jamal Williams as the sacrificial cow so to speak.  They lead off with him while they get a picture of what the defense is doing.  After a couple of series when they have the information they put in Jones to capitalize on it.  Williams takes the abuse of the failed plays, wears the defenders a bit.

Early in the season, with the limited film and number of unscouted looks a team gets, it isn't necessarily a bad idea, especially when Jones is coming back from suspension and needs to get back into game shape.

I would guess that if Jones stays healthy, things will change as the season progresses and there will be games that they lean on him more when it is necessary. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

No.  I see them as fundamentally different backs.  Jamaal Williams is your grind it out back whose probably not going to have a bunch of big plays, but he's going to consistently get those 3-4 yard runs to keep the drive going, provide good pass protection, and capable of catching the ball out of the backfield at a reasonable rate.  Nothing against Aaron Jones, but I don't view him as a good pass protector yet at least not as good as Jamaal Williams.  He's not our Davante Adams, because he hasn't produced at a high level for an extended period of time.  He started to look good last year, and then he ended up getting hurt.  The last thing the Packers want to do is to throw a HUGE workload at him right away, and see him get injured again.  Calling Aaron Jones a 3rd stringer is you being disingenuous.  He played 29 out of the possible 76 snaps.  Jamaal Williams had 28 and Ty Montgomery had 20.  You don't play your 3rd stringer the most amount of snaps.  We essentially have 3 backs that all split carries.  So if you're wanting to give more snaps to Aaron Jones, who are you taking snaps away from?

What I think I would like - Jamaal and Aaron split 95% of the RB snaps, with Monty coming on in the slot this week with our WR situation. Monty can motion in the backfield or whatever, but I don't really want Monty getting the carries. If we run it 30 times, Jamaal and Aaron both getting 15 is cool with me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you wrote:

1 hour ago, CWood21 said:

Jamaal Williams is your grind it out back whose probably not going to have a bunch of big plays, but he's going to consistently get those 3-4 yard runs to keep the drive going, provide good pass protection, and capable of catching the ball out of the backfield at a reasonable rate.

 

What I read:

Quote

Jamaal Williams is your archaic back who's probably not going to do anything worthwhile with the ball, but he's going to consistently hurt the offense with his runs, convert short yardage at a league average rate, and keep the offense in mediocre offensive situations, provide good pass protection, and doesn't help the offense as a pass catcher either.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, skibrett15 said:

What you wrote:

 

What I read:

 

Hey, and you hate Blount. You're consistent haha

 

And I mean, he caught 25 passes at 10 yards a rec. He's not COMPLETELY useless there. He's just not exciting. It's really that simple.

Edited by Norm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Ragnar Danneskjold said:

I almost view Jamal Williams as the sacrificial cow so to speak.  They lead off with him while they get a picture of what the defense is doing.  After a couple of series when they have the information they put in Jones to capitalize on it.  Williams takes the abuse of the failed plays, wears the defenders a bit.

There's just no evidence of this being true for any player or team across NFL history.  There isn't such a thing as players who run better because the defense gets tired, or "wearing a defense out" so that you can run better in the 4th quarter.

Some reading

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2018/defense-and-rest-time

"1. Running a lot of plays on a drive does not make your defense perform better on the subsequent drive (as shown in the upper left).
2. Chewing up a lot of clock on a drive does not make your defense perform better on the subsequent drive (upper right).
3. Running a lot of plays against a defense does not make it easier to score against that defense as the game goes on (lower left).
4. Running up a lot of time of possession against a defense does not make it easier to score against that defense as the game goes on (lower right)."

http://www.thegridfe.com/2018/02/17/running-list-rushing-explanations/

"Using yards as our metric, there is not sufficient evidence to suggest that the amount of previous rushing attempts by a team in the game, the quarter, nor number of drives changes the underlying distribution of the length of a run."

And to answer @CWood21's question

1 hour ago, CWood21 said:

So if you're wanting to give more snaps to Aaron Jones, who are you taking snaps away from?

I'm just wanting to use Williams less at what he's bad at (holding the football with his hands while the play is active) and more at what he's good at (protecting the passer, occupying a LB in coverage to free up better players, being a cog in a passing offense)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...