CWood21 Posted July 27, 2017 Author Share Posted July 27, 2017 3 hours ago, Packerraymond said: Why does everyone always say Mac prefers a 3 down, pass oriented type back? (more like Jones than Williams) He's had two here in Jackson and Green and they stunk. Yet his two big, one cut zone back (Grant and Lacy) were by far his most successful. I think Williams will be fine here so long as he can pass protect. Lacy wasn't dynamic as a catcher, but he could block. I'm not sure anyone is saying they need to be pass-oriented, but they need to be able to hold their own in pass protection. I think it was that year that we played musical chairs at RB that McCarthy pulled the plug on one of the backs because he couldn't pass protect at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire12 Posted July 27, 2017 Share Posted July 27, 2017 On 7/18/2017 at 7:59 PM, CWood21 said: My one concern with the RBBC approach is that it hinders the Packers ability to run the hurry up offense. Right now, Montgomery is probably the only back whose capable of filling that role so if we're going to do a RBBC approach it means less hurry-up. Do you think Mac is willing to dial back his hurry-up offense? Not entirely sure that GB offense is best in the hurry-up. Rodgers takes a long time at the LOS to read and set the offense anyway. Usually runs the playclock down under 5 seconds anyway. The O functioned really well when the personnel packages were being moved in and out nearly play after play. Keeping the D needing to match personnel with the O can often lead to defensive players out of position and not set in a good alignment of playcall anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted July 27, 2017 Author Share Posted July 27, 2017 7 minutes ago, squire12 said: Not entirely sure that GB offense is best in the hurry-up. Rodgers takes a long time at the LOS to read and set the offense anyway. Usually runs the playclock down under 5 seconds anyway. The O functioned really well when the personnel packages were being moved in and out nearly play after play. Keeping the D needing to match personnel with the O can often lead to defensive players out of position and not set in a good alignment of playcall anyway. When the Packers go hurry-up, they're either trying to keep the other team from substituting or trying to catch the other team substituting. It's not that they're snapping the ball with 15+ seconds left on the play clock, but rather they're up to the LOS in a timely manner. This isn't a situation like several college teams do where they try to run as many plays as humanly possible, they do that to prevent teams from making matchup changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire12 Posted July 27, 2017 Share Posted July 27, 2017 2 minutes ago, CWood21 said: When the Packers go hurry-up, they're either trying to keep the other team from substituting or trying to catch the other team substituting. It's not that they're snapping the ball with 15+ seconds left on the play clock, but rather they're up to the LOS in a timely manner. This isn't a situation like several college teams do where they try to run as many plays as humanly possible, they do that to prevent teams from making matchup changes. Agreed. But the hurry up really has not been that overly effective IMO for the offense. If the D is matched up well with the offensive personnel, then what is the point of staying in that grouping. Using more frequent changes in offensive player groupings keeps the D having to change and that can lead to issues just as easily as catching them in the hurry-up. Dictate to the D... 1-2 plays in 11 package 2-3 players in 21 package 1 play in something else. The D needs to match that and be sending players in and out more frequently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanedorf Posted July 27, 2017 Share Posted July 27, 2017 Less volume, more creativity The flip side of all that subbing is having the ability to run or pass with equal aplomb - without subbing. Let's say GB comes out in a 12 personnel look with Kendricks offset at FB and Monty in the backfield. Bennett lined up tight to the formation... that screams run. And they can run well on first down from that alignment. And if the D matches that with their run personnel package, then it gives Aaron the chance to attack with either run or pass. He simply makes a call at the LOS and it easily becomes a 5 wide passing formation with 5 legit options. That's the beauty of Monty and the beauty of the talented TEs. You have 5 legit pass catchers Bennett, Monty and Kendricks along with Jordy and Adams. Mixing and matching different packages is fine and has its merits and moments. But being able to do multiple things really well with the same personnel is even more valuable imo. I'll also push back a bit on squires comment above: "But the hurry up really has not been that overly effective IMO for the offense" I'd like to see some data on that because it doesn't seem to mesh with my impression of that strategy and both AR and MM seem to like deploying it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire12 Posted July 27, 2017 Share Posted July 27, 2017 23 minutes ago, Shanedorf said: Less volume, more creativity The flip side of all that subbing is having the ability to run or pass with equal aplomb - without subbing. Let's say GB comes out in a 12 personnel look with Kendricks offset at FB and Monty in the backfield. Bennett lined up tight to the formation... that screams run. And they can run well on first down from that alignment. And if the D matches that with their run personnel package, then it gives Aaron the chance to attack with either run or pass. He simply makes a call at the LOS and it easily becomes a 5 wide passing formation with 5 legit options. That's the beauty of Monty and the beauty of the talented TEs. You have 5 legit pass catchers Bennett, Monty and Kendricks along with Jordy and Adams. Mixing and matching different packages is fine and has its merits and moments. But being able to do multiple things really well with the same personnel is even more valuable imo. I'll also push back a bit on squires comment above: "But the hurry up really has not been that overly effective IMO for the offense" I'd like to see some data on that because it doesn't seem to mesh with my impression of that strategy and both AR and MM seem to like deploying it I will say I do not have any data to support my opinion of the hurry-up being less effective. The idea that AR and MM like to deploy it does not in any way support its effectiveness. They also seem to like the 1 yard out pattern to Richard Rodgers....use it, like it, but not overly effective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanedorf Posted July 27, 2017 Share Posted July 27, 2017 2 hours ago, squire12 said: I will say I do not have any data to support my opinion of the hurry-up being less effective. The idea that AR and MM like to deploy it does not in any way support its effectiveness. They also seem to like the 1 yard out pattern to Richard Rodgers....use it, like it, but not overly effective. Here's some data: The Packers offense was ranked # 3, 10, 7 in efficiency by Football Outsiders over the last 3 seasons. The Packers offense ran the hurry- up offense at a 49% rate in 2014, (the only year I could find data for in a quick search). Those data points offer some insight. I'd be interested to read about how ineffective the hurry- up offense is and why the stubborn HC and QB1 continue to run it half the time, despite it being less effective. Also noted: Richard Rodgers delivered 9 yards per reception in 2016 per profootball reference. https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/R/RodgRi00.htm I yield the floor to you , honorable Senator Squire .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire12 Posted July 27, 2017 Share Posted July 27, 2017 Nice of you to grab the yard per catch stat without looking deeper at the numbers. Richard Rodgers had 7 of his 30 receptions for 5 yards or less, 2 more for 6 each. Had 3 catches for 15 or more yards. Again, it is just my perception that the out route to Richard Rodgers is not overly effective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted July 27, 2017 Author Share Posted July 27, 2017 30 minutes ago, squire12 said: Nice of you to grab the yard per catch stat without looking deeper at the numbers. Richard Rodgers had 7 of his 30 receptions for 5 yards or less, 2 more for 6 each. Had 3 catches for 15 or more yards. Again, it is just my perception that the out route to Richard Rodgers is not overly effective. Where are you guys pulling these numbers? @Shanedorf @squire12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire12 Posted July 27, 2017 Share Posted July 27, 2017 1 hour ago, CWood21 said: Where are you guys pulling these numbers? @Shanedorf @squire12 game logs at profootball reference. @Shanedorf went with the quick grab of yards per catch. I sifted through the game logs and looked at the length of each reception. Left the info at work, so if you want the specifics, that will have to wait until Monday (if I did not pitch the piece of paper it was on)....or dig some yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanedorf Posted July 28, 2017 Share Posted July 28, 2017 19 hours ago, squire12 said: Nice of you to grab the yard per catch stat without looking deeper at the numbers. HaHa ! nice of you to ignore the compelling data in my response to your assertion that "the Packers hurry-up is a less effective offense." DickRod represents a nearly-negligible component of a top- rated offense... both in the regular and up- tempo versions. ( targeted on 4.7 % of plays) Throwing an occasional pass to DickRod isn't an indictment of the HC or QB1, or the scheme or the strategy/effectiveness of using the up- tempo offense. Perhaps someday we can chat about the relative effectiveness of the other 95.3 % of the Packers top- rated offense ...because I'm always interested in learning more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted July 28, 2017 Share Posted July 28, 2017 I think 2011 ruined people when it comes to our offense. Aaron Rodgers has ruined people when it comes to our offense. Even two years ago when it felt like we were the worst offense ever, we were 23rd in yards. We were 15th in points. Just think on that... The year our offense was the worst it's been in Aaron's entire time here, we still ranked in the top half of the league in points. When AARON RODGERS missed 8 games in 2013, we were THIRD in yards, EIGHTH in points. How do people worry about our offense? It's kinda annoying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanedorf Posted July 28, 2017 Share Posted July 28, 2017 We're just jousting around dude, not worried about this offense at all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted July 28, 2017 Share Posted July 28, 2017 Just now, Shanedorf said: We're just jousting around dude, not worried about this offense at all I can't joust? Am I not invited to the jousting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanedorf Posted July 28, 2017 Share Posted July 28, 2017 Here's a some data for The Horizontal Jouster: Beefalo Bills spent the 4th overall pick on WR Sammy Watkins and netted 17 TDs since he arrived in the league in 2014 Investment: 1800 draft points The Packers spent (3) 2nd round picks on Jordy, Cobb and Adams and netted 65 TDs since Watkins arrived in the league in 2014 Investment: 1180 draft points That means GB still has another 620 points to make it an equal investment - and 620 pts gets you the 30th pick in the draft as your bonus for value shopping Trivia: Julio entered the league in 2011, who has more TDs since he arrived - Julio Jones or Jordy Nelson ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.