Packers 2020 WR Corps

[deathstar]

2 hours ago, MrBobGray said:

In fact, the Packers were 9-1 in one score games last season, which we can be all but certain won't happen again in 2020.

If you look at win probability we only had three wins last year that were less than 60% for us within the last five minutes. While we won a lot of close games, we didn’t exactly get lucky.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/not-all-close-nfl-wins-were-actually-close/

[craig]

4 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

The 12:50 mark is a great grab. 

The interception was a DPI that went uncalled because it was a rub route. Nobody ran it wrong. It was very likely a predetermined throw. 

The hope is that either the coverage blows it. MVS is able to box out the receiver and make a catch through contact, or you get the DPI. It's not like it didn't work. The defender committed DPI.

You can't expect that ball to get tipped in the air, AND you don't get the call. That's just bad luck.

Thanks for note on the held arm.  That explains a lot.  

Alex, question on this, I don't understand how it's supposed to have worked. 

The ball was in the air before the two receivers rubbed.  The ball was thrown before Shepherd ever had a chance to rub past MVS, or for Shepherd's defender to clear out.  And the throw went to MVS only about a half-yard beyond the line of scrimmage, with Shepherd's guy still right in front of MVS.  Even if MVS's arm isn't held by his defender, and he makes a successful catch, wouldn't he then have run right into Shepherd's defender, and gained only half a yard?  

Not sure how it was supposed to go.  But it seems to me that the play needed just a little more time, an extra split second, for Shepherd to have crossed with MVS, and for Shepherd's guy to have needed to decide whether to stick with Shepherd, or to help on MVS?  As is, it seems to me that Shepherd's defender never was put  into a difficult decision.  The ball was already in flight before MVS and Shepherd had rubbed, so the guy never really needed to make any decision.  

What am I not seeing correctly on it?  Or was that too part of MVS's guy hooking him?  If MVS had a free arm, would he have already crossed Shepherd's guy and had free space ahead of him?  

It's such an interesting play, I'm just trying to understand it.  

[Shanedorf]

Stroking the Lazard - from Packers Wire
If you recall, he didn't make the 53 in September

https://packerswire.usatoday.com/2020/05/20/aaron-rodgers-packers-wr-allen-lazard-is-ascending-player/

– Lazard caught 67.3 percent of his targets and averaged 9.2 yards per target

– Rodgers had a passer rating of 115.6 when targeting Lazard

– Lazard produced 12 third-down conversions on just 35 catches

– Lazard ranked 18th among all qualifying receivers in the NFL in DVOA, a metric developed by Football Outsiders that compares the per-play value of a player to the average player at the position.

lots more in the article

 

 

[Rodjahs12]

Just for fun what would Lazard’s ceiling be if he fully develops? Muhsin Muhammad comes to mind. 

[AlexGreen#20]

4 hours ago, craig said:

Thanks for note on the held arm.  That explains a lot.  

Alex, question on this, I don't understand how it's supposed to have worked. 

The ball was in the air before the two receivers rubbed.  The ball was thrown before Shepherd ever had a chance to rub past MVS, or for Shepherd's defender to clear out.  And the throw went to MVS only about a half-yard beyond the line of scrimmage, with Shepherd's guy still right in front of MVS.  Even if MVS's arm isn't held by his defender, and he makes a successful catch, wouldn't he then have run right into Shepherd's defender, and gained only half a yard?  

Not sure how it was supposed to go.  But it seems to me that the play needed just a little more time, an extra split second, for Shepherd to have crossed with MVS, and for Shepherd's guy to have needed to decide whether to stick with Shepherd, or to help on MVS?  As is, it seems to me that Shepherd's defender never was put  into a difficult decision.  The ball was already in flight before MVS and Shepherd had rubbed, so the guy never really needed to make any decision.  

What am I not seeing correctly on it?  Or was that too part of MVS's guy hooking him?  If MVS had a free arm, would he have already crossed Shepherd's guy and had free space ahead of him?  

It's such an interesting play, I'm just trying to understand it.  

It just isn't a good play. I'm not going to say it's an elongated spike, but it's a quick play you call thinking maybe you get lucky and the slot guy misreads it, turns his back to the ball and gives you the TD. If not, it's a quick incompletion, you regroup on 3rd down.

Fifteen years ago when defenses were still confused by immediate switches from the WRs at the line of scrimmage, this maybe was something, now NFL DBs see that concept so often it's second nature to them. 

The better (and I say better, not great) version of this play is the one the Seahawks lost the SB on. Instead of running an out breaking slant, the inside receiver runs an in breaking curl and plays the release into the DB. The outside receiver runs the slant underneath it. The QB gives it another half second to breathe.

Even a simple double slant follow concept is better here. You're at least forcing a tougher decision by the DB. There's no decision at all here. It's an obvious switch. 

Stuff like this is why I don't love LaFleur as an offensive mind. The concepts he runs seem to always be a few years behind. The goal line passing game, and the cover 3 beaters are some things we've talked about here from a schematic standpoint (running on 2nd and long from a play calling standpoint immediately jumps to mind), but there are other small things that are just sub optimal we do. Hopefully it gets cleaned up as he gains more faith the players can handle more wrinkles. 

[coachbuns]

3 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

It just isn't a good play. I'm not going to say it's an elongated spike, but it's a quick play you call thinking maybe you get lucky and the slot guy misreads it, turns his back to the ball and gives you the TD. If not, it's a quick incompletion, you regroup on 3rd down.

Fifteen years ago when defenses were still confused by immediate switches from the WRs at the line of scrimmage, this maybe was something, now NFL DBs see that concept so often it's second nature to them. 

The better (and I say better, not great) version of this play is the one the Seahawks lost the SB on. Instead of running an out breaking slant, the inside receiver runs an in breaking curl and plays the release into the DB. The outside receiver runs the slant underneath it. The QB gives it another half second to breathe.

Even a simple double slant follow concept is better here. You're at least forcing a tougher decision by the DB. There's no decision at all here. It's an obvious switch. 

Stuff like this is why I don't love LaFleur as an offensive mind. The concepts he runs seem to always be a few years behind. The goal line passing game, and the cover 3 beaters are some things we've talked about here from a schematic standpoint (running on 2nd and long from a play calling standpoint immediately jumps to mind), but there are other small things that are just sub optimal we do. Hopefully it gets cleaned up as he gains more faith the players can handle more wrinkles. 

Maybe you'll be more comfortable with his offense with another year to see how the offense, coaches and players adjust.  I'd imagine it takes at least a year or two in the same scheme to learn, understand and master.  It also takes time to obtain players that "fit" rather than just do with what you have to run your offense.

[craig]

Thanks for analysis, Alex.  I'm not disagreeing about MLF's offense.  I'm not sure, we'll see; but it's not clear whether there is creativity or nuance that the best have.  We'll see, I guess.  

On that particular play, I still wonder whether the play is badly drawn; or whether one or more of the key players, MVS, Shepherd, and Rodgers, executed ineffectively.  Seems to me the play should have perhaps been a step or two deeper; and that Shepherd should have perhaps been a step or more further on his route?  So that his defender would have needed to decide:  "do I chase with Shepherd, or do I let him run free into the corner and stop and switch to MVS?  As is, basically Shepherd dragged his defender right into MVS's face.  Was he supposed to have already dragged him too steps into the end zone?  

• So maybe it was Shepherd's execution that disrupted the timing.  He was just slow or late to get where he was supposed to go?  
• Or, maybe MVS.  He didn't really sell that he was going straight into the end-zone and going for a corner.  His decision to "cut" didn't seem hard to read.  Didn't seem to really "set up" his defender.  Maybe that's a skill thing; an experience thing; an instincts thing; maybe it's an execution thing; maybe it's just the consequences of having long guy with lesser ability to make sharp and deceptive cuts?  I would suggest that *if* you'd had Greg Jennings or Diggs playing MVS's role in exactly the same play-call, that the play might have played out quite differently?   
• Or maybe Rodgers jumped the gun?  AFter that game, some fans noted "wow, Shepherd was all alone in the corner, it could have been an easy TD."  But he went uncovered into the corner only after the ball was already in flight, so of course no defender had motive to chase him.  But perhaps the play design is really intended for the QB to read the defenders; will *either* Shepherd's guy or MVS's guy be in position to cover him into the corner?  Or will one or both be a step behind?  Or will at least Shepherd's guy follow him, leaving MVS 1-on-1 with a step lead?  Perhaps Aaron's timing was off and he jumped the gun, and ended up throwing too quickly to stress the defense, or before he could determine which guy would be more open, and instead threw so early that he forced the double-coverage and threw right into the double coverage?  

I guess I just don't totally guess how much it's a function of not being a very smart or clever play call, versus not being well timed and well executed by one, two, or perhaps all three of the players.   The eternal question, I guess, is it the play or is it the players?  

[MrBobGray]

13 hours ago, Cakeshoppe said:

We will beat them by 69?

 

[Joe]

14 hours ago, Cakeshoppe said:

We will beat them by 69?

This guy thinks so...

10 hours ago, Rodjahs12 said:

Just for fun what would Lazard’s ceiling be if he fully develops? Muhsin Muhammad comes to mind. 

Vincent Jackson. Same height, roughly same weight, both players are physical, Jackson had the slightly quicker 40 time but if I recall Jackson's game properly I'd have to say that Lazard has a bit more wiggle.

[AlexGreen#20]

2 hours ago, craig said:

Thanks for analysis, Alex.  I'm not disagreeing about MLF's offense.  I'm not sure, we'll see; but it's not clear whether there is creativity or nuance that the best have.  We'll see, I guess.  

On that particular play, I still wonder whether the play is badly drawn; or whether one or more of the key players, MVS, Shepherd, and Rodgers, executed ineffectively.  Seems to me the play should have perhaps been a step or two deeper; and that Shepherd should have perhaps been a step or more further on his route?  So that his defender would have needed to decide:  "do I chase with Shepherd, or do I let him run free into the corner and stop and switch to MVS?  As is, basically Shepherd dragged his defender right into MVS's face.  Was he supposed to have already dragged him too steps into the end zone?  

• So maybe it was Shepherd's execution that disrupted the timing.  He was just slow or late to get where he was supposed to go?  
• Or, maybe MVS.  He didn't really sell that he was going straight into the end-zone and going for a corner.  His decision to "cut" didn't seem hard to read.  Didn't seem to really "set up" his defender.  Maybe that's a skill thing; an experience thing; an instincts thing; maybe it's an execution thing; maybe it's just the consequences of having long guy with lesser ability to make sharp and deceptive cuts?  I would suggest that *if* you'd had Greg Jennings or Diggs playing MVS's role in exactly the same play-call, that the play might have played out quite differently?   
• Or maybe Rodgers jumped the gun?  AFter that game, some fans noted "wow, Shepherd was all alone in the corner, it could have been an easy TD."  But he went uncovered into the corner only after the ball was already in flight, so of course no defender had motive to chase him.  But perhaps the play design is really intended for the QB to read the defenders; will *either* Shepherd's guy or MVS's guy be in position to cover him into the corner?  Or will one or both be a step behind?  Or will at least Shepherd's guy follow him, leaving MVS 1-on-1 with a step lead?  Perhaps Aaron's timing was off and he jumped the gun, and ended up throwing too quickly to stress the defense, or before he could determine which guy would be more open, and instead threw so early that he forced the double-coverage and threw right into the double coverage?  

I guess I just don't totally guess how much it's a function of not being a very smart or clever play call, versus not being well timed and well executed by one, two, or perhaps all three of the players.   The eternal question, I guess, is it the play or is it the players?  

They run that route any deeper or throw a headfake in there, he's not in position for the throw. We can look at the routes all we want, but if those routes are a fraction slower, that ball isn't arriving on time/target. Either there were two different corresponding player mistakes, or they ran it right. I don't think there were two errors.

Those corners are reading whether that crossing is fast or slow. If it's slow, they stay with the guy. If it's fast, they pass it off. No way to really run a pair of crossing slants with a slow cross. 

It's hard to break that 8 man zone every plays in the redzone without some sort of QB movement.

[deathstar]

Not saying the above is indicative of everything, but I wouldn’t take that Eagles play as representative.

[AlexGreen#20]

1 hour ago, deathstar said:

Not saying the above is indicative of everything, but I wouldn’t take that Eagles play as representative.

I could be misremembering, but I seem to recall our red zone passing numbers were rather gristly this year. The first half in particular I know was BAD.

[deathstar]

20 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

I could be misremembering, but I seem to recall our red zone passing numbers were rather gristly this year. The first half in particular I know was BAD.

We came away with TDs 64% of the time, good for #8 in the league. Our rushing was great but I don’t believe the passing was that bad. 

[Shanedorf]

red zone attempts # 20

https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/red-zone-scoring-attempts-per-game

red zone TD's  # 8

https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/red-zone-scores-per-game

red zone TD %  # 2

https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/red-zone-scoring-pct

[Arthur Penske]

Have any of you seen EQs workouts? That guy is starting to look less like a string bean and more like his dad.