MrBobGray Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 8 minutes ago, skibrett15 said: I agree with everything up to this part. Against a good team, with a good well coached defense. You 100% will need your QB to make an off schedule "play" against a schematic win by the defense. You will probably need 2-3 plays against most playoff teams. Goff's inability to do this a single time is probably the single biggest reason why the rams lost the SB. Now, that *doesn't* mean scramble and run for a first down when the play *is* there. It means when the first read is covered and the second read is covered, either the QB sees this pre-snap and makes their own play, or they extend the play with pocket awareness or scrambling and get the ball downfield late in the down. Yeah I agree, I intended that to be more "you shouldn't need your QB to consistently make off schedule plays." Being able to do so from time to time is great and can definitely be a necessity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrBobGray Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 11 minutes ago, deathstar said: Oh. Any improvisation is negative if they bypass the play as called. He got a first down. Literally no one knows what would've happened if he threw the slant, even though it was open. What matters is the offense is in a better position than it was. IMO. The issue with that is this is not a sustainable model for the offense. An NFL QB and WR should be able to complete a wide open slant very nearly 100% of the time. A QB scramble is, by necessity, going to be a less reliable play. If your QB is bypassing a "sure thing" in order to attempt a much riskier play that puts him in harms way, eventually probability will catch up to him. Sure it worked out this time; but what about the next sixty? And if you give him a positive grade because, hey, he picked it up, then you're reinforcing behavior and play that works against what you're trying to build. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deathstar Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 1 hour ago, MrBobGray said: The issue with that is this is not a sustainable model for the offense. An NFL QB and WR should be able to complete a wide open slant very nearly 100% of the time. A QB scramble is, by necessity, going to be a less reliable play. If your QB is bypassing a "sure thing" in order to attempt a much riskier play that puts him in harms way, eventually probability will catch up to him. Sure it worked out this time; but what about the next sixty? And if you give him a positive grade because, hey, he picked it up, then you're reinforcing behavior and play that works against what you're trying to build. I guess then you should question why are we grading things? To evaluate what happened on a specific play or to coach someone up? As a fan my perspective is to evaluate the specific plays on the field because, 1 I don’t know the offense, 2 i want to know if my team is in a better place than it was one play ago. That makes me think: whose to say the wide open slant is what the WR was supposed to run? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexGreen#20 Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 8 minutes ago, deathstar said: That makes me think: whose to say the wide open slant is what the WR was supposed to run? Because it's 3rd and 5 and you're being given a wide open slant? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deathstar Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 8 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said: Because it's 3rd and 5 and you're being given a wide open slant? Oh. Ok. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrBobGray Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 21 minutes ago, deathstar said: I guess then you should question why are we grading things? To evaluate what happened on a specific play or to coach someone up? As a fan my perspective is to evaluate the specific plays on the field because, 1 I don’t know the offense, 2 i want to know if my team is in a better place than it was one play ago. That makes me think: whose to say the wide open slant is what the WR was supposed to run? I think you missed how this discussion started. The question was, assuming you were in some position of authority and this was the scenario your QB was in, how would you grade them? We're not talking about fans trying to grade players on the field, we're talking about how much value you put into executing the play as designed vs breaking off to improvise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deathstar Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 8 minutes ago, MrBobGray said: I think you missed how this discussion started. The question was, assuming you were in some position of authority and this was the scenario your QB was in, how would you grade them? We're not talking about fans trying to grade players on the field, we're talking about how much value you put into executing the play as designed vs breaking off to improvise. Ben Fennell: Aaron Rodgers argument in a weird nutshell.... In the simplest terms: It's 3rd & 5. Slant/Flat. Man Coverage. 3 Step. Good protection. Slant is wide open. QB doesn't throw it. Extends play, scrambles for 6 yards. Do you give the QB a positive grade or a negative grade? — It’s just about a Packer writer posing a question on Twitter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrBobGray Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 Just now, deathstar said: Ben Fennell: Aaron Rodgers argument in a weird nutshell.... In the simplest terms: It's 3rd & 5. Slant/Flat. Man Coverage. 3 Step. Good protection. Slant is wide open. QB doesn't throw it. Extends play, scrambles for 6 yards. Do you give the QB a positive grade or a negative grade? — It’s just about a Packer writer posing a question on Twitter. Yes, and his question implies certain things, namely that the route the receiver was "supposed" to run doesn't matter. It's just supposed to be a thought exercise about how you specifically grade the decision to not throw the slant assuming the QB picks it up anyway. This isn't a question about what fans want to see, or about coaching up a player, it's about philosophically where you stand on the issue of executing the play as designed vs ability to convert plays playing sand lot football. That is what the "Aaron Rodgers argument" is. This doesn't have anything to do with a fan perspective or not, because a fan can still have a viewpoint on whether it's better to execute a play as called or not. Saying "we don't even know if that was the right route" is just stating you don't believe the question can be answered, which is a confusing statement about a hypothetical. Your initial answer is fine; if you don't care about anything except the outcome of the play, then that's your focus. There's a reason he initially left it opened ended. I gave the reasoning behind why I don't agree. You haven't really addressed that reasoning other than to say, "but you don't know what would have happened." Of course, because it's not a real situation, it's a hypothetical. And hypothetically, I'd prefer my QB just throw the ball to the wide open receiver since that's his job description and that's how the NFL game works. Brett Hundley was an all-around expert at pulling it down and running even when there were open guys; he actually converted pretty often when he ran. It's pretty easy to see how that doesn't result in sustainable success. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted August 7, 2019 Author Share Posted August 7, 2019 On 8/2/2019 at 12:51 PM, deathstar said: It's a first down. How is that not an advantageous play? Sorry - I just noted the latter discussion and missed your question - as opposed to not responding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deathstar Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 44 minutes ago, Leader said: Sorry - I just noted the latter discussion and missed your question - as opposed to not responding. It was semi-rhetorical and snarky, barely deserving a response. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted August 8, 2019 Author Share Posted August 8, 2019 58 minutes ago, deathstar said: It was semi-rhetorical and snarky, barely deserving a response. Those semi-rhetorical/snarky ones can be problematic....glad I missed it! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted August 8, 2019 Author Share Posted August 8, 2019 AcmePacking: Mike McCarthy’s offense increasingly became a conglomeration of plays rather than a cohesive offensive structure. They rarely seemed to call one play to set up a counter, and then show the counter off that. Or if they did, it would happen once and they’d never go back to it. Beautiful play design litters the tape from Green Bay’s season despite the struggles, but McCarthy rarely found a way to make each play work in concert without one another. How much of that fell on his shoulders and how much came from Rodgers changing plays at the line? We have no way of knowing. It’s something we must set aside for the moment. How can Matt LaFleur change this? For starters, balance should be better for the Packers, which actually runs counter to what the data suggests about playcalling game theory from a 30,000 foot view. For example, on 2nd-and-8 or more, the Packers threw it 74% of the time, third-most in the league. Theoretically, that’s good. But Green Bay was below league average in success rate. Matt LaFluer’s Titans threw just 53% of the time in those situations, the least often in the NFL, but were above average in success rate. Considering the players involved with Rodgers, Aaron Jones, and one of the best offensive lines in the league, this simply shouldn’t be the case. It hints at a distinct different in play design and playcalling. Tennessee’s limited offensive personnel, with injuries to Marcus Mariota and Delanie Walker, certainly contributed to this rate of calls. LaFleur’s mentor in Los Angeles Sean McVay, called passes on second-and-long 71% of the time while Kyle Shanahan in San Francisco did so 69% of the time. We should expect LaFleur’s offense to more closely resemble those numbers in 2019 if for no other reason than he has Rodgers, Davante Adams and the best pass-blocking offensive line in football. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBitzMan Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 Any Pardon My Take listeners in here? LaFleur is on tomorrow's episode along with Vitale and Kuhn. Pretty excited about that, although I do wish it was LaFleur solo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 Cody Latimer just caught a pass!! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 And another huge gain.. Told you guys Adams sucks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.