Random Packer News & Notes

[Mazrimiv]

11 hours ago, Norm said:

For real real, does this work? The players on the DL don't have a HUD with the play clock in their face like we do watching on TV.

I would legit like insight into this from some players or something to see if it works that much.

 

IDC about snapping at one that much, not as much as the wasted TOs all the damn time.

Yeah, I've never understood the fan rants regarding Rodgers running the clock down.  It was the pattern of burning early TO's that was so maddening.

[squire12]

1 hour ago, Mazrimiv said:

Yeah, I've never understood the fan rants regarding Rodgers running the clock down.  It was the pattern of burning early TO's that was so maddening.

The process of running the playclock down led to the result of burning a timeout.

If you are unhappy with the results, you should probably question the process leading up to 

[Old Guy]

7 hours ago, glubes said:

https://www.12up.com/posts/brian-urlacher-had-some-interesting-comments-about-aaron-rodgers-running-play-clock-down-01dwq59zw79s

This same theory would work with 5 or 10 seconds on the play clock as running it down to 1 second and too many times having to burn timeouts. 

[Norm]

3 hours ago, squire12 said:

The process of running the playclock down led to the result of burning a timeout.

If you are unhappy with the results, you should probably question the process leading up to 

This discussion started not at all because of time outs though. I agree it's part of it and I said it right away.

But it started with the idea they can jump the snap because we snap with zero. 

[craig]

8 hours ago, glubes said:

https://www.12up.com/posts/brian-urlacher-had-some-interesting-comments-about-aaron-rodgers-running-play-clock-down-01dwq59zw79s

I don't understand some of this.  Can somebody smart explain it better for stupid me? 

Urlacher said that by running it down, "he knows the damn play clock. So he knows the situation, if we had enough time on the clock where we could get a check in." And there's "a certain point in the play clock where you have to show him what you’re doing. Or the ball’s going to be snapped and you’re not going to be lined up correctly."

That makes sense, the defense can be showing deceptive looks, but eventually needs to line up correctly to do what it wants to do.  

But, how does that work if Rodgers snaps it at 5 or 10 seconds?  If the defense isn't lined up correctly for what it actually wants to run, but he snaps it before they get into their actual intended set, how does that advantage the defense?  To simplistic naive me, wouldn't that disadvantage the defense to be lined up inconsistent with what they actually want to run?  I don't get it?

I'd think like MikeMike said would make more sense?  Snap some on 0, yes; but snap some on 3 and 5 and 10 too?  Catch them lined up incorrectly with early snaps, and take advantage?  Then, if you burn them on early snaps when they aren't actually set up for what they actually want to do, won't that then force them to get into their actual sets earlier in the clock, which would then give you more time to diagnose it? 

Just seems to me that if they know you're going down to 0, they don't have much incentive to show their actual alignment until the last seconds.  

[Sandy]

11 minutes ago, craig said:

I don't understand some of this.  Can somebody smart explain it better for stupid me? 

Urlacher said that by running it down, "he knows the damn play clock. So he knows the situation, if we had enough time on the clock where we could get a check in." And there's "a certain point in the play clock where you have to show him what you’re doing. Or the ball’s going to be snapped and you’re not going to be lined up correctly."

That makes sense, the defense can be showing deceptive looks, but eventually needs to line up correctly to do what it wants to do.  

But, how does that work if Rodgers snaps it at 5 or 10 seconds?  If the defense isn't lined up correctly for what it actually wants to run, but he snaps it before they get into their actual intended set, how does that advantage the defense?  To simplistic naive me, wouldn't that disadvantage the defense to be lined up inconsistent with what they actually want to run?  I don't get it?

I'd think like MikeMike said would make more sense?  Snap some on 0, yes; but snap some on 3 and 5 and 10 too?  Catch them lined up incorrectly with early snaps, and take advantage?  Then, if you burn them on early snaps when they aren't actually set up for what they actually want to do, won't that then force them to get into their actual sets earlier in the clock, which would then give you more time to diagnose it? 

Just seems to me that if they know you're going down to 0, they don't have much incentive to show their actual alignment until the last seconds.  

I could be wrong, but I interpret it as:

As we know, Rodgers doesn't just wait until the last second doing nothing. He actively is pretending to snap the ball often. It's at these fake snaps that someone, somewhere in the defense is going to show where they're going after the play starts. 

So, say, a safety is going to be playing man-to-man against a tight end. Rodgers, on these fake snaps, might notice the safety lean towards that TE. Then he would bark something to let the rest of the offense know the defense will only be single high.

So I think it's less about decoy fronts or pulling people offsides, the benefit was more from understanding who's covering who, etc. 

Again, I could be totally wrong, but that's what makes sense to me about it. 

[craig]

Thanks, Sandy, that's helpful.    

 

[mikemike778]

8 hours ago, squire12 said:

The process of running the playclock down led to the result of burning a timeout.

If you are unhappy with the results, you should probably question the process leading up to 

Ultimately it comes down to whether all the pre-snap fiddling led to better plays being called. If it did then it was probably worth the occasional time out.  Urlacher's comments suggest it did. But its impossible to know as we will never know how the original plays would have worked out. This season might give a better idea.

In principle, I didn't have a major issue with it other than the lack of occasional surprise early snaps to throw the defence off guard. 

 

[Leader]

30 minutes ago, mikemike778 said:

In principle, I didn't have a major issue with it other than the lack of occasional surprise early snaps to throw the defence off guard.

This ^

I cant remember a time when AR brought them up and the ball was hiked in under 5 seconds or so. It just never seemed to happen.

[Norm]

29 minutes ago, Leader said:

This ^

I cant remember a time when AR brought them up and the ball was hiked in under 5 seconds or so. It just never seemed to happen.

Pff needs to start charting this somehow lol

[Old Guy]

11 hours ago, Norm said:

Pff needs to start charting this somehow lol

If they had 12 men on the field. 

[Leader]

46 minutes ago, Old Guy said:

If they had 12 men on the field. 

That's true and that's a good get. Hadnt thought of that, but when not trying to catch the other team with too many players on the field, they never (hardly ever) went with a quick count.

[Old Guy]

11 minutes ago, Leader said:

That's true and that's a good get. Hadnt thought of that, but when not trying to catch the other team with too many players on the field, they never (hardly ever) went with a quick count.

As far as I can remember you would be correct. 

[Leader]

 

[R T]

6 minutes ago, Leader said:

 

CB - Alexander, Stokes, Douglas, Valentine, Jean-Charles are all also under contract for 2024, Safety is the position that will be needed to be addressed in the 2024 off season on the defensive side of the ball.