This Is Ungood

[Fritz]

Doug Farrar ‏@SI_DougFarrar 37m37 minutes ago
Doug Farrar Retweeted Zach Kruse
Not sure how much more basic that passing game can get, but YOLO.

Zach Kruse @zachkruse2
Mike McCarthy on "going back to the basics" for the #Packers offense http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap300...ense-on-basics …




Ian Kenyon ‏@IanKenyonNFL
@SI_DougFarrar Next year its just going to be a bunch of players running go-routes every play.


Healthy, it might not matter as much. But this change in his strategy (from multiple personnel groups running many varied attacks against a D) to this streamlined no huddle deal have been murder on the offense. It is literally choking the life out of it now that teams have adjusted.

He used to scheme against a D and matchup personnel to abuse the adjustments they made. Now its completely reversed to where players are expected to triumph one on one each time.

Luke Getsy might be a hot shot coaching candidate, but he's not Jimmy Johnson (Packer version) yet. I don't think he can make this work.

Jared Cook might make this work (in a smaller way so could Janis) due to a constant matchup problem via his size and athleticism, but this is like deciding to play chess by using half the board.

If he keeps this up, it might be his undoing in Green Bay.

Stubby indeed.

The part that catches my attention, though, is the part at which MM says that he originally built the offense that way and that's how it "should be ran" (bone up on verb tense, Mike). So is this some throwback to a much earlier idea - not the no-huddle but constant sub-groups coming in and out?

I would agree with you PB if by all this MM means that dumb no-huddle-same-personnel-grouping possession after possession. It doesn't seem to work and it isn't run with much speed anyway.

Question: when an offense goes no-huddle, even if it's the slow-motion version that the Packers seem to run, is a defense allowed to make substitutions?

[ThunderDan]

The part that catches my attention, though, is the part at which MM says that he originally built the offense that way and that's how it "should be ran" (bone up on verb tense, Mike). So is this some throwback to a much earlier idea - not the no-huddle but constant sub-groups coming in and out?

I would agree with you PB if by all this MM means that dumb no-huddle-same-personnel-grouping possession after possession. It doesn't seem to work and it isn't run with much speed anyway.

Question: when an offense goes no-huddle, even if it's the slow-motion version that the Packers seem to run, is a defense allowed to make substitutions?

If the offense doesn't change personnel the d is not given time to change. If the offense subs the d is given time to sub before the refs will allow the ball to be snappex.

[pbmax]

The part that catches my attention, though, is the part at which MM says that he originally built the offense that way and that's how it "should be ran" (bone up on verb tense, Mike). So is this some throwback to a much earlier idea - not the no-huddle but constant sub-groups coming in and out?

I would agree with you PB if by all this MM means that dumb no-huddle-same-personnel-grouping possession after possession. It doesn't seem to work and it isn't run with much speed anyway.

Question: when an offense goes no-huddle, even if it's the slow-motion version that the Packers seem to run, is a defense allowed to make substitutions?

Yes, but you are at the mercy of Rodgers catching you doing it and snapping the ball. If the offense subs, then the refs will actually hold the snap until the defense can sub. If you run no-huddle, part of the attraction for the offense is to keep the defense in one package, with basic calls and then abuse a mismatch. This is much different than his previous offense which sent the mismatch out on the field in a personnel switch and ran a play tailored to exploiting it.

Previously, M3 would load the field with a look designed to do one thing (heavy-run, 5 wide-pass) and then watch you adjust. If you adjusted fully, they had the option to change the play, or decide the liked the mismatch regardless.

Now, they have to win a one on one which no one was doing. With much less motion, fewer players and fewer formations, the defense knew exactly how to lineup and defend and the Packers weren't beating it.

Jordy and Cook might make this moot to some degree. Mayeb Janis too. But as I said, its using only half of the toolbox.

[Fritz]

Yes, but you are at the mercy of Rodgers catching you doing it and snapping the ball. If the offense subs, then the refs will actually hold the snap until the defense can sub. If you run no-huddle, part of the attraction for the offense is to keep the defense in one package, with basic calls and then abuse a mismatch. This is much different than his previous offense which sent the mismatch out on the field in a personnel switch and ran a play tailored to exploiting it.

Previously, M3 would load the field with a look designed to do one thing (heavy-run, 5 wide-pass) and then watch you adjust. If you adjusted fully, they had the option to change the play, or decide the liked the mismatch regardless.

Now, they have to win a one on one which no one was doing. With much less motion, fewer players and fewer formations, the defense knew exactly how to lineup and defend and the Packers weren't beating it.

Jordy and Cook might make this moot to some degree. Mayeb Janis too. But as I said, its using only half of the toolbox.

The boldface type is what I meant in my comments wondering what MM meant by going back to how he originally designed the whole thing. Could he have meant going back to the specific packages (the five wide receivers and all that) look? I mean, if he said how he originally designed the offense, isn't that originally what he did? Or does MM mean something different by "orginally"?

Now I begin to see the complexity of whether Bill Clinton did, in deed, have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.

[pbmax]

The boldface type is what I meant in my comments wondering what MM meant by going back to how he originally designed the whole thing. Could he have meant going back to the specific packages (the five wide receivers and all that) look? I mean, if he said how he originally designed the offense, isn't that originally what he did? Or does MM mean something different by "orginally"?

Now I begin to see the complexity of whether Bill Clinton did, in deed, have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.

It could be, but that might mean hanging your entire offensive offensive prep on Jared Cook and Mitchell Henry. Healthy receivers will help regardless.

[run pMc]

The part that catches my attention, though, is the part at which MM says that he originally built the offense that way and that's how it "should be ran" (bone up on verb tense, Mike). So is this some throwback to a much earlier idea - not the no-huddle but constant sub-groups coming in and out?

I would agree with you PB if by all this MM means that dumb no-huddle-same-personnel-grouping possession after possession. It doesn't seem to work and it isn't run with much speed anyway.

Question: when an offense goes no-huddle, even if it's the slow-motion version that the Packers seem to run, is a defense allowed to make substitutions?

It might have to do with a lot of subpackages, and McCarthy often talks about matchups and exploiting them.
If you go back to the 2010 SB run, Aikman/Buck talk a few times about how the DCs have trouble keeping up with all the substitutions made from one play to the next.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gb4zVkCkuNE