This Is Ungood

[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.