Stategery

[Maxie the Taxi]

There is a good article in JS Online on McStubby's lack of a ground game Sunday:

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/79780727.html

Bob McGinn sums up his article by writing:


Clearly, the Packers will need their ground game before long. They just didn't think they needed it in Pittsburgh against the Steelers' 3-4 base personnel.

The article offers interesting insights from McStubby and Campen on the lack of a ground game.

McStubby sums it up by saying:


"They played a lot more base defense vs. some of our personnel groups," McCarthy said of his extreme offensive imbalance. "We felt confident throwing the football. We intended to attack the middle of the field. That's why we were throwing the football."

He expanded on the subject in today's press conference:


(The run-pass ratio was skewed. Are you OK with running the ball as little as you did?)
It's about points; it always has been. I think running the ball and throwing the ball statistically, it just makes you look at that area. I know you go through the run/pass ratios all of the time. We don't always play that way. We have a quarterback and an offensive unit that can handle a lot of adjustments at the line, and I think we're very good at that part of it. If it's running the ball versus a better look, we'll run it, and if it's throwing it versus a better look then we'll throw it. That's a starting point. Sometimes we line up and just throw it and sometimes we line up and just run it. The way the defense plays you when you are a multiple-personnel, multiple-concept, multiple-formation offense, has a lot to do with the direction of the game. Walking into the game I thought we would be a little more mixed run/throw the football, but the way they played us on first and second down, I thought we did a good job of attacking their defense.

I find McStubby's answer amazing. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it seems McStubby is saying he goes into the game trying to score as many points as possible and actually lets the opponent's defense dictate his play calling mix.

This sounds reasonable on the surface. Yes, points are nice. You can't win without them. And TACTICALLY it's wise to take what the defense gives you.

On the other hand, shouldn't a team have an overall STRATEGY to win the game, not just score points? Yes, scoring a ton of points can lead to a win, but, as we saw yesterday, that strategy doesn't work if the opponent manages to score a ton of points too, plus one.

Big Ben was on the field over 10 minutes longer than Rodgers yesterday. That means the Packer defense was on the field over 10 minutes longer than Pittsburgh's. I think that showed down the stretch.

All of those three and outs the Packers had yesterday consumed very little time and cost the Steelers very little in terms of expended effort.

I don't care what defensive formation the Steelers were in. I don't care what their reputation is for being able to stop the run. If we had run the ball on every down and still went three-and-out, at least we would have bloodied some Steeler noses and took some time off the clock, time which Big Ben needed on that last drive down the field.

I think we could have run the ball more and still have thrown the ball down the field and scored -- maybe not as often, but then maybe we would have needed so many points.

When we've run the ball over 20 times this year, we've done pretty good. We've scored points and won the Time of Possession battle. And won games.

When we've engaged the other team in a pure passing contest, we've failed as often as we've succeeded, especially against teams with top notch QB's. And against them, we've often needed a plus number of turnovers to seal the victory.

Sunday, we gave up on the rushing game -- either by design or by reason of what the Steeler defense dictated. The point is, it didn't work. And it will continue not to work.

You can't rush the ball less than 20 times a game and lose the battle for Time of Possession and still win, unless you save yourself with turnovers.

Sunday, we didn't have any game-changing turnovers. Zero.

We rushed the ball 9 times.

Yeah, I know: "We're a passing team." Many of you have been kind enough to point this out to me.

In my opinion there's more to the game than passing. In fact, someone should tell McStubby that he's wrong. It's not all "about points" and it hasn't always been all about scoring points.

It's about winning. 10 points will suffice as well as 36, so long as the opponent scores 9 or less.

McStubby needs a new Strategery.

[sheepshead]

Maybe we need a new HC. You know we're about even in record and stats as the Cowboys and its a forgone conclusion that Phillips will be spending "more time with the grandkids" next fall. Are our expectations any less?

[bobblehead]

I harp about the lack of running plays all the time, but this game I was kinda ok with it. The steelers were set up to stop the run all game long so we passed too much. It happens.

I don't feel that is why we lost the game at all. Our D had a bad day against a team that had to win and did what it took to stay on the field over and over again. Our lack of running had them off balance and as a result Grant ripped off a nice TD run late. I prefer to dominate TOP and keep the other teams offense out of rhythm, but it just didn't work that way today and I'm not convinced running a lot more would have changed it.

[red]

maybe if we had run the ball more we would have controlled more of the clock, the D would have had more energy at the end of the game and maybe they don't give up that many points

9 of our 12 drives were under 6 plays. 5 were 3 plays, 2 were 4 plays

a 3 play drive for a TD sucks just as much as a 3 and out for the D

in the 4th quarter, we had only 2 drives. one was 4 plays that took just under 2 minutes and got us a td and the other was a 6 play that took the same amount of time and gave us the same result

we started the game with 4 straight 3 play drives

9 of our drives took less then 2 minutes off the clock

controlling the ball and the clock if a good first step to winning games

[Fritz]

I'm normally a big run-the-ball guy, but it appears that after Pittsburgh blitzed effectively early on, MM spread the offense out and Pitt stopped blitzing - and the Packer offense moved the ball.

36 points is a lot of points to score for an offense. Especially given they received no turnovers from the defense. I'm having a hard time complaining about the offense.

Maybe if the defense had stopped some of those third-and-longs they wouldn't have been on the field so much.

[The Leaper]

If Cullen Jenkins can just sack a QB...we win the game.

I find nothing at fault with the offensive playcalling yesterday...the Steelers were vulnerable to the pass, and if our receivers could catch a damn ball once in awhile, we could've put up 40+ points.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I love fans. I can understand wanting to run the ball more. However, Pittsburgh ranks first in rush defense. If we had won the game 36-30, people would have said McCarthy was a genius. If we had run the ball more and lost, people would have complained about trying to run it against the top rush defense.

[Maxie the Taxi]

I love fans. I can understand wanting to run the ball more. However, Pittsburgh ranks first in rush defense. If we had won the game 36-30, people would have said McCarthy was a genius. If we had run the ball more and lost, people would have complained about trying to run it against the top rush defense.

I don't think we're ever gonna have that complaint as long as McStubby's the coach. :)

[pbmax]

Fans have been conditioned to think that running the football leads to winning. Most of the time, that thought process is driven by the inverted logic of the Tony Dorsett Graphic™. The Toney Dorsett Graphic™ was a CBS invention and I am still waiting for the people responsible to be brought to justice.

Dallas would be playing whoever they were playing on National TV and as Dorsett got closer to the century mark, the Tony Dorsett Graphic™ would pop up: The Dallas Cowboys are 473 and 12 when Tony Dorsett runs for 100 yards or more. Entire generations of American were adversely affected by this bogus statistical cause and effect. Fathers, who well knew that their car did not run because they filled it with gas, but rather, ran because there was an engine in it that needed some gas among other things, suddenly put this graphic and Vince Lombardi together and started to believe running was the only solid, surefire way to win. Run early and often, wear out the D, then run to win the game. A generation later, watching Bill Walsh make a fool of John Madden (no one remembers that Madden did not think you could win this way in the NFL-he talked of it as a fad, like people later referred to the Run and Shoot - he gave it up after the 2nd Super Bowl); Bill Walsh, who wanted his backs to be able to block and catch before he would worry about running ability, could not undo the damage.

Forests have been leveled for paper and energy to write statistical studies and publish blogs that cover the fact that running early (or mostly running) is not a winning strategy (its worse to equal compared to other, pass friendlier strategies). Still, no one believes this. Everyone believes the Tony Dorsett Graphic™. No on stopped to think that the reason Dorsett was headed to 100 every game was that the Cowboys were good and usually had a lead or were very close. And when they had the lead in the second half, they would run Dorsett to milk the clock. Good teams run because they are ahead in the game. See the Packers 90s Super Bowl teams and remember no one thought Holmgren ran enough on first down or in the first half.

Unfortunately, something very useful has been lost in this mimicking of coach-speak. Running the ball is safer (less turnovers, fewer zero yard plays), though not as likely to score. So there is a statistical advantage to running in certain situations, and an argument can be made that running should outweigh passing when you winning or tied, even more true later in the game for obvious reasons. The most clear point on this matter is Dan Henning, Parcell's Offensive Coordinator at several stops. In his playbook, Henning says his offense, ideally, will work towards a 60-40 run-pass split. Not because of the tactical or strategic advantage, but because it limits risk. It goes without saying that this ratio is impossible in high-scoring games and when you are behind for most of the game. Its a battle of field position and risk in a close game, but not in others.

Starting with the pass-friendly rule changes in 1978, etc. passing has become far less risky that it was for Lombardi or Madden. The reason the Packer offense has been successful this season despite its shortcomings, is that it doesn't turn the ball over. Which makes passing closer in risk to running, but more capable of scoring.

As for McCarthy's play calling strategy, he probably does not make a single play call based on defensive personnel alone. Based on down and distance he calls both a run and a pass, possibly a play and an audible, or sometimes two passes and one run which can be switched left and right. This is part of the responsibility he put on Rodgers shoulders before the Cowboy game. Rodgers selects one play at the line based on personnel and look. There is another team in the NFL that does this (and there are undoubtedly more). The Indianapolis Colts and Peyton Manning run this matchup offense pretty well.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Thank you pb!

I agree with you that teams that run well win. This is a passing league now.

The top 4 rushing teams in the NFL:
Jets
Titans
Panthers
Dolphins

Combined record: 27-29

Top 4 passing teams in the NFL:
Colts
Texans
Saints
Patriots

Combined record: 43-13

[mission]

I honestly wish we'd pass it every single time (short yardage exceptions)


(PB GREAT POST BTW!)

[Maxie the Taxi]

pbmax, I agree with pretty much of what you say. I'm not trying to turn the Packers into a running team. I just want McStubby to remember that Grant's on the squad. :)

I think what's saved the Packers this year is not only the fact that they don't turn the ball over. (They didn't turn it over Sunday).

What's saved them is they have been forcing turnovers, so they've been consistently in plus territory, except against Minnesota (1st game) and Tampa Bay. Being plus in turnovers forgives a lot of sins.

The last two games, no plus in turnovers.

I guess I really don't like the "matchup offense" thing. Rubs me the wrong way. Manning is really experienced at it. Rodgers ain't Manning, yet.

I guess what I don't like about it is how there is no "continuity" to it. You'll get the start of a good drive going and "bam" on third down and five Rodgers heaves it downfield trying for the big play instead of just gaining enough for a 1st down. Then we punt.

I prefer the West Coast Offense the way Holmgren played it. New England seems to play something similar. Dink and dunk, run and dunk, dink and dunk. Get a rhythm going, then pop one.

No right way, I guess. Just personal preference. MM and Rodgers live and die by big plays.

[pbmax]

I am not sure Rodger and McCarthy are doing the three plays calls per down. That is speculation, but its clear they moved from McCarthy making all but the protection calls to Rodger having more than just run/pass options. That much they have talked about publicly, earlier this season.

Then there is the quote Maxie has above where McCarthy admits they base pass and run play calls to a degree on the defensive personnel. Left unspoken is a change from run to pass or vice versa which, I think, we have all seen Rodgers do. We have also seen him change the strength of the formation which could be reversing a play's direction.

I think its clear he has options, but its not as clear that he is given as free a reign as Manning. He simply doesn't do as much play calling at the line of scrimmage. But I know Ryan Grant missed at least four carries in this game because his QB changed a run play to a pass.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Jesus fucking christ. We score 36 points and give up 37...and a certain poster is complaining about not running the ball.

The object of the game is to score more points than the opposition. At no point were the pack ever ahead comfortably and feeling like they controlled the game. Maybe Ty's memory is wrong, but Ty saw the steelers score 3 tds in the first half.

How about talking about a defense that gives up 37 points?

[digitaldean]

Jesus fucking christ. We score 36 points and give up 37...and a certain poster is complaining about not running the ball.

The object of the game is to score more points than the opposition. At no point were the pack ever ahead comfortably and feeling like they controlled the game. Maybe Ty's memory is wrong, but Ty saw the steelers score 3 tds in the first half.

How about talking about a defense that gives up 37 points?

Or a coaching staff that could call a blitz at the end to push Roethlisberger into a quick throw. Or, what the hell, maybe rush MORE THAN ##(*(@*) 3 guys!

That D gave HUGE chunks of yards ALL GAME LONG yesterday.

[Pugger]

Yes, the reason we lost that game was because we gave Big Ben all day long back there to pick apart our young non-starting caliber DBs. Did Pickett even play in that game?

[Bretsky]

Yes, the reason we lost that game was because we gave Big Ben all day long back there to pick apart our young non-starting caliber DBs. Did Pickett even play in that game?

Pickett was inactive so Jenkins, Jolly, and Raji played a ton of snaps.
Jenkins had a boatload of pressures but missed some sacks on poor tackling
Jolly stood up vs. the run pretty well
Raji IMO had a very sub par game

[pbmax]

Pickett did play some, he was not officially inactive. Raji started and played most of the snaps, but Pickett did get in.

Raji did get turned sideways on the line a few times. He is young, I have read that playing the nose takes some time to learn, especially for a former 3 technique DT. But he does not look outclassed on the line.

[Bretsky]

Pickett did play some, he was not officially inactive. Raji started and played most of the snaps, but Pickett did get in.

Raji did get turned sideways on the line a few times. He is young, I have read that playing the nose takes some time to learn, especially for a former 3 technique DT. But he does not look outclassed on the line.

Ah, I thought Pickett was inactive
Raji was ineffective Sunday and spent too much time on the ground and geting turned. Part of that might have been due to the increased snaps

[Maxie the Taxi]

pbmax, you mentioned the impact of the 1978 rule changes. I did some research and found some reading on the subject. Being an astute student of the game, you might find it interesting:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=482

The name of the piece is: "Why do teams run the ball?" The author is Chase Stuart.

Stuart begins by pointing out the obvious advantage in yards gained per pass play as compared per running play. But then he compensates for all the nuances of the passing game that might be overlooked. Eventually, he whittles the difference down to the point where he can sum up his article with the following two paragraphs:


As recently as 1985, rushing the ball was more effective than passing the ball. As recently as 2003, the difference in true yards per rush and pass was just 0.35 per attempt. The two rules enacted in 1978 severely diminished the impact on the two biggest negatives associated with passing the ball -- sacks and interceptions. In 1978, the average pass play netted just 3.66 yards per pass; three years later, the average pass play was worth 4.58 yards per pass. Teams passed 80% as often in 1978 as they ran; by '81, teams passed 7% more often than they ran.

The rule changes of 1978 answered the question: Why do teams pass the ball? There's a lot of game theory involved in the decision to run or pass, but it's clear that running was a more efficient option and had a lower variance. Now, running is less efficient (but with still a lower variance). Looking at true yards per pass overstates the passing option by about 55% from 1970-2007, and by about 37% over the past ten years. Combined with how not counting rushing touchdowns in yards per rush (understating the average run play by about 7%), and you can see, finally, why teams run the ball. Once you include the lower variance, the only question left is why don't teams run the ball more often?

Interesting, well-researched and thought-out stuff. I'd be interested in your take on it.

[Noodle]

If you are 40 years old or older, then you just can't help but feeling deep in your bones that real teams run the ball and that all this fancy pitch and catch crap is just AFL circus crap.

When the Dolphins won their first Super Bowl in the early seventies, Griese threw the ball a grand total of 11 times. The next year, they beat the Vikes and threw the ball 7 times. That's for the entire game.

So it's hard for us ol' timers to come to terms with all this dag nab flinging-the-football thing. Now leave me alone, get the hell off my yard, and let me take my nap.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Jesus fucking christ. We score 36 points and give up 37...and a certain poster is complaining about not running the ball.

The object of the game is to score more points than the opposition. At no point were the pack ever ahead comfortably and feeling like they controlled the game. Maybe Ty's memory is wrong, but Ty saw the steelers score 3 tds in the first half.

How about talking about a defense that gives up 37 points?

Did Ty actually read my post?

The only point that matters is the one you lose or win by.

McStubby didn't wait until the Pack was behind three scores before he went airborne. He went pass happy on the first snap.

He bet all his chips that his offense could score more points than the opponent in a no holds-barred shoot-out. He lost his bet.

Now Ty is complaining about our defense giving up 37 points. It could be due to Big Ben -- and our defense -- being on the field 11 minutes longer than Arod and our offense.

This weekend New Orleans and Minnesota were upset by Dallas and Carolina, and Indianapolis was almost upset by Jacksonville. Why? Let's go to the stats:

Dallas controlled the clock: Brees was on the field 13 minutes less than Romo. That's almost an entire quarter. Dallas ran the ball 32 times for only a 3.8 yd/rush. avg., but those running plays kept Brees off the field.

Carolina controlled the clock: Favre was on the field almost 16 minutes less than the Panther's backup QB. That's over an entire quarter. Carolina ran the ball 35 times for only a 3.6 yd/rush avg., but it was enough to keep Favre and the potent Minnesota offense off the field.

How did Jacksonville, ranked 20th in total defense and 27th in pass defense almost upset the Colts? Jacksonville controlled the clock. Manning was on the field 11 minutes less than Gerard. Sure, Manning still managed to throw 4 TD's, but how many TD's would he have thrown if he had had another 11 minutes with the ball? Jacksonville ran the ball 32 times for an avg. gain of 4.15 yds/rush. The Colts needed a last minute turnover to win the game.

And, of course, Sunday Pittsburgh beat the Packers. How? Pittsburgh controlled the clock by running the ball 17 times (twice as many as the Packers) for only a 3.5 yd/rush avg. But it was enough to keep a hot Big Ben on the field for an extra 11 minutes slinging the pigskin for TD's. And if Big Ben didn't have the extra 11 minutes?

Does Ty begin to see a pattern here?

Even if he doesn't, others might. Thus, this poster thinks it's a worthy subject for discussion.

[Maxie the Taxi]

If you are 40 years old or older, then you just can't help but feeling deep in your bones that real teams run the ball and that all this fancy pitch and catch crap is just AFL circus crap.

When the Dolphins won their first Super Bowl in the early seventies, Griese threw the ball a grand total of 11 times. The next year, they beat the Vikes and threw the ball 7 times. That's for the entire game.

So it's hard for us ol' timers to come to terms with all this dag nab flinging-the-football thing. Now leave me alone, get the hell off my yard, and let me take my nap.

A man after my own heart. :D

But, seriously, I think a good case can be made that running the ball and controlling the clock are not passe, but actually are effective. See my post above.

[KYPack]

This is a great thread.

Maxi and PB are doing some heavy lifting this one.

I, too have always hated those "state the obvious" graphics. "Team A wins 99% of the games in which they hold the opponent under 250 total yards" Yeah, we know.

Great old guy comment, Noodle.

Good work, boys

[sharpe1027]

maybe if we had run the ball more we would have controlled more of the clock, the D would have had more energy at the end of the game and maybe they don't give up that many points


Maybe if we had run the ball more we would have controlled less of the clock. The D would have tired sooner and maybe we lose by ten.

Seriously, more runs probably would have meant more punts and less points. No thanks.

[Pugger]

Isn't Pitt #1 against the run? And aren't we up there defensively against the run so Pitt abandoned their running game too?

[Maxie the Taxi]

Isn't Pitt #1 against the run? And aren't we up there defensively against the run so Pitt abandoned their running game too?

Pitt is #1 against the run; GB is #2. Still, Pitt ran the ball twice as much as we did. I don't know about you, but I thought watching the game that those few runs by Mendenhall and Parker were back-breakers time and possession wise.

Plus, Minnesota is #4 against the run. That didn't stop Carolina from running the ball 35 times.

It's not so much the yardage gained by rushing, it's the attempts that burn time.

(Damn, I'm starting to sound like McStubby. :) )

[red]

maybe if we had run the ball more we would have controlled more of the clock, the D would have had more energy at the end of the game and maybe they don't give up that many points


Maybe if we had run the ball more we would have controlled less of the clock. The D would have tired sooner and maybe we lose by ten.

Seriously, more runs probably would have meant more punts and less points. No thanks.

i see what you're trying to say

but imo in this case its flawed

we had 22 incompletions that stopped the clock, almost half our passes. a run for no gain gets you the same kind of yards but burns 30 to 40 seconds off the clock

look at the drive charts, most of our drives were very short and included 2 or 3 incompletions and no run attempts

[sharpe1027]

i see what you're trying to say

but imo in this case its flawed

we had 22 incompletions that stopped the clock, almost half our passes. a run for no gain gets you the same kind of yards but burns 30 to 40 seconds off the clock

look at the drive charts, most of our drives were very short and included 2 or 3 incompletions and no run attempts

That logic only works if you assume that the coaches knew which of the passes were going to be incomplete and ran on those downs. Otherwise the runs could have just have easily taken away big completions that kept both drives and the clock going.

[red]

ok by my count we had 25 plays on 1st down. that's usually the running down

we only rushed the ball 5 times on first down.

"but red, we couldn't run the ball on first down". those were runs of 2, 6, 5, 24(td), and -4. not too shabby

of the 20 times we threw on 1st down, 11 were incomplete and stopped the clock

if things were a little more even, we run the ball 12 times on first instead of 5. we gain maybe 30 more yards rushing, maybe set up some shorter 2nd and 3rd downs, and we could run three and a half minutes or so off the clock giving us 28 and them 32. thats a lot better

not to mention maybe we could run a few times on 2nd and short and third and short and maybe get a few more minutes off the clock

maybe, just maybe, this could have helped

[CaptainKickass]

This is a great thread.

Maxi and PB are doing some heavy lifting this one.

I, too have always hated those "state the obvious" graphics. "Team A wins 99% of the games in which they hold the opponent under 250 total yards" Yeah, we know.

Great old guy comment, Noodle.

Good work, boys



Anyone remember the "Robert Ferguson" graphic?

It was something like :

"The Packers are 10 & 2 in games when Ferguson catches a TD"

I still laugh at that one.

[red]

i see what you're trying to say

but imo in this case its flawed

we had 22 incompletions that stopped the clock, almost half our passes. a run for no gain gets you the same kind of yards but burns 30 to 40 seconds off the clock

look at the drive charts, most of our drives were very short and included 2 or 3 incompletions and no run attempts

That logic only works if you assume that the coaches knew which of the passes were going to be incomplete and ran on those downs. Otherwise the runs could have just have easily taken away big completions that kept both drives and the clock going.

what drives that kept the clock going?

we only had 3 decent length drives, only one that burned a decent amount of clock, and one of those drives didn't get us any points

and the whole argument comes back to, you have to give your D a break.

[sharpe1027]

i see what you're trying to say

but imo in this case its flawed

we had 22 incompletions that stopped the clock, almost half our passes. a run for no gain gets you the same kind of yards but burns 30 to 40 seconds off the clock

look at the drive charts, most of our drives were very short and included 2 or 3 incompletions and no run attempts

That logic only works if you assume that the coaches knew which of the passes were going to be incomplete and ran on those downs. Otherwise the runs could have just have easily taken away big completions that kept both drives and the clock going.

what drives that kept the clock going?

we only had 3 decent length drives, only one that burned a decent amount of clock, and one of those drives didn't get us any points

and the whole argument comes back to, you have to give your D a break.

Eh, I was just saying that it could go either way. They've had games under MM in the past where they would kill drives repeatedly by trying to run.

I think you have a good point though, in hindsight, maybe it would have helped...but then again maybe not.

[MichiganPackerFan]

To date, the packers are 9-0 in games in which they score more points than their opponent. Unfortunately they are also 0-5 in games which they allow more points.

[get louder at lambeau]

Sunday, we didn't have any game-changing turnovers. Zero.

We had two, actually, but both were taken away from us. Jarrett Bush's INT got taken away due to Chillar's ilegal contact penalty, and Clay Matthews' sack, forced fumble and recovered fumble got taken away due to an instant replay call reversal.

Interesting take on the lack of ball control and it's effect on the defense, though.

[ThunderDan]

Sunday, we didn't have any game-changing turnovers. Zero.

We had two, actually, but both were taken away from us. Jarrett Bush's INT got taken away due to Chillar's ilegal contact penalty, and Clay Matthews' sack, forced fumble and recovered fumble got taken away due to an instant replay call reversal.

Interesting take on the lack of ball control and it's effect on the defense, though.

You forgot the 3rd that was taken away from us.

One of the PITT WR had the ball and 4 steps down before Bigby hit him from behind and he fumbled. The refs called it incomplete. 4 fu&king steps is now potentially not a catch in the NFL.

[sharpe1027]

You forgot the 3rd that was taken away from us.

One of the PITT WR had the ball and 4 steps down before Bigby hit him from behind and he fumbled. The refs called it incomplete. 4 fu&king steps is now potentially not a catch in the NFL.

Horrible call, ref should never have blown the whistle as Collins? may have taken it to the house.

[pbmax]

pbmax, you mentioned the impact of the 1978 rule changes. I did some research and found some reading on the subject. Being an astute student of the game, you might find it interesting:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=482

The name of the piece is: "Why do teams run the ball?" The author is Chase Stuart.

Stuart begins by pointing out the obvious advantage in yards gained per pass play as compared per running play. But then he compensates for all the nuances of the passing game that might be overlooked. Eventually, he whittles the difference down to the point where he can sum up his article with the following two paragraphs:


As recently as 1985, rushing the ball was more effective than passing the ball. As recently as 2003, the difference in true yards per rush and pass was just 0.35 per attempt. The two rules enacted in 1978 severely diminished the impact on the two biggest negatives associated with passing the ball -- sacks and interceptions. In 1978, the average pass play netted just 3.66 yards per pass; three years later, the average pass play was worth 4.58 yards per pass. Teams passed 80% as often in 1978 as they ran; by '81, teams passed 7% more often than they ran.

The rule changes of 1978 answered the question: Why do teams pass the ball? There's a lot of game theory involved in the decision to run or pass, but it's clear that running was a more efficient option and had a lower variance. Now, running is less efficient (but with still a lower variance). Looking at true yards per pass overstates the passing option by about 55% from 1970-2007, and by about 37% over the past ten years. Combined with how not counting rushing touchdowns in yards per rush (understating the average run play by about 7%), and you can see, finally, why teams run the ball. Once you include the lower variance, the only question left is why don't teams run the ball more often?

Interesting, well-researched and thought-out stuff. I'd be interested in your take on it.
Two things jump to mind:

1. Penalties. Or, more specifically, penalty yardage. There is no running game penalty comparable to pass interference yardage. Nor are there comparable penalties to automatic first downs for defensive holding or illegal use of hands. On offense, pre-snap penalties cost you 5 yards, holding will cost you ten, but these are comparable between the run and pass games. This chart anticipates no penalties. I'd be interested to see what the net penalty yards are for offenses, passing versus rushing.

2. The Oddity of the 1970s. I don't know the answer to this, but the AFL put up ungodly amounts of passing yards in the 60s, and then there was a retrenchment for most of the 70s, with only a few teams (Raiders, Dallas, Cincinnati and San Diego) committed to being a passing team throughout the decade. Rules changes were enacted to bring back the forward pass. But why had it dwindled?

There were no major rules changes during or after the merger (until 1978). Why did the AFL game disappear? I don't know. My suspicion is that the AFL, which brought six fewer teams to the merger (Steelers, Browns and Colts switched leagues) simply overran the smaller league. And there was probably an overall talent disparity except for the top AFL teams. Most of the best passing games in the AFL (Oilers, Chargers, Bills) petered out by the end of the 1960s. The successful AFC teams that won Super Bowls were teams that mimicked old NFL teams (or even had old NFL coaches like Shula and Ewbank). It was left to the Chiefs and Raiders to put the pass first AFL in the 1970s championship column.

But most importantly, the 1970s are an anomaly to every other decade in football's history. No other decade was as scoring depressed and run dependent. Not the NFL in the 1960s. And its worth noting, that with rules that limited passing terribly and even a football that looked like a deflated beach ball, the NFL had some tremendous passing teams in the 1940s and 1950s. The old AAFC competed with the NFL as a separate league for 4 years, then merged and watched the pass happy Browns of Otto Graham and Paul Brown win the title in 1950, their first year in the new league.

I would bet that is he ran the calculations back for three more decades (some have, though not this particular formula) he would find the 1970s to be odd, not the other way around.

[pbmax]

Forgot #3:

3. Game Theory. Clock stoppages. Even with record high completion percentages, the clock stops while passing roughly 1 out of 3 times. And it is often easier to get out of bounds (on certain throws). These factors would be important to a team that is behind. My question is, do the numbers of Avg. Net Yards understate the league's ability to pass because its worst teams (those that are behind) are throwing and its best (those that are leading) are running?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Jesus fucking christ. We score 36 points and give up 37...and a certain poster is complaining about not running the ball.

The object of the game is to score more points than the opposition. At no point were the pack ever ahead comfortably and feeling like they controlled the game. Maybe Ty's memory is wrong, but Ty saw the steelers score 3 tds in the first half.

How about talking about a defense that gives up 37 points?

Did Ty actually read my post?

The only point that matters is the one you lose or win by.

McStubby didn't wait until the Pack was behind three scores before he went airborne. He went pass happy on the first snap.

He bet all his chips that his offense could score more points than the opponent in a no holds-barred shoot-out. He lost his bet.

Now Ty is complaining about our defense giving up 37 points. It could be due to Big Ben -- and our defense -- being on the field 11 minutes longer than Arod and our offense.

This weekend New Orleans and Minnesota were upset by Dallas and Carolina, and Indianapolis was almost upset by Jacksonville. Why? Let's go to the stats:

Dallas controlled the clock: Brees was on the field 13 minutes less than Romo. That's almost an entire quarter. Dallas ran the ball 32 times for only a 3.8 yd/rush. avg., but those running plays kept Brees off the field.

Carolina controlled the clock: Favre was on the field almost 16 minutes less than the Panther's backup QB. That's over an entire quarter. Carolina ran the ball 35 times for only a 3.6 yd/rush avg., but it was enough to keep Favre and the potent Minnesota offense off the field.

How did Jacksonville, ranked 20th in total defense and 27th in pass defense almost upset the Colts? Jacksonville controlled the clock. Manning was on the field 11 minutes less than Gerard. Sure, Manning still managed to throw 4 TD's, but how many TD's would he have thrown if he had had another 11 minutes with the ball? Jacksonville ran the ball 32 times for an avg. gain of 4.15 yds/rush. The Colts needed a last minute turnover to win the game.

And, of course, Sunday Pittsburgh beat the Packers. How? Pittsburgh controlled the clock by running the ball 17 times (twice as many as the Packers) for only a 3.5 yd/rush avg. But it was enough to keep a hot Big Ben on the field for an extra 11 minutes slinging the pigskin for TD's. And if Big Ben didn't have the extra 11 minutes?

Does Ty begin to see a pattern here?

Even if he doesn't, others might. Thus, this poster thinks it's a worthy subject for discussion.

Yeah, i see a pattern. You like to bitch every game about not running enough.

I see another pattern...that we don't have the same type of line as Dallas. Btw, your analysis is WEAK. Brees also had a crappy day..and they still only lost by 7.

And, if you think we have the same line as Carolina or the same level of backs...well, there is nothing like an old fool.

And, why even bring up Jville, they lost. Just like we lost.

Lastly, if you think an extra 8 rushes resulted in 11 more minutes on the field for the offense of Pitt..then you really don't understand football.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

If you are 40 years old or older, then you just can't help but feeling deep in your bones that real teams run the ball and that all this fancy pitch and catch crap is just AFL circus crap.

When the Dolphins won their first Super Bowl in the early seventies, Griese threw the ball a grand total of 11 times. The next year, they beat the Vikes and threw the ball 7 times. That's for the entire game.

So it's hard for us ol' timers to come to terms with all this dag nab flinging-the-football thing. Now leave me alone, get the hell off my yard, and let me take my nap.

Ty is over 40. Ty doesn't feel that way.

Ty feels "real" teams impose their will by doing what they want..running or passing. Ty felt just as confident watching the Niners pass their way down the field as he did watching the Skins pound the ball with Riggins or whomever.

Ty is not gonna deny the pleasure of whupping up on team and running down their throats, but Ty isn't also gonna bitch when he and EVERYONE else should be able to see that we CLEARLY don't have the line to do that, and most likely not the backs..nor is our strategy.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

maybe if we had run the ball more we would have controlled more of the clock, the D would have had more energy at the end of the game and maybe they don't give up that many points


Maybe if we had run the ball more we would have controlled less of the clock. The D would have tired sooner and maybe we lose by ten.

Seriously, more runs probably would have meant more punts and less points. No thanks.

QFT.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Our pass happy offense is 2nd in the NFC (behind the Giants) in time of possession.

[Bretsky]

As I noted in the game thread, I had no expectations for success running on the Steelers. But their secondary was weak and we often exposed it. I think MM did a good job. We scored a lot of pts...certainly enough to win a hard fought game. If we take care of business the last two games this loss might not hurt at all.

[Maxie the Taxi]

1. Penalties. Or, more specifically, penalty yardage. There is no running game penalty comparable to pass interference yardage. Nor are there comparable penalties to automatic first downs for defensive holding or illegal use of hands. On offense, pre-snap penalties cost you 5 yards, holding will cost you ten, but these are comparable between the run and pass games. This chart anticipates no penalties. I'd be interested to see what the net penalty yards are for offenses, passing versus rushing.

2. The Oddity of the 1970s. I don't know the answer to this, but the AFL put up ungodly amounts of passing yards in the 60s, and then there was a retrenchment for most of the 70s, with only a few teams (Raiders, Dallas, Cincinnati and San Diego) committed to being a passing team throughout the decade. Rules changes were enacted to bring back the forward pass. But why had it dwindled?

There were no major rules changes during or after the merger (until 1978). Why did the AFL game disappear? I don't know. My suspicion is that the AFL, which brought six fewer teams to the merger (Steelers, Browns and Colts switched leagues) simply overran the smaller league. And there was probably an overall talent disparity except for the top AFL teams. Most of the best passing games in the AFL (Oilers, Chargers, Bills) petered out by the end of the 1960s. The successful AFC teams that won Super Bowls were teams that mimicked old NFL teams (or even had old NFL coaches like Shula and Ewbank). It was left to the Chiefs and Raiders to put the pass first AFL in the 1970s championship column.

But most importantly, the 1970s are an anomaly to every other decade in football's history. No other decade was as scoring depressed and run dependent. Not the NFL in the 1960s. And its worth noting, that with rules that limited passing terribly and even a football that looked like a deflated beach ball, the NFL had some tremendous passing teams in the 1940s and 1950s. The old AAFC competed with the NFL as a separate league for 4 years, then merged and watched the pass happy Browns of Otto Graham and Paul Brown win the title in 1950, their first year in the new league.

I would bet that is he ran the calculations back for three more decades (some have, though not this particular formula) he would find the 1970s to be odd, not the other way around.

1. Penalties -- The only penalty for the running game comparable to pass interference that I can think of is a long run negated by a holding call. But that could even out with pass completions called back for the same reason. Although holding is more likely on a pass play. It's hard to say how penalties would affect the formula one way or the other.

2. The Oddity of the 70's -- A couple of thoughts off the top of my head. (You'll have to check my memory on most of this)...

Influence of the College Game/Coaches/Rules Changes --
The college game was way more popular and influential than pro-football right up through the 50's. In the early days of the NFL I think the pro league even borrowed college stars to fill their rosters and put people in the stands. Thus, college football set the early, strategic trends which filtered into the NFL. For instance, the Packers played the "Notre Dame" Box Offense throughout the 30's.

It would be interesting to see stats for just when the college game transistioned to where the passing game became prominent. I think the college game was three yards and a cloud of dust for a long time.

I know up until the 1930's the NFL was three yards and a cloud of dust. The QB was a blocking back similar to today's FB. Over 60% of games were shut-outs and final scores of 0-0 were common.

In the 1920's Green Bay was one of the only teams that used the pass. So in the 1930's, when the league changed some rules to open of the game (hashmarks moved in from the sidelines and passers no longer had to be 5 yds. behind the line of scrimmage) Green Bay became the "Team of the Decade" with passers like Arnie Herber and Cecil Isbell and receivers like Johnny Blood and Don Hutson. Plus, Curly Lambeau wasn't afraid to innovate. By the way, Herber -- known as the best passer in his day -- was a tailback, not a QB.

In the 40's most pro teams were running the "T" formation, again a college formation. But also in the 40's the door opened to allow unlimited substitutions which lead to separate units on offense and defense. This was a huge lift for the passing game in my opinion.

In the 50's the NFL really took to the air, literally and figuratively. NFL games began to be televised and the "T" formation transistioned to the "split T" (another innovation stolen from the College Game) which moved another receiver out toward the sidelines. Up till the 50's, both college and pro football were still dominated by the running game, though passing was gaining its place. In the 50's passing had come into its own.

In many ways the Packers of the 60's toned down the popularity of wide-open passing attacks by emphasizing the basics, which included running from the single wing and focusing on their famous Green Bay Power Sweep.
As the decade ended, most NFL team mimicked the Pack and concentrated more on rushing and defense. Why not? It served the Pack well.

By the 70's defenses had improved to such an extent that the NFL made the famous change to loosen the rules and open up the passing game. But I think the change, really, was motivated by trying to please the fans. In the 70's the game was becoming staid and boring. The College Game fell in love with the option offense and invented the Wishbone Option which gained some traction in the NFL.

In fact, in the 70's the Packers brought in Dan Devine who loved the run and the option. He drafted Jerry Tagge hoping to utilize it. Devine's run-happy approach won a division title in 72, and he was Coach of the Year, which says something about where the NFL's head was at in the 70's. Bobby Douglass was setting records running the option for the Bears. And probably a lot of coaches who ran the option in the College Game were imported into the NFL during this period.

This, I think, is how the 70's became an oddity. Football is trendy. The Packers had revived the rushing game, the Wishbone was the best thing since sliced bread in College, so the copy-cats went to work. The result: A decade wherein the QB might be a team's leading rusher. Besides the college imports, a lot of old school head coaches in the NFL were happy to embrace the running game, George Halas being at the head of the list.

But Devine and the option game were not long for this pro world. The running game can be exciting with the likes of OJ Simpson, Earl Campbell, and Sayers/Payton. But the bruising style of Brockington/Lane, Csonka/Kiick was boring. Passing is sexy and sexy sells seats and TV contracts. Dan Marino and Dan Fouts were emerging stars. And then Bill Walsh and his West Coast Offense appeared. The game had changed forever.

Moreover, as this sexy style of football took over the NFL, the College Game adopted first the style, then the substance. NFL coaches and their protoges found themselves in the college game, coaching sexy football there.

Maybe these things all run in cycles, though. College teams without a standout passer have always relied on the option. Florida with Tim Tebow has poplarized it again. And now the option is sneaking back into the pro-game with the Wildcat formation.

Sorry, didn't mean to run on. And I have to give credit to John Maxymuk and PACKERS BY THE NUMBERS for a lot of the historical references.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Forgot #3:

3. Game Theory. Clock stoppages. Even with record high completion percentages, the clock stops while passing roughly 1 out of 3 times. And it is often easier to get out of bounds (on certain throws). These factors would be important to a team that is behind. My question is, do the numbers of Avg. Net Yards understate the league's ability to pass because its worst teams (those that are behind) are throwing and its best (those that are leading) are running?

I don't think so. With the yards teams are racking up these days passing -- sometimes even the loser has more passing yardage than the winner -- trying to find telling trends from stats is getting harder and harder. The law of large numbers is taking over.

I do take your point about Clock stoppages though.

[Patler]

Actually, the Packers ran the ball too much!
Exactly one time too much, and I know which carry, Grants last carry for 24 yards and a TD. If they had thrown a few incompletions, or Rodgers had scrambled for a few yards, or they completed a pass for 5, 10, 15 or even 23 yards; they would have retained possession for a few more plays, increasing their time of possession, decreasing Pittsburgh's time of possession and most importantly reducing the time left for Pittsburgh's last drive.

Darn MM, calls too many rushing plays! :lol:

[Maxie the Taxi]

Actually, the Packers ran the ball too much!
Exactly one time too much, and I know which carry, Grants last carry for 24 yards and a TD. If they had thrown a few incompletions, or Rodgers had scrambled for a few yards, or they completed a pass for 5, 10, 15 or even 23 yards; they would have retained possession for a few more plays, increasing their time of possession, decreasing Pittsburgh's time of possession and most importantly reducing the time left for Pittsburgh's last drive.

Darn MM, calls too many rushing plays! :lol:

Damn Patler! Always thinking out of the box!! :D :lol: :lol:

[Bossman641]

Sunday, we didn't have any game-changing turnovers. Zero.

We had two, actually, but both were taken away from us. Jarrett Bush's INT got taken away due to Chillar's ilegal contact penalty, and Clay Matthews' sack, forced fumble and recovered fumble got taken away due to an instant replay call reversal.

Interesting take on the lack of ball control and it's effect on the defense, though.

You forgot the 3rd that was taken away from us.

One of the PITT WR had the ball and 4 steps down before Bigby hit him from behind and he fumbled. The refs called it incomplete. 4 fu&king steps is now potentially not a catch in the NFL.

I agree that it was a horrible call. The only thing I can see the refs maybe trying to hang their hat on there is that he didn't make a football move.

[pbmax]

Here is the information on Rodgers' audibles for the Packers. According to Bedard (EDIT: Silverstein), he can change the direction of the play, check to a run or pass (on run-pass options) and at times can change the play completely.

They are not yet at Manning's (and he seem to indicate Brees though the mention is general and not sourced) three play level (pass-alternate pass-run), but not too bad for a second year starter. It would seem that he was given the change the play completely authority in the Pittsburgh game. And I would bet the Cowboys as well.

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/80034692.html

[pbmax]

Read the article mentioned above. Great story about the Ryan Grant touchdown run. Paragraph 13 on.

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/80034692.html

[Maxie the Taxi]

Here is the information on Rodgers' audibles for the Packers. According to Bedard, he can change the direction of the play, check to a run or pass (on run-pass options) and at times can change the play completely.

They are not yet at Manning's (and he seem to indicate Brees though the mention is general and not sourced) three play level (pass-alternate pass-run), but not too bad for a second year starter. It would seem that he was given the change the play completely authority in the Pittsburgh game. And I would bet the Cowboys as well.

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/80034692.html

pb, he got his information from McStubby's press conference yesterday. Or, if he didn't, McStubby sure expanded on it. Made it as clear as mud: :) :)


(You said Grant's TD run was a run-pass option. Do you feel Aaron's batting average is high with those decisions, and how important is that decision-making to your offense?)
Aaron Rodgers from Day 1, even in his younger years when he didn't play, you always felt that his decision-making was probably one of his biggest strengths. He's gifted physically, but we could not do what we do if it wasn't for his discipline and his ability to take in the volume of game plan each week and perform on Sundays. He is a very good decision-maker. Very rarely does he get outside the box. We have plenty of options for him not to get outside that box. It's clearly a strength of the way we operate. There hasn't been too many games where the minus decisions were just totally erratic or uncalled for. I am very pleased with the way he handles our offense at the line of scrimmage.

(That's different than having a quarterback call an audible, right? An audible is a completely different play?)
We ain't going there, No. 1, but No. 2, audibles and run/pass, they are all in the same family. Unless you are in the huddle or the offensive scheme, yes, they probably are the same, but there are differences too. Yeah, you can go change the play at the line of scrimmage. Yes, that happens, but we don't necessarily operate that way.

If you watch the press conference by video, then you'll see McStubby was not too happy about being asked this question. From the start the coach seemed real onery. He announced the Ryan Pickett took a step back and talked about his DB situation. He was extra grouchy when the audible subject came up. Obviously, he doesn't want to give a defense any kind of "tell" or advantage by disclosing too much.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Read the article mentioned above. Great story about the Ryan Grant touchdown run. Paragraph 13 on.

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/80034692.html

Now that I've read the article, it seems it was written after the news conference and after extensive interviews with Rodgers.

A couple of observations:

First, football is way, way, way to technical nowadays for an old man like me to even think he has valuable advice to give;

Second, the description of Arod's thought process after the snap is incredible! It sounds as if the play could have wound up busted or as a fumble. All cylinders have to be operating perfectly. Grant, for instance, went from block mode to accept the handoff mode in a split second. Makes me appreciate these guys' smarts and abilities even more.

Third, McStubby's last paragraph says a lot about the team and answers a load of stuff we talked about in this thread. When push comes to shove with McStubby, he's gonna bank on the QB, not the RB. This tells me, that when the game's on the line, or even when there is a huge game, McStubby's instincts are gonna be with the ball in Arod's hands, i.e., pass it.

Very, very good article. My hat's off to the author.

[Maxie the Taxi]

One last thought on that article, pb.

McStubby's system and heavy-reliance on the QB tells me that if Arod goes down, so do GB's chances of winning anything.

Matt Flynn may be good, but if it took Arod this long to get this good, Flynn's chances are approaching zero.

[KYPack]

(Much snippage)

I know up until the 1930's the NFL was three yards and a cloud of dust. The QB was a blocking back similar to today's FB. Over 60% of games were shut-outs and final scores of 0-0 were common.

In the 1920's Green Bay was one of the only teams that used the pass. So in the 1930's, when the league changed some rules to open of the game (hashmarks moved in from the sidelines and passers no longer had to be 5 yds. behind the line of scrimmage) Green Bay became the "Team of the Decade" with passers like Arnie Herber and Cecil Isbell and receivers like Johnny Blood and Don Hutson. Plus, Curly Lambeau wasn't afraid to innovate. By the way, Herber -- known as the best passer in his day -- was a tailback, not a QB.

In the 40's most pro teams were running the "T" formation, again a college formation. But also in the 40's the door opened to allow unlimited substitutions which lead to separate units on offense and defense. This was a huge lift for the passing game in my opinion.

In the 50's the NFL really took to the air, literally and figuratively. NFL games began to be televised and the "T" formation transistioned to the "split T" (another innovation stolen from the College Game) which moved another receiver out toward the sidelines. Up till the 50's, both college and pro football were still dominated by the running game, though passing was gaining its place. In the 50's passing had come into its own.

In many ways the Packers of the 60's toned down the popularity of wide-open passing attacks by emphasizing the basics, which included running from the single wing and focusing on their famous Green Bay Power Sweep.
As the decade ended, most NFL team mimicked the Pack and concentrated more on rushing and defense. Why not? It served the Pack well.

By the 70's defenses had improved to such an extent that the NFL made the famous change to loosen the rules and open up the passing game. But I think the change, really, was motivated by trying to please the fans. In the 70's the game was becoming staid and boring. The College Game fell in love with the option offense and invented the Wishbone Option which gained some traction in the NFL.

In fact, in the 70's the Packers brought in Dan Devine who loved the run and the option. He drafted Jerry Tagge hoping to utilize it. Devine's run-happy approach won a division title in 72, and he was Coach of the Year, which says something about where the NFL's head was at in the 70's. Bobby Douglass was setting records running the option for the Bears. And probably a lot of coaches who ran the option in the College Game were imported into the NFL during this period.

This, I think, is how the 70's became an oddity. Football is trendy. The Packers had revived the rushing game, the Wishbone was the best thing since sliced bread in College, so the copy-cats went to work. The result: A decade wherein the QB might be a team's leading rusher. Besides the college imports, a lot of old school head coaches in the NFL were happy to embrace the running game, George Halas being at the head of the list.

But Devine and the option game were not long for this pro world. The running game can be exciting with the likes of OJ Simpson, Earl Campbell, and Sayers/Payton. But the bruising style of Brockington/Lane, Csonka/Kiick was boring. Passing is sexy and sexy sells seats and TV contracts. Dan Marino and Dan Fouts were emerging stars. And then Bill Walsh and his West Coast Offense appeared. The game had changed forever.

Moreover, as this sexy style of football took over the NFL, the College Game adopted first the style, then the substance. NFL coaches and their protoges found themselves in the college game, coaching sexy football there.

Maybe these things all run in cycles, though. College teams without a standout passer have always relied on the option. Florida with Tim Tebow has poplarized it again. And now the option is sneaking back into the pro-game with the Wildcat formation.

Sorry, didn't mean to run on. And I have to give credit to John Maxymuk and PACKERS BY THE NUMBERS for a lot of the historical references.

I love Packers by the Numbers. It's a must read.

A few points.

-The T formation was a college formation, but was revived by the Bears in the 40's and given a new "Pro" twist. The Packers and the Steelers were the last two pro teams to abandon the Single Wing and ND box

-The Split T was never run extensively in the NFL. It's a run option offense. The concept of 3 ends was pioneered in the pro's, mainly by the LA Rams and became the dominant offensive formation in the NFL.

- Devine didn't run much option. His teams ran a pro set with a heavy run emphasis. Even Douglass and the Bears ran most of their stuff from the standard pro set. I've only seen one NFL team run an option offense as their base. That was a Bill Walsh 49er team during the strike year. The most run based offense I've seen since I began watching the NFL is the "Wildcat" stuff that's happening now. The Wildcat is really just a form of the single wing of old Packer days.

Some of the changes in offense are dictated more by changes in the defense. The Steelers put in their "brackets" defense in the 70's. Why? they had the best DLine in NFL history. Noll and George Perles, their DLine coach put in "brackets" and absolutely killed other NFL teams offenses. "Brackets" is really the cover 2. You double cover both wideouts. The D spread throughout the league and teams went to throwing against it to the TE & 3 receiver formations.

The biggest change in offense came from a defensive rule in '74 or so. The Bengals had been throttled in a play-off game. Their opponents beat the bejabbers out of star WR Isaac Curtis. Paul Brown was on the competitive committee and got a rule passed that said it was illegal to touch the receiver after 5 yards. That rule change has morphed into the hands off after 5 game we have today. The NFL became a passing league over time due to this change.

[Maxie the Taxi]

- Devine didn't run much option. His teams ran a pro set with a heavy run emphasis. Even Douglass and the Bears ran most of their stuff from the standard pro set. I've only seen one NFL team run an option offense as their base. That was a Bill Walsh 49er team during the strike year. The most run based offense I've seen since I began watching the NFL is the "Wildcat" stuff that's happening now. The Wildcat is really just a form of the single wing of old Packer days.



Good stuff, KY. I love football and Packer history. "Packers by the Numbers" is really an outstanding, unequalled book.

I thought Devine ran the option at Notre Dame...anyway, needless to say, the '72 Packers were one of my favorite Packer teams of all time. I loved watching Brockington and Lane run and block for each other. Truly the definition of smash-mouth football. Hunter was not really bad at QB either. Kind of a guy who just didn't make mistakes and that was his contribution.

Really, I take your point about the Paul Brown rule, but in my opinion I think the game changed because the fans wanted it to. Passing was sexy and that's what they want to see.

Look at the posters in this forum. Most are so young they've never seen the Packer and Brown rushing games of the '60's, or Brockington/Lane or even Czonka/Kiick. They've grown up on Marino, Favre and Manning. They can't imagine any other way of playing football. They love it and for some old guy to suggest more rushing in a game is heresy.

I'm not gonna knock passing. I love it too. I can't blame the young guys for giving me grief. But what I wouldn't give to see a Brockington/Lane in the same backfield in this day and age. Screw the eight in the box thing. They'd make it work.

[KYPack]

- Devine didn't run much option. His teams ran a pro set with a heavy run emphasis. Even Douglass and the Bears ran most of their stuff from the standard pro set. I've only seen one NFL team run an option offense as their base. That was a Bill Walsh 49er team during the strike year. The most run based offense I've seen since I began watching the NFL is the "Wildcat" stuff that's happening now. The Wildcat is really just a form of the single wing of old Packer days.



Good stuff, KY. I love football and Packer history. "Packers by the Numbers" is really an outstanding, unequalled book.

I thought Devine ran the option at Notre Dame...anyway, needless to say, the '72 Packers were one of my favorite Packer teams of all time. I loved watching Brockington and Lane run and block for each other. Truly the definition of smash-mouth football. Hunter was not really bad at QB either. Kind of a guy who just didn't make mistakes and that was his contribution.

Really, I take your point about the Paul Brown rule, but in my opinion I think the game changed because the fans wanted it to. Passing was sexy and that's what they want to see.

Look at the posters in this forum. Most are so young they've never seen the Packer and Brown rushing games of the '60's, or Brockington/Lane or even Czonka/Kiick. They've grown up on Marino, Favre and Manning. They can't imagine any other way of playing football. They love it and for some old guy to suggest more rushing in a game is heresy.

I'm not gonna knock passing. I love it too. I can't blame the young guys for giving me grief. But what I wouldn't give to see a Brockington/Lane in the same backfield in this day and age. Screw the eight in the box thing. They'd make it work.

About Packers by the Numbers. It's a real underground classic. There is a ton in there about Packer history and is just a great book and read.

Here's the Googlebook url for it:

http://books.google.com/books?id=m9o2_k8zu4QC&dq=packers+by+the+numbers&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=JNUOEy-hcR&sig=TjkuOFzAC8J4Xo8HVijB_6AnGuQ&hl=en&ei=zJAzS4aJG4XZnAf79t36CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CBcQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=&f=false

For all younguns who have some interest in this stuff, check it out.

The Isaac Curtis rule did change the NFL game. Most of the other coaches and owners knew PB was trying to help his team, but realized that it would help the league by making the game more exciting.

Yes, I agree that a two back tandem would be an effective offensive tool in today's game. Mac Lane and J Brockington were one of the most effective pair of backs I've ever seen.

The "FB as blocker only" trend of today's game is a waste, IMHO. Why not have an FB who can block, run effectively with the ball and run routes? It could help get that extra man into the box and open up passing lanes. Somebody will try it, I feel. Maybe inconjuction with a Wildcat offense.

Yeah, the young boys can make fun of me, too. They've missed a lot of great football, I think. Put in a tape of the '65 NFL Championsip game. Horn and Jimmy Taylor, running right and left, while blocking effectively for each other is a helluva lot more exciting football than some of today's pass festivals that I see on the tube.

[Patler]

Horn and Jimmy Taylor, running right and left, while blocking effectively for each other is a helluva lot more exciting football than some of today's pass festivals that I see on the tube.

KYP, you forgot the "ung" on Hornung. Don't want the younguns confusing him with Don Horn! :lol:

[HowardRoark]

I picked a real old copy of Chuck Johnson's book off my Dad's bookshelf a few weeks ago....excellent read on the Packers up to 1961.

http://www.amazon.com/Green-Bay-Packers-footballs-pioneer/dp/B0007EMKOI

[KYPack]

Horn and Jimmy Taylor, running right and left, while blocking effectively for each other is a helluva lot more exciting football than some of today's pass festivals that I see on the tube.

KYP, you forgot the "ung" on Hornung. Don't want the younguns confusing him with Don Horn! :lol:

Yeah, I did.

I meant Paul Vernon Hornung, a proud graduate of Flaget High School in Louisville, KY., Notre Dame, and Lombardi University in Green Bay, WI.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Horn and Jimmy Taylor, running right and left, while blocking effectively for each other is a helluva lot more exciting football than some of today's pass festivals that I see on the tube.

KYP, you forgot the "ung" on Hornung. Don't want the younguns confusing him with Don Horn! :lol:

Now you see what I mean, Patler, about the younguns here? You make your comment among a group of old-timers and they'd look at you like you were a moron! How the hell could anybody confuse Don Horn and the Golden Boy?

But, yeah, you're right. You got to spell it out for these whippersnappers! :lol:

[pbmax]

The biggest change in offense came from a defensive rule in '74 or so. The Bengals had been throttled in a play-off game. Their opponents beat the bejabbers out of star WR Isaac Curtis. Paul Brown was on the competitive committee and got a rule passed that said it was illegal to touch the receiver after 5 yards. That rule change has morphed into the hands off after 5 game we have today. The NFL became a passing league over time due to this change.
I have heard of a rule (I thought it was the 5 yard bump zone) called the Mel Blount rule. Is this the same rule KY? Blount would have faced Issac Curtis twice a year and was drafted and played in 1970. Or are there two named for AFC Central Players?

Notable: Mel Blount was 6' 3" and 205 pounds. That would hurt.

[KYPack]

The biggest change in offense came from a defensive rule in '74 or so. The Bengals had been throttled in a play-off game. Their opponents beat the bejabbers out of star WR Isaac Curtis. Paul Brown was on the competitive committee and got a rule passed that said it was illegal to touch the receiver after 5 yards. That rule change has morphed into the hands off after 5 game we have today. The NFL became a passing league over time due to this change.
I have heard of a rule (I thought it was the 5 yard bump zone) called the Mel Blount rule. Is this the same rule KY? Blount would have faced Issac Curtis twice a year and was drafted and played in 1970. Or are there two named for AFC Central Players?

Notable: Mel Blount was 6' 3" and 205 pounds. That would hurt.

Yeah, same rule.

Steeler fans called it the Mel Blount rule right away. It did take away some of Mel's trick bag, but he was so good, no ruling could take him out of the game.