Captain, Give Bedard Some Kudos: Martz vs Capers

[pbmax]

Well, I blast him every time he writes with feeble logic. So we should praise him when he gets something right. This piece, was a very enjoyable read (http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/103687334.html). My only quibble is that with the Bears having O line trouble early, Martz and Cutler went to a lot more 3 step drops versus the Cowboys last week and it worked to keep Cutler upright and completing passes in the second half. So some of the battle we may see might be defending the shorter passing game if the Packers can get to Cutler early or if Martz doesn't risk it early.

[vince]

Agreed. Insightful. Balanced. Un-Bedard-like.

Not to pick on him, because I did like the article, but he stays true to form in not letting the facts get in the way of a good story...


It almost seems inconceivable given their status as two of the top thinkers on their side of the football, but Monday night will mark the first time Chicago Bears offensive coordinator Mike Martz and Green Bay Packers defensive coordinator Dom Capers have matched wits in the National Football League.

Martz directed the Detroit Lions against the Miami Dolphins in 2006, but Capers was calling the plays for Nick Saban's personal defense at the time.
Since Saban was the head coach and Capers was only calling the defensive plays, they didn't really "match wits?"

Bedard could have rephrased that to make the same point, but he flat out contredicts himself within two sentences.

Just sayin'

[HarveyWallbangers]

I got a kick out of the articles recently. You'd think our scheme is a bunch of gimmicks and Chicago's is tough to penetrate. A couple of things stood out. I think this article kept talking about how: if you don't get pressure, there are a lot of holes in the defense on 5 and 7 step drops. Well, most defenses are in trouble if you don't get pressure on 5 and 7 step drops. The thing that bugged me though is they talked about all these holes, but other articles basically made it sound like the only place to attack Chicago's cover-2 is down the middle with a good TE. I guess we are in trouble. What's funny to me is that Green Bay plays cover-2 in the backend most of the time also. How are things fundamentally different? People confuse 3-4 defenses with blitzing all of the time. To me, bringing one LB in a 3-4 is not blitzing. It's no different than playing a 4-3--except there is deception on who the 4th rusher is. Behind the 3 down linemen and the one blitzing LB, the coverages often are rather similar. Now, the article would have some merit if Green Bay brought 5 guys a lot, but they generally don't. I'd imagine that the true blitz percentage difference between the two teams were rather minimal last year--although I don't have the numbers readily available.

[ThunderDan]

I got a kick out of the articles recently. You'd think our scheme is a bunch of gimmicks and Chicago's is tough to penetrate. A couple of things stood out. I think this article kept talking about how: if you don't get pressure, there are a lot of holes in the defense on 5 and 7 step drops. Well, most defenses are in trouble if you don't get pressure on 5 and 7 step drops. The thing that bugged me though is they talked about all these holes, but other articles basically made it sound like the only place to attack Chicago's cover-2 is down the middle with a good TE. I guess we are in trouble. What's funny to me is that Green Bay plays cover-2 in the backend most of the time also. How are things fundamentally different? People confuse 3-4 defenses with blitzing all of the time. To me, bringing one LB in a 3-4 is not blitzing. It's no different than playing a 4-3--except there is deception on who the 4th rusher is. Behind the 3 down linemen and the one blitzing LB, the coverages often are rather similar. Now, the article would have some merit if Green Bay brought 5 guys a lot, but they generally don't. I'd imagine that the true blitz percentage difference between the two teams were rather minimal last year--although I don't have the numbers readily available.


Rubish pure rubish! If you only have 1 DL and everyone else is standing you blitzed at least 2 people on that play. It's a blitz! It's a blitz! :lol:

Great point Harvey! And the one thing we do have is a stud TE who will push the seam between the safeties in their Cover 2.

[Fritz]

The weakness of Martz's system (after watching his time in Detroit) is that you really put a lot of pressure on the QB and the offensive line. A five step drop means more time for the pass rushers to get there, and the multiple passes and kinds of throws seem to require a strong grasp of the system, a good quarterback mind. And an arm to do it with. And a body to take the hits you have to take in order to give your receivers time to get open.

Jon Kitna was actually a pretty good quarterback for that system.

[MichiganPackerFan]

The weakness of Martz's system (after watching his time in Detroit) is that you really put a lot of pressure on the QB and the offensive line. A five step drop means more time for the pass rushers to get there, and the multiple passes and kinds of throws seem to require a strong grasp of the system, a good quarterback mind. And an arm to do it with. And a body to take the hits you have to take in order to give your receivers time to get open.

Jon Kitna was actually a pretty good quarterback for that system.

Totally agree on Kitna - he played for the lions, but he was a gamer

[vince]

I think this article kept talking about how: if you don't get pressure, there are a lot of holes in the defense on 5 and 7 step drops. Well, most defenses are in trouble if you don't get pressure on 5 and 7 step drops.
As you said, every defense will get beat if the QB is given too much time, but I've always thought Martz' offense was particularly dependent on that, and more effective than most when the QB is given more time. That was the point I took from the article. Pickett pointed that out.

We've also seen how Capers' defense can be sliced up when it doesn't get pressure. Sure they all can, but it's a particular concern for the Packers, given last year's experiences.

The article was more focused on the Packers' perspective and concerns vs. the Bears' concerns, but I took that as the premise of the article. I have a hard time beating him up over that. Just my take.

[pbmax]

I got a kick out of the articles recently. You'd think our scheme is a bunch of gimmicks and Chicago's is tough to penetrate. A couple of things stood out. I think this article kept talking about how: if you don't get pressure, there are a lot of holes in the defense on 5 and 7 step drops. Well, most defenses are in trouble if you don't get pressure on 5 and 7 step drops. The thing that bugged me though is they talked about all these holes, but other articles basically made it sound like the only place to attack Chicago's cover-2 is down the middle with a good TE. I guess we are in trouble. What's funny to me is that Green Bay plays cover-2 in the backend most of the time also. How are things fundamentally different? People confuse 3-4 defenses with blitzing all of the time. To me, bringing one LB in a 3-4 is not blitzing. It's no different than playing a 4-3--except there is deception on who the 4th rusher is. Behind the 3 down linemen and the one blitzing LB, the coverages often are rather similar. Now, the article would have some merit if Green Bay brought 5 guys a lot, but they generally don't. I'd imagine that the true blitz percentage difference between the two teams were rather minimal last year--although I don't have the numbers readily available.
I understand that someone could be confused, but Bedard and his coordinator/source are pretty clear. IF you run a zone blitz (by definition, rush more than 4) than you can open up holes in the back end of the defense. I don't think either intimate otherwise in the article. Or course, what goes unsaid, is that this is true of almost any blitz. When they say scheme, they mean zone blitz, not just 3-4. Given that the article is about Martz's passing attack, the Packers won't be in a 3-4 for most of those passing downs. But they may be zone blitzing on them.

The question always comes down to: can you get pressure with 4? A zone blitz is just a way to send 5 and play a solid coverage behind it. However, except for extreme down and distance, is Capers playing Cover 2 if he sends 5? That would leave him very vulnerable short middle, with only 2 players in the short to intermediate middle of the field.

[denverYooper]

The weakness of Martz's system (after watching his time in Detroit) is that you really put a lot of pressure on the QB and the offensive line. A five step drop means more time for the pass rushers to get there, and the multiple passes and kinds of throws seem to require a strong grasp of the system, a good quarterback mind. And an arm to do it with. And a body to take the hits you have to take in order to give your receivers time to get open.

Jon Kitna was actually a pretty good quarterback for that system.

Those Lions started out 6-2 in '07 but they eventually fell of the Earth that year. They, not unlike the Bears of this year, were living off of defensive turnovers (led the league with 24 through 8 games) and an ok offense. Once those turnovers dried up though, they really died. Their offense under Martz was not strong enough to carry them through games when they weren't producing 3+ TOs on D.

How much of the Martz offensive system has relied on a great O-Line to be truly successful? It's not like Detroit didn't have weapons that year -- they had Megatron, Roy Williams, and Kevin Johnson. And Kitna was indeed pretty good that year. But their line was bad and so their offense was just average. Likewise, this Bears line is pretty bad. They're currently 30th in CHFF Offensive Hog Index (http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Articles/2_1024_Off._Hog_Index.html) and 23rd in FO's Offensive Line Rankings (http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol). They have weapons too, but I'm not sure they have the line to sustain a successful campaign.

Those early 2k Rams where the Greatest Show on Turf really flourished had a superb line, with Pace at the peak of his career at left tackle and Obi-wan-Warner at QB throwing to Isaac Bruce and Tory Holt. Weapons + time = juggernaut.

So I guess that what I'm saying is that I'm not ready to buy into the Martz-as-offensive genius narrative yet. Call me a homer but I think that M3 is a much better Offensive mind.

[ThunderDan]

The weakness of Martz's system (after watching his time in Detroit) is that you really put a lot of pressure on the QB and the offensive line. A five step drop means more time for the pass rushers to get there, and the multiple passes and kinds of throws seem to require a strong grasp of the system, a good quarterback mind. And an arm to do it with. And a body to take the hits you have to take in order to give your receivers time to get open.

Jon Kitna was actually a pretty good quarterback for that system.

Those Lions started out 6-2 in '07 but they eventually fell of the Earth that year. They, not unlike the Bears of this year, were living off of defensive turnovers (led the league with 24 through 8 games) and an ok offense. Once those turnovers dried up though, they really died. Their offense under Martz was not strong enough to carry them through games when they weren't producing 3+ TOs on D.

How much of the Martz offensive system has relied on a great O-Line to be truly successful? It's not like Detroit didn't have weapons that year -- they had Megatron, Roy Williams, and Kevin Johnson. And Kitna was indeed pretty good that year. But their line was bad and so their offense was just average. Likewise, this Bears line is pretty bad. They're currently 30th in CHFF Offensive Hog Index (http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Articles/2_1024_Off._Hog_Index.html) and 23rd in FO's Offensive Line Rankings (http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol). They have weapons too, but I'm not sure they have the line to sustain a successful campaign.

Those early 2k Rams where the Greatest Show on Turf really flourished had a superb line, with Pace at the peak of his career at left tackle and Obi-wan-Warner at QB throwing to Isaac Bruce and Tory Holt. Weapons + time = juggernaut.

So I guess that what I'm saying is that I'm not ready to buy into the Martz-as-offensive genius narrative yet. Call me a homer but I think that M3 is a much better Offensive mind.

I agree with the O-Line sentiment. Trent Green, Warner and then Bulger all put up similar numbers running the Greatest Show On Turf. Warner had 1 year where his stats were other worldly. The Rams really had a good line and it didn't really matter who the QB was as long as he could make the reads and get the ball out. Once their O line started to age and crumble Bulger couldn't put up similar numbers to earlier in his career.

[Waldo]

What's funny to me is that Green Bay plays cover-2 in the backend most of the time also. How are things fundamentally different?

Things are very different.

When Chicago plays cover-2, they are usually using the Tampa-2 variant that really should be called cover-3, where the MLB is one of the 3 deep men. The Tampa-2 vaiant is zone coverage across the board, with agressive CB's in short zones, safeties in a 2 deep shell, and linebackers dropping to cover the CB-S and S-S seams.

When GB plays cover-2, it is generally the man-2 variant. In man-2, the CB's play aggressive at the line and use trailing man technique to increase the number of interceptions. The safeties over the top shut down the big play potential and do some hawking themselves.

When GB plays zone coverage it is generally a form of sky or cloud cover-3, which fits nicely with zone blitz concepts.

Tampa-2 and Man-2 are both very effective at shutting down the quick short passing game. Tampa-2 defenses are succeptable to intermediate routes and plays in the deep middle. Man-2 defenses tend to be succeptable to late developing short stuff.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Tampa-2 and Man-2 are both very effective at shutting down the quick short passing game. Tampa-2 defenses are succeptable to intermediate routes and plays in the deep middle. Man-2 defenses tend to be succeptable to late developing short stuff.

While I agree with much of what you wrote (and you are correct on the fact that Chicago plays a cover-3), I'd disagree with your take on the corner play. At least from my understanding. Correct me if I'm wrong. A traditional Tampa-2 corner plays an off zone coverage (sometimes they press to force an inside release, but then drop into zone coverage), keeps things in front of them, and then makes the tackle. This allows them to minimize big plays, but I think the weakness generally is considered to be the propensity to give up short completions in front of their corners. It's a bend but don't break defense. Ronde Barber and Antoine Winfield are ideal Tampa-2 corners because they are smart and can tackle.

I guess my main point is that most defenses don't do well when you don't get pressure on the QB on 5 and 7 step drops. I got the feeling from this article that the Packers defense is gimmicky (Psycho may qualify for that). Another article I read recently made Chicago's defense out to be one with few weaknesses--other than the TE up the seam. I just disagree with the difference in "tone" that I read between the two articles.

[Waldo]

Tampa-2 and Man-2 are both very effective at shutting down the quick short passing game. Tampa-2 defenses are succeptable to intermediate routes and plays in the deep middle. Man-2 defenses tend to be succeptable to late developing short stuff.

While I agree with much of what you wrote (and you are correct on the fact that Chicago plays a cover-3), I'd disagree with your take on the corner play. At least from my understanding. Correct me if I'm wrong. A traditional Tampa-2 corner plays an off zone coverage (sometimes they press to force an inside release, but then drop into zone coverage), keeps things in front of them, and then makes the tackle. This allows them to minimize big plays, but I think the weakness generally is considered to be the propensity to give up short completions in front of their corners. It's a bend but don't break defense. Ronde Barber and Antoine Winfield are ideal Tampa-2 corners because they are smart and can tackle.

I guess my main point is that most defenses don't do well when you don't get pressure on the QB on 5 and 7 step drops. I got the feeling from this article that the Packers defense is gimmicky (Psycho may qualify for that). Another article I read recently made Chicago's defense out to be one with few weaknesses--other than the TE up the seam. I just disagree with the difference in "tone" that I read between the two articles.

The thing that gave rise to the Tampa-2 was its ability to shut down the short passing game of WCO teams that could rip right through other forms of defense. It shuts the quick 3 step drop stuff down by playing aggressive at the snap (even if they don't press, CB's are positioned to jump the 3 step drop stuff). They stay in relatively shallow zones though to quickly swarm to any late developing short passing. That is how it bends. T-2 teams don't tend to give a high completion % on 3 step drops.

[pbmax]

I think the coordinator in Bedard's article basically covers the entire question. Every defense has a weakness somewhere. The question is where and can the offense you face exploit it?

He didn't like the zone-blitz as an approach because he felt the weakness was deep. And if this coordinator is going to lose a battle, he is going to lose it short and force the offense to make more good plays to score, rather than give up a big gainer.

Capers and LeBeau have made a living by continuously racheting up pressure until they get a stop or big play for the defense. Ironically (not if you are named wist), Capers went away from this concept last year when DBs were dropping like flies. I agree with wist that this approach is beneficial in today's game, where the advantage has been tilted so far in the offense's direction, that putting together a string a good, short plays is commonplace. To string the offense along is simply delaying the score. QB completion percentages are off the charts, in part, because of the rule changes.

Its worth noting that the West Coast offense was designed specifically to defeat the Cover 2 of teams in the seventies like the Pittsburgh Steelers. Dungy began his coaching career with the Steelers during a time when they switched from the famous Steel Curtain 4-3 after all the HOFers retired. Pittsburgh went back to the 3-4 when the 4-3 was ascendant. But they still played plenty of zone.

Fast forward to Tampa, where he was faced with the same challenge of stopping the West Coast offense, but merged his ideas with Kiffin and suddenly he was combating the West Coast in a 4-3 with zone coverage again. As Waldo points out, it was a different kind of zone and required different personnel to run it. Though, like in Pittsburgh, you needed a MLB who could run like the wind.

[CaptainKickass]

Captain, Give Bedard Some Kudos: Martz vs Capers

I don't usually respond to direct requests - particularly for reporters but ahh, what the hell....


http://www.americansweets.co.uk/ekmps/shops/statesidecandy/images/american-kudos-m-m-s-granola-10-bars--2078-p.jpg

[Waldo]

I think the coordinator in Bedard's article basically covers the entire question. Every defense has a weakness somewhere. The question is where and can the offense you face exploit it?

He didn't like the zone-blitz as an approach because he felt the weakness was deep. And if this coordinator is going to lose a battle, he is going to lose it short and force the offense to make more good plays to score, rather than give up a big gainer.

Zone blitzing? The weakness is shallow, the fact that you've got a guy in coverage that isn't supposed to be in coverage, which my surprise the QB on the quick stuff, but is easily beaten if he has time. Dom almost always runs cover-3 behind a zone blitz.

People's definitions differ. A zone blitz as I've always known it is a 4 man rush. But the 4 guys are not the typical 4 guys, the coverage responsibilities of the unconventional rushers are replaced by some of the conventional rushers dropping (see Clay's near int against Phi). Behind it almost always sky or cloud cover-3 is run, with at least one of the 4 underneath zones covered by somebody that would typically rush the passer. This allows overload blitzing of parts of the line while maintaining coerage integrity, somewhat, behind it.

One of the keys for Dom's D is to disguise what they are realy doing until almost the last possible second. Making the time the QB spends reading the D a waste of time, since the QB won't see the D tipping off what it is doing until he's dropping back. Making him either slow his throw by having to think about it, or vice versa causing him to throw to something improperly read that wasn't open.

But they do occasionally leave deep zones uncovered. Really they are just leaving the S's with huge zones, something that requires fast safeties. I don't think that it is any coincidence that the 2 most successful incarnations of this D (us and Pit) each have a sub 4.4 safety. Nor is it any coincidence that Ted went and drafted a significantly faster SS.

[Smidgeon]

I think the coordinator in Bedard's article basically covers the entire question. Every defense has a weakness somewhere. The question is where and can the offense you face exploit it?

He didn't like the zone-blitz as an approach because he felt the weakness was deep. And if this coordinator is going to lose a battle, he is going to lose it short and force the offense to make more good plays to score, rather than give up a big gainer.

Zone blitzing? The weakness is shallow, the fact that you've got a guy in coverage that isn't supposed to be in coverage, which my surprise the QB on the quick stuff, but is easily beaten if he has time. Dom almost always runs cover-3 behind a zone blitz.

People's definitions differ. A zone blitz as I've always known it is a 4 man rush. But the 4 guys are not the typical 4 guys, the coverage responsibilities of the unconventional rushers are replaced by some of the conventional rushers dropping (see Clay's near int against Phi). Behind it almost always sky or cloud cover-3 is run, with at least one of the 4 underneath zones covered by somebody that would typically rush the passer. This allows overload blitzing of parts of the line while maintaining coerage integrity, somewhat, behind it.

One of the keys for Dom's D is to disguise what they are realy doing until almost the last possible second. Making the time the QB spends reading the D a waste of time, since the QB won't see the D tipping off what it is doing until he's dropping back. Making him either slow his throw by having to think about it, or vice versa causing him to throw to something improperly read that wasn't open.

But they do occasionally leave deep zones uncovered. Really they are just leaving the S's with huge zones, something that requires fast safeties. I don't think that it is any coincidence that the 2 most successful incarnations of this D (us and Pit) each have a sub 4.4 safety. Nor is it any coincidence that Ted went and drafted a significantly faster SS.

Seriously, where have you been?

[Fred's Slacks]

Nice to see you back, Waldo.

[pbmax]

I think the coordinator in Bedard's article basically covers the entire question. Every defense has a weakness somewhere. The question is where and can the offense you face exploit it?

He didn't like the zone-blitz as an approach because he felt the weakness was deep. And if this coordinator is going to lose a battle, he is going to lose it short and force the offense to make more good plays to score, rather than give up a big gainer.

Zone blitzing? The weakness is shallow, the fact that you've got a guy in coverage that isn't supposed to be in coverage, which my surprise the QB on the quick stuff, but is easily beaten if he has time. Dom almost always runs cover-3 behind a zone blitz.

People's definitions differ. A zone blitz as I've always known it is a 4 man rush. But the 4 guys are not the typical 4 guys, the coverage responsibilities of the unconventional rushers are replaced by some of the conventional rushers dropping (see Clay's near int against Phi). Behind it almost always sky or cloud cover-3 is run, with at least one of the 4 underneath zones covered by somebody that would typically rush the passer. This allows overload blitzing of parts of the line while maintaining coerage integrity, somewhat, behind it.

One of the keys for Dom's D is to disguise what they are realy doing until almost the last possible second. Making the time the QB spends reading the D a waste of time, since the QB won't see the D tipping off what it is doing until he's dropping back. Making him either slow his throw by having to think about it, or vice versa causing him to throw to something improperly read that wasn't open.

But they do occasionally leave deep zones uncovered. Really they are just leaving the S's with huge zones, something that requires fast safeties. I don't think that it is any coincidence that the 2 most successful incarnations of this D (us and Pit) each have a sub 4.4 safety. Nor is it any coincidence that Ted went and drafted a significantly faster SS.
A zone blitz could be sending 4 but dropping someone unexpected into coverage, which is the way it was always explained on TV when it first came to prominence. They always emphasized the attention to coverage while sending someone on the rush unexpectedly. The extra coverage is not going to be as good as the LB or DB he is replacing.

But given the statement of the coordinator, he seems to be talking about the two seems in the cover 3 deep, between the safety and corner (or whoever is covering the deep sideline). In fact, it would seem he assumes there are 4 across short in some kind of coverage, to give the blitz time to get home.

The problem is that many of these alignments and personnel are situation specific. My favorite part of the Steelers D (and the Packers have executed it a couple of times this year) is when they force 3rd and long and can play deep while possibly blitzing, forcing an outlet throw well short of the first down marker.

[bobblehead]

Agreed. Insightful. Balanced. Un-Bedard-like.

Not to pick on him, because I did like the article, but he stays true to form in not letting the facts get in the way of a good story...


It almost seems inconceivable given their status as two of the top thinkers on their side of the football, but Monday night will mark the first time Chicago Bears offensive coordinator Mike Martz and Green Bay Packers defensive coordinator Dom Capers have matched wits in the National Football League.

Martz directed the Detroit Lions against the Miami Dolphins in 2006, but Capers was calling the plays for Nick Saban's personal defense at the time.
Since Saban was the head coach and Capers was only calling the defensive plays, they didn't really "match wits?"

Bedard could have rephrased that to make the same point, but he flat out contredicts himself within two sentences.

Just sayin'

I think his point was that it wasn't capers' defense, it was saban's. Capers was calling the plays for a defense he didn't design. That is the way I read it.

[MJZiggy]

Agreed. Insightful. Balanced. Un-Bedard-like.

Wonder who he paid to write it for him. Kidding.

[Cheesehead Craig]

It's threads like these that make me love the damn place so much.

Fantastic discussion guys, learning a ton here.

[Fritz]

I think the coordinator in Bedard's article basically covers the entire question. Every defense has a weakness somewhere. The question is where and can the offense you face exploit it?

He didn't like the zone-blitz as an approach because he felt the weakness was deep. And if this coordinator is going to lose a battle, he is going to lose it short and force the offense to make more good plays to score, rather than give up a big gainer.

Capers and LeBeau have made a living by continuously racheting up pressure until they get a stop or big play for the defense. Ironically (not if you are named wist), Capers went away from this concept last year when DBs were dropping like flies. I agree with wist that this approach is beneficial in today's game, where the advantage has been tilted so far in the offense's direction, that putting together a string a good, short plays is commonplace. To string the offense along is simply delaying the score. QB completion percentages are off the charts, in part, because of the rule changes.

Its worth noting that the West Coast offense was designed specifically to defeat the Cover 2 of teams in the seventies like the Pittsburgh Steelers. Dungy began his coaching career with the Steelers during a time when they switched from the famous Steel Curtain 4-3 after all the HOFers retired. Pittsburgh went back to the 3-4 when the 4-3 was ascendant. But they still played plenty of zone.

Fast forward to Tampa, where he was faced with the same challenge of stopping the West Coast offense, but merged his ideas with Kiffin and suddenly he was combating the West Coast in a 4-3 with zone coverage again. As Waldo points out, it was a different kind of zone and required different personnel to run it. Though, like in Pittsburgh, you needed a MLB who could run like the wind.

Awesome thread. Kudos to PB, Waldo, all you football-knowledgeable people. And as an aside, I think that Packerrats is on the upswing despite the lack of a home page. More and more intelligent conversation, good postings.


I know litttle about the cover-2 versus man-2 versus the Martian-Deep-3 split (hey, I just invented a defense!) so this thread has been great.

If I am reading this correctly, Waldo is saying that the real weakness of Capers's defense is the short stuff that can take time to develop - which is to say, the screen pass (which the Bears have exploited). PB is making the point (with which I wholeheartedly agree) that the bend-but-don't break style of defense in vogue several years back just doesn't work anymore because offenses have become too proficient.

My recollection - and it is only that - is that way back in the 70's, completion percentages were much lower than they are today. However, a few years back on this site or the old JSO site I actually did some research about frequency of passing, and was surprised to find that in the 50's and 60's pass attempts were much higher per game than I'd imagined, but dropped in the 70's.

But my memory is that back in the 70's a guy who could complete 55% of his passes was doing pretty well.

[Smidgeon]

Awesome thread. Kudos to PB, Waldo, all you football-knowledgeable people. And as an aside, I think that Packerrats is on the upswing despite the lack of a home page. More and more intelligent conversation, good postings.

Agreed. Perhaps the long summer without football was getting to be too much.

[pbmax]

The current generation of football pundits grew up in an era when everyone believed the running game was the key to all football. But in reality, the 70s were a severe deviation from the previous two decades and some teams, like the Packers and Bears, before then.

No one remembers this, but in the early days of Bill Walsh, John Madden broadcast the 49er games like he was describing the Run and Shoot or the Air Raid offense from college. He clearly thought it was unwise and a poor choice of strategy, even while it worked. And this was from a guy, who despite going to school on Lombardi's running game, was influenced by Al Davis/Sid Gilliam in the passing game. The success of that team made him change his tune. But he never seemed to sign off on the wisdom of passing versus running, he reluctantly ascribed it to rules changes and the current coaching fad.

You see the result of this obstinacy in JSO's coverage, where three beat writers, who have witnessed the local team win a Super Bowl, playoff games and a majority of regular season games with a passing game, still think that you need to run the ball to win in November and December. And, of course, the playoffs if they are in cold weather.

It still has not occurred to them (at least not in their writing) that much of the running success they worship as the key to victory for this franchise, is a result of being the better team with a lead, rather than the other way around.

[Fritz]

The current generation of football pundits grew up in an era when everyone believed the running game was the key to all football. But in reality, the 70s were a severe deviation from the previous two decades and some teams, like the Packers and Bears, before then.

No one remembers this, but in the early days of Bill Walsh, John Madden broadcast the 49er games like he was describing the Run and Shoot or the Air Raid offense from college. He clearly thought it was unwise and a poor choice of strategy, even while it worked. And this was from a guy, who despite going to school on Lombardi's running game, was influenced by Al Davis/Sid Gilliam in the passing game. The success of that team made him change his tune. But he never seemed to sign off on the wisdom of passing versus running, he reluctantly ascribed it to rules changes and the current coaching fad.

You see the result of this obstinacy in JSO's coverage, where three beat writers, who have witnessed the local team win a Super Bowl, playoff games and a majority of regular season games with a passing game, still think that you need to run the ball to win in November and December. And, of course, the playoffs if they are in cold weather.

It still has not occurred to them (at least not in their writing) that much of the running success they worship as the key to victory for this franchise, is a result of being the better team with a lead, rather than the other way around.

Having come of age in the late 70's, I am one of that generation raised on running the football. I have to admit to that prejudice and have gotten nervous at the constant passing of the Packers over the past 20 years or so. My worry is that, knowing the team will pass, opposing pass rushers will pin their ears back and Packer QB's will get the snot beat out of them. I worry about pass protection (with good reason last year, I might add!).

However, I vowed to myself this summer to give that up and admit that the passing game works, and to stop pleading with the television for MM to run the football. I've got to trust that MM knows how to scheme to stop the opponent's rush, and that passing works best, aided by maybe 17 - 25 rushes per game.

I tell you what though, it's like kicking any habit. It ain't easy. I grew up with Walter Payton, with the end of Gale Sayers's career, with Franco Harris and the Redskins' old drunk running back - John something? If I recall the research I did a few years back, the 70's was one of the runningest decades ever. And DB's made a living knocking receivers' heads off, and if you hit a quarterback in the head you'd made a good play.

[Cheesehead Craig]

It still has not occurred to them (at least not in their writing) that much of the running success they worship as the key to victory for this franchise, is a result of being the better team with a lead, rather than the other way around.

Exactly, It's a myth I hope many other teams cling to so that the Packers can pummel them.

[pbmax]

I tell you what though, it's like kicking any habit. It ain't easy. I grew up with Walter Payton, with the end of Gale Sayers's career, with Franco Harris and the Redskins' old drunk running back - John something? If I recall the research I did a few years back, the 70's was one of the runningest decades ever. And DB's made a living knocking receivers' heads off, and if you hit a quarterback in the head you'd made a good play.
John Riggins. We nicknamed a friend of ours, who played with a similar style, after him. Riggo.

[pbmax]

It still has not occurred to them (at least not in their writing) that much of the running success they worship as the key to victory for this franchise, is a result of being the better team with a lead, rather than the other way around.

Exactly, It's a myth I hope many other teams cling to so that the Packers can pummel them.
You can still win by running, the Shanahan Bronco's teams were run first, but it is not any guarantee. You need first downs (or big plays) through any means necessary. Usually, that means you need to do a few things better than most. One of those ingredients can certainly be the run. But there is no magic mixture.

[Fritz]

I suppose logic dictates that it's easier to have to players standing fifteen yards apart and have one throw the ball through the air to the other guy than give one guy a ball and tell him to run past a bunch of guys who are trying to tackle him.