Is Aaron Rodgers more of the problem than we might think?

[Upnorth]

PFF Sam

On passes that were aimed 15 yards or more down field last season, Aaron Rodgers had 35 big time throws by PFF's grading scale, and just ONE turnover worthy play.

That's an absurd ratio.
Tom Brady was 24-10.

If only this guy was any good at running his own plays.

And yet you would think he is going to be washed up by the end of the year based on what most seem to be feeling / saying. 3 rookie wrs, 1 great wr, poor te play (or poor te's). Something tells me if we can get some good timing plays in with decent blocking, look out nfl.

[Upnorth]

Why is Tom Brady so selfish about turning the ball over to get a big play?

I think he is being ego driven, taking the time to get the highlight reel play.

[mraynrand]

PFF Sam

On passes that were aimed 15 yards or more down field last season, Aaron Rodgers had 35 big time throws by PFF's grading scale, and just ONE turnover worthy play.

That's an absurd ratio.
Tom Brady was 24-10.

If only this guy was any good at running his own plays.

Get Out A Town!

[RashanGary]

I was onto Favre’s egomania before it was cool too. It’s ok. His highness Aaron will soon enough prove me right beyond a doubt as we can’t blame two coaches in a row for Aaron’s stubbornness.

[texaspackerbacker]

Sheeeeesh! What a disloyal and shameful CROCK!

[George Cumby]

I was onto Favre’s egomania before it was cool too. It’s ok. His highness Aaron will soon enough prove me right beyond a doubt as we can’t blame two coaches in a row for Aaron’s stubbornness.

I'm with you. I think 12's jumped the shark.

[mraynrand]

Sheeeeesh! What a disloyal and shameful CROCK!

lol.

Favre....Crocks...

[pbmax]

I was onto Favre’s egomania before it was cool too. It’s ok. His highness Aaron will soon enough prove me right beyond a doubt as we can’t blame two coaches in a row for Aaron’s stubbornness.

You know, we have a written record we could check :D

[Joemailman]

Rodgers drinking the Packers Defense Kool-Aid:


“I like what our GM did, bringing those guys in,” Rodgers told Chris Simms of NBC Sports. “We’ve brought in some really good leadership with Adrian Amos, safety. And we drafted a young kid (Darnell Savage) who’s really talented.”

The shoutout to Savage is particularly noteworthy in that it’s his second endorsement from prominent Packers. From his official Instagram account, Davante Adams a month ago wrote “That boy gonna be special” in reference to Darnell Savage.

Rodgers, however, didn’t just stop with Amos and Savage. In fact, he sounded most excited about Za’Darius Smith and Preston Smith, the outside linebacker additions who, in Rodgers’ estimation, should increase the talent and leadership in the locker room.

“I think the coolest thing is the two outside linebackers,” Rodgers said. “Just watching them kind of fit in, Za’Darius (Smith) and Preston (Smith). And they’re hungry. They’re young kids. They haven’t won anything yet. As an old guy, you love to see that. As much as you love the veterans, it’s good to have a new energy.”

The offseason acquisitions are likely to get most of the headlines, but this is also the second season with Mike Pettine serving as defensive coordinator, the time in which players graduate from rudimentary understanding of the scheme to a more “graduate” level, as Pettine likes to call it.

“It’s great, you know,” Rodgers said. “We’re in our second year with Mike Pettine and there’s just a different feel. I think Blake (Martinez) is stepping into his role as middle linebacker and owning it.”

https://stuarte.co/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Green-poop-kool-aid.jpg

[RashanGary]

That was a good interview. Rodgers came off ready to make some changes and coachable. I might be wrong on my AR went off the ego deep end ideas. I hope I’m wrong!

[texaspackerbacker]

Was there more to the interview than posted here above? Because all I see here - thankfully from my point of view - was Rodgers rejoicing at the upgrading of the supporting cast - specifically the defense. Rodgers making changes? They better be damn slight/barely noticeable.

[pbmax]

https://youtu.be/4G2xAm8r-qk

[call_me_ishmael]

Really great video. Thanks for posting.

[mraynrand]

I had to stop 10 seconds into that video. That’s MVP level ass kissing.

[Joemailman]

I had to stop 10 seconds into that video. That’s MVP level ass kissing.

I made it to :45.

[mraynrand]

I made it to :45.

I bet they staged those little scallywags running in the background. Im guessing the producers of all those “human interest” videos for the Olympics got this assignment.

[RashanGary]

Simms coming off as such a fanboy was a little awkward. Rodgers has this guru tone developing, where you can sort of hear he thinks everything he says is so profound and special :lol:

But if you can get over the awkwardness and narcissism, I think there is some good reason to think Rodgers is dialed in on making the new concepts work. As much of a douche as he’s becoming, he is dialed in on success so I’m glad he’s on the team I follow.

[RashanGary]

He definitely has picked up a bunch of Favre’s off balance and off schedule throwing techniques, as he talked about. Favre did have an impact there. I wish AR would pick up some of Favre’s simplicity based effectiveness, but that’s asking a lot from a guru like his highness Aaron

[mraynrand]

It must be hard to stay humble when people are slobbering all over you like that.

[pbmax]

He definitely has picked up a bunch of Favre’s off balance and off schedule throwing techniques, as he talked about. Favre did have an impact there. I wish AR would pick up some of Favre’s simplicity based effectiveness, but that’s asking a lot from a guru like his highness Aaron

I appreciate he did not adopt the "Aw shucks, I'm just a tractor enthusiast" demeanor. One problem in GB is that three of the QBs have been smarter than everyone except Lombardi, Harlan and maybe Holmgren.

[pbmax]

It must be hard to stay humble when people are slobbering all over you like that.

Who was the designated Favre fan-boy who left the Press Gazette for radio? Chris Havel? That guy was/is good for some hometown cooking.

[RashanGary]

Ah shit, you’re buying into the AR genius thing. Ugh. I guess this is what happens with fame. People can’t help themselves.

[mraynrand]

Ah shit, you’re buying into the AR genius thing. Ugh. I guess this is what happens with fame. People can’t help themselves.

See if you measure up, Jeopardy style:

POTENT POTABLES
What's now this club that many join happily was first distilled in Ontario in 1858

Completes what v.s.o.p. stands for on a cognac bottle: very superior old...

A PETITE DEJEUNER
Created at Antoine's in New Orleans eggs sardou is made with this veggie creamed

As opposed to rolled oats Quaker offers this metallic version that has a heartier texture

FOOTBALL TEAMS THAT START WITH GREEN BA
This team captured multiple NFL titles in the 30s and 60s and hails from the smallest market in the league

This team is owned by it's fans and the proceeds go to the Green Bay Packers Foundation if it is sold or dissolved

[Radagast]

The media use Aaron Rodgers to bolster their ratings. Who he dates, where he eats, public events he attends, and even what his last golf score was have as eager an audience as Golf's Tiger Woods. Rodgers, weather he likes the attention or not, uses the national celebrity to be paid to sell insurance and other products in popular commercials. I don't believe that he allows the celebrity spotlight to affect his position with the Packers, but I'm sure that his ever growing bank accounts have him laughing all the way to his stock brokers office.

All too often some sports reporters will use a very small sound bite to construct a story that benefits their careers more than it tells the "whole" truth. That said QB audibles should be one of the topics that HC LaFleur and Rodgers and others should/will discuss. Afterall, a new offensive system will not be a one size fits all system. Adjustments, new ideas, some time tested old ideas, and chance will all come into play as the 2019 season draws near.

[mraynrand]

Rodgers is too smart to use a broker.

[pbmax]

Ah shit, you’re buying into the AR genius thing. Ugh. I guess this is what happens with fame. People can’t help themselves.

Genius? No. I am talking public smarts and results. How to continue to get people to believe in you. Lombardi played along enough and curried favor with enough reporters to basically become immortal. Harlan simply delivered good results for longer than anyone else other than George Halas, so much so that even beat guys understood that it was important he was there or the whole organization might not have turned around. Favre and Rodgers ran circles around coaches and reporters.

Now that I have thought about it, probably have to say Wolf over Holmgren here, because I suspect 50% of Packer fans would replace Gute with Wolf and put their own money up to do it if given the chance. If not for that second to last draft of his, I would say the evidence of his decline was in his drafts, but Bubba Franks, Chad Clifton, Na'il Diggs, KGB and Mark Tauscher were a nice penultimate swan song.

[pbmax]

I would say Rodgers does have a genius (each of these guys do) and its manipulating the pocket to get not just room but time to throw.

Bonus Lombardi story (not my own). Trip to the UK. Walking just in front of a tour group from Germany. Their guide (obviously) spoke both English and German with a group whose English was pretty good. My source spoke a little German and was following their conversation along. Group was sharing which football clubs they follow. One guy was following a small German club who were terrible but he loved anyway. Guide liked an English club. Ask the women sitting next to my source and it was a big English one, ManU or the like.

Ask my source which club they follow and they say "I follow a different kind of football" smiling. Having discovered an American infiltrator via the very midwestern accent, they laugh and say "American Football"! They ask which team or town and she says "Green Bay".

Now keep in mind, up to this point in the trip, telling folks you encounter that you are from Wisconsin does not normally get you much recognition. Probably work better with German tourists than residents of London. Instead say "north of Chicago" and it paints a more immediate picture.

But this group of three people from German and the UK say almost in unison "Oh, Lombardi!" Pause. "That's all we know."

[esoxx]

What I gleaned from the interview is Hollywood Rodgers is not in the best of shape. Is it normal to huff and puff like that simply from walking down the fairway or was he running wind sprints on the side just prior to the interview?

Oh and also giving his family zero credit for where he is today. He was asked this directly and could have thrown them a frickin bone (cue Dr. Evil here). Guy is a certifiable dick. But he's our dick.

[RashanGary]

What I gleaned from the interview is Hollywood Rodgers is not in the best of shape. Is it normal to huff and puff like that simply from walking down the fairway or was he running wind sprints on the side just prior to the interview?

Oh and also giving his family zero credit for where he is today. He was asked this directly and could have thrown them a frickin bone (cue Dr. Evil here). Guy is a certifiable dick. But he's our dick.

:lol: I saw that too!

I like Aaron Rodgers too. And Favre. They both were worshipped. I can’t blame either for letting it go to their heads. Shit, I get me ego stroked by some woman for a couple weeks and I’m shooting my ego load all over the place. I get it. We’re all human.

When I see it tho, i can’t help but call it out.

Still, at the end of the day, he’s dedicated to the game and I love team sports, especially football because the physical aspect really brings a survival emotion into it. He helps my favorite team win so I’m always rooting for him. He’s our ass hole!

[RashanGary]

I appreciate he did not adopt the "Aw shucks, I'm just a tractor enthusiast" demeanor. One problem in GB is that three of the QBs have been smarter than everyone except Lombardi, Harlan and maybe Holmgren.

Its not Favre’s demeanor I miss. It’s his willingness to hand the ball off and throw to running backs. That’s what I mean by simplicity based effectiveness.

But i agree, Rodgers does a great job with the media and in the pocket and in a lot of other ways. He’s a HOF QB.

[pbmax]

Its not Favre’s demeanor I miss. It’s his willingness to hand the ball off and throw to running backs. That’s what I mean by simplicity based effectiveness.

But i agree, Rodgers does a great job with the media and in the pocket and in a lot of other ways. He’s a HOF QB.

I loved all those audibles away from the running game with Eddie Lacy as a rookie and 2nd year player. All those carries that Ryan Grant did not get. Rodgers not calling for Aaron Jones to get more playing time.

I loved those audibles away from the run in the second half of the Seahawks playoff game that led directly to the loss.

[RashanGary]

I loved all those audibles away from the running game with Eddie Lacy as a rookie and 2nd year player. All those carries that Ryan Grant did not get. Rodgers not calling for Aaron Jones to get more playing time.

I loved those audibles away from the run in the second half of the Seahawks playoff game that led directly to the loss.

Favre never approached 70% pass plays in a season. There is a time and place.

[pbmax]

Favre never approached 70% pass plays in a season. There is a time and place.

2018 was the time and place. Favre retired after 2010 playing next to Adrian Peterson.

[mraynrand]

Favre retired after 2010 playing next to Adrian Peterson.

Remember how Favre kept handing the ball off to Peterman in the NFCC game against New Orleans and Peterman kept fumbling it? Good times.

[pbmax]

Remember how Favre kept handing the ball off to Peterman in the NFCC game against New Orleans and Peterman kept fumbling it? Good times.

Favre had just 2 interceptions, I believe that is below his career playoff average :lol:

Ol' Gunslinger had 46 attempts and 1 rush which I am going to count as a pass attempt unless someone remembers him doing a end around or QB sneak. 47 passes, 35 runs, just 57% pass plays. 5 to 1 turnover rate. Vikes should have won walking away but couldn't get away from turnovers. Hmmm, who do I know that doesn't do that?

[esoxx]

Favre had just 2 interceptions, I believe that is below his career playoff average :lol:

Ol' Gunslinger had 46 attempts and 1 rush which I am going to count as a pass attempt unless someone remembers him doing a end around or QB sneak. 47 passes, 35 runs, just 57% pass plays. 5 to 1 turnover rate. Vikes should have won walking away but couldn't get away from turnovers. Hmmm, who do I know that doesn't do that?

The guy who has been to less Super Bowl's than Favre?

[RashanGary]

The guy who has been to less Super Bowl's than Favre?

True.

I see them as about a horse a piece. Favre did a lot of little things well that don’t show up as a stat, just a W. He didn’t tinker so much at the line so he had better pace and I think that helps with running the ball. He also threw to running backs and ran the ball enough to be effective.

AR has better stats but Favre was just as much of a winner for the little things he did. Now, AR could do those things but he’s such a stubborn overintellectual perfectionist, he just has to tinker and dilly dally like a douche bag rather than play with aggressive pace and let his OL stick it to the other guy. It’s weak, over intellectual football.

[RashanGary]

AR is turnover adverse but it comes at the expense of the running game because he slows the pace and doesn’t let his guys tee off. He tinkers and dilly dallys.

Favre made everyone better by being so consistent and fast paced and aggressive. His guys could line up and play aggressive without overthinking.

Tom Brady does both. AR and Favre are both great but had/have their major flaws.

[RashanGary]

The bright side is, MLF is bringing in an aggressive, fast paced scheme with an emphasis on running the ball, up to and including the aggressive pace with less dilly dallying. So AR will have fewer opportunities to wreck the run game.

[pbmax]

The guy who has been to less Super Bowl's than Favre?

One career isn't over.

I might have to rewatch that game. Vikings defense put up stellar numbers but its hard to remember if they were that good or the Saints field on offense was just that short.

[pbmax]

AR is turnover adverse but it comes at the expense of the running game because he slows the pace and doesn’t let his guys tee off. He tinkers and dilly dallys.

So the pace was limiting the run offense? Aaron Jones had a 5.5 ypa due to slow pace? In both of the last two years?

[pbmax]

The bright side is, MLF is bringing in an aggressive, fast paced scheme with an emphasis on running the ball, up to and including the aggressive pace with less dilly dallying. So AR will have fewer opportunities to wreck the run game.

Got a quote about the fast paced Shanahan/La Fleur offense being fast paced?



Rank Team 2018 Last 3 Last 1 Home Away 2017
1 Baltimore 70.2 64.0 59.0 68.2 72.5 65.9
2 New England 69.1 80.0 68.0 71.6 66.9 67.5
3 LA Rams 66.5 68.0 60.0 69.9 63.5 62.6
4 Pittsburgh 66.1 66.0 66.0 63.4 68.9 66.4
5 Indianapolis 66.1 64.0 53.0 65.9 66.3 62.1
6 Tampa Bay 65.9 59.3 56.0 66.5 65.4 64.7
7 Houston 65.2 68.3 68.0 66.2 64.0 64.2
8 Green Bay 64.1 67.0 56.0 64.9 63.4 62.4
9 Philadelphia 63.9 60.7 47.0 66.1 62.2 66.9
10 Cleveland 63.9 61.0 56.0 67.2 60.6 63.0
11 Detroit 63.7 65.3 72.0 63.9 63.5 61.2
12 Dallas 63.6 64.3 55.0 65.4 61.8 62.8
13 New Orleans 63.6 62.0 64.0 62.4 65.1 62.4
14 Denver 63.4 68.7 74.0 64.5 62.4 67.2
15 Chicago 63.3 62.0 63.0 63.8 62.8 58.4
16 Carolina 63.2 69.7 68.0 64.2 62.1 64.5
17 Atlanta 63.1 63.0 76.0 59.6 66.6 61.9
18 Buffalo 63.0 61.0 60.0 64.6 61.4 63.8
19 Jacksonville 62.8 52.7 47.0 62.4 63.1 66.8
20 Minnesota 62.7 57.7 52.0 62.9 62.5 66.3
21 San Francisco 62.7 56.7 58.0 63.8 61.6 66.1
22 Seattle 62.6 62.7 52.0 64.4 61.0 62.9
23 Kansas City 62.3 59.7 47.0 63.2 61.1 61.1
24 Oakland 62.2 60.3 65.0 64.7 60.2 59.5
25 NY Giants 61.5 64.0 67.0 63.0 60.0 64.8
26 NY Jets 60.7 61.3 55.0 63.4 58.0 61.5
27 Washington 60.4 54.7 44.0 61.1 59.8 61.4
28 LA Chargers 59.7 61.3 63.0 64.4 56.6 63.8
29 Tennessee 58.8 55.7 45.0 55.6 61.9 61.1
30 Cincinnati 58.6 55.7 46.0 62.2 55.0 57.9
31 Arizona 56.4 60.7 64.0 56.9 55.9 66.2
32 Miami 54.9 52.3 61.0 52.4 57.4 62.2

[pbmax]

I think the audible-ing controversy has been extended to ridiculousness.

[RashanGary]

I think the audible-ing controversy has been extended to ridiculousness.

A part of that stat is young QBs.

[pbmax]

A part of that stat is young QBs.

Those young QBs aren't audible-ing.

McVay runs with pace, but he is also making adjustments over the headset with Goff so they need to be done before 15 seconds or less on the play clock.

[RashanGary]

Those young QBs aren't audible-ing.

McVay runs with pace, but he is also making adjustments over the headset with Goff so they need to be done before 15 seconds or less on the play clock.

New offenses, young QBs, injuries. Lots go into it. AR being one one the longest tenured QBs in the league in the same offense for 12+ years. He shoulda been with Brady at the top.

[RashanGary]

Running the ball more takes more time off the clock.

[texaspackerbacker]

I doubt there even is an "audible-ing controversy" among the people actually involved - the players and coaching staff. It's all in the minds of a few media troublemakers and fans who swallow what they spew.

Aaron Rodgers does what he does, and he does it better than anyone else in the history of the NFL. Being "turnover averse" is the most important single aspect of being an NFL QB, and it is the main thing that separates Rodgers from basically anybody else, past and present.

GOAT deniers should jump the fence and go to wherever the hell they think the grass is greener.

[pbmax]

New offenses, young QBs, injuries. Lots go into it. AR being one one the longest tenured QBs in the league in the same offense for 12+ years. He shoulda been with Brady at the top.

Completely different offensive design. McCarthy's no huddle fell apart after 2014.

[pbmax]

Running the ball more takes more time off the clock.

Still waiting for your pace statistic rather than your Tank-like insistence that audible-ing is the root cause of all offensive problems.

Would settle for any evidence that audibles are a cause, rather than a symptom of offensive function.

[pbmax]

I doubt there even is an "audible-ing controversy" among the people actually involved - the players and coaching staff. It's all in the minds of a few media troublemakers and fans who swallow what they spew.

Aaron Rodgers does what he does, and he does it better than anyone else in the history of the NFL. Being "turnover averse" is the most important single aspect of being an NFL QB, and it is the main thing that separates Rodgers from basically anybody else, past and present.

GOAT deniers should jump the fence and go to wherever the hell they think the grass is greener.

Funn that the people involved keep talking about it. Why don't you believe La Fleur and Rodgers?

If you think the daily pixels are lying to you, we have video available.

[mraynrand]

The only Audible controversy I know of is Aaron Rodger's reading of "The Scarlett Pimpernell" for Audible Books https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.upwavers.com%2Fuploads%2F1%2F9 %2F6%2F9%2F19693279%2Faudible-logo_4_orig.png&f=1

Probably should have done the abridged version.

"They seek him here, they seek him there, those Frenchies seek him everywhere!" (Even Jeopardy Rodgers should have known that was from the poem...)

[texaspackerbacker]

Funn that the people involved keep talking about it. Why don't you believe La Fleur and Rodgers?

If you think the daily pixels are lying to you, we have video available.

What I've seen from Rodgers in interviews is about 2 parts tongue-in-cheek, just putting the fools on/stringing them along, and 1 part giving semi-serious but innocuous answers to dumb questions. I don't recall seeing any actual interviews with LaFleur, but I seriously doubt he is stupid enough to create a controversy with Aaron Rodgers. He very well could, however, be tactful enough to not come right out and tell the media shitheads what shitheads they are.

[pbmax]

What I've seen from Rodgers in interviews is about 2 parts tongue-in-cheek, just putting the fools on/stringing them along, and 1 part giving semi-serious but innocuous answers to dumb questions. I don't recall seeing any actual interviews with LaFleur, but I seriously doubt he is stupid enough to create a controversy with Aaron Rodgers. He very well could, however, be tactful enough to not come right out and tell the media shitheads what shitheads they are.

I think here you are half right. Le Fleur has been avoiding calling out Rodgers on it publicly. He acknowledges that they are debating internally about audibles this offense doesn't have but he isn't challenging Rodgers directly. We don't know the dynamics. Perhaps the ball is in La Fleur's camp about when audibles should be called. Maybe its part of the game plan. Or in choosing what alternative plays to practice.

There are many ways this can play out positively. I am rooting for all of them.

But I am also worried that gbgary was correct. Less so that Rodgers is closer to the end of his career and more that he isn't going to be too willing to bend to another's will.

[pbmax]

The only Audible controversy I know of is Aaron Rodger's reading of "The Scarlett Pimpernell" for Audible Books https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.upwavers.com%2Fuploads%2F1%2F9 %2F6%2F9%2F19693279%2Faudible-logo_4_orig.png&f=1

Probably should have done the abridged version.

"They seek him here, they seek him there, those Frenchies seek him everywhere!" (Even Jeopardy Rodgers should have known that was from the poem...)

Its still early in camp, right? We can handle one more excursion into non football territory?

Its the 1990s, the General's Daughter is published (no idea when) and WPR's Chapter A Day is reading it. If you aren't familiar, its an audiobook in a radio format, half a hour per weekday. They abridge the works in most cases as they do here. In the car (I think I was doing deliveries in between classes) it's brilliant. Nice, taut who-done-it mystery.

Recommend it to my traveling companion for our next trip and she buys the thing from Barnes and Noble based on my say so. Back in the day, the 28 cassettes or 6 CDs cost a small fortune at retail. Better idea would be to use the library, but it wasn't available.

Get in the car and start the trip. Its Ken "White Shadow" Howard reading it and its awful. Boring, uninteresting and Howard isn't engaging. And it's unabridged. Hours of this thing to go. I hadn't heard the end because some days work doesn't sync to the Chapter A Day schedule.

I have never figured out if WPR and the Chapter A Day folks were that good at editing it down, or if Fleming/Schmidt/Gilliland were just better readers with years of practice. What a waste of money that was.

[run pMc]

The White Shadow was a good show.
Fun facts: it was produced by Bruce Paltrow, who also produced St. Elsewhere and (with Blythe Danner) co-produced Gwyneth Paltrow.

So, what did we all have for breakfast today? Let's see how far off topic we can take this... :P

[SudsMcBucky]

The guy who has been to less Super Bowl's than Favre?

Has Rodgers played with someone even CLOSE to the level of talent that Favre had with Reggie White?

[gbgary]

Funny that the people involved keep talking about it. Why don't you believe La Fleur and Rodgers?

If you think the daily pixels are lying to you, we have video available.

exactly. *sigh*

[mraynrand]

Has Rodgers played with someone even CLOSE to the level of talent that Favre had with Reggie White?

sure

[SudsMcBucky]

sure

Really???

[Upnorth]

Has Rodgers played with someone even CLOSE to the level of talent that Favre had with Reggie White?

Considering he might be a top 10 ever all time great, no, not even close.

[mraynrand]

Really???

yep. Reggie was on the downside of his career. There are guys who had his impact, if only for a season or two, like Woodson and maybe Clay and stipulate - for a year. Woodson was like Reggie in his locker room presence too, I think.

Also, I would say Ahman Green's years 2000-2004 were overall better than Reggie's years. Take away the injury year (2005) and through 2006 he had a run that compares with the best Packers ever. Favre was very lucky to have that guy too.

So in summary, I pretty much agree with the point that Rodgers hasn't had the same talent around him that Favre had. :) (overall, if we made a full-blown argument out of this, citing all the teammates over all the years, it might come out more equal, but I'd bet money, that by largely objective criteria, Favre was surrounded by more talent. Still, "the Packer brass never really surrounded either of these guys with the talent they needed to win")

[pbmax]

The White Shadow was a good show.
Fun facts: it was produced by Bruce Paltrow, who also produced St. Elsewhere and (with Blythe Danner) co-produced Gwyneth Paltrow.

So, what did we all have for breakfast today? Let's see how far off topic we can take this... :P

Eggs over medium.

[pbmax]

I think Reggie was on fumes for the end of his career, but I am thinking mainly post Super Bowl win. He was still awe inspiring 92-95/96.

I have always wondered, given how he went through the tackle twice on that last Patriot drive, was Reggie saving himself for the end of the game or big moment? Or did Fritz just tell them put Bledsoe on the deck no matter what. We have the lead, its late and they will be throwing.

[mraynrand]

I think Reggie was on fumes for the end of his career, but I am thinking mainly post Super Bowl win. He was still awe inspiring 92-95/96.

I have always wondered, given how he went through the tackle twice on that last Patriot drive, was Reggie saving himself for the end of the game or big moment? Or did Fritz just tell them put Bledsoe on the deck no matter what. We have the lead, its late and they will be throwing.

That’s the kind of stuff you can do if you aren’t looking for the run at all. Also, Reggie left it all out there in the field. In distance running they say “the faster you run, the sooner you’re done”. If you get a three and out on defense you can go get oxygen on the sideline....

[mraynrand]

Eggs over medium.

Free range chickens, no antibiotics?

[mraynrand]

Its still early in camp, right? We can handle one more excursion into non football territory?

Its the 1990s, the General's Daughter is published (no idea when) and WPR's Chapter A Day is reading it. If you aren't familiar, its an audiobook in a radio format, half a hour per weekday. They abridge the works in most cases as they do here. In the car (I think I was doing deliveries in between classes) it's brilliant. Nice, taut who-done-it mystery.

Recommend it to my traveling companion for our next trip and she buys the thing from Barnes and Noble based on my say so. Back in the day, the 28 cassettes or 6 CDs cost a small fortune at retail. Better idea would be to use the library, but it wasn't available.

Get in the car and start the trip. Its Ken "White Shadow" Howard reading it and its awful. Boring, uninteresting and Howard isn't engaging. And it's unabridged. Hours of this thing to go. I hadn't heard the end because some days work doesn't sync to the Chapter A Day schedule.

I have never figured out if WPR and the Chapter A Day folks were that good at editing it down, or if Fleming/Schmidt/Gilliland were just better readers with years of practice. What a waste of money that was.

lol

Best books on tape/digital:

Hans Gruber reads “Return of the Native”
Anthony Heald (silence of the lambs) reads “Crime and Punishment”
Thandie Newton reads “Jane Eyre”
Jennifer Connolly reads “The Sheltering Sky”
Christopher Lane Reads “Despair” (Nabokov)

Worst: some dude reads “camouflage” By Joe Haldeman. Ugh. Should have audibled to another book.

OK. On to training camp...

[pbmax]

Free range chickens, no antibiotics?

120 sq. ft. per chicken according to the box.

[Radagast]

No Rodgers is not a problem, in fact he concealed an injury last season and started in spite of it. With a healthy #12 in 2019 GB will be that much better off. Also, it was past time to change HCs as McCarthy was retained past his time. I expect that LaFleur will present a fresher, more regenerated team in 2019 that offensively will not be as predictable.

My breakfast order is : 3 eggs over medium, 4 strips of Bacon, a short stack with Blueberry syrup, small bowl of grits with butter, L. cup of Coffee.

IMO, Ken Howard's finest role came when he portrayed Thomas Jefferson in the movie "1776".


:pack:

[pbmax]

lol

Best books on tape/digital:

Hans Gruber reads “Return of the Native”
Anthony Heald (silence of the lambs) reads “Crime and Punishment”
Thandie Newton reads “Jane Eyre”
Jennifer Connolly reads “The Sheltering Sky”
Christopher Lane Reads “Despair” (Nabokov)

Worst: some dude reads “camouflage” By Joe Haldeman. Ugh. Should have audibled to another book.

OK. On to training camp...

Best reader I have ever heard is the guy, Jim Dale, who did the US audio books for Harry Potter. With that many characters, many would do a radio play out of it, having different actors read direct quotes. Dale found a way to do 24 or so distinct voices and still be an engaging narrator. Kids listened to these multiple times on car trips. I am sure it saved the publisher a lot of money and was still a good listen.

Other reader I remember is William Gibson, doing an abridged version of Neuromancer on cassette. Somehow he really gets the material :D At one point someone uploaded those cassettes as mp3s. Wonder if they would hold up?

[mraynrand]

Best reader I have ever heard is the guy, Jim Dale, who did the US audio books for Harry Potter. With that many characters, many would do a radio play out of it, having different actors read direct quotes. Dale found a way to do 24 or so distinct voices and still be an engaging narrator. Kids listened to these multiple times on car trips. I am sure it saved the publisher a lot of money and was still a good listen.

Other reader I remember is William Gibson, doing an abridged version of Neuromancer on cassette. Somehow he really gets the material :D At one point someone uploaded those cassettes as mp3s. Wonder if they would hold up?

I remember reading at least the first couple of HP books to my kids, doing voices. That was kinda fun. Then those books got out of control in length.

Jim Carrey should read a book like Neuromancer. I'd pay money to hear Jim Morrison read Robert Frost poems. lol.

[pbmax]

I remember reading at least the first couple of HP books to my kids, doing voices. That was kinda fun. Then those books got out of control in length.

Jim Carrey should read a book like Neuromancer. I'd pay money to hear Jim Morrison read Robert Frost poems. lol.

The first two HP books are some of the best kid's literature going, especially for young boys who tend not to read much fiction. Story moves so well, even with a lot of repetition for youngsters, you want to polish it off.

My wife was amazed at how many students wanted to talk about the books. From 0 to 60 in less than a school year. Old school mania, no internet, no TV or movies. Everyone wanted to read those books. Some kids were known to put down their GameBoys to read it. I think the crescendo she noticed was the anticipation of the second book's release, whenever that was.

We listened to the audio books on a trip because she wanted to find out what was driving everyone mad. I got hooked in the second book and did the Dad routine: What is this guy's story? How can Harry be talking to someone in the past? What do you mean he fell into a book? Wait, Riddle is Voldemort, he's lying right?

[RashanGary]

I’ve been impressed with both Rodgers and Lefleurs comments in the last couple interviews. Rodgers wants to adjust, adapt and buy into the run game. Lafleur wants to make sure the QB is comfortable with the game plan and play to his and all players strengths.

[George Cumby]

I remember reading at least the first couple of HP books to my kids, doing voices.

Although I question the parenting decision of reading Lovecraft to your kids, I’d pay good money to hear what voices you used for Shoggoth, the Ancient Ones and old Squid-face himself.

[mraynrand]

Although I question the parenting decision of reading Lovecraft to your kids, I’d pay good money to hear what voices you used for Shoggoth, the Ancient Ones and old Squid-face himself.

Wait, did I say 'doing' voices? I meant HEARING voices. Wait, I hear one now - it's my long dead great grandfather calling me from the bottom of Lake Michigan....glub glub

Oh, and HP was for "Hewlett Packard" - we were reading a manual for the HP Pavilion work station.

[yetisnowman]

Also, I would say Ahman Green's years 2000-2004 were overall better than Reggie's years. Take away the injury year (2005) and through 2006 he had a run that compares with the best Packers ever. Favre was very lucky to have that guy too.




Absolutely. People downplay or forget how good he was.
We always remember the 4th and 26 in 04. But I'll never forgive Sherman for punting on 4th and less than a foot on Philly's side of the 50 with Green in the backfield. Right before all that happened.

[pbmax]

Although I question the parenting decision of reading Lovecraft to your kids.

You gotta have a little fear in ya.

~ Mickey Goldmill

[pbmax]

Absolutely. People downplay or forget how good he was.
We always remember the 4th and 26 in 04. But I'll never forgive Sherman for punting on 4th and less than a foot on Philly's side of the 50 with Green in the backfield. Right before all that happened.

I would own a Packer jersey of Ahman Green if he didn't keep getting arrested.

It was a fantastic pleasure to watch him play week after week. And I am still steaming that Bill "Fucking" Walsh called Mike Sherman/Rosselly/Larry Beightol run game a "college running attack".

[George Cumby]

Wait, did I say 'doing' voices? I meant HEARING voices. Wait, I hear one now - it's my long dead great grandfather calling me from the bottom of Lake Michigan....glub glub

Oh, and HP was for "Hewlett Packard" - we were reading a manual for the HP Pavilion work station.

Lol

[mraynrand]

Some stats I saw:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EAMJPThUYAA-oit.jpg

[mraynrand]

The data hints that the problem is most certainly not just Rodgers

[pbmax]

Maybe I am just defending my priors, but the distinct difference between 1st and 3rd down makes it seem like a Offensive design problem.

[esoxx]

Some stats I saw:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EAMJPThUYAA-oit.jpg

Stubby

[gbgary]

Maybe I am just defending my priors, but the distinct difference between 1st and 3rd down makes it seem like a Offensive design problem.

when you constantly see guys open but not thrown to, it's not a design problem, it's a decision problem. when the middle of the field is ignored, it's not a design problem, it's a decision problem.

[gbgary]

The data hints that the problem is most certainly not just Rodgers

i don't think anyone ever said it was...but rodgers certainly bears some blame. his "trust" issues with new players, his freelancing, the throwaways...were all problems. people seem to be forgetting the balls over guy's heads and balls into the ground. he needs a bounce-back year in the worst way.

[mraynrand]

I’m in the “both” camp

[pbmax]

when you constantly see guys open but not thrown to, it's not a design problem, it's a decision problem. when the middle of the field is ignored, it's not a design problem, it's a decision problem.

Why does it work on third down?

And Rodgers didn't come into GB with touchdown to checkdown written on his forehead.

[pbmax]

i don't think anyone ever said it was...but rodgers certainly bears some blame. his "trust" issues with new players, his freelancing, the throwaways...were all problems. people seem to be forgetting the balls over guy's heads and balls into the ground. he needs a bounce-back year in the worst way.


Young WR: Why was there a second offense? Was it because Rodgers was simply willful or did it solve a problem with M3's offense?

Freelancing: Not sure what you mean but if extended offense, it was the only move that bailed the offense out of its 2015 slump. Still took a very good player (heathy Cook) to make it work.

Throwaways: If after skipping shorter quicker throw, then someone will have to demonstrate a quicker, shorter passing attack works and Rodgers will have to give it a shot. M3's usually did not survive contact with a good defense that could do more than one thing well. The short passing game was more bubble screens that I ever care to witness again.


But put all that aside, its the coach's job to get players to believe in his vision for the game. Same goes with the QB.

[run pMc]

Absolutely. People downplay or forget how good he was.
We always remember the 4th and 26 in 04. But I'll never forgive Sherman for punting on 4th and less than a foot on Philly's side of the 50 with Green in the backfield. Right before all that happened.

I remember. And I still remember being aghast that Sherman wanted to punt. The Eagles D was tired and Ahman was very good in short yardage situations. All they needed to do was convert that and they would have played a Carolina team in the NFCCC game that was so beat up Brad Hoover was the starting RB.

[Cheesehead Craig]

I'm still going with McCarthy's offense was nothing special, and Rogers could only do so much to overcome the deficiencies inherent in his system. It worked great for a while but then teams adjusted and McCarthy didn't. I think that's what frustrated Aaron so much and then we have the Rogers that wants to change things at the line. I just think Rogers needs to get into a place where he trusts the play caller again. I don't think that's been there for the last three years.

[RashanGary]

Honestly, Gute getting rid of Nelson, bringing on a guy Aaron didn’t have chemistry with at te for $$ and then relying on three rookie receivers that Aaron didn’t have rapport with didn’t help much.

[RashanGary]

Other than the Clark, Spriggs, Fackrell, Martinez, Lowry, Trevor Davis draft, Tt just didn’t have a good last couple years of his career so Gute was starting over in some spots.

[RashanGary]

And then Gute has more of a length/speed philosophy so just a bunch of changing pieces all of a sudden. All of it affected Rodgers surroundings.

But AR has a part.

[Joemailman]

Other than the Clark, Spriggs, Fackrell, Martinez, Lowry, Trevor Davis draft, Tt just didn’t have a good last couple years of his career so Gute was starting over in some spots.

Trevor Davis is having a good offseason and camp. If Spriggs would get his act together, (if he has one) that 2016 draft could rank up there with TT's best. The 2017 draft with King, Josh Jones, Mt. Adams, Jamaal Williams and Aaron Jones still has a chance to be pretty good. It was the 2014 and 2015 drafts that blew the roster apart.

[call_me_ishmael]

Can I just say I love Mount Adams as a nick name? I hope that catches on nationally. Fantastic name.

[gbgary]

Young WR: Why was there a second offense? Was it because Rodgers was simply willful or did it solve a problem with M3's offense?

Freelancing: Not sure what you mean but if extended offense, it was the only move that bailed the offense out of its 2015 slump. Still took a very good player (heathy Cook) to make it work.

Throwaways: If after skipping shorter quicker throw, then someone will have to demonstrate a quicker, shorter passing attack works and Rodgers will have to give it a shot. M3's usually did not survive contact with a good defense that could do more than one thing well. The short passing game was more bubble screens that I ever care to witness again.


But put all that aside, its the coach's job to get players to believe in his vision for the game. Same goes with the QB.

sorry. my comments were about rodgers numbers in general since 2015. the o gradually got worse as time went on. it was on everyone involved.

[gbgary]

Trevor Davis is having a good offseason and camp. If Spriggs would get his act together, (if he has one) that 2016 draft could rank up there with TT's best. The 2017 draft with King, Josh Jones, Mt. Adams, Jamaal Williams and Aaron Jones still has a chance to be pretty good. It was the 2014 and 2015 drafts that blew the roster apart.
but who was really doing the drafting then? TT was already into his decline then. i read somewhere that murphy and ball, along with others, pretty much did the 17 draft.

[gbgary]

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/08/07/aaron-rodgers-criticism-of-joint-practices-amounts-to-criticism-of-matt-lafleur/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

[Joemailman]

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/08/07/aaron-rodgers-criticism-of-joint-practices-amounts-to-criticism-of-matt-lafleur/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

Not a big deal. They don't have to agree on everything as long as they can work together. What Florio doesn't mention is that in the same interview Rodgers talked about how much he likes LaFleur's offense. Just an oversight I'm sure. Rodgers' biggest problem with the practices against Houston is that he feels it took away from continuing to develop their familiarity with the new offense. 2 wasted practices in his opinion. I'm sure Rodgers also wasn't happy that 2 receivers (Davis, Sternberger) suffered injuries that probably wouldn't have happened in a Packers-only practice.

[RashanGary]

Not a big deal. They don't have to agree on everything as long as they can work together. What Florio doesn't mention is that in the same interview Rodgers talked about how much he likes LaFleur's offense. Just an oversight I'm sure. Rodgers' biggest problem with the practices against Houston is that he feels it took away from continuing to develop their familiarity with the new offense. 2 wasted practices in his opinion. I'm sure Rodgers also wasn't happy that 2 receivers (Davis, Sternberger) suffered injuries that probably wouldn't have happened in a Packers-only practice.

Lafleur is focused on developing offense, defense, special teams. The physical work was important for evaluating parts of the roster. Lafleur was excited because a lot of good work was done for the TEAM and Rodgers perspective comes from a place of how it affects himself. The positive is how maniacally invested Rodgers is in the offense. The downside is, his passion leads to wearing blinders that end up making him self serving and self centered, not so helpful to the TEAM. But if Lafleur holds his ground and puts the team above Rodgers, all will be well. A conversation between the two might help, but at the end of the day, if AR doesn’t like it, hopefully that’s just too bad for Aaron.

[gbgary]

Lafleur is focused on developing offense, defense, special teams. The physical work was important for evaluating parts of the roster. Lafleur was excited because a lot of good work was done for the TEAM and Rodgers perspective comes from a place of how it affects himself. The positive is how maniacally invested Rodgers is in the offense. The downside is, his passion leads to wearing blinders that end up making him self serving and self centered, not so helpful to the TEAM. But if Lafleur holds his ground and puts the team above Rodgers, all will be well. A conversation between the two might help, but at the end of the day, if AR doesn’t like it, hopefully that’s just too bad for Aaron.

this!

[Cobra Kai]

Not a big deal. They don't have to agree on everything as long as they can work together. What Florio doesn't mention is that in the same interview Rodgers talked about how much he likes LaFleur's offense. Just an oversight I'm sure. Rodgers' biggest problem with the practices against Houston is that he feels it took away from continuing to develop their familiarity with the new offense. 2 wasted practices in his opinion. I'm sure Rodgers also wasn't happy that 2 receivers (Davis, Sternberger) suffered injuries that probably wouldn't have happened in a Packers-only practice.

That is typical Florio. He loves to bend the truth to fit HIS narrative. Most of his articles are hit pieces and Rodgers is one of his favorite targets. Remember when Rodgers didn't sign the cancer lady's pink hat after returning from beating Atlanta during the Superbowl run. You'd think Rodgers punched her after reading Florio's article.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/01/16/aaron-rodgers-has-a-lot-to-learn-about-where-his-money-comes-from/

[Joemailman]

Lafleur is focused on developing offense, defense, special teams. The physical work was important for evaluating parts of the roster. Lafleur was excited because a lot of good work was done for the TEAM and Rodgers perspective comes from a place of how it affects himself. The positive is how maniacally invested Rodgers is in the offense. The downside is, his passion leads to wearing blinders that end up making him self serving and self centered, not so helpful to the TEAM. But if Lafleur holds his ground and puts the team above Rodgers, all will be well. A conversation between the two might help, but at the end of the day, if AR doesn’t like it, hopefully that’s just too bad for Aaron.

I don't think there's anything self centered about what Rodgers said. He's wearing a red jersey. He knows he's not getting hit. However, the biggest challenge this team faces right now is learning and developing the offense. Rodgers saw this as 2 wasted practices. While he may be wrong, I think his opposition was team focused. This will be an issue that people will talk about for a few days, to be forgotten once they return to a regular practice.

[Radagast]

No there is no "Rodgers Problem", but there are sports reporters trying to make a name for themselves.

[gbgary]

the media didn't create this. rodgers did. he should've given a benign answer to the question or not answered at all. he knows exactly what he's doing.

[mraynrand]

the media didn't create this. rodgers did. he should've given a benign answer to the question or not answered at all. he knows exactly what he's doing.

Maybe some locals can just kick the shit out of him and we can be done with this conversation?


One night, me with my big mouth
A couple guys had to put me in my place
When I see those guys these days
We just laugh and say, "Do you remember when?"
That's when a smoke was a smoke
And groovin' was groovin'

[texaspackerbacker]

No there is no "Rodgers Problem", but there are sports reporters trying to make a name for themselves.

+ 1

[QBME]

Maybe some locals can just kick the shit out of him and we can be done with this conversation?


One night, me with my big mouth
A couple guys had to put me in my place
When I see those guys these days
We just laugh and say, "Do you remember when?"
That's when a smoke was a smoke
And groovin' was groovin'

And dancin' meant everthing...

[pbmax]

Not a big deal. They don't have to agree on everything as long as they can work together. What Florio doesn't mention is that in the same interview Rodgers talked about how much he likes LaFleur's offense. Just an oversight I'm sure. Rodgers' biggest problem with the practices against Houston is that he feels it took away from continuing to develop their familiarity with the new offense. 2 wasted practices in his opinion. I'm sure Rodgers also wasn't happy that 2 receivers (Davis, Sternberger) suffered injuries that probably wouldn't have happened in a Packers-only practice.

He also basically called the near-live kickoff practice dumb. Florio is furiously humping this for all its worth, but there was a definite critique in there.

Will be interesting to see if ST come out firing better this year.

[gbgary]

this isn't media spin. rodgers says things that are black and white...not gray that can be misinterpreted and/or spun. he also has a history that can't be ignored. his passive-aggressive behavior created, and continues to plays into, the narrative, and some just want to gloss over it and pretend it hasn't affected things in the past, or could in the present or future. he's a brilliant QB. to this point probably the best all-time statistically. a day-1, ballet-1, HOF'er...but i prefer my QB to be team-before-self in all things and wish he was more like that. he's not like that though. i can accept it...but i don't have to like it. i also don't like the fact the Packers have enabled it in the past. i thought MLF handled the question from aaron nagler well...that rodgers is one man and doesn't have to like it for it to happen anyway for the good of the team and coaches. he then agreed with a rodgers point. rodgers has said he likes the new O...but. there's a power struggle happening whether some see it or not. for the good of the team, i hope MLF prevails.


Maybe some locals can just kick the shit out of him and we can be done with this conversation?
it'll be done soon enough...until the next time rodgers can't bite his tongue.

[gbgary]

.....

[mraynrand]

this isn't media spin. rodgers says things that are black and white...not gray that can be misinterpreted and/or spun. he also has a history that can't be ignored. his passive-aggressive behavior created, and continues to plays into, the narrative, and some just want to gloss over it and pretend it hasn't affected things in the past, or could in the present or future. he's a brilliant QB. to this point probably the best all-time statistically. a day-1, ballet-1, HOF'er...but i prefer my QB to be team-before-self in all things and wish he was more like that. he's not like that though. i can accept it...but i don't have to like it. i also don't like the fact the Packers have enabled it in the past. i thought MLF handled the question from aaron nagler well...that rodgers is one man and doesn't have to like it for it to happen anyway for the good of the team and coaches. he then agreed with a rodgers point. rodgers has said he likes the new O...but. there's a power struggle happening whether some see it or not. for the good of the team, i hope MLF prevails.


it'll be done soon enough...until the next time rodgers can't bite his tongue.

Serious: yes, I know Rodgers contributes to this, but I also don't think it's worthy of much discussion. yet here i am.

Not Serious: I was joking around...up to a point. Maybe someone could kick his ass and he'd wise up.

[RashanGary]

this isn't media spin. rodgers says things that are black and white...not gray that can be misinterpreted and/or spun. he also has a history that can't be ignored. his passive-aggressive behavior created, and continues to plays into, the narrative, and some just want to gloss over it and pretend it hasn't affected things in the past, or could in the present or future. he's a brilliant QB. to this point probably the best all-time statistically. a day-1, ballet-1, HOF'er...but i prefer my QB to be team-before-self in all things and wish he was more like that. he's not like that though. i can accept it...but i don't have to like it. i also don't like the fact the Packers have enabled it in the past. i thought MLF handled the question from aaron nagler well...that rodgers is one man and doesn't have to like it for it to happen anyway for the good of the team and coaches. he then agreed with a rodgers point. rodgers has said he likes the new O...but. there's a power struggle happening whether some see it or not. for the good of the team, i hope MLF prevails.


it'll be done soon enough...until the next time rodgers can't bite his tongue.

MLF was impressive. He phrased it perfectly in that he understands from ARs perspective that it wasn’t helpful but the other 10 guys who are on the field benefitted and that’s why he did it and would do it again. That was perfect. He also owned up to a mistake he made and agreed with Aaron on that part. So he was just transparent and honest but firm and team focused at the same time. MLF is growing on me. He’s handling Rodgers well. And Rodgers is difficult the way I see it so props to mlf.

[texaspackerbacker]

Did anybody see any signs of a new run-first offense last night? I sure didn't - and Aaron Rodgers wasn't even in the game.

When your O Line is mediocre at best at run blocking and not much better at pass blocking, and your QBs are mobile, even #2, 3, and 4, your "new" offense is gonna look a whole lot like the old offense, as it did last night - pass first and rely on escapability to get the passes off.

LaFleur is smart and (apparently) not particularly ego-driven. He has the good sense to go with what works and not force something new that wouldn't work as well.

[Joemailman]

Did anybody see any signs of a new run-first offense last night? I sure didn't - and Aaron Rodgers wasn't even in the game.

When your O Line is mediocre at best at run blocking and not much better at pass blocking, and your QBs are mobile, even #2, 3, and 4, your "new" offense is gonna look a whole lot like the old offense, as it did last night - pass first and rely on escapability to get the passes off.

LaFleur is smart and (apparently) not particularly ego-driven. He has the good sense to go with what works and not force something new that wouldn't work as well.

Packers threw the ball 21 times and ran the ball 29 times. :glug: If you take the runs by the QB's and consider them pass attempts, then it was 26 passes and 24 rushes. Is that what you had in mind? :D

[pbmax]

Packers threw the ball 21 times and ran the ball 29 times. :glug: If you take the runs by the QB's and consider them pass attempts, then it was 26 passes and 24 rushes. Is that what you had in mind? :D

Didn't start out that way though. I think they ran once on the opening drive.

[gbgary]

Did anybody see any signs of a new run-first offense last night? I sure didn't - and Aaron Rodgers wasn't even in the game.

When your O Line is mediocre at best at run blocking and not much better at pass blocking, and your QBs are mobile, even #2, 3, and 4, your "new" offense is gonna look a whole lot like the old offense, as it did last night - pass first and rely on escapability to get the passes off.

LaFleur is smart and (apparently) not particularly ego-driven. He has the good sense to go with what works and not force something new that wouldn't work as well.

these were backups playing other backups, there was no game planning, and they're not going to roll out the new O until the season opener. they're evaluating talent and setting the roster. nothing more.

[RashanGary]

Didn't start out that way though. I think they ran once on the opening drive.

Is there a reason you’re picking apart posts that talk about running the ball more? The Packers ran the ball 32.5% of the plays last year. 50/50 is a balanced attack, exactly what MLF has been preaching.

[RashanGary]

Im a fan of balanced offense. I’m also a fan of the run blocking schemes and pass blocking schemes both looking the same as the plays start. It slows pass rush and sucks linebackers down and generally makes life easier on the QB. I guess I don’t understand why anyone is against running the ball half of the time.

[texaspackerbacker]

Having a fairly big lead just might have had something to do with that balance too. I wouldn't expect them to put much on film for other teams to see, but basically, you play the way you practice, especially with a minimum of game planning like in the first preseason game. Early in the game and when the team had success moving the ball, it was pass first. Also, on most of the pass plays, Kizer and Boyle did some pretty good Aaron Rodgers mobility imitations, rather than just unloading it quick like some in here seem to want.

[bobblehead]

Having a fairly big lead just might have had something to do with that balance too. I wouldn't expect them to put much on film for other teams to see, but basically, you play the way you practice, especially with a minimum of game planning like in the first preseason game. Early in the game and when the team had success moving the ball, it was pass first. Also, on most of the pass plays, Kizer and Boyle did some pretty good Aaron Rodgers mobility imitations, rather than just unloading it quick like some in here seem to want.

They passed early so they could see Kizer in action. They ran late so they could see Williams in action. What they do balance or otherwise is to assess talent. Week 1 we will see the actually offensive philosophy.

[RashanGary]

I do think my observation of Rodgers not being natural at seeing the game from the other 10 guys perspectives is real. Self centered is the term for it, but he’s not trying it. He just doesn’t put himself in other peoples shoes very well. His history with his family off the field suggests the same thing. Because it’s a team sport, a coach that can see the big team picture and can open Rodgers eyes or at least diplomatically reign him in is important.

However, in the name being fair to Rodgers, and not creating a weird witch hunt here, id like to also mention a very impressive strength. Rodgers is the most maniacally focused practice player I’ve ever seen. Even when it’s not his snap, he watches every practice rep, paying close attention to every route run by every WR, TE and Back. He’s as focused as the head coach. I see that in practice, but I think you could see that in the game last night. He was with Lafleur the whole time, same as practice, watching every single move.

Lafleur encourages and highlights Rodgers brilliance while diplomatically smoothing out his self centered influence on the team. Rodgers isn’t a perfect human being, but there’s a chance here, he’s teamed up with the right guy to lead the TEAM to finish out his HOF career with some rings.

[mraynrand]

They passed early so they could see Kizer in action. They ran late so they could see Williams in action. What they do balance or otherwise is to assess talent. Week 1 we will see the actually offensive philosophy.

I try to tell my relatives this all the time. They (some) watch preseason games as though it's a real game and winning is the goal.

[pbmax]

Is there a reason you’re picking apart posts that talk about running the ball more? The Packers ran the ball 32.5% of the plays last year. 50/50 is a balanced attack, exactly what MLF has been preaching.

1. Running the ball more makes an offense less efficient, generally.
2. Packers running 32.5% last year was an outlier because of injuries and being behind for more often than previously.
3. 50/50 is a dumb number to apply to any game. Numerical balance is NOT the goal. Or shouldn't be.
4. Did M4 actually say his target is 50/50? If he did, he will be out of a job within 2 years if he actually tries to implement it.

[RashanGary]

1. Running the ball more makes an offense less efficient, generally.
2. Packers running 32.5% last year was an outlier because of injuries and being behind for more often than previously.
3. 50/50 is a dumb number to apply to any game. Numerical balance is NOT the goal. Or shouldn't be.
4. Did M4 actually say his target is 50/50? If he did, he will be out of a job within 2 years if he actually tries to implement it.

Maybe focus more on winning football game than statistics? Rams, Saints and Patriots all ran the ball 45% of the time last year. Three of the top 4 teams. Maybe your pff articles aren’t really making you smarter? Maybe some good old fashion common sense applies sometimes?

[RashanGary]

45/55 is still balance. PB, you focus so much on details, you often miss the general point. Try balance in your thinking patterns.

[mraynrand]

Try balance in your thinking patterns.

lol

You didn't get any sleep, did you?

[RashanGary]

If you were to take 12 minutes of time clock away in a drive, that is 20% of the total time in a game. A team, that on average scores 30 points per game now has lost 20% of time, therefor 20% of their likely point total. Now 24 points is more likely. And you just scored 7, so you need just 17 more compared to their 24. If you were to do that a second time in the game, now that 30 point offense is more likely to score 18. And you scored another 7. So now you have 14 against a team likely to score 18. The remaining 60% of the game require just 5 points against their estimated 18.


Two long touchdown producing drives makes winning very likely.

And we haven’t even talked about turnovers yet. Ypa efficiency loses even more of its all telling forecasting power at this point.

And then 3rd down percentage, redzone effectiveness, penalties.....

And now let’s go even deeper. Let’s say a balanced team that can run and pass effectively makes it and three other teams that are super efficient passing teams. But a buzz saw of a pass rushing team like the NY Giants of a few years ago is in too. Now who’s likely to get mowed down in the playoff gauntlet? The balanced team that invested in its run game or the predictable pass happy team?

We can go on and on......

And on and on

And on

And efficiency still won’t equate to championships. Too many variables. Hence you’re constant critique of people who value the run game, as much as you keep finding some misphrased detail to call “stupid” .... maybe you’re the stupid one for over obsessing about stats.

[RashanGary]

people can observe and predictably expect that the sun will stay out longer in the month of June than the month of January without ever taking a clock and making a stat out of it. Reality is reality whether a stat is there to show it or not.

I’ve come up with mathematical ways to show how a couple long, time eating, touchdown producing drives makes winning more likely. But even in absence of the math, the reality still exists.

Having the ability to run or pass effectively creates adaptability, something needed to get through the various types of good defenses in the playoffs.

The reliance on pff stats isn’t necessarily smart. The part that’s most surprising is how smug a person can be, calling people stupid while exposing themselves as incapable of seeing practical realities while only being able to read stats. Any idiot with a pathetic United States 7th grade education can regurgitate stats.

[mraynrand]

The reliance on pff stats isn’t necessarily smart. The part that’s most surprising is how smug a person can be, calling people stupid while exposing themselves as incapable of seeing practical realities while only being able to read stats. Any idiot with a pathetic United States 7th grade education can regurgitate stats.

easy, hoss. There's merit in both perspectives.

[bobblehead]

1. Running the ball more makes an offense less efficient, generally.
2. Packers running 32.5% last year was an outlier because of injuries and being behind for more often than previously.
3. 50/50 is a dumb number to apply to any game. Numerical balance is NOT the goal. Or shouldn't be.
4. Did M4 actually say his target is 50/50? If he did, he will be out of a job within 2 years if he actually tries to implement it.

1) Not true. It totally depends on several factors....generally and specifically
2) Agree. 35% is fine if its the RIGHT 35%.
3) Correct. The goal is a balance that keeps the D off guard. If a D is selling out to stop the run then I have no problem with 100% pass.
4) I don't think M4 has a set number. He seems to understand the game in its entirety which means you can't put static numbers on things. Run effectively when its given. Keep the other teams O on the sidelines and out of sync. Wear down the other D so they can't stop you when game is on the line in the 4th.

[bobblehead]

Lets talk TE. Anyone notice the play to Tonyan over the middle splitting the seam. That play hasn't existed in GB in years. I was a WR pull the safety and *a back in a route* pulling the LB. Tonyan split the seam for a big gain. Since I now Know its in the playbook we will see if its Rodgers or M3 at fault for it not existing for years.

[mraynrand]

Since I now Know its in the playbook we will see if its Rodgers or M3 at fault for it not existing for years.

how will you know?

[RashanGary]

There are more scenarios than we can possibly list. I try to be open to the uniqueness of each situation so as not to be constantly surprised that things aren’t fitting into the box I tried to force them in.

Maybe a part of the reason Aikman won 3 Super Bowls was because he was selfless enough to hand the ball off a bunch instead of needing to rack up stupid ass stats. The longer drives may have rested his defenses and made them better too.

[mraynrand]

Maybe a part of the reason Aikman won 3 Super Bowls was because he was selfless enough to hand the ball off a bunch instead of needing to rack up stupid ass stats. The longer drives rested his defenses and made them better too.

Sure, but he handed off because they had a monster line and a collection of receivers/TEs that prevented teams from loading the box. And it wasn't because the guy running the show didn't like passing (Ernie Zampese*, the OC was with Air Coryell in SD and with Rams offenses that lit up the sky). The easiest way to have great balance is if you have the horses to run and pass. Last time the Packers had that was 2014, when they were 6th passing and 14th running.


*It is a little known fact that Zampese smoked 12 packs of cigarettes a day. Remarkably, he is still alive today at 84, even though he has to breath pure oxygen.

[RashanGary]

Sure, but he handed off because they had a monster line and a collection of receivers/TEs that prevented teams from loading the box. And it wasn't because the guy running the show didn't like passing (Ernie Zampese*, the OC was with Air Coryell in SD and with Rams offenses that lit up the sky). The easiest way to have great balance is if you have the horses to run and pass. Last time the Packers had that was 2014, when they were 6th passing and 14th running.


*It is a little known fact that Zampese smoked 12 packs of cigarettes a day. Remarkably, he is still alive today at 84, even though he has to breath pure oxygen.

But the argument is that running takes away from efficiency and makes winning less likely.

[mraynrand]

But the argument is that running takes away from efficiency and makes winning less likely.

Yes, that's the argument. But let's stay with your approach where we throw out exact statistic and just talk generalities and common sense. If you have a killer passing game, and a marginal run game, an emphasis on the run game would surely reduce your efficiency. If you totally ignore the run game, you might then force the defense into permanent dime which might also reduce your efficiency, right? So where you set that needle on run/pass percentage depends on relative strengths, taking advantage of what the defense gives you/keeping the defense 'honest.' Packers would be foolish to force the run game if they don't have the horses to run/block effectively. But if they did, they'd be foolish to ignore it, because they could force the defense out of dime and nickel and then eviscerate them in the passing game.


Some real talent lies in the coaching staff and the QB knowing where that sweet spot is and then making the right play call for the defense.

I realize this is kinda boilerplate/football 101.

[RashanGary]

2010 packers 42% run
2011 giants 40% run
2012 ravens 43% run
2013 Seattle 52% run
2014 patriots 41% run
2015 Broncos 41% run
2016 Patriots 46% run
2017 Eagles 46% run
2018 Patriots 46% run

The average super bowl winner over the last 9 years is 44% run with 56% pass. The lowest run percentage is 40% with the highest 52%. These are balanced teams with a slight lean to passing. 32% rushing is just ridiculous. I don’t feel like digging through but I’ll bet no team has ever won a Sb and come within even 5% of that idiotic number. SB winning teams are in the realm of balance because it slows pass rush down, rests defenses and engages the offensive line in physical aggression.

A big part of the reason the Packer suck ass at running the ball is ARs insistence on slow paced line of scrimmage dilly dallying. Him and Manning are the dilly dally statistical GOATs but they don’t win superbowls in their big stat years. Wonder why?

Brady wasn’t winning SBs in his huge stat years either.

[mraynrand]

Brady wasn’t winning SBs in his huge stat years either.

He faced the same buzzsaw defense the Packers did in 2007/11 - that Giant's front four that could generate tons of pressure and stop the running game with mostly their front four.

[pbmax]

Maybe focus more on winning football game than statistics? Rams, Saints and Patriots all ran the ball 45% of the time last year. Three of the top 4 teams. Maybe your pff articles aren’t really making you smarter? Maybe some good old fashion common sense applies sometimes?

They were also winning.

Not to mention 45% =! 50%

[pbmax]

45/55 is still balance. PB, you focus so much on details, you often miss the general point. Try balance in your thinking patterns.

Funny how this number keeps changing with you. Its almost as if there is no magic threshold and varies considerably. So this is just you hopping around to whatever number you think sides with your argument that the 2019 Packers should run more than the 2018 Packers.

[RashanGary]

Simply having consistent pace and less play changes would increase the running game effectiveness. Getting to the line quick and getting plays off quick puts time pressure on the defebse. It might not be the perfect play but it doesn’t matter cuz They’re not ready at the snap and nice runs get chugged out. Secondary mishaps happen in the passing game too. Also, staying away from dilly dallying gets the OL engaged in a “get to the line and smack the mother fucker across from them in the mouth” mentality, which is a completely different mentality than statistic driven dilly dallying. It’s a mentality better for running the ball.

So investing in the run game pays off if you put weight in winning championships. And anyone who watches football knows pace instead of dilly dallying puts a defebse on the ropes. I don’t have a way to quantify that mathematically, but not everything in life needs a fucking 8th grade algebra equation for it to be true. Intellectualism is just a masked form of education system created mental retardation.

[RashanGary]

He faced the same buzzsaw defense the Packers did in 2007/11 - that Giant's front four that could generate tons of pressure and stop the running game with mostly their front four.


Because that’s what you’re susceptible to when you don’t invest in developing your run game during the season. Balance would have enabled NE to slow that pass rush and chug yards and win.

[RashanGary]

And I’ve been bitching about pace since Favre left. MLF is literally saying what I’ve been saying for over 10 years.

[pbmax]

If you were to take 12 minutes of time clock away in a drive, that is 20% of the total time in a game. A team, that on average scores 30 points per game now has lost 20% of time, therefor 20% of their likely point total. Now 24 points is more likely. And you just scored 7, so you need just 17 more compared to their 24. If you were to do that a second time in the game, now that 30 point offense is more likely to score 18. And you scored another 7. So now you have 14 against a team likely to score 18. The remaining 60% of the game require just 5 points against their estimated 18.


Two long touchdown producing drives makes winning very likely.

And we haven’t even talked about turnovers yet. Ypa efficiency loses even more of its all telling forecasting power at this point.

And then 3rd down percentage, redzone effectiveness, penalties.....

And now let’s go even deeper. Let’s say a balanced team that can run and pass effectively makes it and three other teams that are super efficient passing teams. But a buzz saw of a pass rushing team like the NY Giants of a few years ago is in too. Now who’s likely to get mowed down in the playoff gauntlet? The balanced team that invested in its run game or the predictable pass happy team?

We can go on and on......

And on and on

And on

And efficiency still won’t equate to championships. Too many variables. Hence you’re constant critique of people who value the run game, as much as you keep finding some misphrased detail to call “stupid” .... maybe you’re the stupid one for over obsessing about stats.

This is all nonsense anecdotes. You want to know what is better than two long TD drives? Two very short ones. Because that means the offense and defense, possibly the ST too, are working well. Unless you are the Patriots, if you rely on long drives, you are working uphill. The further away you are from the end zone, the less points you score.

But you are making a critical mistake before you even get to these lovely stories. How does the causality run? Does running cause teams to win, or do winning teams tend to run more late?

There is ample data and real world examples for you to peruse if you wish. Plenty of reading material in the library too.

Bobble is careful to point out that situationally (down and distance or clock), as a constraint play, and a take advantage play, running makes sense in many games. So its good to be able to run when you want to. But running doesn't cause winning. Running can help but it can't do it alone.

[mraynrand]

So investing in the run game pays off if you put weight in winning championships. And anyone who watches football knows pace instead of dilly dallying puts a defebse on the ropes.


pace versus dilly-dallying? I'm not sure there's any consistent trend here as to whether fast for slow pace is better. I suspect they both work, based on circumstances.

Successful plays and sustained drives put a defense on the ropes, not to mention a good complimentary defense that gets the oppositions' defense off the field quickly so they don't get rest. Something the 2014 defense could do, but the 2016 defense couldn't.

[pbmax]

45/55 is still balance. PB, you focus so much on details, you often miss the general point. Try balance in your thinking patterns.

I mean, 30/70 is still balance, you just need to move the fulcrum.

[RashanGary]

I mean, 30/70 is still balance, you just need to move the fulcrum.

Yeah. You can over intellectualize anything you want to keep believing your theoretical garbage. And if you use enough of the vocabulary you acquired from your 8th grade physics background, you can even sound like you’re smart doing it. Bravo.

[esoxx]

pace versus dilly-dallying? I'm not sure there's any consistent trend here as to whether fast for slow pace is better. I suspect they both work, based on circumstances.

Successful plays and sustained drives put a defense on the ropes, not to mention a good complimentary defense that gets the oppositions' defense off the field quickly so they don't get rest. Something the 2014 defense could do, but any Packer defense since then couldn't.

FIFY

[RashanGary]

Spelling, arithmetic, reading.... a whole system that creates mindless dummies that are so focused on text that they can’t see the fucking mud hole they’re about to walk into. And the funniest part of it, is these brainwashed dummies are smug about the mental box they’re trapped in and compete for who can be the most fluent in it. Just wow. Have some common sense. Wake the fuck up from the dummy trance.

[mraynrand]

Because that’s what you’re susceptible to when you don’t invest in developing your run game during the season. Balance would have enabled NE to slow that pass rush and chug yards and win.

You don't invest so much during the season, but in the offseason.

You have to have the horses and investing in the run game with personnel might lose you capability elsewhere. Packers swung the pendulum by drafting Lacy, but it was a whole team effort (investment in defense, Peppers) that should have got them to the SB in 2014, not just a running game focus. I believe in some kind of balance so that you aren't one-dimensional, but where you set the needle to win depends. Your stats suggest above 40% (Both GB and NE had around 40% in 2011 I think).

[esoxx]

I think Aaron Rodgers is more of the problem than we might think.

[pbmax]

people can observe and predictably expect that the sun will stay out longer in the month of June than the month of January without ever taking a clock and making a stat out of it. Reality is reality whether a stat is there to show it or not.

Try making predictions based on your memory of events. This is why Vegas does so well.


I’ve come up with mathematical ways to show how a couple long, time eating, touchdown producing drives makes winning more likely. But even in absence of the math, the reality still exists.

At best, you have a story that with a little work could be a hypothesis. That you could test to see if you are right. I really bet your long TD theory is backward though. Patriots make an interesting case study because they seem to be able to do it at will.


Having the ability to run or pass effectively creates adaptability, something needed to get through the various types of good defenses in the playoffs.

This is bobble's point usually. And I agree with it. Being able to run in an organized fashion when the situation calls for it is an unalloyed good. But you are arguing that there is a magic number, somewhere between 45-50% of plays needing to be runs. That is an entirely different argument.


The reliance on pff stats isn’t necessarily smart. The part that’s most surprising is how smug a person can be, calling people stupid while exposing themselves as incapable of seeing practical realities while only being able to read stats.

See, now this is just you being tired or careless. Neither PFF nor PFR do statistical analysis normally. PFF issues grades and success rates. That is film watching which is fine, but I wouldn't design my offense around it. PFR has a large and lovingly compiled database that COULD be used for analysis, but they don't do that natively anymore.


Any idiot with a pathetic United States 7th grade education can regurgitate stats.

people can observe and predictably expect that the sun will stay out longer in the month of June than the month of January without ever taking a clock and making a stat out of it

You got to pick a side here. I don't know what to tell you. Yes, people from any perspective can be able or they can be dumb. They can also be both. However, perhaps you will allow me to notice that long before football, ancient folks went to great lengths to build calendars and clocks, which might lead one to believe that even before the wildcat offense, people saw the benefit of more precision. With some precision (and good record keeping) comes the ability to predict.

Folks not that long ago thought the solstice lasted three days. It took three days to be sure the day was lengthening again. Coaches have 40 seconds to make a play call. I feel that this explains many of M3's game decisions.

[pbmax]

2) Agree. 35% is fine if its the RIGHT 35%.
.

This is why we get along so good. I agree. Especially in a single game, 35% of either play might be the right call.

[pbmax]

how will you know?

if he really he loves me ...

[pbmax]

But the argument is that running takes away from efficiency and makes winning less likely.

You are so close. If you had that Cowboys team (or hell, even the Cowboys team from 2 years ago for Zeke's big year with a rookie QB) you would be foolish to pass much more.

[mraynrand]

FIFY

I just went through 2016, because I think the Rodgers injury in 2017 skews everything. The premature decline of fat Eddie, the drop in line play, and whatever dysfunction there was between Stubby and Rodgers has also had some serious consequences.

[pbmax]

And I’ve been bitching about pace since Favre left. MLF is literally saying what I’ve been saying for over 10 years.

Justin, are you OK?

Larry McCarren on the broadcast said that LaFleur wants them up to the LOS quickly so the QB can read the defense and initiate motions or make a play call. He is not simply running a hurry up offense all game long

[mraynrand]

I think Aaron Rodgers is more of the problem than we might think.

Could be. Packers were at the bottom in running attempts and tops in yards/attempt in the last few seasons. There's a whole lot of pathology that contributes to that (as I noted above though, it can't be uni-variable)

[pbmax]

I think Aaron Rodgers is more of the problem than we might think.

Listen gbGary, I don't have time for this now...


:D

[mraynrand]

Justin, are you OK?

Larry McCarren on the broadcast said that LaFleur wants them up to the LOS quickly so the QB can read the defense and initiate motions or make a play call. He is not simply running a hurry up offense all game long

And why would he or anyone else? Hurry up has it's problems for the offense too, and nobody runs it all the time, though some teams have tried to use it more (e.g. the K-gun).

[pbmax]

Last point about running the football. One reason that running is less efficient than passing? (not the only reason and not even the biggest reason)

Defensive coordinators hate being run on. They feel its a failure of a basic test, it challenges the very essence of the toughness of their players and causes all sorts of problems. You can believe all or none of that, but there is a reason they all cite stopping the run on the first play of the D playbook.

And for that reason, you can run a successful play action play even when your team can't run a lick. Specialized situations, short yardage, goal line, Stubby's four minute offense at 6:38 of the fourth, negate this. But the first thing the Defense does on base downs is read and step into its run checks.

[pbmax]

And why would he or anyone else? Hurry up has it's problems for the offense too, and nobody runs it all the time, though some teams have tried to use it more (e.g. the K-gun).


Agreed. Pace at specific times is important and can be used to your advantage. Keeping a team from substituting is a great idea if you have an edge.

[mraynrand]

Last point about running the football. One reason that running is less efficient than passing? (not the only reason and not even the biggest reason)

Defensive coordinators hate being run on. They feel its a failure of a basic test, it challenges the very essence of the toughness of their players and causes all sorts of problems. You can believe all or none of that, but there is a reason they all cite stopping the run on the first play of the D playbook.

And for that reason, you can run a successful play action play even when your team can't run a lick. Specialized situations, short yardage, goal line, Stubby's four minute offense at 6:38 of the fourth, negate this. But the first thing the Defense does on base downs is read and step into its run checks.

How many times though have you yelled at the TV when they line up with no running back, when the down and distance would dictate that even the possible threat of a run and/or the ability to check down would at least marginally slow down the pass rush and/or give you at least another option. To me one thing that I disliked was the total telegraph of a pass with no attempt whatsoever to keep the defense honest, particularly after the passing game was clearly stagnant due to loss of players able to create mismatches/get open against the defense's dime formation.

[mraynrand]

Justin, are you OK?

he is OK, probably just needs some sleep. :)


Last edited by JustinHarrell; 08-10-2019 at 05:46 AM.

Posted by JustinHarrell; 08-10-2019, 09:58 AM

[RashanGary]

I’m sorry for being rude and saying I think humanity is trapped in an education system created dummy trance. I’ve heard one too many supposed intellectuals use stats and call people dumb who don’t agree and I lost my shit.

I have a friend who does it all of the time. Uses all sorts of big words. Breaks everything he touches and has no common sense but laughs about how smart he is. I’m usually pretty good at shrugging it off and ignoring but occasionally I tell him to fuck off too.

[RashanGary]

[/pissed-off-butt-hurt-rant] for real, sorry for that. I usually don’t say anything if I don’t agree. I just move on with my opinion.

But respectfully now, I’m pretty sure more people are losing money in Vegas on over reliance on stats than people who watch a lot of football and trust their eyes and experience.

[mraynrand]

But respectfully now, I’m pretty sure more people are losing money in Vegas on over reliance on stats than people who watch a lot of football and trust their eyes and experience.

I agree, but I'd bet I'm wrong. Those Vegas boys have algorithms for everything these days. Bobble can set me straight if I'm wrong.

[Radagast]

1) Not true. It totally depends on several factors....generally and specifically
2) Agree. 35% is fine if its the RIGHT 35%.
3) Correct. The goal is a balance that keeps the D off guard. If a D is selling out to stop the run then I have no problem with 100% pass.
4) I don't think M4 has a set number. He seems to understand the game in its entirety which means you can't put static numbers on things. Run effectively when its given. Keep the other teams O on the sidelines and out of sync. Wear down the other D so they can't stop you when game is on the line in the 4th.


Lets talk TE. Anyone notice the play to Tonyan over the middle splitting the seam. That play hasn't existed in GB in years. I was a WR pull the safety and *a back in a route* pulling the LB. Tonyan split the seam for a big gain. Since I now Know its in the playbook we will see if its Rodgers or M3 at fault for it not existing for years.

bobblehead, I enjoy your post perhaps a little more than others that I read. You obviously have are more knowledgeable about the game and point out things that most miss (including myself).

That said, I mostly agree with your assessment of of a best run/pass balance. However, if any team allows itself to rigidly adhere to a set % of run/pass plays, opponents will quickly see it and some of the element of surprise is lost. IMO, each opponent will have weaknesses that the Packers can take advantage of. Hell, Belicheck wrote the modern book on it. Overall, over multiple games if success (and better ball security) comes with a more aggressive running game, then let's enjoy how a good running game keeps opposing defenses on their heels for the millisecond needed to give Rodgers and the receivers an advantage.

I believe that HC LaFleur's offensive system will be including more running plays much as the LA Rams do. A variety of running and pass plays from the exact same same formation. Also, pass routes that are almost pick plays, but barely are not. A return to more Screen passes to RBs in the flat and more TE pass plays into the heart of secondaries. IMO, TEs should be better able to endure the hits than lighter WRs.

Rodgers success has come from running much the same offense all of his career. I can understand his being a bit nervous over a new HC/System. I've heard that highly trained show horses also take some time to get accustomed to a new rider. I have confidence that once Rodgers gains more confidence in LaFleur and they start winning together, their combined alliance will grow into one of the more feared HC/QB tandems.

We as fans need to be patient and allow the new Packer chemistry to form. The problem is that too many sports reporters and fans expect instant results. It may take 4 to 5 regular season games for the new Packers personality to show forth. In the meantime, the "bugs" will need to be worked out and timing perfected. No fear though, other teams will be doing the same thing , yet I believe that GB will with better personal enter Week 6 with a winning record. Not perfect, but enough to build a 2019 NFC North title with.

[texaspackerbacker]

The Packers are obviously not built the same way the Rams are/were. Run-first works when you can run best and not pass as good. That may have been the Rams; It absolutely ain't the Packers. I'm pretty sure LaFleur knows that and is not too ego-driven to go with what works best.

The people in here clinging to the hope that they will see more running, quicker passes, etc. were playing up the balance in the first preseason game. Yes but ...... It was distinctly pass-first when we were building up the nice lead. Then when they went to more runs - to run clock or whatever, the success got a whole lot less, and they let the score get a lot closer - not that the score is all that important in preseason, but it does give a good indication of what works and what doesn't. And this was all with QBs other than Aaron Rodgers. How much more will that be the case when the GOAT gets going.

The more things change, the more they will stay the same - and that is a distinctly good thing.

[mraynrand]

The more things change, the more they will stay the same - and that is a distinctly good thing.

weird

[pbmax]

How many times though have you yelled at the TV when they line up with no running back, when the down and distance would dictate that even the possible threat of a run and/or the ability to check down would at least marginally slow down the pass rush and/or give you at least another option. To me one thing that I disliked was the total telegraph of a pass with no attempt whatsoever to keep the defense honest, particularly after the passing game was clearly stagnant due to loss of players able to create mismatches/get open against the defense's dime formation.

I agree the empty backfield is over done, but it can make sense if you've got a specific match up you want to pass on.

[RashanGary]

Teams that run the ball less than 40% of the time have never won a SB. So running counts for something.

[Radagast]

The Packers are obviously not built the same way the Rams are/were. Run-first works when you can run best and not pass as good. That may have been the Rams; It absolutely ain't the Packers. I'm pretty sure LaFleur knows that and is not too ego-driven to go with what works best.

Clinging to the past? LaFleur's offensive system requires a running game. It might not be a top 5 running attack today, or even by the start of the regular season, but even Rome was not built in a day. It will take time, but with the addition/subtraction already of OL players, I look to see marked improvement soon. Also the run and the pass work hand in hand. Without a running game defenses would load up and run blitzes on every play. Rodgers and the pass will still be there, but with a better running game the passing game works better too.

I've read more than a few of your post and friend your wrong most of the time.

[esoxx]

Clinging to the past? LaFleur's offensive system requires a running game. It might not be a top 5 running attack today, or even by the start of the regular season, but even Rome was not built in a day. It will take time, but with the addition/subtraction already of OL players, I look to see marked improvement soon. Also the run and the pass work hand in hand. Without a running game defenses would load up and run blitzes on every play. Rodgers and the pass will still be there, but with a better running game the passing game works better too.

I've read more than a few of your post and friend your wrong most of the time.

All true. Sorry but this offense will require some commitment to the run as a predicate to passing. The looks are designed to mimic sameness regardless of run or pass for the most part. The wide zone run has a boot/waggle component to it and if you don't actually hand the ball off more than a token amount the defense will key on this waggle concept and the offense will be dead in the water. Is this really so hard to understand? Of course, with a QB like Rodgers he could still pull a rabbit out of his hat but you certainly don't want to bank on that.

Whether they get two yards, five yards, or seven yards, the key is going to be selling the look and the D not having any recognition if the hand off will occur, thus keeping D off balance and hesitant.

People that think otherwise must not understand the type of offense they're bringing in. You sure as hell don't make the hire you did just to pay lip service like Fat Mike did to the run game. It's baked in to the offense by design.

[esoxx]

Very weird

FIFY

[pbmax]

Teams that run the ball less than 40% of the time have never won a SB. So running counts for something.

Yes, it counts winning teams. You run late when you are winning.

You are getting cause and effect reversed. Bobble is right that running can help your offense and your passing game, but it is not the reason for winning.

If all you needed to do was run to mathematical balance, the Jaguars and Falcons would be Super Bowl champions.

[bobblehead]

how will you know?

It was designed to be a seam split by Tonyan....meaning M4 designed and implemented the play. If I never see it with Rodgers then its Rodgers not liking to do it.

[bobblehead]

Yes, that's the argument. But let's stay with your approach where we throw out exact statistic and just talk generalities and common sense. If you have a killer passing game, and a marginal run game, an emphasis on the run game would surely reduce your efficiency. If you totally ignore the run game, you might then force the defense into permanent dime which might also reduce your efficiency, right? So where you set that needle on run/pass percentage depends on relative strengths, taking advantage of what the defense gives you/keeping the defense 'honest.' Packers would be foolish to force the run game if they don't have the horses to run/block effectively. But if they did, they'd be foolish to ignore it, because they could force the defense out of dime and nickel and then eviscerate them in the passing game.


Some real talent lies in the coaching staff and the QB knowing where that sweet spot is and then making the right play call for the defense.

I realize this is kinda boilerplate/football 101.

But I would point out that through out my lifetime when I see bombs away pass first teams they end up getting "upset" come playoff time. There are exceptions, but the rule is that pass happy prolific offenses disappoint in the postseason. Run first teams generally don't do much better, but there are more exceptions of run oriented winning than pass happy. Again, balance.

[bobblehead]

Funny how this number keeps changing with you. Its almost as if there is no magic threshold and varies considerably. So this is just you hopping around to whatever number you think sides with your argument that the 2019 Packers should run more than the 2018 Packers.

Pb...you can't deny that 2 years ago with rodgers out and hundley in we were running with authority. Rodgers came back (too early) and we ran the ball 12 times I think it was. Carolina ate our lunch. It was predictable and ineffective. Shame on AR and M3. The D had ears pinned back and our OL was on its heels. YOU MUST RUN ENOUGH to keep a D honest. (and effectively enough). Sorry, but every since we won the owl in '10 I have seen less and less running.

In the 2014 NFCC game we mixed run/pass and crushed seattle...then MM decided the metrics somewhere said to go 3 and out running the ball 9 straight times into a 12 man front was a smart thing to do. BALANCE.

[bobblehead]

The Packers are obviously not built the same way the Rams are/were. Run-first works when you can run best and not pass as good. That may have been the Rams; It absolutely ain't the Packers. I'm pretty sure LaFleur knows that and is not too ego-driven to go with what works best.

The people in here clinging to the hope that they will see more running, quicker passes, etc. were playing up the balance in the first preseason game. Yes but ...... It was distinctly pass-first when we were building up the nice lead. Then when they went to more runs - to run clock or whatever, the success got a whole lot less, and they let the score get a lot closer - not that the score is all that important in preseason, but it does give a good indication of what works and what doesn't. And this was all with QBs other than Aaron Rodgers. How much more will that be the case when the GOAT gets going.

The more things change, the more they will stay the same - and that is a distinctly good thing.

To your point and radagast point:

Its not just running and its not a %. Its doing it effectively and often enough to demand a defense respect it (and if they don't they face 3rd and 2 against Rodgers all day).

The other point that I hammer fat mike for is that in the last 5-6 years teams got creative using backs and TE's out of the backfield to create spacing problems. Fat mike not only didn't adapt, he did dumb ass things like insist Ty Montgomery be used primarily as a pass blocker on pass plays. he ran TE screens to slow ass Martellus Bennett. Andy Reid adapted. Sean Peyton adapted. Shanahan and son spawned McVey and others who meshed ZBS with creative west coast style dink and dunk. Pederson innovated. Fat mike ran same plays out of same formations for 15 years and wondered why his guys couldn't win matchups when the D knew what was coming.

[bobblehead]

Yes, it counts winning teams. You run late when you are winning.

You are getting cause and effect reversed. Bobble is right that running can help your offense and your passing game, but it is not the reason for winning.

If all you needed to do was run to mathematical balance, the Jaguars and Falcons would be Super Bowl champions.

Ummm....take out the officials and one of them would be. Take out Matty Ice being Matty dumbass and they would be. Also, with clock running out and down by 2 scores NE STILL KEPT RUNNING when Atl when into the 15 cent 8 DBs on the field defense.

[Radagast]

Its not just running and its not a %. Its doing it effectively and often enough to demand a defense respect it (and if they don't they face 3rd and 2 against Rodgers all day).

The other point that I hammer fat mike for is that in the last 5-6 years teams got creative using backs and TE's out of the backfield to create spacing problems. Fat mike not only didn't adapt, he did dumb ass things like insist Ty Montgomery be used primarily as a pass blocker on pass plays. he ran TE screens to slow ass Martellus Bennett. Andy Reid adapted. Sean Peyton adapted. Shanahan and son spawned McVey and others who meshed ZBS with creative west coast style dink and dunk. Pederson innovated. Fat mike ran same plays out of same formations for 15 years and wondered why his guys couldn't win matchups when the D knew what was coming.



:five:

Bravo !!


Encore Mystro !!!


:wave:

[mraynrand]

Ummm....take out the officials and one of them would be. Take out Matty Ice being Matty dumbass and they would be. Also, with clock running out and down by 2 scores NE STILL KEPT RUNNING when Atl when into the 15 cent 8 DBs on the field defense.

Interesting. NE kept running because the numbers were in their favor. You can run a hurry up offense even with running plays if you can get yards in chunks. Fat Mike ran when the numbers and the opposition favored it too. Like Seattle 2007 and Philly 2010. But when he faced teams that could stop the run solid he probably didn’t run enough to keep those teams honest. But regardless with teams like the Giants or Bears 2010 if you cannot run against them with their standard front four you’re in a lot of trouble. Then you’d better be able to work your passing game. And rely on your defense.

BTW, the worst part about Stubby not ‘innovating’ is that he thought he could do the same stuff with lesser personnel. And that’s a chicken-egg question. Is it the innovation or the personnel who can run it that makes the offense work. If you don’t have the personnel you can innovate until you’re blue in the face and get nothing. So stick to what you know and try to run it then have your QB work his magic until it runs out. The Packers just ran out of players is what happened 2016-2018. Then they ran out of QB.

[mraynrand]

It was designed to be a seam split by Tonyan....meaning M4 designed and implemented the play. If I never see it with Rodgers then its Rodgers not liking to do it.

This doesn't help me. How do I know it was Flower/OC who didn't call the play versus Rodgers checking out/changing the play?

[mraynrand]

Encore Mystro !!!

https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.vox-cdn.com%2Fthumbor%2FRPXyaOmLDmT3e3KhU_WFmtftvWc%3D %2F0x0%3A1774x2732%2F1200x0%2Ffilters%3Afocal(0x0% 3A1774x2732)%2Fcdn.vox-cdn.com%2Fuploads%2Fchorus_asset%2Ffile%2F10900453 %2FIMG_7D688C556A64_1.jpeg&f=1

[pbmax]

Pb...you can't deny that 2 years ago with rodgers out and hundley in we were running with authority. Rodgers came back (too early) and we ran the ball 12 times I think it was. Carolina ate our lunch. It was predictable and ineffective. Shame on AR and M3. The D had ears pinned back and our OL was on its heels. YOU MUST RUN ENOUGH to keep a D honest. (and effectively enough). Sorry, but every since we won the owl in '10 I have seen less and less running.

In the 2014 NFCC game we mixed run/pass and crushed seattle...then MM decided the metrics somewhere said to go 3 and out running the ball 9 straight times into a 12 man front was a smart thing to do. BALANCE.

It can be useful, but its often a second order effect. Let me point out that the Packers lost while running with Hundley and lost while passing with Rodgers (hurt and rusty did not help). So if running trumped all, they should have seem more success.

The point is to win and to do whatever gets you closer to scoring. If you are attempting to run to slow down the pass rush, you have already probably lost on offense.

[texaspackerbacker]

Clinging to the past? LaFleur's offensive system requires a running game. It might not be a top 5 running attack today, or even by the start of the regular season, but even Rome was not built in a day. It will take time, but with the addition/subtraction already of OL players, I look to see marked improvement soon. Also the run and the pass work hand in hand. Without a running game defenses would load up and run blitzes on every play. Rodgers and the pass will still be there, but with a better running game the passing game works better too.

I've read more than a few of your post and friend your wrong most of the time.

I just don't see LaFleur putting a "system" with his name on it ahead of what works. That would be pure ego shit, and I think they hired him because they knew he wasn't like that.

Sure, you need running - you can't pass all the time. However, the key to success on a team like the Packers is to run rarely as a change of pace, NOT run first and often. The O Line can't open holes, and it would be a waste of the talent of the GOAT QB.

The other thing is the "quick passing" game some in here seem to crave. I'll take well thought out care in throwing to open receivers and NOT throwing interceptions every day of the week - and nobody does that better than Aaron Rodgers. Every time I watch some other game and the QB throws it quick into coverage or doesn't see somebody jumping a route or whatever, I'm so thankful we have what we have, and he does it the way he does it. Unless I miss my guess, LaFleur sees it that way too.

[pbmax]

Ummm....take out the officials and one of them would be. Take out Matty Ice being Matty dumbass and they would be. Also, with clock running out and down by 2 scores NE STILL KEPT RUNNING when Atl when into the 15 cent 8 DBs on the field defense.

New England had 68 (don't forget the five sacks) pass attempts and 25 rush attempts. Out of 93 offensive plays, 73% were passes and 27% were runs. If Rodgers called that game Justin would be picketing 1265 Lombardi. Those rush attempts averaged just a smidge over 4 yards a carry. Passing averaged 6.5.

Atlanta average 5.8 yards running and 8.6 passing. In the first half, New England was 3 for 7 on third downs, the Falcons were 1 for 3. New England's offense had an almost typical first half except they kept giving the ball away in Falcons territory rather than score, which was not typical for them. The Falcons were hitting big play after big play, had three scoring drives over 62 yards. On 21 less net yards (189-210), Atlanta scored 18 more points.

In the first half, New England has 13 first downs to 9 for Atlanta. For their success, NE had two long drives, one ending in a turnover and another ending in a FG and another turnover on a five play drive the had gone 53 yards to the Falcon 33. Patriots were inside the Falcon 35 yard line 3 times and got 3 points.

But then half time happened. But perhaps more importantly, the Falcons scored again after half. So Belichick had a chance to adjust and the Falcons, well I still don't know what happened.

They traded nothing burger drives, then Atlanta goes 82 yards in four minutes to go up the fateful 28-3. Then the wheels came off their offense. I suspect they changed what had been working or Cheat figured it out. Falcons ran 9 times in the first half and nine times in the second half to markedly different results. On 46 total plays, 19 first half, 27 second half, they gained fewer yards in the second half (189-155) and were HORRIBLE running the football (1st half running: 9/86, 2nd half running: 9/18). But the pundits to this day say the Falcons should have run more. But this would have been almost McCarthy level stubbornness given the 2 ypc.

But the point of this diatribe is to address your contention that Belihick won because he did not forget the run in the second half. He used it in magical ways to stop turnovers or something. Or slow down the pass rush that allowed 175 yards of passing in the first half.

The problem is, of course, that no such thing happened. The Patriots ran 14 times for 35 yards (2.5) in the opening half. In the second half, the Cheatriots ran 11 times for 69 (6.2). First half Patriot offensive plays: 42. Second half: 51. They passed more. They passed better. They did not turn it over in Falcons territory. They ran less, but ran much more effectively.

So did Cheat get so dedicated to the run that they suddenly ran better therefore had to run less? Or did they figure out the Falcons defense and improve on offense as a whole (Brady had 262 yards passing in the second half)?

Or did Cheat and his defense finally figure out how to cure themselves on defense and the status on offense simply returned to normal? You make the call.

I suspect the Patriot run game benefitted from a Patriot adjustment to their pass game since the Falcons were clearly ready for the run game in the first half. But the best adjustment was the Patriot D in the second half.

[bobblehead]

And that’s a chicken-egg question. Is it the innovation or the personnel who can run it that makes the offense work. If you don’t have the personnel you can innovate until you’re blue in the face and get nothing. So stick to what you know and try to run it then have your QB work his magic until it runs out. The Packers just ran out of players is what happened 2016-2018. Then they ran out of QB.

You need both. No coach is smart enough to win with inferior talent. No amount of talent will win with inferior systems and coaching. Last year we had marginal talent and inferior offensive coaching and leadership. We upgraded talent a lot (enough??). We almost had to upgrade coaching. Less than 10 wins will disappoint me, but I'm also a realist. Our offensive skill players outside of Adams are unproven. (or old in Grahams case). We massively upgraded the OL in many ways I won't get into here. The system is proven successful in this league. We will win with Defense and Rodgers being careful with the ball and taking what a D gives him. We won't be scoring 30+ each week....if we do we should win 12 games or more.

[bobblehead]

This doesn't help me. How do I know it was Flower/OC who didn't call the play versus Rodgers checking out/changing the play?

Again, they called it with Tonyan. They implemented the play. They show they want to use it. If I don't see it again, my first conclusion won't be that they gave up on it after it worked so well (and its used by many shannahan disciples.)

[bobblehead]

It can be useful, but its often a second order effect. Let me point out that the Packers lost while running with Hundley and lost while passing with Rodgers (hurt and rusty did not help). So if running trumped all, they should have seem more success.

The point is to win and to do whatever gets you closer to scoring. If you are attempting to run to slow down the pass rush, you have already probably lost on offense.

But you know I don't believe running trumps all, I simply believe its necessary (sort of like the 2nd amendment). We lost with Hundley because he is Hundley...even when spotted a superior ground game. Spot Rodgers the same and we win a ton of gamse.

Your last statement confuses me. I could also say if you are pass blocking to slow down the pass rush you have already probably lost on offense. Why wouldn't you use every tool in the box??

[Radagast]

I just don't see LaFleur putting a "system" with his name on it ahead of what works. That would be pure ego shit, and I think they hired him because they knew he wasn't like that.

Sure, you need running - you can't pass all the time. However, the key to success on a team like the Packers is to run rarely as a change of pace, NOT run first and often. The O Line can't open holes, and it would be a waste of the talent of the GOAT QB.

The other thing is the "quick passing" game some in here seem to crave. I'll take well thought out care in throwing to open receivers and NOT throwing interceptions every day of the week - and nobody does that better than Aaron Rodgers. Every time I watch some other game and the QB throws it quick into coverage or doesn't see somebody jumping a route or whatever, I'm so thankful we have what we have, and he does it the way he does it. Unless I miss my guess, LaFleur sees it that way too.



Tex, it's clear that like so many others , you are a "Big Play" junkie. Unless a play gains big yardage or scores a TD, your not impressed. I value the more methodical view that long 12 to 14 play drives that use a mix of unpredictable plays can/do score TDs/FGs while at the same time keeping the ball out of the opponents hands and eating up clock. Not so sexy, but highly effective. In addition, a balanced play mix can take some of the pressure off of the QB as well as reducing the risk of injury too.

Traditionally, a lot of 1st down plays for many teams has been a running play. 2nd and 3rd down plays (depending upon the distance to make) would either be a pass or a run play. 3rd and long plays generally see a pass play. If I know this, certainly opposing defenses do too. Sometimes defenses are so sure of the next play that they run a defense to take advantage of this knowledge. It's called being predictable and many believe that McCarthy lost his job because his play calls were too predictable.

Sean McVay and Matt LaFleur worked together to develop an offensive system that works well and is not so predictable. This system relies on both the run and the pass in order to be unpredictable. Many offensive sets can run either a pass or a running play.

Tex, you and others need to show some patience and give the new system a chance. It may well not be the high octane offense that we wish for at first, but by Week 6 I believe that many of those now whining will be running themselves to get onto the Bandwagon.

Also, the value of good running games does not become generally apparent until December and (if in the playoffs) January. For GB a balanced offense will be a reality and a great help in the playoffs. As much as Offense wins football games, Defense still wins Championships and GB may have assembled a winning defense this season.

So be patient, cheer when things go well, and Stop being a thickhead Tex. :D

[bobblehead]

New England had 68 (don't forget the five sacks) pass attempts and 25 rush attempts. Out of 93 offensive plays, 73% were passes and 27% were runs. If Rodgers called that game Justin would be picketing 1265 Lombardi. Those rush attempts averaged just a smidge over 4 yards a carry. Passing averaged 6.5.

Again, Pats were WAY down and Atl went into a shell. Brady picked them apart underneath to get back within range. There was no point to run at them in 2nd and 3rd Q

Atlanta average 5.8 yards running and 8.6 passing. In the first half, New England was 3 for 7 on third downs, the Falcons were 1 for 3. New England's offense had an almost typical first half except they kept giving the ball away in Falcons territory rather than score, which was not typical for them. The Falcons were hitting big play after big play, had three scoring drives over 62 yards. On 21 less net yards (189-210), Atlanta scored 18 more points.
clearly turnovers matter

In the first half, New England has 13 first downs to 9 for Atlanta. For their success, NE had two long drives, one ending in a turnover and another ending in a FG and another turnover on a five play drive the had gone 53 yards to the Falcon 33. Patriots were inside the Falcon 35 yard line 3 times and got 3 points.
Clearly turnovers matter
But then half time happened. But perhaps more importantly, the Falcons scored again after half. So Belichick had a chance to adjust and the Falcons, well I still don't know what happened.
Matt Ryan is a choker among other things...also prevent D allowed Brady to dink and dunk and keep Ryan and that O off the field feeling helpless and out of sync.
They traded nothing burger drives, then Atlanta goes 82 yards in four minutes to go up the fateful 28-3. Then the wheels came off their offense. I suspect they changed what had been working or Cheat figured it out. Falcons ran 9 times in the first half and nine times in the second half to markedly different results. On 46 total plays, 19 first half, 27 second half, they gained fewer yards in the second half (189-155) and were HORRIBLE running the football (1st half running: 9/86, 2nd half running: 9/18). But the pundits to this day say the Falcons should have run more. But this would have been almost McCarthy level stubbornness given the 2 ypc.
I don't believe they should have run more, but maybe some checkdown passing might have helped. But, as I said, it was an epic meltdown. I suspect Atl was celebrating up 28-3 and forgot there was still football to be played. None of this disproves my point. It simply shows that NE adjusted and Atl didn't. It also shows Brady poise and Ryan non poise mattered. It also showed when you are ineffective running the ball that the offense goes to shit....isn't that my point?

But the point of this diatribe is to address your contention that Belihick won because he did not forget the run in the second half. That was not my point. He used it in magical ways to stop turnovers or something. Or slow down the pass rush that allowed 175 yards of passing in the first half. The point was that even in desperation mode when the D gave him chunks on the ground and sold out to stop the pass he ran the fucking ball!!

The problem is, of course, that no such thing happened. The Patriots ran 14 times for 35 yards (2.5) in the opening half. In the second half, the Cheatriots ran 11 times for 69 (6.2). First half Patriot offensive plays: 42. Second half: 51. They passed more. They passed better. They did not turn it over in Falcons territory. They ran less, but ran much more effectively. Down 28-3 how many runs would MM call? How many short passes. Here is the drive chart for NE Short pass, short pass, run, run, inc to RB, Short pass, short pass, inc, scramble, RUN RUN RUN pass to RB TD. Atl played a shell and Brady took advantage of it. In the red zone they spread them out and pounded it, and when Atl tightened up at the 5 he hits white for TD. Down 28-3 they go 75 yards running 5 times and passing 8. They stayed balanced.

So did Cheat get so dedicated to the run that they suddenly ran better therefore had to run less? Or did they figure out the Falcons defense and improve on offense as a whole (Brady had 262 yards passing in the second half)?
I don't know, maybe the wear and tear on the DLine for Atl took its toll because he ACTUALLY RAN THE BALL in the first half? As a former OL I know that I hated being on my heels all game, but when I could pound a guy early, he slowed down a lot by the 2nd and more by the 3rd quarter.
Or did Cheat and his defense finally figure out how to cure themselves on defense and the status on offense simply returned to normal? You make the call.

I suspect the Patriot run game benefitted from a Patriot adjustment to their pass game since the Falcons were clearly ready for the run game in the first half. But the best adjustment was the Patriot D in the second half.

Of course several things factored in, but my main point was that down 28-3 they didn't abandon the run. They kept the D honest.

[Radagast]

bobblehead, please keep explaining the game of football and someday more will listen. Yes it will be a long hard row to hoe, but if the light goes on for even a few, then the journey will be worth the struggle.

You say," Throw me to the Wolves and I'll return leading the Pack." I believe that if they threw you to the wolves that you would return with Wolf pelts.



:rs:

[texaspackerbacker]

Tex, it's clear that like so many others , you are a "Big Play" junkie. Unless a play gains big yardage or scores a TD, your not impressed. I value the more methodical view that long 12 to 14 play drives that use a mix of unpredictable plays can/do score TDs/FGs while at the same time keeping the ball out of the opponents hands and eating up clock. Not so sexy, but highly effective. In addition, a balanced play mix can take some of the pressure off of the QB as well as reducing the risk of injury too.

Traditionally, a lot of 1st down plays for many teams has been a running play. 2nd and 3rd down plays (depending upon the distance to make) would either be a pass or a run play. 3rd and long plays generally see a pass play. If I know this, certainly opposing defenses do too. Sometimes defenses are so sure of the next play that they run a defense to take advantage of this knowledge. It's called being predictable and many believe that McCarthy lost his job because his play calls were too predictable.

Sean McVay and Matt LaFleur worked together to develop an offensive system that works well and is not so predictable. This system relies on both the run and the pass in order to be unpredictable. Many offensive sets can run either a pass or a running play.

Tex, you and others need to show some patience and give the new system a chance. It may well not be the high octane offense that we wish for at first, but by Week 6 I believe that many of those now whining will be running themselves to get onto the Bandwagon.

Also, the value of good running games does not become generally apparent until December and (if in the playoffs) January. For GB a balanced offense will be a reality and a great help in the playoffs. As much as Offense wins football games, Defense still wins Championships and GB may have assembled a winning defense this season.

So be patient, cheer when things go well, and Stop being a thickhead Tex. :D

Radagast, above all else, I'm a Pragmatist (see FYI) - do what works. If the Wisconsin Badgers suddenly went pass first with an all world O Line and Jonathan Taylor and other quality RBs, I'd be saying exactly the opposite of what I'm saying right now about the Packers.

You seem to be talking about a lot of general cases - "you gotta set up the pass", "you gotta run clock", "you gotta grind it out", etc. - you woulda loved Woody Hayes.

All that stuff goes right out the window when personnel dictates that you do something else. It's stupid and egotistical for a coach to force his "system" when clearly the circumstances say you do something else. I'm pretty sure (and getting more that way after the first preseason game) that LaFleur is neither stupid or egotistical.

You go with what Aaron does best - and in this case, I don't even mean Rodgers. Aaron Jones is built to be a breakaway threat, not a pound it into the line kind of guy. Although it's still early, it kinda looks like Dexter Williams is the same. And Jamal Williams has had more success catching passes out of the backfield than running. I hate to bad mouth the Packers O Line, but it is what it is. Running like the Badgers just doesn't work. They ain't all that great at pass blocking either - hence the need for QB mobility, which we saw plenty of in the first preseason game even without Rodgers. So what does that say to anybody who isn't predisposed to push a particular kind of offense? It says you ride your GOAT QB/pass first and often, and then when you have them thinking pass pass pass, you break Jones loose for a long run.

And it's not like there haven't been a few minor changes. I saw some screens in that game, and I expect to see more. I expect them to pass to the fullback - if Vitale is as good as reported and can stay healthy. I didn't really see the motion and other creativity of pass patterns to get more people open, but that probably just means not giving other teams films of new stuff.

What's the best thing the offense can do for the defense? No, not run clock and keep the other team's O off the field. The best thing they can do is to go out and get a lead - hopefully a big lead - so the other team's options are limited and they are forced into desperation mode.

The "whiners", Radagast, are the ones who want some sort of stupid change just for the sake of change. They are undoubtedly gonna be disappointed, but at least we will be winning a helluva lot of games because LaFleur ain't one of them hahahahaha.

Patience will come in the form of waiting for people wanting that stupid change to come to the realization that it ain't gonna happen, and the team is better because it ain't gonna happen.

[mraynrand]

I agree with Tex. The offense should go out every game and get a big lead.

[texaspackerbacker]

It's just the pragmatic thing to do hahahahahaha.

[mraynrand]

It's just the pragmatic thing to do hahahahahaha.

Just keep a sufficient supply of magic dust.

[pbmax]

Of course several things factored in, but my main point was that down 28-3 they didn't abandon the run. They kept the D honest.

I understand your point but phrasing it this way leads to confusion. If you put up a poll, few would vote a 79/21 split in favor of passing was not an abandonment of the run.

Even McCarthy, who would often forget to run, rarely got into this territory. Cheat at least did this down 25 points.

[George Cumby]

I agree with Tex. The offense should go out every game and get a big lead.

I think that in conjunction with this, the Defense should limit the opposing offenses scoring.

[mraynrand]

I think that in conjunction with this, the Defense should limit the opposing offenses scoring.

16-0 baby!

[Radagast]

Tex, if 100 people were to tell you that fire can burn you, you would not believe them without putting your hand in an open flame.

Another thing, it does not give me a thrill if Wisconsin or Ohio State or even Texas goes to a bowl game. I mostly watch college players and not teams.

Woody Hayes did a bad thing, but he did know how to win football games and so did Bear Bryant. Yes times do change, but good fundamental football still requires blocking, running, and tackling. The offensive/defensive systems do change, but if your opponent knows what you are going to do, then it's time to make a change as GB has done. As for ignoring a running game, you can't convince them of that in New Orleans or New York (Giants and Jets), or with the Cowboys either (In spite of what Jerry may be saying).

Many GB fans would want to bang the big drum if Aaron Jones gets hot like Lacy or Levens or Green did in years past. The Bandwagon would need help moving if Jones or Jones and Williams were to get hot this season.

Last, most teams have moved toward defensive personal better suited to stop the pass. While there is nothing wrong with that, some have gotten weak on stopping the run. A fully balanced offense can take advantage of that weakness. It may be a defensive player who can cover a pass, but has problems taking down a muscular RB charging at him at full speed or a LB that is poor at changing direction when a RB he's trying to tackle does. The point is that RBs can still move the sticks and protect the ball better than most.

[RashanGary]

Really good discussion in here. Holy shit. Regular season almost upon us!

[RashanGary]

Another thing about running the ball regularly is the guys up front keep developing cohesion and consistency through application and experience. It’s an investment through the season that leads to unpredictability and adaptability in the post season.

[pbmax]

bobblehead, please keep explaining the game of football and someday more will listen. Yes it will be a long hard row to hoe, but if the light goes on for even a few, then the journey will be worth the struggle.

You say," Throw me to the Wolves and I'll return leading the Pack." I believe that if they threw you to the wolves that you would return with Wolf pelts.



:rs:

What do you think he explained, exactly? In your own words.

[pbmax]

Another thing about running the ball regularly is the guys up front keep developing cohesion and consistency through application and experience. It’s an investment through the season that leads to unpredictability and adaptability in the post season.

Sure, either that or in the second half, teams with leads run and teams that trail substantially pass.

Could be either. 11th dimension chess with workplace behavioral studies or the score of the game.

[pbmax]

93 plays in the game and the important ones were the earlier season games in which there were almost equal number of running plays.

You could do a lot worse in learning from Belichick by looking at those 93 plays and concluding that doing what works in the situation is better than any prescribed philosophy or play calling mix.

[mraynrand]

What do you think he explained, exactly? In your own words.

lol

[Radagast]

An earlier post talked about how Belicheck/Brady and Co. make adjustments to take advantage of game situations. I knew and likely posted on another site that for the LA Rams to beat the Brady/Belicheck connection in the SB, that the Rams would have to attack Brady on every play. Sack him, chase him, bat down his throws, and generally make day miserable. You might ask how would I know this? Well on the rare occasion that the Patriots lose, Brady was hurried and under siege All Game Long. What team/s you might ask, the Steelers for one and also I believe the Broncos as well.

During the last SB I literally screamed at the screen as Brady calmly picked the Rams apart. Harassing Brady should be the #1 priority for teams that play NE, but even fotball professionals can be hard headed too. My point here is that just as defenses can take advantage of an offene/s. The same is also true of offenses as well. Some teams are easier to run against and some are more vulnerable to the pass. Sometimes it's as easy as a mismatch like a 6'5" tall TE on a 5'10" CB or Safety. Another could find a less experienced player filling in for an injured starter. If that injured starter is an OLB or perhaps a defensive lineman, then attacking that discovered weakness with solid running makes sense.

Being behind late in any game means being under the gun to catch up. At that point running plays don't make much sense and passing is required on every play. However, if your leading and want to eat clock and retain possession of the ball, a running attack is most appreciated.

McCarthy leaned to heavily on Rodgers and his skills to win games for him. LaFleur does not seem to be inclined to follow the same path. I look forward to a better running attack that benefits the Packers in more than just one way. It will take some time for LaFleur's system to get better with the players that will use it, but good things sometimes require a bit of work before they bare fruit.

[texaspackerbacker]

Tex, if 100 people were to tell you that fire can burn you, you would not believe them without putting your hand in an open flame.

Another thing, it does not give me a thrill if Wisconsin or Ohio State or even Texas goes to a bowl game. I mostly watch college players and not teams.

Woody Hayes did a bad thing, but he did know how to win football games and so did Bear Bryant. Yes times do change, but good fundamental football still requires blocking, running, and tackling. The offensive/defensive systems do change, but if your opponent knows what you are going to do, then it's time to make a change as GB has done. As for ignoring a running game, you can't convince them of that in New Orleans or New York (Giants and Jets), or with the Cowboys either (In spite of what Jerry may be saying).

Many GB fans would want to bang the big drum if Aaron Jones gets hot like Lacy or Levens or Green did in years past. The Bandwagon would need help moving if Jones or Jones and Williams were to get hot this season.

Last, most teams have moved toward defensive personal better suited to stop the pass. While there is nothing wrong with that, some have gotten weak on stopping the run. A fully balanced offense can take advantage of that weakness. It may be a defensive player who can cover a pass, but has problems taking down a muscular RB charging at him at full speed or a LB that is poor at changing direction when a RB he's trying to tackle does. The point is that RBs can still move the sticks and protect the ball better than most.

Radagast, I can see you're more out of it regarding college football even than you are about the NFL.

Did anybody say anything about ignoring the running game? Use it as a change of pace! That's the intelligent way to go, given the Packers personnel.

You want to claim defenses are more geared to stopping passing these days? Ya think? Could be that has something to do with the fact that teams are passing more hahahahaha. The more relevant thing is that rule changes are probably more slanted toward giving advantages to the passing game. Neither of those is the primary thing, though. It's mainly about personnel.

What you just can't seem to comprehend is that Jones and the others are a helluva lot more likely to "get hot" with occasional change of pace runs, screens, and other receptions out of the backfield than they are running into the back peddling asses of our O Linemen who can't seem to open decent holes.

This is going to be a great season for the Packers - offense and defense both. It will be comical to see some of ya'all get dragged kicking and screaming to the reality of what brings the success.

[bobblehead]

16-0 baby!

Its august baby and I can't imagine it NOT happening!!!

[George Cumby]

What do you think he explained, exactly? In your own words.

You know. Like..... stuff. Because, well........ reasons.

[mraynrand]

AWell on the rare occasion that the Patriots lose, Brady was hurried and under siege All Game Long. What team/s you might ask, the Steelers for one and also I believe the Broncos as well.

During the last SB I literally screamed at the screen as Brady calmly picked the Rams apart. Harassing Brady should be the #1 priority for teams that play NE, but even fotball professionals can be hard headed too. .

You need to get on the horn to all the Patriots' opponents this season and let them know they need to get after the QB. It's possible this essential football method is unknown to them. Don't let their hard-headedness deter you! I would literally scream at them.

[pbmax]

You know. Like..... stuff. Because, well........ reasons.

Let me tell you about this other site I visited about a completely unrelated topic.

[esoxx]

You need to get on the horn to all the Patriots' opponents this season and let them know they need to get after the QB. It's possible this essential football method is unknown to them. Don't let their hard-headedness deter you! I would literally scream at them.

I could be wrong but didn't NE only score 13 points in the game? Seems to me keeping Brady in check wasn't the problem, it was more the 3 points the Rams put up.

[pbmax]

I could be wrong but didn't NE only score 13 points in the game? Seems to me keeping Brady in check wasn't the problem, it was more the 3 points the Rams put up.

I am sure more could have been done, after all, they did not follow sage advise.

Perhaps, if they have followed the better advice and therefore played better on defense, the Rams offense would have been in a better position to win. I mean, if you can stop a drive in 3 plays rather than 6 or 10, its quite obvious to anyone paying attention that the field position game tilts towards the Rams favor.

Its an ego driven trap to lull yourself into complacency and be proud of ONLY allowing 13 points and still be losing. They need to refocus and try harder.

QED

[bobblehead]

I could be wrong but didn't NE only score 13 points in the game? Seems to me keeping Brady in check wasn't the problem, it was more the 3 points the Rams put up.

So if I'm understanding you correctly, stopping the other team from scoring helps you win the game. Is that right?

[George Cumby]

So if I'm understanding you correctly, stopping the other team from scoring helps you win the game. Is that right?

They forgot the other Packerrats rule for winning football games: "Score lots of points".

[esoxx]

So if I'm understanding you correctly, stopping the other team from scoring helps you win the game. Is that right?

That is my present working hypothesis, correct.

[mraynrand]

This barrage of sarcasm makes me smile.

[pbmax]

What if its a coach-ego thing to try to run the ball too much?

We'll show them!

We'll show them this time!

We've just about got it men, one more time!

Good teams need to play defense too!

[pbmax]

Ego or injury, you make the call:


Rodgers faces a similar adjustment—and leap of faith—after spending so much time in the shotgun in recent years. There was some speculation this offseason that the Packers’ shotgun-heavy tendencies were a direct result of a Rodgers decree, but he says that isn’t the case. The Packers used shotgun 63 percent of the time in 2017 in part because Rodgers broke his collarbone and backup Brett Hundley was much more comfortable in the gun. And last season, Green Bay was forced into the shotgun because Rodgers broke his leg in a Week 1 win over the Bears and couldn’t physically pull out from under center. “I think that was a necessity instead of a philosophy,” Rodgers says. He points to his history of playing under center in junior college, during his college career at Cal—even in his early days with the Packers.

https://www.theringer.com/nfl-preview/2019/8/13/20802817/green-bay-packers-matt-lafleur-aaron-rodgers-prime

[Upnorth]

So if I'm understanding you correctly, stopping the other team from scoring helps you win the game. Is that right?

Only helps other teams from what I have seen. The Packers need to satisfy Rodgers ego by giving up lots of points to make him look good.

[Radagast]

Only helps other teams from what I have seen. The Packers need to satisfy Rodgers ego by giving up lots of points to make him look good.

Say what? No team or QB wants an opposing team to score any points at all. As for Rodgers and the Packer offense, the goal is not to massage Rodgers ego, but to score as many points as they can in a 60 minute football game. If those scores come through the air or on the ground or a combination of the two, the end goal is to win games.

[hoosier]

I thought the ultimate goal was to hold the opponent to 21 points or less. You have to win by two, right?

[mraynrand]

I thought the ultimate goal was to hold the opponent to 21 points or less. You have to win by two, right?

https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.wennermedia.com%2Fsocial%2Frs-226331-Jack-Black_K-Pop-.jpg&f=1

[George Cumby]

Say what? No team or QB wants an opposing team to score any points at all. As for Rodgers and the Packer offense, the goal is not to massage Rodgers ego, but to score as many points as they can in a 60 minute football game. If those scores come through the air or on the ground or a combination of the two, the end goal is to win games.

Never stop being who you are.

[mraynrand]

Never stop being who you are.

The goal is to be who you are. And win games.