This Is Ungood

[pbmax]

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

Zach Kruse @zachkruse2
Mike McCarthy on "going back to the basics" for the #Packers offense http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000670695/article/mike-mccarthy-refocusing-green-bay-packers-offense-on-basics …

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ClfT2fHUoAAfq-9.jpg:large


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


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

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

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

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

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

Stubby indeed.

[Patler]

He is probably thinking about having a physically gifted player like Janis, who he hasn't been able to get anything out of on offense in two years. Now he has a physically gifted TE on a one year contract. He can't wait for him to get up to speed. He also has another physically gifted rookie WR in Davis, and two inexperienced WRs in Abbrederis and Montgomery. Getting back to a less complicated system will likely get more out of these 5, and maybe Adams, too.

Its running the offense for the players he has.

[3irty1]

If "players over plays" means more consistent execution I can't complain.

Deception in an offense doesn't come from gimmicks and trick plays, it comes from a small set of plays you can run in your sleep; plays that are hard to stop even when everyone knows they're coming. When you can do a few things defenses have to respect, you have something to bluff and the playbook opens up.

[Carolina_Packer]

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

Did you possibly mean Jimmy Robinson?

[gbgary]

dummying it down for the challenged players on the team.

[Joemailman]

dummying it down for the challenged players on the team.

That was my thought. Simplify things enough to get Janis on the field. And maybe to help Montgomery who only has a few games under his belt.

[Bretsky]

That was my thought. Simplify things enough to get Janis on the field. And maybe to help Montgomery who only has a few games under his belt.

Montgomery was praised early and often for his ability to pick up the offense and have a nice command over it.....part of the reason he showed so much so soon. Not worried about him mentally. He should probably tutor Janis.

[texaspackerbacker]

It seems pretty clear that the offense has performed better in the no-huddle. I think it's more about not letting other teams adjust with personnel groups based on situations.

If it is also about using athletic players more - Janis at the top of that list, also Cook, maybe Davis, etc., then I'm for it. The important thing, though, IMO is that the Packers emphasize the passing game/pass first, not force it going to more running plays.

[red]

dummying it down for the challenged players on the team.


dumbing it down for the challenged head coach too IMO

[Patler]

Montgomery was praised early and often for his ability to pick up the offense and have a nice command over it.....part of the reason he showed so much so soon. Not worried about him mentally. He should probably tutor Janis.

I'm not worried about Janis mentally. He just needs to learn how to run routes accurately and consistently.

[Smidgeon]

See, I interpreted his comments to be roughly: fewer core packages, more derivatives from those packages (disguises, route mismatches, etc).

Of course, I'm a huge fan of football, but my practical knowledge of the sport is severely limited beyond what you guys tell me to think.

[pbmax]

Did you possibly mean Jimmy Robinson?

Probably. I thought he was a namesake for the former Cowboys HC. I could easily be mistaken.

I am all for more consistent execution and hope Getsy helps there (almost has to be better than last year), but does not seem to be what he is indicating.

I don't think they need tricks or disguises, but route concepts that put a good receiver one on one (with either a favorable matchup or a clean get away) or a stress a zone so that a single play must choose what to defend. We used to see this all the time, where talented WR/TE simply abused coverage that wasn't quite in position to compete. The no huddle has taken that away. The only one of these that has survived the no huddle is Cobb/Monty in the backfield. For a long time, the no huddle featured almost no motion.

Its possible M3 is simply trying to deflect attention away from play calling as most coaches do, simply because its a public argument that is hard for the coach to win. Results trump any planning, and the coach cannot explain all the thinking anyway without giving away the store. You start defending play calling with a struggling offense and the conversation will never move past it.

I hope we do not see more of the same this year. Doug Farrar often comments on play concepts with far more authority than he has established (players and Chris Brown frequently correct him) but in this case he sees what I see.

[pbmax]

It seems pretty clear that the offense has performed better in the no-huddle. I think it's more about not letting other teams adjust with personnel groups based on situations.

If it is also about using athletic players more - Janis at the top of that list, also Cook, maybe Davis, etc., then I'm for it. The important thing, though, IMO is that the Packers emphasize the passing game/pass first, not force it going to more running plays.

Each of the last two years its started out gangbusters, then Defenses adapt. Then it becomes a struggle not seen since Billy Schroeder and Ferguson were the targets.

[pbmax]

I'm not worried about Janis mentally. He just needs to learn how to run routes accurately and consistently.

There doesn't seem to be much question Janis has the mental horsepower, but sometimes its easy to overthink a role or job in an offense. So mastering the idea of the play or its details probably don't challenge him. Running it like its second nature, with no thought about steps or technique is another thing.

[Fritz]

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

Zach Kruse @zachkruse2
Mike McCarthy on "going back to the basics" for the #Packers offense http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000670695/article/mike-mccarthy-refocusing-green-bay-packers-offense-on-basics …

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ClfT2fHUoAAfq-9.jpg:large


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


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

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

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

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

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

Stubby indeed.


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

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

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

[Guiness]

See, I interpreted his comments to be roughly: fewer core packages, more derivatives from those packages (disguises, route mismatches, etc).

Of course, I'm a huge fan of football, but my practical knowledge of the sport is severely limited beyond what you guys tell me to think.

I first read that as 'what you guys tell me to drink' and thought I resembled that remark :glug:

[ThunderDan]

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

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

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

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

[pbmax]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Fritz]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Carolina_Packer]

There doesn't seem to be much question Janis has the mental horsepower, but sometimes its easy to overthink a role or job in an offense. So mastering the idea of the play or its details probably don't challenge him. Running it like its second nature, with no thought about steps or technique is another thing.

At some point, they have to just turn him loose and see what they have, even just based on the small sample size from last year. I hope he gets a heavy dose in the pre-season, and I hope he turns into a consistent weapon on the boundary. The Packers really need that.

[pbmax]

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

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

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

[texaspackerbacker]

Seems like you're writing off Richard Rodgers. I actually like the chances of Backman more than Mitchell Henry.

[run pMc]

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

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

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

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