Aaron Rodgers now..

[pbmax]

One thing about timing routes and a timed passing offense. Norv Turner once came up in a conversation about the evolving Turner WCO at Dallas after Norv had left for Washington. The new coach being interviewed said he could tell Norv had not been around for a while because when he wanted the recevier to run a seven yard route, it had to be a exactly seven yards, not 6.5 or 7.5, because as Norv would have said: "[T]hat's where the ball was going".

Many of Walsh's play calls were for option routes (remember Pass to Daylight, the derisive name given to the Lindy Infante system in Green Bay?), where the receiver could take one of three routes based on how the defense deployed in his area. Walsh used this too. The QB and WR had to be on the same page for this to work.

Favre talked about this on several occasions, and it even came up on his last pass for the Packers when he thought Driver was going to go with one route and he went another. Whether this instance is factual or just a cover for some other failure is immaterial; the expectation was that the receiver could change his route depending on what he read.

There was not the same receiver flexibility in Gillman's West Coast Offense as practiced by Coryell, Gibbs and Turner.

[pbmax]

This article is a few years old, but here's an analysis by Football Outsiders saying that sacks have more to do with who the QB is than the OL he's playing behind-

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/sta...-sacks-part-ii

Don't let PB read this. He's convinced AR is 25% responsible for the sacks he takes and nothing will get him off that ledge.


AR learned his lesson though. So did MM. I have a hunch AR will never have more than 35 sacks in an entire season again. I think they all realize the pitfalls of not getting rid of the ball quickly now.

Honestly JH, how can you be so sure you are right and anyone disagreeing is wrong. I put up a post a few weeks ago detailing how long Rodgers held the ball on every pass. About 1/3 of them turned out to be Rodgers' fault.

Not to go all Ty on you, but PB read this when it was first published. And a very salient point has been missed. This study looked at what happened when different QBs played behind the same line in the same year.

But that is not the case with Aaron Rodgers. The Packers have the same QB playing with an altered line. So the article's conclusion, that QBs matter as much as the line when considering sacks can still hold true. But it doesn't directly address Rodgers and the 08 and 09 Packers O Line.

One other thing; I am not saying Rodgers has a 25% share of responsibility for sacks. He has been responsible for 25% of the team's sacks (numbers prior to Dallas). This was according to an article linked here at PackerRats that covered the amount of time he had in the pocket. One such article was in JSO but another covered a longer time span.

That article did not address protection calls, play calls or available receivers. So Rodgers may or may not play a roll in the other sacks as well. But my major point remains: Given the total number of sacks and the short time frame (window to throw without a hit) for the majority of them, the line has underperformed more that its QB. The debate is essentially was eight weeks a reasonable time for McCarthy and his coaches to continue to work within the same structure of plays and players? Or should they have abandoned that effort earlier and used the scheme to relieve the Line of some of its responsibilities?

Some things (like Tauscher's availability) were simply beyond their control. Before then. But you could easily argue that Lang should have been at RT earlier. But even that is problematic after Clifton gets hurt.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

PB,

What EXACTLY is going all Ty on you. Please define going Ty on you?

Just want to make sure it is used correctly...like when someone gets Patlerized.

[pbmax]

PB,

What EXACTLY is going all Ty on you. Please define going Ty on you?

Just want to make sure it is used correctly...like when someone gets Patlerized.

PB thinks going Ty on you would be liberal use of the third person to emphasize who is talking without needing to use 'I' in each instance. Also a way to state something declaratively yet put some distance between the writer and the speaker. To PB, useful when addressing two people who were addressing me in the 3rd person.

[sharpe1027]

My theory is simple. Really bad O-line play makes a D-line look like they are rushing hard.

And if this is the case, with veterans like we have on our line all sucking, there is no way it should get better for the rest of the year. Other than Barbre, they sucked then and they shoudl still suck now. Let's not forget, Tauser has given up 2 or 3 of the sacks Rodgers has taken in the last 3 games, Rodgers has only taken a 7 or 8 sacks and Tausher hasn't even played the whole games.

No way? How so? Veterans aren't able to play poorly coming off an injury? Guys like Colledge don't have big swings in their play? Tauscher is coming off major knee surgery and couldn't even make it through an entire game. You don't think that getting back into playing shape and strengthening his knee is possible...or that it just won't help.

Explain how it is in the past couple games there were several times that Rodgers has been able to stand back in the pocket for a long time and still have time to get rid of it. If you remember, Favre did the same thing against the Packers when we got no rush.

I watched the games, that's enough for me. I don't really care what kind of convoluted logic you come up with. The O-line play was about as bad as I can ever remember it. For all the times that Rodgers held the ball, he avoided a sack with his feet or a quick throw. There was pressure on him almost every single play, the number of times he got rid of the ball and still got destroyed was very high. You can't throw a quick pass on ever play. The line play was so bad, that's pretty much what would have been required.

[RashanGary]

That article did not address protection calls, play calls or available receivers. So Rodgers may or may not play a roll in the other sacks as well. But my major point remains: Given the total number of sacks and the short time frame (window to throw without a hit) for the majority of them, the line has underperformed more that its QB. The debate is essentially was eight weeks a reasonable time for McCarthy and his coaches to continue to work within the same structure of plays and players? Or should they have abandoned that effort earlier and used the scheme to relieve the Line of some of its responsibilities?

Much of your post I completely understand and I don't read everythign JS writes becuase I find much of it to be twisted BS so I missed that article.

My question to you would be this; do you think it's possible that McCarthy was asking way too much out of his offensive line in the very beginning, putting them in a very tough position to succeed?

I don't have a choice but to buy Rodgers 25% number. If I had to guess, I would have guessed 1/3. Now splitting up the rest between MM and the line becomes a little tougher. They're run blocking better than they have in half a decade so they don't just "stink". I think they can pass block as good as they have in the last few years too if they went back to what they were doing for the last few years.

There's no question the OL isn't good enough to protect for Aaron the way he needs to do the things they wanted to do this year, but the bigger question is, "can they protect well enough to win" and that answer, I think is a completely different one and one that when answered, points a big finger at McCarthy. There is more than one way to win and there is nothing wrong with winning the way we did in 2007. For us to go back to that offense and suddenly have success, it raises the question, does MM have what it takes to lead this offense to a championship if he can't adjust until we're almost out of it? My hope is that they all learned their lessons and we win with these guys. I'm not giving up, but I have major question about this head coaches stubbornness.

[RashanGary]

I have a lot more optimism for Aaron learning as he's young and should be expected to keep getting better, especially in this area really.

MM, what he did, I don't know if that's a learning situation for him. My gosh he made it tough on those guys. We never had that problem until we went away from the short passes. He's probably trying to play to Rodgers intermediate/deep accuracy, but man, he could have used the shorter stuff to keep pass rushes at bay and mixed in more of the deeper things, couldn't he.

It's all hindsight, but after 3 or 4 games, we all knew beyond a doubt they had to take pressure off the OL and he was saying in his pressers that he was going to do the same thing. That's my main point of contention.

[sharpe1027]

Double post....

[pbmax]

That article did not address protection calls, play calls or available receivers. So Rodgers may or may not play a roll in the other sacks as well. But my major point remains: Given the total number of sacks and the short time frame (window to throw without a hit) for the majority of them, the line has underperformed more that its QB. The debate is essentially was eight weeks a reasonable time for McCarthy and his coaches to continue to work within the same structure of plays and players? Or should they have abandoned that effort earlier and used the scheme to relieve the Line of some of its responsibilities?

Much of your post I completely understand and I don't read everythign JS writes becuase I find much of it to be twisted BS so I missed that article.

My question to you would be this; do you think it's possible that McCarthy was asking way too much out of his offensive line in the very beginning, putting them in a very tough position to succeed?

Yes he was, clearly. And he tipped his hand in Week 9 when he changed the game plan. But what he was asking was not superhuman. A good pass blocking line would have been able to do it.

So the question becomes, why didn't he change earlier? Everyone on this board claims this is because he is stubborn. Well, I don't know a coach in the NFL who isn't stubborn. That is no more illuminating than saying he is short with the media. They are all short with the media. Anyone remember Bill Parcells abandoning the run for most of the season?

So why eight weeks of frustration? Because the collapse happened in stages and for different reasons. Every week coaches watch film late on Sunday and Monday morning to prep the team for their Week in Review. Weeks 1 and 2 would have been Barbre's failure and the attempt to straighten him out. Week 3 was reasonable and the kind of result that could be taken as progress, a reason to stay the course. But in Week 4 Clifton goes down and that injury wreaks havoc on LT and LG for several weeks. But they know Clifton is coming back.

Subsequent weeks saw Spitz get injured, Barbre fail to progress beyond below average and Colledge fall into incompetence, probably exacerbated by his temporary move to tackle (though this is probably not the sole reason as he has been given to inconsistent pass pro before). Lang fills in admirably and Sitton seems to be holding up, but that isn't enough to keep the pass rush at bay. But Tauscher gets signed.

Now factor in the effect on the QB. He is getting hammered but still playing well and scoring at a reasonable clip. This is remarkable especially given that the running game is not breaking a lot of plays. But signs are developing that the sacks are causing him problems. He seems to be taking extra long for a significant number of throws, possibly watching his line to be sure of his protection. His footwork suffers and he starts to drift into trouble in the pocket, something he had seemed to learn not to do at the end of 2008 and pre-season 2009.

Despite all the trouble they are 4-3, no realistic shot at the division, but a Wild Card contender. But add all the problems up, take it on the road in the heat and you have Tampa Bay (Special Teams are obviously an issue as well). At that point, its clear that this team, even reinforced with Tauscher and a returning Clifton have no more time to devote to perfecting Plan A. So the game plan no longer is play to the strengths of the offense. It becomes much more about covering weakness. The unfortunate side effect is that I think we may score fewer points per possession. We will see. But really there wasn't much other choice.

There are two reasons for hope. The defense has come along at the right time. And some of the plays McCarthy had moved to (esp. the screen) will work well with any offensive plan he puts out on the field. Being forced to run screens now, they have been getting better week to week. We have seen better screens in the last two weeks than at any other time of M3's tenure. That is a good thing.

[Sparkey]

Let's put it this way:

A play caller not calling plays to slow down a pass rush is to an offensive line trying to do it's job as an offensive lineman just missing his block is to a running back trying to do his job.

It just makes the job harder.

Good offensive lines don't need the help against all but the best pass rushes. This group needed help against everybody.

As for your contention that its ridiculous that this O line "suddenly" got worse ignores the differences between 07, 08 and 09. Tauscher (pre-injury) and Clifton in 2008 had their worst pass blocking seasons since their rookie campaigns. Colledge has struggled with his pass blocking since he was a rookie and has rarely been consistent. Both he and Wells can be moved back. Sitton is improving, but he has had his misses just as Spitz did as a in his first two year. And Barbre was a catastrophe in pass blocking. He got slightly better (and I think he can improve to be a starter) but is not yet ready for NFL pass blocking. Even now Tauscher, while back and an improvement, is still not 100%.

No matter the point of comparison (09 with 08 or 07), this line pass blocks worse than its predecessors.

The problem with Tauscher being "so much better" is that he came back right when they changed philosophy to the shorter passes and runs. It could be either. I'm open to that. I tend to think it's more AR/MM and you tend to think it's more the OL. I say it was fixed because of changes in focus, you say it changed because Taush is back. Points can be made for both.


If I had to toss blame for the first 8 games, I'd go like this

33% OL Not being good enough
33% QB Not gettnig rid of the ball quick enough
33% Play caller not keeping the defenses off balance and expecting more than his OL is capable of delivering and taking way too long to recognize it wasn't working.


The last three games, I don't think the QB or playcaller have made the problem worse. The OL is still not good enough, but because their being put in position to succeed, we're winning with them. Don't get me wrong, I'd love a star LT. One star LT changes the whole complexion of this line with Lang showing promise of being the RT of the future and the decent interior guys we have. I don't think they're horrible. I think we can win with these guys right now. If we had great ST's and defense, I think this offense is even capable of winning it all but going forward, as a team, we have to find a way to get better and OL is definitely a group that can get better.

Everyone is ignoring the constant changes at center. The center was the main person making blitz calls and that position was constantly in flux. I think it was the Dallas game where MM let Rodgers start making blocking assignment calls as well as the center. I tend to think that has helped as well.

[sharpe1027]

PB,

They did run more screens and dumps the past two weeks. However, they also tried to run some screens early in the season, and they were almost always a complete failure. Further compounding the early season struggles were all the drops by the backs and TEs on what would have been easy dump off plays. Maybe they finally took some time in practice to run them? IDK.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Great post PB!

[pbmax]

PB,

They did run more screens and dumps the past two weeks. However, they also tried to run some screens early in the season, and they were almost always a complete failure. Further compounding the early season struggles were all the drops by the backs and TEs on what would have been easy dump off plays. Maybe they finally took some time in practice to run them? IDK.

Agreed. McCarthy clearly likes the play, but it did not appear as essential to him as other more typical West Coast plays. (Walsh screened very little early in his offense) But with the change starting with Dallas, he has been running it more and more effectively. I would be stunned if they weren't practicing it more and by running it multiple times in games, they have been getting better results. Of course, it was the Lions in the last game. Everything can look good against that defense.

[RashanGary]

Despite all the trouble they are 4-3, no realistic shot at the division, but a Wild Card contender. But add all the problems up, take it on the road in the heat and you have Tampa Bay (Special Teams are obviously an issue as well). At that point, its clear that this team, even reinforced with Tauscher and a returning Clifton have no more time to devote to perfecting Plan A. So the game plan no longer is play to the strengths of the offense. It becomes much more about covering weakness. The unfortunate side effect is that I think we may score fewer points per possession. We will see. But really there wasn't much other choice.

There are two reasons for hope. The defense has come along at the right time. And some of the plays McCarthy had moved to (esp. the screen) will work well with any offensive plan he puts out on the field. Being forced to run screens now, they have been getting better week to week. We have seen better screens in the last two weeks than at any other time of M3's tenure. That is a good thing.

I think you make a really solid arguement for what he was trying to do and I think it fits really well with what has gone on and what he's said along the way.

ST's improvement is a must. With the defense and the new found offense, who knows, maybe MM can have these guys competing. I'm disappointed it took so long to make these corrections. MM has to have this team in the playoffs regularly starting now or he won't have a job, but he did eventually make the change so he gets credit there. His leash is getting shorter. I don't think he gets half seasons to solve problems much longer though. Stubbornness being human or not, he's goign to have to find ways to win.

[RashanGary]

Everyone is ignoring the constant changes at center. The center was the main person making blitz calls and that position was constantly in flux. I think it was the Dallas game where MM let Rodgers start making blocking assignment calls as well as the center. I tend to think that has helped as well.

Interesting. I remember AR getting more responsibility but I didn't hear the specifics of what that responsibility was. Do you remember where you heard this?