Stategery

[Maxie the Taxi]

Forgot #3:

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

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

I do take your point about Clock stoppages though.

[Patler]

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

Darn MM, calls too many rushing plays!

[Maxie the Taxi]

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

Darn MM, calls too many rushing plays!

Damn Patler! Always thinking out of the box!!

[Bossman641]

Re: Stategery

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

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

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

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

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

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

[pbmax]

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

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

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

[pbmax]

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

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

[Maxie the Taxi]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Maxie the Taxi]

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

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

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

A couple of observations:

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

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

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

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

[Maxie the Taxi]

One last thought on that article, pb.

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

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

[KYPack]

(Much snippage)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A few points.

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

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

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

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

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

[Maxie the Taxi]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[KYPack]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's the Googlebook url for it:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Patler]

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

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

[HowardRoark]

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

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

[KYPack]

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

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

Yeah, I did.

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