Playcalling Experts

[Pugger]

Most of the time when fans howl it is because the play called wasn't executed very well and it failed big time. But we should complain when it appears MM abandons the run if it doesn't work right away. I know that is my biggest beef. Heck, last week Jackson had some nice runs but for some reason we kept chucking it up and Rodgers gets slammed into the ground. I pray MM will change his pass happy ways this week and will remember Rodgers is one more hit in the head away from being out for a longer period of time in the future!

[ThunderDan]

Re: Playcalling Experts

Was gonna start a different thread after reading this but I'll defer for now and just put it here.
I don't visit any other Packer forums except PR but the almost overbearing support of Packer management is hard to take. We have not won 1 playoff game without BF as our field general and its a good possibility we might not this year again.Yet it is taboo to criticize team management on this forum...without having your fandom questioned.Its always been a fans right to bitch about team management. Why is there so much defending a regime that really has not proven anything to us without our HOF QB.

We only have 2 season without BF as our QB give ARod 16 years and see how many playoff games he wins.

Also, appartently you haven't read any of the critizism that MM has been getting.

[bobblehead]

Re: Playcalling Experts

hy·poc·ri·sy

–noun, plural -sies.
1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
2. a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.
3. an act or instance of hypocrisy.

Show me one place where I said I knew anything about playcalling. Just one. Then you can run around spouting accusations.

If you go back to my original post, I was asking who did know about playcalling. I wanted to separate those who talk for the sake of talking from those who knew what they were talking about so I could keep it straight in my head.

Don't take it so personal Smidge. "spouting accusations" is not how I read bobble's post. Much of how posts are interpreted lies with the reader...

The way I understood the hypocrisy was this. If you criticize people for making statements about play calling because they do not have experience with play calling your are putting forth your belief that those that do not have experience do not know what good play calling is or is not. The problem is that you do not have experience. How can you justify your belief, since you cannot possible know what good play calling is or is not?

Smidge, I never meant this to be personal, and sorry if my sarcasm made it so. My point is that in your opening point you say that if someone has no experience with playcalling you will assume they are bitching about results. That was my point on hypocrisy. You have no expertise so you have no basis to assume anything about their post (your point, not mine).

I was being more of a smart ass than anything and anyone who reads my crap knows I hate censoring anyone and I kinda took the thread topic as "shut up unless you are an expert". Probably not quite fair of me to read it that strongly, but I just like a good honest exchange of ideas. If I'm stupid, I'll man up and admit it when its shown. Don't enjoy it, but I'll do it.

[bobblehead]

Re: Playcalling Experts

So going to your second post, you've explained why running is beneficial for the O-line (in general) and passing is beneficial for the D-line (in general). Thank you. That clears up some things for me and makes sense.

But my followup question would be this: if the Packers' tackles are poor at run blocking and good at pass blocking, does the benefit still stand to run the ball if the only place they can successfully run it is down the middle over and over? Wouldn't that lead to the equivalent of the D-line pinning its ears back and attacking the middle of the line?

Also, couple in a second string RB who has only had two 100 yard games in his career and who many have stated dances around too much, and I suppose it could be argued (I'm not saying I am arguing it--I'm just allowing for the possibility) that the benefit to running the ball--while it still may help the O-line--is mitigated enough that it undermines the team's ability to score points. Especially when their only true superstars on the Offense are the QB and WRs (and TE before he was injured). So why is playing to their strengths a bad thing?

To your first question. Clifton has in fact gotten so bad he doesn't even give good effort in the run game anymore. It likely doesn't benefit him to call it, but the other 4 it does....and by extension if the D is worn down it benefits the team in the 4th quarter.

Your second point is more valid and is worthy of discussion. Does running the ball hinder our ability to score points. I don't think we are THAT bad at it. We are averaging solid YPC numbers every game and have very few negative or zero running plays. I would bet we have less as a % than we have zero yardage pass plays. Zero yardage plays gets you in third and long...that is bad. Here is a great JS piece on that.

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/105018924.html

Just read the first paragraph with Philbin....the goal is to get to third and short...winnable situations. If you take a sack and then get an incompletion you are in a bad way. If you have 2 runs of 2 yards each you got 3rd and 6.....and the D gets worn down and has to honor the run more....that is with 2 BAD runs. we aren't THAT bad. We are average by NFL standards this season when we do actually call run plays.

I will never criticize an individual call....I would need to analyze way too much to say a fullback dive was a bad call in X situation, but the lack of calling the run as a whole is worthy of criticism and discussion.

I am also likely very biased as an undersized OL in college I had to sit back and get bull rushed all game long by guys 50 lbs. heavier then me because I had a pass happy coach. I would beg him to call a couple runs so I could push the fatties around a bit and take the steam out of their shorts.

[pbmax]

I think Smidgeon is a fine poster but the concept behind this thread blows

We are in a forum to read about each other's views. I know they are opiniions and whether they sound like they are being factual it's still an opinion unless they site factual statistics.

If we were looking for qualifications in posters we'd probably deem at least 95% to be know nothings and I'd have nothing to read.

But a lot of the know nothings in here know plenty enough to respect their viewpoints on playcalling, or personnell decisions. And when some of the know nothings argue about this stuff a lot of people learn things

So keep on criticizing.....Know Nothings

Actually, I am in this forum to ESPOUSE my views, not read the views of other. The latter sounds boring.

[pbmax]

Re: Playcalling Experts

Just read the first paragraph with Philbin....the goal is to get to third and short...winnable situations. If you take a sack and then get an incompletion you are in a bad way. If you have 2 runs of 2 yards each you got 3rd and 6.....and the D gets worn down and has to honor the run more....that is with 2 BAD runs. we aren't THAT bad. We are average by NFL standards this season when we do actually call run plays.

That was a great get by Lori (or whoever talked to Philbin) and its a factor that few fans understand and explains many of the questions raised in this thread. And its great that bobble caught it. Its doubtful JSO will find a use for that info (which probably explains much of the Packers internal statistical measures).

But the problem with 2 yard runs is not that they are bad. As bobble states they are fine. If you could always get 2 yards, 3rd and six is doable. The problem is two fold. If you always run on first and second down to get you 2 yards, defenses will morph into the Pittsburgh Steelers from 1974 and you will score 13 points a game.

Second, sometimes runs are negative, at least more often than explosive runs. One negative run or penalty for holding puts you in the same bad situation as an incompletion and a sack.

So the question is how often do runs work versus how often something bad happens. Same with passing. As you would guess, running tends to have less risk. But the difference between the risks has shrunk since the 1974 Steelers and 3 yards and a cloud of dust. Part of is is an evolution in passing. Much of it was changes to the rule book. There is also the degree to which they succeed. Passes routinely gain 8 yards. Very few runs do. You need a long string of them to reach the endzone. You need fewer completed passes. If your drives tend to have fewer plays, there is less chance for something to go horribly wrong.

And studies have been done to demonstrate that (under current rules) greater amounts of passing leads to better offensive outcomes: points, possession, first downs and yes, TOP.

So balance, the 50/50 variety, is out the window.

But what remains are game situations and defensive adjustments. Defenses can adjust to ruin your success ratio if they know what is coming. And in the second half of the Redskins game, the Packers needed to take off clock in addition to gaining first downs. They needed either runs or short passes (high completion percentage-like runs). They failed in both.

[bobblehead]

PB, I always like your posts, and I agree with you that its no longer a run first league, but we are more like under 30% run plays, and even worse I can almost always call them based on formation.

Today we ran for 4 yards on first down many times only to play action (successfully) and have a drop, bad pass, or good defensive play.

Teams are mostly sitting on the pass with us, and by the end of the game its showing. Our OL is tired, Rodgers is getting chased around and hit, and we aren't finishing.

Another factor is false starts. Our OL are starting to get antsy to get a jump on the DL that knows the pass is coming and we are drawing bad flags.

BJack had 12 carries today....12. Kuhn got 5 more, but at least two came on 2-1 and 3-1 unsuccessfully. I'm not calling that bad playcalling, but more my point is that we again called only 12-15 running plays and because of this we ended up in many bad situations, the defense didn't honor it and we wilted at the end.

Its also true that if we executed better we would have still won both last week and this week. Dropped passes, whiffs by the OL, and false starts add up in an ugly way.

I'm completely frustrated right now with this team, but I also know that if we spank Minny next week all will be well.