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

[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 ...