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

[pbmax]

But the argument is that running takes away from efficiency and makes winning less likely.

You are so close. If you had that Cowboys team (or hell, even the Cowboys team from 2 years ago for Zeke's big year with a rookie QB) you would be foolish to pass much more.

[mraynrand]

FIFY

I just went through 2016, because I think the Rodgers injury in 2017 skews everything. The premature decline of fat Eddie, the drop in line play, and whatever dysfunction there was between Stubby and Rodgers has also had some serious consequences.

[pbmax]

And I’ve been bitching about pace since Favre left. MLF is literally saying what I’ve been saying for over 10 years.

Justin, are you OK?

Larry McCarren on the broadcast said that LaFleur wants them up to the LOS quickly so the QB can read the defense and initiate motions or make a play call. He is not simply running a hurry up offense all game long

[mraynrand]

I think Aaron Rodgers is more of the problem than we might think.

Could be. Packers were at the bottom in running attempts and tops in yards/attempt in the last few seasons. There's a whole lot of pathology that contributes to that (as I noted above though, it can't be uni-variable)

[pbmax]

I think Aaron Rodgers is more of the problem than we might think.

Listen gbGary, I don't have time for this now...

[mraynrand]

Justin, are you OK?

Larry McCarren on the broadcast said that LaFleur wants them up to the LOS quickly so the QB can read the defense and initiate motions or make a play call. He is not simply running a hurry up offense all game long

And why would he or anyone else? Hurry up has it's problems for the offense too, and nobody runs it all the time, though some teams have tried to use it more (e.g. the K-gun).

[pbmax]

Last point about running the football. One reason that running is less efficient than passing? (not the only reason and not even the biggest reason)

Defensive coordinators hate being run on. They feel its a failure of a basic test, it challenges the very essence of the toughness of their players and causes all sorts of problems. You can believe all or none of that, but there is a reason they all cite stopping the run on the first play of the D playbook.

And for that reason, you can run a successful play action play even when your team can't run a lick. Specialized situations, short yardage, goal line, Stubby's four minute offense at 6:38 of the fourth, negate this. But the first thing the Defense does on base downs is read and step into its run checks.

[pbmax]

And why would he or anyone else? Hurry up has it's problems for the offense too, and nobody runs it all the time, though some teams have tried to use it more (e.g. the K-gun).

Agreed. Pace at specific times is important and can be used to your advantage. Keeping a team from substituting is a great idea if you have an edge.

[mraynrand]

Last point about running the football. One reason that running is less efficient than passing? (not the only reason and not even the biggest reason)

Defensive coordinators hate being run on. They feel its a failure of a basic test, it challenges the very essence of the toughness of their players and causes all sorts of problems. You can believe all or none of that, but there is a reason they all cite stopping the run on the first play of the D playbook.

And for that reason, you can run a successful play action play even when your team can't run a lick. Specialized situations, short yardage, goal line, Stubby's four minute offense at 6:38 of the fourth, negate this. But the first thing the Defense does on base downs is read and step into its run checks.

How many times though have you yelled at the TV when they line up with no running back, when the down and distance would dictate that even the possible threat of a run and/or the ability to check down would at least marginally slow down the pass rush and/or give you at least another option. To me one thing that I disliked was the total telegraph of a pass with no attempt whatsoever to keep the defense honest, particularly after the passing game was clearly stagnant due to loss of players able to create mismatches/get open against the defense's dime formation.

[mraynrand]

Justin, are you OK?

he is OK, probably just needs some sleep.


Last edited by JustinHarrell; 08-10-2019 at 05:46 AM.

Posted by JustinHarrell; 08-10-2019, 09:58 AM

[RashanGary]

I’m sorry for being rude and saying I think humanity is trapped in an education system created dummy trance. I’ve heard one too many supposed intellectuals use stats and call people dumb who don’t agree and I lost my shit.

I have a friend who does it all of the time. Uses all sorts of big words. Breaks everything he touches and has no common sense but laughs about how smart he is. I’m usually pretty good at shrugging it off and ignoring but occasionally I tell him to fuck off too.

[RashanGary]

[/pissed-off-butt-hurt-rant] for real, sorry for that. I usually don’t say anything if I don’t agree. I just move on with my opinion.

But respectfully now, I’m pretty sure more people are losing money in Vegas on over reliance on stats than people who watch a lot of football and trust their eyes and experience.

[mraynrand]

But respectfully now, I’m pretty sure more people are losing money in Vegas on over reliance on stats than people who watch a lot of football and trust their eyes and experience.

I agree, but I'd bet I'm wrong. Those Vegas boys have algorithms for everything these days. Bobble can set me straight if I'm wrong.

[Radagast]

1) Not true. It totally depends on several factors....generally and specifically
2) Agree. 35% is fine if its the RIGHT 35%.
3) Correct. The goal is a balance that keeps the D off guard. If a D is selling out to stop the run then I have no problem with 100% pass.
4) I don't think M4 has a set number. He seems to understand the game in its entirety which means you can't put static numbers on things. Run effectively when its given. Keep the other teams O on the sidelines and out of sync. Wear down the other D so they can't stop you when game is on the line in the 4th.

Lets talk TE. Anyone notice the play to Tonyan over the middle splitting the seam. That play hasn't existed in GB in years. I was a WR pull the safety and *a back in a route* pulling the LB. Tonyan split the seam for a big gain. Since I now Know its in the playbook we will see if its Rodgers or M3 at fault for it not existing for years.

bobblehead, I enjoy your post perhaps a little more than others that I read. You obviously have are more knowledgeable about the game and point out things that most miss (including myself).

That said, I mostly agree with your assessment of of a best run/pass balance. However, if any team allows itself to rigidly adhere to a set % of run/pass plays, opponents will quickly see it and some of the element of surprise is lost. IMO, each opponent will have weaknesses that the Packers can take advantage of. Hell, Belicheck wrote the modern book on it. Overall, over multiple games if success (and better ball security) comes with a more aggressive running game, then let's enjoy how a good running game keeps opposing defenses on their heels for the millisecond needed to give Rodgers and the receivers an advantage.

I believe that HC LaFleur's offensive system will be including more running plays much as the LA Rams do. A variety of running and pass plays from the exact same same formation. Also, pass routes that are almost pick plays, but barely are not. A return to more Screen passes to RBs in the flat and more TE pass plays into the heart of secondaries. IMO, TEs should be better able to endure the hits than lighter WRs.

Rodgers success has come from running much the same offense all of his career. I can understand his being a bit nervous over a new HC/System. I've heard that highly trained show horses also take some time to get accustomed to a new rider. I have confidence that once Rodgers gains more confidence in LaFleur and they start winning together, their combined alliance will grow into one of the more feared HC/QB tandems.

We as fans need to be patient and allow the new Packer chemistry to form. The problem is that too many sports reporters and fans expect instant results. It may take 4 to 5 regular season games for the new Packers personality to show forth. In the meantime, the "bugs" will need to be worked out and timing perfected. No fear though, other teams will be doing the same thing , yet I believe that GB will with better personal enter Week 6 with a winning record. Not perfect, but enough to build a 2019 NFC North title with.

[texaspackerbacker]

The Packers are obviously not built the same way the Rams are/were. Run-first works when you can run best and not pass as good. That may have been the Rams; It absolutely ain't the Packers. I'm pretty sure LaFleur knows that and is not too ego-driven to go with what works best.

The people in here clinging to the hope that they will see more running, quicker passes, etc. were playing up the balance in the first preseason game. Yes but ...... It was distinctly pass-first when we were building up the nice lead. Then when they went to more runs - to run clock or whatever, the success got a whole lot less, and they let the score get a lot closer - not that the score is all that important in preseason, but it does give a good indication of what works and what doesn't. And this was all with QBs other than Aaron Rodgers. How much more will that be the case when the GOAT gets going.

The more things change, the more they will stay the same - and that is a distinctly good thing.