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

[mraynrand]

Encore Mystro !!!

[pbmax]

Pb...you can't deny that 2 years ago with rodgers out and hundley in we were running with authority. Rodgers came back (too early) and we ran the ball 12 times I think it was. Carolina ate our lunch. It was predictable and ineffective. Shame on AR and M3. The D had ears pinned back and our OL was on its heels. YOU MUST RUN ENOUGH to keep a D honest. (and effectively enough). Sorry, but every since we won the owl in '10 I have seen less and less running.

In the 2014 NFCC game we mixed run/pass and crushed seattle...then MM decided the metrics somewhere said to go 3 and out running the ball 9 straight times into a 12 man front was a smart thing to do. BALANCE.

It can be useful, but its often a second order effect. Let me point out that the Packers lost while running with Hundley and lost while passing with Rodgers (hurt and rusty did not help). So if running trumped all, they should have seem more success.

The point is to win and to do whatever gets you closer to scoring. If you are attempting to run to slow down the pass rush, you have already probably lost on offense.

[texaspackerbacker]

Clinging to the past? LaFleur's offensive system requires a running game. It might not be a top 5 running attack today, or even by the start of the regular season, but even Rome was not built in a day. It will take time, but with the addition/subtraction already of OL players, I look to see marked improvement soon. Also the run and the pass work hand in hand. Without a running game defenses would load up and run blitzes on every play. Rodgers and the pass will still be there, but with a better running game the passing game works better too.

I've read more than a few of your post and friend your wrong most of the time.

I just don't see LaFleur putting a "system" with his name on it ahead of what works. That would be pure ego shit, and I think they hired him because they knew he wasn't like that.

Sure, you need running - you can't pass all the time. However, the key to success on a team like the Packers is to run rarely as a change of pace, NOT run first and often. The O Line can't open holes, and it would be a waste of the talent of the GOAT QB.

The other thing is the "quick passing" game some in here seem to crave. I'll take well thought out care in throwing to open receivers and NOT throwing interceptions every day of the week - and nobody does that better than Aaron Rodgers. Every time I watch some other game and the QB throws it quick into coverage or doesn't see somebody jumping a route or whatever, I'm so thankful we have what we have, and he does it the way he does it. Unless I miss my guess, LaFleur sees it that way too.

[pbmax]

Ummm....take out the officials and one of them would be. Take out Matty Ice being Matty dumbass and they would be. Also, with clock running out and down by 2 scores NE STILL KEPT RUNNING when Atl when into the 15 cent 8 DBs on the field defense.

New England had 68 (don't forget the five sacks) pass attempts and 25 rush attempts. Out of 93 offensive plays, 73% were passes and 27% were runs. If Rodgers called that game Justin would be picketing 1265 Lombardi. Those rush attempts averaged just a smidge over 4 yards a carry. Passing averaged 6.5.

Atlanta average 5.8 yards running and 8.6 passing. In the first half, New England was 3 for 7 on third downs, the Falcons were 1 for 3. New England's offense had an almost typical first half except they kept giving the ball away in Falcons territory rather than score, which was not typical for them. The Falcons were hitting big play after big play, had three scoring drives over 62 yards. On 21 less net yards (189-210), Atlanta scored 18 more points.

In the first half, New England has 13 first downs to 9 for Atlanta. For their success, NE had two long drives, one ending in a turnover and another ending in a FG and another turnover on a five play drive the had gone 53 yards to the Falcon 33. Patriots were inside the Falcon 35 yard line 3 times and got 3 points.

But then half time happened. But perhaps more importantly, the Falcons scored again after half. So Belichick had a chance to adjust and the Falcons, well I still don't know what happened.

They traded nothing burger drives, then Atlanta goes 82 yards in four minutes to go up the fateful 28-3. Then the wheels came off their offense. I suspect they changed what had been working or Cheat figured it out. Falcons ran 9 times in the first half and nine times in the second half to markedly different results. On 46 total plays, 19 first half, 27 second half, they gained fewer yards in the second half (189-155) and were HORRIBLE running the football (1st half running: 9/86, 2nd half running: 9/18). But the pundits to this day say the Falcons should have run more. But this would have been almost McCarthy level stubbornness given the 2 ypc.

But the point of this diatribe is to address your contention that Belihick won because he did not forget the run in the second half. He used it in magical ways to stop turnovers or something. Or slow down the pass rush that allowed 175 yards of passing in the first half.

The problem is, of course, that no such thing happened. The Patriots ran 14 times for 35 yards (2.5) in the opening half. In the second half, the Cheatriots ran 11 times for 69 (6.2). First half Patriot offensive plays: 42. Second half: 51. They passed more. They passed better. They did not turn it over in Falcons territory. They ran less, but ran much more effectively.

So did Cheat get so dedicated to the run that they suddenly ran better therefore had to run less? Or did they figure out the Falcons defense and improve on offense as a whole (Brady had 262 yards passing in the second half)?

Or did Cheat and his defense finally figure out how to cure themselves on defense and the status on offense simply returned to normal? You make the call.

I suspect the Patriot run game benefitted from a Patriot adjustment to their pass game since the Falcons were clearly ready for the run game in the first half. But the best adjustment was the Patriot D in the second half.

[bobblehead]

And that’s a chicken-egg question. Is it the innovation or the personnel who can run it that makes the offense work. If you don’t have the personnel you can innovate until you’re blue in the face and get nothing. So stick to what you know and try to run it then have your QB work his magic until it runs out. The Packers just ran out of players is what happened 2016-2018. Then they ran out of QB.

You need both. No coach is smart enough to win with inferior talent. No amount of talent will win with inferior systems and coaching. Last year we had marginal talent and inferior offensive coaching and leadership. We upgraded talent a lot (enough??). We almost had to upgrade coaching. Less than 10 wins will disappoint me, but I'm also a realist. Our offensive skill players outside of Adams are unproven. (or old in Grahams case). We massively upgraded the OL in many ways I won't get into here. The system is proven successful in this league. We will win with Defense and Rodgers being careful with the ball and taking what a D gives him. We won't be scoring 30+ each week....if we do we should win 12 games or more.

[bobblehead]

This doesn't help me. How do I know it was Flower/OC who didn't call the play versus Rodgers checking out/changing the play?

Again, they called it with Tonyan. They implemented the play. They show they want to use it. If I don't see it again, my first conclusion won't be that they gave up on it after it worked so well (and its used by many shannahan disciples.)

[bobblehead]

It can be useful, but its often a second order effect. Let me point out that the Packers lost while running with Hundley and lost while passing with Rodgers (hurt and rusty did not help). So if running trumped all, they should have seem more success.

The point is to win and to do whatever gets you closer to scoring. If you are attempting to run to slow down the pass rush, you have already probably lost on offense.

But you know I don't believe running trumps all, I simply believe its necessary (sort of like the 2nd amendment). We lost with Hundley because he is Hundley...even when spotted a superior ground game. Spot Rodgers the same and we win a ton of gamse.

Your last statement confuses me. I could also say if you are pass blocking to slow down the pass rush you have already probably lost on offense. Why wouldn't you use every tool in the box??

[Radagast]

I just don't see LaFleur putting a "system" with his name on it ahead of what works. That would be pure ego shit, and I think they hired him because they knew he wasn't like that.

Sure, you need running - you can't pass all the time. However, the key to success on a team like the Packers is to run rarely as a change of pace, NOT run first and often. The O Line can't open holes, and it would be a waste of the talent of the GOAT QB.

The other thing is the "quick passing" game some in here seem to crave. I'll take well thought out care in throwing to open receivers and NOT throwing interceptions every day of the week - and nobody does that better than Aaron Rodgers. Every time I watch some other game and the QB throws it quick into coverage or doesn't see somebody jumping a route or whatever, I'm so thankful we have what we have, and he does it the way he does it. Unless I miss my guess, LaFleur sees it that way too.

Tex, it's clear that like so many others , you are a "Big Play" junkie. Unless a play gains big yardage or scores a TD, your not impressed. I value the more methodical view that long 12 to 14 play drives that use a mix of unpredictable plays can/do score TDs/FGs while at the same time keeping the ball out of the opponents hands and eating up clock. Not so sexy, but highly effective. In addition, a balanced play mix can take some of the pressure off of the QB as well as reducing the risk of injury too.

Traditionally, a lot of 1st down plays for many teams has been a running play. 2nd and 3rd down plays (depending upon the distance to make) would either be a pass or a run play. 3rd and long plays generally see a pass play. If I know this, certainly opposing defenses do too. Sometimes defenses are so sure of the next play that they run a defense to take advantage of this knowledge. It's called being predictable and many believe that McCarthy lost his job because his play calls were too predictable.

Sean McVay and Matt LaFleur worked together to develop an offensive system that works well and is not so predictable. This system relies on both the run and the pass in order to be unpredictable. Many offensive sets can run either a pass or a running play.

Tex, you and others need to show some patience and give the new system a chance. It may well not be the high octane offense that we wish for at first, but by Week 6 I believe that many of those now whining will be running themselves to get onto the Bandwagon.

Also, the value of good running games does not become generally apparent until December and (if in the playoffs) January. For GB a balanced offense will be a reality and a great help in the playoffs. As much as Offense wins football games, Defense still wins Championships and GB may have assembled a winning defense this season.

So be patient, cheer when things go well, and Stop being a thickhead Tex.

[bobblehead]

New England had 68 (don't forget the five sacks) pass attempts and 25 rush attempts. Out of 93 offensive plays, 73% were passes and 27% were runs. If Rodgers called that game Justin would be picketing 1265 Lombardi. Those rush attempts averaged just a smidge over 4 yards a carry. Passing averaged 6.5.

Again, Pats were WAY down and Atl went into a shell. Brady picked them apart underneath to get back within range. There was no point to run at them in 2nd and 3rd Q

Atlanta average 5.8 yards running and 8.6 passing. In the first half, New England was 3 for 7 on third downs, the Falcons were 1 for 3. New England's offense had an almost typical first half except they kept giving the ball away in Falcons territory rather than score, which was not typical for them. The Falcons were hitting big play after big play, had three scoring drives over 62 yards. On 21 less net yards (189-210), Atlanta scored 18 more points.
clearly turnovers matter

In the first half, New England has 13 first downs to 9 for Atlanta. For their success, NE had two long drives, one ending in a turnover and another ending in a FG and another turnover on a five play drive the had gone 53 yards to the Falcon 33. Patriots were inside the Falcon 35 yard line 3 times and got 3 points.
Clearly turnovers matter
But then half time happened. But perhaps more importantly, the Falcons scored again after half. So Belichick had a chance to adjust and the Falcons, well I still don't know what happened.
Matt Ryan is a choker among other things...also prevent D allowed Brady to dink and dunk and keep Ryan and that O off the field feeling helpless and out of sync.
They traded nothing burger drives, then Atlanta goes 82 yards in four minutes to go up the fateful 28-3. Then the wheels came off their offense. I suspect they changed what had been working or Cheat figured it out. Falcons ran 9 times in the first half and nine times in the second half to markedly different results. On 46 total plays, 19 first half, 27 second half, they gained fewer yards in the second half (189-155) and were HORRIBLE running the football (1st half running: 9/86, 2nd half running: 9/18). But the pundits to this day say the Falcons should have run more. But this would have been almost McCarthy level stubbornness given the 2 ypc.
I don't believe they should have run more, but maybe some checkdown passing might have helped. But, as I said, it was an epic meltdown. I suspect Atl was celebrating up 28-3 and forgot there was still football to be played. None of this disproves my point. It simply shows that NE adjusted and Atl didn't. It also shows Brady poise and Ryan non poise mattered. It also showed when you are ineffective running the ball that the offense goes to shit....isn't that my point?

But the point of this diatribe is to address your contention that Belihick won because he did not forget the run in the second half. That was not my point. He used it in magical ways to stop turnovers or something. Or slow down the pass rush that allowed 175 yards of passing in the first half. The point was that even in desperation mode when the D gave him chunks on the ground and sold out to stop the pass he ran the fucking ball!!

The problem is, of course, that no such thing happened. The Patriots ran 14 times for 35 yards (2.5) in the opening half. In the second half, the Cheatriots ran 11 times for 69 (6.2). First half Patriot offensive plays: 42. Second half: 51. They passed more. They passed better. They did not turn it over in Falcons territory. They ran less, but ran much more effectively. Down 28-3 how many runs would MM call? How many short passes. Here is the drive chart for NE Short pass, short pass, run, run, inc to RB, Short pass, short pass, inc, scramble, RUN RUN RUN pass to RB TD. Atl played a shell and Brady took advantage of it. In the red zone they spread them out and pounded it, and when Atl tightened up at the 5 he hits white for TD. Down 28-3 they go 75 yards running 5 times and passing 8. They stayed balanced.

So did Cheat get so dedicated to the run that they suddenly ran better therefore had to run less? Or did they figure out the Falcons defense and improve on offense as a whole (Brady had 262 yards passing in the second half)?
I don't know, maybe the wear and tear on the DLine for Atl took its toll because he ACTUALLY RAN THE BALL in the first half? As a former OL I know that I hated being on my heels all game, but when I could pound a guy early, he slowed down a lot by the 2nd and more by the 3rd quarter.
Or did Cheat and his defense finally figure out how to cure themselves on defense and the status on offense simply returned to normal? You make the call.

I suspect the Patriot run game benefitted from a Patriot adjustment to their pass game since the Falcons were clearly ready for the run game in the first half. But the best adjustment was the Patriot D in the second half.

Of course several things factored in, but my main point was that down 28-3 they didn't abandon the run. They kept the D honest.

[Radagast]

bobblehead, please keep explaining the game of football and someday more will listen. Yes it will be a long hard row to hoe, but if the light goes on for even a few, then the journey will be worth the struggle.

You say," Throw me to the Wolves and I'll return leading the Pack." I believe that if they threw you to the wolves that you would return with Wolf pelts.

[texaspackerbacker]

Tex, it's clear that like so many others , you are a "Big Play" junkie. Unless a play gains big yardage or scores a TD, your not impressed. I value the more methodical view that long 12 to 14 play drives that use a mix of unpredictable plays can/do score TDs/FGs while at the same time keeping the ball out of the opponents hands and eating up clock. Not so sexy, but highly effective. In addition, a balanced play mix can take some of the pressure off of the QB as well as reducing the risk of injury too.

Traditionally, a lot of 1st down plays for many teams has been a running play. 2nd and 3rd down plays (depending upon the distance to make) would either be a pass or a run play. 3rd and long plays generally see a pass play. If I know this, certainly opposing defenses do too. Sometimes defenses are so sure of the next play that they run a defense to take advantage of this knowledge. It's called being predictable and many believe that McCarthy lost his job because his play calls were too predictable.

Sean McVay and Matt LaFleur worked together to develop an offensive system that works well and is not so predictable. This system relies on both the run and the pass in order to be unpredictable. Many offensive sets can run either a pass or a running play.

Tex, you and others need to show some patience and give the new system a chance. It may well not be the high octane offense that we wish for at first, but by Week 6 I believe that many of those now whining will be running themselves to get onto the Bandwagon.

Also, the value of good running games does not become generally apparent until December and (if in the playoffs) January. For GB a balanced offense will be a reality and a great help in the playoffs. As much as Offense wins football games, Defense still wins Championships and GB may have assembled a winning defense this season.

So be patient, cheer when things go well, and Stop being a thickhead Tex.

Radagast, above all else, I'm a Pragmatist (see FYI) - do what works. If the Wisconsin Badgers suddenly went pass first with an all world O Line and Jonathan Taylor and other quality RBs, I'd be saying exactly the opposite of what I'm saying right now about the Packers.

You seem to be talking about a lot of general cases - "you gotta set up the pass", "you gotta run clock", "you gotta grind it out", etc. - you woulda loved Woody Hayes.

All that stuff goes right out the window when personnel dictates that you do something else. It's stupid and egotistical for a coach to force his "system" when clearly the circumstances say you do something else. I'm pretty sure (and getting more that way after the first preseason game) that LaFleur is neither stupid or egotistical.

You go with what Aaron does best - and in this case, I don't even mean Rodgers. Aaron Jones is built to be a breakaway threat, not a pound it into the line kind of guy. Although it's still early, it kinda looks like Dexter Williams is the same. And Jamal Williams has had more success catching passes out of the backfield than running. I hate to bad mouth the Packers O Line, but it is what it is. Running like the Badgers just doesn't work. They ain't all that great at pass blocking either - hence the need for QB mobility, which we saw plenty of in the first preseason game even without Rodgers. So what does that say to anybody who isn't predisposed to push a particular kind of offense? It says you ride your GOAT QB/pass first and often, and then when you have them thinking pass pass pass, you break Jones loose for a long run.

And it's not like there haven't been a few minor changes. I saw some screens in that game, and I expect to see more. I expect them to pass to the fullback - if Vitale is as good as reported and can stay healthy. I didn't really see the motion and other creativity of pass patterns to get more people open, but that probably just means not giving other teams films of new stuff.

What's the best thing the offense can do for the defense? No, not run clock and keep the other team's O off the field. The best thing they can do is to go out and get a lead - hopefully a big lead - so the other team's options are limited and they are forced into desperation mode.

The "whiners", Radagast, are the ones who want some sort of stupid change just for the sake of change. They are undoubtedly gonna be disappointed, but at least we will be winning a helluva lot of games because LaFleur ain't one of them hahahahaha.

Patience will come in the form of waiting for people wanting that stupid change to come to the realization that it ain't gonna happen, and the team is better because it ain't gonna happen.

[mraynrand]

I agree with Tex. The offense should go out every game and get a big lead.

[texaspackerbacker]

It's just the pragmatic thing to do hahahahahaha.

[mraynrand]

It's just the pragmatic thing to do hahahahahaha.

Just keep a sufficient supply of magic dust.

[pbmax]

Of course several things factored in, but my main point was that down 28-3 they didn't abandon the run. They kept the D honest.

I understand your point but phrasing it this way leads to confusion. If you put up a poll, few would vote a 79/21 split in favor of passing was not an abandonment of the run.

Even McCarthy, who would often forget to run, rarely got into this territory. Cheat at least did this down 25 points.