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

[mraynrand]

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

weird

[pbmax]

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.

I agree the empty backfield is over done, but it can make sense if you've got a specific match up you want to pass on.

[RashanGary]

Teams that run the ball less than 40% of the time have never won a SB. So running counts for something.

[Radagast]

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.

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.

[esoxx]

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.

All true. Sorry but this offense will require some commitment to the run as a predicate to passing. The looks are designed to mimic sameness regardless of run or pass for the most part. The wide zone run has a boot/waggle component to it and if you don't actually hand the ball off more than a token amount the defense will key on this waggle concept and the offense will be dead in the water. Is this really so hard to understand? Of course, with a QB like Rodgers he could still pull a rabbit out of his hat but you certainly don't want to bank on that.

Whether they get two yards, five yards, or seven yards, the key is going to be selling the look and the D not having any recognition if the hand off will occur, thus keeping D off balance and hesitant.

People that think otherwise must not understand the type of offense they're bringing in. You sure as hell don't make the hire you did just to pay lip service like Fat Mike did to the run game. It's baked in to the offense by design.

[esoxx]

Very weird

FIFY

[pbmax]

Teams that run the ball less than 40% of the time have never won a SB. So running counts for something.

Yes, it counts winning teams. You run late when you are winning.

You are getting cause and effect reversed. Bobble is right that running can help your offense and your passing game, but it is not the reason for winning.

If all you needed to do was run to mathematical balance, the Jaguars and Falcons would be Super Bowl champions.

[bobblehead]

how will you know?

It was designed to be a seam split by Tonyan....meaning M4 designed and implemented the play. If I never see it with Rodgers then its Rodgers not liking to do it.

[bobblehead]

Yes, that's the argument. But let's stay with your approach where we throw out exact statistic and just talk generalities and common sense. If you have a killer passing game, and a marginal run game, an emphasis on the run game would surely reduce your efficiency. If you totally ignore the run game, you might then force the defense into permanent dime which might also reduce your efficiency, right? So where you set that needle on run/pass percentage depends on relative strengths, taking advantage of what the defense gives you/keeping the defense 'honest.' Packers would be foolish to force the run game if they don't have the horses to run/block effectively. But if they did, they'd be foolish to ignore it, because they could force the defense out of dime and nickel and then eviscerate them in the passing game.


Some real talent lies in the coaching staff and the QB knowing where that sweet spot is and then making the right play call for the defense.

I realize this is kinda boilerplate/football 101.

But I would point out that through out my lifetime when I see bombs away pass first teams they end up getting "upset" come playoff time. There are exceptions, but the rule is that pass happy prolific offenses disappoint in the postseason. Run first teams generally don't do much better, but there are more exceptions of run oriented winning than pass happy. Again, balance.

[bobblehead]

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.

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.

[bobblehead]

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.

To your point and radagast point:

Its not just running and its not a %. Its doing it effectively and often enough to demand a defense respect it (and if they don't they face 3rd and 2 against Rodgers all day).

The other point that I hammer fat mike for is that in the last 5-6 years teams got creative using backs and TE's out of the backfield to create spacing problems. Fat mike not only didn't adapt, he did dumb ass things like insist Ty Montgomery be used primarily as a pass blocker on pass plays. he ran TE screens to slow ass Martellus Bennett. Andy Reid adapted. Sean Peyton adapted. Shanahan and son spawned McVey and others who meshed ZBS with creative west coast style dink and dunk. Pederson innovated. Fat mike ran same plays out of same formations for 15 years and wondered why his guys couldn't win matchups when the D knew what was coming.

[bobblehead]

Yes, it counts winning teams. You run late when you are winning.

You are getting cause and effect reversed. Bobble is right that running can help your offense and your passing game, but it is not the reason for winning.

If all you needed to do was run to mathematical balance, the Jaguars and Falcons would be Super Bowl champions.

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.

[Radagast]

Its not just running and its not a %. Its doing it effectively and often enough to demand a defense respect it (and if they don't they face 3rd and 2 against Rodgers all day).

The other point that I hammer fat mike for is that in the last 5-6 years teams got creative using backs and TE's out of the backfield to create spacing problems. Fat mike not only didn't adapt, he did dumb ass things like insist Ty Montgomery be used primarily as a pass blocker on pass plays. he ran TE screens to slow ass Martellus Bennett. Andy Reid adapted. Sean Peyton adapted. Shanahan and son spawned McVey and others who meshed ZBS with creative west coast style dink and dunk. Pederson innovated. Fat mike ran same plays out of same formations for 15 years and wondered why his guys couldn't win matchups when the D knew what was coming.

Bravo !!


Encore Mystro !!!

[mraynrand]

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.

Interesting. NE kept running because the numbers were in their favor. You can run a hurry up offense even with running plays if you can get yards in chunks. Fat Mike ran when the numbers and the opposition favored it too. Like Seattle 2007 and Philly 2010. But when he faced teams that could stop the run solid he probably didn’t run enough to keep those teams honest. But regardless with teams like the Giants or Bears 2010 if you cannot run against them with their standard front four you’re in a lot of trouble. Then you’d better be able to work your passing game. And rely on your defense.

BTW, the worst part about Stubby not ‘innovating’ is that he thought he could do the same stuff with lesser personnel. 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.

[mraynrand]

It was designed to be a seam split by Tonyan....meaning M4 designed and implemented the play. If I never see it with Rodgers then its Rodgers not liking to do it.

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?