McCarthy's Offense: McAdoo Edition

[mraynrand]

so, if tubby mcfatty didn't have #12, this is a 0-4 team

that seems about right

yawn

[mraynrand]

I don't see how you can watch last year's offense with Cook and not say he is not attacking the middle of the field (and the defense). He wasn't lined up on the boundary.

It just wasn't that many plays. 30 to Cook, 30 to Rodgers (and he caught a lot of those outside). Even Cook's most celebrated catch counts as an outside catch! 2015 Numbers are 58 for Rodgers and 11 for Perillo - and the total yards are pretty close to the same.

I do think that there was some influence with Cook in there, but not a ton.

[pbmax]

It just wasn't that many plays. 30 to Cook, 30 to Rodgers (and he caught a lot of those outside). Even Cook's most celebrated catch counts as an outside catch! 2015 Numbers are 58 for Rodgers and 11 for Perillo - and the total yards are pretty close to the same.

I do think that there was some influence with Cook in there, but not a ton.

30 catches on 51 targets though, and that was 5 starts and 10 games. And his return clearly sparked the offense.

Disregarding the semantic hole we are in danger of falling down, given where Cook and Rodgers lined up, they were covered by middle of the field defenders. Defenses weren't putting the #1 or #2 CB on them. They were covered by combinations of slot corners, safeties and linebackers.

And Cook's crossing routes did attack the center of the field. It is true also though, that his #1 route, especially early, was an flat/out. But remember, even on that route, he as pulling a slot corner with him.

But I am not trying to argue he changed his entire offense, I think his changes were modest. But he did need an infusion of matchup problems.

[pbmax]

so, if tubby mcfatty didn't have #12, this is a 0-4 team

that seems about right

No, if he had Alex Smith his offense would look very different. It looked different when he had Favre.

[vince]

I don't see how you can watch last year's offense with Cook and not say he is not attacking the middle of the field (and the defense). He wasn't lined up on the boundary.

This year they are running combos with Cobb and Bennett to shake Cobb open in the middle.

Have the total number of plays to the middle gone up? Probably not, they still prefer to attack the edges. But I think that red zone and 3rd down rankings reflect their play.

Regarding Cook and his Directional Play Frequency, I'm going by the objective data, not some vague statement(s) that tend to be developed to fit with an individual's narrative or understanding of reality. That said, if you want to include crossing routes from one side to the other outside boundary, that will even out over time. There's just nothing suggesting they changed their approach signficantly to attack the middle of the field upon their resurgence with Cook or someone else.

https://www.sharpfootballstats.com/directional-pass-frequency--off-.html

2016 Week 11-21 (Cook's Return from Injury and Roughly the Start of Offensive Resurgence)
TE Directional Play Frequency Distribution

Left - 40%
Middle - 18%
Right - 41%

Here are some (they don't have them all) of his routes charted by game.
Not definitive perhaps but I'd say informative. His route chart consistently (not exclusively) starts from TE position toward boundaries pretty consistently with the frequencies noted on the other data site.

https://nextgenstats.nfl.com/charts/player/jared-cook/COO152641/2016

4 from right to left outside - 2 complete for 16 yds.
1 from right to middle - 0 complete for 0 yds.
0 from left to middle
1 from left to right outside - 1 complete for 18 yds.
3 left to left outside - 1 complete for TD 6 yds.
5 right to right outside - 4 complete for 56 yds.


1 from right to left outside - 1 complete for 35 yds.
1 from right to middle - 0 complete for 0 yds.
0 from left to middle - 0 complete for 0 yds.
1 from left to right outside - 1 complete for 18 yds.
2 left to left outside - 0 complete for 0 yds.
7 right to right outside - 4 complete for 61 yds. and TD


0 from right to left outside - 0 complete for 0 yds.
1 from right to middle - 0 complete for 0 yds.
1 from left to middle - 0 complete for 0 yds.
1 from left to right outside - 0 complete for 0 yds.
6 left to left outside - 3 complete for 48 yds. and TD
2 right to right outside - 2 complete for 57 yds.

Totals for 3 games featured
5 from right to left outside - 3 complete for 51 yds.
3 from right to middle - 0 complete for 0 yds.
1 from left to middle - 0 complete for 0 yds.
2 from left to right outside - 2 complete for 36 yds.
11 left to left outside - 4 complete for 54 yds. and 2 TD
14 right to right outside - 10 complete for 174 yds. and TD

[pbmax]

In those three games, I count 4 catches from the traditional TE spot or perhaps slot/wing, in the middle third of the field.

He might be headed left or right, but those routes traverse and are defended by interior defenders. I'd be curious the effect this had on Cobb and Monty's catches.

One thing they did not do with Cook, which surprised me even last year with his speed and height, was attack deep down the middle. His most common route was that flat route he ran while the WR ran a slant. McCarthy is still using that this year to get the ball out quickly.

[pbmax]

The remaining problems are running the ball (the best way to get a team out of Cover 2) and the deep ball.

The O line health status doesn't help there.

[red]

yawn

you're still here?

i thought you quit the packers for good when they started allowing blacks to think?

[mraynrand]

you're still here?

i thought you quit the packers for good when they started allowing blacks to think?

man are you a tool. Come over and debate in FYI if you have any balls.

[vince]

In those three games, I count 4 catches from the traditional TE spot or perhaps slot/wing, in the middle third of the field.

He might be headed left or right, but those routes traverse and are defended by interior defenders. I'd be curious the effect this had on Cobb and Monty's catches.

One thing they did not do with Cook, which surprised me even last year with his speed and height, was attack deep down the middle. His most common route was that flat route he ran while the WR ran a slant. McCarthy is still using that this year to get the ball out quickly.

Right I missed the run after catch on those. But even if we assume that they increased their middle of the field attack when they got their receiving TE back (The data I've seen still doesn't support any change to that effect. If anything it's slightly the opposite.) I don't see how that constitutes some kind of epiphany on McCarthy's part to become more creative and varied with playcalling and/or personnel groupings.

McCarthy said right from the start when Cook was signed that a TE who can attack the middle of the field is important and he brings that. So we all agree the threat is important. I also agree that it's interesting that they (with Cook at least) didn't actually do it more, perhaps because they continued to have far lower production when they did. It depends on defensive schemes and tendencies. Teams whose coverage schemes demand their inside backers to track receivers down the deep middle are soft there, but the Tampa 2 scheme where the deep safeties play wide and that's a key component isn't featured much throughout the league any more. 2 deep safety nickel and dime defenses where there's a guy on each hash 10 yards off the ball covering the seams from the get-go and a defender head up on the TE at the line disrupting his release also tend to negate that.

This is consistent with how the Packers offensive scheme operates (and pretty much always has under McCarthy) to put players in the best position to succeed through preparation, planning and dynamically attacking the defense where they're weakest as opposed to some new creative "scheming" (in your words) for new and more combinations of players and formation so they can throw it to Cook down the middle more by design because he's pretty good. The latter just hasn't and doesn't happen - not since that blew up with Finley one of the many years he got hurt.

The former has always and continues to be their approach - with improvements/adjustments related to player health/available skill level, offensive play style, tempo, rhythm, etc. designed to take advantage of the unique skills and intelligence of their QB to first attack by plan with quick release and accuracy based on tendency, but then also with opportunities that creates for what they really want/need to win - to capitalize on their unique and highly effective competitive advantage - their QB's off-the-charts football IQ and his unprecedented ability to extend plays, see things before they're there - and deliver the ball downfield with velocity, accuracy, and timeliness.

Defenses adjusted to prevent all that. For awhile they succeeded (they still do to varying degrees) because 1) the Packers committed too much to their "second phase" attack right from the start of games before establishing the fast pace tempo and play style that they've found it needs to succeed, and 2) the Packers receivers were unsuccessful in separating from man coverage and/or the QB was more averse to throwing into tighter windows associated with shorter throws.

Then the Packers adjusted with simpler attack and emphasis on getting into rhythm to establish play style and speed up game tempo to their advantage and enable Rodgers to be more effective at the things he's uniquely good at. It's been strategic adjustments to overcome what defenses did to offset all that more than tactical adjustments to personnel groups, formations and/or the plays they run. Those change (or not) game to game based on opponent and how they think they can exploit the defensive scheme, match-ups, etc. they think they'll encounter as well as the status of their own lineup, player health, availability, strengths, exposures, etc.

Maybe McCarthy errs at times by overestimating his guys or expecting too much from them (not a bad flaw if you're a football coach), but it's not nor ever has been because of a lack of ability or willingness to "scheme". Sometimes injuries, experience and/or ability means the other guy wins. Notwithstanding the possibility of an elusive solution to injury trends that have impacted them in specific areas (as it relates to the scope of this thread), I think McCarthy is among the elites at getting his guys ready and putting them in the best position possible to succeed throughout the game.

[pbmax]

Right I missed the run after catch on those. But even if we assume that they increased their middle of the field attack when they got their receiving TE back (The data I've seen still doesn't support any change to that effect. If anything it's slightly the opposite.) I don't see how that constitutes some kind of epiphany on McCarthy's part to become more creative and varied with playcalling and/or personnel groupings.

McCarthy said right from the start when Cook was signed that a TE who can attack the middle of the field is important and he brings that. So we all agree the threat is important. I also agree that it's interesting that they (with Cook at least) didn't actually do it more, perhaps because they continued to have far lower production when they did. It depends on defensive schemes and tendencies.

1. I think from your numbers that the difference Cook made in 2016 were either routes that ran through the middle, and tied down interior defenders in a serious way (last 6 games Cook was very effective) or the mere presence of a physical specimen who was fast, tall and could catch. Given the results, I assume this is what McCarthy means when he says attack the middle of a D. Its not a scheme nor a pass play, its a general all purpose way to describe a player who can line up on the interior and be a threat in the pass game.

He did not, as the numbers and route maps show, do the majority of his damage with throws to the middle of the field.

So I agree McCarthy did not change the offense to feature different routes, or if he did, Rodgers did not throw to those spots. And so for the reason the TE attacking the middle seemed effective is still hard to pin down literally, but we can say two things about it now. The talent at TE is important if its going to work (and they need to be trusted by Rodgers) and by virtue of struggles before Cook, its important to stress the middle of the field in passing because the lesser pass defenders are there. Outside of Cook and Nelson, it wasn't happening during the drought.

I also think we can say that time in the pocket was important, as one of Cooks most common routes was the slant/flat combo, a safe and fast throw which serves about the same purpose as a dive into the line. It will get you 2-5 yards most of the time.

This is consistent with how the Packers offensive scheme operates (and pretty much always has under McCarthy) to put players in the best position to succeed through preparation, planning and dynamically attacking the defense where they're weakest as opposed to some new creative "scheming" (in your words) for new and more combinations of players and formation so they can throw it to Cook down the middle more by design because he's pretty good. The latter just hasn't and doesn't happen - not since that blew up with Finley one of the many years he got hurt.

Its clear now for two years that McCarthy has wanted better talent at TE. Whether he is throwing to the middle or attacking interior defenders in the pass game, there is something to this. We will get to the playbook in a second.

Defenses adjusted to prevent all that. For awhile they succeeded because 1) the Packers committed too much to their "second phase" attack right from the start of games before establishing the fast pace tempo and play style it needs to succeed, and 2) the Packers receivers were unsuccessful in separating from man coverage and/or the QB was more averse to throwing into tighter windows associated with shorter throws.

I agree with first point, but I think the 'won't throw into tight windows' thing is overrated. Rodgers passes up easy throws to the middle of the field sometimes (not just a recent thing with playbook changes) while waiting for something bigger and tougher to break open.

Then the Packers adjusted with simpler attack and emphasis on getting into rhythm to establish play style and speed up game tempo to their advantage and enable Rodgers to be more effective at the things he's uniquely good at.

I definitely agree with this and I think the shorter passing game has served two purposes; as you put it earlier, it a matchup and exploit option determined by opponent or health/ability of roster. It also serves as a check to the pass rush, which is why its been featured this year so much with injuries at Tackle. I am very intrigued by your idea that it also constrains Rodgers, because as this article (and this one) depict, he can still call his Rodger's Offense out there.

Maybe McCarthy errs at times by overestimating his guys or expecting too much from them (not a bad flaw if you're a football coach).

I agree that his belief in his guys is a net positive for the team.

But I think its indisputable McCarthy has changed his offense not only in a normal evolution, but after the CBA. He said he reduced volume to speed installation. He has claimed that modifying routes to scheme people open was going to cease. Receivers needed to win one on one.

Personnel group calls have also changed. Think back to the two year rollout of the no-huddle.

But one thing I ignored (as the original focus was about what was a compare contrast with M3 and McAdoo) was talent outside of the QB. 4 or 5 wides doesn't mean the same thing as they did during the Big 5 era (Jennings/Driver/Jones/Nelson/Martin-Finley). Maybe Allison and Adams step up and Cobb is back to his earlier, healthy level, but that hasn't been the case for a while now.

More TEs have been used in the past to diversify the offense and they seem to be committed to that direction now two years in a row.

But talent, as rand pointed out, is probably the biggest factor. And the lack of talent in his depth might have been the constraining factor to his offense as much as opposing defenses adjusting.

However whether due to injuries, retirements or talent drain, McCarthy has in three different years (Drought Year 1, 2 and 2017) changed his formations to get someone open early against man coverage after struggling mightily to do so earlier.

And that to me is also a strength. One McAdoo is struggling to match.

[mraynrand]

No, if he had Alex Smith his offense would look very different. It looked different when he had Favre.

I think Red assumes(he can feel free to correct me):

1. That Stubby has little to do with Rodger's success
2. That if and when Rodgers is permanently gone the Packers would stand pat with current QBs like Hundley as long term starter.

[mraynrand]

McAdoo does have OBJ who is like Jennings on steroids. They target him a bunch even though defenses do everything they can to take him away. Still he gets the rock less than 1/4 of the time.

If Packers have a talent problem NYG have it in spades. The have OBJ and a lot of crap/inexperience. And Manning may be permanently in the shitter (though his numbers are OK so far this year). But he's such a weird duck - he can play like absolute crap for long stretches and then light on fire. Weird group of guys to coach to be sure.

[pbmax]

McAdoo does have OBJ who is like Jennings on steroids. They target him a bunch even though defenses do everything they can to take him away. Still he gets the rock less than 1/4 of the time.

If Packers have a talent problem NYG have it in spades. The have OBJ and a lot of crap/inexperience. And Manning may be permanently in the shitter (though his numbers are OK so far this year). But he's such a weird duck - he can play like absolute crap for long stretches and then light on fire. Weird group of guys to coach to be sure.

And I think in any evaluation, talent is the first thing. You can only be moderately successful without it.

Coach and scheme are #2.

[pbmax]

Even deeper into the thicket? The Rodgers offense is alive and well.

Here are two stories about the play call for Cook's catch on 3rd down: http://www.espn.com/blog/green-bay-p...-aaron-rodgers

And Wilde's take: http://host.madison.com/wsj/sports/f...ed1d3f455.html