Offensive Systems

[Smidgeon]

Earlier in the Rodgers/M3 relationship, M3 was known for a multiples offense, comparable to NE's multiples defense. They could line up in any formation and have a bevy of options for executing. For debated reasons, that has devolved into a "hold the ball until a big play emerges" offense.

Interesting though was the announcers passing along the perspective that Green Bay has two offenses--the offense that's called and the offense that Rodgers runs.

Here are my questions for the board:

1. Is the offense that Rodgers runs the best offense for Rodgers to be successful in?
2. Would the offense as called be better than the one he runs?
3. What offenses across the NFL would be better?

[Zool]

3. Instead of saying who is better, look at the results of the 2nd half of Chicago. Could that be the new norm for the Packers O if they play a shorter brand of O? Would they score 38/game?

[Smidgeon]

3. Instead of saying who is better, look at the results of the 2nd half of Chicago. Could that be the new norm for the Packers O if they play a shorter brand of O? Would they score 38/game?

The Bears game is what made me start thinking about this. In the first half, Nagy's offense had no trouble moving down the field on scripted plays while the Packers offense couldn't get moving. When Rodgers came back from injury, the offense started moving quickly on short throws that broke into big plays (remember back in the Jennings/Jones/Driver days when all receivers were known for YAC?). Then against Minnesota, the offense seemed to stall again waiting for big plays. That could be perception error due to Minnesota's defense, but it still leaves on open question for me.

[mraynrand]

There was also the high speed era, where preventing substitutions and pushing tempo was supposed to exhaust the defense and keep less effective defenders on the field. You see some of that still, but percentage ??

[gbgary]

i've said for a long time a more conventional wco would be better than the big play or bust o they run. in fact the short game sets up the big play.

[MadScientist]

i've said for a long time a more conventional wco would be better than the big play or bust o they run. in fact the short game sets up the big play.

This.

I've seen this sort of thing many times, not just in football. The results are so good from something that there is an attempt to short circuit things and just do the last step that got the results, forgetting the steps that lead up to the last step. Doing that almost always fails.

GB was a WCO variant but Rodgers would occasionally scramble a bit and find an open guy. They started putting in double routes essentially, so when Rodgers scrambled there was a chance for a big play. The problem is that it worked too well for a while. Teams started planning for it and putting more pressure on Rodgers because the double routes too longer, because the Packers weren't scheming for the quick, modest gain plays that made this all work.

[pbmax]

i've said for a long time a more conventional wco would be better than the big play or bust o they run. in fact the short game sets up the big play.

The offense is full enough of short pass attempts for me. Yards per attempt, net yards per attempt (includes sacks and lost yards on sacks) adjusted yards per attempt (modifies Y/A by giving extra value to TDs and negative value to INTS) are all down the last three years by significant amounts.

I want some variety and would prefer to dump half the behind the LOS throws. More WCO and insist extended offense gets limited too.

                                                                                                 
                        Game Game Pass Pass  Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass  Pass  Pass  Pass  Pass
Rk          Player Year    G   GS  Cmp  Att  Cmp%  Yds   TD  Int   Sk  Yds  Y/A  NY/A  AY/A ANY/A   Y/G
1    Aaron Rodgers 2008   16   16  341  536 63.62 4038   28   13   34  231 7.53  6.68  7.49  6.64 252.4
2    Aaron Rodgers 2009   16   16  350  541 64.70 4434   30    7   50  306 8.20  6.98  8.72  7.47 277.1
3    Aaron Rodgers 2010   15   15  312  475 65.68 3922   28   11   31  193 8.26  7.37  8.39  7.50 261.5
4    Aaron Rodgers 2011   15   15  343  502 68.33 4643   45    6   36  219 9.25  8.22 10.50  9.39 309.5
5    Aaron Rodgers 2012   16   16  371  552 67.21 4295   39    8   51  293 7.78  6.64  8.54  7.33 268.4
6    Aaron Rodgers 2013    9    9  193  290 66.55 2536   17    6   21  117 8.74  7.78  8.99  8.00 281.8
7    Aaron Rodgers 2014   16   16  341  520 65.58 4381   38    5   28  174 8.43  7.68  9.45  8.65 273.8
8    Aaron Rodgers 2015   16   16  347  572 60.66 3821   31    8   46  314 [COLOR="#FF0000"]6.68  5.67  7.13  6.10[/COLOR] 238.8
9    Aaron Rodgers 2016   16   16  401  610 65.74 4428   40    7   35  246 [COLOR="#FF0000"]7.26  6.48  8.05  7.24[/COLOR] 276.8
10   Aaron Rodgers 2017    7    7  154  238 64.71 1675   16    6   22  168 [COLOR="#FF0000"]7.04  5.80  7.25  5.99[/COLOR] 239.3

Provided by Pro-Football-Reference.com: View Original Table
Generated 9/18/2018.

[texaspackerbacker]

It all is determined by how the O Line plays. The Packers O Line seemed to be inspired most of the second half against the Bears, and some of that carried over to the Vikings game. As the general rule, though, the Packers O Line sucks and lets the pass rush come roaring through to the extent that all Rodgers can do is improvise.

For years, the Patriots have blocked so well for Brady that he can stand back there and pick apart the defense. Last Sunday, though, Brady got a taste of what is an all the time thing for Aaron Rodgers, as the Jags took away Brady's comfort zone.

The point is, when the pass rush is heavy, you just can't do any of what virtually all other teams do as a normal thing, given that they have decent O Line blocking.

I suppose the usual suspects will come on and talk up the quality of our O Line, etc. The only way our O Line is decent at all is with lowered expectations brought on by years of seeing Rodgers rushed almost immediately and needing to scramble.

Some people would like to see a more balanced offense too - more running plays (why I don't know when we have the greatest QB ever to play the game). That too is a product of having a poor O Line. The only way we can run for anything is change of pace/when the other team doesn't see it coming.

[gbgary]

i think a lot of rodgers improvising happens whens he passes up short throws and holds the ball looking for the big play. wco is ball-control passing. moving the chains and eating up the clock. when healthy i think he should do more under-the-center work too. it sells play action better and isn't so predictable. the short game is automatically quicker which takes a lot of pressure off the o-line having to hold blocks for an extended time which should eliminate some holding penalties.

[gbgary]

dump half the behind the LOS throws. More WCO and insist extended offense gets limited too.

agree.

[bobblehead]

3. Instead of saying who is better, look at the results of the 2nd half of Chicago. Could that be the new norm for the Packers O if they play a shorter brand of O? Would they score 38/game?

More importantly keeping our defense off the field and rested and keeping the opponents on the field and weary.