Dillon.......keeping defenses honest.

[Heyjoe4]

I agree we should not just predictably run the clock out. Nice to be able to run but imho if you want to win the game; you have to sprinkle the passes in. Mac did not do much sprinkling imo. run run run and at times run run pass are predictable.

Thanks gopkrs. I’m not a fan or running the clock out. In this pass-friendly league a 14 pt Q4 advantage ain’t what it used to be (ask the Falcons). And yes, for this to work, we have to keep passing. I have a lot of condidence that Rodgers won’t throw INTs. I’m concerned about the WR group.

 

[Mondio]

I've seen Fournette and Henry...both those guys aren't helping their teams keep up with explosive offenses. And, importantly, the idea of handing the ball off to run out the clock also requires a very good defense; the Packers have a pretty good pass defense (if they bring Tramon back) but that run defense appears to need major work.

Because they are limited by the quarterback that’s handing the ball off. The Vikings offense becomes explosive and Cooke is running the ball well what is the Rams offense without Gurly running the ball well? The Ravens? Everyone was oooh’img and ahhhh’ing over the quarterback when it was a running back that made the offense go.

You put a power run game behind Aaron Rodgers And the offense becomes that much more explosive

 

[HardRightEdge]

27.6 carries a game is WAY too much unless it’s equally divided. These RBs play hard, and wear down in Q4. Now if between Jones, Williams and Dillon we get 25 to 30 carries, and keep the backs fresh, I’m ok with that. Dillon is the unknown.

Finally, I think Dillon can be a receiving threat. Maybe not as good as Jones, but Jones was a freak last year.

Dillon's 27.6 per game is touches, not carries, including 13 catches, about 1 per game. Anyway, that projects to 442 touches over a 16 game season which would rank 8th. all-time and 2nd. in the last decade with rule changes protecting QBs and receivers increasingly favoring passing. Of course that ain't happening.

I presented his touch count to indicate a possible reason why Boston College didn't throw to him much, not as any indication of what might happen in the NFL.

 

[HardRightEdge]

That said, a top-shelf running game, as unglamorous as it may seem, is key to winning in this NFL.

Kansas City won the Super Bowl. Do I need to elaborate? No, I think not.

There seems to an SF-19 virus going around in these parts.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Kansas City won the Super Bowl. Do I need to elaborate? No, I think not.

There seems to an SF-19 virus going around in these parts.

Nope. KC won on the arm of Mahomes.

But as age catches up on Rodgers, it makes sense for GB to focus on its running attack. If executed properly (and that depends on the execution of the players, we may see a radically different O from GB when’re they play. Seems like Guten is going in that direction with the selections of Dillon and the 3rd round TE.

The GB/SF NFCCG was an outlier. Not many teams are going to win passing the ball 11 times. They will win with a run game that produces well north of 250 yards. I suggest though that this run-heavy scheme has always been what MLF wanted to implement. We’ll find out this year if it works.

But it’s still a passing league, and whether the QB is throwing long or short, almost everything depends on how well that position executes, and how Rodgers adjusts to more reliance on the run, and probably shorter passes and an O centered around ball control.

And finally, I don’t think the Packers run D is as bad as it showed late last season. Like every other team, they can make adjustments with personnel (which they haven’t done) and scheme (that’s a MLF/Pettine decision). It doesn’t help that the Packers run D was so awful, especially in the second half of the season.

Do I think this makes the Packers better than SF this year? Hell no.

 

[Patriotplayer90]

I've seen Fournette and Henry...both those guys aren't helping their teams keep up with explosive offenses. And, importantly, the idea of handing the ball off to run out the clock also requires a very good defense; the Packers have a pretty good pass defense (if they bring Tramon back) but that run defense appears to need major work.

Tennessee was top 2 in both explosive running and passing plays and lead the league in points per play when Tannehill took over . And TN did beat KC in a shootout, at least during the regular season. But they had a much more well rounded WR/TE group with better weapons. Adams of course is as good as just about anyone, but there's a good reason why Tannehill suddenly started playing at an unprecedented level. Too bad they haven't done that for Rodgers' supporting cast

 

[swhitset]

That’s ok Sunshine. We all have different opinions and I respect yours.

That said, a top-shelf running game, as unglamorous as it may seem, is key to winning in this NFL. They help to control the clock, legitimize the RPO/jet sweep, and set up their teams for an impactful 60 minutes of play.

IMO, no one is going to take the reins from Rodgers. With his experience and intellect, I trust him to audible for a running play, just not as frequently in the pass. He needs to increase his discipline a bit and not always be looking for the home run.

No matter how we get there, we have to keep the foot on the gas in Q4. No lead is too much in this league, ask the Patriots. I have confidence in Rogers and Adams, and think one, maybe two WRs will take a jump. So we do like the Patriots - keep piling on points, regardless of the lead.

My biggest beef with MM is his tendency to play not to lose once he had a lead. All we need to look at is the 2014 NFCCG against the Hags. He sat down Burnett in an INT that should have been a dagger. Then he reverted to his running game, which gave us 3 and outs.

I’m not addressing the rest of your post... but blaming McCarthy for Burnett siting down on that pick is ludicrous. Exactly when do you think McCarthy had time to instruct him to do that?... As I recall it was Peppers that motioned for him to sit down on the ball.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

In the whole "lets do what SF does" suspect argument, it's interesting to note the Packers were the better 1st. down team last season.

Here's the Packers distances on 2nd. down courtesy of pro-football-reference's play finder tool:

2nd. Down Yards to Go / Number of Plays / % of 2nd. down plays

0-3 / 67 / 18.7%
4-6 / 87 /24.3%
7-10 / 153 / 42.7%
11+ / 51 / 14.2%

• Average YTG on 2nd. down = 7.55 yards
• 7+ YTG on 56.9% of 2nd. down plays
• Aaron Jones averaged 4.9 YPC and Jamaal Williams averaged 3.8 YPC on 1st. down. The net deficit relative to those rushing stats is a function of incompletions, sacks and penaties.

Here's the same data for SF:

0-3 / 50 / 14.7%
4-6 / 73 / 21.5%
7-10 / 150 / 44.1%
11+ / 67 / 19.7%

• Average YTG on 2nd. down = 8.10 yards
• 7+ YTG on 63.8% of 2nd. down plays

That takes us to SF's 2nd. down performance which was superior, jumping to better yards to go positions on 3rd. down.

Here's the Packer distances to go on 3rd. down:

0-3 / 37 /18.2%
4-6 / 57 / 28.1%
7-10 / 69 / 34.0%
11+ / 40 / 19.7%

• Avergage YTG on 3rd. down = 7.89 yards [Note: On average, the Packers lost yards on 2nd. down.]
• 7+ YTG on 53.7% of plays, a slight 3.2% improvement over 2nd. down
• Aaron Jones averaged 4.4 YPC and Jamaal Williams averaged 5.0 YPC on 2st. down

Here's the 49er distances to go on 3rd. down:

0-3 / 48 / 23.4%
4-6 / 64 / 31.2%
7-10 / 50 / 24.4%
11+ / 43 / 21.0%

• Average YTG on 3rd. down = 7.35 yards, a modest improvement
• 7+ YTG on 45.4% or 3rd. downs, a signifcant 18.4% reduction over their 2nd. down

So, if one wanted to be more like SF, it might be best to run a little more on 2nd. down with the horses already on board.

You ignored plays on first and second down that resulted in first downs, therefore your numbers are way off.

The Niners actually led the league in average yards gained on first down with 6.3 with the Packers ranking 24th at 4.9. San Francisco was seventh in first down percentage at 23.3%, Green Bay 28th (17.4%).

On second down the Packers (5.7 yards per attempt - 10th, 36.0% first downs - 6th) were actually the better team than the Niners (5.3 - 18th, 29.7% - 28th).

You describe aptly the “play not to lose” approach of MM. This doesn’t work. We should not be afraid to pile on points in Q4, and that means letting Rodgers and Adams go for the jugular until the final whistle. Full stop.

The Packers actually ranked fourth in points scored in the fourth quarter during McCarthy's tenure.

If you think handing the ball to a 240lb back that runs faster than most LBs not still trying to move the ball and imposing your will I really don't know what would be.

Surrounding your future HOF quarterback with talented receivers would be a decent start.

Thanks gopkrs. I’m not a fan or running the clock out. In this pass-friendly league a 14 pt Q4 advantage ain’t what it used to be (ask the Falcons).

For the record, only 29 teams have won a game after trailing by at least 14 points in the fourth quarter over the past 12 years.

You put a power run game behind Aaron Rodgers And the offense becomes that much more explosive

True, unfortunately the passing offense lacks enough talent on the receiving corps for Rodgers to perform up to potential.

I suggest though that this run-heavy scheme has always been what MLF wanted to implement. We’ll find out this year if it works.

In my opinion it was a wrong decision to hire MLF for head coach if that is true, especially considering the team hired him only one year after signing Rodgers to a massive extension with two years left on his deal.

But it’s still a passing league, and whether the QB is throwing long or short, almost everything depends on how well that position executes, and how Rodgers adjusts to more reliance on the run, and probably shorter passes and an O centered around ball control.

It's true the NFL is a passing league, therefore drafting Dillon and Deguara makes no sense at all.

 

[tynimiller]

Capt defending the concept of Dillon as a weapon has zero to do with wide receivers selected or not.

I swear this forum could talk about the color of lambeaus bathroom doors and it would some how have WR position drug into it....

 

[tynimiller]

No Ty, sorry for the confusion. In a (my) perfect world, GB comes close to perfecting the RB, RPO/jet seep options. Let Rodgers find receivers open in the flats underneath when ILBs move up on RPO. Keep the chains moving and eat clock, wear down Ds.

Limit the number of home run attempts by Rodgers, establish a ball/clock control game, and keep some key players fresh for Q4. Rodgers can still play a HUGE role in this scheme, and his overall numbers should improve (although it’s hard to improve on his INT percentage).

I admit, a lot depends on a) Dillon’s progression, b) Rodgers buy in, and c) executing these plays flawlessly, and that means an effective O line. The loss of Bulaga doesn’t help.

It’s really the old West Coast offense under a different name. As for Rodgers, winning eliminates a lot of hard feelings.

Agreed! Do this and those moments you do hand the ball off up the middle gets even deadlier too!

 

[GleefulGary]

Capt defending the concept of Dillon as a weapon has zero to do with wide receivers selected or not.

I swear this forum could talk about the color of lambeaus bathroom doors and it would some how have WR position drug into it....

He likes PFF, and PFF didn't like Dillon. Don't expect him to change his mind.

 

[DoURant]

If they drafted RBs early, then yup, I thought I was pretty clear on that. The guy that should have been the MVP for the Chiefs in the Super Bowl was an undrafted free agent. Please explain why you have to spend a high draft pick on a position where you can get 90-95% of the production in day 3?

I guess the NFL will just need to put in a new rule, stating that no RB'S are eligible to be drafted in the 1st or 2nd rds..

Reason #1, any RB can be successful and help a team after Rd 2.

Reason #2, all RB'S are interchangeable, regardless of size and skill set.

Reason #3, offensive scheme and what current RB'S are on teams rosters have no bearing on which RB the team should draft, they all bring the same attributes.

Reason #4 WE WANTED A WR DRAFTED, and that's the only skill position that could help the Packers offense moving forward.

 

[tynimiller]

He likes PFF, and PFF didn't like Dillon. Don't expect him to change his mind.

I don't mind someone not liking him...I just get sick of folks always dragging ever thread back to a WR issue

 

[Dantés]

You ignored plays on first and second down that resulted in first downs, therefore your numbers are way off.

The Niners actually led the league in average yards gained on first down with 6.3 with the Packers ranking 24th at 4.9. San Francisco was seventh in first down percentage at 23.3%, Green Bay 28th (17.4%).

On second down the Packers (5.7 yards per attempt - 10th, 36.0% first downs - 6th) were actually the better team than the Niners (5.3 - 18th, 29.7% - 28th).

In my opinion it was a wrong decision to hire MLF for head coach if that is true, especially considering the team hired him only one year after signing Rodgers to a massive extension with two years left on his deal.

It's true the NFL is a passing league, therefore drafting Dillon and Deguara makes no sense at all.

It makes absolutely no sense to laud the 49ers' offense and simultaneously criticize LaFleur for bringing the same system to Green Bay.

Of the following, you have to pick one:

1) The 49ers offense is really good-- better than the Packers.

2) Hiring LaFleur was the wrong decision if he wants to tie his passing offense to the run game.

Those two statements completely contradict one another. It's the same system.

You know who has invested a lot of cap space in a lead blocker and running backs? The 49ers. On of the first things Shanahan asked Lynch to do was invest an eyebrow raising contract in Jusczcyk. When a RB hit the market that he thought would work well in the offense, Jerick McKinnon, they gave him 4/30.

Shoot, they reportedly traded up to take Aiyuk based on intel that the Packers were going to do it if they didn't get to him first.

Here's what would be "the wrong decision": Hiring LaFleur to install this offense and then refusing to get him the pieces that he needs to run it properly and moving on because it happens that this offense ties the pass to the run.

The offense works. He's had one season.

 

[Dantés]

The following are offensive DVOA rankings. Look at the pattern in other places where this offense has been installed:

Washington: Note the slow start and then the huge uptick when the system clicked. In 2013, Griffin got hurt, his play regressed, and the whole thing fell apart.

• 2010, Shanahan yr 1 OC: 25th
• 2011, Shanahan yr 2 OC: 19th
• 2012, Shanahan yr 3 OC: 6th
• 2013, Shanahan yr 4 OC: 23rd

Cleveland: Shanahan was only the OC in Cleveland for one season. He barely moved the needle, with the DVOA moving up 4% points and still ranking in the bottom 3rd of the league.

• 2014, Shanahan yr 1 OC: 24th

Atlanta: The offense actually got dramatically worse his first year before a huge offensive surge really put Shanahan on the map.

• 2015, Shanahan yr 1 OC: 23rd
• 2016, Shanahan yr 2 OC: 1st

San Francisco: Again, very meager improvement in year one, and even a step backwards as they broke in struggled without a healthy Garoppolo, but an upward trajectory from then on.

• 2017, Shanahan yr 1 HC: 19th
• 2018, Shanahan yr 2 HC: 27th
• 2019, Shanahan yr 3 HC: 7th

So LaFleur got one season in Tennessee in which they largely struggled, but saw a big spike this season in what is largely the same offense (and in large part due to a big uptick in quality of QB play).

And he comes to Green Bay and radically changes the system without ideal personnel, and they were 8th in DVOA.

 

[Dantés]

Kansas City won the Super Bowl. Do I need to elaborate? No, I think not.

There seems to an SF-19 virus going around in these parts.

As it turns out, they hired a head coach who runs that offense.

That has surprisingly turned out to be breaking news to a lot of people this off-season.

 

[Dantés]

I don't mind someone not liking him...I just get sick of folks always dragging ever thread back to a WR issue

Well we wouldn't have to do all this dragging if Stupidkunst and LaIdiot HAD JUST GIVEN HIM A WR!!!! GAHHHH!!!!!!

 

[GleefulGary]

I'd like to point something out.

The Shanahan offense that LaFleur is running, is not predominantly a running offense. It is an offense based off of the run, but you're still passing more than you're running.

So what does that mean? It means a lot of play action, a lot of deception, a lot of scheme matchups, a lot of variability. It is a necessity to run the ball, so you can pass the ball. If you do one well, the other will follow. It's not a ground and pound offense. It's a pick your poison offense.

 

[Dantés]

I'd like to point something out.

The Shanahan offense that LaFleur is running, is not predominantly a running offense. It is an offense based off of the run, but you're still passing more than you're running.

So what does that mean? It means a lot of play action, a lot of deception, a lot of scheme matchups, a lot of variability. It is a necessity to run the ball, so you can pass the ball. If you do one well, the other will follow. It's not a ground and pound offense. It's a pick your poison offense.

Exactly. "Run First" is incorrect. "Run Based" or tying the pass to the run is more accurate.

The whole idea is to be able to pass efficiently out of offensive personnel that typically signal "running play" (e.g. 21, 12, 22, 13 personnel).

What's hilarious is that people think this is some sort of homage to cave man football that tells the analytics nerds to stick it.

Analytically, know what the most formations tend towards the highest passing efficiency? The heavy stuff. If you're dangerous through the air in big, "running" formations, you give teams a lot of problems.

 

[GleefulGary]

Exactly. "Run First" is incorrect. "Run Based" or tying the pass to the run is more accurate.

The whole idea is to be able to pass efficiently out of offensive personnel that typically signal "running play" (e.g. 21, 12, 22, 13 personnel).

What's hilarious is that people think this is some sort of homage to cave man football that tells the analytics nerds to stick it.

Analytically, know what the most formations tend towards the highest passing efficiency? The heavy stuff. If you're dangerous through the air in big, "running" formations, you give teams a lot of problems.

Yes!

They're going to have personnel that allows them to play in a variety of different packages. That way they can force a defense to play base or heavy, and then pass all over them. If a defense tries to play dime/nickel all game (I'm looking at you Mike Pettine), then run all over them.

That's why players like Sternberger and Deguara are important. Oh the defense went heavy? Stern splits out, Deguara can play in-line or off set, Adams obviously, Jones can even go to slot. I mean, a ton of options. That's the theory at least.

 

[HardRightEdge]

As it turns out, they hired a head coach who runs that offense.

That has surprisingly turned out to be breaking news to a lot of people this off-season.

Maybe not. Shanahan took a WR in the first round. That was not surprising. That Gutekunst took none at all certainly is.

 

[Dantés]

Maybe not. Shanahan took a WR in the first round. That was not surprising. That Gutekunst took none at all certainly is.

Yep... they traded up to take one because they believed Gutekunst was going to beat them to it if they didn't act. Who knows.

What we should all know, however, is that it's the same offense that's come to Green Bay.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

He likes PFF, and PFF didn't like Dillon. Don't expect him to change his mind.

Nobody liked Dillon as a second rounder. You never even mentioned him as a possible pick for the Packers or as a decent prospect on this forum before the draft.

But now, after the Packers selected him you want to turn him into the second coming of Derrick Henry before he has even taken a snap.

I'm sorry but there's no reason to buy into it.

It makes absolutely no sense to laud the 49ers' offense and simultaneously criticize LaFleur for bringing the same system to Green Bay.

I didn't laud the Niners offense nor criticize MLF for bringing the same system to Green Bay.

What I'm picking on is that it doesn't make any sense to sign Rodgers to a massive extension and then turn around and hire a head coach who doesn't want to tailor his offense around the quarterback's strengths.

 

[Dantés]

I didn't laud the Niners offense nor criticize MLF for bringing the same system to Green Bay.

What I'm picking on is that it doesn't make any sense to sign Rodgers to a massive extension and then turn around and hire a head coach who doesn't want to tailor his offense around the quarterback's strengths.

I don't see how LaFleur's desire to bring some balance to the offense or his system in general fails to play to Rodgers strengths. Seems to me that that's a pretty good idea for a 36 year old quarterback.

 

[GleefulGary]

Nobody liked Dillon as a second rounder. You never even mentioned him as a possible pick for the Packers or as a decent prospect on this forum before the draft.

But now, after the Packers selected him you want to turn him into the second coming of Derrick Henry before he has even taken a snap.

I'm sorry but there's no reason to buy into it.

Oh I do? I haven't ever mentioned Henry in regards to Dillon. I didn't even like the pick, man.

I do think Dillon is a good player, and I think PFF not having him in their top 250 is mind blowingly stupid.

Don't lie, okay?