Pass to RBs more under Lafleur?

[GreenNGold_81]

The Packers should definitely run the ball more often this season but the offensive line isn't build to excel in a power running scheme.



I have to agree with mradtke that it is one of the most idiotic points someone has tried to make on this forum in a long time.

If you truly think that to be correct isn't it all Rodgers fault for not being able to make up for the deficiencies of offensive line not being able to make up for the deficiences of others???

No. The argument was whether the line was one of the best pass blocking lines in the league. Don't create a straw man to weasel out of making a ridiculous claim. My argument that they can't be because they gave up the third most sacks in the league is going to be the winner here.

 

[mradtke66]

My argument that they can't be because they gave up the third most sacks in the league

The offensive line did not give up the 3rd most sacks in the league.

The Packers as a whole gave up the 3rd most sacks in the league.

Potentially every player on the field could bear some or all of the blame a particular sack.

Miss a block--you're at fault. (Line, backs, and TE.)

Run a bad route or wrong route--you're at fault. (All eligible receivers.)

Miss a check--you're at fault. (All players.)

Hold the ball too long--you're at fault. (QB)

Refuse to throw the ball on time--you're at fault. (QB)

Prematurely leave a clean pocket--you're at fault. (QB)

Miss an overload blitz and slide the protection appropriately--you're at fault. (Scheme dependent, usually QB, sometimes Center)

Misidentify the unblocked man due to scheme/playcall and make an adjustment--you're at fault. (Again, usually QB)

It goes on and on.

To assign blame for sacks solely to the offensive line is asinine.

The only sane approach is to watch each sack, breakdown what happened, how long the sack took, what's the playcall, etc, and assign blame. Some will be entirely on the back of line. All of them won't be.

 

[GreenNGold_81]

The offensive line did not give up the 3rd most sacks in the league.

The Packers as a whole gave up the 3rd most sacks in the league.

Potentially every player on the field could bear some or all of the blame a particular sack.

Miss a block--you're at fault. (Line, backs, and TE.)

Run a bad route or wrong route--you're at fault. (All eligible receivers.)

Miss a check--you're at fault. (All players.)

Hold the ball too long--you're at fault. (QB)

Refuse to throw the ball on time--you're at fault. (QB)

Prematurely leave a clean pocket--you're at fault. (QB)

Miss an overload blitz and slide the protection appropriately--you're at fault. (Scheme dependent, usually QB, sometimes Center)

Misidentify the unblocked man due to scheme/playcall and make an adjustment--you're at fault. (Again, usually QB)

It goes on and on.

To assign blame for sacks solely to the offensive line is asinine.

The only sane approach is to watch each sack, breakdown what happened, how long the sack took, what's the playcall, etc, and assign blame. Some will be entirely on the back of line. All of them won't be.

It looks like you're coming around. So, after all you've learned would you say that in 2018 the Packers had "one of the best pass blocking offensive lines"?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

No. The argument was whether the line was one of the best pass blocking lines in the league. Don't create a straw man to weasel out of making a ridiculous claim. My argument that they can't be because they gave up the third most sacks in the league is going to be the winner here.

You're the one creating a straw by blaming the offensive line not being able to make up for the mistakes of others. I just tried to make you understand that's a ludicrous claim.

 

[mradtke66]

It looks like you're coming around. So, after all you've learned would you say that in 2018 the Packers had "one of the best pass blocking offensive lines"?

You need to re-read my post. I still disagree with your argument.

 

[GreenNGold_81]

It looks like you guys aren't getting it.

If a line is "one of the best" at pass blocking, then presumably they'd be in the top 5.

I suppose it'd be good to hear your arguments on how they would beat the following teams in terms of rankings.

Indianapolis Colts: 18 sacks, 77 Qb hits.
New Orleans Saints: 20 sacks, 52 QB hits.
NE Patriots: 21 sacks, 68 QB hits
Pittsburgh Steelers: 24 sacks, 72 QB hits.
KC Chiefs: 26 sacks, 106 QB hits.
*
*
*
*
*
*
Green Bay Packers: 53 sacks, 102 QB hits.

 

[mradtke66]

If a line is "one of the best" at pass blocking, then presumably they'd be in the top 5.

Not necessarily--there could be a great many teams with excellent pass blocking lines.

I suppose it'd be good to hear your arguments on how they would beat the following teams in terms of rankings.

Indianapolis Colts: 18 sacks, 77 Qb hits.
New Orleans Saints: 20 sacks, 52 QB hits.
NE Patriots: 21 sacks, 68 QB hits
Pittsburgh Steelers: 24 sacks, 72 QB hits.
KC Chiefs: 26 sacks, 106 QB hits.
*
*
*
*
*
*
Green Bay Packers: 53 sacks, 102 QB hits.

Because responsibility for a sack does not necessarily fall on the offensive line. Some of that 53, sure, offensive line. How many of those are the fault of someone else? Without that information the stat is useful to compare teams.

Further, without some stat digging, I'd have more questions. Off the top of my head:

• How many passing snaps did each team have? I'm more interested in rate rather than volume stats.

• How many of those hits and/or sacks were due to Rodgers' injury and lack mobility?

 

[gopkrs]

Not necessarily--there could be a great many teams with excellent pass blocking lines.

I suppose it'd be good to hear your arguments on how they would beat the following teams in terms of rankings.



Because responsibility for a sack does not necessarily fall on the offensive line. Some of that 53, sure, offensive line. How many of those are the fault of someone else? Without that information the stat startis useful to compare teams.

Further, without some stat digging, I'd have more questions. Off the top of my head:

• How many passing snaps did each team have? I'm more interested in rate rather than volume stats.

• How many of those hits and/or sacks were due to Rodgers' injury and lack mobility?

It is a very good point that oftentimes a statistic given necessarily needs more statistics to actually start getting to the point where there is some kind of definitive answer. At least that's what I get out of your response.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Not necessarily--there could be a great many teams with excellent pass blocking lines.

I suppose it'd be good to hear your arguments on how they would beat the following teams in terms of rankings.



Because responsibility for a sack does not necessarily fall on the offensive line. Some of that 53, sure, offensive line. How many of those are the fault of someone else? Without that information the stat is useful to compare teams.

Further, without some stat digging, I'd have more questions. Off the top of my head:

• How many passing snaps did each team have? I'm more interested in rate rather than volume stats.

• How many of those hits and/or sacks were due to Rodgers' injury and lack mobility?

And how much separation are the WRs and TEs creating? You can only expect the OL to cover for so long, even the best.

 

[mradtke66]

It is a very good point that oftentimes a statistic given necessarily needs more statistics to actually start getting to the point where there is some kind of definitive answer. At least that's what I get out of your response.

You've got the gist of it.

 

[mradtke66]

And how much separation are the WRs and TEs creating? You can only expect the OL to cover for so long, even the best.

Exactly.

Or, did the line do a super-great job, but the running back responsible for the blitzing DB completely blow it?

There is entirely too much fault to go around to just pin it on one guy. Or one group.

It is a team sport, after all.

 

[gopkrs]

You've got the gist of it.

Actually though, I agree that a stat on how many sacks a team allows says something about their O line.

 

[mradtke66]

Actually though, I agree that a stat on how many sacks a team allows says something about their O line.

It certainly could.

In the extreme, hypothetical example, if our starting 5 blocked a 5-man rush consisting to 2 LTs and 3 Reggie Whites. AND IT'S BEAUTIFUL. 4 SECOND POCKET!!!!

....but then Aaron Jones falls flat on his face and whiffs when try to get the 6th man--let's say say Charlie Peprah with 2 sprained ankles--and does such a bad job, he tears an ACL in the process. Rodgers is sacked, fumbles, Touchday Seattle, Tom Brady suspended 4 games for generally being aware of Charlie Peprah...

Bad humor aside, what does that (obviously made up play) tell you about our offensive line?

 

[GreenNGold_81]

Not necessarily--there could be a great many teams with excellent pass blocking lines.

Because responsibility for a sack does not necessarily fall on the offensive line. Some of that 53, sure, offensive line. How many of those are the fault of someone else? Without that information the stat is useful to compare teams.

Further, without some stat digging, I'd have more questions. Off the top of my head:

• How many passing snaps did each team have? I'm more interested in rate rather than volume stats.

• How many of those hits and/or sacks were due to Rodgers' injury and lack mobility?

How about the fact the stats were nearly identical to the year before in 2017? QB hits 104, QB sacks 51. Hard to blame Rodgers lack of mobility when he was out for the season for half of it.

Also Rodgers was sacked on 8% of passing plays last year. Only about 8-9 notable QB's had a worse stat. source: https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/player-stat/passing-plays-sacked?rate=per-passing-play

 

[Deleted member 6794]

It looks like you guys aren't getting it.

If a line is "one of the best" at pass blocking, then presumably they'd be in the top 5.

I suppose it'd be good to hear your arguments on how they would beat the following teams in terms of rankings.

Indianapolis Colts: 18 sacks, 77 Qb hits.
New Orleans Saints: 20 sacks, 52 QB hits.
NE Patriots: 21 sacks, 68 QB hits
Pittsburgh Steelers: 24 sacks, 72 QB hits.
KC Chiefs: 26 sacks, 106 QB hits.
*
*
*
*
*
*
Green Bay Packers: 53 sacks, 102 QB hits.

You're the one not getting it. There's no doubt that Rodgers was sacked and hit way too often last season but according to PFF the offensive line was to blame for only 30 of those sacks and 49 of the hits. There were other players responsible for a good percentage of #12 being pressured.

In addition while the starting OL excelled in pass protection the team lacked quality depth.

Actually though, I agree that a stat on how many sacks a team allows says something about their O line.

There have been several posts over the past few days explaining why that statement isn't necessarily true.

 

[GreenNGold_81]

You're the one not getting it. There's no doubt that Rodgers was sacked and hit way too often last season but according to PFF the offensive line was to blame for only 30 of those sacks and 49 of the hits. There were other players responsible for a good percentage of #12 being pressured.

In addition while the starting OL excelled in pass protection the team lacked quality depth.



There have been several posts over the past few days explaining why that statement isn't necessarily true.

Newsflash Wimm... The same argument could be made for the teams who ranked much better in terms of sacks and QB hits effectively lowering their stats too. Hence why I've argued we do not have one of the best pass blocking lines in the league. BECAUSE WE DON'T.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Newsflash Wimm... The same argument could be made for the teams who ranked much better in terms of sacks and QB hits effectively lowering their stats too. Hence why I've argued we do not have one of the best pass blocking lines in the league. BECAUSE WE DON'T.

A lot of different things factor into the performance of an offensive line, something PFF considered when ranking the units in pass protection. Therefore it's smart to trust their opinion instead of listening to a random poster on a forum who solely bases his opinion on the total amount of sacks and hits.

 

[mradtke66]

Newsflash Wimm... The same argument could be made for the teams who ranked much better in terms of sacks and QB hits effectively lowering their stats too. Hence why I've argued we do not have one of the best pass blocking lines in the league. BECAUSE WE DON'T.

Can we though?

Certainly, we should not use total sacks as the metric--it will lie to us.

For example, if we consider Team A giving up 16 sacks all year vs Team B giving up 53, you would argue that A is better.

Turns out Team A only called 16 pass plays all year and Team didn't call a running play at all. Who's the better line?

Next, if we have Team X and Team Y. Team X gave up 35 sacks, Team Y gave up 45. Again, you seem to think Team X is the better line.

Analysis shows that X's o-line gave up every single sack. Team Y had 25 of their 45 charged to the o-line. Again, do you still think X has the better o-line?

Sack count is concerning and I have no problem with the first reaction to be suspect the line, but it should prompt more questions, not declarations. Simple data points should make you say, "Hrmmm...." and go look for more data.

 

[gopkrs]

A lot of different things factor into the performance of an offensive line, something PFF considered when ranking the units in pass protection. Therefore it's smart to trust their opinion instead of listening to a random poster on a forum who solely bases his opinion on the total amount of sacks and hits.

I am not so sure it is certain that PFF are a bunch of statistical geniuses. You may like them and take their word as God. Not something I prescribe to. So you might say...well they know more than us. And I might say...well people that don't blame the O line for a large amount of sacks can't be all that bright. They are overthinking it imho. We'll see if there is an improvement this year.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Exactly.

Or, did the line do a super-great job, but the running back responsible for the blitzing DB completely blow it?

There is entirely too much fault to go around to just pin it on one guy. Or one group.

It is a team sport, after all.

Yep. 11 guys on the field last I counted.

It seemed like there were a few years, maybe 2015, 2016 when Adams was still growing, Jordy had been injured, and you could see at the field level the receivers were covered like a blanket. And your point about the RB (or FB or TE) throwing a chip or block on a lone blitzing DB. The OL won’t pick those up most of the time.

I expect the OL will be better this year with the off season additions. Depth is an issue but it’s an issue for just about every NFL team. I’m still waiting for Spriggs to make some kind of improvement, especially given Bulaga’s injury history.

It’ll be a better line than last year.

 

[GreenNGold_81]

A lot of different things factor into the performance of an offensive line, something PFF considered when ranking the units in pass protection. Therefore it's smart to trust their opinion instead of listening to a random poster on a forum who solely bases his opinion on the total amount of sacks and hits.

See, even that's a ridiculous statement because for the amount of sacks given up by the line according to their standards (which is likely subjective anyway) it's still greater than the top 5 for the league. All of the top 5 lines according to sacks and hits as listed above have less than 30 sacks.

To summarize, even in the best case scenario, they still give up way more sacks than many other teams. My opinion is not altered by the analysis of PFF. If you're going to be a top line, you shouldn't allow the QB to hit the deck as often as Rodgers has for the last TWO YEARS.

 

[GreenNGold_81]

Can we though?

Certainly, we should not use total sacks as the metric--it will lie to us.

For example, if we consider Team A giving up 16 sacks all year vs Team B giving up 53, you would argue that A is better.

Turns out Team A only called 16 pass plays all year and Team didn't call a running play at all. Who's the better line?

Next, if we have Team X and Team Y. Team X gave up 35 sacks, Team Y gave up 45. Again, you seem to think Team X is the better line.

Analysis shows that X's o-line gave up every single sack. Team Y had 25 of their 45 charged to the o-line. Again, do you still think X has the better o-line?

Sack count is concerning and I have no problem with the first reaction to be suspect the line, but it should prompt more questions, not declarations. Simple data points should make you say, "Hrmmm...." and go look for more data.

Hence why I posted the total sack percentage per pass play which is still near the bottom of the league, and not indicative AT ALL of an elite pass blocking oline. Obviously that's affected by the denominator, but if your QB is sacked on 8% of passing plays, it's not an elite pass blocking line IMO.

 

[mradtke66]

Hence why I posted the total sack percentage per pass play which is still near the bottom of the league, and not indicative AT ALL of an elite pass blocking oline. Obviously that's affected by the denominator, but if your QB is sacked on 8% of passing plays, it's not an elite pass blocking line IMO.

I don't dispute the count of sacks.

You have yet to provide any analysis or facts that demonstrates how many of those 53 are the fault of the offensive line.

 

[GreenNGold_81]

I don't dispute the count of sacks.

You have yet to provide any analysis or facts that demonstrates how many of those 53 are the fault of the offensive line.

I haven't had to, Wimm did several posts ago, it's 30 "according to PFF".

 

[mradtke66]

I haven't had to, Wimm did several posts ago, it's 30 "according to PFF".

Then the next question is:

How many sacks did each other offensive line get charged with? And what is their sack/rate based on that count?

That isn't the end of the analysis, but it's the next step.

The follow up questions will be in the vein of:

a) average time to sack? 2.5 seconds or longer is typically considered a win for pass blocking.

If another team team gives up fewer sacks, BUT they happen quicker, who's the better line? 20 sacks in 1.5 seconds is worse, in my opinion, than 40 in 3 seconds. That however is subjective.