Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Personnel Formations
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="HardRightEdge" data-source="post: 874272"><p>There's a much simpler way to look at it along with some overlooked facts.</p><p></p><p>2019 WR Snaps: 254% inluding playoffs, i.e., averaging 3 WRs on 54% of plays</p><p>2018 WR Snaps: 272%, i.e., averaging 3 WRs on 72% of plays</p><p></p><p>While that is a meaningful difference, there are other considerations:</p><p></p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Adding up the OP's 1, 2 and 3 WR sets for 2018, it comes up to only 90%. In 2019 it comes up to 98%. Zero WR sets are pretty rare. I'm going ahead without looking it up to say that 8% diference is in McCarthy's favoring <em><strong>4 WR sets </strong></em>which we already knew to be the case<strong>.</strong> Half the difference is in total snap count percentage is in those 4th. WRs..</li> </ul> <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">WRs do not take 100% of snaps even if they sustain no injuries. At the least, a guy runs a couple of deep routes in a row and he takes a blow, he sits a play or two after a big hit even without concussion protocol, he gets pulled on a running play or two to stay fresh. The highest Packer WR single season snap count since 2012 when they started counting this stuff was Nelson at 97% in 2013. The next highest was Nelson's 93% in 2016.</li> </ul> <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Even using last year's 254% total WR snap count and assuming no injuries to any of the top 3, the top 3 snap count split looks more like 95%, 95%, 64%.</li> </ul> <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">What are the odds that the top 3 go 48 for 48 in starts, nore with playoffs? Slim to none. Let's say one of the top 2 misses 2 games, a pretty fortunate circumstance as it is. Then the split looks more like 95%, 83%, 76%. If it's 4 games as with Adams last season, the do the math. If the #3 misses two games then you need somebody of some adequacy to take those 54% snaps on average for two games.</li> </ul> <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">In comparing the two seasons, there is no reason to the think the #3 receiver is not an important position. It's the #4 that is diminished in value under LaFleur with those 4 wide sets being reduced to near zero. But you'll wish you had an adequte #4 if injuries strike.</li> </ul><p></p><p>Sacks are passing plays.</p><p></p><p>Rodgers is not Lamar Jackson. I can recall one called QB sneak last season. Rodgers QB options? LOL I think he ad libbed one when he didn't like the run audible and just took the ball himself rather the TO. There are some kneel downs in there. The rest of his runs are pass plays.</p><p></p><p>I'm not going to figure out how many kneel downs there are in these stats which amount to non-plays, but the tally for the two years are as follows which skew the passing percent upward for the two years even if the spread is wider.</p><p></p><p>Packers 2018: Sacks + QB runs = 82 snaps</p><p>Packers 2019: Sacks + QB runs = 101 snaps</p><p></p><p>And it stands to reason if you're losing more games as in 2018 vs. 2019, you're forced to throw more which may have more to do with the yearly differences than any schematic preference other than the 4-wide issue.</p><p></p><p>SF drafted a WR in the 1st. round to go with their collection of 2nd. and 3rd. rounders while also signing their version of Funchess in adding a grissled vet with recent injury issues in Travis Benjamin. Perhaps the 49ers believed they ran too much, which is not a radical proposition.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="HardRightEdge, post: 874272"] There's a much simpler way to look at it along with some overlooked facts. 2019 WR Snaps: 254% inluding playoffs, i.e., averaging 3 WRs on 54% of plays 2018 WR Snaps: 272%, i.e., averaging 3 WRs on 72% of plays While that is a meaningful difference, there are other considerations: [LIST] [*]Adding up the OP's 1, 2 and 3 WR sets for 2018, it comes up to only 90%. In 2019 it comes up to 98%. Zero WR sets are pretty rare. I'm going ahead without looking it up to say that 8% diference is in McCarthy's favoring [I][B]4 WR sets [/B][/I]which we already knew to be the case[B].[/B] Half the difference is in total snap count percentage is in those 4th. WRs.. [/LIST] [LIST] [*]WRs do not take 100% of snaps even if they sustain no injuries. At the least, a guy runs a couple of deep routes in a row and he takes a blow, he sits a play or two after a big hit even without concussion protocol, he gets pulled on a running play or two to stay fresh. The highest Packer WR single season snap count since 2012 when they started counting this stuff was Nelson at 97% in 2013. The next highest was Nelson's 93% in 2016. [/LIST] [LIST] [*]Even using last year's 254% total WR snap count and assuming no injuries to any of the top 3, the top 3 snap count split looks more like 95%, 95%, 64%. [/LIST] [LIST] [*]What are the odds that the top 3 go 48 for 48 in starts, nore with playoffs? Slim to none. Let's say one of the top 2 misses 2 games, a pretty fortunate circumstance as it is. Then the split looks more like 95%, 83%, 76%. If it's 4 games as with Adams last season, the do the math. If the #3 misses two games then you need somebody of some adequacy to take those 54% snaps on average for two games. [/LIST] [LIST] [*]In comparing the two seasons, there is no reason to the think the #3 receiver is not an important position. It's the #4 that is diminished in value under LaFleur with those 4 wide sets being reduced to near zero. But you'll wish you had an adequte #4 if injuries strike. [/LIST] Sacks are passing plays. Rodgers is not Lamar Jackson. I can recall one called QB sneak last season. Rodgers QB options? LOL I think he ad libbed one when he didn't like the run audible and just took the ball himself rather the TO. There are some kneel downs in there. The rest of his runs are pass plays. I'm not going to figure out how many kneel downs there are in these stats which amount to non-plays, but the tally for the two years are as follows which skew the passing percent upward for the two years even if the spread is wider. Packers 2018: Sacks + QB runs = 82 snaps Packers 2019: Sacks + QB runs = 101 snaps And it stands to reason if you're losing more games as in 2018 vs. 2019, you're forced to throw more which may have more to do with the yearly differences than any schematic preference other than the 4-wide issue. SF drafted a WR in the 1st. round to go with their collection of 2nd. and 3rd. rounders while also signing their version of Funchess in adding a grissled vet with recent injury issues in Travis Benjamin. Perhaps the 49ers believed they ran too much, which is not a radical proposition. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
No members online now.
Latest posts
How much time?
Latest: Thirteen Below
40 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
H
Bucks 2024-25 Season Thread
Latest: Heyjoe4
Today at 3:55 PM
Milwaukee Bucks Forum
R
Always Fun To Read These Stories
Latest: rmontro
Today at 2:58 PM
Brett Favre Discussion
2025 Roster - Semi Live Thread
Latest: Pokerbrat2000
Today at 1:44 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Top 30 Visits 2025
Latest: DoURant
Today at 12:59 PM
Draft Talk
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Personnel Formations
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top
