It isn't just stats, the offense simply didn't go 3 and out or "bust" as often as you are trying to act like they did. The biggest reason for TOP differences and for the defense getting gassed is because said defense couldn't get itself off the field without giving up long time consuming drives.
Road offense?
- Thread starter red4tribe
- Start date
Enough to say they either scored fast or got off the field fast or that them punting quickly "happened often" Seems like you were saying that it happened a lot.
Kind of thought our patchwork offense did ok for being that, a patchworked offense. Also having a short week, and going against defensive teams kind of takes its toll. Another thing I always think is that since the Packers are one of the NFL better teams, there is more satification beating them than say the Bears right now.
D
Deleted member 6794
Guest
The Packers offense had the fewest punts per drive and the second fewest three-and-outs in the league last season. In addition the offense ranked fifh in time of possession per drive. Sometimes using stats really is better than trusting your memory.
And why is this relegated to one year? And why just 3 and out? If you run 6 plays and get 25 yards on one play then punt, is that good? There's more to an offense than overall stats. Maybe they aren't better? Torture stats and they'll tell you anything.
Sunshinepacker
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2013
- Messages
- 5,824
- Reaction score
- 949
You seem like you're going out of your way to dismiss the stats. Every other team in the NFL is also going to see the 6 plays and 25 yards you paint. That will, for the most part, balance out. Having the second fewest three-and-outs in the NFL means that the defense is not getting put directly back on the field that often, so that's why it's relevant.
When comparing offenses across the league, over the course of time, stats are pretty much the only way to accomplish it. What other option is there? A dart board? Our collective memories of highlights and lowlights, ignoring the majority of plays? Keep in mind that psychologists have proven, without a doubt, that people's memories are poor and that we only remember really good and really bad, we forgot the middling stuff and that middling stuff is what makes up the majority of an NFL game.
And, a 3 and out isnt the only way to put a defense back on the field. And the offense isn't the only reason they were out there so much, its not even close to what I am saying,but they haven't always helped either.
All you stat guys every game for the past 3 years or so. Tell me how many scoring drives we've had less than 10 plays. Tell me how many 3rd or 2nd and longs do we convert? We were pretty good at it, but it still doesn't mean we were not boom or bust.
You guys seem to want to think I'm saying our league leading offenses somehow sucked??? And yeah I discount stats because you can massage them anyway you'd like. If we're 3rd and 8+ often and convert, it shows we don't go 3 and out, but there is no doubt that offensive coordinators are looking thru the "big play" section of their play calling.
All you stat guys every game for the past 3 years or so. Tell me how many scoring drives we've had less than 10 plays. Tell me how many 3rd or 2nd and longs do we convert? We were pretty good at it, but it still doesn't mean we were not boom or bust.
You guys seem to want to think I'm saying our league leading offenses somehow sucked??? And yeah I discount stats because you can massage them anyway you'd like. If we're 3rd and 8+ often and convert, it shows we don't go 3 and out, but there is no doubt that offensive coordinators are looking thru the "big play" section of their play calling.
Sunshinepacker
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2013
- Messages
- 5,824
- Reaction score
- 949
There is a grey area between 'perfect' and 'sucks'. Just because someone points out a couple of stats that indicate an offense isn't perfect, doesn't mean that someone is trying to say the offense sucks.
I realize we run the ball a bit more than average. The reason why I suggest running even more on the road is so that we can marginalize our weakness on the edges. At home Rodgers cadence slows down the rush and buys himself the extra time needed to pick defenses apart. On the road he doesn't have this advantage. My questions are two fold, how many sacks does Aaron Rodgers take in road venues and is there any data on his average amount of time in the pocket on the road? As for PA, no I don't expect an extra box defender. Rather I want to force opposing defensive forts to contract their defensive lines, which will make it easier for passing game and improve protection.
D
Deleted member 6794
Guest
The Packers have had a total of 170 scoring drives lasting less than 10 plays over the last three season. That is the third-highest number in the league behind the Broncos and Patriots. On the other side the team has had 75 scoring drives with more than 10 plays which ranks 9th in the league.
On third-and-long (7+ yards) the Packers have converted a total of 95 (tied for 17th) out of 315 plays for a success rate of 30.2% (6th).
Rodgers has been sacked 113 times in 53 games at home compared to 144 in 54 road games. As of right now Rodgers had an average of 2.86 second to throw at home compared to 3.11 on the road this season.
well the hypothesis is still good. because we've been near the top of the league in low play scoring drives? clearly no boom in there LOL. Most of you see only what you want in stats.
and just above middle for drives over 10 plays. I wonder how many more are just 11 or 12? not that it matters but if we go 2 yards on first, or get 12 on 2nd, or get 11+ on first downs, it doesn't show up in a 3rd and whatever stat. Where does GB rank in plays of 10 yards plus? I can predict it's near the top. clearly no boom. and those are nice conversion rates for the 3rd down, but how do our number of plays rank? that would be important too, not just the conversion. something else that would be important, how many yards are covered on these drives? It could easily be we have had short fields for the past 3 years with our vaunted special teams, thus a higher number of <10 play drives as it was that we ate up big chunks of yards on long drives resulting in a less than 10 play drive. Like I said, stats can say anything and nothing at all.
and where do all the stats come from? But you guys are probably right, our offense has not relied on the big play. We've been a ball control methodical, 4-5 yards a play, 3rd and short team for the past 5 years
and just above middle for drives over 10 plays. I wonder how many more are just 11 or 12? not that it matters but if we go 2 yards on first, or get 12 on 2nd, or get 11+ on first downs, it doesn't show up in a 3rd and whatever stat. Where does GB rank in plays of 10 yards plus? I can predict it's near the top. clearly no boom. and those are nice conversion rates for the 3rd down, but how do our number of plays rank? that would be important too, not just the conversion. something else that would be important, how many yards are covered on these drives? It could easily be we have had short fields for the past 3 years with our vaunted special teams, thus a higher number of <10 play drives as it was that we ate up big chunks of yards on long drives resulting in a less than 10 play drive. Like I said, stats can say anything and nothing at all.
and where do all the stats come from? But you guys are probably right, our offense has not relied on the big play. We've been a ball control methodical, 4-5 yards a play, 3rd and short team for the past 5 years
D
Deleted member 6794
Guest
and just above middle for drives over 10 plays. I wonder how many more are just 11 or 12? not that it matters but if we go 2 yards on first, or get 12 on 2nd, or get 11+ on first downs, it doesn't show up in a 3rd and whatever stat. Where does GB rank in plays of 10 yards plus? I can predict it's near the top. clearly no boom. and those are nice conversion rates for the 3rd down, but how do our number of plays rank? that would be important too, not just the conversion. something else that would be important, how many yards are covered on these drives? It could easily be we have had short fields for the past 3 years with our vaunted special teams, thus a higher number of <10 play drives as it was that we ate up big chunks of yards on long drives resulting in a less than 10 play drive. Like I said, stats can say anything and nothing at all.
and where do all the stats come from? But you guys are probably right, our offense has not relied on the big play. We've been a ball control methodical, 4-5 yards a play, 3rd and short team for the past 5 years
There's no doubt the Packers offense has relied on big plays over the last three seasons. I have a hard time understanding why this is a bad thing though.
Because there were plenty of times where 4-5 yards at a time, sustain a drive, keep the defense off the field, keep their offense off the field, eat up time drives would have been very helpful, yet we'd go incomplete on 1st down(stop clock), incomplete on 2nd down (stop clock), 11 yards on 3rd down. 10 yards on 1st down, holding, incomplete or 2 yard run, and then incomplete 3rd down and punt.
I like balance, I think we're better when we're not always looking for a 20 yard play. I think Rodgers gets hit less, even with 2 subpar tackles. Oh i'm sure there's a stat for hits this year and it's probably more, and we've also played Seattle, KC, the 9er's and that other team on opening day, so post them if you must, I they still don't tell the entire story.
D
Deleted member 6794
Guest
The Packers offense has been one of the best in the league over the last three seasons yet you act like they have mostly been terrible over that period.
Teams have to go for the big play from time to time to open up things in the short and medium range.
BTW there were 15 QBs who attempted more throws over 20 yards than Rodgers last season but you'll probably dismiss this stat as well cause it doesn't match with what you remember.
Never once have I said anything about this offence being terrible. Pretty sure I mentioned that a couple times and people still chose to interpret it that way. Thinking a team can do something and be better does not mean one is saying they are terrible.
Just last year? Why not weeks 1-4. Why not last 2 years? Why not pick them from just road games against AFC. And you're right, I don't care what 15 other qbs did as so many variables are different and I probably didn't watch any of them.
Just last year? Why not weeks 1-4. Why not last 2 years? Why not pick them from just road games against AFC. And you're right, I don't care what 15 other qbs did as so many variables are different and I probably didn't watch any of them.
D
Deleted member 6794
Guest
I posted that you act like the offense has been terrible.
Whatever, why let facts get in the way when your memory knows it all.
I'm fine with people not being huge stats guys but when proven wrong you should be able to admit it.
Sunshinepacker
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2013
- Messages
- 5,824
- Reaction score
- 949
It's not. I don't have the stats but a big play increases the probability of your offense scoring a huge amount. It's actually pretty rare for a team to score points without some kind of big play during a drive.
you're right, your exactly right. Our offense has been extremely efficient, we never relied on big plays, we didn't rely to heavily on the pass in the past, not ever, throwing 3 passes with one being complete for 25 yards is a great way to sustain an offense, especially in cold games against good defenses. We should go back to looking for the long ball frequently, Rodgers can move, I doesn't matter the protections.
I don't think we hit on big plays in the past because we set them up with smaller ones. I think we hit a lot of big plays because our offense ran a lot of plays to get the ball down field in chunks. He took some hits for it too, and we lost some big games. Our offense has been better since most of last year, i'll take that offense over anything we had before. Or should I check and see what the stats say? I prefer a RB catching a check down. then taking a hit waiting on a guy to come free 18 yards down field. I prefer the ball getting out quickly most of the time to save hits on my QB. I prefer the longer pass come off play action when it's been set up. I prefer the way our offense has been for the past 12 months than what it had been in the past. I think Rodgers is continuing to grow in the regard as is the rest of the offense. I think it will be better having to rely on something else for a while, because we have they guys to gut defenses and just keep moving the chains. Our first long pass in the last game, though incomplete was perfect. A team expecting something else, an open receiver, and a QB with some time. Compared to a good chunk of the later part of the game where we seemed to go back to looking for the big play and he was running all over and getting hit. I love to see Rodgers get hit, it's exciting right?
But you're right, your stats have proven me "wrong" ....in your opinion
Carry on
I don't think we hit on big plays in the past because we set them up with smaller ones. I think we hit a lot of big plays because our offense ran a lot of plays to get the ball down field in chunks. He took some hits for it too, and we lost some big games. Our offense has been better since most of last year, i'll take that offense over anything we had before. Or should I check and see what the stats say? I prefer a RB catching a check down. then taking a hit waiting on a guy to come free 18 yards down field. I prefer the ball getting out quickly most of the time to save hits on my QB. I prefer the longer pass come off play action when it's been set up. I prefer the way our offense has been for the past 12 months than what it had been in the past. I think Rodgers is continuing to grow in the regard as is the rest of the offense. I think it will be better having to rely on something else for a while, because we have they guys to gut defenses and just keep moving the chains. Our first long pass in the last game, though incomplete was perfect. A team expecting something else, an open receiver, and a QB with some time. Compared to a good chunk of the later part of the game where we seemed to go back to looking for the big play and he was running all over and getting hit. I love to see Rodgers get hit, it's exciting right?
But you're right, your stats have proven me "wrong" ....in your opinion
Carry on
DavidRusso
Cheesehead
Our Home/Road splits are always insane. So as long as we keep homefield, we should be fine. GB on a neutral field is fine with me in a SB because the Packer faithful always fills a stadium.
