Studs and duds bear game

[Sunshinepacker]

It's likely you only hear it about the Packers offense because you follow the team more closely than other teams.

No, I hear about it because people keep making excuses about how terrible the passing game is while ignoring numerous other teams that manage to accomplish more with less.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

It's not. I'll try to break it down.

Cover-2 (and it's son, Tampa-2) and Man-2 are great coverages that prevent the long play. The jobs are relatively simple and you have two safeties who have the sole job of "Don't get beat deep."

So why doesn't everyone run cover-2 all the time? Because it, like everything else in life, has compromises. 2-deep shells can be hurt by the running game (7 men in the box for base, 6 for nickel) because you don't have that extra safety in the box. I can be hurt with under throws. Cover-2 can be beat by flooding zones. Cover-2 can also be hurt if you don't have the pass rush. All zones have holes, but it takes some time to exploit those holes.

Which leads us to other teams. It's the chess match of playcalling. Teams have stats men that cover down and distance, formation, route combination, etc. You try to run the defense to take away the common/most likely play concepts based on the above.

Even the players know these details, it's what film study is about. Good pros likely know the most likely combination when It's 2nd and 3-6 yard to go, on the 44 yard line, right hash mark, with 11 personnel from gun with the slot guy in motion to the wide side. Now imagine what the coordinators have up stairs with the big stack of papers.

The book on the Packers has probably been something like

1) Play Man-2 to take away the deep and intermediate throws.

2) Lacey won't be able to hurt us for a long drive due to his weight/asthma, so we can live with a couple of first downs. Keep in a 7 man front.

3) Rodgers is unwilling or unable to hit check downs and quick throws. Keep 2 safeties deep.

Finally, against the Bears, the Packers were able to execute well enough to beat man-2.

Cover-3 is also a good big-play-prevention defense, but it's almost too simple. The Seahawks run it well, but they have 2 phenomenal in Sherman and Thomas that makes the scheme go.

Yes, that's all fairly simple and straight forward. So then why do other teams, with worth offensive personnel than the Packers, not struggle so much? It's like everyone wants to JUST look at the Packers and completely ignore the numerous other passing offenses in the NFL. I'm sorry, but I still haven't heard why two deep safeties can turn Rodgers and the Packer's passing offense into the Alex Smith Kansas City offense yet teams with FAR less on offense manage to field legit passing games: how are the Chargers, missing a RB and their best receiver, managing not to be beffudled by this defense? How are the Lions not befuddled by this defense? How are the Redskins not befuddled? Those three teams are top-10 in passing yards per attempt...do other teams just not realize that they can shut down those passing games with two-deep safeties? And if Rodgers isn't willing to check down, then the coaches either need to get him to change or the team needs new coaches that can get through to him.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

And if Rodgers isn't willing to check down, then the coaches either need to get him to change or the team needs new coaches that can get through to him.

It seems the coaching staff and Rodgers finally have bought into using checkdown passes to force defenses out of their two high safety looks. If the Packers continue to successfully move the chains with short passes it will open up intermediate to deep throws as well.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I'm getting a feeling from articles and interviews that MM and AR have somewhat come to a happy medium (for now) on AR sticking with the plays called and less free lancing on his part. I think we began to see that transformation in the Bears game. Guessing this has been said elsewhere, but just my observation.

 

[HardRightEdge]

It's not. I'll try to break it down.

Cover-2 (and it's son, Tampa-2) and Man-2 are great coverages that prevent the long play. The jobs are relatively simple and you have two safeties who have the sole job of "Don't get beat deep."

So why doesn't everyone run cover-2 all the time? Because it, like everything else in life, has compromises. 2-deep shells can be hurt by the running game (7 men in the box for base, 6 for nickel) because you don't have that extra safety in the box. I can be hurt with under throws. Cover-2 can be beat by flooding zones. Cover-2 can also be hurt if you don't have the pass rush. All zones have holes, but it takes some time to exploit those holes.

Which leads us to other teams. It's the chess match of playcalling. Teams have stats men that cover down and distance, formation, route combination, etc. You try to run the defense to take away the common/most likely play concepts based on the above.

Even the players know these details, it's what film study is about. Good pros likely know the most likely combination when It's 2nd and 3-6 yard to go, on the 44 yard line, right hash mark, with 11 personnel from gun with the slot guy in motion to the wide side. Now imagine what the coordinators have up stairs with the big stack of papers.

The book on the Packers has probably been something like

1) Play Man-2 to take away the deep and intermediate throws.

2) Lacey won't be able to hurt us for a long drive due to his weight/asthma, so we can live with a couple of first downs. Keep in a 7 man front.

3) Rodgers is unwilling or unable to hit check downs and quick throws. Keep 2 safeties deep.

Finally, against the Bears, the Packers were able to execute well enough to beat man-2.

Cover-3 is also a good big-play-prevention defense, but it's almost too simple. The Seahawks run it well, but they have 2 phenomenal in Sherman and Thomas that makes the scheme go.

Good summary. The Packers have been slow to adjust up until the last 2 games which were a marked departure.

It's somewhat understandable. When you've had years of success as a downfield passing offense, which is what it has been on its face and by Rodgers assertion, the inclination might be to play strength against strength. But the receiving crew has not quite been up to snuff to play that strength against strength game. It has taken too long to adjust to the realities on the ground. I think McCarthy and Rodgers share blame for that.

If they can continue to control the ball and the clock with the short passing game, a refresh of some of those West Coast roots (and routes), defenses will have to adjust which would open up the downfield game again, but probably not to former glory for the foreseeable future with the injuries to Nelson, Adams and Cook.

Defenses tend to be a little slow to adjust; they too like to stick with what's worked in the past. Let's hope those adjustments lag by a few weeks while injuries (or the replacements) come around.

The positive takeaway is the Packers have discovered an alternate method of winning. One would hope it affords more adaptability in the future from this experience.

 

[HardRightEdge]

There are a couple of other Rodgers adjustments that seem to be in order.

Rodgers' looks of disgust following a misfires are hard to ignore. Sometimes it's clear it's disgust with the receiver, sometimes with himself, based on the outcome of the play. Sometimes the cause is unclear.

But what has gone unnoticed is that some of those looks are directed at a ref. When he thinks he sees holding, he throws there, and it's more frequent than is generally observed. As with the hard count free plays, he's just not getting the calls.

When this stuff works with regularity, it looks like handy tools in the tool box. When it doesn't it looks like a failed gimmick.

And no matter how good a passer might be throwing off the back foot, accuracy can't help be improved on deep ball by driving it with sound mechanics.

At this stage, it should be back to basics in keeping with the recent back-to-basics game plan. C'mon man, you've got all the physical and mental ability in the world...use it.

 

[HardRightEdge]

It's likely you only hear it about the Packers offense because you follow the team more closely than other teams.

And if you follow other teams through the national media, it's largely gloss without getting into the nuts and bolts.

They might break down a play here or there, but it doesn't give you feel for the whole, the how or why the play was set up. Local media give you a lot more analysis of the nuts and bolts even if a lot of it is bunk.

And of course there's no substitute for actually watching the games of one team week in and week out.

 

[mradtke66]

Yes, that's all fairly simple and straight forward. So then why do other teams, with worth offensive personnel than the Packers, not struggle so much?

Their preferred offenses aren't built the same. They have more cover-2 counters just "there" in their offense by default.

It's like everyone wants to JUST look at the Packers and completely ignore the numerous other passing offenses in the NFL. I'm sorry, but I still haven't heard why two deep safeties can turn Rodgers and the Packer's passing offense into the Alex Smith Kansas City offense yet teams with FAR less on offense manage to field legit passing games:

To be fair, I'd call the Chiefs' offense better, as is it has been generally more effective in picking up yards.

how are the Chargers, missing a RB and their best receiver, managing not to be beffudled by this defense?

A) They have Gordon at RB who is leading the league in touchdowns. Credible run threat: Check.

B) They have Hunter Henry at TE. Seamstretcher: Check.

How are the Lions not befuddled by this defense?

Three solid receiver, just like the Packers. AND a seam stretching TE in Ebron.

They also do a lot of under routes and bubble screens to spring players for YAC.

How are the Redskins not befuddled? Those three teams are top-10 in passing yards per attempt...

Three running backs with 4.6 yards per carry or higher. Play most of the game in 2-deep and give up 200 yards on the ground.

do other teams just not realize that they can shut down those passing games with two-deep safeties?

You're over-simplifying. Playing the majority of snaps in 2-deep against those teams is overly risky, because they will immediately hurt you another way, typically either down the seam on on the ground.

It also doesn't tell us how, exactly, they are leading the league in YPA. What is the average distance traveled in the air? They could just be the best at yards after the catch.

And if Rodgers isn't willing to check down, then the coaches either need to get him to change or the team needs new coaches that can get through to him.

They appear to have done so. Again, re-watch the Bear game. The scheme was throw short, hurt them, and force them out of 2-deep. Then take a few shots. The game plan was flawless. Once Rodgers settled down and was hitting guys short and in stride, he was 8 yards per attempt.

The only problem now is proving they can stay the course. Both just keeping it together, repeated it against better defenses, and having a counter-counter-punch ready to go when teams shift out of 2-deep as a result of easy completions for 7 yards.

And then, trying to anticipate your next question: What about 2015? We didn't see much, if any, cover-2 last year. Defenses didn't need it. JJ is slow. RR is slow. Adams was injured and couldn't run. Ty was on IR. Cobb was in and out of the lineup with his own injuries. Lacey was fat.

So teams played cover-1 or 3 and bought a safety into the box. And it completely broke the offense, because we had no counter. 8 men against a fat Lacey = no yards. Single high safety could help out either corner with ease, because everyone was slow. You can't reliably throw people short, because that 8th man was clogging up lanes. Slants were a no go, because corners could press with ease, as our WRs couldn't make them pay and beat them--to slow.

The only thing they could do its go to trips and run crossing routes/rubs all game long. The problem with that is they are risky and kind of difficult. Without adequate practice, you have receivers running into each other, defenses having clear shots at the ball for interceptions, and the worry that a legal route turns into OPI, due to sloppy route running. Should they have tried anyway last year? Yeah, but I at least kind of understand why they were reluctant.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

pIt also doesn't tell us how, exactly, they are leading the league in YPA. What is the average distance traveled in the air? They could just be the best at yards after the catch.

Rodgers ranks dead last among all 32 qualifying quarterbacks in air yards per attempt at 3.21 this season.

 

[PackerDNA]

Rodgers ranks dead last among all 32 qualifying quarterbacks in air yards per attempt at 3.21 this season.

Good grief, that's just a long handoff.

 

[Sky King]

Rodgers ranks dead last among all 32 qualifying quarterbacks in air yards per attempt at 3.21 this season.

Maybe he can hold the ball a little longer next game, scramble some, then get it all back with one long pass downfield.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Good grief, that's just a long handoff.

I do not find that stat credible.

 

[Poppa San]

Rodgers ranks dead last among all 32 qualifying quarterbacks in air yards per attempt at 3.21 this season.

It could be that every time he throws it 40 yds downfield, there is a PI call or it is a free play that missed.

 

[HardRightEdge]

It could be that every time he throws it 40 yds downfield, there is a PI call or it is a free play that missed.

This stat implies that Rodgers has thrown on average 127 yds. per game past the line of scrimage, whether complete or not. He probably burns close to half that yardage in an average game on 3, 4, 5 throwaways and catch-it-you-can throws at the back of the end zone.

I think there's something wrong with how that stat was compiled.

That said, I find 3.21 yds. per throw plausible in this last game, maybe the second half against Dallas.

Regardless, we don't need advanced stats to know this has been a ball control short passing offense these last 2 weeks to good affect. I didn't think they had it in them. It makes for a broader repertoire and having multiple ways of winning as the situation dictates.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I do not find that stat credible.

The numbers are from SportingCharts and I don't think they're that far off as Rodgers is only 29th among all qualifying quarterbacks in yards per pass attempt.

EDIT: According to Fox Sports the numbers are accurate.

http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/green-bay-packers-team-stats?season=2016&week=0&category=RECEIVING

The Packers pass catchers have combined for 735 yards after catch, leaving Rodgers with 761 air yards on 237 attempts for an average of 3.21.

 

[HardRightEdge]

The numbers are from SportingCharts and I don't think they're that far off as Rodgers is only 29th among all qualifying quarterbacks in yards per pass attempt.

EDIT: According to Fox Sports the numbers are accurate.

http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/green-bay-packers-team-stats?season=2016&week=0&category=RECEIVING

The Packers pass catchers have combined for 735 yards after catch, leaving Rodgers with 761 air yards on 237 attempts for an average of 3.21.

Thanks for the clarification. I find this elaboration credible.

The "air yards" in these stats only include air yards on completions. They don't include air yards on incompletions.

In other words, if an offense throws intermediate-to-deep with regularity and has a low completion percent on those throws relative to league (the Packers first 9 halves this season), their air yards will look a lot like a team that throws deep infrequently (the Packers last 3 halves this season, or guys like Alex Smith for example, though Rodgers can and has executed that approach far better than those guys).

As you suggest, one would expect these air yards numbers to be highly correlated with yards per attempt, which they are. So, I don't find anything particularly revelatory in the "air yards" stats.

Here are few Packer stats/league rankings some might find revelatory:

- 3rd. Down Conversions: 50.6% / 1st. in the league
- Time of Possession: 31:36 / 6th. in the league
- Fewest Number of Punts: 17 / 1st. in the league
- Giveaway / Takeaway: -2 / tied for 18th. in the league with the likes of Chicago, Cleveland and San Francisco

If the Giveaway/Takeaway was just the league median of 1.5, the Time of Possession would be first or close to it.

For all the wailing and lamentations over Rodgers' yardage, completion percentage, yards per attempt and passer rating, the key issue is the turnovers, something the Packers have relied on keeping to the minimum over the years.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the Packer offense's ability to flip a switch at halftime of the Dallas game, showing a stark change in personality to good affect, is perhaps the most impressive thing I've seen from this team since 2010. While necessity (Lacy/Starks injuries) might be the mother of invention, not all inventions are created equal. This one clicks very well.

What's the opponent's defensive game plan going to look like now? There will be DCs now who will find themselves betwixt and between. The only thing that troubles me is getting a sufficient number decent receiving threats on the field.