The Jordan Love Era Begins

[Deleted member 6794]

How in the world have you regressed to this? I’ll need a Sentential Derivative calculator to see how far you’ve spun from our original debate!

I presented some facts which support that teams are running the ball more often because they're winning and not the other way around but you completely ignored all of them. There's no way to change your mind about it despite you being wrong.

In addition nobody was suggesting the defense improved over the past eight games but only during the four game winning streak. But you ignored that as well as it doesn't fit your narrative.

What's the point of having a discussion when facts are completely ignored?

Check this out. RG3 said Aaron Rodgers better think about getting his derrière acclimated with his Receivers earlier this season to avoid a repeat of Week 1 of the last several seasons.
Then he went in to say the Jets should Run the ball more and not rely on Aaron Rodgers to carry the entire team on his shoulders!

Is that DUO crazy stuff or what! I couldn’t believe my ears he sounded like me in his thick black rimmed glasses! Can you believe his audacity to suggest what I’ve been saying to you since almost a year ago? He tripped me out with those totally rad ideas!

The Jets should most likely run the ball more often next season than they did in 2022. Despite playing Zach Wilson, Joe Flacco, Mike White and Chris Streveler at quarterback they finished tied for fourth in the league in pass play percentage. That's definitely not a recipe for success with this group of QBs.

But they should continue to throw the ball more often than they run it, especially with Rodgers at QB.

FYI there were only three teams that ran the ball on more than 50% of the offensive plays last season. The Bears finished with the worst record in the league, the Falcons finished in last place in the worst division in the NFL and the Ravens made the playoffs while having a running back at QB. That's not a ringing endorsement to suggest it's a decent idea to run the ball more often than to throw it.

 

[longtimefan]

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[pacmaniac]

While that's true a three-and-out doesn't help a whole lot in most situations.

You have data to back that up?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

You have data to back that up?

Just take a look at the 2014 NFCCG for some evidence.

 

[mradtke66]

You have data to back that up?

The problem is sometimes it's worth it to run 3 times for a net of 0 yards, assuming the other team uses all of their timeouts. The other guys not having any timeouts is a Good Thing (I want to say Always a Good Thing, but I haven't sat here long enough. Maybe there is a crazy corner case where it isn't good?) but how you get there matters.

Against Josh Allen, Mahomes, Prime Payton Manning, or Prime Tom Brady (these are examples only. Plenty other quarterbacks meet this criteria) I don't think just using all of their timeouts is enough. Assuming have 1st and 10 right at 2:00 in the 4th quarter, three runs for 0 yards + a punt w/ fair catch, runs off only ~20 seconds of game time. 1:40 is plenty for any of them to go the length of the field. Forcing them to take timeouts makes their task harder, not impossible.

In such a situation, I would much rather pick up first downs by whatever means necessary. If they don't have the ball, it's even more difficult to score.

As less and less time remains, 3 runs followed by a punt (or 3 runs followed by an intentional safety) gets more and more attractive. The amount of a lead also changes the math. Field goal to win it? 30s is may be too much time, see Packers-49ers 2021.

 

[pacmaniac]

Just take a look at the 2014 NFCCG for some evidence.

One example doesn't prove that "a three-and-out doesn't help a whole lot in most situations".

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The problem is sometimes it's worth it to run 3 times for a net of 0 yards, assuming the other team uses all of their timeouts. The other guys not having any timeouts is a Good Thing (I want to say Always a Good Thing, but I haven't sat here long enough. Maybe there is a crazy corner case where it isn't good?) but how you get there matters.

Against Josh Allen, Mahomes, Prime Payton Manning, or Prime Tom Brady (these are examples only. Plenty other quarterbacks meet this criteria) I don't think just using all of their timeouts is enough. Assuming have 1st and 10 right at 2:00 in the 4th quarter, three runs for 0 yards + a punt w/ fair catch, runs off only ~20 seconds of game time. 1:40 is plenty for any of them to go the length of the field. Forcing them to take timeouts makes their task harder, not impossible.

In such a situation, I would much rather pick up first downs by whatever means necessary. If they don't have the ball, it's even more difficult to score.

As less and less time remains, 3 runs followed by a punt (or 3 runs followed by an intentional safety) gets more and more attractive. The amount of a lead also changes the math. Field goal to win it? 30s is may be too much time, see Packers-49ers 2021.

I totally get what you are saying and I think when you have a QB like AR, yours is possibly a good strategy, pick up a first down to ice the game. The problem is, you are now increasing your risk of a turnover. Imagine if the Packers were up by 6 with those 2 minutes to go and throw a pick 6 or fumble the ball at their own 30, etc.

There are only a couple of ways to try and ice a game and if your defense isn't able to stop the opposing offense, then yes, possession of the football might be your best chance.

So every situation can be different. What I really dislike, is when the Packer DC plays "prevent defense" and in doing so, gives up a tying or winning score. I would rather see some blitzing and hard rushes, to not give the QB all day to eventually find an open receiver.

 

[gopkrs]

The problem is sometimes it's worth it to run 3 times for a net of 0 yards, assuming the other team uses all of their timeouts. The other guys not having any timeouts is a Good Thing

I can see it when up by two scores. Otherwise, first downs are what really runs the clock.

 

[mradtke66]

I totally get what you are saying and I think when you have a QB like AR, yours is possibly a good strategy, pick up a first down to ice the game. The problem is, you are now increasing your risk of a turnover. Imagine if the Packers were up by 6 with those 2 minutes to go and throw a pick 6 or fumble the ball at their own 30, etc.

Agreed, any turnover really screws you up. But if you are in a situation where you're not just kneeling out the clock, you cannot eliminate that risk. Hell, even kneeling you could have something terrible happen.

There are only a couple of ways to try and ice a game and if your defense isn't able to stop the opposing offense, then yes, possession of the football might be your best chance.

I'd say it's always the best chance--if I have the ball, your offense is on the sidelines. The cost or risk may or may not make it the best option. Sorry for the wordsmithing, I like to be as accurate as I can.

So every situation can be different. What I really dislike, is when the Packer DC plays "prevent defense" and in doing so, gives up a tying or winning score. I would rather see some blitzing and hard rushes, to not give the QB all day to eventually find an open receiver.

2 bones to pick here. To me, "prevent" has a very specific meaning. You're in prevent when you're quarter defense, ie, 2-3 linemen, 2-3 linebackers, and no more than 4 in the box. DBs everywhere else. Everything else is soft-zone.

Second, I don't mind a soft zone. It's a sliding scale though and I agree some DCs tend to go too soft too early.

Rushing less than 4 makes me yell, but I normally don't want extra rushers when you're protecting a lead and gone to a soft zone. If you send 5 or more, you've taken someone out of coverage. You now can't (properly, anyway) run man-2, cover-2, cover-3, or quarters. Above-average quarterbacks should be able to identify and exploit the hole you've created and make you pay. If you're in cover-1, one of your outside guys is going to be single-covered. Identify him pre-snap, 3 steps and fire. The rush never got there and you've setup a big play. If you keep 2 safeties deep, at least one eligible receiver is uncovered. Find him and the defense has given up 20 yards free and easy.

I'd generally prefer cover-2 on early downs. Let your CBs jam their receivers to prevent easy releases and then drop and drop hard.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Agreed, any turnover really screws you up. But if you are in a situation where you're not just kneeling out the clock, you cannot eliminate that risk. Hell, even kneeling you could have something terrible happen.

Good post.

One of my big pet peeves is clock management. I am just amazed at how many times I have seen both college and NFL teams just do a poor job of it. I can only think that it is because the coach, is paying more attention to other things and not clock management. I get that, however, with the budgets that both levels of football have, I would be inclined to hire a guy, that does nothing but use their advanced knowledge of situations and stats about clock management. Put them in the press box, with a direct line to the coach. I would wager to bet that every team has lost a game or 2, because of poor clock management.

 

[OldSchool101]

I would be inclined to hire a guy, that does nothing but use their advanced knowledge of situations and stats about clock management.

I actually believe there are some retired actuaries that would do that just to get a sideline pass or to say they are involved intricately with the contest.
Heck I’ll do it if they buy me a plane ticket each Sunday and free Hotel room with Wifi and a continental breakfast and maybe one of those Horse Collar 22” Kielbasa’s at game time. I’ll even walk to the stadium! I might be a little late but from 2nd Quarter or so I’ll be there. Just don’t arrest me for bed head when I try to get through the back gate

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[Schultz]

Good post.

One of my big pet peeves is clock management. I am just amazed at how many times I have seen both college and NFL teams just do a poor job of it. I can only think that it is because the coach, is paying more attention to other things and not clock management. I get that, however, with the budgets that both levels of football have, I would be inclined to hire a guy, that does nothing but use their advanced knowledge of situations and stats about clock management. Put them in the press box, with a direct line to the coach. I would wager to bet that every team has lost a game or 2, because of poor clock management.

All they have to do is hire someone who has bet a lot of football games. Trust me those guys know exactly when timeouts should and shouldn't be called. IMO.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

One example doesn't prove that "a three-and-out doesn't help a whole lot in most situations".

Of course it doesn't. But it should be pretty obvious that three-and-outs don't improve a team's chance of winning in most situations.

 

[pacmaniac]

Of course it doesn't. But it should be pretty obvious that three-and-outs don't improve a team's chance of winning in most situations.

I would agree that if you are able to get a first down, it would increase your chances of winning the most. I would also say that going three-and-out with 3 runs would increase your chances of winning a lot more than going three-and-out with 1, 2, or 3 incompletions.

 

[gopkrs]

I would agree that if you are able to get a first down, it would increase your chances of winning the most. I would also say that going three-and-out with 3 runs would increase your chances of winning a lot more than going three-and-out with 1, 2, or 3 incompletions.

If you give them time then they can score. So if we are only up by 6; I want to play for the 1st down. Probably run, and pass on 2nd down if running doesn't look like it's gonna cut it. Because 3rd and obvious pass is much more difficult.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I would agree that if you are able to get a first down, it would increase your chances of winning the most. I would also say that going three-and-out with 3 runs would increase your chances of winning a lot more than going three-and-out with 1, 2, or 3 incompletions.

There's no doubt you're right about that.

 

[milani]

Yeah, that's kind of where I take issue. I mean there's some merit to both sides of the argument, but if we are going to say things like
"There's no doubt Rodgers targeted Adams when other receivers would have been a better option. It's not surprising Davante was his first read on most of the plays considering he was by far the most talented pass catcher on the team for a long time" then I don't think we can have it both ways and turn around and criticize Love for defaulting to his first read, too.

Rodgers probably locked in on one player too often at times and that's okay. Love might've locked in on the "easy" throw when he could have perhaps waited for a better option, and that's okay too.

Love will find he will have plenty of options waiting for him. Let us just hope they are open and he has time to see them.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Love will find he will have plenty of options waiting for him. Let us just hope they are open and he has time to see them.

Unfortunately I don't agree that Love will have a lot of talented pass catchers to throw to if the Packers don't add some more weapons before the start of the season.

 

[milani]

Unfortunately I don't agree that Love will have a lot of talented pass catchers to throw to if the Packers don't add some more weapons before the start of the season.

Weapons are one thing. Options are another.

 

[OldSchool101]

Love will find he will have plenty of options waiting for him. Let us just hope they are open and he has time to see them.

Yes. That thought leads me back to supplying Jordan with another formidable Receiving target either at TE and WR, plus possibly going after a second TE that is a great blocker.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Weapons are one thing. Options are another.

Well, I'm convinced Love will have enough options to throw to. But he needs some more weapons to run a successful offense.

 

[PackerRyche]

Rumors swirling that Packers may sign Matt Ryan. That would be a nice steadying force for Love.

 

[Mondio]

He’s had 3 years under a QB light years ahead of Ryan already. I know there will still be growing pains but it’s time for him to do it. Ryan is done as a QB. His arm is shot. We have a good QB coach.

 

[tynimiller]

He’s had 3 years under a QB light years ahead of Ryan already. I know there will still be growing pains but it’s time for him to do it. Ryan is done as a QB. His arm is shot. We have a good QB coach.

Agreed...if we want to bring a cheap vet in I think Carson Wentz, Rudolph, Gabbert or Siemian are better options.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Rumors swirling that Packers may sign Matt Ryan. That would be a nice steadying force for Love.

Vet Min for Ryan would be $1.165 M. If he plays for that, I might consider him. I would also only consider him if I thought he was a good player to have around for Love. This is a year for Love to learn, no need to have much in the way of a backup and frankly, I would rather see the Packers take a shot at a late round or UDFA, they only cost $750K per year. Ryan isn't going to lead the team to anything, but just be a place filler. Can he coach up Love? Probably a bit, but that is why you have a QB coach.