The offense must run through Jones and Dillon

[PikeBadger]

Some days I am more explosive than other days. It usually depends on what I ate.

Me too. It's amusing to drive across the street and watch the county hazmat team roll in to clean up the gas station bathroom I just destroyed.

 

[McKnowledge]

Last year there were 49 running backs with 200+ carries; he was 48th out of 49 in 10+ yard runs. He was 2nd in 4+ yard carries but I don't know how sustainable

So a good RB is only determined by his perceived explosiveness?

Emmitt Smith was one of the best RBs ever and never had "explosive" athleticism.

Context is very important, what was the PFF (great reputable source) grade for the O-Line that these RBs were running behind?

For example, Cordarrelle Patterson could have a 30+ yard run every game and only average 3 yards per carry.

Also, Dillon is a volume RB.

Dillon needs a certain number of carries to get going. There is a certain rhythm to the run game depending on personnel.

Context is very important.

Where's your source? I would like to check it out.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Until the playoffs and they have to pass to keep with a team like the Bucs or Eagles. Developing a good passing attack is absolutely necessary for the postseason and that won't happen without the team finding out what it can do well in the passing game and developing young guys.

The Packers don't have to pass extensively to keep up with any team. They already have a great running game, and a talented D in need of better coaching. And if they keep throwing incomplete passes and 3 and outs, they won't be in the playoffs.

Just keep an eye on the pass/run ratio in games they win, and games they lose. Developing a group of receivers is a weak excuse for losing games. And MLF, fortunately, hasn't used that lame excuse.

 

[mradtke66]

Just keep an eye on the pass/run ratio in games they win, and games they lose.

The problem with this statement is it presumes a causal relationship. Teams aren't winning because they're running, they're running because they are winning.

 

[Heyjoe4]

The problem with this statement is it presumes a causal relationship. Teams aren't winning because they're running, they're running because they are winning.

I'm only suggesting the comparison of the pass/run ratio in games won and games lost. What does that presume?

 

[mradtke66]

Talk about lack of a causal relationship - your statement suggests winning causes running. LOL.

That was the point

I have to find the stats or the article I found (oh man, I might be 10 years ago now. Good luck to me) but that was the conclusion. The summary was while the game is in question, most teams throw to score points. Yes, you'll have teams like the Ravens or 49ers or the Giants this year, but most teams are unbalanced until the end and the leader is milking clock.

It's less, for example, "The Packers win 90% of the time when Aaron Jones has 25 carries" and more "Jones got 10 extra carries this week because the Packers were killing the clock in the 4th quarter."

I am also over simplifying.

 

[Heyjoe4]

That was the point

I have to find the stats or the article I found (oh man, I might be 10 years ago now. Good luck to me) but that was the conclusion. The summary was while the game is in question, most teams throw to score points. Yes, you'll have teams like the Ravens or 49ers or the Giants this year, but most teams are unbalanced until the end and the leader is milking clock.

It's less, for example, "The Packers win 90% of the time when Aaron Jones has 25 carries" and more "Jones got 10 extra carries this week because the Packers were killing the clock in the 4th quarter."

I am also over simplifying.

That's interesting. Teams in the lead will/should run more to run off time. It is oversimplified, but one takeaway is that multiple factors go into the pass/run ratio, depending on the game. Another factor impacting the pass/run ratio is the relative strength of a team's O and D, as well as that of the opponent.

 

[mradtke66]

That's interesting. Teams in the lead will/should run more to run off time. It is oversimplified, but one takeaway is that multiple factors go into the pass/run ratio, depending on the game. Another factor impacting the pass/run ratio is the relative strength of a team's O and D, as well as that of the opponent.

100% that. I'm glad I was able to get that across. Text can make it difficult sometimes.

I don't disagree that the Packers should strive to run more. Until the WRs and the offense as a whole gel, Jones and Dillon are two of the most now-talented players on the team.

As many of the articles are stating, if opposing defenses are matching Jones and Dillon in the backfield with nickel defense, that interesting grouping might not be as useful. Or we have to figure out odd tendencies to make them think, while making it a viable threat. Have Jones lead block for Dillon? Try a grouping of Dillon, Jones, and Deguara in the backfield to force them into base? Use Dillon as a true fullback for ~5 plays a game?

But now I'm off rambling and not making a particularly good point.

 

[Heyjoe4]

100% that. I'm glad I was able to get that across. Text can make it difficult sometimes.

I don't disagree that the Packers should strive to run more. Until the WRs and the offense as a whole gel, Jones and Dillon are two of the most now-talented players on the team.

As many of the articles are stating, if opposing defenses are matching Jones and Dillon in the backfield with nickel defense, that interesting grouping might not be as useful. Or we have to figure out odd tendencies to make them think, while making it a viable threat. Have Jones lead block for Dillon? Try a grouping of Dillon, Jones, and Deguara in the backfield to force them into base? Use Dillon as a true fullback for ~5 plays a game?

But now I'm off rambling and not making a particularly good point.

Well the point is that if we, as unpaid contributors, are asking these questions, is the same being done at 1265 Lombardi? Your questions, and a lot more, need answers, or better yet, put to work on the field as game conditions require.

 

[OldSchool101]

Some days I am more explosive than other days. It usually depends on what I ate.

Bahaha! Based upon several personalities that come through here, I was really hoping my post wouldn’t get abused or turn sensual in nature…
You’ve completely ruined that possibility!
While your response wasn’t sensual.. it certainly was nature!

 

[OldSchool101]

Me too. It's amusing to drive across the street and watch the county hazmat team roll in to clean up the gas station bathroom I just destroyed.

Talk about a conversation going down the toilet
If your treatment of public restrooms was any worse they’d write you a citation for public vandalism.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

So a good RB is only determined by his perceived explosiveness?

Emmitt Smith was one of the best RBs ever and never had "explosive" athleticism.

Context is very important, what was the PFF (great reputable source) grade for the O-Line that these RBs were running behind?

For example, Cordarrelle Patterson could have a 30+ yard run every game and only average 3 yards per carry.

Also, Dillon is a volume RB.

Dillon needs a certain number of carries to get going. There is a certain rhythm to the run game depending on personnel.

Context is very important.

Where's your source? I would like to check it out.

Football reference was the source. And I’d love to hear why you don’t think Emmit was explosive. As to oline, are you implying the 47 rbs with more 10+ yard runs all had better olines? Cause I’m gonna guess the packers rbs we’re running against fairly light boxes last year.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

The Packers don't have to pass extensively to keep up with any team. They already have a great running game, and a talented D in need of better coaching. And if they keep throwing incomplete passes and 3 and outs, they won't be in the playoffs.

Just keep an eye on the pass/run ratio in games they win, and games they lose. Developing a group of receivers is a weak excuse for losing games. And MLF, fortunately, hasn't used that lame excuse.

It’s unrealistic to expect this defense to hold elite offenses to 20 points or less.

 

[McKnowledge]

Football reference was the source. And I’d love to hear why you don’t think Emmit was explosive. As to oline, are you implying the 47 rbs with more 10+ yard runs all had better olines? Cause I’m gonna guess the packers rbs we’re running against fairly light boxes last year.

I'm not implying anything other than understanding context which the numbers don't show.

There is a difference between an explosive athletic RB and a RB making explosive plays.

No, I do not think of Emmitt Smith as an explosive athlete. He had elite vision, power, and crazy patience. Barry Sanders is the gold standard.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Other points you made made some sense but not this one at all.

So you bench a Rookie that has tremendous upside and a player that needs experience and seasoning because he’s similar to an older veteran?
Essentially Draft and develop is now draft and dismiss? I don’t think so

My point is that I don't want the Packers to play Wyatt more often just because he was a first rounder back in April. He needs to earn playing time by being an upgrade over other defensive linemen on the roster.

That just makes the Giants' loss all the more irritating. GB was up 17-3 and 20-0 at the half. They threw way more than they ran, and that's why they lost.

There's no doubt the offense struggling in the second half hugely contributed to the loss but the defense not being able to stop the Giants was another reason they lost the game.

Have Jones lead block for Dillon? Try a grouping of Dillon, Jones, and Deguara in the backfield to force them into base? Use Dillon as a true fullback for ~5 plays a game?

It's interesting to note that while a lot of fans advocate for having Jones and Dillon on the field at the same time the Packers are actually less successful in two back sets than while having only one running back on the field this season.

As to oline, are you implying the 47 rbs with more 10+ yard runs all had better olines? Cause I’m gonna guess the packers rbs we’re running against fairly light boxes last year.

Jones and Dillon combined to face a 8+ defenders in the box on 17.88% of their rushing attempts last season. That number is down to 9.68% in 2022 so far.

 

[Heyjoe4]

It’s unrealistic to expect this defense to hold elite offenses to 20 points or less.

True, if they continue to play as they have been playing. The Giants scored 27 and their O is hardly elite IMO.

For whatever reason, the talent on D isn't being used/coached well. Or maybe the talent is overrated, or a little of both. We'll certainly find out when they play the Bills. They have a long way to go to prevent a loss, or even to be competitive in that game.

 

[Heyjoe4]

My point is that I don't want the Packers to play Wyatt more often just because he was a first rounder back in April. He needs to earn playing time by being an upgrade over other defensive linemen on the roster.



There's no doubt the offense struggling in the second half hugely contributed to the loss but the defense not being able to stop the Giants was another reason they lost the game.



It's interesting to note that while a lot of fans advocate for having Jones and Dillon on the field at the same time the Packers are actually less successful in two back sets than while having only one running back on the field this season.



Jones and Dillon combined to face a 8+ defenders in the box on 17.88% of their rushing attempts last season. That number is down to 9.68% in 2022 so far.

So what's up with this D? Giving up 27 pts to an injury-plagued team with a gimpy QB was embarrassing. The worst part for me was watching Jones run 10 times for 35 yards. I would think after the fifth run they might alert an ILB to watch for the guy. At least two of those runs were designed QB draws. (I also think the Giants were playing games with the injury report. Jones looked fine. That's still no excuse.)


I think they have the talent but are being poorly coached, and that falls on both MLF and Barry. Or maybe the talent isn't as good as we were told.

- And as far as Wyatt - he clearly hasn't proven to the coaches he would be an upgrade, or even able to perform as a sub. Even first round picks can take time, like Gary.

 

[mradtke66]

It's interesting to note that while a lot of fans advocate for having Jones and Dillon on the field at the same time the Packers are actually less successful in two back sets than while having only one running back on the field this season.

I agree with that, which hopefully I pointed out. My take away is to either drastically reduce the Jones/Dillon combo backfield OR drastically change what they do out of the grouping.

I admit I relying on the work of others, but based on the things I have read, most teams are responding to the J-D backfield with nickel defense. If we're trying to get cute and throw, that doesn't really help us. Assuming that is true, then we should attempt to power-run from that alignment, ala Dillon leading for Jones. If that then ends up working, hopefully the defense responds with Base. If that ends up happening, they can get back to being cute and throwing. Or playing off of tendencies.

 

[OldSchool101]

That was the point

I have to find the stats or the article I found (oh man, I might be 10 years ago now. Good luck to me) but that was the conclusion. The summary was while the game is in question, most teams throw to score points. Yes, you'll have teams like the Ravens or 49ers or the Giants this year, but most teams are unbalanced until the end and the leader is milking clock.

It's less, for example, "The Packers win 90% of the time when Aaron Jones has 25 carries" and more "Jones got 10 extra carries this week because the Packers were killing the clock in the 4th quarter."

I am also over simplifying.

My first impression is those two “stories” overlap. (Some Truth to both)

That’s why you can’t stop there with the argument. The yards per carry will tell you the answer to your puzzle. Those “clock killing” runs are rarely average more than 2-3 yards (often <2 yards) because the opposing D knows you’ll mix more run and they play the run. It’s not a secret to a DC.

If the rushing AVERAGES are around 4.5+ AND 25+ per carry? you’ve imposed your will and likely had well above 5+ per carry outside the clock killers.

If the rushing average is 2.8 per carry X 30 rushes etc.. ?? That means those rushes were simply to close out the game. I’m going to hypothesize that’s a more rare scenario though.

 

[Heyjoe4]

My first impression is those two “stories” overlap. (Some Truth to both)

That’s why you can’t stop there with the argument. The yards per carry will tell you the answer to your puzzle. Those “clock killing” runs are rarely more than 2-3 yards (often <2 yards) because the opposing D knows you’ll mix more run. It’s not a secret to a DC.

If the rushing AVERAGES are around 4.5+ AND 25+ per carry? you’ve imposed your will and likely had well above 5+ per carry.

If the rushing average is 2.8 per carry X 30 rushes etc.. ?? That means those rushes were simply to close out the game.

Your comments illustrate why it's so hard to draw conclusions from statistics alone. For example, a 2.8 YPC X 30 rushes might indicate additional, short yardage runs to kill clock. Or it could show that the run game was effectively shut down.

A few carries in the last 5-10 minutes of a lopsided win with 30 plus rushes won't impact YPC that much. Well, at least I don't think so.......

 

[OldSchool101]

Your comments illustrate why it's so hard to draw conclusions from statistics alone. For example, a 2.8 YPC X 30 rushes might indicate additional, short yardage runs to kill clock. Or it could show that the run game was effectively shut down.

A few carries in the last 5-10 minutes of a lopsided win with 30 plus rushes won't impact YPC that much. Well, at least I don't think so.......

Yeah it gets technical. But given time you can get a breakdown on play by play pretty quickly. You’ll notice the only time that the excessive runs (that are not necessarily yards beneficial) to kill clock is mostly in games where you are winning by 2+ scores in the 4th quarter. For instance, this season it’s only happened 1 in 5 contests (Bears)

You can’t rely on low 2 yard run pickups to burn clock (the one argument he brought up) unless it’s the last drive under 2 minutes or so and even then it might add 3 or 4 runs beyond a normal mix. A QB kneel or a few extra runs.
He’s bringing an argument that games with 25+ rushes are to burn the clock and thus don’t show success rate in those 90%+ Wins
I wholly disagree.

Many More of those ~30 rushed are success driven than clock driven is my contention. That “clock running” argument only holds in a fraction of games. We all know you can’t commit fully to running if it’s a 1 score game 14-12 etc.. or we’re losing.

How many games has GB been ahead by 2+ scores in the 4th quarter over the last 5 years? A fraction maybe. The Clock burning argument is at best a fraction of influence. I wish we had this problem, right now we can barely stay in the game.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Yeah it gets technical. But given time you can get a breakdown on play by play pretty quickly. You’ll notice the only time that the excessive runs (that are not necessarily yards beneficial) to kill clock is mostly in games where you are winning by 2+ scores in the 4th quarter. For instance, this season it’s only happened 1 in 5 contests (Bears)

You can’t rely on low 2 yard run pickups to burn clock (the one argument he brought up) unless it’s the last drive under 2 minutes or so and even then it might add 3 or 4 runs beyond a normal mix. A QB kneel or a few extra runs.
He’s bringing an argument that games with 25+ rushes are to burn the clock and thus don’t show success rate in those 90%+ Wins
I wholly disagree.

Many More of those ~30 rushed are success driven than clock driven is my contention. That “clock running” argument only holds in a fraction of games. We all know you can’t commit fully to running if it’s a 1 score game 14-12 etc.. or we’re losing.

How many games has GB been ahead by 2+ scores in the 4th quarter over the last 5 years? A fraction maybe. The Clock burning argument is at best a fraction of influence. I wish we had this problem, right now we can barely stay in the game.

Yeah running to kill clock still usually involves picking up first downs. So the argument that these runs reduce YPC doesn't make sense. And yeah, the Packers haven't had the luxury of killing clock in the 4th quarter.

 

[PikeBadger]

My point is that I don't want the Packers to play Wyatt more often just because he was a first rounder back in April. He needs to earn playing time by being an upgrade over other defensive linemen on the roster.



There's no doubt the offense struggling in the second half hugely contributed to the loss but the defense not being able to stop the Giants was another reason they lost the game.



It's interesting to note that while a lot of fans advocate for having Jones and Dillon on the field at the same time the Packers are actually less successful in two back sets than while having only one running back on the field this season.



Jones and Dillon combined to face a 8+ defenders in the box on 17.88% of their rushing attempts last season. That number is down to 9.68% in 2022 so far.

I think Jones and Dillon should be on the field together often with 1 and 2 WR sets. I want to see Jones as the primary movement piece all over the formation. I don't like seeing 3WR's onnhalf the plays. They aren't our best players and blockers.

 

[Heyjoe4]

I think Jones and Dillon should be on the field together often with 1 and 2 WR sets. I want to see Jones as the primary movement piece all over the formation. I don't like seeing 3WR's onnhalf the plays. They aren't our best players and blockers.

Good points and something to watch for. I don't know why they would show three WR sets with such a lack of overall WR talent. Agree about how to use Jones and Dillon. And both RBs are probably better at running routes and catching than some of the WRs.

What drives me nuts - this is a talented team except for the WR and TE groups. And the receivers aren't terrible, they're learning. So MLF should use Jones and Dillon, pick his spots in the pass game and forget about long passes (except on occasion to keep the secondary honest).

Finally, use Watson for more than KRs and jet sweeps. I mean WTF, can the guy run routes or not? Take advantage of his speed and send him long now and then. But he can either run routes or he can't.

This is just my opinion. I'm no coach. Some things just seem kinda obvious. Hopefully the Giants game was at least worth a lesson or two. And if MLF says "we need to run more" one more time, my ****ing head will explode.

 

[OldSchool101]

Good points and something to watch for. I don't know why they would show three WR sets with such a lack of overall WR talent. Agree about how to use Jones and Dillon. And both RBs are probably better at running routes and catching than some of the WRs.

What drives me nuts - this is a talented team except for the WR and TE groups. And the receivers aren't terrible, they're learning. So MLF should use Jones and Dillon, pick his spots in the pass game and forget about long passes (except on occasion to keep the secondary honest).

Finally, use Watson for more than KRs and jet sweeps. I mean WTF, can the guy run routes or not? Take advantage of his speed and send him long now and then. But he can either run routes or he can't.

This is just my opinion. I'm no coach. Some things just seem kinda obvious. Hopefully the Giants game was at least worth a lesson or two. And if MLF says "we need to run more" one more time, my ****ing head will explode.

The Jets thus far have a middling Pass Rush. I know you don’t want to hear this and I certainly don’t want heads exploding. Lol. But this might be a game to pass with a more normal mix.
I still think getting our RB and TE’s groups combined more involved in the passing game is key. That’s where our experience lies.

You know I know people laugh at Lewis but he’s an afterthought to Defenses and they just leave him wide open when he rolls out. I’d try to exploit that more especially as a surprise in the second half.
Obviously I’d use Lewis closer to the Paint where he can use his size as an advantage. He’s not going to get pushed around by a DB I’ve never seen that. They look up to him.. literally! I just loved the TD pass he caught, he’s got very big hands like baseball gloves and he’s like a forgotten weapon, even by us.
He used to be very formidable but he’s slowed a little but can still be a Redzone target.

We need to figure out what to do with Royce. He’s getting steamrolled on occasion and he doesn’t anchor well against an opponent who uses a bullrush. We watched him get steamrolled in London and Rodgers just tucked it and took a sack.