3 and outs

MM in his ideal world, also wants to go with no-huddle series in order to gas the opposing defense. If all goes well and say GB put's together an 80 yard drive in <3 minutes and scores 7, the flip side to that is our own defense got little rest and now they are back on the field.

 

Granted if GB keeps scoring that's not an issue. But when MM is running these hurry up drives and we don't score..2 bad things happen. 1.) We got no points. 2.) CMIII and company are right back on the field.

 

In both losses to SF (playoff and this game), GB's D looked gassed by the 4Q. I realize Lacy was running nowhere yesterday but it would have been awfully nice to put together an 11-12 minute slow ass drive to not only score but to give our own defense a break.

I'd like the Packers to own who they are, and pass to set up the run.  I don't mind the quick walk to the LOS, I just don't like trying to force something not in their personality into the game plan as well.  Rush to the line to throw those quick pass AR is excellent at, and mix in the run when the defense is on their heels.  Like the screen call, or anything that gets Lacy the ball with an inch of space around him. 

    same thing I was saying to that damn TV screen yesterday.

I think every package is designed to avoid this. Except maybe Musgrave's.

 

Anyway, I get the thought that a no huddle three and out obviously gives the defense less rest but it is also the defense's job to get themselves off the field. How many third downs did SF convert yesterday?

 

Also regarding the no huddle, it could be said it gives the offense more possessions since a "three-and-out no huddle" goes quick a huddled version.

 

I personally like AR in the no huddle and I think it did gas the Niners defense as has been noted by several in the threads today.

H5 made some solid points about the 3 and outs yesterday in another thread. The point about it breaking up the offenses ability to build any rhythm is spot on. T.O.P. is clearly a big one.

 

GB's 3 and out to start the 3rd quarter after SF scored on their opening drive just stuck with me all last night.

From ESPN:

Feast or famine: An examination of the Packers' possession and drive chart showed it was either feast or famine for Rodgers & Co. On nearly half of their possessions, they failed to gain a first down. They had 13 total possessions in the game. On six of them, they failed to move the chains. Five of those drives ended with punts while the other was Lacy's fumble. Their inability to sustain drives was evident in the time-of-possession battle, which they lost. The 49ers had the ball for 38 minutes and 35 seconds, while the Packers had it for just 21:25. An improved running game would have helped.

McCarthy seems to like the no-huddle or hurry up offense to keep the defense from making substitutions and to tire out their defense.  That works only if the offense can avoid the 3-and-out.  When the offense sputters, it ends up being the Packers defense that gets tired.  How fresh can a defense be when they are on the field for twice as much as the 49ers defense?

 

I remember how during Holmgren's first or second year, he made it a point to try to win the T.O.P. battle.  As fun as an up-tempo offense can be, there is some merit to a dink-and-dunk offensive series that takes a chunk of time off of the clock.

And I am talking about more than just the Packers vs the 49ers. 

 

I think it is a somewhat overlooked fundamental key to the game at all levels.

I agree. Too many 3-and-outs bring both a psychological result (after the quick defeat of the offense) as well as a physical one in wearing down the defense. 

 

Not to mention stressing the special teams unit and losing the field position battle like yesterday. Thankfully,  having a guy like Masthay helps negate some of the lost yardage. 

 

A game usually has multiple momentum swings. The more 3-and-outs you have , the more momentum opportunities you offer your opponent. Simple math.

What's the time difference between a 3 and out from no huddle compared to a 3 and out with a huddle? 

 

At most, 90 seconds, probably more like 50 seconds.   Is that really going to make an impact on the condition of the defensive players?

 

Edit - at most 60 seconds, more like 40 or 30..

No time saved before 1rst down.
30 seconds before 2nd

30 seconds before 3rd

They are not no huddling the punt team on the field for 4th.

Can it make a difference?

 

In a game where guys are going 100% in a series of microbursts, where the slightest split of a second or a couple inches can mean winning or losing a play which can, down the line mean winning or losing a game...

 

Yes. 

I think there clearly needs to be more injury and TV timeouts.....these poor guys cannot catch their breath.

3 & outs suck. That one in the 3rd quarter just had me shaking my head after the Niners scored the TD to open the 3rd quarter. 

 

I'm hopeful we can improve our rushing game & also improve our TOP in the process. Seeing what I saw tonight from the Redskins, I'd think next week would be a good place to start.

I understand your point, but, I think you are not quite looking at it the correct way...

Using your math, that is an extra minute in TOP for every 3 and out.

With six 3 and outs that is a total of about 6 minutes+/-.

The 6 minutes equates pretty good to one of the 49ers touchdown scoring drives.

It also puts total TOP at a much closer number, around 33 minutes to 27 minutes.

 

Then we can look at how many plays we ran the no huddle and add in this lost time as well. This evens the TOP even more.

 

I like the no huddle, but, i would prefer to see us having more 8 to 12 play drives that eat the clock. A mixture of both would be pretty cool. A run followed by a no huddle quick slant, or screen. You are gaining yards while stressing to opposing D.

We had a 3 play drives last 55s, 56s, 1m18s, 1m40s, and 2m5s

9ers had 38s, 1m4s, 1m22s, and 2m18s

 

I think the time difference on the longer drives is interesting.  Both teams had two six play drives in the game.  SF gained 2 minutes in TOP on those.  We had an eight play drive that lasted 2:30.  SF had a 9 play drive that lasted 5:14.  

 

 
 

 

It really comes down to an ability to be efficient when you want to or need to and being plotting and deliberate when you want to/need to to use up clock and give the defense some rest. Teams are generally good or better at stopping what they know is coming. Better teams can execute despite that.

 

I would rather have an efficient team that has difficulty throttling it down than a team that cannot get the car out of second gear. Both have their drawbacks but with that high efficiency comes other benefits. The Packers last TD drive certainly showed that they have some ability to do it even against the 9ers.

 

I think this week will be a good opportunity to use the running game more and put together some longer drives.

Point of interest- the Packrs had the second lowest 3 and out % in the nfl to the patriots.

http://www.sportingcharts.com/...out-percentage/2012/

Thanks for grabbing that one MC, and here's another worth looking at

 

points / per minute of possession

 

# 1 in the league ? You guessed it. The Mighty Green Bay Packers

 

http://www.sportingcharts.com/...ion-statistics/2013/

So, maybe the 3 and outs seem so bad because the Packers offense is so good?  We sure seem not to expect them.

 

As for time of possession. There is a confounding factor: When you pass a lot the TOP is less because the game clock stops on an incompletion. It doesn't stop on a run. But to everyone out on the field in real time, it takes just as long. The hurry up offense does take less real time, so the defense is back on the field again sooner regardless of how many plays are executed. And it does take more time after a run to get unpiled.  But all other things being equal, I'll bet the defense that plays against a hurry up is more gassed by the end of the game than the defense whose offense plays a hurry up. Green Bay's defense did look gassed at the end of the game--but so did Green Bay's offense. Heat? First full game? A strong opponent on both sides of the ball? No home field 4th quarter energy? A lot of things could be the reason for what happened at the end of the game.

From the same site Satori linked earlier (a great site by the way) MM led teams  have never finished worse than 14th in TOP.

 

So even though they throw it a lot. They are still in the upper half of TOP and haven't finished a MM season having the ball less than their opponents.

 

SF dominated TOP on Sunday, but history tells us things will improve as the season goes along.

One of my favorite stat when looking at an offense is the ratio  of first downs to 3rd downs

 

When an offense is in hyperdrive, they don't even get to 3rd down very often

 

They'll go 1st, 2nd 1st, 1st, 2nd 1st ,1st 2nd etc and not even need 3 downs for 10 yards

I've never seen that stat actually listed, I just cipher it from the box score

 

http://jsonline.sportsdirectin...4/boxscore37603.html

 

Packers had 23 first downs( same as SF) and only 10 3rd downs

of which they converted 4

 

* that's a very good ratio of 3rd downs to first downs, indicating an efficient offense.

* The 3rd down conversion rate (40%) was poor suggesting an inefficient offense on 3rd downs)

 

sf had 23 first downs and 18 3rd downs of which they converted 9

 

 

And what are we to decipher from this? While the offense wasn't executing with machine like precision on Sunday, they  scored 28 points against of of the leagues best defenses even with almost a 2/1 deficit in TOP. That ultimately means that the the 2 turnovers were very costly (one leading the a TD), the incorret penalty call allowing a probable FG to become a TD one play later was devastating, and the defense's continues inability to get off the field on 3rd down has reared it's ugly head again, and was particularly costly in the 4th q when they needed a stop.

All this and they lost by a TD on he road? I don't wan to hear any more about how great the 49ers are. They are evenly matched teams and his time they got the win. Nothing like the playoffs or even the opener last year.

The holding penalties didn't help either.

In the TT era the Packers are 1-15 in games they lose the turnover battle.

 

Clean up the 3 and out performance from Sunday (history says they will) and win or tie the turnover battle and this team is pretty close to a lock to win 7 of every 10 games they play given their .700 winning % since 2009.

Just throwing ideas around but to me it sounds like when they weren't scoring TDs they were losing the field position battle and not getting within FG range.  Turnovers killed without a doubt, but take just two of those three and outs and turn them into FGs and it's a completely different game.

What I can't figure out is why Cobb didn't take that last kick return.  Ross has been consistently shaky and Cobb gives a much better chance for a big return.  If ever there was a KR worth risking Cobb's health that was it.

 

I'd guess they wanted him fresh for the ensuing drive or the blocking had been so poor on returns they were worried about him getting killed, but desperate times call for desperate measures.  

For poops and giggles, I looked up the 2010 teams 3 and out %~ 23 rd ranking. Go figure...

Under normal circumstances 28 should be enough to get it done and the three and outs were magnified because of the poor play of the defense. Other than indicating the offense isn't getting it done on that series I don't think they're that significant in the big picture and turnovers are much more important.

quote:

What I can't figure out is why Cobb didn't take that last kick return.

I'd guess they didn't want to take any time off the clock.  The Packers had something like 26 seconds left at that point.

28 really isn't enough against a very good offense. Nine teams put up 28 or more points this week, almost a third of the teams.

Pretty meaningless stat without more information on the competency of the defenses they were facing. Normal circumstances includes a reasonably competent defense and in '10 I thought 24 was all they really needed.

Why are turnovers much more important?

 

Why is a fumble at the opponents 35 yard line after a 45 yard, 6 play drive that takes 3:30 off the clock "much more important" than a punt that is returned to the 50 yard line after a 3 and out that takes 1:00 off the clock?

 

 

 

It's all about field position. The main problem with a three and out is the inability to really alter field postion, but at least you get the benefit of a punt. A turnover instantly changes it.

So is a turnover at the opponents 35 worse than a punt to the 50 yard line?

 

 

My point is that other that a turnover deep in your own territory, why are turnovers always pointed to as the worst way to end a possession? Sometimes they come after several successful plays where the offense got something going and the defense got a rest. Whereas I look at a 3 and out as an utter waste of a possession.

Love the avatar, PB. There was a time that locals to both breweries considered Wallys better than Leinies.

Anyway, mis-direction and attacking the mis-matches are offensive keys. The no huddle has its place. But if it's over used we're not fooling anyone. Gotta always keep them off balance. We saw Bush go wild in Detroit while Johnson was held to 27 yards. They over-played Johnson so short passes to Bush were golden.

It was obvious they were over-playing Jones and doing everything they could to take away our passing game. So why not more dump off passes to Lacy and other RBs? 

Schemes are to play to our strengths and to make adjustments. 

Slight difference in that on a turnover, the D has to get on the field unprepared, to an extent vs. a punt where they have a little more time to gather themselves before the next snap.

With a turnover you're either killing your own pretty successful drive or giving the opposition anywhere from very good to excellent field position. To be sure, a three and out isn't good but it's hard to see how it's not preferable to giving the ball away.

Either way, you've given the ball away and not giving your defense enough time to rest can be just as bad as putting them in bad field position. Lacy fumbling at around the 10 was a killer but a quick 3-and-out whre the returner brought it back really is no different. Short fields and tired defenses are a bad combination.

Rodgers explained that the Packers have to at least help the defense when it comes to field position and force the opponent's offense deep in their own territory.

"One first down a series is kind of the bare minimum for us.  You do that, you can semi-change field position.  We didn't do a good job at that."

I think 3 and outs for the Packers' offense is bad. It makes the Packers' defense work harder and makes it easier on the opposing defense. It gives the opposing team better field position, not mention scoring opportunities.

 

I think turnovers are worse. Turnovers usually give the opposing team even better field position, not to mention the possibility of scoring a TD. Turnovers give the opposing team motivation and momentum and the Packers become frustrated and deflated.