It was overshadowed by the defensive meltdown, but they most definitely were a problem in San Francisco last January.quote:Originally posted by Hungry5:
Offense hasn't been the problem the last few seasons. The D stepped up in 2010 and they won it all. A top 10-15 (pts allowed is my gauge) showing from the D and look out.
quote:Originally posted by Badgeman:
While it's understandable that he wants his best player (AR12) with the ball in his hands, there are entirely too many 3-and-out series. The offense would have the ball 25 seconds and the defense is right back on the field.
2012 - GB had 2nd fewest 3 and outs in the NFL
quote:Hell, they might even pick up some of these 3rd and 1 situations.
Green Bay was 12th in 1st down percentage on 3rd and short last year.
quote:Originally posted by FreeSafety:
Last year was the first time I really took notice of games where they'd have back to back to back 3 and outs.
They never went back to back to back 3 and outs in the regular season. In fact, only 4 times did they even go back to back 3 and outs.
The Minnesota playoff game however, they did have 5 consecutive drives that went 3 and out. But that was mainly due to the running game being abysmal.
quote:I think there was a game were 5 of the 7 second half possessions were 3 and out.
Probably the minny playoff game...
quote:Originally posted by Pack-Man:
then the pass heavy, token rushing threat offense fizzled out completely in the second half.
In the aforementioned Minny playoff game, here are the plays/drive
Drive 1 - 12 plays, 4 runs, 8 passes and really it's 3/9 as one of the runs was a Rodgers run. Touchdown on this drive
Drive 2 - 3 plays. Run (3 yards), Run (-8), Pass. Punt
Drive 3 - 3 plays. Run (2), Run (4), Pass. Punt
Drive 4 - 3 plays. Run (0), Run (1), Pass. Punt
Drive 5 - 3 plays. Pass, Pass, Pass. Punt
Drive 6 - 3 plays. Run (7), Run (-5), Pass. Punt
Drive 7 - 6 plays, 4 runs (2, 3, -2, 3), 2 passes. Punt
5 of 7 drives where they ran the ball more than passed. Produced 1 first down and no points
2 of 7 drives where they passed the ball more than ran. Produced 4 first downs and 7 points.
The running game let them down when they couldn't get anything done on 1st or 2nd down. After the first drive of the 2nd half they went 12 runs for 10 yards and no first downs and 4/8 for 14 yards, 1 sack, and 1 first down passing.
It wasn't solely the passing game that fizzled. If anything, they became predictable 4 of 5 drives and went run run pass. If anything, you could argue they should have been throwing the ball more. But against an inept offense and Joe Webb, keeping the clock moving was probably the best course of action. But, it was the not the passing game that fizzled and led to all these 3 and outs, it was the inability to run the ball, which they consistently did throughout the 2nd half after going up 24-3
The difference in our offense last season was the inability to hit the "big play". Other than the Texans (I guess Wade Phillips couldn't get ahold of any tape on us)no one played us tight man with only one safety deep. We can cite stats that show good rushing yardage, etc. but the truth is that on almost every down, we had a favorable numbers advantage to run the ball. Until we can really hurt teams in the run game they will continue to play us with 6-7 defenders in the box, which will result in it being very difficult to hit big pass plays.
The main reason the Packers had fewer "big plays" is because Jennings and Jordy were sitting on the bench with injuries.
CAP95 needs to stop blowing craters in memes. All he's doing is forcing people to find new things to be SO ANGRY about in June. A-hole.
quote:Originally posted by ammo:
The main reason the Packers had fewer "big plays" is because Jennings and Jordy were sitting on the bench with injuries.
...IMHO more to do with how teams are playing us. The two stats that have correlated highest to winning in the NFL from mid 2000's to last season were: 1) Turnover differential 2) Average yards gained per pass attempt. In simple terms; don't turn the ball over / force turnovers & don't give up big plays in the passing game/ make big plays in the passing game. We scored 30+ points in 5 games last season. In 4 of the 5 we had our highest average yards per pass attempt of the season. In only one of those games (last regular season game vs. Vikes) did both Jennings & Nelson play. It took two years for DC's around the league to figure it out but they have, play two safeties deep, only have 6-7 guys in the box & dare the Packers to run. MM realizes this & is going to do everything he can to make teams put more players in the box which will again lead to more big plays in the apssing game.
quote:Originally posted by Pack-Man:
During none of their three titles did the Patriots fit the mold of "Air Coryell", not even remotely.
Can you define why you mean by Air Coryell then. It's easy to make this claim (or claim and Air Coryell team will always lose the importnt gsmes) when it's a subjective term that to this point exists only in your head. What defines an Air Coryell team? Is there a threshold of pass to run percentage? Rankings on passing vs rushing?
I think this ought be tempered a little.quote:"For the second half of the regular season the Packers averaged 29.75 rushing attempts, 4.1 yards per carry and 122.6 yards per game - plenty good enough to supplement a passing attack the caliber of Green Bay’s."
Those numbers would put GB at:
Number 10 in rushing attempts (29.75) per game
Number 12 in rushing yards per game ( 122.6)
Number 18 in yards per carry (4.1)
An example is short yardage success, especially on third down.
You mean being 12th in 3rd and short conversions is something to be tempered about?
I'll assume that there is some defense going on about how much better the Packer run game was than what people think.
Except that is wasn't. I don't know what the Packers ranked statistically, but I'll bet that their conversion rate is not commensurate with having the best QB in the game under center. We all saw how the offense struggled to sustain key drives, answer drives, put away drives. The big plays were reduced, and that at least can be attributed to the opponents going to great lengths to take it away- and the run game, which would usually benefit from that kind of scheme, simply didn't generate the necessary pain to counter it.
The offense just felt less efficient regardless of what any statistics or anecdotal evidence says to the contrary, and the off-season spent addressing the run game with:
- drafting 2 RBs
- drafting of OL
- shuffling the OL
- public atatements by the team
Is all the indication that is needed to justify the viewpoint that the running game is a weakness that needed to be addressed to help the team be more successful.
Except that is wasn't. I don't know what the Packers ranked statistically, but I'll bet that their conversion rate is not commensurate with having the best QB in the game under center. We all saw how the offense struggled to sustain key drives, answer drives, put away drives. The big plays were reduced, and that at least can be attributed to the opponents going to great lengths to take it away- and the run game, which would usually benefit from that kind of scheme, simply didn't generate the necessary pain to counter it.
The offense just felt less efficient regardless of what any statistics or anecdotal evidence says to the contrary, and the off-season spent addressing the run game with:
- drafting 2 RBs
- drafting of OL
- shuffling the OL
- public atatements by the team
Is all the indication that is needed to justify the viewpoint that the running game is a weakness that needed to be addressed to help the team be more successful.
That is better than I thought, but if the purpose is to win a championship - yeah, I would definitely want better than 11 teams better than me.quote:Originally posted by CAPackFan95:
You mean being 12th in 3rd and short conversions is something to be tempered about?
Especially when factoring in an opposing defenses need to allocate much to stop the league's best QB.
quote:Music City:
but I'll bet that their conversion rate is not commensurate with having the best QB in the game under center.
The World Champion Baltimore Ravens & Ray Rice had 0.81 more rushing first downs/ game than the Packers did during the 2012 season.
What % of the time when they ran on the ball on 3rd down, did they get a first, compared to the Packers?quote:Originally posted by Satori:
The World Champion Baltimore Ravens & Ray Rice had 0.81 more rushing first downs/ game than the Packers did during the 2012 season.
I don't know, but that would be a telling stat.
I never had confidence when the Packers ran the ball on 3rd and short. But, perhaps my intuition is off.
I think the real lesson here is to ignore any statistical evidence and/or discount anything that doesn't fit the way we feel. In general (78% of the time), human intuition has been more accurate than actual evidence.
I am not trying to be some malcontent here and I have no problem being wrong.
I just felt real uncertain whenever the Pack had a 3rd and short.
I just felt real uncertain whenever the Pack had a 3rd and short.
El Ka, your criticism must be directed at the Packer organization, because its obvious they're ignoring the statistical data and making changes to personnel and gameplan based in a "feeling"...
No, they're just attempting to improve the football team.
And this is one of the ways they're trying to do it.
Another is flip-flopping Bulaga and Sitton to the left side to reduce the number of sacks which was the biggest problem the offense had last year.
And this is one of the ways they're trying to do it.
Another is flip-flopping Bulaga and Sitton to the left side to reduce the number of sacks which was the biggest problem the offense had last year.
quote:Originally posted by Music City:
I'll assume that there is some defense going on about how much better the Packer run game was than what people think.
Not sure why you'd assume this. But if we're going to criticize the run game perhaps highlighting things we're above average in is not the best path to take. The run game as a whole wasn't great. 3rd and short conversions were not a significant source of the problems. Stating that the offense had lots of 3 and outs, and those high number of 3 and outs were due to our pass happy offense are factually incorrect statements that others have made.
quote:I don't know what the Packers ranked statistically
Which is great that you arent then making broad sweeping generalizations and shift the goal posts to subjective criteria that can't really be measured by anything but your gut feel.
quote:but I'll bet that their conversion rate is not commensurate with having the best QB in the game under center.
Or not. Sigh.
quote:The offense just felt less efficient regardless of what any statistics or anecdotal evidence says to the contrary
It just feels like you think you know what you're talking about regardless of what any statistics or anecdotal evidence says to the contrary.
quote:and the off-season spent addressing the run game
They are improving the football team? I'll alert the media. They drafted a couple WR. Clearly they aren't happy with the WR we have. If we're being logically consistent that should be the takeaway here.
quote:Originally posted by phaedrus:
What % of the time when they ran on the ball on 3rd down, did they get a first, compared to the Packers?
I don't know, but that would be a telling stat.
Baltimore converted 3rd and short 55.3% of the time. Good for 8th in the NFL
Green Bay converted 3rd and short 51.1% of the time. Good for 12th in the NFL
I do agree that it's telling. What its telling is that your perceptions are colored by your biases and not reality and factual data.
BTW - the best team in the NFL at converting 3rd and short rushing? The powerful old school smash mouth god why can't MM manage the offense like them New Orleans Saints.
in 2012, the "Drive Success Rate" of the Packers was better than both the 49ers and the Ravens - the two participants of the recent Super Bowl
Part of it though is when things happen, not just that they happen. As Satori pointed out above, the Ravens only had about 1 more rushing first down per game. However, if that crucial first down is coming late in tight games where for the other team is not, even being that close statistically leaves a rather big difference in end effect. Stats are good, don't get me wrong, but using them in a vacuum doesn't tell the whole story otherwise the best statistical team would be the Super Bowl Champs every year.
BJack was once considered "decent" caused he had good YAC.
quote:Originally posted by Hungry5:
Offense hasn't been the problem the last few seasons. The D stepped up in 2010 and they won it all. A top 10-15 (pts allowed is my gauge) showing from the D and look out.
We were 11th last year, and while I expect overall improvement, we could in that neighborhood again due to the toughness of the schedule.
If it's a top 2-5 in points allowed we'll be cooking with gas.
What I most want to see out of the offense this year is for the sacks to go back down.
quote:Originally posted by Herschel:
Part of it though is when things happen, not just that they happen. As Satori pointed out above, the Ravens only had about 1 more rushing first down per game. However, if that crucial first down is coming late in tight games where for the other team is not, even being that close statistically leaves a rather big difference in end effect. Stats are good, don't get me wrong, but using them in a vacuum doesn't tell the whole story otherwise the best statistical team would be the Super Bowl Champs every year.
And what if that <1 extra first down by rushing came in a meaningless drive in the 1st quarter where they didn't score any points and ended up punting anyway? It's just as likely as your scenario since we're basing it on nothing more than what you want to believe so it fits your preconceived notions.
Unless of course you can point to instances (probably dozens I'm sure) where a crucial first down late in a tight game was successfully converted by a rushing play by the Ravens. And given the same oppt on 3rd and short GB didn't convert that crucial first down late in a tight game.
If you have data that proves your hypothesis I'd love to see it. I have no issue being proven wrong with data!
I don't care what your fancy drummed up stats say, we're not getting the respect points that other teams are getting. Could be a BFI problem, I don't know, but I know it in my gut that the respect points are not there.
quote:Originally posted by Music City:
El Ka, your criticism must be directed at the Packer organization,
It bothers me every year that the team has to draft new players, but I've gotten used to it.
In today's Q&A at JSO, McCarthy is asked about his views on running the ball:
"A: ... our job as coaches is to utilize our personnel and ultimately to play to a team identity. And this is a quarterback driven football team. It has been in my time and has been for decades here and it works. So that's what we stay in tune with.
Q. So clear up once and for all how you feel about running the football?
A. "Running the football, trust me, it's important. Would I like to do more of it? Yes. Will it help the quarterback driven emphasis? Absolutely. The best quarterbacks are always complemented by a good run game. And we haven't been good enough there."
MM wants the running game to be good enough to run the defenses out of a 2-deep shell. Hope he gets it, because a single high safety is candy-from-a-baby for Rodgers
But it takes a really good running game for teams to stop focusing their plans on stopping the best QB in the League. So while last years' run game was decent, it wasn't lethal enough for teams to change their defensive tactics - and that is clearly MM's goal for 2013.
"A: ... our job as coaches is to utilize our personnel and ultimately to play to a team identity. And this is a quarterback driven football team. It has been in my time and has been for decades here and it works. So that's what we stay in tune with.
Q. So clear up once and for all how you feel about running the football?
A. "Running the football, trust me, it's important. Would I like to do more of it? Yes. Will it help the quarterback driven emphasis? Absolutely. The best quarterbacks are always complemented by a good run game. And we haven't been good enough there."
MM wants the running game to be good enough to run the defenses out of a 2-deep shell. Hope he gets it, because a single high safety is candy-from-a-baby for Rodgers
But it takes a really good running game for teams to stop focusing their plans on stopping the best QB in the League. So while last years' run game was decent, it wasn't lethal enough for teams to change their defensive tactics - and that is clearly MM's goal for 2013.
Especially when you consider how good a running game has to be to convince DC's to actually make the conscious decision to single up on Aaron Rodgers.
Pretty much. I was just thinking about how ridiculous the RBs would have to be to actually decide that letting AR loose gives your team a better chance to win.
I was thinking the same thing about opposing teams sticking with the 2 shell and being willing to let GB run the ball. It will be on the running game to make them pay with long drives and scores. And it will be on MM to be patient enough to be ok with that...IF it can be successful.
If you look at the Packers rush attempts last year they did make an effort to run the ball. The problem is it's not like they have had a lot of talent at the RB position and we all know some of the struggles guys like Jeff Saturday had in terms of run blocking.
Lacy and Franklin are legit running backs. They put up big numbers against good competition in college. This isn't like taking a flyer on a James Starks or Alex Green. That's why I am interested in all of the Baltimore and Ray Rice discussion. The Ravens are a good team but Rice is an elite back in the NFL and the two things go hand in hand. Simply choosing to run the ball doesn't guarantee success. The quality of personnel is a big deal as well.
Where Green Bay seemed to struggle was in the 3rd and short or 4th and short situations and that's where a good running game can make a huge difference.
Lacy and Franklin are legit running backs. They put up big numbers against good competition in college. This isn't like taking a flyer on a James Starks or Alex Green. That's why I am interested in all of the Baltimore and Ray Rice discussion. The Ravens are a good team but Rice is an elite back in the NFL and the two things go hand in hand. Simply choosing to run the ball doesn't guarantee success. The quality of personnel is a big deal as well.
Where Green Bay seemed to struggle was in the 3rd and short or 4th and short situations and that's where a good running game can make a huge difference.
Again. The Green Bay Packers were above average in the NFL in 2012 with regards to running the ball successfully on 3rd and short.
The were 12th in the NFL. A league with 32 teams. They were able to run the ball on 3rd and short more successfully than 20 other NFL teams, including Pittsburgh, Washington, Denver, San Francisco, Minnesota, and Atlanta.
I know that many of you want to believe that we weren't successful running the ball in those situations. But facts do not support this belief.
The were 12th in the NFL. A league with 32 teams. They were able to run the ball on 3rd and short more successfully than 20 other NFL teams, including Pittsburgh, Washington, Denver, San Francisco, Minnesota, and Atlanta.
I know that many of you want to believe that we weren't successful running the ball in those situations. But facts do not support this belief.
quote:Originally posted by CAPackFan95:quote:Originally posted by Herschel:
Part of it though is when things happen, not just that they happen. As Satori pointed out above, the Ravens only had about 1 more rushing first down per game. However, if that crucial first down is coming late in tight games where for the other team is not, even being that close statistically leaves a rather big difference in end effect. Stats are good, don't get me wrong, but using them in a vacuum doesn't tell the whole story otherwise the best statistical team would be the Super Bowl Champs every year.
And what if that <1 extra first down by rushing came in a meaningless drive in the 1st quarter where they didn't score any points and ended up punting anyway? It's just as likely as your scenario since we're basing it on nothing more than what you want to believe so it fits your preconceived notions.
That is also possible, which again is why stats in a vacuum can be misleading. I'm guessing NFL teams do have that data and it does factor in to their plans, otherwise why would TT spend two quality picks on RBs while Baltimore didn't.
How many times did the Packers throw the ball on 3rd or 4th and short? What was their overall conversion rate in those situations?
I know Mike McCarthy likes to stay aggressive in the passing game but it seemed like too often Rodgers bailed them out with his legs or they spread teams out and threw the ball instead of running it (traditionally) in those situations.
I just don't like the idea of Rodgers taking too many hits whether it's the scrambling or dropping back to throw a lot.
I know Mike McCarthy likes to stay aggressive in the passing game but it seemed like too often Rodgers bailed them out with his legs or they spread teams out and threw the ball instead of running it (traditionally) in those situations.
I just don't like the idea of Rodgers taking too many hits whether it's the scrambling or dropping back to throw a lot.
quote:Originally posted by Herschel:
That is also possible, which again is why stats in a vacuum can be misleading. I'm guessing NFL teams do have that data and it does factor in to their plans, otherwise why would TT spend two quality picks on RBs while Baltimore didn't.
Baltimore drafted a RB in the 4th round, just like Green Bay.
But, more importantly, when asked to defend your position that BLT converted more "Crucial" 3rd and short via the run "late" in "tight games" when Green Bay didn't, you just ignore that altogether and then make a derptastic argument about 2 drafted RBs vs 1 drafted RB.
That's. That's something.