Tom Clements Has Plan For Offensive Improvement

quote:

Originally posted by Tschmack:
How many times did the Packers throw the ball on 3rd or 4th and short? What was their overall conversion rate in those situations?

That's not really relevant to the original point you made that I responded to which was:
"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."

I pointed out, again, that in fact Green Bay was 12th best in the exact situation you described as "struggle". They did not in fact struggle in 3rd and short situations.

And, as for 4th down, they attempted 3 runs on 4th down last year, and converted all 3 of them. Seems pretty good conversion rate to me.

quote:

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.

Do you have some data that shows that Green Bay passed the ball significantly more than the NFL average in those situations?



The reality is that on 3rd down, the vast majority of teams throw the ball significantly more often than run. I will assume Green Bay is not that far off from most other teams until I see data that proves otherwise.

quote:

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.

Agreed, but that's a different conversation than discussing the success of Green Bay running the ball on 3rd and short.

What's really something is that you don't even understand I wasn't arguing with you on any particular statistical interpretation, just pointing out that there's more to it than just raw stats.

IoW: I wasn't trying to "prove" anything except that just throwing out raw stats doesn't actually "prove" anything. TT spent two quality picks on RBs for a reason, regardless of them being '12th in short yardage running efficiancy'. He obviously felt they needed to improve the quality in the backfield based on the data at-hand, regardless of which particular data points were the "tipping point".

As to your graphic above, a question is whether they were called running plays on 3rd and 4th and short, or plays that ended up running plays (ala called pass plays where Rodgers ended up scrambling).

I really enjoy all the flips, twists and contortions some Packer fans are willing to go to in order to cling to their preconceived ideas, despite the evidence staring them in the face

Its probably the most exercise you'll get this week

Aside from the third & short stat., where stats are misleading is that they do not account for what the opponents defense is doing. We may have running stats similiar to another team, but that other team may have a medicore QB, which results in opponents defenses using formations designed to stop the run & force the pass. For us it appears just the opposite, opponents are daring us to run & taking away passing opportunities down the field. Forcing defenses to commit another defender to stop the run will open up opportunities for more big plays in the passing game.

If we are to believe the new emphasis on shedding players from the roster who can't stay healthy (the latest being Bishop), then TT and MM surely can't trust in Alex Green and James Starks. The drafting of two backs might be tied more to that angle, than to the running-game-was-poor-in-2012 angle. But, killing two birds with one stone isn't bad, either.

In 2011, Green Bay went 15-1 with a flawed defense, Rodgers was sacked 36 times, and the team finished 27th in rushing.

In 2012, Green Bay went 11-5 even with an improved defense, Rodgers was sacked 51 times, and the team finished 20th in rushing.

The stats appear to indicate that the protection struggles of the OL coupled with Rodgers ongoing tendency to hold on to the ball and take a sack rather than risk a pick or throw the ball away was the bigger contributor to the decrease in production on offense last season rather than not having an elite running game.

Which is why they flipped the line.

quote:

Originally posted by FLPACKER:
Forcing defenses to commit another defender to stop the run will open up opportunities for more big plays in the passing game.

Even with the new backs, you're still going to see a ton of two shell because Rodgers is just that good.

If the new backs make the defenses pay for it more for continuing to play that way, then that's great.

The actual evidence indicates that protecting #12 better is still the more relevant issue in improving the offense for this year over last.

And that's not to say that more production out of the running game isn't desirable. Of course it is.

quote:

Originally posted by FLPACKER:
where stats are misleading is that they do not account for what the opponents defense is doing.

So the stats shouldn't count because teams could be loading up against the run or dropping back to the defend the pass opening things up for the pass or run game and making it easier to convert thus skewing the stats? So stats only count when you are being challenged? Got it. How does McCarthy get so stinkin lucky, defenses just GIVE him these opportunities, he should think about doing this on purpose!

quote:

Originally posted by Herschel:
What's really something is that you don't even understand I wasn't arguing with you on any particular statistical interpretation, just pointing out that there's more to it than just raw stats.

You were clearly presenting a counter argument. But, if you can't support it or you want to back away from it under the guise of "just asking questions", knock yourself out.

quote:

IoW: I wasn't trying to "prove" anything except that just throwing out raw stats doesn't actually "prove" anything.

Yes. They. Do. Stats prove many many things.

Stats don't prove things to some people that don't like it when their gut feel and their biased perceptions are shown to be wrong. Stats don't prove things to people that don't understand them. Stats don't prove things when they are not used correctly. Stats don't prove things to "old school" guys that like using terms like basement, nerd, pencil necked geeks.

quote:

TT spent two quality picks on RBs for a reason

Baltimore spent one quality pick on a RB for a reason. Like every team, they want to improve their roster, and in this specific case, they wanted to get younger and better in the backfield. Just like Green Bay. Green Bay had a more pressing need, and one of the better RBs fell to them.

However, that doesn't change the fact that GB was the 12th best team in the NFL at rushing the ball successfully on 3rd and short.

quote:

regardless of them being '12th in short yardage running efficiancy'. He obviously felt they needed to improve the quality in the backfield based on the data at-hand, regardless of which particular data points were the "tipping point".

You'll notice I've not in this thread ever stated that I am happy with, nor think highly of, the Green Bay Packers running game.

All I have done in this thread is pointed out the inaccuracies of certain arguments about the running game and the efficiency of the offense WRT 3 and outs.

If you want to say "the running game is not good and I'd like to see it improved", I agree 100%. If you want to say, Harris, Starks, and Grant are not the answer and I'm stoked they drafted Lacy, I agree 100%

I'm not presenting arguments discussing the quality of our running game. I'm not saying "since they are above average at 3rd and short, Green Bay has an above average running game." Never stated or implied anything to that effect. I'm pointing out when people are flat out wrong when making sweeping statements about things.

It's lazy and incorrect however to say that the Packers were ineffective or struggled rushing the ball 3rd and short. That just is not true at all.

And, who they drafted doesn't change the fact that Green Bay was one of the more successful teams at running the ball on 3rd and short.

quote:

Originally posted by JJSD:
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.

Considering how good AR has been against D's schemed essentially to stop him and the passing attack and not much else, they really don't need to let him loose as much as guess wrong enough times. We know he is arguably the best in the game against the blitz, so give him enough of a running threat (and a coach willing to ride that pony) and he'll find the vulnerabilities.

But yes, a D coord who decides to let AR loose is:
a) an idiot
b) has big balls
c) works for the Texans

quote:

Originally posted by CAPackFan95:
So a backfield of Bo Jackson and Jim Brown?

They'd never be running on empty.

quote:

Originally posted by CAPackFan95:
You were clearly presenting a counter argument. But, if you can't support it or you want to back away from it under the guise of "just asking questions", knock yourself out.

No, I really wasn't saying anyone was wrong or right, just that nobody had definitively proven anything either way with the few, unqualified stats that were thrown out. Something made TT spend two picks on RBs (I had forgotten the Ravens spent a 4), which stats or criteria it was we don't know.

I'm not one who's been happy with the Packers' running game, nor were they completely inept throughout the season. I did like what Harris was able to do but I also worry about his ability to sustain that pace. The Packers have basically gotten decent spurts out of backs like Samkon Gado and James Starks also but those guys have never replicated it.

did you see the moonwalking bear?

quote:

Originally posted by Herschel:
Something made TT spend two picks on RBs (I had forgotten the Ravens spent a 4), which stats or criteria it was we don't know.

The Packers have needed a better running game for the past 3+ seasons. What was different in the draft this year from the past 3? Value. There were other bell-cow RBs available in the past drafts but Thompson is not one to over-value players and jump his board. This year Lacey and Franklin had too much value at those picks to pass up. Some will say it was a response to the poor running game, but I see it as a GM who knows his teams needs not only this year but in the future and the value of the picks versus the cap. Good GMs are always taking action for the future and not reacting to the past.

The moonwalking bear made Thompson use 2 quality picks on RBs.

Thompson was so intent on drafting an impact RB that he waited until his pick near the bottom of the 2nd round.

And then traded backwards 6 more slots leaving those impact runners on the board for other teams to swipe

quote:

Originally posted by El-Ka-Bong:
did you see the moonwalking bear?

Yes, I did. It was hilarious.

quote:

Originally posted by Hungry5:

quote:

Originally posted by Herschel:
Something made TT spend two picks on RBs (I had forgotten the Ravens spent a 4), which stats or criteria it was we don't know.

The Packers have needed a better running game for the past 3+ seasons....Some will say it was a response to the poor running game, but I see it as a GM who knows his teams needs not only this year but in the future and the value of the picks versus the cap. Good GMs are always taking action for the future and not reacting to the past.

Why not both, as you're saying. They needed a better running game, Thompson took moves to fix it balancing value and team needs. Last year he did the same with the Front 7 in Perry, Worthy and Daniels. He made trades to make the value line up with needs.

quote:

Originally posted by Grave Digger:

quote:

Originally posted by FLPACKER:
where stats are misleading is that they do not account for what the opponents defense is doing.

So the stats shouldn't count because teams could be loading up against the run or dropping back to the defend the pass opening things up for the pass or run game and making it easier to convert thus skewing the stats? So stats only count when you are being challenged? Got it. How does McCarthy get so stinkin lucky, defenses just GIVE him these opportunities, he should think about doing this on purpose!

..easy Francis, obviously defenses that are playing "pass" on every down SHOULD be easier to run against than defenses playing "run" on every down, thus skewing comparsion stats..that was my only point, I don't really know what you read into it?

quote:

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."

But Mike, the Packers statistically ranked better than average!

It's not complicated- they want to run the football more because it wil have a positive impact on just about every other aspect of the team. The best play action QB on earth will be able to use it if the other team actually has to try to defend the run. Less sacks, more ball Control, more big play ability through play action, the ability to ice games...

quote:

Originally posted by FLPACKER:
..easy Francis, obviously defenses that are playing "pass" on every down SHOULD be easier to run against than defenses playing "run" on every down, thus skewing comparsion stats..that was my only point, I don't really know what you read into it?

Those aren't skewed stats, those are just the stats. If they're playing pass on every down, you should be able to convert 3rd and short...which the Packers did, they were above average in fact. Just because defenses didn't make it hard on them doesn't mean the stats are skewed.

quote:

Originally posted by Music City:
But Mike, the Packers statistically ranked better than average!

Need to cut down on sacks and sustain drives. This Packer red zone offense is one of the best I've seen. They just stalled out too many times in 2012 to get into the RZ(19th rated in RZ trips per game)Sacks were part of it as was the ability of opposing defenses to slow down the machine by playing physical with our receivers and using varied bracket coverages.

This is going to be fun. Now it's MM and Clements turn to respond. I think we're going to see better pass pro for sure, plus an even more multiple offense.

Lets just hope the defense doesn't suck so much

quote:

Originally posted by FLPACKER:
Aside from the third & short stat., where stats are misleading is that they do not account for what the opponents defense is doing.

In my best Chris Farley, "Oh.My.Gawd."

Steve told me teams demonstrated statistically higher (.08) BFI on third down defense vs the Pack than any other team with a name starting with "P." Your point is valid and deserve notice.

quote:

Originally posted by Herschel:
They needed a better running game

They needed a better running game before 2012. Nice try with the diversionary comments... not biting. Let's stick to the RB discussion since this is an Offensive Improvement thread.

quote:

Originally posted by Music City:
But Mike, the Packers statistically ranked better than average!

Well, that's quite the strawman you've constructed there. You must feel like such a big boy knocking it down!

*pats music city on head*

quote:

It's not complicated- they want to run the football more because it wil have a positive impact on just about every other aspect of the team. The best play action QB on earth will be able to use it if the other team actually has to try to defend the run. Less sacks, more ball Control, more big play ability through play action, the ability to ice games...

Who exactly are you arguing with? I don't recall anyone in this thread or this board arguing that our running game is even average, let alone above average, or that they shouldn't try to improve it.

quote:

Originally posted by Grave Digger:

quote:

Originally posted by FLPACKER:
..easy Francis, obviously defenses that are playing "pass" on every down SHOULD be easier to run against than defenses playing "run" on every down, thus skewing comparsion stats..that was my only point, I don't really know what you read into it?

Those aren't skewed stats, those are just the stats. If they're playing pass on every down, you should be able to convert 3rd and short...which the Packers did, they were above average in fact. Just because defenses didn't make it hard on them doesn't mean the stats are skewed.

....didn't say the stats were neccessarily skewed but rather the comparision to other teams can be skewed. If team A averaged 122 yards rushing vs, defenses that played "run" 90% of the time and team B averaged 122 yards rushing vs. teams that played "pass" 90% of the time would you then still say that team B has as good a running game as team A?

quote:

Originally posted by Hungry5:

quote:

Originally posted by Herschel:
They needed a better running game

They needed a better running game before 2012. Nice try with the diversionary comments... not biting. Let's stick to the RB discussion since this is an Offensive Improvement thread.

But as you said, TT has to look at all the teams needs and judged the defense was a higher priority last year so he made moves to improve that side of the ball more. There were a lot of solid receiver prospects this year he basically avoided even with Driver retiring and Jennings a free agent. He has typically spent a #2 on a receiver, this year he did not, he took Lacy. It would appear he felt they didn't need to be as deep at WR as last year and improve the RB corps.

That would lead one to believe the offense isn't going to be quite so spread-em-out pass-happy (though nobody thinks they'll become a 70s Pittsburgh team obviously).

Again, it is about value of the player to the team and not a fans perceived need.

Thompson may very well feel that this years WR corp is deeper than last years. Driver was in decline (Boykin likely an upgrade there) and Jennings was banged up. Jones stepped up and has improved every year. Cobb will be better. Quarless is back. Jordy was not 100% last year.

No reason to think that with the personnel they have that they won't be just as pass happy.

In addition, TT drafted 2 WRs. So, to assume he didn't want to improve the depth there is misguided. Johnson/Dorsey could be the Ross/Boykin of the 14-15 season...

quote:

Originally posted by FLPACKER:
....didn't say the stats were neccessarily skewed but rather the comparision to other teams can be skewed. If team A averaged 122 yards rushing vs, defenses that played "run" 90% of the time and team B averaged 122 yards rushing vs. teams that played "pass" 90% of the time would you then still say that team B has as good a running game as team A?

Those stats reflect that Team B has a more successful offense overall and has an equally successful running game. The goal is to gain yards, get first downs, score TDs, and win the game period...it's not to see who can do all of those things against the toughest possible defense. You're asking if I RESPECT a teams running game more because they're having success against the odds, that has nothing to do with stats. If Team A is seeing teams load up 90% against the run, it means their passing game is a joke and no one respects it. Team B is having equal success against the running game AND their passing game is strong enough to force defense to defend it 90% of the time. I'll take Team B and their balanced approach. Now as far as respect is concerned, I don't care HOW they're getting 122 yards per game, I care that they ARE getting 122 yards per game. I don't understand why it matters how they get it? I'm not going to respect their running game less just because they're successfully running on a 3-3-5 while the other team is constantly running at 4-3 or 4-4 defensive alignments.

quote:

Originally posted by Grave Digger: You're asking if I RESPECT...

...I DO care if the 122 yards we are getting SHOULD be 200 yards based on the way teams are defending us. The original point is that our average yards gained per pass was significantly down last season. I maintain that a large factor in that was that teams were daring us to run. They were more than happy to give up 120 on the ground against us if it meant not giving up big plays in the passing game. MM sees the way teams are now playing us & knows he must adjust. The adjustment is to improve the running game to the point that defenses must adjust.

Do you realize 122 yards per game would be good enough for 11th in the NFL in 2012 right? That's pretty good, even if you're committed to running the football. 9 out of 10 teams that rushed for over 120 yards per game in 2012 rushed the ball 450+ times (the 1 being Buffalo who rushed 442 times). I know you threw out 122 yards/game arbitrarily, but you're expectation of 200 yards/game (or any extreme success) is unrealistic for a pass first team...to have that kind of success you have to commit to running the ball a lot. But if you're going to do that, why would you pay Aaron Rodgers 100 million dollars?

It'$ a pa$$ fir$t league.

quote:

Originally posted by Grave Digger:

quote:

Originally posted by Music City:
But Mike, the Packers statistically ranked better than average!

I was being sarcastic. I'm not building my argument off a strawman.

Think of it this way- teams in the 80s would let MJ to off for 40+ because the rest of the team wasn't a threat. They made him work his ass off for those 40, and the Bulls would lose. The run game is the equivalent of Scottie and Grant/Kukoc. Too much on any one thing, and you'll get destroyed by the others.

The earlier statement was the need for the run game to be Scottie/Grant/Kukoc. A year ago the predominant thinking was the Packers as constructed would still be good enough on O to handle the burden and they should challenge for another Champioship. But the O got Rodgers killed and were too often one-dimensional to overcome another injury riddled season for the D.

It's ok to say the offense share some blame in not being efficient enough to make up for an improved but still inadequate D. When the Packers needed to counter the 49ers' quick strikes with slower drives that kept the D off the field, they couldn't do it. Hey we're built to throw and no one card if they ran the ball on them- it wasn't a threat.

In a perfect world, both are a lot better in 2013- run game and defense. This is what they need to win anothe Champiosnhip.

quote:

Originally posted by Music City:

A year ago the predominant thinking was the Packers as constructed would still be good enough on O to handle the burden and they should challenge for another Champioship. But the O got Rodgers killed and were too often one-dimensional to overcome another injury riddled season for the D.

They ran the ball better than they did the prior two years when they won a title and went 15-1. Not great, not even statistically average. Better.

Again, the biggest difference on offense last year was the pass protection. Saturday hit the wall, and Bulaga was lost for the season (and struggled horribly against Seattle in the first half without help against Seattle when MM was slow to adjust). Newhouse wasn't consistent enough, and Sherrod didn't play a down.

They still went 11-5 and finished 5th in offense. With that running game. The real difference was the pressure and the extra 15 sacks given up.

quote:

Hey we're built to throw and no one card if they ran the ball on them- it wasn't a threat.

In a perfect world, both are a lot better in 2013- run game and defense. This is what they need to win anothe Champiosnhip.

MM bears some of the responsibility in the 2nd SF game for abandoning the run in the 2nd half. When you don't call running plays at all, that tends to make a team truly one dimensional. That's playcalling.

My improvement wish list for 2013 is pass protection (better o-line play across the board), continued improvement on defense, and then improvement in the running game.

You do the first two, and we'll (shareholder) be right there again. The third, while still desirable, is gravy.

quote:

Originally posted by Satori:
Thompson was so intent on drafting an impact RB that he waited until his pick near the bottom of the 2nd round.

And then traded backwards 6 more slots leaving those impact runners on the board for other teams to swipe

Damn facts.

But it felt like he drafted a RB much earlier.