2020 Packer Offense: Predictions

[YoHoChecko]

Ok, so this is a weird way to start this thread, but I wanted (personally) to have a concrete, quantifiable idea as to what sort of performance I expect from the offense this year and where I can see improvement or where I expect some regression.

So I actually looked at our team and individual offensive stats from 2019 and made a mock 2020 set of stats. Obviously, this is MOSTLY a kinda fruitless exercise. I'm not going to be, like, correct. But I think it's an interesting exercise to conduct in order to really understand what is and isn't realistic; what I am hoping for or counting on. And, for me at least, it was fun.

So let's walk through some of my expectations:

Overall Team Offense:

image.png (23.16 KiB) Viewed 768 times

Looking at this, I want to see an improvement in pace and efficiency that leads to us increasing our play count from 1020 to 1050. With a moderate improvement in average yards per play, we can boost our total yards output by about 4%.

Improving from 1020 plays to 1050 would be increasing from t13th last year to 9th.
The run-pass ratio moves from 14th most run-heavy in 2019 to what would have been 10th-most run-heavy.

I figured the number of pass plays called may hold about the same, and if we're a little more efficient with those plays, then the bulk of the increase can come from rushing plays, which seems to fit the direction MLF is going. I didn't want to be too optimistic so the sacks increased a bit with Bulaga leaving.

The big diffences in this number comes from a slightly improved completion percentage (which increases yards per pass play) and a slightly improved yards per rush play, as Jones saw his career low in YPC and DIllon may improve the numbers. But to break down where these differences come from, let's take a closer look at the rushing numbers.

Rushing Offense:

image.png (17.82 KiB) Viewed 768 times

For this I broke things out into percentage of team stats. So for instance, last year Jones has 236 rushes, which accounted for 57% of our rush plays, for 1084 yards, which accounted for 60% of our rush yards.

RB2 stats are Jamal Williams' stats from last year and I expect to be AJ Dillon's stats this year. I'm expecting Dillon to best Williams' 4.3 YPC with 4.5 YPC (with the help of an OLine in its second year in the scheme).

I'm expecting Rodgers to run a little less but with similar efficiency as last year. And I'm expecting a slightly larger contribution from rushers beyond the top 2 this year, which is typical of past seasons and makes sense considering that Williams and Ervin will get some carries and that MLF may have more jet sweeps or creative plays this year.

And how about that increased efficiency from Rodgers and Co?

Passing Offense

image.png (23.6 KiB) Viewed 768 times

This projection anticipates a healthy season from Davante Adams, hence his 20-25% increase in production.

For WR2, I basically just extrapolated out Lazzard's numbers from the back half of the year. I don't know if WR2 will be Lazzard, but the thinking is that if a player spends much of the season in Lazzard's role, he likely would be at leats or about as productive as Lazzard was in that role.

I see Aaron Jones' usage inthe passing game ticking upward just a smidge.

I see the TE1 involvement in the passing game ticking down just a smidge.

WR3 stays just about the same, and since MVS had a really nice YPC number, I even tempered expectations with a lower assumption of 15 yards per catch.

The idea that we will establish a more regular top-3 also leaves the role remaining for "additional receivers" a bit smaller, with a similar level of efficiency.

In Conclusion:

Basically, I see all of these changes to the offense as completely achievable, reasonable adjustments. I expect the running game to take a small step forward in efficiency and usage, and I expect Rodgers' completion percentage to move back into an acceptable range in his second year in the system with a familiar group of WRs. I see Jones being used more intentionally in the passing game as a way to keep him involved while slightly reducing his carries, and AJ Dillon as a way to keep the running game cranking when guys other than Jones carry the ball (at least by the end of the season).

Overall, these changes would push the Packers from a team that finished in the middle of the pack on offense to a team right around the top 10--in the 8-11 range, perhaps. I didn't project TDs because guessing at individuals' TD count from year to year is even more random than the rest of this exercise, but I would expect that a more efficient offense would also lead to a few more of those.

I'm not sure whether this is a prediction or a hope or what, but it really helped me clarify what I think is a reasonable expectation for the season coming up, given the same WR corps (plus EQ healthy), the same OL (minus Bulaga), and a few new faces at TE.

I'd welcome any thoughts or alternative projections or places where my assumptions seem dubious... not saying I won't defend my positions and argue with you, but I welcome that

[Gunzaan]

Incredible work - a fun read so thanks for that.

I’ll keep it simple: I am pretty sure I know where MLF would like to go with the offense but the great unknown is the offensive line, in particular with run blocking. It is just too much of an unknown and if they are average to below average at run blocking, does MLF try to force the issue or does he adjust? I really think he wants a lot more time of possession, even if that means less stats for individuals and the teams total offensive numbers.

To me, that will determine the success of the offense.

[Yoop]

great work Yoho, a lot to digest here, one thing that caught my eye of course is Aaron Jones, imo if we intend to resign him then I agree with you, let the #2 RB carry more of the load, if not, and he now is a one year player, then I think we should max out his touch count, no use in saving that talent for the future for some other team, and I think he has a lot more to offer in the passing schemes, anything that gets the ball out of Rodgers hands faster is bound to help

[YoHoChecko]

Incredible work - a fun read so thanks for that.

I’ll keep it simple: I am pretty sure I know where MLF would like to go with the offense but the great unknown is the offensive line, in particular with run blocking. It is just too much of an unknown and if they are average to below average at run blocking, does MLF try to force the issue or does he adjust? I really think he wants a lot more time of possession, even if that means less stats for individuals and the teams total offensive numbers.

To me, that will determine the success of the offense.

Yeah, it's interesting because I see the right side of our OLine as pretty vulnerable, but I'm more concerned with their pass blocking than their run blocking. Green Bay has quietly been among the more efficient rushing teams in the league the past few years with mostly this cast of characters. As long as a healthy Wagner looks at least more like his pre-2019 self than his 2019 self, even if not all the way, we should be able to continue that efficiency.

Plus, I know it's all just talk and what else would they say, but both Linsley and Bakhtiari have specifically talked about how the run game will benefit from a better and more cohesive understanding of the offense and what's being asked of them heading into year two in the scheme, so I took that to account when projecting mild rushing efficiency increases, as well as my personal high opinion of AJ Dillon and mediocre opinion of Williams (even though I think it'll take time to work into the lineup).

With that and the draft and then all the talk of not getting a chance to fully implement the up-tempo stuff last year, I think better efficiency and slightly more plays are definitely in the offing; and it's not like I decided to make us a run-first team, or in even the top quarter of run:pass ratios in the league, but just outside that mark.

[YoHoChecko]

great work Yoho, a lot to digest here, one thing that caught my eye of course is Aaron Jones, imo if we intend to resign him then I agree with you, let the #2 RB carry more of the load, if not, and he now is a one year player, then I think we should max out his touch count, no use in saving that talent for the future for some other team, and I think he has a lot more to offer in the passing schemes, anything that gets the ball out of Rodgers hands faster is bound to help

I like the idea of using him a little more in the passing game given our lack of suddenness and explosiveness at the WR position and using the other backs a little more in the run game to compensate. Maybe more 2-back sets where you don't know if Jones will line up as a runner or as a receiver.

[TheGreenMan]

You're nuts YoHo, no really, you're nuts.

I like a lot of what I see though, however I hope we don't see that much of an increase in Davante Adams in the passing game. Maybe we're also taking into consideration he was hurt last year and missed a handful of games. It just seems like an increase focus on Adams stunted the rest of the offense, most notably the other WR's. Rodgers got himself back into what wasn't working when Adams came back last year, and essentially wasn't spreading the ball around at all. I definitely don't want to see that bad habit coming back, as the offense was clicking so well without him even. A small dip in the TE area, I just can't see it. It's small obviously, but man, this position has to be getting more attention now with Graham gone and Sternberger/Tonyan taking the snaps (I'm begging for it at this point!). Obviously, your drop off isn't huge.

Good stuff.

[YoHoChecko]

I hope we don't see that much of an increase in Davante Adams in the passing game. Maybe we're also taking into consideration he was hurt last year and missed a handful of games. It just seems like an increase focus on Adams stunted the rest of the offense, most notably the other WR's. Rodgers got himself back into what wasn't working when Adams came back last year, and essentially wasn't spreading the ball around at all. I definitely don't want to see that bad habit coming back, as the offense was clicking so well without him even.

I definitely can see that... it is mostly just accounting for the fact that he missed 4 games last year. If he missed 25% of the season and I expect his receptions to go up 20%, then I'm actually including a slightly lower portion of per-game passes going his way--slightly.

As for TE1, I gave it a small downtick not because the TE position will be used less, but maybe the #1 TE will be--like there isn't as clear of a #1TE right now and maybe Sternberger and Tonyan and even Deguara will share the role of replacing Graham a bit. So maybe Sternberger and Tonyan will combine for more yards and catches than Graham had, but neither surpasses it individually; it was my way of accounting for uncertainty... that and increasing the share of receptions going to players aside from the top 3 WRs, Jones, and the top TE.

[TheGreenMan]

I hope we don't see that much of an increase in Davante Adams in the passing game. Maybe we're also taking into consideration he was hurt last year and missed a handful of games. It just seems like an increase focus on Adams stunted the rest of the offense, most notably the other WR's. Rodgers got himself back into what wasn't working when Adams came back last year, and essentially wasn't spreading the ball around at all. I definitely don't want to see that bad habit coming back, as the offense was clicking so well without him even.

I definitely can see that... it is mostly just accounting for the fact that he missed 4 games last year. If he missed 25% of the season and I expect his receptions to go up 20%, then I'm actually including a slightly lower portion of per-game passes going his way--slightly.

As for TE1, I gave it a small downtick not because the TE position will be used less, but maybe the #1 TE will be--like there isn't as clear of a #1TE right now and maybe Sternberger and Tonyan and even Deguara will share the role of replacing Graham a bit. So maybe Sternberger and Tonyan will combine for more yards and catches than Graham had, but neither surpasses it individually; it was my way of accounting for uncertainty... that and increasing the share of receptions going to players aside from the top 3 WRs, Jones, and the top TE.

Makes sense.

I just know where you stand on younger/rookie TEs, from a production standpoint, so I thought maybe that came into play.

[YoHoChecko]

I just know where you stand on younger/rookie TEs, from a production standpoint, so I thought maybe that came into play.

I mean, I've also been very vocal that literally anyone could replace Graham's production, so it was a worthy point of follow-up, haha

[YoHoChecko]

I've come across some other interesting nuggets from our 2019 season that can play into what we think our 2020 offense may look like.

Let's start with the whole team, formations:

11 (1 RB, 1 TE, 3 WRs): 62.0% (13th), down from 77.2% in 2018
4 or more WRs: ZERO snaps
2+ RBs: 15.1%
2+ TEs: 24.0%

(we had 3 snaps in a 3-RB, 2-TE set; all three were red zone TDs)

Let's look at some individuals' alignments as a percentage of their TARGETS:
(to clarify, this is not how often they lined up in certain places, it's how many of their targets came from each alignment)

Jimmy Graham:
- 41.3% tight
- 54.0% slot
- 1.6% wide
- 3.1% backfield

Aaron Jones:
- 79.4% backfield
- 8.8% slot
- 11.8% wide

Jamal Williams:
- 77.8% backfield
- 13.3% slot
- 8.9% wide

Davante Adams:
- 49.2% slot
- 50.8% wide

Allan Lazard:
- 72.2% slot
- 27.8% wide

Geronimo Allison:
- 84.9% slot
- 15.1% wide

MVS:
- 44.6% slot
- 54.4% wide

Ok, so... cool, good to know. How might we expect these things to change or carryover?

First, let's talk TE; Graham's targets will be redistributed to Sterny and/or Tonyan most likely. Both are capable of playing the role that is mostly in-line or in the slot, about 50/50 split. Both are likely to be fairly rare presences in the backfield (though Sternberger had a share of that in his limited snaps as a rookie). So I think that carries over nicely.

For RB, I was a little surprised at how infrequent the slot and wide snaps/targets were for Jones, honestly. But in retrospect, I do remember that being something that was implemented a bit on the fly. I'd imagine that it will be more of a mainstream part of the offense with a year to work on it (and Tyler Ervin should probably be brushing up on that role, as well). I would expect to see an increase in Jones lining up in the slot or out wide this year--and maybe a slight decrease for Williams, but his pass protection will save him a role in the passing game so he will assuredly still see some targets and be moved around the field a bit.

More Jones snaps in the slot should help fill a bit of a void at WR, where the results of this were rather surprising...
It's quite clear that all the WR positions spend a decent amount of time lining up in the slot. Lazard was more of a big slot than an outside receiver last year, apparently. Allison, as we know, was mostly working from the slot. The question, then, becomes... who takes those targets? Does EQSB become our Allison and work mostly as a big slot? Or do we move Lazard inside slightly more and see whether MVS or EQSB can earn those outside snaps? Funchess was the obvious answer until he opted out; as it is, it will be interesting to see how the WRs line up. There has been plenty of work looking into the best slot options and I do know the EQ has been a popular pick for that each of the past two years, but seeing how much Lazard also lined up inside, it may be that Lazard increases that role and improves upon it.

It's also worth noting that I would expect the usage of 11 personnel to drop a bit further, from 62.0% down to maybe 58-60%, as we utilize more RBs and TEs in the slot.

[YoHoChecko]

It's also worth noting that I would expect the usage of 11 personnel to drop a bit further, from 62.0% down to maybe 58-60%, as we utilize more RBs and TEs in the slot.

On this topic, a fairly good write-up by Paul Noonan, using much of the same data I just referenced:

Should the Packers move away from 11 personnel?
The three wide receiver grouping has been a staple in Green Bay for years now, but the numbers show that it was not one of the most effective personnel units in 2019.

By PaulNoonan@BadgerNoonan Jul 22, 2020, 3:00pm CDT

As this article deals heavily with football personnel groupings, here is a brief explainer on what 11, 12, 21, etc. actually mean.

There are 5 eligible receivers on every play. The first digit is the number of running backs on the field. The second digit is the number of tight ends on the field. There is a third, unspoken number composed of the number of wide receivers on the field, which is 5 - (a+b) where 5 is the total number of eligible receivers, a = number of RBs, and B = number of TEs. 11 personnel includes 3 WRs, 12 (one RB/two TEs) and 21 (two RBs/one TE) personnel groups include only 2 wideouts.

Remember when Sean McVay was all the rage and everyone he ever had coffee with got a head coaching job, and then his team went 9-7 and only ranked 11th in points scored? McVay is probably most famous for running almost exclusively out of “11” personnel.

In the 2017 season, the Los Angeles Rams used 11 personnel on over 92% of their plays. On the surface, this makes a lot of sense as the 3-WR set is ideal for passing and the light boxes it creates also help to create efficient rushing plays. The Rams hummed along for quite a bit on this formula and the league followed. Green Bay Packers head coach Mike McCarthy was almost a proto-McVay in his love for 11, and soon, everyone was doing it.

11 personnel also frequently ranks as the “most efficient” personnel grouping. In 2019, teams averaged a +6% DVOA out of 11 personnel, which teams ran on 64% of total offensive plays. The second-most-efficient personnel group was 21 at 4.3% DVOA (if we ignore the small sample size success in 22 personnel, which did slightly outdo 11 with a 6.3% DVOA).

BUT
Then something interesting happened. You may have noticed that Sean McVay is no longer all the rage, having been supplanted by Kyle Shanahan. The 49ers were using 11 on fewer than half of their plays way back in 2017 and continue to do so. Slowly but surely, bigger formations have caught on. In 2019, five teams used 11 on fewer than half of their plays, and all five were very good offenses (Vikings, Ravens, Eagles, Cardinals, and 49ers). But if 11 personnel is the most efficient grouping, why have teams succeeded by going away from it, why is there a league-wide trend against it, and what does this mean for the Matt LaFleur and the Packers?

Matt Goes Heavy
Matt LaFleur was frequently mentioned in the same vein as McVay when he was hired, but as we frequently point out on this site, and as the most recent Packer draft suggests, he has much more in common with Kyle Shanahan. In the debut of the LaFleur offense is 2019, the Packers saw a 15% drop in 11 personnel usage, the 5th largest drop in the league. Given the additions of Josiah Deguara and AJ Dillon in the draft as well as the projected development of Jace Sternberger, you can expect the team’s use of 11 personnel to plummet again in 2020.

You may be thinking that all of this big personnel is a waste of Aaron Rodgers. After all, it’s not like the Packers have Lamar Jackson back there, and surely it makes sense to have actual wide receivers on the field to throw to. You might think that since the Packers have a passer, and 11 personnel is made for passing, and it makes no sense to have Aaron Rodgers handing the ball off and throwing to lumbering tight ends out of power formations. You might think it’s counterproductive to use the most efficient grouping in the league less. You would be wrong.

Aaron and Efficiency
Aaron Rodgers needs an efficiency boost badly. His lack of efficiency has been an issue for a few years now, and he most recently finished 2019 ranked 13th in DVOA and 20th in QBR. We don’t like QBR around here, but it’s still worth pointing out that EPA-based stats are really not fans of #12. When you take volume into account, Rodgers was still reasonably productive and ranked 8th in DYAR, but this is not what you want out of a player who was once the best in football.

And this is where heavy personnel can drastically change things. This piece relies heavily on Bryan Knowles’ work on personnel grouping at Football Outsiders. I had a theory that the primary reason 11 personnel was more efficient overall was simply that teams passed more out of 11 personnel, and passing is more efficient than running. I asked Bryan if there was any merit to this theory on twitter, and he was kind enough to answer:

image.png (52.96 KiB) Viewed 679 times

Indeed, as Bryan says, of the three major personnel groups, 11 is actually the least efficient for passing. There are a lot of reasons for this. The league has adjusted defensively to 11 as the default, and defenses have gotten smaller as a result. Football is largely about deception, and because passing out of 12 and 21 is less frequent, it is more surprising (and indeed, Bryan speculates that upping the volume of passing in heavy formations would hit diminishing returns at some point). Perhaps most importantly, play action passing is among the most efficient things you can do on a football field, and teams run play action far more frequently in heavy formations.

image.png (55.42 KiB) Viewed 679 times

Assuming Rodgers is on board, this should be cause for optimism. Rodgers doesn’t like to make tight window throws, and using a more deception-based attack out of heavy formations should lead to more frequent and easier big plays. The Packers will also likely ramp up their use of play-action, which grew from a significant weakness in 2018 into a strength in 2019.

The cost comes in coaches choosing to run the ball more. Running is still less efficient than passing, and too much running will quickly undo any gains. However, given Rodgers’ specific issues, adding a few more carries to the mix may well be worth it.

The Packers will obviously still use 11 as well, but greater diversity of personnel groupings can only benefit the team. The less predictable you are in the NFL, the better you will be. If you’re looking for a bounce back year from Rodgers, this is exactly why you might get it.

[YoHoChecko]

One more interesting note:

at age 23, EQSB is our youngest WR. He'll turn 24 early in the season, but currently, even last year's UDFAs (Malik Taylor, Darrius Shepherd) and this year's UDFA (Darrell Stewart) are already 24.

Despite being drafted 2 years earlier, EQ is only 1 year older than, say, Michael Pittman, Jr and Brandon Aiyuk.

[BSA]

For RB, I was a little surprised at how infrequent the slot and wide snaps/targets were for Jones, honestly. But in retrospect, I do remember that being something that was implemented a bit on the fly. I'd imagine that it will be more of a mainstream part of the offense with a year to work on it (and Tyler Ervin should probably be brushing up on that role, as well). I would expect to see an increase in Jones lining up in the slot or out wide this year--and maybe a slight decrease for Williams, but his pass protection will save him a role in the passing game so he will assuredly still see some targets and be moved around the field a bit.

I came across an article somewhere that mentioned this and they said there was a shift in the way defenses reacted to Aaron Jones lining up wide. Early on, they matched with an LB, but when it became apparent how much that favored Jones, DCs switched to using a DB to cover him - and when that happened, it wasn't a such great match-up anymore. Cat & mouse continues

[YoHoChecko]

I came across an article somewhere that mentioned this and they said there was a shift in the way defenses reacted to Aaron Jones lining up wide. Early on, they matched with an LB, but when it became apparent how much that favored Jones, DCs switched to using a DB to cover him - and when that happened, it wasn't a such great match-up anymore. Cat & mouse continues

I read something like that, as well, and that makes sense--it really worked best when it was motion, unexpected, and created a LB matchup or even a S matchup. But the total number of being in the slot or wide still felt like more than 14 or so.

As you said in the 53-man roster thread, the versatility and illusion of complexity matters here; and having a couple RBs who are running threats in the backfield but also receiving threats in the slot really helps with that game.

[BSA]

Per Football Outsiders, GB offense was # 8 overall in 2019.
11th in passing and 4th in rushing by DVOA in year 1

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats ... fense/2019

Bahk and Jenkins both commented on how much better/faster they can play along the OL when they aren't thinking as much
AR learned a new language last year, mentally he should be in a better spot this year
MLF had a chance to make some roster changes and has a better idea of how to deploy them on Sunday
I'm reasonably certain GB can move from # 8 to Top 5 in 2020 DVOA and if they can clean up the 3rd down conversions, we should see more points too after finishing with only 23.5 gm in 2019

[BSA]

The Packers ranked fourth in rushing efficiency last season, and Aaron Jones emerged as one of the best all-around backs in the NFL.
However, when GB used a FB- things went south

"The Packers used fullback Danny Vitale in 21 personnel last season, but they didn’t have success on those runs. Among the 11 teams that ran the ball at least 50 times out of 21 personnel, the Packers ranked last in EPA per rush"

Its not unreasonable to expect improvement after being the worst in the NFL last season
We often hear about a "regression toward the mean" in one direction, but I think it works both ways.

[NCF]

The Packers ranked fourth in rushing efficiency last season, and Aaron Jones emerged as one of the best all-around backs in the NFL.
However, when GB used a FB- things went south

"The Packers used fullback Danny Vitale in 21 personnel last season, but they didn’t have success on those runs. Among the 11 teams that ran the ball at least 50 times out of 21 personnel, the Packers ranked last in EPA per rush"

Its not unreasonable to expect improvement after being the worst in the NFL last season
We often hear about a "regression toward the mean" in one direction, but I think it works both ways.

Vitale could do a little bit of everything, but really isn't a strong blocker and certainly didn't put fear in teams as a receiver. It makes a lot of sense to upgrade that position with a more well-rounded player and hopefully that produces much better results.

[go pak go]

I came across an article somewhere that mentioned this and they said there was a shift in the way defenses reacted to Aaron Jones lining up wide. Early on, they matched with an LB, but when it became apparent how much that favored Jones, DCs switched to using a DB to cover him - and when that happened, it wasn't a such great match-up anymore. Cat & mouse continues

I read something like that, as well, and that makes sense--it really worked best when it was motion, unexpected, and created a LB matchup or even a S matchup. But the total number of being in the slot or wide still felt like more than 14 or so.

As you said in the 53-man roster thread, the versatility and illusion of complexity matters here; and having a couple RBs who are running threats in the backfield but also receiving threats in the slot really helps with that game.

I mean with the type of RBs we have on this roster I don't see how this can't be used to our advantage.

Have two RB sets with Jones and Ervin. Hell. Put Deguara out there too. Make it appear a heavy wishbone or T formation and then split Ervin/Jones out wide.

Have a two back set with Dillon and Jones especially if Dillon is the natural hands catcher they say he is.

The illusion of complexity has serious potential with this offense because of the type of players we are bringing in.

[BF004]

I've come across some other interesting nuggets from our 2019 season that can play into what we think our 2020 offense may look like.

Let's start with the whole team, formations:

11 (1 RB, 1 TE, 3 WRs): 62.0% (13th), down from 77.2% in 2018
4 or more WRs: ZERO snaps
2+ RBs: 15.1%
2+ TEs: 24.0%

(we had 3 snaps in a 3-RB, 2-TE set; all three were red zone TDs)

That is crazy, not once, not even for hail mary's or anything.

Wonder what all played into that. If they viewed Jimmy as a WR in situations and were comfortable just lining him up outwide on a 4 WR play, legit lack of depth/talent at WR, just completely LaFleur's MO and doesn't even have that package in his playbook.

Wonder what that number was in Tennessee the year before.

[go pak go]

I have thought for pretty much all offseason that the probability of the Packers keeping 5 WRs on the roster is greater than the Packers keeping 7 WRs. We don't use them. Especially now with a guy like Funchess sitting out....why keep 6?

Begelton and Shepherd can easily stashed on the practice squad.

Adams
Lazard
EQSB
Kumerow
MVS

And if you want to play, you better be a damn good blocker.

The extra spot will likely go to Dexter Williams or someone on the defense (like Vernon Scott)