From Lambeau to Lombardi, Holmgren, McCarthy and LaFleur and from Starr to Favre, Rodgers and now Jordan Love we’re talking Super Bowl Champion Green Bay Packers football. This Packers Forum is the place to talk NFL football and everything Packers. So, pull up a keyboard, make yourself at home and let’s talk some Packers football.
Somewhat related, and I've said this before, last preseason LaFleur had Love run some pretty effective read-option plays. It's not insane to think we could see more of that.
I have to disagree with that Starks, circumstances change , a year ago Love was a backup QB, imo it makes no sense to groom a young QB for 3 seasons to use him that way, let the RB's run the ball and the QB's throw the ball, why chance getting the main player on the team hurt, just can't see that, but I'am old school about this stuff
Somewhat related, and I've said this before, last preseason LaFleur had Love run some pretty effective read-option plays. It's not insane to think we could see more of that.
I have to disagree with that Starks, circumstances change , a year ago Love was a backup QB, imo it makes no sense to groom a young QB for 3 seasons to use him that way, let the RB's run the ball and the QB's throw the ball, why chance getting the main player on the team hurt, just can't see that, but I'am old school about this stuff
We'd be talking like 4-6 times a game; he's not Lamar Jackson after all. I think it would work well with our personnel.
“We didn’t lose the game; we just ran out of time.”
- Vince Lombardi
Somewhat related, and I've said this before, last preseason LaFleur had Love run some pretty effective read-option plays. It's not insane to think we could see more of that.
I have to disagree with that Starks, circumstances change , a year ago Love was a backup QB, imo it makes no sense to groom a young QB for 3 seasons to use him that way, let the RB's run the ball and the QB's throw the ball, why chance getting the main player on the team hurt, just can't see that, but I'am old school about this stuff
We'd be talking like 4-6 times a game; he's not Lamar Jackson after all. I think it would work well with our personnel.
I can see this. Not talking about making Love a running QB, but the threat of the run adds a layer of complexity and causes hesitation by the defense.
Somewhat related, and I've said this before, last preseason LaFleur had Love run some pretty effective read-option plays. It's not insane to think we could see more of that.
I have to disagree with that Starks, circumstances change , a year ago Love was a backup QB, imo it makes no sense to groom a young QB for 3 seasons to use him that way, let the RB's run the ball and the QB's throw the ball, why chance getting the main player on the team hurt, just can't see that, but I'am old school about this stuff
We'd be talking like 4-6 times a game; he's not Lamar Jackson after all. I think it would work well with our personnel.
maybe it would, but my angst is RPO is a designed run, scrambling for a first down is rarely expected and is safer for Love, defenses set up and expect RPO if ya do it that much which means Love would be running in traffic, imo only in emergency to win should we do that stuff, the QB position is far to valuable to gamble with.
I have to disagree with that Starks, circumstances change , a year ago Love was a backup QB, imo it makes no sense to groom a young QB for 3 seasons to use him that way, let the RB's run the ball and the QB's throw the ball, why chance getting the main player on the team hurt, just can't see that, but I'am old school about this stuff
We'd be talking like 4-6 times a game; he's not Lamar Jackson after all. I think it would work well with our personnel.
maybe it would, but my angst is RPO is a designed run, scrambling for a first down is rarely expected and is safer for Love, defenses set up and expect RPO if ya do it that much which means Love would be running in traffic, imo only in emergency to win should we do that stuff, the QB position is far to valuable to gamble with.
tell that to the Eagles, the Ravens, the Bills etc. He's not a porcelain doll. I don't want to expose him to too much risk either, but there are some advantages to the varied attack. If you have some fear that the QB might be taking off it affects the pass rush, and conversely when you give it to the RB the defense may hesitate on the ball carrier if they are afraid of getting gashed by the QB run.
I didn't say it wouldn't, or tell him what to think, lafleur ran it 44.7 % of the time last year, 42.9% in 021, 45.9% in 2020 and 41.9 in 019, 6 teams ran more then they passed last year, so sure we could see a increase, IMO though I don't expect a huge increase of run to pass ratio, sure a young Love will probably scramble more, but is that what we really want? if ya allow the QB to run when his first two reads are covered how will he learn to have patience and navigate the pocket reading the whole route progression?
I want a passing QB, we invested heavily in receivers so that Love would have players to help him succeed as a passer, we should embrace that, and leave the running to Jones and Dillon etc., imo a 45% run to 55% pass is a great ratio
I want a QB who makes the right decision. I don't want him to be AR I want him to be Love. If he takes off five times in one game and not at all all in another that's fine as long as it was a good choice. I believe his college rap was not making the best decision. So I don't want him hanging around till he's sacked or just launching it into tight coverage to get rid of it. Running early in a career is normal and it also stresses the D. I'm not expecting Bobby Douglas but I don't want him to think he can play bullfighter like AR and dance out of harms way for 10 seconds.
well you wont get a young QB to develop decision making skills if ya allow him to run at the first sign of pressure, I think we want the same thing CD, thing is Rodgers had to learn how to dance in the pocket, thats a learned skill, recognizing where the pressure will come from and alluding it within a pocket is valuable, emulating Rodgers is the greatest thing we could hope for
we saw Love do that pretty well last year, I only saw a couple passes that he hurried, imo he made good decisions on most pass attempts, heck he scrambled when protection broke down and threw a perfect pass to Watson on a long TD catch and run, and I think one foot was off the ground, so like Rodgers his tech wasn't great when he let the ball go.
Love has groomed under Rodgers for 3 years, he will be more like Rodgers then he'll be like his old college self, wouldn't you agree?
The only real knock on AR in the early starter years was being risk averse. AR was the Anti-Favre. He would eat the sack rather than take the risk or throw it away. What was really maddening was him taking the sacks 4th down. Favre at that point in his career would never take the sack when could launch it. I remember him being tripped by the center and sitting on the turf about to fire between the linemen's legs. If you were going to win he was making sure it was because of him and if you were going to lose too often it was the late pick that did you in. Young Favre ran, Young Rodgers ran and I expect Love to run. Like you, I expect Love to lean more towards Rodgers on the gunslinger to sniper scale. He grew up in the Rodgers era. I expect Love like an early AR to utilize all his receivers and hit the open man where vet AR would too often hang on looking for the kill shot. If Barry doesn't get in the way of the D, moving the chains and finishing the drive will go a long way and win games.
Why can't he believe run production will rise. We've got 2 proven runners, the OL is far more intact and Love most likely will be less inclined to swap out the play unless it is the obvious call. Plus Love will take off more than AR would have at this point in his career, adding a few more ground yards. It doesn't depend on what the WRs do or don't do.
There’s only one answer to your question (if the run production will rise) that I know of. That is, the defenses will squat on our run game until Love proves he can be at least a modestly successful passer and the passing game succeeds.
You can pass to open up the run and not just with Watson. Burn them enough with first down play action, West Coast routes to force lineman to turn and chase. Gas them and then run them into the ground. That's where I want to see anticipation and reaction from the coaching staff. Keep them guessing and make them work.
Why can't he believe run production will rise. We've got 2 proven runners, the OL is far more intact and Love most likely will be less inclined to swap out the play unless it is the obvious call. Plus Love will take off more than AR would have at this point in his career, adding a few more ground yards. It doesn't depend on what the WRs do or don't do.
There’s only one answer to your question (if the run production will rise) that I know of. That is, the defenses will squat on our run game until Love proves he can be at least a modestly successful passer and the passing game succeeds.
You can pass to open up the run and not just with Watson. Burn them enough with first down play action, West Coast routes to force lineman to turn and chase. Gas them and then run them into the ground. That's where I want to see anticipation and reaction from the coaching staff. Keep them guessing and make them work.
Sure thing. They just have to make it work. That’s the rub.
But I think they’ll do fine.
Come on down and try some of our delicious green chili! Best in the world!
I want a QB who makes the right decision. I don't want him to be AR I want him to be Love. If he takes off five times in one game and not at all all in another that's fine as long as it was a good choice. I believe his college rap was not making the best decision. So I don't want him hanging around till he's sacked or just launching it into tight coverage to get rid of it. Running early in a career is normal and it also stresses the D. I'm not expecting Bobby Douglas but I don't want him to think he can play bullfighter like AR and dance out of harms way for 10 seconds.
well you wont get a young QB to develop decision making skills if ya allow him to run at the first sign of pressure, I think we want the same thing CD, thing is Rodgers had to learn how to dance in the pocket, thats a learned skill, recognizing where the pressure will come from and alluding it within a pocket is valuable, emulating Rodgers is the greatest thing we could hope for
we saw Love do that pretty well last year, I only saw a couple passes that he hurried, imo he made good decisions on most pass attempts, heck he scrambled when protection broke down and threw a perfect pass to Watson on a long TD catch and run, and I think one foot was off the ground, so like Rodgers his tech wasn't great when he let the ball go.
Love has groomed under Rodgers for 3 years, he will be more like Rodgers then he'll be like his old college self, wouldn't you agree?
The only real knock on AR in the early starter years was being risk averse. AR was the Anti-Favre. He would eat the sack rather than take the risk or throw it away. What was really maddening was him taking the sacks 4th down. Favre at that point in his career would never take the sack when could launch it. I remember him being tripped by the center and sitting on the turf about to fire between the linemen's legs. If you were going to win he was making sure it was because of him and if you were going to lose too often it was the late pick that did you in. Young Favre ran, Young Rodgers ran and I expect Love to run. Like you, I expect Love to lean more towards Rodgers on the gunslinger to sniper scale. He grew up in the Rodgers era. I expect Love like an early AR to utilize all his receivers and hit the open man where vet AR would too often hang on looking for the kill shot. If Barry doesn't get in the way of the D, moving the chains and finishing the drive will go a long way and win games.
I'm more worried that Barry will fail than Love.
Me too, IMO we brought in Greg Williams to keep Barry focused, and to keep stuff simple so we see less confusion in the secondary
I think McCarthy was the risk adverse guy and instilled that in Rodgers, and it's hard to blame the guy for that, even Favre benefited from that approach his last season with us, I'd rather my QB take a sack then forcing a pass and having it picked off.
I think the best stuff we saw from Rodgers under Lafleur is what we'll see from Love mostly, I expect he'll scramble an d extend some plays, I just don't think Lafleur will design many RPO's with him, we are far more balanced talent wise on offense to ask the QB to run, both young Favre and Rodgers ran out of necessity, I don't recall either doing RPO or designed run plays
I don't mind a QB tucking it and running a few times per game but I'm not a fan of designing read option plays. I think the read option is a gimmick meant for QB's that are lacking in other critical skills/capabilities.
Yoop wrote: IMO we brought in Greg Williams to keep Barry focused, and to keep stuff simple so we see less confusion in the secondary
I don’t think Greg Williams was brought in to do anything but Barry’s biding while working as an assistant to Barry. Williams is a career assistant, albeit a seemingly decent secondary coach, but is in no position to dictate anything to the DC.
I don't mind a QB tucking it and running a few times per game but I'm not a fan of designing read option plays. I think the read option is a gimmick meant for QB's that are lacking in other critical skills/capabilities.
RPO and the read option stresses defenses. It adds an extra wrinkle to the offense and in the case of the read option an extra play the defense has to account for. In the case of the RPO, the QB can read the LB or S to determine if they hand it off or pass. In the case of the read option, the offense gains a player that the defense must account for and the offense can negate a defender without blocking them. Neither are gimmicks in any sense of the word, but they do put the QB in more danger for read option. RPO limits what you can do in the pass game as far as routes.
Palmy - "Very few have the ability to truly excel regardless of system. For many the system is the difference between being just a guy or an NFL starter. Fact is, everyone is talented at this level."
I don't mind a QB tucking it and running a few times per game but I'm not a fan of designing read option plays. I think the read option is a gimmick meant for QB's that are lacking in other critical skills/capabilities.
RPO and the read option stresses defenses. It adds an extra wrinkle to the offense and in the case of the read option an extra play the defense has to account for. In the case of the RPO, the QB can read the LB or S to determine if they hand it off or pass. In the case of the read option, the offense gains a player that the defense must account for and the offense can negate a defender without blocking them. Neither are gimmicks in any sense of the word, but they do put the QB in more danger for read option. RPO limits what you can do in the pass game as far as routes.
Thanks for that breakdown. I honestly didn't know enough to differentiate RPO from read option so that was helpful. I still say that if an offense is consistently utilizing either of those 2 tactics, it's a gimmick offense. The biggest reason why I think this is because there have been so few (maybe none?) teams with option style offenses who have won Super Bowls. Traditional passers who have good arms, intelligence, and pocket awareness have taken home all the Lombardi's. If the QB has those traits, I think designing option plays is unnecessary, and sometimes counter productive.
It's only counter productive in the sense it could get the QB hurt. If that is off the table, why not run the ball with an extra threat and with the ability not to have to block a defender, the read key.
Palmy - "Very few have the ability to truly excel regardless of system. For many the system is the difference between being just a guy or an NFL starter. Fact is, everyone is talented at this level."
I don't mind a QB tucking it and running a few times per game but I'm not a fan of designing read option plays. I think the read option is a gimmick meant for QB's that are lacking in other critical skills/capabilities.
RPO and the read option stresses defenses. It adds an extra wrinkle to the offense and in the case of the read option an extra play the defense has to account for. In the case of the RPO, the QB can read the LB or S to determine if they hand it off or pass. In the case of the read option, the offense gains a player that the defense must account for and the offense can negate a defender without blocking them. Neither are gimmicks in any sense of the word, but they do put the QB in more danger for read option. RPO limits what you can do in the pass game as far as routes.
I don't get this read option, why are you trying to confuse us? we do a lot of play action, is that what you refer to as read option, play action does everything you just described, including RPO.
people reinvent terminology all the time, imo it's all basically the same &%$@
Yoop wrote: IMO we brought in Greg Williams to keep Barry focused, and to keep stuff simple so we see less confusion in the secondary
I don’t think Greg Williams was brought in to do anything but Barry’s biding while working as an assistant to Barry. Williams is a career assistant, albeit a seemingly decent secondary coach, but is in no position to dictate anything to the DC.
I don't mind a QB tucking it and running a few times per game but I'm not a fan of designing read option plays. I think the read option is a gimmick meant for QB's that are lacking in other critical skills/capabilities.
RPO and the read option stresses defenses. It adds an extra wrinkle to the offense and in the case of the read option an extra play the defense has to account for. In the case of the RPO, the QB can read the LB or S to determine if they hand it off or pass. In the case of the read option, the offense gains a player that the defense must account for and the offense can negate a defender without blocking them. Neither are gimmicks in any sense of the word, but they do put the QB in more danger for read option. RPO limits what you can do in the pass game as far as routes.
I don't get this read option, why are you trying to confuse us? we do a lot of play action, is that what you refer to as read option, play action does everything you just described, including RPO.
people reinvent terminology all the time, imo it's all basically the same &%$@
There are significant differences as I explained. RPO is run, pass option. Read Option is a run play. Play action is only a pass play with a fake hand off. Play action is not what we are talking about at all.
I am not trying to confuse, I am trying to educate. This is an explanation of the terminology that has been around for many decades.
Last edited by Pckfn23 on 29 Jun 2023 09:10, edited 1 time in total.
Palmy - "Very few have the ability to truly excel regardless of system. For many the system is the difference between being just a guy or an NFL starter. Fact is, everyone is talented at this level."
Palmy - "Very few have the ability to truly excel regardless of system. For many the system is the difference between being just a guy or an NFL starter. Fact is, everyone is talented at this level."
RPO and the read option stresses defenses. It adds an extra wrinkle to the offense and in the case of the read option an extra play the defense has to account for. In the case of the RPO, the QB can read the LB or S to determine if they hand it off or pass. In the case of the read option, the offense gains a player that the defense must account for and the offense can negate a defender without blocking them. Neither are gimmicks in any sense of the word, but they do put the QB in more danger for read option. RPO limits what you can do in the pass game as far as routes.
I don't get this read option, why are you trying to confuse us? we do a lot of play action, is that what you refer to as read option, play action does everything you just described, including RPO.
people reinvent terminology all the time, imo it's all basically the same &%$@
There are significant differences as I explained. RPO is run, pass option. Read Option is a run play. Play action is only a pass play with a fake hand off. Play action is not what we are talking about at all.
I am not trying to confuse, I am trying to educate. This is an explanation of the terminology that has been around for many decades.
The biggest and most simplistic distinctions:
Play-action = Called Pass Play
Read Option = Called Run Play
RPO = QB Determines Run or Pass based on pre-snap read
I don't get this read option, why are you trying to confuse us? we do a lot of play action, is that what you refer to as read option, play action does everything you just described, including RPO.
people reinvent terminology all the time, imo it's all basically the same &%$@
There are significant differences as I explained. RPO is run, pass option. Read Option is a run play. Play action is only a pass play with a fake hand off. Play action is not what we are talking about at all.
I am not trying to confuse, I am trying to educate. This is an explanation of the terminology that has been around for many decades.
The biggest and most simplistic distinctions:
Play-action = Called Pass Play
Read Option = Called Run Play
RPO = QB Determines Run or Pass based on pre-snap read
Only 1 change, RPO can be a post snap read as well.
Palmy - "Very few have the ability to truly excel regardless of system. For many the system is the difference between being just a guy or an NFL starter. Fact is, everyone is talented at this level."
