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.
league wide stats on EXPLOSIVE plays and their correlation to scoring- from Warren Sharp
"Average NFL starting field position is the 28.6-yard line. It’s been between a team’s own 28 and 29-yard line for over half a decade.
So right inside a team’s own 30-yard line. So, let’s start there. Any drive that begins inside a team’s own 30-yard line.
If that drive has zero explosive plays (defined as a play of 15+ yards):
3% of drives score points of any kind
5% of drives reach the red zone
0% of drives score a touchdown
But if that drive had exactly one play of 15+ yards:
50% of drives score points of any kind
36% of drives reach the red zone
25% of drives score a touchdown
These drives were over 10 times more likely to score a touchdown with just one play of 15+ yards.
Look at the score rates when a drive has one play of 15+ yards in five-year increments:
Drives with zero explosive plays: 6.4% score rate
Drives with one explosive play: 52% score rate
Drives with two or more explosive plays: 83% score rate
I am completely shocked that ZERO drives without explosive plays went for TDs (from the 30 or so). I could swear that I’ve known at least a couple of 90+ yard drives that the Pack had last year for TDs. Even so, that suggests that the idea of smash-mouth, control the clock football is gone. Or, at least it has changed types. Teams definitely still aim to control the clock. But the way that they do it is differently. That could be a thread for discussion…
The part that stunned me most:
If that drive has zero explosive plays (defined as a play of 15+ yards):
3% of drives score points of any kind
5% of drives reach the red zone
0% of drives score a touchdown
A part of this, I think, means:
1. WRs/TEs/RBs that have some reliable explosive factor are more important than ever. Offenses just cannot score enough points otherwise.
2. Defenses are better overall.
3. The field position strategy is more important than ever.
Come on down and try some of our delicious green chili! Best in the world!
Makes sense. If it is going to take 80 yards to get to the end zone and you're going to take 17 plays to do it, that's alot of opportunities for a holding call to derail and more opportunities for the defense to force a turnover
The explosive play data is excellent and relevant, but it's also the kind of data that, mis-used, led exactly to Mike McCarthy and Aaron Rodgers' complete downfall in 2017 and 2018 as they spoke endlessly about the importance of hitting big plays and ceased to be able to move the ball consistently as they chased them. Let the big plays come to you, don't force them. Just like the old Mike Tice and the Randy Ratio debacle
Even so, that suggests that the idea of smash-mouth, control the clock football is gone.
If you look at the recent evolution of defensive tactics, it shines a lot on the value of explosive plays and why DCs work extra hard to limit them. Fangio and his many disciples are happy to play 2 safeties deep and completely take away the explosives - forcing a team to convert lots of 3rd downs and opening themselves up to penalties, sacks, turnovers as noted by others. One way Fangio makes it work is by having his DL cover a gap and a half instead of just one, and that's to help with the run game without having a Safety in the box.
If the D is going to play 2 deep, teams will often try to run them out of that alignment- but Fangio has an answer and most of them don't have the testicular fortitude to keep running the ball. ( its also less efficient than passing)
2 deep and 3 deep is also really hard on the QBs because they can't stand dinking all the time, get impatient and sometimes make a critical mistake.
Explosive plays are the way to beat that style of defense and the ones who scheme em up well are successful.
you know what else is surprising...rumors that SF and Nick Bosa are at an impenetrable impasse $$$ and SF "might" be trading him in a blockbuster deal to an AFC team. Both Bosa and Chris Jones are really squeezing their SB contender teams for a lot mo' money.
Mac Jones looked a lot better and people have commented that Jones and Zappe do not seem friendly with each other. I am thinking this has to do with harmony inside the QB room. If Jones is the guy, then his backup should be a guy who has his back, not a nemesis.
“Most other nations don't allow a terrorist to be their leader.”
“... Yet so many allow their leaders to be terrorists.”—Magneto
Mac Jones looked a lot better and people have commented that Jones and Zappe do not seem friendly with each other. I am thinking this has to do with harmony inside the QB room. If Jones is the guy, then his backup should be a guy who has his back, not a nemesis.
Well they also cut the 3rd string QB and have only Jones on the roster, so maybe Jones doesn't get along with anyone
Even so, that suggests that the idea of smash-mouth, control the clock football is gone.
If you look at the recent evolution of defensive tactics, it shines a lot on the value of explosive plays and why DCs work extra hard to limit them. Fangio and his many disciples are happy to play 2 safeties deep and completely take away the explosives - forcing a team to convert lots of 3rd downs and opening themselves up to penalties, sacks, turnovers as noted by others. One way Fangio makes it work is by having his DL cover a gap and a half instead of just one, and that's to help with the run game without having a Safety in the box.
If the D is going to play 2 deep, teams will often try to run them out of that alignment- but Fangio has an answer and most of them don't have the testicular fortitude to keep running the ball. ( its also less efficient than passing)
2 deep and 3 deep is also really hard on the QBs because they can't stand dinking all the time, get impatient and sometimes make a critical mistake.
Explosive plays are the way to beat that style of defense and the ones who scheme em up well are successful.
Yup.
You also mentioned something else. It seems that passing is more efficient (effective) than running the ball. Old-school guys should take note of that. In today’s vernacular, we look at certain passes as “their running play” all the time. Some screens and passes to the flat; all designed to get players into open space and probably even with a couple of blockers ahead of them.
Come on down and try some of our delicious green chili! Best in the world!
If I was a backup QB, I personally would be &%$@ in the starters socks. Big hard turds for the left foot so it feels weird to put weight on and soft wet ones for the right foot so he slips on the push off.
If I was a backup QB, I personally would be &%$@ in the starters socks. Big hard turds for the left foot so it feels weird to put weight on and soft wet ones for the right foot so he slips on the push off.
Never let anyone think they’re better than you.
You had better hope that your boss does not see this post. )) And no one is ever going to mentor you!
league wide stats on EXPLOSIVE plays and their correlation to scoring- from Warren Sharp
"Average NFL starting field position is the 28.6-yard line. It’s been between a team’s own 28 and 29-yard line for over half a decade.
So right inside a team’s own 30-yard line. So, let’s start there. Any drive that begins inside a team’s own 30-yard line.
If that drive has zero explosive plays (defined as a play of 15+ yards):
3% of drives score points of any kind
5% of drives reach the red zone
0% of drives score a touchdown
But if that drive had exactly one play of 15+ yards:
50% of drives score points of any kind
36% of drives reach the red zone
25% of drives score a touchdown
These drives were over 10 times more likely to score a touchdown with just one play of 15+ yards.
Look at the score rates when a drive has one play of 15+ yards in five-year increments:
Drives with zero explosive plays: 6.4% score rate
Drives with one explosive play: 52% score rate
Drives with two or more explosive plays: 83% score rate
I am completely shocked that ZERO drives without explosive plays went for TDs (from the 30 or so). I could swear that I’ve known at least a couple of 90+ yard drives that the Pack had last year for TDs. Even so, that suggests that the idea of smash-mouth, control the clock football is gone. Or, at least it has changed types. Teams definitely still aim to control the clock. But the way that they do it is differently. That could be a thread for discussion…
The part that stunned me most:
If that drive has zero explosive plays (defined as a play of 15+ yards):
3% of drives score points of any kind
5% of drives reach the red zone
0% of drives score a touchdown
A part of this, I think, means:
1. WRs/TEs/RBs that have some reliable explosive factor are more important than ever. Offenses just cannot score enough points otherwise.
2. Defenses are better overall.
3. The field position strategy is more important than ever.
Just taking a look at Packers' drives from last season those numbers don't seem to be accurate. They had a total of two drives starting inside their own 30 on which they scored a touchdown without having a play of more than 15 yards.
The first one happened against the Giants with them getting the ball on their own 25 with nine seconds left in the first quarter. Here are the plays on their 13-play, 75 yards touchdown drive:
Jones 3-yard run
Jones 8-yard reception
Jones 2-yard run
Deguara 12-yard reception
Deguara 7-yard reception
Jones 4-yard run
Dillon 5-yard run
Jones 9-yard reception
Lazard 5-yard reception
Watson 1-yard reception
Jones 8-yard run
Cobb 9-yard reception
Lewis 2-yard TD reception
They had another one against the Vikings in week 17 with them getting the ball on their own 24 with 7:06 minutes remaining in the third quarter. The list of plays on their 12-play, 76 yards touchdown drive:
Dillon 3-yard run
Jones minus-3-yard run
Cobb 11-yard reception
Rodgers incompletion
Watson 11-yard reception
Jones 5-yard run
Lazard 15-yard reception
Doubs 11-yard reception
Dillon 2-yard run
Jones 4-yard run
Vikings 5-yard Defensive Penalty
Dillon 10-yard run
Dillon 2-yard TD run
To be fair, they only scored a touchdown without having a big play on two out of 113 drives that started inside their own 30 for a percentage of 1.77% but it's not zero either. I don't have enough time to check the numbers for all teams around the league.
Even so, that suggests that the idea of smash-mouth, control the clock football is gone.
If you look at the recent evolution of defensive tactics, it shines a lot on the value of explosive plays and why DCs work extra hard to limit them. Fangio and his many disciples are happy to play 2 safeties deep and completely take away the explosives - forcing a team to convert lots of 3rd downs and opening themselves up to penalties, sacks, turnovers as noted by others. One way Fangio makes it work is by having his DL cover a gap and a half instead of just one, and that's to help with the run game without having a Safety in the box.
If the D is going to play 2 deep, teams will often try to run them out of that alignment- but Fangio has an answer and most of them don't have the testicular fortitude to keep running the ball. ( its also less efficient than passing)
2 deep and 3 deep is also really hard on the QBs because they can't stand dinking all the time, get impatient and sometimes make a critical mistake.
Explosive plays are the way to beat that style of defense and the ones who scheme em up well are successful.
Yup.
You also mentioned something else. It seems that passing is more efficient (effective) than running the ball. Old-school guys should take note of that. In today’s vernacular, we look at certain passes as “their running play” all the time. Some screens and passes to the flat; all designed to get players into open space and probably even with a couple of blockers ahead of them.
There is always going to be a niche for the contrarian oddball teams. Most teams will be set to stop the big play and will have trouble with physical running team. The Steelers carried by the Bus, 2010 bares, the Beast driven Seahawks. Great D and STs keep the score in reach so you only need a short TD drive or two, and a couple of FGs to be in it for the win. Boring football but it can still work.
If you look at the recent evolution of defensive tactics, it shines a lot on the value of explosive plays and why DCs work extra hard to limit them. Fangio and his many disciples are happy to play 2 safeties deep and completely take away the explosives - forcing a team to convert lots of 3rd downs and opening themselves up to penalties, sacks, turnovers as noted by others. One way Fangio makes it work is by having his DL cover a gap and a half instead of just one, and that's to help with the run game without having a Safety in the box.
If the D is going to play 2 deep, teams will often try to run them out of that alignment- but Fangio has an answer and most of them don't have the testicular fortitude to keep running the ball. ( its also less efficient than passing)
2 deep and 3 deep is also really hard on the QBs because they can't stand dinking all the time, get impatient and sometimes make a critical mistake.
Explosive plays are the way to beat that style of defense and the ones who scheme em up well are successful.
Yup.
You also mentioned something else. It seems that passing is more efficient (effective) than running the ball. Old-school guys should take note of that. In today’s vernacular, we look at certain passes as “their running play” all the time. Some screens and passes to the flat; all designed to get players into open space and probably even with a couple of blockers ahead of them.
There is always going to be a niche for the contrarian oddball teams. Most teams will be set to stop the big play and will have trouble with physical running team. The Steelers carried by the Bus, 2010 bares, the Beast driven Seahawks. Great D and STs keep the score in reach so you only need a short TD drive or two, and a couple of FGs to be in it for the win. Boring football but it can still work.
thats the thing, to many variables attempting to do that, it's been my pet peve for years with us, even though we've been a good running team, our defense has rarely ever held up there part of the bargain and we are forced to depend on Rodgers and Adams and a bunch of mid level jags to win, and come play off time when defenses are at there seasons best play, we get stone walled.
It's why I've cried for doing what Guty has done the last 2 drafts since 2016.
Michael Dunn was cut by Cleveland. He's a versatile interior OL (can play either G position as well as C) with some experience under his belt. Might be worth a look.
If I was a backup QB, I personally would be &%$@ in the starters socks. Big hard turds for the left foot so it feels weird to put weight on and soft wet ones for the right foot so he slips on the push off.
If I was a backup QB, I personally would be &%$@ in the starters socks. Big hard turds for the left foot so it feels weird to put weight on and soft wet ones for the right foot so he slips on the push off.
