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.
who does, as I said it's impossible for me to remember every little play, and I expect it's impossible for even a young mind like yours to as well, and thats why I originally said 5 to 6 drops, and also why I generalize about some of the other stuff, the point is why can't we just have a conversation versus this insanity of every comment having to be backed up with data, when the comment was a generality in the first place, my point was that we over came the drops.
Because this is a Packers forum. I come here to learn and know more about the Packers and so my response was simply a "hey let's try and have everyone help out and figure out all the drops."
It's not a "who's mind is sharper.". There are like 120 plays in a football game. We can't expect to remember them all. But that's why I come to a forum so other people can help out and we bounce ideas and then use data to support those ideas. Why data is important is because it confirms reality.
Because even my young mind forgets things or blows things out of proportion.
It sounds like the official stat boys agreed with my 4. MLF agreed with your 6. I'm guessing MLF counted the negated Sternberer drop for his grading (which makes sense). MLF also agreed with me that MVS's sideline play was an incredible catch so you were harsher on him on that play than MLF.
What I tend to find is everyone is a little right and everyone is a little wrong. But the whole point of this forum is I like to be entertained and talk on a deep level of my favorite subject in the world.
just stop, this is what you wanted to tell me right from the start
This was definitely a drop in play from Rodgers this week. A few throws he'd like to have back.
I didn't want to argue this crap, so I said, your defending the WR's and left it at that, you came back to argue more, reality we had 5 to 6 drops, but I get the blame for being right and arguing my point, always.
It was a drop in play from Rodgers in Week 1. But that's not a bad thing. It would essentially be impossible for Rodgers to hold up his week 1 performance. Rodgers's week 1 was honestly a top 3/top 5 game of his career. It was so freaking good. I think he honestly had one minus throw all day and it still ended up being a touchdown (a half step short on the MVS score).
Were there some plays Aaron struggled on in week 2? Yes.
Did I ever say he had a bad game? Absolutely not.
Did I call out some bad throws by Rodgers? Yes. Did I also call out the drops by the WRs? Yes.
Do I expect Rodgers to be perfect every week? No. Is this the best start for Aaron Rodgers career besides 2011? Not even close (Yes).
Your original post stated our offense left some points on the board. I agreed. There were probably 6 - 9 plays after we discussed that could have let the Packers score 46+ points. But I wanted to discuss those plays. I even asked it as a question.
Clearly you and I are very far apart on this. But yoop. If you have noticed, I have given you more Super Bowl trophies the last week probably more than anyone. I don't dislike you and I think you know a lot about the game. I just like to talk specifics so we can separate perception from reality.
you discounted both as WR type players, YOU said we only suited 3 WR's, you said these things, own it. for christ sakes
What does that have to do with Aaron Jones playing more receiver?
maybe if you where to follow this conversation it would be more clear
That's the problem, I am following the conversation and it isn't clear. Here is your OP:
who here didn't think Jones would be used more in a receiver roll, seriously do we even need to have this conversation? did everyone here have blinders on last season?
That quote and the quote at the top is a Non sequitur.
Plus "everyone" was called out, when in fact everyone believed Jones would be used as a receiver.
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."
you may be right, but it would make little sense to me, for one he was our second best receiver and 2 by far the best RB we've had since Ahman Green,
GPG made a point saying we only dressed 3 WR, when actually both Jones and Ervin have show receiver skills for two seasons, we didn't draft a WR, and there ability at the position probably played a large reason for that, and we have discussed this prior for 3 months or more, my point is this is a old convo, and not really new news, and thats why I asked that question.
you may be right, but it would make little sense to me, for one he was our second best receiver and 2 by far the best RB we've had since Ahman Green,
GPG made a point saying we only dressed 3 WR, when actually both Jones and Ervin have show receiver skills for two seasons, we didn't draft a WR, and there ability at the position probably played a large reason for that, and we have discussed this prior for 3 months or more, my point is this is a old convo, and not really new news, and thats why I asked that question.
only 19 out of 73 snaps in 11 personnel
That means..."we don't need no stinkin' WRs"
MLF only had 3 or more WR's on the field for 26% of the snaps - but he still played some 5 wide using RB's and TEs
I mean with EQ out....we only have 3 WRs. When Adams was out on Sunday, we only really had two WRs to even suit up unless we think Malik Taylor is ready.
That was a response to a stat about us playing very little "11 personnel". Which I responded we really couldn't play 11 personnel because we dressed 3 WRs on Sunday and only had 2 available once we pulled Adams.
So yes. in this case when when it was actually going by position because that was the stat that BSA brought up...we only have 3 WRs on the active roster to even play 11 personnel unless we put in Malik Taylor (which I can't remember if he was active or not).
Because this is a Packers forum. I come here to learn and know more about the Packers and so my response was simply a "hey let's try and have everyone help out and figure out all the drops."
It's not a "who's mind is sharper.". There are like 120 plays in a football game. We can't expect to remember them all. But that's why I come to a forum so other people can help out and we bounce ideas and then use data to support those ideas. Why data is important is because it confirms reality.
Because even my young mind forgets things or blows things out of proportion.
It sounds like the official stat boys agreed with my 4. MLF agreed with your 6. I'm guessing MLF counted the negated Sternberer drop for his grading (which makes sense). MLF also agreed with me that MVS's sideline play was an incredible catch so you were harsher on him on that play than MLF.
What I tend to find is everyone is a little right and everyone is a little wrong. But the whole point of this forum is I like to be entertained and talk on a deep level of my favorite subject in the world.
just stop, this is what you wanted to tell me right from the start
This was definitely a drop in play from Rodgers this week. A few throws he'd like to have back.
I didn't want to argue this crap, so I said, your defending the WR's and left it at that, you came back to argue more, reality we had 5 to 6 drops, but I get the blame for being right and arguing my point, always.
It was a drop in play from Rodgers in Week 1. But that's not a bad thing. It would essentially be impossible for Rodgers to hold up his week 1 performance. Rodgers's week 1 was honestly a top 3/top 5 game of his career. It was so freaking good. I think he honestly had one minus throw all day and it still ended up being a touchdown (a half step short on the MVS score).
Were there some plays Aaron struggled on in week 2? Yes.
Did I ever say he had a bad game? Absolutely not.
Did I call out some bad throws by Rodgers? Yes. Did I also call out the drops by the WRs? Yes.
Do I expect Rodgers to be perfect every week? No. Is this the best start for Aaron Rodgers career besides 2011? Not even close (Yes).
Your original post stated our offense left some points on the board. I agreed. There were probably 6 - 9 plays after we discussed that could have let the Packers score 46+ points. But I wanted to discuss those plays. I even asked it as a question.
Clearly you and I are very far apart on this. But yoop. If you have noticed, I have given you more Super Bowl trophies the last week probably more than anyone. I don't dislike you and I think you know a lot about the game. I just like to talk specifics so we can separate perception from reality.
I suppose saying we had drops again this week would translate to LEAVING POINTS on the board, but I didn't actually say that, simply put I congradulated the offense for over coming adversity and dominating this game, and I also said that may become a challenge against better teams.
yes we are far apart concerning Rodgers and the receivers he's been given, may stance is that he's made them better then everyone of them has made him and that includes Adams, but I don't feel like arguing this point, so if you disagree, well thats just fine with me, really.
thanks for the Lambeau's, but seriously simply just saying I agree, or a thumbs up is better, Lambeaus don't come with a signature, so it's impossible to know who gave it, but thanks.
I don't get a lot of love here, and probably don't deserve it because I'am not polite enough, I blurt out a response and book just as I did when I said your defending the receivers (which you where) I'll try to do better, honest, often though I just don't feel like arguing this stuff because I can't compete with all the data you bring, it becomes to time consuming and I lose interest.
you may be right, but it would make little sense to me, for one he was our second best receiver and 2 by far the best RB we've had since Ahman Green,
GPG made a point saying we only dressed 3 WR, when actually both Jones and Ervin have show receiver skills for two seasons, we didn't draft a WR, and there ability at the position probably played a large reason for that, and we have discussed this prior for 3 months or more, my point is this is a old convo, and not really new news, and thats why I asked that question.
only 19 out of 73 snaps in 11 personnel
That means..."we don't need no stinkin' WRs"
MLF only had 3 or more WR's on the field for 26% of the snaps - but he still played some 5 wide using RB's and TEs
I mean with EQ out....we only have 3 WRs. When Adams was out on Sunday, we only really had two WRs to even suit up unless we think Malik Taylor is ready.
That was a response to a stat about us playing very little "11 personnel". Which I responded we really couldn't play 11 personnel because we dressed 3 WRs on Sunday and only had 2 available once we pulled Adams.
So yes. in this case when when it was actually going by position because that was the stat that BSA brought up...we only have 3 WRs on the active roster to even play 11 personnel unless we put in Malik Taylor (which I can't remember if he was active or not).
actually we played 11 personal because we used all 3 of Jones, Ervin and Williams rotating and lined up as a receiver I can remember on a bunch of those plays, even when we ran the ball we did that
My point being then 11, 21 personnel statistics aren’t as black and white as is being reported.
Of course not - that's the crux of MLF/ Shanny strategy.
Position-ambivalent players that allow you to dictate the defensive personnel packages .
Its simply the next iteration of cat n mouse. MM won the match-up game by having 5 WRs who were better than your 5 CBs.
Then defenses adjusted. Chip Kelly came along and used extreme tempo to keep the defense from subbing and to force them to default to basic coverages. Then defenses adapted.
Now you have the Shanahan/MLF system that uses a deep RB room and a deep TE room to force the defenses hand and to win match-ups. Its a blast to watch and it puts a lot of pressure on opposing defenses because they have to be able to handle this type of offense as well as others - and they frequently don't have personnel to do it well. Adjusting to all the motion is even more stressful on the D, making these match-ups work
Packers drafted a RB high and a TE/FB high in Deguara and many media dorks assumed it was to run the ball incessantly, but that was never the goal. The goal was to put a "heavy" offense on the field, get the defense to match with their "heavy/ base" crew and turn Rodgers loose to throw or run as he sees fit. The illusion of complexity starts with position-flexible guys and as noted by BF004 above - the traditional personnel designations don't fully describe what's happening on the field and that's all part of the plan. Is Deguara a FB or TE ? Is Swervin Ervin a RB or a WR ?
Keep em guessing. And through 2 weeks vs 2 defensive-minded head coaches, MLF is putting on a freaking clinic
.
The 11 personnel and other personnel designations are completely about, well the personnel, not about formation.
For instance, we ran many empty sets, more than I remember us running in a while. But if we have Tonyan, Jones and Ervin all split out wide, that is still 21 personnel.
So why I am saying that stat maybe isn't indictative about what we are doing, not because Aaron Jones can split out and be a decent receiver, but because Tyler Ervin is essentially a full time WR now, but is still listed as a RB on the roster.
If they made the seemingly arbitrary decision to list Tyler Ervin as a WR on the official roster, those numbers change drastically on his 28 snaps, that one statistic is going to look very different with nothing else changing.
yes we are far apart concerning Rodgers and the receivers he's been given, may stance is that he's made them better then everyone of them has made him and that includes Adams,
Without a doubt I absolutely agree with this. This has been the foundation of our argument for forever. We are paying Rodgers because we need him to elevate the play of everyone else. He has not done that for a long, long time. If you need spend a signifciant allocation of resources to support the production of your highest paid player....then maybe you should look at getting a young QB on a cheap deal or a game manager.
This year without question he is elevating his offense and it is why our offense is putting up 40 burgers both games. It is because of Rodgers. I give him more credit than any other player on this team. He is making the offense work. And when he plays like this, it means we don't need to have elite WR talent behind Adams to make it work. In fact, we shouldn't. We should use those resources elsewhere. But this arguement dates back to last year where I said our talent is more than fine and so far that is showing to be true. Our offense has actually "degraded" at RT and has stayed literally the same everywhere else. (tough to say we dropped at TE because Graham was so ineffective)
So yes. the fact that he has made MVS the production he has had with 4 drops this year....I'm really excited. And when our offense wasn't going...it was laregly becasue Rodgers wasn't in rhythm. Wasn't getting the ball out. Wasn't throwing accurately and wasn't getting his feet set.
Rodgers has NEVER been a quick release QB. Even in his younger days he was a 10th to 15th QB in terms of getting the ball out. But there was a period 2014 and later where it was really, really bad and something that older QBs just can't do because they don't have the legs to escape the pocket and make plays any longer. Rodgers is starting to change his game which is why I started the Aaron Freaking Rodgers thread. I was truly really excited and so far he has earned that excitement.
thanks for the Lambeau's, but seriously simply just saying I agree, or a thumbs up is better, Lambeaus don't come with a signature, so it's impossible to know who gave it, but thanks.
I don't get a lot of love here, and probably don't deserve it because I'am not polite enough, I blurt out a response and book just as I did when I said your defending the receivers (which you where) I'll try to do better, honest, often though I just don't feel like arguing this stuff because I can't compete with all the data you bring, it becomes to time consuming and I lose interest.
I'll give you a help here. Not that it really matters, but if you click your Notifications button, you can see reactions from people.
And we named the trophy after Lombardi. Not Curly.
The 11 personnel and other personnel designations are completely about, well the personnel, not about formation.
For instance, we ran many empty sets, more than I remember us running in a while. But if we have Tonyan, Jones and Ervin all split out wide, that is still 21 personnel.
So why I am saying that stat maybe isn't indictative about what we are doing, not because Aaron Jones can split out and be a decent receiver, but because Tyler Ervin is essentially a full time WR now, but is still listed as a RB on the roster.
If they made the seemingly arbitrary decision to list Tyler Ervin as a WR on the official roster, those numbers change drastically on his 28 snaps, that one statistic is going to look very different with nothing else changing.
Ervin would be looked at by the defense as a receiver if that is where he lines up, same with Jones or Williams, not so with TE's that line up as a receiver, thats how a DC would look at this, so in that sense even though the 3 are RB's it depends how we use them that changes this stuff, right????
The 11 personnel and other personnel designations are completely about, well the personnel, not about formation.
For instance, we ran many empty sets, more than I remember us running in a while. But if we have Tonyan, Jones and Ervin all split out wide, that is still 21 personnel.
So why I am saying that stat maybe isn't indictative about what we are doing, not because Aaron Jones can split out and be a decent receiver, but because Tyler Ervin is essentially a full time WR now, but is still listed as a RB on the roster.
If they made the seemingly arbitrary decision to list Tyler Ervin as a WR on the official roster, those numbers change drastically on his 28 snaps, that one statistic is going to look very different with nothing else changing.
Ervin would be looked at by the defense as a receiver if that is where he lines up, same with Jones or Williams, not so with TE's that line up as a receiver, thats how a DC would look at this, so in that sense even though the 3 are RB's it depends how we use them that changes this stuff, right????
That is where it gets really interesting because one team may treat a certain personnel group completely different than the next. That is where LaFleur has been really good, IMO. He finds the right group to get the looks he wants so he can run the plays that he wants. And with a guy like Ervin, its a good piece to give the same looks and run two different things because it is probably 50-50 on how defenses are going to treat Ervin. Its chess.
It is a simple statistic that literally just notes how many RB/FB's, TE's or WR's you have on the field each play, as they are listed on the roster, not where they line up. With no further context, nothing about formation and somewhat irrelevant to how a DC will play against it. Obviously coming out in 23 personnel means something, but definitely when you have RB who can lineup out wide, a WR who is listed as a RB, or a hybrid type of guy like Deguara, the statistic really kind of loses importance and meaning.
Tyler Ervin is listed as a RB on the roster, so that just gets counted as a RB on the field each time he is on the field.
It is obviously an imperfect statistic and yes, DC's will almost assuredly play Ervin as a WR and plan accordingly, but this statistic simply still will regard him as a RB, as it will for Jones or Williams when split out.
as I said, what they are called is in the eye of the beholder and the beholder is the DC we are up against, sure it's a chess match, but I don't want to get in to a guessing game about stuff like that, whats most likely is that if either of our RB/WR is in the slot or out wider one of the opposing CB's is mostly tasked with coverage, no lber can stick with really any of the 3 between Jones Ervin or Williams, that is a total mismatch, sure in zone a ILB or safety will get the under neath stuff, but even that could turn into a huge play.
back to the point, we/I felt when we passed on a wr in the draft these 3 players made it easier to abandon that position in the draft
Ervin would be looked at by the defense as a receiver if that is where he lines up, same with Jones or Williams, not so with TE's that line up as a receiver, thats how a DC would look at this, so in that sense even though the 3 are RB's it depends how we use them that changes this stuff, right????
That's the point, though.
In the huddle, nobody knows where these guys are gonna line up. The opposing DC has to set his personnel groupings based upon what he sees in the huddle. If he sees Ervin, Deguara, and Tonyan in the huddle he may assume it's a run play and go heavy. The Packers can go either run or pass with that grouping and exploit whatever grouping the DC puts out there.
A guessing game is exactly what ML and staff are trying to get the opposing DC coaxed into.
Why are we putting Williams in the same category as Ervin and Jones? If Williams is out wide, most defenses are going to trot out a LB to match him. No one is treating Williams as a receiver.
Why are we putting Williams in the same category as Ervin and Jones? If Williams is out wide, most defenses are going to trot out a LB to match him. No one is treating Williams as a receiver.
Why are we putting Williams in the same category as Ervin and Jones? If Williams is out wide, most defenses are going to trot out a LB to match him. No one is treating Williams as a receiver.
I don't think anyone did.
I think he means that in formation accounting, Ervin, Jones, and Williams all count the same--the RB category. But that in real life, they are accounted for differently. I think this post is just a further statement toward the misleading and incomplete nature of formation stats.
In the huddle, nobody knows where these guys are gonna line up. The opposing DC has to set his personnel groupings based upon what he sees in the huddle. If he sees Ervin, Deguara, and Tonyan in the huddle he may assume it's a run play and go heavy. The Packers can go either run or pass with that grouping and exploit whatever grouping the DC puts out there.
A guessing game is exactly what ML and staff are trying to get the opposing DC coaxed into.
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."
and the beholder is the DC we are up against, sure it's a chess match, but I don't want to get in to a guessing game about stuff like that, whats most likely is that if either of our RB/WR is in the slot or out wider one of the opposing CB's is mostly tasked with coverage, no lber can stick with really any of the 3 between Jones Ervin or Williams, that is a total mismatch, sure in zone a ILB or safety will get the under neath stuff, but even that could turn into a huge play.
