Packers Huddle

Yoop wrote: ↑

10 Aug 2023 12:31

go ask Lafleur what he considers pace to be, or about running the clock down, he will tell you what I just did

I did and he said it is NOT snap to throw.

Yoop wrote: ↑

10 Aug 2023 12:31

I know what CD was getting at

I won't read into things that aren't there.

Yoop wrote: ↑

10 Aug 2023 12:31

same as LaBrev or anyone else that thinks they know more then the coaches concerning clock management,

I disagree that it is a coach thing. I do believe it is a Rodgers thing.

Labrev wrote: ↑

10 Aug 2023 13:20

Yoop wrote: ↑

10 Aug 2023 12:31

same as LaBrev or anyone else that thinks they know more then the coaches concerning clock management,

I disagree that it is a coach thing. I do believe it is a Rodgers thing.

of course you do, people are allowed to believe whatever they want, even when evidence suggest otherwise.

Yoop wrote: ↑

10 Aug 2023 15:09

Labrev wrote: ↑

10 Aug 2023 13:20

Yoop wrote: ↑

10 Aug 2023 12:31

same as LaBrev or anyone else that thinks they know more then the coaches concerning clock management,

I disagree that it is a coach thing. I do believe it is a Rodgers thing.

of course you do, people are allowed to believe whatever they want, even when evidence suggest otherwise.

What evidence suggests otherwise?

Also, if we let the clock run down a lot less this year, will you accept the evidence pointing to it being a Rodgers thing?

Labrev wrote: ↑

10 Aug 2023 15:27

Yoop wrote: ↑

10 Aug 2023 15:09

Labrev wrote: ↑

10 Aug 2023 13:20

I disagree that it is a coach thing. I do believe it is a Rodgers thing.

of course you do, people are allowed to believe whatever they want, even when evidence suggest otherwise.

What evidence suggests otherwise?

Also, if we let the clock run down a lot less this year, will you accept the evidence pointing to it being a Rodgers thing?

no , and it was never a Rodgers thing, because it's a Shanahan trade mark, as well as a McVay and Lafleur, and I expect more and more teams to adapt it because it has proven to be successful, others have brought better evidence then I that the best teams in the league do it, and this is a copy cat league.

me, I've known people that complain about running down the clock had zero foundation for there complaints, cause no one gets to move or jump the snap and the OL still has the advantage because he knows when that will happen, all made up crap to diss Rodgers

Yoop wrote: ↑

10 Aug 2023 15:42

Labrev wrote: ↑

10 Aug 2023 15:27

Yoop wrote: ↑

10 Aug 2023 15:09

of course you do, people are allowed to believe whatever they want, even when evidence suggest otherwise.

What evidence suggests otherwise?

Also, if we let the clock run down a lot less this year, will you accept the evidence pointing to it being a Rodgers thing?

NO, and it was never a Rodgers thing, because it's a Shanahan trade mark, as well as a McVay and Lafleur, and I expect more and more teams to adapt it because it has proven to be successful, others have brought better evidence then I that the best teams in the league do it, and this is a copy cat league.

me, I've known people that complain about running down the clock had zero foundation for there complaints, cause no one gets to move or jump the snap and the OL still has the advantage because he knows when that will happen, all made up crap to diss Rodgers

NO what? No, you will not accept it's a Rodgers thing if we do it appreciably less this year? Or NO evidence exists to support your claim?

By the way, I changed the emoji in your post to a more appropriate one. You're welcome!!

it's a Shanahan trade mark, as well as a McVay and Lafleur,

This is a claim, not evidence. Do you have any proof that this claim is true? I don't need any in-depth study or copious statistics, just that anyone else will back up your claim as true.

Labrev wrote: ↑

10 Aug 2023 16:00

Yoop wrote: ↑

10 Aug 2023 15:42

Labrev wrote: ↑

10 Aug 2023 15:27

What evidence suggests otherwise?

Also, if we let the clock run down a lot less this year, will you accept the evidence pointing to it being a Rodgers thing?

NO, and it was never a Rodgers thing, because it's a Shanahan trade mark, as well as a McVay and Lafleur, and I expect more and more teams to adapt it because it has proven to be successful, others have brought better evidence then I that the best teams in the league do it, and this is a copy cat league.

me, I've known people that complain about running down the clock had zero foundation for there complaints, cause no one gets to move or jump the snap and the OL still has the advantage because he knows when that will happen, all made up crap to diss Rodgers

NO what? No, you will not accept it's a Rodgers thing if we do it appreciably less this year? Or NO evidence exists to support your claim?

By the way, I changed the emoji in your post to a more appropriate one. You're welcome!!

it's a Shanahan trade mark, as well as a McVay and Lafleur,

This is a claim, not evidence. Do you have any proof that this claim is true? I don't need any in-depth study or copious statistics, just that anyone else will back up your claim as true.

hey, don't ever do that again

BSA brought the evidence in a post a week or so back, and explained all the advantages, not sure where he found it, ( or which planet you where sourced to at the time) the top 3 offenses in the league do it, and all 3 are descendants of the Shanahan coaching tree.

I'll try and find what BSA brought, later though, a quick look produced nothing, and I'am busy

ah got it, read pages 3 and 4 of the defensive expectations tread, both CWIMM and BSA explain this well, and even with that you should study up on the advantages of using less offensive plays, burning more clock on each play, and relying on better production per play because it is the wave of the future, to many advantages, success in the nfl becomes copied if at all possible, by the end of the 2023 season half the league will be running the clock all the way down

Yoop wrote: ↑

10 Aug 2023 16:36

Labrev wrote: ↑

10 Aug 2023 16:00

Yoop wrote: ↑

10 Aug 2023 15:42

NO, and it was never a Rodgers thing, because it's a Shanahan trade mark, as well as a McVay and Lafleur, and I expect more and more teams to adapt it because it has proven to be successful, others have brought better evidence then I that the best teams in the league do it, and this is a copy cat league.

me, I've known people that complain about running down the clock had zero foundation for there complaints, cause no one gets to move or jump the snap and the OL still has the advantage because he knows when that will happen, all made up crap to diss Rodgers

NO what? No, you will not accept it's a Rodgers thing if we do it appreciably less this year? Or NO evidence exists to support your claim?

By the way, I changed the emoji in your post to a more appropriate one. You're welcome!!

it's a Shanahan trade mark, as well as a McVay and Lafleur,

This is a claim, not evidence. Do you have any proof that this claim is true? I don't need any in-depth study or copious statistics, just that anyone else will back up your claim as true.

hey, don't ever do that again

BSA brought the evidence in a post a week or so back, and explained all the advantages, not sure where he found it, ( or which planet you where sourced to at the time) the top 3 offenses in the league do it, and all 3 are descendants of the Shanahan coaching tree.

I'll try and find what BSA brought, later though, a quick look produced nothing, and I'am busy

Yeah I saw his post.
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1339&start=40

He brought a link with a table showing that the Packers run the fewest plays per game.

If the claim is that we run the fewest plays per game, sure, I accept that fact, given the evidence.

As to the claim that MLF specifically liked to run the clock down, that is a separate claim that is yet unsubstantiated by any evidence, because it is not clear that Rodgers did so only at MLF's direction, if both were in agreement, or if it's a Rodgers thing.

I think it's a Rodgers thing among other reasons because this practice predates LaFleur; we were doing it under McCarthy (who is not a Kubiak disciple like LaFleur).

Cdragon replied saying he thinks it's a bad idea. BSA replied with an argument in favor of it, but his reply even starts by conceding that it "may or may not" be a bad idea, admitting that there *are* some cons with running the clock down that far.

Yoop wrote:all made up crap to diss Rodgers

And here we come to the gist of your heartburn....

Labrev wrote: ↑

10 Aug 2023 16:53

Yoop wrote: ↑

10 Aug 2023 16:36

Labrev wrote: ↑

10 Aug 2023 16:00

NO what? No, you will not accept it's a Rodgers thing if we do it appreciably less this year? Or NO evidence exists to support your claim?

By the way, I changed the emoji in your post to a more appropriate one. You're welcome!!




This is a claim, not evidence. Do you have any proof that this claim is true? I don't need any in-depth study or copious statistics, just that anyone else will back up your claim as true.

hey, don't ever do that again

BSA brought the evidence in a post a week or so back, and explained all the advantages, not sure where he found it, ( or which planet you where sourced to at the time) the top 3 offenses in the league do it, and all 3 are descendants of the Shanahan coaching tree.

I'll try and find what BSA brought, later though, a quick look produced nothing, and I'am busy

Yeah I saw his post.
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1339&start=40

He brought a link with a table showing that the Packers run the fewest plays per game.

If the claim is that we run the fewest plays per game, sure, I accept that fact, given the evidence.

As to the claim that MLF specifically liked to run the clock down, that is a separate claim that is yet unsubstantiated by any evidence, because it is not clear that Rodgers did so only at MLF's direction, if both were in agreement, or if it's a Rodgers thing.

I think it's a Rodgers thing among other reasons because this practice predates LaFleur; we were doing it under McCarthy (who is not a Kubiak disciple like LaFleur).

Cdragon replied saying he thinks it's a bad idea. BSA replied with an argument in favor of it, but his reply even starts by conceding that it "may or may not" be a bad idea, admitting that there *are* some cons with running the clock down that far.

the only cons that I can see are not getting the snap off and forcing a time out or a penalty, or if your QB is so inexperienced that he can't make adjustment once the helmet speaker is shut off, which could happen with Love.

again you are going to see more and more teams using up the 30 second clock, just to many advantages not to, it helps every facet of the game when successful.

APB wrote: ↑

10 Aug 2023 17:38

Yoop wrote:all made up crap to diss Rodgers

And here we come to the gist of your heartburn....

well it's true, this crowd has ragged on this for ages, and there is zero advantage to DLman when the clock is run down to nothing, nada, and running the clock down helps the offense, the production doing this doesn't lie.

Yoop wrote: ↑

10 Aug 2023 17:46

APB wrote: ↑

10 Aug 2023 17:38

Yoop wrote:all made up crap to diss Rodgers

And here we come to the gist of your heartburn....

well it's true, this crowd has ragged on this for ages, and there is zero advantage to DLman when the clock is run down to nothing, nada, and running the clock down helps the offense, the production doing this doesn't lie.

If it results in an offensive offsides penalty or a clock violation penalty, then it's a bad idea.

Wasted timeouts was certainly one cost.

Ghost_Lombardi wrote: ↑

10 Aug 2023 18:30

Wasted timeouts was certainly one cost.

Those are dumb too!

Yoop wrote: ↑

10 Aug 2023 17:46

APB wrote: ↑

10 Aug 2023 17:38

Yoop wrote:all made up crap to diss Rodgers

And here we come to the gist of your heartburn....

well it's true, this crowd has ragged on this for ages, and there is zero advantage to DLman when the clock is run down to nothing, nada, and running the clock down helps the offense, the production doing this doesn't lie.

I think advantages of getting snaps off timely and even no huddle include:

1. More chances at the bat for an explosive play - huge for passing teams (which is why KC runs a LOT of plays)
2. Doesn't allow the defense to substitute taking advantage of matchups
3. Doesn't allow the defense to take a breather - it is harder to play defense than offense. A gassed defense is a killer.
4. The offense controls the game and the clock. An unpredictable snap count simply muddles things up for the defense.
5. A lower risk of burning timeouts. Everyone but Rodgers was to blame for burning timeouts and not having them at the ready toward the end of the half.

Labrev wrote: ↑

10 Aug 2023 16:53

Yoop wrote: ↑

10 Aug 2023 16:36

Labrev wrote: ↑

10 Aug 2023 16:00

NO what? No, you will not accept it's a Rodgers thing if we do it appreciably less this year? Or NO evidence exists to support your claim?

By the way, I changed the emoji in your post to a more appropriate one. You're welcome!!




This is a claim, not evidence. Do you have any proof that this claim is true? I don't need any in-depth study or copious statistics, just that anyone else will back up your claim as true.

hey, don't ever do that again

BSA brought the evidence in a post a week or so back, and explained all the advantages, not sure where he found it, ( or which planet you where sourced to at the time) the top 3 offenses in the league do it, and all 3 are descendants of the Shanahan coaching tree.

I'll try and find what BSA brought, later though, a quick look produced nothing, and I'am busy

Yeah I saw his post.
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1339&start=40

He brought a link with a table showing that the Packers run the fewest plays per game.

If the claim is that we run the fewest plays per game, sure, I accept that fact, given the evidence.

As to the claim that MLF specifically liked to run the clock down, that is a separate claim that is yet unsubstantiated by any evidence, because it is not clear that Rodgers did so only at MLF's direction, if both were in agreement, or if it's a Rodgers thing.

I think it's a Rodgers thing among other reasons because this practice predates LaFleur; we were doing it under McCarthy (who is not a Kubiak disciple like LaFleur).

Cdragon replied saying he thinks it's a bad idea. BSA replied with an argument in favor of it, but his reply even starts by conceding that it "may or may not" be a bad idea, admitting that there *are* some cons with running the clock down that far.

If you are speaking to the running down of the play clock, that is something that Rodgers has spoken to in the past. He always prefers to get a snap as close as he can to the “0” so that he can accurately assess the defense after they make their adjustments. The last second on the play clock forces the D to make their final adjustment and then AR12 knows the scheme for that play.

If I understand correctly, that is something that MLF prefers to not do in his offensive scheme. It depends upon too much intellectualism by the QB. He wants his offensive scheme to be as simple as possible for any QB. For a new guy like Love, MLF would allow one adjustment on most plays. But the play call needs to be honored as much as possible.

Of the last 10 Superbowl participants. 7 would fall into the faster pace side of the game. The faster pace teams have won 4 of the last 5 Lombardis. So while you can be successful slow playing the game any copy catting HC might try to speed up their game.

your right CD, I'am probably wrong about slow pace going forward, we'll see.

during the McCarthy era we where a faster pace team early at least, then we gradually slowed it some, since Lafleur we lead the league with slower pace, but with excellent success, with Love we may see a increase in pace

On the complete other end of the spectrum, the Green Bay Packers had the league’s slowest offense by seconds per play at 32.83 in neutral situations — though that is the fastest time for the 32nd ranked team since the 2013 season. While the Cardinals “don’t want to sit there and diagnose the defense,” that’s exactly what Aaron Rodgers and the Packers did. It’s ok to be the slowest offense in the league when that offense is also first in yards and points per drive. That could be repeatable in 2021 with Rodgers back under center, but speed could be needed as an additional weapon if a younger, inexperienced quarterback is forced to be the starter.

https://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/a ... -prescott/

this is a college analysis, so take that however you like, it shows that against popular believe efficiency declines when a offense runs more plays.

https://www.sharpcollegefootball.com/po ... tempo-myth

Yoop wrote: ↑

11 Aug 2023 08:01

your right CD, I'am probably wrong about slow pace going forward, we'll see.

during the McCarthy era we where a faster pace team early at least, then we gradually slowed it some, since Lafleur we lead the league with slower pace, but with excellent success, with Love we may see a increase in pace

On the complete other end of the spectrum, the Green Bay Packers had the league’s slowest offense by seconds per play at 32.83 in neutral situations — though that is the fastest time for the 32nd ranked team since the 2013 season. While the Cardinals “don’t want to sit there and diagnose the defense,” that’s exactly what Aaron Rodgers and the Packers did. It’s ok to be the slowest offense in the league when that offense is also first in yards and points per drive. That could be repeatable in 2021 with Rodgers back under center, but speed could be needed as an additional weapon if a younger, inexperienced quarterback is forced to be the starter.

https://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/a ... -prescott/

There's a big difference between utilizing the play clock and expending it to .5 seconds. You can run it down to 5 seconds each time and still be a slow tempo offense. Running it until you take a penalty or call a timeout is closer than it needs to be.

Yoop wrote: ↑

10 Aug 2023 17:43

Labrev wrote: ↑

10 Aug 2023 16:53

Yoop wrote: ↑

10 Aug 2023 16:36

hey, don't ever do that again

BSA brought the evidence in a post a week or so back, and explained all the advantages, not sure where he found it, ( or which planet you where sourced to at the time) the top 3 offenses in the league do it, and all 3 are descendants of the Shanahan coaching tree.

I'll try and find what BSA brought, later though, a quick look produced nothing, and I'am busy

Yeah I saw his post.
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1339&start=40

He brought a link with a table showing that the Packers run the fewest plays per game.

If the claim is that we run the fewest plays per game, sure, I accept that fact, given the evidence.

As to the claim that MLF specifically liked to run the clock down, that is a separate claim that is yet unsubstantiated by any evidence, because it is not clear that Rodgers did so only at MLF's direction, if both were in agreement, or if it's a Rodgers thing.

I think it's a Rodgers thing among other reasons because this practice predates LaFleur; we were doing it under McCarthy (who is not a Kubiak disciple like LaFleur).

Cdragon replied saying he thinks it's a bad idea. BSA replied with an argument in favor of it, but his reply even starts by conceding that it "may or may not" be a bad idea, admitting that there *are* some cons with running the clock down that far.

the only cons that I can see are not getting the snap off and forcing a time out or a penalty, or if your QB is so inexperienced that he can't make adjustment once the helmet speaker is shut off, which could happen with Love.

again you are going to see more and more teams using up the 30 second clock, just to many advantages not to, it helps every facet of the game when successful.

Of course. And it hurts every facet of the game when it is not successful