The Way a Packers Forum Should Be
https://packers-huddle.com/phpBB/
Good call and I agree. Bill Barnwell and others are looking at historical data and then fitting the 2019 Packers into that data. But a deeper dive offers some additional insight. Even in the "close" games, things were not as they seemed if all you did was look at a boxscore.Waldo wrote: ↑12 Aug 2020 12:21I think we have to throw out a lot of the arguments, esp on the offensive side of the ball, due to the MLF factor. GB had a new coach and installed a new offense. Strategy changed relatively drastically last year. MLF's offense was not tailored very well to his players and had basically no lessons learned feedback.
That's fascinating! Thanks for that nugget, and welcome aboard! Great first postBSA wrote: ↑14 Aug 2020 09:39
1st and 3rd quarters, GB offense was 5th and 6th in scoring
2nd and 4th quarters, GB was much worse at 26th and 27th in scoring.
I don't put a lot of credence into the national media or the aggregate data in terms of assessing the 2019 Packers or in their ability to use history to predict the fate of the 2020 Packers. The overall theme seems to be "the Packers got lucky" and while they enjoyed some good fortune as all winning teams do, they earned a 6-0 record in the division, they earned the #2 seed and they earned a playoff win vs Seattle. Which coincidentally, was another fast start and then hang on kind of game.
All the MLF Packers offense need to do is be more consistent, but they've clearly shown that they can do it in spurts and that's quite encouraging for the first year in a new offense.
Thanks for the warm welcome and for all the interesting stats/info you posted around this siteYoHoChecko wrote: ↑14 Aug 2020 09:42
That's fascinating! Thanks for that nugget, and welcome aboard! Great first post
That is shocking. And thank you for bringing that point. We noted often on this board of how effective our offense was when it was one script. And it is something to be excited about when we look at what this offense could be when we got the "MLF" way.BSA wrote: ↑14 Aug 2020 09:39Good call and I agree. Bill Barnwell and others are looking at historical data and then fitting the 2019 Packers into that data. But a deeper dive offers some additional insight. Even in the "close" games, things were not as they seemed if all you did was look at a boxscore.Waldo wrote: ↑12 Aug 2020 12:21I think we have to throw out a lot of the arguments, esp on the offensive side of the ball, due to the MLF factor. GB had a new coach and installed a new offense. Strategy changed relatively drastically last year. MLF's offense was not tailored very well to his players and had basically no lessons learned feedback.
There were many games where GB offense started out strong, built a lead and then faltered down the stretch as they worked deeper into the game plan and off of the initial script. See below for an example of that:
1st and 3rd quarters, GB offense was 5th and 6th in scoring
2nd and 4th quarters, GB was much worse at 26th and 27th in scoring.
I don't put a lot of credence into the national media or the aggregate data in terms of assessing the 2019 Packers or in their ability to use history to predict the fate of the 2020 Packers. The overall theme seems to be "the Packers got lucky" and while they enjoyed some good fortune as all winning teams do, they earned a 6-0 record in the division, they earned the #2 seed and they earned a playoff win vs Seattle. Which coincidentally, was another fast start and then hang on kind of game.
All the MLF Packers offense need to do is be more consistent, but they've clearly shown that they can do it in spurts and that's quite encouraging for the first year in a new offense.
there are actually reasons for OFF SCRIPT, or at least as you are explaining it, the main one imho is that MLF (any OC or play designer) installs and practices all week to use play scheme he think will work, not all do though, typically they will use all of those plays in in the first 15 scripted plays, if successful with some obviously we'll run those plays, when they quite working, and if the defense permits then we'll do the next batch that he thinks will work against what the defense is showing, obviously a lot depends on that.go pak go wrote: ↑14 Aug 2020 10:12That is shocking. And thank you for bringing that point. We noted often on this board of how effective our offense was when it was one script. And it is something to be excited about when we look at what this offense could be when we got the "MLF" way.BSA wrote: ↑14 Aug 2020 09:39Good call and I agree. Bill Barnwell and others are looking at historical data and then fitting the 2019 Packers into that data. But a deeper dive offers some additional insight. Even in the "close" games, things were not as they seemed if all you did was look at a boxscore.Waldo wrote: ↑12 Aug 2020 12:21I think we have to throw out a lot of the arguments, esp on the offensive side of the ball, due to the MLF factor. GB had a new coach and installed a new offense. Strategy changed relatively drastically last year. MLF's offense was not tailored very well to his players and had basically no lessons learned feedback.
There were many games where GB offense started out strong, built a lead and then faltered down the stretch as they worked deeper into the game plan and off of the initial script. See below for an example of that:
1st and 3rd quarters, GB offense was 5th and 6th in scoring
2nd and 4th quarters, GB was much worse at 26th and 27th in scoring.
I don't put a lot of credence into the national media or the aggregate data in terms of assessing the 2019 Packers or in their ability to use history to predict the fate of the 2020 Packers. The overall theme seems to be "the Packers got lucky" and while they enjoyed some good fortune as all winning teams do, they earned a 6-0 record in the division, they earned the #2 seed and they earned a playoff win vs Seattle. Which coincidentally, was another fast start and then hang on kind of game.
All the MLF Packers offense need to do is be more consistent, but they've clearly shown that they can do it in spurts and that's quite encouraging for the first year in a new offense.
This offense is not good once we go off script. We go to the 2014 - 2018 backyard school ball of holding onto the ball too long, evading and hoping something opens up. This worked for quite a while because of Jordy Nelson and Rodger's mobility. Rodgers could evade rushers and he always had that safety valve of Jordy coming back to the ball or having an amazing back shoulder catch near the sideline that would move the chains.
But we don't have that anymore and getting off script as you pointed out shows this offense falters quickly.
Again. We knew it was obvious how good we were in the first 2/3 drives of a half...I just didn't think it was that polarizing.
Welcome aboard!
Welcome, [mention]BSA[/mention]!! How did you find us? Tell us a little about yourself if you have some time.BSA wrote: ↑14 Aug 2020 09:51Thanks for the warm welcome and for all the interesting stats/info you posted around this siteYoHoChecko wrote: ↑14 Aug 2020 09:42
That's fascinating! Thanks for that nugget, and welcome aboard! Great first post
Learning a new offensive language and new scheme isn't easy but MLF and AR had their moments last year and built a solid foundation for 2020.
You're gonna have a hard time convicing me your point (which I don't know what it was actually).Yoop wrote: ↑14 Aug 2020 10:28there are actually reasons for OFF SCRIPT, or at least as you are explaining it, the main one imho is that MLF (any OC or play designer) installs and practices all week to use play scheme he think will work, not all do though, typically they will use all of those plays in in the first 15 scripted plays, if successful with some obviously we'll run those plays, when they quite working, and if the defense permits then we'll do the next batch that he thinks will work against what the defense is showing, obviously a lot depends on that.go pak go wrote: ↑14 Aug 2020 10:12That is shocking. And thank you for bringing that point. We noted often on this board of how effective our offense was when it was one script. And it is something to be excited about when we look at what this offense could be when we got the "MLF" way.BSA wrote: ↑14 Aug 2020 09:39
Good call and I agree. Bill Barnwell and others are looking at historical data and then fitting the 2019 Packers into that data. But a deeper dive offers some additional insight. Even in the "close" games, things were not as they seemed if all you did was look at a boxscore.
There were many games where GB offense started out strong, built a lead and then faltered down the stretch as they worked deeper into the game plan and off of the initial script. See below for an example of that:
1st and 3rd quarters, GB offense was 5th and 6th in scoring
2nd and 4th quarters, GB was much worse at 26th and 27th in scoring.
I don't put a lot of credence into the national media or the aggregate data in terms of assessing the 2019 Packers or in their ability to use history to predict the fate of the 2020 Packers. The overall theme seems to be "the Packers got lucky" and while they enjoyed some good fortune as all winning teams do, they earned a 6-0 record in the division, they earned the #2 seed and they earned a playoff win vs Seattle. Which coincidentally, was another fast start and then hang on kind of game.
All the MLF Packers offense need to do is be more consistent, but they've clearly shown that they can do it in spurts and that's quite encouraging for the first year in a new offense.
This offense is not good once we go off script. We go to the 2014 - 2018 backyard school ball of holding onto the ball too long, evading and hoping something opens up. This worked for quite a while because of Jordy Nelson and Rodger's mobility. Rodgers could evade rushers and he always had that safety valve of Jordy coming back to the ball or having an amazing back shoulder catch near the sideline that would move the chains.
But we don't have that anymore and getting off script as you pointed out shows this offense falters quickly.
Again. We knew it was obvious how good we were in the first 2/3 drives of a half...I just didn't think it was that polarizing.
Welcome aboard!
so we often see a series or two of off script because the defense out guessed us and where ready and Rodgers had to add lib, it's easy to blame Rodgers, but often the problem was simply the called play, not always obviously, but I expect it's more then we realize.
I was addressing the reasons we do well, very well at times in 1 quarter as opposed to another, and this goes all the way back to 1919go pak go wrote: ↑14 Aug 2020 12:55You're gonna have a hard time convicing me your point (which I don't know what it was actually).Yoop wrote: ↑14 Aug 2020 10:28there are actually reasons for OFF SCRIPT, or at least as you are explaining it, the main one imho is that MLF (any OC or play designer) installs and practices all week to use play scheme he think will work, not all do though, typically they will use all of those plays in in the first 15 scripted plays, if successful with some obviously we'll run those plays, when they quite working, and if the defense permits then we'll do the next batch that he thinks will work against what the defense is showing, obviously a lot depends on that.go pak go wrote: ↑14 Aug 2020 10:12
That is shocking. And thank you for bringing that point. We noted often on this board of how effective our offense was when it was one script. And it is something to be excited about when we look at what this offense could be when we got the "MLF" way.
This offense is not good once we go off script. We go to the 2014 - 2018 backyard school ball of holding onto the ball too long, evading and hoping something opens up. This worked for quite a while because of Jordy Nelson and Rodger's mobility. Rodgers could evade rushers and he always had that safety valve of Jordy coming back to the ball or having an amazing back shoulder catch near the sideline that would move the chains.
But we don't have that anymore and getting off script as you pointed out shows this offense falters quickly.
Again. We knew it was obvious how good we were in the first 2/3 drives of a half...I just didn't think it was that polarizing.
Welcome aboard!
so we often see a series or two of off script because the defense out guessed us and where ready and Rodgers had to add lib, it's easy to blame Rodgers, but often the problem was simply the called play, not always obviously, but I expect it's more then we realize.
I maintain that starting in 2014, our team got really good and I mean REEAAAALLLLYYYYY good at the long developing killer play. We were so good at it that we put up ridiculous numbers in the first half against teams like Chicago, Philly, Atlanta. (didn't we put up like 42 points over Chicago in the first half in 2014?)
And we could get away with it for a few reasons.
1. The chemistry with Rodgers and Nelson was insane. Nelson was the safety valve and whenever Rodgers was in trouble, Nelson could come back to the ball and get that last second throw before Rodgers gets hit. Boom...move the chains. Survive for another three downs.
2. When all else fails, Rodgers could hit Nelson on a back shoulder throw that was essentially un-defendable. This was a pass that hardly happened before Rodgers and Nelson did it. They literally invented an athletic play because they were the best ever to execute it. Boom....move the chains. Survive for another three downs.
3. Rodgers hard count making defenses jump. 2014 and September 2015 this was another staple. Once that flag flies, Rodgers had no risk to worry and let it fly and boy his accuracy and our WR talent crushed teams with it.
October 2015, these were taken away. Nelson was on IR. And teams started getting more disciplined on Rodgers's hard count.
Once those went away, our offense just never was able to recover for the exception of December/January (the Eagles game was actually late November) 2016 and October 2019 last year.
Even in 2018, we would talk about how good our offense looked that first drive but then falter after that. There is a problem. I don't have any solutions, but the data shows there is strong correlation and the three items above are my theories of why we started to be exposed.
Get out while you still can!BSA wrote: ↑14 Aug 2020 09:51Thanks for the warm welcome and for all the interesting stats/info you posted around this siteYoHoChecko wrote: ↑14 Aug 2020 09:42
That's fascinating! Thanks for that nugget, and welcome aboard! Great first post
Learning a new offensive language and new scheme isn't easy but MLF and AR had their moments last year and built a solid foundation for 2020.
Yeah but the hole in this argument is you are lumping all offenses in this bucket saying that offense has an advantage over the defense to start. Which I won't contend. But the stat that BSA brought up means that we are SIGNIFICANTLY better than the rest of the league in Q1 and Q2 and SIGNIFICANTLY worse than the rest of the league in Q2 and Q4.Yoop wrote: ↑14 Aug 2020 13:34
I was addressing the reasons we do well, very well at times in 1 quarter as opposed to another, and this goes all the way back to 1919
offenses set up defenses to gain mismatches, however depending on the defenses often the mismatches only last a few plays or a few series, then you have to use something else, it explains some of the lop sided scoring by quarters that BSA's post showed.
3. Green Bay Packers
(Last season: 13-3, won NFC North, lost to 49ers in NFC championship)
Path to disappointment: Green Bay doesn’t get nearly as lucky as it did in 2019 when it went 8-1 in one-score games. Matt LaFleur reverts to being one of the most run-heavy play-callers in the NFL. A frustrated Aaron Rodgers tries to change plays at the line of scrimmage, which leads to complete chaos. LaFleur tells the offensive players not to listen to Rodgers. Rodgers tells them not to listen to LaFleur. The team is divided, and the offense is a disaster. Around Week 7, anonymous reports surface about how good Jordan Love has looked in practice. The writing is on the wall. The franchise is ready to move on, and the trade market for Rodgers becomes the dominant storyline of the 2021 offseason.
Yeah, honestly, the analytic-based regression stories don't bother me, because they talk about the luck factors and the feats that are statisticlly unlikely to happen again.
the only hole in my argument is the one your trying to diggo pak go wrote: ↑14 Aug 2020 14:12Yeah but the hole in this argument is you are lumping all offenses in this bucket saying that offense has an advantage over the defense to start. Which I won't contend. But the stat that BSA brought up means that we are SIGNIFICANTLY better than the rest of the league in Q1 and Q2 and SIGNIFICANTLY worse than the rest of the league in Q2 and Q4.Yoop wrote: ↑14 Aug 2020 13:34
I was addressing the reasons we do well, very well at times in 1 quarter as opposed to another, and this goes all the way back to 1919
offenses set up defenses to gain mismatches, however depending on the defenses often the mismatches only last a few plays or a few series, then you have to use something else, it explains some of the lop sided scoring by quarters that BSA's post showed.
We are not comparing Packers scoring in Q1/Q3 vs Packers scoring Q2/Q4 as you are suggesting.
We are comparing Packers scoring in Q1/Q3 vs the league Q1/Q3 and Packers scoring Q2/Q4 vs the league.
just because we scheme solid mismatches in Q 1 and 3 versus Q 2 and 4 is directly involved with the way defenses adjust to our offense and eliminate the mis matches, and Offense normally does have a advantage over defenses to start a game, offense knows what it's going to do, and defense has to react to it, all things equal, of course offense has the advantage, only your most dominate defenses do, even then it's debatable.