2023 Packers Defense Expectations?

[BSA]

Offense helping Defense

On offense - Rodgers/MLF liked to run the clock down to the nub - for a variety of reasons

One of them is that by slow-playing on offense, you are limiting the number of plays your opponent can run.
What better way to shut down an opposing offense than by keeping them on the sidelines ?

GB was # 1 team in fewest opponent plays / game. Some of that comes from shutting em down, some of it comes from controlling the clock on offense. Will be very interesting to see how GB handles the play clock with Love under Center- and it may have a significant influence on the defense as well

https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/o ... s-per-game

Packers opponents ran only 58 plays/game. Average was 63 plays/game. So that's 5 fewer plays than average and over the course of a 17 game season that comes out to 85 fewer plays / season on defense. That's more than an entire game less.

If you compare to the worst teams in the league, the disparity is even larger. There its the equivalent of 2 fewer games/ season for the Packer defenders.

That's significant.

[BSA]

.
Jaire and Rasul talk about some of the communication issues for the secondary last year

https://www.packersnews.com/story/sport ... 496076007/

...After Alexander returned from the injury that sidelined him most of 2021, the duo circled each other for a while. Two big personalities with “alpha genes” − as Rasul Douglas puts it − who had to figure out how to work together.

“Me and Ja done yelled at each other before,” Douglas laughed. “He got mad that I took his guy and won the route because I seen it way different than he did. And we kind of yelled at each other. But we talked about it and he was like, ‘oh I see why.’

“And I was like, 'yeah, bro, but I see why you thought it was the same way.’ I said, ‘now we just got to know how we're gonna play it.’ And he was like, ‘if anything, just clear it up, and then I'll just make you right.’

“So we just kept doing that. And then communication got better.”


This is one of the reasons why all of these offenses use so much motion/shift pre-snap - it really stresses the defense and force them to all see it the same and adjust the same. That's a big task because it happens so fast.

[Cdragon]

Offense helping Defense

On offense - Rodgers/MLF liked to run the clock down to the nub - for a variety of reasons

One of them is that by slow-playing on offense, you are limiting the number of plays your opponent can run.
What better way to shut down an opposing offense than by keeping them on the sidelines ?

GB was # 1 team in fewest opponent plays / game. Some of that comes from shutting em down, some of it comes from controlling the clock on offense. Will be very interesting to see how GB handles the play clock with Love under Center- and it may have a significant influence on the defense as well

https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/o ... s-per-game

Packers opponents ran only 58 plays/game. Average was 63 plays/game. So that's 5 fewer plays than average and over the course of a 17 game season that comes out to 85 fewer plays / season on defense. That's more than an entire game less.

If you compare to the worst teams in the league, the disparity is even larger. There its the equivalent of 2 fewer games/ season for the Packer defenders.

That's significant.

Ultimately I think it is a bad strategy. If you've got a great O you want to run a lot of plays. I want to wear out the opposing D. I don't want to limit the number of possessions I get and consequently make every time you touch the ball a do or die situation. If you are better than average the more plays you run the more opportunities you have to score. And if you are playing a bad O bad things will happen to them the more chances they get. I want 12 possessions not 7 or 8.

We were also dead last in time between plays when we were trailing. Something like 31 seconds a play. At least play with some urgency when it matters.

When you get to the playoffs and you face a great D and a ball control offense, limiting the number of plays just gives them what they want. Doing exactly what they hope for hasn't been a working strategy for us.

[BSA]

Ultimately I think it is a bad strategy.

It might be. It might not.

Consider this:
3 of the 4 teams playing in the Championship Games last year - are ranked Top 5 in time of possession: Cincy, Phil, SF.
Top 3 “slowest” offenses in Seconds per Play: Shanahan, La Fleur, McVay.
All 3 teams have had great success using that strategy on offense; Rams won a SB, SF made a SB and the Packers were a # 1 seed

https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/seconds-per-play

If you have a maestro QB at the LOS and a very good offense, your game strategy will often adapt to take advantage of your advantages.
Packers offense was # 1 and # 10 in points scored in 2020 & 2021. Going slow didn't impede their success in terms of scoring points or winning games. (You'll see the same high rankings if you look at drive success rates, red zone success, 3rd down success etc.)

On the other side we have the 2011 offense – they lit up the scoreboard, quickly. They were playing at fast-break speed. However, the 2011 Defense got their asses kicked, # 32 in yards given up in part because GB was always kicking off and giving their opponents lots of chances.

I don't think its all one way or the other; there’s a HUGE value in switching up and going with tempo.
We'll see if this strategy continues with a different QB playing ( I suspect Love won't spend as much time dissecting) – but on some level the Shanahan offenses will always be slow because the motions & shifts require added time on every play. And then the QB has to wait an extra beat to make sure they’re all set before snapping.

That slower offensive pace impacts the defense for both teams - your defense is resting a little longer; their defense is on the field longer.
.

[APB]

You'll see the same high rankings if you look at drive success rates, red zone success, 3rd down success etc.

I think this has a s much to do with it as anything. If your team is consistently more efficient with their drives, it puts a lot of pressure on the opposing offense to match their efficiency. If they can’t, they have fewer opportunities for catch-up ball.

Applying the strategy to last year, the Packer offense wasn’t as historically efficient on offense (going off memory here) yet they stuck with the slow-ball strategy. In the end, they ended up limiting their own opportunities for come-back drives.

[Cdragon]

Ultimately I think it is a bad strategy.

It might be. It might not.

Consider this:
3 of the 4 teams playing in the Championship Games last year - are ranked Top 5 in time of possession: Cincy, Phil, SF.
Top 3 “slowest” offenses in Seconds per Play: Shanahan, La Fleur, McVay.
All 3 teams have had great success using that strategy on offense; Rams won a SB, SF made a SB and the Packers were a # 1 seed

https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/seconds-per-play

If you have a maestro QB at the LOS and a very good offense, your game strategy will often adapt to take advantage of your advantages.
Packers offense was # 1 and # 10 in points scored in 2020 & 2021. Going slow didn't impede their success in terms of scoring points or winning games. (You'll see the same high rankings if you look at drive success rates, red zone success, 3rd down success etc.)

On the other side we have the 2011 offense – they lit up the scoreboard, quickly. They were playing at fast-break speed. However, the 2011 Defense got their asses kicked, # 32 in yards given up in part because GB was always kicking off and giving their opponents lots of chances.

I don't think its all one way or the other; there’s a HUGE value in switching up and going with tempo.
We'll see if this strategy continues with a different QB playing ( I suspect Love won't spend as much time dissecting) – but on some level the Shanahan offenses will always be slow because the motions & shifts require added time on every play. And then the QB has to wait an extra beat to make sure they’re all set before snapping.

That slower offensive pace impacts the defense for both teams - your defense is resting a little longer; their defense is on the field longer.
.

Duh bares were also high up in time between plays. Nobody is leaping on their broken down band wagon. Now with SF if you've got the #1 D you can afford to take as much time as you want. The 2011 Pack had problems on D and I don't think the O's scoring early and often was one of them. Cutting Cullen Jenkins loose for a song was as much of the problem as anything. Clay going from 13 sacks to 6 was another. And too many winner's Mondays took away a lot of time players could be working on those problems. Bend don't break became bend, bend, bend then break. Offense gets you to the playoffs but you'd better be able to stop somebody when you get there.

I never advocate being predictable in any aspect of the game. Play smart and violent. Keep them guessing!

[TheSkeptic]

Ultimately I think it is a bad strategy.

It might be. It might not.

Consider this:
3 of the 4 teams playing in the Championship Games last year - are ranked Top 5 in time of possession: Cincy, Phil, SF.
Top 3 “slowest” offenses in Seconds per Play: Shanahan, La Fleur, McVay.
All 3 teams have had great success using that strategy on offense; Rams won a SB, SF made a SB and the Packers were a # 1 seed

https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/seconds-per-play

If you have a maestro QB at the LOS and a very good offense, your game strategy will often adapt to take advantage of your advantages.
Packers offense was # 1 and # 10 in points scored in 2020 & 2021. Going slow didn't impede their success in terms of scoring points or winning games. (You'll see the same high rankings if you look at drive success rates, red zone success, 3rd down success etc.)

On the other side we have the 2011 offense – they lit up the scoreboard, quickly. They were playing at fast-break speed. However, the 2011 Defense got their asses kicked, # 32 in yards given up in part because GB was always kicking off and giving their opponents lots of chances.

I don't think its all one way or the other; there’s a HUGE value in switching up and going with tempo.
We'll see if this strategy continues with a different QB playing ( I suspect Love won't spend as much time dissecting) – but on some level the Shanahan offenses will always be slow because the motions & shifts require added time on every play. And then the QB has to wait an extra beat to make sure they’re all set before snapping.

That slower offensive pace impacts the defense for both teams - your defense is resting a little longer; their defense is on the field longer.
.

Duh bares were also high up in time between plays. Nobody is leaping on their broken down band wagon. Now with SF if you've got the #1 D you can afford to take as much time as you want. The 2011 Pack had problems on D and I don't think the O's scoring early and often was one of them. Cutting Cullen Jenkins loose for a song was as much of the problem as anything. Clay going from 13 sacks to 6 was another. And too many winner's Mondays took away a lot of time players could be working on those problems. Bend don't break became bend, bend, bend then break. Offense gets you to the playoffs but you'd better be able to stop somebody when you get there.

I never advocate being predictable in any aspect of the game. Play smart and violent. Keep them guessing!

Yes, keep the D guessing. The only time Rodgers ever snapped the ball quickly was to get a penalty and a free play from the defense. Or in a 2 minute series. Hopefully running the clock down to 1 second and thereby giving the Dline a jump on the Oline on the majority of the plays is no longer the norm.

As far as this year's probable ranking, IMO it is all about injuries and that starts with Stokes and Gary. Having 3 starting caliber outside CB's plus a good slot is a big deal. And it looks like that Gary will be available and mostly back before December so having a quality 4 or 5 player rotation at OLB is also a big deal. If this D is healthy and LVN is what he appears to be, and Wyatt makes the 2nd year jump and stays out of trouble, this is a top 5 D - maybe top 2.

[Yoop]

Ultimately I think it is a bad strategy.

It might be. It might not.

Consider this:
3 of the 4 teams playing in the Championship Games last year - are ranked Top 5 in time of possession: Cincy, Phil, SF.
Top 3 “slowest” offenses in Seconds per Play: Shanahan, La Fleur, McVay.
All 3 teams have had great success using that strategy on offense; Rams won a SB, SF made a SB and the Packers were a # 1 seed

https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/seconds-per-play

If you have a maestro QB at the LOS and a very good offense, your game strategy will often adapt to take advantage of your advantages.
Packers offense was # 1 and # 10 in points scored in 2020 & 2021. Going slow didn't impede their success in terms of scoring points or winning games. (You'll see the same high rankings if you look at drive success rates, red zone success, 3rd down success etc.)

On the other side we have the 2011 offense – they lit up the scoreboard, quickly. They were playing at fast-break speed. However, the 2011 Defense got their asses kicked, # 32 in yards given up in part because GB was always kicking off and giving their opponents lots of chances.

I don't think its all one way or the other; there’s a HUGE value in switching up and going with tempo.
We'll see if this strategy continues with a different QB playing ( I suspect Love won't spend as much time dissecting) – but on some level the Shanahan offenses will always be slow because the motions & shifts require added time on every play. And then the QB has to wait an extra beat to make sure they’re all set before snapping.

That slower offensive pace impacts the defense for both teams - your defense is resting a little longer; their defense is on the field longer.
.

people get so wrapped up concerning running the clock down with the perceived idea that it gives the pass rushers a advantage which is so indistinguishable it hardly deserves mention that they over look all the advantages.

and we do break it up with up tempo, and motion designed to freeze a pass rush, never understood all the angst with running the clock down.

great post BSA

[Cdragon]

Ultimately I think it is a bad strategy.

It might be. It might not.

Consider this:
3 of the 4 teams playing in the Championship Games last year - are ranked Top 5 in time of possession: Cincy, Phil, SF.
Top 3 “slowest” offenses in Seconds per Play: Shanahan, La Fleur, McVay.
All 3 teams have had great success using that strategy on offense; Rams won a SB, SF made a SB and the Packers were a # 1 seed

https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/seconds-per-play

If you have a maestro QB at the LOS and a very good offense, your game strategy will often adapt to take advantage of your advantages.
Packers offense was # 1 and # 10 in points scored in 2020 & 2021. Going slow didn't impede their success in terms of scoring points or winning games. (You'll see the same high rankings if you look at drive success rates, red zone success, 3rd down success etc.)

On the other side we have the 2011 offense – they lit up the scoreboard, quickly. They were playing at fast-break speed. However, the 2011 Defense got their asses kicked, # 32 in yards given up in part because GB was always kicking off and giving their opponents lots of chances.

I don't think its all one way or the other; there’s a HUGE value in switching up and going with tempo.
We'll see if this strategy continues with a different QB playing ( I suspect Love won't spend as much time dissecting) – but on some level the Shanahan offenses will always be slow because the motions & shifts require added time on every play. And then the QB has to wait an extra beat to make sure they’re all set before snapping.

That slower offensive pace impacts the defense for both teams - your defense is resting a little longer; their defense is on the field longer.
.

people get so wrapped up concerning running the clock down with the perceived idea that it gives the pass rushers a advantage which is so indistinguishable it hardly deserves mention that they over look all the advantages.

and we do break it up with up tempo, and motion designed to freeze a pass rush, never understood all the angst with running the clock down.

great post BSA

Most of the angst comes from burning through time outs or giving away 5 yards delay of game, and then not having TOs for a challenge or at the end of halves when the D needs to stop the clock.

[Yoop]

It might be. It might not.

Consider this:
3 of the 4 teams playing in the Championship Games last year - are ranked Top 5 in time of possession: Cincy, Phil, SF.
Top 3 “slowest” offenses in Seconds per Play: Shanahan, La Fleur, McVay.
All 3 teams have had great success using that strategy on offense; Rams won a SB, SF made a SB and the Packers were a # 1 seed

https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/seconds-per-play

If you have a maestro QB at the LOS and a very good offense, your game strategy will often adapt to take advantage of your advantages.
Packers offense was # 1 and # 10 in points scored in 2020 & 2021. Going slow didn't impede their success in terms of scoring points or winning games. (You'll see the same high rankings if you look at drive success rates, red zone success, 3rd down success etc.)

On the other side we have the 2011 offense – they lit up the scoreboard, quickly. They were playing at fast-break speed. However, the 2011 Defense got their asses kicked, # 32 in yards given up in part because GB was always kicking off and giving their opponents lots of chances.

I don't think its all one way or the other; there’s a HUGE value in switching up and going with tempo.
We'll see if this strategy continues with a different QB playing ( I suspect Love won't spend as much time dissecting) – but on some level the Shanahan offenses will always be slow because the motions & shifts require added time on every play. And then the QB has to wait an extra beat to make sure they’re all set before snapping.

That slower offensive pace impacts the defense for both teams - your defense is resting a little longer; their defense is on the field longer.
.

people get so wrapped up concerning running the clock down with the perceived idea that it gives the pass rushers a advantage which is so indistinguishable it hardly deserves mention that they over look all the advantages.

and we do break it up with up tempo, and motion designed to freeze a pass rush, never understood all the angst with running the clock down.

great post BSA

Most of the angst comes from burning through time outs or giving away 5 yards delay of game, and then not having TOs for a challenge or at the end of halves when the D needs to stop the clock.

I get that, but it is to few times that it should cause the angst it has here, the goal is to gain advantage, and that trade off has been more of a positive then negative, there is always a trade off in this stuff, and there will always be negative results.

up tempo offense was big a decade ago and has a place in todays schemes, but has been on the decline for the last 5 years, the Shanahan offensive schemes work, they bleed clock, and help the defense, as long as it keeps moving the chains.

I dare anyone to ask our OL man, a guy like Bakhtiari if waiting till the last instant to snap the ball gives a pass rusher a advantage? that stuff always seemed over blown to me, it's not as though the OL man doesn't know when the ball will be snapped, there just as ready for that rusher as though the clock still had 10 sec. of run time.

[go pak go]

I dare anyone to ask our OL man, a guy like Bakhtiari if waiting till the last instant to snap the ball gives a pass rusher a advantage? that stuff always seemed over blown to me, it's not as though the OL man doesn't know when the ball will be snapped, there just as ready for that rusher as though the clock still had 10 sec. of run time.

It's not that the offensive line doesn't know.

It's that the defensive lineman does know if the ball is always snapped at 0 because it's either snap or delay of game. So the defender has no risk on jumping.

It's just like why rushers have such an advantage at home stadiums when the silent count is used because the defender just needs to see the head bop of the center and he knows what is coming up next.

Jared Allen was far more successful in the Metradome than he was in a white jersey for that very reason.

[BF004]

I have a feeling if an on the LOS pass rusher is looking at the play clock and not the ball, they aren't going to get very many jumps.

[Yoop]

I dare anyone to ask our OL man, a guy like Bakhtiari if waiting till the last instant to snap the ball gives a pass rusher a advantage? that stuff always seemed over blown to me, it's not as though the OL man doesn't know when the ball will be snapped, there just as ready for that rusher as though the clock still had 10 sec. of run time.

It's not that the offensive line doesn't know.

It's that the defensive lineman does know if the ball is always snapped at 0 because it's either snap or delay of game. So the defender has no risk on jumping.

It's just like why rushers have such an advantage at home stadiums when the silent count is used because the defender just needs to see the head bop of the center and he knows what is coming up next.

Jared Allen was far more successful in the Metradome than he was in a white jersey for that very reason.

so what, that doesn't in any way mean the OL man isn't ready, and the loud stadium is completely different, we both know the issue is the lack of the OL man hearing the cadence.

some blogger made a comment that it helps the rusher, have you ever heard a coach or OL man complain about it? if it where true offenses wouldn't do it

[Labrev]

so what, that doesn't in any way mean the OL man isn't ready, and the loud stadium is completely different, we both know the issue is the lack of the OL man hearing the cadence.

some blogger made a comment that it helps the rusher, have you ever heard a coach or OL man complain about it?

I have heard the booth analysts (some of whom played in the NFL) make the point during the game that yes, when the clock runs down to the last second, the pass-rushers can jump without fear of an offsides penalty. Logically, that evens the odds where the OL can usually get out a step ahead of the rush.

if it where true offenses wouldn't do it

*Or* it may be true, and offenses simply accept that drawback because there are some worthwhile/preferable factors for why they do it.

Nobody here has denied that there are benefits to doing that, nor has anyone said that our offense needs to totally stop doing it, just that we don't want less of it going forward.

[Yoop]

so what, that doesn't in any way mean the OL man isn't ready, and the loud stadium is completely different, we both know the issue is the lack of the OL man hearing the cadence.

some blogger made a comment that it helps the rusher, have you ever heard a coach or OL man complain about it?

I have heard the booth analysts (some of whom played in the NFL) make the point during the game that yes, when the clock runs down to the last second, the pass-rushers can jump without fear of an offsides penalty. Logically, that evens the odds where the OL can usually get out a step ahead of the rush.

if it where true offenses wouldn't do it

*Or* it may be true, and offenses simply accept that drawback because there are some worthwhile/preferable factors for why they do it.

Nobody here has denied that there are benefits to doing that, nor has anyone said that our offense needs to totally stop doing it, just that we don't want less of it going forward.

the advantages out weigh the negatives, and I don't see Lafleur dialing that back, Love has tutored under this approach for 3 years.

people here have complained about running the clock down for the last half doz years, to think that split second offers a rusher a advantage is so miniscule imo it hardly is worth mentioning, and certainly not something that would get a coach to abandon, just never got all the hype people here spoke about

[Madcity_matt]

so what, that doesn't in any way mean the OL man isn't ready, and the loud stadium is completely different, we both know the issue is the lack of the OL man hearing the cadence.

some blogger made a comment that it helps the rusher, have you ever heard a coach or OL man complain about it?

I have heard the booth analysts (some of whom played in the NFL) make the point during the game that yes, when the clock runs down to the last second, the pass-rushers can jump without fear of an offsides penalty. Logically, that evens the odds where the OL can usually get out a step ahead of the rush.

if it where true offenses wouldn't do it

*Or* it may be true, and offenses simply accept that drawback because there are some worthwhile/preferable factors for why they do it.

Nobody here has denied that there are benefits to doing that, nor has anyone said that our offense needs to totally stop doing it, just that we don't want less of it going forward.

the advantages out weigh the negatives, and I don't see Lafleur dialing that back, Love has tutored under this approach for 3 years.

people here have complained about running the clock down for the last half doz years, to think that split second offers a rusher a advantage is so miniscule imo it hardly is worth mentioning, and certainly not something that would get a coach to abandon, just never got all the hype people here spoke about

That's assuming it's a LaFleur thing, not a Rodgers thing.

[Yoop]

I have heard the booth analysts (some of whom played in the NFL) make the point during the game that yes, when the clock runs down to the last second, the pass-rushers can jump without fear of an offsides penalty. Logically, that evens the odds where the OL can usually get out a step ahead of the rush.




*Or* it may be true, and offenses simply accept that drawback because there are some worthwhile/preferable factors for why they do it.

Nobody here has denied that there are benefits to doing that, nor has anyone said that our offense needs to totally stop doing it, just that we don't want less of it going forward.

the advantages out weigh the negatives, and I don't see Lafleur dialing that back, Love has tutored under this approach for 3 years.

people here have complained about running the clock down for the last half doz years, to think that split second offers a rusher a advantage is so miniscule imo it hardly is worth mentioning, and certainly not something that would get a coach to abandon, just never got all the hype people here spoke about

That's assuming it's a LaFleur thing, not a Rodgers thing.

Matt go back a page and read what BSA brought, it explains that this is actually a Shanahan thing and other coaches have incorporated his approach

[BSA]

I dare anyone to ask our OL man, a guy like Bakhtiari if waiting till the last instant to snap the ball gives a pass rusher a advantage? that stuff always seemed over blown to me

It really is overblown - and here's why.
The DL cannot move until the ball moves - they can't jump on the clock because the Ref's wait until the echo of the zero, look back to the snap and only then will they throw a flag. They've said as much on many occasions when challenged about a non-call on delay of game

If the DL jumps before the snap, he's offside regardless of what he thought the the clock said
How many times have you seen a 2nd level defender jumping up and down & clapping as the clock strikes zero, only to see offense snap the ball with no penalty ?

The other part about it being overblown is that DL are generally not in a position to watch the play clock, their heads are down looking at the ball and the huge angry man 2 inches from his face. The LBs and Safeties are head- up and can see the clock

And finally, Rodgers was fantastic at getting them to jump with his cadence. One of the best ever. Opposing DCs rag on their DL all week long.
" Don't get fooled ! Don't jump ! " " Watch the goddamn ball !"
So these DL are sitting back just a wee bit so they don't give up a free play and incur the wrath of their coaches.

They are watching the ball, not the clock

Many fans hate the late snaps and try to find anything to support their dislike of it - but none of these comments about "helping the DL" stand up to scrutiny. And since some of the brightest minds in offensive football utilize the late-snap tactic to their advantage, maybe there's a value in doing it that outweighs any ( imaginary ?) disadvantages.

I'll toss one more in here. The Packers offense was # 2 in "stuff rate" on runs - and part of the reason they didn't get stuffed is that the QB took more time at the LOS to get the Defense to declare and was able to get GB into a better play call or blocking assignments
(That stuffed stat comes from Football Outsiders, but is behind a free login wall)

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats ... gged_in=1

.

[Madcity_matt]

the advantages out weigh the negatives, and I don't see Lafleur dialing that back, Love has tutored under this approach for 3 years.

people here have complained about running the clock down for the last half doz years, to think that split second offers a rusher a advantage is so miniscule imo it hardly is worth mentioning, and certainly not something that would get a coach to abandon, just never got all the hype people here spoke about

That's assuming it's a LaFleur thing, not a Rodgers thing.

Matt go back a page and read what BSA brought, it explains that this is actually a Shanahan thing and other coaches have incorporated his approach

I did read that yesterday. That said, the numbers show that likely due to the Rodgers running the clock down to almost nothing the Packers ran less plays and the defense did as well. But that's not what you were talking about or I was replying to. The question was not running a slow tempo game but specifically running the play down to the very last second and the potential advantage to the defense in knowing exactly when the ball has to be snapped. Playing a slower tempo game may be a Shanahan thing, but running the clock all the way to zero (vs snapping it with 3-5 seconds left) is the discussion.

[Yoop]

That's assuming it's a LaFleur thing, not a Rodgers thing.

Matt go back a page and read what BSA brought, it explains that this is actually a Shanahan thing and other coaches have incorporated his approach

I did read that yesterday. That said, the numbers show that likely due to the Rodgers running the clock down to almost nothing the Packers ran less plays and the defense did as well. But that's not what you were talking about or I was replying to. The question was not running a slow tempo game but specifically running the play down to the very last second and the potential advantage to the defense in knowing exactly when the ball has to be snapped. Playing a slower tempo game may be a Shanahan thing, but running the clock all the way to zero (vs snapping it with 3-5 seconds left) is the discussion.

as I said prior this isn't just Rodgers and the Packers doing this,(BSA also pointed that out so much better then I did ) but go back and look at the trends, teams now use less run and gun ( up tempo) then in past years, now we imho, are seeing more ball control, clock management, more run game, the more time the offense is on the field, the less opponents are, so you run off as much clock on every snap possible, that to me is pretty easy to understand