Packers Huddle

There is a difference between slowing the tempo down and taking the play clock down so far that it results in TOs or penalties. Most are referring to the latter.

BSA wrote: ↑

02 Aug 2023 12:55

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

I watch the clock often, and we rarely go below the 2 count, to me we have always been a very efficient offense under Rodgers, fans tend to have there pet peeves though, we all do, this just has never been one of mine, thanks for post, you explain this stuff well

Yoop wrote: ↑

02 Aug 2023 15:28

Madcity_matt wrote: ↑

02 Aug 2023 13:00

Yoop wrote: ↑

02 Aug 2023 11:49

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

Well, we also had the second most delay of game penalties. Which, by virtue of running the least amount of plays means we had the most delay of game per snap in the NFL. I don't have a stat for the number of frustrating times out taken as the play clock was about to expire, but it seems to me that we had a frustratingly high amount of them as well. I'm not disagreeing on the idea of slowing the game down, but I am strongly disagreeing with the need to run it to 0.

Madcity_matt wrote: ↑

02 Aug 2023 15:46

Yoop wrote: ↑

02 Aug 2023 15:28

Madcity_matt wrote: ↑

02 Aug 2023 13:00

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

Well, we also had the second most delay of game penalties. Which, by virtue of running the least amount of plays means we had the most delay of game per snap in the NFL. I don't have a stat for the number of frustrating times out taken as the play clock was about to expire, but it seems to me that we had a frustratingly high amount of them as well. I'm not disagreeing on the idea of slowing the game down, but I am strongly disagreeing with the need to run it to 0.

https://operations.nfl.com/gameday/anal ... -timeouts/
Lead the league in unnecessary TOs on O during the specified time period.

Madcity_matt wrote: ↑

02 Aug 2023 15:46

Yoop wrote: ↑

02 Aug 2023 15:28

Madcity_matt wrote: ↑

02 Aug 2023 13:00

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

Well, we also had the second most delay of game penalties. Which, by virtue of running the least amount of plays means we had the most delay of game per snap in the NFL. I don't have a stat for the number of frustrating times out taken as the play clock was about to expire, but it seems to me that we had a frustratingly high amount of them as well. I'm not disagreeing on the idea of slowing the game down, but I am strongly disagreeing with the need to run it to 0.

Wow I didn't know that, was that last year? I expect it is, lotta stuff went wrong last year, (new WR's, makeshift OL) I'd think we did better years prior, again most of the time we get the ball off with a tick or 2 left.

I admit I hate the penalty's and time outs just like everyone else, but if the 3 top teams in the league the last few years doing it, then I guess they feel the rewards are worth the fewer failures.

thing is we led the league in forced time outs running the clock till the bell tolls, and all those penalty's, and stuff, yet went 33-9 in that time span

Yoop wrote: ↑

02 Aug 2023 16:12

thing is we led the league in forced time outs running the clock till the bell tolls, and all those penalty's, and stuff, yet went 33-9 in that time span

You must have missed a few games. 34-15 regular season last 3 years.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

02 Aug 2023 15:31

There is a difference between slowing the tempo down and taking the play clock down so far that it results in TOs or penalties. Most are referring to the latter.

Understood.
But many of the times they ran the clock down to the nub was to enable the offense to call an audible and switch to a better play- that part is never part of the discussion- but its really important. We don't get to see it because nothing bad happened- but the fact GB was ranked so high in NOT getting stuffed at least suggests there's a benefit. And there is.

Some of the poor clock management in 2022 was the result of all the change on the coaching side, with Hackett and Getsy leaving. Both were heavily involved in play calling and play calling operations. Some was the QB, some was the HC.
OC changed from Hackett to Stenavich
Passing game coordinator changed from Getsy to Jason Vrable
Running game/OL coordinator changed from Stenavich to Butkus. Some moved from booth to field and vice versa.

That impacted their ability to get the calls in, the right personnel on the field. Too many times outs/delay of games - but many of those had nothing to do with the strategy, they were simply confusion and delay caused by lousy logistics.

I’m ready to see less “switch to highest percentage play based on what defense shows” and more “we are pounding the rock, I dare you to stop it”

Cdragon wrote: ↑

01 Aug 2023 17:34

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.

Actually the number of drives a team gets in a game shouldn't make a difference regarding the outcome of it. The team needs to be more efficient than their opponent during those drives, no matter if they get ball seven, eight or 12 times.

Cdragon wrote: ↑

01 Aug 2023 22:05

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.

It's smart for teams not having a good defense to limit the time that unit is on the field as well. As mentioned above, the only thing that matters is that your offense is more efficient as your defense allows the opponent to be.

The 2011 team losing Nick Collins in the first game of the season was a huge factor in them struggling as well.

TheSkeptic wrote: ↑

02 Aug 2023 03:43

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.

Wow, I'm definitely not being that optimistic about a Barry coordinated defense.

Madcity_matt wrote: ↑

02 Aug 2023 11:47

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

The numbers from Football Outsiders strongly suggest it's a MLF thing. Since 2019, the Packers ranked 31st (2022), 32nd ('20 and '21) and 28th ('19) and seconds per play. In the last four seasons with McCarthy being the head coach they finished 8th (2018), 12th ('17), 25th ('16) and 10th ('15).

Madcity_matt wrote: ↑

02 Aug 2023 15:46

Well, we also had the second most delay of game penalties. Which, by virtue of running the least amount of plays means we had the most delay of game per snap in the NFL.

The Packers offense ranked 19th in plays run last season. It was their defense that had the fewest plays run against them in 2022.

Yoop wrote: ↑

02 Aug 2023 15:28

Wow I didn't know that, was that last year?

Those numbers were from 2018 until '21.

Have not been paying too close of attention to training camp, but am hearing the D is ahead of the O at this point.

This information does not come as a surprise given this is Love's first-season as the starter and defenses generally being ahead of offenses at this time of the year.

But how do fans who've been paying closer attention than I have see the D at this juncture?

Are we really going to be more aggressive? Is this going to be a top 10 unit? Do Barry and his assistants seem to have everything under control?

Madcity_matt wrote: ↑

02 Aug 2023 16:37

Yoop wrote: ↑

02 Aug 2023 16:12

thing is we led the league in forced time outs running the clock till the bell tolls, and all those penalty's, and stuff, yet went 33-9 in that time span

You must have missed a few games. 34-15 regular season last 3 years.

I didn't miss a thing, last years issues aside, the first 3 years under Lafleur went 33-9

this has become a classic example of fans thinking they know more then coaches

Yoop wrote: ↑

07 Aug 2023 10:22

Madcity_matt wrote: ↑

02 Aug 2023 16:37

Yoop wrote: ↑

02 Aug 2023 16:12

thing is we led the league in forced time outs running the clock till the bell tolls, and all those penalty's, and stuff, yet went 33-9 in that time span

You must have missed a few games. 34-15 regular season last 3 years.

I didn't miss a thing, last years issues aside, the first 3 years under Lafleur went 33-9

this has become a classic example of fans thinking they know more then coaches

13+13+13=39
3+3+4=10

BF004 wrote: ↑

07 Aug 2023 10:39

Yoop wrote: ↑

07 Aug 2023 10:22

Madcity_matt wrote: ↑

02 Aug 2023 16:37

You must have missed a few games. 34-15 regular season last 3 years.

I didn't miss a thing, last years issues aside, the first 3 years under Lafleur went 33-9

this has become a classic example of fans thinking they know more then coaches

13+13+13=39
3+3+4=10

hair splitter

fans get into analytics as long as the analytics support there cause, when they don't, fans argue against them

Yoop wrote: ↑

07 Aug 2023 11:03

BF004 wrote: ↑

07 Aug 2023 10:39

Yoop wrote: ↑

07 Aug 2023 10:22

I didn't miss a thing, last years issues aside, the first 3 years under Lafleur went 33-9

this has become a classic example of fans thinking they know more then coaches

13+13+13=39
3+3+4=10

hair splitter

fans get into analytics as long as the analytics support there cause, when they don't, fans argue against them

I made no argument, had no side, used nothing to support any cause.

Just like being accurate

BF004 wrote: ↑

07 Aug 2023 11:31

Yoop wrote: ↑

07 Aug 2023 11:03

BF004 wrote: ↑

07 Aug 2023 10:39

13+13+13=39
3+3+4=10

hair splitter

fans get into analytics as long as the analytics support there cause, when they don't, fans argue against them

I made no argument, had no side, used nothing to support any cause.

Just like being accurate

feel free to make a argument, even take a side, or bring in anecdotal evidence

you are correct, we did lose that PO game, 33-10.

We lost 4 regular season games in 2021, 3 in 2020, and 3 in 2019.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

07 Aug 2023 11:58

We lost 4 regular season games in 2021, 3 in 2020, and 3 in 2019.

point remains, when analytics go against perception, they suck, when they support it, there great.

Yoop wrote: ↑

07 Aug 2023 12:27

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

07 Aug 2023 11:58

We lost 4 regular season games in 2021, 3 in 2020, and 3 in 2019.

point remains, when analytics go against perception, they suck, when they support it, there great.

Was not commenting on the point.