Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Offensive play calling
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Sunshinepacker" data-source="post: 550572" data-attributes="member: 9033"><p>This was good, I was hoping for more information like this. Now, what I was hoping to elicit from this topic was a more in depth discussion on WHY the 1/1/3 personnel is better. For instance, I know that Bakhtiari is a poor run blocker but wouldn't a grouping with Kuhn in the backfield (I'm sure Lacy would get used to it and Kuhn is certainly a better blocker than Boykin) have threatened the run and allowed more room for Jones and Nelson to work (also has the advantage of making reads for the QB easier)?</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>This isn't analysis. The first comment is patently false since many teams in the NFL run the ball VERY well out of offensive sets that feature fewer than 3 wide receivers. As for the second comment, we used 3+WRs almost 80% of the time, the eye test isn't really going to remember the other plays in comparison. </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Another comment that started to get into what I was hoping to discuss (however the topic kept getting derailed by the "spread the defense" crowd). Our interior oline was actually pretty good at run blocking, our ends not so much. I would agree that with Rodgers in the game it makes a lot of sense to spread out the defense. However, people keep assuming that defenses will automatically respect the passing game just because we put 3 WRs on the field. Not sure that's the case with Tolzein and Wallace at QB. The other side of the coin is that going to fewer spread sets would put the passing game in a better chance to succeed since defenses would respect the play-action a little more, allowing our mediocre quarterbacks a better chance to complete the ball. Kuhn is actually fairly decent at catching dump off passes, wouldn't it allow for some easier completions if they lined up in a 2/1/2 and sucked the defense in on a fake run play? Wallace and Tolzein weren't going to scare the safeties no matter how many receivers were on the team so getting them to bite on the fake might have given our receivers more one-on-one. Plus the added element of Kuhn helping block would allow more time for an indecisive quarterback to throw the ball, maybe Tolzein doesn't throw as many picks if there's less pressure? These aren't certainties in my mind, simply thoughts.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>I'm hesitant to address this one because I'm not real sure what it's saying. I think it's saying that because our QB was bad we had to go to more passing heavy sets? Again, I could be misreading it, but that makes no sense.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Please, tell me where the actual analysis is in this comment? I could just as easily say that the Seahawks were succesful when Earl Thomas played safety, therefore they let him play safety. How does that provide ANY insight?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Sunshinepacker, post: 550572, member: 9033"] This was good, I was hoping for more information like this. Now, what I was hoping to elicit from this topic was a more in depth discussion on WHY the 1/1/3 personnel is better. For instance, I know that Bakhtiari is a poor run blocker but wouldn't a grouping with Kuhn in the backfield (I'm sure Lacy would get used to it and Kuhn is certainly a better blocker than Boykin) have threatened the run and allowed more room for Jones and Nelson to work (also has the advantage of making reads for the QB easier)? This isn't analysis. The first comment is patently false since many teams in the NFL run the ball VERY well out of offensive sets that feature fewer than 3 wide receivers. As for the second comment, we used 3+WRs almost 80% of the time, the eye test isn't really going to remember the other plays in comparison. Another comment that started to get into what I was hoping to discuss (however the topic kept getting derailed by the "spread the defense" crowd). Our interior oline was actually pretty good at run blocking, our ends not so much. I would agree that with Rodgers in the game it makes a lot of sense to spread out the defense. However, people keep assuming that defenses will automatically respect the passing game just because we put 3 WRs on the field. Not sure that's the case with Tolzein and Wallace at QB. The other side of the coin is that going to fewer spread sets would put the passing game in a better chance to succeed since defenses would respect the play-action a little more, allowing our mediocre quarterbacks a better chance to complete the ball. Kuhn is actually fairly decent at catching dump off passes, wouldn't it allow for some easier completions if they lined up in a 2/1/2 and sucked the defense in on a fake run play? Wallace and Tolzein weren't going to scare the safeties no matter how many receivers were on the team so getting them to bite on the fake might have given our receivers more one-on-one. Plus the added element of Kuhn helping block would allow more time for an indecisive quarterback to throw the ball, maybe Tolzein doesn't throw as many picks if there's less pressure? These aren't certainties in my mind, simply thoughts. I'm hesitant to address this one because I'm not real sure what it's saying. I think it's saying that because our QB was bad we had to go to more passing heavy sets? Again, I could be misreading it, but that makes no sense. Please, tell me where the actual analysis is in this comment? I could just as easily say that the Seahawks were succesful when Earl Thomas played safety, therefore they let him play safety. How does that provide ANY insight? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
No members online now.
Latest posts
G
2024 Packer UDFA Tracker....
Latest: GleefulGary
57 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2024 1st Rd pick #25 Jorden Morgan OL
Latest: gopkrs
Today at 3:00 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2024 3rd Rd #91 Ty’Ron Hopper LB
Latest: gopkrs
Today at 2:51 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
R
2024 draft discussion thread
Latest: rmontro
Today at 2:03 AM
Draft Talk
Assessing the Draft Class (2024)
Latest: AKCheese
Today at 12:51 AM
Draft Talk
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Offensive play calling
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top