Packers want to speed up offense

[Deleted member 6794]

http://espn.go.com/blog/green-bay-packers/post/_/id/10935/packers-want-to-speed-up-the-offense

 

[Oshkoshpackfan]

That can be a good thing indeed....BUT.... speeding up the game pace can have bad results too. If younger guys are going to make a mistake it will happen during this sped up pace more than likely. That would be the wrong time to run the wrong route. Also, it will make scoring happen faster, putting our defense back on the field with out the proper rest time.
I think that the other team should dictate the pace at which we plan our play. On teams like SEA or the Pats, we do need to bump up the pace to get some points om the board and make them play catch up....... but with Lacy/starks combo, I sure do like the break the other guys will to play and pound the rock to wear them down to nothing appraoch. It may not be as exiting to watch, but if it puts a "W" up for us, then I don't care how we win.

 

[TJV]

I’m not too concerned about youngsters running the wrong routes because in order to earn PT they’re going to have to know the offense well. Also, Rodgers is so good he can adjust to their mistakes: On the first NFL TD Cobb scored from scrimmage he ran the wrong route and Rodgers hit him in stride. The biggest concern is the only thing worse than a three-and-out (other than a turnover) is a very fast three-and-out. But with the Packers’ revived running game I do like the idea of preventing defenses from substituting based upon down and distance because Rodgers will be able to exploit match ups and their alignment.

 

[Forderick]

Would it not make more sense to maybe slow it down to give the defence(you know the not so good one the last 3 years) more time to rest?

Fast offence is the trendy thing right now, I just hope the defence can keep up.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I think that the other team should dictate the pace at which we plan our play. On teams like SEA or the Pats, we do need to bump up the pace to get some points om the board and make them play catch up....... but with Lacy/starks combo, I sure do like the break the other guys will to play and pound the rock to wear them down to nothing appraoch. It may not be as exiting to watch, but if it puts a "W" up for us, then I don't care how we win.

I don´t think the opponent should ever dictate the way the Packers approach a game. It´s fine trying to exploit weaknesses in a defense, but completely changing the game plan because of an opponent´s strengths is a terrible idea IMO.

McCarthy didn´t suggest to run the ball less often, he just wants to have a RB capable of playing all three downs so the offense doesn´t have to substitute a lot and will be able to snap the ball faster. In regards to your concerns about the defense don´t forget the team tried to get more athletic on defense.

 

[Oshkoshpackfan]

I said the pace. Please dont read to far into thing. That seems to be a lot of what gets disputes going. Playing "fast" against an ultra fast defense like SEA who is known to be very physical and also known to get away with mugging WR's and delivering cheap shots and late hits..... no thanks. I would want to try to grind out their D line and LB's, force them to play closer and wear them out. That will open up a mid range pass game that would be harder for them to defend. I don't know how well the long shot will work with their DB's. They have the best secondary.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I said the pace. Please dont read to far into thing. That seems to be a lot of what gets disputes going. Playing "fast" against an ultra fast defense like SEA who is known to be very physical and also known to get away with mugging WR's and delivering cheap shots and late hits..... no thanks. I would want to try to grind out their D line and LB's, force them to play closer and wear them out. That will open up a mid range pass game that would be harder for them to defend. I don't know how well the long shot will work with their DB's. They have the best secondary.

Well, you can call whatever you want to but the pace a team plays with is part of the game plan. I think it would even help playing fast against a defense like the Seahawks no matter how fast they are. I agree though that establishing the run should be an essential part playing vs. their defense, even better if the Packers are able to run a play with 20 seconds on the play clock.

 

[Oshkoshpackfan]

I have just never been a fan of trying to play into another teams strong points. No matter how much I can't stand the SeaCawks, their secondary is unreal. Just sherman and cam chancellor (sp?) alone are two bad ****'s.

 

[cara murphy]

There are always two sides to everything. Can't say that must bring a good result.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I have just never been a fan of trying to play into another teams strong points. No matter how much I can't stand the SeaCawks, their secondary is unreal. Just sherman and cam chancellor (sp?) alone are two bad ****'s.

I agree with that, I don´t want Rodgers to throw the ball 50 times vs. the Seahawks either. The Packers can run a fast-paced offense while actually running the ball though.

 

[rodell330]

I expect to see a lot of shotgun vs the Seachickens. The Packers can run and pass out of that formation with extra time to avoid the rush. If it's going to be fast paced expect to see that formation about 60% of the game.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I expect to see a lot of shotgun vs the Seachickens. The Packers can run and pass out of that formation with extra time to avoid the rush. If it's going to be fast paced expect to see that formation about 60% of the game.

Rodgers has more time to throw the ball when operating under center.

 

[mradtke66]

Rodgers has more time to throw the ball when operating under center.

That sounds suspect to me. Source?

Even if true, I'd expect the shotgun to provide a higher quality of time in the pocket. With no drop to make, a quarterback in the shotgun is already in position to throw.

 

[TJV]

When taking a snap from center, the QB can continue to survey the defense throughout his drop. In the shotgun he has to look for the ball and then check the defense. The difference is only fractions of a second but that's the difference IMO. I know Rodgers likes the shotgun but a new factor this year will be the quality and consistency of the snaps in the shotgun.

 

[rodell330]

That sounds suspect to me. Source?

Even if true, I'd expect the shotgun to provide a higher quality of time in the pocket. With no drop to make, a quarterback in the shotgun is already in position to throw.

Thank you. Took the words right out of my mouth.

 

[mradtke66]

When taking a snap from center, the QB can continue to survey the defense throughout his drop. In the shotgun he has to look for the ball and then check the defense. The difference is only fractions of a second but that's the difference IMO. I know Rodgers likes the shotgun but a new factor this year will be the quality and consistency of the snaps in the shotgun.

The problem with that statement is it goes against the very idea of the shotgun. With no drop to make, the quarterback is (in theory) able to make a quicker throw.

It also gives them a better view of the defense.

Yes, the exchange requires more work and focus, but a smart quarterback should be able to quickly identify who to throw to before the snap.

And then there's the detail that the quarterback starts the play physically back further, again (in theory) buying more time, thus the idea of the "quality of time" I brought up earlier.

Which brings up the last point: quarterbacks apparently prefer to throw from the shotgun. Why do you suppose that is? I doubt it's because it makes it more difficult.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

That sounds suspect to me. Source?

Even if true, I'd expect the shotgun to provide a higher quality of time in the pocket. With no drop to make, a quarterback in the shotgun is already in position to throw.

Thank you. Took the words right out of my mouth.

Rodgers had 2.84 seconds to throw when operating under center compared to 2.62 when being in the shotgun. In addition most of his stats (QB rating, yards per attempt, accuracy, TD%, INT%, sack percentage) were better when playing under center with completion percentage being the only exception.

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2014/06/29/qbs-in-focus-rodgers-flynn-tolzien/

 

[TJV]

The problem with that statement is it goes against the very idea of the shotgun. With no drop to make, the quarterback is (in theory) able to make a quicker throw.

You posted the advantage of the shotgun (QB already back in the pocket), I wasn’t refuting that, just stating the advantage of the QB being under center. What I wrote is indisputably true: From under center, the QB never has to interrupt his view of the defense from presnap and in the shotgun he does in order to locate the ball.

 

[mradtke66]

What I wrote is indisputably true: From under center, the QB never has to interrupt his view of the defense from presnap and in the shotgun he does in order to locate the ball.

This part is true, I'm merely disputing that the advantage of an uninterrupted view vs. already being position to throw.

A quarterback is going to come to the line with the playcall. He's going to look over the defense and make a pre-snap read and then deduce the most likely coverage--cover2, cover3, cover1, cover0. He's then going to decide which route(s) has the best chance to beat the coverage, and then which receiver has the best change to beat his guy. More than likely, he's already narrowed down his most likely choice of who he's going to throw to.

Post-snap, step 1 is: "Did it happen like I though?" If so, the ball is out and gone. In this situation, the shotgun has helped a great deal.

If it hasn't, then it's through the progression like normal. HOWEVER, a quarterback generally doesn't 'scan' the defense. It's tricky, but watch a quarterback's eyes on slow-mo. He's looking to specific spots on the field. I don't know if it's looking for specific defenders or receivers, but he's looking at spots. Favre was actually a great example of "spot1, spot2. . . " etc.

 

[mradtke66]

Rodgers had 2.84 seconds to throw when operating under center compared to 2.62 when being in the shotgun. In addition most of his stats (QB rating, yards per attempt, accuracy, TD%, INT%, sack percentage) were better when playing under center with completion percentage being the only exception.

Not necessarily surprised. If the quarterback is in shotgun, the defense is going to be set to tee off and pass rush. They might even be 100% accurate and paint the picture you're trying to make.

However, the 79/21 could mean that his success under center could be a statistical oddity.

I'd also like to know exactly what they mean by Time To Throw. If Rodgers is pressured out the shotgun, but is able to step up into a nice pocket, theoretically made better because of his initial starting position, when is the stopwatch stopped?

 

[TJV]

Again, I wasn't disputing the advantages of the shotgun. But there are two important elements you didn't mention pre and post snap: First, every D attempts to disguise what they are doing and make changes as close to the snap as they can. Second, you should check Rodgers' eyes again - he excels at looking off where he intends to throw the ball so to use your term, he frequently begins by looking at the "wrong" spot.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

However, the 79/21 could mean that his success under center could be a statistical oddity.

I'd also like to know exactly what they mean by Time To Throw. If Rodgers is pressured out the shotgun, but is able to step up into a nice pocket, theoretically made better because of his initial starting position, when is the stopwatch stopped?

PFF defines Time To Throw as the average time until a QB attempts a pass, gets sacked or scrambles past the line of scrimmage.

 

[mradtke66]

PFF defines Time To Throw as the average time until a QB attempts a pass, gets sacked or scrambles past the line of scrimmage.

So there's a rub. It is then possible that when in the shotgun, Rodgers throws the ball quicker, which would be a good thing.

I don't suppose they have stats breaking down "bad TTT" vs "good TTT" or something like that, do they?

 

[HardRightEdge]

McCarthy has said this during each of the last few off seasons. And if he puts instant coffee in a microwave he might go back in time.

 

[brandon2348]

Peyton Manning and Denver operated from the gun against the Seahaggs and it didn't work out to well but that is a whole other discussion. I believe with a potent power running game like we have the "play action" is more effective with Rodger's working from under center and will create the most amount of time for him. The Seahaggs don't really do anything fancy on defense. They play a 4-3 base and like to play a lot of nickel out of it. I think you smash the heck out them with Lacy and work the Play action and screen game from there, once you get them out of there nickel package. What I would hate to see is McCarthy get ultra conservative. I agree with the Captain as I don't think you go in there and change your game plan completely and not take shots down field because Sherman is there or someone else. Sure, Sherman is a good corner. Is he over hyped? I believe so. This dude isn't Deion Sanders. Rodgers is a better QB and our receivers aren't to bad either. I think you still take those 50/50 shots down field with our weapons.

Furthermore; when Sherman does get beat it has been usually by smaller faster receivers. Well, Sherman always lines up at the same spot so you know where he is going to be. IMO, I would line Cobb out right all night across from Sherman which would be a nice match up. That would move one of are bigger receivers Adams, Boykin or Harper in the slot on Jeremy Lane which I think is another nice match up.

Right now were not getting much respect as Vegas has us as 6 point dogs. That's just crazy to me looking at current packer roster in place. I can't remember the last time it's been that high with Rodgers starting at quarterback. NFL network has Richard Sherman rated higher then Aaron Rodgers. The Seattle Seahawk hype show is now calling themselves "America's team" and I am sure Richard Sherman will have some smack to talk leading up to game. I really want to see Rodgers go in there and light these guys up like he did back in Houston a few years ago. I want to see Sherman get his mouth shut chasing Cobb and reading the back of his jersey.