All the draft complaining...let's look over the past 10 seasons...

H

HardRightEdge

Guest
The thing is ... it just is simpler. And them trying to complicate things is a mistake. Execution is and always has been the name of the game. Just because you want to put a slot receiver to the outside does not really change the fact that he is now a flanker. Old verbage but more accurate than calling him a slot triple x or something. Just because you back up one of the Smith bros. so that he is guarding against the pass does not change him into a safety/corner hybrid. He quacks like a DE. Oh, but you want to call him an outside linebacker. OK, call him that. It just does not change much even though I am certain you think it does.
That first bold statement above? That's exactly my point, is it not? You cannot check the numbers on jerseys in the huddle, check their positional designations on the roster sheet, and know what position they are playing until the snap. He's a guy playing flanker. In the X-Y-Z nomenclature, as noted previously, there is no such thing as a slot receiver so it's a good thing you didn't say your flanker is playing slot because then he wouldn't exist.

Contributing to the problem is that the NFL by rule has number ranges available to particular positions. For example, a RB can have only a number between 20-49. Would you persist in telling me that Montgomery was a WR wearing number 88 when he was unquestionably playing RB? The rules do not have a specified range for FBs; they get RB numbers. Well, calling a FB who never runs the ball a RB because he wears a "running back" number makes about as much sense as calling Montgomery a WR when playing RB is the only thing he's doing wearing 88.

As for that second bold statement above, I said the exact opposite. If he quacks like a DE then that's what he is on that play, regardless of what position it says he plays on the roster sheet. If the Packers play a 4-3 variation, as they sometimes do, and one of the guys you think of as an OLB is playing hand in the dirt at the DE position which happens on occasion, then on that play he is a DE. Are you sure it's not you who would want to call him an OLB on that play?

The receivers who typically play wideout are no longer differentiated as "flanker" (off the line) or "split end" (on the line) on roster sheets. While there is still a techincal difference between the two positions in order to avoid an illegal formation penalty, receivers play the different positions interchangeably. And that nomenclature doesn't even account for the existance slot receivers, just like X-Y-Z does not.

If course none of this has to do with coaches making things too complicated. This is about properly describing what is happening on the field. Frankly, I don't think you would fare very well putting a 1977 offense on the field running 21 personel on d*mn near every play with your generic X-Y-Z except when running a 22 on short yardage. Rule changes piled upon rule changes favoring the passing game starting in 1979 have gradually led to more and more schematic complexity and player positional versatility to work passing game matchups. Defense reacts to offensive innovation, so you get the same thing on the other side of the ball to counter. There is no going back.

Even so, you cannot confuse an emphasis on execution as mutually exclusive of complexity. The Power Sweep was not just a play. It was one play in a pretty complex running scheme. There is a series of videos on youtube where Lombardi describes the variations. It just so happens the rules and other factors such as weather and primitive field conditions by today's standards favored running the ball.

To take this to it's logical conclusion, when New Orleans puts in one of those plays where they break huddle with Hill at QB and Brees out wide (a gadget that's been around forever), Hill is the QB on that play and Brees is a WR. I see no way around it. And you'd have an especially hard time arguing otherwise if Hill actuall threw Brees the ball. ;) I don't know if New Orleans has done that, but I can assure you others have.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

gopkrs

Cheesehead
Joined
May 12, 2014
Messages
5,456
Reaction score
1,315
If the Packers play a 4-3 variation, as they sometimes do, and one of the guys you think of as an OLB is playing hand in the dirt at the DE position which happens on occasion, then on that play he is a DE. Are you sure it's not you who would want to call him an OLB on that play?
I just don't see hand in the dirt as being an important reason to say that player is at a different position. For years I watched Clay play at R DE. He lined up against the OT and rushed on every play almost. The distinction of calling him an outside linebacker or a DE just does not make any difference. The thing about the Power Sweep is that you did not have to say everyone's position while you were in the huddle. People lined up according to the play called. I imagine there were different sweeps in order to confuse but not very many. And easily called in the huddle. The complexity happened during the play. Players had different responsibilities according to how the defense reacted. Maybe there should be a little more of that rather than trying to line up so perfectly that there is barely time to snap the ball.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
I just don't see hand in the dirt as being an important reason to say that player is at a different position.
Yeah, it kinda is and important distinction, together with where he's positioned. Further, when Z is standing up ofset a yard or two over a guard/tackle gap I'm not sure what you would call that, but an OLB he surely is not.
 

jon

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2020
Messages
164
Reaction score
18
I just don't see hand in the dirt as being an important reason to say that player is at a different position. For years I watched Clay play at R DE. He lined up against the OT and rushed on every play almost. The distinction of calling him an outside linebacker or a DE just does not make any difference.

Reflecting this, we're seeing "edge rusher" more and more in scouting reports & draft class analysis.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
Reflecting this, we're seeing "edge rusher" more and more in scouting reports & draft class analysis.
Well, it's like any other position. There are different kinds of edges suitable for different roles. Some edge players are more suitable to 3-4 OLB, some more suitable for 4-3 DE, some versatile enough to move to the interior line in nickel, some vertile enough to play stand-up or hand in the dirt in a multi-scheme. The techniques in playing upright vs. down lineman are quite different. It's just that a 3-4 OLB and 4-3 DE are more similar in that they are leading pass rushers from outside the tackle. It's more a way to differentiate a 4-3 DE from a 3-4 DE which have fewer similarities in their roles as such.

It's no different than some WRs and CBs are more suitable for slot play, others on the perimenter, some who can flex, some who can play safety. Some TEs are H-backs who play in the backfield and in-line known for blocking ability, others are oversized WRs who get in a guy's way more than block him, Pro Bowlers who can do both. There are strong safeties who can play nickle ILB, others who don't quite have the knack for that.

If a draft analyst puts an edge player in the edge bucket without regard to scheme fit in ******* where he might go, one of two things is happening. The player has shown the rare ability to play up and down in college ball with equal facility or the analyst is lazy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

gopkrs

Cheesehead
Joined
May 12, 2014
Messages
5,456
Reaction score
1,315
Well, it's like any other position. There are different kinds of edges suitable for different roles. Some edge players are more suitable to 3-4 OLB, some more suitable for 4-3 DE, some versatile enough to move to the interior line in nickel, some vertile enough to play stand-up or hand in the dirt in a multi-scheme. The techniques in playing upright vs. down lineman are quite different. It's just that a 3-4 OLB and 4-3 DE are more similar in that they are leading pass rushers from outside the tackle. It's more a way to differentiate a 4-3 DE from a 3-4 DE which have fewer similarities in their roles as such.

It's no different than some WRs and CBs are more suitable for slot play, others on the perimenter, some who can flex, some who can play safety. Some TEs are H-backs who play in the backfield and in-line known for blocking ability, others are oversized WRs who get in a guy's way more than block him, Pro Bowlers who can do both. There are strong safeties who can play nickle ILB, others who don't quite have the knack for that.

If a draft analyst puts an edge player in the edge bucket without regard to scheme fit in ******* where he might go, one of two things is happening. The player has shown the rare ability to play up and down in college ball with equal facility or the analyst is lazy.
So is that why we drafted Rashan Gary, so we can have another and different kind of pass rusher. Maybe we need to draft a few more. We'll only carry one RB. Every team has its pass rushers. Whatever you want to call them it just does not matter. Every team has a couple of guys rushing from the outside and going against OTs. Whether or not their hand is in the dirt or they play 1 or 2 feet to one side or the other just does not change them being a pass rusher. Analyze all you want and then try and put someone on the outside that you think fits your team. But the guy that really fits is the guy that can beat an OT and get to the quarterback. If a team is unlucky enough to not have two decent pass rushers, then they have to come up with something else. But it is not because they don't want two pass rushers. When it first started out, a 3-4 was actually different from a 4-3. That just is not the case anymore. Especially with us. imo
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
So is that why we drafted Rashan Gary, so we can have another and different kind of pass rusher. Maybe we need to draft a few more. We'll only carry one RB. Every team has its pass rushers. Whatever you want to call them it just does not matter. Every team has a couple of guys rushing from the outside and going against OTs. Whether or not their hand is in the dirt or they play 1 or 2 feet to one side or the other just does not change them being a pass rusher. Analyze all you want and then try and put someone on the outside that you think fits your team. But the guy that really fits is the guy that can beat an OT and get to the quarterback. If a team is unlucky enough to not have two decent pass rushers, then they have to come up with something else. But it is not because they don't want two pass rushers. When it first started out, a 3-4 was actually different from a 4-3. That just is not the case anymore. Especially with us. imo
There are a couple of parts of that I agree with, others are absurdities you're trying to put in my mouth. You're all over the place which would make to exhausting to unpack when not repeating what I already said.

I'll just say they drafted Gary so Z could move inside in nickel and dime, or vice versa, two players perceived to have that versatility. Gutekunst told you this loud and clear while also having the virtue making sense unlike some other things. Whether Gary can make that happen effectively remains to be seen, but if I were a betting man I'd say you're going to see improvement.

What that has to do with carrying 1 RB I'll never know. Carrying 3 and carrying 1 are different things in the matter of counting. You only need one hand worth of fingers to see the difference. Anyway, you're going to have 4 guys who can play the OLB role on the game day roster regardless of what the names happen and regardless of whether the 5 running backs you would prefer ;) are on that roster.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
Yeah and playing Jones in the slot or even out wide helps save his body, a bit, from the grind of a RB.

Jones would take some hard hits lining up in the slot as well.

My point is that if Ervin is the emergency #3 even if they don't get him more offensive touches, carrying Jones, Dillon and Williams on the game day roster is a luxury for which you're not likely to find the room.

You have to consider that the NFL increased the game day roster to 48 players, although one of the extra spots needs to be used on an offensive lineman. That might still allow the Packers to have four running backs active though.
 

gopkrs

Cheesehead
Joined
May 12, 2014
Messages
5,456
Reaction score
1,315
I would prefer to have Jones come out of the backfield than be in the slot. He is a back that can catch the ball, not a receiver. And he does pretty well (every year better) at picking up the blitz. And I agree with Wimm that coming out of the slot might be too physically demanding. He is not a blocker.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
You have to consider that the NFL increased the game day roster to 48 players, although one of the extra spots needs to be used on an offensive lineman. That might still allow the Packers to have four running backs active though.
So, lets say one is inclined to project Jones as the #1 and Dillon as the #2, the seeming perspective of the folks I've been debating, while LaFluer follows through on wanting to get Ervin more involved in the offense. For point of reference, Ervin ran the ball three times last season, including twice in the playoffs, for 10, 18 and 7 yards after coming in at week 13 cold with respect to learning the system. It is not implausible at all that Ervin would serve as the emergency #3 to buy an extra game day roster spot which are always at a premium, regardess of whether one more non-OL can be added to the game day roster in 2020.

I'm not sure if anybody noticed, but after Ervin was acquired for week 13, Dexter Williams was not game day active except for week 17 when Jamaal Williams was out with a shoulder injury. Ervin was already the emergency game day #3 last year from the day he showed up.

So, if a plausible game day projection of Jones as #1 and Dillon as #2 comes to pass, the primary reason to think Ervin would be the default #3, a guy already on the game day roster as a returner, is because you would not want to pay Williams who has $2 mil in cap savings and whatever you might get in trade to sit on the inactive list every week as a #4, just in case.

I could be wrong, of course, since you sure wouldn't want to draft A.J. Dillion in the second round but they did it anyway. But I'm talking about a plausible baseline expectation here assuming Dillion makes it to #2, which is of course not certain. If he can't beat out Williams for #2 by opening day, or Jones or Ervin is injured come opening day, that's another matter entirely.

If Williams was still playing on his rookie contract amount of $750,000 and had not gotten the Proven Performance Escalator for 2020 (a thing many folks are not even aware of, which Jones also received) I would not have raised the issue. $750,000 is barely more than what Dexter Williams was paid as a rookie to sit on the inactive list for all but 4 games last year, and I don't have a problem with that.

I was aware of the game day roster expansion for 2020 as noted in a previous post. Carrying 8 OL on the game day roster is a team option which allows for the other extra non-OL game day spot. Since I can think of no reason not to avail oneself of that option, we should expect every team to avail themselves every week. After all, you're paying these guys the same money regardless of whether they are game day active or not.

Nonetheless, one more non-OL game day spot doesn't alter the reality of how difficult it is to put togehter a game day roster to cover all the bases: besides starters, regular rotational guys, special teams and guys who can give players a blow for a few snaps to keep their snap counts reasonable, there is the critical factor of covering at least two in-game injuries in each position group. I'm not sure how many people understand that when positional versatility is discussed as a player asset it is most acutely for this reason. For example, having Tramon Williams who could swing to safety in a pinch allowed the Packers to carry only three safeties with Redmond on the game day roster and still cover for injuries to both Amos and Savage, presumably with Sullivan taking Williams slot spot.

So, when the 53 man roster is set we can evaluate who the the swing men are, how those two injuries per position group can be covered, and consequently what the game day roster might look like. Until then, how two injuries in each position group can be covered is up in the air as will the luxury of carrying 4 RBs on game day.

Now for some other rule change digressions that affect the game day roster at the margins, whether in Green Bay or elsewhere:

In 2020 a team can elevate up to two guys from the practice squad to the active roster each week without cutting anybody and then send them back to the practice squad without having to clear waivers. That only makes sense if you plan on putting those guys on the game day roster presumably as short term emergency injury replacements even they don't get off the bench, such as a #4 RB eleveated to #3 emergency due to an injury in the top 3.

This means the active roster is actually a quasi-55 and not 53. The catch is a PS player cannot be elevated for consective weeks. In short, for deep bench like a #4 RB, a PS guy can fill that role on a short term basis for extremely cheap. That could be Dexter Williams as the #4 if they think he'd clear waivers to the PS at the start of the season. He could then be elevated to emergency #3 on a game day roster to cover for a one game injury, as he did in place of Jamaal Williams in week 17 last year.

There is another PS hitch. A team can now have up to two players on the PS with unlimited accrued seasons at a higher fixed PS pay of $12,000 per week in 2020. So, a grissled vet that can't land a job at a higher vet minimum who wants another shot at the show can be another alternative for the PS deep bench, immediately elevatable to the roster and game day activation in an emergency. At the same time the PS has been expanded from 10 to 12 players. A comprehensive description of the new PS rules can be read here:

https://www.arrowheadpride.com/2020...g-the-nfls-new-roster-rules-beginning-in-2020

I don't have to tell you this, but making projections about what will happen rather than what you think should happen are two entirely different things, and the "will happen" requires you to try to channel the coach and GM thinking, including the cap implications and what you expect to get for what you pay. I'm still way back before the beginning of all that trying to explain how a FB is not RB in any meaningful way and that calling guys flankers and split ends drawn from the tradition X-Y-Z positional designations is so antiquated that it says slot receivers don't exist and TEs don't play in the slot or out wide, or that many WRs play all positions interchangeably. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
So, lets say one is inclined to project Jones as the #1 and Dillon as the #2, the seeming perspective of the folks I've been debating, while LaFluer follows through on wanting to get Ervin more involved in the offense. For point of reference, Ervin ran the ball three times last season, including twice in the playoffs, for 10, 18 and 7 yards after coming in at week 13 cold with respect to learning the system. It is not implausible at all that Ervin would serve as the emergency #3 to buy an extra game day roster spot which are always at a premium, regardess of whether one more non-OL can be added to the game day roster in 2020.

I'm not sure if anybody noticed, but after Ervin was acquired for week 13, Dexter Williams was not game day active except for week 17 when Jamaal Williams was out with a shoulder injury. Ervin was already the emergency game day #3 last year from the day he showed up.

So, if a plausible game day projection of Jones as #1 and Dillon as #2 comes to pass, the primary reason to think Ervin would be the default #3, a guy already on the game day roster as a returner, is because you would not want to pay Williams who has $2 mil in cap savings and whatever you might get in trade to sit on the inactive list every week as a #4, just in case.

I could be wrong, of course, since you sure wouldn't want to draft A.J. Dillion in the second round but they did it anyway. But I'm talking about a plausible baseline expectation here assuming Dillion makes it to #2, which is of course not certain. If he can't beat out Williams for #2 by opening day, or Jones or Ervin is injured come opening day, that's another matter entirely.

If Williams was still playing on his rookie contract amount of $750,000 and had not gotten the Proven Performance Escalator for 2020 (a thing many folks are not even aware of, which Jones also received) I would not have raised the issue. $750,000 is barely more than what Dexter Williams was paid as a rookie to sit on the inactive list for all but 4 games last year, and I don't have a problem with that.

I was aware of the game day roster expansion for 2020 as noted in a previous post. Carrying 8 OL on the game day roster is a team option which allows for the other extra non-OL game day spot. Since I can think of no reason not to avail oneself of that option, we should expect every team to avail themselves every week. After all, you're paying these guys the same money regardless of whether they are game day active or not.

Nonetheless, one more non-OL game day spot doesn't alter the reality of how difficult it is to put togehter a game day roster to cover all the bases: besides starters, regular rotational guys, special teams and guys who can give players a blow for a few snaps to keep their snap counts reasonable, there is the critical factor of covering at least two in-game injuries in each position group. I'm not sure how many people understand that when positional versatility is discussed as a player asset it is most acutely for this reason. For example, having Tramon Williams who could swing to safety in a pinch allowed the Packers to carry only three safeties with Redmond on the game day roster and still cover for injuries to both Amos and Savage, presumably with Sullivan taking Williams slot spot.

So, when the 53 man roster is set we can evaluate who the the swing men are, how those two injuries per position group can be covered, and consequently what the game day roster might look like. Until then, how two injuries in each position group can be covered is up in the air as will the luxury of carrying 4 RBs on game day.

Now for some other rule change digressions that affect the game day roster at the margins, whether in Green Bay or elsewhere:

In 2020 a team can elevate up to two guys from the practice squad to the active roster each week without cutting anybody and then send them back to the practice squad without having to clear waivers. That only makes sense if you plan on putting those guys on the game day roster presumably as short term emergency injury replacements even they don't get off the bench, such as a #4 RB eleveated to #3 emergency due to an injury in the top 3.

This means the active roster is actually a quasi-55 and not 53. The catch is a PS player cannot be elevated for consective weeks. In short, for deep bench like a #4 RB, a PS guy can fill that role on a short term basis for extremely cheap. That could be Dexter Williams as the #4 if they think he'd clear waivers to the PS at the start of the season. He could then be elevated to emergency #3 on a game day roster to cover for a one game injury, as he did in place of Jamaal Williams in week 17 last year.

There is another PS hitch. A team can now have up to two players on the PS with unlimited accrued seasons at a higher fixed PS pay of $12,000 per week in 2020. So, a grissled vet that can't land a job at a higher vet minimum who wants another shot at the show can be another alternative for the PS deep bench, immediately elevatable to the roster and game day activation in an emergency. At the same time the PS has been expanded from 10 to 12 players. A comprehensive description of the new PS rules can be read here:

https://www.arrowheadpride.com/2020...g-the-nfls-new-roster-rules-beginning-in-2020

I don't have to tell you this, but making projections about what will happen rather than what you think should happen are two entirely different things, and the "will happen" requires you to try to channel the coach and GM thinking, including the cap implications and what you expect to get for what you pay. I'm still way back before the beginning of all that trying to explain how a FB is not RB in any meaningful way and that calling guys flankers and split ends drawn from the tradition X-Y-Z positional designations is so antiquated that it says slot receivers don't exist and TEs don't play in the slot or out wide, or that many WRs play all positions interchangeably. :rolleyes:

I agree that it's unlikely the Packers will have four running backs active on game day this season. With only five players being inactive there's a chance it might happen at some point with injuries possibly factoring into it as well.

The bold part isn't entirely true as there are currently 15 players on the roster having per game bonuses included in their contracts. That's more or less neglectable though.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
I agree that it's unlikely the Packers will have four running backs active on game day this season. With only five players being inactive there's a chance it might happen at some point with injuries possibly factoring into it as well.
I don't disagree with that. That 4th. RB could be the best option to fill a special teams need. If Jamaal Williams was that 4th. guy making the same money as D. Williams, I wouldn't raise (and belabor ;)) the issue. I don't think you pay a guy $2.3 million to sit inactive every week until somebody gets hurt while that guy is in a contract year and has some trade value. Again, this assumes Dillon earns the #2 spot.

As noted before, you're not limited to just the 5 remaining players on the 53 man roster for game day injury subs. You can elevate up to two players from the practice squad, now 12 guys to pick from, then send them back without having to clear waivers. It just can't be the same player in back-to-back games or the same player more than twice per season without signing him to a regular contract. These are obvious options for one game injuries.

Then there's the new rule that you can have two guys on the PS with unlimited accrued seasons at $12,000 per week. It occurs to me that a guy like Veldheer, whose issue might be chronic pain, might not want to be on a roster even as a bench player since he'd have to commit to playing week-in and week-out if somebody got injured. Teams might not want to pay him even vet minimum money for the same reason. If that type of guy wants to stay in the show on a limited basis, not having to play two games in a row and limited to two elevations per season (a max of two games per year unless signed to a regular contract), this might be an attractive option to both parties.

The point being there could be a vet running back in the same boat. This would be inexpensive vet insurance with something left in the tank, handy for concussion replacements which often last for only one game, something RBs are prone to.
The bold part isn't entirely true as there are currently 15 players on the roster having per game bonuses included in their contracts. That's more or less neglectable though.
It so happens the 15 players with per game roster bonuses I'd expect to be active regardless. Those guys are front line players with the possible exceptions of Funchess, Lewis, Taylor and Patrick.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Fat Dogs

Cheesehead
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
434
Reaction score
33
That's not terribly helpful without looking into the specific cases--player capabilities, roles, injuries. I've already mentioned a couple of situations where the Packers would carry 4 RBs. Perhaps Dillon is perceived as not ready or too risky to take over Williams' job right out of the box, kinda like how they started Taylor over Jenkins. It's not like you'd get Dillon on the practice squad without somebody signing him away. There's the unlikely proposition that they play Jones a lot out of the slot or wide. How many of those teams with 4 "halfbacks" :rolleyes: have one who is in essence a WR swing man. There's injuries. Clearly the IR guys (and Zeke as a holdout or somebody suspended for opening day) are irrelvant to the discussion. If Jones, Dillon or Williams cannot play on opening day, for whatever reason, you're going to see the other two on the roster, and the game day roster, for at least the time being.

So, come opening day, if Jones, Dillon and Ervin are fit as a fiddle, the team commits to Dillon taking Willams snaps, Jones is not going to get more WR snaps, and they want to give Ervin a few more touches while being the emergency #3, it is hard to see how Williams will fit.


Ok, we don’t know the health of any of the positions or if Dillon will be ready so let’s go with what we do know. We know that rostering 4 RB’s isn’t uncommon (not knowing each team specifics noted.) We also know that we ran the ball more last season than we have in the past 5. We drafted Dillon, Deguara, and three O-lineman which suggests that we will continue to establish the run. We got whooped by the 49ers whose coach is a byproduct of the same coaching tree as MLF and maybe the plan is to emulate them so let’s look at the 2019 49ers Running back specifics.

Mostert, 16 games, 137 rushes
Breida, 13 games, 123 rushes
Coleman, 14 games, 137 rushes
Wilson, 10 games, 27 rushes

none of these backs returned kickoffs or punts. All 4 RB’s played and got touches against Ari, Car, and Was. 3 RB’s played and got touches in 12 games. Week 2 was the only week that the 49ers suited 2 backs. Neither one of us knows the plan but why can’t the Packers keep all three and distribute carries like Shanahan did if all 3 are healthy?
 
Last edited:

Fat Dogs

Cheesehead
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
434
Reaction score
33
Actually the Packers had more rushing attempts and a higher run play percentage in 2014 and '15 than last season.


That’s what you took from that Captain? MLF wants to run the ball. it’s been said that carrying more than 2 RB’s (excluding specialists aka emergency #3) is a luxury but I’d argue that it is a strategy for teams that want to run the ball. Williams isn’t expensive and has proven to be an asset. Cutting him is out of the question and trading him for scraps just to make room to roster a 5th ILB or 6th edge rusher doesn’t make sense. We don’t have a crystal ball so we have no idea what the injuries will look like or a situation like Ervin losing his return duties to an unknown but I would be willing to bet that Jones, Williams, Dillon, and Ervin are all rostered if everyone is healthy.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
Ok, we don’t know the health of any of the positions or if Dillon will be ready so let’s go with what we do know. We know that rostering 4 RB’s isn’t uncommon (not knowing each team specifics noted.) We also know that we ran the ball more last season than we have in the past 5. We drafted Dillon, Deguara, and three O-lineman which suggests that we will continue to establish the run. We got whooped by the 49ers whose coach is a byproduct of the same coaching tree as MLF and maybe the plan is to emulate them so let’s look at the 2019 49ers Running back specifics.

Mostert, 16 games, 137 rushes
Breida, 13 games, 123 rushes
Coleman, 14 games, 137 rushes
Wilson, 10 games, 27 rushes

none of these backs returned kickoffs or punts. All 4 RB’s played and got touches against Ari, Car, and Was. 3 RB’s played and got touches in 12 games. Week 2 was the only week that the 49ers suited 2 backs. Neither one of us knows the plan but why can’t the Packers keep all three and distribute carries like Shanahan did if all 3 are healthy?
You didn't account for the cap aspect of my argument. Even if you can find room on your game day roster for 4 RBs given their special teams contributions, or if you need an extra guy to run your wishbone square dance down by the goal line ;)), I don't think you pay somebody $2.3 mil to run the ball 27 times in a season as in the Wilson comparison at rock bottom pay.

Williams has not been a special teams stallwart if that makes any difference. His 121 special teams snaps last season ranked 17th. on the team while being a 35% offensive snap count guy. For perspective, Summers was the team leader with 310 special teams snaps. If you're having difficulty covering all the bases with that last game day spot, you'd play Summers who is highly unlikely to take an defensive snap than a 4th. RB who's highly unlikely to touch the ball even if he's the #3 supplanting Ervin as your injury emergency.

Hey, you get your emergency #3 in Ervin for free since he's already a lock to return kicks.

If the Packers hired LaFleur to be a Shanahan clone that would be a horrible mistake, just as the somebodys hiring Patricia or McDaniel expecting a Belichick clone would have made horrible mistakes. You want a guy who stands on the shoulders of giants, if we can call Shanahan and Belichick that, develop their own vision, and not walk in their shadows. Otherwise what you get is mere plagiarism devoid of creativity, adaptability, maturation, evolution.

Copying what has been somebody else's path to success will never get you to the top of the mountain. The guys you'll find up there have evolved their own methods and innovations, the ones who leave competitors scratching their heads, like how the hell in the year 2019 do you score 37 points against a 13-3 team while throwing the ball only 8 times?

The LaFluer/Rodgers partnership, and a partnership it is, must be, and should be whether you like it or not, is off to a good start from this perspective. We have a lot of folks saying that 13-3 was smoke and mirrors, the stats say it simply should not have been. That's the real secret--winning in ways people can't understand.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Fat Dogs

Cheesehead
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
434
Reaction score
33
You didn't account for the cap aspect of my argument. Even if you can find room on your game day roster for 4 RBs given their special teams contributions, or if you need an extra guy to run run your wishbone square dance down by the goal line ;)), I don't think you pay somebody $2.3 mil to run the ball 27 times in a season as in the Wilson comparison at rock bottom pay.

Williams has not been a special teams stallwart if that makes any difference. His 121 special teams snaps last season ranked 17th. on the team while being a 35% offensive snap count guy. For perspective, Summers was the team leader with 310. If you're having difficulty covering all the bases with that last game day spot, you'd play Summers who is highly unlikely to take an offensive snap than a 4th. RB who's highly unlikely to touch the ball even if he's the #3 supplanting Ervin as your injury emergency.

Hey, you get your emergency #3 in Ervin for free since he's already a lock to return kicks.

If the Packers hired LaFleur to be a Shanahan clone that would be a horrible mistake, just as the somebodys hiring Patricia or McDaniel expecting a Belichick clone would have made horrible mistakes. You want a guy who stands on the shoulders of giants, if we can call Shanahan and Belichick that, develop their own vision, and not walk in their shadows. Otherwise what you get is mere plagiarism devoid of creativity, adaptability, maturation, evolution.

Copying what has been somebody else's path to success will never get you to the top of the mountain. The guys you'll find up there have evolved their own methods and innovations, the ones who leave competitors scratching their heads, like how the hell in the year 2019 do you score 37 points against a 13-3 team while throwing the ball only 8 times?

The LaFluer/Rodgers partnership, and a partnership it is, must be and should be whether you like it or not, are off to a good start from this perspective. We have a lot of folks saying that 13-3 was smoke and mirrors, the stats say it simply should not have been. That's the real secret--winning in ways people can't understand.


That’s where you are looking at it all wrong. Wilson Jr. is their 4th RB and would be equivalent to the pack keeping Dexter Williams. Ervin would be equivalent to Richie James (WR they use to return kicks.) Jamaal would be the Matt Breida who was an integral part of the offense. I fully expect an even number of snaps between Dillon and Williams. All three are playing on rookie contracts so this isn’t a big cap hit.

I don’t expect MLF to be a clone but I do think he’s Going to use what he knows and add his own innovations. The NFL is a copy cat league and good teams have to find ways to stay ahead of the curve. Defenses are getting smaller and faster so why not go old school and run them over with smash mouth football.

Belechick played under Bill Parcells for 14 years. Do you expect me to believe that he didn’t apply this knowledge as a first year head coach?
 

Fat Dogs

Cheesehead
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
434
Reaction score
33
Yeah and that’s why it makes sense to hold onto Ervin as a 4th RB, but whose primary duty is special teams as a returner. Geez GB had negative return yardage before they added Ervin last year. Maybe there are better guys out there, or surprises in training camp, but it seems like this is a problem GB has fixed. And if memory serves Ervin was serviceable as a RB and gadget player with versatility.


I share your enthusiasm for Ervin. The kid is explosive. I don’t see anyone on this current roster that will beat him out for returner.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
That’s where you are looking at it all wrong. Wilson Jr. is their 4th RB and would be equivalent to the pack keeping Dexter Williams. Ervin would be equivalent to Richie James (WR they use to return kicks.) Jamaal would be the Matt Breida who was an integral part of the offense. I fully expect an even number of snaps between Dillon and Williams. All three are playing on rookie contracts so this isn’t a big cap hit.

I don’t expect MLF to be a clone but I do think he’s Going to use what he knows and add his own innovations. The NFL is a copy cat league and good teams have to find ways to stay ahead of the curve. Defenses are getting smaller and faster so why not go old school and run them over with smash mouth football.

Belechick played under Bill Parcells for 14 years. Do you expect me to believe that he didn’t apply this knowledge as a first year head coach?
Last I checked, sourdough bread and $5,000 rents are not a thing in Green Bay; it's not 1980; and Garoppolo is not quite Aaron Rodgers, but lets go with it.

SF regular season:

1063 offensive snaps
424 RB carries
26.5 RB carries per game
Mostert and Coleman tied for high carry count, 137 each, 8.6 per game each

GB regular season:if

1078 offensive snaps
355 RB carries
22.2 RB carries per game
Jones had the high carry count of 236, 14.8 per game

With total snap counts nearly identical, SF handed the ball to their running backs 4.3 times more per game than GB.

Let's say the 2020 Packers ran their RBs an additional 4.3 times per game to match SF's pass/run distribution last season. And let's say Jones is kept at last year's 14.8 carries per game, how would you distrubute the remaining 11.7 carries among Dillon, Williams and Ervin in a typical game with all four on a game day roster? How would you distribute the 7.4 non-Jones carries, nearly all of which went to Williams last year, if the pass/run distribution was unchanged? Note that SF was a by-committee affair. This is not that, for 2020 anyway.

As for the last point, there was a documentary some months back that covered the Belichick/Parcells relationship. I'm pretty sure it was the ESPN "30 for 30" called "The Two Bills" but I'm not certain. I can only find the trailer at the moment so I can't verify that. If you ever run across that it's a must-watch on this subject

Anyway, in the documentary, Belichick's defensive game planning under Parcells was a topic of discussion between the two. Belichick talked about how he would flip schemes from one playoff game to the other, all base one game, all dime the next. Parcells did not understand it, but let him roll with it. Belichick was already rolling is own. It might be worth noting that Belichick was the DC with the Giants for 6 years developing his concepts. LaFleur has been a play caller for two years with two very different rosters. If he's as good as we'd like him to be, he'll plow his own path. This assumption that he's a clone is unfounded, and that is a good thing.

Already we have signs. Dillon is not the kind of runner you would consider ideal for an offense where outside zone blocking is a staple. Dillon's a between the tackles kind of guy who does not show any particular patience or vision while lacking a jump cut in his repertoire. Do they think they can make him into read/react/turn the corner kind of guy? Considering how RB styles come ready-made with attempts to change it nearly always a failing proposition. You can train a little partience through repetition but that's about it. Stay tuned.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
6,737
Reaction score
1,870
Yeah, it kinda is and important distinction, together with where he's positioned. Further, when Z is standing up ofset a yard or two over a guard/tackle gap I'm not sure what you would call that, but an OLB he surely is not.
Right. In that situation he’s starting from the inside, even though he is an OLB. Probably a difference without distinction, as he’s not going to be penalized for lining up behind a guard, or in the guard/tackle gap. Z, in particular, tends to move laterally a lot in the defensive backfield, allowing him to attack weak points on a given play.
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
6,737
Reaction score
1,870
Last I checked, sourdough bread and $5,000 rents are not a thing in Green Bay; it's not 1980; and Garoppolo is not quite Aaron Rodgers, but lets go with it.

SF regular season:

1063 offensive snaps
424 RB carries
26.5 RB carries per game
Mostert and Coleman tied for high carry count, 137 each, 8.6 per game each

GB regular season:if

1078 offensive snaps
355 RB carries
22.2 RB carries per game
Jones had the high carry count of 236, 14.8 per game

With total snap counts nearly identical, SF handed the ball to their running backs 4.3 times more per game than the GB.

Let's say the 2020 Packers ran their RBs an additional 4.3 times per game to match SF's pass/run distribution last season. And let's say Jones is kept at last year's 14.8 carries per game, how would you distrubute the remaining 11.7 carries among Dillon, Williams and Ervin in a typical game with all four on a game day roster? How would you distribute the 7.4 non-Jones carries, nearly all of which went to Williams last year, if the pass/run distribution was unchanged? Note that SF was a by-committee affair. This is not that, for 2020 anyway.

As for the last point, there was a documentary some months back that covered the Belichick/Parcells relationship. I'm pretty sure it was the ESPN "30 for 30" called "The Two Bills" but I'm not certain. I can only find the trailer at the moment so I can't verify that. If you ever run across that it's a must-watch on this subject

Anyway, in the documentary, Belichick's defensive game planning under Parcells was a topic of discussion between the two. Belichick talked about how he would flip schemes from one playoff game to the other, all base one game, all dime the next. Parcells did not understand it, but let him roll with it. Belichick was already rolling is own. It might be worth noting that Belichick was the DC with the Giants for 6 years developing his concepts. LaFleur has been a play caller for two years with two very different rosters. If he's as good as we'd like him to be, he'll plow his own path. This assumption that he's a clone is unfounded, and that is a good thing.

Already we have signs. Dillon is not the kind of runner you would consider ideal for an offense where outside zone blocking is a staple. Dillon's a between the tackles kind of guy who does not show any particular patience or vision while lacking a jump cut in his repertoire. Do they think they can make him into read/react/turn the corner kind of guy? Considering how RB styles come ready-made with attempts to change it nearly always a failing proposition. You can train a little partience through repetition but that's about it. Stay tuned.
Your last paragraph is intriguing. I thought Dillon was brought in to ultimately replace Jones. But Jones runs well outside the tackles. Or am I missing something?
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
There's a story line that Dillion is a Derrick Henry comparable. Both weigh in at 247 lbs. Both take on tacklers full bore when the situation demands, and knock 'em back or knock 'em down with some frequency. The kicker is that Henry was LaFleur's primary runner in Tennessee.

I recently did a comparison check on the highlight tapes. Henry is a patient runner, and one clip caught my attention in particular where he made a slashing jump cut at the line leaving the ILB grabbing at air. Looking at Dillion's highlights I don't see much patience or vision, not much resembling a jump cut or setting up blocks. He does not look very twitchy. There's at least one Dillon highlight where he just barreled ahead, didn't see the cutback lane, and ran right into the back of his blocker, the kind of thing you saw Williams do as a rookie, just get in there and push the pile. I wouldn't want to see the Dillon lowlights against Big 5 conference competiion.

Maybe the Packers fell in love with Dillon's Combine numbers. It wouldn't be the first time. Beware trying to recast a RB regardless of how athletic he might look. You can coach in some patience but vision and twitchyness can't be coached. RBs are more born than made. It took Williams the better part of two years to start showing some of the patience it took to regard him as a decent runner, a guy you don't mind putting on the field for 80 snaps if push came to shove.

Outside zone requires patience and vision, and it sure helps if you can set up the blocks. It's a RB option play. Depending on whether the defense stretches or not, which OLs get a hat on which defenders, the effective run could be anywhere from cutting back inside the OG who is on the move all the way out to the edge to turn the corner.

There are some things I do understand about the pick. When you take a RB at #62, the 6th. RB off the board, that's more like low 1st., upper 2nd. at any other position except for maybe C, OG, ILB or S while RB is typically the easiest transition from college to pros. So, when you draft this player at this spot you gotta figure he's expected play a decent amount as a rookie unless he proves clueless to start out.

It would seem to make more sense that Dillion is the Williams replacement. But when you draft a RB at that spot instead of the 4th. or 5th. round, with Jones heading into what is likely to be a relatively expensive 2021 contract, with RBs having short shelf lives and are very risky second contract signings, while there are a few other priority free agents come 2021 without a whole lot of cap available or obvious cap saving cuts, you gotta think Dillon is lined up to take Jones' spot. Even if they somehow retained Jones, a 2nd. round RB on limited snaps is a pretty expensive way to go.

As you might have guessed by now, I don't care for picking this player at this spot regardless of the blocking scheme. Of course, LaFleur may not be wed to outside zone as a staple when Jones is not back there, which goes to the earlier point about evolving past what is assumed to be some genetic predispostion handed down from the coaching tree. By this time next year outside zone may be sharply limited or a quick, twitchy RB in the Jones mold comes out of the draft to mix in those stretch runs.

We're talking here about available evidence and probabilities, as always.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
In that situation he’s starting from the inside, even though he is an OLB. Probably a difference without distinction.
It's a distinction with a clear difference. He's not an OLB on that play. He looks like an ILB who has stepped up into a gap threatening blitz. But since we, and the opponent, know he rarely if every drops into coverage, he can't be that. The closest you can get is that he's a stand-up DT on that play even if that's a contradiction of conventional terms.

I find it hard to understand why someone, and you're not alone, fixates on a positional designation printed on a roster sheet when the evidence on the field could not be clearer that's not the position he plays on that particular snap. To illustrate further, for the sake of argument, let's say there's one particular game he does that on nearly every snap. You'd best cross off OLB on your roster sheet and write in DT. That might happen one day if Gary gets his sh*t together. Then you're probably going to see a DT who actually plays DT dropped off the game day active and an extra OLB that actually plays OLB added.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Fat Dogs

Cheesehead
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
434
Reaction score
33
Last I checked, sourdough bread and $5,000 rents are not a thing in Green Bay; it's not 1980; and Garoppolo is not quite Aaron Rodgers, but lets go with it.

SF regular season:

1063 offensive snaps
424 RB carries
26.5 RB carries per game
Mostert and Coleman tied for high carry count, 137 each, 8.6 per game each

GB regular season:if

1078 offensive snaps
355 RB carries
22.2 RB carries per game
Jones had the high carry count of 236, 14.8 per game

With total snap counts nearly identical, SF handed the ball to their running backs 4.3 times more per game than the GB.

Let's say the 2020 Packers ran their RBs an additional 4.3 times per game to match SF's pass/run distribution last season. And let's say Jones is kept at last year's 14.8 carries per game, how would you distrubute the remaining 11.7 carries among Dillon, Williams and Ervin in a typical game with all four on a game day roster? How would you distribute the 7.4 non-Jones carries, nearly all of which went to Williams last year, if the pass/run distribution was unchanged? Note that SF was a by-committee affair. This is not that, for 2020 anyway.

As for the last point, there was a documentary some months back that covered the Belichick/Parcells relationship. I'm pretty sure it was the ESPN "30 for 30" called "The Two Bills" but I'm not certain. I can only find the trailer at the moment so I can't verify that. If you ever run across that it's a must-watch on this subject

Anyway, in the documentary, Belichick's defensive game planning under Parcells was a topic of discussion between the two. Belichick talked about how he would flip schemes from one playoff game to the other, all base one game, all dime the next. Parcells did not understand it, but let him roll with it. Belichick was already rolling is own. It might be worth noting that Belichick was the DC with the Giants for 6 years developing his concepts. LaFleur has been a play caller for two years with two very different rosters. If he's as good as we'd like him to be, he'll plow his own path. This assumption that he's a clone is unfounded, and that is a good thing.

Already we have signs. Dillon is not the kind of runner you would consider ideal for an offense where outside zone blocking is a staple. Dillon's a between the tackles kind of guy who does not show any particular patience or vision while lacking a jump cut in his repertoire. Do they think they can make him into read/react/turn the corner kind of guy? Considering how RB styles come ready-made with attempts to change it nearly always a failing proposition. You can train a little partience through repetition but that's about it. Stay tuned.


Once again, You wouldn’t distribute the remaining caries to the four backs because Ervin isn’t in the equation. He’s a special teams guy with an occasional “gadget play.” Furthermore, It’s not just the caries. It’s all snaps. Someone needs to be in there for play action, blocking, receiving and I have no doubt that we’ll be running a lot of two back sets. Why roster another back for that when 2 backs did it last year? Because the RB room is a strength in 2020. Do you think the 49ers would have done it if their backs were Mostart, Breida, and Dexter Williams? Of course not. The end goal is to have fresh legs for the playoffs.

I’ll have to look up the Bills documentary because I would love to see it. I have no doubt that they were more equals than mentor and protege halfway thru but he was given a foundation weather is was from Bill or another coach early in his career. He’s had many years to add to it and build his own legacy. MLF happens to be a product of the Shanahan coaching tree and it’s pretty apparent this offense is headed in that direction.
 

Fat Dogs

Cheesehead
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
434
Reaction score
33
There's a story line that Dillion is a Derrick Henry comparable. Both weigh in at 247 lbs. Both take on full bore when the situation demands, and knock 'em back or knock 'em down with some frequency. The kicker is that Henry was LaFleur's primary runner in Tennessee.

I recently did a comparison check on the highlight tapes. Henry is a patient runner, and one clip caught my attention in particular where he made a slashing jump cut at the line leaving the ILB grabbing at air. Looking at Dillion's highlights I don't see much patience or vision, not much resembling a jump cut or setting up blocks. He does not look very twitchy. There's at least one Dillon highlight where he just barreled ahead, didn't see the cutback lane, and ran right into the back of his blocker, the kind of thing you saw Williams do as a rookie, just get in there and push the pile. I wouldn't want to see the Dillon lowlights against Big 5 conference competiion.

Maybe the Packers fell in love with Dillon's Combine numbers. It wouldn't be the first time. Beware trying to recast a RB regardless of how athletic he might look. You can coach in some patience but vision and twitchyness can't be coached. RBs are more born than made. It took Williams the better part of two years to start showing some of the patience it took to regard him as a decent runner, a guy you don't mind putting on the field for 80 snaps if push can to shove.

Outside zone requires patience and vision, and it sure helps if you can set up the blocks. It's a RB option play. Depending on whether the defense stretches or not, which OLs get a hat on which defenders, the effective run could be anywhere from cutting back inside the OG on the move all the way out to the edge to turn the corner.

There are some things I do understand about the pick. When you take a RB at #62, the 6th. RB off the board, that's more like low 1st., upper 2nd. at any other position except for maybe C, OG, ILB or S while RB is typically the easiest transition from college to pros. So, when you draft this player at this spot you gotta figure he's expected play a decent amount as a rookie unless he proves clueless to start out.

It would seem to make more sense that Dillion is the Williams replacement. But when you draft a RB at that spot instead of the 4th. or 5th. round, with Jones heading into what is likely to be a relatively expensive 2021 contract, with RBs having short shelf lives and are very risky second contract signings, while there are a few other priority free agents come 2021 without a whole lot of cap available or obvious cap saving cuts, you gotta think Dillon is lined up to take Jones' spot. Even if they somehow retained Jones, a 2nd. round RB on limited snaps is a pretty expensive way to go.

As you might have guessed by now, I don't care for picking this player at this spot regardless of the blocking scheme. Of course, LaFleur may not be wed to outside zone as a staple when Jones is not back there, which goes to the earlier point about evolving past what is assumed to be some genetic predispostion handed down from the coaching tree. By this time next year outside zone may be sharply limited or a quick, twitchy RB in the Jones mold comes out of the draft to mix in those stretch runs.

We're talking here about available evidence and probabilities, as always.


Agility might be a concern but I think he has above average vision. The goal is to get our backs into space and force defenders to make open field tackles. Like Henry, Dillon will be a load to take down and has plenty of speed to break long runs. I’m excited to see him in action.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Latest posts

Top