Defense being tired

[Mondio]

16 plays or 5, i want points. If we're consistently moving the ball and take 16 plays, I"m ok with it. 3 yards here 5 yards there, 2 yards here, 8 yards there. I don't want 15 play drives that see every set of downs get to 3rd and 10 and then we hit a 15 yarder or something. (yes I know the math doesn't add up, but it's the point) I'd rather be converting 3rd and 3 or less's consistently than always relying on 3rd and 10's, which we've been pretty good at over the years.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

There's no doubt the defense played pretty well in the second half vs. the Jaguars.



I don't mind the offense needing more than 10 plays to march down the field as there are other ways than explosive plays to move the ball. I'm worried about the miscommunications in the second half resulting in the unit struggling in the red zone with both drives inside the 20 ending in field goals only though.

Fact is that explosive plays make it FAR more likely to end up scoring. Link below is a terrific article. Pete Carroll did a ton of research on explosive plays (16+yard passing play or 12+yard run play) as coach of Seattle and came to the conclusion that if a team hits an explosive play in a drive, they will score points more than 75% of the time. If you want a great offense, the team HAS to hit big plays. Now, I'm not saying the Packers are hosed and give up. The team was extremely conservative in the pre-season with their treatment of Rodgers and Nelson, so perhaps the coaches were ok with starting out slow as the players get their feet under them. The Packers will most likely improve, there's just too much talent not to and, despite the Jags game, I don't think last year was the beginning of the end for the Packer's offense.

https://theringer.com/five-better-nfl-stats-teddy-bridgewater-dwight-freeney-187cb19326f1#.9hpytzjej

 

[Sunshinepacker]

16 plays or 5, i want points. If we're consistently moving the ball and take 16 plays, I"m ok with it. 3 yards here 5 yards there, 2 yards here, 8 yards there. I don't want 15 play drives that see every set of downs get to 3rd and 10 and then we hit a 15 yarder or something. (yes I know the math doesn't add up, but it's the point) I'd rather be converting 3rd and 3 or less's consistently than always relying on 3rd and 10's, which we've been pretty good at over the years.

Point is that it's REALLY tough to consistently score on long drives in the NFL and getting long plays increases the chance of scoring by a sizable amount. Not many teams consistently score with long drives.

 

[Mondio]

Point is that it's REALLY tough to consistently score on long drives in the NFL and getting long plays increases the chance of scoring by a sizable amount. Not many teams consistently score with long drives.

I know, there's a happy medium, or at least I think there could be. Our team it seems either gets explosive plays and we score, or we go 3 and out. or we hit a 10 yarder, then go 3 and out. We convert a lot of 3rd and 7+'s. I'd rather have an offense that needs to convert more 3rd and 2's. We can still hit explosive plays, and I expect us to.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

A game that I will forever remember was in 2011 when the Packers went into Atlanta during the playoffs as underdogs and completely demolished a very good and favored Falcons team. The offense for 2 quarters (41 points) was about as potent as you will see. No monster plays, but really consistent long drives, just pounding the ball down the field. I don't think Masthay even saw the field that day.

That is the offense I hope to see again.

http://www.packers.com/media-center...ghlights/fb9078a2-b523-44ad-b3ca-0f0202392063

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I know, there's a happy medium, or at least I think there could be. Our team it seems either gets explosive plays and we score, or we go 3 and out. or we hit a 10 yarder, then go 3 and out. We convert a lot of 3rd and 7+'s. I'd rather have an offense that needs to convert more 3rd and 2's. We can still hit explosive plays, and I expect us to.

That's the majority of offenses. They occasionally hit a long play and score (because explosive plays REALLY help a team score on that drive) and, if you don't hit the long play, scoring is really tough and inconsistent.

In 2014, the Packers lead the NFL with 6.2 yards per play. In 2015, the Packers were 28th(!) in the NFL with only 5.1 yards per play. Last week's game against the Jags was far more like 2015 than most are comfortable with, the Packers averaged 4.9 yards per play.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

A game that I will forever remember was in 2011 when the Packers went into Atlanta during the playoffs as underdogs and completely demolished a very good and favored Falcons team. The offense for 2 quarters (41 points) was about as potent as you will see. No monster plays, but really consistent long drives, just pounding the ball down the field. I don't think Masthay even saw the field that day.

That is the offense I hope to see again.

http://www.packers.com/media-center...ghlights/fb9078a2-b523-44ad-b3ca-0f0202392063

The Packers had 442 yards in that game and Rodgers averaged over 10 yards per attempt. There were a bunch of long plays in that game.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The Packers had 442 yards in that game and Rodgers averaged over 10 yards per attempt. There were a bunch of long plays in that game.

The longest pass for a score was 20 yards to James Jones. I would debate "bunch and long" but kind of senseless, since my point was, the offense was able to consistently move down the field and not just with 1-5 big play/drives.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to see a few long TD passes from time to time, but I will trade those for an offense that plays in rhythm and can move the ball slowly and consistently down the field for touchdowns.

 

[Mondio]

That's the majority of offenses. They occasionally hit a long play and score (because explosive plays REALLY help a team score on that drive) and, if you don't hit the long play, scoring is really tough and inconsistent.

In 2014, the Packers lead the NFL with 6.2 yards per play. In 2015, the Packers were 28th(!) in the NFL with only 5.1 yards per play. Last week's game against the Jags was far more like 2015 than most are comfortable with, the Packers averaged 4.9 yards per play.

that's mashing numbers again though. There's a difference in how teams average those numbers. just like you can average 5 YPC by going 20 carries for 100 yards or 1 for 99 and 19 carries for not very much. both average the same.

You can strike on a big play on 3rd and 2. It doesn't always have to be, nothing, nothing, 15 yards. 2 yards, 2 yards, 15 yards. It's nice that we can do it, better than most. or at least historically have been able to. But it would also be nice to know we can line up and consistently move the chains without needing a pass of 10+ yards every 3 downs.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

The longest pass for a score was 20 yards to James Jones. I would debate "bunch and long" but kind of senseless, since my point was, their offense was able to consistently move down the field and not just with 1-5 big play/drives.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to see a few long TD passes from time to time, but I will trade those for an offense that plays in rhythm and can move the ball slowly and consistently down the field for touchdowns.

When I talk about explosive plays, I don't mean just long TD passes/runs. I mean just long plays in the middle of a drive. Rodgers' longest pass that day was something like 32 yards.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

that's mashing numbers again though. There's a difference in how teams average those numbers. just like you can average 5 YPC by going 20 carries for 100 yards or 1 for 99 and 19 carries for not very much. both average the same.

You can strike on a big play on 3rd and 2. It doesn't always have to be, nothing, nothing, 15 yards. 2 yards, 2 yards, 15 yards. It's nice that we can do it, better than most. or at least historically have been able to. But it would also be nice to know we can line up and consistently move the chains without needing a pass of 10+ yards every 3 downs.

OK. Fact is that if you have a long play during a drive, the team's chances of scoring go up a huge margin; all the excuses in the world don't change the fact that without big plays, history says an offense will not be elite. The best offenses in the NFL have explosive plays. Against the Jags, the Packers were a pedestrian (at best) offense.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I just realized I'm replying to posts on the team's offense in a thread revolving around the team's defense. Talk about missing the forest for the trees...the Packers defense was good (not exceptional) considering depth on dline, rookie ILB and losing their best corner. I don't know how anyone could expect a team with those issues to field a dominant defense.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I just realized I'm replying to posts on the team's offense in a thread revolving around the team's defense. Talk about missing the forest for the trees.

Maybe an occasional pick 6 from the Packers defense will help blur those lines a bit more.

 

[Mondio]

OK. Fact is that if you have a long play during a drive, the team's chances of scoring go up a huge margin; all the excuses in the world don't change the fact that without big plays, history says an offense will not be elite. The best offenses in the NFL have explosive plays. Against the Jags, the Packers were a pedestrian (at best) offense.

I'm not making excuses. and i don't even think our offense was good about being consistent on offense, even with a 16 play drive. It still seemed like we needed to always convert 3rd and longs or rely on penalty rather than just methodically moving the ball. I'd rather see us consistently run for 3-5 yards, then have a 6-8 yard pass play for first downs than go , 0,0, 12 yard pass, 0,-2 15 yard pass, 2,1,10 yard pass. 000 FG. or 1,1,0 punt

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I'm not making excuses. and i don't even think our offense was good about being consistent on offense, even with a 16 play drive. It still seemed like we needed to always convert 3rd and longs or rely on penalty rather than just methodically moving the ball. I'd rather see us consistently run for 3-5 yards, then have a 6-8 yard pass play for first downs than go , 0,0, 12 yard pass, 0,-2 15 yard pass, 2,1,10 yard pass. 000 FG. or 1,1,0 punt

OK, this is a bit of a straw man. At what point did I say the Packers need to have a terrible offense highlighted by the occasional big play? I simply stated that an elite offense needs the big play. That would be your first example, consistent 3-5 yard runs and 6-8 yard passes with some big plays mixed in. Obviously nobody wants to have the Rams offense with the occasional deep ball to Nelson (I mean, I thought it was obvious).

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

OK, this is a bit of a straw man. At what point did I say the Packers need to have a terrible offense highlighted by the occasional big play? I simply stated that an elite offense needs the big play. That would be your first example, consistent 3-5 yard runs and 6-8 yard passes with some big plays mixed in. Obviously nobody wants to have the Rams offense with the occasional deep ball to Nelson (I mean, I thought it was obvious).

Here I thought you were talking about 80 yard bombs on every series!

I get your point, its nice to have the occasional 20+ yard play during a drive/game, but I guess I was saying its not necessary nor would you want to depend on it. What is necessary is an offense that doesn't make costly mistakes during a series or is facing 3rd and 8+ too often. Personally, I prefer the long, wear the defense down drives, but you are right, mixing in some occasional big plays is beneficial in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Fact is that explosive plays make it FAR more likely to end up scoring. Link below is a terrific article. Pete Carroll did a ton of research on explosive plays (16+yard passing play or 12+yard run play) as coach of Seattle and came to the conclusion that if a team hits an explosive play in a drive, they will score points more than 75% of the time. If you want a great offense, the team HAS to hit big plays. Now, I'm not saying the Packers are hosed and give up. The team was extremely conservative in the pre-season with their treatment of Rodgers and Nelson, so perhaps the coaches were ok with starting out slow as the players get their feet under them. The Packers will most likely improve, there's just too much talent not to and, despite the Jags game, I don't think last year was the beginning of the end for the Packer's offense.

https://theringer.com/five-better-nfl-stats-teddy-bridgewater-dwight-freeney-187cb19326f1#.9hpytzjej

There's absolutely no doubt hitting on a big play significantly increases the chance of scoring on a drive. Relying on those plays to constantly move the ball will get a team into trouble though.

In addition getting in favorable down and distance situations significantly increases the chance of using play action to complete a long pass.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

There's absolutely no doubt hitting on a big play significantly increases the chance of scoring on a drive. Relying on those plays to constantly move the ball will get a team into trouble though.

In addition getting in favorable down and distance situations significantly increases the chance of using play action to complete a long pass.

There's that straw man again...at no point did I claim the offense needed to rely on the explosive play. The team needs to mix in a couple of explosive plays though.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

There's that straw man again...at no point did I claim the offense needed to rely on the explosive play. The team needs to mix in a couple of explosive plays though.

Last years game against the Chiefs, IMO is what most of us are looking for out of the offense. Although, I would like to see a bit stronger running game.

http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/boxscore?id=7398

 

[Royal Pain]

There's that straw man again...at no point did I claim the offense needed to rely on the explosive play. The team needs to mix in a couple of explosive plays though.

Speaking of straw man...You equated complaining about the Packers giving up 6 points in the 2nd half with unrealistic expectations, when my post was addressing not stopping the Jaguars after our 9 minute drive.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[Deleted member 6794]

There's that straw man again...at no point did I claim the offense needed to rely on the explosive play. The team needs to mix in a couple of explosive plays though.

You claimed an offense can't be successful in the long run if it constantly takes them a lot of plays to march down the field. That seems to indicate you want offenses to rely on big plays to move the ball.

Once again, not a single poster has suggested explosive plays make it easier to score but those are hard to come by.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Once again, not a single poster has suggested explosive plays make it easier to score but those are hard to come by.

I assume you left the word "don't" out of that sentence? "not a single poster has suggested explosive plays _____ make it easier to score"

Explosive plays are awesome, but having to rely on them doesn't make for a good offensive game plan IMO. Especially, when facing a really good defense. But I think most of us will agree, connecting on a few may just open up what we can do on offense. I think we saw AR try that a few times in the Jag game and while he did have a 32 yarder (Cobb) a 29 (Adams) and a 22 (R. Rodgers), some of those may have benefited from YAC, I can't recall. The bread and butter I would like to see, is a consistent ability to find Cook or Cobb 7-10 yards crossing down the middle of the field and let them do the rest. That play seems to work consistently when run against us.

 

[Mondio]

What's straw about my argument? Historically, our offense has relied on being one of the best at converting 3rd and longs, because we have to. It's good that we can, our averages all look great, we tend to score points. It's not straw man to say I'd rather have our big plays come on a play action pass in 3rd and 2 rather than needing to convert a 3rd and 15 so we don't have to punt.

I'm grateful that were good at converting longer 3rd downs, at least historically with Rodgers under center, but is rather we didn't need rely on it so much.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

You claimed an offense can't be successful in the long run if it constantly takes them a lot of plays to march down the field. That seems to indicate you want offenses to rely on big plays to move the ball.

Once again, not a single poster has suggested explosive plays make it easier to score but those are hard to come by.

I claimed that an offense can't be an elite offense without having explosive plays. Nowhere did I say the offense had to be built around explosive plays. Since when does having SOME explosive plays turn into building an offense around explosive plays?