Sunshinepacker
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2013
- Messages
- 5,766
- Reaction score
- 896
Just curious what others' thoughts are on this but last year, when we were trotting CFL-level quarterbacks onto the field on a regular basis as well as missing Cobb for much of the season, the Packers' lead the NFL in offensive sets featuring 3+ WRs. Why would the team not go with more 2/1/2 sets (using a fullback instead of third WR) or something similar to emphasize the running game? I'm not trying to criticize the coaching staff, just trying to understand why the Packers lead the NFL in using 3+ WRs when we had a very good running game and were missing some extremely vital components necessary for 3+ WR sets.
Is the value of "spreading out the defense" really that great when you have a mediocre (at best) quarterback?
Is the value of "spreading out the defense" really that great when you have a mediocre (at best) quarterback?