Pass to RBs more under Lafleur?

[GreenNGold_81]

Then the next question is:

How many sacks did each other offensive line get charged with? And what is their sack/rate based on that count?

That isn't the end of the analysis, but it's the next step.

The follow up questions will be in the vein of:

a) average time to sack? 2.5 seconds or longer is typically considered a win for pass blocking.

If another team team gives up fewer sacks, BUT they happen quicker, who's the better line? 20 sacks in 1.5 seconds is worse, in my opinion, than 40 in 3 seconds. That however is subjective.

Well if we got charged with 30, and they got charged with less than that without yet isolating the effect of the RB/TE/QB, then obviously the numbers for whom I projected to have better lines would be less.

This may be a good read for you and Wimm. https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol
They rank the pass blocking for GB at 21st, which is more in line with my theory.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I am not so sure it is certain that PFF are a bunch of statistical geniuses. You may like them and take their word as God. Not something I prescribe to. So you might say...well they know more than us. And I might say...well people that don't blame the O line for a large amount of sacks can't be all that bright. They are overthinking it imho. We'll see if there is an improvement this year.

Once again, it's pretty easy to understand that other players than offensive linemen can be responsible for giving up a sack. PFF takes that into consideration while you completely ignore the fact.

As I've mentioned repeatedly I don't consider PFF to be perfect by any means but I definitely put more value into their analysis than a random poster on a forum complaining about the OL because of the total number of sacks given up.

See, even that's a ridiculous statement because for the amount of sacks given up by the line according to their standards (which is likely subjective anyway) it's still greater than the top 5 for the league. All of the top 5 lines according to sacks and hits as listed above have less than 30 sacks.

There's no doubt the Packers gave up too many sacks last season. Unfortunately that's the only thing you concentrate on instead of actually taking a look at the performance of the offensive line.

That's not a decent way to evaluate their play. You did that with the Bucs passing offense as well.

This may be a good read for you and Wimm. https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol
They rank the pass blocking for GB at 21st, which is more in line with my theory.

I like Football Outsiders for the most part but their adjusted sack rate is a terrible way to measure offensive line play.

 

[GreenNGold_81]

Once again, it's pretty easy to understand that other players than offensive linemen can be responsible for giving up a sack. PFF takes that into consideration while you completely ignore the fact.

As I've mentioned repeatedly I don't consider PFF to be perfect by any means but I definitely put more value into their analysis than a random poster on a forum complaining about the OL because of the total number of sacks given up.



There's no doubt the Packers gave up too many sacks last season. Unfortunately that's the only thing you concentrate on instead of actually taking a look at the performance of the offensive line.

That's not a decent way to evaluate their play. You did that with the Bucs passing offense as well.



I like Football Outsiders for the most part but their adjusted sack rate is a terrible way to measure offensive line play.

The Bucs discussion was a thorough thrashing for you - when you couldn't justify those offenses that were apparently ranked ahead of the Bucs you lost. Similar to how you have not been able to explain how the Packers offensive line is better than the Saints, Colts, Pats, Chiefs and Steelers (and probably at least 3-4 more teams).

The Football Outsiders ranking is more legit than PFF because their analysis takes into the fact that the Packers gave up too many sacks. Whereas PFF - who ranked them 8th going into this season (again, out of the top 5 so henceforth not "one of the best") seems to justify their ranking only by the fact that Baktiari and Bulaga (whos held together by band-aids) are among the best.

 

[hasamikun]

The Bucs discussion was a thorough thrashing for you - when you couldn't justify those offenses that were apparently ranked ahead of the Bucs you lost. Similar to how you have not been able to explain how the Packers offensive line is better than the Saints, Colts, Pats, Chiefs and Steelers (and probably at least 3-4 more teams).

The Football Outsiders ranking is more legit than PFF because their analysis takes into the fact that the Packers gave up too many sacks. Whereas PFF - who ranked them 8th going into this season (again, out of the top 5 so henceforth not "one of the best") seems to justify their ranking only by the fact that Baktiari and Bulaga (whos held together by band-aids) are among the best.

You are just saying that Footballoutsiders is more legit cuz it fits your narrative. You only focus on one stat and that is a terrible way to judge the performance of a player and a whole group.
The sacks were too many, thats true. Even 30 seems like a lot. But you gotta consider that AR wasnt able to run properly because of his knee injury and he held the ball too long anyways.
45 of the 53 sacks happened after 2.5 seconds. That shows that the OL gives AR more than enough time to get the ball out. But we all know him and he never let the ball go that quickly in the recent years. That combined with his inability to run away from pressure makes the OL look worse than it actually was. Packers also didnt run that much and Rodgers refused to play the Checkdowns. It seems to be difficult to understand but you cant judge a group by one stat. There are way too many things going on to simplefy this.

PFF is always tricky but they usually nail their rankings when it comes to the OL. No one denies that the Ol needs work. The Guard position wasnt good last year and gave too much away.This was especially bad because inside pressure is rising and getting more important with every day. Work needed to be done and it was done.

With the new OL and offense scheme, sack numbers will decrease, I am certain. The guard position is better, more depth, new offense scheme with more runs and short passes to RBs etc. All that will help to protect AR and get the hit numbers down.

Now to the topic: The passes will come but I am not sure that Jones will be the one receiving them. We dont have many samples for his ability to catch them but Jamaal seems to be the more natural catcher so I guess he will be on the receiving more often than Jones. But I still need more samples for Jones catching to completly judge his ability there. Also dont forget FB Danny Vitale, who was a pretty good catcher in College and ye I know it has been some time since his college days but skills are there.

 

[GreenNGold_81]

You are just saying that Footballoutsiders is more legit cuz it fits your narrative. You only focus on one stat and that is a terrible way to judge the performance of a player and a whole group.
The sacks were too many, thats true. Even 30 seems like a lot. But you gotta consider that AR wasnt able to run properly because of his knee injury and he held the ball too long anyways.
45 of the 53 sacks happened after 2.5 seconds. That shows that the OL gives AR more than enough time to get the ball out. But we all know him and he never let the ball go that quickly in the recent years. That combined with his inability to run away from pressure makes the OL look worse than it actually was. Packers also didnt run that much and Rodgers refused to play the Checkdowns. It seems to be difficult to understand but you cant judge a group by one stat. There are way too many things going on to simplefy this.

PFF is always tricky but they usually nail their rankings when it comes to the OL. No one denies that the Ol needs work. The Guard position wasnt good last year and gave too much away.This was especially bad because inside pressure is rising and getting more important with every day. Work needed to be done and it was done.

With the new OL and offense scheme, sack numbers will decrease, I am certain. The guard position is better, more depth, new offense scheme with more runs and short passes to RBs etc. All that will help to protect AR and get the hit numbers down.

Now to the topic: The passes will come but I am not sure that Jones will be the one receiving them. We dont have many samples for his ability to catch them but Jamaal seems to be the more natural catcher so I guess he will be on the receiving more often than Jones. But I still need more samples for Jones catching to completly judge his ability there. Also dont forget FB Danny Vitale, who was a pretty good catcher in College and ye I know it has been some time since his college days but skills are there.

And Wimm uses pff to fit his narrative. So that's a bunk point.

Further, it's not just one stat as mentioned. It's also QB hits. And the fact that both numbers are nearly identical for two years - factoring out Rodgers injury the previous year. Rodgers has held the ball longer than most, so had Mahomes (also mentioned before) who was sacked half as often. Lines can adjust to that, ours can't.

This isn't an argument about how they will be this year, but I agree they *should* be better. It's whether we have had "one of the best" offensive lines over the last several years. I've outlined why I think they haven't been (I think they're likely outside the top ten).

Each of you has agreed we have been sacked or hit too often, then with the next sentence made excuses. Take the blinders off. At the end of the day the lines' job is to keep Rodgers upright and uninjured. They're certainly not amongst the best at doing that. It is unbelievable to see some of the apologist posts here. Over 200 QB hits in two years is NOT good.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

The Bucs discussion was a thorough thrashing for you - when you couldn't justify those offenses that were apparently ranked ahead of the Bucs you lost.

You're truly hilarious. Once again you concentrate on a single stat and make a conclusion based on it while completely ignoring other facts. That's a terrible way to evaluate a football team.

The Football Outsiders ranking is more legit than PFF because their analysis takes into the fact that the Packers gave up too many sacks. Whereas PFF - who ranked them 8th going into this season (again, out of the top 5 so henceforth not "one of the best") seems to justify their ranking only by the fact that Baktiari and Bulaga (whos held together by band-aids) are among the best.

Once again, Football Outsiders only considers the total number of sacks a team has given up. That's not a good way to analyze the performance of the offensive line.

It's true PFF ranked the Packers offensive line as the eighth best entering this season. You have to realize that includes run blocking as well, an area the unit has struggled in the past.

 

[GreenNGold_81]

You're truly hilarious. Once again you concentrate on a single stat and make a conclusion based on it while completely ignoring other facts. That's a terrible way to evaluate a football team.



Once again, Football Outsiders only considers the total number of sacks a team has given up. That's not a good way to analyze the performance of the offensive line.

It's true PFF ranked the Packers offensive line as the eighth best entering this season. You have to realize that includes run blocking as well, an area the unit has struggled in the past.

It's obvious you didn't learn anything from our prior discussion, as you've completely forgotten the basis with which I made my claim. The Bucs had literally a dozen stats that I presented to make my argument. When presented with an unbeatable argument, you balked and quit. Therefore, lost. And you're doing so again.

Moving on.

Sacks are one stat that I presented, QB hits is the other. Here's yet another, our QB has played 7 of the last 32 games healthy. Sure sounds like a great line protecting him. PFF literally said that because Bak and Bulaga are so good it has vaulted them up their rankings. They didn't mention a thing about their run blocking skills - and that is not a part of this discussion.

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

Enjoy watching that stellar O-line get our QB concussed, he lost vision and probably would have been out for further games following the hit.

Also, and this will be sweet... Here's your last stat for tonight. PFF ranking the O-line 13th in pass-blocking efficiency. https://www.pff.com/news/pro-ranking-all-32-nfl-offensive-lines-by-pass-blocking-efficiency

A ranking outside the top ten certainly doesn't sound like "one of the best" as you put it.

 

[hasamikun]

And Wimm uses pff to fit his narrative. So that's a bunk point.

Further, it's not just one stat as mentioned. It's also QB hits. And the fact that both numbers are nearly identical for two years - factoring out Rodgers injury the previous year. Rodgers has held the ball longer than most, so had Mahomes (also mentioned before) who was sacked half as often. Lines can adjust to that, ours can't.

This isn't an argument about how they will be this year, but I agree they *should* be better. It's whether we have had "one of the best" offensive lines over the last several years. I've outlined why I think they haven't been (I think they're likely outside the top ten).

Each of you has agreed we have been sacked or hit too often, then with the next sentence made excuses. Take the blinders off. At the end of the day the lines' job is to keep Rodgers upright and uninjured. They're certainly not amongst the best at doing that. It is unbelievable to see some of the apologist posts here. Over 200 QB hits in two years is NOT good.

First of all You cant count in the 2017 season. Rodgers was injured after 4 games, injury was his fault, and we all know how Kizer ran into the pressure and got hit alot by that.
Secondly Mahomes had one major advantage compared to Rodgers: He wasnt injured. Rodgers wasnt able to run away from the pressure and combined with his inability to throw qucik short checkdowns, he got hit a lot. The OL gave him the time to get the ball out but he didnt.( Its like an extended play. The QB holds the ball extremly long and the DBS try to cover and defend the WRs, TEs, RBs for a long time. Its nearly impossible to cover them 100% the whole time) Mahomes did that and was able to run away so ofc he gets hit less. The line adjusted to Rodgers injury, giving him 2.5 seconds on 45 of the 53 sacks, but Rodgers and the offensive scheme didnt adjust to his injury. This is not some cheap excuse or apology, it is the truth. There are more things going on on the field so you should judge accordingly.

And before you say that the injury in the first game was the OLs fault: Its still football. Injuries happen and the Bears have one hell of a defense and Pass rush. No OL can defend everything coming from them.

Everyone here sees the bigger picture and judges the Line properly. We take into account that it isnt purely on the OL to protect the QB, the whole offense needs to do that. And that didnt happen and because of that the OL looks worse than it actually was.
You are too stubborn to see that it takes more to analyze the OL. The OL cant make up for others players failure, including the QBs failure. And AR failure, combined with the injury, killed the season. I still consider #13 as a good ranking and therefore a good season for the OL.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

It's obvious you didn't learn anything from our prior discussion, as you've completely forgotten the basis with which I made my claim. The Bucs had literally a dozen stats that I presented to make my argument. When presented with an unbeatable argument, you balked and quit. Therefore, lost.

Actually it's smart to move on from a discussion with someone too stubborn to realize he has been proven wrong.

Here's yet another, our QB has played 7 of the last 32 games healthy. Sure sounds like a great line protecting him.

It's absolutely ridiculous to blame Rodgers injury vs. the Vikings on the offensive line after it took five seconds for him to get rid of the ball on that play.

Also, and this will be sweet... Here's your last stat for tonight. PFF ranking the O-line 13th in pass-blocking efficiency. https://www.pff.com/news/pro-ranking-all-32-nfl-offensive-lines-by-pass-blocking-efficiency

A ranking outside the top ten certainly doesn't sound like "one of the best" as you put it.

That's interesting as PFF has the Packers ranked first in pass blocking in their elite stats section.

 

[GreenNGold_81]

First of all You cant count in the 2017 season. Rodgers was injured after 4 games, injury was his fault, and we all know how Kizer ran into the pressure and got hit alot by that.
Secondly Mahomes had one major advantage compared to Rodgers: He wasnt injured. Rodgers wasnt able to run away from the pressure and combined with his inability to throw qucik short checkdowns, he got hit a lot. The OL gave him the time to get the ball out but he didnt.( Its like an extended play. The QB holds the ball extremly long and the DBS try to cover and defend the WRs, TEs, RBs for a long time. Its nearly impossible to cover them 100% the whole time) Mahomes did that and was able to run away so ofc he gets hit less. The line adjusted to Rodgers injury, giving him 2.5 seconds on 45 of the 53 sacks, but Rodgers and the offensive scheme didnt adjust to his injury. This is not some cheap excuse or apology, it is the truth. There are more things going on on the field so you should judge accordingly.

And before you say that the injury in the first game was the OLs fault: Its still football. Injuries happen and the Bears have one hell of a defense and Pass rush. No OL can defend everything coming from them.

Everyone here sees the bigger picture and judges the Line properly. We take into account that it isnt purely on the OL to protect the QB, the whole offense needs to do that. And that didnt happen and because of that the OL looks worse than it actually was.
You are too stubborn to see that it takes more to analyze the OL. The OL cant make up for others players failure, including the QBs failure. And AR failure, combined with the injury, killed the season. I still consider #13 as a good ranking and therefore a good season for the OL.

Kizer didn't start for the Packers in 2017.

And, you basically conceded the argument when you agreed with a ranking of 13. Therefore, not "one of the best" as per wimm.

 

[GreenNGold_81]

Actually it's smart to move on from a discussion with someone too stubborn to realize he has been proven wrong.



It's absolutely ridiculous to blame Rodgers injury vs. the Vikings on the offensive line after it took five seconds for him to get rid of the ball on that play.



That's interesting as PFF has the Packers ranked first in pass blocking in their elite stats section.

First, that's exactly why I moved on regarding the Bucs. After presenting the multitude of stats you still didn't get it.

Secondly, Rodgers extended the play because he was about to get sacked from the right side of the line. He still ended up getting crushed after looking like a chicken with his head cut off running from pressure. The right guard could have stopped double-teaming a guy who was already under control and picked up the block on Barr. So yes, I blame the line for that play.

When you post their (PFF's) analysis on how they achieve that rank I'll give it a read. If it's with respect to the rankings of Bulaga and Bak driving up their ranking, I have already addressed that. The short-comings elsewhere have dragged the line down past a top 5 and likely outside a top 10 ranking.

 

[mradtke66]

Secondly, Rodgers extended the play because he was about to get sacked from the right side of the line.

Just watched the play again.

Ball is snapped at 7:04.

At 7:02, Rodgers has reached the top of his drop. All 5 eligible receivers are within 5 yards of LOS. Jordy running a slant from the offensive left appears to be open. Why has the ball not left yet?

At 7:01, the Left End has gone around the the Right Tackle. Rodgers slides to the right. If he just side steps, he's safe, can set his feet and throw. However, HE KEEPS MOVING TO THE RIGTH. Why has the ball not left yet?

By now, the line has done the job and won, having successfully blocked for 2.5-3 seconds.

At 7:00, 4 seconds into the play, on 2nd down, and an extra rusher coming down, the ball needs to be gone already.

I give Rodgers about 90% of the fault on this play. He needed to throw or throw away the pass at least 1.5 seconds earlier. Honestly, he was in position to do so before he left the pocket.

The right guard could have stopped double-teaming a guy who was already under control and picked up the block on Barr.

At the end of play, the RG is not doubling anyone. Linsley left the double-team and dropped back to help double the DT that the LG is blocking. And his back is to Rodgers--unless he has eyes in the back of his head, he wouldn't know which way to slide once the play breaks down. AND EVEN THEN, if he did leave to try to pickup Barr, now no. 98 has a clearly path to hit Rodgers.

Second, I don't think there exists a lineman alive who could have gotten over to pickup Barr. He was dropped into coverage and was in perfect position to leave coverage when Rodgers scrambled. It was so automatic, I have to presume it was covered during the week. Either as a hot call "Rodgers bails, you rush" or was built into the playcall.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Secondly, Rodgers extended the play because he was about to get sacked from the right side of the line. He still ended up getting crushed after looking like a chicken with his head cut off running from pressure. The right guard could have stopped double-teaming a guy who was already under control and picked up the block on Barr. So yes, I blame the line for that play.

That's a ridiculous assessment of the play but explains a lot about your lack of knowledge.

When you post their (PFF's) analysis on how they achieve that rank I'll give it a read.

I'm not allowed to post in-depth information from a pay site like PFF's elite stats.

If it's with respect to the rankings of Bulaga and Bak driving up their ranking, I have already addressed that. The short-comings elsewhere have dragged the line down past a top 5 and likely outside a top 10 ranking.

That's another ridiculous claim. Of course the Packers offensive line ranking is driven up by Bulaga and especially Bakhtiari. Last time I checked both of them are starters on the team.

 

[GreenNGold_81]

That's a ridiculous assessment of the play but explains a lot about your lack of knowledge.

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

I'm not allowed to post in-depth information from a pay site like PFF's elite stats.



That's another ridiculous claim. Of course the Packers offensive line ranking is driven up by Bulaga and especially Bakhtiari. Last time I checked both of them are starters on the team.

Seeing as you refuse to address (again) how the Packers are a better pass-blocking offensive line than the Colts, Saints, Pats, Steelers, Chiefs, and we can even include the Panthers, Ravens, Rams, and Bears (all teams with 20 less sacks than the Packers) then you have conceded the argument as well.

Have a good evening gents!

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

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Seeing as you refuse to address (again) how the Packers are a better pass-blocking offensive line than the Colts, Saints, Pats, Steelers, Chiefs, and we can even include the Panthers, Ravens, Rams, and Bears (all teams with 20 less sacks than the Packers) then you have conceded the argument as well.

Several posters have addressed the reasons why the Packers offensive line is one of the best pass blocking units in the league, you're just to ignorant to at least think about any of them.

 

[GreenNGold_81]

Several posters have addressed the reasons why the Packers offensive line is one of the best pass blocking units in the league, you're just to ignorant to at least think about any of them.

They were refuted. It was a good discussion. I'm hopeful we can all now acknowledge that our line has not been "one of the best" for some time now.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

They were refuted.

No, you just ignored them.

 

[GreenNGold_81]

No, you just ignored them.

Thanks for your contributions, but really once the Rodgers champ gif is up you're done.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Thanks for your contributions, but really once the Rodgers champ gif is up you're done.

Geez, you posting a random gif means diddly-squat.

 

[GreenNGold_81]

Geez, you posting a random gif means diddly-squat.

That particular gif shows up when someone has been soundly beaten (you) in an argument and the discussion is over. I can't control it.

 

[mradtke66]

To paraphrase the quote....

Debating this topic with GreenNGold_81 is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; he knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to his flock to claim victory.

 

[gopkrs]

To paraphrase the quote....

Debating this topic with GreenNGold_81 is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; he knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to his flock to claim victory.

Funny. But I agree with him that the O line has been over-rated by GB fans. Maybe it has been subpar coaching.

 

[mradtke66]

Funny. But I agree with him that the O line has been over-rated by GB fans. Maybe it has been subpar coaching.

I'm not prepared to blame coaching, at least the position coach.

Considering the lack resources devoted to it (last year's preferred starters were 4th round picks, URFA, and 1st rounder at RT) I'm beyond impressed with the team's ability to field the level of play they have.

Was it 2016 when, due to injury, we had Linsley and 4 players who were natural guards comprising the starting 5? Taylor starting at LT? The fact that the offense was able to function at something resembling an NFL offense with that crew is astounding.

If someone wants to blame coaching, put more on the scheme in general, the playcalling, or MM's inability to get Rodgers to take the checkdown and/or get the ball out faster.

 

[mradtke66]

But I agree with him that the O line has been over-rated by GB fans.

And it's fine to hold such an opinion--you can think, I'm wrong. I can think you're wrong. We can have a discussion, we can cite sources.

But the argument needs to be good faith (and you do respectable job of this).

 

[RicFlairoftheNFL]

Haven't even had Family night yet and already the 'If LaFleur isn't a *******' posts have started. While I do agree we need to pass more to backs, and honestly TEs too saying he shouldn't cut Rodgers nuts this year is foolish. Aaron needs to be shown that he is a PLAYER overpriced too at this point; not the coach owner or GM.