1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!

    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers. You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!
    Dismiss Notice

Rodgers sack problems II

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by PackersRS, Nov 12, 2009.

  1. PackersRS

    PackersRS Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2008
    Messages:
    8,471
    Ratings:
    +980
    Air and Space: Timing Rodgers on sacks - NFC North - ESPN

    Take a look, and read this very good article. According to him, you can blame Rodgers once every 4 sacks. Which are 9.25 sacks. If you take those away from the sack total, it's second in the league. And if you take into consideration that EVERY QB IN THE NFL has some sacks credited to him, then it's even worse.

    So, if you take away the sacks which were a result of Rodgers holding onto the ball, and include the sacks that were a result of every other qb in the league, we would be second in the league with 28.75 sacks, with Kansas City in first (30) and the Redskins in third (28).
     
  2. Quientus

    Quientus Oenophile

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2009
    Messages:
    580
    Ratings:
    +33
    Good Article ... - Yet, (and yes I know what you are about to say ... - However ...) Given that the average time is "3,4 seconds", I would say that in order to portray the analysis based on the numbers alone, then he should have used the 3,4 seconds as a "benchmark" and then look at those times where Rodgers held the ball longer than 3,5+ seconds ... - If his claim is that the "rest" of the sacks are on the offensive line (alone) ...


    Week Opp. Down Yards Lost Time 1Bears1-72.3
    1Bears1-72.2
    1Bears3-113.3
    1Bears1-93.9
    2Bengals1-83.4
    2Bengals2-113.7
    2Bengals1-54.3
    2Bengals1-64.6
    2Bengals2-52.7
    2Bengals3-42.7
    3Rams2-72.7
    3Rams3-124.5
    4Vikings1-92.9
    4Vikings1-74.2
    4Vikings3-73.6
    4Vikings2-21.9
    4Vikings1-46.1
    4Vikings1-72.5
    4Vikings3-13.7
    4Vikings1-52.9
    6Lions2-92.0
    6Lions302.8
    6Lions2-91.9
    6Lions2-53.2
    6Lions1-73.0
    8Vikings3-36.5
    8Vikings3-54.7
    8Vikings1-82.8
    8Vikings2-42.1
    8Vikings3-42.5
    8Vikings2-51.9
    9Buccaneers2-52.8
    9Buccaneers1-53.1
    9Buccaneers2-63.5
    9Buccaneers1-73.4
    9Buccaneers308.0
    9Buccaneers2-94.0 AVERAGE 3.4


    Going by those plays where the ball is held for more than the "average" (3,4 seconds), then it's 14 sacks and not 9 sacks that can be "attributed" to Rodgers holding on to the ball longer than necesary ...


    Or translated in another way ... - about 37.83% - Still I'll admit that my about 50% estimate was off :)


    Still, while the offensive line certainly needs to step up the play, 3,4 seconds average time before the pocket collapses is not as bad as you would think ... - And take note, those 2 instances where the time was 1,9 seconds was due to the defender, not being blocked ...
     
  3. jofroh

    jofroh Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2009
    Messages:
    6
    Ratings:
    +0
    Great work with the stats but how will that help us against Dallas/
     
  4. PackersRS

    PackersRS Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2008
    Messages:
    8,471
    Ratings:
    +980
    Why would HIS average be the standart?

    The standart is what other teams use. And in the article, Seifert declares that the average for a WCO is 4 second.

    And he's not even taking into account that a normal WCO calls for A LOT MORE short passes than what we're using.
    ---------
    But let's take your stats. So Rodgers has 14 sacks on him. Let's consider he get's the sack double the time other qbs do.

    So it would be 7 sacks that he shouldn't have taken.

    That's 30 sacks total, and league leading...

    Still, the OL is the worst in the league.
     
  5. DILLIGAFF

    DILLIGAFF Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2009
    Messages:
    603
    Ratings:
    +4
    I think at some point, game number 3 for example that A-rod should have been working under the assumption that 3 seconds is what he was going to get. 4 seconds may be what other teams with a good O-line are going to get, not with this line of the Packers. Now is that A-rod problem or is MM not helping out in his play calling, I don't know.

    Next that part of the chess game of football, some defenses run blitzes and bring presure on some plays and other times they bait the QB to throw into coverage. To some degree a QB has to ake the right decisions.
     
  6. Quientus

    Quientus Oenophile

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2009
    Messages:
    580
    Ratings:
    +33

    As mentioned before ... A quarterback (and coach) needs to be able to work with what is given to them ...

    This translates pretty simple into making adjustments while playing ...

    Even if a "standard west coast offense" is averaging 4 seconds time in the pocket ... - Still, by the games played, players and coaches have got to be able to adapt ... Which is why I was counting the sacks at 3,5 seconds and beyond, - because right now ... The Packers offensive line isn't a "standard WC offensive line" ...

    Meaning, granted Rodgers isn't getting plenty of time in the pocket, however, this also means, given his talent and by now he should also have some experience, - Rodgers should be trying to get rid of the ball faster ...

    A standard WC offense requires a quarterback who is able to adjust relative quickly, based on the initial read at the line of scrimmage ... Once the snap is taken, this WC offense also require the quarterback to be able to size up his short routes and slant routes (peripheral vision) ... Up to this point, - again, that is a quality Rodgers still hasn't been able to develop, - or adjust his play to ...

    I don't know, but perhaps some practise in forms of offloading the ball faster during practise is at place, if nothing else, just to give Rodgers a better "inner clock count", in terms of when he should be releasing the ball ? As opposed to keeping it, in search for the open receiver ?

    Once that is in place, then he can start to practise throwing the receiver open ?

    These rather crucial abilities, is currently what is stopping Rodgers further development ... And knowing that he *has* to unload the ball (either to a check down or just throw it away) after he reaches 3 seconds, might just make him (Rodgers) more comfortable ..., because in all likelyhood, that will also mean he won't get hammered ...
     
  7. PackersRS

    PackersRS Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2008
    Messages:
    8,471
    Ratings:
    +980
    The point of the article is that this OL IS the worst in football, and that even if Rodgers is indeed holding onto the ball too much, that doesn't exclude the fact that the sack numbers are what they are MAINLY because of the OL.

    If they (Rodgers and McCarthy/Clements/Philbin) are or not adapting to having the worst OL in football (given that any adaptiations would overcome us having the worst OL in football), is not adressed.

    I also think that we should've moved to a more quick timed offense. Which is the coaches fault.

    But what people are asking is for Rodgers to be better that the other good QBs, having worse conditions. And judging him with that.

    The perception that if it were another QB in GB, the number of sacks would be acceptable is ludicrous. If it was any other QB in GB, we would still have one of, if not the league worst sack total. And that's what the article proves.
     
  8. JeffQuery

    JeffQuery Banned Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Messages:
    244
    Ratings:
    +3
    If AROD has 'scrotal issues', he should see a doctor...
     
  9. PackersRS

    PackersRS Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2008
    Messages:
    8,471
    Ratings:
    +980
    Wonder if this:
    Have something to do with this:
    But I have to admit, it was funny...
     
  10. weeds

    weeds Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Messages:
    2,376
    Ratings:
    +1,230
    I agree...and Favre announced that his "pulled groin" won't keep him out of the game. Here, he used to hunt before games, now, in Minne, he's pulling his groin - what a jerk off.
     
  11. Green_Bay_Packers

    Green_Bay_Packers Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2007
    Messages:
    5,640
    Ratings:
    +113
    How many sacks have the Cowboys had so far this season?
     
  12. longtimefan

    longtimefan Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2005
    Messages:
    17,835
    Ratings:
    +3,481
    20 for the Boys...

    But does it really matter? The Bucs only had 11 and got 6
     
  13. FanOfTheGame

    FanOfTheGame Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2009
    Messages:
    51
    Ratings:
    +0
    One line of this article stood out to me:

    "In fact, quarterbacks are often praised for giving receivers extra time to get open."

    I don't think the issue is just how long Rodgers holds on to the ball. Also at issue is how many times Rodgers has had an open receiver but either did not see him or maybe had his mind made up to throw to a particular receiver. I don't know how many times this was the case, but I have seen it more than a handful of times. And some of those times the receiver (in some instances more than one receiver) was available within 3 seconds. I know it still sounds like the same issue, holding on to the ball too long, but I think it is different. I'm not talking about Rodgers' holding on to the ball because he doesn't have an open man and taking the sack instead of throwing it out of bounds. I'm talking about those times when Rodgers has an open man (or two) and still does not get it to them even where the sack occurs under 4 seconds.

    If quarterbacks are often praised for giving receivers extra time to get open, shouldn't their decisions be questioned when they don't go to a receiver who is open and instead takes the sack? In other words, if the offensive line isn't getting the praise for giving the quarterback the ability to give the receivers extra time to get open, why should the offensive line be faulted when the quarterback fails to go an open receiver?
     
  14. Quientus

    Quientus Oenophile

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2009
    Messages:
    580
    Ratings:
    +33

    I agree, and that is what I am referring to when I'm talking about peripheral vision down field ...
     
  15. DILLIGAFF

    DILLIGAFF Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2009
    Messages:
    603
    Ratings:
    +4
    I agree with FANOFTHEGAME. When I was siting in the stands for the Monday Night game at the vikings, I could see the whole play develop. That game, with the exception of 2 sacks, A-rod had guys open for short yardage plays and got greedy, thus taking a sack.

    This is the only game I can talk about because its the only game I have been too live. At home you just can't see everything like you can in the stands. You are limited by what the camera is shooting.

    On a few plays these guys were wide open under neath, who knows how many yards after the catch???

    I don't think MM or A-rod put any value in time of possession. They want to make big plays and score early, get the lead and and protect it. Scoring quick in 56 seconds and a good 8 to 9 minute scoring drive is not the same. I would say that scoring 7 Pt's in 8 minutes is twice as good compared to scoring 7 Pt's in 56 seconds. That means the other team has 7 less minutes to match your score.

    As good as James Jones touch down (Tampa) reception was, it was quick, leaving plenty of time and opportunity for Tampa to match it.

    That system works if you score all the time and don't take sacks, and at the very least if you don't score you can punt the ball pining down the other team at their 20 yard line or less.

    Now if you throw in 1 to 2 sacks for big losses and you only run 3 to 5 plays, taking only 2 minutes off the clock, even less if you are throwing incomplete passes. Because of the sack or that penalty you are backed up on your own 17 yard line and punt. Other team has great field position and plenty of time.

    Bottom line MM has a vision of how he wants to play a game and continues to force that vision on a team that can not make it happen.

    The best thing that could have happened to the Packers would have been to get blown out by the Bengals 40-3. That would have forced MM to go in a different direction. Since last season we have been all so close so many times that MM feels his game plan is still the right one, all we have to do is clean a few things up.

    It insanity, If we lose to Dallas, I hope its a 62 pt to 21 pt game with the scores coming from Woodson, Collins, and Harris INTs. That would force some changes, if not we will be stuck with the same game plan we have been playing for 2 years.
     

Share This Page