November 19, 2017, 08:20:19 AM

Author Topic: Baffling  (Read 10098 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline SSG

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3341
Re: Baffling
« Reply #45 on: April 06, 2016, 09:20:57 AM »
Here's an excerpt from another Packers site that addressed the problems in the offense last year. The author effectively agrees- players, not plays.

"At first, the solution seemed to be contained within the scheme: if only McCarthy would take back play-calling and install more man-beater routes, the receivers would be more successful. But McCarthy did take over play-calling duties, and the Packers did step outside the box of their spread-based, isolation-route heavy scheme.

It didn't make a difference. The Packers tried crossing routes; they tried trips bunches; they tried stacking. Defenders almost always triumphed over Green Bay's receiving corps.

Very quickly it became apparent that the personnel, rather than the scheme, might have been the problem."

MM tried every way that cheech claimed they Packers didn't do. They did make the suggested changes. They didn't work. But, as LMG has already suggested, this is simply  deadhorse) Because trying to persuade someone who knows they're right that perhaps they should rethink their position is like  banghead
goodpost

That someone still thinks Janis would have opened up the offense despite 70+ snaps in the regular season in which he didn't. McCarthy didn't ignore Janis. Janis didn't do squat to earn staying on the field. He was not, and never was, the answer to the Packers problems last year.

How many of his snaps were running plays? Because the few games I watched, most of his snaps were on running plays and he was blocking his defender down the field. Lets not cherry pick or omit stats to fit our agenda now.

Per PFF's snap counts, Jeff Janis had 74 snaps on passing downs in which he ran routes.  Some only want to look at 20 or so of those snaps (The Chargers game).  He got as many targets against Oakland as he got in any other game on the year and he had 2 drops (one being an easy, sure fire TD) and no catches.  Some are on the record saying that game doesn't count because he didn't get 30 snaps/ targets and it doesn't fit their agenda.  I'm glad Jeff Janis had a great last series in the Arizona game but he did not look like nothing more than a STer for the vast majority of last year.  If he's dropping half his targets and not providing a catch like he did against Oakland its no surprise that he didn't have the QB's or coaching staff's trust.  We'll see what happens next year as Jeff Janis has been passed on the depth chart by every single NFL caliber WR that he's ever competed with.  If Green Bay drafts a WR, his roster spot could be at risk as he was last on the depth chart all last year.
Act your age, not your shoe size.

Offline cpk1994

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6299
Re: Baffling
« Reply #46 on: April 07, 2016, 04:31:56 PM »
Here's an excerpt from another Packers site that addressed the problems in the offense last year. The author effectively agrees- players, not plays.

"At first, the solution seemed to be contained within the scheme: if only McCarthy would take back play-calling and install more man-beater routes, the receivers would be more successful. But McCarthy did take over play-calling duties, and the Packers did step outside the box of their spread-based, isolation-route heavy scheme.

It didn't make a difference. The Packers tried crossing routes; they tried trips bunches; they tried stacking. Defenders almost always triumphed over Green Bay's receiving corps.

Very quickly it became apparent that the personnel, rather than the scheme, might have been the problem."

MM tried every way that cheech claimed they Packers didn't do. They did make the suggested changes. They didn't work. But, as LMG has already suggested, this is simply  deadhorse) Because trying to persuade someone who knows they're right that perhaps they should rethink their position is like  banghead
goodpost

That someone still thinks Janis would have opened up the offense despite 70+ snaps in the regular season in which he didn't. McCarthy didn't ignore Janis. Janis didn't do squat to earn staying on the field. He was not, and never was, the answer to the Packers problems last year.

How many of his snaps were running plays? Because the few games I watched, most of his snaps were on running plays and he was blocking his defender down the field. Lets not cherry pick or omit stats to fit our agenda now.
Normally I would ignore your blatant trolling, but I'll bite this once. I'm not cherry picking stats. I am looking at the plays he was on the field. If was the missing piece as cheech continually claims, he would have done something in all those snaps. Janis didn't do squat.

Now, troll somewhere else.
"Aaron Rodgers is a baaaaaaad man" - Stephen A. Smith

Offline cheech

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3250
Re: Baffling
« Reply #47 on: April 09, 2016, 05:05:51 PM »
http://www.si.com/nfl/2015/11/10/all-22-aaron-rodgers-packers-mike-mccarthy

The more you look at them, the more you see how unhelpful Green Bay’s route concepts are for Rodgers. Aside from the occasional rub or stack formation, you don’t see a lot of stuff designed to present Rodgers with an easy open read, or his receivers with schemed formation advantages.

So, the question stands: Why don’t the Packers use more man-beaters and crossing concepts, especially against teams that play a ton of aggressive man coverage—like, say, the Broncos? That answer is locked somewhere in the Green Bay front office, but what we do know is that as it’s currently constructed, the coaching staff relies too much on Rodgers’s ability to extend plays beyond their planned breaking point and work outside of structure at the same time they decry the whole idea. This touchdown pass in the first quarter of Green Bay’s 17–3 win over the 49ers in Week 4 was an optimal example. Rodgers was under a ton of pressure through most of the game, and while it’s true that Green Bay’s offensive line hasn't performed up to its standards this season, you can also see a lot of coverage pressures on Packers tape this year. And that’s got a lot to do with play design.
I'm right and everyone else does not have an opinion worth talking about.

Offline cheech

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3250
Re: Baffling
« Reply #48 on: April 09, 2016, 05:25:56 PM »
Here's the thing.  Let's throw Janis and Abby discussion aside.  Who is to blame for Richard Rodgers running three yard out route's on third and 8?  Who is to blame for Kuhn and Rodgers lining up outside instead of receiver actually capable of threatening the defense? 

Is it Ted for not finding talent at TE?

Is it MM for refusing to marry his scheme to his players?

Or is it the players fault for not physically being able to execute the scheme? 



As a coach I've never faulted a player if he fails because I put him in a position where he physically or mentally was not able to consistently perform his assignment.  If a mental hurdle exists for an athlete I simplify his task.  If a physical hurdle exists I just don't ask him to do something I know he won't be able to do. 

The entire season I heard that Janis wasn't mentally ready.  Simplify the task.  Give him a route and let him run it. One can't watch the playoff game and tell me that 6 weeks before that he was completely unable to run a route or catch a ball.

 The entire season we watched Jones, Rodgers, and Adams fail time and time again at beating man coverage because of their physical limitations.  Wouldn't it just be common sense to avoid resting the entire fate of the offense on inferior athletes trying to beat superior athletes?  Yet, MM trotted out that same personnel for 75% of the offensive snaps.  Week after pitiful week we watched the same 11 guys run into a brick wall. 

Any notion suggesting that MM "tried everything" is just completely false. 
I'm right and everyone else does not have an opinion worth talking about.

Offline cheech

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3250
I'm right and everyone else does not have an opinion worth talking about.

Offline Twain

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3015
Re: Baffling
« Reply #50 on: April 10, 2016, 09:48:17 AM »
Since we agree to throw the Janis/Abby discussion aside, I will jump back into the thread as I feel this can be an interesting  and non-hostile discussion.

Cheech, I get your frustration.  I think the problem is a bit complicated though.

My belief, and its just my opinion, is that McCarthy painted himself into a corner before the season started.

I think that McCarthy developed too strong of an attachment to the hurry up offense, thinking that he would be able to put personnel packages on the field that would provide mismatches and use the hurry up to exploit them.  Thus the whole offense was designed around this concept, and very little in the installs provided the route complexity that eventually would be required to compensate for inexperience in the receiver corps.

It strikes me that the hurry up concept limits the creativity of the routes employed, and also requires having run a lot of reps in practice such that the QB and the WR are thinking the same thing.

He used some concepts to scheme people open.  Early on he used the pick play on the periphery frequently, especially in the red zone, but it seemed to me he got away from it as the Refs started calling the pass interference penalty and defenses started to plan for the play.  He didn't build many of these concepts into the offense though.

Once injuries added up, he no longer had the personnel who could function in the hurry up consistently.  Also, with the CBA rules, he didn't have the practice time to rebuild the offensive concept to go to new formations and set plays to scheme guys open.  So, he stubbornly stuck to what he was trying to do and waited for the younger guys to figure it out.

I am not a big fan of the hurry up and calling plays at the line with signals.  I believe the Seattle defensive backs when they say they figured out Manning's signals when they killed the Broncos in the Super Bowl.  I believe there is a certain amount of that in the issues with the Packer's offense as well.  They have run that offense enough that other teams have a pretty good idea of what happens in it and that makes it harder to win the one-on ones, and harder for Aaron to get them into the right play.  Likewise, the dependence on calls at the line of scrimmage makes it hard in noisy environments and thus we struggle on the road sometimes when we shouldn't.

Even if everybody comes back healthy, I would definitely like to see them build more of a "call a play and run it" philosophy into the system.  They don't have to abandon the hurry up, but have some looks that make the opponents think and adjust on the fly.
"The trouble ain't that there are too many fools, but that the lightning ain't distributed right."

Offline Pugger

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5067
Re: Baffling
« Reply #51 on: April 10, 2016, 10:00:24 AM »
Since we agree to throw the Janis/Abby discussion aside, I will jump back into the thread as I feel this can be an interesting  and non-hostile discussion.

Cheech, I get your frustration.  I think the problem is a bit complicated though.

My belief, and its just my opinion, is that McCarthy painted himself into a corner before the season started.

I think that McCarthy developed too strong of an attachment to the hurry up offense, thinking that he would be able to put personnel packages on the field that would provide mismatches and use the hurry up to exploit them.  Thus the whole offense was designed around this concept, and very little in the installs provided the route complexity that eventually would be required to compensate for inexperience in the receiver corps.

It strikes me that the hurry up concept limits the creativity of the routes employed, and also requires having run a lot of reps in practice such that the QB and the WR are thinking the same thing.

He used some concepts to scheme people open.  Early on he used the pick play on the periphery frequently, especially in the red zone, but it seemed to me he got away from it as the Refs started calling the pass interference penalty and defenses started to plan for the play.  He didn't build many of these concepts into the offense though.

Once injuries added up, he no longer had the personnel who could function in the hurry up consistently.  Also, with the CBA rules, he didn't have the practice time to rebuild the offensive concept to go to new formations and set plays to scheme guys open.  So, he stubbornly stuck to what he was trying to do and waited for the younger guys to figure it out.

I am not a big fan of the hurry up and calling plays at the line with signals.  I believe the Seattle defensive backs when they say they figured out Manning's signals when they killed the Broncos in the Super Bowl.  I believe there is a certain amount of that in the issues with the Packer's offense as well.  They have run that offense enough that other teams have a pretty good idea of what happens in it and that makes it harder to win the one-on ones, and harder for Aaron to get them into the right play.  Likewise, the dependence on calls at the line of scrimmage makes it hard in noisy environments and thus we struggle on the road sometimes when we shouldn't.

Even if everybody comes back healthy, I would definitely like to see them build more of a "call a play and run it" philosophy into the system.  They don't have to abandon the hurry up, but have some looks that make the opponents think and adjust on the fly.

The hurry up has its place but as you pointed out it can hurt you in noisy situations.  I also think last season's issues go back to Mike's decision to have Van Pelt coach both the WRs and the QBs thus consequently both units suffered.  Rodgers is one of the best QBs in the league but even the best need coaching.  Alex VP had too much on his plate last year.  When he was the sole QB coach in 2014 Rodgers won his second MVP so I'm glad he is still AR's coach this coming season. 
« Last Edit: April 10, 2016, 10:00:59 AM by Pugger »

Offline iarwain

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1413
Re: Baffling
« Reply #52 on: April 10, 2016, 02:06:17 PM »
Who is to blame for Richard Rodgers running three yard out route's on third and 8?  Who is to blame for Kuhn and Rodgers lining up outside instead of receiver actually capable of threatening the defense?
I've read some posts here saying that you can't blame the coaches, it's just that the players fail to execute.  I can't believe people actually write that.  If you can never blame the coaches, then you can never give them credit for success either.  You can't tell me a coach like Vince Lombardi doesn't make a difference.  So to my eye, whether there is failure or success, both the players and the coach have to take responsibility.

I like McCarthy, but I agree he didn't "try everything" last year.

Offline B

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4084
Re: Baffling
« Reply #53 on: April 11, 2016, 11:00:22 AM »
You can blame anyone and everyone: Ted Thompson for not getting the right players; Mike McCarthy for not trying everything or for trying too much :o (eg giving up play calling, consolidating WR and QB position coaching...), playing starters too long in the exhibition season, not playing starters long enough in the exhibition season; Packers fans for not being loud enough at Lambeau ::); every player on the team for not quite being good enough; players like Nelson, Barrington and others for missing the season on injured reserve, Adams, Bakhtiari, Daniels, Elliott, Jones, Lacy, Lang, Neal, Perillo, Quarless, Rodgers (Richard), Rollins, Shields, Sitton ... for all being injured going into the divisional playoff game against the Cards...

We could fill pages with finger pointing and assigning blame, the problem is it does less than contribute anything - it is destructive.

 Organizations that perfect the blame game are ones where there is a hidden fear of success —  when it's someone else's problem, no one takes action to solve it. MM and Green Bay focus on everyone being accountable. As such they evaluate, adjust, and acknowledge progress with full and complete focus on the success.

“You can get discouraged many times, but you are not a failure until you begin to blame somebody else and stop trying.”
― John Burroughs

"When you blame and criticize others, you are avoiding some truth about yourself/"
― Deepak Choprah
« Last Edit: April 11, 2016, 11:04:43 AM by B »
The Green Bay Packers never lost a football game.
They just ran out of time.
-Vince Lombardi

Online OneTwoSixFive

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1810
Re: Baffling
« Reply #54 on: April 11, 2016, 07:06:41 PM »
Organizations that perfect the blame game are ones where there is a hidden fear of success — 

What !
(ricky) "Personally, I'm putting this in a box, driving a stake through its heart, firing a silver bullet into its (empty) head, nailing it shut, loading it into a rocket and firing it into the sun. "

(Pink Floyd) "Set the controls for the heart of the sun"

Offline iarwain

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1413
Re: Baffling
« Reply #55 on: April 12, 2016, 12:30:43 PM »
You can blame anyone and everyone: Ted Thompson for not getting the right players; Mike McCarthy for not trying everything or for trying too much :o (eg giving up play calling, consolidating WR and QB position coaching...)
Give blame, give credit, doesn't really matter to me.  The point is the sum total of what happened ended in the result that we got.  That could be a Super Bowl win, a last place division finish, whatever.  Everyone involved contributed to the final result, along with things like injuries, which can't necessarily be avoided.

I have some thoughts on the play calling situation:  I was in favor of it when it was turned over to Clements, so that McCarthy could focus more on the other aspects of the game.  Turned out it didn't work, so he took it back, which I was again okay with.  I thought it was worth a try.  I didn't think it would matter so much who was calling the plays because they were still being designed by McCarthy presumably.  But I wonder if Clements was kind of hamstrung with what he was able to do.  Given that McCarthy (IMO) seemed to insist that the players he had adapt to the scheme (as opposed to tailoring the scheme to available players), maybe that inherently limited Clements success.  After all, the same problems plagued the offense all year.

I know this place is a little sensitive to any perceived criticism of the team, so I'm not necessarily saying McCarthy's attitude is a bad thing.  It's consistent with the "Next Man Up" philosophy the team has used in the past to greater success.  It just is what it is, and the result this year was getting to the divisional round of the playoffs.  Some people would see that evidence of success, others might view it as failure.  It is what it is.   

Offline Pugger

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5067
Re: Baffling
« Reply #56 on: April 13, 2016, 09:39:19 AM »
You can blame anyone and everyone: Ted Thompson for not getting the right players; Mike McCarthy for not trying everything or for trying too much :o (eg giving up play calling, consolidating WR and QB position coaching...)
Give blame, give credit, doesn't really matter to me.  The point is the sum total of what happened ended in the result that we got.  That could be a Super Bowl win, a last place division finish, whatever.  Everyone involved contributed to the final result, along with things like injuries, which can't necessarily be avoided.

I have some thoughts on the play calling situation:  I was in favor of it when it was turned over to Clements, so that McCarthy could focus more on the other aspects of the game.  Turned out it didn't work, so he took it back, which I was again okay with.  I thought it was worth a try.  I didn't think it would matter so much who was calling the plays because they were still being designed by McCarthy presumably.  But I wonder if Clements was kind of hamstrung with what he was able to do.  Given that McCarthy (IMO) seemed to insist that the players he had adapt to the scheme (as opposed to tailoring the scheme to available players), maybe that inherently limited Clements success.  After all, the same problems plagued the offense all year.

I know this place is a little sensitive to any perceived criticism of the team, so I'm not necessarily saying McCarthy's attitude is a bad thing.  It's consistent with the "Next Man Up" philosophy the team has used in the past to greater success.  It just is what it is, and the result this year was getting to the divisional round of the playoffs.  Some people would see that evidence of success, others might view it as failure.  It is what it is.

If you look at our offensive issues it was a nice achievement that we went as far as we did in the post season.  Even if we won the NFC I doubt we would have beaten Denver's defense in the SB.  Rodgers wasn't his usual otherworldly self this past season, our WRs corps was beat up, our only TE worth a darn is slow, Lacy was out of shape and Starks got a case of fumblitis.  I think 2015 was an abberation for AR.  He has too much talent to continue to play like this.  If our line doesn't get beat up and Jordy returns to close to what he was along with Adams and Montgomery Rodgers should resemble his old self in 2016.  It appears Lacy took McCarthy's message to heart and he looks very trim in the photos we've seen online.  Even if Cook doesn't get huge numbers his presence out there will cause defenders to account for him like they did for Finley and that will open things up for others if nothing else.  If we stay relatively healthy and one unit doesn't get decimated (like our WRs did last year) 2016 should be a lot of fun.   8)

Offline cpk1994

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6299
Re: Baffling
« Reply #57 on: April 17, 2016, 10:10:44 AM »
Since we agree to throw the Janis/Abby discussion aside, I will jump back into the thread as I feel this can be an interesting  and non-hostile discussion.

Cheech, I get your frustration.  I think the problem is a bit complicated though.

My belief, and its just my opinion, is that McCarthy painted himself into a corner before the season started.

I think that McCarthy developed too strong of an attachment to the hurry up offense, thinking that he would be able to put personnel packages on the field that would provide mismatches and use the hurry up to exploit them.  Thus the whole offense was designed around this concept, and very little in the installs provided the route complexity that eventually would be required to compensate for inexperience in the receiver corps.

It strikes me that the hurry up concept limits the creativity of the routes employed, and also requires having run a lot of reps in practice such that the QB and the WR are thinking the same thing.

He used some concepts to scheme people open.  Early on he used the pick play on the periphery frequently, especially in the red zone, but it seemed to me he got away from it as the Refs started calling the pass interference penalty and defenses started to plan for the play.  He didn't build many of these concepts into the offense though.

Once injuries added up, he no longer had the personnel who could function in the hurry up consistently.  Also, with the CBA rules, he didn't have the practice time to rebuild the offensive concept to go to new formations and set plays to scheme guys open.  So, he stubbornly stuck to what he was trying to do and waited for the younger guys to figure it out.

I am not a big fan of the hurry up and calling plays at the line with signals.  I believe the Seattle defensive backs when they say they figured out Manning's signals when they killed the Broncos in the Super Bowl.  I believe there is a certain amount of that in the issues with the Packer's offense as well.  They have run that offense enough that other teams have a pretty good idea of what happens in it and that makes it harder to win the one-on ones, and harder for Aaron to get them into the right play.  Likewise, the dependence on calls at the line of scrimmage makes it hard in noisy environments and thus we struggle on the road sometimes when we shouldn't.

Even if everybody comes back healthy, I would definitely like to see them build more of a "call a play and run it" philosophy into the system.  They don't have to abandon the hurry up, but have some looks that make the opponents think and adjust on the fly.
I think you are misusing the term "hurry up" when you apply it to what McCarthy was actually doing. What they were doing wasn't a "hurry up", it was a no huddle. Aaron Rodgers almost always used up the entire play clock before getting the play off. What they were really doing was lining up as fast as they could so Aaron would have the maximum time to read a defense and select a play. That is why I have always maintained that simply going back to huddling up won't change things because the end result would be exactly the same, except Aaron would have less time to do his thing. McCarthy's method was very successful until last season. Injuries were the biggest reason why it wasn't successful last season. 

Also, it is unwise to simply "call a play and run it", especially when Rodgers can see a play isn't going to work based on the D he reads. The way McCarthy has set things up has been a lot more successful than failure in his tenure as GB coach, so I don't think it makes any real sense to make severe changes.
"Aaron Rodgers is a baaaaaaad man" - Stephen A. Smith

Offline iarwain

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1413
Re: Baffling
« Reply #58 on: April 19, 2016, 11:32:49 AM »
The way McCarthy has set things up has been a lot more successful than failure in his tenure as GB coach, so I don't think it makes any real sense to make severe changes.
No doubt about that.  I think the criticism toward McCarthy is that he was too slow to adapt his offense to the special circumstances they were facing last year due to injuries.

Offline Twain

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3015
Re: Baffling
« Reply #59 on: April 19, 2016, 02:35:36 PM »
No doubt about that.  I think the criticism toward McCarthy is that he was too slow to adapt his offense to the special circumstances they were facing last year due to injuries.

Correct!

Add in point I was trying to make- the way he sets it up works well with a healthy team, but is hard to plug in guys with little experience.
"The trouble ain't that there are too many fools, but that the lightning ain't distributed right."