August 18, 2019, 08:34:46 PM

Author Topic: Effectiveness of plays by type vs Detroit  (Read 3252 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Zyvlyn

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1363
  • Karma: +0/-0
Effectiveness of plays by type vs Detroit
« on: September 21, 2014, 02:40:06 PM »
A lot of people are questioning the play calling in this game, saying that the Packers got away from what was working and did not capitalize on the Lions weaknesses.  Here are the plays, broken down by type, of the game and the stats on how often the play was successful.

First and second down plays are defined as successful if they result in a first down or at least 4 yards gained.  Third and fourth down plays are defined as successful if they result in a first down.

Short Pass: 14/22 plays were successful.

Deep Pass:  1/9 plays were successful.

Run up the middle:  3/5 plays were successful.

Run left:  3/9 plays were successful.

Run right:  2/8 plays were successful.

I added the three plays where Rodgers was sacked to the deep pass category.  That may not be fair, as you can't say for certain what the plan for those plays was, but they were likely deep passes.

Looking at the numbers, it's clear that the Packers had the most success passing short and running up the middle.  Yet those plays were only used 51% of the time. 
« Last Edit: September 21, 2014, 02:41:18 PM by Zyvlyn »

Offline golfman

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11870
  • Karma: +9/-1
Re: Effectiveness of plays by type vs Detroit
« Reply #1 on: September 21, 2014, 02:44:07 PM »
Whatever the definition of 'successful' is, we only had 141 net passing yards against that secondary and 76 rushing yards. Not to mention 7 points with 3 turnovers from our defense.

Whatever we were trying to do, it wasn't effective.
"Make the Packers Great Again! "

Offline Zyvlyn

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1363
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Effectiveness of plays by type vs Detroit
« Reply #2 on: September 21, 2014, 02:52:18 PM »
Whatever the definition of 'successful' is, we only had 141 net passing yards against that secondary and 76 rushing yards. Not to mention 7 points with 3 turnovers from our defense.

Whatever we were trying to do, it wasn't effective.

Yes, but if we can break down the plays and look at the numbers objectively, we might be able to get more of a discussion going than just 2 sides bickering with each other.

Offline gbfansb

  • Second String
  • **
  • Posts: 40
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Effectiveness of plays by type vs Detroit
« Reply #3 on: September 21, 2014, 02:53:16 PM »
Well great break down Zyvlyn. But like golfman posted we only scored 7 points against what was backups in the Lions secondary.

Offline Shinesman

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2592
  • Karma: +26/-100
Re: Effectiveness of plays by type vs Detroit
« Reply #4 on: September 21, 2014, 02:53:51 PM »
The first three weeks I have said the propensity for downfield passing by McCarthy is just stupid with an offensive line who couldn't block a girl scout troop. And the outside running is stupid as our backs are one cut quick power hitters. Our line can't get outside to block, too slow, they are the weakness of the offense and today the reason we lost the game. Today the defense played more man coverage, like I called for in preseason thread and it worked. Football is not a hard game play to your strengths and mitigate the oppositions strengths. McCarthy and Capers usually can't do that. This kind of post got me banned for a week but you can't deny the obvious. Coaches are getting smoked in the planning department. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it any less true.
"Tradition! Just because we've always done it that way, doesn't mean that it isn't incredibly stupid."

Offline LMG

  • Administrator
  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4614
  • Karma: +12/-5
    • Where are we?
Re: Effectiveness of plays by type vs Detroit
« Reply #5 on: September 21, 2014, 02:54:39 PM »
Whatever the definition of 'successful' is, we only had 141 net passing yards against that secondary and 76 rushing yards. Not to mention 7 points with 3 turnovers from our defense.

Whatever we were trying to do, it wasn't effective.

Yes, but if we can break down the plays and look at the numbers objectively, we might be able to get more of a discussion going than just 2 sides bickering with each other.




 goodpost clap) hatsoff)
If you are not the lead dog the view never changes.

Offline golfman

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11870
  • Karma: +9/-1
Re: Effectiveness of plays by type vs Detroit
« Reply #6 on: September 21, 2014, 02:58:04 PM »
Whatever the definition of 'successful' is, we only had 141 net passing yards against that secondary and 76 rushing yards. Not to mention 7 points with 3 turnovers from our defense.

Whatever we were trying to do, it wasn't effective.

Yes, but if we can break down the plays and look at the numbers objectively, we might be able to get more of a discussion going than just 2 sides bickering with each other.

Fair enough it was obvious running outside was not working. Given that is hardly Lacy's strength it seems strange we thought he could run outside. Detroit's linebackers are underrated, but more sideline to sideline than take on blockers coming straight at them. Linsley is quite good at runs up the middle and can usually handle one of the tackles. Probably his greatest attribute. I wouldn't say he excels on outside runs.

What I don't understand is the idea we had to establish the run first given the depleted secondary of Detroit. I think if you get Rodgers into a short passing rhythm, you open up running lanes, a lot of them.
"Make the Packers Great Again! "

Offline Shinesman

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2592
  • Karma: +26/-100
Re: Effectiveness of plays by type vs Detroit
« Reply #7 on: September 21, 2014, 03:01:59 PM »
Whatever the definition of 'successful' is, we only had 141 net passing yards against that secondary and 76 rushing yards. Not to mention 7 points with 3 turnovers from our defense.

Whatever we were trying to do, it wasn't effective.

Yes, but if we can break down the plays and look at the numbers objectively, we might be able to get more of a discussion going than just 2 sides bickering with each other.

Fair enough it was obvious running outside was not working. Given that is hardly Lacy's strength it seems strange we thought he could run outside. Detroit's linebackers are underrated, but more sideline to sideline than take on blockers coming straight at them. Linsley is quite good at runs up the middle and can usually handle one of the tackles. Probably his greatest attribute. I wouldn't say he excels on outside runs.

What I don't understand is the idea we had to establish the run first given the depleted secondary of Detroit. I think if you get Rodgers into a short passing rhythm, you open up running lanes, a lot of them.

Golf you are spot on. Which leads me to the underlying point. Most of us fans and the announcers could see, Detroit was down to practice squad players in the defensive backfield...... how do you not exploit that as an NFL head coach/offensive guru...... easy. McCarthy isn't very good at this thing called game planning. Check his track record as SF once naive coordinator for the years he was there.  One of the leagues worst.
"Tradition! Just because we've always done it that way, doesn't mean that it isn't incredibly stupid."

Offline Zyvlyn

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1363
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Effectiveness of plays by type vs Detroit
« Reply #8 on: September 21, 2014, 03:13:38 PM »
Whatever the definition of 'successful' is, we only had 141 net passing yards against that secondary and 76 rushing yards. Not to mention 7 points with 3 turnovers from our defense.

Whatever we were trying to do, it wasn't effective.

Yes, but if we can break down the plays and look at the numbers objectively, we might be able to get more of a discussion going than just 2 sides bickering with each other.

Fair enough it was obvious running outside was not working. Given that is hardly Lacy's strength it seems strange we thought he could run outside. Detroit's linebackers are underrated, but more sideline to sideline than take on blockers coming straight at them. Linsley is quite good at runs up the middle and can usually handle one of the tackles. Probably his greatest attribute. I wouldn't say he excels on outside runs.

What I don't understand is the idea we had to establish the run first given the depleted secondary of Detroit. I think if you get Rodgers into a short passing rhythm, you open up running lanes, a lot of them.

I agree.  The weakness of the Lions D is clearly their secondary and the strength is clearly the defensive line.  That's why it is confusing to see so many runs to the sides where the line can pursue and so many deep passes where the pass rush can get to Rodgers.

Offline Leader

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13020
  • Karma: +2/-0
Re: Effectiveness of plays by type vs Detroit
« Reply #9 on: September 21, 2014, 03:20:34 PM »
Whatever the definition of 'successful' is, we only had 141 net passing yards against that secondary and 76 rushing yards. Not to mention 7 points with 3 turnovers from our defense.

Whatever we were trying to do, it wasn't effective.

Yes, but if we can break down the plays and look at the numbers objectively, we might be able to get more of a discussion going than just 2 sides bickering with each other.

Fair enough it was obvious running outside was not working. Given that is hardly Lacy's strength it seems strange we thought he could run outside. Detroit's linebackers are underrated, but more sideline to sideline than take on blockers coming straight at them. Linsley is quite good at runs up the middle and can usually handle one of the tackles. Probably his greatest attribute. I wouldn't say he excels on outside runs.

What I don't understand is the idea we had to establish the run first given the depleted secondary of Detroit. I think if you get Rodgers into a short passing rhythm, you open up running lanes, a lot of them.

I agree.  The weakness of the Lions D is clearly their secondary and the strength is clearly the defensive line.  That's why it is confusing to see so many runs to the sides where the line can pursue and so many deep passes where the pass rush can get to Rodgers.

This is a simple misunderstanding....

We or the Packers weren't running outside consistently - RB's were cutting it outside - or going East to West - as a matter of choice on the field due to clogged or nonexistent running lanes. On the last drive, Lacy made exactly just such a mistake and wound up losing 4-5 yards. There was no more than a crease off tackle - he should have plowed it up inside there and taken what he could - rather, he bounced it outside and was overwhelmed by unblocked pursuit.

Thats not coaching. That's player execution. Or the failure thereof.

Offline Shinesman

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2592
  • Karma: +26/-100
Re: Effectiveness of plays by type vs Detroit
« Reply #10 on: September 21, 2014, 03:24:55 PM »
Whatever the definition of 'successful' is, we only had 141 net passing yards against that secondary and 76 rushing yards. Not to mention 7 points with 3 turnovers from our defense.

Whatever we were trying to do, it wasn't effective.

Yes, but if we can break down the plays and look at the numbers objectively, we might be able to get more of a discussion going than just 2 sides bickering with each other.

Fair enough it was obvious running outside was not working. Given that is hardly Lacy's strength it seems strange we thought he could run outside. Detroit's linebackers are underrated, but more sideline to sideline than take on blockers coming straight at them. Linsley is quite good at runs up the middle and can usually handle one of the tackles. Probably his greatest attribute. I wouldn't say he excels on outside runs.

What I don't understand is the idea we had to establish the run first given the depleted secondary of Detroit. I think if you get Rodgers into a short passing rhythm, you open up running lanes, a lot of them.

I agree.  The weakness of the Lions D is clearly their secondary and the strength is clearly the defensive line.  That's why it is confusing to see so many runs to the sides where the line can pursue and so many deep passes where the pass rush can get to Rodgers.

This is a simple misunderstanding....

We or the Packers weren't running outside consistently - RB's were cutting it outside - or going East to West - as a matter of choice on the field due to clogged or nonexistent running lanes. On the last drive, Lacy made exactly just such a mistake and wound up losing 4-5 yards. There was no more than a crease off tackle - he should have plowed it up inside there and taken what he could - rather, he bounced it outside and was overwhelmed by unblocked pursuit.

Thats not coaching. That's player execution. Or the failure thereof.

I think a lot of this outside run talk is from the toss sweeps we have been running too much for three weeks. And if you're gonna run a toss sweep, do it to the wide side of the field when stacking your receivers to the weak side. You have to give yourself strength in numbers. Football is not hard. The players are athletic but anyone with an interest or understanding can actually do a pretty good job at game planning.
"Tradition! Just because we've always done it that way, doesn't mean that it isn't incredibly stupid."

Offline Lodestar

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2446
  • Karma: +5/-0
Re: Effectiveness of plays by type vs Detroit
« Reply #11 on: September 21, 2014, 03:42:38 PM »
I think a lot of this outside run talk is from the toss sweeps we have been running too much for three weeks. And if you're gonna run a toss sweep, do it to the wide side of the field when stacking your receivers to the weak side. You have to give yourself strength in numbers. Football is not hard. The players are athletic but anyone with an interest or understanding can actually do a pretty good job at game planning.

Well, folks, there you have it!