July 16, 2019, 03:24:42 PM

Author Topic: Position look: QB  (Read 2691 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online The GM

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2736
  • Karma: +48/-4
Re: Position look: QB
« Reply #45 on: June 17, 2019, 06:50:34 AM »
https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/06/16/aaron-rodgers-wants-more-freedom-at-the-line-of-scrimmage/

Here we go.  I agree with Rodgers on this, but his comments dont help his image.  He needs to keep that stuff in-house IMO.


Offline RT

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3403
  • Karma: +59/-17
Re: Position look: QB
« Reply #46 on: June 17, 2019, 08:39:26 AM »
How far into the season do they get before Rodgers starts ignoring MLF's play calls.

Going back to comments by Marcedes Lewis in January.

Packers tight end Marcedes Lewis detailed some of what he saw in his first season in Green Bay on Yahoo Sports’ “Mostly Football”, saying he was in the huddle when Rodgers ignored his then-coach’s play call.
“I guess McCarthy called in a play, and Aaron was kind of like, ‘Nah,’” Lewis said. “He gave a direction and a protection to the line, and went". I’m like, ‘What’s really going on?’ I’ve never seen anything like that before in my life.”

Lewis said. “I feel like Aaron had his own set of things that he wanted to do, then obviously McCarthy had his things that he wanted to do. I just think there was a little dysfunction".

So how far into the season before Rodgers starts overriding the play calls from MLF? What is MLF going to do, bench him for Boyle or Kizer? That would be career suicide for MLF and that isn't happening. Rodgers is still running the show and the Packers are only going as far as Rodgers takes them, hopefully it doesn't get too dysfunctional to early or we could be discussing who the next new coach should be again by the season end.

One other thing of note is how Rodgers is already campaigning for who he wants on the roster. Maybe Murphy should just name him QB, HC and GM and end all gossip and speculation. Just another off season in GB, when is the first day of training camp start?

Online craig

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3813
  • Karma: +21/-4
Re: Position look: QB
« Reply #47 on: June 17, 2019, 09:24:23 AM »
:):):) 
Yeah, those comments don't look good..... as presented.  But, that's just one comment snipped totally out of context. 

I'd like to see how Silver had been guiding that interview prior to that snip, and to see how he'd been setting up the question, and then see what the actual question was.

Florio is taking that line as a pro-active attack on MLF's authority and leadership.  Very possibly yes.  But it may also be that Silver was going back to the Rodgers/MM stories, referencing allusions to Rodgers changing plays, and asking Rodgers whether MM shouldn't have just told Rodgers to stick to the called plays. 

If the question was presented in such a way that Rodgers needs to either say the QB should never change a play or that he at least sometimes should, that might be an obvious and rhetorical question that obviously should prefer having the QB allowed to change some plays.  Likewise we know how defensive Rodgers is: *IF* the question was structured such that Rodgers either needs to say that he was all wrong to change some plays under MM or that it was OK, again of course he's going to defend having changed some plays. 

I guess I'm saying that pulling a comment out of context and stripping out the question that it was responding to, may make it easy to misinterpret. 

Online craig

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3813
  • Karma: +21/-4
Re: Position look: QB
« Reply #48 on: June 17, 2019, 09:26:13 AM »
....One other thing of note is how Rodgers is already campaigning for who he wants on the roster. Maybe Murphy should just name him QB, HC and GM .....

I haven't seen or heard that.  Who is he campaigning for? 

Offline RT

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3403
  • Karma: +59/-17
Re: Position look: QB
« Reply #49 on: June 17, 2019, 09:59:07 AM »
....One other thing of note is how Rodgers is already campaigning for who he wants on the roster. Maybe Murphy should just name him QB, HC and GM .....

I haven't seen or heard that.  Who is he campaigning for?

Speaking of snipping something out of context craig, at least if you would have quoted the full sentence, a reader would have had a chance at picking up on the hint of sarcasm in the complete quote. By not doing so their is no chance of it.

As for the players he is campaigning for, the hard sell is already started for Kumerow and Tonyan.   

Online craig

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3813
  • Karma: +21/-4
Re: Position look: QB
« Reply #50 on: June 17, 2019, 10:08:05 AM »
Heh heh, none of our posters needed a full sentence context to know that you QB, HC, and GM reference was sarcasm:)  But I did quote the full sentence regarding campaigning for roster spots. 

So, what kind of "campaign" are you talking?  "These guys are good, I want them on the roster"?  "It's been great seeing some of the young guys stepping up, like Kumerow and Tonyan?" 

(I haven't listened to last weeks press conferences yet, I'll try to listen for that.)  My feeling is that Rodgers has always kind of thought it was good leadership to try to talk up guys doing well,  we recall years where some UDFA receiver would get a favorable comment or too.  **IF** it's just that kind of thing (two weeks back, he had a nice reference to Burks; I just took it as a favorable encouraging comment, not an inappropriate campaign to drive the roster or tell Pettine how to distribute snaps or anything.....

But you're a good listener, so maybe if I listen to Tuesday's press conference, I'll hear what you heard, too.  Thanks for the alert. 

Online craig

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3813
  • Karma: +21/-4
Re: Position look: QB
« Reply #51 on: June 17, 2019, 10:15:40 AM »
How far into the season do they get before Rodgers starts ignoring MLF's play calls.

[Lewis paragraph]......"I just think there was a little dysfunction".

So how far into the season before Rodgers starts overriding the play calls from MLF? What is MLF going to do, bench him for Boyle or Kizer? That would be career suicide for MLF and that isn't happening. Rodgers is still running the show and the Packers are only going as far as Rodgers takes them, hopefully it doesn't get too dysfunctional to early or we could be discussing who the next new coach should be again by the season end. ...

Heh heh, interesting and negative spin for sure, RT. 

Personally I hope things can flow super successfully so that we're happy with the way the team is winning.  **If** the offense is succeeding really well and we're scoring points consistently, and the plays are making sense and working, I don't think we'll be crawling with negative posts and speculation about how many effective plays were called by MLF and what fraction were improvised and adjusted by Rodgers.  Those discussions grow amidst failure, not success.  Perhaps if things are going great, we'll be complimenting the synchronicity, the excellent schemes and plays designed by MLF, and the veteran wisdom and brilliance of Rodgers to execute those plays and to sometimes optimize an opportunity, or to avoid a play that the defensive set was going to otherwise snuff. 

Not to go overly Koolaid, but there is at least a shot that the offense really will work out great.  Maybe we won't be parsing the blame, because there will be no failure and blame to assign; perhaps instead it will be more a question of how to share the praise.  ("Our coach is great!"  "But it's really our QB who is great and is making it all work...") 

Either way, regardless of how the show is run, there is zero question that aspirations of SB come down to Rodgers. 

If the negative narrative plays out, we're not a SB team.  That's possible only if Rodgers is a huge asset.  Not if Rodgers is doing terrible things as a QB:  1) inaccurate  2) not seeing open receivers  3) not taking good opportunities underneath and instead scrambling around and getting sacked or throwing the ball away  4) generally making bad decisions 5) replacing good calls from coaches and replacing them with bad calls of his own.  **IF** that's the way he performs this year, we're not going to the Super Bowl.  Likewise ***if*** he's a toxic cancer, undermining everything the rest of the organization is trying to do, we're not going to Super Bowl. 

To go far, the only way that can possibly happen is if Rodgers ends up being a huge asset, rather than a big liability.  1) He's got to throw accurately.  2) He's got to be able to take advantage and convert when guys are open, both upfield and downfield.  3) He absolutely needs to make good decisions, regarding recognition of defense, recognition of receivers, recognition of plays called that can work versus when it's appropriate to change a play, recognition of everything.  And obviously he needs to work with the coaches and teammates to make the team the best it can be, not far less....

Part of all of this, I think, has to depend on MLF's communication skills.  I think he's got to be designing plays that can and will and do work; but he's also got to be able to communicate the virtue of the plays being used, intelligently and persuasively enough so that Rodgers buys in.  He's got to be able to persuade Rodgers to buy in.

I don't think Rodgers has any complaint with winning.  If the plays MLF is calling are winning games, week after week; getting guys open, play after play; providing Rodgers with opportunities for completions play after play..... I don't see Rodgers being super motivated to undermine all of that.  I think he'd love to be the captain of a champion.   

Offline RT

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3403
  • Karma: +59/-17
Re: Position look: QB
« Reply #52 on: June 17, 2019, 02:03:21 PM »
So in a nutshell, the Packers are only going as far as Rodgers takes them. No?

Good leadership comes from actions and not words. In the words of Bill Belichick, the Packers need Rodgers to 'just do his job', anything else is just lip service and not needed. It would start by running the plays that are called and stop audibling out of a large percentage of them. Coaching staffs spend months breaking down opponents and designing game plans to best sequence their plays for an end purpose and breaking the sequence with constant audibles kills the chance of manipulating a defense with the purpose the game plan intended.

Belichick does a great segment each week during the season on there teams website breaking down plays. Watching one week last season he talked about burning a play on 1st down to see how a safety reacted to a formation and setting that player up for a play later in the game from the same formation. First they showed the set up play and then they showed the play from the same formation and the end result of a 60+ yard scoring strike. Rodgers doesn't like a play and audibles out of it, but just like the Belichick play, the play may have a bigger picture purpose and because of the audible the information is never gathered for later use. Football has become a game of chess and requires thinking several moves ahead, not just one move at a time. Rodgers should 'just do his job' and stop trying to do everyone else's.         

Online The GM

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2736
  • Karma: +48/-4
Re: Position look: QB
« Reply #53 on: June 17, 2019, 06:10:10 PM »
Rodgers needs to be able to have the flexibility and the capability to change plays at the line.

He also needs to explain to MLF why he changed it while they go over the film.

They need to talk about those situations and why the play is called.  These are two bright guys, and they both need to give a little bit for this to work.   


     

Online craig

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3813
  • Karma: +21/-4
Re: Position look: QB
« Reply #54 on: June 18, 2019, 11:14:09 AM »
So in a nutshell, the Packers are only going as far as Rodgers takes them. No?

Yes and no.  Yes, ANY realistic chance for the Packers to go far hinges on Rodgers being a really good, asset contributor.  Any chance requires that he steps up and plays much better than he did last year.  If he's as injury-limited as last year; as inaccurate; as scattershot poor in his decision-making, etc., then the Packers aren't winning the Super Bowl. 

There's a host of things that have to come together for the Packers to win the Super Bowl.  QB play has to be one of them.  If QB play is poor, it's just not happening. 

"Going as far as Rodgers takes them" is phrased (intentionally, I think) to sound un-teamly.  Rodgers can't take them, it's a team.   A host of things need to come together.  The o-line needs to stay healthy and play well.  The receiving corps needs to step up.  The run-game needs to work.  The o-scheme needs to work.  They need to be able to convert 3rd downs and red-zone.  The defense needs to stay healthy.  The pass rush needs to work.  The secondary needs to stay healthy.  There's a whole lot of things that need to come together for the Packers to emerge as the best team in football.  It's not "just about" or "all about" Rodgers.  It's about the team. 

But for the team to thrive, I do think it's essential that the QB thrives.  QB-play is such an important component of team function.  If Rodgers isn't healthy enough, accurate enough, smart enough, patient enough, collaborative enough to play at a very high level, the Packers won't go all the way.  As MLF has noted, QB play can sometimes make up for some other things going imperfectly.  But it's really hard to go all the way while needing to make up for bad QB play. 

Online craig

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3813
  • Karma: +21/-4
Re: Position look: QB
« Reply #55 on: June 18, 2019, 11:37:24 AM »
Good leadership comes from actions and not words. In the words of Bill Belichick, the Packers need Rodgers to 'just do his job', anything else is just lip service and not needed. It would start by running the plays that are called and stop audibling out of a large percentage of them. Coaching staffs spend months breaking down opponents and designing game plans to best sequence their plays for an end purpose and breaking the sequence with constant audibles kills the chance of manipulating a defense with the purpose the game plan intended.

Belichick does a great segment each week during the season on there teams website breaking down plays. Watching one week last season he talked about burning a play on 1st down to see how a safety reacted to a formation and setting that player up for a play later in the game from the same formation. First they showed the set up play and then they showed the play from the same formation and the end result of a 60+ yard scoring strike. Rodgers doesn't like a play and audibles out of it, but just like the Belichick play, the play may have a bigger picture purpose and because of the audible the information is never gathered for later use. Football has become a game of chess and requires thinking several moves ahead, not just one move at a time. Rodgers should 'just do his job' and stop trying to do everyone else's.       

Really interesting points.  My mind is going in multiple directions with this.
1.  Every coach wants a QB who can audible out of bad plays and into better plays... at times, and to some degree.  So, doing an appropriate amount of audibling is part of "just doing his job".  The question is when and where, and when is too much? 
2.  I wonder what MLF wants? 
3.  I'm not sure whether MM was a great chess master? Will MLF be?  I hope so....
4.  I think communication is pretty important.  If you're going to run some bad plays to set up a big-play later, I'd think that could be discussed in advance?  There could be an understanding of when you're trying to sequence some stuff. 
5.  Sequencing plays and stuff is probably a lot easier if your offense is good enough to be stacking first downs, even while setting up for even great gains later... 
6.  1-2-3-punt may not be the most conducive to sequencing.  So I could imagine there might be lots of times when it's 3rd down, and you're not thinking chess or sequencing, but simply trying to give yourself the best chance of keeping the ball rather than punting it over....
7.  If Rodgers is going to play as a selfish, short-sighted, inaccurate, bad-decision-making disruptor, then the team is not going to go as far as it could.  Good QB play needs to be a component of a big season.  Somehow or other, Rodgers and MLF will need to be able to work together, in a favorable way, to achieve big success.  Whether that's possible, I have no idea.

Offline RT

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3403
  • Karma: +59/-17
Re: Position look: QB
« Reply #56 on: June 18, 2019, 12:42:17 PM »
I think you are twisting this a little bit craig. Calling audibles is part of the game, but the majority of plays should not be audibles.

You use the term 'bad plays' and no one used the term 'bad plays', the play that the Patriots ran on 1st down was a quick throw to the flat that was good for a 3-4 yard gain. The pass went to the flat for the purpose of setting up a play later on. Not a good play, not a bad play, just a play with a purpose. Also, no one is talking about using such a play on 3rd down to end a drive, that just is not logical.

The Packers were average, middle of the road, at most things last season and that includes 1st downs and average plays per drive. The Packers ranked 15th in 1st downs per game at 20.8 with the Rams first at 24.4 per game. Average plays per drive for the Packers was 6.09 which was 13th in the NFL, the Ravens were first at 6.71 plays per drive. Let those numbers sink in for a few minutes, the Packers were about a half a play per drive from leading the NFL. Yet Packers fans have this narrative that the Packers were always going 3 and out. Just maybe a little less disruption to the sequencing gets them there.

https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/first-downs-per-game

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/drivestatsoff2018
 

Offline Hands

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1541
  • Karma: +6/-0
    • Uncover
Re: Position look: QB
« Reply #57 on: June 19, 2019, 06:58:06 AM »
..."The Packers were average, middle of the road, at most things last season and that includes 1st downs and average plays per drive. The Packers ranked 15th in 1st downs per game at 20.8 with the Rams first at 24.4 per game. Average plays per drive for the Packers was 6.09 which was 13th in the NFL, the Ravens were first at 6.71 plays per drive. Let those numbers sink in for a few minutes, the Packers were about a half a play per drive from leading the NFL. Yet Packers fans have this narrative that the Packers were always going 3 and out. Just maybe a little less disruption to the sequencing gets them there.

https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/first-downs-per-game

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/drivestatsoff2018"

RT, this is a very interesting stat that confirms to me something that has been bouncing around in my mind for some time. MM understood how iffy his defense was. In order to win games, the Packers had to play a discipline approach on offense. A better ball control and time consumption drives to literally keep the defense off the field. Rodgers saw what the defense was giving them and took advantage of the match ups when they occurred.
Enter Pettine, and the defense maybe better but not by much (silk purse out of a sow’s ear type of thing). So, for the past two seasons.... Rodger’s takes advantage every chance he gets. Leaving the defense on the field way too long. So, MM goes MLF comes in and the wonderkid coach with the GM makes the defense much better and now the offense can get more explosive. The defense, IMHO, is what will either make the Packers NFC champs or not. Rodgers will still take those shots that the other team's defense gives him. But this offense will have more runs and I think Rodgers sees that and agrees in principle, but still wants to fire that bomb down the sideline to a streaking MVS or Adams.
I guess I'm saying Rodgers is going to audible a lot and if he stays healthy, he will remain accurate. If his offensive line is healthy, Rodgers will have the time he needs. The playmakers in this offense, WR and RBs, are a better than last year. So IF, a big if, the defense stays the course and this team will get very hot at the end of the season. All that means one thing...right or wrong any controversy about the QB will be put to rest because of the team’s performance.
In the land of the blind.....the one eye man is king!

Online craig

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3813
  • Karma: +21/-4
Re: Position look: QB
« Reply #58 on: June 20, 2019, 09:09:38 AM »
RT, I wasn't trying to twist.  Clearly a QB needs to and should call audibles, that *is* part of his job.  AS your last post notes, you agree.

The question is whether a guy does that part of his job well.  Part of the job is knowing how often and when.  I made no judgement on whether Rodgers used an appropriate number of audibles, or did that aspect of his job well at all. 

Your view is clearly that he did his job poorly in that regard.  "Constant audibles", and "a large percentage" of plays were in your post.  In your recent post, you note that "the majority of plays should not be audibles".  Perhaps hyperbolizing, but clearly suggesting that Rodgers was calling way too many.  You know better than I do, so I respect your perspective. 

Certainly I agree that the "majority" of plays shouldn't need to be audibles; do you think that Rodgers was calling audibles on a majority of plays? 

**IF** the majority of plays "should" be audibles (hypothetically), that would mean that the plays being called were really bad (hypothetically); and/or that the players on offense are kinda bad and it's hard to get good plays for them. 

I can't judge any of this stuff.  By one narrative, MM was calling really bad plays, and the defense knew them. 

For the moment, the offense seems really healthy, and I think in a really good place.  If they can stay healthy, I think the o-line could be very solid.  I think with an extra year, the WR group could be good.  Rodgers was commenting that he thinks the TE group is really good.  And there's a lot of positive talk about the MLF system, from the players. 

I think the better the players are, and the better the plays, I'd imagine there would be less and less reason to audible a lot.  If you have a play that has several built-in variants, and you have the players to make those work, and the plays are working, why call an audible?  If you're getting first downs on first or second down, and not needing the urgency that comes with 3rd downs, why call an audible? 

So, to some extent, I'm hoping that improved health, experience, and improved play-calling will all reduce the usage for audibling?  If that makes sense?   

Online craig

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3813
  • Karma: +21/-4
Re: Position look: QB
« Reply #59 on: June 20, 2019, 09:14:26 AM »
But yeah, the QB needs to be working with and cooperating and supporting the coach, that's a team.  **IF** the QB is undermining the coach, or undermining sequencing, is undermining the setting-up of subsequent success, is undermining the chess game, that's bad news.  I certainly hope that doesn't happen this season. 

And *IF* the QB is making bad audible decisions, that is NOT just doing his job.  If he's NOT audibling when he should, that's not doing job well.  If he is audibling when he shoudn't or doesn't need to, that's not doing his job well either.  Appropriate and wise, effective audibling is really a significant part of the QB's job.  I hope Rodgers does that part of his job really well this year.