Yes, The Packers Are Playing More 11 Personnel Lately
A few days ago a reader wrote in the comments that the Packers were putting more wide receivers on the field lately than had been the case earlier this season. So I checked the snap counts for wide receivers and for tight ends. Here are the results:
| Wk | Opp | WR | TE | # | PTs | Remarks |
| 1 | @MN | 2.32 | 1.50 | 78 | 43-W | Deguara 24 snaps, Lovett 1 snap |
| 2 | DET | 2.19 | 1.42 | 73 | 42-W | Deguara out, Lovett 11 snaps |
| 3 | @NO | 2.30 | 1.31 | 62 | 37-W | D, Adams, Deguara out, Lovett 2 snaps |
| 4 | ATL | 2.29 | 1.09 | 63 | 30-W | D. Adams, M. Lewis out, Deguara 7, Lovett 6 snaps |
| 6 | @TB | 2.44 | 1.32 | 63 | 10-L | Lazard out. Deguara out for the season, Lovett 5 snaps |
| 7 | HOU | 2.42 | 1.47 | 62 | 35-W | Lazard, Deguara out, Lovett 9 snaps |
| 8 | MIN | 2.49 | 1.25 | 75 | 22-L | Lazard, Deguara out, Lovett 0, 11 snaps on STs |
| 9 | @SF | 2.45 | 1.55 | 66 | 34-W | Lazard, Deguara out, Lovett 11 snaps |
| 10 | JAX | 2.52 | 1.32 | 65 | 24-W | Lazard, Deguara Lovett out the rest for the season |
| 11 | @IND | 2.68 | 1.32 | 60 | 34-L | Deguara, Lovett the "HBs"out |
| 12 | CHI | 2.73 | 1.27 | 71 | 41-W | HBs out |
| 13 | PHI | 2.59 | 1.34 | 61 | 30-W | Dafney elevated, Sternberger inj 3 snaps, Dafney 6. HBs out |
| 14 | @DET | 2.64 | 1.36 | 67 | 31-W | Sternberger, HBs out, Dafney 12 snaps |
| 15 | CAR | 2.61 | 1.29 | 62 | 24-W | Sternberger, HBs out, Dafney 11 snaps |
* I counted Deguara, Lovett and Dafney as tight ends. If one counts Dafney as a running back or full back and not as a TE, the TE numbers in weeks 13 - 15 fall to 1.25, 1.18 and 1.11 tight ends on the field on average, for example.
| Week | WR | TE |
| 1-4 | 2.275 | 1.33 (*1.41 not counting week 4 when Lewis was out) |
| 6-9 | 2.45 | 1.40 |
| 10-13 | 2.63 | 1.31 |
| 14,15 | 2.625 | 1.325 |
The raw statistics suggest that the Packers have been playing more 11 personnel (1 RB, 1 TE, 3 WRs) since roughly week 10 given that the number of wide receiver snaps has jumped from roughly 2.36 to an average of 2.62 since week ten. Interpreting the data to divine the reason or reasons for the increase is more difficult. Some of that increase might arguably be due to match-ups since the Packers played some teams with poor secondaries. It is not clear to me that there has been a shift in the nature of what kind of offense the Packers want to field.
I suspect that Lovett being placed on injured reserve after week nine's game is as much coincidence as causative of the increased usage of wide receivers, but that is arguable. It seems clear that the Packers planned to give significant snaps to Deguara, but there really is only a one-game sample. Deguara returned for week 3 but it was just for 7 snaps before he was out for the year. Deguara looked promising because he threw some nice blocks and caught one pass on two targets for a 12-yard completion, yet teams were seeing the schemes and Deguara himself for the first time, so it is hard to extrapolate an entire season from such a small sample. It is hard to assert how many snaps the Packers would have played a healthy Deguara: I tend to think had things gone as hoped it would have been 15 to 25 snaps per game depending on performance.
The Packers did use Lovett more after Deguara was injured (though in the end it was just 46 snaps over 9 games), but I am not persuaded that Lovett or Dafney for that matter have been able to do the things they hoped to get from Deguara. Prior to Sternberger's concussion in week 13, his snaps did not dwindle despite some inadequate blocking and a lack of impact on offense. Tonyan's snaps remained remarkably stable even with Deguara and Lovett out for the year. There has a been moderate increase in Lewis' snap counts over the last four games.
It will be interesting to see how the Packers attack the Titans defense. The statistics indicate that the Titans have a very poor pass defense. Part of that was the season-long injury to Adoree Jackson, their #1 CB ($15.1M AAV). Jackson returned last week to play 27 snaps against Detroit. The Titans have three pretty good CBs and three pretty good safeties. Their problem has been being last in pressure rate at 16.9% rather than a lack of talent in the secondary. The Titans' run defense and pass rush took a hit when they traded Jurell Casey to Denver for just a 7th round pick last March. Casey provided stoutness against the run and considerable amounts of pass rush both in terms of sacks and in getting push and being disruptive. He was 31 and Tennessee needed to generate cap savings, so they moved him. Their linebackers are very mediocre as well. I suspect that the problem for the Titans is having to defend the pass for too long due to lack of pressure rather than having wide receivers scortch their defensive backs early in their routes.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
One final thought: always be wary of the statistician! I did not categorize Tyler Ervin as a wide receiver though I could easily make a case for that. He has 11 receptions and 13 carries. He does not seem to fall into the TE/H-Back category, so I put him in the running back category. Ervin was a significant part of the offense: he played 14, 28, 23 and 23 snaps in the first four games and then was hurt. Upon his return in week 8 and 9 he played 20 and 22 snaps. In that week 9 game, Jamaal Williams was out so Jones played 40 snaps, Ervin 22 and Dexter Williams played 4 snaps. Ervin responded with 24 rushing and 48 receiving yards in that week 9 game. Assuming for the moment Ervin (and Austin) are running backs, here are the numbers for the running back position:
| WK | RB | RB+ | WK | RB | RB+ | WK | RB | RB+ | ||
| 1 | 1.0 | 1.18 | 7 | 1.11 | - - - | 12 | 1.0 | - - - | ||
| 2 | 1.14 | 1.52 | 8 | 0.97 | 1.24 | 13 | 1.00 | 1.07 | ||
| 3 | 1.02 | 1.39 | 9 | 0.67 | 1.00 | 14 | 1.00 | 1.06 | ||
| 4 | 1.14 | 1.51 | 10 | 1.11 | 1.23 | 15 | 1.05 | 1.11 | ||
| 6 | 1.22 | - - - | 11 | 1.00 | - - - | 16 | ??? | ??? |
*RB means just traditional running backs. RB+ includes Ervins' and Austin's snap numbers.
The RB+ numbers for the first four weeks are quite striking, and there have been many comments noting how well the offense flowed with Ervin serving in the gadget role. The Packers averaged 38 points per game in those four games. Since week six, the Packers have averaged 28.5 points per game.
I believe that the Packers did not have a backup to replace Deguara when he got hurt. I do not think Lovett or Dafney (so far) have provided what LaFleur hoped to get out of Deguara, and that Sternberger is not particularly good as an H-back. Similarly, I believe that the Packers did not have a backup to replace Ervin when he got hurt. I am hopeful that Austin will prove to be Ervin's equal or even better. It may well be that injuries explain the recent increase in the snap counts of the wide receivers.
PLEASE SUBSCRIBE TO OUR CHEESEHEAD NATION WEEKLY NEWSLETTER HERE.
__________________________
Comments (36)
Leatherhead
December 26, 2020 at 12:53 pm
Who are our five best skill position players? Adams and Jones, of course. Tonyan, MSV, Lazard?
I kind of thought Dillon would be in the mix instead of MSV, and that Jones would work more out of the slot, but I guess the Packers feel better doing 3 WRs.
Thegreatreynoldo
December 26, 2020 at 03:41 pm
TBH, I would love to see Austin get 15 or 20 snaps and a couple of carries, maybe a target or two. I have no idea if it is a good idea or if he is fully integrated into the offense yet, but I'd love to see it tried a bit more.
Coldworld
December 26, 2020 at 10:16 pm
I think very limited incorporation by last game. Essentially scripted plays only.
Bearmeat
December 26, 2020 at 01:51 pm
Regardless of what the usage of Deguara and Dillon would have been before injuries struck, 3 WRs is the most efficient personnel grouping in the modern NFL offense. Even if personnel quality and depth on a team dictates more TE/RBs, those teams will still play a modicum of 11 personnel. Teams that don't have great TE/RBs will rarely ever play 12, 13, 21, or 22 personnel.
FACT: 11 personnel is the most efficient Yards per play offense, especially with a good QB, not to mention a HOF one! And it is why I (among others) was hollering for a WR forever this offseason and well into this season.
What has bailed out the Packers offense this year has been four things (in this order):
1. MVS improving from terrible to inconsistent but a potential game wrecker
2. Lazard improving to a useful and consistent WR 3.
3. Improved OL play
4. The emergence of Tonyan.
In order to win in today's NFL, you need three viable WRs and a moderately not sucky QB to run an efficient offense. The only exception to this is when a team has a great defense, a great running game, and a great TE, in addition to at least a modicum of talent at WR. Obviously, this is very hard to do, and harder to maintain enough physically dominant players under the cap for any length of time.
Basically, saying: "We only need targets, not WRs" is foolish, because it ignores the last 25 years of NFL history. This is what the Bears have been trying to do since Ditka left. How has it worked out for them?!?
So: Give me option 1, please. Especially when we already had ARod, who isn't at his peak, but is still a HOF caliber QB.
HankScorpio
December 26, 2020 at 01:53 pm
I definitely agree with the overall point that WRs are important in today's NFL.
However, the biggest bail out of that glaring weakness is that ML and staff have brought the HoF play out of Rodgers once again, IMO.
Bearmeat
December 26, 2020 at 02:12 pm
Yeah. You have a really good point. I’d suggest that MLFs scheme in year 2 and good offensive coaching has helped all of my bullet points of improved personnel. But regardless of what precipitated what, the offense has better personnel than we dreamed of coming into this year.
Coldworld
December 26, 2020 at 03:23 pm
It would have been very interesting to see how they plan on using Deguara as part of the overall scheme. We effectively never got to see that dimension this year.
Leatherhead
December 26, 2020 at 11:29 pm
No, some of us thought the personnel was pretty good and objected when they were characterized as “garbage”.
Bearmeat
December 27, 2020 at 08:00 am
And they were garbage last year. You can't deny they have improved. Which is great. But it was no sure thing. Look at the state of the DL and ILB for example... we're all left wishing for a hope and a prayer.
Leatherhead
December 27, 2020 at 03:18 pm
And how does garbage become part of a top passing attack? Magic?
They weren’t garbage last year. But continue to pretzelize yourself. It amuses me.
Thegreatreynoldo
December 26, 2020 at 02:55 pm
I didn't advocate for 11 personnel or against it in the article IIRC, but I was always for drafting a wide receiver. I just described what is, and speculated on what LaFleur wanted to do on offense.
If one considers Ervin to be a wide receiver, then the numbers for wide receiver usage go way up during weeks 1 to 4. They would be about 2.5, 2.58, 2.67, and 2.51, or an average of 2.56 WRs per play for weeks 1-4. The WR usage would be relatively steady throughout the year.
MVS improved and Lazard has been about what I expected, other than his lack of availability (8 games played, 6 games missed). It probably is enough, but I don't think it is optimal.
Swisch
December 26, 2020 at 03:27 pm
If it's about this season, I would ask what wide receivers who were available when the Packers drafted are making enough of an impact that they would be better right now than MVS and Lazard?
Leatherhead
December 27, 2020 at 06:34 pm
Swisch.....I didn’t think you’d get a very good answer to that question.
For a quarter century, it’s been about slinging it. In Green Bay, we have a distinguished lineage going from Hutson to Adams and legendary QBs and people are just having trouble moving on to what’s next.
All of our top WRs are under contract for next year, and none are under contract for 2022. That’s the plan. In the meantime, they’ll see what some UDFAs can do. I don’t foresee the Packer Braintrust spending a high pick on a WR this offseason, but the 2022 unit could all be new guys, depending on what happens.
We have around 65 snaps a game, and about 35 of those are passes. You want about 10 or 12 of them to go to your big gun. You want another 10 to the backs. So now, there’s about 13-15 targets to the TEs and the #2 WR.
Simple arithmetic tells you who ever we drafted wouldn’t have accomplished more than MSV/Lazard did this year.
The Plan certainly seems to be to spend money on the blockers and economize on the skill position players. 24-6 is evidence it is a good plan. If Rodgers is protected, the offense moves and scores.
I’d expect the draft to focus on players who might improve the defense, but if another Elgton Jenkins is available after 50, then hell yes
SpikeHyzer
December 26, 2020 at 09:59 pm
ESB has also begun to show some signs of life, and MVS is even better when one considers that many more of his misses were on Rodgers (his adjusted drop percentage is above league average, and even more so when you consider that he catches the long ball at more than twice the 20% league average). Lazard I expected to be good and was adamantly opposed to any additions on offense (much less a WR, and I was all for Love as a potential next HOFer up).
Considering the deception in this offense and how often RBs are straight up route runners, I think you can throw the personnel numbers and the averages you generated out the windows. Jones and Williams are tacitly WRs at times--and TEs, FBs, and HBs often do brief decoy blocks before releasing into a pattern, nerve wracking as those 3rd down and short plays are to me--so it's tantamount to 11 personnel on most passing downs, even if they don't show the requisite number of WRs. The motion is very telling, as the RBs and Ervin and Austin are often in motion solely to run more of a WR type route (and check out how often Packer motion has that player directly behind the QB at the moment of the snap, having to show a little wiggle to get around Aaaron).
That sort of eliminates all of Bearmeat's arguments that the be all end all of NFL play is running 11 personnel. It's just hogwash, as the Packers numbers obliterate those averages, even though they do run less 11 overall.
And Lazard is the solid #2. MVS the reliable #3 who is better than the numbers suggest if 'advanced' stats in the NFL caught up and started using better adjusted catch percentage metrics and adjusted for the length of the throw and varying success rates at various distances. Catch percentage as currently expressed in catches and targets is empty and meaningless stochastic noise.
Stroh
December 26, 2020 at 11:47 pm
I don't use stats, I use my eyes. My eyes tell me Lazard is a #3, and a low end one at that. MVS is a #4. Neither is doing anything to help Adams!
That said, when the Packers were picking in rds 1and 2, there were no WR available to fit the draft slot. So it made sense not to reach for one.
But please spare me the crap about Lazard and MVS being #2 and #3 WR! They most assuredly are NOT.
HighPlainsDrifter
December 27, 2020 at 05:29 am
Don't be a Taryn. The less that you know about a subject the more you should rely on objective facts.
Unless you are a professional talent evaluator, your uninformed eyes tell you nothing about Lazard's and MVS's production or worth. The best and most experienced talent evaluators use statistics to inform their opinions.
Stroh
December 27, 2020 at 01:59 pm
Well if its between his eyes and mine, I'll take mine everyday, since apparently he's blind. Adams was double covered all day last week , what did Lazard and MVS do to help? NOTHING. I was sayin it last offseason and nothing this year has changed my mind.
Lazard has 29 receptions for the year! Let that sink in for a minute. 14 games and ONLY 29 receptions, his missing a few doesn't change that the lack of production is glaring!
MVS has only 31. He's a nice deep threat at times but most of the time he's invisible.
Open your eyes man. A #2 has to take pressure off Adams, Lazard and MVS put more pressure on Adams. If Adams is doubled they have to beat single coverage and make teams pay. They haven't come close to providing it!
PeteK
December 27, 2020 at 09:35 am
Lazard sure looked like a solid #2 before he got hurt. It is true that stats can be misleading at times.
Leatherhead
December 27, 2020 at 06:46 pm
So if Lazard and MVS are inadequate, then how do you explain the Packers elite passing attack? I mean, we’re the #1 passing offense with what we’ve got; how does a better #2 and #3 change that? Especially when they’d be a decoy or blocker 90% of the time ?
We’re not going to spend a high pick on a WR this year, either. And just because you call a fact a stat, it’s still a fact.
Stroh
December 28, 2020 at 12:30 pm
Duh... because Rodgers and Adams are almost unstoppable!
Thegreatreynoldo
December 27, 2020 at 04:17 am
I've been essentially a fan of MVS for a while. He brings something no other WR brings to the table: he forces the defense to defend vertically and affects the play of the safeties. His success is sufficient to make defense adjust to him. Yds per target is imperfect but it incorporates depth/difficulty of routes run: MVS is easily in elite territory as to Yds/target.
Many deep threats have wonderful looking Yds/rec but have mediocre or poor Yds/target numbers. We concur on MVS, I think.
The deception of which you speak was at its highest in game one with Deguara and Ervin available. It appeared to me to remain being a big part of the offense while Ervin was still available. I don't think it is as prevalent or as effective without him. I hope Austin brings that element back; I don't think Lovett, Dafney, or Sternberger have been able to replace what the team hoped to get from Deguara. [Just one game really, so we don't know how opponents would have adjusted given time to see what LaFleur did with the scheme and with Deguara in game one, but I liked what I saw.]
I disagree with your assertion that having a TE chip and release is the same as fielding 11 personnel. Lots of teams can cover Tonyan and Lewis with a LB, so it doesn't force personnel changes. Nor do I think lining Jamaal Williams in the slot is effective and while he is a nice receiver for a RB, he looks nothing like a WR and does not run WR-type routes. Aaron Jones requires most teams to defend him with a safety, and runs routes that bear a resemblance to routes run by true WRs. The routes run by Ervin and presumably by Austin often start near the QB (though with a running start) so I disagree with the notion that those resemble WR-type routes as well.
It is clear that 11 personnel produces the highest team DVOA and expected points, yards per play, etc. Bearmeat's assertion regarding 11 personnel is well established by several metrics and most certainly is not hogwash, in my opinion. 11 Personnel is not the end all or be all of football, but having three WRs who can play (remembering that WRs tend to miss a few games each year (this year two by Adams, 4 by ESB, 6 by Lazard) with some depth is necessary. Lazard played better than I thought he would but I'd still classify him as a possession receiver.
BTW: I read your recent post on APC and thought it excellent.
Stroh
December 27, 2020 at 02:44 pm
I've tried to be a fan of MVS, he had a great game a couple weeks ago. But for every good game, there are 3 games where he doesn't even show up. He's a nice deep threat at times, but he's strictly a niche player not someone you can count on consistently.
Coldworld
December 26, 2020 at 03:20 pm
I think injuries to Sternberger are probably as big a factor as anything outside of match ups.
Deguara was a player who had played a true HB role, Lovett is an ex QB. I think they see Lovett as a possible future HB but at this point he is more of a FB as used. Daffney is really more FB in terms of background.
Overall, Lewis and Tonyan have their roles and the extra is Sternberger, who hasn’t been available plus a few snaps from an extra blocker type. Lovett and Daffney really haven’t been used as rushers or receivers.
dobber
December 26, 2020 at 06:29 pm
Also, we need to remember that Tonyan will play out of the slot at times (as did Sternberger) and split out wide at others. In those cases, he's a TE by position but really playing WR...so TE snaps can be deceptive.
jannesbjornson
December 26, 2020 at 08:46 pm
Pacing Lewis for the final push. Need Tonyan to be part of the game plan right off the bat. Hopefully, Sternberger can recover from the concussions. He will be a key to delivering the HB role for the playoffs.
PeteK
December 26, 2020 at 06:13 pm
It helps that Lazard and MVS are big bodied WRs that are good blockers. I thought Ervin and Sternberger would play a big part in this years offense. They both contributed to the offense late in the season and thought they would build on that. So much for ass u me. Tonyan has really been the surprise catalyst to this years offense with some help from Turner.
HighPlainsDrifter
December 27, 2020 at 01:15 am
"One final thought: always be wary of the statistician!"
Tgr, First, I always marvel at your ability to compile, analyze, and evaluate statistics. Your articles on the salary cap and snap counts are very informative, and display the characteristics of a trained, logical mind.
Having said that, I wish that you had not included the above caveat. It gives comfort to the simpletons who take pride in not relying on facts. Any time I see someone using the "lies, darn lies, and statistics" mantra I know that person enjoys being uninformed.
Creating categories and making informed assumptions is part of professional statistical analysis. As long as the analyst thoroughly explains the reasons for the categories and assumptions, the analysis itself can be properly evaluated.
Most people have no clue as to how proper statistical analysis benefits society. My university statistics professor used the example of the New York subway system replacing light bulbs. Instead of inefficiently waiting to replace individual bulbs as they burn out, the system utilizes statistical analysis to replace sections of bulbs on a rotating basis.
It also frustrating to see the uninformed criticize professional public opinion polling. Those critics love to talk about how a 700 person (for example) sample size cannot accurately represent millions of people. Of course, those critics have no clue about how sample sizes are chosen, and always fail to acknowledge the margin for error included in the analysis.
Thegreatreynoldo
December 27, 2020 at 06:20 am
I had no axe to grind in this article. A reader commented that GB was using more WRs lately (by which I assumed he meant traditional or true WRs) and I checked to see if it were true. It is.
Some people have already reached their conclusion and then go looking for stats that support an inflexible position. I felt the need to disclose that I hadn't categorized Ervin as a WR because it is debatable. There is no "gadget player" category, though I've seen some draft prospects listed separately that way: KR, PR, gadget player. Dobber's point that Tonyan flexes out or splits out wide is fair (more significant if the TE is Jimmy Graham) but to me it is a caveat that doesn't discredit the analysis. Spike suggested that the classification issues were negated by usage so as to render the statistics just noise. That is, garbage in, garbage out. I suppose I could have classified Marcedes Lewis as an offensive tackle who happens to be always eligible.
I'd love to talk to you about polling. One of the best but nastiest Professors I ever had as an undergraduate taught a class about 40% of which was about polling. I was pursuing a double major in Econ and Political Science and this professor forced these poor slobs (my fellow students) to learn a ton of statistics when all they wanted to do was talk about Kierkegaard and Marcuse. He slammed about 75% of the Econ Statistics class I had already taken into his Poly Sci class. People's heads were exploding! He was very nice, but he was the only professor I ever had whose final exam was verbal - to me, that made him Nasty and taking his classes dangerous.
I wonder if we agree about polling? Polling arguably has a considerable degree of art as opposed to pure science in it, so much of it adheres to protocols. I certainly know how to phrase a question or manipulate samples in ways to get a desired result. I suspect that some polling outfits were intellectually dishonest or so wrapped in their own bubble that they were unable to properly select an appropriate model for sampling.
Coldworld
December 27, 2020 at 08:54 am
Design of polling, including sampling and question design, and the assumptions factored into the modeling can make lead into gold and vice versa.
HighPlainsDrifter
December 27, 2020 at 09:31 am
I think that we agree on polling. Undoubtedly there are some intellectually dishonest outfits out there. My discussion was related to legitimate polling, with legitimate models and sampling. Legitimate opinion polls seek to discover the true feelings of the subject populace. The art involved with selecting sample sizes and phrasing questions is, I believe, guided by the training, experience, and ethics of the pollster.
I was a single major in Political Science, however I returned after graduation to take business classes with a plan to get a MBA (ended up going the Juris Doctorate route instead). I was amazingly fortunate that one of those business classes was Econ statistics (simply named Statistics at my university). It was the best class that I ever took, taught by the best professor I ever had. He had a straightforward way of explaining concepts that seemed arcane when first introduced. A few years later I invited him to speak to the local Rotary Club about what could be expected after the 1987 market crash. His remarks were as accurately predictive as I expected them to be.
Perhaps I should cut the nonbelievers some slack because we are seeing an unfortunate increase in dishonest polling. I realize that it may difficult for some to differentiate between honest and dishonest polls. However, we are living in the era when facts mean nothing to way too many people. Where way too many people take pride in being intentionally ignorant. Where way too many people mock legitimate universities and legitimate news sources. It is safer to assume that the doubters are part of the know nothing crowd, because those people are a danger to society.
Thegreatreynoldo
December 27, 2020 at 06:41 pm
Very similar paths! I was a Poly Sci and Econ major and then got my JD at UW. So long ago now. I don't remember my statistics that well (I always knew I wanted to go to law school) but there are some authors (a guy called rcon14 comes to mind immediately) and several other authors who use a lot of statistics with regression analysis that I barely remember in their articles.
The other story that comes shining through in our comments is the great teacher who stands out over time. Yes, just like most professions, not all teachers are equal.
HighPlainsDrifter
December 28, 2020 at 05:03 am
A great discussion to go along with a great victory last night!
Yes, very similar indeed, and quite long ago. I was accepted to the joint JD/MBA program at Vanderbilt, but there was no way I could afford the tuition. The in-state tuition at the University of Louisville law school was much friendlier.
Great teachers are such a blessing. Education has always been very important in my family. My uncle was a professor and department chair at Acadia University in Nova Scotia. A chair was endowed in his name after he retired. My Dad served eight years on the local school board. My daughter graduated summa cum laude with a double major in Poly Sci and Journalism/Advertising.
Keep up the great writing my friend.
agenslot
December 27, 2020 at 03:33 am
<a href="http://68.183.183.3/">http://68.183.183.3/</a>
flackcatcher
December 27, 2020 at 07:02 am
Great work TGR. The clearest example I have seen anywhere of how MLF's offense works. When dobber asked, I was a bit surprised. MLF went to three WR early on, more out of necessary than anything else. But it racially changed the offensive scheme to a more traditional one back scheme with matchup routes. There is far less movement and less deception making it easier for reads by the secondary. That makes the Packers offensive even more impressive, in having the most critical part of their system non-functional during the latter half of the season. Short comments: MLF, like Pettine uses players who can do more than one assignment in their systems. MLF routinely refers to FB as F-Back in his pressers. I'm sure it is important, I'm not sure why. The lost of the lead back for blocking has limited the inside game for most of this year. Credit to the O line and MVS and Lazarus for getting to the second level and creating space for Jones and Williams in the outside game. (As an aside, the Packers O line went to a 'wham' man blocking scheme over the past month to create more space for Williams and Jones. Tough going, but effective) TGR, take a victory lap, this is seriously good... :-)
Thegreatreynoldo
December 27, 2020 at 07:00 pm
You're very kind. Someone described an F-back as an H-back with a heavier emphasis on blocking than a typical H-back would have. But I don't know: I googled it but did not find what I consider to be an authoritative source. I found this link to a forum, but I don't vouch for it.
Gotta go: I have a Porterhouse steak that has been dry brining for 3 days, a seasoned cast iron skillet, a mushroom sauce simmering: I have to start cooking the steak so it is ready before Packers kickoff time.
https://forums.colts.com/topic/9399-what-the-f-position-means/
WinUSA
December 27, 2020 at 03:16 pm
I find these interrupting commercials more than annoying.