Packers Week Nine Snap Counts Versus The Forty-Niners

 

Once again let's try to see if the snap counts tell any tales about what the coaches are thinking.  The Packers for the first time decided on Tuesday to protect four of their players on the practice squad from being poached by other teams. Note that the Packers only needed to place six players on the inactive list in part because Dillon, Kamal Martin, and Jamaal Williams went on the Covid-19 list.  The team kept Kirksey and Lazard on the IR list. 

Inactive Players King, Redmond, Bakhtiari, Love, Scott, Winn.
Active/DNP None

King, Redmond, and Scott were all inactive due to injury.  Bakhtiari also has had an injury, but I wonder if the Packers decided to be cautious with him.  It would appear that the Packers do not like Billy Winn as much as I do since he did not have an injury designation and was inactive last week, as well.

 

Name Snaps % ST
Jenkins 66 100 6- 22%
Patrick 66 100 6- 22%
Turner 62 94  
Linsley 62 94  
Wagner 35 53 3 - 11%
Runyan 31 47 6 - 22%
Nijman 4 6 6 - 22%
Braden 4 6 3 - 11%
       
Rodgers 62 94  
Boyle 4 6  
Lovett 11 17 14 - 52%
       
MVS 59 89  
Adams 50 76 1 - 4%
Taylor 26 59 15 - 56%
Shepherd 23 45 4 - 15%
St. Brown 4 6 5 - 19%
       
Tonyan 41 62 4 - 15%
Lewis 32 48  
Sternberger 18 27 12 - 44%
       
Jones 40 61  
Ervin 22 33 4 - 15%
D. Williams 4 6 5 - 19%
22 played Off.

In the absence of Bakhtiari, the Packers went with Turner and Wagner at left and right tackle, respectively.  When Wagner limped off the field in the third quarter, the team moved Jenkins to left tackle and Turner to right tackle, and inserted Runyan at left guard.  Offensive guard Ben Braden got his feet wet.  The Packers released Braden earlier in the year but re-signed him to the practice squad and then elevated him for this game.

Equanimeous St. Brown cannot get on the field even in the absence of Allen Lazard.  Shepherd and Taylor are both ahead of him.  The Packers ran a sweep with Taylor - I had been wondering if they would use his speed in that fashion.  The tight ends caught three passes for seven yards, with Marcedes Lewis catching the third touchdown pass Rodgers has thrown to a player who was a first round pick.  For a time in the first half it seemed to me like the Packers entire offense went through Davante Adams and Aaron Jones, although Valdes-Scantling caught a 52 yard bomb for a touchdown, and added a second touchdown reception in the second half.

The running game was a tale of two halves.  Aaron Jones rushed eight times for 50 yards (6.3 yard average) in the first half, but gained just eight yards on seven carries in the second half to finish with 3.9 yard average.  For reasons I do not understand, Jones was still getting carries deep into the fourth quarter when San Francisco knew the Packers were largely just trying to run clock.  Yes, Jamaal Williams and Dillon were ruled out for this game, and Dexter Williams (two carries for eight yards, all in the first half) left the game fairly early.  I do not care: hand the ball off to Lovett if that is who is available.  Ervin chipped in 24 yards on eight carries. 

 

Name Snaps % STs
Jackson 56 98 7 - 26%
Amos 46 81 1 - 4%
Savage 44 77 2 - 7%
Sullivan 35 61 5 - 19%
Greene 27 47 11 - 41%
Hollman 26 46 16 - 59%
Alexander 18 32 1 - 4%
Black 13 23 12 - 44%
Samuels 13 23 10 - 37%
       
P. Smith 35 61 1 - 4%
Burks 34 60 18 - 67%
Summers 34 60 15 - 56%
Z. Smith 32 56 1 - 4%
Gary 24 42 2 - 7%
Barnes 23 40 2 - 7%
Ramsey 16 28 14 - 52%
Garvin 14 25 5 - 19%
Burgess     13 - 48%
       
Keke 33 58 5 - 19%
Clark 31 54 1 - 4%
M. Adams 26 46 10 - 37%
Lowry 25 44 9 - 33%
Lancaster 22 39 11 - 41%
23 played Def.      

Alexander left the game due to a possible concussion early in the game and did not return.  King missed his fourth game this season.  In their absence, Jackson, Sullivan and Kadar Hollman played a lot of snaps, and fans got to see Stanford Samuels, who had a nice training camp.  San Francisco only had 87 passing yards in the first half, with someone named Richie James catching four passes for 72 of those 87 yards.  Although Richie James had at least one drop, he looked quick.  San Francisco finished with 291 passing yards, with the bulk coming in garbage time and off of multiple blown coverage assignments.  Someone named Ross Dwelly chipped in 52 yards on three receptions all in the second half.  Richie James finished with a game high 184 receiving yards.

Krys Barnes left with an injury, and Kamal Martin was out on the Covid list.  Summers stepped in and made a few nice plays, including a nice run stuff near the goal line that another Packer finished off for a loss.  (I thought it was Gary, but ESPN does not credit him with a TFL. It may have been M. Adams.)  Summers overall looked up and down to me.  Burks played a lot of snaps.  He showed some speed to get to the sidelines on a few plays.

Preston Smith was up and down but did generate some pressure, including two hits on the quarterback.  Zadarius Smith also had two quarterback hits and a sack.  San Francisco's left tackle was a converted guard, Justin Skule, who played pretty well last year at guard as a rookie sixth round draft pick.  But not everyone is Elgton Jenkins, and Skule looked overmatched.

I liked the distribution of snaps amongst the defensive linemen.  Lancaster should play mostly nose tackle.  Keke and Montravius Adams getting somewhat more snaps than Lowry seems appropriate to me.   

 

Name Snaps % ST
Scott     16 - 59%
Bradley     9 - 33%
Crosby     6 - 22%

Overall, it is tough to judge the performance of the players since San Francisco was so banged up.  What is important is that the Packers took care of business and did a good job of stomping on the forty-niners early and largely keeping down for most of the game.

 

3 points

Comments (22)

Fan-Friendly This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

November 06, 2020 at 08:06 am

I chose to use a photo of Davante Adams, though I thought about using one of Aaron Rodgers. I give short shrift to Rodgers simply because I expect his average to be very good to elite. I also considered Montravius Adams and even Preston Smith, though I thought he was down more than up early. Greene makes a difference to this team.

Though I thought Summers rebounded in this game, that doesn't mean I don't pine for the return of Martin and Barnes. It will be interesting to see what Pettine does when Kirksey returns from the IR. He was bad and does not deserve to be the starter based strictly on his play in the first two games. Reasons to insert him as the starter include pride and the more reasonable rationale that Kirksey was just having trouble acclimating to this defense. He has played for Pettine before, but perhaps the coaches will feel he has upside and a history of productivity when healthy. Time will tell on that.

2 points
2
0
Guam's picture

November 06, 2020 at 08:19 am

It was good to see the defense play with more energy and they need to be energetic to be a decent defense. The lack of effort in the Viking game was not acceptable. I would like to see more of Lancaster at NT and Clark play DE once and awhile. Lowery's drop in snaps is more than justified after that mess against Minnesota.

I also recall Gary finishing off the tackle started by Summers at the goal line. Not sure why he wouldn't get credit for it. I thought Gary had a couple of pressures as well and generally played a decent game.

The Packers really need Martin, Barnes and Kirksey back. I don't like our interior run defense with Summers and Burks manning the ILB spots. Both are just too inconsistent in filling gaps.

2 points
3
1
Lphill's picture

November 06, 2020 at 08:21 am

I agree about M Adams he seems to be more productive against the run and he also was playing to the whistle , took him long enough to get to this point this linebacker James Burgess that got in on special teams may become a key in the run game , he can tackle I hope to see more if him .

2 points
2
0
Guam's picture

November 06, 2020 at 08:27 am

Agreed LP. M. Adams was a lot more active last night than I remember him being in prior years. Is it because this is a contract year or is the light bulb finally coming on (or both)?

1 points
2
1
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

November 06, 2020 at 04:29 pm

That's the question. He had a nice junior year in college and then some scouts suggested he coasted as a senior. This is always something coaches who know Montravius as a person need to determine.

0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

November 06, 2020 at 08:27 am

Hey Dobber! I made a comment on Gute's philosophy in the Packers' transplants 204 article. I'd appreciate it if you (and several others on this site who also wonder about philosophy) would go back and read it, and possibly respond. I thank Guam for his response.

If you did read it, Dobber, and deemed it drivel, then disregard this comment!

https://cheeseheadtv.com/blog/packer-transplants-204-will-this-game-even...

0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

November 06, 2020 at 10:29 am

I saw and posted...

I think you summed it up pretty well. When it comes to philosophy, it seems the GIF of Elmo from Sesame Street shrugging his shoulders is most fitting! ;)

0 points
0
0
Coldworld's picture

November 06, 2020 at 12:23 pm

Looks to me if the hiring of LaFleur for his vision kicked off the reshaping if this team and that in turn a commitment to a longer term vision as that is what it takes on a team then do full of holes.

Initially the plan seems to have been to build depth and upgrade at weak priority positions. Think the Smiths, Amos. The drafting is future focused in order to build through time. Initially focus was on positions that typically take time to develop. Then on players they hope will be plus players in future, such as Gary and Love.

If Deguara had stayed healthy we might have seen a more fully realized vision on offense, but my take is we are still not done. I’m guessing that the focus away from D was due to questions outstanding and urgency. Last year the D was decent except in one respect. The offense was moribund: reshape that first therefore being the thinking. Moreover, the team is committed to LaFleur, was the jury still out in Pettine? If so change might alter the focus for the D so prioritize reshaping O.

The picks of Gary and Dillon were both developmental. Part of that likely reflects cap planning, but the indication is the team thinks it’s best window is not yet.

The cap shrinkage expected next year now may have complicated that since it may lead to more departures than hoped, but if one looks at the Turner/Wagner/Dillon additions, perhaps they were more than insurance, a recognition that the Cap needed players brought in who can be starters. Perhaps all of the above.

The latter end of the drafts/UDFA seem to be fit players with upside who could boost the future if any of them truly develop. Then there is the FA avenue. Right or wrong, the acquisition of Lazard and the signing of Funchess don’t seem accidental to me, they seem to indicate adding players to fit a role.

As to Rodgers, I think the Love pick also speaks to this being a multi year plan. Timing may have been impacted by the way the draft fell, but I see it as indicating the plan is seen as going through a Rodgers decline potentially. Since I don’t think the desire was to let Rodgers go but to ensure that the team has the best chance of retaining relevance as the rest of the roster comes together.

Love is obviously hoped to be the next Rodgers if needed to be, but if Rodgers doesn’t need to be replaced due to play or retirement, Love is a potentially valuable trade piece that could pull in picks at a time when the team is improving if the plan is working.

So yes, not all in by any means if looked out holistically. If I’m right it is a strategy committed to making us serious contenders but a reflection of a belief that we were further away than some think.

That’s my take, it explains the draft and the lack of early focus on D. It seems to explain FA activity and cap planning. It also explains the lack of desire to rent players at high draft pick levels and Cap ramifications.

Of course this is only my conjecture based upon the big picture of activity since LaFleur was hired to install his vision. No inside knowledge or supporting evidence. If I am right, if it works, it seems logical and also one I’d buy into, so there is a risk I’m finding hope in mere chaos, but I don’t think so.

0 points
1
1
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

November 06, 2020 at 07:03 pm

My thanks to dobber, CW, Minniman, Flak, guam, and Old School for your responses. I will check here and at the transplants to see if there are any more responses.

Yeah dobber, it is possible that the four FA signings in 2019 were meant to be moves to win rather than just increasing the basic talent level to a more acceptable level. Perhaps Gute meant to win in 2019 itself but also for 2020 and for the life of those four year deals. I note the disagreement on the 2020 draft for immediate needs. I had Deguara and in a stretch Martin as immediate impact but I admit 5th through 7th rounders are all for development: if one has an immediate impact it is a bonus but not to be counted upon. I think Gute and LaFleur had good-sized plans for Deguara, but late thirds are a little iffy to hang one's hat on for immediate impact. The argument you made is one that definitely can be made in a convincing manner.

Leatherhead notes that the plan was to win with AR. That makes sense given the structure of the contract and restructures of it which pushed dead money into later years. Reading into that, Love was an anomaly and not part of the plan per se: Gute liked him and may not have expected Love to drop into GB's range close enough to even move up for. That's the "you take any QB if you think he can be a franchise QB" argument. I don't think we should have taken Love but then, I am not in Love with him, and I don't usually condemn Gute for taking him: a GM has to follow his gut sometimes and especially at QB. I do think LaFleur's offense envisions more deep shots than LH seems to think but at the same time I agree that more short passes, running and more misdirection are part of the plan.

Coldworld's suggestion that there may have been some evolution in the philosophy is interesting as well. I suppose no one expected the Smith brothers to be so dynamic or for a rookie HC to win 13 games. It might even be that Gute saw glimmers of the offense that LaFleur wanted to put on the field during the 2019 season, and being closer to the two main people involved, concluded that AR and LaFleur would be able to fully implement much of what we've seen in 2020. It may be that the first three picks were on offense along with 3 in the sixth because Gute decided based on 2019 that LaFleur is a keeper and that Pettine might not be a keeper. I agree that Dillon and Gary were both developmental picks, but don't agree that the reason was the best window is not yet. One would imagine they didn't take Gary thinking it would take until 2021 for him to develop, but who knows? Dillon probably was developmental and cap insurance but not thought to be necessary for 2020; however, maybe they thought he could have a reasonable impact in 2020 and Jamaal just beat him out cleanly. That would allow for good solid windows in 2020 and 2021 pre-covid. Funchess has to have been acquired for immediate impact since it was a one-year contract. Lazard looks to me like a pleasant surprise but signed just for depth: after all, they exposed him to waivers in September. A 4th for Fuller seems a little chintzy to me and a 2nd too much but Sanu garnered a 2nd while other trade deadline WRs were a little less expensive. Kind of a deadlock there for me but no DL help at all. Hard to say: Gute inquired about Ertz and Fuller but if he never made an offer that was at least in the ballpark, then it is just background noise.

Flak too is interesting. While he largely agrees, I wonder about those third contract FAs: Bakh and Linsley. They are both really good. Back issues worry me (re: Linsley). Perhaps OS is right and GB doesn't need a dancing bear at LT for $20M AAV: they can get by with Turner and Wagner, with Jenkins perhaps figuring in as a RT, LT, or OC depending on need. Easier and cheaper to find an OG than an OT. Wagner is signed through 2021, but he will be 33 in 2022.

1 points
1
0
murf7777's picture

November 06, 2020 at 09:05 am

Nice to see more rotation of the DL. That seemed to keep them fresh and energized. Adams has been impressive Or at least showing he has potential and I still don’t understand why Pettine sat him against the Vikings most of the game.

I thought Preston played his best game. He was responsible for the INT and did better in run D. We need to see that each week from him.

Both teams were depleted and of course SF more so, the impressive part is we took care of business at a high level. They are still NFL players out there and if you allow a depleted team to stay close bad things can happen. GPG.

2 points
2
0
Coldworld's picture

November 06, 2020 at 09:30 am

SF have a good D still. We beat that comprehensively. We didn’t learn a lot defensively, but 2 positives. All of our deep depth players, of whom we played many) held up and showed some potential and finally a more comprehensible use of D line personnel. personally I’d play Winn not Lowry, but hey, it’s progress.

0 points
1
1
murf7777's picture

November 06, 2020 at 09:35 am

Nothing to do with snap count, but I’m impressed with Mlf. Before this game I wrote that MLf hasn’t faced much adversity IN his short tenure, but this week heading into the SF game he has lost 2 out of 3 games and if he loses the game it could start a bad losing pattern and the wolves start howling.

Let’s give it up to MLF for getting his team ready To go out west and take care of the demons from last year. He looked adversity in the eye and shut it down! That’s a sign of a really good coach and leader.

0 points
0
0
nostradanus's picture

November 06, 2020 at 10:44 am

The way I look at it, when your team gets a win and a bunch of your young backups get significant snaps it’s a double win for depth & development.
Kudos

4 points
5
1
PatrickGB's picture

November 06, 2020 at 10:58 am

Agree. And it helps determine who is on the team next year.

-1 points
0
1
flackcatcher's picture

November 06, 2020 at 11:31 am

Two comments: Both Greene and ESB are on snap counts. Not surprising after a short turn around on Thursday. Played a base 3-4 mostly in the second half. (shows what I know) Both lines stepped it up and played well despite injuries. Jenkins special, had a down game and bounced back in a big way, as did both Packer lines yesterday. Yesterday shows the Packers have a far deeper roster than I thought.

0 points
0
0
Coldworld's picture

November 06, 2020 at 12:34 pm

I think ESB is just slipping down. Turner and Shepherd do what they do consistently and relatively well, including blocking and catching when asked as well as running the routes that they are asked to. ESBs snap count went down considerably. Yes it’s possible it’s health related, but other reasons seem more plausible.

Greene almost certainly is on a count. He has been regularly this season.

1 points
1
0
flackcatcher's picture

November 07, 2020 at 07:39 pm

Packers clearly had a Sunday and a Thursday game plan and player formation packages. Explains some of the weird player rotation in the D line Sunday. Also explains more Shepherd and Taylor and less ESB Thursday night. Of course neither of us know how their position coaches eval any of the three. We will know more when Larzard comes off the IR.

0 points
0
0
Bear's picture

November 06, 2020 at 11:42 am

Thanks for the snap counts and your evaluation. I thought Hollman looked good considering his lack of playing time. Nags is saying he likes Josh Jackson and what I saw I have the opposite opinion.

In reviewing the game what do you see in his game?

2 points
2
0
Coldworld's picture

November 06, 2020 at 12:39 pm

I’m not pro or anti Jackson based upon that performance except that I like his willingness to tackle and be physical in run support. He simply wasn’t tested deep on the perimeter or all that often in the passing game either this week (lack of ability) and last week (lack of need). Until he is and holds up I’m not going to consider him a possible starter.

Hollman looked quietly good in his first real outing. I think he may be the better perimeter prospect long term, but he also wasn’t really tested. Positive showing for him though.

0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

November 06, 2020 at 08:56 pm

There is some question about the ability of the SF WRs to beat CBs since their top WRs were unavailable. Jackson had man to man on Cracraft and got beat on an out; the WR just dropped the TD pass when he hit the ground. That wouldn't have been a spectacular catch as the announcers indicated. SF kicks the FG instead. Jackson probably was in zone coverage on a completion to James in the early 2nd quarter. Not sure he did anything wrong on it in particular but he wasn't close to making a play on the ball. The zones GB plays are soft.

In the late third Jackson is 4 yards off a WR and then a 2nd WR motions over in a bunch, yet there is only one CB (Jackson) opposite the 2 WRs. Jackson takes the outside WR which looks correct to me, but the inside WR James stops and takes the easy completion and the outside WR blocks Jackson. No other Packers around and the play goes for about 37 yards down the left sideline. I don't see fault on Jackson. Not enough hats in the vicinity. Jackson is the only CB in sight on another play (completion to a TE at 6 min in the 4th, 34-3 score) but Jackson is covering the boundary receiver. 2 Packers peeled off to defend one WR running a shallow slant and no one ran with the TE running the seam who is consequently wide open. Too much to expect Jackson to cover two different receivers at the same time when their spacing is decent. Jackson is not responsible for the Ritchie James TD late in the fourth to make it 34-10. The guy is so wide open it looks like zone but it is a rub: Jackson and 46 (must be a PS elevation - no such number assigned on packers.com but I am pretty sure it is Stanford Samuels) handle the rub without issue with Jackson having good coverage on an out and Samuels in good position on a slant. Hollman clearly has James who is running a go and he seems to have plenty of cushion. One never sees Hollman on the TV screen again but James is open by a mile. Did Hollman simply slip or fall down? 41 (another PS guy? - no 41 listed on packers.com but it must be Henry Black who was elevated) is playing deep safety but James makes a cut and scores easily. McKinnon is then spread wide near the boundary. Hollman is in coverage but way off the line - I can see 12 yards downfield but Hollman is not visible on the screen. Hollman does come up and makes the tackle after an 8 yard gain. It doesn't look bad to me other than CBs lining up miles from the guy they are covering. They all do it so I think that is Pettine. Jackson is lined up 7 yds from the LOS and 9 from the receiver on 3rd and 6. Easy completion is caught for 9 at the 9 yard line. Looks like that is on Pettine as Jackson backpedals at the snap. Maybe he isn't supposed to, but I doubt it.

I only see one play where Jackson got beat. I don't see any bad plays from Hollman assuming he just slipped but maybe James juked him out of his shorts? What happened is not shown on the TV screen and no way to know without All-22. Jackson seemed to be a willing tackler against SF. Hollman came up and made the tackle though it looked like McKinnon dished out the punishment. Well, McKinnon has been around.

I usually write about cap and stats and numbers. I sometimes give player evaluations in conjunction with cap/stats and numbers. Frankly, your evaluation of Jackson likely is better than mine.

0 points
0
0
flackcatcher's picture

November 07, 2020 at 07:22 pm

Don't be too hard on yourself here TGR. The Packers defense were playing a base 3-4 for most of the second half and rotating a number of players in starting in the late third quarter. Pettine went pretty basic at that point. OLB were playing more pass rush to contain the pocket rather than blitzing the QB. The secondary was in cover 2 with quarters coverage at the boundary. Depending on the defensive call, both will be in zone or man. With the score, it was clear that both would be in zone. There was no need to give up the outside, or play press. While it looks soft, the defense is trading space for time. Time that the 49ers did not have in the game. Pettine was not playing prevent defense, he was forcing the 49ers to eat clock. After mistaking Sullivan for Jackson for most of last season, it's nice to see Jackson on the field. Jackson's problem is his footwork. Dropping in coverage within the 5 yard contact zone is hard. Most DB never master it. Don't watch their hands, watch their feet. In that respect Jackson has grown. He is now able to be in the trail when WR come out of their break. There are only a few CB who can mirror coverage out of the break in this league. Green Bay has two of them. It's the main reason Pettine plays press, and last year zero coverage. With injuries, not so much this year. All in all, I think both Coldword and your evaluation of Jackson is fair.

1 points
1
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

November 08, 2020 at 04:17 am

You're very kind. I was just honest. Prior to 2014, I was a rabid but casual football fan. Then I read a few books (all on defensive schemes for some reason) and started watching film and checking out breakdowns available on youtube and now articles like the Passing Chronicles.

I've gotten more knowledgeable, but I am not Dusty, Andy Herman, Nags or Jersey Al.

0 points
0
0