Game 9: Eagles at Packers - 11/10/25 - 7:15 - ESPN

[ReasonablySober]

The problem is play-action isn't effective if the defense doesn't respect the run, and right now the Packers can't run the ball.

[Kerb Hohl]

Yes, it really is that simple. More play-action, more shots down the field (especially now that you have Watson back), more early down called passes. Stop running so much on 1st and 2nd down when you're neither consistently moving the sticks, nor able to generate explosive plays (Jacobs has zero runs of 20 or more yards all season).

Wow, there you have it. It's solved...We really have the dumbest coach on the planet for not seeing this stuff.

If we hired Acme Packing Co. and Ron Swanson to gameplan, we'd be throwing for 300+ yards/game.

I'm sure the stats are nothing to do with causation/correlation issues in that there's a reason we aren't passing as much against some of these teams - because we can't pass well in certain situations.

I'm not saying MLF wouldn't regret not being a bit more aggressive in the Carolina game, for instance...but I don't think it's as easy as, "throw the ball more, championship."

[Ron Swanson]

Sure, we're all just chanting "Pass GOOD, Run BAD". Whatever you wanna boil everything down to make it as easily condescending as possible. As far as the notion that you need an effective run game to be good at play-action, that's been pretty much debunked for years now.

Using the SIS DataHub, I pulled data from 2015-2019 to compare the relationship between a team's EPA per Rush with their EPA per Play-Action Dropback. The results are in agreement with previous findings, as there's very little relationship between the two. If we compare success rates, we see a slightly stronger relationship, though still weak by most standards.

https://cowboyswire.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/cowboys/2020/01/18/nfl-analytics-study-running-the-ball-play-action-success-mike-mccarthy-dallas-cowboys/80090163007/

Here, I'm referencing the notion that a strong running game will make life easier on a quarterback through the play-action pass. It's not a new idea, and new Cowboys coach Mike McCarthy even referenced it in his recent press conference.

The idea here, is that if "establishing the run" helped set up play-action, we'd see teams with heavier run rates or more successful ground attacks have more positive "errors". But generally speaking, we don't observe large differences in the error distributions for either chart. The takeaway here is that once we've accounted for a team's quarterback capabilities through PFF Grade, rushing rate and rushing performance relative to passing stats doesn't tell us much about the effectiveness of their play-action usage.

It's the threat of the run rather than the actual running game that makes the difference.

[ReasonablySober]

It's the threat of the run rather than the actual running game that makes the difference.

This is literally what I'm saying. The Packers don't have the threat of the run. No one is saying we need to be out here "establishing the run".

[MickeyDavis]

If you don't establish the run how do you have the threat to run. Chicken/egg

[BUCKnation]

What if you used the pass to set up the run. Might be too out there though.

[MickeyDavis]

We're averaging 2.4 PPG less than we did last year. Last year we threw on first down 50.83%, 28th. This year with a crappy offensive line we are passing on first down 57.3%, 13th. In the last 3 games we're throwing on first down 65% of the time, 4th highest.

Give us a decent OL and not having to play Bo Melton and I'll take a wild guess the results would be a bit different.