Packers Offense Needs Third Down Improvement
By jasonperone
In watching a recent replay of last season's week 17 game between the Green Bay Packers and Minnesota Vikings, I was reminded of how much the Packers struggled offensively on third down. On this particular drive, the Packers were in Minnesota territory and down by 10. Facing a 3rd-and-2, running back Eddie Lacy plowed ahead for five yards and an apparent conversion. A holding penalty not only negated the first down but it moved the Packers out of field goal range. On the next snap, the Vikings got to Aaron Rodgers and forced a fumble that was returned for a touchdown. That play was the epitome of the Packers offense on third down in 2015, which was only 27th-best in the NFL in terms of conversion at 34.2%.
In 2014, when the offense was visibly better and much more efficient, the Packers were third-best at 46.7%. They need to get back to that level in 2016. I'm not going to overwhelm with stats and numbers on the percentages inside of the percentages. This is the type of topic that can be analyzed and twisted in any number of directions. Simply put, the Packers need to get their mojo back on this critical down.
In 2015, the Packers were 70 out of 208 on third down for 33.7% efficiency, which ranked 27th. They averaged 13 third downs per game in 2015 compared to 12.5 in 2014 and converted an average of 4.4 per game in 2015 and 5.8 in 2014. Quite a dip in efficiency from one year to the next. Short yardage was especially troublesome. Last season, the Packers faced a 3rd-and-1 situation 22 times, converting just 11 or 50% for 30th best in league. Of those 22 times, they chose to run 15 times, converting only 8 for 28th best in league.
One thing that was widely-discussed last season was the plays that were called in certain situations. Also remember that head coach Mike McCarthy took over for assistant head coach Tom Clements in calling offensive plays late in the season and I don't have the splits on how many of those 3rd-and-1 opportunities came on each guy's watch. McCarthy seemed to want to avoid being predictable while Clements seemed to favor the plays that worked a higher percentage of the time. To me, a team that is 30th out of 32 teams is in need of improvement, regardless of the breakdown of how and why.
The easy answers to why there was a drop off are the loss of receiver Jordy Nelson, who has been a big security blanket to Rodgers since day one, and a less-effective Lacy. Those two factors likely led to part of the decline on third down, but again, I don't have the exact stats. They also didn't have a tight end like Jared Cook roaming the middle like they should this year, which one would think should lead to more success in short yardage situations. When asked last year, most players cited execution, or a lack thereof, as the reason why they weren't as successful. To me, that's about as helpful as saying "he died because his heart stopped". I don't have the time nor the patience to pour over hours worth of film and look to see when the Packers had poor execution versus when they were simply thwarted by a well-prepared defense.
In looking at the number of third down snaps per game over the last five seasons, the totals stay between 12 - 15, on average. The assumption is that the average will continue to be near that this season and so whether it's execution, personnel, play calling or by penalty, the Packers need to be more productive. I haven't touched on their performance on first or second down, which obviously affects how often they're in short vs. long yardage on third. But in looking at those short-yardage numbers, it appears that the Packers were just not good on third down, period. In 2014, they were able to move the ball, keep drives alive and that was likely a big reason why they were in a NFC championship game. If Green Bay can get back to the top of the list in third-down conversion, they stand a good chance of returning to one of the elite offenses in the game.
-------------------
Jason is a freelance writer on staff since 2012 and also co-hosts Cheesehead TV Live, Pulse of the Pack and Pack A Day podcasts. You can follow him on Twitter here
Comments (23)
Bearmeat
July 22, 2016 at 07:52 am
We've been over the reasons GB had such an uncharacteristically poor offensive performance last year ad-nauseum. Like you said above - they just need to convert 1.5 more third downs per game to be back at the top of the league. With the tweaks they've made, barring injury, I think that goal is likely to be achieved.
Can't wait for football!!
NickPerry
July 22, 2016 at 07:05 am
I think we could say the same thing about the Red Zone too, both need improvement. Even late in 2014 we saw the Packers struggle to many times to get the ball in the end zone after having a 1st and goal. A better Lacy, a healthy Nelson and Montgomery, and a TE who doesn't look like he's running in sand should help both 3rd down and red zone percentages.
Ditto on Football!!
croatpackfan
July 22, 2016 at 07:06 am
Well said. I think 2 category was quite bad last season. Deep pass and 3rd down conversion, especilly short yardage 3rd down...
Both category should be improved this season by lot...
RCPackerFan
July 22, 2016 at 08:23 am
2 positions I think could really help the Packers on 3rd downs.
First the TE position. Richard Rodgers is actually a very option as a 3rd down TE. But the addition of Cook will dramatically improve that. Cook adds the ability to break tackles which is something that Rodgers lacks. But Rodgers should be a better target with more speed on the outside where defenses will have to roll coverages to more often.
Second having a threat at RB on 3rd downs. Starks became a nice weapon as a 3rd down back last year but there really was no other options. Lacy just was to slow to be effective and Montgomery got hurt before they could use him as a RB as much. This year with Lacy losing a lot of weight and being in better shape will really help him. Also I don't be surprised if Crockett were to be used more as a 3rd down RB. But also Montgomery is a guy to keep an eye on coming out of the backfield.
Finding ways to keep moving the chains should be top priority for the offense. the big plays are nice but the long drives converting 3rd downs really wears down defenses.
Point-Packer
July 22, 2016 at 09:23 am
What evidence do you have regarding Richard Rodgers being a good 3rd down TE? I seem to recall a number of third in shorts where his number was called and he came up way short - especially on that stupid TE out pattern. Don't agree at all with you on that one.
Crockett may not even be on this team. Dude carries 9 times for 23 yards last year. That's a 2.3 yards per run. He's on the roster bubble, not our savior on third down.
"Finding ways to keep moving the chains should be top priority for the offense". Yeah, and the team that scores more points will win the game...
dobber
July 22, 2016 at 10:26 am
What will make RRod a better (although I'll stop short of "good") 3rd down TE is the presence of players like Cook and Nelson that will force defenses to play the Packers offense "honest" rather than loading defenders on the LOS. Hard to make a 3 yard pass turn into a 5 yard first down when there's no room to move.
RCPackerFan
July 25, 2016 at 07:34 am
Rodgers has tremendous hands. On 3rd down you need those guys to make simple catches to secure 3rd downs. If used in the right way, Rodgers can be very effective. The problem last year is he wasn't used in the right ways.
Also like Dobber said, the presence of Cook and Nelson and a healthy group of WR's, will provide more room for Rodgers to work. Rodgers doens't have to be a Finley type of TE. Rodgers can be a very good Heath Miller type of TE though.
Crockett may not make the team. Maybe one of the UDFA's makes the team. I was just saying don't be surprised if he finds a bigger role with the team this year.
The point is with finding ways the keep the chains moving... To many times the team was worried about the big play vs just getting first downs. The big plays are nice, but sometimes just keeping the drive going is more important.
DrealynWilliams
July 22, 2016 at 11:18 am
I agree with you @RC with the TE statement. Not so much about the RB. Anyone with (proven) dependable hands should be considered a good 3rd Down Option. Especially short - medium. I've been thinking RR has been given too much (responsibilities) and/or been placed in (many) situations where his skill(s) set can't really be used to the fullest. Shouldn't expect TE1 stats from a player who doesn't have TE1 skills. Same with Adams and how he played last season.
I don't expect seeing our 3rd RB (no WR) being used unless RB1/RB2 is hurt, big lead in the 2nd half, or is the last option to get the Offense a spark.
I totally agree with your last paragraph. We all know Rodgers loves that big play (and we love him for that), but there are many of times we miss out on moving the chains for an incomplete big(ger) play.
RCPackerFan
July 25, 2016 at 07:58 am
Like I just mentioned to the guy in the desert that what I think they need is a guy who can put more stress on the defense out of the backfield. A guy who I think of is Theo Riddick from the Lions.
The guy I think that could help them a lot is Montgomery. I think he could be the 3rd down RB we have been lacking. A guy that can make people miss out of the backfield, and add a lot more stress to the defense.
The reason why I think adding a 3rd down RB specialist in the backfield is key is because typically they elect to go for more protection in the backfield. They usually went with Kuhn as a protector. Which is fine but that eliminated a true threat out of the backfield. If they add a threat coming out of the backfield that would open up the offense more, in my opinion. Give Rodgers more options on 3rd down.
Since'61
July 22, 2016 at 08:45 am
Whether going for short yardage for a 1st down or at the goal line, short yardage situations need to be won by the OL. The Packers OL was often unable to move their opponents off the LOS last season. This was due to their own injury issues and to the lack of WRs who could get off the LOS and get separation. With no viable receiving threat, the opposing defenses just played everyone up to stop the run first. My guess would be that those 3rd down numbers became worse as the season wore on. Jason is correct, 30 out of 32 needs to improve, especially with all of the alleged talent on offense. Thanks, Since '61
dobber
July 22, 2016 at 09:20 am
Ding! Ding! Ding!!!
Thegreatreynoldo
July 23, 2016 at 10:54 am
I agree, Since 61, but the inability of the OL to move opponents was not due to injury (though it probably was a factor), but rather to the philosophy of GB to prefer pass pro to road-graders. Course, it's nice if you can get a player who does both at a high level, but that's an all-pro player.
We've had LTs who were at best okay run blockers in Clifton (once he got hurt - he was good run blocker when young), Newhouse, and Bakh. None of them were suited to just moving too many defenders. Bulaga has been just an average run blocker. Our centers tended to be finesse players over the years. We've been fortunate in our OGs recently.
dobber
July 22, 2016 at 09:37 am
If you go back over the last six years, this is what the 3rd down conversion rates look like for the Packers (league average in parentheses)...
2010 -- 41.5% (38.2%)
2011 -- 48.1% (38.1%)
2012 -- 42.3% (38.2%)
2013 -- 41.2% (38.2%)
2014 -- 47.2% (39.9%)
2015 -- 33.7% (38.9%)
The league average has been up the last two years, but otherwise is somewhere in the 38/39% range. How bad does that 33.7% look, now? Pitiful. And it's clearly the outlier. Even when the Packers played half a season without ARod, they managed 41.2% over the course of the year (I didn't break that down by game, but I'm guessing it wasn't so hot for the second half of that season).
In the end, this is a very telling stat for how the offense produced (or didn't) last season. I don't buy into Cow's assertion that this was primarily on ARod, although we all agree he played in non-ARod fashion for significant portions of games last year. I do agree with Since '61: I hang this pretty squarely on the OL and on the WR. The injuries there and the lack of consistent play had a lot to do with these numbers. Even a "fat" Eddie Lacy would have been pretty productive behind 2014's OL, which would have been reflected in better conversion rates.
http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats/3rd-down-efficiency/2015/
marpag1
July 22, 2016 at 10:14 am
"This is a very telling stat..."
Not sure about that, dobber. See my post below.
marpag1
July 22, 2016 at 10:41 am
I certainly won't argue that the Pack needs to get better in this respect. Having said that, I've never known what to make out of this statistic. My general opinion is that third down conversion rate is not as important an indicator as we think it is. Actually, I think it is almost meaningless.
By itself, at least, a high third down conversion rate does NOT mean that you are a good team, nor does a low third down conversion rate mean that you are a bad team.
In 2015, the top ten teams in third down conversion rate included, among others, 3-13 Cleveland (9th), 4-12 San Diego (8th), and 6-10 Chicago and Tampa (6th and 10th).
Only four of the top ten teams made the playoffs (ARI, SEA, WASH and CAR). Only those four had winning records. The combined record of the top ten teams in 3D conversion was 81-79. If you remove just ARI and CAR, the combined record of the other eight teams is 53-75.
Denver won the SB while ranking 25th in third down conversion. Other playoff teams weren't great either... NE was 11th, CIN was 13th, PIT was 17th, HOU was 18, MIN and KC were tied for 19th and GB was 28th. The average third down conversion ranking for all playoff teams was 14th.
So what does third down conversion really mean? Heck if I know...
Bedrock
July 22, 2016 at 10:34 am
Kinda similar to a baseball team leading the league in double plays. Sure, it points to being strong at getting ground balls and being quick on the turn, but it points out how often the team puts guys on base.
3rd down conversion rates must be taken within context. To me, statistically, there's a LOT of context to be had.
Now don't get me wrong, when faced with a double play situation, that's the goal. So is converting the 3rd down. I'm not suggesting they shouldn't just convert more. But I think there are an entire host of reasons that MM has looked into.
However, marpag, I bet each of those teams on the bottom of the league in 3rd downs is saying, internally at least, they want to improve.
SpudRapids
July 22, 2016 at 11:08 am
Another telling stat that shouldn't be ignored is that the Packers only played two defenses in the regular season that were in the bottom half of allowing 3rd down conversions (See detail below) and they played 6 of the top 10 3rd down defenses. If you remove thee two outliers of the Lions and Bears the average opponent 3rd down ranking was 8th. That'll make conversions difficult with a banged up line and WR corp.
Defensive 3rd Down Percentage - Packers Opponents
-Chiefs - 2nd (28%)
-Seahwaks - 4th (34%)
-Vikings - 5th (34%) Played twice
-Rams - 6th (35%)
-Broncos - 7th (35%)
-Cardinals - 8th (36%)
-Raiders - 11th (38%)
-Redskins - 12th (38%)
-Panthers - 13th (38%)
-Chargers - 14th (38%)
-Cowboys - 15th (39%)
-49ers - 16th (39%)
-Lions - 24th (41%)
-Bears - 29th (44%)
dobber
July 22, 2016 at 01:37 pm
What's missing here is each team's average "yd-to-go" on 3rd downs...or how many yards a team averages on first down would also be telling.
http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats/team-yards-per-first-down-attemp...
If I read this correctly, the Packers were actually last in the league in yards on first down last year, and I think they ran the ball on first down almost 33% of the time (something like 9th highest pct.).
That can't bode well for third downs. Still, several teams that were very good on third down conversions were also in the bottom third in yd. on first down, FWIW.
marpag1
July 22, 2016 at 01:48 pm
Interesting. I would think that one of the conclusions in all of this might be that it doesn't really make a bit of difference on WHICH DOWN you gain the yards, but simply that you gained them. A team that's good on third down can still suck (cf. Cleveland), and a team that sucks on third down can still be good (cf. Denver or Green Bay).
Looking at past year's percentages, I'm actually a bit surprised that the Packers percentage of third downs is as high as it is. I would have thought that third down rates would favor power running teams (which Green Bay has rarely been), and that Green Bay would never be that great in short yardage because they are always looking for pass blocking linemen rather than road graders. (I realize that not all third downs are short yardage, of course). But it just illustrates that in the end I don't really know what all of this means - or if it even means anything at all.
dobber
July 22, 2016 at 01:55 pm
"...it doesn't really make a bit of difference on WHICH DOWN you gain the yards, but simply that you gained them."
I think that's about right. In the end, it might be pointing more to the fact that the NFL is a "big play" league in the sense that MLB morphed in to the league of the "3-run-HR" (although it might be moving away from that, somewhat), and it's a measure of how often a team is able to generate a "big play"...
al bundy
July 22, 2016 at 09:10 pm
I see teams with great third down success, thevikes are one of them like it or not, but they all have quick mobile tight ends with good hands to go over the middle for aquick gainer. I havent seen that on the pack for several years. The one guy we had gotminjured and is out of football and ted has not replaced him.
Thegreatreynoldo
July 23, 2016 at 10:56 am
Nice article, followed by a tremendous thread. Nice job Jason, Dobber, Marpag and Spud.
jasonperone
July 23, 2016 at 07:17 pm
Thank you!