The Tape: Four Hooks

by John Morgan on Oct 10, 2008 1:23 PM PDT

Cowboys 13 - Packers 6

3-7-DAL 7 (Q3: 6:36)

Green Bay breaks WR (left), Trips, Rb (Right) with Aaron Rodgers in a shotgun. Cowboys break in a 4-1 dime with Kevin Burnett playing MLB. This is a heavily unbalanced formation, with Greg Jennings alone on the left. At the snap, the play progresses like this.

(The spacing is exaggerated to improve clarity)

Jennings runs a lazy route and Rodgers never looks his way. While unbalanced formations are often designed to pull coverage away from the receiver on the lesser side, in this situation it looks like Jennings is the decoy and the trips the target. Rodgers awaits Donald Lee to get open over the middle, but Burnett picks him up and then passes him to Courtney Brown. Dallas is playing a boundary zone - sure that's not the right terminology - but the meaning is conveyed: keep Green Bay out of the end zone. Brandon Jackson is open in the right flat, but Rodgers seems determined to target one of his receivers. Anthony Henry runs into his defensive line, circles out, runs past Jackson, and closes in on Rodgers tackles, spins Rodgers around, falls, Rodgers attempts to recover but takes a knee completing the sack. This plays like the exact wrong play call for Green Bay or the exact right play for Dallas, and though Henry's blitz is anything but clean, Dallas' coverage is so strong Henry eventually finds his mark.

0 recs | Comment 17 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I am not understanding

Are you comparing the Seahawks to the Cowboys? Maybe I missed something but I thought this was a Seahawks blog.

by m_b on Oct 10, 2008 1:53 PM PDT 0 recs

Seriously

Why not show a play where the Packers execute well?
Or one from a more recent opponent?

by thecassino on Oct 10, 2008 2:01 PM PDT up 0 recs

Why does the currentness of the game matter?

These plays are indicative of trends throughout the game. They are examples. I picked this one because it featured an interesting red zone formation Green Bay could use against Seattle. Green Bay was weak in the red zone against Dallas because Dallas took away their short passing game. I’m previewing Seattle’s opponent. I can’t very well describe what the Packers did without describing what the Cowboys did. It would be foolish to describe only plays the Packers executed well, the point is to give a feel for their strengths and weaknesses; their game planning and strategy.

by John Morgan on Oct 10, 2008 2:37 PM PDT up 0 recs

I guess

A little contaxt would be helpful, otherwise it just looks like you are writing about a game that occured 3 weeks ago. Why not use last week? Or a road game for Green Bay?

by m_b on Oct 10, 2008 2:49 PM PDT up 0 recs

Repeating what John said

why does the currentness of the game matter?

by BrianL on Oct 10, 2008 3:01 PM PDT up 0 recs

My point

Is not about the currentness, its about the context.

If currentness didn’t matter, why not use the first game?

by m_b on Oct 10, 2008 3:12 PM PDT up 0 recs

How about the fact that the Cowboys are a good team, whereas the Seahawks are not? I cannot think of a worse team to use. Why not Tampa? They run a WCO, and they played them more recently and they are more representative of the talent that Seattle has than Dallas is. If you think that teams play the same way throughout the season then you are gravely mistaken. In week 17 you wouldn’t look back at week 1 and say that a team is the same. Pay attention to an entire football season and you’ll see that teams start hot, and cool down, or start slow and gain momentum after a few games. Suggesting that the Packers are the same team this week that they were three weeks ago is plain ignorant.
f you want to give their strengths and weaknesses, you should probably start showing a strength or two. Of the two plays you’ve diagrammed, one has been of the Cowboys executing well, and one has been of the Packers running a questionable playcall and not executing well.
If you think that teams play the same way throughout the season then you are gravely mistaken. In week 17 you wouldn’t look back at week 1 and say that a team is exactly the same.

by thecassino on Oct 10, 2008 3:13 PM PDT up 0 recs

You're not off to a very good start here.

by Phildopip on Oct 10, 2008 3:19 PM PDT up 0 recs

This is simply a breakdown of one particular red-zone play that didn't work well.

I think you might be reading too much into this.

(Also if you could use the subject line, that would be great. It helps with discussion flow)

by BrianL on Oct 10, 2008 3:27 PM PDT up 0 recs

Wow

I’m reading too much into this, because I’m saying that you can’t learn much, if anything, from it. Right…

by thecassino on Oct 10, 2008 3:30 PM PDT up 0 recs

There is some interesting information in this post, though.

Jennings runs a lazy route, so Rodgers doesn’t look at him and focuses in on his receivers. Perhaps this is something to look out for in the red-zone?

by BrianL on Oct 10, 2008 3:35 PM PDT up 0 recs

Dude.. what?

John is not attempting to illustrate if GB is good or not. Nor is he trying to figure out if Seattle is as good as Dallas or not. He is showing a particular look GB displayed in the red zone. You are getting confused because in some past previews there were predictions thrown in.

by michaelfox99 on Oct 10, 2008 3:32 PM PDT up 0 recs

I’m not confused about anything. He’s showing a play that by any standards is bad. An offensive play which calls for every receiver to run a hitch doesn’t put any pressure on a defense, and I’m sure they will not run it again.

by thecassino on Oct 10, 2008 3:40 PM PDT up 0 recs

Wow

I’m reading too much into this, because I’m saying that you can’t learn much ~~if anything~~ from it. Right…

by thecassino on Oct 10, 2008 3:29 PM PDT 0 recs

No.

You are reading too much into it because you assume it is trying to say one thing and then debunk that thing. The problem is your assumption though. The article is not quantifying the strength of GB, DAL or SEA, it is trying to describe a play that GB runs. It is not judging that play or predicting its outcome against the hawks. It is just describing the play so when GB gets in the red-zone against us and lines up this way we will all feel super cool if we remembered the article and the play and GB runs it. Chill bro.

by michaelfox99 on Oct 10, 2008 3:35 PM PDT up 0 recs

I’m not trying to debunk anything nor am I assuming anything. I just don’t see any good reason for this play, of all the plays that Green Bay has run this entire season, to be singled out.
I don’t care at all about the strengths of the teams, but to pick a play from a game three weeks ago seems strange.
If you feel super cool because a team came out shotgun bunch and you had to read an article on a blog to learn about it, maybe you should watch more football. This is not a look unique to Green Bay, nor is it likely that they will run this play from it again. The bunch is an entire offense unto itself, there are an infinite number of plays that can be run from it.

by thecassino on Oct 10, 2008 3:53 PM PDT up 0 recs