When I was going back through the Packers divisional round loss to the 49ers (which I have done multiple times, because I do not respect myself as a person), one of the things that stood out to me was how the 49ers were defending the Packers play action game.
It wasn’t a huge surprise. Fred Warner is one of the best linebackers in the league, and Dre Greenlaw is no slouch. Play action attacks by drawing the linebackers up to the line as they try to fit the run, then attack the open space behind them. In other words, attack the middle. Both of those linebackers do a great job of putting themselves in a good position to defend the run, while also getting back to defend the middle of the field against play action.
And yet, when I looked at the Packers play action numbers, they seemed to tell a different story. According to PFF, Aaron Rodgers was 4/5 (80%) for 41 yards (8.2 YPA) on play action. On non-play action plays, he was 16/24 (66.7%) for 184 yards (7.7 YPA) and 5 sacks. A full 0.5 yards better on play action!
They only used play action on a lowly 14.7% of snaps. During the season, they used play action on 26.3% of dropbacks. On those dropbacks, Rodgers averaged 0.2 more yards per play and had a higher completion percentage by 3.7%.
Looking solely at the numbers for this game, they seemed to tell this story: the Packers were effective in their play action game against the 49ers, but they didn’t use it nearly enough. So why didn’t they use it more?
If you’re looking at this game from a high level, numbers perspective, that’s the natural question/criticism. And it’s a good question! So what’s the answer?
I found myself drawn to one play action snap in particular. As it so happens, it was the Packers biggest gain off play action on the day: a 25 yard gain to Davante Adams on the Drift concept.
As you can see from the diagram, Drift is a simple concept. The Packers will dress it up in a lot of ways, but the idea is what we outlined at the top: pull the linebackers in on play action, then hit the dig route behind them.
The Packers will run this from shotgun, but it’s typically an under center concept, with a lot of the action mirroring PA Boot.
The idea is to get the defense reacting first to the run, then to PA Boot. After completing the play fake, the QB will typically turn his shoulders as if he’ll be running the bootleg, but will instead pivot quickly on the back foot and spin around to find the dig route.
It’s an effective concept for the Packers. During the regular season, Rodgers completed 84.6% of his passes on this concept for 14.7 yards per attempt.
And this play went for 25 yards. So what’s the problem? Let’s watch the play.
It has all the hallmarks of Drift. The play fake, the quick turn and the dig behind. But just watch Dre Greenlaw [57] in the middle. He takes one hop-step toward the line with the playfake, then falls back under the dig once he sees it’s not a run. That throw - the entire design of that play - is gone. Burned.
The line holds well enough that Rodgers is able to bounce to his next read and wait for Davante Adams to get open on his deep crosser. Rodgers throws to Adams and the Packers get 25 yards.
In the numbers, this goes down as a 25 yard gain off a play action play. A success! What it doesn’t take into account is how those 25 yards were gained. The success of this play was not due to the play action. This did not work as intended. This play is designed to hit that back foot and get the ball out on the dig. It wasn’t thrown there because it couldn’t be thrown there.
The play was a success, but was the reason for that success something that could be repeatable? If they ran this again on the very next play against the same defensive look, would they have the same result? There’s no way to know, but relying on a secondary reaction for sustained success is not a great recipe: it’s certainly not the basis of an offensive scheme.
While I tend to write in the film world, I’m a big fan of numbers. I use Football Outsiders and PFF a ton, both in-season and in the offseason. Football Outsiders is one of the main reasons I got into writing in the first place, so I reference them as often as I can when I’m doing research.
But it’s always important to keep in mind that the numbers don’t tell the whole story. In this case, the numbers drove me to do a little deeper dive into the Packers use of play action. If we remove this play from the play action numbers, those numbers tell a different story: Rodgers was 3/4 (75%) for 16 yards (4.0 YPA).
I’m usually not a fan of removing a play from the numbers, but if we’re trying to get a better feel for the effectiveness of play action, removing this play - a play that was successful, but not successful because of play action - made sense to me in terms of trying to get a handle on it.
I still wish the Packers had run a little more play action, but it wasn’t sunshine and roses when they attempted it in this game.
I did a larger breakdown on this play after the game, if you feel like going down that road.