Listen man, we’re on the bye week at this point. I’m tired. You’re tired. The last thing you want to do is relive the Packers loss to the Raiders on Monday night. But hey, you all want to see what the Packers did in the RPO game against the Raiders so far be it from me to hold that from you.
(I want to say…3? That 3 of you want this? That feels too high.)
Let’s get to it. How did the Packers do with the RPO?
The throw rate of 30.8% is the highest throw rate of the season on RPOs, barely edging out the 30.0% throw rate against the Saints in Week 3. This game also ranks as the highest number of RPOs the Packers have run in a game in 2023. If you’ve been reading this article over the past couple weeks, you know I’ve been begging for htem to lean heavier into the RPO, so I guess that means someone on the staff is reading this as well. (Hello!)
If you were paying attention to the game at all, you knew that the Packers made a switch in the run game to run more inside zone/duo, right up the gut. That’s reflected here, with 9 of the 13 run tags coming off inside zone
The run game was slightly better on straight run plays, but that’s a fairly thin line. It’s safe to say that both were below average from a run perspective. However, the overall YPA of 3.8 on RPOs (boosted by the 5.5 YPA on pass attempts off RPOs) gives the slight edge to the RPO game over the straight run game.
Listen. The numbers still are not great. But I like them leaning more on the RPO game in this game and hope that carries forward after the bye. At this point, I don’t see a huge reason why RPOs should not make up at least 50% of the overall run game.
Let’s see. What else did I do this week.
As I’ve been doing every week of the season, I got a chance to sit down with John Kuhn and break down some plays from the game. It has been an absolute delight to do these, and something I look forward to every week. This week we looked at a nice gain from Dillon, a two play sequence from Love that had an incomplete deep ball to Watson followed by a nice read on 3rd down, and finished up by looking at Love’s second INT and talking about how the Raiders had been playing defense up to that point. Really fun time.
This week I also got the chance to go on Pack’s What She Said and talk about the Packers with the great Maggie Loney. It’s always a blast to talk with her. Sadly, we were not recording during our conversation about Slotherhouse, but maybe another day we’ll roll that.
I also did some videos on my own. First, I compared the execution of two throwback RB screens from the Packers this year. The first one was a 51 yard gain against the Bears in week 1, while the season one was…not that. I thought it was an interesting look at how the same concept can vary wildly depending on the execution.
I talked about how the Packers like to structure their offense with a backside iso route. I talk about the benefits of doing that and how they read it. Then I look at two plays from Love over the past couple of weeks where he makes the right read but just doesn’t pull the trigger. It’s an area for growth for him, I think. But also I’d love to know why he hasn’t been throwing this.
I looked at Love’s 1st INT off the Strike concept, but I also look at a play from earlier in the game to see how the LB is reading it.
Lastly from a video perspective, I looked at a nice read from Love on a 3rd down play. He knows he has to make it work, and I really like the read, recognition and problem solving to find a solution.
Lastly, for Cheesehead TV, I took a look at the overall passing game against the Raiders, then dug into two plays I really liked. I looked at the big gain to Christian Watson off PA Boot Sail…
…then took a look at a screen option I really enjoyed.
Even in a frustrating week, there’s always something to like and something to learn.
Next week I’m planning on doing a little year-to-date RPO look in this space, so keep an eye out for that. I’d also like to do a kind of offensive round-up in terms of what has worked from a concept perspective so far, but, between the inconsistency and the extremely small sample size, I’m not sure how much there is to learn there. So we’ll see.
Thanks as always for reading.