Packers Vs. Vikings – 3 Plays That Make You Go Hmmm

After re-watching the Packers game, here are three plays that made me go hmmm, for various reasons. In general, I try to focus on a theme, the less obvious, or things I didn’t notice watching live. These are not likely to be “highlight” plays.

Packers two-point conversion

Before Matt LaFleur came to town, the Packers success on two point conversions ranked somewhere from middle of the pack to bottom third in the NFL. Since his arrival, their success rate has ranked them in the top 10 to top 15. The play below is a great example why. The design is beautiful and execution precise. The Packers three receivers to the left of the formation run routes that spread the secondary wide apart and leave a giant empty hole in the end zone.  Kraft runs into that space on a delayed release and it’s like playing catch on the sideline. This play doesn’t work however, if Josh Jacobs doesn’t do his job in pass protection, picking up the Vikings’ linebacker on a blitz. 

Bullard blitz 

I’m not sure if this was intended to be a run blitz or not, but that’s how it ended up. Bullard doesn’t show blitz until just before the snap and the Vikings OL doesn’t even see him until he’s in the backfield. He then runs down Aaron Jones from behind for a loss. I picked this play because it signified the start of Hafley deciding to bring more than four rushers. The very next play, Quay Walker came on a blitz and sacked Sam Darnold. Hafley was hesitant to do this unless really necessary due to the absence of Alexander and Valentine. Bringing the extra player takes away the double-team on Jefferson and forces Ballentine and Nixon into some.one-on-one coverage. When the pressure gets there, as it did on the two plays mentioned here and later on the Nixon strip-sack, it’s great. When it doesn’t, which happened later in the game, it resulted in big plays to Jefferson and Nailor on crossing routes. It a “live by the sword, die by the sword” scenario which we probably would have seen more of if Alexander and Valentine was playing.

Playing it safe

As I’ve mentioned in this space before, I’m not a huge fan of Eric Stokes’ game and this play is a good example. I like to say that Stokes is “always in the vicinty” but rarely making plays on the ball. Here he is obviously playing outside leverage – but why is he sidestepping and staying so shallow and far away from the receiver? There is no one running a route in the flat he might have to worry about. It’s likely that he’s anticipating inside help from a linebacker or safety, but when one receiver blows by, Quay walker stays with him deep. That may have been a mistake, as the Packers had Bullard and Ballentine deep, but back to my original point. You can play outside leverage and stay a lot closer to the receiver. At the very least, when the receiver makes his cut, do something more than jog after him. Then perhaps you may have a chance to accomplish more that just watch him make a catch and touch him as down. This kind of passive play just aggravates me to no end.