Why the Green Bay Packers new offensive approach is wrong

The Green Bay Packers draft class signaled a change in offensive approach but any adjustments may not be for the better.

Heading into the 2020 NFL Draft, the Green Bay Packers badly needed help at wide receiver. Instead of addressing that need, however, the franchise went in a completely different direction — one that almost no one saw coming. Rather than selecting a wide receiver, the Packers drafted a quarterback, running back, H-back, several more players and no pass-catcher to play out wide.

What Green Bay did in the 2020 draft wasn’t just poor decision-making; it also signified a change in the offensive approach, one that may not work out as the team hopes. But before we break down why that may be, it stands to reason we need to examine head coach Matt LaFleur and the offense he’s likely looking to deploy.

LaFleur previously worked with the likes of Kyle Shanahan and Sean McVay, stemming from the Mike Shanahan coaching tree and adopting forms of his offense. The Mike Shanahan offense focused on the zone-run scheme. Beyond that, it also heavily utilizes play-action.

It’s clear that this philosophy has heavily influenced McVay and the younger Shanahan as both the Rams and 49ers rank at the top in play-action yards while utilizing a combination of zone-running mixed with some gap-scheme runs. More importantly, the two coaches are entering their fourth season with their respective teams. Now it’s clear LaFleur wants to follow suit coming into year two to implement his own stylings.

Selecting running back A.J. Dillion at No. 62 overall is a huge indication of this. He was projected by many as a Day 3 pick but obviously went much higher. He’s an old-school running back who plays with power and will toss defenders off him. However, he’s not a modern player in that he doesn’t offer much in the passing game.

With the Packers’ next pick after Dillon, Green Bay nabbed H-back Josiah Deguara. He’s a versatile piece that can move around all over the offense. And LaFleur confirmed that he will be used similar to how Shanahan uses Kyle Juszczyk in the 49ers offense.

It’s clear that the Packers are going to run the ball more, which numerous data points signal is a bad idea in itself. And while that will be used to set up play-action, which is a wise concept, the fact remains that Green Bay doesn’t need a run-heavy scheme to be effective with play-action passing.

Ben Baldwin of The Athletic broke this down for Football Outsiders in 2018, showing that the running game does not affect the play-action passing. In the simplest terms, you need only look at two examples of this. The Rams were among the weaker running teams last season but were at the top of the league in play-action yards. Meanwhile, the Ravens had a historic rushing offense but were only middle-of-the-pack when using play-action passes.

Furthering that point, the Chiefs proved that even rushing attempts don’t correlate to a successful play-action game. Kansas City had one of the lowest numbers of rushing attempts in the league last season but still had 1,251 yards passing on play-action sets.

One of the primary reasons play-action passing works so well is that players, linebackers in particular, are coached at a young age to stop the run at all costs. When they see a quarterback hand the ball off, the instinct has been instilled to stop the run. Even if it creates only a second of hesitation when an offense uses play-action, it could put the defender out of position.

In some ways, what the Packers are doing is smart. Analytics shows that using play-action heavily is wise as it can prop up a quarterback and the passing game overall. However, the way Green Bay is seemingly set up to do this is where the problem lies.

All of the moves Green Bay has made this offseason point to the fact that they are going to run the ball more. From an analytics perspective, not only is that unwise but also unnecessary if the goal is to load up on play-action passes. And if they continue with their apparent plan, it may do the Packers more harm than good.