play2win
11 years ago


You have a freaking MVP at QB!

The Packers are one of 3 teams to be in the playoffs the last 4 years straight. Why would you want to radically change the one thing that has worked well?

Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan 



You are not understanding. Of course we have an MVP QB. I'd like to see him have all kinds of success, but mostly, winning Super Bowls.

Running the ball more would make everything in the passing game better, especially with an MVP QB. Not to mention, the pass happy play calling has had detrimental effects on our success, and on our ability to win the big games. What about Rodgers continued health? Seems like one hell of a dice game to me, continuing to be as pass heavy as we've been and expecting him to continually come out of it unscathed.

Running more will take the heat off of Rodgers, forcing defenses to play us more honest, instead of sitting back deep in pass coverage with their DLs teeing off on our OL and Rodgers. Who gets worn out then?

And, what have we won these past two years? Bounced mercilessly out of our own Lambeau by the Giants in 2011, and by SF last year.

Running the ball more will also keep our own defense fresh while chewing up clock. You don't want that? Did you not see what adding a quality passer did to a power running game in PIT? 2 SB wins? Granted, I'm talking about doing the opposite in adding a power running game to a high quality passing attack, but the point is the same.

Did you not see who won the SB last year? How many carries do you think the Ravens RBs had in winning that Super Bowl? Against fucking San Francisco? I mean, that was a very powerful team they went up against and beat. They provided the recipe.

35.

That's exactly what we need to do. And we need the punishing personnel to do it, along with the change in mindset.

Don't be fooled. That power running game they have made Joe Flacco a superstar. BTW, their RBs rushed 30 times in winning the AFC Championship. How many games did we rush 30 or more times by our RBs? What was the result?

Rodgers is a better QB than Flacco. Right? Well, now, does this proposed change sound so preposterous?

Only fools make the same mistakes over and over expecting different results.
warhawk
11 years ago
I would like to see us get tougher up the middle on both sides of the ball. I want the center of the oline to open up holes for decent yards inside the Tackle position and to hold out rushers putting pressure in Rodgers face.

On D I want tougher up the middle as well. We have good OLB'rs and Corners. We need toughness up the middle in both the run game and pressuring the QB.

Sending Hawk up the middle has produced little. Pressure from the middle has been poor.

I hope for a good tough Center, a stout DL, and a gorilla ILB that will ring ears would be nice.

Just saying our talent is best going outside to in when you look at our WR's, TE's, OLB's, Corners, etc., and the inside guys need to catch up.

You look at SF or Baltimore (last year) in this regard and they both are far and away stronger in the middle than we are.
"The train is leaving the station."
texaspackerbacker
11 years ago
I see a lot in here about wanting a shorter passing game. It seemed to me that last season the Packers had fewer long pass plays than in the two previous seasons. I'd like to see more, not less. Furthermore, I do not want to see the Packers go to a power running dominant game. Better yardage per carry, yes - which Harris and a better O Line should give us, but using a successful passing game to set up spot running plays is what I want to see - not running to set up passing game. What do you guys want? To be like the Vikings? hahaha

I want an O Line upgrade most of all - hopefully Sherrod providing that at LT and Bulaga getting back to 2011 form at RT with EDS continuing to do the job and improve at Center. Secondarily, what I would like to see from the defense is simply getting Perry and Bishop healthy and some kind of an upgrade at DE, either improvement in Neal or a first round draft pick like Jesse Williams or both.
Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
PackFanWithTwins
11 years ago
No more outside Zone run blocking. More run plays between tackle. Traditional WCO. Slants, drags and screens to setup the deep shots.

Defensively. Attitude and aggressiveness. Get mean up front, and on the edges. Sick of seeing 5-10 yard cushions on the WR. Instead of saying, we need to cover until the dline gets to the QB. I want them to be able ot say, we can take chances and press the WR because the QB won't have time to sit around and find an opening.
The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!
Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member
11 years ago
1. Better OL play by everyone not named Sitton.
2. Better DL play by everyone not named Pickett.
3. More fundamentally-sound tackling.
4. More reliable FG kicking.
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
QCHuskerFan
11 years ago

Did you not see who won the SB last year? How many carries do you think the Ravens RBs had in winning that Super Bowl? Against fucking San Francisco? I mean, that was a very powerful team they went up against and beat. They provided the recipe.

35.

That's exactly what we need to do. And we need the punishing personnel to do it, along with the change in mindset.

Don't be fooled. That power running game they have made Joe Flacco a superstar. BTW, their RBs rushed 30 times in winning the AFC Championship. How many games did we rush 30 or more times by our RBs? What was the result?

Originally Posted by: play2win 



The power running game won the Super Bowl? Really? What about the 3 TD passes in the first half that built a 21-6 lead? One play into the second half and it was 28-6. That allowed the Ravens to run the whole second half with minimal success but draining the clock?

The Ravens RB's ran 32 times for 92 yards in the Super Bowl. 23 of those attempts were after they built a 22 point lead. You don't need a power running game to run the ball when you have a huge lead built by passing. Don't be fooled by looking at stats. The passing game won the SB for the Ravens.

You stated you 'want to see a complete shift to a run oriented power game on offense'. How is that not going away from a passing oriented team? We all want a little more balance, but to go away from what is working (And winning Super Bowls) is wrong.

Not winning the Super Bowl for 2 years is not reason to trash the offense. The offense put up 31 points against the 49ers. You should win games in which you score 31 points.

Look at the teams that have had elite running teams in the last 5 years? Tenn. Minn. Chicago. Houston. How many SB's do they have?

Look at the teams with elite passing games in the last 5 years? Packers, Patriots, Giants, Saints, Atlanta. Same question.

wpr
  • wpr
  • Preferred Member
11 years ago
QCHuskerFan, more than a pretty face. 👍
UserPostedImage
Pack93z
11 years ago
You can win a Superbowl in a number of different facets.. having a consistent running game to fall back on does nothing but give you more opportunities to win a Championship.

To me.. the key is balance.. the more you can do well and consistent.. the more opportunities it fashions to win or dominate a football game.

I think many also overlook what a running game does for your defense.
"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"
play2win
11 years ago

The power running game won the Super Bowl? Really? What about the 3 TD passes in the first half that built a 21-6 lead? One play into the second half and it was 28-6. That allowed the Ravens to run the whole second half with minimal success but draining the clock?

The Ravens RB's ran 32 times for 92 yards in the Super Bowl. 23 of those attempts were after they built a 22 point lead. You don't need a power running game to run the ball when you have a huge lead built by passing. Don't be fooled by looking at stats. The passing game won the SB for the Ravens.

You stated you 'want to see a complete shift to a run oriented power game on offense'. How is that not going away from a passing oriented team? We all want a little more balance, but to go away from what is working (And winning Super Bowls) is wrong.

Not winning the Super Bowl for 2 years is not reason to trash the offense. The offense put up 31 points against the 49ers. You should win games in which you score 31 points.

Look at the teams that have had elite running teams in the last 5 years? Tenn. Minn. Chicago. Houston. How many SB's do they have?

Look at the teams with elite passing games in the last 5 years? Packers, Patriots, Giants, Saints, Atlanta. Same question.

Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan 



You are negating the effect their running plays had in opening up the pass in the first half. Entirely.

Just because they scored 3 TDs passing in the first half doesn't mean they weren't set up by the run.
First drive: 2 rushes out of 7 plays resulting in the TD pass.
Second drive: 1 pass, 3 straight rushes, followed by 5 pass plays results in punt.
Third drive, 3 straight rushes, pass, rush, pass, rush, pass, rush, pass for TD.
Fourth drive: rush, pass, rush, rush, pass, rush, pass, pass, rush results in turnover on downs on fake FG.
Fifth drive: pass, pass, pass TD.

16 first half rushes. 3 TD passes. But, according to you, none of those were the result of an opened up field for Flacco to throw on by Ray Rice and Bernard Pierce rushes....

OK. You're right. It was 3 passing TDs. Flacco is amazing. All done through the air. What was I thinking?

I will remind you they almost gave it all away in the 3rd Quarter by going away from the run.

Sixth drive: 3 pass plays to 1 run resulting in a punt.
Seventh drive: 2 pass plays to 1 run resulting in a punt.
Eighth drive: 1 run, 1 pass resulting in a fumble TO.

SF scores 2 TDs and a FG as a result of those failed drives to get back in it.

Oddly enough, they get their shit back together on their 9th drive: run, run, pass, pass, run, run, run, pass, run, run, pass, FG.

Tenth drive: 5 runs to 6 passes results in another FG.
QCHuskerFan
11 years ago

You are negating the effect their running plays had in opening up the pass in the first half. Entirely.

Just because they scored 3 TDs passing in the first half doesn't mean they weren't set up by the run.
First drive: 2 rushes out of 7 plays resulting in the TD pass.
Second drive: 1 pass, 3 straight rushes, followed by 5 pass plays results in punt.
Third drive, 3 straight rushes, pass, rush, pass, rush, pass, rush, pass for TD.
Fourth drive: rush, pass, rush, rush, pass, rush, pass, pass, rush results in turnover on downs on fake FG.
Fifth drive: pass, pass, pass TD.

16 first half rushes. 3 TD passes. But, according to you, none of those were the result of an opened up field for Flacco to throw on by Ray Rice and Bernard Pierce rushes....

OK. You're right. It was 3 passing TDs. Flacco is amazing. All done through the air. What was I thinking?

I will remind you they almost gave it all away in the 3rd Quarter by going away from the run.

Sixth drive: 3 pass plays to 1 run resulting in a punt.
Seventh drive: 2 pass plays to 1 run resulting in a punt.
Eighth drive: 1 run, 1 pass resulting in a fumble TO.

SF scores 2 TDs and a FG as a result of those failed drives to get back in it.

Oddly enough, they get their shit back together on their 9th drive: run, run, pass, pass, run, run, run, pass, run, run, pass, FG.

Tenth drive: 5 runs to 6 passes results in another FG.

Originally Posted by: play2win 



No, I am not ignoring the effect of their rushing game. You implied they won due to their 35 rushing attempts. I pointed out more than half of those attempts came after they built a huge lead. When anyone knows to run the ball and shorten the game.

During the first half while they were piling up 21 points, Baltimore rushed for whopping 46 yards on 15 carries, if my math is correct. Numbers like that did not cause the 49ers to commit 9 players to stop the run. It did not change the dynamics of the game. It was balance, no doubt. But it was not a dominating, game changing performance. That was done by the passing game.

In the SB, Baltimore RB's rushed for 92 yards on 32 carries against the 49ers. In the playoff loss to the 49ers, GB's RBs rushed for 76 yards on just 13 carries. On the basis of those stats, the Ravens should be studying the Packers so they can improve their running game.

You are confusing the need to do a better job running the ball with the need for a complete shift of the offense. The Packers Offense is just fine. Mike McCarthy needs someone to remind him to run the ball a little more often and Aaron Rodgers needs to not check out of the run quite so much. But the design is just fine.
Fan Shout
Martha Careful (7h) : Z, could you please combine my thread with yours please. I obviously did not see it when I Created it
Martha Careful (10h) : Re: 'Kool-Aid' McKinstry. Other than Icky Woods, has there ever been a good NFLer with a childish nickname?
Martha Careful (11h) : Packers looking to trade up
Martha Careful (14h) : Flag?
Martha Careful (14h) : Sag?
Nonstopdrivel (14h) : It rhymes with "bag."
beast (26-Apr) : Family? That's Deadpool's F word
Nonstopdrivel (26-Apr) : Not THAT f-word.
Zero2Cool (26-Apr) : fuck
beast (25-Apr) : 49ers are Cap Tight
beast (25-Apr) : Fuck
Mucky Tundra (25-Apr) : Kanata, I will be when I'm on my lunch later
TheKanataThrilla (25-Apr) : Love you NSD
Nonstopdrivel (25-Apr) : Huh. I guess the F-word is censored in this fan shout.
Nonstopdrivel (25-Apr) : Anyone who doesn't hang out in the chat probably smokes pole.
TheKanataThrilla (25-Apr) : GoPackGo Thinking CB is the pick tonight
TheKanataThrilla (25-Apr) : Anyone hanging out in the chat tonight?
Zero2Cool (25-Apr) : whoa...49ers have had trade conversations about both Deebo Samuel and Brandon Aiyuk
Zero2Cool (25-Apr) : I hope they take a Punter at 9th overall. Be bold!
Mucky Tundra (25-Apr) : I may end up eating those words but I think they need a lot more talent then their 4 picks can provide
Mucky Tundra (25-Apr) : I really hope they stand pat and Draft a WR
Mucky Tundra (25-Apr) : @DMRussini
Mucky Tundra (25-Apr) : The Chicago Bears are very open for business at 9 and telling teams they are ready to move for the right price, per source
buckeyepackfan (24-Apr) : Lions extend Penei Soul 4yrs - 112mil
buckeyepackfan (24-Apr) : Lions extend St. Brown 4 years 120mil and
Mucky Tundra (24-Apr) : Now look, trading up to 13 to take a TE might not seem like a good idea later but it will be later!
dfosterf (24-Apr) : (Your trade up mock post)
dfosterf (24-Apr) : Mucky- The only thing fun to watch would be me flipping the f out if Gute goes up to 13 and grabs Brock Bowers, lol
beast (24-Apr) : DT Byron Murphy II, Texas... whom some believe is the next Aaron Donald (or the closest thing to Donald)
Zero2Cool (24-Apr) : What? And who?
Mucky Tundra (24-Apr) : *sad Mucky noises*
Mucky Tundra (24-Apr) : @JoeJHoyt Murphy said he’s been told he won’t slide past pick No. 16.
wpr (23-Apr) : Just about time to watch Sonny Weaver stick it to the seahags. I never get tired of it.
Martha Careful (23-Apr) : *game plan
Martha Careful (23-Apr) : IMHO, not even close. He is not a guy you game play around.
Mucky Tundra (23-Apr) : is Aiyuk worth a 1st rounder?
Zero2Cool (23-Apr) : 49ers are seeking a 1st round pick in exchange for WR Brandon Aiyuk
Mucky Tundra (22-Apr) : Based on Gutes comments, now I don't feel as silly having 13 picks in my mock the other day
Zero2Cool (22-Apr) : Zach Wilson to Broncos.
Zero2Cool (22-Apr) : Gutekunst says he'd love to have 13 or 14 picks. He's trading back huh lol
beast (22-Apr) : Someday we'll have a draft betting scandal
beast (21-Apr) : Sometimes looking extremely amazing, sometimes looking extremely lost
beast (21-Apr) : I haven't looked into the QBs, but some have suggested Maye has some of the most extremely inconsistent tape they've seen
beast (21-Apr) : Well it also sounds like Patriots are listening to trade offers, not that seriously considering any, but listening means they aren't locked
Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : Maye needs to be AFC
Mucky Tundra (21-Apr) : Not liking the idea of the Vikings getting Maye
Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : Vikings HC joked that he may or may not have sent flowers to Bob Kraft. That's where rumor came from.
beast (21-Apr) : Can't tell if this is real or BS, but some rumors about a possible Patriots/Vikings trade for #3 overall
dfosterf (21-Apr) : One playbook to my knowledge. I was shooting for facetious.
beast (20-Apr) : I'm not sure they have different playbooks for different OL positions, and Dillard run blocking is supposedly worse than his pass blocking..
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2023 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 10 @ 3:25 PM
Bears
Sunday, Sep 17 @ 12:00 PM
Falcons
Sunday, Sep 24 @ 12:00 PM
SAINTS
Thursday, Sep 28 @ 7:15 PM
LIONS
Monday, Oct 9 @ 7:15 PM
Raiders
Sunday, Oct 22 @ 3:25 PM
Broncos
Sunday, Oct 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Nov 5 @ 12:00 PM
RAMS
Sunday, Nov 12 @ 12:00 PM
Steelers
Sunday, Nov 19 @ 12:00 PM
CHARGERS
Thursday, Nov 23 @ 11:30 AM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 3 @ 7:20 PM
CHIEFS
Monday, Dec 11 @ 7:15 PM
Giants
Sunday, Dec 17 @ 12:00 PM
BUCCANEERS
Sunday, Dec 24 @ 12:00 PM
Panthers
Sunday, Dec 31 @ 7:20 PM
Vikings
Sunday, Jan 7 @ 3:25 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Jan 14 @ 3:30 PM
Cowboys
Saturday, Jan 20 @ 7:15 PM
49ers
Recent Topics
5m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

17m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

29m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

53m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

7h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

7h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

10h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

11h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

20h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

26-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Nonstopdrivel

25-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

25-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / buckeyepackfan

25-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

24-Apr / Random Babble / beast

22-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.