I don't know about you guys, but I like old school, ball control, chew up the clock stuff.

Scenario #1. To me, so many OCs and playcalling HCs with really good QBs seem to get enamored with offensive prowess through the air, and the accompanying play calling genius that comes with the outrageous stat lines. I think this is one problem.

Scenario #2. Another problem, to my perspective, is many of those really good QBs are given very long leashes by their HCs. There are plays called, with multiple options according to how the opposing Ds line up, and what they show. I believe many of these QBs will often call their own number, check to play "pass," just out of shear nature, rather than to call for what may be a smarter play, to run the football.

Throughout the entire Mike Sherman era, I figured he fell into the #1 category. I was not happy with that guy, and felt we could have won more SBs with a more balanced, ball control commitment to the run.

After Favre's tenure here, I realized it might not have been Sherman at all, but rather Favre checking out of designated running plays to throw the ball instead.

I wonder - a lot - about this. Is it human nature for a QB to check to pass? What about the admittedly run averse McCarthy, who openly jokes about calling more running plays? He wants to throw the ball. Period.

I know the game has changed, but I am wondering if maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea for it to change back?

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2009-01-27-important-stat_N.htm 

"A team that rushes at least 27 times a game wins more than 81% of their postseason games, according to Mike Midas, a consultant with ties to former NFL coach Dick Vermeil, who did research regarding each Super Bowl champion back to 2000."

http://blogs.nfl.com/2011/02/11/super-bowl-winners-not-relying-on-featured-backs/ 

"Of the last 10 Super Bowl winners, only two (the 2005 Steelers and 2004 Patriots) had backs that rushed for more than 1,200 yards that season. Parker rushed for 1,202 yards in 15 games (80.1 ypg) in 2005. Dillon had a monster season in 2004, rushing for 1,635 yards in 15 games (109.0 ypg). Although, we might have exclude the Packers, who used various backs after the Week 1 injury to Ryan Grant.

But that’s not to say all the Super Bowl winners weren’t successful running the ball. Four teams — the 2009 Saints (6th), 2007 Giants (4th), 2005 Steelers (5th) and 2004 Patriots (7th) — finished in the top 10 those seasons in rushing."

With all the high profile, pass happy play calling that is sweeping the league, and - all the personnel adjustments that have been made league-wide on defense to counter those assaults - !, wouldn't NOW be a really good time to start dedicating more plays to the run?

I love the benefits:

1. Wear out the opposing defense with aggressive, balls to the wall run blocking. it is totally different than stepping back and absorbing hits in pass protection. Watch, Saturday is old school and will want us to run. Those OL love run blocking. Cut em loose Mike!
2. Save your QB!!!
3. Chew up clock
4. Keep your own defense fresh
5. Open up the play action
6. Keep opposing defenses honest

Like many of you, I was really hoping one of our picks would be a great RB. That didn't happen, but are usually options to sign via FA, and we have to hope Alex Green and James Starks can bring it. I think it would be really smart for McCarthy to catch some teams off guard this year by running more. It could be fun, and super successful.

Last year we had 23 ATT per game. The Giants had 27.

What do you guys think?

Oh boy. You're opening up a big can of worms here.

I know you're new to this site, but this was debated ad nauseum a few years back.

---

I figured, but, things have changed. Really. Defenses seem to be gearing way more the past few years to stopping the vertical attack. Now would not be a bad time to open that can 'o whoopass.

Now... where did we put that can 'O Whoopass? Did we bury it in 2008, when we rushed for over 29 ATT/gm and went 6-10? 😮

I guess my bigger point is not so much attempts, but getting good at it. Seems people think we don't need to run anymore. The game has changed... Still, you look at the teams that all won the SB the last 10 years, they were all pretty good at it. So were we, but just at the end of the year, when we got Starks to end the season and carry the playoff load. Statistically, we were a SB winning anomaly that year.

The rules nowadays favor the passing game. I wouldn't mind seeing more halfback screens and draw plays.

---

If they are gearing up to stop the pass, they are doing a crappy job. Rodgers having a 122.5 passer rating and a steady, league wide increase in average rating since the 1940s when they ditched the Notre Dame box formation.

Passing has always been the key to winning super bowls. Even in '60s Packers had a high passer rating differential. It doesn't matter which side of the ball it comes from, but passing is the key. Pass better than you let your opponents pass.

I wouldn't like to see a decrease in the passing games efficiency in the slightest.

Last year alone a 120+ passer rating in a game was a win 98% of the time.

The top running backs in the league do not have any where near that success rate.

I do think they need to run, but I think they need to run efficiently. AP doesn't run efficiently. He gets a couple big runs a game then all the rest of the time he averages under 3 per. Lots of 3rd and long, lots of 3 and outs and lots of failed drives. Plus when you are trailing in a game. Running burns clock.

The Packers are actually good at running the ball. 4.2 per without any break away runs means that down in and down out, they are producing positive yards.

That is exactly what Emmitt Smith did. He ran into the line and fell down for 4.2 per.

Which is what I liked about Grant. He was getting positive dependable yards. Which is much more important than a couple break away runs then 3 and outs the rest of the game.

That is why Minnesota can't win. They think a running back can carry them.

---

That some of your info is biased. I would like a stronger running game, but I also want to keep the QB/passing game in a rhythm and give the best player(s) (Rodgers) the ball for a chance to make plays happen.



First off, in pass protection you're suppose to give the hit not absorb it (just like in run blocking). Yes players can absorbs hit while run or pass blocking but that's not as good as attacking and hitting them and making them absorb the punishment and controlling them, both in the run and the pass.



This stat very well could be misleading. Most teams aren't going to run it 27 times if they're trailing... simple as that. Some teams like the Ravens/49ers/Jets and other run first teams might, but most teams aren't.

I don't have the stats but I would think the winning team normally runs more in the 4th quarter because they're trying to run down the clock, while the other team is passing trying to play catch up.

I know people have looked up Grants stats and said every time he get _ amount of hand off the team wins. Every time he get under that amount they lose. And Grants yardage and amount of TDs in those games were random, but Mike McCarthy simple runs the ball more while they're ahead.



So the Packers should run less than 1,200 yards?



That's really not that big a different to me. They don't have Rodgers, and the Packers don't got their running game. It's about going with your hot hand there.

---

"Throughout the entire Mike Sherman era, I figured he fell into the #1 category. I was not happy with that guy, and felt we could have won more SBs with a more balanced, ball control commitment to the run.

After Favre's tenure here, I realized it might not have been Sherman at all, but rather Favre checking out of designated running plays to throw the ball instead."

PTW,

You really should go back and check the stats.

Mike Sherman built one of the better offensive lines in Packer History, with the addition of Ahman Green, The Packers were near the top of the league in rushing.

I do believe Sherman ran a "true" West Coast Offense, where there was very little checking out of plays at the line.

You are correct in saying the game has changed.

With the new rules which make the qb and wr's almost untouchable, The offense has become. IMHO, way to wide open, but a good OC and QB is gonna take what is given them.

I think that I have read where Aaron Rodgers has the option on almost every play to check out at the line, you can't fault him when he has been so successful.


I also know that no matter how the game has changed, when the weather changes and teams are making their playoff runs, they better have a better than average running game to be successful.

This is what worries me about going into this year, too many changes in the O-line and a lot of ?'s at the RB position.

Hopefully it will all get straightened out during Training camp.

---

I say, do what gives you the best chance to score more points than the other team. When you have a QB that easily could have broke a 130 season passer rating if his receivers had a league-average drop rate, why would you run the ball? When your defense is a bend rather than break defense (that often broke), why rely on eating up the clock instead of just taking the points? How many teams did we play last year had a passing or rushing offense that was more effective at scoring than our passing offense?

If I had a choice I like the old smash mouth game. One team knowing you will run the ball and unsuccessfully trying to stop it, the other team imposing their will time and time again. The problem with this is that style is long gone and dead.
As for the question did Brett change plays at the line? I think so. Since it worked out more times than not (until an interception I didn't mind it. Too much.

You need a great QB to consistently win. Even if your running game is average. The Vikings have one of he better RB in the past 10 years but without a quality QB they didn't go anywhere. With one they made it to the SB. Oh wait, he threw another timely interception didn't he? I guess I do like some ints.

Can't say I was hoping for a RB in this year's draft. There are were too many holes on defense that had to be addressed. And as much as I like the offense crushing the defense with run after run I love a defense (GB) that tears the offense a new hole. Hopefully that is what we will get this year.

---

I MUCH prefer a solid smash mouth defense. Give me an efficient running game, but it's a passing league. I'd rather the energy be spent on having a great defense. A great passing offense with a great passing defense is a combination I would take every single season these days.