macbob
10 years ago

Do you know what the play calls actually were?

The majority of McCartheys plays are RUN/PASS options. The plays direction is in Rodgers hands a great deal.

He makes the read and decides to run or throw based on how he feels he can best exploit the D.

Our first drive against the 49ers we had 3 runs for 6 yards. The next 3 rushes produced 6 more.

Do you really think we could have beat them sticking with that running game?

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister 



Let's see--first half score was, let me think, let me think...
UserPostedImage
macbob
10 years ago

McCarthey leaves that to the QB.

Specially Rodgers.

In post game PCs, McCarthey has said that he would have preferred to have run more, but he left it in Rodgers hands. That was a couple years ago.

I doubt he has suddenly started trusting Rodgers less and micro managing him more.

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister 




That's funny, because Aaron Rodgers has come out repeatedly saying we need to run more. Here's a few quotes from 2013 and 2012 interviews:

"I just think it's better when we have balance for everybody," Rodgers said during a Q&A with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's Tyler Dunne, published Saturday. "It helps with the passing game. It slows down the rush. It gives us opportunities to have some more one-on-ones outside."

NFL.com wrote:



Rodgers said during his weekly radio show on WAUK-AM that the Packers can’t just throw the ball on every play, and so they’ve got to get more out of their running game than they had on Sunday, when they picked up 66 yards on 26 carries.

“Quantity is important – we want to have a certain amount of runs every game to keep them honest,” Rodgers said, via the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

ProFootballTalk wrote:



“I think you just have to have at least a little bit of a threat at it,” Rodgers tolk Homer & Thunder of ESPN Milwaukee, “because we do a lot of play-action, movement game, where we’re breaking and rolling out or just play-action and throwing timing routes, and the defense has to respect it enough to suck up a little bit on the fake and give you some good throwing lanes. Sometimes you can do that by just having a big-name back in there and sometimes you need to be effective doing it. We’re going to have to prove that we can run the ball.”

ProFootballTalk wrote:



Perhaps he needs to talk to himself about his play calling...



UserPostedImage
DoddPower
10 years ago

Big chunks are useless. You don't need big numbers. You need consistent production. Just like Passer rating vs Passing yards. Yards don't win, efficient passing does.

The 50+ yard runs don't win games. When you need 3 yards and the D knows you are going to run, you have to be able to get it.

Getting 2 yards a carry for 18 carries and with a couple 60 yard carries mixed in, you get a great average, but you were completely useless for 90% of the game. Which means you will get a lot of 3 and outs and fail to score.

If it is 3rd and 4 and you're going to get 2 yards 90% of the time, you can't depend on that running game.

Similar to what? To when we didn't have any RBs?

Or when we were top 5 in attempts and Harris put up 4.6 per?

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister 



You missed the point entirely. That's why I used the phrase "pounding the rock," or whatever the cliche' Gruden used to use. Yeah, 10 carries might only average 2 yards, but if a team sticks with it, they're likely to get many carries that are much better. Such as 3, 4, 5, or perhaps even 20+ yard carries. It's obviously never going to be a guarantee that a team can pick up a few yards when needed, even a great running team. But patient must be maintained because it's very likely holes will open up eventually, especially with a talented RB like Lacy, Franklin, and maybe Harris. There's absolutely no reason the Packers should average 2.0 yards a carry next season, even against teams like the 49'ers. I just hope if they are averaging that after a handful of carries, they don't abandon the run game in critical moments. I don't really care about the overall running stats or number attempts. I care more about the play-calling at critical moments in games, which McCarthy/Rodgers sometimes get away from running at all after they fall behind.

Besides, you say 90% of the game based on my example, but I hardly think roughly 15 plays (at 2 ypc) is "90%" of the game. Swoosh, over the head. I was only talking about running plays, thereby excluding all passing plays, which should be the majority of the Packers play-calls. I'm OK with a handful or two of 2 yards per carry, so long as the Packers can break a few longer runs of 5+ yards. Enough of those will make the defense respect the run at least a little, which will open other things up for the passing game. However, if the patience isn't maintained, even if not having much success, Rodgers is going to continue to be under pressure and it's going to be harder to pass.

Roughly a 4.5+ yards per carry average should be a gimme with this team, considering the type of coverage the Packers receive. Defense sell out and play coverage. A lot of teams beg the Packers to run, because they know they won't have the patience to beat them that way. McCarthy and Rodgers seem to itch BADLY to pass the ball, which I get. However, if a defense is begging them to run, then take it!! To their credit, they did a better job of that late last season, but I personally have to see more consistency than the past multiple seasons to believe that's going to be the case going forward. It seems we have better talent at the running back position now, but what happens if Lacy and/or Franklin are injured for a couple of weeks? It's likely to happen. Will things go right back to running draws out of shotgun formations every once and awhile with little success, and then abandon the run completely? I hope not. As great as Rodgers is, that's what opposing defense are hoping to receive, because the Packers haven't shown they will beat many teams any other way.
play2win
10 years ago

You missed the point entirely. That's why I used the phrase "pounding the rock," or whatever the cliche' Gruden used to use. Yeah, 10 carries might only average 2 yards, but if a team sticks with it, they're likely to get many carries that are much better. Such as 3, 4, 5, or perhaps even 20+ yard carries. It's obviously never going to be a guarantee that a team can pick up a few yards when needed, even a great running team. But patient must be maintained because it's very likely holes will open up eventually, especially with a talented RB like Lacy, Franklin, and maybe Harris. There's absolutely no reason the Packers should average 2.0 yards a carry next season, even against teams like the 49'ers. I just hope if they are averaging that after a handful of carries, they don't abandon the run game in critical moments. I don't really care about the overall running stats or number attempts. I care more about the play-calling at critical moments in games, which McCarthy/Rodgers sometimes get away from running at all after they fall behind.

Besides, you say 90% of the game based on my example, but I hardly think roughly 15 plays (at 2 ypc) is "90%" of the game. Swoosh, over the head. I was only talking about running plays, thereby excluding all passing plays, which should be the majority of the Packers play-calls. I'm OK with a handful or two of 2 yards per carry, so long as the Packers can break a few longer runs of 5+ yards. Enough of those will make the defense respect the run at least a little, which will open other things up for the passing game. However, if the patience isn't maintained, even if not having much success, Rodgers is going to continue to be under pressure and it's going to be harder to pass.

Roughly a 4.5+ yards per carry average should be a gimme with this team, considering the type of coverage the Packers receive. Defense sell out and play coverage. A lot of teams beg the Packers to run, because they know they won't have the patience to beat them that way. McCarthy and Rodgers seem to itch BADLY to pass the ball, which I get. However, if a defense is begging them to run, then take it!! To their credit, they did a better job of that late last season, but I personally have to see more consistency than the past multiple seasons to believe that's going to be the case going forward. It seems we have better talent at the running back position now, but what happens if Lacy and/or Franklin are injured for a couple of weeks? It's likely to happen. Will things go right back to running draws out of shotgun formations every once and awhile with little success, and then abandon the run completely? I hope not. As great as Rodgers is, that's what opposing defense are hoping to receive, because the Packers haven't shown they will beat many teams any other way.

Originally Posted by: doddpower 



Are you sure that I didn't write this doddpower?😆 =d>

Well done.
Dexter_Sinister
10 years ago

You missed the point entirely. That's why I used the phrase "pounding the rock," or whatever the cliche' Gruden used to use. Yeah, 10 carries might only average 2 yards, but if a team sticks with it, they're likely to get many carries that are much better. Such as 3, 4, 5, or perhaps even 20+ yard carries. It's obviously never going to be a guarantee that a team can pick up a few yards when needed, even a great running team. But patient must be maintained because it's very likely holes will open up eventually, especially with a talented RB like Lacy, Franklin, and maybe Harris. There's absolutely no reason the Packers should average 2.0 yards a carry next season, even against teams like the 49'ers. I just hope if they are averaging that after a handful of carries, they don't abandon the run game in critical moments. I don't really care about the overall running stats or number attempts. I care more about the play-calling at critical moments in games, which McCarthy/Rodgers sometimes get away from running at all after they fall behind.

Besides, you say 90% of the game based on my example, but I hardly think roughly 15 plays (at 2 ypc) is "90%" of the game. Swoosh, over the head. I was only talking about running plays, thereby excluding all passing plays, which should be the majority of the Packers play-calls. I'm OK with a handful or two of 2 yards per carry, so long as the Packers can break a few longer runs of 5+ yards. Enough of those will make the defense respect the run at least a little, which will open other things up for the passing game. However, if the patience isn't maintained, even if not having much success, Rodgers is going to continue to be under pressure and it's going to be harder to pass.

Originally Posted by: doddpower 



I was actually saying that they will be more productive this year. If they have healthy running backs.

I really said 18 runs for 2 yards each and 2 for big yards. 18 out 20 is 90%. I didn't base it on your example. I based it on mine.

If you need 3 yards and 90% of the time you run, you only get 2, it would be stupid to run on 3rd and 3. Because 90% of the time (That you try to run for 3+ yards) you would fail.

With Benson and all the injured RBs we had, we couldn't really run. So continuing to "pound the rock" when we couldn't get the 3 yards when we needed it, would have been foolish.

They didn't decide not to run. They couldn't and tried to make up for that with the passing game.


Roughly a 4.5+ yards per carry average should be a gimme with this team, considering the type of coverage the Packers receive. Defense sell out and play coverage. A lot of teams beg the Packers to run, because they know they won't have the patience to beat them that way. McCarthy and Rodgers seem to itch BADLY to pass the ball, which I get. However, if a defense is begging them to run, then take it!! To their credit, they did a better job of that late last season, but I personally have to see more consistency than the past multiple seasons to believe that's going to be the case going forward. It seems we have better talent at the running back position now, but what happens if Lacy and/or Franklin are injured for a couple of weeks? It's likely to happen. Will things go right back to running draws out of shotgun formations every once and awhile with little success, and then abandon the run completely? I hope not. As great as Rodgers is, that's what opposing defense are hoping to receive, because the Packers haven't shown they will beat many teams any other way.

Originally Posted by: doddpower 



Kind of like when they had Harris running. 4.6 per and were top 5 in attempts.

They could run, so they did. Unlike earlier when they wanted too but couldn't.




I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.
Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
Dexter_Sinister
10 years ago

That's funny, because Aaron Rodgers has come out repeatedly saying we need to run more. Here's a few quotes from 2013 and 2012 interviews:







Perhaps he needs to talk to himself about his play calling...


Originally Posted by: macbob 



That is kind of my point.

The did need to run more and wanted too.

Many are assuming, inaccurately, they don't want to run the ball. You can't "just run the ball" if you have nobody to carry it.

McCarthey and Rodgers both have said they want to run more. But if your RBs are all either injured or Benson, it won't matter what they want. Rodgers can want to run the ball, but if that isn't going to work, he can't just do it anyway.

The proof is, when they got a decent RB, they ran more often and more productively.

Which probably won't change with the addition of Lacey and Franklin.

They will probably be in the middle of the league in rushing attempts. The change will hopefully be how productive they are.


I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.
Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
DoddPower
10 years ago

If you need 3 yards and 90% of the time you run, you only get 2, it would be stupid to run on 3rd and 3. Because 90% of the time (That you try to run for 3+ yards) you would fail.

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister 



But that's kind of silly. How often did the Packers actually average only 2.0 yards per carry? I really don't know, but I doubt it happened very often.
DoddPower
10 years ago

Kind of like when they had Harris running. 4.6 per and were top 5 in attempts.

They could run, so they did. Unlike earlier when they wanted too but couldn't.

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister 



As I said in my previous post, overall running stats are great, but I care more about game management and when certain plays are called. If I recall correctly, the running game was working pretty good against the 49'ers in the playoffs, but after the Packers got behind, the run game largely became a non-factor. That goes back to my larger point in that the Packers play calling lacks patient and confidence when it's needed most, imo. Obtaining a certain number of carries a game or being top 5 in attempts is great, but the timing of the attempts is key to me, and that could definitely be improved upon, despite the statistics, which never tell the whole story. I can understand the desire to pass every play when behind, but there's no way that's going to win the game against a defense and offense like the 49'ers last year in the playoffs, and others we'll face this season. Be patient, and at least keep the game close to have a shot at the end.

Dexter_Sinister
10 years ago

But that's kind of silly. How often did the Packers actually average only 2.0 yards per carry? I really don't know, but I doubt it happened very often.

Originally Posted by: doddpower 



Benson in first half of the SF game.

Not counting Rodgers' yards.

Which is kind of the point.

They didn't run it because they couldn't. When they could, later in the year with Harris, they did.

If you "just run it" when you can't be productive, it isn't going to help.
I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.
Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
Dexter_Sinister
10 years ago

As I said in my previous post, overall running stats are great, but I care more about game management and when certain plays are called. If I recall correctly, the running game was working pretty good against the 49'ers in the playoffs, but after the Packers got behind, the run game largely became a non-factor. That goes back to my larger point in that the Packers play calling lacks patient and confidence when it's needed most, imo. Obtaining a certain number of carries a game or being top 5 in attempts is great, but the timing of the attempts is key to me, and that could definitely be improved upon, despite the statistics, which never tell the whole story. I can understand the desire to pass every play when behind, but there's no way that's going to win the game against a defense and offense like the 49'ers last year in the playoffs, and others we'll face this season. Be patient, and at least keep the game close to have a shot at the end.

Originally Posted by: doddpower 



Really you are talking about 2 drives.

The last one we were down by more than a TD and were in desperation mode. It did result in a TD.

The first drive in the half was all of 2 runs and a sack, forcing a punt.
The second included 2 runs for 23 yards and ending with a false start putting us in 3rd and long so we couldn't run. Resulting in a FG.
The third was one of them you were talking about. Down by 7, it was 5 passes and a scramble. Ending in a punt.
The fourth was another. Down by 14 It was 6 completed passes and 2 incomplete, Resulting in a punt.
The fifth was that last one.

Personally, I thought they had a great game on O against a really tough D. Putting up 31 on the 49ers when they averaged giving up 17 a game.

Could they have been better? Maybe... Maybe not. You would have to look at the formations and see what the reads were to say if they should have been running or not.

I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.
Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
Fan Shout
Zero2Cool (5h) : Chase Young to sign $13M contract with Saints
Zero2Cool (5h) : Yosh to Panthers what noooo. Wait he didn't do crap
wpr (18-Mar) : I say that he is technically HER BIL as he married her sister. I checked it out, he's considered my BIL as well. Sad.
Mucky Tundra (18-Mar) : wpr, I assume its your BIL via marriage to your wife? If so, I can figure out where the smarts in the family went ;)
wpr (18-Mar) : Mucky my B-I-L is Bare Stupid. I could write a book.
Mucky Tundra (18-Mar) : As a teenager in Rockford IL I would get heckled by adults in public for wearing GB gear
Mucky Tundra (18-Mar) : if you think the online ones are bad, try *living amongst* them
Mucky Tundra (18-Mar) : Never doubt wprs loyalty. Poor guy is surrounded by Bears fans in Northern IL
wpr (17-Mar) : pass Martha. Thanks for the invite though.
Martha Careful (17-Mar) : blog * as the same ugly Illinois colors were adopted by the Baer
Martha Careful (17-Mar) : WPR, perhaps you should be joining the Bears fans blog has the same ugly Illinois colors were adopted by the Bears
Mucky Tundra (17-Mar) : Ah a fellow U of Illinois hater. I can respect that though I imagine it's for different reasons
Zero2Cool (17-Mar) : BTW. I didn't catch the game. I just hate Illinois.
Mucky Tundra (17-Mar) : They're your Big Ten Chumps and you will like it!
Zero2Cool (17-Mar) : No, not for the record. Referee's handled that BS. Orange team was trash ass
Mucky Tundra (17-Mar) : *Your* Big Ten Chumps for the record
Zero2Cool (17-Mar) : No, not Big Ten Champs. IL is big ten CHUMPS
wpr (17-Mar) : Big Ten Champs
wpr (17-Mar) : !!!
wpr (17-Mar) : INI
wpr (17-Mar) : ILL
Martha Careful (17-Mar) : Wisconsin with an outstanding on in the men’s Big Ten basketball tournament. Let’s hope it continues in the NCAAs
Zero2Cool (17-Mar) : Almost like taking QB in 2020 even if you don't need one is good move.
Mucky Tundra (16-Mar) : 2021 QB Draft class looking like a real clunker
Mucky Tundra (16-Mar) : A conditional 6th rounder? I remember Bears fans arguing they'd get a day 2 pick at worst lol
dfosterf (16-Mar) : So I got the no extension part right and the have to wait on the CW physical wrong
Zero2Cool (16-Mar) : Bears are trading Justin Fields for a 2025 6th-round pick that goes to a 4th-round pick based on playtime, per sources.
Zero2Cool (16-Mar) : Former Packer Jarrett Bush opens Wisconsin’s first blow dry bar in Green Bay
dfosterf (16-Mar) : If the Bears are not doing a deal with Washington, they also cannot trade Fields until Williams physical with them. All hail Caleb Williams!
dfosterf (16-Mar) : The talent is undeniable, but the (advertised) haul is obscene.
dfosterf (16-Mar) : If the Bears are cutting a deal with the Commanders, in either scenario, cannot happen until williams passes a Commanders physical
dfosterf (16-Mar) : My guess is no to the Fields extension, but yes to the trade back with the Commanders.
dhazer (15-Mar) : I think the Bears do a Love extension and they will trade out of the 1st pick and take the haul
Martha Careful (15-Mar) : that might make sense
Zero2Cool (15-Mar) : Justin Fields to Steelers?
Zero2Cool (15-Mar) : Kenny Pickett. Eagles. Done.
Zero2Cool (15-Mar) : They can claim best two WR tandem.
Mucky Tundra (15-Mar) : Aaron Donald retiring
dhazer (15-Mar) : Campbell signing with 49ers
dhazer (15-Mar) : I love how the Bear Fans are now claiming they have the best skill players in the NFC North lol
Zero2Cool (15-Mar) : Vikings made a move to get a 2nd first round pick
Mucky Tundra (15-Mar) : That's a not a bad deal for the Bears
Zero2Cool (15-Mar) : Bears have traded for WR Keenan Allen sending Chargers a fourth rounder.
Martha Careful (15-Mar) : *signs
Martha Careful (14-Mar) : MLB Devon White science with the Eagles
Mucky Tundra (14-Mar) : But that was before FA started
Mucky Tundra (14-Mar) : Dhaze, I thought Kurls would be their #1 target when I read that he was an Amos comp (jack of all trades guy)
dhazer (14-Mar) : I would like to see the Packers target 2 more FA still available Kamren Curl Safety and Chase Young edge
Martha Careful (14-Mar) : wow...didn't see that coming
Zero2Cool (14-Mar) : AJ Dillon re-signing with Packers.
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
2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

10h / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

11h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

18-Mar / Around The NFL / Mucky Tundra

16-Mar / Random Babble / Martha Careful

16-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / TheKanataThrilla

15-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / dhazer

15-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

14-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

14-Mar / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

14-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

13-Mar / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

13-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

13-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

13-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

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