You are not logged in. Join Free! | Log In Thank you!    

Welcome to your Green Bay Packers Online Community!

Since 2006, PackersHome has been providing a unique experience for fans.
Your participation is greatly anticipated!
Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

5 Pages«<2345>
Share
Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline Zero2Cool  
#46 Posted : Tuesday, March 15, 2011 5:29:31 PM(UTC)
Zero2Cool

Rank: Legend

United States
Posts: 25,224
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI

Applause Given: 1,738
Applause Received: 1,786

Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
And I'm perfectly fine with that, especially when it comes to Barry Sanders. I was just tying to tow the joking line, but guess I went to far.


Dude - I don't mind you joking with me. What I do mind is that you don't have any facts. Macbob slights me all the time but he's backing up what he's saying. Personally, I think Macbob's a utopian. The game has changed.

Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
Barry + average QB = passing game a lot better.
Nance + elite QB = doesn't improve passing game, might hurt because there's no chance for Nance.
Barry + elite QB = pure offensive domination.


OK, thank you. Now you're finally giving me something to argue with. This is what I want.

An elite RB like Barry Sanders will take passes away from the offense. He'll also take money away from the team. So thus, I'll take Nance + elite QB. All Nance really has to do is rush 15 times for 60 yards. That's it. The pass will give him those opportunities as the pass nowadays opens up the run, not the other way around. Yes, I saw Pack93z posted examples of the latter but those are exceptions, not the rule.


Packers are paying Ryan Grant 5.5 million for 2011 and if he's on the roster on the 15th day, another million. You're telling me you can't afford to throw another million or two or three for a Barry Sanders?

If one were to say it's better to have
Elite QB + Ryan Grant @ 1 million
OVER
Elite QB + Barry Sanders @ 10 million ...
I'd agree with that because Ryan might run into his own guys, but at times he can break one deep.


I see you didn't mention that Barry Sanders doesn't need a fullback when discussing money being used for other players. FB's get paid big bucks ya know!

When you have a Barry Sanders on your team, he makes other aspects better. He makes your OL better, he makes your defense better because they are on the field less. He makes your WR and TE better because of the play action pass.

Therefore you do not need to pay those extra millions to acquire/keep high level talent.

You give me an Matt Flynn, Barry Sanders, Greg Jennings and Jordy Nelson and I'll give you a feared offense.

I think you're using Barry as a way to spite me. I mean, seriously, what GM would ever take Nance @600k over Barry Sanders @10million?

I do think Elite passing game > Elite running game. I've said this many times too.

I believe I get your point and concept and its something I've said far earlier and agree with, obviously, but again Nance over Barry, sorry, that's a mistake.

Barry Sanders makes others on your team better.
Nance does nothing for you, is no threat to take it the distance, does not put fear in anyone. A RB has to have SOME fear instilled in the defense, even if he rushes 10 times for 30 yards, he has to have that 'uh oh he can go all the way' or at least 30+ yards. Nance does not an will not offer that ever in his career, from what I've seen.

UserPostedImage
Click here and find the LATEST Packers News!
Offline Packers_Finland  
#47 Posted : Tuesday, March 15, 2011 5:40:01 PM(UTC)
Packers_Finland

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Posts: 2,623
Joined: 8/11/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 88
Applause Received: 44

I'm putting together QB, RB and Defense stats from the 2010 season which I'll put up when I'm finished. So far it's looking like the order of importance is DEF, QB, RB which is no surprise. But to say there's no correlation between running success and winning is hyperbole. The top 16 teams have clearly better RBs than the bottom 16.

In terms of running backs, the order is Teams 1-8 > Teams 17-24 > Teams 9-16 > Teams 25-32. (Ranked by reverse draft order and top RB fantasy points).

And even the fact that the 17-24 ranked teams have better RBs than the 9-16 ranked teams is very iffy, as the two most injury plagued running back situations in the league happen to be situated in the 9-16 range (Colts and Saints).
This is a placeholder
Offline Cheesey  
#48 Posted : Tuesday, March 15, 2011 6:07:41 PM(UTC)
Cheesey

Rank: Most Valuable Player

Posts: 8,552
Joined: 7/28/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 159
Applause Received: 326

I think an elite QB can make up for a so-so running game. As we saw with the Packers this past season. A great QB can use short passes to get the gains a RB would get, and has the ability to go downfield for the big play.
If all you have is a great RB, a defense can key on that and stop your offense dead.
Barry Sanders.......he was awesome. But how many of you remember when the Packer D held him to i believe minus one yard for an entire game? The Lions did nothing that game, cause the Packers keyed on Sanders.
I can only imagine what Sanders could have done with a decent QB.
UserPostedImage
Offline Packers_Finland  
#49 Posted : Tuesday, March 15, 2011 6:35:08 PM(UTC)
Packers_Finland

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Posts: 2,623
Joined: 8/11/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 88
Applause Received: 44

Too damn tired to analyze will do it later. Numbers used for study are QB Rating for QBs, Fantasy Points for RBs, and Points Allowed for Defenses. Teams are in the draft order, so for the purposes of calculating success, the top teams are the worst and the bottom teams are the best.
This is a placeholder
Offline zombieslayer  
#50 Posted : Tuesday, March 15, 2011 9:28:58 PM(UTC)
zombieslayer

Rank: Most Valuable Player

Posts: 9,919
Joined: 8/7/2008(UTC)
Location: San Francisco

Applause Given: 778
Applause Received: 495

Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post


Packers are paying Ryan Grant 5.5 million for 2011 and if he's on the roster on the 15th day, another million. You're telling me you can't afford to throw another million or two or three for a Barry Sanders?

If one were to say it's better to have
Elite QB + Ryan Grant @ 1 million
OVER
Elite QB + Barry Sanders @ 10 million ...
I'd agree with that because Ryan might run into his own guys, but at times he can break one deep.


I see you didn't mention that Barry Sanders doesn't need a fullback when discussing money being used for other players. FB's get paid big bucks ya know!

When you have a Barry Sanders on your team, he makes other aspects better. He makes your OL better, he makes your defense better because they are on the field less. He makes your WR and TE better because of the play action pass.

Therefore you do not need to pay those extra millions to acquire/keep high level talent.

You give me an Matt Flynn, Barry Sanders, Greg Jennings and Jordy Nelson and I'll give you a feared offense.

I think you're using Barry as a way to spite me. I mean, seriously, what GM would ever take Nance @600k over Barry Sanders @10million?

I do think Elite passing game > Elite running game. I've said this many times too.

I believe I get your point and concept and its something I've said far earlier and agree with, obviously, but again Nance over Barry, sorry, that's a mistake.

Barry Sanders makes others on your team better.
Nance does nothing for you, is no threat to take it the distance, does not put fear in anyone. A RB has to have SOME fear instilled in the defense, even if he rushes 10 times for 30 yards, he has to have that 'uh oh he can go all the way' or at least 30+ yards. Nance does not an will not offer that ever in his career, from what I've seen.


For the record, I'm not using Barry Sanders to spite you. I'm using him because he's hands down the best RB I've ever seen. If you'd prefer, let's use Wallie instead, who I rank #2. Sorry Finny, Wallie's better than your beloved LT.

I'd take an offense of Aaron Rodgers, Nance, Gregorious, Finley, Jordy, JJ, and Driver over an offense of Aaron, Wallie, Gregorious, Finley, Jordy, JJ, & Driver + $10 million.

Why?

2 reasons:
1) $10 million can go to the D,
2) Wallie would take up too much of the O.

As I do believe you have to run, you don't want to run "too much." Too many teams with elite RBs run too much. If you look at a lot of the past recent SB winners, they didn't have elite RBs and passed to open up the run.

I actually think we are in agreement about several things but you're taking offense at the mention of Barry so I'll replace Barry with Wallie.

I do think that with Aaron scaring Ds, Nance could easily get 30 yards on 10 carries. He did get 32 yards on 9 carries against the Giants and we blew them away.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage

(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)

2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. Ted Thompson Mike McCarthy Aaron Rodgers
Offline zombieslayer  
#51 Posted : Tuesday, March 15, 2011 10:10:15 PM(UTC)
zombieslayer

Rank: Most Valuable Player

Posts: 9,919
Joined: 8/7/2008(UTC)
Location: San Francisco

Applause Given: 778
Applause Received: 495

And Finny, your graph kind of proves my point. Elite D is #1. Elite QB is 2nd. Elite RB? Of the top 5, only one made the Playoffs. SB winner had the 29th RB.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage

(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)

2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. Ted Thompson Mike McCarthy Aaron Rodgers
Offline DakotaT  
#52 Posted : Tuesday, March 15, 2011 10:17:52 PM(UTC)
DakotaT

Rank: Super Bowl MVP

Posts: 6,963
Joined: 8/18/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 566
Applause Received: 1,190

Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
...I think people enjoy fvcking with you just as much as me..



While screwing with Z2C has provided much pleasure and entertainment over the past 5 years or so,
when you showed up, it brought messin' with a cheesehead to a whole new level.

I mean, that in your case, there is such an unending amount of material to work with.
A dufus of your caliber is pretty much a once in a generation type thing.


to you slapnuts.
UserPostedImage
Offline Zero2Cool  
#53 Posted : Tuesday, March 15, 2011 11:06:25 PM(UTC)
Zero2Cool

Rank: Legend

United States
Posts: 25,224
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI

Applause Given: 1,738
Applause Received: 1,786

Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
And Finny, your graph kind of proves my point. Elite D is #1. Elite QB is 2nd. Elite RB? Of the top 5, only one made the Playoffs. SB winner had the 29th RB.


And the #1 RB in the playoffs.

I'd say the same things about Walter Payton as Barry Sanders, minus the FB thing because I didn't see him play without one. And Walter would add another dimension, that you don't get with Barry Sanders.

Walter Payton could catch and was a threat doing so. I actually would say Walter Payton is worth more to your offense than Barry Sanders because of the dual threat. Barry couldn't catch that well, or maybe wasn't thrown the ball enough, either way, no one was really scared of him catching the ball.

One reason I think Elite QB is more important than Elite RB would be longevity. QB's last longer than RB's thus your window for championships is wider.

You can win a Super Bowl with an average QB and an Elite RB, problem is, there's just not that many Elite RB's out there. I think the closest would be Adrian Peterson. Elite to me is doing it year in year out, consistently and I feel he's done that. The prick.

Again, I think having an Elite QB increases your chances more than having an Elite RB as I've said before.

But Barry Sanders/Walter Payton (I'd even say LaDanian Tomlinson or Jim Brown in there too) is always going to be taken over Dimitri Nance by any GM who wants their job the next day. I'd love to see a poll on that so you'd have your facts.

I mean, DIMITRI NANCE, give me a break. That's insanely disrespectful to the Elite RB's mentioned. I'm offended for them being in the same post together. At least you could have used Ryan Grant, someone who's started a meaningful game and put him at a lower salary.

The whole 10 million elsewhere is a win win for you because if you don't open your mind up to the possibilities, of course it looks great on paper, but its not like the salary cap is 80 million dollars either.

No, I'm done this is just too annoying- I tried man, I really tried seeing it like you painted it. I just... I can't believe anyone in their right mind would argue to justify DIMITRI NANCE over BARRY SANDERS or WALTER PAYTON and I tried to rationalize it myself.

UserPostedImage
Click here and find the LATEST Packers News!
Offline Zero2Cool  
#54 Posted : Tuesday, March 15, 2011 11:10:10 PM(UTC)
Zero2Cool

Rank: Legend

United States
Posts: 25,224
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI

Applause Given: 1,738
Applause Received: 1,786

Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
I think an elite QB can make up for a so-so running game. As we saw with the Packers this past season. A great QB can use short passes to get the gains a RB would get, and has the ability to go downfield for the big play.

If all you have is a great RB, a defense can key on that and stop your offense dead.

Barry Sanders.......he was awesome. But how many of you remember when the Packer D held him to i believe minus one yard for an entire game? The Lions did nothing that game, cause the Packers keyed on Sanders.
I can only imagine what Sanders could have done with a decent QB.


Yep, as I said earlier, it's easier to stop the run than it is the pass. I agree with that, partially because I'm cocky enough to think I could out throw any defense, but no way could I out run them. :)

UserPostedImage
Click here and find the LATEST Packers News!
Offline Greg C.  
#55 Posted : Tuesday, March 15, 2011 11:25:07 PM(UTC)
Greg C.

Rank: Pro Bowl

Posts: 3,591
Joined: 8/9/2008(UTC)
Location: Marquette, Michigan

Applause Received: 48

Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
And Finny, your graph kind of proves my point. Elite D is #1. Elite QB is 2nd. Elite RB? Of the top 5, only one made the Playoffs. SB winner had the 29th RB.


And the #1 RB in the playoffs.


That's because the Packers played more playoff games (4) than any other team this year. Starks had one excellent game. He didn't produce a whole lot in the other three.

I agree that Zombie's example of Dimitri Nance is a bit over the top. I think you need a decent RB to have enough of a rushing threat to keep the defense honest. Grant and Starks are both plenty good enough. Brandon Jackson--probably not.
blank
Offline zombieslayer  
#56 Posted : Tuesday, March 15, 2011 11:35:42 PM(UTC)
zombieslayer

Rank: Most Valuable Player

Posts: 9,919
Joined: 8/7/2008(UTC)
Location: San Francisco

Applause Given: 778
Applause Received: 495

Yeah, Nance might be extreme then. OK, let's go with B-Jack then. Similar salaries, and Jackson can get 60 yards on 15 carries. Nance maybe not.

I really do believe with an elite D and an elite QB, the importance of a good RB goes way down. We could have easily won the SB with Jackson. Heck, next year, hypothetically speaking, our receivers are healthy and actually catch the ball, can we win it all with Jackson? I'd say yes.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage

(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)

2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. Ted Thompson Mike McCarthy Aaron Rodgers
Offline Zero2Cool  
#57 Posted : Tuesday, March 15, 2011 11:47:52 PM(UTC)
Zero2Cool

Rank: Legend

United States
Posts: 25,224
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI

Applause Given: 1,738
Applause Received: 1,786

Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
Yeah, Nance might be extreme then. OK, let's go with B-Jack then. Similar salaries, and Jackson can get 60 yards on 15 carries. Nance maybe not.

I really do believe with an elite D and an elite QB, the importance of a good RB goes way down. We could have easily won the SB with Jackson. Heck, next year, hypothetically speaking, our receivers are healthy and actually catch the ball, can we win it all with Jackson? I'd say yes.


A - Elite QB + Brandon Jackson at 750k
B - Average QB + Barry Sanders @ 10 million.

Assuming everything is the same, I think the option A would have a more likely chance of winning a championship. You have no clue how hard that was to write.

Same team, with a starter from the draft, I'd say yes we could win next season with Brandon Jackson, because he's not a 60+ threat (yes, 71 long) but he's a threat to keep getting first downs (Urlacher?) and he's a threat out of the backfield.

I like Ryan Grant, but if I got his salary an incentives understood, I'd rather us move him, go with Brandon/James draft a RB.

UserPostedImage
Click here and find the LATEST Packers News!
Offline Zero2Cool  
#58 Posted : Tuesday, March 15, 2011 11:50:23 PM(UTC)
Zero2Cool

Rank: Legend

United States
Posts: 25,224
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI

Applause Given: 1,738
Applause Received: 1,786

Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
And the #1 RB in the playoffs.


That's because the Packers played more playoff games (4) than any other team this year. Starks had one excellent game. He didn't produce a whole lot in the other three.

I agree that Zombie's example of Dimitri Nance is a bit over the top. I think you need a decent RB to have enough of a rushing threat to keep the defense honest. Grant and Starks are both plenty good enough. Brandon Jackson--probably not.


But the numbers are what matter!! ;)

Really though, James Starks did make it less difficult for the Packers to win it all. Not saying it couldn't have been done without him, just saying he took a load off the passing game.

UserPostedImage
Click here and find the LATEST Packers News!
Offline zombieslayer  
#59 Posted : Wednesday, March 16, 2011 12:28:35 AM(UTC)
zombieslayer

Rank: Most Valuable Player

Posts: 9,919
Joined: 8/7/2008(UTC)
Location: San Francisco

Applause Given: 778
Applause Received: 495

Wow. Took 3 pages but it looks like we're all pretty much in agreement then. :thumbright:
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage

(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)

2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. Ted Thompson Mike McCarthy Aaron Rodgers
Offline macbob  
#60 Posted : Wednesday, March 16, 2011 1:36:40 AM(UTC)
macbob

Rank: 2nd Round Draft Pick

Posts: 1,693
Joined: 10/12/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 249
Applause Received: 216

Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
Macbob - Maybe I'm not stating my point very well. Rushing success is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if you're the #1 rushing team or the #20. Your chances of winning the SB are exactly the same. Yes, you still need to hand the ball off. But you don't need to be good. Is that more clear?

Also, I went as far as saying an elite RB actually hurts the team by taking too many passes away from the offense. Also, he ends up asking for too much money where you're better off spending that money on a LB, DL, or DB.


Zombie-I do understand what you're trying to say. It just doesn't make sense to me, logically. It's like saying 3 > 4.

If I hand the ball off to a RB, and he runs 90 yds for a TD, next time it looks like I'm going to hand it off to him the safetys are going to be coming up to stuff the box. Only it's a play action fake, and I've got Jennings streaking down the field, 1-on-1 with his defender and no help over the top. If the first run got stuffed for 0, then the play action wouldn't attract as much attention and there's likely a safety over the top.

So running successfully will attract the defense's attention more than running less successfully. Running successfully has GOT to be more relevant than simply running. And if running successfully is irrelevant, running in general is even more irrelevant.

To me, it appears the point you're trying to make is that running success was insignificant (e.g., irrelevant) to determining the SB winners. The statistics tend to not support that argument.

The SB winners over the last 20 years ranked 8th in rush attempts and 10th in rushing yardage during the regular season--both significantly toward the top of the league in both categories. And during the SB itself, the team with more rushing attempts has won 10 of the last 11 (with this year being the sole exception).

I agree with your comment that an elite RB can hurt you if it causes your offensive coordinator to skew too far to the running game.
UserPostedImage
Users browsing this topic
Guest (3)
5 Pages«<2345>
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Powered by YAF 2.1.0 | YAF © 2003-2014, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 0.409 seconds.