Join Our Green Bay Packers Interactive Community!

We have been providing fans with the best source of Packers information since 2006!
Your participation is greatly anticipated!
Login or Register.
3 Pages<123>
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline play2win  
#26 Posted : Monday, October 8, 2012 11:35:46 AM(UTC)
play2win

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

United States
Joined: 3/29/2012(UTC)
Location: Milwaukee

Applause Given: 1,076
Applause Received: 725

Originally Posted by: Pack93z Go to Quoted Post
Are the Packers Mediocre?

Talent wise, no, I don't believe they are.

The level of play overall from them, yes, yes they are. Some of that is in direct relationship to the guy calling the offensive plays.

Defensively, overall, I think they have done a fair job overall with some of the situations they have been put into.

Offensively, I think they have to really look deep to what the opponents are taking away and adjust until they force the defense to come up and respect the run and screens. That means Mike McCarthy has to alter how he is calling plays, albeit I think he intended to be balanced yesterday until Benson was out.

Personally, I think Mike McCarthy performance more so than the teams has been the issue. And the team is a reflection of the head coach and his staff.

So would have to agree, through week five they are Mediocre at best.


Yep. We could be 4-1. We should be 4-1. We could just as easily be 1-4. I think this team is playing more like the 1-4 than 4-1. Severely underperforming, and that points to coaching and a lack of preparation and discipline in execution.

Dropped passes by great WRs and TEs. Dropped INTs by great DBs and Ss. Ineffective OL play and even worse, horrific play calling has Rodgers running for his life. This is a really ugly start, but I'm not giving up as a fan. The team is better than they are showing now. McCarthy needs to get them back on track.
Offline Porforis  
#27 Posted : Monday, October 8, 2012 11:41:20 AM(UTC)
Porforis

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

United States
Joined: 8/22/2009(UTC)
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Applause Given: 169
Applause Received: 333

Originally Posted by: play2win Go to Quoted Post
Yes, I did. Why would you even ask such a question? Pickett, Worthy, Wilson and Neal had their asses handed to them, by an interior made up of 2nd and 3rd string OL.

"However, the Colts were far worse off starting the game, and with their ragtag roster it should have been too much for them to overcome against what was thought to be a playoff-caliber team.

Not only were they missing their two left guards, the starting center sat out and right guard Mike McGlynn left early in the third quarter. His replacement, Tony Hills, was activated Saturday from the practice squad after being with the Colts for 19 days." http://www.jsonline.com/...s/packers/173026821.html

Luck was sacked 4 times, all in the 1st half. Neal did a great job getting his. No other DL got a sack. Only 4 QB hits and only 5 tackles between the 5 that played, that includes Raji. Everybody disappeared in the 2nd half. By rights, this group of Pick, Worthy, Neal and Wilson should have buried Luck in the 2nd half. It didn't happen. Seems we lose every time we keep Daniels inactive. I was hoping Ted would keep more beef here. Instead, he went pretty thin on our DL. Now, when a guy like Raji goes down, we have no back up. Makes no sense to me.

The DL is just one group that underperformed in my opinion. There is bigger blame to go around, but being a team game, they cannot just disappear for an entire half and expect their team to win.


Of course we'd love to see our D line get as many sacks as possible, but I guess what I'm saying is that paying attention to numbers too much can be deceiving. If you look at Clay Matthews' numbers last year alone without watching a game, you'd think he stunk it up. Having watched or listened to every game though, it's obvious that nobody in the front 7 and arguably the entire defense made more of an impact than Matthews. We're overloaded with talent, especially pass-rushing talent at linebacker. Our D-Line could certainly be better, but even if we had 3 Rajis up front, I would expect our linebackers to get at least 3x the sacks that the D line does. All the line needs to do is eat up blockers and push them in the quarterback's face. Once Raji went out we had no push upfront, nobody that demanded attention. This is indeed a problem, but you can't just chalk it up to the D line. We let Reggie Wayne tear us apart without even THINKING about double or triple covering him (Yet we thought we needed to double and triple Randy Moss earlier this year), the DBs dropped 4 or 5 picks that ranged from easy to moderately difficult that easily could have swung this game at least 7 points, probably more.

It was a complete team failure on defense, excluding maybe the linebackers, and the Offense didn't adjust.
UserPostedImage
Offline play2win  
#28 Posted : Monday, October 8, 2012 1:06:12 PM(UTC)
play2win

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

United States
Joined: 3/29/2012(UTC)
Location: Milwaukee

Applause Given: 1,076
Applause Received: 725

Originally Posted by: Porforis Go to Quoted Post
Of course we'd love to see our D line get as many sacks as possible, but I guess what I'm saying is that paying attention to numbers too much can be deceiving. If you look at Clay Matthews' numbers last year alone without watching a game, you'd think he stunk it up. Having watched or listened to every game though, it's obvious that nobody in the front 7 and arguably the entire defense made more of an impact than Matthews. We're overloaded with talent, especially pass-rushing talent at linebacker. Our D-Line could certainly be better, but even if we had 3 Rajis up front, I would expect our linebackers to get at least 3x the sacks that the D line does. All the line needs to do is eat up blockers and push them in the quarterback's face. Once Raji went out we had no push upfront, nobody that demanded attention. This is indeed a problem, but you can't just chalk it up to the D line. We let Reggie Wayne tear us apart without even THINKING about double or triple covering him (Yet we thought we needed to double and triple Randy Moss earlier this year), the DBs dropped 4 or 5 picks that ranged from easy to moderately difficult that easily could have swung this game at least 7 points, probably more.

It was a complete team failure on defense, excluding maybe the linebackers, and the Offense didn't adjust.


Absolutely, complete team failure. As I mentioned, there is bigger blame to go around than on the DL, but those guys did get handled in the 2nd half against their 2nd/3rd string OGs and C. The O certainly is not helping the D - and that is 5 weeks, uh, running. Really poor word choice there by me... ugh. We are not controlling anything with our offense.

The dominant teams in this league can run the football, contrary to what some say here. Probably the hottest team in the NFL is SF, and Alex Smith just had his 3rd 300 + yd passing day in 8 seasons. They run. So do the Patriots, throwing down another W with 200+ yds rushing. Haven't checked most leading teams, but I would venture ATL and HOU are doing just fine running the football.

Also, key drops by Finley are really starting to get to me as a fan. Last week I stuck up for him in the stands at Lambeau when the DB made a great play to knock it away. Two ladies behind us going off on him when it wasn't his fault. Nonetheless, there are a ton of other drops he is responsible for that are killing drives. Super frustrating.

Lots of blame to go around, adding to the perception that maybe we are mediocre. The Packers are doing nothing special, and need a kick in the ass. All of them.
Offline Porforis  
#29 Posted : Monday, October 8, 2012 1:13:11 PM(UTC)
Porforis

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

United States
Joined: 8/22/2009(UTC)
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Applause Given: 169
Applause Received: 333

Originally Posted by: play2win Go to Quoted Post
Absolutely, complete team failure. As I mentioned, there is bigger blame to go around than on the DL, but those guys did get handled in the 2nd half against their 2nd/3rd string OGs and C. The O certainly is not helping the D - and that is 5 weeks, uh, running. Really poor word choice there by me... ugh. We are not controlling anything with our offense.

The dominant teams in this league can run the football, contrary to what some say here. Probably the hottest team in the NFL is SF, and Alex Smith just had his 3rd 300 + yd passing day in 8 seasons. They run. So do the Patriots, throwing down another W with 200+ yds rushing. Haven't checked most leading teams, but I would venture ATL and HOU are doing just fine running the football.

Also, key drops by Finley are really starting to get to me as a fan. Last week I stuck up for him in the stands at Lambeau when the DB made a great play to knock it away. Two ladies behind us going off on him when it wasn't his fault. Nonetheless, there are a ton of other drops he is responsible for that are killing drives. Super frustrating.

Lots of blame to go around, adding to the perception that maybe we are mediocre. The Packers are doing nothing special, and need a kick in the ass. All of them.


Did Finley have more than one this week? I remember one, but it wasn't bad as DD's which was an easy one. Overall, it didn't seem like we had the dropsies this week on offense... We just didn't get open, and when we ran the ball more often than not it was to the outside where we haven't been effective in a loooong time.

One MAJOR issue I haven't seen anybody bring up: Is it just me, or have teams been getting loads of interior penetration on field goals and extra points in every game? Especially when faced with two long FGs, you wonder if that played at all into Crosby's approach or if it got in his head that if he kicked it too low it might get blocked.
UserPostedImage
Offline zombieslayer  
#30 Posted : Monday, October 8, 2012 1:25:36 PM(UTC)
zombieslayer

Rank: Most Valuable Player

Joined: 8/7/2008(UTC)
Location: San Francisco

Applause Given: 778
Applause Received: 495

Originally Posted by: play2win Go to Quoted Post


The dominant teams in this league can run the football, contrary to what some say here.


You're absolutely right and I'm absolutely wrong. Last year's SB winner was the Giants who were ranked 32 out of 32 in running. the year before it was the Packers who were ranked 24 out of 32 in rushing. Before that, the Saints who were 6 out of 32 in rushing. Before that, it was the Steelers who were 23 out of 32 in rushing.

What do those teams have in common? All those teams led the NFL in rushing.

Well, there you go. There's our problem. Screw the pass. Let's lead the NFL in rushing so we can win the SB. Think




Sarcasm aside, the key to winning a game is Passer Rating Differential. You can read all about the correlation here:
http://www.coldhardfootb...ts.com/stats/2012/5/PRD/

Dexter_Sinister wrote up a really nice article last year about it and how it correlated with Super Bowl wins historically.

As for correlation between rushing success and winning, there is NONE WHATSOEVER. I checked the stats. It had as much correlation as how many times a Vikings fan picks his nose vs how successful people in the East Coast are at catching salmon.
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 PackFanWithTwins  
#31 Posted : Monday, October 8, 2012 1:42:26 PM(UTC)
PackFanWithTwins

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Joined: 9/26/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 13
Applause Received: 398

Originally Posted by: zombieslayer Go to Quoted Post
You're absolutely right and I'm absolutely wrong. Last year's SB winner was the Giants who were ranked 32 out of 32 in running. the year before it was the Packers who were ranked 24 out of 32 in rushing. Before that, the Saints who were 6 out of 32 in rushing. Before that, it was the Steelers who were 23 out of 32 in rushing.

What do those teams have in common? All those teams led the NFL in rushing.

Well, there you go. There's our problem. Screw the pass. Let's lead the NFL in rushing so we can win the SB. Think




Sarcasm aside, the key to winning a game is Passer Rating Differential. You can read all about the correlation here:
http://www.coldhardfootb...ts.com/stats/2012/5/PRD/

Dexter_Sinister wrote up a really nice article last year about it and how it correlated with Super Bowl wins historically.

As for correlation between rushing success and winning, there is NONE WHATSOEVER. I checked the stats. It had as much correlation as how many times a Vikings fan picks his nose vs how successful people in the East Coast are at catching salmon.


Just a note. The giants, were last in rushing because they sucked earlier in the season, but then they went on their run, they were rushing for 109/gm. When the Packers went on their run in 2010. they were rushing for 103/gm.

Saints were not that good, but they also had the run game pick up at the end.

All three had a passing game, a run game and a defense all playing their best at the end.
The world needs ditch diggers to Danny!!!
UserPostedImage
thanks Post received 1 applause.
Pack93z on 10/9/2012(UTC)
Offline play2win  
#32 Posted : Monday, October 8, 2012 1:43:07 PM(UTC)
play2win

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

United States
Joined: 3/29/2012(UTC)
Location: Milwaukee

Applause Given: 1,076
Applause Received: 725

Originally Posted by: zombieslayer Go to Quoted Post
You're absolutely right and I'm absolutely wrong. Last year's SB winner was the Giants who were ranked 32 out of 32 in running. the year before it was the Packers who were ranked 24 out of 32 in rushing. Before that, the Saints who were 6 out of 32 in rushing. Before that, it was the Steelers who were 23 out of 32 in rushing.

What do those teams have in common? All those teams led the NFL in rushing.

Well, there you go. There's our problem. Screw the pass. Let's lead the NFL in rushing so we can win the SB. Think




Sarcasm aside, the key to winning a game is Passer Rating Differential. You can read all about the correlation here:
http://www.coldhardfootb...ts.com/stats/2012/5/PRD/

Dexter_Sinister wrote up a really nice article last year about it and how it correlated with Super Bowl wins historically.

As for correlation between rushing success and winning, there is NONE WHATSOEVER. I checked the stats. It had as much correlation as how many times a Vikings fan picks his nose vs how successful people in the East Coast are at catching salmon.


zombie, c'mon man! You can't use stats like that when Ahmad Bradshaw and Brandon Jacobs were hurt most of the season. They both came back and were a big part of their run to winning the SB after their team went 9-7 regular season. They totaled 26 carries for 110 yds v. NE to win it all. For NE, conversely, Green-Ellis had just 10 carries for 44 yds. Welker had 2 carries for 21.

Go on believing we don't need 20+ carries per game to win. Whatever. I disagree.

Division leaders and NFL ranking rushing:

NE #3
BAL #13
HOU #7 (with a game yet to play tonight)
SD #16
(Tie) NYG #12 PHI #10
(Tie) CHI #11 and MIN #9
ATL #21
(Tie) SF #1 and AZ #31

We rank #20 overall. Oddly enough, both ATL and AZ have more attempts than we do (ranking #18 and 20 to our #22), helping to keep the opposing D honest. Take away Rodgers' scrambles and I would bet we are nearer to the bottom of the NFL.

Passer Rating Differential??? You don't think that has something to do with rushing to keep opposing defenses honest? I sure do.

Message modified by user Monday, October 8, 2012 2:02:38 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Offline zombieslayer  
#33 Posted : Monday, October 8, 2012 2:19:32 PM(UTC)
zombieslayer

Rank: Most Valuable Player

Joined: 8/7/2008(UTC)
Location: San Francisco

Applause Given: 778
Applause Received: 495

As my research said, you still have to run the ball. Yes. That much we agree on.

However, you don't have to be good at it.

So yes, you should have rushing attempts. But as unintuitive as this sounds, the total yards don't matter.
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  
#34 Posted : Monday, October 8, 2012 2:43:34 PM(UTC)
macbob

Rank: 2nd Round Draft Pick

Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Gold: 2013FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Silver: 2012PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Silver: 2012

Joined: 10/12/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 305
Applause Received: 252

Originally Posted by: zombieslayer Go to Quoted Post
As my research said, you still have to run the ball. Yes. That much we agree on.

However, you don't have to be good at it.

So yes, you should have rushing attempts. But as unintuitive as this sounds, the total yards don't matter.


Agree with what you said 99%--total yards aren't as important as rushing attempts, but I wouldn't say total yards don't matter.

The more success you have running the ball the more you'll distract the D from your passing game. If you're running it for 40 yds you'll get their attention a little more than if you're running it for -2, -4 per carry...
UserPostedImage
Offline Porforis  
#35 Posted : Monday, October 8, 2012 3:39:49 PM(UTC)
Porforis

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

United States
Joined: 8/22/2009(UTC)
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Applause Given: 169
Applause Received: 333

Originally Posted by: macbob Go to Quoted Post
Agree with what you said 99%--total yards aren't as important as rushing attempts, but I wouldn't say total yards don't matter.

The more success you have running the ball the more you'll distract the D from your passing game. If you're running it for 40 yds you'll get their attention a little more than if you're running it for -2, -4 per carry...


They need to respect the run. If you're only getting 1, 2 yards per carry when they're loading up the box, oh well. If they're in nickel or dime and you can't run it for more than 2 or 3 on a regular basis, they don't NEED to respect it. You don't need to be great at the run, just okay. And in order to do that on a regular basis, you need to run it more than a dozen times per game.
UserPostedImage
thanks Post received 1 applause.
nerdmann on 10/8/2012(UTC)
Offline zombieslayer  
#36 Posted : Monday, October 8, 2012 3:44:53 PM(UTC)
zombieslayer

Rank: Most Valuable Player

Joined: 8/7/2008(UTC)
Location: San Francisco

Applause Given: 778
Applause Received: 495

Originally Posted by: Porforis Go to Quoted Post
They need to respect the run. If you're only getting 1, 2 yards per carry when they're loading up the box, oh well. If they're in nickel or dime and you can't run it for more than 2 or 3 on a regular basis, they don't NEED to respect it. You don't need to be great at the run, just okay. And in order to do that on a regular basis, you need to run it more than a dozen times per game.


That's the weird thing is you don't even have to be OK. You just have to run the ball.

You could actually have a mediocre rushing attack and win it all. Has happened time and time again.

That's why I used the word "unintuitive." You'd think by the way I'm worded the last thing I said that I'd be smoking crack, but my research shows otherwise. You only need attempts. Yards really don't matter.
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  
#37 Posted : Tuesday, October 9, 2012 5:33:23 AM(UTC)
Zero2Cool

Rank: Legend

Yahoo! Fantasy Football - Gold: 2009FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Silver: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2011ESPN NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2013

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

Applause Given: 1,968
Applause Received: 2,229

Originally Posted by: zombieslayer Go to Quoted Post
You only need attempts. Yards really don't matter.


This goes along what Shawn and I have been trying to get through to you for a couple years now. The attempts are what keeps a defense honest. A solid 60/40 pass/run ratio is very good for an offense as it opens up a lot of opportunities. Right now the Packers are being manhandled by a two high safety scheme because they are not worried about the second level being reached by a RB or a slant pass.

I'd rather see James Starks than Alex Green running the ball, even though Green has the potential to break one, he's often stuffed at the line for a loss. Starks nearly always gains at least a yard or two.

Until this team figures out how to be more balanced offensively and the QB drops his ego and takes the 5 yard easy out over the 25 yarder into double coverage ... mediocre is all we'll see.
"I do not think there is any thrill that can go through the human heart like that felt by the inventor as he sees some creation of the brain unfolding to success... such emotions make a man forget food, sleep, friends, love, everything." - Nikola Tesla

UserPostedImage
thanks Post received 1 applause.
play2win on 10/9/2012(UTC)
Offline play2win  
#38 Posted : Tuesday, October 9, 2012 5:49:03 AM(UTC)
play2win

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

United States
Joined: 3/29/2012(UTC)
Location: Milwaukee

Applause Given: 1,076
Applause Received: 725

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool Go to Quoted Post
This goes along what Shawn and I have been trying to get through to you for a couple years now. The attempts are what keeps a defense honest. A solid 60/40 pass/run ratio is very good for an offense as it opens up a lot of opportunities. Right now the Packers are being manhandled by a two high safety scheme because they are not worried about the second level being reached by a RB or a slant pass.

I'd rather see James Starks than Alex Green running the ball, even though Green has the potential to break one, he's often stuffed at the line for a loss. Starks nearly always gains at least a yard or two.

Until this team figures out how to be more balanced offensively and the QB drops his ego and takes the 5 yard easy out over the 25 yarder into double coverage ... mediocre is all we'll see.


I wish I could applaud twice!

I realize rule changes have made it much easier to pass in today's NFL, but that doesn't mean you throw out the basic tenants of the game.

Pound the fricken football +25 attempts by your RBs (QB scrambles don't count here) and I would say we win 9 out of 10 games. Especially with what that does to a defense, against our passing game. Without it, we clearly see we have no passing game.

Really simple stuff.
Offline Porforis  
#39 Posted : Tuesday, October 9, 2012 6:17:29 AM(UTC)
Porforis

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

United States
Joined: 8/22/2009(UTC)
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Applause Given: 169
Applause Received: 333

I'm not saying that it's false, but multiple people keep saying that all you need to do is run the ball, yards don't matter a lick and that it's unintuitive but true. I see people dropping stats about poor rushing teams winning big, but does anybody have some examples of truly ineffective rushing teams (< 3 YPC) being successful? It's definitely unintuitive but I'm no more of an expert than anyone else here (and less of an expert than many), I'd just like a more in-depth explanation of WHY it works with some specific examples.

For example, if you're averaging 2 YPC 8 games in, why wouldn't an opposing defense want to play with an emphasis on passing every down unless it's an obvious running situation? Focus on nullifying your opponent's strengths, not their weaknesses. Yeah, if they're running it 20-25 times a game they might average 3-4 a carry if you don't respect the run but let them try to beat you on the ground and shut them down through the air. 75-100 yards on the ground isn't going to kill you if they're ineffective passing the ball and get minimal benefit from running the play action.
UserPostedImage
Offline Zero2Cool  
#40 Posted : Tuesday, October 9, 2012 6:35:09 AM(UTC)
Zero2Cool

Rank: Legend

Yahoo! Fantasy Football - Gold: 2009FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Silver: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2011ESPN NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2013

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

Applause Given: 1,968
Applause Received: 2,229

Originally Posted by: Porforis Go to Quoted Post
I'm not saying that it's false, but multiple people keep saying that all you need to do is run the ball, yards don't matter a lick and that it's unintuitive but true.


I had to stop reading here to clarify this. No one is saying yards mean nothing at all. What is being said is you don't need an elite (Adrian Peterson) RB to keep the defense honest. You need attempts, attempts that garner positive yardage. Even if you get 2 yards per attempt, that changes 1st and 10 to 2nd and 8 or 2nd and 6 to 3rd and 4.

Ideally you want a running back who gets 4 yards per attempt, never fumbles and has very sound protection while being above average at receiving out of the backfield.

JAMES STARKS WILL BE THAT GUY!!


Whistle
"I do not think there is any thrill that can go through the human heart like that felt by the inventor as he sees some creation of the brain unfolding to success... such emotions make a man forget food, sleep, friends, love, everything." - Nikola Tesla

UserPostedImage
Offline play2win  
#41 Posted : Tuesday, October 9, 2012 7:58:28 AM(UTC)
play2win

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

United States
Joined: 3/29/2012(UTC)
Location: Milwaukee

Applause Given: 1,076
Applause Received: 725

Originally Posted by: Porforis Go to Quoted Post
I'm not saying that it's false, but multiple people keep saying that all you need to do is run the ball, yards don't matter a lick and that it's unintuitive but true. I see people dropping stats about poor rushing teams winning big, but does anybody have some examples of truly ineffective rushing teams (< 3 YPC) being successful? It's definitely unintuitive but I'm no more of an expert than anyone else here (and less of an expert than many), I'd just like a more in-depth explanation of WHY it works with some specific examples.

For example, if you're averaging 2 YPC 8 games in, why wouldn't an opposing defense want to play with an emphasis on passing every down unless it's an obvious running situation? Focus on nullifying your opponent's strengths, not their weaknesses. Yeah, if they're running it 20-25 times a game they might average 3-4 a carry if you don't respect the run but let them try to beat you on the ground and shut them down through the air. 75-100 yards on the ground isn't going to kill you if they're ineffective passing the ball and get minimal benefit from running the play action.


Here you go Porforis:

One example I found, Arizona, a division leader, ranking dead last in ypc at 2.8

http://www.nfl.com/stats...-s=RUSHING_AVERAGE_YARDS

They rank just above us in att/game 23.6 (#21) to our 22.2 (#23).

Their receiving O is nothing special, ranking 22 to our 13. Passing O ranking 25 to our 15. To me, that says they are running just enough and winning with defense & STs. Running the football helps both the passing game and the defense. While their passing game is suspect at QB, they have some good WRs. They lost their #1 RB to injury last week too.

Statistically, this isn't telling us too much, but it does say something, and while outranking us in attempts, they are in fact last in YPC, and 4-1, beating SEA, NE, PHI and MIA while losing to STL.

Their running game is atrocious. I can't figure out how they won all of those outside of D, STs and huge miscues by their opponents. This has to be the weakest team of the front runners offensively.
Offline zombieslayer  
#42 Posted : Tuesday, October 9, 2012 8:19:23 AM(UTC)
zombieslayer

Rank: Most Valuable Player

Joined: 8/7/2008(UTC)
Location: San Francisco

Applause Given: 778
Applause Received: 495

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool Go to Quoted Post
This goes along what Shawn and I have been trying to get through to you for a couple years now. The attempts are what keeps a defense honest. A solid 60/40 pass/run ratio is very good for an offense as it opens up a lot of opportunities. Right now the Packers are being manhandled by a two high safety scheme because they are not worried about the second level being reached by a RB or a slant pass.

I'd rather see James Starks than Alex Green running the ball, even though Green has the potential to break one, he's often stuffed at the line for a loss. Starks nearly always gains at least a yard or two.

Until this team figures out how to be more balanced offensively and the QB drops his ego and takes the 5 yard easy out over the 25 yarder into double coverage ... mediocre is all we'll see.


If you want to win an argument with me, you have to put up FACTS. Opinion doesn't cut it. But you guys have also been ignoring the research I've been doing which got annoying too. I've been saying all along that you don't need an elite RB and actually, an elite RB hurts the team.

I've been doing football research for a few years and honing in my knowledge. When my hypothesis doesn't look right, I change it until it's right. I found that rushing rankings have absolutely no bearing on a team's post-season success.

I also predict trends and thought that teams will eventually go 65/35. This remains to be seen though. It looks like as of 2012, 60/40 is the sweet spot. Maybe 65/35 is in 2015 or so. Or maybe the rules will change again and we'll see more running. Hard to predict the future. As of 2012, it looks like we should be at 60/40.
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  
#43 Posted : Tuesday, October 9, 2012 8:30:00 AM(UTC)
Zero2Cool

Rank: Legend

Yahoo! Fantasy Football - Gold: 2009FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Silver: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2011ESPN NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2013

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

Applause Given: 1,968
Applause Received: 2,229

Originally Posted by: zombieslayer Go to Quoted Post
If you want to win an argument with me, you have to put up FACTS. Opinion doesn't cut it. But you guys have also been ignoring the research I've been doing which got annoying too. I've been saying all along that you don't need an elite RB and actually, an elite RB hurts the team.

I've been doing football research for a few years and honing in my knowledge. When my hypothesis doesn't look right, I change it until it's right. I found that rushing rankings have absolutely no bearing on a team's post-season success.

I also predict trends and thought that teams will eventually go 65/35. This remains to be seen though. It looks like as of 2012, 60/40 is the sweet spot. Maybe 65/35 is in 2015 or so. Or maybe the rules will change again and we'll see more running. Hard to predict the future. As of 2012, it looks like we should be at 60/40.


There really isn't any argument at all. It's pretty much common sense. Yes, an elite RB is not necessary, however an elite QB helps a lot more. You ignoring the point we're making is annoying. 60/40 is exactly what I said in the quoted post.

I think one side is saying look forward and the other side is saying look straight ahead.


Against the Colts, Packers had two drives that were 30 seconds or less (one was 19 freaking seconds). THIRTY SECONDS OR LESS! You run it three times, that eats up 2+ minutes right there. Do that on both drives, that's nearly FIVE MINUTES less that the Colts have to catch up!

Between those six runs, it could be 1 yard per attempt and it still serves a good purpose ... EATING CLOCK to preserve the lead!

I am all for putting teams away, all for it. But when you're skipping your underneath guy or the TE/RB open in the flat, you're playing Madden football and that's just stupid! They have two deep safeties and you're still going to throw it deep instead of the shallow guy who will get you 5+ yards? ARGH pisses me off!!
"I do not think there is any thrill that can go through the human heart like that felt by the inventor as he sees some creation of the brain unfolding to success... such emotions make a man forget food, sleep, friends, love, everything." - Nikola Tesla

UserPostedImage
thanks Post received 1 applause.
play2win on 10/9/2012(UTC)
Offline LambeauEast  
#44 Posted : Tuesday, October 9, 2012 8:59:59 AM(UTC)
LambeauEast

Rank: 4th Round Draft Pick

Joined: 10/19/2007(UTC)

Applause Given: 5
Applause Received: 20

Mediocre at best.
UserPostedImage
Offline play2win  
#45 Posted : Tuesday, October 9, 2012 9:11:50 AM(UTC)
play2win

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

United States
Joined: 3/29/2012(UTC)
Location: Milwaukee

Applause Given: 1,076
Applause Received: 725

McCarthy's whole pass heavy attack, saying in essence (and I know there is a quote out there where he actually said this) "we don't need to run" is good only when his short passes are - in fact - high percentage. If we ignore the short passes, or if we aren't catching those, then the whole plan is destined to fail.

I believe we had 2 goals coming into this season from a game management/personnel standpoint:

1. Add pass rush
2. Control the clock better with our offense

We are currently tied with two other teams at #1 in the NFL for sacks, with 18. I was surprised to see that.

Our OL on the other hand, is ranked 2nd to last at #31 in the NFL, allowing 21 sacks thus far this year. We are 15th in Total Points, and 21st in TOP.

We are also ranked #1 in the NFL for penalty yds at 390. These last 4 stats are very telling, as stats go... pretty much place us at middle of the road with our 2-3 record, and our defense ranked #16 both pass and run D. Based on our expectations for the season, this is mediocre, indeed.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of short passes in leiu of run plays. Puts too much at risk with time of possession and your QB's safety. That is a game of high stakes poker IMO, one we should not be playing if we expect to reach our 2nd goal of this season, to control the clock. Not to mention, how long will Rodgers last at this pace? TJ Lang publicly called out the pass heavy play calling for a reason.
Offline Pack93z  
#46 Posted : Tuesday, October 9, 2012 11:40:24 AM(UTC)
Pack93z

Rank: Hall of Famer

PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Bronze: 2012

United States
Joined: 3/16/2007(UTC)
Location: North Central Wisconsin

Applause Given: 400
Applause Received: 1,078

Originally Posted by: zombieslayer Go to Quoted Post
If you want to win an argument with me, you have to put up FACTS. Opinion doesn't cut it. But you guys have also been ignoring the research I've been doing which got annoying too. I've been saying all along that you don't need an elite RB and actually, an elite RB hurts the team.


I have and you have ignored in the past.

I went through and graphed the impact on teams over the course of a season in offensive and defensive impact and it received zero comments or rebuttal. Wait, there was the garbage time runs, which I followed up and showed there was less than a 2% impact in four quarter additional runs. And that was from Greg C.

But yet, I am to readily consume your research as gospel. Really? Tisk, tisk Zombie. Big Grin
I think when there's enough will and aggression, there's no shortage of talent either.

UserPostedImage
thanks Post received 1 applause.
Zero2Cool on 10/9/2012(UTC)
Offline Rios39  
#47 Posted : Tuesday, October 9, 2012 12:19:23 PM(UTC)
Rios39

Rank: 4th Round Draft Pick

Joined: 8/9/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 1
Applause Received: 30

The only thing is I don't see how running the ball for 1 yard or less at times does anything for you but sets you back on 1st down. We do run a lot on first down putting us in long down distances. Maybe throw more on first down and try to pound in the easier yards.

Also in the SB we threw a ridiculous amount of times and had great success. Last year in the first half I believe we were mostly a pass offense and then tried to run when the game was out of reach.

It may be time to adjust though as Rodgers has looked like a poor qb.
blank
Offline Porforis  
#48 Posted : Tuesday, October 9, 2012 12:36:29 PM(UTC)
Porforis

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

United States
Joined: 8/22/2009(UTC)
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Applause Given: 169
Applause Received: 333

Originally Posted by: Rios39 Go to Quoted Post
The only thing is I don't see how running the ball for 1 yard or less at times does anything for you but sets you back on 1st down. We do run a lot on first down putting us in long down distances. Maybe throw more on first down and try to pound in the easier yards.

Also in the SB we threw a ridiculous amount of times and had great success. Last year in the first half I believe we were mostly a pass offense and then tried to run when the game was out of reach.

It may be time to adjust though as Rodgers has looked like a poor qb.


But do remember that Starks started running well come the postseason during our SB run. That added dimension definitely helped us out.
UserPostedImage
Offline Rios39  
#49 Posted : Tuesday, October 9, 2012 12:42:24 PM(UTC)
Rios39

Rank: 4th Round Draft Pick

Joined: 8/9/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 1
Applause Received: 30

Originally Posted by: Porforis Go to Quoted Post
But do remember that Starks started running well come the postseason during our SB run. That added dimension definitely helped us out.


That's true and he also had a solid year last year. YPC he was better than Grant. He usually falls forward. Hopefully we can get him going and hopefully improve some in blocking.
blank
Offline Pack93z  
#50 Posted : Tuesday, October 9, 2012 12:56:02 PM(UTC)
Pack93z

Rank: Hall of Famer

PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Bronze: 2012

United States
Joined: 3/16/2007(UTC)
Location: North Central Wisconsin

Applause Given: 400
Applause Received: 1,078

Originally Posted by: Rios39 Go to Quoted Post
The only thing is I don't see how running the ball for 1 yard or less at times does anything for you but sets you back on 1st down. We do run a lot on first down putting us in long down distances. Maybe throw more on first down and try to pound in the easier yards.

Also in the SB we threw a ridiculous amount of times and had great success. Last year in the first half I believe we were mostly a pass offense and then tried to run when the game was out of reach.

It may be time to adjust though as Rodgers has looked like a poor qb.


How does it help?

Throw yourself in a defensive lineman or backers helmet.. then look at these two scenarios.

A offense that you know is going to drop back and pass almost all the times, especially if the formation tells you so. Where you can just focus on firing off the snap and beating the man in front of you.

Or an offensive in which you have to read and digest the play being either a run or a pass. Then turn your focus to beating the man in front of you to get to the QB.

It is only a split second, but that slight pause returns the advantage back to the offensive lineman because he now has that second to set up, read the blitz and adjust.

There is a huge difference within that helmet. I don't care if the run is effective or not, you will read that play and pause for the split second if there is a threat of the run.

Why I hate empty sets.. tee off by the players coming on the pass rush, unless you worry about the QB draw, but a QB the caliber of Rodgers isn't going to run by design.

Those little advantages mean the world in the trenches.

Go back to the 2010 season.. it was the loss to the Patriots that really started our run. We had to play Flynn and Mike McCarthy ran the ball to help him along. It showed us we could run the ball and the effect it had on the defense and what it did for our offense. We almost won that game with a first time starter.
I think when there's enough will and aggression, there's no shortage of talent either.

UserPostedImage
thanks Post received 3 applause.
play2win on 10/9/2012(UTC), yooperfan on 10/9/2012(UTC), Zero2Cool on 10/9/2012(UTC)
Rss Feed 
Users browsing this topic
Guest
3 Pages<123>
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.

Notification

Icon
Error

Tweeter

Recent Topics
18m / Green Bay Packers Talk / texaspackerbacker

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / DarkaneRules

3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / dhazer

10h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

11h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Laser Gunns

18h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nyrpack

23h / Green Bay Packers Talk / dhazer

26-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / dhazer

26-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

26-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / rabidgopher04

26-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

26-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

25-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Rios39

25-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

24-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr