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.
7 Pages«<34567>
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
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: 1,966
Applause Received: 2,223

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: 398
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: 5th 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: 5th 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: 398
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
7 Pages«<34567>
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
2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / yooperfan

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / yooperfan

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / yooperfan

6h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

6h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

8h / Green Bay Packers Talk / sschind

8h / Green Bay Packers Talk / porky88

9h / Green Bay Packers Talk / sschind

17h / Green Bay Packers Talk / packman82

20h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

22-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / macbob

21-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

21-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

20-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Since69

20-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / TheKanataThrilla