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.

But do remember that Starks started running well come the postseason during our SB run. That added dimension definitely helped us out.

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.

No one is forgetting that, maybe zombieslayer? I know Shawn and I have several times said you have to run the ball to be successful running the ball. You can't pass 14 times and sprinkle one run in there and expect your RB to be in the groove. Cedric Benson even said as much after I think the Seahawks game ... said that he needed more carries to get into the groove.

I bet McCarthy would swap out boxers mid-round too and expect them to deliver a knockout blow!

In the end, Macbob and I ended up agreeing. It's about rushing attempts, not rushing yards. I know that sounds counter-intuitive, but that's how it is.

So of the arguments I put forth, I was right about elite RBs actually being a bad thing for your team and rushing yards not mattering. I was wrong about passing percentages. I thought we can safely pass 65% of the time. That's wrong. Of the SB winners in the past 5 years, all 5 of them passed more than 50% of the time (so that throws away the idea of a run first team as those teams nowadays don't win championships), but if you go too far lopsided in pass first, those don't win championships either.

I'm not accusing you, Pack93z, but there are some on this board who cannot admit when they're wrong. I readily admit I was wrong on going too far gung ho on passing. The numbers showed I went too far. But anyone who says we should be a run first team, if you want to lead this team, you won't win a Championship. And, we're not the Vikings. We're a Lombardi or bust team. We're here to win Championships, not just have an 8-8 record.

Now just in case anyone was wondering, the last 5 SB winners were pass first teams, just not as pass first as what I advocated several years ago. The 2011 Giants threw 589 vs 411 rushing attempts. That would be a 59% passing team. The 2010 Packers threw 541 vs 421 runs. That would be a 56% passing team. I said 65% pass. I readily admit that was too gung ho now.

Two backs running production in the same 1st half Sunday.

A. 3,-2,1,-1,2,1,22,-1,6
B. 4,0,2,9,1,1,3,9,1,3

One is ours, one is Peterson? Which would you prefer?

I said the Packers should pass/run 60/40, that's saying pass first, not run first. I think it would be foolish to waste the WR and QB talent the Packers have by using the likes of Alex Green and/or James Starks first, lol. I laugh there because it just sounds silly saying it.


All I want is the Packers to mix it up some. Use some 3 and 5 step drops quick slant passes or some rollouts with a trailing guy in the flat to dump it to instead of Shotgun chuck it 20+ to Jordy Nelson who's double covered.

Look, I'm not the brightest guy in the room here, but when I can predict the play from the formation, guess what, so can the defense. That tells me teams know when the Packers are going to pass and they go balls out to kill the NFL MVP. I do not like that. I want to be fooled, like I was on the two special team fakes. Those I felt were BRILLIANTLY timed and executed.

Why can't we see an offense like that? BTW, I'm not saying I want to see flea flicker plays or statue of liberty type plays ... you can be brilliant with your routes, your timing of a short pass, long pass, run between tackles, etc ... be brilliant with play calling.

Then you, me, and Macbob were saying the same thing. Yes, keep it pass first, but we'll have to run 40+% of the time, especially when our OL is better at run blocking than pass blocking in 2012.

(Sorry if I'm speaking for you Macbob. You're more than free to correct me if I'm wrong).

I said I went too gung ho with pass %. 65% is too much. High 50s to 60% seems about the right %.

But we agree that if we went to the opposite extreme (run first), then we won't win games either.