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.
4 Pages<1234>
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline macbob  
#51 Posted : Saturday, June 15, 2013 10:31:31 AM(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: Dexter_Sinister Go to Quoted Post
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?


Let's see--first half score was, let me think, let me think...
UserPostedImage
Offline macbob  
#52 Posted : Saturday, June 15, 2013 10:55:06 AM(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: Dexter_Sinister Go to Quoted Post
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.




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:

NFL.com wrote:
"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."


ProFootballTalk 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.”


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


UserPostedImage
thanks Post received 1 applause.
DoddPower on 6/15/2013(UTC)
Offline DoddPower  
#53 Posted : Saturday, June 15, 2013 3:18:38 PM(UTC)
DoddPower

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Gold: 2011

United States
Joined: 9/24/2007(UTC)
Location: Visalia, CA

Applause Given: 2,096
Applause Received: 530

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister Go to Quoted Post
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?


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.
thanks Post received 2 applause.
play2win on 6/16/2013(UTC), yooperfan on 6/16/2013(UTC)
Offline play2win  
#54 Posted : Sunday, June 16, 2013 8:06:09 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: doddpower Go to Quoted Post
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.


Are you sure that I didn't write this doddpower?Laughing Applause

Well done.
thanks Post received 1 applause.
DoddPower on 6/16/2013(UTC)
Offline Dexter_Sinister  
#55 Posted : Sunday, June 16, 2013 1:49:47 PM(UTC)
Dexter_Sinister

Rank: 2nd Round Draft Pick

Joined: 6/12/2010(UTC)

Applause Given: 292
Applause Received: 266

Originally Posted by: doddpower Go to Quoted Post
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.


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.

Originally Posted by: doddpower Go to Quoted Post

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.


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.
Offline Dexter_Sinister  
#56 Posted : Sunday, June 16, 2013 2:19:25 PM(UTC)
Dexter_Sinister

Rank: 2nd Round Draft Pick

Joined: 6/12/2010(UTC)

Applause Given: 292
Applause Received: 266

Originally Posted by: macbob Go to Quoted Post
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...




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.
Offline DoddPower  
#57 Posted : Sunday, June 16, 2013 3:01:44 PM(UTC)
DoddPower

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Gold: 2011

United States
Joined: 9/24/2007(UTC)
Location: Visalia, CA

Applause Given: 2,096
Applause Received: 530

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister Go to Quoted Post
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.


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.
Offline DoddPower  
#58 Posted : Sunday, June 16, 2013 3:06:29 PM(UTC)
DoddPower

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Gold: 2011

United States
Joined: 9/24/2007(UTC)
Location: Visalia, CA

Applause Given: 2,096
Applause Received: 530

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister Go to Quoted Post
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.


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.

thanks Post received 2 applause.
yooperfan on 6/16/2013(UTC), SINCITYCHEEZE on 6/16/2013(UTC)
Offline Dexter_Sinister  
#59 Posted : Monday, June 17, 2013 6:25:59 PM(UTC)
Dexter_Sinister

Rank: 2nd Round Draft Pick

Joined: 6/12/2010(UTC)

Applause Given: 292
Applause Received: 266

Originally Posted by: doddpower Go to Quoted Post
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.


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.
Offline Dexter_Sinister  
#60 Posted : Monday, June 17, 2013 7:09:17 PM(UTC)
Dexter_Sinister

Rank: 2nd Round Draft Pick

Joined: 6/12/2010(UTC)

Applause Given: 292
Applause Received: 266

Originally Posted by: doddpower Go to Quoted Post
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.



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.
Offline DoddPower  
#61 Posted : Monday, June 17, 2013 10:44:41 PM(UTC)
DoddPower

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Gold: 2011

United States
Joined: 9/24/2007(UTC)
Location: Visalia, CA

Applause Given: 2,096
Applause Received: 530

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister Go to Quoted Post
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.


Yeah, one half of one game doesn't prove anything to me though, especially the first game of the season. The running game takes effort over the long term to be successful. As I previously said, even with Benson, Harris, etc., there's little excuse for the Packers not to have a respectable running game given the fact that opposing defenses sell out to stop the passing game. That's the way I feel, anyway. I'm not even convinced that Harris is truly that talented. I just think the offensive line started to click a little better, McCarthy called a better game, and all of that snowballed into a better running game. I'm not taking anything away from Harris, but I think the improvement in the running game at the end of last season had as much to do with all the external factors around Harris as Harris himself. To Harris' credit though, he took what was there for him, plus some. But I keep going back to the fact that even decent offensive line play and play calling should net a respectable run game for the Packers, almost regardless of who is running the ball. And I need more than a few games late in the season to convince me of anything. Can't make decisions of relatively small sample sizes.
Offline Dexter_Sinister  
#62 Posted : Tuesday, June 18, 2013 5:36:52 AM(UTC)
Dexter_Sinister

Rank: 2nd Round Draft Pick

Joined: 6/12/2010(UTC)

Applause Given: 292
Applause Received: 266

Originally Posted by: doddpower Go to Quoted Post
Yeah, one half of one game doesn't prove anything to me though, especially the first game of the season. The running game takes effort over the long term to be successful. As I previously said, even with Benson, Harris, etc., there's little excuse for the Packers not to have a respectable running game given the fact that opposing defenses sell out to stop the passing game. That's the way I feel, anyway. I'm not even convinced that Harris is truly that talented. I just think the offensive line started to click a little better, McCarthy called a better game, and all of that snowballed into a better running game. I'm not taking anything away from Harris, but I think the improvement in the running game at the end of last season had as much to do with all the external factors around Harris as Harris himself. To Harris' credit though, he took what was there for him, plus some. But I keep going back to the fact that even decent offensive line play and play calling should net a respectable run game for the Packers, almost regardless of who is running the ball. And I need more than a few games late in the season to convince me of anything. Can't make decisions of relatively small sample sizes.


Yet you are willing to say McCarthey abandons the run using the playoff game against the 49ers when we didn't run for 2 drives as your example.

Which is a much smaller sample size.

My point isn't how talented Harris is. It is how bad Benson was and all the injured guys who couldn't play or were hampered by injury, like Green.

Benson sucked and we couldn't run very well with him. Green was hobbled. Which is all we had to run with for most of the season. Starks on PUP, Saine gone, and eventually even Benson gone.

They didn't decide not to run. It wasn't a choice. They couldn't run.

I would say that if they had any decent running backs all year, they would have had 1800-1900 yards rushing and a 4.2-4.3 ypc.
I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.

Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
Offline macbob  
#63 Posted : Tuesday, June 18, 2013 8:31:00 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: Dexter_Sinister Go to Quoted Post
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.


The O didn't score 31 points. The first 7 came off of a Sam Shields pick 6.

We scored 3 pts in the second half until a prevent D TD with 57 secs left in the game, while down 45-24.

UserPostedImage
Offline macbob  
#64 Posted : Tuesday, June 18, 2013 8:35:31 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: Dexter_Sinister Go to Quoted Post
They didn't decide not to run. It wasn't a choice. They couldn't run.


Again, untrue for the first half of the Seattle game, and the second half of the 49ers playoff game.

3 running plays out of 30 is abandoning the run before finding out we can't run, with 0 pts.

We quit trying to run in the playoff game even though we'd had success running against SF, and scored all of 3 pts in the second half prior to a last minute mop-up TD.
UserPostedImage
Offline Dexter_Sinister  
#65 Posted : Tuesday, June 18, 2013 9:24:05 PM(UTC)
Dexter_Sinister

Rank: 2nd Round Draft Pick

Joined: 6/12/2010(UTC)

Applause Given: 292
Applause Received: 266

Originally Posted by: macbob Go to Quoted Post
The O didn't score 31 points. The first 7 came off of a Sam Shields pick 6.

We scored 3 pts in the second half until a prevent D TD with 57 secs left in the game, while down 45-24.



And the prevent drive shouldn't be counted in the "choosing not to run" argument. Which is the point of the conversation.

The 49ers 17 points allowed per game average also includes prevent points. Kind of a moot point.

They still scored a full TD more than the SF D has allowed per game.

For the year, the Packers averaged about a TD per game more than more than the average team.

Seems kind of nitpicky to pick on the running game when the offense was no worse than their average.

When the D gave up 45.



I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.

Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
Offline Dexter_Sinister  
#66 Posted : Tuesday, June 18, 2013 9:54:33 PM(UTC)
Dexter_Sinister

Rank: 2nd Round Draft Pick

Joined: 6/12/2010(UTC)

Applause Given: 292
Applause Received: 266

Originally Posted by: macbob Go to Quoted Post
Again, untrue for the first half of the Seattle game, and the second half of the 49ers playoff game.

3 running plays out of 30 is abandoning the run before finding out we can't run, with 0 pts.

We quit trying to run in the playoff game even though we'd had success running against SF, and scored all of 3 pts in the second half prior to a last minute mop-up TD.


In the Seattle game, the 8 sacks and a couple penalties in the first half putting then in long downs kind of forced them to pass on a few drives. Out of the 5 they had in the first half.

They also looked like they were trying to supplement the running game with short passes to Benson and the TEs. (like a WCO).

We didn't run for 2 series in the playoff game playing from behind. The "entire half" is an exaggeration. The last drive doesn't count.

My point being that basing the argument that McCarthey doesn't want to run on a small handful of drives where you don't even know the play call is not a credible argument to me. You don't know what the call was and you don't know what the D alignment was. You can't say they made a mistake because all you really know is how many times they ran.


I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.

Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
Offline play2win  
#67 Posted : Wednesday, June 19, 2013 6:24:23 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: Dexter_Sinister Go to Quoted Post
And the prevent drive shouldn't be counted in the "choosing not to run" argument. Which is the point of the conversation.

The 49ers 17 points allowed per game average also includes prevent points. Kind of a moot point.

They still scored a full TD more than the SF D has allowed per game.

For the year, the Packers averaged about a TD per game more than more than the average team.

Seems kind of nitpicky to pick on the running game when the offense was no worse than their average.

When the D gave up 45.





I do think your point on the responsibility of our D to stop Kaepernick and the like is well taken. Keeping him and players like him (RG lll, Russell Wilson, Cam Newton, etc - guys who can tuck & run at a moment's notice) off the field as much as possible through effective ball control by our offense is key, it is just one key point.

What we have lacked on D is solid line play, and fast, instinctive play from 3 out of 4 of our LB positions. That landscape is changing quickly.

The talent shift from last season to this upcoming season is dramatically better with Datone and Boyd on the line, and the return on Perry and Manning along with additions of Palmer, Barrington and Mulumba. All of these players seem to be wrecking crews as tacklers, with great feet and instincts.

Let's add Johnny Jolly, and what I anticipate to be a better S year 2 in McMillian. Kind of weird, but I think Jolly will make this team and will be effective. He always had good feet and could make tackles. 3 years off without NFL punishment on his body, and a real hunger to succeed may make him a real surprise. He's certainly a man amongst boys, with experience. His presence will make Raji better, giving him our first decent rotation since Howard Green.

McMillian is the wild card. He has seen all of this up and close as a rookie, and he ought to have much of the play in front of him slow down a bit more year 2. He should be greatly improved, as will Burnett.

We have question marks that have to be answered on the field, but I like the changes we've made to improve our D to stop guys like Kaepernick.
Offline DoddPower  
#68 Posted : Wednesday, June 19, 2013 8:35:55 AM(UTC)
DoddPower

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Gold: 2011

United States
Joined: 9/24/2007(UTC)
Location: Visalia, CA

Applause Given: 2,096
Applause Received: 530

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister Go to Quoted Post
Yet you are willing to say McCarthey abandons the run using the playoff game against the 49ers when we didn't run for 2 drives as your example.

Which is a much smaller sample size.

My point isn't how talented Harris is. It is how bad Benson was and all the injured guys who couldn't play or were hampered by injury, like Green.

Benson sucked and we couldn't run very well with him. Green was hobbled. Which is all we had to run with for most of the season. Starks on PUP, Saine gone, and eventually even Benson gone.

They didn't decide not to run. It wasn't a choice. They couldn't run.

I would say that if they had any decent running backs all year, they would have had 1800-1900 yards rushing and a 4.2-4.3 ypc.


lol, I'm not basing any opinion off the one playoff game at all, but thanks for assuming. Sure, that one is most prominent because it means the most and was the last game they played, but I have noticed many times where McCarthy and/or Rodgers choose to pass rather than run in key situations that I didn't agree with throughout the past 3+ seasons, really. Again, that's my opinion, but I don't think I'm alone. Continually choosing to pass in key situations, even with an elite QB and good to great wide receivers, when the defense is absolutely expecting it, seems a little stubborn to me. I'll keep saying it, there's no reason this offense shouldn't always have a respectable running game given how talented they are at passing the ball. That applies almost regardless of who's running the ball (within reason of course); whether it be Benson, Harris, Grant, etc. It ultimately comes down to the offensive line and play calling. I'm not expecting an elite running game by any means, and would hope they continue to be a pass first team. But the product could have and should have been better over the past few seasons. You can attempt to explain it away all you want, but that's how I see it. I need to see it for an entire season at least, and in games when it matters the most to have any respect for the Packers running game, just like opposing defenses they will face, as well. So often, opposing defense are essentially begging the Packers to run more. They improved for a few games at the end of the season, but that's just not enough for me to think the problem is solved. I'm no advocate for a rushing first team. I just like taking advantage of what the defense is giving. The Packers need to do a better job of consistently doing this. I like the confidence, but it makes winning certain games much more difficult.

I like Lacy, Franklin, and Harris. But ultimately, it's going to come down to the offensive line play. I'm not so sure flipping the offensive line around is going to make much difference in the running game, but I certainly hope so. They have to find a way to force opposing defenses to adjust, and it's going to take a lot more than a few games with a decent yards-per-carry average. I think it's obvious to most defenses that the Packers only want to run juuuust enough to pass. So give them some yards on the ground, just limit the passing game and the opposing teams chances are winning are pretty good. I'm sure most defensive coordinators don't believe the Packers have the patient to consistently run the ball to beat them, especially when they need it the most.
thanks Post received 1 applause.
play2win on 6/19/2013(UTC)
Offline play2win  
#69 Posted : Wednesday, June 19, 2013 10:04:11 AM(UTC)
play2win

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

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

Applause Given: 1,076
Applause Received: 725

The patience to run the ball consistently.

Man, that is what I am looking for this season. Running successfully is a mindset, established by the HC/OC. Wear teams the F out. That's what I am after. Do this, and Rodgers will be able to complete anything he wants in the passing game.
Offline DoddPower  
#70 Posted : Wednesday, June 19, 2013 1:11:35 PM(UTC)
DoddPower

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Gold: 2011

United States
Joined: 9/24/2007(UTC)
Location: Visalia, CA

Applause Given: 2,096
Applause Received: 530

Originally Posted by: play2win Go to Quoted Post
The patience to run the ball consistently.

Man, that is what I am looking for this season. Running successfully is a mindset, established by the HC/OC. Wear teams the F out. That's what I am after. Do this, and Rodgers will be able to complete anything he wants in the passing game.


I think James Campen is invincible or something. I just don't get it. How many years of average at best--and often horrible--offensive line play must the Packers endure before they try another coach? I would think it would be difficult to get an offensive line coach that was MUCH worse, and they could likely get one that was better. Hmpf.

Campy
Online nerdmann  
#71 Posted : Wednesday, June 19, 2013 1:35:53 PM(UTC)
nerdmann

Rank: Most Valuable Player

Joined: 9/14/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 2,713
Applause Received: 665

Originally Posted by: doddpower Go to Quoted Post
I think James Campen is invincible or something. I just don't get it. How many years of average at best--and often horrible--offensive line play must the Packers endure before they try another coach? I would think it would be difficult to get an offensive line coach that was MUCH worse, and they could likely get one that was better. Hmpf.

Campy


Breaking a rookie's ankle on a fumble drill should have been the final straw.
“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”
Offline DoddPower  
#72 Posted : Wednesday, June 19, 2013 2:15:47 PM(UTC)
DoddPower

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Gold: 2011

United States
Joined: 9/24/2007(UTC)
Location: Visalia, CA

Applause Given: 2,096
Applause Received: 530

Originally Posted by: nerdmann Go to Quoted Post
Breaking a rookie's ankle on a fumble drill should have been the final straw.


The final straw should have been pulled some time ago, imo.

thanks Post received 1 applause.
nerdmann on 6/19/2013(UTC)
Offline Dexter_Sinister  
#73 Posted : Wednesday, June 19, 2013 2:43:06 PM(UTC)
Dexter_Sinister

Rank: 2nd Round Draft Pick

Joined: 6/12/2010(UTC)

Applause Given: 292
Applause Received: 266

Originally Posted by: play2win Go to Quoted Post
The patience to run the ball consistently.

Man, that is what I am looking for this season. Running successfully is a mindset, established by the HC/OC. Wear teams the F out. That's what I am after. Do this, and Rodgers will be able to complete anything he wants in the passing game.


Cart before the horse.

Running the ball consistently without the ability to run effectively is going to put them in 3rd and long. It is going to come up short when you need to rely on it. 3rd & short, goal line and protecting a 4th quarter lead.

What I am looking for is the ability to run the ball effectively.
I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.

Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
Offline Dexter_Sinister  
#74 Posted : Wednesday, June 19, 2013 2:47:42 PM(UTC)
Dexter_Sinister

Rank: 2nd Round Draft Pick

Joined: 6/12/2010(UTC)

Applause Given: 292
Applause Received: 266

Dodd, they were right exactly in the middle of the league in rushing attempts.

Juuuust enough to pass, or juuuust a normal amount.
I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.

Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
Offline macbob  
#75 Posted : Wednesday, June 19, 2013 8:02:19 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: Dexter_Sinister Go to Quoted Post
In the Seattle game, the 8 sacks and a couple penalties in the first half putting then in long downs kind of forced them to pass on a few drives. Out of the 5 they had in the first half.

They also looked like they were trying to supplement the running game with short passes to Benson and the TEs. (like a WCO).

We didn't run for 2 series in the playoff game playing from behind. The "entire half" is an exaggeration. The last drive doesn't count.

My point being that basing the argument that McCarthey doesn't want to run on a small handful of drives where you don't even know the play call is not a credible argument to me. You don't know what the call was and you don't know what the D alignment was. You can't say they made a mistake because all you really know is how many times they ran.




We ran 1 running play in the first quarter of the Seattle game. If that is not the definition of abandoning the run, I don't know what is.

For the SF game, your argument that we can't know whether the play call was a run or a pass to me isn't credible. If Aaron Rodgers audibled out of running plays in the second half then Mike McCarthy made it easy for him by coming out almost exclusively in shotgun formations.

There was a dramatic shift in the first half and the 2nd half in the formations we used. First half we ran 22 plays, 12 out of the shotgun and 10 from under center. In our first TD drive in the first half alone, Harris carried the ball twice from under center, gaining 5 yards and 18 yards, with the 2nd run resulting in the TD.

Second half, we came out in the shotgun on every single play in the 3rd quarter (17), including all 11 plays before we fell behind. If Aaron Rodgers audibled out of running plays on any of these plays he was audibling out of a draw play out of the shotgun. 4th quarter 16 out of 20 plays were out of the shotgun, all were passes, but by then we were well behind.

To summarize:
1st half: 12 - 10 plays out of shotgun / under center
2nd half: 33 - 4 plays out of shotgun / under center

So, which is more credible--MM called a bunch of draw plays out of the shotgun and Aaron Rodgers audibled out of them, or Mike McCarthy called pass plays out of the shotgun in the first place?
UserPostedImage
thanks Post received 1 applause.
DoddPower on 6/20/2013(UTC)
Rss Feed 
Users browsing this topic
Guest (5)
4 Pages<1234>
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
1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / yooperfan

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / DarkaneRules

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / dhazer

9h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

9h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Laser Gunns

17h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nyrpack

22h / Green Bay Packers Talk / dhazer

23h / 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