Discussion Board
Welcome Guest! You can login or register. Login or Register.
5 Pages«<345

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
nerdmann  
#81 Posted : Thursday, June 20, 2013 8:51:01 PM(UTC)
Dexter_Sinister said: Go to Quoted Post
What was the pass run ratio last year?

Coincidentally, Benson also sucked as a runner and always has. He was all they had in the first 5 games.

So who was the RB that wasn't "Supposedly shitty"? Who had a good YPC average in the first 5 games. Green playing on a bad leg, Saine on IR or Starks on PUP?

Because if they were not really shitty and it was the lack of attempts, they should have had a decent YPC and not many carries.

In the Colts game, the Packers had their 3rd highest rushing total of the year.

The D giving up 30 is much more to blame than the lack of a run game.

Dropping picks was one of the issues I would identify as the biggest reason we lost. Not the run game.


I thought Benson looked good last year. Always made the right cut and got what was there.

We went up against some tough defensive fronts, though. And of course, occasionally abandoned the run entirely.
play2win  
#82 Posted : Friday, June 21, 2013 6:27:03 AM(UTC)
Dexter_Sinister said: Go to Quoted Post
What was the pass run ratio last year?

Coincidentally, Benson also sucked as a runner and always has. He was all they had in the first 5 games.

So who was the RB that wasn't "Supposedly shitty"? Who had a good YPC average in the first 5 games. Green playing on a bad leg, Saine on IR or Starks on PUP?

Because if they were not really shitty and it was the lack of attempts, they should have had a decent YPC and not many carries.

In the Colts game, the Packers had their 3rd highest rushing total of the year.

The D giving up 30 is much more to blame than the lack of a run game.

Dropping picks was one of the issues I would identify as the biggest reason we lost. Not the run game.


Did Benson suck against CHI when he rushed 20 times for 81 yds and a 4.1 ypc average? Did Benson suck against NO when he rushed 18 times for 87 yds and a 4.7 ypc average?

Maybe you are forgetting how we wound up 21-3 early in the 2nd Q v. IND. it was a balanced attack of run/pass, one that McCarhty went away from, allowing IND back into the game, serving us a 27-30 loss.

BTW, here is how we started the 3rd Q, up 21-3: pass, pass, pass, pass, INT. pass, pass, pass, PUNT. The 4th Q was sickeningly over pass happy. Benson wasn't our only rusher either. Alex Green was averaging 6.1 ypc in that game...

There is a way to run, and a way not to run. Benson had all 9 carries by our RBs for the entire freaking game v. SF. Benson had 2 of our 3 first half carries v. SEA, while Aaron Rodgers was sacked 8 times in that same half. Game over. Should have been anyway. Dumbest real time game management I may have ever seen.

We should have won that game hands down, but we severely mismanaged the run game the entire first half while Rodgers was getting killed. What the F did McCarthy not see? I mean, in that first half? In the moment, when he should have total control of the game and his team's plays? That blew my mind. After he gets into the locker room, he realizes his folly, and gives Benson 10 carries in the 3rd Q. We owned that Q, yet only came away with a pair of FGs. Had he handed Benson the rock through all 4 Quarters like he did in the 3rd, we would have won. Guaranteed.

Maybe I exaggerated with the ratio for those first 5 games, but if you look at when it mattered most, maybe not, especially in our losses, which is what we are talking about.

You are revising history to fit your argument. Benson was good prior to his injury, and he was not used properly in our 3 losses.
Dexter_Sinister  
#83 Posted : Friday, June 21, 2013 12:27:31 PM(UTC)
Who else were we suppose to give the ball too beside Benson in the SF game?

Starks was out, Saine was out, Green wasn't ready. NOBODY else was on the roster. They stopped running because Benson was getting 2 per.

Benson ended the season just under his career average. Benson sucked last year like he always had. He had a decent, but not great game against Chicago with some extra personal motivation.

The Saints had a horrible run D. The were 32nd in YPC allowed. They averaged giving up 5.2 per. So Benson getting 4.7 per is BELOW AVERAGE. Because he sucks.

Benson had a 2.9 in the Colts game, a 2 in the SF game and a 2.7 in the Seattle game. Because he sucks

Since Benson has always done that. He has a 3.8 career, 3.8 in Cincy and a 3.8 in Chicago. So I wasn't surprised he had a 3.5 for us. I actually expected it

Regardless of how he looks, he didn't produce like Grant (who nobody likes in spite of having the same YPC as Emmitt Smith.)

In the Seattle game McCarthey was probably thinking in that since we only have Benson and he sucks, we should try and supplement the running game with a WCO style short passing game to the Back. Trying to get some rhythm, but the sacks and penalties kept disrupting that. We can't run it when we are always behind the sticks. 2nd and 17 is not a running down.
macbob  
#84 Posted : Saturday, June 22, 2013 9:01:22 AM(UTC)
Dexter_Sinister said: Go to Quoted Post
In the Seattle game McCarthey was probably thinking in that since we only have Benson and he sucks, we should try and supplement the running game with a WCO style short passing game to the Back.


So, basically you're saying Mike McCarthy decided to abandon the running game (because Benson sucked). :-"

And yes, I still consider running the ball on one play in the first quarter and on three plays total in the first half while passing the ball 27 plays qualifying as abandoning the run, not 'supplementing the running game'.
DoddPower  
#85 Posted : Saturday, June 22, 2013 12:34:12 PM(UTC)
macbob said: Go to Quoted Post
So, basically you're saying Mike McCarthy decided to abandon the running game (because Benson sucked). :-"

And yes, I still consider running the ball on one play in the first quarter and on three plays total in the first half while passing the ball 27 plays qualifying as abandoning the run, not 'supplementing the running game'.



Whether Benson truly sucked, or not, I don't think that was the issue at times early last season. I think the coaching staff felt relatively confident in him. I just think they feel more confident in Aaron Rodgers and the passing game. As they most certainly should. That's always going to be the case except maybe if the Packers had Adrian Peterson and even then it's going to be close. So regardless, patient must be maintained in the play-calling and the offensive line play must improve. Those two are inseparable and integrated together.
Dexter_Sinister  
#86 Posted : Saturday, June 22, 2013 6:57:09 PM(UTC)
Since Benson truly sucked right out of the gate against SF and they had no one else who could run, there wasn't much choice in the matter.

They started giving Benson the ball and he got diminishing touches with each drive. 2 of the first 4 plays being runs. After 6 runs for 12 yards, they kind of gave up on Benson.
DarkaneRules  
#87 Posted : Sunday, June 23, 2013 10:28:07 AM(UTC)
That is why it is important not to get too involved with one reason why a game is lost because there are so many variables and each player on both teams has a part in it as well as the coaches. As I understand it, sticking to your game plan in times of adversity can certainly be one of the hardest decisions coaches can make in professional sports.

One of the reasons the naysayers say we are not physical enough is that we rarely impose our will in the run game. So we can blame coaching, schematics, the players, and/or give credit to the opposing defenses... it is a part of all those things. Or we can also look at Aaron Rodgers can say the more times he has the ball in his hands the better. Sometimes yes, but clearly that leads to being one-dimensional as they say.

It is safe to assume that losing the way we did to the Giants and 49ers, who are widely known as the more physical of the NFC teams, had a lot to do with moving o-line players which effects schematics and drafting two highly regarding running backs in the draft which should effect performance in a positive way.

And yes Benson sucked... haha
Dexter_Sinister  
#88 Posted : Sunday, June 23, 2013 3:31:59 PM(UTC)
DarkaneRules said: Go to Quoted Post
That is why it is important not to get too involved with one reason why a game is lost because there are so many variables and each player on both teams has a part in it as well as the coaches. As I understand it, sticking to your game plan in times of adversity can certainly be one of the hardest decisions coaches can make in professional sports.

One of the reasons the naysayers say we are not physical enough is that we rarely impose our will in the run game. So we can blame coaching, schematics, the players, and/or give credit to the opposing defenses... it is a part of all those things. Or we can also look at Aaron Rodgers can say the more times he has the ball in his hands the better. Sometimes yes, but clearly that leads to being one-dimensional as they say.

It is safe to assume that losing the way we did to the Giants and 49ers, who are widely known as the more physical of the NFC teams, had a lot to do with moving o-line players which effects schematics and drafting two highly regarding running backs in the draft which should effect performance in a positive way.

And yes Benson sucked... haha


The Packers beat the Texans , the Vikings 2 times and the Bears 2 times.

Those are also physical Ds.
DarkaneRules  
#89 Posted : Sunday, June 23, 2013 6:55:12 PM(UTC)
Well yeah ... thats kinda part of the point :) Everyone team is physical. It's football. It seems like the word applies more however to those teams that can impose their will on the other in the run game more consistently is what I was trying to get across.
Dexter_Sinister  
#90 Posted : Sunday, June 23, 2013 7:54:25 PM(UTC)
macbob said: Go to Quoted Post
So, basically you're saying Mike McCarthy decided to abandon the running game (because Benson sucked). :-"

And yes, I still consider running the ball on one play in the first quarter and on three plays total in the first half while passing the ball 27 plays qualifying as abandoning the run, not 'supplementing the running game'.


Abandon what running game?

We didn't have a running game to abandon.

Included in the design of the WCO is replacing a portion of the running game with what becomes a really long hand off.

The Packers did try to do that. What it is called isn't as important as what its function is in the offense. A screen is kind of replacing the draw. Swing pass kind of replaces a sweep in function. It goes into the "pass" stat column, but the function is more like that of a run.

They were out of running backs and they had to replace Bensons running with something.

Because, as I said.

Benson sucked.

macbob  
#91 Posted : Monday, June 24, 2013 4:52:12 PM(UTC)
Dexter_Sinister said: Go to Quoted Post
Abandon what running game?

We didn't have a running game to abandon.


We are not (and should not be) primarily a running team, but running improves our passing game by giving the D something else they need to account for. If we're not running enough to give them something to account for then our offense will struggle--see the first half of the Seattle game, where we were losing 7-0 at half time.

We had enough of a running game in the second half to outscore Seattle 12-0 (I still refuse to credit them with that last TD).

And that was with the same RBs we had in the first half.

That was the running game that Mike McCarthy abandoned without even seeing if we could run successfully against Seattle.

Just like at SF in the playoffs, we abandoned the run in the second half, scoring all of 3 pts before a mop-up TD in the last minute.

It's not a coincidence.
Rss Feed
Users browsing this topic
Guest
5 Pages«<345
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

Fan Shout
Smokey (3h) : Guest ? Join us Today !
Smokey (3h) : Saturday , it's PIZZA NIGHT !
Smokey (23h) : Friday is Seafood day , not Pizza night . Eat a Shrimp !
Cheesey (23-Jun) : Happy B-day rocker!
Zero2Cool (22-Jun) : Today's Birthdays: hardrocker950 (33)
Smokey (22-Jun) : Coffee anyone ?
Smokey (21-Jun) : good show
Cheesey (21-Jun) : APPLE with ice cream!
Smokey (20-Jun) : Cherry with Vanilla Ice Cream !!
Cheesey (20-Jun) : APPLE!
Smokey (20-Jun) : Apple or Cherry Pie ?
TheKanataThrilla (18-Jun) : The only have 2 preseason games. I like that as the fans get to see more of the starters.
TheKanataThrilla (18-Jun) : Next week I believe the CFL season starts. Go Redblacks!!!
Smokey (18-Jun) : Been researching CFL , Edmonton Eskimos have the best colors/uniforms .
Smokey (18-Jun) : When does the CFL Season start anyway ?
Smokey (18-Jun) : Saw Flute CFL highlights in the day, full CFL game was /is rare .
TheKanataThrilla (18-Jun) : I wish many of you would have seen Doug Flutie in the CFL. Absolute beauty.
TheKanataThrilla (18-Jun) : Vince Young cut from Sask. Roughriders. Good for him to consider the CFL, but only a select few NFL QB castoffs are a good CFL fit.
Smokey (17-Jun) : R 2
Zero2Cool (17-Jun) : Not all hackers are bad
Smokey (16-Jun) : Public Hangings for Hackers .
Cheesey (16-Jun) : No, he said HACKERS!
Smokey (16-Jun) : Did you say Crackers ?
Zero2Cool (16-Jun) : PACKERS PACKERS PACKERS
Cheesey (16-Jun) : "That is true, my dear Smokey!"LOL!
Smokey (15-Jun) : dat ? Brer Cheesey ?
Cheesey (15-Jun) : True dat, Smokey. MUCH better!
Smokey (15-Jun) : I like the fillets/tenders, they usually are a better deal.
Cheesey (15-Jun) : Good one, Porforis! Made me laugh!
Porforis (15-Jun) : Shoulda gone with Kentucky Fried Chickadee
Cheesey (15-Jun) : Last time I had KFC, the pieces were so small it should be renamed "Kentucky Fried Sparrow"
Cheesey (15-Jun) : POPEYES! (Or Churches chicken)
Smokey (15-Jun) : KFC or Popeyes Chicken ?
Smokey (15-Jun) : It's grocery shopping day !
Smokey (15-Jun) : Why did they shelter ?
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2017 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 10 @ 3:25 PM
SEAHAWKS
Sunday, Sep 17 @ 7:30 PM
at Falcons
Sunday, Sep 24 @ 3:25 PM
BENGALS
Thursday, Sep 28 @ 7:25 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Oct 8 @ 3:25 PM
at Cowboys
Sunday, Oct 15 @ 12:00 PM
at Vikings
Sunday, Oct 22 @ 12:00 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Oct 29 @ 12:00 AM
- BYE -
Monday, Nov 6 @ 7:30 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 12 @ 12:00 PM
at Bears
Sunday, Nov 19 @ 12:00 PM
RAVENS
Sunday, Nov 26 @ 7:30 PM
at Steelers
Sunday, Dec 3 @ 12:00 PM
BUCCANEERS
Sunday, Dec 10 @ 12:00 PM
at Browns
Saturday, Dec 23 @ 7:30 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Dec 31 @ 12:00 PM
at Lions
Saturday, Dec 17 @ 12:00 PM
at Panthers
Think About It
Think About It
Recent Topics
6m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

7m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

4h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Smokey

5h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

5h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

6h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

18h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

18h / Green Bay Packers Talk / isocleas2

21h / Around The NFL / beast

21h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

23h / Around The NFL / Smokey

23-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / sschind

23-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / sschind

23-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / sschind

22-Jun / Around The NFL / Smokey

Headlines