You are not logged in. Join Free! | Log In Thank you!    

Welcome to your Green Bay Packers Online Community!

Since 2006, PackersHome has been providing a unique experience for fans.
Your participation is greatly anticipated!
Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

5 Pages«<345
Share
Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline macbob  
#61 Posted : Wednesday, March 16, 2011 1:47:09 AM(UTC)
macbob

Rank: 2nd Round Draft Pick

Posts: 1,695
Joined: 10/12/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 253
Applause Received: 225

Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
I really do believe with an elite D and an elite QB, the importance of a good RB goes way down. We could have easily won the SB with Jackson. Heck, next year, hypothetically speaking, our receivers are healthy and actually catch the ball, can we win it all with Jackson? I'd say yes.


I agree with your first sentence if you change good RB to elite RB. You need a good RB to attract the defenses attention. Grant, Starks are good RBs.

Jackson? Easily won the SB with Jackson? Yeah, if our defense gets 3 turnovers and we abandon the running game maybe... :)

My opinion is Jackson's a passable receiving back, but is a poor fit for GB's ZBS. He's indecisive and is too slow hitting the hole.

Grant and Starks both are good enough to attract the defense's attention, and I don't think that we really need to make a move at RB if Grant's ankle is healing well.
UserPostedImage
Offline macbob  
#62 Posted : Wednesday, March 16, 2011 2:19:15 AM(UTC)
macbob

Rank: 2nd Round Draft Pick

Posts: 1,695
Joined: 10/12/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 253
Applause Received: 225

Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
As I do believe you have to run, you don't want to run "too much." Too many teams with elite RBs run too much. If you look at a lot of the past recent SB winners, they didn't have elite RBs and passed to open up the run.


Agreed up until the last 6 words. I actually agree with the words (passing can open up the run), but in my opinion that's not what you want to do offensively.

Offensively, passing is the way I'm going to sting you, and sting you hard. It's your primary weapon. In my opinion, the primary goal of a running game is to make it easier on your passing game, help your passing game be better.

Running has some other benefits as well--eating up clock so the other team has less opportunity to score, etc, but those are secondary to things like slowing down the pass rush, sucking safetys up into the box, tiring out the defensive line, improve your play action, etc--all with benefits to your passing game.
UserPostedImage
Offline macbob  
#63 Posted : Wednesday, March 16, 2011 2:40:14 AM(UTC)
macbob

Rank: 2nd Round Draft Pick

Posts: 1,695
Joined: 10/12/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 253
Applause Received: 225

Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
Macbob slights me all the time but he's backing up what he's saying.

Damn. Was I that obvious??? Crud. :icon_smile:


Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
Personally, I think Macbob's a utopian. The game has changed.


Not true! I deny it! I'm eligible to be a PackersHome member! I have a US birth certificate! I just can't show it to you...

damn birthers are everywhere...

what? utopian means what??? It doesn't mean I was born in Utopia??? Nevermind...

The way I look at it, I think a good run/pass mix is in the 55-60% pass / 40-45% run range, and Zombie's more 70%/30%.

So I figure that makes me a moderate, and you must be an extremist, Zombie. I'm just having trouble figuring if you're a right wing :profileright: or left wing :profileleft: extremist... :icon_smile:
UserPostedImage
Offline zombieslayer  
#64 Posted : Wednesday, March 16, 2011 3:09:31 AM(UTC)
zombieslayer

Rank: Most Valuable Player

Posts: 9,919
Joined: 8/7/2008(UTC)
Location: San Francisco

Applause Given: 778
Applause Received: 495

Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post


Agreed up until the last 6 words. I actually agree with the words (passing can open up the run), but in my opinion that's not what you want to do offensively.

Offensively, passing is the way I'm going to sting you, and sting you hard. It's your primary weapon. In my opinion, the primary goal of a running game is to make it easier on your passing game, help your passing game be better.

Running has some other benefits as well--eating up clock so the other team has less opportunity to score, etc, but those are secondary to things like slowing down the pass rush, sucking safetys up into the box, tiring out the defensive line, improve your play action, etc--all with benefits to your passing game.


Don't worry, I read all your other posts.

Just wanted to talk about eating the clock. Keep in mind that if the score is close and it's not the 4th Q, when you're eating the clock, you may be shooting yourself in the foot. Thus, another problem with run first teams.

I agree with the other parts, but like I said, you don't want to run too much. If you have a fat lead, then yes, run.

I do think that 10 years from now, it will be 70/30. As a historian, I study trends and that's the trend we're heading for.
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  
#65 Posted : Wednesday, March 16, 2011 1:54:45 PM(UTC)
Zero2Cool

Rank: Legend

United States
Posts: 25,225
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI

Applause Given: 1,744
Applause Received: 1,792

Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
Those were wasted downs. We should have passed more so we could have gotten 40+ pts. 31-3? That's being too gentle. Running wasted valuable clock time that should have gone to Greg Jennings. Also, Rodgers never had 5 TD passes in a game. WTF? We could have easily broke the 5 barrier.


Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
I agree with the other parts, but like I said, you don't want to run too much. If you have a fat lead, then yes, run.



Passing is higher risk than running. If you're in the last half of the 4th quarter, up by 3 touchdowns or more, the intelligent thing to do is mix some runs with your short passes to keep the clock ticking. This isn't Madden. There are no cheat sheets to winning a game. There are only strategies that some work more than others.

Just because something hasn't been done, doesn't mean it can't be done, ahem, 6th seed in NFC winning it all for example.

UserPostedImage
Click here and find the LATEST Packers News!
Offline zombieslayer  
#66 Posted : Wednesday, March 16, 2011 2:37:49 PM(UTC)
zombieslayer

Rank: Most Valuable Player

Posts: 9,919
Joined: 8/7/2008(UTC)
Location: San Francisco

Applause Given: 778
Applause Received: 495

Zero - That first quote was obvious satire.

The second quote I'm agreeing with what you said. You run to eat the clock and end the game.
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  
#67 Posted : Wednesday, March 16, 2011 2:44:32 PM(UTC)
Zero2Cool

Rank: Legend

United States
Posts: 25,225
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI

Applause Given: 1,744
Applause Received: 1,792

Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
Zero - That first quote was obvious satire.

The second quote I'm agreeing with what you said. You run to eat the clock and end the game.

NO THE FIRST QUOTE WAS NOT SATIN!!!

You don't agree!!!!





I don't know, I've lost interest in this one.

UserPostedImage
Click here and find the LATEST Packers News!
Offline macbob  
#68 Posted : Wednesday, March 16, 2011 10:29:05 PM(UTC)
macbob

Rank: 2nd Round Draft Pick

Posts: 1,695
Joined: 10/12/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 253
Applause Received: 225

Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
Zero - That first quote was obvious satire.

The second quote I'm agreeing with what you said. You run to eat the clock and end the game.


I'm not a tremendous fan of running out the clock unless you're WAY up or down to the last couple of minutes. I think in general a team should stick with the offense that got them the lead in the first place.

For the most part, I feel the same about prevent defenses. Running out the clock too soon or going to a prevent too soon has all too often let a team back in the game when the outcome should not have been in doubt.

I was NOT happy with MM's playcalling at the end of the Eagles playoff game. Went to run-out-the-clock mode too early.
UserPostedImage
Offline macbob  
#69 Posted : Wednesday, March 16, 2011 10:43:32 PM(UTC)
macbob

Rank: 2nd Round Draft Pick

Posts: 1,695
Joined: 10/12/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 253
Applause Received: 225

Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
I do think that 10 years from now, it will be 70/30. As a historian, I study trends and that's the trend we're heading for.


I had actually expected to see that trend in stats when I was doing research back to the 49ers from the 70s-90s and Packers back to early 90s through now. With the changes favoring the passing game, I expected the pass ratio now to be higher. But they weren't. They were virtually unchanged.

I think the reason why is that there appears to be a minimum run percentage to attract the defense's attention, and 30% seems to be below the threshhold--if you're running too infrequently, the defenses seem to ignore the run and concentrate on stopping the pass.

Multiple times during this past season Dom Capers and various defensive players say their #1 goal is to stop the opposing team's rushing attack to force the opposing offenst to be one-dimensional. Then the D pins their ears back and gets after the QB.

Frankly, if that's the goal of one of the elite defenses in the league then as an offensive coordinator I want to avoid the situation where the D can pin their ears back and get after my QB. Which appears to mean running at a low-to-mid 40s% clip, based on historical stats.
UserPostedImage
Offline Zero2Cool  
#70 Posted : Sunday, November 11, 2012 8:10:14 AM(UTC)
Zero2Cool

Rank: Legend

United States
Posts: 25,225
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI

Applause Given: 1,744
Applause Received: 1,792

Originally Posted by: Packers_Finland Go to Quoted Post
There was no correlation between having Barry Sanders, and winning, so no, he is also not an elite running back.


If you don't think Barry Sanders was an elite running back, you're an idiot and I mean that in a friendly way. Big Grin

UserPostedImage
Click here and find the LATEST Packers News!
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.

Powered by YAF 2.1.0 | YAF © 2003-2014, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 0.230 seconds.