Discussion Board
Welcome Guest! You can login or register. Login or Register.
5 Pages123>»

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
play2win  
#1 Posted : Wednesday, May 2, 2012 1:45:30 PM(UTC)
I don't know about you guys, but I like old school, ball control, chew up the clock stuff.

Scenario #1. To me, so many OCs and playcalling HCs with really good QBs seem to get enamored with offensive prowess through the air, and the accompanying play calling genius that comes with the outrageous stat lines. I think this is one problem.

Scenario #2. Another problem, to my perspective, is many of those really good QBs are given very long leashes by their HCs. There are plays called, with multiple options according to how the opposing Ds line up, and what they show. I believe many of these QBs will often call their own number, check to play "pass," just out of shear nature, rather than to call for what may be a smarter play, to run the football.

Throughout the entire Mike Sherman era, I figured he fell into the #1 category. I was not happy with that guy, and felt we could have won more SBs with a more balanced, ball control commitment to the run.

After Favre's tenure here, I realized it might not have been Sherman at all, but rather Favre checking out of designated running plays to throw the ball instead.

I wonder - a lot - about this. Is it human nature for a QB to check to pass? What about the admittedly run averse McCarthy, who openly jokes about calling more running plays? He wants to throw the ball. Period.

I know the game has changed, but I am wondering if maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea for it to change back?

This is some old info, but certainly relevant to winning football games: http://www.usatoday.com/...-27-important-stat_N.htm

"A team that rushes at least 27 times a game wins more than 81% of their postseason games, according to Mike Midas, a consultant with ties to former NFL coach Dick Vermeil, who did research regarding each Super Bowl champion back to 2000."

Here is a more current view: http://blogs.nfl.com/201...lying-on-featured-backs/

"Of the last 10 Super Bowl winners, only two (the 2005 Steelers and 2004 Patriots) had backs that rushed for more than 1,200 yards that season. Parker rushed for 1,202 yards in 15 games (80.1 ypg) in 2005. Dillon had a monster season in 2004, rushing for 1,635 yards in 15 games (109.0 ypg). Although, we might have exclude the Packers, who used various backs after the Week 1 injury to Ryan Grant.

But that’s not to say all the Super Bowl winners weren’t successful running the ball. Four teams — the 2009 Saints (6th), 2007 Giants (4th), 2005 Steelers (5th) and 2004 Patriots (7th) — finished in the top 10 those seasons in rushing."

With all the high profile, pass happy play calling that is sweeping the league, and - all the personnel adjustments that have been made league-wide on defense to counter those assaults - !, wouldn't NOW be a really good time to start dedicating more plays to the run?

I love the benefits:

1. Wear out the opposing defense with aggressive, balls to the wall run blocking. it is totally different than stepping back and absorbing hits in pass protection. Watch, Saturday is old school and will want us to run. Those OL love run blocking. Cut em loose Mike!
2. Save your QB!!!
3. Chew up clock
4. Keep your own defense fresh
5. Open up the play action
6. Keep opposing defenses honest

Like many of you, I was really hoping one of our picks would be a great RB. That didn't happen, but are usually options to sign via FA, and we have to hope Alex Green and James Starks can bring it. I think it would be really smart for McCarthy to catch some teams off guard this year by running more. It could be fun, and super successful.

Last year we had 23 ATT per game. The Giants had 27.

What do you guys think?
zombieslayer  
#2 Posted : Wednesday, May 2, 2012 1:51:07 PM(UTC)
Oh boy. You're opening up a big can of worms here.

I know you're new to this site, but this was debated ad nauseum a few years back.
play2win  
#3 Posted : Wednesday, May 2, 2012 1:57:35 PM(UTC)
I figured, but, things have changed. Really. Defenses seem to be gearing way more the past few years to stopping the vertical attack. Now would not be a bad time to open that can 'o whoopass.

Now... where did we put that can 'O Whoopass? Did we bury it in 2008, when we rushed for over 29 ATT/gm and went 6-10? Woot

I guess my bigger point is not so much attempts, but getting good at it. Seems people think we don't need to run anymore. The game has changed... Still, you look at the teams that all won the SB the last 10 years, they were all pretty good at it. So were we, but just at the end of the year, when we got Starks to end the season and carry the playoff load. Statistically, we were a SB winning anomaly that year.
nerdmann  
#4 Posted : Wednesday, May 2, 2012 2:34:24 PM(UTC)
The rules nowadays favor the passing game. I wouldn't mind seeing more halfback screens and draw plays.
Dexter_Sinister  
#5 Posted : Wednesday, May 2, 2012 2:51:27 PM(UTC)
If they are gearing up to stop the pass, they are doing a crappy job. Rodgers having a 122.5 passer rating and a steady, league wide increase in average rating since the 1940s when they ditched the Notre Dame box formation.

Passing has always been the key to winning super bowls. Even in '60s Packers had a high passer rating differential. It doesn't matter which side of the ball it comes from, but passing is the key. Pass better than you let your opponents pass.

I wouldn't like to see a decrease in the passing games efficiency in the slightest.

Last year alone a 120+ passer rating in a game was a win 98% of the time.

The top running backs in the league do not have any where near that success rate.

I do think they need to run, but I think they need to run efficiently. AP doesn't run efficiently. He gets a couple big runs a game then all the rest of the time he averages under 3 per. Lots of 3rd and long, lots of 3 and outs and lots of failed drives. Plus when you are trailing in a game. Running burns clock.

The Packers are actually good at running the ball. 4.2 per without any break away runs means that down in and down out, they are producing positive yards.

That is exactly what Emmitt Smith did. He ran into the line and fell down for 4.2 per.

Which is what I liked about Grant. He was getting positive dependable yards. Which is much more important than a couple break away runs then 3 and outs the rest of the game.

That is why Minnesota can't win. They think a running back can carry them.

beast  
#6 Posted : Wednesday, May 2, 2012 3:38:22 PM(UTC)
play2win said: Go to Quoted Post
What do you guys think?


That some of your info is biased. I would like a stronger running game, but I also want to keep the QB/passing game in a rhythm and give the best player(s) (Rodgers) the ball for a chance to make plays happen.

play2win said: Go to Quoted Post
it is totally different than stepping back and absorbing hits in pass protection.


First off, in pass protection you're suppose to give the hit not absorb it (just like in run blocking). Yes players can absorbs hit while run or pass blocking but that's not as good as attacking and hitting them and making them absorb the punishment and controlling them, both in the run and the pass.

play2win said: Go to Quoted Post
"A team that rushes at least 27 times a game wins more than 81% of their postseason games"


This stat very well could be misleading. Most teams aren't going to run it 27 times if they're trailing... simple as that. Some teams like the Ravens/49ers/Jets and other run first teams might, but most teams aren't.

I don't have the stats but I would think the winning team normally runs more in the 4th quarter because they're trying to run down the clock, while the other team is passing trying to play catch up.

I know people have looked up Grants stats and said every time he get _ amount of hand off the team wins. Every time he get under that amount they lose. And Grants yardage and amount of TDs in those games were random, but Mike McCarthy simple runs the ball more while they're ahead.

play2win said: Go to Quoted Post
"Of the last 10 Super Bowl winners, only two (the 2005 Steelers and 2004 Patriots) had backs that rushed for more than 1,200 yards that season."


So the Packers should run less than 1,200 yards?

play2win said: Go to Quoted Post
Last year we had 23 ATT per game. The Giants had 27.


That's really not that big a different to me. They don't have Rodgers, and the Packers don't got their running game. It's about going with your hot hand there.

buckeyepackfan  
#7 Posted : Wednesday, May 2, 2012 3:50:51 PM(UTC)
"Throughout the entire Mike Sherman era, I figured he fell into the #1 category. I was not happy with that guy, and felt we could have won more SBs with a more balanced, ball control commitment to the run.

After Favre's tenure here, I realized it might not have been Sherman at all, but rather Favre checking out of designated running plays to throw the ball instead
."

PTW,

You really should go back and check the stats.

Mike Sherman built one of the better offensive lines in Packer History, with the addition of Ahman Green, The Packers were near the top of the league in rushing.

I do believe Sherman ran a "true" West Coast Offense, where there was very little checking out of plays at the line.

You are correct in saying the game has changed.

With the new rules which make the qb and wr's almost untouchable, The offense has become. IMHO, way to wide open, but a good OC and QB is gonna take what is given them.

I think that I have read where Aaron Rodgers has the option on almost every play to check out at the line, you can't fault him when he has been so successful.


I also know that no matter how the game has changed, when the weather changes and teams are making their playoff runs, they better have a better than average running game to be successful.

This is what worries me about going into this year, too many changes in the O-line and a lot of ?'s at the RB position.

Hopefully it will all get straightened out during Training camp.
Porforis  
#8 Posted : Wednesday, May 2, 2012 3:53:51 PM(UTC)
I say, do what gives you the best chance to score more points than the other team. When you have a QB that easily could have broke a 130 season passer rating if his receivers had a league-average drop rate, why would you run the ball? When your defense is a bend rather than break defense (that often broke), why rely on eating up the clock instead of just taking the points? How many teams did we play last year had a passing or rushing offense that was more effective at scoring than our passing offense?
wpr  
#9 Posted : Wednesday, May 2, 2012 8:28:57 PM(UTC)
If I had a choice I like the old smash mouth game. One team knowing you will run the ball and unsuccessfully trying to stop it, the other team imposing their will time and time again. The problem with this is that style is long gone and dead.
As for the question did Brett change plays at the line? I think so. Since it worked out more times than not (until an interception I didn't mind it. Too much.

You need a great QB to consistently win. Even if your running game is average. The Vikings have one of he better RB in the past 10 years but without a quality QB they didn't go anywhere. With one they made it to the SB. Oh wait, he threw another timely interception didn't he? I guess I do like some ints.

Can't say I was hoping for a RB in this year's draft. There are were too many holes on defense that had to be addressed. And as much as I like the offense crushing the defense with run after run I love a defense (GB) that tears the offense a new hole. Hopefully that is what we will get this year.
DoddPower  
#10 Posted : Wednesday, May 2, 2012 8:37:36 PM(UTC)
I MUCH prefer a solid smash mouth defense. Give me an efficient running game, but it's a passing league. I'd rather the energy be spent on having a great defense. A great passing offense with a great passing defense is a combination I would take every single season these days.
yooperfan  
#11 Posted : Wednesday, May 2, 2012 9:48:45 PM(UTC)
Porforis said: Go to Quoted Post
I say, do what gives you the best chance to score more points than the other team. When you have a QB that easily could have broke a 130 season passer rating if his receivers had a league-average drop rate, why would you run the ball? When your defense is a bend rather than break defense (that often broke), why rely on eating up the clock instead of just taking the points? How many teams did we play last year had a passing or rushing offense that was more effective at scoring than our passing offense?


The Packers of 2011 scored to fast and so often that they had to send their pathetic defense back out onto the field way to quick.
Run the damn ball and eat up the clock and give that pathetic defense a breather.
Running the damn ball also gives our great QB who has been hit too many times in his young career a few less tooth rattleing hits a game.
RUN THE DAMN BALL!

Porforis  
#12 Posted : Thursday, May 3, 2012 5:10:31 AM(UTC)
yooperfan said: Go to Quoted Post
The Packers of 2011 scored to fast and so often that they had to send their pathetic defense back out onto the field way to quick.
Run the damn ball and eat up the clock and give that pathetic defense a breather.
Running the damn ball also gives our great QB who has been hit too many times in his young career a few less tooth rattleing hits a game.
RUN THE DAMN BALL!


http://www.packershome.c...ed-Packer-passing-D.aspx
macbob  
#13 Posted : Thursday, May 3, 2012 4:58:23 PM(UTC)
buckeyepackfan said: Go to Quoted Post
"Throughout the entire Mike Sherman era, I figured he fell into the #1 category. I was not happy with that guy, and felt we could have won more SBs with a more balanced, ball control commitment to the run.

After Favre's tenure here, I realized it might not have been Sherman at all, but rather Favre checking out of designated running plays to throw the ball instead
."

PTW,

You really should go back and check the stats.

Mike Sherman built one of the better offensive lines in Packer History, with the addition of Ahman Green, The Packers were near the top of the league in rushing.


Agree with buckeye on that. He should especially look at 2003. 507 rushes to 473 pass attempts, 2558 rushing yards to 3377 passing yards.

Agree with Zombie also, this has been beat to death over and over. McCarthy's (& Rodgers') play-calling mixed pass & run very nicely, and did a superb job of keeping defenses off balance.

macbob  
#14 Posted : Thursday, May 3, 2012 5:16:58 PM(UTC)
yooperfan said: Go to Quoted Post
The Packers of 2011 scored to fast and so often that they had to send their pathetic defense back out onto the field way to quick.
Run the damn ball and eat up the clock and give that pathetic defense a breather.
Running the damn ball also gives our great QB who has been hit too many times in his young career a few less tooth rattleing hits a game.
RUN THE DAMN BALL!



2011 the Packers pass/run ratio was 58%/42%. We weren't particularly a pass-happy team (though it may have seemed to be because our passing game was more efficient than our running game).

We HAVE changed the flavor of the run game to greater emphasis on draw plays from the shotgun vs U71 smashmouth. I think a part of that was due to switching to the ZBS, which caused problems on many fronts (smaller OL men, so it was more difficult to smashmouth; OL difficulty all getting on the same page/executing, etc). And I think a part of that was Mike McCarthy putting less emphasis on the run than Mike Sherman. Can you even picture Mike McCarthy going through an entire season with more rush attempts than pass attempts (Sherman 2003)?

nerdmann  
#15 Posted : Thursday, May 3, 2012 7:04:33 PM(UTC)
macbob said: Go to Quoted Post
2011 the Packers pass/run ratio was 58%/42%. We weren't particularly a pass-happy team (though it may have seemed to be because our passing game was more efficient than our running game).

We HAVE changed the flavor of the run game to greater emphasis on draw plays from the shotgun vs U71 smashmouth. I think a part of that was due to switching to the ZBS, which caused problems on many fronts (smaller OL men, so it was more difficult to smashmouth; OL difficulty all getting on the same page/executing, etc). And I think a part of that was Mike McCarthy putting less emphasis on the run than Mike Sherman. Can you even picture Mike McCarthy going through an entire season with more rush attempts than pass attempts (Sherman 2003)?



Does that % include runs by our QB?
play2win  
#16 Posted : Friday, May 4, 2012 5:25:36 AM(UTC)
buckeyepackfan said: Go to Quoted Post
"Throughout the entire Mike Sherman era, I figured he fell into the #1 category. I was not happy with that guy, and felt we could have won more SBs with a more balanced, ball control commitment to the run.

After Favre's tenure here, I realized it might not have been Sherman at all, but rather Favre checking out of designated running plays to throw the ball instead
."

PTW,

You really should go back and check the stats.

Mike Sherman built one of the better offensive lines in Packer History, with the addition of Ahman Green, The Packers were near the top of the league in rushing.

I do believe Sherman ran a "true" West Coast Offense, where there was very little checking out of plays at the line.

You are correct in saying the game has changed.

With the new rules which make the qb and wr's almost untouchable, The offense has become. IMHO, way to wide open, but a good OC and QB is gonna take what is given them.

I think that I have read where Aaron Rodgers has the option on almost every play to check out at the line, you can't fault him when he has been so successful.


I also know that no matter how the game has changed, when the weather changes and teams are making their playoff runs, they better have a better than average running game to be successful.

This is what worries me about going into this year, too many changes in the O-line and a lot of ?'s at the RB position.

Hopefully it will all get straightened out during Training camp.



Well, I know the rush was prolific during those days, overall. Believe me, I've beaten this sucker to death over the years too. I failed to mention "when it mattered most, in some of our most important games." That's all I'm going to say about that era.

1. My bigger point was, more emphasis on running the ball would create more balance to our offense, extend drives and time of possession, and probably save Rodgers some by forcing defenses into a more honest approach, one where they would have to honor the run rather than blitz. I think this could help our defense stay more rested and ready as well.

I agree with you on the state of our OL, with a lot of moving parts at the moment, as well as "who exactly" is going to carry the rock for us?

2. Another part of my point in starting this thread, was the changing philosophies overall pervading in today's NFL with regards to this being a "passing league." Conversely, opposing defenses are gearing more towards adding those players to their rosters who are more adept at stopping the pass. Lighter, faster ends geared towards pass rush; quicker, taller LBs more adept in coverage than stopping the run; more ball skills in the secondaries v. "tackling in space" ability. Makes me wonder if it wouldn't be a good time to throw more smashmouth running plays into the mix, forcing teams outside their "new" comfort zones, which are primarily stopping the pass. Maybe catch some teams off-guard, as most design their defenses towards us to stop our juggernaut of a passing attack.

Yes, we do have that, and it works. But, I'm thinking a more balanced assault could make our passing attack even more effective. This would help Rodgers for sure, as well as our defense. Those quick drives, forcing our D back onto the field time and time again has to take its toll.

Some may say, "well, if it works, why fix it?" I'm thinking it has worked well to this point. I have no question that we can be even better as an O in the passing dept. Just thinking this may be a rather unique approach in today's NFL, given the nature of our passing game, to keep it and Rodgers alive, and to make our D a bit more effective.
Stevetarded  
#17 Posted : Friday, May 4, 2012 11:17:30 AM(UTC)
I'm all for running the ball better but I don't care if they run it more or less as long as they have an offense similarly efficient as they did last year. If you can convert that many first downs and TDs per drive who cares how you do it.
Wade  
#18 Posted : Friday, May 4, 2012 12:38:54 PM(UTC)
I want them to be able to say in the fourth quarter, "we're going to hammer at you with the run every play and we dare you try to stop us."

Other than that, I don't care. If GB wants to pass 80% of the time in the first three quarters, that's perfectly fine with me -- because I know Aaron Rodgers and company will totally demoralize the other team.

But having demoralized them with multiple TD passes in quarters one through three, I want them to treat the other team with complete disdain. To be able to say, "See, you can't even stop us even with our passing game tied behind our back.
Dexter_Sinister  
#19 Posted : Friday, May 4, 2012 1:07:11 PM(UTC)
I just don't want to see McCarthey with his foot off the gas. We pounded the Brocos till the end and we Pounded MN in that second game until the end. I want to see some shut out or some games with under 10 points.

If we are aggressive and get burned, we have the horses to deal with it.

No more 150+ yard 4th quarters. I want teams that play us to get worse in the 4th quarter. I don't care if we do it running or passing.
PackerTraxx  
#20 Posted : Saturday, May 5, 2012 7:58:16 AM(UTC)
I actually enjoy watching a good running game more that a good passing game. Just my pregerence. It's one of the main reasons I like college ball. That said, the way the pro game is set up today you need to pass to win and run to keep defenses honest. If the rules were still like years ago that DBs could bump and run, knock a reciever down any time before the ball is in the air, and the O linemen couldn't use their hands you would see the running game more prominently. I'm glad we have the passing ammunition we do, because that's more important with the way the rule of the game are today.
Rss Feed
Users browsing this topic
Guest
5 Pages123>»
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
Zero2Cool (19h) : Sad about Cortez Kennedy. I remember playing him in Tecmo (beast!)
Cheesey (23h) : RIP Cortez Kennedy
Smokey (23-May) : R.I.P.Sir Rodger (007) Moore .
Smokey (23-May) : Try Fish
Porforis (22-May) : Chicken 4 dayz!
gbguy20 (22-May) : Agreed
Smokey (21-May) : Yes, I like Chick-fil-a .
Smokey (21-May) : Rabid Chicken ? LOL
rabidgopher04 (21-May) : Chick fil a
Zero2Cool (20-May) : Penguins & Bad Guys Tied 2 apiece! LETS GO PENS!
Smokey (20-May) : Who sells the best Chicken Sandwich ? Wendy, the King, McD, etc. ?
Smokey (20-May) : Just Visiting ? Join and post today !
Zero2Cool (18-May) : Screw you. (signed Pens fan)
TheKanataThrilla (18-May) : Go Sens!!! Will be in the crowd for the Friday game.
Smokey (18-May) : E.Lacy makes weight in Seattle by 2 lbs. (253 lbs.)
buckeyepackfan (17-May) : Blount signs 1 year deal with Eagles.
DarkaneRules (14-May) : and still! Miocic & Jedrzejczyk
Zero2Cool (13-May) : RP ... you mean Go Pens ... I fix for you.
RaiderPride (13-May) : Gotta Love P.K. T.K.T. I agree.. Go Preds.
Smokey (12-May) : CB Kevin King signs 4 yr deal, no 5th year option .
TheKanataThrilla (12-May) : Go Nashville in the West
TheKanataThrilla (12-May) : My son is wearing his Mario Lemieux Pens shirt and my daughter is wearing he Sens shirt. We win no matter what.
Zero2Cool (11-May) : Aaron Nagler:Packers announce first training camp practice to be held Thursday, July 27
Zero2Cool (11-May) : Capitals are dirty weak trash.
Zero2Cool (11-May) : NHL is great! PENGUINS!!!!
yooperfan (10-May) : Screw the NBA and the NHL, neither are worth watching!
wpr (10-May) : hahaha. Poor Bettman. Worth the price to see it.
TheKanataThrilla (10-May) : Bettman would blow a gasket if it was an all-Canadian finals. I want Nashville as I am a huge Mike Fisher fan.
Smokey (10-May) : Cheap Shot ? I think not .
wpr (10-May) : Thrilla how about an all Canada Finals?
TheKanataThrilla (10-May) : Pens tomorrow. Screw you Caps for the cheap shot on Crosby.
TheKanataThrilla (10-May) : Go Sens. Want to see the Sens pull it out tomorrow.
DarkaneRules (9-May) : that's a good thing. means the players are staying out of trouble
DoddPower (9-May) : awfully quiet in here
DoddPower (3-May) : darn
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
4m / Around The NFL / PackFanWithTwins

10h / Green Bay Packers Talk / buckeyepackfan

20h / Green Bay Packers Talk / TheKanataThrilla

23-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / Smokey

22-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

22-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / Smokey

21-May / Packers Draft Threads / Smokey

20-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / Smokey

19-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / sschind

19-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / sschind

18-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / Smokey

18-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / hardrocker950

18-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / Smokey

18-May / Around The NFL / Smokey

18-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / DakotaT

Headlines