Discussion Board
Welcome Guest! You can login or register. Login or Register.
3 Pages<123>

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Dexter_Sinister  
#21 Posted : Friday, June 28, 2013 5:50:31 PM(UTC)
macbob said: Go to Quoted Post
And for the Madden Football crowd, we had 27 passing plays and only 3 running plays in the entire first half, scoring all of 0 points.


So, would running more times like Benson did in the final drive have helped them score in the first half?
nerdmann  
#22 Posted : Friday, June 28, 2013 6:25:32 PM(UTC)
Dexter_Sinister said: Go to Quoted Post
So, would running more times like Benson did in the final drive have helped them score in the first half?


Iirc,Lang came out and criticized the lack of running, stating that the DL was free to just "pin their ears back" and attack the QB.
Dexter_Sinister  
#23 Posted : Friday, June 28, 2013 8:33:21 PM(UTC)
nerdmann said: Go to Quoted Post
Iirc,Lang came out and criticized the lack of running, stating that the DL was free to just "pin their ears back" and attack the QB.


Just choosing to run doesn't get any yards. You have to be able to actually run. And for that you need a RB that can run for more than -5 yards when you are trying to run out the clock.

Lang was absolutely right. The running game was awful. But giving the ball to Benson obviously wasn't the answer. Using the last drive of the Seattle game where we ran it 3 times for -3 yards and only because Kuhn got 2 as an example of running in spite of sucking at it.
Dexter_Sinister  
#24 Posted : Friday, June 28, 2013 8:56:28 PM(UTC)
macbob said: Go to Quoted Post
And for the Madden Football crowd, we had 27 passing plays and only 3 running plays in the entire first half, scoring all of 0 points.


You could blame the sacks, you could blame the running game and you could blame the penalties.

At the rate they were gaining yards running the ball, taking 12 plays away from passing in exchange for 24 rushing yards may or may not have helped. I am going to lean towards not.

Running more in the second half was not the only adjustment they made.

In the first half they ran some "WCO running plays". Some of the running game falls under the passing plays category. The short dump off plays to the backs is a suplement to the running game and take its function in the West Coast Offense. For example, a shovel pass is counted as a pass, but is essentially a draw. The only difference is where the Back is when the QB tosses the ball. If he is behind the QB, it counts as a run. If he is not behind the QB, it counts as a pass. Even if it is the same play, the same kind of toss and the same function in the game.

It is designed to slow the pass rush down and get the ball to the backs in space so they can get the D reacting instead of attacking. Like a running play.

They probably did that because Benson was having so much trouble getting out of the backfield. And they had no one else.
macbob  
#25 Posted : Saturday, June 29, 2013 8:40:49 AM(UTC)
Dexter_Sinister said: Go to Quoted Post
So, would running more times like Benson did in the final drive have helped them score in the first half?


Our 5 drives in the first half all ended in punts and went for a combined total of 82 yards. COMBINED. And since our 3 runs in that half gained 24 yards that meant we had all of 58 yards passing at half time.

In the second half we had 4 drives for 214 yards total offense, with drives of 70, 66, and 81 (that one drive itself only 1 yard less than our TOTAL offense in the first half). Our 4 drives ended in 2 FGs and a TD before that final 3 & out in the last two minutes.

In the 3rd quarter, Benson ran the ball 10 times for 49 yards and we scored 6 points on the two drives. We took the lead in the 4th Qtr for the first time on the only TD we scored in the game, a 1 yard run by Benson.

Abandoning the run in the first half made us one-dimensional and allowed the Seattle D to concentrate on our passing game, resulting in 58 yards passing and 82 yards COMBINED total offense at half time. Only 60 of our 214 yards in the second half were on the ground, but running the ball opened up our passing game by forcing the Seattle D to honor the run.

So yes, I'd say running the ball more in the first half would have helped us score. It would have been hard to do worse.
nerdmann  
#26 Posted : Saturday, June 29, 2013 12:27:18 PM(UTC)
Dexter_Sinister said: Go to Quoted Post
Just choosing to run doesn't get any yards. You have to be able to actually run. And for that you need a RB that can run for more than -5 yards when you are trying to run out the clock.

Lang was absolutely right. The running game was awful. But giving the ball to Benson obviously wasn't the answer. Using the last drive of the Seattle game where we ran it 3 times for -3 yards and only because Kuhn got 2 as an example of running in spite of sucking at it.


Maybe. But I thought Benson was pretty good at getting what was there.

The Niners have an elite Dline. But that doesn't mean they don't have to play. Yeah, maybe they can hold our guy to 3 ypc, but that doesn't mean they don't have to TRY to do so.
Dexter_Sinister  
#27 Posted : Saturday, June 29, 2013 4:29:39 PM(UTC)
macbob said: Go to Quoted Post
And for the Madden Football crowd, we had 27 passing plays and only 3 running plays in the entire first half, scoring all of 0 points.


I am not saying we shouldn't run. I am saying they couldn't.

The last drive had 3 runs and it wasn't any better than the first half. Choosing to run doesn't magically generate yards, first downs and points.
Dexter_Sinister  
#28 Posted : Saturday, June 29, 2013 4:32:08 PM(UTC)
nerdmann said: Go to Quoted Post
Maybe. But I thought Benson was pretty good at getting what was there.

The Niners have an elite Dline. But that doesn't mean they don't have to play. Yeah, maybe they can hold our guy to 3 ypc, but that doesn't mean they don't have to TRY to do so.


It was actually 2 per carry.

If we lined up and needed 3 yards to get a first down, score or run out the clock,

we couldn't get it.

We have won a couple games without much running. Like the super bowl, for example.
Dexter_Sinister  
#29 Posted : Saturday, June 29, 2013 5:24:30 PM(UTC)
macbob said: Go to Quoted Post
Our 5 drives in the first half all ended in punts and went for a combined total of 82 yards. COMBINED. And since our 3 runs in that half gained 24 yards that meant we had all of 58 yards passing at half time.

In the second half we had 4 drives for 214 yards total offense, with drives of 70, 66, and 81 (that one drive itself only 1 yard less than our TOTAL offense in the first half). Our 4 drives ended in 2 FGs and a TD before that final 3 & out in the last two minutes.

In the 3rd quarter, Benson ran the ball 10 times for 49 yards and we scored 6 points on the two drives. We took the lead in the 4th Qtr for the first time on the only TD we scored in the game, a 1 yard run by Benson.

Abandoning the run in the first half made us one-dimensional and allowed the Seattle D to concentrate on our passing game, resulting in 58 yards passing and 82 yards COMBINED total offense at half time. Only 60 of our 214 yards in the second half were on the ground, but running the ball opened up our passing game by forcing the Seattle D to honor the run.

So yes, I'd say running the ball more in the first half would have helped us score. It would have been hard to do worse.


The 3 runs in the first half included a 20 yard run by Cobb. Leaving Benson with 2 per.

Whenever Benson got the ball, he got little or nothing. Including the dump off passes.

On the TD scoring drive, other than the TD run, Benson had 2 runs for -3 yards in the other 16 plays. You can give him credit for the TD run, but giving him any credit for the running game making being the difference is total BS.

You are saying the only adjustment they made in the second half was running the ball. Not in protecting Rodgers better.

Running in the 4th quarter didn't help us generated a critical first down. So you can say "if" all you want to conjecture how effective more running might have been. But when they really needed the yards, running DID let them down. No ifs about it.
nerdmann  
#30 Posted : Saturday, June 29, 2013 11:01:19 PM(UTC)
Dexter_Sinister said: Go to Quoted Post
I am not saying we shouldn't run. I am saying they couldn't.

The last drive had 3 runs and it wasn't any better than the first half. Choosing to run doesn't magically generate yards, first downs and points.


Part of the running game is cumulative. You have to wear a defense down. Normally this comes with Time of Possession, if your coach is even concerned about that sort of thing.
beast  
#31 Posted : Sunday, June 30, 2013 11:20:45 AM(UTC)


Even IF the catch was really a catch... the end result shouldn't of been a touchdown.


Tate CLEARLY pushed Shield out of the play and onto the ground.

Also add in the horrible call roughing the QB call earlier which kept one of the last two drives alive when, Walden or Perry legally hit Wilson...
SINCITYCHEEZE  
#32 Posted : Sunday, June 30, 2013 11:33:57 AM(UTC)
We can discuss this till the Milk-Makers come home. It won't change a thing. All we are doing is [horse] [horse] [horse] [horse] [horse] [horse] [horse] [horse] [horse] [horse] [horse] [horse] [horse] [horse] [horse] [horse] [horse] [horse] [horse] [horse][horse] [horse]
Of Course it is the off-season and we don't have much to discuss right now. So beat awayTongue Tongue Tongue
Dexter_Sinister  
#33 Posted : Sunday, June 30, 2013 11:34:05 AM(UTC)
nerdmann said: Go to Quoted Post
Part of the running game is cumulative. You have to wear a defense down. Normally this comes with Time of Possession, if your coach is even concerned about that sort of thing.


That would b true if winniñg % went up with TOP.

But it doesn't.So I wouldn't be concerned either.

You can't wear a D down if the running game can't move the chains.

You have to actually gain yards. They don't give you first downs just for rushing attempts.
macbob  
#34 Posted : Sunday, June 30, 2013 12:35:32 PM(UTC)
Dexter_Sinister said: Go to Quoted Post
The 3 runs in the first half included a 20 yard run by Cobb. Leaving Benson with 2 per.

Whenever Benson got the ball, he got little or nothing. Including the dump off passes.


What was Rodgers numbers that first half? 58 yards on 27 passes...hey, 2 yards per attempt!

Dexter_Sinister said:
On the TD scoring drive, other than the TD run, Benson had 2 runs for -3 yards in the other 16 plays. You can give him credit for the TD run, but giving him any credit for the running game making being the difference is total BS.


Benson: 10 rushes for 49 yards in the 3rd quarter, and we have drives of 70 and 66 yards.

Dexter_Sinister said:
You are saying the only adjustment they made in the second half was running the ball. Not in protecting Rodgers better.


No, I didn't. Please don't put words in my mouth.

What I said was running the ball helped our OL protect Rodgers better by not letting the DL, etc tee off on the QB like they did in the first half, when we abandoned the run. Which helped our passing game in the second half.

Dexter_Sinister said:
Running in the 4th quarter didn't help us generated a critical first down. So you can say "if" all you want to conjecture how effective more running might have been. But when they really needed the yards, running DID let them down. No ifs about it.


I did not say the running game won the game for us. Or that all we should do is run the ball. Or that we should have run the ball more in the second half. Or that we should become primarily a running team.

What I said was that our lack of balance on offense in the first half made it easier on the D to concentrate on and shut down our passing game (58 yards passing) because McCarthy abandoned the run without having even seen if we could run it against Seattle (1x carry first quarter, 2x 2nd quarter= abandoned in my book). Result = 0 points, 58 yards passing, 82 yards total offense in the first half.

Scoring drives first half = 0 out of 5. Scoring drives second half = 3 out of 4.
DoddPower  
#35 Posted : Sunday, June 30, 2013 12:38:07 PM(UTC)
macbob said: Go to Quoted Post

No, I didn't. Please don't put words in my mouth.


Dex likes to do that so that every scenario fits his narrative.
Dexter_Sinister  
#36 Posted : Sunday, June 30, 2013 1:31:57 PM(UTC)
doddpower said: Go to Quoted Post
Dex likes to do that so that every scenario fits his narrative.


What is the logical conclusion if you say, they didn't run so they didn't score. They started to run so they did score.

The conclusion is you are crediting the running for the scoring and conversly blaming the lack for not scoring.

Even though the only TD scoring drive had 3 runs for negative yards. Pretty much the same ratio of the first 2 drives of the game.

Ignoring any other protection adjustments they made.
macbob  
#37 Posted : Sunday, June 30, 2013 3:25:16 PM(UTC)
Dexter_Sinister said: Go to Quoted Post
What is the logical conclusion if you say, they didn't run so they didn't score. They started to run so they did score.

The conclusion is you are crediting the running for the scoring and conversly blaming the lack for not scoring.

Even though the only TD scoring drive had 3 runs for negative yards. Pretty much the same ratio of the first 2 drives of the game.

Ignoring any other protection adjustments they made.


The logical conclusion is stated in my previous post. I just re-read it, and it looks pretty clear to me.

The 'logical conclusion' I would draw from your arguments is that you obviously preferred the offense of the first half of that game over the second half, where we wasted handing the ball off to Benson 10 times in the 3rd quarter alone.
Cheesey  
#38 Posted : Sunday, June 30, 2013 6:28:18 PM(UTC)
FACT: It was a horrible call.
But we can't change it.
There are calls all the time that are bad and make the difference in a game. This one stood out because of the fake refs, which were making bad calls left and right. Being at the end of the game, being the deciding score, just made it stand out more then all the other lousy calls.
Dexter_Sinister  
#39 Posted : Sunday, June 30, 2013 6:51:27 PM(UTC)
macbob said: Go to Quoted Post
The logical conclusion is stated in my previous post. I just re-read it, and it looks pretty clear to me.

The 'logical conclusion' I would draw from your arguments is that you obviously preferred the offense of the first half of that game over the second half, where we wasted handing the ball off to Benson 10 times in the 3rd quarter alone.


None of that is accurate. I prefer the drive they had in the 4th quarter that produced a TD. Not wasting downs on ineffective rushing and protecting Rodgers better.

I have said we needed to run more many times. But I also said we couldn't because we didn't have a decent running back. So there wasn't much option. Benson's poor running was not helping them score. We didn't need a crappy POS back that averaged 2 per getting 25 touches. We needed a solid back averaging 4 per getting 25 touches. Unfortunately, that wasn't an option.

You guys seem to be saying that they should have handed it off more because they did in the 3rd quarter and scored 2 FGs.

The only TD drive they had was with the same rushing ratio that you blame for not scoring any points in the first 2 quarters. They scored as many points not running the ball (and not getting sacked) as they did running the ball in the 3rd quarter. Yet all the credit is given to the running game.

Even though they did run more in the final drive and had negative rushing yards. Your useless rushing attempts produced a 3 and out.

Benson's lack of ability and the teams lack of viable alternatives prevented them from being able to run as much as they wanted too is my point.

Your point seems to be they didn't want to run and Benson sucking was only incidental.



Dexter_Sinister  
#40 Posted : Sunday, June 30, 2013 7:10:01 PM(UTC)
macbob said: Go to Quoted Post
What was Rodgers numbers that first half? 58 yards on 27 passes...hey, 2 yards per attempt!



Benson: 10 rushes for 49 yards in the 3rd quarter, and we have drives of 70 and 66 yards.



No, I didn't. Please don't put words in my mouth.



I did not say the running game won the game for us. Or that all we should do is run the ball. Or that we should have run the ball more in the second half. Or that we should become primarily a running team.


Scoring drives first half = 0 out of 5. Scoring drives second half = 3 out of 4.


Now who is putting words in?

Because I didn't any of that either. I only said you are blaming the loss on the not running the ball enough in the 1st half.

You only blamed the not running in the first half for the offensive problems. You didn't credit anything else as contributing to the better 3rd quarter and 1 drive in the 4th (where they actually didn't run any more than the 1st half). When you say the protection was better, you credit the running game. All the improvements you attributed to the running game. You may not have stated "they didn't make any other adjustments." But you did take all the credit for them and gave it to the running game. Even when they were not running any more than the first half and still scored a TD.

Points scored on drives with 80% or more passing, 6. Points scored on drives with a more balanced pass/run ratio, 6.
Rss Feed
Users browsing this topic
Guest
3 Pages<123>
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 (16h) : Marschawn Lynch at 2.20
Zero2Cool (16h) : Eddie Lacy has averaged 2.15 yards per rush after contact since entering the NFL in 2013. The only back to average more in that time: Marsh
Smokey (28-Mar) : not so , Miami voted no .
Nonstopdrivel (27-Mar) : The twist? The only team to vote against the move was Oakland.
Smokey (27-Mar) : NFL Owner's vote 31 - 1 for the Raiders to move to Las Vegas in 2020 .
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Mark Murphy: Teams paid 'more than we thought was reasonable' for Packers' free agents
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Seahawks backup quarterback arrested for marijuana possession after car he was riding in drives into a bar
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : I see JT, you should tell JT to post.
hardrocker950 (27-Mar) : Nice to see that Dorleant got arrested just a few miles from here...
Cheesey (26-Mar) : Sanchez with the Bears....LOLOLOL!!!!
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : We should hope it does not happen.
hardrocker950 (25-Mar) : I doubt that happens...
Smokey (24-Mar) : GB needs to trade up in the draft to get THE Ohio State CB - Marshon Lattimore !
Zero2Cool (24-Mar) : QB Mark Sanchez joining the Bears.
Zero2Cool (24-Mar) : double it up
Zero2Cool (24-Mar) : I'm kidding, relax....
Zero2Cool (24-Mar) : and now he has been cut
uffda udfa (23-Mar) : Per Schefter: Former Skins DT Ricky Jean Francois signed a one-year, $3M deal with Packers, per source.
uffda udfa (23-Mar) : Per Schefter: FormerSkins DT Ricky Jean Francois signed a one-year, $3M deal with Packers, per source.
Zero2Cool (23-Mar) : lol by .01 not what i thought
Zero2Cool (23-Mar) : he's faster than Montgomery
uffda udfa (22-Mar) : Packers re-sign Christine Michael
Smokey (22-Mar) : Easier said than fixed .
Nonstopdrivel (22-Mar) : The web version lists who started the thread; the mobile version lists who last updated it.
Nonstopdrivel (22-Mar) : Also, there's a weird disparity between the web version and online version of this site.
Nonstopdrivel (22-Mar) : ;-)
Zero2Cool (21-Mar) : Packers wanted D. Ware in 2005. Thank you Cowboys!
Zero2Cool (21-Mar) : lol Rourke
Nonstopdrivel (21-Mar) : I HATE HATE HATE the way all threads get marked as read after viewing a few of them in one session. It's obnoxious.
Smokey (21-Mar) : Check out this site, NFLdraftscout.com , a great resource site.
Smokey (20-Mar) : Jared Cook signs with Raiders .
Smokey (20-Mar) : I did watch SB 45 on YouTube the other night, very eye opening .
Smokey (20-Mar) : Watching Spring Training Baseball, Nationals vs Yankees, very interesting .
Zero2Cool (19-Mar) : B1G making some noise in that bracket
Zero2Cool (19-Mar) : The more join, the more talk, the better. including John
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2016 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 11 @ 12:00 PM
at Jaguars
Sunday, Sep 18 @ 7:30 PM
at Vikings
Sunday, Sep 25 @ 12:00 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Oct 2 @ 12:00 AM
BYE
Sunday, Oct 9 @ 7:30 PM
GIANTS
Sunday, Oct 16 @ 3:25 PM
COWBOYS
Thursday, Oct 20 @ 7:25 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Oct 30 @ 3:25 PM
at Falcons
Sunday, Nov 6 @ 3:25 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Nov 13 @ 12:00 PM
at Titans
Sunday, Nov 20 @ 7:30 PM
at Redskins
Monday, Nov 28 @ 7:30 PM
at Eagles
Sunday, Dec 4 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Dec 11 @ 3:25 PM
SEAHAWKS
Sunday, Dec 18 @ 12:00 PM
at Bears
Saturday, Dec 24 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Jan 1 @ 7:30 PM
at Lions
Think About It
Think About It
Recent Topics
5h / Green Bay Packers Talk / sschind

6h / Green Bay Packers Talk / steveishere

11h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

11h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

20h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

28-Mar / Fantasy Sports Talk / Smokey

27-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / DoddPower

27-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / RainX

27-Mar / Around The NFL / Zero2Cool

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / buckeyepackfan

23-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / PackFanWithTwins

23-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

23-Mar / Announcements / Zero2Cool

Headlines