Grant = Success??· Page 9

zombieslayer
Registered

14 years ago

lmao six games out of 48?? 🙂

I do agree, you can find stats supporting whichever flavor you're wanting, you just chose one that doesn't seem to merit much in my view. (btw, off the top of my head, I think Driver had less than 100 during the Seahawks game in '07, we won, and more than 100 in the Giants game in '07 that we lost) Arguments can be made for this or that. He had 100 because we were behind and pass happy, etc ...

As for do we win more because we run Grant more or do we run Grant more because we are winning? If we don't run the ball well in the 4th quarter with the lead, we give the ball back and increase the chance for the other team to score. In that context, it seems fairly simple and obvious. Which makes me say, there's no real science to it, lol.

I think the stats for Grant having 20+ carries equaling more wins, is more of a trend than say a reason for success. I wouldn't dare say that running the ball more does not help win games. Anytime you eat up lots of clock and keep your defense off the field, that's a fairly good recipe for success. Providing of course you score points.

"Zero2Cool" wrote:

OK, just to keep this argument alive - I strongly think if you want to keep the D off the field, you gotta get first downs. Running 3 times for 8 yards takes 1:30 off the clock but doesn't get a first down. Running 2 times for 6 yards, then passing once for 5 yards will still take 1:30 off the clock, but you have a fresh set of downs to eat more of the clock.

See what I'm saying?

Get the first down. I really don't care if it's accomplished by running or passing. I don't care. I want the first down and the more effective way of getting first downs is the better way.

I could care less if we win the game by Grant rushing for 200+ yards while Aaron throws for 150, or if Aaron throws for 300 while Grant gets 5 carries. I don't care. In the end, points are what wins ballgames.

You throw against a team that can't defend the pass (Vikings or Niners) and rush against a team that can't defend the run (like the Rams).

You know how prejudiced I am against running the ball, but the exception of course is I believe in running it down their throat if they can't stop the run because yes, you are right - running eats the clock better than passing. However, first downs eat the clock better than both of them.

My man Donald Driver

(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷

Zero2Cool
Elite Member Topic Starter

14 years ago

#82

Yep, first downs assist greatly in eating more time off the clock. I was trying to point out that if you have three failed passing plays, meaning incompletions, you only eat up about say 40-70 seconds where as three failed runs eats up 120 seconds. That's a big difference when you're trying to kill the clock.

You know, I liked playing QB and focus on that more than anything, yet you have me defending the notion to run the ball more. Sometimes I can't stand being objective, it goes against my selfish being!!! lol

More to the getting first downs, yes, run pass penalty, doesn't matter as long as they are obtained.

One of the minor points I was getting to was, no running Grant 20+ does not guarantee a win, but I think with him getting more carries (as I've said many times, more carries for a RB the better they do) increases our chances of winning the game.

zombieslayer
Registered

14 years ago

#83

Zero - See, that I completely disagree with. See my write ups on how RB is optional when you want to win a SB, or Screw the Run. Both have arguments about how the run nowadays is not that important and passing teams fare much better in SBs (and of course D is the most important of all).

FYI - The 2 undefeated teams this year are the Colts (1st in passing yards and 31st in rushing yards) and the Saints (3rd in passing yards and 5th in rushing yards).

Of my elite teams list, only the Saints and the Vikings have a real rushing attack. All of my elite teams have elite QBs though.

My man Donald Driver

(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷

Zero2Cool
Elite Member Topic Starter

14 years ago

#84

"zombieslayer" wrote:

I don't disagree that the league is a pass happy league, not at all. Look at the rules that babysit QB's and protect WR's, it's absurd.

I think the Colts had the worst rushing offense AND defense the year they won the Super Bowl.

There's always going to be exceptions, and again, AGAIN, I will say this, there is no guaranteed way to ensure a win.

FYI, I've watched some of the games those teams won, Colts and Saints, some of them they should have lost, not many, one a piece easily had nothing to do with passing the ball at all.

zombieslayer
Registered

14 years ago

#85

Of course there are exceptions. But keeping it on the subject - would you rather have a team that is #1 in rushing or #1 in passing?

My man Donald Driver

(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷

Zero2Cool
Elite Member Topic Starter

14 years ago

#86

Of course there are exceptions. But keeping it on the subject - would you rather have a team that is #1 in rushing or #1 in passing?

"zombieslayer" wrote:

I didn't ever play running back much.
I played quarterback very much.

You decide.

zombieslayer
Registered

14 years ago

#87

Zero - That's not the point. It's not what we did personally. It's what wins games for the Packers.

In the NFL, passing > running. By far.

My man Donald Driver

(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷

PackFanWithTwins
Veteran Member

14 years ago

#88

Grant is a RB on a passing team. He is not going to get 5000 yards a season. But if he wants to be considered good, he needs to be over 1200 a year. 1000 aint squat these days unless he is throwing up 200+ receiving with it.

How I feel about Grant, keep him and I will be OK with it, replace him, and I will be ok with it.

The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!

Rockmolder
Honored Member

14 years ago

#89

"PackFanWithTwins" wrote:

Exactly. He's one of those 'solid' players, much like Dorsey Levens and Edgat Bennett where. He's someone who you won't just replace, but you can do a lot better.

We can see this as a great building oppurtinity and draft some backs, hoping we'll get an elite guy at some point.

Zero2Cool
Elite Member Topic Starter

14 years ago

#90

Zero - That's not the point. It's not what we did personally. It's what wins games for the Packers.

In the NFL, passing > running. By far.

"zombieslayer" wrote:

lol it is the point, it's exactly the point. I'm going to be bias like a motherfreaker. How am I going to watch the QB and critique is play if he's handing off 90% of the time? How am I going to see a beautiful deep ball land perfectly into a WR's hands if he's handing the ball off most of the time? How am I going to see a ball drilled into a window the size of a shoe box if he's not given the chance to do so?

I admire passing far more than running. Therefore, I'd rather see the Packers (whom I watch every week) pass often and win often by passing. So asking me to choose either passing or rushing, really not a good way to get an answer, objectively anyhow. Not on that subject.

I do agree that the NFL is a passing league, as I have already said including the rules that protect QB's and give advantages to the WR's. What more do you want me to say? I'm not going to say that rushing the ball successfully is a bad thing, contrary, it is a good thing as trends have shown.

Alas, continue to say that running the ball successfully does not help you win games.

Important Information:

The PACKERSHOME uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More Details Close

Fan Shout

TheKanataThrilla (25m) : I think he ended up with a terrible RAS score

dhazer (27m) : Anyone know what went on with Kitchens from Florida? At 1 point he was to be the Packers 1st round and he is way down the board now

Martha Careful (16h) : Z, could you please combine my thread with yours please. I obviously did not see it when I Created it

Martha Careful (19h) : Re: 'Kool-Aid' McKinstry. Other than Icky Woods, has there ever been a good NFLer with a childish nickname?

Martha Careful (20h) : Packers looking to trade up

Martha Careful (23h) : Flag?

Martha Careful (23h) : Sag?

Nonstopdrivel (23h) : It rhymes with "bag."

beast (26-Apr) : Family? That's Deadpool's F word

Nonstopdrivel (26-Apr) : Not THAT f-word.

Zero2Cool (26-Apr) : fuck

beast (25-Apr) : 49ers are Cap Tight

beast (25-Apr) : Fuck

Mucky Tundra (25-Apr) : Kanata, I will be when I'm on my lunch later

TheKanataThrilla (25-Apr) : Love you NSD

Nonstopdrivel (25-Apr) : Huh. I guess the F-word is censored in this fan shout.

Nonstopdrivel (25-Apr) : Anyone who doesn't hang out in the chat probably smokes pole.

TheKanataThrilla (25-Apr) : GoPackGo Thinking CB is the pick tonight

TheKanataThrilla (25-Apr) : Anyone hanging out in the chat tonight?

Zero2Cool (25-Apr) : whoa...49ers have had trade conversations about both Deebo Samuel and Brandon Aiyuk

Zero2Cool (25-Apr) : I hope they take a Punter at 9th overall. Be bold!

Mucky Tundra (25-Apr) : I may end up eating those words but I think they need a lot more talent then their 4 picks can provide

Mucky Tundra (25-Apr) : I really hope they stand pat and Draft a WR

Mucky Tundra (25-Apr) : @DMRussini

Mucky Tundra (25-Apr) : The Chicago Bears are very open for business at 9 and telling teams they are ready to move for the right price, per source

buckeyepackfan (24-Apr) : Lions extend Penei Soul 4yrs - 112mil

buckeyepackfan (24-Apr) : Lions extend St. Brown 4 years 120mil and

Mucky Tundra (24-Apr) : Now look, trading up to 13 to take a TE might not seem like a good idea later but it will be later!

dfosterf (24-Apr) : (Your trade up mock post)

dfosterf (24-Apr) : Mucky- The only thing fun to watch would be me flipping the f out if Gute goes up to 13 and grabs Brock Bowers, lol

beast (24-Apr) : DT Byron Murphy II, Texas... whom some believe is the next Aaron Donald (or the closest thing to Donald)

Zero2Cool (24-Apr) : What? And who?

Mucky Tundra (24-Apr) : *sad Mucky noises*

Mucky Tundra (24-Apr) : @JoeJHoyt Murphy said he’s been told he won’t slide past pick No. 16.

wpr (23-Apr) : Just about time to watch Sonny Weaver stick it to the seahags. I never get tired of it.

Martha Careful (23-Apr) : *game plan

Martha Careful (23-Apr) : IMHO, not even close. He is not a guy you game play around.

Mucky Tundra (23-Apr) : is Aiyuk worth a 1st rounder?

Zero2Cool (23-Apr) : 49ers are seeking a 1st round pick in exchange for WR Brandon Aiyuk

Mucky Tundra (22-Apr) : Based on Gutes comments, now I don't feel as silly having 13 picks in my mock the other day

Zero2Cool (22-Apr) : Zach Wilson to Broncos.

Zero2Cool (22-Apr) : Gutekunst says he'd love to have 13 or 14 picks. He's trading back huh lol

beast (22-Apr) : Someday we'll have a draft betting scandal

beast (21-Apr) : Sometimes looking extremely amazing, sometimes looking extremely lost

beast (21-Apr) : I haven't looked into the QBs, but some have suggested Maye has some of the most extremely inconsistent tape they've seen

beast (21-Apr) : Well it also sounds like Patriots are listening to trade offers, not that seriously considering any, but listening means they aren't locked

Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : Maye needs to be AFC

Mucky Tundra (21-Apr) : Not liking the idea of the Vikings getting Maye

Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : Vikings HC joked that he may or may not have sent flowers to Bob Kraft. That's where rumor came from.

beast (21-Apr) : Can't tell if this is real or BS, but some rumors about a possible Patriots/Vikings trade for #3 overall

Please sign in to use Fan Shout

2023 Packers Schedule

Sunday, Sep 10 @ 3:25 PM

Bears

38 - 20

Sunday, Sep 17 @ 12:00 PM

Falcons

24 - 25

Sunday, Sep 24 @ 12:00 PM

SAINTS

18 - 17

Thursday, Sep 28 @ 7:15 PM

LIONS

20 - 34

Monday, Oct 9 @ 7:15 PM

Raiders

13 - 17

Sunday, Oct 22 @ 3:25 PM

Broncos

17 - 19

Sunday, Oct 29 @ 12:00 PM

VIKINGS

10 - 24

Sunday, Nov 5 @ 12:00 PM

RAMS

20 - 3

Sunday, Nov 12 @ 12:00 PM

Steelers

19 - 23

Sunday, Nov 19 @ 12:00 PM

CHARGERS

23 - 20

Thursday, Nov 23 @ 11:30 AM

Lions

29 - 22

Sunday, Dec 3 @ 7:20 PM

CHIEFS

27 - 19

Monday, Dec 11 @ 7:15 PM

Giants

22 - 24

Sunday, Dec 17 @ 12:00 PM

BUCCANEERS

20 - 34

Sunday, Dec 24 @ 12:00 PM

Panthers

33 - 30

Sunday, Dec 31 @ 7:20 PM

Vikings

33 - 10

Sunday, Jan 7 @ 3:25 PM

BEARS

17 - 9

Sunday, Jan 14 @ 3:30 PM

Cowboys

48 - 32

Saturday, Jan 20 @ 7:15 PM

49ers

21 - 24