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

2 Pages<12
Share
Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline QCHuskerFan  
#16 Posted : Thursday, March 28, 2013 8:30:59 AM(UTC)
QCHuskerFan

Rank: 6th Round Draft Pick

Posts: 203
Joined: 12/30/2010(UTC)

Applause Given: 60
Applause Received: 93

Originally Posted by: play2win Go to Quoted Post
Did you not see who won the SB last year? How many carries do you think the Ravens RBs had in winning that Super Bowl? Against fucking San Francisco? I mean, that was a very powerful team they went up against and beat. They provided the recipe.

35.

That's exactly what we need to do. And we need the punishing personnel to do it, along with the change in mindset.

Don't be fooled. That power running game they have made Joe Flacco a superstar. BTW, their RBs rushed 30 times in winning the AFC Championship. How many games did we rush 30 or more times by our RBs? What was the result?



The power running game won the Super Bowl? Really? What about the 3 TD passes in the first half that built a 21-6 lead? One play into the second half and it was 28-6. That allowed the Ravens to run the whole second half with minimal success but draining the clock?

The Ravens RB's ran 32 times for 92 yards in the Super Bowl. 23 of those attempts were after they built a 22 point lead. You don't need a power running game to run the ball when you have a huge lead built by passing. Don't be fooled by looking at stats. The passing game won the SB for the Ravens.

You stated you 'want to see a complete shift to a run oriented power game on offense'. How is that not going away from a passing oriented team? We all want a little more balance, but to go away from what is working (And winning Super Bowls) is wrong.

Not winning the Super Bowl for 2 years is not reason to trash the offense. The offense put up 31 points against the 49ers. You should win games in which you score 31 points.

Look at the teams that have had elite running teams in the last 5 years? Tenn. Minn. Chicago. Houston. How many SB's do they have?

Look at the teams with elite passing games in the last 5 years? Packers, Patriots, Giants, Saints, Atlanta. Same question.

blank
thanks Post received 2 applause.
wpr on 3/28/2013(UTC), DoddPower on 3/28/2013(UTC)
Online wpr  
#17 Posted : Thursday, March 28, 2013 8:34:09 AM(UTC)
wpr

Rank: Hall of Famer

United States
Posts: 11,893
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 2,418
Applause Received: 1,203

QCHuskerFan, more than a pretty face. ThumpUp
"You don't hurt 'em if you don't hit 'em." Chesty Puller



UserPostedImage

Offline Pack93z  
#18 Posted : Thursday, March 28, 2013 8:42:48 AM(UTC)
Pack93z

Rank: Hall of Famer

U.S. Minor Islands
Posts: 12,605
Joined: 3/16/2007(UTC)
Location: North Central Wisconsin

Applause Given: 353
Applause Received: 937

You can win a Superbowl in a number of different facets.. having a consistent running game to fall back on does nothing but give you more opportunities to win a Championship.

To me.. the key is balance.. the more you can do well and consistent.. the more opportunities it fashions to win or dominate a football game.

I think many also overlook what a running game does for your defense.
The wolves will never lose sleep over the feelings of the sheep.

UserPostedImage
thanks Post received 1 applause.
play2win on 3/28/2013(UTC)
Offline play2win  
#19 Posted : Thursday, March 28, 2013 9:06:57 AM(UTC)
play2win

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

United States
Posts: 2,256
Joined: 3/29/2012(UTC)
Location: Milwaukee

Applause Given: 855
Applause Received: 552

Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan Go to Quoted Post
The power running game won the Super Bowl? Really? What about the 3 TD passes in the first half that built a 21-6 lead? One play into the second half and it was 28-6. That allowed the Ravens to run the whole second half with minimal success but draining the clock?

The Ravens RB's ran 32 times for 92 yards in the Super Bowl. 23 of those attempts were after they built a 22 point lead. You don't need a power running game to run the ball when you have a huge lead built by passing. Don't be fooled by looking at stats. The passing game won the SB for the Ravens.

You stated you 'want to see a complete shift to a run oriented power game on offense'. How is that not going away from a passing oriented team? We all want a little more balance, but to go away from what is working (And winning Super Bowls) is wrong.

Not winning the Super Bowl for 2 years is not reason to trash the offense. The offense put up 31 points against the 49ers. You should win games in which you score 31 points.

Look at the teams that have had elite running teams in the last 5 years? Tenn. Minn. Chicago. Houston. How many SB's do they have?

Look at the teams with elite passing games in the last 5 years? Packers, Patriots, Giants, Saints, Atlanta. Same question.



You are negating the effect their running plays had in opening up the pass in the first half. Entirely.

Just because they scored 3 TDs passing in the first half doesn't mean they weren't set up by the run.
First drive: 2 rushes out of 7 plays resulting in the TD pass.
Second drive: 1 pass, 3 straight rushes, followed by 5 pass plays results in punt.
Third drive, 3 straight rushes, pass, rush, pass, rush, pass, rush, pass for TD.
Fourth drive: rush, pass, rush, rush, pass, rush, pass, pass, rush results in turnover on downs on fake FG.
Fifth drive: pass, pass, pass TD.

16 first half rushes. 3 TD passes. But, according to you, none of those were the result of an opened up field for Flacco to throw on by Ray Rice and Bernard Pierce rushes....

OK. You're right. It was 3 passing TDs. Flacco is amazing. All done through the air. What was I thinking?

I will remind you they almost gave it all away in the 3rd Quarter by going away from the run.

Sixth drive: 3 pass plays to 1 run resulting in a punt.
Seventh drive: 2 pass plays to 1 run resulting in a punt.
Eighth drive: 1 run, 1 pass resulting in a fumble TO.

SF scores 2 TDs and a FG as a result of those failed drives to get back in it.

Oddly enough, they get their shit back together on their 9th drive: run, run, pass, pass, run, run, run, pass, run, run, pass, FG.

Tenth drive: 5 runs to 6 passes results in another FG.

Edited by user Thursday, March 28, 2013 9:20:56 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

thanks Post received 1 applause.
Zero2Cool on 3/28/2013(UTC)
Offline QCHuskerFan  
#20 Posted : Thursday, March 28, 2013 10:11:25 AM(UTC)
QCHuskerFan

Rank: 6th Round Draft Pick

Posts: 203
Joined: 12/30/2010(UTC)

Applause Given: 60
Applause Received: 93

Originally Posted by: play2win Go to Quoted Post
You are negating the effect their running plays had in opening up the pass in the first half. Entirely.

Just because they scored 3 TDs passing in the first half doesn't mean they weren't set up by the run.
First drive: 2 rushes out of 7 plays resulting in the TD pass.
Second drive: 1 pass, 3 straight rushes, followed by 5 pass plays results in punt.
Third drive, 3 straight rushes, pass, rush, pass, rush, pass, rush, pass for TD.
Fourth drive: rush, pass, rush, rush, pass, rush, pass, pass, rush results in turnover on downs on fake FG.
Fifth drive: pass, pass, pass TD.

16 first half rushes. 3 TD passes. But, according to you, none of those were the result of an opened up field for Flacco to throw on by Ray Rice and Bernard Pierce rushes....

OK. You're right. It was 3 passing TDs. Flacco is amazing. All done through the air. What was I thinking?

I will remind you they almost gave it all away in the 3rd Quarter by going away from the run.

Sixth drive: 3 pass plays to 1 run resulting in a punt.
Seventh drive: 2 pass plays to 1 run resulting in a punt.
Eighth drive: 1 run, 1 pass resulting in a fumble TO.

SF scores 2 TDs and a FG as a result of those failed drives to get back in it.

Oddly enough, they get their shit back together on their 9th drive: run, run, pass, pass, run, run, run, pass, run, run, pass, FG.

Tenth drive: 5 runs to 6 passes results in another FG.


No, I am not ignoring the effect of their rushing game. You implied they won due to their 35 rushing attempts. I pointed out more than half of those attempts came after they built a huge lead. When anyone knows to run the ball and shorten the game.

During the first half while they were piling up 21 points, Baltimore rushed for whopping 46 yards on 15 carries, if my math is correct. Numbers like that did not cause the 49ers to commit 9 players to stop the run. It did not change the dynamics of the game. It was balance, no doubt. But it was not a dominating, game changing performance. That was done by the passing game.

In the SB, Baltimore RB's rushed for 92 yards on 32 carries against the 49ers. In the playoff loss to the 49ers, GB's RBs rushed for 76 yards on just 13 carries. On the basis of those stats, the Ravens should be studying the Packers so they can improve their running game.

You are confusing the need to do a better job running the ball with the need for a complete shift of the offense. The Packers Offense is just fine. Mike McCarthy needs someone to remind him to run the ball a little more often and Aaron Rodgers needs to not check out of the run quite so much. But the design is just fine.
blank
Offline play2win  
#21 Posted : Thursday, March 28, 2013 11:59:27 AM(UTC)
play2win

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

United States
Posts: 2,256
Joined: 3/29/2012(UTC)
Location: Milwaukee

Applause Given: 855
Applause Received: 552

Semantics. Whatever. Point is, nearly half of the rushing attempts were in the first half. You made it sound as if they didn't run at all in the first half:

" You don't need a power running game to run the ball when you have a huge lead built by passing. Don't be fooled by looking at stats. The passing game won the SB for the Ravens."

You are ignoring the contributions of a power running game to the Ravens' success in passing during the SB. Admit it. That lead was not built by passing alone.

The Packers offense is NOT just fine if they continue to fail to run the ball more... you admit as much in your own contradiction.

Funny example you point to, in GB's 13 carries against SF in our LOSS.

"But the design is just fine."

I'm not proposing we don't throw the football. That's insane. What I am hoping that they change is a shift in emphasis to more power running to open up our passing game more, and to give our D a blow. Really simple.

Edited by user Thursday, March 28, 2013 12:38:58 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Offline QCHuskerFan  
#22 Posted : Thursday, March 28, 2013 12:59:38 PM(UTC)
QCHuskerFan

Rank: 6th Round Draft Pick

Posts: 203
Joined: 12/30/2010(UTC)

Applause Given: 60
Applause Received: 93

Sorry. My bad. I didn't realize when you said "a complete shift to a run oriented power game on offense", you really meant just a shift in emphasis.
blank
Offline play2win  
#23 Posted : Thursday, March 28, 2013 1:07:07 PM(UTC)
play2win

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

United States
Posts: 2,256
Joined: 3/29/2012(UTC)
Location: Milwaukee

Applause Given: 855
Applause Received: 552

Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan Go to Quoted Post
Sorry. My bad. I didn't realize when you said "a complete shift to a run oriented power game on offense", you really meant just a shift in emphasis.


Dude, we are on the same page.

I'm just hoping Ted can land all the players we will need to make the proper improvements in all of these areas. On the O side, I think we all agree the OL play was suspect, and that we have question marks at LT and C. We also lack that big power back that would help make all of this go.

BTW, I guess I was over emphasizing it a bit, since McCarthy is so emphatically against the need to run... as much as saying so in the press. Maybe he will change his tune a bit after two years of beatings suffered in the playoffs.

On D, we need big DL and S help. Maybe LB too, as Perry is a bit of a question mark, as is Bishop in their return from injury.

That is a lot of improvement to hope for with one draft.
Offline Pack93z  
#24 Posted : Thursday, March 28, 2013 1:17:39 PM(UTC)
Pack93z

Rank: Hall of Famer

U.S. Minor Islands
Posts: 12,605
Joined: 3/16/2007(UTC)
Location: North Central Wisconsin

Applause Given: 353
Applause Received: 937

Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan Go to Quoted Post
Sorry. My bad. I didn't realize when you said "a complete shift to a run oriented power game on offense", you really meant just a shift in emphasis.


This is the core element that drove lengthy threads.. those pushing for more balance are believed to be advocating a run heavy orientation.. when in reality both sides are very close to visualizing the same thing. Well maybe except for Zombieslayer. Big Grin

Speaking of which.. gets a job and loses a Niner bet.. then disappears. ;)
The wolves will never lose sleep over the feelings of the sheep.

UserPostedImage
thanks Post received 1 applause.
play2win on 3/28/2013(UTC)
Offline QCHuskerFan  
#25 Posted : Thursday, March 28, 2013 3:05:35 PM(UTC)
QCHuskerFan

Rank: 6th Round Draft Pick

Posts: 203
Joined: 12/30/2010(UTC)

Applause Given: 60
Applause Received: 93

Originally Posted by: play2win Go to Quoted Post
That is a lot of improvement to hope for with one draft.


Cheer up! We could be the Bears and need 4 starting OL in this one draft! And a MLB, S, DT, RB and a QB that doesn't cry.
blank
thanks Post received 2 applause.
play2win on 3/28/2013(UTC), nerdmann on 3/28/2013(UTC)
Offline play2win  
#26 Posted : Thursday, March 28, 2013 5:08:58 PM(UTC)
play2win

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

United States
Posts: 2,256
Joined: 3/29/2012(UTC)
Location: Milwaukee

Applause Given: 855
Applause Received: 552

Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan Go to Quoted Post
Cheer up! We could be the Bears and need 4 starting OL in this one draft! And a MLB, S, DT, RB and a QB that doesn't cry.


Yeah, no shit, eh?!!! Laughing

Really, though, I'm a tad concerned about all these teams loading up for bear, with us re-signing Brad Jones...

Ted plays a tough FA game, and I question his being so rigid with it. But, I do trust the guy.
Offline DoddPower  
#27 Posted : Thursday, March 28, 2013 6:14:16 PM(UTC)
DoddPower

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

United States
Posts: 2,582
Joined: 9/24/2007(UTC)
Location: Visalia, CA

Applause Given: 1,469
Applause Received: 353

Originally Posted by: play2win Go to Quoted Post
Yeah, no shit, eh?!!! Laughing

Really, though, I'm a tad concerned about all these teams loading up for bear, with us re-signing Brad Jones...

Ted plays a tough FA game, and I question his being so rigid with it. But, I do trust the guy.


It's not like he's a tight-wad for fun, or for the benefit of himself. He's just doing what he thinks is best for the long-term health of the team. He will keep them competitive and well-managed financially year-after-year. I'm sure he would love to sign some big-time free agents, but if it's not in the numbers, it's just not in the numbers; and he would certainly be one to know. He visits/talks/offers several players contracts, but he has a budget to work under and he stands by it; hence the word budget. His top priority right now is to lock up the most important players on the Packers roster, and perhaps he will have more stability financially moving forward from there.

There are still some free agents available that I think could help the team, even if for only a season or two. Am I the only one that wouldn't mind seeing someone like James Harrison or a pass-rushing specialist brought in under a reasonable contract?

Offline play2win  
#28 Posted : Thursday, March 28, 2013 7:24:19 PM(UTC)
play2win

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

United States
Posts: 2,256
Joined: 3/29/2012(UTC)
Location: Milwaukee

Applause Given: 855
Applause Received: 552

Originally Posted by: doddpower Go to Quoted Post
It's not like he's a tight-wad for fun, or for the benefit of himself. He's just doing what he thinks is best for the long-term health of the team. He will keep them competitive and well-managed financially year-after-year. I'm sure he would love to sign some big-time free agents, but if it's not in the numbers, it's just not in the numbers; and he would certainly be one to know. He visits/talks/offers several players contracts, but he has a budget to work under and he stands by it; hence the word budget. His top priority right now is to lock up the most important players on the Packers roster, and perhaps he will have more stability financially moving forward from there.

There are still some free agents available that I think could help the team, even if for only a season or two. Am I the only one that wouldn't mind seeing someone like James Harrison or a pass-rushing specialist brought in under a reasonable contract?



I was thinking the same thing. Harrison.

And I appreciate what you've said here and I agree. I just wonder sometimes.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages<12
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 0.257 seconds.