Johnson
14 years ago

Question - would you rather have 150 running yards or 45 points?

The answer to that question is the answer to your question. I don't care how we get the points. We win games by scoring. If it's 50 runs and 1 pass, cool. If it's 50 passes and 1 run, cool. Passing gives us our best chance of scoring.

As for our RBs, Jackson's blocking ability cannot be praised enough. His blocking is in the top 30% of what I've seen, and I've watched a lot of RBs since 1976. I'm very proud of him.

FYI - The Steelers won the SB two years ago with 58 total yards rushing. The Saints won the SB last year with even less. Should we take away their Lombardi trophies because they didn't get enough rushing yards?

"zombieslayer" wrote:



I'd rather have 150 yards AND 45 points. Yes, the Steelers and Saints won on the arm, but here's a question for you: Would you rather have a one-dimensional offense or a balanced offense? Yes the Pack put up 45 in the air yesterday, but they did against a team that laid down like a yellow dog near the end of the first quarter. It cost their coach his job today. And I wouldn't count on being able to pass for the win very often, especially in playoff games.

Another question: How many games have we lost this year because of a lack of a running game?
blank
Since69
14 years ago

Yes the Pack put up 45 in the air yesterday...

"Johnson" wrote:



21, actually...
UserPostedImage
Nonstopdrivel
14 years ago
Dude, this team has lost 3 games by a grand total of 9 points. It's not like these losses have been catastrophic. The Packers have been in every game up until the very end. Hell, two of the losses were in overtime!
UserPostedImage
Stevetarded
14 years ago

Question - would you rather have 150 running yards or 45 points?

The answer to that question is the answer to your question. I don't care how we get the points. We win games by scoring. If it's 50 runs and 1 pass, cool. If it's 50 passes and 1 run, cool. Passing gives us our best chance of scoring.

As for our RBs, Jackson's blocking ability cannot be praised enough. His blocking is in the top 30% of what I've seen, and I've watched a lot of RBs since 1976. I'm very proud of him.

FYI - The Steelers won the SB two years ago with 58 total yards rushing. The Saints won the SB last year with even less. Should we take away their Lombardi trophies because they didn't get enough rushing yards?

"Johnson" wrote:



I'd rather have 150 yards AND 45 points. Yes, the Steelers and Saints won on the arm, but here's a question for you: Would you rather have a one-dimensional offense or a balanced offense? Yes the Pack put up 45 in the air yesterday, but they did against a team that laid down like a yellow dog near the end of the first quarter. It cost their coach his job today. And I wouldn't count on being able to pass for the win very often, especially in playoff games.

Another question: How many games have we lost this year because of a lack of a running game?

"zombieslayer" wrote:



Why wouldn't you count on being able to pass for the win very often? We have good enough players to do it and plenty of other teams do it. It's not like there is some magical run/pass ratio that makes you win. Passing is the obvious strength of the team so that's obviously what will be utilized the most.

They used a good mix of runs in the Dallas game and it worked out pretty well. Only time will tell if they stick to the same plan and how effective it will be but I don't see the problem with how things went on Sunday regardless or whether they reached some irrelevant quota of rushing yards.
blank
macbob
14 years ago

Macbob - On paper yes. In reality, all rules go out the window.

Weird tidbit, in the last 2 SBs, all 4 teams failed to get 100 yards rushing. 2 of them won. 2 of them lost.

"zombieslayer" wrote:



lol on none of the teams getting 100 yds and 2 winning and 2 losing. I'll bet if they'd all gotten 100 yds 2 of the 100 yd teams would have won and 2 would have lost. :tongue:

Looking at our stats this year, in the games we've won we ran the ball (subtracting out AR's runs) 28, 22, 18, 20, 23, and 30. In the games we lost we ran the ball 13, 13, and 17 times. That's a statistically significant difference between the wins and losses.

But which came first--chicken or the egg? Are we running because we're winning/ahead, or are we winning because we're running/have a more balanced attack?

Looking at the splits from ESPN, we dont run more (as a percentage) when were ahead compared to when were tied. McCarthy has passed 184 times and rushed 141 times when the Packers are winning. Thats a 56/44% split. Comparing that to when were tied, McCarthy has passed 77 times to 55 rushes, a 58/42% split, not significantly different. So the differenece between the rushes in the games we've won vs the games we've lost is NOT due to being behind and passing more in an attempt to catch up.

A pleasant side note from looking at the splits was weve been winning/ahead way more than tied/losing this year. The games we lost we were winning through 3 quarters and lost on 4th quarter/overtime collapses. The Packers have run 325 plays when leading vs 198 when tied/losing (132 when tied, 66 while losing).
macbob
14 years ago

Why wouldn't you count on being able to pass for the win very often? We have good enough players to do it and plenty of other teams do it. It's not like there is some magical run/pass ratio that makes you win. Passing is the obvious strength of the team so that's obviously what will be utilized the most.

They used a good mix of runs in the Dallas game and it worked out pretty well. Only time will tell if they stick to the same plan and how effective it will be but I don't see the problem with how things went on Sunday regardless or whether they reached some irrelevant quota of rushing yards.

"Stevetarded" wrote:



It's not really a rushing yardage question, it's a rushing attempts question. Having a credible running game makes our passing game better. The DL can't tee off on our quarterback as much, play action passes are more effective, etc. In the Dallas game we had 34 passing plays to 30 rushes. That is a MUCH higher commitment to the running game than McCarthy normally makes.

Subtracting out AR's runs, in our 3 losses, McCarthy has a pass/rush ratio of 124/43, or 74/26%. In our 6 wins, we have a ratio of 181 passes/141 rushes, or 56/44%. That difference is NOT due to us being behind--weve been ahead in all games this year through 3 quarters. Thats been a conscious decision by the coach to abandon the run game. And were 0-3 in those games, 6-0 in the games with a more balanced attack.
Dexter_Sinister
14 years ago
West coast offense people. We use short dump off and screen passes like a running game. Add the RBs' receiving yards and the total is pretty respectable. We also split our carries more evenly. Jackson has just under twice as many carries as Kuhn. AP has nearly 10 times the carries of Gerhart.

Minnesota's rushing yards per game is lower in their wins. They have 2 wins where AP had 81 and 73 yards. They had 2 of their losses where AP had 145 and 131 yards.

It is nice to have a decent running game, but it is hyperbole to say it would guarantee any win or its lack of would guarantee a loss. A completely unfounded statement.
I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.
Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
macbob
14 years ago

West coast offense people. We use short dump off and screen passes like a running game. Add the RBs' receiving yards and the total is pretty respectable. We also split our carries more evenly. Jackson has just under twice as many carries as Kuhn. AP has nearly 10 times the carries of Gerhart.

Minnesota's rushing yards per game is lower in their wins. They have 2 wins where AP had 81 and 73 yards. They had 2 of their losses where AP had 145 and 131 yards.

It is nice to have a decent running game, but it is hyperbole to say it would guarantee any win or its lack of would guarantee a loss. A completely unfounded statement.

"Dexter_Sinister" wrote:



Don't see anyone 'guaranteeing' a win. The argument isn't how many yards the running game is getting, it's having a credible running game to keep the defense honest. I would be surprised if anyone here would make the argument that the Vikings don't have a credible running game.

Heck, subtracting out Rodger's 30 yds on 4 carries, we had 127 yds on the ground against the Redskins. It was by far our highest rushing total this year. But we only ran the ball 13 times to 46 passes. That is NOT balanced and the defense could tee-off on the passing game. Two of Rodger's lowest completion % have come in these games where we've completely abandoned the run. And we lost.
zombieslayer
14 years ago

West coast offense people. We use short dump off and screen passes like a running game. Add the RBs' receiving yards and the total is pretty respectable. We also split our carries more evenly. Jackson has just under twice as many carries as Kuhn. AP has nearly 10 times the carries of Gerhart.

Minnesota's rushing yards per game is lower in their wins. They have 2 wins where AP had 81 and 73 yards. They had 2 of their losses where AP had 145 and 131 yards.

It is nice to have a decent running game, but it is hyperbole to say it would guarantee any win or its lack of would guarantee a loss. A completely unfounded statement.

"Dexter_Sinister" wrote:



Exactly on all points. I'd take a 7 yard completion over a 4 yard run any day of the week. That was Bill Walsh's statement, not mine. I agree with Walsh.

Walsh asked the reporter - what would you rather face, 2nd and 3 or 2nd and 6?

I don't hate the run. It's nice to have. But not necessary. You can win a SB without a running game as has been shown over and over again. And yes, winning the SB means you won your playoff games. I've had people argue with me that said we won't go far in the Playoffs without a running game but then I'll show them actual facts of teams in the past 10 years who won the SB without a running game, but then they'll say we can't win in the Playoffs without a running game.

Go figure. I'm actually getting sick of saying the same thing over and over again and copying and pasting the same stats over and over again.

+1 by the way.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage
(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷
Stevetarded
14 years ago

West coast offense people. We use short dump off and screen passes like a running game. Add the RBs' receiving yards and the total is pretty respectable. We also split our carries more evenly. Jackson has just under twice as many carries as Kuhn. AP has nearly 10 times the carries of Gerhart.

Minnesota's rushing yards per game is lower in their wins. They have 2 wins where AP had 81 and 73 yards. They had 2 of their losses where AP had 145 and 131 yards.

It is nice to have a decent running game, but it is hyperbole to say it would guarantee any win or its lack of would guarantee a loss. A completely unfounded statement.

"macbob" wrote:



Don't see anyone 'guaranteeing' a win. The argument isn't how many yards the running game is getting, it's having a credible running game to keep the defense honest. I would be surprised if anyone here would make the argument that the Vikings don't have a credible running game.

Heck, subtracting out Rodger's 30 yds on 4 carries, we had 127 yds on the ground against the Redskins. It was by far our highest rushing total this year. But we only ran the ball 13 times to 46 passes. That is NOT balanced and the defense could tee-off on the passing game. Two of Rodger's lowest completion % have come in these games where we've completely abandoned the run. And we lost.

"Dexter_Sinister" wrote:



Isn't that what this thread is about?
blank
Fan Shout
Zero2Cool (9h) : Packers LT Jordan Morgan did not allow a single pressure across 23 pass-blocking snaps vs. Jets last night, per PFF
Mucky Tundra (13h) : With buckeye and the reasonable couple, we're currently sitting at 10
buckeyepackfan (14h) : Just posted to re-up on our FFL.
Zero2Cool (20h) : If healthy after, then thats all I care. Well, no drops would be nice
wpr (21h) : I made it through the 1st Q.
dfosterf (10-Aug) : Just gotta figure out how.
dfosterf (10-Aug) : Could have been a worse start, so there is that.
beast (10-Aug) : Yeah, someone tell the Packers football season has started, seems like they weren't ready for it
Mucky Tundra (10-Aug) : Sooooooo many penalties
Mucky Tundra (10-Aug) : It may only be preseason, but this game is a trip to the dentist
Zero2Cool (10-Aug) : Packers do bad -- FREAK OUT!!!!!!
Zero2Cool (10-Aug) : Packers do good -- eh only preseason
dfosterf (10-Aug) : Well that half was fun
Zero2Cool (10-Aug) : Great, zayne is down
Zero2Cool (9-Aug) : 13 minutes away from kickkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkoffff
Zero2Cool (9-Aug) : Had Celebration of Life for my uncle up north. wicked rain hope it dont come south
Mucky Tundra (9-Aug) : THE GREEN BAY PACKERS ARE PLAYING FOOTBALL TONIGHT!!!!!! THIS IS NOT A DRILL!!!!
Zero2Cool (9-Aug) : Woo-hoo
TheKanataThrilla (9-Aug) : NFL Network is broadcasting the game tonight, but not in Canada. Not sure why as no local television is showing the game.
beast (8-Aug) : But the Return from IR designations had to be applied by the 53 man cutdown.
beast (8-Aug) : It's a new rule, so it's not clear, but my understanding was that they could be IR'd at any time
Mucky Tundra (8-Aug) : *had to be IRed at 53
Mucky Tundra (8-Aug) : beast, I thought the designate return from IR players had to be IR at cutdowns to 53, not before
beast (8-Aug) : It's a brand new rule, either last season or this season, prior, all pre-season IRs were done for the season
beast (8-Aug) : But the Packers would have to use one for their return from IR spots on him, when they cut down to 53.
beast (8-Aug) : I think the NFL recently changed the IR rules, so maybe the season might not be over for OL Glover.
Zero2Cool (8-Aug) : Packers star Howton, first NFLPA prez, dies at 95 😔
dfosterf (8-Aug) : Apparently it is too complicated for several to follow your simple instructions, but I digress
dfosterf (8-Aug) : Zero- Did you see what I posted about Voice of Reason and his wife? She posted over at fleaflicker that they are both "In"
Zero2Cool (7-Aug) : Well, not crazy, it makes sense. Crazy I didn't notice/find it earlier
Zero2Cool (7-Aug) : it's crazy how one stored procedure to get data bogged everything down for speed here
dfosterf (7-Aug) : to herd cats or goldfish without a bowl. They reminded me of the annual assembly of our fantasy league
dfosterf (7-Aug) : out on a field trip, outfitting them with little yellow smocks. Most of the little folk were well behaved, but several were like trying
dfosterf (7-Aug) : Yesterday my wife and I spent the afternoon on the waterfront here in Alexandria, Va. A daycare company took about 15 three/four year olds
wpr (7-Aug) : seems faster. yay
dfosterf (7-Aug) : Wife of reason posted on the in/out thread on fleaflicker that both she and vor are in
Zero2Cool (7-Aug) : This page was generated in 0.135 seconds.
Mucky Tundra (7-Aug) : Tbh, I can never tell the difference in speed unless it's completely shitting the bed
Zero2Cool (7-Aug) : Sure does feel like site is more snappy
Zero2Cool (6-Aug) : I thought that was the Lions OL
Mucky Tundra (6-Aug) : Travis Glover placed on IR; seasons over for him
Zero2Cool (6-Aug) : found bad sql in database, maybe site faster now?
dfosterf (5-Aug) : I'm going to call that a good move.
Zero2Cool (4-Aug) : Packers sign CB Corey Ballentine
Zero2Cool (4-Aug) : I'm not sure how to kill the draft order just yet so it's not so confusing.
Mucky Tundra (4-Aug) : *to be able
Mucky Tundra (4-Aug) : and because it's not a dynasty league (which makes a lot more sense to be ability to trade picks)
Mucky Tundra (4-Aug) : Oh I know; I was just exploring and it blew my mind that you could trade picks because of the whole reordering thing
Mucky Tundra (4-Aug) : Zero, I think I preferred my offer: your 1st for my 15th rounder
Zero2Cool (4-Aug) : Keep in mind, we do a draft reorder once all members locked in
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2025 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 7 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Thursday, Sep 11 @ 7:15 PM
COMMANDERS
Sunday, Sep 21 @ 12:00 PM
Browns
Sunday, Sep 28 @ 7:20 PM
Cowboys
Sunday, Oct 12 @ 3:25 PM
BENGALS
Sunday, Oct 19 @ 3:25 PM
Cardinals
Sunday, Oct 26 @ 7:20 PM
Steelers
Sunday, Nov 2 @ 12:00 PM
PANTHERS
Monday, Nov 10 @ 7:15 PM
EAGLES
Sunday, Nov 16 @ 12:00 PM
Giants
Sunday, Nov 23 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Thursday, Nov 27 @ 12:00 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 7 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Dec 14 @ 3:25 PM
Broncos
Friday, Dec 19 @ 11:00 PM
Bears
Friday, Dec 26 @ 11:00 PM
RAVENS
Saturday, Jan 3 @ 11:00 PM
Vikings
Recent Topics
7h / Around The NFL / packerfanoutwest

14h / Fantasy Sports Talk / buckeyepackfan

15h / Green Bay Packers Talk / buckeyepackfan

21h / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

10-Aug / Around The NFL / Mucky Tundra

10-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

8-Aug / Around The NFL / Zero2Cool

8-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

7-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

5-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

4-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

3-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

3-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

3-Aug / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Zero2Cool

2-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.