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
Mucky Tundra (8h) : Oh I know about Jacobs, I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to mimic Zero lol
buckeyepackfan (9h) : Jacobs was just sat down, Watson re-injured that knee that kept him out 1 game earlier
buckeyepackfan (9h) : I needed .14 that's. .14 points for the whole 4th quarter to win and go to the SB. Lol
Mucky Tundra (9h) : Jacobs gonna be OK???
Zero2Cool (9h) : Watson gonna be OK???
packerfanoutwest (12h) : Inactives tonight for the Pack: Alexander- knee Bullard - ankle Williams - quad Walker -ankle Monk Heath
packerfanoutwest (12h) : No Jaire, but hopefully the front 7 destroys the line of scrimmage & forces Rattler into a few passes to McKinney.
packerfanoutwest (13h) : minny could be #1 seed and the Lions #5 seed
Zero2Cool (15h) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them
Zero2Cool (15h) : I just checked. What tie breaker?
bboystyle (15h) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner
Zero2Cool (15h) : Ahh, ok.
bboystyle (15h) : yes due to tie breaker
Zero2Cool (15h) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.
Zero2Cool (15h) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?
bboystyle (15h) : Minny isnt going to lose out so 5th seed is out of the equation. We are playing for the 6th or 7th seed which makes no difference
Mucky Tundra (16h) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network
beast (17h) : If we win tonight the game is still relative in terms of 5th, 6th or 7th seed... win and it's 5th or 6th, lose and it's 6th or 7th
beast (17h) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly
Zero2Cool (17h) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.
bboystyle (17h) : i mean game becomes irrelevant if we win tonight. Just a game where we are trying to play spoilers to Vikings chance at the #1 seed
Mucky Tundra (17h) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv
Zero2Cool (17h) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno
beast (18h) : I agree that it's BS for fans planning on going to the game. But how does it bring in more money? I'm guessing indirectly?
packerfanoutwest (18h) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans
Zero2Cool (19h) : I see what you did there Mucky
Zero2Cool (19h) : dammit. 3:25pm
Zero2Cool (19h) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm
Mucky Tundra (19h) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground
Mucky Tundra (19h) : Yeah baby!
Zero2Cool (19h) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah
Zero2Cool (20h) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.
beast (20h) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue
Zero2Cool (21h) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's
Zero2Cool (21h) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.
packerfanoutwest (21h) : ok I stand corrected
Zero2Cool (21h) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th
Zero2Cool (21h) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?
beast (21h) : Saying no to the 6th lock.
beast (21h) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out
Zero2Cool (22h) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.
beast (22h) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games
beast (22h) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality
beast (22h) : We already have told you... if Packers lose all their games (they won't, but if they did), and Buccaneers and Falcons win all theirs
Zero2Cool (22h) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread
Zero2Cool (22h) : I literally just said it.
packerfanoutwest (22h) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't
Zero2Cool (22h) : Falcons, Buccaneers would need to win final two games.
Zero2Cool (22h) : Yes, if they win one of three, they are lock. If they lose out, they can be eliminated.
packerfanoutwest (22h) : as I just said,,gtheyh are in no matter what
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
Vikings
Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
6m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

4h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

8h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

20h / Random Babble / Martha Careful

22-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / packerfanoutwest

19-Dec / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

18-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

17-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

17-Dec / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

16-Dec / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Mucky Tundra

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.