PackFanWithTwins
14 years ago
Jackson has been getting it done when given the ball. run or pass, the option he brings to the offense if used correctly will be just fine.
The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!
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.

"zombieslayer" 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.

"Dexter_Sinister" wrote:



Subtracting out the QB runs, the winners of the Superbowls over the last 10 years:

2009 Saints: 39 passes, 17 runs; 69/31%
2008 Steelers: 20 passes, 22 runs; 58/42%
2007 Giants: 34 passes 23 runs; 59/41%
2006 Indianopolis: 38 passes 41 runs, 48/52%
2005 Steelers: 22 passes, 26 runs 46/54%
2004 Patriots: 33 passes, 27 runs 55/45%
2003 Patriots: 48 passes, 33 runs 59/41%
2002 Tampa Bay: 34 passes, 41 runs 45/55%
2001 Patriots: 27 passes, 24 runs 53/47%

Collectively: 285 passes, 254 runs, 53/47% ratio

Heres the losers:
2009 Colts: 45/19, 70/30%
2008 Cardinals: 43/11, 80/20%
2007 Patriots: 48/16; 75/25%
2006 Bears: 28/17, 62/38%
2005 Seattle: 49/22, 69/31%
2004 Eagles: 51/16, 76/24%
2003 Carolina: 33/16, 63/37%
2002 Raiders: 44/9, 83/17%
2001 Rams: 44/22, 67/33%

Collectively: 385/148; 72/28%

So Im not sure where you are getting this 'dont need a running game' from. In EVERY SINGLE CASE, INCLUDING 2009, the team that won had a better run/pass balance than the team that lost.

Matter of fact, the loser #s look remarkably close to our run/pass ratios in the games weve lost this year and the SB winners ratio is pretty darn near what our ratio is in our wins this year.
Stevetarded
14 years ago
The losers of any game are going to average a higher pass ratio, that's what you do when you are losing usually.
blank
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.

"Stevetarded" 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.

"macbob" wrote:



Isn't that what this thread is about?

"Dexter_Sinister" wrote:



lol. Why, yes it is. I was letting myself get sidetracked by the 'we don't need no stinkin' running game' advocates. I would point out that the Steelers continued to run the ball in 2008 SB (22 attempts, minus the QB runs), despite ending up with only 58 yds rushing, and beat an Arizona team with almost 400 yds passing from Kurt Warner. You just can't be one dimensional in this league. It's a recipe for failure.
zombieslayer
14 years ago

The losers of any game are going to average a higher pass ratio, that's what you do when you are losing usually.

"Stevetarded" wrote:



Thank you Steve. :)

Mac - what I did was show how badly the SB teams were ranked in rushing, not the SB game itself. We've had SB winners that were ranked 23, 27, and 27th in the past 7 years and still managed to win the SB.

FYI - We're currently 20th. We can win the SB with what we have according to history.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage
(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷
macbob
14 years ago

The losers of any game are going to average a higher pass ratio, that's what you do when you are losing usually.

"Stevetarded" wrote:



5 of the nine games were decided by 4 pts or less. These weren't teams that were 20 pts behind and trying desperately to catch up. These were teams that abandoned the run and became one dimensional on offense. They didn't lose by a lot, but in EVERY SINGLE CASE THEY LOST.
macbob
14 years ago

The losers of any game are going to average a higher pass ratio, that's what you do when you are losing usually.

"zombieslayer" wrote:



Thank you Steve. :)

Mac - what I did was show how badly the SB teams were ranked in rushing, not the SB game itself. We've had SB winners that were dead last, 2nd to last, 3rd to last, and 4th to last in the past 12 years and still managed to win the SB.

"Stevetarded" wrote:



Regular season rushing stats for the SB winners back to 2001:
2009: Saints-2106 yds rushing, 6th in NFL
2008: Steelers-1690 yds rushing, 23rd
2007: Giants-2148 yds, 4th
2006: Indianopolis-1762 yds, 18th
2005: Steelers-2223 yds, 5th
2004: Patriots-2134, 7th
2003: Patriots-1607, 27th
2002: Tampa Bay-1557, 27th
2001: Patriots-1793, 13th

So, in the last 9 years three teams won the SB while being in the bottom 3rd of the league in rushing yards during the regular season, 4 teams in the top 3rd, and 2 teams in the middle. So, obviously, having a good running game is not necessarily a guarantee of winning.

But having a balanced offense IS critical to winning the superbowl, if the last 9 SBs are any indication.
zombieslayer
14 years ago



Regular season rushing stats for the SB winners back to 2001:
2009: Saints-2106 yds rushing, 6th in NFL
2008: Steelers-1690 yds rushing, 23rd
2007: Giants-2148 yds, 4th
2006: Indianopolis-1762 yds, 18th
2005: Steelers-2223 yds, 5th
2004: Patriots-2134, 7th
2003: Patriots-1607, 27th
2002: Tampa Bay-1557, 27th
2001: Patriots-1793, 13th

So, in the last 9 years three teams won the SB while being in the bottom 3rd of the league in rushing yards during the regular season, 4 teams in the top 3rd, and 2 teams in the middle. So, obviously, having a good running game is not necessarily a guarantee of winning.

But having a balanced offense IS critical to winning the superbowl, if the last 9 SBs are any indication.

"macbob" wrote:



Please see my edit. I had to check my facts and change what I said. I was an amateur boxer and don't exactly remember things too well. ;)

Now your very last sentence has been negated by those facts. Having a balanced O is NOT critical to winning a SB. 3 teams had a worse attack than our current one and still managed to win it all.

So that means we're ok. :thumbright:
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage
(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷
Zero2Cool
14 years ago
You increase you probability of winning if you're offense leans more towards two dimensional than one dimensional.
UserPostedImage
zombieslayer
14 years ago

You increase you probability of winning if you're offense leans more towards two dimensional than one dimensional.

"Zero2Cool" wrote:



No argument whatsoever. I'm not arguing that and I never argued that. Ever.

My point is that we're not dead because we don't have a top tier running game. And I proved with statistics that you can still win a SB with a not so good running game.

OK, I'm going home finally. I hope this argument doesn't go in the same circle it's been going in for the past 2 years when I was defending Ryan Grant. I think that's where it started.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage
(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷
Fan Shout
Zero2Cool (3h) : Chiefs again huh? I guess another Super Bowl I'll be finding something else to do.
Mucky Tundra (14h) : Chiefs Eagles...again...sigh
dfosterf (14h) : Happy Birthday Dave!
Mucky Tundra (15h) : happy birthday dhazer
TheKanataThrilla (17h) : Exactly buck...Washington came up with the ball. It is just a shitty coincidence one week later
buckeyepackfan (17h) : I forgot, they corrected the call a week later. Lol btw HAPPY BIRTHDAY dhazer!
buckeyepackfan (17h) : That brings up the question, why wasn't Nixon down by contact? I think that was the point Kanata was making.
buckeyepackfan (18h) : Turnovers rule, win the turnover battle, win the game.
packerfanoutwest (18h) : well, he was
TheKanataThrilla (18h) : Eagles down by contact on the fumble....fuck you NFL
Mucky Tundra (18h) : I think this games over
beast (19h) : Eagles sure get a lot of fumbles on kickoffs
Mucky Tundra (19h) : This game looks too big for Washington
packerfanoutwest (22h) : that being said, The Ravens are the Browns
packerfanoutwest (22h) : Browns, Dolphins have longest AFC Championship droughts
packerfanoutwest (22h) : As of today, Cowboys have longest NFC Championship drought,
beast (26-Jan) : Someone pointed out, with Raiders hiring Carroll, the division games between Carroll and Jim Harbaugh are back on (who can whine more games)
beast (26-Jan) : I'm confused, Pete Carroll and Brian Schottenheimer? When Todd Monken, Joe Brady, Kellen Moore, Kliff Kingsbury and Zac Robinson are availab
Zero2Cool (25-Jan) : Any reason I'm catching a shot here about my intelligence?
Martha Careful (25-Jan) : thank you Mucky for sticking up for me
Martha Careful (25-Jan) : some of those people are smarter than you zero. However Pete Carroll is not
Mucky Tundra (24-Jan) : Rude!
beast (24-Jan) : Martha? 😋
Zero2Cool (24-Jan) : Raiders hired someone from the elderly home.
dfosterf (24-Jan) : I'm going with a combination of the two.
beast (24-Jan) : Either the Cowboys have no idea what they're doing, or they're targeting their former OC, currently the Eagles OC
Zero2Cool (23-Jan) : Fake news. Cowboys say no
Zero2Cool (23-Jan) : Mystery candidate in the Cowboys head coaching search believed to be Packers ST Coordinator Rich Bisaccia.
beast (23-Jan) : Also why do both NYC teams have absolutely horrible OL for over a decade?
beast (23-Jan) : I wonder why the Jets always hire defensive coaches to be head coach
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Still HC positions available out there. I wonder if Hafley pops up for one
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Trent Baalke is out as the Jaguars GM.
dfosterf (22-Jan) : Jeff Hafley would have been a better choice, fortunately they don't know that. Someone will figure that out next off season
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Aaron Glenn Planning To Take Jets HC Job
dfosterf (22-Jan) : Martha- C'est mon boulot! 😁
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Thank you
wpr (22-Jan) : Z, glad you are feeling better.
wpr (22-Jan) : My son and D-I-L work for UM. It's a way to pick on them.
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Thank you. I rarely get sick, and even more rarely sick to the point I can't work.
wpr (22-Jan) : Beast- back to yesterday, I CAN say OSU your have been Michigan IF the odds of making the playoffs were more urgent.
dfosterf (22-Jan) : Glad to hear you are feeling a bit better.
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : I've been near death ill last several days, finally feel less dead and site issues.
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : It is a big deal. This host is having issues. It's frustrating.
Martha Careful (22-Jan) : just kidding...it was down
Martha Careful (22-Jan) : you were blocked yesterday, due to a a recalcitrant demeanor yesterday in the penalty box for a recalcitrant demeanor
dfosterf (22-Jan) : Was that site shutdown on your end or mine? No big deal, just curious
beast (21-Jan) : That way teams like Indiana and SMU don't make the conference championships by simply avoiding all the other good teams in their own confere
beast (21-Jan) : Also, with these "Super Conferences" instead of a single conference champion, have 4 teams make a Conference playoffs.
beast (21-Jan) : Also in college football, is a bye week a good or bad thing?
Martha Careful (21-Jan) : The tournament format was fine. Seeding could use some work.
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
Sunday, Jan 5 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Jan 12 @ 3:30 PM
Eagles
Recent Topics
3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / packerfanoutwest

4h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

25-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

25-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

25-Jan / Random Babble / Martha Careful

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

19-Jan / Random Babble / Martha Careful

18-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

17-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

17-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

17-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

16-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

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