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
Mucky Tundra (8h) : Oh I know about Jacobs, I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to mimic Zero lol
buckeyepackfan (8h) : Jacobs was just sat down, Watson re-injured that knee that kept him out 1 game earlier
buckeyepackfan (8h) : I needed .14 that's. .14 points for the whole 4th quarter to win and go to the SB. Lol
Mucky Tundra (8h) : Jacobs gonna be OK???
Zero2Cool (8h) : 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 (12h) : 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 (16h) : 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 (16h) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly
Zero2Cool (16h) : 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 (17h) : 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 (18h) : I see what you did there Mucky
Zero2Cool (18h) : dammit. 3:25pm
Zero2Cool (18h) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm
Mucky Tundra (18h) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground
Mucky Tundra (18h) : 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 (21h) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.
beast (21h) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games
beast (21h) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality
beast (21h) : 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 (21h) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread
Zero2Cool (21h) : I literally just said it.
packerfanoutwest (21h) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't
Zero2Cool (21h) : Falcons, Buccaneers would need to win final two games.
Zero2Cool (21h) : 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
4h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

7h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

20h / Random Babble / Martha Careful

22-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / packerfanoutwest

19-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

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.