Yeah you can twist the stats but the Packers are still 20th in running yards per game which isn't good.

Some have asked why are Jackson numbers good then? Because the Packers don't run often... the Packers are 25th in the NFL at running attempts per game.

Which is up after running the ball a very unusual 35 times against the poor Cowboys defense and might of been 30th in the NFL at running attempts before the Cowboys game.

And since the Packers don't run often other teams focus a lot more against the passing game which makes it easy for the RBs to pick up better averages.

---

In our 6 wins, McCarthy has been maintaining a 56%/44% pass to run ratio. That's a pretty balanced attack. It's in our 3 losses that the ratio was skewed heavily to the pass (74%/26%). Overall, McCarthy is maintaining a pretty well-balanced attack this year.

---

When the Packers have employed this strategy in the McCarthy era, they have won a good amount of games. The notion that Rodgers and the Packers are successful without a running game is simply false, they just chose to utilize it differently compared to most teams.

---

Good point. I looked up the stats and it's about (60% passing / 40% running) before the Cowboys game. The reason the attempts are low must be because the offense can't keep drives going longer...



I agree with you. Interesting stat is that in all of the Packers loses they had less than 18 running attempts from Kuhn and Jackson. In all of the Packers wins they have has more than 17 running attempts from those two.

And their is a stat that is very similar state last year with Grant running. When they stay more balanced they win...

---

I always end up saying the same thing when this subject comes up, but here goes again: More rushing attempts does not lead to wins. It is the other way around: Wins lead to more rushing attempts. To be more specific, when a team is leading and/or its O-line is winning the battle in the trenches, it is going to run the ball more than it would if it is trailing and/or its O-line is losing the battle in the trenches.

A pass-oriented team like the Packers is going to heavily emphasize the pass when scoring is the top priority, but there will be more emphasis on the run when clock control and avoiding turnovers are the top priorities.

---

Awesome post. I don't care who's getting the sacks or INTs. The fact is, we're getting them. This is a good thing.

The rushing numbers show that a lot of us on this board are panicking over nothing. The D numbers show how we're dominant but in ways that a lot of us aren't seeing (except for those of us who read the Chrisbozzonerocks threads religiously).

---

Greg-agree up to a point, but your explanation does not seem to match up with our stats from this year.

Except for the Miami game (which we were losing 13-10 at the end of 3), we've been winning every single game through the first 3 quarters this year. I wouldn't expect (and there's not) a HUGE difference between the # of runs in the first half vs the second half: by quarter, weve run the ball 53, 45, 54, 64 times. Over 9 games, thats only 1 more rush per game in the 4th quarter compared to quarters 1 and 3, and 2 more times compared to quarter 2. So, were not running it significantly higher in the fourth quarter compared to most of the other quarters.

There is, however, a HUGE difference between our run/pass ratio between the wins and the losses, which I would NOT have expected since the 3 losses were all close games and the only one we were losing at the end of 3 (Mia) we were down by only 3 (13-10). We havent been needing to throw to catch up. Washington we were leading 13-3 at the end of 3. Chi we were leading 10-7. But heres the stats from our wins and losses (subtracting out ARs runs, just looking at RB carries):

Wins:
Phi: 31 passes/28 rushes, 53/47%
Buf: 29/22, 57/43%
Det: 17/18, 49/51%
Min: 35/20, 64/36%
NYJ: 34/23, 60/40%
Dal: 35/30, 54/46%
Total 181/141, 56/44%

Losses:
Chi: 45/13, 78/22%
Was: 46/13, 78/22%
Mia: 33/17, 67/34%
Total 124/43, 74/26%

In the three losses McCarthy sold out the run and became one-dimensional. The defense did not need to take our running game seriously.

Washington certainly didnt. The few times we ran the ball against them we were running it well. We had 157 yds. Take out ARs runs, and that drops the total to 127. 71 of those came on one play. Even subtracting that 71 yd run out, we still went 56 yds on 12 carries--we averaged almost 5 yds/carry.
Aaron Rodgers threw for 293 yds and 1 TD, but cleared hot to go after him, the Redskins ended up with 4 sacks and 1 INT. I believe if we had run the ball more to attain a more balanced attack during that game we would have won.

Bottomline for me is I wish we would aim more for a 56/44% passing ratio than 74/26%. Our record isnt as good when we dont have at least a credible run threat to slow down the pass rush.

---

At the same time, we've run so rarely that those 3 or 6 carries at the end of games where we're trying to run out the clock and the other team is trying to stop the run and call timeouts would make it harder for RBs to pick up better averages.

It's hard to analyze things like this while considering all factors...

---

I'm still worried about our defense playing an elite QB. Here are the QB's we've played this season:

Kevin Kolb/Mike Vick (We killed Kolb and Vick killed us)
Trent Edwards (He got cut a week after we played him)
Jay Cutler (Decent QB but throws a lot of errant passes and has a terrible line)
Shaun Hill (I actually like Hill. Decent QB)
Donovan McNabb (McNabb is not playing like McNabb of old)
Chad Henne (Mediocre QB--just got benched in favor of Chad Pennington)
Brett Favre (Not playing like the Favre of last season but still decent)
Mark Sanchez (Young and inconsistent but not terrible)
Jon Kitna (Old but with a decent arm still)

Here's the QB's we'll be playing in the next 7 games:
Brett Favre
Matt Ryan
Troy or Alex Smith
Matt Stafford or Shaun Hill
Tom Brady
Eli Manning
Jay Cutler

I feel like in this second half of the season we'll be able to see what our defense is really made of.

Interesting numbers. I had thought about some of them. Nice to see them with a little more clarity.

---