92 yards for the RB's, is this enough· Page 6

mi_keys
Senior Member

14 years ago

Uh oh. We only had 91 total rushing yards, with 26 of those total yards by our QBs. We must have lost to the Vikings this week.

"zombieslayer" wrote:

We did if the scoring works like it does in golf.

Born and bred a cheesehead

zombieslayer
Registered

14 years ago

#52

Yeah really Keys.

Earlier this season there was a lot of panic that if we can't get the running game going, we were going to lose. Well, our running game completely sucked today. Yet I look at the score and it's a blowout.

I'll be damned.

My man Donald Driver

(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷

zombieslayer
Registered

14 years ago

#53

Because I like the sound of my own voice and love to argue about meaningless numbers that really have no relevance whatsoever in our lives other than the countless hours we spend arguing about them, here are our RB totals for the whole year and the result of the games.

Note that I say RB totals. Does not include WR runs or QB runs or streakers running on the field.

65 yards @MN - result - 31-3 Packers
97 yards vs Cows - result - 45-7 Packers
76 yards @Jets - result - 9-0 Packers
70 yards vs MN - result - 28-24 Packers
63 yards vs Dolphins - result - 23-20 loss
127 yards @Skins - result - 16-13 loss
72 yards vs Lions - result - 28-26 Packers
43 yards @da Bears - result - 20-17 loss
65 yards vs Bills - result - 34-7 Packers
123 yards @Eagles - result - 27-20 Packers

Morale of the story - we're not a running team, yet we keep winning games.

Whoops. I just realized I went backwards. The Eagles game was the first game of the season and the @MN game was the most recent one.

My man Donald Driver

(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷

Zero2Cool
Elite Member

14 years ago

#54

"zombieslayer" wrote:

thought i was reading my own post for a second there

warhawk
Senior Member

14 years ago

#55

I have said this so many times it's rediculous and pointed out the same thing about these "run game woes" threads.

What your asking DOESN'T happen. The very good passing teams just don't run the ball very well. Yeah, it would be GREAT if a team could pass and run it all over everybody but virtually NO team can accomplish it.

The top 10 passing teams with their ranking in run offense are as follows:

1) San Dieago - Run Offense 17th.
2) Denver - Run Offense 32nd
3) Indy - Run Offense 27
4) Saints - Run Offense 26th
5) Dallas - Run Offense 29th
6) Detroit - Run Offense 31st
7) Washinton - Run Offense 22nd
8) Philly - Run Offense 3rd
9) Cincy - Run Offense 23rd
10 Grn Bay - Run Offense 19th

Philly is the only team with rankings in the top 10 in both running and passing and we all know Vicks feet are a big reason why that is.

You also have to consider the teams drawn on the schedule. We have faced five teams ranked in the top 8 in run defense and it's not going to get a lot easier with Atlanta, the Giants, and Chicago coming up who are all in that top 8 group.

You want the run offense then revamp the Oline with a bunch of bulldozers not agile enough to provide great pass protection. You don't get it both ways. It's just how it works.

"The train is leaving the station."

Pack93z
Select Member

14 years ago

#56

It isn't about becoming a running team.. but it is about not forgetting that the run exists and when to call the play.

When we lined up in an "I" the first couple games of the season.. it almost always was a run.. gee I wonder why the defense was able to stone it.

The art is running it just enough, out of passing sets, to have the defense at least look for it.. not allowing them to pin their ears back every snap.

I don't want 50/50 balance.. or us to be in the top 10.

But I do want us to run it out of a one back passing set here and there.. I want them to set up screens to make the pass rush respect the potential. And Mike McCarthy has been utilizing the run much more effectively.. not in gaining yards but slowing the defensive fronts.

Nothing more.

Go back to the early season struggles.. the play calling was predictable as hell.. and it allowed the defense to focus on one element of the offense. Making it too easy on them..

This is a dynamic offense.. but do the dirty work to keep it oiled.

"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"

Zero2Cool
Elite Member

14 years ago

#57

^^ What Shawn said, I agree with.

Rockmolder
Honored Member

14 years ago

#58

It isn't about becoming a running team.. but it is about not forgetting that the run exists and when to call the play.

When we lined up in an I the first couple games of the season.. it almost always was a run.. gee I wonder why they defense is able to stone it.

The art is running it just enough, out of passing sets, to have the defense at least look for it.. not allowing them to pin their ears back every snap.

I don't want 50/50 balance.. or us to be in the top 10.

But I do want us to run it out of a one back passing set here and there.. I want them to set up screens to make the pass rush respect the potential. And Mike McCarthy has been utilizing the run much more effectively.. not in gaining yards but slowing the defensive fronts.

Nothing more.

Go back to the early season struggles.. the play calling was predictable as hell.. and it allowed the defense to focus on one element of the offense. Making it too easy on them..

This is a dynamic offense.. but do the dirty work to keep it oiled.

"pack93z" wrote:

And I loved this about yesterday's game.

We had multiple draw plays that went for 5 yards, with Edwards, K. Williams and Allen already being 5 yard deep in the backfield at the moment we handed the ball off. They were trying to get that pass rush going so desperately that we caught them off guard a few times with the draw.

And it had effect on at least the two next plays after that.

I agree with the predictable playcalling, as well.

I was amazed to see a pass out of the I with Quinn Johnson on the field.

Normally, the I is a run.

And QJ on the field is a run.

It's all so predictable.

I love that we're finally mixing it up a bit. I love it when we run out of singe back sets. I like seeing some runs out of the shotgun, as long as we won't go overboard. Play-action out of the wishbone or the I (especially with QJ on the field) is such a deceptive play. They have to play the run, collapse to one side, while Rodgers rolls out to the other.

Mixing it up is the key. Doing everything out of every package.

zombieslayer
Registered

14 years ago

#59

Bah. You guys are too nice. You are NICE guys.

Those were wasted downs. We should have passed more so we could have gotten 40+ pts. 31-3? That's being too gentle. Running wasted valuable clock time that should have gone to Greg Jennings. Also, Rodgers never had 5 TD passes in a game. WTF? We could have easily broke the 5 barrier.

Plus, what's with having Flynn back there throwing one freaking pass the whole game? Throw the damn ball. Heck, I could have handed the ball off. Put me in there if you're just going to have Flynn hand the ball off. My word.

Nice guys. Geez.

And +1 to Warhawk. You either got guys who are good at blocking for the run or good at blocking for the pass. Not both. I'd rather have the latter.

My man Donald Driver

(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷

macbob
Veteran Member

14 years ago

#60

Uh oh. We only had 91 total rushing yards, with 26 of those total yards by our QBs. We must have lost to the Vikings this week.

"zombieslayer" wrote:

Zombie-that was about as perfect a balanced offense as you could have. Our pass/run ratio in the game was 54-46%, same as the Superbowl winners over the last 10 years and the 49ers when they were dominant for 20 years, as discussed earlier in this thread.

A balanced offense to keep the defense from teeing off on your QB play after play. Obviously, anyone advocating for a higher percentages of passes really needs to rethink their rationale. This isn't Madden, afterall.

:horse:

Important Information:

The PACKERSHOME uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More Details Close

Fan Shout

Martha Careful (21h) : thank you Mucky for sticking up for me

Martha Careful (21h) : 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.

beast (21-Jan) : You can't assume Ohio State would of won the Michigan game...

beast (21-Jan) : Rankings were 1) Oregon 2) Georgia 3) Texas 4) Penn State 5) Notre Dame 6) Ohio State, none of the rest mattered

wpr (21-Jan) : Texas, ND and OSU would have been fighting for the final 2 slots.

wpr (21-Jan) : Oregon and Georgia were locks. Without the luxury of extra playoff berths, Ohios St would have been more focused on Michigan game.

wpr (21-Jan) : Zero, no. If there were only 4 teams Ohio State would have been one of them. Boise St and ASU would not have been selected.

Zero2Cool (21-Jan) : So that was 7 vs 8, that means in BCS they never would made it?

Martha Careful (21-Jan) : A great game. Give ND credit for coming back, although I am please with the outcome.

Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : FG to make it academic

Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : and there's the dagger

Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : ooooo 8 point game with 4 minutes to go!

Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : ooooooooohhhhhh he missed!

Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Ooooo that completion makes things VERY interesting

Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Game not over yet

beast (21-Jan) : Oh yeah, Georgia starting quarterback season ending elbow injury

beast (21-Jan) : Sadly something happened to Georgia... they should be playing in this game against Ohio State

beast (21-Jan) : I thought Ohio State and Texas were both better than Notre Dame & Penn State

Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Notre Lame getting rolled

Martha Careful (21-Jan) : Ohio State just got punched in the gut. Lets see how they respond

Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Notre Lame vs the Luckeyes, bleh

Please sign in to use Fan Shout

2024 Packers Schedule

Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM

Eagles

29 - 34

Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM

COLTS

16 - 10

Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM

Titans

30 - 14

Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM

VIKINGS

29 - 31

Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM

Rams

24 - 19

Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM

CARDINALS

34 - 13

Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM

TEXANS

24 - 22

Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM

Jaguars

30 - 27

Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM

LIONS

14 - 24

Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM

Bears

20 - 19

Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM

49ERS

38 - 10

Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM

DOLPHINS

30 - 17

Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM

Lions

31 - 34

Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM

Seahawks

30 - 13

Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM

SAINTS

34 - 0

Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM

Vikings

25 - 27

Sunday, Jan 5 @ 12:00 PM

BEARS

22 - 24

Sunday, Jan 12 @ 3:30 PM

Eagles

10 - 22