mi_keys
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.

"macbob" 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:

"zombieslayer" wrote:



You keep bringing up those percentages as if it is a formula to win: pass 55% of the time and run 45% of the time. If you look at our last game we went into our final drive having passed 62% of the time 38%. We then ran it 9 out of 10 plays to finish 54/46. We don't run the ball 9 times in the final possession if we are losing. Instead we probably pass it 9 times out of 10 which puts us at 66/34.

One possession can drastically skew the final percentages. If you're winning at the end it will skew it towards running and if you're losing at the end it will skew it towards passing. You don't have to be multiple scores down to skew it one way or the other. I wouldn't be surprised if for most of our games win or lose our pass/run ratio was pretty similar until those final couple drives when you're either running out the clock or making a late push.

You've noted a correlation between a closer ratio of passing/running and winning. Is that relationship causal though? In the case of the Packers Vikings game the likely causal relationship was Green Bay winning then skewed their statistics in the final drive. Winning caused the balanced ratio, not the other way around. I would like to take a look at this more in depth for more games. We'd probably see a lot of different things going on. But I'd guess that more often than not the likely causal relationship would be winning causing the balanced ratio, not the other way around.
Born and bred a cheesehead
Greg C.
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.

"mi_keys" 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:

"macbob" wrote:



You keep bringing up those percentages as if it is a formula to win: pass 55% of the time and run 45% of the time. If you look at our last game we went into our final drive having passed 62% of the time 38%. We then ran it 9 out of 10 plays to finish 54/46. We don't run the ball 9 times in the final possession if we are losing. Instead we probably pass it 9 times out of 10 which puts us at 66/34.

One possession can drastically skew the final percentages. If you're winning at the end it will skew it towards running and if you're losing at the end it will skew it towards passing. You don't have to be multiple scores down to skew it one way or the other. I wouldn't be surprised if for most of our games win or lose our pass/run ratio was pretty similar until those final couple drives when you're either running out the clock or making a late push.

You've noted a correlation between a closer ratio of passing/running and winning. Is that relationship causal though? In the case of the Packers Vikings game the likely causal relationship was Green Bay winning then skewed their statistics in the final drive. Winning caused the balanced ratio, not the other way around. I would like to take a look at this more in depth for more games. We'd probably see a lot of different things going on. But I'd guess that more often than not the likely causal relationship would be winning causing the balanced ratio, not the other way around.

"zombieslayer" wrote:



Amen, brother. You are speaking my language.
blank
macbob
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.

"mi_keys" 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:

"macbob" wrote:



You keep bringing up those percentages as if it is a formula to win: pass 55% of the time and run 45% of the time. If you look at our last game we went into our final drive having passed 62% of the time 38%. We then ran it 9 out of 10 plays to finish 54/46. We don't run the ball 9 times in the final possession if we are losing. Instead we probably pass it 9 times out of 10 which puts us at 66/34.

One possession can drastically skew the final percentages. If you're winning at the end it will skew it towards running and if you're losing at the end it will skew it towards passing. You don't have to be multiple scores down to skew it one way or the other. I wouldn't be surprised if for most of our games win or lose our pass/run ratio was pretty similar until those final couple drives when you're either running out the clock or making a late push.

You've noted a correlation between a closer ratio of passing/running and winning. Is that relationship causal though? In the case of the Packers Vikings game the likely causal relationship was Green Bay winning then skewed their statistics in the final drive. Winning caused the balanced ratio, not the other way around. I would like to take a look at this more in depth for more games. We'd probably see a lot of different things going on. But I'd guess that more often than not the likely causal relationship would be winning causing the balanced ratio, not the other way around.

"zombieslayer" wrote:



Whether the chicken came first or the egg, I'll take a balanced attack over a one-dimensional passing game.

In the last 9 SBs, the winners have averaged 53-47% p/r ratios. The losers have averaged 72-28%. 5 of the 9 SBs have been decided by 4 pts are less. They haven't been blowouts, the winners haven't been running/running/running to salt away the win, the losers haven't been having to pass/pass/pass because they're 20 pts behind. They've been close games. In every single case the team with the more balanced attack won the game.

But fine, go ahead and advocate for a Madden passing attack. Our pass run-ratio in our wins this year are 56-44%, and in our losses 74%-26%. In our losses, we haven't been way behind and needed to catch up--we've been winning through 3 quarters (or, in the case of Miami, down by 3 after 3 quarters). It's been a conscious decision by McCarthy to abandon a balanced attack in favor of a one-dimensional passing attack. And (surprise), we're losing those games. Go figure.

:horse: :horse:
macbob
14 years ago

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.

"zombieslayer" wrote:



OK, let's try it as # of running plays/game, subtracting out the QB runs:

26 rushes @MN - result - 31-3 Packers
30 rushes vs Cows - result - 45-7 Packers
23 rushes @Jets - result - 9-0 Packers
20 rushes vs MN - result - 28-24 Packers
17 rushes vs Dolphins - result - 23-20 loss
13 rushes @Skins - result - 16-13 loss  (46 passes)
18 rushes vs Lions - result - 28-26 Packers (NOTE:  only 17 passes)
13 rushes @da Bears - result - 20-17 loss (45 passes)
22 rushes vs Bills - result - 34-7 Packers
28 rushes @Eagles - result - 27-20 Packers

Morale of the story - when we don't run the ball at least enough to keep the defense honest, we keep losing games.

:horse: :horse: :horse:
Dexter_Sinister
14 years ago

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.

"macbob" wrote:



OK, let's try it as # of running plays/game, subtracting out the QB runs:

26 rushes @MN - result - 31-3 Packers
30 rushes vs Cows - result - 45-7 Packers
23 rushes @Jets - result - 9-0 Packers
20 rushes vs MN - result - 28-24 Packers
17 rushes vs Dolphins - result - 23-20 loss
13 rushes @Skins - result - 16-13 loss  (46 passes)
18 rushes vs Lions - result - 28-26 Packers (NOTE:  only 17 passes)
13 rushes @da Bears - result - 20-17 loss (45 passes)
22 rushes vs Bills - result - 34-7 Packers
28 rushes @Eagles - result - 27-20 Packers

Morale of the story - when we don't run the ball at least enough to keep the defense honest, we keep losing games.

:horse: :horse: :horse:

"zombieslayer" wrote:

The origional post was, is 92 yards enough. The answer is yes. If you run it enough times, it is more important to have the attempts than it is to have the yards.

If they know you are going to try to run it, they have to respect it. Successful or not. If they know you are not going to even try, you are pooched.

So the point they were trying to make is essentially wrong, we don't need more productive backs, we need to keep the run going and convert on 3rd and 4. :horse: :horse: :horse: :horse:
I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.
Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
Rockmolder
14 years ago

And I applaud you!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.

"zombieslayer" wrote:



Josh Sitton would beg to differ.

Erm... :horse:
Zero2Cool
14 years ago
Umm... you guys are umm ... beating the head horse with that "smiley".
UserPostedImage
Pack93z
14 years ago
In the game of chess, which is really a good analogy of the OC and DC in any given game, you at times make moves to draw the opponents attention and setting him up for the mate.

An effective run out of a pass set does just that.. it draws the DC's attention enough that the counters with his pass rush watching for the run then pass rushing..

You use that run, draw, screen to set the defense up and give the advantage back to the offensive line.. a beat or two in pass protection is oh so important for those hog mollies.

Call it a wasted play.. call it worthless... but that would be in error, IMO.

But, one can skin a cat a 1000 different ways.. and still get it skinned.
"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"
zombieslayer
14 years ago
to Dexter, for staying on topic. And also +1 to Keys. That run/pass ratio is deceptive, exactly as Keys explains it.

The original title is "92 yards for the RB's, is this enough?" Then I posted that we rarely get 92 yards by our RBs and still win games. Then a bunch of people got butt hurt and started beating on a dead horse.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage
(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷
warhawk
14 years ago

In the game of chess, which is really a good analogy of the OC and DC in any given game, you at times make moves to draw the opponents attention and setting him up for the mate.

An effective run out of a pass set does just that.. it draws the DC's attention enough that the counters with his pass rush watching for the run then pass rushing..

You use that run, draw, screen to set the defense up and give the advantage back to the offensive line.. a beat or two in pass protection is oh so important for those hog mollies.

Call it a wasted play.. call it worthless... but that would be in error, IMO.

But, one can skin a cat a 1000 different ways.. and still get it skinned.

"pack93z" wrote:



I understaqnd what your saying here but the big thing being missed in this thread is the fact that it's about EXECUTION.

The three losses we incurred wasn't because of the run/pas ratio or the fact we showed our hand. We didn't execute the offense effectively. Period.

We had 18 penalties in the Bears game. Not a game where down and distance favors a running attack. Against Miami we were 3-13 on third down and got beat badly in the number of plays ran and TOP.

Sure it can help to line up under center and pass out of play action or hand the ball off once in awhile out of the shotgun. Run a screen if the defense is blitzing all the time but the bottom line is an offense has to line up and execute.

For an offense to win over the defense it has to force the defense to do things it really doesn't want to do. Your playing a 4-3 and they can't get to the QB with four they have to send more THEN you hit them with the screen or draw. An offense EARNS that by executing and doing their jobs well.

Screens and Draws are SETUP plays run by offenses beating the defense and forcing them into packages to try and stop you. They aren't going to work if your not running the offense effectively to start with.

What I saw in every loss was an offense not executing, out of sync, and, inconsistant. We did not dictate to the defense or get them on their heals because we just didn't execute the plays well enough to put them there. I don't care if it was a run or a pass or a screen or a swing to a back. We didn't do it good enough.
"The train is leaving the station."
Fan Shout
packerfanoutwest (4h) : Aaron Rodgers’s first pass of first team period was picked off
Mucky Tundra (9h) : tbh I didn't hear of his passing
Zero2Cool (9h) : Cosby Show. Malcom Jamal Warner I think is real name
Mucky Tundra (10h) : I was thinking of Ozzy and Hulk
Mucky Tundra (10h) : Who's Theo?
Zero2Cool (10h) : How is Theo alliteration?
Mucky Tundra (10h) : Bad week for people whose names are alliterations
Zero2Cool (12h) : Hulk Hogan gone too.
Zero2Cool (14h) : Oh, it's toe injury
Zero2Cool (14h) : Hope it's not serious. that would stink
dfosterf (14h) : Sounds like an ankle not a knee for Fields
dfosterf (14h) : Ya Flaccp on Browns
Zero2Cool (14h) : Maybe Tyrod Taylor instead
Zero2Cool (14h) : He's on Browns, right?
dfosterf (14h) : They would probably go with Flacco is my guess if Fields out
dfosterf (14h) : Fleece 'em again!
Zero2Cool (14h) : Malik Willis might be someone Jets come after
packerfanoutwest (14h) : Packers introduce 1923-inspired classic uniform, leather-look helmet
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : Both LB Quay Walker and Rookie DB Micah Robinson have passed their physicals
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : Happy to see site feels more snappy snappy
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : No sir. I did not.
dfosterf (23-Jul) : You didn't get free childcare when you were at work?
wpr (23-Jul) : These guys make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. Pay for their own childcare.
dfosterf (23-Jul) : 2nd issue. Number 1 issue was no gameday childcare. 1 of 3 teams not providing it
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : Suppose if locker room is main issue, we sitting pretty
wpr (23-Jul) : I thought so Mucky. In those useless player polls GB always rates high overall. Locker is a part of it.
Mucky Tundra (23-Jul) : Wasn't the locker room just updated like 6 or 7 years ago?
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : I have forum updated on different site. We'll see how this one goes before going to that
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : Elgton Jenkins has a back injury, is expect to end contract dispute
wpr (23-Jul) : It's funny the PA complained about the locker room. It wasn't that long ago it was top shelf. Things change in a hurry.
wpr (23-Jul) : The site is much more better.
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : NFLPA report said Packers lockerroom needed upgrade. Whining bout where you change?
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : I saw that and thought it was kind of lame.
dfosterf (23-Jul) : Packers new locker room is pretty awesome. Great for morale, imo
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : Shuffled things on the web server. Hope it makes it faster.
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : Other times, it's turtle ass
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : Sometimes it's snappy, like now.
beast (23-Jul) : I feel like it's loading at the top of the next minute, or something like that.
beast (23-Jul) : Also the thanks/heart takes FOREVER to load, and posting in the shout box takes three times FOREVER!
beast (23-Jul) : Thanks for saying something, I thought it was slow, but assumed it was on my end
beast (23-Jul) : Thanks for saying something, I thought it was slow, but assumed it was on my end
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : Yeah, I noticed that too. Is it slow for PackerPeople.com too?
wpr (23-Jul) : I don't know what you IT guys call it but the page loading is very slow for me today.
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : SSL might be settled now.
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : Still working through SSL cert issues
wpr (23-Jul) : Glad to be back
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : I think PH original finally working.
dfosterf (22-Jul) : Can tell you are having a fun day Kev
Zero2Cool (22-Jul) : Yep, I had to manually move them. It'll fix itself after more posts.
Mucky Tundra (22-Jul) : Same deal with the songs/videos thread, says you replied last but when I go there it's what I posted earlier is last
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2025 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 7 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Thursday, Sep 11 @ 7:15 PM
COMMANDERS
Sunday, Sep 21 @ 12:00 PM
Browns
Sunday, Sep 28 @ 7:20 PM
Cowboys
Sunday, Oct 12 @ 3:25 PM
BENGALS
Sunday, Oct 19 @ 3:25 PM
Cardinals
Sunday, Oct 26 @ 7:20 PM
Steelers
Sunday, Nov 2 @ 12:00 PM
PANTHERS
Monday, Nov 10 @ 7:15 PM
EAGLES
Sunday, Nov 16 @ 12:00 PM
Giants
Sunday, Nov 23 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Thursday, Nov 27 @ 12:00 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 7 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Dec 14 @ 3:25 PM
Broncos
Friday, Dec 19 @ 11:00 PM
Bears
Friday, Dec 26 @ 11:00 PM
RAVENS
Saturday, Jan 3 @ 11:00 PM
Vikings
Recent Topics
2h / Around The NFL / wpr

9h / Around The NFL / Zero2Cool

9h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

22h / Around The NFL / beast

24-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

23-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

23-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

23-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

23-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

22-Jul / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

22-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

22-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

20-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

20-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

18-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

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