Pack93z
14 years ago
I won't argue the execution statement as it is right as rain. And that the execution as become more consistent as the season has progressed.

The crux of the disagreement is why it has improved.

I argue that the run play selection has assisted in improved pass protection and thus passing game execution.

And I am guilty of stitching several threads and premises into this one.. that an NFL team can function without an effective run attack. 😉
"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
Anyone willing to stay on topic? I think the question has been answered. Can we win games consistently with 92 yards rushing by our RBs? That has been the question. The answer has been proven. Instead of admitting you are wrong, you change the topic.

I at least can admit I was wrong about things. I was wrong about Favre in '08. I was wrong about D being less important than O. I was wrong about Randy Moss. I was wrong about TT.

Now, let's see if you can do it too. Admit you're wrong that we can win games when our RBs don't run for 92 yards, without veering off topic.

Once again:
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 

My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage
(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷
Pack93z
14 years ago
Where did I say that we couldn't win with less than 92 yards in a game?

But if it makes you feel better.. I am wrong. I have little issue with admitting I error.. do it all the time.

Better? lol.

My first comment in the thread.. go back and look at the thread.. is became a quick pass vs run debate.. is that not staying in theme of the topic?

Butt Hurt my ass... lol.

We don't have to be a dynamic running team to win it, but we do have to run it effectively enough to assist the offensive line to help keep the defensive line in check.

Note how well the offensive line has played since we started to mix in the run from our passing sets.. it effectively "pauses" the defensive line. Which in turn reduces the all out pass rushes within the game, the defense at least has to check off the run before getting up field.

Also, it was a thing of beauty to see a number of 3rd and less than three's the past couple weeks.. it opens up the playbook for more of the playaction stuff and leads to more open passing lanes and deeper routes down the field.

IMO, one has little to complain about in Mike McCarthy playcalling the past 4 weeks.. balancing it up with the occasional run/draw out of 3 and 4 wide sets.

Oh the one other benefit of running the ball.. the offensive line gets to attack the defense instead of the inverse.. which will wear down a defensive line quicker than allowing them to pin their ears back an entire game.

We don't have a dynamic running attack.. but that doesn't mean the running attack can't help us win games. It does so much to set the table for the passing game that many overlook.

"pack93z" wrote:


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

Now, let's see if you can do it too. Admit you're wrong that we can win games when our RBs don't run for 92 yards, without veering off topic.

"zombieslayer" wrote:



I admit that I never said "we can't win games when our RBs don't run for 92 yards".

I thought the general discussion was on whether or not we were running the ball enough, and thought one thread on the topic was enough.

So, I guess I also admit that I personally did not think the distinction between yardage and attempts was enough to justify a new thread.

And I also admit that you will see me saying consistently throughout this thread that we have been running the ball at a good ratio (including this last game)--except for a handfull of games, which almost without exception have been losses.

edit: and I also admit to not starting the flogging of this thread again that had been dormant for 10 days.

Fine, I'm convinced and buying into your obvious conclusion that run plays are a waste of time. Heck, we don't need no stinkin' running backs. If we want someone in the backfield with the QB, just put a WR/TE in to run a pass route. Otherwise, just go empty backfield all day. If running plays are a waste of time, why ever run one, right? If that's not seductive enough, think of the additional roster spots/draft picks we could save and use for WRs, etc.

Given all that, I find it funny that our own defense puts a premium on stopping the opposing teams running game and forcing them to go one-dimensional--into a pass-only attack. Wonder why that might be...

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/108328314.html 

Raji said the defense would continue to focus on stopping the run.

"Our philosophy, which has been working well for us so far, we want to stop the run initially so we can get teams in a more predictable state," he said. "Then we can come with the blitzing we love to do."

"JSonline.com" wrote:

PackFanWithTwins
14 years ago
I have been thinking about how McCarthy has been using Jackson. And I am wondering. Has it been a plan for some time. Giving the late game rushes to Kuhn and now Nance, saving wear on Jackson.

As the close of the season comes, and the cold weather, Jackson is going to be more rested and less beat up. Jackson is sitting 20, 30, 60, 80 less attempts than the others in the NFC in Turner, Bradshaw, Forte and McCoy
The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!
porky88
14 years ago
The running game is only important if it's a ridiculously windy day. Beyond that, you can throw in anything IMO. The Raven game was cold last year. Packers won pretty convincingly. Ryan Grant barely got anything going.
Zero2Cool
14 years ago
Grant had something like 18 carries. Regardless of production, its the threat of the run that helps setup the play action pass.
UserPostedImage
zombieslayer
13 years ago

Question - would you rather have 150 running yards or 45 points?

The answer to that question is the answer to your question. I don't care how we get the points. We win games by scoring. If it's 50 runs and 1 pass, cool. If it's 50 passes and 1 run, cool. Passing gives us our best chance of scoring.

As for our RBs, Jackson's blocking ability cannot be praised enough. His blocking is in the top 30% of what I've seen, and I've watched a lot of RBs since 1976. I'm very proud of him.

FYI - The Steelers won the SB two years ago with 58 total yards rushing. The Saints won the SB last year with even less. Should we take away their Lombardi trophies because they didn't get enough rushing yards?

"zombieslayer" wrote:



Well folks, read this entire thread. We must have lost the Super Bowl because we didn't get our 92 yards rushing.

Damn I'm good.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage
(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷
DakotaT
13 years ago
For the most part I'm in agreement with Zombie on this whole topic which tirelessly has invaded several threads. But that doesn't change the fact that I would like to see a power running game too for games which we have blown out. I've stated in the past that with the current left side of Clifton and College, that this is not possible. If we get a mauler LG to go with Sitton, this can change - but I do not envision it happening until the left side changes. Chad Clifton is a pass blocking specialist, but doesn't have the tenacity to be a great run blocker.
UserPostedImage
macbob
13 years ago

For the most part I'm in agreement with Zombie on this whole topic which tirelessly has invaded several threads. But that doesn't change the fact that I would like to see a power running game too for games which we have blown out. I've stated in the past that with the current left side of Clifton and College, that this is not possible. If we get a mauler LG to go with Sitton, this can change - but I do not envision it happening until the left side changes. Chad Clifton is a pass blocking specialist, but doesn't have the tenacity to be a great run blocker.

"DakotaT" wrote:



lol. Reading back over the entire thread, I find I still agree with myself...lol...
Fan Shout
Zero2Cool (1h) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them
Zero2Cool (1h) : I just checked. What tie breaker?
bboystyle (1h) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner
Zero2Cool (1h) : Ahh, ok.
bboystyle (1h) : yes due to tie breaker
Zero2Cool (1h) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.
Zero2Cool (1h) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?
bboystyle (1h) : 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 (2h) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network
beast (3h) : 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 (3h) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly
Zero2Cool (3h) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.
bboystyle (3h) : 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 (3h) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv
Zero2Cool (4h) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno
beast (4h) : 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 (4h) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans
Zero2Cool (5h) : I see what you did there Mucky
Zero2Cool (5h) : dammit. 3:25pm
Zero2Cool (5h) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm
Mucky Tundra (5h) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground
Mucky Tundra (5h) : Yeah baby!
Zero2Cool (5h) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah
Zero2Cool (6h) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.
beast (6h) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue
Zero2Cool (7h) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's
Zero2Cool (7h) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.
packerfanoutwest (8h) : ok I stand corrected
Zero2Cool (8h) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th
Zero2Cool (8h) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?
beast (8h) : Saying no to the 6th lock.
beast (8h) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out
Zero2Cool (8h) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.
beast (8h) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games
beast (8h) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality
beast (8h) : 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 (8h) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread
Zero2Cool (8h) : I literally just said it.
packerfanoutwest (8h) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't
Zero2Cool (8h) : Falcons, Buccaneers would need to win final two games.
Zero2Cool (8h) : Yes, if they win one of three, they are lock. If they lose out, they can be eliminated.
packerfanoutwest (8h) : as I just said,,gtheyh are in no matter what
Zero2Cool (8h) : Packers should get in. I just hope it's not 7th seed. Feels dirty.
packerfanoutwest (8h) : If packers lose out, no matter what, they are in
packerfanoutwest (8h) : both teams can not male the playoffs....falcon hold the tie breaker
packerfanoutwest (8h) : if bucs win out they win their division
beast (8h) : Fine, Buccaneers and Falcons can get ahead of us
packerfanoutwest (8h) : falcons are already ahead of us
beast (9h) : Packers will get in
beast (9h) : If Packers lose the rest of their games and Falcons win the rest of theirs, they could pass us... but not gonna happen
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
1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

7h / 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.