macbob
13 years ago

Wait. Are you reading the same numbers I am?

When we've got a sizable lead is the ONLY time pass/run ratios are close.

Originally Posted by: zombieslayer 



Seriously? You're changing the Run/Pass ratio you've advocated for in previous threads from 70+/30- to 60/40?

I'm glad you consider 60/40 to be pretty much abandoning the run, because now we can both claim victory.

From previous threads I had been saying the sweet spot historically was 56/44%. Our ratios when 1-7 ahead and 1-7 behind are almost dead on that (58/42 and 60/40).

And for the thousandth time, this whole argument was in a response to the statement people made that "we cannot win a Super Bowl without a good running game." Well, we've already won one and we're about to win another.



The numbers were presented regarding your statement that Mike McCarthy had pretty much abandoned the run until we had a sizable lead.

The argument may have started as you say, but you have morphed the argument from whether you need a good running game to not needing to run at all. In previous threads you have advocated that running is a wasted play, etc.

macbob
13 years ago

Love your sig pic macbob, but what's wrong with Rodgers' head?

Originally Posted by: Since69 




I couldn't find the picture online, so I scanned it in. It went across two pages, and that's where the seam fell.

I'll see if I can clean it up some more
zombieslayer
13 years ago

Seriously? You're changing the Run/Pass ratio you've advocated for in previous threads from 70+/30- to 60/40?

I'm glad you consider 60/40 to be pretty much abandoning the run, because now we can both claim victory.

From previous threads I had been saying the sweet spot historically was 56/44%. Our ratios when 1-7 ahead and 1-7 behind are almost dead on that (58/42 and 60/40).



The numbers were presented regarding your statement that Mike McCarthy had pretty much abandoned the run until we had a sizable lead.

The argument may have started as you say, but you have morphed the argument from whether you need a good running game to not needing to run at all. In previous threads you have advocated that running is a wasted play, etc.

Originally Posted by: macbob 



What was the Run/Pass ratio of our Super Bowl win?

And now you're claiming I'm diverting from my original post. Well, here is my original post. No idea why it looks like this.

Two things I can't stand when it comes to the NFL balance and playing not to lose I won't touch the latter in this thread but the former I'm going to argueScrew balance And screw the run You do not need a running game to win the Super Bowl I'm about to prove itRemember when we won the Super Bowl last It was 1996 and we didn't even have a Running Back that rushed for 900 yards No I'm not joking Our leading rusher was Edgar Bennett and he rushed for 800something yards I don't even remember if he broke 4 ypc that yearIt's the Quarterback who carries a team when it comes to Offense Times have changed The only thing you need a running game for is to keep Defenses honestWe have the potential to be a dominant Offense The thing that's holding us back Mike McCarthy thinking we need a balanced offensive attack That line of thinking is equivalent to kicking Aaron Rodgers in the nutsI want to see Aaron throw the ball We have 3 playmakers on Offense and none of them are Running Backs Our playmakers are Greg Jennings Donald Driver and Aaron Rodgers The more we put the game in their hands the more points we scoreSo why is this NFL News instead of in the Packers section This is why2000 Super Bowl winners Baltimore Ravens Yes they had a top tier rushing attack They were #5 But honestly they won the SB that year because their D was absolutely sick2001 Super Bowl winners New England Patriots 13th in Rushing Puts them in the top half but by no means were they a top notch rushing team2002 Super Bowl winners Tampa Bay Buccaneers Are you ready for their rushing ranking 27th Yes I'm not joking They downright sucked at running the ball But who cares They won the Super Bowl that yearEven funnier is when you look at their top rushers You had one guy rush for 718 yards with a 35 average and their other guy rush for a 38 average Wow2003 Super Bowl winners New England Patriots You think the '02 Bucs couldn't run the football Well this team was even worse Top rusher ran for under 700 yards and had a 35 average and a whopping 3 TDs 27th in the NFL in rushing2004 Super Bowl winners New England Patriots Well surprise surprise Bellichick decides they need a RB and they get Corey Dillon from the Bengals Dillon has the year of his life and gets 1600 yards and the Patriots are 7th in Rushing The Patriots a rushing team Well in '04 they were2005 Super Bowl winners Pittsburgh Steelers OK here you have a top tier rushing attack with a speedster and a guy who runs you over 5th in the NFL in Rushing2006 Super Bowl winners Indianapolis Colts 18th in Rushing which puts them in the bottom half of the league Who cares They won the SB that year2007 Super Bowl winners New York Giants An elite rushing team 4th in the NFL To give credit where it's due though the Giants won the SB that year because they were a team The whole team was awesome once the Playoffs started2008 Super Bowl winners Pittsburgh Steelers Unlike their '05 team this team had no running game 23rd in the NFL They won it on D The one play that won them the SB was Kurt Warner throwing an INT from the one yard line and that INT got returned for a TDAnd for your bonus round let's throw in the '99 Rams the Greatest Show on Turf Remember how fun they were to watch that year You know why they were so fun to watch Because they didn't waste time running the football Sure they had Marshall Faulk But even with an elite RB you can always throw the football to him As they didSo want to guess their ranking in Rushing 25th YupScrew the run They put the game in Kurt Warner's hands and he responded with 400 yards in the SB and each Ram walked away with a RingEDIT lol This is too funny So out of curiosity I looked at how many rushing yards the '99 Rams had in the SB 29 No I'm not making this up Here's proofhttp//enwikipediaorg/wiki/SuperBowlXXXIVMarshall Faulk had a whopping 17 yards on 10 carries Further proof that you can win SBs without a running gameFor the record SBs are always played in ideal conditions You don't have snow You don't have the cold It's not going to be a grinding game where you have to run the ball to win

Zombieslayer wrote:


My man Donald Driver

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

The only thing you need a running game for is to keep Defenses honest

zombieslayer wrote:



I wouldn't go as far as saying it's the only thing you need a running game for (you need it to be able to make a 3rd & short, etc), but I agree with the general philosophy of the statement that the primary purpose of a running game is to keep defenses honest and help make your passing game better.

We need to be able to keep a defense from stacking completely against the pass, be able to suck their safetys in to stop the run while play-actioning deep to Greg Jennings.

I am also concerned with developing a one-dimensional offense, without a credible running game, that we're putting ALL of our eggs in AR's basket--I want the Packers to still have chances if Aaron Rodgers gets injured.

That said, we're in basic agreement on passing > running. Also, we both appear to like McCarthy's playcalling mix this year.

So, what's the issue? The issue is you continue to advocate for a John Madden offense when you refer to running as a waste of a play, where when you talk about McCarthy abandoning the run until we have a sizable lead you're essentially advocating for that approach.

And yes, we won the SB. We've had previous discussions, which I won't go into details on, they're in earlier threads, on how we wouldn't have won without the 3 turnovers (Collin's INT directly resulted in 7 pts in a game we won by 6). We also had discussions on the playcalling in the first half, when we built our lead and the second half, when we held on to win.

Frankly, I was very concerned by the second half of that SB: the Steelers were showing a blueprint on how to beat us. Our D was having trouble getting off the field in the second half, which limits our O's opportunities. And when our O got on the field, it put a lot of pressure on to not have a 3 and out, otherwise the O was going to be back on the sideline for a while.

The Steelers had driven down and scored a touchdown, with every play a running play. They were in the midst of another drive until Mendenhall's fumble. I thought they were going to score on that drive--our D was showing little sign of stopping them prior to that fumble.

It was the same type of gameplan we used against New England when we played them in the regular season. We kept Brady sitting on his butt for large parts of that game, running up a large time-of-possession advantage. We would have won that game except for a 70 yd kick-off return by an Olineman or the INT by Flynn.

So, if you're counting that SB win as a vindication of the no-running-game philosophy, I'm counting it as an indictment of it. I don't feel confident in 'abandoning the run until we have a sizable lead.' I like our play mix this year (60/40) just fine.
vikesrule
13 years ago
zombieslayer is a notorious running back hater.


He never would have approved of drafting Jim Taylor in 58 or trading for Ahman Green in 2000.

zombieslayer: "Dorsey Levens, Edgar Bennett and John Brockington... Packers never needed any of them":-"
Packers_Finland
13 years ago

So you agree, Vikings should trade Adrian Peterson.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 



Did you miss the part where I said "if you don't have a passing attack, a running attack helps"?
This is a placeholder
Zero2Cool
13 years ago

Did you miss the part where I said "if you don't have a passing attack, a running attack helps"?

Originally Posted by: Packers_Finland 


Did you miss the thread I got Formo crying about his Vikings and me proving they'd be better off shoveling off their two beset players to rebuild?


Besides, if it wasn't for James Starks, the play action pass wouldn't have worked for a damn in the Super Bowl and that's why the Packers won. Face it, you need to run the ball to win! (but having Barry Sanders doesn't increase your chances)
Dexter_Sinister
13 years ago
An effective running game is much more important than a productive one.

You have to be able to run when the D knows your are going to run. Mostly at the end of a game when you don't want the clock to stop.

Teams that put up huge numbers in the running game tend to lose in the post season. If they even get there.

Even in the passing game, huge numbers don't win as much as efficient numbers. Get first downs, scores and limit turnovers and you win.

Get lots of yards without scores, turn the ball over or get a few huge plays for big yards but are ineffective the rest of the game is a recipe for failure.

The problem with running backs that rely on a couple huge runs a game to pad their stats, then only put up 2 per carry, is that if they don't score on that break away run, they can't get grind out a long drive for a TD. They end up with 175 yards in a losing effort. If AP runs for 40 yards on 2 carries, then puts up 60 on the next 25 carries, he is going to average under 2.5 per on every carry after those 2 big runs. If you line up on 3rd and 3, AP is possibly going to break the big run on that down, but he odds are against it. Which is why the Vikings have taken AP out of the game when they absolutely need to grind out a first down. He is likely to fail 90% of the time.

A back that never gets a run longer than 10 yards but has an average over 4 is going to be productive on most attempts and generate a lot of first downs because the team is always in 3rd and short. If you only run the ball 15 times, have a 4 ypc average and never ran more than 10 yards, that is actually a good game.

Passing is the same. Yards don't help you win if you are not efficient with the ball. Generating 1st downs, getting the ball into the endzone and not turning it over.

It doesn't matter how you do it, running or passing. It matters how efficiently you do it.
I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.
Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
zombieslayer
13 years ago
For the record, AP would be significantly better if the Vikings had a viable passing threat so opposing Ds can't stack the box against him every freaking game.

My points are pretty simple:
1) You don't need a good RB today. A decent one is good enough. Spend your money elsewhere,
2) You can win Super Bowls (the ultimate goal in the NFL) without a running game. The NFL today is all about the pass. The most important statistic nowadays is Offensive Passer Rating vs Defensive Passer Rating. Running effectiveness is irrelevant.

#2 proves my point. There's a direct correlation between OPR vs DPR and winning games. If you want to argue with me about how important running is, take on point 2. You will lose, and you will look stupid. (Just a warning ahead of time).
My man Donald Driver

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

For the record, AP would be significantly better if the Vikings had a viable passing threat so opposing Ds can't stack the box against him every freaking game.

My points are pretty simple:
1) You don't need a good RB today. A decent one is good enough. Spend your money elsewhere,
2) You can win Super Bowls (the ultimate goal in the NFL) without a running game. The NFL today is all about the pass. The most important statistic nowadays is Offensive Passer Rating vs Defensive Passer Rating. Running effectiveness is irrelevant.

#2 proves my point. There's a direct correlation between OPR vs DPR and winning games. If you want to argue with me about how important running is, take on point 2. You will lose, and you will look stupid. (Just a warning ahead of time).

Originally Posted by: zombieslayer 



The more successful he is the less of a threat the passing game is.

Self defeating.

They also can afford to build up that passing game because AP is sucking up all the money they could spend on it.

They would be better off trying to Herschel Walker some team.
I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.
Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
Fan Shout
dfosterf (19h) : I have some doubt about all that
dfosterf (19h) : I read De'Vondre Campbell's tweet this morning (via the New York Post) Florio says that if he invested his earnings wisely, he will be good
beast (20-Feb) : I haven't followed, but I believe he's good when healthy, just hasn't been able to stay healthy.
dfosterf (20-Feb) : Hasn"t Bosa missed more games than he has played in the last 3 years?
Mucky Tundra (19-Feb) : He hasn't been too bad when healthy but I don't feel like I ever heard much about when he is
Zero2Cool (19-Feb) : Felt like he was more interested in his body, than football. He flashed more than I expected
Zero2Cool (19-Feb) : When he was coming out, I thought he'd be flash in pan.
Mucky Tundra (19-Feb) : Joey seems so forgettable compared to his brother for some reason
Zero2Cool (19-Feb) : NFL informed teams today that the 2025 salary cap will be roughly $277.5M-$281.5M
Zero2Cool (19-Feb) : Los Angeles Chargers are likely to release DE Joey Bosa this off-season as a cap casualty, per league source.
Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : If the exploit is not fixed, we'll see tons of "50 top free agents, 50 perfect NFL team fits: We picked where each should sign in March" lo
Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : Issue should be solved, database cleaned and held strong working / meeting. Boom!
Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : It should be halted now.
Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : usually spambots are trying to get traffic to shady websites filled with spyware; the two links being spammed were to the Packers website
Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : you know when you put it that way combined with the links it was spamming (to the official Packers website)
Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : Yep. You can do that with holding down ENTER on a command in Console of browser
Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : even with the rapid fire posts?
Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : I'm not certain it's a bot.
Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : I've got to go to work soon which is a pity because I'm enthralled by this battle between the bot and Zero
Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : Yeah, I see what that did. Kind of funny.
Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : now it's a link to Wes Hodkiezwicz mailbag
Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : Now they're back with another topic
Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : oh lol
Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : I have a script that purges them now.
Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : 118 Topics with Message.
Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : what's 118 (besides a number)?
Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : They got 118 slapped in there.
Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : that's why it confused the hell out of me
Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : Yeah, but this is taking a headline and slapping it into the Packers Talk
Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : Wasnt there a time guests could post in the help forum?
Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : lol good question, kind of impressed!
Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : So how is a guest posting?
Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : Tell them its an emergency
Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : Working. Meetings.
Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : Lots of fun; the spam goes back 4 or 5 pages by this point
Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : I thought you'd look for yourself and put 2 and 2 together lol. I overestimated ya ;)
Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : I thought Guests couldnt post?
Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : And gosh that's gonna be fun to clean up! hahaa
Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : Oh. Why not just say that then? Geez.
Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : check the main forum, seems a spam bot is running amok
Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : What?
Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : Is the Packers online game "Packers Predict" now available for 2024? I can't tell
Zero2Cool (17-Feb) : Bengals planning to Franchise Tag Tamaurice Higgins
Zero2Cool (14-Feb) : Packers are hiring Luke Getsy as senior offensive assistant.
Martha Careful (12-Feb) : I would love to have them both, esp. Crosby, but either might be too expensive.
Zero2Cool (12-Feb) : Keisean Nixon is trying to get Maxx Crosby and Davante Adams lol
Mucky Tundra (11-Feb) : Yeah where did it go?
packerfanoutwest (11-Feb) : or did you resctrict access to that topic?
packerfanoutwest (11-Feb) : why did you remove the Playoff topic?
Zero2Cool (10-Feb) : Tua’s old DC won a Super Bowl Year 1 with Tua’s former backup
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
Sunday, Jan 5 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Jan 12 @ 3:30 PM
Eagles
Recent Topics
1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

6h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

22-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / TheKanataThrilla

19-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

19-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / MintBaconDrivel

18-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

18-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

18-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

18-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

16-Feb / Around The NFL / beast

16-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

16-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

15-Feb / Around The NFL / beast

15-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

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