Run to set up pass? 'Let's do it,' Rodgers says

Zero2Cool
Elite Member Topic Starter

11 years ago

GREEN BAY — If the Green Bay Packers are trending toward being a running team — which, after the production they've gotten from three different running backs the last three games, could perhaps be happening — quarterback Aaron Rodgers is just fine with that.

As long as the Packers win, which they did in a 22-9 triumph over the Detroit Lions on Sunday, when Eddie Lacy had 99 yards rushing and wide receiver Randall Cobb lined up in the backfield for a 67-yard run that jump-started the Packers sagging offense at the time.

"I love to throw the football. But I love to win more," Rodgers said when asked Tuesday about the running game on his weekly radio show on 540 ESPN and ESPNWisconsin.com . "And we have some guys who can really get it done running the football."

Rodgers said the emergence of the running game doesn't necessarily change his approach to run/pass option calls, as he did opt for a pass play on a third-and-1 and had his pass to Cobb batted down by linebacker DeAndre Levy.

Before Lacy's 99-yard performance — he actually surpassed the 100-yard mark but lost half the yardage on a 26-yard run to a holding penalty on wide receiver Jarrett Boykin — the Packers got 132 yards from James Starks in a victory over Washington on Sept. 15 and 103 yards from Johnathan Franklin in a loss at Cincinnati on Sept. 22. That the Packers are getting so much production from various backs would seemingly speak well of the offensive line's run blocking, which Rodgers said is the case.

"Our line is jelling as far as the run game goes. They obviously played excellent on Sunday, gave the passing game a lot of time and they opened up some big holes," Rodgers said. "I want to win. And if we need to run to set up the pass, which is kind of, in this day and age, an old school type of thought, so be it. Let's do it."

Jason Wilde wrote:

Wanna join the discussion?! Login to your PACKERSHOME forum account or Register a new forum account

sschind
Senior Member

11 years ago

This has been a hot topic in other threads but I will reply here. I would honestly love to have a team with a RB like Walter Payton or Jim Brown that we could run on 60 percent of our plays and win games. I'm a running game fool. I used to love watching Oklahoma and Nebraska battle it out where each team had 6 passes and 400 yards rushing. I loved Csonka and Kick and the 7 passes Griese threw in SB VIII. I love the Badgers and their almost 8.5 yard average and 3 guys over 100 yards (granted it was against Massachusetts and Tennessee Tech but still...) I would love to have that on the Packers but I am realistic and I know its a passing game now. I also realize that when you have one of the best QBs in the game you want him to be throwing the ball. Because of the skill Rodgers has no one is expecting the Packers to become a running team. That would be foolish. I don't even think that most people are expecting them to run to set up the pass. I can't speak for everyone but I can tell you what I would like to see and what I have come to expect since Lacy and Franklin were drafted and have seemingly "emerged."

I would like to see 3rd and short situation that are not automatic passing passing downs. That is not to say we can't pass on 3rd and short or that we can never take a shot down the field on occasion. I just don't want to see it every single time. We should NEVER go empty backfield on 3rd and 1 or 2.

I would like to see a RB that can be counted on to realistically give us a chance to make those few yards if he is given the ball in a 3rd and short situation.

I would like to see a running game, that if given the ball on three consecutive plays late in the game when we are trying to run out the clock can be counted on to pick up a first down at least some of the time.

I would like to see a running game that doesn't automatically give us 2nd and 9 or 2nd and 10 if we choose to run on first down.

I would like to see a running game that, in a 2nd and 9 or 10 situation, could be utilized on occasion and not automatically leave us with a 3rd and 8 or 3rd and 9.

I would like to see a running game that gives me the feeling that on any play it could be busted for a long one or leaves me saying "sooooo close on that one"

I would like to see a running game that is closer to #1 than #32. and that is where we are right now. Right now we are #2 in average and #5 in YPG. Total yards is tough to judges because of the bye week but we are currently 13th and all of the team ahead of us have played 5 games. If we had 1 more game with even half our average we would be at #8 in total yards.

As you can see I would like a lot of things out of our running game. The thing is, I am getting the feeling that if we are not already there we are much closer now than we have been in a long time. Not since Ahman Green left the first time have I been excited to see a hand off in Green Bay. Oh sure, some of the running plays turned out to be exciting but the very instant it was obvious the play would be a run the feeling has always been ho-hum, another couple of yards. With the way our running game has come on lately I can finally get excited over a hand off again.

Pack93z
Select Member

11 years ago

As I have maintained over the course of the last couple years.. I don't want to be a run first team. Just looking for better balance, better ball control and a reason for the defense to respect the run and not tee off on the offensive line and protection at the snap.

To do that... you actually have to balance the play calling with the run for the defense to respect it. We are getting there with that.. and we are effectively running the ball.

Sure in the interim.. we will struggle a bit, but I truly think as we approach the playoffs we will be a more dangerous team for it.. and that increases our odds in the postseason.

Any time you can challenge a defense with more variables.. the more successful you shall become. And that is not just an offensive thing... it is a team thing.

I like this team a ton more than last season already.. tweak in personnel and play calling balance.. we will be a team that should challenge at the end of the year if we can maintain even a resemblance of health.

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

PackFanWithTwins
Veteran Member

11 years ago

This is exactly what we have all be looking and hoping for. The ability to run. They have the best game plans I have seen from McCarthy since he has been here. I was so sick of seeing Shotgun - Empty backfield that last couple/few years. Hmmm wonder if they would run the ball from that formation. Last week we had 67 offensive plays, of those 61 had a RB on the field. The only improvement I can ask for is that we even out when we run more. Over 50% runs on first down, 2nd and 3rd that drops to 25% with the majority of those being on 2nd down.

Another think I would like to see change is get Rodgers back down under center more. Even the short shotgun plays take a split second longer to develop. A slant today is 2 yards upfield and then cut. I would like to see the slant Favre used so well, the same slant Jerry Rice stated, when run properly, cannot be defended. How many times, was the pack in 3rd and 3 or so where Favre would get under center, look to either side (left more often) where Driver, or Free were lined up get the snap, 1 step and throw (First Down). That is the biggest play I miss today. And without being under center that can't be done.

But as Aaron says, as long as defenses are going to keep playing the Packers the way Det did, they will use the run to setup the pass. Once defenses start respecting the run more, than we can go back to passing to setup the run.

My HS coach one game ran the same 31Trap 22 consecutive times for 4-6 yards per. After they stopped us on the 22nd, he switched to 32trap another 20 times.

The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!

DoddPower
Veteran Member

11 years ago

But as Aaron says, as long as defenses are going to keep playing the Packers the way Det did, they will use the run to setup the pass. Once defenses start respecting the run more, than we can go back to passing to setup the run.

Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins

This. It couldn't be more obvious to me. Just take what the defense gives you. I've thought for years it was pathetic that the Packers didn't have a better yard-per-carry average since they constantly face seven and even six man boxes. Defenses practically beg the Packers to run, yet they still couldn't do so very well. It has amazed me. I've said this multiple times, but I think defensive coordinators know that the Packers do not have the patience to beat them with the run game, so why play it all. They will give up a few runs that way, but the run game wasn't going to win the game for the Packers. Hopefully things are finally different now and Mike McCarthy becomes a more flexible coach. I just don't know why it has taken so long.

nerdmann
Premier Member

11 years ago

These young RBs are gonna be AWESOME.

“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”

texaspackerbacker
Veteran Member

11 years ago

Aaron Rodgers obviously isn't gonna say anything to rock the boat or ruffle feathers.

I will say, NO NO NO NO!!!! Do NOT screw with success; Do NOT become a run first team; Do NOT even strive for balance between running and passing. I did NOT get all orgasmic about last Sunday's game like so many in here. It was a style of game that in addition to being frustrating and a lot less entertaining (Unimportant factors), simply would NOT result in a win against most of the better teams in the league.

I would like to see some ABILITY to run better - better RBs which it seems we now have, better O Line which I kinda doubt we have yet, and a better overall defense - which requires a lot more than merely less time on the field to be consistently that way.

But PASSING FIRST got us a Super Bowl, a 15-1 regular season, and a way above average last season despite injuries and other stumbling blocks. I would like to think Mike McCarthy has the mindset to continue exactly that. I'm a little bit disturbed that he went the route he went against Detroit, but I'm confident that game was an aberration, and the Packers generally will do what works best - to quote somebody in here's sarcastic post, PASS PASS PASS, PASS SOME MORE, then run RARELY as a change of pace but with great success.

If we do that, and our D eventually does get a little bit better, we will be unstoppable.

Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.

sschind
Senior Member

11 years ago

Originally Posted by: DoddPower

I honestly think it boiled down to personnel. They simply haven't had the back that could get the job done. Oh sure, there were flashes of brilliance and plenty of potential but late round picks and UDFAs are usually late round picks and UDFAs for a reason (yes I get guys like Arian Foster and Terrell Davis that's why I said usually)

I also think continuity on the Oline helps, if you can call 4 games continuity. I like our guys now and I like our running game so far.

sschind
Senior Member

11 years ago

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker

That wasn't exactly the quote but close enough

That superbowl you referred to was helped along greatly by some timely running by Jame Starks. I don't think we would have won it all without that.

The 15-1 regular season ended with us in the same place on super Sunday as the above average season last year did. At home, watching it on TV.

I don't see how a more balanced attack (I don't think anyone is advocating being a run first team, I know I wasn't) can not help us win against some of the better teams. If our offense could score 48 points a game and our defense could hold teams to 10 then I would agree with you. The way it is we can score a bunch but we give up a bunch. If we could run a bit better and keep the ball out of the other teams hands maybe Rodgers wouldn't be counted on to have as many of those 4th quarter comebacks or maybe our defense wouldn't be forced to preserve (and fail) on ones that he does manage to orchestrate.

Regarding the entertainment value, I find a run of just about any yardage to be more exiting and entertaining than a pass of the same distance. I'd rather see a 99 yard run than a 99 yard pass any day. The only thing that make the passes better in some instances is the catches that some of these guys make (Jordy Nelson anybody?) Even so, a 40 yard pass with a great finger tip catch to stay in bounds is not really any more exciting to me than a 40 yard run with a few broken tackles. It take all kinds to make the world go around though so I won't try to convert you.

Gaycandybacon
Member

11 years ago

#10

I think running the ball sets up the PASS RUSHERS. The pass rushers will have their heads spinning to play the run or just straight up pass rush. I always hear from commentators "When you can't run the ball, the opposing team can pin their ears back and rush the passer." That's the key to Balance. You need to make even the best pass rushers in the league believe you can attack them both ways, and they'll never know what to do. You want them on their toes and moving side to side rather then going forward. If we can keep this up we can win every game.

I'm sure everyone has brought this up already but we only gave up 1 sack against the Lions... Is that not encouraging? I give credit to the run game.

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

Zero2Cool (37m) : I see what you did there Mucky

Zero2Cool (37m) : dammit. 3:25pm

Zero2Cool (37m) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm

Mucky Tundra (45m) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground

Mucky Tundra (45m) : Yeah baby!

Zero2Cool (1h) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah

Zero2Cool (2h) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.

beast (2h) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue

Zero2Cool (3h) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's

Zero2Cool (3h) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.

packerfanoutwest (3h) : ok I stand corrected

Zero2Cool (3h) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th

Zero2Cool (3h) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?

beast (3h) : Saying no to the 6th lock.

beast (3h) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out

Zero2Cool (3h) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.

beast (3h) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games

beast (3h) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality

beast (3h) : 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 (3h) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread

Zero2Cool (3h) : I literally just said it.

packerfanoutwest (3h) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't

Zero2Cool (3h) : Falcons, Buccaneers would need to win final two games.

Zero2Cool (3h) : Yes, if they win one of three, they are lock. If they lose out, they can be eliminated.

packerfanoutwest (3h) : as I just said,,gtheyh are in no matter what

Zero2Cool (3h) : Packers should get in. I just hope it's not 7th seed. Feels dirty.

packerfanoutwest (4h) : If packers lose out, no matter what, they are in

packerfanoutwest (4h) : both teams can not male the playoffs....falcon hold the tie breaker

packerfanoutwest (4h) : if bucs win out they win their division

beast (4h) : Fine, Buccaneers and Falcons can get ahead of us

packerfanoutwest (4h) : falcons are already ahead of us

beast (4h) : Packers will get in

beast (4h) : If Packers lose the rest of their games and Falcons win the rest of theirs, they could pass us... but not gonna happen

packerfanoutwest (4h) : they still are in the playoffs

packerfanoutwest (4h) : If Packers lose the remaining games,,,,at 10-7

Zero2Cool (6h) : We can say it. We don't play.

Mucky Tundra (7h) : But to say they are in is looking past the Saints

Mucky Tundra (7h) : That said, their odds are very favorable with a >99% chance of making the playoffs entering this week's games

Mucky Tundra (7h) : Packers are not in and have not clinched a playoff spot.

buckeyepackfan (8h) : Packers are in, they need to keep winning to improve their seed#.

Mucky Tundra (17h) : Getting help would have been nice, but helping ourselves should always be the plan

beast (17h) : Too bad Seahawks couldn't beat Vikings

bboystyle (17h) : We just need to win Monday night and were in

Mucky Tundra (20h) : Or ties, but let's be real here

Mucky Tundra (20h) : Other scenario was Falcons+Rams losses

Mucky Tundra (20h) : Needed a Falcons loss for a Seahawk loss to clinch

buckeyepackfan (21h) : Am I wring in saying if Tge Vikings beat The Seahawks, The Packers clinch?

Mucky Tundra (21-Dec) : Agreed; you stinks

Zero2Cool (21-Dec) : I'm not beating anyone. I stinks.

Mucky Tundra (21-Dec) : rough injury for tank dell. guy can't catch abreak

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

Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM

Vikings

Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM

BEARS