Nice play dispersement· Page 2

PackFanWithTwins
Veteran Member Topic Starter

15 years ago

Grant ran 11 times for 39 yards (3.5 avg) in the first half. But that's deceiving. He had a long run of 8 yards. In other words, except for his long run, he averaged 3.1 ypc. That's not good -- it's well less than mediocre.

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:

That is how all RB (except Benson today) are. They get 2 yards, 1 yard 3 yards and then break a big one that makes the average. Peterson had 2 runs for 22 and 27. Take them away and he was at 3.3. Have to stay with the run even when not working the best, and you will eventually break one, and also to keep the rush honest.

The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!

Greg C.
Registered

15 years ago

#12

"PackFanWithTwins" wrote:

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:

Yeah, 8 yards is not much of a long run anyway. To take that out of his average is kind of cheap, I think.

I don't know what the heck McCarthy was thinking with the play-calling today. Mike Sherman and Tom Rossley used to get into ruts like this as well, where they just kept firing the ball down the field time after time.

blank

Zero2Cool
Elite Member

15 years ago

#13

3 : 30???

I never EVER thought I'd say this and I might deny it if thrown in my face later, I think it might be time to let Joe Philibin call the plays on offense.

Nonstopdrivel
Preferred Member

15 years ago

#14

To take that out of his average is kind of cheap, I think.

"Greg C." wrote:

It turns out your intuition is correct. I did an outlier test on his runs for the first half and his 8-yard runs (he had three of them) are not outliers. So it's not fair to remove them from the calculations. As it turns out, however, I don't have to.

Interestingly, in the Game Playbook available on NFL.com, there is a disparity between the numbers in the First Half Summary (11 runs for 39 yards) and the play-by-play section (12 runs for 40 yards). So it turns out his average for the first half was 3.33 ypc.

As George Carlin would say, "Not good, Bruno. Not good."

Greg C.
Registered

15 years ago

#15

As George Carlin would say, "Not good, Bruno. Not good."

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:

Not good, but not grounds to go to a 3:30 run-pass ratio in what was never more than a one-score game until the final few minutes. Maybe McCarthy had some hunches that proved to be incorrect, or the execution was just horrible. It was downright strange.

blank

djcubez
Senior Member

15 years ago

#16

I just have a problem with the play-calling in general. Too many times I've seen McCarthy be completely conservative. 2nd down and 18 and we hand it off? 3rd down and 15 and we throw a short pass? Or how about those three runs in a row in the 1st half that took us straight to a three and out. McCarthy is too damn predictable and stubborn.

Wade
Veteran Member

15 years ago

#17

NSD: agreed that the yds/carry are underwhelming.

OTOH: so was the yds/pass play.

I had no idea the second half ratio of pass to run was so skewed. 30 to 3 is idiotic even if the runs were averaging 1.3 in the first half.

Only time 30-3 ratio is justified for a half is if the team is down by 4 TDs or so. Or if there are no RBs left on the roster.

And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)

zombieslayer
Registered

15 years ago

#18

Starting in the second half score is tied and the defense holds the Bengals on their first attempt. What happens. McCarthy forgets that there are two aspects to the offense.

3 runs and 30 passes in the 2nd half. When the opposing team is getting pressure. Terrible play calling

"PackFanWithTwins" wrote:

Screw the run.

The problem wasn't too many passes. It was the type of passes. What happened to our bread and butter short, successful passes that our WRs would get lots of YAC with? I saw very little of these during the game. This was our bread and butter. It worked. It's why we had the #5 best O last year.

My man Donald Driver

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

musccy
Veteran Member

15 years ago

#19

some of the blame needs to go to the wrs/rbs. 4 hideous drops in the first half, grant fumble, etc. make things look worse than they really were.

W/ that said, i agree that pack still seemed to deviate from their bread and butter quick slants/dump offs and given the horrendous play of the tackles, 3 step and throw makes a lot of sense.

PackFanWithTwins
Veteran Member Topic Starter

15 years ago

#20

Here are Grants runs

3,1,8,8,2,2,4 TD,8,0,0,3,1,4,2

Definitely not bad enough to warrant completely abandoning the run in the 2nd half.

The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!

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

beast (7m) : 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 (19m) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans

Zero2Cool (1h) : I see what you did there Mucky

Zero2Cool (1h) : dammit. 3:25pm

Zero2Cool (1h) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm

Mucky Tundra (1h) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground

Mucky Tundra (1h) : 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 (4h) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.

beast (4h) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games

beast (4h) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality

beast (4h) : 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 (4h) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread

Zero2Cool (4h) : I literally just said it.

packerfanoutwest (4h) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't

Zero2Cool (4h) : Falcons, Buccaneers would need to win final two games.

Zero2Cool (4h) : Yes, if they win one of three, they are lock. If they lose out, they can be eliminated.

packerfanoutwest (4h) : as I just said,,gtheyh are in no matter what

Zero2Cool (4h) : 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 (18h) : We just need to win Monday night and were in

Mucky Tundra (21h) : Or ties, but let's be real here

Mucky Tundra (21h) : Other scenario was Falcons+Rams losses

Mucky Tundra (21h) : 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

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