PackFanWithTwins
14 years ago
Jackson has been getting it done when given the ball. run or pass, the option he brings to the offense if used correctly will be just fine.
The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!
macbob
14 years ago

West coast offense people. We use short dump off and screen passes like a running game. Add the RBs' receiving yards and the total is pretty respectable. We also split our carries more evenly. Jackson has just under twice as many carries as Kuhn. AP has nearly 10 times the carries of Gerhart.

Minnesota's rushing yards per game is lower in their wins. They have 2 wins where AP had 81 and 73 yards. They had 2 of their losses where AP had 145 and 131 yards.

It is nice to have a decent running game, but it is hyperbole to say it would guarantee any win or its lack of would guarantee a loss. A completely unfounded statement.

"zombieslayer" wrote:



Exactly on all points. I'd take a 7 yard completion over a 4 yard run any day of the week. That was Bill Walsh's statement, not mine. I agree with Walsh.

Walsh asked the reporter - what would you rather face, 2nd and 3 or 2nd and 6?

I don't hate the run. It's nice to have. But not necessary. You can win a SB without a running game as has been shown over and over again. And yes, winning the SB means you won your playoff games. I've had people argue with me that said we won't go far in the Playoffs without a running game but then I'll show them actual facts of teams in the past 10 years who won the SB without a running game, but then they'll say we can't win in the Playoffs without a running game.

Go figure. I'm actually getting sick of saying the same thing over and over again and copying and pasting the same stats over and over again.

+1 by the way.

"Dexter_Sinister" wrote:



Subtracting out the QB runs, the winners of the Superbowls over the last 10 years:

2009 Saints: 39 passes, 17 runs; 69/31%
2008 Steelers: 20 passes, 22 runs; 58/42%
2007 Giants: 34 passes 23 runs; 59/41%
2006 Indianopolis: 38 passes 41 runs, 48/52%
2005 Steelers: 22 passes, 26 runs 46/54%
2004 Patriots: 33 passes, 27 runs 55/45%
2003 Patriots: 48 passes, 33 runs 59/41%
2002 Tampa Bay: 34 passes, 41 runs 45/55%
2001 Patriots: 27 passes, 24 runs 53/47%

Collectively: 285 passes, 254 runs, 53/47% ratio

Heres the losers:
2009 Colts: 45/19, 70/30%
2008 Cardinals: 43/11, 80/20%
2007 Patriots: 48/16; 75/25%
2006 Bears: 28/17, 62/38%
2005 Seattle: 49/22, 69/31%
2004 Eagles: 51/16, 76/24%
2003 Carolina: 33/16, 63/37%
2002 Raiders: 44/9, 83/17%
2001 Rams: 44/22, 67/33%

Collectively: 385/148; 72/28%

So Im not sure where you are getting this 'dont need a running game' from. In EVERY SINGLE CASE, INCLUDING 2009, the team that won had a better run/pass balance than the team that lost.

Matter of fact, the loser #s look remarkably close to our run/pass ratios in the games weve lost this year and the SB winners ratio is pretty darn near what our ratio is in our wins this year.
Stevetarded
14 years ago
The losers of any game are going to average a higher pass ratio, that's what you do when you are losing usually.
blank
macbob
14 years ago

West coast offense people. We use short dump off and screen passes like a running game. Add the RBs' receiving yards and the total is pretty respectable. We also split our carries more evenly. Jackson has just under twice as many carries as Kuhn. AP has nearly 10 times the carries of Gerhart.

Minnesota's rushing yards per game is lower in their wins. They have 2 wins where AP had 81 and 73 yards. They had 2 of their losses where AP had 145 and 131 yards.

It is nice to have a decent running game, but it is hyperbole to say it would guarantee any win or its lack of would guarantee a loss. A completely unfounded statement.

"Stevetarded" wrote:



Don't see anyone 'guaranteeing' a win. The argument isn't how many yards the running game is getting, it's having a credible running game to keep the defense honest. I would be surprised if anyone here would make the argument that the Vikings don't have a credible running game.

Heck, subtracting out Rodger's 30 yds on 4 carries, we had 127 yds on the ground against the Redskins. It was by far our highest rushing total this year. But we only ran the ball 13 times to 46 passes. That is NOT balanced and the defense could tee-off on the passing game. Two of Rodger's lowest completion % have come in these games where we've completely abandoned the run. And we lost.

"macbob" wrote:



Isn't that what this thread is about?

"Dexter_Sinister" wrote:



lol. Why, yes it is. I was letting myself get sidetracked by the 'we don't need no stinkin' running game' advocates. I would point out that the Steelers continued to run the ball in 2008 SB (22 attempts, minus the QB runs), despite ending up with only 58 yds rushing, and beat an Arizona team with almost 400 yds passing from Kurt Warner. You just can't be one dimensional in this league. It's a recipe for failure.
zombieslayer
14 years ago

The losers of any game are going to average a higher pass ratio, that's what you do when you are losing usually.

"Stevetarded" wrote:



Thank you Steve. :)

Mac - what I did was show how badly the SB teams were ranked in rushing, not the SB game itself. We've had SB winners that were ranked 23, 27, and 27th in the past 7 years and still managed to win the SB.

FYI - We're currently 20th. We can win the SB with what we have according to history.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage
(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷
macbob
14 years ago

The losers of any game are going to average a higher pass ratio, that's what you do when you are losing usually.

"Stevetarded" wrote:



5 of the nine games were decided by 4 pts or less. These weren't teams that were 20 pts behind and trying desperately to catch up. These were teams that abandoned the run and became one dimensional on offense. They didn't lose by a lot, but in EVERY SINGLE CASE THEY LOST.
macbob
14 years ago

The losers of any game are going to average a higher pass ratio, that's what you do when you are losing usually.

"zombieslayer" wrote:



Thank you Steve. :)

Mac - what I did was show how badly the SB teams were ranked in rushing, not the SB game itself. We've had SB winners that were dead last, 2nd to last, 3rd to last, and 4th to last in the past 12 years and still managed to win the SB.

"Stevetarded" wrote:



Regular season rushing stats for the SB winners back to 2001:
2009: Saints-2106 yds rushing, 6th in NFL
2008: Steelers-1690 yds rushing, 23rd
2007: Giants-2148 yds, 4th
2006: Indianopolis-1762 yds, 18th
2005: Steelers-2223 yds, 5th
2004: Patriots-2134, 7th
2003: Patriots-1607, 27th
2002: Tampa Bay-1557, 27th
2001: Patriots-1793, 13th

So, in the last 9 years three teams won the SB while being in the bottom 3rd of the league in rushing yards during the regular season, 4 teams in the top 3rd, and 2 teams in the middle. So, obviously, having a good running game is not necessarily a guarantee of winning.

But having a balanced offense IS critical to winning the superbowl, if the last 9 SBs are any indication.
zombieslayer
14 years ago



Regular season rushing stats for the SB winners back to 2001:
2009: Saints-2106 yds rushing, 6th in NFL
2008: Steelers-1690 yds rushing, 23rd
2007: Giants-2148 yds, 4th
2006: Indianopolis-1762 yds, 18th
2005: Steelers-2223 yds, 5th
2004: Patriots-2134, 7th
2003: Patriots-1607, 27th
2002: Tampa Bay-1557, 27th
2001: Patriots-1793, 13th

So, in the last 9 years three teams won the SB while being in the bottom 3rd of the league in rushing yards during the regular season, 4 teams in the top 3rd, and 2 teams in the middle. So, obviously, having a good running game is not necessarily a guarantee of winning.

But having a balanced offense IS critical to winning the superbowl, if the last 9 SBs are any indication.

"macbob" wrote:



Please see my edit. I had to check my facts and change what I said. I was an amateur boxer and don't exactly remember things too well. ;)

Now your very last sentence has been negated by those facts. Having a balanced O is NOT critical to winning a SB. 3 teams had a worse attack than our current one and still managed to win it all.

So that means we're ok. :thumbright:
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage
(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷
Zero2Cool
14 years ago
You increase you probability of winning if you're offense leans more towards two dimensional than one dimensional.
UserPostedImage
zombieslayer
14 years ago

You increase you probability of winning if you're offense leans more towards two dimensional than one dimensional.

"Zero2Cool" wrote:



No argument whatsoever. I'm not arguing that and I never argued that. Ever.

My point is that we're not dead because we don't have a top tier running game. And I proved with statistics that you can still win a SB with a not so good running game.

OK, I'm going home finally. I hope this argument doesn't go in the same circle it's been going in for the past 2 years when I was defending Ryan Grant. I think that's where it started.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage
(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷
Fan Shout
Mucky Tundra (20-Jun) : GB-Minnesota 2004 Wild Card game popped up on my YouTube page....UGH
beast (20-Jun) : Hmm 🤔 re-signing Walker before Tom? Sounds highly questionable to me.
Mucky Tundra (19-Jun) : One person on Twitter=cannon law
Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : Well, to ONE person on Tweeter
Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : According to Tweeter
Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : Packers are working on extension for LT Walker they hope to have done before camp
dfosterf (18-Jun) : E4B landed at Andrews last night
dfosterf (18-Jun) : 101 in a 60
dfosterf (18-Jun) : FAFO
Zero2Cool (18-Jun) : one year $4m with incentives to make it up to $6m
dfosterf (18-Jun) : Or Lions
dfosterf (18-Jun) : Beats the hell out of a Vikings signing
Zero2Cool (18-Jun) : Baltimore Ravens now have signed former Packers CB Jaire Alexander.
dfosterf (14-Jun) : TWO magnificent strikes for touchdowns. Lose the pennstate semigeezer non nfl backup
dfosterf (14-Jun) : There was minicamp Thursday. My man Taylor Engersma threw
dfosterf (11-Jun) : There will be a mini camp practice Thursday.
Zero2Cool (11-Jun) : He's been sporting a ring for a while now. It's probably Madonna.
Martha Careful (10-Jun) : We only do the tea before whoopee, it relaxes me.
wpr (10-Jun) : That's awesome Martha.
Mucky Tundra (10-Jun) : How's the ayahuasca tea he makes, Martha?
Martha Careful (10-Jun) : Turns out he like older women
Martha Careful (10-Jun) : I wasn't supposed to say anything, but yes the word is out and we are happy 😂😂😂
Mucky Tundra (10-Jun) : I might be late on this but Aaron Rodgers is now married
Mucky Tundra (10-Jun) : Well he can always ask his brother for pointers
Zero2Cool (10-Jun) : Bo Melton taking some reps at CB as well as WR
Zero2Cool (10-Jun) : key transactions coming today at 3pm that will consume more cap in 2025
Zero2Cool (9-Jun) : Jaire played in just 34 of a possible 68 games since the start of the 2021 season
Zero2Cool (9-Jun) : reported, but not expected to practice
Zero2Cool (9-Jun) : Jenkins has REPORTED for mandatory camp
Zero2Cool (9-Jun) : I really thought he'd play for Packers.
buckeyepackfan (9-Jun) : Packers releasing Jaire Alexander.
Mucky Tundra (8-Jun) : (Context: he wants his defense to create turnovers)
Mucky Tundra (8-Jun) : Giants DC Shane Bowen tells players to “be a damn pirate."
dfosterf (6-Jun) : Semper fi !
Cheesey (6-Jun) : This is why I have so much respect for those that have gone through battles
Cheesey (6-Jun) : I can't even imagine what that would have been like
wpr (6-Jun) : "Come on, you sons of bitches. Do you want to live forever?"
wpr (6-Jun) : Facing a line of machine guns 2 time medal of Honor recipient, First Sergeant Dan Daly told his men,
wpr (6-Jun) : Another detachment went into the Belleau Wood.
wpr (6-Jun) : On the 6th the Marines took Hill 142 but suffered terrible losses.
wpr (6-Jun) : It’s time to remember dfoster’s Marine brothers in Belleau Wood. The battle went on from June 1-26. Nearly 10,000 casualties.
packerfanoutwest (6-Jun) : Nick Collins and Morgan Burnett have signed with the PACK
packerfanoutwest (6-Jun) : he won't be wearing #12, maybe he will wear number two
packerfanoutwest (6-Jun) : He will fail this season, should have retired
Mucky Tundra (5-Jun) : Thus the cycle of Hall of Fame Packer QBs going to the Jets and then the Vikings is broken
bboystyle (5-Jun) : Rodgers to steelers on 1 year contract
Zero2Cool (5-Jun) : It's the cycle of civilizations. Get lazier, lazier, softer, softer and vanish.
Martha Careful (5-Jun) : great point. every aspect of society, including art, culture and sports has degraded.
dfosterf (4-Jun) : Green Bay sweep meant something to society about stopping pure excellence. We have the tush push now
dfosterf (4-Jun) : We old Martha.
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
1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

20-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

20-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

20-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

18-Jun / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

16-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

15-Jun / Random Babble / Martha Careful

14-Jun / Around The NFL / beast

14-Jun / Community Welcome! / dfosterf

13-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

13-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / Adam

12-Jun / Random Babble / Martha Careful

12-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

12-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

12-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

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