Hate to be off topic but i'm torn in FF right now as to who to start, looking for a few opinions.
Moreno (KC)
Fred Jackson (MIN)
Tolbert (OAK)
Matthews (OAK)
Beanie Wells (STL)

I figure the way Moreno has been playing and with his matchup he's a lock. But the second RB it's basically down to Tolbert or Jackson.

Jackson has been on a tear lately, and put up some great numbers last week against a top rated Steeler D. Don't like the matchup with the Viks but I also love watching the minny game with extra incentive.

On the other hand, Tolbert has a much better matchup but will be somewhat sharing the backfield with Matthews (first week back).
He started out as a handcuff for the highly rated RM, but ended up impressing so much it looks like it's Tolbert job to loose.

I know which way i'm leaning, and understand if I get my head ripped off for being so off topic, But, any thoughts?

---

I believe it has been Dfosterf, but whoever has been talking about TNS (Tiny Nut Syndrom) I found a stat that you're going to love*.

*sarcasm

I was looking at the offensive line stats on NFL.com and they have a category called "power." The stat is broken down for the left, center, and right side of the line and is the percentage conversion on rush plays on 3rd or 4th down for 2 yards or less that results in a first down or touchdown.

Our rush power in the center of the line is 7th in the league at 71% and our rush power to the right is 21st at 55%. Up the middle that's great and to the right I'll take that having had a hobbled Tauscher and a rookie in Bulaga learning that side of the line. What really stood out was that our rush power to the left--and this is no surprise--is ranked 32nd. What was surprising is that we have a whopping 14% conversion to that side. If that is not the definition of tiny nut syndrom I don't know what is.

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?offensiveStatisticCategory=OFFENSIVE_LINE&archive=false&d-447263-o=2&qualified=true&tabSeq=2&role=TM&d-447263-p=1&d-447263-s=RUSHING_LEFT_POWER&d-447263-n=1 

---

Well, for you people panicking about the lack of a run game, this game should be 21-6 right now. Aaron Rodgers missed a wide open Donald Driver in the end zone on an easy pass and he missed Gregorious deep for an easy TD (hitting the Niner on the head).

We're passing 2 to 1. I'm loving it. Just wish Rodgers was executing better today.

---

Note that it is very windy. Hard to throw in the wind.

---

70% completions and 135 rating. The wind didn't seem to hurt too much.

---

I have little issue with the 2 to 1 ratio.. as long as we can be effective when we need the 1's... today, I agree was just about right for our offense but we were effective when we needed to be..

---

That's what I want to see - winning doing what we want to be doing.

We stopped ourselves from scoring more, not the Niners stopping us.

---

Wasn't a 2-1 ratio, though. We ended up 30 pass/28 runs (subtracting out the QB runs). Our last drive was 12 runs/4 passes, so our ratio going into that run-out-the-clock drive was 26 pass, 16 runs, or more like 60/40%.

Zombie-we're not saying don't pass/only run, we're saying the run makes the pass better.

I would like to point out that we started the game with 6 passes and 4 runs, a healthy 60/40 ratio, until we got down to the SF 6 yd line with 1st & goal. 3 PASSES later, we were attempting a FG.

The next series, 3 PASSES and a punt.

The next series, 3 PASSES and a punt.

It wasn't until the next series, where the first two plays were RUNNING PLAYS by Starks (for a first down) (followed by an inc pass), that we scored on the bomb to Jennings (on a probable play-action, but with the defense jumping offside AR didn't make much of a fake).

The NEXT series started with 3 runs, 2 passes, and a run for the TD.

The next series, 3 PASSES and a punt.

This took us to half time. So, in the first half, we had the ball 6 times, scored 2 TD, and the other 4 series ALL ended with 3 PASSES. And on the TD drives, we were running the ball AT LEAST 50% of the plays.

In the 2nd half, MM started running the ball more, and guess what, THAT's when we put the game away. When we had a running game to complement the passing game.

The 48 yd pass to Jennings which set up our last TD was a play action fake to Starks, who had run it for 5 yds the previous carry. The safety was frozen BY THE RUN THREAT, and Jennings was 1-on-1 with the defender, 5 yds behind the safety.

Cmon, man.

edited: I had left out one 1st half series.

22 passes to 10 runs 1st half--your 2-1 ratio = Score 14-13.

2nd half- more balanced attack, SF is outscored 20-3.

Macbob - I don't care how we win. The big issue I had was that people panicked about our lack of run game and that's what started me with showing fact after fact after fact of teams who won, including SB teams who won it all with crappy running games.

As I've been saying, most important thing is not O. It's D. D wins championships is a cliche that has a lot of truth to it. Granted, I find the '09 Saints 100 times more exciting than the 2000 Ravens. I frankly find D boring. I like high scoring games like the 48-47 victory over the SB winning 'Skins back in '83. That was my favorite game of all time.

So, thus is why I've been defending the pass. I get enough doom & gloom in real life. The Packers are my escapism and I intend to enjoy them.

By the way, this game was already over when we started running. It was over when the pass/run ratio was 2 to 1, as I showed in that other thread.

---

I'd argue that those three series were unsuccessful not because of play calling but execution, in particular on Rodgers and the offensive line's part.

That first drive Rodgers missed a wide open Driver in the end zone on that first and goal. That is entirely on execution because the play completely fooled the 49ers. On second down we got a bullshit intentional grounding call and that killed the drive.

The second and third drives both started with sacks. That put us in terrible positions and took running out of the playbook. You can't give up an 8 yard sack on first down and then expect to have success on the drive. You could say well if you ran on first down you wouldn't give up a sack. True, but you can't run on first down every first down and have success either, it's too predictable. Don't give up the sack and you don't have problems. Oh, and Rodgers missed a wide open James Jones deep that would have had a chance to score or at the very least put us deep in 49er territory. That's on execution, not play calling.

Finally, Zombie (at least I think it was him) showed last week that we had a lot more success when we almost exclusively passed versus when we wasted plays with a run. So it has gone both ways over the course of the year.

I'm not saying we should never run either. I just did not like the over-simplistic analysis a couple weeks ago that when we pass/run at 55/45 we win. It's not that simple. In all of those games we had terrible penalties at inopportune times, or lost the turnover battle, or screwed up execution deep in the red zone leaving points on the board, or missed field goals.

Also,



Actually, no we weren't.

Our first touchdown drive had 5 plays, 3 of which were pass plays.

Our third touchdown drive had 4 plays, 2 of which were passes with one run play being a qb scramble when a play broke down. In reality 3 of 4 plays were pass plays.

Our fourth touchdown drive had 5 plays, 3 of which were passes. Again, one run was a Rodgers scramble on a busted play so basically 4 of 5 plays were designed pass plays.

That's 3 of the 4 drives having more called pass plays then run plays.

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2010120506/2010/REG13/49ers@packers#tab:analyze/analyze-channels:cat-post-playbyplay 

---