Nice catch. There is a lot of statistical inaccuracy when QB scrambles are counted as running plays. I would like it if QB scrambles were counted toward QB rating the same way that a completed pass for that yardage is counted. It won't happen though. The QB rating is really just a passer rating.

---

+1 for the breakdown, Keys.
Thanks. You saved me some effort. 😎

EDIT: Where did the old smilies go? These ones suck.

---

Agree that execution is a large part of whether the plays are successful, but you are going to have trouble if your offense is one dimensional and your passing game is not executing well--whether it's because of a cold, windy day or because the defense figures you are going to pass and is dropping back in a pass defense while freeing up their DL to rush the QB (and getting a couple of sacks in the process).

Agree also that you cant run on every first down. Im not advocating a run-only offense, Ive been advocating that you need to mix up your play calling.

From the last three plays of the first drive to the next two three-and-outs, MM called nine pass plays in a row. Thats the kind of predictability a defense loves--Raji was quoted a couple of weeks ago saying how the Packers D liked to take away the opponents running game so that they could tee-off on the QB.

edit: Mike McCarthy himself said he had gotten too one-dimensional in his press conference after the game. In commenting about the sacks, he said:

"I probably went a little too much drop-back, frankly. You always try to be critical of yourself week in and week out. But once we got into more of a run-pass mode, I thought our protection was much better."

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/111423289.html 

end edit.



I have said consistently in my posts that a 55/45 pass ratio does not guarantee a win. As you state, thats over-simplistic. What I am saying is that when we DONT maintain a balanced offense--at least enough of a running game to keep the defense from teeing off on our passing game--our odds of losing go up.

My citing the 55/45 pass ratio was from over-simplistic comments from the pass-happy crowd that The short passing game IS the running game in the West Coast Offense. My citing of 55/45 was (simplistically) looking at the run/pass ratio of a WCO that attained success for 20+ years, the SF 49ers. THEIR pass/run ratio during their 20-year run was (Ill give you a guess): 80/20? 70/30? 60/40?

As my comments point out that in our losses this year our pass/run ratio has been close to 70/30, and in our wins our pass/run ratio has been on the order of 55/45.

So, yes, looking at the ratio itself is simplistic, but when you are talking about over-simplistic analysis, you can add in comments like when we wasted plays with a run.

Lets look at some of the underlying factors behind WHY a credible running game makes your offense/passing game better:

a) makes your offense less predictable. Provides additional threats that the defense needs to account for
b) prevents the defense from just teeing off on your quarterback (see a). Slows down the pass rush as they have to account for the RB coming out of the backfield
b) tires out the defense doing b), improving offensive performance late in the game
c) encourages the defense to bring a safety up into the box, reducing the number of defenders back to defend your bombs to Jennings
d) provides a credible threat to improve the effectiveness of your play action passes--freezes the defender, if only for a split second, which can be all it takes for the receiver to blow by and be behind all of the defenders (see bomb to Jennings that set up the 4th TD).

A credible running game also helps your defense. It helps keep the other teams offense sitting on their butts on the bench, rather than back on the field after multiple 3-and-outs. This helps keep the other teams offense from getting into a rhythm. A credible running game eats up clock, providing less time for the other teams offense to work with.

By credible running game, Im NOT saying abandon the pass and become predominantly running team. Im saying you need to mix up your play calling, whether its passes or runs, and you skew too much to either side youre asking for trouble.

Yes, Atlanta was a more suitable example for the Maddenites (sorry, Zombie, its tough to break the habit) due to the Falcons piss-poor pass defense. But the SF game was a poster-child for the balanced attack crowd.



Your analysis is good, but your quoting distorted my actual comment, which was:

"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."

My comment applied to the two TD drives in the first half, when we ran the ball 6 times and passed 5 times.

Let me put it another way: the ONLY drives in the first half that we scored on or even made a first down on were drives where we ran running plays. You can make it out however you want that the execution sucked on the other drives, but for whatever reason, on drives where we were running the ball we moved the ball. When we were pass-only, we didnt.

My thoughts (over-simplistically put) are that a better running game makes our passing game and our entire offense better.

Let me put it another way: on defense, do you play the same defense every play? Do you blitz the quarterback every play? No. Because if you show tendencies like that on defense, the other team will exploit them. Its the same concept on offense. You have to vary things up to keep the defenses off balance so that when you run that play action Jennings will be open deep.

It is such a basic concept, I really didnt expect it to be controversial. Ive been surprised at the vehemence of the wasted plays with a run crowd.

Macbob - The NE game will be a lot of passing as well. Their pass D sucks. I'm hoping for 80% passing against them.

I see what you're saying about the one dimensionalism. I'm not disagreeing with it. What I do think is you exploit weaknesses. If they can't defend the pass, then pass, pass, then pass again. If they can't defend the run, then run it down their throats. That's how MM thinks as well.

---

You do realize that the Pats are like 18th or so in rushing defense as well.. no excuses not to run on them as well.

---

ZombieIm not sure why you are saying the game was already over when we started running. The majority of those pass plays in the first half that led to that 2 to 1 ratio were part of a multiple series of 3-and-outs where the Packers did not run a single running play--the 3-and-outs were ALL pass plays. Yeah, they may have been running up the pass ratio, but it would be really hard to make a case that they were effective and responsible for our winning the game.

See my response to Keys for the first half of the game, but my bottomline point is on the two TD drives we had in the first half we ran the ball more times than we passed, and the only drives that we had 3-and-outs on the entire game were ones where we went pass-only.

In the second half, two of the first 5 plays were running plays (one of the runs was called back by penalty), and we scored a TD.

On the next TD drive, the first play was a 5 yd run by Starks. The second play was a play-action fake that froze the safety (because we had a credible run threat in the game) and instead of having a man over top and one underneath, Jennings was behind both.

Next drive ended in a FG after 4 runs and 4 passes, and then the final drive was the clock-crunching 12 run/4 pass, eat-up-over-8-minutes-of-clock drive that ended in a FG.




Zombie-agree on the D being the most important. And agree on the excitement. I remember that Redskins game. Cant say that about a lot of the games back then, but the things I remember most are Lynn Dickey, Majic, etc.

But at the same time, I also remember the Packers sweep. And I remember 2003, when we lined up in the U71 package, and the other team not being able to do anything about it as we rammed the ball down their throat.

Frankly, what I love watching is the Packers having their way with the other team, whether its deep bombs to Jennings to win the game in overtime, a steady diet of Ahman Green which the other team is helpless to stop, or a ball-hawking D sacking the QB or running the INT back for 6.

Well like I said, I don't care how we win. I do believe in MM's philosophy of exploiting weaknesses.

I started going on the pass happy bandwagon more on a response to the doom and gloom attitude where we were doomed if we didn't have a RB and I showed fact after fact of teams that won SBs with crappy running games.

If Starks turns out to be our savior, then great.

Pack - They're 18th in rushing D but 32nd out of 32 teams in pass D. So fine, maybe pass 75% of the time then. How can anyone argue with 32nd though? It doesn't get worse than the worst. There's bad, there's worse, and there's the worst. The Pats are the worst.

---

lol. Starks doesn't need to turn out to be our savior, he just needs to be able to attract the attention of the defense.

In that regard, I guess he just kind of needs to be our fishing lure, our bait... :wink:

Well, he needs to be my savior. I'm hoping we run. My opponent is starting Aaron. I'm starting Starks.

---