With Grant out of the lineup this year, I've been more in the pass-happy crowd, but whatever works man, whatever works. What they've been able to avoid these past two weeks is the negative runs. That's what killed them against the Lions--they kept getting stuffed for three yard losses. It's hard to look smart, either running or passing, when your O-line can't block anybody.

Belated props to pack93z, by the way, for predicting that the Packers would run the ball persistently and effectively against the Patriots. Against the Giants, it wasn't especially effective, but it was persistent. Let's hope the O-line keeps up the good work, and by good I mean at least average. Rodgers, the receivers, and Kuhn should be able to pick up enough first downs and make at least a few big plays per game with reasonably good play from the O-line.

---

The following is my opinion and experience..

Thing about a running game is that it starts with a focus that we are going to run the ball.. from the coaches first.

To run the ball effectively you have to commit to the run and want to run the ball.

For the Packers.. that started the week after the Lions loss. I think it was hammered home when we got destroyed by the Lions front four and the Packers QB's were getting banged around.

Things had to change.. and go back an look at Campen's comments that day after.. the offensive line was going to get "tuned" up and they were going to have to run the ball with Flynn in the backfield to assist him along.

And they learned something.. that running the ball is possible with this group and it would do nothing but assist in the passing game. Flynn putting numbers up against the Pats was proof of it.. we played a complete game.. and it would only be more explosive with Rodgers at the helm.

Effective running does so much for protection and setting the defense up for play action and opening up the route trees for the receivers. And the myth is effective running doesn't have to an explosive run game.. just has to establish a couple of yards and set the defenses up in either or calls.. keeps them off balance.

We helped the offensive line by running the rock at them throughout the game.. not staggering numbers but enough that they had to watch for the run.. and a couple of screens to boot.

That element slows a pass rush down and makes the backers / safeties hold a bit and opens up our bread and butter routes.. quick short slants, curls and digs.. giving Rodgers options quick and fast.. and if he likes something in the coverage.. wait for it to open.

Now you have the defense.. stretched.. they have to watch for the run, pauses the rush, holds the backers for a moment and puts edge pressure on the secondary in coverage.

Nelson's TD was a perfect example.. they bit on the run for a split second.. gave Nelson the angle and ripped that two deep apart.. helped by poor angles from their deep personnel.

IMO.. the Lions loss and the loss of Rodgers for a game has become the turning point for the season.. "saved our season" by forcing the staff to pay attention to the run and making this passing game even more explosive.

---

Interesting comment. It does seem like they ran more of those slants, curls, and digs against the Giants than they had in any other game this year. It was good to see that again.

---

Too bad it took this long into the season for the coaching staff to figure this out. @coachingfail. Got ARod concussed in the process and might be too late now.

Most amazing thing is that there was about 2% of the posters here saying this. The rest were espousing the "we don't need no stinking run game" argument.

Just wait til next year, and welcome to 1979.

---

Been through the 70s and 80s already. No thanks. In my mind, we're peaking at just the right time, ready for a deep run through the playoffs.

Agreed.. the wake up call and push came in time for a run yet this season, albeit that we didn't take care of business and get a home game or two in the "dance".

---

Nobody is biting on the run. That's definitely a sign that people are seeing what they want to see.

Hey, I've listened to opposing coaches before the games. NOBODY is saying "we got to prepare to stop Dmitri Nance" or "we're worried about Brandon Jackson." NOBODY. Not one coach has said that. EVERYONE is concerned about Aaron Rodgers throwing for 4 TD passes and torching them.

In fact, our opponents are so concerned about that that our lousy (yes, I said lousy) RBs are still getting 3 yards here and 3 yards there.

Let's just get this straight instead of seeing what we want to see.

Now, I'm not at all arguing we shouldn't run. I'm all for Kuhn softening up the D. When he runs for 3 yards, it hurts defenders. When Nance or Jackson runs for 3 yards, it's a "so what?" Kuhn should be getting more carries. I'm under the impression that the reason he doesn't is MM wants Kuhn 100% for the Playoffs and if I'm right, I actually agree with MM.

I can go and post facts and stats like I used to but nobody reads them and I just waste my time doing that.

---

Did zombieslayer just say something?

Anyhow, without Ryan Grant on the team, our running game is feared even less. At least when Grant was on board, they respected we "could" run. Everyone knows we run to set up play action.

I bet if we chronicled every 3rd and 1 we've had this year, there would be a substantial amount of passes over runs. That's just me blabbing, I don't know for sure.

---

Zombie-this is why I didn't want to re-ignite the debate, because I don't think there's a huge disagreement here. I think most everyone--Maddenites (sorry, like donuts or chocolate brownies--almost impossible to resist) and ground pounders both liked the play calling mix in the NYG game.

Based on your posts/chat comments, I thought you were reasonably happy with McCarthy's play calling, and the ground pounders just want to continue with a similar mix. So if both sides liked the mix, what's the argument about?

Oh, and "Neener, neener, told you so..." :danceme: