Want a direct correlation and proof that teams should respect our running attack when we feed them the ball..

When our backs carry the ball more than 20 times.

We are 7-1 (Our one loss came without our starting QB)

When our backs don't run the ball at least 20 times.

We are 1-5

Hmmm interesting eh.

"Pack93z" wrote:

So I guess I better break down Qtr by Qtr the rushing attempts to prove out that all the runs didn't come late in the games.

But I agree... there is skew to the numbers due to the nature of the game.. but is it not possible we are blowing teams out when we run more?

"Pack93z" wrote:

lol on none of the teams getting 100 yds and 2 winning and 2 losing. I'll bet if they'd all gotten 100 yds 2 of the 100 yd teams would have won and 2 would have lost. :tongue:

Looking at our stats this year, in the games we've won we ran the ball (subtracting out Aaron Rodgers's runs) 28, 22, 18, 20, 23, and 30. In the games we lost we ran the ball 13, 13, and 17 times. That's a statistically significant difference between the wins and losses.

But which came first--chicken or the egg? Are we running because we're winning/ahead, or are we winning because we're running/have a more balanced attack?

Looking at the splits from ESPN, we don't run more (as a percentage) when we're ahead compared to when we're tied. McCarthy has passed 184 times and rushed 141 times when the Packers are winning. That's a 56/44% split. Comparing that to when we're tied, McCarthy has passed 77 times to 55 rushes, a 58/42% split, not significantly different. So the differenece between the rushes in the games we've won vs the games we've lost is NOT due to being behind and passing more in an attempt to catch up.

A pleasant side note from looking at the splits was we've been winning/ahead way more than tied/losing this year. The games we lost we were winning through 3 quarters and lost on 4th quarter/overtime collapses. The Packers have run 325 plays when leading vs 198 when tied/losing (132 when tied, 66 while losing).

"zombieslayer" wrote:

Greg-agree up to a point, but your explanation does not seem to match up with our stats from this year.

Except for the Miami game (which we were losing 13-10 at the end of 3), we've been winning every single game through the first 3 quarters this year. I wouldn't expect (and there's not) a HUGE difference between the # of runs in the first half vs the second half: by quarter, we've run the ball 53, 45, 54, 64 times. Over 9 games, that's only 1 more rush per game in the 4th quarter compared to quarters 1 and 3, and 2 more times compared to quarter 2. So, we're not running it significantly higher in the fourth quarter compared to most of the other quarters.

There is, however, a HUGE difference between our run/pass ratio between the wins and the losses, which I would NOT have expected since the 3 losses were all close games and the only one we were losing at the end of 3 (Mia) we were down by only 3 (13-10). We haven't been needing to throw to catch up. Washington we were leading 13-3 at the end of 3. Chi we were leading 10-7. But here's the stats from our wins and losses (subtracting out Aaron Rodgers' runs, just looking at RB carries):

Wins:
Phi: 31 passes/28 rushes, 53/47%
Buf: 29/22, 57/43%
Det: 17/18, 49/51%
Min: 35/20, 64/36%
NYJ: 34/23, 60/40%
Dal: 35/30, 54/46%
Total 181/141, 56/44%

Losses:
Chi: 45/13, 78/22%
Was: 46/13, 78/22%
Mia: 33/17, 67/34%
Total 124/43, 74/26%

In the three losses McCarthy sold out the run and became one-dimensional. The defense did not need to take our running game seriously.

Washington certainly didn't. The few times we ran the ball against them we were running it well. We had 157 yds. Take out Aaron Rodgers' runs, and that drops the total to 127. 71 of those came on one play. Even subtracting that 71 yd run out, we still went 56 yds on 12 carries--we averaged almost 5 yds/carry.

Aaron Rodgers threw for 293 yds and 1 TD, but cleared hot to go after him, the Redskins ended up with 4 sacks and 1 INT. I believe if we had run the ball more to attain a more balanced attack during that game we would have won.

Bottomline for me is I wish we would aim more for a 56/44% passing ratio than 74/26%. Our record isn't as good when we don't have at least a credible run threat to slow down the pass rush.

"Greg C." wrote: