Elite RBs are a waste of money· Page 7

Announcement PH Beta → Check it out! Click Me! (you might be see "unsafe", but it is safe)

macbob
Veteran Member

13 years ago

I really do believe with an elite D and an elite QB, the importance of a good RB goes way down. We could have easily won the SB with Jackson. Heck, next year, hypothetically speaking, our receivers are healthy and actually catch the ball, can we win it all with Jackson? I'd say yes.

"zombieslayer" wrote:

I agree with your first sentence if you change good RB to elite RB. You need a good RB to attract the defenses attention. Grant, Starks are good RBs.

Jackson? Easily won the SB with Jackson? Yeah, if our defense gets 3 turnovers and we abandon the running game maybe... :)

My opinion is Jackson's a passable receiving back, but is a poor fit for GB's ZBS. He's indecisive and is too slow hitting the hole.

Grant and Starks both are good enough to attract the defense's attention, and I don't think that we really need to make a move at RB if Grant's ankle is healing well.

macbob
Veteran Member

13 years ago

#62

As I do believe you have to run, you don't want to run "too much." Too many teams with elite RBs run too much. If you look at a lot of the past recent SB winners, they didn't have elite RBs and passed to open up the run.

"zombieslayer" wrote:

Agreed up until the last 6 words. I actually agree with the words (passing can open up the run), but in my opinion that's not what you want to do offensively.

Offensively, passing is the way I'm going to sting you, and sting you hard. It's your primary weapon. In my opinion, the primary goal of a running game is to make it easier on your passing game, help your passing game be better.

Running has some other benefits as well--eating up clock so the other team has less opportunity to score, etc, but those are secondary to things like slowing down the pass rush, sucking safetys up into the box, tiring out the defensive line, improve your play action, etc--all with benefits to your passing game.

macbob
Veteran Member

13 years ago

#63

Macbob slights me all the time but he's backing up what he's saying.

"zombieslayer" wrote:

Damn. Was I that obvious??? Crud. :icon_smile:

Personally, I think Macbob's a utopian. The game has changed.

"zombieslayer" wrote:

Not true! I deny it! I'm eligible to be a PackersHome member! I have a US birth certificate! I just can't show it to you...

damn birthers are everywhere...

what? utopian means what??? It doesn't mean I was born in Utopia??? Nevermind...

The way I look at it, I think a good run/pass mix is in the 55-60% pass / 40-45% run range, and Zombie's more 70%/30%.

So I figure that makes me a moderate, and you must be an extremist, Zombie. I'm just having trouble figuring if you're a right wing :profileright: or left wing :profileleft: extremist... :icon_smile:

zombieslayer
Registered Topic Starter

13 years ago

#64

"macbob" wrote:

Don't worry, I read all your other posts.

Just wanted to talk about eating the clock. Keep in mind that if the score is close and it's not the 4th Q, when you're eating the clock, you may be shooting yourself in the foot. Thus, another problem with run first teams.

I agree with the other parts, but like I said, you don't want to run too much. If you have a fat lead, then yes, run.

I do think that 10 years from now, it will be 70/30. As a historian, I study trends and that's the trend we're heading for.

My man Donald Driver

(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷

Zero2Cool
Elite Member

13 years ago

#65

Those were wasted downs. We should have passed more so we could have gotten 40+ pts. 31-3? That's being too gentle. Running wasted valuable clock time that should have gone to Greg Jennings. Also, Rodgers never had 5 TD passes in a game. WTF? We could have easily broke the 5 barrier.

"zombieslayer" wrote:

I agree with the other parts, but like I said, you don't want to run too much. If you have a fat lead, then yes, run.

"zombieslayer" wrote:

Passing is higher risk than running. If you're in the last half of the 4th quarter, up by 3 touchdowns or more, the intelligent thing to do is mix some runs with your short passes to keep the clock ticking. This isn't Madden. There are no cheat sheets to winning a game. There are only strategies that some work more than others.

Just because something hasn't been done, doesn't mean it can't be done, ahem, 6th seed in NFC winning it all for example.

zombieslayer
Registered Topic Starter

13 years ago

#66

Zero - That first quote was obvious satire.

The second quote I'm agreeing with what you said. You run to eat the clock and end the game.

My man Donald Driver

(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷

Zero2Cool
Elite Member

13 years ago

#67

Zero - That first quote was obvious satire.

The second quote I'm agreeing with what you said. You run to eat the clock and end the game.

"zombieslayer" wrote:

NO THE FIRST QUOTE WAS NOT SATIN!!!

You don't agree!!!!

I don't know, I've lost interest in this one.

macbob
Veteran Member

13 years ago

#68

Zero - That first quote was obvious satire.

The second quote I'm agreeing with what you said. You run to eat the clock and end the game.

"zombieslayer" wrote:

I'm not a tremendous fan of running out the clock unless you're WAY up or down to the last couple of minutes. I think in general a team should stick with the offense that got them the lead in the first place.

For the most part, I feel the same about prevent defenses. Running out the clock too soon or going to a prevent too soon has all too often let a team back in the game when the outcome should not have been in doubt.

I was NOT happy with MM's playcalling at the end of the Eagles playoff game. Went to run-out-the-clock mode too early.

macbob
Veteran Member

13 years ago

#69

I do think that 10 years from now, it will be 70/30. As a historian, I study trends and that's the trend we're heading for.

"zombieslayer" wrote:

I had actually expected to see that trend in stats when I was doing research back to the 49ers from the 70s-90s and Packers back to early 90s through now. With the changes favoring the passing game, I expected the pass ratio now to be higher. But they weren't. They were virtually unchanged.

I think the reason why is that there appears to be a minimum run percentage to attract the defense's attention, and 30% seems to be below the threshhold--if you're running too infrequently, the defenses seem to ignore the run and concentrate on stopping the pass.

Multiple times during this past season Dom Capers and various defensive players say their #1 goal is to stop the opposing team's rushing attack to force the opposing offenst to be one-dimensional. Then the D pins their ears back and gets after the QB.

Frankly, if that's the goal of one of the elite defenses in the league then as an offensive coordinator I want to avoid the situation where the D can pin their ears back and get after my QB. Which appears to mean running at a low-to-mid 40s% clip, based on historical stats.

Zero2Cool
Elite Member

12 years ago

#70

There was no correlation between having Barry Sanders, and winning, so no, he is also not an elite running back.

Originally Posted by: Packers_Finland

If you don't think Barry Sanders was an elite running back, you're an idiot and I mean that in a friendly way. [grin1]

Important Information:

The PACKERSHOME uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More Details Close

Fan Shout

Mucky Tundra (19m) : Kanata, seek help! lol

beast (2h) : I was rooting for the Bears to win and hurt their draft pick status

Zero2Cool (2h) : Forgot there was even a game last night haha

TheKanataThrilla (2h) : That was terrible.

TheKanataThrilla (2h) : Watching that game in its entirety yesterday is proof positive that I am a football addict.

beast (3h) : And horrible time management multiple times... and not being able to score more than 3 points on a team with talent

beast (3h) : Realizing the Bears didn't fix it from the previous week and do the same thing, getting the game to overtime

beast (3h) : They probably are not tanking, but they've absolutely mismanagement some things, such as Vikings seeing the Packers blocked FG and realizing

Zero2Cool (4h) : Crazy of Bears to have that mindset that is

Zero2Cool (4h) : Hail Mary stop away from 5 - 2. Not sure how that flips to tanking. Crazy mindset if true

beast (4h) : I've quietly questioned if Bears are tanking on purpose... they suddenly got a lot worse with some simple concepts like 101 clock management

wpr (7h) : Watching bares fans melt down over how putrid their team is, so enjoyable. It's the gift that keeps on giving.

Mucky Tundra (14h) : The Seattle Seahawks defeat the Chicago Bears 6-3. Jason Myers had 6 RBIs for Seattle while Cairo Santos had 3 RBI for Chicago

beast (15h) : Not nessarily, he might of been injured either way. He's playing about 50% of the games the last 4 years

Zero2Cool (21h) : If they'd been more patient with him, he'd be back already. Putting him out there vs Bears caused him to tweak it and here we are.

packerfanoutwest (21h) : well this is his last season with the PAck, book it

beast (23h) : Sounds like no Alexander (again), I'm wondering if his time with the Packers is done

Zero2Cool (26-Dec) : Could ban beast and I still don't think anyone catches him.

Mucky Tundra (26-Dec) : Houston getting dog walked by Baltimore

packerfanoutwest (25-Dec) : Feliz Navidad!

Zero2Cool (25-Dec) : Merry Christmas!

beast (25-Dec) : Merry Christmas 🎄🎁

beast (24-Dec) : Sounds like no serious injuries from the Saints game and Jacobs and Watson should play in the Vikings game

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : both games Watson missed, Packers won

Martha Careful (24-Dec) : I hope all of you have a Merry Christmas!

Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Oh I know about Jacobs, I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to mimic Zero lol

buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : Jacobs was just sat down, Watson re-injured that knee that kept him out 1 game earlier

buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : I needed .14 that's. .14 points for the whole 4th quarter to win and go to the SB. Lol

Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Jacobs gonna be OK???

Zero2Cool (24-Dec) : Watson gonna be OK???

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : Inactives tonight for the Pack: Alexander- knee Bullard - ankle Williams - quad Walker -ankle Monk Heath

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : No Jaire, but hopefully the front 7 destroys the line of scrimmage & forces Rattler into a few passes to McKinney.

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : minny could be #1 seed and the Lions #5 seed

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I just checked. What tie breaker?

bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ahh, ok.

bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes due to tie breaker

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?

bboystyle (23-Dec) : Minny isnt going to lose out so 5th seed is out of the equation. We are playing for the 6th or 7th seed which makes no difference

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network

beast (23-Dec) : If we win tonight the game is still relative in terms of 5th, 6th or 7th seed... win and it's 5th or 6th, lose and it's 6th or 7th

beast (23-Dec) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.

bboystyle (23-Dec) : i mean game becomes irrelevant if we win tonight. Just a game where we are trying to play spoilers to Vikings chance at the #1 seed

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno

beast (23-Dec) : I agree that it's BS for fans planning on going to the game. But how does it bring in more money? I'm guessing indirectly?

packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans

Please sign in to use Fan Shout

2024 Packers Schedule

Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM

Eagles

29 - 34

Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM

COLTS

16 - 10

Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM

Titans

30 - 14

Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM

VIKINGS

29 - 31

Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM

Rams

24 - 19

Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM

CARDINALS

34 - 13

Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM

TEXANS

24 - 22

Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM

Jaguars

30 - 27

Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM

LIONS

14 - 24

Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM

Bears

20 - 19

Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM

49ERS

38 - 10

Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM

DOLPHINS

30 - 17

Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM

Lions

31 - 34

Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM

Seahawks

30 - 13

Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM

SAINTS

34 - 0

Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM

Vikings

Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM

BEARS