play2win
12 years ago

I'm not saying that it's false, but multiple people keep saying that all you need to do is run the ball, yards don't matter a lick and that it's unintuitive but true. I see people dropping stats about poor rushing teams winning big, but does anybody have some examples of truly ineffective rushing teams (< 3 YPC) being successful? It's definitely unintuitive but I'm no more of an expert than anyone else here (and less of an expert than many), I'd just like a more in-depth explanation of WHY it works with some specific examples.

For example, if you're averaging 2 YPC 8 games in, why wouldn't an opposing defense want to play with an emphasis on passing every down unless it's an obvious running situation? Focus on nullifying your opponent's strengths, not their weaknesses. Yeah, if they're running it 20-25 times a game they might average 3-4 a carry if you don't respect the run but let them try to beat you on the ground and shut them down through the air. 75-100 yards on the ground isn't going to kill you if they're ineffective passing the ball and get minimal benefit from running the play action.

Originally Posted by: Porforis 



Here you go Porforis:

One example I found, Arizona, a division leader, ranking dead last in ypc at 2.8

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?tabSeq=2&season=2012&seasonType=REG&offensiveStatisticCategory=RUSHING&role=TM&d-447263-n=1&d-447263-o=2&d-447263-p=1&conference=ALL&d-447263-s=RUSHING_AVERAGE_YARDS 

They rank just above us in att/game 23.6 (#21) to our 22.2 (#23).

Their receiving O is nothing special, ranking 22 to our 13. Passing O ranking 25 to our 15. To me, that says they are running just enough and winning with defense & STs. Running the football helps both the passing game and the defense. While their passing game is suspect at QB, they have some good WRs. They lost their #1 RB to injury last week too.

Statistically, this isn't telling us too much, but it does say something, and while outranking us in attempts, they are in fact last in YPC, and 4-1, beating SEA, NE, PHI and MIA while losing to STL.

Their running game is atrocious. I can't figure out how they won all of those outside of D, STs and huge miscues by their opponents. This has to be the weakest team of the front runners offensively.
zombieslayer
12 years ago

This goes along what Shawn and I have been trying to get through to you for a couple years now. The attempts are what keeps a defense honest. A solid 60/40 pass/run ratio is very good for an offense as it opens up a lot of opportunities. Right now the Packers are being manhandled by a two high safety scheme because they are not worried about the second level being reached by a RB or a slant pass.

I'd rather see James Starks than Alex Green running the ball, even though Green has the potential to break one, he's often stuffed at the line for a loss. Starks nearly always gains at least a yard or two.

Until this team figures out how to be more balanced offensively and the QB drops his ego and takes the 5 yard easy out over the 25 yarder into double coverage ... mediocre is all we'll see.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 



If you want to win an argument with me, you have to put up FACTS. Opinion doesn't cut it. But you guys have also been ignoring the research I've been doing which got annoying too. I've been saying all along that you don't need an elite RB and actually, an elite RB hurts the team.

I've been doing football research for a few years and honing in my knowledge. When my hypothesis doesn't look right, I change it until it's right. I found that rushing rankings have absolutely no bearing on a team's post-season success.

I also predict trends and thought that teams will eventually go 65/35. This remains to be seen though. It looks like as of 2012, 60/40 is the sweet spot. Maybe 65/35 is in 2015 or so. Or maybe the rules will change again and we'll see more running. Hard to predict the future. As of 2012, it looks like we should be at 60/40.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage
(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷
Zero2Cool
12 years ago

If you want to win an argument with me, you have to put up FACTS. Opinion doesn't cut it. But you guys have also been ignoring the research I've been doing which got annoying too. I've been saying all along that you don't need an elite RB and actually, an elite RB hurts the team.

I've been doing football research for a few years and honing in my knowledge. When my hypothesis doesn't look right, I change it until it's right. I found that rushing rankings have absolutely no bearing on a team's post-season success.

I also predict trends and thought that teams will eventually go 65/35. This remains to be seen though. It looks like as of 2012, 60/40 is the sweet spot. Maybe 65/35 is in 2015 or so. Or maybe the rules will change again and we'll see more running. Hard to predict the future. As of 2012, it looks like we should be at 60/40.

Originally Posted by: zombieslayer 



There really isn't any argument at all. It's pretty much common sense. Yes, an elite RB is not necessary, however an elite QB helps a lot more. You ignoring the point we're making is annoying. 60/40 is exactly what I said in the quoted post.

I think one side is saying look forward and the other side is saying look straight ahead.


Against the Colts, Packers had two drives that were 30 seconds or less (one was 19 freaking seconds). THIRTY SECONDS OR LESS! You run it three times, that eats up 2+ minutes right there. Do that on both drives, that's nearly FIVE MINUTES less that the Colts have to catch up!

Between those six runs, it could be 1 yard per attempt and it still serves a good purpose ... EATING CLOCK to preserve the lead!

I am all for putting teams away, all for it. But when you're skipping your underneath guy or the TE/RB open in the flat, you're playing Madden football and that's just stupid! They have two deep safeties and you're still going to throw it deep instead of the shallow guy who will get you 5+ yards? ARGH pisses me off!!
UserPostedImage
LambeauEast
12 years ago
Mediocre at best.
UserPostedImage
play2win
12 years ago
McCarthy's whole pass heavy attack, saying in essence (and I know there is a quote out there where he actually said this) "we don't need to run" is good only when his short passes are - in fact - high percentage. If we ignore the short passes, or if we aren't catching those, then the whole plan is destined to fail.

I believe we had 2 goals coming into this season from a game management/personnel standpoint:

1. Add pass rush
2. Control the clock better with our offense

We are currently tied with two other teams at #1 in the NFL for sacks, with 18. I was surprised to see that.

Our OL on the other hand, is ranked 2nd to last at #31 in the NFL, allowing 21 sacks thus far this year. We are 15th in Total Points, and 21st in TOP.

We are also ranked #1 in the NFL for penalty yds at 390. These last 4 stats are very telling, as stats go... pretty much place us at middle of the road with our 2-3 record, and our defense ranked #16 both pass and run D. Based on our expectations for the season, this is mediocre, indeed.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of short passes in leiu of run plays. Puts too much at risk with time of possession and your QB's safety. That is a game of high stakes poker IMO, one we should not be playing if we expect to reach our 2nd goal of this season, to control the clock. Not to mention, how long will Rodgers last at this pace? TJ Lang publicly called out the pass heavy play calling for a reason.
Pack93z
12 years ago

If you want to win an argument with me, you have to put up FACTS. Opinion doesn't cut it. But you guys have also been ignoring the research I've been doing which got annoying too. I've been saying all along that you don't need an elite RB and actually, an elite RB hurts the team.

Originally Posted by: zombieslayer 



I have and you have ignored in the past.

I went through and graphed the impact on teams over the course of a season in offensive and defensive impact and it received zero comments or rebuttal. Wait, there was the garbage time runs, which I followed up and showed there was less than a 2% impact in four quarter additional runs. And that was from Greg C.

But yet, I am to readily consume your research as gospel. Really? Tisk, tisk Zombie. [grin1]
"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"
Rios39
12 years ago
The only thing is I don't see how running the ball for 1 yard or less at times does anything for you but sets you back on 1st down. We do run a lot on first down putting us in long down distances. Maybe throw more on first down and try to pound in the easier yards.

Also in the SB we threw a ridiculous amount of times and had great success. Last year in the first half I believe we were mostly a pass offense and then tried to run when the game was out of reach.

It may be time to adjust though as Rodgers has looked like a poor qb.
blank
Porforis
12 years ago

The only thing is I don't see how running the ball for 1 yard or less at times does anything for you but sets you back on 1st down. We do run a lot on first down putting us in long down distances. Maybe throw more on first down and try to pound in the easier yards.

Also in the SB we threw a ridiculous amount of times and had great success. Last year in the first half I believe we were mostly a pass offense and then tried to run when the game was out of reach.

It may be time to adjust though as Rodgers has looked like a poor qb.

Originally Posted by: Rios39 



But do remember that Starks started running well come the postseason during our SB run. That added dimension definitely helped us out.
Rios39
12 years ago

But do remember that Starks started running well come the postseason during our SB run. That added dimension definitely helped us out.

Originally Posted by: Porforis 



That's true and he also had a solid year last year. YPC he was better than Grant. He usually falls forward. Hopefully we can get him going and hopefully improve some in blocking.

blank
Pack93z
12 years ago

The only thing is I don't see how running the ball for 1 yard or less at times does anything for you but sets you back on 1st down. We do run a lot on first down putting us in long down distances. Maybe throw more on first down and try to pound in the easier yards.

Also in the SB we threw a ridiculous amount of times and had great success. Last year in the first half I believe we were mostly a pass offense and then tried to run when the game was out of reach.

It may be time to adjust though as Rodgers has looked like a poor qb.

Originally Posted by: Rios39 



How does it help?

Throw yourself in a defensive lineman or backers helmet.. then look at these two scenarios.

A offense that you know is going to drop back and pass almost all the times, especially if the formation tells you so. Where you can just focus on firing off the snap and beating the man in front of you.

Or an offensive in which you have to read and digest the play being either a run or a pass. Then turn your focus to beating the man in front of you to get to the QB.

It is only a split second, but that slight pause returns the advantage back to the offensive lineman because he now has that second to set up, read the blitz and adjust.

There is a huge difference within that helmet. I don't care if the run is effective or not, you will read that play and pause for the split second if there is a threat of the run.

Why I hate empty sets.. tee off by the players coming on the pass rush, unless you worry about the QB draw, but a QB the caliber of Rodgers isn't going to run by design.

Those little advantages mean the world in the trenches.

Go back to the 2010 season.. it was the loss to the Patriots that really started our run. We had to play Flynn and Mike McCarthy ran the ball to help him along. It showed us we could run the ball and the effect it had on the defense and what it did for our offense. We almost won that game with a first time starter.
"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"
Users browsing this topic
    Fan Shout
    Mucky Tundra (4m) : He hasn't been too bad when healthy but I don't feel like I ever heard much about when he is
    Zero2Cool (57m) : Felt like he was more interested in his body, than football. He flashed more than I expected
    Zero2Cool (57m) : When he was coming out, I thought he'd be flash in pan.
    Mucky Tundra (2h) : Joey seems so forgettable compared to his brother for some reason
    Zero2Cool (2h) : NFL informed teams today that the 2025 salary cap will be roughly $277.5M-$281.5M
    Zero2Cool (6h) : Los Angeles Chargers are likely to release DE Joey Bosa this off-season as a cap casualty, per league source.
    Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : If the exploit is not fixed, we'll see tons of "50 top free agents, 50 perfect NFL team fits: We picked where each should sign in March" lo
    Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : Issue should be solved, database cleaned and held strong working / meeting. Boom!
    Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : It should be halted now.
    Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : usually spambots are trying to get traffic to shady websites filled with spyware; the two links being spammed were to the Packers website
    Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : you know when you put it that way combined with the links it was spamming (to the official Packers website)
    Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : Yep. You can do that with holding down ENTER on a command in Console of browser
    Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : even with the rapid fire posts?
    Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : I'm not certain it's a bot.
    Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : I've got to go to work soon which is a pity because I'm enthralled by this battle between the bot and Zero
    Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : Yeah, I see what that did. Kind of funny.
    Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : now it's a link to Wes Hodkiezwicz mailbag
    Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : Now they're back with another topic
    Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : oh lol
    Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : I have a script that purges them now.
    Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : 118 Topics with Message.
    Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : what's 118 (besides a number)?
    Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : They got 118 slapped in there.
    Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : that's why it confused the hell out of me
    Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : Yeah, but this is taking a headline and slapping it into the Packers Talk
    Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : Wasnt there a time guests could post in the help forum?
    Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : lol good question, kind of impressed!
    Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : So how is a guest posting?
    Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : Tell them its an emergency
    Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : Working. Meetings.
    Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : Lots of fun; the spam goes back 4 or 5 pages by this point
    Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : I thought you'd look for yourself and put 2 and 2 together lol. I overestimated ya ;)
    Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : I thought Guests couldnt post?
    Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : And gosh that's gonna be fun to clean up! hahaa
    Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : Oh. Why not just say that then? Geez.
    Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : check the main forum, seems a spam bot is running amok
    Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : What?
    Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : Is the Packers online game "Packers Predict" now available for 2024? I can't tell
    Zero2Cool (17-Feb) : Bengals planning to Franchise Tag Tamaurice Higgins
    Zero2Cool (14-Feb) : Packers are hiring Luke Getsy as senior offensive assistant.
    Martha Careful (12-Feb) : I would love to have them both, esp. Crosby, but either might be too expensive.
    Zero2Cool (12-Feb) : Keisean Nixon is trying to get Maxx Crosby and Davante Adams lol
    Mucky Tundra (11-Feb) : Yeah where did it go?
    packerfanoutwest (11-Feb) : or did you resctrict access to that topic?
    packerfanoutwest (11-Feb) : why did you remove the Playoff topic?
    Zero2Cool (10-Feb) : Tua’s old DC won a Super Bowl Year 1 with Tua’s former backup
    Mucky Tundra (10-Feb) : *winning MVP
    Mucky Tundra (10-Feb) : Funny observation I've heard: Carson Wentz was on the sideline for both Eagles Super Bowl wins w/guys supposed to be his back up winning
    Zero2Cool (10-Feb) : NFL thought it would get more attention week preceding Super Bowl.
    Zero2Cool (10-Feb) : Yes, the Pro Bowl. It was played Sunday before Super Bowl from 2010-2022
    Please sign in to use Fan Shout
    2024 Packers Schedule
    Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
    Eagles
    Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
    COLTS
    Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
    Titans
    Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
    VIKINGS
    Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
    Rams
    Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
    CARDINALS
    Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
    TEXANS
    Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
    Jaguars
    Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
    LIONS
    Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
    Bears
    Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
    49ERS
    Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
    DOLPHINS
    Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
    Lions
    Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
    Seahawks
    Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
    SAINTS
    Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
    Vikings
    Sunday, Jan 5 @ 12:00 PM
    BEARS
    Sunday, Jan 12 @ 3:30 PM
    Eagles
    Recent Topics
    7h / Green Bay Packers Talk / MintBaconDrivel

    18-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    18-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    18-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    18-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    16-Feb / Around The NFL / beast

    16-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    16-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    15-Feb / Around The NFL / beast

    15-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    14-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / TheKanataThrilla

    14-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    13-Feb / Random Babble / Mucky Tundra

    10-Feb / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

    10-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    Headlines
    Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.