[2012] Green Bay Packers at Houston Texans· Page 11

Rios39
Member

12 years ago

One has to ask though if we are actually better off with Pickett at NT. Usually the NT is known for getting a bit of push but mostly swallowing the run game. Last night was the most dominant we have been against the run. Last year we were "ok" against the run in 2010 with Raji at NT we did not do the best verse the run but had a great pass rush, in 2009 with Pickett at NT I believe we gave up the least amount of rushing yards in football.

If he's not going to be sucking up the middle of the field on run downs and his pass rush is "good" not great, maybe it's time to move him into the DE area and see if he can get some favorable matchups that way.

I guess we will see how he looks when he gets back. Our push up the middle was ok, our rush up the field was great but I've never seen the line of scrimmage get pushed so consistently into the offense side of the field against a quality team, so frequently. While playing on the road where you don't really get a jump on the snap.

blank

macbob
Veteran Member

12 years ago

#102

Sort of sarcastic.

This is more of a response to the "we need a good RB" myth that has been harped on consistently by football fans. We don't need a "good" RB. We just need NFL caliber RBs, which means somewhere in the top 100 of the position. Yes, that's all we really need.

A good OL should open up the holes where any of the top 100 RBs in the NFL could get 3+ ypc, and that's pretty much all you need. Top $$$ should be spent on D, as from my research, D wins Championships, and secondary in importance is an elite QB. RBs don't matter, and don't even figure in the equation of who wins Championships.

Through my research, I found I was wrong about the %s of pass/run. I thought we could go 65/35. You can't do that all season long. High 50s is about the right %. And too much rushing (50% or more) is also a bad thing.

In the game last night, we got to see Green get 22 carries. The 67 yards would actually be considered "mediocre," but that's fine. Mediocre RBs are ideal as like I've said, the yards don't matter. All that matters are the carries.

You'll get the yards if you have a decent OL. Benson, Green, Starks, Ryan Grant, and probably Brandon Seine could all be thrown back there and the game results will be the same.

Green did what he was supposed to do - hold on to the football and get 3+ ypc. That's it. That's all you really need from a RB.

From a Packers' perspective, bonus if the RB can catch passes and block.

Originally Posted by: zombieslayer

Zombie--a truly awesome post. Only two things I would have said slightly differently:

1) Top 100 RB is a 3rd stringer on the worst team in the NFL. I think you need a little higher quality than that for your starter, but agree 100% that there are better things to spend your $$ on than an elite RB.

2) Attempts/carries matter most, but yards do matter. If everytime you run you get -2 yds the defense isn't going to honor the run as much as if you get 7 yds per carry. You don't need to lead the league in rushing, but need to have a certain level of success, and I think 3 yds per carry is probably about the minimum you need to keep the D honest.

=d> =d> =d> =d> =d>

macbob
Veteran Member

12 years ago

#103

Do you guys think that Raji is overvalued as a run defender? Pickett seemed much more effective in there and even our nickel seems well equipped to step up over that with Neal and Worthy together.

Originally Posted by: DarkaneRules

I like Pickett moved back to NT--that's his natural position--and Raji playing DE. Think we're a better line when we're like that. Move Raji inside on obvious passing downs, but otherwise we'd have Perry and Raji over on the opposite side of CM3, and I think that would give an offense all kinds of fits.

DakotaT
Select Member

12 years ago

#104

Raji's not known as a run defender. He's a pass rushing NT.

Pickett is the run stuffer of the group.

Originally Posted by: nerdmann

They should just let Pickett play the nose and then bring Raji in with Worthy when they want to rush 4.

We play some funky formations and are very rarely in our 3-4 base. What I think is stupid is playing Pickett at end. It makes no fucking sense, especially when C.J. Wilson and Neal are playing better.

zombieslayer
Registered

12 years ago

#105

Originally Posted by: macbob

Thanks Macbob. Almost brought a tear to my eye. 😍 😍

1) OK, maybe top 50 would be better. And don't get me wrong. I don't hate RBs. My favorite non-Packer ever was Wallie Payton. My favorite non-Packer today is Adrian Peterson. This is just what the research has been telling me.

2) Well, only a real bad back is gonna get -2 yards a carry. Even a 3rd string RB should get you at least 2.5 ypc. Unless of course your OL sucks and in that case, your QB is probably dead anyways and you won't get that far, even with an elite D. You still need some offense.

But you really don't need success. There is no historical difference since the 80s (it takes forever to sift through stats so I don't go back very far) between having the #1 rushing team and the #20 rushing team. The stand out elite rushing team who was dominant were the 90s Cows and the 90s Broncos. But there have been so many really bad teams at running the ball who have won Championships that they statistically even out the 90s Broncos and Cows.

So once again, in importance is:
1) elite D,
2) elite QB

And that's pretty much it. Of course a real bad OL gets your QB killed so that's somewhere up there in importance.

EDIT: Just in case you were wondering (which I'm sure you were) how our recent SB winning teams were in rushing, here ya go:
1996 Packers - Out of 30 teams, 14th in attempts, 11 in yards, 19th in TDs
2010 Packers - Out of 32 teams, 20th in attempts, 24th in yards, 19th in TDs

To be honest, I was surprised we ran that well in 1996. I thought we'd be in the bottom 10. But then I forgot that we had a dual RB system that year.

My man Donald Driver

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

Wade
Veteran Member

12 years ago

#106

Do you guys think that Raji is overvalued as a run defender? Pickett seemed much more effective in there and even our nickel seems well equipped to step up over that with Neal and Worthy together.

Originally Posted by: DarkaneRules

Yes.

IMO a nose tackle should routinely occupy two blockers. Far too often, Raji was getting stoned by just one.

Pickett's only problem is that with his age/weight, he can't do the volume of plays without wearing down.

I have to admit Worthy has looked better than I thought he would.

And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)

Wade
Veteran Member

12 years ago

#107

Raji's not known as a run defender. He's a pass rushing NT.

Pickett is the run stuffer of the group.

Originally Posted by: nerdmann

Except that Raji hasn't been doing either one particularly well (except for the second half of 2010).

And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)

zombieslayer
Registered

12 years ago

#108

Raji has been solid when Cullen Jenkins was in the lineup. Post-Cullen Jenkins, he's been quite average; definitely not first round material. I think one of 🇹🇹's priorities in the 2012 off-season (via draft, trade, waivers, or whatever) would be to replace Cullen Jenkins.

I've said elsewhere that the 2011 D was so bad that it may take 2 off-seasons to bring us back to elite status (as we were in 2010).

My man Donald Driver

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

DarkaneRules
Veteran Member

12 years ago

#109

I see a Raji dilemma honestly. Wish we had another Pickett. Raji is not that. Thought he would be.

Circular Arguments: They are a heck of an annoyance

Rios39
Member

12 years ago

#110

Originally Posted by: zombieslayer

Well we have Worthy and Daniels as well as Wilson doing good in pass rush. What we need more of is a stout MLB. Bishop is without a doubt solid and Hawk is playing much more fast and aggressive/except in coverage. So I think we either draft a stout MLB Safety or maybe CB. All in all I'm happy with our defense but when we have to rely on our MLB's to cover. When the right plays have been called we have looked good.

blank

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

Zero2Cool (10m) : Merry Christmas!

beast (8h) : Merry Christmas 🎄🎁

beast (16h) : Sounds like no serious injuries from the Saints game and Jacobs and Watson should play in the Vikings game

packerfanoutwest (21h) : both games Watson missed, Packers won

Martha Careful (23h) : 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

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I see what you did there Mucky

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : dammit. 3:25pm

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Yeah baby!

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.

beast (23-Dec) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.

packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : ok I stand corrected

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?

beast (23-Dec) : Saying no to the 6th lock.

beast (23-Dec) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.

beast (23-Dec) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games

beast (23-Dec) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality

beast (23-Dec) : We already have told you... if Packers lose all their games (they won't, but if they did), and Buccaneers and Falcons win all theirs

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread

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