Grant = Success??· Page 9

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

zombieslayer
Registered

15 years ago

lmao six games out of 48?? 🙂

I do agree, you can find stats supporting whichever flavor you're wanting, you just chose one that doesn't seem to merit much in my view. (btw, off the top of my head, I think Driver had less than 100 during the Seahawks game in '07, we won, and more than 100 in the Giants game in '07 that we lost) Arguments can be made for this or that. He had 100 because we were behind and pass happy, etc ...

As for do we win more because we run Grant more or do we run Grant more because we are winning? If we don't run the ball well in the 4th quarter with the lead, we give the ball back and increase the chance for the other team to score. In that context, it seems fairly simple and obvious. Which makes me say, there's no real science to it, lol.

I think the stats for Grant having 20+ carries equaling more wins, is more of a trend than say a reason for success. I wouldn't dare say that running the ball more does not help win games. Anytime you eat up lots of clock and keep your defense off the field, that's a fairly good recipe for success. Providing of course you score points.

"Zero2Cool" wrote:

OK, just to keep this argument alive - I strongly think if you want to keep the D off the field, you gotta get first downs. Running 3 times for 8 yards takes 1:30 off the clock but doesn't get a first down. Running 2 times for 6 yards, then passing once for 5 yards will still take 1:30 off the clock, but you have a fresh set of downs to eat more of the clock.

See what I'm saying?

Get the first down. I really don't care if it's accomplished by running or passing. I don't care. I want the first down and the more effective way of getting first downs is the better way.

I could care less if we win the game by Grant rushing for 200+ yards while Aaron throws for 150, or if Aaron throws for 300 while Grant gets 5 carries. I don't care. In the end, points are what wins ballgames.

You throw against a team that can't defend the pass (Vikings or Niners) and rush against a team that can't defend the run (like the Rams).

You know how prejudiced I am against running the ball, but the exception of course is I believe in running it down their throat if they can't stop the run because yes, you are right - running eats the clock better than passing. However, first downs eat the clock better than both of them.

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 Topic Starter

15 years ago

#82

Yep, first downs assist greatly in eating more time off the clock. I was trying to point out that if you have three failed passing plays, meaning incompletions, you only eat up about say 40-70 seconds where as three failed runs eats up 120 seconds. That's a big difference when you're trying to kill the clock.

You know, I liked playing QB and focus on that more than anything, yet you have me defending the notion to run the ball more. Sometimes I can't stand being objective, it goes against my selfish being!!! lol

More to the getting first downs, yes, run pass penalty, doesn't matter as long as they are obtained.

One of the minor points I was getting to was, no running Grant 20+ does not guarantee a win, but I think with him getting more carries (as I've said many times, more carries for a RB the better they do) increases our chances of winning the game.

zombieslayer
Registered

15 years ago

#83

Zero - See, that I completely disagree with. See my write ups on how RB is optional when you want to win a SB, or Screw the Run. Both have arguments about how the run nowadays is not that important and passing teams fare much better in SBs (and of course D is the most important of all).

FYI - The 2 undefeated teams this year are the Colts (1st in passing yards and 31st in rushing yards) and the Saints (3rd in passing yards and 5th in rushing yards).

Of my elite teams list, only the Saints and the Vikings have a real rushing attack. All of my elite teams have elite QBs though.

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 Topic Starter

15 years ago

#84

"zombieslayer" wrote:

I don't disagree that the league is a pass happy league, not at all. Look at the rules that babysit QB's and protect WR's, it's absurd.

I think the Colts had the worst rushing offense AND defense the year they won the Super Bowl.

There's always going to be exceptions, and again, AGAIN, I will say this, there is no guaranteed way to ensure a win.

FYI, I've watched some of the games those teams won, Colts and Saints, some of them they should have lost, not many, one a piece easily had nothing to do with passing the ball at all.

zombieslayer
Registered

15 years ago

#85

Of course there are exceptions. But keeping it on the subject - would you rather have a team that is #1 in rushing or #1 in passing?

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 Topic Starter

15 years ago

#86

Of course there are exceptions. But keeping it on the subject - would you rather have a team that is #1 in rushing or #1 in passing?

"zombieslayer" wrote:

I didn't ever play running back much.
I played quarterback very much.

You decide.

zombieslayer
Registered

15 years ago

#87

Zero - That's not the point. It's not what we did personally. It's what wins games for the Packers.

In the NFL, passing > running. By far.

My man Donald Driver

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

PackFanWithTwins
Veteran Member

15 years ago

#88

Grant is a RB on a passing team. He is not going to get 5000 yards a season. But if he wants to be considered good, he needs to be over 1200 a year. 1000 aint squat these days unless he is throwing up 200+ receiving with it.

How I feel about Grant, keep him and I will be OK with it, replace him, and I will be ok with it.

The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!

Rockmolder
Honored Member

15 years ago

#89

"PackFanWithTwins" wrote:

Exactly. He's one of those 'solid' players, much like Dorsey Levens and Edgat Bennett where. He's someone who you won't just replace, but you can do a lot better.

We can see this as a great building oppurtinity and draft some backs, hoping we'll get an elite guy at some point.

Zero2Cool
Elite Member Topic Starter

15 years ago

#90

Zero - That's not the point. It's not what we did personally. It's what wins games for the Packers.

In the NFL, passing > running. By far.

"zombieslayer" wrote:

lol it is the point, it's exactly the point. I'm going to be bias like a motherfreaker. How am I going to watch the QB and critique is play if he's handing off 90% of the time? How am I going to see a beautiful deep ball land perfectly into a WR's hands if he's handing the ball off most of the time? How am I going to see a ball drilled into a window the size of a shoe box if he's not given the chance to do so?

I admire passing far more than running. Therefore, I'd rather see the Packers (whom I watch every week) pass often and win often by passing. So asking me to choose either passing or rushing, really not a good way to get an answer, objectively anyhow. Not on that subject.

I do agree that the NFL is a passing league, as I have already said including the rules that protect QB's and give advantages to the WR's. What more do you want me to say? I'm not going to say that rushing the ball successfully is a bad thing, contrary, it is a good thing as trends have shown.

Alas, continue to say that running the ball successfully does not help you win games.

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 (13h) : Greg Gumbel passed away today after bout with cancer.

buckeyepackfan (18h) : 1 NFC South @ NFC West @ AFC West other 3 games,

buckeyepackfan (18h) : Packers play NFC East and AFC North in 2025, plus 2 other games

Mucky Tundra (20h) : Geeze Zero get it right!😋

Zero2Cool (21h) : I guess 3 games. Whatever

Zero2Cool (21h) : Bleh, that only impacts two games.

Zero2Cool (21h) : Packers are gonna get 3rd place division schedule next year.

Mucky Tundra (22h) : Kanata, seek help! lol

beast (27-Dec) : I was rooting for the Bears to win and hurt their draft pick status

Zero2Cool (27-Dec) : Forgot there was even a game last night haha

TheKanataThrilla (27-Dec) : That was terrible.

TheKanataThrilla (27-Dec) : Watching that game in its entirety yesterday is proof positive that I am a football addict.

beast (27-Dec) : And horrible time management multiple times... and not being able to score more than 3 points on a team with talent

beast (27-Dec) : Realizing the Bears didn't fix it from the previous week and do the same thing, getting the game to overtime

beast (27-Dec) : They probably are not tanking, but they've absolutely mismanagement some things, such as Vikings seeing the Packers blocked FG and realizing

Zero2Cool (27-Dec) : Crazy of Bears to have that mindset that is

Zero2Cool (27-Dec) : Hail Mary stop away from 5 - 2. Not sure how that flips to tanking. Crazy mindset if true

beast (27-Dec) : 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 (27-Dec) : Watching bares fans melt down over how putrid their team is, so enjoyable. It's the gift that keeps on giving.

Mucky Tundra (27-Dec) : 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 (27-Dec) : Not nessarily, he might of been injured either way. He's playing about 50% of the games the last 4 years

Zero2Cool (26-Dec) : 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 (26-Dec) : well this is his last season with the PAck, book it

beast (26-Dec) : 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

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