Steven Jackson rumors

[Poppa San]

I have been in the camp where an effective running game in a passing offense is based on the number of attempts, not the results. Today my 12 year old thought a 4 yard run was a really good run for the Packers! I have come to the conclusion the running game does not pass the eye test. Just like last years defense did not pass the test no matter what the stats said, this years running game is deficient. I do not know if they could get a yard in four tries if needed to win the game. I actually believe the problem starts with the line in that the backs are avoiding tackles before they can even put the ball away. Lack of a true lead blocking back would also help. Sometimes I wonder if the line is somehow telegraphing the play to the defense. Maybe leaning forward a bit more or a foot back a bit further. A difference in the cadence or different trash talking before the snap. Whatever it is, a 4 yard run should not be considered a good run. It should be about average.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I wouldn't trade for Steven Jackson because of his age and declining ability. Not much of an upgrade over Benson either. But in next years draft a RB at the top of draft yes.

Benson would be adequate. Except he won't be back for quite a while, if at all this season, or ever. Green is pointless running the ball...good receiver though.

 

[rodell330]

Anyone is better running the ball then what w have. Mise well bring Portis back, he couldnt do any worse.

 

[longtimefan]

29 carries 134 yards
28 carries 84 yards
25 carries 81 yards

The totals above were from Packer running backs and fullbacks during the 2010 playoffs. That is an average of 27 carries and 100 yards per game. I'd say that although not a great attack a credible enough running game which adds balance to A-Rods aerial assault. Below you will find this season so far.

23 carries 62 yards Jags
23 carries 51 yards Rams - Cobb had one carry for 19 yards
29 carries 82 yards Texans
19 carries 92 yards Colts
19 carries 89 yards Saints
18 carries 47 yards Seahawks Cobb had one carry for 20 yards
24 carries 84 yards Bears Cobb had one carry for 28 yards
9 carries 18 yards 49ers

This seasons average is 20 carries for 65 yards.

The Packers ground game this season from the traditional sets with RB and FB accounted for over 1/3 less production than their Super Bowl run of 2 years ago. This alone proves the importance of a competent running game. And even with Benson in there we were still deficient especially against a strong defense (49ers).

I wouldn't trade for Steven Jackson because of his age and declining ability. Not much of an upgrade over Benson either. But in next years draft a RB at the top of draft yes.

Look real close

our wins Bears and Texans.....Blow out or firm control of winning the game...Yet the avg is?

 

[NelsonsLongCatch]

No it's not the same thing. 3 carries during a game is more or less not running the ball. Ineffective running is running it 26 times for 48 yards.

Both are just top of the head examples

Quick question: How do you know what my definition of "ineffective" is?

 

[12theTruth]

Look real close

our wins Bears and Texans.....Blow out or firm control of winning the game...Yet the avg is?

McCarthy judging by rushing attempts definitely showed committment to run the ball considering that those two games were at top for the season so far. But my contention is not really about a game or two, its about an overall trend. Outside of a 40+ yard by Green he has been terrible and the production out of the running game. To struggle as we did against the 30th ranked run defense yesterday is pretty disheartening.

 

[packers020802]

But why not trade JFin. For him straight up?!? Maybe toss um a 6 end pick to go with him....

 

[brandon2348]

Well it's been a weird season thus far. I mean all the crap that happened in Seattle and the melt-down in Indianapolis. Now the injury report is getting to be a long list. I am just glad Pack won yesterday. How many teams could be 5-3 with all these injuries and debacles? Were right where we need to be heading into division play. I am actually happy with pack and where we are at right now. We just need to get healthy. We have a good recent history of winning on road. If Finely can pull his head out of his *ss then we got a shot. Defense is really maturing and stepping up.

 

[ivo610]

Quick question: How do you know what my definition of "ineffective" is?

I would hope to think it would fall under the text definition and we aren't having to redefine words for the sake of arguing.

But do you have your own personal definition? Or is "not capable of performing efficiently" ok? Do we need to define effectively?

 

[ivo610]

The thinking that says winning is merely tied to the Packers rushing the ball a threshold number of downs is foolish. It ignores too many variables like score, field position, and game time that go into the coach's play calling. We haven't even talked about adjusting for the fact that the number of offensive snaps varies from week to week.

Most importantly, the total number of rushes doesn't really explain the win. Coaches are more disposed to run the ball when their team has a lead. Teams will continue rushing the ball where they're having success on the ground. The correlation tends to skew upward because running is the conservative thing to do when playing with a lead and a team that is successful rushing the ball will accumulate more carries. Conversely, when a team is playing from behind or they're having little success with the run, they're going to accumulate fewer rushes. Whatever the case, the number of rushes is not the reason for the win or loss.

The reason for the win or loss is usually a product of the team's ability to execute on the field. I believe this Packer team has faced and will face game situations in which their ability to run the ball effectively are critical to the outcome of the contest, such as keeping the opponent's offense off the field, protecting Rodgers, and chewing up clock. Needless to say, I think the conclusion that "you can win in the modern era with an ineffective run game" is cavalier and stupid because such game situations are inevitable and there are times when our failure to execute becomes outcome determinative. Portions of the Indianapolis and Seattle games, cited above, both provide good examples.

Not sure whether anyone can "prove" the importance of an effective running game to your satisfaction, ivo, but I'm concerned by the shortcomings of this year's team in that area. We'll see what happens. Maybe we make go on another run to the Super Bowl but I don't think it happens if we're averaging 2.9 ypc- our passing game isn't efficient enough to compensate for that. Maybe we can revisit this at the end of the season...

P.S., Is there a place I should be posting on this topic such that you won't mark my posts "Old?"

The whole we need "insert whatever big name running back" is getting old in general and was proved wrong back with lynch. I'm sure you remember that thread.

Games are won and lost by the passing game. It's a sign you are doing well when you can afford to run.

You're right, no one can prove it bc it doesn't exist.

Of the last 10 SB winners the avg ranking for running the ball is 17th.

The avg team over the past 10 years playing in the superbowl is also ranked 17th in rushing.

Now for the kicker, the avg SB winning over the past 10 season was ranked 12th in the league in rushing attempts.

I think it's pretty self explanatory what that means. But by all means you should run the numbers yourself, if you can find something to prove your point I would love for you to lay it out. It would be ground breaking and would get alot of attention in the football world.

For those that are wondering the packers rank 16th in attempts this season and 22nd in rushing.

Packers have the highest passer rating in the league... How efficient would you like them to be passing the ball?

 

[ivo610]

29 carries 134 yards
28 carries 84 yards
25 carries 81 yards

The totals above were from Packer running backs and fullbacks during the 2010 playoffs. That is an average of 27 carries and 100 yards per game. I'd say that although not a great attack a credible enough running game which adds balance to A-Rods aerial assault. Below you will find this season so far.

23 carries 62 yards Jags
23 carries 51 yards Rams - Cobb had one carry for 19 yards
29 carries 82 yards Texans
19 carries 92 yards Colts
19 carries 89 yards Saints
18 carries 47 yards Seahawks Cobb had one carry for 20 yards
24 carries 84 yards Bears Cobb had one carry for 28 yards
9 carries 18 yards 49ers

This seasons average is 20 carries for 65 yards.

The Packers ground game this season from the traditional sets with RB and FB accounted for over 1/3 less production than their Super Bowl run of 2 years ago. This alone proves the importance of a competent running game. And even with Benson in there we were still deficient especially against a strong defense (49ers).

I wouldn't trade for Steven Jackson because of his age and declining ability. Not much of an upgrade over Benson either. But in next years draft a RB at the top of draft yes.

you point out long runs during this season but not in 2010? Why is that?

So your saying we won while avg 2.7 yards a carry in the playoffs?

I look at those numbers and see ineffective running but still getting enough attempts. I think we view 2.7 yards a carry differently.

 

[rodell330]

look our run game is trash, it kills me when people try to justify why it stinks so bad. what game are you guy's watching? Our linemen are not good and that's what it boils down to...they just can't pas block for anything. How many times does alex Green get hit in the backfield? I think TT needs to draft linemen who can run block instead of drafting the sexiest pass blocker...which they can barely seem to do. The fact that these guy's don't have the skillset to be good run blockes mixed with the fact Alex Green can't find the openings equals where we are now.

 

[Jordyruns]

29 carries 134 yards
28 carries 84 yards
25 carries 81 yards

The totals above were from Packer running backs and fullbacks during the 2010 playoffs. That is an average of 27 carries and 100 yards per game. I'd say that although not a great attack a credible enough running game which adds balance to A-Rods aerial assault. Below you will find this season so far.


19 carries 92 yards Colts
19 carries 89 yards Saints
18 carries 47 yards Seahawks Cobb had one carry for 20 yards
24 carries 84 yards Bears Cobb had one carry for 28 yards
9 carries 18 yards 49ers

First off I would like to say that anyone who compares this running game to last years D is wrong for the simple reason that our ENTIRE D was awful last year. Only our run game is poor this year our pass game is still fine when healthy. Our run game is only a PART of our ENTIRE OFFENSE.

Now maybe I am being too optimistic but I am going under the assumption of Cedric Benson coming back at the end of this season. I don't think MM would waste that IR spot if he had enough doubt that Cedric could not make it back. So all I want of the run game until Cedric comes back is just do enough to give us a good enough record to make the playoffs. If every win is like yesterdays that is fine because the team is not full strength. While Benson was healthy the site was raving over how "we finally have a legitimate run game for the first time since Grant in 2009." Look at the numbers I compared the games with Benson to the 2010 playoff games. The most common factor is ypc. 3.66 ypc is basically the same as 3.7 ypc, the only difference I see is a lower number of attempts which in turn would lead to more rushing yards. Now if I got rid of what is the definition of an outlier in that 9 attempts for 18 yards that was the 49ers game the attempts changes to 20 attempts for 78 yards for an average of 3.9 ypc.To me this indicates not that we need a new RB but that we need to run the ball more, to become less predictable, if we expect our offense to look like it did in the 2010 playoffs.

As for the Seahawks game point someone made I would say that you shot yourself in the foot by stating that there were only 3 rushes in the first half when Rodgers was sacked 8 times and the offense look pathetic. To me that only further proves that attempts and how our offense runs are related not an "effective run game" and our offense.

18 rushing attempts for 66 yards 3.66 ypc (2012 with Benson)
20 rushing attempts for 78 yards 3.9 ypc (2012 with Benson -49ers game)
27 rushing attempts for 100 yards 3.70 ypc (2010 playoffs)

So finally to my ultimate point, we are winning right now. Hell we are in the playoffs right now, so if we are getting Benson back (again no guarantee but to me all signs are point to him returning; if he is not able to then I am completely incorrect, my whole point lies on that happening) with a record that has us in the playoffs (which as of right now there are no indications we won't be, especially if we get Nelson, Shields, and Perry back in the upcoming weeks) why do we need 2 old, very similar running backs during the playoffs? Keep the attempts up so our passing game and improved D will be able to win us the upcoming games on our schedule (no matter how ugly). Then when Benson comes back our run game should get the spark it needs just like Starks provided when he got healthy for the wild card round during the 2010 playoffs.

Again my point lies upon Benson being able to come back and us still having a good enough record to make the playoffs if one of those cannot happen I'm more likely to agree with a trade for Jackson, but the price must be right. Right now I would rather have a third round pick than Jackson.

 

[TJV]

Instead of typing "IMO" every other sentence, ALL of the following is just my opinion:

The OL and Green share the responsibility for the poor running game vs. the Jags. Certainly the Packers current OL is never going to be a great run blocking line but we saw Benson get better production against better Ds than Green has gotten. Even with the below average run-blocking ability of the OL, it looks to me like Green just may not have the instincts to be a workhorse RB in the league. Yes it's early in his career but RB is one of the positions in the NFL you find out about a player relatively early and Green may succeed as being a 3rd down back - he does much better in space than running between the tackles. I was hoping his added weight (and strength) would help but you can't improve football instincts in the weight room, or anywhere else. Coaching can help a RB be more determined to plant a foot and make a cut, but I don't think Green getting 20-some carries for the next 6 games is going to improve his instincts. (If that's what happens, of course I hope to be proven wrong). Anyway, I haven't seen any evidence the more Green runs the ball and gets "lathered up" the better he runs. That's why the addition of Ced Benson was important: Not only his natural size and strength but he knows how to run between the tackles and he is a workhorse who gets better with repetitions.

It is a little eerie how this season is unfolding in comparison to the 2010 season. B. Jackson was another third down back who couldn't handle the load of being the workhorse. Once Starks got healthy he did much better behind the same line Jackson struggled with. I don't think Thompson is going to trade a pick unless there's something wrong with Starks we don't know about. Yesterday was the third game Starks was active for and that has left me wondering if he's still dinged up or just not in playing condition. Although injury-prone, he's proven he's a decent option as the workhorse RB - why hasn't he played more? Even if there's a reason Starks isn't playing more, Thompson may be looking toward the return of Benson ala 2010. I just don't think there is any way Thompson is going to part with a 3rd rounder for less than a season "fix" when he has other options.

No matter what McCarthy has to remain disciplined enough to continue to run the ball but the reason the Packers have to get better production from the run game - or at least have the threat of an explosive play when handing the ball off is how that affects defenses. The Jags are not good defending the run but Green didn't present enough of a threat to bring a safety down in the box. Add in the absence of the Packers top two WRs and it's no wonder why Rodgers had few options downfield. The Jags were daring the Packers to run… Running attempts keeps the DL from pinning their ears back going after Rodgers and should help the OL's attitude in battling their opponents. But to get the safeties up to "loosen up" the D backfield for the passing game, the Packers have to present the threat of an explosive run.

The Packers running game has to get better and since there aren't any options on the bench to improve the OL, that improvement is going to have to come from the RB and perhaps a better scheme. I didn't mind the Packers running so often on first down but it didn't look like there was much variation in the play. I ordinarily don't like runs that go wide because they're horizontal and take "too long" to develop, but for a back like Green who is better in space I was hoping for a few more "student body" left or right runs. But I'm afraid that's lipstick on a pig at this point. The hope for an improved running attack lies with Starks and/or Benson.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Green didn't present enough of a threat to bring a safety down in the box.

This is a problem.

 

[burt packerack]

packers dont need another great RB past his prime. I would rather settle for a younger decent running back for us to settle with in the future.

 

[7thFloorRA]

Jackson isn't a financial burden and he would only be needed for this season and maybe next. I would trade Finley for him straight up.

 

[Jordyruns]

Jackson isn't a financial burden and he would only be needed for this season and maybe next. I would trade Finley for him straight up.

This would be interesting

 

[Pack93z]

If Benson can come back.. no. If not, then consider what it will take to pry him for the short term only.

We don't have room, cap wise, for a blue chip salary type veteran running back. Blue chip draft pick I am game.. but long term we are a passing team first.. spending big on a back is counter productive.

I would rather look at Blout from Tampa for more of a long term arrangement.

That said.. Green has only been given a two week shot to date.. he has the tools to become what we need long term. For this season.. all he has to do is bridge the gap back to Benson.

 

[DevilDon]

See Week 5, Indianapolis Colts. It's difficult to step on an opponent's throat when you hold the lead without a reliable running game. This isn't some fringe conspiracy theory, this is NFL reality.

Here's an interesting discussion about the Steelers in this context after last week's game. From the article:


Keep in mind, Pittsburgh is running effectively behind an o-line that has been mangled by injuries. I know we're not the Steelers, but your dismissive attitude toward the ground game is remarkable...

That's as evasive an argument you can make for a run game: EVER. Look - if you have enough, just enough of a run game to keep the D honest you can continue to put points up..... yes, even in gravy time to keep the other team at bay by passing. Ever hear of a blow-out?
How often do you see blowouts by running teams? 'Nuff said.

 

[jaybadger82]

That's as evasive an argument you can make for a run game: EVER. Look - if you have enough, just enough of a run game to keep the D honest you can continue to put points up..... yes, even in gravy time to keep the other team at bay by passing. Ever hear of a blow-out?
How often do you see blowouts by running teams? 'Nuff said.

You might want to look up the word evasive:

When I say "step on an opponent's throat," I mean deprive them of the chance to get back in the game (i.e., chew clock and keep their offense on the sidelines). The assumption that this team can simply "blowout" all of its opponents is both arrogant and and unsupported by history over our last eight games.

It sure would be cool to blowout everyone we play but that isn't happening. Defenses are adjusting to pass, there's plenty of film on Green Bay, and we're not giving defenses much reason to respect our run.

Big picture: you seem to misunderstand my point with regard to the ground game. I haven't been saying we need to become a running team. I've been saying that there are circumstances where it is necessary for us to run the ball effectively, which we haven't been doing. 'Nuff said.

 

[7thFloorRA]

Now that I look at the salaries and entire list of guys on the block I would rather TT go for Chris Ivory or Blount. I think both could be obtained for a 6th rd pick

 

[longtimefan]

We have had issues with run game for a while..I know we do some "pitch" runs, but I think we need more..Or tosses and not straight handoffs to a hole

Green has the speed to do that type of running, where as going thru a hole I do not think he has "it"

It baffles me that our right side with Sitton and Bulaga can't run block better...They both should be able to handle anyone...

 

[longtimefan]

Because of the hurricane, trade deadline has been moved to Thursday this week

 

[ThePerfectBeard]

Oh god, are we really that desperate that we are throwing Blount's name around? Seriously, If you think Green can't find holes. Blount is terrible. We fix the O-line with a new O-line coach, a new scheme, and some draft picks. Then we draft a young back to play behind Benson next year. Problems solved. See wasn't that easy