The running game

[Incubes12]

Here's an interesting analysis discussing aspects about this issue that haven't been brought up:

NFL Videos: Inside the NFL: Packers' playoff hopes

 

[Wood Chipper]

I like the 5 wide idea. We should run a Texas Tech style Air Raid offense. Throw 50 or 60 times a game. Use short passes like a de facto running game.

air raid or spread offense would be fun to watch cuz no other nfl team does it. sigh. too bad it won't happen anytime soon. we would need a bunch of speedy wideouts like the eagles have with maclin and desean

 

[longtimefan]

Here's an interesting analysis discussing aspects about this issue that haven't been brought up:

NFL Videos: Inside the NFL: Packers' playoff hopes

for those at work (myself) can someone give me a run down?

 

[DergaSmash]

I am at work as well and cannot see the video. I am of two minds on the running game however. I think the Green Bay passing game is good enough to compensate for any lack of a running game, at least for the most part. I also believe that if Green Bay was able to run the ball like Atlanta can, there would be no team in the NFL that could stop the Green Bay offense then. I think the bottom line is that nothing but positives can come from improving Green Bay's running game.

 

[Powarun]

It was basically a small discussion saying that the Packers have a slight chance to make it to the super bowl without a running game, though it hurts the defense more than the offense. Though its also a chance that our guys have the ability to keep playing up to standards, and that Manning's lost last weekend showed that its not a bad idea to have a run game as a back up.

 

[Incubes12]

Yep.

They talk about how one of the biggest problems with not having much of a run game is how it affects your defense. The fact that they don't get to practice against a strong running back can mean that they get gushed the minute they face a strong runner, they aren't used to bringing him down, or reading him and aren't very good at reading the run once one is called.

They go on to bring up the fact that opposing defenses don't need to worry about playing the run, so it makes it more difficult to air it out.

However, I should point out that from the start, they claim that a team like the Packers can make it work and win playoff games (and possibly a SB) with what we have. That's reassuring, to say the least.

 

[Powarun]

How they started it was so they can root for both sides and say i told you so. Honestly it was a pointless conversation because everything they said at the start was to make exceptions for the Packers so if they do well they were right, and then the meat of the argument was so if the Packers don't do well they told you so.

 

[DergaSmash]

I think that Green Bay should run more counters, traps, and misdirection type running plays. Jackson and Nance both have decent vision which is the number one ability to have when running those kinds of plays. They also take advantage of aggressive defenses that tend to over-persue. The Vikings, Bears, Giants, Eagles, and Saints all run defenses where the front seven attack with speed and athleticism. Counter and misdirection running plays take advantage of this and allow the back cutback to the void left by the defense's movement to fake. Its sort of like play-action with a run instead of a pass. These types of runs also slow down the pass rush. After a back cuts back and runs past a defensive end a few times because that end went too far upfield trying to rush the passer, it forces them to slow down and read their keys instead of simply attacking the quarterback on every down. Yet I also think that getting one of the back-up offensive lineman to line up as a fullback with Kuhn as the halfback would be a good choice for short yardage. Not to mention running little play-action flat type passes to the tight end or single wide out from that formation would also probably work.

 

[Incubes12]

How they started it was so they can root for both sides and say i told you so. Honestly it was a pointless conversation because everything they said at the start was to make exceptions for the Packers so if they do well they were right, and then the meat of the argument was so if the Packers don't do well they told you so.

That's a classic NFL analyst for you though. They have to keep their jobs somehow.

I brought it up solely for the sake of how they discuss how it affects our defense. It's just something I had never thought about before and was curious how everyone else interprets it.

Personally, I don't think it should, practically, have any affect on how we line up against the run. It's not like our defenders haven't played AP, Best, and Forte before. On top of that, a lack of practice against a strong RB isn't going to affect how we line up against a RB that we don't normally see, like Turner. They've played football all their lives, they should know how to read and bring down an opposing RB, regardless of skill.

 

[longtimefan]

Yep.

They talk about how one of the biggest problems with not having much of a run game is how it affects your defense. The fact that they don't get to practice against a strong running back can mean that they get gushed the minute they face a strong runner, they aren't used to bringing him down, or reading him and aren't very good at reading the run once one is called.

They go on to bring up the fact that opposing defenses don't need to worry about playing the run, so it makes it more difficult to air it out.

However, I should point out that from the start, they claim that a team like the Packers can make it work and win playoff games (and possibly a SB) with what we have. That's reassuring, to say the least.

I thought scout teams went against the D in practices?

 

[turbo69]

Not sure if this was in one of the million posts prior to this one but here is a point I would like to make. What happens around the third quarter when a team starts kicking another teams *** by we will say 21 points or so? They start running the ball more to eat up the clock. I am not saying that is the case all the time.......but it does happen alot.

Everyone knows our Left tackle pass blocks pretty well. We also know he can't run block worth squat. He needs to be replaced with a guy who can do it all. He doesn't have to totally dominate (although it would be nice) but just do a above average job doing both. Replace College too and we will get better running the football. For years the Denver Broncos had average running backs (T. Davis) and the offensive line just did a good job which opened up holes for them to run through. Anyhow........if the Packer organization is cloning B. Sanders somewhere in a basement in Greenbay, we will be ok when they are done. If not, we better get a left tackle that can run block and another OG that can knock some defensive lineman and linebackers on their backside.

 

[ivo610]

I would expect a response from the RBs against SF but with the 6th best rushing D and the 18th best passing D I expect them to focus on exploiting that.

 

[DergaSmash]

I'm with you Turbo. I stated in a thread about next years draft that I think an offensive lineman with a killer instinct would do more for our run game than a big name running back would. Ryan Grant has been awesome with the offensive line we do have up until he got hurt. I think that an upgrade at one or two positions on the offensive line would make the running game beastly.

 

[SpartaChris]

I like the 5 wide idea. We should run a Texas Tech style Air Raid offense. Throw 50 or 60 times a game. Use short passes like a de facto running game.

That's what we did in 2007 with our 5 wide sets until Grant was ready. Worked pretty damn well. No reason we can't do it now.

 

[Kitten]

Hey MM, enough with the trick plays, run the dang ball! Run the dang ball! RUN IT!!!!!!!!!

 

[SpartaChris]

I'm with you Turbo. I stated in a thread about next years draft that I think an offensive lineman with a killer instinct would do more for our run game than a big name running back would. Ryan Grant has been awesome with the offensive line we do have up until he got hurt. I think that an upgrade at one or two positions on the offensive line would make the running game beastly.

I agree. Our offensive line was, well, offensive in this past game. You can blame Jackson for dancing around all you want, but there's no reason why he should ever be in a position where he can get tackled for a loss, yet that's what happened. Any running back is going to struggle when they're constantly dodging 3 guys in the backfield.

We have plenty of skill players. I would go O-Line again in the first round followed by another in the second. Focus on the defense in the next couple rounds.

 

[SpartaChris]

One other note mentioned in the video was a comment by Cris Collinsworth saying that you really just need some form of a running game in order to win in the playoffs. We have that. It's not great, but when all systems are functioning properly, it's good enough to keep defenses honest.

 

[longtimefan]

2008 SB winner Steelers ranked 23rd in rushing yards
3.7 yards per carry which was ranked 29th
Defense was 1st with points allowed..

2006 SB winner Colts Ranked 18th in rushing yards
4.0 yards per carry which was ranked 16th
Defense ranked 23rd in points allowed..




Right now Packers are ranked 23rd in rushing yards
4.0 yards per carry is 11th ranked
Defense is #1 in points allowed

 

[DevilDon]

Does anybody remember the Packers holding Barry Sanders to minus yardage in a game? I think the point is, even a superstar back has to get some openings to be effective.
Adrian Petersen doesn't get 5 yard per carry on every carry. He'll get 1 or 2 or nothing and then pull one for 18. Ryan Grant was as good as he was because he rarely had minus yardage. He was decisive and powerful. He is the type of running back our team needs.
BTW, I noticed some people referring to Starks as a 5th rounder and not expecting much. He would never have lasted that long had he played his final year at Buffalo. He's similar to Ryan Grant, one cut power and some quick and hips to him. At least that's what scouts have said. I expect he will begin to see some touches and we might all be okay from here on out.
I think the Packers haven't chased someone else's throwaways because they are high on this kid. Personally, I thought he and CJ Wilson were the Packers steals of the draft based on what scouts had to say about them. Also, Starks is a great receiver, a nice way to attack those aggressive defenses. A little flip to the flat and he's into the secondary. Also played high school QB so a possible Wild Cat play or two in the playoffs.
I'd be so crazy happy if the Packers get a chance to draft Gabe Carimi. Will probably rise up board too high for us, but one can hope.
Tough loss, but I believe we're obviously headed in the right direction.

 

[longtimefan]

Ya know....I think the OL for most part is fine..

Last few games I have noticed Bjax not making the right cut, or if he did make the right cut he was just to slow

I have said that he is just okay and nothing special..But for those blaming the OL I think should re-watch some of the runs...And see if you notice him not making right cut or not fast enough to hit the hole that is there

 

[DevilDon]

Ya know....I think the OL for most part is fine..

Last few games I have noticed Bjax not making the right cut, or if he did make the right cut he was just to slow

I have said that he is just okay and nothing special..But for those blaming the OL I think should re-watch some of the runs...And see if you notice him not making right cut or not fast enough to hit the hole that is there

He's hesitant longtimefan, no question, but that's based on he's not seeing the hole. It wasn't there in this game, they were really sharp on filling gaps. That's my opinion, I'm not a BJax lover by any sort but I really never saw the opportunities for him.
Remember the Packers holding Barry Sanders to minus yards? They just never gave him a hole. I think Atlanta did well with filling gaps inside. We saw that draws worked later, I wish we had spread them out first and then went to draws and screens and maybe a trap or power run or even reverse.
I'm so excited about this game because I think we will see new stuff against San Fran's defense. I'm excited to see what the Packers have.

 

[PFanCan]

The Packer's running game is definitely lacking. No debate from me.

However, if we could magically have any one player currently on IR healthy and ready to play today, I wouldn't select Grant. I would go with Finley.

Go figure.

 

[GreenGoldAngel]

I will say that the o-line does an ok job in pass protection...but then I think of all the times A-Rod is flushed out of the pocket and has to throw on the run. I mean he is our leading rusher against the Falcons? Why do I sweat whenever it is third and two or third and one? If our o-line was so good, where the heck is the screen pass Green Bay was so good at? I don't know the answers, just thinking out loud.

 

[Archangel]

What will we Do????

Hello fellow Packers fan, I'm just joining the forum and this is my first thread/post.

We are such a good team, but we are one dimensional.
We have no ground game, so what will we do?

I strongly think we lost to Atlanta because our lack of run, I'm sure some of you would agree.
I think we have other needs, bur I also think we should draft a running back, in that back is Noel Devine, we can get him in the 2nd or early 3rd.
Reason why I say this, is because we rely on Aaron "The Great" arm to much, us not having a back hurts us in the long run, both not and in the future. I don't think Grant will be much of a good back. :happy0005:

 

[GreenGoldAngel]

It is a tough question. Is the running game poor because we don't have a good running back? Or is the running game poor because the O-line is not very good?

BTW, thanks for starting a thread.

I went to a Michigan-Northwestern game in Ann Arbor once.

*nice signature*