1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!
    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers.

    You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Create an Account or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member! Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!

You think our running game is the problem?

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by Packerfury, Sep 30, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Packerfury
    Offline

    Packerfury Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2009
    Messages:
    125
    Ratings Received:
    +18 / 0 / -0
    I know these forums are running rampant with trade rumors and how we need a running game SOOOO bad, but our running game had very little to do with us losing guys. What is the advantage of a running game? Well, it keeps defenses in pass only defense mode, ya, but did that really hurt Rodgers at all? But, you know what else playing the pass does? It opens up the short pass. Did you see how far off the safeties and corners were? And Rodgers picked on that all night. So many short passes all over the field is essesntially the same as having a running game. The short pass sets up the pass as well as a running game does.

    And Rodgers capitalized on what the defense gave him and had the best game of the year so far. He completed over 75% of his passes and eclipsed 300 yards. And I don't wanna hear someone point out the pick. That doesn't really count as a minus. He just threw it up in the air and prayed.

    "But, but that still doesn't solve the fact that when you run you control the clock!" Oh, contrar my friends. We controled the clock for 11 minutes longer than the bears did.

    Point is, the fact that we threw so much had very little to do with us losing. We just had too many penalties, and of course, the fumble James Jones will have nightmares about. It is not our running game that needs to be fixed. We just need a better right tackle who can protect rodgers without trying to tackle and hold a guy, and not so many penalties. And we would have killed that team.
  2. NelsonsLongCatch
    Offline

    NelsonsLongCatch Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Messages:
    2,096
    Location:
    Chi-Town
    Ratings Received:
    +567 / 31 / -20
    I love when people skew the facts to fit their POV.

    Let's see... Reasons for greater time of possession...

    1) Bears scored on a punt return
    2) Bears first TD was scored on a short field due to horrible special teams
    3) Bears game tying FG was scored on a short field due to the fumble + 30 yards of penalties
    4) Bears game winning FG was scored on a short field due to the pass interference penalty

    The Bears had a short field and quick scores all night long.

    Once again, nobody is calling for a "top tier, blow-em out of the water running game". We just want better than 8 yards in the first half.
  3. PackersRS
    Offline

    PackersRS Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2008
    Messages:
    8,471
    Location:
    Porto Alegre, Brazil
    Ratings Received:
    +979 / 0 / -0
    It's A problem IMHO.

    but not THE problem. Certainly not the reason we lost. Penalties were. And ST.
  4. PackersRS
    Offline

    PackersRS Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2008
    Messages:
    8,471
    Location:
    Porto Alegre, Brazil
    Ratings Received:
    +979 / 0 / -0
    You can list reasons all you want, but 11 minutes of differential means the running game wasn't a problem. The PA passes were working also.

    Problem is when you get to their endzone and penalty your way out of it, having to convert consistantly 2 and 20 and so on...
  5. turbo69
    Offline

    turbo69 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2010
    Messages:
    702
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings Received:
    +41 / 0 / -0
    We lost because of the Special Teams and Penalties. BUT.......a running game would be nice! Don't ya think?
  6. NelsonsLongCatch
    Offline

    NelsonsLongCatch Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Messages:
    2,096
    Location:
    Chi-Town
    Ratings Received:
    +567 / 31 / -20
    I think we're saying the same thing here. Time of possession had a lot to do with the Bears quick scores and excellent field position rather than the running game.

    Still, the running game is God-awful. I would love to see a vast improvement.
  7. packerbob
    Offline

    packerbob Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2009
    Messages:
    130
    Ratings Received:
    +10 / 0 / -0
    The lack of a running game is a problem. When your a one dimentional offense then you never have the defense off balance. They can just tee off on the quarterback. The bigger problem will come in Nov, Dec and Jan. when the field and football are frozen. It's hard to throw and catch a frozen football. Also forgot to mention the wind. The Packers are perceived to be a playoff team and hope to get home field advantage in the playoffs. If that should happen all of a sudden the conditions quite possible will effect what we do best, passing the football. At that point with no running game we're screwed. A lot of people like to mention that the Saints and Colts didn't have much of a running game last year and both went to the Super bowl. The difference there is they both had home field in the playoffs(Dome stadiums) which is tailor made for a pass happy offense. Lambeau Field in the winter is quite a different animal.
  8. NelsonsLongCatch
    Offline

    NelsonsLongCatch Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Messages:
    2,096
    Location:
    Chi-Town
    Ratings Received:
    +567 / 31 / -20
    yes
  9. PackisBack
    Offline

    PackisBack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2010
    Messages:
    102
    Ratings Received:
    +13 / 0 / -0
    The biggest thing that a running game would provide is some relief on the tackles. The way DEs rush the quarterback and play the run are two VERY different play styles, and most of the holding penalties were caused by Chicago's DEs (Peppers really) being able to put their (his) head(s) down and rush every down as if it were a passing down.

    Better run game = less holding penalties on pass plays. That's the biggest improvement it would bring to our team. All the others stuff (clock control, etc.) are just nice side benefits.

    That being said, I would personally pay money out of my pocket to bring DeAngelo Williams to GB
  10. SpartaChris
    Offline

    SpartaChris Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    3,036
    Ratings Received:
    +944 / 25 / -9
    I seem to remember Rodgers leading at least one 9 minute drive that should have gone for a TD but instead we penalized our way out into a field goal attempt. I also remember some pretty good 6 and 7 minute drives.

    All that without a run game.

    BTW, the Cowboys and Lions have much better run games than we do and did nothing against the Bears either.

    I think the topic is dead now.
  11. Packerfury
    Offline

    Packerfury Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2009
    Messages:
    125
    Ratings Received:
    +18 / 0 / -0
    I didn't skew the facts. I gave them to you straight up. Time is time regardless of what happened. Your the one skewing the facts for yourself. Okay guys, you want some startling numbers that football purists are scared to view.

    2009 top 5 passing teams:
    Texans (30 in rushing), Colts (32), Pats(12), Saints (6), Chargers(31)

    overall record: 59-21

    2009 top 5 rushing teams:
    NYJ, Titans, PAnthers, Dolphins, Ravens

    overall record: 42-38

    2009 bottom 5 teams in rushing:
    cardinals, Bears, Texans, Chargers, Colts

    4 out of 5 a winning record. 3 out of 5 make playoffs.

    overall record: 52-28

    Over the last 2 years, a team that has been bottom 5 in rushing has made it to the superbowl, albeit, they lost. But still. It shows you which way this league is headed.

    When the saints won the superbowl, offensively, they called 39 pass plays, and 17 running plays. Such a balanced attack they utilized in that game. And guess what, they won the time of possession battle even though they ran the ball less than the colts.


    In fact, they never threw less than 30 times in the playoffs. And the only time they ran a lot was when they smashed the cards so bad, they were just trying to run out the clock pretty much the entire 2nd half.


    
Open your eyes guys. A running game simply is just not necessary anymore.
    It’s nice, but not needed.

    USE THE SHORT PASS TO SET UP THE PASS! It works just as well. It’s how the niners maintained a dynasty. It works.
  12. Mr. StyleZ
    Offline

    Mr. StyleZ Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    1,760
    Location:
    Mayville, WI
    Ratings Received:
    +375 / 5 / -0
    No one mentions that the Packers play in Green Bay huh?

    No dome over our heads, well-below freezing temps come December and January (playoffs).

    I'm sorry but you must have some sort of ground game in bad weather. The Saints and Colts have the benefit of domes..
  13. Mr. StyleZ
    Offline

    Mr. StyleZ Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    1,760
    Location:
    Mayville, WI
    Ratings Received:
    +375 / 5 / -0
    Some people here don't understand that. Don't waste your time explaining.. seriously.
  14. SpartaChris
    Offline

    SpartaChris Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    3,036
    Ratings Received:
    +944 / 25 / -9
    Tell that to the 2008 Super Bowl Champion Pittsburgh Steelers, who were #23 in rushing.

    Or the 2009 NY Jets. #1 in rushing, no Super Bowl.

    Fact is you don't need a superior ground game anymore. Hell, you don't even need a mediocre one. Not in today's NFL.

    As for "running out the clock," again I'll point to Rodgers' 9 minute drive against the Bears. If that's not chewing up copious amounts of clock time, I dunno what is.
  15. Packerfury
    Offline

    Packerfury Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2009
    Messages:
    125
    Ratings Received:
    +18 / 0 / -0
    Thank you, someone gets it. It doesn't matter as much anymore.

    2002 buccaneers 27st in rushing
    2003 patriots 27th in rushing
    2006 colts 18 in rushing
    2008 steelers 23rd in rushing (they don't play in a dome)
    2000 st louis rams 17th in rushing

    Other than poor running attacks, you know what all of these teams have in common, rings.
    5 of the last 10 sb winners didn't have a great running game. Mediocre at best.

    A running game IS NOT necessary anymore. How can you not see that? Is it nice? is it cool? ya, yay, we can run the ball. It's nice, but just doesn't matter anymore. Be real.
  16. PackisBack
    Offline

    PackisBack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2010
    Messages:
    102
    Ratings Received:
    +13 / 0 / -0
    I get what you're all saying, but all those teams had pro bowl pass blockers on the line too. They could handle the DEs coming at them every down better than Clifton and Tauscher can. We need some kind of running game to lessen the pressure on our non pro-bowl pass protection and maybe we wont get a hundred false starts and holding penalties. It would just make our passing game that much better.
  17. Chop0Suey
    Offline

    Chop0Suey Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2010
    Messages:
    89
    Location:
    San Diego
    Ratings Received:
    +16 / 1 / -0
    Packer Fan Since:
    1996
    Not to mention all of those teams had, at the least, a starting caliber back. We don't even have that. BJax is clearly nothing more than a 3rd down back, and Kuhn is a FULLBACK. I don't think we need a back like DWill or Lynch, but we do need someone who can pick up more than 20 yards on the ground, or has some sort of breakaway potential.
  18. DergaSmash
    Offline

    DergaSmash Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Messages:
    412
    Location:
    Fort Campbell
    Ratings Received:
    +20 / 0 / -0
    I think it also is a bit of a gamble to be without a running back. Less rushes=more passes. More passes=more hits/hurries/sacks. More hits/hurries/sacks= increased chances of injury. Yeah, Rodgers was pummled for much of last season and came through it ok, yet I don't think he should have to do that every year. A decent, not good, but decent running game keeps defenses honest and slows down the pass rush as the pass rushers have to play run defense. Sure a lot of SB winning teams don't lead the league in rushing but their running game was still good enough to keep defenses honest. I think a decent running game would do a great deal in keeping Rodgers upright.
  19. packerfan4ever
    Offline

    packerfan4ever Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2005
    Messages:
    1,038
    Location:
    wisconsin
    Ratings Received:
    +47 / 4 / -0
    just keep moving the chains 2 yards some times 5 cant always hit the big ones hope sunday is a big day for us.
  20. Veretax
    Offline

    Veretax Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    596
    Ratings Received:
    +6 / 0 / -0
    Hi, long time since I posted here, but I thought I'd add my two cents. It all comes down to the big uglies on the OL. If we block better on runs, we start to wear out their DL. Yes we do a lot of short slants, screens etc that can in pinch do just like a run, but, so many of the problems on this team the last two years has been the OL.

    The problem is I don't think its fixed until you get a new Stud LT and a Solid RT to replace who we have. We may have a long year ahead of us depending on how we continue to hold out on the OL. Personally I think we should invest a high pick or two in OL next year. our RBs are probably okay, if we just had better blocking on the edges on passes, and up the gut on runs.
  21. PackerMX
    Offline

    PackerMX Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2010
    Messages:
    10
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    This is what Jay Glazer (FOX Analyst) think about Packers running game... asked in twitter:

    • " @Jay_Glazer Hi Jay... do you think Packers have a RB's issue or O-Line issue?"
    • Jay Glazer " @enaplito I think they have both, although Rodgers will get it out faster as yr goes on and that should help with protection."
  22. PackerMX
    Offline

    PackerMX Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2010
    Messages:
    10
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    One more from Jay Glazer via Twitter:
    Question:

    • ricky


      kinda early but superbowl picks?
    Answer:

    • Jay Glazer @ricky Jets and... either Pack or Saints.
  23. longtimefan
    Offline

    longtimefan Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2005
    Messages:
    15,605
    Location:
    Milwaukee
    Ratings Received:
    +2,517 / 76 / -14
    Packer Fan Since:
    1975
    should be trade rumors with the pack and bills/panthers
  24. NelsonsLongCatch
    Offline

    NelsonsLongCatch Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Messages:
    2,096
    Location:
    Chi-Town
    Ratings Received:
    +567 / 31 / -20
    :suicide_fool-edit:
  25. NelsonsLongCatch
    Offline

    NelsonsLongCatch Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Messages:
    2,096
    Location:
    Chi-Town
    Ratings Received:
    +567 / 31 / -20
    WOW, a poster with common sense... THANK YOU

    Saints, Colts and Texans have domes. No need to worry about wind, rain or snow effecting the pass game there.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page