A Week 5 Tally On Off-Season Themes

[Sunshinepacker]

We ran much better late in the season and in the playoffs. We didn't do that in 2011 and the result wasn't the same.

Let's look game-by-game at weeks 16 through SuperBowl (chose week 16 because that's when Rodgers came back)

Wk 16 against Giants - 119 rushing yards, 26 by Rodgers. RBs averaged 2.82 yards/carry
Wk 17 against Bears - 60 rushing yards, 21 by Rodgers. RBs averaged 2.44 yards/carry
Wildcard @ Eagles - 138 rushing yards, 4 by Rodgers. RBs average 4.6 yards/carry
Divisional @ Falcons - 96 rushing yards, 13 by Rodgers. RBs averaged 3.0 yards/carry
Conf Champ @ Bears - 120 yards rushing, 39 by Rodgers. RBs 3.24 yards/carry
Superbowl against Steelers - 50 yards rushing, -2 by Rodgers. RBs 4.7 yards/carry


I see two good rushing games in there and 4 poor rushing games. How did our running game improve? All I'm seeing is that our defense was good enough that we could stick with a low-efficiency running game.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Even taking what you say at face value, there's not much support for the contention that the Packers are bigger and more physical than last season. Let's step away from "face value" for the moment.

As much as I like McGinn's work, he is wrong about 6'4", 290 lb. being a prototypical 3-4 DE. That's on the very low end of the scale. There are few of the breed who go under 300 lbs. based on the weights listed at ESPN.com. With Matthews injured, Neal's time at DT in nickel may be over. Otherwise, Jones/Neal are probably the smallest pair of interior nickel rush men in the league when they actually play there.

Hyde was listed at 6'0", 197 lbs. I would not call that above average for a nickel back.

This team a long way from physical, and not any more than last year once you look past Lacy.

In 2010 we had Jenkins, Bishop, Collins, Woodson (before his shoulder injury) and Williams (before his shoulder injury)...we do not have guys now who bring equivalent physicality to their positions, and THAT 2010 team was regarded as more finesse than physical.

If the D looks more physical I'd say it's being confused with "more coherent".

Jones' size this year doesn't matter. You draft a guy because of what he can do as he develops. Justin Smith was 6'4" and 261 lbs when drafted. He turned into a somewhat decent 3-4DE I believe.

 

[HyponGrey]

Our Nickel line probably now looks something like: Perry-Jones-Daniels-Neal

 

[GoPGo]

Let's look game-by-game at weeks 16 through SuperBowl (chose week 16 because that's when Rodgers came back)

Wk 16 against Giants - 119 rushing yards, 26 by Rodgers. RBs averaged 2.82 yards/carry
Wk 17 against Bears - 60 rushing yards, 21 by Rodgers. RBs averaged 2.44 yards/carry
Wildcard @ Eagles - 138 rushing yards, 4 by Rodgers. RBs average 4.6 yards/carry
Divisional @ Falcons - 96 rushing yards, 13 by Rodgers. RBs averaged 3.0 yards/carry
Conf Champ @ Bears - 120 yards rushing, 39 by Rodgers. RBs 3.24 yards/carry
Superbowl against Steelers - 50 yards rushing, -2 by Rodgers. RBs 4.7 yards/carry


I see two good rushing games in there and 4 poor rushing games. How did our running game improve? All I'm seeing is that our defense was good enough that we could stick with a low-efficiency running game.

Okay. Sure. Running the ball doesn't matter in football. Let's put that one to a vote, eh?

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Okay. Sure. Running the ball doesn't matter in football. Let's put that one to a vote, eh?

Roll your digital eyes all you want, I'm just curious where the evidence is that a run game is integral to a successful offense. Instead of parroting a cliche that may no longer be true, offer some evidence that a running game matters. A running game may have mattered in the past but with the advent of the timing passing game, passes like a short swing pass are an excellent substitute for a run game.

 

[12theTruth]

Having a running game where you can reliably get a yard on the ground during 3rd and 4th and short opportunities would be enough for this offense run by McCarthy and piloted by Aaron Rodgers.

Having an every down back that can fight for and fall forward for a yard or two extra helps immensely.

A great article in todays Journal Sentinel details some offensive line blocking changes that were implemented in the offseason. Defenses were used to predictability from Clements, Campen, and Co... this season the defenses so far are on their heels a bit. Can the Packers continue to produce eye popping rushing totals? Will the defenses adapt and once again expose individual deficiencies of certain lineman?

Offensive efficiency will have to improve markedly this Sunday to pull out the win. Rodgers and Co. only 1 offensive TD last week despite rolling up gobs of yards.

 

[GoPGo]

Roll your digital eyes all you want, I'm just curious where the evidence is that a run game is integral to a successful offense. Instead of parroting a cliche that may no longer be true, offer some evidence that a running game matters. A running game may have mattered in the past but with the advent of the timing passing game, passes like a short swing pass are an excellent substitute for a run game.

I already did and you brushed it off, hence the eye-rolling. I already pointed to the 2011 Packers and you can include the 2007 Patriots. This is so fundamental it's ridiculous to even be talking about it. Without any running game defenses would either go blitz happy and kill your quarterback or they would drop 8 men into coverage and leave very few open receivers. Without a running game, you can't kill the clock when you need to in the 4th quarter. Without a running game, defenses figure you out pretty quickly. Without a running game, 3 and 1 is no different than 3rd and 5. Ask ANY football coach on any level and they will all tell you the ability to run the ball is important. Even guys like Mike Martz will tell you that.

 

[GoPGo]

Offensive efficiency will have to improve markedly this Sunday to pull out the win. Rodgers and Co. only 1 offensive TD last week despite rolling up gobs of yards.

Fluke game. I really don't see that happening again this season... or next.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I already did and you brushed it off, hence the eye-rolling. I already pointed to the 2011 Packers and you can include the 2007 Patriots. This is so fundamental it's ridiculous to even be talking about it. Without any running game defenses would either go blitz happy and kill your quarterback or they would drop 8 men into coverage and leave very few open receivers. Without a running game, you can't kill the clock when you need to in the 4th quarter. Without a running game, defenses figure you out pretty quickly. Without a running game, 3 and 1 is no different than 3rd and 5. Ask ANY football coach on any level and they will all tell you the ability to run the ball is important. Even guys like Mike Martz will tell you that.

None of your examples showed that a strong run game is integral to winning a title. They simply show that it doesn't hurt. As I showed with recent examples, of the last five Super bowl winners, only ONE had a strong running game. Sarcastic smiley faces don't eliminate the fact that recent teams with poor run games have in fact one it all.

You don't a power run game to get third and one. Modern offenses can use the passing game to make up for a weak run game.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Fluke game. I really don't see that happening again this season... or next.

That should be the working assumption. Several years of proficiency should be weighed heavily over one game. Like I said before, had Taylor not dropped that seam ball and had Jones not stepped out in the end zone, it would have been 3 TDs, not 1, and we'd likely not be having this discussion.

 

[GoPGo]

None of your examples showed that a strong run game is integral to winning a title. They simply show that it doesn't hurt. As I showed with recent examples, of the last five Super bowl winners, only ONE had a strong running game. Sarcastic smiley faces don't eliminate the fact that recent teams with poor run games have in fact one it all.

They one(sic) it all? You don't have to have 100+ yards and 4+ yards per carry to have an effective running game. Often teams will try to shut down that run and do so effectively only to give up huge passing yards. If you don't have that running threat at all, then it makes it easy for defenses. You have to make defenses pick their poison or it's game over. This is Football 101 stuff.

You don't a power run game to get third and one. Modern offenses can use the passing game to make up for a weak run game.

You CANNOT run out the clock without a running game. It hasn't worked for the Packers, Patriots or Saints or anyone else for that matter. If you fail to pick up the yard running the ball on third down, you can still take 40 seconds off the clock. If you thrown an incomplete pass, you can't. Then you put more pressure on your defense. Why do you think so many teams climbed back into the game in the 4th quarter against us in the past?

Sorry, but you're not the great pioneer of forward thinking that you seem to think you are. Mike Martz already tried dismissing his running game entirely and even he wised up eventually.

We won the Super Bowl because James Starks came on strong late in the season and forced defenses to respect our running game enough to open up the rest of the offense. We failed to get to the Super Bowl the following year in large part because nobody stepped up in that role.

Oh yeah... almost forgot:

 

[GoPGo]

That should be the working assumption. Several years of proficiency should be weighed heavily over one game. Like I said before, had Taylor not dropped that seam ball and had Jones not stepped out in the end zone, it would have been 3 TDs, not 1, and we'd likely not be having this discussion.

I still don't think the evidence to overturn Jones' TD was "clear and irrefutable." That toe was awfully close to being down. It think you would have needed high-speed video to overturn it, but what are you going to do. Packers seem to

I don't know what the F*CK "pro football focus" is looking at but they better "focus" better when watching. I have been watching closely, along with 2 of my good friends who come over for game day. Every time he has a "drop" or when he let that one slip right through his hands and go for an INT ....... we all yell " we just got Fin F*ucked". So far, we have yelled that 3 times. So pro football focus is a damn joke.

I've only seen one drop. I don't count when a defender gets a hand on the ball or when a guy comes and nails the receiver in the head the same time the ball gets there. A successfully defended pass isn't the same as a dropped pass.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I still think the evidence to overturn Jones' TD was "clear and irrefutable." That toe was awfully close to being down. It think you would have needed high-speed video to overturn it, but what are you going to do. Packers have had all the worst officiating crews so far this year. I doubt Mike Carey would have overturned it.

Oh, I have little doubt he was out of bounds. That wasn't my point. It was a matter of two little bits of execution...catching a wide open pass, getting a second foot in bounds were the difference in having this discussion or not. That goes to your point of it being a "fluke".

Your point about the Finley "drops" is well taken. If there is coincident contact, or contact on the arms on the follow-through to the "football move", making the catch is a +1, but missing it is not a -1, it's a zero.

 

[GoPGo]

Oh, I have little doubt he was out of bounds. That wasn't my point. It was a matter of two little bits of execution...catching a wide open pass, getting a second foot in bounds were the difference in having this discussion or not. That goes to your point of it being a "fluke".

Yeah I know. I was just saying the actual evidence to overturn it was flaky at best.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Jones' size this year doesn't matter. You draft a guy because of what he can do as he develops. Justin Smith was 6'4" and 261 lbs when drafted. He turned into a somewhat decent 3-4DE I believe.

I'm sure there are examples to be found to support your point, which would be anecdotal in any event, but I don't think Justin Smith is one of them.

The Bengals took Smith with the #4 pick in the first round in 2001 as a junior. That's not a developmental pick...that's picking a guy you expect to have rookie impact, which he did. His Combine weight was 267, not 261, which is not out of the ordinary for a 4-3 DE. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the position he played in college and initially with the Bengals?

That he eventually grew to 300 lbs. and into being a stud 3-4 DE/DT was not a developmental breakthrough...it was a case of an outstanding NFL football player gaining weight over the years and thereby becoming even more outstanding at a different position. This is rare.

Jones may or may not gain size and strength in time and he may or may not learn the necessary techniques to play roles unfamiliar to him in college. The fact remains that your odds are better with a plug-and-play #4 pick like Justin Smith than with a developmental guy like Jones, and there's no waiting for the payoff. Picking 25 or 30 repeatedly vs. top 10 is a clear handicap. Over a decade it's bound to erode your chances of accumulating the necessary core of play makers...without going into the FA market which has its own considerable risks.

 

[GoPGo]

However, you need a running game situationally to run out the clock, win on windy/cold days, etc. Essentially, a run game needs to be effective when you need it but need not be established and displayed all of the time in order to win.

And today was a perfect example. We needed it and I'm pretty sure we don't win this one without a running game.

It's great to see a flourishing running attack in Green Bay once again. I actually look forward to the next running play now

 

[P-E-Z]

Roll your digital eyes all you want, I'm just curious where the evidence is that a run game is integral to a successful offense. Instead of parroting a cliche that may no longer be true, offer some evidence that a running game matters. A running game may have mattered in the past but with the advent of the timing passing game, passes like a short swing pass are an excellent substitute for a run game.

Without a decent running game the play action pass is pretty useless. Those are often the plays burn teams for long gainers. If you can't run you become one dimensional and jail break pass rush starts coming at ya. Plus we play more than 1/2 our games out doors. Weather can be a massive factor if you high winds, heavy rain or snow. A pass happy can be useless or even result in turn overs. It seems obvious the Packers organization know the run game important. We drafted 2 running backs.

 

[P-E-Z]

And today was a perfect example. We needed it and I'm pretty sure we don't win this one without a running game.

It's great to see a flourishing running attack in Green Bay once again. I actually look forward to the next running play now

We got one of our TD off a play action pass. You a real running threat to make those work. The lost Ravens because only ran for 47 yards.

 

[GoPGo]

We got one of our TD off a play action pass. You a real running threat to make those work. The lost Ravens because only ran for 47 yards.

When was the last time our rushing offense and rushing defense were both this good? 2003?

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Without a decent running game the play action pass is pretty useless. Those are often the plays burn teams for long gainers. If you can't run you become one dimensional and jail break pass rush starts coming at ya. Plus we play more than 1/2 our games out doors. Weather can be a massive factor if you high winds, heavy rain or snow. A pass happy can be useless or even result in turn overs. It seems obvious the Packers organization know the run game important. We drafted 2 running backs.

Terrific talking points. Where is the data that shows that any of that matters for a modern day championship team? Again, only one of the last five Super Bowl winners has actually sported a good running game; that's actual data which shows it must not be that important.

 

[GoPGo]

Terrific talking points. Where is the data that shows that any of that matters for a modern day championship team? Again, only one of the last five Super Bowl winners has actually sported a good running game; that's actual data which shows it must not be that important.

It's over. Move on. Plenty of other moronic claims to be made out there.

I know. You could formulate an argument about how defending against the run is futile and meaningless... you know, since running the ball is pointless and all.

 

[P-E-Z]

Ravens almost 1800 rushing yards, Giants 1427 yards, Packers 1606 yards, Saints 2106 yards, Steeler 1690 yards, Giants 2148 yards (Jacobs over 1000) , Colts 1762 yard (Addai over 1000) Steelers 2223 yards (Parker over 1000), Patriots 2134 (Dillion of 1500), Patriots 1606 yards, Tampa 1550 yards, Patriots 1793 (Smith over 1000) There is no pattern here other than sometimes its running back by committee as opposed to a single high number back. So which Super Bowl did not have a credible running game. Only 2 of those teams had less than 100 yards per game rushing.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

It's over. Move on. Plenty of other moronic claims to be made out there.

I know. You could formulate an argument about how defending against the run is futile and meaningless... you know, since running the ball is pointless and all.

No, you couldn't formulate an argument to that since I don't think a recent team has won the title with the worst defense in the NFL. However, a team HAS recently won the title with the worst running game in the NFL. Please, tell me how actual facts are moronic? If you can't prove the point so be it, but don't try to deflect the entire argument with some odd comment about running defense.

 

[Bus Cook]

So if you can't PROVE that a running game is important, then its not? Can you prove that a running game is NOT important.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

So if you can't PROVE that a running game is important, then its not? Can you prove that a running game is NOT important.

Yeah, just look at the last 5 title winners. Only one had a good rushing attack (New Orleans) and the 2011 Giants actually ranked 32nd in yards per game and 32nd in yards per rush. How important could a good, reliable running game really be if the team that's worst at it in the entire NFL can still win a title?