An Open Letter

[HardRightEdge]

When we get down to brass tacks, there are only a few things one needs to take away from the Philly game:

1. 35:23 time of possession
2. 10-14 3rd. down conversions, 1-1 on 4th. down
3. no turnovers
4. 3 of 5 red zone TD conversions
5. 7 opponent offensive possessions (vs. a fairly typical 10 or 11 in the NFL)
6. The opponents starting positions on those 7 possessions were their own 19, 14, 1, 25, 25, 25, 13

This is the formula for winning with this team as currently constituted. Control the ball, move the ball, don't turn the ball over, win field position. Work to the red zone where Rodgers has a good chance of converting. Burn the clock, keep the D off the field, limit the opponents scoring opportunities, and when they do get the ball make them go the length of the field.

This is the only shot this team has of stringing some wins together.

This has been abundantly obvious since the second half of the Dallas game. And when they've employed it, Rodgers has been stellar given the ineffective run game. Take that yards per attempt stat and shove it.

When they run 4 deep looking for the 50 yard strike, with Rodgers holding or scrambling, it's been a hot mess. Watching that repeatedly series after series, sometimes play after play, hurts the eyes and the heart. Give it up. Toto, we're not in 2011 anymore. When the opponent presents a man mismatch on second down, take the shot selectively, and it need not be for the 50 yard deep strike as we saw this past week.

The ol' 2nd. and long deep shot followed by the 3rd. and long deep shot has blown an ACL and should be put on IR for the remainder of the season.

Don't be a dead ender. Embrace what works.

 

[adambr2]

Funny thing is, we stunk at running the ball yesterday -- yet , it was probably our best game of the season.

Having a running game is overrated. I know that's sacreligious to say about football, but I believe it. Is it nice to have? Of course it is. Anything football related that you can do really well, is going to help you. Do you need it to win a championship? Nah.

Probably one of the most frustrating things to watch in an NFL offense is a coach who says, 'By God, we are going to run the football hell or high water because that is what good teams are supposed to do.' Well, we don't have the personnel to do that very well at the moment. Stick with what you do well. There is nothing wrong with a 2:1 pass/run ratio when you have the best QB in the NFL playing at the top of his game.

 

[G0P4ckG0]

Probably one of the most frustrating things to watch in an NFL offense is a coach who says, 'By God, we are going to run the football hell or high water because that is what good teams are supposed to do.' Well, we don't have the personnel to do that very well at the moment. Stick with what you do well. There is nothing wrong with a 2:1 pass/run ratio when you have the best QB in the NFL playing at the top of his game.

Exactly

Before reading your post I was going to mention that the game against the Eagles reminded me of a Badgers football game; slow and methodical with the goal of easily winning the time of possession battle. The Badgers always rely on their strengths depending upon their personnel (usually running and short throws based upon the types of players they typically recruit). This current Packers offense is built for clock management much like a typical Badgers offense. I'm fine with them sticking with the run if they don't consistently utilize the 50-yard bombs downfield, but the 3-5 yard throws are what will help this team score since Lacy is out.

 

[HardRightEdge]

You do need some kind of running game to win a championship. The OP post is not intended to be a blueprint for a march through the playoffs. Even getting there is a sketchy proposition with such a fragile defense.

The idea is to maintain some offensive momentum, which might energize the defense toward the concept of winning instead of playing back on their heels. Put some games together. See where it goes.

Ultimately you need at least some offensive diversity. Teams don't win very often throwing the ball 50 times.

 

[Mondio]

I agreed with the OP, because that's where this team finds itself. But I don't agree that running games are not needed. More often than not, being able to runt he ball effectively by just lining up and doing it becomes necessary to go far in the post season. One may get lucky and not have to, but it's not how it usually goes.

But we don't have the back to do it, we don't have aline to do it, we don't have time to develop it. Play to your strengths, and see where it takes you. That's all that's left for this year.

 

[El Guapo]

The takeaway about this team and this coach, is that they've been forced to recognize a different mode of implementing a running game that compliments our passing game. A running game doesn't have to mean lining up an Eddie Lacy and pounding the ball. Using Montgomery and Cobb has made our running game more dynamic. Rodgers rushing yards have been killing other teams. While we are still averaging under 100 rushing yards per game (on par with our 2011 season), I think that we are more effective at spreading out the defense to contain our rushing game.

The difference between the 2016 and 2011 Packers teams is that we were still trying to rush traditionally in 2011. Good teams will stuff a weak traditional running attack during the playoffs, exposing your one-trick pony offense. Having the diversity of rushing plays that we are employing now should force defenses to use spies and personnel that otherwise would be guarding the middle of the field against passes.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

The difference between the 2016 and 2011 Packers teams is that we were still trying to rush traditionally in 2011. Good teams will stuff a weak traditional running attack during the playoffs, exposing your one-trick pony offense. Having the diversity of rushing plays that we are employing now should force defenses to use spies and personnel that otherwise would be guarding the middle of the field against passes.

There's absolutely no reason to believe this year's offense is better equipped to be successful in the playoffs than the 2011 edition.

 

[El Guapo]

There's absolutely no reason to believe this year's offense is better equipped to be successful in the playoffs than the 2011 edition.

I said that the running game is more diverse, which helps the offense. I didn't say it's a better offense as a whole. You do like to extrapolate.

Rodgers isn't playing as well as in 2011 and the WRs aren't as good or as deep. If I wanted to say that the 2016 offense is better equipped to be successful in the playoffs I would have stated it as such.

If we had this creativity with the running game coupled with our 2011 offense, we would be more successful in 2016.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I said that the running game is more diverse, which helps the offense. I didn't say it's a better offense as a whole. You do like to extrapolate.

Rodgers isn't playing as well as in 2011 and the WRs aren't as good or as deep. If I wanted to say that the 2016 offense is better equipped to be successful in the playoffs I would have stated it as such.

If we had this creativity with the running game coupled with our 2011 offense, we would be more successful in 2016.

Well, McCarthy has used some creative formations running the football out of necessity but it hasn't been extremely successful. I would prefer to have true #1 running back capable of creating yards on his own.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Well, McCarthy has used some creative formations running the football out pf necessity but it hasn't been extremely successful. I would prefer to have true #1 running back capable of creating yards on his own.

Can't agree more with this. While I liked Lacy when he was playing in shape, imagine the Packer offense with a RB like Ezekiel Elliott. All of the formations with WR's and TE's in the backfield can be beneficial to the passing game, but I don't really think they do much for the running game, especially without a really good running back.

 

[Sky King]

Boy, it would be nice to have a weapon that consistently brought those safeties out of cover two or three.

 

[Forget Favre]

This is the formula for winning with this team as currently constituted

True, but I don't think it can be applied to every game.
Everything on paper looks perfect against the Eagles. The Packers have to adjust to ongoing offense problems and against different defenses.
Will the same formula always be a winner against every team no matter what?

 

[Carl]

Well, McCarthy has used some creative formations running the football out of necessity but it hasn't been extremely successful. I would prefer to have true #1 running back capable of creating yards on his own.

We did have one until he went on IR

 

[HardRightEdge]

True, but I don't think it can be applied to every game.
Everything on paper looks perfect against the Eagles. The Packers have to adjust to ongoing offense problems and against different defenses.
Will the same formula always be a winner against every team no matter what?

Since I don't expect 5 more wins or a playoff berth, I'd have to say no.

But downfield passing as the core of the passing offense has been a failure for over a year now against both weak and strong secondaries. So, play to your strength, make the other team try to stop it, and see where it goes.

 

[PackerDNA]

Imitate the Patriots; different opponent, different gameplan.

 

[rodell330]

Lacy was the perfect compliment to this offense because he could do just that. "Create yards on his own." I've said a thousand times this o line isn't the type of line that's going to blow people off the line and allow chunk yards for the rb consistently. This is a pass blocking o line. Starks isn't suited to run behind this line...but Michael is.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Imitate the Patriots; different opponent, different gameplan.

Game plans are variations off the theme of your core competency. You first have to establish a core competency. The only option is the short passing game. Then, for example, when the defense adjusts leaving a wideout alone on a good man-to-man matchup, then you can turn to one of your variations.

Or just go back to running 4 guys deep into a 7 man 2-high zone where nobody gets open.

 

[adambr2]

Lacy was the perfect compliment to this offense because he could do just that. "Create yards on his own." I've said a thousand times this o line isn't the type of line that's going to blow people off the line and allow chunk yards for the rb consistently. This is a pass blocking o line. Starks isn't suited to run behind this line...but Michael is.

If they are serious about trying to run the ball down the stretch, they have to get Michael more involved. Starks is a known quantity. He will give you what is blocked, nothing more, and is a servicable pass catcher out of the backfield. At this point in his career, he's suited for no more than a complementary role like he entered the season with.

I don't know if Michael is the answer or not to our ground game issues, but I know that Starks isn't.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

True, but I don't think it can be applied to every game.
Everything on paper looks perfect against the Eagles. The Packers have to adjust to ongoing offense problems and against different defenses.
Will the same formula always be a winner against every team no matter what?

The Packers have been successful against several defenses using a ball control, short passing offense this season but unfortunately haven't stuck with it consistently. As long as defenses aren't able to stop it I want the team to continue to run it.

We did have one until he went on IR

True, but that doesn't help the rest of theis season.

Starks isn't suited to run behind this line...but Michael is.

Michael put up decent numbers running behind a terrible offensive line in Seattle but I'm not convinced he's a great fit for the Packers.

 

[easyk83]

Funny thing is, we stunk at running the ball yesterday -- yet , it was probably our best game of the season.

Having a running game is overrated. I know that's sacreligious to say about football, but I believe it. Is it nice to have? Of course it is. Anything football related that you can do really well, is going to help you. Do you need it to win a championship? Nah.

Probably one of the most frustrating things to watch in an NFL offense is a coach who says, 'By God, we are going to run the football hell or high water because that is what good teams are supposed to do.' Well, we don't have the personnel to do that very well at the moment. Stick with what you do well. There is nothing wrong with a 2:1 pass/run ratio when you have the best QB in the NFL playing at the top of his game.

The run game doesn't have to produce 4 ypc to contribute. Even if you're only getting 2-3 yards on first down runs, that you're occasionally running on first or second down will force the DL to play run and slow down their pass rush.

 

[easyk83]

If they are serious about trying to run the ball down the stretch, they have to get Michael more involved. Starks is a known quantity. He will give you what is blocked, nothing more, and is a servicable pass catcher out of the backfield. At this point in his career, he's suited for no more than a complementary role like he entered the season with.

I don't know if Michael is the answer or not to our ground game issues, but I know that Starks isn't.

That might be too charitbale, Starks always seems to get tackled on a dime. Not sure if he's ever managed to fall forward or pick up the extra yard or two through contact. Where he gets hit is where he gets dropped. Seriously James run through the creases with more of a forward lean it'll help you be a more consistent runner.

 

[Mondio]

I'm not holding my breath on Michael. We're a pass first team and should remain so this season and see where it takes us. Does he know enough of the offense to be reliable in blitz pickups and audibles and what his role is? He'll get worked in, but if the word is he can't remember a play book, I can't imagine they'll rely on him too heavily. He's not going to take us places, Rodgers can, and not knowing your role in the offense in pass protection and when it changes on the fly isn't going to earn you playing time.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Right now, if I am a defense and I see Michael trotting onto the field, I'm keeping a close eye on him, because chances are probably high he is getting the ball. OF course, the Packers can always take advantage of that and use him as a decoy, but as Mondio pointed out, until a RB fully knows the playbook, having him on the field could limit the plays AR can run.

 

[Sky King]

The run game doesn't have to produce 4 ypc to contribute. Even if you're only getting 2-3 yards on first down runs, that you're occasionally running on first or second down will force the DL to play run and slow down their pass rush.

Isn't this what McCarthy's stated philosophy has been?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

The run game doesn't have to produce 4 ypc to contribute. Even if you're only getting 2-3 yards on first down runs, that you're occasionally running on first or second down will force the DL to play run and slow down their pass rush.

I'd rather prefer a short pass gaining at least four yards on first down over running the ball just for the sake of it resulting in difficult down and distance situations.