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.

    Sign Up 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!
    Dismiss Notice

are the run-happy people happy?

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by billv, Oct 8, 2007.

  1. billv

    billv Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2005
    Messages:
    363
    Ratings:
    +0
    Too much running, too conservative. If MM would had let Favre keep throwing, it would had been a blow-out for the Pack.

    First posssession of the second half, when we ran on third and short was the beginning of the end. A pass and resulted touchdown would had put the game away.

    I don't want to hear anything more about how we must have a running game. It cost us a win tonight.
     
  2. Zero2Cool

    Zero2Cool I own a website

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    11,903
    Ratings:
    +8
    I think Jones two fumbles, Brett's WTF throw and of course lack of focus causing many penalties. Those were more of a cause of the Packers losing than the Packers topping over 100 yards rushing for the first time of the year.
     
  3. rabidgopher04

    rabidgopher04 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Messages:
    1,467
    Ratings:
    +0
    No, I'm not happy. We need a running game that produces, not gets stifled. But I agree when it doesn't work, start passing. It was too conservative. That's when MM needs to make adjustments and go for the kill.
     
  4. billv

    billv Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2005
    Messages:
    363
    Ratings:
    +0
    I believe Favre had 1 pass attempt, and a completion, on our first 3 series of the second half after throwing for like 250 in the first half.

    What team was MM calling plays for in the second half?
     
  5. KGB94SACKEM

    KGB94SACKEM Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2007
    Messages:
    334
    Ratings:
    +0
    Listen, first you seem to not understand what those people are saying. Those people are saying that we need to GET a running game. When we ran the ball in the first half it completely opened up the passing game. Probably the best half of football yet.

    We didn't want to keep running the ball when it wasn't working. The O-line is just not very good. We are not calling for a terrible running game, we want one that can work. Unfortunately, our O-Line stinks and we don't have any LEGIT RB on our roster.
     
  6. all about da packers

    all about da packers Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    7,033
    Ratings:
    +0
    Guys, was the reason the playcalling too conservative because we were without Jones (benched) and Jennigns (hurt) most of the second half?

    I'm starting to think it was...
     
  7. Greg C.

    Greg C. Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 31, 2005
    Messages:
    2,856
    Ratings:
    +0
    Maybe McCarthy finally started to believe all the talk about how the Packers needed a running game as soon as possible. The Packers had the Bears on their heels in the first half, and instead of pressing the issue in the second half, they let up and played conservative Bears football. I hate to say this, but the loss was richly deserved by McCarthy and several of the players. Now they have two weeks to stew about it.

    The good news: They're still in first place.
     
  8. billv

    billv Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2005
    Messages:
    363
    Ratings:
    +0
    Well, I hope you get that running game you so badly want for some reason.
    I like an offense that we know that score in the 30s every day. The main reason why our running game worked early in the game was the success of our passing game in prior games.
     
  9. TOPackerFan

    TOPackerFan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2004
    Messages:
    2,084
    Ratings:
    +0
    Jones was back in for the second half once Jennings went down.
     
  10. all about da packers

    all about da packers Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    7,033
    Ratings:
    +0
    TO was he?

    I thought I saw him come back out halfway through the 4th...
     
  11. rabidgopher04

    rabidgopher04 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Messages:
    1,467
    Ratings:
    +0
    I think you bring up a good point. I noticed once Jennings was back in the game we went right back to the shotgun formation and started throwing. I think we need to have confidence in our other receivers too. Ruvell Martin can play pretty well. And maybe Jones just needs some more reps. Let him hang in there and build up his confidence.
     
  12. TOPackerFan

    TOPackerFan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2004
    Messages:
    2,084
    Ratings:
    +0
    He was Brett's target on the Urlacher INT, so yes, I think he was back in the 3rd.
     
  13. rabidgopher04

    rabidgopher04 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Messages:
    1,467
    Ratings:
    +0
    Uhhhh...the Packers play the Redskins next Sunday. :-?
     
  14. Greg C.

    Greg C. Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 31, 2005
    Messages:
    2,856
    Ratings:
    +0
    Oh, really? I thought they had a bye. It's good that they don't. They need to make up for what happened tonight.
     
  15. nathaniel

    nathaniel Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2007
    Messages:
    905
    Ratings:
    +0
    We just kept running when we knew it wasn't working anymore. Running on 3rd and 8 in the second half? I'm tired.
     
  16. Zombieslayer

    Zombieslayer Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2006
    Messages:
    4,338
    Ratings:
    +0
    Yes. I said NO RUNNING until we lead by 14 points. I said it in probably a dozen threads. NO RUNNING. What part of NO RUNNING don't you understand, MM?

    MM gets the goat of this game. As far as I'm concerned, MM lost us this game.
     
  17. rabidgopher04

    rabidgopher04 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Messages:
    1,467
    Ratings:
    +0
    For sure. The bye is after the Redskins.
     
  18. showgirl

    showgirl Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2005
    Messages:
    54
    Ratings:
    +0
    I've been trying to figure out why MM handcuffed Favre in the second half. Some theories:

    1. He was bundled up in his long sleeve jacket, zipped all the way up to his neck, in 80 degree weather. The heat went to his head and made him delirious.

    2. He was visited by Guido and the boys from Chicago prior to the game, and they promised to introduce his kneecaps to a Louisville Slugger if the Packers won the game. After the incident earlier this year with the basketball referee, I'm almost ready to believe such corruption could also exist in the NFL.

    3. He honestly believed the team could constantly pound the ball into the teeth of the Bears defense and get first downs. If this is the case, I must question his intelligence and/or sanity.

    Any other theories?
     
  19. umair

    umair Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2006
    Messages:
    923
    Ratings:
    +0
    i can see where you are comeing from, but the backups dont get paied for no reason.
     
  20. WinnipegPackFan

    WinnipegPackFan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,943
    Ratings:
    +0
    Good Point aadp,

    I had not thought about that :?:
     
  21. KGB94SACKEM

    KGB94SACKEM Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2007
    Messages:
    334
    Ratings:
    +0

    Exactly. The Colts didn't have Harrison, it didn't effect them. You have to have guys that step up but more importantly, guys you have FAITH in to do so.
     
  22. Pack93z

    Pack93z You retired too? .... Not me. I'm in my prime

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2005
    Messages:
    4,855
    Ratings:
    +22
    Yes, because we need to be able to run the ball effectively or we will see more of what we seen tonight.. tight man up press coverage and if we are without Jennings and Jones we look pretty weak in the passing game..

    Look at the 300 plus yards in the first half, that is an offense. We could do whatever we wanted when the backers had to respect the run and the secondary was scared we would get into the second layer of the defense and attack their safeties..

    Part of the playcalling in the second half was due to the fact we only had Driver (double and tripled), Martin and the TE's. They didn't respect that game.. and apparently MM didn't like that matchup as well.
     
  23. KGB94SACKEM

    KGB94SACKEM Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2007
    Messages:
    334
    Ratings:
    +0

    Great post. The running game really opened things up. I wish I could say the lack of running game in the 2nd half hurt the pass game but I'm not sure we even tried to pass it until is was blatantly obvious that we had to
     
  24. scotty

    scotty Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2006
    Messages:
    241
    Ratings:
    +0
    If anyone (Billy) thinks we can be a serious contending team with a totally one-dimensional offense, you are fooling yourself. Look at every great Superbowl team and they had an effective - if not superb - running game. Balanced with a good passing offense and a solid defensive unit.

    If you can think of an exception to that rule, name it.

    We lit up defenses with a poor secondary, but I guarantee if we run into the Patriots or teams of that caliber with nothing but a pass-wacky, no run offense, they will sit back and pick us apart. No question.

    I was thrilled to see Wynn and Morency busting some good runs. The first run was for a 12-yard gain!! Then the Bears got off their heals, our play calling started to suck, and we lost any creativity in the offense. I agree that we became too conservative. But this happened all across the board with those short dump passes and our runs. Brett didn't have the chance to spread them out enough with some long passes, imo, and I don't know if the coverage was just that good, or if the play calling was truly just that bad. I have no idea.
     
  25. billv

    billv Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2005
    Messages:
    363
    Ratings:
    +0
    Does Scotty think the first 49ers team that won the Super Bowl had a great running game? I believe their top back was the great Ricky Patton. That was the year an offense called the "west coast offense" rose to the fame where short passes can take the place of traditional running.

    San Diego, behind Dan Fouts, never made the bowl but was constantly a threat while passing a ton more than running.

    After 4 games, the Packers used a one-dimensional offense to be 4-0. The balanced Packer attack is 0-1. The reason Brett couldn't throw deep is because we stopped throwing on first down.
     

Share This Page