are the run-happy people happy?

dhpackr

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 14, 2005
Messages
1,635
Reaction score
0
Location
SE Wisconsin
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.

you honestly do not think 4 turnovers & all the penalties had something to do with this loss!?
 

scotty

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 14, 2006
Messages
284
Reaction score
25
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.


(Sigh). Okay... I've got to give you credit for digging back to 1982 to find a team that fits the pass-wacky football fan's wildest dreams, Montana and his aerial attack.. From the numbers I just found, they ranked 2nd in passing offense, and 28th in rushing. But even with that said, they still rushed for over 100 yards in the superbowl to seal the win.

So are we the 1982 Niners? Do you want to roll the dice and throw on every down? Our receivers might get banged up, every defensive team will study game tape and be ready for us, secondaries will start to cheat on us.. Favre will start running for his life when our wideouts are covered and the pass rush starts to overwhelm the offensive line..

But hey! We were 4-0! That's only one-fourth of the season but it must surely mean that our gameplan would have carried us to 16-0 if we just stuck with it. I don't mean to make fun, I do see the point in not forcing a running game that's not working, but you do have to try to establish it, especially when holding a lead. A running game will grind the clock out whereas the passing attack actually starts to work against you. And it keeps defenses honest, they can't sit back in coverage if you threaten a run.

In this way, even a run for no-gain can sometimes have a positive effect if the defense thinks you might - *might* go to it again on second.. or third down. Going to the shotgun on every down just narrows that focus altogether.

jmho.
 

Pack93z

You retired too? .... Not me. I'm in my prime
Joined
Aug 2, 2005
Messages
4,855
Reaction score
8
Location
Central Wisconsin
1982 Niners..

348 Pass Att 61.4%
219 Running plays 38.6%
567 Total Plays

2007 Packer to date
210 67.5%
101 32.4%
311

We are to date even more unbalanced to the one team that you mentioned that made it to the SB. And they were the exception!
 

KGB94SACKEM

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Messages
334
Reaction score
0
You are seriously insane if you think the Packers can be one dimensional and just pass,pass,pass and expect to win.

It's ok to be pass heavy, but you have to at least make the Defense respect the threat of you running.


You have to try to run to keep the Defense honest. The mistake McCarthy made was he didn't know when to get away from it.
 
OP
OP
B

billv

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 25, 2005
Messages
363
Reaction score
0
Location
Sidney, MT
To date, we are running 33 percent of the time which means once in every 3 plays. So it's not pass, pass, pass. It's pass, run, pass. That means success for the Packers.

We show in the second half against Chicago when they were even playign a defense that MM said after the game should be easy to run against, we were very unsuccessful.

By the way, a short passing game can run out the clock just as easily as a running game. When your quarterback only misses a couple of passes in a half (like last night's first half), the clock doesn't stop for incompletions.

The key to winning is playing with the cards you were dealt. Our hand is good defense and a good passing game. Let's not play to our shortcomings (the running game).
 

porky88

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
3,991
Reaction score
0
Location
Title Town
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.

There is a huge difference in running the ball and calling the game to conservative. We ran the ball in the 1st half and Favre also threw for 240+ yards. Was he McCarthy to conservative then?
 
OP
OP
B

billv

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 25, 2005
Messages
363
Reaction score
0
Location
Sidney, MT
Was McCarthy too conservative in the first half?

No he let Favre throw for 240 plus yards.

In the second half, meanwhile, there were few passing attempts until late.

If the Packers had ran for 240-plus yards in the first half, and then almost entirely passed in the second half, everybody would be screaming. But we do the opposite (pass for 240 and then almost strictly run), and people say we have to have a running game. Yeah, if you want to lose.
 

porky88

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
3,991
Reaction score
0
Location
Title Town
Was McCarthy too conservative in the first half?

No he let Favre throw for 240 plus yards.

In the second half, meanwhile, there were few passing attempts until late.

If the Packers had ran for 240-plus yards in the first half, and then almost entirely passed in the second half, everybody would be screaming. But we do the opposite (pass for 240 and then almost strictly run), and people say we have to have a running game. Yeah, if you want to lose.

The Packers did have a running game in the first half and your right McCarthy didn't call the game to conservative then which should tell you their is a difference. You can run the ball and setup play action and take chances down the field through the air. You can run the ball and still do all the things we continue to do. In the 2nd half though, Green Bay played conservative. They didn't in the 1st half and they still had 102 yards on the ground on only 13 attempts.

The Packers need to be more balanced. If that's 55 to 45 pass and run ratio or 60 to 40. They don't need to be a running team but they need to have some sort of a rushing attack. Running the ball does not mean we're going to lose the game.

It is far from the reason why the Packers went on to lose this game. Turnovers, penalties, execution, and coaching is definitely a different story.
 

Members online

Latest posts

Top