GB Offensive Line 2nd in Run Blocking

Poppa San

* Team Owner *
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
12,809
Reaction score
2,727
Location
20 miles from Lambeau
:laugh::roflmao::laugh::roflmao::laugh::roflmao::laugh::roflmao::laugh::roflmao::laugh::roflmao::laugh::roflmao::laugh::roflmao::laugh::roflmao::laugh::roflmao::laugh::roflmao::laugh::roflmao::laugh::roflmao::laugh::roflmao::laugh::roflmao::laugh::roflmao::laugh::roflmao:
Really good one. Great trolling job.
Oh wait. You are serious with a cite and statistics to back it up. :tdown:
Must mean our RBs are really really pathetic to not be able take advantage of that.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
For those criticizing the Packers' run blocking, RBs are averaging 2.8 yards before contact, tied for 2nd in the league along with the Cowboys:

http://www.nfl.com/labs/sidelines/oline/desktop/offensive-lines.html
Not quite. Note the yds. per carry in this link is stated as 4.32 (as though 1/100th have an relevance).

Now look at this link:

http://www.espn.com/nfl/team/stats/_/name/gb

That's right, the team total is 4.3 including Rodgers' runs.

Nowhere in the link does it say they limited the stats to RBs.

This is what we might refer to as a junk stat.
 
OP
OP
P

Patriotplayer90

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 2, 2015
Messages
1,874
Reaction score
130
Not quite. Note the yds. per carry in this link is stated as 4.32 (as though 1/100th have an relevance).

Now look at this link:

http://www.espn.com/nfl/team/stats/_/name/gb

That's right, the team total is 4.3 including Rodgers' runs.

Nowhere in the link does it say they limited the stats to RBs.

This is what we might refer to as a junk stat.
And how is that different than the way it's calculated for other teams? As if the QB for Dallas, Tennessee, and Buffalo never run.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
And how is that different than the way it's calculated for other teams? As if the QB for Dallas, Tennessee, and Buffalo never run.
Well, if you want to capture the QB stats team by team and strip them out of those numbers, then be my guest. Otherwise you're speculating on how this line performs for running backs.

I'll tell you this much:

Rodgers has accounted for 18% of the teams rushing attempts with a 6.1 avg, nearly all before contact since they're scrambles and not that junk option stuff. Two more games and he'll be the team's leading rusher.

Prescott 12%, 4.6 yd average. Mariota 14%, 6.3 yd. average, Taylor 20%, 6.4 yd. average. Taylor might be a compelling comparison at first glance, but all these guys run some option junk where there is more early contact than a pure scrambler like Rodgers. And there is nobody who watches the games of these two teams that will tell you GB has a better run blocking line than Buffalo. It's not close.
 
OP
OP
P

Patriotplayer90

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 2, 2015
Messages
1,874
Reaction score
130
Well, if you want to capture the QB stats team by team and strip them out of those numbers, then be my guest. Otherwise you're speculating on how this line performs for running backs.

I'll tell you this much:

Rodgers has accounted for 18% of the teams rushing attempts with a 6.1 avg, nearly all before contact since they're scrambles and not that junk option stuff. Two more games and he'll be the team's leading rusher.

Prescott 12%, 4.6 yd average. Mariota 14%, 6.3 yd. average, Taylor 20%, 6.4 yd. average. Taylor might be a compelling comparison at first glance, but all these guys run some option junk where there is more early contact than a pure scrambler like Rodgers. And there is nobody who watches the games of these two teams that will tell you GB has a better run blocking line than Buffalo. It's not close.
Was a 30 pounds overweight Lacy not running well behind them, as well as a converted WR? The difference is that the other teams stick with the run, because they have RBs who will eventually break the defense. Starks or whoever else has a few runs for a 2-3 yard gains and they basically abandon the running game, as they are usually having to deal with their poor defense as well.

If those other teams ran as sparingly as GB with much worse backs, they wouldn't look very impressive, either.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
14,219
Reaction score
5,632
Nowhere in the link does it say they limited the stats to RBs.
Yes. Before I opened the link the first thing that came to mind was Aaron basically being our leading rusher so the stats are heavily skewed. If this includes the QB then this is a statistical anomaly. A fair comparison would be RBs only (or players deemed a RB such as Montgomery out of the backfield)
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
Was a 30 pounds overweight Lacy not running well behind them, as well as a converted WR? The difference is that the other teams stick with the run, because they have RBs who will eventually break the defense. Starks or whoever else has a few runs for a 2-3 yard gains and they basically abandon the running game, as they are usually having to deal with their poor defense as well.

If those other teams ran as sparingly as GB with much worse backs, they wouldn't look very impressive, either.
Difficult problems are usually difficult because they arise from more than one cause. In this case, a mediocre run blocking line coupled with some ineffective running backs.

Lacy, by the way, was among the league leaders in yards after contact before he went down.

Montgomery had a 30 yd. run up the gut, but the rest of his double digit runs (11 yds., 24 yds., 17 yds., 13 yds.) were around end. It's been mostly tough sledding between the tackles for him, especially in short yardage.

I will say this much. The line look good most of the time when they pull and trap block with RIP cleaning out through the hole. Maybe they should try it more often.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
According to PFF's the Packers offensive linemen have a combined grade of 65.0 blocking for the run which according to their system is below average.
 

thisisnate

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 25, 2012
Messages
1,627
Reaction score
185
Location
Maine
This is how the internet information age actually leads to a less informed population. A person can back up any claim in the world with an obscure metric and anyone who wants to reinforce their present beliefs will latch on and be even more unwilling to dig deeper. Not at all directing that comment at OP, just a general observation of a kinda scary trend.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
This is how the internet information age actually leads to a less informed population. A person can back up any claim in the world with an obscure metric and anyone who wants to reinforce their present beliefs will latch on and be even more unwilling to dig deeper. Not at all directing that comment at OP, just a general observation of a kinda scary trend.
My futurist analysis: The internet, as a vehicle for democratization of information in the so-called "flat world", is approaching "jump the shark" territory if it's not there already.
 

PackAttack12

R-E-L-A-X
Joined
Sep 16, 2016
Messages
6,499
Reaction score
2,157
Not to suggest that our run blocking is better than it appears, but Starks flailing around behind blockers for 5 minutes waiting for the home run gap certainly makes it look worse than what it really is, IMO.

If Christine Michael gets the opportunities, I think he will be effective with this offensive line.
 

childerm

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 1, 2015
Messages
91
Reaction score
9
Location
Omaha
Not to suggest that our run blocking is better than it appears, but Starks flailing around behind blockers for 5 minutes waiting for the home run gap certainly makes it look worse than what it really is, IMO.

If Christine Michael gets the opportunities, I think he will be effective with this offensive line.

I would have to believe you on this one. Starks running style does not help the line one bit.
 
OP
OP
P

Patriotplayer90

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 2, 2015
Messages
1,874
Reaction score
130
Alright, but I think it's not just a coincidence that the top running teams in the league rank high up there. The team just never sticks with the running game. Lacy was on pace for a 1,000 yard season, and that's without him ever getting even 20 carries in a game. I'd be surprised if there have even been 20 carries in any other single game by all other RBs combined.

So because Rodgers skews the data, we can't automatically assume they are bad, because honestly, they're not really given a chance. A few bad run plays can also skew the data if the run game is abandoned afterwards.

Montgomery and Lacy both averaged over 5 YPC, with one being extremely overweight and the other a WR. Let's not forget our FB is also averaging 4 YPC, and he's been involved in many tough, short yardage runs.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Latest posts

Top