Recipe For Winning Is . . .

[LZ13]

Run the ball. When we run the ball, we win. Even if it is a bit ugly running, we still win. It opens up the pass game. So work on running the ball with our "C grade" backs all week. Get the blocking perfected. (Blocking for Rodgers too) Our pass game is plenty good to kick in when the opportunity arises. We got swamped in the first half of the Seattle game cause we barely ran the ball! Had we gone to the run early, even the counterfeit refs could not have stole that game from us.

 

[Oshkoshpackfan]

I'd say we have been running the ball effectivley enough to keep opposing defenses honest to the run. We are a pass first offense and will continue to be, so the " C" grade running you speak of is plenty good for us. We don't require a Frank gore type runner.

 

[ExpatPacker]

Rams have 2 excellent speed rushers on the outside and that's where the Packers have been poor on pass defense. Bulaga and Newhouse will have to step up and MM will have to plan for that. Running effectively would help a lot.

 

[Oshkoshpackfan]

Hmmm.....I don't know about 2 excellent edge rushers on the rams, I was looking over their D stats and they have one guy (forgot his name) that has 6 sacks, all the other guys on their D don't look to be a threat. Their secondary does have that feisty courtland finegan guy. He is good at what he does, overly aggressive and he know how to not get caught starting a fight, he is a sneaky little dude.

 

[Pack93z]

The recipe for limiting us was posted last season in KC.. since then, MM has been slow to adjust from his pass happy ways and we have struggled some.

To counter that is not a mystery, at least to the general Cheesehead nation. Mix in the run just enough to:

* Pause the pass rush, flipping the advantage back to the Oline.

* Make the LBers stay in the box long enough to diagnosis the play and thus giving the middle of the field a bit more operating space for the pass routes.

* Have the safeties at least peeking in the backfield for the run, and at times last week cheating up to support the run. That will open the deep overs up a bit, making the safeties almost have to play flawless (angles and reads) ball.

* And probably the most important reason.. at bare minimum keeping the time of possession in check, thus keeping our defense on the sidelines, staying fresh and ready to provide stops when they need to.

We should not be a run first team.. we should however be a somewhat balanced offense that dictates to the defense.. not the other way around by allowing them to tee off with the Pass rush.

This is the fundamentals of football.. if you can stick that formula, it will allow for a greater margin of error in other areas and thus a more consistent winning football team.

 

[TJV]

Since Aaron Rodgers' first year as a starter the Packers team rankings as far as points scored per game in the regular season from 2008 through the first 6 weeks of this season are (in order) : 5th, 3rd, 10th, 1st, and 10th. So they've been in the top 10 every season.

The average number of rushing attempts per game over that span is 25.9, with a high of 27.4 and low of 23.8. Their average per rush is 4 yards, with a high of 4.3 and a low of 3.8. This season the Packers are averaging 23.8 rushes per game for a 4.1 per attempt average. The Packers most prolific offense was last seasons': In order to match the rushing attempts per game this season to that team they would have had to run the ball one more time per game. To reach their average over this period of time, they would have had to run the ball twice more per game. So it's not as though the Packers run/pass mix has been way out of sync regarding their average since Rodgers has been QB. BTW, their average per rush is 4.1 yards this year vs. 3.9 last season which is the second lowest average per rush over that time span.

As I've posted (perhaps too) many times, IMO what is necessary for McCarthy's offense to succeed is that they present a credible threat of a run in order to keep defenses off balance. Of course there are other ways to keep Ds honest and slow down a pass rush: Traditional screen passes, bubble screens, shovel passes, quick slants, check downs, bootlegs, and even having a QB athletic enough to hurt Ds with his feet. There's no way for me to measure those alternative measures and no statistical analysis is close to perfect anyway. But IMO the point these stats make goes along with my observations: The success of the Packers offense depends mainly upon the efficiency and consistency their passing game. Running the ball one more time per game to this point wouldn't have made a significant difference.

IMO the recipe for winning is to have Aaron Rodgers and his teammates on offense return to their incredible play in the passing game, to run the ball about 24-25 times per game and to have the defense play with the intensity they did Sunday night.
(I used team stats from nfl.com and I did some of the math above.)

 

[sinatra]

Running the ball is overrated. The real goal is to slow the pass rush and prevent the other team from selling out against the long ball. Running is one way to combat this, but it's not the only way. A screen game would be helpful, as would a reliable pass catching Tight End (I'm looking at you, Finley). I'd also like to see some slants and dump offs with a guy like Cobb.

 

[Pack93z]

The average number of rushing attempts per game over that span is 25.9, with a high of 27.4 and low of 23.8. Their average per rush is 4 yards, with a high of 4.3 and a low of 3.8. This season the Packers are averaging 23.8 rushes per game for a 4.1 per attempt average. The Packers most prolific offense was last seasons': In order to match the rushing attempts per game this season to that team they would have had to run the ball one more time per game. To reach their average over this period of time, they would have had to run the ball twice more per game. So it's not as though the Packers run/pass mix has been way out of sync regarding their average since Rodgers has been QB. BTW, their average per rush is 4.1 yards this year vs. 3.9 last season which is the second lowest average per rush over that time span.

Did you pull out the scrambles from Rodgers in those stats?

Simply put.. just to run is not the proper attitude, to effectively run is. If the Defense can simply limit the run without committing to it, it is of little good.

To me.. the purpose of the run has a ton more impact upon the team than simply protecting the QB, or what I have discussed above.

There is an attitude about being able to line up and smack the other team in mouth.. the swagger that comes with that. And the look, like Watt's last week, in what do we have to do to stop this team.

Beyond that, running the ball, even for 3 to 4 yards a pop, keeps you on schedule to convert third downs, the options of 3rd & 3 or less is a ton more vast than 3rd & 6 or more.

The other note that I have, in terms of screens moreso, the Packers have went with more bulk on the offensive line, a direction overall. With that, they will be a little less apt to effectively pull and block in the screen game effectively. Especially if the pass rush is hopping off the snap of the ball looking for the pass..

In the end, that is really my contention with lack of running the ball and constantly being in the pass mode.. it shifts the protection advantage to the defense. Your passing game is only as effective as the line blocking for it.

 

[TJV]

Simply put.. just to run is not the proper attitude, to effectively run is. If the Defense can simply limit the run without committing to it, it is of little good.

Some argue that the most important stat regarding the running game for passing teams like the Packers is attempts, and they have a statistical argument to support that point of view. I don't completely agree but simply running the ball contributes to the benefits in attitude you describe for the OL - they can beat the hell out their opponent whether their averaging 3.5 or 4.5 yards per attempt. And even if the running game doesn't bring safeties up toward the LOS, just running the ball slows DEs who were previously just thinking about rushing the passer.

My main point is the running game just has to be good enough for the passing attack to succeed. So saying the key to winning is "run the ball" is incorrect IMO - at least to the extent it means running the ball a lot more than they have. McCarthy has been pretty consistent in his run/pass ratio and IMO he is among the top "OCs" in the league.

 

[Unomee]

Goes without saying, but no matter the record treat opponent as though they have the best team you're going up against so far.

 

[Forget Favre]

Bring back the sweep!

 

[Unomee]

Bring back the sweep!

There ya go! Teams knew it was coming, but couldn't stop it.

 

[Aaron rodgers is god]

Hmmm.....I don't know about 2 excellent edge rushers on the rams, I was looking over their D stats and they have one guy (forgot his name) that has 6 sacks, all the other guys on their D don't look to be a threat. Their secondary does have that feisty courtland finegan guy. He is good at what he does, overly aggressive and he know how to not get caught starting a fight, he is a sneaky little dude.

They got Chris Long who is a beast and Robert Quinn who is a solid DE. Don't take this team's defense lightly. They have stock piled draft picks and have drafted a lot of defenders. Don't be surprised if they give us trouble. I expect our defense to give their offense trouble as they do not have a great offensive line nor do they have good depth at receiver and Steven Jackson is getting old and is not as effective as he once was

 

[Wood Chipper]

Bring back the sweep!

I haven't seen us even attempt it since ahman green

 

[Forget Favre]

I haven't seen us even attempt it since ahman green

I thought I saw another team attempt it in a game last season.

 

[El Guapo]

Running the ball is overrated.

After a 15-1 season you're all going to say that when we run the ball, we win? I love a good running game and relish the last good stretch of seasons when Ahman Green ran the ball in the early 2000s. However, we never racked up 15 wins in any of our run-heavy offenses. Sinatra was right on when he said that screens, slants, close TE plays, and check-downs are all equally effective ways to slow down the pass rush. If you're clinging to a "running is the only way to win" mentality, you are still swimming in history. The modern NFL proves that you don't need it to win.

...and I won't buy that the Giants beat the Packers because we didn't have a running game. We beat them in the regular season without one. There were many more factors at play in that loss.

 

[HardRightEdge]

We run best in hurry up when we trap nickel defenses on the field.

You do need to strip Rodgers stats out of the run game to determine run frequency...he ain't RGIII or Newton who have called run plays.

Average yards per carry can distort the picture. Long runs, which are not necessary for success, jack the stat. For example, Green is at 3.8. Take out the 41 yard run (in a losing effort to boot), and you're down to 2.6.

You do have to run the ball effectively, but how do you define it?

In this offense, you have to run the ball often enough and well enough to keep the pass rush from teeing off. Seattle racked up 8 sacks in the first half when we showed no inclination to run. We weren't even passing out of run formations to try to keep them honest. Then we come out in the second half running Benson 6 times for 31 yards in the first 10 plays. Voila! No sacks in the second half.

The rushing baseline for winning is (1) short yardage success, (2) red zone success, (3) burning clock in the 4th. quarter with the lead. Beyond that, running for 3 yards on first down is a win.

 

[Pack93z]

Some argue that the most important stat regarding the running game for passing teams like the Packers is attempts, and they have a statistical argument to support that point of view. I don't completely agree but simply running the ball contributes to the benefits in attitude you describe for the OL - they can beat the hell out their opponent whether their averaging 3.5 or 4.5 yards per attempt. And even if the running game doesn't bring safeties up toward the LOS, just running the ball slows DEs who were previously just thinking about rushing the passer.

My main point is the running game just has to be good enough for the passing attack to succeed. So saying the key to winning is "run the ball" is incorrect IMO - at least to the extent it means running the ball a lot more than they have. McCarthy has been pretty consistent in his run/pass ratio and IMO he is among the top "OCs" in the league.

So I took your stats and went a little deeper to illustrate the point I was making, during Rodgers tenure as a starter (with him and without him playing, basically 2008 to current), took every start and focused only on the running back carries. In other words, eliminated the scrambles by Rodgers (And Flynn) took those numbers and started to look at the different aspects that I spoke of.

I think the numbers speak for themselves.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

In almost every stat running the ball improved the production of both the offense and defense. Sacks allowed, yards per pass, Defensive YPG, total offensive snaps, all sacrificing 1.55 passes per game. And most definitely the winning percentage.

Almost a .7 yards per attempt increase even... if we can run the ball effectively (4 ypc) that number climbs to .76 per attempt. 34 * .7 = 23.8 yards per game.

Just for balance.

The winning percentage looks at only those amount of games, IE when we rush more than 20 times, we win 80% of those games.

 

[TJV]

IMO those stats are somewhat skewed as well. For example, if the Packers build a two score lead mostly using their passing game they're more likely to run later in the game to eat the clock. IOW at times they run the ball more because they're winning, rather than winnning because they're running the ball. Also the passing plays designed to slow the pass rush aren't incorporated.

IMO where McCarthy makes a mistake as a play caller - and perhaps Rodgers as he audibles from run to pass at the LOS - is instances like the first half vs. Seattle as HardRightEdge noted. Going play after play without presenting even the threat of a run is a mistake.

 

[ivo610]

Since Aaron Rodgers' first year as a starter the Packers team rankings as far as points scored per game in the regular season from 2008 through the first 6 weeks of this season are (in order) : 5th, 3rd, 10th, 1st, and 10th. So they've been in the top 10 every season.

The average number of rushing attempts per game over that span is 25.9, with a high of 27.4 and low of 23.8. Their average per rush is 4 yards, with a high of 4.3 and a low of 3.8. This season the Packers are averaging 23.8 rushes per game for a 4.1 per attempt average. The Packers most prolific offense was last seasons': In order to match the rushing attempts per game this season to that team they would have had to run the ball one more time per game. To reach their average over this period of time, they would have had to run the ball twice more per game. So it's not as though the Packers run/pass mix has been way out of sync regarding their average since Rodgers has been QB. BTW, their average per rush is 4.1 yards this year vs. 3.9 last season which is the second lowest average per rush over that time span.

As I've posted (perhaps too) many times, IMO what is necessary for McCarthy's offense to succeed is that they present a credible threat of a run in order to keep defenses off balance. Of course there are other ways to keep Ds honest and slow down a pass rush: Traditional screen passes, bubble screens, shovel passes, quick slants, check downs, bootlegs, and even having a QB athletic enough to hurt Ds with his feet. There's no way for me to measure those alternative measures and no statistical analysis is close to perfect anyway. But IMO the point these stats make goes along with my observations: The success of the Packers offense depends mainly upon the efficiency and consistency their passing game. Running the ball one more time per game to this point wouldn't have made a significant difference.

IMO the recipe for winning is to have Aaron Rodgers and his teammates on offense return to their incredible play in the passing game, to run the ball about 24-25 times per game and to have the defense play with the intensity they did Sunday night.
(I used team stats from nfl.com and I did some of the math above.)

Great post

 

[ivo610]

I don't believe I have ever seen any proof that a good run game wins football games. I have seen evidence tying the number of runs, Regardless of their success, to wins.

 

[Vltrophy]

I'll give u a 100% guarantee can't miss recipe for winning that has never failed. Score more points than the other team

 

[Vltrophy]

A good running game opens up the field for ur pass attack. Helps to run the clock out as well

 

[HardRightEdge]

IMO those stats are somewhat skewed as well. For example, if the Packers build a two score lead mostly using their passing game they're more likely to run later in the game to eat the clock. IOW at times they run the ball more because they're winning, rather than winnning because they're running the ball. Also the passing plays designed to slow the pass rush aren't incorporated.

IMO where McCarthy makes a mistake as a play caller - and perhaps Rodgers as he audibles from run to pass at the LOS - is instances like the first half vs. Seattle as HardRightEdge noted. Going play after play without presenting even the threat of a run is a mistake.

Right. Correlation does not necessarily equate to causation. You mentioned the "if you're winning" scenario. On the flip side, if you're losing and forced to throw the ball in the second half, run frequency goes down. Further, the opposition expects the pass in that situation, plays a lot of nickel and dime, and the passing efficiency tends to go down.

I agree that MM's play calling is head scratching at times; it's like he's spell bound by his game plan. You'd figure after Rodgers got sacked for the 4th. time in that Seattle game, he'd give up on 4 and 5 wide with an empty backfield. Of course not. Let's continue to signal 100% pass with minimum protection to prove the game plan correct in defiance of all the evidence. When things are not working, he's slow to move to Plan B...not until halftime. Conversely, when he ran a pass play out of a two tight end front against Houston, I nearly fell out of my chair. Where has that been all season?

I'll bet the average engaged fan can watch them line up and guess pass/run correctly 80% of the time.

This not to say I consider our current running game sufficient. It is not, and I've said before it will cost us. However, we don't need a Gore or a McCoy to make this offense run. Just something a bit better than we've got...15 carries for 60 yards in a healthy James Starks kind of way ought to be enough. Or Benson was that guy.

But what are you gonna do until you get to the next draft/FA period. Make lemonade out of lemons, and the D has pick up some of the slack. Maybe Starks can get back in gear and add some punch.

 

[Pack93z]

IMO those stats are somewhat skewed as well. For example, if the Packers build a two score lead mostly using their passing game they're more likely to run later in the game to eat the clock. IOW at times they run the ball more because they're winning, rather than winnning because they're running the ball. Also the passing plays designed to slow the pass rush aren't incorporated.

IMO where McCarthy makes a mistake as a play caller - and perhaps Rodgers as he audibles from run to pass at the LOS - is instances like the first half vs. Seattle as HardRightEdge noted. Going play after play without presenting even the threat of a run is a mistake.

I almost omitted the winning percentage, as I knew it would be the focus. What I did want to be the focus is that almost all other statistical categories, running the ball improved the over all performance. I am not claiming that all you have to do is run the ball to win. Instead I am saying that running the ball simply increases the odds of winning and gives a team more chance for error within those games, and that is where the winning percentage comes in.. simply illustrating that balance helps in all areas of the football team.

Been a student of the game for almost 35 years, the story is always the same. You can win in many different ways in the short term, but if you wish to seek long term and sustained success, balance is the key. That said, today's NFL is a pass driven league by way of the rule base, so you should be pass oriented. My point, and you used a term I use very often, the threat of the run has to be there. And for the threat to be there, you actually have to run it often. And that does not mean.. load up in the 4th quarter either.

For another forum in the same argument, I ran three years worth of numbers, and the blow out factor increased the 4th Quarter rush attempts by less than 2% difference in which we played games decided by less than one score. The skew factor is just not as varied as some believe it to be. Instead the carries in the 1st half had more of a spike than the 4th quarter of those blow out games.

Sacks, defense yards allowed, yards per pass attempt they all are increased with balance.. 80 yards a game on defense.. that alone is worthy at least a couple minutes in TOP on average per game.

Again.. it isn't a guarantee or a magically win creator, but it does make you a more balanced and thus effective football team and provides a couple more inches to a game in which they say is often won by inches. Every advantage increases your odds. And that is thy point.