The running game

[JBlood]

MM has talked about establishing a running game, the only thing he has not been successful at to this point. To do this, they must upgrade the offensive line, and the offensive line coaching, imo.

This fromEric Baranczyk and Cliff Christl (Green Bay Packers news | Green Bay Packers plug holes in Super Bowl XLV as they've done all season | Green Bay Press-Gazette) :

" Scott Wells is tenacious and a technician, but he’s short and doesn’t have the wingspan to get inside some of those big defensive linemen. He can’t physically overpower people. If they ever want to be a running team, they’ll need to do something about the left guard and center positions. On the other hand, John Kuhn was more effective as a blocker than Quinn Johnson. He finishes blocks better."

If MM is successful in developing a line that can control things at the end of a game, or in short yardage situations, LOOK OUT!

 

[JJP41]

MM has talked about establishing a running game, the only thing he has not been successful at to this point. To do this, they must upgrade the offensive line, and the offensive line coaching, imo.

This fromEric Baranczyk and Cliff Christl (Green Bay Packers news | Green Bay Packers plug holes in Super Bowl XLV as they've done all season | Green Bay Press-Gazette) :

" Scott Wells is tenacious and a technician, but he’s short and doesn’t have the wingspan to get inside some of those big defensive linemen. He can’t physically overpower people. If they ever want to be a running team, they’ll need to do something about the left guard and center positions. On the other hand, John Kuhn was more effective as a blocker than Quinn Johnson. He finishes blocks better."

If MM is successful in developing a line that can control things at the end of a game, or in short yardage situations, LOOK OUT!

Since when is 6-2 short? Olin Kreutz and Jeff Saturday are both the same size (and lighter) as Scott Wells and between them have 11 Pro Bowls.

 

[fettpett]

I don't think the guys on the line are the problem, the problem is the stupid ZONE blocking scheme. throw that crap out and go back to the power run game and we'll be MUCH better. I hate that Zone running scheme

 

[Packerfury]

Who cares, we don't have a running game and just won the sb. The only use for our running game is to set up the pass and keep defenses honest. Oh and when were up by 4 scores and just want the game to end. Just like every other team that has an elite qb. The reason the colts, saints, and pats can and do run is because of their quarterbacks.

 

[fettpett]

Who cares, we don't have a running game and just won the sb. The only use for our running game is to set up the pass and keep defenses honest. Oh and when were up by 4 scores and just want the game to end. Just like every other team that has an elite qb. The reason the colts, saints, and pats can and do run is because of their quarterbacks.

I hate this thought process. the Packers could have been DOMINATING with an actual running game. We didn't become really good until we had a running game worth a ****. We couldn't have beaten the Eagles without it, could have won a few other reg season games if we had one (Atlanta, NE, Dolphins, Washington all come to mind).

 

[packerfan4ever]

Well a run game would be nice and think we will have that,in bad weather cant always throw the ball,so i hope they come up with a good system for the run.

 

[rawalabhay]

We had a running game last two seasons, its called Ryan Grant. BJax is a 3rd down back at best and Starks was not ready to take over after Grant got hurt. The zone blocking scheme that we run requires a lot of practice and the back has to know where to go and when to make the cut. BJax is not Ryan Grant and thats why the running game suffered after he got hurt. If you look at the playoffs we actually had a pretty decent running game.

Here are some Grant stats from the last two years:
Rush Yds Y/G Avg TD
312 1203 75.2 3.9 4
282 1253 78.3 4.4 11

 

[SpartaChris]

Jesus.. We just win the Super Bowl without a power run game and people are still complaining about it.

Folks, lets worry about the running game, or lack thereof, NEXT season. It doesn't matter if we could have won a couple more games this year or not, we won the friggin Super Bowl! Worry about the rest later!

 

[fettpett]

Jesus.. We just win the Super Bowl without a power run game and people are still complaining about it.

Folks, lets worry about the running game, or lack thereof, NEXT season. It doesn't matter if we could have won a couple more games this year or not, we won the friggin Super Bowl! Worry about the rest later!

It's Not complaining...it's call critique and it's a legit thing to do. Hell MM even talked about there being stuff that needed to be fixed, my guess the lack of Running game after Grant went down is one of those issues.

I'm sick of hear that we can't be critical just because we won the Super Bowl, yeah we did and everyone here is excited that we did, but we can get better and this is our way of voicing what can get better.

 

[Forget Favre]

We had a running game last two seasons, its called Ryan Grant. BJax is a 3rd down back at best and Starks was not ready to take over after Grant got hurt. The zone blocking scheme that we run requires a lot of practice and the back has to know where to go and when to make the cut. BJax is not Ryan Grant and thats why the running game suffered after he got hurt. If you look at the playoffs we actually had a pretty decent running game.

Here are some Grant stats from the last two years:
Rush Yds Y/G Avg TD
312 1203 75.2 3.9 4
282 1253 78.3 4.4 11

Exactly.
Grant will be back.
And Starks didn't get started until late in the season and he should be back for the start as well.
So I don't think we should worry too much about a running game right now.

Jesus.. We just win the Super Bowl without a power run game and people are still complaining about it.

Folks, lets worry about the running game, or lack thereof, NEXT season. It doesn't matter if we could have won a couple more games this year or not, we won the friggin Super Bowl! Worry about the rest later!

I agree.
The SB showed that we don't need a running game to win every game.
And the Pack did get a few good runs against the Stealers D.
So if they can do that against the Stealers, they can do that against anybody.

 

[SpartaChris]

It's Not complaining...it's call critique and it's a legit thing to do. Hell MM even talked about there being stuff that needed to be fixed, my guess the lack of Running game after Grant went down is one of those issues.

I'm sick of hear that we can't be critical just because we won the Super Bowl, yeah we did and everyone here is excited that we did, but we can get better and this is our way of voicing what can get better.

I don't care if you're sick of hearing it or not. Sorry, but being critical of the team that just won the friggin Super Bowl a week after the fact is just stupid. And we just proved you don't need some monstrous running game to win championships.

Worry about it around draft time. For now, give it a rest.

 

[Packerfury]

I hate this thought process. the Packers could have been DOMINATING with an actual running game. We didn't become really good until we had a running game worth a ****. We couldn't have beaten the Eagles without it, could have won a few other reg season games if we had one (Atlanta, NE, Dolphins, Washington all come to mind).

We can run because we can pass. Running the football and having a running game are different. People say Oh James Starks gave us a running game. Look at his stats this post season. He didn't even have 4 yards per carry. We got lucky vs the eagles with our running game. I never said we dominated, but we won. Our running game serves its purpose. I hate the misconception that our running game. When Aaron Rodgers does good, our running game does good. Same as all other elite qbs. Your telling me that you really think that Benjarvus Green-Ellis is anything more than a mediocre running back that is the product of the system. He had yards because half the time they were up 35-0 and were just giving the ball to him to run it out and that people feared brady so much that they played nickel all game. Thats all we need our running game to be. And that's all it is.

 

[Packerfury]

Here's an article about just how important having a star back is to win in the nfl
AP's chance of wining a title are low

 

[fettpett]

look, I'm not saying we need an AP type RB or anything, but having a decent running game would have gone a long way to helping the team in the final 4-8 mins of the game to keep teams from coming back and winning, which they did several times on us.

I am extremely excited that we won the Super Bowl and glad that MM game planed the way he did to take advantage of the Steelers defense which was weak in the secondary.

When I talk about the running game, I don't really mean the RB's we have but the scheme, the Zone blocking scheme sucks and we should dump it, THAT is what I'm being critical of.

 

[Coach]

Zone blocking works if the players know what they are doing. This is the NFL after all, and every person on that offensive line is capable of doing his job effectively. I think it comes down to coaching. The talent is there, but they are sort of lacking in the technical aspect. Just my opinion.

 

[Bogart]

We just won the Super Bowl,and as far back as I can remember, we DID have a running game in the playoffs.

 

[JJP41]

It's Not complaining...it's call critique and it's a legit thing to do. Hell MM even talked about there being stuff that needed to be fixed, my guess the lack of Running game after Grant went down is one of those issues.

I'm sick of hear that we can't be critical just because we won the Super Bowl, yeah we did and everyone here is excited that we did, but we can get better and this is our way of voicing what can get better.

A legit question would be how many teams are as effective at running the ball without their No. 1 running back? My guess would be very few if any.

Someone already posted Grant's numbers the past 2 seasons. Being that he surpassed the 1,000 yard mark in both those seasons, obviously the offensive line isn't as terrible as some make it out to be.

And to single out Wells is just plain ridiculous.

Do the Packers need to find someone to take over for a soon to be 35-year old Chad Clifton and be the future at the position? Yes, obviously Clifton can't play forever and this draft is deep at the position this year.

 

[Pack88]

I think they over simplified things a bit! Wells is short that's true but he is an above average center and plays with great leverage- he is a very good reach blocker and that is essential to the run game. He is not Olin Kreutz in his prime who could mash big guys but he can leverage and move them and he is 10 times the pass blocker Kreutz ever was.

As to the running game, M3 had a great plan and I think he executed most of it, when the Steelers were on their heels about the pass he ran and when he caught them in a single high safety he passed and passed deep, only the drops kept this game from being a rout!

I do agree GB needs to draft OL this year. Apparently Marshall Newhouse is held in high regard by the Packers and he may be the answer at LT. Not a great year but at 32 there will be value unless the Tackles are over drafted, then I would go OLB and get the best OG or LT available in rd 2!

Pack88

 

[mradtke66]

I don't think the guys on the line are the problem, the problem is the stupid ZONE blocking scheme. throw that crap out and go back to the power run game and we'll be MUCH better. I hate that Zone running scheme

Now, you're probably who I need to be yelling at, but I feel there's this "Zone blocking is bad because it's not POWER blocking! Therefore, zone blocking must be wussy-blocking" mentality.

Don't think of it as zone vs. power. Think of it as zone vs. man blocking, just like man vs zone defenses in the secondary.

There are few real difference between the two.

In man (power) schemes, there are specific matchups for who to block. Ergo, playside guard and center double the nose tackle, then one of them release and pick off an inside linebacker. In a zone scheme, they would likely do the exact. same. thing. They (the o-line) just aren't assigned a specific defender when the play is drawn up.

The backside players have a pretty similar job--run towards the intended running gap/hole and get in the way. The difference is that in zone, they always cut block. That's it.

My biggest complaint is they play(s) that they don't run (often) is when the backside guard pulls and leads in the hole or kicks out the defender with outside contain. Wisconsin is primarily a zone team and they run beautifully--but they do have that pulling guard scheme.

 

[PackersRS]

Lemme just get this out of the way:
For our football team, Pass pro >>>>> run blocking

Wells is one of the best centers in football in protection adjustements and pass blocking. Unless we can find an all-pro center, that is as good as him in pass pro, but offers better blocking, he won't be replaced.

2009, they tried to put Spitz in there, because he is a better run blocker. But the dropoff in pass pro was so big, that it wasn't worth it.

There's also Clifton. He played his best football ever in the playoffs, pratically negating the best rushers in the game in Cole, Abraham, Peppers and Harrison. But he's a lousy, lousy run blocker. But, as with Wells, unless we can find a guy that offers as much in pass pro and more in run blocking, he'll stay.

As for Collegde, I really think he'll be gone. Someone is gonna overpay for him. Then, chances are we're gonna see Lang in there, who's a better run blocker, and player well against the Lions the time he was there.

Sitton is one of the best guards in football at everything, and Bulaga is a very good run blocker that it's only going to get better.

That covers the OL.

Now I'm gonna discuss the reasons we can't run the ball properly.

First of all, we can. We ran the ball really, really well in the playoffs this year, even against Pittsburgh. But we're never going to be able to rely on the running game (the closest to it will be how we performed against Philly in the playoffs).

The reasons we can't rely on the run are those:
1) OL
2) RB
3) FB/TE

1 is covered. Our OL is build primarily to pass block, and an all around great OL is incredibly hard to built, and would take away money from more vital areas (to us), such as playmakers on offense and defensive players.

As for 2, we need the right kind of backs to work on our zone scheme. Grant and Starks fit the mold, and we can run effectively with them. Kuhn and Jackson do not. They can work in situations, but as every down backs, they can't get the job done. Of course, if we had a back like Adrian Peterson, even with our OL blocking, we would be a great running team. But I've covered the money issue, and, as evidenced by the SB, we don't need that to win.

Number 3 is the other issue. As for FBs, the Packers are trying to get better with Johnson, but he's coming along slowly with the playbook and passing game, and unless he's effective in the passing game, he's not gonna play. And regarding the TEs, all of our guys are pass catchers first, with the exception of Crabtree, who is a good blocker. We saw in the SB Heath Miller and Spaeth being able to block Matthews one-on-one. Finley and Quarless can't do that, and that hinders our running game.

But, as with the trend of this post, they're assets in the passing game, which, to us, is much more important. If they develop as blockers, the running game would benefit, and we've seen at times good blocking from them.

I think what I'm trying to say with this is, we're built to pass. Passing the ball and running the ball are not excludent, but in today's NFL, with the cap, it's nearly impossible to build a team to be as good passing as it is running, while having a great D.

It sure would nice to be like the Cowboys of the early 90's, with Aikman, Irvin and Smith, and with a great D, but do not expect it.

Expect our running game to perform like it did in the playoffs. If that happens, there's no way we have games like Detroit and Chicago. If that happens, teams can't just play the pass. And that will go a long ways towards us repeating.

 

[fettpett]

Now, you're probably who I need to be yelling at, but I feel there's this "Zone blocking is bad because it's not POWER blocking! Therefore, zone blocking must be wussy-blocking" mentality.

Don't think of it as zone vs. power. Think of it as zone vs. man blocking, just like man vs zone defenses in the secondary.

There are few real difference between the two.

In man (power) schemes, there are specific matchups for who to block. Ergo, playside guard and center double the nose tackle, then one of them release and pick off an inside linebacker. In a zone scheme, they would likely do the exact. same. thing. They (the o-line) just aren't assigned a specific defender when the play is drawn up.

The backside players have a pretty similar job--run towards the intended running gap/hole and get in the way. The difference is that in zone, they always cut block. That's it.

My biggest complaint is they play(s) that they don't run (often) is when the backside guard pulls and leads in the hole or kicks out the defender with outside contain. Wisconsin is primarily a zone team and they run beautifully--but they do have that pulling guard scheme.

my problem with the zone blocking scheme has nothing to do with the "Zone blocking is bad because it's not POWER blocking! Therefore, zone blocking must be wussy-blocking" mind set. My problem with it is that have never had the coaches to teach the guys how to do it. The closest we got was Jagodzinski who had learned it under Gibbs. However Gibbs didn't teach it fully to anyone and has kept it under wraps. The only time it has fully successful was with the Bronco's in the 90's. I just would like them to go with a scheme that fits the personal better.

Like I said before, our OL guys are good, great at Pass blocking, but poor at this scheme for run blocking. Clifton wont be around much longer and we do need another LT in this draft (hell I'd be up for trading Flynn and our #1 pick to move up for one). Buluaga is a RT and hopefully will stay there for years.

 

[JBlood]

I'll agree that we're a passing team. But if Rogers continues to get hit 16 times a game, as he was in the Championship, he won't be leading the team for many more years. The line needs to be better. Both in the run game and in the pass protection game.

Nobody has enjoyed this Championship more than I, but that doesn't mean that things can't be improved.

The offensive line is a weakness that Rogers, with his excellence, minimizes. It can, and should, be better. I think the offensive line coaching is a weakness. Campen and Philben were placed in charge of the zone blocking scheme, without any real expertise, after Zagodzinski left. They have not been able to turn the line into a dominant unit, something that MM has said is a goal of his.

Wells gets overpowered and Colledge plays well in spurts. It's not good enough. In all of the season's losses the inability to convert 3rd and short opportunities was a factor. Rogers need better protection, he's one concussion away from sitting, maybe for an extended time.

We have a great team that can be better. Why would anyone not be in favor of that?

 

[DevilDon]

I'm a bit surprised that people think the running game is a problem. I see absolutely nothing wrong with the coaching, I see nothing wrong with personnel.
I do respect that we need help on the OL but only because we have to have the best pass blocking OL in football to protect arguably the best QB in the NFL.
I can't imagine people would want to see the coaching go, Bulaga stepped in early at a position he's never played and did pretty good. Now someone posted here he's mostly a RT? No, he'll be our LT, it's his position and he's gonna be good at it. If he can play a tackle position he's never played before as well as he has screams of good coaching.
Colledge will be gone and either Newhouse or Lang will take his spot. Nothing wrong with Wells, the knock on him is his arm spread, not height. But if he's got the right guards on either side it will not be a problem, very cerebral player that Rodgers respects.
As for abandoning the ZBS, guys, this is how we're built, every guy on the line in the last 6 years was drafted to play it, there's nothing wrong with our approach to it, there's nothing wrong with the way we execute it. I think people wanna see 50 yard runs out of it, but that's not what it's designed to do, it's designed to produce positive yards on as many plays as possible. Just like a sack is real bad, a negative run is too. Ryan Grant is one of the best in football to get positive yardage on every single run, I think with James Starks to spell him the Packers will be dangerous, it will keep them on "schedule" 2nd and less than 8 and 3rd and less than 5 yards" to set up quick outs and screens to convert third downs.
I'd love to see the next Barry Sanders back there, but unless he comes in the 7th round I'm good with our ground game.

 

[Wood Chipper]

it isnt our job to worry about this lol this year it was simply the running back. when starks was in we had a running game . with bjax in we did not. next year we have grant and starks.

 

[JBlood]

These are the numbers that Bob McGinn reported (http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/116018854.html):

"... Green Bay slipped to 24th in yards (100.4) and 25th in yards per rush (3.82). The Packers tied Cincinnati for last with merely three runs of 20 yards or more. On third- and fourth-and-1 rushing, they tied for 19th at 66.7%. The high-water mark was the 12-play, 73-yard march that closed out the 28-26 victory against Detroit. The Packers had 142 "bad" runs, their highest total since 149 in 18 games in '03. For the second straight season, Daryn Colledge allowed the most "bad" runs (25); Josh Sitton allowed the fewest (nine)."

Even with Grant, we're an average running team.

This offensive line ranked 19th in the league in 2010(NFL Stats: by Team Category)

It's definitely an area that needs improvement if we're going to repeat.

And then there's Special Teams.....