To all of you who said "you can't win a title in the nfl without a running game..."

Packerfury

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 1, 2009
Messages
125
Reaction score
17
Well? Come on. I heard it all year as I know some others as well as I have said that a running game just isn't a necessity anymore. It's nice. It's cool. But it isn't a need. It CAN win games, but you don't need one in order to. If any game has ever proved that,it is this one. The steelers ran all over us for 126 yards and we gained 50. So please please please, come tell me and all others how important the running game is in the NFL...
 

VersusTheMoose

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
1,358
Reaction score
160
Proved a lot of people wrong. It is important and blah blah blah, but this game and season was won through the air and on defense.
 

Murgen

MechaPackzilla
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
3,287
Reaction score
565
Location
Dallas
When you got an Aaron Rodgers throwing the ball and 4 good WRs you can get away with not having the greatest running game. Steelers running game I think got them back into the game but it just wasn't enough.
 

packerfan4ever

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 28, 2005
Messages
1,067
Reaction score
39
Location
wisconsin
a run game is important but you play to the opponents weakness, and that is what we did,d-line played great ahh whole team played great even though we didn't run much it was enough.
 

98Redbird

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
810
Reaction score
144
Location
Bears Country... UGH!!
I'm pretty sure we had a run game, or at least a resemblance of one this post season. His name was James Starks. He averaged 4.0 yards a carry in the post season and had more yards than anyone, second was Mendenhall. Granted we played more games than everyone in the playoffs, but 4.0 YPC is at least a run game that needs to be respected.

He had some big runs this post season. Had one on the last Packer drive of the season in fact against the Steelers.

And without Starks, I don't know that we win that Philly game. Just being honest.
 

NelsonsLongCatch

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 7, 2008
Messages
2,808
Reaction score
270
Location
Chi-Town
I'm pretty sure we had a run game, or at least a resemblance of one this post season. His name was James Starks. He averaged 4.0 yards a carry in the post season and had more yards than anyone, second was Mendenhall. Granted we played more games than everyone in the playoffs, but 4.0 YPC is at least a run game that needs to be respected.

He had some big runs this post season. Had one on the last Packer drive of the season in fact against the Steelers.

And without Starks, I don't know that we win that Philly game. Just being honest.

THANK YOU.

Apparently PackerFury didn't watch the Philly game where Starks controled the game and racked up 120+ yards.

The play-action pass worked extremely well against Atlanta and Chicago, but I guess Starks had nothing to do with that either.

PF didn't watch the fourth quarter of the Super Bowl either where Starks averaged 4.7 yards a carry and had a HUGE 14 yard run on the final drive.
 
OP
OP
P

Packerfury

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 1, 2009
Messages
125
Reaction score
17
Jenninfslongcatch you are just pissed because you were flat out wrong. We proved to the whole world a run game is not even close to necessary. What's needed is an elite qb and a good defense. Anyone who thinks you need anything else to win a title is a moron and won't look at the facts. Maybe you missed the superbowl. Calling what we have a "running game" is like saying jamarcus russel had a successful career. If you look up our running plays in the playbook, they are probably called "keep the defense honest." There's a reason that when we need points, we give the ball to rodgers. We can run because we can pass. The patriots do the same thing. Teams are so up on playing the spread, when we run, they run well. Also, James Starks isn't that good. Ya, I said it. He's okay. He'll put up numbers in this offense, but that's because of what Rodgers does in the air.
 

armand34

Cheesehead
Joined
May 24, 2010
Messages
2,056
Reaction score
273
Location
The Beach, NJ
the only team that could get away w/ not having a consistent rushing attack is the Green Bay Packers...it's been the mantra all season...which only makes Aaron Rodgers job so much harder...Aaron Rodgers & a good group w/ protection is very tough to beat...it was kind of a phenomenon as to how successful they were being NEARLY one-dimensional the whole game...but w/o Rodgers it would never happen
 

Packman Chant

Lambeau West
Joined
Sep 29, 2010
Messages
242
Reaction score
21
Location
California
I do think you need it, if you think about it they had to prepare for it seeing how well we did against the eagles and bears...not having many yards doesnt mean the run didnt help the pass which won us the game. We all know that the run opens up the pass, and the few yards we did have were explosive enough to keep them guessing. I do get what your saying though. when you give the packers a run and pass game though, that play action comes out and OMG its magic! We cant be stopped.
 

Ausnadian

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
218
Reaction score
40
Location
Melbourne, Australia
So please please please, come tell me and all others how important the running game is in the NFL...

Well, if every team doesn't just fire their ground attack because the Packers won with a throw first offense.

Our O line played extremely well, and the Steelers secondary has room for improvement. If either of these were different the Packers game plan would have been a lot harder to achieve, and a running game would be extremely important to open up play action. Although I know deep down you know this, as any football fan should.
 

net

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 4, 2005
Messages
980
Reaction score
22
Location
Rhinelander
Sorry, don't really care if you think you don't need a running game. You do. And the Packers did. Starks had 52 yards. Why not ask McCarthy if he wants a running game? He has said all along you need BALANCE. Why have running backs? Because if you don't at least have the THREAT of a running game, they simply put 6 defensive backs out there and your offense is toast.
Anyone who thinks you don't need a running attack is fooling themselves and the Packers will find that out next season. The D-Coordinators will stop the passing attack eventually, then, what...? You kick 65 yard field goals? You have a deadly accurate passer and at least two outstanding receivers. But to simply say you don't need to run the ball is really, really dumb. There isn't a reputable coach in any league that would say that. Good example is the Detroit game. Detroit took away the passing game, and the running game never got going....and look where it ended up...the Packers last loss this season.
The Packers didn't need to emphasize the run in THIS GAME. But they will need to improve the run game in 2011.
Sorry, but your reasoning is flawed.
 
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
786
Reaction score
76
Location
Kenosha WISCONSIN
When we played the steelers in 2009 we didn't run the ball because of the matchup. If we feel we can run on the opposing team we will run the ball more often. If we see a flaw in their secondary we will pass it more. It's all about matchups. Running game allows aaron rodgers to do so much more in the passing game.
 

arrimike

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 19, 2010
Messages
76
Reaction score
12
Location
Springboro, OH
Jenninfslongcatch you are just pissed because you were flat out wrong. We proved to the whole world a run game is not even close to necessary. What's needed is an elite qb and a good defense. Anyone who thinks you need anything else to win a title is a moron and won't look at the facts. Maybe you missed the superbowl. Calling what we have a "running game" is like saying jamarcus russel had a successful career. If you look up our running plays in the playbook, they are probably called "keep the defense honest." There's a reason that when we need points, we give the ball to rodgers. We can run because we can pass. The patriots do the same thing. Teams are so up on playing the spread, when we run, they run well. Also, James Starks isn't that good. Ya, I said it. He's okay. He'll put up numbers in this offense, but that's because of what Rodgers does in the air.

I agree with the statement that we can run becuase we can pass... Most of the time teams set up the run so they can pass the ball... Here, we just don't know it, but we set up the running game in the fourth with our passing game... That final drive, Pitts. was getting torn up in the air... So then their gameplan changed dramatically to play against the pass heavy, allowing Starks to get those huge holes... It also seems that the run game was essential against the Eagles, but i don't really know about that... Eagles were playing against the pass and when we noticed that they were giving us big holes, we just kept running... Again, another instance were the passing game setup the running game.
 

PFanCan

That's MISTER Cheesehead, to you.
Joined
Dec 18, 2009
Messages
2,067
Reaction score
491
Location
Houston, TX
Hypotheticals and debate aside, I will be very happy when a healthy Grant runs for 1000+ yards next season.
 

AmishMafia

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 27, 2010
Messages
7,279
Reaction score
2,395
Location
PENDING
I have trouble with trying to make these generalizations about what you do and don't need. Football is so complex and there are many strategies to employ.

An effective running game is just another tool in the tool box with which to utilize in the task of winning NFL football games. An effective run game helps, I don't think anyone will argue that. If you don't have one, you better have some excellent other tools that can compensate.
 

ivo610

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
16,588
Reaction score
2,250
Location
Madison
the two most important things are passing defense and passing offense. In that order. You can have short passes to keep the defense "honest" and set up the deep pass. I think we had the 2nd lowest rushing yards in the SB for someone who won (I heard this over the tv after the game at a bar so I might have misheard part of that)
 

cakoski

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Messages
29
Reaction score
5
Location
Los Angeles, CA
We do not have a good running game. If we did Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, or Chicago does not get the ball back in under 2 minutes in the 4th. I expect improving the running game is something TT and MM will address in the off season. But this does prove you can win a title with a poor running game it just a lot harder. And remember the 1982 49ers only gained around 800 yards all season from their running game.
 

armand34

Cheesehead
Joined
May 24, 2010
Messages
2,056
Reaction score
273
Location
The Beach, NJ
Sorry, don't really care if you think you don't need a running game. You do. And the Packers did. Starks had 52 yards. Why not ask McCarthy if he wants a running game? He has said all along you need BALANCE. Why have running backs? Because if you don't at least have the THREAT of a running game, they simply put 6 defensive backs out there and your offense is toast.
Anyone who thinks you don't need a running attack is fooling themselves and the Packers will find that out next season. The D-Coordinators will stop the passing attack eventually, then, what...? You kick 65 yard field goals? You have a deadly accurate passer and at least two outstanding receivers. But to simply say you don't need to run the ball is really, really dumb. There isn't a reputable coach in any league that would say that. Good example is the Detroit game. Detroit took away the passing game, and the running game never got going....and look where it ended up...the Packers last loss this season.
The Packers didn't need to emphasize the run in THIS GAME. But they will need to improve the run game in 2011.
Sorry, but your reasoning is flawed.

you can't attack a great run d w/ a weak rushing attack...you attack the weakness of the team's defense
 

Kitten

Feline Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 13, 2010
Messages
5,120
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Philly/ South Jersey area
Starks might have something to say to that! We didn't have what most people would consider a running game but we had enough of one to make a difference! That running game, call it what you will, was enough to help our O line and ultimately help the Packers win the SB!
 

Pegger Packer

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 4, 2010
Messages
377
Reaction score
110
Location
Winnipeg, MB, Canada
THANK YOU.

Apparently PackerFury didn't watch the Philly game where Starks controled the game and racked up 120+ yards.

The play-action pass worked extremely well against Atlanta and Chicago, but I guess Starks had nothing to do with that either.

PF didn't watch the fourth quarter of the Super Bowl either where Starks averaged 4.7 yards a carry and had a HUGE 14 yard run on the final drive.

Yep, that 14 yard run was ABSOLUTELY GINORMOUS! It still stands out as one of the greatest moments in the game, as I knew all we needed to do at that point is run down the clock.

While we didn't rely on our running game, i'm real happy that Starks showed up when we called on him.
 

GreenBlood

Banned
Banned
Joined
Aug 9, 2008
Messages
1,705
Reaction score
251
The premise of this thread is erroneous. We DO have a running game. We simply don't use it much. Starks put up about 5 yards per carry... enough to keep the defense honest and that's all we happen to need it for. But without that running game, even though we used is sparingly, passing becomes more difficult and half of our playbook goes out the window without credible play action.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Latest posts

Top