Two 1,000 yard running backs this year

Schultz

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 8, 2021
Messages
1,401
Reaction score
664
The stats were for carries OVER 4 yards and carries OVER 10 yards. At no point did i discuss YPC.
I know! But all of the responses were "well if you get 4 yards a carry that is a 1st down. Move the chains. Don't need any big plays".
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
10,390
Reaction score
3,009
I’m fully aware, I’ve been watching football for a long time. My point was only that he’s a consistent runner. He doesn’t have many explosive runs, partially from how he used more so than his capability imo, but it his what it is.

While big plays in the run game are great, consistent plays in the run game will lead to more then the play action passing game. There are a lot of pros to having a consistent runner. Control temp, control top, control the defense and play action passing yields the most explosive plays imo. You don’t need 25+ yard runs to be an effective runner. That was my point.

Move the chains, the big plays will be built off it.
Very True. I love using stats, I love Winning games more. Sometimes the stats don't tell the whole story.

As an example in 2021
Aaron Jones had 6 receiving TD's
Dillon's had 2 receiving TDs

Dillon had 5 rushing TDs
Jones 4 TDs rushing

Aaron Jones had 37 1st downs rushing; 22 1st downs receiving (236 combined touches)
Dillon had 50 1st downs rushing; 15 1st downs receiving (224 combined touches)

That sort of goes along with us using Dillon as a power option and Jones as our finesse option. In 2021, Dillon had 65 1st D on less touches (224) than Jones (236) That does not mean he's a better RB, just that he's used in a different capacity. AJ Dillon is a chain moving machine and he does it in arguably tough yard areas (more Goal line and short yardage situational) Thats why they compliment each other so well imo
Dalvin Cook had 66 1st D (298 combined touches).

The only thing we need is to involve our RB wrecking crew more and I'd love to see 24 total TD between those 2 Packer RB's. 12 rushing, 12 receiving; 150 1st Downs combined
 
Last edited:

Sunshinepacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
5,454
Reaction score
629
I know! But all of the responses were "well if you get 4 yards a carry that is a 1st down. Move the chains. Don't need any big plays".
Ah, ok. To those who feel that way, I’d simply ask how many 16+ play scoring drives they commonly see.
 

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
14,782
Reaction score
2,750
I'd simply ask both of you to go back and re-read if you think anyone was advocating they just run down the field every play.
you implied that Dillon wasn't sufficient as he doesn't break enough big runs. I disagreed. He's a consistent chain mover. You don't need explosion from a running game to have a good offense. You need to keep the chains moving. It builds explosive plays from every other position on the field by doing that. And dillon can do that. Pretty well.
 
OP
OP
kevans74

kevans74

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 16, 2017
Messages
1,116
Reaction score
254
Location
USA
Mondio is getting the point. We don't need a guy who gets 20+ yard runs and then rushes it 3 more times for no gain and "averages" 5 yards a carry. Just an example

We just need a bruiser like Dillon who consistently gets 3-4 yards+ per carry and doesn't fumble and can catch


Now add In Aaron Jones and Aaron Rodgers and you have a great offense
 

Schultz

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 8, 2021
Messages
1,401
Reaction score
664
I'd simply ask both of you to go back and re-read if you think anyone was advocating they just run down the field every play.
you implied that Dillon wasn't sufficient as he doesn't break enough big runs. I disagreed. He's a consistent chain mover. You don't need explosion from a running game to have a good offense. You need to keep the chains moving. It builds explosive plays from every other position on the field by doing that. And dillon can do that. Pretty well.
You know who else is a consistent chain mover. The WR who probably won't be playing Sunday and that a lot of you think he is somehow less valuable to this team than some other WRs. Well that's a negative ghostrider. He will be sorely (see what I did there) missed.
 

captainWIMM

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
28,277
Reaction score
2,787
I’m fully aware, I’ve been watching football for a long time. My point was only that he’s a consistent runner. He doesn’t have many explosive runs, partially from how he used more so than his capability imo, but it his what it is.

While big plays in the run game are great, consistent plays in the run game will lead to more then the play action passing game. There are a lot of pros to having a consistent runner. Control temp, control top, control the defense and play action passing yields the most explosive plays imo. You don’t need 25+ yard runs to be an effective runner. That was my point.

Move the chains, the big plays will be built off it.

Don't get me wrong, Dillon is an effective runner even without a lot of explosive plays. I just wanted to point out that he doesn't gain four yards on a significant amount of plays as well.

Mondio is getting the point. We don't need a guy who gets 20+ yard runs and then rushes it 3 more times for no gain and "averages" 5 yards a carry. Just an example

We just need a bruiser like Dillon who consistently gets 3-4 yards+ per carry and doesn't fumble and can catch

As I have pointed out earlier in this thread Dillon doesn't gain four yards on nearly half of his carries as well.

Now add In Aaron Jones and Aaron Rodgers and you have a great offense

The Packers need their receivers and tight ends to step up as well to feature a great offense.
 

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
14,782
Reaction score
2,750
You know who else is a consistent chain mover. The WR who probably won't be playing Sunday and that a lot of you think he is somehow less valuable to this team than some other WRs. Well that's a negative ghostrider. He will be sorely (see what I did there) missed.
I like Lazard, and there is no replacing a guy like Adams and what he brings. I'm not sure what you're getting at.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
10,390
Reaction score
3,009
While I'm not suggesting we should get overly zealous running the ball early, there are several teams that have been successful doing so. We each have witnessed teams win games running the ball, even in today's game. I would start normal, but ramp up the running game after the initial excitement wears off (teams D are always high octane that first couple of drives) By Qtr 3.5? if we are running effectively?
I'd give them an extra heavy dose of RB
I'd Start early by Letting the MN Defense over-pursue into the pocket and bleed them with short passes


I'm hoping we send Christian on a few deep attempts also.
 
Last edited:

captainWIMM

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
28,277
Reaction score
2,787
While I'm not suggesting we should get overly zealous running the ball early, there are several teams that have been successful doing so. We each have witnessed teams win games running the ball, even in today's game.

Teams don't consistently win by running the ball on the majority of offensive playd. Heck, there are hardly any teams taking that approach anymore.

That's basically what Terrell Davis did to us in Super Bowl XXXII.

The game has significantly changed over the past 25 years though.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
10,390
Reaction score
3,009
Teams don't consistently win by running the ball on the majority of offensive playd. Heck, there are hardly any teams taking that approach anymore.
Who said consistently do that?
I didn’t say that.

I guess you forgot about SF49 game
where they ran all over us recently?

6/8 in pass attempts all day.
 
Last edited:

captainWIMM

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
28,277
Reaction score
2,787
Who said consistently do that?
I didn’t say that.

I guess you forgot about SF49 game
where they ran all over us recently?

6/8 in pass attempts all day.

Of course there are outliers but teams don't win consistently in the NFL by running the ball on the majority of plays anymore.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
10,390
Reaction score
3,009
Of course there are outliers but teams don't win consistently in the NFL by running the ball on the majority of plays anymore.
Sure. However, I was speaking about Running more in this game or earlier this season for this team.
We rushed RB1A and RB1A 15 times total??
Does that sound like a winning solution when you've been banged up and inexperienced at WR and OL?? Thats just common sense (or their lack thereof)
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
10,390
Reaction score
3,009
As far as this business we are being fed with Running is "old fashioned"? So far this week in 15 games there is only 2 teams who ran the ball less than its opponent and still Won. It was the Pittsburgh Steelers (22 rushes) and Saints (19) and they were an O.T. game and a
1 point contest. So, to start out, 12 out of 14 games ended in either a TIE or LOSS with the team with lesser Rushing attempts. (the 15th contest: 49ers-Bears each had 37 rushes each so that one's a draw)

The only team to rush the same or less than the Packers (18) was the Cowboys (18), Jets (17) and Raiders (13) and all 4 LOST by a combined score of 38-90
The league average so far is 26.44 rushes per game

The point I'm making isn't to say it's the only thing that matters, but rather that it DOES matter. It matters even more when you are averaging 6.2 per carry. We should have run the ball at least 15-20 more times.
 
Last edited:

SudsMcBucky

Cheesehead
Joined
May 17, 2022
Messages
77
Reaction score
54
As far as this business we are being fed with Running is "old fashioned"? So far this week in 15 games there is only 2 teams who ran the ball less than its opponent and still Won. It was the Pittsburgh Steelers (22 rushes) and Atlanta (38) and they were an O.T. game and a
1 point contest. So, to start out, 12 out of 14 games ended in either a TIE or LOSS with the team with lesser Rushing attempts. (the 15th contest: 49ers-Bears each had 37 rushes each so that one's a draw)

The only team to rush the same or less than the Packers (18) was the Cowboys (18), Jets (17) and Raiders (13) and all 4 LOST by a combined score of 38-90
The league average so far is 26.44 rushes per game

The point I'm making isn't to say it's the only thing that matters, but rather that it DOES matter. It matters even more when you are averaging 6.2 per carry. We should have run the ball at least 15-20 more times

Atlanta didn't win.
 
OP
OP
kevans74

kevans74

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 16, 2017
Messages
1,116
Reaction score
254
Location
USA
In all fairness, Mike can get all the burgers, BBQ, Tex Mex, fried chicken, all you can eat buffet, etc in Dallas to stuff his face so I bet he's happy down there. Lol
 

Sunshinepacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
5,454
Reaction score
629
Look, if the team can get two 1,000+ yard rushers while only giving them 15 combined attempts a game, it will be the most amazing rushing season in NFL history and I'd have to think they win the Super Bowl. I mean, 15 carries times 17 games is a total of 255 carries so they're both averaging over 7.8 yards per carry. That would be something else!
 

Schultz

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 8, 2021
Messages
1,401
Reaction score
664
As far as this business we are being fed with Running is "old fashioned"? So far this week in 15 games there is only 2 teams who ran the ball less than its opponent and still Won. It was the Pittsburgh Steelers (22 rushes) and Saints (19) and they were an O.T. game and a
1 point contest. So, to start out, 12 out of 14 games ended in either a TIE or LOSS with the team with lesser Rushing attempts. (the 15th contest: 49ers-Bears each had 37 rushes each so that one's a draw)

The only team to rush the same or less than the Packers (18) was the Cowboys (18), Jets (17) and Raiders (13) and all 4 LOST by a combined score of 38-90
The league average so far is 26.44 rushes per game

The point I'm making isn't to say it's the only thing that matters, but rather that it DOES matter. It matters even more when you are averaging 6.2 per carry. We should have run the ball at least 15-20 more times.
Um, teams run the ball more to eat clock when they are winning and throw the ball more when they are losing.
 

captainWIMM

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
28,277
Reaction score
2,787
Sure. However, I was speaking about Running more in this game or earlier this season for this team.
We rushed RB1A and RB1A 15 times total??
Does that sound like a winning solution when you've been banged up and inexperienced at WR and OL?? Thats just common sense (or their lack thereof)

I would have liked the Packers to run the ball more often against the Vikings as well. My point was that running the ball more often than throwing it isn't a recipe for success in the NFL though. Heck, over the past 10 seasons only 14 teams (4.4%) even rushed the ball on more than 50% of their offensive plays.
 
Top