1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!
    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers.

    You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!
  2. Announcement is LIVE: Read the Forum Post

Why worry about the running game?

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by tromadz, Oct 2, 2007.

  1. tromadz

    tromadz Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    Messages:
    1,000
    Ratings:
    +3
    Ok then.
     
  2. porky88

    porky88 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Messages:
    3,991
    Ratings:
    +0
    I don't think the Packers need to run the ball NOW to salvage their season. We're not in that type of a position because the passing game is clicking and so is the defense. The Packers are going to have to run the ball in November and December when the weather gets poor and games rely more on the running game.

    Hypothetical situation here....

    Green Bay goes 11-5 and gets a bye and advances to the 2nd round of the playoffs. They play Seattle in Green Bay and it's a blizzard that day. Is Favre going to be able to drop back and throw it 40 to 50 times and be as efficient as he is now?

    Though I don't want to get that far ahead. Just take it one game at a time and hopefully it'll improve. The coaching has been better evaluators of talent than the fans have been. I think they've earned that much through the first 4 games.
     
  3. KGB94SACKEM

    KGB94SACKEM Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2007
    Messages:
    334
    Ratings:
    +0
    Nice post Porky.

    I'm worried about putting teams away however. Even being up by 14 at the start of the 4th would seem to be a good time to grind it out with some occasional play action.
     
  4. Packnic

    Packnic Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    2,454
    Ratings:
    +6

    if we play Seattle in Green Bay during a blizzard after a bye week.... Favre doesnt even have to play and wed win that game.

    if its cold and at Lambeau fahgedaboutit.
     
  5. warhawk

    warhawk Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,922
    Ratings:
    +38
    Read the previous posts. There's explanation there as to WHY we have yet to commit to the run.

    A) To run the ball consistantly you have to COMMIT to a TWO BACKFIELD formation on a regular basis.

    B) If you are going to make the committment to (A) above you better know your RB's can carry the load with a full grasp of the playbook to make that type of offense productive.

    MM saw where he could put three and four receiver formations on the field and put the ball in Favres' hand and that would be far more productive than gambling on young running backs.

    The paradox for MM to this point is when he does want to bring in two backs everybody in the stadium knows we're probably going to run the football.

    Is it really that hard to figure out why then it doesn't work?

    What's he supposed to do now? Forego the current schemes that have gotten them to 4-0 and go with two backs and try that? He would go from being considered one of the best young football minds in the buisness to an idiot overnight.

    We will go to two backs and run the ball when SOMEBODY STOPS US from doing what we're doing to win football games right now.
     
  6. Pack93z

    Pack93z You retired too? .... Not me. I'm in my prime

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2005
    Messages:
    4,855
    Ratings:
    +22
    War...

    I disagree that you have to have two backs to have a successful running game. With the field split out with 3 and 4 sets, the box isn't populated with 7 guys... or even 6 with 4 wides in the game. It actually should be easier for the ZB to work with the set. Hat for a hat.. unless my math has become fuzzy..
     
  7. warhawk

    warhawk Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,922
    Ratings:
    +38
    Most running games are going to be good by putting one big ugly hat in front of a pretty hat with a guy on the end wearing an 88 or 85 and running through a hole. That team, however, can pass out of this, or, throw to either back or the TE. The whole package.

    You won't see many one back offenses set any running yard records. You aren't going to see consistant running numbers out of that set and THATS what people here on this forum and this thread are asking. Why can't we do this?

    A one back with the spread works great for 15 yards on third and 18 when everyone's thinking pass but isn't going to work on third and TWO and that's what people here are asking about.

    When we put two back there we are asking for more pressure on Brett. Why? Because they can bring the run blitz and know they have the run covered AND we are limiting our pass options.

    Like I say when we go with two back there we BETTER be able to do it all and do it well and that means RB's picking up the right blocks and catching it out of the backfield and the whole enchilada.
     
  8. pack_in_black

    pack_in_black Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    1,876
    Ratings:
    +0


    The Colts usually run out of a singleback set, don't they?

    Now that you mention it, why not have a dynamic passing attack like Indy has, and let the run build off of that? Then PA, then everything else....

    Meh. Just thinking out loud, I guess.
     
  9. Pack93z

    Pack93z You retired too? .... Not me. I'm in my prime

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2005
    Messages:
    4,855
    Ratings:
    +22
    Yes if you are going to be a run heavy team, a traditional set is more productive overall. But with the passing attack that we have, we should be able to run out of these unbalanced sets and pick up more than 2.7 ypc or 54 ypg. Not saying that we are going to lead the league in yards in a single back set, but it should be able to balance out an offense and keep the defense guessing.

    You are kidding yourself if, after the start we have, that we are going to balance out the offense 50 / 50 run pass.

    All I am saying is that we are getting beat up front at the LOS and the effectiveness of the line has changed. Please pop in the 49ers game from last season.. watch the line block, then pop in the Giants game (weaker front than SD or MN to be fair). Tell me that the line is playing with the same technique. Maybe I am seeing things.
     
  10. warhawk

    warhawk Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,922
    Ratings:
    +38
    We don't have teams backed off like Indy get's quite yet and we don't have the one back threat they have at this point.

    We will have to start stretching the field more to get Indy type benefits from the run game. Indy uses Manning like a longbow and we use Favre like a machine gun.
    Teams are backing off Manning with the first "hut". Most are staying in tight on us expecting the three step stinger.

    Also, Indy has played some teams I have to believe we could have run against too. Cincy the other night was so beat up I could have put up 80 yards and I'm an old guy. They didn't have a LB on the field at the end hardly.
     
  11. pack_in_black

    pack_in_black Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    1,876
    Ratings:
    +0
    Which would be a great time to start unleashing Brett's cannon maybe? IDK, I'm just kinda shootin from the hip, here.




    lol. That's just funny. :lol:
     
  12. warhawk

    warhawk Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,922
    Ratings:
    +38
    And therein lies the challenge to this team to be able to go nose to nose with Indy and NE.

    I agree that when we DO run it we should be more effective per carry and that MM needs to be a little more creative in how to get that done.

    Sending our FB and RB out there and running left ONE MORE TIME probably isn't going to make us any better at it OR produce anymore results than it has thus far.

    I can certainly go along with thinking a little more outside the box as far as the run plays being called is concerned. I'm all for that.
     
  13. warhawk

    warhawk Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,922
    Ratings:
    +38
    Good discussions gentlemen. Time to go home to the wife.

    It seems, as it often does, that I come away having learned more from others than what I can lend or offer back in return.

    Pretty much why I hang around.
     
  14. Pack93z

    Pack93z You retired too? .... Not me. I'm in my prime

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2005
    Messages:
    4,855
    Ratings:
    +22
    Yes yes it was.. enjoy the evening and look forward to more discussions of the same. I too seem to learn more from others than I have to share... but hence it is these types of threads that make it worth staying around.

    Hats off to all, bumps!
     
  15. Pack93z

    Pack93z You retired too? .... Not me. I'm in my prime

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2005
    Messages:
    4,855
    Ratings:
    +22
    I likey that idea... those backers are starting to bail out of the box or they are sneaking the safeties up.. either we slice up the depleted box or double move them and go right by.

    I am waiting for a quick pump inside to Jennings and then a go route with a deep pass... it is comming...
     
  16. pack_in_black

    pack_in_black Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    1,876
    Ratings:
    +0
    I never got to see JJ, but that was exactly what happened on his TD catch this weekend!! You saw where the d-back had tried to jump when Brett pumped, cause he was a step or two behind, and Jones is no burner!

    I'd like to see whether or not Jones made a double move on that play, cause I'm just curious.

    And yes, I've really enjoyed the discussiion this afternoon. It's hard to hang in there with some of the more knowledgeable footbal guys on here, thanks for hearing me out!
     
  17. dhpackr

    dhpackr Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,635
    Ratings:
    +0
    the thing is I do not think it is to wise to wait untill Nov or Dec and then think we are going to suddenly fabricate an running attack.

    it would be nice to jump on the bears early on Sunday, get a few scores on the board, then try to run the ball. slowly, gradually, add more running plays.

    I'd like to see at least 20 rushes on Sunday.
     
  18. Tylaa

    Tylaa Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2006
    Messages:
    111
    Ratings:
    +0
    I totally agree with this thread. I don't even think we nearly tried to run the ball as much as we could. I have 2 main concerns that I will discusse about.

    My first concern is that I don't think its the Running Backs fault for not having a running game. When you guys watch the game this weekend look at the holes that are going to be there for the Running backs. Keep looking, because you probably won't find any.

    My second is that on most 3&1's and short yard first downs I totally Expect a goal line run. All of sudden they come out in a shot gun formation. They sometimes get it, but I think it would make more sence to get your big guys out on the field and run it in most of the time.


    Thats my two thoughts on the running game.
     
  19. dhpackr

    dhpackr Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,635
    Ratings:
    +0
    the coach does not have confidence in the runnig game, that is why he calls passing plays on 4th & 1, 3rd & 1 , 2nd & 4
    JMO!
     
  20. KGB94SACKEM

    KGB94SACKEM Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2007
    Messages:
    334
    Ratings:
    +0

    No doubt about it. I can't blame MM though. I hope the run game is being addressed in practice
     
  21. dhpackr

    dhpackr Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,635
    Ratings:
    +0
    i don't know, i think it may be time for a different approach to the running game.
     
  22. KGB94SACKEM

    KGB94SACKEM Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2007
    Messages:
    334
    Ratings:
    +0

    I don't know, I think Pack93Z hit it perfectly. The guys block to high and get no leverage. Is it coaching? Is it the guys we have are just not very good? Is it the Backs?

    My opinion is it is a little of all the above. Green was a great slippery back that could hit a hole and go. Jackson is not there yet. Wynn doesn't really fit the mold, and Morency is a walking injury. Morency had a nice average last year but a big portion was that was on 3rd down draws and such. He for the most part didn't even run in ZBS plays.

    We are commited to it at this point and we don't have the horses to pull the carriage if we switch. I guess it's on Brett's arm and the Defense.
     
  23. Zero2Cool

    Zero2Cool I own a website

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    11,903
    Ratings:
    +8
    I admit, I don't know much about how we're blocking, but I do believe we have smaller guys and with smaller guys you MUST utilize leverage. So that indeed would be a huge issue if we are blocking high.

    I disagree about Wynn. I think he fits the mold of RB more than the other two we have on the roster. Morency and Jackson. I think Morency COULD be good, but I just don't think he can last a whole season. Jackson, I was not thrilled with the pick from the get go. Then I started to like him and now he's hurt. I think he could do more if he gets the hand offs more, but I dunno.
    Wynn is who I'm most confident seeing in the backfield.
     
  24. Zombieslayer

    Zombieslayer Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2006
    Messages:
    4,338
    Ratings:
    +0
    If I were calling the shots, I'd have Wynn get the majority of the carries. He seems to have the most heart, and he's a big guy who can burn in the open field.

    Agreed with you about Morency & Jackson, although I wish I was wrong about Mo. Or at least I hope I'm wrong about Mo.

    EDIT: I screwed up Zero's quote.
     
  25. Obi1

    Obi1 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2005
    Messages:
    1,110
    Ratings:
    +0
    Packers have a total of 79 attempts in 4 games... Almost 20/game already!

    I just want them to win!
     

Share This Page