You think our running game is the problem?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Packerfury

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 1, 2009
Messages
125
Reaction score
17
I know these forums are running rampant with trade rumors and how we need a running game SOOOO bad, but our running game had very little to do with us losing guys. What is the advantage of a running game? Well, it keeps defenses in pass only defense mode, ya, but did that really hurt Rodgers at all? But, you know what else playing the pass does? It opens up the short pass. Did you see how far off the safeties and corners were? And Rodgers picked on that all night. So many short passes all over the field is essesntially the same as having a running game. The short pass sets up the pass as well as a running game does.

And Rodgers capitalized on what the defense gave him and had the best game of the year so far. He completed over 75% of his passes and eclipsed 300 yards. And I don't wanna hear someone point out the pick. That doesn't really count as a minus. He just threw it up in the air and prayed.

"But, but that still doesn't solve the fact that when you run you control the clock!" Oh, contrar my friends. We controled the clock for 11 minutes longer than the bears did.

Point is, the fact that we threw so much had very little to do with us losing. We just had too many penalties, and of course, the fumble James Jones will have nightmares about. It is not our running game that needs to be fixed. We just need a better right tackle who can protect rodgers without trying to tackle and hold a guy, and not so many penalties. And we would have killed that team.
 

NelsonsLongCatch

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 7, 2008
Messages
2,808
Reaction score
270
Location
Chi-Town
"But, but that still doesn't solve the fact that when you run you control the clock!" Oh, contrar my friends. We controled the clock for 11 minutes longer than the bears did.

I love when people skew the facts to fit their POV.

Let's see... Reasons for greater time of possession...

1) Bears scored on a punt return
2) Bears first TD was scored on a short field due to horrible special teams
3) Bears game tying FG was scored on a short field due to the fumble + 30 yards of penalties
4) Bears game winning FG was scored on a short field due to the pass interference penalty

The Bears had a short field and quick scores all night long.

Once again, nobody is calling for a "top tier, blow-em out of the water running game". We just want better than 8 yards in the first half.
 

PackersRS

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
8,450
Reaction score
969
Location
Porto Alegre, Brazil
I love when people skew the facts to fit their POV.

Let's see... Reasons for greater time of possession...

1) Bears scored on a punt return
2) Bears first TD was scored on a short field due to horrible special teams
3) Bears game tying FG was scored on a short field due to the fumble + 30 yards of penalties
4) Bears game winning FG was scored on a short field due to the pass interference penalty

The Bears had a short field and quick scores all night long.

Once again, nobody is calling for a "top tier, blow-em out of the water running game". We just want better than 8 yards in the first half.
You can list reasons all you want, but 11 minutes of differential means the running game wasn't a problem. The PA passes were working also.

Problem is when you get to their endzone and penalty your way out of it, having to convert consistantly 2 and 20 and so on...
 

turbo69

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 22, 2010
Messages
702
Reaction score
39
Location
Texas
I know these forums are running rampant with trade rumors and how we need a running game SOOOO bad, but our running game had very little to do with us losing guys. What is the advantage of a running game? Well, it keeps defenses in pass only defense mode, ya, but did that really hurt Rodgers at all? But, you know what else playing the pass does? It opens up the short pass. Did you see how far off the safeties and corners were? And Rodgers picked on that all night. So many short passes all over the field is essesntially the same as having a running game. The short pass sets up the pass as well as a running game does.

And Rodgers capitalized on what the defense gave him and had the best game of the year so far. He completed over 75% of his passes and eclipsed 300 yards. And I don't wanna hear someone point out the pick. That doesn't really count as a minus. He just threw it up in the air and prayed.

"But, but that still doesn't solve the fact that when you run you control the clock!" Oh, contrar my friends. We controled the clock for 11 minutes longer than the bears did.

Point is, the fact that we threw so much had very little to do with us losing. We just had too many penalties, and of course, the fumble James Jones will have nightmares about. It is not our running game that needs to be fixed. We just need a better right tackle who can protect rodgers without trying to tackle and hold a guy, and not so many penalties. And we would have killed that team.

We lost because of the Special Teams and Penalties. BUT.......a running game would be nice! Don't ya think?
 

NelsonsLongCatch

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 7, 2008
Messages
2,808
Reaction score
270
Location
Chi-Town
You can list reasons all you want, but 11 minutes of differential means the running game wasn't a problem. The PA passes were working also.

I think we're saying the same thing here. Time of possession had a lot to do with the Bears quick scores and excellent field position rather than the running game.

Still, the running game is God-awful. I would love to see a vast improvement.
 

packerbob

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 28, 2009
Messages
130
Reaction score
10
The lack of a running game is a problem. When your a one dimentional offense then you never have the defense off balance. They can just tee off on the quarterback. The bigger problem will come in Nov, Dec and Jan. when the field and football are frozen. It's hard to throw and catch a frozen football. Also forgot to mention the wind. The Packers are perceived to be a playoff team and hope to get home field advantage in the playoffs. If that should happen all of a sudden the conditions quite possible will effect what we do best, passing the football. At that point with no running game we're screwed. A lot of people like to mention that the Saints and Colts didn't have much of a running game last year and both went to the Super bowl. The difference there is they both had home field in the playoffs(Dome stadiums) which is tailor made for a pass happy offense. Lambeau Field in the winter is quite a different animal.
 

PackisBack

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 1, 2010
Messages
102
Reaction score
13
The biggest thing that a running game would provide is some relief on the tackles. The way DEs rush the quarterback and play the run are two VERY different play styles, and most of the holding penalties were caused by Chicago's DEs (Peppers really) being able to put their (his) head(s) down and rush every down as if it were a passing down.

Better run game = less holding penalties on pass plays. That's the biggest improvement it would bring to our team. All the others stuff (clock control, etc.) are just nice side benefits.

That being said, I would personally pay money out of my pocket to bring DeAngelo Williams to GB
 

SpartaChris

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
3,024
Reaction score
671
I seem to remember Rodgers leading at least one 9 minute drive that should have gone for a TD but instead we penalized our way out into a field goal attempt. I also remember some pretty good 6 and 7 minute drives.

All that without a run game.

BTW, the Cowboys and Lions have much better run games than we do and did nothing against the Bears either.

I think the topic is dead now.
 
OP
OP
P

Packerfury

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 1, 2009
Messages
125
Reaction score
17
I love when people skew the facts to fit their POV.

Let's see... Reasons for greater time of possession...

1) Bears scored on a punt return
2) Bears first TD was scored on a short field due to horrible special teams
3) Bears game tying FG was scored on a short field due to the fumble + 30 yards of penalties
4) Bears game winning FG was scored on a short field due to the pass interference penalty

The Bears had a short field and quick scores all night long.

Once again, nobody is calling for a "top tier, blow-em out of the water running game". We just want better than 8 yards in the first half.

I didn't skew the facts. I gave them to you straight up. Time is time regardless of what happened. Your the one skewing the facts for yourself. Okay guys, you want some startling numbers that football purists are scared to view.

2009 top 5 passing teams:
Texans (30 in rushing), Colts (32), Pats(12), Saints (6), Chargers(31)

overall record: 59-21

2009 top 5 rushing teams:
NYJ, Titans, PAnthers, Dolphins, Ravens

overall record: 42-38

2009 bottom 5 teams in rushing:
cardinals, Bears, Texans, Chargers, Colts

4 out of 5 a winning record. 3 out of 5 make playoffs.

overall record: 52-28

Over the last 2 years, a team that has been bottom 5 in rushing has made it to the superbowl, albeit, they lost. But still. It shows you which way this league is headed.

When the saints won the superbowl, offensively, they called 39 pass plays, and 17 running plays. Such a balanced attack they utilized in that game. And guess what, they won the time of possession battle even though they ran the ball less than the colts.


In fact, they never threw less than 30 times in the playoffs. And the only time they ran a lot was when they smashed the cards so bad, they were just trying to run out the clock pretty much the entire 2nd half.



Open your eyes guys. A running game simply is just not necessary anymore.
It’s nice, but not needed.

USE THE SHORT PASS TO SET UP THE PASS! It works just as well. It’s how the niners maintained a dynasty. It works.
 

Mr. StyleZ

Banned
Banned
Joined
Jan 11, 2010
Messages
1,755
Reaction score
351
Location
Mayville, WI
No one mentions that the Packers play in Green Bay huh?

No dome over our heads, well-below freezing temps come December and January (playoffs).

I'm sorry but you must have some sort of ground game in bad weather. The Saints and Colts have the benefit of domes..
 

Mr. StyleZ

Banned
Banned
Joined
Jan 11, 2010
Messages
1,755
Reaction score
351
Location
Mayville, WI
The biggest thing that a running game would provide is some relief on the tackles. The way DEs rush the quarterback and play the run are two VERY different play styles, and most of the holding penalties were caused by Chicago's DEs (Peppers really) being able to put their (his) head(s) down and rush every down as if it were a passing down.

Some people here don't understand that. Don't waste your time explaining.. seriously.
 

SpartaChris

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
3,024
Reaction score
671
No one mentions that the Packers play in Green Bay huh?

No dome over our heads, well-below freezing temps come December and January (playoffs).

I'm sorry but you must have some sort of ground game in bad weather. The Saints and Colts have the benefit of domes..

Tell that to the 2008 Super Bowl Champion Pittsburgh Steelers, who were #23 in rushing.

Or the 2009 NY Jets. #1 in rushing, no Super Bowl.

Fact is you don't need a superior ground game anymore. Hell, you don't even need a mediocre one. Not in today's NFL.

As for "running out the clock," again I'll point to Rodgers' 9 minute drive against the Bears. If that's not chewing up copious amounts of clock time, I dunno what is.
 
OP
OP
P

Packerfury

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 1, 2009
Messages
125
Reaction score
17
Tell that to the 2008 Super Bowl Champion Pittsburgh Steelers, who were #23 in rushing.

Or the 2009 NY Jets. #1 in rushing, no Super Bowl.

Fact is you don't need a superior ground game anymore. Hell, you don't even need a mediocre one. Not in today's NFL.

As for "running out the clock," again I'll point to Rodgers' 9 minute drive against the Bears. If that's not chewing up copious amounts of clock time, I dunno what is.

Thank you, someone gets it. It doesn't matter as much anymore.

2002 buccaneers 27st in rushing
2003 patriots 27th in rushing
2006 colts 18 in rushing
2008 steelers 23rd in rushing (they don't play in a dome)
2000 st louis rams 17th in rushing

Other than poor running attacks, you know what all of these teams have in common, rings.
5 of the last 10 sb winners didn't have a great running game. Mediocre at best.

A running game IS NOT necessary anymore. How can you not see that? Is it nice? is it cool? ya, yay, we can run the ball. It's nice, but just doesn't matter anymore. Be real.
 

PackisBack

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 1, 2010
Messages
102
Reaction score
13
I get what you're all saying, but all those teams had pro bowl pass blockers on the line too. They could handle the DEs coming at them every down better than Clifton and Tauscher can. We need some kind of running game to lessen the pressure on our non pro-bowl pass protection and maybe we wont get a hundred false starts and holding penalties. It would just make our passing game that much better.
 

Chop0Suey

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 27, 2010
Messages
91
Reaction score
15
Location
San Diego
Not to mention all of those teams had, at the least, a starting caliber back. We don't even have that. BJax is clearly nothing more than a 3rd down back, and Kuhn is a FULLBACK. I don't think we need a back like DWill or Lynch, but we do need someone who can pick up more than 20 yards on the ground, or has some sort of breakaway potential.
 

DergaSmash

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
409
Reaction score
20
Location
Fort Campbell
I think it also is a bit of a gamble to be without a running back. Less rushes=more passes. More passes=more hits/hurries/sacks. More hits/hurries/sacks= increased chances of injury. Yeah, Rodgers was pummled for much of last season and came through it ok, yet I don't think he should have to do that every year. A decent, not good, but decent running game keeps defenses honest and slows down the pass rush as the pass rushers have to play run defense. Sure a lot of SB winning teams don't lead the league in rushing but their running game was still good enough to keep defenses honest. I think a decent running game would do a great deal in keeping Rodgers upright.
 

packerfan4ever

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 28, 2005
Messages
1,067
Reaction score
39
Location
wisconsin
just keep moving the chains 2 yards some times 5 cant always hit the big ones hope sunday is a big day for us.
 

Veretax

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 4, 2008
Messages
637
Reaction score
11
Hi, long time since I posted here, but I thought I'd add my two cents. It all comes down to the big uglies on the OL. If we block better on runs, we start to wear out their DL. Yes we do a lot of short slants, screens etc that can in pinch do just like a run, but, so many of the problems on this team the last two years has been the OL.

The problem is I don't think its fixed until you get a new Stud LT and a Solid RT to replace who we have. We may have a long year ahead of us depending on how we continue to hold out on the OL. Personally I think we should invest a high pick or two in OL next year. our RBs are probably okay, if we just had better blocking on the edges on passes, and up the gut on runs.
 

PackerMX

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
This is what Jay Glazer (FOX Analyst) think about Packers running game... asked in twitter:

  • " @Jay_Glazer Hi Jay... do you think Packers have a RB's issue or O-Line issue?"
  • Jay Glazer " @enaplito I think they have both, although Rodgers will get it out faster as yr goes on and that should help with protection."
 

PackerMX

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
One more from Jay Glazer via Twitter:
Question:

  • ricky


    kinda early but superbowl picks?
Answer:

  • Jay Glazer @ricky Jets and... either Pack or Saints.
 

NelsonsLongCatch

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 7, 2008
Messages
2,808
Reaction score
270
Location
Chi-Town
I didn't skew the facts. I gave them to you straight up. Time is time regardless of what happened. Your the one skewing the facts for yourself. Okay guys, you want some startling numbers that football purists are scared to view.

2009 top 5 passing teams:
Texans (30 in rushing), Colts (32), Pats(12), Saints (6), Chargers(31)

overall record: 59-21

2009 top 5 rushing teams:
NYJ, Titans, PAnthers, Dolphins, Ravens

overall record: 42-38

2009 bottom 5 teams in rushing:
cardinals, Bears, Texans, Chargers, Colts

4 out of 5 a winning record. 3 out of 5 make playoffs.

overall record: 52-28

Over the last 2 years, a team that has been bottom 5 in rushing has made it to the superbowl, albeit, they lost. But still. It shows you which way this league is headed.

When the saints won the superbowl, offensively, they called 39 pass plays, and 17 running plays. Such a balanced attack they utilized in that game. And guess what, they won the time of possession battle even though they ran the ball less than the colts.


In fact, they never threw less than 30 times in the playoffs. And the only time they ran a lot was when they smashed the cards so bad, they were just trying to run out the clock pretty much the entire 2nd half.



Open your eyes guys. A running game simply is just not necessary anymore.
It’s nice, but not needed.

USE THE SHORT PASS TO SET UP THE PASS! It works just as well. It’s how the niners maintained a dynasty. It works.

:suicide_fool-edit:
 

NelsonsLongCatch

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 7, 2008
Messages
2,808
Reaction score
270
Location
Chi-Town
No one mentions that the Packers play in Green Bay huh?

No dome over our heads, well-below freezing temps come December and January (playoffs).

I'm sorry but you must have some sort of ground game in bad weather. The Saints and Colts have the benefit of domes..

WOW, a poster with common sense... THANK YOU

Saints, Colts and Texans have domes. No need to worry about wind, rain or snow effecting the pass game there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Latest posts

Top