Game film on Jamaal Williams with Matt Waldman.
https://mattwaldmanrsp.com/2017/02/2...maal-williams/
Game film on Jamaal Williams with Matt Waldman.
https://mattwaldmanrsp.com/2017/02/2...maal-williams/
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
Unfortunately he could be better than Barry Sanders and Stubby would refuse to use him to his potential.
You want to be the guy who tells AR that his job is to feed the ball to a back?Originally Posted by Rutnstrut
Fire Murphy, Gute, MLF, Barry, Senavich, etc!
Last year the Packers didn't run the ball much, but that was an anomaly due to the injury situation at RB. In 2015 the Packers were 18th in the NFL in passing attempts (573), and 12th in rushing attempts (436). Many people would say that a team with Aaron Rodgers would be crazy to be that balanced. I wonder what Rut thinks the balance should be.
Even though it certainly seems we have better overall quality at RB, this still better be a pass first team. That's how you win games. I'd take Montgomery, Williams, and Jones over Lacy anytime. With these guys as a change of pace and maximum use of our excellent WRs and upgraded TEs, the offense should be damn near unstoppable.
What could be more GOOD and NORMAL and AMERICAN than Packer Football?
Down and distance battle. Win it however you can. On defense, you stop the run, you can setup a pass rush. On offense, you run the ball effectively, you can dictate terms better on 2nd or 3rd and manageable.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." -Daniel Patrick Moynihan
I disagree on both counts.
What could be more GOOD and NORMAL and AMERICAN than Packer Football?
I understand how you might prefer this style of football, however stopping the run is no longer the primary job for defence, especially not in a passing league. Stopping the run is still important, but it is secondary to the passing defence.
If you said this sitting on a barstool in the 70s, all the tavern patrons would nod their heads.
The problems with that approach on offense are that its predictable on early downs and leads to a lot of third and longs.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
Top 5 in attempts, ypc be damned! Give me the Vikings O with Peterson all day. Now where's that sarcasm button.....
Hey Cleft! Are you getting Bob McGinn's old job?
That would be a job I can naturally walk into.
LIFE IS ABOUT CHAMPIONSHIPS; I JUST REALIZED THIS. The MILWAUKEE BUCKS have won the same number of championships over the past 50 years as the Green Bay Packers. Ten years from now, who will have more championships, and who will be the fart in the wind ?
When do you ever not want 2nd or 3rd and manageable on offense?
When do you ever not want 3rd and long on defense?
I don't long for run first to come back to the NFL. Even having a stud QB, I still believe in having the real threat of a run game to keep the defense off balance and on their heels. I know AR does well in the scramble drill, and maybe that's what it takes sometimes for the receivers to get uncovered. Having a real run game will make them that much more potent.
When the Packers D gives up big chunks of run yards and leaves short yardage conversions, they struggle to apply pressure, for obvious reasons. I've heard Capers and others say it starts with stopping the run.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." -Daniel Patrick Moynihan
On offense, I'd much rather take my chances the great majority of the time with first down passes, and second down too if incomplete. And then third? Well, how often is that gonna happen with Aaron Rodgers. A whole lot less often than if we run twice. And then 3rd and 10 isn't that much worse than say 3rd and 6 or 7. The run should be nothing more than a change of pace you hit 'em with when you get them adjusting too much for the passes. Variety can come from different receivers and different kinds of pass plays.
As for defense, yeah, it's necessary to be able to stop the run first. I recall games when we did just that to Adrian Peterson. Other times, lesser runners did sometimes get those big chunks. If your D is not strong enough personnel-wise to stop everything, then it becomes a guessing game - taking away the other team's best weapon. That's the Packers situation, and Capers is better than just about any D Coordinator at scheming a D that can stop the best weapon. When that happens, though, you leave something vulnerable. There's no denying that Capers gets the Packers burned that way on occasion, but I'm pretty sure it would be a whole lot worse without the scheming and compensating. It seems like Capers D works a lot better when you have Corners capable of tight man coverage. Hopefully this year we will have that.
What could be more GOOD and NORMAL and AMERICAN than Packer Football?
I'm sure neither you or anyone else is going to complain if MM adds a real threat of a run game, if not in volume of plays, then in showing and executing it well enough to make teams respect the possibility of a run play. With a lead that can turn into a 4 minute offense near the end of a game. More practically for Green Bay's passing game, a balanced offense with a real run game can leave the opposing defenses guessing and allow for even more offensive chunk plays that they like. Those newly acquired TE's should help.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." -Daniel Patrick Moynihan
I think we are adding the threat of it - and yeah, I'm glad of that. The RBs we have now to me, at least, oughta be better than Lacy was at his best, and I think Jahri Evans is actually gonna be an upgrade from Lang. I just don't want them to overuse that threat, though. I always said, if the Packers had the ability to run it down their throat like the Wisconsin Badgers, I'd be for doing that. However, we still are nowhere close to dominating opposition D on the pro level like the Badgers traditionally do on the college level. Plus we have the greatest QB in the history of the world, and I still say, all things being equal, passing first and most is the best way to get the job done. It sure seems like most of the coaching staffs around the league think that too.
I like what you say about ability to run if we have a lead, leaving opponents guessing, etc., and we should be a lot better equipped this year to do that. It should be a great year.
What could be more GOOD and NORMAL and AMERICAN than Packer Football?
Isn't Peterson's nickname "All Day"?
From a defensive perspective, I think you want to stop the run to force the other team into 3rd and long. 3rd and 9 is preferable to 3rd and 2 because it makes the offense more predictable.
From an offensive perspective, it's a passing league but you still want to at least have a threat of a running game: the 4 minute offense to protect a lead or for use in play-action. You can't really be a run-first team these days unless you have a stud RB/OL and a historically good defense.
I think if Lacy has a decent year with Seattle people here will go nuts, but it's important to remember that Seattle needs a running game to set up Russell Wilson for maximum efficiency, while the Packers need a passing game to set up some kind of running game.
And now that Eddie's got a new contract, I predict he'll start off gangbusters in Seattle, trying to impress, but after the first year, he'll be back to being "Lunchtime Lacy."
"The Devine era is actually worse than you remember if you go back and look at it."
KYPack
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote