PDA

View Full Version : Packers running game sucks



packrulz
10-25-2008, 06:38 AM
Is it the O-line, the absence of #4, or is Grant "coasting" because he signed a fat, new contract? Whatever it is, they need to fix it now. I admit I'm suprised at the play of Orton, who really doesn't have any stars to throw to in Chicago.
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20081024/PKR07/81024177/1989/GPG02
Pete Dougherty column: Scouts see flaws in Packers' run game

By Pete Dougherty • October 24, 2008


Aaron Rodgers has made a good first impression on the NFL.
Advertisement

But there remain questions about whether his Green Bay Packers are complete enough on offense to prevail in what figures to be a close race in the NFC North Division.

Three NFC scouts who have studied the NFC North this year all pointed to the running game as the Packers’ greatest weakness after seven games in the 2008 season.

“Where I think they’re going to struggle as they go along is if they don’t start running the ball,” said a scout who predicted Chicago will win the division.

Of the three scouts, two were willing to predict the division — one for the Bears, one for the Packers.

With the Bears and Packers tied for the lead at 4-3, and Minnesota a game behind at 3-4, it’s looking like the winner could finish 9-7, maybe even 8-8. Since the NFL went to a 16-game schedule in 1978, only three teams have won the NFC North (or NFC Central) title with nine wins or fewer: Tampa Bay at 9-7 in 1981, Minnesota at 9-7 in 1980, and Minnesota at 8-7-1 in 1978.

The Packers and Bears still have to play twice. The Bears and Vikings, and Packers and Vikings, each play once more.

In an overview of the Packers, the scouts agreed Rodgers is their best offensive player, though two of the three chose Chicago’s Kyle Orton as the best quarterback in the division over Rodgers.

Orton has been a major surprise in his fourth season and has elevated Chicago’s perennially undermanned offense into the No. 3 ranking in scoring and No. 13 in total yards. Orton’s passer rating (91.4 points) is lower than Rodgers’ (98.8 points), but his weapons aren’t in the class of Packers receivers Greg Jennings and Donald Driver. Chicago’s leading receiver is halfback Matt Forte (29 catches).

The scouts’ judgments could change by season’s end, but through seven games Orton has led the Bears to a 2-2 record on the road. In one of those losses, he threw what should have been a game-winning touchdown pass at Atlanta with 11 seconds left, only to watch the Bears botch a squib kick and then give up a 26-yard completion along the sidelines that stopped the clock with 1 second left. Atlanta then kicked a game-winning 48-yard field goal.

Orton also put up 34 of Chicago’s 48 points last week against Minnesota while running a no-huddle offense for the first time this year.

“The Chicago Bears with a quarterback is something we’re going to have to get used to,” one scout said. “I don’t think they’re all the way there yet … but the problem with Chicago is defense, so if the problem in Chicago is defense they should be OK.”

One of the scouts said his only concern with Rodgers was durability, which Rodgers has answered so far by starting all seven games, including the last three with a sore throwing shoulder.

“His ability to stay alive and make plays is his biggest strength,” one scout said. “His arm strength is a plus. And he’s got some guys who once they catch it can make things happen, which always helps.”

However, the scout who considered Orton the best quarterback in the division also cited the absence of Brett Favre as the biggest reason the Packers’ run game has underperformed. The Packers rank No. 22 in the NFL in rushing yards, No. 25 in average yards per rush, and halfback Ryan Grant is averaging 3.4 yards a carry, down significantly from 5.1 yards last year.

The other two scouts agreed to some degree that defenses’ fear of Favre caused them to slant game plans and more heavily to stopping him last year. However, one concluded the Packers’ record this year would be no better with Favre, and the other thought defenses will worry more about Rodgers as the season and his career go on.

Nevertheless, the first scout pointed to the run game as the Packers’ likely downfall this season, and when asked the difference from last year, he said: “It’s Favre. If you look at Grant in New York, he looks like the same Grant now. But of course you put Favre in there, everybody’s playing the pass. When you don’t have that then you go, ‘All right, no big deal.’ Not to say (Grant) is not a good runner, but you were respecting something else first.”

The third scout said declining run blocking by aging tackles Chad Clifton (he's 32) and Mark Tauscher (he's 31) and inconsistencies with interior blockers Daryn Colledge, Jason Spitz and Scott Wells were at least as responsible for the run game’s problems.

“I’ve been impressed with the way (Rodgers) has played and certainly like the added dimension of his mobility, something Brett didn’t have,” the scout said. “But just because it was Brett Favre, people always thought you have to defend the pass because this guy can throw it from anywhere at anytime to anybody. Just that concept of defending Brett Favre instead of defending a passing game, they were always conscious of that. You don’t know quite what you’re getting.

“Rodgers is more disciplined with the offense and will take his shots and certainly throws a nice deep ball. So he can hurt you. It’s just a matter of him developing a reputation — I don’t think it will be that of a gunslinger, but he’ll have a reputation before it’s all said and done of being a quality quarterback.”

All three scouts rated the Packers’ receiving corps as a major asset, along with Rodgers and linebackers Nick Barnett, A.J. Hawk, Brady Poppinga and Brandon Chillar.

They all questioned whether the run defense will hold up now that defensive lineman Cullen Jenkins is out for the season. The run defense already had been weakened after trading defensive tackle Corey Williams rather than risk making a major financial investment in him in the offseason, and watching Justin Harrell’s second season heading toward a washout — he’ll probably play in his first game next week after missing all offseason through now because of a back injury.

“I don’t think this is what they wanted at defensive tackle,” one of the scouts said. “Their main guy who gave them a shot in there is on IR, he gave them a plan B probably. They’re just hanging on on the inside, no question about it.”

The scout who didn’t pick a division winner expects Minnesota to make a run in the second half of the season because of its quality defensive personnel. He said both Kevin Williams and Pat Williams are having excellent seasons at defensive tackle, and that defensive end Jared Allen was worth his costly trade and new contract.

The Vikings also have the consensus best player in the division in halfback Adrian Peterson. However, they have a major problem at quarterback, where Tarvaris Jackson was benched because of his erratic arm, but where 37-year-old Gus Frerotte has taken a beating because he’s immobile and in major decline.

“I think at the end of the day, their defense has been good,” the scout said, later disagreeing emphatically that the Vikings might be better off going back to the 25-year-old Jackson. “No way. I don’t think the other guy (Jackson) can play. I think if they cut the other guy he’d be on the street. I don’t think anybody would touch him. He can’t throw the ball.”

The scout who picked the Bears to win the division said two factors swayed him: Orton’s solid play (10 touchdown passes, only four interceptions) plus a defense that played three games without its dominating defensive lineman, Tommie Harris, and three games without its best cornerback, Nathan Vashar. He also said Lance Briggs has surpassed Brian Urlacher as the team’s best linebacker and has been the best defensive player in the division.

“Before they’d always tie getting to the ball,” the scout said of Briggs and Urlacher. “Now he’s beating Urlacher to the ball.”

Pete Dougherty covers the Packers for the Press-Gazette

Scott Campbell
10-25-2008, 08:06 AM
I guess I don't agree with much of this. Orton as being better than Rodgers because he has no weapons? They say that right after admitting the Packers have no running game. The Bears have their best running game in years. How is that not a weapon?

Orton is playing well enough that you could make an argument to group them together, but I think its a stretch to say that he's better than Rodgers.

Scott Campbell
10-25-2008, 08:12 AM
I do think the Bears have played the most complete football of any team in the division thus far. But they have to be concerned about their inability to close out games.

If we can somehow make up for losing Jenkins, and get the running game fixed, then I like our chances. Obviously Rodgers has to stay healthy.

mraynrand
10-25-2008, 08:14 AM
Obviously Rodgers has to stay healthy.

Rodgers is healthy? Woo Hoo!

Scott Campbell
10-25-2008, 08:35 AM
Obviously Rodgers has to stay healthy.

Rodgers is healthy? Woo Hoo!



Healthy enough to be effective. Are NFL starters ever healthy?

MJZiggy
10-25-2008, 08:38 AM
Week 1. (of training camp)

HarveyWallbangers
10-25-2008, 08:59 AM
Yeah, sometimes I think I could do a better job than some of these scouts. I'd take Rodgers over Orton. Orton has done well enough, but I think ARod's mobility puts him over the top. They say Rodgers has a 98 passer rating over Orton's 91, but that doesn't even take into account Rodgers superior rushing numbers (120 rushing yards and 3 rushing TDS compared to 40 and 0).

Is Grant "coasting"? Hardly. He's said to be one of the hardest workers on the team. Just because he isn't doing as well as last year doesn't mean he isn't trying hard.

texaspackerbacker
10-25-2008, 09:03 AM
It was a pretty lame article all the way around. Is this guy Dougherty from Chicago, by any chance?

Somebody should do a comparison of the Packers rushing yardage through seven games last season with this year. I bet it's not far off. As for Grant "coasting", yeah right. Maybe Peterson is "coasting" too. Poor blocking by the line, lingering effects of his injury, more cautious game planning and QB play, all of those things have been suggested for the guy who only had 105 yards rushing in his best game last week. I would suggest maybe it is because he isn't catching anybody by surprise this year. Defenses are doing a little bit more planning for him--which could also be related to the game planning and cautious QB play. Also, it's probably true that the line hasn't done as good a job this year--so far.

And as for Lions and Vikings and Bears, Oh My, as the season goes by, they will all revert (or stay) at their own normal level. The Vikings will improve, but not very much; The Bears D will wear down a little bit, and their offense will do worse against better teams; And the Lions will just stink--same as always.

mraynrand
10-25-2008, 10:20 AM
The Vikings will improve, but not very much; .

Where do you see improvement coming from the Vikings? Anyone? I see them as being in a gradual decline. Where is the upside with that team? (Rastak, how can the Vikings improve as the season progresses?)

Scott Campbell
10-25-2008, 10:23 AM
The Vikings will improve, but not very much; .

Where do you see improvement coming from the Vikings? Anyone? I see them as being in a gradual decline. Where is the upside with that team? (Rastak, how can the Vikings improve as the season progresses?)


I'd actually put Jackson back in. He sucks, but at least he's got upside - no matter how unlikely that getting to that upside seems. Ferrotte has not improved their team enough to keep him in there, because he has no upside.

I think it's going to be hard for them to take the next step until they get some decent play from that position.

oregonpackfan
10-25-2008, 10:37 AM
As you recall, the Packers' running game in the first half of last year was horrible. It was much worse than this years' running game.

I think the run blocking will improve the second half of the season leading to a more improved running game. Hopefully, Rodgers' shoulder will have healed from the bye week.

We may not see much improvement in the Tennessee game because they are a formidable opponent. But I am confident the running game will be better the second half.

packrulz
10-25-2008, 10:50 AM
I don't agree with the entire article, I think ARod is better than Orton, but I do agree that the running game has to improve. Grant looked more like his old self last week the way he was pumping his legs, he was hitting the hole quicker. I do think to run the ball well you need to run it a lot, practice makes perfect. Clifton has been off his game this year, I hope his knees aren't getting bad. I think the O-line is mostly to blame.

Fritz
10-25-2008, 10:52 AM
Okay, Tex, for what it's worth:

Last year after seven games, the Packers had a total of 499 rushing yards.

This year, after seven games, the Packers have a total of 707 yards rushing.

Lst year after seven games, the Packers had a total of 1967 passing yards.

This year, after seven games, the Packers have a total of 1595 passing yards.


So, as the radio personality Dick the Bruiser used to say in Detroit back in the 80's, "What does this mean?"

Scott Campbell
10-25-2008, 11:01 AM
http://thelegendaryoxbaker.com/images/03.jpg

Fritz
10-25-2008, 11:29 AM
Yeah. That guy.

pbmax
10-25-2008, 01:22 PM
The scout has also confused correlation with causation. There is indeed a difference between the approach defenses use against Rodgers compared to Favre. But the difference isn't the QB, its the gameplan.

McCarthy, whenever he has had a second half lead has gone heavily to the run. This has the unsurprising result of forcing opposing Defenses to concentrate on the run. Favre threw much more last year, regardless of score in the second half.

The difference between the two QBs, is that Favre was probably more successful throwing against a defense anticipating the pass. He was quicker with decisions and unafraid. Rodgers has held the ball two long on some of our three man routes we use in the second half on third and long with 7 blockers in.

The stat we should look at is attempt for each offense, run vs pass, by half. I am also curious if Favre, despite scoring below this rate last year, actually had more offensive plays. It seems like the Packer's O, this year, has a lot of short, field position neutral drives. Not three and outs, but maybe 5 and out. Our 3rd down conversion rate is good, but it seems like the O doesn't move the field position game in our favor much, and has been composed of shorter drives. Penalties, undoubtedly, play a large role in this.

Iron Mike
10-25-2008, 01:32 PM
So, as the radio personality Dick the Bruiser used to say in Detroit back in the 80's, "What does this mean?"

You mean "former Green Bay Packer Dick Afflis?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Afflis

Cheesehead Craig
10-25-2008, 02:59 PM
The Vikings will improve, but not very much; .

Where do you see improvement coming from the Vikings? Anyone? I see them as being in a gradual decline. Where is the upside with that team? (Rastak, how can the Vikings improve as the season progresses?)


I'd actually put Jackson back in. He sucks, but at least he's got upside - no matter how unlikely that getting to that upside seems. Ferrotte has not improved their team enough to keep him in there, because he has no upside.

I think it's going to be hard for them to take the next step until they get some decent play from that position.
I fully agree that TJack sucks, but putting him back in isn't going to help at all. He's not an NFL QB whatsoever, so why not go with Frerotte? Frerotte is putting up far better numbers than TJack ever did. Let's face it, this is the Vikings window with their defense and OL. In 2 seasons, Phat Williams, Darren Sharper, Matt Birk and possibly Antoine Winfield will be gone and they have no viable replacements for any of them. They are in a win-now mode as Childress is on the hot seat. They don't have time to see on TJack. The Vikes offense has done much better with Gus so they are going to stick with him for the season.

Gus has a very limited shelf life and he's not much more than a stopgap QB for this season. But he is clearly their best option right now to win.

Tony Oday
10-25-2008, 03:05 PM
They will get Derek Anderson in a trade next year.

The Vikes need to win next year or its over.

MadtownPacker
10-25-2008, 05:20 PM
Packrulz - Can you add a link to the article in the main post? Thanks man.

Guiness
10-25-2008, 07:48 PM
Okay, Tex, for what it's worth:

Last year after seven games, the Packers had a total of 499 rushing yards.

This year, after seven games, the Packers have a total of 707 yards rushing.

Lst year after seven games, the Packers had a total of 1967 passing yards.

This year, after seven games, the Packers have a total of 1595 passing yards.


So, as the radio personality Dick the Bruiser used to say in Detroit back in the 80's, "What does this mean?"

'What does this mean' for sure.

But come on Fritz, you certainly know better than to just quote the rushing numbers - I don't know (and won't check, because I don't care) but I suspect that we have a ton more rushing attempts then we did through the first 7 games last year as well.

But it doesn't matter. As they say, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. If you want to know how we're doing, watch the games, don't read the lines. Truth is, my eyes tell me our running game is not as effective as it was in the second half of last year. It's also more effective then it was the first half of last year.

Scott Campbell
10-25-2008, 08:58 PM
Expect to see the worst of me more often.


And here?

texaspackerbacker
10-25-2008, 10:05 PM
The Vikings will improve, but not very much; .

Where do you see improvement coming from the Vikings? Anyone? I see them as being in a gradual decline. Where is the upside with that team? (Rastak, how can the Vikings improve as the season progresses?)

First of all, this was an off-hand remark. I don't claim to know or care that much about the Vikings.

They have, however, IMO, played worse than their talent level so far. They have that highly praised defense, and they have what ought to be an excellent O Line. And anything we can say about Ryan Grant picking up his game ought to be at least as true for Adrian Peterson. If he gets healthy, I doubt any RB in the NFL is as good as he is. I was really afraid that Frerotte was going to come in and just manage games--play not to lose with Peterson doing the heavy lifting. That still coukld end up being the case with Frerotte or even Bollinger or Jackson or somebody else.

I'm certainly not saying the Vikings are Super Bowl or even playoff material, but I'd be surprised if they didn't play a little bit better than they have.

Zool
10-25-2008, 10:06 PM
Prolly wont be Bollinger. I think he's in Dallas now.

retailguy
10-25-2008, 10:12 PM
Prolly wont be Bollinger. I think he's in Dallas now.

Guess that leaves John David Booty... He's the #3 now.

texaspackerbacker
10-25-2008, 10:14 PM
Okay, Tex, for what it's worth:

Last year after seven games, the Packers had a total of 499 rushing yards.

This year, after seven games, the Packers have a total of 707 yards rushing.

Lst year after seven games, the Packers had a total of 1967 passing yards.

This year, after seven games, the Packers have a total of 1595 passing yards.


So, as the radio personality Dick the Bruiser used to say in Detroit back in the 80's, "What does this mean?"

I have fond memories of going to my grandma's house on Saturday afternoons and watching wrestling with her. She was a true believer, and she really hated Dick the Bruiser and Killer Kowalski. I digress.

Back to football. Thank you, Fritz, for the research.

I don't suppose it means much, but it certainly is in the realm of possibility that things will click like last season with the Packers running game. And the other thing illustrated is that the running game really hasn't been that bad this year.

All things considered, the Packers aren't in too bad position seven weeks into the season. I like our chances a whole lot better than either the Bears or Vikings.

packrulz
10-26-2008, 07:51 AM
Packrulz - Can you add a link to the article in the main post? Thanks man.
Done. Sorry, I thought I did.

RashanGary
10-26-2008, 08:32 AM
I think the Packers run game is more consistant than it has been in a long time. It's not getting the big, gaping runs just yet, but Rodgers has been in 3rd and 5 a whole lot more than 3rd and 9 and we've been converting first downs.

I see improvement and I think they will be better on offense as the year goes on.


It's the defense I'm worried about.

Bretsky
10-26-2008, 09:20 AM
I think there is reason to be concerned about the running game.

Grant is getting an huge amount of chances for the production he's giving.

I was always a fan of GB signing Grant for the deal they gave him as our #1 RB; I'm starting to wonder if I was wrong.

Fritz
10-27-2008, 06:53 AM
Okay, Tex, for what it's worth:

Last year after seven games, the Packers had a total of 499 rushing yards.

This year, after seven games, the Packers have a total of 707 yards rushing.

Lst year after seven games, the Packers had a total of 1967 passing yards.

This year, after seven games, the Packers have a total of 1595 passing yards.


So, as the radio personality Dick the Bruiser used to say in Detroit back in the 80's, "What does this mean?"

'What does this mean' for sure.

But come on Fritz, you certainly know better than to just quote the rushing numbers - I don't know (and won't check, because I don't care) but I suspect that we have a ton more rushing attempts then we did through the first 7 games last year as well.

But it doesn't matter. As they say, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. If you want to know how we're doing, watch the games, don't read the lines. Truth is, my eyes tell me our running game is not as effective as it was in the second half of last year. It's also more effective then it was the first half of last year.

Guineness, I was curious and prompted by Tex's line - "somebody should" do a comparison of rushing after 7 games last year and this. So I did. And no, I didn't find the number of attempts.

What are you exactly calling me out for? I didn't claim any conclusions, and I don't know that you can say anything too specific. I'm not sure you can say that the Packer running game is a lot better this year than through the first seven games last yea - as you noted, you need the number of attempts (though there was lots of criticism after the 2 - 3 start that MM wasn't sticking to the run).

You'd also have to account for the offensive line. Are they better through the first seven games this year than the first seven last year? I don't know.

Is it that, as some have claimed, Grant's success last year was due to Favre? Hard to say. The team did have 900 yards rushing through the last seven regular season games last year, and most of those were Grant's.
But I don't think that can directly be attributed to Favre, as Arod has been an effective QB this year so far.

So it's hard to say. My own sense is that Grant seems to be missing cutbacks and that Clifton is a great pass blocker but not so good run blocking when he's the backside guy. But I don't really know, though I expect the team to run better this year in the second half, if the line can stay healthy.