Running Game

[3irty1]

Grant is hurt, we missed out on Lynch, Jackson leaves tons of yards on the field, Nance is a total unknown and Kuhn, a FB, is our best runner. What are we going to do?

Actually I'm not so sure that if Grant were still healthy he'd be having much more success than Pack of scrubs we've got. The running game always takes off slowly for McCarthy, this has been observed. I think I know why.

McCarthy's offense is a multiples offense. He said it himself in his recent press conferences that we've got enough looks, formations, plays, and wrinkles to play a triple header. He's always changed the offense multiple times a season, things come and go. In his scheme having no identity is his identity. Its the Seinfeld of the NFL. Teams like the Colts instead practice a relatively few plays and master them, thinking that if they can just execute perfectly all the time, nobody will be able to stop it. At nearly every level of football this mentality is at the heart of the offense but not ours. An entire offense can be built off of a single running play. Just one play that you are committed to being awesome at, gets you a sure fire 2 or 3 yards, but can also go for more. A play that every defender will be forced to prepare for and every defensive coordinator will start with that play when game planning. Every year it takes us a few weeks to find a play like this. It used to be an outside zone, then an inside zone. So far this year nothing has worked consistently but with reps I think we'll find it even without Lynch.

[pittstang5]

Interesting take...makes sense.

However, concerning the running game, I don't understand how every year the O-line play is bad early on, then all of a sudden a light clicks on and they play decently the rest of the season.

[3irty1]

Interesting take...makes sense.

However, concerning the running game, I don't understand how every year the O-line play is bad early on, then all of a sudden a light clicks on and they play decently the rest of the season.

Like I said I think its just reps. The key to running the football is to get everyone on the same page with reps. When TC opens up we've got a million things to show the rookies instead of just practicing, practicing, practicing a single running play until its completely mastered.

Example: Vince Lombardi's one running play would be the power sweep:
http://www.strategosinc.com/images/pwrsweep1.jpg

Vince was quoted: "There can never be enough emphasis on repetition. I want my players to be able to run this sweep in their sleep. If we call the sweep twenty times, I'll expect it to work twenty times...not eighteen, not nineteen. We do it often enough in practice so that no excuse can exist for screwing it up."

Another example is the power-o play which is a basic building block of many college offenses and is implemented in some way by every pro offense there is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xm7YRQ2w6OI&feature=player_embedded

So to rehash, I think the reason we start out slow is because we don't automatically have our good running play. It changes year to year where as in some circles, players come and go but the one play remains the same. There is no reason to change it as the idea is to execute so perfectly that it will work 10/10 times even if a defense is expecting it. My point is that when it comes to running the ball, its better to have one play and practice it a million times than to have a million plays and practice them all once.

[Sparkey]

Interesting take...makes sense.

However, concerning the running game, I don't understand how every year the O-line play is bad early on, then all of a sudden a light clicks on and they play decently the rest of the season.

Well, if they dont practice cut blocking against their own dline (wouldn't want them to get hurt) then it makes sense that it takes 5-6 games for the run game to start to click as they basically practice real cut blocks during the reg season.

[Badgerinmaine]

It's true that the Lombardi-era Packers were able to have a phenomenal running game with a very limited playbook. The defenses are so much more sophisticated now than they were then, though.
"We get a seal HERE and a seal HERE and we run this play in the ALLEY"--V.L.

[packerbacker1234]

It's true that the Lombardi-era Packers were able to have a phenomenal running game with a very limited playbook. The defenses are so much more sophisticated now than they were then, though.
"We get a seal HERE and a seal HERE and we run this play in the ALLEY"--V.L.

make it as complex as you want - it's 11 on 11. If the offense executes the play, it will work every time.

[ThunderDan]

It's true that the Lombardi-era Packers were able to have a phenomenal running game with a very limited playbook. The defenses are so much more sophisticated now than they were then, though.
"We get a seal HERE and a seal HERE and we run this play in the ALLEY"--V.L.

make it as complex as you want - it's 11 on 11. If the offense executes the play, it will work every time.

Really....who blocks the free defensive player? Who blocks the player assigned to the QB or does the QB have to hustle down the field on a play to make a block? If the D knew what play the O was running it would be shut down 98% of the time. Execution be damned.

[3irty1]

It's true that the Lombardi-era Packers were able to have a phenomenal running game with a very limited playbook. The defenses are so much more sophisticated now than they were then, though.
"We get a seal HERE and a seal HERE and we run this play in the ALLEY"--V.L.

make it as complex as you want - it's 11 on 11. If the offense executes the play, it will work every time.

Really....who blocks the free defensive player? Who blocks the player assigned to the QB or does the QB have to hustle down the field on a play to make a block? If the D knew what play the O was running it would be shut down 98% of the time. Execution be damned.

Which is exactly why its important to have a go to play, so that the defense has to cheat on it and open up other opportunities. Being able to just take yards on a bread and butter play or group of plays is just as common now as it was in VL's era. I'd argue that a vast amount of reps are even more important in mastering a zbs play since there are so many added variables. As a lineman its not even in stone who you'll be blocking.

[denverYooper]

I think we all know the go-to play this year will be the fullback dive.

[ThunderDan]

It's true that the Lombardi-era Packers were able to have a phenomenal running game with a very limited playbook. The defenses are so much more sophisticated now than they were then, though.
"We get a seal HERE and a seal HERE and we run this play in the ALLEY"--V.L.

make it as complex as you want - it's 11 on 11. If the offense executes the play, it will work every time.

Really....who blocks the free defensive player? Who blocks the player assigned to the QB or does the QB have to hustle down the field on a play to make a block? If the D knew what play the O was running it would be shut down 98% of the time. Execution be damned.

Which is exactly why its important to have a go to play, so that the defense has to cheat on it and open up other opportunities. Being able to just take yards on a bread and butter play or group of plays is just as common now as it was in VL's era. I'd argue that a vast amount of reps are even more important in mastering a zbs play since there are so many added variables. As a lineman its not even in stone who you'll be blocking.

The ability of the offense to run multiple plays out of the same set is what gives the offense the advantage. Like the PA pass to Lee at the end of the game.

Being able to execute is extremely important but a D that knows what is coming has a huge advantage over the O.

[superfan]

I think we all know the go-to play this year will be the fullback dive.

And in long yardage situations, i.e. 3rd and 18, there is always the tried and true RB dumpoff pass. Always good for a 6-8 yard gain, bank on it.

Between those two plays we've got short and long yardage covered. We should be offensive coordinators. :wink:

[rbaloha1]

Lack of homerun threat is hurting the running game.

[Smidgeon]

Lack of homerun threat is hurting the running game.

So was Grant a homerun threat?

[denverYooper]

Lack of homerun threat is hurting the running game.

So was Grant a homerun threat?

Not until he got injured ;).

[Freak Out]

Lack of homerun threat is hurting the running game.

So was Grant a homerun threat?

Not until he got injured ;).

Grant has had some long runs in his time in GB.....I'd call him a HR threat.

[denverYooper]

Lack of homerun threat is hurting the running game.

So was Grant a homerun threat?

Not until he got injured ;).

Grant has had some long runs in his time in GB.....I'd call him a HR threat.

As would I.

[Smidgeon]

I wouldn't. I doubt teams worried about him taking it the entire length of the field everytime he touched the ball. It wasn't often that he'd break a long one.

His long in 2007 was 66 with a TD and he had 11 runs longer than 10 yards, the only year he ranked in the Top 10.
His long in 2008 was 57 and he only had 6 runs longer than 20 yards.
His long in 2009 was 62 with a TD and he only had 8 runs longer than 20 yards.

In short, he was a homerun threat in 2007 when Favre was playing lights out in his best statistical season post MVP, pre Vikings career. But Grant hasn't been a homerun threat with Rodgers, even though the passing attack is just as lethal (if not more).

Grant is a very good RB, but let's not get carried away here.

[Patler]

I wouldn't. I doubt teams worried about him taking it the entire length of the field everytime he touched the ball. It wasn't often that he'd break a long one.

His long in 2007 was 66 with a TD and he had 11 runs longer than 10 yards, the only year he ranked in the Top 10.
His long in 2008 was 57 and he only had 6 runs longer than 20 yards.
His long in 2009 was 62 with a TD and he only had 8 runs longer than 20 yards.

In short, he was a homerun threat in 2007 when Favre was playing lights out in his best statistical season post MVP, pre Vikings career. But Grant hasn't been a homerun threat with Rodgers, even though the passing attack is just as lethal (if not more).

Grant is a very good RB, but let's not get carried away here.

I guess it depends on what your criteria is for a homerun threat. In 2009, he was #11 (tied) in the league in 20+ yard runs with 8. Adrian Peterson was #2, with just 4 more. In 2008, his 6 with a bad hamstring was still good for #14 in the league, three short of #7. In 2007 his 11 were good for #3 behind Tomlinson with 13 and Willie Parker with 12.

[Patler]

I wouldn't. I doubt teams worried about him taking it the entire length of the field everytime he touched the ball. It wasn't often that he'd break a long one.

His long in 2007 was 66 with a TD and he had 11 runs longer than 10 yards, the only year he ranked in the Top 10.
His long in 2008 was 57 and he only had 6 runs longer than 20 yards.
His long in 2009 was 62 with a TD and he only had 8 runs longer than 20 yards.

In short, he was a homerun threat in 2007 when Favre was playing lights out in his best statistical season post MVP, pre Vikings career. But Grant hasn't been a homerun threat with Rodgers, even though the passing attack is just as lethal (if not more).

Grant is a very good RB, but let's not get carried away here.

I guess it depends on what your criteria is for a homerun threat. In 2009, he was #11 (tied) in the league in 20+ yard runs with 8. Adrian Peterson was #2, with just 4 more. In 2008, his 6 with a bad hamstring was still good for #14 in the league, three short of #7. In 2007 his 11 were good for #3 behind Tomlinson with 13 and Willie Parker with 12.

Looking at it another way, in his career Grant has 25 carries of 20+ yards in 790 attempts, or one every 31.6 carries. That compares favorably with guys like LT who has 85 in 2,936 carries or one every 34.5 carries.

[Smidgeon]

I wouldn't. I doubt teams worried about him taking it the entire length of the field everytime he touched the ball. It wasn't often that he'd break a long one.

His long in 2007 was 66 with a TD and he had 11 runs longer than 10 yards, the only year he ranked in the Top 10.
His long in 2008 was 57 and he only had 6 runs longer than 20 yards.
His long in 2009 was 62 with a TD and he only had 8 runs longer than 20 yards.

In short, he was a homerun threat in 2007 when Favre was playing lights out in his best statistical season post MVP, pre Vikings career. But Grant hasn't been a homerun threat with Rodgers, even though the passing attack is just as lethal (if not more).

Grant is a very good RB, but let's not get carried away here.

I guess it depends on what your criteria is for a homerun threat. In 2009, he was #11 (tied) in the league in 20+ yard runs with 8. Adrian Peterson was #2, with just 4 more. In 2008, his 6 with a bad hamstring was still good for #14 in the league, three short of #7. In 2007 his 11 were good for #3 behind Tomlinson with 13 and Willie Parker with 12.

Looking at it another way, in his career Grant has 25 carries of 20+ yards in 790 attempts, or one every 31.6 carries. That compares favorably with guys like LT who has 85 in 2,936 carries or one every 34.5 carries.

How about in LT's first 790 attempts? Or CJ's first 790 attempts? Or AD's first 790 attempts?

All I'm saying is that in 2008 and 2009, he wasn't the "he could take it to the house anytime he touched the ball" RB. He was the "goes down on first contact" RB. Now, I know that last one is an exaggeration of some magnitude.

[mission]

I wouldn't. I doubt teams worried about him taking it the entire length of the field everytime he touched the ball. It wasn't often that he'd break a long one.

His long in 2007 was 66 with a TD and he had 11 runs longer than 10 yards, the only year he ranked in the Top 10.
His long in 2008 was 57 and he only had 6 runs longer than 20 yards.
His long in 2009 was 62 with a TD and he only had 8 runs longer than 20 yards.

In short, he was a homerun threat in 2007 when Favre was playing lights out in his best statistical season post MVP, pre Vikings career. But Grant hasn't been a homerun threat with Rodgers, even though the passing attack is just as lethal (if not more).

Grant is a very good RB, but let's not get carried away here.

I guess it depends on what your criteria is for a homerun threat. In 2009, he was #11 (tied) in the league in 20+ yard runs with 8. Adrian Peterson was #2, with just 4 more. In 2008, his 6 with a bad hamstring was still good for #14 in the league, three short of #7. In 2007 his 11 were good for #3 behind Tomlinson with 13 and Willie Parker with 12.

Looking at it another way, in his career Grant has 25 carries of 20+ yards in 790 attempts, or one every 31.6 carries. That compares favorably with guys like LT who has 85 in 2,936 carries or one every 34.5 carries.

How about in LT's first 790 attempts? Or CJ's first 790 attempts? Or AD's first 790 attempts?

All I'm saying is that in 2008 and 2009, he wasn't the "he could take it to the house anytime he touched the ball" RB. He was the "goes down on first contact" RB. Now, I know that last one is an exaggeration of some magnitude.

I don't need stats to know Ryan Grant is not the best RB in the league. Don't think anyone's trying to argue that. When the seams are there, however, RG can take it to the house.

[Patler]

How about in LT's first 790 attempts? Or CJ's first 790 attempts? Or AD's first 790 attempts?

All I'm saying is that in 2008 and 2009, he wasn't the "he could take it to the house anytime he touched the ball" RB. He was the "goes down on first contact" RB. Now, I know that last one is an exaggeration of some magnitude.

I didn't make a qualitative judgement as to individuals, just wanted to show how he compares to the rest of the league. I'm not suggesting he is the threat of guys like Peterson or Johnson. But are they the only ones who qualify as "homerun threats"? I don't know what your standard is, but Grant is just as much of a homerun threat as all but just a few others.

By the way, LT had 19 in his first 711 carries and 31 in his first 1024 carries. Both behind Grant percentage wise.

[Smidgeon]

How about in LT's first 790 attempts? Or CJ's first 790 attempts? Or AD's first 790 attempts?

All I'm saying is that in 2008 and 2009, he wasn't the "he could take it to the house anytime he touched the ball" RB. He was the "goes down on first contact" RB. Now, I know that last one is an exaggeration of some magnitude.

I didn't make a qualitative judgement as to individuals, just wanted to show how he compares to the rest of the league. I'm not suggesting he is the threat of guys like Peterson or Johnson. But are they the only ones who qualify as "homerun threats"? I don't know what your standard is, but Grant is just as much of a homerun threat as all but just a few others.

By the way, LT had 19 in his first 711 carries and 31 in his first 1024 carries. Both behind Grant percentage wise.

I guess we'll just chalk it up to our differing definitions of "homerun threat".

[Patler]

I guess we'll just chalk it up to our differing definitions of "homerun threat".

The thing I found quite interesting when looking into it is that 20+ yard runs aren't really all that common. Johnson went nuts last year with 22 of them, and Peterson had 20 the year before, but having about a dozen will put you right near the top. Leaders often have 12-15, and eight or more will usually put you well into the top 10, although for Grant last year it was good for #11 on the list.

It kind of always seemed to me that other teams have backs the rip off 20 yard carries all the time, and the Packers never do. Maybe it's just that other teams do it against the Packers, whether they do at other times or not! :lol:

[Smidgeon]

I guess we'll just chalk it up to our differing definitions of "homerun threat".

The thing I found quite interesting when looking into it is that 20+ yard runs aren't really all that common. Johnson went nuts last year with 22 of them, and Peterson had 20 the year before, but having about a dozen will put you right near the top. Leaders often have 12-15, and eight or more will usually put you well into the top 10, although for Grant last year it was good for #11 on the list.

It kind of always seemed to me that other teams have backs the rip off 20 yard carries all the time, and the Packers never do. Maybe it's just that other teams do it against the Packers, whether they do at other times or not! :lol:

Yeah, I was thinking about that too. But thankfully, last year and this year RBs haven't been doing much damage to the Packers' defense. Running QBs on the other foot...

Do you have numbers for 20+ yard runs combined with 20+ yards on catches? I was surprised when I found out that Grant's career long reception is less than 30 yards (unless I blanked on something, I think it was 27 yards). I would think a "threat" would be pretty balanced running behind a line vs. running behind a screen. Oh well. Just a curiosity.

[Patler]

Do you have numbers for 20+ yard runs combined with 20+ yards on catches? I was surprised when I found out that Grant's career long reception is less than 30 yards (unless I blanked on something, I think it was 27 yards). I would think a "threat" would be pretty balanced running behind a line vs. running behind a screen. Oh well. Just a curiosity.

The numbers are available if anyone cares to look into it. I'm not sure that it will mean much. This isn't the Packers of Mike Sherman, where screens were a staple of the offense. MM doesn't really use his backs all that much as receivers. How often does he run screens where a back has blockers with him? Besides, Grant is much of a receiver anyway.