View Full Version : 13 Running Plays
bobblehead
10-10-2010, 09:00 PM
I know many think the short passing game can compensate for a lack of the run, but I just don't agree.
In a game where we ran the ball very well we called all of 13 running plays. Similar to the Bengals game last season, MM threw the run book out the window and the Redskins pinned back the ears in the second half. The end result is that our QB has a concussion and we lost.
Seriously, MM has to learn how to commit to pounding the ball. We should have won this game many times and many ways, but simply calling a fair number of running plays might have been the easiest.
pbmax
10-10-2010, 09:05 PM
I know many think the short passing game can compensate for a lack of the run, but I just don't agree.
In a game where we ran the ball very well we called all of 13 running plays. Similar to the Bengals game last season, MM threw the run book out the window and the Redskins pinned back the ears in the second half. The end result is that our QB has a concussion and we lost.
Seriously, MM has to learn how to commit to pounding the ball. We should have won this game many times and many ways, but simply calling a fair number of running plays might have been the easiest.
What short passing game? I saw a lot of intermediate stuff, some longer developing and then some WR screens.
When they ran a couple of slants and screens, they looked wide open.
Deputy Nutz
10-10-2010, 09:08 PM
Overall I thought it was a pretty poor day of play calling and execution.
I guess I just don't get when you finally get a running back in Brandon Jackson in a groove you don't ride that pony until it's legs fall off.
denverYooper
10-10-2010, 09:09 PM
BJack was hot. I was surprised they didn't feed him more.
Little Whiskey
10-10-2010, 09:10 PM
Overall I thought it was a pretty poor day of play calling and execution.
I guess I just don't get when you finally get a running back in Brandon Jackson in a groove you don't ride that pony until it's legs fall off.
if you do that, then you can't always be in 3rd and long. I actually think MM likes 3rd and long.
digitaldean
10-10-2010, 09:11 PM
Abandonment of the running game was just pathetic. When the Packers really needed to stick with it, M3 turned his back on it.
When the blitz was just killing the line, M3 didn't have an answer. Well when YOUR OWN TEAM doesn't believe you'll run, the D sure the heck won't.
Deputy Nutz
10-10-2010, 09:14 PM
I saw one maybe two screens to the running backs. the Middle screen is a great way to beat the blitz and slow the pressure.
I wasn't all that impressed with Wells today, he missed an assignment that got Rodgers killed on 3rd and 14 in the 4th. He doubled down on the tackle with Sitton and missed the blitzing backer. He got killed on the goalline on Rodgers sneak.
I cannot tell you how badly it drives me nuts watching the Packers have the ability to run, and McCarthy just seem sto flat out refuse to do it. PLUS, when they do, it is so predictable, and telegraphed. The Packers ALWAYS run away from the motion or offset TE, always.
channtheman
10-10-2010, 09:18 PM
8 drops by the wide receivers. Those are drive killing drops too. Driver's drop in the second half cost us the game. The issue is not the number of running plays, it is our overrated wide receivers.
Deputy Nutz
10-10-2010, 09:22 PM
I cannot tell you how badly it drives me nuts watching the Packers have the ability to run, and McCarthy just seem sto flat out refuse to do it. PLUS, when they do, it is so predictable, and telegraphed. The Packers ALWAYS run away from the motion or offset TE, always.
If John Kuhn can be a plus runner for the Packers then you have an offensive line that can generate positive running plays on a regular basis, and it is being ignored by McCarthy/Martz.
denverYooper
10-10-2010, 09:26 PM
8 drops by the wide receivers. Those are drive killing drops too. Driver's drop in the second half cost us the game. The issue is not the number of running plays, it is our overrated wide receivers.
They had a less than stellar game, Driver especially. He missed some of his bread and butter plays. I thought Quarless had a nice game except the holding. Made some nice catches when they needed them.
3irty1
10-10-2010, 10:01 PM
Those 13 are even highly inflated IMO. Most of the success was off of draws that were surprising soft passing defenses. Not saying that those yards don't count but its not like you can base a legit rushing attack off of draws.
When its 3rd and two I'd like to be able to trot out there with a bunch of TEs and FBs and take those two yards while the defense is expecting it.
CaptainKickass
10-10-2010, 10:28 PM
Weren't we supposed to see Nance today? Did I miss him on the inactives?
Joemailman
10-10-2010, 10:34 PM
Nance was officially active, but basically inactive.
woodbuck27
10-10-2010, 10:39 PM
Overall I thought it was a pretty poor day of play calling and execution.
I guess I just don't get when you finally get a running back in Brandon Jackson in a groove you don't ride that pony until it's legs fall off.
if you do that, then you can't always be in 3rd and long. I actually think MM likes 3rd and long.
Third and long . really nice challeng in the NFL. We need a more consistent running game desperately or Aaron Rodgers will get knocked out.
GO PACK GO!
bobblehead
10-11-2010, 03:01 AM
Those 13 are even highly inflated IMO. Most of the success was off of draws that were surprising soft passing defenses. Not saying that those yards don't count but its not like you can base a legit rushing attack off of draws.
When its 3rd and two I'd like to be able to trot out there with a bunch of TEs and FBs and take those two yards while the defense is expecting it.
See, I don't even care about 3rd and 2. We can surprise a run stacked defense in that case with a pass play quite often. Its a manageable situation.
In the NFL you have to be able to do the opposite of what the D is geared up to stop. You must be able to run and pass the football. We had a team with the ears pinned back the entire 4th quarter and we couldn't even attempt to run it.
vince
10-11-2010, 05:10 AM
What short passing game? I saw a lot of intermediate stuff, some longer developing and then some WR screens.
When they ran a couple of slants and screens, they looked wide open.
This. The threat of the run has to be there too though. In order to threaten the run, you have to line up on running formations and yeah, run it some. I don't recall much play action either.
It looks like Rodgers got his wish from last week, and we all now see how that worked out. In particular once their no. 1 receiver Finley went down, they should have adapted the game plan. The offense is far less dynamic all the way around without him in it.
Gunakor
10-11-2010, 05:43 AM
In order to have a good running game, you have to call running plays. To that end I'm not sure how much of a positive effect a new RB would have had in any of our games this year. Maybe today Lynch has the speed to score a TD on that 71 yard carry from B-Jax but we scored a TD on that drive anyway; the net result would have been the same. Beyond that, I'm not sure what Chris Johnson could do with 10 measly carries. Probably not a whole lot better than the 11.5 avg. that Jackson had today.
I'm officially going on record here as saying that I think our run game is fine. We just need to call on it more often and things will settle down for this offense. There aren't any gamebreakers in our backfield, but they're more than capable of pounding out 3 or 4 yards on first down to set up a manageable second down. They can run out the clock to secure a victory, which we saw last week against a pretty decent front 7 for the Lions. They can't do everything, but they're more than capable of doing what we need them to do. Just let them do it.
mraynrand
10-11-2010, 08:06 AM
Pack had some success running draws on 2nd and long - at least twice - early. The proof is in the pudding - stagnant offense the entire 4th quarter - yet again. I think it's all Stubby - he is going to run his stuff and why the hell should he have to adjust, even when the defense figures it out and has adjusted to his gameplan? Stubby, Stubby, Stubby.
Cheesehead Craig
10-11-2010, 09:06 AM
You have to be able to run the ball if you want to throw those intermediate and deep stuff. Play-action works a whole lot better when you run the ball. Why would you want to take that out of your playbook?
pbmax
10-11-2010, 09:30 AM
Pack had some success running draws on 2nd and long - at least twice - early. The proof is in the pudding - stagnant offense the entire 4th quarter - yet again. I think it's all Stubby - he is going to run his stuff and why the hell should he have to adjust, even when the defense figures it out and has adjusted to his gameplan? Stubby, Stubby, Stubby.
At least one of those, Rodgers seemed to audible to. I don't know if it was run-pass option or a true audible, but they saw things they could run against.
It is possible they were calling stuff at the line dependent on defensive alignment.
mraynrand
10-11-2010, 09:33 AM
Pack had some success running draws on 2nd and long - at least twice - early. The proof is in the pudding - stagnant offense the entire 4th quarter - yet again. I think it's all Stubby - he is going to run his stuff and why the hell should he have to adjust, even when the defense figures it out and has adjusted to his gameplan? Stubby, Stubby, Stubby.
At least one of those, Rodgers seemed to audible to. I don't know if it was run-pass option or a true audible, but they saw things they could run against.
It is possible they were calling stuff at the line dependent on defensive alignment.
OK. And it's possible on a couple of those sacks late that Rodgers didn't diagnose/detect the defensive alignment properly. So maybe Stubby, Stubby, Rodgers? Maybe give some credit to Williams and the Wash D too.
vince
10-11-2010, 12:28 PM
When questioned about the lack of run plays, McCarthy said there were a lot of run-pass option plays called that he felt were missed run opportunities.
packers11
10-11-2010, 12:30 PM
When questioned about the lack of run plays, McCarthy said there were a lot of run-pass option plays called that he felt were missed run opportunities.
I think its more on Rodgers audibles to passing plays then MM not calling them... Aaron clearly stated last week he wanted to go 4-5 wide and throw it around... Its his own words, he'd rather throw the ball then run it...
Joemailman
10-12-2010, 06:24 AM
Packers are now 15th in the NFL in rushing yardage. 6th in YPC. At what point does the media stop saying the Packers have no running game, and start asking why they're not running it more?
pbmax
10-12-2010, 06:39 AM
Pack had some success running draws on 2nd and long - at least twice - early. The proof is in the pudding - stagnant offense the entire 4th quarter - yet again. I think it's all Stubby - he is going to run his stuff and why the hell should he have to adjust, even when the defense figures it out and has adjusted to his gameplan? Stubby, Stubby, Stubby.
At least one of those, Rodgers seemed to audible to. I don't know if it was run-pass option or a true audible, but they saw things they could run against.
It is possible they were calling stuff at the line dependent on defensive alignment.
OK. And it's possible on a couple of those sacks late that Rodgers didn't diagnose/detect the defensive alignment properly. So maybe Stubby, Stubby, Rodgers? Maybe give some credit to Williams and the Wash D too.
I don't think either had a good handle on the D they were facing after the 1st Quarter for some reason.
Did anyone else see Rodgers bend down and try to look through legs to see the Defense? Is that what he was doing or did he have a cramp?
Smidgeon
10-12-2010, 09:03 AM
Pack had some success running draws on 2nd and long - at least twice - early. The proof is in the pudding - stagnant offense the entire 4th quarter - yet again. I think it's all Stubby - he is going to run his stuff and why the hell should he have to adjust, even when the defense figures it out and has adjusted to his gameplan? Stubby, Stubby, Stubby.
At least one of those, Rodgers seemed to audible to. I don't know if it was run-pass option or a true audible, but they saw things they could run against.
It is possible they were calling stuff at the line dependent on defensive alignment.
OK. And it's possible on a couple of those sacks late that Rodgers didn't diagnose/detect the defensive alignment properly. So maybe Stubby, Stubby, Rodgers? Maybe give some credit to Williams and the Wash D too.
I don't think either had a good handle on the D they were facing after the 1st Quarter for some reason.
Did anyone else see Rodgers bend down and try to look through legs to see the Defense? Is that what he was doing or did he have a cramp?
I saw that and just thought he was trying to communicate with his center. Get some eye contact in a loud environment to make sure Wells knew the audible or protection or something.
13 running plays called compared to around 50 passing plays. you can't win in the nfl like that
thats not all a-rod changing the plays at the line. thats a piss poor game plan
and the worst part is that the running games was working pretty damn good
a-rod and m3 need to pull each others head out of their asses and get this figured out
a 5 to 1 pass run ration is a recipe for disaster
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.