The Packers Running game

[CaptainKickass]

So - didn't we conclude that Cliffy and Tausch excel at pass blocking, but their weakness is run blocking?

And - Didn't we also conclude that Bulaga, Spitz, Lang, College and Wells are better run blockers than pass blockers, and more ideally suited to a power running game?

And - isn't it accepted that Kuhn is more of a power running back, and the fullback Quinn Johnson is a bruiser/bulldozer type of fullback?

If these are true - then where the hell is our running game? Shouldn't we have at least a passable power running game if the above is true and we simply sub Cliffy and Tausch a bit more often?

I'm no coach - but I've been hanging round here for far too long to not have some ideas.

[packrulz]

BJack busted through for a long run against the 'Skins, and Kuhn is a threat on the goal line, I'm baffled why M3 gives up on the run so easily, his offense is becoming too pass happy.
"On Sunday at Washington, fourth-year back Brandon Jacksoncertainly looked the part of a lead back, posting a career-high 115 yards on just 10 carries (11.5 avg.). It was Green Bay’s first 100-yard rusher since Grant posted 137 yards on the ground at Chicago last season in Week 14."
Both BJack and Kuhn are averaging 4.6 yds per carry. M3 needs to run the ball more to eat the clock on long, sustained drives and make play action work better, otherwise, expect ARod to take a beating.

[Tarlam!]

Well, I'm no expert, but if I see those subs being made, I know a pass or a run is coming 90% of the time.

It's not like in the 60's where (as I've read)s team knew the Packers would run it and they just couldn't stop it.

Your plan makes sense, but I wonder if it makes the Packers too predictable.

[ThunderDan]

Well, I'm no expert, but if I see those subs being made, I know a pass or a run is coming 90% of the time.

It's not like in the 60's where (as I've read)s team knew the Packers would run it and they just couldn't stop it.

Your plan makes sense, but I wonder if it makes the Packers too predictable.

+1, when you know the other team is going to run it is very easy to stop them.

[ThunderDan]

Well, I'm no expert, but if I see those subs being made, I know a pass or a run is coming 90% of the time.

It's not like in the 60's where (as I've read)s team knew the Packers would run it and they just couldn't stop it.

Your plan makes sense, but I wonder if it makes the Packers too predictable.

What's going on the other 10%? :lol:

[retailguy]

Well, I'm no expert, but if I see those subs being made, I know a pass or a run is coming 90% of the time.

It's not like in the 60's where (as I've read)s team knew the Packers would run it and they just couldn't stop it.

Your plan makes sense, but I wonder if it makes the Packers too predictable.

What's going on the other 10%? :lol:

a punt?

[mraynrand]

So - didn't we conclude that Cliffy and Tausch excel at pass blocking, but their weakness is run blocking?

And - Didn't we also conclude that Bulaga, Spitz, Lang, College and Wells are better run blockers than pass blockers, and more ideally suited to a power running game?

And - isn't it accepted that Kuhn is more of a power running back, and the fullback Quinn Johnson is a bruiser/bulldozer type of fullback?

If these are true - then where the hell is our running game? Shouldn't we have at least a passable power running game if the above is true and we simply sub Cliffy and Tausch a bit more often?

I'm no coach - but I've been hanging round here for far too long to not have some ideas.

Flawlessly logical.

[HarveyWallbangers]

And - Didn't we also conclude that Bulaga, Spitz, Lang, College and Wells are better run blockers than pass blockers, and more ideally suited to a power running game?

I don't think you'd classify Spitz, Lang, Colledge, and Wells as better suited for the power running game. None of them have the size you want out OL for a power running game. It's too early to tell on Bulaga. I'm also not sure that these guys are better run blockers than pass blockers. With some of them, I think the opposite is true.

[mraynrand]

And - Didn't we also conclude that Bulaga, Spitz, Lang, College and Wells are better run blockers than pass blockers, and more ideally suited to a power running game?

I don't think you'd classify Spitz, Lang, Colledge, and Wells as better suited for the power running game. None of them have the size you want out OL for a power running game. It's too early to tell on Bulaga. I'm also not sure that these guys are better run blockers than pass blockers. With some of them, I think the opposite is true.

You could be right, But still they have to be better run blocking than Clifton and Tauscher. Seriously, Clifton in the run game looks awful. Virtually no re-direct, no push whatsoever.

[Tarlam!]

So - didn't we conclude that Cliffy and Tausch excel at pass blocking, but their weakness is run blocking?

And - Didn't we also conclude that Bulaga, Spitz, Lang, College and Wells are better run blockers than pass blockers, and more ideally suited to a power running game?

And - isn't it accepted that Kuhn is more of a power running back, and the fullback Quinn Johnson is a bruiser/bulldozer type of fullback?

If these are true - then where the hell is our running game? Shouldn't we have at least a passable power running game if the above is true and we simply sub Cliffy and Tausch a bit more often?

I'm no coach - but I've been hanging round here for far too long to not have some ideas.

Flawlessly logical.

I agree with the logic, too, but my question is will the Packers offense then become predictable? In M3's presser, he said he called a number of pass/run option plays and it's been discussed here whether or not it's A#Rod that's lost confidence in the run game, because he mostly passed on such plays.

Again, I have no clue, but some of our experts will have.

[denverYooper]

Seems to be the topic of the day:

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81b4764b/article/passing-fancy-packers-disinterest-in-run-game-a-mystery?module=HP_cp2



And still, the Packers had a comfortable 13-3 lead when they took over the ball with 6:42 left in the third quarter. Time to run some clock. So what did McCarthy order up on the next two series with a two-score advantage? Seven passes, three runs. One of those passes came on a third-and-1.

Let's review: 10-point second-half lead, third-and-1, on the road ... and they pass the ball! They had to stay on the ground in that situation. Why? Even if they don't get the first down, more clock gets chewed in the process of running the ball.

It wasn't just during the second half that McCarthy abandoned the run. The Packers ran Brandon Jackson out of a three-receiver set on their third offensive play of the game. Jackson, starting in place of the injured Grant, navigated his way through the front line maelstrom, made a brilliant cut, and wasn't caught until he was 71 yards down the field. Jackson's scamper led to Green Bay's only touchdown.

So how many times did Jackson get to run the ball the rest of the half after getting 71 yards on his first carry? Two -- two! In fact, the drive after his big run the Packers ran six plays: Pass, pass, pass, pass, pass, punt.

[mraynrand]

Seems to be the topic of the day:

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81b4764b/article/passing-fancy-packers-disinterest-in-run-game-a-mystery?module=HP_cp2



And still, the Packers had a comfortable 13-3 lead when they took over the ball with 6:42 left in the third quarter. Time to run some clock. So what did McCarthy order up on the next two series with a two-score advantage? Seven passes, three runs. One of those passes came on a third-and-1.

Let's review: 10-point second-half lead, third-and-1, on the road ... and they pass the ball! They had to stay on the ground in that situation. Why? Even if they don't get the first down, more clock gets chewed in the process of running the ball.

It wasn't just during the second half that McCarthy abandoned the run. The Packers ran Brandon Jackson out of a three-receiver set on their third offensive play of the game. Jackson, starting in place of the injured Grant, navigated his way through the front line maelstrom, made a brilliant cut, and wasn't caught until he was 71 yards down the field. Jackson's scamper led to Green Bay's only touchdown.

So how many times did Jackson get to run the ball the rest of the half after getting 71 yards on his first carry? Two -- two! In fact, the drive after his big run the Packers ran six plays: Pass, pass, pass, pass, pass, punt.


The logic was that Wash has one of the worst pass defenses, and the Packers have one of the best passing offenses. Problem is that in that stretch there was a (more than one) critical drop on third down by Driver, that would have resulted in more points. Sure, mix in the run, but Stubby was playing the percentages and his guys didn't come through.

[denverYooper]

Well, I'm no expert, but if I see those subs being made, I know a pass or a run is coming 90% of the time.

It's not like in the 60's where (as I've read)s team knew the Packers would run it and they just couldn't stop it.

Your plan makes sense, but I wonder if it makes the Packers too predictable.

What's going on the other 10%? :lol:

A poor challenge.

[denverYooper]

Seems to be the topic of the day:

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81b4764b/article/passing-fancy-packers-disinterest-in-run-game-a-mystery?module=HP_cp2



And still, the Packers had a comfortable 13-3 lead when they took over the ball with 6:42 left in the third quarter. Time to run some clock. So what did McCarthy order up on the next two series with a two-score advantage? Seven passes, three runs. One of those passes came on a third-and-1.

Let's review: 10-point second-half lead, third-and-1, on the road ... and they pass the ball! They had to stay on the ground in that situation. Why? Even if they don't get the first down, more clock gets chewed in the process of running the ball.

It wasn't just during the second half that McCarthy abandoned the run. The Packers ran Brandon Jackson out of a three-receiver set on their third offensive play of the game. Jackson, starting in place of the injured Grant, navigated his way through the front line maelstrom, made a brilliant cut, and wasn't caught until he was 71 yards down the field. Jackson's scamper led to Green Bay's only touchdown.

So how many times did Jackson get to run the ball the rest of the half after getting 71 yards on his first carry? Two -- two! In fact, the drive after his big run the Packers ran six plays: Pass, pass, pass, pass, pass, punt.


The logic was that Wash has one of the worst pass defenses, and the Packers have one of the best passing offenses. Problem is that in that stretch there was a (more than one) critical drop on third down by Driver, that would have resulted in more points. Sure, mix in the run, but Stubby was playing the percentages and his guys didn't come through.

Excellent point.

Perhaps also the 'Skins are getting more comfortable in their new defense. They might not be as bad as some indicate.

[get louder at lambeau]

where the hell is our running game?

#9 in ypc in the NFL, #15 in ypg. That's where the hell it is. 157 yards on the ground last week.

[3irty1]

So - didn't we conclude that Cliffy and Tausch excel at pass blocking, but their weakness is run blocking?

And - Didn't we also conclude that Bulaga, Spitz, Lang, College and Wells are better run blockers than pass blockers, and more ideally suited to a power running game?

And - isn't it accepted that Kuhn is more of a power running back, and the fullback Quinn Johnson is a bruiser/bulldozer type of fullback?

If these are true - then where the hell is our running game? Shouldn't we have at least a passable power running game if the above is true and we simply sub Cliffy and Tausch a bit more often?

I'm no coach - but I've been hanging round here for far too long to not have some ideas.

Clifton, Tauscher, and Wells are relics before McCarthy's time. Clifton and Tauscer have excellent size, good pass blocking technique, but are poor athletes by today's standards. Especially Tauscher. As far as scheme fit, both are more suited to a power running game style where lineman need not be as athletic. McCarthy bases his offense on a zone blocking system although in the NFL every team runs every kind of blocking scheme there is. So they are only starting due to their pass blocking technique which is fading quickly. As for Wells, he's undersized for a center but does an exceptional job anchoring against bull rushers and is athletic enough to do well with zone blocking assignments. He is equally suited for any scheme.

College, Spitz, Sitton, Lang, Bulaga, and everyone else ever Drafted by TT after 2005 have some common threads that TT seems to look for in a lineman. TT cares about footwork, speed, pass blocking technique, size, attitude, versatility, and strength all in that order. I'd argue that TJ Lang is the ultimate TT lineman, he has all of those qualities. College was a tackle in college and was always believed to hold that upside but I doubt he's seen by the staff as more than a guard at this point. As a guard he is a passable pass blocker and excels at hitting the moving target down the field as a run blocker. He's certainly stronger now than when he came out but is still not a mauler in the run game. He's probably best suited for zone blocking. Spitz has a pretty well rounded skill set who could do well in any kind of scheme but was a good fit for us at C where his extra size would give him an advantage over opposing nose tackles. Sitton has a wide frame and while not the most fluid athlete can get down the field and maul. His style is well suited to either scheme but his ability to tie up a defender is what makes him special. He's not a dominate force at guard but he'll be reliable and will seal of a lot of lanes for MM's zbs. Bulaga is a good athlete and polished technician but is no doubt best suited for zone blocking. He has all the skills necessary and comes from Iowa, the zone blocking capitol of college football. Lang and Newhouse both fit the ZBS perfectly and are completely versatile as well.

To answer where our running game has gone, I'd point to our RBs. To run in the ZBS you should be quick and decisive. Jackson is neither. Kuhn at least has some vision and the ability to fall forward but isn't the home run threat that will keep the defense honest without a serious commitment to the running game. Starks or Nance could be the solution but we won't know until either of them gets a few carries.

[CaptainKickass]

We sure did have 157yds, but only 13 carries. I just hate the # 13 It should be like the no 13th floor in a hotel. it could have at least been 14 fer chrysler's sake. We had the opportunity to get a 200 yd day on the ground.

As far as the "oh the packers put in this sub package of lineman, they're gonna run" goes - you still have the opportunity to pass or run out of any formation. Just like Dom subs in D-Lineman in a rotation - how 'bout we try a little of that here and there on the "O"?

[3irty1]

We sure did have 157yds, but only 13 carries. I just hate the # 13 It should be like the no 13th floor in a hotel. it could have at least been 14 fer chrysler's sake. We had the opportunity to get a 200 yd day on the ground.

As far as the "oh the packers put in this sub package of lineman, they're gonna run" goes - you still have the opportunity to pass or run out of any formation. Just like Dom subs in D-Lineman in a rotation - how 'bout we try a little of that here and there on the "O"?

Subbing OL isn't all that common compared to subbing DL. By swapping around players on the OL you can mess up the chemistry. This is not nearly as much of a problem with the DL who play what might be the most physically exhausting positions in football.

[Pugger]

BJack busted through for a long run against the 'Skins, and Kuhn is a threat on the goal line, I'm baffled why M3 gives up on the run so easily, his offense is becoming too pass happy.
"On Sunday at Washington, fourth-year back Brandon Jacksoncertainly looked the part of a lead back, posting a career-high 115 yards on just 10 carries (11.5 avg.). It was Green Bay’s first 100-yard rusher since Grant posted 137 yards on the ground at Chicago last season in Week 14."
Both BJack and Kuhn are averaging 4.6 yds per carry. M3 needs to run the ball more to eat the clock on long, sustained drives and make play action work better, otherwise, expect ARod to take a beating.

I don't know either. :evil: We proved it first against Detroit that when we run block half way decently we can run the damn ball when we have to with the personnel we now have. MM is gonna get Rodgers killed...

[MJZiggy]

BJack busted through for a long run against the 'Skins, and Kuhn is a threat on the goal line, I'm baffled why M3 gives up on the run so easily, his offense is becoming too pass happy.
"On Sunday at Washington, fourth-year back Brandon Jacksoncertainly looked the part of a lead back, posting a career-high 115 yards on just 10 carries (11.5 avg.). It was Green Bay’s first 100-yard rusher since Grant posted 137 yards on the ground at Chicago last season in Week 14."
Both BJack and Kuhn are averaging 4.6 yds per carry. M3 needs to run the ball more to eat the clock on long, sustained drives and make play action work better, otherwise, expect ARod to take a beating.

I don't know either. :evil: We proved it first against Detroit that when we run block half way decently we can run the damn ball when we have to with the personnel we now have. MM is gonna get Rodgers killed...

I think he gave up when we couldn't punch it in from the 1.

[mraynrand]

BJack busted through for a long run against the 'Skins, and Kuhn is a threat on the goal line, I'm baffled why M3 gives up on the run so easily, his offense is becoming too pass happy.
"On Sunday at Washington, fourth-year back Brandon Jacksoncertainly looked the part of a lead back, posting a career-high 115 yards on just 10 carries (11.5 avg.). It was Green Bay’s first 100-yard rusher since Grant posted 137 yards on the ground at Chicago last season in Week 14."
Both BJack and Kuhn are averaging 4.6 yds per carry. M3 needs to run the ball more to eat the clock on long, sustained drives and make play action work better, otherwise, expect ARod to take a beating.

I don't know either. :evil: We proved it first against Detroit that when we run block half way decently we can run the damn ball when we have to with the personnel we now have. MM is gonna get Rodgers killed...

I think he gave up when we couldn't punch it in from the 1.

IF that's true, it's doubly stupid, make that triply stupid. 1) he snuck Rodgers - that's just dumb in general to put your QB at risk - my opinion, 2) Teams are geared to stop the run on the goaline and succeed even against good run teams and 3) so what? You just ran B Jack for 70. Keep going back to the well. The whole point of the run game is it forces the defense to defend everything. When you put Rodgers in an empty backfield in shotgun, gee, what do you think the Packers are gonna do. Sure, Stubby will tell you how efficient they are, but until they start proving it, they need to have more facets to the offense. Get a clue, Stubby!

[mraynrand]

Stubby's reaction when B Jack ran for 70 should have been: "Holy shit, we just ran for 70, I'm going to mix in a bunch more inside runs and put the 'skins on their heels," Not - "hey that's great, we got big run so I'll only have to run 12 more times to get to 100." Moron.

[woodbuck27]

BJack busted through for a long run against the 'Skins, and Kuhn is a threat on the goal line, I'm baffled why M3 gives up on the run so easily, his offense is becoming too pass happy.
"On Sunday at Washington, fourth-year back Brandon Jacksoncertainly looked the part of a lead back, posting a career-high 115 yards on just 10 carries (11.5 avg.). It was Green Bay’s first 100-yard rusher since Grant posted 137 yards on the ground at Chicago last season in Week 14."
Both BJack and Kuhn are averaging 4.6 yds per carry. M3 needs to run the ball more to eat the clock on long, sustained drives and make play action work better, otherwise, expect ARod to take a beating.

Good post and I totally agree with your assessment here.

It's about the clock. Control.

Maybe MM wants 'the quick six', and isn't willing to rish discipline issue's (penaltys)? Get out ahead 10-14 points and then bang it out?

GO PACKERS!

[woodbuck27]

BJack busted through for a long run against the 'Skins, and Kuhn is a threat on the goal line, I'm baffled why M3 gives up on the run so easily, his offense is becoming too pass happy.
"On Sunday at Washington, fourth-year back Brandon Jacksoncertainly looked the part of a lead back, posting a career-high 115 yards on just 10 carries (11.5 avg.). It was Green Bay’s first 100-yard rusher since Grant posted 137 yards on the ground at Chicago last season in Week 14."
Both BJack and Kuhn are averaging 4.6 yds per carry. M3 needs to run the ball more to eat the clock on long, sustained drives and make play action work better, otherwise, expect ARod to take a beating.

I don't know either. :evil: We proved it first against Detroit that when we run block half way decently we can run the damn ball when we have to with the personnel we now have. MM is gonna get Rodgers killed...

I think he gave up when we couldn't punch it in from the 1.

IF that's true, it's doubly stupid, make that triply stupid. 1) he snuck Rodgers - that's just dumb in general to put your QB at risk - my opinion, 2) Teams are geared to stop the run on the goaline and succeed even against good run teams and 3) so what? You just ran B Jack for 70. Keep going back to the well. The whole point of the run game is it forces the defense to defend everything. When you put Rodgers in an empty backfield in shotgun, gee, what do you think the Packers are gonna do. Sure, Stubby will tell you how efficient they are, but until they start proving it, they need to have more facets to the offense. Get a clue, Stubby!

YES!

PACKERS!

[Tarlam!]

An antsy M3 answers questions about the running game.

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/105112999.html

[packrulz]

I just don't agree with M3's philosophy, sure, they have great receivers and they often gain a lot of yards after the catch, but Super Bowl contenders have a balanced offense, he's going to need the running game when the snow is flying and Lambeau gets sloppy. Lombardi knew that, it made them champions.

[Fritz]

An antsy M3 answers questions about the running game.

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/105112999.html

Yes, Mikey seems rather irritated, doesn't he?

[Pugger]

We don't necessarily need the second coming of Adrian Peterson but MM abandons the run to quickly if it stalls. :evil: If you stop even attempting to run the damn thing defenses just pin their ears back and try to kill our Franchise QB. This philosophy is crazy, especially seeing officials turn a blind eye whenever Rodgers gets hit in the head. :doh:

[MJZiggy]

An antsy M3 answers questions about the running game.

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/105112999.html

Yes, Mikey seems rather irritated, doesn't he?

Wonder if it's in response to how questions were asked. Reporters seem to have lost the art of finesse in getting information out of their sources. In reading that I kind of get the feeling he trusts the line less than he trusts his runningbacks.

[ThunderDan]

An antsy M3 answers questions about the running game.

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/105112999.html

Yes, Mikey seems rather irritated, doesn't he?

Wonder if it's in response to how questions were asked. Reporters seem to have lost the art of finesse in getting information out of their sources. In reading that I kind of get the feeling he trusts the line less than he trusts his runningbacks.

+1

[bobblehead]

And - Didn't we also conclude that Bulaga, Spitz, Lang, College and Wells are better run blockers than pass blockers, and more ideally suited to a power running game?

I don't think you'd classify Spitz, Lang, Colledge, and Wells as better suited for the power running game. None of them have the size you want out OL for a power running game. It's too early to tell on Bulaga. I'm also not sure that these guys are better run blockers than pass blockers. With some of them, I think the opposite is true.

You don't need size to run block, you need it to pass block. The denver OL that ran over us in the superbowl was small, but played with great leverage (read pad level so I can satisfy MM).

[pbmax]

I just don't agree with M3's philosophy, sure, they have great receivers and they often gain a lot of yards after the catch, but Super Bowl contenders have a balanced offense, he's going to need the running game when the snow is flying and Lambeau gets sloppy. Lombardi knew that, it made them champions.
Super Bowl contenders do not have balanced offenses. The vast majority of the last decade of Super Bowl winners have been pass happy. Even before that, the Ravens were a singular instance running against the grain of Super Bowl winners passing more.

Balance is an poor goal for an offense because it is too general. You need to know how to put pressure on and succeed against a defense based not only on its weaknesses, but of your own strengths. Offenses need first downs, any way they can get them.

During the game, McCarthy, probably by design in the game plan, had a pass heavy plan against a poor secondary. But once they had the lead on the road well into the second half, he should have adjusted. To help the D and to eat clock. His 4 minute offense, I believe, is designed to do that. He should have extended its principals to the end of the 3rd Quarter. This was the problem with not running more. Not balance.

There was evidence of this. The screen to Jackson on the offense's right was wide open, with Wells needing to block one player. That one player put Wells on the ground and tackled (or held up) Jackson for next to nothing. It was a perfect clock killer and they failed to execute it. It should have been a near first down.

Overall, I still rank running game problems (McCarthy's and the talent's) behind penalties shorter passing game and Special Teams. Its possible there is no fix at this point in the season for Special Teams, so the running game might be third.

[pbmax]

I just don't agree with M3's philosophy, sure, they have great receivers and they often gain a lot of yards after the catch, but Super Bowl contenders have a balanced offense, he's going to need the running game when the snow is flying and Lambeau gets sloppy. Lombardi knew that, it made them champions.
What about Holmgren's Packers? Did they pass less in the cold and snow? Or did they run with a lead?

[pbmax]

By the way, while the Packers were losing in the second half, they won the TOP battle.

So consider this, today's exercise in logic:

The best offenses often have less TOP than average to good offenses. Why is that?

[Joemailman]

I just don't agree with M3's philosophy, sure, they have great receivers and they often gain a lot of yards after the catch, but Super Bowl contenders have a balanced offense, he's going to need the running game when the snow is flying and Lambeau gets sloppy. Lombardi knew that, it made them champions.
What about Holmgren's Packers? Did they pass less in the cold and snow? Or did they run with a lead?

In the 1996-97 playofffs, the Packers ran the ball 39 times and passed it 15 against the 49ers on a cold, wet day.In the NFC Title Game against the Panthers on a bitterly cold day, they ran the ball 45 times and passed it 29. I don't have the play-by-play to tell what the breakdown was in the 2nd half with a lead.

In the dome at the Super Bowl, they ran it 36 and passed it 27. My recollection is that Holmgren would often shut down the passing game if he had more than a touchdown lead in the 4th quarter.

[pbmax]

I just don't agree with M3's philosophy, sure, they have great receivers and they often gain a lot of yards after the catch, but Super Bowl contenders have a balanced offense, he's going to need the running game when the snow is flying and Lambeau gets sloppy. Lombardi knew that, it made them champions.
What about Holmgren's Packers? Did they pass less in the cold and snow? Or did they run with a lead?

In the 1996-97 playofffs, the Packers ran the ball 39 times and passed it 15 against the 49ers on a cold, wet day.In the NFC Title Game against the Panthers on a bitterly cold day, they ran the ball 45 times and passed it 29. I don't have the play-by-play to tell what the breakdown was in the 2nd half with a lead.

In the dome at the Super Bowl, they ran it 36 and passed it 27. My recollection is that Holmgren would often shut down the passing game if he had more than a touchdown lead in the 4th quarter.

If he had the lead. That is the important part. And it is the part McCarthy forgot about last Sunday. I will amend my statement to include mud as a mitigating factor in the passing game if the 49er game is the one I remember.