Article: Green Bay's offense doesn't need Benson

[Lurker64]

Lots of tables, that I won't bother to reproduce, so you should just click through to this one:
http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/48800012/ns/sports-nfl/

Fair use snippet:


The Packers' rushing issues the last four season aren't a secret. But does this matter in today’s NFL?

If you have an elite quarterback, you can consistently win without a running game. Whether it’s rushing for under 100 yards or not exceeding 30 carries, the teams with the very best quarterbacks are the ones that still win those types of games.

Of course, what separates Rodgers from the other elite quarterbacks is the way he takes matters into his own hands in the running game, scrambling for yards to inflate his team’s rushing statistics. That is why it’s good to remove quarterback carries from a team’s rushing stats to get a better sense of their intended ground game (handoffs only).

When you remove Rodgers from the stats, the results of Green Bay’s rushing offense are not pretty. In his 68 career starts (including playoffs), the Packers only average 21.9 carries for 88.2 yards (4.02 yards per carry). In spite of the running game, their record is 45-23 (.662).

In fact, no matter what Green Bay does on the ground, Rodgers usually plays at a high level, as seen in Table 2.

[Tony Oday]

Benson will matter when we are up in the 4th and he is pounding the defense for 5 yard gains and then a play action on 2nd and 5 goes for 6 because the D is cheating a guy closer to the line to stop Benson.

[rbaloha1]

Nonsense.

In November - January is when Benson's true value surfaces.

[MadScientist]

No shit the Packers can win without a good running game. And no shit improving the defense will make a bigger difference than Benson. But having a back that commands a little respect is a good thing. Anything that will keep the defense from pinning their ears back and trying to kill AR is a great thing. Benson is more likely to command respect than Grant or Starks, and anytime you can get a cheap upgrade, it's worth doing.

[King Friday]

Someone wasn't watching that debacle against the Giants last postseason.

[Tony Oday]

Someone wasn't watching that debacle against the Giants last postseason.

I did and some stick'em would have won that game! ;)

[Lurker64]

Someone wasn't watching that debacle against the Giants last postseason.

Packers didn't lose that game because they couldn't run the ball. The Packers lost that game because they couldn't hang onto the ball or defend the pass.

[Pugger]

Benson's presence will make our play-action deadly. :-D

[George Cumby]

The O might not NEED Benson. But it's nice to have an legit ground threat.

I'm fine with our offensive embarassment of riches......

[Tony Oday]

Benson's presence will make our play-action deadly. :-D

Wow can you imagine!?

[pbmax]

Someone wasn't watching that debacle against the Giants last postseason.

Benson hasn't helped anyone hang on to the football yet this camp.

[pbmax]

Benson will matter when we are up in the 4th and he is pounding the defense for 5 yard gains and then a play action on 2nd and 5 goes for 6 because the D is cheating a guy closer to the line to stop Benson.

I do buy this. Rather than leak away a winning margin in the 4 minute offense (like in the reg season Giants game), they do stand a better chance of piling up a 4th down.

[MJZiggy]

Benson hasn't helped anyone hang on to the football yet this camp. Has Benson caught it? I believe he has, though admittedly on my feed, the ball is only 2 px...

[mmmdk]

Packers didn't lose that game because they couldn't run the ball. The Packers lost that game because they couldn't hang onto the ball or defend the pass.

Spot on! But I like Benson nonetheless. :-)

[BobDobbs]

I do buy this. Rather than leak away a winning margin in the 4 minute offense (like in the reg season Giants game), they do stand a better chance of piling up a 4th down.

Yup. Benson makes us better, but the true test is can we grind clock when teams know we are going to run. Also, can we convert 3rd and short even if everyone knows we have no intention of passing?

[MadtownPacker]

Packers didn't lose that game because they couldn't run the ball. The Packers lost that game because they couldn't hang onto the ball or defend the pass.They lost that game because they couldn't grind it out and keep the ball when the pass got shut down because it was the only thing the Giants respected. Time of possession was fucked up in the 2nd half.

IMO they lost the game because the couldn't run the ball.

Top rusher?
Rushing: A. Rodgers (GB) - 7 CAR, 66 YDS
If I recall he was just saying fuck it and running for first downs to keep the chains moving. That shit can't happen.

[Deputy Nutz]

The packers lost the playoff game because they couldn't stop the Giants pass rush. That pass rush throu the Packers passing game out of whack. The best way to stop a strong pass rush is to run the football effectively. Something Packers failed to do.

Benson is the Packers best running back. He was never an elite back but he demonstrated last Thursday that he has more ability than any back on this years roster or last years roster. I was able to see that in ten carries.

[imscott72]

Packers didn't lose that game because they couldn't run the ball. The Packers lost that game because they couldn't hang onto the ball or defend the pass.

They lost that game because they couldn't rush the passer..

[Joemailman]

Packers didn't lose that game because they couldn't run the ball. The Packers lost that game because they couldn't hang onto the ball or defend the pass.


They lost that game because they couldn't rush the passer..

Sounds like the Packers lost that game because they stunk up the joint.

[Lurker64]

They lost that game because they couldn't grind it out and keep the ball when the pass got shut down because it was the only thing the Giants respected. Time of possession was fucked up in the 2nd half.

IMO they lost the game because the couldn't run the ball.

Top rusher?
Rushing: A. Rodgers (GB) - 7 CAR, 66 YDS
If I recall he was just saying fuck it and running for first downs to keep the chains moving. That shit can't happen.

Packers receivers had 6 drops in that game, turned the ball over four times (including three fumbles two by running backs), and never led once in the entire game.

You're not interested in "grinding it out and keeping the ball" when you don't have a lead. "Grinding it out and keeping the ball" is not going to help you overcome a multiple touchdown deficit.

I mean, it's not like the Giants won that game because they were able to "grind it out and keep the ball". Eli threw for 330 yards and 3 touchdowns. The Giants running backs combined for 95 yards, 1 TD, on a 3.5 YPC average. The Packers rushed for 147 yards in that game. a 6.4 YPC average!

[pbmax]

Hail Mary.
Fumbles.
Drops.
Stupid outlet pass that went for 20 yards and then OOB and allowed Hail Mary next play.
Jennings not in game form.
Bottom 1/3 pass defense.

All more important than run game in a high scoring game. But for the record, Sherrod is the best antidote to JPP.

[Pugger]

Yes, had we had the threat of a running game the Giants would have had to respect it and not just pinned their ears back. Of course it didn't help that Grant and Kuhn fumbled the ball...there was plenty of blame to go around in that disaster.

[RashanGary]

The packers lost the playoff game because they couldn't stop the Giants pass rush. That pass rush throu the Packers passing game out of whack. The best way to stop a strong pass rush is to run the football effectively. Something Packers failed to do.

Benson is the Packers best running back. He was never an elite back but he demonstrated last Thursday that he has more ability than any back on this years roster or last years roster. I was able to see that in ten carries.


THIS!

The other things are moving pockets and mixing cadences, but neither are any substitute for running the damn ball. If you move your pocket, it just takes one time for the QB to roll out and get face planted full speed by a physical corner similar to Jarrett Bush.

The defense played a part in that game too, so did our shitty LT play. All three could be better this year, but there's a lot of wait and see here.

[mraynrand]

Top rusher?
Rushing: A. Rodgers (GB) - 7 CAR, 66 YDS
If I recall he was just saying fuck it and running for first downs to keep the chains moving. That shit can't happen.

If the other team is focused on coverage and pass rush, and they give you an opening, you tuck and run. Sure it's risky, but you have to make the defense pay for their defensive strategy. Gash them enough, and guys should get open. They did get open too; just too many drops, missed connections, and costly fumbles. Rodgers just needs to very disciplined when he runs and err on the side of caution.

[RashanGary]

Hail Mary. . . . .

Near the end of this video, there is one word that describes perfectly how I feel about that hail mary. . . . Oh, and if you've never seen this movie, this scene is a must watch.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-RlwFSf9B0&feature=related

[Upnorth]

We were in the game until the 4th quarter. Did it ever feel like we would win, no, but we were in it. Then we fell the fuck apart. The d held up till then, the o on the other hand couldn't catch a cold (or so it seemed). Would having Benson make us win that game? Not as much as having Perry and Worthy (if they become good players, dont have to be great but it would be nice) especially with the two wideopen drops we had.
Damn it, now im in a foul mood.

[Lurker64]

Benson's presence will make our play-action deadly. :-D

Haven't you noticed that the Packers play-action game is already pretty effective (Nelson caught quite a few long TDs on play-action plays), despite the fact that they couldn't effectively run the ball?

The success of the play action game depends on the frequency with which you run the ball not the effectiveness you have when doing it. The Superbowl team ran the ball terribly, but quite often, and was very effective on play-action nonetheless.

[this is actually covered in the above article. The Packers play action-game doesn't need help, and Kuhn is actually a better option converting 3rd and short than Benson is.]

[denverYooper]

Haven't you noticed that the Packers play-action game is already pretty effective (Nelson caught quite a few long TDs on play-action plays), despite the fact that they couldn't effectively run the ball?

The success of the play action game depends on the frequency with which you run the ball not the effectiveness you have when doing it. The Superbowl team ran the ball terribly, but quite often, and was very effective on play-action nonetheless.

[this is actually covered in the above article. The Packers play action-game doesn't need help, and Kuhn is actually a better option converting 3rd and short than Benson is.]

I buy all of this and the argument that the Packers offense doesn't *need* Benson to be great.

And I'm usually a numbers guy who enjoys reasoning from metrics.

But in this case, I think Benson will make the offense better. It might not make them numerically superior to last year's offense, but he gives them more situational variety. His ability is a clear notch above the other backs on the roster and I think there will be situations where they need that, especially on days when the passing game is cold or they need to eat clock or give the defense a rest.

[Patler]

Does the offense need Benson to be successful? Probably not.
Will it be better with Benson? Sure, if he is a better running back than the others, of course it will be better with him, If you acquire better players, you should be better, all other things being equal. Now, if Benson becomes a malcontent because he is getting only 15 carries/game, the net result could be a negative if it disrupts the locker room, or if MM forces play calls to satisfy him.

I suspect Benson will be content at least this year, so long as the team is winning often. I'm sure a ring would mean a lot to him. I am most concerned with his fumble frequency. A fumble at the wrong time could be devastating if the defense isn't appreciably better this year.

[Lurker64]

Does the offense need Benson to be successful? Probably not.
Will it be better with Benson? Sure, if he is a better running back than the others, of course it will be better with him, If you acquire better players, you should be better, all other things being equal. Now, if Benson becomes a malcontent because he is getting only 15 carries/game, the net result could be a negative if it disrupts the locker room, or if MM forces play calls to satisfy him.

I suspect Benson will be content at least this year, so long as the team is winning often. I'm sure a ring would mean a lot to him. I am most concerned with his fumble frequency. A fumble at the wrong time could be devastating if the defense isn't appreciably better this year.


Well, improving the talent on your team generally speaking will improve your team (absent chemistry issues what you allude to). I think what the author is intending to refute is widely held notion that the Packers need "balance on offense" and "a running game" in order to be truly transcendent on offense. This team lives or dies on the basis of how the passing game and defense performs, and without changing the formula, adding a running back isn't going to make the offense much more successful.

The Benson signing you can defend on the basis that it's cheap, and Starks' injury did call for the addition of another running back. But this line of reasoning is also worth considering when it comes to draft season and the groupthink is that "what the Packers need to do is draft a really good running back in order to take the offense to the next level" the answer is "no, it's not." When Rodgers' average passer rating is differs by only 3 points between games when the offense averages <3.0 YPC on the ground (13 times) and games where the offense averages >5.0 YPC on the ground (11) times, and the Packers W/L record is strongly correlated to Rodgers' performance, then you're always going to be better off devoting premium resources to the defense and the passing game.

Signing Benson isn't bad, because he's fairly talented and he's cheap, and if he keeps his mouth shut then it could work out for both sides, but it's really not that big a deal either way. It's nice to think that a good running game would be handy for, say, killing clock in the second half, but I really don't think it will shake up that way. Like all pass-first teams, the Packers are going to need to convert key passes to continue clock killing drives late in the game. TT has assembled a pretty good group of OL, but there really aren't any "plus" drive skills in the bunch.

[Patler]

I think what the author is intending to refute is widely held notion that the Packers need "balance on offense" and "a running game" in order to be truly transcendent on offense. This team lives or dies on the basis of how the passing game and defense performs, and without changing the formula, adding a running back isn't going to make the offense much more successful.


Then he is refuting an argument that I have seen absolutely no one make. It's not valid generally in the NFL, why should it be true for the Packers? With teams regular approaching and exceeding 5.000 yards passing, their success is dictated by the performance of the QB

After all, there is a reason RBs are not so highly prized anymore as they once were.

[Lurker64]

Then he is refuting an argument that I have seen absolutely no one make. It's not valid generally in the NFL, why should it be true for the Packers? With teams regular approaching and exceeding 5.000 yards passing, their success is dictated by the performance of the QB

After all, there is a reason RBs are not so highly prized anymore as they once were.

You've not heard media persons claiming that what a pass-first team needs is "balance" on offense? Or when a pass-first team has a successful game (or in some cases play) running the ball, you've not heard media types claiming that their newfound running success makes their offense much more dangerous?

If so, I envy you.

Like, if you watch the Saints, every time they run for more than about 5 yards, someone will claim that what makes this team really dangerous is that they can run the ball. No, what makes that team really dangerous is Drew Brees.

[Patler]

You've not heard media persons claiming that what a pass-first team needs is "balance" on offense? Or when a pass-first team has a successful game (or in some cases play) running the ball, you've not heard media types claiming that their newfound running success makes their offense much more dangerous?

If so, I envy you.

Like, if you watch the Saints, every time they run for more than about 5 yards, someone will claim that what makes this team really dangerous is that they can run the ball. No, what makes that team really dangerous is Drew Brees.

No, I haven't heard it; not for several years at least. Don't confuse the nonsensical blather on a game broadcast, spewed to fill time between plays, for critical analysis.

[Lurker64]

No, I haven't heard it; not for several years at least. Don't confuse the nonsensical blather on a game broadcast, spewed to fill time between plays, for critical analysis.

I have ESPN or NFLN on in the background a lot when I'm at home, I hear talking heads advocate for "offensive balance" at least once a day. Perhaps I should listen to something else.

[Iron Mike]

Packers didn't lose that game because they couldn't run the ball. The Packers lost that game because they couldn't hang onto the ball or defend the pass.

I wonder how many players were still distracted by Michael Philbin drowning....

[George Cumby]

I wonder how many players were still distracted by Michael Philbin drowning....

+1