Eddieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

[red]

maybe now we can replace that stupid Kuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuhn thing that we hear 2 or 3 times a game whenever the guys gets a 1 yard gain

time for

Eddieeeeeeeeeeeeee

and not this eddie

http://djexcel.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/merry-christmas-shitter-was-full.jpg

[red]

good video


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ena1vwZ6AIg

[pbmax]

I've never understood where the RV went in that picture.

[TravisWilliams23]

Can't wait to see that sweet spin move as a Packer running back. The E:60 clip shows a humbled young man with tremendous athletic ability. The other plus I took from the vid was a mother AND a father in his life. TT lucked out with him falling to #61. Kind of reminds me of Arod falling to us in 2005. The football gods were smiling on Green Bay again. Edeeeeeeeeeeeee indeed!

[Iron Mike]

I'm digging the shots of Lacy catching passes out of the backfield. I can't wait to see Jared Allen, hauling ass and ready to pull his FA calf-rope maneuver on A-Rodg, only to have a pass sail over his head and Lacy take it to the house. :)

[3irty1]

I'm just really psyched to yell "Roll Tide" every time he touches the ball.

[mission]

We say "Roll. Damn. Tide." in our house. Kinda strange as we aren't actually fans but my wife hates Georgia (even though she's from here) and likes watching Bama when I have them on and cheering for them to cover the spread. Made some decent money with them the last two years.
Gotta assume anyone not in love with Lacy doesn't live in SEC country

[3irty1]

Typically among my buddies "Roll Damn Tide" is the proper reply to "Roll Tide."

Last war cry I had for a running back was when James Starks started heating up in the 2010 playoffs. I'd yell "JAMES STARKS BUILT A RUNNING GAME IN A CAVE!!! WITH A BOX OF SCRAPS!!!"

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtntTvuv8Aw)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtntTvuv8Aw

Good times.

[George Cumby]

Feel good pablum. That being said, barring the I-word, this kid is gonna' fucking roll, make the o-line look better and get defenses out of their two deep shell. I cannot fucking wait to see him in Green and Gold.

[woodbuck27]

Typically among my buddies "Roll Damn Tide" is the proper reply to "Roll Tide."

Last war cry I had for a running back was when James Starks started heating up in the 2010 playoffs. I'd yell "JAMES STARKS BUILT A RUNNING GAME IN A CAVE!!! WITH A BOX OF SCRAPS!!!"

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtntTvuv8Aw)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtntTvuv8Aw


Good times.

"JAMES STARKS BUILT A RUNNING GAME IN A CAVE!!! WITH A BOX OF SCRAPS!!!" 3irty1 Cheer

WOW! That's a mouthful. Eddie Lacy got lots of carries for the Crimson Tide.

His load will be less with the Green Bay Packers.

How about:

" LACY CAVE SCRAPS".... EDDUHHIEEEEEEEEE "

Anybody visiting your place that doesn't understand football, will be intrigued.

GO PACKERS !

[rbaloha1]

“What you shoot for is (offensive) balance, obviously,” Van Pelt said. “The teams that I’m most familiar with that run this style of the offense were the K-gun, Jim Kelly days in Buffalo, where you led the league or were near the top of the league in rushing and in passing, and that attributed to a lot of chances to win playoff games. So if we can get that balance and get the running game going and open up the passing game, which we hope it will, that’s obviously a key to success.”

Maybe the goal has been attained with Lacy and Franklin?

[Carolina_Packer]

good video


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ena1vwZ6AIg

I agree, Red. Thanks for posting that one. I'm rooting even more for the kid.

[woodbuck27]

“What you shoot for is (offensive) balance, obviously,” Van Pelt said. “The teams that I’m most familiar with that run this style of the offense were the K-gun, Jim Kelly days in Buffalo, where you led the league or were near the top of the league in rushing and in passing, and that attributed to a lot of chances to win playoff games. So if we can get that balance and get the running game going and open up the passing game, which we hope it will, that’s obviously a key to success.”

Maybe the goal has been attained with Lacy and Franklin?

How long? Just how very long we've waited for that to return with some sembalance of consistency. A true two pronged attack. Control with a solid running game. A running game and protection for a QB that got sacked 51 fricken' times last season.

A running game to pile over on 3rd and 1-2 yards. A running game that's reliable on 4th and short. A running game for 'clock control/management.

This is the absolute worst:

51 QB SACKS.

Packer fans that imagine ... it's OK. Going to be OK.

That's simply outrageous....unacceptable for Aaron Rodgers to go on enduring.

If Aaron Rodgers didn't send that message to TT? Well I believe he did and senseably so.

I can imagine the posters here **pointing to this... and winning our last Super Bowl. My response then... would be .... so what. That was then and this is now.

The thing then ** that would be ignored, is the 'word' consistency.

Remember Favre and Ahman Green at Ahman's best? Can we really hope for, all that?

PACKERS !

[ThunderDan]

I can imagine the posters here **pointing to this... and winning our last Super Bowl. My response then... would be .... so what. That was then and this is now.

The thing then ** that would be ignored, is the 'word' consistency.

Remember Favre and Ahman Green at Ahman's best? Can we really hope for, all that?

PACKERS !

You make an interesting point so I went back and looked at the eras you mention.

Ahman Geen played for the Pack from 2000-6. The Pack was 65-47 or 59.8% in the regular season and 2-4 in the playoffs. First playoff loss ever at Lambeau to ATL.

The sack happy Pack era of 2008-2012. The Pack was 53-27 or 66.2% and 5-3 in the playoffs with a Super Bowl.

Packer wins from 00-06: 9,12,12,10,10,4 & 8
Packer wins from 08-12: 6,11,10,15 & 11

I am not saying I don't want a balanced offensive attack but maybe the Ahman/Favre era didn't produce as much as we remember.

[pbmax]

You make an interesting point so I went back and looked at the eras you mention.

Ahman Geen played for the Pack from 2000-6. The Pack was 65-47 or 59.8% in the regular season and 2-4 in the playoffs. First playoff loss ever at Lambeau to ATL.

The sack happy Pack era of 2008-2012. The Pack was 53-27 or 66.2% and 5-3 in the playoffs with a Super Bowl.

Packer wins from 00-06: 9,12,12,10,10,4 & 8
Packer wins from 08-12: 6,11,10,15 & 11

I am not saying I don't want a balanced offensive attack but maybe the Ahman/Favre era didn't produce as much as we remember.

No, no, no. You cannot win in the NFL without running the ball.

You cannot win championships without running the ball.

You cannot play defense without running the ball.

You cannot win in cold weather without running the ball.

[Cheesehead Craig]

No, no, no. You cannot win in the NFL without running the ball.

You cannot win championships without running the ball.

You cannot play defense without running the ball.

You cannot win in cold weather without running the ball.
You cannot post at PackerRats without running the ball.

You cannot disagree with someone without running the ball.

You cannot start a Fire Slocum thread without running the ball.

Wait, scratch that last one.

[Freak Out]

You cannot post in the Dear Nutz thread without running the ball.

[woodbuck27]

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_/id/55883/nfc-north-draft-analysis-5

NFC North draft analysis

Apr 27 ... 6:25 PM ET

By Kevin Seifert | ESPN.com

BEST MOVE

"The Green Bay Packers have gone 43 games without a 100-yard rusher, the longest active streak in the NFL by more than twice. Their running backs have combined for 12 rushing touchdowns over the past three seasons, the fewest in the NFL, and their average of 3.8 yards per rush over that span is tied for last in the league.

After years of subordinating this segment of their roster, the Packers reacted aggressively in 2013. They drafted not one but two of the top running backs available. Alabama's Eddie Lacy came in the second round (No. 61 overall), and UCLA's Johnathan Franklin came in the fourth round (No. 125 overall)."

Comment woodbuck27:

For a complete analysis by this football writer please hit the LINK. There are interesting comments available here on all four NFCN teams.

GO PACK GO !

[MadScientist]

How long? Just how very long we've waited for that to return with some sembalance of consistency. A true two pronged attack. Control with a solid running game. A running game and protection for a QB that got sacked 51 fricken' times last season.

A running game to pile over on 3rd and 1-2 yards. A running game that's reliable on 4th and short. A running game for 'clock control/management.

This is the absolute worst:

51 QB SACKS.

Packer fans that imagine ... it's OK. Going to be OK.

That's simply outrageous....unacceptable for Aaron Rodgers to go on enduring.

Yea, Rodgers was on his back faster and more frequently than a Vivid girl. Going into this draft I was hoping for a stud OL to be picked early to help keep the franchise on his feet. However, one OL guy could only fix one problem. Maybe, if this kid can pick up 4+ yards regularly against a 7-man front, he will have the effect of slowing the rush more than any one OL pick could have.


Campen, if adding the supposed best back in the draft fixes the pass protection and run blocking failures of the last several years, I will change my signature to say what a good coach you are. Otherwise resign in disgrace as the shittiest line coach in the league.

[pbmax]

Let's remember that some of those sacks are intentional by Rodgers. He holds on to the ball and is willing to take the sack than to throw the ball into a bad spot or throw it away.

Even better protection is only going to get that number to 30 and no lower without Rodger's cooperation.

[rbaloha1]

Let's remember that some of those sacks are intentional by Rodgers. He holds on to the ball and is willing to take the sack than to throw the ball into a bad spot or throw it away.

Even better protection is only going to get that number to 30 and no lower without Rodger's cooperation.

It was a much bigger problem earlier in his career.

The lack of a running game allow d ends to aim for a-rod too often instead of respecting the run.

[gbgary]

you can not run the ball without running the ball.

[Carolina_Packer]

you can not run the ball without running the ball.

You just blew my mind, man! :shock:

[RashanGary]

Let's not forget, we were getting 4.4YPC out of Ryan Grant for a few seasons. As soon as he went down, Brandon Jackson was around the 3.6 range. Starks came in with fresh legs at the end of the SB season and infused the running game. Last year Harris did something similar for a little stretch.

We haven't really had a running back we could count on since Ryan Grant went down. Teams have figured out they don't have to commit much to stop our running game. They've sold out to stop AR, and we haven't been able to counter with anything.

If Lacy comes in and makes teams respect our running game again, Rodgers sacks will go down. The pass rush will slow down, the coverages AR sees will change. . . Those two things will allow AR more time, and more open pass catchers to get rid of the ball to. Also, our line should be better this year than it was last year. Newhouse, if he starts, is a year further in his development. If someone beats him, that means that person is better than Newhouse last year. Lang, EDS and Sitton will get in a groove. Bulaga is going to be back. Barclay showed promise. . .

Between the running game and what is likely to be a more stable situation on the OL, AR should have fewer sacks. Until he changes the way he plays, he'll never have single digit sacks like Favre did in 2007 with the Spitz/Colledge OL. He'll probably never have 20 INT's like Favre has had many times either. It's just his style of play.

I think you'd be crazy to think AR's sack totals will be close to last years though. Everything points to that getting better.

[gbgary]

You just blew my mind, man! :shock:

lol

[rbaloha1]

Let's remember that some of those sacks are intentional by Rodgers. He holds on to the ball and is willing to take the sack than to throw the ball into a bad spot or throw it away.

Even better protection is only going to get that number to 30 and no lower without Rodger's cooperation.

MM does not preach this. Always maintained that a-rod rather take a sack than throw an incompletion due completion percentage. The highly competitive a-rod thinks every pass should be completed. Stats conscience.

On the other hand, Favre could care less about stats.

[bobblehead]

No, no, no. You cannot win in the NFL without running the ball.

You cannot win championships without running the ball.

You cannot play defense without running the ball.

You cannot win in cold weather without running the ball.

Its funny that I agree with you more than any other poster on PR bar none, but this one point we can't agree. I think the only reason we won the superbowl was James Starks heating up at the right time and the best D GB has seen since Reggie.

Balance is the key.

You cannot win championships without running the ball (and passing).

You cannot play defense without running the ball (and passing).

You cannot win in cold weather without running the ball (and passing).

The greatest weapon in the NFL is a great QB, but if you can't run the ball effectively and play sound D....well, see the playoffs last 2 seasons. Our D bled yards and we were forced to abandon the run too early thus making Rodgers less effective....although I still think he played a great game against the Giants.

[bobblehead]

Let's not forget, we were getting 4.4YPC out of Ryan Grant for a few seasons. As soon as he went down, Brandon Jackson was around the 3.6 range. Starks came in with fresh legs at the end of the SB season and infused the running game. Last year Harris did something similar for a little stretch.

We haven't really had a running back we could count on since Ryan Grant went down. Teams have figured out they don't have to commit much to stop our running game. They've sold out to stop AR, and we haven't been able to counter with anything.

If Lacy comes in and makes teams respect our running game again, Rodgers sacks will go down. The pass rush will slow down, the coverages AR sees will change. . . Those two things will allow AR more time, and more open pass catchers to get rid of the ball to. Also, our line should be better this year than it was last year. Newhouse, if he starts, is a year further in his development. If someone beats him, that means that person is better than Newhouse last year. Lang, EDS and Sitton will get in a groove. Bulaga is going to be back. Barclay showed promise. . .

Between the running game and what is likely to be a more stable situation on the OL, AR should have fewer sacks. Until he changes the way he plays, he'll never have single digit sacks like Favre did in 2007 with the Spitz/Colledge OL. He'll probably never have 20 INT's like Favre has had many times either. It's just his style of play.

I think you'd be crazy to think AR's sack totals will be close to last years though. Everything points to that getting better.

And I agree with you second most often (when you are sober :P)

[bobblehead]

MM does not preach this. Always maintained that a-rod rather take a sack than throw an incompletion due completion percentage. The highly competitive a-rod thinks every pass should be completed. Stats conscience.

On the other hand, Favre could care less about stats.

Any evidence to back that up?? I think these are just your biases with little basis. I think ARod holds the ball too long to effectively throw it away most of the time, just the way he plays. I think Favre never wanted to take a sack as he saw it as a personal failure...just the way he plays. Both have pros and cons. For my particular taste, I like the Arod approach as I abhor interceptions. They cost you downs (plays) and field position which most casual fans don't notice. Arod taking a sack costs 5-7 yards of field position. Just my 2 cents. Both will be in the Hall someday.

[3irty1]

I view running the ball as something we have to do, not something we should want to do. The better we are at running the ball, the less we'll have to do it. Running is an underdog strategy because it shortens the game. What we should want to do is give the best QB in the NFL the most opportunities to be leverage the fact that he's the best. Running then ball is still crucial to making that possible so I'm thrilled we're finally adjusting to the defenses that have been adjusting to us.

[pbmax]

Its funny that I agree with you more than any other poster on PR bar none, but this one point we can't agree. I think the only reason we won the superbowl was James Starks heating up at the right time and the best D GB has seen since Reggie.

Balance is the key.

You cannot win championships without running the ball (and passing).

You cannot play defense without running the ball (and passing).

You cannot win in cold weather without running the ball (and passing).

The greatest weapon in the NFL is a great QB, but if you can't run the ball effectively and play sound D....well, see the playoffs last 2 seasons. Our D bled yards and we were forced to abandon the run too early thus making Rodgers less effective....although I still think he played a great game against the Giants.

I guess we are separated only by what we mean by balance. If you mean number of plays, then we disagree.

If you mean do both competently, so the defense must choose to defend one or the other, I am all for it. So while I find the new RBs and O line fine additions, I would be happy with a running game that simply is good in short yardage and averages around 4 yards a carry. Then the play caller can go nuts.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

I view running the ball as something we have to do, not something we should want to do. The better we are at running the ball, the less we'll have to do it. Running is an underdog strategy because it shortens the game. What we should want to do is give the best QB in the NFL the most opportunities to be leverage the fact that he's the best. Running then ball is still crucial to making that possible so I'm thrilled we're finally adjusting to the defenses that have been adjusting to us.

Exactly. And I think Lacey and Franklin will more than give us that. If Sherrod could pan out, I know thats a big if, the online would have two solid tackles, two solid guards, and a semi decent center. The LT position will be the difference in a top 5 and a top 15 offense.

[Gunakor]

and a semi decent center.


We don't have a center at all. We have a semi decent utility backup playing center, but no center.

[mission]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BCiunp1CQAAJ2cy.jpg:large

[rbaloha1]

Bob McGinn - SH Crane: I didn't question the pick. I expressed surprise at how the Packers went about deciding to take him. You know, not trading up to insure his selection, then trading down when he was there for them at 55. Those are hard signs that a team isn't overly hepped up about a player. And I can see why GB wouldn't be. Fans tend to gloss over these injuries now, then go nuts later when they're not on the field. But for club officials that manage salary cap and rosters, injuries are as important a factor as there is. Almost the entire league passed Lacy twice. Certainly, GB's medical people read those same X-rays and MRIs. They felt pick 61 was worth the risk. We'll find out in the next few years if they were right.

[Patler]

Bob McGinn - .... Fans tend to gloss over these injuries now, then go nuts later when they're not on the field. But for club officials that manage salary cap and rosters, injuries are as important a factor as there is. Almost the entire league passed Lacy twice. Certainly, GB's medical people read those same X-rays and MRIs. They felt pick 61 was worth the risk. We'll find out in the next few years if they were right.

FANS????

Heck, its the writers like old Bob M. himself who will slam TT as an idiot for ignoring Lacy's injury history if it doesn't work out. In fact, he likes to lace his articles with words like unforgivable, incomprehensible, unfathomable and the like when he references anything that doesn't turn out as well as hoped. Beyond that, he will never let it go either. How many years yet will most articles about the D-line continue to reference Cullen Jenkins and/or Justin Harrell?

[woodbuck27]

you can not run the ball without running the ball.

I get what you mean. :-)

[woodbuck27]

FANS????

Heck, its the writers like old Bob M. himself who will slam TT as an idiot for ignoring Lacy's injury history if it doesn't work out. In fact, he likes to lace his articles with words like unforgivable, incomprehensible, unfathomable and the like when he references anything that doesn't turn out as well as hoped. Beyond that, he will never let it go either. How many years yet will most articles about the D-line continue to reference Cullen Jenkins and/or Justin Harrell?

Yea but..............

[woodbuck27]

We don't have a center at all. We have a semi decent utility backup playing center, but no center.

Then TT has to try to focus on finding one. Maybe?.... even in the 2014 Draft?

In this draft from what I heard him say:

He was focused on drafting fellas that looked the part of... looked like... a WR or an OLB.

" No Dear.... head scratcher not back scratcher."

PACKERS !

[Smidgeon]

I'm pretty sure everytime I read this thread, another "E" is added to the title...

[bobblehead]

I guess we are separated only by what we mean by balance. If you mean number of plays, then we disagree.

If you mean do both competently, so the defense must choose to defend one or the other, I am all for it. So while I find the new RBs and O line fine additions, I would be happy with a running game that simply is good in short yardage and averages around 4 yards a carry. Then the play caller can go nuts.

I have said this many times. You must run the ball effectively and at least 20 times a game (not 15 straight at the end to kill the clock) because:

It wears down a defense. It makes defenders hesitate to honor the run. Teams can't go dime D on first down...or second and 8.

If you wear down a D they get less effective as the game goes on. If they hesitate the OL gets a second to position. If you are lined up standard on 1st and 10 and the D is in nickel, you better punch them in the mouth for 4 yards. If you don't, you better ALWAYS complete that first pass, or else you have to pass against the dime on 2nd and 10 (with a DL that is teeing off).

OK, if the D lines up base all game long you don't have to run the ball 20 times....but that simply won't happen. You must do both effectively and beat the D.

[RashanGary]

I'm with bobblehead. YOu can't just run in on 3rd and short. You have to keep defenses off balance. That means running it part of the time, all of the time. The running game keeps our defense off the field too.

I do think AR needs to pick up the pace a little. I like how quickly he gets to the line. I don't always appreciate how dredgingly long he stays there, tinkering with whatever the F play he wants to be in. Tom Brady and Drew Brees snap it quick a lot. A part of running the ball is our big guys getting a jump on their big guys. If we really want to be balanced, I think we have to spend a little less time tweaking the perfect play, and let our guys go at their guys a little. You can be in the worst fucking run play imaginable, but if nobody is ready for the snap, it's not going to matter. Our guys will get a jump, plow their guys and we'll get yards.

I heard some defenders compare us to N.O. and N.E. They said Brady and Brees keep them off balance more. I'm not saying change the whole system. WE're a different team. But mix it in. 1 in every 5 or 10 make a quick snap, even if you don't like the defense. There's as much benefit to being a step ahead as there is to being in the perfect play. Do a little of both.

[pbmax]

I have said this many times. You must run the ball effectively and at least 20 times a game (not 15 straight at the end to kill the clock) because:

It wears down a defense. It makes defenders hesitate to honor the run. Teams can't go dime D on first down...or second and 8.

If you wear down a D they get less effective as the game goes on. If they hesitate the OL gets a second to position. If you are lined up standard on 1st and 10 and the D is in nickel, you better punch them in the mouth for 4 yards. If you don't, you better ALWAYS complete that first pass, or else you have to pass against the dime on 2nd and 10 (with a DL that is teeing off).

OK, if the D lines up base all game long you don't have to run the ball 20 times....but that simply won't happen. You must do both effectively and beat the D.

Not much of a fan of a set number of plays, base or no. And the idea that D lines get tired playing the run has been debunked pretty thoroughly. Far more exhausting to rush the passer which happens every drop back pass opposed to the occasional run down the field for long, breakaway run.

Teams tend to run better early when its less expected and worse late with a lead when its expected.

Teams that can run at will are probably dominating somewhere along the LOS (or at least on the edges) regardless of level of fatigue.

But I do think running can slow down a pass rush depending on the opponent (some are coming up field no matter what-like the current Giants o the 80s Viking defense).

Its also far less risk for the QB.

And it gives the play caller more options (play action) and if the run is effective, pretty good down and distance which a good offense will capitalize one.

[bobblehead]

And the idea that D lines get tired playing the run has been debunked pretty thoroughly. Far more exhausting to rush the passer which happens every drop back pass opposed to the occasional run down the field for long, breakaway run.



I played OL. I respectively disagree. When I can fire out, grab you and Greco roman you, I will be the less tired of us. If I step back, slide to the side while you bull rush me and I use everything I have to regain balance and slow you down...I am gassed. (for reference see the gravedigger crawling his fat ass up at the end of the superbowl vs. Denver.) If you don't believe me, go out in the yard with your kid. Line up and drive block him. Then step back and stop him from getting past you. Tell me which one fatigues you more. Tell me which one puts you on your ass most often.

As for a set number...well, if a D lines up in base enough, then I reckon you need to run less. This virtually never happens though. Based on how NFL D's lineup I think 20 is a fair measuring stick, but I will concede that if a D gets stubborn, and continues to line up in base while you torch them without going nickel or dime, then you shouldn't run much....and that coach should be fired.

[3irty1]

.

[ThunderDan]

.

Very interesting. :grin:

[pbmax]

I played OL. I respectively disagree. When I can fire out, grab you and Greco roman you, I will be the less tired of us. If I step back, slide to the side while you bull rush me and I use everything I have to regain balance and slow you down...I am gassed. (for reference see the gravedigger crawling his fat ass up at the end of the superbowl vs. Denver.) If you don't believe me, go out in the yard with your kid. Line up and drive block him. Then step back and stop him from getting past you. Tell me which one fatigues you more. Tell me which one puts you on your ass most often.

As for a set number...well, if a D lines up in base enough, then I reckon you need to run less. This virtually never happens though. Based on how NFL D's lineup I think 20 is a fair measuring stick, but I will concede that if a D gets stubborn, and continues to line up in base while you torch them without going nickel or dime, then you shouldn't run much....and that coach should be fired.

Defensive players are always going to be more tired than Offensive players because they cannot know when to take a down off and most need to chase the ball.

Now my experience is on the line as well, though only through high school. I would much rather wrestle you than chase you. Of course, I played DE and Tackle, not DT or Guard. Will I get tired? Yes. But if I am wrestling you I can still keep my legs. Gilbert got worn out chasing down the line, more movement than normal, and then being cut and having to get his ass back up off the ground. Denver wasn't drive blocking him.

Now if you are dominating with the run and I cannot win without a sell out effort? Then you have already won the battle, whether I am tired or not.

I will say this, whatever play you are running, the best way to wear out a defense is to run as many plays as possible in a row. Which means you need first downs and would be best served by going hurry up.

[Brandon494]

A running game is a QB's best friend so I'm excited to see how it will help Rodgers game since he has really never had a proven running game in his career.

[rbaloha1]

A running game is a QB's best friend so I'm excited to see how it will help Rodgers game since he has really never had a proven running game in his career.

Ditto

[Pugger]

I'm with bobblehead. YOu can't just run in on 3rd and short. You have to keep defenses off balance. That means running it part of the time, all of the time. The running game keeps our defense off the field too.

I do think AR needs to pick up the pace a little. I like how quickly he gets to the line. I don't always appreciate how dredgingly long he stays there, tinkering with whatever the F play he wants to be in. Tom Brady and Drew Brees snap it quick a lot. A part of running the ball is our big guys getting a jump on their big guys. If we really want to be balanced, I think we have to spend a little less time tweaking the perfect play, and let our guys go at their guys a little. You can be in the worst fucking run play imaginable, but if nobody is ready for the snap, it's not going to matter. Our guys will get a jump, plow their guys and we'll get yards.

I heard some defenders compare us to N.O. and N.E. They said Brady and Brees keep them off balance more. I'm not saying change the whole system. WE're a different team. But mix it in. 1 in every 5 or 10 make a quick snap, even if you don't like the defense. There's as much benefit to being a step ahead as there is to being in the perfect play. Do a little of both.

It is rather maddening when AR screws around changing the play while the play clock is ticking down. When it goes down to 2 seconds the D has a pretty good idea when we are gonna snap the damn ball. :?