Lacy's Running Style

[packer4life]

It's slow here, so I thought I would post something about Lacy I found interesting. Packers.com has an "Ask Vic" video section. One of the videos I saw highlighted that Lacy prefers to run to the left. As we know, most offenses with right-handed QBs tend to run to the right and strong side is generally to the right.

The initial question was about the risk of switching two borderline all-pros from right to left side of the line. Vic didn't go so far as to say the switch was for Lacy's running style (which I think would be a ridiculous assumption), but it is interesting that if Lacy does in fact prefer the left, it would give our offense a huge advantage.

To run directly to a side where most defenses place their best pass rusher would definitely slow pressure on passing downs. The best way to wear out a dominant pass rusher (see Peppers, Jared Allen just to name those in our division) would be to run right at them and tire them out. This has a ton of advantages for our "right-handed" offense.

Can anyone confirm that Lacy typically hits the hole well on the left side? Any stat breakdowns we can find about his collective effectiveness running right vs middle vs left?

Of course the end of the video shows Lacy running to his right in OTAS...:cnf:

[RashanGary]

I don't think he ran primarily that direction, but most RB's run more to the right and he seemed to be about equal left/right to me. I noticed that in the clips from Alabama, that he seemed to have about half of his big runs to the left in the highlights, which I thought was unusual. Apparently Vic does too.

[wist43]

It's slow here, so I thought I would post something about Lacy I found interesting. Packers.com has an "Ask Vic" video section. One of the videos I saw highlighted that Lacy prefers to run to the left. As we know, most offenses with right-handed QBs tend to run to the right and strong side is generally to the right.

The initial question was about the risk of switching two borderline all-pros from right to left side of the line. Vic didn't go so far as to say the switch was for Lacy's running style (which I think would be a ridiculous assumption), but it is interesting that if Lacy does in fact prefer the left, it would give our offense a huge advantage.

To run directly to a side where most defenses place their best pass rusher would definitely slow pressure on passing downs. The best way to wear out a dominant pass rusher (see Peppers, Jared Allen just to name those in our division) would be to run right at them and tire them out. This has a ton of advantages for our "right-handed" offense.

Can anyone confirm that Lacy typically hits the hole well on the left side? Any stat breakdowns we can find about his collective effectiveness running right vs middle vs left?

Of course the end of the video shows Lacy running to his right in OTAS...:cnf:

We don't wear anybody out either running the ball, or attempting to run the ball... we can't run the ball.

Cobb and Rodgers made the numbers look slightly less dismal, but the fact remains that the Packers can't move anyone off the ball, don't attempt to move anyone off the ball, and averaged a pathetic 3.5 yds/carry with their starting RB's. Yes Lacy is better than all of them, and that should get a few ticks worth of per/carry average; but MM isn't going to suddenly decide to puff up and call any power running plays.

The zone blocking scheme is the definition of finesse, and the Packers own it. Last year I drafted Darren McFadden in the 1st round of a FF football draft - a reach, but home run potential, so that's why I did it; anyway, the next day I learned that the Raiders had installed a ZBS that summer... I wasn't aware of that. Had I known that, I never would have drafted McFadden anywhere in the draft, let alone the 1st round.

Luckily I was able to swing a crafty trade, and got Adrian Peterson early in the season :)

Anyway, the ZBS guru for the Raiders was Gregg Knapp... he was fired 2.9 milliseconds after the season. 1 millisecond for every yard rushing they averaged.

The ZBS has to be executed to perfection to be effective; and often times the OL is giving up a lot of size and strength vs the defensive front seven. The execution of the scheme calls for movement, not strength - philosophically it's inherently soft, and Packers revel in all things soft.

We'll likely see a little improvement with Lacy, Franklin, and the OL flip... but we're not all of a sudden going to be able to consistently run the football.

[pittstang5]

wist is absolutely right. Just because they switched some positions and drafted some RBs that were good in college but have yet to play an NFL game, doesn't come close to fixing the problem. Same personnel on the line, same scheme and same coaching staff equals same crappy results.

[RashanGary]

I see it really differently. I think the RB makes the running game far more than the OL. We've at least made an effort to bring in some RB talent. I'm looking forward to seeing what this season brings.

[Pugger]

I see it really differently. I think the RB makes the running game far more than the OL. We've at least made an effort to bring in some RB talent. I'm looking forward to seeing what this season brings.

I do too. Hell, before he broke his foot Cedric Freaking Benson started to look productive. And we really don't need the second coming of Adrian Peterson. All we need is for defenses to actually account for the RB. With even an average running attack Rodgers will be even more deadly than he already is.

[Joemailman]

Some things happened late last year that improved the running game that should carry over to 2013. Harris started getting carries and averaged 4.6 YPC. They replaced Saturday (who was truly awful) with EDS. That was an upgrade. They inserted Barclay at RT which allowed Lang to move back to LG. Over those last 4 games, the Packers ran the ball 108 times for 444 yards.

With the changes they have made on the OL, as well as the addition of Lacy and Franklin, I see no reason why the Packers shouldn't be able to average 4+ YPC. With their passing game, that should be good enough.

[packer4life]

Some things happened late last year that improved the running game that should carry over to 2013. Harris started getting carries and averaged 4.6 YPC. They replaced Saturday (who was truly awful) with EDS. That was an upgrade. They inserted Barclay at RT which allowed Lang to move back to LG. Over those last 4 games, the Packers ran the ball 108 times for 444 yards.

With the changes they have made on the OL, as well as the addition of Lacy and Franklin, I see no reason why the Packers shouldn't be able to average 4+ YPC. With their passing game, that should be good enough.

I completely agree. Wist is again clouded by his own negativity, which I thought only covered his hate for Capers but apparently he just hates everything related to scheme about this team. I feel bad for anyone that has to watch games with him in person, probably a lot of pissing and moaning, but I digress...

I choose to take a positive outlook on the running game for exactly the reasons mentioned above. The finesse ZBS definitely evolved late in the year. There are numerous plays where EDS and Barclay proved that our running game had already been upgraded in some capacity (not saying it was used regularly, however). I even started seeing some power running and some pulls which in the past just never occurred. Funny thing is, they were somewhat effective.

MM is an offensive mind. He too saw everything ugly we saw last year. The only way Rodgers is gonna break the cover 2 jinx is with a change in the running game (and also the screen game, something that's going to need to be improved upon). Position wise and personnel wise, change is here. I think the pressure is going to come off ARod just a bit this year, and our system will thrive in the process. The additional talk of Lacy running left preferably is just an extra reason to get excited. I do see that as an advantage over the long haul if it is indeed true. It may turn out to be a non-factor, but at least its an option.

[packer4life]

I do too. Hell, before he broke his foot Cedric Freaking Benson started to look productive. And we really don't need the second coming of Adrian Peterson. All we need is for defenses to actually account for the RB. With even an average running attack Rodgers will be even more deadly than he already is.

I also agree. That first half in Indianapolis, I remember thinking that Benson finally understood things and was going to tear up the 6 man fronts he was seeing. We all know how that game ended, but if a 30+ "washed up" RB was starting to make those moves, I have no doubt that someone else will be able to do it. I just think we wasted too much time allowing Green to stumble around for 1-2 yards per running play, but then again who the hell was healthy enough to take over and be effective.

[bobblehead]

I see it really differently. I think the RB makes the running game far more than the OL. We've at least made an effort to bring in some RB talent. I'm looking forward to seeing what this season brings.

You have always said this and I have always disagreed. When healthy, Starks, Benson, Grant, and Harris have all looked reasonable behind this line. Green, Brandon Jackson, and some others are simply not gifted runners and have not looked good. Obviously there is some truth that AP makes his line look better, but when Ahman Green was styling, both Davenpoop and Fischer looked fucking awesome....til they signed with other teams and ran behind other lines.

edit: And Barry Reddon agrees with me. Along with several Steeler backs who I don't even remember.

[wist43]

Some things happened late last year that improved the running game that should carry over to 2013. Harris started getting carries and averaged 4.6 YPC. They replaced Saturday (who was truly awful) with EDS. That was an upgrade. They inserted Barclay at RT which allowed Lang to move back to LG. Over those last 4 games, the Packers ran the ball 108 times for 444 yards.

With the changes they have made on the OL, as well as the addition of Lacy and Franklin, I see no reason why the Packers shouldn't be able to average 4+ YPC. With their passing game, that should be good enough.


I completely agree. Wist is again clouded by his own negativity, which I thought only covered his hate for Capers but apparently he just hates everything related to scheme about this team. I feel bad for anyone that has to watch games with him in person, probably a lot of pissing and moaning, but I digress...

I choose to take a positive outlook on the running game for exactly the reasons mentioned above. The finesse ZBS definitely evolved late in the year. There are numerous plays where EDS and Barclay proved that our running game had already been upgraded in some capacity (not saying it was used regularly, however). I even started seeing some power running and some pulls which in the past just never occurred. Funny thing is, they were somewhat effective.

MM is an offensive mind. He too saw everything ugly we saw last year. The only way Rodgers is gonna break the cover 2 jinx is with a change in the running game (and also the screen game, something that's going to need to be improved upon). Position wise and personnel wise, change is here. I think the pressure is going to come off ARod just a bit this year, and our system will thrive in the process. The additional talk of Lacy running left preferably is just an extra reason to get excited. I do see that as an advantage over the long haul if it is indeed true. It may turn out to be a non-factor, but at least its an option.

You guys choose to look at everything 'positive'... you can't call a spade a spade to save your lives.

That said, Harris averaged 4.6 yds/carry out of the spread. The base RB's still only managed 3.0-3.5 yds/carry. You isolate a stat like Harris's ypc to make it look like we improved, but the stat doesn't relate relate to what everyone is talking about when we're talking about running the ball.

"Running the ball", for the purposes of discussing a teams ability to run the ball, is that teams ability to run under any of the following conditions, i.e to be able to run on run downs, out of base personnel, 2-TEs, a lead full back offset or out of the I, etc.

The ZBS is simply the same thing over and over again... a slightly different look with personnel and alignment, but at the snap of the ball it is 'student body left, middle, and right'. That's it, we have 3 running plays out of our base looks.

Harris averaged 4.6 ypc b/c MM was forced to run out of the spread almost exclusively by the end of the year. We simply could not gain a single inch out of any base alignments - that is to say, we could not run the ball - at all!!

You guys keep trying to put lipstick on a pig, but the fact remains, we averaged a pathetic 3.5 ypc for the season with our base backs - and Harris's good look at the end of the year only came about b/c we couldn't run the ball - MM was forced to spread the field, reduce protections which made Rodgers even more vulnerable, and hand off to Harris when the defense was hopefully looking elsewhere.

Harris's numbers were a function of us NOT being able to run the ball.

That said, I agree with you homers to some extent, that we should see some improvement - modest improvement b/c of the RB's and the OL flip - but those are the same OL that haven't been able to run block for years; and MM is going to be calling the same 3 stupid running plays - none of that is going to change.

The Raiders got it figured out after only 1 disasterous, pathetic season attempting to run the ZBS - with one of most eletric RB's in all of football... they quickly concluded that Knapp had sold them a bill of goods, and booted his ass to the curb.

The majority of ZBS teams suck at running the ball... it takes near perfect execution - I'd much rather just punch someone in the mouth and dare 'em to get up, ala SF. It's much easier...

You'd think MM would get tired of having to field all of the "soft" questions week in, and week out. But?? Nope... just keeps callin' those same 3 running plays, and keeps gettin' the same results, and keeps getting asked the 'soft' question every week...

[RashanGary]

You have always said this and I have always disagreed. When healthy, Starks, Benson, Grant, and Harris have all looked reasonable behind this line. Green, Brandon Jackson, and some others are simply not gifted runners and have not looked good. Obviously there is some truth that AP makes his line look better, but when Ahman Green was styling, both Davenpoop and Fischer looked fucking awesome....til they signed with other teams and ran behind other lines.

edit: And Barry Reddon agrees with me. Along with several Steeler backs who I don't even remember.0



We agree it's some of each. How much is the question. For me, this comes down to the playmaker theory in football. Vic Ketchman and Cliff Christl are my two favorite Packer writers all-time. I think I put Vic ahead of Cliff now, but anyway, both guys believed you have a bunch of decent guys and then you win games with the playmakers. Larry McCarren said he believed the RB and QB make the OL look better more than the other way around. I'd love for these to be my theories. Lord knows, I love my own ideas more than anyone else's :) :)

I think you want a bunch of decent OL, who can at least get in the way and then the RB is the playmaker to top it off.

All you need is one playmaker vs having a great OL where you would need 3, 4 or 5. There have been teams through history with dominant OL's. Anyone throwing and running behind those lines looked better.

Finding 5 great guys is hard. Finding one is hard. Every SB winning team, if you honestly look at them, has glaring weaknesses on their team. It's so competitive. The way things have been, no one team can just put it all together and destroy the competition.

I guess I can agree with you, OL's can make a RB look great statistically, probably more-so than the other way around, even. But the odds of doing that, in this league, I just think the odds are slim. I think more often than not, the RB makes the RB in the NFL, just because I think the RB has more impact than any single lineman on the run game. Sitting around, asking for a legendary line just seems unrealistic to me.

[RashanGary]

2010, the Packers and Steelers had so/so offensive lines. 2011 the Giants and Patriots had so/so OL's. Last year both teams had very good OL's, with the 49ers having a great OL.

There are a lot of ways to do it. I think it's less common to have a true difference making OL that helps you win a SB. Maybe in the 1960's and 70's, but today, with passing rules the way they are, a great OL doesn't mean much when the team you're playing has a better QB.

[packer4life]

Better RB, better running game...now all we have to do is ensure Franklin becomes the next Barry Sanders. No big deal.

[Joemailman]

Better RB, better running game...now all we have to do is ensure Franklin becomes the next Barry Sanders. No big deal.

Franklin won't get enough carries to be Barry Sanders. Not with Lacy being the next Steven Jackson.

http://images.ridemonkey.com/index.php?size=full&src=http%3A%2F%2Fi676.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv v123%2F7Greenlight%2Fgreen-kool-aidman.jpg

[Guiness]

Better RB, better running game. And better OL, better running game. You can't look at these things like they're mutually exclusive, they build on each other - we all know that!

Starks doesn't run for 2K yards in Minnesota, and AP doesn't struggle to get 1000 yards if he was in Green Bay.

[Pugger]

Better RB, better running game. And better OL, better running game. You can't look at these things like they're mutually exclusive, they build on each other - we all know that!

Starks doesn't run for 2K yards in Minnesota, and AP doesn't struggle to get 1000 yards if he was in Green Bay.

this

[pittstang5]

Using the argument that the "run game improved at the end of the year" is like beating a dead horse. Nothing against TT, but this team's running game has sucked big hairy balls at the beginning of each season since TT has taken over, then improved just in time for all players to clean out their lockers for the year. I wanna believe the running game will improve, but until this scheme is overhauled and we actually get some road graders besides Sitton on the line, we will continue to suffer through an abortion of a so called running game.

[RashanGary]

Using the argument that the "run game improved at the end of the year" is like beating a dead horse. Nothing against TT, but this team's running game has sucked big hairy balls at the beginning of each season since TT has taken over, then improved just in time for all players to clean out their lockers for the year. I wanna believe the running game will improve, but until this scheme is overhauled and we actually get some road graders besides Sitton on the line, we will continue to suffer through an abortion of a so called running game.

Grant had 1,200 yard seasons and 4.4YPC on his career. He was a solid runner for us. Everyone else was either decent in spots (when they came in fresh at the end of seasons) or horrible. I think Grant proves that a solid runner will get solid production in this system. Hopefully Lacy is better than Grant and gets better production (especially in short yardage, something Bill Polian mentioned as a strength of Lacy's)

[packer4life]

I'm dreaming of Lacy on 3rd and short this year. However I still think we are gonna get 4 wide and a 40 yard bomb on many of these distances like last year. Talk about drive killers.

[RashanGary]

I'm dreaming of Lacy on 3rd and short this year. However I still think we are gonna get 4 wide and a 40 yard bomb on many of these distances like last year. Talk about drive killers.

If Lacy is, in fact, good in short yardage, I would think MM would use that weapon more and the big risk less. There is a time and place for risks. In fact, I think most teams don't take enough risks, where MM does. But if you have an excellent short yardage back, you don't need to take that particular risk as often. I hope anyway. Our QB is good enough, or WR's good enough, we don't need to take 3rd or 4th and 1 risks to get big plays. We should be able to get them naturally, through the course of a game.

[wist43]

Better RB, better running game. And better OL, better running game. You can't look at these things like they're mutually exclusive, they build on each other - we all know that!

Starks doesn't run for 2K yards in Minnesota, and AP doesn't struggle to get 1000 yards if he was in Green Bay.

Wouldn't bet on that... since 9 out of 10 Packer running plays begin with the RB being hit 14 yards behind the LOS - yeah, I wouldn't bet on that ;)

We'll be better, but that's a relative thing... MM isn't going to change his ways. Hard to imagine we could be any worse...

You guys do realize the Green Bay Packers have one of the worst base running attacks in the NFL - if not the worst?? You do realize that, no?? Take away Cobb and Rodgers numbers, scrambles and sub-package gimmicks - and it's some ugly, ugly stuff.

[Joemailman]

Wouldn't bet on that... since 9 out of 10 Packer running plays begin with the RB being hit 14 yards behind the LOS - yeah, I wouldn't bet on that ;)

We'll be better, but that's a relative thing... MM isn't going to change his ways. Hard to imagine we could be any worse...

You guys do realize the Green Bay Packers have one of the worst base running attacks in the NFL - if not the worst?? You do realize that, no?? Take away Cobb and Rodgers numbers, scrambles and sub-package gimmicks - and it's some ugly, ugly stuff.

It might be possible to take you seriously if you didn't talk about the Packers as if they're no better than the Jacksonville Jaguars. The Packers had about 12 fewer rushing yards per game last year than the Ravens. Who the hell cares whether the yards came out of a base alignment or some other alignment? I've got news for you Wist. Having the best smash-mouth running attack isn't as important as it used to be. The Ravens won the Super Bowl because their QB had 11 TD passes in 4 post-season games, not because of their base running attack.

[wist43]

It might be possible to take you seriously if you didn't talk about the Packers as if they're no better than the Jacksonville Jaguars. The Packers had about 12 fewer rushing yards per game last year than the Ravens. Who the hell cares whether the yards came out of a base alignment or some other alignment? I've got news for you Wist. Having the best smash-mouth running attack isn't as important as it used to be. The Ravens won the Super Bowl because their QB had 11 TD passes in 4 post-season games, not because of their base running attack.

So, your argument is that running the ball doesn't matter - but if it did, running the ball by lining up the LT and LG outide the numbers on one side, and the RG and RT outside the numbers on the other - that wouldn't matter, huh?? Wonder how safe Rodgers would feel with that alignment??

How safe to you think Rodgers feels constantly lining up in the spread?? What are the odds he makes it thru another season without missing time?? He gets hit an awful, awful lot... that doesn't matter either I suppose - why does he get hit?? Oh, that's right, cuz he holds the ball too long... gotcha ;)

Of course the formations you run out of matter, duh... good grief.

[bobblehead]

0



We agree it's some of each. How much is the question. For me, this comes down to the playmaker theory in football. Vic Ketchman and Cliff Christl are my two favorite Packer writers all-time. I think I put Vic ahead of Cliff now, but anyway, both guys believed you have a bunch of decent guys and then you win games with the playmakers. Larry McCarren said he believed the RB and QB make the OL look better more than the other way around. I'd love for these to be my theories. Lord knows, I love my own ideas more than anyone else's :) :)

I think you want a bunch of decent OL, who can at least get in the way and then the RB is the playmaker to top it off.

All you need is one playmaker vs having a great OL where you would need 3, 4 or 5. There have been teams through history with dominant OL's. Anyone throwing and running behind those lines looked better.

Finding 5 great guys is hard. Finding one is hard. Every SB winning team, if you honestly look at them, has glaring weaknesses on their team. It's so competitive. The way things have been, no one team can just put it all together and destroy the competition.

I guess I can agree with you, OL's can make a RB look great statistically, probably more-so than the other way around, even. But the odds of doing that, in this league, I just think the odds are slim. I think more often than not, the RB makes the RB in the NFL, just because I think the RB has more impact than any single lineman on the run game. Sitting around, asking for a legendary line just seems unrealistic to me.

Here is my position. With the playmaker theory you need one of the 3 elite RB's in the league. YOu need the generational guys. Yes, Walter Payton makes your running game great. AP, Barry Sanders, Erik Dickerson. However those are rarely an option.

When Ahman Green was dominant we had ZERO all pros on the line. Eventually Rivera got a token nod, but he was never a top 5 guard in the league. Emmit Smith was never even a top 5 back (imo) in the league, but he scored from 4 yards out standing up. Ahman had talent, but wasn't a world beater. Right now the packers have 3 good OL. We suck at center and RT (until someone steps up). I would have rather paid Wells, and signed a RT so that nearly anyone could run behind the OL for the next 10 years. Or hell, even left Bulaga, and found a serviceable LT. Good RBs have about a 5 year run. Generational guys get 10. We have Aron Rodgers, so we need to spend money on the OL anyway.

I don't buy the playmaker theory because the NFL is an ebb and flow game. You have to be able to attack weaknesses, not have them. Sure, having the playmaker can CREATE a weakness on another team, but if the team is balanced they can adapt to the great player. IF you are balanced you attack weaknesses. If SF must match your spread personel then you run Cobb out of the backfield....this isn't gimmicky, its attacking a weakness.

Playmaker. Clay Mathews. When we won the big game everyone was gushing over clay. Cameron Wake did everything clay does, but played in Miami. What came first, the playmaker or the rest of the team around them? When you have a bunch of talent on the field good playes look like playmakers. When you have garbage on the field great players look human.

When we won the superbowl we had a bunch of good players step up, but last year, while Walden was blowing containment, the HEROIC game by Sam Shields didn't leave us screaming "playmaker", it left us saying, "fuck our D blows". I believe in the reverse playmaker theory. When you have major flaws it shows. It can make 10 good players look bad. We have the worst starting LT in football (last year) and a bad center and due to injuries we had a really bad OLB and some other weak starters on D. Playmakers Rodgers and Shields and Mathews and Cobb and James Jones in that game weren't enough. We lost because of the flaws.

[3irty1]

Blaming the ZBS is beyond ignorant at this point. No team in the NFL doesn't run zone blocking plays, and the vast majority of the most successful running attacks in recent years have come out of zone-blocking heavy offenses just like ours. 8 of the top 10 RB by yards in 2012 ran behind ZBS schemes (Peterson, Morris, Lynch, Charles, Foster, Ridley, Spiller, and Johnson) the other two (Martin, Gore) ran ZBS plays routinely.

Blame something else.

[3irty1]

0



We agree it's some of each. How much is the question. For me, this comes down to the playmaker theory in football. Vic Ketchman and Cliff Christl are my two favorite Packer writers all-time. I think I put Vic ahead of Cliff now, but anyway, both guys believed you have a bunch of decent guys and then you win games with the playmakers. Larry McCarren said he believed the RB and QB make the OL look better more than the other way around. I'd love for these to be my theories. Lord knows, I love my own ideas more than anyone else's :) :)

I think you want a bunch of decent OL, who can at least get in the way and then the RB is the playmaker to top it off.

All you need is one playmaker vs having a great OL where you would need 3, 4 or 5. There have been teams through history with dominant OL's. Anyone throwing and running behind those lines looked better.

Finding 5 great guys is hard. Finding one is hard. Every SB winning team, if you honestly look at them, has glaring weaknesses on their team. It's so competitive. The way things have been, no one team can just put it all together and destroy the competition.

I guess I can agree with you, OL's can make a RB look great statistically, probably more-so than the other way around, even. But the odds of doing that, in this league, I just think the odds are slim. I think more often than not, the RB makes the RB in the NFL, just because I think the RB has more impact than any single lineman on the run game. Sitting around, asking for a legendary line just seems unrealistic to me.

It might not so much be about playmaker players as much as playmaker units. Conventional wisdom would have us believe that its best to diversify talent in order to have a well-rounded team but NFL teams often forgo that in the draft and in free agency to have a single dominant unit at the cost of leaving obvious holes on their team.

Detroit is a good example, pouring draft resources into the defensive line while every other positional group on the team sucks. The Giants and Texans have consistently chosen to be 3 or 4 deep at DL positions to make the unit elite and injury proof rather than address secondaries that suck every year. The Packers and Saints have prioritized the WR corps in recent years finding it necessary to keep 4 or 5 starter quality players even if it means spending high round picks to get them while other positions are going filled by undrafted free agents.

[packer4life]

Wist, I believe our awful "base running attack" is a tool that we need, but most definitely is not needed until the last 4 minutes of a game when we need to preserve our lead. At that point, yes, we have routinely been stopped in the last two years. There has only been one game in recent memory where we were able to run out the clock with a lead (I believe it was against Detroit in 2010 with Kuhn running out the clock, but I'm blanking).

The rest of the time we are going to spread multiple WRs and multiple flexible TEs into the picture and roll. WE HAVE THE BEST QB IN THE LEAGUE why would we be lining up routinely in pro sets with a FB and two run blocking TEs, it would not be playing to our strength which is our QB and his beautiful, god-given arm (slurp).

Anyway, I believe we are improving this area, where a base running attack keeps our leads (which we will accumulate based on our offensive potency). Lacy will help tremendously with yards after contact. Hell, I'm excited to see the resurgence of the play-action pass which believe it or not was very effective in 2011 and died last year.

Things are looking up Wist, how bout you pop a happy pill and smile a little.

[RashanGary]

3irty1 and bobble,

I think I'm with you guys quite a bit. Both of the posts you guys made, made total sense to me.

Adding on, I do think those generational type players very important cogs to true success. Aaron Rodgers, right now, is the best player at his position and he plays the most important position in football. Just having him gives us maybe a 10% advantage on most other teams for the 7-10 years that he dominates. Getting one or more of those guys is HUGE!!!!!!

After that, there is the other 90% of the equation. And I'm with you guys, it's how everything comes together that really matters.

Emmit Smith, while maybe not the dominant physical talent of AP, was a great football player. He had a feel for space, a feel for movement, a spirit for competition, and all kinds of other attributes off the charts. AP, to me, is overrated. He is absolutely spectacular. I've grown a little bit in my views of football and my views of life. It's not as much about being spectacular or special. To me, there is a certain spiritual pureness to being effective. At the end of the day, the things Tom Brady accomplishes will be looked at in a special light. But ultimately, he wasn't a spectacular physical specimen on the field. He never had the biggest arm. He was never the most accurate. He was never the best at anything, really. But what he was, was effective. He played winning football, the sneaky kind of winning football where you wonder how the hell he did it. It's a feel for the game, a spirit for competition, a focus on winning. That's what I appreciate about football.

So. . . . I do believe in getting generational players. But. . . . . special and spectacular, I don't blow my load over quite as much as a lot of people. I'll take the more effective player, as it relates to winning every time. To be completely honest, Emmit's instincts and feel for running. . . Who's to say AP would have found the same holes or set up the blocks as well. He may, very well, have gotten hit earlier in the plays than emmit. Effective is not always spectacular, but the results are.

[wist43]

Blaming the ZBS is beyond ignorant at this point. No team in the NFL doesn't run zone blocking plays, and the vast majority of the most successful running attacks in recent years have come out of zone-blocking heavy offenses just like ours. 8 of the top 10 RB by yards in 2012 ran behind ZBS schemes (Peterson, Morris, Lynch, Charles, Foster, Ridley, Spiller, and Johnson) the other two (Martin, Gore) ran ZBS plays routinely.

Blame something else.

All of those teams incorporate power running plays, and while I'm not up to speed on the make-up of each line... they probably make an effort to acquire offensive linemen that lift weights as opposed to practicing demi-pliés.

The Packers have the softest offensive and defensive line philosophies in the league. Even New England with all of their midgets, have a fairly physical line.

We're a soft team - everyone outside of Packerdom sees it, yet you guys refuse to accept it.

What will the over/under this season be on the number of times MM is confronted with "the soft question" during his pressers?? I'm not the one asking him those question - but rather I have Manchurian Candidates planted in the press all over the country... just waiting to unjustly attack MM with the ridiculous question.

[RashanGary]

bobble,

There was a stat on the RB's coming out in this years draft. One of the players had the most yards before contact. Everyone on the forums chalked that up to him having the better line. After watching Brandon Jackson run behind the same line Ryan Grant (a marginal physical talent) ran behind and suck so bad, I wanted to shoot myself after almost every run, I realized something. Running the football is as much about feel and instinct as it is about pure physical skill. My opinion was that, maybe that stat meant Bernard is incredibly natural, instinctive and skilled at navigating through traffic. That same RB, if you looked at the rest of the stats, seemed to be the best. That RB was Giovanni Bernard, and he was the first RB taken in the 2013 draft.

In short, a really natural football player can make a lot of his own luck. Emmit, as great as he was for as long as he did it, I have a hunch he made a lot of his own luck. His effectiveness, SB rings and success are as spectacular as anyones. R-E-S-P-E-C-T. Same with Jerry Rice. Same with Joe Montana, Tom Brady, etc. . . . . A lot of the greatest of the greats don't dominate on pure physical prowess.

[wist43]

Wist, I believe our awful "base running attack" is a tool that we need, but most definitely is not needed until the last 4 minutes of a game when we need to preserve our lead. At that point, yes, we have routinely been stopped in the last two years. There has only been one game in recent memory where we were able to run out the clock with a lead (I believe it was against Detroit in 2010 with Kuhn running out the clock, but I'm blanking).

The rest of the time we are going to spread multiple WRs and multiple flexible TEs into the picture and roll. WE HAVE THE BEST QB IN THE LEAGUE why would we be lining up routinely in pro sets with a FB and two run blocking TEs, it would not be playing to our strength which is our QB and his beautiful, god-given arm (slurp).

Anyway, I believe we are improving this area, where a base running attack keeps our leads (which we will accumulate based on our offensive potency). Lacy will help tremendously with yards after contact. Hell, I'm excited to see the resurgence of the play-action pass which believe it or not was very effective in 2011 and died last year.

Things are looking up Wist, how bout you pop a happy pill and smile a little.

Actually, I did just pop a happy pill, but it isn't helping, lol... I foolishly spent too much time on the back of a horse yesterday, and I'm paying for it today - one more happy pill should do the trick... maybe two :)

Hair of the dog though... gonna ride again today, so I should be properly dead by about 6pm tonight, lol :beat:

[RashanGary]

What's a happy pill, Wist?

[Smeefers]

Here is my position. With the playmaker theory you need one of the 3 elite RB's in the league. YOu need the generational guys. Yes, Walter Payton makes your running game great. AP, Barry Sanders, Erik Dickerson. However those are rarely an option.

When Ahman Green was dominant we had ZERO all pros on the line. Eventually Rivera got a token nod, but he was never a top 5 guard in the league. Emmit Smith was never even a top 5 back (imo) in the league, but he scored from 4 yards out standing up. Ahman had talent, but wasn't a world beater. Right now the packers have 3 good OL. We suck at center and RT (until someone steps up). I would have rather paid Wells, and signed a RT so that nearly anyone could run behind the OL for the next 10 years. Or hell, even left Bulaga, and found a serviceable LT. Good RBs have about a 5 year run. Generational guys get 10. We have Aron Rodgers, so we need to spend money on the OL anyway.

I don't buy the playmaker theory because the NFL is an ebb and flow game. You have to be able to attack weaknesses, not have them. Sure, having the playmaker can CREATE a weakness on another team, but if the team is balanced they can adapt to the great player. IF you are balanced you attack weaknesses. If SF must match your spread personel then you run Cobb out of the backfield....this isn't gimmicky, its attacking a weakness.

Playmaker. Clay Mathews. When we won the big game everyone was gushing over clay. Cameron Wake did everything clay does, but played in Miami. What came first, the playmaker or the rest of the team around them? When you have a bunch of talent on the field good playes look like playmakers. When you have garbage on the field great players look human.

When we won the superbowl we had a bunch of good players step up, but last year, while Walden was blowing containment, the HEROIC game by Sam Shields didn't leave us screaming "playmaker", it left us saying, "fuck our D blows". I believe in the reverse playmaker theory. When you have major flaws it shows. It can make 10 good players look bad. We have the worst starting LT in football (last year) and a bad center and due to injuries we had a really bad OLB and some other weak starters on D. Playmakers Rodgers and Shields and Mathews and Cobb and James Jones in that game weren't enough. We lost because of the flaws.

I disagree on the Smith statement. The dude was phenomenal AND he had a great line. I also seem to remember back in the day how the commentators would talk about how big the line was and how nobody could stand up to it. Today, that isn't an option. Even so, Smith routinely broke tackles and was the ideal of a power runner.

I like everything else you said though a lot. Our problem last year was that our weakness' were debilitating. It's like we got hurt in every place where we couldn't afford it.

[wist43]

What's a happy pill, Wist?

Not really sure... some are red, and some are blue - then something about a rabbit hole. Not sure how the whole thing works...

I long for the good old days when smoking a joint wouldn't cost your job, your house, and your freedom. That would be my 'happy pill' of choice - but, living in a nazified nation... I will have to find a way to "do it for the chi'ren"; or the environment; or keeping the chi'ren safe in the environment - I think I took the red pill?? :cnf:

[packer4life]

you could always move to cali...


Not really sure... some are red, and some are blue - then something about a rabbit hole. Not sure how the whole thing works...

I long for the good old days when smoking a joint wouldn't cost your job, your house, and your freedom. That would be my 'happy pill' of choice - but, living in a nazified nation... I will have to find a way to "do it for the chi'ren"; or the environment; or keeping the chi'ren safe in the environment - I think I took the red pill?? :cnf: