Running game - Is it really the guys up front?

[Patler]

To play off PB's thread, maybe it is as much the fault of the backs. At least according to this piece you might think so:

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/running-back-eddie-lacy-impresses-packers-coaches-with-his-innate-ability-b9975721z1-219714051.html

A nice fluff piece, but it does get a fan excited to see Lacy when it counts.

[Pugger]

What is the most exciting to me about Lacy is his vision and how he can get yards when there is no discernible hole for him to hit. I can't wait to see him in action. :-D

[Maxie the Taxi]

Lacy reminds me of John Brockington...

http://youtu.be/oB3mp7-EYW0

Obviously, a great OL can make a RB look better than he really is, but there is no denying that there are significant differences between RB's. Some guys have the God-given ability to make something out of nothing or to take it to the house on any particular carry. We've been operating with mediocre talent at RB for several years now. Lacy has a chance to change all that and be an elite runner in this league without the necessity of an All-Pro OL.

[George Cumby]

Lacy reminds me of John Brockington...

http://youtu.be/oB3mp7-EYW0

Obviously, a great OL can make a RB look better than he really is, but there is no denying that there are significant differences between RB's. Some guys have the God-given ability to make something out of nothing or to take it to the house on any particular carry. We've been operating with mediocre talent at RB for several years now. Lacy has a chance to change all that and be an elite runner in this league without the necessity of an All-Pro OL.

This. The run game was a horse of a different stripe when CedBen was playing last year. It then went nowhere once he got hurt.

[ThunderDan]

DuJuan was a nice boost to the run game at the end of the season.

[Fritz]

Lacy reminds me of John Brockington...

http://youtu.be/oB3mp7-EYW0

Obviously, a great OL can make a RB look better than he really is, but there is no denying that there are significant differences between RB's. Some guys have the God-given ability to make something out of nothing or to take it to the house on any particular carry. We've been operating with mediocre talent at RB for several years now. Lacy has a chance to change all that and be an elite runner in this league without the necessity of an All-Pro OL.


I have waxed nostalgiacally (and elegantly, I might add) about John Brockington, who was one of my favorite Packers as a boy. That dude ran hard and was not afraid of contact. I think he made a lot of DB's and maybe even some linebackers afraid of contact. But an injury derailed what might have been a Packer Hall-of-Fame career. I think your comparison, Maxie, to Lacy is an astute one.

But I am disappointed that you did not work Alex Gillette's name into your post, as you have in all your others. My fear is that you and your wife will be in the throes of passion (don't forget your nitroglycerin pills, by the way), and at the height of your passion you will cry out "Oh, Alex Gillette!" instead of your wife's name.

[Patler]

I have waxed nostalgiacally (and elegantly, I might add) about John Brockington, who was one of my favorite Packers as a boy. That dude ran hard and was not afraid of contact. I think he made a lot of DB's and maybe even some linebackers afraid of contact. But an injury derailed what might have been a Packer Hall-of-Fame career. I think your comparison, Maxie, to Lacy is an astute one.

Do you mean a Packer getting into the NFL Hall of Fame, or Brockington making it into the Packer Hall of Fame? He has been in the Packer Hall of Fame for almost 30 years.

I don't recall any injury derailing his career. I remember a runner who after three years became increasing tentative, would take the handoff and stutter before taking a single step forward. There was no saving him at that point. All in all, a candle that burned brightly, but flamed out rather quickly.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Now that you mention him, I'm thinking Alex Gillette might be the answer for third down RB. He's a great receiver and was a running QB in college...and he does look a little like my girl friend...

[Fritz]

Damn. I couldn't find anything, but I thought he got hurt after three years and was never the same. I must have been thinking of Barty Smith, who did suffer a knee injury against the Lions.

I did not know he was in the Packer hall of fame. After only three years of production? Wow.

If he wasn't hurt, I wonder why he became so tentative?

[Maxie the Taxi]

There's an excellent article about Brockington here that answers as well as any why his production fell off...

http://www.packers.com/news-and-events/article-1/Where-are-they-now-Brockington-was-punishing-runner/df693f66-d87a-478c-b28d-32a13833ee52


Some blame the punishment Brockington endured. All of his yards came the hard way; there were no style points. He often hit defenders right in the chest before bouncing outside.

There was also a change at head coach. In addition, backfield mate MacArthur Lane, who had rushed for 1,711 yards from 1972-74, was traded to Kansas City and Brockington missed the counterpunch.

“We didn’t really have anyone like him after trading Mac,” he said. “And we changed the offense. My big play was a slant off tackle; all you did was hit it. That’s how I played in college and that’s how I played in the NFL. We went to a stretch offense, where you pick your hole, and I wasn’t prepared for that. I couldn’t adjust. I think I sulked a little bit about that and about Mac.

“But there always comes a time when you can’t do it anymore. I didn’t think that was the case, but athletes are always the last to know. We think we can do it forever.”

[Patler]

Damn. I couldn't find anything, but I thought he got hurt after three years and was never the same. I must have been thinking of Barty Smith, who did suffer a knee injury against the Lions.

I did not know he was in the Packer hall of fame. After only three years of production? Wow.

If he wasn't hurt, I wonder why he became so tentative?

There was a lot of conjecture about that at the time. Some said what really fueled his fire was breaking the long runs, and he never shied away from contact to do that. But he didn't enjoy contact for contact sake, and when the long runs weren't there for whatever reason (blocking, scheme, overall team skill) he became a dancer, and wouldn't blast into holes just for 2 or 3 yards.

I can't remember who the radio announcers were back then, but I remember one going crazy saying that there were a few yards there to get, but Brockington wouldn't put his shoulder down and get them. He would stutter instead, waiting for a bigger hole to open.

[Maxie the Taxi]

There was a lot of conjecture about that at the time. Some said what really fueled his fire was breaking the long runs, and he never shied away from contact to do that. But he didn't enjoy contact for contact sake, and when the long runs weren't there for whatever reason (blocking, scheme, overall team skill) he became a dancer, and wouldn't blast into holes just for 2 or 3 yards.

I can't remember who the radio announcers were back then, but I remember one going crazy saying that there were a few yards there to get, but Brockington wouldn't put his shoulder down and get them. He would stutter instead, waiting for a bigger hole to open.

That's consistent with Brockington's own explanation with regard to a change to the stretch offense.

[Patler]

Damn. I couldn't find anything, but I thought he got hurt after three years and was never the same. I must have been thinking of Barty Smith, who did suffer a knee injury against the Lions.


Except that Barty Smith wasn't the same even before his injury!! :-)

The guy whose injury changed his career was Eddie Lee Ivory. He looked like he would really be something special. Even after the first knee injury it seemed like he would still be quite good. After the second one, he became more or less just OK.

[Maxie the Taxi]

That's so true about Eddie Lee Ivory. But again, it goes to show you that maybe it's the RB talent that means more than the OL talent in the running game. Coming out of college, Eddie Lee was brilliant. I can't remember who else was back there available at the time, but Eddie Lee stood out like a beacon compared to them.

[Fritz]

Yeah, I had high hopes for Eddie Lee. He really was talented. But then the injuries.

Thanks Maxie for the article on Brockington. It makes sense - sounds like they went to the same type of stretch running game MM is using now. And Brockington didn't have or didn't try to have the skills to make that work.

But those first three years....man, he was fun to watch.

[Old School]

Patler, was Jim Irwin the announcer you're thinking of?

[Maxie the Taxi]

Correction: Eddie Lee Ivery

[mraynrand]

Correction: Eddie Lee Ivery

I thought maybe you were going to start singing:

Eddie Lee, Ivory!
Running in perfect harmony

http://www.bet.com/music/photos/2012/02/20-best-ebony-ivory-musical-collaborations/_jcr_content/leftcol/flipbook/flipbookimage_14.flipfeature.dimg/020512-music-ebony-stevie-wonder-paul-mccartney-ebony-ivory.jpg

[Patler]

Patler, was Jim Irwin the announcer you're thinking of?

Irwin would have been in the booth at the time, but would not have been so critical. Might have been Gary Bender or Lionel Aldridge. I liked Aldridge. Tended to be honest and blunt. I think Ted Moore was gone by then. There were a couple who weren't around long, they did use a three man booth for a while.

[RashanGary]

I'd like to think I came up with the theory, but I heard it from Larry McCarren. In his opinion, the QB and RB make the OL, not the other way around. That's why I'm hard on AR for the sacks he takes. Favre had like 7 sacks his last season. AR had something like 40 the next season with the same guys. He just plays that style. And I don't even blame AR really. There's a give and take. I think the risks he takes holding the ball help our team because they pay off more often than not. And when it comes to running backs. When we had Grant, we were a good rushing team. Everyone else has sucked since.

I'm also excited about Lacy.



And I've seen counter arguements where the greatest OL's in NFL history blocked well for a lot of marginal players. I get that. But there are so few of those types of OL's. For the most part, and this I think is a strong majority of the time, I think the RB is what makes a running game. Great RB's will be great wherever they go. Really good ones will be really good. The OL plays a part, but I think great runners make the OL look good by setting up blocks and picking up extra yards after contact.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Well said, Justin. I agree 100%. Just as an aside, the Glory Years Packers had one of the best running games in the league and a Hall of Fame OL. Still, Starr took a huge amount of sacks. I remember we all cussed him for it. It's the price Starr and AR pay for their high completion % and low interception rate. Not a bad trade-off in my opinion, just frustrating.

[bobblehead]

DuJuan was a nice boost to the run game at the end of the season.

Exactly. We brought in a used car salesman and the running game took off. That doesn't tell anyone anything? We had no healthy RB on the roster for a lot of the year. Green wasn't recovered, starks was on the trainers table and Benson was out.

This isn't a case of "finally we got a good RB off the used car lot", it was a case of, "look, a healthy guy can get yards if the blocking is there".

Its more about the OL. Obviously you need SOME talent at RB otherwise we would just line up a LB and let him run.

[Maxie the Taxi]

I think what it proves is that the RB's on the roster before Harris showed up were not as good as he was, injuries or no injuries. This year Harris is 2nd to Lacy on most of the depth charts I've seen. MM says Harris is his starter. Where are the other guys from last year? Benson and Grant are gone. Green is on the bubble. Starks is the only one of last year's group who's given Harris any competition at all.

[Smeefers]

DuJuan was a nice boost to the run game at the end of the season.

The only reason Harris did any good was because the Defense was keying in on the pass, basically ignoring our dismal run game. I also think it's a sad day when a back getting a high of 70 yards in one game is considered a boost. Woo! 6 games, 250 yards!

I've never understood the DuJuan Harris fan club. Dude should still be washing cars in Jacksonville.

[Carolina_Packer]

I think what it proves is that the RB's on the roster before Harris showed up were not as good as he was, injuries or no injuries. This year Harris is 2nd to Lacy on most of the depth charts I've seen. MM says Harris is his starter. Where are the other guys from last year? Benson and Grant are gone. Green is on the bubble. Starks is the only one of last year's group who's given Harris any competition at all.

I'm not sure why MM would say that about Harris. It seemed a bit out of character. The conspiracy theorist in me wonders if it's not some kind of coaching gamesmanship to send a message to the running backs room to get someone to distinguish themselves and get the running game off the ground. I'm sure he meant the kind words he said about Harris's determination and drive, and I love that too. It just proves, like the front office often proves, that there is talent everywhere. You just have to know what it looks like when you are evaluating it for your system. Given the theme of competition at each position that you often hear, I'm surprised MM spoke up about one player, even if he likes the make-up of that player. Why not let their play in the pre-season determine who deserves to start?

Some of the Brockington runs were sick! I openly laughed at how high his pad level was, but that he ran with such determination, and I saw some defenders trying to go high and that just was't going to work for a bull like Brockington. I've only seen highlights, and what my relatives have told me. I started really following the Packers in 1978 when I was 12. James Lofton's rookie year, Terdell Middleton, David Whitehurst playing out of his mind and the Packers tying the mighty Vikings. There was some excitement in '78...then there was '79...oy!

[mraynrand]

I've never understood the DuJuan Harris fan club. Dude should still be washing cars in Jacksonville.

He sold cars. Sent them out to be detailed. A least give the guy that much credit

[King Friday]

I think the OL has a far greater impact in the relationship than the RB does. A stinky RB can still find success behind a great OL. It takes Barry Sanders to find success behind a mediocre OL. If the OL doesn't consistently open some holes, I don't care who your RB is...he's probably going to struggle. However, the strength of the passing game factors in as well. If a defense can load up against a run game, it hinders the effectiveness of the OL which then hinders the success of the RB. The relationships are a lot more complex than merely saying one position can make another...even between QB and WR, which is where you have the GREATEST impact of one position over another, the QB can only make the WR as good as his OL will let him. If the QB is constantly looking out his earhole, he couldn't make Jerry Rice look good.

Our OL is not horrible...but their certainly aren't great. Technically, they are above average in pass blocking and below average in run blocking. Since we have an elite passing attack, it allows our mediocre OL to perhaps not look as bad as they might otherwise look on a normal NFL offense when it comes to run blocking. I have no doubt a good share of our running woes come from an OL that just can't run block well. It hasn't been helped by the fact that we've had a bunch of guys at RB ever since Grant faded. Since we have that passing game to keep defenses honest, a great RB could find reasonable success even behind our OL. Might our OL's lack of desire in run blocking somewhat descend from the fact that the franchise has placed ZERO importance on the RB position in recent years? We all know how it goes...if one aspect of your job isn't viewed as important by your superiors, then you are less likely to pay it as much attention as the other areas where there is more focus. Hopefully, the organization is trying to turn that around and make the running game something other than an afterthought.

[King Friday]

The only reason Harris did any good was because the Defense was keying in on the pass, basically ignoring our dismal run game. I also think it's a sad day when a back getting a high of 70 yards in one game is considered a boost. Woo! 6 games, 250 yards!

I've never understood the DuJuan Harris fan club. Dude should still be washing cars in Jacksonville.

I agree. No different than Starks during the Super Bowl run. Starks is a joke...but when the opposing defenses are sold out to stop an elite passing game, just about any run game can find limited success.

Bottom line...16 game season, no 500 yard rusher. That is downright pathetic...especially from a team that is often playing with a lead (so they should run more than most teams because of that) and who has an elite passing game that the defense will key on (so they should have an easier time finding success on the ground compared to most). Honestly, our run performance last year was probably one of the worst in the NFL in quite awhile once you factor in the things that should be HELPING our run game. There is no reason why we can't average 4 ypc from the RB position. That is SOLELY due to the lack of importance the leadership placed on the run game. They didn't care, so no one else was going to either.

[ThunderDan]

Personally, I don't care who we have back there. We could have AP for all I care. I want the ball in Arod's hands.

That being said we do need to have running attempts to keep the other team's D honest. C benson last year was enough to help the pass game.

Ok, I would take AP.

[Pugger]

But a back with decent vision can make an O line look better than it is - and I'm not talking about Barry Sanders. Cedric Benson was starting to look competent until he broke his foot last season. I am eager to see what Lacy can do tonight.

[packer4life]

But a back with decent vision can make an O line look better than it is - and I'm not talking about Barry Sanders. Cedric Benson was starting to look competent until he broke his foot last season. I am eager to see what Lacy can do tonight.

Please let Lacy be the next Jerome Bettis...please god please.

[bobblehead]

I'd like to think I came up with the theory, but I heard it from Larry McCarren. In his opinion, the QB and RB make the OL, not the other way around. That's why I'm hard on AR for the sacks he takes. Favre had like 7 sacks his last season. AR had something like 40 the next season with the same guys. He just plays that style. And I don't even blame AR really. There's a give and take. I think the risks he takes holding the ball help our team because they pay off more often than not. And when it comes to running backs. When we had Grant, we were a good rushing team. Everyone else has sucked since.

I'm also excited about Lacy.



And I've seen counter arguements where the greatest OL's in NFL history blocked well for a lot of marginal players. I get that. But there are so few of those types of OL's. For the most part, and this I think is a strong majority of the time, I think the RB is what makes a running game. Great RB's will be great wherever they go. Really good ones will be really good. The OL plays a part, but I think great runners make the OL look good by setting up blocks and picking up extra yards after contact.

Dan Marino got rid of the ball faster than anyone I ever watched. Got sacked like 15 times a year. He didn't make the OL better, he made them LOOK better.

I got back to watching guys like Barry Redden and Tony Fischer look like world beaters behind great OL's. I watched Denver (under shannahan) plug one late pick after another into great seasons at RB.

Of course there is always someplace in the middle to agree. AP behind a terrible line couldn't get 1700 yards. Alex Green behind a great line would be a 1400 yard rusher. In the end though, a great line is always great. A great RB STILL needs a decent line.

[bobblehead]

I think what it proves is that the RB's on the roster before Harris showed up were not as good as he was, injuries or no injuries. This year Harris is 2nd to Lacy on most of the depth charts I've seen. MM says Harris is his starter. Where are the other guys from last year? Benson and Grant are gone. Green is on the bubble. Starks is the only one of last year's group who's given Harris any competition at all.

Exactly. Our RB's were terrible and we ran poorly. We didn't insert a great RB, we inserted a used car salesman....who was healthy. We committed to calling running plays and we were effective. I would say there are a ton of RB's who can run behind our average line. We just didn't have any on the roster.

[bobblehead]

But a back with decent vision can make an O line look better than it is - and I'm not talking about Barry Sanders. Cedric Benson was starting to look competent until he broke his foot last season. I am eager to see what Lacy can do tonight.

Yes, Cedric was averaging a whopping 3.5 yards a carry. STUD!!! What you actually are remembering is that we CALLED running plays and got favorable down and distances early on. Something we stopped doing quickly as MM doesn't really like running the ball.

[Smeefers]

Yes, Cedric was averaging a whopping 3.5 yards a carry. STUD!!! What you actually are remembering is that we CALLED running plays and got favorable down and distances early on. Something we stopped doing quickly as MM doesn't really like running the ball.

I gotta give benson some credit. He wasn't breaking anything huge or anything like that, but he was at the very least falling forward. His consistent 3.5 ypc was a helluva lot better than the streaky 4 ypc we were getting from harris and starks.

[Harlan Huckleby]

His consistent 3.5 ypc was a helluva lot better than the streaky 4 ypc we were getting from harris and starks.

Had to rub my eyes after I read this. I think I would take a streaky 4 ypc.

[run pMc]

Had to rub my eyes after I read this. I think I would take a streaky 4 ypc.

There's a kind of twisted logic to it that I kind of agree with. If you have a RB that can get you to 2nd and long 6 consistently vs. someone who might get you 2nd and 12...you go with the consistent guy. 2nd and 12 is a passing down for many teams, whereas 2nd and 6 gives you the chance to use play action, or try and run the ball. It's mostly about having "manageable down and distance".

That said, if someone over the course of several games/season is averaging 4.0, you take them over a 3.5 ypc back. That also assumes the avg isn't buoyed by one great run or one great game out of many.
Cedric Benson was no threat to break a long run, but he had better vision and patience than the other backs, so he was able to "take what the defense gave" and grind out a few yards at a time.
(sorry for using so many cliches, but there's some truth to them.)

[Harlan Huckleby]

What I want the world to do is to report the mean ypc rather than the average ypc. The mean will tell you what you can typically expect the runner to do. The average rewards runners who have big play ability. Both are useful stats, but I think the mean is more, dare I say it, meaningful.

[denverYooper]

What I want the world to do is to report the mean ypc rather than the average ypc. The mean will tell you what you can typically expect the runner to do. The average rewards runners who have big play ability. Both are useful stats, but I think the mean is more, dare I say it, meaningful.

I think you mean median, which is a measure of central tendency not affected by outliers.

[mraynrand]

What I want the world to do is to report the mean ypc rather than the average ypc. The mean will tell you what you can typically expect the runner to do. The average rewards runners who have big play ability. Both are useful stats, but I think the mean is more, dare I say it, meaningful.

I think you want the medium. Mean=average

http://www.purplemath.com/modules/meanmode.htm

You could get mean, medium, mode and range, but you probably should just compare all the runs, because a guy like Barry Sanders is gonna run a whole lot different than a guy like Jerome Bettis, and various teams are gonna run out of different formations, etc. etc. I always think that stats in football are more misleading than in other sports because of the situational aspects, but that's probably because I don't follow a lot of other sports.

[Pugger]

Yes, Cedric was averaging a whopping 3.5 yards a carry. STUD!!! What you actually are remembering is that we CALLED running plays and got favorable down and distances early on. Something we stopped doing quickly as MM doesn't really like running the ball.

Then why couldn't Grant find 3 yards a crack where Benson, who is now out of football, looked so much better? The better RBs can make something out of nothing and your garden variety back will only get positive yards if the line gives him a good sized hole. I'll have to watch the game in a little while to see for myself.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I think you mean median, which is a measure of central tendency not affected by outliers.


yes, I had a brain fart, I meant median. If a guy has 100 runs, how long was his 50th longest one? Best indicator of what he typically does, IMO.

And the big outliers are long runs. (negative yardage are single digits usually) So the average, or mean, rewards backs who have break-away speed, which is a good thing in one sense.

Actually, this is really smeefer's original point. A back can have a high average ypc, bumped up by some long runs, and still not be very reliable.

[bobblehead]

Then why couldn't Grant find 3 yards a crack where Benson, who is now out of football, looked so much better? The better RBs can make something out of nothing and your garden variety back will only get positive yards if the line gives him a good sized hole. I'll have to watch the game in a little while to see for myself.

Grant never averaged 3.5 ypc with the packers. He averaged 9 last year....granted on 2 carries. In your mind benson looked good for 2 reasons. You were comparing him to 2 injured backs, green and starks. Secondly, we committed to the run early last year and it made him look better.

[bobblehead]

yes, I had a brain fart, I meant median. If a guy has 100 runs, how long was his 50th longest one? Best indicator of what he typically does, IMO.

And the big outliers are long runs. (negative yardage are single digits usually) So the average, or mean, rewards backs who have break-away speed, which is a good thing in one sense.

Actually, this is really smeefer's original point. A back can have a high average ypc, bumped up by some long runs, and still not be very reliable.

NOt likely over the course of 100+ carries. I can only think of one back ever that suffered from such a situation and that was barry sanders. avg. per carry is a reliable stat 99% of the time. Smeefers is wrong and you agreed with him. Backs don't have so many long runs that it skews the normal loss of 3. Just doesn't happen.

[Joemailman]

Grant never averaged 3.5 ypc with the packers. He averaged 9 last year....granted on 2 carries. In your mind benson looked good for 2 reasons. You were comparing him to 2 injured backs, green and starks. Secondly, we committed to the run early last year and it made him look better.

??? Grant averaged a little over 4 yards on 30 carries. He had a pretty good game in a rout of Tennessee. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/G/GranRy00/gamelog//

[mraynrand]

avg. per carry is a reliable stat 99% of the time.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8366/8453593307_5fab3a7b90.jpg

[Harlan Huckleby]

avg. per carry is a reliable stat 99% of the time. Smeefers is wrong and you agreed with him. Backs don't have so many long runs that it skews the normal loss of 3. Just doesn't happen.

OK, you're saying that the median and mean converge to the same number.

What I know for sure is that in a single game's stats, the median would be a much better indicator of how the runner is doing, and I suppose you agree. A guy breaks one long run and he's aces in the average stat.

I am not so sure about a whole season where you get 300 carries because I don't know what the distributions typically look like. But one 30 yard run still does make-up for 6 one yard losses. I wouldn't call a back who performed that way anything to write home about. I think I'm right, median would be a better indicator of a back's quality/reliability for a whole season. But more info needed to prove that guess.

[Guiness]

OK, you're saying that the median and mean converge to the same number.



Mean is the number most people call the 'average'. Median is the number in the middle number in the set when you put them in ascending order - the median of {1,3,5} is 3, the same as the mean/average, but the median of {1,3,25} is also 3, while the mean/average would be 9.

Do they converge? On a large set of a stat like yards/carry I guess they might. I think the median would be a little lower than the average.

[mraynrand]

Mean is the number most people call the 'average'. Median is the number in the middle number in the set when you put them in ascending order - the mean of {1,3,5} is 3, the same as the average, The mean of {1,3,25} is also 3.

I think you are going to have repeat your stats class.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Mean is the number most people call the 'average'. Median is the number in the middle number in the set when you put them in ascending order - the mean of {1,3,5} is 3, the same as the average, The mean of {1,3,25} is also 3.

Right, I just had a pre-senior moment and used the word "mean" when I meant "median." I misspoke, as they say. But I'm on to frying bigger fish...

Turns out that my intuition was wrong. Median would be good for a game, but is not useful at all for a season, because all backs land at about 3 ypc!
http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/08/comparing-running-performance.html

That article is damn interesting. Here's some sample distributions, amazing how close backs follow the NFL total distribution:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2556/3813734026_db589ff8a1_o.png

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2610/3813734102_1425ab799c_o.png

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2580/3813734078_7801aab534_o.png


Look how the subtle the difference is between a typical and great back - Adrian Peterson has those happy bumps around 16 ypc etc.

[Guiness]

I think you are going to have repeat your stats class.

lol, you would quote me! fixed above!

[mraynrand]

Right, I just had a pre-senior moment and used the word "mean" when I meant "median." I mispoke, as they say. But I'm on to frying bigger fish...

Turns out that my intuition was wrong. Median would be good for a game, but is not useful at all for a season, because all backs land at about 3 ypc!
http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/08/comparing-running-performance.html

That article is damn interesting. Here's some sample distributions, amazing how close backs follow the NFL total distribution:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2556/3813734026_db589ff8a1_o.png

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2610/3813734102_1425ab799c_o.png

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2580/3813734078_7801aab534_o.png

These results aren't all that shocking: The distribution of a ton of data is going to approximate a normal distribution, and the successful running teams/runners are going to mostly determine the mean of the curve, so they will map onto it pretty closely. I think you would find the exact same thing for receptions by WRs. Now map on the sucky runners from GB!

But it proves my point: averages and medians are misleading. Go and look at the individual runs, the circumstances, and how they impact games. Barry Sanders sucked because his median was low: 1,1, -4, 12, 1, 4,1,38, 2, 60, 1, -1, -5,3, 45 - that's what his stat line looked like sometimes. Jerome Bettis looked like: 3,3,4,6,3,7,2,9,3,4,7,2,4,5,6...etc. Who was better??

[Harlan Huckleby]

These results aren't all that shocking: The distribution of a ton of data is going to approximate a normal distribution,
no, it will look like the underlying distribution, which may or may not be normal.
And there is no reason to suspect that there would be so little difference in distributions between individual players. Doesn't matter how much data you collect.

The similarity is shocking, and I see now the author of that article agrees.

Also, my intuition was correct on one point: average ypc is heavily determined by outliers (long runs), even for a whole season, according to that article.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Barry Sanders sucked because his median was low: 1,1, -4, 12, 1, 4,1,38, 2, 60, 1, -1, -5,3, 45 - that's what his stat line looked like sometimes. Jerome Bettis looked like: 3,3,4,6,3,7,2,9,3,4,7,2,4,5,6...etc. Who was better??

That article answers your question nicely

[Guiness]

These results aren't all that shocking: The distribution of a ton of data is going to approximate a normal distribution, and the successful running teams/runners are going to mostly determine the mean of the curve, so they will map onto it pretty closely. I think you would find the exact same thing for receptions by WRs. Now map on the sucky runners from GB!

But it proves my point: averages and medians are misleading. Go and look at the individual runs, the circumstances, and how they impact games. Barry Sanders sucked because his median was low: 1,1, -4, 12, 1, 4,1,38, 2, 60, 1, -1, -5,3, 45 - that's what his stat line looked like sometimes. Jerome Bettis looked like: 3,3,4,6,3,7,2,9,3,4,7,2,4,5,6...etc. Who was better??

The interesting part is that the way they've laid it out, it looks like RB success is dependent on their ability to break a long run, since most of the runs will end up being 3.3yds anyways. LT's graph looks particularly bad, and you don't know what made him special unless you read the article and see that 1.5% of his runs were for >30yds...which is not shown on the graph.

[Spaulding]

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8366/8453593307_5fab3a7b90.jpg

Excellent reference! And made with real bits of panther so you know it's good.

[mraynrand]

no, it will look like the underlying distribution, which may or may not be normal.
And there is no reason to suspect that there would be so little difference in distributions between individual players.

Is there? you selected three - three of the most productive backs. Do all runners map exactly the same? If so, then again, I'm correct - it is the circumstances of the particular runs, and not the averages, means, or distributions (normal or otherwise, but looks like normal from the graph) that make the difference. Still, you can see suggestions of those distinctions in the overlaid graphs - a collection of long runs for Peterson, a slightly shifted peak for Westbrook, for example. LT: perhaps he just got more carries. What do the bad runners look like?

[denverYooper]

Is there? you selected three - three of the most productive backs. Do all runners map exactly the same? If so, then again, I'm correct - it is the circumstances of the particular runs, and not the averages, means, or distributions (normal or otherwise, but looks like normal from the graph) that make the difference. Still, you can see suggestions of those distinctions in the overlaid graphs - a collection of long runs for Peterson, a slightly shifted peak for Westbrook, for example. LT: perhaps he just got more carries. What do the bad runners look like?

It's interesting that you chose the Bus. The Bettis-Lacy comparison has started coming up since Saturday.

[mraynrand]

The interesting part is that the way they've laid it out, it looks like RB success is dependent on their ability to break a long run, since most of the runs will end up being 3.3yds anyways.

some of the differences are apparent. But the graph is made from the entire NFL, and it seems averages will be skewed to the teams that run more/better.

I still say that the worst way to compare/evaluate runners, or the effectiveness of a running game, is by the stats. Just watch the games.

[mraynrand]

It's interesting that you chose the Bus. The Bettis-Lacy comparison has started coming up since Saturday. Sanders and Bettis were the first guys I could think of who were effective, but ran so differently. Explosive versus steady, both effective, but misleadingly different (median, range) or the same (average) statistically.

[mraynrand]

That article answers your question nicely

how so?

[Harlan Huckleby]

how so?

Barry Sanders is better when the team is losing, Jerome Bettis is better when winning. Makes sense.

[mraynrand]

Barry Sanders is better when the team is losing, Jerome Bettis is better when winning. Makes sense.

I see the point and it makes sense, but it doesn't really address the central question.

[swede]

Go and look at the individual runs, the circumstances, and how they impact games. Barry Sanders sucked because his median was low: 1,1, -4, 12, 1, 4,1,38, 2, 60, 1, -1, -5,3, 45 - that's what his stat line looked like sometimes. Jerome Bettis looked like: 3,3,4,6,3,7,2,9,3,4,7,2,4,5,6...etc. Who was better??

Sanders' mode was 1. Bettis' mode was 3 and 4. I'm taking Bettis in third and short.

[Guiness]

Sanders' mode was 1. Bettis' mode was 3 and 4. I'm taking Bettis in third and short.

FWIW I don't recall Sander's numbers being anywhere near that inconsistent, you couldn't coach around that. I suspect that part of his legend grows.

I'd be curious to get some old charts or play-by-play transcripts to see what he actually did. All I can find is boxscores
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/game_query.cgi?tm1=gnb&tm2=det&yr=all

[mraynrand]

FWIW I don't recall Sander's numbers being anywhere near that inconsistent, you couldn't coach around that. I suspect that part of his legend grows.

I'd be curious to get some old charts or play-by-play transcripts to see what he actually did. All I can find is boxscores
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/game_query.cgi?tm1=gnb&tm2=det&yr=all

I was exaggerating to be sure, but the general point I think is indisputable: the more numbers you get the harder it is to tell what made the various runners exceptional/successful/?failures?. Harlan's reference all but says there is nothing special about LT - he's just a run of the mill guy that reflects and doesn't deviate from the NFL average.

I still wonder what Grant, Starks and others look like superimposed over that graph.

[RashanGary]

i like steady better, for ourr team. We get our explosive gains in the pass. We have the best qb. more good things happen when we pass no matter who the back would be.

[Harlan Huckleby]

i like steady better, for ourr team. We get our explosive gains in the pass .

Right. Same is true for most winning teams, you mostly need to just keep the sticks moving when you are ahead most of the time.

[Smeefers]

So... I don't have to back up my ass backwards math? Sweet.

Got you guys eating out of the palm of my hand.

[mraynrand]

So... I don't have to back up my ass backwards math? Sweet.

Got you guys eating out of the palm of my hand.

you got called out on your slight of hand. But in a league where the very best (LT) are only average, who cares?

[King Friday]

Sanders > Bettis behind the same OL

[swede]

Sanders > Bettis behind the same OL

No equality for people of color?

[sharpe1027]

Yes, Cedric was averaging a whopping 3.5 yards a carry. STUD!!! What you actually are remembering is that we CALLED running plays and got favorable down and distances early on. Something we stopped doing quickly as MM doesn't really like running the ball.

The difference with benson was that he was getting enough yards to keep drives alive when teams were daring the pack to run with cover 2. What the packers needed was 3.5 yards average without a 20 yarder offsetting several drive killing zero yarders.

[bobblehead]

The difference with benson was that he was getting enough yards to keep drives alive when teams were daring the pack to run with cover 2. What the packers needed was 3.5 yards average without a 20 yarder offsetting several drive killing zero yarders.

Look, I am the original poster to hammer the more favorable down and distance concept around here, but a 3.5 avg. is not special. Period. End of story. Cedric got carries. He got them early. MM using him properly was the most impressive thing about him. Lacy will do the same, but avg. 4.2 ypc and you will understand that benson stinks and is old. Starks and DeJuan Harris are better backs than Benson was last year.

[Pugger]

i like steady better, for ourr team. We get our explosive gains in the pass. We have the best qb. more good things happen when we pass no matter who the back would be.

But with the young tackles on our O line protecting Rodgers' backside having a RB back there that defenses have to account for will give Rodgers that couple extra seconds to slice and dice defenses if Lacy can keep running like he did the other night.

[pbmax]

Raw yardage doesn't tell you anything if you can't put it in context. Offense needs first downs and scores. If a 1 yard carry gets a first, its a success.

If you get 7 yards on 3rd and 8, its a failure.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/rb

DuJuan Haris 31.4
James Starks -4.1
Cedric Benson -6.1
John Kuhn -7.9
Alex Green -16.7

[sharpe1027]

Raw yardage doesn't tell you anything if you can't put it in context. Offense needs first downs and scores. If a 1 yard carry gets a first, its a success.

If you get 7 yards on 3rd and 8, its a failure.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/rb

DuJuan Haris 31.4
James Starks -4.1
Cedric Benson -6.1
John Kuhn -7.9
Alex Green -16.7

Bensons success rate was better than green and Starks. No stats for Harris on that.

[denverYooper]

Raw yardage doesn't tell you anything if you can't put it in context. Offense needs first downs and scores. If a 1 yard carry gets a first, its a success.

If you get 7 yards on 3rd and 8, its a failure.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/rb

DuJuan Haris 31.4
James Starks -4.1
Cedric Benson -6.1
John Kuhn -7.9
Alex Green -16.7

Like a rolling ball of butcher knives.

[Guiness]

Raw yardage doesn't tell you anything if you can't put it in context. Offense needs first downs and scores. If a 1 yard carry gets a first, its a success.

If you get 7 yards on 3rd and 8, its a failure.


Hmmm. Ain't that the truth.

A 27yd pass on 4th and 26...that's a success too, right?:soap:

[Harlan Huckleby]

Raw yardage doesn't tell you anything if you can't put it in context.

This argument could apply to every stat. Yes, stats have their limits.

[Harlan Huckleby]

But in a league where the very best (LT) are only average, who cares?

It's true that the yardage distributions are similar for all backs, but the takeaway is not the very best are average. Those distributions still tell a lot. The lesson is that the differences don't pop out at you, you have to look closely to see the subtle differences that mean everything.

[Guiness]

It's true that the yardage distributions are similar for all backs, but the takeaway is not the very best are average. Those distributions still tell a lot. The lesson is that the differences don't pop out at you, you have to look closely to see the subtle differences that mean everything.

The other comment in the article was about durability. The cumulative value of having a player producing at a league-average level over the course of an above-average number of plays. Having an 'average' player means he's better than half the league, and if you have him all the time that's an exceptional thing.

[pbmax]

This argument could apply to every stat. Yes, stats have their limits.

That is why looking at more than one while evaluating is good. I would prefer a RB who can break big runs and be a threat for a home run.

But there is only so much other success in the middle of a drive that I am willing to sacrifice to have that chance.

[pbmax]

Chalk one up for RB being the difference: http://jerseyal.com/GBP/2013/08/20/packers-rams-video-second-look-offensive-line/


In this first video, Lacy breaks off an 8 yard run, but no thanks to Evan Dietrich-Smith (EDS), who can not handle the speed of the gap-shooting DL. Lacy. Matthew Mulligan is also beat badly, and Lacy is confronted with two ST. Louis DL in his path, two yards deep in the backfield. For another running back, this is a loss of a few yards. But thanks to his much-renowned spin move, Lacy gets away from that trouble, breaks a tackle past the line of scrimmage and then plows through a few more defenders for some extra yards. It’s good to have a real running back, isn’t it?

[pbmax]

This is a reach block by EDS. It is the kind of thing Wells learned to excel at. Its a tough block because the DT has a head start to play side.

This is also the reason we should hope for JC Tretter's return to form.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0MxN3n5tPXo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0MxN3n5tPXo


I would recommend all the video at the kink above as it also shows Bach and DJ Williams collectively deciding not to block the DE. I think Williams is at fault here because Sitton runs at the weakside backer and Bach would naturally have the playside backer.

http://jerseyal.com/GBP/2013/08/20/packers-rams-video-second-look-offensive-line/

[Harlan Huckleby]

This is a reach block by EDS. It is the kind of thing Wells learned to excel at. Its a tough block because the DT has a head start to play side.

It also looks close to being illegal by the new rules.

Some packer O-lineman got flagged for it in last game. Essentially you can't clip near the line of scrimmage when the defender is ...... hell, I don't remember how it works. But what got flagged looks a bit like that reach block.

[run pMc]

The difference with benson was that he was getting enough yards to keep drives alive when teams were daring the pack to run with cover 2. What the packers needed was 3.5 yards average without a 20 yarder offsetting several drive killing zero yarders.



Look, I am the original poster to hammer the more favorable down and distance concept around here, but a 3.5 avg. is not special. Period. End of story. Cedric got carries. He got them early. MM using him properly was the most impressive thing about him. Lacy will do the same, but avg. 4.2 ypc and you will understand that benson stinks and is old. Starks and DeJuan Harris are better backs than Benson was last year.

I agree with both of you, more or less. MM gave up on running too soon at times, especially early in the year and then in the SF playoff game. Even if you're getting 3.5 ypc -- which admittedly is not great -- it's enough of a threat to force the defense to honor the run, which was something defenses often did not do against Rodgers and the passing game.

The running game is improved over having to bring back Ryan Grant...but make no mistake, Rodgers and the passing game is what makes the offense sing. The running game is there to make it more effective with play action, pulling defenses out of cover-2, keep them in manageable down/distances, etc.

...I think we're agreeing on the major points, but I don't think M3 hates running the ball. I think his emphasis on the running game ("big letters", etc.) is proof of that, as is TT's drafting of Lacy/Franklin. I do think he lost confidence in his RBs and maybe the OL (EDS > Saturday and Barclay > Newhouse with run blocking), and either felt forced to throw it or simply got too enamored of letting the previous season's MVP sling it in his offense.

I don't think we'll see a huge change in the run/pass ratio, but I think runs will be more consistently called and more effective thru this season.

[mraynrand]

It's true that the yardage distributions are similar for all backs, but the takeaway is not the very best are average. Those distributions still tell a lot. The lesson is that the differences don't pop out at you, you have to look closely to see the subtle differences that mean everything.

Of course, that's what I've been saying all along. But also that the best runners and running teams make those goddamm curves (better average runs and more of them). Put Packer running backs on there and you'll see their curve shifts to the left. How else can LT look "Average?"

[Guiness]

Chalk one up for RB being the difference: http://jerseyal.com/GBP/2013/08/20/packers-rams-video-second-look-offensive-line/

Wow, really good run by Lacy. Unfortunately he won't be able to consistently do that, that spin move will get him stuffed once defenders learn to recognize it. Hopefully he doesn't over-use it and it stays effective.

Blocking looked horrible. Not sure about the claim that there were 2 ST-L DL right there, EDS was pushing one from behind and it looked like he didn't have much of a chance to make a play on Lacy.

[mraynrand]

It also looks close to being illegal by the new rules.

Some packer O-lineman got flagged for it in last game. Essentially you can't clip near the line of scrimmage when the defender is ...... hell, I don't remember how it works. But what got flagged looks a bit like that reach block.

you can't start a block below the waist. I believe you can finish below the waist, the thinking being sometimes you slip. This last point is critical to protect lousy linemen, aka "Packers"

[Harlan Huckleby]

you can't start a block below the waist. I believe you can finish below the waist, the thinking being sometimes you slip. This last point is critical to protect lousy linemen, aka "Packers"

I think you still can block below the waist near the line of scrimmage. Below the waist is illegal in open field, and that rule has been around for a few years. Maybe somebody else remembers more clearly.

The recent rule change I was thinking of is they made a "peel back" block illegal. Looking again at that reach-back block, it is still legal because the defender is moving upfield, but it's damn close to a peel-back. You can't block low (even near line of scrimmage) when the sucker has started to pursue downfield.


http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2013/3/19/4125046/nfl-rule-changes-peel-back-block

"If a player who is aligned in the tackle box when the ball is snapped moves to a position outside the box, he cannot initiate contact on the side and below the waist against an opponent if: (a) the blocker is moving toward his own end line; and (b) he approached the opponent from behind or from the side."

[pbmax]

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2013/3/19/4125046/nfl-rule-changes-peel-back-block

"If a player who is aligned in the tackle box when the ball is snapped moves to a position outside the box, he cannot initiate contact on the side and below the waist against an opponent if: (a) the blocker is moving toward his own end line; and (b) he approached the opponent from behind or from the side."

Would be hard pressed to say EDS is outside the tackle box on that play.

[pbmax]

Sometimes, despite appearances, you make the right call:


Giacomini isn’t making the same money as Bushrod — $3.5 million in 2013 in the second year of a two-year deal — but he started all of the 2012 season at right tackle for a team most think has a legit shot at a Super Bowl this year. In 2012, he ranked second in the league in blown blocks with 33, behind Indy’s Anthony Castonzo. Only Dallas’ Doug Free had more penalties than Giacomini’s 13, and no player in the NFL had more penalty yards than his 130. Pete Carroll loves tough guys, but he’s also obsessed with extending drives on a consistent basis. Giacomini would not seem to be the ideal fit in the long term.

http://nfl.si.com/2013/08/20/the-audibles-all-overrated-team-the-offense/

[pbmax]

And sometimes, rep and contract get ahead of results:


No guard allowed more sacks than Lang’s 8.5 — in fact, Lang tied for fourth in the entire league in that category, regardless of position, and he did play some tackle last year, as well. Yes, Aaron Rodgers holds onto the ball too long too often, but Lang also struggled in the run game, and the Packers need more from the man they gave a contract extension before the 2012 season.

Just to show fairness about that run blocking comment, here is Lang having his lunch handed to him by a Ram.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=W6xLZlrQtHA

[mraynrand]

^^^^ Bet Campen had a lot of fun with that play in the film room. I think people have posted it or referenced it sixty eight times since Saturday. Get that coach's clicker going!

[bobblehead]

Wow, really good run by Lacy. Unfortunately he won't be able to consistently do that, that spin move will get him stuffed once defenders learn to recognize it. Hopefully he doesn't over-use it and it stays effective.

Blocking looked horrible. Not sure about the claim that there were 2 ST-L DL right there, EDS was pushing one from behind and it looked like he didn't have much of a chance to make a play on Lacy.

some guys get away with doing things that you "can't" do in the NFL. I am not ready to annoint his spin move as that special, but he used it all through college, so just maybe......

[denverYooper]

some guys get away with doing things that you "can't" do in the NFL. I am not ready to annoint his spin move as that special, but he used it all through college, so just maybe......

Good point. I think his spin move is effective in part because he also has no problem trucking guys. So it's not his only move and his raw power makes it a lot more effective.

[Patler]

Funny thing about Lacy and his spin move, he said he doesn't think about it, he just does it. He also said he would try to NOT do it for a while until he got a better feel for the NFL game. I guess it really is just a natural reaction on his part!

[pbmax]

Good point. I think his spin move is effective in part because he also has no problem trucking guys. So it's not his only move and his raw power makes it a lot more effective.

Its usual to use in crowded spaces, like he LOS is supposed to be and like the backfield was on that particular play versus the Rams. but he is big and steady enough that even while he is spinning he cannot be easily knocked down or into other tacklers.

[Upnorth]

So after reading bobblehead's comments in the depression thread I read this article with espn
http://espn.go.com/nfl/trainingcamp13/story/_/id/9601152/eddie-lacy-draft-biggest-steal
and had two thoughts.
1) Does this guy even look at line play?
2) What has he seen in preseason play that I haven't?

[HarveyWallbangers]

So after reading bobblehead's comments in the depression thread I read this article with espn
http://espn.go.com/nfl/trainingcamp13/story/_/id/9601152/eddie-lacy-draft-biggest-steal
and had two thoughts.
1) Does this guy even look at line play?
2) What has he seen in preseason play that I haven't?

You don't think Lacy has looked good? I'd look past his performance against Seattle. He had two plays for -13 yards where Harrell panicked and threw backwards passed to him and he was tackled immediately. I'd expect a little more running room when Rodgers is in the game. There won't be 8 men in the box with Rodgers in the game.

[Upnorth]

I've seen him look okay, but I don't expect much with our ol. Also I pray Rodgers sees eight in the box.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I'm not expecting to get a lot of 8 in the box, but I'm just hoping we can run when there is 7 in the box. We had trouble even doing that last year.

[denverYooper]

I'm not expecting to get a lot of 8 in the box, but I'm just hoping we can run when there is 7 in the box. We had trouble even doing that last year.

Aye.

The math should work out a little better when Rodgers is in there calling the offense with Lacy in the backfield.

[run pMc]

This is also the reason we should hope for JC Tretter's return to form

Do we know yet if Tretter can play C or if he can execute a reach-block on the pro level? I heard some scouts liked him more than Bakteria and others never heard of him. Personally, I'm very curious to know if this guy can play. The Greg Van Rot(t)en experience worries me, and EDS has not been the model of consistency either.

If defenses put 8 in the box against Rodgers, Cobb/Finley/Jordy/Jones should carve them up.

[denverYooper]

8 in the box against Rodgers would be a bloodbath.

[pbmax]

8 in the box against Rodgers would be a bloodbath.

Yep. Its why I suspect a decent back will be enough with 7 man fronts. We'll see.

[pbmax]

Tyler Dunne ‏@TyDunne 37m
#Packers rookie J.C. Tretter who broke ankle in OTA's.... RT @JCTretter It feels great to finally get off the crutches! #backonmyown2feet

[Guiness]

Tyler Dunne ‏@TyDunne 37m
#Packers rookie J.C. Tretter who broke ankle in OTA's.... RT @JCTretter It feels great to finally get off the crutches! #backonmyown2feet

broke it at OTAs in May, right? How long to come back? Have to think 6 months if everything goes ok, I guess he might still play this season.

[Joemailman]

broke it at OTAs in May, right? How long to come back? Have to think 6 months if everything goes ok, I guess he might still play this season.

I don't think you're going to get anything out of a rookie who missed all of the offseason and training camp. I suspect he'll be put on IR.

[run pMc]

I don't think you're going to get anything out of a rookie who missed all of the offseason and training camp. I suspect he'll be put on IR.
Agree...either IR or PUP. Depends on what they think they have with Taylor, Van Rot(t)en, et al., but he seems destined for IR.

If he's just off the crutches now, he's got a way to go before he can anchor against 320lb DT's or run block them...he's also got to pick up the offense if he hasn't thru mental reps already. Pretty big hurdles for a rookie.

[swede]

I don't think you're going to get anything out of a rookie who missed all of the offseason and training camp. I suspect he'll be put on IR.


Agree...either IR or PUP. Depends on what they think they have with Taylor, Van Rot(t)en, et al., but he seems destined for IR.

If he's just off the crutches now, he's got a way to go before he can anchor against 320lb DT's or run block them...he's also got to pick up the offense if he hasn't thru mental reps already. Pretty big hurdles for a rookie.

Tretter should lift, eat, and practice the shotgun snap for the next ten months. He'll be a good 'un next year, not this year.

[bobblehead]

Roy Helu. Remember the name. He will be the next Mike Shanahan RB to prove that its the line, not the RB.

[RashanGary]

Roy Helu. Remember the name. He will be the next Mike Shanahan RB to prove that its the line, not the RB.

That's more of a system I think. Some guys, guys with great vision and one-cut ability will excel in zone blocking and then be so/so in a pattern blocking scheme. Helu is that type of player. He's a one-cut back with excellent speed. Similar to Ryan Grant.

Oh, does Ryan Grant prove your point that it's the OL. No other Packer in the MM era has been able to produce like Grant. Clearly it was Grant being the right back for our system and not the line, no?

[RashanGary]

bobble, it's a little of both with a bunch of other things factored in too. At the end of the day though, great running backs run great no matter where they play. They break tackles, run for daylight and just do extraordinary things. Very good backs do very good things. Bad backs to bad things. And there are the system guys. One-cut/vision runners run well in one-cut/vision systems. The runner makes a lot of his own luck. He sets up blocks, reads blocks well and has a knack for being slippery. Great running backs make OL's look a lot better.

Lacy will prove that this year IMO. With him we will be a different team than without. We don't have a runner even close to his talent and he's not a HOF type player either. He's just a really good back IMO and he's going to play really well because that's what he does.

[bobblehead]

That's more of a system I think. Some guys, guys with great vision and one-cut ability will excel in zone blocking and then be so/so in a pattern blocking scheme. Helu is that type of player. He's a one-cut back with excellent speed. Similar to Ryan Grant.

Oh, does Ryan Grant prove your point that it's the OL. No other Packer in the MM era has been able to produce like Grant. Clearly it was Grant being the right back for our system and not the line, no?

That was the beginning, when we actually committed to the run a bit. When MM took over and really hammered home the ZBS. When we had Tauscher and wells. I have admitted that its a bit of a balance, but as I have always said. A great line rises all backs, but a great back is merely average behind a bad line.

[bobblehead]

bobble, it's a little of both with a bunch of other things factored in too. At the end of the day though, great running backs run great no matter where they play. They break tackles, run for daylight and just do extraordinary things. Very good backs do very good things. Bad backs to bad things. And there are the system guys. One-cut/vision runners run well in one-cut/vision systems. The runner makes a lot of his own luck. He sets up blocks, reads blocks well and has a knack for being slippery. Great running backs make OL's look a lot better.

Lacy will prove that this year IMO. With him we will be a different team than without. We don't have a runner even close to his talent and he's not a HOF type player either. He's just a really good back IMO and he's going to play really well because that's what he does.

There is ONLY one cut runners. Other than barry sanders there has never been a successful back in the NFL history that was more than a one cut runner. That is the point MM is always making when he refers to one cut and go. I guess there have been a few successful NO cut runners like John Riggins or Earl Campbell, but those guys were never a threat to take it to the house.

I have been watching this game a long time. Yes, Payton made his line look better. A few others. But I can list ad nauseam the lines that made the backs. Emmit used to get 5 yards untouched. Ahman was good....as was the shitter and Tony Fischer behind the same line. Dickerson was great, Barry Reddon was really good behind that same line. Terell Davis, Reuben Drones, and so many I can't even remember the list of 1000 yard journymen from Denver. Alfred Morris ran a 4.7 and was a 6th round draft pick, but behind a disciplined ZBS team and a coach committed to the run he trots for a cool 1600 yards. AP got 2k, but lets be honest, that is a good OL. Add in the best RB in the game you get a special season. You dont' win championships with special running seasons, you do it by running and passing effectively. The best way to do that is a respectable RB (not Green off a knee surgery) and a good OL.

[Guiness]

Good point about one cut and no cut. And Emmit. I don't know if Barry Sanders was the only runner who could make more than one cut, but they are rare. Looking at the NFL right now, maybe Doug Martin (TB)? I'm not saying he's BS's equivalent by any means, but he's pretty good at reversing the field and making guys miss.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Gale Sayers made two-cuts before the Bears even broke the huddle:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ftn68PZSws

[mraynrand]

those are some sweet moves. Berman would run out of "woops"

[MadScientist]

Thompson's response to questioning the line was basically 'bite me'.
http://www.packersnews.com/article/20130828/PKR01/308280458/Q-Ted-Thompson-GM-talks-roster-cuts-success-scouting
I'm just hoping that average players coached by a sub-par coach won't bite the Packers too bad.

[Fritz]

Gale Sayers made two-cuts before the Bears even broke the huddle:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ftn68PZSws

Gale Sayers runs. The field is littered with empty jockstraps.

[Upnorth]

So is Trent Richardsons trade going to affect the browns and colts run game or is it the line. Get your popcorn this pressing offseason questions about to be answered.
I'm leaning towards line more than rb.

[mraynrand]

So is Trent Richardsons trade going to affect the browns and colts run game or is it the line. Get your popcorn this pressing offseason questions about to be answered.
I'm leaning towards line more than rb.

In the case of TR, it will be a bit of both - and the threat of a passing attack.

[Maxie the Taxi]

In the case of TR, it will be a bit of both - and the threat of a passing attack.

You just put your finger on the three variables that are always in play, I think.

[bobblehead]

Must be the RB. Franklin clearly is a stud!

[red]

this drive looking like the first one of the game

[red]

smart move by ross

[red]

FUCK, i'm in the wrong thread

[Joemailman]

nm