HarveyWallbangers
09-20-2007, 09:32 PM
He states that we are 23rd in the NFL in rushing. How are there 8 teams worse than us in rushing? Must be some horrible starts rushing the ball by several teams.
Adequate running game often good enough
Tom Silverstein
Green Bay - There has been enough consternation, hand-wringing and night sweats around here concerning the Green Bay Packers' running game to inspire GlaxoSmithKline to start producing green and gold tablets of Paxil.
But before people start running en masse to their local pharmacy, they should take a deep breath and consider a few truths. Yes, the Packers' running game stinks right now. No, you can't continue winning games averaging 2.8 yards per carry.
But, yes, you can win games ranking in the bottom third of the NFL in rushing offense.
And, yes, you can go to the playoffs with an offense that is far better passing the ball than it is running it.
And, no, it doesn't require having a back the caliber of LaDainian Tomlinson and Larry Johnson to be successful.
These truths are submitted not to make you feel good about the fact that the Packers rank 23rd in the league in rushing or are getting dropped at or behind the line of scrimmage once ever 13 times they attempt a run.
It is to show you how close the line between having an adequate running game and a bad one really is.
Last year, passing teams clearly succeeded more than running teams and it's likely to be the case again this year. The NFL is a passing game and teams that center their entire team around a dominant back are far less likely to go deep into the playoffs.
Of the 12 playoff teams last year, only three ranked in the top 10 in the NFL in rushing - San Diego (second), New York Giants (seventh) and Kansas City Chiefs (ninth). Perhaps not coincidentally, all three were one and done in the playoffs.
The Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 10 teams in rushing all missed the playoffs completely. They ran and ran and ran and basically went nowhere.
Now consider two of the best teams in the NFL last year: New England and Chicago.
The Patriots lost to Indianapolis in the AFC Championship game and the Bears lost to the Colts in the Super Bowl. The Patriots won 12 games and the Bears 13 despite averaging fewer yards per carry than the league average of 4.2.
New England averaged 123.1 rushing yards per game and 3.9 yards per carry. The Bears averaged 119.9 yards per game and 3.8 yards per carry. The reason these two teams are part of this argument is that their offenses differed tremendously yet they both used the running game in an effective manner.
The Patriots threw the ball 527 times and in some games chose not to run it hardly at all. They finished with 499 carries mostly because they were looking to run out the clock after taking big leads against their opponent.
The Bears threw the ball 514 times, but their intent was to pound the ball at you until something finally broke, all the while expecting their defense and special teams to give them excellent field position. They did throw the ball more than they ran it, but often times it was to soften teams up and make them pay attention to something other than the backfield.
So what does this all have to do with the Packers?
It merely shows the Packers don't have to be great at running the football. They simply need to generate enough yards that an opposing defense has to think about it. Certainly, the San Diego Chargers and their seventh-rated run defense aren't doing that much this week.
The Packers are a passing team and as long as they understand it they only need to find ways to run more consistently. They can't have the mental errors that cost them large negative rushes against the Giants and put them in terrible down and distance situations. They can't have games where running the ball is completely futile.
Right now, coach Mike McCarthy is looking for some kind of symmetry between the different style of running backs he has and the different running plays in his offense. The lead zone plays make up a large part of his run game, but as he showed Sunday against the Giants, he's also willing to use power plays in which the front-side tight end and tackle block down and the backside guard pulls to be the lead blocker for the running back.
Against the Giants, right guard Junius Coston did most of the pulling. It's very possible that with his athletic talents that play will become a bigger part of the offense. Much will depend on how backs Brandon Jackson and DeShawn Wynn take to the different plays. Wynn seems to have the patience for the zone plays and Jackson seems to need someone to follow into the hole.
McCarthy's biggest problem in establishing a running game that can complement the short passing game that was so successful against the Giants is inconsistency in his offensive line. Left guard Daryn Colledge often plays too high and can't finish his blocks. Coston isn't fluid and needs to play more to refine his game. Tackles Chad Clifton and Mark Tauscher aren't built for the zone running plays and aren't always in synch with the others.
Make no mistake about it, if the offensive line doesn't improve there's no chance the running game will.
The one thing the Packers can say is that their pass protection is pretty solid. The Eagles took advantage of bad days by Clifton and Tauscher, but the Giants weren't able to generate much rush at all. If the line can continue to pass block like it did Sunday, then the offense has a chance to consistently throw the ball.
Once they do that, they can use the pass to set up the run. But it means cleaning up the sloppy play in the run game and giving the backs a fighting chance to do something with the ball.
"I think as we continue to press the run - which we did in the last game, even though we weren't getting the big numbers, we continue to try - that opens up possibilities in the passing game," center Scott Wells said. "And as we continue to pass the ball it will hopefully open up some bigger shots in the running game. It's a work in progress. We're not where we want to be."
Not by any means, that's for sure. But probably closer than you think.
Adequate running game often good enough
Tom Silverstein
Green Bay - There has been enough consternation, hand-wringing and night sweats around here concerning the Green Bay Packers' running game to inspire GlaxoSmithKline to start producing green and gold tablets of Paxil.
But before people start running en masse to their local pharmacy, they should take a deep breath and consider a few truths. Yes, the Packers' running game stinks right now. No, you can't continue winning games averaging 2.8 yards per carry.
But, yes, you can win games ranking in the bottom third of the NFL in rushing offense.
And, yes, you can go to the playoffs with an offense that is far better passing the ball than it is running it.
And, no, it doesn't require having a back the caliber of LaDainian Tomlinson and Larry Johnson to be successful.
These truths are submitted not to make you feel good about the fact that the Packers rank 23rd in the league in rushing or are getting dropped at or behind the line of scrimmage once ever 13 times they attempt a run.
It is to show you how close the line between having an adequate running game and a bad one really is.
Last year, passing teams clearly succeeded more than running teams and it's likely to be the case again this year. The NFL is a passing game and teams that center their entire team around a dominant back are far less likely to go deep into the playoffs.
Of the 12 playoff teams last year, only three ranked in the top 10 in the NFL in rushing - San Diego (second), New York Giants (seventh) and Kansas City Chiefs (ninth). Perhaps not coincidentally, all three were one and done in the playoffs.
The Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 10 teams in rushing all missed the playoffs completely. They ran and ran and ran and basically went nowhere.
Now consider two of the best teams in the NFL last year: New England and Chicago.
The Patriots lost to Indianapolis in the AFC Championship game and the Bears lost to the Colts in the Super Bowl. The Patriots won 12 games and the Bears 13 despite averaging fewer yards per carry than the league average of 4.2.
New England averaged 123.1 rushing yards per game and 3.9 yards per carry. The Bears averaged 119.9 yards per game and 3.8 yards per carry. The reason these two teams are part of this argument is that their offenses differed tremendously yet they both used the running game in an effective manner.
The Patriots threw the ball 527 times and in some games chose not to run it hardly at all. They finished with 499 carries mostly because they were looking to run out the clock after taking big leads against their opponent.
The Bears threw the ball 514 times, but their intent was to pound the ball at you until something finally broke, all the while expecting their defense and special teams to give them excellent field position. They did throw the ball more than they ran it, but often times it was to soften teams up and make them pay attention to something other than the backfield.
So what does this all have to do with the Packers?
It merely shows the Packers don't have to be great at running the football. They simply need to generate enough yards that an opposing defense has to think about it. Certainly, the San Diego Chargers and their seventh-rated run defense aren't doing that much this week.
The Packers are a passing team and as long as they understand it they only need to find ways to run more consistently. They can't have the mental errors that cost them large negative rushes against the Giants and put them in terrible down and distance situations. They can't have games where running the ball is completely futile.
Right now, coach Mike McCarthy is looking for some kind of symmetry between the different style of running backs he has and the different running plays in his offense. The lead zone plays make up a large part of his run game, but as he showed Sunday against the Giants, he's also willing to use power plays in which the front-side tight end and tackle block down and the backside guard pulls to be the lead blocker for the running back.
Against the Giants, right guard Junius Coston did most of the pulling. It's very possible that with his athletic talents that play will become a bigger part of the offense. Much will depend on how backs Brandon Jackson and DeShawn Wynn take to the different plays. Wynn seems to have the patience for the zone plays and Jackson seems to need someone to follow into the hole.
McCarthy's biggest problem in establishing a running game that can complement the short passing game that was so successful against the Giants is inconsistency in his offensive line. Left guard Daryn Colledge often plays too high and can't finish his blocks. Coston isn't fluid and needs to play more to refine his game. Tackles Chad Clifton and Mark Tauscher aren't built for the zone running plays and aren't always in synch with the others.
Make no mistake about it, if the offensive line doesn't improve there's no chance the running game will.
The one thing the Packers can say is that their pass protection is pretty solid. The Eagles took advantage of bad days by Clifton and Tauscher, but the Giants weren't able to generate much rush at all. If the line can continue to pass block like it did Sunday, then the offense has a chance to consistently throw the ball.
Once they do that, they can use the pass to set up the run. But it means cleaning up the sloppy play in the run game and giving the backs a fighting chance to do something with the ball.
"I think as we continue to press the run - which we did in the last game, even though we weren't getting the big numbers, we continue to try - that opens up possibilities in the passing game," center Scott Wells said. "And as we continue to pass the ball it will hopefully open up some bigger shots in the running game. It's a work in progress. We're not where we want to be."
Not by any means, that's for sure. But probably closer than you think.