Packers running game

[Bossman641]

He gives up the run too early and couple that with the fact we score fast alot(I realize scoring is good but they have way too many three and outs) wouldn't ya think if you know the D is bad you try to keep them of the field longer? Rodgers throws a beautiful deep ball but it seems at least to me he has a hard time managing a typical West Coast drive like Favre could ya know those nice 80 yard 10 minute drives.

Hmm interesting, I see it as the other way around. Seems to me like most TD drives have been long 10 play, 80+ yard drives. I don't think there have been nearly enough quick scores this year, especially regarding the running game. Last year Grant busted off numerous long TD runs. This year, 10 yards is a long run for him.

[prsnfoto]

Clearly, the running game started slow both seasons because of injuries--Grant this year, and all who came before Grant last year.

As for why the running game isn't used more, how about because we have a great passing game? Arguably, the running game is OVERUSED--way too often running it into the line and setting up 2nd or 3rd and long before passing.

What gets me is that the Packers almost invariably repeat plays, running plays, especially. You have a success--Grant gaining 15 or 20 yards, then they come right back to the same thing--or a fairly similar run--as if they figure the other team is too dumb to adjust. This is the NFL. It doesn't work that way.

I will throw a bone to the Favre-ophiles here too. The running game is less effective notso much because Favre was so good or better than Rodgers, but because he got more respect. How many times have we seen Grant almost break a big run this year, but the last man trips him up? Possibly, last year with Favre, that safety would have been deeper in coverage or whatever, and not able to get Grant.

Yes our passing game is so good that the other team leads time of possession because of all the three and outs resulting in a defense that produces 4 turnovers but gets lit up for over 500 yards because they are on the field all day yet only give up 24 points that is how good DillRod and and his sidekick umpa lumpa McCarthy are at calling games. The above is why you RUN THE BALL if you can we can we DON"T because we have a BAD COACH.

What about the previous 2 weeks then? Against the Saints we won the time of possession 32-28. Against Carolina we dominated the TOP 38-22.

I want MM to run the ball more, but there is more than one way to win the possession battle. The defense should have been well-rested in those games and they still gave up 51 and 35 points. I'm not buying the TOP argument as the reason why they struggled yesterday. It's much more simple, they simply aren't that good.

Carolina was a well played game I don't dispute that, are you really gonna use the Saints game THEY were scoring in about 30 seconds each time because the D was bad and Arod was trying to match Brett's Rams performance but came up short by 3 picks, the only difference was as bad as the D played they were only down by three when the yee haws started we probably would have lost anyway but that game should have been a whoever had the ball last wins game but they started giving the Saints TO's.

[Patler]

There are some interesting stats from yesterday's game:

Average gain per offensive play - Houston 7.4, Packers 7.4
Average gain per rushing play - Houston 4.5, Packers 5.4
Average gain per passing play - Houston 9.5, Packers 8.7
All return yardages (punts, kickoffs, interceptions) were similar.

The big difference?
Third down efficiency - Houston 7/13, Packers 1/10

The Packer offense was productive, but not on third downs.
A holding penalty killed one they picked up on 3rd and 10. They missed the 3rd and 20.
On third and short early in the game, twice they threw long.
Third and five was ruined by a sack.
Third and three was intercepted.

I think they passed on every third down play.

I'm not saying any of this means anything in particular, just interesting to consider.

[Patler]

Carolina was a well played game I don't dispute that, are you really gonna use the Saints game THEY were scoring in about 30 seconds each time because the D was bad and Arod was trying to match Brett's Rams performance but came up short by 3 picks, the only difference was as bad as the D played they were only down by three when the yee haws started we probably would have lost anyway but that game should have been a whoever had the ball last wins game but they started giving the Saints TO's.

I believe only one of the interceptions lead to points. Possession on one was gotten right back on an interception. The defense gave up most of those points without the interceptions from Rodgers.

[Fritz]

I'm just going to say this: the empty backfield drives me crazy. Everybody and their mother and their mother's brother knows what you're going to do. On third and 15, that's okay. On third and four, shouldn't you at least be able to threaten to run?

[texaspackerbacker]

3rd and 4 is when you should use the empty backfield. It gives all single coverage, and if even one out of five is open, you've got an easy quick first down. Running on 3rd and 4 is a low percentage play for any team unless it's a surprise--passing formation or whatever. 3rd and 15 and five receivers the QB doesn't have time to get somebody open far enough down field.

[Gunakor]

Clearly, the running game started slow both seasons because of injuries--Grant this year, and all who came before Grant last year.

As for why the running game isn't used more, how about because we have a great passing game? Arguably, the running game is OVERUSED--way too often running it into the line and setting up 2nd or 3rd and long before passing.

What gets me is that the Packers almost invariably repeat plays, running plays, especially. You have a success--Grant gaining 15 or 20 yards, then they come right back to the same thing--or a fairly similar run--as if they figure the other team is too dumb to adjust. This is the NFL. It doesn't work that way.

I will throw a bone to the Favre-ophiles here too. The running game is less effective notso much because Favre was so good or better than Rodgers, but because he got more respect. How many times have we seen Grant almost break a big run this year, but the last man trips him up? Possibly, last year with Favre, that safety would have been deeper in coverage or whatever, and not able to get Grant.

Yes our passing game is so good that the other team leads time of possession because of all the three and outs resulting in a defense that produces 4 turnovers but gets lit up for over 500 yards because they are on the field all day yet only give up 24 points that is how good DillRod and and his sidekick umpa lumpa McCarthy are at calling games. The above is why you RUN THE BALL if you can we can we DON"T because we have a BAD COACH.

Green Bay has owned TOP in most of it's games this year. We got owned in TOP yesterday, but that is a real rarity for this team this year.

"DillRod" as you so eloquently describe a top 10 QB in the NFL does not call games. He has nothing to do with that. He runs the plays sent into the huddle by McCarthy. He'll audible at the line if he sees a mismatch, but he doesn't call plays or come up with gameplans. To lump him in with McCarthy in this regard is extremely ignorant.

Learn to use a fucking comma once and awhile...

[Partial]

How many of those 22 carries are in the first half vs the second half? I dont honestly know I'm wondering though. Is it because the team is behind each week and slips back into pass attack mode?

I was wondering this to, but there is also the possibility that we commit to the run in the first half and it doesn't work, thus we're playing catch up through the air in the second.

I would be curious to know the numbers of carries and their averages, as well as what down and distance those occur in.

Perhaps we need an insider at the Pack to get us these stats!