A Research Project For Our Brilliant Stat Rats

[Maxie the Taxi]

Being old school, I usually don't give a crap about stats. However, I am continually amazed by the stats that some posters here can assemble. So I thought I'd try to stump them:

Have the Packers ever gone 3-and-out this year on all rushing plays (not counting a Rodgers scramble)?

Even better, have they ever gone 3-and-out this year on all rushing plays (not counting rushes out of the shotgun formation)?

[Waldo]

It'll take 5-10 minutes of not being lazy and a mouse with a wheel.

Go game by game at the play by play. You can scroll through fast, 3 and outs are easy to see. See if that case ever shows up.

Might not get the shotgun info though.

[Waldo]

3 and outs:

Total: 26

All pass: 7

All rush: 1

All rush (w/no Shotgun): 1 (Cin, Grant got 8 on first)

The all rush w/no shotgun is a subset of all rush, so 3 rushes and a punt occurred once all season, and there was no shotgun, early in the Cincy game.

The vast majority contained a penalty or sack or two. Most also mixed runs and passes.

Took 18 minutes.

[Smidgeon]

Took 18 minutes.

Somebody's cocky...

[Maxie the Taxi]

I'm impressed!!!

Thanks.

Now for my next challenge...Just kidding.

I'm in awe.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Having had a chance to think about those stats, I can say I'm a bit surprised there was even one all rushing 3-and-out.

The game sure has changed over the years.

MM says his Packers are a rushing team first, yet only once all season has he rushed for a 3-and-out.

The Packers of the 60's were truly a rush team first. I think old timers on this board will verify that it was usual for Bart Starr to open the game with a steady dose of rushing. In fact, the opponents usually did as well. It was not uncommon for both teams to rush 3-and-out at the beginning of the game.

Football then was like a heavyweight boxing match with both teams rushing the ball initially, "feeling out" their opponent, then slugging away trying to wear them down.

Last Sunday against Dallas, MM opened the game with a Grant rush for 4 yards, then passed twice (pass formation and shotgun)--a 3-and-out.

On the second series, before Crosby's missed 52 yard field goal, MM ran 9 plays -- 8 of them were pass plays and of those 8, four were from a shotgun. Of those 8 passes, six were short passes, one was deep and one was a Rodgers scramble for 2 yards.

I think it's safe to say that there is no room in today's game for "feeling out" an opponent, not to mention slugging it out.

[Smidgeon]

I think it's safe to say that there is no room in today's game for "feeling out" an opponent, not to mention slugging it out.

Unless our running game is so anemic we start with the pass to back up the safeties and take the eighth man out of the box, "feel out" their pass defense, and fill in with runs when the defender spacing has been realized.

[Maxie the Taxi]

I think it's safe to say that there is no room in today's game for "feeling out" an opponent, not to mention slugging it out.

Unless our running game is so anemic we start with the pass to back up the safeties and take the eighth man out of the box, "feel out" their pass defense, and fill in with runs when the defender spacing has been realized.

I confess I am no football technician. The game has gotten way too complicated for me. I heard the Cleveland coach last night say that Quinn did a lot of things right with their offense. They have a lot of shifts and motion, etc. to coax the defense into playing its hand so the QB isn't taken in by disguised defenses, etc. Big deal. Quinn sucked and so did the Browns' offense.

Crap, in the old days there was just zone and man-to-man. Every team played basically the same 4-3 defense and single wing offense. Whoever had the best talent tended to win the game.

Still, my basic philosophy (and I think it should still apply today) is that the offense should keep doing what it's doing until the defense stops it. I just don't see MM doing that.

Case in point: I really don't think our running game is anemic. Sunday Dallas never stopped it. MM stopped it. (Or penalties stopped it.) At one point in the game MM called 7 rushes in a row (I think). I was flabergasted. Still, Dallas didn't stop the running game even then. MM did.

That's why I was interested in our rushing 3-and-outs. We've never really forced the other team to stop our rushing game because we've always given up on it.

[Smidgeon]

I think it's safe to say that there is no room in today's game for "feeling out" an opponent, not to mention slugging it out.

Unless our running game is so anemic we start with the pass to back up the safeties and take the eighth man out of the box, "feel out" their pass defense, and fill in with runs when the defender spacing has been realized.

I confess I am no football technician. The game has gotten way too complicated for me. I heard the Cleveland coach last night say that Quinn did a lot of things right with their offense. They have a lot of shifts and motion, etc. to coax the defense into playing its hand so the QB isn't taken in by disguised defenses, etc. Big deal. Quinn sucked and so did the Browns' offense.

Crap, in the old days there was just zone and man-to-man. Every team played basically the same 4-3 defense and single wing offense. Whoever had the best talent tended to win the game.

Still, my basic philosophy (and I think it should still apply today) is that the offense should keep doing what it's doing until the defense stops it. I just don't see MM doing that.

Case in point: I really don't think our running game is anemic. Sunday Dallas never stopped it. MM stopped it. (Or penalties stopped it.) At one point in the game MM called 7 rushes in a row (I think). I was flabergasted. Still, Dallas didn't stop the running game even then. MM did.

That's why I was interested in our rushing 3-and-outs. We've never really forced the other team to stop our rushing game because we've always given up on it.

I'm no strategian either. I was just suggesting a reason why a team might start with the pass instead of the run. I happen to agree with you on this point.

[Fritz]

I did some research last year on the question of how the focus of the game has shifted. Interestingly, the "old school" days of running the football were not the 50's and 60's as much as they were the 70's. The the rules were changed to open up the passing game. But earlier in the 70's teams like the Raiders pioneered the mugging style of pass defense so it was almost impossible to pass well. There was actually more passing in the 50's and most of the 60's than there was in the 70's.

[hoosier]

Shhhhh. You're throwing a wet blanket on Maxi's nostalgia.

[CaptainKickass]

Shhhhh. You're throwing a wet blanket on Maxi's nostalgia.

Would that then be properly titled:

"A Maxi-Pad"??

[Maxie the Taxi]

Shhhhh. You're throwing a wet blanket on Maxi's nostalgia.

Would that then be properly titled:

"A Maxi-Pad"??

[sharpe1027]

Shhhhh. You're throwing a wet blanket on Maxi's nostalgia.

Would that then be properly titled:

"A Maxi-Pad"??

Nostalgia, is that what the kids are calling it these days?

[MJZiggy]

Shhhhh. You're throwing a wet blanket on Maxi's nostalgia.

Would that then be properly titled:

"A Maxi-Pad"??

Ew.