The Argument For Passing More

[Fritz]

Another factor here is simply the decreased risk in passing. With rules changes about defending receivers, changes in thinking about fumbles and what constitutes a catch (stuff that would've been considered fumbles years ago are now seen as dead balls) and the changes in protecting quarterbacks, plus my own thinking that frankly the skill players are more skilled than they used to be (honestly, look at the crazy catches guys make now), there is simply a higher percentage chance that you're going to complete your pass than there was thirty or forty years ago.

So now third and three, once considered a running down, is now seen as probably a passing down.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Another factor here is simply the decreased risk in passing. With rules changes about defending receivers, changes in thinking about fumbles and what constitutes a catch (stuff that would've been considered fumbles years ago are now seen as dead balls) and the changes in protecting quarterbacks, plus my own thinking that frankly the skill players are more skilled than they used to be (honestly, look at the crazy catches guys make now), there is simply a higher percentage chance that you're going to complete your pass than there was thirty or forty years ago.

So now third and three, once considered a running down, is now seen as probably a passing down.

Rules changes? Yeah. Players better? Well...

... ... yeah... ...

But they're better across the board. Individuals like Don Hutson and Raymond Berry could play and star in today's game. Play second fiddle to no one. But journeymen of yesterday might not be able to make the grade. There's just more athletes today, better trained and practiced.

[The Leaper]

Leaper - I simply do not buy this reasoning. As I stated, the Packers under Holmgren, who had a tremendous record in December and January were an average running team. That team won in the cold (and threw for red zone TDs and short yardage) And when they ran for unusual yardage, it was with a fourth quarter lead. By the terms of your hypothesis, Holmgren's success was not possible.

Strongly disagree Max.

In their run to winning SB XXXI, the Packers averaged a ton of yards on the ground over the last month of the season into the postseason. I don't call that "an average running team" like you would. Here's the proof:

week 14 - 126 yds vs CHI
week 15 - 103 yds vs DEN
week 16 - 111 yds vs DET
week 17 - 233 yds vs MIN
Div playoff - 139 yds vs SF
NFC Champ - 201 yds vs CAR
SB XXXI - 115 yds vs NE

And running with a fourth quarter lead is PRECISELY why you build with a run dominant team. Physically wearing down a defense through continually pounding the ball down their throat remains the most effective way to win a football game, even in today's modern era where rules have helped the passing game.

Bennett and Levens were crucial to the dominance of the Holmgren-era Packers. Granted, the pure WCO that Holmgren ran allowed for the run game to be less of a factor much of the time due to the strength of the passing game on the edges...particularly screens. In essence, the pure WCO extended the run game to include short passes to backs.

[The Leaper]

All 4 playoff games those years were played in cold or wet conditions. The fact that the Packers had a strong running game in all 4 games was a huge factor.

Amen.

If the Packers build some kind of finesse high-passing attack...and it suddenly is 10 degrees with 25 mph winds in January...there goes the offense.

For Green Bay, a team that plays in brutal weather conditions during the postseason, you need to build at least a capable run game that can cope with carrying a heavy load if needed.

I certainly agree that teams should take advantage of the rule changes to help the passing game...and we already have a dominant pass offense. However, if we expect to become title contenders we need to build a capable run game that can dominant playoff games on a frigid Lambeau Field.

[pbmax]

The 1996 Packers (I think that was Super Bowl XXXI season) were ranked as follows for rushing:

14th in attempts, 11th for yards and had a 4.0 YPC that ranked 12th. This was the year Holmgren perfected running against nickel defenses. Levens would enter the game in passing down and distance and the Packers would run 2 TE or 3 WR (and single back) and the defense would switch to nickel. Then they would run Levens against the nickel front (now KYPack may correct me here, but I think when Keith Jackson entered the game, the defense expected pass and treated him like a WR - but this is only my memory). In short, they used the threat of the pass to make the run successful. Not the reverse.

That said, I do not dispute that it is valuable to be able to control the ball and eat clock when you have the lead in the 2nd half. But that is different than being a dominant running team or a team that dominates with the run. With a lead in the 2nd half, virtually ALL teams will run more. Even those in domes. I am unsure how the Lions game (or the Super Bowl) apply given that this dispute is about late season, poor weather and the need to run the ball for a cold, outdoor venue team like the Packers in Lambeau.

Dec 1 Bears game, the daytime high was 36 degrees F, .003 inches precip

I don't have access to gamebooks for this season, so picking this apart by quarter and by drive is tough. But the first two scores were a Keith Jackson 19 yard TD pass and a punt return TD by Desmond Howard. The Packers held the lead after the Howard TD in the second half. Levens had a career high 69 yards on 5 carries. 3 of his carries netted 49 of those yards in one drive after they had the lead (14-10 before this drive). The Bears D was ranked 21 against the pass and 13th against the run by FO.

The Packers ran 26 plays and passed 27 (yardage 216P/126R). Halftime it was 7-7, 3rd Q ended 14-10. This was Freeman's first game back from the arm injury (I think it was his arm) and his main targets were Free, Jackson, Rison and Beebe. Chewy didn't make the stat sheet.

Dec 8 Broncos game was 33 degrees, no precip
I am not sure we can take too much from this game as the Broncos sat several starters on offense. The Packers dominated total yards 379-176. 103 on the ground and 280 in the air.

38 pass plays, 29 run plays. Half was 13-3, 3rd ended 20-6. Broncs were 4th versus the pass and 6th against the rush.

Dec 22 was 30.9 degrees, no precip
All you need to know about how seriously this game was in doubt is that Jim McMahon was the QB early in the fourth quarter. Minnesota pass D was 10th. Rush D was 28th ranked.

It was 10-10 at half. End of 3rd it was 24-10. Pass yards 212, rush yards 233. 25 passes versus 41 runs. I would bet 1/3 of those runs were called in the fourth Qtr with McMahon in the game.

Jan 4 was 35.5 degrees, precip .01 (the rain and mud game - must have happened prior to GameDay if the Weather Almanac is to be believed)

Packer scored and took a 2 TD lead thanks to Desmond Howard. He took one punt back for a TD, and another one back to the 4 yard line, from which the Packers scored. At half, the Pack led 21-7, after 3 is was 28-14. 15 passing attempts netted 79 yards, 39 rushing atts netted 139 yards.

San Fran was 3rd against the pass and 7th against the run.

Jan 12 was 9 degrees (good visibility for passing though)

Frigid NFC Championship game versus Carolina. Saw the invention of Cheese Internet if you saw SportsCenter after the game. Packers were down 7-0 early then scored 17 in the 2nd. Haltime was 17-10. 3rd quarter was 27-13. 29 passes yielded 292 yards, 45 carries yielded 201 yards. Gameday stories give no hint of the breakdown by quarter.

Carolina was 6th against the pass and 10th against the run.

The short version? The Packers ran in the second half when they had a lead of a TD or more. The exception would be San Fran where they barely attempted to pass, however, they had the lead the entire time. But they used the pass to get that lead.

[pbmax]

1995 Holmgren Packers were 20th in atts, 26th in yards and 28th (3.5) in YPA.

1996 Holmgren Packers were 14th (att), 11th (yds) and 12th (4.0) YPA

1997 Holmgren Packers were 10th (att), 12th (yds) and 11th (4.2) YPA

1998 Holmgren Packers were 18th (att), 25th (yds) and 29th (3.4) YPA


???? ???????? Packers were 21st (att), 23rd (yds), and 21st (3.9) YPA
???? ???????? Packers were 28th (att), 21st (yds), and 12th (4.1) YPA
???? ???????? Packers were 14th (att), 17th (yds), and 18th (4.1) YPA
???? ???????? Packers were 15th (att), 14th (yds), and 13th (4.3) YPA

Now, this is where I would normally yell and harp about cumulative stats and go on and on about how the cumulative stats do not provide context. And except for the YPA numbers, these league rankings do not tell a complete story. But I think the way to describe the Holmgren rushing attack is competent. And it was very good on the road to their first Super Bowl. I'll look up more situation independent stuff later this week as I get bored at work.

By the way, who do you think was responsible for a Packers rushing attack that is arguably better than Holmgren's, at least in Yards Per Attempt (and its near equal in total yards as far as league rank goes)?

[Fritz]

That would be the Sherman teams of the early 2000's, right?

And we know how many NFC Championship games they got to.

[pbmax]

That would be the Sherman teams of the early 2000's, right?

And we know how many NFC Championship games they got to.

Nope, not Sherman.

[3irty1]

Great thread. In the NFL today passing wins and subsequently stopping the pass wins. The Colts of recent years are the best example of this. They are obviously awesome at passing, have tons of guys that can cover and a monster pass rush and usually sucked against the run. Probably why the Chargers had their number every AFC championship but still are a contender every year.

McCarthy and Thompson seem to know this as McCarthy has installed a pass first offense where the ground game is used to set up play action and when the climate dictates it. Thompson has given the team a plethora of WRs since coming to Green Bay and on paper has assembled one of the best secondaries in the NFL. Even the prototypical Thompson lineman is an athletic guy with great pass pro tools. Ryan Grant is a specimen but he's a role player. He's very fundamental, makes quick decisions, and rarely fumbles. If he could catch and run routes he'd be the perfect fit for this offense. IMO all we're missing is a little better pass pro and a little better pass rush to be elite in both offense and defense.

[Smidgeon]

By the way, who do you think was responsible for a Packers rushing attack that is arguably better than Holmgren's, at least in Yards Per Attempt (and its near equal in total yards as far as league rank goes)?

I'm guessing M3.

[pbmax]

By the way, who do you think was responsible for a Packers rushing attack that is arguably better than Holmgren's, at least in Yards Per Attempt (and its near equal in total yards as far as league rank goes)?

I'm guessing M3.

You Brettcha.

Those numbers are for years 2006-09, from top to bottom. I was surprised that 07 wasn't better, but I suppose a half year of struggling really cost them overall.

Very few people can get their head around the fact that the Packer have a competent running game. Enough of one to make a championship run. Their power numbers (short yard and goalline the last two years have been quite good as well).

[Fritz]

Well I'll be darned.

It's funny how now people look back at Holmgren as a coach who conceived and supported a good running game. At the time, many people - myself included - were apoplectic about his insistence on constantly passing the ball...I remember a few television announcers telling us that Holmgren considered the five yard pass a running play.

[The Leaper]

Great thread. In the NFL today passing wins and subsequently stopping the pass wins. The Colts of recent years are the best example of this. They are obviously awesome at passing, have tons of guys that can cover and a monster pass rush and usually sucked against the run. Probably why the Chargers had their number every AFC championship but still are a contender every year.

The Colts are a great example.

They supposedly have the greatest QB of all-time, have had HOF caliber WRs and TEs, and an above average OL.

They only have one ring to show for it.

Passing wins...in the regular season.

Defense and turnovers win in the postseason. The Jets, with a rookie QB and nothing special anywhere on offense should teach you that.

[The Leaper]

It's funny how now people look back at Holmgren as a coach who conceived and supported a good running game. At the time, many people - myself included - were apoplectic about his insistence on constantly passing the ball...I remember a few television announcers telling us that Holmgren considered the five yard pass a running play.

Holmgren's teams were far closer to a pass-run balance than McCarthy's are...especially in the postseason when it matters.

[sharpe1027]

Great thread. In the NFL today passing wins and subsequently stopping the pass wins. The Colts of recent years are the best example of this. They are obviously awesome at passing, have tons of guys that can cover and a monster pass rush and usually sucked against the run. Probably why the Chargers had their number every AFC championship but still are a contender every year.

The Colts are a great example.

They supposedly have the greatest QB of all-time, have had HOF caliber WRs and TEs, and an above average OL.

They only have one ring to show for it.

Passing wins...in the regular season.

Defense and turnovers win in the postseason. The Jets, with a rookie QB and nothing special anywhere on offense should teach you that.

I think the Jets show that good defense doesn't win in the postseason...

The Colts did better than 30 other teams, many of which had better defenses that created more turnovers.

The Saints won it all, there were plenty of teams with better defenses.