The Packers Running game

[CaptainKickass]

So - didn't we conclude that Cliffy and Tausch excel at pass blocking, but their weakness is run blocking?

And - Didn't we also conclude that Bulaga, Spitz, Lang, College and Wells are better run blockers than pass blockers, and more ideally suited to a power running game?

And - isn't it accepted that Kuhn is more of a power running back, and the fullback Quinn Johnson is a bruiser/bulldozer type of fullback?

If these are true - then where the hell is our running game? Shouldn't we have at least a passable power running game if the above is true and we simply sub Cliffy and Tausch a bit more often?

I'm no coach - but I've been hanging round here for far too long to not have some ideas.

[packrulz]

BJack busted through for a long run against the 'Skins, and Kuhn is a threat on the goal line, I'm baffled why M3 gives up on the run so easily, his offense is becoming too pass happy.
"On Sunday at Washington, fourth-year back Brandon Jacksoncertainly looked the part of a lead back, posting a career-high 115 yards on just 10 carries (11.5 avg.). It was Green Bay’s first 100-yard rusher since Grant posted 137 yards on the ground at Chicago last season in Week 14."
Both BJack and Kuhn are averaging 4.6 yds per carry. M3 needs to run the ball more to eat the clock on long, sustained drives and make play action work better, otherwise, expect ARod to take a beating.

[Tarlam!]

Well, I'm no expert, but if I see those subs being made, I know a pass or a run is coming 90% of the time.

It's not like in the 60's where (as I've read)s team knew the Packers would run it and they just couldn't stop it.

Your plan makes sense, but I wonder if it makes the Packers too predictable.

[ThunderDan]

Well, I'm no expert, but if I see those subs being made, I know a pass or a run is coming 90% of the time.

It's not like in the 60's where (as I've read)s team knew the Packers would run it and they just couldn't stop it.

Your plan makes sense, but I wonder if it makes the Packers too predictable.

+1, when you know the other team is going to run it is very easy to stop them.

[ThunderDan]

Well, I'm no expert, but if I see those subs being made, I know a pass or a run is coming 90% of the time.

It's not like in the 60's where (as I've read)s team knew the Packers would run it and they just couldn't stop it.

Your plan makes sense, but I wonder if it makes the Packers too predictable.

What's going on the other 10%?

[retailguy]

Well, I'm no expert, but if I see those subs being made, I know a pass or a run is coming 90% of the time.

It's not like in the 60's where (as I've read)s team knew the Packers would run it and they just couldn't stop it.

Your plan makes sense, but I wonder if it makes the Packers too predictable.

What's going on the other 10%?

a punt?

[mraynrand]

Re: The Packers Running game

So - didn't we conclude that Cliffy and Tausch excel at pass blocking, but their weakness is run blocking?

And - Didn't we also conclude that Bulaga, Spitz, Lang, College and Wells are better run blockers than pass blockers, and more ideally suited to a power running game?

And - isn't it accepted that Kuhn is more of a power running back, and the fullback Quinn Johnson is a bruiser/bulldozer type of fullback?

If these are true - then where the hell is our running game? Shouldn't we have at least a passable power running game if the above is true and we simply sub Cliffy and Tausch a bit more often?

I'm no coach - but I've been hanging round here for far too long to not have some ideas.

Flawlessly logical.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Re: The Packers Running game

And - Didn't we also conclude that Bulaga, Spitz, Lang, College and Wells are better run blockers than pass blockers, and more ideally suited to a power running game?

I don't think you'd classify Spitz, Lang, Colledge, and Wells as better suited for the power running game. None of them have the size you want out OL for a power running game. It's too early to tell on Bulaga. I'm also not sure that these guys are better run blockers than pass blockers. With some of them, I think the opposite is true.

[mraynrand]

Re: The Packers Running game

And - Didn't we also conclude that Bulaga, Spitz, Lang, College and Wells are better run blockers than pass blockers, and more ideally suited to a power running game?

I don't think you'd classify Spitz, Lang, Colledge, and Wells as better suited for the power running game. None of them have the size you want out OL for a power running game. It's too early to tell on Bulaga. I'm also not sure that these guys are better run blockers than pass blockers. With some of them, I think the opposite is true.

You could be right, But still they have to be better run blocking than Clifton and Tauscher. Seriously, Clifton in the run game looks awful. Virtually no re-direct, no push whatsoever.

[Tarlam!]

Re: The Packers Running game

So - didn't we conclude that Cliffy and Tausch excel at pass blocking, but their weakness is run blocking?

And - Didn't we also conclude that Bulaga, Spitz, Lang, College and Wells are better run blockers than pass blockers, and more ideally suited to a power running game?

And - isn't it accepted that Kuhn is more of a power running back, and the fullback Quinn Johnson is a bruiser/bulldozer type of fullback?

If these are true - then where the hell is our running game? Shouldn't we have at least a passable power running game if the above is true and we simply sub Cliffy and Tausch a bit more often?

I'm no coach - but I've been hanging round here for far too long to not have some ideas.

Flawlessly logical.

I agree with the logic, too, but my question is will the Packers offense then become predictable? In M3's presser, he said he called a number of pass/run option plays and it's been discussed here whether or not it's A#Rod that's lost confidence in the run game, because he mostly passed on such plays.

Again, I have no clue, but some of our experts will have.

[denverYooper]

Seems to be the topic of the day:

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81b4764b/article/passing-fancy-packers-disinterest-in-run-game-a-mystery?module=HP_cp2

And still, the Packers had a comfortable 13-3 lead when they took over the ball with 6:42 left in the third quarter. Time to run some clock. So what did McCarthy order up on the next two series with a two-score advantage? Seven passes, three runs. One of those passes came on a third-and-1.

Let's review: 10-point second-half lead, third-and-1, on the road ... and they pass the ball! They had to stay on the ground in that situation. Why? Even if they don't get the first down, more clock gets chewed in the process of running the ball.

It wasn't just during the second half that McCarthy abandoned the run. The Packers ran Brandon Jackson out of a three-receiver set on their third offensive play of the game. Jackson, starting in place of the injured Grant, navigated his way through the front line maelstrom, made a brilliant cut, and wasn't caught until he was 71 yards down the field. Jackson's scamper led to Green Bay's only touchdown.

So how many times did Jackson get to run the ball the rest of the half after getting 71 yards on his first carry? Two -- two! In fact, the drive after his big run the Packers ran six plays: Pass, pass, pass, pass, pass, punt.

[mraynrand]

Seems to be the topic of the day:

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81b4764b/article/passing-fancy-packers-disinterest-in-run-game-a-mystery?module=HP_cp2

And still, the Packers had a comfortable 13-3 lead when they took over the ball with 6:42 left in the third quarter. Time to run some clock. So what did McCarthy order up on the next two series with a two-score advantage? Seven passes, three runs. One of those passes came on a third-and-1.

Let's review: 10-point second-half lead, third-and-1, on the road ... and they pass the ball! They had to stay on the ground in that situation. Why? Even if they don't get the first down, more clock gets chewed in the process of running the ball.

It wasn't just during the second half that McCarthy abandoned the run. The Packers ran Brandon Jackson out of a three-receiver set on their third offensive play of the game. Jackson, starting in place of the injured Grant, navigated his way through the front line maelstrom, made a brilliant cut, and wasn't caught until he was 71 yards down the field. Jackson's scamper led to Green Bay's only touchdown.

So how many times did Jackson get to run the ball the rest of the half after getting 71 yards on his first carry? Two -- two! In fact, the drive after his big run the Packers ran six plays: Pass, pass, pass, pass, pass, punt.

The logic was that Wash has one of the worst pass defenses, and the Packers have one of the best passing offenses. Problem is that in that stretch there was a (more than one) critical drop on third down by Driver, that would have resulted in more points. Sure, mix in the run, but Stubby was playing the percentages and his guys didn't come through.

[denverYooper]

Well, I'm no expert, but if I see those subs being made, I know a pass or a run is coming 90% of the time.

It's not like in the 60's where (as I've read)s team knew the Packers would run it and they just couldn't stop it.

Your plan makes sense, but I wonder if it makes the Packers too predictable.

What's going on the other 10%?

A poor challenge.

[denverYooper]

Seems to be the topic of the day:

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81b4764b/article/passing-fancy-packers-disinterest-in-run-game-a-mystery?module=HP_cp2

And still, the Packers had a comfortable 13-3 lead when they took over the ball with 6:42 left in the third quarter. Time to run some clock. So what did McCarthy order up on the next two series with a two-score advantage? Seven passes, three runs. One of those passes came on a third-and-1.

Let's review: 10-point second-half lead, third-and-1, on the road ... and they pass the ball! They had to stay on the ground in that situation. Why? Even if they don't get the first down, more clock gets chewed in the process of running the ball.

It wasn't just during the second half that McCarthy abandoned the run. The Packers ran Brandon Jackson out of a three-receiver set on their third offensive play of the game. Jackson, starting in place of the injured Grant, navigated his way through the front line maelstrom, made a brilliant cut, and wasn't caught until he was 71 yards down the field. Jackson's scamper led to Green Bay's only touchdown.

So how many times did Jackson get to run the ball the rest of the half after getting 71 yards on his first carry? Two -- two! In fact, the drive after his big run the Packers ran six plays: Pass, pass, pass, pass, pass, punt.

The logic was that Wash has one of the worst pass defenses, and the Packers have one of the best passing offenses. Problem is that in that stretch there was a (more than one) critical drop on third down by Driver, that would have resulted in more points. Sure, mix in the run, but Stubby was playing the percentages and his guys didn't come through.

Excellent point.

Perhaps also the 'Skins are getting more comfortable in their new defense. They might not be as bad as some indicate.

[get louder at lambeau]

Re: The Packers Running game

where the hell is our running game?

#9 in ypc in the NFL, #15 in ypg. That's where the hell it is. 157 yards on the ground last week.