Packer running game: stinks

[rbaloha1]

IMO the running game is good enough to allow for teams to respect play action.

Grant requires space to run. Starks leaves plenty of yards on the field by continually misreading blocks.

IMO MM is saving Green. Recall the fresh legs Starks brought to the offense.

[bobblehead]

I would say they had 2 or 3 effective running games.

I don't care about stats. I can see with my eyeball peepers that they are out of sync with the blocking. I get that NFL defenders are so fast that a well-blocked play doesn't mean gaping holes. But I see other teams doing a better job. The defensive line is getting penetration, preventing our Olinemen from ever getting to second level. I don't see blocking from WRs, although that is often off-screen.

For a team that the announcers call "the only dominant team in the NFL" it is odd to see such ineptness. Guess this is what the NFL has come to.

I think its more like 4 solid running performances. 2 below average, but we stayed committed to running and that is enough when you have the greatest QB in the game.

[mraynrand]

I agree with this. He seems to have regressed somehow, in season. Weird.

I think this is due to the loss of Edgar Bennett as rb coach. Jerry Fontenot may be the manchurian RB coach.

[red]

i see nothing wrong with our running game, its nothing special, but we don't need an AP type of back and running game.

our running game is what it is. it's there to keep teams somewhat honest so our passing game opens up a little more

our backs are pretty good IMO, they just don't need to be anymore then they currently are

[Pugger]

i see nothing wrong with our running game, its nothing special, but we don't need an AP type of back and running game.

our running game is what it is. it's there to keep teams somewhat honest so our passing game opens up a little more

our backs are pretty good IMO, they just don't need to be anymore then they currently are

This.

[denverYooper]

I would say they had 2 or 3 effective running games.

I don't care about stats. I can see with my eyeball peepers that they are out of sync with the blocking. I get that NFL defenders are so fast that a well-blocked play doesn't mean gaping holes. But I see other teams doing a better job. The defensive line is getting penetration, preventing our Olinemen from ever getting to second level. I don't see blocking from WRs, although that is often off-screen.

For a team that the announcers call "the only dominant team in the NFL" it is odd to see such ineptness. Guess this is what the NFL has come to.

WRT blocking, their line has been in flux for the last 3 games b/c of the injuries at T. Continuity should help out some with the synchronization. Getting Bulaga back into a comfortable rhythm will help.

[denverYooper]

The other thing that might be messing with running game a bit at the moment is the two back (maybe 3 by year's end) approach. They do have fresh legs, but maybe aren't able to establish the kind of rhythm they could if run 20 carries per game. Maybe it'll pay off down the stretch though in having fresher RBs when the weather gets cold. MM always seems to get the best out his guys in the 2nd half of the season and I'm pretty sure it's by design.

I'm with Red, the running game's not really a problem.

[RashanGary]

Playing with leads hurts the running game. When you're behind 2 scores, teams rush the passer first. When you're up 2 scores, teams stop the run first.

Very misleading numbers and misleading perception of what is happening. The way a lineman ultimately blocks has a lot to do with the way the guy across from him is playing. If a DE rushes straight up field, Bulaga pushes him to the side and it's an easy, clean block. Some Packerrats could probably make that block of just getting out of the way. If a DE decides he's going to stay square and run block first, it's not nearly as easy to shove the same DL aside.

Also, we have one of the youngest OL in the league. They'll grow together.

I'll bet dollars to doughnuts this is a non-issue. I'll bet we play bad weather games better than we have in several years precisely because this OL is the best run blocking unit we've had in years, despite HH's unwillingness to consider context on his contrarian mission.

But what would a forum be with all ass patting and prostate pressure in HH's case?

Now, if Neal doesn't come back and make an impact, we might have some major trouble against well oiled passing attacks in the playoffs. That is a real issue.

[Iron Mike]

We stinks....

[Harlan Huckleby]

Cliff Crystl's take:

http://packersnews.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20111017/PKR07/111017146/Baranczyk-Christl-column-Cakewalk-against-Rams-allows-some-Packers-nitpicking

Running backs have to make somebody miss, and the special ones do that. James Starks does it once in awhile; Ryan Grant even less. Let’s face it, the Packers haven’t had anything but serviceable backs since 2003, the last year of Ahman Green’s prime. Green had the speed to go the distance on any given play. Pure and simple, Starks and Grant aren’t dynamic runners.

They both run hard, especially Starks when he gets his shoulders parallel to the line of scrimmage and his pads down. Starks also looks quicker on his cuts and shifts into second gear faster.

But what they contribute is what they are. Against a Rams’ defense that was playing with seven men in the box, Starks had a 3.8 yard average per carry and Grant a 2.8 average.

All that said, the Packers won a Super Bowl with Starks, and they can win one again. What will be interesting to watch is whether they continue to split time between the two. Maybe it will keep them both fresh and healthy, and it has become common around the league for teams to rotate backs.

But do the Packers give their backs enough carries for it to work? Neither one ever seems to get his game legs. When a back carries the ball two, three times then sits, it can be difficult for him to get a feel for what’s going on, or a line on the speed of the defense, or how to set up a linebacker or safety.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Crystl makes an interesting point: it's fine for a running team to split carries among backs. But for a passing team like the Pack, it doesn't allow enough carries for either player to get into a flow.

[Joemailman]

Crystl makes an interesting point: it's fine for a running team to split carries among backs. But for a passing team like the Pack, it doesn't allow enough carries for either player to get into a flow.

Debatable point. Packers rank 17th in rushing attempts per game at about 26. Leaders in rushing attempts average about 31. Not sure those extra 5 rush attempts per game make that big a difference. Maybe the Packers O-Linemen are just average run blockers.

[woodbuck27]

The other thing that might be messing with running game a bit at the moment is the two back (maybe 3 by year's end) approach. They do have fresh legs, but maybe aren't able to establish the kind of rhythm they could if run 20 carries per game. Maybe it'll pay off down the stretch though in having fresher RBs when the weather gets cold. MM always seems to get the best out his guys in the 2nd half of the season and I'm pretty sure it's by design.

I'm with Red, the running game's not really a problem.

We're 6-0. So what if we're not producing 120 yards per game on the ground. It all depends o the OL right? As that OL jells so goes the running game. Let,s pray for jelling in the playoff's.

[Pugger]

But it would be nice if we had a running game capable of converting 3rd and short. It is ridiculous for us to have to go into the shotgun in these situations. I'm hoping our anemic running game against the Rams was because we were playing down to our competition because this ain't gonna cut it when we play a stouter defense down the road.

[vince]

This is like a broken record from last year.