I just need to bitch

[Upnorth]

Keep in mind the Packers only ran 51 plays on offense, not counting the kneel down. They had only 8 possessions not counting the single play kneel down after the last interception. They scored on 5 of the 6 possessions they had before the two at the end trying to use the clock.

With the two pick six's and the onside kick the offense wasn't out there very much.

I had nothing to add to this, sorry

[gbgary]

I know numbers are just that, but there's something pretty about seeing a 20 carry 100 yard runner.

we 18 for 84 from our backs and 52 from rodgers. not too bad.


our running is fine. it's better than it was last year and we won the superbowl. if our two guys can get a 80-100 or so yards combined per game...what's wrong with that?!

one more thing about running...with the way rodgers is playing, do we really want to take the ball out of his hands?

[Noodle]

Green is a big guy, but he has those type of skills. Fluid, quick, explosive. . .

You must be talking about his bathroom breaks because he's a bit injured now.

Well played -- I was thinking bedroom antics, but your take works even better.

[Noodle]

I'm guessing ND has my attitude about a running game. You can't say "it's fine" unless you have absolute confidence in your ability to pick up a 3rd and 2 with a run. I'm not saying you actually will be 100%, but a team with a strong running game does not air it out on 3rd and short late in the game with a lead. And a strong running team does not get stuffed like the Pack did late.

The wind can blow hard in Lambeau. And it can get terribly cold in those months known in the NFL as "playoff time." I don't want this team to have home field throughout the playoffs with our running game.

[Bossman641]

When the offense is averaging nearly 10 yards per passing attempt there aren't going to be a ton of long, time-consuming drives. But I do agree with ND, I'd like to see a minimum of 25 attempts from the RB.

And it absolutely cracks me up when I see people talking about MM stepping off the gas pedal. Anything less than a pass attempt every down is playing conservative to them.

[Gunakor]

Because our RBs aren't very good at being receivers. Grant can't catch, and Starks just isn't very fluid in getting out to the edge. He can run middle screens, but that's about it. I've always wanted a fast, dynamic receiving RB like Sproles for this offense. That is far more potent than what we currently have.

Brandon Jackson was a good screen back. Actually, B-Jax was an outstanding screen back. Now you have me thinking about how much more valuable Jackson would have been on this roster than even a healthy Alex Green, given the fact that Grant and Starks carry the load anyways.

[mmmdk]

Running the ball might make it a little easier for the offensive linemen to pass block since rushers would not be able to pin their ears back so often and easily.

I'd like to see some screens in place of runs, if MM doesn't want to run. I wonder why they don't run more screens?

I think it was just about at the same time last season that McCarthy started calling screens...not a lot more but they were there!

[sharpe1027]

this is my view as well. most ball control would keep our defense off the field and give up less yards and less big plays. And I'll say this about our D...when you're up as much as we've been in games, teams tend to take bigger shots at big plays, and defenses tend to play more vanilla defenses. I obviously have no idea if this is the case, but it tends to be a trend that happens in the NFL. Twitter tonight Skip Bayless wrote "Green Bay won't win anything with that defense and lack of running game"...I wanted to send him a big FU on that one. We do have a running game, I'd just like to see more of it. Starks had 13 carries for 66 yards...give him 7 more cares, at basically 5 yards a carry, he ends up with 101 yards on the day. I know numbers are just that, but there's something pretty about seeing a 20 carry 100 yard runner.

You should save yourself the trouble and stop following that feed immediately.

I agree that the running game is working fine. They get decent chunks of yards, but it still pales in comparison to the passing efficiency. I remember many drives getting stalled out last year because we tried to run and then didn't convert on 3rd down. This year, they often seem to not even need third down.

[HowardRoark]

.........oh. Sorry guys, I read the title and thought for a second there that my ex-wife joined Packerrats.

[pbmax]

Bayless is simply being his normal, unthinking contrarian. Its too bad, as he used to be able to write and think pretty well.

McCarthy called more screens earlier this year than I remember seeing in past years, though it has dropped off. I suspect they will return with high pressure front four D lines (Lions, Bears). Brandon Jackson did develop in a good screen back late in his Packer career, but early, he would always go down quickly as he had no idea how to read his blocks. Starks doesn't have his hands, but he already reads it better.

I am worried about the D, but not the playcalling.

[Pugger]

If Skip Clueless thinks we won't win anything with our running game and D I feel better already!!

[Deputy Nutz]

I agree the Packers need a more consistent running game but I think every team in the NFL would like to run the ball a bit better. The offensive line just isn't a dominating run blocking squad and the Packers have two mediocre backs. They are both plodders. They hold on to the football and get tough yards but I don't think opposing defenses are gearing up their game plan to stop Starks and Grant.

[ND72]

I'm guessing ND has my attitude about a running game. You can't say "it's fine" unless you have absolute confidence in your ability to pick up a 3rd and 2 with a run. I'm not saying you actually will be 100%, but a team with a strong running game does not air it out on 3rd and short late in the game with a lead. And a strong running team does not get stuffed like the Pack did late.

The wind can blow hard in Lambeau. And it can get terribly cold in those months known in the NFL as "playoff time." I don't want this team to have home field throughout the playoffs with our running game.

Bingo...

[vince]

Here's what McCarthy said today about the weather issue. I think he's right, especially when your QB almost surely has bigger hands, a stronger arm, is smarter, and more accurate, and is just all around better than the other QB playing - plus your guys on the perimeter are likely more explosive, bigger and more athletic than the guys on the other team. History proves out that McCarthy will not come close to abandoning the pass under any circumstances until he has the lead and it gets late in the game.

http://www.packers.com/news-and-events/article-1/Tuesdays-with-McCarthy/cb7ea764-62f7-4105-9ad7-4117abcfe909

...what is most important is the wind and/or the amount of rain and how it affects the playing surface. I believe the offense has the advantage in bad-weather games because they know where they’re going and the defense is forced to react on potentially poor footing. The field in San Diego is Bermuda grass and is in excellent shape, and as a result, the footing didn’t change much. The biggest challenge in those conditions was the ability of our perimeter players to catch and secure the football. I thought our players did an excellent job of that throughout the game, particularly in the first half. You could see the emphasis of securing the ball with both hands and protecting it after the catch. As it relates to changing the game plan, you typically look to put more stress on the perimeter of the defense in bad-weather games. Anytime you can get the ball in space in those conditions, it definitely gives the advantage to the offense.

[Tony Oday]

We ran well on that last drive in MN.