Article: Green Bay's offense doesn't need Benson

[MadtownPacker]

Packers didn't lose that game because they couldn't run the ball. The Packers lost that game because they couldn't hang onto the ball or defend the pass.

They lost that game because they couldn't grind it out and keep the ball when the pass got shut down because it was the only thing the Giants respected. Time of possession was fucked up in the 2nd half.

IMO they lost the game because the couldn't run the ball.

Top rusher?
Rushing: A. Rodgers (GB) - 7 CAR, 66 YDS
If I recall he was just saying fuck it and running for first downs to keep the chains moving. That shit can't happen.

[Deputy Nutz]

The packers lost the playoff game because they couldn't stop the Giants pass rush. That pass rush throu the Packers passing game out of whack. The best way to stop a strong pass rush is to run the football effectively. Something Packers failed to do.

Benson is the Packers best running back. He was never an elite back but he demonstrated last Thursday that he has more ability than any back on this years roster or last years roster. I was able to see that in ten carries.

[imscott72]

Packers didn't lose that game because they couldn't run the ball. The Packers lost that game because they couldn't hang onto the ball or defend the pass.

They lost that game because they couldn't rush the passer..

[Joemailman]

Packers didn't lose that game because they couldn't run the ball. The Packers lost that game because they couldn't hang onto the ball or defend the pass.

They lost that game because they couldn't rush the passer..

Sounds like the Packers lost that game because they stunk up the joint.

[Lurker64]

They lost that game because they couldn't grind it out and keep the ball when the pass got shut down because it was the only thing the Giants respected. Time of possession was fucked up in the 2nd half.

IMO they lost the game because the couldn't run the ball.

Top rusher?
Rushing: A. Rodgers (GB) - 7 CAR, 66 YDS
If I recall he was just saying fuck it and running for first downs to keep the chains moving. That shit can't happen.

Packers receivers had 6 drops in that game, turned the ball over four times (including three fumbles two by running backs), and never led once in the entire game.

You're not interested in "grinding it out and keeping the ball" when you don't have a lead. "Grinding it out and keeping the ball" is not going to help you overcome a multiple touchdown deficit.

I mean, it's not like the Giants won that game because they were able to "grind it out and keep the ball". Eli threw for 330 yards and 3 touchdowns. The Giants running backs combined for 95 yards, 1 TD, on a 3.5 YPC average. The Packers rushed for 147 yards in that game. a 6.4 YPC average!

[pbmax]

Hail Mary.
Fumbles.
Drops.
Stupid outlet pass that went for 20 yards and then OOB and allowed Hail Mary next play.
Jennings not in game form.
Bottom 1/3 pass defense.

All more important than run game in a high scoring game. But for the record, Sherrod is the best antidote to JPP.

[Pugger]

Yes, had we had the threat of a running game the Giants would have had to respect it and not just pinned their ears back. Of course it didn't help that Grant and Kuhn fumbled the ball...there was plenty of blame to go around in that disaster.

[RashanGary]

The packers lost the playoff game because they couldn't stop the Giants pass rush. That pass rush throu the Packers passing game out of whack. The best way to stop a strong pass rush is to run the football effectively. Something Packers failed to do.

Benson is the Packers best running back. He was never an elite back but he demonstrated last Thursday that he has more ability than any back on this years roster or last years roster. I was able to see that in ten carries.

THIS!

The other things are moving pockets and mixing cadences, but neither are any substitute for running the damn ball. If you move your pocket, it just takes one time for the QB to roll out and get face planted full speed by a physical corner similar to Jarrett Bush.

The defense played a part in that game too, so did our shitty LT play. All three could be better this year, but there's a lot of wait and see here.

[mraynrand]

Top rusher?
Rushing: A. Rodgers (GB) - 7 CAR, 66 YDS
If I recall he was just saying fuck it and running for first downs to keep the chains moving. That shit can't happen.

If the other team is focused on coverage and pass rush, and they give you an opening, you tuck and run. Sure it's risky, but you have to make the defense pay for their defensive strategy. Gash them enough, and guys should get open. They did get open too; just too many drops, missed connections, and costly fumbles. Rodgers just needs to very disciplined when he runs and err on the side of caution.

[RashanGary]

Hail Mary. . . . .

Near the end of this video, there is one word that describes perfectly how I feel about that hail mary. . . . Oh, and if you've never seen this movie, this scene is a must watch.

[Upnorth]

We were in the game until the 4th quarter. Did it ever feel like we would win, no, but we were in it. Then we fell the fuck apart. The d held up till then, the o on the other hand couldn't catch a cold (or so it seemed). Would having Benson make us win that game? Not as much as having Perry and Worthy (if they become good players, dont have to be great but it would be nice) especially with the two wideopen drops we had.
Damn it, now im in a foul mood.

[Lurker64]

Benson's presence will make our play-action deadly.

Haven't you noticed that the Packers play-action game is already pretty effective (Nelson caught quite a few long TDs on play-action plays), despite the fact that they couldn't effectively run the ball?

The success of the play action game depends on the frequency with which you run the ball not the effectiveness you have when doing it. The Superbowl team ran the ball terribly, but quite often, and was very effective on play-action nonetheless.

[this is actually covered in the above article. The Packers play action-game doesn't need help, and Kuhn is actually a better option converting 3rd and short than Benson is.]

[denverYooper]

Haven't you noticed that the Packers play-action game is already pretty effective (Nelson caught quite a few long TDs on play-action plays), despite the fact that they couldn't effectively run the ball?

The success of the play action game depends on the frequency with which you run the ball not the effectiveness you have when doing it. The Superbowl team ran the ball terribly, but quite often, and was very effective on play-action nonetheless.

[this is actually covered in the above article. The Packers play action-game doesn't need help, and Kuhn is actually a better option converting 3rd and short than Benson is.]

I buy all of this and the argument that the Packers offense doesn't *need* Benson to be great.

And I'm usually a numbers guy who enjoys reasoning from metrics.

But in this case, I think Benson will make the offense better. It might not make them numerically superior to last year's offense, but he gives them more situational variety. His ability is a clear notch above the other backs on the roster and I think there will be situations where they need that, especially on days when the passing game is cold or they need to eat clock or give the defense a rest.

[Patler]

Does the offense need Benson to be successful? Probably not.
Will it be better with Benson? Sure, if he is a better running back than the others, of course it will be better with him, If you acquire better players, you should be better, all other things being equal. Now, if Benson becomes a malcontent because he is getting only 15 carries/game, the net result could be a negative if it disrupts the locker room, or if MM forces play calls to satisfy him.

I suspect Benson will be content at least this year, so long as the team is winning often. I'm sure a ring would mean a lot to him. I am most concerned with his fumble frequency. A fumble at the wrong time could be devastating if the defense isn't appreciably better this year.

[Lurker64]

Does the offense need Benson to be successful? Probably not.
Will it be better with Benson? Sure, if he is a better running back than the others, of course it will be better with him, If you acquire better players, you should be better, all other things being equal. Now, if Benson becomes a malcontent because he is getting only 15 carries/game, the net result could be a negative if it disrupts the locker room, or if MM forces play calls to satisfy him.

I suspect Benson will be content at least this year, so long as the team is winning often. I'm sure a ring would mean a lot to him. I am most concerned with his fumble frequency. A fumble at the wrong time could be devastating if the defense isn't appreciably better this year.

Well, improving the talent on your team generally speaking will improve your team (absent chemistry issues what you allude to). I think what the author is intending to refute is widely held notion that the Packers need "balance on offense" and "a running game" in order to be truly transcendent on offense. This team lives or dies on the basis of how the passing game and defense performs, and without changing the formula, adding a running back isn't going to make the offense much more successful.

The Benson signing you can defend on the basis that it's cheap, and Starks' injury did call for the addition of another running back. But this line of reasoning is also worth considering when it comes to draft season and the groupthink is that "what the Packers need to do is draft a really good running back in order to take the offense to the next level" the answer is "no, it's not." When Rodgers' average passer rating is differs by only 3 points between games when the offense averages <3.0 YPC on the ground (13 times) and games where the offense averages >5.0 YPC on the ground (11) times, and the Packers W/L record is strongly correlated to Rodgers' performance, then you're always going to be better off devoting premium resources to the defense and the passing game.

Signing Benson isn't bad, because he's fairly talented and he's cheap, and if he keeps his mouth shut then it could work out for both sides, but it's really not that big a deal either way. It's nice to think that a good running game would be handy for, say, killing clock in the second half, but I really don't think it will shake up that way. Like all pass-first teams, the Packers are going to need to convert key passes to continue clock killing drives late in the game. TT has assembled a pretty good group of OL, but there really aren't any "plus" drive skills in the bunch.