Lacy's Running Style

[packer4life]

It's slow here, so I thought I would post something about Lacy I found interesting. Packers.com has an "Ask Vic" video section. One of the videos I saw highlighted that Lacy prefers to run to the left. As we know, most offenses with right-handed QBs tend to run to the right and strong side is generally to the right.

The initial question was about the risk of switching two borderline all-pros from right to left side of the line. Vic didn't go so far as to say the switch was for Lacy's running style (which I think would be a ridiculous assumption), but it is interesting that if Lacy does in fact prefer the left, it would give our offense a huge advantage.

To run directly to a side where most defenses place their best pass rusher would definitely slow pressure on passing downs. The best way to wear out a dominant pass rusher (see Peppers, Jared Allen just to name those in our division) would be to run right at them and tire them out. This has a ton of advantages for our "right-handed" offense.

Can anyone confirm that Lacy typically hits the hole well on the left side? Any stat breakdowns we can find about his collective effectiveness running right vs middle vs left?

Of course the end of the video shows Lacy running to his right in OTAS...

[RashanGary]

I don't think he ran primarily that direction, but most RB's run more to the right and he seemed to be about equal left/right to me. I noticed that in the clips from Alabama, that he seemed to have about half of his big runs to the left in the highlights, which I thought was unusual. Apparently Vic does too.

[wist43]

It's slow here, so I thought I would post something about Lacy I found interesting. Packers.com has an "Ask Vic" video section. One of the videos I saw highlighted that Lacy prefers to run to the left. As we know, most offenses with right-handed QBs tend to run to the right and strong side is generally to the right.

The initial question was about the risk of switching two borderline all-pros from right to left side of the line. Vic didn't go so far as to say the switch was for Lacy's running style (which I think would be a ridiculous assumption), but it is interesting that if Lacy does in fact prefer the left, it would give our offense a huge advantage.

To run directly to a side where most defenses place their best pass rusher would definitely slow pressure on passing downs. The best way to wear out a dominant pass rusher (see Peppers, Jared Allen just to name those in our division) would be to run right at them and tire them out. This has a ton of advantages for our "right-handed" offense.

Can anyone confirm that Lacy typically hits the hole well on the left side? Any stat breakdowns we can find about his collective effectiveness running right vs middle vs left?

Of course the end of the video shows Lacy running to his right in OTAS...

We don't wear anybody out either running the ball, or attempting to run the ball... we can't run the ball.

Cobb and Rodgers made the numbers look slightly less dismal, but the fact remains that the Packers can't move anyone off the ball, don't attempt to move anyone off the ball, and averaged a pathetic 3.5 yds/carry with their starting RB's. Yes Lacy is better than all of them, and that should get a few ticks worth of per/carry average; but MM isn't going to suddenly decide to puff up and call any power running plays.

The zone blocking scheme is the definition of finesse, and the Packers own it. Last year I drafted Darren McFadden in the 1st round of a FF football draft - a reach, but home run potential, so that's why I did it; anyway, the next day I learned that the Raiders had installed a ZBS that summer... I wasn't aware of that. Had I known that, I never would have drafted McFadden anywhere in the draft, let alone the 1st round.

Luckily I was able to swing a crafty trade, and got Adrian Peterson early in the season

Anyway, the ZBS guru for the Raiders was Gregg Knapp... he was fired 2.9 milliseconds after the season. 1 millisecond for every yard rushing they averaged.

The ZBS has to be executed to perfection to be effective; and often times the OL is giving up a lot of size and strength vs the defensive front seven. The execution of the scheme calls for movement, not strength - philosophically it's inherently soft, and Packers revel in all things soft.

We'll likely see a little improvement with Lacy, Franklin, and the OL flip... but we're not all of a sudden going to be able to consistently run the football.

[pittstang5]

wist is absolutely right. Just because they switched some positions and drafted some RBs that were good in college but have yet to play an NFL game, doesn't come close to fixing the problem. Same personnel on the line, same scheme and same coaching staff equals same crappy results.

[RashanGary]

I see it really differently. I think the RB makes the running game far more than the OL. We've at least made an effort to bring in some RB talent. I'm looking forward to seeing what this season brings.

[Pugger]

I see it really differently. I think the RB makes the running game far more than the OL. We've at least made an effort to bring in some RB talent. I'm looking forward to seeing what this season brings.

I do too. Hell, before he broke his foot Cedric Freaking Benson started to look productive. And we really don't need the second coming of Adrian Peterson. All we need is for defenses to actually account for the RB. With even an average running attack Rodgers will be even more deadly than he already is.

[Joemailman]

Some things happened late last year that improved the running game that should carry over to 2013. Harris started getting carries and averaged 4.6 YPC. They replaced Saturday (who was truly awful) with EDS. That was an upgrade. They inserted Barclay at RT which allowed Lang to move back to LG. Over those last 4 games, the Packers ran the ball 108 times for 444 yards.

With the changes they have made on the OL, as well as the addition of Lacy and Franklin, I see no reason why the Packers shouldn't be able to average 4+ YPC. With their passing game, that should be good enough.

[packer4life]

Some things happened late last year that improved the running game that should carry over to 2013. Harris started getting carries and averaged 4.6 YPC. They replaced Saturday (who was truly awful) with EDS. That was an upgrade. They inserted Barclay at RT which allowed Lang to move back to LG. Over those last 4 games, the Packers ran the ball 108 times for 444 yards.

With the changes they have made on the OL, as well as the addition of Lacy and Franklin, I see no reason why the Packers shouldn't be able to average 4+ YPC. With their passing game, that should be good enough.

I completely agree. Wist is again clouded by his own negativity, which I thought only covered his hate for Capers but apparently he just hates everything related to scheme about this team. I feel bad for anyone that has to watch games with him in person, probably a lot of pissing and moaning, but I digress...

I choose to take a positive outlook on the running game for exactly the reasons mentioned above. The finesse ZBS definitely evolved late in the year. There are numerous plays where EDS and Barclay proved that our running game had already been upgraded in some capacity (not saying it was used regularly, however). I even started seeing some power running and some pulls which in the past just never occurred. Funny thing is, they were somewhat effective.

MM is an offensive mind. He too saw everything ugly we saw last year. The only way Rodgers is gonna break the cover 2 jinx is with a change in the running game (and also the screen game, something that's going to need to be improved upon). Position wise and personnel wise, change is here. I think the pressure is going to come off ARod just a bit this year, and our system will thrive in the process. The additional talk of Lacy running left preferably is just an extra reason to get excited. I do see that as an advantage over the long haul if it is indeed true. It may turn out to be a non-factor, but at least its an option.

[packer4life]

I do too. Hell, before he broke his foot Cedric Freaking Benson started to look productive. And we really don't need the second coming of Adrian Peterson. All we need is for defenses to actually account for the RB. With even an average running attack Rodgers will be even more deadly than he already is.

I also agree. That first half in Indianapolis, I remember thinking that Benson finally understood things and was going to tear up the 6 man fronts he was seeing. We all know how that game ended, but if a 30+ "washed up" RB was starting to make those moves, I have no doubt that someone else will be able to do it. I just think we wasted too much time allowing Green to stumble around for 1-2 yards per running play, but then again who the hell was healthy enough to take over and be effective.

[bobblehead]

I see it really differently. I think the RB makes the running game far more than the OL. We've at least made an effort to bring in some RB talent. I'm looking forward to seeing what this season brings.

You have always said this and I have always disagreed. When healthy, Starks, Benson, Grant, and Harris have all looked reasonable behind this line. Green, Brandon Jackson, and some others are simply not gifted runners and have not looked good. Obviously there is some truth that AP makes his line look better, but when Ahman Green was styling, both Davenpoop and Fischer looked fucking awesome....til they signed with other teams and ran behind other lines.

edit: And Barry Reddon agrees with me. Along with several Steeler backs who I don't even remember.

[wist43]

Some things happened late last year that improved the running game that should carry over to 2013. Harris started getting carries and averaged 4.6 YPC. They replaced Saturday (who was truly awful) with EDS. That was an upgrade. They inserted Barclay at RT which allowed Lang to move back to LG. Over those last 4 games, the Packers ran the ball 108 times for 444 yards.

With the changes they have made on the OL, as well as the addition of Lacy and Franklin, I see no reason why the Packers shouldn't be able to average 4+ YPC. With their passing game, that should be good enough.

I completely agree. Wist is again clouded by his own negativity, which I thought only covered his hate for Capers but apparently he just hates everything related to scheme about this team. I feel bad for anyone that has to watch games with him in person, probably a lot of pissing and moaning, but I digress...

I choose to take a positive outlook on the running game for exactly the reasons mentioned above. The finesse ZBS definitely evolved late in the year. There are numerous plays where EDS and Barclay proved that our running game had already been upgraded in some capacity (not saying it was used regularly, however). I even started seeing some power running and some pulls which in the past just never occurred. Funny thing is, they were somewhat effective.

MM is an offensive mind. He too saw everything ugly we saw last year. The only way Rodgers is gonna break the cover 2 jinx is with a change in the running game (and also the screen game, something that's going to need to be improved upon). Position wise and personnel wise, change is here. I think the pressure is going to come off ARod just a bit this year, and our system will thrive in the process. The additional talk of Lacy running left preferably is just an extra reason to get excited. I do see that as an advantage over the long haul if it is indeed true. It may turn out to be a non-factor, but at least its an option.

You guys choose to look at everything 'positive'... you can't call a spade a spade to save your lives.

That said, Harris averaged 4.6 yds/carry out of the spread. The base RB's still only managed 3.0-3.5 yds/carry. You isolate a stat like Harris's ypc to make it look like we improved, but the stat doesn't relate relate to what everyone is talking about when we're talking about running the ball.

"Running the ball", for the purposes of discussing a teams ability to run the ball, is that teams ability to run under any of the following conditions, i.e to be able to run on run downs, out of base personnel, 2-TEs, a lead full back offset or out of the I, etc.

The ZBS is simply the same thing over and over again... a slightly different look with personnel and alignment, but at the snap of the ball it is 'student body left, middle, and right'. That's it, we have 3 running plays out of our base looks.

Harris averaged 4.6 ypc b/c MM was forced to run out of the spread almost exclusively by the end of the year. We simply could not gain a single inch out of any base alignments - that is to say, we could not run the ball - at all!!

You guys keep trying to put lipstick on a pig, but the fact remains, we averaged a pathetic 3.5 ypc for the season with our base backs - and Harris's good look at the end of the year only came about b/c we couldn't run the ball - MM was forced to spread the field, reduce protections which made Rodgers even more vulnerable, and hand off to Harris when the defense was hopefully looking elsewhere.

Harris's numbers were a function of us NOT being able to run the ball.

That said, I agree with you homers to some extent, that we should see some improvement - modest improvement b/c of the RB's and the OL flip - but those are the same OL that haven't been able to run block for years; and MM is going to be calling the same 3 stupid running plays - none of that is going to change.

The Raiders got it figured out after only 1 disasterous, pathetic season attempting to run the ZBS - with one of most eletric RB's in all of football... they quickly concluded that Knapp had sold them a bill of goods, and booted his ass to the curb.

The majority of ZBS teams suck at running the ball... it takes near perfect execution - I'd much rather just punch someone in the mouth and dare 'em to get up, ala SF. It's much easier...

You'd think MM would get tired of having to field all of the "soft" questions week in, and week out. But?? Nope... just keeps callin' those same 3 running plays, and keeps gettin' the same results, and keeps getting asked the 'soft' question every week...

[RashanGary]

You have always said this and I have always disagreed. When healthy, Starks, Benson, Grant, and Harris have all looked reasonable behind this line. Green, Brandon Jackson, and some others are simply not gifted runners and have not looked good. Obviously there is some truth that AP makes his line look better, but when Ahman Green was styling, both Davenpoop and Fischer looked fucking awesome....til they signed with other teams and ran behind other lines.

edit: And Barry Reddon agrees with me. Along with several Steeler backs who I don't even remember.

0



We agree it's some of each. How much is the question. For me, this comes down to the playmaker theory in football. Vic Ketchman and Cliff Christl are my two favorite Packer writers all-time. I think I put Vic ahead of Cliff now, but anyway, both guys believed you have a bunch of decent guys and then you win games with the playmakers. Larry McCarren said he believed the RB and QB make the OL look better more than the other way around. I'd love for these to be my theories. Lord knows, I love my own ideas more than anyone else's

I think you want a bunch of decent OL, who can at least get in the way and then the RB is the playmaker to top it off.

All you need is one playmaker vs having a great OL where you would need 3, 4 or 5. There have been teams through history with dominant OL's. Anyone throwing and running behind those lines looked better.

Finding 5 great guys is hard. Finding one is hard. Every SB winning team, if you honestly look at them, has glaring weaknesses on their team. It's so competitive. The way things have been, no one team can just put it all together and destroy the competition.

I guess I can agree with you, OL's can make a RB look great statistically, probably more-so than the other way around, even. But the odds of doing that, in this league, I just think the odds are slim. I think more often than not, the RB makes the RB in the NFL, just because I think the RB has more impact than any single lineman on the run game. Sitting around, asking for a legendary line just seems unrealistic to me.

[RashanGary]

2010, the Packers and Steelers had so/so offensive lines. 2011 the Giants and Patriots had so/so OL's. Last year both teams had very good OL's, with the 49ers having a great OL.

There are a lot of ways to do it. I think it's less common to have a true difference making OL that helps you win a SB. Maybe in the 1960's and 70's, but today, with passing rules the way they are, a great OL doesn't mean much when the team you're playing has a better QB.

[packer4life]

Better RB, better running game...now all we have to do is ensure Franklin becomes the next Barry Sanders. No big deal.

[Joemailman]

Better RB, better running game...now all we have to do is ensure Franklin becomes the next Barry Sanders. No big deal.

Franklin won't get enough carries to be Barry Sanders. Not with Lacy being the next Steven Jackson.