Lacy's Running Style

[Guiness]

Better RB, better running game. And better OL, better running game. You can't look at these things like they're mutually exclusive, they build on each other - we all know that!

Starks doesn't run for 2K yards in Minnesota, and AP doesn't struggle to get 1000 yards if he was in Green Bay.

[Pugger]

Better RB, better running game. And better OL, better running game. You can't look at these things like they're mutually exclusive, they build on each other - we all know that!

Starks doesn't run for 2K yards in Minnesota, and AP doesn't struggle to get 1000 yards if he was in Green Bay.

this

[pittstang5]

Using the argument that the "run game improved at the end of the year" is like beating a dead horse. Nothing against TT, but this team's running game has sucked big hairy balls at the beginning of each season since TT has taken over, then improved just in time for all players to clean out their lockers for the year. I wanna believe the running game will improve, but until this scheme is overhauled and we actually get some road graders besides Sitton on the line, we will continue to suffer through an abortion of a so called running game.

[RashanGary]

Using the argument that the "run game improved at the end of the year" is like beating a dead horse. Nothing against TT, but this team's running game has sucked big hairy balls at the beginning of each season since TT has taken over, then improved just in time for all players to clean out their lockers for the year. I wanna believe the running game will improve, but until this scheme is overhauled and we actually get some road graders besides Sitton on the line, we will continue to suffer through an abortion of a so called running game.

Grant had 1,200 yard seasons and 4.4YPC on his career. He was a solid runner for us. Everyone else was either decent in spots (when they came in fresh at the end of seasons) or horrible. I think Grant proves that a solid runner will get solid production in this system. Hopefully Lacy is better than Grant and gets better production (especially in short yardage, something Bill Polian mentioned as a strength of Lacy's)

[packer4life]

I'm dreaming of Lacy on 3rd and short this year. However I still think we are gonna get 4 wide and a 40 yard bomb on many of these distances like last year. Talk about drive killers.

[RashanGary]

I'm dreaming of Lacy on 3rd and short this year. However I still think we are gonna get 4 wide and a 40 yard bomb on many of these distances like last year. Talk about drive killers.

If Lacy is, in fact, good in short yardage, I would think MM would use that weapon more and the big risk less. There is a time and place for risks. In fact, I think most teams don't take enough risks, where MM does. But if you have an excellent short yardage back, you don't need to take that particular risk as often. I hope anyway. Our QB is good enough, or WR's good enough, we don't need to take 3rd or 4th and 1 risks to get big plays. We should be able to get them naturally, through the course of a game.

[wist43]

Better RB, better running game. And better OL, better running game. You can't look at these things like they're mutually exclusive, they build on each other - we all know that!

Starks doesn't run for 2K yards in Minnesota, and AP doesn't struggle to get 1000 yards if he was in Green Bay.

Wouldn't bet on that... since 9 out of 10 Packer running plays begin with the RB being hit 14 yards behind the LOS - yeah, I wouldn't bet on that

We'll be better, but that's a relative thing... MM isn't going to change his ways. Hard to imagine we could be any worse...

You guys do realize the Green Bay Packers have one of the worst base running attacks in the NFL - if not the worst?? You do realize that, no?? Take away Cobb and Rodgers numbers, scrambles and sub-package gimmicks - and it's some ugly, ugly stuff.

[Joemailman]

Wouldn't bet on that... since 9 out of 10 Packer running plays begin with the RB being hit 14 yards behind the LOS - yeah, I wouldn't bet on that

We'll be better, but that's a relative thing... MM isn't going to change his ways. Hard to imagine we could be any worse...

You guys do realize the Green Bay Packers have one of the worst base running attacks in the NFL - if not the worst?? You do realize that, no?? Take away Cobb and Rodgers numbers, scrambles and sub-package gimmicks - and it's some ugly, ugly stuff.

It might be possible to take you seriously if you didn't talk about the Packers as if they're no better than the Jacksonville Jaguars. The Packers had about 12 fewer rushing yards per game last year than the Ravens. Who the hell cares whether the yards came out of a base alignment or some other alignment? I've got news for you Wist. Having the best smash-mouth running attack isn't as important as it used to be. The Ravens won the Super Bowl because their QB had 11 TD passes in 4 post-season games, not because of their base running attack.

[wist43]

It might be possible to take you seriously if you didn't talk about the Packers as if they're no better than the Jacksonville Jaguars. The Packers had about 12 fewer rushing yards per game last year than the Ravens. Who the hell cares whether the yards came out of a base alignment or some other alignment? I've got news for you Wist. Having the best smash-mouth running attack isn't as important as it used to be. The Ravens won the Super Bowl because their QB had 11 TD passes in 4 post-season games, not because of their base running attack.

So, your argument is that running the ball doesn't matter - but if it did, running the ball by lining up the LT and LG outide the numbers on one side, and the RG and RT outside the numbers on the other - that wouldn't matter, huh?? Wonder how safe Rodgers would feel with that alignment??

How safe to you think Rodgers feels constantly lining up in the spread?? What are the odds he makes it thru another season without missing time?? He gets hit an awful, awful lot... that doesn't matter either I suppose - why does he get hit?? Oh, that's right, cuz he holds the ball too long... gotcha

Of course the formations you run out of matter, duh... good grief.

[bobblehead]

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.

Here is my position. With the playmaker theory you need one of the 3 elite RB's in the league. YOu need the generational guys. Yes, Walter Payton makes your running game great. AP, Barry Sanders, Erik Dickerson. However those are rarely an option.

When Ahman Green was dominant we had ZERO all pros on the line. Eventually Rivera got a token nod, but he was never a top 5 guard in the league. Emmit Smith was never even a top 5 back (imo) in the league, but he scored from 4 yards out standing up. Ahman had talent, but wasn't a world beater. Right now the packers have 3 good OL. We suck at center and RT (until someone steps up). I would have rather paid Wells, and signed a RT so that nearly anyone could run behind the OL for the next 10 years. Or hell, even left Bulaga, and found a serviceable LT. Good RBs have about a 5 year run. Generational guys get 10. We have Aron Rodgers, so we need to spend money on the OL anyway.

I don't buy the playmaker theory because the NFL is an ebb and flow game. You have to be able to attack weaknesses, not have them. Sure, having the playmaker can CREATE a weakness on another team, but if the team is balanced they can adapt to the great player. IF you are balanced you attack weaknesses. If SF must match your spread personel then you run Cobb out of the backfield....this isn't gimmicky, its attacking a weakness.

Playmaker. Clay Mathews. When we won the big game everyone was gushing over clay. Cameron Wake did everything clay does, but played in Miami. What came first, the playmaker or the rest of the team around them? When you have a bunch of talent on the field good playes look like playmakers. When you have garbage on the field great players look human.

When we won the superbowl we had a bunch of good players step up, but last year, while Walden was blowing containment, the HEROIC game by Sam Shields didn't leave us screaming "playmaker", it left us saying, "fuck our D blows". I believe in the reverse playmaker theory. When you have major flaws it shows. It can make 10 good players look bad. We have the worst starting LT in football (last year) and a bad center and due to injuries we had a really bad OLB and some other weak starters on D. Playmakers Rodgers and Shields and Mathews and Cobb and James Jones in that game weren't enough. We lost because of the flaws.

[3irty1]

Blaming the ZBS is beyond ignorant at this point. No team in the NFL doesn't run zone blocking plays, and the vast majority of the most successful running attacks in recent years have come out of zone-blocking heavy offenses just like ours. 8 of the top 10 RB by yards in 2012 ran behind ZBS schemes (Peterson, Morris, Lynch, Charles, Foster, Ridley, Spiller, and Johnson) the other two (Martin, Gore) ran ZBS plays routinely.

Blame something else.

[3irty1]

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.

It might not so much be about playmaker players as much as playmaker units. Conventional wisdom would have us believe that its best to diversify talent in order to have a well-rounded team but NFL teams often forgo that in the draft and in free agency to have a single dominant unit at the cost of leaving obvious holes on their team.

Detroit is a good example, pouring draft resources into the defensive line while every other positional group on the team sucks. The Giants and Texans have consistently chosen to be 3 or 4 deep at DL positions to make the unit elite and injury proof rather than address secondaries that suck every year. The Packers and Saints have prioritized the WR corps in recent years finding it necessary to keep 4 or 5 starter quality players even if it means spending high round picks to get them while other positions are going filled by undrafted free agents.

[packer4life]

Wist, I believe our awful "base running attack" is a tool that we need, but most definitely is not needed until the last 4 minutes of a game when we need to preserve our lead. At that point, yes, we have routinely been stopped in the last two years. There has only been one game in recent memory where we were able to run out the clock with a lead (I believe it was against Detroit in 2010 with Kuhn running out the clock, but I'm blanking).

The rest of the time we are going to spread multiple WRs and multiple flexible TEs into the picture and roll. WE HAVE THE BEST QB IN THE LEAGUE why would we be lining up routinely in pro sets with a FB and two run blocking TEs, it would not be playing to our strength which is our QB and his beautiful, god-given arm (slurp).

Anyway, I believe we are improving this area, where a base running attack keeps our leads (which we will accumulate based on our offensive potency). Lacy will help tremendously with yards after contact. Hell, I'm excited to see the resurgence of the play-action pass which believe it or not was very effective in 2011 and died last year.

Things are looking up Wist, how bout you pop a happy pill and smile a little.

[RashanGary]

3irty1 and bobble,

I think I'm with you guys quite a bit. Both of the posts you guys made, made total sense to me.

Adding on, I do think those generational type players very important cogs to true success. Aaron Rodgers, right now, is the best player at his position and he plays the most important position in football. Just having him gives us maybe a 10% advantage on most other teams for the 7-10 years that he dominates. Getting one or more of those guys is HUGE!!!!!!

After that, there is the other 90% of the equation. And I'm with you guys, it's how everything comes together that really matters.

Emmit Smith, while maybe not the dominant physical talent of AP, was a great football player. He had a feel for space, a feel for movement, a spirit for competition, and all kinds of other attributes off the charts. AP, to me, is overrated. He is absolutely spectacular. I've grown a little bit in my views of football and my views of life. It's not as much about being spectacular or special. To me, there is a certain spiritual pureness to being effective. At the end of the day, the things Tom Brady accomplishes will be looked at in a special light. But ultimately, he wasn't a spectacular physical specimen on the field. He never had the biggest arm. He was never the most accurate. He was never the best at anything, really. But what he was, was effective. He played winning football, the sneaky kind of winning football where you wonder how the hell he did it. It's a feel for the game, a spirit for competition, a focus on winning. That's what I appreciate about football.

So. . . . I do believe in getting generational players. But. . . . . special and spectacular, I don't blow my load over quite as much as a lot of people. I'll take the more effective player, as it relates to winning every time. To be completely honest, Emmit's instincts and feel for running. . . Who's to say AP would have found the same holes or set up the blocks as well. He may, very well, have gotten hit earlier in the plays than emmit. Effective is not always spectacular, but the results are.

[wist43]

Blaming the ZBS is beyond ignorant at this point. No team in the NFL doesn't run zone blocking plays, and the vast majority of the most successful running attacks in recent years have come out of zone-blocking heavy offenses just like ours. 8 of the top 10 RB by yards in 2012 ran behind ZBS schemes (Peterson, Morris, Lynch, Charles, Foster, Ridley, Spiller, and Johnson) the other two (Martin, Gore) ran ZBS plays routinely.

Blame something else.

All of those teams incorporate power running plays, and while I'm not up to speed on the make-up of each line... they probably make an effort to acquire offensive linemen that lift weights as opposed to practicing demi-pliés.

The Packers have the softest offensive and defensive line philosophies in the league. Even New England with all of their midgets, have a fairly physical line.

We're a soft team - everyone outside of Packerdom sees it, yet you guys refuse to accept it.

What will the over/under this season be on the number of times MM is confronted with "the soft question" during his pressers?? I'm not the one asking him those question - but rather I have Manchurian Candidates planted in the press all over the country... just waiting to unjustly attack MM with the ridiculous question.