Exactly.

[3irty1]

With the Packers I think the second kind of RB is just duplicating a threat that the passing game can carry out more effectively. If you're the DC facing the Packers and you have to choose between letting Rodgers beat you throwing or a Chris Johnson type break off the occasional long run sandwiched around a bunch of negative runs, that is a pretty easy choice to make. Chris Johnson's all-or-nothing is much less scary than Rodgers throwing against an eight man front. So is Lacy's four-to-six, except a defense can't let Lacy do that to it all day long.

Just devils advocate but there is something to be said as well for a guy who can do a ton of damage with fewer snaps. Guys like that can keep play action viable without having to blow all the clock it takes to establish the run with a guy like Lacy. Generally shortening the game increases the likely hood of an upset so on a great passing team it could make sense to desire running the minimum amount of running plays that are required to keep defense honest.

[texaspackerbacker]

For once, I agree with you, 3irty1. I never liked that "shortening the game" concept when you have a guy like Aaron Rodgers. Shortening the game is what a weaker team wants to do to increase its chance of an upset. I also never liked the idea of a run-first offense. I saw that from the Packers for literally decades, some with success back to Lombardi, some not in the decades after. Even in the good years, it was frustrating, though. I like Eddie Lacy - as a change of pace threat and maybe to run clock late in the game with a lead, but I hate the idea of getting away from riding Aaron Rodgers' arm in a pass first offense. Right now, our star runner is a power guy, and our change of pace - Starks is more of a breakaway threat. What I would really like is if that was reversed - we had some big bruiser to use for short yardage, running clock late, etc., and our star would be somebody like Chris Johnson in his prime or A.P. in his prime - a home run threat. Lacy is like having Rod Carew or Ty Cobb - a singles hitter - batting cleanup.

[bobblehead]

one thing that i think really skews the YPC is the home runs. if a guy gets 1 or 2 70 or 80 yard td's in a season that really boosts his ypc.

a guy like eddie can just pound away and never break the long one, but his 250 other carries or so will be just as good as the other guys, or better

guy A carries the ball 200 times and gets 1000 yards. 5.0 yards per carry

the home run hitter also carries the ball 200 times, but had the two runs of 70 and 80. 1150 yards. 5.7 yards per carry

huge difference because of 2 carries

2 game changing carries....yea, we shouldn't count those.

[bobblehead]

For once, I agree with you, 3irty1. I never liked that "shortening the game" concept when you have a guy like Aaron Rodgers. Shortening the game is what a weaker team wants to do to increase its chance of an upset. I also never liked the idea of a run-first offense. I saw that from the Packers for literally decades, some with success back to Lombardi, some not in the decades after. Even in the good years, it was frustrating, though. I like Eddie Lacy - as a change of pace threat and maybe to run clock late in the game with a lead, but I hate the idea of getting away from riding Aaron Rodgers' arm in a pass first offense. Right now, our star runner is a power guy, and our change of pace - Starks is more of a breakaway threat. What I would really like is if that was reversed - we had some big bruiser to use for short yardage, running clock late, etc., and our star would be somebody like Chris Johnson in his prime or A.P. in his prime - a home run threat. Lacy is like having Rod Carew or Ty Cobb - a singles hitter - batting cleanup.

A weaker team, or a team with a great D that wants to limit the time you have to wear down that great D?

[texaspackerbacker]

A weaker team, or a team with a great D that wants to limit the time you have to wear down that great D?

Either way, it's the other guys, not us.

[pbmax]

A weaker team, or a team with a great D that wants to limit the time you have to wear down that great D?

Its more likely the team you describe would have a weak O rather than a substantial O protecting its dominant D. Think the Jets.

[Fritz]

I am, as most of you know, just now emerging from my clouded 1970's vision of football, so I grudgingly accept that the Packers should probably pass more than they run, like 55-45. With a bruiser like Lacey taking a beating, that would probably be good for his career, anyway. But damn, that offensive line better get a lot better at pass pro. Bring on Derrick Sherrod!