Skip to main content

So, a ton had been made about the Packers lack of a 100 yard rushing since week 5 of 2010.  44 regular season games!  Longest active streak in the NFL.  What a disaster for this offense.  What sheer ineptitude!  How embarrassing!  My even the Jacksonville Jaguars haven't plumbed the depths of that futility.

 

Packers record during that 44 game regular season stretch?  33-11.  Winning percentage of .750.  

If you want to really look at the streak after Starks game vs Philly in the playoffs (and include the playoffs), the Packers record in all games since that WC win in the 2010 playoffs is 30-9, a winning percentage of .770.

 

Houston and Minnesota have been among the 2 best rushing teams over that same period of Wk 6 2010.  Minnesota has had 18 games with a 100 yard rusher.  Houston 24.  Minnesota's record, 18-28.  Houston's, 28-20.

 

So, other than some mythical and ceremonial round number, what was the impact of not having a 100 yard rusher exactly?  Feels like this is a meaningless "stat" that is nothing more than some old school romance of hitting a round number.

 

Hell, if we play .750 football, I don't care if we ever see another 100 yard rusher.  Plus, it will give morons like Joe Buck something to talk about...

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Originally Posted by Grave Digger:

Stats like that are useless. It's not the number that is important, it's the impact. I don't care if James Starks runs for 25 yards or 250, if he can force the defense to honor the run game and things open up for Rodgers then this offense is incredibly dangerous. 

I also think the win-loss percentage is of only partial usefulness.  Certainly a higher percentage of wins is important and clearly in today's NFL a good passing game is more important than a good running game.  But, the problem is the matchups.  The last couple of seasons, the Packers had a good win-loss record in the regular season but then they came up against teams that were built differently and they struggled.  So even if they are able to beat MOST teams with a subpar running game, that's not going to get them through the playoffs.  They need enough to be competitive against ALL types of teams.

Originally Posted by Dr._Bob:

   They need enough to be competitive against ALL types of teams.

Yes they do

And part of that is the ongoing education of MM. He knows how to bludgeon a team with Rodgers and the passing game, now he is learning how to win with a running game and a defense.

 

Once they can do those things, its an express train to Titletown's next Championship

 

 

The biggest part for this year is the physicality in the run game from Oline to RB when facing physical defenses.  The Packers front seven can stop the run, that much is obvious.  Patch the safety position and the team as a whole is balanced enough to compete with anyone.

 

I am very glad to see the resurgence of Starks but I believe it's imperative for Lacy to be running the ball when the playoffs come around.

Originally Posted by GBFanForLife:
Fire Capers. It was quite satisfying when they showed Haslett in the booth. It was pretty much a look of "I've got nothing here". 

 I don't know why any defensive coordinator in this league would decide that single high safety coverage is the best way to defend against an Aaron Rodgers led offense. The entire 2011 season is pretty damning evidence that this doesn't work all that well.

Originally Posted by GBFanForLife:

 Haslett in the booth.

yup, that was a great shot. 20 year veteran coach and he's got nothin'

 

And maybe the retread coaches aren't the answer to the new-age video-game offenses. One of the things the uptempo does is take away the ability for a defense to make adjustments, shifts & calls pre-snap.It also takes away the ability to substitute- so the offenses are really dictating the play

 

So defenses default to basic coverages and that benefits the uptempo offenses too- giving them what they were expecting instead of the surprises that Haslett et al used in years past

 

the 9ers don't substitute much at all on defense, so for them the uptempo isn't as big a deal . But for the DCs that have multiple packages; the light -speed offenses tie their hands on both strategy and personnel

 

Cat vs mouse continues with the League favoring the offense....time for the defensive masterminds to step up and stop it

 

 

Originally Posted by Fond Du Arrigo:

 I don't know why any defensive coordinator in this league would decide that single high safety coverage is the best way to defend against an Aaron Rodgers led offense.

I'm guessing Haslett knew that MM really wanted to feature his running game and so he elected to commit a safety to stopping it early.

 

I'm also guessing that Haslett believed his (2) OLBs would beat the crap out of Barclay and Bak, making the single high safety a non-issue. And after the first series it looked like he was right- both Kerrigan and Orakpo were all over Rodgers

 

But then changes were made/the youngsters settled down and 24 points later Haslett threw up his arms in defeat.

 

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×