Go back a couple of more years.
2002 Super Bowl Champion Tampa Bay Buccaneers.
1557 yards rushing that year (95 a game).
Mike Alstott (3.8 YPC 548 yards rushing). Kuhn is averaging 4.8 right now.
Michael Pittman (3.5 YPC 718 yards). Similar to Bennett's in '95 (NFCCG), and lower than Jackson's career YPC.
We also (obviously) have a far, far better passing attack and more weapons than Tampa Bay ever did.
The league also is even more pass happy now than it was then.
But what about the defense?
Tampa was +18 in turnovers that year, last year we were +24. Similar or better results aren't out of the question for this year.
A team simply does not need a top echelon running game to reach and/or win the Super Bowl. Recent history suggests that don't even necessarily need one in the top two thirds of the league.
Better to have than have not? Absolutely. Nobody is claiming otherwise.
Absolutely necessary in today's NFL?
Nope. Not when you have a top flight QB and the weapons we have.
The discussion here isn't whether or not more explosive RB options are desirable. Of course they are.
Where it gets a bit sticky is when different people have differing opinions about the "who" and "at what cost" questions. IMO, that's not ever going to be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. So be it.
The argument I have and will continue to make is about whether or not it's possible to get to and win a Super Bowl with a less than elite ground game.
Some have said it's "not possible" (and they are entitled to that opinion), I am simply calling BS on that.
quote:Originally posted by Coach:
The argument I have and will continue to make is about whether or not it's possible to get to and win a Super Bowl with a less than elite ground game.
Some have said it's "not possible" (and they are entitled to that opinion), I am simply calling BS on that.
Possible? Sure. Out of all of the Super Bowl victors over the years, you've been able to come up with a couple that showed it's "possible".
Likely? No. I really don't think this team can go the distance unless someone steps up at RB. I think our best shot at making that happen is trading for Lynch. Is it *possible* that Nance or Starks could be that person? Yes. Is it likely? No.
Sort of like the people who thought it was possible that our run game would be "fine" with BJax as the featured back. Possible? Yes. Did it happen? No. (Although it's just been one game, but I think what we saw vs. the Bears is that the coaches didn't even bother.)
The thing is, there is no such thing as a "likely" Super Bowl participant let alone winner. "Likely" isn't even part of the equation at this point.
BJax isn't going to be the "featured back", and neither is Kuhn.
As a matter of fact, since Grant is gone for the year there isn't going to be a "featured back" (unless another move is made).
Bottom line what's truly important is whether or not the offense is "fine", not just the running game statistics (or the fans' perception of the production of the RB position).
The team was moving the ball up and down the field all night Monday even with the two struggling OT's and a boatload of OL penalties (one negating a score). If they hadn't been able to that, I'd be a bit more inclined to your position. But they are. Penalties and ST killed us against the Bores, not the running game.
Further, nobody is completely ruling out another move at RB, but I will also argue that the blocking (especially Donald Lee and the OT's) is still the larger issue at this moment in time (moreso in Chicago than Buffalo where there seemed to be more yards "left on the field" by the backs). Which is just as it has been last year, and seasons prior to that.
Do you recall what Ryan Grant's YPC was the first three games of 2009?:
3.81, 3.29, 3.81 (61/46/96 yards).
Kuhn's currently averaging 4.8, but he's not getting (nor per MM will he get) 20 carries a game (he carried only six times Monday). Neither will Jackson. A combination of the two of them while not explosive can and have been part of a successful offense that has kept the chains moving for a team that should be 3-0 if not for an abundance of penalties and three huge ST gaffes.
This past Monday, we gave the ball to the backs a total of 13 times. If you make the decision to run the ball that infrequently the overall yardage numbers are simply not going to be there. Even with Grant, there were still seven different regular season games last season where he carried the ball 16 times or less. It's not unheard of for this team.
Room for improvement in all areas? Absolutely.
BTW, it's fine with me if you don't agree with my take, but just watch. The running game will not be the determining factor as to what this team is or isn't able to achieve it's goals.
Come to think of it....isn't it at least a little bit amusing how nobody is talking about OLB and CB depth nearly as much as a few of weeks ago?
5-1 leading up to Minnyhaha.
BJax isn't going to be the "featured back", and neither is Kuhn.
As a matter of fact, since Grant is gone for the year there isn't going to be a "featured back" (unless another move is made).
Bottom line what's truly important is whether or not the offense is "fine", not just the running game statistics (or the fans' perception of the production of the RB position).
The team was moving the ball up and down the field all night Monday even with the two struggling OT's and a boatload of OL penalties (one negating a score). If they hadn't been able to that, I'd be a bit more inclined to your position. But they are. Penalties and ST killed us against the Bores, not the running game.
Further, nobody is completely ruling out another move at RB, but I will also argue that the blocking (especially Donald Lee and the OT's) is still the larger issue at this moment in time (moreso in Chicago than Buffalo where there seemed to be more yards "left on the field" by the backs). Which is just as it has been last year, and seasons prior to that.
Do you recall what Ryan Grant's YPC was the first three games of 2009?:
3.81, 3.29, 3.81 (61/46/96 yards).
Kuhn's currently averaging 4.8, but he's not getting (nor per MM will he get) 20 carries a game (he carried only six times Monday). Neither will Jackson. A combination of the two of them while not explosive can and have been part of a successful offense that has kept the chains moving for a team that should be 3-0 if not for an abundance of penalties and three huge ST gaffes.
This past Monday, we gave the ball to the backs a total of 13 times. If you make the decision to run the ball that infrequently the overall yardage numbers are simply not going to be there. Even with Grant, there were still seven different regular season games last season where he carried the ball 16 times or less. It's not unheard of for this team.
Room for improvement in all areas? Absolutely.
BTW, it's fine with me if you don't agree with my take, but just watch. The running game will not be the determining factor as to what this team is or isn't able to achieve it's goals.
Come to think of it....isn't it at least a little bit amusing how nobody is talking about OLB and CB depth nearly as much as a few of weeks ago?
5-1 leading up to Minnyhaha.
Coach, while it is possible... anything is "possible". The reason tampa won that superbowl was because their "defense" averaged 12.2 ppg. That's ridiculously good.
It was so good that SF and Philly only scored 16 pts total through the NFC rounds against them. Oakland put 15 up with their offense, but Tampas O magically scored 21... and their defense scored 18+3 as well.
Im not saying your argument isnt plausible, however, youre arguing on the side of the outlier. I'd rather be safe then sorry and spend a draft pick to shore up the position and do everything we can to help get to the promised land. As has been pointed out, we are getting a comp pick for Kampman. Burn the pick, get us a back!!! This team and our franchise QB need the help.
It was so good that SF and Philly only scored 16 pts total through the NFC rounds against them. Oakland put 15 up with their offense, but Tampas O magically scored 21... and their defense scored 18+3 as well.
Im not saying your argument isnt plausible, however, youre arguing on the side of the outlier. I'd rather be safe then sorry and spend a draft pick to shore up the position and do everything we can to help get to the promised land. As has been pointed out, we are getting a comp pick for Kampman. Burn the pick, get us a back!!! This team and our franchise QB need the help.
quote:Originally posted by Coach:
Do you recall what Ryan Grant's YPC was the first three games of 2009?:
3.81, 3.29, 3.81 (61/46/96 yards).
Great point, except you completely solidify our position. The line was in disarray at the time. Clifton was hurt I believe and Tauscher was not even in the fold yet. What happened.... Ted made the move to (reluctantly) to Tausch.
It worked out great. The line codified and the bleeding stopped.
We have a similar situation today. We have suckage in the backfield.... it needs to be upgraded. I'm sorry, but very few here think John Kuhn is the answer. It just wont work consistently. We are looking at a lot of 60 yard rushing games if this is the strategy.
quote:Originally posted by Coach:
You're the expert.
Is sand tasty?
Yes.. when you draft a guy #9 overall and have a guy that rushed for 1000 last season that sort of signals the end of the road for your maligned former #1 pick. They did everything except put his house up for sale for him.
Hardly an expert needed for this one. I think even Artist has caught on.
Everyone knows you only need 1 RB on a team.
Coach, there is no one on this forum that chooses to target a poster as "dense" as much as you. However, you are as "dense" as anyone on this discussion. You can post all the Super Bowl champs you want and their YPG. Until the cows come home. However, you fail to realize that those teams had people to respect and game plan around. Your messiah doesn't. BJack and Kuhn are not anything to worry about. They never will be. A game plan has a smiley face by their names. A third string RB and a second string FB.
And you continually bring up the team will continue to "move the ball." We know this. However, we also know that you will need some semblance of a threat to run as well. Not Walter Payton, not even Ryan Grant...some threat. These two are not that.
So pose another stat or argument, they will not work. I love your blind loyalty to TT. I have a similar loyalty but not blind. I admitted "nice move not bringing in ATHomas" 'cause BJones ain't ready. Guess what he's not?!?!? But they found the Zombo. I ate my crow.
TT is good but he ain't that good. Now is the time to make a deal and even overpay for your team.
And you continually bring up the team will continue to "move the ball." We know this. However, we also know that you will need some semblance of a threat to run as well. Not Walter Payton, not even Ryan Grant...some threat. These two are not that.
So pose another stat or argument, they will not work. I love your blind loyalty to TT. I have a similar loyalty but not blind. I admitted "nice move not bringing in ATHomas" 'cause BJones ain't ready. Guess what he's not?!?!? But they found the Zombo. I ate my crow.
TT is good but he ain't that good. Now is the time to make a deal and even overpay for your team.
quote:Originally posted by Diggr14:
Great point, except you completely solidify our position. The line was in disarray at the time. Clifton was hurt I believe and Tauscher was not even in the fold yet. What happened.... Ted made the move to (reluctantly) to Tausch.
It worked out great. The line codified and the bleeding stopped.
We have a similar situation today. We have suckage in the backfield.... it needs to be upgraded. I'm sorry, but very few here think John Kuhn is the answer. It just wont work consistently. We are looking at a lot of 60 yard rushing games if this is the strategy.
No, actually it doesn't (solidify your position).
Unfortunately, we started slow running the ball the two years before that too (with Tauscher).
Tauscher was indeed re-signed (and you're projecting the "reluctantly" part) before he was even 100% physically ready to play. If he had been signed weeks earlier he still wouldn't have gotten him on the field any faster.
John Kuhn isn't "the answer", but he can be part of the equation. So can Jackson, so can Nance and Starks. Or possibly someone else (almost three weeks to the deadline).
And again, the actual rushing yards do not matter if the offense is moving the ball (and the chains) and putting up points.
And it will, just watch.
quote:Originally posted by Diggr14:quote:Originally posted by Coach:
You're the expert.
Is sand tasty?
Yes.. when you draft a guy #9 overall and have a guy that rushed for 1000 last season that sort of signals the end of the road for your maligned former #1 pick. They did everything except put his house up for sale for him.
Hardly an expert needed for this one. I think even Artist has caught on.
Not if he has more than one year on his contract, and there's also a 29 year old RB on the roster.
They are under no obligation to trade him. If they get an offer they like they could, they also could just as easily hang on to him.
We'll see.
quote:Originally posted by Coach:
And again, the actual rushing yards do not matter if the offense is moving the ball (and the chains) and putting up points.
And it will, just watch.
Mike Leach and Mouse Davis applaud you.
spot onquote:Originally posted by Coach:quote:Originally posted by Diggr14:
Great point, except you completely solidify our position. The line was in disarray at the time. Clifton was hurt I believe and Tauscher was not even in the fold yet. What happened.... Ted made the move to (reluctantly) to Tausch.
It worked out great. The line codified and the bleeding stopped.
We have a similar situation today. We have suckage in the backfield.... it needs to be upgraded. I'm sorry, but very few here think John Kuhn is the answer. It just wont work consistently. We are looking at a lot of 60 yard rushing games if this is the strategy.
No, actually it doesn't (solidify your position).
Unfortunately, we started slow running the ball the two years before that too (with Tauscher).
Tauscher was indeed re-signed (and you're projecting the "reluctantly" part) before he was even 100% physically ready to play. If he had been signed weeks earlier he still wouldn't have gotten him on the field any faster.
John Kuhn isn't "the answer", but he can be part of the equation. So can Jackson, so can Nance and Starks. Or possibly someone else (almost three weeks to the deadline).
And again, the actual rushing yards do not matter if the offense is moving the ball (and the chains) and putting up points.
And it will, just watch.
quote:Originally posted by chickenboy:
Now is the time to make a deal and even overpay for your team.
Buffalo only appears to be interested in moving him if someone's willing to overpay for a guy with some character issues. TT's thinking long-term and he's not going to make a foolish move like that based on a short-term analysis that he very likely disagrees with.
Instead of a new RB, why don't we try and acquire better Olinemen? I wonder what Logan Mankins could be had for? Our running game would improve dramatically if we had better run blocking from the line. Jackson is going nowhere partly because he doesn't have the burst to hit holes fast and hard like Grant, but another big part of it is that Jackson hasn't had anywhere to run to for the most part. Tauscher and Clifton have clearly lost a step overall, but they weren't very good run blockers in the first place so that's really killing our outside running game. It didn't help that Chicago, even in their down years, plays extremely aggressive defense that attacks quickly...Urlacher and Briggs were playing out of their minds against the run also. So in this should we/should we not acquire Lynch/Williams/whoever argument, I'm taking the position that we should acquire/play better Olinemen.
Ssuppose that TT does indeed go and add Lynch. What about next year when Grant comes back? Suddenly, they have a nice 1-2 punch similar to the luxury MN had with AP and Taylor.
Grant may not be coming back next year. I believe he is due a very large bonus in March maybe and many have speculated the Packers won't pay it.
I think climate needs to be factored in.
If I had a fairly one-dimensional (passing) team, I would want to play under a roof and have HFA.
If I am the Packers and I have HFA and so even though a January playoff game is in GB?
I don't know that I am well suited to win one of those games if the weather is really brutal.
Those games happen sometimes. Isn't that part of the reason there is sometimes talk of gearing up the ground game for November and beyond?
If I had a fairly one-dimensional (passing) team, I would want to play under a roof and have HFA.
If I am the Packers and I have HFA and so even though a January playoff game is in GB?
I don't know that I am well suited to win one of those games if the weather is really brutal.
Those games happen sometimes. Isn't that part of the reason there is sometimes talk of gearing up the ground game for November and beyond?
I think somebody said Grant's contract balloons next year and could likely be cut anyway.
I could see Grant either waiving that bonus or taking a pay cut. No one is going to give a 29-year-old RB a huge contract, especially when he's coming off a full season on IR. The RB's could look a lot different next year as a whole, even though IMHO the rest of the roster will remain relatively similar.
Of course, all these contingencies will only be revealed if there is actually football.
Of course, all these contingencies will only be revealed if there is actually football.
quote:Originally posted by DH13:
I think somebody said Grant's contract balloons next year and could likely be cut anyway.
I'm not sure what the base is, but I believe he is owed a 6-8 Million $ roster bonus.
I think, giving up a 2nd for him kills two birds with one stone. First, we get a back who is proven, young and relatively cheap. Second, we don't have to draft a RB next year, and we can go to Grant and virtually say, take a pay cut or get cut, since we already have a #1 RB in the mix. This is all contingent on knowing that BJ, Kuhn, Starks, Nance aren't capable of handling the load.
Thompson is not going to give up draft picks with a rookie cap looming.
quote:Originally posted by JJSD:
I could see Grant either waiving that bonus or taking a pay cut. No one is going to give a 29-year-old RB a huge contract, especially when he's coming off a full season on IR. The RB's could look a lot different next year as a whole, even though IMHO the rest of the roster will remain relatively similar.
Of course, all these contingencies will only be revealed if there is actually football.
I don't know if he would necessarily take a pay cut, but I do think he will be willing to restructure his deal. He seems like a reasonably intelligent guy in his interviews and it really is in his best interest to stay in GB so I think they will work something out.
quote:Originally posted by Grave Digger:
Instead of a new RB, why don't we try and acquire better Olinemen?
Because I highly doubt there are any OT's worth a schit available for trade. Even so, Grant was starting to hit his stride right before he was injured with Bulaga blocking for him. I think we all know it's only a matter of time before he's the starter.
@Coach I don't disagree that the offense will move the ball. We moved the ball against the Bears plenty. We also scored a mere 17 points (due in large part to penalties and a dropped pass by Quarless). We'll also move the ball just fine against the Lions. But I won't be thinking we're fine on offense even if that happens.
What concerns is me not the short run. It's the end of the season and the playoffs when we'll play teams far better than the Bears & Lions. This Packer team is good right now. A team needs to be great in order to win it all. The '96 Packers are the type of team we want to aspire to be. They were a dominating team in as many phases of the game as possible. Our offense is not dominant, nor will it be until the running game is fixed.
quote:Originally posted by CJS:
Because I highly doubt there are any OT's worth a schit available for trade. Even so, Grant was starting to hit his stride right before he was injured with Bulaga blocking for him. I think we all know it's only a matter of time before he's the starter.
I bet Logan Mankins could be had for the same price as DeAngelo Williams. That's probably more than Lynch, but based on reports of what Buffalo is asking, Lynch isn't going to be cheap. Don't you agree having a good Oline can mask deficiencies at RB?
They already have a potentially difference-making T on the roster in Bulaga. If Lang is healthy and in form, they may have two. No reason to go trade for one, especially a guy with -9 YAC.
quote:Originally posted by Grave Digger:
Don't you agree having a good Oline can mask deficiencies at RB?
Tony Fisher, DeShawn Wynn and Samkon Gado agree
quote:Originally posted by JJSD:
They already have a potentially difference-making T on the roster in Bulaga. If Lang is healthy and in form, they may have two. No reason to go trade for one, especially a guy with -9 YAC.
Excellent point. His YPC is way below average. Bulaga seems to be a strong run blocker so when he's in, the weak spot of the left side is Colledge. Acquire Mankins, stop letting him run the ball and stick him at LG next to Bulaga and we have a much better run blocking Oline.
quote:Originally posted by CJS:
Possible? Sure. Out of all of the Super Bowl victors over the years, you've been able to come up with a couple that showed it's "possible".
Limiting any metric to Super Bowl victors is kinda silly, isn't it? The argument really boils down to can you make a playoff run without an above average running attack.
And, much as old school thinking would have you believe otherwise, the answer is clearly, yes you can go to (and deep in) the playoffs without an above average running game.
Indy in 2009 was 32nd
San Diego in 2009 was 31st
Arizona in 2009 was 28th
Pittsburgh in 2008 was 23rd
Arizona in 2008 was 32nd
Indy in 2008 was 31st
Philly in 2008 22nd
don't they have higher goals than just making the payoffs?
quote:And, much as old school thinking would have you believe otherwise, the answer is clearly, yes you can go to (and deep in) the playoffs without an above average running game.
Indy in 2009 was 32nd
San Diego in 2009 was 31st
Arizona in 2009 was 28th
Pittsburgh in 2008 was 23rd
Arizona in 2008 was 32nd
Indy in 2008 was 31st
Philly in 2008 22nd
Almost seems like a requirement!
From your list, the majority of those teams *didn't* win the Super Bowl, so I would say you actually help to prove my point. I don't give a crap about making the playoffs. I want another Lombardi Trophy in Green Bay.
Wow....I suppose the Colts JUST made the playoffs last year. And Pitt won the Super Bowl in 2008. And the Bucs won it when they did w/o a QB or running game. Yes, a running game does help but why piss away high picks for no sure thing. Marshawn is young and has value but I don't see 2nd round pick value.
I for one do not understand the obsession with Caveman.
I for one do not understand the obsession with Caveman.
quote:No reason to go trade for one, especially a guy with -9 YAC.
Perhaps the problem with Mankins is that he was used as a receiver and not a running back.
quote:Originally posted by CJS:
I want another Lombardi Trophy in Green Bay.
quote:NFL Network's Mike Lombardi predicted on Around the League Wednesday that the Bills will "pull the pin" and deal Marshawn Lynch before the October 19 trade deadline.
Analysis: Lombardi, a former NFL general manager, has a good feel for situations like this. He concedes that the Bills will require a quality draft pick, but it sounds like a deal could get done for something like a conditional fourth-rounder that would escalate based on playing time and performance. Green Bay is the most hotly rumored landing spot, but other teams will suffer running back injuries before mid-to-late October and could enter the mix."
I'd do a conditional 4th.
I'd do a conditional 4th for DW before ML and work down from there.
I'd do a conditional 4th for DW before ML and work down from there.
I would definitely do a conditional 4th for Lynch that would go as high as a 3rd if he reached statistical and playing time marks...900+ yards and starts 10 games maybe?
quote:Originally posted by TD:
Wow....I suppose the Colts JUST made the playoffs last year. And Pitt won the Super Bowl in 2008. And the Bucs won it when they did w/o a QB or running game. Yes, a running game does help but why piss away high picks for no sure thing. Marshawn is young and has value but I don't see 2nd round pick value.
I for one do not understand the obsession with Caveman.
It's not multiple high "picks" it's one high pick. CJS and I and others think that a 3rd possible 2nd would be helpful for this team. There is no way to predict that 2nd or 3rd next year makes the squad, let alone is productive as Lynch. Maybe the 2nd and 3rd is the next coming of LAwerence Taylor, but we have no way of knowing that. What we do know, is that unless our Defense starts holding teams to under 14 points a game for the whole year (Ravens, Giants, Bucs), winning the SB might be extrememly difficult without having an upgraded ground game when the weather turns.
quote:Originally posted by Grave Digger:
I would definitely do a conditional 4th for Lynch that would go as high as a 3rd if he reached statistical and playing time marks...900+ yards and starts 10 games maybe?
But you wouldn't go a 2nd?