Fine with me.
Actually, it was well-written and quite informative.... but you know how some of us hate reality.
Just give me Marshawn Lynch and STFU.
Just give me Marshawn Lynch and STFU.
quote:Originally posted by CJS:
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.
So highlighting that 3 of the past 4 Super Bowl participants, and 1 of the previous 2 Super Bow winners had horrible running games proves your point that you need a great running game to win the Super Bowl?
Alrighty then.
quote:Originally posted by Coach:
Was Alstott really a true "threat"? Was Pittman? I wouldn't say so, yet the '02 Bucs still won it all. Yes, they had a dominant defense that year, but they also didn't have nearly the explosive offense that we (still) have either. And our defense is pretty good too, BTW..
Yes, both were more of a threat that either Kuhn or Jackson. Pittman was a solid back and Alstott was a bull (and they also had a true blocking FB for power plays).
quote:there is more to the RB position as part of a successful offense than just carrying the ball. Even though Kuhn and Jackson lack explosiveness in the running game, they both are very good receivers, excellent blockers, and neither has had any issues with ball security (much to your chagrin as it applies to one of them, I'm sure).
Is Kuhn Mike Alstott? I don't believe so, but I don't think Alstott is Kuhn either (Kuhn catches the ball better and doesn't appear to this point to have a fumbling issue). Could either of those two get tough yards inside. Yes. And in terms of picking up a blitz (very important in a pass heavy offense I'm sure you'd agree), I'd take Kuhn.
I can agree with most of this except Alstott was a better runner and was a decent receiver. His blocking blew monkey scrotum though. Kuhn and Jackson do a nice job of pass blocking, the issue is their limitations outside of that one facet. FWIW, fumbling and lack of pass protection is why I think Adrian Peterson is pretty over-rated. He's a danged good runner but I think he's lacking in the total package where a guy like Tomlinson or Emmitt Smith could do it all. I like backs who can do it all pretty well at least. (which is a reason I think Addai is better than given credit for)
I like Kuhn too, as the short yardage/vulture guy. The issue is the other guy with him not offering anything different or much better.
quote:Is Rodgers Manning? No. But I don't think Manning is Rodgers either. Rodgers can and will actually hurt a defense with his mobility. From a pure passing standpoint they're (now) on similar if not identical levels, and I would say with the emergence of Finley our receiving group as whole is superior to what the Colts have. Even after the Bears debacle, the 2010 Packers are scoring at the same rate as the 2009 Colts.
...
And this is with defenses "teeing off", both of our OT's struggling, and nothreat at the RB position. From a protection standpoint, Rodgers is actually better off with Jackson or Kuhn back there than he was with Grant..
Manning goes to the line with essentially three plays called and adjusts at the line. Rodgers can audible, sure, but he doesn't have the flexibility Manning does. The Indy offense can also run a decent screen (which Green Bay hasn't in what, five years?). While Addai isn't a monster rusher, he's pretty decent, catches very well and blocks tremendously well for a guy his size. Defenses have to respect his ability to run, catch a screen, catch a pass and block. Jackson and Kuhn can catch a pass and block with a little running straight up the middle. Indy's line is probably worse than Green Bay's too, maybe quite a bit, but IIRC, they had both high-pick tackles still when they won it all and their o-line has been diminishing for a few seasons now.
quote:A coach game planning the Packers obviously is going devote more defensive resources attempting to stop our passing game. After all, Rodgers is our best offensive player, and the receivers as a group are more explosive than the running back group. FYI, that was true even when Grant was still healthy.
The Bears did that Monday, yet Rodgers wasn't sacked, and we still moved the ball up and down the field on them all night long. If not for a historic amount of penalties we would've scored at least 24 (Finley' negated TD) and possibly even more than that (Quarless' drop).
Rodgers wasn't sacked, but the Bears defense created havoc and got a lot of pressure and it appeared to modify what Green Bay could do. A number of penalties came from what the Bears were doing when they didn't have to respect the run at all.
quote:However, should we not make a deal I am still of the opinion that the goal of this team (Super Bowl) would remain unchanged, and that we can win with what we currently have available at the RB position (again, barring another injury).
And I also predict that should we fail to reach our goal this year it will not be because of the RB position.
The goal will remain unchanged, but the likelihood of reach that goal is diminished greatly. The margin of victory is pretty slim in the league and the difference between a "good" team and a "bad" team is maybe two or three wins (roughly 9-7 vs. 7-9). When the playoffs start, you're (generally) only left with good teams and teams that have minimized their deficiencies. Grant isn't a great back, but he's pretty solid and when he was lost he turned a solid part of the team's game in to a deficiency. When every team already has weaknesses, adding another is often too much to overcome when just the good teams are left. The teams that go with committee approaches at back generally have guys with different strengths that can cover all the needed aspects. Green Bay doesn't have that with Grant out where they did before.
Thompson may make a move. It's a gamble both ways. If Lynch is the guy, he may do well by waiting and see if Buffalo doesn't get any other takers. However, if another team gets short at RB due to injury, suddenly Lynch's price goes up. That's a gamble I'm not sure I'd take, and I'm glad my salary isn't riding on it. TT's shown he can be aggressive in the draft when needed, and I hope he'll do so outside of it but we really haven't seen that yet.
Yeah, part of me would like to see a couple of medium-to-large moves outside that venue (Dansby, now Lynch, etc.). That doesn't mean I want him to go apenuts and get Haynesworth, T.O. and every big-dollar guy, just nab a select couple of guys to fill in a gap.
Either way, it'll still be a fun season but it would sure be nice to see the Lombardi Trophy come home again this year and it would be much more likely if they can give themselves every viable chance to make it happen.
quote:Originally posted by CAPackFan95:
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.
-----------------------------------------------------
So highlighting that 3 of the past 4 Super Bowl participants, and 1 of the previous 2 Super Bow winners had horrible running games proves your point that you need a great running game to win the Super Bowl?
Alrighty then.
Yes. Because I disagree with your entire premise. It's not good enough to go "deep into the playoffs". Or even to just appear in the Super Bowl. It's all about the Trophy.
As for the teams that you scoured the internet to find, in the end:
Indy in 2009 was 32nd - lost
San Diego in 2009 was 31st - lost
Arizona in 2009 was 28th - lost
Pittsburgh in 2008 was 23rd - win (in part because they had a respectable rushing attack, again, proving the point)
Arizona in 2008 was 32nd - lost
Indy in 2008 was 31st- win (Joseph Addai, again, a respectable runner)
Philly in 2008 22nd - lost
It's not just about the stats. The key is to have a running game or at least a RB that has to be respected by the defense. The Steelers had that with Parker in 2008. The Colts have had that with Addai and the Saints had that last year with Bush and Pierre Thomas.
Think Lombardi Trophies. Think - can we improve over the running backs we have? Can the Packers at least have a back that a defense will have to respect? As it stands now, we WILL have the 30th or 31st worst running attack in the NFL. But can we at least acquire a running back that a defense will respect? Yes. The best chance for that is by making a trade.
quote:Originally posted by Pakrz:
Actually, it was well-written and quite informative.... but you know how some of us hate reality.
Just give me Marshawn Lynch and STFU.
You can have him. Move him into your house tomorrow. I warn you though. He will be really bad for the chemistry in your house. He is going to breath all the air in your house with them big nostrils.
quote:He is going to breath all the air in your house with them big nostrils.
WTF?
quote:Originally posted by Goalline:
He is going to breath all the air in your house with them big nostrils.
Might need plungers instead.
quote:Originally posted by CJS:
Pittsburgh in 2008 was 23rd - win (in part because they had a respectable rushing attack, again, proving the point)
And yet, in the only game that matters according to you, the Super Bowl, Pittsburgh ran for an amazing 58 yards on 22 rushes. For a huge average of 2.2 yards per rush.
Breaking that running game down further.
In the 4th quarter, nursing a 20-7 lead, a point where proponents of "running games win you championships", one would expect a respectable run game to be of key importance here in the 4th quarter. Of the Super Bowl. Up 20-7. Right?
Pittsburgh's respectable rushing attack totals in the 4th quarter of the Super Bowl? 4 rushes, 6 yards.
Let's repeat that again.
4 rushes
6 yards
1.5 yards per rush
Pittsburgh took over once up 20-7, then again up 20-14, and in those 2 drives - 3 rushes for 6 yards. Then Pittsburgh took over once again up 20-14 at their own 1. A respectable rushing attack moves the ball there. Willie Parker and the Steelers? After Willie rushed once for no gain - safety.
Pittsburgh won that game, and frankly all their playoff games, due to their passing attack. Period. Just like Arizona got to the Super Bowl because of their passing attack that year.
If those numbers constitute a respectable rushing attack, then Green Bay's current attack is awesome.
quote:Originally posted by Henry:
Might need plungers instead.
Aren't those rather puny? He is black.
Blind Dating by Goaline, Timberlake, and Coach.
quote:Originally posted by CAPackFan95:quote:Originally posted by CJS:
Pittsburgh in 2008 was 23rd - win (in part because they had a respectable rushing attack, again, proving the point)
And yet, in the only game that matters according to you, the Super Bowl, Pittsburgh ran for an amazing 58 yards on 22 rushes. For a huge average of 2.2 yards per rush.
Breaking that running game down further.
In the 4th quarter, nursing a 20-7 lead, a point where proponents of "running games win you championships", one would expect a respectable run game to be of key importance here in the 4th quarter. Of the Super Bowl. Up 20-7. Right?
Pittsburgh's respectable rushing attack totals in the 4th quarter of the Super Bowl? 4 rushes, 6 yards.
Let's repeat that again.
4 rushes
6 yards
1.5 yards per rush
Pittsburgh took over once up 20-7, then again up 20-14, and in those 2 drives - 3 rushes for 6 yards. Then Pittsburgh took over once again up 20-14 at their own 1. A respectable rushing attack moves the ball there. Willie Parker and the Steelers? After Willie rushed once for no gain - safety.
Pittsburgh won that game, and frankly all their playoff games, due to their passing attack. Period. Just like Arizona got to the Super Bowl because of their passing attack that year.
If those numbers constitute a respectable rushing attack, then Green Bay's current attack is awesome.
Almost all of those yards were in the first half. The threat was there.
Name a single super bowl running back on the same caliber as Kuhn/Jackson. This is an easy area for improvement on this team.
And you're wrong as to why Pittsburgh won their championships. First of all, their defense is their calling card. Second, they simply acquire as many quality players as possible, making each unit (offense, defense, ST) generally superior to most NFL teams. PERIOD.
Big Ben isn't recognized as one of the great QB's in the league despite winning two Super Bowls. He's solid, but relatively unspectacular, especially compared to the likes of Brees, Manning, Brady and Rodgers. Again, thank you for proving my point.
1987 Redskins. Take your pick. All their RB's were junk. I don't think they had anyone with 700 yards. George Rodgers was their #1 guy and he was washed up. You can't tell me defenses were game planning for George Rogers.
Then Timmy Smith goes crazy in the Super Bowl and fades back into obscurity.
Then Timmy Smith goes crazy in the Super Bowl and fades back into obscurity.
23 years ago was the last one and how many years prior to that? So let's say it's one in 23. That's less than 4%. Let's say a good RB doubles those odds for a Super Bowl win to 8%. Doesn't it make sense to do that?
quote:Originally posted by CJS:
This is an easy area for improvement on this team.
It is?? That's great! So you, as the Bills GM, accept the offer of a 3rd round pick for Lynch then. That's fantastic.
Or are you suggesting we overpay for Lynch to
quote:Originally posted by CJS:
23 years ago was the last one and how many years prior to that? So let's say it's one in 23. That's less than 4%. Let's say a good RB doubles those odds for a Super Bowl win to 8%. Doesn't it make sense to do that?
Don't know that it's the last one. It's just the first one that came to mind. Was living there at the time and kinda had that team shoved down my throat.
I'm all for improving the position if cost isn't prohibitive. I'm just not sold on the premise that no move = no Super Bowl. If they use Jackson and Kuhn correctly (and I'm not convinced they will) they can do enough. They could use another dynamic and that could be Nance or Starks for all I know.
quote:Originally posted by Boris:quote:Originally posted by CJS:
This is an easy area for improvement on this team.
It is?? That's great! So you, as the Bills GM, accept the offer of a 3rd round pick for Lynch then. That's fantastic.
Or are you suggesting we overpay for Lynch tofixsatisfy your perceived poor quality of our run game?
I've already stated what I think the value of Lynch is (up to a second rounder). I've also acknowledged that the Bills may not be amenable to a trade (although the press says otherwise) and I've also stated that it's possible that the Bills trade demands may be unreasonable (although former GM Mike Lombardi says the talks will most likely start a conditional 4th).
I'm also pretty sure the my perception of the Packers running game isn't unique to me. The Packers didn't even try to run last game, despite Tommie Harrie not being available for the Bears. I think that 5 WR sets are great once and a while, I just think we'd be doing our whole team a favor if we had a bit more balance to keep defenses honest.
perception is in the eye of the beholder. Or backup fullbacks.
Or magically running through holes that aren't there. Happy Unicorn Day. 
Or making something out of nothing by breaking a tackle or making someone miss. Happy Unicorn Day to you too. 
You have to respect the threat of a Unicorn, Larsee.
@ CJS
I realize we don't agree about this topic by any stretch of the imagination (which is fine), but would you please be so kind as to elaborate on exactly what you mean regarding how Pittsburgh obtains it's talent?
"Second, they simply acquire as many quality players as possible, making each unit (offense, defense, ST) generally superior to most NFL teams."
@ CJS
I realize we don't agree about this topic by any stretch of the imagination (which is fine), but would you please be so kind as to elaborate on exactly what you mean regarding how Pittsburgh obtains it's talent?
"Second, they simply acquire as many quality players as possible, making each unit (offense, defense, ST) generally superior to most NFL teams."
This is like Lincoln-Douglas II (if the original was mind-numbingly repetitive).
quote:Originally posted by Coach:
@ CJS
I realize we don't agree about this topic by any stretch of the imagination (which is fine), but would you please be so kind as to elaborate on exactly what you mean regarding how Pittsburgh obtains it's talent?
"Second, they simply acquire as many quality players as possible, making each unit (offense, defense, ST) generally superior to most NFL teams."
I was a bit... "tipsy" when I wrote that last night, but I was making a comment on the Steelers strong rosters in general. I wasn't insinuating that they make trades like the one I am proposing. They generally follow Ted's method of draft and develop.
For the record, I am all for that philosophy, except in this case, where I feel that the Packers don't have a runner anywhere near Grant's caliber. Lynch or even Steve Slaton would be a significant upgrade for us.
quote:Originally posted by CJS:
I'm also pretty sure the my perception of the Packers running game isn't unique to me. The Packers didn't even try to run last game, despite Tommie Harrie not being available for the Bears. I think that 5 WR sets are great once and a while, I just think we'd be doing our whole team a favor if we had a bit more balance to keep defenses honest.
Tommie Harris was available to the Bears. They chose to inactivate him in favor of better players. He's a shell of his former self. This wasn't some depleted defense we were facing. It was the best they had. They came in allowing a little over 2 YPC. I don't think it's a stretch to say that even with Ryan Grant in that game there wouldn't have been a lot of chances to move the ball on the ground.
This was the perfect game to spread it out with 5 receivers ala the Vikings games in 2007 and 2008. You beat the Bears through the air this year.
Well, as Coach said many pages back. Regardless, it will be interesting to watch.
quote:Originally posted by CJS:
Almost all of those yards were in the first half. The threat was there.
So, you're theory here is that because Pittsburgh rushed for 41 yards in the first half, "the threat was there"?
quote:Name a single super bowl running back on the same caliber as Kuhn/Jackson.
Jospeh Addai in 2009
Edgerrin James in 2008
Willie Parker in 2008
Laurence Maroney in 2007
quote:This is an easy area for improvement on this team.
Easy? Oh, do tell Mr. GM?
quote:And you're wrong as to why Pittsburgh won their championships. First of all, their defense is their calling card. Second, they simply acquire as many quality players as possible, making each unit (offense, defense, ST) generally superior to most NFL teams. PERIOD.
Why did the Pittsburgh Steelers win the Super Bowl in 2008?
Was it the defense that gave up 16 pts in the 4th quarter, or the 407 total yards?
Was it the running game?
Was it Ben Roethlisberger and the passing game putting together a great drive after falling behind 23-20 with <2 to go?
quote:Big Ben isn't recognized as one of the great QB's in the league despite winning two Super Bowls. He's solid, but relatively unspectacular, especially compared to the likes of Brees, Manning, Brady and Rodgers. Again, thank you for proving my point.
So, you're saying he's not as good compared to Manning and Brady huh.
Good stuff. Maybe you can keep throwing a "thanks for proving my point" at the end of everything. Oh wait you did.
BTW, I anxiously await you're "but it's Detroit" after today...
we should have traded for Revis in the offseason
quote:Originally posted by heyward:
This is like Lincoln-Douglas II (if the original was mind-numbingly repetitive).
LOL
Can Revis play safety? Morgan Burnett has a good chance to become a solid player down the road, but currently playing with him is just like playing with 10 instead of 11. Derrick Martin is no better.
Revis could play saftey and running back
duh
duh
quote:Originally posted by CAPackFan95:
BTW, I anxiously await you're "but it's Detroit" after today...
I think our RB's ran for 70 something yards today? Kuhn closed out the game well. I also think Rodgers did a good job of checking to runs when the Lions were sitting on pass.
However, if you don't see room for improvement in our RB's, I really don't see a point in continuing the discussion.
I'd say there's room for improvement all over when you squeak by the Lions at Lambeau by 2 and their starting QB is Shaun Hill.
quote:Originally posted by CJS:
However, if you don't see room for improvement in our RB's, I really don't see a point in continuing the discussion.
Nice laydown. And nice avoidance of all the points about the ZOMG AWESOME!!!eleven! running game of the 2008 Pittsburgh Steelers.
The running game sealed the victory today. Because MM actually decided to finally run the ball. Meanwhile precious Marshawn Lynch went 4 for 8 with a fumble.
But, please continue "not continuing the discussion" in order to avoid looking worse...
quote:Originally posted by CAPackFan95:
Jospeh Addai in 2009
Edgerrin James in 2008
Willie Parker in 2008
Laurence Maroney in 2007
You really don't believe that BJack/Kuhn is "on the same caliber" as these guys? Every one of them (except James) are better NOW than Kuhn/Bjack much less then. Cue the stats...
why does it always have to be one extreme or the other. I'm all for upgrading the running game, but aware that this can still be a strong offensive team with the squad we have and the right playcalling. I'm OK with trading for a guy like Lynch (whom I don't particularly like) as long as the price isn't high. I most definitely do not belong to the "at all costs" camp who feel a 2nd and another pick is worth it for a guy like Lynch.
The offense was fine today against a decent Lion defense even without emphasizing the run. Even when Grant was healthy we did a lot of empty backfield. The short passing game can have the same effect as a good running game. MM didn't go away from the run, he just didn't emphasize it until he needed to run clock and it was effective.
I'd still rather have DB talent upgraded before I worry about the running game.
The offense was fine today against a decent Lion defense even without emphasizing the run. Even when Grant was healthy we did a lot of empty backfield. The short passing game can have the same effect as a good running game. MM didn't go away from the run, he just didn't emphasize it until he needed to run clock and it was effective.
I'd still rather have DB talent upgraded before I worry about the running game.
Stats are for losers Let's go with the football for dummies definition of "well, hell I heard of them and they were on a FFL team of mine in 2006" so they must be better!
excellant post EKB, btw lynch fumbles