Is a "franchise RB" really a good thing?

Totally agree. It wont be long till the RBs will just be another WR lined up in the backfield on occasion. The ability to run between the tackles will be a bygone skill much like "he lowered his head and fought for that extra yard" & "he's a fierce tackler".

No punting.

I think if you want that to be your identity as an offense you build your team around that.

The Packers are a team built around Rodgers and the passing game. Their OLine is full of players who are better pass blockers than run blockers and they're loaded at WR.

The Vikings on the other hand are a running team. They invested heavily in a RB and an OLine that run blocks quite well. They are a below average passing team though.

If you want to be a team that runs the ball really well, you have to invest in it like the Vikings. And yes you will sacrifice some things with the passing game to do that. It's hard to find Offensive Linemen who both run block really well AND pass block really well, those guys usually go high in round 1 or you just flat out get lucky in another round (i.e. Josh Sitton). Taking a 1st round RB won't guarantee that the running game will get going, especially when you have an OL that is built for a pass heavy offense.

quote:

Originally posted by PackFoo:
I mean, running the ball 30-35 times a game, is that a good idea with AR at QB? Don't you want the ball in the hands of your best play maker?

As long as GB can move the ball on the ground effectively in Dec-Jan that's when a team even as pass oriented as GB is needs to have a decent running game. There is no need to put up AP numbers but in crap weather that's when the ground game really matters.

And MM also needs to stick to the run during those times. He had a decent per carry avg with Harris @ SF in the divisional playoffs. He just wouldn't commit to the run and doing the same also would have allowed a gassed defense much needed relief.

Running is hard to justify when 1. you're a primarily passing team and 2. your defense is getting shredded and it's turning into a shootout.

It's obvious that is the shift in the NFL the last decade. And if you look at it from a raw investment point of view, the difference between RB and QB is the pounding they take, and what makes them great- physical versus mental. If a guy like Brady can play at a high level like he has for so long with almost no athleticism, what makes him great won't erode the same and ultimately is worth the huge investment. The game has evolved to favor QB play over everything else, and tha has something to do wih it too.

And this is what QBs that rely on their athleticism have to face- Rodgers' game must evolve to be a lot more like Brady's as he gets older. The younger breed of QB will also have to evolve their games to become more cerebral than physical. I think it was Elway that once said the greatest frustration he had as a player was that he knew more about the game when he was older but wasn't able to do it anymore. It seems that the new breed of QB talent evaluation is getting guys that can master the mental aspects faster, and if their athleticism helps the early so be it. They'll be better as they get older because it wasn't the foundation of their game.

quote:

Originally posted by Grave Digger:
Running is hard to justify when 1. you're a primarily passing team and 2. your defense is getting shredded and it's turning into a shootout.

I don't know if you're refering to the SF game but the game was tied mid way through the 3rd Q and by then, the defense was gassed. MM had the opportunity to make a better commitment to the run through nearly 3 Q's and by the time it got into "shootout" mode damage was done. Harris was averaging 4.8 per carry.

Packers ran 13 designed running plays that game. SF? 36.

Even with a decent run game (which GB had with Harris), can't be effective with MM choosing to run such a low number of plays.

quote:

Originally posted by PackFoo:

The Packers won a Superbowl with Starks at RB, and led the NFL in offense the following season with less than that.

Concur on not spending a top pick at RB - mainly because the delta between the top guys and the next tier isn't great enough to justify using the high picks

However, teams evolve over time and the fact that GB won a Title with Starks does not account for the way defensive coordinators attacked GB in 2012.

Rush 4, don't blitz and drop 7 into a cover-2 shell.

Now its GB's turn to evolve and having more of a threat at RB/running game is one way to address that tactic. GB needs to be able to win many different styles of games. We simply can't just bludgeon every team with the passing game like we did in 2011, especially without Jennings

Starks, Green, Harris are a nice group of RB's. But I do wish they had one they could really count on for 3rd and 2...move the chains, rest the defense and control the ball. Maybe that's Harris, maybe its a mid round pick- but I hope for a guy who's best asset isn't just pass pro - but rather moving the pile

Tough schit if they know what's coming, line up and impose your will. Force that safety to commit to the LOS and the field opens up for Rodgers again

As far as the pass blockers go, some of them have stated they get tired of "catching" all the time in pass pro and welcome the opportunity to drive forward and kick some ass on occasion

Packers offensive identity remains the same, but making it harder to defend is the goal for 2013.

What does Capers always want to do ? Make teams one-dimensional...and I think the 2012 Packers offense made that too easy on their opponents once Benson went down.

GB running game needs to improve and whether that comes from new RB or OL personnel or a greater commitment from the HC is to be determined

IMO, Franchise "Running Game" is the goal, by any means.

That means the OL is stout and you can do what you want, when you want.

My preference, A no-nonsense Top5 defense.
Don't give a crap what you want to do with offense, you build this and MM/AR will win titles.

I don't know if you can be a "we have to be able to run the ball, only when we need to," team.

But for sure the Packers need to be able to run the ball more consistently...like the Pats, Colts and Saints in their Superbowl years.

Eddie Lacy, I think is a RB that if you take in round 1, he's your bell cow, and you give him the rock a lot. A round 1 pick, IMO, is someone you are going to get significant contribution from in year 1, barring injury of course.

I think the Packers were able to do that with Raji and CMIII. Injury really hurt how much guys like Perry and Sherrod could contribute and to a greater degree, Bustin Loose.

To me, the biggest need you look to fill in round 1 is an ILB or impact S.

ILB, because even if Hawk is back, you have to groom his replacement. And Bish...we have no idea how effective he will be coming off the injury.

S, I think there are too many good players in this draft not to take one in the first 3 rounds. I'd rather spend round 1 or 2 pick on a guy than break the bank on Dashon Goldson.

I don't think we need a RB in Round 1, but I wouldn't object to someone else who can get some yards. I want a guy like Ahman Green, who could break one off now and then, but who could be counted on for three yards falling forward. His ability to do that wore teams down once we got the lead in the third quarter. Yes, we need some guys who can pile-drive up front, but if MM would commit to running it would help get those guys in that mindset.

I would not mind finding a guy in Round 2 who can move forward, be a threat to break off a 10- 30-yarder through a crack in the line, and who can catch the ball. Right now I don't think we have that guy on the roster. Harris is a nice change-of-pace back; Green is... who knows what, but more of a dancer than a get-the-yardage guy; Kuhn is a lightweight fullback who is like a Swiss Army knife; and Starks is the guy in the training room.

Yes, the NFL has changed and I don't want to take the ball out of AR's hands, but I want to give him some help and take the load off his shoulders. I'm tired of other teams ignoring our ground game and teeing off on Rodgers.

Begins and ends with oline.

quote:

As far as the pass blockers go, some of them have stated they get tired of "catching" all the time in pass pro and welcome the opportunity to drive forward and kick some ass on occasion

BTW, a great description and point of emphasis. I don't think most fans probably understand the importance of this enough from an Olineman's viewpoint.

quote:

Tough schit if they know what's coming, line up and impose your will. Force that safety to commit to the LOS and the field opens up for Rodgers again

If I had a theme for 2013, IMPOSE YOUR WILL would be it.

I just want a "respected" RB.

A "franchise RB" is a great thing and every team wants one. It gives you versatility and it gives you another weapon, The 'definition' of what that is varies from team to team though. In Green Bay, LaDainian Tomlinson would be superior to Adrian Peterson, for example, because in Greeen Bay that guy needs to catch and block well.

That said, it starts with the O-line. If they can't block your QB is getting mauled and the RB is getting tackled with the handoff.

Since late 2011 teams are defensively scheming against us with a cover 2, and not respecting our running game. Rightfully so. The cover 2 and not keeping 7 or 8 in the box has impacted our wide open passing attack negatively.

So, I agree with Satori, an impact running back and better run blocking would force teams to put 7 or 8 in the box to defend the run, thus opening up the longer passing games we used to shred teams with.

Not so sure I want to invest in a 1st round back however. But a substantially improved running game is definitely called for.

I'd prefer a DL in round one and perhaps another later on down, with a S or ILB in round 2 an interior OL or RB in round 3. Afterwhich TT finds the best guys left for depth.

I would like to see OL, S, ILB, or DL in the first round. We could use a better back, I just don't think we need to spend a 1st on one. The OL needs help and the defense, while better than the previous year, is still very shaky IMO.

A franchise back would make this team a lot more dangerous.

Think SF without Gore or Baltimore without Rice. Those are not the same teams without them.

My concern with GB is that they have become too damn predictable with the pass and teams have caught up somewhat. If you have a good DL that can generate a pass rush and LBs that can cover you can beat GB. Most good teams in the league have those pieces.

Get a reliable threat at RB and now they have to honor the run game and it'll open up the play action downfield like Baltimore did so well.

quote:

Originally posted by Herschel:
A "franchise RB" is a great thing and every team wants one. It gives you versatility and it gives you another weapon, The 'definition' of what that is varies from team to team though. In Green Bay, LaDainian Tomlinson would be superior to Adrian Peterson, for example, because in Greeen Bay that guy needs to catch and block well.

That said, it starts with the O-line. If they can't block your QB is getting mauled and the RB is getting tackled with the handoff.

I think the other consideration is in this day and age to be successful with a franchise RB you absolutely need a top 10 defense. Your overall gameplan is attrition.

A pass happy league with rules bending towards making it even more pass happy you can get away with a middle of the road defense because you have a mode of offense that can score quickly and often. Problem is if you don't have the protection for the passing game you don't have a fall back of a defense to help keep you in the game.

Overall, franchise RB with solid defense is old school and a safe , solid approach. A passing team tends to put all its eggs in one basket. You have a wonky cog in the machine and it's going to get ugly. That was the 2012 Packers. The fact they put up the record they did and made it to the playoffs is really a testament to Rodgers and to MM.

Basically teams need to pick the MO because there are only so many dollars. Obviously MM was trying to balance it out more last year but I can see how you wouldn't get to far away from the approach that you're locked into.

BTW, the whole point of imposing your will goes just as well for the passing game as the run game. Get oline and this offense becomes a rocket again.

franchise linemen are more important

The Left Tackle is the second-most important guy on the team after QB.

On defense, I'd say you need more very good players with a running offense but you need more depth with a heavy passing offense because they're going to be on the field more.

quote:

The Left Tackle is the second-most important guy on the team after QB.

What if the QB is left-handed?

Lefties are crimes against nature and aren't worth consideration. Only freaks choose to be left-handed.

It's a lifestyle choice. I have proof right here in my Jeebus fan fiction collection.