You have to run running plays to make the play action effective JB.
Statistically, the Cards are the worst rushing team.
quote:Originally posted by CJS:quote:Originally posted by Henry:
Coppers need to quit drooling like CJS is a punk in a commuter lot.
I need a Henry interpreter. Oshbaul, can you help me out?
I think he's asking politely for the forum police to leave you be.
I place the failure of the OL on Campen. I can't see where the line is improving over the season with his leadership. I would expect that, by now, one side of the OL would be able to run block. At this point neither side of the OL can run block. I don't fault any of the PACK RBs, when they get to the line with the ball there's NO HOLE. They're forced to collide with the the rearends on the OL. Poor coaching
The oline may not be blocking well but anyone that doesn't see that Jackson couldn't find a hole if he had a seeing eye dog, is as blind as he is.
This is true. However, who needs play action? Short passes are like runs. The D crouds the line of scriminage and boom over the top for Td's. Also, Philly is going to blitz, both run and pass style, so short passes get the ball over the blitzers and under the deep coverage for a ton of YAC. We run it into the line, now it's 2-8,2-9, or 2nd &10. Now we are in deep trouble. Pass on 1st & 2nd down equals fewer blitzes and AR completes like 67% of his passes we win. Ball control passing game.
quote:Originally posted by TD:
You have to run running plays to make the play action effective JB.
As opposed to every other segment of this team the O-Line has seen less injury with the exception being Tauscher. Bulaga initially looked an ungrade until lately when he was playing some of the NFL's better DE's. They played better as a group against the Patties and Giants after player only meetings. Little improvement with possible backsliding collectively.
Campen is no Greene.
Campen is no Greene.
It is kind of amazing that 2 of the best rushing performances by the Pack against Washington and New England were both losses.
I know people talk about the Pack having a dominant passing game, but I think they're a slight bit short of that. I think if Finley was there, and they had a 100% healthy Donald Driver who was maybe 2 years younger and still more of a deep threat, then this passing game might be completely dominant. I would say it is just a tad short of dominant because of Driver not being completely back to his Pro Bowl level self and the loss of Finley who was on the verge of a Pro Bowl season and looked like the most reliable guy in clutch situations.
At times a guy like James Jones or Jordy Nelson has stepped up and when that happens the passing game can look dominant. But there are other games where those guys are dropping passes, fumbling, or not contributing, and in those games the passing game isn't quite what it can be. Maybe Driver is getting healthier and may show more of a deep threat than he has so far this year. If the Pack's running game is going to continue to be as awful as it has been, all the receivers are going to have to step up their games and make up for it.
I know people talk about the Pack having a dominant passing game, but I think they're a slight bit short of that. I think if Finley was there, and they had a 100% healthy Donald Driver who was maybe 2 years younger and still more of a deep threat, then this passing game might be completely dominant. I would say it is just a tad short of dominant because of Driver not being completely back to his Pro Bowl level self and the loss of Finley who was on the verge of a Pro Bowl season and looked like the most reliable guy in clutch situations.
At times a guy like James Jones or Jordy Nelson has stepped up and when that happens the passing game can look dominant. But there are other games where those guys are dropping passes, fumbling, or not contributing, and in those games the passing game isn't quite what it can be. Maybe Driver is getting healthier and may show more of a deep threat than he has so far this year. If the Pack's running game is going to continue to be as awful as it has been, all the receivers are going to have to step up their games and make up for it.
quote:Originally posted by fightphoe93:
It is kind of amazing that 2 of the best rushing performances by the Pack against Washington and New England were both losses.
I feel that is deceiving. Against NE, they had to start Flynn so a dedicated commitment to the running game was in order (why they haven't done that more often is beyond me) and Washington was skewed because 71 of of BJack's 115 came on one run and AR had 30 on 4 carries. Other than the BJack 70 yarder, they struggled that game like so many others, IMO...
I'm hearing that the competition committee in the off season will implement a new rule, where long runs won't count in statistics.
More specifically it won't count long runs for RBs that don't "deserve" them.
More specifically it won't count long runs for RBs that don't "deserve" them.
quote:Originally posted by Tschmack:
I think this team has proven they can win consistently without a solid running game, but long term I don't know that it's the best strategy.
Where do you get the idea that what's happening now has anything to do with any long-term strategy?
quote:Originally posted by CAPackFan95:
I'm hearing that the competition committee in the off season will implement a new rule, where long runs won't count in statistics.
More specifically it won't count long runs for RBs that don't "deserve" them.
Long overdue. Something needs to be done to account for DB's falling down and allowing long TD passing stats to stand.
I am thinking GB can run against the Eagles 
If a running back has a statistical day comprising of 1 or 2 long runs and several carries of minimal yardage, the result on team performance can be misleading if resorting to the message of your statement above.quote:Originally posted by CAPackFan95:
I'm hearing that the competition committee in the off season will implement a new rule, where long runs won't count in statistics.
More specifically it won't count long runs for RBs that don't "deserve" them.
The short runs could have killed numerous drives, thereby causing the team to score few points and even losing the game.
Hope that helps.
Interesting how an agenda can cloud one's common sense.
I believe a Canadian system would work well here...where each carry is dealt with at a ratio of .9 its actual yardage. Thus a 1 yard carry is only reduced by a total of .1 yards but a 50 yard carry is reduced by 5 yards making it less of a factor in the backs total yardage and average.
There was a website i stumbled across awhile back that ranked positive vs. negative run. Essentially, each run has a goal. If that goal isn't met, it's a negative run. A 1 yard run is positive if it results in a touchdown or a first down. A 15 yard run is negative if it's a draw on 3rd and 18.
Examples of positive runs: 4+ yards on first down. 3+ yards on second down to get to 3rd and 3 or less, any run for a first down or touchdown.
Examples of negative runs: 12 yard run on 3rd and 15, 40 yard run to end a half, and 3 or less yards on first down.
Examples of positive runs: 4+ yards on first down. 3+ yards on second down to get to 3rd and 3 or less, any run for a first down or touchdown.
Examples of negative runs: 12 yard run on 3rd and 15, 40 yard run to end a half, and 3 or less yards on first down.
Homework request for CU. Please go thru all of the Pack's running plays this year and report the results. Due by 4:59 PM central time today.
quote:Originally posted by justanotherpackerfan:
I believe a Canadian system would work well here...where each carry is dealt with at a ratio of .9 its actual yardage. Thus a 1 yard carry is only reduced by a total of .1 yards but a 50 yard carry is reduced by 5 yards making it less of a factor in the backs total yardage and average.
Sorry JAPF, I have no interest in a league rewarding underachieving players.
quote:Originally posted by phaedrus:If a running back has a statistical day comprising of 1 or 2 long runs and several carries of minimal yardage, the result on team performance can be misleading if resorting to the message of your statement above.quote:Originally posted by CAPackFan95:
I'm hearing that the competition committee in the off season will implement a new rule, where long runs won't count in statistics.
More specifically it won't count long runs for RBs that don't "deserve" them.
The short runs could have killed numerous drives, thereby causing the team to score few points and even losing the game.
Hope that helps.
Jackson that day:
71 yards
-4 yards
7 yards
1 yard
15 yards
7 yards
9 yards
no gain
6 yards
3 yards
It wasn't "one or two" long runs.
Subtract the 71 yarder and he's still @ 4.9 ypc.
Why he didn't get the ball more often that day is anyone's guess.
Hope that helped.
Barry Sanders sucked.
Hope that helped.
Hope that helped.
I didn't write BRANDON JACKSON, I wrote A RUNNING BACK.quote:Originally posted by Coach:
Jackson that day:
The point in my post was that IF an RB has such a statistical performance, it may be detrimental. Look carefully at the exact text I replied to.
This reminds me of a debate years ago between who was better, Emmitt Smith or Barry Sanders. While I thought the argument for Smith was crazy, the main poster favoring Smith said the same thing. Sanders had a lot of games where he had a lot of carries with little yardage, Smith typically did not, and (it was asserted) Smith might be better because he moved the chains.
I think the argument was absurd because of the difference in offensive lines.
Anyway, the post I quoted was a smart-ass generic assertion that the only merit to the line of reasoning I bring up is that "we will no longer count long runs."
Not so.
Hope that helps.
The stench from a useless turd?quote:Originally posted by pablopackerfan:
Barry Sanders sucked.
Hope that helped.
Think again, bozo.
It will likely be a great big huge surprise to you to learn that I'm not too impressed with your thinking abilities. But you do make me chuckle.
quote:Originally posted by phaedrus:The stench from a useless turd?quote:Originally posted by pablopackerfan:
Barry Sanders sucked.
Hope that helped.
Think again, bozo.
Please stop the personal attacks. Thank you