What's wrong with running game?

[eagle13]

Our young linemen are suppose to be so talented and have a year starting.
We have proven quality Ts.
The ZBS has had a full year and 2 training camps.
We have more depth this year with Barbre and supposedly improved Costin.

THE ZBS is supposed to be sooo superior that any average back is suppose to be able to get yardage. It was advertised that you don't neccessarily need a superstar back.

Well? WTF?

ZBS is crap OR our Olinemen are crap OR what?

[crkone]

Maybe we are not showing our full arsenal of running plays, but one can see that it is a combination of clogged holes and bad cuts by the RBs. I think it will get better as the season goes on. Maybe Morency will be able to help.

[Senor Bogut]

I think right now the Packers are missing Vernand Morency.

[Ayt]

We have a rookie RB with no one of quality behind him and we've gone up against two of the best teams in the NFL (3rd and 4th respectively) in terms of run defense in Pitt and Jacksonville.

Morency is definitely missed because of his big play ability.

[deep throat]

We have a rookie RB with no one of quality behind him and we've gone up against two of the best teams in the NFL (3rd and 4th respectively) in terms of run defense in Pitt and Jacksonville.

Morency is definitely missed because of his big play ability.

and these young OL are decent (not great) prospects that are still learning. The rookie RB we have is not an impact guy. After the first two backs this was one of the weakest drafts for RBs in the history of the NFL. He has looked pretty much as billed coming out.

Did you really expect anthing more? This was predicted to be a weak spot.

[Ayt]

I personally think the loss of Morency has been huge. He was better than Ahman last year, IMO, and he has a burst and elusiveness to him that BJ currently lacks.

http://www.nfl.com/videos?categoryId=hi ... ilter=2006

He has two TD runs in this game that should remind everyone the type of elusiveness and speed he has. He's a very explosive back, IMO. I was disappointed when he got hurt because I expected a very nice year from him.

[deep throat]

I personally think the loss of Morency has been huge. He was better than Ahman last year, IMO, and he has a burst and elusiveness to him that BJ currently lacks.

http://www.nfl.com/videos?categoryId=hi ... ilter=2006

He has two TD runs in this game that should remind everyone the type of elusiveness and speed he has. He's a very explosive back, IMO. I was disappointed when he got hurt because I expected a very nice year from him.

Morency has top level speed, while BJack is slow by NFL standards. I think togeter they make one decent back, that's what I think they had in mind.

[El Duderino]

I don't remember what Morency ran at the combine,i but i don't think he has alot of straight line speed in that he'll be able to break off a bunch of long runs.He has quick feet and the ability to change direction in a confined area,which is good for the zone blocking scheme that relies on cutting back.

Put Morency in Sherman's power gap scheme and i don't think Morency would be all that successful,but he does look to be a good fit for what we run now.That's one thing i've been somewhat disappointed with in Jackson so far,he looks a bit more stiff than i expected.Maybe it's just him being indecisive,at least i hope that's what it is because Jackson looked more shifty in his draft videos.

[deep throat]

I don't remember what Morency ran at the combine,i but i don't think he has alot of straight line speed in that he'll be able to break off a bunch of long runs.He has quick feet and the ability to change direction in a confined area,which is good for the zone blocking scheme that relies on cutting back.

Put Morency in Sherman's power gap scheme and i don't think Morency would be all that successful,but he does look to be a good fit for what we run now.That's one thing i've been somewhat disappointed with in Jackson so far,he looks a bit more stiff than i expected.Maybe it's just him being indecisive,at least i hope that's what it is because Jackson looked more shifty in his draft videos.

Morency ran a 4.61 on wet grass@Miami. He ran a 4.38/ the year before at OSU. I agree -this is a better fit. BJack's problem could be that he is thinking too much right now.

[xTitan]

I don't think Jackson has a problem other then very poor offensive line play...the o-line played better against Seattle and Jackson ran better...the o-line was dominated against Pitt and J-ville......J-ville also concentrated on the run, allowing receivers to run free. I just don't see any of the RB's missing big holes.

[deep throat]

I don't think Jackson has a problem other then very poor offensive line play...the o-line played better against Seattle and Jackson ran better...the o-line was dominated against Pitt and J-ville......J-ville also concentrated on the run, allowing receivers to run free. I just don't see any of the RB's missing big holes.

Your right in that he hasn't had much to work with, but he does look a little stiff/slow getting to the outside. He carries the ball in the wrong arm (too late to change that-should have learned that in Pee Wee)-one fumble so far.

[xTitan]

-= original quote snipped =-



Your right in that he hasn't had much to work with, but he does look a little stiff/slow getting to the outside. He carries the ball in the wrong arm (too late to change that-should have learned that in Pee Wee)-one fumble so far.

he is far from polished that is for sure...I was at the Seattle game....when he does have a seem he makes 1 cut very quick and can go......thats what I like...he sometimes makes to many cuts and obviously is over thinking....I was able to see a preseason game with Lynch....does the same thing.....think that comes with being a rookie....once Morency comes back he will take alot of pressure off Jackson....wish we could have seen Wynn.

[LUKE23]

I don't think we know what we have with any of our backs yet. Barry Sanders couldn't run through the "holes" our OL are creating. The push at the point of attack has been abysmal, and that's being generous. Granted, we have played against two great DL's so far in Pitt and Jacksonville, but we are going to see that the entire year in our division with Chicago, Detroit, and Minny. Better show some improvement.

I'll wait and see on Morency. Didn't see enough of him last year to really pass judgment.

[TheGhostDog]

As for the original question - What's wrong with our running game? - I think, based on my own highly unscientific analysis, that there are two answers:
1) our linemen tend to oscillate through hot or cold multi-week cycles of blocking effectiveness and haven't yet gotten into a groove yet, and
2) like a true West Coast team, ultimately our running game is irrelevant to whether the Pack wins or loses.

Whoa! What the heck am I talking about? Well let's look for patterns in the Pack's 2006 stats and won-lost record.

First, as for the streakiness/biorhythmical nature of Packer run blocking prowess, let's take as a given that when the Pack rushes for more than 100 yards and averages 4.0 yards per carry or better they are blocking well. Looking at our 16-week, game-by-game rushing totals last year (Y = 100+yrds & >4.0 per carry, N = <100yds & <4.0) we get:
Y N N N Y Y Y Y N N N Y Y Y N N.
That looks a lot more cyclical than random to me. And if you plot the actual rushing yardage totals per game they trend up and down somewhat like a wave pattern, not jumping about in a scattershot way:
Downtrend Wks 1-3: 103, 63, 60. Uptrend wks 3-7: 60, 99, 121, 155, 205. Downtrend wks 7-10: 205, 147, 47, 44. Etc.
It is by no means a smooth wave pattern, but a trending pattern seems noteworthy to me.

But does running the ball well mean the Pack is more likely to win? Not if 2006 is any indication. Their record last year when they surpassed the 100yd/4.0 level was 4-4. Their record when they failed to reach 100yds/4.0 ? Again, 4-4. Worried about the run game? Forgeddaboudit.

So surely the Pack must be doing something to affect their destiny, won/lost-wise, right? Is it their passing game? Well, looking at total passing yards per game is essentially meaningless, as the totals don't tell you if they were steamrolling an opponent or just racking up yards against a prevent defense in a vain comeback attempt. Average yards gained per pass attempt is a better predictor of winning likelihood, but not overwhelmingly so:
The Pack's record last year when they averaged less than 5 yards per pass attempt was 3-6, and 5-2 when they averaged 5 yards or more.

Surely Saint Vince and the football gods can't be that cruel to the Packer faithful - there must be some reason why the Pack wins or loses? Well, there just may be a gridiron Holy Grail, but it's a painful topic to talk about. Last year, when Favre (and any other Packer QBs) threw less interceptions in a game than the other team's QBs, the Packers record was 6-0. When Favre threw as many or more picks than the other team their record was 2-8. In other words, if you predicted the Pack's record last year based simply on whether Favre and Co. threw less interceptions than the other team you'd have gone 14-2, an .875 winning percentage.

There might also be a light at the end of the tunnel in evidence here too. The only two times the INT predictor failed was during games 14 - 15 at year's end when maybe, just maybe, the packer D was becoming stout enough to overcome the Doom of Favre effect. I certainly hope so, but to be safe someone should buy old man Favre some glasses.

[2006 Game Data]
Game 1: rushing 103yds/4.5per attempt, vs Chi, L, passing 142yds/2.7per, INT Favre2-opponent1 YYYYYYY (Y=INT predictor worked)
2: 63/3.2 NO L 304/4.2 1-1 YYYYYYY
3: 60/2.2 Det W 340/9.4 0-1 YYYYYYYYYY
4: 99/3.5 Phi L 219/4.7 2-0 YYYYYYYY
5: 121/4.7 StL L 210/4.8 0-0 YYYYYY
6: 155/5.3 Mia W 176/3.5 0-3 YYYYYYY
7: 205/5.3 Az W 180/7.2 0-1 YYYYYYYYYY
8: 147/4.9 Buf L 273/5.1 2-0 YYYYYYYYYY
9: 47/1.8 Min W 347/8.3 0-1 YYYYYYYY
10: 44/2.8 NE L 47/0.8 0-0 YYYYYYY
11: 51/2.6 Sea L 264/7.1 3-3 YYYYYYY
12: 149/6.5 NYJ L 190/3.2 2-2 YYYYYYY
13: 139/4.1 SF W 269/5.8 0-2 YYYYYYYY
14: 139/4.3 DET W 154/3.3 3-2 NNNNNNNNNNNNN (N=INT predictor failed)
15: 46/1.9 MIN W 261/4.1 2-1 NNNNNNNNNNNNNN
16: 97/2.9 Chi W 267/5.2 1-5 YYYYYYYYY

[ssssssnake]

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE RUNNING GAME?


I've watched every starter snap for the entire preseason a couple of times and they havn't done one cut block. The cut block is a staple and necessity of the ZBS. I think it's a preseason courtesy thing like when Polamolu eased up on Brett. Also, on packers.com you can go to the Wells post game interview and he mentions that they have been limited in their technique and they would have something extra in the regular season.


Right now we know what the running game looks like without cut blcoking the back side. On Sept 9th, we'll know what our running game looks like with cut blocking. I think it will be a lot better because the biggest problem I've seen wiht our poor runs is the backside pursuit and the backside pursuit is supposed to be stopped with cut blocks in our system.