RealGM

Even Brett Favre admits he has no clue whether the Packers are for real. The team has won six in a row dating to last season, but Favre was quick to say the Packers don't feel like a team on a six-game win streak. That's what he should say because the Packers are young in key areas and can't afford to think they've arrived. The Packers appear strong enough on defense to stay in games. They are also in the right conference. It's not too early to consider Green Bay a potential playoff team in the NFC, but the Pack is not all the way back. Not yet. -- Mike Sando

Settle down, Green Bay fans. The Packers aren't back -- and in many ways, they're the same as they were in 2006, at best an 8-8 team that could get to nine wins. To say they are back would be to say that this team has 10-11 win expectations. They are limited on offense because of the running game. Brandon Jackson can't do much after about 15 carries, and he could be replaced as a starter in the next few weeks. Brett Favre has a 13-year generation gap with seven offensive starters, and he's forced to throw more checkdowns and cautious passes. His 6.1 yards per attempt is the lowest in 16 years in Green Bay. The defense is good but not great. The good news is that the Packers should be in most games because of the defense, but without that running game, they will struggle holding second-half leads against good teams. -- John Clayton

I agree with Mike Sando, but john clayton can lick my balls,and hes usually very agreeable. I agree with what he says about jackson and the running game, but who has actually said the runing game for this team is going to contribute, And he acts as if favres 6.1 yards per attempt is a bad thing, when honestly i think thats how this offense should be moving the ball down field, less chances for mistake, quicker of the line,throwing defenders off, sure he may not throw the ball 25 yards per pass, but if it moves the team downfield, then good. And he also says that with no running game we wont be able to hold on to second half leads, but thats what the defense is for.

I'm ok with the low yards per pass as well, because I think that's the way you keep Brett Favre's career going.....

However, I remember a number of years ago the sports writer for the Wall Street Journal, Alan Barra, did a great analysis of winning teams and came up with a staggering correlation between winning and yards per pass.

I don't remember the specifics, but his conclusion was pretty compelling that the elite NFL teams are generally the leaders in the clubhouse with the most yards per pass. 6.1 would not cut it in his study and the Packers would be really bucking the odds to put together say a 10+ win season if we remain at only 6.1.

Here's a link to the article on yards per pass....

DrugBust/Ayt, you'll really like this one.....

http://www.nysun.com/article/45475

An excerpt:

"...You know about interceptions, but you may not know as much about yards per pass, which is simply the yards a team gains through the air divided by the number of throws

The way it is written I thought the third paragraph was from ESPN as well.

I was not prepared for "lick my balls."

LOL.

I agree with Mike Sando, but john clayton can lick my balls,and hes usually very agreeable. I agree with what he says about jackson and the running game, but who has actually said the runing game for this team is going to contribute, And he acts as if favres 6.1 yards per attempt is a bad thing, when honestly i think thats how this offense should be moving the ball down field, less chances for mistake, quicker of the line,throwing defenders off, sure he may not throw the ball 25 yards per pass, but if it moves the team downfield, then good.

The problem with no running game and almost always throwing shorter passes is,we don't get to play the Giants every week.They might have the worst linebacker core in the NFL,they wouldn't be able to cover Mike McCarthy if he put on pads and went out in the flat for a pass.

Teams will watch film of that Giants game and if we can't run the ball,they are going to pinch in the short passing game until the Packers prove they can burn teams enough for doing it.Given those other teams also rarely if ever will have such a sad collection of linebackers and safeties,it'll be harder to repeat the success we had last week throwing short nearly every down.

Go against teams with some speedy linebackers that aren't so piss poor in coverage,our RB's/TE's won't always be wide open and able to run after the catch.I'm not saying to abandon the short passing game,just that what we saw last week won't be the norm.Gonna have to start running the ball better and hitting more 15-18-22 yard type of passes once we face better defenses or we'll see more offensive outputs like the Eagles game than the Giants.

When you don't have a running game the short pass IS your running game.

A short throwing game can work as long as you have solid WRs. I think that right now we may have the most quality we've had 1-4 in a long time.

John Clayton is a ugly little troll. His opinions don't mean anything to me. He doesn't know what he's talking about 1/2 the time.

One thing that is killing us is the inability to run the playaction pass for a big gain. That is a big part of the WCO.

Great link, PP. I hadn't really thought about the correlation between yards per passing attempt and team success.

Jennings is also IMO our best big play threat both in terms of running after the catch and simply getting open deep. Replacing him for Martin should help quite a bit.

I didn't think he was far off target. All the Packers can do is overachieve.