Running Towards Daylight...And Getting Stuffed
by Mitchell_M on Oct 9, 2009 11:36 AM CDT
in Green Bay Packers Analysis
37 comments
Green Bay's offense has been heavy on the pass this season. Part of that is because the main concentration of talent on offense is in the passing game, but the running attack hasn't been able to take pressure off of Aaron Rodgers and company.
As a team, Green Bay has ran for 399 yards and 4 TDs. Through four games, those averages aren't terrible, but they aren't very good either. Ryan Grant has been underwhelming to say the least, and DeShawn Wynn is not as impressive as I thought he would be. Aaron Rodgers honestly looks like the best runner on the team, and that's a problem.
Several people (myself included) have wondered aloud why the team seems to abandon the run later in games. An obvious question to ask is the difference in production between the first and second halves. Here's what I found:
|
|
1st Half |
2nd Half |
|
Attempts |
45 |
49 |
|
Yards |
142 |
255 |
|
Average |
3.1 |
5.2 |
|
TD |
3 |
1 |
That's right, the team averages over 2 ypc more in the second half of games in 2009. Ryan Grant in particular has been better after halftime; his average increases from 3.0 to 4.8. Aaron Rodgers also runs better in the second half, where he averages 6.7 yards per carry, but that's likely a product of the quarterback figuring out that the offensive line can't protect him.
I simply cannot figure out why this discrepancy exists. If anything, I thought the first half production would outweigh the second half. However, Green Bay had a horrible time running the ball in the first half against Chicago, and Grant only received 11 carries in last week's game against Minnesota, so that might be skewing the numbers.
So what do you guys think? Does Green Bay need to focus on establishing the run sooner in games? Or should we take advantage of opposing defenses softening up in the latter half of games? Is the patchwork offensive line even capable of opening up running lanes? Or are the Packers suffering from a serious talent deficiency in their running backs?
UPDATE: Thanks to a few subtle hints in the comments, I decided to post the same table without Rodgers' rushing stats. Here you go.
|
|
1st Half |
2nd Half |
|
Attempts |
41 |
36 |
|
Yards |
126 |
167 |
|
Average |
3.0 |
4.6 |
|
TD |
3 |
0 |
As you can see, the 2nd half ypc drops by over half a yard, but is still significantly higher than the first half. So my questions still apply.
0 recs |
37 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Too many 3rd and Short scenarios
I think the biggest reason why our carries have dropped is because we are in a lot of 3rd and short situations, and we all know we cannot rely on the running game to pick up the couple yards we need. I don’t think it’s all on Ryan Grant, but a little. I am saying this right now, Brandon Jackson has a ton of potential. I’ve said it all last year and I know people don’t back me up on this one. Jackson can and will get the job done. We do however need to fix up our Offensive Line.
"Brandon Jackson has a ton of potential. I’ve said it all last year and I know people don’t back me up on this one."
I’ll back you up on that one. In the end though, regardless of whomever’s running the ball, they have to be given 20-25 carries a game over a decent span of games to really judge their overall merit. It’s always struck me that Grant is the kind of average to above average back who will consistently collect 100 yard games for the team if given a genuine chance get in a rhythm to wear a defense down. The inexplicable abandonment of the rushing offense despite having a solid back and an o-line that struggles so much with pass blocking is one of the main reasons my dislike of McCarthy is growing.
BJacks
When he comes back I would like to see him get a lot of carries. I think we can use a two back system.Grant is decent-good at times but i dont think he is the every down back we once thought he was after ’07. So splitting time between Grant and Jackson can benefit everyone. Grant would still be the primary back but bring in Jackson to throw off the D with a different style of runner and the threat of actually catching passes out of the back field. (i know Mitchell did the whole who is the better catcher on the team but i think we can all agree Grant is NOT even if evidence proves otherwise)
HOW DARE YOU DISREGARD MY STATISTICAL EVIDENCE?!
I CAST A SPELL OF MISFORTUNE UPON THEE.
"Brandon Jennings needs a nickname before he gives himself one. Oh wait, Young Money, he already did."
Running Backs
I think that Ryan Grant is not finding the holes to go through and when he does he is not as quick to get through them as he was last year. Brandon Jackson, I believe once he is back in there from injury will prove to be a better and faster running back then Grant. Im eager to see him back in there and given the ball to run with more often. They do however need to fix up that front line and again it may all look quite different and better when all the players are back from injury and not being shifted around all the time. How can you completely gel in your position when you are tugged out of it and asked to play a different one because of players going out on injuries. Lets take a look at the offensive line after the original starters are back in there. Hopefully all will be back for the Detroit game. Lets give DeShawn Wynn a chance too more often as the ball carrier…. What other changes can be made at this point with the talent that is there. Nothing!
I'm Surprised To Hear
All the BJ love. Almost every Packer site rips the guy to shreds. I’ve said from Day 1 that I think the guy can be the poor mans Brian Westbrook (including the injuries), he just has never been given an opportunity since his first month in the league. The guy averaged 51/2 yards per carry last season behind a bad offensive line with Grant once again getting all of the carries. I don’t think BJ is a stud RB but I think he would be a good RB in a two back system. The Eagles got McCoy and Westbrook now. I would love to see the Packers with BJ and Jerrius Norwood/Lendale White/Ronnie Brown/Darren Sproles, one of those guys.
done
"Brandon Jennings needs a nickname before he gives himself one. Oh wait, Young Money, he already did."
take out AR's stats
just use RB’s stats and I bet you will see a drop.
AR running for his life is not a planned running play.
I do believe they have abandoned the run, that is a guess though and am interested in the answer.
yeah i was
going to say how the hell do we have over 250 yards in the second half! but Rodgers must have about 200 of them!
done
"Brandon Jennings needs a nickname before he gives himself one. Oh wait, Young Money, he already did."
done
"Brandon Jennings needs a nickname before he gives himself one. Oh wait, Young Money, he already did."
hmmmm...
these stats would make sense for the Badgers who just wear people out due to shear size, but this is odd to me.
Is their correlation b/w AR’s passing yds in the 1st half being higher than the 2nd half? Thus, teams back off stopping the run because they need to focus on AR and it opens up running lanes in the 2nd half for our backs because they are going against nickel and dime packages? That would be my guess. Draws seem to work better in the 2nd half for us because AR is so efficient. MN and CIN both dropped a guy back in the 2nd half I believe.
Anyways, I don’t have stats to back it up, but is my guess.
Thanks Mitchell for changing stats.
Draw plays in the second half after your O-line has deteriorated to mush and the O is facing a 3rd and super long?
We are the vikings.......resistance is futile.
no
mostly late, when were down and had them spread out in a dime package and they are in prevent.
wasn’t stated, but my point is that it is garbage yards.
I disagree with what people are terming garbage yards.
In a different thread AR second half (or at least fourth quarter) passing yards were called garbage yards. Now, a draw play is garbage b/c the defense is in a nickel or dime?
Garbage yards to me are yards gained that can have no impact on the game b/c it is out of hand one way or another, ie. a blowout. Probably, some of the starters have been pulled. The Packers haven’t been in a blow out. Rodgers passing yards came mostly against a (first string) defense trying to stop the pass in what ended as a 7 point game.
A draw play is a run designed to work in obvious passing situations. If effective, it will have the effect of slowing down the rush and holding the linebacker or safety in the middle a count longer. It can also get 1st down yardage in 3rd and mid situations. So, when the Packers are trying to come back late in a game, the defense is playing pass. If a team can have a little success with the draw, it will help the pass game. So, how are these garbage yards when it is part of the design of the offense at that point. The run can open up the pass, the pass can also open up the run.
The offense has to take what the defense gives it. The Packers did a good job stopping AP, but left more single coverage on receivers b/c of that. So, are Favre’s yards garbage b/c the defense was giving him passing opportunities to stop the run? (Rhetorical, no they are not)
Some people say the glass is half empty, some say half full. I say, are you going to drink that?
by BleedsbluinMI on Oct 10, 2009 8:32 AM CDT up reply actions
Ya man
I’m with you here. There is no way Rodgers yards in the 4th quarter were “garbage yards”. The Vikes still had all their first stringers in, and were still blitzing and really playing the defense they had the whole game.
Our offense actully sustained drives very well that game. We just couldn’t capitalize when we got the ball into Vikes territory, and that screwed us. We drove into their territoy 6 times, and I think are average starting position in that game was before our own 20 yard line.
I live in MN, and unfortunately when I listen to the sports radio shows here I have to listen to the bonehead hosts talk about it was a blow out and how the Vikes “stopped trying” in the 4th. One guy even said he thinks that Favre is going to come back and play for us after he wins a Super Bowl with the Vikes….haha I know ridiculous.
by packallday555 on Oct 10, 2009 12:41 PM CDT up reply actions
Wynn
Anybody else ready to give up on this guy. I thought he would bring it this year but he has regressed. Give Lumpkin a chance I say. I am still displeased they let Sutton get away. He was the closest thing to a change of pace back we have had in years.
Yep
Wynn should be let go. He looks lost and confused out there. I was really disappointed when we let him go, because having a change of pace back can be crucial, and is kind of a need in todays game.
by packallday555 on Oct 9, 2009 9:52 PM CDT up reply actions
I don't get it
Why are people so concerned about losing Sutton? As we can see from what has happened so far, pre-season means NOTHING. Sutton played well against 2nd and 3rd stringers when the Packers were getting pounded in the 2nd half. His only time against 1st stringers was not good. Out of 31 teams that could have claimed him on waivers, only the Panthers without one healthy running back at the time, put a claim in for him. Since than Sutton hasn’t been active for one game this season. I’m sorry but I don’t think Sutton would be a good back against any starting front 7 in this league. If he was a solid change of pace back I’m sure at least one or two more teams outside of a depleted Carolina would have put in claims on him.
Because
He is a quicker, elusive back. Kind of like Bradshaw from the Giants. For the scheme we run, it would be great to have a back like that. We’re a zone blocking team that runs a lot of strech plays. It’s crucial to have a back that’s quick and that has good vision, because the stretch run plays can open up lanes to cut back in. Grant doesn’t have the vision to do this, or the quickness. Jackson might have the vision, but I don’t think he has the quickness either, and Wynn is just terrible.
Sutton doesn’t have blazing speed, but he has good elusive ability. I don’t think we should have kept him to make him an every down back but he would have been a great change of pace back. Instead, we have 3 backs who all are pretty much the same, in terms of physical ability.
by packallday555 on Oct 11, 2009 4:02 PM CDT up reply actions
I see your point
But I disagree. I don’t think Brandon Jackson is a similar back to either Grant of Wynn at all. On top of that, I think Sutton is a slower smaller version of Jackson. If Jackson got waived instead of Sutton I would like to think that at least half of the teams in the league would claim him. Sutton got claimed by only one. I keep going back to the 5.5 yards per carry he had last season and the fact that he’s a good blocker and a good pass catcher. One of the reasons Sutton got waived is because he couldn’t pick up any blitz. McCarthy is stuck on Grant being the featured back so I’d much rather have BJ as a third down back than Wynn or Sutton.
Fair enough
I hope Jackson proves something week 6 against the Lions. It would be nice if he could breakout for us this year.
From what you’ve watched from Jackson, how would you say his vision is?
by packallday555 on Oct 12, 2009 12:19 AM CDT up reply actions
I'm not sure
I know coming out of college the Packers were high on him because they said he had really good vision in the zone scheme that Nebraska employs but he hasn’t been given a consistent amount of carries for me to tell at this point. It seems like once he didn’t break out at the beginning of his rookie season and Grant came along, McCarthy just stopped using him even though Grant was hurt last season.
Someone mentioned the Carolina game last season and that’s a great example. Jackson had 80 yards on 11 carries with a 32 yard run. His vision looked really good that game. And in the two games he has been active against the Lions he had a combined 27 carries for 174 yards with a 20 yard TD and another 46 yard run. It seems like every time he has been given the opportunity to run the ball in the double digits he breaks a long run and he picks up good yards. I know he’s hurt a lot but if he’s in there McCarthy would be stupid not to see if he can do more than Grant.
Yep
I have complained about MM’s tendency to get away from the run since week 1. Maybe you need to e-mail those stats to him haha. I have to admit I have never thought much of Jackson, I think he is average in every important aspect that a running back has, but it’s obvious Grant isn’t getting it done. And while I think Jackson is pretty average as well, someone pointed out that he has a great ypc average.
Hopefully we give him many more carries when he gets back. This guy was a 2nd round pick and he really never got the chance to be a #1 back. And in the game against Carolina, when Grant went down, Jackson came in and had 11 carries for 80 yards.
He also is probably our best pass catching back, which also would benefit us because MM loves to pass.
Good Point
Grant isn’t gonna get it done unless he has a two yard hole to run through and then a five yard window to explode onto the second level so why not give Jackson an opportunity when he comes back. There was one play against Minnesota that stuck out in my mind as to why I don’t wanna see Grant as the starter next season. Grant went through a fairly nice size hole and on his way through, I believe Edwards grabbed a little bit of the side of his jersey, and what would have been a big run turned into a 4 yarder.
The guy couldn’t break literally a hand tackle. 90% of RB’s in the league would have ripped right through that hand grab and Grant had to run slow laterally to try to pull away from it. The guy has absolutely no wiggle and no brute force so if a player is a good tackler he will be able to drop Grant everytime. I agree that Jackson isn’t this great pure runner like we are use to seeing with Ahman Green and a lot of the RB’s in the league right now, but he manages to wiggle, turn, fidget, and jump for at least 4-5-6 yards on all of his runs.
Another good point
You watch S-Jack, AD, Barber, etc run and you can see that they want to run over someone and gain yards. You watch Grant and he falls down if the wind blows on him to hard. When he first came in 2007 he was hungry to make the team and not worried about getting hurt. Now he is timid and weak.
Ya
Grant used to have that ability to run over people but that ability now appears to be gone. His lower body must be weak, or at least it looks weak. He always seems to take a big hit when he gets tackled.
When he came onto the scene in 07’ he was good because he ran hard and had good vision. He had tons of cutback runs in 07’, and now it doesn’t seem like he ever has any. There usually is a hole for him but he always seems to miss it or not see it.
by packallday555 on Oct 11, 2009 3:53 PM CDT up reply actions
Yep
That play made me sooo upset. But the one that bugged me the most was when we ran a stretch play, and Grant had a lane to cut up into, but instead he went outside an ran out of bounds for 1 yard. And then the screen pass where he could have cut it up and practically walked into the endzone, but again he went outside.
We need to get a guy who is a good pure runner. There will be some good free agents after this season, and I would absolutely love if we signed one.
by packallday555 on Oct 11, 2009 3:58 PM CDT up reply actions
It would be interesting to see...
first/second half splits on yards/carry for other teams in the league. Also for the Packers in previous years. Defensive linemen are typically larger than offensive linemen, especially in the last few years in the NFL. Perhaps they are tiring out more quickly.
Or perhaps it's because of the situation
Just looking back at the Vikings game, Grant’s last two carries of the game (in the 4th quarter) were runs of 15 and 17 yards. Good for a 16 yards/carry average! Of course the Packers were down by two scores on both of those runs, so I doubt the Vikings defense was worried about a couple draw plays. 32 yards isn’t a lot, but it’s would reduce the stats to 4.2 yards/carry.
Then take out the Rams game, when Grant had a great 2nd half and I’m sure their defense was getting tired, and it gets back to your point that every team might be better running the ball in the 2nd half.
I’m content with Grant as a solid, but not great, starter. He does everything average or better than average. I would like him, and his run blockers, to be more consistent.
we just need to fuckin WIN
Dodgers first, for Jim Thome. If not them, then the Rockies for Todd Helton.
Nonsense!
I am tired of this “What is wrong with the Packers” sort of message, especially when it involves the players. Nonsense! The players are not the problem. Get rid of Ted Thompson and Mike McCarthy and you might actually start to see some winning in Green Bay again. That is where you should focus your attention. Heck, let’s get rid of Mark Murphy too. Just clean house from top to bottom. This is the worst management/staff I have seen since I have been a Packer fan, and that has been since I was a child years before the days of Favre. Almost any problem the players have on the field right now can be directly related to TT or the coaching. It is not a problem of talent. The Packers have talent. We should all know that. We have all seen glimpses of it. If the Packers have talent, then the blame lies elsewhere. Therefore, the blame does not lie with the players by way of talent. It is easy to deduce from this that the only other culprit is the management and coaching, since these are the only possible choices left to blame. There are, after all, only the staff and players. If there are only staff and players, then one of these has to be at fault. If one of them has to be at fault, then it is logical to state that it is the staff to blame. Therefore, the staff is at fault in this ugly mess we call a team. Was that too repetitively redundant? I wonder…Oh well, I am not writing a formal argument as proof for my claims. Perhaps I could write some things differently, but hopefully I get my point across.
I am no longer angry at a loss to Minnesota. I am sad that our organization is run by people who cannot get the job done in terms of winning. I do not wish to wait 30 years to see another Favre-like player and SB to come along. I have thought about this carefully, and have decided that it is time for TT to go. Obviously, it is not my decision. Perhaps that is a good thing. Still, this is my opinion. I share it with you. Some of you will likely disagree with me. Some others may agree with me. I do not know. All I do know is what I see and believe. You may see things differently. I do not hate you for that. I am discouraged when I see anyone disparage the players (or anyone) when I feel they do not deserve it.
starmark
I see that your belief is that the Packers won’t turn it around until Thompson and McCarthy are gone. You could be wrong and you could be right but I want to wait one more year to find out. I think if Thompson comes out this off-season and doesn’t make any free agent attempts and doesn’t solidify the o-line, he needs to go. He’s built through the draft long enough and the average backups are 22 years old so he doesn’t need to stay the course anymore.
With McCarthy, I think there are three things that need to be done in order for him to prove he is worthy. He needs to get a new o-line coach, start running more of a power scheme again, and stick to the run in games. If TT actually shows some more initiative to improve from outside the organization and MM actually shows a willingness to change this o-line fiasco, I give them a little bit more time. If they are stuck in their ways, however, they may need to think about where their next home will be.
I do think that this team is talented and you saying that this team has a lot of talent but management is a problem is a little bit conflicting. Thompson has done a lot to make this team talented so you can’t really say this team is really talent but management is the problem. I do feel, as stated above, that Thompson might be the guy who gets us to the brink and then we need someone to come in and pick up a couple of those free agents that make the Packers great. If Thompson takes a win now approach finally, I’ll play wait and see, if he doesn’t then the Pack might need someone who will.
Only in certain areas...
I do not see much conflict in my argument. To say there is talent does not imply that the talent is comprehensive throughout the team. Our o-line is a prime example of this. Few would argue that our o-line is an elite unit. TT knew our tackles were aging and needed to be replaced. While he did draft a couple lower round picks, he obviously does not evaluate offensive linemen well. In fact, I take if further and say that TT doesn’t value the o-line much at all. He seems to think that as long as a team has a solid RB, QB, WRs and other players, anyone can be inserted into the o-line. Mike Sherman knew better than that. Of course, Mike Sherman led the Packers to four straight NFC North championships before Ted Thompson screwed things up. I would rather make it to the playoffs and lose (at least have a chance) than not make it at all. The only problem with Mike Sherman was that he failed to make it to the SB. He built perhaps the best line in the NFL. The Packers were winners before TT messed everything up.
Yes, the Packers have talent now. Yet the stupid thing is the fact that the Packers had talent BEFORE TT came into the picture and dumped a bunch of players. Yes, I know the story about how he has kept the Packers under the cap. Big deal. What’s the point of being a billion dollars under the cap if the Packers lose?
GGGamer, I appreciate your opinion. Yet I cannot trust TT anymore. I say give him until the end of the year. Then the Packers should get rid of him. It is time to look elsewhere. Who should they hire? That is a question I cannot quite answer yet. It would be interesting to see some old faces back in Green Bay, however. What if Mike Holmgren as GM or Jon Gruden as HC came in? I laugh as I write this. I have no idea what I am talking about. I wonder, however. Would they fit? Would they agree to the job?
I’m clearly not as down on him as you are but I am down and it is what it is. In regards to Sherman, I would rather see him be compared to McCarthy than Thompson. Sherman was a good coach but a bad GM. They weren’t the NFC North Champs because of his GM skills but his coaching skills. You say that Sherman built the best line in the NFL. Actually Ron Wolf drafted every single one of those guys and traded for Ahman Green so once again that isn’t a plus for Shermans management but more his coaching. If your gonna compare the o-line now to the one that was good in the early 2000’s than it should be a comparison between Wolf and Thompson’s management and Beightol and Campens coaching.
In regards to Gruden, I would never want him as the coach of the Packers. The players in Tampa basically bad mouthed him on the way out. The guy is known to be two faced and he hasn’t had an important team in a while. If I wanted someone other than McCarthy I would try to get Cowher first and Shanahan second.
“Yes, the Packers have talent now. Yet the stupid thing is the fact that the Packers had talent BEFORE TT came into the picture and dumped a bunch of players. Yes, I know the story about how he has kept the Packers under the cap. Big deal. What’s the point of being a billion dollars under the cap if the Packers lose?”
Listen, I understand your frustration because I’m frustrated too, but this is not at all what occurred. The fact was that Mike Sherman as a GM went for broke on a lot of overpriced veterans and did nothing to draft players to develop behind Packer-drafted veterans who the team had no ability to afford against the cap (See, e.g., Joe Johnson, Cletidus Hunt, and Na’ll Diggs). Combining the payroll emergency with a 2003 and 2004 draft which collectively produced only two (two!) starters (Barnett and Corey Williams – although Scott Wells was also drafted in 2004 and replaced Flanagan in 2006), the Packers were bereft of talent at key positions.
So Thompson didn’t just “dump” guys; he was handcuffed from competing with other teams bidding for the likes of Rivera, Wahle, or Sharper because the Pack couldn’t afford them under the cap. Mike Sherman was a decent coach, but he decimated this team as a GM.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Acme Packing Company
Related FanShots on Acme Packing Company
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
