Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Kobe Bryant Will Never Top Michael Jordan

Packer Notes: What To Do About The Running Game?

Run straight ahead? He can do that. But please hold onto the football too.

In the wake of RB Ryan Grant's season ending injury, his replacements (FB John Kuhn and RB Brandon Jackson) combined for 65 yards on 20 carries last Sunday. Offensive coordinator Joe Philbin was quoted as saying it was "extremely mediocre." Anyone who's watched Jackson charge head-first into the line with his head down and both arms around the ball knows that he's concerned about avoiding a fumble, and not too concerned about running for a big gain. What exactly are the Green Bay Packers missing without Grant? From Mike McCarthy:

Now, Ryan Grant didn’t play on third down all the time. Brandon Jackson does...We’re not trying to play one running back 55, 60 plays in the game and have the other two or three sit on the sideline. We’ve never played that way.

In that regard the Packers aren't losing a lot of plays. My guess is that Grant played between 40 to 50 snaps per game (out of 60 to 80). It always seemed like more for Grant since he carried the ball far more frequently then Jackson, who was usually left in to block. Also, Grant wasn't doing any better then either Kuhn or Jackson if he didn't have good run-blocking. Again, from McCarthy:

I think if you sit there and freeze the film and say, ‘Oh, my goodness, there is a hole there,’ but I can’t also project if the defender is not going to get off the block as he gets on to the second level. It is the responsibility of the run-blocking unit to create the opportunity for the running back to get to the second level, and the second level is on the running back.

I wonder if he raised his voice when he said 'Oh, my goodness?' Anyway, on most carries not even Grant got an opportunity to get into the second level. According to the Journal-Sentinel, running backs coach Edgar Bennett specified that there were two missed opportunities to gain additional yards. If Grant was playing, then they might have had two more big plays. Maybe an extra 40 yards rushing.

So what they really need is a running back with size, speed, and the ability to take advantage of an opportunity in the second level. How many backs in the NFL can do that? I'm not sure if RB Marshawn Lynch can, even if the Packers wanted to trade a high draft pick for him. 

Greg Bedard pointed out this old article from Football Outsiders on how winning teams were the ones with a lot of rushing attempts in the 4th quarter, and that it didn't seem to matter how much you ran the ball earlier in the game. At that point, the team is trying to run out the clock, and they aren't looking for a big play. If they want two more big play opportunities per game, they could just pass the ball more. Looking at the official 2009 stats from NFL.com, the Packers ran 438 times, and passed 553 times, for a run/pass percentage split of 44/56. The two teams that ran the ball the fewest times in 2009 were the Colts and Cardinals, who both ran the ball on about 38% of their plays. And obviously they both had great offenses last season. 

This isn't a post to point out that they don't need Grant anyway. I'm just saying that they can adjust the offense to compensate for his absence in other ways. Having an explosive running back on the roster sure couldn't hurt, but there would be a cost in obtaining a back with that potential. It's not ideal, but the offense could be fine without a true replacement for Grant. 

How important is it to find a true replacement for RB Ryan Grant?

Comment 54 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

In good weather Rodgers can control the game

But if we get caught in a snowstorm on weeks 9, 13, 16, or 17, we will miss him dearly.

by jpulido on Sep 21, 2010 7:21 AM CDT reply actions   1 recs

Even a pass happy team like the Saints can run the ball

It’s a matter of how you run. Telling Jackson to run up the middle would not be smart. If it’s going to work we need to be more imaginative with the play calls- end arounds, screens, quick outs. Yes, 2/3 of those go down as pass plays, but they’re really glorified runs.

It’s like the Vikings. They’re down their top two receivers and haven’t changed their plays to account for that. You have to play to the strengths of the players you HAVE, not the players you WISH you had.

by Danwood on Sep 21, 2010 8:20 AM CDT reply actions  

I think it's more than that

If you run the ball on first or second down, no matter when you are in the game, and only get 2 or 3 yards, 2nd and 7 is a different set of plays from 2nd and 4. At second and 7 you’re thinking “I need a few yards for a manageable 3rd down” At second and 4 you’re thinking “I can take a shot because 3rd and 4 is not terrible. I’m not really limited in my play calling there.” 3rd and 7 is too obvious of a passing down if you don’t have a RB that can make things happen.

by gern blanston on Sep 21, 2010 9:12 AM CDT reply actions  

I think we should give some more chances to Nance. He was a pretty highly touted guy going into college, and due to some injuries and things just never lived up to the hype. It’s worth a shot to see if he can revitalize some of that hype. I only saw him run the ball once yesterday but I liked what I saw. He cut up field quick, and hit the hole for about 4 yards.

I’m convinced the problem with Grant, Jackson, and even Kuhn is they all just dance around too much or aren’t able to find the hole. I don’t think our offensive line is as poor at run blocking as some people make them out to be. Lots of the times there were holes there, it just seemed like Jackson and Kuhn either didn’t see them, or didn’t hit them hard or fast enough. Seems like those two were getting 1-3 yard gains too many times when they really should have been able to gain 4-6 yards. And really, Grant had that same problem too.

by packallday555 on Sep 21, 2010 10:16 AM CDT reply actions  

Also, did anyone catch the 49ers game last night? Watching a running back like Gore, and then comparing him to the guys we have is just sad. Obviously a guy like Gore has great physical tools, which I don’t think any of our guys possess, but what really stood out to me about him was his vision. His ability to cut back against the grain makes him so good. Sometimes with him it doesn’t even necessarily matter whether or not the blocking is good on the play. He always seems to find a way to squeeze out at least 3-4 yards. And really, that could be said for all of the better running back’s in the league.

I know I’m ranting, and I’m sorry but I think we need to find a better running back then what we currently have on the roster (including Grant). It could really ramp up our running game, and with that I think we’d have the best offense in the league.

by packallday555 on Sep 21, 2010 10:22 AM CDT up reply actions  

agreed

Yes, I saw a few cutbacks that were so smooth it almost looked like that’s where the hole was supposed to be.

I don’t claim to be a scout, but I think that Lynch brings a lot more to the table than anyone on our roster. I’d make a reasonable offer for him.

Nance may be okay. I don’t know a thing about him. It just stands to reason that if he couldn’t make the Atlanta team, he’s only okay as well.

All I know is look how much weight that would take off Rodgers’ shoulders if we had a back that was a true difference maker. That’s what pushed Elway over the top. To be clear, I’m not necessarily saying Lynch is that guy. I’m simply saying he’s much closer to that than we’ve had since Green in his prime.

by gern blanston on Sep 21, 2010 11:08 AM CDT up reply actions  

100% right on Lynch. He has elite type ability, and good vision. I’d love to bring him in, even if we have to give up more then we’d like. My feelings are that it would end up being more then worth it.

Right, I mean our offense will still be good without a good running back but it could be much better if we had a guy who could take some of the pressure off Rodgers.

by packallday555 on Sep 21, 2010 1:05 PM CDT up reply actions  

I don't think anyone is saying that we don't want him

But it’s the price of admission which is holding people back.

by Danwood on Sep 21, 2010 2:13 PM CDT up reply actions  

Think of it this way though, with Lynch you are getting a 24 year old kid who has history in the NFL as a successful runner. If he was in the draft, he’d probably still be a 1st rounder. He’s got a little baggage but man he might end up stealing Grants job and honestly right now we could probably still resign him for a pretty affordable price since Buffalo has done a nice job of ruining his value and taking away his leverage.

Honestly you think we are going to find a better back in the draft with say a 3rd rounder? Its WAY more of a crapshoot than this is in my opinion! I don’t see why people are so hesitant to trade a 3rd rounder for a guy that could be an every play starter and a catalyst to a super bowl run.

by TrevorR on Sep 21, 2010 4:25 PM CDT up reply actions  

I didn’t say that there NEVER are. I mean heck undrafted guys turn into stars too. The odds go WAY down with every round. For every Gore there’s about 5 Brian Calhouns or Vernand Morency’s.

by TrevorR on Sep 22, 2010 9:03 AM CDT up reply actions  

+1

I said yesterday I’d give a 3rd for him.

Wonder how the market is heating up, or not. Read that Jerious Norwood from Atlanta is out for the year with an ACL.

by gern blanston on Sep 21, 2010 4:28 PM CDT up reply actions  

it remains to be seen

if a third was even offered by TT. I mean if we’re throwing reality into the mix….;-)

by gern blanston on Sep 21, 2010 5:15 PM CDT up reply actions  

Gore

Was only a 3rd round pick due to having blown out both ACL’s in college! Otherwise he was seen as a 1st round talent!

A 3rd for Lynch would work for me. I’ve said before I would do a 4th easily, but he would be worth a 3rd too.

Think ATL would like to have Nance back? NE lost Faulk too, another ACL. The RB market could suddenly get a little more heated… If Thompson is going to make the trade, the time is NOW!!!

by Strohman on Sep 21, 2010 5:42 PM CDT up reply actions  

…and he was the FIRST pick in the 3rd round

by TrevorR on Sep 22, 2010 9:03 AM CDT up reply actions  

I was adding to your point! Its not like he was the 23rd pick in the round, he was almost a 2nd rounder. CHILL

by TrevorR on Sep 22, 2010 4:00 PM CDT up reply actions  

Lynch

I’ve been OK w/ trading for Lynch as well… I’m thinking more along the lines of Hawk (unlikely) or a 4th rder. But I wouldn’t quibble over one round either. If its a 3rd they want, I can live w/ that. He does have a lot of talent and is a pretty proven commodity in the NFL. And from what I’ve seen he runs pretty hard when he’s given the ball. Lynch would welcome any trade out of Buffalo at this point, so he’ll be on his best behavior. Having Rodgers and Bishop should help him too. Rodgers, especially would do what he could to let him know how he needs to conduct himself!

by Strohman on Sep 21, 2010 5:36 PM CDT up reply actions  

+1

Totally agree. I know Thompson loves his draft picks but we need a running back, and he’s shown to be a pretty crappy drafter of running backs. Why not give up a pick for a guy who we know for sure can produce?

by packallday555 on Sep 22, 2010 10:16 AM CDT up reply actions  

crappy RB drafter

He’s drafted all of 2… Jackson is doing OK, not great but he’s a good role RB without a doubt. And he drafted Starks in the 6th. We don’t know a thing about Starks’ ability yet. He hasn’t been on the field. When he does get on the field I think he’ll prove you wrong!

by Strohman on Sep 22, 2010 3:45 PM CDT up reply actions  

Well 3, but point well made

DeShawn Wynn was a 2007 7th rounder.

Yeah, he really hasn’t FAILED on anyone so I would say he really hasn’t earned that distinction yet.

by TrevorR on Sep 22, 2010 4:04 PM CDT up reply actions  

I don't know

Last year the top 6 in total offense were:

1. New Orleans
2. Dallas
3. New Engalnd
4. Houston
5. Minnesota
6. Green Bay

1-3 were right around 400 yards/game, and 3-6 were right around 380.

Of those 6, I’d say New Orleans, Dallas, and Minnesota had strong backfields in 2009. New England and Houston didn’t really have much over us. Sure, a better running back couldn’t hurt or anything, but I don’t really think it’s the final peice of the puzzle we absolutely have to find to be great. The difference in rushing yards/game between us and NO and DAL was only 14 yards/game last year.

by Puddleglumed on Sep 21, 2010 11:12 AM CDT up reply actions  

that was last year with Grant

This year is a whole new animal. See if you change your tune after a few weeks of 3.0 yards per carry.

by gern blanston on Sep 21, 2010 11:32 AM CDT up reply actions  

I am certain

That I will change my tune after a few weeks of 3 yards a carry, if that’s how it goes. But I’m willing to give Jackson and Khun a few more weeks before I start beating the drums for a trade.

My point was more that you don’t need a GREAT runnig back to succeed in the NFL. Adequate can be enough, but time will tell if we even have that.

And yeah, I agree, watching the Niners game, I thought the same thing about Gore. Dude is a stud.

by Puddleglumed on Sep 21, 2010 11:46 AM CDT up reply actions  

you only have a couple weeks before the trade deadline hits so you have to keep that in mind too. I just don’t want to let a couple games slip cause of our running game and let Minny back in the picture. Lets keep the pedal to the metal. Remember it will take him a few weeks to get fully into the gameplan too!

by TrevorR on Sep 21, 2010 1:03 PM CDT up reply actions  

I’d say all of those teams aside from maybe Houston had much better running games then we did.

I really think it is the difference. I mean, how much better can the passing game really get? We’ve got an elite tight end, two above average receivers, and good depth at receiver. I don’t know, I don’t see it improving a whole lot from where it already is. If we could get a running back who could get us 4+ yards when he should be able to do so instead of the 1-3 we get from Grant and Jackson it could make a big difference. The only way we’ve been able to run is basically if we face weak run teams, or if we stock pile the yards at the end of games when we’ve basically already won them.

by packallday555 on Sep 21, 2010 1:09 PM CDT up reply actions  

vision and elusiveness

Those are the traits your talking about. Only the really good ones have it all. And lets face it Gore is a great one. But lets also remember he was a 3rd rd choice cuz he blew out both of his ACL’s. Niners have gotten lucky and got a great RB at minimal cost, but it could have just as easily have gone the other way. Gore was, and still might be just one injury away from the end of his career. He’s been able to overcome the ACL’s, thats pretty lucky.

As for our RB. None of them are terribly elusive, I’ll grant you that. At least not the ones on the active roster. From the video I’ve seen of Starks he seems to. I think that is why we won’t see another RB brought in. Starks has the kind of vision and elusiveness that can make him a very good RB. Whether he becomes that is dependent on him staying on the field. Watching him run he seems to have the vision to get to the next level and the elusiveness in the open field to create some explosive runs. He needs to stay healthy and show some physicality in his running. But given the chance he could be a similar RB to Gore. Not as good, but similar… IMO…

by Strohman on Sep 21, 2010 12:23 PM CDT up reply actions  

Ah forgot about Starks. I’m hopeful about him too. I know I watched a video of him, and he appeared to be pretty elusive as well as having good vision. I sure hope he pans out cause Grant and Jackson just don’t get it done.

by packallday555 on Sep 21, 2010 1:03 PM CDT up reply actions  

Hope

I just hope someone got in his ear when Grant went down that he better get his head in the playbook! He’s going to have plenty of chances when he comes off PUP to make some noise. If we have to wait for 6-8 weeks that could cost us. But if he knows the playbook, it should only take him a couple weeks to get in game shape! Once he’s in game shape and if he’s got the playbookl down, then his talent can show. Otherwise he might have wasted a shot to make a difference THIS year!

by Strohman on Sep 21, 2010 3:03 PM CDT up reply actions  

I hope so too

All of starks few highlight videos on youtube show a ton of promise. and he apparently returns kicks and punts. We get him back by week 6 right???

by arodgb on Sep 21, 2010 6:14 PM CDT up reply actions  

wk 8

He is eligible to come off PUP wk 6, but it would likely take a couple weeks for him to get in football shape. And we would have a couple weeks w/ him not counting on the 53 to let him practice and see how functional he is w/ the playbook. I think around wk 8 he could be ready to contribute in a meaningful way!

by Strohman on Sep 21, 2010 6:25 PM CDT up reply actions  

thanks

same week as trade deadline. lol

by arodgb on Sep 21, 2010 6:46 PM CDT up reply actions  

Bulaga will probably help the overall run blocking if he keeps the job over Cliffy. Clifton has never been a good drive blocker.

"I agree but dont agree"

by juggernaut400 on Sep 21, 2010 10:51 AM CDT up reply actions  

I agree

The OL hasn’t run blocked well at all. Clifton and Tauscher are below average run blockers in my opinion. Tausch is a good pass blocker, but not a good run blocker. Thus being why we can’t run the ball outside the hashmarks this year. Having Bulaga in there at LT may work to Jackson’s strength. It gets him into the open field on the weak side and will allow him to make some plays. I hope this works out if Bulaga does start against Chicago.

"No player is greater than a team."
-Vince Lombardi

by Jabooty on Sep 21, 2010 11:42 AM CDT up reply actions  

tauscher

He actually did fairly well run blocking v. Buffalo for a nice change.

by marcopo on Sep 22, 2010 9:42 PM CDT up reply actions  

Just not ready to make any guesses on the run game yet

I think the Pack should be in the market for a good running back no matter what, but a couple more games and Jackson might turn out to be excellent in his role.

"Show me a good loser, and I'll show you a loser." - Vince Lombardi

by AdamA on Sep 22, 2010 9:00 AM CDT reply actions  

Totally agree. One game doesn’t prove much of anything. Actually, the thought of Kuhn and Johnson slamming into defensive lines in the 4th quarter is kind of interesting.

by marcopo on Sep 22, 2010 9:45 PM CDT up reply actions  

Cat and Mouse

Within 2/3 weeks, Lynch will be wearing green and gold. The game just has to come to it’s natural conclusion.

by marcopo on Sep 22, 2010 12:39 PM CDT reply actions  

I think you are right. I think they are playing games right now and each is slowly coming toward the other. The packers were apparently offering JUST Hawk and the Bills wanted more. Then they marched out Lynch and showed off what he can do to get TT to salivate a little. The TT backed up to get them a little more loose. It will probably happen soon though. Especially if we struggle against the Bears.

by TrevorR on Sep 22, 2010 2:06 PM CDT up reply actions  

AJ

Unless you have better intel than I do, I don’t think AJ is in the equation because of his price tag. But draft choices and a few benchers may be.

by marcopo on Sep 22, 2010 2:41 PM CDT up reply actions  

Packer Insider

says that AJ is not in the mix. It’s more likely TJ Lang.

I guess at the end of the day, it would be prudent for Buffalo to get something out of a guy that they don’t have in their long term plans as opposed to letting him go in free agency and getting only a compensatory pick. But then again logic doesn’t have to enter into it. Look at San Diego for proof.

I guess the good news is that TT is doing what he’s supposed to be doing in analyzing the market. He’s also got a budget in mind in terms of what he’s willing to give up and is sticking to it.

by gern blanston on Sep 22, 2010 3:25 PM CDT up reply actions  

Insider

I don’t get Packer Insider, but I’ve heard they want a starting calibre OL as well. Lang is about as close to being a starter as there is, so that figures. I would be more willing to trade Spitz than Lang though. Langs potential at an important RT spot is too valuable. Spitz’s back issue is probably preventing him being included. We are just getting our OL depth where it needs to be so I’m having a hard time giving up a good OL right now. THey already took Meredith from us… What do they expect us to create their entire OL for them?!!

by Strohman on Sep 22, 2010 3:53 PM CDT up reply actions  

I don’t know…they might be just throwing stuff against a wall to see if it sticks. I don’t get it either but I’ve heard NOTHING abut that personally from any other sources. I’d be nervous about trading Oline depth from this team knowing what we went through just one year ago.

by TrevorR on Sep 22, 2010 4:06 PM CDT up reply actions  

Don't know where I read it, but I did somewhere

It makes sense too… Their OL is horrid. Getting a good OL would help them alot. I don’t think I would give up Lang, but Spitz I would be OK with… None of our interior OL has a injury history to speak of and we could get by without Spitz, IMO. Colledge, Wells and Sitton have been consistently available, to use the packers term… Spitz would be a good trade, IMO, Not lang…

by Strohman on Sep 22, 2010 4:15 PM CDT up reply actions  

they have serviceable guards

where Buffalo is hurting is at tackle. So, Lang is more logical from that standpoint.

by gern blanston on Sep 22, 2010 10:05 PM CDT up reply actions  

I'm surprised the Bills haven't traded Lynch to someone yet

It’s not like he’ll stick around once he becomes a free agent. They might as well get something in return.
Also, I’ve noticed they’ve drafted a running back in the first round in 2003, 2007, and 2010. That would be Willis McGahee, Lynch, and Spiller.

by I voted for Kodos on Sep 23, 2010 12:38 PM CDT reply actions  

ON top of that…they had a pretty strong incumbant in place each time when they did the draft. Remember Travis Henry? He was a stud when they drafted McGahee…

by TrevorR on Sep 23, 2010 3:09 PM CDT up reply actions  

A stud indeed

How many kids did he father while playing for the Bills?

by I voted for Kodos on Sep 23, 2010 9:25 PM CDT up reply actions  

we need a running attack
if you can’t run in the fourth quarter you leave the prevent defense on the field too long

by fn_cold_ak on Sep 23, 2010 9:09 PM CDT reply actions  

Agreed

Have to be able to run. At the end of games to run out the clock, and to keep teams from teeing off on the pass rush. Have to keep your Jared Allenseses, DeMarcus Ware’s and Julius Pepperseses at bay.

by I voted for Kodos on Sep 23, 2010 9:28 PM CDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed



Manager

Img00243_small Kevin McCauley

Editors

Texbucky_small texwestern

Author

Rubberducky_small Mitchell Maurer

Ayrton_senna_1988_canada_small Vermont Cubs Fan

Fallout-3-1010_small PackApologist

Gassertaylor_small OBrienSchofieldismyHero

Linkedin_picture_small Zack Ward

Carson-palmer-hot-dog_small MatthewJStein