For THIS game, it didn't matter. I said in my pre-game comments that I expected the Packers to pass A LOT. I frankly wish they had taken more deep shots downfield on the Falcons. So I'm fine with not running THIS game. But there will be teams down the stretch & in the playoffs where you will need to run the ball. For that, he SHOULD be worried.

Indy made the Superbowl last year with the 30th ranked run game, so it can be done. Also, I think Nance will be a good option for us on third-and-short when he's not concussed.

You're right. We don't need a running game. We do, however, need a short yardage package that can pick up 1 or 2 yards fairly consistently when we need it.

Aaron, you say the majority of the blame should be placed on the offensive line's lac of execution. Which linemen are most guilty in your judgment?

"McCarthy's team is not built on running the football."

With the exception of the 3 fullbacks, of course.

I have to respectfully disagree with Aaron and Al on this one. I think the Falcons game was lost on the inability to convert short yardage situations. Even a decent rushing attack would have helped the Packers in that regard.

True, the Packers made some key mistakes (fumble, no challenge flag, bad special teams), but being able to convert the short yardage would have been a bigger boon in that game than those individual mistakes.

True, the running back isn't 100% responsible, and I think that BJax isn't a severe downgrade from Grant, but that isn't the point, in my opinion.

A running game prevents the 8 man coverage the Packers saw a ton in the last game, and it helps prevent Aaron from putting up huge rushing/scrambling attempts and possible injury.

The Packers need to find a semblance of a running game if they want to go deep in the playoffs. And that really lies mostly on Mcarthy's play calling and the offensive line getting the job done - not necessarily the person running the ball. Can they go deep without it? Yes. But will it be a whole lot easier if they have a running game? Yes.

Agreed...but I also agree with Ruppert. It seemed like the Packers found multiple ways to get 9 yards on 1 and 10. For a lot of teams, this means the occasional "free down" where they can try something big on second and one, knowing they can probably pick up the first on the next play if it fails. Unforunately, every time I saw that on Sunday, I thought "ahhh...crap - just get the first here." GB's current running ability RARELY finds a yard when we need it.

Ruppert wins the comment of the day. I don't care who your RB is or what type of blocking system you use, a competent NFL team needs to be able to pick up one yard when needed on a regular basis.

That said, I don't think Sunday was the norm for this OL. It's far from a great run blocking OL, but their ineptitude on Sunday (hopefully) is not a sneak-peak of what to expect the rest of the way.

this is exaclty what BRIAN CARRIVEU told me the other when i called (can you believe i talked to him on the phone---giggling like a little girl!)

One more thing: The Vikings and the great Adrian Peterson have been stuffed on several 3rd or 4th and 1s this season. It happens, especialy when the defense is geared up for it.

That's why I'm (fairly) confident this won't become a huge problem for the Packers down the stretch.

I would like to add that think Mcarthy goes about running the ball wrong. I would love to see more draw plays and more passes early in the game and more running later in the game. This way they can take advantage of the defensive playing the pass.

Aaron great article - I also think having BJAX in on 3rd downs where he can actually catch the ball.

Aaron, we are not the effin' Pittsburgh Steelers. We do not have a 6' 6" perverted goon of a QB who can get nailed by 6 guys every third play and still throw for 400 yards. We do not have their defense.

Come on...you're really suggesting that the Steelers don't have to be good in short yardage, so we don't either? WTF is that?

We need to at least have a functional short yardage package, if for no other reason than to take the QB sneak out of the playbook.

i dont think we need a GREAT running game.. but you have to be able to get a few yards with it.. what we are able to do with the running game is pathetic.. i understand the falcons are a very good run stopping team.. but u still have to be able to get some yards.. we need a running game.. u can throw on 2nd nd short... nd get first downs through the passing game but u have to be able to run the ball.. im not saying our running game is awful.. but it is not good enough.. the colts and the steelers both teams u have mentioned did have running games when they went to the superbowl.. the colts pass the ball a lot yeah. but they could run the ball against every team. steelers have always had a running game.. always.. u gotta have a runninggame.. yeah you can blame the lose on mistakes.. but every team makes mistakes.. every team every game makes mistakes.

Agreed. McCarthy could care less about running and never will. I don't know how to feel good about that, and probably never will.

I wasn't upset about the Falcons game. That's the best his strategy could ever produce against a strong team. I don't believe in a offensive strategy where running exists solely as a means of making the opposing offense believe that we might not pass next time. But the team is doing a better job of executing McCarthy's strategy. Had the Falcons had a bad day, we might have won. Under the circumstances, I can't be dejected.

From here on in, I'm just going to enjoy the things that go right in Packers football. Certainly the Vikings and Cowboys game were rare and awesome treats. I was on cloud nine for two weeks in a row! As long as we have stuff like that in the season, I'll get by.

The real bottom line is that it isn't Sunday without my beloved Green Bay Packers. If I have to wait McCarthy out, so be it. There will be other coaches.

The Packers would better survive a reduced running game with a stronger TE. Right now, the loss of Finley AND Grant make the problem exponentially worse.

Can you imagine how much the game might have changed with Finley in the mix on short-and-goal?

Oh, and Aaron, this line:

"But apart from that, this team is built to win on the arm of Aaron Rodgers."

...should really read like this:

"But apart from that, this team is built to win on the arm AND LEGS of Aaron Rodgers."

Sorry to pick nits. ;)

I don't think we have the greatest running personnel and the line is rather inept at run blocking, but I think that uninspired play calling is at work as well.

I believe we faked a reverse once against the Falcons and we've shown this look before, but I think we've only actually run one reverse all season. Misdirection and trickery is about the only things that could be successful with this line. Shovel passes, inside reverses...perhaps we should try something like this occasionally. Of course the shovel pass would get put in the passing stats but you get my drift.

I think McCarthy would probably run more often if we had a better RB and/or O line. His Saints teams had either Ricky Williams or Deuce McAllister get 1000 yards or more every year, and they were in the top 10 in team rushing a couple of those years. We should probably be giving him some credit for realizing what WILL work, and what WON'T work and just going with it.

"Granted, Grant was better at running stretch plays and zones. But look at his numbers last year. He had three 100-yard games and six where he gained 51 yards or less."... And still gained 1200 yards.

If we had any semblance of a running game Sunday, we win that game, EVEN with Rodgers fumble. Sorry.

"McCarthy's offense is what it is - very good at gobbling up big chunks of yardage through the air for points. It struggles when called upon to grind out the tough yard. This won't change mid-season if it ever does under McCarthy."

Yep.

That's why I kinda hope we have to go to a St. Louis or Atlanta. The "big chunks of yardage through the air for points" is fine and dandy for the 1st 10 or so weeks outdoors. But those WR's fingers like to freeze up in December and January. That's why you always hear about being "BUILT" for the playoffs, referring to a Defense that can travel and a ground game that can do the same. If you have a high-flying aerial attack to go with it GREAT but you can't rely on that alone in the elements.

Maybe we get it together though. Weren't the Cardinals just horrible running the ball the year they went to the dance? Then as the playoffs rolled around, it's like something clicked. (think that was the Cardinals anyway, maybe not).

Or maybe #12 throws for 400 and 4 TD's in a snowstorm, I wouldn't put it past him. Just much more difficult than doing the same thing in September.

GBP 4 LIFE

Aaron vs Aaron:

"The {Packer} problem lies in the offensive line and their execution of the scheme, not with the back"

vs

"Atlanta is able to run the ball because it has an outstanding back in Michael Turner and the Falcons line up in formations to take advantage of his ability."

Hedge? It looked more like the Packers bouncing off of Turner had everything to do with Atlanta's great running game. What formations should the Packers line up in to take advantage of BJax's ability? Kevin Barry, saddle up. DeShawn backing up Westbrook this Sunday....

Hilarious ...... GB doesn't have a running game because they don't need one ...... The truth is so obvious ..... They don't have a running game because they lack a quality RB ......

" My hunch is the run game will look worlds better this Sunday against the 49ers "

Agree ..... James "the secret weapon" Starks will be unleashed ...... He can just be average & he'll surpass anything done by the feared RB trio that has been there the last ten games ..... It's about time.

Christl gives examples of grant's "poor big game performances". look at the opportunities grant had in each of cliff's examples...

13
8
10

was grant bad, or did he not get a chance?

i was at the snow globe game. if they would have stopped giving ryan the ball after 8 chances his day would have looked just as bad as the afore mentioned ones. instead they kept giving him the ball- AND HE WENT OFF! pretty sure they won that game.

thought he also had a fairly good outing against the cards last year as well.

just sayin'.

with grant, teams have to at least THINK about the POSSIBILITY of a run. now... 3rd and 1 is an empty backfield situation. if MM could get a 6th wr on the field he would.

not.
good.

since they can't/won't run i'm not worried about getting home field. while i am not even close to convinced that this team will even make the playoffs - IF they do i kinda like the idea of them getting to play...

@STL (dome)
@NO (dome)
@ATL (dome)
@TAMPA (sun)

better hope they don't have to go to...

NYG
PHI
CHI

Aaron - get off the #12 fumble. He didn't loose that game.

We"ll see how a pass happy Mcfatty fares in late Dec & Jan.

Rodgers would never had a chance to fumble that ball if Quinn Johnson wouldnt have made the rookie mistake of jumping for a ball not intended for him. At that point Quarless would have made the TD and we would have been up by 4 in the final score.

GB probably would have defeated the Falcons if ........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpwTvpYk6Rs

Aaron, 37 yds on 8 carries for Grant agaist Pitt last year? Thats pretty good if u ask me thats almost 5 yds a carry Jackson cannot produce like Grant end of story. Grant runs harder than Jackson does

Grant is the best running back we have to run the zone scheme (inside & stretch). Bradon Jackson does not fit the zone scheme because he is not decisive. Grant had that problem early on when he first arrived in Green Bay but became more decisive. I still believe Grant's vision is suspect as he doesn't hit the cutback very well....he's gotten better over time but I still see times when he makes the wrong read on the read key to cut key. At least he is decisive in making his cuts which is required in the Gibbs scheme. Jackson is not and it's evident. We run more zone than we do any gap. I wonder if it might be prudent to go to more gap blocking considering the type of back Jackson is?
With that said, while Grant is the best we have for the zone scheme he lacks in skills in the receiving department....always has since he's been here. Drops easy swing/flat passes often. Jackson is much better at this. Aaron... I know you want to bag on the line and rightfully so....they did not play well, but the fact remains that a more decisive back in this scheme would not have turned a 1 yard gain in to a 6 yard loss. I just don't see Jackson reading the cut key very well. Whether it's a 1 technique shade to the strong side or a backside shade he doesn't get his eyes on that man and make his cut very well. The idea behind zone blocking is to make contact and either get a little vertical push in the case of inside zone a horizontal push (run em') in the stretch scheme. It doesn't require road graters to push guys off the ball 3-4 yards by themselves. Double teams and working the you two have those two princple are in play. A lot is expected of the running back in zone (I know this all too well). The back is actually reading two defensive linemen or in the case of an Under front (4-3 shifted away from TE with rolled up Sam over the TE) a linebacker and DLman. The first read is just that....a read key. The back knows where the ball is going as he takes his zone step in unison with the OL. It's kind of like run and shoot football principles (he in I'm out, he out I'm in). If that read key stays outside, let's say he's initially aligned in a 9 technqiue (D Gap) and the 9 tech. widens with the movement of the OL, the back knows the ball is going inside of the D gap right away before he ever gets the handoff. The next read is the cut key. Now the back is looking to find the next DLman inside. Let's say it's a 3 tech over the Guard in the B gap. If that 3 tech also widens on the movement the back then cuts it to the backside, many times right behind the Center and even LG who are running their men down the LOS. With a widening 3 tech. the Center sees no color and works with the LG to leverage the backside shade (1 tech.) and then works up to second level, hopefully getting the Mike or a fast flowing Will backer. The inside zone is similar other than the read starts from a 3 tech or 5 tech shade to the cut key which could be the backside 1 shade or the front side 1 shade in an Under front.
That's a lot of wonkish football talk about the zone.....but unless you understand it...it is very easy to see things that just aren't true....especially when you take it in to context of the run game and how the scheme actually works.
The OL did not do a good job of maintaining blocks at times but when they did, Jackson's indecision, lack of vision, etc. compounded the problem. And I still maintain that McCarthy doesn't want to run the ball as much as he passes. There is no problem with that BUT you have to be able to run the ball when you want to run the ball. Since the zone scheme requires so much timing on all parts, it would be best if he just jettisoned that approach since he doesn't devote that much time to it. John Kuhn runs the zone better than Jackson. He may not be flashy but he's at least decisive. Why he didn't use him in the short yardage game calls in to question McCarthy's grasp of using his personnel. If he doesn't figure this out quickly, the Pack won't be going very far.

Aaron....I agree. Jackson does not "suck" but he is not suited to be an every down zone running back especially in light of the fact that McCarthy doesn't devote the time to it in the course of a game. Jackson is a 3rd down specialist....that is his strength. McCarthy could choose to do the "pin and pull" instead of typical outside zone tracks for his OL (think Indy Colts). Get to the edge by pulling the Center and Guard and blocking gap front side. Might be more beneficial to all involved considering we have guys that are athletic enough to move (the whole point of zone blocking linemen in the first place). This way Jackson could run to a spot and pitter patter as the wash clears. Just a thought. So yes, Jackson doesn't suck but mark my words....unless we start making a little hay when we need to and when we want to at times, we won't be going anywhere. I'd be happy to be proven wrong but I've read this book before and I know the ending. Great stuff here. And yes.....I've played it and coached it. Let's just equate my experience to someone in the government that has top security clearance at the highest levels. I'll leave it at that.