Obligatory Post About the Running Game
Don't expect any major changes in how McCarthy is operating when it comes to running the football.
By PackerAaron
A whole lot of chatter and gnashing of teeth from Packer fandom in the wake of what passed for a running game on Monday night.
Where to begin.
First of all, lets forget about the backs for a moment. (Easy to do given their performance, I know) I think it was pretty clear from the moment it was announced that Dimitri Nance was inactive that Mike McCarthy's game plan was to throw it 50 times, a goal he almost accomplished. (Rodgers attempted 45 passes.) I just have a hard time thinking McCarthy would head into a contest where he planned on feeding the running game even a little bit with only two active tailbacks. My hunch is, much like he did against the Chargers in 2007, McCarthy took a look at Chicago's #1 ranked run defense on tape and realized his squad would be banging its head against a wall for much of the night and decided - to hell with that. Hence, a ton of short, quick routes in the passing game to take the place of a running game. Sure, he poked and prodded his way through the first half trying to see what might work running the football. He even got the Bears to bite hard on a playaction fake when Rodgers bootlegged the opposite way to hit Finley for a big gain. But as the game went on, especially after the start of the second half, McCarthy was pretty clearly in throw-only mode. And I have zero-problem with that.
Meanwhile, the few chances that Brandon Jackson and John Kuhn did get were mostly doomed from the start. No one on the offensive line, not even usual stalwart Josh Sitton, was getting any push against the Bears front seven. And the alarming thing is the fact that the Bears were begging the Packers to run the ball. They kept both safeties back almost all night. (Incidentally, a lesser quarterback would most likely have had a terrible night on Monday. Rodgers, with zero running game behind him, STILL took the Bears defense apart even though it was completely designed to stop him.)
I know people are up in arms about the lack of a running game, but that is not even close to why the Packers lost on Monday night. They moved the ball at will. They just kept imploding at the worst possible times, whether it was a false start in the red zone, penalties and poor execution on special teams, penalties to take away interceptions on defense...you name it. All those things contributed to the loss against the Bears much more than the lack of a running game that McCarthy seemingly had no interest in trying to produce.
Heading into the Lions game on Sunday, I think you'll see a bit more of an honest attempt at establishing a more traditional running game, but again the Lions are a team that any coordinator worth his salt will want to attack through the air. Their front four is very good. Their secondary is terrible. It makes sense, yet again, to have Rodgers do what he does best and drive the offense through the short passing game rather than count on an offensive line that seems incapable of providing any kind of sustained effort in the running game.
I know its popular to say - "The Packers will have to run the ball sooner or later, especially as the weather turns bad in December and January" - and while I agree an emerging running game as the season turns would be ideal, I just don't think McCarthy is worried about it. Remember the game in Chicago in 2007? Everyone I've ever talked to who was at that game, both media and fans, say it was the coldest, windiest, most horrible game they've ever been to playing-condition wise. And yet McCarthy STILL came out with three and four wide sets and had Favre chucking it all over the yard. It's just who he is and what he believes in. Its funny in a way, because I remember Packer fans, myself included, being so upset when Forrest Gregg insisted on his "three yards and a cloud of dust"-type attack. Seems we've come full circle from a coach who would only pound the ball to a coach who never will.
All in all, I don't see much changing when it comes to the running game unless McCarthy ditches this idea of protecting Brandon Jackson from having to be an every down back. His explanation after the Bills game was that the staff wanted to protect him and keep him fresh for 3rd down. That's why we're seeing so much John Kuhn according to McCarthy. Jackson has subsequently looked terrible in the handful of carries he's been given, causing both long-time detractors and fans who were willing to give him a shot to pile on and say he's incapable of handling the job. I contend that he's not being given a real chance to prove that he can do it. Jackson had seven carries on Monday night. Seven. How many games have we watched Ryan Grant slam into the offensive line again, and again, and again only to see him start breaking runs later in the game, after 10 or 12 carries? Go watch the Eagles game again or the Carolina game from 2008. Both times Jackson comes in for an injured Grant and does a fine job. But with a week to prepare, I think McCarthy and company are just over thinking it and over specializing things way too much. If they want to run the ball, they have to give him every opportunity to run into Daryn Colledge's back three or four times before he gets going, just like Grant would.
The fact of the matter is, unless McCarthy has a sudden revelation in how he wants to design his offensive attack (I'm not holding my breath) and unless the move is made to younger, stronger offensive tackles who are less of a detriment in the running game (McCarthy has indicated that's not happening) and the line starts to magically produce a push, the Packers are going to continue to be a pass first, second and third and run-when-protecting-a-lead kind of team for the foreseeable future.
PLEASE SUBSCRIBE TO OUR CHEESEHEAD NATION WEEKLY NEWSLETTER HERE.
__________________________
Comments (26)
September 30, 2010 at 12:31 am
It seems that every year Grant doesn't really start gaining yardage until later in the season anyways. I assume that will be the case for Jackson as well, Start getting more carries as we go ahead. Kuhn looked pretty awesome carrying 9 Bears on top of him towards the end of a few plays. One thing I have thought as everyone comes up with these crazy trade scenarios is what would we do with Ryan Grant? He is only on the injured reserve list not dead. Yeah trade for Marshawn Lynch then what do we do next year with 5 running backs? Grant is our man we just have to deal with the cards we are dealt, I am just glad we have Aaron Rodgers running the show!
September 30, 2010 at 01:19 am
Do you see if Bjax cant take on the role as number 1 back the packers take a running back high in next years draft, and he may be out of a roster spot or relegated to third string?
September 30, 2010 at 01:45 am
I dont know about relegated to 3rd string. But I want Bjax as my 3rd down back, in THIS offense he fits perfectly. He can pass protect, pick up blitzes, and can catch the ball out of the backfield. On a team with so many weapons on offense the Packers dont need a 3rd down back with explosive play making ability. A change of pace back who can carry the load if needed would be cool, but in my mind its a luxury not a need. Ryan Grant should be back next year, and I think better than ever.
September 30, 2010 at 03:21 am
Even should the Pack go RB in the first round, the added depth would be welcome. Most offenses split carries between a couple of backs anyway; the split would probably be something more like lots of Ryan Grant, new flashy toy on 1st and 2nd downs, with reliable pass blocking, pass catching B-Jax on 3rd down. In other words, more plays to spell Grant, same role for Jackson.
September 30, 2010 at 05:18 am
I hope we get to see the run-when-protecting-a-lead thing on sunday against the Lions, because I'm curious to see if this team can even do that properly. We didn't really get to see it against Buffalo as I recall. The running game concerns me, but seeing how we controlled time of possesion against the Bears with the passing game, it doesn't keep me up at night..... yet :)
September 30, 2010 at 05:38 am
"I know people are up in arms about the lack of a running game, but that is not even close to why the Packers lost on Monday night."
I concur. But I do think it will get us in trouble as the season wears on. You've got to have at least a small threat of a run game on film or you're just asking for trouble. Even with #12 and his 'fleet'.
I also agree Brandon has to be given a fair chance. You can't expect a back to get anything going on just seven sporadic carries. I don't have a ton of faith in him but at least give him a chance, 15-20 carries, then let's see if he and the line can get a little mojo working.
September 30, 2010 at 07:08 am
Maybe in practice Jackson can't even handle the extra reps he's given? There's got to be a reason for what MM is doing that we don't know about. Obviously whether he is making the right decision is another issue, but there must be something that is causing him to hold back on Jackson.
September 30, 2010 at 07:13 am
A lot of teams are gonna play the safeties deep. Killing any kind of big play. They will make the Packers sustain long drives and with the way the Packers are with penalties, well not good.
September 30, 2010 at 07:30 am
My problem with the lack of the running game is that our offensive line just cannot run block, ever, not if their lives depended on it. Wells is too small, our tackles are too old, and Colledge is too, well, bad. I know I'm slamming my head against the wall, because as Aaron correctly points out if McCarthy doesn't care I shouldn't either. It's just so DAMN FRUSTRATING to see complete ineptitude from those guys week after week. It's year 5 in this scheme now, morons. Open a hole once in a while.
October 01, 2010 at 01:02 am
I think that's the point, brother. After five years it's pretty clear that opening a hole <I>isn't part of the scheme</I>. Not now, not ever.
The Packers look just the way McCarthy wants them to look. The man is content.
September 30, 2010 at 08:38 am
Mark Ingram Rd. 1 of the draft to the Packers!!
That is my hope. IF not, patrick peterson, or some beast of an O-lineman.
Ingram is the second coming of emmitt smith, just better. That would be the sickest Packer offense ever.
September 30, 2010 at 10:00 am
The Packers would have to end the season 2-14 to have a shot at Ingram.
September 30, 2010 at 12:40 pm
Not entirely true. He's coming back from injury. If he is injuried yet again, and can't perform any drill during combine, much like Crabtree, he could somewhat fall during draft day.
I don't expect him, like Crabtree, to fall out of the top 15 or 20, so I don't think we'll have a shot at him unless we move up.
But Ryan Williams from VT, Shane Vereen from Cal, DeMarco Murray from Oklahoma and, I don't know of his eligibility, but if he declares early, Jacquizz Rodgers are great candidates IMHO.
September 30, 2010 at 12:56 pm
I subscribe to the philosophy that WR/RB are the most disposable position in the modern NFL. Unless you think the kid really is Adrian Peterson or Emmitt Smith you don't waste a round 1 pick on either position. If they do, the scouts better believe he's a lock.
September 30, 2010 at 09:03 am
On paper MM's plans make sense, IF HE WAS PLAYING IN A DOME!!!!!!!!
When the weather turns, we need a running game. Maybe thats his thinking, the weather is good, so be pass happy. This gives time for Bulaga and Lang to get their acts together for the second half of the season and for TT to find someone else or in a long shot Starks can contribute, I honestly don't know how, he has not played in 2 years.
September 30, 2010 at 10:20 am
That's not true.
September 30, 2010 at 10:46 am
"If you were a defender, would you be fooled by a play-action pass out of this offense?"
http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_/id/17123/have-at-it-packers-runn...
Exactly what I was arguing yesterday, Brian, Aaron, CSS. Nice to know I'm not the only one asking that question...
GBP 4 LIFE
September 30, 2010 at 12:32 pm
When playing Payton Manning, why do teams keep on being fooled by it? It's not just the runner, it's the QB and his ability to fake the PA... Rodgers is VERY good at it, specially in bootlegs.
September 30, 2010 at 12:49 pm
Yet play action passing has worked incredibly well with the current running backs. Willing to bet money that Rodgers under center YPA are better than his shotgun YPA.
Brian said to shoot FO a request to process the information.
September 30, 2010 at 12:54 pm
BTW - The question is completely valid, I wouldn't dispute it. Once the defensive line pushes straight up field and no longer pays any attention to play action I expect McCarthy to respond in-kind with screens, counters and traps. Should be wide open.
This will be the mutant form of the WCO, pass setting up the run. When the D cheats upfield traps and screens will be wide open.
Yes, I would still rather have a dominant run game, but I have doubts the current OL personnel can excel under last years standard game plan, regardless of who they hypothetically acquire.
September 30, 2010 at 03:25 pm
If the line holds up.
September 30, 2010 at 12:30 pm
Aaron, how long did Bulaga play? I remember him subbing in for Clifton for a while, but also remember Clifton coming back.
Also be interesting to know how the running game fare when he was active...
September 30, 2010 at 03:27 pm
I would like to see, at some point, an attempt to go after their strength using the backs up the gut. Maybe it's not the time, but we do have those three FBs. :>)
September 30, 2010 at 09:03 pm
I still think that they should start Kuhn and Q.Johnson. I saw it once in CHI, kuhn got a first down. I think that there are so many possibilities with that combo. They are not going to get 50 yard runs, but will keep the sticks moving and the clock running. Plus that will keep BJax where he is most effective.
Who were the starting tackles that Sherman benched in-game in favor of rookies Tausch and Clifton? I remember him being so ticked at the old starters that he said he was just going to see how the rookies did. Gutsy!
September 30, 2010 at 09:58 pm
HELL YEAH GO UNCSA GRADS!!
Glad to see more of the UNCSA crowd clickin in NY, did ya know a grad played a lead in Wicked? Ya know, as I see it, you're right on just about everything. Except for:
1. Our existing tackles can't protect our passer to do what he really CAN do without a more respectable run game, and the key word is respectable.
2. I agree with Jason Wilde and one caller on Green & Gold Today (9/30) who say that a large # of the penalties, esp. the OL penalties, have everything to do with the lack of a Running Game "PRESENCE."
3. Sure they can move the ball at will, but . . . can they maintain a level of calm, cool, workin-it offense w/o a real RB, can Rodgers? One thing that is not always understood in a close-net teamwork environment is that anxiety & urgency builds & is transferred in more ways than most realize.
Aaron, if you get this, imagine an acting audition with another whole team on stage aggressively battering & taking it to you. I've got acting experience, my daughter is a State Theatre of NC Company member, & my son spent the last 2yrs at UNCSA. The dynamics for the Packers are tremendous when they have a good pass rushing team. It will be a tremendous challenge for the Pack. I don't know what the trade answer could be, but if we wanna real chance at the SB, we gotta make a move, somehow. Congrats on the NYT article/exposure. And Congrats on only needing 4hrs of sleep. Some things get better when you get older, eh?
September 30, 2010 at 10:35 pm
One other thing, I agree that the run blocking was pretty damn bad, but, it needs to be recognized that the OL and overall run blocking team's motivation is HEAVILY motivated by the RB. If you & I can see that Bjax can't see the hole, don't you think Tauch & Cliffy know that? At their age, why the Hell would they put their best out there for the run when they know the pass protection is what's gonna really count.