For the last two seasons I have been under the belief that Eddie Lacy isn't a power back, he's merely a big back. Meaning that he has the build and the frame to be a power back who trucks defenders and wears them down as the game goes on. While his frame is different, he could be like a Marshawn Lynch style runner... but he's not.

Lacy seemingly prefers to run around defenders with little shifty cuts and spin moves rather than run through them - and that's fine. It just makes watching him a little frustrating for me because I would rather not see all that size slow him down and turn what could be home runs into 10 to 15-yard runs. Sure that size also makes him tougher to bring down even if he's not running someone over, but I personally would still rather see someone faster.

Eddie Lacy breaks a lot of tackles and when combined with his size I think people start forming their own narrative based on stereotype. I am willing to accept that I could be wrong here, maybe he is that "power back" and I just don't see it - but obviously I don't think that's the case.

That being said, when Eddie is going, I do really enjoy watching him run. He may not be fast per-se, but he is effective and watching a man that size, moving at that speed, make defenders miss as they try to arm-tackle him is great.

I guess none of that really matters, I just needed to get that off of my chest before digging into the piece and it also helps explain why I was actually pretty excited to look up the stats for this piece (usually I dread looking up stats because while I love hunting for them, I get most of what I want done and after a couple of hours, one set of stats that I need and thought would be easy to find turns out to be something that's not available to me and everything I have done is a waste). I really wanted to know how a back his size performs in short-yardage, especially because I don't see him as a "run you over' kind of player. 

Big, bruising running backs have a couple of use cases in the NFL. They wear down the defense and have the old adage of "getting stronger as the game goes on." They are tough to bring down and while they theoretically may not hit home runs every game, they can pick up four and five yards at a time a lot easier than lighter backs. They also should be good at picking up first downs and touchdowns in short-yardage situations. 

In the Packers last game against the Dallas Cowboys the Packers had the ball on the one-yard line looking to get into the end zone and ended up having three shots at punching it in. They didn't get in, they had to turn the ball over on downs, and they didn't give the ball to Eddie Lacy. This lead a decent amount of people I follow on Twitter to make statements that can be paraphrased as, "you have Eddie Lacy, use him!"

I personally didn't have an issue with the play-calling there. They threw it on second down, gave Starks a shot on third down (and funny, people didn't have an issue with Starks being in when they thought he scored and were praising him for making a nice run to get there), and on fourth and inches they tried and failed on a QB sneak. 

I like to look at things for the offense that I cheer for in terms of what I would prefer the other team to do/not do if the Packers defense was out there instead. When it is third or fourth and inches the last thing I want to see is a QB sneak. I personally would much rather see the opponent give the ball to a running back. The reason for that is because it is a couple more seconds and like six yards (quarterback travel to hand it off and running back travel from where they get the ball) for the defense to make a play or makeup for getting beat off the snap. On the QB sneak if the offensive line wins a little bit, that's all you need and you also have the quarterback potentially squeezing into a small gap if line offensive line gets pushed back a little. I personally like the odds for the offense if the quarterback is punching it in Tom Brady style than the running back taking it from the backfield. 

I see both sides to the argument though and have no problem with people who think jamming a quarterback into the middle of a crowded line is dumb.

Digging into it I went and looked up what the Packers have done for play-calling in terms of run/pass in short-yardage situations and how successful they have been in those situations since drafting Eddie Lacy. For this piece I have defined short-yardage situations as being plays that the Packers needed one-yard to pick up a first down or touchdown. I have broken up the situations into a few categories: There's the overall stats when needing to pick up one-yard, how they performed in third and fourth down in those situations, and how they have performed on the goal line.

For the running portion of these stats I'm going to include a breakdown of the performance of the Packers' four main rushers: Eddie Lacy, John Kuhn, James Starks, and Aaron Rodgers over that time period.

Plays needing one-yard to convert a first down or touchdown:

Overall the Packers have run 170 regular season plays where they needed one-yard to score or pick up a first down since the start of the 2013 season. They have converted the first down or touchdown on 106 of them, good for a success rate of 62.4 percent.

On those plays the Packers chose to pass the ball 37.6 percent of the time. Meaning they run the ball roughly two-thirds of the time when needing one-yard.

This makes sense because they are much more successful at running the ball than they are passing the ball in this scenario, with a 66 percent success rate they are 10 percent more successful over the last three seasons when running the ball than passing it to pick up that one-yard.

Looking at the four players who comprised 100 of the Packers 106 rushing attempts over this span you see that Eddie Lacy has - as expected -  by far and away the most rushing attempts in the one-yard to go scenario with 51 of the 106 total attempts. Lacy converted 34 of his 51 attempts, which is good for a success rate of 66.7 percent. Lacy's success rate is the exact same as James Starks' and worse than Rodgers (five carries) and surprisingly, John Kuhn who has a 72.7 percent success rate on his (only) 11 attempts. With Lacy at 66.7 percent, Kuhn, Rodgers, and Starks combine for a 69 percent success rate. Not much of a difference from Lacy to the cumulative rest of that group.

Also of note, that QB sneak that Rodgers got stuffed on against Dallas last week was the only time in the last three years that Rodgers was stuffed trying to gain one-yard.

All four players had a better success rate running the ball than the Packers have had throwing it to pick up one-yard the last three seasons.

Third and fourth down plays needing one-yard to convert a first down or touchdown:

The Packers have had 100 attempts at picking up a first down on third or fourth down with one-yard to go since 2013. They have attempted a run on 63 percent of those plays and a pass on 37 percent of the plays. 

Unlike the general one-yard plays on any down, on third and fourth down specifically - plays where defenses expect teams to run more and will typically play to stop the run - the Packers have virtually the same success rate passing the ball as they do running the ball with a 60 percent success rate. That's a little surprising considering the difference in run/pass success in the previous scenario.

Similarly to one-yard plays on any down, Eddie Lacy dominates the one-yard run plays on third and fourth down with 50 percent of the team's carries. Similarly to his performance on any down where the Packers need one-yard, Eddie Lacy has the worst success rate of the four rushers on third and fourth down. At 58.6 percent Lacy is worse than all three other players and John Kuhn is once again up there at 75 percent success on his eight carries. All together Kuhn, Rodgers, and Starks combine for a 65.5 percent success rate on third and fourth downs, a seven percent higher success rate than Lacy has.

In this situation Lacy is the only player rushing the ball who has a worse success rate than the Packers have had throwing the ball.

 Goal line plays needing one-yard to score:

Here we see things start to diverge from what we saw before. In 36 attempts from their opponent's one-yard line the Packers have converted on 52.8 percent of their attempts, which seems okay, but once you factor in that almost half of those attempts were passes and they only converted on 37.5 percent of those passes, things look a little worse. Overall the 65 percent run success isn't much different than the 66 and 60 percent success rates from the previous two scenarios. Interestingly enough at almost a 50/50 split between run and pass, the goal line plays see much more balanced play-calling than the other scenarios. I am assuming they wanted to take advantage of the obvious run-down by surprising defenses with the pass. What ever the reason, it hasn't worked so well.

Just like in the other two scenarios, Lacy dominates the rushing attempts. Unlike in the other two scenarios, Lacy oddly dominates the success rate here. While Kuhn and Rodgers are at 50 percent on their limited touches and Starks just got his first goal line attempt in three years last week, Eddie Lacy has a staggering success rate of 76.3 percent. Way above his success rate in any other one-yard situation on the field.

I have to say, this surprised me quite a bit. I expected most success rates here to be around 50 percent at best. While the Packers do have a pretty good offensive line for run blocking, they are not the most physically imposing group and in my eyes that usually plays a pretty big role on the goal line. To see Lacy struggle in the other two scenarios but have so much success here is a little weird, especially because teams should be expecting the run with a limited field to pass on. 

Looking into it a little bit more, only two of Lacy's 13 attempts at the goal line came on third or fourth down. Which may help to explain his success, especially because the Packers aren't afraid to pass the ball on the goal line. On first and second down the Packers are more likely to throw it, which probably makes it a little easier on Lacy with the defense not having everyone crash the line. That doesn't discredit how good those numbers are though.

Overall all of this doesn't change my perception of Lacy in short-yardage, he has still been the least efficient option of any of the rushers when needing one-yard. However I do believe that when defenses see him in there, they may key-in on him and prepare for the run a little more. Even still, that would really just make him about as efficient as the other three options, with the exception for Lacy being on the goal line.

Kuhn's success rate surprised me quite a bit. I feel like he shouldn't be succeeding in the 70 to 75 percent range, maybe I am just remembering all the times the fullback dive has failed more than I should. 

Looking at the goal line numbers I think I was wrong and McCarthy should have called at least one play for Lacy on the goal line last Sunday. It is hard to argue with a 76.3 percent success rate and while I hate, Hate, HATE power formations in short-yardage situations for most teams, putting Lacy in and spreading teams out a little bit (I envision the I-Formation as the perfect goal line formation) may be a perfect combination to knock it in time after time.