D
Deleted member 6794
Guest
The reason for that is a lack of talent at the running back position though.
Fire Capers
- Thread starter azrsx05
- Start date
- Status
The reason for that is a lack of talent at the running back position though.
We have 4 but also keep in mind we need a good running back too.
There's actually nothing good about a losing season. And why would we need to know who a bandwagon is?
Pokerbrat2000
Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Actually, only 1 by a running back (Ripkowski Monday night), but I have to agree with Captain, not only do we lack talent at the RB position, the Packers appear to realize their chances of scoring inside the 10 are better via the pass and seem to for the most part abandon the running game in those situations.
gopkrs
Cheesehead
- Joined
- May 12, 2014
- Messages
- 5,717
- Reaction score
- 1,438
When we rush 3...the opposing QB has all day. It should be the same for us but...
gopkrs
Cheesehead
- Joined
- May 12, 2014
- Messages
- 5,717
- Reaction score
- 1,438
our O line is good at pass blocking but they are not good at run blocking and that is a problem. It just seems to me that it is a coaching flaw.
D
Deleted member 6794
Guest
True, the Packers have thrown the ball on 66.1% of the plays inside the 10. That's way above the league average of 50.3%.
Rodgers has all day to throw with opponents rushing only three but receivers have trouble separating from defenders in those situations.
First you say that the offensive Line "sucks" as being the reason that teams can only rush 3 against us. You say this despite the fact that Rodgers has consistantly had all day to look for open receivers. Then when Captain Wimm points out that this was incorrect, you shift to something about rushing touchdowns. Others have pointed out the team's lack of a running back as the obvious issue there. I suppose you just wanted to save face, but I am truly curious as to why you would decide that in a season where a team has had so many obvious deficiencies, you would pick the one area where the team has actually been very good.
I actually said something similar above
Rodgers has all day because of him moving and buying time, not from great OLine play. Our QB is on track for the highest rushing stats of his career, because he can't stay in the pocket, caused by poor blocking and receivers can't get open. We beat the worst team in the NFC East, got our *** kicked by the third worst, don't let the last game fool you into thinking this team has turned the corner. If we make the playoffs we're not going anywhere, because we can't run the ball.
You are all over the place on this response. Nobody here, least of all me, thinks the Packers are in good shape. Your comments about Rodgers running all over the place, while true, is not an indictment of the line. The facts are, Rodgers has consistantly had time in the pocket, but until recently, has not been finding open receivers. We have discussed ad nauseum what the reasons for that are, but the offensive line is certainly not one of them. Because Rodgers was not finding receivers, he would begin to scramble to buy even more time, this certainly was not the line's fault, and in fact, actually made it much more difficult for the line to do it's job. If you want to shift to the running game well... having a running back seems to be pretty important there to me. When Lacy was healthy and actually in the game, I seem to remember him having a better than 5 yard per carry average. His problems are his own and have nothing to do with the line. Please don't use James Starks as a counterpoint to anything, because I'm pretty sure he would dance and run sideways behind the Cowboys's O line.
gopkrs
Cheesehead
- Joined
- May 12, 2014
- Messages
- 5,717
- Reaction score
- 1,438
Quote When Lacy was healthy and actually in the game, I seem to remember him having a better than 5 yard per carry average. His problems are his own and have nothing to do with the line. Please don't use James Starks as a counterpoint to anything, because I'm pretty sure he would dance and run sideways behind the Cowboys's O line.[/QUOTE]
What I saw was Lacy running like a bull and breaking tackles. Not many wide open holes. And I disagree about Starks. He would look great behind the dallas line. I admit he looked awful on that screen pass where he danced around horribly but for the most part...he does not have much room to run.
What I saw was Lacy running like a bull and breaking tackles. Not many wide open holes. And I disagree about Starks. He would look great behind the dallas line. I admit he looked awful on that screen pass where he danced around horribly but for the most part...he does not have much room to run.
Carl
Cheesehead
If you couldn't see the o line blocking well in pass protection, you may want to get your eyes checked. It's pretty obvious Rodgers often has all day to throw.
When he does scramble, it's usually after nobody is open.
PFF even has Bahk and Bulaga has two of the top three rated pass blockers in the league.
I've had my complaints with the online in the past, and outside of plays when Barclay has been in, this is as good of pass blocking line as you need to be successful in this league.
I think Tretter is the better center, but Linsley has been fine too
I think Tretter is the better center, but Linsley has been fine too
I think the difference between Tretter and Linsley is physical; Linsely is stronger and more physical.
Tretter is the better technician, but can be bull rushed and knocked around physically.
I think long term Linsely is the guy; he's more physical and stronger, and he'll end up as much more than adequate as a center.
I'm fine with Tretter; again, great technician, quicks, athletic ability and smarts. I just don't see him here next year because I think some team(s) will give him good money to be their undisputed starter.
If you think our run blocking sucks, I am on board. If you believe our pass blocking sucks, I have a bridge in San Francisco along with some beachfront property in Arizona I would like to sell to you for a steal...
I will agree that run blocking is not the forte of the Packers O line, but frankly it was built to protect Rodgers as the primary goal. This is something they do exceptionally well. A blanket statement saying that the offensive line sucks followed by a statement talking about opponents only rushing 3 on pass protection only to change gears and talk about rushing touchdowns is where I have a problem. And Frankly, while I agree that Lacy got a lot of yards by charging through the line, he had a number of runs where a hole was there and was actually limited by his lack of speed as well. My point is that a good running back should be able to find a path behind this line, but we haven't had one. It also doesn't help that the current line hasn't had many opportunities to get better at run blocking while Rodgers is passing 50 times a game lol. Overall, I am quite happy with this line as long as Barclay stays on the bench.
Pokerbrat2000
Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Agreed.Wonder if they have given any thought to playing Barclay at RB for at least one play? "ok.....guys, Don is coming in at RB, as soon as I hand him the ball, everyone let their man come in and hit him, see how he likes it....on 3 ....ready.....break Don"
Last edited:
Ironically I received my Xmas card today from an exPacker Olineman, Adam Timmerman. Sorry this line can't run block and Arod makes them look better then they are when they pass block. Most of the time Eddie made his own holes, because he had to. We have the class of his generation at QB, hell, maybe top ten in history, and he will end his career with one SB appearance if changes aren't made.
This mighty line pounded the Cowboys for 78 rushing yards, at home, with Eddie. I want to compete with them, not the Eagles. If, if, we make the playoffs and all things equal, which line you betting on, the Cowboys or ours? 4th and a long two, they can run it, we're passing, we ain't even thinking about running it. Yes I know they have a great back, but I think a lot of backs would look good behind that line. We're 23rd in rushing, and have the EASIEST schedule in the league. Yea, this line sucks. That easy schedule means we're playing weak defenses, still can't run, and can barely get open.
This site ranks our line 21st in rushing, 12th in passing, with the EASIEST schedule. An experienced line, not a bunch of rookies, and almost 1/3 of our rushing yards come from our qb running.
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol
We can all have opinions but the stats tell a different story, when you factor our opponents.
If only we could play the bears every week.
This mighty line pounded the Cowboys for 78 rushing yards, at home, with Eddie. I want to compete with them, not the Eagles. If, if, we make the playoffs and all things equal, which line you betting on, the Cowboys or ours? 4th and a long two, they can run it, we're passing, we ain't even thinking about running it. Yes I know they have a great back, but I think a lot of backs would look good behind that line. We're 23rd in rushing, and have the EASIEST schedule in the league. Yea, this line sucks. That easy schedule means we're playing weak defenses, still can't run, and can barely get open.
This site ranks our line 21st in rushing, 12th in passing, with the EASIEST schedule. An experienced line, not a bunch of rookies, and almost 1/3 of our rushing yards come from our qb running.
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol
We can all have opinions but the stats tell a different story, when you factor our opponents.
If only we could play the bears every week.
Last edited:
So now at least I understand the parameters.... if the line is not as good as the cowboys "they suck" .... got it
Carl
Cheesehead
Interesting how you claim the line sucks and then use stats that show they are average.
Also, are getting the easiest schedule stat based on last season?
The schedule has been 21st in win percentage. No, that's not great, but it's certainly not the easiet.
Unfortunately, yes, watched their line maul us in the 90's, it's Deja vu. Great O Lines impose their will on the D and by the 4th qtr. when you need to pound out the last 5 minutes they do it. Ever watch Alabama? Just like that. As for the schedule, Giants and Lions are gelling, not the same as when we played them. I see us with 3 more wins, at most.
Carl
Cheesehead
So 31 of the NFL teams must have lines that suck this year.
I'm done with this one... my mood isn't great anyway... and the illogic of this thread is killing me
- Status
Similar threads
Staff online
-
PikeBadgerModerator
