The Packers Don't Need a Running Back (1 Viewer)

[smackdaddies]

First -

The Packers had 4 drives in the second half last night

The first lasted over 8 minutes, drove the field, ended with a blocked field goal. How would a running back improve that?

The second was 5, yards, ended in a punt when the packers started at their own 1 yard line. This is the only drive you can even argue a RB might of helped. Might being the operative word, except the fact the Packers RB's had more yards than the Bears RBs

The third lasted over 7 minutes, ended in a touchdown How would a running back improve that?

The fourth was going for a TD, ended in a great defensive strip and fumble. How would a running back improve that?

Second -

The Bears vaunted rushing game helped them win, right?

RUSHING

Green Bay, Kuhn 6-31, Rodgers 2-20, Jackson 7-12.

Chicago, Cutler 3-37, Forte 11-29, Taylor 3-9, Knox 1-2.

Clearly the Packers RB had a worse game than the Bears.....well, no, I guess

Third -

Well, just look at time of possession - clearly the Packers need to improve that

Green Bay - 35:49

Bears - 24:11

The Packers offense does not need a running back to be effective.

 

[The_Wolfman]

With all the rules protecting quarterbacks and wide receivers you could argue no team needs a running back because of how easy it is to pass. Look at the way the NFL is trending, some of the best offenses (Saints, Colts, Packers) rely very sparingly on their running game. Of course it helps to have an all-pro qb...

 

[cr8f]

Then they need better blocking and execution. Without effective running Rodgers doesn't have time to throw deep. Without it it is harder to run or throw out cuts.

 

[GoNads]

First - The Packers had 4 drives in the second half last nightThe first lasted over 8 minutes, drove the field, ended with a blocked field goal. How would a running back improve that?The second was 5, yards, ended in a punt when the packers started at their own 1 yard line. This is the only drive you can even argue a RB might of helped. Might being the operative word, except the fact the Packers RB's had more yards than the Bears RBsThe third lasted over 7 minutes, ended in a touchdown How would a running back improve that?The fourth was going for a TD, ended in a great defensive strip and fumble. How would a running back improve that?Second - The Bears vaunted rushing game helped them win, right? RUSHINGGreen Bay, Kuhn 6-31, Rodgers 2-20, Jackson 7-12. Chicago, Cutler 3-37, Forte 11-29, Taylor 3-9, Knox 1-2.Clearly the Packers RB had a worse game than the Bears.....well, no, I guessThird -Well, just look at time of possession - clearly the Packers need to improve thatGreen Bay - 35:49 Bears - 24:11The Packers offense does not need a running back to be effective.

I was just going to post about the packers running game...I see your point, and, as a Rodgers/Finely owner, I would like for that to be true. This said, while it does hold true for last night, I don't believe it will hold true for the long term / remainder of the season. Defenses will adjust (even more), the tundra will freeze and they will have to run... They will have to balance their offense at some point.My original point was going to speak to that. Dmitry was a no-show (inactive) last night, and BJ doesn't look like the answer. Will the Packers move more strongly to add another RB now? As Lynch / Fred Jackson owner, I am still holding out hope for a trade...

 

[comfortably numb]

I agree, this is trending, but when it's 3 degrees outside, handing the ball off is a very good reliable option to have instead of throwing it 7-15 yards down field.

 

[sho nuff]

I think its less the back last night and more a failure by the Oline and very good defense that stopped any running.

Jackson never had a chance on 95% of those runs.

 

[MIMN]

They lost the game.

So you are saying that Green Bay doesn't have to hold their blocks longer on offense because they are passing rather than running? Don't most teams commit offensive penalties because of that? Didn't they have a touchdown called back because of a penalty? Wouldn't that have been the difference in the game?

They lost the game.

If they had a running game, think of how lopsided the time of possession could have been. How long during the game did the Bears hold the lead? Are you arguing that an effective GB running game wouldn't have made it so that the Bears didn't have a chance to come back and win.

Even on a team whose primary weapon is the QB they still need to run the ball to set up the pass.

They lost the game.

If they don't find a running game I don't think they have a chance at a Super Bowl. If they find one, I'm not sure who can beat them.

They lost the game.

I don't buy the Indy comparison because I don't feel the Aaron Rodgers is the QB that Manning is. He hasn't earned that right yet. I think Indy would beat the Packers right now primarily because of the QB position. Don't get me wrong, Rodgers is an excellent QB and very dangerous but not as good as Manning.

They lost the game.

You be Bitter Betty all you want but if GB had an effective running game, they would have won last night...easily. But they lost.

 

[Child Please]

If GB is running the ball even slightly effectively the Bears arent playing the Tampa 2 nonstop, which is a zone that basically gives you 7 yard throws for free. It's also very hard to nurse a lead when you cannot run the ball, dont be foolish and think it's not important.

 

[coyote5]

The Bears d line pretty much pinned their ears back and rushed the passer all game long, ignoring the run. That put additional pressure on the O-line and caused a number of holding and false start penalties.

So yeah, get your head out of the sand and understand that a balanced offense is important.

 

[renesauz]

I think its less the back last night and more a failure by the Oline and very good defense that stopped any running.Jackson never had a chance on 95% of those runs.

Blaming Jackson for last night's (lack of) rushing performance is ridiculous. He never had a chance.

 

[ang12]

With all the rules protecting quarterbacks and wide receivers you could argue no team needs a running back because of how easy it is to pass. Look at the way the NFL is trending, some of the best offenses (Saints, Colts, Packers) rely very sparingly on their running game. Of course it helps to have an all-pro qb...

Saints were pretty close to 50/50 last season.

 

[Insein]

Lynch in the future? I can't help but think with Ryan Grant in there, Packers win going away last night. Less holding calls. More clock eaten. More control of the game.

 

[Cassius]

Brilliant.

 

[steelwind]

Chicago Bears run defense is solid. The Packers beat themselves last night with 17 penalties.

 

[Pipes]

I think its less the back last night and more a failure by the Oline and very good defense that stopped any running.Jackson never had a chance on 95% of those runs.

Blaming Jackson for last night's (lack of) rushing performance is ridiculous. He never had a chance.

Yeah but he still sucks. He dances around way to much.

 

[Insein]

I think its less the back last night and more a failure by the Oline and very good defense that stopped any running.Jackson never had a chance on 95% of those runs.

Blaming Jackson for last night's (lack of) rushing performance is ridiculous. He never had a chance.

Yeah but he still sucks. He dances around way to much.

He's sucked for years. Drafted him as the hot rookie out of camp a few years back. Yea, Deshawn Wynn overtook him by week 3 that year.

 

[switz]

The Packers offense does not need a running back to be effective.

While you might draw that conclusion from last night's game... one wonders whether a better running game may have made just enough of a difference for the Packers to win. It could have softened up the Bears D, which may have led to fewer offensive penalties (false start and holding). It might have eliminated a few of the the 3rd and long plays. It may have sustained some drives that failed.Bottom line is a balanced offense is needed in the NFL.And Brandon Jackson is the suckitude - so is Matt Forte. Has anyone watched a game where the RBs looked even less impressive? Yuck!

 

[packersfan]

Lynch in the future? I can't help but think with Ryan Grant in there, Packers win going away last night. Less holding calls. More clock eaten. More control of the game.

Grant is light years beyond Jackson (and Kuhn) in terms of talent but I'm not so sure he would have made a huge difference. The Bears' run defense is damn good. I'm not sure any team is going to run the ball very well on them this season. Jackson stinks but the Packers clearly knew they weren't going to run the ball effectively so they rarely tried. Same with the Bears. Neither team made much of an effort to run the ball because both teams have good run defenses. I think Chicago may have a great one.

 

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

So because the Bears have a poor run game that means the Packers don't need a different RB??? Great logic

 

[sho nuff]

I think its less the back last night and more a failure by the Oline and very good defense that stopped any running.Jackson never had a chance on 95% of those runs.

Blaming Jackson for last night's (lack of) rushing performance is ridiculous. He never had a chance.

Yeah but he still sucks. He dances around way to much.

Agreed...I can think of only one run last night though that he did not get what was blocked. He had a chance on one to the right to stick his foot in and cut upfield and he was slow in the cut...Grant makes that cut and probably gets 5 yards...I think Jackson got stopped either for no gain or a short loss.

 

[Statler & Waldorf]

Yeah, Chicago has a great run D and maybe the Packers didn't need a good running game last night. But come playoff time, being able to run the ball and drain the clock because very important.

 

[FGITLOTR]

Lynch in the future? I can't help but think with Ryan Grant in there, Packers win going away last night. Less holding calls. More clock eaten. More control of the game.

Grant is light years beyond Jackson (and Kuhn) in terms of talent but I'm not so sure he would have made a huge difference. The Bears' run defense is damn good. I'm not sure any team is going to run the ball very well on them this season. Jackson stinks but the Packers clearly knew they weren't going to run the ball effectively so they rarely tried. Same with the Bears. Neither team made much of an effort to run the ball because both teams have good run defenses. I think Chicago may have a great one.

You are delusional if you think Grant is better than Lynch. Grant has benefited from playing in a an excellent offense his whole career, while Lynch has been stuck playing in that pathetic Bill offense. Put Lynch in a decent offense that doesn't stack the box and watch the guy put up decent numbers. Heck, the guy played well his first two years in Buffalo. I don't think a trade will come to frution, but I'm very interested to see Lynch play somewhere else (maybe he's dealt in off-season).

 

[packersfan]

Lynch in the future? I can't help but think with Ryan Grant in there, Packers win going away last night. Less holding calls. More clock eaten. More control of the game.

Grant is light years beyond Jackson (and Kuhn) in terms of talent but I'm not so sure he would have made a huge difference. The Bears' run defense is damn good. I'm not sure any team is going to run the ball very well on them this season. Jackson stinks but the Packers clearly knew they weren't going to run the ball effectively so they rarely tried. Same with the Bears. Neither team made much of an effort to run the ball because both teams have good run defenses. I think Chicago may have a great one.

You are delusional if you think Grant is better than Lynch. Grant has benefited from playing in a an excellent offense his whole career, while Lynch has been stuck playing in that pathetic Bill offense. Put Lynch in a decent offense that doesn't stack the box and watch the guy put up decent numbers. Heck, the guy played well his first two years in Buffalo. I don't think a trade will come to frution, but I'm very interested to see Lynch play somewhere else (maybe he's dealt in off-season).

I was comparing Grant to Jackson.

 

[Todem]

Wait till December and January....and the weather. They will wish they had a running game.

Dead wrong.

 

[Todem]

Lynch in the future? I can't help but think with Ryan Grant in there, Packers win going away last night. Less holding calls. More clock eaten. More control of the game.

Grant is light years beyond Jackson (and Kuhn) in terms of talent but I'm not so sure he would have made a huge difference. The Bears' run defense is damn good. I'm not sure any team is going to run the ball very well on them this season. Jackson stinks but the Packers clearly knew they weren't going to run the ball effectively so they rarely tried. Same with the Bears. Neither team made much of an effort to run the ball because both teams have good run defenses. I think Chicago may have a great one.

You are delusional if you think Grant is better than Lynch. Grant has benefited from playing in a an excellent offense his whole career, while Lynch has been stuck playing in that pathetic Bill offense. Put Lynch in a decent offense that doesn't stack the box and watch the guy put up decent numbers. Heck, the guy played well his first two years in Buffalo. I don't think a trade will come to frution, but I'm very interested to see Lynch play somewhere else (maybe he's dealt in off-season).

Come on man. I think Lynch has loads of talent. But he head cased his way to the dog house. It takes more than talent. It takes dicipline, focus and teamwork. When you screw up off the field that effects the team. Lynch is another case of a great talent who can't keep his nose clean.

Maybe a change of scenery will help. Maybe he has finally grown up. But Grant has had more NFL success thus far and was a vital cog of that offense. Lynch was replaced last year and this year they took Spiller.

The Bills don't share your thoughts.

As far as Grant. That tired old phrase "he benefited from a great offense" is garbage. You have to take advantage of the opportunity and to do so you have to have some real good talent. This is the NFL not high school.

 

[switz]

Lynch in the future? I can't help but think with Ryan Grant in there, Packers win going away last night. Less holding calls. More clock eaten. More control of the game.

Grant is light years beyond Jackson (and Kuhn) in terms of talent but I'm not so sure he would have made a huge difference. The Bears' run defense is damn good. I'm not sure any team is going to run the ball very well on them this season. Jackson stinks but the Packers clearly knew they weren't going to run the ball effectively so they rarely tried. Same with the Bears. Neither team made much of an effort to run the ball because both teams have good run defenses. I think Chicago may have a great one.

You are delusional if you think Grant is better than Lynch. Grant has benefited from playing in a an excellent offense his whole career, while Lynch has been stuck playing in that pathetic Bill offense. Put Lynch in a decent offense that doesn't stack the box and watch the guy put up decent numbers. Heck, the guy played well his first two years in Buffalo. I don't think a trade will come to frution, but I'm very interested to see Lynch play somewhere else (maybe he's dealt in off-season).

Good job with your reading comprehension... where does he compare Lynch to Grant at all?????

 

[Pipes]

The Bears d line pretty much pinned their ears back and rushed the passer all game long, ignoring the run. That put additional pressure on the O-line and caused a number of holding and false start penalties.So yeah, get your head out of the sand and understand that a balanced offense is important.

While they don't need a stud RB they just need a mediocre one. Just someone to keep the opposing defense a little bit honest. The Bears were flat out ignoring the run and with good reason. That was a major cause of all of the offensive line penalties imho.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Second - The Bears vaunted rushing game helped them win, right?

The Bears have a vaunted rushing game?As good as the Packer's passing game is, and it's very good, a little more balance could only help. A play action pass stops being effective if the threat of the run isn't really a threat. Eventually we'll get to some bad weather games where a rushing attack comes in handy as well.

 

[packersfan]

The Bears d line pretty much pinned their ears back and rushed the passer all game long, ignoring the run. That put additional pressure on the O-line and caused a number of holding and false start penalties.So yeah, get your head out of the sand and understand that a balanced offense is important.

While they don't need a stud RB they just need a mediocre one. Just someone to keep the opposing defense a little bit honest. The Bears were flat out ignoring the run and with good reason. That was a major cause of all of the offensive line penalties imho.

While I think Jackson stinks I'm not sure we can use last night's game as an indictment of his ability. The Bears' run defense is stellar. They're going to make a lot of good RBs look bad this season.

 

[pantagrapher]

Yes they do. As others have explained:

1. Forcing an O-line into pass protection on every down will lead to holding calls.

2. No run game neutralizes the effectiveness of play action.

3. When the weather gets dicey, you need to be able to run the ball.

But as a Bears fan, I'm perfectly content to have them stick with Jackson and Kuhn.

 

[Insein]

My reasons are purely self-centered but Green Bay should consider Lynch in a trade. It makes too much sense for a team that has a legit shot at the Super Bowl THIS YEAR. Add him to that offense and teams all of suddent can't just drop back 7 or blitz till the cows come home. Ryan Grant wasn't all world but he was very good in this offense. Lynch I feel has more talent than Grant. It makes too much sense to do this deal for a team that has such high aspirations.

 

[smackdaddies]

What the Packers need is a stud RB like Forte. Who had fewer yards than the Packers FB who started his first game as a half back last night.

or how about a top quality FA like....Chester Taylor - he would fit the packers, good runner, good pass catcher, good blocker....who had fewer yards than....wait for it.....Brandon Jackson.

 

[gary mexico]

My reasons are purely self-centered but Green Bay should consider Lynch in a trade. It makes too much sense for a team that has a legit shot at the Super Bowl THIS YEAR. Add him to that offense and teams all of suddent can't just drop back 7 or blitz till the cows come home. Ryan Grant wasn't all world but he was very good in this offense. Lynch I feel has more talent than Grant. It makes too much sense to do this deal for a team that has such high aspirations.

I agree. Lynch is still very young as well. Its all good now for the pack but in a couple of months, they are gonna need a running game and the white steed Kuhn isnt going to cut it....

 

[Insein]

What the Packers need is a stud RB like Forte. Who had fewer yards than the Packers FB who started his first game as a half back last night.or how about a top quality FA like....Chester Taylor - he would fit the packers, good runner, good pass catcher, good blocker....who had fewer yards than....wait for it.....Brandon Jackson.

I really don't see what angle you're getting at? Green Bay lost. It doesn't matter what Chicago did. Thats not your team (presumably).

 

[dagwood]

First - The Packers had 4 drives in the second half last nightThe first lasted over 8 minutes, drove the field, ended with a blocked field goal. How would a running back improve that?The second was 5, yards, ended in a punt when the packers started at their own 1 yard line. This is the only drive you can even argue a RB might of helped. Might being the operative word, except the fact the Packers RB's had more yards than the Bears RBsThe third lasted over 7 minutes, ended in a touchdown How would a running back improve that?The fourth was going for a TD, ended in a great defensive strip and fumble. How would a running back improve that?Second - The Bears vaunted rushing game helped them win, right? RUSHINGGreen Bay, Kuhn 6-31, Rodgers 2-20, Jackson 7-12. Chicago, Cutler 3-37, Forte 11-29, Taylor 3-9, Knox 1-2.Clearly the Packers RB had a worse game than the Bears.....well, no, I guessThird -Well, just look at time of possession - clearly the Packers need to improve thatGreen Bay - 35:49 Bears - 24:11The Packers offense does not need a running back to be effective.

I agree with the OP. The Packers don't need a Running BackUnlessThey want to win the Super Bowl

 

[dagwood]

First - The Packers had 4 drives in the second half last nightThe first lasted over 8 minutes, drove the field, ended with a blocked field goal. How would a running back improve that?The second was 5, yards, ended in a punt when the packers started at their own 1 yard line. This is the only drive you can even argue a RB might of helped. Might being the operative word, except the fact the Packers RB's had more yards than the Bears RBsThe third lasted over 7 minutes, ended in a touchdown How would a running back improve that?The fourth was going for a TD, ended in a great defensive strip and fumble. How would a running back improve that?Second - The Bears vaunted rushing game helped them win, right? RUSHINGGreen Bay, Kuhn 6-31, Rodgers 2-20, Jackson 7-12. Chicago, Cutler 3-37, Forte 11-29, Taylor 3-9, Knox 1-2.Clearly the Packers RB had a worse game than the Bears.....well, no, I guessThird -Well, just look at time of possession - clearly the Packers need to improve thatGreen Bay - 35:49 Bears - 24:11The Packers offense does not need a running back to be effective.

I agree with the OP. The Packers don't need a Running BackUnlessThey want to win the Super Bowl

 

[dagwood]

First - The Packers had 4 drives in the second half last nightThe first lasted over 8 minutes, drove the field, ended with a blocked field goal. How would a running back improve that?The second was 5, yards, ended in a punt when the packers started at their own 1 yard line. This is the only drive you can even argue a RB might of helped. Might being the operative word, except the fact the Packers RB's had more yards than the Bears RBsThe third lasted over 7 minutes, ended in a touchdown How would a running back improve that?The fourth was going for a TD, ended in a great defensive strip and fumble. How would a running back improve that?Second - The Bears vaunted rushing game helped them win, right? RUSHINGGreen Bay, Kuhn 6-31, Rodgers 2-20, Jackson 7-12. Chicago, Cutler 3-37, Forte 11-29, Taylor 3-9, Knox 1-2.Clearly the Packers RB had a worse game than the Bears.....well, no, I guessThird -Well, just look at time of possession - clearly the Packers need to improve thatGreen Bay - 35:49 Bears - 24:11The Packers offense does not need a running back to be effective.

I agree with the OP. The Packers don't need a Running BackUnlessThey want to win the Super Bowl

 

[ImTheScientist]

I think its less the back last night and more a failure by the Oline and very good defense that stopped any running.Jackson never had a chance on 95% of those runs.

Blaming Jackson for last night's (lack of) rushing performance is ridiculous. He never had a chance.

Has Jackson ever been good?

 

[cubbie5150]

My reasons are purely self-centered but Green Bay should consider Lynch in a trade. It makes too much sense for a team that has a legit shot at the Super Bowl THIS YEAR. Add him to that offense and teams all of suddent can't just drop back 7 or blitz till the cows come home. Ryan Grant wasn't all world but he was very good in this offense. Lynch I feel has more talent than Grant. It makes too much sense to do this deal for a team that has such high aspirations.

I agree. Lynch is still very young as well. Its all good now for the pack but in a couple of months, they are gonna need a running game and the white steed Kuhn isnt going to cut it....

Hell, I think Fred Jackson is a significant short term upgrade for the Packers... But I don't see them making any trades.

 

[ookook]

I think that having Lynch on the roster would help Grant be effective in the future.

Every team could use a RB with that talent if (a) he can behave and be a positive influence on the sidleine and lockeroom, and (b) he comes at the right price.

Therein lie the rubs.

 

[scott72]

People seem to forget one important thing. The weather. When the temps drop to the teens and it's snowing in GB, we're going to need to run the ball. They may get by with it for now, but it's going to have to be addressed in the near future.

 

[ookook]

Sometimes what I think the Packers need most is Jon Gruden.

I know this is not popular, but the lack of discipline on the field is criminal. I like McC okay but maybe he is just too nice a guy and would be a better OC.

 

[sho nuff]

Fail.

Need an olineman and a coach who will use a rb.

 

[BeaverCleaver]

Fail.

Need an olineman and a coach who will use a rb.

You said you think McCarthy can win a Super Bowl.

 

[sho nuff]

Fail.

Need an olineman and a coach who will use a rb.

You said you think McCarthy can win a Super Bowl.

Yes...I think he can. Meaning I don't think its impossible as you do.I'm just not willing to simply say he can't do it. I doubt you will understand...so just stop now. Not going to get into another dumb argument with you.

 

[Eric Stratton]

Fail.

Need an olineman and a coach who will use a rb.

You said you think McCarthy can win a Super Bowl.

Yes...I think he can. Meaning I don't think its impossible as you do.I'm just not willing to simply say he can't do it. I doubt you will understand...so just stop now. Not going to get into another dumb argument with you.

But how does that work if think they need a coach that will use a RB?

 

[Basmati Ray Rice]

you are right it's a QB they need!