I'm all for getting an Aaron Rogers, Tom Brady, Andrew Luck, etc....Anyone know where we can get one? Me either. So my suggestion to this forum and franchise is to look at games we won and games we lost. I firmly believe that we need a stronger offensive line regardless of who is QB'ing. Mr. Aaron Rogers himself look average when pressured during the first half of the wildcard round last week. I don't think Mike needs an all star cast around him but a strong offensive line, better scheme and another year is likely to help him play much better than last year.Truth is that this offensive line had big names but was terrible in the beginning and later parts of the year. They had a good stretch during that 5 week period but were largely garbage outside of that. Few games will be won by anyone this team has or could get at QB with that kind of play.
Running the football helps a rookie QB but most teams that have over 100 yards average are trying to run out the clock in most cases for victories. So to reach the point where you have a lead you need to put points on the board early in a game. Pass pro and receiving options must improve for that to happen.
You pass the create a lead, run the protect it. You need to be able to throw to create the separation that your run game and pass defense protect. Wilson,for example, only threw the ball 65 times in Q4. He threw it 95 and 130 times in Q1 and 2.
My point wasn't about running vs passing to win. My point was strictly that when our run game was anything other than bad, the defense had to respect it and Mike did well in the passing game.
You will never have great players at every position and even when you are close you will have injuries. You can't count on all your offensive weapons being there and your starting O-line starting 16 games and providing 4 seconds every snap. It's the NFL. There will be adversity. You have to build a team that can overcome it. QBs that only perform well under perfect conditions are back ups.QBs that can deal with bad situations and still figure out a way to win are starters.I think it is very clear what we have.
My point wasn't about running vs passing to win. My point was strictly that when our run game was anything other than bad, the defense had to respect it and Mike did well in the passing game.
Most of the time opponents know when you're going to run and when you're going to pass. So it's not so much that successfully running the ball changes the defense and makes it easier to pass, it's that if the offensive line is winning their match ups and successfully opening up running lanes, chances are they're probably winning their match ups on passing downs, too.
QBs that are rookies are rookies.
You will never have great players at every position and even when you are close you will have injuries. You can't count on all your offensive weapons being there and your starting O-line starting 16 games and providing 4 seconds every snap. It's the NFL. There will be adversity. You have to build a team that can overcome it. QBs that only perform well under perfect conditions are back ups.QBs that can deal with bad situations and still figure out a way to win are starters.I think it is very clear what we have.
I don't disagree with any of that until the point where you think it's already clear what Mike is. Look at the 4 best QBs in the league...Rogers, Brady, Manning and Brees. Only Manning played as a rookie and threw 28 interceptions. It's simply silly to think Glennon has reached his peak or to think you know what he will be or won't be. I think we both agree, we both want the best QB possible taking snaps next year. I guess i'm just not ready to say that Mike isn't that guy yet.
You will never have great players at every position and even when you are close you will have injuries. You can't count on all your offensive weapons being there and your starting O-line starting 16 games and providing 4 seconds every snap. It's the NFL. There will be adversity. You have to build a team that can overcome it. QBs that only perform well under perfect conditions are back ups.QBs that can deal with bad situations and still figure out a way to win are starters.I think it is very clear what we have.
Weird disconnect in your comment, isn't there? There will be injuries etc so the strategy is to have one very good guy? . .. you dont need one very good guy . .especially when they are so rare . . .you need a TEAM that can succeed under less than perfect conditions. Again, it helps to have a world beater at QB, no doubt, they just are not that common, that is why you build defense and running games. Glennon actually illustrates that point to perfection. We lost even with Glennon at the helm because the TEAM (offensive line, running game, defense and coaching) was not good enough to support a ROOKIE . . . even arguably the best rookie of a rather poor class.Too much focus on the QB
My point wasn't about running vs passing to win. My point was strictly that when our run game was anything other than bad, the defense had to respect it and Mike did well in the passing game.
Most of the time opponents know when you're going to run and when you're going to pass. So it's not so much that successfully running the ball changes the defense and makes it easier to pass, it's that if the offensive line is winning their match ups and successfully opening up running lanes, chances are they're probably winning their match ups on passing downs, too.
Successful running does change a defense. It keeps the LBers a little closer to the LOS, it general causes the DC to call more run aggressive plays. I understand your point but to think a good run game has the same effect on the defense as a poor one doesn't sit well with me.
My point wasn't about running vs passing to win. My point was strictly that when our run game was anything other than bad, the defense had to respect it and Mike did well in the passing game.
Most of the time opponents know when you're going to run and when you're going to pass. So it's not so much that successfully running the ball changes the defense and makes it easier to pass, it's that if the offensive line is winning their match ups and successfully opening up running lanes, chances are they're probably winning their match ups on passing downs, too.
part of "winning their match ups on passing downs" is having D lineman who are not flat out rushing . . . because they have to account for the run. Part of "winning their match ups on passing downs" is having more space to throw to underneath because linebackers are drawn forward by play action.On 3rd and 3 is a team going to run or pass? How about if the team has been blowing your defense off the line running for 2 quarters? If you run for 1 yard on first and 2 yards on 2nd . . you are more likely to pass on 3rd. If you run for 5 yards on first and even pass for 4 yards on 2nd . . . . the defense is in a tougher position because you might run. The two go hand in hand. Running well impacts the TENDENCY to run (or the defense's thoughts about your tendency to run), just as running poorly impacts the TENDENCY to run (or the defense's thoughts about your tendency to run), which is why defenses in the NFL routinely try to shut down the run and make teams one dimensional . . it works the other way too. The key is keeping defenses off balance
The NFL game has changed such that running to set up the pass works sometimes but if you are able to pass you set up the run. But even if the run isn't set up from the pass you still have a chance of winning..so if play action fails to yield big passing plays and your team is running the football you are still in danger of losing a football game. As Jaworksi puts it " points are scored through a passing game" and I think it rings more true.
Here's a few stats that might tell a better story. League average rushing is 113 yards per game. I looked up Mikes passing stats in games where we rushed for more than 100 yards, as a team. Not talking individual rushers over 100, I'm talking total rushing with starter, back up and Mike himself running for 100 yards combined. First of all that was 5 games, out of 13 that mike started. Secondly we eclipsed the LEAGUE AVERAGE just 4 times all year while Mike was starting. Pretty pathetic for a run based team huh?
The problem with stats is they are just numbers on a page, take your 100 yards rushing stat, it's meaningless because most teams run the ball when they are winning and for obvious reasons get away from it when they fall behind.It's a chicken or the egg situation, did they win because they were running the ball or did they run the ball because they were winning?It's similar to how some people claim Mike struggles to look good when the running game is bad, why don't they think that it might just be the running game looks bad because Mike is playing badly & the D can focus on the run? It's not like Mike has proven he can carry a team on his back or is clutch, he's done nothing to make teams fear him.
The NFL game has changed such that running to set up the pass works sometimes but if you are able to pass you set up the run. But even if the run isn't set up from the pass you still have a chance of winning..so if play action fails to yield big passing plays and your team is running the football you are still in danger of losing a football game. As Jaworksi puts it " points are scored through a passing game" and I think it rings more true.
its interesting to watch people portray running/play action passing in ancient terms. I doubt there are many teams (especially now that Schiano is out of the league - lol) that "run to set up the pass" (i.e., who run 3 yards and a cloud of dust repeatedly to set up a defense for one big pass play). No one is suggesting that (except Schiano and Sullivan-lol). Maybe some teams take that approach, but they are in the distinct minority.It's not that difficult a concept, if a defense thinks you will only pass or only run it is easier to defend than if you run and pass. The key is keeping a defense off balance. It's pretty hard to do that is you are pass only or run only.On top of all of this is one other factor: keeping the other team and your defense off the field. Hard to do if you only do one thing
Here's a few stats that might tell a better story. League average rushing is 113 yards per game. I looked up Mikes passing stats in games where we rushed for more than 100 yards, as a team. Not talking individual rushers over 100, I'm talking total rushing with starter, back up and Mike himself running for 100 yards combined. First of all that was 5 games, out of 13 that mike started. Secondly we eclipsed the LEAGUE AVERAGE just 4 times all year while Mike was starting. Pretty pathetic for a run based team huh?
The problem with stats is they are just numbers on a page, . . . .
even though you go on to make a good point, a point I agree with, you'll have a tough time selling that here. Football is a sport dominated like no other that I can think of (there must be some) by reversed statistics - - -- people using stats in reverse. "If you run 22 times or more in the NFL you win." No, if you win you probably ran it 22 times or more. Sometimes the over-reliance on "numbers on page" leaves people like the Emperor describing his new clothes, but its simple, everyday human experience that should tell people that it is harder to defend a team that can capably run and pass than a team that can only do one of those things . .. there's a reason NFL defenses still try to shut down the run and yes it is tougher to defend the pass if one of your safeties is having to come up to stop the run and if your linebackers are having to come forward to stop the run. it works in reverse too . .
Running and passing despite the efforts of people to make them "effect" each other...don't. You have teams that are good at running and bad at passing and vice versa. If running sets up passing then good run teams should become better passing teams over time. They don't. Rushing also doesn't open up passing either in the traditional "sucking guys up to the line" way nor because of play action. Running in the NFL serves really , only two functions and it doesn't do either terribly well:1. Chewing up clock and the value of that is fairly minimal because possession is more important. It is really at the margins it works. 2. Creating good down and distance situations. Rushing is still shockingly bad at this because while run averages look good run actuals are extremely uneven with one big run masking a lot of futile efforts. Good runs account for less than half of all runs. Our backs did it less than 40% of the time which says a lot about our OL.
