Not sure I follow the 'take away his 71 yard run' logic there Goal - there are a lot of plays I'd like to take away, but they happened The Packers tripled us on run yards, 151 of them. That's not insignificant.Hate to disagree again, apparently I'm contentious tonight. GB didn't establish anything, IMO. Take away his 71 yard run, and Jackson didn't do squat against us. One long run does not mean they established anything.
And I don't think we stuck with the running game in the second half. 8 carries inn the second? That's brutal. Were McNabb's two draws included?
Not sure why we went away from it. Don't want to be accused of being negative, i am thrilled to peaches that we are 3-2, who woulda thunk it? But I would like to see us run more.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device
I wonder if part of it might possibly be that History, instead of having a "Cut in Stone" status is more situationally dependent as the game has changed over time? The run game as a fluid tactical decision based on game situations-run to set up the pass and/or pass to set up the run being decided by matchups and opponent tactics with the pass/run percentages amenable to game situation-based adjustment rather than say "we are going to run x percent and pass y percent of the time".. History says, run and you have a better chance of winning. Today, we might just have stolen one in the face of the odds.