Packers OG T.J. Lang Says Run Game 'Took A Step Back' Vs Seahawks

Re: Packers G T.J. Lang Says The Run Game 'Took A Step Back' During Game Vs The Seaha

That's what happens when our 2's and 3's are going against their number 1's most of the game. Once Rodgers was done after the first series, the Seahawks didn't have to worry about playing the pass because our backups are garbage. Not hard to pin you ears back, stack the box, and play the run at that point.

 

Agree, I wouldnt read too much into it. Talk to me when Rodgers is in the game, keeping the defense honest and forcing them to do something other than play run defense all the time.
The Seahawks were playing to win that game and the fact that they kept their starters in for far too long proves it. The Packers were playing to evaluate talent and decide who they were going to keep.
I just look forward to the day when these 2 teams meet again for a meaningful game. The Seahawks have some serious payback headed their way and the way they acted last night only served to fuel the bad blood.

 

Rodgers would help a little, guys, but don't get ahead of yourselves. Your OL wasn't sterling last year & it's gotten weaker with Bulaga going down.

& Rodgers presence last year didn't make Ds honest to a point of having a run game.

 

Thats because the Packers didnt have a run game last year. Give the Packers a 1,000 yard rusher like they had a few years ago when Grant was on his game and its a different story.
If Lacy can stay healthy, I think they will have that 1,000 rusher. Like I said, you cant use last night's game as a litmus test because the Seahawks were intent on not letting the Packers get any measure of revenge for the, "fail mary" and kept their starters in long after the Packers put their 2nd and 3rd teams in the game.

 

While your OL was porous in pass protection back in '08/'09, they were definitely a cut above in run blocking IMO when coupled with Grant.

I guess if you're convinced Lacy is as good as Grant used to be, we'll just have to see on that one. I'm personally not convinced.

I wasn't using it as a litmus test, just that it was putting a lot of faith that it would be dramatically different just cuz Rodgers was out there. Once again, it made no difference last year & your line is actually weaker now.

I think Lacy will help a bit but I just don't see him as the 2nd coming of Grant.

Time will tell...

 

Lacy was a man among boys in college and if he can stay healthy, I think that he can contribute in Green Bay.
About the o-line, I agree. It wasnt great last season.
About whether or not Rodgers being in the game making a difference, you are missing the point. Without a reliable back, even if Rodgers is in the game, defenses arent going to respect the run. With Lacy, defenses will have to respect the run because kid can make you look stupid if you give him the chance.
Now, Im not going as far as to say that Lacy will be the best RB in the league but he doesnt have to be. All that the Packers need from Lacy is to be a tough runner and get them 2-3 yards per carry with the occasional big run and to get them those tough yards close to the goal line. If they can count on him to get him those short yards on 3rd and short or punch it into the endzone when they are on the goal line, the Packers are going to be tough to defend. Not just because of those short yards but because it opens up the playaction pass and it opens up the possibility of calling a running play in situations where you wouldnt expect a running play.
On Friday they showed the Packers' stats for rushing over the past few seasons and it showed that Grant rushed for a little over 1,000 yards in '09 and the run game had slowly dropped since then, to the point of about 400 yards rushing last season. Yeah, thats for the whole season. Its amazing that the Packers had much of any success with so few rushing yards and is a testament to how good Rodgers is that he can make something out of it when defenses know they are going to throw the ball the majority of the time.
We havent even talked about the defense yet and if they can look like they did against Seattle, with Clay being disruptive and getting back to being Clay and the defense as a whole getting after the QB and swarming to the ball; watch out. I actually didnt think the defense would look that good against a team like Seattle but they were right in that game and it gives me hope. Before Friday, I would have said that the Packers were the 3rd best team in the NFC after Seattle and San Fran but now Im not so sure.

 

Without a doubt. Anything is better than what you have.

& that's where my comments were based. It's preseason, Rodgers wasn't in there, but the fact of the matter is that I'd be real leery of assuming the run game gets much better cuz of that. I know, we've been getting slammed year after year in Chicago for the same reason...a weak OL.

Not a point I missed, just a response that Rodgers, who I think is the best QB out there, elevates that offense but only so far. It was pointing to the OL woes is all.

Football #101. Once again, that's not in line with the hype I've been reading of what a great back Lacy is. A bad OL nullifies RBs, simple as that. If the comments were more in line with 3 yards & a cloud of dust, I wouldn't even have commented. Just seemed that the idea was that a great run game was going to magically appear in the regular season with Rodgers in there.

Rodgers makes a better run game just from the play action but that's still not a run game is all.

I think we're on the same page here, badger. Difference was I was coming from a comment solely on the OL, not on Rodgers worth or an unknown in Lacy tho he could be something.

Probably just a residual of the scar tissue from having no OL in Chi-Town for so long. Good luck this year...

:drinks:

 

No argument there about how the run game cant get much worse than its been the past few years.

 

Lang should hold hid tongue. Everyone takes a step back against the Seahawks.