Mike McCarthy, in typical antiquated coachthink, made the statement before tonight’s Packer-Bronco game that his goal was to establish the run and do so successfully. I would have much preferred the goal be to win the game, as I have said for decades that establishing the run and winning the game are contradictory goals. I’ve always said you have to pass to score, running might get you some first downs but the drive will eventually stall, and this strategy ensures the other team will still be in the game far longer than they should be.
This game was further proof of everything I’ve said. The Packers, last in the league in running (but 6-0 coming in because they can pass), had a very successful evening running the ball. Their featured back was 22 for 104 yards. Now let’s look at the result of that.
The Packers scored a touchdown on a first-down, first-play-of-the-drive bomb on their second possession, so running had nothing to do with that drive. You could say other runs set up the pass, but I disagree. The Packers scored the winning TD in overtime on a first-down, first-play-of-the-drive pass, so running had nothing to do with that. For the entire rest of the game, the Packers scored 6 points, although they ran the ball well. 6 points! I’d guess if I looked at the tape that those field goals were set up by passes, but for the sake of argument, let’s attribute them to runs. So, once again, running, even successfully, produces few points and keeps the other team in the game, allowing them to have the chance to come back and win, which the Broncos nearly did.
Let’s look at some specifics to drive the point home even stronger:
- The score was 13-7 Packers at half, but could easily have been 21-7 if the Packers didn’t run the ball both times they got deep into Bronco territory. 21-7 is a huge difference from 13-7, which isn’t even up by a TD, and changes the entire flow of the game.
- I made the statement in the first quarter that the Packers had no intention of trying to score TDs to put the game away, but were more interested in establishing the run, kicking field goals instead of trying for touchdowns, and relying on the defense to hold Denver, ALL of which are dangerous strategies. This was obvious early in the game, and I said in the first quarter this strategy would allow the Broncos to hang around where they would have a chance to win at the end.
- The Packers had the Broncos 2nd-and-20 deep in their own territory with about 1:15 left in the half, and didn’t use their timeouts to get the ball back with enough time for the offense to try to score again. They did get the ball back, but with little time left. Again, no interest in putting the game away.
- The Packers continued to run the ball in the second half, and were not aggressive offensively. The Bronco defense had a lot of missing players due to injuries, but McCarthy decided to go with the run and not attack it. Even on a third-and-long in the third quarter, he threw a very short pass, not making the attempt to get the first down. With less than 3:00 to play in the 3rd quarter, Favre had only thrown 17 times (12 of 17).
- After the Broncos kicked a field goal to make it 13-10, the Packers again ran on first down, resulting in a punt. You want to try to score to regain momentum after the other team scores, but no attempt was made here. Once again, the philosophy was to be conservative and hope the defense holds them.
- The Packers then started a drive from their 2, threw on first down for 19 yards, ran on first down for a loss, ran for 2, passed for a first down, ran on first down for 4, threw for a first down, ran on first down for 1, ran on second down for -1, and then punted with 2:27 left, giving the Broncos a chance to tie (they did) or win. Favre was 13 of 14 in the second half and overtime, so he was completing almost every pass he threw, but the gameplan was to run, which is why they did not score in the second half and scored only 13 instead of 21 or more in the first half. Favre finished 21 of 27, and there were a few drops. Had he thrown 40-45 times, the Packers would have won by a large margin. Instead, they nearly lost the game at the end.
To illustrate how the Packers could have passed and scored much more often, BEFORE the Packers snapped the ball on the winning TD pass in overtime, my son said to me, “Single coverage on top.” He was referring to Jennings, who caught the TD pass. Now, the Broncos have two of the best cornerbacks in the league, but even my son knows how easy it is to beat that coverage even with great corners, and the Packers could have done that much more often.
So, once again, establishing the run, which they did successfully, nearly cost them the game, and this was obvious from the first quarter on.