Packers vs. Dallas: quit financing third down with negative damn runs.
The Curds & Chaos Desk · Reported brief + original R-rated fan column · Adult language
Source brief
In the Packers’ October 13 coordinator report, Adam Stenavich identified inconsistent rushing and negative runs as problems to fix ahead of Dallas. He praised improved pass protection and said the staff would evaluate its best five linemen during the week, rather than change the group simply for the sake of change.
Read the reporting: Green Bay Packers ↗Our take · Original opinion
My request for the Dallas game is deeply unsexy: stop making second down an apology. A running play does not need fireworks every time. Sometimes three useful yards beat the hell out of a scenic tour that ends behind the line. We ordered forward progress. Why is the receipt showing a delivery fee?
That is the part of an offense I want to argue about this week. Not whether a play looked tough enough for somebody's grandfather. Not whether running the ball proves a moral virtue. Did the decision improve the next decision? Football has plenty of violence already. It does not need us treating a handoff like a character reference. The appeal of an ordinary positive gain is that it keeps options alive. A defense has more to consider when the offense has not advertised its next move. Watching a team repeatedly dig itself a hole and then demand a spectacular rescue is like buying a snowblower after carefully shoveling the driveway into your own garage. Technically, activity occurred. Progress is another discussion. My preference is balance earned by usefulness, not a sacred quota of handoffs. If a look offers an opening, take it. If a plan keeps failing, adjust it. I do not want the play sheet managed like a supper-club punch card where the tenth unsuccessful run earns a complimentary basket of frustration. Being stubborn is free. Wasting possessions is expensive. The line discussion deserves the same restraint. Continuity has value when the group works together; change has value when it solves a defined problem. Neither word is a strategy by itself. My couch-based personnel department would like every recommendation to include an actual football reason before it receives funding. Its current budget is one remote and a deeply unreliable opinion. Against Dallas, I will be watching the boring evidence: manageable second downs, room for the quarterback to operate, and what happens after the first plan gets disrupted. Those are useful questions even on possessions that do not produce a highlight. The television replay might skip the quiet success. The next play still gets to benefit from it. Give me an offense that can keep moving without requiring a miracle as its standard operating procedure. The spectacular stuff is welcome. I just want the foundation to stop sending it emergency texts. Go Pack Go. Make the Cowboys defend the whole damn menu.