**Glazer Reports Lynch traded to Seahawks**

quote:

Originally posted by Hungry5:
To me it looks like Clifton has lost it physically, maybe due to the injury and maybe due to age - I don't know and it does not matter.

I think it has to do with both. What we are seeing here is the same thing we went through with Earl Dotson on the other side of the line. This time it's Clifton and his knee's instead of Dotson and his back.

Kenny Ruettgers Weighs In On This As Well

quote:

I'd also rather have a healthy Clifton in reserve behind Bulaga

yep, Bulaga should be starting and Clifton should be resting. we tried Cliffy but time has caught up with you. stay off those knees and hope we don't need you till Dec at the earliest. Heck, come Dec they can switch back to Clifton if they want to. But he ain't gonna hold up for 16+ games this year.

I guess it depends on what you mean by decent.


1-10-GB 24 (7:21) 25-R.Grant left end to GB 37 for 13 yards (29-N.Allen).

1-10-GB 37 (6:43) 25-R.Grant right tackle to GB 45 for 8 yards (55-S.Bradley).

2-2-GB 45 (6:07) 25-R.Grant left end to PHI 37 for 18 yards (27-Q.Mikell). GB-25-R.Grant was injured during the play. His return is Probable.

I also agree a lot of our running game woes comes from lack of a good OL, or at least parts of it, anyway. I say stick Bulaga in right now, it will at least give Cliffy some time to heal. Give Tausch another game to see how he does, make a switch to Lang if necessary. By the trading deadline, we'll have a better idea of what we have in our current running backs and our offensive tackles. If our running game still stinks with better run blockers, I say make the move for Lynch even if it does cost a #2. A bird in the hand beats two in the bush.

And if our running game picks up and Buffalo panics at the deadline and will take a fourth or fifth, I say do it for insurance. Bjax hasn't stayed healthy for a full season, Starks can't even get on the field, Nance is a complete unknown.

quote:

Originally posted by Tdog:

quote:

I'd also rather have a healthy Clifton in reserve behind Bulaga

yep, Bulaga should be starting and Clifton should be resting. we tried Cliffy but time has caught up with you. stay off those knees and hope we don't need you till Dec at the earliest. Heck, come Dec they can switch back to Clifton if they want to. But he ain't gonna hold up for 16+ games this year.

At that point, Bulaga should have a pretty firm grip on the position. Only if he's injured would we see Clifton that late in the season.

quote:

Originally posted by Hungry5:
I guess it depends on waht you mean by decent.


1-10-GB 24 (7:21) 25-R.Grant left end to GB 37 for 13 yards (29-N.Allen).

1-10-GB 37 (6:43) 25-R.Grant right tackle to GB 45 for 8 yards (55-S.Bradley).

2-2-GB 45 (6:07) 25-R.Grant left end to PHI 37 for 18 yards (27-Q.Mikell). GB-25-R.Grant was injured during the play. His return is Probable.

I should've said series because those runs were all right in a row.

Before that series, the blocking was not very good and I remember one of those runs was Grant turning on a burst to get around the corner.

One of the main reasons Grant could hit that homerun is because the OL kept the DL off him and the FB, so when he hit that cutback lane, he could stretch the field.

If you bring someone like Lynch in, how long does it take for him to learn the offense? Or is this not even a factor to consider?

quote:

Originally posted by GBFanForLife:
If you bring someone like Lynch in, how long does it take for him to learn the offense? Or is this not even a factor to consider?

Have you seen Lynch interviewed?

Over and under is probably a couple years, anyway.

Iowa's favorite comparison. At least, he'd make some extra cash.

quote:

Originally posted by GBFanForLife:
If you bring someone like Lynch in, how long does it take for him to learn the offense? Or is this not even a factor to consider?

I don't want to oversimplify it, but I think RB is the easiest spot to jump into. They usually say that around draft time as rookies are expected to go right away while its understood WRs need a year or two.

Hell, Nance saw a few snaps after three days with the team.

here is ball...run...

You guys really think it is that simple?

Here is a blitz. Rodgers hurt.

quote:

Originally posted by IL_Pack_Fan:

quote:

Originally posted by GBFanForLife:
If you bring someone like Lynch in, how long does it take for him to learn the offense? Or is this not even a factor to consider?

I don't want to oversimplify it, but I think RB is the easiest spot to jump into. They usually say that around draft time as rookies are expected to go right away while its understood WRs need a year or two.

Hell, Nance saw a few snaps after three days with the team.

Maybe there's somebody here that was paying more attention to the WBAY pregame show than I was, but I believe in the little segment Wilde and Demovsky do they were saying that the Packers don't seem to be too thrilled with the way Nance is picking up the offense.

I heard that part too Stink. I believe that was why he was inactive - gotta know your blitz pickups and checkdowns and MM didn't want to screw around v the bears.

Well, there's your answer. Nance can't handle it I'm sure Tradin' Teddy will make an appearance before the 19th.

Superbowl winners since 2004 (reg. season) have averaged over 2000 yards per season rushing. We are currently trending to about 1525 yards rushing (and sliding).

The worst rushing superbowl winner since 2004 reg. season was the 2008 Steelers. Their defense ranked #1 in the NFL that season with a 13.7 ppg mark.

In my opinion we need to at least put ourselves in that 1750-1900 yards per game area. Which would require us getting 35-40 yards a game on the ground from here on out. Jackson and Kuhn arent going to pull 125+ yards rushing a game as a combo. Bringing in a competant, proven back would help us get there.

Better running back. Better blocking
Better running back. Better blocking.
Better running back. Better blocking.
Better running back. Better blocking.
Better running back. Better blocking.

quote:

In my opinion we need to at least put ourselves in that 1750-1900 yards per game area. Which would require us getting 35-40 yards a game on the ground from here on out.

huh? over 1000 yards per GAME and to get there we only need 35-40 yards a game?

quote:

Originally posted by Tdog:

quote:

In my opinion we need to at least put ourselves in that 1750-1900 yards per game area. Which would require us getting 35-40 yards a game on the ground from here on out.

huh? over 1000 yards per GAME and to get there we only need 35-40 yards a game?

Leopolis is in the Marion school district...you must not have gotten those advanced math classes there. I suppose you may have spent your days at Kangaroo K's and just missed that class all together.

quote:

Originally posted by Stinkfinger:

quote:

Originally posted by IL_Pack_Fan:
Hell, Nance saw a few snaps after three days with the team.

Maybe there's somebody here that was paying more attention to the WBAY pregame show than I was, but I believe in the little segment Wilde and Demovsky do they were saying that the Packers don't seem to be too thrilled with the way Nance is picking up the offense.

Jason commented on ESPN Milwaukee this afternoon that this was more his impression of why Nance was not active and not that he actually heard that from the staff.

MM contradicted this in his presser today saying Nance is "on target" eager to learn and he's hopeful Nance will be active on Sunday and able to contribute in the backfield and on ST's. Wilde observations appear to have been off.

This is a very interesting thread.

About the need for better run blocking: it seems to me a good runner makes his blockers better in much the same way that the passing and running games complement and can feed each other. It also strikes me that the key here is a runner respected for his running skill, and that we don't have now. When first Darick Holmes and later Samkon Gado came, the running game improved almost overnight and had to be respected. I don't think we have the equivalent of even either of these guys on the roster unless it's Nance or maybe Starks later, assuming he plays this year.

I see two problems with assuming you can wait till next year to draft a RB: 1. your draft choice may not be NFL caliber (the RB equivalent of Brohm)2. Your team will be a year older and may need stuff you don't anticipate now.

There is not a large window for a team remaining a SB contender. I think we're in it now. Lynch is evidently available now. Wait two games, as someone suggested, and he may be gone.

Then it's Samkon, where are you?

quote:

Originally posted by Fountainfox:
About the need for better run blocking: it seems to me a good runner makes his blockers better in much the same way that the passing and running games complement and can feed each other.

With elite RB's like Peterson and Chris Johnson I'd agree with you.

Anything less then an elite RB? No I don't buy that being a good/very good RB will create running lanes that aren't there. The OL has to create running lanes.

When I re-reviewed the Bears game again time and again Jackson and sometimes Kuhn were met with defenders at the moment or less then a second from hand off. There is simply no way virtually any RB is going to get positive yards when your OL is allowing that much push.

Even guys like STL Rams RB Stephen Jackson saw his numbers decline when the Rams OL declined. And he's a better back when healthy then Grant is.

What's interesting to note in the Bears game is GB dominated in time of possession with nearly 36 minutes of offense vs the Bears with 24 minutes.

And that's with no running game. GB was able to sustain long time eating drives with short dump passes and screens to mimic a run game. I'm not saying they'll do that all year but when you look at why a running game is important and the advantages it gives you...GB created that on MNF (although yes in a different way).

It's not why this team lost on Monday.

Several of the bad runs were the responsibility of the TEs Lee and Finley not setting the edge

True. The TEs, normally very competent blockers were getting run over. Add in Tauscher and Clifton struggling to hold their own and you get squat. Give the Bears front 7 credit, they were punishing.

quote:

Originally posted by titmfatied:

quote:

Originally posted by Coach:

Regardless, Indianapolis has already shown that it's possible to get to the Super Bowl with the running game that's at the bottom of the league. That's not wishful thinking, that's a fact.

The Colts earned a bye and had homefield advantage throughout the playoffs. You know as well as anyone it's a hell of a lot easier to operate the offense when the crowd is polite. The Colts defense held the Ravens to just 3 points and the Jets just 17. They also took a total of 5 penalties in the two games leading up to the Superbowl. I think it's oversimplifying things a bit to say they proved you can get to the Superbowl without a run game without looking at the complete picture.

If the Packers win home field advantage, the defense shuts down opponents, and the whole team focuses on cutting the penalties down to almost nothing they'll have the ability to overcome their lack of explosive plays from the running game and reach the Superbowl. That's a whole different story than just looking at a team who made the Superbowl despite the lack of a strong running game and saying we can do it too.

Did you see this a few posts up?:

quote:

Originally posted by Coach:

Whether or not we reach that game is going to be predicated on #12 and the passing game as well as solid play from both the defense and special teams which both units have already shown that they are capable of (Monday night's debacle notwithstanding).

Yes the Colts earned a bye and home field (winning their first 14 games which obviously included both home and away games....while at the same time having statistically the least productive running game in the league).

As far as their defense that year goes, we're currently are ranked higher than they were that year. AND we have just as many playmakers as they did if not more on the defensive side of the ball. And IMO, we still haven't scratched the surface of what we can be defensively.

I've been primarily focusing on the running backs/game in this thread because that is the topic at hand. My point is, and has been, that it's not only possible to reach (and WIN in the case of Pittsburgh) a Super Bowl with a less than ideal running game, but that it's happened before (and recently).

I would've hoped that you hadn't felt that you needed to explain to me the importance that good defense, solid special teams play, and the avoidance of penalties (we're not likely to beat anyone getting flagged 18 times) is in a(ny) Super Bowl run.

Since you apparently did, all I can really offer back (good naturedly of course) is:

"Well, no sch*t, tit".

Tired of the comparison to the Colts. Indy got to the Super Bowl without a running game because its QB is arguably the best in NFL history. As good as Rodgers is right now, he'll need at least a semblance of a running game in order to get the Packers to the Super Bowl in February.

Also, Addai at least poses a semi-threat to opposing defenses. I can't imagine any coordinator even giving a second thought to Jackson/Kuhn.

quote:

Originally posted by Satori:

quote:

Originally posted by CJS:
Satori, it's not just this post, you also posted: "Its a basic call for attention by a blogger who knows how to rile the small-brains and generate traffic to his site."

I agree that Thompson is an excellent GM and overall MM is a good coach, but they are not above reproach.

Of course they aren't above reproach, and since we all know that perhaps you can loosen your undies and relax about it

As for my comments about Jersey Al- he is yer basic east coast negative nellie who posts what he considers to be "controversial comments" in an attempt to drive traffic to his website. Some take the bait, others don't

Do you ever see him participate in this forum any time EXCEPT when its a thread linked to his article ? His work is self-serving and I treat it as such

Clearly you have some issues and if ripping me makes you feel better, then have at it.

But right now you are looking rather small, and when given the chance to laugh about it, you instead responded with an additional rip

That says a lot more about you than it does me.

To each his own CJS

Satori, if you'll note my comments, I did not take the opportunity for another "rip". I merely quoted you and added a neutral comment below it. The only rip in my post was your rip of Jersey Al.

As for Jersey Al, as long as Boris doesn't have a problem with him making posts here, what's the big deal?

quote:

Originally posted by Coach:


I've been primarily focusing on the running backs/game in this thread because that is the topic at hand. My point is, and has been, that it's not only possible to reach (and WIN in the case of Pittsburgh) a Super Bowl with a less than ideal running game, but that it's happened before (and recently).

I would've hoped that you hadn't felt that you needed to explain to me the importance that good defense, solid special teams play, and the avoidance of penalties (we're not likely to beat anyone getting flagged 18 times) is in a(ny) Super Bowl run.

I think tit's point was that if we're going to have a pedestrian running game, we better have other strengths on the team that off-set said running game.

Are we as good as those teams in those areas?

quote:

Originally posted by heyward:
Tired of the comparison to the Colts. Indy got to the Super Bowl without a running game because its QB is arguably the best in NFL history. As good as Rodgers is right now, he'll need at least a semblance of a running game in order to get the Packers to the Super Bowl in February.

Also, Addai at least poses a semi-threat to opposing defenses. I can't imagine any coordinator even giving a second thought to Jackson/Kuhn.

Sorry you feel that way, but that doesn't make the analogy any less valid.

Rodgers is among the top QB's in the league, and with the development of Finley the receiving cast is every bit as good if not better than what Indy has.

Right now the Kuhn/Jackson combo is ranked 22nd in the league, not 32nd.

And as far as the stats go, they are not going to be there if you only give the ball to your backs 13 times total over four quarters.

I'd be a lot more concerned if we were struggling to move the ball at all, or if Rodgers was taking a beating. Neither of which is happening even with both tackles struggling right now.

The running game is going to show improvement when the blocking does (just like it does every year).

quote:

Originally posted by CJS:

I think tit's point was that if we're going to have a pedestrian running game, we better have other strengths on the team that off-set said running game.

Are we as good as those teams in those areas?

No sch*t, CJS.

Why do think I missed his point when I addressed it directly?

In the passing game? Yes, absolutely.

Defense? Every bit as good as Indy (I'd say by the end of the year better), and not as good as Pitt was in '08 to this point (but with the potential to be when we get completely healthy).

I've seen strides in special teams as well (killed by three ugly plays Monday).

Short answer: Yes.

quote:

Rodgers is among the top QB's in the league, and with the development of Finley the receiving cast is every bit as good if not better than Indy has.

He doesn't have the reptuation that Peyton Manning does; nor does he have anybody in the team's hierarchy on the Competition Committee to change the rules in his favor.

quote:

Originally posted by Coach:

quote:

Originally posted by heyward:
Tired of the comparison to the Colts. Indy got to the Super Bowl without a running game because its QB is arguably the best in NFL history. As good as Rodgers is right now, he'll need at least a semblance of a running game in order to get the Packers to the Super Bowl in February.

Also, Addai at least poses a semi-threat to opposing defenses. I can't imagine any coordinator even giving a second thought to Jackson/Kuhn.

Sorry you feel that way, that doesn't make the analogy any less valid.

Right now the Kuhn/Jackson combo is ranked 22nd in the league, not 32nd.

And as far as the stats go, they are not going to be there if you only give the ball to your backs 13 times total over four quarters.

you be lovin the rankings. i can only suspect that you must think bjack/kuhn is a bigger thread than addai. no wait, it's because m3 doesn't give them a chance. any way you would be open to the opinion that they don't get a chance because they aren't any good?

all people want to do is improve this team. i will assume that tt is exploring this heavily as well he should be. if someone is available, he should upgrade unless he has to DRASTICALLY overpay. i bet he won't.

however, you keep combating that with ranking and past super bowl teams who had talented running backs despite their final rankings. i know deep down you know they need an improvement at that position from outside the organization. they can still keep starks, they can still keep the dirty bird practice squad guy but they can add someone with some talent and experience as well.

quote:

Originally posted by Hungry5:

Better running back. Better blocking.

How bout both ??!!

I think the O-line will sort itself out, either with scheme adjustments or personnel changes (Bulaga / Lang ??).

I disagree with those that say the RB can only take what's there as far as blocking. Are good backs going to get dumped for a loss on occasion?? No doubt. But a more talented back can make people miss. There were several times against the Bears where it seemed B-Jax could get more than he did...he just missed the cutback lane or simply isn't talented enough. A better RB will get more yards than an average one (relative to the blocking he's provided).

Now, I'm not dumping on B-Jax, or Kuhn either. Both add significant value to the Packer offense.... receiving game, pass protection, ball security, knowledge of the offense, ST's, etc....Notice McCarthy said he thought the running backs were "productive" and many thought he was crazy. They were productive....catching the ball, blitz pick up, etc...he never said "running the ball".

A guy like Marshawn Lynch is on a horrible team with a horrible offensive line. Opposing defenses don't need to respect his QB or passing game and often play 8 in the box. Dude is still averaging 4.0 per carry ....4.7 this season , so far. Guy is a good player. Should we go get Lynch ?? If the price is reasonable and TT is convinced he can behave.

I don't think anyone is saying that the running game cost us the Bear game. Just that it would be nice to have that dimension.(I am still depressed about Grant ) It would make us even more scary on offense and keep good defenses from keying on pass all the time.

quote:

Originally posted by Packdog:
If the price is reasonable and TT is convinced he can behave.

And also if he's indeed available (reports conflict).

While I'm admittedly not sold on Lynch, under the above criteria I don't think many if any here would object.

The differences of opinion around here primarily involve what individual posters would consider a reasonable price, and many (not all) of them strongly in favor of trading for the guy in their heart of hearts couldn't care less about what Thompson thinks (which is fine with me...nobody said they have to).

That does not change my opinion (nor apparently MM's) that we can win with what we currently have at RB.

lets stop kidding ourselves. He was available the second they drafted CJ Spiller.

You have to have your head in the sand to think otherwise.

You're the expert.

Is sand tasty?

quote:

Originally posted by Tdog:

quote:

In my opinion we need to at least put ourselves in that 1750-1900 yards per game area. Which would require us getting 35-40 yards a game on the ground from here on out.

huh? over 1000 yards per GAME and to get there we only need 35-40 yards a game?

I meant 35-40 yards more per game on the ground. Sorry.

I believe we are at 95 ypg on the ground right now - and falling

Superbowl winners (last 6) have averaged 125 ypg on the ground.


If we cant run the ball effectively to open up the pass it will seriously deter our chances come playoff time. Especially in places like Lambeau or other stadiums without pristine weather in January. I really think we will be getting an upgrade at HB by week 6, if we dont Jackson is really going to need to step it up... or Starks is going to need to be a miracle worker.