quote:Originally posted by Boris:
This entire "argument" is pointless. It's quite obvious Starks + a 3rd is a much better stance than just Lynch. You're not even considering who gets cut to acquire Lynch.
This entire conversation is pointless and I'll be deleting future posts. They take up valuable space and are pointless.
That's just unfair. Lynch's one strike away from hanging with Maurice Clarrett and Pacman clearly equals keeping a 3rd round pick.
Can I get some direction on what is considered drivel and what is not?
Go find that one post where it wasn't and I will use that as a template.
Is there a point to your post besides pissing me off?
Here's my point. (and I'm pissed about the loss too) The running game argument is over.
In the end, none of us were right. The Packers weren't/aren't "fine" without a running game, nor was it all the RB's fault. The combination of crappy RB's + crappy run blocking = no running game and it's been costing us victories.
I'm sure we'll still see some posts on it, but it seems this vitriol filled thread is now obsolete.
In the end, none of us were right. The Packers weren't/aren't "fine" without a running game, nor was it all the RB's fault. The combination of crappy RB's + crappy run blocking = no running game and it's been costing us victories.
I'm sure we'll still see some posts on it, but it seems this vitriol filled thread is now obsolete.
for the record, I'm always right.
we could have won yesterday with our running game and AR. Hell, I think we could have won with our running game and Flynn. Not saying I'm pleased with the running game, just saying we should have never lost that game period.
we could have won yesterday with our running game and AR. Hell, I think we could have won with our running game and Flynn. Not saying I'm pleased with the running game, just saying we should have never lost that game period.
The offense (collectively) sucked yesterday. Their play versus Detroit does not add or subtract anything with regards to the running game discussion IMO.
The loss on offense was directly due to poor OL play. Barry Sanders couldn't have run behind the garbage push the OL had.
Maybe the offensive lineman should turn around and face the QB. They are very good at going backwards.
Leroy Butler in his "5 questions" segment this week: "I would have liked to have seen James Starks get 18-19 carries..." Prior to that he also said he wants MM to commit to one RB.
C'mon McCarthy. Please remove your head from your ass.
C'mon McCarthy. Please remove your head from your ass.
Jackson
Career: 3.8 YPC--7.7 YPR--3 career fumbles.
2010: 190 carries for 703 yards/3.7--YPC--8.0 YPR--65.3 YPG--4 TDs-1 fumble.
Myth of Marshawn
Career: 3.9 YPC--7.0 YPR--11 career fumbles.
2010: 202 carries for 737 yards/3.6--YPC--6.6 YPR--55.2 YPG--6 TDs-4 fumbles.
Career: 3.8 YPC--7.7 YPR--3 career fumbles.
2010: 190 carries for 703 yards/3.7--YPC--8.0 YPR--65.3 YPG--4 TDs-1 fumble.
Myth of Marshawn
Career: 3.9 YPC--7.0 YPR--11 career fumbles.
2010: 202 carries for 737 yards/3.6--YPC--6.6 YPR--55.2 YPG--6 TDs-4 fumbles.
quote:Originally posted by CJS:
The running game argument is over.
Damn right!
quote:Originally posted by CJS:
The Packers weren't/aren't "fine" without a running game...
Damn Rong!