GBFanForLife posted:I don't give a rat's ass what ESPN reports. Show me the scale.
Healthy skepticism is good
To be fair to 27, it was easy to see he couldn't push off that ankle in the last game. There was almost no drive from him once he was engaged by a defender. All the respect to him for gutting it out. Also fair to criticize TT for leaving the roster so short at RB that they had to run him into the ground.
It's also fair to say it's time for him to move on. He's perpetually hurt and his weight is seemingly always out of control. For the right price I'd be happy to have him back, but I think another team may push that price to a place TT isn't comfortable with.
GBFanForLife posted:Guy injures his ankle and suddenly his weight has ballooned. Show me the scale.
With or without Eddie on it?
Anything that happened last week as far as performance is not an indicator of what he can or cannot do. He was injured and had no business playing in that game.
Also fair to criticize TT for leaving the roster so short at RB that they had to run him into the ground.
To go further, Ted also had to know (because many others watching pointing this out) that James Starks didn't look that good in TC or preseason. Many observers thought he looked slow and lost a step. So he not only went into the season with a player in Lacy who can't keep the weight off, had at least a decent chance of breaking down at some point, but also went with his only back up being a player who hit a wall in Starks.
That didn't do any favors to MM or Rodgers.
FLPACKER posted:PackFoo posted:Jerome Bettis who played above 250 most of his career played for 12 years, rushed for over 13,000 yards.
Big difference between the two. Bettis ran a 4.48 at 255 pounds at combine, Lacy ran a 4.57 at 232 at his pro day.
So being faster means what? If anything, the increased speed and added weight means more wear and tear on joints and ligaments.
Force = mass x acceleration
GBFanForLife posted:I don't give a rat's ass what ESPN reports. Show me the scale.
PackFoo posted:FLPACKER posted:PackFoo posted:Jerome Bettis who played above 250 most of his career played for 12 years, rushed for over 13,000 yards.
Big difference between the two. Bettis ran a 4.48 at 255 pounds at combine, Lacy ran a 4.57 at 232 at his pro day.
So being faster means what? If anything, the increased speed and added weight means more wear and tear on joints and ligaments.
Force = mass x acceleration
Yes, every coach is looking for slower running backs. When I played, every coach I had would line us up to run a sprint and always picked the slowest guys to be RB because they would not be hurt as much.
He's on IR. Go look at your mirror and your scale then twitter about you.
Iron posted:Do you remember that play Sunday when he was running to the right. Had a big hole and was running towards the first down. He was right at the first-down line and a safety came up to hit him and dropped him without Eddie getting another inch. I couldn't believe a top notch runner (especially one that big) could go down that quickly and easily. It wasn't like he was going against Jack Tatum or Ronnie Lott. To say the least, I'm not impressed by Eddie's running. Sure he gets the occasional break through but normally the big holes are there for him to run through; it's not like he darts through breaking tackles along the way and surprises us with great moves or his speed, or even his power. Unfortunately I think it's time to move on.
I remember the play. I think It was because he was nervous about the guy going low and getting his ankle. He couldn't cut on it either so all he could do was lay down. Give the guy a break, he was gutting it out for the team on a wheel that needed surgery.
That doesn't happen to a healthy Eddie Lacy
Maynard posted:
From his FB page...so I think he's still working out. Probably much harder to do in season when you are beat up as a running back.
Where's all the China food take-out containers? I figured they'd be all over the floor.
GREEN BAY, Wis. -- It’s now clear why the Green Bay Packers decided not to hold a spot for Eddie Lacy to return this season. But it's unclear what Lacy’s future with the Packers holds.
The running back, who will be a free agent after this season, is still in a walking boot and using a scooter to wheel himself around Lambeau Field on the week he would have been eligible to come off injured reserve because of his left ankle injury. Two weeks ago, the Packers gave up on Lacy when they used their lone designated-to-return exemption on rookie cornerback Makinton Dorleant.
In his first public comments since he went on injured reserve on Oct. 20, Lacy told ESPN.com there was no way he could have returned this season.
Snip=
If anything, however, Lacy’s injury perhaps made it more likely that he will be back with the Packers because the free-agent market might not be all that active for a running back coming off a major injury.
“I definitely hope so; I would love to be,” Lacy said. “I don’t see myself wanting to be anywhere else, but that’s something I can’t focus on right now. I just have to get myself better and put myself in a position to be good and do whatever I have to do.
Apparently the 2017 draft is among the deepest it's been for RB's in many, many years. Having said that, I wouldn't mind Phat Eddie on the cheap in 2017. No way I'd count on him for my #1 guy, but hell maybe he could surprise, stay in shape, and be a contributer
Eddie said today he wants to be back in Green and Gold and the Packers will craft a prove- it deal loaded with enough incentives to whet his ample appetite. And they'll probably draft the next Jonathan Franklin...
I'd like another stresser like Montgomery.
TT will draft the next Travis Jervey!!! Count on it!
Somewhere out there is a linebacker Ted wants to convert to a running back, probably in the 4th round
I'd guess Lacy will be back for cheap and Ted will draft at least one. It's his modus operandi to overload a position after suffering multiple injuries at it.
Plus it's not even overloading. It's almost mind-blowing how badly running backs get beat up. You pretty much have to draft at least one every year to stay ahead. It is getting more brutal every year, and their shelf-life is about the same as a jar of mayonnaise.
Meatier the better too. I think Eddie's tires still got tread, but they definitely need more athletes at RB. Starks is done, and this year laid bare how important it is to have quality backups.
Agreed, the Packers definitely need more athletes at RB and I agree that you pretty much have to draft one every year because of the low shelf life for RB's. Which is why I think it may be really difficult to find one that fits the scheme and if you do one that will make it 4-5 years.
One thing I would like to see is a RB that is great at catching passes out of the backfield and making the scree pass lethal again.
Or he'll go in to next year with Lacy, Crockett and Monty as a contingency plan again.
I'm interested to see how Michael finishes the year. Listening to McCarthy, it sounds like Michael is a guy he has coveted since he was in college. He may not want to send him packing, but it is a two way street so Michael would have to want to stay also. Lacy/Michael might be a good smash 'n' dash combo with Monty being a 3rd down back. I'm picturing a inverted wishbone pistol with Michael/Monty on either side of Rodgers with Lacy behind him. That could be a formidable backfield.
There is nothing quite as satisfying in football, for me, as watching Eddie freight train defenders on a long run. I am hoping we get him back.
Pistol GB posted:I'd guess Lacy will be back for cheap and Ted will draft at least one. It's his modus operandi to overload a position after suffering multiple injuries at it.
Plus it's not even overloading. It's almost mind-blowing how badly running backs get beat up. You pretty much have to draft at least one every year to stay ahead. It is getting more brutal every year, and their shelf-life is about the same as a jar of mayonnaise.
Meatier the better too. I think Eddie's tires still got tread, but they definitely need more athletes at RB. Starks is done, and this year laid bare how important it is to have quality backups.
Agree. I would love to have a motivated Eddie back. He already knows the playbook, doesn't fumble, has been able to handle a short pass or pitch and has protected Aaron well in the past. He is still young and wants to return.
That reminds me to look at the date on my mayonnaise...
I agree, maybe a $5 million prove it contract with incentives.
titmfatied posted:Also fair to criticize TT for leaving the roster so short at RB that they had to run him into the ground.
Disagree and here's why. Roster spots on a Championship-caliber team are at an immense premium and RB 3 does not deliver a good ROI. When GB had DuJuan Harris at RB3, he carried the ball (1-2x) per game and he tried to return kicks (and sucked). GB used Janis, Monty, Davis, Cobb, Hyde to cover the KR/PR duties. That left no real role for RB3 on gameday, so why keep one on the 53 ?
Packers had Lacy, Starks, Crockett, Monty, Cobb to cover the RB duties and no FA RB is gonna come to GB to be number 4 or 5 RB in a pass-heavy offense.
Getting hit with injuries to Eddie, James, Crockett and Jackson was just unlucky, but its not really an indictment of the front office imo. GB would have had to cut another player who does contribute on Sunday in order to keep more RBs.
Given the injuries at CB and OL and ILB and OLB , keeping one of those guys on the 53 has proved to be much more valuable . And even though its a tough offense to assimilate, RB is the "easiest" position to get up to speed.
MM also noted that he wanted the larger LB types on kick coverage, so again RB3 isn't bringing any value.
Diving a little deeper helps shed some light on why they did what they did. Its a zero sum game, and keeping another RB means losing a valuable player elsewhere. If you're gonna come up short, RB is the place to do it.
TL/DR: The fans are never rong and the Packers are never right...
The timing of the injuries to Lacy and Starks play into this too. Packers started the season with Lacy, Starks, Rip, and Pressley was a healthy inactive for wk1.
It wasn't until wk5 that they listed a back on the injury list and that was Rip, who didn't miss a game.
Week 6 is when they hit the wall with Lacy and Starks both on the injury report and it wasn't long after that they both were shelved.
Thompson fully deserves any criticism heading his way over how he handled the running back position last off-season. Frankly, Starks looked terrible for most of 2015 and was so bad at the end of the year he couldn't even hold onto the ball. He also turned 30 before the start of the 2016 season. An observer didn't need to anticipate a big drop-off because it already had happened. Considering Lacy was also coming off a bad year it just wasn't a good decision to bring both of them back and then rely on undrafted rookies to hold down that third spot.
First Thompson move this off-season should be cutting Starks. If the coaching staff could get him to actually run up through a hole once in awhile I would feel differently, but it's just laughable how he tries to take everything outside on those slow 30 year old legs. He hasn't gotten the ball that much this year but I can't remember seeing a running back turn so many 2 yard gains into -2 yard losses in a season. I think the coaching staff has seen just about enough considering he's gotten 14 offensive snaps over the last two games.
They way things have been looking, Monty may play a larger roll in our RB stable next year than just a 3rd down back. Him running the ball started as a necessity but has turned into a potential staple, i.e. he switches full time. There isn't a downside to that proposition unless you worry about the wear and tear he would take and his sickle cell situation. As #30? (maybe 44 if starks is cut), you wouldn't lose any of his WR ability as RB's have been splitting out wide and running routes since the WCO was born. Lacy, Michael and Monty could be a helluva group though the only difficulty would be guys getting enough touches to provide any consistency.
Starks, IMHO, was just never suited for the cutback / zone blocking scheme. I always refer back to video of practice posted last year with RB's doing the "ropes". Even at his most overweight, Lacy had significantly better feet than Starks, who was slow and not fluid.
If we're going to blame the dearth at RB it should be pointed out all WR kept on to cover for Bob having a **** year and Jordy coming back from injury. TT was trying to cover for that abysmal group and Eddie wasn't exactly horrible even when he was chubbing out. He took a risk, a pretty acceptable risk considering this is a passing team with a good oline. Considering how the first half of the season looked the WR group looked like **** too.
So I think the over the top criticism is silly. If Janis the Dumb and Abby the concussed could actually produce the lack at RB would've been mitigated some.
The overall question is hanging onto guys that do nothing so these kinds of risks have to be taken in the first place.
DH13 posted:As #30? (maybe 44 if starks is cut), you wouldn't lose any of his WR ability as RB's have been splitting out wide and running routes since the WCO was born. Lacy, Michael and Monty could be a helluva group though the only difficulty would be guys getting enough touches to provide any consistency.
Did anyone see the Patriots split their RB, White, out as a flanker to get LB Mosley covering him? Resulted in an easy big play.
FLPACKER posted:Starks, IMHO, was just never suited for the cutback / zone blocking scheme.
If they were running ZBS during their SB run in 2010 I would have to heavily disagree. I don't recall taking note of the kind of plays they were running with 44 but he was a nasty slasher of a rookie back then. If you go back to highlights from that time it is shocking to see his burst and shooting through gaps in the defense, all elbows and knees. Granted that was a long time ago in RB years.
Grave Digger posted:I'm interested to see how Michael finishes the year. Listening to McCarthy, it sounds like Michael is a guy he has coveted since he was in college. He may not want to send him packing, but it is a two way street so Michael would have to want to stay also. Lacy/Michael might be a good smash 'n' dash combo with Monty being a 3rd down back. I'm picturing a inverted wishbone pistol with Michael/Monty on either side of Rodgers with Lacy behind him. That could be a formidable backfield.
Heck yeah and it would be great if Michael gets up to speed pretty quick here to split time with Monty for the rest of this season. On that note I wouldn't mind seeing Ripper get more touches either.
With #12 on the team, it is the threat of a running game that is almost more important than an actual running game. It's been a big part of the AR's turnaround these last 4 games, IMO, along with the improvement of the entire receiving corps. This offense has balance again, and it is a damn good thing to see.
The Pack--as they say--is back, and putting together a running game has been a big part of that.
The Packers, (like all NFL teams) play a mix of ZBS and Power depending on the situation/opponent/injuries etc.
Here's a report on Starks from TC as well as a link to his 2015 production. The Packers see him every day but they are clearly not as well-informed nor as astute as the Cognoscenti at X4.
James Starks, #44
6’2”, 218 pounds
7th season
College: Buffalo
After hitting free agency for a second time this offseason, Starks returned to Green Bay on a two-year deal to play the foil to Lacy. He got the biggest workload of his career in 2015 and his yards-per-carry average was a modest 4.1, and he contributed with a career-best season as a receiver. All told, he nearly hit 1,000 yards from scrimmage. The only major complaint about Starks was his fumbling issues - he coughed up the football five times, matching the number he had in his career coming in. Ball security should be a focus for him this offseason, as will continuing his effectiveness as a receiver.
Starks is done. Anyone with eyes can see that. No way he's on the roster in 2017.
I didn't and don't have a problem with him bringing Starks back this past offseason. His 4.1 ypc in 2015 is perfectly acceptable to me...5 fumbles aren't acceptable though. He's hitting a wall though and not producing like he should. He's averaging 2.3 ypc from an OL that is giving him opportunities...Monty is averaging 4.7 ypc on many of the same plays. I've always maintained that TT pays for production and if Starks doesn't start producing then I think TT will cut him. Perhaps he missed on an opportunity to cut a player a year too early vs. a year too late, but considering how inexpensive Starks was I don't think it's a colossal failure.
Pistol GB posted:Grave Digger posted:I'm interested to see how Michael finishes the year. Listening to McCarthy, it sounds like Michael is a guy he has coveted since he was in college. He may not want to send him packing, but it is a two way street so Michael would have to want to stay also. Lacy/Michael might be a good smash 'n' dash combo with Monty being a 3rd down back. I'm picturing a inverted wishbone pistol with Michael/Monty on either side of Rodgers with Lacy behind him. That could be a formidable backfield.
Heck yeah and it would be great if Michael gets up to speed pretty quick here to split time with Monty for the rest of this season. On that note I wouldn't mind seeing Ripper get more touches either.
With #12 on the team, it is the threat of a running game that is almost more important than an actual running game. It's been a big part of the AR's turnaround these last 4 games, IMO, along with the improvement of the entire receiving corps. This offense has balance again, and it is a damn good thing to see.
The Pack--as they say--is back, and putting together a running game has been a big part of that.
Disagree. Michael's impact has been minimal. Monty is keeping defenses off balance because he's been running well enough from a traditional RB position as well as being very dangerous in the receiving game out of the backfield.
People are making too much of Michael. There's a reason why this guy has been bounced multiple times.
Henry posted:So I think the over the top criticism is silly. If Janis the Dumb and Abby the concussed could actually produce the lack at RB would've been mitigated some.
Sounds like knights of the cheese table.
Henry posted:Disagree. Michael's impact has been minimal. Monty is keeping defenses off balance because he's been running well enough from a traditional RB position as well as being very dangerous in the receiving game out of the backfield.
People are making too much of Michael. There's a reason why this guy has been bounced multiple times.
You misread me. I was talking about the running game in general.
And yeah, Michael's primary impact would be to keep Monty off crutches.