I hope the guy can develop into something more as he gets familiar with the playbook but I don't expect this guy to be Starks of 2010.
Henry posted:People are making too much of Michael. There's a reason why this guy has been bounced multiple times.
I'm just hoping it isn't Janis-the-Dumb syndrome or he won't see the field.
Meanwhile Monty is getting his ass kicked.
(Injuries make you paranoid.)
Grave Digger posted:I didn't and don't have a problem with him bringing Starks back this past offseason.
Yup, it was an easy decision. He sucks now, but I can totally see why Ted thought he was an adequate, cheap backup
And thinking Crockett would be in the backup mix was a decent bet as well, IMO.
Pistol GB posted:Meanwhile Monty is getting his ass kicked.
Huh? Did Montgomery miss practice today?
The Heckler posted: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.
This is where Monty should really shine. His experience at WR gives him a pretty distinct advantage over most RBs, I would think.
I don't know that I can see Monty burst through the line between the tackles and take one to the house, but I can easily see him making a defender miss or breaking a tackle on a screen and doing it.
Players don't make great screen plays. Teams do.
Satori posted: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 ? ....
TL/DR: The fans are never rong and the Packers are never right...
I don't disagree on most points, but I think your argument that the RB3 would 'waste' a roster spot assumes knowing how injury impacts the roster in advance.
Who could have predicted injuries at what positions before the season started?
And, in theory, if an entire 53-man roster was healthy, there will still be 8 game day inactives every week. A HC may want a guy available week to week based on game plan vs a specific opponent, but responding to injury as they occur likely has a more immediate impact. But he won't know beforehand if he should have another LB as opposed to a RB (as an example).
I still don't think TT was necessarily rong deciding to keep only 2 RB; I think it was a calculated gamble that just happened to bite him on the butt. Injuries are just dumb luck, multiple injury at one position is as incredulous as it is devastating, but multiple injury at multiple positions....those odds have to be astronomical!
Does this all mean Ty falls squarely, directly, completely, perfectly into BPA?
FLPACKER posted: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.
Badger fans did...
Anyone else see White run for 3 yards on 2 carries with a long of 5?
Hungry5 posted:Pistol GB posted:Meanwhile Monty is getting his ass kicked.
Huh? Did Montgomery miss practice today?
No. The point was, I'd like to have him some help, which was what I was talking about in the posts before that about the beatings running backs take, and the sentence right after that about worrying about injuries.
ChilliJon posted:Players don't make great screen plays. Teams do.
No joke. The way that screen was blocked by both OL and WRs, no one was going to stop it. Lacy wasn't even touched because the blocking was so good. With that type of blocking and teamwork, anyone could go all the way.
Lacy has really good vision and instincts though. Starks has been terrible on screens this year despite the fact that the OL are getting out there and opening holes. He takes on contact far too quickly. Great screen plays are a combination of great timing by the playcaller, great effort by the OL, a great fake by the QB, and great vision/instincts by the RB.
Well, that screen in the vid is about the best blocked screen you'll ever see. Linemen all get to second level, and from there the receivers take over. Nelson takes out the last guy that could have caught Lacy before the EZ. Great play.
Pistol GB posted:Hungry5 posted:Pistol GB posted:Meanwhile Monty is getting his ass kicked.
Huh? Did Montgomery miss practice today?
No. The point was, I'd like to have him some help, which was what I was talking about in the posts before that about the beatings running backs take, and the sentence right after that about worrying about injuries.
So, you were talking about he might get his ass kicked versus getting it kicked already? Your statement sure reads like he IS getting his ass kicked already.
Montgomery is built like a brick sh!t house. No concerns with him carrying the load.
McCarthy on Montgomery on carrying 20-25 times: He’s durable. He returns kickoffs, too. I’m confident he could hit that number if need to.
— Tom Silverstein (@TomSilverstein) December 15, 2016
Hungry5 posted:So, you were talking about he might get his ass kicked versus getting it kicked already? Your statement sure reads like he IS getting his ass kicked already.
All running backs get their asses kicked. Literally. Look at the padding: butt, arms, backs of legs and shins, all of it exposed and all of it with bullseyes and huge dudes hitting it as hard as they can.
I have incredible respect for NFL running backs. Boxers and UFC fighters get months between bouts to recover, NFL'ers get 6 days or less. Monty is a huge stud and he's as built as he can be, but seriously: Why are you nitpicking the idea that it would be better if he had someone to split the load?
Not nitpicking splitting snaps. I'm actually a big believer in Michael.
You said "Meanwhile Monty is getting his ass kicked" and there is no evidence (injuries) to support that.
Ass-kicking: getting beat up on; tackled; hit by huge guys trying to kill you. It's a euphamism.
Injury: injury.
Ugh to this. You take all the fun out of posting here.
I'd take Lacy back in a second
at a really low one year contract. He will not give us 16 games, he will likely be out of shape, but he is talented. He'd be a nice back up RB if we pay him next to nothing.
He'll get at least $3 million... Not a minimum wage guy.
El-Ka-Bong posted:I'd take Lacy back in a second
at a really low one year contract. He will not give us 16 games, he will likely be out of shape, but he is talented. He'd be a nice back up RB if we pay him next to nothing.
Unfortunately, there is nearly $ 1 Billion in unspent cap available across the league in 2017 and surprisingly enough - his agent is aware of this cache of cash.
So the Packers have to negotiate against that reality both in terms of cash and length of deal. The Packers will have to offer a decent salary, 2-3 years and a cornucopia of bonuses tied to availability and production. But a true low-ball deal ( "next to nothing" ) isn't a viable option to keep him in GB.
I'm also perfectly comfortable letting Lacy and Dom walk
Le'veon Bell will be the 2017 UFA some team will dole out wads of cash to. I can't see that being Lacy, especially with a deep RB draft to boot.
Pure guess but IF GB makes him an offer, it'll be one with virtually nothing guaranteed and likely not exceeding 2 years and loaded with incentives. The biggest of which is actually lasting 16 games, Phat or not.
Sauna, snow. Sauna, snow. Don't mock til you've tried it.
I would like to know who you guys see as your RB(s) next year. Do we like Lacy enough, and figure he's healthy enough, to pay the piper to get him back? Or do we see Monty or Michael as our bellcow or as a tidy tandem? Or do you think the starter next year will be someone we don't have right now?
(Crockett? Have we heard anything about his health?)
TT will Draft someone in 2017.
Lacy will return
Lacy, Michael, Monty, Rip, Crockett, draft, UDFA.
Lots of options.
What Hungry5 said. I look for an infusion of talent and Lacy to sign a one year prove it deal....
What YA Tittle said Hungry5 said. In my ideal world we have both Lacy and Montgomery. I am skeptical of Michael as 2 pretty good teams have decided they no longer wanted to deal with him. As a #3 back, Michael is fine, but I'd prefer something better than Michael for #2 back.
Lacy should take note of this. They are different types, but they are often mentioned in the same discussions. Just not this one.
Steelers have placed franchise tag on RB Le'Veon Bell, per source.
— Adam Schefter (@AdamSchefter) February 27, 2017
Packers might have gotten to the same point with him had he not gotten out of control with his weight. In-shape Lacy is as good a RB as Bell (could have been better), IMO, we haven't seen that guy since 2014 though and may never see him again.
Hence my comment.
Lacy should take note of this.
#BackToTheBasics pic.twitter.com/E78CQejuVc
— Eddie Lacy (@Lil_Eazy_Ana_42) February 21, 2017
AJ Hawk could do that out of the water
They never used Lacy correctly in GB...He should be getting 20-25+ carries per game.