How did you get that footage of Dan Compers gameplanning?
That is where I tricked you. That is just a generic coach gameplanning.
I wouldn't be in opposition to the Packers signing Forte. My guess is he will go elsewhere though.
I'm all in favor of drafting and developing a young back, but isn't that what they have done and continue to do with Lacy? Forte would be the perfect guy IMO. Well respected veteran that can still play and wants a ring. I also like his ability to catch the ball which would make this offense even more dangerous.
Get it done TT
The biggest key for me is his ability to catch the ball out of the backfield.
He could be used like an extension of the TE position. 8-10 yards downfield & move the sticks.
Of course it'll never happen. Good off-Season discussion.
The Forte-to-Green Bay concept is helped by the upcoming draft being weak at the running back position. Just got through doing a preliminary look and there isn't much talent at the top and it's pretty thin all the way through. It's a possibility that only 14 or 15 running backs will be drafted. There have been exceptions, but for the most part Ted has drafted backs with size that have a history of catching the ball...and this draft doesn't have very many of those.
Hopefully Crockett can play.
Still don't like the Forte idea, but I wouldn't be opposed to bringing Starks back on a one-year deal (which is something I definitely would not have said a week ago).
Elliot is projected as a first round pick & I don't see us drafting a RB that high. I could see us taking someone like Aaron Green from TCU or Tyler Ervin from San Jose St. I love Crockett, but these guys are faster, which IMHO is what we need more of on offense.
You're on crack if you think Ervin is faster than Crockett.
Crockett ran over 4.6. If Ervin is slower, he'd be moving in reverse.
Herschel posted:You're on crack if you think Ervin is faster than Crockett.
Well we will have to see what he officially runs, but this site seems to think it will be much faster than Crockett http://www.nfldraftscout.com/r...r=2016&genpos=RB
but I'm sure you are basing your opinion on some researched facts?
The problem with Ervin isn't speed, it's size. He showed up at the Senior Bowl at 192 but he played in the high 170's at San Jose State. I thought I read somewhere where he stated his desired playing weight in the NFL would be around 185 pounds. He'd be much more attractive if the Packers didn't have return guys like Montgomery, Janis, Cobb, Hyde already on the roster. I don't know if Ervin even sticks as a third down type back. He definitely has a place in the league as a combination return specialist, receiver, line up for a series or two in the backfield (like the Packers use Cobb) type of player. But I'm not sure if that's what the Packers should be looking for when looking at their roster situation.
Yes, blocking vs. blitz could be problematic, just looking for guys who are explosive when they get some open field, & I think Ervin is one of those guys;
Crockett ran a 4.46 and a 4.52 at workout/pro day, 4.62 at the combine with bad take offs. I don't think Crockett has much wiggle.
Finally.
40 Times.
Any rape or teabagging allegations? No players bio is complete without them
I suppose now that Rob Demovsky has a daily tweet that it makes the most sense, it's almost assuredly not going to happen...
Why McStupidface didn't just TRY putting Crockett in there, with his 4.46-4.62 speed, I will never understand.
Arian Foster will be almost $9 million it he stays without redoing his deal, $2.3 million it here cut. He could be a much cheaper addition then Forte given his injury history.
FLPACKER posted:Elliot is projected as a first round pick & I don't see us drafting a RB that high. I could see us taking someone like Aaron Green from TCU or Tyler Ervin from San Jose St. I love Crockett, but these guys are faster, which IMHO is what we need more of on offense.
How about Paul Perkins from UCLA? He reminds me a bit of Jonathan Franklin.
Here is what draft site Rotoworld said about Perkins:
Pro Football Focus charted UCLA RB Paul Perkins as the NCAA’s most elusive running back.
"In a year of great college running backs, you might be surprised to know that Paul Perkins was the hardest one to tackle," PFF noted. "He led the country in PFF’s elusive rating at 114.7. He forced 85 missed tackles on 265 touches. Perkins lacks size and stature (5-11, 210 pounds), so he’ll need to impress scouts with his speed, quickness and pass-catching ability." Rotoworld likes what it has seen on Perkins' tape. We aren't surprised by Perkins' showing in the elusiveness metric. He's an ankle-breaker through and through.
PFF has an elusive rating.
Sometimes it writes itself.
FWIW, Trib reporter Brad Biggs heard in Indy that Forte will be hard pressed to find more than $3M per year.
Adam Schefter is reporting via Twitter that the Packers are kicking the tires on Forte....
I say go ahead and kick the tires and see if there is anything left in the tank. ( I Know I sorta mixed that metaphor. )
If the investment is short (time and dollars), then why not. He would be stepping in as the #2 back for the first time in his career, but what an amazing outlet he could be for AR when the plodding receivers all run straight into DB's. It might even extend his productive time a couple years.
Problem is he has 4x's as many carries on the odometer than Starks for a (probably, what the hell do I know) higher price tag.
But unlike Starks, Forte has proven to be very durable. Biggest concern with Starks has always been 'how long until something else breaks/strains/sprains?'
Using Forte in limited reps and keeping him fresh could be really intriguing.
Re: Starks
@TomSilverstein: He's played in 47 consecutive games. Kind of over the injury bug after ramping up his off-season workouts.
I agree. And I read somewhere that he is actually a bit younger than Starks. I really cringe when Cobb is in the backfield. Its an injury waiting to happen. I think that Ty was injured that way.
Re: Forte
@TomSilverstein: ...he has 2,000 carries. Starks has 555.
IIRC, Ty was injured near the sideline. May have come on a run out of the backfield, don't recall, but it wasn't directly related as if the injury happened between the T's.
cuqui posted:Re: Forte
@TomSilverstein: ...he has 2,000 carries. Starks has 555.
Sort of like valuing a Toyota with 150,000 miles vs. a Dodge with 60,000.
It's a toss up.
DH13 posted:IIRC, Ty was injured near the sideline. May have come on a run out of the backfield, don't recall, but it wasn't directly related as if the injury happened between the T's.
But it was on a run. Ty is supposed to be a tough guy (bigger stronger Cobb) . Forte has managed to stay healthy even as a RB. AND he can be a receiving threat like Cobb or Ty.
Starks is a little younger, but not enough to really matter. Starks is familiar with the offense, will likely be cheaper, and has less tread on the tires.
I like the idea of Forte catching passes out of the backfield, but I'm guessing they go with Starks* and invest somewhere else.
*That is, of course, assuming someone doesn't offer crazy money to Starks.
Starks has been a good Packer, but he's not in Forte's class talent wise and Starks has always been an injury risk even when younger. Forte is more durable, a much better receiver, and just a much more talented player.
Forte has played 120 of 128 regular season games in 8 years.
Starks has played in 67 of 96 regular season games in 6 years.
El-Ka-Bong posted:when the plodding receivers all run straight into DB's
Line of the day.
Good take, MP. Completely agree. I love Starks, especially for contributions on 2010 team, but Forte is in a different class.
Forte would cost a lot more than Starks. However, it's not hard to see how a player like Forte could greatly enhance this offense. I'd prefer it if they just went with Starks. Cheap contract, knows the system, safe move.
Pack-Man posted:Forte would cost a lot more than Starks.
Not necessarily. Apparently at this stage in his career he'd rather chase a world championship then big bucks. The same was speculated about Peppers and he also allegedly would have had higher contract offers elsewhere. If GB/TT/Peppers can convince Forte GB is again a SB contender (not exactly a stretch), he very well may take a cap friendly deal.
Easy to believe #Packers interest in Matt Forte is deeper than just, "Hey, we like you if you strike out elsewhere." Forte isn't chasing $$