c j spiller back on the market...released by sea.
Printable View
c j spiller back on the market...released by sea.
For being "75%" Lacy looked as good as he has at anytime in the last two years. If a RB is cleared to play, you play him as you would. There are always guys who are dinged up. If you adjust the roster or your game plan every time somebody isn't 100%, you would have guys coming and going every week and no consistency in the offense or defense.Quote:
Originally Posted by yetisnowman
Sometime the objective is to get through a game or two as best you can without upsetting the roster. They had contingency plans for getting through without Lacy. I don't think it was a bad decision at that time.
Well I didn't imagine him limping after every play. Sometimes you adjust your gameplan and roster when players are dinged up, and they may or may not play. Look at what Atlanta has done this week with only ONE of there two rbs questionable. Plenty of us questioned the strategy before the game and as the game was going. Trying to "get by" with one injured RB and WRs playing out of position was pretty dangerous and foolish. And it cost us. And if we keep playing Monty like a running back, he will get hurt too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Patler
I don't think we had a roster spot available to just sign a RB to protect Lacy and help cover for Starks who was out for personal reasons, and then suddenly for injury. So, in light of those two points, who would you have cut or sent to IR at the time to make room for temporary help at RB?Quote:
Originally Posted by yetisnowman
Sign him!Quote:
Originally Posted by gbgary
I'd rather see Monty, Jackson and Knife Davis get the reps at RB. Spiller would just complicate and already messy situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony Oday
Exactly right. We are in a better place right now than when we had RBs with higher expectations and a damn run-first mentality. Give Montgomery the same hole as Lacy, and he generally will get twice as many yards. Yeah, there were those few exceptions where Lacy ran like a wild bull, but they were outweighed by the times he couldn't bounce outside or whatever like Montgomery or hopefully Davis can do.
The key to winning with any of them, though, is to pass pass pass pass then maybe run rarely as a change of pace.
Maybe one of the receivers that hasn't made a lick of an impact? Janis who can't seem to process and NFL playbook, or Davis who has only fair caught a few punts, or Abbrederis who barely sees the field. .........Quote:
Originally Posted by Carolina_Packer
oh wait this just in- They released Abbrederis today!!!!
This argument has been thoroughly blown out of the water.
I've never seen an NFL team go into a game with that kind of situation at running back.
Oh, heck; sure they have.Quote:
Originally Posted by yetisnowman
As I recall, the Packers played a game with only 1 RB, Tony Fisher, because Greene and Davenport were both out, and they didn't have pseudo RBs at WR. Asked about it afterward, Sherman said they would have gone with all receivers if Fisher got hurt.
Well that team had 3 in the roster, not 2. And if Fisher was injured the previous week and questionable then it would be a more apt comparison. Anyway I'm not trying to belabor the point. But looking at the moves the Packers have made the last few weeks, and looking at what moves other teams make to cover their ass, I think it's fair to say the situation was mishandled. An unnecessary gamble in my opinion.
Things changed a lot in that week. Abbrederis got hurt. Lacy became bad enough that putting him on the shelf for a couple months was acceptable, Banjo reinjured himself again. I think a week earlier they hoped all could factor into the end of the season, as well as Shields. Then there was Rollins injury before the game, and Randall during the game. They got to the point that the injury list was longer than the game day inactive list, so somethings had to be done.
I just don't see a huge risk when they had two other guys who could play out of the backfield. Again, at this far into the season, teams are always taking chances with their rosters.
It wouldn't matter if they had 10, if nine were injured and unavailable. They still went into the game with one.Quote:
Originally Posted by yetisnowman
Lacy was cleared to play. That is really all MM needed to concern himself with about Lacy. Dinged up players gut it through all the time.
has anyone mentioned the failure of our training staff and coaches?
we had a player who was less then 100%, and obviously had an injury that could become worse
it did get worse, and now he might be gone for the year
They'll need a running game to keep teams honest and for bad weather, but I'm ok with dink and dunk.
Getting 6 yards on 1st down with a dumpoff is still a plus play for the offense, and keeps them in favorable down/distance.
I think Davis/Jackson, Starks, and Ty can probably get them through...but yes, having Lacy would be nice. Starks' injury was bad timing.
They won a SB with Brandon Jackson and James Starks; they aren't SOL at RB yet.
I agree, we need someone to power the ball. But NE has gone dink and dunk for years now and it has worked but they have Blount to keep the other team honest. Helps to have field stretching TE also. I wish Cook was still healthy.Quote:
Originally Posted by run pMc
i mentioned it...said the whole running back situation was tantamount to negligence on tt's part.Quote:
Originally Posted by red
Sorry but this is ridiculous. I'm sure coaches adjust their gameplan and strategy based on the health of their players, even when they are cleared to play. Well the smart ones do. But I guess McCarthy is just expected to know who's active and who's not, as opposed to any nuance or detail involving his best players.Quote:
Originally Posted by Patler
Was there anything Lacy couldn't do? Not from the way he played. He ran as well as he has anytime the last two years. If he was limited in some way, of course the coach would adjust. If not, the you play your regular game.Quote:
Originally Posted by yetisnowman
If the injury was such that playing could be expected to make it worse, that's on the medical staff. Coaches don't, and shouldn't make medical decisions.
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by Patler
He was noticeably limping after the first couple carries. It was a pre-existing injury. Lacy has a history of foot and ankle issues. You continue to act like what happened to Lacy vs Dallas occurred in a vacuum. The staff rolled the dice, had their fingers crossed, held their breath.....and we know the rest. Agree to disagreeQuote:
Originally Posted by Patler