Page 1 of 16 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 316

Thread: running backs

  1. #1

    running backs

    Why do the Packer running backs suck so bad? I know Lacy is above average, but he only is available half the time.

    Been watching some other teams. Chicago plugs in a backup, Jordan Howard, who is supposed to be nothing special. Boom! Look at Minnesota's backups, Assiata and McKinnon, both are effective. Alfred Morris is pretty decent behind the golden boy there in Dallas, Elliott.

    It's not fair, I tell you. It's just not fair.

  2. #2
    Thompson does not value the position of RB...which is probably fine since his selections for the most part have been mediocre at best on the whole.
    It's such a GOOD feeling...13 TIME WORLD CHAMPIONS!!

  3. #3
    Senior Rat HOFer Maxie the Taxi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Loon Lake, Florida
    Posts
    9,287
    This past draft was pretty deep in running backs. I truly expected TT to draft one late. I was hoping for Tyler Ervin.

    Really, the problem is, I think, TT and/or Stubby really don't have a firm idea of what type RB they want, i.e., a Lacy clone, a scat back, etc.
    One time Lombardi was disgusted with the team in practice and told them they were going to have to start with the basics. He held up a ball and said: "This is a football." McGee immediately called out, "Stop, coach, you're going too fast," and that gave everyone a laugh.
    John Maxymuk, Packers By The Numbers

  4. #4
    Senior Rat HOFer beveaux1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    5,404
    I think the biggest problem has been pass protect. The smaller, quicker 3rd down backs have to be able to blitz pick up first. If you don't trust them to block a blitzer, they can't see the field. It's a lot tougher for a small back to do well at blocking.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by beveaux1 View Post
    I think the biggest problem has been pass protect. The smaller, quicker 3rd down backs have to be able to blitz pick up first. If you don't trust them to block a blitzer, they can't see the field. It's a lot tougher for a small back to do well at blocking.
    They don't seem to use Starks as a blocker - although maybe he has to stay home on blitzes. Starks doesn't even run pass patterns, he just drifts downfield on pass plays as the check down. Kind of sad how predictable his role is.

    There always seems to be a glut of decent running backs; it's the easiest position on the team to fill. Yet all we got is a battered starter and a worthless #2.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Harlan Huckleby View Post
    There always seems to be a glut of decent running backs; it's the easiest position on the team to fill. Yet all we got is a battered starter and a worthless #2.
    It is a position where very few guys last more than 3-4 years in the league. You almost have to find a RB every year to add to the roster that can contribute as a runner. This is even more true for Green Bay, because you damn well know Ted ain't spending money on any RB equivalent to the top 10-15 at the position or bringing in a free agent...so we will ALWAYS be rotating guys there.

    Ted's drafted 2 guys in the last 7 years who have been contributors to the running game. He hasn't brought in anything in free agency over that period either. As a former LB, Ted simply hates RBs even if they are being put on his team.
    It's such a GOOD feeling...13 TIME WORLD CHAMPIONS!!

  7. #7
    Senior Rat HOFer Maxie the Taxi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Loon Lake, Florida
    Posts
    9,287
    Quote Originally Posted by beveaux1 View Post
    I think the biggest problem has been pass protect. The smaller, quicker 3rd down backs have to be able to blitz pick up first. If you don't trust them to block a blitzer, they can't see the field. It's a lot tougher for a small back to do well at blocking.
    All true. However, nowadays a quick, pass receiving "3rd down back" doesn't necessarily have to be small or a weak blocker. And then you have to weigh the benefits against the costs. I think a really good pass receiving 3rd down back that can make people miss would improve the team's chances to gain 1st downs, as opposed to one who's primarily a blocker. I'm thinking of James White of the Patriots and a former Badger. He's not a blocker of the caliber of John Kuhn, but he could help us immensely in 3rd and long, especially if we need to beat an all out blitz.
    One time Lombardi was disgusted with the team in practice and told them they were going to have to start with the basics. He held up a ball and said: "This is a football." McGee immediately called out, "Stop, coach, you're going too fast," and that gave everyone a laugh.
    John Maxymuk, Packers By The Numbers

  8. #8
    The party line is that they have two 3rd down backs, Cobb & Montgomery. I call bullshit.

  9. #9
    I suppose this is a bad time to mention it - after a good week last week, but I'd say the reason the Packers get less benefit out of Lacy and Starks than the Vikings do out of their couple of journeymen and the Bears maybe with Howard as well as a lot of other teams with pretty much no name RBs is our O Line. The exception to that, though, is Ezekiel Elliot, who is the real deal - a rare combination of speed and power and instinctiveness - not to mention the great O Line he has to run behind.

    There's a LOT of things I don't like about Ted Thompson, but his tendency to "not value" or at least seldom draft high RBs is one thing I agree with. More often than not, great college RBs are either not so great in the NFL or else burn out quick or both.

    I do like the idea of Cobb and/or Montgomery as 3rd down type backs, but it seems like McCarthy hardly ever uses them that way - pass patterns out of the backfield, safety valve, etc.
    What could be more GOOD and NORMAL and AMERICAN than Packer Football?

  10. #10
    Sugadaddy Rat HOFer Zool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Across the border to the West
    Posts
    13,320
    Asiata and McKinnon were both drafted by the Vikings. Asiata would have a tough time beating Kuhn in a footrace, but McKinnon looks like the real deal.

  11. #11
    Starks blocks a lot. On almost everything but a called screen he checks pass pressure/blitz first then releases for a pass.
    Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by pbmax View Post
    Starks blocks a lot. On almost everything but a called screen he checks pass pressure/blitz first then releases for a pass.
    He does not block alot. I watched him closely last week on pass plays. I agree he will pick up a blitz if he is in position to catch it. But he quickly makes his way past blockers. Look next week, you can school me if I am wrong.Most passplays he appears to be meandering down field like it's bar time.
    Last edited by Harlan Huckleby; 10-12-2016 at 10:09 AM.

  13. #13
    The way Kuhn has looked for the Saints it would have made more sense to let Starks go and keep Kuhn. I know he's a FB, but he could always be an emergency RB. Plus he can block well. They should have kept Kuhn and picked up a young RB. Yet another brain dead move by TT, and stubby.

  14. #14
    Releasing Kuhn was a no brainer, not a dead brainer. Kuhn has scored some TDs for New Orleans. Is his overall play still at high level? Maybe so. If so, I still say TT made a reasonable choice by keeping 1 FB. I'm not moved by Kuhn's emergency RB potential. But pretty much everybody and their uncle agrees that Starks has been a dud, they should have gone younger and quicker.

  15. #15
    Fact Rat HOFer Patler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    One foot in my grave.
    Posts
    19,668
    Is everyone forgetting that Starks had his best season in 2015?

    601 yards rushing with a 4.1/carry average.
    392 yards on 43 receptions for a 9.2/reception average.

    Maybe Starks fell off the cliff over the off-season, but from his performance last year he should have been expected to be more than adequate as a backup this year, and a decent receiver out of the backfield. He was good as a receiver in college (127 receptions in 3 years) but never had a lot of opportunities with the Packers until 2015.

    Whether the fans like it or not, Cobb and Montgomery WILL be used out of the backfield. So long as that continues, there is no reason for a 3rd RB on the roster if the first two are healthy. If Lacy is out this week, GB probably will sign another RB, but it is a wasted roster spot if the #1 and #2 are healthy so long as Cobb and Montgomery continue being used out of the backfield as they have been. It would be different if the #3 RB was the primary KO or punt return man, or was otherwise a beast on special teams, but that not being the case the #3 RB won't be active on game days anyway. If they need him active due to injuries, they will sign one for the week(s) he is needed.

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Patler View Post
    Maybe Starks fell off the cliff over the off-season,
    yes, that's what happened. They should have seen it in preseason and cut him. Not too late to find a better player.

    I agree that carrying a #3 is not ideal, but if TT is unwilling to admit his mistake with Starks, then carrying a #3 is better than the situation they have now.

  17. #17
    Senior Rat HOFer Maxie the Taxi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Loon Lake, Florida
    Posts
    9,287
    Keeping Montgomery and/or Cobb in the backfield (I seem to remember one snap where they both were there) is cute, but someone please refresh my memory...has anything good ever happened from that set? IMO Montgomery looks out of his element back there and Cobb doesn't have the acceleration he used to have. Neither one of them looks much like Darren Sproles.
    One time Lombardi was disgusted with the team in practice and told them they were going to have to start with the basics. He held up a ball and said: "This is a football." McGee immediately called out, "Stop, coach, you're going too fast," and that gave everyone a laugh.
    John Maxymuk, Packers By The Numbers

  18. #18
    Fact Rat HOFer Patler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    One foot in my grave.
    Posts
    19,668
    Quote Originally Posted by Harlan Huckleby View Post
    yes, that's what happened. They should have seen it in preseason and cut him. Not too late to find a better player.

    I agree that carrying a #3 is not ideal, but if TT is unwilling to admit his mistake with Starks, then carrying a #3 is better than the situation they have now.
    Preseason didn't prove anything with respect to Starks. It would have been premature to release him based on 15-20 carries in an offense run by a 3rd or 4th string QB behind 2nd string linemen and linemen who are no longer in the NFL. It might even be premature to give up on him completely based on 4 games so far, but they do need to be working on a contingency plan (and I suspect they have).

  19. #19
    Fact Rat HOFer Patler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    One foot in my grave.
    Posts
    19,668
    Quote Originally Posted by Maxie the Taxi View Post
    Keeping Montgomery and/or Cobb in the backfield (I seem to remember one snap where they both were there) is cute, but someone please refresh my memory...has anything good ever happened from that set? IMO Montgomery looks out of his element back there and Cobb doesn't have the acceleration he used to have. Neither one of them looks much like Darren Sproles.
    Last year it was a new wrinkle that looked like it had potential. Not so much this year.

    Some pre-draft summaries pegged Montgomery as having more potential as a running back than as a WR, but I agree he looks uncomfortable there this year so far.

  20. #20
    Lunatic Rat HOFer RashanGary's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Green Bay
    Posts
    27,163
    Yeah, maxie, might be good to see Montgomery at rb. We have a lot of WRs. Let's give it a try.
    Last edited by RashanGary; 10-12-2016 at 04:20 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •