running backs

[beveaux1]

Yeah except it was known Starks was missing a few weeks, and that Lacy was banged up before the Dallas game. And no moves were made to supplement the roster. So we attempted to play a game with a one legged tailback and two of our 4 best receivers at running back. Lacy is ran into the ground and requires surgery after the game. Of course that is a huge fuckup by TT/MM. No way to sugarcoat that. Your other points are mostly debateable. Obviously not about having 9 receivers on the roster, but our production from TE s , 2nd string running back, and our 5-7 receivers has been pathetic this season even when healthy. Largely what TT has created.

Obviously, another RB added to the roster before the Dallas game would have kept Lacy from being "run into the ground". Look at how many carries the 2 new RBs got in the Bears game. I believe that number was 4 or 5. This article talks about what happens when a player gets injured during a game and makes the injury report. http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/...ame-the-coach/

Condensing, it says he has to be cleared by the medical staff, team management has to be on board, and the player and his agent also have to agree that he's ready to play.

My recollection was that Starks didn't hIt the injury report until Tuesday or Wednesday of Dallas week. He had a personal issue that he had to take care of until Saturday when he had an MRI. He had surgery that evening or Sunday morning. The Packers implemented the Montgomery to RB during the week, and, I believe, would not have used Jackson much during the game had they activated him.

Lacy was cleared to play and aggravated his injury after carrying for almost 70 yds. Tough break, but I don't think it's on the GM.

[Patler]

Yeah except it was known Starks was missing a few weeks, and that Lacy was banged up before the Dallas game. And no moves were made to supplement the roster. So we attempted to play a game with a one legged tailback and two of our 4 best receivers at running back. Lacy is ran into the ground and requires surgery after the game. Of course that is a huge fuckup by TT/MM. No way to sugarcoat that. Your other points are mostly debateable. Obviously not about having 9 receivers on the roster, but our production from TE s , 2nd string running back, and our 5-7 receivers has been pathetic this season even when healthy. Largely what TT has created.

I think you are being a bit naive. It's not as simple as just adding a guy to the roster. Someone has to be removed form the roster to add a player. The inactives for the Dallas game were Shields, Starks, Banjo, Rollins, Cook, Ringo and Murphy. The first five were there because of injury, the last two were healthy scratches, but players the team wants to keep for obvious reasons. At that point, I don't think they were willing to give up on the seasons for their best CB and their best ST performer. With injuries mounting, they were forced into writing them off for the season, but there wasn't a good enough reason to do so then.

The art of roster management is often one of getting by during short stretches without disrupting what you have. Montgomery was a HS running back who was converted to WR in college. Cobb has always taken snaps in the backfield. Hoping to get by with Lacy, Montgomery and Cobb for that game was not wrong, in my opinion.

[vince]

Montgomery had 9 rushes for 60 yards (6.6 ypc) and 10 receptions for 66 yards. I don't know how many receptions and receiving yards came from which position but that's damn good production for a RB or WR - and intriguing flexibility to exploit mismatches to boot. Yeah it sucks that both Lacy and Starks have gone down at the same time but I swear some of you guys aren't happy unless you can bitch about something - real or not. The two workhorses both go down at the same time and they get 126 all-purpose yards from the third guy - while the fourth guy goes down too?

It doesn't get much better than that from a roster management and depth of talent standpoint - and people whine about it because they've pigeon-holed him as a receiver...

He's built like a running back, and we've seen him punish would-be tacklers with the ball in his hands...

Le'Veone Bell - 6'0, 220 4.6 40
Ty Montgomery - 6'0 220 4.55 40
Lesean McCoy - 5'11 208 4.45 40
Melvin Gordon - 6'1 207 4.45 40

I bet if you averaged the measurables of all NFL backs today you'd get Monty's size but a tad less speed and a lot less pass catching ability.

EDIT - This year's rookie running back class at the combine averaged 5'11, 221 lbs. and a 4.56 40.

He's only going to get better as a cut-and-go runner seeing running lanes, and the fact that he's exceptional catching it - for a running back our of the backfield - makes him a potential serious weapon moving forward.

I'd say this hybrid role is here to stay - as long as Monty's around. That's how he's built to be utilized. If he can develop more vision, decisiveness and timing with the line in the run game - early signs suggest he already has a good bit of it (as much or more than Starks) he could add a missing dimension. I'd say he needs a complimentary power runner but he's off to a pretty promising start.

[pbmax]

I do wonder how certain they were about Starks before he left town on personal business. He had surgery soon after getting back, they almost had to know before he left.

So they planned to use Lacy, Cobb and Monty to get through a week, maybe more, until an injury or other development let them bring up Jackson.

[ThunderDan]

At the game against the Giants a few weeks ago I commented to my wife that Monty doesn't look like your typical WR. He looked like a TE to me. He was much thicker than the other greyhounds.

[gbgary]

according to one of the morning sports talk shows on tv, the 9ers are willing to part with some players. carlos hyde anyone? he's out this week but he's had some pretty good stats this year.

[vince]

Carlos Hyde would be a feature back but if he's healthy - and truly available - they'll want a lot - or he's in his walk year. I've heard rumors about Torrey Smith, the one-dimensional receiver but Hyde's a pipe dream that would have numerous teams inquiring. Needless to say, Ted's not getting out in front of that. He just went out and aquired a running back that they need to integrate on the fly.

[Joemailman]

Montgomery had 9 rushes for 60 yards (6.6 ypc) and 10 receptions for 66 yards. I don't know how many receptions and receiving yards came from which position but that's damn good production for a RB or WR - and intriguing flexibility to exploit mismatches to boot. Yeah it sucks that both Lacy and Starks have gone down at the same time but I swear some of you guys aren't happy unless you can bitch about something - real or not. The two workhorses both go down at the same time and they get 126 all-purpose yards from the third guy - while the fourth guy goes down too?

It doesn't get much better than that from a roster management and depth of talent standpoint - and people whine about it because they've pigeon-holed him as a receiver...

He's built like a running back, and we've seen him punish would-be tacklers with the ball in his hands...

Le'Veone Bell - 6'0, 220 4.6 40
Ty Montgomery - 6'0 220 4.55 40
Lesean McCoy - 5'11 208 4.45 40
Melvin Gordon - 6'1 207 4.45 40

I bet if you averaged the measurables of all NFL backs today you'd get Monty's size but a tad less speed and a lot less pass catching ability.

EDIT - This year's rookie running back class at the combine averaged 5'11, 221 lbs. and a 4.56 40.

He's only going to get better as a cut-and-go runner seeing running lanes, and the fact that he's exceptional catching it - for a running back our of the backfield - makes him a potential serious weapon moving forward.

I'd say this hybrid role is here to stay - as long as Monty's around. That's how he's built to be utilized. If he can develop more vision, decisiveness and timing with the line in the run game - early signs suggest he already has a good bit of it (as much or more than Starks) he could add a missing dimension. I'd say he needs a complimentary power runner but he's off to a pretty promising start.

I've been think about this a lot lately. Right now Monty is seen as a WR playing RB, but could he be a full time RB? The biggest question is whether he can learn to make the right cuts on inside runs. If so, you'd have a RB who is really good at catching the ball out of the backfield. Not just one who can catch dump-offs and screens, but one who can run pass patterns.

If both Shields and Lacy are healthy enough to return later this year, the Packers will have to decide which one to activate. How Monty does between now and then could factor into the decision. A lot of people have been thinking that Shields has played his last game as a Packer. Could it be Lacy we won't see again?

[Maxie the Taxi]

Monty at RB is kind of like a poor man's David Johnson. All he lacks is the RB instincts which he will hopefully acquire with more and more reps. A pass-route-running RB for 3rd down and red zone has long been a need for the Packers IMO. I like the idea myself.

[vince]

I think that's his future. Like you said Joe, he'll need to be able to run between the tackles on occasion, but if he can do that to even a serviceable level and learn how to get low behind his pads to keep himself healthy taking a lot more contact with his strength and burst to help him get through the first level, combined with his elusiveness and ability to punish DB's at the second level, AND his ability to run great routes and catch it with YAC - he could cause some real problems for teams to match up. Corners can run with him no problem but it's a different story for LB's, Safeties or even the unfortunate OLB/DE who gets stuck in short coverage at the wrong time. And most cornerbacks don't want to see him coming at them with a head of steam.

I frankly didn't expect him to come back from the ankle surgery as strong as he has. That goes to his work ethic and great physical shape. He probably could bulk up another 5 lbs or so too as long as it's all muscle and not lose any agility in space. Hopefully he can stay healthy taking more hits because he's faster and way more explosive than big backs and way more physical than smaller scat backs. I could see Rodgers having a lot of fun moving him around dictating and exploiting defenses with Monty's versatility.

[vince]

Monty at RB is kind of like a poor man's David Johnson. All he lacks is the RB instincts which he will hopefully acquire with more and more reps. A pass-route-running RB for 3rd down and red zone has long been a need for the Packers IMO. I like the idea myself.

Yeah there aren't many 230 lb. beasts who run 4.3 with agility and can catch. Although I do recall Johnson abusing our ILB's last year. He doesn't run 4.3 but he can abuse LB's like that. Ultimately Monty can be a bit more physical than Johnson but he'll never be quite the home run hitter. Johnson reminds me of Marshall Faulk with their running and receiving skills. The list of guys who can do what Faulk could and Johnson can might end right there.

I'd be ecstatic with if Monty becomes a poor-man's Johnson - with a little more physicality.

[Zool]

Monty runs a little too high to be a 20 carry guy. He's definitely a WR playing RB from what I've seen. Having him and a healthy Lacy is a perfect combo though. When he's lined up in the backfield, all run/pass options are available.

[Freak Out]

Monty runs a little too high to be a 20 carry guy. He's definitely a WR playing RB from what I've seen. Having him and a healthy Lacy is a perfect combo though. When he's lined up in the backfield, all run/pass options are available.

This. We knew he would be good/great if he was healthy. I think it's a bad idea though to work him to hard as a straight up RB...I like the crazy options he brings to the field as a multi-faceted kind of player. Get Davis up to speed and pound with him until Fat Eddie comes back.

[Fritz]

Monty at RB is kind of like a poor man's David Johnson. All he lacks is the RB instincts which he will hopefully acquire with more and more reps. A pass-route-running RB for 3rd down and red zone has long been a need for the Packers IMO. I like the idea myself.

But can one "acquire" instincts? I think that's a contradiction in terms.

And isn't there a reason he was converted to WR? Could it be he just doesn't have that RB vision?

I'd like to be wrong but I am struggling with the above questions.

[vince]

I agree he's never likely to be a feature back and that's not what they want from him. He's not gonna make hay pounding it up the gut with any degree of regularity.

Against Chicago - 9 carries for 66 yards rushing - mostly wide with a plant and go - and 10 receptions for 60 yards. Of those 66 yards rushing, 30 came on one play which you hope to get one of those. The other 8 runs were pretty pedestrian although 4.5 ypc isn't bad. I didn't notice but I bet Ripkowski was in there quite a bit with him. He needs protection with the ball and I doubt they want him protecting Rodgers in there.

19 touches is a pretty good load but the 50/50 run/pass ratio is what I'd say would tend to make him most effective - positioned in the backfield to start most plays but probably ending up on the perimeter as much as anything. He can win more often than not against an awful lot of safeties and if he can get isolated on a linebacker out of the backfield he's gonna make a ton of plays there too. If he can catch a small seam on a screen pass he can bust that open like the kick returner he is. Call him a Wide Receiver, a Running Back, a Wide Back, or a Running Receiver, a Hybrid or whatever. Just put him in position to win and I think he will pretty often. With Lacy and Starks, along with last year's lost season, this direction never came to the fore. Now, out of what might turn out to be fortuitous desperation, I think Monty's real value can be exploited. He's no Julio as a downfield threat obviously, but his strength and speed combo give him a lot of advantages underneath and in space.

This is wild speculation at this point and I've been wildly wrong before so we can check back on this next July, but with what they have now along with another draft/offseason, and particularly the age/wear issues of Starks but also the weight/discipline concerns of Lacy, combined with both of their expiring contracts, I think we may have seen the last of both of those guys. Hopefully Starks can make it back for some spot duty this year yet but I don't think they'll miss him if he doesn't. And Lacy laid up/on crutches for six to eight weeks with a broken ankle? It's hard to see that going well for him... We've seen how the P90X workout and kale binge diet program followed by the Xtended Kung Pao Chicken Fried Rice diet program has worked out already.

[vince]

But can one "acquire" instincts? I think that's a contradiction in terms.

And isn't there a reason he was converted to WR? Could it be he just doesn't have that RB vision?

I'd like to be wrong but I am struggling with the above questions.

Monty has good instincts with the ball in his hand. I don't want to speak for Maxie but he'll have to learn timing, flow and reading how, when and where his blockers are going to create lanes for him as a runner. Sometimes he needs to be patient, other times he needs to smash it through, and other times he'll need to cut backside. He doesn't have that, and it takes time and experience but that's definitely something he can gain with practice and repetition. Some guys never really seem to get it. I think Starks is still below average at it. Monty strikes me as a guy who gets that kind of stuff pretty quickly and has the football ability to leverage his instincts and intelligence.

[ThunderDan]

Monty has good instincts with the ball in his hand. I don't want to speak for Maxie but he'll have to learn timing, flow and reading how, when and where his blockers are going to create lanes for him as a runner. Sometimes he needs to be patient, other times he needs to smash it through, and other times he'll need to cut backside. He doesn't have that, and it takes time and experience but that's definitely something he can gain with practice and repetition. Some guys never really seem to get it. I think Starks is still below average at it. Monty strikes me as a guy who gets that kind of stuff pretty quickly and has the football ability to leverage his instincts and intelligence.

Funny, I always thought Starks was one of the best one cut ZBS runners I had seen.

[vince]

Funny, I always thought Starks was one of the best one cut ZBS runners I had seen.

Yeah just my opinion. I'd say he's had some periods where he's had really good rhythm cutting it up and he always hits it hard when he does. I think he's had just about as many periods when he seems to get into a funk missing the cutback and bouncing out to the sideline too often for no gain, or similarly getting the dropsies on screens during those same periods.

When he hits it I agree he slashes through, runs hard and covers a lot of ground with his long strides. I think sometimes he gets thinking too much (dropping passes, missing reads/adjustments blocking, not having a good sense of where the strength of the defense is and/or what their doing in run pursuit, etc. That has hurt his effectiveness at times.

That's the stuff that high football IQ guys excel at I think. Monty's got it IMO. Rodgers has it, (although he has his insecurities too which cause him to hold the ball too long too often) In my opinion, while Starks does have that great one-cut-and-punishing-finish running style that's real effective when he's on, his football IQ is average and at times his decision-making is a little off. Confidence breeds more confidence, and with him, a split second of uncertainty breeds more uncertainty. He's streaky.

Was it the Detroit game where he practically handed the linebacker in front of him the ball late in the game? That's a good example. I don't know what his rushing line looked like that game but I bet it wasn't good. I wouldn't be surprised to find out he missed a blitz pick-up too.

[yetisnowman]

I think you are being a bit naive. It's not as simple as just adding a guy to the roster. Someone has to be removed form the roster to add a player. The inactives for the Dallas game were Shields, Starks, Banjo, Rollins, Cook, Ringo and Murphy. The first five were there because of injury, the last two were healthy scratches, but players the team wants to keep for obvious reasons. At that point, I don't think they were willing to give up on the seasons for their best CB and their best ST performer. With injuries mounting, they were forced into writing them off for the season, but there wasn't a good enough reason to do so then.

The art of roster management is often one of getting by during short stretches without disrupting what you have. Montgomery was a HS running back who was converted to WR in college. Cobb has always taken snaps in the backfield. Hoping to get by with Lacy, Montgomery and Cobb for that game was not wrong, in my opinion.

I just disagree completely. Lacy has had reoccurring ankle issues and was clearly at about 75%. If we can see that in the game immediately. Obviously the staff saw that in practice. Unless we wanted Monty being our feature back,(who by the way is also coming back from a major ankle injury) it seemed pretty poorly planned. Couldn't the roster and gameplan have been managed the same vs Dallas and Chicago? Seems clear the Dallas game aggravated Lacy's injury. Which could have been avoided with a little more caution and discretion....I'm my opinion.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Sign Ray Rice!