running backs

[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.

[Patler]

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.

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.

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.

[yetisnowman]

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.

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.

[Carolina_Packer]

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.

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?

[yetisnowman]

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?

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. .........
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.

[Patler]

I've never seen an NFL team go into a game with that kind of situation at running back.

Oh, heck; sure they have.
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.