Moron Files: Greg Bedard

[pbmax]

JSO Blog - Greg Bedard - Sept 19, 2010 accessed 8:19 PM CDT (http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/103252519.html)


3. No major injuries: Let's face it, the Eagles and Bills haven't exactly been elite teams the first few weeks. Packers had two season-ending injuries in Week 1 (Ryan Grant, Justin Harrell); none today. Health will be a key factor for this team this year. Probably moreso than for other teams because of the way Ted Thompson constructs his teams.
I think this may be a demonstrably false statement. Bedard is taking another dig at Thompson's preference not to fill roster depth with veterans.

But a team of younger starters and key backups is less likely to get injured in the first place. The best indicator of potential injuries is probably past injuries (not definitive, but I would bet it has the highest correlation). And while Bedard worships at the alter of the veteran backup, they are always limited and can be exposed over time with film study. They are also more likely to be available because of an injury history.

Younger players would more likely be exposed early (Shields and Burnett) and learn from their mistakes.

There is no single right way to build a team. But Bedard seems to believe that Thompson's approach is a combination of fetish and tarot card reading. I wish he would stop drawing conclusions in the face of his continued inability to understand the approach.

[retailguy]

Bitching about a RB is a really bad way to talk about his point. We had a good stable of backs to start the season, plus we have a promising rookie on PUP.

No reason to panic.

But Bedard's point is not wrong, necessarily. When you don't bring in experienced players your choices are to play shorthanded or to have someone step up. Ted isn't seeking some retread free agent. So, no injuries makes it less risky, and more predictable.

There are several areas of this team where the backups don't have much experience, and a couple where the backup depth is more than suspect. Another injury at corner, and this team could be in trouble. Do you really think that Ted would make a trade or find a veteran?

I think that Sam Shields would be on PFT with toast for hands, before either of those things would happen.

But again, his example is retarded. RB is a very solid area of this team. You can't lose a starting RB and have it not hurt, and you can't go acquire a starting RB in week 2. (Marshawn Lynch is NOT a starting RB.)

[mraynrand]

JSO Blog - Greg Bedard - Sept 19, 2010 accessed 8:19 PM CDT (http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/103252519.html)


3. No major injuries: Let's face it, the Eagles and Bills haven't exactly been elite teams the first few weeks. Packers had two season-ending injuries in Week 1 (Ryan Grant, Justin Harrell); none today. Health will be a key factor for this team this year. Probably moreso than for other teams because of the way Ted Thompson constructs his teams.
I think this may be a demonstrably false statement. Bedard is taking another dig at Thompson's preference not to fill roster depth with veterans.

But a team of younger starters and key backups is less likely to get injured in the first place. The best indicator of potential injuries is probably past injuries (not definitive, but I would bet it has the highest correlation). And while Bedard worships at the alter of the veteran backup, they are always limited and can be exposed over time with film study. They are also more likely to be available because of an injury history.

Younger players would more likely be exposed early (Shields and Burnett) and learn from their mistakes.

There is no single right way to build a team. But Bedard seems to believe that Thompson's approach is a combination of fetish and tarot card reading. I wish he would stop drawing conclusions in the face of his continued inability to understand the approach.

It's just flat out stupid. No team in the NFL can survive extensive injuries. But different teams just have different depth. Packers can better withstand injury at fullback or defensive tackle, Bills can withstand losing a running back. But no team can lose quality starter(s) plural - Recall the '96 Packers scraping by for a stretch playing without Brooks, Freeman, and Chmura. They looked like crap for about five weeks, and were saved by getting Rison and getting Freeman and Chmura back on the field. NO NFL TEAM has anything CLOSE to a 'second team.' Lose a few guys and you are shit out of luck. Packers were lucky that Harrell is a back up and that Grant is not a absolutely essential cog of their offense. Bedard should know better. He should be ashamed of himself.

[RashanGary]

I agree it's stupid. The Packers are one of the best teams in the NFL. If they don't win the SB this year, they're poised to have many chances. Injuries happen and hurt every team who has them, no matter how they build their team. The Vikings do exactly what Bedard wants Ted to do and they're hurt badly by injuries right now. It's just a reality of the game. Only 1 team wins the SB and it's always a healthy team that does it.

[Lurker64]

Thought experiment time.

If they lost their #1 running back for the season, how many teams in the NFL would be better off than the Packers sans Ryan Grant?

[ThunderDan]

Considering that GBP leads the league in cuts getting picked up by other teams it seems to show that we have pretty talented backups. When guys who can't even make your team play somewhere else that tends to be a very strong message about the team you are building.

[HowardRoark]

Speaking of shameful, is Cleft dropping the ball this year? What happened to his post game insights?

If he happened to die from a drug reaction or prescription mistake, then may he rest in peace.

[Patler]

Bedard's comment is wrong, flat out wrong.

Did TT really short a position? Not really.
Does Bedard expect the team to have no rookies? If they are to have rookies, guess what? There will be some positions with inexperienced backups.

Lets look at the roster as originally constructed.

QB - Flynn is in his third year. He might be inexperienced in game time play, but is now at the stage where he should be ready to play and play well. ABout as solid for a QB backup as you can hope for.

RB/FB - Very experienced. Heck, Jackson is reaching middle age for an NFL back. People may have questioned the FB/RB mix, but how many elite backs are out there, and who would be available?

WR - Exceptionally experienced backups in Jones and Nelson. Really couldn't ask for better depth.

TE - Lee is ideal for a #2, very experienced, decent player, good on ST. A perfect influence for the young #3 and #4 TE, who both show promise.

OL - a combination of experience and youth, but what's wrong with having your first round draft pick as a backup? Spitz is extremely experienced at two positions. Lang had enough playing time last year to be over the wide-eyed impression, which he never had anyway. Solid backs in those three. Beyond that, you can't really plan anyway.

DL- perhaps the one area that is too inexperienced, but I really think they expected Jolly would be lost for 3 games at most. If Jolly were there, the experience/youth blend would have been about right.

LB - Barnett, Hawk, Chiller, Bishop, Poppinga all very experienced. Mathews, ya, his inexperience is really killing him! Brad Jones has 1/4 of a season as a starter under his belt. Your 8th LB is a rookie, but again, you have to have some rookies, right?

CB - w/o Harris it is a bit of a problem, with Harris, it looks a lot different.

Safety - lots of experience there, just so happens that a rookie deserves to start right now.

For those who complain about not drafting a corner, how would you feel without Bulaga right now if Clifton isn't right? With Jolly suspended, Grant lost for the year and Bigby out, the value of the Neal, Burnett and Starks picks speak for themselves, even if Neal and Starks have yet to play.

Every team has depth problems somewhere, but having nonstarters like Flynn, Spitz, Lang, Bulaga, Jones, Nelson, Lee, Kuhn, Neal, Chiller, Williams/Harris, Bigby/Burnett, Peprah and Martin is a bit of a luxury, really. Lots of teams do not have that much quality on their bench.

[pbmax]

There are several areas of this team where the backups don't have much experience, and a couple where the backup depth is more than suspect. Another injury at corner, and this team could be in trouble. Do you really think that Ted would make a trade or find a veteran?
Nope, I am not saying he would change his approach. But as always, Bedard makes it sound like no one on this team has ever played for another team before, mimicking McGinn's throwaway line. The difference in approach amounts to about 5 players on the 53. That is not much given how many picks he stockpiled in his first three drafts.

But Bedard and other Thompson critics never seem to recall when a veteran signing fails. Say Cliff Christl's favorite CB Michael Hawthorne or Hardy Nickerson. Everyone thinks a vet backup is a sure thing because if you luck out, you never find out they have nothing left. Everyone expects young players to struggle and by the same token, for all vets to be able to compensate for injuries or diminished skills. Every year those same stories are written like they are prophecies from the Oracle of Delphi. Everyone forgets when the vet is completely finished.

Some parts of the roster are always under construction for the year. The question isn't depth, all teams have holes. The question is whether a vet with limitations is better than a largely untested young player. In the case of Left Tackle this year compared to last, the young player approach looks to be working better (not an entirely fair comparison since Bulaga is a #1 pick, but the vet he replaced at backup (Colledge) was a 2nd rounder.

It depends on the player, not on the back of their trading card.

[pbmax]

Thought experiment time.

If they lost their #1 running back for the season, how many teams in the NFL would be better off than the Packers sans Ryan Grant?
Dallas with Jones and Choice. Perhaps.
Redskins have Larry Johnson to replace Portis and the Jets have LdT to replace Greene but these guys have a lot of wear on their tires.
Miami has Brown/Williams.

Any others?

[superfan]

Thought experiment time.

If they lost their #1 running back for the season, how many teams in the NFL would be better off than the Packers sans Ryan Grant?

Quite a few actually. While BJack is a decent backup, the current running back by committee fad means a bunch of teams could manage with the loss of the primary RB. Just off the top of my head:

Buffalo - Jackson/Spiller/Lynch
NE - F. Taylor/Morris/K. Faulk
NYJ - LT/Greene
Mia - Ronnie/Ricky

That's the entire AFC East.

Ari - Wells/Hightower
Cle - Harrison/Hillis
NO - Thomas/Bush
Oak - McFadden/Bush
NYG - Bradshaw/Jacobs
Balt - Rice/McGahee

etc. Not a lot of separation between 1 and 1a on these teams.

In fact, the only teams that might be worse off than GB with an injured starting RB are the teams with true RB studs and a steep dropoff to the backup: Peterson, C Johnson, MJD, Gore, S. Jackson.

[Lurker64]

I think you're misconstruing my question. The question is not "who is better at running back than Green Bay without Grant if their #1 goes down" it was intended as "who is better as a team if their #1 running back goes down", and that list is not particularly long.

Buffalo would not be a better team than Green Bay no matter how many running back injuries occur in the NFL.

[mission]

3. Mindset: This team is developing a bad habit of playing down to the level of their opponent. You would have thought the Tampa game would have stopped that, but it apparently hasn't. They better be ready to play a full 60 minutes in Chicago. The Bears certainly will.

Uh..... where do I start with this one?

Did we not just win 34-7?

Winning in PHI for the first time in 300 years?

Since when were the Bears SB contenders? Didn't they basically lose to the Lions last week?

Bedard is such a clown.

[superfan]

Speaking of shameful, is Cleft dropping the ball this year? What happened to his post game insights?

If he happened to die from a drug reaction or prescription mistake, then may he rest in peace.

Bump. Should we organize a search party?

http://static.open.salon.com/files/frankenstein00011231716204.jpg

[superfan]

I think you're misconstruing my question. The question is not "who is better at running back than Green Bay without Grant if their #1 goes down" it was intended as "who is better as a team if their #1 running back goes down", and that list is not particularly long.

Buffalo would not be a better team than Green Bay no matter how many running back injuries occur in the NFL.

Thanks for the clarification. Agree, that would be a short list.

[cheesner]

If TT went out and signed veteran backups, what FAs would we have lost to other teams because some veteran took up much more salary cap than a minimum wage low round draft pick? What players would have been cut to have a roster spot for these veterans? What players would not have developed into starters if an average veteran got his reps in practice and playing time?

[mraynrand]

Speaking of shameful, is Cleft dropping the ball this year? What happened to his post game insights?

If he happened to die from a drug reaction or prescription mistake, then may he rest in peace.

Word has it that even Cleft has some pride. He'll work for 63 cents/hour, but not for a fourth rate web page that doesn't even have a working homepage, the capacity to draw in new people from searches, or make it reasonably easy for them to register.

[mission]

Speaking of shameful, is Cleft dropping the ball this year? What happened to his post game insights?

If he happened to die from a drug reaction or prescription mistake, then may he rest in peace.

Word has it that even Cleft has some pride. He'll work for 63 cents/hour, but not for a fourth rate web page that doesn't even have a working homepage, the capacity to draw in new people from searches, or make it reasonably easy for them to register.

Cleft is that you? :lol:

[pbmax]

Thought experiment time.

If they lost their #1 running back for the season, how many teams in the NFL would be better off than the Packers sans Ryan Grant?

Quite a few actually. While BJack is a decent backup, the current running back by committee fad means a bunch of teams could manage with the loss of the primary RB. Just off the top of my head:

Buffalo - Jackson/Spiller/Lynch
NE - F. Taylor/Morris/K. Faulk
NYJ - LT/Greene
Mia - Ronnie/Ricky

That's the entire AFC East.

Ari - Wells/Hightower
Cle - Harrison/Hillis
NO - Thomas/Bush
Oak - McFadden/Bush
NYG - Bradshaw/Jacobs
Balt - Rice/McGahee

etc. Not a lot of separation between 1 and 1a on these teams.

In fact, the only teams that might be worse off than GB with an injured starting RB are the teams with true RB studs and a steep dropoff to the backup: Peterson, C Johnson, MJD, Gore, S. Jackson.
Just to finish this thought (though I also misunderstood Lurker's question):

Arizona definitely qualifies, but Cleveland (Hillis), NO (Bush), Oak (Bush) and the Giants (I'll say Bradshaw backs up the injured Jacobs) I think struggle with #2 more than the Pack with Jackson. Baltimore, I am not sure about McGahee.

But I don't like New England's backs over Jackson if Maroney goes down, though Faulk might be one of the best 3rd down backs of his era and while I like both Miami's options, both are very quickly approaching mediocre and the gap would be small.

[packerbacker1234]

Bitching about a RB is a really bad way to talk about his point. We had a good stable of backs to start the season, plus we have a promising rookie on PUP.


Um, no, we had a horrible stable of RB's to start the season. It was Grant and no one else - don't fool yourself. There is a reason we are one of the few teams left in the NFL that is a primarily single back team, even though our main back isn't an elite rb like AP or Chris Johnson. It's because we DON'T have anyone else that is even close to how good Grant is.

BJack was far from a good piece to have in a "stable" system and he showed that today against a BAD team. Kuhn started getting the call more because they naturally felt he was more effective, even if he is a straight north and south runner with zero speed. Bottom line is, we did not have a stable amount of RB's, because since grant got here he had never been hurt, so we didn't need to worry about it.

After grant, this game showed we have no one. A good table of RB's would be like the bears (chester taylor, and "you know who") or like the jets (shonne green and LT) or hell, the cardinals and texans. All teams that have multiple backs that can take the load if need be and be pretty effective. In GB, it was Grant... and then nothing. There was always the small hope that Jackson would stop looking like he has since he got here, but he hasn't changed.

Point is, RB is a weak position on this roster not just due to bad luck (losing grant), but due to TT not thinking it was a position to worry about. Last year he felt differently. He brought in Green half way through the year - and you know why? Because the people behind grant were non-factors. End of story.

We have a promising rookie, sure, but he starts his career on the pup list. That's not really a promising start in my book. Justin Harrell anyone?


I don't hate TT, but we are pretty weak in several areas if we lose one guy. We sort of knew about CB and I don't fault him for that, you can only do what you do and hope the young guys step up (shields obviously was the one to step up. Looked great today), but in week one look at the DL problem. We had to run nickle due to not having enough DL to field a base defense for more than a play or two after ONE major injury. What about if Matthews goes down? Do we even have anyone who could remotely replace him? Hell, we don't have anyone who could replace Brad Jones honestly. MLB has depth (much to Hawk's chagrin). Every team has a weakness if they lose someone, of course.

It's just ironic, because a good backup to Grant has been an issue for 2 to 3 seasons now,a dn this year specifically there were a couple vets (still are a couple vets) who you would think are at least worth looking at for depth.

[Guiness]

NYJ - LT/Greene


A bit of love by you and pbmax for LT. I haven't seen him, or heard anything from the Jets camp. Does he appear to have something left? I got the impression he dropped off the end of the table like a pool ball, a la Sean Alexander.

[mission]

NYJ - LT/Greene


A bit of love by you and pbmax for LT. I haven't seen him, or heard anything from the Jets camp. Does he appear to have something left? I got the impression he dropped off the end of the table like a pool ball, a la Sean Alexander.

LT?? He's looked great. Better than Greene 4x.

Makes you think he was dogging it a bit in SD at the end.

[Guiness]

Speaking of Jolly here - did we ever learn any more about the reasons for his suspension?

I don't think I've ever seen someone dealt with that harshly when they don't even have a conviction. It was opinionated that maybe he was already in the drug program and violated it?

Must've been double secret probation.

[pbmax]

Speaking of Jolly here - did we ever learn any more about the reasons for his suspension?

I don't think I've ever seen someone dealt with that harshly when they don't even have a conviction. It was opinionated that maybe he was already in the drug program and violated it?

Must've been double secret probation.

The prevailing theory among those that cover the team is that Jolly had pending positive tests from the NFL's program. Then there was the kerfluffle over the terms of his probation in Texas and that Nightclub ad plus pictures of him out partying. Some combo of the two sent him past a 4-8 game suspension to a year. It was under the Drug Policy and not the Personal Conduct Policy that he was sanctioned.

[pbmax]

NYJ - LT/Greene


A bit of love by you and pbmax for LT. I haven't seen him, or heard anything from the Jets camp. Does he appear to have something left? I got the impression he dropped off the end of the table like a pool ball, a la Sean Alexander.
mission is right. LdT looked great against the Pats. And ran better than Greene versus the Ravens.

[retailguy]

Bitching about a RB is a really bad way to talk about his point. We had a good stable of backs to start the season, plus we have a promising rookie on PUP.


Um, no, we had a horrible stable of RB's to start the season. It was Grant and no one else - don't fool yourself. There is a reason we are one of the few teams left in the NFL that is a primarily single back team, even though our main back isn't an elite rb like AP or Chris Johnson. It's because we DON'T have anyone else that is even close to how good Grant is.

BJack was far from a good piece to have in a "stable" system and he showed that today against a BAD team. Kuhn started getting the call more because they naturally felt he was more effective, even if he is a straight north and south runner with zero speed. Bottom line is, we did not have a stable amount of RB's, because since grant got here he had never been hurt, so we didn't need to worry about it.

After grant, this game showed we have no one. A good table of RB's would be like the bears (chester taylor, and "you know who") or like the jets (shonne green and LT) or hell, the cardinals and texans. All teams that have multiple backs that can take the load if need be and be pretty effective. In GB, it was Grant... and then nothing. There was always the small hope that Jackson would stop looking like he has since he got here, but he hasn't changed.

Point is, RB is a weak position on this roster not just due to bad luck (losing grant), but due to TT not thinking it was a position to worry about. Last year he felt differently. He brought in Green half way through the year - and you know why? Because the people behind grant were non-factors. End of story.

We have a promising rookie, sure, but he starts his career on the pup list. That's not really a promising start in my book. Justin Harrell anyone?


I don't hate TT, but we are pretty weak in several areas if we lose one guy. We sort of knew about CB and I don't fault him for that, you can only do what you do and hope the young guys step up (shields obviously was the one to step up. Looked great today), but in week one look at the DL problem. We had to run nickle due to not having enough DL to field a base defense for more than a play or two after ONE major injury. What about if Matthews goes down? Do we even have anyone who could remotely replace him? Hell, we don't have anyone who could replace Brad Jones honestly. MLB has depth (much to Hawk's chagrin). Every team has a weakness if they lose someone, of course.

It's just ironic, because a good backup to Grant has been an issue for 2 to 3 seasons now,a dn this year specifically there were a couple vets (still are a couple vets) who you would think are at least worth looking at for depth.

I can't tell you how strongly I disagree with you. Jackson is a perfect 3rd down back. Kuhn is just fine as a fill in for a 3rd back. Starks shows a lot of promise and will be back in week 7.

there is NOTHING wrong with the depth at RB. You can't have two Ryan Grants unless you're in Carolina.

I do dislike Ted Thompson, and even I can't fault the situation at RB.

[mission]

Reggie Bush is a perfect 3rd down back. LT is a perfect 3rd down back. Jahvid Best is a perfect 3rd down back.

Brandon Jackson is a pretty decent 3rd down back IMO.

[Guiness]

Speaking of Jolly here - did we ever learn any more about the reasons for his suspension?

I don't think I've ever seen someone dealt with that harshly when they don't even have a conviction. It was opinionated that maybe he was already in the drug program and violated it?

Must've been double secret probation.

The prevailing theory among those that cover the team is that Jolly had pending positive tests from the NFL's program. Then there was the kerfluffle over the terms of his probation in Texas and that Nightclub ad plus pictures of him out partying. Some combo of the two sent him past a 4-8 game suspension to a year. It was under the Drug Policy and not the Personal Conduct Policy that he was sanctioned.

You answered my main question though - it's a theory. We usually find out the reason behind suspensions when they happen, don't we?

The probation and the nightclub ad would fall under the conduct policy, I would think. It's possible they took those transgressions into consideration when handing out the drug policy suspension.

[pbmax]

Speaking of Jolly here - did we ever learn any more about the reasons for his suspension?

I don't think I've ever seen someone dealt with that harshly when they don't even have a conviction. It was opinionated that maybe he was already in the drug program and violated it?

Must've been double secret probation.

The prevailing theory among those that cover the team is that Jolly had pending positive tests from the NFL's program. Then there was the kerfluffle over the terms of his probation in Texas and that Nightclub ad plus pictures of him out partying. Some combo of the two sent him past a 4-8 game suspension to a year. It was under the Drug Policy and not the Personal Conduct Policy that he was sanctioned.

You answered my main question though - it's a theory. We usually find out the reason behind suspensions when they happen, don't we?

The probation and the nightclub ad would fall under the conduct policy, I would think. It's possible they took those transgressions into consideration when handing out the drug policy suspension.
I suppose we do, but if its the Drug Policy, it can be dependent on the player releasing the info or confirming. While the info leaks at times, if the program works as designed, the player can choose to make it public. Really, all we don't know is when and how many he failed. We do know it was the drug policy.

I don't know if they can combine the probation thing under Personal Conduct with a Drug and Alcohol policy action. I do remember PFT saying that once the Drug/Alcohol policy is involved, it controls that incident. Not sure about subsequent incidents. But there must be some wiggle room, as I think Donte Stallworth was sanctioned under the Conduct policy despite the fact that he had been drinking.

[Bossman641]

Bitching about a RB is a really bad way to talk about his point. We had a good stable of backs to start the season, plus we have a promising rookie on PUP.


Um, no, we had a horrible stable of RB's to start the season. It was Grant and no one else - don't fool yourself. There is a reason we are one of the few teams left in the NFL that is a primarily single back team, even though our main back isn't an elite rb like AP or Chris Johnson. It's because we DON'T have anyone else that is even close to how good Grant is.

BJack was far from a good piece to have in a "stable" system and he showed that today against a BAD team. Kuhn started getting the call more because they naturally felt he was more effective, even if he is a straight north and south runner with zero speed. Bottom line is, we did not have a stable amount of RB's, because since grant got here he had never been hurt, so we didn't need to worry about it.

After grant, this game showed we have no one. A good table of RB's would be like the bears (chester taylor, and "you know who") or like the jets (shonne green and LT) or hell, the cardinals and texans. All teams that have multiple backs that can take the load if need be and be pretty effective. In GB, it was Grant... and then nothing. There was always the small hope that Jackson would stop looking like he has since he got here, but he hasn't changed.

Point is, RB is a weak position on this roster not just due to bad luck (losing grant), but due to TT not thinking it was a position to worry about. Last year he felt differently. He brought in Green half way through the year - and you know why? Because the people behind grant were non-factors. End of story.

We have a promising rookie, sure, but he starts his career on the pup list. That's not really a promising start in my book. Justin Harrell anyone?


I don't hate TT, but we are pretty weak in several areas if we lose one guy. We sort of knew about CB and I don't fault him for that, you can only do what you do and hope the young guys step up (shields obviously was the one to step up. Looked great today), but in week one look at the DL problem. We had to run nickle due to not having enough DL to field a base defense for more than a play or two after ONE major injury. What about if Matthews goes down? Do we even have anyone who could remotely replace him? Hell, we don't have anyone who could replace Brad Jones honestly. MLB has depth (much to Hawk's chagrin). Every team has a weakness if they lose someone, of course.

It's just ironic, because a good backup to Grant has been an issue for 2 to 3 seasons now,a dn this year specifically there were a couple vets (still are a couple vets) who you would think are at least worth looking at for depth.

I can't tell you how strongly I disagree with you. Jackson is a perfect 3rd down back. Kuhn is just fine as a fill in for a 3rd back. Starks shows a lot of promise and will be back in week 7.

there is NOTHING wrong with the depth at RB. You can't have two Ryan Grants unless you're in Carolina.

I do dislike Ted Thompson, and even I can't fault the situation at RB.

Do you really think we can count on Starks? Won't it have been almost 2 years since he played in a game?

I'm not planning on getting anything from Starks this year.

[Joemailman]

Guys on the PUP list cannot practice, which means that Starks' next practice with pads will be his first one with the Packers. It will likely take him a while to be ready. Nance is much more likely to make an impact if BJ doesn't improve.

[RashanGary]

This just proves it. No matter what the record, undefeated or lose every game, the people who want to be doomy and gloomy are going to find a way to hate everything.

[Fritz]

Bitching about a RB is a really bad way to talk about his point. We had a good stable of backs to start the season, plus we have a promising rookie on PUP.


Um, no, we had a horrible stable of RB's to start the season. It was Grant and no one else - don't fool yourself. There is a reason we are one of the few teams left in the NFL that is a primarily single back team, even though our main back isn't an elite rb like AP or Chris Johnson. It's because we DON'T have anyone else that is even close to how good Grant is.

BJack was far from a good piece to have in a "stable" system and he showed that today against a BAD team. Kuhn started getting the call more because they naturally felt he was more effective, even if he is a straight north and south runner with zero speed. Bottom line is, we did not have a stable amount of RB's, because since grant got here he had never been hurt, so we didn't need to worry about it.

After grant, this game showed we have no one. A good table of RB's would be like the bears (chester taylor, and "you know who") or like the jets (shonne green and LT) or hell, the cardinals and texans. All teams that have multiple backs that can take the load if need be and be pretty effective. In GB, it was Grant... and then nothing. There was always the small hope that Jackson would stop looking like he has since he got here, but he hasn't changed.

Point is, RB is a weak position on this roster not just due to bad luck (losing grant), but due to TT not thinking it was a position to worry about. Last year he felt differently. He brought in Green half way through the year - and you know why? Because the people behind grant were non-factors. End of story.

We have a promising rookie, sure, but he starts his career on the pup list. That's not really a promising start in my book. Justin Harrell anyone?


I don't hate TT, but we are pretty weak in several areas if we lose one guy. We sort of knew about CB and I don't fault him for that, you can only do what you do and hope the young guys step up (shields obviously was the one to step up. Looked great today), but in week one look at the DL problem. We had to run nickle due to not having enough DL to field a base defense for more than a play or two after ONE major injury. What about if Matthews goes down? Do we even have anyone who could remotely replace him? Hell, we don't have anyone who could replace Brad Jones honestly. MLB has depth (much to Hawk's chagrin). Every team has a weakness if they lose someone, of course.

It's just ironic, because a good backup to Grant has been an issue for 2 to 3 seasons now,a dn this year specifically there were a couple vets (still are a couple vets) who you would think are at least worth looking at for depth.

I thought the reason GB is mostly a single-back team is that MM likes it that way. After the Buffalo game, he reiterated one of his favorite running back lines - that it's hard to get into a groove as a back if you don't get enough carries in a game.

[retailguy]

Do you really think we can count on Starks? Won't it have been almost 2 years since he played in a game?

I'm not planning on getting anything from Starks this year.

I don't think counting on Starks is the main point of what I was saying.

Having a rookie like Starks as the 3rd or 4th guy on a team is exactly what you want. Having a decent (is this the "proper" adjective this time?) 3rd down back, and a FB that can double duty is also what you want.

You can't plan for an injury to your 1200 yard per season guy, and you can't mortgage the farm when he gets hurt.

Do you "count" on Starks? Perhaps not. But, Bossman, under the Ted regime, this is what you do. You do rely on the guy to step up.

In this particular case, I agree, plenty of rookie RB's can step up and become successful. With other positions, rookies don't have a strong track record for being successful, but RB is not one of those.

[mission]

having a decent (is this the "proper" adjective this time?) 3rd down back.

For as much as I've been reading how Jackson is a just a "great" / "good" 3rd down back this last week, I felt it was important to clarify.

There's a reason we all wanted a McCluster / Spiller / Best this offseason. And a reason why TT took a flyer on Starks. Just because it hasn't worked out perfectly doesn't make Jackson any better of a RB. He is what he is.

And that's not really a response to you, just the topic in general. Rookie RB's definitely have a better chance than coming in week 7 and doing a few things as you said. Let's hope he's studying the hell out of his playbook.

[sharpe1027]

JSO Blog - Greg Bedard - Sept 19, 2010 accessed 8:19 PM CDT (http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/103252519.html)


3. No major injuries: Let's face it, the Eagles and Bills haven't exactly been elite teams the first few weeks. Packers had two season-ending injuries in Week 1 (Ryan Grant, Justin Harrell); none today. Health will be a key factor for this team this year. Probably moreso than for other teams because of the way Ted Thompson constructs his teams.
I think this may be a demonstrably false statement. Bedard is taking another dig at Thompson's preference not to fill roster depth with veterans.


I wonder which 16 teams Bedard thinks have better top-to-bottom depth than the Packers.

[Bossman641]

Do you really think we can count on Starks? Won't it have been almost 2 years since he played in a game?

I'm not planning on getting anything from Starks this year.

I don't think counting on Starks is the main point of what I was saying.

Having a rookie like Starks as the 3rd or 4th guy on a team is exactly what you want. Having a decent (is this the "proper" adjective this time?) 3rd down back, and a FB that can double duty is also what you want.

You can't plan for an injury to your 1200 yard per season guy, and you can't mortgage the farm when he gets hurt.

Do you "count" on Starks? Perhaps not. But, Bossman, under the Ted regime, this is what you do. You do rely on the guy to step up.

In this particular case, I agree, plenty of rookie RB's can step up and become successful. With other positions, rookies don't have a strong track record for being successful, but RB is not one of those.

My misunderstanding. I totally agree with what you are saying. In terms of how the RB's were actually constructed, I didn't have an issue. Like you said - workhouse back, 3rd down back, flex back, and a developmental guy.

At this point though, I do think that TT might have to switch routes. BJack looked pretty awful yesterday and, even if he were effective, I think it's alot to ask him to go from 3rd down back to full time player. I'm not real excited with the idea of Kuhn carrying the ball 8-12 times a game and I would be shocked if Starks makes any kind of impact this year. He has been away from the game for too long.

[Bossman641]

At this point, wouldn't it just be easier to start an "Official Greg the Moron" thread? :D

The guy provides more and more evidence daily. I understand writers aren't supposed to be fans, but they aren't supposed to be anti-organization either.

[mraynrand]

having a decent (is this the "proper" adjective this time?) 3rd down back.

For as much as I've been reading how Jackson is a just a "great" / "good" 3rd down back this last week, I felt it was important to clarify.

There's a reason we all wanted a McCluster / Spiller / Best this offseason. And a reason why TT took a flyer on Starks. Just because it hasn't worked out perfectly doesn't make Jackson any better of a RB. He is what he is.

And that's not really a response to you, just the topic in general. Rookie RB's definitely have a better chance than coming in week 7 and doing a few things as you said. Let's hope he's studying the hell out of his playbook.

That's interesting. You know, one of the announcers made a comment about the rookie FA running back coming in and having to learn the playbook in four days and the comment was made about packages - that any new running back will have a set number of plays that they will run when he is in the game. So provisionally, the back almost only has to know those plays - and the audibles that can come off them - really well. Not the whole playbook (though it can't hurt, just in case).

[mraynrand]

At this point, wouldn't it just be easier to start an "Official Greg the Moron" thread? :D

The guy provides more and more evidence daily. I understand writers aren't supposed to be fans, but they aren't supposed to be anti-organization either.

It would help if they weren't as dumb as a sack of rocks either.

[retailguy]

My misunderstanding. I totally agree with what you are saying. In terms of how the RB's were actually constructed, I didn't have an issue. Like you said - workhouse back, 3rd down back, flex back, and a developmental guy.

At this point though, I do think that TT might have to switch routes. BJack looked pretty awful yesterday and, even if he were effective, I think it's alot to ask him to go from 3rd down back to full time player. I'm not real excited with the idea of Kuhn carrying the ball 8-12 times a game and I would be shocked if Starks makes any kind of impact this year. He has been away from the game for too long.

well, philosophically I agree with you. Practically? It ain't happening.

If you listen hard to the folks around here that think he's the second coming of Christ, what you learn real quickly is that Ted is all about "value". If the value isn't right, he passes, and he will always pass and not overpay.

Now, the way the world is structured, we take advantage of folks in bad situations. Always have, always will. So, whether you're marooned in a hurricane zone without gasoline, or your starting running back blows out his ankle, you can expect to pay top dollar and then some, to acquire what you "need" instead of what you "want".

Case in point - Vincent Jackson.

There are no "running back deals" out there right now because of Ryan Grant. If we want one, we will open the checkbook wider than normal and overpay for the needed commodity, and because of that simple economic fact, Ted will not do a deal.

Now, who is on board the Nance train with me? :P

1st carry is a POSITIVE 4 yards. It's all uphill from here!

[Tony Oday]

Kuhn had 9 for 36

I still dont think we need a guy if Kuhn Nance and BJack can carry the ball 20 times for 80 yards.

[Patler]

An unusual aspect of the RB situation is that it actually might make them BETTER on 2nd or 3rd down with 1 or 2 yards to go. Third and 2 has been a passing down for the Packers. The running game has not been especially effective at picking up 1 or 2 yards when needed. The QB sneak was the most effective in those situations in recent years. With Kuhn following Johnson, the run option might make teams play more honest, opening up passing options.

[sharpe1027]

well, philosophically I agree with you. Practically? It ain't happening.

If you listen hard to the folks around here that think he's the second coming of Christ, what you learn real quickly is that Ted is all about "value". If the value isn't right, he passes, and he will always pass and not overpay.



Jesus never signed a Charles Woodson caliber free agent.

[hoosier]

well, philosophically I agree with you. Practically? It ain't happening.

If you listen hard to the folks around here that think he's the second coming of Christ, what you learn real quickly is that Ted is all about "value". If the value isn't right, he passes, and he will always pass and not overpay.



Jesus never signed a Charles Woodson caliber free agent.

Nominated for post of the day. :lol:

[mraynrand]

well, philosophically I agree with you. Practically? It ain't happening.

If you listen hard to the folks around here that think he's the second coming of Christ, what you learn real quickly is that Ted is all about "value". If the value isn't right, he passes, and he will always pass and not overpay.



Jesus never signed a Charles Woodson caliber free agent.

Not to get too theological, but I have to disagree. Paul (Saul) was an awesome FA signing - he was one of the best players for the rival team - and he was signed away when the other team was rolling....

(Hey, it's kinda like Favre!)

[sharpe1027]

Not to get too theological, but I have to disagree. Paul (Saul) was an awesome FA signing - he was one of the best players for the rival team - and he was signed away when the other team was rolling....

(Hey, it's kinda like Favre!)

Commendable, but we're talking about Charles Freaking Woodson!

[Fritz]

My misunderstanding. I totally agree with what you are saying. In terms of how the RB's were actually constructed, I didn't have an issue. Like you said - workhouse back, 3rd down back, flex back, and a developmental guy.

At this point though, I do think that TT might have to switch routes. BJack looked pretty awful yesterday and, even if he were effective, I think it's alot to ask him to go from 3rd down back to full time player. I'm not real excited with the idea of Kuhn carrying the ball 8-12 times a game and I would be shocked if Starks makes any kind of impact this year. He has been away from the game for too long.

well, philosophically I agree with you. Practically? It ain't happening.

If you listen hard to the folks around here that think he's the second coming of Christ, what you learn real quickly is that Ted is all about "value". If the value isn't right, he passes, and he will always pass and not overpay.

Now, the way the world is structured, we take advantage of folks in bad situations. Always have, always will. So, whether you're marooned in a hurricane zone without gasoline, or your starting running back blows out his ankle, you can expect to pay top dollar and then some, to acquire what you "need" instead of what you "want".

Case in point - Vincent Jackson.

There are no "running back deals" out there right now because of Ryan Grant. If we want one, we will open the checkbook wider than normal and overpay for the needed commodity, and because of that simple economic fact, Ted will not do a deal.

Now, who is on board the Nance train with me? :P

1st carry is a POSITIVE 4 yards. It's all uphill from here!

What no one's talked about in the fervent hope to make a deal for THIS YEAR is what'll happen next year, and whether gambling on Lynch is worth the risk.

The Vikings are the model people point to for going "all in," and they may well do so for Jackson this year, too. it could work, too.

But trading for what is supposed to be a top-of-the-line running back isn't the same as trading for a receiver, for the simple fact that you don't play two halfbacks at the same time very often, if at all. You play two or three wide receivers in most formations.

So what are you going to do next year when Grant is back? MM doesn't like a two-back system. He's said before he thinks a guy needs X amount of carries to "get into a groove."

Furthermore, I'm puzzled by those who want to give up Hawk, Lee, Spitz, or some combination thereof. If an inside linebacker, a tight end, or an interior offensive lineman goes down - then what? Then you have no depth - which is what people are complaining was part of the problem at running back (all the cries for Kregg Lumpkin).

Finally, I'm not convinced Lynch is the answer. I could be wrong on that, though. If I were going to trade for him under the notion that it's an "all-in" year, I'd certainly not give up any current pieces like those mentioned above. I'd give up a future draft pick.

But if I were GM I'd be reminding fans of that pick next training camp when they're asking why I didn't draft another corner, or why the team is shallow at another position...

[HowardRoark]

Not to get too theological, but I have to disagree. Paul (Saul) was an awesome FA signing - he was one of the best players for the rival team - and he was signed away when the other team was rolling....


But he had to go on the PUP right away.

[Fritz]

Did Jesus work for the Vikings? Signing players from the arch enemy?

[pbmax]

Did Jesus work for the Vikings? Signing players from the arch enemy?

You betcha!

http://purplejesus.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/title-banner-2.jpg

Purple Jesus Diaries (http://purplejesus.wordpress.com/)

[mraynrand]

Did Jesus work for the Vikings? Signing players from the arch enemy?

You betcha!

http://purplejesus.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/title-banner-2.jpg

Purple Jesus Diaries (http://purplejesus.wordpress.com/)

wow

[Pugger]

Reggie Bush left SF on crutches and could miss 6 weeks so who is the back-up and did New Orleans' GM screw up too?

[Gunakor]

Reggie Bush left SF on crutches and could miss 6 weeks so who is the back-up and did New Orleans' GM screw up too?

Chris Ivory is #3 on the depth chart. DeShawn Wynn is #4.

And no, I don't think they screwed up.

[Fritz]

I recall, in the not-too-distant past, some fair amount of criticism of Ryan Grant. Not a "real" #1 back, didn't break tackles, didn't make the big play, poor hands.

Now that he's hurt, he appears to have become a superstar back, given the lament of much of Packer nation over B-Jack and company.

[Patler]

I recall, in the not-too-distant past, some fair amount of criticism of Ryan Grant. Not a "real" #1 back, didn't break tackles, didn't make the big play, poor hands.

Now that he's hurt, he appears to have become a superstar back, given the lament of much of Packer nation over B-Jack and company.

Funny how that works! :lol:

[cheesner]

Not to get too theological, but I have to disagree. Paul (Saul) was an awesome FA signing - he was one of the best players for the rival team - and he was signed away when the other team was rolling....

(Hey, it's kinda like Favre!)

Commendable, but we're talking about Charles Freaking Woodson!
I doubt Woodson is going to get the same kind of book deal that Paul got.

[sharpe1027]

I doubt Woodson is going to get the same kind of book deal that Paul got.

You never know...

[retailguy]

Reggie Bush left SF on crutches and could miss 6 weeks so who is the back-up and did New Orleans' GM screw up too?

Bush is kind of like their 3rd down back, and Pierre Thomas gets most of the rushing carries. It's more of a 1A, 1B system vs 1 & 2, but you get the point. Thomas is more valuable to them than Jackson is to us.

Loomis didn't screw up any more than Thompson did. If I can see that, well, you'd think it'd be pretty damn clear. But... :?, that's the way things work around here.