RB situation

[Tony Oday]

Alright time to stop with the B Jack/Nance/Kuhn Experiment...they are not getting it done. What is out there? There are alot of retreds we could look at or at least BRING IN to light a fire here:

FAs
Jamal Lewis
Edgerinn James
Warrick Dunn
Ahman Green
MANY others

Not saying these guys are going to come in and get 100 yard games but F maybe we could get a 3rd and 1!

[Joemailman]

Did you see the penetration the Falcons DL was getting on those plays? The problem was not with the RB's. I'm not saying I'm satisfied with the current situation, but there's not much that can be done about it now. The Packers will have to try to do better with the guys they have.

[Bossman641]

Alright time to stop with the B Jack/Nance/Kuhn Experiment...they are not getting it done. What is out there? There are alot of retreds we could look at or at least BRING IN to light a fire here:

FAs
Jamal Lewis
Edgerinn James
Warrick Dunn
Ahman Green
MANY others

Not saying these guys are going to come in and get 100 yard games but F maybe we could get a 3rd and 1!

If this were 2003 that list would be exciting

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

Did anyone else notice Brandon Jackson on that one play when he lost 7 yards. He saw Lofton and decided that losing 7 yards was better than than getting hit hard and making a yard and maybe a first down. Is this guy serious??? He calls himself a running back?? Where the hell is Starks, he can't be wrose than Jackson. I miss Grant (and Finley).

[denverYooper]

If this were 2003 that list would be exciting

lol

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

I really would like a see what Starks can do. I think thats our last hope to get a running game going this year.

[Fritz]

I agree with Joe. As soon as a GB running back touched the ball, there were two defenders in his face. There was no where to go, no cut back lanes.

Only Barry Sanders could get out of those traps. And even then, he'd lose two or three yards for a few carries. Then he'd bust one for forty yards.

[denverYooper]

Did you see the penetration the Falcons DL was getting on those plays? The problem was not with the RB's. I'm not saying I'm satisfied with the current situation, but there's not much that can be done about it now. The Packers will have to try to do better with the guys they have.

+1. Nance had a good second effort on his one carry on that 3rd and 1. I would've liked to see him get another carry instead of the back 2 back sneaks.

[Guiness]

Jamal Lewis? Really? You sure you don't want to add Sean Alexander to that list?

Old washed up RB's are just that - washed up. I don't think anyone knows why, but there is a wall there that they hit.

[DannoMac21]

There are alot of retreds we could look at


*Borat voice*

Why ahhh must we look at retard?

[denverYooper]

Apparently Nance suffered a concussion today. Maybe that's why they didn't give him more touches...

[rbaloha1]

Its Stark time

[3irty1]

I really would like a see what Starks can do. I think thats our last hope to get a running game going this year.
This.

[wist43]

I'm not sure there's anything that can be done at this point... they don't have the personel; and M3 doesn't seem concerned enough to get creative with it - ala Belichick. I mean really, is Danny "I'm a just hitting puberty" Woodhead tougher, or a better runner than Brandon Jackson???

Attempting 50+ passes per game is all fun and games in Madden, or when you're playing Buffalo, but when you go up against a playoff calibur team for real - you'll get beat more often than not.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Agree we need to get Starks going some or get Kuhn going more often. Jackson just isn't getting it done.

[Tony Oday]

I wasnt actually saying sign those guys but examples...yeah they are washed up but still they are better than B Jack!

[mmmdk]

So Starks is supposed to save our running game? Yeah right! It would be a better idea if Edgar Bennett would beat BJ very, very hard and often with a stick everytime he dances on field. That actually could work; beat'im hard, Edgar.

[Pugger]

Our O line can't run block to save their souls. I thought I saw when Jackson actually got a couple of positive yards on a couple of carries Crabtree was in there blocking...

[pbmax]

I'm not sure there's anything that can be done at this point... they don't have the personel; and M3 doesn't seem concerned enough to get creative with it - ala Belichick. I mean really, is Danny "I'm a just hitting puberty" Woodhead tougher, or a better runner than Brandon Jackson???

Attempting 50+ passes per game is all fun and games in Madden, or when you're playing Buffalo, but when you go up against a playoff calibur team for real - you'll get beat more often than not.

Tougher runner? No. But more decisive and quicker into and out of a cut.

[HarveyWallbangers]

There wasn't a ton of blocking, but when there was, Jackson blew it. I remember him getting a 4 yard run near the goalline and thinking that if it were Ryan Grant, it would have been a TD. He's back to his dancing self. Several plays where he could have gotten positive yardage and he danced around. Add to it the 7 yard loss when he should have settled for no gain and put us in third and short--rather than 3rd and 7.

[digitaldean]

It's losses like these that can keep us from even making the playoffs.

Heck, even using Kuhn would have been better than Jackson dancing around like he did today. Line had a subpar game overall.

Doubtful Starks will help much. Then again, it can't be much worse than the anemic effort we're getting now.

One thing's for sure. NO MORE QB SNEAKS.

The Bears are playing sound defense and aren't imploding on offense. If we lose one game, it has to be the Patriots game. We can't have any margin for error re: conference losses.

[packrulz]

I don't think the Packers work on run blocking enough in practice, although Atlanta has a really stout defensive line. I just don't think M3 is very committed to the run. BJack is a mediocre RB, Nance to me is more of a goal line back,and I hope Starks has more break away speed, they need to work him in there. I also wonder why they don't run more behind Sitton/Bulaga, Clifton will never be a good run blocker.

[Patler]

There wasn't a ton of blocking, but when there was, Jackson blew it. I remember him getting a 4 yard run near the goalline and thinking that if it were Ryan Grant, it would have been a TD. He's back to his dancing self. Several plays where he could have gotten positive yardage and he danced around. Add to it the 7 yard loss when he should have settled for no gain and put us in third and short--rather than 3rd and 7.

Yup, Jackson was mostly awful yesterday. When he saw a defender, his first instinct yesterday seemed to be to give ground and run wide. He did it time and time again, no matter where the defender was. Even when blockers were engaged with the defender outside of the blocker, Jackson went outside. He seemed to be trying to avoid any contact, rather than taking what was available.

Why have they quit using Kuhn on short yeardage? One thing the guy did consistently was move forward after first contact, often by quite a bit.

[sheepshead]

We might need to face facts that we're not going to be able to overcome these injuries this year. Just sayin'

[bobblehead]

I'm not sure there's anything that can be done at this point... they don't have the personel; and M3 doesn't seem concerned enough to get creative with it - ala Belichick. I mean really, is Danny "I'm a just hitting puberty" Woodhead tougher, or a better runner than Brandon Jackson???

Attempting 50+ passes per game is all fun and games in Madden, or when you're playing Buffalo, but when you go up against a playoff calibur team for real - you'll get beat more often than not.

Truth...you must be able to run the ball effectively to win consistently.

[bobblehead]

I wasnt actually saying sign those guys but examples...yeah they are washed up but still they are better than B Jack!

Do they pick up the blitz? Can they still run a screen? Can they avg. 4 ypc behind our OL? I doubt it.

[pbmax]

Yup, Jackson was mostly awful yesterday. When he saw a defender, his first instinct yesterday seemed to be to give ground and run wide. He did it time and time again, no matter where the defender was. Even when blockers were engaged with the defender outside of the blocker, Jackson went outside. He seemed to be trying to avoid any contact, rather than taking what was available.

Why have they quit using Kuhn on short yeardage? One thing the guy did consistently was move forward after first contact, often by quite a bit.

Jackson is just is not an inside runner. No instinct to drive through a gap, he is truly looking for a hole. He also doesn't seem to trust his reads about when to cut back. He operates well in space and is average at best elsewhere.

I think Kuhn got fewer reps in short yardage when the fullback dive started to get stuffed as at the same time he was getting more regular carries as part of the time share with Jackson after Grant went down. Then those carries went away when they brought Nance into the games. Now after Nance was concussed, I am not sure why Kuhn made an appearance only for the screen. Its possible the game plan had a package for Nance at TB and not for Kuhn and they are not interchangeable.

[pbmax]

Truth...you must be able to run the ball effectively to win consistently.

No you don't. Poor to average running teams have won most of the Super Bowls this decade. You need to be able to make first downs.

How many touchdowns did Favre throw when Holmgren was coach from close to the goal line? People actually used to claim Favre's TD number was inflated because he would throw TDs rather than run a running play from in close.

The problem is McCarthy's red zone package ran 4 running plays in close, scored just 10 points and had a turnover. I don't like criticizing play calling as its often impossible to tell (esp. with a pass) what was supposed to happen (and what the defense did in response). But in those instances, Rodgers made a bad checkdown and two other runs were abortive.

[bobblehead]

No you don't. Poor to average running teams have won most of the Super Bowls this decade. You need to be able to make first downs.

How many touchdowns did Favre throw when Holmgren was coach from close to the goal line? People actually used to claim Favre's TD number was inflated because he would throw TDs rather than run a running play from in close.

The problem is McCarthy's red zone package ran 4 running plays in close, scored just 10 points and had a turnover. I don't like criticizing play calling as its often impossible to tell (esp. with a pass) what was supposed to happen (and what the defense did in response). But in those instances, Rodgers made a bad checkdown and two other runs were abortive.

I simply disagree with you on this PB. I'm not saying you can't be pass first, and I'm not saying you must run 30+ times a game; However, if you can't run effectively 20 times a game its very hard to win in the playoffs...just ask the greatest pocket passer ever. I'm still in a cast til friday, but I promise to pick this debate up again when it comes off with some stats. I value your opinion as much as anyones I talk football with, but I still think your wrong on this.

[Patler]

Jackson is just is not an inside runner. No instinct to drive through a gap, he is truly looking for a hole. He also doesn't seem to trust his reads about when to cut back. He operates well in space and is average at best elsewhere.


I'm not that generous in his evaluation. I would say he operates average in space and is below average at best everywhere else. Even in space he seems to make few people miss, and powers through no one. He does have some quickness that is useful in space, but that's about all.
The guy can pick-up a blitzer very well, and has decent hands. However, this year shows that the Packers should never rely on him as the backup running back again. His value to the team is not much different than Tony Fisher. Same assets, nothing more.



I think Kuhn got fewer reps in short yardage when the fullback dive started to get stuffed as at the same time he was getting more regular carries as part of the time share with Jackson after Grant went down. Then those carries went away when they brought Nance into the games. Now after Nance was concussed, I am not sure why Kuhn made an appearance only for the screen. Its possible the game plan had a package for Nance at TB and not for Kuhn and they are not interchangeable.

Nance can't have changed what was in their game plan that much. With Jackson doing nothing inside there had to have been something available for Kuhn to run. I can't believe there were running plays for only two backs. Kuhn had to have been ready for at least something from the RB slot.

[MichiganPackerFan]

If this were 2003 that list would be exciting

well said!!!

Running backs can have more of an impact early in their careers than other positions, but their legs die earlier too.

Atlanta's run defense played VERY well, there weren't many holes for ANY running back to get to.

Grant is obviously a stronger, more punishing back and would be better in the lineup than B Jack. However, I was thinking that BJack had become a better receiver out of the backfield and a better blocker. Thoughts?

[packrulz]

I thought Quinn Johnson was supposed to be such a brutal run blocker, I never saw him open a hole, the only time I saw him was when he batted down a pass from ARod that wasn't even intended for him.

[Joemailman]

If TT had kept Kregg Lunpkin and released one of the FB's (Johnson?) instead, would the Packers be significantly better off?

[Brando19]

TT should have resigned Ahman Green for one year before the season. He showed flashes last year and was better than BJack. I can't stand Brandon Jackson...I've never been a fan. He's taking up a roster spot, IMO.

[retailguy]

TT should have resigned Ahman Green for one year before the season. He showed flashes last year and was better than BJack. I can't stand Brandon Jackson...I've never been a fan. He's taking up a roster spot, IMO.

Understand your frustration, but this is a little harsh. Ted knows by this point that what he has in jackson is a 3rd down back. I'm certain that's why he drafted Starks. Jackson is a good 3rd down back, and Ted figured he had time to get Starks up to speed, but just didn't figure on an injury during week 1.

As much as I dislike the guy, I can't fault him for this. Ahman Green would've been the waste of the roster spot. On September 1st, Jackson was more deserving of a roster spot. On September 15th, he was still deserving of the spot, but now there was a gaping hole next to him. It happens. Ahman Green wouldn't be running any better, most likely (except for the veteran know how, which you'd think Jackson would have by now).

The problems yesterday were more directed at the line than the back, Jackson's dancing notwithstanding.

[Brando19]

Understand your frustration, but this is a little harsh. Ted knows by this point that what he has in jackson is a 3rd down back. I'm certain that's why he drafted Starks. Jackson is a good 3rd down back, and Ted figured he had time to get Starks up to speed, but just didn't figure on an injury during week 1.

As much as I dislike the guy, I can't fault him for this. Ahman Green would've been the waste of the roster spot. On September 1st, Jackson was more deserving of a roster spot. On September 15th, he was still deserving of the spot, but now there was a gaping hole next to him. It happens. Ahman Green wouldn't be running any better, most likely (except for the veteran know how, which you'd think Jackson would have by now).

The problems yesterday were more directed at the line than the back, Jackson's dancing notwithstanding.

I understand what you're saying and you're right...I am frustrated. But if Starks shows he's pretty good this year...and Grant comes back healthy...BJack needs to go. His salary could go to someone better.

[Joemailman]

I think having Grant, Starks and Jackson would be ideal. Let Jackson stay in the role he's good at as a 3rd down back. I doubt his salary is all that high.

[rbaloha1]

If TT had kept Kregg Lunpkin and released one of the FB's (Johnson?) instead, would the Packers be significantly better off?

What about the backup on the Carolina roster that had a good preseason w/the Packers? Failure to secure Lynch is hurting the Packers.

[Joemailman]

What about the backup on the Carolina roster that had a good preseason w/the Packers? Failure to secure Lynch is hurting the Packers.

Tyrell Sutton? Packers released him in 2009.

Lynch is averaging 3.1 YPC with Seattle. And no. the problem isn't the OL because Rookie Justin Forsett is averaging 4.3.

[superfan]

I can't buy into the Lynch theory. I haven't seen him play much this year, but statistically speaking he is one of the worst starting RBs in the league.

Lynch - 12.6 attempts/game, 39 yards/game, 3.1 yards/carry, 2 TD, 11.4% of runs result in a first down
Jackson - 12 attempts/game, 46.7 yards/game, 3.9 yards/carry, 3 TD, 14.4% of runs result in a first down

Jackson is not performing at a sufficient level, and stats aren't always an accurate gauge of RB talent. But I see no evidence that suggests Lynch would be a significant upgrade over Jackson.

[sheepshead]

Im hearing Starks will see more playing time.

[MichiganPackerFan]

TT should have resigned Ahman Green for one year before the season. He showed flashes last year and was better than BJack. I can't stand Brandon Jackson...I've never been a fan. He's taking up a roster spot, IMO.
This isn't 2003. AG is done. Wahle, Rivera & Flanagan are retired. Young Legs beat Done Legs every day.


I think having Grant, Starks and Jackson would be ideal. Let Jackson stay in the role he's good at as a 3rd down back. I doubt his salary is all that high.
Agree: good 3rd down back. Good receiving out of the backfield and really good and picking up the blitz and blocking. He's paid $465,590 (per http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/player/brandon-jackson/469355). He's worth keeping around but not breaking the bank for.


What about the backup on the Carolina roster that had a good preseason w/the Packers? Failure to secure Lynch is hurting the Packers. Lynch would have been a bad move. He hasn't been productive and we would have had to pay him to be on the roster when Grant returns next year. He might be a decent backup, but he wants premium starter dollars.


Im hearing Starks will see more playing time.
He's young, why not?


When the O-line plays as bad as they did in the run game, RB & FB personnel don't matter all that much.

[denverYooper]

Here's What Baranczyk and Cristl had to say (http://packersnews.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20101129/PKR07/101129164/Baranczyk-Christl-column-Loss-against-Falcons-came-down-to-2-plays):


Failure of the running game

The Packers didn’t run the ball because they couldn’t run the ball.

Brandon Jackson is an I-formation back, and the Packers obviously decided they couldn’t get it done running out of the I. They lined up in a shotgun on 39 of 59 offensive plays. After their first two possessions, they ran out of a five-wide receiver set on 14 of 48 plays. You’re not going to effectively run the ball in those formations.

To run the ball, you need either a superior run blocking line or a great running back, and the Packers have neither. They didn’t have it with Grant; they don’t have it without him. Granted, Grant was better at running stretch plays and zones. But look at his numbers last year. He had three 100-yard games and six where he gained 51 yards or less.

Atlanta is able to run the ball because it has an outstanding back in Michael Turner, and the Falcons line up in formations to take advantage of his ability.

And, regarding the short yardage failures, they kill Colledge:


Short-yardage failures

Coaches constantly preach that especially in big games, the outcome usually is decided by one or two plays. Others might call that baloney. But coaches say that because it’s true. The two plays that beat the Packers were the third-and-1 play at the Atlanta 4-yard line before their field goal, and Aaron Rodgers’ failed sneak on second-and-2 on the play before his fumble. That was 11 points off the board right there.

On the first one, Dimitri Nance was stopped for no gain when the defensive tackle submarined Daryn Colledge and knocked him two yards deep in the backfield. As a result, Quinn Johnson, the lead blocker, tripped over Colledge and didn’t block anybody, and Nance had to cut earlier than he wanted with two guys lying in front of him. That’s the defense’s first priority in that situation: Force the running back off track. Even a high school lineman in those situations knows what the defense is going to do. But Colledge couldn’t get his pads underneath his man.

On the second one, the defensive lineman, Peria Jerry, was on one knee at the snap. You’d think with a guy on his knee, the blocker would lead with his shoulder pad into the defender’s facemask and drill him onto his back so Rodgers could walk into the end zone. But Jerry fired off and got underneath Colledge. That was inexcusable.

[RashanGary]

I think Jackson is more of an isolation running back (they call it I formation, but basically a isolation blocking scheme with a designed hole so the dummy doesn't have to think). He can't make reads like the zone system demands. Give him a hole, tell him to run into it and then run through a guy when he gets there. . . . Yep, Jackson can do that. There's nothing wrong with him, physically. But give him a zone, tell him to read which hole to hit, and what you're left with is a dancing idiot, waiting to get carted down for a loss.


Dimitri Nance seems like a much more natural runner. Strong, quick feet, fairly explosive. He lacks straight line speed, but he seems like a runner who's going to get nice gains over and over and over. He hasn't had much of a chance, but in his chances, I've liked him better than Jackson for what we run. I could see our running game improving with Nance, but the coaches are going to have to take Jackson out of 1st and 2nd down and put him back in his 3rd down role. I hear the little dummy glowing with excitement at his opportunity, even as he screws the pooch, so maybe it will be hard to tell the little retard that he's been demoted, but that's what has to happen here.

[Pugger]

Its too bad Nance got a concussion Sunday so we now have to wait another week at least before we can see if he can help us in our running game going forward.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Jackson is a good third down RB, but I've felt his miscast in our system for a long time. He's not a one cut and go RB. In the right system, he might be a decent all around back. Here's hoping James Starks is the answer to our problems. I'm okay with still running Nance or Kuhn in short yardage. At least, you have a puncher's chance. No more Jackson on short yardage plays.

[Fritz]

I am hoping that Starks will step up, and this season will be like the Packers' championship season. For much of that season, Mikey Holmgren did not appear to know what a running play was. Maybe that was because they didn't perform well. But in the last month of the season, the Packers ran the ball more efficiently. They found a semblance of a running game (but I don't remember if that was in part because Dorsey Levens played more).

But I hope Starks can step up and get a few carries. Let's see what he can do - as long as the dude can pick up blitzes and pass protect.

[Zool]

Jackson is a good third down RB, but I've felt his miscast in our system for a long time. He's not a one cut and go RB. In the right system, he might be a decent all around back. Here's hoping James Starks is the answer to our problems. I'm okay with still running Nance or Kuhn in short yardage. At least, you have a puncher's chance. No more Jackson on short yardage plays.

And no more running left on short yardage. Its not working. On one of the goal line sneaks Colledge's guy made the play while Daryn ended up on his back in the end zone.

[Freak Out]

Fuckin TT should have signed Westbrook.

[RashanGary]

Jackson is a good third down RB, but I've felt his miscast in our system for a long time. He's not a one cut and go RB. In the right system, he might be a decent all around back. Here's hoping James Starks is the answer to our problems. I'm okay with still running Nance or Kuhn in short yardage. At least, you have a puncher's chance. No more Jackson on short yardage plays.

Dimitri Nance has only had what? 15 carries so far? And when he has run, it's been at the end of a game where we were trying to run the clock out with a big lead. . . .

That said, even when nothing is there, he hits a the best crease possible and drives FORWARD. Then, there were a couple runs where something was there and he hit it hard with authority. And I know he doesn't have good straight line speed, but he's quick, especially for his size. If I had to pick one, for a RB, I'd take quickness over straightline speed. He could be an Edgar Bennett type. Has good hands too.

I'm hoping Starks brings something too, but honestly, I think Nance is the better bet this year on 1st and 2nd down. It's a tiny sample, but I like Dimitri Nance so far.

[Guiness]

But Colledge couldn’t get his pads underneath his man.

Pad level! I knew it all along!

[3irty1]

MM said that Starks had better be ready to come up and he may get an opportunity this week. This is truly our last viable shot at a running game this season.

Starks offers what we have been missing this whole time. The home run threat. Grants straight line speed and ability to decisively plant and go is a near perfect fit for this offense. Harv nailed it on the head IMO that Jackson is miscast as an inside runner here. Starks definitely looks the part of a zone runner with a build and style similar to McFadden. If he can make the most of his opportunities and bust off a couple of long ones, this offense could quickly turn the corner from good to unstoppable.

[Shoal]

I'm OK with giving Howard Green a try on the next 3rd and 1 situation.

[MichiganPackerFan]

I'm OK with giving Howard Green a try on the next 3rd and 1 situation.

Who could stop him? Of course while he IS built like him, he's not the Kool-Aid man, so he can't plow through a brick wall... That would have been a lot of fun had he signed with AZ and their bright red jerseys and they played the browns in CLE.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_q5IkxIZqXb8/TMryCOwoCTI/AAAAAAAAAFg/gnaT76tVUho/s320/koolaid.jpg

[Guiness]

Someone else pulled the refrigerator play this past week-end, didn't they? I read somewhere that a 300+lb DT got a goal line carry, and TD.

[OS PA]

MM said that Starks had better be ready to come up and he may get an opportunity this week. This is truly our last viable shot at a running game this season.

Starks offers what we have been missing this whole time. The home run threat. Grants straight line speed and ability to decisively plant and go is a near perfect fit for this offense. Harv nailed it on the head IMO that Jackson is miscast as an inside runner here. Starks definitely looks the part of a zone runner with a build and style similar to McFadden. If he can make the most of his opportunities and bust off a couple of long ones, this offense could quickly turn the corner from good to unstoppable.

I'm not buying into this whole Starks can be our savior movement. I'd love to be wrong, but you just don't hear much about Starks other than "He's close" or "He better be ready". I know we're all a bunch of coach bashers, but do you think the coaches would have kept this kid on the sidelines if he was better than what we had? You don't hear about Starks breaking tackles in practice or taking it to the house. You don't hear or read "Starks had a beautiful touchdown reception today" or "Starks out ran the secondary today after blowing through the line." Coaches don't tend to keep star players out of the lineup. Especially on this team with our injuries if a player can play, he will play. We drafted Starks because of his potential, but the man hasn't played a down of football in over two years now. He may turn out to be a good find, but there is going to be some rust, and it's not like we're putting an ex-superstar out there. We need to be realistic when looking at Starks. I'll eat crow if he has a monster game, but I'm just not seeing it.

[Cheesehead Craig]

I'm not buying into this whole Starks can be our savior movement. I'd love to be wrong, but you just don't hear much about Starks other than "He's close" or "He better be ready". I know we're all a bunch of coach bashers, but do you think the coaches would have kept this kid on the sidelines if he was better than what we had? You don't hear about Starks breaking tackles in practice or taking it to the house. You don't hear or read "Starks had a beautiful touchdown reception today" or "Starks out ran the secondary today after blowing through the line." Coaches don't tend to keep star players out of the lineup. Especially on this team with our injuries if a player can play, he will play. We drafted Starks because of his potential, but the man hasn't played a down of football in over two years now. He may turn out to be a good find, but there is going to be some rust, and it's not like we're putting an ex-superstar out there. We need to be realistic when looking at Starks. I'll eat crow if he has a monster game, but I'm just not seeing it.
I think it's a lot more hope than expectation of savior-dom. Given how the running game is floundering, any hint of help is being eaten up.

[sheepshead]

I'm not buying into this whole Starks can be our savior movement. I'd love to be wrong, but you just don't hear much about Starks other than "He's close" or "He better be ready". I know we're all a bunch of coach bashers, but do you think the coaches would have kept this kid on the sidelines if he was better than what we had? You don't hear about Starks breaking tackles in practice or taking it to the house. You don't hear or read "Starks had a beautiful touchdown reception today" or "Starks out ran the secondary today after blowing through the line." Coaches don't tend to keep star players out of the lineup. Especially on this team with our injuries if a player can play, he will play. We drafted Starks because of his potential, but the man hasn't played a down of football in over two years now. He may turn out to be a good find, but there is going to be some rust, and it's not like we're putting an ex-superstar out there. We need to be realistic when looking at Starks. I'll eat crow if he has a monster game, but I'm just not seeing it.


Brett Favre, Steve Young, Ryan Grant and Tom Brady were third stringers once. just sayin'

[Patler]

I'm not buying into this whole Starks can be our savior movement. I'd love to be wrong, but you just don't hear much about Starks other than "He's close" or "He better be ready". I know we're all a bunch of coach bashers, but do you think the coaches would have kept this kid on the sidelines if he was better than what we had? You don't hear about Starks breaking tackles in practice or taking it to the house. You don't hear or read "Starks had a beautiful touchdown reception today" or "Starks out ran the secondary today after blowing through the line." Coaches don't tend to keep star players out of the lineup. Especially on this team with our injuries if a player can play, he will play. We drafted Starks because of his potential, but the man hasn't played a down of football in over two years now. He may turn out to be a good find, but there is going to be some rust, and it's not like we're putting an ex-superstar out there. We need to be realistic when looking at Starks. I'll eat crow if he has a monster game, but I'm just not seeing it.

I don't know what he will do, but a few comments to your concerns:

- Starks has been unable to practice until recently. This staff is absolutely paranoid about RBs being assignment sure in the passing game.
- As a result, they weren't ready to risk it, even if they expect him to be a better runner.
- One reason you hear little is because reporters are allowed to see very little of practices during the season. No one to report.
- Starks missed one season, and hasn't played yet this year. Writers are making a big deal of it. Players miss whole seasons sometimes.
- RB is the one position that physical talent with instincts can net results, even without a lot of practice. Rust will show in fumbles, perhaps.
- At the early off-season camps, writers did comment on his speed, quickness and size. We'll see.

Heck, I just want to see anyone other than Jackson carrying the ball. Jackson regularly makes a 2 yard gain into a 5 yard loss! I don't see too many expecting him to be a savior; just hopefully better than the Packers have now. Cold weather, bad fields, big back, straight ahead runner with some speed.

[Freak Out]

All they can do if healthy is give Starks a chance. There is nothing to lose at this point in time although it sounds like Nance will be cleared to play as well. BJack has shown that he is not the answer and TT and M3 better keep plugging someone else in until they find that guy. Platoon Starks and Nance with BJack going back to the 3rd down specialist with a dose of Kuhn as needed.

[Joemailman]

Probably the thing they're most concerned with Starks is fumbles because he's gone so long without contact.
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/111131539.html

Running back James Starks received a lot of practice time, most likely because he's going to be active this week. He did some contact drills with the receivers to help get him ready.

I think they'll probably give him a shot if they're satisfied with his ball security.

[Shoal]

Can we assume TT has done his due diligence on Lorenzo Booker?

[Joemailman]

Any team that signs Booker, or any other UFL player, has to pay the UFL team $150,000. So far no NFL team has been willing to do it. Booker has been suspended by the team after he boycotted their Nov. 20 game in protest over the policy which makes players wait until February before the fee would be waived.

[pbmax]

I thought Jackson was making progress toward pedestrian by the middle of the season. But he went backward (literally and figuratively) in the Atlanta game.

There have been times in previous years I became convinced Colledge's run blocking had surpassed his pass blocking, and the odd thing was short yardage seemed his best situation. Colledge, who clearly has trouble moving and reengaging in pass protection, seemed strong enough to engage and drive back DTs. He has done it versus Pat Williams before.

But the same guy, the next week, will get blown up by someone else. And how he missed the block on Rodgers' audibled sneak in inexcusable. The DT had to cross him and avoid Wells to be in position to hit Rodgers. Colledge almost did not lay a glove on a guy lined up directly across from him.

I will say this: the unfortunate part of having players like Colledge and Jackson is that they would benefit from numerous repetitions in game. But the presence of a good passing game and McCarthy's willingness to rely on it make repetitions scarce on offense.

And one thing Baranczyk has wrong and Fritz has right is that many teams make a living running out of a single back formation and one TE. The Packers did this with Levens with great success. That formation does not doom a running game except in must run situations when it can be outnumbered inside.

[Guiness]

Any team that signs Booker, or any other UFL player, has to pay the UFL team $150,000. So far no NFL team has been willing to do it. Booker has been suspended by the team after he boycotted their Nov. 20 game in protest over the policy which makes players wait until February before the fee would be waived.

I doubt $150K would really be a concern. I would think that's chump change for an NFL team...it's less than 1/4 of what he'd earn for the league minimum.

I tend more to think it's that he's in that league because he isn't good enough to play in the NFL - or, at least, NFL personnel people believe that to be true. Right now, that league is NFL rejects. Maybe if it lasts a couple years, and they develop some talent, that may change.

edit: looks like at least one team has made the payment? NYG has a receiver that played in the UFL this year - Michael Clayton

[Shoal]

I guess that's my point. Is Booker worth the $150,000 fee? If he can consistently go 4 yards on 3rd and 1 situations, I would think the fee is cheap. If we continue to lose close games in the last minute, our playoffs this year could be real short.

[wootah]

This staff is absolutely paranoid about RBs being assignment sure in the passing game.

And rightly so; imagine that 12 gets put on IR due to a missed protection by a rookie RB. It wouldn't be fair anymore for the other teams playing against us in this virtual IR league that all packer fans are talking about.

I have no clue what Starks will bring to the table, just like it was with Grant & B-Jack before they played, but I prefer unproven talent over proven below-average abilities. With Starks, at least we have a chance (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX5jNnDMfxA) of discovering a new decent player / stud.

[mission]

I tend more to think it's that he's in that league because he isn't good enough to play in the NFL - or, at least, NFL personnel people believe that to be true.

Just like Cameron Wake?

[mission]

If they're so scared about a rookie RB's pass protection, why not just NOT have him in during passing situations unless he's involved as a receiver somehow? It's not hard to be alternating these guys a bit and have Jackson in when we're going 4-5wide.

I think this whole pass protection thing is being blown out of proportion. There are ways to involve the guy without him being a liability. He might have to do a lot more to be a pro bowl back but we're not talking about that right now. We're hoping for 5-10 touches a game where he can be an explosive play threat. His experience in these live game situations will adjust him to the pro speed and make transition into more critical situations easier.

[bobblehead]

I guess that's my point. Is Booker worth the $150,000 fee? If he can consistently go 4 yards on 3rd and 1 situations, I would think the fee is cheap. If we continue to lose close games in the last minute, our playoffs this year could be real short.

No one can cosistently get 4 yards on 3rd and 1. If someone can consistently get 1 yard on 3rd and 1 he will get a job in the NFL....right now, no one thinks Booker is good enough.....or at least any better than guys on practice squads across the league.

[wist43]

At least for this year, our RB situation is hopeless... we'll make the playoffs, and get bounced again fairly quickly.

Hopefully Grant can come back at full strength next year... don't see TT doing much to augment the position. This is a passing team.

[swede]

No one (running back) can cosistently get 4 yards on 3rd and 1. If someone can consistently get 1 yard on 3rd and 1 he will get a job in the NFL....right now, no one thinks Booker is good enough.....or at least any better than guys on practice squads across the league.

Inserted bold is my addition.

I don't know rats, but I have a feeling that our running game problems are 35% scheme, 45% offensive line, and 20% on the running backs.

Starks won't help, having Grant wouldn't have helped, and I'm not sure '73 OJ would have helped.

The defenses we face are filling running lanes as if they know what play is called, and when BJack cuts back he gets met in the hole by a linebacker scraping along the back of the play.

[Shoal]

Transfer fee is now on sale in time for Christmas.....

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/12/02/ufl-slashes-transfer-fee-to-25000/

[Noodle]

I'm not sure about 35% due to scheme, but I agree with Swede that the OL's failures are far more responsible for our running woes than our RB inadequacies.

But I'm also of the view of giving Starks a go. Maybe he can add something, maybe he can't, but we're never going to know with him sitting on the bench. And the SF game is perfect for a tryout.

In fact, if I'm MM, I use this game to get some serious running reps. Of the first 15 plays, I'd love to see 10 to 12 runs, and I don't care if that results in 4 3 and outs. Let's get the big fellas lathered up and thinking about firing out of their stances instead of punching and stepping back as in pass pro.

[wist43]

I don't know what you guys expect for the OL... it was built as a pass blocking OL - period.

In the run game, they are expected to be able to hit a moving target in space, i.e. scrap off the DL, engage the LB, and hope there is hole enough behind them for the RB to get thru; that and student body left and student body right, with the infamous backside cutback.

These guys were not drafted to be road graders - they were drafted to be ballarinas... 3rd and 1 is a passing down; seriously, I don't even expect a run on 3rd and 1, and neither does the opposing defense.

Losing Grant pretty much killed any running game we had, and made us entirely one dimensional... as I said, we'll likely make the playoffs, maybe even get a home game; but, as soon as we're on the road against a good team with a good defense... the next discussion is who do we select with the 23rd pick.

[mmmdk]

I'd love a McCoy type RB for our offense - we'd be close to unstoppable. Especially with Finley back.

[Tony Oday]

I don't know what you guys expect for the OL... it was built as a pass blocking OL - period.

In the run game, they are expected to be able to hit a moving target in space, i.e. scrap off the DL, engage the LB, and hope there is hole enough behind them for the RB to get thru; that and student body left and student body right, with the infamous backside cutback.

These guys were not drafted to be road graders - they were drafted to be ballarinas... 3rd and 1 is a passing down; seriously, I don't even expect a run on 3rd and 1, and neither does the opposing defense.

Losing Grant pretty much killed any running game we had, and made us entirely one dimensional... as I said, we'll likely make the playoffs, maybe even get a home game; but, as soon as we're on the road against a good team with a good defense... the next discussion is who do we select with the 23rd pick.

Or we blow them out with 6 passing TDs...just saying

[wist43]

Or we blow them out with 6 passing TDs...just saying

There's always that chance... "a punchers chance".

We have the QB... and that is requirement #1; so yeah, as long as you have the QB, we have a shot - but really, it's not a matter of having a bad running game - we have no running game.

It's definitely an up hill battle given the hand we've been dealt.

This has been my fear of TT all along... generally right philosophy, but so married to it, that he won't deviate and go for it, when only a move or two might get us to the promised land. Woodson is aging, Driver is on his way out, Harris is already gone, FA's will leave... if you're close enough - well, then take your shot - TT will never do that I fear. A 3rd rd pick next year is more valuable than a shot at a Lombardi trophy this year.

[sharpe1027]

There's always that chance... "a punchers chance".

We have the QB... and that is requirement #1; so yeah, as long as you have the QB, we have a shot - but really, it's not a matter of having a bad running game - we have no running game.

It's definitely an up hill battle given the hand we've been dealt.

This has been my fear of TT all along... generally right philosophy, but so married to it, that he won't deviate and go for it, when only a move or two might get us to the promised land. Woodson is aging, Driver is on his way out, Harris is already gone, FA's will leave... if you're close enough - well, then take your shot - TT will never do that I fear. A 3rd rd pick next year is more valuable than a shot at a Lombardi trophy this year.

I see your point, but I'd rather be good enough to have a shot every year for the foreseeable future than to have a slightly better chance one or two years. For example, trade away a few picks and they might not have had nearly the depth to survive the injury plague they had this year.

They had injuries at nearly every position and yet we complain about the only one that the backup is really struggling at. Having a revolving door of head coaches is never the way to win.

[Guiness]

I see your point, but I'd rather be good enough to have a shot every year for the foreseeable future than to have a slightly better chance one or two years. For example, trade away a few picks and they might not have had nearly the depth to survive the injury plague they had this year.

They had injuries at nearly every position and yet we complain about the only one that the backup is really struggling at. Having a revolving door of head coaches is never the way to win.

The skeptical rat makes a good point, and that's that we're damn close now - our window isn't closing by any means (lots of young talent) but are we going to get closer than we are?

Problem is though, the mention of a 3rd round pick assumes that Lynch would be an improvement over what we have...and he isn't all that and a box of donuts. I'm not sure who around the league we could've gotten.

[Patler]

I don't know what you guys expect for the OL... it was built as a pass blocking OL - period.

Then why are they such mediocre pass blockers? They rarely give Rodgers a clean pocket to throw from. A less agile QB would be getting killed behind this line.

Pass blocking and run blocking are not mutually exclusive - see: Clifton, Wahle, Flanagan ,Rivera, Tauscher.

I believe the problem is one of two things, or a little of both. TT does not have a good eye for NFL quality O-line ability in college players, and/or Campen's nine years as a high school football coach didn't prepare him adequately to be in charge of coaching an NFL O-line. I vote for the latter. Campen's experience prior to being put in charge of the position group that makes the offense go was ridiculous, 9 years in high school, two years as a Packer "quality control" coach (the lowest rung on the coaching ladder, the guy who gets all the crappy jobs) and one year as assistant O-line coach.

Loyalty is a good thing, but MM is loyal to a fault. MM had the chance to hire a proven NFL ST coach two years ago, instead he promoted from within. I have less problem with that move than promoting Campen, because Slocom had 15 years of college experience in major college programs (including coaching STs) and three years with the Packers. Besides, ST is often a sort of entry level position in NFL coaching ranks anyway. I look at the O-line responsibility a little differently, you can't afford not to be top-notch in coaching the O-line. Good QBs, good RBs and good receivers can all be negated by a poorly performing O-line. The Packers have a poorly performing O-line; and if Rodgers wasn't as good as he is, this offense would be going no where.

I think Campen is a big part of the problem.

[RashanGary]

As far as Thompson and not getting us over the top. . . . Injuries happen. The Colts got hit really hard this year and we're better off then they are. Does that mean Polian is afraid to get them over the top?

We're one of the better teams in the league, even with the most injuries in the league. That speaks volumes about the talent level.

The Packers are not going to lose many (if any) FA's. We have a butt load of money and Ted's shown that he doesn't let talent go very often unless it flat out doesn't fit or is extremely overpriced. The band is going to stay together for some time. And we just lost Taush and Harris and there was no drop off. Actually there was improvement. Woodson has at least another year and with Thompson's history, we won't miss a beat when we lose Clifton.

There is very little reason to think this team is not on the rise, even still. And that's before we get our 13 injured reserve players back. I doubt we'll have two seasons in a row with that type of injury disaster. And if we do, sorry to say, it's a good excuse.


On to the running back situation. . . Almost all of Nances runs came in the 4th quarter of a blow out where everyone expected run. Even when there was no space, he seemed to hit the best crease possible and run with authority. He had a great run against Minnesota where he plowed over EJ Henderson (something a Packer RB has never done before). And he had one or two zone runs in actual game time where he stretched out, made a hard decisive cut and got good yardage. I know we've seen very little of him, but what I have seen I've liked. I'd love to see him this week. I think he's a better runner than Brandon Jackson.

Starks is a complete wildcard. He's extremely athletic, coaches say he's an instinctive runner. He's fast, cuts hard, catches the ball like a WR and he's big. He's a little tall. I'll bet he has a short career unless some team sees his receiving ability and uses him as a 3rd down back or in a Reggie Bush type role. I think he'd do great in that type of role, but we'll see how it all shakes out. In spurts, who knows how good he could be.

I'm not jumping off the wagon yet. I want to see the guys we have fail before I do that.

[Guiness]

Transfer fee is now on sale in time for Christmas.....

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/12/02/ufl-slashes-transfer-fee-to-25000/

The writer of that article seems to feel that the price of a transfer was stopping NFL teams from signing UFL players. He pointed to the fact that 15 teams brought in players, but none were signed -

“It is surprising to me that 15 NFL clubs would bring players in for tryouts with full knowledge that a transfer fee was required to sign them and then refuse to pay the fee,” Huyghue said.

Is it not possible that after having a look, none of the NFL teams were interested? This guy's an idiot, and knows nothing about how NFL teams work if he's pointing to that fact as proof that the money being asked was too much. As someone else pointed out, the Packers have probably had a look at every street free agent out there this year.
It could be collusion, I guess, and bringing the players in was a way of applying pressure, but I doubt it. We'll see if there's a fire sale on UFL players in the near future.

[MichiganPackerFan]

I don't know what you guys expect for the OL... it was built as a pass blocking OL - period.

In the run game, they are expected to be able to hit a moving target in space, i.e. scrap off the DL, engage the LB, and hope there is hole enough behind them for the RB to get thru; that and student body left and student body right, with the infamous backside cutback.

These guys were not drafted to be road graders - they were drafted to be ballarinas... 3rd and 1 is a passing down; seriously, I don't even expect a run on 3rd and 1, and neither does the opposing defense.

Losing Grant pretty much killed any running game we had, and made us entirely one dimensional... as I said, we'll likely make the playoffs, maybe even get a home game; but, as soon as we're on the road against a good team with a good defense... the next discussion is who do we select with the 23rd pick.

I largely agree with this. (wow, big change from the olden JSO days: me agreeing with Wist on ANYTHING ; )

Pass protection is certainly the primary focus. However, I do think there are a couple on the line that are more balanced, sitton, wells and I'm not sure about bulaga. Regardless, on 3rd & 1, they should be able to throw Nance/Kuhn/Quinn and hammer out a yard.

[Patler]

The writer of that article seems to feel that the price of a transfer was stopping NFL teams from signing UFL players. He pointed to the fact that 15 teams brought in players, but none were signed -


Is it not possible that after having a look, none of the NFL teams were interested? This guy's an idiot, and knows nothing about how NFL teams work if he's pointing to that fact as proof that the money being asked was too much. As someone else pointed out, the Packers have probably had a look at every street free agent out there this year.
It could be collusion, I guess, and bringing the players in was a way of applying pressure, but I doubt it. We'll see if there's a fire sale on UFL players in the near future.

I don't think the cost for one player was stopping them, but paying it and thereby supporting the UFL's restrictions on player movement was stopping them. I doubt the NFL teams like the way the UFL is handling player rights, so they refuse to go along with it. They bring players in, show interest, then do nothing. What does that accomplish? It gets the UFL players to put pressure on the league to let them move freely to the NFL.

While any one payment isn't a lot, a team hit with a lot of injuries, like the Packers, could have spent a million dollars signing just 7 players from the UFL, and the Packers have had to replace 12 players on their original roster so far.

[Guiness]

I don't think the cost for one player was stopping them, but paying it and thereby supporting the UFL's restrictions on player movement was stopping them. I doubt the NFL teams like the way the UFL is handling player rights, so they refuse to go along with it. They bring players in, show interest, then do nothing. What does that accomplish? It gets the UFL players to put pressure on the league to let them move freely to the NFL.

While any one payment isn't a lot, a team hit with a lot of injuries, like the Packers, could have spent a million dollars signing just 7 players from the UFL, and the Packers have had to replace 12 players on their original roster so far.

IMO that would be a penny-wise, pound foolish decision on the part of an NFL team. NFL Teams spend over $100 million on player salaries alone! The Packers are the worst example of injuries this year, and it would cost them less than 1% of their salary to help fix that problem? Have at it!

The NFL could well be being a bunch of bullies, not willing to play by the UFL's rules. The thing is, the NFL has suffered in the past from not having a minor league to draw players from - they'd be idiots (well, they are NFL owners...) to not support this one. Right now, there's a pool of game ready players available, courtesy of the UFL. Something they wouldn't otherwise have.

I would be wrong, but don't MLB teams buy out minor league contracts before calling a player up?

[pbmax]

While the Offensive Line is not a great run blocking unit, its the same unit that popped Grant for 1200 yards for 3 years in a row (Bulaga over Tauscher is an upgrade in the running game). And that is with Colledge having his worst year last year.

The difference between last year and this year is the back.

[swede]

While the Offensive Line is not a great run blocking unit, its the same unit that popped Grant for 1200 yards for 3 years in a row (Bulaga over Tauscher is an upgrade in the running game). And that is with Colledge having his worst year last year.

The difference between last year and this year is the back.

Dang! That seems hard to argue against.

My eyes tell me that the holes aren't there. What none of us can know for sure is where the holes were designed to be.

What did Grant have that other guys don't have?

Patience? Vision? Speed? Strength? A shrine with dried chicken blood hidden in a locker?

[Cheesehead Craig]

Dang! That seems hard to argue against.

My eyes tell me that the holes aren't there. What none of us can know for sure is where the holes were designed to be.

What did Grant have that other guys don't have?

Patience? Vision? Speed? Strength? A shrine with dried chicken blood hidden in a locker?
He has a shrine to Jobu in his locker. He offers him rum and cigar to help him avoid the linemen.

[Tony Oday]

I say F you Jobu I do this myself!

[Patler]

Dang! That seems hard to argue against.

My eyes tell me that the holes aren't there. What none of us can know for sure is where the holes were designed to be.

What did Grant have that other guys don't have?

Patience? Vision? Speed? Strength? A shrine with dried chicken blood hidden in a locker?

Grant is willing to stick his head in whatever crease there is and get the 1, 2 or 3 yards that are there to be had. Even though he doesn't break a heck of a lot of tackles himself, he plants and runs forward. Jackson, on the other hand, spends too much time moving sideways and too little moving forward. When he is about to be hit, he often stops and tries to sidestep a tackler (seldom successfully), meaning he gets dropped in his tracks or even loses a yard that was there by moving forward. Grant moves forward, gets tripped up, falls forward and gets an extra yard or two that Jackson doesn't.

Nance runs more like Grant, and I hope he gets more opportunities. Jackson looks like a guy who doesn't want to be hit.

[denverYooper]

Dang! That seems hard to argue against.

My eyes tell me that the holes aren't there. What none of us can know for sure is where the holes were designed to be.

What did Grant have that other guys don't have?

Patience? Vision? Speed? Strength? A shrine with dried chicken blood hidden in a locker?

Faith that that O-line would have a lane there for him when he arrived where the play was designed to go and good burst to take advantage of even a small opening. He was a great fit with the O-line crew. Part of Jackson's problem is that he seems to need to see a hole open before he gets there otherwise he feels the need to bounce outside where he often gets into trouble because (surprise) his blockers are all somewhere else.

[swede]

Grant is willing to stick his head in whatever crease there is and get the 1, 2 or 3 yards that are there to be had. Even though he doesn't break a heck of a lot of tackles himself, he plants and runs forward. Jackson, on the other hand, spends too much time moving sideways and too little moving forward. When he is about to be hit, he often stops and tries to sidestep a tackler (seldom successfully), meaning he gets dropped in his tracks or even loses a yard that was there by moving forward. Grant moves forward, gets tripped up, falls forward and gets an extra yard or two that Jackson doesn't.


So you believe it comes down to economy and efficiency? You business guys!

[MichiganPackerFan]

...

Nance runs more like Grant, and I hope he gets more opportunities. Jackson looks like a guy who doesn't want to be hit.


Do you think so? I thought he was stockier and even more of a power straight ahead runner. My impression is that Grant runs north & south with some power but can make people miss (maybe in the jamal lewis mold?) and Nance is exclusively a power straight ahead runner (jerome bettis mold), What do you think?

[pbmax]

Grant is willing to stick his head in whatever crease there is and get the 1, 2 or 3 yards that are there to be had. Even though he doesn't break a heck of a lot of tackles himself, he plants and runs forward. Jackson, on the other hand, spends too much time moving sideways and too little moving forward. When he is about to be hit, he often stops and tries to sidestep a tackler (seldom successfully), meaning he gets dropped in his tracks or even loses a yard that was there by moving forward. Grant moves forward, gets tripped up, falls forward and gets an extra yard or two that Jackson doesn't.

Nance runs more like Grant, and I hope he gets more opportunities. Jackson looks like a guy who doesn't want to be hit.

Yes, Grant did not have the TFLs that Jackson has suffered. And when you delay in a zone play, pursuit catches up. And just as some holes close as the RB approaches the line, sometimes creases become holes. In a nutshell, Jackson does not hit fast not does he cutback early enough. When he does cut back, its too late or he is hesitating a bit. I am not sure if he doesn't want to be hit (he seems to have no problem running into or through contact in the open field) but its goes against instinct to head for a hole that isn't there.

Think of Han Solo and the Millennium Falcon escaping the asteroid as the monster closed its mouth. Nerve racking.

[Patler]

Nance runs more like Grant, and I hope he gets more opportunities. Jackson looks like a guy who doesn't want to be hit.


Do you think so? I thought he was stockier and even more of a power straight ahead runner. My impression is that Grant runs north & south with some power but can make people miss (maybe in the jamal lewis mold?) and Nance is exclusively a power straight ahead runner (jerome bettis mold), What do you think?

What I meant was that he is more like Grant than he is like Jackson. Not a sidestepper and dancer like Jackson tends to be. Hard to say what he will do on a regular basis, but he sure hits the holes hard.

[RashanGary]

Nance runs more like Grant, and I hope he gets more opportunities. Jackson looks like a guy who doesn't want to be hit.

I agree. Grant and Nance seem to have the same attitude when it comes to hitting the crease.

Physically the big knock on Grant was his lateral agility. The big knock on Nance is his top speed.


Looking at their running style's, both fit in this offense. Looking at their physical skills. . . The thing that I think prevented Grant from being elite was his inability to make that one guy miss. It seemed he never made that LB or S miss 6 yards down the field. Unless it was wide open, Grant was getting tackled. With Nance, he seems to have a little more agility. Just watching what I've seen of Nance, I think he could be the 4 yard, 3 yard, 1 yard, 5 yard, 3 yard, 4 yard kind of back the way Grant was. He seems to move ahead and play a tough brand of RB. What I think will separate them is Grant upped his average with 40, 50 and 60 yard runs a few times per year. He's fast so he isn't caught from behind. Nance on the other hand, I think will get more 10, 12, 14 yard runs because he's a little more agile.

At the end of the day, I like what I've seen from Nance. I think he's going to be a good player. Similar to Grant, not as fast but gets more mid-range runs because he can avoid tackles better, less long runs because he lacks the top end speed. Good runner though. Perfect fit for our offense. I think he's going to surprise people.

[sharpe1027]

Yes, Grant did not have the TFLs that Jackson has suffered. And when you delay in a zone play, pursuit catches up. And just as some holes close as the RB approaches the line, sometimes creases become holes. In a nutshell, Jackson does not hit fast not does he cutback early enough. When he does cut back, its too late or he is hesitating a bit. I am not sure if he doesn't want to be hit (he seems to have no problem running into or through contact in the open field) but its goes against instinct to head for a hole that isn't there.

Think of Han Solo and the Millennium Falcon escaping the asteroid as the monster closed its mouth. Nerve racking.

I may be repeating some of what you said in my own words, but I've seen way too many runs where the line gets some push on the cutback and BJ tries to bounce outside instead of cutting back. Maybe there wasn't a hole, but there was a few yards to be gained and all of the defenders were engaged. I thought a main tenant of the ZBS was to consistently get the short yardage and occasionally the big play happens. Grant would run right into the backs of his OL over if they couldn't make him a hole. BJ is no Grant.

[Tony Oday]

I cant believe people are pining for Grant...before the season started there were not many of us that wanted to keep him...

[MJZiggy]

I wanted to keep him but then again, I tend to get attached to our players. I want to keep them all and want them all to perform well.

[RashanGary]

I cant believe people are pining for Grant...before the season started there were not many of us that wanted to keep him...

I didn't really see it this way. Probably 90% of the fans thought Grant was solid. 50% thought he was good and 25% thought he was really good. Only maybe 10% didn't like him at all and even they thought he was serviceable. The big argument was, "how good is he" and the bottom 10% battled the top 10% and it always seemed louder than it really was.

[Cheesehead Craig]

I cant believe people are pining for Grant...before the season started there were not many of us that wanted to keep him...

I think he's a classic case of don't know what you got until it's gone.

[bobblehead]

IMO that would be a penny-wise, pound foolish decision on the part of an NFL team. NFL Teams spend over $100 million on player salaries alone! The Packers are the worst example of injuries this year, and it would cost them less than 1% of their salary to help fix that problem? Have at it!

The NFL could well be being a bunch of bullies, not willing to play by the UFL's rules. The thing is, the NFL has suffered in the past from not having a minor league to draw players from - they'd be idiots (well, they are NFL owners...) to not support this one. Right now, there's a pool of game ready players available, courtesy of the UFL. Something they wouldn't otherwise have.

I would be wrong, but don't MLB teams buy out minor league contracts before calling a player up?

The guys that would be signed from the UFL would generally be long shots to help a team THIS year. That being said, the teams are more likely to go to practice squads for in season help that will be minimum help anyway. Think NFL minimum salary and ask this...is there a player in the UFL who is 35% more valuable than guys on the practice squads throughout the NFL?

[retailguy]

IMO that would be a penny-wise, pound foolish decision on the part of an NFL team. NFL Teams spend over $100 million on player salaries alone! The Packers are the worst example of injuries this year, and it would cost them less than 1% of their salary to help fix that problem? Have at it!

The NFL could well be being a bunch of bullies, not willing to play by the UFL's rules. The thing is, the NFL has suffered in the past from not having a minor league to draw players from - they'd be idiots (well, they are NFL owners...) to not support this one. Right now, there's a pool of game ready players available, courtesy of the UFL. Something they wouldn't otherwise have.

I would be wrong, but don't MLB teams buy out minor league contracts before calling a player up?

I believe that most minor league teams are either owned by or affiliated with a major league team.

[Patler]

The guys that would be signed from the UFL would generally be long shots to help a team THIS year. That being said, the teams are more likely to go to practice squads for in season help that will be minimum help anyway. Think NFL minimum salary and ask this...is there a player in the UFL who is 35% more valuable than guys on the practice squads throughout the NFL?

Yes, there very well could be; because the UFL has players with NFL experience who don't qualify to be on a practice squad. It might actually be a preferable source for players who could actually help in a pinch.

[Guiness]

The guys that would be signed from the UFL would generally be long shots to help a team THIS year. That being said, the teams are more likely to go to practice squads for in season help that will be minimum help anyway. Think NFL minimum salary and ask this...is there a player in the UFL who is 35% more valuable than guys on the practice squads throughout the NFL?

See, I go back and forth on this. If you look back at my first post on this subject, I said something similar - those guys are in the UFL for a reason...because they can't play in the NFL.

Of course, there may be exceptions, and guys who just needed a bit more seasoning for the light to go on.

[Tarlam!]

Patience? Vision? Speed? Strength? A shrine with dried chicken blood hidden in a locker?[/QUOTE]

That is soooooooo BOMNF!!!!

[rbaloha1]

I think he's a classic case of don't know what you got until it's gone.

Good point. RM is a grinder with the occasional big play.

Jackson was better as a change of pace back.

[SlimPickens]

I think he's a classic case of don't know what you got until it's gone.

Exactly, he's so workman like you don't realize all the things he is actually doing and how much he brings to the offense.