Will Eddie Lacy Be On Packer Roster in 2017?

[pbmax]

Will he be resigned by the Packers or another team in the 2017 offseason?

[Tony Oday]

Can't get motivated in a contract year...bye.

[King Friday]

He won't be back with Green Bay. This is not because I feel that Lacy is not a starting caliber RB, but rather due to the fact that Thompson is way too cheap. Lacy will be snapped up by another team before the price is reduced enough to merit Thompson's attention. I don't know the answer to this, but I would like to find out how many guys have reached free agency after their rookie deal on Thompson's watch...and wound up resigning with the Packers. My guess is that number is very small, and I can't see Lacy making his way onto that list.

[Pugger]

Can't get motivated in a contract year...bye.

Yeah, averaging over 5 yards a carry isn't good enough and then he had the audacity to get hurt.

[Pugger]

He won't be back with Green Bay. This is not because I feel that Lacy is not a starting caliber RB, but rather due to the fact that Thompson is way too cheap. Lacy will be snapped up by another team before the price is reduced enough to merit Thompson's attention. I don't know the answer to this, but I would like to find out how many guys have reached free agency after their rookie deal on Thompson's watch...and wound up resigning with the Packers. My guess is that number is very small, and I can't see Lacy making his way onto that list.

Of course his injury history might make other GMs pause before offering him a big contract...

[texaspackerbacker]

I'm not saying he should be re-signed or that I want that, but Ted likes to keep his own. Assuming he stays - which unfortunately I think will happen, I think he keeps Lacy and pays more than most of us would expect in doing so.

[Carolina_Packer]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/11/23/eddie-lacy-sam-shields-wont-return-this-season/ Well, we now know he won't be back at least for this season. With the desperate need for healthy bodies on defense, the Packers are bringing back Dorleant (I hope he can cover at the back end). I'm sure they would have loved to bring back Shields, which should speak volumes about the cumulative affects of his concussions, and perhaps his longer-term prospects.

If Lacy is healthy enough but they still decided to designate Dorleant for return, then I think that says something, too. They might feel like they need more help on the back end of the defense in order to help keep the score down, as the offense has started to click, even without Lacy being there. Also, if they get behind in games, which they have done quite a bit this year, Lacy may not be much of a weapon anyway.

[ThunderDan]

He better be back. I finally bought a Packers jersey 2 years ago and it is #27.

Lacy isn't a home run hitter but he is Jerome Bettis. He is a great workhorse to have. What we really need is a true 3rd down back to complement Lacy.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

I voted "Packers". Lacy will be resigned b/c he reminds GM/HC/Play-caller J-Mac of that roughen Legarrette Blount.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

He better be back. I finally bought a Packers jersey 2 years ago and it is #27.


I still have my Tod McBride jersey hanging in my closet.

http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/sep-2000-27-tod-mcbride-of-the-green-bay-packers-in-action-during-the-picture-id646263

[denverYooper]

He'll be back.

[Maxie the Taxi]

I vote "I don't give a shit."

[gbgary]

as a fullback. http://www.corvetteforum.com/forums/images/smilies/hide.gif

[Tony Oday]

Yeah, averaging over 5 yards a carry isn't good enough and then he had the audacity to get hurt.

He showed up overweight again and got hurt again. I liked the way he was running but we can find a back that has three good games anywhere.

[Harlan Huckleby]

He showed up overweight again and got hurt again. I liked the way he was running but we can find a back that has three good games anywhere.

Agreed.

I think TT should look to the draft. I've taken notice of that sensational kid from Scotland. The guy really hangs tough. His name's Jacque, Jacque Strapp, the All American ball carrier.

[BZnDallas]

Couldn't let the thread die on a classic post like that HH! I voted Lacy is back on the cheap. Hopefully they pair him up with a McCafferey type. Offense still needs more speed. Monty helps, but we need another burner or two. Cook should help open things up also.

[RashanGary]

Would be cool to resign Lacy and draft fournette. Then keep Cook for another year and run 2tes as our base offense and just run, run, run!!

[woodbuck27]

I donno !

[Fritz]

Bring him back with weight clauses in the contract. All y'all saying "but he averaged five yards a carry" - would you be okay if Aaron Rodgers showed up 40 lbs overweight and played pretty good, when you know he could be so much better 40 lbs lighter?

[pbmax]

Bring him back with weight clauses in the contract. All y'all saying "but he averaged five yards a carry" - would you be okay if Aaron Rodgers showed up 40 lbs overweight and played pretty good, when you know he could be so much better 40 lbs lighter?

Depends on whether he played like Ben or Jared Lorenzen.

[Joemailman]

He better be back. I finally bought a Packers jersey 2 years ago and it is #27.

Lacy isn't a home run hitter but he is Jerome Bettis. He is a great workhorse to have. What we really need is a true 3rd down back to complement Lacy.

Except he's not a workhorse. He's overweight and on IR. And before the injury,he was only averaging 14 carries a game. There's probably a decent chance the weight had something to do with the injury.

[Joemailman]

Bring him back with weight clauses in the contract. All y'all saying "but he averaged five yards a carry" - would you be okay if Aaron Rodgers showed up 40 lbs overweight and played pretty good, when you know he could be so much better 40 lbs lighter?

If he couldn't keep the weight off in a contract year, will a weight clause matter? Sure with a weight clause you might not have to pay him much if he's overweight, but do you want to use a roster spot on him?

[channtheman]

We got it Joe. ;)

[RashanGary]

What's wrong with him? Couldn't he come back this year still?

[Joemailman]

What's wrong with him? Couldn't he come back this year still?

MM has said he won't be back this year. Nor Shields. They've designated Dorleant for return.

[VegasPackFan]

We've seen what Lacy can do when he's at the top of his game and fitness. What worries me is he could have had a monster pay day after this season. How did he respond?

[ThunderDan]

Lacy will be back next year. We literally have nothing in the RB position. If you get rid of Lacy you have to train every RB that will be on the team next year except Ripkowski.

I expect a 1 year prove it deal for Lacy.

[Joemailman]

It will depend on market value. If some team wants to pay lacy top-5 money, I don't think TT will match. This will be a B.J. Raji type situation.

[gbgary]

Lacy will be back next year. We literally have nothing in the RB position.

i agree. if they let him go they'll have to waste a draft pick on a rb when we have MUCH BIGGER NEEDS! that or tt (if he's still here) will do another sign-the-guy-at-the-bottom-of-the-list FA move. he was having a good year until he got hurt.

[Fritz]

Lacy will be back next year. We literally have nothing in the RB position. If you get rid of Lacy you have to train every RB that will be on the team next year except Ripkowski.

I expect a 1 year prove it deal for Lacy.

Well, we figuratively have nothing in the RB position now. But you're probably right. Hard to imagine Starks coming back, or Michael making enough progress to warrant a re-signing. But we'll see.

[Joemailman]

Do Montgomery/Michael make Lacy expendable? This is also a strong draft for running backs. I know Lacy is a talented guy, but maybe the Packers will want to move on with guys whose weight and conditioning isn't an issue.

[red]

Do Montgomery/Michael make Lacy expendable? This is also a strong draft for running backs. I know Lacy is a talented guy, but maybe the Packers will want to move on with guys whose weight and conditioning isn't an issue.

they drop his price tag as far as GB is concerned

[texaspackerbacker]

Do Montgomery/Michael make Lacy expendable? This is also a strong draft for running backs. I know Lacy is a talented guy, but maybe the Packers will want to move on with guys whose weight and conditioning isn't an issue.

Lacy probably, Starks for sure - somebody will almost certainly offer Lacy way more than he's worth.

[pbmax]

I still think Lacy comes back.

[Clayish]

Sign him to a very team friendly one year deal with incentives for him. Keep Ty and Michael.

Wouldn't be mad at drafting a RB in round 3 or something either. Supposedly a very deep RB class this year.

[RashanGary]

I still think Lacy comes back.

Me too. Him and Montgomery would be a good one two punch. Michael is good off the bench.

[QBME]

He gone. 245 lbs on 215 ankles have taken their toll. Monty/Michael/Ripkowski offer enough options.

[Pugger]

I'd love to have Eddie, Ty and Christine as our RB stable next year along with Rip as our FB. I remember folks bitching because we only kept 2 HBs coming out of TC last September.

[King Friday]

Eddie can see the writing on the wall. He WON'T be the feature back in Green Bay after this year.

Someone else will roll the dice and give him that chance elsewhere. As such, they will offer more money to him.

He ain't coming back.

[Zool]

I think Lacy signs a Nick Perry style 1 year "show me" contract for 5-6. Hopefully the Packers still draft a RB. If not at least a TE early. Give AR a couple guys who can actually get open consistently.

[red]

He gone. 245 lbs on 215 ankles have taken their toll. Monty/Michael/Ripkowski offer enough options.

try 265 and you might be in the ballpark

[RashanGary]

I think Lacy signs a Nick Perry style 1 year "show me" contract for 5-6. Hopefully the Packers still draft a RB. If not at least a TE early. Give AR a couple guys who can actually get open consistently.

I could see this.

[Fritz]

What an interesting conundrum for the Packers. You always want talent, and Lacy is undoubtedly talented. Unfortunately, there are two problems: one, in a contract year the guy was, yes, in better shape than before, but a 270 pound guy who loses thirty pounds is still about fifteen pounds overweight. If you can't get in top-notch shape in a contract year, what are you going to do if you have a three year contract? Hmm. Secondly, how would MM configure the offense with Lacy back? Lacy seems to do better with more and more carries, but we've seen McCarthy transform this offense so that, once again, it revolves around the arm of A. Rodgers. Can you keep this offense in its current configuration with Lacy as your featured back?

[King Friday]

Can you keep this offense in its current configuration with Lacy as your featured back?

That's the whole point. Ty Montgomery is now the feature back. McCarthy basically said as much yesterday, and that will only be further enhanced once he actually gets to see all of the game film. Imagine what Ty could look like with an entire offseason to actually work with the OL and coaching staff to work on being a RB. We finally have a RB who can be a dynamic receiving threat out of the backfield.

Since Lacy at best only has a chance at competing for the feature back spot in GB. I'm fairly certain that there is at least one NFL team willing to offer him $5M+/year to be their primary back. He's shown enough during his career to justify another chance somewhere. I just don't see how everyone else in the league is going to completely pass on the guy so that the Packers can retain him at a discount bin price for 1 season.

[Fritz]

I could see the Lions making a run at Lacy. They think they're close, with Stafford playing as well as he has, and if you can get someone like Lacy at a decent price, then suddenly you have a running game, and you didn't have to use a draft pick. Hell, the Giants could use him, too.

[Rutnstrut]

That's the whole point. Ty Montgomery is now the feature back. McCarthy basically said as much yesterday, and that will only be further enhanced once he actually gets to see all of the game film. Imagine what Ty could look like with an entire offseason to actually work with the OL and coaching staff to work on being a RB. We finally have a RB who can be a dynamic receiving threat out of the backfield.

Since Lacy at best only has a chance at competing for the feature back spot in GB. I'm fairly certain that there is at least one NFL team willing to offer him $5M+/year to be their primary back. He's shown enough during his career to justify another chance somewhere. I just don't see how everyone else in the league is going to completely pass on the guy so that the Packers can retain him at a discount bin price for 1 season.

Monty will not be able to handle the pounding of being a RB on a regular basis. They need to use him sparingly. Lacy and Michael would be a great tandem, with a sprinkling of Monty.

[pbmax]

Monty will not be able to handle the pounding of being a RB on a regular basis. They need to use him sparingly. Lacy and Michael would be a great tandem, with a sprinkling of Monty.

Agree completely with this. Michael looks especially suited to take Starks third down role if he can catch a screen and learn to block.

[King Friday]

Monty will not be able to handle the pounding of being a RB on a regular basis. They need to use him sparingly. Lacy and Michael would be a great tandem, with a sprinkling of Monty.

You are nuts. What evidence do you possibly have that Monty can't handle being a RB? He's 220 pounds! So in your world, you have to be a 260 pound fat slob to be able to "handle the pounding"?

Hope I don't meet your girlfriend.

The point is that the offense needs to change some if Ty is the feature back. He's far more of a danger out of the backfield as a receiver, but I don't think our offense works like that currently. We are designed to be a Lacy led running attack. That will change this offseason. I think Montgomery is absolutely our feature back next year. He's too talented to not get on the field...and we have so many receivers, it only makes sense to use Ty as a back.

Of course...we need capable reserves too. Any RB can get hurt. However, Montgomery seems adept at getting low and avoiding big hits for the most part. He'll gain in that as time goes on as well. I don't see him being a liability in terms of injury as a RB.

[Patler]

Monty will not be able to handle the pounding of being a RB on a regular basis. They need to use him sparingly. Lacy and Michael would be a great tandem, with a sprinkling of Monty.


Agree completely with this. Michael looks especially suited to take Starks third down role if he can catch a screen and learn to block.

I have been asking these questions for a month now, and no one ever answers them:

Why do you think Montgomery can't be a running back like any other regular running back?
Why can't he take the same load?
Why must he be used sparingly?

Is it just because he was called a wide receiver in college?

[pbmax]

I have been asking these questions for a month now, and no one ever answers them:

Why do you think Montgomery can't be a running back like any other regular running back?
Why can't he take the same load?
Why must he be used sparingly?

Is it just because he was called a wide receiver in college?

Because RBs get beat up a lot. Lacy will be cheap. Michael has exceptional speed which Monty does not.

[Zool]

Because RBs get beat up a lot. Lacy will be cheap. Michael has exceptional speed which Monty does not.

With his WR background, why is he not the perfect 3rd down back?

[pbmax]

With his WR background, why is he not the perfect 3rd down back?

He could be, though he too needs to work on blocking. But I want to get Michael's speed on the field.

[King Friday]

Because RBs get beat up a lot. Lacy will be cheap. Michael has exceptional speed which Monty does not.

So Monty can't be a feature RB because "RBs get beat up a lot"? We have to stick with Lacy because he "will be cheap", even though he's the one who is proven to be unable to handle the beating? That's your viewpoint on 2017?

I'm with Patler here...I haven't seen any credible evidence to suggest that Montgomery is incapable of carrying the rock 200+ times a year. This is McCarthy's team, for crying out loud. We aren't giving the ball to anyone 300 times a year anyway. Montgomery's size probably makes him MORE likely to actually last 16 games, because he isn't likely to go searching for contact like bigger backs often do.

[King Friday]

He could be, though he too needs to work on blocking. But I want to get Michael's speed on the field.

I'd rather have Monty's receiving ability than Michael's ability to find an OL's ass crack.

[hoosier]

I could see the Lions making a run at Lacy. They think they're close, with Stafford playing as well as he has, and if you can get someone like Lacy at a decent price, then suddenly you have a running game, and you didn't have to use a draft pick. Hell, the Giants could use him, too.

And there may be enough of him for two teams! :-)

[Zool]

And there may be enough of him for two teams! :-)

I'd take Abdullah over Lacy.

[Cheesehead Craig]

I would see no problem having a Monty and Michael tandem going forward the rest of this season and all of next season out of the backfield. Michael has incredible speed and can be a game changer. Monty has good speed but incredible vision and patience and is decisive in his cuts. He plants his foot and goes forward, no dancing around when he sees the hole.

I too, have seen zero evidence that he can't handle the workload of a RB.

[gbgary]

rb decisions to make. resign Lacy and/or Michael to a 1yr deal, or...only sign one and take one in the second rnd? sweeten Monty's deal? i say keep all three and draft an impact te or wr. it's not like we're a running team to begin with.

[Patler]

Because RBs get beat up a lot. Lacy will be cheap. Michael has exceptional speed which Monty does not.

That response doesn't really answer the questions.

Yes, its a given that RB's get beat up.
Lacy being cheap has nothing to do with whether Montgomery can be used as a regular RB. Michael being faster has nothing to do with whether Montgomery can be used as a regular RB. Either of those factors might impact how much the team choses to use Montgomery, but the suggestions have been that Montgomery is deficient in some way such that he can not be used like a regular RB.

In my opinion, they could chose to use Montgomery as the regular RB just as they have Starks at times in the past.
Montgomery is not just a gimmick back, as some seem to imply.

[pbmax]

That response doesn't really answer the questions.

Yes, its a given that RB's get beat up.
Lacy being cheap has nothing to do with whether Montgomery can be used as a regular RB. Michael being faster has nothing to do with whether Montgomery can be used as a regular RB. Either of those factors might impact how much the team choses to use Montgomery, but the suggestions have been that Montgomery is deficient in some way such that he can not be used like a regular RB.

In my opinion, they could chose to use Montgomery as the regular RB just as they have Starks at times in the past.
Montgomery is not just a gimmick back, as some seem to imply.

So far, Monty seems like he can be used as a regular back. I am willing to stipulate to that based on what he has shown this year. But there are two points to make in addition to that:

1. He does not seem like a typical short yardage banger.
2. He has no adult track record of heavy usage as a RB. So your guess is as good as mine in how he holds up. He had 38 carries in 47 games at Stanford. His high as a pro came yesterday at 16.

The first leads me to want to have Lacy and Ripkowski involved. The second leads me to want someone to develop alongside him.

Additionally, Michael's speed makes we want to find a role for him.

[Carolina_Packer]

There were several games, even prior to Lacy getting out of shape, where his snaps were minimized by coaches choice. These weren't games where the Packers needed to abandon the run to catch up, either. I think part of it is MM and A-Rod. When push comes to shove, and you are MM, are you going to turn more to your 2-time MVP or are you going to force more of a balance between running and passing attack? Lacy's fault is getting out of shape and not reading his blocks correctly. He is not responsible for how MM chooses to use him in the offense. MM can make Lacy disappear sometimes, again, even when it's a one score game. I think it's because he leans on A-Rod so much, and with good reason.

No matter who the Packers go with at RB, as long as A-Rod can do what he is capable of doing, he's always going to be the best offensive option.

[Patler]

So far, Monty seems like he can be used as a regular back. I am willing to stipulate to that based on what he has shown this year. But there are two points to make in addition to that:

1. He does not seem like a typical short yardage banger.
2. He has no adult track record of heavy usage as a RB. So your guess is as good as mine in how he holds up. He had 38 carries in 47 games at Stanford. His high as a pro came yesterday at 16.

The first leads me to want to have Lacy and Ripkowski involved. The second leads me to want someone to develop alongside him.

Additionally, Michael's speed makes we want to find a role for him.


I agree with all of that. My only dispute has been with the statements that Montgomery can't be used like a regular RB.

I would like to see Lacy and Montgomery both next year. MM typically alternates backs when he actually gives them carries in a game, so both would be used, and neither would be overworked. I don't have much feeling about Michael yet, but history has been that there is little need for a 3rd RB in Green Bay under MM anyway. Most of the time the third RB isn't even active on game days unless and until one of the 1st two is injured. Without a role on ST, the third RB is a wasted game day spot under MM.

[pbmax]

There is something else:

Wikipedia has him listed as 6 foot even and 216. Somewhere else he is listed as 6' even and 221. That is the thinnest 220 pounder at six feet I have ever seen.

Starks at 6' 2", 218 looks more like a fireplug.

[Cheesehead Craig]

So far, Monty seems like he can be used as a regular back. I am willing to stipulate to that based on what he has shown this year. But there are two points to make in addition to that:

1. He does not seem like a typical short yardage banger.
2. He has no adult track record of heavy usage as a RB. So your guess is as good as mine in how he holds up.

Come now, not everyone can be Samkon Gado. Time to let that ghost go pb.

[Patler]

There is something else:

Wikipedia has him listed as 6 foot even and 216. Somewhere else he is listed as 6' even and 221. That is the thinnest 220 pounder at six feet I have ever seen.

Starks at 6' 2", 218 looks more like a fireplug.

Funny, I don't see that type of difference at all between Starks and Montgomery.

I remember back to scouting reports and training camp reports his rookie year that said he doesn't look like a WR, but does look like a RB. One commented on his big legs, like a RB's. One of the beat reporters said that during locker room interviews, people who didn't recognize him often mistook him for a RB. This year during his "transition" team mates have said people don't realize how big and strong he really is. He sure looked like it on several runs yesterday.

[yetisnowman]

I agree with all of that. My only dispute has been with the statements that Montgomery can't be used like a regular RB.

I would like to see Lacy and Montgomery both next year. MM typically alternates backs when he actually gives them carries in a game, so both would be used, and neither would be overworked. I don't have much feeling about Michael yet, but history has been that there is little need for a 3rd RB in Green Bay under MM anyway. Most of the time the third RB isn't even active on game days unless and until one of the 1st two is injured. Without a role on ST, the third RB is a wasted game day spot under MM.

History has shown little need for 3rbs? Yeah you have to go all the way back to November to see how an extra running back would be helpful.

[vince]

http://www.stanforddaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/8C9A4146-ZF-0862-17065-1-009-660x330.jpg

[Fritz]

What a skinny little bastard.

[red]

i've said it before and i'll say it again, when when you see ty in person, he does not look like a WR, he's built like an absolute beast

and height and weight wise, he's the same or bigger then most featured backs around the league

i think the reasons people don't see him as a running back, is because of the number, a high running style, and maybe the pads. it seems to me that he wears shorter and narrower pads then most rb's

maybe once he's a full time back they'll get him some proper gear

note the difference

http://www.channel3000.com/image/view/-/35431850/medRes/2/-/maxh/365/maxw/650/-/2qodkk/-/ty-montgomery-packers-seahawks-9-20-15-jpg.jpg
https://s3media.247sports.com/Uploads/Assets/956/756/26_3756956.jpg

[red]

http://cdnph.upi.com/sv/b/i/UPI-8961477849742/2016/1/14778499204783/Fantasy-Football-Injury-Alert-Green-Bay-Packers-WR-Ty-Montgomery-OUT-vs-Atlanta-Falcons.jpg

http://a.fssta.com/content/dam/fsdigital/RSN/Wisconsin/2015/08/03/PI-NFL-Green-Bay-Packers-camp-6-080315.vadapt.980.high.47.jpg

[red]

starks is actually 2 inches taller and weighs less then monty

maybe if ty hangs out in green bay eating chicken wings and fries cheese curds and puts on 40 pounds, people will start thinking he looks like a running back around here

[pbmax]

He doesn't look like that sprint pose when he is on the field. Sill, if its a legit 215-220, he's big enough.

[Patler]

History has shown little need for 3rbs? Yeah you have to go all the way back to November to see how an extra running back would be helpful.

Yes, absolutely. In MM's history, unless the #1 or #2 is injured, the 3rd RB is pretty useless, unless he plays STs.
These are the carries by the third leading running back going back a few years:

In 2015, the Packers had 2 guys as the 3rd RB. Crocket had 9 carries; Harris had 4 carries.
In 2014, Dujuan Harris had 16 carries even though he was active for 15 games as the primary kick return man.
In 2013, Franklin had 19 carries, and that was because both Lacy and Starks were hurt, so Franklin played much of one game..
In 2011, Saine had 18 carries.

Only in 2012 when 5 different RBs started games because of injuries did more than two backs have an appreciable amount of carries, and I believe Kuhn was actually a 6th who was the primary RB one game.

Do you need to have a third back around? Sure.
Will he get very much work under MM? No, not unless the other two are hurt.
Does he need to be on the 53 man roster? No, not necessarily, because often the 3rd back is inactive under MM, if #1 and #2 are healthy and #3 is not a key ST guy. You can add him if need be. A lot would depend on the health of the first two at the start of the season.

They needed 7 CBs this year, too; but that was only because there were games when #1, 2 and 3 were all on the sidelines, and now Goodsen is gone, too.

[The Shadow]

Only if he is a bargain. I have never quite felt he was a fit for McCarthy's offense. Ty Montgomery seems to have a bit of the Matt Forte mojo - both running & receiving. Christine Michael looks like a good complement.

[red]

Only if he is a bargain. I have never quite felt he was a fit for McCarthy's offense. Ty Montgomery seems to have a bit of the Matt Forte mojo - both running & receiving. Christine Michael looks like a good complement.

the thing is, we have to add that wrinkle to the offense

fat mike has never really used the Rb's as much of a receiving threat (not compared to other teams)

and he would have to break a-rod of the habit of not taking his checkdowns and instead waiting for guys to get open deep

[TravisWilliams23]

the thing is, we have to add that wrinkle to the offense

fat mike has never really used the Rb's as much of a receiving threat (not compared to other teams)

and he would have to break a-rod of the habit of not taking his checkdowns and instead waiting for guys to get open deep

This. There was one play in the 4th qtr with the score 27-17. GB had a 3rd and 3. I saw Monty flash from Rodgers let to right just past the line of scrimmage and he had a defender beat but Arod didn't seem to even look at him and was sacked forcing a 3 and out and punt. I couldn't tell from the replay if a defender was covering the area where Monty was heading but a short 5 yard toss to your most productive player that day would have kept the drive going and clock ticking just when it mattered most. Other teams utilize this play but MM doesn't seem to put much emphasis on it for some reason.

[gbgary]

i'll go there again and say Lacy can be the fb that Ripkowski isn't or can't be. he's got the size and power, he's a great blocker, he's best as a straight ahead runner. he can be a real weapon.

[Rutnstrut]

Monty will not hold up to the pounding of a feature back for a full season. Well he could, if he keeps doing it well stubby will use him less and less while claiming to be a run first type coach. Lacy and Michael as 1 and 2, and Monty to change things up. It would be killer. If they go with Monty as a primary back next year. The kid will be hurt before the half way point in the season. This is absolutely no knock on Monty, I just don't think he's a bruiser back.

[Zool]

Lacy can't seem to stay healthy either.

[King Friday]

the thing is, we have to add that wrinkle to the offense

fat mike has never really used the Rb's as much of a receiving threat (not compared to other teams)

I agree. However, to be fair, McCarthy also hasn't really had a great receiving threat at RB to work with in Green Bay during the last 6-8 years. He certainly used backs more often in that capacity in the past...both when he was OC with other teams and early on in GB.

Does McCarthy make some changes this offseason if he knows he is likely to be using Ty in the backfield a lot in 2017? Does he work with Rodgers to get him to check down more to avoid all of these damn leg injuries as he gets older? It will be interesting to see.

[vince]

https://media.profootballfocus.com/2016/12/Ty-Montgomery-vs-Bears.gif

One DB bounced off him like he was a brick wall, then he carried 2 others for 15 yards to finish that run - plus a DE and a LB.

WHY TY MONTGOMERY SHOULD GET 20-PLUS CARRIES PER GAME (https://www.profootballfocus.com/pro-time-for-packers-to-give-ty-montgomery-bigger-workload/)

the evidence is mounting that the Packers have discovered a real talent in the backfield, effectively by accident. The apprenticeship he had at receiver in his first season in the league only makes him a more dangerous weapon when he is moved into the backfield, because this is now a player with legitimate position flexibility, posing a real challenge for defenses to match up with from a personnel standpoint.
Montgomery blossoming into a star as a running back (https://www.profootballfocus.com/pro-gb-chi-grades/)

He had three big plays on the day, and finished the game with 162 yards on just 16 carries. He forced seven missed tackles, and 156 of his yards came after contact. That gave him an absurdly high elusive rating of 379.2, highlight just what a huge impact he had this week.
In Week 15, Packers RB Ty Montgomery led all running backs (min. 12 carries) in yards after contact per attempt, elusive rating, and breakaway percentage. (https://www.profootballfocus.com/pro-5-pff-stats-you-need-to-know-from-nfl-week-15/)

In addition to topping all positional peers in those categories, Montgomery also tied Falcons RB Devonta Freeman with a league-high seven broken tackles on his carries (albeit it on four less rushing attempts than Freeman). Montgomery recorded 9.8 yards after contact per attempt on his way to 162 total yards and two rushing touchdowns.

Next year, change his number to 38 and he's a game changer. I do like the idea of pairing him with Lacy and Michael though, but in my mind, Monty's the feature guy with everything he can do. If he can stay healthy the sky's the limit. What a natural. No one can open things up downfield like he can as a double threat.

[vince]

Richard Sherman and Bobby Wagner didn't want any part of him downfield either last year.

http://giant.gfycat.com/ClutteredLankyGraysquirrel.gif

[Pugger]

He learned that spin move from Eddie. :cool:

[texaspackerbacker]

And Montgomery is about twice as fast as Lacy. We've got a real gem there. One cloud in the sky, though - he's had a few injuries; I wonder if 20 carries a game or more would put him in the same category as Lacy, injury-wise. Maybe we ought to cross-train Jeff Janis too (said only half jokingly).

[gbgary]

Maybe we ought to cross-train Jeff Janis too

I'd be happy if he could just do one thing good.

[Fritz]

Janis can cover well on punts.

And I suspect we'll see that end-around, or at least the fake end-around, in the next few games. Or couple games, if they don't make the playoffs.

[Carolina_Packer]

And Montgomery is about twice as fast as Lacy. We've got a real gem there. One cloud in the sky, though - he's had a few injuries; I wonder if 20 carries a game or more would put him in the same category as Lacy, injury-wise. Maybe we ought to cross-train Jeff Janis too (said only half jokingly).

In an earlier post, I mentioned that his carries may be limited by the play calling. 16 carries seems like yeoman's duty in the Packers pass-first approach. Sometimes I think MM could have Jim Brown as his feature back and still limit his carries because of play calling preference.

[Fritz]

In an earlier post, I mentioned that his carries may be limited by the play calling. 16 carries seems like yeoman's duty in the Packers pass-first approach. Sometimes I think MM could have Jim Brown as his feature back and still limit his carries because of play calling preference.

I believe Jim Brown had the great Otto Graham as QB, but Brown still got to tote the rock frequently, or, as we used to say, he carried the ball frequently.

[Smidgeon]

https://media.profootballfocus.com/2016/12/Ty-Montgomery-vs-Bears.gif

One DB bounced off him like he was a brick wall, then he carried 2 others for 15 yards to finish that run - plus a DE and a LB.


Still doesn't know how to cover up the ball though.

[Pugger]

Janis can cover well on punts.

And I suspect we'll see that end-around, or at least the fake end-around, in the next few games. Or couple games, if they don't make the playoffs.

Did we fake one on Sunday in the second half?

[Patler]

In an earlier post, I mentioned that his carries may be limited by the play calling. 16 carries seems like yeoman's duty in the Packers pass-first approach. Sometimes I think MM could have Jim Brown as his feature back and still limit his carries because of play calling preference.

Eddie Lacy has averaged 15.5 carries/game for the Packers, so, ya, 16 per game is about all we should expect for Montgomery.

[gbgary]

Still doesn't know how to cover up the ball though.

looks to me like he covered it when he got in traffic.

[gbgary]

Did we fake one on Sunday in the second half?

yes but AR handed the ball to a rb before janis even got to him. it made no sense for him (janis) to do that. the rb immediately headed upfield. janis wasn't in motion before the ball was snapped so his movement had no effect on the chi d. with his speed you'd think they'd want him in motion (jet sweep style). they'd have the option of handing the ball to the rb (who could keep it or hand it to janis on a reverse), faking to the rb and giving it to janis (jet sweep), or Rodgers keeping it for a pass, depending on the way the d set up.

[Patler]

Still doesn't know how to cover up the ball though.

Is it any different than this by Michael?:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5UnRuvmNDA&feature=player_embedded

[KYPack]

I believe Jim Brown had the great Otto Graham as QB, but Brown still got to tote the rock frequently, or, as we used to say, he carried the ball frequently.,

Actually Brown and Otto never played together. Thanks for the mention of Graham, one of the greatest players of all-time.

Otto retired in the end of the '55 season after leading the Browns to a title game in every one of his 10 seasons. The first 4 were in the AAFC, a forerunner to the AFL. Cleveland won 7 of those title games.

Graham still "helped" the Browns by quitting. The Browns finally got a high draft pick and drafted Jim Brown, who lead 'em to 2 title games, winning the NFL in '64. In '65, Cleveland lost the title match to the pack in GB. As per usual, I was there.

Probably the coolest game I've ever been to in my life. Hornung and Taylor slogging thru the mud to beat the Browns in the first of Lombardi's 3 in a row.

[Patler]

i've said it before and i'll say it again, when when you see ty in person, he does not look like a WR, he's built like an absolute beast

and height and weight wise, he's the same or bigger then most featured backs around the league


That's exactly what several reporters said about him last year.
Just saw this in one of his draft profiles, that makes him sound more RB-ish than WR-ish:


Tightly wound with scouts questioning if he's too muscled.

[call_me_ishmael]

Reminds me of a bigger Shane Vereen or any of the other great receiving RBs that can present major match-up problems. I like him a lot. Like Matt Forte perhaps or even the guy in Arizona that everyone thinks is so fly.

[mission]

Too muscled:

http://www.packers.com/assets/images/imported/GB/photos/article_images/2016/12-december/161212-montgomery-feature-950.jpg

Looks much more like a RB with that number. Dude is what you want your RB to look like... we're just used to outliers like Big Eddie and Giraffe James.

https://www.packerforum.com/attachments/ty-montgomery-uc-davis-v-stanford-yx-onzgu9sbl-jpg.3273/

[mission]

I'm not sure I remember any Packers RB who could ever do (maybe Ahman) what Ty did in the first 1-2 yards here. Forget the rest of the run. This is no gainer every time.

(Tried to embed the Vine, but you'll have to click the link)

https://twitter.com/SeedsofJake/status/811032426067722240

[Bossman641]

Would love to see Lacy and Montgomery split backfield duties. I think the reason Monty doesn't look like an RB is because he seems to run a little upright when in the open field.

[Carolina_Packer]

When Lacy was drafted, the talking heads all said how much that weapon is going to help A-Rod. Turns out what they really needed was good offensive line play and enough of a running attack to keep the other team's defense honest. A team would always take an Adrian Peterson or Zeke Elliott type talent, but you have to have a really down year to be in line for one of those guys. Perhaps the Packers are better off not focusing on RB, but just find play makers on offense.

[texaspackerbacker]

I see Elliot every week, and there are some similarities between him and Montgomery - patience to find a hole, scooting through it with a quick burst, and ability to break tackles. I really think Montgomery could be the weapon that Lacy never quite was. I'd rather see Michael as a long term complement to him - both with breakaway speed.

I used to hate when the Packers "wasted downs" by running. With Montgomery now, and possibly with Michael taking turns at RB also, those downs don't seem wasted.

[pbmax]

Monty has very good quickness, but not breakaway speed.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Monty has very good quickness, but not breakaway speed.Settle it with a race. Keep the speediest man.

[gbgary]

I see Elliot every week, and there are some similarities between him and Montgomery - patience to find a hole, scooting through it with a quick burst, and ability to break tackles. I really think Montgomery could be the weapon that Lacy never quite was. I'd rather see Michael as a long term complement to him - both with breakaway speed.

I used to hate when the Packers "wasted downs" by running. With Montgomery now, and possibly with Michael taking turns at RB also, those downs don't seem wasted.

this pretty much. i still don't like the sideways runs because defenses are just too fast laterally.

[King Friday]

Would love to see Lacy and Montgomery split backfield duties. I think the reason Monty doesn't look like an RB is because he seems to run a little upright when in the open field.

I don't have much interest in Lacy. He simply does not fit Fat Mike's scheme, despite all the blah-blah-blah about loving to run the ball. Fat Mike is a pass first, pass second, pass third, and maybe run then, but only to keep the defense honest kind of offensive coach.

Having a guy with legit receiving skills out of the backfield is something I've wanted in Green Bay ever since Ahman left.

[Fritz]

You can never have too much talent. Sign him up on a one-or-two-year deal; see how it goes.

[beveaux1]

This is a RB that had injury concerns coming out of college causing his stock to drop. He had a couple of good to very good years then a year he was out of shape and slow. This year he starts out looking like his first couple of years but he has a major injury that causes him to miss 10+ games.

With what looks like an excellent draft class, my guess is that the market will be weak for Lacy and he'll re-sign for a year or two with the Packers. This reminds me a lot of the first time Raji became a free agent and was forced to re-sign with us at a much lower cost than he felt he was worth.

This would be another position we would not have to use a draft pick on.

[Rutnstrut]

I also don't think Lacy would have been out all season had he been able to treat his injury properly at first. But due to TT not wanting to have any depth at a position he or stubby don't value. They pushed lacy to play on one leg. Imo the Packers owe Lacy another shot, even if it is a one year deal to prove his worth.

[Fritz]

Another idiotic post: "due to TT not wanting to have any depth at a position."

Running backs coach: "We could use some depth, as I anticipate Lacy, Starks and Crockett all getting hurt for long stretches of time and two of the three being season-ending."

Thompson. "I do not care about having depth at that position."

MM: "Frankly, it does not matter to me, either."

[Pugger]

Another idiotic post: "due to TT not wanting to have any depth at a position."

Running backs coach: "We could use some depth, as I anticipate Lacy, Starks and Crockett all getting hurt for long stretches of time and two of the three being season-ending."

Thompson. "I do not care about having depth at that position."

MM: "Frankly, it does not matter to me, either."

But it wasn't the best scenario to only have 2 HBs on the roster going into the season. RB is a brutal position and those guys get pretty banged up over the course of a season. I hope we have Ty, Eddie and Christine on the roster next year. This would be a pretty nice stable of backs to have along with Rip at FB.

[pbmax]

But it wasn't the best scenario to only have 2 HBs on the roster going into the season. RB is a brutal position and those guys get pretty banged up over the course of a season. I hope we have Ty, Eddie and Christine on the roster next year. This would be a pretty nice stable of backs to have along with Rip at FB.

They had 3 or 4 at the end of camp. 2 were hurt and one ended up on the PS. The Vikings kid also didn't make it for some reason. I don't think the roster plan was ever for two.

You can't fit the ideal number of players at each position when injury strikes. You have to balance out good players and replacement level to cover a job for a week.

[Fritz]

My quibble is with the absurd notion that Thompson doesn't care about it.

[Rutnstrut]

My quibble is with the absurd notion that Thompson doesn't care about it.

There is no quibble, TT and stubby have never put much value on the RB position.

[George Cumby]

So they drafted Lacy in the second round?

That's a high pick for something you don't care about.

[Harlan Huckleby]

So they drafted Lacy in the second round?

That's a high pick for something you don't care about.

The announcers said Christine Michael was drafted one pick later.

I'd rather have Michael.

[Patler]

So they drafted Lacy in the second round?

That's a high pick for something you don't care about.

Brandon Jackson was a second round pick, too.
Alex Green was a third.

Clearly they don't value RBs.

[Netmag]

I guess we'll see how pissed off they really were during the fat issue (i.e. having to publicly warn him and what not) and whether they really feel like he addressed it well enough. If they make a strong run with Ty, they may just open it up and maybe draft another back, but I think a lot will have to do with the money too.

[texaspackerbacker]

The announcers said Christine Michael was drafted one pick later.

I'd rather have Michael.

me too

[George Cumby]

The announcers said Christine Michael was drafted one pick later.

I did not know this.

[George Cumby]

Brandon Jackson was a second round pick, too.
Alex Green was a third.

Clearly they don't value RBs.

Clearly.

[bobblehead]

I also don't think Lacy would have been out all season had he been able to treat his injury properly at first. But due to TT not wanting to have any depth at a position he or stubby don't value. They pushed lacy to play on one leg. Imo the Packers owe Lacy another shot, even if it is a one year deal to prove his worth.

Thats a very in depth analysis of Lacy's injury without having evaluated him, and I'm just guessing you aren't a doctor.

[bobblehead]

But it wasn't the best scenario to only have 2 HBs on the roster going into the season. RB is a brutal position and those guys get pretty banged up over the course of a season. I hope we have Ty, Eddie and Christine on the roster next year. This would be a pretty nice stable of backs to have along with Rip at FB.

So with all this talk of how bad TT messed up your solution (a reasonable one) is to have 2 of the same 3 we had this year, minus starks, plus michaels.

[Rutnstrut]

Thats a very in depth analysis of Lacy's injury without having evaluated him, and I'm just guessing you aren't a doctor.

I can speculate as well as anyone else on this forum.

[Zool]

Packers only draft soft players and coddle them. Or make them play injured. I can never remember which way it goes afte a win.

[Bretsky]

Brandon Jackson was a second round pick, too.
Alex Green was a third.

Clearly they don't value RBs.

or maybe they don't draft them well :)
I think they value every position

Here is one thing I don't value...two fullbacks.

I'd like to see three halfbacks that are capable on next year's roster. And one, and only one fullback on our roster during the season.

Truth be told I'm fine with Montgomery and Michael as two of them. If Michaels can get his head out of his asshole for more then one consecutive season he'd stick with a team. But he's played like a loser in the past. The Seattle beat writer came on WTMJ right after we picked him up. Nobody in Seattle cared when they let this guy go and it's because he's mind screwed.

The beat writer said odds are he'll come in looking good, and they guy is really fast and has immense talent. But then he'll take some plays off, and on a couple huge plays when you need a first down he'll run out of bounce and you'll have to punt and we'll most likely end up not caring when GB lets him go.

Right now I'm at the stage where I like Montgomery and Michaels as our best, and maybe only..change of pace runner. These two are very different and I really like that.

It will be interesting if we bring Michaels back next year. I wonder if he's just a shit attitude whose mindf'cked. But at face value dude looks good.

[Bretsky]

So with all this talk of how bad TT messed up your solution (a reasonable one) is to have 2 of the same 3 we had this year, minus starks, plus michaels.


The solution is to have three capable IMO. I'd bet you could substitute Starks (if we deem him capable) for Lacy as well IMO. Although up to this point, Starks looks really bad; I don't know why but his YPC and play is hardly roster worthy.

[King Friday]

It will be interesting if we bring Michaels back next year. I wonder if he's just a shit attitude whose mindf'cked. But at face value dude looks good.

I think we bring him back to camp, because he should be plenty cheap enough for Thompson's taste. I'm not sure if he plays well enough to earn a job on the final roster. From what I've seen so far, he's not very bright and is just fortunate to have a rocket up his ass. He's certainly not a short yardage type back, so I don't see how he pairs well with Montgomery.

Honestly, Lacy is a great partner with Montgomery...I just don't see Lacy having desire to come back to Green Bay after all the fat talk and then the team playing him on a rather significant injury. Maybe McCarthy can sweet talk Lacy, but I doubt it. So, I think Green Bay will need to find a way to get Rip ready to be the short yardage back for 2017.

[BZnDallas]

I gotta believe this is Starks last year here. I'd be ok with a Lacy, Monty, Michael backfield going into next year. Obviously that is if Lacy comes on the cheap. He and Michael need 'prove it' deals. I have my problems with TT, but blaming him bc there was no stud behind Lacy and Starks is silly and nit picky. Go down the line of other team's RB3s. Not going to find a bunch of all pros. You could say not having that RB3 helped Monty in his progression and finding a place on this team. I originally thought Cobb was going to be the kind of weapon that MM is using Monty as. But Cobb filled a need at WR and now seems to be fading out. Hope he can come back healthy if we make the playoffs. As this season progresses, the weapons are developing and this offense is putting up points. 38 vs Seabags 38 vs Minny. Both very good defenses. Not to mention this team has been playing can't lose football for the last 5 weeks. Ha, got off topic, bye bye James, thank you for your service.

[RashanGary]

I'm still hoping for a Lacy/Montgomery/rookie backfield.

[Freak Out]

I think you bring Lacy back if he has shown commitment to get in the best possible shape he can for the job he's asked to do. He is a pro athlete after all.

[RashanGary]

Open up the game with Montgomery and get the lead. Finish with Lacy.

[red]

I'm still hoping for a Lacy/Montgomery/rookie backfield.

that to me is a very good look

but keep in mind, monty will probably have a full off season play must of this year under his belt at the position, he's only going to get better

and they said yesterday during the game that he's up to 225, that makes him the perfect RB size. he just looks small cause we're use to see a running back who's pushing 300/ and because of the tiny shoulder pads

[red]

I think you bring Lacy back if he has shown commitment to get in the best possible shape he can for the job he's asked to do. He is a pro athlete after all.

he didn't last year going into a contract year, and he has not been able to work out for awhile now. why do you think he would get in shape this year?

[red]

theres also the question of, do we even need a feature back (lacy). he only averages about 15 carries per game and isn't much in the passing game

i still say, if he can stay in shape and go to a team that will give him 20-25 carries a game, he'll be one of the best in the nfl

that won't happen under M3

monty is a much better fit for his system

[King Friday]

theres also the question of, do we even need a feature back (lacy). he only averages about 15 carries per game and isn't much in the passing game

i still say, if he can stay in shape and go to a team that will give him 20-25 carries a game, he'll be one of the best in the nfl

that won't happen under M3

monty is a much better fit for his system

I completely agree...which is why I don't think there is much chance of Lacy returning to Green Bay. It isn't that Green Bay wouldn't take him back...it is that Lacy probably has had enough of the Packers and is looking to move on to a team that will feature him 20-25 times a game. You have to think some other NFL team will be willing to do that.

[Bretsky]

I feel the need for speed; I want Michaels or a burner draft picks as one of the RB's

Everybody noted Lacy for a bargain. What are we willing to pay ? 1 Year 5 MIL ? More ?

Put me I the who cares category for Eddie

[Pugger]

I'm still hoping for a Lacy/Montgomery/rookie backfield.

Me too.

[Freak Out]

he didn't last year going into a contract year, and he has not been able to work out for awhile now. why do you think he would get in shape this year?

I never said he would. I said if he changed his ways it's worth a look. Obviously no guarantee he won't get huge again.

[pbmax]

Whatever weight he was at this year was fine as he seemed to be in shape. That's all he needs.

If he wants a long career, then he needs to slim down. But I am only concerned about next two years with a new deal.

[Fritz]

Whatever weight he was at this year was fine as he seemed to be in shape. That's all he needs.

If he wants a long career, then he needs to slim down. But I am only concerned about next two years with a new deal.

Clearly you don't care about these players as human beings, like I do.

[vince]

https://media.profootballfocus.com/2016/12/Ty-Montgomery-vs-Bears.gif

One DB bounced off him like he was a brick wall, then he carried 2 others for 15 yards to finish that run - plus a DE and a LB.

WHY TY MONTGOMERY SHOULD GET 20-PLUS CARRIES PER GAME (https://www.profootballfocus.com/pro-time-for-packers-to-give-ty-montgomery-bigger-workload/)

Montgomery blossoming into a star as a running back (https://www.profootballfocus.com/pro-gb-chi-grades/)

In Week 15, Packers RB Ty Montgomery led all running backs (min. 12 carries) in yards after contact per attempt, elusive rating, and breakaway percentage. (https://www.profootballfocus.com/pro-5-pff-stats-you-need-to-know-from-nfl-week-15/)


Next year, change his number to 38 and he's a game changer. I do like the idea of pairing him with Lacy and Michael though, but in my mind, Monty's the feature guy with everything he can do. If he can stay healthy the sky's the limit. What a natural. No one can open things up downfield like he can as a double threat.

Obviously Lacy brings some things Monty doesn't, but he doesn't draw people off their assignment and open up man coverage like this:

http://m.packers.com/images/default-source/Article-Images/161227-wymm-1.gif

[King Friday]

Obviously Lacy brings some things Monty doesn't, but he doesn't draw people off their assignment and open up man coverage like this

Absolutely. This offense NEEDS a dynamic receiving threat out of the backfield. Lacy is not that kind of player.

[Rutnstrut]

It's odd how I watch these other teams have success with being deep at RB. The Patriots must not know what they are doing with all their depth at RB, nor the Cowboys, or Giants...

[Harlan Huckleby]

Is the Eddie Lacy question still unsettled?

Cut ties and develop youngsters. Use a 3rd round pick. Send Michaels to Tony Robbins Self Improvement seminar. Monty has upside.

[gbgary]

Is the Eddie Lacy question still unsettled?



it'll be unsettled until the Packers decide what's up.

[Rutnstrut]

Keep Lacy on the cheap if possible. Keep Michaels, and draft a late round RB. Also bring in some camp bodies at RB.

[smuggler]

I like having Monty in the backfield. He can swing out to WR without substitution and it really fucks with the opposing defense. It basically got us a free first down late in the game tonight, because the Leos tried to sub and got caught with 12-men participation. Cobb did it a few times, but Monty is much better in the backfield, and about as good at WR if 2016 is to be believed.

[call_me_ishmael]

I have been clamoring for a Shane Vereen type guy for years. Monty is a bigger Shane Vereen. Remember how NE used to pass to him to set everything up in their quick pass offense? That dink-and-dunk attack could be equivalent in Green Bay.

Monty is 225 which is thick but he is also hella tall for an RB at 6'2". Something to keep in mind.

[smuggler]

Green Bay's offense this year looks very Patriotesque, at least in the past 6 games. Controlling games with short passes. Monty is part of the reason why.

[RashanGary]

Is the Eddie Lacy question still unsettled?


People used to talk about lacy getting top5 money. I always felt like he wasn't worth it because ill never be able to trust him to stay in shape.

But now we're looking at a smallish deal. 1 year, 4mil or something. Eddie has high upside. He's a powerful guy. I'd like to have him to finish games. I think he's kind of a cool piece. I'd like to see Monty and him split the load. Michael is too erratic for me. Worries me how jittery he is, like he could fuck up big at any moment.

[BZnDallas]

It's odd how I watch these other teams have success with being deep at RB. The Patriots must not know what they are doing with all their depth at RB, nor the Cowboys, or Giants...

*Yawn* Not trying to be nit picky here but the Packers had Ripkowski and Montgomery on the roster at the beginning of the season. Is that not depth by the definition? Or is depth only players you have heard of before? Lacy and Starks go down, and the two other players step up from the roster? That sounds like depth to me. You might not have known who Monty was, I might not have known who Monty was, but TT and MM can't get any credit for knowing who Monty is? Had he not been hurt last year, we both might have a better understanding of what TT and MM already had. I'm much more inclined to give credence to negative posters if they aren't ALWAYS negative. Lets face it, you don't make the playoffs 8 straight years by having trash lead the organization. Mix in a positive post now and again and your opinions start to be more than mere entertainment.

[pbmax]

Green Bay's offense this year looks very Patriotesque, at least in the past 6 games. Controlling games with short passes. Monty is part of the reason why.

He is, but that part of the game is more infrequent than it should be. Packers spent entire first half with the drop back and see what develops offense.

Cook and Monty much more involved later.

[Harlan Huckleby]

But now we're looking at a smallish deal. 1 year, 4mil or something. Eddie has high upside. He's a powerful guy.

I don't think TT sees 4M as smallish. If they think they can get similar production out of a 1M back, they'll do the swap. I agree that Lacy would be good to have on the roster as a spare tire (pun intended.) But he wants to be featured back, of course.