Quote Originally Posted by Harlan Huckleby View Post
He doesn't look like a low-to-ground, low center of gravity guy that can deal with hits and flailing arms inside the tackles. Does he have thick legs and hips? He does look effective with a little bit of space - draws, pitchs. He is OK as wingback in the shotgun.

Maybe I am seeing him through biased eyes, having set him as a slot WR in my head. He is OK as a role player out of backfield - effective even.
Several of the predraft evaluations said he might end up as a runningback instead of a WR. Last year one of the reporters in preseason remarked that he looked out of place with the thinner, leaner WRs and was mistaken for a RB by reporters that didn't know him. He's listed at 6'0", 216. Starks is 6'2", 218. I saw Montgomery on one of the Packer talk shows a couple weeks ago, he looked thick and muscular. There was talk last year of using him as a legitimate runner when they started using him in the backfield before his injury.

I suspected at the end of training camp that one of the reasons they had so many WRs on the final roster and just two RBs was that they intended to use Montgomery as more than just a gimmick in the backfield. I don't think his tranistion to RB was just because of the injuries to Lacy and Starks.

I thought he already looked more runningback-like last week. 25-30 carries a game? Probably not, but maybe 10-15 carries.