Moron Files: Greg Bedard

[Joemailman]

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

[RashanGary]

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

[Fritz]

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

[retailguy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[mission]

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

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

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

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

[sharpe1027]

Re: Moron Files: Greg Bedard

JSO Blog - Greg Bedard - Sept 19, 2010 accessed 8:19 PM CDT

3. No major injuries: Let's face it, the Eagles and Bills haven't exactly been elite teams the first few weeks. Packers had two season-ending injuries in Week 1 (Ryan Grant, Justin Harrell); none today. Health will be a key factor for this team this year. Probably moreso than for other teams because of the way Ted Thompson constructs his teams.

I think this may be a demonstrably false statement. Bedard is taking another dig at Thompson's preference not to fill roster depth with veterans.

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

[Bossman641]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Bossman641]

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

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

[mraynrand]

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

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

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

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

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

[mraynrand]

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

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

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

[retailguy]

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

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

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

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

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

Case in point - Vincent Jackson.

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

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

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

[Tony Oday]

Kuhn had 9 for 36

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

[Patler]

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

[sharpe1027]

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

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

Jesus never signed a Charles Woodson caliber free agent.

[hoosier]

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

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

Jesus never signed a Charles Woodson caliber free agent.

Nominated for post of the day.