RB situation

[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 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.