Dougherty Re-Visits Lynch Non-Trade

[Deputy Nutz]

This non-deal was so minor I can't believe this guy took the time to write an article on it. It should almost be an article found in the Onion. One Super Bowl title since the trade didn't happen, and a season after the Packers have the best record in football. Lynch is a 1000 yard rusher, but he isn't special.

[Zool]

I think it was a mistake, Lynch is better on a bad day than Grant and Starks on their best days. That said, things seem to be working pretty damn good this way. But I do think lack of a real running game AND a real D will bite them in the ass eventually.

Lynch has 11 more carries (266) than Starks (133) and Grant (122) combined.
Lynch has for 29 more yards (1,118) than Starks (578) and Grant (511) combined.
Lynch has 26 receptions for 207 yards, Starks 29 for 216 and Grant 18 for 188.

So you're saying either the Packers O-line can run block substantially better than the Seahawks line, or fact is a non-issue.

Just curious which one it is.

[MadScientist]

This non-deal was so minor I can't believe this guy took the time to write an article on it. It should almost be an article found in the Onion. One Super Bowl title since the trade didn't happen, and a season after the Packers have the best record in football. Lynch is a 1000 yard rusher, but he isn't special.

It was a major point of discussion at the time, so it is worth looking at again if there isn't anything better. The real bottom line is Lynch would not have made last year any better for the Packers, and would not likely have improved their record this year. I doubt having him would make a difference in how the Packers do in the playoffs this year. With that in mind, the non-trade was the right call. Had the trade been the much discussed Hawk for Lynch, it would have been trouble for the Packers, given the injuries at LB last year.

[Upnorth]

If it were me I would take Grant and a third rd pick over Lynch.

[Brandon494]

I really don't care either way but its no doubt that Lynch would be the best running back on our roster this year. BTW those stats don't mean shit, look at Seattle passing game compared to ours. Teams stack the box against them, something they can't do with Rodgers at QB.

[Patler]

Lynch, Starks/Grant; six of one, half a dozen of the other. Lynch has his moments, just like Grant, just like Starks. I don't think the Packers would be appreciably different with Lynch in their backfield.

[denverYooper]

I really don't care either way but its no doubt that Lynch would be the best running back on our roster this year. BTW those stats don't mean shit, look at Seattle passing game compared to ours. Teams stack the box against them, something they can't do with Rodgers at QB.

He busted up San Fran's fronts a lil bit in their second meeting.

[denverYooper]

That said, it's hard to evaluate a running back in Green Bay's offense. They really only run to set up the pass or chew clock. Hard to blame them with Rodgers hitting 9.2 Yards per Attempt.

[Joemailman]

The Saints’ one edge, though, is running the ball. They have three quality backs in first-round draft pick Mark Ingram, Pierre Thomas and dangerous scatback Darren Sproles. Ingram and Thomas are probably a little better than Starks, and the Packers have no one as explosive and shifty on screens and swing passes as Sproles. Under any circumstances, but especially in winter at Lambeau, this difference in running games could be important.But if the Packers had Lynch, different story. With him as the No. 1 back and Starks the No. 2, the Packers might be almost unbeatable.

Does he really thing that Lynch and Starks would be that much better than Grant and Starks? Really?

By the way, should we tell Dougherty that Ingram was put on IR this week?

[Patler]

Ah, that green, green grass on the other side of the fence!!!!! If only it were ours!

[MJZiggy]

Ah, that green, green grass on the other side of the fence!!!!! If only it were ours!

The crap they use to get it green can have a very foul smell...

[mraynrand]

Skittles are too hard to chew in the cold of a January Lambeau field.

[King Friday]

Lynch has 11 more carries (266) than Starks (133) and Grant (122) combined.
Lynch has for 29 more yards (1,118) than Starks (578) and Grant (511) combined.
Lynch has 26 receptions for 207 yards, Starks 29 for 216 and Grant 18 for 188.

Perhaps, Patler.

But Grant and Starks have Aaron Rodgers taking the snaps, and the defense has to cover the entire field.

Who are you scared of that is tossing the ball in Seattle? I'd say the OLs are probably a push. Lynch routinely faces far more 8 man fronts than Grant and Starks do, so the fact he is producing the same tells me he is a better runner. I highly doubt either of our guys could play as well against SF.

[Brandon494]

Lynch, Starks/Grant; six of one, half a dozen of the other. Lynch has his moments, just like Grant, just like Starks. I don't think the Packers would be appreciably different with Lynch in their backfield.

Yea Grant and Starks have their moments but they don't even come close to when Lynch has his moments.

Once again stats don't always prove everything, teams focus more on stopping the run against the Seahawks because their passing game is garbage. Its no doubt in my mind that Lynch would have a higher yards per carry playing on the Packers. Also I don't need his career stats either because he played for the Bills before Seattle with JP Losman playing QB.

[Patler]

Perhaps, Patler.

But Grant and Starks have Aaron Rodgers taking the snaps, and the defense has to cover the entire field.

Who are you scared of that is tossing the ball in Seattle? I'd say the OLs are probably a push. Lynch routinely faces far more 8 man fronts than Grant and Starks do, so the fact he is producing the same tells me he is a better runner. I highly doubt either of our guys could play as well against SF.

My response is actually the rest of my early post from which only a portion was quoted. See bold text below

I'm not sure the grass is as much greener on the other side of the fence as Daugherty would have us believe. Separately in different seasons each Grant and Starks has provided very strong late season and playoff performances. I have no reason to believe that together this year they can't do the same.

The Packers O-line has been no great shakes in run blocking much of the time this year, and many of Grant's and Starks' running opportunities have been at the ends of games while running out the clock when the threat of passing was negligible. The Packers have been patching their O-line together all season.

Lynch has 11 more carries (266) than Starks (133) and Grant (122) combined.
Lynch has for 29 more yards (1,118) than Starks (578) and Grant (511) combined.
Lynch has 26 receptions for 207 yards, Starks 29 for 216 and Grant 18 for 188.

I'm not sure Lynch would provide a big difference over Starks and Grant. Grant's contributions have been downplayed by writers ever since he took over in GB and it seems that Starks is now being given the same treatment. In past years, writers liked to compare Grant and the Packers running game to teams using two backs, and routinely found Grant and the Packers lacking. Now they compare the Packers two back system to Lynch as a single primary runner and still find the Packers lacking. Yet Lynch is not now nor did he in the past outperform Grants full seasons as a single back, nor the combination of Starks and Grant this year.

I'm happy enough with Grant, Starks and Saine going into the playoffs. I have no great wish to have Lynch instead.