Packers drafting RB's

[packers11]

Whats the deal??? Rb's are dime a dozen... Do we need a new scout for RB's??? The past couple of years have been terrible... Why can't the packers draft a RB and get atleast 1k yards. It should not be that hard since they never see a stacked box...

http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/draft/positions/_/id/9/year/2012/runningbacks

Look at 3rd round or later... Bunch of players that are an upgrade over Green/Grant...

Speaking of Green, it looks like he is not fully healed or was he not that fast to begin with??? When are we going to see a 30+ yard run... I miss the days of Ahman Green

[Patler]

Speaking of Green, it looks like he is not fully healed or was he not that fast to begin with??? When are we going to see a 30+ yard run... I miss the days of Ahman Green

When? 10/7/2012 against the Colts.

Alex Green for 41:

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-h...en-41-yard-run

[run pMc]

Well, GB had no shot at Trent Richardson, and pass rush needed help more than the running game. Tampa traded up to get the Muscle Hamster. The others are role players.
The GB offense is all about the passing game. You'd have to draft someone who is better than Rodgers right now to justify turning the offense into Minnesota Vikings East, and nobody wants to copy those weenies anyway.

M3 has started to platoon his backs more, probably out of necessity. As long as he does that GB will be hard-pressed to have a 1K+ rusher. Grant, who they just signed, was the last one, and he was an afterthought in the 2009 offense. I'm not against having a 1K rusher, I'd like it actually, but I think the last few drafts haven't had a lot TT liked. With the constellations of Cutler-Marshall-Forte, AP, and Stafford-Megatron in the division, it's hard to argue for drafting a RB who might not pan out at the expense of improving the defense.

FWIW, there isn't a single RB ranked in this upcoming draft's listing:

http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/draft/rankings?year=2013

so either this is another bad year for RB's or the ESPN jerks haven't gotten around to ranking them yet.

[Lurker64]

I think it's less about scouting and more about system focus. Compare the offensive systems of Houston and Green Bay. Houston keys everything off the run, Green Bay keys everything off the pass. You've only got so much time in practice, so whatever you most want to do, you emphasize, and whatever you emphasize is what your players are best at. Houston's not a great passing team, Green Bay's not a great running team.

Regarding the draft, this tend to has the effect where Green Bay appears to value RBs less than other positions, but there's also the fact that generally when there's an RB who would be perfect for Green Bay, this player tends to get picks before it would make sense for Green Bay to select him (or alternatively a player who would be a better pick is generally available in the appropriate slot.)

It's hard to rip TT for passing on Stevan Ridley to take Randall Cobb or passing on Bernard Pierce to take Casey Hayward, even if Ridley and Pierce could have been stars in this offense.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Just take Montee Ball this next draft and be happy.

[Lurker64]

Just take Montee Ball this next draft and be happy.

It's easy to say "they should take a player", since a whole lot of players in the draft would help the Packers but you can't take all of them. So the question is "when do you take him" and "do you take him over all these other guys."

I mean, do you take him in the first round instead of a guy like John Cooper or Barrett Jones who could play Center for 10 years? Do you take him in the 2nd round instead of a guy you could develop into a stud DE like SMU's Margus Hunt? If you wait to the third, is he going to be there?

Falling in love with specific players is the mistake our previous GM made frequently, which resulted in gems like "Trading up in the fourth round to select B.J. Sander."

[Guiness]

It's easy to say "they should take a player", since a whole lot of players in the draft would help the Packers but you can't take all of them. So the question is "when do you take him" and "do you take him over all these other guys."

I mean, do you take him in the first round instead of a guy like John Cooper or Barrett Jones who could play Center for 10 years? Do you take him in the 2nd round instead of a guy you could develop into a stud DE like SMU's Margus Hunt? If you wait to the third, is he going to be there?

Falling in love with specific players is the mistake our previous GM made frequently, which resulted in gems like "Trading up in the fourth round to select B.J. Sander."

Or this past year, do you take him in the 2nd...and give up Casey Hayward's 5 INTs?

[packers11]

run pmc and Lurker that is why I said "3rd round or later" ... I believe RB's are a dime a dozen...

Patler - You know I didn't mean exactly that number...

But lets ponder this stat...

The Green Bay Packers have not had a rusher get over 100 yards in 39 REGULAR SEASON GAMES and counting...

The next team??? Carolina Panthers at 23...

I understand the packers are a pass team first... Hell... I would go to a 80/20 pass/run ratio with the talent they have at RB...

Even a team like the Saints in 2011 who had Drew Brees throw 657 pass attempts still had a couple 100 yard rushers that season...

[RashanGary]

Probably the most annoyed I was with TT was when he gave up the farm to get Clay Matthews, a guy who barely played defense in college football. With that preamble, I move on.

I am really disappointed TT didn't keep Grant.


All off season, MM talked about the running game needing to get the yards that are there and not fumble. Essentially, they were talking about Ryan Grant.

New England does it similarly to what MM wants. They get a back, who's maybe not overtalented, but a guy who can get those 4 yards regularly. Grant did that every year he was here. 2nd and 6 is a good down for us. 3rd and 3 is a good down for us. Like NE, we have more than enough big play firepower, and that firepower goes off with a much louder bang when we have favorable down and distance.

TT did the very opposite as far as how he filled out the RB roster. Starks, a pretty fast guy, big, strong. . . . Can't find a hole. Loses yards, inconsistent. . One good game this year and a few two years ago is hardly something to cream our pants over. But he has high potential. He looks, at times, like he has something special. Unfortunately, our offense is talor made for a back who gets the quick yards, even if he's not a game breaker.

Then there's Alex Green. I'll admit, I loved him at Hawaii. He's had problems hitting the inside runs and gets tackled by pinkies on outside runs. If he could step over a hand, he'd have huge runs. HUGE. If you look at some of the space he's had, it's sick. Tackled every time. He also gets tackled sideways and backwards more than I've ever seen in a RB. I didn't know it was even possible to be such a pussy. High potential though. Great in the open field, fast. . . Has some game breaker qualities.

TT took flyers on big time talent when all we needed was a good back. Look at NE. Our defense is a lot better than theirs. Their offense is a lot better than ours. Why? Consistent, but unspectacular running. Favorable down and distance. Exactly what MM wanted, exactly what RG gave us.

[Patler]

run pmc and Lurker that is why I said "3rd round or later" ... I believe RB's are a dime a dozen...

Patler - You know I didn't mean exactly that number...

But lets ponder this stat...

The Green Bay Packers have not had a rusher get over 100 yards in 39 REGULAR SEASON GAMES and counting...

The next team??? Carolina Panthers at 23...

I understand the packers are a pass team first... Hell... I would go to a 80/20 pass/run ratio with the talent they have at RB...

Even a team like the Saints in 2011 who had Drew Brees throw 657 pass attempts still had a couple 100 yard rushers that season...

No I didn't think you meant any particular number, I thought you meant a long run, and they did have one this year; but that doesn't say much. It was just the one over.

With how little they run the ball to begin with, and the way they now tend to divide carries among several backs, it is hard for any packers runner to go over 100.

[Cheesehead Craig]

It's easy to say "they should take a player", since a whole lot of players in the draft would help the Packers but you can't take all of them. So the question is "when do you take him" and "do you take him over all these other guys."

I mean, do you take him in the first round instead of a guy like John Cooper or Barrett Jones who could play Center for 10 years? Do you take him in the 2nd round instead of a guy you could develop into a stud DE like SMU's Margus Hunt? If you wait to the third, is he going to be there?

Falling in love with specific players is the mistake our previous GM made frequently, which resulted in gems like "Trading up in the fourth round to select B.J. Sander."

Not saying to trade up to take a player over his value. My point with bringing up Ball is that he's a quality, proven talent at a position of great need on the Packers. Fine, replace his name with another proven RB that has a history of making tough runs and not get tackled by someone's pinky.

My point is invest a quality pick for a quality player at the RB position. It's been ignorned for far too long of a time and the offense is showing the lack of a running game this year is adversely affecting it. The league caught up to the Pack with their pass pass pass offense from last year. They need a tough RB and TT needs to get one and likely he'll have to pay for it.

[ThunderDan]

Probably the most annoyed I was with TT was when he gave up the farm to get Clay Matthews, a guy who barely played defense in college football. With that preamble, I move on.

I am really disappointed TT didn't keep Grant.


All off season, MM talked about the running game needing to get the yards that are there and not fumble. Essentially, they were talking about Ryan Grant.

New England does it similarly to what MM wants. They get a back, who's maybe not overtalented, but a guy who can get those 4 yards regularly. Grant did that every year he was here. 2nd and 6 is a good down for us. 3rd and 3 is a good down for us. Like NE, we have more than enough big play firepower, and that firepower goes off with a much louder bang when we have favorable down and distance.

TT did the very opposite as far as how he filled out the RB roster. Starks, a pretty fast guy, big, strong. . . . Can't find a hole. Loses yards, inconsistent. . One good game this year and a few two years ago is hardly something to cream our pants over. But he has high potential. He looks, at times, like he has something special. Unfortunately, our offense is talor made for a back who gets the quick yards, even if he's not a game breaker.

Then there's Alex Green. I'll admit, I loved him at Hawaii. He's had problems hitting the inside runs and gets tackled by pinkies on outside runs. If he could step over a hand, he'd have huge runs. HUGE. If you look at some of the space he's had, it's sick. Tackled every time. He also gets tackled sideways and backwards more than I've ever seen in a RB. I didn't know it was even possible to be such a pussy. High potential though. Great in the open field, fast. . . Has some game breaker qualities.

TT took flyers on big time talent when all we needed was a good back. Look at NE. Our defense is a lot better than theirs. Their offense is a lot better than ours. Why? Consistent, but unspectacular running. Favorable down and distance. Exactly what MM wanted, exactly what RG gave us.

I thought Benson was very effect before he went out.

[Lurker64]

Not saying to trade up to take a player over his value. My point with bringing up Ball is that he's a quality, proven talent at a position of great need on the Packers. Fine, replace his name with another proven RB that has a history of making tough runs and not get tackled by someone's pinky.

My point is invest a quality pick for a quality player at the RB position. It's been ignorned for far too long of a time and the offense is showing the lack of a running game this year is adversely affecting it. The league caught up to the Pack with their pass pass pass offense from last year. They need a tough RB and TT needs to get one and likely he'll have to pay for it.

But there are still guys in this draft I would jump to take who are not running backs, and I would be satisfied with the draft when those selections preclude spending a high pick on a known quantity at RB.

I mean, potentia stud S, potential stud C, potential stud DE, quality WR, or "average starting quality RB"?

[Smeefers]

I would have no problem what so ever if TT drafted O and D line in the first 3 rounds every year.

That being said, our only substantial weakness - when everyone is healthy - is at RB. You might be able to throw in LT, but I think Newhouse is serviceable and I haven't given up on Sherrod yet. Next year they're going to be drafting to replace guys like Woodson and Picket, who are getting a little long in the tooth, but those are guys we still have who can still perform. We don't have anyone who performs on a regular basis at RB. I think proof enough of this was when Benson came in and everyone gave a big sigh of relief and said "now that's what a back is supposed to look like." Some washed up 30+ old back who didn't have a hint of interest from any other team got that kind of response from the fans. All he did was cut once, bruise a guy and fall forward and most fans were in seventh heaven.

I believe our team has been built to be good for years to come, after years and years of putting it together. I think last years draft was proof that we have the ability to go from best player available to best player available that we need. If we reach for a RB who could go early to middle second round with our late first round, I wouldn't mind. It would be nice to get that last need out of the way. Then we can keep on keepin on and actually go back to what got us to where we are, best player available. I'm not saying I would pass on a home run to reach for a RB that can play well, but I'd pass on a ground rule double.

[pbmax]

NE has a better line (Tackles plus Mankins whenever he is healthy) and the Packers have better receivers.

I like the dual TE approach to forcing teams to play nickel and get run on or play base and watch a LB cover a TE.