running backs

[vince]

But can one "acquire" instincts? I think that's a contradiction in terms.

And isn't there a reason he was converted to WR? Could it be he just doesn't have that RB vision?

I'd like to be wrong but I am struggling with the above questions.

Monty has good instincts with the ball in his hand. I don't want to speak for Maxie but he'll have to learn timing, flow and reading how, when and where his blockers are going to create lanes for him as a runner. Sometimes he needs to be patient, other times he needs to smash it through, and other times he'll need to cut backside. He doesn't have that, and it takes time and experience but that's definitely something he can gain with practice and repetition. Some guys never really seem to get it. I think Starks is still below average at it. Monty strikes me as a guy who gets that kind of stuff pretty quickly and has the football ability to leverage his instincts and intelligence.

[ThunderDan]

Monty has good instincts with the ball in his hand. I don't want to speak for Maxie but he'll have to learn timing, flow and reading how, when and where his blockers are going to create lanes for him as a runner. Sometimes he needs to be patient, other times he needs to smash it through, and other times he'll need to cut backside. He doesn't have that, and it takes time and experience but that's definitely something he can gain with practice and repetition. Some guys never really seem to get it. I think Starks is still below average at it. Monty strikes me as a guy who gets that kind of stuff pretty quickly and has the football ability to leverage his instincts and intelligence.

Funny, I always thought Starks was one of the best one cut ZBS runners I had seen.

[vince]

Funny, I always thought Starks was one of the best one cut ZBS runners I had seen.

Yeah just my opinion. I'd say he's had some periods where he's had really good rhythm cutting it up and he always hits it hard when he does. I think he's had just about as many periods when he seems to get into a funk missing the cutback and bouncing out to the sideline too often for no gain, or similarly getting the dropsies on screens during those same periods.

When he hits it I agree he slashes through, runs hard and covers a lot of ground with his long strides. I think sometimes he gets thinking too much (dropping passes, missing reads/adjustments blocking, not having a good sense of where the strength of the defense is and/or what their doing in run pursuit, etc. That has hurt his effectiveness at times.

That's the stuff that high football IQ guys excel at I think. Monty's got it IMO. Rodgers has it, (although he has his insecurities too which cause him to hold the ball too long too often) In my opinion, while Starks does have that great one-cut-and-punishing-finish running style that's real effective when he's on, his football IQ is average and at times his decision-making is a little off. Confidence breeds more confidence, and with him, a split second of uncertainty breeds more uncertainty. He's streaky.

Was it the Detroit game where he practically handed the linebacker in front of him the ball late in the game? That's a good example. I don't know what his rushing line looked like that game but I bet it wasn't good. I wouldn't be surprised to find out he missed a blitz pick-up too.

[yetisnowman]

I think you are being a bit naive. It's not as simple as just adding a guy to the roster. Someone has to be removed form the roster to add a player. The inactives for the Dallas game were Shields, Starks, Banjo, Rollins, Cook, Ringo and Murphy. The first five were there because of injury, the last two were healthy scratches, but players the team wants to keep for obvious reasons. At that point, I don't think they were willing to give up on the seasons for their best CB and their best ST performer. With injuries mounting, they were forced into writing them off for the season, but there wasn't a good enough reason to do so then.

The art of roster management is often one of getting by during short stretches without disrupting what you have. Montgomery was a HS running back who was converted to WR in college. Cobb has always taken snaps in the backfield. Hoping to get by with Lacy, Montgomery and Cobb for that game was not wrong, in my opinion.

I just disagree completely. Lacy has had reoccurring ankle issues and was clearly at about 75%. If we can see that in the game immediately. Obviously the staff saw that in practice. Unless we wanted Monty being our feature back,(who by the way is also coming back from a major ankle injury) it seemed pretty poorly planned. Couldn't the roster and gameplan have been managed the same vs Dallas and Chicago? Seems clear the Dallas game aggravated Lacy's injury. Which could have been avoided with a little more caution and discretion....I'm my opinion.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Sign Ray Rice!

[gbgary]

c j spiller back on the market...released by sea.

[Patler]

I just disagree completely. Lacy has had reoccurring ankle issues and was clearly at about 75%. If we can see that in the game immediately. Obviously the staff saw that in practice. Unless we wanted Monty being our feature back,(who by the way is also coming back from a major ankle injury) it seemed pretty poorly planned. Couldn't the roster and gameplan have been managed the same vs Dallas and Chicago? Seems clear the Dallas game aggravated Lacy's injury. Which could have been avoided with a little more caution and discretion....I'm my opinion.

For being "75%" Lacy looked as good as he has at anytime in the last two years. If a RB is cleared to play, you play him as you would. There are always guys who are dinged up. If you adjust the roster or your game plan every time somebody isn't 100%, you would have guys coming and going every week and no consistency in the offense or defense.

Sometime the objective is to get through a game or two as best you can without upsetting the roster. They had contingency plans for getting through without Lacy. I don't think it was a bad decision at that time.

[yetisnowman]

For being "75%" Lacy looked as good as he has at anytime in the last two years. If a RB is cleared to play, you play him as you would. There are always guys who are dinged up. If you adjust the roster or your game plan every time somebody isn't 100%, you would have guys coming and going every week and no consistency in the offense or defense.

Sometime the objective is to get through a game or two as best you can without upsetting the roster. They had contingency plans for getting through without Lacy. I don't think it was a bad decision at that time.

Well I didn't imagine him limping after every play. Sometimes you adjust your gameplan and roster when players are dinged up, and they may or may not play. Look at what Atlanta has done this week with only ONE of there two rbs questionable. Plenty of us questioned the strategy before the game and as the game was going. Trying to "get by" with one injured RB and WRs playing out of position was pretty dangerous and foolish. And it cost us. And if we keep playing Monty like a running back, he will get hurt too.

[Carolina_Packer]

Well I didn't imagine him limping after every play. Sometimes you adjust your gameplan and roster when players are dinged up, and they may or may not play. Look at what Atlanta has done this week with only ONE of there two rbs questionable. Plenty of us questioned the strategy before the game and as the game was going. Trying to "get by" with one injured RB and WRs playing out of position was pretty dangerous and foolish. And it cost us. And if we keep playing Monty like a running back, he will get hurt too.

I don't think we had a roster spot available to just sign a RB to protect Lacy and help cover for Starks who was out for personal reasons, and then suddenly for injury. So, in light of those two points, who would you have cut or sent to IR at the time to make room for temporary help at RB?

[Tony Oday]

c j spiller back on the market...released by sea.

Sign him!

[Maxie the Taxi]

Sign him!

I'd rather see Monty, Jackson and Knife Davis get the reps at RB. Spiller would just complicate and already messy situation.

[texaspackerbacker]

Exactly right. We are in a better place right now than when we had RBs with higher expectations and a damn run-first mentality. Give Montgomery the same hole as Lacy, and he generally will get twice as many yards. Yeah, there were those few exceptions where Lacy ran like a wild bull, but they were outweighed by the times he couldn't bounce outside or whatever like Montgomery or hopefully Davis can do.

The key to winning with any of them, though, is to pass pass pass pass then maybe run rarely as a change of pace.

[yetisnowman]

I don't think we had a roster spot available to just sign a RB to protect Lacy and help cover for Starks who was out for personal reasons, and then suddenly for injury. So, in light of those two points, who would you have cut or sent to IR at the time to make room for temporary help at RB?

Maybe one of the receivers that hasn't made a lick of an impact? Janis who can't seem to process and NFL playbook, or Davis who has only fair caught a few punts, or Abbrederis who barely sees the field. .........
oh wait this just in- They released Abbrederis today!!!!
This argument has been thoroughly blown out of the water.
I've never seen an NFL team go into a game with that kind of situation at running back.

[Patler]

I've never seen an NFL team go into a game with that kind of situation at running back.

Oh, heck; sure they have.
As I recall, the Packers played a game with only 1 RB, Tony Fisher, because Greene and Davenport were both out, and they didn't have pseudo RBs at WR. Asked about it afterward, Sherman said they would have gone with all receivers if Fisher got hurt.

[yetisnowman]

Well that team had 3 in the roster, not 2. And if Fisher was injured the previous week and questionable then it would be a more apt comparison. Anyway I'm not trying to belabor the point. But looking at the moves the Packers have made the last few weeks, and looking at what moves other teams make to cover their ass, I think it's fair to say the situation was mishandled. An unnecessary gamble in my opinion.