Will Eddie Lacy Be On Packer Roster in 2017?

[Carolina_Packer]

There were several games, even prior to Lacy getting out of shape, where his snaps were minimized by coaches choice. These weren't games where the Packers needed to abandon the run to catch up, either. I think part of it is MM and A-Rod. When push comes to shove, and you are MM, are you going to turn more to your 2-time MVP or are you going to force more of a balance between running and passing attack? Lacy's fault is getting out of shape and not reading his blocks correctly. He is not responsible for how MM chooses to use him in the offense. MM can make Lacy disappear sometimes, again, even when it's a one score game. I think it's because he leans on A-Rod so much, and with good reason.

No matter who the Packers go with at RB, as long as A-Rod can do what he is capable of doing, he's always going to be the best offensive option.

[Patler]

So far, Monty seems like he can be used as a regular back. I am willing to stipulate to that based on what he has shown this year. But there are two points to make in addition to that:

1. He does not seem like a typical short yardage banger.
2. He has no adult track record of heavy usage as a RB. So your guess is as good as mine in how he holds up. He had 38 carries in 47 games at Stanford. His high as a pro came yesterday at 16.

The first leads me to want to have Lacy and Ripkowski involved. The second leads me to want someone to develop alongside him.

Additionally, Michael's speed makes we want to find a role for him.

I agree with all of that. My only dispute has been with the statements that Montgomery can't be used like a regular RB.

I would like to see Lacy and Montgomery both next year. MM typically alternates backs when he actually gives them carries in a game, so both would be used, and neither would be overworked. I don't have much feeling about Michael yet, but history has been that there is little need for a 3rd RB in Green Bay under MM anyway. Most of the time the third RB isn't even active on game days unless and until one of the 1st two is injured. Without a role on ST, the third RB is a wasted game day spot under MM.

[pbmax]

There is something else:

Wikipedia has him listed as 6 foot even and 216. Somewhere else he is listed as 6' even and 221. That is the thinnest 220 pounder at six feet I have ever seen.

Starks at 6' 2", 218 looks more like a fireplug.

[Cheesehead Craig]

So far, Monty seems like he can be used as a regular back. I am willing to stipulate to that based on what he has shown this year. But there are two points to make in addition to that:

1. He does not seem like a typical short yardage banger.
2. He has no adult track record of heavy usage as a RB. So your guess is as good as mine in how he holds up.

Come now, not everyone can be Samkon Gado. Time to let that ghost go pb.

[Patler]

There is something else:

Wikipedia has him listed as 6 foot even and 216. Somewhere else he is listed as 6' even and 221. That is the thinnest 220 pounder at six feet I have ever seen.

Starks at 6' 2", 218 looks more like a fireplug.

Funny, I don't see that type of difference at all between Starks and Montgomery.

I remember back to scouting reports and training camp reports his rookie year that said he doesn't look like a WR, but does look like a RB. One commented on his big legs, like a RB's. One of the beat reporters said that during locker room interviews, people who didn't recognize him often mistook him for a RB. This year during his "transition" team mates have said people don't realize how big and strong he really is. He sure looked like it on several runs yesterday.

[yetisnowman]

I agree with all of that. My only dispute has been with the statements that Montgomery can't be used like a regular RB.

I would like to see Lacy and Montgomery both next year. MM typically alternates backs when he actually gives them carries in a game, so both would be used, and neither would be overworked. I don't have much feeling about Michael yet, but history has been that there is little need for a 3rd RB in Green Bay under MM anyway. Most of the time the third RB isn't even active on game days unless and until one of the 1st two is injured. Without a role on ST, the third RB is a wasted game day spot under MM.

History has shown little need for 3rbs? Yeah you have to go all the way back to November to see how an extra running back would be helpful.

[vince]

[Fritz]

What a skinny little bastard.

[red]

i've said it before and i'll say it again, when when you see ty in person, he does not look like a WR, he's built like an absolute beast

and height and weight wise, he's the same or bigger then most featured backs around the league

i think the reasons people don't see him as a running back, is because of the number, a high running style, and maybe the pads. it seems to me that he wears shorter and narrower pads then most rb's

maybe once he's a full time back they'll get him some proper gear

note the difference

[red]

[red]

starks is actually 2 inches taller and weighs less then monty

maybe if ty hangs out in green bay eating chicken wings and fries cheese curds and puts on 40 pounds, people will start thinking he looks like a running back around here

[pbmax]

He doesn't look like that sprint pose when he is on the field. Sill, if its a legit 215-220, he's big enough.

[Patler]

History has shown little need for 3rbs? Yeah you have to go all the way back to November to see how an extra running back would be helpful.

Yes, absolutely. In MM's history, unless the #1 or #2 is injured, the 3rd RB is pretty useless, unless he plays STs.
These are the carries by the third leading running back going back a few years:

In 2015, the Packers had 2 guys as the 3rd RB. Crocket had 9 carries; Harris had 4 carries.
In 2014, Dujuan Harris had 16 carries even though he was active for 15 games as the primary kick return man.
In 2013, Franklin had 19 carries, and that was because both Lacy and Starks were hurt, so Franklin played much of one game..
In 2011, Saine had 18 carries.

Only in 2012 when 5 different RBs started games because of injuries did more than two backs have an appreciable amount of carries, and I believe Kuhn was actually a 6th who was the primary RB one game.

Do you need to have a third back around? Sure.
Will he get very much work under MM? No, not unless the other two are hurt.
Does he need to be on the 53 man roster? No, not necessarily, because often the 3rd back is inactive under MM, if #1 and #2 are healthy and #3 is not a key ST guy. You can add him if need be. A lot would depend on the health of the first two at the start of the season.

They needed 7 CBs this year, too; but that was only because there were games when #1, 2 and 3 were all on the sidelines, and now Goodsen is gone, too.

[The Shadow]

Only if he is a bargain. I have never quite felt he was a fit for McCarthy's offense. Ty Montgomery seems to have a bit of the Matt Forte mojo - both running & receiving. Christine Michael looks like a good complement.

[red]

Only if he is a bargain. I have never quite felt he was a fit for McCarthy's offense. Ty Montgomery seems to have a bit of the Matt Forte mojo - both running & receiving. Christine Michael looks like a good complement.

the thing is, we have to add that wrinkle to the offense

fat mike has never really used the Rb's as much of a receiving threat (not compared to other teams)

and he would have to break a-rod of the habit of not taking his checkdowns and instead waiting for guys to get open deep