This doesn't bother me, and let me explain why... btw, no it's not because I'm insensitive, I was actually rooting for the little guy, he has a great story, he has talent and I like his attitude.
Before the draft last year, someone made an observation, which at the time I brushed off. Until I thought about it a little bit more. The statement was this, "Offensive line help will do a hell of a lot more for GB's running game than a RB will."
Now, initially I didn't quite follow, maybe because we see AP twice a year and once in the playoffs, but then I thought about it, how come teams with phenomenal O lines can just plug any old guy in at RB and they take off? Why does it seem that RB on certain teams is the easiest position to fill? Guy's I've never even heard of come in and start tearing ***. Why?
Because a hole is a hole and a crease is a crease, and ANY NFL caliber runner can hit it. I get that vision comes into play, and I get that athletic ability comes into play, and I get that there's a lot more to it than that, but for the most part, if your offensive line is at least adequate, you can run with most any NFL RB. There's guys like AP, Barry Sanders and Walter Payton that can make average to below average O lines look good just based off of sheer stupidity athletically, but those guys are not standard, by any stretch of the imagination... So my point is, most any NFL caliber running back can and will have success at an NFL level behind a good offensive line.
Look at Lacy, was a stud in college, behind an o line that could probably start for most pro teams. Then look at him against the Seahawks. Run to daylight, that's a RB's job... if there's no daylight, what do you expect?? (Having GH as your starting QB doesn't help... who's going to respect that passing game?)
My point is, we've got guys on our roster that can make the other team respect the run... but if our O line cannot give him opportunities then it doesn't matter who's back there.