1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!
    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers.

    You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member! Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!

OFFICIAL THREAD We need a running back now !!!!!

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by dogpackerz, Sep 27, 2010.

  1. Packerfury
    Offline

    Packerfury Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2009
    Messages:
    125
    Ratings:
    +18 / 0 / -0
    Look, I don't know if it is true, but think about it guys. What do the panthgers need more than anything? A receiver. And they are terrible, so they want to rebuild. When that's the case, you want to trade 1 value (williams) for 2 or more (2nd and jj). They have their new signal caller. It's rebuilding time for them. And a 2nd is a lot guys. I mean think about it. That would give them a lot of bargaining power. Like, let's say they want to jump back into the first round when they see a player they want to swoop in late in the draft. They could package our 2nd and maybe a 3rd or 4th, and still have a second pick to work with. Not to mention, second round players aren't exactly slouches. Especially the way players fall every year. Even their 2nd round pick, Jimmy Claussen, was projected by many as a top 10 pick. A second round pick is a lot guys. Drew Brees was a second round pick. Steve Smith from the panthers wasn't even taken until the 3rd round.
  2. packerbob
    Offline

    packerbob Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2009
    Messages:
    130
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

    It might not happen. The Packers realize they have a problem and they are trying to fix it. They are talking to 3 different teams (Buffalo-Lynch, Carolina-Williams or Goodsen and Houston-Slayton). If I had to guess I would think Thompson won't come up with an attractive enough package to get it done. If he's not married to his 2nd round choice next year for (Williams) or 3rd for( Lynch or Slayton) something will happen. Otherwise another rumor goes down the toilet. The players Brad and James Jones aren't the problem for Thompson, it's agreeing on the draft choice.
  3. 98Redbird
    Offline

    98Redbird Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2010
    Messages:
    785
    Location:
    Bears Country... UGH!!
    Ratings:
    +221 / 6 / -2
    I just don't want to sell the farm to bring a player in. What if we gave up a 2nd and James Jones for Williams and then Driver went down, or Jennings went down? We suddenly went from having a VERY good set of WR's to having a VERY mediocre set.

    At least now, we seem to have a passing game that can take us a ways, but If we lose Jones, then Williams would still have to run behind our below average O-Line.

    The RB position is easy to sub in guys. I really think that our backs could have success if our O-Line gave them the opportunity to. It all comes down to the O-Line. Look at the Browns. Is Peyton Hillis or Harrison an elite back? Hell no. But their offensive line is SOLID so they go out and run the ball for 150 yards and a TD like Hillis did last week. Hillis is basically a converted FB... ala Kuhn.

    It's our line. That's our RB problem.
  4. Jess
    Offline

    Jess Movement!

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2009
    Messages:
    3,118
    Location:
    Killing the buzz.
    Ratings:
    +471 / 1 / -0
    That's highway robbery.

    Surely Carolina can't be that stupid.
  5. Packerfury
    Offline

    Packerfury Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2009
    Messages:
    125
    Ratings:
    +18 / 0 / -0
    Deangelo Williams>Ryan Grant. You have to see that.
    Ryan Grant with our '09 line=1200+yds 11tds
    Deangelo Williams with our '10 line (which I think is better than our 09 line)= MORE THAN THAT
  6. 98Redbird
    Offline

    98Redbird Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2010
    Messages:
    785
    Location:
    Bears Country... UGH!!
    Ratings:
    +221 / 6 / -2
    Those are all correct and I do agree. Williams is 10X the back that Grant is and maybe it would be for the better. I just think that our O-Line IS a problem and that our current backs COULD have success behind a line that played better.

    I will say this though, if I had the choice of Williams or Lynch, I'd take Williams in a heartbeat. He's older (27 to 24 for Lynch) but he hit's the hole HARD and in a flash. He get's up field in a freaking hurry. He's fun to watch.
  7. dogpackerz
    Offline

    dogpackerz Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    228
    Ratings:
    +37 / 0 / -0
    We really need a back that can hit the hole hard and fast.....BJax just doesnt cut it yet. Kuhn is ok. Maybe Nance is going work out..

    i have a feeling were gonna see him carry the ball quite a bit, if we get a good lead.
  8. PackersRS
    Offline

    PackersRS Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2008
    Messages:
    8,471
    Location:
    Porto Alegre, Brazil
    Ratings:
    +979 / 0 / -0
    Yeah I agree, Williams is 10x better than Grant, ability wise, but I think the deeper problem is the OL.

    We won't know for sure unless we get a really good back, though...
  9. ivo610
    Offline

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    15,137
    Location:
    Madison
    Ratings:
    +3,604 / 91 / -35
    Your assuming that he gets as many carries I take it? And assuming he gets the blocking? Is Finley going to start learning how to block?
  10. Jess
    Offline

    Jess Movement!

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2009
    Messages:
    3,118
    Location:
    Killing the buzz.
    Ratings:
    +471 / 1 / -0
    There's no denying that Williams is a superior back to Grant.

    Whether or not you'd give up a 2 and a player to get him is a different story, but as far as who's the better back, it's DeAngelo.
  11. aaronqb
    Offline

    aaronqb Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 6, 2010
    Messages:
    583
    Ratings:
    +73 / 0 / -0
    I agree that the Packer rushing problems are primarily due to the OL. The most important thing we can do to improve the rush is to improve the OL - I believe it is more important than fixing the RB position. We have one really good run blocker (Sitton) in the starting lineup, two guys that are pretty good (Colledge and Wells), and two that are terrible and getting worse (Clifton and Tauscher).

    Let's get Bulaga into the starting lineup NOW. This fixes half of the OL problem. I'm not sure about Lang because there is no regular season body of work on which to evaluate him. But, if he is as about as good as Tauscher now, then let's get him in there too. He is young and apt to improve as the year goes on.

    As far as running backs ... I have no problem giving a high pick for a great RB. Thompson is going to need all of his picks next year, but is probably going to be looking for a RB high in the 2011 draft anyway. Even without the Grant injury, we would be looking at our primary back being 29 years old next season. That's getting old for a starting RB in the NFL. There are countless examples of guys who were great backs until they hit that age and then drop off (Shaun Alexander would be a good example .. not sure when LT or Emmitt hit the wall, but it happens fast). Using a high draft pick basically just accelerates the acquisition process by 1 year for the RB.

    I wouldn't be so quick to throw in James Jones. Driver is 35 years old and we may just be creating a problem at WR if we trade one for a RB. Without Jones, we have 3 proven receivers - Jennings, Driver, and Nelson - and there is no room for an injury at that point given the frequency that the Packers use 3-receiver sets.

    I would have no problem throwing in someone like a Donald Lee or Brady Poppinga or a FB , but none of them are that attractive and would probably not help our offer by very much.
  12. ivo610
    Offline

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    15,137
    Location:
    Madison
    Ratings:
    +3,604 / 91 / -35
    sure but I am not sure switching backs is the solution. ****** blocking seems to be the biggest issue in my eyes. I am not sure if AP could run behind our line.
  13. ivo610
    Offline

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    15,137
    Location:
    Madison
    Ratings:
    +3,604 / 91 / -35
    Emmitt hit the wall about 31 or 32 depending on what you consider a decline. Ricky Williams is the only one who comes to mind that ran great after 30. Maybe the NFL should allow medical mary j
  14. PackerManLV
    Offline

    PackerManLV Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2010
    Messages:
    107
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0
    Guys and gals the reason y we need a not 1 dimentional rb, our o-line not clicking, khun strong as hell but no burst b-jax good 3rd down back no burst. By sayin this I am saying we are limited to running inside the tackles we can't do any stretch plays no tosses there's no threat what so ever in our run game. This is why I would love to see d. Williams in the green and gold along with the bruiser khun.
  15. Kitten
    Offline

    Kitten Feline Cheesehead Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2010
    Messages:
    5,052
    Location:
    Philly/ South Jersey area
    Ratings:
    +1,399 / 7 / -1
    Packer Fan Since:
    1993
    Question, with all this talk of acquiring a running back. Is it worth it right now to trade players/ draft picks for a RB or is there another position that we may need help with more? To me it's a question of what do we need the most and how feasible is it going to be to obtain it. Some things aren't worth trading off more than we'd get back. I'm all for trading for a RB, I think the run game is vital to an overall dynamic of an offense. You want to be able to attack from different angles as opposed to one dimensional play. If we get a RB, I still wouldn't look for immediate results. The player would have to acclimate himself with the offense, practice plays and such. I think it would ultimately help in the long term, say if we have an established run game come play-off time, I think we would reap the benefits abundantly. We are looking to elevate our team that not only can get to the SB, but is fully capable of winning it.
  16. PackerBacker92
    Offline

    PackerBacker92 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2010
    Messages:
    7
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    Saying hes leaving then coming back, why does this sound so familiar?
  17. Green_Bay_Packers
    Offline

    Green_Bay_Packers Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2007
    Messages:
    5,629
    Location:
    Blackburn, England, United Kingdom
    Ratings:
    +109 / 1 / -0
    hahaha lol :d
  18. chucknorris101
    Offline

    chucknorris101 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2010
    Messages:
    416
    Ratings:
    +35 / 0 / -0
    in all honesty i dont think we really need a RB, with how good our passing game is we can throw at will. to be honest i got incredibly frustrated every time we ran the ball even with grant because itd be so much easier to just pass. chicago knew it was coming, buffalo knew it was coming. they could not stop it. period. rodgers would have had well over 400 yards and at least 3 TD's if not for the piles of penalties against the bears. despite the rest of the team, the bills secondary is pretty good with byrd. chicago's secondary may not be great but they dropped everyone into coverage, and we still moved the ball at will.

    you know why the packers were cramping? thye were on the field for so long that they just ran out of fluids. our offensive prowess could actually have cost us the game. we spent so long driving down the field and getting knocked back on the long drive where quarless dropped the TD that the bears didnt have it for most of a quarter. jmike wasnt on the field because of cramps. without the extensive drive controlling the clock, jmike would have been the one in the end zone to catch that TD instead of quarless. theres the game.

    really, all we have to do is get more disciplined and not play in chicago anymore, and we'll be super bowl bound. one of those two is already accomplished. hell, i cant even blame the line too much because the defensive line of the bears was jumping and baiting them all night. They did a terrific job of keeping those cheaters off of arod, 0 sacks iirc. half of the false starts should have been encroachments. at least.

    we're going to be fine people. the bears did NOT win that game, they got lucky/paid off calls from the refs, and thats that. we will show them how much better we are at lambeau.

    and i wont wear my rodgers jersey. that will seal the deal.
  19. Packerfury
    Offline

    Packerfury Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2009
    Messages:
    125
    Ratings:
    +18 / 0 / -0
    I disagree. You really think the vikings o oline is that good? Mckinnie is way overrated, and hutch is the only true elite player on that line. and they really aren't getting great pass protection this year for favre. AP will run well behind any line. And Grant can run well behind our line. He proved it last year. Unless you are trying to say Grant is better than AP, well, then I would also have to disagree. He ran well in game 1. I mean 8 carries for 45 yards is a 5.25 average. Right now critiscism against our line is a little over the top becaise of all the holding calls the other night. It's our backs more than our line. Though I'm not trying to say we have a great line or anything. But are you trying to tell me that it's just a big coincidence that when Grant goes out our linemen just suddenly lose the ability to block? You think that's a coincidence?
  20. 98Redbird
    Offline

    98Redbird Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2010
    Messages:
    785
    Location:
    Bears Country... UGH!!
    Ratings:
    +221 / 6 / -2
    Okay, I saw this on another Packers forum. The author of this post seems to be their forums "Insider"... No clue if it has even an ounce of merit but here it is:

    UPDATE: Wednesday September 29th, 10:30pm (pst):

    As of 8pm pst the Panthers are listening to the Packers and the two sides are still talking players & picks, but the Panthers want to see what happens with their next 2 games (against the Saints and Bears). If they lose both games, the Panthers would be 1-5 and a deal is likely to happen IF the two sides (the Packers & Panthers) can (1) agree on compensation and (2) the Packers can sign Williams to a new deal that would keep him a Packers beyond the 2010 season according to a source with knowledge of the situation. The dialogue is good and going in a very positive direction.

    Keep an eye on James Jones during these trade discussions as a possible trade chip. The Panthers need another WR opposite of Steve Smith (and would allow them to move Branden LaFell to the slot when they go 3 wide) and Jones could be a key figure in a potential Williams deal.

    NOTHING is eminent regarding Williams or Marshawn Lynch for that matter. The Bills want a starting offensive lineman (a tackle to be specific) and a 2nd round pick for Lynch. That's a steep price to pay for Lynch who has a well documented off the field history. I was told by a source with knowledge of the trade talks that if the Packers were to pay that high of a price for a player it would be for Williams who has no character issues and has a reputation of being a great teammate and a smart football player.
  21. turbo69
    Offline

    turbo69 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2010
    Messages:
    702
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +41 / 0 / -0
    I totally agree with these points. Cliftons weakness is run blocking. Since his strong point is .....suppose to be his pass blocking.......(and he is struggling with that)......get Bulaga in now. If I know Cliftons weak point is run blocking, what about a pro NFL team playing us? I watched a couple runs to his side, and we gained nothing. Why would we try to run on that side if he can't handle it?

    Give up a second and Jones to get Williams.......and start Bulaga and Lang. I don't think anyone can truthfully say we would not be a better team. I really would not want to give up Jones but ya got to do what ya got to do!

    As far as next years draft goes we would still have a 1st and 3rd to get a DB and a LB.

    Fire our special teams coach too. Just for the hell of it. :icon_mrgreen:
  22. Packerfury
    Offline

    Packerfury Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2009
    Messages:
    125
    Ratings:
    +18 / 0 / -0
    In order to have a great offense in this league, all you really need is a great o line, and a great qb. The rest can be filled in with role players. I truly beleive that. I mean look at the saints last year. They don't have a STAR on that offense other than Brees, and they probably have the best o line in the nfl. There receivers aren't bad, but they don't exaclty have a andre johnson or larry fitz either. They just have role players. They have a fast receiver (henderson) a possession receiver(coleston) an okay tight end (shockey) andhave backs who can catch out of the backfield (bush, Thomas). And people say, oh but they run really well too. They ran well because of Drew Brees and how much everyone feared their passing attack. We are a great o line away from having a truly dominant offense. My point is, we need to keep drafting linemen (though this draft class is a weak tackle class) And a corner or two as well. I'd be a happy man if that'w how our draft looked.
  23. packerbob
    Offline

    packerbob Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2009
    Messages:
    130
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0
    That's what I'm hearing. I hope it gets done soon. I like Williams much better than Lynch. A #2 and James Jones for Williams is a steal. Get it done Ted.
  24. PackersRS
    Offline

    PackersRS Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2008
    Messages:
    8,471
    Location:
    Porto Alegre, Brazil
    Ratings:
    +979 / 0 / -0
    I don't think it's a steal, not considering he's 27 and we have Grant...

    I'd reluctantly do it, but it's nowhere near a steal IMHO.
  25. packerbob
    Offline

    packerbob Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2009
    Messages:
    130
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

    Maybe steal is over doing it but I think it's a good trade. You have to consider Grant will be 30 and coming off an injury next year. He is also owed a ton of money for 2011.

Share This Page