NDPackerFan said:Actually, I might be in the minority that thinks the Pack should have kept Davenport. He might be the only RB we had that can pound out 3 yards a carry with absolutely no hole to run through. Until the line can start getting the job done up front, we will need a "bruiser" of a RB, like #44.
NDPackerFan said:Actually, I might be in the minority that thinks the Pack should have kept Davenport. He might be the only RB we had that can pound out 3 yards a carry with absolutely no hole to run through. Until the line can start getting the job done up front, we will need a "bruiser" of a RB, like #44.
Greg C. said:NDPackerFan said:Actually, I might be in the minority that thinks the Pack should have kept Davenport. He might be the only RB we had that can pound out 3 yards a carry with absolutely no hole to run through. Until the line can start getting the job done up front, we will need a "bruiser" of a RB, like #44.
The trouble is that he really couldn't be counted on to pound out those three yards. Often he was stopped cold, especially in this preseason. And he never looked like a threat to break a long one. Personally, I think he lost a step or two over the past couple years. I remember that huge game he had against the Rams a few years ago, and I also remember how great he was at returning kickoffs that one year. He was fast, and tacklers would bounce off of him. I never saw that kind of explosiveness from him again. I think the injuries have taken their toll.
NDPackerFan said:He never really was a threat to break a long one. He got the tough yards when the line wasn't able to open up running lanes. I'm just saying that if our O-Line isn't opening up holes, who's going to make a hole and pound out 3-4 yards?