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!
    Dismiss Notice

Have the Packers EVER had a stud back?

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by Bus Cook, Sep 24, 2013.

  1. Bus Cook

    Bus Cook You're never alone with a schizophrenic

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2013
    Messages:
    464
    Ratings:
    +226
    The defensiveness here is outstanding. If the Packers didn't have a stud long snapper for 40+ years, I would find it odd. No correlation to winning superbowls. No correlation to winning records. Just odd. I am well aware that the league is pass happy, but that makes my post all the more sound. When the NFL DID value rushing, we didn't have a stud RB since Brockington, Green having been in the pass happy years. If you want to associate NOT having success with having a stub back, fine. My post had nothing to do with that though. Very simple. In 40+ years, we've had one quasi stud RB. Face Value. Nothing to read into it. Never implied that we would have gone to more SuperBowls with a stud RB. Please reread the OP and try to find the windmills that the Don Quixotes are fighting here.

    I'll try a parallel with the Bears, so as to disarm the Packer fan defensiveness here. I find it odd/concerning that the Bears have not had a stud QB in 50+ years. You almost have to try to do that. I find it truly amazing that over 50 year, they couldn't have managed, by mistake to have a stud QB. Now of course the reason is, there would be no way to have a Walter Payton and a stud QB. I know that I would rather have a Walter Payton and a dud QB over a stud QB and no Walter Payton. Funny how without a stud QB they still managed to go to Superbowls twice. You know that Brad Johnson, Jim McMahon, Trent Dilfer, Mark Ryppien, Jeff Hostettler, Doug Williams and Joe Namath have won superbowls. So there is no guarantee that you need a good QB to win a superbowl. <sarcasm off>
     
  2. Wood Chipper

    Wood Chipper Fantasy Football Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2010
    Messages:
    4,060
    Ratings:
    +1,406
  3. Wood Chipper

    Wood Chipper Fantasy Football Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2010
    Messages:
    4,060
    Ratings:
    +1,406
    Another fun video
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. 98Redbird

    98Redbird Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2010
    Messages:
    799
    Ratings:
    +234
    About the same amount of STUD QB's the Vikings/Lions/Bears have had in that time...
     
  5. Raptorman

    Raptorman Vikings fan since 1966.

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    2,251
    Ratings:
    +858
    I don't think a "stud" back is required to win these day. What you do need is a back that will get you 2 yards when you need one, a back that can pass block then slip out into the flat and catch. Someone who the defense has to respect is in the game but not game plan for. If there is one thing I wish Peterson was better at it is pass blocking. Because he is not as good as he could be, they take him out on third downs a lot. And that just keys off the defense that it's going to be a pass.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. PFanCan

    PFanCan That's MISTER Cheesehead, to you.

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2009
    Messages:
    1,533
    Ratings:
    +883
    Bus: What you meant seems to be changing from your first post.

    In your third post, you state that the absense of a stud back is "concerning". Why? If you are just pointing out "odd" factoids, why are you concerned? I think the defensive nature of the thread is stemming from your choice of using this word.

    Others are trying to tell you that you needn't be concerned as the facts seem to indicate that having a stud RB does not equate to success on the field. From my perspective, I would expect you to respond with, "wow, I didn't realize how little correlation there is between winning SBs and having a stud RB. I am no longer concerned!" Instead, you condescend.
     
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2013
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  7. packerfreak47

    packerfreak47 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2013
    Messages:
    7
    Ratings:
    +1
    In this pass happy nfl a Stud running back is not needed:(
     
  8. El Guapo

    El Guapo Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    2,653
    Ratings:
    +1,489
    ...and that the majority of your posts are critical of the Packers management, talent, etc...

    When one tends to espouse negative points of view, one tends to get argumentative responses. This isn't a Packer opponent forum, it's a Packer fan forum. I think that you're the touchy one about the responses you've received. No harm no foul though. I'm still trying to figure who your favorite team really is... The picture is coming into focus though
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  9. Bus Cook

    Bus Cook You're never alone with a schizophrenic

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2013
    Messages:
    464
    Ratings:
    +226
    Still real simple. I find it concerning, impressive and odd that any team isn't able to have stud at any position for over 40 years. Pick your team, pick you position. You have to try to not be able to have a stud there for 40+ years. If this thread gets so many other posters panties in a wad, take a swing at this. In that same 40+ year period, name another position that the Packers have not had a stud at. I can't.
     
  10. Dan115

    Dan115 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    1,810
    Ratings:
    +488

    Green was not a stud?
     
  11. Oshkoshpackfan

    Oshkoshpackfan YUT !!!

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2012
    Messages:
    3,286
    Ratings:
    +1,453
    He was indeed, but other folks want someone to get 2000+ yards year after year for 10 years to obtain "stud" status. lol
     
  12. easyk83

    easyk83 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2013
    Messages:
    818
    Ratings:
    +338
    Good question what the heck is a stud back? Are we talking about a dominant runner the kind where you only have 2-3 at most in any given decade? IE Sanders, Dickerson, Payton, Smith, Peterson, Tomlinson, Johnson? Or are we just talking about very good pro bowl runners like Green, Forte, Turner?
     
  13. ivo610

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    16,296
    Ratings:
    +4,132
    While not a rushing champ I think Faulk should get some credit. He was a 1300 yrd running back that caught as many balls as Driver in their primes. He also was probably the best player on an offense that won a SB. But for a RB to be impactful in the modern day offense I think you need him to catch balls.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. El Guapo

    El Guapo Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    2,653
    Ratings:
    +1,489
    I love the insults that you try to hurl around. You sound tough and scary.

    Why don't you tell us who your "studs" at every other position since you claim that we've had one? I'm sure that I'll find your answer to be concerning, impressive and odd.
     
  15. Bus Cook

    Bus Cook You're never alone with a schizophrenic

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2013
    Messages:
    464
    Ratings:
    +226
    Sharp, chamura/franks, wahle, clifton, flanagan, tauscher, rivera, AR/BF

    Your turn
     
  16. El Guapo

    El Guapo Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    2,653
    Ratings:
    +1,489
    Good players but Sharpe is the only "stud" that you listed. What about defense?
     
  17. Bus Cook

    Bus Cook You're never alone with a schizophrenic

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2013
    Messages:
    464
    Ratings:
    +226
    All multiple pro bowl players. I'll go with studs. I'll let you take D. Find a position where we have not had a stud in the last 40+ years.

    My point is missed by all here. We are a great team, not just today but historically. Its very hard for a team to not have a stud at almost every position if you are looking at the history of the team. Its speaks volumes about the disgraceful organisations that call themselves the Bears and Lions to have the QB problems that they've had for as long as they have. I think its remarkable that the Packers have had so much success over the years at every position. To me Green was as close as they got. Some may even call him a stud. Its only the fumbles that keep him off my stud list.
     
  18. El Guapo

    El Guapo Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    2,653
    Ratings:
    +1,489
    Nobody is surprised by you saying this
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  19. Bus Cook

    Bus Cook You're never alone with a schizophrenic

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2013
    Messages:
    464
    Ratings:
    +226
    On the offense side of the ball you've dismissed Favre and Rodgers as studs, I can't wait to see the positions that you feel have never been played by studs on defense. Its easy to play the "you're wrong" card. Step out and tell us the defensive positions that have not been "studded" over the last 40+ years.
     
  20. RockyRaccoon

    RockyRaccoon Day Tripper

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2013
    Messages:
    114
    Ratings:
    +67
    Favre and Rodgers aren't studs? :confused:

    Ahman was an absolute beast in his prime. He had some fumbling issues, but so did a certain all-world running back in Minnesota.

    The Packers aren't likely to have a "stud" running back while Rodgers is here. You simply can't afford an elite QB and elite RB on the same offense. Would you rather have an elite RB with a serviceable QB, or an elite QB with a serviceable RB?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  21. PFanCan

    PFanCan That's MISTER Cheesehead, to you.

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2009
    Messages:
    1,533
    Ratings:
    +883
    My opinions on your list of "studs":

    Sharpe = Stud.
    Chmura = Stud.
    Wahle = Good player. Not stud. One Pro Bowl season in eight years...
    Clifton = Stud.
    Flanagan = Good player. Not stud. One Pro Bowl in nine seasons...
    Tauscher = Good player. Not stud. No Pro Bowls.
    Rivera = Stud.
    AR/BF = Studs, both of them.
     
  22. Dan115

    Dan115 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    1,810
    Ratings:
    +488
    Was Jimmy Brown a stud? How many championships? I want rings not studs. You can keep your studs.
     
  23. PackerFlatLander

    PackerFlatLander Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 27, 2013
    Messages:
    481
    Ratings:
    +294
    The New York Football Giants have won the most Super Bowls in the past six years. Any stud backs there? Not even close. I think that renders enough proof about how valuable a stud back is, in the modern era. Frankly, I'm not even sure what you "need" to win a Super Bowl anymore, other than a QB and a defense, who get hot as the season closes, get in and stay hot. That's been the trend for years now.

    As for the Packers having a stud back, I'm not even sure we can give Ahman Green that much credit. During his tenure here, we had Larry Beightol (sp. ?) as the best o-line coach ever, and the o-line was excellent. ANY back, including Eddie Lee Ivery and Gerry Ellis, could have run those awesome screens the way Green did. So, in my opinion, it's tough to define a stud back. Adrian Peterson is a freak - he's inhuman and in a class of his own.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  24. 12theTruth

    12theTruth Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    I'd consider a stud running back to be the opposite of an Alex Green. Doesn't have to be All Day Peterson, just has to be someone who can fight through a tackle and get an extra yard or two after contact.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  25. DevilDon

    DevilDon Inclement Weather Fan

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    1,392
    Ratings:
    +445
    You maintain that your comments were just observations yet you describe the Bears and Lions organizations as "disgraceful" for not having a "stud" QB
    The very fact that you can name two teams within our division as being disgraceful for not having a "stud" QB speaks volumes about your awareness of what you post. Taking your point further it's "disgraceful" for the Packers to not have more than 1 "stud" RB in the same span?
    Having "studs" at each position is an anomaly not the norm. Even in long stretches. Name the "stud" QBs of each 32 teams in the last 40 years please.
    Your assertion that it's "odd" or "concerning" is just wild speculation and (I'm going out on a limb here) meant to stir up responses. You're on to something here... agreement in this forum doesn't garner much attention but you certainly have elicited attention. Hope you are enjoying your 15 minutes Bus.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1

Share This Page