How to handle Lacy

[brandon2348]

You seemed to want to dismiss Lacy because...in your mind he isn't a Tier 1 RB. With that, I assume you were wanting a Tier 1 RB, my bad. The type of contract being talked about with Lacy isn't even close to Tier 1 either.

If the Packers don't sign Lacy, I think it would be a mistake going into 2017 with Monty, Michael and a Rookie. Given Michael couldn't stick around with Seattle (twice) or Dallas and his lack of production in GB, he doesn't excite me one bit. If Lacy isn't signed, I would hope the Packers sign a vet FA RB to compete with Monty and a mid round rookie.

He cant be counted on. If you cant do the things a pro needs to do such as "making meetings" or "putting your career ahead of partying" along with "keeping weight in check" then you shouldn't be playing in the NFL.

Plus it just adds a big distraction

 

[Deleted member 6794]

He isnt a "tier 1" RB and after tier one RB's become a dime a dozen so this potential signing doesnt get me all that excited.

Lacy is an elite running back when in shape, there aren't a dime a dozen like him. The Packers would be smart to not guarantee him any money and have a backup plan in place but there's no harm in bringing him in for camp.

Michael had a productive season in Seattle last year and played well here considering he was brought in mid-season and having learn a completely different system. I like Michael's burst. He is a "cut and go" RB.

Michael makes too many mental mistakes to be counted on. I don't expect him to ever fully grasp the Packers playbook and while I would be fine with him competing for a roster spot in camp as well I don't want to rely on him having an impact either.

 

[brandon2348]

Lacy is an elite running back when in shape, there aren't a dime a dozen like him. The Packers would be smart to not guarantee him any money and have a backup plan in place but there's no harm in bringing him in for camp.

With no guarantee money I don't see a problem bringing him in for camp. I am not expecting anything special here. Would definitely like to see them draft a Marlon Mack or Jamaal Williams here. If they wanna guarantee nothing and kick the tires on Lacy then fine.

Michael makes to many mental mistakes to be counted on. I don't expect him to ever fully grasp the Packers playbook and while I would be fine with him competing for a roster spot in camp as well I don't want to rely on him having an impact either.

Michael does have some mental lapses but that is something he needs to work on and he has. He went from a bust in Seattle to revitalizing his career and making improvement each of the last two seasons. I like the way he is trending better compared to a Lacy.

 

[brandon2348]

If they bring Lacy back with no guarantee and wanna kick the tires come spring training then that's fine.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Michael does have some mental lapses but that is something he needs to work on and he has. He went from a bust in Seattle to revitalizing his career and making improvement each of the last two seasons.

Michael has made mental lapses with three different teams since being in the league. Just like Janis he won't get on the field with the Packers if he can't prevent those.

 

[brandon2348]

Michael has made mental lapses with three different teams since being in the league. Just like Janis he won't get on the field with the Packers if he can't prevent those.

And once again I never said I like Michael as a no.1 RB. I like him as a situational player that can make big plays and as a no.3.

I have clearly outlined what I think they do in regards to a no.2 RB and going young,

You wanna get all excited about bringing the "one hit wonder" back with all his baggage then fine. My expectations are tempered here.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

And once again I never said I like Michael as a no.1 RB. I like him as a situational player that can make big plays and as a no.3.

I have clearly outlined what I think they do in regards to a no.2 RB and going young,

You wanna get all excited about bringing the "one hit wonder" back with all his baggage then fine. My expectations are tempered here.

It's essential to be able to pick up opposing pass rushers as wellas lining up on the correct side of Rodgers to be able to get on the field in Green Bay, even as a situational player.

Michael hasn't been able to do that. As I've mentioned before I would be fine with allowing him to compete for a roster spot but I don't rely on him having a huge impact.

 

[brandon2348]

It's essential to be able to pick up opposing pass rushers as well as lining up on the correct side of Rodgers to be able to get on the field in Green Bay, even as a situational player.
Michael hasn't been able to do that. As I've mentioned before I would be fine with allowing him to compete for a roster spot but I don't rely on him having a huge impact.

Marlon Mack is the guy to bring in to supplement Montgomery Captain. He fits perfectly into the Packers offense. He runs hard an can accelerate on a dime. He can make people miss in open field. You can line him up all over in the passing game. The only thing he will need is some work on is the blocking aspect which most youngsters do.

I don't want to go backwards here with Lacy and taking the whole offense out of what they do best. We don't need Lacy

 

[brandon2348]

It's essential to be able to pick up opposing pass rushers as wellas lining up on the correct side of Rodgers to be able to get on the field in Green Bay, even as a situational player.

Michael hasn't been able to do that. As I've mentioned before I would be fine with allowing him to compete for a roster spot but I don't rely on him having a huge impact.

Michael isn't a 3 down RB. I like him in the game when the goal is to run the ball in certain situaions.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I don't want to go backwards here with Lacy and taking the whole offense out of what they do best. We don't need Lacy

Don't get me wrong, I don't want Lacy back with the Packers if he's overweight. It's kind of strange to suggest he doesn't help the offense when in shape though as the team scored the fifth most points in the league from 2013-14 with Rodgers being out for eight games.

Michael isn't a 3 down RB. I like him in the game when the goal is to run the ball in certain situaions.

I can't imagine any situation in which I would prefer Michael to run the ball instead of Lacy or Montgomery consistently. There are specific type of runs he's better at though.

 

[brandon2348]

Don't get me wrong, I don't want Lacy back with the Packers if he's overweight. It's kind of strange to suggest he doesn't help the offense when in shape though as the team scored the fifth most points in the league from 2013-14 with Rodgers being out for eight games.

That was three years ago. I think it would be a great story if Lacy could re-gain form. I was hoping he would do it somewhere else as I like the Packers offense better without him. The thing I see with Lacy is that with his body type and how it matures his best days might be behind him with not being a constant professional about his body.

I am not gonna spend all off-season worrying about Eddie Lacy's weight and personal issues, Been there and done that.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

That was three years ago. I think it would be a great story if Lacy could re-gain form. I was hoping he would do it somewhere else as I like the Packers offense better without him. The thing I see with Lacy is that with his body type and how it matures his best days might be behind him with not being a constant professional about his body.

I am not gonna spend all off-season worrying about Eddie Lacy's weight and personal issues, Been there and done that.

He had a pretty good 2014-2015 season as well. I get why people are skeptical about Lacy, mainly due to his 2015-2016. A season when he played overweight and "out of shape". Yet even that season, he managed to average 4.1 yds/carry and 9.4 yds/catch....which was identical (rushing) or better (receiving) to the average he had during his "breakout" rookie year.

Yup, he is a big man and may not always be in the best shape. But again, I don't think anyone is talking about paying the guy big or guaranteed money. Personally, I think the potential upsides of signing Lacy far outweighs any potential downsides.

One last note. Ty Montgomery averaged 31.36 yds/game in the 14 games he lined up at RB last year. Lacy during his career at GB has averaged 67.4 yds/game. While I like Ty, I'm not so sure we will see him be a workhorse at RB for 16+ games and think his big game against Chicago (162 yds on 16 carries helped pad his overall stats).

 

[brandon2348]

One last note. Ty Montgomery averaged 31.36 yds/game in the 14 games he lined up at RB last year. Lacy during his career at GB has averaged 67.4 yds/game. While I like Ty, I'm not so sure we will see him be a workhorse at RB for 16+ games and think his big game against Chicago (162 yds on 16 carries helped pad his overall stats).

I dont like Monty to be a "workhorse" either as im not sure he would hold up. This is why I keep posting "Marlon Mack" as he could carry some of tbe load and do many of the same tbings monty can do and he is a tick faster. Probably get him in the 4th round too.

With that said Iike Rodgers throwing the ball 40+ times a game.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I dont like Monty to be a "workhorse" either as im not sure he would hold up. This is why I keep posting "Marlon Mack" as he could carry some of tbe load and do many of the same tbings monty can do and he is a tick faster. Probably get him in the 4th round too.

I don't understand the concerns about Mobtgomery's durability as he's only negligible smaller than most top running backs.

 

[brandon2348]

I don't understand the concerns about Mobtgomery's durability as he's only negligible smaller than most top running backs.

He gets nicked up a bit but nothing serious. I like him at 10-14 carries.

 

[kevans74]

I don't understand the concerns about Mobtgomery's durability as he's only negligible smaller than most top running backs.

I agree with you that we SHOULD bring back Lacy.

The AD talk is just a bunch of pipe dream BS, but I was/am a fan of Adrian Peterson going back to his OU games

I DON'T agree with you on assessing Lacy as "elite" earlier though

I think people need to understand that Lacy and Montgomery are what "they are" and how they "fit" into what the Packers are trying to do on Offense.

I believe that:
1. Montgomery has better speed than anyone we have besides Michael... BUT his best asset is to use him out of the back field as a reciever and to motion him and get Empty sets
2. Lacy will and SHOULD be retained as his purpose is to "tire out" defenses after they've been tired out and spread around from our passing offense. I would imagine that it is no fun to tackle Eddie Lacy

Lacy isn't going to be some 1500+ yard monster.. and I don't believe he ever will, or will we ever need him to get that many rushing yards, his primary purpose is to punish the defense after being worn out from the passing attack

 

[brandon2348]

Lacy isn't going to be some 1500+ yard monster.. and I don't believe he ever will, or will we ever need him to get that many rushing yards, his primary purpose is to punish the defense after being worn out from the passing attack

I suppose i can see some "situational value" there. Move the chains and run clock when they have the lead late.

I'd rather have "butter ball" out there killing clock then watching the defense trying to make a stop.

 

[kevans74]

I suppose i can see some "situational value" there. Move the chains and run clock when they have the lead late.

I'd rather have "butter ball" out there killing clock then watching the defense trying to make a stop.

I believe that is his purpose and it fits... We don't need him to be Ahman or Levens or Ryan Grant

 

[kevans74]

The other thing is...

The Packers have a "PASS BLOCKING" offensive line... This isn't some road grading, Cowboys-type of line

So we don't exactly "need" a runningback to come out and be a "feature back" and get 1500+yards

 

[Adrien]

Packers fans care about Lacy's weight because him being out of shape results in the running back not being able to finish drives and most likely contributed to his season ending injury.

BTW while his yards per attempt was impressive he didn't score a single touchdown though.

As he said, "not every running back was meant to look like Adrian Peterson," while I would rather him look more like AP - (i.e. 5% body fat). That physique is what got him here in the first place.

The team has a whole could not score rushing touchdowns, I can't blame it all on him.

 

[Packerlover]

Sign Lacy to a 3 year contract, I want to see a Lacy/Montgomery backfield!

 

[OldSchool101]

A healthy Lacey/Monty combo would be exciting to watch.
My concern is 2 sided concerning Eddie. He had a pretty serious operation on his ankle. From much of what I'm reading it is a severe grade injury that takes months to heal. Reading between the lines it's a surgery that doesn't happen unless the grade is severe) Even with a solid recovery the probability of future instability and further injury increases dramatically. Add to that is a guy that has weight conditioning issues and in my mind that exasperates the problem.
In recent months, I was leaning at the resigning our bruiser hands down. Now I'm only an advocate if we have a solid contingency plan AND a suitable contract in place that covers his ability to stay on the field. Please don't take this the wrong way because I like Eddie Beaucoup and I want the best for his health and recovery, but we can't put our eggs in one basket either and we need a strong 3rd RB that is capable of starting week 1 if he goes out or maybe even competes for the starting job. Again, there is no fire you can put under performance like the fire lit by competition.
I'd resign Lacey on a Production friendly deal AND be looking hard at RB 1st or 2nd day draft that has great balance in the pass receiving/blocking arena. I just hope the Packers Office feels similarly and we get an infusion of new high talent level at the position. I'm guessing nobody would argue that we all want depth at RB after last year's carousel

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I DON'T agree with you on assessing Lacy as "elite" earlier though

Lacy will and SHOULD be retained as his purpose is to "tire out" defenses after they've been tired out and spread around from our passing offense. I would imagine that it is no fun to tackle Eddie Lacy

Lacy isn't going to be some 1500+ yard monster.. and I don't believe he ever will, or will we ever need him to get that many rushing yards, his primary purpose is to punish the defense after being worn out from the passing attack

There's no doubt in my mind that Lacy was an elite running back during his first two seasons with the Packers. He has the ability to wear out a freah defense as well but unfortunately he has to be in shape to do that because otherwise he's the one getting tired first.

It's true that Lacy doesn't need to rush for 1,500 yards with the Packers as the offense is centered around Rodgers and the passing game. Nevertheless the team benefits from having a running back performing at the level Eddie did early in his career though.

As he said, "not every running back was meant to look like Adrian Peterson," while I would rather him look more like AP - (i.e. 5% body fat). That physique is what got him here in the first place.

The team has a whole could not score rushing touchdowns, I can't blame it all on him.

Lacy will always be a big running back and I'm fine with him playing at 240 pounds. There's no way he's effective in the long haul with another 20 pounds though.

It's not surprising the entire team struggled to score rushing touchdowns early last season as Lacy was the main threat in that area entering the season.

 

[Jerellh528]

I don't understand the concerns about Mobtgomery's durability as he's only negligible smaller than most top running backs.

I don't think it's the durability, rather his 0.8 ypc average against base defenses. He can only run against a weak front.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I don't think it's the durability, rather his 0.8 ypc average against base defenses. He can only run against a weak front.

Do you have a link to a credible source confirming that number???