How to handle Lacy

[Deleted member 6794]

I do however think there are some question marks surrounding Monty, which is another reason I would like to see Lacy brought back. Monty will have the full offseason as well as camps and preseason to further his abilities in his new role. As good as he looked at times at RB, he needs a lot of work on his pass protection and ability to shed some tackles at the LOS and then there is always that question of his durability.

I think concerns about Montgomery's durability are totally overblown. At 6-0 and 216 he's larger than a lot of running backs in the league.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I think concerns about Montgomery's durability are totally overblown. At 6-0 and 216 he's larger than a lot of running backs in the league.

They could be, but it might take a full season at the position to know if the concerns are warranted.

 

[PikeBadger]

Unfortunately for Lacy the Packers prefer not to substitute during drives more than most other teams in the league. Therefore having a running back not capable of staying on the field for 10+ consecutive plays puts the team at a disadvantage.



While I don't expect a Packers running back to consistently get 20 or more carries a game you have to realize that players at the position have to be at least decent in pass protection as well. Lacy being out of shape doesn't help in that regard either.



I've been told by you and several other posters that using hindsight to criticize Thompson isn't fair, therefore I suggest you shouldn't use it to defend his moves either. While the Packers might have counted on Cobb and Montgomery to occasionally carry the ball the front office for sure didn't expect Ty to end up being a decent #1 running back.

There's no doubt it was a mistake having only two RBs on the roster in week 1 and a terrible decision to enter the Cowboys game with Lacy battling an ankle injury as the only active one. Thompson got lucky that Monty bailed him out.



Jackson was an undrafted rookie out of Nevada last season. Therefore I have no idea which previous experience you're talking about.

Having a couple of slot guys as your #3 RB and a running capable FB on an offense predicated on it's passing game is hardly a huge roster gamble. No one ever said anything about those slot guys being your #1 RB. It morphed into that because of the suddeness of injuries to #1 and #2.
You just like creating strawmen and picking apart other people's post. I find it rather disingenuous that you create things out of thin air. You can't have 22 positions stacked 3 deep and be able to fill special teams as well with a 53 man roster and have professional excellence. That said, #1 RB's are not hanging around waiting to be picked up that are expert in all 32 playbooks. You seem to have a strange sense of reality imo.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Having a couple of slot guys as your #3 RB and a running capable FB on an offense predicated on it's passing game is hardly a huge roster gamble. No one ever said anything about those slot guys being your #1 RB. It morphed into that because of the suddeness of injuries to #1 and #2.
You just like creating strawmen and picking apart other people's post. I find it rather disingenuous that you create things out of thin air. You can't have 22 positions stacked 3 deep and be able to fill special teams as well with a 53 man roster and have professional excellence. That said, #1 RB's are hanging around waiting to be picked up that are expert in all 32 playbooks. You seem to have a strange sense of reality imo.

The Packers only keeping two running backs on the active roster for more than a month was a huge gamble. It's beyond my understanding that you agree with Thompson's handling of the position entering the Cowboys game but you have proven of being incapable of taking an objective view of the job TT does.

The rest of your post is stupid BS.

 

[PikeBadger]

The Packers only keeping two running backs on the active roster for more than a month was a huge gamble. It's beyond my understanding that you agree with Thompson's handling of the position entering the Cowboys game but you have proven of being incapable of taking an objective view of the job TT does.

The rest of your post is stupid BS.

I never said that I agree with going into the Cowboys game with one injured RB. I don't think Thompson felt it was optimal either. I feel that I'm objective but I hesitate to bag on him incessantly because I realize I have absolutely less than 1% of the information he has. (And so do you). I've offered my criticisms of Thompson in the past, they just don't coincide with all of your absolutist remarks and digs. I still don't think you find a RB on the market that is ready to play many snaps in our offense in a 3 or 4 day span.
My stupid BS is completely born of your bizarre reality.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Having a couple of slot guys as your #3 RB and a running capable FB on an offense predicated on it's passing game is hardly a huge roster gamble. No one ever said anything about those slot guys being your #1 RB. It morphed into that because of the suddeness of injuries to #1 and #2.

First of all, how can you conclude that Ripkowski was a run capable FB last September? He had 0 regular season carries at that time. As it turns out, he did just fine, but that wasn't a known commodity at the time.

Second, it would have been less of a roster gamble had the Packers had a decent #3 RB on the PS, they didn't. I think that TT and the Packers were nervous about the position once Crockett went down before the regular season started. They immediately grabbed Jhurell Pressley when the Vikings cut him and after that and the injury to Lacy, it was a mess until out of nowhere, Monty showed he could be counted on for a limited # of runs each game. Which should be a credit to Monty and the coaches, since TT basically failed in his slow attempts at fixing the issue.

Repeating that same mistake this year by heading into the regular season with Monty and a rookie is not something I want to see.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I never said that I agree with going into the Cowboys game with one injured RB. I don't think Thompson felt it was optimal either. I feel that I'm objective but I hesitate to bag on him incessantly because I realize I have absolutely less than 1% of the information he has. (And so do you). I've offered my criticisms of Thompson in the past, they just don't coincide with all of your absolutist remarks and digs. I still don't think you find a RB on the market that is ready to play many snaps in our offense in a 3 or 4 day span.

You repeatedly mention that you're capable of taking an objective view at Thompson's body of work but rarely prove that's true.

There's no need for inside information to realize that entering a game with only a single active running back, who additionally was listed as questionable with an ankle injury, is a terrible idea.

It's true that it's difficult to pick up an impact running back during the season although it's not impossible. As an example DuJuan Harris, who wven would have been familiar with the system, was available for several weeks.

Generally it was a mistake entering the season with only two RBs that spent training camp with the team.

 

[PikeBadger]

First of all, how can you conclude that Ripkowski was a run capable FB last September? He had 0 regular season carries at that time. As it turns out, he did just fine, but that wasn't a known commodity at the time.

Second, it would have been less of a roster gamble had the Packers had a decent #3 RB on the PS, they didn't. I think that TT and the Packers were nervous about the position once Crockett went down before the regular season started. They immediately grabbed Jhurell Pressley when the Vikings cut him and after that and the injury to Lacy, it was a mess until out of nowhere, Monty showed he could be counted on for a limited # of runs each game.

Repeating that same mistake this year by heading into the regular season with Monty and a rookie is not something I want to see.

I didn't conclude that. Clearly the coaching staff and mgmt must have. They are the ones that see these guys practice. They are the people that put the roster together, not a bunch of forum posters. Crockett and Jackson weren't a known commodity either as neither of them had regular season game action against a starting NFL defense. I think it's a bit crazy to think that mgmt and coaching staff don't have a better understanding of this stuff than we do. When you have huge quantities of less than year ending injuries within a position group like we had at CB, LB and RB, decisions have to be made on who goes on injury reserve and whether or not to free up a roster slot by releasing players. Catastrophic year ending injuries are easier imo to work around because you know they have to go to injured reserve and a roster spot needs to be filled. Having training room intel would lead to more enlightened comments on this forum. It's easier though to refer to the GM as a lazy do nothing stiff and the coach as Mc Fatty like some here resort to.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I didn't conclude that. Clearly the coaching staff and mgmt must have. They are the ones that see these guys practice. They are the people that put the roster together, not a bunch of forum posters. Crockett and Jackson weren't a known commodity either as neither of them had regular season game action against a starting NFL defense. I think it's a bit crazy to think that mgmt and coaching staff don't have a better understanding of this stuff than we do. When you have huge quantities of less than year ending injuries within a position group like we had at CB, LB and RB, decisions have to be made on who goes on injury reserve and whether or not to free up a roster slot by releasing players. Catastrophic year ending injuries are easier imo to work around because you know they have to go to injured reserve and a roster spot needs to be filled. Having training room intel would lead to more enlightened comments on this forum. It's easier though to refer to the GM as a lazy do nothing stiff and the coach as Mc Fatty like some here resort to.

Then why express your opinion here? Unless it is the same as managements, it won't mean anything to you right? Why even have a Packer forum if all we do is say "Go Team Go!" "In Management we trust".

Hard for me to ever agree that the RB situation in 2016 was handled correctly by Management. I mapped it out in a previous post and if you want to do it yourself, with a timeline, you may at some point agree.

As I also said, let's hope they learned something because of it, which is a sign of good management.

 

[PikeBadger]

You repeatedly mention that you're capable of taking an objective view at Thompson's body of work but rarely prove that's true.

There's no need for inside information to realize that entering a game with only a single active running back, who additionally was listed as questionable with an ankle injury, is a terrible idea.

It's true that it's difficult to pick up an impact running back during the season although it's not impossible. As an example DuJuan Harris, who wven would have been familiar with the system, was available for several weeks.

Generally it was a mistake entering the season with only two RBs that spent training camp with the team.

Replying to your 4 paragraphs.

1. Will address in the Fire Ted Thompson thread.

2. There is ALWAYS a need for inside info. No one here knows everything that came into play the week of the Cowboys game. The end result of having one questionable RB was clearly less than an optimal result. (the way you word things sounds so much like our current president) Are you a New Yorker?

3. Agree, difficult not impossible. Ever thought about why Harris wasn't signed? All kinds of possibilities there on both sides of the equation.

4. Certainly not normal nor optimal in most cases. Not normal to keep the combination of large number of WR's, CB's, QB's, OL and OLB's that were on our opening day 53 either. Thompson says he likes to keep the best 53. I believe him.

 

[PikeBadger]

Then why express your opinion here? Unless it is the same as managements, it won't mean anything to you right? Why even have a Packer forum if all we do is say "Go Team Go!" "In Management we trust".

Hard for me to ever agree that the RB situation in 2016 was handled correctly by Management. I mapped it out in a previous post and if you want to do it yourself, with a timeline, you may at some point agree.

As I also said, let's hope they learned something because of it, which is a sign of good management.

The way some of the stuff is worded here on the forum leads me to believe that some people here think they better understand these workings than the people inside 1265 Lombardi. With about 2% of the info available to them. I find that very weird.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

There is ALWAYS a need for inside info. No one here knows everything that came into play the week of the Cowboys game. The end result of having one questionable RB was clearly less than an optimal result. (the way you word things sounds so much like our current president) Are you a New Yorker?

The handling of the running back position entering the Cowboys game was way worse than you want to admit. As I've posted repeatedly I'm from Austria.

The way some of the stuff is worded here on the forum leads me to believe that some people here think they better understand these workings than the people inside 1265 Lombardi. With about 2% of the info available to them. I find that very weird.

I haven't seen a single poster believing he knows even close to what the people working in the Packers front office do. That doesn't mean we aren't qualified to analyze the moves made by Thompson and company though.

 

[Half Empty]

The way some of the stuff is worded here on the forum leads me to believe that some people here think they better understand these workings than the people inside 1265 Lombardi. With about 2% of the info available to them. I find that very weird.

Since 2010, I have won the same number of Lombardis for the Packers sitting here as those guys, and I don't have a nickle to show for it, much less millions.

 

[JLW_51]

If Lacy returned on an incentive based deal and they drafted an interior runner in the middle rounds (maybe someone like Perine? Still need to watch Brian Hill) I think they would be in much better shape than they were last year. I totally get why people want to see that.

I am a big Brian Hill fan, would love to see him playing in GB, ran hard at WY.

 

[Dantés]

I am a big Brian Hill fan, would love to see him playing in GB, ran hard at WY.

I'm hoping he doesn't blow up the 40 at the combine because I don't want his stock to rise too high. I'm a San Diego State alum and watch their games, so I've seen him play a few times when he's taken on my Aztecs. I've been quite impressed with his work, as SDSU has one of the best run defenses in the country. He's a very disciplined runner in following his blocks on both gap and zone plays. He avoids that typical college bad habit of trying to bounce everything for the big play. But he does have some reasonable wiggle and speed to break off some chunk plays once he's to the 2nd level. He isn't really a homerun hitter, but he'll give you some doubles. As a bonus, he's a plus pass protector. I've seen him neutralize Calvin Munson on many occasions, and that guy was one of the best blitzers in the MWC. In my opinion, if they brought Lacy back on a 1 year deal, he would be an ideal backup as that interior runner with all the potential you want to take that role over entirely in year two and beyond.

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

I'd bring him back if for no other reason that we need his size in that backfield. Good news is that clown James Starks isn't going to be out there jinxing him.

 

[Mondio]

I'd bring him back if for no other reason that we need his size in that backfield. Good news is that clown James Starks isn't going to be out there jinxing him.

dude, you've made your point, 6 months ago, you really, really don't like James Starks for some reason. did he steal your GF or something? I don't understand your utter disdain for what was mostly a soft spoken and hard worker for this team for a couple years? he's not even with the team anymore, maybe give him a break?

 

[thequick12]

lacy should be resigned at a team friendly price and be given every opportunity to team with Montgomery as he once did with starks. providing he is healthy

 

[PackerDNA]

Starks is done, but I agree with Mondio. The guy was heart and soul, gave us some good years, and was a big part of the run in 2010. I wish him all the best.

 

[PikeBadger]

Starks is done, but I agree with Mondio. The guy was heart and soul, gave us some good years, and was a big part of the run in 2010. I wish him all the best.

I'm all in on this post. Starks had a really good career here. I wish him the very best. I'm sure the last 6-8 months has been tough for him.

 

[PikeBadger]

lacy should be resigned at a team friendly price and be given every opportunity to team with Montgomery as he once did with starks. providing he is healthy

That team friendly price might not be good enough to keep him in town. I wouldn't even consider offering him until April.

 

[Ace]

https://twitter.com/RobDemovsky/status/836562640939933697

Wonder if there's truth to this or if he's trying to drive his own market.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Interesting news on Lacy's ankle injury. More severe than I thought.

http://lombardiave.com/2017/02/28/green-bay-packers-eddie-lacy-ankle-injury/

 

[Ace]

There's no way he's getting a long term deal. 2 year absolute max, and the team that signs him will be fully able to get away from it no questions asked.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

There's no way he's getting a long term deal. 2 year absolute max, and the team that signs him will be fully able to get away from it no questions asked.

With the severity of that ankle injury and his weight/conditioning issues, I doubt he gets more than a one year. However, all that being said, if the Packers are hopeful he could still be the back they saw in his first 2 years and some of what we saw before the injury, I wouldn't be opposed to a low end 2 year deal with incentives but no guarantees. That way if he is a bust, you cut him lose, but if he has a solid 2017, we aren't back to where we are now, "how much is he worth?"