Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Carl" data-source="post: 528379" data-attributes="member: 9497">I'm not talking about last season. I'm saying this season. Did you guys not watch the Bears game? Lacy and Starks both had big holes on long runs I could have ran through, even though the box was stacked. Franklin had over 100 yards in about a half in another. The Packers averaged 5.8 yards a rush against Minnesota again with a stacked box. Lacy was breaking tackles, but not until he was few yards downfield. Starks, who has proven to not be spectacular, had large running lanes against the Redskins. Those do not happen with poor run blocking.Many yards in spite of the o-line? The Packers have not had a good running game in years.A team doesn't have a really good running game without good running blocking period.You do realize there is more than one definition, right? That definition clearly does not fit here. This one does: "sound but without any special qualities or flair."   Average pass blocking and really good run blocking is sound to me. And like I said before, their stats would be higher if Flynn didn't just sit in the pocket against Detroit and step up.And I said three DIFFERENT backs. If three different guys can go in and be successful, the line is playing well.</blockquote>

Total: 670 (members: 1, guests: 669)