Montgomery - "Soft Tissue Injury" or Something Else?

Sky King

158.3
Joined
Sep 27, 2012
Messages
2,817
Reaction score
329
Location
Out of the clear blue western skies...
Montgomery has had bouts with sickle cell anemia in the past, including last Summer. Apparently, it is a condition where the symptoms are exacerbated by heat/dehydration. It raises the possibility that Montgomery is being shelved for medical reasons other than injury, such as for pain and/or clots. Or, maybe the team is just being proactive regarding Monty's risk factors and Summer weather. This is a very serious medical condition but it can be managed with reasonable success.

More information about this disease: https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/000527.htm

If Monty's current condition is disease related then I can understand MM's vague description of the problem. Not that he's all that forthcoming regarding injuries, anyway. But comments regarding a hereditary medical condition would seem to fall under a separate category than the usual discussion of a player's physical injuries.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,082
Reaction score
7,897
Location
Madison, WI
I guess I view any injury as "approximately how long before he plays again" and "will there be any residual effects"? What the team or player wants to label it doesn't really matter to me. Only 4 or 5 years ago, when a player went down, I would say "I hope he just got his bell rung (concussion) and he will be back next week". Now I cringe when I hear concussion, because it can be anywhere from 2 weeks to end of career. Also, it seems that any prediction of how long that player will be sidelined with any injury, is just a best guess and doesn't always work out that way.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
357
Reaction score
19
After hearing originally about the condition Monty had, a medic buddy of mine from the Army noted to me that he would be amazed if Monty were able to sustain any sort of career in the NFL. It would not be unheard of, but the chances were WAY against him. I wanted to believe he was wrong, and when Monty did quite well in game action I thought he was, but then Monty seemed to be so limited even after he found his initial success, like the team wasn't willing to commit 100% to him. I've wondered since then the same thing, and I always think back to what that buddy said to me.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,082
Reaction score
7,897
Location
Madison, WI
After hearing originally about the condition Monty had, a medic buddy of mine from the Army noted to me that he would be amazed if Monty were able to sustain any sort of career in the NFL. It would not be unheard of, but the chances were WAY against him. I wanted to believe he was wrong, and when Monty did quite well in game action I thought he was, but then Monty seemed to be so limited even after he found his initial success, like the team wasn't willing to commit 100% to him. I've wondered since then the same thing, and I always think back to what that buddy said to me.

Seeing that the Packers used 3 draft picks on RB's, their training staff might agree with your Army medic buddy.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,082
Reaction score
7,897
Location
Madison, WI
Which is why I've never stopped thinking he might just be better off as a WR
Might prolong his career, but might shorten it too, if he wasn't able to compete in the NFL as a WR.

With only 59 receptions, 484 yds., 2 TD's and an 8.2 yds/catch average, I can't say he would be a lock to make the final 53 as just a WR this year, but guessing another team would gladly pick him up if the Packers released him.

I also don't think there is any reason to panic. Monty will get his shot at RB, I think they will keep his reps low, not fully due to his condition, but more to fit their style of offense. If one of the rookie backs is adequate, the 2 of them will be an average rotation duo.
 
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
357
Reaction score
19
Might prolong his career, but might shorten it too, if he wasn't able to compete in the NFL as a WR.

With only 59 receptions, 484 yds., 2 TD's and an 8.2 yds/catch average, I can't say he would be a lock to make the final 53 as just a WR this year, but guessing another team would gladly pick him up if the Packers released him.

I also don't think there is any reason to panic. Monty will get his shot at RB, I think they will keep his reps low, not fully due to his condition, but more to fit their style of offense. If one of the rookie backs is adequate, the 2 of them will be an average rotation duo.
I should have qualified; the time that I thought he would be better off as a WR was during his transition to RB. It's too late now, his development is all towards RB skillsets. We could use him almost exclusively to pass catches out of the backfield as essentially a WR, getting him on the field in a rotational manner. I remain convinced that Jamal Williams will be our starting and primary ball carrier by seasons end.
 
OP
OP
Sky King

Sky King

158.3
Joined
Sep 27, 2012
Messages
2,817
Reaction score
329
Location
Out of the clear blue western skies...
At this point it would seem that the field might be tilted in favor of Jamaal Williams as the eventual starter. He's healthy. And based upon the comments of the beat reporters and others, he's probably been the most dependable RB in pass protection, so far.

While it's still early somebody has to be the front-runner. To me it looks like it's Williams. Maybe with his health issues and tendency to get banged-up rather frequently taken into consideration, Monty's most suitable role might be that of a change of pace type back. That still helps the team and it's probably the best scenario for his physical well-being, especially in hotter weather.
 

Dantés

Gute Loot
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
11,950
Reaction score
2,901
The further we get into training camp, the more I'm expecting Jamaal Williams to be the primary player at a true RB position for the Packers.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
Montgomery has had bouts with sickle cell anemia in the past, including last Summer. Apparently, it is a condition where the symptoms are exacerbated by heat/dehydration. It raises the possibility that Montgomery is being shelved for medical reasons other than injury, such as for pain and/or clots. Or, maybe the team is just being proactive regarding Monty's risk factors and Summer weather. This is a very serious medical condition but it can be managed with reasonable success.

More information about this disease: https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/000527.htm

If Monty's current condition is disease related then I can understand MM's vague description of the problem. Not that he's all that forthcoming regarding injuries, anyway. But comments regarding a hereditary medical condition would seem to fall under a separate category than the usual discussion of a player's physical injuries.

It´s pure speculation on your part that Montgomery currently not being able to practice has anything to do with him suffering from sickle cell anemia. Hopefully he suffered just a minor soft tissue injury and will be fine for the start of the regular season.

At this point it would seem that the field might be tilted in favor of Jamaal Williams as the eventual starter. He's healthy. And based upon the comments of the beat reporters and others, he's probably been the most dependable RB in pass protection, so far.

The coaching staff has been adamant about Montgomery being the starter though all offseason.
 

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
15,893
Reaction score
3,795
How many RBs have we had stay healthy for a season in the past decade?
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
How many RBs have we had stay healthy for a season in the past decade?

I´m too lazy to look it up but I´m absolutely convinced it´s less than any other team in the league and a main reason that the Packers haven´t been to another Super Bowl in the last six years. :rolleyes:
 

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
15,893
Reaction score
3,795
Set the limits for the term "healthy." No twists, sprains, bruises, contusions? Able to play every week? Somewhere in between?
Didn't really need answer. We'll spend 9 posts debating criteria and then it will become about Ted anyway. :)

I don't remember many. Lacy his rookie year after he got healthy was fairly effective for the remainder of the season. I think there was a season or 2 where Grant and Green were mostly available and effective all year. But it's been few and far between. Simple criteria, less than 2-3 questionable weeks and no more than 1 game missed. I would set it at zero games missed, but that may exclude everyone
 

PikeBadger

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jan 19, 2013
Messages
6,287
Reaction score
1,700
It appears that I'm in the minority on this topic. I don't think it's of great import that we have a traditionally well-defined dominant #1 RB in this offense. Clearly, Rodgers is the maestro of this offense. In recent years, we had a primary workhorse RB in Lacy but I don't believe it's necessary at all. I like the idea of using RB by committee at this point especially with the diversity at the RB position. I think it gives opposing Def coordinators more to prepare for and increases the likelihood of favorable matchups for our offense. I really like the diversity of the personnel makeup of our offense right now. Imo, it will be up to McCarthy/Rodgers to recognize and exploit the advantages that present themselves with the myriad of different looks and matchups that present themselves. Should be fun to watch and very difficult to defend.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,082
Reaction score
7,897
Location
Madison, WI
It appears that I'm in the minority on this topic. I don't think it's of great import that we have a traditionally well-defined dominant #1 RB in this offense. Clearly, Rodgers is the maestro of this offense. In recent years, we had a primary workhorse RB in Lacy but I don't believe it's necessary at all. I like the idea of using RB by committee at this point especially with the diversity at the RB position. I think it gives opposing Def coordinators more to prepare for and increases the likelihood of favorable matchups for our offense. I really like the diversity of the personnel makeup of our offense right now. Imo, it will be up to McCarthy/Rodgers to recognize and exploit the advantages that present themselves with the myriad of different looks and matchups that present themselves. Should be fun to watch and very difficult to defend.

We would be in great need of a dominant running game if AR goes down. But you are correct, as long as AR is behind center, the run game is secondary. But how much better would the offense be....IF.....they had a solid run game? How much better would the passing game be if the defense had to respect the run? How many more points would we have been able to put up against Atlanta last year if we had a running game? AR was our leading rusher in that game with 46 yards. Monty was 2nd with 17.

Without a run game that the defense has to respect, AR and the offense can only do so much, especially against a really good defense. I fear the FO and coaches are taking the same stance and have decided that as long as they have AR, who needs a run game.
 

PikeBadger

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jan 19, 2013
Messages
6,287
Reaction score
1,700
We would be in great need of a dominant running game if AR goes down. But you are correct, as long as AR is behind center, the run game is secondary. But how much better would the offense be....IF.....they had a solid run game? How much better would the passing game be if the defense had to respect the run? How many more points would we have been able to put up against Atlanta last year if we had a running game? AR was our leading rusher in that game with 46 yards. Monty was 2nd with 17.

Without a run game that the defense has to respect, AR and the offense can only do so much, especially against a really good defense. I fear the FO and coaches are taking the same stance and have decided that as long as they have AR, who needs a run game.
I truly doubt the staff thinks they don't need a run game but I think this offense is a pass to set up the run offense. Our offensive line by design imo, is a better pass-blocking unit than they are a power run-blocking line. If they didn't care about the running game at all, they wouldn't have drafted 3 RB's this year imo. They would have just brought in some UDFA's to fill the position.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
It appears that I'm in the minority on this topic. I don't think it's of great import that we have a traditionally well-defined dominant #1 RB in this offense. Clearly, Rodgers is the maestro of this offense. In recent years, we had a primary workhorse RB in Lacy but I don't believe it's necessary at all. I like the idea of using RB by committee at this point especially with the diversity at the RB position. I think it gives opposing Def coordinators more to prepare for and increases the likelihood of favorable matchups for our offense. I really like the diversity of the personnel makeup of our offense right now. Imo, it will be up to McCarthy/Rodgers to recognize and exploit the advantages that present themselves with the myriad of different looks and matchups that present themselves. Should be fun to watch and very difficult to defend.

I agree that the Packers don´t need a dominant running back for the offense to be successful but the unit definitely benefits from having a solid rushing attack. It doesn´t matter if that is achieved by a single player or committee though.
 

rodell330

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 18, 2012
Messages
5,611
Reaction score
493
Location
Canton, Ohio
As much as I like Monty he will never be the featured back. His health seems to always be in question. He's a great change of pace back ...but he can't carry the load when Winter comes.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,082
Reaction score
7,897
Location
Madison, WI
As much as I like Monty he will never be the featured back. His health seems to always be in question. He's a great change of pace back ...but he can't carry the load when Winter comes.

I tend to agree with this and it was somewhat solidified when the Packers used 3 draft picks on RB's. Monty isn't a guy that can make his own holes and he is just learning how to find them (if they exist). If he can stay healthy and learn how to pass protect, I see his value as a back that predominantly comes out of the backfield as a receiver. If AR sees a favorable defense to audible to a run, Monty could be a dangerous back running out of the backfield, especially when you got M. Bennett sealing off the edge in front of him.

But you are 100% correct, if he can't stay healthy due to the increased hits, he doesn't do the Packers much good. Also, its really hard to make much of an evaluation of our RB's at this time, when the OL is struggling to run block. But if that is the OL we can expect all season long, it's going to be hard for any of the backs to pick up yardage and Monty isn't the one you wanting running the ball into a wall of defenders. So far I like Jones for that.
 

Latest posts

Top