Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Running Back
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="TJV" data-source="post: 434624" data-attributes="member: 4300"><p><span style="font-family: 'Tahoma'">OLB, DE, S, CB, OG/OC, OT, and TE (if Finley leaves). Those are the positions I have rated as bigger needs than RB. I hope Thompson doesn't spend more than a 4th or 5th rounder on one. Here's why: </span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-family: 'Tahoma'">1. The Packers are a passing offense. One of the major innovations of the WCO was using the short passing game to replace rushes. McCarthy's offense takes that one step further by relying upon the short to intermediate passing game to replace rushes. And the team has the talent to do it. </span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-family: 'Tahoma'">2. I disagree with the notion that if the passing game is not in sync, as was the case in the playoff game, a RB can carry the offense to victory. IMO because the Packers offense is built on the passing game and if that's not working, defenses can load up vs. the run and no team can be dominant both passing and running the ball. </span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-family: 'Tahoma'">3. The Packers have Starks, Green, and Saine. If Starks can stay healthy we know he's good enough to win a title with. Green showed potential but of course has to get and then stay healthy. I liked what I saw of Saine. He obviously needs experience. And if they feel they're shaky at RB, they can bring Grant back relatively cheap. IMO they already have three options on the roster who could be the answer at RB. </span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-family: 'Tahoma'">4. The OL was/is built with an emphasis on pass blocking. </span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-family: 'Tahoma'">5. A salient argument can be made that for a passing team, it's the number of rushes that matters most to keep defenses honest. And I believe McCarthy is near the league average in pass/rush ratio, although he throws the ball slightly more than the average. </span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-family: 'Tahoma'">6. In 2011 the Packers led the league in scoring without the RB some are advocating they acquire. They averaged 35 ppg. IMO spending valuable resources on a RB could only improve that marginally. </span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-family: 'Tahoma'">The trend in NFL rule changes has made the passing game more and more important so I'm glad McCarthy's offense emphasizes it as does Thompson's talent acquisition. IMO some of the insistence on signing a UFA RB or drafting a RB high is based upon the failure of the Packers passing game in their last game. IMO to win a title the Packers passing game can't have an off day in the playoffs as it did vs. the Giants. IMO there's no "fix" for that. If the strength of any team fails in the playoffs they are likely to lose. If the Packers passing game is in sync, the running game just has to be good enough to keep defenses off balance. The way James Starks played at the end of the 2010 is plenty good enough IMO. I think the biggest challenge for the RBs in 2012 is to find one who can block blitzing LBs and DBs and I think that player is already on the roster. And have I mentioned the defense is crying out for more talent?! IMO the Packers shouldn't spend valuable resources improving the running game because no matter who they acquire, they will still be a passing offense. And with Rodgers and his targets, I'm happy they are. </span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="TJV, post: 434624, member: 4300"] [FONT=Tahoma]OLB, DE, S, CB, OG/OC, OT, and TE (if Finley leaves). Those are the positions I have rated as bigger needs than RB. I hope Thompson doesn't spend more than a 4th or 5th rounder on one. Here's why: [/FONT] [FONT=Tahoma]1. The Packers are a passing offense. One of the major innovations of the WCO was using the short passing game to replace rushes. McCarthy's offense takes that one step further by relying upon the short to intermediate passing game to replace rushes. And the team has the talent to do it. [/FONT] [FONT=Tahoma]2. I disagree with the notion that if the passing game is not in sync, as was the case in the playoff game, a RB can carry the offense to victory. IMO because the Packers offense is built on the passing game and if that's not working, defenses can load up vs. the run and no team can be dominant both passing and running the ball. [/FONT] [FONT=Tahoma]3. The Packers have Starks, Green, and Saine. If Starks can stay healthy we know he's good enough to win a title with. Green showed potential but of course has to get and then stay healthy. I liked what I saw of Saine. He obviously needs experience. And if they feel they're shaky at RB, they can bring Grant back relatively cheap. IMO they already have three options on the roster who could be the answer at RB. [/FONT] [FONT=Tahoma]4. The OL was/is built with an emphasis on pass blocking. [/FONT] [FONT=Tahoma]5. A salient argument can be made that for a passing team, it's the number of rushes that matters most to keep defenses honest. And I believe McCarthy is near the league average in pass/rush ratio, although he throws the ball slightly more than the average. [/FONT] [FONT=Tahoma]6. In 2011 the Packers led the league in scoring without the RB some are advocating they acquire. They averaged 35 ppg. IMO spending valuable resources on a RB could only improve that marginally. [/FONT] [FONT=Tahoma]The trend in NFL rule changes has made the passing game more and more important so I'm glad McCarthy's offense emphasizes it as does Thompson's talent acquisition. IMO some of the insistence on signing a UFA RB or drafting a RB high is based upon the failure of the Packers passing game in their last game. IMO to win a title the Packers passing game can't have an off day in the playoffs as it did vs. the Giants. IMO there's no "fix" for that. If the strength of any team fails in the playoffs they are likely to lose. If the Packers passing game is in sync, the running game just has to be good enough to keep defenses off balance. The way James Starks played at the end of the 2010 is plenty good enough IMO. I think the biggest challenge for the RBs in 2012 is to find one who can block blitzing LBs and DBs and I think that player is already on the roster. And have I mentioned the defense is crying out for more talent?! IMO the Packers shouldn't spend valuable resources improving the running game because no matter who they acquire, they will still be a passing offense. And with Rodgers and his targets, I'm happy they are. [/FONT] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
rmontro
Latest posts
R
2024 draft discussion thread
Latest: rmontro
1 minute ago
Draft Talk
2024 3rd Rd #91 Ty’Ron Hopper LB
Latest: Thirteen Below
49 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Assessing the Draft Class (2024)
Latest: AKCheese
Today at 12:51 AM
Draft Talk
Most hated teams outside of the division
Latest: milani
Today at 12:23 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2024 Round 7, pick 245: Michael Pratt, QB
Latest: Thirteen Below
Today at 12:11 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Running Back
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top