Week 6: Dangerous Dallas game upcoming

[Deleted member 6794]

James Starks knee came up after Tuesday workouts and he's also dealing with a personal issue. He'll be out of town until Saturday.

 

[mongoosev]

If Lacy is out just put Cobb in the backfield and let ABBY play slot. Cowboy's D isn't anything to fear anyway!

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

If both Lacy and Starks are out, I am not a fan of going with just Rip and using Cobb and Montgomery with him. Bring Jackson up and see what the kid can do.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Just because Don Jackson is on the PS, doesn't mean he can't possibly out perform Starks. How many NFL running backs have started on a PS and become productive in the NFL? Quite a few I imagine. PS players aren't sitting at home, waiting for their phones to ring, they are at practice everyday, improving their skills and knowledge of the playbook. As Captain said, at the beginning of the Season the Packers were comfortable with Lacy and Starks, given their past performances. But had either one been injured and put on IR, next man up and that probably would be Jackson. So I don't know how that situation changes if either one or both of them are dinged up enough that they can't play or one of them is simply not playing up to the standards required of the position. Suiting up one healthy RB for a game could prove to be a bad decision IMO.

My issue is that Starks has been terrible this year and the coaches haven't thought that the guys on the practice squad looked better. That being the case, I'm not sure why I should suddenly believe that the coaches, who have FAR more information on PS players than i do, have been wrong for five weeks. Packers would probably be smarter use Lacy, Ripkowski and some receivers at RB rather than waste time with a player who will most likely offer less than Starks. There's absolutely no reason that McCarthy can't devise a game plan that minimizes the amount of traditional run plays that he needs to use. I don't see anyone telling Belichick that he needs to run the ball more when he wins a game while calling 8 run plays. Why can't the Packers adjust in that fashion?

This also brings up the question, why don't the Packers have anything better at RB than Lacy (who still doesn't appear as agile as he did his first two seasons) and a terrible Starks? Why were no other decent options brought in prior to the season?

 

[Vrill]

Maybe Rip can prove to be a Mike Alstott type for us. Lets see what happens, LOL

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

My issue is that Starks has been terrible this year and the coaches haven't thought that the guys on the practice squad looked better. That being the case, I'm not sure why I should suddenly believe that the coaches, who have FAR more information on PS players than i do, have been wrong for five weeks. Packers would probably be smarter use Lacy, Ripkowski and some receivers at RB rather than waste time with a player who will most likely offer less than Starks. There's absolutely no reason that McCarthy can't devise a game plan that minimizes the amount of traditional run plays that he needs to use. I don't see anyone telling Belichick that he needs to run the ball more when he wins a game while calling 8 run plays. Why can't the Packers adjust in that fashion?

This also brings up the question, why don't the Packers have anything better at RB than Lacy (who still doesn't appear as agile as he did his first two seasons) and a terrible Starks? Why were no other decent options brought in prior to the season?

Within your explanation lies the answer. Yes, at the beginning of the season Starks was viewed as the better back then all but Lacy. His contract was proof of that. Even had Crockett or any of the other UDFA RB's outplayed Starks, he makes the team. So to say that he is still the better back, because of decisions made over 7 weeks ago, isn't really being accurate. The bottom line is, if he isn't getting the job done and there is a guy available that may, then at this point, who cares about the contract, Starks becomes our #3 and next man up (Jackson) gets a shot at being #2. Had Crockett not been hurt, I can almost guarantee you we would be seeing him play. Jackson being new to the team this summer, was probably not ready to play in Sept., but that doesn't mean he isn't ready now.

 

[Dirty Sanchez]

While I won't argue with some of the rankings on the Packers run defense being #1 or #2 in the NFL, I'm not so sure how they got there is convincing enough for me to feel comfortable until i see it repeated this Sunday against Dallas.

We will see. Just because the teams we have played so far haven't been strong running teams doesn't mean that the Packers run defense isn't great. They very well could be that good. Think they are getting very jacked up for this first big test!

DS

 

[Charles gerbschmidt]

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

YIKES...... and the Vikings offense has been decimated by injuries. I think it speaks volumes about the coaches we have and the coaches they have.....

 

[Arthur Squires]

I'm confident the Pack D can hold Elliott under 100yds and out of the endzone! Especially the way Daniels and Guion have been playing thus far. Include Perry and the way he's playing the run with the return of Pennel who may be in the best shape of his career set to return to clog up the middle. Then finally our young ILBs Ryan and Martinez are both playing the run well so far. Time to nut up or shut up!

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

YIKES...... and the Vikings offense has been decimated by injuries. I think it speaks volumes about the coaches we have and the coaches they have.....

Not sure how comparing Rodgers 6 turnover to Bradfords 0 turnovers is a reflection of the coaching?

 

[Pkrjones]

...Packers would probably be smarter use Lacy, Ripkowski and some receivers at RB rather than waste time with a player who will most likely offer less than Starks. There's absolutely no reason that McCarthy can't devise a game plan that minimizes the amount of traditional run plays that he needs to use. I don't see anyone telling Belichick that he needs to run the ball more when he wins a game while calling 8 run plays. Why can't the Packers adjust in that fashion?

- Lacy is less than 100%, even though he tells the coaches he's OK.
- Although Ripkowski played 25 snaps last week I'm not optimistic in his role as "workhorse", yet. He "tweaked" his back and had to leave the 9/25 game so I'd be leery banking on 45+ snaps.
- Cobb may be able to play but don't want him getting banged around as a RB after that head/neck hit last week.
- Monty at RB would be OK for 8-10 snaps as a receiving threat on a LB, but I wouldn't want to use him running inside.
- Don't have roster room for Jackson unless Starks gets IR'd or cut which I don't think will happen.

IMHO need Pennel more than a 3rd RB on the roster.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

- Lacy is less than 100%, even though he tells the coaches he's OK.
- Although Ripkowski played 25 snaps last week I'm not optimistic in his role as "workhorse", yet. He "tweaked" his back and had to leave the 9/25 game so I'd be leery banking on 45+ snaps.
- Cobb may be able to play but don't want him getting banged around as a RB after that head/neck hit last week.
- Monty at RB would be OK for 8-10 snaps as a receiving threat on a LB, but I wouldn't want to use him running inside.
- Don't have roster room for Jackson unless Starks gets IR'd or cut which I don't think will happen.

IMHO need Pennel more than a 3rd RB on the roster.

I agree on everything you said, but you don't have to IR Starks or not give Pennel a spot on the 53 to be able to also give Jackson the 3rd RB spot, which is a spot commonly used on most teams 53. We are carrying 7 WR's and only using 3-4 in a game, one can go. Price or Ringo can be cut and probably put back on the PS. Callahan is also a possibility as a cut and move to PS.

 

[OldSchool101]

If both Lacy and Starks are out, I am not a fan of going with just Rip and using Cobb and Montgomery with him. Bring Jackson up and see what the kid can do.

I'm with you Poker. I think if we use Jackson in a minimal selective play range and 15 reps or so,then use Monty more similar to the 1st 6 games last year that could work.
Although, I have a feeling Lacy will be used in a light load capacity

 

[OldSchool101]

I'm not super confident we can stop the Dallas running attack yet, but if we can slow Zeke and their O line down under 45 yards or so per half? I'd consider that a win for our D
This will be the true litmus test for our run D. They also have Alfred Morris and a solid runner in Dak so I expect we'll have Burnette or Dix playing up more.
I like the speed of our LB wrecking crew. They need to contain Prescott inside and not let him bounce outside
We're gonna need our ST to play smart and our O to light up this secondary to win this one.
This is where having Cook underneath would've helped.

 

[Packerlifer]

http://www.espn.com/blog/nfceast/po...n-stingy-but-will-face-challenge-from-packers

 

[Carl]

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

YIKES...... and the Vikings offense has been decimated by injuries. I think it speaks volumes about the coaches we have and the coaches they have.....

The Packers have more points, yards, and dominate them in rushing yards a game (112 to 70.6).

Just picking out one player comparison doesn't say much.

Could even spin it the other way and say it's a better coaching job to have a better offense despite 6 more turnovers from the QB.

 

[Carl]

Not sure how comparing Rodgers 6 turnover to Bradfords 0 turnovers is a reflection of the coaching?

Well, you see... If the Packers coaches didn't tell Rodgers before every play to make not to turn it over, it's their fault...

 

[Voltron]

Set all statistics aside for a while and look at the paranormal for a second. who knows what our record is with the Blue and gold uniforms? I heard we may be wearing blue and gold on Sunday and perhaps paranormal activity will get us another win this sunday since we have a nice record wih those alternate uniforms.

 

[Packerlifer]

https://doorcountypulse.com/packers-cowboys-rivalry-full-streaks/


Battles for Championships:

1966-

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

1967-

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

1982- http://www.packershistory.net/1982PACKERS/PLAYOFF2NDROUND.html

1993- http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/199401160dal.htm

1994- http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/199501080dal.htm

1995- http://www.dallascowboys.com/video/2016/01/14/throwback-cowboys-beat-packers-96-nfc-title-game

2014-

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[Sunshinepacker]

- Lacy is less than 100%, even though he tells the coaches he's OK.
- Although Ripkowski played 25 snaps last week I'm not optimistic in his role as "workhorse", yet. He "tweaked" his back and had to leave the 9/25 game so I'd be leery banking on 45+ snaps.
- Cobb may be able to play but don't want him getting banged around as a RB after that head/neck hit last week.
- Monty at RB would be OK for 8-10 snaps as a receiving threat on a LB, but I wouldn't want to use him running inside.
- Don't have roster room for Jackson unless Starks gets IR'd or cut which I don't think will happen.

IMHO need Pennel more than a 3rd RB on the roster.

Yeah, like i said, a third running back coming in probably won't add too much to the team and, to your point, Pennel helping on the dline against Zeke will be extremely important.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Within your explanation lies the answer. Yes, at the beginning of the season Starks was viewed as the better back then all by Lacy. His contract was proof of that. Even had Crockett or any of the other UDFA RB's outplayed Starks, he makes the team. So to say that he is still the better back, because of decisions made over 7 weeks ago, isn't really being accurate. The bottom line is, if he isn't getting the job done and there is a guy available that may, then at this point, who cares about the contract, Starks becomes our #3 and next man up (Jackson) gets a shot at being #2. Had Crockett not been hurt, I can almost guarantee you we would be seeing him play. Jackson being new to the team this summer, was probably not ready to play in Sept., but that doesn't mean he isn't ready now.

Starks has been bad all season. If Jackson hasn't passed him by now I doubt he suddenly got a lot better just this week. I mean, it's not like the bar was very high for jackson to be the better player, Starks has been one of the worst running backs in the NFL. So, even if Jackson was suddenly just a little better than Starks, that would only mean that Jackson is still a bad NFL running back.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Starks has been bad all season. If Jackson hasn't passed him by now I doubt he suddenly got a lot better just this week. I mean, it's not like the bar was very high for jackson to be the better player, Starks has been one of the worst running backs in the NFL. So, even if Jackson was suddenly just a little better than Starks, that would only mean that Jackson is still a bad NFL running back.

While I doubt anyone would argue that James Starks is off to a rocky start, I don't think declaring him "one of the worst running backs in the NFL" after 4 games and just 24 carries (42 yds) and 6 receptions (50 yds) is entirely accurate at this point. Is Aaron Rodgers the 24th best QB in the league because of his current stats? Will AR's stats get better? Could Starks?

Anyway, you are also failing to see the point that Jackson is a rookie UDFA who made the Packers PS in September due to his potential, college resume and preseason, not due to his past regular season body of work with the Packers, as was the case with Starks. If you think he will never amount to anything, then why have a PS, since all the guys put on it are worse then the 53 and will never improve, right?

The decision the Packers have to make is simple. Has James Starks's game eroded enough to warrant losing his spot at #2 RB and has Jackson's game improved enough to warrant giving him a shot at #2.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

While I doubt anyone would argue that James Starks is off to a rocky start, I don't think declaring him "one of the worst running backs in the NFL" after 4 games and just 24 carries (42 yds) and 6 receptions (50 yds) is entirely accurate at this point. Is Aaron Rodgers the 24th best QB in the league because of his current stats? Will AR's stats get better? Could Starks?

Anyway, you are also failing to see the point that Jackson is a rookie UDFA who made the Packers PS in September due to his potential, college resume and preseason, not due to his past regular season body of work with the Packers, as was the case with Starks. If you think he will never amount to anything, then why have a PS, since all the guys put on it are worse then the 53 and will never improve, right?

The decision the Packers have to make is simple. Has James Starks's game eroded enough to warrant losing his spot at #2 RB and has Jackson's game improved enough to warrant giving him a shot at #2.

I don't know. I haven't watched every running back in the NFL. However, there are people that I have and they currently show him to be one of the bottom-5 running backs in the NFL. You should also mention that on just 24 carries Starks has already fumbled one time. That's pretty terrible.

And you're analogy to Rodgers is nonsensical. That's like defending the poor play of Randall by arguing that Mike Daniels isn't the 45th worst DT because of his sacks. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other and nobody is arguing the point you just made up.

You have a PS so that players can develop. I never said that Jackson would NEVER be better than Starks.

 

[gopkrs]

The one time I saw a hole for Starks to run through last week; he accelerated really well. It is a little disconcerting that he has not been able to make it to the outside like he consistently did during the super bowl run. But I think that has a lot to do with the defenses stretching and not allowing it. After he has a big run these thoughts about his ineffectiveness will calm down imho. And I hope Rodgers starts throwing the screen pass a bit better. He can't expect the players to catch the ball just because he throws it in their vicinity. It should be an easy pass and catch.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I don't know. I haven't watched every running back in the NFL. However, there are people that I have and they currently show him to be one of the bottom-5 running backs in the NFL. You should also mention that on just 24 carries Starks has already fumbled one time. That's pretty terrible.

And you're analogy to Rodgers is nonsensical. That's like defending the poor play of Randall by arguing that Mike Daniels isn't the 45th worst DT because of his sacks. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other and nobody is arguing the point you just made up.

You have a PS so that players can develop. I never said that Jackson would NEVER be better than Starks.

Wait, so you can use Starks limited body of work this season, toss out anything he has done in the past and declare him one of the worst backs in the NFL? But....that method can't be applied to another player like Aaron Rodgers? Ok

You implied that because Jackson was worse then Starks at the beginning of the Season there is no way he can be any better then him now. That just doesn't make sense to me. One player you are saying is terrible and then you say another player couldn't have improved to be any better.

I haven't concluded that Starks is terrible nor that Jackson is any better, that is something the coaches would know way more about then me or you. But what I can conclude is that the possibility is there.