You are currently viewing the old forums. We have upgraded to a new NFL Forum.
This old forum is being left as a read-only archive.
Please update your bookmarks to our new forum at forums.footballsfuture.com.


 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Eddie Lacy - RB Position
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 24, 25, 26, 27  Next
 
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Pugger


Joined: 01 May 2010
Posts: 14803
Location: Green Bay for the summer.
PostPosted: Mon Mar 27, 2017 10:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

smetana34 wrote:
HorizontoZenith wrote:
So what in the hell is Michael here for if he's not going to be the 15-20 carry a game guy while Montgomery is the 5-10 carry guy?

It just makes no sense to have two guys who do the 5-10 carry a game thing when you already have one.

As long as McCarthy monitors Montgomery's stamina, Montgomery will be enough.


Why do you think a guy as talented as Michael is constantly cut, sometimes by the same team twice, and playing for near minimum wage? Because he's not an answer. He's a 3rd RB at best. We have our RB2. We need an RB1 now.


Probably because all of his talent is from the neck on down. Wink He can run but I don't think he is the smartest guy on the roster.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
smetana34


Joined: 14 Feb 2007
Posts: 4188
Location: Chippewa Falls, WI
PostPosted: Mon Mar 27, 2017 1:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

persiandud wrote:
Why are people getting so upset at the mere suggestion that Michael can be more than a RB3?
I don't think anyone is mad at the suggestion, more just calling a spade a spade: he's shown to not be a feature back and crashed and burned at 4 different spots. Given the way the position unfolded last year (going into the season with only 2 RB's on the roster, one being a "reinvented" Lacy) and having it underwhelm all year, I'd rather not pin our hopes on a 5th year veteran finally figuring it out when there's a deep RB class starring us in the face.
_________________
Uncle Buck wrote:

Uncle Buck: "I'm expecting Kate Beckinsale to dump her husband and run away with me."
incognito_man wrote:

you probably have better odds of running off with Tebow.


Last edited by smetana34 on Mon Mar 27, 2017 2:04 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fattlipp


Joined: 12 Jan 2005
Posts: 1198
PostPosted: Mon Mar 27, 2017 1:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

smetana34 wrote:
persiandud wrote:
Why are people getting so upset at the mere suggestion that Michael can be more than a RB3?
I don't think anyone is mad at the suggestion, more just calling a spade a spade: he's shown to not be a feature back and crashed and burned at 4 different spots. Given the way the position unfolded last year (going into the season with only 2 RB's on the roster, one being a "reinvented" Lacy) and having it underwhelm all year, I'd rather not pin our hopes on a 7 year veteran finally figuring it out when there's a deep RB class starring us in the face.


Wasn't he the highest SPARQ scoring RB ever?, maybe him or McKinnon, he just has to overcome the mental aspect, and RB is one of the easiest positions to learn.

They didn't have SPARQ scores when Bo was in the NFL, but its quite possible Michael is the best athlete to play RB since Bo Knows. Tomlinson had a 145, Michael had 147-152 depending on the source, McKinnon had 149.


https://3sigmaathlete.com/rankings/rb/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
squire12


Joined: 15 Mar 2013
Posts: 6579
PostPosted: Mon Mar 27, 2017 1:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

smetana34 wrote:
persiandud wrote:
Why are people getting so upset at the mere suggestion that Michael can be more than a RB3?
I don't think anyone is mad at the suggestion, more just calling a spade a spade: he's shown to not be a feature back and crashed and burned at 4 different spots. Given the way the position unfolded last year (going into the season with only 2 RB's on the roster, one being a "reinvented" Lacy) and having it underwhelm all year, I'd rather not pin our hopes on a 7 year veteran finally figuring it out when there's a deep RB class starring us in the face.


For the bolded, if you are referring to Christine Michael, he will be entering his 5th year in the NFL not his 7th, same as Lacy.
_________________
Salary Cap Fantasy Football League
2016 Salary Cap League Rosters
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
smetana34


Joined: 14 Feb 2007
Posts: 4188
Location: Chippewa Falls, WI
PostPosted: Mon Mar 27, 2017 2:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

squire12 wrote:
smetana34 wrote:
persiandud wrote:
Why are people getting so upset at the mere suggestion that Michael can be more than a RB3?
I don't think anyone is mad at the suggestion, more just calling a spade a spade: he's shown to not be a feature back and crashed and burned at 4 different spots. Given the way the position unfolded last year (going into the season with only 2 RB's on the roster, one being a "reinvented" Lacy) and having it underwhelm all year, I'd rather not pin our hopes on a 7 year veteran finally figuring it out when there's a deep RB class starring us in the face.


For the bolded, if you are referring to Christine Michael, he will be entering his 5th year in the NFL not his 7th, same as Lacy.


Oh duh. You're right. Looking at his stat lines he has 7 lines, but that's because 15-16 he played for two different teams each season.

Good catch.
_________________
Uncle Buck wrote:

Uncle Buck: "I'm expecting Kate Beckinsale to dump her husband and run away with me."
incognito_man wrote:

you probably have better odds of running off with Tebow.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
squire12


Joined: 15 Mar 2013
Posts: 6579
PostPosted: Mon Mar 27, 2017 2:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

smetana34 wrote:
squire12 wrote:
smetana34 wrote:
persiandud wrote:
Why are people getting so upset at the mere suggestion that Michael can be more than a RB3?
I don't think anyone is mad at the suggestion, more just calling a spade a spade: he's shown to not be a feature back and crashed and burned at 4 different spots. Given the way the position unfolded last year (going into the season with only 2 RB's on the roster, one being a "reinvented" Lacy) and having it underwhelm all year, I'd rather not pin our hopes on a 7 year veteran finally figuring it out when there's a deep RB class starring us in the face.


For the bolded, if you are referring to Christine Michael, he will be entering his 5th year in the NFL not his 7th, same as Lacy.


Oh duh. You're right. Looking at his stat lines he has 7 lines, but that's because 15-16 he played for two different teams each season.

Good catch.


No worries. He has played for a few teams in multiple seasons.
_________________
Salary Cap Fantasy Football League
2016 Salary Cap League Rosters
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DavidatMIZZOU


Joined: 09 Apr 2009
Posts: 16101
Location: The ZOU
PostPosted: Mon Apr 03, 2017 10:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I just ran across this Eddie Lacy video. He was good. But I can't help but think that Ahman Green or Ryan Grant would have scored on some of those runs.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xmn8QZG2gA
_________________
GO PACK GO!

mistakebytehlak wrote:

My god it must be so terrible to have three teams that consistently make the playoffs

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CentralFC


Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 11933
PostPosted: Mon Apr 03, 2017 11:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DavidatMIZZOU wrote:
I just ran across this Eddie Lacy video. He was good. But I can't help but think that Ahman Green or Ryan Grant would have scored on some of those runs.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xmn8QZG2gA


The Batman would have taken all those to the house.
_________________
packerjmf wrote:
GWH87 wrote:
Somebody take the off season shovel out of Ted's hands & bury him in his own hole.

How can he dig a hole if he's too busy sitting on his hands?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DraftHobbyist


Joined: 17 Aug 2014
Posts: 349
PostPosted: Mon Apr 03, 2017 11:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Athleticism is important, but RB is one of those positions that a player doesn't actually have to be super athletic at. Sure, there may be some runs where maybe an athletic RB takes it to the house and an unathletic RB gets caught 40 yards downfield, but it's still a 40-yard gain. Most runs are short, and I think instincts actually matter far more for RB's than athleticism.

On the other hand, I'd say keep things simple for Michael and see what he can do. If he can't pass protect, just put him out in the flat and let him catch and make guys miss in the open field. I mean really, how difficult is that? Tell him to run through certain gaps, how hard is that? The Packers can run a complicated Offense, but if you have a guy that struggles to take it all in, I feel like it's just being stubborn not to simplify it for him. And when that guy can hit the hole as quickly as Michael, he can be quite valuable. I don't see what the downside really is to bring him in to compete for RB3 position and if he climbs because he proves himself then he climbs because he proves himself.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CentralFC


Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 11933
PostPosted: Tue Apr 04, 2017 12:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

DraftHobbyist wrote:
Athleticism is important, but RB is one of those positions that a player doesn't actually have to be super athletic at. Sure, there may be some runs where maybe an athletic RB takes it to the house and an unathletic RB gets caught 40 yards downfield, but it's still a 40-yard gain. Most runs are short, and I think instincts actually matter far more for RB's than athleticism.

On the other hand, I'd say keep things simple for Michael and see what he can do. If he can't pass protect, just put him out in the flat and let him catch and make guys miss in the open field. I mean really, how difficult is that? Tell him to run through certain gaps, how hard is that? The Packers can run a complicated Offense, but if you have a guy that struggles to take it all in, I feel like it's just being stubborn not to simplify it for him. And when that guy can hit the hole as quickly as Michael, he can be quite valuable. I don't see what the downside really is to bring him in to compete for RB3 position and if he climbs because he proves himself then he climbs because he proves himself.


Great idea. Limit your offense to three or four plays when Michael is in so he doesn't confuse left from right and "run" from "pass."

That way the defense will never know what's coming!
_________________
packerjmf wrote:
GWH87 wrote:
Somebody take the off season shovel out of Ted's hands & bury him in his own hole.

How can he dig a hole if he's too busy sitting on his hands?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DraftHobbyist


Joined: 17 Aug 2014
Posts: 349
PostPosted: Tue Apr 04, 2017 12:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CentralFC wrote:
DraftHobbyist wrote:
Athleticism is important, but RB is one of those positions that a player doesn't actually have to be super athletic at. Sure, there may be some runs where maybe an athletic RB takes it to the house and an unathletic RB gets caught 40 yards downfield, but it's still a 40-yard gain. Most runs are short, and I think instincts actually matter far more for RB's than athleticism.

On the other hand, I'd say keep things simple for Michael and see what he can do. If he can't pass protect, just put him out in the flat and let him catch and make guys miss in the open field. I mean really, how difficult is that? Tell him to run through certain gaps, how hard is that? The Packers can run a complicated Offense, but if you have a guy that struggles to take it all in, I feel like it's just being stubborn not to simplify it for him. And when that guy can hit the hole as quickly as Michael, he can be quite valuable. I don't see what the downside really is to bring him in to compete for RB3 position and if he climbs because he proves himself then he climbs because he proves himself.


Great idea. Limit your offense to three or four plays when Michael is in so he doesn't confuse left from right and "run" from "pass."

That way the defense will never know what's coming!


Why is it that every time I say anything you have to oversimplify my arguments and make strawmen arguments out of them? Why can't you simply counter the points I actually make rather then your mischaracterization of the points I make? It's getting really, really old.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
spilltray


Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 12051
Location: Green Bay, WI
PostPosted: Tue Apr 04, 2017 12:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ok here you go. Rodgers is rarely going to use a checkdown RB. He's not that type of QB. There are 2 ways a RB can be used in the passing game. Either as a blocker or a downfield receiver. Neither are things Michael is ever going to be good at.

The running game is more complicated than that as well. The offense is designed for a RB that can read his blocks and designated "holes" is more a power scheme. Yes the Packers run some of both (every team does) but it's a solid zone lean. It's not just the spot either, how the play develops and other things going on matter.

Sure bring him in to compete for RB3. No problem with that, but to climb (or even earn that spot) he's going to have to digest at least some of the playbook.

This isn't really any different than people who make the same argument for Janis. "Just send him out there to run 9s". That doesn't really work. You have to be able to run more of the offense than that.
_________________
Wilfred wrote:
Memory is like the Packers when they are behind by two touchdowns in the 4th quarter... It comes back.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
CentralFC


Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 11933
PostPosted: Tue Apr 04, 2017 1:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

DraftHobbyist wrote:
CentralFC wrote:
DraftHobbyist wrote:
Athleticism is important, but RB is one of those positions that a player doesn't actually have to be super athletic at. Sure, there may be some runs where maybe an athletic RB takes it to the house and an unathletic RB gets caught 40 yards downfield, but it's still a 40-yard gain. Most runs are short, and I think instincts actually matter far more for RB's than athleticism.

On the other hand, I'd say keep things simple for Michael and see what he can do. If he can't pass protect, just put him out in the flat and let him catch and make guys miss in the open field. I mean really, how difficult is that? Tell him to run through certain gaps, how hard is that? The Packers can run a complicated Offense, but if you have a guy that struggles to take it all in, I feel like it's just being stubborn not to simplify it for him. And when that guy can hit the hole as quickly as Michael, he can be quite valuable. I don't see what the downside really is to bring him in to compete for RB3 position and if he climbs because he proves himself then he climbs because he proves himself.


Great idea. Limit your offense to three or four plays when Michael is in so he doesn't confuse left from right and "run" from "pass."

That way the defense will never know what's coming!


Why is it that every time I say anything you have to oversimplify my arguments and make strawmen arguments out of them? Why can't you simply counter the points I actually make rather then your mischaracterization of the points I make? It's getting really, really old.


"If he can't pass protect, just put him out in the flat and let him catch and make guys miss in the open field. I mean really, how difficult is that? Tell him to run through certain gaps, how hard is that? The Packers can run a complicated Offense, but if you have a guy that struggles to take it all in, I feel like it's just being stubborn not to simplify it for him"
_________________
packerjmf wrote:
GWH87 wrote:
Somebody take the off season shovel out of Ted's hands & bury him in his own hole.

How can he dig a hole if he's too busy sitting on his hands?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jaegybomb


Joined: 29 Apr 2016
Posts: 215
PostPosted: Tue Apr 04, 2017 1:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The nice thing about Michael is if it ever does click and he starts to pick it up he's great value. No other team is going to steal him away in free agency to spend 18 months trying to teach him their system so we can just name our price Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DraftHobbyist


Joined: 17 Aug 2014
Posts: 349
PostPosted: Tue Apr 04, 2017 2:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

spilltray wrote:
Ok here you go. Rodgers is rarely going to use a checkdown RB. He's not that type of QB. There are 2 ways a RB can be used in the passing game. Either as a blocker or a downfield receiver. Neither are things Michael is ever going to be good at.

The running game is more complicated than that as well. The offense is designed for a RB that can read his blocks and designated "holes" is more a power scheme. Yes the Packers run some of both (every team does) but it's a solid zone lean. It's not just the spot either, how the play develops and other things going on matter.

Sure bring him in to compete for RB3. No problem with that, but to climb (or even earn that spot) he's going to have to digest at least some of the playbook.

This isn't really any different than people who make the same argument for Janis. "Just send him out there to run 9s". That doesn't really work. You have to be able to run more of the offense than that.


I'm well aware of how a ZBS operates, but ZBS's still create holes. It's up to the RB to choose, but there is still a design to the play. For instance, there's a big difference between a dive and a sweep, and that has to be something built in from the beginning of the play, not something the RB is going to read after getting the ball.

I do completely disagree with your analysis of "Rodgers just isn't that kind of QB" to dump a ball off to a RB. He actually started dumping the ball off quite a bit to Eddie Lacy. And if you're trying to simplify the game for a player, allowing him to go for dump-offs is a great way to do it. Rodgers is working within an Offense that is built on intermediate-long shots, but check downs can still easily be a part of the Offense, and would help protect Rodgers.

Another easy way to simplify things for a RB is to not audible, or at least not to change his responsibility. IIRC, some of the issues with Michael last year came on audibles. Also, babysitting him where Rodgers calls the play and double checks with Michael to make sure he understands it can help as well. You can't do that for every player on the field, but if you have to do it for one, you can get by.

In the end, you actually agree with me that bringing Michael in to compete for RB3 is just fine. That's what TT is doing. This isn't a #1 or #2 RB signing, so I'm not sure why people are getting up in arms as if it is. But yeah, at some point, Michael, like any other player on the team, can prove that he has learned the Offense and is a very good player and can move up the depth chart potentially, but as for right now, he's nothing but a possible RB3 and may not make the team. Why are people so upset about this signing? It makes no sense to me to get upset about such a low-risk move.

CentralFC: Good job, you quote me. Now read your characterization and notice the differences that completely change the meaning of what I said.

Jaegybomb: I don't know if that was sarcastic or not, but that is actually true to a large extent. If Michael catches on with a team and really breaks out, he's likely to want to stay with that team and other teams are likely to have cold feet knowing his history.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 24, 25, 26, 27  Next
Page 25 of 27

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group