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 ... , 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
spilltray


Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 12051
Location: Green Bay, WI
PostPosted: Tue Apr 04, 2017 8:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

DraftHobbyist wrote:
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.


Dives and sweeps are power run plays not ZBS. WHERE the hole is going to be and WHEN to hit it is a read the RB has to make. There is no simplifying this. It's why vision and patience are probably two of the most important traits for a RB in this offense.

He did not check down to Lacy often at all. Sure it happened occasionally, but it is not something that's going to happen often enough to be worth using him in that role. He has to be able to block consistently to make it on the field.

Not audible or change responsibilities? Um no? Learn the damn playbook or GTFO the NFL. This is a stupid limit to put on your QB, especially one like Rodgers. Under no circumstances is anything Michael (or any other RB) worth this kind of consideration. There is enough going on that you can't get by doing this consistently for ANY player.

I think it's fine to bring him in to compete for RB3 but I hope they add enough depth that he doesn't make it. His limitations learning an offense make him a limited role at best.

I hate the hype trains that follow guys like Michael and Janis. Yes physical talent is nice, but the mental side of the game is every bit as important. No you can't "just get him on the field" if they can't earn it.
_________________
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
Jaegybomb


Joined: 29 Apr 2016
Posts: 215
PostPosted: Tue Apr 04, 2017 8:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wasn't he one of the top kick return guys by the end of the year?
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 8:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jaegybomb wrote:
Wasn't he one of the top kick return guys by the end of the year?


Back up RB are usually KR.
_________________
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 8:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

spilltray wrote:

Not audible or change responsibilities? Um no? Learn the damn playbook or GTFO the NFL. This is a stupid limit to put on your QB, especially one like Rodgers. Under no circumstances is anything Michael (or any other RB) worth this kind of consideration. There is enough going on that you can't get by doing this consistently for ANY player.

I think it's fine to bring him in to compete for RB3 but I hope they add enough depth that he doesn't make it. His limitations learning an offense make him a limited role at best.

I hate the hype trains that follow guys like Michael and Janis. Yes physical talent is nice, but the mental side of the game is every bit as important. No you can't "just get him on the field" if they can't earn it.


Agreed on all counts, well said.

Let's dumb things down for QB1 (making $20+ million a year) so Christine friggin' Michael doesn't go the wrong direction.

Any way you look at the following is ridiculous.
Quote:
"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
NormSizedMidget


Joined: 28 Mar 2011
Posts: 17912
PostPosted: Tue Apr 04, 2017 8:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Is he really that dumb that he can't comprehend this stuff?

I'm not being facetious, are we so sure he's just that braindead? If so, why did the staff claim him, put him on the field, then bring him back? If he's such a liability to hurting Rodgers and everything?

I think it's likely they have faith that he's not just a brick with lips.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
CentralFC


Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 11933
PostPosted: Tue Apr 04, 2017 8:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

NormSizedMidget wrote:
Is he really that dumb that he can't comprehend this stuff?

I'm not being facetious, are we so sure he's just that braindead? If so, why did the staff claim him, put him on the field, then bring him back? If he's such a liability to hurting Rodgers and everything?

I think it's likely they have faith that he's not just a brick with lips.


I think it's part dumb and part impatience. That's what peeved Seattle coaches. He's hard to block for throughout the game because he's so undisciplined. Seattle runs a heavy zone scheme not unlike us. Michael's flaws as a runner go deeper than being dumb and will probably show up here.

Why we even contemplate the idea of dumbing down the offense for Michael--when people complain about the offense being schematically stale--I don't know.
_________________
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 8:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

20 is average on the wonderlic and 10 means the person qualifies as literate. Michael scored an 11. Then again Frank Gore scored a 6.

Last edited by Jaegybomb on Tue Apr 04, 2017 8:51 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CentralFC


Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 11933
PostPosted: Tue Apr 04, 2017 8:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

NormSizedMidget wrote:
Is he really that dumb that he can't comprehend this stuff?

I'm not being facetious, are we so sure he's just that braindead? If so, why did the staff claim him, put him on the field, then bring him back? If he's such a liability to hurting Rodgers and everything?

I think it's likely they have faith that he's not just a brick with lips.


why?

our only running back on the roster is a converted receiver with blatant durability concerns. resigning a veteran to a one-year deal isn't indicative of anything except our depth concerns at the position.
_________________
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
NormSizedMidget


Joined: 28 Mar 2011
Posts: 17912
PostPosted: Tue Apr 04, 2017 8:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CentralFC wrote:
NormSizedMidget wrote:
Is he really that dumb that he can't comprehend this stuff?

I'm not being facetious, are we so sure he's just that braindead? If so, why did the staff claim him, put him on the field, then bring him back? If he's such a liability to hurting Rodgers and everything?

I think it's likely they have faith that he's not just a brick with lips.


I think it's part dumb and part impatience. That's what peeved Seattle coaches. He's hard to block for throughout the game because he's so undisciplined. Seattle runs a heavy zone scheme not unlike us. Michael's flaws as a runner go deeper than being dumb and will probably show up here.

Why we even contemplate the idea of dumbing down the offense for Michael--when people complain about the offense being schematically stale--I don't know.


That's fair. I guess I don't have that many more concerns than I would have for about 50% of 3rd RBs that we'd have on our roster typically.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
vegas492


Joined: 30 Oct 2012
Posts: 1510
Location: Pewaukee, Wisconsin
PostPosted: Tue Apr 04, 2017 9:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

DraftHobbyist wrote:
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.

Man, I really like your thoughts on a lot of topics, but this one is a head scratcher.

Michael doesn't know how to read a running play and hit a hole correctly. If he did, he would still be in Seattle. He also is never going to fully understand audibles and his responsibilities.

Mac simply will not simplify an offense for a running back. All that does is limit his best player and his best scheme. (Rodgers and the passing attack.)

Suggesting that Mac does that just isn't wise. Michael isn't a generational talent that an offense could be "tailor made" to fit. Rodgers is.

Michael is a fine backup running back, but suggesting that the offense be modified to better fit him just doesn't help the club at all.

Now...coaching him to be more patient? You bet. Coaching him on audibles and protections? You bet. If the kid can pick up those little things, he could be a nice weapon. Until he does, he's a liability. Both in the running game and in the passing game.
_________________
From my perspective, and I don't know if Brett would say this [publicly] -- I know he's shared with me -- we would not be nearly as appreciative of everything that the Packers are had we not seen it from the other side," ---Ryan Longwell 2016
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DraftHobbyist


Joined: 17 Aug 2014
Posts: 349
PostPosted: Tue Apr 04, 2017 11:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

spilltray wrote:
Dives and sweeps are power run plays not ZBS. WHERE the hole is going to be and WHEN to hit it is a read the RB has to make. There is no simplifying this. It's why vision and patience are probably two of the most important traits for a RB in this offense.

He did not check down to Lacy often at all. Sure it happened occasionally, but it is not something that's going to happen often enough to be worth using him in that role. He has to be able to block consistently to make it on the field.

Not audible or change responsibilities? Um no? Learn the damn playbook or GTFO the NFL. This is a stupid limit to put on your QB, especially one like Rodgers. Under no circumstances is anything Michael (or any other RB) worth this kind of consideration. There is enough going on that you can't get by doing this consistently for ANY player.

I think it's fine to bring him in to compete for RB3 but I hope they add enough depth that he doesn't make it. His limitations learning an offense make him a limited role at best.

I hate the hype trains that follow guys like Michael and Janis. Yes physical talent is nice, but the mental side of the game is every bit as important. No you can't "just get him on the field" if they can't earn it.


You can make the argument that dives and sweeps may be power language, but in the ZBS, there are still designs to either go more inside or outside. That is designed from the start. There's a lot of combo blocking that needs to happen and OL's still need responsibilities so they know what area to block. And once again, I've mentioned many other ways to simplify his responsibilities.

And I disagree about patience and vision are the two most important traits. It really depends on what kind of runner you want, and there are many styles that can succeed. People are high on the patience right now because of Bell, but this Offense has been most successful with Ryan Grant, a very North-and-South runner. Want a yard on 3rd and 1? You don't want a patient runner as much as you do just want a guy to run into the hole as quickly as possible and fall forward for that 1 yard.

I think your comment really shows the difference in our philosophies. If I see a potentially good player that has a weakness, I'm going to try and lessen that weakness and help that player along so hopefully they can improve. You're going to force them into their weakness and fail the player that could potentially otherwise succeed if you weren't so stubborn. IMO, your philosophy isn't good coaching at all. Some players need to be eased into things. In reality, all players are eased into the playbook to some extent, which is why MM gives the playbook to players in installments, not just at once. For Michael, I think you just simplify further and effectively just create more installments. Use him as a smaller package guy for a certain role. He has shown that touching the ball only a few times can lead to big things. Do I want him to be our #1 guy or having a high volume of snaps? No, but I think it's possible for him to have a role, and then maybe he can surprise long-term.

And once again, you keep discussing with me about Michael, but then you come to the conclusion I'm holding. Michael is being brought in as a low-risk move to compete as a RB3. You don't have a problem with that. So why are we discussing this? You say you hate the hype train, and I think that's making you jump to conclusions on this issue. I'm not hyping Michael. I simply don't hate the move like many people were hating on it. I'm not sure how me not hating a move equates to hyping a player.

Also, when I said not to audible or change responsibilities, I meant for him. Rodgers can still put a WR on a hot route or audible in other ways, but yeah, I don't think it's smart to do things like audible for passes to runs if a RB is struggling with the playbook. You just seem to want to say learn the playbook or get out of the NFL, but you don't seem to want to give him any time to learn it. You don't seem to want to ease him into it. I totally disagree.

Jaegybomb: Yes, he has the potential to be very good on ST's because athleticism is very important on ST's.

NormSizedMidget: Nobody really knows what or how bad the issue is with Michael's mental game. People are jumping to conclusions because basically the Seahawks said he had troubles with the playbooks, and the Packers threw him to the wolves and he ran like two wrong plays after being with the team with a very short time. People love to point to how the Seahawks kept getting rid of Michael, but they also kept bringing him back.

CentralFC: To say I'm arguing to dumb down the Offense is a bit dramatic. lol I don't know who's saying we are stale schematically, but I would definitely not say that.

vegas492: About reading a play, if he can't figure it out then we move on from him with very little damage done, unless we want to keep him for his ST's play, which is possible. It's not simply where a guy is now, because he can grow as a player. He was not with the Packers very long to make all of these long-term judgments about what he can't do. Lets give him a full offseason. And honestly, the intelligence it takes for a RB is being way overblown. RB's don't have to be rocket scientists.

Of course Michael isn't a generational talent. I'm not suggesting the Packers tailor make the Offense to fit Michael at all. I'm simply talking about scheming in a way that encourages strengths and minimizes weaknesses. This is done for every other player, so why do we suddenly have to play to the weaknesses of Michael? That makes no sense. If Michael can't block but he can catch, put him in the flat. If they blitz, have Rodgers dump the ball off and let Michael tear them up in the open field with his athleticism assuming Rodgers can't find something to a WR/TE before that.

You say you want all of this coaching of Michael, but coaching takes time. If you have to be willing to give him time. I really don't get it when people say they are against this move or criticize me for some of the things I've said, but then their conclusions are exactly what I'm saying: Michael can compete for the RB3 spot which everybody seems now to be okay with (and is what I've been arguing this whole time), and we can coach Michael up while simplifying his responsibilities in the mean time. I mean, are you really arguing that while you coach Michael you just want to throw him to the wolves and play to his weaknesses? I don't think you are, so what you and I are saying is the same thing just emphasizing different points.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NormSizedMidget


Joined: 28 Mar 2011
Posts: 17912
PostPosted: Tue Apr 04, 2017 11:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Excuse me if I'm being naive, but wouldn't most RB3s have sort of a package anyways?

So what's the issue with adjusting it some? It's not like it has to only be two plays.

I think the answer here is kind of in between both sides of this argument, as is so often the case.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
NormSizedMidget


Joined: 28 Mar 2011
Posts: 17912
PostPosted: Tue Apr 04, 2017 11:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:

NormSizedMidget: Nobody really knows what or how bad the issue is with Michael's mental game. People are jumping to conclusions because basically the Seahawks said he had troubles with the playbooks, and the Packers threw him to the wolves and he ran like two wrong plays after being with the team with a very short time. People love to point to how the Seahawks kept getting rid of Michael, but they also kept bringing him back.


Sure. The scary part though, even as a Cmike "fan" is this crap has gone back to TAMU, he wouldn't play through injuries. He pissed off the coaches so much they badmouthed him to teams/scouts. He over slept combine stuff. He celebrates stupidly, like we've seen on that return, it happened in DAL too IIRC.

Then again, Pete went on record after they released him to say it was purely because of their other options, supposedly. Still could have been their RB3.

Normally I would agree with those ripping him to shreds, I did it all around the draft process often, but I couldn't still deny the athlete. What confuses me is why he's here. Claiming him was one thing but then you're bringing him back. We were desperate then and now it's only VMSB I believe, so big deal. But if he's really that braindead, why would you bother?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
{Family Ghost}


Joined: 08 Jun 2010
Posts: 2866
PostPosted: Tue Apr 04, 2017 11:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I take it our coaches want to see Michael go thru OTA's and training camp .. then make a decision on him going forward. Makes sense .. they acquired him midseason, and he may have never quite got comfortable. If they would have been totally turned off by the guy they wouldn't have brought him back.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Packerraymond


Moderator
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Posts: 19293
Location: Oconomowoc, WI
PostPosted: Tue Apr 04, 2017 12:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

We run plenty of power, we are no longer a ZBS team nor ZBS lean. It's pretty equally split. No does Michael have any issues with vision or the one cut ability. He's not patient, but I don't agree that's the be all end all for this scheme. The run game stalled in the Giants playoff game because of how well the Giants D was flowing to the ball. Michael came in during the 2nd half and averaged almost 5 YPC because he simply saw it and hit it, didnt wait or dance. There's a strong use for both styles depending on the defense you are playing.

He struggled picking up the playbook, that's the only struggles I saw out of Michael. He has a great skillset for a RB. They smartly brought him back because if he does pick it up, he has all the tools to be a very useful back.
_________________
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 ... , 25, 26, 27  Next
Page 26 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