Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 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
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
spilltray


Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 12045
Location: Green Bay, WI
PostPosted: Tue Apr 04, 2017 12:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DraftHobbyist wrote:
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.

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.


Just because a RB can make that fast hard cut, doesn't mean they aren't patient. Grant could plant and burst and he could set up his blocks. From what I've seen Michael struggles if it's not a fast cut and hit it. Sometimes it doesn't work that way. Yes when it does, it can work, but it's not at all flexibile.

And yes. Not changing his responsibilities is just as silly. He's part of blitz pickup and play design. He has to be able to adjust. It's part of the job requirement. The level you are suggesting dumbing it down to is just impractical.

My comments about the hype train aren't you specific, but the people who think guys like Janis and Michael should be trotted out there regularly just because of athletic ability when the reason they can't get on the field is usually assignment related.

There are baseline mental requirements just like physical ones. You wouldn't trot out a CB without some sort of speed threshold, and someone who can't mentally execute assignments is just as much a liability. Fine as RB3 he gets a small package, just a handful of formations and plays, but RB3 often become RB2 and sometimes RB1. What happens then? Scrap 3/4 the playbook? I have no problem with him in camp competing for #3. Given his issues learning responsibilities, both here and with other teams, I'm not optimistic he'll ever be more than RB3 and if you have to use him for any more than the limited packages he is good with, it's not going to be great. I hope there are enough RB brought in to make that RB3 spot a real question mark, not Michael's by default because of his issues.
_________________
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: 11758
PostPosted: Tue Apr 04, 2017 12:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Took the words out of my mouth spills. Nice effort.
_________________
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
vegas492


Joined: 30 Oct 2012
Posts: 1478
Location: Pewaukee, Wisconsin
PostPosted: Tue Apr 04, 2017 1:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="DraftHobbyist"]
spilltray wrote:

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.


I think that yes, we are saying similar things. Few key differences, though, you are advocating that Mac scheme for Michael. While I personally like that thought, the fact is that Mac doesn't do that. Or at least he hasn't done that yet. Janis is the perfect guy to scheme for and we just don't do that. To Mac, either you know the offense, audibles and checks, or you do not.

Michael played last year out of necessity. I'll be curious is he is smart enough to pick up the offense now that he has a full year under his belt. But, the only predictor of future behavior is past behavior. His past tells me that he isn't capable of really understanding a scheme or an offense. If he was, he'd still be in Seattle.

About the intelligence statement above..."the intelligence it takes for a RB is being way overblown. RB's don't have to be rocket scientists". You may think that is true, but it is very far from true. Atlanta wins a Super Bowl if their running back doesn't miss the key block on an edge blitz.

Watching Michael run the wrong way and leave our franchise QB out to dry and taking a hit is a terrible thing to watch. Even more terrible is watching the running back disagree with the QB after the play.

In GB's scheme, you gotta know the play. You have to know the audibles and you have to be in synch with the franchise QB.

But, as you stated, as a #3 competing in camp, he is fine. But RB3's generally have an upside and are quite young. And they need to have special teams value. More than celebrating a hold that didn't get called.
_________________
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
Jaegybomb


Joined: 29 Apr 2016
Posts: 215
PostPosted: Tue Apr 04, 2017 2:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RB3s don't always have to be young. There are a bunch of CJ Spillers out there. Michael had the highest yards per return average on the team.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 25, 26, 27
Page 27 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