November 19, 2017, 08:13:22 AM

Author Topic: Lacy  (Read 18311 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline marklawrence

  • Global Moderator
  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2468
Lacy
« on: February 14, 2017, 12:55:43 AM »
Reports are his agent is working out a 1 year deal. Vet minimum and another roughly $2m in incentives.

Now that we've cut Starks I suppose we need another year from Lacy, while we draft a rookie and get him up to speed in protections and outlet passes.

I'm not a big Lacy fan at this point, but this deal seems palatable to me.
They say you judge a man by his enemies. Well, I'm Deplorable! And Proud of it!

Offline Toddfather

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1604
Re: Lacy
« Reply #1 on: February 14, 2017, 03:18:02 AM »
I really don't get the Lacy hate... Weight? That wasn't his issue, it was conditioning. He was rocking before he got hurt. He will always carry weight, but he took a challenge from MM and came back conditioned. If you know anything about injuries, what he played on to compete against Dallas shows his dedication. I am not against drafting another back, but I welcome Lacy back with open arms. Especially at that kind of deal.

Offline iarwain

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1413
Re: Lacy
« Reply #2 on: February 14, 2017, 03:21:45 AM »
I don't think Lacy's conditioning last year was as good as we were led to believe, and there are questions about how dedicated to football he is, but whatever.  I wouldn't mind giving him another year to see what he can do, and the numbers sound right.  It's not like we're crawling with options at RB.

Offline B

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4084
Re: Lacy
« Reply #3 on: February 14, 2017, 08:25:27 AM »
5.1 per carry... finished the season in top 50 rushing yds by a running back despite only playing in 4 full games

just sayin'...
The Green Bay Packers never lost a football game.
They just ran out of time.
-Vince Lombardi

Offline scoremore

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1314
Re: Lacy
« Reply #4 on: February 14, 2017, 08:30:16 AM »
Don't get the Lacy hate either.  Find it hard to believe he would sign for vet minimum.  Would pay him and lock him up for 3 years.  Guy is a franchise back imo.  That is if his ankle is good to go.  If he is considering this kind of deal he might have some serious problems we don't know about. 

Offline SSG

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3341
Re: Lacy
« Reply #5 on: February 14, 2017, 08:31:58 AM »
I'd be floored if Lacy took peanuts like that after what he had showed last year before the injury and over his career.  IMO, a truly terrible deal for Lacy given FA hasn't even started yet and he'd eb taking less than back ups around the league have signed for.   I'd image that there are dozens of teams around the NFL that would pay vet minimum for Lacy given his age and what he's shown he can bring. 

I'l believe it when I see it as this rumor is highly unbelievable and unsubstantiated (believe its a Pete Dougherty rumor). 
« Last Edit: February 14, 2017, 08:40:30 AM by SSG »
Act your age, not your shoe size.

Offline scoremore

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1314
Re: Lacy
« Reply #6 on: February 14, 2017, 09:22:22 AM »
I'd be floored if Lacy took peanuts like that after what he had showed last year before the injury and over his career.  IMO, a truly terrible deal for Lacy given FA hasn't even started yet and he'd eb taking less than back ups around the league have signed for.   I'd image that there are dozens of teams around the NFL that would pay vet minimum for Lacy given his age and what he's shown he can bring. 

I'l believe it when I see it as this rumor is highly unbelievable and unsubstantiated (believe its a Pete Dougherty rumor).

Like Dougherty but agree it is highly unbelievable...

Offline Leader

  • Global Moderator
  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12104
Re: Lacy
« Reply #7 on: February 14, 2017, 10:20:49 AM »
I've not been reading up on things but has Lacy fallen that far off the cliff that he'd be signing for vet minimums + incentives?
Not sure about that.....but then again, havent read up on any of it either....so due diligence is required. 

Offline SSG

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3341
Re: Lacy
« Reply #8 on: February 14, 2017, 10:43:41 AM »
Don't get the Lacy hate either.  Find it hard to believe he would sign for vet minimum.  Would pay him and lock him up for 3 years.  Guy is a franchise back imo.  That is if his ankle is good to go.  If he is considering this kind of deal he might have some serious problems we don't know about.

He may very well sign a 1 year deal but I can't see him signing a vet minimum deal before the start of UFA.  That's less than what he made last year.  Its the caliber of contract hat Mike James signed last year after the start of the season.  Over 55 RBs made more than Lacy's allotted VET MINIMUM last year.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love that sort of deal I just can't see any player or agent being dumb enough to take it (given he'd be giving up his right to test the market).  Lacy would be taking 100% of the risk with very little reward.  If he wanted to take all the risk just to market himself for next year, I'd think he could find a better situation than what Green Bay offers. 

I guess we'll see!  I'd love to have him back under that deal as I'm not sure there is a team in the entire NFL that is as thin at RB as we are.  I've got to believe that Eddie Lacy views himself as more than being just a camp body.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2017, 10:46:58 AM by SSG »
Act your age, not your shoe size.

Offline JQ

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1305
Re: Lacy
« Reply #9 on: February 14, 2017, 10:58:06 AM »
I also don’t understand why some posters are so opposed to Eddie Lacy, especially after he was off to such a Great start last year. McCarthy called him out after the 2015 season, and he responded by coming into camp in shape and practicing and playing well, until he got hurt.

He’s a BIG running back and that’s why the Packers drafted him-to pound the ball in the cold weather games at Lambeau. He had two excellent years, one overweight year, and last year was a washout because of an ankle injury that he tried to play through against dallas. Personally, I think the bigger Packer concerns with Lacy are injuries, rather than his weight.

That written, unless Green Bay is satisfied with the likes of Crockett and Jackson(?) as their additional halfbacks, it certainly seems like they’d be willing to use a draft pick to acquire another running back, maybe their mid-round comp pick, be it 4th or 5th round.

Montgomery is a TERRIFiC change of pace option, but I don’t think the Packers want to rely upon him as a feature back, like they did this year. And I don’t see Christine Michael as a viable option; he just doesn’t seem to have the acumen the Packers require for their running backs.

Finally, I too am VERY skeptical that Lacy would sign a one-year “prove-it” for vet’s minimum, especially at this point in his career. But the incentive-loaded contract is something I’ve foreseen all along. I did an “Eddie Lacy” Google search and I came up with nothing I’d consider reliable, like CBS Sports, NBC Sports (PFT), NFL, or even ESPN (Demovsky) websites. But there were a few hits on what I’d consider the more “gossipy” sites.

So we shall see...
« Last Edit: February 14, 2017, 12:27:43 PM by JQ »

Offline Toddfather

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1604
Re: Lacy
« Reply #10 on: February 14, 2017, 12:09:21 PM »
Also let me reiterate, that I do believe we must draft an RB with the depth that is in this draft. I just like Lacy a lot, and thought he came back committed. Would love to see him in a split backfield with Monty, Cobb, and a draft pick. I think he would add a great dimension to our offense.

Offline craig

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3218
Re: Lacy
« Reply #11 on: February 14, 2017, 12:45:36 PM »
I think the vet-minimum plus incentives is implausibly low. 

But I totally believe three concepts:
1.  1-year prove-it deal
2.  Rich in incentives.
3.  Modest base guarantee.

I don't think that base would be as low as vet minimum.  (Or if it was, the incentives would be more than $2M).  But I think a one-year incentives-heavy deal makes great sense for both sides.  Gives confident Lacy a chance to make some $$ this year, but also to come back and get a substantial multi-year-deal next year; and give the team a player they like without making a big commitment long-term or short in case he's unavailable. 

I totally expect the packers want to resign him.  MM has always liked him and how he plays.  Two he already knows the system.  Three, we've got a million areas that could use a talented early-day draft pick, so if you need to burn an early pick on a back, that's a pick unavailable for some other need.  Sign Lacy, and wait till round 4, 5, or 6 to draft a back, very freeing. 

I'll be VERY surprised if the Packers don't reach an agreement with Eddy, sooner or later. 

I also suspect the outside market may be less than the 5.1-per-carry stat might suggest.  GM's tend to assume short shelf-lives for backs; to be leery of guys who have been unavailable a lot, with as many hits as Lacy has; many coaches/schemes prioritize a back who can run outside the tackles; and want a back who catches lots of passes.  Not sure many (or any) coaches sees Lacy as well-suited for their offense as McCarthy does for his. The bidding for him might not be that outrageous or competitive. 

I'll be very surprised if the Packers don't resign him.  Seems the type of non-budget-busting FA with solid upside and anti-awful security that some posters wish Ted signed more often.   

 

Offline eX Oh

  • Starter
  • ***
  • Posts: 159
Re: Lacy
« Reply #12 on: February 14, 2017, 02:15:08 PM »
I'm ok with re-signing him.  I just don't think it'll come to much. 

Lacy was not 20-25 lbs down from his weight last year once he hit the field in regular season.  He was overweight (again) and injured his ankle, hurt further trying to play through it.

Really doesn't matter what your average is if you're in the hot tub.  It doesn't matter how well you were doing if you were doing it on borrowed time. 

And with issues like that he's a guy that coaches have a hard time relying on. 

Offline cpk1994

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6299
Re: Lacy
« Reply #13 on: February 14, 2017, 02:58:03 PM »
I'm ok with re-signing him.  I just don't think it'll come to much. 

Lacy was not 20-25 lbs down from his weight last year once he hit the field in regular season.  He was overweight (again) and injured his ankle, hurt further trying to play through it.

Really doesn't matter what your average is if you're in the hot tub.  It doesn't matter how well you were doing if you were doing it on borrowed time. 

And with issues like that he's a guy that coaches have a hard time relying on.
He was not overweight.
"Aaron Rodgers is a baaaaaaad man" - Stephen A. Smith

Online OneTwoSixFive

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1810
Re: Lacy
« Reply #14 on: February 14, 2017, 03:24:47 PM »
I think the vet-minimum plus incentives is implausibly low. 

But I totally believe three concepts:
1.  1-year prove-it deal
2.  Rich in incentives.
3.  Modest base guarantee.

1) No. This is usually a lowball offer that does not encourage best effort.
2 & 3) Definitely yes. This is what converts a modest deal (if the performance is not good or injury strikes), into a solid deal worth taking.
(ricky) "Personally, I'm putting this in a box, driving a stake through its heart, firing a silver bullet into its (empty) head, nailing it shut, loading it into a rocket and firing it into the sun. "

(Pink Floyd) "Set the controls for the heart of the sun"