November 20, 2017, 03:17:35 AM

Author Topic: RB Options  (Read 12781 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Online The GM

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1982
Re: RB Options
« Reply #30 on: March 20, 2017, 05:32:28 PM »
I know McCafferyis the cat's meow...but he is still a slashing/darting style of runner. Maybe it's me and I'm trying to figure out who's he like and can't get a good comparison except for Reggie Bush (who I always considered way over drafted).

Brian Westbrook is my comp. 

Offline DWhitehurst

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 506
Re: RB Options
« Reply #31 on: March 21, 2017, 02:42:27 AM »
Even aside from off-field issues, I'm not as high on Mixon as others are. Runs a bit too high. Similar to Mack, but Mack is a tad faster on film. I rate Foreman higher than most. If they want a similar runner to Lacy in terms of size, then he is it.  Hunt runs like a madman every play, which I like, though that may make him injury-prone. Dont see what others see with Brian Hill. I like Jones, though he is short, very elusive. Perine and Kamara are quick, though they go down easily. Outside of the top three prospects, none of the others jumps out too much. I guess a Foreman or Mack might make the most sense to me.

Online Gregg

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2262
Re: RB Options
« Reply #32 on: March 22, 2017, 07:34:28 PM »
Here are some we should mention who we can get with a relatively low pick:

Aaron Jones UTEP
Tarik Cohen North Carolina A and T
Kareem Hunt Toledo
Donnel Pumphrey SDSU
Matt Dayes North Carolina St

With Michel back, that helps because he can run up the middle with speed and power.

Offline Leader

  • Global Moderator
  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12190
Re: RB Options
« Reply #33 on: March 22, 2017, 07:41:08 PM »
Here are some we should mention who we can get with a relatively low pick:

Aaron Jones UTEP
Tarik Cohen North Carolina A and T
Kareem Hunt Toledo
Donnel Pumphrey SDSU
Matt Dayes North Carolina St

With Michel back, that helps because he can run up the middle with speed and power.

Who Michael? I seem to remember him (mostly) hip-hopping around. Left, right, forward for a few - then tackled. Again - I want him to be a terror. Does he have it in him though? I certainly dont know.


Offline cpk1994

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6299
Re: RB Options
« Reply #35 on: March 23, 2017, 06:36:46 AM »
McCaffery is the best one available to us, but we have bigger needs at where he'll be drafted tbh.
RB is as big as any of them. They need a threat at the position. Montgomery + Michael = disaster of epic proportions.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2017, 07:51:40 PM by Leader »
"Aaron Rodgers is a baaaaaaad man" - Stephen A. Smith

Offline ThatGuy284

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 754
Re: RB Options
« Reply #36 on: March 23, 2017, 08:27:08 AM »
I can't imagine this team having any success with those two backs....

.....provided one is able to ignore the fact this team played in the NFC Championship game this past season with them.   

 There were exactly two teams that made it further in the season then the Pack, which I think we all agree can only be described as a disaster of epic proportions
« Last Edit: March 23, 2017, 07:51:23 PM by Leader »

Offline cpk1994

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6299
Re: RB Options
« Reply #37 on: March 23, 2017, 10:43:15 AM »
I can't imagine this team having any success with those two backs....

.....provided one is able to ignore the fact this team played in the NFC Championship game this past season with them.   

 There were exactly two teams that made it further in the season then the Pack, which I think we all agree can only be described as a disaster of epic proportions
If we had a running game, it's possible they go even further and the defense isn't out on the field all the time because they can't stop anyone.  If you can't throw the ball, as they demonstrated in the NFC Title game, you get smoked because you have no offense. You will not win  Super Bowl with a running game that pathetic.

By the way, the two teams that made the Super Bowl had far superior running games.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2017, 07:51:04 PM by Leader »
"Aaron Rodgers is a baaaaaaad man" - Stephen A. Smith

Offline ThatGuy284

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 754
Re: RB Options
« Reply #38 on: March 23, 2017, 11:21:16 AM »
So did the NFC's #1 seed Dallas who we beat on the road in the Playoffs.

NE didn't win the SB because of their running game.  James White had 14 receptions for 110 yards and a TD and added 6 carries for 29 yards and 2 more TD's. 

James White.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2017, 07:50:49 PM by Leader »

Offline ThatGuy284

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 754
Re: RB Options
« Reply #39 on: March 23, 2017, 11:22:31 AM »
Fun blurb on Ty Montgomery from Pro Football Focus:

"He led all backs in yards after contact per attempt, ranked 10th in PPR scoring during the six weeks he received at least 50-percent of snaps, and his rushing grade ranked fifth-best of 88 qualifying running backs on a per-attempt basis."
« Last Edit: March 23, 2017, 07:50:31 PM by Leader »

Offline SSG

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3358
Re: RB Options
« Reply #40 on: March 23, 2017, 11:28:52 AM »
I can't imagine this team having any success with those two backs....

.....provided one is able to ignore the fact this team played in the NFC Championship game this past season with them.   

 There were exactly two teams that made it further in the season then the Pack, which I think we all agree can only be described as a disaster of epic proportions

That's like saying that we don't need to make 1 single adjustment from our defense last year.  If we had just retained our own defenders we could have put 100% of the draft into our offense.

Our running attack wasn't consistent last year.  It was adequate down the stretch only because AR12 was playing on a godly level.  We seen in the NFCC game that when his game slipped even a little that our rushing attack wasn't good enough to help the offense.  Atlanta put all their attention into stopping the passing attack and our rushing attack wasn't anything more than a 3 YPC attack.  Would have Atlanta's defense had that much success with those same scheme's against Dallas's offense (rushing 4, dropping 8 into coverage w/ some zone blitzing)?  We had a one dimensional offense and we paid badly for it in the NFCC game.  So yes, like our defense, it was good enough to get us to the NFCC game where we were humiliated.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2017, 11:47:57 AM by SSG »
Act your age, not your shoe size.

Offline ThatGuy284

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 754
Re: RB Options
« Reply #41 on: March 23, 2017, 11:51:28 AM »
LOL - actually SSG - it's not at all like saying that.  I know you are entirely prone to hyperbole yourself though and not much for nuance. You might understand there is more than a little chasm between participating in the NFC Championship and "DISASTER OF EPIC PROPORTIONS"

No one...NO ONE..is saying we shouldn't be making adjustments, whether it's the defense or the running game, and I'm not making suggestions we shouldn't look to add a good back in the draft.  That suggestion is more than a little absurd.   In fact - do a little research in some of the threads and you might find I'd be okay with adding a talented back as soon as the 1st if Cook, McCaffrey, Kamara are available.  Not necessarily my preferred picks but I'd be entirely on board if that's the direction the team takes.   What I'm not doing is wringing my hands and doing my best chicken little routine in March after last watching my team play in the NFCC

What you might have seen in the NFCC is not "that his game slipped a little" -- it's that he got hurt early and wasn't playing much until entirely ruled out in the 3rd.   Before that he had 3 carries for 17 yards.   He was also not responsible for Crosby missing an early FG or Rip fumbling on what looked to be a TD drive which - combined with Crosby's missed FG, cost us an early 10 pts and a tie game. 
« Last Edit: March 23, 2017, 07:50:08 PM by Leader »

Online Gregg

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2262
Re: RB Options
« Reply #42 on: March 23, 2017, 11:56:26 AM »
Geez, Atlanta rushed 4 and had 8 in coverage?

No wonder we lost.

I thought the limit was 11.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2017, 07:49:53 PM by Leader »

Offline SSG

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3358
Re: RB Options
« Reply #43 on: March 23, 2017, 12:04:38 PM »
Geez, Atlanta rushed 4 and had 8 in coverage?

No wonder we lost.

I thought the limit was 11.

Typo, thanks for catching.  Though Atlanta did rush 3 and drop 8 into coverage a couple times they shut our offense down by basically rushing 4 with the occasional zone blitz.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2017, 07:49:35 PM by Leader »
Act your age, not your shoe size.

Offline cpk1994

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6299
Re: RB Options
« Reply #44 on: March 23, 2017, 12:37:17 PM »
So did the NFC's #1 seed Dallas who we beat on the road in the Playoffs.

NE didn't win the SB because of their running game.  James White had 14 receptions for 110 yards and a TD and added 6 carries for 29 yards and 2 more TD's. 

James White.
Dallas was killing GB on the ground. They lost because Garrett is an idiot who went away from that.

Atlanta was kicking NE's can when they stayed with the running game. Shanahan's idiotic decision to go away from that and put the ball in Ryan's hands did them in. Also, NE had the threat of a running game. Nobody was dropping 8 into coverage every single play. That is what the Packers will get with what Ted thinks will get the job done. Amazing how people forgot before Lacy how Aaron struggled because they had no running game and teams were simply dropping 8 into coverage because they completely disregarded GB's running game.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2017, 07:49:19 PM by Leader »
"Aaron Rodgers is a baaaaaaad man" - Stephen A. Smith