November 19, 2017, 04:12:33 AM

Author Topic: Charles?  (Read 3222 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline dannobanano

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4105
Re: Charles?
« Reply #15 on: March 14, 2017, 08:47:54 PM »
I'm just not sure you can count on getting anywhere near the guy you people remember with KC. The number of leg injuries he's had are bound to slow a guy, especially one over 30.

I wonder if that's necessarily the right question, though?

Maybe a different way to frame the questions would be,
*Might he be better than Don Jackson?
*Might he be enough better than Don Jackson that it would be worth the cost?

I have no idea.

Cost/risk/benefit...................As much as I like Charles, I have to say NO. censs2 NO!

Offline SSG

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3341
Re: Charles?
« Reply #16 on: March 14, 2017, 09:10:19 PM »
I'm just not sure you can count on getting anywhere near the guy you people remember with KC. The number of leg injuries he's had are bound to slow a guy, especially one over 30.

I wonder if that's necessarily the right question, though?

Maybe a different way to frame the questions would be,
*Might he be better than Don Jackson?
*Might he be enough better than Don Jackson that it would be worth the cost?

I have no idea.

I think we're prepared to make Montgomery the Bell Cow. I also think we get one in the draft and Ripkowski may take over Kuhn's third down responsibilities because of his blocking. If I'm right (I know big stretch), what role would Charles play for us?

He's not a bell cow though.  He's seen more than 12 carries just once last year.  He's a guy who we're lucky to get 10 quality carries out of in a game.  We run into the risk that he's not.  We are then a one dimensional offense and a bad Atlanta defense showed just how easy it is to slow our offense if we don't have the ability to run the ball.  He's basically a WR in the backfield that's much better at catching the ball than he is running. 

If Charles is healthy, he's shown that he's capable of being an elite 18-20 touch per game RB.  I don't think Monty has shown anywhere near that potential.  He was basically a 10 touch per game 3rd down back in the playoffs for us.  Monty was also absolutely horrid at blocking.  He was losing snaps last year at RB to Rip because of him being a huge liability in pass pro.
Act your age, not your shoe size.

Offline Leader

  • Global Moderator
  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12104
Re: Charles?
« Reply #17 on: March 14, 2017, 09:39:07 PM »
He's not a bell cow though.  He's seen more than 12 carries just once last year.  He's a guy who we're lucky to get 10 quality carries out of in a game.  We run into the risk that he's not.  We are then a one dimensional offense and a bad Atlanta defense showed just how easy it is to slow our offense if we don't have the ability to run the ball.  He's basically a WR in the backfield that's much better at catching the ball than he is running. 

If Charles is healthy, he's shown that he's capable of being an elite 18-20 touch per game RB.  I don't think Monty has shown anywhere near that potential.  He was basically a 10 touch per game 3rd down back in the playoffs for us.  Monty was also absolutely horrid at blocking.  He was losing snaps last year at RB to Rip because of him being a huge liability in pass pro.

Agree with this. The only way #88's a good selection for our #1 RB is if we dont intend to run the ball very much - a concept thats not gonna get us to the promised land IMO.

I've no clue if JC's the answer either because of his health. Just spitballing there...but I want or think we need to bolster the running game (read: get one). 


« Last Edit: March 14, 2017, 09:41:31 PM by Leader »

Offline golfman

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11579
Re: Charles?
« Reply #18 on: March 14, 2017, 10:00:03 PM »
I'm just not sure you can count on getting anywhere near the guy you people remember with KC. The number of leg injuries he's had are bound to slow a guy, especially one over 30.

I wonder if that's necessarily the right question, though?

Maybe a different way to frame the questions would be,
*Might he be better than Don Jackson?
*Might he be enough better than Don Jackson that it would be worth the cost?

I have no idea.

I think we're prepared to make Montgomery the Bell Cow. I also think we get one in the draft and Ripkowski may take over Kuhn's third down responsibilities because of his blocking. If I'm right (I know big stretch), what role would Charles play for us?

He's not a bell cow though.  He's seen more than 12 carries just once last year.  He's a guy who we're lucky to get 10 quality carries out of in a game.  We run into the risk that he's not.  We are then a one dimensional offense and a bad Atlanta defense showed just how easy it is to slow our offense if we don't have the ability to run the ball.  He's basically a WR in the backfield that's much better at catching the ball than he is running. 

If Charles is healthy, he's shown that he's capable of being an elite 18-20 touch per game RB.  I don't think Monty has shown anywhere near that potential.  He was basically a 10 touch per game 3rd down back in the playoffs for us.  Monty was also absolutely horrid at blocking.  He was losing snaps last year at RB to Rip because of him being a huge liability in pass pro.

OK, Bell Cow was the wrong term to use for Montgomery. I'll cede that point.

Montgomery is going to be our #1 RB. News flash, we are not a running team. We need someone who can gain some yards and keep a defense honest. Monty with another guy can do that.

The best word you used in defense of Charles is "IF"! Given his recent injury history, age and wear and tear, I don't think it's an if, it is ALMOST a certainty he's not the 27 year old Charles you refer too. TT is 30 year-old adverse under most circumstances. He's almost 100% 30 year-old adverse whe it comes to RB's and for good reason. They risk seldom if ever outweighs the potential reward.
"Make the Packers Great Again! "

Offline ThatGuy284

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 754
Re: Charles?
« Reply #19 on: March 14, 2017, 10:27:55 PM »
Lacy wasn't treated as a "bell-cow" back either -- not since 2013 at least, when Rodgers was hurt and we were picking fans out of the stands at random and making them play QB. 

In his 36 regular season games spanning the 2014, 2015 and 2016 seasons Lacy had:

12 carries or fewer 12 times
15 or more carries in a game 13 times 
18+ carries only 7 of those times
...and only 5 games of the last 36 regular season with at least 20 carries

If the team can find a 2nd complementary back, Monty has the ability to far exceed Lacy's reception totals and physically needs to hold up to realistically 10 carries a game - but can probably do much more.  People act like Monty is some "small" back and couldn't possibly hold up --- however, only 10 of the 33 RB's in this year's Combine weighed as much as Monty's 221lbs at his combine - and he's faster than all of them not named Fournette.  He's also built like a brick house - just solid muscle.

Devonta Freeman - not exactly a physical wunderkind - has played in 31 regular season games over the last 2 seasons and has logged 15+ carries 14 times and 20+ carries 9 times.  He's also logged significantly more receptions and total touches than Lacy over his 36 games played.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2017, 10:29:12 PM by ThatGuy284 »

Offline The GM

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1969
Re: Charles?
« Reply #20 on: March 14, 2017, 10:37:50 PM »
I wanted the Packers to draft Charles when he came out in the draft.  Too many injuries and miles on him now, but he is the kind of dynamic back we should look at in the draft.

Offline Lodestar

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2410
Re: Charles?
« Reply #21 on: March 14, 2017, 11:39:47 PM »
Everyone remember Cedric Benson? Different situation, but TT has signed 30-year-old RBs before.

We don't need Charles to automatically take over as lead back, but if he comes at a reasonable price and can take some carries and provide depth, then why not?

Offline Pugger

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5067
Re: Charles?
« Reply #22 on: March 14, 2017, 11:52:51 PM »
I'm just not sure you can count on getting anywhere near the guy you people remember with KC. The number of leg injuries he's had are bound to slow a guy, especially one over 30.

I wonder if that's necessarily the right question, though?

Maybe a different way to frame the questions would be,
*Might he be better than Don Jackson?
*Might he be enough better than Don Jackson that it would be worth the cost?

I have no idea.

I think we're prepared to make Montgomery the Bell Cow. I also think we get one in the draft and Ripkowski may take over Kuhn's third down responsibilities because of his blocking. If I'm right (I know big stretch), what role would Charles play for us?

He's not a bell cow though.  He's seen more than 12 carries just once last year.  He's a guy who we're lucky to get 10 quality carries out of in a game.  We run into the risk that he's not.  We are then a one dimensional offense and a bad Atlanta defense showed just how easy it is to slow our offense if we don't have the ability to run the ball.  He's basically a WR in the backfield that's much better at catching the ball than he is running. 

If Charles is healthy, he's shown that he's capable of being an elite 18-20 touch per game RB.  I don't think Monty has shown anywhere near that potential.  He was basically a 10 touch per game 3rd down back in the playoffs for us.  Monty was also absolutely horrid at blocking.  He was losing snaps last year at RB to Rip because of him being a huge liability in pass pro.

We are a passing team so do we really need a bell cow?  I'd love to be a fly on the wall when/if he comes in for a visit.

Offline OneTwoSixFive

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1807
Re: Charles?
« Reply #23 on: March 15, 2017, 07:59:55 AM »
I think we should view free agency with the view of not needing to draft a RB before round 5. 

Don't decline a potential good guard, ILB, or OLB in order to take a running back because you desperately need one. 

If you're fine with Monty and a 5th rounder, fine. 

If you aren't, pick up a FA so that you aren't afraid of that.

I'd say the lessening need for TE, along with the loss of both Lacy and Starks, has now pushed RB acquisition up from the 5th to round 3. Round 5 is ok if you view Montgomery as a starter. I see him as a good backup, not the bell cow.
(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"

Offline craig

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3218
Re: Charles?
« Reply #24 on: March 15, 2017, 08:55:33 AM »
You can get a pretty good OG prospect in the 3rd round, perhaps a pretty interesting D-lineman or cornerback, certainly an interesting ILB. 

If there's a knockout running back who you really love, great.  But don't take one because of "need", at the expense of some better prospect at a harder-to-fill and more durable position. 

I'm probably just fine with Montgomery as #1, 5th rounder, and roster-filler guy.  I'm just saying that if management isn't, then they should sign somebody in free agency who they like well enough so that they don't feel they **NEED** a 3rd-round back, and are OK with waiting till 5th round.  How they view Montgomery pretty much should dictate how motivated they are to pick up an anti-awful FA back.     

Offline ThatGuy284

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 754
Re: Charles?
« Reply #25 on: March 15, 2017, 09:44:43 AM »
I just keep hearing the term bell cow thrown around.  Only one poster has actually put a number to what he felt that meant - 18-20 touches per game.  However, the usage stats for Lacy over the last two seasons don't really bear out those numbers.    Bell cow just seems to be one of those buzz words thrown around but with no real meaning behind it or no real concept as to the number of touches our #1 vs #2 back actually receives.   Just seems like the right thing to say but I'm struggling to see the numbers to back it up.

In your mind does bell cow equate purely to size or actual usage?  Any care to define their use of bell cow?  Normally it's associated with heavy usage - put the offense on this guys back and let him carry us to victory ---  Ezekiel Elliott or LeVeon Bell or David Johnson are undeniably "bell cows", but Lacy's touch stats are less than smaller backs like McCoy, Freeman, Gordon, Doug Martin...   His per game number of carries over his 5 games in 2016 was 21st at 14.2 avg.  In 2015 he was 26th in rushing attempts per game at 12.5.  In 2014 he was 11th at 15.4.   That's only including rushing stats - if you include receiving touches as well his usage numbers plummet as he only had 24 receptions over the last two years combined.  The last time he could accurately be described as our bell cow was 2014 when he had 42 receptions as well as his 15.4 carries.

Lacy had 18+ carries in only 7 of his last 36 regular season games. 
 
Montgomery is big, strong and has some wiggle.  He's 220+ lbs and is solid muscle.  He's bigger than 23 of the 33 RB's at this years Combine yet I think people view him as a dainty little WR, "a bigger Cobb."  Montgomery's thighs are as big as Cobb's waist. Lacy gets touted by some posters for his 5.1 ypc in 2016 - yet Mongomery avg 5.9 ypc and had 97 more yards on only 6 more carries than Lacy, including 3 more TD's.   Montgomery has an entire offseason to prepare to be exclusively a RB - he didn't have that luxury last year.  He made the transition midway through the season with no offseason work or TC to prepare.  By all accounts Ty is a dedicated, intelligent, diligent worker.  He's going to have all offseason to re-make his body as needed for the rigors of the position and blocking techniques.





« Last Edit: March 15, 2017, 09:48:24 AM by ThatGuy284 »

Offline craig

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3218
Re: Charles?
« Reply #26 on: March 15, 2017, 10:16:38 AM »
Nice post, guy. 

Offline Pugger

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5067
Re: Charles?
« Reply #27 on: March 15, 2017, 10:48:26 AM »
When you look at Ty's Combine highlights he has the build of a RB more than a WR.

http://www.packers.com/media-center/videos/Ty-Montgomery-2015-Combine-Workout/956f0862-2a3f-467d-acb9-5e807386e60d

Offline Lodestar

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2410
Re: Charles?
« Reply #28 on: March 15, 2017, 11:15:14 AM »
Montgomery is indeed big, fast, talented, and full of potential. In particular, he seems to have great vision running with the ball.

However, he is still extremely inexperienced as a running back, and therefore I think it behooves us to add another RB or two who can take some carries and/or be relied upon in case Ty goes down or can't carry a full load. Veteran, rookie, I don't care (as long as it's not Michael). Just give me a guy I can feel good about leaning on in case #88 doesn't make it through 16 games. Too many nightmares of seasons past when we had no one to carry the ball.

Offline cpk1994

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6299
Re: Charles?
« Reply #29 on: March 15, 2017, 11:25:55 AM »
We are a passing team so do we really need a bell cow?  I'd love to be a fly on the wall when/if he comes in for a visit.
One dimensional teams do not win Super Bowls, so yes, they do need a bell cow. I mena how many Super Bowls have the won with no real running game? Zero, exactly. Montgomery as your lead RB = screwed.  It's gonna be 8 in coverage all game long. People are overrating Montgomery here.
"Aaron Rodgers is a baaaaaaad man" - Stephen A. Smith