Jump to content

Running Backs rated 27th in league

James Lofton

By James Lofton
in Green Bay Packers

Recommended Posts

Norm

Norm

Posted
Posted

Written by the very acclaimed wanna be sports journalist Christopher Knox....

I don't even have a problem with this. He's wrong but the guys are just googling stats, going off names and pfffffffffffff. They don't know any better

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Norm

Norm

Posted
Posted
30 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Let's not act like these backs are a sure thing. This isn't that hot of a take.

Also, we shouldn't be publishing dumbass writers. 

Based off what they have done, I don't find it absurd it all though I'm guessing after the year if things go relatively well even this will be higher, but it's not going to sky rocket even then.

And this guy's first article looks to be mid March. So yeah..

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChaRisMa

ChaRisMa

Posted
Posted

The NFL has two types of RB stables: teams with a stud, and teams who don’t. If you don’t have a stud, your in the bottom 2/3rds of the league and it doesn’t make a damn difference if you are 14th or 27th—you are cobbling together guys to fill roles or at the least splitting carries. I’m more excited about the RB spot than I have been since Lacy’s rookie year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SSG

SSG

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Let's not act like these backs are a sure thing. This isn't that hot of a take.

Also, we shouldn't be publishing dumbass writers. 

I  agree.  While 27th is probably 2 or 3 spots lower than I'd expected our RBs are far from a sure thing.  We don't have a back on the roster who's consistently shown that he's anything better than a lower tier starter.  All 3 have had moments but all 3 have been terribly inconsistent.  Personally, I  like Jones the best of the 3 but I wouldn't be at all surprise if we were looking for more of a sure thing, starter next offseason.  

Hard to take this list all that serious with Chicago and Tennessee in their top 5.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MacReady

MacReady

Posted
Posted

I think this is due more to McCarthy/Rodgers and how they use running backs than anything else.  I don't think Jones, Williams and Montgomery are a bottom 12 team at RB based on the backs listed in that article.  Seriously... The guy says Aaron Rodgers and Brett Hundley helped our 4.5 yards per carry "tremendously."  In what world can anybody with a brain act like Hundley helped our running game?  No world. 

Ryan Grant - 312/18 (Aaron's first year starting).
Eddie Lacy - 284/35.
Starks - 184/42 (4.1 yards per carry in the awful 2015 offense).
Montgomery - 77/44.

Those are the highest rush attempts/receptions (touches) for some of our backs since Rodgers took over.  Lacy's first two years he averaged 4.1 and 4.6 yards per carry and had only 284, then 246 carries in 15 and 16 game seasons.

This is why I just don't get why people want us to use a first round pick on a running back ever.  We don't use them. 

Patriots this year with Develin, Burkhead, White, Lewis and Develin.  Their backs had 586 touches.  That's a team that had Cooks, Gronkowski, Ammendola, Hogan...

2015 Packers season, the year we lost Jordy and Davante sucked.  Our backs had a combined 466 touches.  What do most teams do when they have no receivers and no tight ends?  They run more, and pass more frequently to their backs.  We don't. 

Then there's what I already went over with how our guys have shown the ability to have MONSTER games only to get no looks ever again.  It's almost like good games are punished in Green Bay.  Aaron Jones had one rush for the 20 yard game winning touchdown against the Buccaneers this past season, and then he had ten carries over the rest of the season total.  In fact, Jones had 297 yards rushing and 2 touchdowns over a three game stretch in which he had 49 carries.  He was given 8 carries over the next two games. 

Whether it's McCarthy, Rodgers or both, we do not utilize our running backs well in Green Bay.  I don't think that's McCarthy, either.  In Grant's first year here he had 30 receptions.  That would be his career high. 

It all falls back on Rodgers.  He has to get over his RB allergy because I'm so sick of it. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Greg C.

Greg C.

Posted
Posted
48 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said:

I think this is due more to McCarthy/Rodgers and how they use running backs than anything else.  I don't think Jones, Williams and Montgomery are a bottom 12 team at RB based on the backs listed in that article.  Seriously... The guy says Aaron Rodgers and Brett Hundley helped our 4.5 yards per carry "tremendously."  In what world can anybody with a brain act like Hundley helped our running game?  No world. 

Ryan Grant - 312/18 (Aaron's first year starting).
Eddie Lacy - 284/35.
Starks - 184/42 (4.1 yards per carry in the awful 2015 offense).
Montgomery - 77/44.

Those are the highest rush attempts/receptions (touches) for some of our backs since Rodgers took over.  Lacy's first two years he averaged 4.1 and 4.6 yards per carry and had only 284, then 246 carries in 15 and 16 game seasons.

This is why I just don't get why people want us to use a first round pick on a running back ever.  We don't use them. 

Patriots this year with Develin, Burkhead, White, Lewis and Develin.  Their backs had 586 touches.  That's a team that had Cooks, Gronkowski, Ammendola, Hogan...

2015 Packers season, the year we lost Jordy and Davante sucked.  Our backs had a combined 466 touches.  What do most teams do when they have no receivers and no tight ends?  They run more, and pass more frequently to their backs.  We don't. 

Then there's what I already went over with how our guys have shown the ability to have MONSTER games only to get no looks ever again.  It's almost like good games are punished in Green Bay.  Aaron Jones had one rush for the 20 yard game winning touchdown against the Buccaneers this past season, and then he had ten carries over the rest of the season total.  In fact, Jones had 297 yards rushing and 2 touchdowns over a three game stretch in which he had 49 carries.  He was given 8 carries over the next two games. 

Whether it's McCarthy, Rodgers or both, we do not utilize our running backs well in Green Bay.  I don't think that's McCarthy, either.  In Grant's first year here he had 30 receptions.  That would be his career high. 

It all falls back on Rodgers.  He has to get over his RB allergy because I'm so sick of it. 
 

The really glaring example was when Rodgers came back from his injury against Carolina. By then we had an established running game, with Aaron Jones looking really good. They had the running game to take the pressure off Rodgers, who was rusty and not up to full strength. Jones had a couple of big carries right out of the gate but barely touched the ball the rest of the day. He ended with three carries for 47 yards. It was back to the usual offense of the last few years with Rodgers running around trying to find someone to throw to. And it didn't work. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pacman5252

pacman5252

Posted
Posted

I get the ranking. They are all unproven and haven’t proven anything. With that said I think they can all play, do something well, and are talented/flashed.

 

I personally wouldn’t trade our stable of running backs for any backfield in the NFC north just based off numbers (3 guys vs 2). Plus Cook is a quick speed rb coming off an acl and Howard isn’t anything special 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hands

Hands

Posted
Posted

Of course Hundley helped the run game....that's all he did right was run for a few yards here and there. His passing game sure didn't set anything up for any running attack. I wonder if Green Bay should have used the wishbone with Hundley last year? Then the stats would really be great!

Sorry, sarcasm early on Wed. morning is my weakness.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Arthur Penske

Arthur Penske

Posted
Posted
16 hours ago, NormSizedMidget said:

Written by the very acclaimed wanna be sports journalist Christopher Knox....

I don't even have a problem with this. He's wrong but the guys are just googling stats, going off names and pfffffffffffff. They don't know any better

Yeah I don't really care either. Jones and Ty were hurt a good deal of the season for example. However, I reaaaally doubt this guy watched any of the Packer RBs play much last season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ThatJerkDave

ThatJerkDave

Posted
Posted
15 hours ago, ChaRisMa said:

The NFL has two types of RB stables: teams with a stud, and teams who don’t. If you don’t have a stud, your in the bottom 2/3rds of the league and it doesn’t make a damn difference if you are 14th or 27th—you are cobbling together guys to fill roles or at the least splitting carries. I’m more excited about the RB spot than I have been since Lacy’s rookie year. 

This is how I see it as well.  I don't think it is a slight.  None of our backs have completed a full season.  The highest rushing total for any of our backs is Williams' 556 last season.  This isn't like the Cowboys missing Elliott and people wonder if they can win without him, when one of the Packers backs gets hurt, people think, "ok, who is next?"  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...