What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

bears @ packers (1 Viewer)

Kitrick Taylor said:
Jordy isn't right.  Not sure if it's a matter of time until he gets it back, or if the ACL permanently sapped him of his difference making ability.  He can still play, but he doesn't command double digit targets anymore.  

Regardless, the Packers don't have a RB worth anything on their roster, and won't for the rest of the season.  IMO Rodgers is gonna lead the league in pass attempts from here on out.  There's  gonna be a lot of dink and dunk passes to be sure.  Still, I'm expecting Adams to be a big part of this passing game going forward.  
Click to expand...
Or it could be like Inman's recent "breakout" game where the Pack saw something exploitable in Chicago's scheme and went after it over and over again using Adams.  In which case it isn't likely to be sustainable.

Would have to study the tape and see if the Pack is targetting someone specific assigned to cover Adams, or if Adams is just the open  guy on a lot of multiread plays...

 
Wise Old Owl said:
The game script just didn't need jordy tonight. Why force the ball to your deep threat when the other team can't stop you throwing short passes. The bears offense also looked horrible. The packers throwing to mont and cobb isnt sustainable, an actual run game will open things up for Jordy
Click to expand...


Who is that? What's his YPC this year?

 
Arodin said:
Or it could be like Inman's recent "breakout" game where the Pack saw something exploitable in Chicago's scheme and went after it over and over again using Adams.  In which case it isn't likely to be sustainable.

Would have to study the tape and see if the Pack is targetting someone specific assigned to cover Adams, or if Adams is just the open  guy on a lot of multiread plays...
Click to expand...
It certainly looked like Rodgers was going through progressions & getting it out to whomever came open (except on the first Adams TD - that was jammed in there & he outfought the DB.)

Was not a fan of DA a year ago, but that's a couple different games now I've been impressed with him this year.

 
Dr. Brew said:
according to yahoo player profiles:

Adrian Peterson 6'1 220

Arian Foster 6'1 227

LeSean McCoy 5'11 208

Ty Montgomery 6'0 216

guess no one told those other guys they should be at wr :shrug:
Click to expand...
I'm about AP's height and weight and look nothing like him.

There are different body shapes and Montgomery looks like a WR to me than a RB in terms of his body proportions.

You can save the heights and weights and BMIs. You don't have to agree with my opinion on it either.

 
gianmarco said:
I'm about AP's height and weight and look nothing like him.

There are different body shapes and Montgomery looks like a WR to me than a RB in terms of his body proportions.

You can save the heights and weights and BMIs. You don't have to agree with my opinion on it either.
Click to expand...


I get the point, but it's a strawman argument. we aren't talking about your measurements compared to ap. you're using oranges as an example when I am talking about apples. we are talking about montgomery vs ap. lets talk apples to apples. are you suggesting montgomery has more fat % than AP? what about his body is different than the rbs that I suggest? honestly, at that level they're all about 5% body fat and have similar body types. or is montgomery "pear shaped" while others are "apple shaped"? if we aren't talking about measurable then what about his body is unlike a rb

watching him tonight I see what @JFS171 has been saying. he actually looks more like a RB in how he plays than a WR. he's not going to bust through the A gap like Marshawn Lynch but he looks like, with some work, he could be a legitimate rb

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dr. Brew said:
I get the point, but it's a strawman argument. we aren't talking about your measurements compared to ap. you're using oranges as an example when I am talking about apples. we are talking about montgomery vs ap. lets talk apples to apples. are you suggesting montgomery has more fat % than AP? what about his body is different than the rbs that I suggest? honestly, at that level they're all about 5% body fat and have similar body types. or is montgomery "pear shaped" while others are "apple shaped"? if we aren't talking about measurable then what about his body is unlike a rb

watching him tonight I see what @JFS171 has been saying. he actually looks more like a RB in how he plays than a WR. he's not going to bust through the A gap like Marshawn Lynch but he looks like, with some work, he could be a legitimate rb
Click to expand...
It's not a strawman.  Just a way to point out something I know you already know that just those baseline numbers don't tell the whole story.  Sure, there is a much bigger discrepancy in my body and AP's.  But, you can have low body fat, elite shape, same height, same weight, and one guy can be more "top heavy" and the other more "bottom heavy" in terms of upper body development and leg development.  EBF gets #### all the time about his BMI stuff but there is some merit behind it as long as it's not taken to the extreme. 

Look, I'm not saying Montgomery can't play the RB position because of his body style.  I agree his playing style does look more like a RB (see Boldin).  But, similar to Boldin, he doesn't look as thick in his legs like you normally see in RBs.  I think this would overall affect his longevity at the position and I think is why he hasn't been primarily a RB up until this point.  Now, there are plenty of RBs in the NFL, and even some really good ones (like AP and also J. Charles) who don't have a "prototypical" RB body. 

These are not absolutes at all.  I've just watched football long enough to get a general feel about what a RB looks like and what a WR looks like and Montgomery has more of a WR body, IMO.  I think if he's used as a RB at times, it wouldn't be an issue at all and probably should be because his running/playing style is very much like full-time RBs.  And he's a big guy so he can take a lot more of the punishment than a Tavon Austin in the same role (who, as thin as he is, has looked more like a RB to me at times).  In the end, though, I think there's a reason, despite his playing style, that he's primarily a WR and I think the way he's built plays a part in that.  No more.  No less.  You can disagree if you'd like.

 
gianmarco said:
It's not a strawman.  Just a way to point out something I know you already know that just those baseline numbers don't tell the whole story.  Sure, there is a much bigger discrepancy in my body and AP's.  But, you can have low body fat, elite shape, same height, same weight, and one guy can be more "top heavy" and the other more "bottom heavy" in terms of upper body development and leg development.  EBF gets #### all the time about his BMI stuff but there is some merit behind it as long as it's not taken to the extreme. 

Look, I'm not saying Montgomery can't play the RB position because of his body style.  I agree his playing style does look more like a RB (see Boldin).  But, similar to Boldin, he doesn't look as thick in his legs like you normally see in RBs.  I think this would overall affect his longevity at the position and I think is why he hasn't been primarily a RB up until this point.  Now, there are plenty of RBs in the NFL, and even some really good ones (like AP and also J. Charles) who don't have a "prototypical" RB body. 

These are not absolutes at all.  I've just watched football long enough to get a general feel about what a RB looks like and what a WR looks like and Montgomery has more of a WR body, IMO.  I think if he's used as a RB at times, it wouldn't be an issue at all and probably should be because his running/playing style is very much like full-time RBs.  And he's a big guy so he can take a lot more of the punishment than a Tavon Austin in the same role (who, as thin as he is, has looked more like a RB to me at times).  In the end, though, I think there's a reason, despite his playing style, that he's primarily a WR and I think the way he's built plays a part in that.  No more.  No less.  You can disagree if you'd like.
Click to expand...
Thanks for clarifying. I would agree that he does not have RB legs. I wouldn't expect him to. He was converted to WR so he has tried to develop into a WR. I think there is significant potential for him to play some running back. As a Packer fan I'm excited for the potential of a receiving back like a Riddick type role. It's been too long of a dry spell. Lacy provided some hope his rookie year then he couldn't stay away from the buffet line. You see a lot of the successful teams running multiple running backs and receiving backs (such as NE), and it works. It gets frustrating seeing McCarthy stuck in his anti-tampa-2 offensive scheme that doesn't work anymore now that teams play GB man to man. 

I can't see Montgomery being an every down RB at this point, but there is some potential if he actually wanted to make the full on switch. An entire offseason training for it would do him some good. He has potential. This season not so much- his potential is limited to how fast he can grow into the RB role and how much GB can gameplan around his strengths. 

 
TNF and their crappy product was a big factor in me leaving ff and now I think it's about to close the door on me with watching football.  I'm just one guy with my own opinion but the product is unwatchable for me.  Nothing looks sharp on Thursday night, the host weeks seem to drain the energy from players and that makes sense to me.  I think these guys need rest to reset these teams each week.  I'm just completely sick for it and without fantasy, I have zero motivation to watch some 24-17 jags/titans game where I'm sure 85% of the scoring will occur during 30 minutes of the night.  

I've heard ratings are down.  Not sure how much but I understand why

 
Dr. Brew said:
Thanks for clarifying. I would agree that he does not have RB legs. I wouldn't expect him to. He was converted to WR so he has tried to develop into a WR. I think there is significant potential for him to play some running back. As a Packer fan I'm excited for the potential of a receiving back like a Riddick type role. It's been too long of a dry spell. Lacy provided some hope his rookie year then he couldn't stay away from the buffet line. You see a lot of the successful teams running multiple running backs and receiving backs (such as NE), and it works. It gets frustrating seeing McCarthy stuck in his anti-tampa-2 offensive scheme that doesn't work anymore now that teams play GB man to man. 

I can't see Montgomery being an every down RB at this point, but there is some potential if he actually wanted to make the full on switch. An entire offseason training for it would do him some good. He has potential. This season not so much- his potential is limited to how fast he can grow into the RB role and how much GB can gameplan around his strengths. 
Click to expand...
Not to beat a dead horse, but his build is rather reminiscent of Forte to me... as is his gliding stride in the open field.  Forte's significantly better between the tackles right now -- not even arguing that.  I'm simply saying we haven't seen what Montgomery could become as a RB because he's been playing the position for the Packers for what, 2 weeks?  Now they get a mini bye off the Thursday night game.  Maybe he looks even better next week?

To me, there's not much incentive for the Packers to mess with what's working right now by trying to force in a guy (Knile) who's been pretty crappy his whole career. Plus we don't know the significance of Jackson's injury, unless I missed news this morning (though about the worst timing for him imaginable).  Rodgers and the offense looked the best it's looked in quite a while, and Montgomery dropped 120 total yards, mostly out of the backfield. 

If it ain't broke...

 
Shutout said:
TNF and their crappy product was a big factor in me leaving ff and now I think it's about to close the door on me with watching football.  I'm just one guy with my own opinion but the product is unwatchable for me.  Nothing looks sharp on Thursday night, the host weeks seem to drain the energy from players and that makes sense to me.  I think these guys need rest to reset these teams each week.  I'm just completely sick for it and without fantasy, I have zero motivation to watch some 24-17 jags/titans game where I'm sure 85% of the scoring will occur during 30 minutes of the night.  

I've heard ratings are down.  Not sure how much but I understand why
Click to expand...
If it weren't for FF I don't think I'd care at all about the NFL. I'm already reluctantly joining leagues for the last 3 seasons. And now I have my old league asking me to start our league back up after a 5 year hiatus, so I may reluctantly do that next year and see what happens. It used to be a way to stay in touch with friends from long ago but since that league fell apart and I'm more of a guest in a friend's league (I don't mind, they're a bunch of guppies for the most part), it kind of loses it's appeal. As long as I keep winning I keep coming back. It's provided me a pair of kayaks and an iPad the last 2 seasons and hopefully a crossbow this season 

 
Shutout said:
TNF and their crappy product was a big factor in me leaving ff and now I think it's about to close the door on me with watching football.  I'm just one guy with my own opinion but the product is unwatchable for me.  Nothing looks sharp on Thursday night, the host weeks seem to drain the energy from players and that makes sense to me.  I think these guys need rest to reset these teams each week.  I'm just completely sick for it and without fantasy, I have zero motivation to watch some 24-17 jags/titans game where I'm sure 85% of the scoring will occur during 30 minutes of the night.  

I've heard ratings are down.  Not sure how much but I understand why
Click to expand...
I actually think the teams are OK with the Thursday games because they function as an additional mini bye during the season... they get an extra three days off, mostly without practice of any sort.  The lead up sucks, and say what you will about the Thursday night product.  I've heard Mike Clay of PFF (now at ESPN) did some analysis on TNF and found it basically has very little statistical correlation with player stats/performance.

The narrative among fans and talking heads is that TNF is a bad product... and it is, sometimes.  But sometimes that's just a result of bad teams being on the field, or players getting hurt unexpectedly (that game's a whole lot more interesting if Matt Barkley isn't playing QB for the majority of it).  You get some truly awful games, but you get some great ones too.  Probably no different than MNF (the Cards/Jets this week was nearly unwatchable, and no one's talking about cancelling MNF).

 
MNF has a lot of tradition that carries it I think.  TNF is much newer and to get a general NFL fan to tune in you need marquis games.

 
jonessed said:
MNF has a lot of tradition that carries it I think.  TNF is much newer and to get a general NFL fan to tune in you need marquis games.
Click to expand...
Nothing that could not be fixed by cutting the commercials in half and having the cheerleaders make out between plays.

They could also institute a fan makes the call rule where on the first fourth down of a random quarter a fan gets to decide whether they punt, kick, or go for it.

Obviously some teams would have to get cheerleaders, but until they do you just schedule teams that already have squads.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ditkaless Wonders said:
Nothing that could not be fixed by cutting the commercials in half and having the cheerleaders make out between plays.

They could also institute a fan makes the call rule where on the first fourth down of a random quarter a fan gets to decide whether they punt, kick, or go for it.

Obviously some teams would have to get cheerleaders, but until they do you just schedule teams that already have squads.
Click to expand...
I like the cut of your jib.

 
JFS171 said:
But sometimes that's just a result of bad teams being on the field, or players getting hurt unexpectedly (that game's a whole lot more interesting if Matt Barkley isn't playing QB for the majority of it).  You get some truly awful games, but you get some great ones too.  Probably no different than MNF (the Cards/Jets this week was nearly unwatchable, and no one's talking about cancelling MNF).
Click to expand...
If you look at the discussion on this thread I think you'll find that the concensus was that game only got interesting because  Barkley was playing.  

That added something worth watching to the game - to that point the game was horrific and the players looked lethargic.  

I do agree though that there's likely a mix of perception & reality - could just be terrible luck that every single TNF game has bordered on unwatchable. 

But even then, with just 4 days off, injured players have very little chance of playing on TNF, and teams have that much less time to game plan for their opponents.

this can lead to sloppy play on both sides of the ball. 

But since this is the NFL Network's baby, there's little chance of anything changing. 

 
Ditkaless Wonders said:
Nothing that could not be fixed by cutting the commercials in half and having the cheerleaders make out between plays.
Click to expand...
Like, with each other?  :excited:

They could also institute a fan makes the call rule where on the first fourth down of a random quarter a fan gets to decide whether they punt, kick, or go for it.
Click to expand...
Why limit it? Just have a contest where a fan calls the 1st half of games for sub .500 teams - can't be much worse than their current OCs are doing.  :unsure:

 
Packers/Bears hasn't been a rivalry in forever. Bears are a pathetic franchise that can't have a rivalry without anyone because they don't ever win.

 
flapgreen said:
 Bears are a pathetic franchise that can't have a rivalry without anyone because they don't ever win.
Click to expand...


:goodposting:

This will be the first Thursday night game I've seen since Bears @ Packers last October, and will certainly be the only Thursday night game I'll watch all year.

Bears still suck.

 
CletiusMaximus said:
:goodposting:

This will be the first Thursday night game I've seen since Bears @ Packers last October, and will certainly be the only Thursday night game I'll watch all year.

Bears still suck.
Click to expand...
Yeah they do. But Steelers>>>Packers so there's a chance.  Glennon freaking terrible 

 
Dr. Dan said:
In the time GB has had Rodgers, how many starting QB's has Chicago had again? How many playoff appearances in the last 2 decades? What a waste  
Click to expand...
Certainly a waste of Matt Forte. That dude could have been the centerpiece of a dynasty if he had a dynastic team around him. 

 
Dr. Dan said:
In the time GB has had Rodgers, how many starting QB's has Chicago had again? How many playoff appearances in the last 2 decades? What a waste  
Click to expand...
It was a compliment to Rodgers and a knock at the Packers coaching staff. I already know the Bears suck. Rodgers is not someone who comes along but once or twice a generation. He should have 4.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Joe Bryant
  • Poll Poll
Early Win Totals - Bears at 8.5 - Which Side Are You?
Replies
31
Views
701
pinkstapler
P
BobbyLayne
** Lions at Packers** (-2.5, 47.5) CBS 4:25
2 3 4
Replies
172
Views
2K
Gjallarhorn
Gjallarhorn
JohnnyU
RIP D i c k Jauron, former Bears and Bills coach
Replies
1
Views
155
need2know
need2know

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top