Let's talk some Ahman Green (1 Viewer)

[Koya]

Let's face it, those of us that have Green likely got him in the middle rounds, often after most of our other starters were drafted. Your typical 3rd RB choice for most 10-12 team leagues I would think.

You know the team was going to suck, that Favre may or may not retire or be traded or just mope all year in interviews.

So far, that thought hasnt changed.

What HAS changed, I think, is the feeling toward Ahman. Two things:

(1) He looked pretty good last week, health and ability wise. I think many of us were surprised by that. Not that he looks as explosive as the 1800 yard rusher, but he did look more than solid running last week. The line might not be solid, but he managed against a very good D last week, and ran decent before garbage time as well.

(2) Even if Green Bay is getting their asses kicked, which may happen a lot this year, Ahman could very well have fantasy production. He did last week, and reports are that Green Bay may want to run the ball considerably more than last year (if someone wants, Ill look up the link).

SOOO, what is the collective take on Ahman. Yeah, he is a RB on a ####ty team - but one that may be running a bit more with Favre all over the place, and a team that could have more fantasy production for the RB in garbage time than you may expect.

My opinion is starting to change on Ahman's season, early as it may be. Not going to trade all my other backs expecting him to be a stud, but he might very well become a more than solid #2 this year. He looked good running on a team that looks to get him the ball.

Your take?

 

[SickThing]

Ah man... I think you summed it up pretty well Koya. I'm riding that horse this week while he's healthy and am starting him over Dunn.

As the season goes on, I won't be surprised if Ahman gets hurt or wears down quicker than other backs, while I don't expect that of Dunn. For that reason, Dunn remains my #2 overall behind Rudi.

Ahman is an awesome #3. For now anyway.

 

[Big Score]

I hope you're right Koya, but for fantasy purposes, I have my doubts after the Mortency signing & both McCarthy's & Thompson's stated plans for his use.

 

[Koya]

I hope you're right Koya, but for fantasy purposes, I have my doubts after the Mortency signing & both McCarthy's & Thompson's stated plans for his use.

I am not sure why that would be a concern to you. Trading Gado away for Morency signaled to me that the Pack feels Ahman is back (for now) and they would benefit from having a role player that can do some third down and change of pace duties.With the reports that the Pack want to be more of a running team than in the past (aiming for 40 carries, vs the 30 they have been gunning for over the last few years), no RB is going to get 40 carries - and preferably not more than 27-28. That leaves MORE than enough room for Green to get his full load, and have other backs give breathers and play situationally.I am surprised there isnt much talk about Green to be honest. A former true stud that was basically put out to pasture - the jury is still out right now, but it is more promising than most any of us thought just a week ago.

 

[Koya]

Ah man... I think you summed it up pretty well Koya. I'm riding that horse this week while he's healthy and am starting him over Dunn. As the season goes on, I won't be surprised if Ahman gets hurt or wears down quicker than other backs, while I don't expect that of Dunn. For that reason, Dunn remains my #2 overall behind Rudi. Ahman is an awesome #3. For now anyway.

He has now moved into a week by week rotation with DeShaun Foster for me. With Smith out this week, I am leaning Ahman. I wouldnt have expected that to be a viable option a week ago, and wonder if it will continue or if the suckitude of GB will swallow up any production.

 

[Big Score]

I hope you're right Koya, but for fantasy purposes, I have my doubts after the Mortency signing & both McCarthy's & Thompson's stated plans for his use.

I am not sure why that would be a concern to you. Trading Gado away for Morency signaled to me that the Pack feels Ahman is back (for now) and they would benefit from having a role player that can do some third down and change of pace duties.

Prior to the Morency signing, it was clear to me that Ahman was going to go back to his days of being an every down back, which would of course result in an increase to his recieving numbers.The days of seeing Sherman pulling Green for Fisher on passing downs were happily over.

I'm not so sure about that anymore and while it remains to be seen just how much 3rd down / passing down duty Morency is actually going to see, I have adjusted my projections for Ahman's receptions, recieving yards & recieving TD's accordingly. Considering the woes of the Pack's D & offense, I can see the Packers in quite a few 3rd & longs this year. If Ahman is always getting pulled on those downs....?

Morency will put a dent in Ahman's fantasy numbers, no matter how it plays out.

The only question is...how much of a dent?

 

[VIKEfan]

I hope you're right Koya, but for fantasy purposes, I have my doubts after the Mortency signing & both McCarthy's & Thompson's stated plans for his use.

I am not sure why that would be a concern to you. Trading Gado away for Morency signaled to me that the Pack feels Ahman is back (for now) and they would benefit from having a role player that can do some third down and change of pace duties.

Prior to the Morency signing, it was clear to me that Ahman was going to go back to his days of being an every down back, which would of course result in an increase to his recieving numbers.The days of seeing Sherman pulling Green for Fisher on passing downs were happily over.

I'm not so sure about that anymore and while it remains to be seen just how much 3rd down / passing down duty Morency is actually going to see, I have adjusted my projections for Ahman's receptions, recieving yards & recieving TD's accordingly. Considering the woes of the Pack's D & offense, I can see the Packers in quite a few 3rd & longs this year. If Ahman is always getting pulled on those downs....?

Morency will put a dent in Ahman's fantasy numbers, no matter how it plays out.

The only question is...how much of a dent?

Wasn't Morency having trouble with blocking and blitz pickups in Houston? That alone might limit how many 3rd downs he plays in.

 

[Big Score]

I hope you're right Koya, but for fantasy purposes, I have my doubts after the Mortency signing & both McCarthy's & Thompson's stated plans for his use.

I am not sure why that would be a concern to you. Trading Gado away for Morency signaled to me that the Pack feels Ahman is back (for now) and they would benefit from having a role player that can do some third down and change of pace duties.

Prior to the Morency signing, it was clear to me that Ahman was going to go back to his days of being an every down back, which would of course result in an increase to his recieving numbers.The days of seeing Sherman pulling Green for Fisher on passing downs were happily over.

I'm not so sure about that anymore and while it remains to be seen just how much 3rd down / passing down duty Morency is actually going to see, I have adjusted my projections for Ahman's receptions, recieving yards & recieving TD's accordingly. Considering the woes of the Pack's D & offense, I can see the Packers in quite a few 3rd & longs this year. If Ahman is always getting pulled on those downs....?

Morency will put a dent in Ahman's fantasy numbers, no matter how it plays out.

The only question is...how much of a dent?

Wasn't Morency having trouble with blocking and blitz pickups in Houston? That alone might limit how many 3rd downs he plays in.

No.

 

[walkwithme]

As long as Green is healty he will get the majority of the carries if he can muster 80 yards and a TD I am good this week. If heathly I see no way he doesn't have say 1200+ total yards 7-8. Putting him somewhere in the RB 2 range.

 

[Big Score]

As long as Green is healty he will get the majority of the carries if he can muster 80 yards and a TD I am good this week. If heathly I see no way he doesn't have say 1200+ total yards 7-8. Putting him somewhere in the RB 2 range.

I hope you're right.

 

[PatsWillWin]

I got him with the 119th pick in a 16 team dynasty draft during the off-season. He was more of a risk back then, wasn't even sure if GB was going to re-sign him, but I liked the value there and I'm certainly happy with it now.

Anyone considering selling high? For some reason, I am not.

 

[SickThing]

Anyone considering selling high? For some reason, I am not.

I'm starting to give that some consideration. As I posted earlier, I don't have much faith in his durability at this point in his career.

 

[Big Score]

Anyone considering selling high? For some reason, I am not.

It may end up being a mistake on my part, but like you, I'm hanging tough with him. He's got a decent run schedule and did look good against the Bears.

 

[Koya]

I think people get too worked up when a back doesnt have 3rd down duties.

For one, RBs need rests. I would MUCH prefer to have that on 3rd downs than either losing entire series or lose short yardage. Why? You have to get a rest at some point, so pick which set of circumstance you would prefer your player is not on the field.

(1) 3rd down might result in your back getting 3-4 additional touches a game, since 3rd down passing situations USUALLY call for throwing to a receiving, not your check down back who likely won't get first down yardage.

(2) 3rd down often means getting hit blocking rather than running the ball, since 3rd down backs often stay in the backfield for max protect. I would prefer my back tire from hits while being productive, not hits while protecting the QB

(3) 3rd down means you are not at the goaline. If your back comes out at the goal line, that is a chance for 6 points... far more important to fantasy success than the same touch via run or pass outside the red zone.

Since your back needs to come out at some point, I would MUCH prefer that be on 3rd downs when you wont likely get a huge amount of touches anyway, and MOST important those touches arent nearly as likely to result in a TD.

People make too much out of the third down back thing, especially on teams that run a lot. NO back is going to get 40 carries, so why not have the other backs get touches that are on 3rd down?

For example, I have Willie Parker. He may or may not get goal lines, and comes out on third down. He got 29 carries last game and that is too much for 95% of backs in the league. Because of that, he is not on third down situations. Which is fine with me. He STILL got 30+ touches and they are looking to reduce that.

If they reduce it by pulling him at the goal line, which is very possible, that hurts me far more than the 3rd down substitution.

 

[humphrp]

For most we have him as our third running back. Even with Morency (who even as an OSU alumnust I never really thought he was that great a back, though I might have been spoiled by B. Sanders, T. Thomas, and T. Bell) I don't see him losing enough 3rd down and GL carries to be worse then where he was drafted. I think that I have the best #3 RB in the league behind Dunn and LT. I am not looking to trade him away any time soon. Plus if most picked up Gado as a handcuff previous to the trade you might have another bonus on your hands. If you are afraid of Green getting injured trade for or pick up Mornecy from an owner who is upset that he is now officially a back up

 

[Koya]

Anyone considering selling high? For some reason, I am not.

It may end up being a mistake on my part, but like you, I'm hanging tough with him. He's got a decent run schedule and did look good against the Bears.

I think Ahman has a legit shot at very good #2 numbers right now. So unless I get at least that much value, which is not likely right now, I will hold onto him.As a #3 for most of us, you dont want to only have 2 viable options at RB so early in the year. The thought of Wali Lundy taking over if I need a bye week player or someone goes down is not a good one.That said, if Ahman can keep it up - not be great, but be good, or a little better than good - then many of us will have a solid replacement when/if someone gets hurt and possibly great trade fodder (either Ahman or another back if you keep Ahman) for the stretch run later in the year.Of course, it is only week 2. GB could just suck too much, injuries could happen a ton of things.

 

[Milwaukees_best]

Just a couple things to keep in mind when starting Ahman Green this week.

Jason Spitz will not be making the start this week. Darren Colledge, the big nasty North Poleian who the Packers drafted in round 2, will be starting in his place at guard. Hopefully Colledge, who has been transitioning from being one of the best pass blocking LTs in college, learned the Guard position over the last few weeks.

Personally I think the Packers will be MUCH better off with Colledge in there.

2nd thing to keep in mind is Vonta Leach - who blocked for Ahman Green last week vs Chicago was CUT. William Henderson makes his return to the lineup. Any Packer fan will tell you that this guy is critical to the Packers running success. Henderson is going to dominate the Saints LBs.

EDIT TO ADD - HENDO WAS HURT - that is why he is "returning" to the lineup.

Ahman Green should easily top the 100 yard mark this week.

 

[Texican]

Ahman Green should easily top the 100 yard mark this week.

 

[Milwaukees_best]

Ahman Green should easily top the 100 yard mark this week.

You can put it in lights if you want!

 

[Big Score]

I think people get too worked up when a back doesnt have 3rd down duties.

For one, RBs need rests. I would MUCH prefer to have that on 3rd downs than either losing entire series or lose short yardage. Why? You have to get a rest at some point, so pick which set of circumstance you would prefer your player is not on the field.

(1) 3rd down might result in your back getting 3-4 additional touches a game, since 3rd down passing situations USUALLY call for throwing to a receiving, not your check down back who likely won't get first down yardage.

(2) 3rd down often means getting hit blocking rather than running the ball, since 3rd down backs often stay in the backfield for max protect. I would prefer my back tire from hits while being productive, not hits while protecting the QB

(3) 3rd down means you are not at the goaline. If your back comes out at the goal line, that is a chance for 6 points... far more important to fantasy success than the same touch via run or pass outside the red zone.

Since your back needs to come out at some point, I would MUCH prefer that be on 3rd downs when you wont likely get a huge amount of touches anyway, and MOST important those touches arent nearly as likely to result in a TD.

People make too much out of the third down back thing, especially on teams that run a lot. NO back is going to get 40 carries, so why not have the other backs get touches that are on 3rd down?

For example, I have Willie Parker. He may or may not get goal lines, and comes out on third down. He got 29 carries last game and that is too much for 95% of backs in the league. Because of that, he is not on third down situations. Which is fine with me. He STILL got 30+ touches and they are looking to reduce that.

If they reduce it by pulling him at the goal line, which is very possible, that hurts me far more than the 3rd down substitution.

Again I hope you're right, but historically the 3rd down back has been an integral piece of the Packer's offense, from Fisher to Davenport & even Henderson. Nothing frustrated me more than to see the Packer's pull Green on 3rd down and the play go to his substitute. Especially as Green was the superior back.Giving Green an occasional blow every now & then, is far, far ,far different, than having a specialist 3rd down back rotation.

Now I know this is a different Coaching regime than the previous one and a different offensive game plan, but if you actually watched the Packers / Bears last week, you would have seen that the Packer's RB was still heavily involved on 3rd downs.

Even if you didn't watch the game, you can still pull up the Play-by-Play at NFL.com to verify.

3-1-CHI44 (11:54) A.Green right tackle to CHI 44 for no gain (T.Harris).

3-1-GB26 (10:59) A.Green left tackle to GB 26 for no gain (L.Briggs).

3-17-GB32 (2:40) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass short middle to A.Green to GB 45 for 13 yards (H.Hillenmeyer, C.Harris).

3-26-GB23 (14:55) (Shotgun) A.Green left tackle to GB 34 for 11 yards (M.Brown, B.Urlacher).

3-13-GB40 (7:43) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass short right to S.Gado to GB 45 for 5 yards (L.Briggs).

3-5-GB39 (3:56) (Shotgun) S.Gado right guard to GB 35 for -4 yards (T.Harris).

The Packer's had a total of 10 3rd downs where they were actually able to get the play off (Favre took a sack on 1 3rd down play)

Of those 10 3rd down plays, the Packer's RB's were used on 6 of those 3rd down plays regardless of the distance.

IF the Packer's offensive play calling continues as above, how can we NOT project a dent to Ahman Green's numbers, especially considering both McCarthy's & Thompson statements, on their expected use of Morency?

Again, I hope I'm wrong and personally I'm hanging onto Green (I've got enough RB depth to do that), but to casually dismiss the potential impact of Morency to Green's numbers, is not realistic IMO.

 

[SackDiesel808]

Again I hope you're right, but historically the 3rd down back has been an integral piece of the Packer's offense, from Fisher to Davenport & even Henderson. Nothing frustrated me more than to see the Packer's pull Green on 3rd down and the play go to his substitute. Especially as Green was the superior back.

Giving Green an occasional blow every now & then, is far, far ,far different, than having a specialist 3rd down back rotation.

Now I know this is a different Coaching regime than the previous one and a different offensive game plan, but if you actually watched the Packers / Bears last week, you would have seen that the Packer's RB was still heavily involved on 3rd downs.

Even if you didn't watch the game, you can still pull up the Play-by-Play at NFL.com to verify.

3-1-CHI44 (11:54) A.Green right tackle to CHI 44 for no gain (T.Harris).

3-1-GB26 (10:59) A.Green left tackle to GB 26 for no gain (L.Briggs).

3-17-GB32 (2:40) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass short middle to A.Green to GB 45 for 13 yards (H.Hillenmeyer, C.Harris).

3-26-GB23 (14:55) (Shotgun) A.Green left tackle to GB 34 for 11 yards (M.Brown, B.Urlacher).

3-13-GB40 (7:43) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass short right to S.Gado to GB 45 for 5 yards (L.Briggs).

3-5-GB39 (3:56) (Shotgun) S.Gado right guard to GB 35 for -4 yards (T.Harris).

The Packer's had a total of 10 3rd downs where they were actually able to get the play off (Favre took a sack on 1 3rd down play)

Of those 10 3rd down plays, the Packer's RB's were used on 6 of those 3rd down plays regardless of the distance.

IF the Packer's offensive play calling continues as above, how can we NOT project a dent to Ahman Green's numbers, especially considering both McCarthy's & Thompson statements, on their expected use of Morency?

Again, I hope I'm wrong and personally I'm hanging onto Green (I've got enough RB depth to do that), but to casually dismiss the potential impact of Morency to Green's numbers, is not realistic IMO.

A 3rd down back is NOT used on 3rd and 1...... Hint: GB will also pass on 1st and 2nd down. The ideal situation where a 3rd down back is used is 3rd and 5-10. You may see Green anyways since he can block.

 

[Big Score]

Again I hope you're right, but historically the 3rd down back has been an integral piece of the Packer's offense, from Fisher to Davenport & even Henderson. Nothing frustrated me more than to see the Packer's pull Green on 3rd down and the play go to his substitute. Especially as Green was the superior back.

Giving Green an occasional blow every now & then, is far, far ,far different, than having a specialist 3rd down back rotation.

Now I know this is a different Coaching regime than the previous one and a different offensive game plan, but if you actually watched the Packers / Bears last week, you would have seen that the Packer's RB was still heavily involved on 3rd downs.

Even if you didn't watch the game, you can still pull up the Play-by-Play at NFL.com to verify.

3-1-CHI44 (11:54) A.Green right tackle to CHI 44 for no gain (T.Harris).

3-1-GB26 (10:59) A.Green left tackle to GB 26 for no gain (L.Briggs).

3-17-GB32 (2:40) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass short middle to A.Green to GB 45 for 13 yards (H.Hillenmeyer, C.Harris).

3-26-GB23 (14:55) (Shotgun) A.Green left tackle to GB 34 for 11 yards (M.Brown, B.Urlacher).

3-13-GB40 (7:43) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass short right to S.Gado to GB 45 for 5 yards (L.Briggs).

3-5-GB39 (3:56) (Shotgun) S.Gado right guard to GB 35 for -4 yards (T.Harris).

The Packer's had a total of 10 3rd downs where they were actually able to get the play off (Favre took a sack on 1 3rd down play)

Of those 10 3rd down plays, the Packer's RB's were used on 6 of those 3rd down plays regardless of the distance.

IF the Packer's offensive play calling continues as above, how can we NOT project a dent to Ahman Green's numbers, especially considering both McCarthy's & Thompson statements, on their expected use of Morency?

Again, I hope I'm wrong and personally I'm hanging onto Green (I've got enough RB depth to do that), but to casually dismiss the potential impact of Morency to Green's numbers, is not realistic IMO.

A 3rd down back is NOT used on 3rd and 1...... Hint: GB will also pass on 1st and 2nd down. The ideal situation where a 3rd down back is used is 3rd and 5-10. You may see Green anyways since he can block.

SackDiesel808, The purpose of the post was to show Green Bays extensive use of their RB's on ANY 3rd down, regardless of distance.

It was not to say that the 3rd down back is going to come in on 3rd & 1

 

[Milwaukees_best]

In last Sunday's loss to the Chicago Bears, Green carried 20 times for 110 yards. It was his first regular-season action since he sustained a ruptured quadriceps tendon on Oct. 23 at Minnesota.

"I'd like to get (Green) more (carries) than that," Jagodzinski said.

Couple things - The Packers are 11-0 since 1988 when running the ball 40+ times. They are 77-7 When they run the ball 30 or more times.

I know for a fact that I have read where McCarthy said he wanted to run the heck out of the ball and this paragraph from officialbrettfavre.com proves that the gameplan from the first day Coach McCarthy came in has been to run the heck out of the ball.

----

"McCarthy and Jagodzinski have preached all offseason that they'll run the ball even when the run isn't working, so the entire offense doesn't fall on Favre. The Packers averaged only 3.3 yards per carry in the preseason, but the regular season is an entirely different animal, with the extensive game planning and regular work of the starters together in practice.

On the other hand, the Packers will be facing a Bears defense that plays fast and has game-changing players in the middle of the run defense with Urlacher and Harris.

"It won't be for lack of effort," Jagodzinski said of whether the Packers will be able to run against Chicago. "You can't lose sight of that. You have to stay with the plan."

------

I know I am not offering anything groundbreaking here but the point I am trying to make is that the packers gameplan all season is going to be to run the ball down the other teams throat. I think we can expect Ahman Green with 25 or so touches per game and that leaves plenty for Morency.

The other thing to consider is that the Packers had only 1 year contracts on their roster at RB. Gado included. This move for Morency is about more than just the immediate future.

**********Green says that while he can’t predict how well the two running games will do on Sunday, he guarantees one thing. The Saints defense will see plenty of him come kick off, “We’re going to run the ball until the other team makes us pass the ball.”

 

[Koya]

In last Sunday's loss to the Chicago Bears, Green carried 20 times for 110 yards. It was his first regular-season action since he sustained a ruptured quadriceps tendon on Oct. 23 at Minnesota.

"I'd like to get (Green) more (carries) than that," Jagodzinski said.

Couple things - The Packers are 11-0 since 1988 when running the ball 40+ times. They are 77-7 When they run the ball 30 or more times.

I know for a fact that I have read where McCarthy said he wanted to run the heck out of the ball and this paragraph from officialbrettfavre.com proves that the gameplan from the first day Coach McCarthy came in has been to run the heck out of the ball.

----

"McCarthy and Jagodzinski have preached all offseason that they'll run the ball even when the run isn't working, so the entire offense doesn't fall on Favre. The Packers averaged only 3.3 yards per carry in the preseason, but the regular season is an entirely different animal, with the extensive game planning and regular work of the starters together in practice.

On the other hand, the Packers will be facing a Bears defense that plays fast and has game-changing players in the middle of the run defense with Urlacher and Harris.

"It won't be for lack of effort," Jagodzinski said of whether the Packers will be able to run against Chicago. "You can't lose sight of that. You have to stay with the plan."

------

I know I am not offering anything groundbreaking here but the point I am trying to make is that the packers gameplan all season is going to be to run the ball down the other teams throat. I think we can expect Ahman Green with 25 or so touches per game and that leaves plenty for Morency.

The other thing to consider is that the Packers had only 1 year contracts on their roster at RB. Gado included. This move for Morency is about more than just the immediate future.

Very good point. So many in FF are reactionary. If Morency were so good, right now, so ready to make an impact then why would HOUSTON of all teams trade him with their RB situation. Morency has potential, and/or can play a role. But it is only a role.Once again, NO RB is getting 40 carries a game. If that is the target number, and you figure GB ends up with 30-35 carries a came and 3-5 receptions by backs, figure Ahman gets 25-28 of those carries (with a chance for more) and a couple receptions. What more do people expect, and want?

 

[Koya]

“We’re going to run the ball until the other team makes us pass the ball.”

Of course, that could be 8 minutes into the game... jk.Sorta.

 

[Milwaukees_best]

"Most of that offense doesn't even resemble the one we saw a few years ago," Bears defensive end Alex Brown said.

"But Ahman Green is still great. He's the one guy we couldn't shut down today."

 

[Liquid Tension]

I hope you're right Koya, but for fantasy purposes, I have my doubts after the Mortency signing & both McCarthy's & Thompson's stated plans for his use.

I am not sure why that would be a concern to you. Trading Gado away for Morency signaled to me that the Pack feels Ahman is back (for now) and they would benefit from having a role player that can do some third down and change of pace duties.

Prior to the Morency signing, it was clear to me that Ahman was going to go back to his days of being an every down back, which would of course result in an increase to his recieving numbers.The days of seeing Sherman pulling Green for Fisher on passing downs were happily over.

I'm not so sure about that anymore and while it remains to be seen just how much 3rd down / passing down duty Morency is actually going to see, I have adjusted my projections for Ahman's receptions, recieving yards & recieving TD's accordingly. Considering the woes of the Pack's D & offense, I can see the Packers in quite a few 3rd & longs this year. If Ahman is always getting pulled on those downs....?

Morency will put a dent in Ahman's fantasy numbers, no matter how it plays out.

The only question is...how much of a dent?

Ahman looked VERY good. Remember that his injury is not the type that requires years to recover from, once healed you are healed, somewhat like a hamstring (if 100% healed). Anyway, the trading of Gado is a good thing for Ahman. Nobody will be stealing TD's from him now and Morency just isn't that great. Giving Ahman a blow when he needs it is fine because if you remember Ahman has asthma and there are times he needs some rest. If Ahman were traded to Denver he would be a top back.

 

[Big Score]

In last Sunday's loss to the Chicago Bears, Green carried 20 times for 110 yards. It was his first regular-season action since he sustained a ruptured quadriceps tendon on Oct. 23 at Minnesota.

"I'd like to get (Green) more (carries) than that," Jagodzinski said.

Couple things - The Packers are 11-0 since 1988 when running the ball 40+ times. They are 77-7 When they run the ball 30 or more times.

I know for a fact that I have read where McCarthy said he wanted to run the heck out of the ball and this paragraph from officialbrettfavre.com proves that the gameplan from the first day Coach McCarthy came in has been to run the heck out of the ball.

----

"McCarthy and Jagodzinski have preached all offseason that they'll run the ball even when the run isn't working, so the entire offense doesn't fall on Favre. The Packers averaged only 3.3 yards per carry in the preseason, but the regular season is an entirely different animal, with the extensive game planning and regular work of the starters together in practice.

On the other hand, the Packers will be facing a Bears defense that plays fast and has game-changing players in the middle of the run defense with Urlacher and Harris.

"It won't be for lack of effort," Jagodzinski said of whether the Packers will be able to run against Chicago. "You can't lose sight of that. You have to stay with the plan."

------

I know I am not offering anything groundbreaking here but the point I am trying to make is that the packers gameplan all season is going to be to run the ball down the other teams throat. I think we can expect Ahman Green with 25 or so touches per game and that leaves plenty for Morency.

The other thing to consider is that the Packers had only 1 year contracts on their roster at RB. Gado included. This move for Morency is about more than just the immediate future.

Very good point. So many in FF are reactionary. If Morency were so good, right now, so ready to make an impact then why would HOUSTON of all teams trade him with their RB situation. Morency has potential, and/or can play a role. But it is only a role.Once again, NO RB is getting 40 carries a game. If that is the target number, and you figure GB ends up with 30-35 carries a came and 3-5 receptions by backs, figure Ahman gets 25-28 of those carries (with a chance for more) and a couple receptions. What more do people expect, and want?

Are you NUTS? Lets forget about your 28 carries per game and go with your low end of 25 per game. You do realize you're projecting 400 carries for Green. It becomes 448 if we go with your high end of 28 carries per game. I don't think any RB in the NFL has EVER seen the high end workload you're suggesting Green will and very few have seen the low end workload.

No freakin' way Green sees that workload. Especially if Morency is used the way the Head Coach & General Manager of the Packers say he is going to be used.

 

[Koya]

In last Sunday's loss to the Chicago Bears, Green carried 20 times for 110 yards. It was his first regular-season action since he sustained a ruptured quadriceps tendon on Oct. 23 at Minnesota.

"I'd like to get (Green) more (carries) than that," Jagodzinski said.

Couple things - The Packers are 11-0 since 1988 when running the ball 40+ times. They are 77-7 When they run the ball 30 or more times.

I know for a fact that I have read where McCarthy said he wanted to run the heck out of the ball and this paragraph from officialbrettfavre.com proves that the gameplan from the first day Coach McCarthy came in has been to run the heck out of the ball.

----

"McCarthy and Jagodzinski have preached all offseason that they'll run the ball even when the run isn't working, so the entire offense doesn't fall on Favre. The Packers averaged only 3.3 yards per carry in the preseason, but the regular season is an entirely different animal, with the extensive game planning and regular work of the starters together in practice.

On the other hand, the Packers will be facing a Bears defense that plays fast and has game-changing players in the middle of the run defense with Urlacher and Harris.

"It won't be for lack of effort," Jagodzinski said of whether the Packers will be able to run against Chicago. "You can't lose sight of that. You have to stay with the plan."

------

I know I am not offering anything groundbreaking here but the point I am trying to make is that the packers gameplan all season is going to be to run the ball down the other teams throat. I think we can expect Ahman Green with 25 or so touches per game and that leaves plenty for Morency.

The other thing to consider is that the Packers had only 1 year contracts on their roster at RB. Gado included. This move for Morency is about more than just the immediate future.

Very good point. So many in FF are reactionary. If Morency were so good, right now, so ready to make an impact then why would HOUSTON of all teams trade him with their RB situation. Morency has potential, and/or can play a role. But it is only a role.Once again, NO RB is getting 40 carries a game. If that is the target number, and you figure GB ends up with 30-35 carries a came and 3-5 receptions by backs, figure Ahman gets 25-28 of those carries (with a chance for more) and a couple receptions. What more do people expect, and want?

Are you NUTS? Lets forget about your 28 carries per game and go with your low end of 25 per game. You do realize you're projecting 400 carries for Green. It becomes 448 if we go with your high end of 28 carries per game. I don't think any RB in the NFL has EVER seen the high end workload you're suggesting Green will and very few have seen the low end workload.

No freakin' way Green sees that workload. Especially if Morency is used the way the Head Coach & General Manager of the Packers say he is going to be used.

I think you misunderstood - these are the "stated goals" of the coaches. Meaning, a perfect game, in control, perfectly executed GB gameplan.That said, if you have a game that is close to that perfect game, then expect the Pack to have 30-35 carries, and a vast majority of those carries would be by Green. That is my point.

I would expect that Ahman will get 20-25 a game, when they arent just completely out of it - although last week demonstrated that Green might be ok even in a blowout the other way.

 

[Pumpnick]

Hey Koya. I'm starting A Green this week.

 

[Koya]

Hey Koya. I'm starting A Green this week.

Great minds think alike.And fools seldom differ.

 

[Big Score]

In last Sunday's loss to the Chicago Bears, Green carried 20 times for 110 yards. It was his first regular-season action since he sustained a ruptured quadriceps tendon on Oct. 23 at Minnesota.

"I'd like to get (Green) more (carries) than that," Jagodzinski said.

Couple things - The Packers are 11-0 since 1988 when running the ball 40+ times. They are 77-7 When they run the ball 30 or more times.

I know for a fact that I have read where McCarthy said he wanted to run the heck out of the ball and this paragraph from officialbrettfavre.com proves that the gameplan from the first day Coach McCarthy came in has been to run the heck out of the ball.

----

"McCarthy and Jagodzinski have preached all offseason that they'll run the ball even when the run isn't working, so the entire offense doesn't fall on Favre. The Packers averaged only 3.3 yards per carry in the preseason, but the regular season is an entirely different animal, with the extensive game planning and regular work of the starters together in practice.

On the other hand, the Packers will be facing a Bears defense that plays fast and has game-changing players in the middle of the run defense with Urlacher and Harris.

"It won't be for lack of effort," Jagodzinski said of whether the Packers will be able to run against Chicago. "You can't lose sight of that. You have to stay with the plan."

------

I know I am not offering anything groundbreaking here but the point I am trying to make is that the packers gameplan all season is going to be to run the ball down the other teams throat. I think we can expect Ahman Green with 25 or so touches per game and that leaves plenty for Morency.

The other thing to consider is that the Packers had only 1 year contracts on their roster at RB. Gado included. This move for Morency is about more than just the immediate future.

Very good point. So many in FF are reactionary. If Morency were so good, right now, so ready to make an impact then why would HOUSTON of all teams trade him with their RB situation. Morency has potential, and/or can play a role. But it is only a role.Once again, NO RB is getting 40 carries a game. If that is the target number, and you figure GB ends up with 30-35 carries a came and 3-5 receptions by backs, figure Ahman gets 25-28 of those carries (with a chance for more) and a couple receptions. What more do people expect, and want?

Are you NUTS? Lets forget about your 28 carries per game and go with your low end of 25 per game. You do realize you're projecting 400 carries for Green. It becomes 448 if we go with your high end of 28 carries per game. I don't think any RB in the NFL has EVER seen the high end workload you're suggesting Green will and very few have seen the low end workload.

No freakin' way Green sees that workload. Especially if Morency is used the way the Head Coach & General Manager of the Packers say he is going to be used.

I think you misunderstood - these are the "stated goals" of the coaches. Meaning, a perfect game, in control, perfectly executed GB gameplan.That said, if you have a game that is close to that perfect game, then expect the Pack to have 30-35 carries, and a vast majority of those carries would be by Green. That is my point.

I would expect that Ahman will get 20-25 a game, when they arent just completely out of it - although last week demonstrated that Green might be ok even in a blowout the other way.

Ah! Gotcha! Even then, that's still a ton of carries & pass receptions you're projecting for Green, especially if Morency is used the way the Head Coach & General Manager of the Packers say they'll use him.

That being said, I've got Green penciled in my line up this week.

Now I am using a #2 pencil, so depending on how the Packer RB situation plays out over the next couple of weeks, he could become bench material.

 

[Koya]

In last Sunday's loss to the Chicago Bears, Green carried 20 times for 110 yards. It was his first regular-season action since he sustained a ruptured quadriceps tendon on Oct. 23 at Minnesota.

"I'd like to get (Green) more (carries) than that," Jagodzinski said.

Couple things - The Packers are 11-0 since 1988 when running the ball 40+ times. They are 77-7 When they run the ball 30 or more times.

I know for a fact that I have read where McCarthy said he wanted to run the heck out of the ball and this paragraph from officialbrettfavre.com proves that the gameplan from the first day Coach McCarthy came in has been to run the heck out of the ball.

----

"McCarthy and Jagodzinski have preached all offseason that they'll run the ball even when the run isn't working, so the entire offense doesn't fall on Favre. The Packers averaged only 3.3 yards per carry in the preseason, but the regular season is an entirely different animal, with the extensive game planning and regular work of the starters together in practice.

On the other hand, the Packers will be facing a Bears defense that plays fast and has game-changing players in the middle of the run defense with Urlacher and Harris.

"It won't be for lack of effort," Jagodzinski said of whether the Packers will be able to run against Chicago. "You can't lose sight of that. You have to stay with the plan."

------

I know I am not offering anything groundbreaking here but the point I am trying to make is that the packers gameplan all season is going to be to run the ball down the other teams throat. I think we can expect Ahman Green with 25 or so touches per game and that leaves plenty for Morency.

The other thing to consider is that the Packers had only 1 year contracts on their roster at RB. Gado included. This move for Morency is about more than just the immediate future.

Very good point. So many in FF are reactionary. If Morency were so good, right now, so ready to make an impact then why would HOUSTON of all teams trade him with their RB situation. Morency has potential, and/or can play a role. But it is only a role.Once again, NO RB is getting 40 carries a game. If that is the target number, and you figure GB ends up with 30-35 carries a came and 3-5 receptions by backs, figure Ahman gets 25-28 of those carries (with a chance for more) and a couple receptions. What more do people expect, and want?

Are you NUTS? Lets forget about your 28 carries per game and go with your low end of 25 per game. You do realize you're projecting 400 carries for Green. It becomes 448 if we go with your high end of 28 carries per game. I don't think any RB in the NFL has EVER seen the high end workload you're suggesting Green will and very few have seen the low end workload.

No freakin' way Green sees that workload. Especially if Morency is used the way the Head Coach & General Manager of the Packers say he is going to be used.

I think you misunderstood - these are the "stated goals" of the coaches. Meaning, a perfect game, in control, perfectly executed GB gameplan.That said, if you have a game that is close to that perfect game, then expect the Pack to have 30-35 carries, and a vast majority of those carries would be by Green. That is my point.

I would expect that Ahman will get 20-25 a game, when they arent just completely out of it - although last week demonstrated that Green might be ok even in a blowout the other way.

Ah! Gotcha! Even then, that's still a ton of carries & pass receptions you're projecting for Green, especially if Morency is used the way the Head Coach & General Manager of the Packers say they'll use him.

That being said, I've got Green penciled in my line up this week.

Now I am using a #2 pencil, so depending on how the Packer RB situation plays out over the next couple of weeks, he could become bench material.

I agree, that this scenario = a ton of carries for Ahman. A few important caveats that will likely prevent it - coaching aiming for 40 carries a game dont necessarily (or usually) get it. Second, Ahman would have to stay healthy.If both come close, then you can really see a surprise season out of Ahman. They want to run the ball in Green Bay. Lets see if they are able to get enough carries and if Ahman can stay healthy (big if I suppose)

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

I think people get too worked up when a back doesnt have 3rd down duties. For one, RBs need rests. I would MUCH prefer to have that on 3rd downs than either losing entire series or lose short yardage. Why? You have to get a rest at some point, so pick which set of circumstance you would prefer your player is not on the field. (1) 3rd down might result in your back getting 3-4 additional touches a game, since 3rd down passing situations USUALLY call for throwing to a receiving, not your check down back who likely won't get first down yardage. (2) 3rd down often means getting hit blocking rather than running the ball, since 3rd down backs often stay in the backfield for max protect. I would prefer my back tire from hits while being productive, not hits while protecting the QB(3) 3rd down means you are not at the goaline. If your back comes out at the goal line, that is a chance for 6 points... far more important to fantasy success than the same touch via run or pass outside the red zone.Since your back needs to come out at some point, I would MUCH prefer that be on 3rd downs when you wont likely get a huge amount of touches anyway, and MOST important those touches arent nearly as likely to result in a TD.People make too much out of the third down back thing, especially on teams that run a lot. NO back is going to get 40 carries, so why not have the other backs get touches that are on 3rd down? For example, I have Willie Parker. He may or may not get goal lines, and comes out on third down. He got 29 carries last game and that is too much for 95% of backs in the league. Because of that, he is not on third down situations. Which is fine with me. He STILL got 30+ touches and they are looking to reduce that.If they reduce it by pulling him at the goal line, which is very possible, that hurts me far more than the 3rd down substitution.

Well thought out analysis of 3rd down backs. Nice.

 

[Biabreakable]

Again I hope you're right, but historically the 3rd down back has been an integral piece of the Packer's offense, from Fisher to Davenport & even Henderson. Nothing frustrated me more than to see the Packer's pull Green on 3rd down and the play go to his substitute. Especially as Green was the superior back.

Giving Green an occasional blow every now & then, is far, far ,far different, than having a specialist 3rd down back rotation.

Now I know this is a different Coaching regime than the previous one and a different offensive game plan, but if you actually watched the Packers / Bears last week, you would have seen that the Packer's RB was still heavily involved on 3rd downs.

Even if you didn't watch the game, you can still pull up the Play-by-Play at NFL.com to verify.

3-1-CHI44 (11:54) A.Green right tackle to CHI 44 for no gain (T.Harris).

3-1-GB26 (10:59) A.Green left tackle to GB 26 for no gain (L.Briggs).

3-17-GB32 (2:40) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass short middle to A.Green to GB 45 for 13 yards (H.Hillenmeyer, C.Harris).

3-26-GB23 (14:55) (Shotgun) A.Green left tackle to GB 34 for 11 yards (M.Brown, B.Urlacher).

3-13-GB40 (7:43) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass short right to S.Gado to GB 45 for 5 yards (L.Briggs).

3-5-GB39 (3:56) (Shotgun) S.Gado right guard to GB 35 for -4 yards (T.Harris).

The Packer's had a total of 10 3rd downs where they were actually able to get the play off (Favre took a sack on 1 3rd down play)

Of those 10 3rd down plays, the Packer's RB's were used on 6 of those 3rd down plays regardless of the distance.

IF the Packer's offensive play calling continues as above, how can we NOT project a dent to Ahman Green's numbers, especially considering both McCarthy's & Thompson statements, on their expected use of Morency?

Again, I hope I'm wrong and personally I'm hanging onto Green (I've got enough RB depth to do that), but to casually dismiss the potential impact of Morency to Green's numbers, is not realistic IMO.

A 3rd down back is NOT used on 3rd and 1...... Hint: GB will also pass on 1st and 2nd down. The ideal situation where a 3rd down back is used is 3rd and 5-10. You may see Green anyways since he can block.

Ahman Green is a good reciever also. There really are no holes in Ahman Greens game. Only concern about lingering effects of his previous injury.

 

[Homer]

As idiotic as I usually think the comments about teams 'showcasing bozodujour for a trade' that proliferate here, that's about the only reason I can think of that the Packers would be feeding Ahman Green so heavily in a hopeless game last week.

 

[CA_7]

Going Ahman in FFTOC today. Looking for GB in general to bounce back after the shutout and with recent history want to get him in before he gets hurt.

Go AG

 

[Hoh]

One little interesting tidbit. I was looking through last years SportingNews draft guide, and next to Vernand Morencys name it said:

NFL comparison: Ahman Green

Things that make you go "hmmmmmmmmmmmmm"

 

[SackDiesel808]

Again I hope you're right, but historically the 3rd down back has been an integral piece of the Packer's offense, from Fisher to Davenport & even Henderson. Nothing frustrated me more than to see the Packer's pull Green on 3rd down and the play go to his substitute. Especially as Green was the superior back.

Giving Green an occasional blow every now & then, is far, far ,far different, than having a specialist 3rd down back rotation.

Now I know this is a different Coaching regime than the previous one and a different offensive game plan, but if you actually watched the Packers / Bears last week, you would have seen that the Packer's RB was still heavily involved on 3rd downs.

Even if you didn't watch the game, you can still pull up the Play-by-Play at NFL.com to verify.

3-1-CHI44 (11:54) A.Green right tackle to CHI 44 for no gain (T.Harris).

3-1-GB26 (10:59) A.Green left tackle to GB 26 for no gain (L.Briggs).

3-17-GB32 (2:40) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass short middle to A.Green to GB 45 for 13 yards (H.Hillenmeyer, C.Harris).

3-26-GB23 (14:55) (Shotgun) A.Green left tackle to GB 34 for 11 yards (M.Brown, B.Urlacher).

3-13-GB40 (7:43) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass short right to S.Gado to GB 45 for 5 yards (L.Briggs).

3-5-GB39 (3:56) (Shotgun) S.Gado right guard to GB 35 for -4 yards (T.Harris).

The Packer's had a total of 10 3rd downs where they were actually able to get the play off (Favre took a sack on 1 3rd down play)

Of those 10 3rd down plays, the Packer's RB's were used on 6 of those 3rd down plays regardless of the distance.

IF the Packer's offensive play calling continues as above, how can we NOT project a dent to Ahman Green's numbers, especially considering both McCarthy's & Thompson statements, on their expected use of Morency?

Again, I hope I'm wrong and personally I'm hanging onto Green (I've got enough RB depth to do that), but to casually dismiss the potential impact of Morency to Green's numbers, is not realistic IMO.

A 3rd down back is NOT used on 3rd and 1...... Hint: GB will also pass on 1st and 2nd down. The ideal situation where a 3rd down back is used is 3rd and 5-10. You may see Green anyways since he can block.

SackDiesel808, The purpose of the post was to show Green Bays extensive use of their RB's on ANY 3rd down, regardless of distance.

It was not to say that the 3rd down back is going to come in on 3rd & 1

Why would you want to show the 'Green Bays extensive use of their RB's on any 3rd down, regardless of distance' in the context of Morency being a '3rd down back'? It's misleading that's all...... Green's primary concerns are injury, o-line play, team playing from behind, then losing cathes to Morency.

 

[rawdog]

The fact that Morency was traded by the TEXANS should have all Ahman owners petrified.

First they passed on Reggie Bush.

Then they declared they already had a sweet RB in Domanick Davis.

Then they talked up a 6th-rounder out of Viriginia.

Then they picked up Ron Dayne.

Clearly, not an organization that knows how to evaluate RB's. Chances are, Morency's a rock star and the Texans, in their infinite wisdom, just missed it.

 

[Statorama]

I'm in a league in Wisconsin and I couldn't (and I tried to) sell this guy high. Still a lot of question marks about him behind the cheese curtain. I'll give it another shot this week, as he should have a decent game against the Saints.

 

[brobe4]

Green owner here. I am not sure what green will do from here, but do believe he was a great roll the dice player in drafts now we shall see.

Last week he looked pretty good to me!

 

[Big Score]

Again I hope you're right, but historically the 3rd down back has been an integral piece of the Packer's offense, from Fisher to Davenport & even Henderson. Nothing frustrated me more than to see the Packer's pull Green on 3rd down and the play go to his substitute. Especially as Green was the superior back.

Giving Green an occasional blow every now & then, is far, far ,far different, than having a specialist 3rd down back rotation.

Now I know this is a different Coaching regime than the previous one and a different offensive game plan, but if you actually watched the Packers / Bears last week, you would have seen that the Packer's RB was still heavily involved on 3rd downs.

Even if you didn't watch the game, you can still pull up the Play-by-Play at NFL.com to verify.

3-1-CHI44 (11:54) A.Green right tackle to CHI 44 for no gain (T.Harris).

3-1-GB26 (10:59) A.Green left tackle to GB 26 for no gain (L.Briggs).

3-17-GB32 (2:40) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass short middle to A.Green to GB 45 for 13 yards (H.Hillenmeyer, C.Harris).

3-26-GB23 (14:55) (Shotgun) A.Green left tackle to GB 34 for 11 yards (M.Brown, B.Urlacher).

3-13-GB40 (7:43) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass short right to S.Gado to GB 45 for 5 yards (L.Briggs).

3-5-GB39 (3:56) (Shotgun) S.Gado right guard to GB 35 for -4 yards (T.Harris).

The Packer's had a total of 10 3rd downs where they were actually able to get the play off (Favre took a sack on 1 3rd down play)

Of those 10 3rd down plays, the Packer's RB's were used on 6 of those 3rd down plays regardless of the distance.

IF the Packer's offensive play calling continues as above, how can we NOT project a dent to Ahman Green's numbers, especially considering both McCarthy's & Thompson statements, on their expected use of Morency?

Again, I hope I'm wrong and personally I'm hanging onto Green (I've got enough RB depth to do that), but to casually dismiss the potential impact of Morency to Green's numbers, is not realistic IMO.

A 3rd down back is NOT used on 3rd and 1...... Hint: GB will also pass on 1st and 2nd down. The ideal situation where a 3rd down back is used is 3rd and 5-10. You may see Green anyways since he can block.

SackDiesel808, The purpose of the post was to show Green Bays extensive use of their RB's on ANY 3rd down, regardless of distance.

It was not to say that the 3rd down back is going to come in on 3rd & 1

Why would you want to show the 'Green Bays extensive use of their RB's on any 3rd down, regardless of distance' in the context of Morency being a '3rd down back'? It's misleading that's all...... Green's primary concerns are injury, o-line play, team playing from behind, then losing cathes to Morency.

Because most folks that follow football knew Mike Shermans offense heavily utilized the RB on 3rd downs, but with a new HC & OC operating a new offensive system, the involvement of the RB on 3rd downs, is a bit of an unknown.The fact that there were 10 3rd downs where the Pack were able to get the plays off & the RB's were the directly involved in 6 of those 10 3rd down situations, is useful information, regardless of the distance.

Honestly, I would say that anyone reading these boards is football savvy enough (just as you were) to know that 3rd & 1 is generally not a situation where the 3rd down back comes in. If they don't know something as basic as that, it's pretty obvious they won't even know what a 3rd down back is and have been lost in this thread from the get go.

 

[Texican]

Ahman Green should easily top the 100 yard mark this week.

You can put it in lights if you want!

**LIGHTS** 16 carries, 42 yards **LIGHTS**

 

[Watermelonhead]

I was not able to see the game.

How did he look in the game? Did he run hard?

Did the O-line do its part?

Was the Pak offense overall doing well?

Were the fumbles his fault or just massive hits?

I read the box score but stats can lie....

I have Lamont Jordan as my other #2 Back so as you can see I am very intersted in Green's performance.

Thanks

WMH

 

[Big Score]

3-10-NO15 (9:25) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass short middle to A.Green to NO 6 for 9 yards (R.Harper; S.Fujita).

3-13-NO25 (1:37) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass short left to A.Green to NO 17 for 8 yards (W.Smith).

3-15-GB15 (11:26) (Shotgun) B.Favre pass incomplete short middle to A.Green.

2-20-GB21 (5:53) (Shotgun) A.Green left end to GB 29 for 8 yards (J.Bullocks).

3-27-GB24 (11:29) (Shotgun) A.Green right tackle to GB 23 for -1 yards (W.Whitehead, H.Thomas).

Now do you guys understand my concern with McCarthy & Thompson saying they plan on using Morency as the 3rd down & pass catching RB?

IF Green indeed loses that role to Morency, there is no doubt that it will effect his numbers and make him a very risky play for fantasy football purposes.

Maybe good for the team by keeping him fresh, (although personally, I think you want your best player playing as much as possible) but it will be the kiss of death for fantasy football owners of Green.

Oh! I have a confession to make.

Even though I said I was going to play Green this week, I kept looking at what the Saints did to Cleveland's running game last weekend and ended up flexing Green out in favor of Jerricho Crotch Rot.

One of my better decisions.

 

[mr. furley]

I was not able to see the game.How did he look in the game? Did he run hard?Did the O-line do its part?Was the Pak offense overall doing well?Were the fumbles his fault or just massive hits?I read the box score but stats can lie....I have Lamont Jordan as my other #2 Back so as you can see I am very intersted in Green's performance.ThanksWMH

Packers had trouble opening up holes for him to run in.. then the coaching staff abandoned the run game altogether. wound up throwing FIFTY-FIVE passes (or 73% of their total plays). Green just looked OK. he didn't seem to tire or wear down. there just wasn't anywhere for him to go. they have a young interior... and actually wound up starting Darren Colledge at LG because Spitz was hurt.. which meant a natural left tackle was doing a lot of lead blocking. wasn't working out so well.1 fumble he got hit fairly hard and the ball scooted out of bounds. the other one he just got it ripped out. typical September/early October Ahman. the sweaty arms (amazingly) play a factor every year early in the season.i wouldn't count on him as my #2 but as a #3 he should be okay week in and week out. they have a tough matchup coming up on the road vs. Detroit. i wouldn't expect a whole lot. prayingforareversehex

 

[Big Score]

i wouldn't count on him as my #2 but as a #3 he should be okay week in and week out.

Only if he remains the everydown back, otherwise

 

[mr. furley]

i wouldn't count on him as my #2 but as a #3 he should be okay week in and week out.

Only if he remains the everydown back, otherwise

the only way he doesn't remain the every down back is if he gets hurt. and if he's hurt, well, no.. he's not going to be a good #3.

as for Herron or Morency taking over the job. no.

one of them becoming the "3rd down back"? sure. but show me an RB that's in on all of his offenses plays.

if you have Green as a #3 he's in line with low-level RBs who are splitting carries.. and some guys #3's might be backups. he's fine as a #3 as long as he's healthy.

 

[Koya]

My take on yesterday is meh, with a very nice silver lining. The worst thing for Green would be for this offense to just implode. Even if the team loses, so long as Favre can have an ok season and get closer to the records, things should be in line for Ahman to have a better than expected season.

He isnt going to lose carries unless he gets hurt. I dont know why people love to panic on these boards about #### like that. Yesterday they passed a ton, and it was working by and large... if anything I think the fact that Favre did well bodes well for Green for the season.

Remember, he is a #2/#3 in a league where there arent that many RBs who are clearly better than that. I mean, is Kevin Jones better? Reuben Droughns? I can go on and on. All in all, not a terrible day though not a good one for green.