Packers RB Update For Week 4 (1 Viewer)

[BeaverCleaver]

And to clarify further. There's not one post I made here that stated I was not concerned about the running game from here on out. The only difference is I look at the rest of this team and realize how far Thompson's taken them in the time he's been here. So my issue is not the running backs on the roster as much as it is those people who choose to bash the GM whenever possible. There's still a lot of work to do in Green Bay, but Ted Thompson has laid down a nice blue print to date.

In your opinion. I like what Thompson has done defensively. No question. But the biggest (and arguably the only two) playmakers on offense remain the two he inherited - Favre and Driver.Edited to add - his own head coach laughingly admits he doesn't have a starting running back. That's hardly a raving endorsement for the work Thompson did in addressing the glaring need at the position this offseason.

the Pats, Bears, Ravens, etc. have proven that you win big with a strong defense and marginal (at best) talent on offense.not saying i want the Packers to suck running the ball but it can be done. i like the defensive foundation that's being laid down... they have a HoF QB and 3 very strong WR options. that's a lot more than some

Furley...check the winners of the last 6 Super Bowls and report back to us on the offensive and defensive stats of those teams. I don't think NE is thought of as having a "marginal" offense and I don't see Chicago or Baltimore winning any of those Super Bowls.

 

[BeaverCleaver]

"We don't have a starter at running back," he said.

Thanks Ted.

and this is why the Packers are pretenders in the NFC.

The Cowboys use a committee as well. Are they pretenders as well?

Are you comparing the Packers RBBC to the Cowboys? seriously? lol

Nope. I'm pointing out the idiocy of saying a team is a pretender because it uses a committee when the Colts just used one to win a Super Bowl...

Is this where we point out the idiocy of comparing the Indy and Dallas backfields to the Packers?

Um, where did I compare the personel?

Um, ...here are your quotes " The Cowboys use a committee as well. Are they pretenders as well?" "Nope. I'm pointing out the idiocy of saying a team is a pretender because it uses a committee when the Colts just used one to win a Super Bowl..."

 

[packersfan]

And to clarify further. There's not one post I made here that stated I was not concerned about the running game from here on out. The only difference is I look at the rest of this team and realize how far Thompson's taken them in the time he's been here. So my issue is not the running backs on the roster as much as it is those people who choose to bash the GM whenever possible. There's still a lot of work to do in Green Bay, but Ted Thompson has laid down a nice blue print to date.

In your opinion. I like what Thompson has done defensively. No question. But the biggest (and arguably the only two) playmakers on offense remain the two he inherited - Favre and Driver.Edited to add - his own head coach laughingly admits he doesn't have a starting running back. That's hardly a raving endorsement for the work Thompson did in addressing the glaring need at the position this offseason.

the Pats, Bears, Ravens, etc. have proven that you win big with a strong defense and marginal (at best) talent on offense.not saying i want the Packers to suck running the ball but it can be done. i like the defensive foundation that's being laid down... they have a HoF QB and 3 very strong WR options. that's a lot more than some

Furley...check the winners of the last 6 Super Bowls and report back to us on the offensive and defensive stats of those teams. I don't think NE is thought of as having a "marginal" offense and I don't see Chicago or Baltimore winning any of those Super Bowls.

Baltimore did in 2000. But they had the league's fifth-best rushing attack that season. Dilfer was medicore at best but their rushing attack sure wasn't.

 

[BeaverCleaver]

And to clarify further. There's not one post I made here that stated I was not concerned about the running game from here on out. The only difference is I look at the rest of this team and realize how far Thompson's taken them in the time he's been here. So my issue is not the running backs on the roster as much as it is those people who choose to bash the GM whenever possible. There's still a lot of work to do in Green Bay, but Ted Thompson has laid down a nice blue print to date.

In your opinion. I like what Thompson has done defensively. No question. But the biggest (and arguably the only two) playmakers on offense remain the two he inherited - Favre and Driver.Edited to add - his own head coach laughingly admits he doesn't have a starting running back. That's hardly a raving endorsement for the work Thompson did in addressing the glaring need at the position this offseason.

the Pats, Bears, Ravens, etc. have proven that you win big with a strong defense and marginal (at best) talent on offense.not saying i want the Packers to suck running the ball but it can be done. i like the defensive foundation that's being laid down... they have a HoF QB and 3 very strong WR options. that's a lot more than some

Furley...check the winners of the last 6 Super Bowls and report back to us on the offensive and defensive stats of those teams. I don't think NE is thought of as having a "marginal" offense and I don't see Chicago or Baltimore winning any of those Super Bowls.

Baltimore did in 2000. But they had the league's fifth-best rushing attack that season. Dilfer was medicore at best but their rushing attack sure wasn't.

We all know they did that. Now lets get back to last 6 Super Bowls.

 

[mr. furley]

http://www.onmilwaukee.com/sports/articles...draftrecap.html

(63) Nebraska running back Brandon Jackson -- Like Harrell, Jackson has some injuries in his past. He underwent surgery to repair labrum tears in each of his shoulders and suffered a broken hand late in the year. Most scouts had him ranked as a third- or fourth-round pick. The Packers obviously saw something they liked, but the consensus is that he'll need a year or two before he's ready to make an impact.

============

http://www.forecaster.ca/jsonline/football...DraftID=14#8017

Impact: This may be the running back that most were expecting the Pack to take in the first round. The best way to describe Jackson is 'elusive,' and he has the talent to be eventually be a starter for Green Bay. While not an elite-level back, Jackson is sneaky-good and is the type who might end up being better than his draft position. A cagey pick by the Packers, who may still go out and bring in a veteran runner until Jackson is ready for prime time.

============

didn't spend a lotta time searching but of what i did find this seemed to be the consensus. most people projected him to need a year or two to develop in to a full-time starter. which is what i'm guessing that Packers thought too. they had Morency and Herron on the roster already.. they brought in a guy they liked, who fit the system, and he wound up having to start.

whatareyougonnado?

 

[packersfan]

And to clarify further. There's not one post I made here that stated I was not concerned about the running game from here on out. The only difference is I look at the rest of this team and realize how far Thompson's taken them in the time he's been here. So my issue is not the running backs on the roster as much as it is those people who choose to bash the GM whenever possible. There's still a lot of work to do in Green Bay, but Ted Thompson has laid down a nice blue print to date.

In your opinion. I like what Thompson has done defensively. No question. But the biggest (and arguably the only two) playmakers on offense remain the two he inherited - Favre and Driver.Edited to add - his own head coach laughingly admits he doesn't have a starting running back. That's hardly a raving endorsement for the work Thompson did in addressing the glaring need at the position this offseason.

the Pats, Bears, Ravens, etc. have proven that you win big with a strong defense and marginal (at best) talent on offense.not saying i want the Packers to suck running the ball but it can be done. i like the defensive foundation that's being laid down... they have a HoF QB and 3 very strong WR options. that's a lot more than some

Furley...check the winners of the last 6 Super Bowls and report back to us on the offensive and defensive stats of those teams. I don't think NE is thought of as having a "marginal" offense and I don't see Chicago or Baltimore winning any of those Super Bowls.

Baltimore did in 2000. But they had the league's fifth-best rushing attack that season. Dilfer was medicore at best but their rushing attack sure wasn't.

We all know they did that. Now lets get back to last 6 Super Bowls.

Hey, I'm in agreement with you here. I'm just saying that if people are going to bring up the Ravens they might want to re-think that given how the Ravens had two things (a superb defense and a standout running game) that Green Bay lacks.

 

[mr. furley]

"We don't have a starter at running back," he said.

Thanks Ted.

Yeah, there were so many options. Let's live in reality, not fantasy football land OK?

Not a problem since I'm grounded quite firmly in reality when it comes to this issue. There were plenty of options that were available in reality and Thompson chose to ignore all of them. And one never knows what an aggressive GM could have come up with that may not have been readily apparent.

Chris Brown, Dom Rhodes, Jamal Lewis, Ron Dayn? Uh, who else? Not one of those is an upgrade over their current roster of backs.But let's just keep piling on Thompson and ingoring the fact that it's HIS players that are now 3-0. This is Ted's team.

Who's ignoring the fact the Packers are 3-0? Not me. I'm quite impressed with what I've seen so far. I just worry that Thompson's refusal to make a serious move at the RB position is going to be a problem this season. And given how good the defense and Favre have been, it could mean the difference between a good season and a potentially great one. As far as the RBs who were available: McGahee was available as was Michael Turner and there were numerous reports that Julius Jones was too.All three would be major upgrades over the crap the Packers have. I'm no fan of Lewis but he'd be a major upgrade too. So would Chris Brown, who the Packers could have gotten for nothing. And if Thompson had been aggressive in the draft, maybe he could've made a strong move up to get Lynch or even Peterson. No piling on. Just pointing out that there were plenty of options in the offseason and Thompson ignored all of them. Maybe it will work out in the end and if it does I'll be the first one to admit I was wrong. But so far the running game remains a major issue for the Packers and poses a serious threat to undercut what is turning out to be a good season in a wide-open NFC.

the problem being yah can't just take any RB and slam him in to the system. that goes for every and any team.

The bigger problem is that none of the Packers' RBs, with the possible exception of Morency, look like they have the type of talent that would enable them to be even good backups on most other teams. So I'd rather take a chance on talented guys as opposed to throwing crap onto the field who allegedly might "fit the system" better.

the Broncos got Terrell Davis in the 6th rd. they had success with Mike Anderson and Olandis Gary for chrissakes. i'm not so sure Broncos fans and/or people around the league were ga-ga over those 3 before they went for 1500 yds a piece. talent doesn't always make for a successful football player. they have to have the right system, heart and a chance.i see a lotta people begging for the Packers to take other teams castoffs and to trade for unproven players that might pan out. what's to say they'd be any better??people have been clamoring for Corey freaking Dillon for god's sake

 

[packersfan]

"We don't have a starter at running back," he said.

Thanks Ted.

Yeah, there were so many options. Let's live in reality, not fantasy football land OK?

Not a problem since I'm grounded quite firmly in reality when it comes to this issue. There were plenty of options that were available in reality and Thompson chose to ignore all of them. And one never knows what an aggressive GM could have come up with that may not have been readily apparent.

Chris Brown, Dom Rhodes, Jamal Lewis, Ron Dayn? Uh, who else? Not one of those is an upgrade over their current roster of backs.But let's just keep piling on Thompson and ingoring the fact that it's HIS players that are now 3-0. This is Ted's team.

Who's ignoring the fact the Packers are 3-0? Not me. I'm quite impressed with what I've seen so far. I just worry that Thompson's refusal to make a serious move at the RB position is going to be a problem this season. And given how good the defense and Favre have been, it could mean the difference between a good season and a potentially great one. As far as the RBs who were available: McGahee was available as was Michael Turner and there were numerous reports that Julius Jones was too.All three would be major upgrades over the crap the Packers have. I'm no fan of Lewis but he'd be a major upgrade too. So would Chris Brown, who the Packers could have gotten for nothing. And if Thompson had been aggressive in the draft, maybe he could've made a strong move up to get Lynch or even Peterson. No piling on. Just pointing out that there were plenty of options in the offseason and Thompson ignored all of them. Maybe it will work out in the end and if it does I'll be the first one to admit I was wrong. But so far the running game remains a major issue for the Packers and poses a serious threat to undercut what is turning out to be a good season in a wide-open NFC.

the problem being yah can't just take any RB and slam him in to the system. that goes for every and any team.

The bigger problem is that none of the Packers' RBs, with the possible exception of Morency, look like they have the type of talent that would enable them to be even good backups on most other teams. So I'd rather take a chance on talented guys as opposed to throwing crap onto the field who allegedly might "fit the system" better.

the Broncos got Terrell Davis in the 6th rd. they had success with Mike Anderson and Olandis Gary for chrissakes. i'm not so sure Broncos fans and/or people around the league were ga-ga over those 3 before they went for 1500 yds a piece. talent doesn't always make for a successful football player. they have to have the right system, heart and a chance.i see a lotta people begging for the Packers to take other teams castoffs and to trade for unproven players that might pan out. what's to say they'd be any better??people have been clamoring for Corey freaking Dillon for god's sake

Which ought to tell you just how bad the Packers' RB situation is.

 

[mr. furley]

And to clarify further. There's not one post I made here that stated I was not concerned about the running game from here on out. The only difference is I look at the rest of this team and realize how far Thompson's taken them in the time he's been here. So my issue is not the running backs on the roster as much as it is those people who choose to bash the GM whenever possible. There's still a lot of work to do in Green Bay, but Ted Thompson has laid down a nice blue print to date.

In your opinion. I like what Thompson has done defensively. No question. But the biggest (and arguably the only two) playmakers on offense remain the two he inherited - Favre and Driver.Edited to add - his own head coach laughingly admits he doesn't have a starting running back. That's hardly a raving endorsement for the work Thompson did in addressing the glaring need at the position this offseason.

the Pats, Bears, Ravens, etc. have proven that you win big with a strong defense and marginal (at best) talent on offense.not saying i want the Packers to suck running the ball but it can be done. i like the defensive foundation that's being laid down... they have a HoF QB and 3 very strong WR options. that's a lot more than some

The Patriots have a Hall of Fame QB and ranked 7th and 13th in the league in rushing in two of their 3 Super Bowl championship seasons. Only once did they run poorly and as I posted earlier that was offset by an exemplary defense. The Bears and Ravens had two of the greatest defenses of all time to offset any offensive weaknesses. Are you trying to tell me this Green Bay defense is one of the greatest of all time?

the Packers have one of the 5 greatest QBs of all time. the Patriots also trotted out Antowain Smith, Patrick Pass and JR Redmond one SB season. how the hell do i know if the Packers defense is one of the all-time greats? it's THREE ####### GAMES IN TO THE SEASON.are you gonna tell me you knew those defenses were all-time greats 3 games in to the season???? why don't we let the season play out a bit more before condemning the team?

 

[mr. furley]

"We don't have a starter at running back," he said.

Thanks Ted.

Yeah, there were so many options. Let's live in reality, not fantasy football land OK?

Not a problem since I'm grounded quite firmly in reality when it comes to this issue. There were plenty of options that were available in reality and Thompson chose to ignore all of them. And one never knows what an aggressive GM could have come up with that may not have been readily apparent.

Chris Brown, Dom Rhodes, Jamal Lewis, Ron Dayn? Uh, who else? Not one of those is an upgrade over their current roster of backs.But let's just keep piling on Thompson and ingoring the fact that it's HIS players that are now 3-0. This is Ted's team.

Who's ignoring the fact the Packers are 3-0? Not me. I'm quite impressed with what I've seen so far. I just worry that Thompson's refusal to make a serious move at the RB position is going to be a problem this season. And given how good the defense and Favre have been, it could mean the difference between a good season and a potentially great one. As far as the RBs who were available: McGahee was available as was Michael Turner and there were numerous reports that Julius Jones was too.All three would be major upgrades over the crap the Packers have. I'm no fan of Lewis but he'd be a major upgrade too. So would Chris Brown, who the Packers could have gotten for nothing. And if Thompson had been aggressive in the draft, maybe he could've made a strong move up to get Lynch or even Peterson.

So now we're back on the trade scenarios and RFAs. Look, you can agree or disagree with Thompson's approach. But what we do know is that he does not give up draft picks lightly. I'll ignore the Brown comments, because he is not an upgrade. Period. If he was any good, he likely would've landed a deal somewhere else. And Jamal Lewis? Uh, no. Not in my book.

Both are significantly better than anybody the Packers have. Again, I'm no fan of Jamal Lewis at all but the fact he'd be a major upgrade shows just how pathetic the Packers' RB situation is. And yes, I do disagree with Thompson's approach when it comes to how he addressed the RB situation this offseason. That's the whole point. There were numerous options available and he ignored them all. Again, maybe that approach will be proven correct and if it is I'll be right here giving him props and saying I was wrong. But so far it clearly was a mistake and although the Packers are 3-0 right now there is a concern (or there sure as hell should be) that the RB situation is going to become a major issue as this season goes along.

Objection, your honor. Speculation.

True, but show me a single report anywhere that says Thompson tried to acquire one of the RBs I listed. Just one report is all I'm looking for. You know as well as I do that Bob McGinn is one of the best beat writers in the country. Few things get past him and he's been highly critical of Thompson's approach to the offense in the offseason. One would think McGinn would know if Thompson tried to acquire one of those RBs and wasn't able to make it work for one reason or another.

i think the burden of proof is on you here.i'm sure there's a LOT that goes on behind closed doors that doesn't make it to McGinn's ears.

 

[packersfan]

And to clarify further. There's not one post I made here that stated I was not concerned about the running game from here on out. The only difference is I look at the rest of this team and realize how far Thompson's taken them in the time he's been here. So my issue is not the running backs on the roster as much as it is those people who choose to bash the GM whenever possible. There's still a lot of work to do in Green Bay, but Ted Thompson has laid down a nice blue print to date.

In your opinion. I like what Thompson has done defensively. No question. But the biggest (and arguably the only two) playmakers on offense remain the two he inherited - Favre and Driver.Edited to add - his own head coach laughingly admits he doesn't have a starting running back. That's hardly a raving endorsement for the work Thompson did in addressing the glaring need at the position this offseason.

the Pats, Bears, Ravens, etc. have proven that you win big with a strong defense and marginal (at best) talent on offense.not saying i want the Packers to suck running the ball but it can be done. i like the defensive foundation that's being laid down... they have a HoF QB and 3 very strong WR options. that's a lot more than some

The Patriots have a Hall of Fame QB and ranked 7th and 13th in the league in rushing in two of their 3 Super Bowl championship seasons. Only once did they run poorly and as I posted earlier that was offset by an exemplary defense. The Bears and Ravens had two of the greatest defenses of all time to offset any offensive weaknesses. Are you trying to tell me this Green Bay defense is one of the greatest of all time?

the Packers have one of the 5 greatest QBs of all time. the Patriots also trotted out Antowain Smith, Patrick Pass and JR Redmond one SB season.

Not sure what you think is funny here. You think I'm unaware of how good Favre is? Seriously. And I've addressed the poor rushing season by the Patriots twice now in this thread and once in another.

how the hell do i know if the Packers defense is one of the all-time greats? it's THREE ####### GAMES IN TO THE SEASON.are you gonna tell me you knew those defenses were all-time greats 3 games in to the season????

No, but it was pretty apparent after five games how good both defenses were. The Bears had one shutout and held four teams to 7 points or less. The Ravens had three shutouts in the first five games. How many shutouts has this Packers' D produced so far?Look, I like the defense. I'm VERY impressed with the defense (shouting only because it seems to be the thing do now in this thread). But I don't see any reason to realistically believe this defense will go down as one of the best in recent and/or NFL history.

why don't we let the season play out a bit more before condemning the team?

Please show me a post where I'm condemning the team.

 

[mr. furley]

And to clarify further. There's not one post I made here that stated I was not concerned about the running game from here on out. The only difference is I look at the rest of this team and realize how far Thompson's taken them in the time he's been here. So my issue is not the running backs on the roster as much as it is those people who choose to bash the GM whenever possible. There's still a lot of work to do in Green Bay, but Ted Thompson has laid down a nice blue print to date.

In your opinion. I like what Thompson has done defensively. No question. But the biggest (and arguably the only two) playmakers on offense remain the two he inherited - Favre and Driver.Edited to add - his own head coach laughingly admits he doesn't have a starting running back. That's hardly a raving endorsement for the work Thompson did in addressing the glaring need at the position this offseason.

the Pats, Bears, Ravens, etc. have proven that you win big with a strong defense and marginal (at best) talent on offense.not saying i want the Packers to suck running the ball but it can be done. i like the defensive foundation that's being laid down... they have a HoF QB and 3 very strong WR options. that's a lot more than some

Furley...check the winners of the last 6 Super Bowls and report back to us on the offensive and defensive stats of those teams. I don't think NE is thought of as having a "marginal" offense and I don't see Chicago or Baltimore winning any of those Super Bowls.

do the Packers have a marginal offense??people questioned NE's run game and said they didn't have the WR's. the Bears trotted out Thomas Jones who everyone said was garbage. they had/have no receivers. the Ravens had Jamal Lewis and NOTHING else. the season is THREE games in. you guys are already saying they can't win. how do we know?? didn't Carolina start 0-3 the year they went to the SB? give it time.

 

[mr. furley]

And to clarify further. There's not one post I made here that stated I was not concerned about the running game from here on out. The only difference is I look at the rest of this team and realize how far Thompson's taken them in the time he's been here. So my issue is not the running backs on the roster as much as it is those people who choose to bash the GM whenever possible. There's still a lot of work to do in Green Bay, but Ted Thompson has laid down a nice blue print to date.

In your opinion. I like what Thompson has done defensively. No question. But the biggest (and arguably the only two) playmakers on offense remain the two he inherited - Favre and Driver.Edited to add - his own head coach laughingly admits he doesn't have a starting running back. That's hardly a raving endorsement for the work Thompson did in addressing the glaring need at the position this offseason.

the Pats, Bears, Ravens, etc. have proven that you win big with a strong defense and marginal (at best) talent on offense.not saying i want the Packers to suck running the ball but it can be done. i like the defensive foundation that's being laid down... they have a HoF QB and 3 very strong WR options. that's a lot more than some

Furley...check the winners of the last 6 Super Bowls and report back to us on the offensive and defensive stats of those teams. I don't think NE is thought of as having a "marginal" offense and I don't see Chicago or Baltimore winning any of those Super Bowls.

Baltimore did in 2000. But they had the league's fifth-best rushing attack that season. Dilfer was medicore at best but their rushing attack sure wasn't.

We all know they did that. Now lets get back to last 6 Super Bowls.

why cut it off at 6 years? :IBTL:

 

[packersfan]

i think the burden of proof is on you here.i'm sure there's a LOT that goes on behind closed doors that doesn't make it to McGinn's ears.

I'd agree with that but there's an awful lot he does know about and I haven't seen a single report from him, Tom Silverstein, Jason Wilde or any of the Press-Gazette gang which talks about the RBs Thompson pursued but couldn't get in the offseason.

 

[mr. furley]

"We don't have a starter at running back," he said.

Thanks Ted.

Yeah, there were so many options. Let's live in reality, not fantasy football land OK?

Not a problem since I'm grounded quite firmly in reality when it comes to this issue. There were plenty of options that were available in reality and Thompson chose to ignore all of them. And one never knows what an aggressive GM could have come up with that may not have been readily apparent.

Chris Brown, Dom Rhodes, Jamal Lewis, Ron Dayn? Uh, who else? Not one of those is an upgrade over their current roster of backs.But let's just keep piling on Thompson and ingoring the fact that it's HIS players that are now 3-0. This is Ted's team.

Who's ignoring the fact the Packers are 3-0? Not me. I'm quite impressed with what I've seen so far. I just worry that Thompson's refusal to make a serious move at the RB position is going to be a problem this season. And given how good the defense and Favre have been, it could mean the difference between a good season and a potentially great one. As far as the RBs who were available: McGahee was available as was Michael Turner and there were numerous reports that Julius Jones was too.All three would be major upgrades over the crap the Packers have. I'm no fan of Lewis but he'd be a major upgrade too. So would Chris Brown, who the Packers could have gotten for nothing. And if Thompson had been aggressive in the draft, maybe he could've made a strong move up to get Lynch or even Peterson. No piling on. Just pointing out that there were plenty of options in the offseason and Thompson ignored all of them. Maybe it will work out in the end and if it does I'll be the first one to admit I was wrong. But so far the running game remains a major issue for the Packers and poses a serious threat to undercut what is turning out to be a good season in a wide-open NFC.

the problem being yah can't just take any RB and slam him in to the system. that goes for every and any team.

The bigger problem is that none of the Packers' RBs, with the possible exception of Morency, look like they have the type of talent that would enable them to be even good backups on most other teams. So I'd rather take a chance on talented guys as opposed to throwing crap onto the field who allegedly might "fit the system" better.

the Broncos got Terrell Davis in the 6th rd. they had success with Mike Anderson and Olandis Gary for chrissakes. i'm not so sure Broncos fans and/or people around the league were ga-ga over those 3 before they went for 1500 yds a piece. talent doesn't always make for a successful football player. they have to have the right system, heart and a chance.i see a lotta people begging for the Packers to take other teams castoffs and to trade for unproven players that might pan out. what's to say they'd be any better??people have been clamoring for Corey freaking Dillon for god's sake

Which ought to tell you just how bad the Packers' RB situation is.

nah. cause i have a friend who does this same shtick EVERY SINGLE YEAR"the Pack oughta go out and sign Moss, trade for Turner, get Umenyiora from the Giants and get Brian Dawkins.. then they'd win it all.":IBTL: people think too much that the NFL is a PlayStation game. it's not just as easy as saying "they should get this guy or that guy" and he'll automatically make the team win.

 

[BeaverCleaver]

And to clarify further. There's not one post I made here that stated I was not concerned about the running game from here on out. The only difference is I look at the rest of this team and realize how far Thompson's taken them in the time he's been here. So my issue is not the running backs on the roster as much as it is those people who choose to bash the GM whenever possible. There's still a lot of work to do in Green Bay, but Ted Thompson has laid down a nice blue print to date.

In your opinion. I like what Thompson has done defensively. No question. But the biggest (and arguably the only two) playmakers on offense remain the two he inherited - Favre and Driver.Edited to add - his own head coach laughingly admits he doesn't have a starting running back. That's hardly a raving endorsement for the work Thompson did in addressing the glaring need at the position this offseason.

the Pats, Bears, Ravens, etc. have proven that you win big with a strong defense and marginal (at best) talent on offense.not saying i want the Packers to suck running the ball but it can be done. i like the defensive foundation that's being laid down... they have a HoF QB and 3 very strong WR options. that's a lot more than some

Furley...check the winners of the last 6 Super Bowls and report back to us on the offensive and defensive stats of those teams. I don't think NE is thought of as having a "marginal" offense and I don't see Chicago or Baltimore winning any of those Super Bowls.

Baltimore did in 2000. But they had the league's fifth-best rushing attack that season. Dilfer was medicore at best but their rushing attack sure wasn't.

We all know they did that. Now lets get back to last 6 Super Bowls.

why cut it off at 6 years? :IBTL:

Why not( I was just trying to cut short how much you look like an arrse)....since you have ignored your comment about New England being "marginal" on offense. Go look further back at Super Bowl Winners. St. Louis, Denver and that great team from 1996 of Green Bay that had a league leading defense with a league leading offense.

 

[packersfan]

people think too much that the NFL is a PlayStation game. it's not just as easy as saying "they should get this guy or that guy" and he'll automatically make the team win.

Well that's definitely not me because that doesn't come close to representing my way of thinking. All I'm doing is analyzing the team, seeing a clear weakness and then attempting to see if there were/are clear ways of remedying that problem. And in my opinion there were a large number of possible solutions for the Packers' RB situation this offseason.

 

[mr. furley]

No, but it was pretty apparent after five games how good both defenses were. The Bears had one shutout and held four teams to 7 points or less. The Ravens had three shutouts in the first five games. How many shutouts has this Packers' D produced so far?

1997 PackersWeek Date Opponent Result Game site Record1 September 1, 1997 Chicago Bears W 38-24 Lambeau Field 1-02 September 7, 1997 Philadelphia Eagles L 9-10 Veterans Stadium 1-13 September 14, 1997 Miami Dolphins W 23-18 Lambeau Field 2-14 September 21, 1997 Minnesota Vikings W 38-32 Lambeau Field 3-15 September 28, 1997 Detroit Lions L 15-26 Pontiac Silverdome 3-26 October 5, 1997 Tampa Bay Buccaneers W 21-16 Lambeau Field 4-27 October 12, 1997 Chicago Bears W 24-23 Soldier Field 5-2just because they haven't shut anyone out doesn't mean they aren't a good/great defense and don't have a shot at the SB.

why don't we let the season play out a bit more before condemning the team?

Please show me a post where I'm condemning the team.

i dunno that saying they have no running game, an average defense and no shot at doing anything important is condemning the team but it certainly doesn't sound like you have any belief that the 3-0 start means anything or that they can win.

 

[mr. furley]

And to clarify further. There's not one post I made here that stated I was not concerned about the running game from here on out. The only difference is I look at the rest of this team and realize how far Thompson's taken them in the time he's been here. So my issue is not the running backs on the roster as much as it is those people who choose to bash the GM whenever possible. There's still a lot of work to do in Green Bay, but Ted Thompson has laid down a nice blue print to date.

In your opinion. I like what Thompson has done defensively. No question. But the biggest (and arguably the only two) playmakers on offense remain the two he inherited - Favre and Driver.Edited to add - his own head coach laughingly admits he doesn't have a starting running back. That's hardly a raving endorsement for the work Thompson did in addressing the glaring need at the position this offseason.

the Pats, Bears, Ravens, etc. have proven that you win big with a strong defense and marginal (at best) talent on offense.not saying i want the Packers to suck running the ball but it can be done. i like the defensive foundation that's being laid down... they have a HoF QB and 3 very strong WR options. that's a lot more than some

Furley...check the winners of the last 6 Super Bowls and report back to us on the offensive and defensive stats of those teams. I don't think NE is thought of as having a "marginal" offense and I don't see Chicago or Baltimore winning any of those Super Bowls.

Baltimore did in 2000. But they had the league's fifth-best rushing attack that season. Dilfer was medicore at best but their rushing attack sure wasn't.

We all know they did that. Now lets get back to last 6 Super Bowls.

why cut it off at 6 years?

Why not( I was just trying to cut short how much you look like an arrse)....since you have ignored your comment about New England being "marginal" on offense go ahead and go further back at Super Bowl Winners. St. Louis, Denver and that great team from 1996 of Green Bay that had a league leading defense with a league leading offense.

i wasn't aware that past results in the NFL had any impact on the current season.thanks for pointing that out.i didn't notice that every year the SB winner was a top 3-5 offensive and/or defensive team. and i must have missed the final rankings for the 2007 season that show the Packers aren't there on either offense or defense.

 

[packersfan]

i dunno that saying they have no running game, an average defense and no shot at doing anything important is condemning the team but it certainly doesn't sound like you have any belief that the 3-0 start means anything or that they can win.

Where have I said either of those things? I have said repeatedly I think this defense is pretty darn good. And I've also posted that it's clear this team has a chance to do something in a wide-open conference. At no time have I ever said either of the two things above you're attributing to me. What I have said is that I fear the RB problem could prevent this team from having a great season. If you put a legitimate RB talent on this team right now I think the Packers are a legit Super Bowl contender in the NFC. That's what frustrates me so much. I see how good the defense is and it's obvious Favre is still pretty darn good and I just wish Thompson had done more with the RB position because it looks like this team could really do something special this season.

 

[BeaverCleaver]

And to clarify further. There's not one post I made here that stated I was not concerned about the running game from here on out. The only difference is I look at the rest of this team and realize how far Thompson's taken them in the time he's been here. So my issue is not the running backs on the roster as much as it is those people who choose to bash the GM whenever possible. There's still a lot of work to do in Green Bay, but Ted Thompson has laid down a nice blue print to date.

In your opinion. I like what Thompson has done defensively. No question. But the biggest (and arguably the only two) playmakers on offense remain the two he inherited - Favre and Driver.Edited to add - his own head coach laughingly admits he doesn't have a starting running back. That's hardly a raving endorsement for the work Thompson did in addressing the glaring need at the position this offseason.

the Pats, Bears, Ravens, etc. have proven that you win big with a strong defense and marginal (at best) talent on offense.not saying i want the Packers to suck running the ball but it can be done. i like the defensive foundation that's being laid down... they have a HoF QB and 3 very strong WR options. that's a lot more than some

Furley...check the winners of the last 6 Super Bowls and report back to us on the offensive and defensive stats of those teams. I don't think NE is thought of as having a "marginal" offense and I don't see Chicago or Baltimore winning any of those Super Bowls.

Baltimore did in 2000. But they had the league's fifth-best rushing attack that season. Dilfer was medicore at best but their rushing attack sure wasn't.

We all know they did that. Now lets get back to last 6 Super Bowls.

why cut it off at 6 years?

Why not( I was just trying to cut short how much you look like an arrse)....since you have ignored your comment about New England being "marginal" on offense go ahead and go further back at Super Bowl Winners. St. Louis, Denver and that great team from 1996 of Green Bay that had a league leading defense with a league leading offense.

i wasn't aware that past results in the NFL had any impact on the current season.thanks for pointing that out.i didn't notice that every year the SB winner was a top 3-5 offensive and/or defensive team. and i must have missed the final rankings for the 2007 season that show the Packers aren't there on either offense or defense.

I'm still waiting for the explanation of 3 Super Bowl winning New England teams as having "marginal offenses".

 

[mr. furley]

people think too much that the NFL is a PlayStation game. it's not just as easy as saying "they should get this guy or that guy" and he'll automatically make the team win.

Well that's definitely not me because that doesn't come close to representing my way of thinking. All I'm doing is analyzing the team, seeing a clear weakness and then attempting to see if there were/are clear ways of remedying that problem. And in my opinion there were a large number of possible solutions for the Packers' RB situation this offseason.

fair enough.it's a weakness. one of MANY that the Packers had 2 years ago. i'm OK with a strong defense and a middling offense right now. it's the reality of the '07 season. that recipe has panned out for other teams in the past. it could well work for the Packers in '07.complaining that TT didn't get the guy you (the general you) wanted in the off-season because you think that would make the Packers a top 5 offense is kinda pointless. i look at the off-season and wish they would have been able to get Peterson. it wasn't going to happen. not a chance. there was nobody else out there, available, that would have been worth trading for or trying to sign.i'm disappointed that Jackson hasn't panned out yet but i'm not going to sit here and say that he's not an NFL talent. and i'm not going to bash the team because they don't have a HoF RB on the roster. teams have won with mediocre running games in the past.. it happens.

 

[mr. furley]

i dunno that saying they have no running game, an average defense and no shot at doing anything important is condemning the team but it certainly doesn't sound like you have any belief that the 3-0 start means anything or that they can win.

Where have I said either of those things? I have said repeatedly I think this defense is pretty darn good. And I've also posted that it's clear this team has a chance to do something in a wide-open conference. At no time have I ever said either of the two things above you're attributing to me. What I have said is that I fear the RB problem could prevent this team from having a great season. If you put a legitimate RB talent on this team right now I think the Packers are a legit Super Bowl contender in the NFC. That's what frustrates me so much. I see how good the defense is and it's obvious Favre is still pretty darn good and I just wish Thompson had done more with the RB position because it looks like this team could really do something special this season.

the problem i see is NO ONE here has addressed the line's inability to create space. average RB's look a hell of a lot better when there are holes to run through.no one expected the line to struggle this much but the fact of the matter is they are getting no push and creating no holes for ANY of the RB's to run through. as they improve (if they do) the run game will look a lot better. it's not only that the RB's are not NFL caliber players.

 

[mr. furley]

And to clarify further. There's not one post I made here that stated I was not concerned about the running game from here on out. The only difference is I look at the rest of this team and realize how far Thompson's taken them in the time he's been here. So my issue is not the running backs on the roster as much as it is those people who choose to bash the GM whenever possible. There's still a lot of work to do in Green Bay, but Ted Thompson has laid down a nice blue print to date.

In your opinion. I like what Thompson has done defensively. No question. But the biggest (and arguably the only two) playmakers on offense remain the two he inherited - Favre and Driver.Edited to add - his own head coach laughingly admits he doesn't have a starting running back. That's hardly a raving endorsement for the work Thompson did in addressing the glaring need at the position this offseason.

the Pats, Bears, Ravens, etc. have proven that you win big with a strong defense and marginal (at best) talent on offense.not saying i want the Packers to suck running the ball but it can be done. i like the defensive foundation that's being laid down... they have a HoF QB and 3 very strong WR options. that's a lot more than some

Furley...check the winners of the last 6 Super Bowls and report back to us on the offensive and defensive stats of those teams. I don't think NE is thought of as having a "marginal" offense and I don't see Chicago or Baltimore winning any of those Super Bowls.

Baltimore did in 2000. But they had the league's fifth-best rushing attack that season. Dilfer was medicore at best but their rushing attack sure wasn't.

We all know they did that. Now lets get back to last 6 Super Bowls.

why cut it off at 6 years?

Why not( I was just trying to cut short how much you look like an arrse)....since you have ignored your comment about New England being "marginal" on offense go ahead and go further back at Super Bowl Winners. St. Louis, Denver and that great team from 1996 of Green Bay that had a league leading defense with a league leading offense.

i wasn't aware that past results in the NFL had any impact on the current season.thanks for pointing that out.i didn't notice that every year the SB winner was a top 3-5 offensive and/or defensive team. and i must have missed the final rankings for the 2007 season that show the Packers aren't there on either offense or defense.

I'm still waiting for the explanation of 3 Super Bowl winning New England teams as having "marginal offenses".

i said "marginal (at best) talent on offense." but good effort to twist the words around.the Pats won in 2000 with an unproven rookie QB who no one knew would turn out to be great, Kevin Faulk, Raymont Harris, Patrick Pass, JR Redmond, Troy Brown, Chris Calloway, Shockmain Davis, Terry Glenn, Curtis Jackson and Tony Simmons at the skill positions.are you going to tell me that roster of skill positions is HoF caliber??? they had Tom Brady in his rookie year and NOTHING else.

 

[packersfan]

are you going to tell me that roster of skill positions is HoF caliber??? they had Tom Brady in his rookie year and NOTHING else.

They were sixth in the league in points scored that season. Troy Brown caught 101 passes and went to the Pro Bowl.

 

[RenegadeGM]

75 posts in, and I think there's been one about the Green Bay running game's chances tomorrow, and 74 debating Ted Thompson.

Oh well.

 

[packersfan]

75 posts in, and I think there's been one about the Green Bay running game's chances tomorrow, and 74 debating Ted Thompson. Oh well.

I'd stay far away from the Packers' running game tomorrow. Frankly, I've been posting that people should stay away from it completely for the entire season but definitely tomorrow. The Vikings' run defense is stellar and I don't see the Packers getting much of anything on the ground. At this point, it's impossible to know how much Morency will play even if he starts. I think we'll see all three RBs on the field at various times so I don't think any one of them will put up good numbers. Maybe Morency catches 2-4 passes to help a little in PPR leagues but that's about all I see. I think tomorrow will be all about the Packers' passing game and whether the Vikings can stop it. If they can, they have a good chance to win. If they can't, I think the Packers go to 4-0.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

"We don't have a starter at running back," he said.

Thanks Ted.

Yeah, there were so many options. Let's live in reality, not fantasy football land OK?

Not a problem since I'm grounded quite firmly in reality when it comes to this issue. There were plenty of options that were available in reality and Thompson chose to ignore all of them. And one never knows what an aggressive GM could have come up with that may not have been readily apparent.

Chris Brown, Dom Rhodes, Jamal Lewis, Ron Dayn? Uh, who else? Not one of those is an upgrade over their current roster of backs.But let's just keep piling on Thompson and ingoring the fact that it's HIS players that are now 3-0. This is Ted's team.

Who's ignoring the fact the Packers are 3-0? Not me. I'm quite impressed with what I've seen so far. I just worry that Thompson's refusal to make a serious move at the RB position is going to be a problem this season. And given how good the defense and Favre have been, it could mean the difference between a good season and a potentially great one. As far as the RBs who were available: McGahee was available as was Michael Turner and there were numerous reports that Julius Jones was too.All three would be major upgrades over the crap the Packers have. I'm no fan of Lewis but he'd be a major upgrade too. So would Chris Brown, who the Packers could have gotten for nothing. And if Thompson had been aggressive in the draft, maybe he could've made a strong move up to get Lynch or even Peterson.

So now we're back on the trade scenarios and RFAs. Look, you can agree or disagree with Thompson's approach. But what we do know is that he does not give up draft picks lightly. I'll ignore the Brown comments, because he is not an upgrade. Period. If he was any good, he likely would've landed a deal somewhere else. And Jamal Lewis? Uh, no. Not in my book.

Both are significantly better than anybody the Packers have. Again, I'm no fan of Jamal Lewis at all but the fact he'd be a major upgrade shows just how pathetic the Packers' RB situation is. And yes, I do disagree with Thompson's approach when it comes to how he addressed the RB situation this offseason. That's the whole point. There were numerous options available and he ignored them all. Again, maybe that approach will be proven correct and if it is I'll be right here giving him props and saying I was wrong. But so far it clearly was a mistake and although the Packers are 3-0 right now there is a concern (or there sure as hell should be) that the RB situation is going to become a major issue as this season goes along.

You keep saying Thompson "ignored" other options at RB. That is obviously false. Certainly, he considered all options and rejected them. Reading your posts, I get the feeling you think you could run a football team better than Thompson. Is that what you think packersfan? The fact is TT has done a tremendous job the past few years. He took a 4-12 team full of tired underachievers and now has a roster full of young exciting players with a great future.

 

[BeaverCleaver]

WTF Furley? Yes, you wrote "marginal (at best) talent on offense". How is that twisting words when that means you think the Patriots have had marginal offenses when they have won 3 Super Bowls?

How much have you been drinking today?

 

[packersfan]

You keep saying Thompson "ignored" other options at RB. That is obviously false. Certainly, he considered all options and rejected them. Reading your posts, I get the feeling you think you could run a football team better than Thompson. Is that what you think packersfan?

Oh please. So just because I'm critical of the GM means I think I'm better? How exactly does that compute? Ron Wolf was a damn good GM, one of the best in recent NFL history, and his first-round picks almost always stunk to high heaven. When I say that does that mean I think I could be a better GM than Wolf? Of course not and it's rather silly to think that must be what I'm saying. NO ONE is immune from criticism in professional sports, not the head coach, not the GM, not the players. If Donald Driver drops a wide-open TD from Favre tomorrow must I refrain from saying he should've caught it at the risk of you thinking I must think I'm a better NFL wide receiver than he is? Do you see how silly that sounds? And as far as Thompson rejecting or ignoring, to me it's all the same. He chose to go elsewhere and it's that choice that I'm critical of. Whether he ignored or rejected is just semantics. The bottom line remains the same so my point is completely true.

The fact is TT has done a tremendous job the past few years. He took a 4-12 team full of tired underachievers and now has a roster full of young exciting players with a great future.

I'm glad you think that. I wish I was as enamored with Thompson as you and others are. I keep seeing a team with a real chance to have a special season potentially undone by a putrid running game. That's what concerns me because a chance at a great season doesn't come along all that often - as Packer fans, we know that all too well. So when it's there you really need to capitalize on it if you can. And I fear for the future of this team when Favre retires given how recent history is filled with clear examples of teams struggling - often badly - once they lose a HOF quarterback.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

You keep saying Thompson "ignored" other options at RB. That is obviously false. Certainly, he considered all options and rejected them. Reading your posts, I get the feeling you think you could run a football team better than Thompson. Is that what you think packersfan?

Oh please. So just because I'm critical of the GM means I think I'm better? How exactly does that compute? Ron Wolf was a damn good GM, one of the best in recent NFL history, and his first-round picks almost always stunk to high heaven. When I say that does that mean I think I could be a better GM than Wolf? Of course not and it's rather silly to think that must be what I'm saying. NO ONE is immune from criticism in professional sports, not the head coach, not the GM, not the players. If Donald Driver drops a wide-open TD from Favre tomorrow must I refrain from saying he should've caught it at the risk of you thinking I must think I'm a better NFL wide receiver than he is? Do you see how silly that sounds? And as far as Thompson rejecting or ignoring, to me it's all the same. He chose to go elsewhere and it's that choice that I'm critical of. Whether he ignored or rejected is just semantics. The bottom line remains the same so my point is completely true.

The fact is TT has done a tremendous job the past few years. He took a 4-12 team full of tired underachievers and now has a roster full of young exciting players with a great future.

I'm glad you think that. I wish I was as enamored with Thompson as you and others are. I keep seeing a team with a real chance to have a special season potentially undone by a putrid running game. That's what concerns me because a chance at a great season doesn't come along all that often - as Packer fans, we know that all too well. So when it's there you really need to capitalize on it if you can. And I fear for the future of this team when Favre retires given how recent history is filled with clear examples of teams struggling - often badly - once they lose a HOF quarterback.

As you seem to respect Bob McGinn, I'll refer you to the first few sentences of his 9/8 column, written before the Packers had won a single game this season:

Posted: Sept. 8, 2007Bob McGinnGreen Bay - In April, May, June and July, fans of the Green Bay Packers fixated on the team's failed bid to acquire Randy Moss.In August, they became preoccupied with the void at running back and the disappointing showing of top pick Justin Harrell in training camp.All the while, the gloom-and-doom crowd either took for granted or just plain missed the rebuilding of the football team, piece by piece, in the National Football League's smallest city.Twelve games into last season, the Packers found themselves six games in arrears of the Chicago Bears, who already had clinched the NFC North Division championship. Then the Packers won their last four games to finish 8-8, still a lopsided five games behind the Bears.Today, Green Bay commences the regular season regarded by many prognosticators as a team to watch because of its defense but offering little or no threat to Chicago.

Of course, since this was written, the Packers now are somewhat more than an insignificant threat to win the North (albeit still a long shot).

 

[thecardiackid]

So about that Packer's RB update for tomorrow.........

This has to be the worst ever.If you guys want to debate TT, Sherman, and the theory behind building a running game in GB, fine. I just don't need to scroll through 50 posts about it - looking for info about tomorrow's game. Maybe you guys could start a new thread? Get a room?TIA.

 

[BeaverCleaver]

So about that Packer's RB update for tomorrow.........

This has to be the worst ever.If you guys want to debate TT, Sherman, and the theory behind building a running game in GB, fine. I just don't need to scroll through 50 posts about it - looking for info about tomorrow's game. Maybe you guys could start a new thread? Get a room?TIA.

We need 10 more threads on the Packer running back situation to get a true grasp of the fantasy ramifications.

 

[Aaronstory]

"We don't have a starter at running back," he said.

Thanks Ted.

and this is why the Packers are pretenders in the NFC.

The Cowboys use a committee as well. Are they pretenders as well?

Are you comparing the Packers RBBC to the Cowboys? seriously? lol

Nope. I'm pointing out the idiocy of saying a team is a pretender because it uses a committee when the Colts just used one to win a Super Bowl...

Is this where we point out the idiocy of comparing the Indy and Dallas backfields to the Packers?

Um, where did I compare the personel?

Um, ...here are your quotes " The Cowboys use a committee as well. Are they pretenders as well?" "Nope. I'm pointing out the idiocy of saying a team is a pretender because it uses a committee when the Colts just used one to win a Super Bowl..."

Um, both those quotes are devoid of any mention of the players involved. They both speak to schematic/philosophy of the teams, not the talent of the players involved. English a second language?

 

[packersfan]

As you seem to respect Bob McGinn, I'll refer you to the first few sentences of his 9/8 column, written before the Packers had won a single game this season:

And I'd refer you to the pre-season Q&A McGinn did with Thompson where he grilled Thompson hard for his lack of aggressiveness and Thompson offered up little more than feeble replies. That was one of the best pieces I've seen from a Packer beat writer this year so far. Back on topic, here's the latest from RotoWorld. Keep in mind Czarnecki's prognostication skills are pretty poor but this does match up with the speculation McGinn provided yesterday:FoxSports.com's John Czarnecki reports that Vernand Morency will start for the Packers Sunday against Minnesota.Time will tell if this is true, but Morency still isn't a fantasy option against the Vikings. Neither is Ryan Grant, for those who picked him up.Source: FoxSports.com

 

[Big Score]

So is the plan to make Jackson inactive today & roll with the fearsome three headed monster of Morency, Wynn & Grant against the ViQueens?

 

[packersfan]

So is the plan to make Jackson inactive today & roll with the fearsome three headed monster of Morency, Wynn & Grant against the ViQueens?

Sounds like it. This will also be known as the "Brett Favre Will Throw Until His Arm Falls Off Plan."

 

[Marc Levin]

Back on topic, here's the latest from RotoWorld. Keep in mind Czarnecki's prognostication skills are pretty poor but this does match up with the speculation McGinn provided yesterday:

FoxSports.com's John Czarnecki reports that Vernand Morency will start for the Packers Sunday against Minnesota.

Time will tell if this is true, but Morency still isn't a fantasy option against the Vikings. Neither is Ryan Grant, for those who picked him up.

Source: FoxSports.com

Good posting. Now that this is pinned as a news thread, I politely request that folks use some bolded text or increased font size to note that they are providing new information.Due to the first bye weeks and the rash of starting RB injuries, there are probably more than a few out there who are in highly competitve, deep roster, or 14+ team leagues who are looking at having to start Morency or Jackson or Wynn today.

 

[Marc Levin]

So is the plan to make Jackson inactive today & roll with the fearsome three headed monster of Morency, Wynn & Grant against the ViQueens?

Sounds like it. This will also be known as the "Brett Favre Will Throw Until His Arm Falls Off Plan."

Good news for Driver owners, though.packersfan - do you think that Wynn is the designated short yardage guy? Maybe he'd be a good play in TD-heavy leagues?

 

[One]

Due to the first bye weeks and the rash of starting RB injuries, there are probably more than a few out there who are in highly competitve, deep roster, or 14+ team leagues who are looking at having to start Morency or Jackson or Wynn today.

While I wouldn't call my leagues highly competitive, I'm with you here. Have to decide between Turner, Washington, Graham & Grant this week as an RB2.

 

[packersfan]

So is the plan to make Jackson inactive today & roll with the fearsome three headed monster of Morency, Wynn & Grant against the ViQueens?

Sounds like it. This will also be known as the "Brett Favre Will Throw Until His Arm Falls Off Plan."

Good news for Driver owners, though.

Yup. He's always a strong start and he's damn strong this week. I think he's a Top 10 WR this week. I'd start Jennings and Jones as WR3s without hesitation as well and I'd gamble on Donald Lee if you needed a TE. Franks could score but his value is really dependent on TDs and that's too tough to trust. I'd go with Lee instead since his production has been more consistent so far.

packersfan - do you think that Wynn is the designated short yardage guy? Maybe he'd be a good play in TD-heavy leagues?

Tough to say. I think Grant could get a shot if they got close to the end zone. I think McCarthy really wants to see what he can do. Don't forget it was Grant who actually started last week's game. I know a lot of people are getting hit hard by injuries and bye weeks but I just don't see any value here in this backfield this week. Maybe Morency gets a few points in a PPR league if he can play a lot. Maybe. But I think all three guys get on the field and there are no guarantees McCarthy will even run a lot. He may back right off it like he did last week.

 

[packersfan]

Due to the first bye weeks and the rash of starting RB injuries, there are probably more than a few out there who are in highly competitve, deep roster, or 14+ team leagues who are looking at having to start Morency or Jackson or Wynn today.

While I wouldn't call my leagues highly competitive, I'm with you here. Have to decide between Turner, Washington, Graham & Grant this week as an RB2. :(

Out of that group, I think Leon has the highest upside by far. I can't believe the Jets aren't using him more. I didn't think he'd be a threat to Jones' job but I thought he'd get double-digit touches and be a factor in the passing game. But he has 0 receptions in the last two games. I can't figure that out.

 

[Marc Levin]

I can't believe the Jets aren't using him more. I didn't think he'd be a threat to Jones' job but I thought he'd get double-digit touches and be a factor in the passing game. But he has 0 receptions in the last two games. I can't figure that out.

TJones is a good pass-receiver who does not need to be pulled on third down. And Coles has been great on third down. Simply put, there has been little need to use Washington as a 3rd down back.

 

[packersfan]

I can't believe the Jets aren't using him more. I didn't think he'd be a threat to Jones' job but I thought he'd get double-digit touches and be a factor in the passing game. But he has 0 receptions in the last two games. I can't figure that out.

TJones is a good pass-receiver who does not need to be pulled on third down. And Coles has been great on third down. Simply put, there has been little need to use Washington as a 3rd down back.

You could make a case, though, that he is their top playmaker and probably by a considerable margin. And if that's the case you'd think they'd want to get his hands on the ball more. Again, I'm not saying he's a threat to Jones' job (I've never believed that), but he should be getting 5-10 carries and 3-4 receptions a game. The offense could use his playmaking ability.

 

[CrazyHorse1581]

Does anyone think with Minnesota so set on keeping Favre from breaking the record that the running game might be wide open for GB?

 

[fflnut]

Due to the first bye weeks and the rash of starting RB injuries, there are probably more than a few out there who are in highly competitve, deep roster, or 14+ team leagues who are looking at having to start Morency or Jackson or Wynn today.

While I wouldn't call my leagues highly competitive, I'm with you here. Have to decide between Turner, Washington, Graham & Grant this week as an RB2.

Out of that group, I think Leon has the highest upside by far. I can't believe the Jets aren't using him more. I didn't think he'd be a threat to Jones' job but I thought he'd get double-digit touches and be a factor in the passing game. But he has 0 receptions in the last two games. I can't figure that out.

I'm in a similar situation and am leaning towards starting Turner. Not sure Grant will really get that much of a chance today, but who knows.

 

[RenegadeGM]

OK, no matter who starts/gets snaps out of the Jackson/Morency/Wynn/Grant group today, it is obvious they are going to struggle vs the tough Vikes run defense. So let's take this week out of the equation for a moment.

Without evaluating Ted Thompson, what is your outlook on these guys over the next few weeks? I know it could be any of the four, but what is YOUR gut telling you?

Mine says:

Morency is the best back of a weak group and will be given every chance to win and keep the starting job and get most of the carries... health will be a big factor here. (kind of like Morency when Green was out last year).

Wynn will be a situational player and will produce occasionaly; however, which weeks is anyone's guess. (kind of like Herron two(?) years ago)

Jackson won't be much of a factor unless injuries hit the rest of the group hard... hasn't shown much running the ball and struggles as a blocker. (kind of like RMealey/DParker/WWilliams/etc. in past years)

Grant is a dark horse and if everyone else fails, could be given a shot... if he takes the ball and runs with it, could surprise. (kind of like Gado a few years back).

While I'm not interested in the group this week, it is possible one of these guys emerges in the long term.

Or... we debate this every week and every week is different

 

[Marc Levin]

Does anyone think with Minnesota so set on keeping Favre from breaking the record that the running game might be wide open for GB?

Nope.If the running lanes are open for the Pack, the Viking are toast today.

 

[Eagle Eye]

FOXSports.com insider John Czarnecki advised readers this morning that Vernand Morency will make his first appearance of the season and start for injured Brandon Jackson.

From Diehards

 

[Aaronstory]

So is the plan to make Jackson inactive today & roll with the fearsome three headed monster of Morency, Wynn & Grant against the ViQueens?

Sounds like it. This will also be known as the "Brett Favre Will Throw Until His Arm Falls Off Plan."

Good news for Driver owners, though.packersfan - do you think that Wynn is the designated short yardage guy? Maybe he'd be a good play in TD-heavy leagues?

Jackson had been used on the goalline up to this point, while Wynn has been used in the red-zone up until they get to the goal-line - If you are desperate, Wynn is as good an option as any to possibly get a cheap TD...