PC Forums

General Category => NFL Talk => Free Agency => Topic started by: marklawrence on February 13, 2017, 10:55:43 PM

Title: Lacy
Post by: marklawrence on February 13, 2017, 10:55:43 PM
Reports are his agent is working out a 1 year deal. Vet minimum and another roughly $2m in incentives.

Now that we've cut Starks I suppose we need another year from Lacy, while we draft a rookie and get him up to speed in protections and outlet passes.

I'm not a big Lacy fan at this point, but this deal seems palatable to me.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: Toddfather on February 14, 2017, 01:18:02 AM
I really don't get the Lacy hate... Weight? That wasn't his issue, it was conditioning. He was rocking before he got hurt. He will always carry weight, but he took a challenge from MM and came back conditioned. If you know anything about injuries, what he played on to compete against Dallas shows his dedication. I am not against drafting another back, but I welcome Lacy back with open arms. Especially at that kind of deal.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: iarwain on February 14, 2017, 01:21:45 AM
I don't think Lacy's conditioning last year was as good as we were led to believe, and there are questions about how dedicated to football he is, but whatever.  I wouldn't mind giving him another year to see what he can do, and the numbers sound right.  It's not like we're crawling with options at RB.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: B on February 14, 2017, 06:25:27 AM
5.1 per carry... finished the season in top 50 rushing yds by a running back despite only playing in 4 full games

just sayin'...
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: scoremore on February 14, 2017, 06:30:16 AM
Don't get the Lacy hate either.  Find it hard to believe he would sign for vet minimum.  Would pay him and lock him up for 3 years.  Guy is a franchise back imo.  That is if his ankle is good to go.  If he is considering this kind of deal he might have some serious problems we don't know about. 
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: SSG on February 14, 2017, 06:31:58 AM
I'd be floored if Lacy took peanuts like that after what he had showed last year before the injury and over his career.  IMO, a truly terrible deal for Lacy given FA hasn't even started yet and he'd eb taking less than back ups around the league have signed for.   I'd image that there are dozens of teams around the NFL that would pay vet minimum for Lacy given his age and what he's shown he can bring. 

I'l believe it when I see it as this rumor is highly unbelievable and unsubstantiated (believe its a Pete Dougherty rumor). 
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: scoremore on February 14, 2017, 07:22:22 AM
I'd be floored if Lacy took peanuts like that after what he had showed last year before the injury and over his career.  IMO, a truly terrible deal for Lacy given FA hasn't even started yet and he'd eb taking less than back ups around the league have signed for.   I'd image that there are dozens of teams around the NFL that would pay vet minimum for Lacy given his age and what he's shown he can bring. 

I'l believe it when I see it as this rumor is highly unbelievable and unsubstantiated (believe its a Pete Dougherty rumor).

Like Dougherty but agree it is highly unbelievable...
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: Leader on February 14, 2017, 08:20:49 AM
I've not been reading up on things but has Lacy fallen that far off the cliff that he'd be signing for vet minimums + incentives?
Not sure about that.....but then again, havent read up on any of it either....so due diligence is required. 
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: SSG on February 14, 2017, 08:43:41 AM
Don't get the Lacy hate either.  Find it hard to believe he would sign for vet minimum.  Would pay him and lock him up for 3 years.  Guy is a franchise back imo.  That is if his ankle is good to go.  If he is considering this kind of deal he might have some serious problems we don't know about.

He may very well sign a 1 year deal but I can't see him signing a vet minimum deal before the start of UFA.  That's less than what he made last year.  Its the caliber of contract hat Mike James signed last year after the start of the season.  Over 55 RBs made more than Lacy's allotted VET MINIMUM last year.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love that sort of deal I just can't see any player or agent being dumb enough to take it (given he'd be giving up his right to test the market).  Lacy would be taking 100% of the risk with very little reward.  If he wanted to take all the risk just to market himself for next year, I'd think he could find a better situation than what Green Bay offers. 

I guess we'll see!  I'd love to have him back under that deal as I'm not sure there is a team in the entire NFL that is as thin at RB as we are.  I've got to believe that Eddie Lacy views himself as more than being just a camp body.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: JQ on February 14, 2017, 08:58:06 AM
I also don’t understand why some posters are so opposed to Eddie Lacy, especially after he was off to such a Great start last year. McCarthy called him out after the 2015 season, and he responded by coming into camp in shape and practicing and playing well, until he got hurt.

He’s a BIG running back and that’s why the Packers drafted him-to pound the ball in the cold weather games at Lambeau. He had two excellent years, one overweight year, and last year was a washout because of an ankle injury that he tried to play through against dallas. Personally, I think the bigger Packer concerns with Lacy are injuries, rather than his weight.

That written, unless Green Bay is satisfied with the likes of Crockett and Jackson(?) as their additional halfbacks, it certainly seems like they’d be willing to use a draft pick to acquire another running back, maybe their mid-round comp pick, be it 4th or 5th round.

Montgomery is a TERRIFiC change of pace option, but I don’t think the Packers want to rely upon him as a feature back, like they did this year. And I don’t see Christine Michael as a viable option; he just doesn’t seem to have the acumen the Packers require for their running backs.

Finally, I too am VERY skeptical that Lacy would sign a one-year “prove-it” for vet’s minimum, especially at this point in his career. But the incentive-loaded contract is something I’ve foreseen all along. I did an “Eddie Lacy” Google search and I came up with nothing I’d consider reliable, like CBS Sports, NBC Sports (PFT), NFL, or even ESPN (Demovsky) websites. But there were a few hits on what I’d consider the more “gossipy” sites.

So we shall see...
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: Toddfather on February 14, 2017, 10:09:21 AM
Also let me reiterate, that I do believe we must draft an RB with the depth that is in this draft. I just like Lacy a lot, and thought he came back committed. Would love to see him in a split backfield with Monty, Cobb, and a draft pick. I think he would add a great dimension to our offense.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: craig on February 14, 2017, 10:45:36 AM
I think the vet-minimum plus incentives is implausibly low. 

But I totally believe three concepts:
1.  1-year prove-it deal
2.  Rich in incentives.
3.  Modest base guarantee.

I don't think that base would be as low as vet minimum.  (Or if it was, the incentives would be more than $2M).  But I think a one-year incentives-heavy deal makes great sense for both sides.  Gives confident Lacy a chance to make some $$ this year, but also to come back and get a substantial multi-year-deal next year; and give the team a player they like without making a big commitment long-term or short in case he's unavailable. 

I totally expect the packers want to resign him.  MM has always liked him and how he plays.  Two he already knows the system.  Three, we've got a million areas that could use a talented early-day draft pick, so if you need to burn an early pick on a back, that's a pick unavailable for some other need.  Sign Lacy, and wait till round 4, 5, or 6 to draft a back, very freeing. 

I'll be VERY surprised if the Packers don't reach an agreement with Eddy, sooner or later. 

I also suspect the outside market may be less than the 5.1-per-carry stat might suggest.  GM's tend to assume short shelf-lives for backs; to be leery of guys who have been unavailable a lot, with as many hits as Lacy has; many coaches/schemes prioritize a back who can run outside the tackles; and want a back who catches lots of passes.  Not sure many (or any) coaches sees Lacy as well-suited for their offense as McCarthy does for his. The bidding for him might not be that outrageous or competitive. 

I'll be very surprised if the Packers don't resign him.  Seems the type of non-budget-busting FA with solid upside and anti-awful security that some posters wish Ted signed more often.   

 
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: eX Oh on February 14, 2017, 12:15:08 PM
I'm ok with re-signing him.  I just don't think it'll come to much. 

Lacy was not 20-25 lbs down from his weight last year once he hit the field in regular season.  He was overweight (again) and injured his ankle, hurt further trying to play through it.

Really doesn't matter what your average is if you're in the hot tub.  It doesn't matter how well you were doing if you were doing it on borrowed time. 

And with issues like that he's a guy that coaches have a hard time relying on. 
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: cpk1994 on February 14, 2017, 12:58:03 PM
I'm ok with re-signing him.  I just don't think it'll come to much. 

Lacy was not 20-25 lbs down from his weight last year once he hit the field in regular season.  He was overweight (again) and injured his ankle, hurt further trying to play through it.

Really doesn't matter what your average is if you're in the hot tub.  It doesn't matter how well you were doing if you were doing it on borrowed time. 

And with issues like that he's a guy that coaches have a hard time relying on.
He was not overweight.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: OneTwoSixFive on February 14, 2017, 01:24:47 PM
I think the vet-minimum plus incentives is implausibly low. 

But I totally believe three concepts:
1.  1-year prove-it deal
2.  Rich in incentives.
3.  Modest base guarantee.

1) No. This is usually a lowball offer that does not encourage best effort.
2 & 3) Definitely yes. This is what converts a modest deal (if the performance is not good or injury strikes), into a solid deal worth taking.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: Redt on February 14, 2017, 01:29:37 PM
TT will low ball, and Schneider will swoop in and grab him, mark my words. For the record, I think he is worth keeping.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: cheech on February 14, 2017, 04:38:55 PM
TT will low ball, and Schneider will swoop in and grab him, mark my words. For the record, I think he is worth keeping.

Seattle has 2 backs in Prosise and Rawls that offer more than Lacy.  Not to mention Alex Collins.  They have no need. 

Lacy at 2m would be a good deal for both parties.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: PackerJoe on February 14, 2017, 04:43:58 PM
Thought Lacy was fine two years ago, but he played hurt.  Weight is not the issue.  I like when he runs linebackers and devensive backs over.  He did seem more committed last year as was evidenced by his hurdling of several would be tacklers.  I think he and Montgomery would be a great 1-2 punch and then bring someone else in.  You always need a stable of horses in the backfield!
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: morango on February 14, 2017, 05:03:30 PM
Thought Lacy was fine two years ago, but he played hurt.  Weight is not the issue. I like when he runs linebackers and devensive backs over.  He did seem more committed last year as was evidenced by his hurdling of several would be tacklers.  I think he and Montgomery would be a great 1-2 punch and then bring someone else in.  You always need a stable of horses in the backfield!

IMO weight definitely IS one of the issues, in the sense that every pound carried quadruples the pressure and torque on knees and ankles. From what I have seen, Lacy is much more effective and has a better chance of staying healthy when playing around 230  pounds. He was around 225 in college if I remember it right.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: JQ on February 14, 2017, 05:43:37 PM
HA,HA,HA...Still nothing on the internet about an impending Packer re-signing by the Packers. But I  DID find this except from an ESPN satellite over in Viking-Land:

http://www.1500espn.com/vikings-2/2017/02/will-price-tag-eddie-lacy-affect-vikings-thinking-peterson/ (http://www.1500espn.com/vikings-2/2017/02/will-price-tag-eddie-lacy-affect-vikings-thinking-peterson/)

If you scroll down the page and read the comments, many are excited about the possibility of Lacy replacing AD. And there was also something about a potential TJ signing. The minny fans just can’t let go of the obsession to BE the Packers!  ;)
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: DWhitehurst on February 14, 2017, 08:03:25 PM
I'd love it Lacy were re-signed, that is, for a prove it deal amount, given I'm in the camp that thinks weight has been an issue with Lacy that may be an ongoing struggle for him and has affected how good he can be.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: DWhitehurst on February 14, 2017, 08:05:37 PM
I'd love it Lacy were re-signed, that is, for a prove it deal amount, given I'm in the camp that thinks weight has been an issue with Lacy that may be an ongoing struggle for him and has affected how good he can be. I also think he became a more tentative player after the last couple of concussions, understandably.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: armchair qb on February 15, 2017, 05:58:28 AM
While I don't hate Lacy I get no excitement from resigning him.  He was overweight last year, came in, in shape this year, and promptly gained weight before season started.  Sure he has talent to be a feature back but I question the desire.  My guess would be that he gets a prove it deal and knocks it out of the park.  Gets big money and gets fat and lazy.  SO I'd be good with it as long as we NEVER sign him to a long term deal.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: cpk1994 on February 15, 2017, 06:27:20 AM
While I don't hate Lacy I get no excitement from resigning him.  He was overweight last year, came in, in shape this year, and promptly gained weight before season started.  Sure he has talent to be a feature back but I question the desire.  My guess would be that he gets a prove it deal and knocks it out of the park.  Gets big money and gets fat and lazy.  SO I'd be good with it as long as we NEVER sign him to a long term deal.
He did not gain weight when the season started. There was not a single report to back that assertion up.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: Hands on February 15, 2017, 06:50:48 AM
If Lacy isn't signed with the Packers, then I would expect to see him wearing colors of the Tampa Bay Bucs. Why? Warm weather, fewer problems with his asthma. Otherwise....I would think TT and Lacy will come to some resolution on a short term contract.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: SSG on February 15, 2017, 07:27:00 AM
TT will low ball, and Schneider will swoop in and grab him, mark my words. For the record, I think he is worth keeping.

Seattle has 2 backs in Prosise and Rawls that offer more than Lacy.  Not to mention Alex Collins.  They have no need. 

Lacy at 2m would be a good deal for both parties.


I'm not overly worried about Seattle signing Lacy.  I'd be more worried about New England.  New England paid more than Lacy's rumored contract for Blount last year.  Blount wasn't signed until weeks into Free Agency.  Not only is he  a player with a ton of baggage but he was coming off a serious hip injury.  Lacy and Blount are essentially the same type of player with Lacy easily being the better of the two.   

2 Million of incentives with the Vet minimum guaranteed for Lacy would be an outstanding deal for Green Bay.  Lacy would be taking 100% of the risk with a very little reward.  I can't see how that deal would benefit Lacy.  Chances are very good that we draft a RB this year.  He'd be signing up to split carries with 3 backs for basically veteran's minimum.  IMO, he isn't going to do his career any good by agreeing to be a 10 carry a game RB in one of his prime NFL years.  IMO, he'd be better off signing in Philly, NYG or another RB needy team. 
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: B on February 15, 2017, 07:37:32 AM
New England is rumored to be interested as well.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: armchair qb on February 15, 2017, 07:59:10 AM
While I don't hate Lacy I get no excitement from resigning him.  He was overweight last year, came in, in shape this year, and promptly gained weight before season started.  Sure he has talent to be a feature back but I question the desire.  My guess would be that he gets a prove it deal and knocks it out of the park.  Gets big money and gets fat and lazy.  SO I'd be good with it as long as we NEVER sign him to a long term deal.
He did not gain weight when the season started. There was not a single report to back that assertion up.
Why do I need a report to back it up.  There is information out there that he was fined for his weight this season as well as last season.  Plus I have my eyes.  Saw pics of him before season started and once season started.  Got heavier.  Not to mention does and did not have the explosion he had as a rookie.  You can all have a love fest for him that is fine by me.  He is not a pro.  Doesn't take care of his body and doesn't sow me the desire.

https://larrybrownsports.com/football/eddie-lacy-fined-packers-weight/350697
Lacy’s plans for working out this offseason sound encouraging, but he said and did the same thing last year and there were reports his eating got out of hand again before his injury.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: Pugger on February 15, 2017, 08:06:36 AM
Also let me reiterate, that I do believe we must draft an RB with the depth that is in this draft. I just like Lacy a lot, and thought he came back committed. Would love to see him in a split backfield with Monty, Cobb, and a draft pick. I think he would add a great dimension to our offense.

Me too.  This combo would really make our offense more balanced and even more formidable next season.    cheese)
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: Pugger on February 15, 2017, 08:10:39 AM
HA,HA,HA...Still nothing on the internet about an impending Packer re-signing by the Packers. But I  DID find this except from an ESPN satellite over in Viking-Land:

http://www.1500espn.com/vikings-2/2017/02/will-price-tag-eddie-lacy-affect-vikings-thinking-peterson/ (http://www.1500espn.com/vikings-2/2017/02/will-price-tag-eddie-lacy-affect-vikings-thinking-peterson/)

If you scroll down the page and read the comments, many are excited about the possibility of Lacy replacing AD. And there was also something about a potential TJ signing. The minny fans just can’t let go of the obsession to BE the Packers!  ;)

I don't think we can contact/sign any FAs until March 7th.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: LMG on February 15, 2017, 08:59:10 AM
NFL Important Dates (http://www.packerchatters.com/2016-17-nfl-important-dates.html)
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: JQ on February 15, 2017, 09:20:04 AM
HA,HA,HA...Still nothing on the internet about an impending Packer re-signing by the Packers. But I  DID find this except from an ESPN satellite over in Viking-Land:

http://www.1500espn.com/vikings-2/2017/02/will-price-tag-eddie-lacy-affect-vikings-thinking-peterson/ (http://www.1500espn.com/vikings-2/2017/02/will-price-tag-eddie-lacy-affect-vikings-thinking-peterson/)

If you scroll down the page and read the comments, many are excited about the possibility of Lacy replacing AD. And there was also something about a potential TJ signing. The minny fans just can’t let go of the obsession to BE the Packers!  ;)


I don't think we can contact/sign any FAs until March 7th.

I’m not saying anything about when the Packers or Minnesota may sign a free agent, only posting content and comments from another team-related site.

Here’s an excerpt from an article, written by an NFL agent. I think it outlines the free agent timelines and process quite well, and in layperson’s terms. I also think it may apply to Lacy’s situation:

February 23rd to March 8th: Negotiations between players and their existing club will heat up, if they are interested that is. Agents will press existing teams to step up and get a deal done. Teams aggressively wanting to sign a UFA will start putting numbers on the table and convince the agent to have the player visit them first on March 11th. Some teams will let their own players willingly go into free agency to establish a market. They may sit back and gamble playing “match the market”. Thus, keeping tabs on the player and what other teams are offering then hoping to match it before losing the player. Look for some deals to get done in this time tranche.

Also, for anybody interested, here’s the entire article about the free agency process:

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/how-nfl-free-agency-really-works-2784/ (http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/how-nfl-free-agency-really-works-2784/)
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: ebterp on February 15, 2017, 09:56:12 AM
I would only bring him back on this type of deal...what has he done that makes us think he is worth much of anything besides not take care of himself and get hurt....

EB
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: JQ on February 15, 2017, 09:57:03 AM
Relative to NE as a potential destination for Lacy:

http://www.patspulpit.com/2017/2/14/14608572/patriots-are-the-perfect-team-to-turn-packers-rb-eddie-lacy-into-a-star (http://www.patspulpit.com/2017/2/14/14608572/patriots-are-the-perfect-team-to-turn-packers-rb-eddie-lacy-into-a-star)

Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: SSG on February 15, 2017, 11:54:02 AM
I would only bring him back on this type of deal...what has he done that makes us think he is worth much of anything besides not take care of himself and get hurt....

EB

Food for thought.  Nick Perry was a 1 sided OLB who had no business being on the field on 3rd downs at the end of his rookie deal.  He also couldn't' stay on the field and rarely contributed through out his entire rookie deal. He signed the one year deal this last off season and he was arguably our best defender. 

Eddie Lacy averaged more than 5 yards a carry last year before injury.  At the time of the injury No RB in the NFL had more broken tackles or yards after contact despite Lacy getting substantially less carries than his peers.  Only 3 RBs in the NFL had more 20 yard runs when he got hurt.  The idea that Lacy is in some way responsible for his broken ankle may is nothing short of ridiculous.  Was Jordy Nelson responsible for his knee injury when he cut in the wrong direction?  Was Aaron Rodgers at fault for falling on his color bone wrong which resulted in the break? 
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: B on February 15, 2017, 02:18:09 PM
I would only bring him back on this type of deal...what has he done that makes us think he is worth much of anything besides not take care of himself and get hurt....

EB

Food for thought.  Nick Perry was a 1 sided OLB who had no business being on the field on 3rd downs at the end of his rookie deal.  He also couldn't' stay on the field and rarely contributed through out his entire rookie deal. He signed the one year deal this last off season and he was arguably our best defender. 

Eddie Lacy averaged more than 5 yards a carry last year before injury.  At the time of the injury No RB in the NFL had more broken tackles or yards after contact despite Lacy getting substantially less carries than his peers.  Only 3 RBs in the NFL had more 20 yard runs when he got hurt.  The idea that Lacy is in some way responsible for his broken ankle may is nothing short of ridiculous.  Was Jordy Nelson responsible for his knee injury when he cut in the wrong direction?  Was Aaron Rodgers at fault for falling on his color bone wrong which resulted in the break?

 thumbsup)  goodpost
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: cheech on February 15, 2017, 03:25:01 PM
There were signs in year 4 that Perry was on the rise.  One could argue that there are signs (specifically weight issues and explosiveness) that Lacy is going the other way. 

I'd be more than comfortable seeing Ted give Lacy up to 4 per year.  After that you have to start to weigh other options.  The draft is loaded with backs that could replace his production and durability. 
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: heikks86 on February 15, 2017, 05:17:23 PM
I would only bring him back on this type of deal...what has he done that makes us think he is worth much of anything besides not take care of himself and get hurt....

EB

Food for thought.  Nick Perry was a 1 sided OLB who had no business being on the field on 3rd downs at the end of his rookie deal.  He also couldn't' stay on the field and rarely contributed through out his entire rookie deal. He signed the one year deal this last off season and he was arguably our best defender. 

Eddie Lacy averaged more than 5 yards a carry last year before injury.  At the time of the injury No RB in the NFL had more broken tackles or yards after contact despite Lacy getting substantially less carries than his peers.  Only 3 RBs in the NFL had more 20 yard runs when he got hurt.  The idea that Lacy is in some way responsible for his broken ankle may is nothing short of ridiculous.  Was Jordy Nelson responsible for his knee injury when he cut in the wrong direction?  Was Aaron Rodgers at fault for falling on his color bone wrong which resulted in the break?

I've seen it mentioned here and other packer forums that people seem to think that Lacys weight is the reason he hurt his ankle.

I think it would be a mistake to let him leave, Montgomery is a good secondary back but I don't think he can carry the full workload.

If Lacy went to NE and had a huge season they would start trashing TT for letting him go even though they didn't want him back, similar to what happened with Hayward
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: The GM on February 15, 2017, 11:41:50 PM
I'd sign Lacy to a low incentive based contract, draft a decent RB in the first 3 rounds.  Move Lacy to a short yardage guy, ball control RB.  He's to slow to be a feature back, cant get outside, and is too slow in the passing game.  Defenses pack in the middle of the field for Lacy knowing he cant get outside or 3 guys will be waiting for him.  At this point Lacy would be insurance for me.  Find a good multi purpose RB that can take advantage of defenses playing against Rodgers and the passing game.  A decent RB could thrive in this offense and have a Brian Westbrook/Marshall Faulk type impact.  Lacy isnt going to do that. 
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: BartyorBarrySmith on February 16, 2017, 06:28:08 AM
... draft a decent RB in the first 3 rounds.  ....A decent RB could thrive in this offense and have a Brian Westbrook/Marshall Faulk type impact.  Lacy isnt going to do that.

Easy enough.  Find a hall of fame running back in the first 3 rounds. Problem solved. 

Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: SSG on February 16, 2017, 07:30:17 AM
There were signs in year 4 that Perry was on the rise.  One could argue that there are signs (specifically weight issues and explosiveness) that Lacy is going the other way. 

I'd be more than comfortable seeing Ted give Lacy up to 4 per year.  After that you have to start to weigh other options.  The draft is loaded with backs that could replace his production and durability.

There were signs in the post season where he had just as many sacks as he had in the entire regular season.  Throughout the regular season, he was non existent as a pass rusher and used primarily as a run defender due to his struggles on passing downs.  In that season he also showed he couldn't stay on the field.  while I'll openly admit he is our most important UFA, signing him to a massive extension is pretty scary.  he's got just 1 season as a pro where he's looked like a capable starter and he's never played a full season in the NFL.  He's shown to be as injury prone as any player we've got on the roster. 

What signs did Eddie Lacy show last year that he was "going the other way"?  Like I said earlier, no RB in the NFL had more broken tackles or yards after contact.  He was also getting huge chunk runs as only 3 RBs had more 20 yarders.  All this with just 14 touches a game and averaging more than 5 YPC.  He was on pace to have his best season as a pro which is crazy considering Lacy is a usually a slow starter on the season.  IMO, the biggest reason Lacy gets trashed around here is because he isn't and will never be LeVeon Bell or David Johnson.  Some think RBs like that fall off trees are easily obtainable by all when reality is players like that don't come around very often.  the idea that Eddie Lacy isn't' a starting caliber NFL RB anymore is nothing short of ridiculous (like stated above).

I'm not advocating for a massive deal and wouldn't at all be upset if we let Lacy walk due the contract he was able to get elsewhere or if he felt he had better opportunity elsewhere.  My point is I just don't understand the negativity around him considering he was on pace to have the best season of his career last year before injury and he was doing it with fewer carries than he'd ever gotten in his 2 pro bowl caliber years.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: Hands on February 16, 2017, 07:40:14 AM
... draft a decent RB in the first 3 rounds.  ....A decent RB could thrive in this offense and have a Brian Westbrook/Marshall Faulk type impact.  Lacy isnt going to do that.

Easy enough.  Find a hall of fame running back in the first 3 rounds. Problem solved.

First off your handle is one of my favorite Packers. Second...good come back. You can read anything at this point and it means nothing. I saw where the Packers were the favorite team to land the Pittsburg RB. Are you kidding me? If TT did that I would want to know where they stashed the real TT.
I think the Packers will try and offer Lacy a contract that's a one year prove it. Lacy may decide to go to a warmer climate to extend his playing years. So I do look for TT to draft that HOF RB in the 3rd round as well to solve the problems.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: The GM on February 16, 2017, 02:07:22 PM
... draft a decent RB in the first 3 rounds.  ....A decent RB could thrive in this offense and have a Brian Westbrook/Marshall Faulk type impact.  Lacy isnt going to do that.

Easy enough.  Find a hall of fame running back in the first 3 rounds. Problem solved.

David Johnson, RB, AZ Cardinals, 3rd round pick in 2015.  There are guys like that out there, and a upgrade over Lacy wouldnt be that difficult if he wants to spend the pick.       
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: SSG on February 16, 2017, 02:26:41 PM
... draft a decent RB in the first 3 rounds.  ....A decent RB could thrive in this offense and have a Brian Westbrook/Marshall Faulk type impact.  Lacy isnt going to do that.

Easy enough.  Find a hall of fame running back in the first 3 rounds. Problem solved.

David Johnson, RB, AZ Cardinals, 3rd round pick in 2015.  There are guys like that out there, and a upgrade over Lacy wouldnt be that difficult if he wants to spend the pick.     

Right because every RB drafted in the NFL is the caliber of player that David Johnson is.  There are dozens of RBs selected and signed every year in the NFL, very rarely does a David Johnson caliber player fall on your lap.  It's funny that you think that that caliber of player is the type that just falls off a tree and is easy to find.  I'm pretty sure I don't recall you advocating for the selection of David Johnson during the 2015 NFL draft.  It's easy to point out the easy picks 2 years after their made....   8)
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: heikks86 on February 16, 2017, 04:47:48 PM
There were signs in year 4 that Perry was on the rise.  One could argue that there are signs (specifically weight issues and explosiveness) that Lacy is going the other way. 

I'd be more than comfortable seeing Ted give Lacy up to 4 per year.  After that you have to start to weigh other options.  The draft is loaded with backs that could replace his production and durability.

Watch the Giants game last season and look at the runs Lacy was ripping off. I watched the highlights looking to see his injury and he was beastly that game. There were no signs last season that Lacy was having any weight issues, he looked like the Lacy who was on a tear his first two seasons
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: LMG on February 16, 2017, 07:33:37 PM
... draft a decent RB in the first 3 rounds.  ....A decent RB could thrive in this offense and have a Brian Westbrook/Marshall Faulk type impact.  Lacy isnt going to do that.

Easy enough.  Find a hall of fame running back in the first 3 rounds. Problem solved.

David Johnson, RB, AZ Cardinals, 3rd round pick in 2015.  There are guys like that out there, and a upgrade over Lacy wouldnt be that difficult if he wants to spend the pick.     


That was a roll of the dice for the Cards...they didn't have anyone else and luckily it worked for them.


Sorry....it's very RARE.


I'll go with Lacy another year and whoever else they add.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: The GM on February 16, 2017, 09:06:16 PM
... draft a decent RB in the first 3 rounds.  ....A decent RB could thrive in this offense and have a Brian Westbrook/Marshall Faulk type impact.  Lacy isnt going to do that.

Easy enough.  Find a hall of fame running back in the first 3 rounds. Problem solved.

David Johnson, RB, AZ Cardinals, 3rd round pick in 2015.  There are guys like that out there, and a upgrade over Lacy wouldnt be that difficult if he wants to spend the pick.     

Right because every RB drafted in the NFL is the caliber of player that David Johnson is.  There are dozens of RBs selected and signed every year in the NFL, very rarely does a David Johnson caliber player fall on your lap.  It's funny that you think that that caliber of player is the type that just falls off a tree and is easy to find.  I'm pretty sure I don't recall you advocating for the selection of David Johnson during the 2015 NFL draft.  It's easy to point out the easy picks 2 years after their made....   8)

Easy to find, not so much, but when you take into account this offense and defenses focus on Rodgers in the passing game.  You dont need a HOF running back to perform extremely well in this offense.   A decent running back can put up huge numbers.  Lacy is far too fat and slow to be dynamic enough.   The Packers got to the NFCC with Ty Montgomery for crying out loud.    Finding a great running back is hard, finding a good running back who can flourish in this offense and its weapons isnt difficult.           
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: BartyorBarrySmith on February 17, 2017, 03:45:43 AM
I think the best answer is Lacy and a pick.  Understand some of the criticism about Lacy but he was productive this past year -- when healthy -- and the simple fact is the Packers would have loved to have a healthy Lacy v. Atlanta in the championship game.  Its all a percentages game. You don't give up a productive player on the hopes of striking gold in the draft. Citing a lightening bolt of success in the 3rd round ignores the percentages.  I don't think the Packers are prepping their Hall of Fame induction for Brandon Jackson or Alex Green.   This is all especially true with the major problems on defense.  You take your chances with Lacy and a lower pick running back to get a defensive player you want -- and need desperately.  Understanding -- if the LOVE a back like McCaffery and like the depth of the defensive players available, they could make that pick -- but add him to a line up that includes Lacy and you are stronger team.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: The GM on February 17, 2017, 06:40:01 AM
I think the best answer is Lacy and a pick.  Understand some of the criticism about Lacy but he was productive this past year -- when healthy -- and the simple fact is the Packers would have loved to have a healthy Lacy v. Atlanta in the championship game.  Its all a percentages game. You don't give up a productive player on the hopes of striking gold in the draft. Citing a lightening bolt of success in the 3rd round ignores the percentages.  I don't think the Packers are prepping their Hall of Fame induction for Brandon Jackson or Alex Green.   This is all especially true with the major problems on defense.  You take your chances with Lacy and a lower pick running back to get a defensive player you want -- and need desperately.  Understanding -- if the LOVE a back like McCaffery and like the depth of the defensive players available, they could make that pick -- but add him to a line up that includes Lacy and you are stronger team.

Agree, there is a role for Lacy on this team, but a guy like McCaffrey or Kamara would be pretty hard to defend.  At the same time we got big defensive holes to fill.

Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: OnaBadger58 on February 17, 2017, 07:36:01 AM
... draft a decent RB in the first 3 rounds.  ....A decent RB could thrive in this offense and have a Brian Westbrook/Marshall Faulk type impact.  Lacy isnt going to do that.

Easy enough.  Find a hall of fame running back in the first 3 rounds. Problem solved.

David Johnson, RB, AZ Cardinals, 3rd round pick in 2015.  There are guys like that out there, and a upgrade over Lacy wouldnt be that difficult if he wants to spend the pick.     


That was a roll of the dice for the Cards...they didn't have anyone else and luckily it worked for them.


Sorry....it's very RARE.


I'll go with Lacy another year and whoever else they add.

Johnson, Freeman, Howard, Coleman, Ware, Rawls, and Murray (to a lesser extent) have been drafted in 3rd round or later in recent history.  There are very productive rb's to be had mid to late rounds in NFL drafts.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: Hands on February 17, 2017, 07:43:03 AM
TT hasn't been that lucky lately in his draft picks for "difference makers". Those guys that are considered blue chip players. So I wouldn't figure on drafting a RB in the middle rounds and expecting him to be starter/all-pro quality right away. Heck, I would love for one of his RB picks to make the team and be contributors in his first year. You may call it low expectations, I'll call it realistic.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: Striker on February 17, 2017, 08:47:52 AM
I think the best answer is Lacy and a pick.  Understand some of the criticism about Lacy but he was productive this past year -- when healthy -- and the simple fact is the Packers would have loved to have a healthy Lacy v. Atlanta in the championship game.  Its all a percentages game. You don't give up a productive player on the hopes of striking gold in the draft. Citing a lightening bolt of success in the 3rd round ignores the percentages.  I don't think the Packers are prepping their Hall of Fame induction for Brandon Jackson or Alex Green.   This is all especially true with the major problems on defense.  You take your chances with Lacy and a lower pick running back to get a defensive player you want -- and need desperately.  Understanding -- if the LOVE a back like McCaffery and like the depth of the defensive players available, they could make that pick -- but add him to a line up that includes Lacy and you are stronger team.

Agree, there is a role for Lacy on this team, but a guy like McCaffrey or Kamara would be pretty hard to defend.  At the same time we got big defensive holes to fill.

I'd rather have Lacy and a change of pace back and fill the holes on defense. We could have the next coming of AP, but that won't save us if the defensive talent isn't improved.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: SSG on February 17, 2017, 09:11:41 AM
... draft a decent RB in the first 3 rounds.  ....A decent RB could thrive in this offense and have a Brian Westbrook/Marshall Faulk type impact.  Lacy isnt going to do that.

Easy enough.  Find a hall of fame running back in the first 3 rounds. Problem solved.

David Johnson, RB, AZ Cardinals, 3rd round pick in 2015.  There are guys like that out there, and a upgrade over Lacy wouldnt be that difficult if he wants to spend the pick.     

Right because every RB drafted in the NFL is the caliber of player that David Johnson is.  There are dozens of RBs selected and signed every year in the NFL, very rarely does a David Johnson caliber player fall on your lap.  It's funny that you think that that caliber of player is the type that just falls off a tree and is easy to find.  I'm pretty sure I don't recall you advocating for the selection of David Johnson during the 2015 NFL draft.  It's easy to point out the easy picks 2 years after their made....   8)

Easy to find, not so much, but when you take into account this offense and defenses focus on Rodgers in the passing game.  You dont need a HOF running back to perform extremely well in this offense.   A decent running back can put up huge numbers.  Lacy is far too fat and slow to be dynamic enough.   The Packers got to the NFCC with Ty Montgomery for crying out loud.    Finding a great running back is hard, finding a good running back who can flourish in this offense and its weapons isnt difficult.           

Eddy Lacy's 2016 season doesn't suggest that he's too fat and slow to be a good RB for GB.  If you want to ignore 100% of that season in an effort to make Lacy out to be a fat slow, back up RB, more power to you.  Its an argument that isn't built on an ounce of fact given how he was playing before the injury.  "Fat slow" RBs aren't hurdling defenders like he did twice against Dallas, a game in which he was playing on one ankle.  "Fat slow" RBs aren't ripping off 20 yard runs with the frequency he was doing it at.  "Fat slow" RBs don't lead EVERY SINGLE ONE of their peers in both broken tackles and yards after contact.  "Fat slow" RBs don't average over 5.1 yards a carry which is almost a full yard more per carry than David Johnson. 

I think you are underestimating how difficult it is to find a RB like David Johnson (all pro caliber RB).  There have been 80 RBs drafted since we took Eddy Lacy.  5 of those RBs not named David Johnson have been an all pro (Lacy included).  The idea that David Johnson, all pro caliber RBs, are all over the NFL is nothing short of ridiculous.  Thats like saying every QB drafted in the 6th round is going to be the next Tom Brady.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: OneTwoSixFive on February 17, 2017, 09:25:28 AM
I'd rather have Lacy and a change of pace back and fill the holes on defense. We could have the next coming of AP, but that won't save us if the defensive talent isn't improved.

Agreed, Striker. The need quality help at OLB and CB is obvious, and both are likely addressed in the first three rounds of the draft. Though Cook is a good stopgap, the Packers also need a TE with speed to stretch the seam down the middle (just look at the difference in the team when the Packers have one). When a perfectly respectable backup RB to complement Lacy and Montgomery can be acquired with a fourth of fifth round pick, it seems a better plan to keep Lacy this year and have one less position of serious need. I'd like another good sideline type WR as well, but the kind of quality WR the Packers will need for the future, would mean sacrificing the chance of one of the three positions I have already mentioned (most likely TE).

Lacy may get injured again next year, RB is the most violent contact position after all, but if that happens I wouldn't blame anyone, just shrug and say "C'est la vie", anyone, ANYONE, can get injured.

A RB like Corey Clement, Jamaal Williams or Elijah McGuire, drafted in the 4-6 round range, look to me like fine complementary backs to Lacy.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: craig on February 17, 2017, 01:04:44 PM
Yup.  Sign Lacy for modest $$.  Use higher picks for other positions.  Use a 3rd-day pick on a back. 
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: craig on February 17, 2017, 01:09:19 PM
I'd love a back who was good in the passing game.  Packers are, or at least should be, a passing team.  Rodgers ought to be able to check out of a running play, and still have the option of passing it to the back. 

Assuming Lacy is back, I hope he gets better and becomes more effective in the passing game.  I still think tossing it to Lacy where he's got enough space to get his bearings, and have a step or two to build up some momentum and run over some slender cornerback could be kind of fun. 

Whether it's lacy himself, or Montgomery, or new pick, or all three of them, getting more value and more first downs out of throws to the backs would be really fun. 
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: Pugger on February 17, 2017, 03:59:21 PM
I think the best answer is Lacy and a pick.  Understand some of the criticism about Lacy but he was productive this past year -- when healthy -- and the simple fact is the Packers would have loved to have a healthy Lacy v. Atlanta in the championship game.  Its all a percentages game. You don't give up a productive player on the hopes of striking gold in the draft. Citing a lightening bolt of success in the 3rd round ignores the percentages.  I don't think the Packers are prepping their Hall of Fame induction for Brandon Jackson or Alex Green.   This is all especially true with the major problems on defense.  You take your chances with Lacy and a lower pick running back to get a defensive player you want -- and need desperately.  Understanding -- if the LOVE a back like McCaffery and like the depth of the defensive players available, they could make that pick -- but add him to a line up that includes Lacy and you are stronger team.

Agree, there is a role for Lacy on this team, but a guy like McCaffrey or Kamara would be pretty hard to defend.  At the same time we got big defensive holes to fill.

I'd rather have Lacy and a change of pace back and fill the holes on defense. We could have the next coming of AP, but that won't save us if the defensive talent isn't improved.

Don't we have that in Ty Montgomery?   :)
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: dannobanano on February 17, 2017, 05:04:03 PM
People won't like me for saying this but, if Joe Mixon is still on the board when GB picks in the 4th round I would take him.

I would word his contract so that if he ever gets in ANY KIND of trouble during his rookie contract, he forfeits/repays his signing bonus.

I would also put in his contract that he needs to continue to do community service type work in speaking out against domestic violence. Keep him focused on what's more important.

Not sure if you can make a contract that restrictive but if you can, I would.

There's no doubting this kids talent. He's a power back with home run speed, and he's a great receiver as well.

He would be a blend of a faster Lacy and a bigger Monty.

 twocents)


The other RB that would be very good value in the late 4th round would be Kareem Hunt/Toledo. But he may have raised his draft stock into the 3rd with a very very solid performance at the Senior Bowl.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: Hands on February 20, 2017, 06:37:55 AM
People won't like me for saying this but, if Joe Mixon is still on the board when GB picks in the 4th round I would take him.

I would word his contract so that if he ever gets in ANY KIND of trouble during his rookie contract, he forfeits/repays his signing bonus.

I would also put in his contract that he needs to continue to do community service type work in speaking out against domestic violence. Keep him focused on what's more important.

Not sure if you can make a contract that restrictive but if you can, I would.

There's no doubting this kids talent. He's a power back with home run speed, and he's a great receiver as well.

He would be a blend of a faster Lacy and a bigger Monty.

 twocents)


The other RB that would be very good value in the late 4th round would be Kareem Hunt/Toledo. But he may have raised his draft stock into the 3rd with a very very solid performance at the Senior Bowl.

Like Mixson as well. Green Bay could be a good place for him as he stays away from the temptations of a bigger city.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: Twain on February 20, 2017, 07:02:11 AM
People won't like me for saying this but, if Joe Mixon is still on the board when GB picks in the 4th round I would take him.


I don't see a problem with this.

The guy made a mistake his first year in college if I understand this correctly.  If he has learned from his mistake and matured and become a human being, then I think he deserves a second chance.

People make mistakes, especially if raised in a bad environment.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: The GM on February 21, 2017, 02:42:15 PM
... draft a decent RB in the first 3 rounds.  ....A decent RB could thrive in this offense and have a Brian Westbrook/Marshall Faulk type impact.  Lacy isnt going to do that.

Easy enough.  Find a hall of fame running back in the first 3 rounds. Problem solved.

David Johnson, RB, AZ Cardinals, 3rd round pick in 2015.  There are guys like that out there, and a upgrade over Lacy wouldnt be that difficult if he wants to spend the pick.     

Right because every RB drafted in the NFL is the caliber of player that David Johnson is.  There are dozens of RBs selected and signed every year in the NFL, very rarely does a David Johnson caliber player fall on your lap.  It's funny that you think that that caliber of player is the type that just falls off a tree and is easy to find.  I'm pretty sure I don't recall you advocating for the selection of David Johnson during the 2015 NFL draft.  It's easy to point out the easy picks 2 years after their made....   8)

Easy to find, not so much, but when you take into account this offense and defenses focus on Rodgers in the passing game.  You dont need a HOF running back to perform extremely well in this offense.   A decent running back can put up huge numbers.  Lacy is far too fat and slow to be dynamic enough.   The Packers got to the NFCC with Ty Montgomery for crying out loud.    Finding a great running back is hard, finding a good running back who can flourish in this offense and its weapons isnt difficult.           

Eddy Lacy's 2016 season doesn't suggest that he's too fat and slow to be a good RB for GB.  If you want to ignore 100% of that season in an effort to make Lacy out to be a fat slow, back up RB, more power to you.  Its an argument that isn't built on an ounce of fact given how he was playing before the injury.  "Fat slow" RBs aren't hurdling defenders like he did twice against Dallas, a game in which he was playing on one ankle.  "Fat slow" RBs aren't ripping off 20 yard runs with the frequency he was doing it at.  "Fat slow" RBs don't lead EVERY SINGLE ONE of their peers in both broken tackles and yards after contact.  "Fat slow" RBs don't average over 5.1 yards a carry which is almost a full yard more per carry than David Johnson. 

I think you are underestimating how difficult it is to find a RB like David Johnson (all pro caliber RB).  There have been 80 RBs drafted since we took Eddy Lacy.  5 of those RBs not named David Johnson have been an all pro (Lacy included).  The idea that David Johnson, all pro caliber RBs, are all over the NFL is nothing short of ridiculous.  Thats like saying every QB drafted in the 6th round is going to be the next Tom Brady.

Im not exactly sure how we got to the NFCC with a guy who hadnt played RB at the pro level, but his added dimension in the backfield was a key.   The Packers offense struggled with Lacys big 5.1 yards per carry.  His 4 receptions in 5 games certainly wasnt much out of the backfield.  I expect at least 4 receptions per game from a capable back.   His inability to get outside without multiple defenders waiting for him made it easy on opposing defenses.  Lets not forget his 0 TDs this season, perhaps donut is a better word. 

Ty Montgomery came off the street at RB, averaged 5.9 YARDS PER CARRY and actually scored 3 times. Suddenly defenses had to focus on him as a RECEIVING THREAT.  That changed everything.  Rodgers found a groove, no longer could defenses play back and wait for Lacy take take a day and a half to get to a hole, or take forever to get outside.   

If Montgomery can pull this off, what can a dynamic back with some speed and running back experience do??   You can jump up and down all you want about Lacy hurdling defenders.  This offenses loses a lot of potency when he is in there.  Montgomery proved it, and IMO we dont make the playoffs had Lacy been healthy.  We were 3-2 when he played. 

I'd sign Lacy to a small incentive based contract as insurance.  He's too one dimensional, and certainly isn't the back he was 2-3 years ago.  And of all Lacys 20 yard runs how many of those would have been taken to the house by a faster back??  We can do better, a lot better.         
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: SSG on February 21, 2017, 05:03:56 PM


Im not exactly sure how we got to the NFCC with a guy who hadnt played RB at the pro level, but his added dimension in the backfield was a key.   The Packers offense struggled with Lacys big 5.1 yards per carry.  His 4 receptions in 5 games certainly wasnt much out of the backfield.  I expect at least 4 receptions per game from a capable back.   His inability to get outside without multiple defenders waiting for him made it easy on opposing defenses.  Lets not forget his 0 TDs this season, perhaps donut is a better word. 

Ty Montgomery came off the street at RB, averaged 5.9 YARDS PER CARRY and actually scored 3 times. Suddenly defenses had to focus on him as a RECEIVING THREAT.  That changed everything.  Rodgers found a groove, no longer could defenses play back and wait for Lacy take take a day and a half to get to a hole, or take forever to get outside.   

If Montgomery can pull this off, what can a dynamic back with some speed and running back experience do??   You can jump up and down all you want about Lacy hurdling defenders.  This offenses loses a lot of potency when he is in there.  Montgomery proved it, and IMO we dont make the playoffs had Lacy been healthy.  We were 3-2 when he played. 

I'd sign Lacy to a small incentive based contract as insurance.  He's too one dimensional, and certainly isn't the back he was 2-3 years ago.  And of all Lacys 20 yard runs how many of those would have been taken to the house by a faster back??  We can do better, a lot better.         

Except that's not how or why our offense turned their season around.  In week 17, our offense continued to dominate yet Rip lead all backs in snaps, carries and yards.  Our offense turned it around because we ditched the iso routes, started playing Jordy in the slot more and the return of Cook.  Our offense played well regardless of who was in the backfield in the second half of the year (Adams, Cobb, Rip, Monty, Michael).

Our inability to run the ball is a reason we got humiliated in the NFC Championship game.  Had we been able to extend drives and not had to throw on 3rd and shorts maybe we don't get laughed off the field.  Atlanta could pin their ears back and bring the heat because they didn't have to respect a running game.  Had we had Lacy, maybe its a game as we didnt' have an offense capable of taking advantage of their biggest weakness without him.  Monty did well in spots but its pretty clear he's not a NFL RB who's going to run the ball 20 times a game.

You "expect" 4 catches a game?  I don't think you understand how ridiculous that is.  2 RBS in the NFL last year put up those sort of receptions.  Adrian Peterson , one of the best RBs ever to play the game has half that number of receptions a game.  Jamal Charles, one of the best receiving backs in the NFL isn't anywhere close to that number.  I think its ridiculous to say that our offense needs a HOF caliber RB to preform at a  high level. 

We might be able to do better than Lacy but there is a great chance we could do substantially worse.  What happens if we draft an Alex Green or Brandon Jackson with the expectation that its easy to find a David Johnson or Leveon Bell caliber RB?  Its crazy that your expectation is for a back to be substantially better than Zeke Elliott.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: OnaBadger58 on February 22, 2017, 08:43:31 AM


Im not exactly sure how we got to the NFCC with a guy who hadnt played RB at the pro level, but his added dimension in the backfield was a key.   The Packers offense struggled with Lacys big 5.1 yards per carry.  His 4 receptions in 5 games certainly wasnt much out of the backfield.  I expect at least 4 receptions per game from a capable back.   His inability to get outside without multiple defenders waiting for him made it easy on opposing defenses.  Lets not forget his 0 TDs this season, perhaps donut is a better word. 

Ty Montgomery came off the street at RB, averaged 5.9 YARDS PER CARRY and actually scored 3 times. Suddenly defenses had to focus on him as a RECEIVING THREAT.  That changed everything.  Rodgers found a groove, no longer could defenses play back and wait for Lacy take take a day and a half to get to a hole, or take forever to get outside.   

If Montgomery can pull this off, what can a dynamic back with some speed and running back experience do??   You can jump up and down all you want about Lacy hurdling defenders.  This offenses loses a lot of potency when he is in there.  Montgomery proved it, and IMO we dont make the playoffs had Lacy been healthy.  We were 3-2 when he played. 

I'd sign Lacy to a small incentive based contract as insurance.  He's too one dimensional, and certainly isn't the back he was 2-3 years ago.  And of all Lacys 20 yard runs how many of those would have been taken to the house by a faster back??  We can do better, a lot better.         

Except that's not how or why our offense turned their season around.  In week 17, our offense continued to dominate yet Rip lead all backs in snaps, carries and yards.  Our offense turned it around because we ditched the iso routes, started playing Jordy in the slot more and the return of Cook.  Our offense played well regardless of who was in the backfield in the second half of the year (Adams, Cobb, Rip, Monty, Michael).

Our inability to run the ball is a reason we got humiliated in the NFC Championship game.  Had we been able to extend drives and not had to throw on 3rd and shorts maybe we don't get laughed off the field.  Atlanta could pin their ears back and bring the heat because they didn't have to respect a running game.  Had we had Lacy, maybe its a game as we didnt' have an offense capable of taking advantage of their biggest weakness without him.  Monty did well in spots but its pretty clear he's not a NFL RB who's going to run the ball 20 times a game.

You "expect" 4 catches a game?  I don't think you understand how ridiculous that is.  2 RBS in the NFL last year put up those sort of receptions.  Adrian Peterson , one of the best RBs ever to play the game has half that number of receptions a game.  Jamal Charles, one of the best receiving backs in the NFL isn't anywhere close to that number.  I think its ridiculous to say that our offense needs a HOF caliber RB to preform at a  high level. 

We might be able to do better than Lacy but there is a great chance we could do substantially worse.  What happens if we draft an Alex Green or Brandon Jackson with the expectation that its easy to find a David Johnson or Leveon Bell caliber RB?  Its crazy that your expectation is for a back to be substantially better than Zeke Elliott.

First of all, everyone and their mother knows that Peterson is not a receiving back. Peterson isn't a HOF rb because he can catch... Not even close. And I wouldn't put James White, who is right around that average, in a HOF category either. I don't think it's ridiculous for the Packers to throw to a WR that changed positions to RB 4-5 times a game. That is a huge strength and advantage the Packers possess and need to make it more of a focal point in the offense.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: SSG on February 22, 2017, 12:00:45 PM


First of all, everyone and their mother knows that Peterson is not a receiving back. Peterson isn't a HOF rb because he can catch... Not even close. And I wouldn't put James White, who is right around that average, in a HOF category either. I don't think it's ridiculous for the Packers to throw to a WR that changed positions to RB 4-5 times a game. That is a huge strength and advantage the Packers possess and need to make it more of a focal point in the offense.

Of course I wouldn't put James White into that category.  He's almost worthless when being asked to run the ball and is nothing more than a 3rd down back.  WHite's never had more than 30 yards rushing in a game in his entire NFL career muchless showed what it takes to be a featured back.  Are you really going to completely ignore White's rushing ability  to lump him into David Johnson and Leveon Bell's group?
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: OnaBadger58 on February 22, 2017, 12:34:38 PM


First of all, everyone and their mother knows that Peterson is not a receiving back. Peterson isn't a HOF rb because he can catch... Not even close. And I wouldn't put James White, who is right around that average, in a HOF category either. I don't think it's ridiculous for the Packers to throw to a WR that changed positions to RB 4-5 times a game. That is a huge strength and advantage the Packers possess and need to make it more of a focal point in the offense.

Of course I wouldn't put James White into that category.  He's almost worthless when being asked to run the ball and is nothing more than a 3rd down back.  WHite's never had more than 30 yards rushing in a game in his entire NFL career muchless showed what it takes to be a featured back.  Are you really going to completely ignore White's rushing ability  to lump him into David Johnson and Leveon Bell's group?

The assumption that I'm putting White in the same category as Leveon or Johnson is almost crazier than if you get 4 catches a game from the rb position, you're a HOF rb. So no, I'm not grouping white with those two.

What I am saying is if Monty is our main rb, it's not ridiculous tho think he can have a 60 reception season. Does it happen often, no. Do WRs move to RB often, no. Do teams have QBs they can plug in with the talent of Rodgers, no. In fact, for our offense to run at its highest potential, that should happen.  Having Monty put stress on lbs and ss will only open up the field for Jordy and crew.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: The GM on February 22, 2017, 04:05:16 PM
[
What I am saying is if Monty is our main rb, it's not ridiculous tho think he can have a 60 reception season. Does it happen often, no. Do WRs move to RB often, no. Do teams have QBs they can plug in with the talent of Rodgers, no. In fact, for our offense to run at its highest potential, that should happen.  Having Monty put stress on lbs and ss will only open up the field for Jordy and crew.

Bingo!!! 
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: dannobanano on February 22, 2017, 05:18:02 PM
[
What I am saying is if Monty is our main rb, it's not ridiculous tho think he can have a 60 reception season. Does it happen often, no. Do WRs move to RB often, no. Do teams have QBs they can plug in with the talent of Rodgers, no. In fact, for our offense to run at its highest potential, that should happen.  Having Monty put stress on lbs and ss will only open up the field for Jordy and crew.

Bingo!!!

So would a great receiving RB like McCaffrey or Kamara. (hint-hint..........the draft is coming Ted!)
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: craig on February 22, 2017, 06:06:33 PM
[
What I am saying is if Monty is our main rb, it's not ridiculous tho think he can have a 60 reception season. Does it happen often, no. Do WRs move to RB often, no. Do teams have QBs they can plug in with the talent of Rodgers, no. In fact, for our offense to run at its highest potential, that should happen.  Having Monty put stress on lbs and ss will only open up the field for Jordy and crew.

Bingo!!!

Bingo agreed.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: Hands on February 23, 2017, 07:53:20 AM
It seems that Green Bay has a another TY Monty on the roster in Antwan Goodley. He had that WR, put him in the backfield, position at Baylor and was very effective. It doesn't discount the issues of another RB that can take 15carries/game.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: dannobanano on February 23, 2017, 08:00:40 AM
It seems that Green Bay has a another TY Monty on the roster in Antwan Goodley. He had that WR, put him in the backfield, position at Baylor and was very effective. It doesn't discount the issues of another RB that can take 15carries/game.

Might want to draft a "pounder" like Connor or Hood with a 5th/6th round pick then, rather than spend $3-5M on a 1 yr prove it with Lacy.
 twocents)
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: SSG on February 23, 2017, 09:27:10 AM


First of all, everyone and their mother knows that Peterson is not a receiving back. Peterson isn't a HOF rb because he can catch... Not even close. And I wouldn't put James White, who is right around that average, in a HOF category either. I don't think it's ridiculous for the Packers to throw to a WR that changed positions to RB 4-5 times a game. That is a huge strength and advantage the Packers possess and need to make it more of a focal point in the offense.

Of course I wouldn't put James White into that category.  He's almost worthless when being asked to run the ball and is nothing more than a 3rd down back.  WHite's never had more than 30 yards rushing in a game in his entire NFL career muchless showed what it takes to be a featured back.  Are you really going to completely ignore White's rushing ability  to lump him into David Johnson and Leveon Bell's group?

The assumption that I'm putting White in the same category as Leveon or Johnson is almost crazier than if you get 4 catches a game from the rb position, you're a HOF rb. So no, I'm not grouping white with those two.

What I am saying is if Monty is our main rb, it's not ridiculous tho think he can have a 60 reception season. Does it happen often, no. Do WRs move to RB often, no. Do teams have QBs they can plug in with the talent of Rodgers, no. In fact, for our offense to run at its highest potential, that should happen.  Having Monty put stress on lbs and ss will only open up the field for Jordy and crew.

No where did I say a 4 catch per game RB was HOFer or elite.  1000+ plus rushers that also catch the ball 4 times a game are hard to find.  A great receiver like Jamal Charles has substantially less catches per game.  Are we really "expecting" a better runner and receiver than one of the league's elite backs?  The OP didn't use James White as an example, he used David Johnson.  James White is not a featured, NFL starting RB. 

I don't think having Monty as a starting RB is going to be enough (JMO).  He's not a RB who's going to be able to manage 20 carries a game, a number he's never even come close to.  He's got just one game with over 12 carries.  You are right.  Putting a body in the backfield that is almost useless as a runner but catches over 60 balls in season isn't hard.  Those type of players fall off trees and those aren't the type of backs the OP was talking about. 

Its funny, because the offense was every bit as potent and put every bit the amount of stress on LBs with Rip leading the backfield in carries, snaps and yards.  The offense played perfectly well against Atlanta, a game in which Rip didn't even play in.  The idea that he's the only reason for the turn around on offense is false IMO. 
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: scoremore on February 28, 2017, 10:22:49 AM
Lacy says Packers vocal about wanting him back.  Not surprised.  Sportrak says his value is at around 2.8 mil/yr which sounds exactly right to me.  I
 would have no problem bringing him back at that number.  Ideally would like them to get him under contract for 3 years.  See how it shakes out but that earlier report of Vet minimum plus incentives is way off....
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: golfman on February 28, 2017, 04:17:56 PM
I hope Lacy is allowed to walk.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: pacman5252 on February 28, 2017, 06:32:44 PM
I'd like to have Lacy back (lower risk deal of course). Our running game was solid with him early last year and terrible until we found a small spark with a WR playing RB. The guy when healthy is a solid back. The best we've had since Green.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: Hands on March 01, 2017, 07:06:35 AM
The surgery that Lacy had didn't sound that minor to me. He could be slow/delayed in playing for a few weeks. It might be enough to chase away perspective teams, but also want to know if he is limited next year. Of course....he may be fine and starts the season on a tear. I'm not a doctor and slept at home verses at a Holiday Inn Express so what do I know.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: scoremore on March 01, 2017, 07:38:59 AM
That's very true hands.  Sounded like major ankle surgery involving screws and plates.  He might not come back the same.  If this is the case it sucks but will have to take a pass.  The ankle is a major concern...
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: JQ on March 01, 2017, 09:49:55 AM
That's very true hands. Sounded like major ankle surgery involving screws and plates. He might not come back the same.  If this is the case it sucks but will have to take a pass.  The ankle is a major concern...

Score, where did you see that information? I’m curious about the source(s). That seems odd for an ankle sprain.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: cpk1994 on March 01, 2017, 10:02:15 AM
That's very true hands. Sounded like major ankle surgery involving screws and plates. He might not come back the same.  If this is the case it sucks but will have to take a pass.  The ankle is a major concern...

Score, where did you see that information? I’m curious about the source(s). That seems odd for an ankle sprain.
Said it in an interview with Adam Schefter:

http://www.jsonline.com/story/sports/nfl/packers/2017/02/28/rehabbing-eddie-lacy-has-plenty-prove/98525688/ (http://www.jsonline.com/story/sports/nfl/packers/2017/02/28/rehabbing-eddie-lacy-has-plenty-prove/98525688/)

Quote
Lacy’s attempt to rehabilitate his career in a contract year ended after five games when the Packers placed him on injured reserve with an ankle injury. In an interview aired Tuesday with ESPN’s Adam Schefter, Lacy said his season-ending surgery was to insert two screws, two wires and a plate in his ankle, where he “messed up my deltoid (ligament) and widened the bone.”
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: JQ on March 01, 2017, 10:20:57 AM
That's very true hands. Sounded like major ankle surgery involving screws and plates. He might not come back the same.  If this is the case it sucks but will have to take a pass.  The ankle is a major concern...

Score, where did you see that information? I’m curious about the source(s). That seems odd for an ankle sprain.
Said it in an interview with Adam Schefter:

http://www.jsonline.com/story/sports/nfl/packers/2017/02/28/rehabbing-eddie-lacy-has-plenty-prove/98525688/ (http://www.jsonline.com/story/sports/nfl/packers/2017/02/28/rehabbing-eddie-lacy-has-plenty-prove/98525688/)

Quote
Lacy’s attempt to rehabilitate his career in a contract year ended after five games when the Packers placed him on injured reserve with an ankle injury. In an interview aired Tuesday with ESPN’s Adam Schefter, Lacy said his season-ending surgery was to insert two screws, two wires and a plate in his ankle, where he “messed up my deltoid (ligament) and widened the bone.”

Ah, thanks cpk, for the link.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: ThatGuy284 on March 01, 2017, 10:59:45 AM
Also had the toe fusion in college which caused at least a couple teams to take him off their board (or at least significantly lower his standing in the draft).  Longevity was always going to be a concern with Lacy even before weight issues and this recent ankle problem.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: craig on March 01, 2017, 11:17:26 AM
Quote
Lacy’s attempt to rehabilitate his career in a contract year ended after five games when the Packers placed him on injured reserve with an ankle injury. In an interview aired Tuesday with ESPN’s Adam Schefter, Lacy said his season-ending surgery was to insert two screws, two wires and a plate in his ankle, where he “messed up my deltoid (ligament) and widened the bone.”

Thanks, hadn't seen that.  I wonder how much playing him for so much of 2015 on bad ankle aggravates that. 

Seems fairly easy.  Sign him.  Include some incentives.  Use one of your 5th round picks on a new back.  Teach Montgomery to block.  See how it goes.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: dannobanano on March 01, 2017, 12:04:25 PM
Screws
Plates
Wires


The more I think about this, the more I think GB should pass on Eddie and draft a bigger sized RB (Mixon, Perine, Conner, Hood), and then bring in an udfa or two. With it being a deep draft at RB, you have to think that RB's will go undrafted this  who would normally have been drafted.

Just say'in.  twocents)
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: Hands on March 01, 2017, 01:37:06 PM
I just read that the Detroit GM was sad that Mixon wasn't admitted to the Combine. He also stated that Mixon was still on their draft board. Hearing that I wonder how many GMs feel the same way and will grab Mixon as soon as he falls far enough to say " he's a first round talent and has been punished enough".
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: craig on March 01, 2017, 02:18:10 PM
..The more I think about this, the more I think GB should pass on Eddie and draft a bigger sized RB ...

I sometimes wonder how it would work if the Packers drafted for quickness/speed, even if size was average instead of big?  I recall thinking it was fun (well, kind of non-fun when it was happening against us) to watch the Atlanta backs, and how quickly they could stop and go and leave our big guys off balance. 

Don't imagine TT or MM are interested in speed/quickness back there, but I've sometimes wondered if it might not have some value in the Rodgers offense. 
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: dannobanano on March 01, 2017, 03:45:05 PM
..The more I think about this, the more I think GB should pass on Eddie and draft a bigger sized RB ...

I sometimes wonder how it would work if the Packers drafted for quickness/speed, even if size was average instead of big?  I recall thinking it was fun (well, kind of non-fun when it was happening against us) to watch the Atlanta backs, and how quickly they could stop and go and leave our big guys off balance. 

Don't imagine TT or MM are interested in speed/quickness back there, but I've sometimes wondered if it might not have some value in the Rodgers offense.

Kinda thought Monty brought that to the table.

Plus, you could bring in a late round/udfa RB that fits that description, couldn't you?
(Elijah Davis, Stanley Williams, Shock Linwood, Darius Victor...........to name a few)
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: Big Lou on March 09, 2017, 02:28:11 PM
Per numerous reports, Lacy is set to visit Seattle, Minnesota, and Green Bay.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: LMG on March 09, 2017, 02:30:02 PM
Per numerous reports, Lacy is set to visit Seattle, Minnesota, and Green Bay.


And the 'reports' are from where?


Links??
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: maxman44 on March 09, 2017, 02:32:14 PM
I read it 10 times on Twitter......

http://www.espn.com/espn/now?nowId=21-0631614871720433778-4
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: craig on March 09, 2017, 02:45:56 PM
For Lacy's sake, not sure he really wants to run behind Minne's o-line?  Or Seattle's either, for that matter? 

Packers line isn't very strong and can't push much for short-yardage.  But not sure Vikes or Seattle would be any better for him? 
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: The GM on March 09, 2017, 03:41:32 PM
May the city with the best restaurants win.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: Gregg on March 09, 2017, 04:39:56 PM
Whenever a player leaves town the odds multiply that he may be gone.

It means he was not satisfied with what his home team offered, therefore it gives his agent a base line to negotiate from.

Second, it also gives the other team a chance to wine and  dine him.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: ThatGuy284 on March 09, 2017, 04:57:12 PM

Second, it also gives the other team a chance to wine and  dine him.

That may effectively double the cost of acquiring him.   I think dining Lacy may be the reason the Pack needs to keep issuing new stock
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: Gregg on March 09, 2017, 05:00:59 PM
Is Seattle a good restaurant town?

Must be for seafood right?
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: ThatGuy284 on March 09, 2017, 05:19:08 PM
It's the pre-meal activities in Seattle that drive up the quantities of food eaten -munchies and otherwise - not necessarily the quality.



Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: LMG on March 09, 2017, 07:01:47 PM
I like Lacy and hope he gets his act together.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: JQ on March 09, 2017, 07:50:48 PM
Per numerous reports, Lacy is set to visit Seattle, Minnesota, and Green Bay.


And the 'reports' are from where?


Links??


http://www.dailynorseman.com/2017/3/9/14875758/vikings-free-agency-eddie-lacy-to-visit (http://www.dailynorseman.com/2017/3/9/14875758/vikings-free-agency-eddie-lacy-to-visit)

http://seahawkswire.usatoday.com/2017/03/09/seattle-seahawks-expected-to-meet-with-running-backs-latavius-murray-eddie-lacy-and-jamaal-charles/ (http://seahawkswire.usatoday.com/2017/03/09/seattle-seahawks-expected-to-meet-with-running-backs-latavius-murray-eddie-lacy-and-jamaal-charles/)

I’d be most disappointed to see Lacy go to either of these teams. Read an article stating TJ Lang also visiting seattle...
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: Toddfather on March 09, 2017, 08:10:34 PM
Lacy got his act together and until his season ended averaged 5.0 yards a carry.. so if we have lacy/monty/cobb/draft pick/rip and then cook to open the back field for safeties, and Aaron's wildest dreams it's an amazing thought. We really should sign Lacy. Watch his ESPN special where he lived in a trailer after Katrina. This guy understands motivation and heart. I hope we get him.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: Leader on March 10, 2017, 10:55:50 AM
Rob Demovsky Retweeted
Luke Rodgers‏Verified account @thelukerodgers 2m2 minutes ago

The Seahawks will have FA RB Latavius Murray in today and Eddie Lacy in tomorrow.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: craig on March 10, 2017, 06:22:53 PM
Rob Demovsky Retweeted
Luke Rodgers‏Verified account @thelukerodgers 2m2 minutes ago

The Seahawks will have FA RB Latavius Murray in today and Eddie Lacy in tomorrow.

What if we let the Seahwaks sign Lacy, and then we sign Murray and Lang? 
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: SSG on March 10, 2017, 06:25:56 PM
Rob Demovsky Retweeted
Luke Rodgers‏Verified account @thelukerodgers 2m2 minutes ago

The Seahawks will have FA RB Latavius Murray in today and Eddie Lacy in tomorrow.

What if we let the Seahwaks sign Lacy, and then we sign Murray and Lang?

Not sure I want Murray.  He was far from impressive last year and he ran behind one of the NFL's best run blocking lines.  If he can't run behind them, there is little to no chance he'll have success in Green Bay where we struggle mightily blocking for the run. 

I wish his production was better because he's one of the best athletes in the NFL at his position.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: golfman on March 10, 2017, 06:31:06 PM
I wish someone would sign Lacy to a big deal. He's going to get this contract and blow up to 275. He doesn't love the game and just wants that one big pay day.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: Leader on March 11, 2017, 07:58:21 AM
An interesting fact that was outside my perspective on things.....

Janet Bainbridge‏ @jpbain2 @jasonjwilde
But he's always injured

Jason Wilde‏Verified account @jasonjwilde 11m11 minutes ago
Jason Wilde Retweeted Janet Bainbridge

Kind of a misconception about Lacy. Before this season, he played in 49 of 51 possible games (including playoffs). And played when hurt.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: cheech on March 11, 2017, 08:05:18 AM
His weight is more of a concern to me than his injuries. 
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: dannobanano on March 11, 2017, 08:14:06 AM
His weight is more of a concern to me than his injuries.

This last injury bothers me.

He spread the deltoid in his ankle. He's held together with screws/plates/wires at the moment.

What role will his weight play in that becoming a chronic issue?
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: Big Lou on March 11, 2017, 08:59:04 AM
His weight is more of a concern to me than his injuries.

His weight is not a concern to me, but his conditioning is. Even though he essentially gained most of the weight back by the start of the season, his conditioning was much better in '16 than it was the year before. He was averaging 5.1 YPC and likely would have had a 1,000 yard season if not for the untimely ankle injury.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: dannobanano on March 11, 2017, 11:06:59 AM
His weight is more of a concern to me than his injuries.

His weight is not a concern to me, but his conditioning is. Even though he essentially gained most of the weight back by the start of the season, his conditioning was much better in '16 than it was the year before. He was averaging 5.1 YPC and likely would have had a 1,000 yard season if not for the untimely ankle injury.

Your body weight puts a lot of added pressure in knee/ankle joints. Given his "ankle history" with GB, his weight will continue to concern me.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: The GM on March 11, 2017, 11:43:32 AM
Lacy leaving Seattle, and visits Minnnesota today, and Green Bay on Monday.  My take of Lacys "visit" to GB if he makes it, will be a free ride on a scale, and a low, incentive based deal offer. JMO.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: JQ on March 11, 2017, 11:49:43 AM
I think Lacy is committed to playing football, but I agree that he needs to remain diligent in his efforts to stay in shape and keep his weight under control.

To me, that’s why it makes perfect sense for any contract the Packers offer to be incentive-heavy, and including weight and conditioning clauses. I think Eddie Lacy is a good football player, and he is an asset to the squad. I hope the Green Bay High Command finds a way to keep him under contract.

I continue to remain baffled at the vitriol some posters direct toward this young man. He’s done nothing to deserve it, in my opinion. He lost his focus a couple seasons back; he was 24-25 years old, for crying out loud! Speaking for myself, I accumulated more than a few bumps and bashes when I was in my mid 20s. He was, and still is a kid, and mistakes have been made. It cost him, back then, and is probably costing him some money now. Hopefully he’s learned some Life Lessons.

But he hasn’t broken any laws, he hasn’t been a pain in the a$$ for the Packer coaching staff, and by all accounts I’ve seen, he’s a very likable young guy.  OK, I’ve expressed my opinion, and I’ll give it rest.  ( - ; #
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: Toddfather on March 11, 2017, 12:35:45 PM
I still think he ends up back here. They like him, and he was having a good start of the year. I think Eddie wants to be back here too. No proof, just a cut feeling.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: The GM on March 11, 2017, 12:41:43 PM
I still think he ends up back here. They like him, and he was having a good start of the year. I think Eddie wants to be back here too. No proof, just a cut feeling.

Agree.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: Leader on March 11, 2017, 03:58:01 PM
I still think he ends up back here. They like him, and he was having a good start of the year. I think Eddie wants to be back here too. No proof, just a cut feeling.

Agree.

I'm starting to wonder. What with FA outlays already - the need to resign some of our own still (Lang/DJones?) - and potential (although I'm thinking it less likely by the moment....) of bringing Barwain over - I'm wondering if a RB in the draft is becoming more likely.

And just to break character completely - if thats the case, I say get this guy Mixon. (Is that how you spell it? LOL) A problem child but a killer on the football field (from what I hear.....) - and cheap.


Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: ricky on March 11, 2017, 04:10:34 PM
And just to break character completely - if thats the case, I say get this guy Mixon. (Is that how you spell it? LOL) A problem child but a killer on the football field (from what I hear.....) - and cheap.

Yes, it's Mixon (thankfully his middle name isn't Spiro). and yes, there would be a lot of heat for signing this guy after that vicious video. But he never claimed "I am not a crook", nor did he hide from the incident. Is this a pattern or an aberration? That is the question. If the latter, then by all means, he would be a great value in the third or later.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: Leader on March 11, 2017, 04:33:06 PM
And just to break character completely - if thats the case, I say get this guy Mixon. (Is that how you spell it? LOL) A problem child but a killer on the football field (from what I hear.....) - and cheap.

Yes, it's Mixon (thankfully his middle name isn't Spiro). and yes, there would be a lot of heat for signing this guy after that vicious video. But he never claimed "I am not a crook", nor did he hide from the incident. Is this a pattern or an aberration? That is the question. If the latter, then by all means, he would be a great value in the third or later.


Would he last until the 3rd? I've not checked any of the RB listings and have a few "names" in my head that will probably be gone early. If this guy hadnt hit this woman where would be be ranked?

Listen - I'm not zoned in on the guy. Know next to nothing about him - but I've grown a bit tired of "waiting" for "our guy" to drop to us - or passing on talented but "troubled" talent that prove to be difference makers in the NFL - and in context to Lacy's current situation, I'm wondering if we're gonna pass on him to draft somebody.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: The GM on March 11, 2017, 04:47:56 PM
Take look at RB Joe Williams, Utah, he quit football once and came back, big guy, who fits the criteria of a typical TT running back.  The Ryan Grant/Starks type.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: dannobanano on March 11, 2017, 04:56:44 PM
And just to break character completely - if thats the case, I say get this guy Mixon. (Is that how you spell it? LOL) A problem child but a killer on the football field (from what I hear.....) - and cheap.

Yes, it's Mixon (thankfully his middle name isn't Spiro). and yes, there would be a lot of heat for signing this guy after that vicious video. But he never claimed "I am not a crook", nor did he hide from the incident. Is this a pattern or an aberration? That is the question. If the latter, then by all means, he would be a great value in the third or later.


Would he last until the 3rd? I've not checked any of the RB listings and have a few "names" in my head that will probably be gone early. If this guy hadnt hit this woman where would be be ranked?

Listen - I'm not zoned in on the guy. Know next to nothing about him - but I've grown a bit tired of "waiting" for "our guy" to drop to us - or passing on talented but "troubled" talent that prove to be difference makers in the NFL - and in context to Lacy's current situation, I'm wondering if we're gonna pass on him to draft somebody.

Mixon might have been the 3rd runningback off the board after Fournette and Cook............yes he's that good.

He won't make it out of the 2nd round, so nobody get their hopes up.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: The GM on March 12, 2017, 12:51:56 PM
Lacy might be headed to the Vikings.  Stay tuned.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: Lodestar on March 12, 2017, 12:57:39 PM
Lacy might be headed to the Vikings.  Stay tuned.

Yeah, I saw on Reddit that he's unfollowed the Packers on Instagram and begun following the Vikings.

Gonna suck to see him in purple, if that's indeed the case. Sitton to Bears, Lacy to Vikings, Lang to Lions... why, guys, why???
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: dannobanano on March 12, 2017, 12:58:19 PM
Lacy might be headed to the Vikings.  Stay tuned.

Good!

Maybe another comp pick!

I wonder how that ankle will hold up on indoor turf?
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: The GM on March 12, 2017, 01:41:40 PM
Lacy is expected to visit the Packers on Monday.  This was the plan before he visited Seattle and Minn.  Ive heard the Packers have a low offer on the table. Dont know what it is, or what he was offered from Sea or Minn.  This very well could be TTs stay or go decision  for Lacy on Monday or even sooner.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: Striker on March 12, 2017, 01:50:46 PM
Hope Lacy knows the beating he's in for behind that Minnesota line if he indeed signs there.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: The GM on March 12, 2017, 02:00:19 PM
Hope Lacy knows the beating he's in for behind that Minnesota line if he indeed signs there.

Agree, but not knowing the offers it may be the best deal for him. 
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: golfman on March 12, 2017, 02:01:35 PM
Hope Lacy knows the beating he's in for behind that Minnesota line if he indeed signs there.

Agree, but not knowing the offers it may be the best deal for him.

First thing he's going to do after he signs is start eating. He's getting this payday and football will be even less important to him.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: SSG on March 12, 2017, 02:12:11 PM
Hope Lacy knows the beating he's in for behind that Minnesota line if he indeed signs there.

Agree, but not knowing the offers it may be the best deal for him.

First thing he's going to do after he signs is start eating. He's getting this payday and football will be even less important to him.

This is such an utterly ridiculous thing to say.  Its as if your hatred for this dude didn't allow you to watch one single snap last season. We get it.... You don't like lacy.  You think he is fat, slow and lazy despite how he played last year before the injury.  The idea that Eddie Lacy is going to eat himself out of the NFL after a modest contract is ridiculous.

People must have forgotten that Nick Perry had to sign a 1 year deal for 1.5 million guaranteed because of a terrible contract year.  He didn't quit after achieving substantially less in his first contract, I don't expect Lacy too. 
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: golfman on March 12, 2017, 02:14:56 PM
Get back to me in 2 years with your vitriol. Then let's see where Lacy.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: SSG on March 12, 2017, 02:19:03 PM
Get back to me in 2 years with your vitriol. Then let's see where Lacy.

Why?  You are clearly going to ignore anything that doesn't meet your agenda.  The fact that you can ignore 100% of the 2016 season says it all.  Not going to waste my time telling you are wrong because you are going to see exactly what you want to see regardless of what does or doesn't occur on the field.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: Leader on March 12, 2017, 02:32:54 PM
Lacy might be headed to the Vikings.  Stay tuned.

Yeah, I saw on Reddit that he's unfollowed the Packers on Instagram and begun following the Vikings.

Gonna suck to see him in purple, if that's indeed the case. Sitton to Bears, Lacy to Vikings, Lang to Lions... why, guys, why???

Because they couldnt tolerate a future that didnt include playing @ Lambeau? This social media thing's interesting. Last I heard Lang had picked up SEA on Twitter. Didnt seem to have a bearing....or perhaps it did. Maybe he got clued in to the SEA fan base and ditched them for DET. Not working with much...but trying to put some pieces together  :)

Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: BTIdaho on March 12, 2017, 02:40:11 PM
 What concerns me the most about Lacy is the status of his ankle. Being in the medical field, and a physical therapist, I've seen deltoid ligament injuries before. It is not particularly common  and can be very debilitating for non-athletes. It is a broad and expansive ligament compared to the outside of the ankle. Of the 10 or 12 patients that I've seen, most are happy to walk without a limp much less play professional sports. Of course, I'm comparing apples to oranges here but it has to be a huge concern for the Packers' medical staff.   
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: maxman44 on March 12, 2017, 03:21:27 PM
Quote
Rob Demovsky‏Verified account @RobDemovsky 27s27 seconds ago

Rob Demovsky Retweeted Minnesota Vikings

Supposed to head to Green Bay next. Presumably that's just a medical check.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: The GM on March 12, 2017, 04:11:25 PM
Lacy might be headed to the Vikings.  Stay tuned.

Yeah, I saw on Reddit that he's unfollowed the Packers on Instagram and begun following the Vikings.


Lang did much of the same with the Seahawks.  Probably just a negotiating ploy.  IMO TT is going to offer him what hes worth to the Packers, take it or leave it.  After the ankle gets checked out tomorrow.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: PackerJoe on March 12, 2017, 04:48:45 PM
TT sign Lacey and Micheal and let's move on with the three guys we got!  Close this story, much like we did with the TE's!!!
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: scoremore on March 12, 2017, 05:14:38 PM
After reading up on that ankle not such an easy decision.  He might not come back the same guy. 
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: The GM on March 12, 2017, 05:35:25 PM
After reading up on that ankle not such an easy decision.  He might not come back the same guy.

I think they'll be cautious with their offer.  As I said before I'd  only sign him as insurance in case you cant find somebody in the draft.  If the ankle works out, great, draft somebody to push him. With Montgomery back there, Lacys playing time and carries will likely decrease a little, maybe a lot. JMO
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: cpk1994 on March 12, 2017, 07:28:21 PM
After reading up on that ankle not such an easy decision.  He might not come back the same guy.

I think they'll be cautious with their offer.  As I said before I'd  only sign him as insurance in case you cant find somebody in the draft.  If the ankle works out, great, draft somebody to push him. With Montgomery back there, Lacys playing time and carries will likely decrease a little, maybe a lot. JMO
They need a hell of a lot more than Montgomery. He is not an every down back.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: dannobanano on March 12, 2017, 07:35:21 PM
interesting!

There's a ton of free agent RB's but almost no takers on the lot!
Only two have been signed since the start of free agency.
What does that mean?

http://overthecap.com/free-agency (http://overthecap.com/free-agency)
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: heikks86 on March 12, 2017, 07:51:52 PM
interesting!

There's a ton of free agent RB's but almost no takers on the lot!
Only two have been signed since the start of free agency.
What does that mean?

http://overthecap.com/free-agency (http://overthecap.com/free-agency)

That's pretty crazy all those running backs who have had decent careers, and the only two to sign are Danny woodhead and George Winn.

Seems like teams are either content with what they have, or waiting to see what they can get in the draft before they delve into free agency
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: The GM on March 12, 2017, 09:08:12 PM
After reading up on that ankle not such an easy decision.  He might not come back the same guy.

I think they'll be cautious with their offer.  As I said before I'd  only sign him as insurance in case you cant find somebody in the draft.  If the ankle works out, great, draft somebody to push him. With Montgomery back there, Lacys playing time and carries will likely decrease a little, maybe a lot. JMO
They need a hell of a lot more than Montgomery. He is not an every down back.
No, but Lacys carries will likely be smaller with Montgomery emerging.  Montgomerys skillset is going to cut into Lacys playing time.  Not saying either one will be the feature back, but the days of Lacy being a 3 down back are over at least in GB.  You'll see much more RBBC with Lacy and Montgomery depending on game situations.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: Pugger on March 12, 2017, 09:24:01 PM
TT sign Lacey and Micheal and let's move on with the three guys we got!  Close this story, much like we did with the TE's!!!

I'm all for Lacy on a one year "prove it" deal but not Micheal - I don't think Christine has to worry about his MENSA dues.   ;)    Instead I'd draft a RB next month after the 2nd round.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: ricky on March 13, 2017, 03:27:49 AM
interesting!

There's a ton of free agent RB's but almost no takers on the lot!
Only two have been signed since the start of free agency.
What does that mean?

http://overthecap.com/free-agency (http://overthecap.com/free-agency)

That teams are looking at Elliott and going, why not us? Why sign someone like Peterson or Charles for big bucks and injury histories just because they're "names"? Lacy? He is apparently still an unknown to other teams. Some good years, valuable when healthy, but injury questions and possible motivation problems. So, what's the hurry? Sit back, let the market develop, build up your line (which a fair number of teams seem to be doing), and draft a decent prospect to carry the ball. Four years at a reasonable price to see what you have. Doesn't work out? Rinse and repeat.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: Big Lou on March 13, 2017, 10:20:42 AM
interesting!

There's a ton of free agent RB's but almost no takers on the lot!
Only two have been signed since the start of free agency.
What does that mean?

http://overthecap.com/free-agency (http://overthecap.com/free-agency)

That's pretty crazy all those running backs who have had decent careers, and the only two to sign are Danny woodhead and George Winn.

Seems like teams are either content with what they have, or waiting to see what they can get in the draft before they delve into free agency

So, you're telling me that the Buffalo Bills signed as many Fullbacks on day one of free agency than the number of RB's signed in total so far?   ;D
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: Tony on March 13, 2017, 01:08:02 PM
Lacy has "unfollowed" the Packers on Instagram and started following the Vikings.  Not trying to look too much into this, but my first reaction is why would he do this right before meeting with the Packers?  Not a smart or professional negotiation tactic in my opinion.

http://www.12up.com/posts/4713845-packers-fans-are-freaking-out-over-eddie-lacy-s-latest-social-media-move?a_aid=40396
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: LMG on March 13, 2017, 02:03:32 PM
Old news posted yesterday Tony but thanks.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: The GM on March 13, 2017, 02:19:46 PM
Lacy has "unfollowed" the Packers on Instagram and started following the Vikings.  Not trying to look too much into this, but my first reaction is why would he do this right before meeting with the Packers?  Not a smart or professional negotiation tactic in my opinion.

http://www.12up.com/posts/4713845-packers-fans-are-freaking-out-over-eddie-lacy-s-latest-social-media-move?a_aid=40396

Negotiating tactic, nothing more.  Lang did the same thing with Seattle.  TT doesn't play that.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: heikks86 on March 13, 2017, 03:01:13 PM
Lacy has "unfollowed" the Packers on Instagram and started following the Vikings.  Not trying to look too much into this, but my first reaction is why would he do this right before meeting with the Packers?  Not a smart or professional negotiation tactic in my opinion.

http://www.12up.com/posts/4713845-packers-fans-are-freaking-out-over-eddie-lacy-s-latest-social-media-move?a_aid=40396

Negotiating tactic, nothing more.  Lang did the same thing with Seattle.  TT doesn't play that.

That might work when a teenage girl does it to a teenage boy, but I doubt an NFL team pays attention to it
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: dannobanano on March 13, 2017, 03:46:03 PM
Does Ted even use Instgram?

 ;D 8)
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: bbayley on March 13, 2017, 04:37:19 PM
Does Ted even use Instgram?

 ;D 8)

Think he's probably working on his MyFace of FaceGram profile with Belichick
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: Striker on March 14, 2017, 09:13:10 AM
Lacy to Seahawks:

Ian Rapoport‏Verified account @RapSheet  2m2 minutes ago
 Per @_SportsTrust, RB Eddie Lacy has agreed to terms with the #Seahawks. They answer their RB question
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: Striker on March 14, 2017, 09:14:32 AM
Adam Schefter‏Verified account @AdamSchefter  27s28 seconds ago
 Eddie Lacy's deal in Seattle: 1 year, $5.55M with $3M fully guaranteed, per source.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: Lodestar on March 14, 2017, 09:17:47 AM
Noooooooo Eddie nooooooooooooooooooooo  :'(
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: Leader on March 14, 2017, 09:18:45 AM
Okay. That ends that mystery.
Gotta move on with a "playmaker".
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: scoremore on March 14, 2017, 09:20:53 AM
A little high they must think his ankle will hold up.  More than I would have paid.  It's a risky signing IMO.  We'll have to find a RB in the draft.  Not that upset with the loss of Lacy.  He's a beast when healthy though.  Should be interesting to see how he performs this year.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: Tony on March 14, 2017, 09:33:31 AM
Ugh, I'm going to miss him bashing up the field, dragging two or three guys with him.  Man, if he could've just stayed healthy, I believe he could've been really special here in Titletown.  Have to admit I have a knot in my stomach about this one, but I trust we'll find a great back in this deep draft this year.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: cpk1994 on March 14, 2017, 09:35:04 AM
A little high they must think his ankle will hold up.  More than I would have paid.  It's a risky signing IMO.  We'll have to find a RB in the draft.  Not that upset with the loss of Lacy.  He's a beast when healthy though.  Should be interesting to see how he performs this year.
It's one year. There is no risk at all. They are out 5 million max if it doesn't work out.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: WTX_Cheese on March 14, 2017, 09:38:10 AM
I understand moving on from him as he could never stay healthy, but I do love his running style! Bummer.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: Lodestar on March 14, 2017, 09:41:50 AM
One of my favourite players. Very sad to see him go. Even worse having to root against him now.  :-[
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: Lodestar on March 14, 2017, 09:42:45 AM
On the plus side, we are going to have so many draft picks next year.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: Leader on March 14, 2017, 09:51:38 AM
Tell the truth.....I'm not entirely busted up that Lacy's moved on. SEA's not the destination I would have preferred - but as the Stones said: you cant always get what you want. I definitely liked him as a player/person - but had read one too many posts by Danno to conclude anything other than he was held together by spit, glue and baling wire. Bringing him back would have crossed this "need" off my list somewhat - but not entirely as I'm unsure if he could have stayed the distance.

Best we get a fresh / healthy guy in there to carry the load with #88.

Perhaps we can use this cash to land another *dynamic* / make a difference player??
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: Big Lou on March 14, 2017, 09:55:49 AM
I have a very sad 5 year old boy at home (Lacy was his favorite player).  I'm holding out hope that they will sign Latavius Murray (another big back but with some wheels).  He just turned 27, and would be a good complement to Montgomery.  I really don't like going into the draft with our RB depth chart looking like we HAVE to draft 2 RB's.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: wonderfulwilly on March 14, 2017, 10:02:23 AM
I have a very sad 5 year old boy at home (Lacy was his favorite player).  I'm holding out hope that they will sign Latavius Murray (another big back but with some wheels).  He just turned 27, and would be a good complement to Montgomery.  I really don't like going into the draft with our RB depth chart looking like we HAVE to draft 2 RB's.

I would be shocked if TT doesn't bring in someone veteran at RB. Veteran RBs can be had so cheaply, and there is definitely money to spend. You can't go in to the draft forced to take a RB early. I think TT learned his lesson with Brandon Jackson. At least I hope he learned his lesson.

We can all now officially start talking about AP and Jamal Charles. Any reason to think these guys can hold up and provide at least a glimmer of their prime years?
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: WTX_Cheese on March 14, 2017, 10:06:44 AM
I'd be surprised if TT brought in a FA RB. Most of the guys left are worn out (AP, Charles) or ineffective like Murray. (He had a lot of short TD's, but only had 2 100 yard games)
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: Striker on March 14, 2017, 10:09:22 AM
Packers News‏Verified account @PGPackersNews  9m9 minutes ago More
 Eddie Lacy weighed in at 267 for one team this week, according to @BobMcGinn. That's just above Nick Perry's listed weight.

Welp.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: Leader on March 14, 2017, 10:09:55 AM
I'd stay away from AP. Too much serious downtime IMO and I've lost touch with Charles since the knee injury. Dont have any kinda feel what he brought last year - even why he went out. He was a special player though...at one time.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: maxman44 on March 14, 2017, 10:15:15 AM
Lacy gone

https://www.profootballrumors.com/2017/03/seahawks-to-sign-rb-eddie-lacy
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: SSG on March 14, 2017, 10:16:11 AM
He'll fit in great in Seattle.  He's a lot like Lynch in the sense that he's a tackle breaking machine that is among the very best in the NFL in getting yards after contact. 


Yet another blow to our team in what has been an absolutely disastrous off season. 
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: Gregg on March 14, 2017, 10:18:07 AM
So we now have only Michel and Montgomery I think as potential starters.

I would seriously think of drafting two RB's on the theory we would hit one for sure

Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: craig on March 14, 2017, 10:18:19 AM
1.  Disappointed, sad to see him go.  As a fan, I invest a lot of time and interest and affection for a nice, fun, guy.  Sad to say goodbye. 

2.  Seems like a pretty strong offer from seattle.  I didn't expect he'd get $3 gauranteed or $5.5.  Can't blame Packers for thinking they could get him for less. 

3.  Between improved health, free agency, draft, and development, not sure how much Seattle will improve their line.  But if their line stays anywhere close to as poor as it was last year, Eddie might end up with no more or no bigger holes than he had to work with in Green Bay. 

4.  Pete Carrol is a smart and creative coach.  Will be interesting to see whether Lacy gets used very differently there than he did for us.  Will he receive as few passing targets for them as for us? 

5.  I'd assume the Packers will sign some other FA back to help fill the roster.  Hopefully the guy will work, and perhaps will add some new opportunities that Lacy didn't.  (Better outside speed would be nice; better pass-catching aptitude would be nice.) 

6.  I'd like to sign some stop-gap roster-fill guy rather than depend on the draft.  Maybe a 5th-round back will be immediately starter-ready, but I don't think you should assume/depend on that.  And I certainly don't want to be "need-driven" so that they have to burn an early pick on a back.  If a superb back whom they love is sitting there as great value in an early round, I've got no problem with doing a great-value pick.  But I sure don't want to force it, and make a need-based RB pick, when perhaps there's a good CB or OLB or ILB or OG that you'd have to pass up in order to take the need-pick RB. 

7.  I'm really pretty optimistic about Montgomery, myself. 
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: wonderfulwilly on March 14, 2017, 10:19:53 AM
He'll fit in great in Seattle.  He's a lot like Lynch in the sense that he's a tackle breaking machine that is among the very best in the NFL in getting yards after contact. 


Yet another blow to our team in what has been an absolutely disastrous off season.

Lol. Disastrous? Really? Who have we lost that can't be capably replaced? TT is sitting on some money right now, we aren't done shopping either.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: Lodestar on March 14, 2017, 10:21:10 AM
Maybe a dumb question, but on a one-year contract how meaningful is the guaranteed portion? Specifically for a guy like Lacy who is unlikely to be cut in TC.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: Leader on March 14, 2017, 10:21:48 AM
He'll fit in great in Seattle.  He's a lot like Lynch in the sense that he's a tackle breaking machine that is among the very best in the NFL in getting yards after contact. Yet another blow to our team in what has been an absolutely disastrous off season. 

I think we're witnessing a retooling.
JC - decent player and good fill in across the OL - but he's not shown he can play half a season w/o getting hurt.
TJ - a player (no challenge there) - but he's got some serious injury issues.
Eddy - a player - but can you be comfortable going forward he'd be there to carry the load? 

I think we're cutting bait with the "question marks" - which, if solid talent evaluations are made will be better for the club going forward.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: iarwain on March 14, 2017, 10:31:40 AM
I think we're cutting bait with the "question marks" - which, if solid talent evaluations are made will be better for the club going forward.
Makes sense, and if so it demonstrates a fresh approach to addressing the somewhat baffling injury problem that the team faces so often.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: Waynorth on March 14, 2017, 10:40:38 AM
Packers News‏Verified account @PGPackersNews  9m9 minutes ago More
 Eddie Lacy weighed in at 267 for one team this week, according to @BobMcGinn. That's just above Nick Perry's listed weight.

Welp.


     If true, I'm glad he got away. Even with an injury a little motivation could have prevented this. Is football a priority for him?He leaves plenty of room for doubt. He's not  that great when he's over 240.  If the Seahawks didn't include weight incentives in his contract they are delusional.

With that said, he sure was fun to watch when he was at his best, and I wish him well in his career.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: craig on March 14, 2017, 10:42:13 AM
If so, that might also correlate with an even further-reduced interest in resigning Datone. 
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: MTPackerFan on March 14, 2017, 10:47:28 AM
If so, that might also correlate with an even further-reduced interest in resigning Datone.

I really hope we re-sign Jones. He's actually pretty good.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: JQ on March 14, 2017, 10:48:25 AM
On the plus side, we are going to have so many draft picks next year.

You’re assuming the Packers will receive a comp pick for him. That’s not necessarily a given.

I too am bummed about this, ESPECIALLY since he goes to the seagulls.   
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: cpk1994 on March 14, 2017, 10:55:05 AM
Yet another blow to our team in what has been an absolutely disastrous off season.
Beyond ludicrous. Lacy is overweight and has injury issues. Lang is a guard and guard is the easiest position to replace. Perry was resigned retaining a chunbk of the their pass rush and they signed 2 good TE's.  Nowhere close to disastrous.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: Toddfather on March 14, 2017, 10:56:34 AM
Really wanted him back. I hope we add someone else before the draft.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: Lodestar on March 14, 2017, 10:58:59 AM
On the plus side, we are going to have so many draft picks next year.

You’re assuming the Packers will receive a comp pick for him. That’s not necessarily a given.

I too am bummed about this, ESPECIALLY since he goes to the seagulls.

At $5.5M I think it's almost a given.

Right now, if Peppers qualifies, we're sitting at 4 picks. Peppers may get washed out, but there's still Cook left to gol
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: SSGCujo on March 14, 2017, 10:59:20 AM
 RBs don't last long in the NFL, especially ones that are overweight and run hard. Lacy is a good back, not great. He's been hurt the last two years. Him getting a one year deal explains his worth, SHOW me you can play at weight and not get hurt. TT will draft two RBs now.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: The GM on March 14, 2017, 11:17:16 AM
Packers News‏Verified account @PGPackersNews  9m9 minutes ago More
 Eddie Lacy weighed in at 267 for one team this week, according to @BobMcGinn. That's just above Nick Perry's listed weight.

Welp.

As Ive said before, too fat and too slow. Clearly he wasnt committed to football and ate his way out of GB.  Good for Thompson for moving on.  Perhaps a change of scenery will do Lacy good.  Seattle has great nutritionalist and chef that does well with their players.  That will help, but its on him to make it happen. 
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: marklawrence on March 14, 2017, 11:23:15 AM
I was not ever a big fan of bringing Lacy back. It's not just money; I think people here undervalue the 53 available roster spots. I would have been ok with bringing Lacy back for maybe like $2.5m, but even then that's one young RB we can't carry on the roster. If the hags want him for $5.5m, well, happy trails. I predict:

1. He'll start strong, we'll hear a lot of whining here about how we coulda been a contender.

2. He'll get hurt a bit, but play through it at a decreased effectiveness.

3. The combination of weight, running style, history of injury, and build up of new injuries, especially running into the DLs of the NFC west, will mean he's all but completely ineffective by mid November.

4. Assuming the Seahawks make the playoffs, Lacy will be either benched, IRed, or all but completely ineffective.

5. By December Christian Michael will be outplaying Lacy.

That's my predictions and I'm sticking by them.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: JQ on March 14, 2017, 11:27:29 AM
On the plus side, we are going to have so many draft picks next year.

You’re assuming the Packers will receive a comp pick for him. That’s not necessarily a given.

I too am bummed about this, ESPECIALLY since he goes to the seagulls.

At $5.5M I think it's almost a given.

Right now, if Peppers qualifies, we're sitting at 4 picks. Peppers may get washed out, but there's still Cook left to gol

You may be right, and I obviously hope you are!
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: iarwain on March 14, 2017, 11:34:46 AM
Yeah, I'm cool with this.  I think his weight problems were a bigger issue than some might like to admit.  I'm not convinced he was truly dedicated to the NFL. 
My guess is TT drafts a RB high.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: maxman44 on March 14, 2017, 11:38:14 AM
He's proven to me by weighing in at 267 that he does not have the level of dedication to his profession that it takes to be successful

Plenty of FA options out there and a good draft class
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: JPPlaya on March 14, 2017, 11:41:15 AM
267 lbs

No need to discuss further. I have no interest in re-signing a 267 lb Eddie Lacy. The free agent market and draft is flooded with RBs that are more committed to their craft than that.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: scoremore on March 14, 2017, 11:46:28 AM
Not to mention coming off of a shredded ankle.  Think it was wise to take a pass.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: SSG on March 14, 2017, 11:47:35 AM
He'll fit in great in Seattle.  He's a lot like Lynch in the sense that he's a tackle breaking machine that is among the very best in the NFL in getting yards after contact. 


Yet another blow to our team in what has been an absolutely disastrous off season.

Lol. Disastrous? Really? Who have we lost that can't be capably replaced? TT is sitting on some money right now, we aren't done shopping either.

I think its an acceptable term to describe this off season given what we've gained and what we've lost.  Upgrading the TE position was nice but our offensive line, defensive front and secondary all took pretty major blows this off season.  Do we have replacements on the roster for Peppers, Hyde or Lang, I don't believe we do.  While JP was older. he was second on the team in sacks and pressures last year.  Hyde wasn't a star but he was our most consistent CB down the stretch.

Outside of upgrading the TE position (Bennett being a slight upgrade over Cook and Kendricks being a big upgrade over Rogers) , I don't see another resounding positive event that has occurred this off season.  yeah we extended Perry  but we extended him at the very top end of the market despite the lack of production over his career (he had 12.5 career sacks before this year) and MAJOR injury concerns (he's suffered debilitating injuries in every year of his career, never having played a full season).  Right now we're without 3 opening day starters on offense and 2 major contributors on defense.  Hopefully you are right and we aren't done this UFA period.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: IBV on March 14, 2017, 11:51:08 AM
Teddy will find a RB to replace Lacy in the middle rounds  , deep draft class this year.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: JPPlaya on March 14, 2017, 11:51:57 AM
Are we all 100% sure that Lacy wasnt signed to play O-line for Seattle? :o
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: Redt on March 14, 2017, 12:04:31 PM
TT will low ball, and Schneider will swoop in and grab him, mark my words. For the record, I think he is worth keeping.

Seattle has 2 backs in Prosise and Rawls that offer more than Lacy.  Not to mention Alex Collins.  They have no need. 

Lacy at 2m would be a good deal for both parties.
TT didn't apparently low ball, but I was fairly confident Seattle would love his services.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: MTPackerFan on March 14, 2017, 12:38:21 PM
He'll fit in great in Seattle.  He's a lot like Lynch in the sense that he's a tackle breaking machine that is among the very best in the NFL in getting yards after contact. 


Yet another blow to our team in what has been an absolutely disastrous off season.

Lol. Disastrous? Really? Who have we lost that can't be capably replaced? TT is sitting on some money right now, we aren't done shopping either.

I think its an acceptable term to describe this off season given what we've gained and what we've lost.  Upgrading the TE position was nice but our offensive line, defensive front and secondary all took pretty major blows this off season.  Do we have replacements on the roster for Peppers, Hyde or Lang, I don't believe we do.  While JP was older. he was second on the team in sacks and pressures last year.  Hyde wasn't a star but he was our most consistent CB down the stretch.

Outside of upgrading the TE position (Bennett being a slight upgrade over Cook and Kendricks being a big upgrade over Rogers) , I don't see another resounding positive event that has occurred this off season.  yeah we extended Perry  but we extended him at the very top end of the market despite the lack of production over his career (he had 12.5 career sacks before this year) and MAJOR injury concerns (he's suffered debilitating injuries in every year of his career, never having played a full season).  Right now we're without 3 opening day starters on offense and 2 major contributors on defense.  Hopefully you are right and we aren't done this UFA period.


Lets see...we signed the best TE on the market. That's pretty good. Calling Bennett a slight upgrade over Cook is ludicrous btw. Cook has been a journeyman TE his entire career, except for a several game stretch with GB. Bennett has been a very good TE for years. Has better hands, is a better blocker, is a better route runner, and is better after the catch.

We also signed a top notch backup TE. We haven't had one of those in a while. Huge for the offense.

We signed the top edge rusher on the market. We also got a pretty good deal for him. Was it as good as what we could have gotten had we extended him earlier? No, it is not. But still, this is a win.

We signed a CB who will be our #1, who has played here before and is familiar with our system, and a guy who only two years ago had an excellent year. While he is not as good as Hyde, he is more valuable due to the position he plays. If we can start House and Gunter, and move Randall to NB, we'll be better off than we were last year. That's called improvement, and that's a good thing.

We lost an overweight RB who can't stay healthy, although he is talented. I'm not too broke up over it.

We lost the top G on the market. I like Lang. I wish we could have kept Lang. Have to realize that G is one of the easier positions to replace, and it's simply not worth paying big money there unless a guy is young, healthy and elite. Lang is only one of those, and it's not sure how much longer he will be that.

We lost our 6th OL. Again, wish we could have kept Tretter, but we can't pay that much for a backup OL.

We lost a good DB. Wish we could have kept Hyde, but the Bills are paying him starting S money. Is he going to start at S for us? Certainly not. Can he play outside CB? Certainly not. So while good, you don't pay a NB as much as what the Bills are paying him to start. Hyde is good, but I would bet his value over replacement isn't going to be that high.

Disastrous off-season? Only if you're biased and don't want to admit that TT has done a pretty solid job so far.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: gbnd4life on March 14, 2017, 12:46:59 PM
I'm actually glad he's gone. Montgomery, Jackson and I believe Crocket is the only RB's we have left on the team. Christine Michael is not on the team. So I believe we will be draft heavy for RB in the draft unless we bring in a premier back in from FA and no not Peterson or Charles.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: gbnd4life on March 14, 2017, 12:53:16 PM
Ok just looked and crocket is also gone as well.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: gbnd4life on March 14, 2017, 01:01:09 PM
So Montgomery and Jackson is the only 2 RB's on our roster. We are in RB trouble lol. Wow!! Did TT clean house. How about Tim Hightower or bring back Dujuan Harris?
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: ThatGuy284 on March 14, 2017, 02:00:30 PM
Disastrous offseason?  That made my day... ;D


Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: golfman on March 14, 2017, 03:42:55 PM
Well since it's a one year deal Eddie may actually stay in shape for another year. I do not fear losing him as we're not a run first team. Seattle is the best landing spot for him since they are a run first team.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: SSG on March 14, 2017, 04:19:03 PM
Lets see...we signed the best TE on the market. That's pretty good. Calling Bennett a slight upgrade over Cook is ludicrous btw. Cook has been a journeyman TE his entire career, except for a several game stretch with GB. Bennett has been a very good TE for years. Has better hands, is a better blocker, is a better route runner, and is better after the catch.

We also signed a top notch backup TE. We haven't had one of those in a while. Huge for the offense.

We signed the top edge rusher on the market. We also got a pretty good deal for him. Was it as good as what we could have gotten had we extended him earlier? No, it is not. But still, this is a win.

We signed a CB who will be our #1, who has played here before and is familiar with our system, and a guy who only two years ago had an excellent year. While he is not as good as Hyde, he is more valuable due to the position he plays. If we can start House and Gunter, and move Randall to NB, we'll be better off than we were last year. That's called improvement, and that's a good thing.

We lost an overweight RB who can't stay healthy, although he is talented. I'm not too broke up over it.

We lost the top G on the market. I like Lang. I wish we could have kept Lang. Have to realize that G is one of the easier positions to replace, and it's simply not worth paying big money there unless a guy is young, healthy and elite. Lang is only one of those, and it's not sure how much longer he will be that.

We lost our 6th OL. Again, wish we could have kept Tretter, but we can't pay that much for a backup OL.

We lost a good DB. Wish we could have kept Hyde, but the Bills are paying him starting S money. Is he going to start at S for us? Certainly not. Can he play outside CB? Certainly not. So while good, you don't pay a NB as much as what the Bills are paying him to start. Hyde is good, but I would bet his value over replacement isn't going to be that high.

Disastrous off-season? Only if you're biased and don't want to admit that TT has done a pretty solid job so far.

We'll have to agree to disagree if you really think House is a #1 CB, that Nick Perry is an elite edge rusher and Cook is just a run of the mill journeyman TE.  Nick Perry had 12 career sacks before this last year and has never played a full year in the NFL.  Can Erik Walden now be considered an Elite player because he had 11 sacks in a contract year? Cook played as well as any TE down the stretch.  Him coming back healthy was the biggest reason our offense turned around the season.  Bennett isn't anymore athletic and IMO isn't going to provide much more as a receiver.

If you want to believe the offseason has been great, more power to you. 

With the loss of Peppers, Shields, Lacy, Jones, Hyde, Tretter and Lang we've got some substantial holes without players on our roster to fill them. Maybe one draft can fill all those holes AND fix the MAJOR issues we had on defense.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: Leader on March 14, 2017, 04:45:30 PM
Maybe one draft can fill all those holes AND fix the MAJOR issues we had on defense.

There ya go SSG! Ya finally said something with a positive spin to it!  :)
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: cpk1994 on March 14, 2017, 04:45:41 PM
  Bennett isn't anymore athletic and IMO isn't going to provide much more as a receiver.
Bennett was a key cog with he Patriots after Gronk went down and was a top 3 TE. He is a lot better than you are giving him credit for.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: cpk1994 on March 14, 2017, 04:47:24 PM
I'm actually glad he's gone. Montgomery, Jackson and I believe Crocket is the only RB's we have left on the team. Christine Michael is not on the team. So I believe we will be draft heavy for RB in the draft unless we bring in a premier back in from FA and no not Peterson or Charles.
Montgomery and Jackson re the only 2 on the roster right now. RB is a giant hole right now.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: SSG on March 14, 2017, 07:53:02 PM
Its crazy that so many Packers fans trash Lacy for being "fat" and then read Carroll's comments saying the bigger the better.  They want the violent runner who breaks tackles and gets yards after contact.  There aren't many RBs in the NFL better at that than Lacy.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: walker16 on March 14, 2017, 08:08:04 PM
Wish him the best. I sure TT had a price/price range... and it was exceeded.
Lacy, if he can stay healthy, will be a bruiser for them.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: golfman on March 14, 2017, 08:14:05 PM
Its crazy that so many Packers fans trash Lacy for being "fat" and then read Carroll's comments saying the bigger the better.  They want the violent runner who breaks tackles and gets yards after contact.  There aren't many RBs in the NFL better at that than Lacy.

No matter how I try and explain my position you'll dismiss it. We are a passing team first and foremost. We do our best running when it is somewhat by surprise. We do not possess the kind of offensive line to line up and pound the football. Should we try and become that it will fail. Just as it did in Eddy Lacy's 4 years here.

We have the most talented QB in the league, maybe EVER! We win games throwing the football. Seattle wins games running the football, read option and playing defense. Eddy Lacy fits them a lot better than us.

Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: Gregg on March 14, 2017, 08:22:54 PM
I thought we still had Christine Michael?
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: golfman on March 14, 2017, 08:49:36 PM
I thought we still had Christine Michael?

Unrestricted free agent.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: MTPackerFan on March 14, 2017, 10:29:56 PM
Lets see...we signed the best TE on the market. That's pretty good. Calling Bennett a slight upgrade over Cook is ludicrous btw. Cook has been a journeyman TE his entire career, except for a several game stretch with GB. Bennett has been a very good TE for years. Has better hands, is a better blocker, is a better route runner, and is better after the catch.

We also signed a top notch backup TE. We haven't had one of those in a while. Huge for the offense.

We signed the top edge rusher on the market. We also got a pretty good deal for him. Was it as good as what we could have gotten had we extended him earlier? No, it is not. But still, this is a win.

We signed a CB who will be our #1, who has played here before and is familiar with our system, and a guy who only two years ago had an excellent year. While he is not as good as Hyde, he is more valuable due to the position he plays. If we can start House and Gunter, and move Randall to NB, we'll be better off than we were last year. That's called improvement, and that's a good thing.

We lost an overweight RB who can't stay healthy, although he is talented. I'm not too broke up over it.

We lost the top G on the market. I like Lang. I wish we could have kept Lang. Have to realize that G is one of the easier positions to replace, and it's simply not worth paying big money there unless a guy is young, healthy and elite. Lang is only one of those, and it's not sure how much longer he will be that.

We lost our 6th OL. Again, wish we could have kept Tretter, but we can't pay that much for a backup OL.

We lost a good DB. Wish we could have kept Hyde, but the Bills are paying him starting S money. Is he going to start at S for us? Certainly not. Can he play outside CB? Certainly not. So while good, you don't pay a NB as much as what the Bills are paying him to start. Hyde is good, but I would bet his value over replacement isn't going to be that high.

Disastrous off-season? Only if you're biased and don't want to admit that TT has done a pretty solid job so far.

We'll have to agree to disagree if you really think House is a #1 CB, that Nick Perry is an elite edge rusher and Cook is just a run of the mill journeyman TE.  Nick Perry had 12 career sacks before this last year and has never played a full year in the NFL.  Can Erik Walden now be considered an Elite player because he had 11 sacks in a contract year? Cook played as well as any TE down the stretch.  Him coming back healthy was the biggest reason our offense turned around the season.  Bennett isn't anymore athletic and IMO isn't going to provide much more as a receiver.

If you want to believe the offseason has been great, more power to you. 

With the loss of Peppers, Shields, Lacy, Jones, Hyde, Tretter and Lang we've got some substantial holes without players on our roster to fill them. Maybe one draft can fill all those holes AND fix the MAJOR issues we had on defense.

Can you read? Did I call Perry elite? Did I say House was a #1 CB or did I say he would be OUR #1 CB? There is a difference.

If you can't see how Bennett is >> Cook, then there's nothin I can do for you hoss.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: The GM on March 15, 2017, 06:30:49 AM
Its crazy that so many Packers fans trash Lacy for being "fat" and then read Carroll's comments saying the bigger the better.  They want the violent runner who breaks tackles and gets yards after contact.  There aren't many RBs in the NFL better at that than Lacy.

Lacy was listed at 234 pounds last year.  Yeah right???  Carroll wants him at 240 and claimed he wants  him bigger than last year based on the 234 weight claim.   IMO Eddie Lacy never weighed  234 at any time during the NFL season last year.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: Pugger on March 15, 2017, 08:32:40 AM
Its crazy that so many Packers fans trash Lacy for being "fat" and then read Carroll's comments saying the bigger the better.  They want the violent runner who breaks tackles and gets yards after contact.  There aren't many RBs in the NFL better at that than Lacy.

I think he will be a better fit in Seattle than he was in GB.  His asthma won't be an issue because of the cold and their line is better at run blocking than ours is.  It is a good thing RB is one position where you can find one in the draft that can contribute immediately.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: maxman44 on March 15, 2017, 10:29:52 AM
Quote
Another day, another deal that was inaccurately pumped up and fed to a willing citizen soldier of #scooptown. Reported by ESPN as a one-year, $5.5 million deal with $3 million fully guaranteed, the contract signed by running back Eddie Lacy in Seattle is actually worth $4.25 million, with $2.865 million guaranteed

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/03/15/eddie-lacys-deal-4-25-million-with-incentives/
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: MTPackerFan on March 15, 2017, 11:14:47 AM
Its crazy that so many Packers fans trash Lacy for being "fat" and then read Carroll's comments saying the bigger the better.  They want the violent runner who breaks tackles and gets yards after contact.  There aren't many RBs in the NFL better at that than Lacy.

I think he will be a better fit in Seattle than he was in GB.  His asthma won't be an issue because of the cold and their line is better at run blocking than ours is.  It is a good thing RB is one position where you can find one in the draft that can contribute immediately.

If their line is better, it's not by much. We just have different philosophies when it comes to running the ball.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: Leader on March 15, 2017, 11:16:32 AM
Quote
Another day, another deal that was inaccurately pumped up and fed to a willing citizen soldier of #scooptown. Reported by ESPN as a one-year, $5.5 million deal with $3 million fully guaranteed, the contract signed by running back Eddie Lacy in Seattle is actually worth $4.25 million, with $2.865 million guaranteed

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/03/15/eddie-lacys-deal-4-25-million-with-incentives/ (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/03/15/eddie-lacys-deal-4-25-million-with-incentives/)

Lacy's like....

"No, no.....when we talked I said I'd trim down. I didnt mean the deal should be trimmed down!"  :)
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: Pugger on March 16, 2017, 07:10:32 AM
Its crazy that so many Packers fans trash Lacy for being "fat" and then read Carroll's comments saying the bigger the better.  They want the violent runner who breaks tackles and gets yards after contact.  There aren't many RBs in the NFL better at that than Lacy.

I think he will be a better fit in Seattle than he was in GB.  His asthma won't be an issue because of the cold and their line is better at run blocking than ours is.  It is a good thing RB is one position where you can find one in the draft that can contribute immediately.

If their line is better, it's not by much. We just have different philosophies when it comes to running the ball.

Perhaps "better" wasn't the right adjective.  Their line was pretty poor last year but their offensive philosophy is more run orientated than ours is so he might be happier up there.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: cpk1994 on March 16, 2017, 02:11:14 PM
Its crazy that so many Packers fans trash Lacy for being "fat" and then read Carroll's comments saying the bigger the better.  They want the violent runner who breaks tackles and gets yards after contact.  There aren't many RBs in the NFL better at that than Lacy.

No matter how I try and explain my position you'll dismiss it. We are a passing team first and foremost. We do our best running when it is somewhat by surprise. We do not possess the kind of offensive line to line up and pound the football. Should we try and become that it will fail. Just as it did in Eddy Lacy's 4 years here.

We have the most talented QB in the league, maybe EVER! We win games throwing the football. Seattle wins games running the football, read option and playing defense. Eddy Lacy fits them a lot better than us.
We haven't won a Suepr Bowl since 2010. Lack of a running game is a big reason why.  RIght now they have zero running game. Montgomery isn't goung to cut it and rtelying on a rookke is foolish. YOu seem to have forgotten how this offense has struggled without a threat at running back.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: maxman44 on March 16, 2017, 02:23:58 PM
The off season has just begun

R-E-L-A-X
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: golfman on March 16, 2017, 05:36:40 PM
cheech just posted in another thread, Lacy or should I say Tony Horton, is weighing in at a svelte 267 pounds right now.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: LMG on March 16, 2017, 05:45:59 PM
cheech's post was in the wrong Form...it has been modifiedd.


He can repost if he likes here in the Lacy thread.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: dannobanano on March 16, 2017, 06:10:58 PM
Its crazy that so many Packers fans trash Lacy for being "fat" and then read Carroll's comments saying the bigger the better.  They want the violent runner who breaks tackles and gets yards after contact.  There aren't many RBs in the NFL better at that than Lacy.

No matter how I try and explain my position you'll dismiss it. We are a passing team first and foremost. We do our best running when it is somewhat by surprise. We do not possess the kind of offensive line to line up and pound the football. Should we try and become that it will fail. Just as it did in Eddy Lacy's 4 years here.

We have the most talented QB in the league, maybe EVER! We win games throwing the football. Seattle wins games running the football, read option and playing defense. Eddy Lacy fits them a lot better than us.
We haven't won a Suepr Bowl since 2010. Lack of a running game is a big reason why.  RIght now they have zero running game. Montgomery isn't goung to cut it and rtelying on a rookke is foolish. YOu seem to have forgotten how this offense has struggled without a threat at running back.

Didn't Lacy have a couple of good years as a rookie and a 2nd year player?

I think a rookie (if it's the right "make" of runner) paired with Monty would be effective enough to make this offense work just fine.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: cheech on March 16, 2017, 06:14:39 PM
267 RB with a bad ankle injury for 5 million or a rookie with fewer miles and making 1/10th of that?  Give me the rookie, provided he's good enough to be drafted. 
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: Kepler on March 16, 2017, 06:36:52 PM
267 RB with a bad ankle injury for 5 million or a rookie with fewer miles and making 1/10th of that?  Give me the rookie, provided he's good enough to be drafted.

 thumbsup)
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: ricky on March 17, 2017, 04:40:56 AM
267 RB with a bad ankle injury for 5 million or a rookie with fewer miles and making 1/10th of that?  Give me the rookie, provided he's good enough to be drafted.

Well, maybe Schneider and the Seahawks are just stupid. After all, they just signed an overweight RB who had a serious ankle injury last year. And, according to some, badly overpaid him. Obviously, they've made a terrible decision. Or have they?

Isn't it possible the Seahawks knew what Lacy weighed- in March? And thought it was at least possible he could lose enough weight and, more importantly, get into better shape in the next few months? And isn't it also possible they looked into his injury very, very carefully? And decided he was worth the risk despite those factors?

Recall a couple of things. First, at around 240 pounds last year, he was a terror as a RB before initially injuring his ankle. And, second, even at the time, there were some on the board who were highly critical of the Packers forcing Lacy back onto the field too early after his initial ankle injury. Cook was given weeks to recover; Lacy, less than a week. And he played, got hurt worse, and ended up on IR.

It is probable that the Seahawks see Lacy as the next incarnation of Marshawn Lynch, that "beast mode" heavy hitting, punishing runner who can give their ground game a boost. We'll see what happens once the season begins. Maybe the Seahawks are totally wrong and we're totally correct. But, to my mind, to declare this a bad idea at this point is very preemptive.

Well, apparently the Seahawks are doing what they can to make sure Lacy is in playing shape. And, as usual, those initial reports of what a contract is worth are actually far different than what is actually guaranteed, Because anything other than guaranteed money is "monopoly money". Money that might be counted against the salary cap, but won't end up in the pockets of the players.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/03/17/eddie-lacy-has-seven-different-55000-weight-targets/

Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: golfman on March 17, 2017, 06:12:57 AM
Ricky,

All of those things are possible as you suggest. Shouldn't it be a warning sign to an organization when a RB, on his free agent tour, shows up 25+ pounds overweight? Especially when there has been reports of his weight issues in the past. His ankle maybe fine, but playing on turf will not help it one bit. I'll make a prediction! Eddy Lacy will not turn into a Marshawn Lynch. He doesn't love the game enough for that.

I don't wish Eddie Lacy ill will. His story is touching with what his family went through. I don't value the RB position in today's NFL the way it used to be. I also don't think he's the best fit for our offensive line. Put that money into extending guys who are up next year that make more sense.

Advante Adams
Ha Ha (although we probably exercise our 5th year option on him)
Burnett
Lane Taylor

IMO, that is money better spent.  twocents)
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: ricky on March 17, 2017, 04:05:54 PM
Ricky,

All of those things are possible as you suggest. Shouldn't it be a warning sign to an organization when a RB, on his free agent tour, shows up 25+ pounds overweight? Especially when there has been reports of his weight issues in the past. His ankle maybe fine, but playing on turf will not help it one bit. I'll make a prediction! Eddy Lacy will not turn into a Marshawn Lynch. He doesn't love the game enough for that.

golfman, the Seahawks knew everything you wrote. I addressed that in my post. They signed him anyway. How will he do? Quite frankly, we don't know. And I was simply projecting what the Seahawks hope he'll become, not predicting it as a probability. But Schneider is nobody's fool. Who knows? If he doesn't work out, they can always re-sign Christine Michael.  ;D
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: cpk1994 on March 17, 2017, 05:33:32 PM
Its crazy that so many Packers fans trash Lacy for being "fat" and then read Carroll's comments saying the bigger the better.  They want the violent runner who breaks tackles and gets yards after contact.  There aren't many RBs in the NFL better at that than Lacy.

No matter how I try and explain my position you'll dismiss it. We are a passing team first and foremost. We do our best running when it is somewhat by surprise. We do not possess the kind of offensive line to line up and pound the football. Should we try and become that it will fail. Just as it did in Eddy Lacy's 4 years here.

We have the most talented QB in the league, maybe EVER! We win games throwing the football. Seattle wins games running the football, read option and playing defense. Eddy Lacy fits them a lot better than us.
We haven't won a Suepr Bowl since 2010. Lack of a running game is a big reason why.  Right now they have zero running game. Montgomery isn't going to cut it and relying on a rookie is foolish.  seem to have forgotten how this offense has struggled without a threat at running back.

Didn't Lacy have a couple of good years as a rookie and a 2nd year player?

I think a rookie (if it's the right "make" of runner) paired with Monty would be effective enough to make this offense work just fine.
Yes, but for every Lacy, you have a Brandon Jackson/Alex Green who failed.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: Twain on March 26, 2017, 07:25:34 AM
I don't know where McGinn got his info on Lacy's weight, but just saw this video from him signing in Seattle:

http://www.fieldgulls.com/2017/3/16/14943472/eddie-lacy-sends-message-to-seahawks-fans

Doesn't look like 267 lbs to me.
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: claymaker on March 26, 2017, 08:54:34 AM
Ricky,

All of those things are possible as you suggest. Shouldn't it be a warning sign to an organization when a RB, on his free agent tour, shows up 25+ pounds overweight? Especially when there has been reports of his weight issues in the past. His ankle maybe fine, but playing on turf will not help it one bit. I'll make a prediction! Eddy Lacy will not turn into a Marshawn Lynch. He doesn't love the game enough for that.

I don't wish Eddie Lacy ill will. His story is touching with what his family went through. I don't value the RB position in today's NFL the way it used to be. I also don't think he's the best fit for our offensive line. Put that money into extending guys who are up next year that make more sense.

Advante Adams
Ha Ha (although we probably exercise our 5th year option on him)
Burnett
Lane Taylor

IMO, that is money better spent.  twocents)

Advante Adams... lol. clap)
Title: Re: Lacy
Post by: JQ on May 15, 2017, 08:46:12 PM
Lacy made hit his target at his first weigh-in:

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/19388895/eddie-lacy-seattle-seahawks-weighs-253-earns-hefty-55k-bonus (http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/19388895/eddie-lacy-seattle-seahawks-weighs-253-earns-hefty-55k-bonus)

Sounds like a pretty lax schedule for Eddies to earn some extra cash, but I guess it takes what it takes. Now that he plays for a rival, and since he now plays for the “regional team” in the Pacific Northwest, I’ll be watching to see if his commitment wanes as time goes on.

It will take a sustained commitment and hard work to keep that weight off, particularly for somebody that appears to have the metabolism and eating habits to pack on the pounds. Of course, the sea-slugs off-season nutritional program probably has regular doses of ‘roids, to help suppress the appetite. We shall see ...