PC Forums

General Category => NFL Talk => Free Agency => Topic started by: cheech on March 14, 2017, 04:48:50 PM

Title: Charles?
Post by: cheech on March 14, 2017, 04:48:50 PM
Lacy to Seattle.  Charles to GB?


 Just now on NFLN, @RapSheet said the Packers are a possible landing spot for Jamaal Charles.

I must say, it would be a great fit if he were healthy. 
Title: Re: Charles?
Post by: Leader on March 14, 2017, 04:50:46 PM
Lacy to Seattle.  Charles to GB?


 Just now on NFLN, @RapSheet said the Packers are a possible landing spot for Jamaal Charles.

I must say, it would be a great fit if he were healthy. 

Is he?
What'd he do year? He have another knee injury?
Title: Re: Charles?
Post by: maxman44 on March 14, 2017, 04:52:21 PM
If the number is right I'm game
Title: Re: Charles?
Post by: Twain on March 14, 2017, 04:52:45 PM
It is all about health with him at this point.
Title: Re: Charles?
Post by: Toddfather on March 14, 2017, 04:54:18 PM
I would love to have him if he was healthy.... oh, the screens... the screens! I say!
Title: Re: Charles?
Post by: Lodestar on March 14, 2017, 04:56:56 PM
At the right price, I'm all for bringing him in. But I don't want to guarantee him big money... and I suspect Ted does not either.
Title: Re: Charles?
Post by: SSG on March 14, 2017, 05:04:07 PM
I don't care about the number.  We have a plethora of cap space.  If he's healthy, he'd be a huge help.  We can't afford to go into the draft with more than a half dozen gaping holes and expect to fill all of them with just rookies and undrafted kids.  By signing a veteran starting RB it fills one of those holes and we aren't going to need a rookie to come in immediately as a difference maker.
Title: Re: Charles?
Post by: ThatGuy284 on March 14, 2017, 05:04:47 PM
Just to be contrarian - I hope he is deemed completely unhealthy (and not just knee wise - I'm talking crazy parasites passed on by nearly extinct Amazonian frogs sick) and he comes with an exhorbitant price tag (I'm talking Bob Barker punch you in the face "The price is wrong b@&"h!" type of contract.)
Title: Re: Charles?
Post by: Twain on March 14, 2017, 05:09:53 PM
After looking up his injury history of two ACL tears and then a meniscus last year, at 30 years old, I am skeptical about the health part.  A lot of mileage on those wheels.   Hard to believe he still has the burst of previous years.

I would almost rather that Ted do like he did with Lacy- draft a running back that can come in and end up offensive rookie of the year.

RB is a spot where rookies can come in and have impact right away.
Title: Re: Charles?
Post by: Leader on March 14, 2017, 05:18:01 PM
Hard to believe he still has the burst of previous years.

Thats the barometer. He was never a pounder. He was a slight / speed streak / slash and gone guy. He was something special. He WAS KC's offense. He'll never be a slower/pounder type. Wrong body type.

If that burst is there - and I've no clue if knee injuries necessarily take that away - and he's got knee strength back - sign him up.

Title: Re: Charles?
Post by: SSG on March 14, 2017, 05:33:48 PM
After looking up his injury history of two ACL tears and then a meniscus last year, at 30 years old, I am skeptical about the health part.  A lot of mileage on those wheels.   Hard to believe he still has the burst of previous years.

I would almost rather that Ted do like he did with Lacy- draft a running back that can come in and end up offensive rookie of the year.

RB is a spot where rookies can come in and have impact right away.

He's got the questionable injury history, but he actually doesn't have a ton of miles given his age.  He's got about 500 fewer touches than Le'Veon Bell (less than 2 seasons less) who's only 25.  Guys like Shady McCoy, AD, Beast Mode, Forte and Foster have or had a bunch more touches. 
Title: Re: Charles?
Post by: golfman on March 14, 2017, 06:03:54 PM
I'm just not sure you can count on getting anywhere near the guy you people remember with KC. The number of leg injuries he's had are bound to slow a guy, especially one over 30.
Title: Re: Charles?
Post by: craig on March 14, 2017, 06:15:33 PM
I'm just not sure you can count on getting anywhere near the guy you people remember with KC. The number of leg injuries he's had are bound to slow a guy, especially one over 30.

I wonder if that's necessarily the right question, though?

Maybe a different way to frame the questions would be,
*Might he be better than Don Jackson?
*Might he be enough better than Don Jackson that it would be worth the cost?

I have no idea. 
Title: Re: Charles?
Post by: golfman on March 14, 2017, 06:18:05 PM
I'm just not sure you can count on getting anywhere near the guy you people remember with KC. The number of leg injuries he's had are bound to slow a guy, especially one over 30.

I wonder if that's necessarily the right question, though?

Maybe a different way to frame the questions would be,
*Might he be better than Don Jackson?
*Might he be enough better than Don Jackson that it would be worth the cost?

I have no idea.

I think we're prepared to make Montgomery the Bell Cow. I also think we get one in the draft and Ripkowski may take over Kuhn's third down responsibilities because of his blocking. If I'm right (I know big stretch), what role would Charles play for us?
Title: Re: Charles?
Post by: craig on March 14, 2017, 06:45:12 PM
I think we should view free agency with the view of not needing to draft a RB before round 5. 

Don't decline a potential good guard, ILB, or OLB in order to take a running back because you desperately need one. 

If you're fine with Monty and a 5th rounder, fine. 

If you aren't, pick up a FA so that you aren't afraid of that.

I'll


Title: Re: Charles?
Post by: dannobanano on March 14, 2017, 06:47:54 PM
I'm just not sure you can count on getting anywhere near the guy you people remember with KC. The number of leg injuries he's had are bound to slow a guy, especially one over 30.

I wonder if that's necessarily the right question, though?

Maybe a different way to frame the questions would be,
*Might he be better than Don Jackson?
*Might he be enough better than Don Jackson that it would be worth the cost?

I have no idea.

Cost/risk/benefit...................As much as I like Charles, I have to say NO. censs2 NO!
Title: Re: Charles?
Post by: SSG on March 14, 2017, 07:10:19 PM
I'm just not sure you can count on getting anywhere near the guy you people remember with KC. The number of leg injuries he's had are bound to slow a guy, especially one over 30.

I wonder if that's necessarily the right question, though?

Maybe a different way to frame the questions would be,
*Might he be better than Don Jackson?
*Might he be enough better than Don Jackson that it would be worth the cost?

I have no idea.

I think we're prepared to make Montgomery the Bell Cow. I also think we get one in the draft and Ripkowski may take over Kuhn's third down responsibilities because of his blocking. If I'm right (I know big stretch), what role would Charles play for us?

He's not a bell cow though.  He's seen more than 12 carries just once last year.  He's a guy who we're lucky to get 10 quality carries out of in a game.  We run into the risk that he's not.  We are then a one dimensional offense and a bad Atlanta defense showed just how easy it is to slow our offense if we don't have the ability to run the ball.  He's basically a WR in the backfield that's much better at catching the ball than he is running. 

If Charles is healthy, he's shown that he's capable of being an elite 18-20 touch per game RB.  I don't think Monty has shown anywhere near that potential.  He was basically a 10 touch per game 3rd down back in the playoffs for us.  Monty was also absolutely horrid at blocking.  He was losing snaps last year at RB to Rip because of him being a huge liability in pass pro.
Title: Re: Charles?
Post by: Leader on March 14, 2017, 07:39:07 PM
He's not a bell cow though.  He's seen more than 12 carries just once last year.  He's a guy who we're lucky to get 10 quality carries out of in a game.  We run into the risk that he's not.  We are then a one dimensional offense and a bad Atlanta defense showed just how easy it is to slow our offense if we don't have the ability to run the ball.  He's basically a WR in the backfield that's much better at catching the ball than he is running. 

If Charles is healthy, he's shown that he's capable of being an elite 18-20 touch per game RB.  I don't think Monty has shown anywhere near that potential.  He was basically a 10 touch per game 3rd down back in the playoffs for us.  Monty was also absolutely horrid at blocking.  He was losing snaps last year at RB to Rip because of him being a huge liability in pass pro.

Agree with this. The only way #88's a good selection for our #1 RB is if we dont intend to run the ball very much - a concept thats not gonna get us to the promised land IMO.

I've no clue if JC's the answer either because of his health. Just spitballing there...but I want or think we need to bolster the running game (read: get one). 


Title: Re: Charles?
Post by: golfman on March 14, 2017, 08:00:03 PM
I'm just not sure you can count on getting anywhere near the guy you people remember with KC. The number of leg injuries he's had are bound to slow a guy, especially one over 30.

I wonder if that's necessarily the right question, though?

Maybe a different way to frame the questions would be,
*Might he be better than Don Jackson?
*Might he be enough better than Don Jackson that it would be worth the cost?

I have no idea.

I think we're prepared to make Montgomery the Bell Cow. I also think we get one in the draft and Ripkowski may take over Kuhn's third down responsibilities because of his blocking. If I'm right (I know big stretch), what role would Charles play for us?

He's not a bell cow though.  He's seen more than 12 carries just once last year.  He's a guy who we're lucky to get 10 quality carries out of in a game.  We run into the risk that he's not.  We are then a one dimensional offense and a bad Atlanta defense showed just how easy it is to slow our offense if we don't have the ability to run the ball.  He's basically a WR in the backfield that's much better at catching the ball than he is running. 

If Charles is healthy, he's shown that he's capable of being an elite 18-20 touch per game RB.  I don't think Monty has shown anywhere near that potential.  He was basically a 10 touch per game 3rd down back in the playoffs for us.  Monty was also absolutely horrid at blocking.  He was losing snaps last year at RB to Rip because of him being a huge liability in pass pro.

OK, Bell Cow was the wrong term to use for Montgomery. I'll cede that point.

Montgomery is going to be our #1 RB. News flash, we are not a running team. We need someone who can gain some yards and keep a defense honest. Monty with another guy can do that.

The best word you used in defense of Charles is "IF"! Given his recent injury history, age and wear and tear, I don't think it's an if, it is ALMOST a certainty he's not the 27 year old Charles you refer too. TT is 30 year-old adverse under most circumstances. He's almost 100% 30 year-old adverse whe it comes to RB's and for good reason. They risk seldom if ever outweighs the potential reward.
Title: Re: Charles?
Post by: ThatGuy284 on March 14, 2017, 08:27:55 PM
Lacy wasn't treated as a "bell-cow" back either -- not since 2013 at least, when Rodgers was hurt and we were picking fans out of the stands at random and making them play QB. 

In his 36 regular season games spanning the 2014, 2015 and 2016 seasons Lacy had:

12 carries or fewer 12 times
15 or more carries in a game 13 times 
18+ carries only 7 of those times
...and only 5 games of the last 36 regular season with at least 20 carries

If the team can find a 2nd complementary back, Monty has the ability to far exceed Lacy's reception totals and physically needs to hold up to realistically 10 carries a game - but can probably do much more.  People act like Monty is some "small" back and couldn't possibly hold up --- however, only 10 of the 33 RB's in this year's Combine weighed as much as Monty's 221lbs at his combine - and he's faster than all of them not named Fournette.  He's also built like a brick house - just solid muscle.

Devonta Freeman - not exactly a physical wunderkind - has played in 31 regular season games over the last 2 seasons and has logged 15+ carries 14 times and 20+ carries 9 times.  He's also logged significantly more receptions and total touches than Lacy over his 36 games played.
Title: Re: Charles?
Post by: The GM on March 14, 2017, 08:37:50 PM
I wanted the Packers to draft Charles when he came out in the draft.  Too many injuries and miles on him now, but he is the kind of dynamic back we should look at in the draft.
Title: Re: Charles?
Post by: Lodestar on March 14, 2017, 09:39:47 PM
Everyone remember Cedric Benson? Different situation, but TT has signed 30-year-old RBs before.

We don't need Charles to automatically take over as lead back, but if he comes at a reasonable price and can take some carries and provide depth, then why not?
Title: Re: Charles?
Post by: Pugger on March 14, 2017, 09:52:51 PM
I'm just not sure you can count on getting anywhere near the guy you people remember with KC. The number of leg injuries he's had are bound to slow a guy, especially one over 30.

I wonder if that's necessarily the right question, though?

Maybe a different way to frame the questions would be,
*Might he be better than Don Jackson?
*Might he be enough better than Don Jackson that it would be worth the cost?

I have no idea.

I think we're prepared to make Montgomery the Bell Cow. I also think we get one in the draft and Ripkowski may take over Kuhn's third down responsibilities because of his blocking. If I'm right (I know big stretch), what role would Charles play for us?

He's not a bell cow though.  He's seen more than 12 carries just once last year.  He's a guy who we're lucky to get 10 quality carries out of in a game.  We run into the risk that he's not.  We are then a one dimensional offense and a bad Atlanta defense showed just how easy it is to slow our offense if we don't have the ability to run the ball.  He's basically a WR in the backfield that's much better at catching the ball than he is running. 

If Charles is healthy, he's shown that he's capable of being an elite 18-20 touch per game RB.  I don't think Monty has shown anywhere near that potential.  He was basically a 10 touch per game 3rd down back in the playoffs for us.  Monty was also absolutely horrid at blocking.  He was losing snaps last year at RB to Rip because of him being a huge liability in pass pro.

We are a passing team so do we really need a bell cow?  I'd love to be a fly on the wall when/if he comes in for a visit.
Title: Re: Charles?
Post by: OneTwoSixFive on March 15, 2017, 05:59:55 AM
I think we should view free agency with the view of not needing to draft a RB before round 5. 

Don't decline a potential good guard, ILB, or OLB in order to take a running back because you desperately need one. 

If you're fine with Monty and a 5th rounder, fine. 

If you aren't, pick up a FA so that you aren't afraid of that.

I'd say the lessening need for TE, along with the loss of both Lacy and Starks, has now pushed RB acquisition up from the 5th to round 3. Round 5 is ok if you view Montgomery as a starter. I see him as a good backup, not the bell cow.
Title: Re: Charles?
Post by: craig on March 15, 2017, 06:55:33 AM
You can get a pretty good OG prospect in the 3rd round, perhaps a pretty interesting D-lineman or cornerback, certainly an interesting ILB. 

If there's a knockout running back who you really love, great.  But don't take one because of "need", at the expense of some better prospect at a harder-to-fill and more durable position. 

I'm probably just fine with Montgomery as #1, 5th rounder, and roster-filler guy.  I'm just saying that if management isn't, then they should sign somebody in free agency who they like well enough so that they don't feel they **NEED** a 3rd-round back, and are OK with waiting till 5th round.  How they view Montgomery pretty much should dictate how motivated they are to pick up an anti-awful FA back.     
Title: Re: Charles?
Post by: ThatGuy284 on March 15, 2017, 07:44:43 AM
I just keep hearing the term bell cow thrown around.  Only one poster has actually put a number to what he felt that meant - 18-20 touches per game.  However, the usage stats for Lacy over the last two seasons don't really bear out those numbers.    Bell cow just seems to be one of those buzz words thrown around but with no real meaning behind it or no real concept as to the number of touches our #1 vs #2 back actually receives.   Just seems like the right thing to say but I'm struggling to see the numbers to back it up.

In your mind does bell cow equate purely to size or actual usage?  Any care to define their use of bell cow?  Normally it's associated with heavy usage - put the offense on this guys back and let him carry us to victory ---  Ezekiel Elliott or LeVeon Bell or David Johnson are undeniably "bell cows", but Lacy's touch stats are less than smaller backs like McCoy, Freeman, Gordon, Doug Martin...   His per game number of carries over his 5 games in 2016 was 21st at 14.2 avg.  In 2015 he was 26th in rushing attempts per game at 12.5.  In 2014 he was 11th at 15.4.   That's only including rushing stats - if you include receiving touches as well his usage numbers plummet as he only had 24 receptions over the last two years combined.  The last time he could accurately be described as our bell cow was 2014 when he had 42 receptions as well as his 15.4 carries.

Lacy had 18+ carries in only 7 of his last 36 regular season games. 
 
Montgomery is big, strong and has some wiggle.  He's 220+ lbs and is solid muscle.  He's bigger than 23 of the 33 RB's at this years Combine yet I think people view him as a dainty little WR, "a bigger Cobb."  Montgomery's thighs are as big as Cobb's waist. Lacy gets touted by some posters for his 5.1 ypc in 2016 - yet Mongomery avg 5.9 ypc and had 97 more yards on only 6 more carries than Lacy, including 3 more TD's.   Montgomery has an entire offseason to prepare to be exclusively a RB - he didn't have that luxury last year.  He made the transition midway through the season with no offseason work or TC to prepare.  By all accounts Ty is a dedicated, intelligent, diligent worker.  He's going to have all offseason to re-make his body as needed for the rigors of the position and blocking techniques.





Title: Re: Charles?
Post by: craig on March 15, 2017, 08:16:38 AM
Nice post, guy. 
Title: Re: Charles?
Post by: Pugger on March 15, 2017, 08:48:26 AM
When you look at Ty's Combine highlights he has the build of a RB more than a WR.

http://www.packers.com/media-center/videos/Ty-Montgomery-2015-Combine-Workout/956f0862-2a3f-467d-acb9-5e807386e60d
Title: Re: Charles?
Post by: Lodestar on March 15, 2017, 09:15:14 AM
Montgomery is indeed big, fast, talented, and full of potential. In particular, he seems to have great vision running with the ball.

However, he is still extremely inexperienced as a running back, and therefore I think it behooves us to add another RB or two who can take some carries and/or be relied upon in case Ty goes down or can't carry a full load. Veteran, rookie, I don't care (as long as it's not Michael). Just give me a guy I can feel good about leaning on in case #88 doesn't make it through 16 games. Too many nightmares of seasons past when we had no one to carry the ball.
Title: Re: Charles?
Post by: cpk1994 on March 15, 2017, 09:25:55 AM
We are a passing team so do we really need a bell cow?  I'd love to be a fly on the wall when/if he comes in for a visit.
One dimensional teams do not win Super Bowls, so yes, they do need a bell cow. I mena how many Super Bowls have the won with no real running game? Zero, exactly. Montgomery as your lead RB = screwed.  It's gonna be 8 in coverage all game long. People are overrating Montgomery here.
Title: Re: Charles?
Post by: SSG on March 15, 2017, 09:34:01 AM
I didn't really say a "Bell Cow" was an 18-20 touch per game RB (or that lacy was in his last 2 injury/ issued filled years), I said that Jamal Charles has shown in his past that he is a capable of being an elite RB with 18-20 touches per game.  I'd imagine everyone has a different definition of what a bell cow is.  If it’s the Bell, Johnson, Elliott, or MCCoy type back, we're barking up the wrong tree IMO.  If it’s a 10-12 quality carry, 5 catch per game RB, maybe Monty can play that roll with some improvements.

We'll have too wait and see IMO.  Given what little promise he showed us in the playoffs, I have my doubt that it's going to be this easy for Monty.  The idea that any strong 220 LB WR can make the transition easy and seamless isn't something I agree with as I'm not sure any of us can name a recent player who went from star college WR to NFL RB with just a flip of the switch.

Right now, Monty is a guy who were are lucky to get 5 or 6 quality, consistent runs from a game.  Last year he lost a ton of snaps that he shouldn't have because he was a huge liability as a blocker.  IMO, I don't believe our offense is at its best when Rip is the only back in the backfield. 

He could turn into a #1 RB but if that doesn't happen our offense is going to suffer because of it.  I don't like taking the risk that we'd need to expect something great from a transition that has never happened in the modern NFL (or to my knowledge it hasn't). 
Title: Re: Charles?
Post by: dannobanano on March 15, 2017, 10:57:04 AM
I just keep hearing the term bell cow thrown around.  Only one poster has actually put a number to what he felt that meant - 18-20 touches per game.  However, the usage stats for Lacy over the last two seasons don't really bear out those numbers.    Bell cow just seems to be one of those buzz words thrown around but with no real meaning behind it or no real concept as to the number of touches our #1 vs #2 back actually receives.   Just seems like the right thing to say but I'm struggling to see the numbers to back it up.

In your mind does bell cow equate purely to size or actual usage?  Any care to define their use of bell cow?  Normally it's associated with heavy usage - put the offense on this guys back and let him carry us to victory ---  Ezekiel Elliott or LeVeon Bell or David Johnson are undeniably "bell cows", but Lacy's touch stats are less than smaller backs like McCoy, Freeman, Gordon, Doug Martin...   His per game number of carries over his 5 games in 2016 was 21st at 14.2 avg.  In 2015 he was 26th in rushing attempts per game at 12.5.  In 2014 he was 11th at 15.4.   That's only including rushing stats - if you include receiving touches as well his usage numbers plummet as he only had 24 receptions over the last two years combined.  The last time he could accurately be described as our bell cow was 2014 when he had 42 receptions as well as his 15.4 carries.

Lacy had 18+ carries in only 7 of his last 36 regular season games. 
 
Montgomery is big, strong and has some wiggle.  He's 220+ lbs and is solid muscle.  He's bigger than 23 of the 33 RB's at this years Combine yet I think people view him as a dainty little WR, "a bigger Cobb."  Montgomery's thighs are as big as Cobb's waist. Lacy gets touted by some posters for his 5.1 ypc in 2016 - yet Mongomery avg 5.9 ypc and had 97 more yards on only 6 more carries than Lacy, including 3 more TD's.   Montgomery has an entire offseason to prepare to be exclusively a RB - he didn't have that luxury last year.  He made the transition midway through the season with no offseason work or TC to prepare.  By all accounts Ty is a dedicated, intelligent, diligent worker.  He's going to have all offseason to re-make his body as needed for the rigors of the position and blocking techniques.

Montgomery is listed at Packers.com at 216 lbs.

Doesn't sound like much from your listing of 220+, but it could be a significant difference in the RB world.
Also, style of running makes a big difference in durability. Can the RB make people miss so as not to take too many direct hits? Or is their style a put your head down and pound type RB?

A lot of Monty's suspect durability is going to swirl around the speculation as to what MM is going to be asking of him in this offense.

If he's asked to run between the Tackle's quite a bit then I don't believe he will last that long and will be injured.

You can't ask Ripkowski to be the only one who runs between the Tackles...............it's just too telling to the defense as to what's coming.
Title: Re: Charles?
Post by: ThatGuy284 on March 15, 2017, 12:02:45 PM

In response to cpk
Blount had 11 carries for 31 yards in NE's Super Bowl victory.  But that was way back in Feb

This one dimensional team that is totally screwed went to the NFC Championship game after a long winning streak that included beating a number of top playoff seeds and a must win game on the road.  They beat the NYG and their hot defense at Lambeau and then beat the NFC's #1 seed on the road.   Apparently all done while facing 8 in the box because we didn't have a "bell cow?"   
Title: Re: Charles?
Post by: Leader on March 15, 2017, 06:17:04 PM
According to NFL.com, Mr. Charles is not what GB needs.....

Jamaal Charles, running back

It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that Charles has been forced to wait to find a serious suitor. He's scheduled to meet with the Seahawks even after the team signed Eddie Lacy, which sounds like a date Pete Carroll was too polite to cancel.

NFL Network's Mike Garafolo reported before free agency that Charles' primary objective was to sign with a Super Bowl contender. Two AFC teams come to mind. The Steelers extracted great value from DeAngelo Williams after he turned 30 and could use a backup to Le'Veon Bell. The Broncos have questions in the backfield because of injuries to C.J. Anderson and the shaky rookie season of Devontae Booker. Charles might have to rely on his vision and patience to wait out the right opportunity. Teams may not want to sign him until after seeing how April's draft, with its loaded class of running backs, pans out.

BEST FIT: Denver Broncos
Title: Re: Charles?
Post by: ThatGuy284 on March 15, 2017, 07:03:40 PM

We'll have too wait and see IMO.  Given what little promise he showed us in the playoffs, I have my doubt that it's going to be this easy for Monty.  The idea that any strong 220 LB WR can make the transition easy and seamless isn't something I agree with as I'm not sure any of us can name a recent player who went from star college WR to NFL RB with just a flip of the switch.

Right now, Monty is a guy who were are lucky to get 5 or 6 quality, consistent runs from a game.  Last year he lost a ton of snaps that he shouldn't have because he was a huge liability as a blocker.  IMO, I don't believe our offense is at its best when Rip is the only back in the backfield. 

He could turn into a #1 RB but if that doesn't happen our offense is going to suffer because of it.  I don't like taking the risk that we'd need to expect something great from a transition that has never happened in the modern NFL (or to my knowledge it hasn't).

Little promise in the Playoffs?   He did struggle against NYG strong run D but added to his 11 carries with 3 receptions for 41 yards.  The next week he had 11 carries for 47 yards (4.3 yd avg) and 2 TD's along with 6 receptions for 34 yards against Dallas, playing a very significant part in our upset of the NFC's #1 seed on the road and the following week he started off strong with 3 carries for 17 yards (5.7 yd avg) and chipped in another reception until he unfortunately injured his ribs.    Overall I found his results to be quite promising.  His 5.9 ypc avg during the regular season seemed promising (bettering Lacy by 97 yards on only 6 fewer carries)

I'll absolutely concede and wholeheartedly agree Monty has a LOT of work to do as a blocker.  Actually one of the advantages to signing an actual complete TE in FA will be the help that can be provided in pass protection.  Whether that is staying in-line so Monty can run more routes out of the backfield and not be kept as a blocker or whether it's allowing Rip to receive more carries with Bennett or Kendricks acting as effective run blockers in his stead.  I'm also very optimistic that with a full offseason of work at his position he will better understand his techniques

Nobody is saying "any strong 220 lb receiver can make a seamless transition"  C'mon that's a silly specious argument and you're better than that.  There also isn't anyone suggesting we don't need more RB help - whether that's through the draft or a vet FA.   Literally no one feels comfortable with only Monty and Rip as options 1/2.   I just think there's a vacuous argument for a "bell cow" without any real meaning behind the term or without statistical backing of how McCarthy actually wants to use his backs
Title: Re: Charles?
Post by: ThatGuy284 on March 15, 2017, 07:19:31 PM

Montgomery is listed at Packers.com at 216 lbs.

Doesn't sound like much from your listing of 220+, but it could be a significant difference in the RB world.
Also, style of running makes a big difference in durability. Can the RB make people miss so as not to take too many direct hits? Or is their style a put your head down and pound type RB?

A lot of Monty's suspect durability is going to swirl around the speculation as to what MM is going to be asking of him in this offense.

If he's asked to run between the Tackle's quite a bit then I don't believe he will last that long and will be injured.

You can't ask Ripkowski to be the only one who runs between the Tackles...............it's just too telling to the defense as to what's coming.

Lacy was listed at 234 lbs on the Packer site.   I think that says about all one needs to know

Montgomery weighed in at 221 lbs at his Combine.  That is the weight I used.  I'm sure the Pack had him drop a few lbs to play WR more effectively as Anquan Boldin may be the only effective WR that has played at his listed height/weight.   I'm also sure he'll add a few lbs back this offseason as he prepares his body to be a full-time RB.   I mentioned Monty's "wiggle" as I think it's a big piece of his effectiveness he's had as a punt/kick returner and it clearly showed last season in his play at RB.   He was actually quite effective running between the tackles

Definitely usage matters - as it does for any RB.  Just think people go a little overboard looking at Monty as some brittle little WR trying to make a transition.   I'm also not taking it too far with the belief Monty is the 2nd coming of Touchdown Jesus.   I simply think he's going to be an effective back and can handle a 12-14 carry/reception load per game.   Pair him with another back and Rip that can handle another 10-12 touches per game and I think this offense is rolling once again.
Title: Re: Charles?
Post by: dannobanano on March 15, 2017, 07:20:12 PM
I just think there's a vacuous argument for a "bell cow" without any real meaning behind the term or without statistical backing of how McCarthy actually wants to use his backs

I think "bell cow" get's tossed around because people want to believe that (deep down) McCarthy would like to have a Leveon Bell/Zeke Elliott type RB (of course who wouldn't!) who would/could be an every down back and then keep someone as a simple change of pace RB to throw in once in a while to give "a blow" to the starter.

Problem is that not every draft has that kind of RB, and even when they do those RB's get snapped up in the top 5-10 draft picks.