Packers Running Game

Ruben Douglas · Post #1 » by **Ruben Douglas** » Tue Aug 14, 2007 10:50 pm

As a Bears fan I am solely curious about how the Packers running game is developing. Some article (Scouts Inc. I think) just rated them as having the worst running backs in the NFL...you can make whatever you want out of that. But is there a player on the roster that will run away with the job or will it end up being rb by committee this season?

I just think that Favre needs that solid RB to be able to carry the load for 3-4 sustaining drives per game. Do the Packers have that?

I'm not starting a debate about the Bears/Packers here, I'm just curious.

Thanks.

Post #2 » by **ReasonablySober** » Tue Aug 14, 2007 11:04 pm

We have the worst backs in the league. But next offseason brings the best draft for runningbacks in years. My hope is we land a stud.

But this season may be painful to watch in terms of our running game.

Fort Minor · Post #3 » by **Fort Minor** » Tue Aug 14, 2007 11:05 pm

DrugBust wrote:But this season may be painful to watch in terms of our running game.

Or in terms of our offense in general.

Ruben Douglas · Post #4 » by **Ruben Douglas** » Tue Aug 14, 2007 11:14 pm

Darren McFadden is a freaking stud. I would hate to see him in Green and Yellow.

But what if Jackson plays just good enough (but not outstanding) for TT to look at other players in the draft outside of RB?

By "just good enough" I mean average and serviceable. Kind of like Kevin Jones

Post #5 » by **ReasonablySober** » Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:04 am

Ruben Douglas wrote:Darren McFadden is a freaking stud. I would hate to see him in Green and Yellow.

But what if Jackson plays just good enough (but not outstanding) for TT to look at other players in the draft outside of RB?

By "just good enough" I mean average and serviceable. Kind of like Kevin Jones

He'd have to have a pretty amazing season to pass on a guy like McFadden. And by amazing I mean pro-bowl quality. I can't see it happening.

We have immediate needs at TE, S and RB. Down the line I see us with a need at OT as both Tauscher and Clifton are in their 30s and CB for the same reasons. If a true stud WR is available at our pick next season you could make a case there as well.

Good thing is that in the top 10, where I see us picking, you have any number of players at those positions.

RB: McFadden
S: Phillips
OT: Long, Baker, Oher
WR: Jackson
TE: Bennett

Bottom line, if McFadden is there we take him. But it would take a huge collapse to be that bad. Like two-three wins type bad.

SheedsWeed · Post #6 » by **SheedsWeed** » Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:33 am

If we land McFadden I would go crazy.

msiris · Post #7 » by **msiris** » Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:45 am

Ruben Douglas wrote:Darren McFadden is a freaking stud. I would hate to see him in Green and Yellow.

But what if Jackson plays just good enough (but not outstanding) for TT to look at other players in the draft outside of RB?

By "just good enough" I mean average and serviceable. Kind of like Kevin Jones

Never can have to many running backs.

bigkurty · Post #8 » by **bigkurty** » Wed Aug 15, 2007 1:42 am

SheedsWeed wrote:If we land McFadden I would go crazy.

We would have to suck really bad for that though.

Ruben Douglas · Post #9 » by **Ruben Douglas** » Wed Aug 15, 2007 2:12 am

msiris wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Never can have to many running backs.

I agree, but TT waited as long as he could without drafting one this year...that's why I wonder.

Ayt · Post #10 » by **Ayt** » Wed Aug 15, 2007 2:35 am

Ruben Douglas wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

I agree, but TT waited as long as he could without drafting one this year...that's why I wonder.

His 2nd pick after the top two RBs were already taken when he picked in the 1st?

LUKE23 · Post #11 » by **LUKE23** » Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:17 pm

Ruben Douglas wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

I agree, but TT waited as long as he could without drafting one this year...that's why I wonder.

Yeah, he waited all the way until the 2nd round.

There were no backs worth taking at 16 once Marshawn Lynch was off the board. Lynch would have been the selection if he was there at 16.

Stick to the Bears board.

JHSFIVE · Post #12 » by **JHSFIVE** » Wed Aug 15, 2007 2:45 pm

DrugBust wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

He'd have to have a pretty amazing season to pass on a guy like McFadden. And by amazing I mean pro-bowl quality. I can't see it happening.

We have immediate needs at TE, S and RB. Down the line I see us with a need at OT as both Tauscher and Clifton are in their 30s and CB for the same reasons. If a true stud WR is available at our pick next season you could make a case there as well.

Good thing is that in the top 10, where I see us picking, you have any number of players at those positions.

RB: McFadden
S: Phillips
OT: Long, Baker, Oher
WR: Jackson
TE: Bennett

Bottom line, if McFadden is there we take him. But it would take a huge collapse to be that bad. Like two-three wins type bad.

I could see Slaton there in the 12-17 range. I think we'll end up somewhere in that area.

Post #13 » by **ReasonablySober** » Wed Aug 15, 2007 2:50 pm

I think I'd like Jonathan Stewart more than Slaton. Better size and strength. He's had durability issues but he's a blue-chipper. If he plays the entire year and doesn't go down with any significant injuries he could be this year's Marshawn Lynch.

BuckPack · Post #14 » by **BuckPack** » Wed Aug 15, 2007 5:00 pm

DrugBust wrote:I think I'd like Jonathan Stewart more than Slaton. Better size and strength. He's had durability issues but he's a blue-chipper. If he plays the entire year and doesn't go down with any significant injuries he could be this year's Marshawn Lynch.

I also like Stewart more than Slaton, and maybe even James Davis. Assuming we have Morency and Jackson on the roster next year, I think Davis would certainly fit better on this team than Slaton.

WR, RB and TE would be my top 3 positions of need for next year, followed by DB.

Post #15 » by **ReasonablySober** » Wed Aug 15, 2007 5:47 pm

As for as WRs, I don't think we'll be in the market for one unless a true stud emerges. Like a legit, Roy Williams, Calvin Johnson, Larry Fitzgerald comes around. I don't see anyone like that in next year's class. I love DeSean Jackson. Much more than Ted Ginn. But he's not in the above class. Limas Sweed might be. I hate to pull the 40 yard dash card, but that'll be a huge factor in where he gets drafted. It obviously affected Rice and Jarrett in this past draft.

Jennings will be a 1000 yard WR, and Jones looks like he could, at the very least, be a great #3. Driver is getting up there but we'll be able to trot him out there at least another two, maybe three seasons unless the injury bug hits.

I'm very content with our WRs.

TE is certainly a need. Bennett could be a great one and depending on who's off the board when we pick, he could be the guy.

BuckPack · Post #16 » by **BuckPack** » Wed Aug 15, 2007 6:22 pm

Yup, Sweed will be intersting to watch. He's going to fall in one of those two groups (Rice/Jarrett or Fitz/Williams), and very likely, will thus not be able to be drafted by the Pack. I think I read somewhere he ran a 4.45, which would put him in the latter group.....boy, I would love that with the rest of our guys. Like we've talked abotu before, DB, I love DeSean too, but also someone like Early Ducet to a slightly lesser extent. I think all 3 would fit into our offensive very well, to varying degrees--providing a deep, speed option (Jackson, Ducet) or more of the bigger, red zone target (Sweed). Either way, won't be able to say much until we see what this year's group of WRs do....

I'd agree that TE is a more pressing need, but I have yet to see much of Bennett to really give much of an opinion of him, but other highly rated guys such as Carlson (ND) and Beckum (UW) don't intrigue me as much as the WRs. Personally, I'd go trade for someone like Utecht right now before I committed to either Carlson or Beckum. We'll see tho, I personally haven't watched enough of these guys to really form an opinion either way.