Christine Michael cut

[sschind]

My guess is that the Pack did this early to give Michael a chance to catch on with another team. With 3 running backs picked up in the draft, he didn't have much of a shot making this squad.

My guess is was because he didn't have a shot at making the team anyway so why bother having him around taking camp time away from guys who might.

Yours is a kinder sentiment though.

 

[sschind]

I really don't like this cut.

We're placing too much value on TyM and his ability healthy whole season. One freak injury and we'll moan about having to play rookies.

It's not like we were paying CM way too much to warrant a cut.

Reeks of bad depth management.

One freak injury and I would be moaning more about having to play Christine Michael.


Can anyone honestly say they didn't see this and the Don Jackson move coming ... Anyone ... Anyone ... Bueller ... Bueller.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I will remember Michael's time as a Packer for his biggest day in Green and Gold.....45 yards against the Bears. 42 of those yards on one carry, the other 3 yards on 3 carries.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Curious. I would have expected you to somehow weave Vanilla Ice into the post instead.

I'm holding off on Janis being cut for that....."Jeff Jeff Baby"

 

[Passepartout]

Well he will pick up on a team. In no time as the draft sealed his fate however.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I'm not so sure why people are concerned about losing Jackson and Michael? Look at what they provided last year. Maybe people are lamenting the loss of what either could potentially be? Which is what we are left with, the potential of 3 rookies and of course some unknowns with Monty.

There's absolutely no reason to be concerned about losing Michael or Jackson. The Packers could need another veteran at the running back position though as Montgomery is a converted wide receiver being backed up by three rookies who haven't taken a single snap at the pro level.[/QUOTE]

 

[longtimefan]

People worried about the amount of rb we have now.. Training camp is 2 months away? Let's relax and see what happens till then.

 

[Mondio]

I'm holding off on Janis being cut for that....."Jeff Jeff Baby"

they recently had a baby, well his wife did, but he helped

 

[PackAttack12]

Still have Cobb too. And rip... I think we are fine.

I'm surprised Michael got cut.

Cobb isn't a running back. And Rip is a situational back at best.

 

[Curly Calhoun]

It's hard to fathom that anyone really has a concern over Christine Michael being cut (other the Michael himself of course). It's not like that level of production would be difficult to replace, even with rookies.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Cobb isn't a running back. And Rip is a situational back at best.

Couldn't agree more. I personally don't like seeing Cobb in the backfield (to run the ball) anymore. Monty can assume that roll and let Cobb do what he does best, catch the ball. Cobb had decent production running out of the backfield in 2012 and 2013, but since then, he has pretty much been ineffective.

I usually don't factor Rip into the conversation when it comes to talking about the "RB group". Plain and simple, he is our FB, who is going to get a few carries a game, but is mainly in there to block.

 

[XPack]

but since then, he has pretty much been ineffective.

The lack of a proper TE is a big factor in that imo. A good pass catching TE will help in short yardage throws and more importantly will stretch the defence for the RB or even Cobb off the backfield.

With 3 TE's now I expect we'll see big benefits in both our running and short catching game.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The lack of a proper TE is a big factor in that imo. A good pass catching TE will help in short yardage throws and more importantly will stretch the defence for the RB or even Cobb off the backfield.

With 3 TE's now I expect we'll see big benefits in both our running and short catching game.

You could be right, but with an OL that isn't that great at run blocking, we saw a lot of E-W running out of Cobb the last 3 years when he was asked to run the ball. Better blocking TE's, which I think we have now, might help Cobb, but I still prefer seeing that role given exclusively to Monty and not have to expose Cobb to some of those big hits that the front 7 of the defense can deliver.

 

[JK64]

I just hope Michael and Jackson don't put up crazy numbers somewhere else - or it'll be all "I want you back"...

I wouldn't worry about that.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I wouldn't worry about that.

Although it's not always black and white, they don't care about us.

 

[OldSchool101]

I'm kinda surprised that we cut both veteran RBs, yet one was almost expected.
I'm guessing that the expectation is that at least one of these guys will pan out and I guess that's not so far fetched in a relatively deep RB class.
But theres a thin margin between "rising to the occasion" and "occasionally rising"
Let's hope we get more of the former version

 

[PikeBadger]

You could be right, but with an OL that isn't that great at run blocking, we saw a lot of E-W running out of Cobb the last 3 years when he was asked to run the ball. Better blocking TE's, which I think we have now, might help Cobb, but I still prefer seeing that role given exclusively to Monty and not have to expose Cobb to some of those big hits that the front 7 of the defense can deliver.

I like the idea of using Cobb and Montgomery interchangeably and/or new formations. The idea being to get one or the other into an isolated mismatch with a vulnerable LB. Use the weapons to our advantage.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I like the idea of using Cobb and Montgomery interchangeably and/or new formations. The idea being to get one or the other into an isolated mismatch with a vulnerable LB. Use the weapons to our advantage.

I'm fine with using Cobb that way as well but don't want him to actually run the ball too often.

 

[armand34]

It's amazing how much this guy BUSTED for his NFL career. Taken one pick after Eddie Lacy I was happy at the time Packers signed him, but I think I'm happier that they cut him.