How to handle Lacy

[PikeBadger]

Right now we know one thing about our running back situation. Ty Montgomery will either be our #1 or #2 back next year. That means we need at least 2 more to complete the roster (we can't go with just 2 this year, we just can't) That means two from a rookie, Lacy, Crockett, Michael or another FA will be needed. Since Bell is out of the question Crowell, Gillslee, and Thompson from Washington are the only ones that might interest me but they are all restricted. Michael is a "meh" type of guy to me as is Crockett. I'd be OK with either as the 3rd back but I'd be fine without them as well. That leaves Lacy and a rookie as the two most appealing options to me and that is only if Lacy's deal comes with low or no guarantees and some incentives.

Imo, the reason we went with only 2 RB's last year to start the season, was because Montgomery and Cobb both were capable of filling the #3 role. It allowed the team to keep Abbrederis as another receiver because they felt he was a better choice for the roster than any of the other options.
Important to remember is that there are only 50 roster slots after specialists and you have to have people that can fill special teams roles. Backups that can play 2 different positions as well as special teams are roster gold because you have 3 QB's who don't. You essentially have to sacrifice depth somewhere and just hope you're lucky that you don't get torn up by rapidly successive injuries to position groups. Some times your roster gamble pays off, sometimes it doesn't.

 

[Mondio]

And a fullback capable as well when called upon to fill in. Let's not forget that most other teams do not carry one and we do. They don't grant Ted and the Packers roster an extra spot for keeping it school with FB on the team.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Imo, the reason we went with only 2 RB's last year to start the season, was because Montgomery and Cobb both were capable of filling the #3 role. It allowed the team to keep Abbrederis as another receiver because they felt he was a better choice for the roster than any of the other options.
Important to remember is that there are only 50 roster slots after specialists and you have to have people that can fill special teams roles. Backups that can play 2 different positions as well as special teams are roster gold because you have 3 QB's who don't. You essentially have to sacrifice depth somewhere and just hope you're lucky that you don't get torn up by rapidly successive injuries to position groups. Some times your roster gamble pays off, sometimes it doesn't.

While I get that thinking now, I don't really think anyone, including the Packers were viewing Monty and especially Cobb, as an every week RB back in September. I am guessing their logic was, if #1 (Lacy) or #2 (Starks) go down, we fill it with a PS guy. This was obvious when they started scrambling trying to find RB's and just happened to discover that Monty could actually fill the role.

I don't know what the plans are for 2017, but I hope they don't view Cobb as their #3 RB and go into the season with just Monty and whoever.

 

[Mondio]

While I get that thinking now, I don't really think anyone, including the Packers were viewing Monty and especially Cobb, as an every week RB back in September. I am guessing their logic was, if #1 (Lacy) or #2 (Starks) go down, we fill it with a PS guy. This was obvious when they started scrambling trying to find RB's and just happened to discover that Monty could actually fill the role.

I don't know what the plans are for 2017, but I hope they don't view Cobb as their #3 RB and go into the season with just Monty and whoever.

They probably weren't viewed as the #1 RB options to get 25 carries a game, but they were probably considered when making the final roster. They had 3, 1 went down, so they went into the season with 2 and a guy that had experience with before, Don Jackson, on the PS and a FB that could be counted on to fill in as well. So in all reality we had 4 legitimate running backs at our disposal to start the year.

I also don't think they just happened to discover Montgomery's ability either. But it did take time to get him integrated more fully with a position switch.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I also don't think they just happened to discover Montgomery's ability either. But it did take time to get him integrated more fully with a position switch.

Monty had 3 carries prior to 2016. I doubt he ever attended RB meetings, practiced with the group, studied the Playbook as a RB, etc. The Packers knew a guy like him could be used like Cobb, but I still find it hard to believe that he was ever viewed as anything but an emergency RB. Which is what he ended up being, it worked out and I hope they discovered his rightful place in the NFL.

 

[Dantés]

I for one wasn't making any excuses for why Lacy needed to have a bigger carry count or workload. His 14.2 carries/game and 5.1 yard average in 2016 was just fine by me. Even in his "most out of shape" season of 2015, the guy averaged 12.47 carries/game and a 4.1 yard average. This isn't an offense that requires a 20-30 carry/game back.

Really not sure what you are looking for here? Do you think he needs to have more carries? Or do you think it hurts the team when they have to use a second back to spell Lacy?

It's fine if he gets the ~14 carry workload as long as he's actually available and effective for those carries. But if he's getting that lightened level of work, and he's still not in shape enough to stay healthy and finish out drives, that's a problem. It doesn't hurt the team to spell him, but it does hurt the team to go into the season with him as a major piece of the puzzle for the rushing attack and then have to do without him because he didn't stay in shape.

 

[PackerDNA]

It's fine if he gets the ~14 carry workload as long as he's actually available and effective for those carries. But if he's getting that lightened level of work, and he's still not in shape enough to stay healthy and finish out drives, that's a problem. It doesn't hurt the team to spell him, but it does hurt the team to go into the season with him as a major piece of the puzzle for the rushing attack and then have to do without him because he didn't stay in shape.

And there's the dilemma. Do I want Lacy back? Absolutely. But many posters here have given plenty of reasons to be apprehensive about bringing him back.

 

[Mondio]

He also only played in a handful of games and just as he was being integrated into the offense as a rookie, with some success, and then he was out for the rest of the year.

He obviously wasn't the first choice at RB, since he was drafted as WR, i just don't think they stumbled upon the fact he could be a threat out of the backfield though. I'm sure they knew before he was picked.

 

[OldSchool101]

http://www.acmepackingcompany.com/2...t=chorus&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

Great Article, thanks. Finally an article that holds as much weight as the Packers primary RB

 

[OldSchool101]

If he does, I might just utter the words "I told you so". LOL

If the Packers are able to sign him with little or no guarantees and everyone who thinks they shouldn't, turn out to be right and he gets cut, what have the Packers lost?

Perfect Risk-Reward scenario IMO.

Good article posted today about the Packers potential re-signing of Lacy

http://lombardiave.com/2017/02/17/green-bay-packers-staying-course-eddie-lacy/

I agree with your assertion that he should be (and I believe he will be) signed to a modest contract that will not considerably affect our pocket book.
I think it makes sense because one considerable benefit is we can concentrate on more pressing needs. We need to prioritize resigning our Defensive FA group and then injecting a few playmakers that can have an impact in 2017 pass coverage.
I know it would be a statistical anomaly, but I feel it would be very wise this year to infuse a proven veteran CB from FA on a short term deal. This would take pressure off us needing to spend a #1 or #2 CB selection, unless it's an obvious choice of best available talent.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

While I agree with you on this, I wouldn't blame it all on lack of conditioning, his running style has something to do with it too. I would also have to ask you how many backs in the NFL stay out on the field for the entire drive?

Unfortunately for Lacy the Packers prefer not to substitute during drives more than most other teams in the league. Therefore having a running back not capable of staying on the field for 10+ consecutive plays puts the team at a disadvantage.

I for one wasn't making any excuses for why Lacy needed to have a bigger carry count or workload. His 14.2 carries/game and 5.1 yard average in 2016 was just fine by me. Even in his "most out of shape" season of 2015, the guy averaged 12.47 carries/game and a 4.1 yard average. This isn't an offense that requires a 20-30 carry/game back.

Really not sure what you are looking for here? Do you think he needs to have more carries? Or do you think it hurts the team when they have to use a second back to spell Lacy?

While I don't expect a Packers running back to consistently get 20 or more carries a game you have to realize that players at the position have to be at least decent in pass protection as well. Lacy being out of shape doesn't help in that regard either.

Imo, the reason we went with only 2 RB's last year to start the season, was because Montgomery and Cobb both were capable of filling the #3 role.

I've been told by you and several other posters that using hindsight to criticize Thompson isn't fair, therefore I suggest you shouldn't use it to defend his moves either. While the Packers might have counted on Cobb and Montgomery to occasionally carry the ball the front office for sure didn't expect Ty to end up being a decent #1 running back.

There's no doubt it was a mistake having only two RBs on the roster in week 1 and a terrible decision to enter the Cowboys game with Lacy battling an ankle injury as the only active one. Thompson got lucky that Monty bailed him out.

They had 3, 1 went down, so they went into the season with 2 and a guy that had experience with before, Don Jackson, on the PS and a FB that could be counted on to fill in as well.

Jackson was an undrafted rookie out of Nevada last season. Therefore I have no idea which previous experience you're talking about.

 

[JLW_51]

Here is what I am thinking when it comes to bringing back Lacy for next season, http://lastwordonprofootball.com/2017/02/21/eddie-lacy-decision-green-bay-packers/

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Here is what I am thinking when it comes to bringing back Lacy for next season, http://lastwordonprofootball.com/2017/02/21/eddie-lacy-decision-green-bay-packers/

One of the best parts of the article is the end....

"If this past season proved anything, the Packers can’t be caught with their pants down again at the running back position. Bringing back Lacy is one step in making sure that doesn’t happen next season."

This is the way that I feel if the Packers attempt to go into 2017 with Monty, a rookie and whoever else wins the #3 spot.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

One of the best parts of the article is the end....

"If this past season proved anything, the Packers can’t be caught with their pants down again at the running back position. Bringing back Lacy is one step in making sure that doesn’t happen next season."

This is the way that I feel if the Packers attempt to go into 2017 with Monty, a rookie and whoever else wins the #3 spot.

I like lacy/monty combo. With a decent rookie added to the group to replace starks.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

One of the best parts of the article is the end....

"If this past season proved anything, the Packers can’t be caught with their pants down again at the running back position. Bringing back Lacy is one step in making sure that doesn’t happen next season."

This is the way that I feel if the Packers attempt to go into 2017 with Monty, a rookie and whoever else wins the #3 spot.

I'm afraid that bringing back Lacy potentially results in the Packers being caught with their pants down at running back if he can't stay in shape for an entire season.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I'm afraid that bringing back Lacy potentially results in the Packers being caught with their pants down at running back if he can't stay in shape for an entire season.

I would be willing to roll the dice on that if Lacy is in decent shape at final cutdowns. We know what we get with Lacy and you can't say that right now for any other RB in the Packer system except maybe Monty and he is even a wild card on pass protection and durability in my mind.

Again, the thought of an in shape Lacy, Monty and a rookie to start the season appeals to me much more than Monty, Rookie and whoever.

At the price you probably can get Lacy for, with no guarantees, the upside could be high. You would basically be bringing another option at RB to camp, not sure how that can't sit right with people.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I would be willing to roll the dice on that if Lacy is in decent shape at final cutdowns. We know what we get with Lacy and you can't say that right now for any other RB in the Packer system except maybe Monty and he is even a wild card on pass protection and durability in my mind.

Again, the thought of an inshape Lacy, Monty and a rookie to start the season appeals to me much more than Monty, Rookie and whoever.

At the price you probably can get Lacy for, with no guarantees, the upside could be high. You would basically be bringing another option at RB to camp, not sure how that can't sit right with people.

I agree that it's worth a shot bringing Lacy to training camp as long as the contract doesn't include any guarantees and the Packers have a backup plan other than Montgomery at the position in case Lacy can't stay in shape.

 

[Dantés]

I agree that it's worth a shot bringing Lacy to training camp as long as the contract doesn't include any guarantees and the Packers have a backup plan other than Montgomery at the position in case Lacy can't stay in shape.

If Lacy returned on an incentive based deal and they drafted an interior runner in the middle rounds (maybe someone like Perine? Still need to watch Brian Hill) I think they would be in much better shape than they were last year. I totally get why people want to see that.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I agree that it's worth a shot bringing Lacy to training camp as long as the contract doesn't include any guarantees and the Packers have a backup plan other than Montgomery at the position in case Lacy can't stay in shape.

If Lacy returned on an incentive based deal and they drafted an interior runner in the middle rounds (maybe someone like Perine? Still need to watch Brian Hill) I think they would be in much better shape than they were last year. I totally get why people want to see that.

Agree with both of these posts. I highly doubt that the Packers or any team for that matter offer much in the way of guarantees to Lacy. So as long as the Packers have a contingency plan (mid round draft), I think Lacy would be worth the risk of signing and seeing what you have with him come September.

About the only thing the Packers potentially lose by doing this is a possible compensatory pick, which they could get back next season if Lacy moves on after 2017. If they don't sign Lacy, I would hope they either resign Michael or another FA as well as use a mid round pick on a rookie. But I prefer Lacy at the rumored price over Michael or another FA.

 

[Dantés]

Agree with both of these posts. I highly doubt that the Packers or any team for that matter offer much in the way of guarantees to Lacy. So as long as the Packers have a contingency plan (mid round draft), I think Lacy would be worth the risk of signing and seeing what you have with him come September.

About the only thing the Packers potentially lose by doing this is a possible compensatory pick, which they could get back next season if Lacy moves on after 2017. If they don't sign Lacy, I would hope they either resign Michael or another FA as well as use a mid round pick on a rookie. But I prefer Lacy at the rumored price over Michael or another FA.

I agree except for the Michael part. I really can't stand watching that guy. He's a walking mental error.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I agree except for the Michael part. I really can't stand watching that guy. He's a walking mental error.

I'm on board with you that it would be a mistake to think Monty, Michael, Crockett and rookies would be the best way to go into camp. Michael at the age of 26 still has some potential, but I view him as a Jeff Janis type of player, talented but has a hard time fully grasping things. Only way I see Michael being resigned is if its cheap, no guarantees and is only for camp bodies, with the outside chance of Lacy not working out and Michael does.

 

[Dantés]

I'm on board with you that it would be a mistake to think Monty, Michael, Crockett and rookies would be the best way to go into camp. Michael at the age of 26 still has some potential, but I view him as a Jeff Janis type of player, talented but has a hard time fully grasping things. Only way I see Michael being resigned is if its cheap, no guarantees and is only for camp bodies, with the outside chance of Lacy not working out and Michael does.

That's kind of a surprising take on Montgomery. What's your reasoning there? I thought he took to the RB position exceptionally well. He certainly strikes me as a better contributor than Janis.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

That's kind of a surprising take on Montgomery. What's your reasoning there? I thought he took to the RB position exceptionally well. He certainly strikes me as a better contributor than Janis.

You may need to reread my post.....I was referring to Michael's inability to mentally compete.

 

[Dantés]

You may need to reread my post.....I was referring to Michael's inability to mentally compete.

Fitting right after I called someone else a walking mental error.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I do however think there are some question marks surrounding Monty, which is another reason I would like to see Lacy brought back. Monty will have the full offseason as well as camps and preseason to further his abilities in his new role. As good as he looked at times at RB, he needs a lot of work on his pass protection and ability to shed some tackles at the LOS and then there is always that question of his durability.