Pack brings in CJ Spiller for visit

[sschind]

Spiller brings a whole new dynamic some of you doubters are missing though. He can literally line up all over the offense. He is a elite pass catcher out of the backfield and can run WR-type routes. Him and Lacy being on field at same time isn't out of the question too.

So if cheap, once again, I say why not.

In this offense it pretty much is. We don't run too many 2 RB formations. At least that's the way it seems to me. I've always liked Spiller so I wouldn't be opposed to this move at all.

 

[Packers907]

Lacy has had his moments and Starks hasn't been given the ball much but when he does he doesn't seem to produce much. Granted they haven't been as run heavy as MM lead us to believe prior to the season, but if we could get a RB that could run, catch, cut and dance a little to find holes I wouldn't be opposed to this. We don't have a 3rd RB right now so might as well give it a shot, maybe it will open up the offense some.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Love this! A pass catching RB is what we need. Kind of to take over what we're missing without Kuhn on 3rd and short (or 4 and 1 because Starks is not the anwser there!)

Both Lacy and Starks have similar numbers as a receiver to Spiller. I don't necessarily believe he would be an upgrade in the passing game.

take a look sure, but he isn't the missing piece, and besides, he's a man without a team for a reason

It was extremely surprising the Saints released him after week 1 once his base salary for this season became fully guaranteed. He might sign for cheap somewhere because of it though.

Running the ball fine? What is your definition of fine?

Lacy ran it for 14/61 against Jacksonville. Take one 28 yard run out of that equation and he ran for 13/33. That's less than three yards a darn carry. Starks in that game 4/7.

Against Minnesota, Lacy had a 13 yard run. Eliminate that, and he ran for 11/37. A little over three yards per carry. Starks, 7 carries for 3 yards.

It doesn't make any sense to take the best play out of the equation when talking about a player's performance.

And in my opinion, we should all be less worried about the 2x MVP getting it together as opposed to all of the parts around him. A better running game, better pass blocking, and receivers gaining separation will fix Aaron's issues. That much I am 100% confident in.

Again, TWO series. What exactly does everyone expect from this offense right now? It's going to take time.

Don't fool yourself, Rodgers play having regressed is most likely the main reason the offense is struggling.

I would have liked the starting offense to get more playing time during the preseason as well but the Vikings proved on Sunday it's not necessary to perform on a decent level.

 

[Mondio]

Starks is a capable back catching the ball, so is Lacy. But they have to have the play ran and the ball thrown to them first for it to happen. I think each of those guys should have anywhere from 2-5 catches per game because there are going to be at least 10 times a game where a check down to a RB is the right play.

 

[Carl]

Both Lacy and Starks have similar numbers as a receiver to Spiller. I don't necessarily believe he would be an upgrade in the passing game.



It was extremely surprising the Saints released him after week 1 once his base salary for this season became fully guaranteed. He might sign for cheap somewhere because of it though.



It doesn't make any sense to take the best play out of the equation when talking about a player's performance.



Don't fool yourself, Rodgers play having regressed is most likely the main reason the offense is struggling.

I would have liked the starting offense to get more playing time during the preseason as well but the Vikings proved on Sunday it's not necessary to perform on a decent level.

If a team would release a player after paying him guaranteed money, it would be the Saints who have about $40 million in dead money. http://www.businessinsider.com/saints-spending-40-million-in-dead-money-2016-9

There might be a mess in a few years.

 

[Half Empty]

What about Ripkowski, Lacy, or both. Spiller is washed up, trust me.

Need a little more ammo as to why.

 

[PackAttack12]

Both Lacy and Starks have similar numbers as a receiver to Spiller. I don't necessarily believe he would be an upgrade in the passing game.



It was extremely surprising the Saints released him after week 1 once his base salary for this season became fully guaranteed. He might sign for cheap somewhere because of it though.



It doesn't make any sense to take the best play out of the equation when talking about a player's performance.



Don't fool yourself, Rodgers play having regressed is most likely the main reason the offense is struggling.

I would have liked the starting offense to get more playing time during the preseason as well but the Vikings proved on Sunday it's not necessary to perform on a decent level.

It makes perfect sense when you understand the point I was attempting to make. Of course when analyzing a players final statistics when determining overall production you don't take it out of the equation, but that's not what I am getting at. I specifically stated that lack of yards gained on first down from running plays consistently put Rodgers in 2nd and 3rd and long situations, which immediately made our offense 1 dimensional, which then allowed Zimmer to tee off on Rodgers and mix up his blitzing schemes, knowing that we were in an obvious passing down.

This is a point that cannot be ignored.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I specifically stated that lack of yards gained on first down from running plays consistently put Rodgers in 2nd and 3rd and long situations, which immediately made our offense 1 dimensional, which then allowed Zimmer to tee off on Rodgers and mix up his blitzing schemes, knowing that we were in an obvious passing down.

The Packers actually averaged more yards rushing on first down (3.07 yards) than passing it (2.07 yards). While that rushing number isn't good by any means the passing offense is mostly to blame for getting in unfavorable down and distance situations.

 

[swhitset]

It makes perfect sense when you understand the point I was attempting to make. Of course when analyzing a players final statistics when determining overall production you don't take it out of the equation, but that's not what I am getting at. I specifically stated that lack of yards gained on first down from running plays consistently put Rodgers in 2nd and 3rd and long situations, which immediately made our offense 1 dimensional, which then allowed Zimmer to tee off on Rodgers and mix up his blitzing schemes, knowing that we were in an obvious passing down.

This is a point that cannot be ignored.

In order to successfully run the ball (on any down) you have to actually continue to call running plays. The Packers didn't.

 

[PackerFanLV]

What about Ripkowski, Lacy, or both. Spiller is washed up, trust me.

Rip is a beast they need to get some I-form going then play action off of it. This spiller non sense is crazy. The packers have the tools it's up to the coaches to know how to use them.

 

[sschind]

Need a little more ammo as to why.

Maybe JK gives sponge baths for a living and CJ is one of his clients. That's how he knows he is washed up.

 

[PackAttack12]

The Packers actually averaged more yards rushing on first down (3.07 yards) than passing it (2.07 yards). While that rushing number isn't good by any means the passing offense is mostly to blame for getting in unfavorable down and distance situations.

Interesting numbers. Is that something you worked up yourself or do you have a source to reference? I'm curious to know what all goes into those statistics. I know Rodgers had a 10+ yard run on first down in the 4th quarter. Does the passing stats include sacks? Or only when there was a pass thrown? Because the sacks certainly won't help that number, but either way the offensive line will effect numbers both in the passing and running statistics.

I agree that the offense as a whole wasn't good all night. And I certainly agree with your criticisms of the passing game. I just fail to understand how the passing game is all that most are focused on right now.

 

[JK64]

Maybe JK gives sponge baths for a living and CJ is one of his clients. That's how he knows he is washed up.

I live in NE and I have seen and heard plenty about the Buffalo Bills and CJ Spiller. He's done.

Let's see if the Packers sign him.

 

[OldSchool101]

I don't know much about him other than he is very fast when playing at his best, but has struggled with injuries more recently.
I'm not opposed IF the price is right

 

[JK64]

I don't know much about him other than he is very fast when playing at his best, but has struggled with injuries more recently.
I'm not opposed IF the price is right

True, if healthy he is really good.

 

[Vince Lombardi]

He left GB without a contract. Highly doubt he gets signed.

 

[Poppa San]

He left GB without a contract. Highly doubt he gets signed.

IIRC Cook left town too.
Spiller wouldn't be ready until after the bye anyway. Sign him a week from next Monday and he will be ready for the Giants game the following week. Save roster spot and a few thou$and if needed elsewhere between now and then.

 

[Packer Brother]

Sign him and make him the starter his first game. Keep Lacy and Starks on the bench. If he doesn't work out...oh well.

 

[Forget Favre]

Sign him and make him the starter his first game. Keep Lacy and Starks on the bench. If he doesn't work out...oh well.

You.... you... make it sound so simple. Something that actually makes sense! Something that just might work!
Sorry. They won't hire you with that kind of thinking.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I live in NE and I have seen and heard plenty about the Buffalo Bills and CJ Spiller. He's done.

Let's see if the Packers sign him.

Yes, I fear posters are envisioning the Spiller of 2012/2013. He just hasn't been the same since breaking his collarbone in 2014, then he had knee surgery in 2015 that caused him to miss preseason and week 1. The Packers will work him out. He ran 4.37 at the Combine coming off a hamstring injury no less; he was at one time among the fastest players in the league with shiftiness running between the tackles.

If he still has some speed and quickness left, maybe they take a shot. Kicking tires is what these invites usually amount to. All it costs is a plane ticket, a motel room and a little time.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Interesting numbers. Is that something you worked up yourself or do you have a source to reference? I'm curious to know what all goes into those statistics. I know Rodgers had a 10+ yard run on first down in the 4th quarter. Does the passing stats include sacks? Or only when there was a pass thrown? Because the sacks certainly won't help that number, but either way the offensive line will effect numbers both in the passing and running statistics.

I agree that the offense as a whole wasn't good all night. And I certainly agree with your criticisms of the passing game. I just fail to understand how the passing game is all that most are focused on right now.

Of course sacks are included in the numbers for the passing game. I used Pro Football Reference's play index to come up with the stats:

http://www.pro-football-reference.c...location=DL&pass_location=DM&pass_location=DR

While the running game didn't perform on a high level the passing game should produce way better averages, that's why the focus is on Rodgers and the receivers struggling.

 

[Vince Lombardi]

IIRC Cook left town too.
Spiller wouldn't be ready until after the bye anyway. Sign him a week from next Monday and he will be ready for the Giants game the following week. Save roster spot and a few thou$and if needed elsewhere between now and then.

Cook signing was in the off season, there was no rush to bring him in. My guess is Spiller will not be signed.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Of course sacks are included in the numbers for the passing game. I used Pro Football Reference's play index to come up with the stats:

http://www.pro-football-reference.c...location=DL&pass_location=DM&pass_location=DR

While the running game didn't perform on a high level the passing game should produce way better averages, that's why the focus is on Rodgers and the receivers struggling.

The Packers are 9th. in 3rd. down conversions at 48.1%, a pretty good number. That happens to be the exact same conversion rate as in the high flying 2011 season when they ranked 3rd. in the league. Last season they were 3rd. in the league at a nearly identical 47.2%.

Your earlier conclusion that the Packers are suffering from unfavorable down and distance does not appear to be the issue.

The Packers are tied for 23rd. in total first downs with 38. If you exclude the Packers 7 first downs by penalty, they drop to 26th. In 2011, they were 5th. in total first downs. Last year they were 7th.

The problem is not so much unfavorable down and distance as it is not getting more first downs on first and second down. The lower frequency of biting first down chunks in the early downs is reflected in the pass yards per attempt and completion. This is a downfield passing game and QB that is not getting the big plays.

Further, the Packers offense has been starting in a hole this season. Average starting position has been the 22 yard line, 30th. in the league:

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/drivestatsoff

It takes little observation to see that the Packers emphasis is conservative when deep in their own territory in keeping with the mantra, "don't turn over the ball", with it's corollary, "especially don't turn the ball over in our own territory." This reduces the instances where they will look downfield.

Clearly there is a passing game disfunction, but it has little to do with down and distance. "Distance" as in "starting position" is a contributing factor. A bend-don't-break defense not accumulating turnovers at a favorable field position, short punts, and getting nothing out of the return game are a contributing factor to this passing offense that appears tight and cautious.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

The problem is not so much unfavorable down and distance as it is not getting more first downs on first and second down.

Further, the Packers offense has been starting in a hole this season. Average starting position has been the 22 yard line, 30th. in the league:

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/drivestatsoff

Taking a closer look at the numbers you're correct that the problem is not getting more first downs on first and second down.

On first and second down the Packers are tied for 28th in total first downs with 17 and 31st in first down percentage at 17.9%.

In addition the terrible average starting position has contributed to the offense struggling.

 

[gatorpack]

Come on MM Shorter passes slants and drag routes. Come on AROD 3 steps and pop. Get them out of this man **** and THEN burn them deep. Short stuff has been open just need Rodgers to focus on that. MM can help with the right play calls.