Green Bay Packers: Why Mike McCarthy ...

Green Bay Packers: Why Mike McCarthy Needs To Establish a Running Game Now

There are 45 comments on the Bleacher Report story from Nov 25, 2010, titled Green Bay Packers: Why Mike McCarthy Needs To Establish a Running Game Now. In it, Bleacher Report reports that:

The Green Bay Packers have certainly exceeded expectations given the number of injuries that have decimated their roster.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Bleacher Report.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
Jeremy

Mooreton, ND

#1 Nov 25, 2010
it was nice to see dimtri get some carries in the vikes game, he looked pretty good and is a nice big bruising back to compliment jackson, gb should be ok at this position the rest of the way
eric

Monroe, WI

#2 Nov 25, 2010
The interesting part is next year
Grant coming back ( although its been said his cap number is quite big,so they may ask for a cap reduction)
John Kuhn
Brandon Jackson
throw in Demitri Nance into the mix who i agree Jeremy,he is a big back and looks like a bruising back with a bit of speed and that doesnt include Starks from U of Buffalo and anyone they may draft as TT likes the best available player more often then not.
GBPfan

Colorado Springs, CO

#3 Nov 25, 2010
eric wrote:
The interesting part is next year
Grant coming back ( although its been said his cap number is quite big,so they may ask for a cap reduction)
John Kuhn
Brandon Jackson
throw in Demitri Nance into the mix who i agree Jeremy,he is a big back and looks like a bruising back with a bit of speed and that doesnt include Starks from U of Buffalo and anyone they may draft as TT likes the best available player more often then not.
Oh great! Thompson has the Packers in cap hell. I guess the only thing to do is lose 12 games. That apparently is what is expected when that happens. Too bad he won't have a different GM to blame this time.

Already talking about next year I see. What's wrong with the running game this year? Have you given up on this season? Okay. I guess there's always next season. That will be number 7, and the one after that will be number 8, and the one after that ...
GBPmies

Kokkola, Finland

#4 Nov 25, 2010
GBPfan wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh great! Thompson has the Packers in cap hell. I guess the only thing to do is lose 12 games. That apparently is what is expected when that happens. Too bad he won't have a different GM to blame this time.
Already talking about next year I see. What's wrong with the running game this year? Have you given up on this season? Okay. I guess there's always next season. That will be number 7, and the one after that will be number 8, and the one after that ...
I think they are talking about running backs, not useless BS. You have enough threads to do that. Why don’t you try sharing your opinions on the article and our running backs.
GBPfan

Colorado Springs, CO

#5 Nov 26, 2010
GBPmies wrote:
<quoted text>
I think they are talking about running backs, not useless BS. You have enough threads to do that. Why don’t you try sharing your opinions on the article and our running backs.
I guess I agree with eric that Thompson has put the Packers in cap hell, making it difficult to address the running back position from a free agency stand point. Besides, Thompson doesn't waste money on proven talent, he wastes money on unproven draft picks, and he has a horrendous record of drafting running backs so I guess the Packers may be screwed.

Mike McCarthy and the coaching staff will have to come to the rescue again because the Packer GM passed up every opportunity to upgrade and improve the running game, both during the offseason and before the trade deadline. I agree with the article that the burden for solving the problem has fallen on McCarthy by default. GO MIKE GO!

Thanks for the encouragement. All I needed was for you to ask for my opinion.
GBPmies

Finland

#6 Nov 27, 2010
GBPfan wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess I agree with eric that Thompson has put the Packers in cap hell, making it difficult to address the running back position from a free agency stand point. Besides, Thompson doesn't waste money on proven talent, he wastes money on unproven draft picks, and he has a horrendous record of drafting running backs so I guess the Packers may be screwed.
Mike McCarthy and the coaching staff will have to come to the rescue again because the Packer GM passed up every opportunity to upgrade and improve the running game, both during the offseason and before the trade deadline. I agree with the article that the burden for solving the problem has fallen on McCarthy by default. GO MIKE GO!

Thanks for the encouragement. All I needed was for you to ask for my opinion.
Oooo... that was a bit firery wasn’t it?( i had to judge your coment) It was almost like you were trying push a separate issue (TT) other then RB. Please stop putting words in others mouths, it is very impolite. Eric surely did NOT say TT put the Pack in cap hell. They are far from it. You know it. By saying they are in cap hell makes you sound like a jackass… you are just trying to be a pain and it is very clear to everyone. So please, enough alread:)

Now the “topic”
I am excited about Nance. I think his “tough guy” style of running fits exactly what we need. I think Jackson is a good back but not the every down back Grant was. Don’t get me wrong, Jackson has his abilities, especially pass blocking and catching the ball, but he is not the bruiser we need. I guess that is why our FB became a RB. A back like Nance will be great in end of the season in those frozen games vs NY and CHI. I do not care if he is a rookie either. Great pick up, and Atlanta tryed to keep him too. I really look forward to seeing more in tomorrow’s game. Our offence is clicking, now a stronger run game will make us... well crazy!

Will the Pack now become a RB by committee? No more 1 featured back?
GBPmies

Finland

#7 Nov 27, 2010
GBPfan wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with the article that the burden for solving the problem has fallen on McCarthy by default.
I think it is a bit odd you so strongly agree with the article (by bleacher report) but previously you said they are “hacks”. Hmmm? Agreeing with “hacks”. Hmmm? I believe you called me a hypocrite recently, and now I am not sure you know the definition of that word.

GBPfan wrote
“Sorry, but I don't read articles from those bleacher report hacks. I tried it a few times. I lost a few I.Q. points in the process.”
http://www.topix.com/forum/nfl/green-bay-pack...
Post 32
GBPfan

Colorado Springs, CO

#8 Nov 27, 2010
GBPmies wrote:
<quoted text>
Please stop putting words in others mouths, it is very impolite. Eric surely did NOT say TT put the Pack in cap hell. They are far from it. You know it.
This is eric's quote:

"Grant coming back ( although its been said his cap number is quite big,so they may ask for a cap reduction)"

That kind of scenario in 2005 is exactly what eric has described as "cap hell" many, many times and he knows it. "Cap hell" is his term, not mine. If the Packers can't afford to keep their best players without asking for concessions, every true PACKER fan would describe it as a cap problem at a minimum. I was simply using eric's phrase because he didn't seem to know that cap problems and reductions are common place until now. Only after his hero gets the PACKERS in a jam does he realize that good GMs can get around cap problems without harming a team. I've known that for many years.

Don't beat yourself up over it. How could you know all of the stupid things eric has ever said?
GBPfan

Colorado Springs, CO

#9 Nov 27, 2010
GBPmies wrote:
<quoted text>
I think it is a bit odd you so strongly agree with the article (by bleacher report) but previously you said they are “hacks”. Hmmm? Agreeing with “hacks”. Hmmm? I believe you called me a hypocrite recently, and now I am not sure you know the definition of that word.
GBPfan wrote
“Sorry, but I don't read articles from those bleacher report hacks. I tried it a few times. I lost a few I.Q. points in the process.”
http://www.topix.com/forum/nfl/green-bay-pack...
Post 32
I told you I don't read the articles in Bleacher Report any more. That was true. I was merely agreeing with the article title which appears above.

BTW even a hack can be right occasionally. I didn't say that they are never right. However, the analysis is poor and their recitation of facts is often full of errors or completely absent. Regardless of the point being made the articles generally suck and contain little, if any, accurate data. There is nothing hypocritical about agreeing with the article title. It doesn't surprise me that you would fail to understand that fact. You seem to have great difficulty with facts and the concept of hypocrisy.

Since you did read the article, tell me this, did this article mention why the burden fell to McCarthy? Or was I the only one to point it out?
GBPfan

Colorado Springs, CO

#10 Nov 27, 2010
GBPmies wrote:
<quoted text>

Now the “topic”
I am excited about Nance. I think his “tough guy” style of running fits exactly what we need. I think Jackson is a good back but not the every down back Grant was. Don’t get me wrong, Jackson has his abilities, especially pass blocking and catching the ball, but he is not the bruiser we need. I guess that is why our FB became a RB. A back like Nance will be great in end of the season in those frozen games vs NY and CHI. I do not care if he is a rookie either. Great pick up, and Atlanta tryed to keep him too. I really look forward to seeing more in tomorrow’s game. Our offence is clicking, now a stronger run game will make us... well crazy!
Will the Pack now become a RB by committee? No more 1 featured back?
In 2009 Ryan Grant lead the team in rushing with 1,253 yards in 282 rushing attempts. This season so far, the leading rusher is Brandon Jackson with 488 yards in 122 attempts.

You asked the question: Will the Pack now become a RB by committee? Ah, don't you think they already have?

As for your excitement, don't take this the wrong way, but I don't put too much faith in that. You have been excited about Turd Thompson for 6 seasons and he has yet to do anything. I'll wait to see some real results before I get excited. You and eric can wet your pants together. I'm keeping my dry for the time being.
eric

Monroe, WI

#11 Nov 27, 2010
GBPfan wrote:
<quoted text>
This is eric's quote:
"Grant coming back ( although its been said his cap number is quite big,so they may ask for a cap reduction)"
That kind of scenario in 2005 is exactly what eric has described as "cap hell" many, many times and he knows it. "Cap hell" is his term, not mine. If the Packers can't afford to keep their best players without asking for concessions, every true PACKER fan would describe it as a cap problem at a minimum. I was simply using eric's phrase because he didn't seem to know that cap problems and reductions are common place until now. Only after his hero gets the PACKERS in a jam does he realize that good GMs can get around cap problems without harming a team. I've known that for many years.
Don't beat yourself up over it. How could you know all of the stupid things eric has ever said?
The cap comment was straight from an article that stated Grant's cap number climbs quite a bit,so the Packers may ask him to take a cap reduction to keep him,i said nothing about being in Cap Hell,In 2005 the Packers were over the cap so they had to release or not resign certain players as to stay under,Im well aware of cap reductions,cap hell senarios thank you.As for stupid things i have ever said, well,how many of them were in your warped mind as you love twisting words that people say to make yourself look all high and mighty,truth being told,people see right through you.Again,nice try
GBPfan

Colorado Springs, CO

#12 Nov 27, 2010
eric wrote:
<quoted text>The cap comment was straight from an article that stated Grant's cap number climbs quite a bit,so the Packers may ask him to take a cap reduction to keep him,i said nothing about being in Cap Hell,In 2005 the Packers were over the cap so they had to release or not resign certain players as to stay under,Im well aware of cap reductions,cap hell senarios thank you.As for stupid things i have ever said, well,how many of them were in your warped mind as you love twisting words that people say to make yourself look all high and mighty,truth being told,people see right through you.Again,nice try
Do you think cap reduction was invented yesterday? The Packers weren't over the cap in 2005. Turd Thompson didn't have to release the players that would cause a 12 loss season. And even assuming the Packers were over the cap, Turd Thompson didn't even attempt "cap reduction" as an alternative. I've seen many teams get around cap problems in many different ways. Of course, those teams don't have a moron occupying the GM position. Let's hope the moron has learned something instead of letting quality players go this time. Especially since the moron caused the current cap problems and doesn't get to blame his stupidity on somebody else this time.

BTW you've used the term "cap hell" to describe 2005's cap problems many times and you know it. I never said you used it now. I clearly said I was using the term you have used in the past to describe the same situation -- a cap problem. Learn to read!
eric

Monroe, WI

#14 Nov 28, 2010
I realize cap reductions have been around since the begging of the cap.The Packers are reno. with Desmond Bishop and im sure Tramon Williams wont be far behind and they still have Cullen Jenkins who will be A FA after the season,so theres some big names there.
and
Yes,the Packers were over the cap at the end of 04 going into 05 which is why they didnt resign Wahle and Dallas overpaid for Rivera.TT prob. didnt have to play 05 with 30+ rookies but he likes to play young players ( his system) and within 3 years they were 13-3 and an OT from the Super Bowl,not a bad job
4-12 to 13-3 with a 8-8 in between in 3 season with a team that started with 30+ rookies and or 2nd year players.

anyway IT was written ( not my idea or suggestion) that the Packers will or prob ask Grant for a cap reduction as his cap number skyrockets so they can resign players ( im hoping Clay Mathews gets an extension) but FA first CM will be here so worry about that after CJ, DB, TW, and a few others.
GBPfan

Colorado Springs, CO

#15 Nov 28, 2010
Have it your way. Thompson can renogotiate and do cap reduction now, but it was impossible to do in 2005. He also had to let go of good O-lineman in 2005 and there was no other possible alternatives.

Does it really make you feel better about that moron hero of yours when you lie to yourself that way? If so, lie all you want. Just don't con PACKER fans into the B.S. you believe.

Once again, it's about the PACKERS. Your fantasies of Turd Thompson mean nothing.
eric

Monroe, WI

#16 Nov 28, 2010
Whatever,if it makes you feel better to deny the facts,to make you look better so you can bash TT and call others names,go for it,as i said people see right through you!
GBPfan

Colorado Springs, CO

#17 Nov 28, 2010
People should see right through me. I make it as obvious as can be that I care about the PACKERS. And people see right through you.
normallylikeyell ow

Tyrone, PA

#18 Nov 28, 2010
What will it cost us (cap or otherrwise) to get someone who can cover a damn kickoff? That's all I want to know.
PackerBacker-Wic hitaKs

Wichita, KS

#19 Nov 28, 2010
As Packer fans, after watching today's game, we all know what the Packers need. Better special team play in both kickoff returns and kickoff coverage. Ted Thompson made a grave mistake in not pursuing a FA RB when Grant was injured. When cold weather and the playoffs come around this will be the demise of this team. AR and the receiving corp, along with our defense cannot pull us out every game. Green Bay needs to have some kind of sustained running game to get to the playoffs and to advance in the playoffs. In general, like a lot others, I don't agree with most of GBPfan's old refrain about TT being the Packers's problem. My concern would be what are the Packer Board of Directors letting him do? What constraints is TT operating on as far as money and spending on FA's. Don't blame everything on TT, look at the entire organization as a whole.
FUNNY

Marshfield, WI

#20 Nov 28, 2010
The won nothing yet(championship of any kind) paper champion / stat boy A -THE -GAY - ROD is back at it again with the belt move. Maybe Teddy and the trainer should keep there belts on the night before games. Maybe The gay rods hands wouldn't be to slippery to hold on to the ball.And PUCKER fans lets hear the refs screwed us. All at once now!
GBPfan

Colorado Springs, CO

#21 Nov 28, 2010
The special teams are what they are. Obviously, they could be better, but an overtime game wouldn't have assured a win. The Falcons showed the difference a running game can make. Imagine if the Packers had one. I don't think it would have been close at the end.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

John Kuhn Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Shy of the Packers' Run Game, Team Limiting Gro... (Dec '14) Dec '14 Pete SamprAssfarts 2
News 5 UDFAs Who Will Make the Green Bay Packers' 53... (May '14) May '14 Laughing Bear Fan 1
News Green Bay Packers tabbed as 'winners' in free a... (Apr '14) Apr '14 Spielman 2
News Kuhn still might have something to prove (Apr '14) Apr '14 Yelling Slang 2
News Updating Green Bay Packers' Salary-Cap Situatio... (Mar '14) Mar '14 Flynnished 2
News Green Bay Packers Must Re-Sign John Kuhn (Mar '14) Mar '14 eric 8
News Packers' special teams very special on Sunday (Jan '14) Jan '14 Laughing bear Fan 1
More from around the web