1000 Yard Rusher

milani wrote:Lacy has had to do it pretty much all on his own. See the contrast of a decade ago. You have a great RB in Ahman Green and a powerful run blocking unit and not only do you get 1,000 yards but you get 1800+.



Explain to me the huge bump in yards-per-carry for James Starks from 2010-2012 to 2013.  Why is he suddenly getting almost a full extra yard-per-carry now??  Do you think he magically just got better??

I mentioned this a month ago.

duck wrote:

milani wrote:Lacy has had to do it pretty much all on his own. See the contrast of a decade ago. You have a great RB in Ahman Green and a powerful run blocking unit and not only do you get 1,000 yards but you get 1800+.



Explain to me the huge bump in yards-per-carry for James Starks from 2010-2012 to 2013.  Why is he suddenly getting almost a full extra yard-per-carry now??  Do you think he magically just got better??

I mentioned this a month ago.

You are becoming a professional deviate Duck!  Duck the Deviate...........the Instigator..........the passionate intense arguer.........a true piece of chatboard excellence unmatched by most of both the human and subhuman race!     I would argue that the pass blocking has gotten so bad that the Packers RBs are running harder than ever just to keep from getting killed.   GO PACKERs

RingoCStarrQB wrote:

duck wrote:

milani wrote:Lacy has had to do it pretty much all on his own. See the contrast of a decade ago. You have a great RB in Ahman Green and a powerful run blocking unit and not only do you get 1,000 yards but you get 1800+.



Explain to me the huge bump in yards-per-carry for James Starks from 2010-2012 to 2013.  Why is he suddenly getting almost a full extra yard-per-carry now??  Do you think he magically just got better??

I mentioned this a month ago.

You are becoming a professional deviate Duck!  Duck the Deviate...........the Instigator..........the passionate intense arguer.........a true piece of chatboard excellence unmatched by most of both the human and subhuman race!     When I see barstool shit like our line is "dogshit", it's my job to put the Norms and Cliffies in their place.  I would argue that the pass blocking has gotten so bad that the Packers RBs are running harder than ever just to keep from getting killed.  I will acknowledge that the injuries and shuffling have hurt our O-line in the second half of the year.  They were much better in the first half.  Another reason we're seeing a fiercer pass rush now is that defenses haven't respected our #2, #3 or #4 QBs.  Put Rodgers back in there and we won't see the pressure because defenses would be afraid of getting burned.   GO PACKERs

milani wrote:Starks has hardly been on the field this year. Give him the number of carries Lacy gets and he is in the hospital. His average could be up for the little he has played but that is no indication that the offensive line is responsible. Teams see Lacy go out and they soften up for the pass. See if Starks can blast it in when we are at the 3 yard line. In 2010 we had a decent offensive line and we could do that. Now it's all about Lacy carrying the load.

What are you Milani........a palm reader in disguise?   Starks came through when we needed the help.
GO PACK GO !!

RingoCStarrQB wrote:

milani wrote:Starks has hardly been on the field this year. Give him the number of carries Lacy gets and he is in the hospital. His average could be up for the little he has played but that is no indication that the offensive line is responsible. Teams see Lacy go out and they soften up for the pass. See if Starks can blast it in when we are at the 3 yard line. In 2010 we had a decent offensive line and we could do that. Now it's all about Lacy carrying the load.

What are you Milani........a palm reader in disguise?   Starks came through when we needed the help.
GO PACK GO !!

Once in a while pass catcher. Not an every down back. Spell the big man. Ahman had his Tony Fisher.

RagnarLodbrok2 wrote:We welcome fans of all teams to our board......with the exception of Vikings fans.


What?!?!? LOL.

TuckAndRoll wrote:by [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Today at 4:07 am

Packers rank 25th in pass blocking and 11th in run blocking. With 3 games to go the combination of Lacy + Starks has exceeded 1,000 Yards. Lacy is on track to be the 8th Packers RB to eclipse 1,000 yards (Canadeo, Taylor, Brockington, Middleton, Bennett, Levens, Green, Grant). However, Lacy is only averaging 3.9 yards per carry (Jimmy Taylor averaged 5.4 yards per carry in 1962). Packers need to step up their run blocking today versus a Cowboys defense that gives up 5.4 yards/carry (Jimmy Taylor numbers !!!!)



Congrats Packers and Packer fans! That was one hell of a comeback game today - and its got to taste extra sweet since it came against the Cowboys at their home!


Another congrats to the new 1000 yarder - Eddie Lacy! Actually, I'm quite surprised to see that his avg yard per carry is so low, at only 3.9. But then again, the only time that I really see Lacy is from post game highlights were he's tearing it up for 10 - 20 yarders. And highlights usually don't include those 2 yard efforts which he must have a bunch of to drop his average. 


I know that this is the Packers board, however, and unfortunately for me, my teams board has only one poster - me. 




So if you all don't mind, I'd like to give out a small acknowledgement to a player from my team today who played exceptionally well. That player is #25 - Mr Jamaal Charles of the KC Chiefs who put on quite the show today with 5 TD's!

The Chiefs fans are on other boards but I guarantee you that they are out there. Andy Reid should be coach of the year. How do you take a team that has been in the doldrums for a number of years and just turn them into a dominant power over night? And they still may get another shot at Peyton and the Broncos.

TuckAndRoll wrote:by [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Today at 4:07 am

Packers rank 25th in pass blocking and 11th in run blocking. With 3 games to go the combination of Lacy + Starks has exceeded 1,000 Yards. Lacy is on track to be the 8th Packers RB to eclipse 1,000 yards (Canadeo, Taylor, Brockington, Middleton, Bennett, Levens, Green, Grant). However, Lacy is only averaging 3.9 yards per carry (Jimmy Taylor averaged 5.4 yards per carry in 1962). Packers need to step up their run blocking today versus a Cowboys defense that gives up 5.4 yards/carry (Jimmy Taylor numbers !!!!)



Congrats Packers and Packer fans! That was one hell of a comeback game today - and its got to taste extra sweet since it came against the Cowboys at their home!


Another congrats to the new 1000 yarder - Eddie Lacy! Actually, I'm quite surprised to see that his avg yard per carry is so low, at only 3.9. But then again, the only time that I really see Lacy is from post game highlights were he's tearing it up for 10 - 20 yarders. And highlights usually don't include those 2 yard efforts which he must have a bunch of to drop his average. 


I know that this is the Packers board, however, and unfortunately for me, my teams board has only one poster - me. 




So if you all don't mind, I'd like to give out a small acknowledgement to a player from my team today who played exceptionally well. That player is #25 - Mr Jamaal Charles of the KC Chiefs who put on quite the show today with 5 TD's!


Good luck to your Chiefs, Tuck.  I like them if for no other reason than I'm rooting for Alex Smith after all he's been through.  But your team has a running game, excellent defense, and a top notch coach too.

milani wrote:Starks has hardly been on the field this year. Give him the number of carries Lacy gets and he is in the hospital. His average could be up for the little he has played but that is no indication that the offensive line is responsible. Teams see Lacy go out and they soften up for the pass. See if Starks can blast it in when we are at the 3 yard line. In 2010 we had a decent offensive line and we could do that. Now it's all about Lacy carrying the load.


Really?  You're just refusing to acknowledge the facts.  There is a huge body of statistics to prove that Starks is performing SUBSTANTIALLY better this year.  If you don't think the offensive line has anything to do with it, what do you think it is, magic fairy dust??

Our running game has been effective this year NO MATTER WHO IS RUNNING THE BALL.  Even Franklin had his 100 yard game.

Right now, even with Rodgers gone for half a season and all the changes on the O-Line, Green Bay is ranked #7 in rushing (previously #2 or #3).

Please explain to me how this happens with a dogshit bottom five offensive line.  You can't.  You, HD, MB, and others keep saying our O-line sucks but EVERY STATISTICAL MEASURE indicates that the line is average to good.  That's my frustration with this board sometimes.  I bring facts and you guys counter with bar stool logic.

Why do you guys refuse to accept reality??

duck wrote:

milani wrote:Starks has hardly been on the field this year. Give him the number of carries Lacy gets and he is in the hospital. His average could be up for the little he has played but that is no indication that the offensive line is responsible. Teams see Lacy go out and they soften up for the pass. See if Starks can blast it in when we are at the 3 yard line. In 2010 we had a decent offensive line and we could do that. Now it's all about Lacy carrying the load.


Really?  You're just refusing to acknowledge the facts.  There is a huge body of statistics to prove that Starks is performing SUBSTANTIALLY better this year.  If you don't think the offensive line has anything to do with it, what do you think it is, magic fairy dust??

Our running game has been effective this year NO MATTER WHO IS RUNNING THE BALL.  Even Franklin had his 100 yard game.

Right now, even with Rodgers gone for half a season and all the changes on the O-Line, Green Bay is ranked #7 in rushing (previously #2 or #3).

Please explain to me how this happens with a dogshit bottom five offensive line.  You can't.  You, HD, MB, and others keep saying our O-line sucks but EVERY STATISTICAL MEASURE indicates that the line is average to good.  That's my frustration with this board sometimes.  I bring facts and you guys counter with bar stool logic.

Why do you guys refuse to accept reality??

Quit embarrassing yourself further, Duck...  This shit has all been covered ad infinitum and it is you who is proving to have such a struggle processing the variables providing reason to the queries you make...

The bottom line is--you made a bad call in characterizing the line in the glowing terms you did early in the season, failed to identify/accept what an obvious liability Don Barclay is--then rode your error into the ground as the once obvious to some--remained ever-obvious to all.  Like I said, you can't have something anything comprised of 20% shit--and not use that ingredient to primarily define it...especially with something like an O-line that functions as a unit and is really no better than its weakest link.

_HD_ wrote:

duck wrote:

milani wrote:Starks has hardly been on the field this year. Give him the number of carries Lacy gets and he is in the hospital. His average could be up for the little he has played but that is no indication that the offensive line is responsible. Teams see Lacy go out and they soften up for the pass. See if Starks can blast it in when we are at the 3 yard line. In 2010 we had a decent offensive line and we could do that. Now it's all about Lacy carrying the load.


Really?  You're just refusing to acknowledge the facts.  There is a huge body of statistics to prove that Starks is performing SUBSTANTIALLY better this year.  If you don't think the offensive line has anything to do with it, what do you think it is, magic fairy dust??

Our running game has been effective this year NO MATTER WHO IS RUNNING THE BALL.  Even Franklin had his 100 yard game.

Right now, even with Rodgers gone for half a season and all the changes on the O-Line, Green Bay is ranked #7 in rushing (previously #2 or #3).

Please explain to me how this happens with a dogshit bottom five offensive line.  You can't.  You, HD, MB, and others keep saying our O-line sucks but EVERY STATISTICAL MEASURE indicates that the line is average to good.  That's my frustration with this board sometimes.  I bring facts and you guys counter with bar stool logic.

Why do you guys refuse to accept reality??

Quit embarrassing yourself further, Duck...  This shit has all been covered ad infinitum and it is you who is proving to have such a struggle processing the variables providing reason to the queries you make...

The bottom line is--you made a bad call in characterizing the line in the glowing terms you did early in the season, failed to identify/accept what an obvious liability Don Barclay is--then rode your error into the ground as the once obvious to some--remained ever-obvious to all.  Like I said, you can't have something anything comprised of 20% shit--and not use that ingredient to primarily define it...especially with something like an O-line that functions as a unit and is really no better than its weakest link.


This hack job is beneath you, HD.  No matter how desperately you try to spin it, you and Milani have asserted that our offensive line is "dogshit"... bottom five in the league... 28th out of 32.

And that's just flat out unsubstantiated barstool rubbish.  Dead wrong.

duck wrote:

_HD_ wrote:

duck wrote:

milani wrote:Starks has hardly been on the field this year. Give him the number of carries Lacy gets and he is in the hospital. His average could be up for the little he has played but that is no indication that the offensive line is responsible. Teams see Lacy go out and they soften up for the pass. See if Starks can blast it in when we are at the 3 yard line. In 2010 we had a decent offensive line and we could do that. Now it's all about Lacy carrying the load.


Really?  You're just refusing to acknowledge the facts.  There is a huge body of statistics to prove that Starks is performing SUBSTANTIALLY better this year.  If you don't think the offensive line has anything to do with it, what do you think it is, magic fairy dust??

Our running game has been effective this year NO MATTER WHO IS RUNNING THE BALL.  Even Franklin had his 100 yard game.

Right now, even with Rodgers gone for half a season and all the changes on the O-Line, Green Bay is ranked #7 in rushing (previously #2 or #3).

Please explain to me how this happens with a dogshit bottom five offensive line.  You can't.  You, HD, MB, and others keep saying our O-line sucks but EVERY STATISTICAL MEASURE indicates that the line is average to good.  That's my frustration with this board sometimes.  I bring facts and you guys counter with bar stool logic.

Why do you guys refuse to accept reality??

Quit embarrassing yourself further, Duck...  This shit has all been covered ad infinitum and it is you who is proving to have such a struggle processing the variables providing reason to the queries you make...

The bottom line is--you made a bad call in characterizing the line in the glowing terms you did early in the season, failed to identify/accept what an obvious liability Don Barclay is--then rode your error into the ground as the once obvious to some--remained ever-obvious to all.  Like I said, you can't have something anything comprised of 20% shit--and not use that ingredient to primarily define it...especially with something like an O-line that functions as a unit and is really no better than its weakest link.


This hack job is beneath you, HD.  No matter how desperately you try to spin it, you and Milani have asserted that our offensive line is "dogshit"... bottom five in the league... 28th out of 32.

And that's just flat out unsubstantiated barstool rubbish.  Dead wrong.

Once again, Duck--you demonstrate the debating tactics of a beaten man in regularly making polarized claims that simply were never made.  I never made any reference whatsoever to *bottom five in the league or *28th out of 32* did I?  I did, however, state that any line that the coaching staff chooses to enter a season not upgrading a Don Barclay at Tackle--is an inadequate line.  The Center is servicable at best...the Guards are good and the tackles are generally inadequate...but collectively bottom 5 in the league?  How can that be possibly defined.  WAY too many variables to collectively make that claim...and that's, of course why debators like you like to make them...for as impossible as they are to conclude--they are equally impossible to disprove.

All this is, Duck--is a trip you're on to not have to accept the fact that your vaunted line has been one of the primary weaknesses of the team this season.  Take away Rodgers and they reak.  Take away Rodgers and Lacy--and the smell would never go away.  Oh, and by the way, Duck.  Starks has been used primarily as the third down back this season in more obvious passing situations...so it's when you have a thin box that he gets his carries.  He's also, because the far more limited workload, healthy this year.  You seem not to understand that in your repeated attempts to use his bigger YPC this season as nothing more than as a result of a better offensive line.  Keep trying though, Ducker... The delusion will get you through.     

_HD_ wrote:

duck wrote:

_HD_ wrote:

duck wrote:

milani wrote:Starks has hardly been on the field this year. Give him the number of carries Lacy gets and he is in the hospital. His average could be up for the little he has played but that is no indication that the offensive line is responsible. Teams see Lacy go out and they soften up for the pass. See if Starks can blast it in when we are at the 3 yard line. In 2010 we had a decent offensive line and we could do that. Now it's all about Lacy carrying the load.


Really?  You're just refusing to acknowledge the facts.  There is a huge body of statistics to prove that Starks is performing SUBSTANTIALLY better this year.  If you don't think the offensive line has anything to do with it, what do you think it is, magic fairy dust??

Our running game has been effective this year NO MATTER WHO IS RUNNING THE BALL.  Even Franklin had his 100 yard game.

Right now, even with Rodgers gone for half a season and all the changes on the O-Line, Green Bay is ranked #7 in rushing (previously #2 or #3).

Please explain to me how this happens with a dogshit bottom five offensive line.  You can't.  You, HD, MB, and others keep saying our O-line sucks but EVERY STATISTICAL MEASURE indicates that the line is average to good.  That's my frustration with this board sometimes.  I bring facts and you guys counter with bar stool logic.

Why do you guys refuse to accept reality??

Quit embarrassing yourself further, Duck...  This shit has all been covered ad infinitum and it is you who is proving to have such a struggle processing the variables providing reason to the queries you make...

The bottom line is--you made a bad call in characterizing the line in the glowing terms you did early in the season, failed to identify/accept what an obvious liability Don Barclay is--then rode your error into the ground as the once obvious to some--remained ever-obvious to all.  Like I said, you can't have something anything comprised of 20% shit--and not use that ingredient to primarily define it...especially with something like an O-line that functions as a unit and is really no better than its weakest link.


This hack job is beneath you, HD.  No matter how desperately you try to spin it, you and Milani have asserted that our offensive line is "dogshit"... bottom five in the league... 28th out of 32.

And that's just flat out unsubstantiated barstool rubbish.  Dead wrong.

Once again, Duck--you demonstrate the debating tactics of a beaten man in regularly making polarized claims that simply were never made.  I never made any reference whatsoever to *bottom five in the league or *28th out of 32* did I?  I did, however, state that any line that the coaching staff chooses to enter a season not upgrading a Don Barclay at Tackle--is an inadequate line.  The Center is servicable at best...the Guards are good and the tackles are generally inadequate...but collectively bottom 5 in the league?  How can that be possibly defined.  WAY too many variables to collectively make that claim...and that's, of course why debators like you like to make them...for as impossible as they are to conclude--they are equally impossible to disprove.  

All this is, Duck--is a trip you're on to not have to accept the fact that your vaunted (what's that about "polarized" claims?) line has been one of the primary weaknesses of the team this season. Wrong. Take away Rodgers and they reak. Wrong. Take away Rodgers and Lacy--and the smell would never go away. Wrong.   Oh, and by the way, Duck.  Starks has been used primarily as the third down back this season in more obvious passing situations...so it's when you have a thin box that he gets his carries.  He's also, because the far more limited workload, healthy this year.  You seem not to understand that in your repeated attempts to use his bigger YPC this season as nothing more than as a result of a better offensive line.  Keep trying though, Ducker... The delusion will get you through.     

You see, HD, you spent the better part of the first paragraph trying to wiggle out of your contention that we do indeed have a really crappy O-Line... and though it was Milani who specifically labelled the Pack's unit as "bottom five", you've done nothing but give tacit approval to that notion and challenged me anytime I suggested otherwise.  It's very clear from your language in the second paragraph (reek, smell, primary weakness, etc.) what your true feelings are.  But once again you bring no substance to the debate.  You have no stats to back you up and each time you cited a source (Bleacher Report and Bob McGinn), it blew up in your face.

Let's be honest.  You watch the games on TV (one you listened to on the friggin radio!) and for the most part the line play is invisible.  Every once and a while you see a sack or a running play get blown up and you think, horrors, these guys suck.  You seldom see the footage of the guys doing their job well.  That's the nature of the offensive line.  They do the dirty work.  If their names get called, it's usually a bad thing.  The TV camera focusses on the skill players and where the ball goes.  You're right, the average Joe really has little appreciation for what a good offensive line does and what a bad one doesn't do.  It doesn't lend itself to sexy stats for Fantasy Football.

So when you say over and over and over that our guys reek, are dogshit, or whatever... it really has about as much credibility as Norm and Cliffie sitting at a bar, making hasty ill-informed pronouncements about their team.

duck wrote:

_HD_ wrote:

duck wrote:

_HD_ wrote:

duck wrote:

milani wrote:Starks has hardly been on the field this year. Give him the number of carries Lacy gets and he is in the hospital. His average could be up for the little he has played but that is no indication that the offensive line is responsible. Teams see Lacy go out and they soften up for the pass. See if Starks can blast it in when we are at the 3 yard line. In 2010 we had a decent offensive line and we could do that. Now it's all about Lacy carrying the load.


Really?  You're just refusing to acknowledge the facts.  There is a huge body of statistics to prove that Starks is performing SUBSTANTIALLY better this year.  If you don't think the offensive line has anything to do with it, what do you think it is, magic fairy dust??

Our running game has been effective this year NO MATTER WHO IS RUNNING THE BALL.  Even Franklin had his 100 yard game.

Right now, even with Rodgers gone for half a season and all the changes on the O-Line, Green Bay is ranked #7 in rushing (previously #2 or #3).

Please explain to me how this happens with a dogshit bottom five offensive line.  You can't.  You, HD, MB, and others keep saying our O-line sucks but EVERY STATISTICAL MEASURE indicates that the line is average to good.  That's my frustration with this board sometimes.  I bring facts and you guys counter with bar stool logic.

Why do you guys refuse to accept reality??

Quit embarrassing yourself further, Duck...  This shit has all been covered ad infinitum and it is you who is proving to have such a struggle processing the variables providing reason to the queries you make...

The bottom line is--you made a bad call in characterizing the line in the glowing terms you did early in the season, failed to identify/accept what an obvious liability Don Barclay is--then rode your error into the ground as the once obvious to some--remained ever-obvious to all.  Like I said, you can't have something anything comprised of 20% shit--and not use that ingredient to primarily define it...especially with something like an O-line that functions as a unit and is really no better than its weakest link.


This hack job is beneath you, HD.  No matter how desperately you try to spin it, you and Milani have asserted that our offensive line is "dogshit"... bottom five in the league... 28th out of 32.

And that's just flat out unsubstantiated barstool rubbish.  Dead wrong.

Once again, Duck--you demonstrate the debating tactics of a beaten man in regularly making polarized claims that simply were never made.  I never made any reference whatsoever to *bottom five in the league or *28th out of 32* did I?  I did, however, state that any line that the coaching staff chooses to enter a season not upgrading a Don Barclay at Tackle--is an inadequate line.  The Center is servicable at best...the Guards are good and the tackles are generally inadequate...but collectively bottom 5 in the league?  How can that be possibly defined.  WAY too many variables to collectively make that claim...and that's, of course why debators like you like to make them...for as impossible as they are to conclude--they are equally impossible to disprove.  

All this is, Duck--is a trip you're on to not have to accept the fact that your vaunted (what's that about "polarized" claims?) line has been one of the primary weaknesses of the team this season. Wrong. Take away Rodgers and they reak. Wrong. Take away Rodgers and Lacy--and the smell would never go away. Wrong.   Oh, and by the way, Duck.  Starks has been used primarily as the third down back this season in more obvious passing situations...so it's when you have a thin box that he gets his carries.  He's also, because the far more limited workload, healthy this year.  You seem not to understand that in your repeated attempts to use his bigger YPC this season as nothing more than as a result of a better offensive line.  Keep trying though, Ducker... The delusion will get you through.     

You see, HD, you spent the better part of the first paragraph trying to wiggle out of your contention that we do indeed have a really crappy O-Line... Nooooo, Duck...I once again spent the better part of the first paragraph correcting your blatant fraud in characterizing my words and though it was Milani who specifically labelled the Pack's unit as "bottom five", you've done nothing but give tacit approval to that notion and challenged me anytime I suggested otherwise.  It's very clear from your language in the second paragraph (reek, smell, primary weakness, etc.) what your true feelings are.  But once again you bring no substance to the debate.  You have no stats to back you up and each time you cited a source (Bleacher Report and Bob McGinn), it blew up in your face.  LOL!  You're becoming flat out pathetic, Duck.  You need to do a re-boot BAD...   

Let's be honest.  You watch the games on TV (one you listened to on the friggin radio!) and for the most part the line play is invisible.  Every once and a while you see a sack or a running play get blown up and you think, horrors, these guys suck.  You seldom see the footage of the guys doing their job well.  That's the nature of the offensive line.  They do the dirty work.  If their names get called, it's usually a bad thing.  The TV camera focusses on the skill players and where the ball goes.  You're right, the average Joe really has little appreciation for what a good offensive line does and what a bad one doesn't do.  It doesn't lend itself to sexy stats for Fantasy Football.

So when you say over and over and over that our guys reek, are dogshit, or whatever... it really has about as much credibility as Norm and Cliffie sitting at a bar, making hasty ill-informed pronouncements about their team.


LOL!  I enjoyed how lame that was--especially for a guy who has never even been to see a Pack game live at Lambeau and offers so many naive assessments as you reflect in the nuts/bolts of football...  For a guy as generally bright as you--you sure have failed to cover your flank in the projection front lately.  


We've got our positions well-established, Duck...and you continue to insist on burying yourself in the inadequacy of yours... Keep up the good work.