You are not logged in. Join Free! | Log In Thank you!    

Welcome to your Green Bay Packers Online Community!

Since 2006, PackersHome has been providing a unique experience for fans.
Your participation is greatly anticipated!
Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

6 Pages<12345>»
Share
Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline play2win  
#31 Posted : Friday, November 2, 2012 11:00:14 AM(UTC)
play2win

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

United States
Posts: 2,243
Joined: 3/29/2012(UTC)
Location: Milwaukee

Applause Given: 844
Applause Received: 547

I thought something might be funky with regards to Green and his OL blocking in front of him:

"Green Bay Packers RB Alex Green needs to be more patient with the team's zone-blocking scheme, according to running backs coach Alex Van Pelt. "Slow it down," Van Pelt said. "He's such a fast-twitch guy that a lot of times the blocks haven't quite developed yet. But we're getting there. Just to slow our pace down, tempo, just track down, and then once he sees it, accelerate and explode through the hole." Green has just a 2.4-yards-per-carry average in the last three games on 64 carries."

Read more: http://www.kffl.com/hotw/NFL?page=0#ixzz2B5XQhBGk

Hey, hopefully the kid shows a bit more patience and puts a good running game together Sunday, and for the rest of the season. That would be awesome. It really is a beautiful thing watching a back who knows how to let his blocking develop in front of him, then burst into the hole and the open field. Maybe this little bit of coaching does the trick.

If it doesn't, I think Starks will be fine getting more of a chance to carry this team into the playoffs.
Offline Rios39  
#32 Posted : Friday, November 2, 2012 11:10:11 AM(UTC)
Rios39

Rank: 5th Round Draft Pick

Posts: 592
Joined: 8/9/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 1
Applause Received: 30

Been watching a lot of film break down and I find the blocking to be at least average. Not much room to run but Alex Green has not shown any vision what so ever. That and he's very easy to take down around the line of scrimmage. He's good in open space but he's gotta get there.
blank
Offline play2win  
#33 Posted : Friday, November 2, 2012 11:23:05 AM(UTC)
play2win

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

United States
Posts: 2,243
Joined: 3/29/2012(UTC)
Location: Milwaukee

Applause Given: 844
Applause Received: 547

Originally Posted by: Rios39 Go to Quoted Post
Been watching a lot of film break down and I find the blocking to be at least average. Not much room to run but Alex Green has not shown any vision what so ever. That and he's very easy to take down around the line of scrimmage. He's good in open space but he's gotta get there.


Yeah, the blocking hasn't been great, for sure. However, Green has been running into spaces that look to not be part of the play design. Man, if both the line blocks better, and Green gets a better feel for how to hit it, that would be beautiful.
Offline PackFanWithTwins  
#34 Posted : Friday, November 2, 2012 8:00:55 PM(UTC)
PackFanWithTwins

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Posts: 2,644
Joined: 9/26/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 11
Applause Received: 345

Originally Posted by: play2win Go to Quoted Post
Yeah, the blocking hasn't been great, for sure. However, Green has been running into spaces that look to not be part of the play design. Man, if both the line blocks better, and Green gets a better feel for how to hit it, that would be beautiful.


Perhaps he is running to where the play is designed to go. The scheme is to run to an area, and look for the gap and go. Most of the bad runs I have seen, look like the holes are opening behind him or to late.
The world needs ditch diggers to Danny!!!
UserPostedImage
Offline PackerTraxx  
#35 Posted : Saturday, November 3, 2012 10:12:58 AM(UTC)
PackerTraxx

Rank: 2nd Round Draft Pick

Posts: 1,783
Joined: 8/13/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 18
Applause Received: 127

There was an article in one of the papers this week that he is not being patient enough for the holes to open. For what it's worth. A number of the plays I've seen don't coincide with that as he's being tackled in our backfield. I guess there's others where it would have made a difference. If I can find it I'll post it.
Why is Jerry Kramer not in the Hall of Fame?
Offline zombieslayer  
#36 Posted : Sunday, November 4, 2012 9:44:29 PM(UTC)
zombieslayer

Rank: Most Valuable Player

Posts: 9,919
Joined: 8/7/2008(UTC)
Location: San Francisco

Applause Given: 778
Applause Received: 495

I know it's just one game, but Green looked better than Starks today.

Code:

James Starks 	17 	61 	3.6 	14
Alex Green 	11 	53 	4.8 	21


Neither of them got a TD run. Starks fumbled once and was lucky Aaron Rodgers is the man and recovered it. Plus, Starks had no receptions whereas Green had 4 for 25 yards.

Starks isn't making a good case for himself to be ahead of Green in the depth chart. However, I'd still love to see Starks get 20+ carries in a game and see how he performs. We still don't have enough info on him this year to judge.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage

(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)

2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. Ted Thompson Mike McCarthy Aaron Rodgers
Offline nerdmann  
#37 Posted : Sunday, November 4, 2012 9:57:03 PM(UTC)
nerdmann

Rank: Super Bowl MVP

Posts: 6,514
Joined: 9/14/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 2,105
Applause Received: 470

Originally Posted by: zombieslayer Go to Quoted Post
I know it's just one game, but Green looked better than Starks today.

Code:

James Starks 	17 	61 	3.6 	14
Alex Green 	11 	53 	4.8 	21


Neither of them got a TD run. Starks fumbled once and was lucky Aaron Rodgers is the man and recovered it. Plus, Starks had no receptions whereas Green had 4 for 25 yards.

Starks isn't making a good case for himself to be ahead of Green in the depth chart. However, I'd still love to see Starks get 20+ carries in a game and see how he performs. We still don't have enough info on him this year to judge.


Green had a higher per carry average, if that's what you mean.

I think they can both play, but Starks is more likely to fall forward.

Green's a better receiver, better at pass pro and better in the open field.
“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”
Offline Porforis  
#38 Posted : Sunday, November 4, 2012 9:58:35 PM(UTC)
Porforis

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

United States
Posts: 2,733
Joined: 8/22/2009(UTC)
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Applause Given: 167
Applause Received: 328

Originally Posted by: PackerTraxx Go to Quoted Post
There was an article in one of the papers this week that he is not being patient enough for the holes to open. For what it's worth. A number of the plays I've seen don't coincide with that as he's being tackled in our backfield. I guess there's others where it would have made a difference. If I can find it I'll post it.


You're misunderstanding what was being said. He needs to be patient. He's trying to push ahead for whatever yards he can, he SHOULD be going to the ground, waiting for the whistle to be blown, and then running through the holes that develop in the defense.
UserPostedImage
Offline zombieslayer  
#39 Posted : Sunday, November 4, 2012 10:13:09 PM(UTC)
zombieslayer

Rank: Most Valuable Player

Posts: 9,919
Joined: 8/7/2008(UTC)
Location: San Francisco

Applause Given: 778
Applause Received: 495

Originally Posted by: nerdmann Go to Quoted Post
Green had a higher per carry average, if that's what you mean.

I think they can both play, but Starks is more likely to fall forward.

Green's a better receiver, better at pass pro and better in the open field.


Green is undeniably faster. But Starks hurts tacklers more. Both of those skills are assets going forward for the Packers.

I'm convinced Mike McCarthy still hasn't made up his mind who will be the starting RB when the Playoffs come around. Right now, I'm betting Mike McCarthy is hoping Benson will be 100% for the Playoffs. I think Benson's 84 yard effort against the Saints was the Packers' best effort so far this year.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage

(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)

2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. Ted Thompson Mike McCarthy Aaron Rodgers
Offline Gaycandybacon  
#40 Posted : Sunday, November 4, 2012 10:14:16 PM(UTC)
Gaycandybacon

Rank: 4th Round Draft Pick

United States
Posts: 829
Joined: 9/17/2012(UTC)
Location: Hanover Park, IL

Applause Given: 145
Applause Received: 173

I got my wish. Kindof a 2-back system! The results speak for themselves.
Offline gbguy20  
#41 Posted : Sunday, November 4, 2012 10:42:12 PM(UTC)
gbguy20

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Posts: 2,162
Joined: 8/28/2009(UTC)

Applause Given: 185
Applause Received: 247

IDC what the numbers say, I was happier with Starks running the ball.
call me Dan
Offline Zero2Cool  
#42 Posted : Monday, November 5, 2012 7:34:43 AM(UTC)
Zero2Cool

Rank: Legend

United States
Posts: 25,225
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI

Applause Given: 1,739
Applause Received: 1,790

During the game the announcers said Mike McCarthy was planning on using James Starks on 1st and 2nd down and then Alex Green on 3rd. Where did we hear that before? I think Mike is stalking our little website! haha.

James Starks was by far the better runner yesterday, no question. But Green is worlds better on 3rd and long and pass blocking. The only time I'd want Starks in on 3rd is if it's 3rd and 3 or less to go. I feel Green has tons more potential to break one 50+, where I think the longest we'll see from Starks is 30'ish. However, I think Starks makes more out of nothing than Green and that's why I prefer Starks.

UserPostedImage
Click here and find the LATEST Packers News!
thanks Post received 1 applause.
SINCITYCHEEZE on 11/5/2012(UTC)
Offline PackFanWithTwins  
#43 Posted : Monday, November 5, 2012 8:18:45 AM(UTC)
PackFanWithTwins

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Posts: 2,644
Joined: 9/26/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 11
Applause Received: 345

I don't think either overall is better than the other. Like any back Both are dependent on the Oline blocking.

For a break down
Starks had 1 negative run, 1 No gain, 7 0-3 yards, 6 4-9, and 1 >10.
Green had 0 Negative runs, 1 No gain, 5 0-3 yards, 4 4-9, and 1 >10.

The key for the run success this week, was running up the middle more. The line can run block when they are allowed to plow forward.

I like the day Green had, the only bad run he had was the no gainer which there was nothing he could do. the only hole opened had an unbloced DT and LB waiting for him. When you add his screen play on top of his rushes.
The world needs ditch diggers to Danny!!!
UserPostedImage
Offline zombieslayer  
#44 Posted : Monday, November 5, 2012 8:30:13 AM(UTC)
zombieslayer

Rank: Most Valuable Player

Posts: 9,919
Joined: 8/7/2008(UTC)
Location: San Francisco

Applause Given: 778
Applause Received: 495

Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins Go to Quoted Post
I don't think either overall is better than the other. Like any back Both are dependent on the Oline blocking.

For a break down
Starks had 1 negative run, 1 No gain, 7 0-3 yards, 6 4-9, and 1 >10.
Green had 0 Negative runs, 1 No gain, 5 0-3 yards, 4 4-9, and 1 >10.

The key for the run success this week, was running up the middle more. The line can run block when they are allowed to plow forward.

I like the day Green had, the only bad run he had was the no gainer which there was nothing he could do. the only hole opened had an unbloced DT and LB waiting for him. When you add his screen play on top of his rushes.


Sort of agreed on your first point. There is one thing that I'm sure Mike McCarthy will take into consideration is that there aren't too many DBs in the NFL who Starks will get away from in the open field. Green on the other hand is capable of busting big ones. Plus, Green is a better receiver and better blocker. Starks may be tougher to tackle, but right now, I give a slight nod to Green.

By the end of the season, if Starks proves me wrong, so be it. I'll support whomever we're playing.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage

(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)

2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. Ted Thompson Mike McCarthy Aaron Rodgers
Offline SINCITYCHEEZE  
#45 Posted : Monday, November 5, 2012 11:09:48 AM(UTC)
SINCITYCHEEZE

Rank: 5th Round Draft Pick

United States
Posts: 508
Joined: 8/7/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 155
Applause Received: 105

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool Go to Quoted Post
During the game the announcers said Mike McCarthy was planning on using James Starks on 1st and 2nd down and then Alex Green on 3rd. Where did we hear that before? I think Mike is stalking our little website! haha.

James Starks was by far the better runner yesterday, no question. But Green is worlds better on 3rd and long and pass blocking. The only time I'd want Starks in on 3rd is if it's 3rd and 3 or less to go. I feel Green has tons more potential to break one 50+, where I think the longest we'll see from Starks is 30'ish. However, I think Starks makes more out of nothing than Green and that's why I prefer Starks.

I agree.It would be nice to be able to run it on 3rd-short instead passing.

Wisconsin Born,Packer Bred
UserPostedImage
Users browsing this topic
Guest (4)
6 Pages<12345>»
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Powered by YAF 2.1.0 | YAF © 2003-2014, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 0.559 seconds.