If the Packers had stuck with the 55th pick in the second round, would they have selected running back Montee Ball instead of Eddie Lacy?Kevin Seifert proposes the question at ESPN. During the draft last Friday, the Packers traded their 55th pick to the 49ers and moved down to No. 61 and then took Lacy (Green Bay also received a sixth-round pick). The Broncos scooped up Ball three picks earlier at No. 58.An interesting part of Seifert's story is Denver's decision to take Ball over Lacy. The Broncos say it came down to Lacy's injury history. It was also reported that the Steelers passed on Lacy because of toe fusion.We know that the Packers appeared comfortable taking a running back in the second round - at least with the 61st pick. Had the Packers not traded with the 49ers, however, it would have been interesting to see if the 55th pick could have been Lacy, Ball, or someone else.Read Seifert's story here.

If I had caught Demi Moore before her first audition outside the studios, I'd have had a real shot at tagging her in her prime.

If these lottery tickets I have in my wallet hit, I might get a crack at an around the globe tour.

If I knew those woods were going to take my golf ball today, I'd have aimed more left.

If I had caught Demi Moore before her first audition outside the studios, I'd have had a real shot at tagging her in her prime.

If these lottery tickets I have in my wallet hit, I might get a crack at an around the globe tour.

If I knew those woods were going to take my golf ball today, I'd have aimed more left.

For me.. watching every Badger game each season vs a collection of 5 games of Bama this year, I think Ball has the better overall career in the pros.

Now would Ball fit in with the Packers or Lacy with the Broncos better than where they landed, we shall never know. But based on the talents they bring to the field, I would put Ball ahead of Lacy.

And that is not homerism.. I haven't like many Badger backs as pros.. Dayne included. Just think Balls talents will be more productive at this level and for a longer duration.

I like my crow served cold... thank you very much. That is if Lacy can serve it.

I just don't think Lacy will live up to the hype. If he can punch it through on * and short, average more than 4 yards a carry, doesn't get the QB killed and doesn't fumble ... I'll put it down as a win for the Packers.

IMO if he doesn't run into his own blockers or repeatedly run into the mass of bodies and repeatedly get 1-2 yards; and then finally gets decent yardage when he doesn't do this (anyone figure out whom Im talking about) ... Ill be happy.

I think Eddie Lacy (why do people only use last names?) will be better for the Packers than Montee Ball would have been. I think Ball needs a wider hole than Lacy. I also feel that Lacy is more of a punishing back, which I think will help the Packers offense.

I feel Ball to the Broncos is a better fit than Lacy with the Broncos too.



I just don't think Lacy will live up to the hype. If he can punch it through on * and short, average more than 4 yards a carry, doesn't get the QB killed and doesn't fumble ... I'll put it down as a win for the Packers.

Who amongst us gives a rat's ass about Lacy living up to the hype? All we need is a credible running game, and imo, he looks good enough to provide it, regardless of how bad we are at creating a hole for the running back. [I] like him most because I suspect we need his beef to get through the initial (non) hole.


The fact that he excelled under a ZBS blocking system cannot be overlooked, imo.

Him and Franklin will make our Offensive line look like a pro bowl line. \:d/

This is a possibility, also. I frankly doubt it, to be honest... I'm totally fine with our current running backs... If there is no hole, there is no hole...


My minimal hopes rest reflecting upon the the production of Ahman Green and Ryan Grant. They seemed to manage without a hole, to my satisfaction, at least.