Packers Should Take a Serious Look at RB Ronald Jones

The Green Bay Packers have a lot needs on the defensive side of the ball. It doesn’t take a genius to realize that. However, that doesn’t mean the Packers can completely ignore offense when it comes to the 2018 NFL draft.

While the 2018 draft is going to be remembered for a lot of the quarterbacks that go near the top, another position that appears loaded with talent is at running back. Green Bay is in a solid position with Aaron Jones, Jamaal Williams and even Ty Montgomery.

Yet, it remains to be seen whether any of those guys can truly be a special kind of player. Aaron Rodgers has played with a lot of great players over the years, but Eddie Lacy was his best running back and that just seems like a shame.

Nothing against Jones and Williams, but they are a long way from proving they are the future of the franchise. Jones ran the ball 81 times for 445 yards and averaged 5.5 a carry. He also scored four touchdowns during the regular season. Williams averaged just 3.6 a carry on 153 attempts.

Both players had their moments and both have promising futures. But are either of them really Pro-Bowl caliber running backs? I’m not so sure.

That’s why, if the Packers get a chance in the second round, they should strongly consider USC running back Ronald Jones. Obviously, some will disagree, saying that defense should be the pick. It’s going to be hard to pass on defense in the second round, assuming Jones even falls that far, but if he is there, he would offer tremendous value. 

Over the past few years, running backs have started to make a greater impact in the NFL, and they are doing in early in their careers. Look at what Leonard Fournette did with the Jags last season or what Todd Gurley has meant to the Rams. Dalvin Cook could be the same thing for the Vikings. Zeke Elliott is another that comes to mind. 

The Packers need impact players on defense, true. But they need more impact players on offense too and it would be great to have one in the backfield.

When Rodgers has had a good running game, he has been pretty lethal. Look at his MVP season in 2014 and how he was playing in 2013 before getting injured. That was the prime of Lacy and Rodgers excelled in the play-action passing game.

A good running game helps the quarterback. It also helps the defense and Jones has the look of a dynamic option, the kind that can change the game in one play.

Jones ran for 3,619 yards at USC, averaged 6.1 yards per carry and scored 39 touchdowns, including 31 over the past two seasons. He is going to be a steal in the second round of the draft and if the Packers get a chance to draft him, they should. 

Certainly, the Packers have other needs to fill, ones that are more important than running back. But sometimes, you have to take a chance on talent and if Green Bay drafted Jones, it might find a guy that can help Aaron Rodgers carry the offense.

__________________________

Chris is a sports journalist from Montana and has been blogging about the Packers since 2011. Chris has been a staff writer for CheeseheadTV since 2017 and looks forward to the day when Aaron Rodgers wins his second Super Bowl. Follow him @thepackersguru

NFL Categories: 
0 points

Comments (93)

Fan-Friendly This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.
Lare's picture

April 01, 2018 at 06:22 pm

Would be a ballsy move for Gutekunst to bypass the defensive players and go offense with early picks, but I'm of the opinion that if you invest $100 million on one player on your roster you'd better protect him and give him the tools he needs to be successful.

That said, I think it's a little early to pass on Jones & Williams. They both can be special if given the chance and can stay healthy, and in the mean time Rodgers & the defense can be be helped more than by being given another running back IMO.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Turophile's picture

April 02, 2018 at 05:02 am

Packers need starter-level players at several positions, RB isn't one of them. WR and TE and maybe an OL on the offensive side of the ball are, but TE is not value in round one, and OL and TE are probably dealt with from round 4 onwards due to other pressing needs.

Pass rusher (probably round one), CB and WR in rounds 2 and 3 , TE with the top pick in round 4, would fill the most pressing needs.

After that you could add a safety, O lineman, second CB and WR, a backup QB, maybe even a 7th on a kicker.

I put the Packers needs in this approximate order.
OLB, CB, WR, TE, OL, S, QB, DL, RB, ILB. The Packers could double-dip any of the first three picks later on in the draft.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
stockholder's picture

April 02, 2018 at 08:21 am

I'm Glad you put OLB and not edge. Even Elephant. It shows you moved on from Capers. New ground needs to happen. And if that ground is a ILB, or DL, RB, I'm all for the better player. Every team has needs. But NO way am I'm passing on a pro player to take need. If RB has a OJ. Simpson. Take him. If R. Smith is there, they should take him. Why take a second round option, to take need. I believe most people are thinking like TT. Take 3 RBs and the position is fixed. None are great. There are still question marks with them. Lacy taught us that competition is needed. For 2 years I bitched about Thomas at ILB. They didn't sign him! A waste of time! If were going to draft players on Need. This team is bound for the cellar. Regardless of A-Rod. It's not going to get us better. No matter how many picks you want or have. The team should not be based on Committee. It about stars and players that have leadership and can play above expectations. Committee selections or need, does not put you in the super-bowl. Speed is the NFL now! You can't teach speed. Williams and Shields had it at CB. They taught them well. But your leaders still were veterans. Take the speed and the difference maker first.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
stockholder's picture

April 02, 2018 at 10:48 am

The point was we don't need to draft a CB @14. We need the better player. A-Rod was selected over a CB back then. Favre was upset. TT traded up for Mathews. Again the better "player" than value. TT was about Value after the super-bowl. Value is not what they should look for. As Williams and Shields proved. With so many players going Up then Down then Up. You pick the player that will bring the best for your team in the long Run. It's time the packers went for the Blue Chip players.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Finwiz's picture

April 02, 2018 at 10:57 am

I agree with you regarding the difference maker regardless of position.
The only problem is, it's rarely a known fact regarding the talent of the player you are taking.
This is a major deal to decide between players and who's going to be a play maker and who's just average. Mistakes are made in EVERY draft!
There probably isn't going to be a sure difference maker at 14, with several players being relatively close in ability. Then it comes down to need.
The only way I see the Packers getting a difference maker is to trade into the top 5. I doubt they will do that, but you never know.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

April 02, 2018 at 12:09 pm

Assuming as many QBs go early as they're speculating will go early, I think top 8 or maybe 9 might get the caliber of player you're talking about. Problem is, everyone else knows that, too.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
flackcatcher's picture

April 02, 2018 at 09:47 pm

Each and every draft has it's own flow. And GM's can get kind of wacky. Either way, I expect the Packers will get their men on the board early. After that, who knows?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Turophile's picture

April 02, 2018 at 05:04 pm

Stockholder.
Edge is becoming the way to describe the pass rushers, it's kind of overtaking OLB.........it isn't just Capers, and i expect the Packers to continue to draft DEs, use them as OLBs, and call them....whatever.

I have no problem with takking top talent if it falls, i just don't think the Pack get a shot at any of DE Chubb, OG Nelson, SafetyD. James, DB M.Fitzpatrick, CB D.Ward. R.Smith is more a 4-3 will, so i'm not sure he is a good fit (though creative coaches can probably find a niche).

I'm still all-in on trading back (to about pick 19-20) in round one and trading UP in rounds 2 and three (or getting an extra pick in those rounds). You should still be able to get get a good pass rusher in round one, but higher picks in round 3 and especially round 2, can yield another good starter (I'm looking at CB in the second round).

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
stockholder's picture

April 02, 2018 at 05:28 pm

Turn- your more than likely are right on the draft shots. OLB is my favor. #1 Vince Biegel should not have been drafted if Edge is in. The Fan base wanted TJ watt in 2017. 6'4 OLB Not Edge. Landry is 6'2 and Davenport played DE. I believe the packers want to get back to the true OLB. Edmunds is a Trade Up! Let's not forget that J. Thomas was 6'0 at ILB.(signed Dallas) And R. Smith is better and bigger. Everyone looks fast with fresh legs. But to blitz Cbs/S better, they need a Cover or speed at OLB. It's what Mathews had. Not everyone is peppers. I hope they sign House, and develop a CB from the later rounds. WR then in rd. 2. If the trade down Happens; ESH is the player that their high ON.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
jeremyjjbrown's picture

April 02, 2018 at 10:02 am

There are only a few positions where a group of Jags can add up to above average production and I think RB is near the top of that list. Can Jones, Williams and Montgomery == Bell? No way, but they can add up to the #10 RB and that's all the Packers need. So unless BG is pretty sure a 1st round RB is gonna be a top 3 RB it would be a bad pick IMO.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
jeremyjjbrown's picture

April 02, 2018 at 02:19 pm

Bell was available for 62 games over his 5 seasons for an overall of 0.775 probability he will play and 0.225 he would not.

In probably you mulitiply, meaning the probably that all of of Williams, Jones and Montgomery being unavailable would be multipled and compared to the probability Bell was unavailable.

the cube root of 0.225 = 0.608

So if Montgomery, Jones and Williams can each be available over 39.2% of the time they will be collectively more available than Bell, and a cost a heck of a lot less than 17 million.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Bert's picture

April 01, 2018 at 06:30 pm

The Packers simply need impact players across the board. Other than QB and maybe DT there is room for improvement. Draft the guy with the highest ceiling and best chance of being a Pro Bowler and all will be well. Sure the defense needs help but improving the offense will offset some of the issues on defense. Bottom line: Improve the team!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
TheVOR's picture

April 02, 2018 at 12:18 am

If the biggest impact player is a RB, TE G, OT, WR at the 14th pick? Take the can't miss immediate impact guy, regardless of position. This dumping 1st rounder after 1st rounder on defensive players with little return is complete BS, and I'd argue that it's killed our team, weakened it, and probably kept us out of the SB.

If they draft another freekin DB with the 14th overall, people will be saying, hey look on top of that building, is that a jumper?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
The TKstinator's picture

April 02, 2018 at 05:49 pm

Lots of folks espouse the whole BPA idea, but it seems to me that players are most likely arranged in “buckets”. So, for example, when GB’s turn comes up at 14, there are likely a few players all graded “6.2” (or whatever numeric you want to assign), Then the Gute and his squad have to decide which of those players they want to choose, or to trade down a few spots, knowing that at least one of them will still be available.
What really hurts is when, a few years after the draft, one of those “6.2’s” is a Pro Bowler, a few are contributors, a few are jags, and a few are busts.
Nobody really knows for sure. It’s all projection. Teams do their prep and cross their fingers.
Man, it’s a wonder I’m not working in an NFL front office, eh?
(SARCASM!)

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
John Kirk's picture

April 01, 2018 at 06:42 pm

Williams will never be special. Aaron Jones already is...but I don't think he's going to be able to be your bell cow.

If the Packers are going RB, I'd prefer Sony Michel as he would fit very well here. He could be used similarly to Kamara in New Orleans. A Jones/Michel rotation would be something to behold. You can keep Williams around for the 1 yard TD plunges and 3rd and shorts.

Reaching around for defense when there's star potential to be found on offense is something I hope Brian doesn't do.

As for Ronald Jones...no way Brian uses a 2nd on a 4.65 RB. I believe he's into SPARQ scores and measurables and Jones wasn't a top performer there. In contrast, Aaron Jones was right near the top in SPARQ last year.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Colin_C's picture

April 01, 2018 at 08:37 pm

Just so you know John, he pulled a hamstring or something during his 40 run. When healthy he's a 4.4 range guy. I'm not a big fan of Jones really, but he is pretty fast.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
John Kirk's picture

April 01, 2018 at 08:52 pm

Thanks, CC. I wasn't aware. BTW...No draft tix for me. :( Hope you fared better.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Colin_C's picture

April 01, 2018 at 09:43 pm

Unfortunately it looks like I didn't get a golden ticket either.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Hawg Hanner's picture

April 02, 2018 at 09:16 am

Remember Eddie Lee Ivory? Hurt on first play from scrimmage in opener.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
worztik's picture

April 02, 2018 at 09:29 am

Hawg... Unfortunately, I remember that play all too well!!! WOW... did it suck!!!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
worztik's picture

April 02, 2018 at 04:41 pm

I guess there are those here that DIDN’T think it sucked!!! WOW... more Ass-sez in the hole here again!!! How can anyone with half a brain not think a torn up knee on Astro turf doesn’t suck??? The down voters are the ones that suck!!! I’d really like to meet these poor excuses for human beings and set them straight... just wishin’ and hopin’ for a dark alley somewhere at sometime...!!! They may just be welfare recipients who got their checks and food stamp cards pulled for no good reason!!!! Oh, there is definitely a reason!!!!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Finwiz's picture

April 02, 2018 at 09:36 am

That was one of the years after surgery on the knee.
His first reg season game against the Bears he had 3 carries for 24 yards before he blew up his knee.
Looked unstoppable in his rookie year during preseason. Very unfortunate.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
John Kirk's picture

April 02, 2018 at 06:24 pm

I wrote a song back in school about Gerry Ellis and Eddie Lee Ivery. Ellis and Ivery side by side in the Packers backfield...

Two of my all time favorite Packers. I'm saddened to learn in this thread they never mattered since they were running backs. :)

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
The TKstinator's picture

April 05, 2018 at 06:41 am

Ivery.
Three carries for 24 yards, THEN the catastrophic knee injury.
So, um, yeah, I guess I do sorta remember it.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Tundraboy's picture

April 01, 2018 at 07:09 pm

Tempting but no. MM probably wouldn't play him anyway.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
4zone's picture

April 01, 2018 at 07:13 pm

RB is one of our most stable positions. Total nonsense. We NEED a RT, multiple CBs, at leat one OLB and an ILB, a WR and a long term solution at TE. One you've taken care of all that, then pick who ya want.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
gr7070's picture

April 01, 2018 at 07:18 pm

After FB and MLB, RB is the least important position in football.

They also have a very good RB, and two serviceable backups.

Second round is way too much capital on a RB unless he's a truly high end talent that fell 30 picks.

2018 NFL is not your father's NFL. Shoot, it's not even your older brother's NFL from 2008. RBs don't mean squat any more. I expect Barkley to drop a few spots even.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
John Kirk's picture

April 01, 2018 at 07:35 pm

Dreaded double post.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
John Kirk's picture

April 01, 2018 at 07:34 pm

Alvin Kamara and Kareem Hunt changed New Orleans and KC. LeVeon Bell changes things for Pittsburgh, as does David Johnson for Arizona. What was Dallas without Ezekiel Elliott?

The RB has been and will always be important. We easily beat Denver in the SB if Davis and his migraines kept him off the field in the 2nd half.

RB's are anything but meaningless unless you don't have a stud. When you do, it changes everything. It's been cited down through the years for why Dan Marino wasn't more successful. Russell Wilson is a heck of a player but he sure was better with Marshawn behind him.

Do you think the Rams O is what it was minus Todd Gurley?

Yes, you can win without a stud RB. You can win without any position as long as you're loaded elsewhere.

Two big play RB's in our offense could help offset our lack of WR talent. Just depends on the direction you wish to go. Heck, we could trade for Gronk and line up Gronk and Graham and conclude we're good with Geronimo as our WR2 and Adams as our WR1 because we'd be loaded at TE.

Right now, we have a very very poor WR corps. We have a potential game changer at TE and a good looking RB, in Jones, and Davante. That isn't much. Another stud RB who can catch it like Michel would be a great add, if we're not pursuing a stud WR opposite Adams.

I recall reading how loaded we were at WR and at S most recently... how's that look right now? Perception is often not reality.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
gr7070's picture

April 01, 2018 at 10:47 pm

You have no idea what modern football is. This may help you.

https://www.numberfire.com/nfl/news/8726/even-if-ezekiel-elliott-is-grea...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
John Kirk's picture

April 01, 2018 at 11:22 pm

Actually, I do. You linked a fantasy football site.

I live in Dallas. I saw them with and without Zeke. Guess which version was better.

If we face them in the NFC Championship next season and Zeke is healthy and playing are the Packers chances better or worse? That's the future so really modern NFL.

I understand pawning off a fantasy site piece based on their metric makes you feel right. I get it.

Will Barkley fall out of Round 1? If we listen to the fantasy site he should as his position is not important.

Zeke wasn't a stupid pick. I read the article. You tell me. Was Ezekiel Elliott a bad pick? The article said it was really bad one. I want you to type he was a really bad pick, otherwise your link was a curious choice.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
gr7070's picture

April 01, 2018 at 11:56 pm

The site targets fantasy football to apply it's metrics, because that is where the public's money will go. However it's metrics are just as valid for real football. If course that article had nothing to do with fantasy.

Jalen Ramsey was the top rated player on the board at the time Elliot was picked. He's an equally talented player at a much more critical position, too. FWIW it doesn't matter if Ramsey was a good it was player for the answer below, just easier to buy the argument.

Yes, Elliot was a dumb pick.

RB matters little compared to the rest of the NFL.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
John Kirk's picture

April 02, 2018 at 12:24 am

Can you explain the impact of Kamara, Hunt and Bell? David Johnson?

What if Dallas picked 10th and Eli Apple and Ezekiel Elliott were both there? Zeke still a dumb pick?

If the Pack could pick Barkley or Minkah...Minkah the smart pick and Barkley dumb?

Not sure that fantasy football metric is infallible or indisputable like you believe. Again, I get it...you read it and you buy the metric the fantasy site is selling. I don't. That doesn't mean you understand modern football and I don't. It simply means you trust a fantasy site's metric and I don't.

I'm glad the Packers took Mandarich over Barry Sanders. Sanders was a stupid pick.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
gr7070's picture

April 02, 2018 at 07:07 am

Barley at 14 is a much different question than Barkley at 2 as some project it Elliot at 4. It's certainly a more reasonable pick and more reasonable value half a round later. Bringing that up makes me wonder if you grasp the concept we're talking about.

Bringing up Barry Sanders makes me wonder if you understand, at all, just how different football is in 2018 than 30 years ago!

Also, as I mentioned above if Jalen Ramsey was a bust or a stud really doesn't change what the right answer is at the time of the draft. Similarly Mandarich being a bust doesn't change that answer at that moment. That's results based analysis, which is a fools approach.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
John Kirk's picture

April 05, 2018 at 06:25 am

I follow JJ Zacharaison...he should be familiar to you. Process over results. I know his mantra well.

The thing is I question the process we're speaking about here.

Many are saying Barkley is the best player in the draft. I also know JJ thinks a BPA pick without positional context is stupid. I really like JJ, but he's not gospel. He offers an opinion built on data and a process which I respect. However, I vehemently disagree that Zeke was a dumb pick. He was a great pick. My process is best player in most contexts. That's what he was to me while you say Ramsey. Neither is right. It's an opinion.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
gr7070's picture

April 02, 2018 at 03:17 pm

I like all that except the Zeke part.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
John Kirk's picture

April 05, 2018 at 06:26 am

Jags shouldn't have drafted Fournette? Ask numberfire or 538 how that worked for Jax? Pair a stud RB with a great D and it works pretty well.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
WKUPackFan's picture

April 02, 2018 at 06:43 am

"Perception is often not reality".

Perhaps you should adhere to your own statement. Or you could double down on your previous belief in perception: "My assessments of players, coaches often lie in my perception of them as people" (Kirk, Jeff Janis article, April 1, 2018 at 7:56pm).

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
John Kirk's picture

April 02, 2018 at 07:06 am

Doubling down.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
gr7070's picture

April 02, 2018 at 07:13 am

Would you believe a political site?

Google 538.com
running-backs-are-finally-getting-paid-what-theyre-worth

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
gr7070's picture

April 02, 2018 at 07:13 am

.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
gr7070's picture

April 02, 2018 at 07:21 am

Win Percentage Added in that 538.com article is a very similar stat to numberFire Net Expected Points. They both place a value added to each play.

One site is a "political site", the other is a "fantasy site". The reality is both are *math* sites.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
gr7070's picture

April 02, 2018 at 07:29 am

That 538.com article even explains that it doesn't really even matter how good the RB is. Running is mostly about running for the sake of running these days.

RBs don't matter any more. Or at least, *running* barely matters anymore. RBs who pass block and who catch passed matter some. Notice the word pass in there.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
gr7070's picture

April 02, 2018 at 07:33 am

John Kirk are you doubling down in buggy whips?

Appropriate quote from 538 article:
"But committing money to “workhorse” running backs who provide little outside of their ability to grind out a large number of yards inefficiently — a description that arguably fits Peterson as well as any great RB — is like doubling down on buggy whips when everyone else is scrambling to make flying cars."

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
John Kirk's picture

April 02, 2018 at 12:43 pm

I'm happy you have two "math" sites that you poached opinion from. Does that make it true or just true to you?

You've now changed this debate. It was running backs are worthless. Now, it's running is worthless.

NFL teams would go empty every play if RBs were truly obsolete. They do not for a reason which completely contradicts your new age number sites.

Why were the Packers so worried about RBs last draft if they're worthless?

As for my buffeter, WKU... perception is often not reality. That's true. Perception being your reality is also true. You can use your own perception to determine anything you wish. As you have found, and have I, yours regarding me is not reality. It doesn't stop your attacks but I appreciate your interest in defamation of my character.

dobber is right. Your interest should be in things other than me but I understand your attraction.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
John Kirk's picture

April 02, 2018 at 01:00 pm

Ahhhh...that's why you changed the debate. The quote. RBs like Bell, Kamara, Hunt, David Johnson are multi dimensional. That destroys your argument and the sites argument that RBs are worthless. You started way too broad and tried to narrow the debate after the toothpaste was out of the tube. Too late. You should start anew with the proper focus this time around.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
gr7070's picture

April 02, 2018 at 02:09 pm

I changed the verbiage because RBs and running is largely synonymous, especially in the context of my first comment and the rest.

That and because the passing game value is what I was referring to, and thus the larger value of RBs comes from that, and their simple existence for the sake of existing - as you mentioned to not go 4/5 wide solely.

It has nothing to do with the fine RBs you mentioned. Their impact on their team pales in comparison (positive or negative) to that of Brees or Marcus Peters or his horrible bookend etc.

Just because they're good doesn't mean they're as impactful as one might think; your long snapper reference is appropros.

To use Dallas, the difference between their 2015? and 2016? Wasn't Demarco Murray's and Darren McFadden's seasons - they were rather similar on a per carry basis. The difference was the existence of Tony Romo.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
WKUPackFan's picture

April 02, 2018 at 08:48 am

Kirk says - "Doubling down".

Then you are going to have to explain how your statement that "Perception is often not reality" is consistent with your belief that you can judge players and coaches based on your perception of them.

Or maybe you are deluded enough to think that your perceptions are reality.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Finwiz's picture

April 02, 2018 at 09:33 am

Back....back to the corner from which you crawled, you liberal bug you!

So much criticism and hate spewed, day after day, after day, like only a liberal can. It must get tiring to be so negative and combative every day of your miserable life.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
fastmoving's picture

April 02, 2018 at 09:56 am

dont mess with witz...he got a plane and he is in a bad mood because 90 procent of the packers roster, including our QB, are liberal in his eyes. but actually just normal.......just like Lombardi was

but thanks god he is never negative or hatred......!!!!!!!!!!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

April 02, 2018 at 10:06 am

I miss the days when all we bitched about was the Packers' perceived lack of talent, the overpaying of veterans, the mismanagement of the roster, and speculation over whether the current management structure will or won't work.

Can we just go back to that, please?

At this point, I'd take another thread about Jeff Janis or Jordy Nelson in a heartbeat over all the slinging going on right now.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
WKUPackFan's picture

April 02, 2018 at 11:26 am

dobber - I'd love to go back to that. The only political comment I have published was in response to a poster's use of the term "Safe Space". However, the type of speculation about front office personnel, coaches, and players that some commenters engage in is fair game to be challenged.

Apparently Finwiz believes that opposing hate speech makes one a liberal. That's on him. I have not written one word about his whatever his political beliefs may be, and do not care what they are.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
John Kirk's picture

April 02, 2018 at 12:48 pm

And...it is fair game to question management. You don't and I'm certain you've never questioned anyone who has ever held an office in the USA. That would be wrong to you just like questioning Packers management. There is less sacred in football but let's put a game on a pedestal and go nuts when someone dare question a front office type, coach, or player. Again, I'm sure you follow that in the much more important arena of elected officials. I use it only as a parallel as you seem blind to your own activities here.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
WKUPackFan's picture

April 02, 2018 at 01:22 pm

There is nothing wrong with questioning management.

There is something terribly wrong with questioning the mental health of former management. In my opinion that type of speculation is out of bounds and, quite frankly, despicable.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
John Kirk's picture

April 02, 2018 at 07:37 pm

So, FINALLY, we get to what your issue is with me. My thoughts on Ted's removal being related to his health? Are you kidding me? Wow.

You must really really really hate Bob McGinn, that award winning journalist, who was the only decent read over the years in our milquetoast media.

I'm not sure what specifically about that drew your ire. I had it out with Marpag who went silent on the subject when asked a couple of questions.

There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with noticing something wrong with someone. I posted elsewhere about Coach K in a post game victory presser comparing him to Ted as Coach K was really struggling with his speaking. Is that despicable to notice that? I don't know if there's something wrong with Coach K. I don't follow Duke BB close enough to know if he's been like that previously, but I do follow the Packers close enough to know Ted wasn't "right". Again, why is that so awful?

Where is Ted? Why is John Schneider crying on the mention of his name at the combine? Why wasn't Ted there? Why wasn't Ted in Mobile? The answer seems crystal clear...there is something wrong with him health wise. Just because you didn't notice or chose to ignore or feel it's wrong to talk about doesn't mean it is.

I have no ill will toward Ted the human being. It's awful to see ANYONE struggle with health. I absolutely did not like Ted the GM one bit...bothered me from the outset. You think I've tied his glaring, to me, issue into my opinion on his GM'ing. Nope. I didn't like Ted as a GM long before I saw the decline in his speaking. I didn't like him any more or less because of his health, but I did feel for him as a human being when I saw him struggling.

I'm out of my mind with glee he's not our GM any longer...that is a totally separate issue from his health but you can't unwind them and have put them on me for some bizarre reason.

For full disclosure, I thought it was a bad bad look for the org when they showed him on SNF vs. Minnesota. I wondered why they didn't care enough to do something for him long before it ever got to that ugly scene. That is compassion talking despite how you'd characterize it.

My hope is you can finally let go of this but I have a feeling you judge without understanding and never relent. Hate me all you wish...nobody wants to read your childish attacks over and over against me except maybe a couple of posters that are wired like you.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Finwiz's picture

April 02, 2018 at 12:58 pm

I judge on political bias when public bloggers present the persona of being "unhinged", in their triggered emotion.

Since liberal/socialists are governed by emotion, as their ideaologies can't be defended logically, when "one" becomes so easily emotionally triggered by mere disagreement, it's easy to infer political affiliation.

You spent an entire thread string totally unhinged about safe-space and your perception of affiliation, so this post here makes you the epitome of a hypocrite. Most libs are, so I'm certain you can't help it.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Red Foreman's picture

April 02, 2018 at 01:14 pm

Anyone else catch the irony of what just happened there?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
WKUPackFan's picture

April 02, 2018 at 01:36 pm

Two comments about "Safe Space" hardly constitutes an entire thread.

Again, I have never written one word about whatever your political beliefs may be. I do not care. CHTV has been blessedly devoid of political conflict, and I am quite certain that the vast majority of readers, columnists, and administrators wish it to remain so. If anyone wants that, NBC's HardballTalk baseball site has quite a lot. Craig Calcaterra, HardballTalk's founder, encourages and enjoys such discussion. I'm guessing that Jersey Al does not.

For the last time, I oppose hate speech against minorities in any form. If that makes me "unhinged", so be it.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
OrganLeroy's picture

April 02, 2018 at 04:29 pm

You just can't fix STUPID!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Finwiz's picture

April 02, 2018 at 12:58 pm

Double

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
gr7070's picture

April 02, 2018 at 12:07 pm

FWIW Nate Silver was a baseball sabermetrician long, long before he started dabbling in politics. I don't really care if the guy is liberal or otherwise, I just care if he's (or his site) correct.

Regardless, it is about math. And the math is clear RBs/running doesn't matter much anymore.

"Peterson signed with the New Orleans Saints for a modest $7 million over two years, with only $3.5 million guaranteed. In 2017, he’s slated to cost less than Bengals backup RB Giovani Bernard (who will cost $3.7 million against the cap) — not to mention 10 different kickers."

Won't be long before long snappers are valued more... ; )

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
John Kirk's picture

April 02, 2018 at 12:51 pm

How's LeVeon Bell fit into your math? What's Bell's salary?

It's funny you cite a washed running back to build an opinion on RB value.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
gr7070's picture

April 02, 2018 at 03:12 pm

Leveon Bell is likely a great example in my favor; one of the very best RBs in football.

His salary is very high ($14M), nearly double all other top RB salaries ($8M) in the NFL. It's that high because he was franchise tagged.

That 14M is leftover from past market valuations and no longer in line with current RB salaries. Current valuations are likely why he's not signed to a negotiated contract. $8M is what top free agent RBs make in the NFL today. Far, far less (especially by percentage of cap) than what RBs made just a year or two ago.

NFL teams are catching up to proper RB valuation.

Seriously read that 538 article if you haven't. It's very good.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
John Kirk's picture

April 02, 2018 at 06:51 pm

I like some 538, and I enjoy well constructed opinion based on data, but it doesn't mean I agree with conclusions of such pieces.

If you want to argue that RB's aren't valued like they used to be financially because of the cap, and because it's a passing league, for the most part, I would agree. However, a great RB is a great player. His impact can be multifold as in the case of Bell, or a guy like Kamara.

What the NFL values money wise has no relevance to me in this debate. In fact, the idea that RB's are paid much LESS than CB's, typically, would be strong reasoning in a cap environment to prioritize a great RB over a great CB because the great CB is likely going to cost you much more. You can argue where the better value is...and I think you have loudly spoken you think a great CB is infinitely more valuable than a great RB. I disagree. A great CB is a wonderful thing. However, you can beat a secondary multiple ways if he happens to be the only great one back there. A great RB is a singular entity who can destroy you in the run or pass game and can control the clock when you're down and make it so you can't get back. There are so many layers to these debates that I do understand so much why you believe what you do. It's a good thought but it ignores multiple other contexts, as pointed out with the cap to name one.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
gr7070's picture

April 02, 2018 at 12:11 pm

We all ignore these positions. ; )

Though check it the quote above regarding kickers.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

April 03, 2018 at 01:48 am

I'd be screaming bloody murder if our GM Franchised a player at $14M who was only worth $8M AAV. Looking at top RB salaries, only Freeman and McCoy top $8M AAV, one guy over $7M and 3 guys over $6M. Sounds like Bell is probably worth $8M to $9M.

Bell had 321 carries and 85 receptions, meaning he had 406 touches last season. Wow! I might be willing to pay Bell $9M (I'd have to watch more Pit games), but I wouldn't be giving him much guaranteed money. After 6 seasons of that kind of workload, I'd want to be able to cut him without much dead money every season thereafter.

Pittsburgh is in win now mode, since they can figure on just a few more years of Rothlisberger. Maybe they pony up a lucrative contract to Bell with more guaranteed money than I'd like. Not sure what I'd do in their situation.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
John Kirk's picture

April 03, 2018 at 07:30 am

Seems fair to give Bell 14 million for 406 touches when Davante only touched it 75 times and got the same money. Bell had 11 TDs and almost 2000 yards compared to Davante who has never hit 1000. Bell has 3 seasons of close to or over 2000 yards.

Which one seems smarter to give 14 million to?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

April 04, 2018 at 04:44 am

Life isn't fair, John. Both Adams and Bell got $14M because their respective teams were desperate. Bell at least can't really be replaced, but Adams could have been.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
John Kirk's picture

April 04, 2018 at 07:51 am

Oh, how true. It's indefensible to say Adams deserved the money but Bell did not. Bell is twice as deserving yet our base is good with Adams and most would probably question Bell based on groupthink.

Bell had about twice Adams production and touched it 330 times more. I'd say Bell is infinitely more valuable than Davante.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Rustyweezee's picture

April 01, 2018 at 07:17 pm

No. Just no. Jones is going to be outstanding. Montgomery is a decent 2nd RB & Williams is okay. Two things that could improve the running game more than a luxury draft pick at RB; better run blocking by the OL, and what's forgotten when we talk running backs, a passing game that scares the opposing defense into allowing cracks in their run defense. Draft picks would better serve the offense at OL and WR, more specifically an outside WR. I'd be elated if instead of Ronald Jones in the 2nd round the Packers pick up D.J. Moore, (likely gone in the 1st,) Deon Cain, or even D.J. Chark in the 3rd. All three are fast, dangerous receivers, which used to be taken care of by Jordy Nelson, but it's hard to see defenses worried about the Packers WR's burning them deep with the current personnel. I'll sit pat at RB with Jones, Montgomery & Williams & give Rodgers another high round WR to keep defenses worried about the 3rd level passing game.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
gr7070's picture

April 01, 2018 at 07:19 pm

Couldn't agree more!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Minniman's picture

April 01, 2018 at 08:59 pm

Having above average receiving corps AND run games help one another. defenses have to respect both, so they can't load the box or the backfield exclusively...... it can also be argued that a good o-line makes a RB's job easier too (see 2016 Cowboys).

GB are entering the phase of A-Rods career when he's going to be far more judicious when he runs, so a good RB option and a diverse skillset at WR will help spread the field and open the field.

I wonder too if a mid-round speedster WR is what the packers need....... whoever it is, they'd better get good at back shoulder catches!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Nick Perry's picture

April 03, 2018 at 06:18 am

Excellent post Rustyweezee....If the Packers could land DJ Moore, Courtland Sutton, Clark, or James Washington. I really like Washington though I already know most will point to his 40 time in spandex. If you look at his combine numbers he scores better than Jordy Nelson did in everything other than the 40. Nelson ran 4.51 and Washington 4.56. If Moore is snatched up I like Washington though I wouldn't be upset with any mentioned already.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

April 01, 2018 at 07:30 pm

I like it.

We may act like we're in great shape at running back, but the fact is there are at least two dozen teams who feel better.

We're bottom 5 at that position. I mean, seriously, look around the league.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Minniman's picture

April 01, 2018 at 09:18 pm

Andrew, According to Football Outsiders:

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/rb

Jamal Williams was ranked at #12 for DYAR ( Defense-adjusted Yards Above Replacement) for RB's who rushed more than 100 times per season.

Aaron Jones had the top ranked DYAR for players who had 20-99 rushes (and not in the above list). Ty Montgomery was 9th in this list.

I'm not seeing how GB was an AGGREGATE bottom 5 group according to this scale - FYI, NYJ, SEA, CAR, BUF and MIA were (in order of last to fifth last).

I will concede though that durability is a big issue for GB within this group.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Handsback's picture

April 01, 2018 at 07:44 pm

Jones played his high school career in McKinney, Texas where I live. He's a dymamic player, but a needed CB, WR, TE and maybe pass rusher will be on the board when Jones comes up.

I will also say Ty is far from being washed up. When healthy (So far not often) he's a beast. This year he will have to prove he can stay on the field.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
OnWisconsinGoPack's picture

April 01, 2018 at 07:54 pm

Absolutely not. Overlooking the fact that you gave absolutely no rationale why the Packers should draft Ronald Jones in the second round other than providing his last two seasons of statistics, why the hell would they draft someone that high if 1) it was already a strong position that is still developing and yet to even play with Rodgers behind center (A. Jones / Williams) and 2) they didn't think he was a special player due to xyz (no idea because you gave no analysis of him).

The fact is, Aaron Jones is extremely explosive and Jamal Williams is well rounded enough to get the job done with Rodgers at the helm. Too many other needs will be and should be filled first (CB, OLB, TE, WR) . If Ronald Jones is there in the 4th (end of 4th), then I'll consider it, but not until my other positions are filled because there is more than enough talent in the draft to do so before considering an average athlete like him.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

April 01, 2018 at 08:36 pm

Ronald Jones in the 4th???

Bwaaahahahaha!!!!

No, but seriously....

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
OnWisconsinGoPack's picture

April 02, 2018 at 05:55 am

?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Colin_C's picture

April 01, 2018 at 08:41 pm

Ty is staying at RB, so our depth is decent right now. I'd still advocate for drafting one later, but unless it's Barkley, I'd rather not take one in the first two. If you haven't yet, look up John Kelly from Tennessee. Dude's going to be a mid round steal. Baby Marshawn Lynch in the making.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Handsback's picture

April 02, 2018 at 07:53 am

Kelly is my favorite sleeper in the draft. I really think he's going to have a very good career in the NFL....

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Nick Perry's picture

April 02, 2018 at 05:02 am

The Packers have a laundry list of needs more important than RB. IMO the Packers should take a RB but not in the 2nd round. The Packers have 5 picks in the 4th and 5th rounds including the first pick in each of those rounds. Lets get enough CB's to field a friggen defense before we start taking a RB with the 45th pick in the draft who's nothing special.

I'd be willing to bet the Packers could get a WR or a TE who could help them more than Jones could, especially in the long run. Lets face it, the WR position is really lacking play makers and chances are decent one will still be there at 45. If RB is a "Deep" as suggested in this draft then WAIT and draft one AFTER the 3rd round.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
stockholder's picture

April 02, 2018 at 08:37 am

I see people writing we need this or that. We don't Need guys that are over estimated to be great. I think if they draft Need, it's a mistake. The players that fit our Need, are up and down the board. TE's. Are they better than last year. Which one will be an All -pro. The All-pro will have to be with the right team. I wouldn't draft a TE in this draft because it's a reach! Reach at CB. Take the speed and develop? We need impact, We need leaders. The vets failed! Don Capers Failed. TT Failed. The fresh and right approach is to draft the top players at the position in years.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

April 02, 2018 at 05:08 am

The Packers should know just about all they can on every player with a 1-3 round grade. You never know when a high pick turns into a great value pick.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Michael Hughes's picture

April 02, 2018 at 05:22 am

Receivers are desperate . We have Adams who has 2 heavy concussions last year and then pretty much nothing after 2018'

At tight end, we have graham who could look a very bad contract in a year or so.

At O Line, we are banking on Bulaga knee holding up and us plugging a RG in from the masses.

And thats before we even think about defence. Whilst I 100 percent agree, we cant just keep drafting Defence, running back is bottom of the needs list.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
stockholder's picture

April 02, 2018 at 11:56 pm

What your not sold on Adams? All that money and your worried? Graham and 10 mil a year. Bulaga plugging the right side with a 5mil. contract. Where is your faith? A-Rod will solve any and all problems. These are money players now. Management is selling Tickets. Thats all what matters. Buy the ticket. Watch the Game. You bought the product. They will keep drafting Defense until A-Rod retires. Running back isn't at the bottom though. A great running back would make this offense more deadly. Something greenBay hasn't had since the 60s. Needs; Yes! The packers still need that guy in their backfield. Why. Because you listed the 3 reasons first in your comment.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Donster's picture

April 02, 2018 at 06:53 am

Only a WR would I pick in round 2 if they don't go defense. As for a RB, there will be good veteran RB's available at the end of training camp. Gute could grab one of those to shore up the RB's if the current backs on the roster don't look good in pre-season.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
DD's picture

April 02, 2018 at 08:03 am

Jones? To slow. As already stated, MM will not use a running back correctly anyway. So hope, doubt it!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
EdsLaces's picture

April 02, 2018 at 08:07 am

Chance of this happening ...0.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
CAG123's picture

April 02, 2018 at 12:59 pm

I don’t see what the hype is about Ty at RB were we watching the same games last year? I see folks talking about Williams running up the lineman’s ass but was Ty not doing the same thing along with being so hesitant with his cuts? Oh everyone must still be thinking about his game against Chicago in 2016. Jones and Williams are the dynamic duo here they complement each other very well Ty should split time between WR and RB (in special situations). We were all wondering if he could hold up to being the number 1 back and we got our answer.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
GLM's picture

April 02, 2018 at 02:23 pm

Jones ran a 4.65 40 at the combine, and it appears he didn't do anything at USC's pro day...how does that make him a 2nd round prospect?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
stockholder's picture

April 03, 2018 at 12:02 am

4.65. Why? He was suppose to be able to run 4.4. Injury?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
stockholder's picture

April 03, 2018 at 12:30 am

So far: Jones, Hughs, Landry, Williams, Crosby, Andrews Gesicki, Miller, Smith, Edmunds, Alexander, McFadden, L.Jackson. Get Real List: Landry, Williams, @14 Hopefuls: Andrews, Gesicki, Miller, Alexander. Somehow I still think were not in the gold yet.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0

Log in to comment and more!

Not a member yet? Join free.

If you have already commented on Cheesehead TV in the past, we've created an account for you. Just verify your email, set a password and you're golden.