Really -- that's what you think?

[...facepalm...]

---

Well, I'm glad Ahman is back. Is he the answer to our woes, probably not...but Wynn and Jackson are injured SO often, someone else was needed!

---

Before you can be succesful running the ball, you need a coach who will
be dedicated to running the ball instead of giving up on it as soon
as one play goes astray.

---

Can we start situating the criticisms of McCarthy contextually. You know, cite examples. The wide-ranging criticism of McCarthy is that he gives up on the run right away.

Let's re-visit the Lions game, shall we? The run game wasn't working. This little snippet is from the Packers.com dope sheet previewing the Cleveland matchup:



Are you really going to argue that not running enough in the first three quarters was to the Packers detriment? Green Bay was moving the ball easily through the air (short passes as well as throws downfield). And when they were trying to drain the clock at the end of the game they "dug their heels in" and got production in the run game.

In general McCarthy could probably stay with the run more but there's a time when that would be inappropriate. And hey, McCarthy himself admits that his goal is to have balance. In his opinion (and many would agree) it puts the Packers in the best position.

I just don't like hearing the same canned criticism. We didn't NEED to run the ball 30 times when they're already moving the ball well AND the run game was getting blown up. Go back a few weeks, the Minnesota game: we're not going to run on Minnesota anyway. To his credit, the called draw plays were actually pretty successful.

Go back a week before that, the St. Louis game. The re-commitment to the run in the second half (ahem, it wasn't working for shit in the first half) was a big reason why they were able to use play action, move the ball effectively, and close out the game.

Update the criticism, folks. It isn't fair to say blankly that McCarthy gives up after "one play goes astray."

/steps off soapbox

---

Bingo....

This was clearly a move based on blocking and receiving skills. If the Packers were looking for a player to run in between the tackles, Kregg Lumpkin would've been promoted from the practice squad.

Grant isn't much of a third down back nor much of a receiver and Jackson has always been a work in progress with his blocking. Like it or not, that was a weakness. I personally like the move. Nobody out there is going to solve the Packers' running game problems, but blocking is a whole different story. The Packers looked at a key area which is 3rd down, receiving, and blocking and they upgraded. Nothing wrong with that.

---

Seriously people, what well-established RB do you think is going to sign a contract with an NFL team in a small rinky-dink town to just be a 3rd-string RB?

One RB lives in Green bay and says he has on occassion admitted his love of the place. And his name rhymes with "Ramen Bean"

---

ahhh so you mean someone healthy like ahmen green
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/nfl/players/4261/injuries.html 

lol. Lets see. Why don't you compare what Dunn has done the past 2 years to what Green has done the past 2 years. The stats pretty much speak for themselves. Dunn has remained pretty much healthy the past 2 years and is still solid at 34. Ahman Green has done NOTHING the past 2 years and is injury prone. So what makes more sense to you? Bring in a guy who has done nothing the past 2 years but get hurt or bring in a guy who has been decently productive the past 2 years? Also I see a lot of you talking about Green having good hands and like him in the screen game. Look at Dunn's career receiving numbers. Much better than Greens. This is just my opinion.

maybe they wanted a bigger back who is familiar with the Packers offense and is a strong blocker.

---

The reasons the Packers went after Green, according to McCarthy, relate to (in part) his familiarity with the system. Please also take into account that Green -- if he sees time as a 3rd down back -- will be asked to pick up blitzes in addition to catching the ball. Dunn is a SMALL running back. Historically he's had issues with blocking.

It isn't simply a matter of looking at stats and saying, "this guy would be better." Last year Dunn was a change of pace back who complimented Earnest Graham -- a more physical style runner.

You are indeed entitled to your own opinion. I just don't think Dunn would be a good fit, given what he'd likely be asked to do.

---