McC-ran offenses *have always* included at least one big boy in backfield

[_sturt_]

Nonsense is what you mean.

Well, no, it's not... but only you get to be your own interpreter, of course. You be you.

 

[blueblood70]

Agreed.

Money.

Yes money was the first item to consider, and age, and injurys but also the fact that this offense is going to be different running back by committee fresher younger faster etcetera if you need a big bruising back you don't need to pay him $11 million a year you can use a guy like Rico dowdle or hunter or like people are talking about you use the HBACK with the three tight end sets, one of the tight ends is the full back or we brought in lineman in the past...

I think you're overthinking of what we actually need because you're trying to fit Mike McCarthy 's old offense or our old offenses that had moose Johnson this isn't that type of NFL anymore. you can't carry a guy on your roster to just be a great blocker that's why I think if hunter makes the team, he's the fullback but he's also the short yardage guy because he can run like a running back, he's got pretty good speed for his size.

 

[_sturt_]

I think you're overthinking

Based on what?

All I've said is this is McM's history... and... made the observation that this will be the first time that he's the total and complete architect of the offense... and... made the observation that they signed a couple of UDFAs (after all, who drafts a FB these days anyway, right) who they thought plausibly might be candidates, but at least for now have not performed at a high enough level to be considered 53-man material.

Those are all valid observations.

If anyone is conjecturizing and overthinking here, it's all the people (like yourself) who consider themselves McC mind readers.

 

[BulletBob]

McC-ran offenses *have always* included at least one big boy in backfield​

.

... that's what she said.

 

[blueblood70]

Based on what?

All I've said is this is McM's history... and... made the observation that this will be the first time that he's the total and complete architect of the offense... and... made the observation that they signed a couple of UDFAs (after all, who drafts a FB these days anyway, right) who they thought plausibly might be candidates, but at least for now have not performed at a high enough level to be considered 53-man material.

Those are all valid observations.

If anyone is conjecturizing and overthinking here, it's all the people (like yourself) who consider themselves McC mind readers.

Look man you're trying to create an issue that's not there don't you believe mike mccarthy knows what he needs and doesn't need?? i'm pretty sure they drafted and pick....o fit what they're gonna do this year..

see you gotta love fans being all concerned here at the end of training camp , a month away from game one and think they have some kind of answer when there wasn't even a question...

I believe this coaching staff and the GM have the players they think they need and if they don't, they will go get one before game one or before game five or before game 10 you get that??

They got it handled.... Trust that, yes you're overthinking by how many times that people are trying to talk you off the ledge and you keep coming on and keeping this going for all day how many pages?? So yes you're overthinking you feel like you need to be worried about this and Mike McCarthy somehow hasn't thought about it himself... Moving on this thread's giving me a headache...

 

[_sturt_]

Look man you're trying to create an issue that's not there

Nope. I keep saying this, and I'm not even sure why it bothers you so... I'm trying to have a conversation about what we might anticipate happening based on fact 1, fact 2, and fact 3, and in the event that Luepke doesn't take a big jump in the next two preseason games.

don't you believe mike mccarthy knows what he needs and doesn't need?

That's my line, not yours.

if they don't, they will go get one before game one

That's also my line (... see again "what we might anticipate happening" above).

you keep coming on and keeping this going for all day how many pages

If there's a law against responding to erroneous posts, guilty as charged. But other than that, not my fault.

you feel like you need to be worried about this and Mike McCarthy somehow hasn't thought about it himself

Nope. No substance to that even a little bit. I've made no such assertion that McC hasn't thought about X, Y or Z. Ironically enough, that statement of yours is precisely what is ordinarily called "overthinking." I've only said what I've said. Not what you assume I'm "worried" about. Not what you assume I think McC hasn't thought about.

this thread's giving me a headache

Yep. I'm sure it is. It happens when one overthinks.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

He made no such specific comment, and you know it.

He did make a very broad statement, and to be fair to you, maybe that was part of what he had in-mind... I don't pretend to know things I cannot possibly ascend beyond the time/space continuum to know.

Maybe someone should ask him.


False. We have brought in that archetype, and paid one of them a bonus that is typical of what this team has paid UDFAs who proved to eventually stick.

Fant is 240, Luepke is 230... I'll grant you that his guys in GB routinely were in the 240-250 range, but as I'd said and as virtually all of us understand, the NCAA inventory of FBs is what it is, and there's just not a lot of jumbos to even consider anymore.

Mind you, I'm only trying to read some tea leaves here... I'm not saying what should happen, but what, based on history and point-of-fact "indications"... we should anticipate happening.

Peter King did ask him and MM talked extensively about the process. Here is one of the interviews from the hiring process where he discussed the change. Start at the 7:00 mark and he talks about changing in just about every way.



I said meaningful assets not UDFA and throwaway cheap UFA deals. They brought in UDFA and that tells you how much of a priority they have in power backs. He has invested draft picks in Pollard and Vaughn.

 

[_sturt_]

Peter King did ask him and MM talked extensively about the process. Here is one of the interviews from the hiring process where he discussed the change. Start at the 7:00 mark and he talks about changing in just about every way.

To be fair to you, yes he absolutely did discuss change.

Did McC "talk about changing in just about every way"?

Well. I suppose it depends on how one means "just about."

You watched what I watched (... technically, re-watched).

Let's go over it, shall we?

He discusses re-thinking how he approaches the playbook. How he interacts with football ops people. Content of some of his planned presentations. He discusses getting back to some of the motion and personnel packages (... notably, actually, rather than making up new stuff, returning to the old). He said he believed his instincts/awareness would be much sharper than before. Practice schedule, and in particular, who has the responsibility for installing the offense and defense--changing from a focus on developing coaching staff to a priority on best practices that win games.

On the other hand, he rejects the "convenient criticism" of his offense in GB as having become stale.

And to the point here... he doesn't even speak to roster composition philosophy in any way shape or form.

So, I thank you for doing some homework, but sad for you that you watched the same thing I did and still didn't have the intellectual fortitude to modify your conclusion.

I said meaningful assets not UDFA and throwaway cheap UFA deals. They brought in UDFA and that tells you how much of a priority they have in power backs. He has invested draft picks in Pollard and Vaughn.

You did say "meaningful assets." We agree (for a change) on a factoid you assert.

But/and... so what?

Kuhn spent many years on a McC roster.

Wasn't drafted.

Ripkowski? 6th rounder.

Go review the GB rosters through the McC years, and matter of fact as you probably would expect knowing something about drafts in general... GB didn't draft a FB unless it was a late round pick. (Virtually no one ever does, of course.)

That's a problem for your logic. You've seemed to argue that McC must not care about having a backfield big boy asset since they only signed two UDFAs to potentially vie for such a role... because, no, he obviously did value that kind of asset for virtually all of his GB tenure and yet never perceived that as reason to use higher draft picks to acquire any.

To the contrary, this is a team that routinely through the years has seen one or more of its preferred UDFAs (as defined by bonus money) make the 53-man. Might not have had a lot of confidence that Fant would turn out, but they clearly were salivating to get Luepke signed... iirc, Luepke even affirmed that the Cowboys had been recruiting him from early on.

Your desired conclusion just doesn't accommodate the facts very well. Not my fault. But feel welcome, even admired, to change to a different conclusion. Few posters have that kind of intellectual humility. (For the record, I do. And I can prove that if asked.)

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

To be fair to you, yes he absolutely did discuss change.

Did McC "talk about changing in just about every way"?

Well. I suppose it depends on how one means "just about."

You watched what I watched (... technically, re-watched).

Let's go over it, shall we?

He discusses re-thinking how he approaches the playbook. How he interacts with football ops people. Content of some of his planned presentations. He discusses getting back to some of the motion and personnel packages (... notably, actually, rather than making up new stuff, returning to the old). He said he believed his instincts/awareness would be much sharper than before. Practice schedule, and in particular, who has the responsibility for installing the offense and defense--changing from a focus on developing coaching staff to a priority on best practices that win games.

On the other hand, he rejects the "convenient criticism" of his offense in GB as having become stale.

And to the point here... he doesn't even speak to roster composition philosophy in any way shape or form.

So, I thank you for doing some homework, but sad for you that you watched the same thing I did and still didn't have the intellectual fortitude to modify your conclusion.





You did say "meaningful assets." We agree (for a change) on a factoid you assert.

But/and... so what?

Kuhn spent many years on a McC roster.

Wasn't drafted.

Ripkowski? 6th rounder.

Go review the GB rosters through the McC years, and matter of fact as you probably would expect knowing something about drafts in general... GB didn't draft a FB unless it was a late round pick. (Virtually no one ever does, of course.)

That's a problem for your logic. You've seemed to argue that McC must not care about having a backfield big boy asset since they only signed two UDFAs to potentially vie for such a role... because, no, he obviously did value that kind of asset for virtually all of his GB tenure and yet never perceived that as reason to use higher draft picks to acquire any.

To the contrary, this is a team that routinely through the years has seen one or more of its preferred UDFAs (as defined by bonus money) make the 53-man. Might not have had a lot of confidence that Fant would turn out, but they clearly were salivating to get Luepke signed... iirc, Luepke even affirmed that the Cowboys had been recruiting him from early on.

Your desired conclusion just doesn't accommodate the facts very well. Not my fault. But feel welcome, even admired, to change to a different conclusion. Few posters have that kind of intellectual humility. (For the record, I do. And I can prove that if asked.)

I have no idea where he is at. I am just saying that there are indications that he has gone through significant changes since leaving GB and that he has shown zero interest in that type of back since he has been here. None have made the roster except the holdover Zeke who was cut the year he took over the offense.

Could he still value the power back? Maybe but it is not like he cannot have success without one.

I am fine with ambiguity. You are the one that likes to assert certainty into the picture.

 

[gimmesix]

Cowboys have TEs to do the FB type dirty work. Seems a bit overblown to be concerned about a big back. How about a few good RBs? There's more than one way to peel a potato.

 

[AbeBeta]

McCarthy likes big backs. But he hasn't called plays for a while and had two pretty bad seasons doing so in GB before he lost his job.

In that time, the league has moved to a 3 WR, nickel D default. FB is dead, bro.

If we need a lead blocker, it is gonna be Schoonmaker -- he can block and is a receiving threat. Your FB is hitting the PS

 

[_sturt_]

he has shown zero interest in that type of back since he has been here.

Bad premise.

Forgive me stating the obvious, but you're disregarding the fact that McC's not been the architect of the offense. He's been an overseer. This was Kellen's offense. It's not Kellen's offense any more. It's explicitly and completely McC's.

But even setting that aside...

This team has put offensive linemen in the game to be FBs with some regularity. Cannot say for certain that it was McC's idea, but it also wouldn't be the strangest thing if that were the case. It fits McC's history that he values that, and it's easy to imagine Kellen accepting his boss' suggestion even though Kellen as a rule wasn't anxious to adopt anything like what McC did in GB.

I am fine with ambiguity.

Oh no you don't.

You don't get off that easily, my friend.

You invested some time in trying to advance two supports for your basic conclusion that we should expect that McC has abandoned his previous convictions about having at least one big boy asset available to him for his backfield.

Those two supports were just debunked.

So, now, trying to say, "Well, who knows... ultimately, none of us can't read his mind..." is wishy washy at its wishy-washiest.

It's not that you're wrong that none of us can read his mind. No, that's of course irrefutable. It's that that comment tries to deflect away from the substance we've been discussing... since you can't win on substance, at least you're saying you can feel good you're still the superior person since, after all, you're "fine with ambiguity." And, it's that, to the contrary... even if we engage on this ad hominem jab you're now attempting... no, I'm fine with not being able to read his mind, too. I just happen to think I can walk and chew gum at the same time... fine with ambiguity, but curious (see original post) to see whether McC history continues to repeat itself in spite of Luepke maybe not making the cut.

But you keep tryin. I'm sure you're superior somehow.

 

[_sturt_]

McCarthy likes big backs. But he hasn't called plays for a while and had two pretty bad seasons doing so

He discusses getting back to some of the motion and personnel packages (... notably, actually, rather than making up new stuff, returning to the old).

2018... the season he lost his job... is the only season in which McC did not have for all of the season a legitimate big boy back. (He did have a kid named Danny Vitale, but only for 5 games.)

One can credibly wonder if the Peter King discussion above is alluding in part to a regret to going away from employing a regular big back. Credibly. Plausibly.

 

[AbeBeta]

2018... the season he lost his job... is the only season in which McC did not have for all of the season a legitimate big boy back. (He did have a kid named Danny Vitale, but only for 5 games.)

One can credibly wonder if the Peter King discussion above is alluding in part to a regret to going away from employing a regular big back. Credibly. Plausibly.

One can only wonder if you have not watched professional football over the last five years

 

[_sturt_]

One can only wonder if you have not watched professional football over the last five years

Really? Ad hominem is the best ya got?

Alright by me.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Bad premise.

Forgive me stating the obvious, but you're disregarding the fact that McC's not been the architect of the offense. He's been an overseer. This was Kellen's offense. It's not Kellen's offense any more. It's explicitly and completely McC's.

But even setting that aside...

This team has put offensive linemen in the game to be FBs with some regularity. Cannot say for certain that it was McC's idea, but it also wouldn't be the strangest thing if that were the case. It fits McC's history that he values that, and it's easy to imagine Kellen accepting his boss' suggestion even though Kellen as a rule wasn't anxious to adopt anything like what McC did in GB.


Oh no you don't.

You don't get off that easily, my friend.

You invested some time in trying to advance two supports for your basic conclusion that we should expect that McC has abandoned his previous convictions about having at least one big boy asset available to him for his backfield.

Those two supports were just debunked.

So, now, trying to say, "Well, who knows... ultimately, none of us can't read his mind..." is wishy washy at its wishy-washiest.

It's not that you're wrong that none of us can read his mind. No, that's of course irrefutable. It's that that comment tries to deflect away from the substance we've been discussing... since you can't win on substance, at least you're saying you can feel good you're still the superior person since, after all, you're "fine with ambiguity." And, it's that, to the contrary... even if we engage on this ad hominem jab you're now attempting... no, I'm fine with not being able to read his mind, too. I just happen to think I can walk and chew gum at the same time... fine with ambiguity, but curious (see original post) to see whether McC history continues to repeat itself in spite of Luepke maybe not making the cut.

But you keep tryin. I'm sure you're superior somehow.

I said that there were indications that he changed his philosophy and that that perhaps this was another area of change. I spoke of anything but certainty I do need to get off of anything. You said that the was zero indication that he had changed and when shown how flat wrong you were you pulled the "I knew that" routine.

You need to work on your reading and memory.

Citing the use of OL at FB for a few plays a year is not an indication that he wants to bring in a power back much less that he feels that he needs to have one to succeed.

You basically have Leupke who is running at RB6 on the depth chart and Fant who they are playing as a TE. That is the entirety of their investment. None has made the roster in years past other than Zeke who they just cut.

Your word salad is great and all as a pissing contest but try to have a point about the actual topic.

 

[_sturt_]

Off-topic, but related... look who's thinking about keeping a FB this season...

https://zonecoverage.com/2023/packers/could-a-fullback-sneak-onto-green-bays-roster/

 

[AbeBeta]

Really? Ad hominem is the best ya got?

Alright by me.

Awww. That is cute, using Latin and stuff to deflect on the fact that FBs are dinosaurs. vade vilis, bro.

 

[_sturt_]

I said that there were indications that he changed his philosophy and that perhaps was another are of change. I spoke of anything but certainty I do need to get off of anything. You said that the was zero indication that he had changed and when shown how flat wrong you were you pulled the "I knew that" routine.

Um. Do we really have to rehash this so soon?

There indeed were no indications in that interview he'd changed his philosophy regarding roster composition, FB or otherwise. "Flat wrong"... ??? That's rich. The King interview spoke of change, but not that change. And the one time he came close to speaking to it at all, McC suggested he had "gotten away" from some things, and mentioned having more personnel packages in that.

word salad

Ding ding ding.

You win. You said the magic words.

There is no quicker way to persuade me that it's no longer worthwhile to engage a person than for that guy/gal to try to throw a blanket insult onto whatever the substance of the conversation was. "Word salad" says "I can't argue with the substance you've presented at a granular level, so here, I'll just zoom out to 30000 feet and disparage the granular level."

I'll leave you alone now.

 

[_sturt_]

Latin

Is it Latin? Thanks for the education.