Eddie Lacy: How Will Green Bay's Newest RB Fare in the Pros?
Projected by many to be the top running back selected in the 2013 NFL Draft, Alabama running back Eddie Lacy ended up falling to near the end of Round 2, where the Green Bay Packers ended his fall as the fourth running back off the board at the No. 61 overall pick.
Lacy is a well-rounded power back who has the skill set to be the feature back that the Packers have not had in years.
Lacy is a big (5’11”, 231 pounds), between-the-tackles runner who can really lower his shoulder and drive through contact with his power.
He is not strictly a power back, however, as he can also make plays on the outside with good open-field moves. While he does not have great speed or quickness, he can make defenders miss with subtle cuts and has a devastating spin move.
Lacy immediately becomes the most talented running back in Green Bay and should be the team's feature back from the beginning of his rookie season if fully recovered from a hamstring injury. He is a durable runner who can handle a heavy workload and could easily push or eclipse the 1,000-yard mark in his rookie season if he can stay healthy for the full 16-game schedule.
Lacy should have immediate fantasy production and could be a good value choice in the early-to-middle rounds of a fantasy league draft.
Lacy will become an immediate member of the Packers' running back rotation, and he is likely to eclipse James Starks and Alex Green at the top of the depth chart right away if he is healthy. The Packers shouldn't have to wait long to see production from their second-round investment.
The Packers needed a running back, and they got arguably the draft's best ballcarrier late in Round 2, after three other running backs were already off the board. Additionally, they were able to trade down to the No. 61 selection before selecting him, receiving a sixth-round pick in the process.
While the Packers did not get a lot in that trade down, it still only makes what would have already been a steal at the No. 55 pick an even better value near the end of Round 2.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?