Lionbackers.com

Watching Logan hit the hole and accelarate was night and day different from having Smith back there the past two weeks. Logan gives speed that Smith never had. He's reminding me of the same style as Pinball Clemons & Charles Rodgers. Those kind of scatbacks will work in the CFL - - the lumbering guys like Smith not so much. Basically the opposite of the NFL.

Biggest reason though is the attitude. Smith not even attending practice or gameday when he was hurt said about how much he was willing to invest of himself in this team. And to compound matters he comes out and ADMITS TO THE MEDIA that he didn't pay any attention to the team at all when he was hurt.

You can't have a team where a guy as important as teh RB shows openly that he's disinterested. Everyone puts their asses on the line to block for the RB - - how far will you sacrifice when the guy you're clearing space for admits he's not interested in the team anymore than you or I are interested in our jobs past 5pm?

Point taken. Would still like to see both Smith and Logan alternating. Logan certainly has that explosive speed, pretty hard to keep him out of the roster now.

If you're going to go out of your way and bash Joe Smith while praising his understudy, at least get the name right for one of the comparisons you used. It's Charles Roberts.

Logan was elusive and provided three long runs, a nice touchdown catch and two good kick returns but I thought he was largely ineffective and underutilized for a feature back. He had only 10 carries, and 7 of those were for 5 yards or less, including two that resulted in negative yardage. We saw once that he can bounce to the outside, which Joe Smith can't do, but Logan can't pound the ball inside consistently.

Most importantly, the Lions didn't have a running game when they most needed it, in short yardage and in the red zone. Three times the Lions had first and goal, and they passed every time. One of those passes was intercepted. Jarious Jackson ran the quarterback sneak four times in short yardage and needed a measurement each time. Joe Smith is dependable in critical situations, he can rack up more carries and control the clock, and he's a great blocker. If the Lions can only have one feature back on the field, my choice is still Joe.

Logan just played himself onto the roster permanently and the Lions have to figure out what to do with Smith who has a CFL fall, running style. If I am the Lions, I try and find a trading partner for Smith, perhaps the Bombers could release a receiver in ex-change as they must be at desperate times.

Getting rid of Joe Smith will bite this team in the ass. Tonight proved why we can utilize the talents of both players. It's really irritating that people are still stuck in this "either/or" mindset when it comes to Joe Smith and Stefan Logan. Joe becomes a scapegoat and immediately the play calling on offence changes. Nice.

B.C.FAN wrote:Logan was elusive and provided three long runs, a nice touchdown catch and two good kick returns but I thought he was largely ineffective and underutilized for a feature back. He had only 10 carries, and 7 of those were for 5 yards or less, including two that resulted in negative yardage. We saw once that he can bounce to the outside, which Joe Smith can't do, but Logan can't pound the ball inside consistently.

Most importantly, the Lions didn't have a running game when they most needed it, in short yardage and in the red zone. Three times the Lions had first and goal, and they passed every time. One of those passes was intercepted. Jarious Jackson ran the quarterback sneak four times in short yardage and needed a measurement each time. Joe Smith is dependable in critical situations, he can rack up more carries and control the clock, and he's a great blocker. If the Lions can only have one feature back on the field, my choice is still Joe.

TheLionKing wrote:

B.C.FAN wrote:Logan was elusive and provided three long runs, a nice touchdown catch and two good kick returns but I thought he was largely ineffective and underutilized for a feature back. He had only 10 carries, and 7 of those were for 5 yards or less, including two that resulted in negative yardage. We saw once that he can bounce to the outside, which Joe Smith can't do, but Logan can't pound the ball inside consistently.

Most importantly, the Lions didn't have a running game when they most needed it, in short yardage and in the red zone. Three times the Lions had first and goal, and they passed every time. One of those passes was intercepted. Jarious Jackson ran the quarterback sneak four times in short yardage and needed a measurement each time. Joe Smith is dependable in critical situations, he can rack up more carries and control the clock, and he's a great blocker. If the Lions can only have one feature back on the field, my choice is still Joe.

The Lions should have trusted Lambala on the first and goal situations, he could be the answer to the missing piece of the puzzle when Smith isn't in. Hey, I have said all along the Lions need to find a way to put the best talent on the team on the 42 man roster, it just makes too much sense to me for it to be any other way.

B.C.FAN wrote:Logan was elusive and provided three long runs, a nice touchdown catch and two good kick returns but I thought he was largely ineffective and underutilized for a feature back. He had only 10 carries, and 7 of those were for 5 yards or less, including two that resulted in negative yardage. We saw once that he can bounce to the outside, which Joe Smith can't do, but Logan can't pound the ball inside consistently.

Most importantly, the Lions didn't have a running game when they most needed it, in short yardage and in the red zone. Three times the Lions had first and goal, and they passed every time. One of those passes was intercepted. Jarious Jackson ran the quarterback sneak four times in short yardage and needed a measurement each time. Joe Smith is dependable in critical situations, he can rack up more carries and control the clock, and he's a great blocker. If the Lions can only have one feature back on the field, my choice is still Joe.

Yeah I agree with you totally. I was so frustrated on those passes on 1st and goal. I never understand why they can't have smith and logan in there. We had Millington and Philpot b4 and we had Millington and Drummond in 2000. It should work now too.

almo89 wrote:

B.C.FAN wrote:Logan was elusive and provided three long runs, a nice touchdown catch and two good kick returns but I thought he was largely ineffective and underutilized for a feature back. He had only 10 carries, and 7 of those were for 5 yards or less, including two that resulted in negative yardage. We saw once that he can bounce to the outside, which Joe Smith can't do, but Logan can't pound the ball inside consistently.

Most importantly, the Lions didn't have a running game when they most needed it, in short yardage and in the red zone. Three times the Lions had first and goal, and they passed every time. One of those passes was intercepted. Jarious Jackson ran the quarterback sneak four times in short yardage and needed a measurement each time. Joe Smith is dependable in critical situations, he can rack up more carries and control the clock, and he's a great blocker. If the Lions can only have one feature back on the field, my choice is still Joe.

Yeah I agree with you totally. I was so frustrated on those passes on 1st and goal. I never understand why they can't have smith and logan in there. We had Millington and Philpot b4 and we had Millington and Drummond in 2000. It should work now too.

Wouldn't have matttered who was in at RB It wasn't in the scheme!

almo89 wrote:

B.C.FAN wrote:Logan was elusive and provided three long runs, a nice touchdown catch and two good kick returns but I thought he was largely ineffective and underutilized for a feature back. He had only 10 carries, and 7 of those were for 5 yards or less, including two that resulted in negative yardage. We saw once that he can bounce to the outside, which Joe Smith can't do, but Logan can't pound the ball inside consistently.

Most importantly, the Lions didn't have a running game when they most needed it, in short yardage and in the red zone. Three times the Lions had first and goal, and they passed every time. One of those passes was intercepted. Jarious Jackson ran the quarterback sneak four times in short yardage and needed a measurement each time. Joe Smith is dependable in critical situations, he can rack up more carries and control the clock, and he's a great blocker. If the Lions can only have one feature back on the field, my choice is still Joe.

Yeah I agree with you totally. I was so frustrated on those passes on 1st and goal. I never understand why they can't have smith and logan in there. We had Millington and Philpot b4 and we had Millington and Drummond in 2000. It should work now too.

But Logan & Smith would be 2 imports. The combos from the past that you mention were non-import/import combinations. I doubt a 2 import backfield is doable, especially given WB's propensity for loading up the 2ndary with imports.

Lions4ever wrote:

almo89 wrote:

B.C.FAN wrote:Logan was elusive and provided three long runs, a nice touchdown catch and two good kick returns but I thought he was largely ineffective and underutilized for a feature back. He had only 10 carries, and 7 of those were for 5 yards or less, including two that resulted in negative yardage. We saw once that he can bounce to the outside, which Joe Smith can't do, but Logan can't pound the ball inside consistently.

Most importantly, the Lions didn't have a running game when they most needed it, in short yardage and in the red zone. Three times the Lions had first and goal, and they passed every time. One of those passes was intercepted. Jarious Jackson ran the quarterback sneak four times in short yardage and needed a measurement each time. Joe Smith is dependable in critical situations, he can rack up more carries and control the clock, and he's a great blocker. If the Lions can only have one feature back on the field, my choice is still Joe.

Yeah I agree with you totally. I was so frustrated on those passes on 1st and goal. I never understand why they can't have smith and logan in there. We had Millington and Philpot b4 and we had Millington and Drummond in 2000. It should work now too.

But Logan & Smith would be 2 imports. The combos from the past that you mention were non-import/import combinations. I doubt a 2 import backfield is doable, especially given WB's propensity for loading up the 2ndary with imports.

It's doable if you consider Skillern or Hill expendable, and many people do. The issue, to me, isn't the propensity to load up the secondary with imports, its the propensity to dress spare-part import WRs who are marginal at best in both skill and contribution. Wally is making it a ratio issue when it needn't be.

Is firstchimpy120 five years old? How many posts does he have to make about his dislike for Joe Smith. This board is going to *poop* with all his posts. Losing alot of credibility as this goes on. When the Lions were playing great, all of Joe's little eccentricities were just a side not and kind of celebrated as a unique character. Now he's gettin' thrashed just because the team struggles a little. He is an undeserved scapegoat. The whole team was at fault in Edm. How easy they forget Joe's game against Mtl.
I like Logan too, but we don't need to run Joe outta town.

ps. i know this wasnt a firstchimpy post, but i didn't want to start a new thread about this, and the other one was locked.

Rammer wrote:Logan just played himself onto the roster permanently and the Lions have to figure out what to do with Smith who has a CFL fall, running style. If I am the Lions, I try and find a trading partner for Smith, perhaps the Bombers could release a receiver in ex-change as they must be at desperate times.

They're desperate....but every team in the league must know that if Pasquale is looking to make a permanent change, he will simply release Joe before the Labour day cutoff date for salaries.
I'm also guessing the Bombers would rather have Sean Whyte after powderkeg's comments regarding Serna. How about Milt Stegall?