nerdmann
10 years ago

The problem is you call players like Lang and EDS "serviceable" or "back up quality" when they are clearly better than that. Nobody has an o-line filled with Sitton quality players and that's just ridiculous if that's your standard. I'd say there are few if any teams that even have all Lang quality players.

Originally Posted by: steveishere 



Agreed. What other team could have made the playoffs with their 3rd, 4th and 5th string Ts?

Not only that, but you all forget. When Mike first got here, he was requesting "smaller, quicker" Olinemen. That's what Mike wanted for his zBS scheme. It worked like shit, so later they changed to looking for "bigger stronger" guys. Since then, They've been doing quite well.

This past season we've seen how good the depth is. When Ted's 4th rounder starts at LT and performs better than the top two picks in the draft (who played RT btw) that's a pretty damn good pick. And that's pretty damn good depth.

Shit, what did Don Barclay cost us in the draft? Nothing.
“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”
Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member
10 years ago
Just don't bitch to me when Rodgers goes down to a concussion when one of those Packer linemen you consider adequate lets Suh, Allen, or whoever get past them again. And don't bitch to me when a top team like Seattle or San Francisco keeps Rodgers trying to escape too much and keeps that all-world offense of that Packers from advancing deep into the playoffs.

I don't expect everyone to be at Sitton's level. But to my mind there is not just a drop off to Lang, et al, but a major drop off. IMO if you are content with five Langs, your standards are too low.

That most teams might be content with five Langs is irrelevant to me. Most teams aren't serious championship contenders and wouldn't be with five Langs either.

And that's what I want. I want a team that everyone puts in the top four teams of the league every year. Not just a playoff contender, a team that people expect to contend for at least a conference championship.

A dominant team.

Champions aren't content with being good. They aren't content with being better than most teams. They aren't content, period. Champions strive to be dominant.

They may fall short. They may not be able to dominate everywhere. But when they aren't, they don't stop trying to upgrade themselves. They don't feel content with depending on a quarterback's all-world escapability and arm to get himself out of bad situations over and over again.

Content? Content IMO is for sixth seeds.





And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
nerdmann
10 years ago

Just don't bitch to me when Rodgers goes down to a concussion when one of those Packer linemen you consider adequate lets Suh, Allen, or whoever get past them again. And don't bitch to me when a top team like Seattle or San Francisco keeps Rodgers trying to escape too much and keeps that all-world offense of that Packers from advancing deep into the playoffs.

I don't expect everyone to be at Sitton's level. But to my mind there is not just a drop off to Lang, et al, but a major drop off. IMO if you are content with five Langs, your standards are too low.

That most teams might be content with five Langs is irrelevant to me. Most teams aren't serious championship contenders and wouldn't be with five Langs either.

And that's what I want. I want a team that everyone puts in the top four teams of the league every year. Not just a playoff contender, a team that people expect to contend for at least a conference championship.

A dominant team.

Champions aren't content with being good. They aren't content with being better than most teams. They aren't content, period. Champions strive to be dominant.

They may fall short. They may not be able to dominate everywhere. But when they aren't, they don't stop trying to upgrade themselves. They don't feel content with depending on a quarterback's all-world escapability and arm to get himself out of bad situations over and over again.

Content? Content IMO is for sixth seeds.




Originally Posted by: Wade 



Lang wasn't far behind Sitton this year, imo.

Suh and those guys pushed us around a bit, but that was only because EDS went down and Lang had to play C that game. Then they stuck in NEWHOUSE at G.

And yet that game was still closer than you probably remember.

“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”
Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member
10 years ago
Yeah, they made playoffs despite injuries.

And how many playoff games have they won since 2010?

Would they have made it any farther in the playoffs had they had no injuries on the OL at all? Under the "any given sunday" rule, sure, anything's possible. Under the rule that "team's that go farther in the playoffs are the better teams", not in this fan's opinion.

Injuries are an effing excuse. This team had major questions *before* the injuries happened.








And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member
10 years ago

Lang wasn't far behind Sitton this year, imo.

Originally Posted by: nerdmann 



Whatever you say.

I bet Lacy doesn't consider him that close to Sitton. Look where Lacy makes contact with defensive players when he runs to Sitton's side, and its probably 2-4 yards farther than when he runs to Lang's side.

Pass protection might be a little closer. But that's as much because Bahktiari was worse than Barclay (and so Sitton had to do more) than it is because Lang is good.

IMO Lang and Bulaga are the offensive linemen most consistently over-rated by Packer fans. IMO they look better than they are because they have been operating next to Newhouse, Bahktiari, Barclay, and/or each other.


And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
steveishere
10 years ago

Just don't bitch to me when Rodgers goes down to a concussion when one of those Packer linemen you consider adequate lets Suh, Allen, or whoever get past them again. And don't bitch to me when a top team like Seattle or San Francisco keeps Rodgers trying to escape too much and keeps that all-world offense of that Packers from advancing deep into the playoffs.

I don't expect everyone to be at Sitton's level. But to my mind there is not just a drop off to Lang, et al, but a major drop off. IMO if you are content with five Langs, your standards are too low.

That most teams might be content with five Langs is irrelevant to me. Most teams aren't serious championship contenders and wouldn't be with five Langs either.

And that's what I want. I want a team that everyone puts in the top four teams of the league every year. Not just a playoff contender, a team that people expect to contend for at least a conference championship.

A dominant team.

Champions aren't content with being good. They aren't content with being better than most teams. They aren't content, period. Champions strive to be dominant.

They may fall short. They may not be able to dominate everywhere. But when they aren't, they don't stop trying to upgrade themselves. They don't feel content with depending on a quarterback's all-world escapability and arm to get himself out of bad situations over and over again.

Content? Content IMO is for sixth seeds.




Originally Posted by: Wade 



It's not about being content it's about what's an actual reasonable possibility. If the problem was being content then we wouldn't have dropped 2 contracts on our Gs and spent consecutive 1st round picks on Ts. Our OL this year was every bit as good as Seattles was even with the injuries so don't give me this "championship contenders" BS. You say we tend to overrate Lang and Bulaga and that may be so but you also seem to severely underrate them. Major drop off my ass, maybe Sitton blows him away in run blocking but Sitton is also a top 3 G in the league. Even if you are right and there's a "major drop off" between the 2 the point is there isn't any drop off between Lang and most of the rest of the NFL he's at least an above average G and so was Bulaga at T when he was actually healthy. If there's a huge drop off between Sitton and Lang then there's a similar drop off between Sitton and almost everyone else so who cares?

LOL you act like there's only 2 levels of play there's guys like Sitton (who are ok) and everyone else who isn't good enough. That's not a "championship mentality" it's just ridiculousness.
buckeyepackfan
10 years ago

(shaking head)

I actually like EDS. I don't think he's the weakest link of the OL.

I think he's really good ... for a backup position.

I know I'm beating a dead horse, but debating between players who have demonstrated, at most, that they qualify as "serviceable" and those who might have "potential" for more, is a recipe for disaster.

The goal should not be to have an adequate OL. It should never be to have an adequate line. It should never be to have a serviceable OL. The goal should be to have a dominant line. A great line.

A great line makes an offense unstoppable. A serviceable line threatens the health of the Hall of Fame quarterback that is essential to that unstoppable offense.

Yes, the defense is a bigger train wreck. So it has to be a bigger priority overall. But however much of that train wreck can be cleaned up in one off season, it doesn't matter if Rodgers gets hurt. And, ISTM, if you approach the OL as "we're ok with serviceable and waiting for Tretter or Bahktiari or some pre-March "free agent servicable guys" to improve it, you're just risking #12 again.

The Packers were lucky that the injury last year was a collarbone. What if the next one is to the throwing shoulder or elbow? Or a concussion? Or a major knee injury?

Quarterbacks get injured. It's a reality of the game. But IMO you ought to be doing everything you can to ensure that they face as few hits as possible. And if you are continually content with combinations of "serviceable" and "potential for growth" and "late round picks", IMO you aren't doing everything you can.

IMO the Packers aren't going to be bona fide championship contender until they fix the defense. But they are also just one missed block away from having the same issues at quarterback as every other team in the NFC North.

Originally Posted by: Wade 



You keep blaming the O-line for the injury, watch the play, the line (especially Barclay) did exactly what they were supposed to do. Aaron saw an opening and broke out of the pocket, Barclay was screwed at that point, his back was to Aaron, the defender saw immediately where Aaron was going, and broke away from Barclay.
Nobody's playing dumb here, the line needs to improve, but that play, that night, that injury, cannot be put on the O-line.

Go back and look at some of the really good O-line in history, I think you will find they do not consist of 5 great players at their positions, but they are made up of guys who have been together 2 or 3 years.

5 men playing as 1 unit.

That is why I keep saying EDS needs to stay, get Bulaga back, get a chance to see what Sherrard can do, everyone stays healthy, from top to bottom, The Packers are set to have one of the better O-lines in the league.



http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/0ap2000000276925/Week-9-Bears-vs-Packers-highlights 
I was addicted to The Hokey Pokey, but I turned myself around!
Zero2Cool
10 years ago

Again, if you are content for almost a decade with the Colledges (even the St. Louis version, rofl), Bulagas (as shown so far), Langs, and Bahktiari (as shown so far), then you are insufficiently committed to your quarterback's health. IMO.

Originally Posted by: Wade 



If Aaron Rodgers was quicker with this reads and decisions, the OL wouldn't be much of a topic at all. Look at when Brett Favre was here or look at Peyton Manning. They both released the ball after 2-3 seconds. Rodgers holds it too long. Why do you think Rodgers is so sensitive about it? Because he knows it and "can't" change it.

Remember 2010 Patriots game? People said OMG the OL is playing great! Wrong. Matt Flynn was releasing the ball right away on quick reads so yeah of course the OL is gonna look good.


Since Rodgers won't improve on that area... lets look at the draft.

http://packershome.com/Draft.aspx 

2013 two 4th rounders
2012 7th rounder
2011 1st and 6th rounder
2010 1st and 5th rounder
2009 4th and 5th rounder
2008 4th and 5th rounder
2007 4th rounder
2006 2nd, 3rd and 5th rounder
2005 5th and 7th rounder


The OL isn't the fault of Ted Thompson. The OL staff cannot develop the talent!

Every player in the draft has talent. Every player in the NFL has talent. COACHES responsibilities are to get the MOST out of that talent.


So all of this "draft more OL" is completely naive and avoiding the root problem. The coaches. Until the Packers have a coaching staff that can develop the players to reach their potential, and we have a QB who holds the ball too long ... the Packers OL will always look like garbage. One issue with this country is we always wanna put bandaids on things. A quick fix if you will. There is no quick fix. There is no draft more OL to fix the problem. The problem is NOT the players. It's the damn coaching staff!!



UserPostedImage
play2win
10 years ago

You keep blaming the O-line for the injury, watch the play, the line (especially Barclay) did exactly what they were supposed to do. Aaron saw an opening and broke out of the pocket, Barclay was screwed at that point, his back was to Aaron, the defender saw immediately where Aaron was going, and broke away from Barclay.
Nobody's playing dumb here, the line needs to improve, but that play, that night, that injury, cannot be put on the O-line.

Go back and look at some of the really good O-line in history, I think you will find they do not consist of 5 great players at their positions, but they are made up of guys who have been together 2 or 3 years.

5 men playing as 1 unit.

That is why I keep saying EDS needs to stay, get Bulaga back, get a chance to see what Sherrard can do, everyone stays healthy, from top to bottom, The Packers are set to have one of the better O-lines in the league.



http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/0ap2000000276925/Week-9-Bears-vs-Packers-highlights 

Originally Posted by: buckeyepackfan 



I don't know man. Our OL was indeed responsible for Aaron having to break out of the pocket. Moreso Bakhtiari being manhandled by Peppers, forcing Rodgers out to his right, than Barclay. There was no pocket. Peppers blew it up inside.
Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member
10 years ago

It's not about being content it's about what's an actual reasonable possibility. If the problem was being content then we wouldn't have dropped 2 contracts on our Gs and spent consecutive 1st round picks on Ts. Our OL this year was every bit as good as Seattles was even with the injuries so don't give me this "championship contenders" BS. You say we tend to overrate Lang and Bulaga and that may be so but you also seem to severely underrate them. Major drop off my ass, maybe Sitton blows him away in run blocking but Sitton is also a top 3 G in the league. Even if you are right and there's a "major drop off" between the 2 the point is there isn't any drop off between Lang and most of the rest of the NFL he's at least an above average G and so was Bulaga at T when he was actually healthy. If there's a huge drop off between Sitton and Lang then there's a similar drop off between Sitton and almost everyone else so who cares?

LOL you act like there's only 2 levels of play there's guys like Sitton (who are ok) and everyone else who isn't good enough. That's not a "championship mentality" it's just ridiculousness.

Originally Posted by: steveishere 



Did you read what I said at all? My point about "big gap between Sitton and Lang" is the point that there are multiple levels of play. I do NOT believe we have to get Sitton level players to improve over the performance of Lang, Bulaga, et al.

There have been great offensive lines, and none of them have been All-Pros across the line. But all of them have been better, a lot better, than the Packer OL during the Thompson/McCarthy years.

I'm sorry, but the "we can't afford more" won't wash with me. Not over a nine year period. Yeah, they have a lot of money invested in Lang. They also have a lot of money invested in Brad Jones. Sometimes money is badly invested. Nine years of putting your NFL money in the Langs and Jones of the world is evidence of bad investment strategy.

The Packers may have no way of paying for improvement in the OL this year. Given the problems on defense, I won't dispute this.

But, one last time, this has not been a one year failure. This has been close to a decade of inability to put together a dominant line.

Call it being content, call it being frugal, call it being satisfied, blame it on injuries, blame it on being left in salary cap hell by Sherman, blame it on not being able to draft high enough, blame it on not coaching people up enough, call it whatever you damn want. Whatever you blame it on, the Packers have not had a dominant offensive line in the entire Ted Thompson/Mike McCarthy era.

I call it unacceptable.

And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
Fan Shout
Zero2Cool (9h) : Chase Young to sign $13M contract with Saints
Zero2Cool (9h) : Yosh to Panthers what noooo. Wait he didn't do crap
wpr (18-Mar) : I say that he is technically HER BIL as he married her sister. I checked it out, he's considered my BIL as well. Sad.
Mucky Tundra (18-Mar) : wpr, I assume its your BIL via marriage to your wife? If so, I can figure out where the smarts in the family went ;)
wpr (18-Mar) : Mucky my B-I-L is Bare Stupid. I could write a book.
Mucky Tundra (18-Mar) : As a teenager in Rockford IL I would get heckled by adults in public for wearing GB gear
Mucky Tundra (18-Mar) : if you think the online ones are bad, try *living amongst* them
Mucky Tundra (18-Mar) : Never doubt wprs loyalty. Poor guy is surrounded by Bears fans in Northern IL
wpr (17-Mar) : pass Martha. Thanks for the invite though.
Martha Careful (17-Mar) : blog * as the same ugly Illinois colors were adopted by the Baer
Martha Careful (17-Mar) : WPR, perhaps you should be joining the Bears fans blog has the same ugly Illinois colors were adopted by the Bears
Mucky Tundra (17-Mar) : Ah a fellow U of Illinois hater. I can respect that though I imagine it's for different reasons
Zero2Cool (17-Mar) : BTW. I didn't catch the game. I just hate Illinois.
Mucky Tundra (17-Mar) : They're your Big Ten Chumps and you will like it!
Zero2Cool (17-Mar) : No, not for the record. Referee's handled that BS. Orange team was trash ass
Mucky Tundra (17-Mar) : *Your* Big Ten Chumps for the record
Zero2Cool (17-Mar) : No, not Big Ten Champs. IL is big ten CHUMPS
wpr (17-Mar) : Big Ten Champs
wpr (17-Mar) : !!!
wpr (17-Mar) : INI
wpr (17-Mar) : ILL
Martha Careful (17-Mar) : Wisconsin with an outstanding on in the men’s Big Ten basketball tournament. Let’s hope it continues in the NCAAs
Zero2Cool (17-Mar) : Almost like taking QB in 2020 even if you don't need one is good move.
Mucky Tundra (16-Mar) : 2021 QB Draft class looking like a real clunker
Mucky Tundra (16-Mar) : A conditional 6th rounder? I remember Bears fans arguing they'd get a day 2 pick at worst lol
dfosterf (16-Mar) : So I got the no extension part right and the have to wait on the CW physical wrong
Zero2Cool (16-Mar) : Bears are trading Justin Fields for a 2025 6th-round pick that goes to a 4th-round pick based on playtime, per sources.
Zero2Cool (16-Mar) : Former Packer Jarrett Bush opens Wisconsin’s first blow dry bar in Green Bay
dfosterf (16-Mar) : If the Bears are not doing a deal with Washington, they also cannot trade Fields until Williams physical with them. All hail Caleb Williams!
dfosterf (16-Mar) : The talent is undeniable, but the (advertised) haul is obscene.
dfosterf (16-Mar) : If the Bears are cutting a deal with the Commanders, in either scenario, cannot happen until williams passes a Commanders physical
dfosterf (16-Mar) : My guess is no to the Fields extension, but yes to the trade back with the Commanders.
dhazer (15-Mar) : I think the Bears do a Love extension and they will trade out of the 1st pick and take the haul
Martha Careful (15-Mar) : that might make sense
Zero2Cool (15-Mar) : Justin Fields to Steelers?
Zero2Cool (15-Mar) : Kenny Pickett. Eagles. Done.
Zero2Cool (15-Mar) : They can claim best two WR tandem.
Mucky Tundra (15-Mar) : Aaron Donald retiring
dhazer (15-Mar) : Campbell signing with 49ers
dhazer (15-Mar) : I love how the Bear Fans are now claiming they have the best skill players in the NFC North lol
Zero2Cool (15-Mar) : Vikings made a move to get a 2nd first round pick
Mucky Tundra (15-Mar) : That's a not a bad deal for the Bears
Zero2Cool (15-Mar) : Bears have traded for WR Keenan Allen sending Chargers a fourth rounder.
Martha Careful (15-Mar) : *signs
Martha Careful (14-Mar) : MLB Devon White science with the Eagles
Mucky Tundra (14-Mar) : But that was before FA started
Mucky Tundra (14-Mar) : Dhaze, I thought Kurls would be their #1 target when I read that he was an Amos comp (jack of all trades guy)
dhazer (14-Mar) : I would like to see the Packers target 2 more FA still available Kamren Curl Safety and Chase Young edge
Martha Careful (14-Mar) : wow...didn't see that coming
Zero2Cool (14-Mar) : AJ Dillon re-signing with Packers.
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2023 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 10 @ 3:25 PM
Bears
Sunday, Sep 17 @ 12:00 PM
Falcons
Sunday, Sep 24 @ 12:00 PM
SAINTS
Thursday, Sep 28 @ 7:15 PM
LIONS
Monday, Oct 9 @ 7:15 PM
Raiders
Sunday, Oct 22 @ 3:25 PM
Broncos
Sunday, Oct 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Nov 5 @ 12:00 PM
RAMS
Sunday, Nov 12 @ 12:00 PM
Steelers
Sunday, Nov 19 @ 12:00 PM
CHARGERS
Thursday, Nov 23 @ 11:30 AM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 3 @ 7:20 PM
CHIEFS
Monday, Dec 11 @ 7:15 PM
Giants
Sunday, Dec 17 @ 12:00 PM
BUCCANEERS
Sunday, Dec 24 @ 12:00 PM
Panthers
Sunday, Dec 31 @ 7:20 PM
Vikings
Sunday, Jan 7 @ 3:25 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Jan 14 @ 3:30 PM
Cowboys
Saturday, Jan 20 @ 7:15 PM
49ers
Recent Topics
5h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

13h / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

15h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

18-Mar / Around The NFL / Mucky Tundra

16-Mar / Random Babble / Martha Careful

16-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / TheKanataThrilla

15-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / dhazer

15-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

14-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

14-Mar / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

14-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

13-Mar / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

13-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

13-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

13-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.