I say pick a position, then once there, keep him on that side. Don't switch side unless it is a emergency after multiple injuries.
"dfosterf" wrote:
Don't disagree... personally.. if we have a left tackle prospect on the roster.. leave him at right tackle.. but I don't think we have to reach on a left tackle just to put one on the roster... IMO, Lang with a camp under him will be just fine at the left tackle.. yes I think he has that much potential despite Foster he is too small jabber.
Watching tape on the kid last spring.. as much as I could find and was overly impressed with the kid.. thought it was an outright steal where we drafted him... so I really want the kid to be dropped into a role and allowed to blossom... none of this nonsense of trying to get him to learn the different footwork and reads each position on the line requires and have it slow down or hamper his development.
"pack93z" wrote:
Jesus H. Christ. All I say is that he told us he weighed 307, not 316. 316 and quick is better than 307 and quick. I have also said repeatedly that I wanted Lang in the weight room, and I don't think I have even been overly involved in the whole "his arms are too short" argument, even though we all know they are not prototypical--and a factor when you go to make those "projections".
He has been called "suitable for spot duty" at LT by scouts. He has been called a "mauler". He received FAR POORER grades from your pro football focus site than you want to admit. He couldn't handle Jared Allen AT ALL, imo...I seem to recall he was called "atrocious" by a network play by play man against the Vikes. He was a rookie thrust into a shitty situation. Mike McCarthy doesn't seem to think he would make a good LT, and Mike McCarthy thinks EVERYBODY is a good lineman except maybe friggin' Colledge (finally)
I DON'T TRUST THEM---- NONE OF THEM
That's not my fault, it is theirs. Coaching, drafting, line-shifts, the Colledge "progression" and patience THAT has required...all for naught. Barbre beating out Giacomini, looking "pretty golden" --right up until it actually MATTERED...
ALL I WANT IS ONE LEFT TACKLE PROSPECT if from my 5 if there at 23, and will have to accept a "lesser" prospect if available later. I have not advocated a "trade down", or anything.
Hopefully Lang is pumping the steel. Put him at RT and let him fight it out with Tausch, or put him at LG and let him fight it out with all the rest of them, including Barbre. I don't give a shit, as long as we get a GD left tackle prospect as EARLY AS POSSIBLE, and they ALL have to fight for jobs.
Our offensive line has been shitty more often than it has been acceptable, and it has never been stellar in a long time. I want it fixed, addressed, whatever the hell you want to call it, and that means we need an LT prospect --- I want to take MY chances on a guy that looks like he is built and projects to play the position--we are talking the next decade here. Let's really try and GET ONE RIGHT, for a change--- My bet is that if we get him early enough, he will be "in the mix" at all of our positions in question.
Lang might be our left tackle of the future. He might get his ass completely handed to him by the likes of Allen and people like him.
Go weigh him and I'll get back to you on that one. :pottytrain2:
"PackFanWithTwins" wrote: