All 32 teams do... as every single rookie is a project trying to make it in the NFL. But seriously a ton of guys and draft picks fail to make it every year... that's why it's been said if you get just two good starters then it was a good draft. If you get 3 it was a GREAT! draft... that year we got

2 Jordy Nelson Kansas State
2 Brian Brohm Louisville
2 Patrick Lee Auburn
3 Jermichael Finley Texas
4 Jeremy Thompson Wake Forest
4 Josh Sitton Central Florida
5 Breno Giacomini Louisville
7 Matt Flynn Louisiana State
7 Brett Swain

That looks like a good draft with Finley and Sitton as your two good starters... and we got a couple of back-ups in Nelson, Flynn and Swain. (I didn't name last because stay I heard he's working with the 3rd string CBs and could be cut as well with Bush working with the 2nd string...)

---

I agree and that seriously bothers me... but I think the guys they've been going after have been a little better. I mean Sitton, Lang and Bulaga were NFL ready for the most part... but I agree we don't seem to be able to coach up project OL guys. Though Newhouse has been reported to be improving... at LT (after sucking at LG)...

Should we move him to RT with Bulaga there? ... Lang has been working both LT and RT while Clifton and Bulaga were out.

---

Outside of prototypical size, is there much to like about this guy? At this level I think they want you to be a good football player. I admit I haven't watched him a whole lot but the special attention I did show him during the Browns preseason game didn't alleviate my doubts. No, my doubts are even stronger now.

---

I have no complaints with the 2008 draft. I have no complaints with trying a converted TE as a OT. It would have been nice to wait a round or two before selecting him. After all he only played OT for 2 seasons and only started 1 season plus a couple of games as a Jr. With the GB starting OT getting long in the tooth it is obvious that Ted has been looking for their replacements for some time. He had hoped he could get a quality replacement in the lower rounds and then letting them grow into the job. It just has not worked out.

All I said Ted likes to take these gambles. All teams gamble a bit. (No one more than Oakland). It just seems that Ted does so a bit more than most teams. And as I said with some success.

---

I don't have much confidence in our O-line coaching either, although I suppose it could just as well be that Ted hasn't drafted well at those positions. I don't put any stock into the reports of Newhouse improving. We've heard the same things about Barbre and Giacomini for the past two years.

Right at the moment, though, I am hopeful that the Packers may have turned the corner with the O-line. Sitton was a good start, Lang looks pretty good, and of course so does Bulaga.

---

James Campen is the OL coach.
He's never played in a zone scheme.
He was never properly taught how to teach the scheme, other than the one year under Jagz.

Is it the scheme?
The teacher's lack of knowledge of the scheme?

The talent?



I don't know OL, but I have a hard time saying its Ted's fault, or James' fault or the scheme's fault. I think we have the wrong pieces to the puzzle.


Edit, trying to think of a time James played in zone, I don't recall one, but never is not the proper term since I do know for sure. I do not believe he has.

---

I'm critical of Campen too, but let's be real. Ted Thompson was asked to draft "smaller, quicker" guys for the first 3 years or so. Alan Barbre is the last of those guys, iirc. Then he started nabbing some "bigger stronger" type guys like Sitton, Lang etc. TT's percentage has been much better since then. Breno just can't break the starting lineup. We got depth now, but I think we have enough castoffs to get some help at need positions, such as OLB and CB.

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/102089128.html 
Here's an interesting take:

"It's interesting that teams like Giacomini. Does that mean they think they can coach him up better than the Packers?"

---