Also, this article only compares the Packers O-linemen, than draws the conclusion that they need new guys because some did worse than others. John Madden and I would be willing to go out on a limb (a fairly stout one though) and say that that is true of most any football team ever/anywhere. In short, it doesn't mean much if it isn't comparing them to other linemen in the league. Not to say the conclusion is wrong (because it may very well be correct), just that the method of reaching it isn't.

Originally Posted by: olds70supreme 

The first thing that comes to my mind is that the numbers are skewed because the sacks usually come from the edge not the center of the line. So, as an example, Barclay with 14 may have actually done much better than Lang with 12. Without knowing who they're actually assigned to block it's impossible to tell.

Originally Posted by: PackerTraxx 

some of problems with amateur columnists. They don't typically have all the resources they need to substantiate their claims. Nor are they always as articulate as we would like them to be.

I usually pass up posting these kinds of articles but since we have been discussing the OL and draft needs I thought I would toss this one onto the pile.

We're stacked at the position imo.

LT: Sherrod, Newhouse, Datko- PS
LG: Lang, Barclay, EDS, Van Roten-PS
C: EDS, Player to be drafted, Lang
RG: Sitton, Barclay, EDS, Van Roten-PS
RT: Bulaga, Barclay, Newhouse

Originally Posted by: nerdmann 

We're stacked at the position imo.

LT: Sherrod, Datko
LG: Lang, Barclay, Van Roten, EDS
C: Player to be acquired, Lang, EDS
RG: Sitton, Barclay. Van Roten, EDS
LT: Bulaga, Newhouse

Originally Posted by: nerdmann 

Say whut?

Sitton is a stud.
Beyond that...

We're still operating primarily on the "potential" theory. The same thing that led people to say we were fine with false-start-Cliffie, that Lang had the potential to play OT, that Mrs. Colledge and Mark Spitz were going to be good enough, etc.

We have one stud, and a bunch of guys that are serviceable on their good days and are young enough that may have potential to develop into more.

We're stacked only in the poker sense of being short-stacked.

And we're hoping we have undeveloped stars that will be able to beat Brunson, Moneymaker, and Ungar.

The only reason I"m not calling "OL OL OL" in my usual way is that, unfortunately, GB also has pretty serious needs on both DL and LB, too.

Originally Posted by: Wade 

Originally Posted by: Wade 

quoting your self with nothing new to add is a sign of sickness. [grin1]

Originally Posted by: wpr