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 

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.

Originally Posted by: nerdmann 

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 

(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 

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 

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 

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