I recall a number of years ago we ended up having to start two rookie tackles.

If I recall that didn't turn out to bad.

Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins 

Yeah, people always quote the times things didn't work out, and fair enough, I suppose. But there are several times when things did work out, like with the current starting left tackle of the Packers. Of course things aren't going to always work out, but sometimes or even often, they do. The NFL would be easy if it was so black and white, but it's not. The reality of the situation is a team like the Packers and their salary constraints are always going to have to depend on several Lane Taylor types throughout the team. Their performance is a big factor of a teams success.

Originally Posted by: DoddPower 

I recall a number of years ago we ended up having to start two rookie tackles.

If I recall that didn't turn out to bad.

Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins 

Here is the fallacy in the argument made by those defending cutting Sitton. The Packers did NOT, repeat did NOT, have to rely upon Lane Taylor in 2016.

Not in any way, shape, or form.

Stick to the facts of this transaction, not some hypothetical scenario that simply does not exist.

Originally Posted by: RichMcGeorge 

Well Tausch and Clifton were good players. Do you seriously consider Lane Taylor (let alone Don Barclay) to be the same caliber of player as Mark & Chad?

PS great name, hope your twins are out of infancy. They get quite a bit easier as they age.

Originally Posted by: RichMcGeorge 

Nobody expected Tauscher to be the player he turned out to be. He was a 7th round pick. More career wise was expected of Clifton but both were rookies Taylor has more NFL experience today than Clifton and Tauscher combined when they became starters.

Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins