The grass is always greener...

TheEngineer
Registered Topic Starter

15 years ago

I like to peruse other teams' forums to see what the consensus on the Packers and Rodgers is. Here's something interesting I've found, from IrepDC, who claims he's a Redskins fan first and a Packers fan 2nd.

From extremeskins.com (gee, sounds almost pornographic), the Redskins forum:

I posted this in another thread but I figured it would also be appropriate here for those of you who don't understand the TOTAL difference in the situation the Packers have put Aaron Rodgers in. Plus, I had some more I wanted to add that is more appropriate for this thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IrepDC
Here are the Packers current starters and when they were drafted:

LT- TJ Lang (Rookie, 4th rd)

LG- Darren Colledge (2006, 2nd rd)

C- Jason Spitz (2006, 3rd rd)

RG- Josh Sitton (2008, 4th rd)

RT- Allen Barbre (2007, 4th rd)

So despite the Packers having one of the most solid olines when Rodgers was first drafted in 2005- with guys like Chad Clifton, Mike Wahle, and Mark Tauscher- the Packers steadily drafted OL since then. So now as their former starters go down from injury or just diminishing skills they have these young guys in place to protect Rodgers.

Their OL started the year with a lot of injuries and players changing positions, which is why the sacks were high, but this young group hs stepped in and is coming together well.

The Packers are the perfect example of how any franchise should build around their QB. Not only was their entire current starting OL brought in after Rodgers was drafted. They've also drafted Greg Jennings (WR, 2006, 2nd rd), James Jones (WR, 2007, 3rd rd), Jordy Nelson (WR, 2008, 2nd rd), and Jermichael Finley (TE, 2008, 3rd rd).

So they have steadily brought in talent around Rodgers since he was drafted, and they have the coaching and scheme in place that gets results out of these players.

Also the Packers have been able to rely on their running game when their OL has struggled to pass protect. The Packers have played in one LESS game than us, but here are there rushing numbers compared to ours.

Redskins: 654 yards, 3.9 per
Packers: 708 yards, 4.3 per

And remember they've played one less game.

Also their defense is GREAT at forcing turnovers as I stated earlier in this thread; giving Rodgers and the offense a short field or even SCORING THEMSELVES.

Redskins: 3 INT's (All by D. Hall)
Packers: 11 INT's (One ran in for a TD by Woodson, also one fumble return for a TD by Clay Mathews)

Again, this is in one less game.

Anyone should be able to see that the situation that Rodgers has been put in since being drafted is light years better than Campbell's with this disfunctional organization.

IrepDC wrote:

I found that quite interesting considering how many posters here consider our front office to be inept, slow to learn or otherwise incapable of running a good franchise. Thoughts?

blank

Wanna join the discussion?! Login to your PACKERSHOME forum account or Register a new forum account

Zero2Cool
Elite Member

15 years ago

I think he might be drinking some green and gold koolaid. He's giving the running game and OL far too much credit. My thoughts.

nerdmann
Premier Member

15 years ago

I think he might be drinking some green and gold koolaid. He's giving the running game and OL far too much credit. My thoughts.

"Zero2Cool" wrote:

Well, he is comparing them to the Redskins. LOL.
This whole season rides on Lang right now. On the Oline in general and Lang specifically. We'll know more on Sunday night.

“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”

beast
Select Member

15 years ago

I think he might be drinking some green and gold koolaid. He's giving the running game and OL far too much credit. My thoughts.

"nerdmann" wrote:

Well, he is comparing them to the Redskins. LOL.
This whole season rides on Lang right now. On the Oline in general and Lang specifically. We'll know more on Sunday night.

"Zero2Cool" wrote:

Yeah the Redskins have had a huge problem in that they have switched coaches over and over and over... and their owner basically is the GM and seems to go on flash or need like the Al Davis.....

I used to live in Redskins land... the owner is their problem... too many changes leading to problems which lead the owner making more changes and over correcting and more problems and more changes. Plus the owner has given his word in the past and many times hasn't kept it.

I agree... we need to find out if Lang is the future or not...

Rockmolder
Honored Member

15 years ago

Nice. I think that this was Thompson's plan. Just ride them out as long as you can and have replacements standing ready.

Biggest problem is that he doesn't appear to value O-linemen and WRs that high. With the high hit chance in later rounds compared to other positions, he just seems to take that gamble.

It worked for the receivers, not for the O-line, despire what this Redskins dude says.

Greg C.
Registered

15 years ago

It's always fun to be compared to the Redskins. I think he oversells our O-line, though. Hopefully some of these mid-round draft choices just need a little more time to polish up their game.

blank

PackFanWithTwins
Veteran Member

15 years ago

I think the overall premise is correct. Get the guys in to build behind the veterans. There were a couple problems that hurt. 1, Mike McCarthy and the ZBS. McCarthy wanted the smaller agile Oline, and IMO it is hurting us because they are getting overpowered. Then Tauscher getting hurt, threw in RT on top of LT as a need last offseason. Tauscher had not been declining in performance. He was still the best on the line. Had he not been injured there only really would have been 1 position of need on the Oline, instead of 2.

The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!

brnt247
Registered

15 years ago

The idea is correct, but the biggest difference between campbell and rodgers is confidence. You can see it when they're both in the pocket and looking downfield.

blank

dd80forever
Registered

15 years ago

The question is Is Daniel Snyder a good GM?

blank

Cheesey
Preferred Member

15 years ago

#10

Answer is, NO.
But i bet some would want him here, cause his name isn't TT.

Important Information:

The PACKERSHOME uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More Details Close

Fan Shout

Zero2Cool (17m) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.

beast (17m) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue

Zero2Cool (1h) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's

Zero2Cool (1h) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.

packerfanoutwest (1h) : ok I stand corrected

Zero2Cool (1h) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th

Zero2Cool (1h) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?

beast (1h) : Saying no to the 6th lock.

beast (1h) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out

Zero2Cool (1h) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.

beast (1h) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games

beast (1h) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality

beast (1h) : We already have told you... if Packers lose all their games (they won't, but if they did), and Buccaneers and Falcons win all theirs

Zero2Cool (1h) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread

Zero2Cool (1h) : I literally just said it.

packerfanoutwest (1h) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't

Zero2Cool (1h) : Falcons, Buccaneers would need to win final two games.

Zero2Cool (1h) : Yes, if they win one of three, they are lock. If they lose out, they can be eliminated.

packerfanoutwest (1h) : as I just said,,gtheyh are in no matter what

Zero2Cool (1h) : Packers should get in. I just hope it's not 7th seed. Feels dirty.

packerfanoutwest (2h) : If packers lose out, no matter what, they are in

packerfanoutwest (2h) : both teams can not male the playoffs....falcon hold the tie breaker

packerfanoutwest (2h) : if bucs win out they win their division

beast (2h) : Fine, Buccaneers and Falcons can get ahead of us

packerfanoutwest (2h) : falcons are already ahead of us

beast (2h) : Packers will get in

beast (2h) : If Packers lose the rest of their games and Falcons win the rest of theirs, they could pass us... but not gonna happen

packerfanoutwest (2h) : they still are in the playoffs

packerfanoutwest (2h) : If Packers lose the remaining games,,,,at 10-7

Zero2Cool (4h) : We can say it. We don't play.

Mucky Tundra (5h) : But to say they are in is looking past the Saints

Mucky Tundra (5h) : That said, their odds are very favorable with a >99% chance of making the playoffs entering this week's games

Mucky Tundra (5h) : Packers are not in and have not clinched a playoff spot.

buckeyepackfan (6h) : Packers are in, they need to keep winning to improve their seed#.

Mucky Tundra (15h) : Getting help would have been nice, but helping ourselves should always be the plan

beast (15h) : Too bad Seahawks couldn't beat Vikings

bboystyle (15h) : We just need to win Monday night and were in

Mucky Tundra (18h) : Or ties, but let's be real here

Mucky Tundra (18h) : Other scenario was Falcons+Rams losses

Mucky Tundra (18h) : Needed a Falcons loss for a Seahawk loss to clinch

buckeyepackfan (19h) : Am I wring in saying if Tge Vikings beat The Seahawks, The Packers clinch?

Mucky Tundra (21-Dec) : Agreed; you stinks

Zero2Cool (21-Dec) : I'm not beating anyone. I stinks.

Mucky Tundra (21-Dec) : rough injury for tank dell. guy can't catch abreak

beast (21-Dec) : So far the college playoffs have sucked... One team absolutely dominates the other

beast (21-Dec) : Well even if you weren't positive towards a guy, you wouldn't nessarily want to tell the media that (if they don't know about it)

Martha Careful (21-Dec) : I think MLF want Love to look past the end half issues, and feel good about his play. Our coaches generally keep a very positive tone.

beast (21-Dec) : I think a great running game will do that for most QBs

packerfanoutwest (21-Dec) : Coach Matt LaFleur has said quarterback Jordan Love is playing the best football of his career.

beast (21-Dec) : Oh, that's how you keep beating buckeye, with cheating

Please sign in to use Fan Shout

2024 Packers Schedule

Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM

Eagles

29 - 34

Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM

COLTS

16 - 10

Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM

Titans

30 - 14

Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM

VIKINGS

29 - 31

Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM

Rams

24 - 19

Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM

CARDINALS

34 - 13

Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM

TEXANS

24 - 22

Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM

Jaguars

30 - 27

Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM

LIONS

14 - 24

Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM

Bears

20 - 19

Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM

49ERS

38 - 10

Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM

DOLPHINS

30 - 17

Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM

Lions

31 - 34

Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM

Seahawks

30 - 13

Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM

SAINTS

Sunday, Dec 29 @ 12:00 PM

Vikings

Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM

BEARS