I stated? I JOKED, that he was the Harrell of the offense. Ugh...from this point forward, I'll refrain from using any sarcasm, or humor with my posts. Seems as though thats the only reason anyone cares to comment about what I said.

Hasn't shown us "much?" He hasn't shown anything, at all. I cant even remember him playing in the preseason.

"Unquestioned belief?" What are you talking about? Or is this another "joke"? Nobody has said that Breno is a sure bet to be a starting tackle someday. We are just saying that he is a project, and he has potential. That's why he's been kept on the roster. I would assume that he hasn't been put on the practice squad because Thompson's afraid that he might get taken by another team, as happened to Meredith this year.

I remember Breno in the preseason. He sucked. He almost got one of our QB's killed. However, I also remember that Mike Wahle and Marco Rivera both sucked in their early years. If fans like you ran the team, those guys would've been out on their asses, along with Flanagan, and would've then spent their best years playing for other teams, instead of becoming three fifths of the best O-line the Packers have had in recent years.

Sometimes it takes awhile for players to develop. We've seen only a tiny fraction of Breno's performance, so it's hard to judge him on that, except to say that he's not ready to start yet. If I had to guess, I would say he never becomes good, but I have enough faith in our management to assume that he at least has a chance of making it.

Another thing about development of offensive linemen: It's not just technique. It's also about conditioning. If often takes a few years for a player to sculpt his body into the freakish form that is required to be an NFL offensive linemen. Considering that Breno played tight end for much of his college career, it may be taking him some extra time. The truth, of course, is that I don't know a whole lot about the guy. But neither does anybody else here, including you.

---

I want to preface this by saying Some of my response is not directed at you completely, but others whose posts I have read but don't have the time to respond to. I also want to credit Patty at PC for bringing up some of the players I discusses below.

Foremost, I agree with you in that we need to get a free agent LT. It's the opportunity to provide a quick fix for only the cost of money.

Now when I read people saying this is a really weak FA class ... well you have to take it in context.

Teams are hurting financially, and up for sale. Take a look at the Rams, for example. They are for sale. Does anyone actually think the owner - who is looking to sell - wants to invest a whole lot of money into that team?

Or what about the Bucs? The Glazers, who also own an English soccer club, have taken $30 million from the soccer club to put into the football team. On top of that, the Glazers are notoriously cheap.... they've showed a reluctance to spending for the most part. Add to that potential financial trouble... and well you've got a team desperate to cut player costs.

These two teams are important because of their RFA LTs: Alex Barron of the Rams, and Donald Penn of the Bucs. Both may not be UFA, but the potential is there to get these guys as RFA because their teams are very likely to slash player costs in an uncapped year.

The fact they are restricted need not be an insurmountable problem. Assume, for a moment, that either of these teams is seeking to cut costs. All of a sudden, you have a window at getting very useful parts... provided you are willing to give up draft picks in return. This is where the Packers are in a somewhat good spot: at #23, the player they draft will be signed to a reasonable contract. In other words, you can get value for reasonable money. On top of that, you can expect some teams to be limited in the amount they are willing to spend; competition for players should be down. Without competition to drive up prices, there is the chance to land a player at an acceptable price.... both in terms of financial and draft pick compensation. The #23 pick is nothing to sneeze at.


What all of this means is that the Packers, if interested, have an opportunity to get a player that can immediately help on the O-line. However, that means two things: 1) Giving up draft picks and 2) letting Cliffy go.

The first point, if you go after someone like Donald Penn of the Bucs, who at 27 you expect to play high level of football for a few years yet.... the loss of a high draft pick does not hurt you too much. Secondly, the issue becomes money. You get Penn (or Barron), you have to pay them. You may be able to get away from paying them top dollar, but you still will have to give them money. That means, you have to re-think your responsibilities. If you pay a younger LT starters money, the Packers wil likely have to concede that Cliffy won't be back unless he is willing to take a huge pay cut.


There are a lot of possibilities because of an uncapper year; yes the FA talent is weak but RFA is strong and because it is young, I can see someone not fretting too much over giving up draft picks for restricted players.

The issue still remains: what are the Packers thinking in all of this? Are they willing to spend the money - that is the key question. If yes, then I imagine they have a few options. If not, draft is the only way to go.

---

Tengo- I was not taking any sides to this discussion, but stating some facts. Another reason he may not be on our practice squad is he is in his 3rd year now and as an NFL player, I believe you are only allowed two years on a practice squad and then have to pack it up (someone correct me if I am wrong with this). Also, another team can easily swipe him from the practice squad and there might possible be potential with him.

I honestly do not know and right now this would be the second to last player I would be worried about keeping for the o-line (last player being Barbre). I just wanted to add to the discussion.

---

There are many, many variables out there. I've been looking at the Penn "situation", also noting that Khalif Barnes is reportedly unhappy in Oakland, and what chip will fall if Jamaal Brown is healthy with New Orleans? - Just a couple of the "what-ifs" that are at least worth monitoring.

Continuing the last point, I am opposed to drafting an OT in the first round UNLESS it is clearly the best overall player.

Yes, we need young tackles. But we also need a pass-rusher. Leaving Kampman out, our only credible rusher is Clay Mathews. When he gets doubled, that should free things up for other but you need players who can pass rush. The draft is a big place to get one.

However, you also need a potential SS, CB, DE... etc.

My point is: we have needs at other positions, and you have to consider the Best Player Available because there is a good chance it fills a need at another position.

Becoming fixed on a Tackle in the first round means drafting for need. That never works well, no matter how much hype a prospect has.

If someone is there who happens to be a tackle and BPA, then you go and get him absolutely. Otherwise, you go for BPA.

TJ Lang is very important because while people expect him to fill one of the Tackle spots, I think his real value is the potential to fill either Tackle spot. Put simply, he offers you a short term solution at Tackle. You still need a LT, no question, but not getting one in the first round is not the end of the world. I will concede that you probably need one in the first 2-3 rounds, because you can only go so far with two aging Tackles and a stop-gap solution.

Still, I don't think the Packers are so backed into a corner that they need to draft a Tackle with the first pick.

---

I've read about Barnes too. I think there is no question that the O-line has to be Ted's top priority. You have a young elite QB... you need to protect that, man.

But there are avenues outside the draft that can land you a very solid LT. You can get by With Spitz / Colledge at LG, and Lang / Taush at RT in the short term.

---

Is this even a viable possibility? I keep hearing this angle, and I basically laugh every time. NO NFL team lets a quality left tackle walk. The only ones in Free Agency are guys like Clifton and Pace, and lets face it; those guys are pretty limited from being long in the tooth.

I posted early in the thread that we should give the job to Lang and then fill left guard with a blue chip rookie. I know Ted Thompson doesn't like using high picks on guards, but I think Lang showed enough last year to give him a shot. He sure will be better than the second tier LT's were going to see at 23 in the draft, and I don't see a trade up that far in the first to grab one of the two blue chip LT's.

---

thats why a trade for a RFA is the most viable option.

---

Unless a team is financially constrained and desperate... like the Rams and Bucs could be. In that case, they'd be forced to cut costs.... and you have a prayer at getting a quality LT.

---