dfosterf
14 years ago
:horse: :eyeslam: :horse: :eyeslam: :horse: :eyeslam: :horse: :eyeslam: :sign5:
DakotaT
14 years ago
I'm with Warhawk on this one, Lang is not our LT of the future. But he sure would look nice at guard paired up with Sitton. I'm praying Giacommini pans out at RT down the road, but for now we should go with the old guys at tackle, and draft two o-lineman. Why play Lang at LT so he can be adequate, when you could make him a damn good left guard.

I actually think we have bigger problems in the secondary.
UserPostedImage
Rockmolder
14 years ago

Everybody seems to know his weight, his arm length, and other measurables at the combine.

How the fuck did they get those at the combine when he wasn't even

AT THE FRIGGIN' COMBINE.....


lol lol lol

Sorry, but sometimes I gotta point this kinda shit out.

This isn't a rag on you Warhawk, because I also happen to know that when you search for those measurables, many of the "hits" will say something about "combine results" or some-such...(plus he DOES have short arms for a LT)

Which brings us to my MAJOR point...

Some want to trust our franchise QB to a guy that wasn't even deemed good enough to get an invite to the combine.

He has been surprisingly good for a rook. Hell, he was able to play with the rest of our suck-ass line most of the season.

I proclaim blind green and gold homerism, coupled with wishful thinking, if this is the caliber and pedigree that we should now trust at LT.

"dfosterf" wrote:



Jason Peters didn't get invited to the combine, either. Or Tauscher, for that matter.

Look at this little write-up.

Draft Scout Snapshot: 2008: All-Mid American Conference first-team and Super Sleeper Team selection by The NFL Draft Report, adding second-team All-MAC honors from the league's coaches...Earned the Harold E. Sponberg Award, given annually to the top down lineman scholar-athlete...Lined up at left offensive tackle, coming up with 86 knockdowns, 11 touchdown-resulting blocks and nine downfield blocks, grading 83.08% for blocking consistency...Penalized three times and handled a reception for a four-yard loss (turned the ball over on a fumble) while also making a solo tackle...Allowed 4.5 quarterback sacks and three pressures on 499 pass plays...Helped the team rank 20th in the nation and third in the MAC in passing (269.33 yards per game) and 25th in the major college ranks in total offense (417.5 yards per game)...Career: As an offensive lineman, Lang started 26 games at left tackle and 10 on the right side, producing 243 knockdowns and 28 touchdown-resulting blocks...Over his final two seasons, he recorded 21 touchdown-resulting blocks, 169 knockdowns and 17 downfield blocks, grading 81.67% for blocking consistency...Allowed seven quarterback sacks and nine pressures on 860 pass plays...For his career, he collected 16 tackles (eight solos) with an assisted stop for a 3-yard loss and blocked a pair of kicks.



I know, lesser competition, etc. etc. Point is, he's been good throughout his career. The measurables are what's "holding him back". Just like they held Brees back from being a first rounder.

I'm not saying that he's good enough to take over at LT. I'd like to see him at the right side, as well. Take some guy in the draft. Preferably first round.

The problem is, he's the best we have atm. Let's be real, even if Clifton comes back, Lang will most likely be playing/starting in 8 games, due to Chad being injured.

It's the only upside off this situation. We're bad enough to give him the chance to start. If he proves that he can hold off some good guys, we've lucked into a steal at LT. If he can't, I think that he'll be good enough to man the right side.
Pack93z
14 years ago
Okay I looked this up before.. here is my quote.. per draft scouting records.. Arm length isn't and instant issue...

Previous thread here... 

Joe Thomas  has 32.5" arms

TJ Lang .. 32.75 arms.. BTW... he weighted.. 316... lol.

Anyone want to argue that Thomas isn't a franchise left tackle?

British.. this isn't directed towards anyone in particular.. but other than prototypical height.. I don't see another weakness.. especially after watching him at this level.

My point here is that technique wise, I see no glaring weakness.. needs polish.

I really want someone to find and explain what I am missing in the kid.

With that said.. if you get a blue chip prospect sitting on the draft board staring you in the face next season.. take him.. but I wouldn't reach for one with Lang on the roster. I am convinced after studying Lang after the draft.. Lang could line up anywhere on the line.


"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"
Pack93z
14 years ago
My only point... is we are not hostage to having to resign Clifton at any price nor are we in a position that we have to reach to draft a tackle..

Has Lang proven he can play the LT flawlessly.. nope.. but neither has any rookie incoming.. blue chipper or not.

At the end of the day.. what most have been saying is the Ted has to make sure he has some proven options along critical spots and not just "we thinks"..

All I am saying with Lang.. is I have confidence that he could fill the bill if push came to shove.. meaning Clifton or another veteran proven left tackle isn't on the roster come fall.
"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"
dfosterf
14 years ago

Okay I looked this up before.. here is my quote.. per draft scouting records.. Arm length isn't and instant issue...

Previous thread here... 

Joe Thomas  has 32.5" arms

TJ Lang .. 32.75 arms.. BTW... he weighted.. 316... lol.

Anyone want to argue that Thomas isn't a franchise left tackle?

British.. this isn't directed towards anyone in particular.. but other than prototypical height.. I don't see another weakness.. especially after watching him at this level.

My point here is that technique wise, I see no glaring weakness.. needs polish.

I really want someone to find and explain what I am missing in the kid.

With that said.. if you get a blue chip prospect sitting on the draft board staring you in the face next season.. take him.. but I wouldn't reach for one with Lang on the roster. I am convinced after studying Lang after the draft.. Lang could line up anywhere on the line.

"pack93z" wrote:




UserPostedImage






:tongue3:

I think it WILL be a "hostage situation" regarding Cliffy...

Let's say you were the Bills, as a good example.

Chances are decent that even Jamon Meredith is going to be their starting right tackle next year, for some perspective on how rugged it is there...

Cliffy is unrestricted, and so is ...

Mike Gandy of the Cards?

Who else? Gandy sucks ass, imo. I'd take Cliffy in a NY second over Gandy. We are screwed. Now I want to move up in the draft to get a LT, or figure out a way to extract either one of those LT's from NO---somehow...it would be Jamaal Brown in my personal miracle. That has just GOT to be looked at hard.
warhawk
14 years ago
The bottom line is if we lose Clifton we end up in the same boat on that side that we saw last year at RT. No proven player there and hoping the guy can do the job.

I would love for Lang to step up and show he can play that position. I just don't want that to end being a MUST case scenario. With Clifton back for another year it would take the pressure off.

The majority of really good OLT's go early in the draft. Joe Thomas went early in the draft. We have not been in a position to go after a top LT for years nor has there been an overriding need to select a OT there.

The best I could give Lang in getting it done at this point is 50-50. I don't like those odds. He did so-so at LT and playing there full time I am sure he would be BETTER but what we don't know is whether or not his better is good enough or not.

It's not so much of a knock on the kid as it is we got burned playing it this way before and are setting this up for the possibility of it happening again.

You have to play the "what if" scenario out and if Clifton is gone and Lang is the option WHAT IF that doesn't work out? It could happen. Lang has not yet shown that he IS the Man there yet.

The answer is it would be devastating and what makes it so problematic is the lack of depth or options at that point to correct it. IMO a very scary proposition.
"The train is leaving the station."
dfosterf
14 years ago

The bottom line is if we lose Clifton we end up in the same boat on that side that we saw last year at RT. No proven player there and hoping the guy can do the job.

I would love for Lang to step up and show he can play that position. I just don't want that to end being a MUST case scenario. With Clifton back for another year it would take the pressure off.

The majority of really good OLT's go early in the draft. Joe Thomas went early in the draft. We have not been in a position to go after a top LT for years nor has there been an overriding need to select a OT there.

The best I could give Lang in getting it done at this point is 50-50. I don't like those odds. He did so-so at LT and playing there full time I am sure he would be BETTER but what we don't know is whether or not his better is good enough or not.

It's not so much of a knock on the kid as it is we got burned playing it this way before and are setting this up for the possibility of it happening again.

You have to play the "what if" scenario out and if Clifton is gone and Lang is the option WHAT IF that doesn't work out? It could happen. Lang has not yet shown that he IS the Man there yet.

The answer is it would be devastating and what makes it so problematic is the lack of depth or options at that point to correct it. IMO a very scary proposition.

"warhawk" wrote:



+1

And I would add the additional variable created due to having NO REAL GOOD REASON to TRUST this staff in making such projections and evaluations, which for me personally, is the largest factor in my "skepticism" regarding Lang.

I ---- as in ME---am 90% sure Lang can play RT, and I feel pretty good about him at LG as well.

This staff does not deserve my vote of confidence in making the inductive logical leap... Not THIS zealot... They burned me before...

How does it go? Fool me once, shame on yada yada yada
yooperfan
14 years ago
This thread has been one of the most entertaining ever!
My prediction is: we will see more musical chairs on the O-line next year due to age, injuries and lack of depth.
There will not be an NFL ready left tackle on the board at #23 and round and round we go.
Five years of poor drafting on the o-line will continue to haunt this team for years to come.
Fan Shout
Zero2Cool (22m) : Could ban beast and I still don't think anyone catches him.
Mucky Tundra (14h) : Houston getting dog walked by Baltimore
packerfanoutwest (20h) : Feliz Navidad!
Zero2Cool (25-Dec) : Merry Christmas!
beast (25-Dec) : Merry Christmas 🎄🎁
beast (24-Dec) : Sounds like no serious injuries from the Saints game and Jacobs and Watson should play in the Vikings game
packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : both games Watson missed, Packers won
Martha Careful (24-Dec) : I hope all of you have a Merry Christmas!
Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Oh I know about Jacobs, I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to mimic Zero lol
buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : Jacobs was just sat down, Watson re-injured that knee that kept him out 1 game earlier
buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : I needed .14 that's. .14 points for the whole 4th quarter to win and go to the SB. Lol
Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Jacobs gonna be OK???
Zero2Cool (24-Dec) : Watson gonna be OK???
packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : Inactives tonight for the Pack: Alexander- knee Bullard - ankle Williams - quad Walker -ankle Monk Heath
packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : No Jaire, but hopefully the front 7 destroys the line of scrimmage & forces Rattler into a few passes to McKinney.
packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : minny could be #1 seed and the Lions #5 seed
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I just checked. What tie breaker?
bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ahh, ok.
bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes due to tie breaker
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?
bboystyle (23-Dec) : Minny isnt going to lose out so 5th seed is out of the equation. We are playing for the 6th or 7th seed which makes no difference
Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network
beast (23-Dec) : If we win tonight the game is still relative in terms of 5th, 6th or 7th seed... win and it's 5th or 6th, lose and it's 6th or 7th
beast (23-Dec) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.
bboystyle (23-Dec) : i mean game becomes irrelevant if we win tonight. Just a game where we are trying to play spoilers to Vikings chance at the #1 seed
Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno
beast (23-Dec) : I agree that it's BS for fans planning on going to the game. But how does it bring in more money? I'm guessing indirectly?
packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I see what you did there Mucky
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : dammit. 3:25pm
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm
Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground
Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Yeah baby!
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.
beast (23-Dec) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.
packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : ok I stand corrected
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?
beast (23-Dec) : Saying no to the 6th lock.
beast (23-Dec) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.
beast (23-Dec) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
Vikings
Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
22h / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

22h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

25-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

25-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

25-Dec / GameDay Threads / bboystyle

24-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

24-Dec / Random Babble / beast

24-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

23-Dec / Random Babble / Martha Careful

22-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / packerfanoutwest

19-Dec / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

18-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

17-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

17-Dec / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.