Tag and trade Clifton?· Page 2

Announcement PH Beta → Check it out! Click Me! (you might be see "unsafe", but it is safe)

DakotaT
Select Member

14 years ago

I want Lang at LG for run blocking purposes. I'd like to get Jamal Brown from the Saints to replace Clifton, but I don't see it happening, so Clifton it is for a stop gap. I'd like to also add a bruising blocking tight end in the draft, but much like tackling, blocking get worse with the Gen Y kids.

I've had enough of Darryn Colledge and could care less if we don't even tender him.

dfosterf
Veteran Member

14 years ago

#12

BTW... can anyone tell me why they think Lang can't play left tackle?

Is it because he struggled a little bit there this season.. is that really fair as he was bounced around like a pogo ball?

"pack93z" wrote:

I will start with the most obvious "concern".

I don't like the Vikings...I'm funny that way.

Week 4 22 snaps at LT gave up 2 sacks and a pressure, week 8 same opponent , gave up 3 sacks and 2 pressures....

I think Aaron plays "jumpy" when he's there, and I think his (Aaron's) "concerns" are legit, what with him not wanting to get BLIND-SIDE KILLED, and all....

"dfosterf" wrote:

And where did he get all the reps going into the season.. at guard and right tackle.. expecting him to get settled in on the left tackle in a week isn't a fair evaluation IMO.

If we continue to play musical chairs with this guys on a weekly basis.. we are going to see issues in their play.. and I am not talking about moving a right guard to the left.. guys like Colledge and Lang have been shifted every which way but Friday in their young careers.. which is part of the issue I see with this staff.

"pack93z" wrote:

He's a right tackle. You know it. I know it. The NFL knows it. I don't know if Ted knows it. Leave him there. Is he a left guard? I think he might be able to play there.

You think he can play left tackle. Apparently so does Ted.

I think you both are gambling with the health of my franchise quarterback in your speculation, and the results to this point (fairness to Lang? How's about fairness to Rodgers?) are NOT as good as you would want them to be. You see "some problems with shifts, footwork, yada yada yada to be expected from a young --shifted around--- guy with potential"

I see a quarterback getting his ass beat, that LUCKILY got up each time...

...Each time a little more antsy, each time maybe a little better at getting rid of a football, but each and every time at risk of being lost for a year.

A 307 lb right tackle that because of sucky aquisitions and shit-box coaching we are now going to trust our next season to?

I'm not. I'm going to church instead.

I'll go light all the candles there, we are going to need them if that's the plan...

Pack93z
Select Member

14 years ago

#13

Since when is Lang 307... On the Packers roster.. listed at 316.

At the [strike]combine[/strike] draft publications he weighted in at 316... Clifton is 320.

Joe Thomas.. one of the best tackles in the game and still developing is only 312.

I did this comparison someplace already on here (Lang vs Thomas).. Lang was like a half inch shorter, slightly heavier and about 1/2 inch shorter arms when each went through the [strike]combine [/strike] draft day measurements..

So size isn't an issue.. can Lang play the spot is.. and I think with a full camp and reps there.. he can.

Again.. I want Clifton resigned.. and I hope they do.

But I don't go left tackle hunting in this draft and reach to try and mine one out... if one is there.. fan - freaking - tastic.. if not.. we have someone on the roster that, I feel, can do the job if needed. Might not be the first pick to play the spot.. but sure in the hell is better than some green ass rookie or Colledge that has proven he needs a hell of a lot more time there to man it.

BTW.. if you are nervous with a second year player taking over the spot.. how in the hell are you going to feel with a wide eyed rookie protecting Aaron's ass?

Ideal situation is to have Clifton man the spot til we "know" that Lang, drafted rookie or FA can fill the role properly.

"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"

Pack93z
Select Member

14 years ago

#14

Foster.. wager time..

If Lang suits up at Left tackle and gives up more than 1 sack in his upcoming games this season..

I will buy and ship you your favorite case of brew..

If Lang gives up 1 or less sacks.. you ship me off something of equal value.. probably beer that I can take out to the hunting shack..

Are you game?

"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"

dfosterf
Veteran Member

14 years ago

#15

Since when is Lang 307... On the Packers roster.. listed at 316.

At the combine he weighted in at 316... Clifton is 320.

Joe Thomas.. one of the best tackles in the game and still developing is only 312.

Again.. I want Clifton resigned.. and I hope they do.

But I don't go left tackle hunting in this draft and reach to try and mine one out... if one is there.. fan - freaking - tastic.. if not.. we have someone on the roster that, I feel, can do the job if needed. Might not be the first pick to play the spot.. but sure in the hell is better than some green ass rookie or Colledge that has proven he needs a hell of a lot more time there to man it.

BTW.. if you are nervous with a second year player taking over the spot.. how in the hell are you going to feel with a wide eyed rookie protecting Aaron's ass?

Ideal situation is to have Clifton man the spot til we "know" that Lang, drafted rookie or FA can fill the role properly.

"pack93z" wrote:

They can list him at 316 at the combine all day long for all I care.

It would have been helpful in the accuracy department IF HE HAD BEEN INVITED TO THE FUCKING THING, lol

Because he wasn't invited and only had a pro day, one of the "questions" was his weight in one of the very first "pressers" we saw of him. I posted this in the past, (with a link) because (well, I don't know WHY I posted it, because no one friggin' reads what I write or link to, lol)

Note that the guys from YOUR (lol--you are the first one to reference it here)

people at pro football focus were THOROUGH enough to "catch" that disparity and correct his weight.

OK, issue number one addressed.

We are NOT arguing about some rookie, we are arguing about retaining or trading Cliffy. I want Cliffy on this team next year. I also want an FA LT, along with AT LEAST ONE GD it ---draft pick ---WITHOUT SKIPPING OVER to get some other position player, unless the reach is egregious.

Now I'm all worked up again, lol

He LAUGHED at 316 and SAID he weighs 307.

dfosterf
Veteran Member

14 years ago

#16

"pack93z" wrote:

That is a bet.

I would have taken that bet on a PER GAME basis, lol

Pack93z
Select Member

14 years ago

#17

Pro day.. combine.. same types of official measurements.. at the draft publications..

Anyway... how many times do I have to say it.. Resign Clifton if we can in realistic terms.. which it should be because he is near the end.. unless some jackass in Washington or Dallas decides he needs to become a multi-millionaire in his last contract again.

So we have settled here.. that Clifton should be on the team.

Now we are taking in terms of draft.. I say don't draft a tackle just to draft a left tackle.. in other words don't reach.. lol.

If I could write the script.. yes I would put Lang in the position he feels most comfortable and performs the best in.. meaning come April the mother of all left tackle prospects falls in a position to be available to us.. we draft him and have that extra security..

But in reality.. the odds of us having a blue chipper sitting there.. is slim.

So again.. Reink Clifton.. if that fails.. ink a proven LT in FA.. if that fails.. rely on Lang or blue chip draftee..

"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"

Pack93z
Select Member

14 years ago

#18

"dfosterf" wrote:

That is a bet.

I would have taken that bet on a PER GAME basis, lol

"pack93z" wrote:

That is a per game bet.. figured with the 1 sack minimum that was a given.. lol.

"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"

Pack93z
Select Member

14 years ago

#19

They can list him at 316 at the combine all day long for all I care.

He LAUGHED at 316 and SAID he weighs 307.

"dfosterf" wrote:

Now.. since we can't use the NFL rosters as a baseline.. how are you going to argue that Thomas is listed at a lesser weight than Lang?

Hmmm..

LOL... now I have to go back and find the draft day measurements again.. where the hell is that thread... lol.

"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"

dfosterf
Veteran Member

14 years ago

#20

Vikings, Eagles, Cowboys, Giants, Falcons, Dolphins, and Patriot games.

If that twiggy is playing LT for the whole game, it is a bet on those games.

WTF am I going to do with all that beer? By that time, Wade will have reduced in poundage to the point that I am hosed out of drinking!

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 (4m) : I guess 3 games. Whatever

Zero2Cool (18m) : Bleh, that only impacts two games.

Zero2Cool (25m) : Packers are gonna get 3rd place division schedule next year.

Mucky Tundra (1h) : Kanata, seek help! lol

beast (3h) : I was rooting for the Bears to win and hurt their draft pick status

Zero2Cool (3h) : Forgot there was even a game last night haha

TheKanataThrilla (3h) : That was terrible.

TheKanataThrilla (3h) : Watching that game in its entirety yesterday is proof positive that I am a football addict.

beast (4h) : And horrible time management multiple times... and not being able to score more than 3 points on a team with talent

beast (4h) : Realizing the Bears didn't fix it from the previous week and do the same thing, getting the game to overtime

beast (4h) : They probably are not tanking, but they've absolutely mismanagement some things, such as Vikings seeing the Packers blocked FG and realizing

Zero2Cool (5h) : Crazy of Bears to have that mindset that is

Zero2Cool (5h) : Hail Mary stop away from 5 - 2. Not sure how that flips to tanking. Crazy mindset if true

beast (5h) : I've quietly questioned if Bears are tanking on purpose... they suddenly got a lot worse with some simple concepts like 101 clock management

wpr (8h) : Watching bares fans melt down over how putrid their team is, so enjoyable. It's the gift that keeps on giving.

Mucky Tundra (15h) : The Seattle Seahawks defeat the Chicago Bears 6-3. Jason Myers had 6 RBIs for Seattle while Cairo Santos had 3 RBI for Chicago

beast (16h) : Not nessarily, he might of been injured either way. He's playing about 50% of the games the last 4 years

Zero2Cool (22h) : If they'd been more patient with him, he'd be back already. Putting him out there vs Bears caused him to tweak it and here we are.

packerfanoutwest (22h) : well this is his last season with the PAck, book it

beast (26-Dec) : Sounds like no Alexander (again), I'm wondering if his time with the Packers is done

Zero2Cool (26-Dec) : Could ban beast and I still don't think anyone catches him.

Mucky Tundra (26-Dec) : Houston getting dog walked by Baltimore

packerfanoutwest (25-Dec) : 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

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

34 - 0

Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM

Vikings

Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM

BEARS