Green Bay - Let me get this out of the way right at the top:
It's a very good thing for the Packers to have Mark Tauscher around for the next two seasons (Packers just confirmed it's a two year deal).
You couldn't find a better teammate or representative for the organization. He should finish his career playing for one team, and the Packers at that. A good football player, Tauscher's an even better person. And as a media member, I want 53 Tauschers on the team I'm covering. They don't come any more standup than him.
Having said that, the Packers' re-signing of Tauscher to be a starter -- if that is indeed the case (we'll make final judgement when the real numbers come out) -- doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Nor was it needed.
That's not a popular thing to say (and later on I'll take on Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, too, just for kicks), but it's the truth.
Re-signing Tauscher was a luxury -- a great one to have, to be sure -- but it was not a necessity like Chad Clifton was.
If Tauscher was brought back as a backup, then it would be absolutely understandable and something to be jumped at. I'm all for having a few well-placed veteran backups. The Packers could use more of them. Tauscher might top the list.
But to be the undisputed starter at right tackle? No, it doesn't make sense.
Here are some of the reasons:
1. It's a myth Tauscher spurred Packers' offensive turnaround
Aaron Rodgers and coach Mike McCarthy are among the many people that have pointed to Tauscher's insertion into the lineup as the reason why the Packers' suddenly turned it around on offense, especially in regards to protecting Rodgers.
In the words of McCarthy, I'd say that's a "convenient" way of looking at things.
Sure, you look at the numbers -- 10 sacks allowed in Tauscher's seven games, 41 in the other nine -- and it's easy to say Tauscher was a big factor.
He was a factor. But there were several factors:
* Allen Barbre was terrible (profootballfocus.com has him as worst RT in football). If Tauscher's replacement had been even mediocre, his impact wouldn't have seemed as dramatic. This can't be understated;
* The line stabilized. Daryn Colledge had finally started to settle back down at left guard after his misadventures at left tackle. Clifton, after injuries, was in the third of nine consecutive starts to finish the season when Tauscher took over against San Francisco in Week 11.
* Rodgers stopped holding onto the ball, and the offense got back to the quick passing game. It took a loss at Tampa Bay and being called out by his teammates, but Rodgers finally adjusted his game and started getting rid of the ball quicker. More three-step drops got the offense back into a rhythm.
* Packers' backs were against the wall. Being 4-4 after the loss to the Bucs, the Packers had no choice but to get their acts together or they were headed for an off-season of turmoil if things went downhill.
* Running game picked up after the Ahman Green signing lit a fire under Ryan Grant. Rarely had Grant been so explosive and broken more tackles at the second level.
So there were many things that happened around the same time, and they all contributed to the Packers' offensive resurgence. It's impossible to say that Tauscher was the reason.
2. Should be able to replace performance level
I don't fully endorse their numbers, but I think the ratings over at profootballfocus.com are OK to use a blunt instrument and when they seem to be in line with what happened on the field.
According to PFF, Tauscher was medicore overall. He was OK as a pass blocker (rated fourth out of five starters) and poor as a run blocker. It's not like Tauscher was coming off a Pro Bowl season.
Of course, Tauscher was coming off ACL surgery -- that has to be factored in -- and should be better the second time around.
3. The big one: It's past time to move on
Here's where the Packers currently stand with their offensive line depth chart:
Tauscher and Clifton will be starting their 11th year together this season. And the Tauscher signing says one thing for sure: the Packers are no closer to finding their replacements now than they were three years ago.
That's unacceptable.
OK, evidently Barbre won't be able to hack it. But why the heck has Breno Giacomini taken up a roster spot the past two years (active three times in 32 games) and kept around while players were jettisoned at other positions (Jamon Meredith, Anthony Smith) if he's not at least ready to compete for a starting position this year?
Why can't Lang compete for the starting job heading into his second year?
Again, if the Packers plan was to let Giacomini and Lang battle it out for the starting spot and then have Tauscher around as the backup plan, then that would be brilliant. But it seems highly unlikely Tauscher would return unless it was as a starter.
(That the Packers don't feel they have players ready to compete at right tackle -- let alone left tackle -- at this point is a fairly strong indictment of Ted Thompson's ability to draft tackles. At least he gets points for owning up to it.)
It's also now very crowded on the Packers' offensive line. They kept nine offensive linemen last year, although they could keep another since they likely won't be keeping three fullbacks again.
You have the five starters: Clifton, Spitz (a projection), Wells, Sitton and Tauscher. Lang definitely stays, and Colledge isn't likely going anywhere (if Tauscher was the plan, Packers could have enticed more teams to go after Colledge by tendering him at the third-round level). Dietrich-Smith will likely stay because you can't be sure about Spitz's back and the Packers seem to be moving towards having a backup in each spot so they don't have to move three to help one like last season. And you have to think either Barbre or Giacomini stays, if not both.
So at the least, that's eight, possibly nine spots.
And Thompson almost always drafts two offensive linemen. It's a given they will take a player that can develop into a left tackle in the first three rounds. What if he's taken in the first round and is the best right tackle right away?
I could see Spitz or Colledge being dealt at some point. Spitz has the most trade value if he proves to be healthy. And either Barbre or Giacomini is gone.
If that happens, Lang would be the left guard backup, Giacomini would backup Tauscher, and the rookie would get to solely develop at left tackle.
If those things happen, the Tauscher signing makes more sense. Perhaps they will.
But as it stands right now, the Tauscher signing was a luxury, not a necessity. That the Packers took advantage of the uncapped year and opened up the checkbook to make sure they're OK along the offensive line should be applauded (and you can bet McCarthy is thrilled). Going young hasn't worked out well.
However, at some point in time, as Thompson said at the Senior Bowl, it's time to see what your other guys can do.
"As you evolve in the NFL eventually you're going to have to go out there and sink or swim, and we're going to ask a lot of our guys, and (Giacomini's) going to be one of them," Thompson said.
With Tauscher back in the fold as a starter, the Packers will be delaying that another year.
Was that necessary? It shouldn't have been.