Change is Coming PACKERSHOME is going to be 10 years old later this season and for us to have another 10 years, things will have to change. Read Change is Coming for current issues that will be resolved.
Green Bay Packers Forum

Welcome to your Green Bay Packers Online Community!

Since 2006, PackersHome has been providing a unique experience for fans.
Your participation is greatly anticipated!
Login or Register.
6 Pages«<23456>
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline nerdmann  
#31 Posted : Friday, February 14, 2014 4:12:41 PM(UTC)
Rank: Preferred Member

Joined: 9/14/2008(UTC)
Applause Given: 4,936
Applause Received: 1,167
steveishere said: Go to Quoted Post
The problem is you call players like Lang and EDS "serviceable" or "back up quality" when they are clearly better than that. Nobody has an o-line filled with Sitton quality players and that's just ridiculous if that's your standard. I'd say there are few if any teams that even have all Lang quality players.


Agreed. What other team could have made the playoffs with their 3rd, 4th and 5th string Ts?

Not only that, but you all forget. When Mike first got here, he was requesting "smaller, quicker" Olinemen. That's what Mike wanted for his zBS scheme. It worked like shit, so later they changed to looking for "bigger stronger" guys. Since then, They've been doing quite well.

This past season we've seen how good the depth is. When Ted's 4th rounder starts at LT and performs better than the top two picks in the draft (who played RT btw) that's a pretty damn good pick. And that's pretty damn good depth.

Shit, what did Don Barclay cost us in the draft? Nothing.
Offline Wade  
#32 Posted : Friday, February 14, 2014 6:08:32 PM(UTC)
Rank: Veteran Member

Joined: 8/1/2009(UTC)
Location: nowhere of importance
Applause Given: 805
Applause Received: 812
Just don't bitch to me when Rodgers goes down to a concussion when one of those Packer linemen you consider adequate lets Suh, Allen, or whoever get past them again. And don't bitch to me when a top team like Seattle or San Francisco keeps Rodgers trying to escape too much and keeps that all-world offense of that Packers from advancing deep into the playoffs.

I don't expect everyone to be at Sitton's level. But to my mind there is not just a drop off to Lang, et al, but a major drop off. IMO if you are content with five Langs, your standards are too low.

That most teams might be content with five Langs is irrelevant to me. Most teams aren't serious championship contenders and wouldn't be with five Langs either.

And that's what I want. I want a team that everyone puts in the top four teams of the league every year. Not just a playoff contender, a team that people expect to contend for at least a conference championship.

A dominant team.

Champions aren't content with being good. They aren't content with being better than most teams. They aren't content, period. Champions strive to be dominant.

They may fall short. They may not be able to dominate everywhere. But when they aren't, they don't stop trying to upgrade themselves. They don't feel content with depending on a quarterback's all-world escapability and arm to get himself out of bad situations over and over again.

Content? Content IMO is for sixth seeds.




thanks Post received 2 applause.
play2win on 2/15/2014(UTC), yooperfan on 2/16/2014(UTC)
Offline nerdmann  
#33 Posted : Friday, February 14, 2014 6:15:47 PM(UTC)
Rank: Preferred Member

Joined: 9/14/2008(UTC)
Applause Given: 4,936
Applause Received: 1,167
Wade said: Go to Quoted Post
Just don't bitch to me when Rodgers goes down to a concussion when one of those Packer linemen you consider adequate lets Suh, Allen, or whoever get past them again. And don't bitch to me when a top team like Seattle or San Francisco keeps Rodgers trying to escape too much and keeps that all-world offense of that Packers from advancing deep into the playoffs.

I don't expect everyone to be at Sitton's level. But to my mind there is not just a drop off to Lang, et al, but a major drop off. IMO if you are content with five Langs, your standards are too low.

That most teams might be content with five Langs is irrelevant to me. Most teams aren't serious championship contenders and wouldn't be with five Langs either.

And that's what I want. I want a team that everyone puts in the top four teams of the league every year. Not just a playoff contender, a team that people expect to contend for at least a conference championship.

A dominant team.

Champions aren't content with being good. They aren't content with being better than most teams. They aren't content, period. Champions strive to be dominant.

They may fall short. They may not be able to dominate everywhere. But when they aren't, they don't stop trying to upgrade themselves. They don't feel content with depending on a quarterback's all-world escapability and arm to get himself out of bad situations over and over again.

Content? Content IMO is for sixth seeds.






Lang wasn't far behind Sitton this year, imo.

Suh and those guys pushed us around a bit, but that was only because EDS went down and Lang had to play C that game. Then they stuck in NEWHOUSE at G.

And yet that game was still closer than you probably remember.
Offline Wade  
#34 Posted : Friday, February 14, 2014 6:17:34 PM(UTC)
Rank: Veteran Member

Joined: 8/1/2009(UTC)
Location: nowhere of importance
Applause Given: 805
Applause Received: 812
Yeah, they made playoffs despite injuries.

And how many playoff games have they won since 2010?

Would they have made it any farther in the playoffs had they had no injuries on the OL at all? Under the "any given sunday" rule, sure, anything's possible. Under the rule that "team's that go farther in the playoffs are the better teams", not in this fan's opinion.

Injuries are an effing excuse. This team had major questions *before* the injuries happened.







thanks Post received 1 applause.
yooperfan on 2/16/2014(UTC)
Offline Wade  
#35 Posted : Friday, February 14, 2014 6:25:41 PM(UTC)
Rank: Veteran Member

Joined: 8/1/2009(UTC)
Location: nowhere of importance
Applause Given: 805
Applause Received: 812
nerdmann said: Go to Quoted Post
Lang wasn't far behind Sitton this year, imo.



Whatever you say.

I bet Lacy doesn't consider him that close to Sitton. Look where Lacy makes contact with defensive players when he runs to Sitton's side, and its probably 2-4 yards farther than when he runs to Lang's side.

Pass protection might be a little closer. But that's as much because Bahktiari was worse than Barclay (and so Sitton had to do more) than it is because Lang is good.

IMO Lang and Bulaga are the offensive linemen most consistently over-rated by Packer fans. IMO they look better than they are because they have been operating next to Newhouse, Bahktiari, Barclay, and/or each other.

thanks Post received 1 applause.
texaspackerbacker on 2/14/2014(UTC)
Offline steveishere  
#36 Posted : Friday, February 14, 2014 7:55:19 PM(UTC)
Rank: Senior Member

FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Gold: 2013

Joined: 7/28/2012(UTC)
Applause Given: 57
Applause Received: 1,409
Wade said: Go to Quoted Post
Just don't bitch to me when Rodgers goes down to a concussion when one of those Packer linemen you consider adequate lets Suh, Allen, or whoever get past them again. And don't bitch to me when a top team like Seattle or San Francisco keeps Rodgers trying to escape too much and keeps that all-world offense of that Packers from advancing deep into the playoffs.

I don't expect everyone to be at Sitton's level. But to my mind there is not just a drop off to Lang, et al, but a major drop off. IMO if you are content with five Langs, your standards are too low.

That most teams might be content with five Langs is irrelevant to me. Most teams aren't serious championship contenders and wouldn't be with five Langs either.

And that's what I want. I want a team that everyone puts in the top four teams of the league every year. Not just a playoff contender, a team that people expect to contend for at least a conference championship.

A dominant team.

Champions aren't content with being good. They aren't content with being better than most teams. They aren't content, period. Champions strive to be dominant.

They may fall short. They may not be able to dominate everywhere. But when they aren't, they don't stop trying to upgrade themselves. They don't feel content with depending on a quarterback's all-world escapability and arm to get himself out of bad situations over and over again.

Content? Content IMO is for sixth seeds.






It's not about being content it's about what's an actual reasonable possibility. If the problem was being content then we wouldn't have dropped 2 contracts on our Gs and spent consecutive 1st round picks on Ts. Our OL this year was every bit as good as Seattles was even with the injuries so don't give me this "championship contenders" BS. You say we tend to overrate Lang and Bulaga and that may be so but you also seem to severely underrate them. Major drop off my ass, maybe Sitton blows him away in run blocking but Sitton is also a top 3 G in the league. Even if you are right and there's a "major drop off" between the 2 the point is there isn't any drop off between Lang and most of the rest of the NFL he's at least an above average G and so was Bulaga at T when he was actually healthy. If there's a huge drop off between Sitton and Lang then there's a similar drop off between Sitton and almost everyone else so who cares?

LOL you act like there's only 2 levels of play there's guys like Sitton (who are ok) and everyone else who isn't good enough. That's not a "championship mentality" it's just ridiculousness.
thanks Post received 1 applause.
DoddPower on 2/15/2014(UTC)
Offline buckeyepackfan  
#37 Posted : Friday, February 14, 2014 9:19:09 PM(UTC)
Rank: Veteran Member

FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Bronze: 2012Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2014

Joined: 8/7/2008(UTC)
Location: Lima, Ohio
Applause Given: 673
Applause Received: 695
Wade said: Go to Quoted Post
(shaking head)

I actually like EDS. I don't think he's the weakest link of the OL.

I think he's really good ... for a backup position.

I know I'm beating a dead horse, but debating between players who have demonstrated, at most, that they qualify as "serviceable" and those who might have "potential" for more, is a recipe for disaster.

The goal should not be to have an adequate OL. It should never be to have an adequate line. It should never be to have a serviceable OL. The goal should be to have a dominant line. A great line.

A great line makes an offense unstoppable. A serviceable line threatens the health of the Hall of Fame quarterback that is essential to that unstoppable offense.

Yes, the defense is a bigger train wreck. So it has to be a bigger priority overall. But however much of that train wreck can be cleaned up in one off season, it doesn't matter if Rodgers gets hurt. And, ISTM, if you approach the OL as "we're ok with serviceable and waiting for Tretter or Bahktiari or some pre-March "free agent servicable guys" to improve it, you're just risking #12 again.

The Packers were lucky that the injury last year was a collarbone. What if the next one is to the throwing shoulder or elbow? Or a concussion? Or a major knee injury?

Quarterbacks get injured. It's a reality of the game. But IMO you ought to be doing everything you can to ensure that they face as few hits as possible. And if you are continually content with combinations of "serviceable" and "potential for growth" and "late round picks", IMO you aren't doing everything you can.

IMO the Packers aren't going to be bona fide championship contender until they fix the defense. But they are also just one missed block away from having the same issues at quarterback as every other team in the NFC North.


You keep blaming the O-line for the injury, watch the play, the line (especially Barclay) did exactly what they were supposed to do. Aaron saw an opening and broke out of the pocket, Barclay was screwed at that point, his back was to Aaron, the defender saw immediately where Aaron was going, and broke away from Barclay.
Nobody's playing dumb here, the line needs to improve, but that play, that night, that injury, cannot be put on the O-line.

Go back and look at some of the really good O-line in history, I think you will find they do not consist of 5 great players at their positions, but they are made up of guys who have been together 2 or 3 years.

5 men playing as 1 unit.

That is why I keep saying EDS needs to stay, get Bulaga back, get a chance to see what Sherrard can do, everyone stays healthy, from top to bottom, The Packers are set to have one of the better O-lines in the league.



http://www.nfl.com/video...rs-vs-Packers-highlights
Offline Zero2Cool  
#38 Posted : Saturday, February 15, 2014 7:28:54 AM(UTC)
Rank: Premier Member

Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Gold: 2015Yahoo! Fantasy Football - Gold: 2009FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Silver: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2011ESPN NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2013

United States
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI
Applause Given: 2,250
Applause Received: 3,310
Wade said: Go to Quoted Post
Again, if you are content for almost a decade with the Colledges (even the St. Louis version, rofl), Bulagas (as shown so far), Langs, and Bahktiari (as shown so far), then you are insufficiently committed to your quarterback's health. IMO.


If Aaron Rodgers was quicker with this reads and decisions, the OL wouldn't be much of a topic at all. Look at when Brett Favre was here or look at Peyton Manning. They both released the ball after 2-3 seconds. Rodgers holds it too long. Why do you think Rodgers is so sensitive about it? Because he knows it and "can't" change it.

Remember 2010 Patriots game? People said OMG the OL is playing great! Wrong. Matt Flynn was releasing the ball right away on quick reads so yeah of course the OL is gonna look good.


Since Rodgers won't improve on that area... lets look at the draft.

Source: http://packershome.com/Draft.aspx

2013 two 4th rounders
2012 7th rounder
2011 1st and 6th rounder
2010 1st and 5th rounder
2009 4th and 5th rounder
2008 4th and 5th rounder
2007 4th rounder
2006 2nd, 3rd and 5th rounder
2005 5th and 7th rounder


The OL isn't the fault of Ted Thompson. The OL staff cannot develop the talent!

Every player in the draft has talent. Every player in the NFL has talent. COACHES responsibilities are to get the MOST out of that talent.


So all of this "draft more OL" is completely naive and avoiding the root problem. The coaches. Until the Packers have a coaching staff that can develop the players to reach their potential, and we have a QB who holds the ball too long ... the Packers OL will always look like garbage. One issue with this country is we always wanna put bandaids on things. A quick fix if you will. There is no quick fix. There is no draft more OL to fix the problem. The problem is NOT the players. It's the damn coaching staff!!


thanks Post received 1 applause.
nerdmann on 2/15/2014(UTC)
Offline play2win  
#39 Posted : Saturday, February 15, 2014 7:33:40 AM(UTC)
Rank: Registered

United States
Joined: 3/29/2012(UTC)
Location: Milwaukee
Applause Given: 1,076
Applause Received: 724
buckeyepackfan said: Go to Quoted Post
You keep blaming the O-line for the injury, watch the play, the line (especially Barclay) did exactly what they were supposed to do. Aaron saw an opening and broke out of the pocket, Barclay was screwed at that point, his back was to Aaron, the defender saw immediately where Aaron was going, and broke away from Barclay.
Nobody's playing dumb here, the line needs to improve, but that play, that night, that injury, cannot be put on the O-line.

Go back and look at some of the really good O-line in history, I think you will find they do not consist of 5 great players at their positions, but they are made up of guys who have been together 2 or 3 years.

5 men playing as 1 unit.

That is why I keep saying EDS needs to stay, get Bulaga back, get a chance to see what Sherrard can do, everyone stays healthy, from top to bottom, The Packers are set to have one of the better O-lines in the league.



http://www.nfl.com/video...rs-vs-Packers-highlights


I don't know man. Our OL was indeed responsible for Aaron having to break out of the pocket. Moreso Bakhtiari being manhandled by Peppers, forcing Rodgers out to his right, than Barclay. There was no pocket. Peppers blew it up inside.
Offline Wade  
#40 Posted : Saturday, February 15, 2014 8:41:40 AM(UTC)
Rank: Veteran Member

Joined: 8/1/2009(UTC)
Location: nowhere of importance
Applause Given: 805
Applause Received: 812
steveishere said: Go to Quoted Post
It's not about being content it's about what's an actual reasonable possibility. If the problem was being content then we wouldn't have dropped 2 contracts on our Gs and spent consecutive 1st round picks on Ts. Our OL this year was every bit as good as Seattles was even with the injuries so don't give me this "championship contenders" BS. You say we tend to overrate Lang and Bulaga and that may be so but you also seem to severely underrate them. Major drop off my ass, maybe Sitton blows him away in run blocking but Sitton is also a top 3 G in the league. Even if you are right and there's a "major drop off" between the 2 the point is there isn't any drop off between Lang and most of the rest of the NFL he's at least an above average G and so was Bulaga at T when he was actually healthy. If there's a huge drop off between Sitton and Lang then there's a similar drop off between Sitton and almost everyone else so who cares?

LOL you act like there's only 2 levels of play there's guys like Sitton (who are ok) and everyone else who isn't good enough. That's not a "championship mentality" it's just ridiculousness.


Did you read what I said at all? My point about "big gap between Sitton and Lang" is the point that there are multiple levels of play. I do NOT believe we have to get Sitton level players to improve over the performance of Lang, Bulaga, et al.

There have been great offensive lines, and none of them have been All-Pros across the line. But all of them have been better, a lot better, than the Packer OL during the Thompson/McCarthy years.

I'm sorry, but the "we can't afford more" won't wash with me. Not over a nine year period. Yeah, they have a lot of money invested in Lang. They also have a lot of money invested in Brad Jones. Sometimes money is badly invested. Nine years of putting your NFL money in the Langs and Jones of the world is evidence of bad investment strategy.

The Packers may have no way of paying for improvement in the OL this year. Given the problems on defense, I won't dispute this.

But, one last time, this has not been a one year failure. This has been close to a decade of inability to put together a dominant line.

Call it being content, call it being frugal, call it being satisfied, blame it on injuries, blame it on being left in salary cap hell by Sherman, blame it on not being able to draft high enough, blame it on not coaching people up enough, call it whatever you damn want. Whatever you blame it on, the Packers have not had a dominant offensive line in the entire Ted Thompson/Mike McCarthy era.

I call it unacceptable.
thanks Post received 1 applause.
yooperfan on 2/16/2014(UTC)
Rss Feed 
Users browsing this topic
Guest
6 Pages«<23456>
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Notification

Icon
Error


Fan Shout
uffda udfa: Quinton Coples released by Dolphins. Would love to see him brought in for a looksee.
uffda udfa: Goodbye, BJ.
uffda udfa: Packers extend LeTroy Guion. 3 yr for 11.25 mil
uffda udfa: I guess you come back when you have nowhere else to go. :)
uffda udfa: TERRIBLE, TERRIBLE news. I hope that is inaccurate.
Zero2Cool: Dom Capers, full defensive staff expected to return to Packers
uffda udfa: Peyton Manning in the movies: https://vimeo.com/21710095
Zero2Cool: thank ya sir
uffda udfa: Best looking site out there!
Zero2Cool: You welcome!
Cheesey: THANK YOU again for all you do.
Cheesey: You do all the work, while some think they don't have to honor your few rules.
Cheesey: Kevin, you KNOW how much I appreciate this site.
uffda udfa: Nope. Too much pressure for them.
Zero2Cool: NFL MVP's don't seem to win the Super Bowl the same year, do they?
Zero2Cool: Panthers played uninspired and predictable, actually (and sadly) reminded me of the Packers. :(
Zero2Cool: Thanks 68md, good to know some notice and appreciate.
Zero2Cool: Holding a different or less than popular view is perfectly fine. You fail to understand this even though I repeatedly tell you. It's annoyin
uffda udfa: Good night, Smokey.
Smokey: good night uffda.
uffda udfa: Wonder how Colts fans feel, and Mr. Irsay?
uffda udfa: Today, anyway.
Smokey: DEFENSE DOES WIN CHAMPIONSHIPS TT !
uffda udfa: Carolina will never be back to a SB under Cam Newton.
uffda udfa: Denver D just dominated the current MVP and the former this year.
uffda udfa: Cam for LVP in the SB. No character.
uffda udfa: Newton is a wuss. MVP? LOL.
uffda udfa: #VonFire
uffda udfa: People who have passion and expectations aren't A words. Accepting less than the best doesn't make you not one either.
uffda udfa: Sorry, Kevin...maybe you called Dakota an A word and not me? Had to be one of us.
uffda udfa: Marshawn Lynch announced his retirement in a cool way via twitter. What could've been in Green Bay, Marshawn!
uffda udfa: It's okay... you called me the "A" word. All because I don't tickle the ears. I get it.
uffda udfa: So someone like Buck deserves privileges because he's a better fan than me due to his flattering opinions?
68md: wet blanket ? He works his ass off to keep the place going for you ?
Smokey: Zero, Why are you such a wet blanket host ? A real SB "Chat" should have been a priority for this site. Wet Blanket strikes again.
Please sign in to use Fan Shout

Road To Super Bowl 50
Sunday, Sep 13 @ 12:00 PM
at Bears
Sunday, Sep 20 @ 7:30 PM
SEAHAWKS
Monday, Sep 28 @ 7:30 PM
CHIEFS
Sunday, Oct 4 @ 3:25 PM
at 49ers
Sunday, Oct 11 @ 12:00 PM
RAMS
Sunday, Oct 18 @ 3:25 PM
CHARGERS
Sunday, Oct 25 @ 12:00 AM
- BYE -
Sunday, Nov 1 @ 7:30 PM
at Broncos
Sunday, Nov 8 @ 12:00 PM
at Panthers
Sunday, Nov 15 @ 12:00 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 22 @ 3:25 PM
at Vikings
Thursday, Nov 26 @ 7:30 PM
BEARS
Thursday, Dec 3 @ 7:25 PM
at Lions
Sunday, Dec 13 @ 3:25 PM
COWBOYS
Sunday, Dec 20 @ 3:05 PM
at Raiders
Sunday, Dec 27 @ 3:25 PM
at Cardinals
Sunday, Jan 3 @ 7:30 PM
VIKINGS

Think About It
Think About It

Recent Topics
8h / Green Bay Packers Talk / uffda udfa

9h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

9h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

9h / Announcements / Cheesey

11h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Barfarn

13h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Wade

13h / Green Bay Packers Talk / uffda udfa

14h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

21h / Green Bay Packers Talk / PackerTraxx

11-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

11-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

9-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / PackFanWithTwins

9-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / FLORIDA PACKER88

9-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / uffda udfa

8-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / PackFanWithTwins


Tweeter