Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

O-line solution
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
gizmo2012


Joined: 11 Mar 2007
Posts: 2622
PostPosted: Fri Nov 30, 2012 1:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

GoPackGo wrote:
If we get 2010 Starks back, the running game won't be an issue.


Are you kidding - the RB situation in Green Bay is a complete disaster. Most NFL teams have at least 2 RB's better than any RB on the Packers. Take James Starks - at best a #2 back and he never ever will be a featured back because he just isn't that good. Alex Green is no Brandon Jackson so you can see where he rates right now. I thought Cedric Benson was a great fit and what a shame he got hurt. Part of the reasont he Packer offensive line is struggling is no team respects the running game, and that has to change for the Packers to be a serious contender again.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PackFan4Life


Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Posts: 3963
Location: De Pere, WI
PostPosted: Fri Nov 30, 2012 1:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gizmo2012 wrote:
GoPackGo wrote:
If we get 2010 Starks back, the running game won't be an issue.


Are you kidding - the RB situation in Green Bay is a complete disaster. Most NFL teams have at least 2 RB's better than any RB on the Packers. Take James Starks - at best a #2 back and he never ever will be a featured back because he just isn't that good. Alex Green is no Brandon Jackson so you can see where he rates right now. I thought Cedric Benson was a great fit and what a shame he got hurt. Part of the reasont he Packer offensive line is struggling is no team respects the running game, and that has to change for the Packers to be a serious contender again.


At 8-4, the Packers are a serious contender.

Yes, it is a shame Benson, Bulaga, Matthews, Bishop, Smith, Woodson and Jennings got hurt. That happens. However, before Benson got hurt, Starks was going to be the #2 (as you admit he should be) when healthy again and Green was in Brandon Jackson's old role. Jackson was not a good RB out of the backfield either, but he new his assignments and caught the ball out of the backfield when required. That is pretty much what Green is accomplishing. Let's not blow this out of proportion and keep the proper perspective.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Blink


Joined: 05 Aug 2011
Posts: 717
Location: Denver, CO
PostPosted: Fri Nov 30, 2012 5:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pugger wrote:
Blink wrote:
Want to know why everyone on FF hates the Packer posters?

We have Aaron and TT appreciation threads almost 100 pages long, we [inappropriate/removed] on everyone who dares question Packers management, and over react to any assessment that doesn't paint the Packers in a good light.


Dunder,

You are acting naive, sorry. Do you honestly believe what you say?

Sherrod was on PUP, that's six weeks for sure he was out. Who was the first backup, if not Lang? Don't even joke and say Datko. Lang is the only realistic replacement.

Going into the season having your LG as the primary back up is stupid. So is having a C as your LG replacement.

Sherrod not being back healthy is no ones fault, the way you prepare for said injury is the issue.

Franchise LTs are rare. A dancing bear who can handle JPP one on one are rare. An aging, or journeyman T, that can get you through a few games, not so much.

One injury = two different starters

Stupid.


I suspect we aren't universally loved here on FF is because we outnumber them big time. Laughing

TT and company decided to roll the dice and went with Newhouse at LT and Bulaga at RT. Had we drafted another O lineman high and not addressed the defense last April a riot might have enused. Wink I think both Sherrod and Bulaga will be back in 2013. Getting a CENTER should be the top priority this offseason along with a RB with decent vision.


I've never said he should have drafted a tackle high, or made a blockbuster trade. I'm only pointing out the fact that we didn't have a single back up on the roster before Lang, even though we've known for almost a year it would be suprising if Sherrod played a game this year.

That's all. I disagree with the logic of lacking even a single backup T before you have to start moving guards to tackle.

We've seen this play out with Colledge, which was always a disaster, I'm not sure why everyone is ok with repeating a failed experiment.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Blink


Joined: 05 Aug 2011
Posts: 717
Location: Denver, CO
PostPosted: Fri Nov 30, 2012 5:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dubyajay wrote:
Blink wrote:
Want to know why everyone on FF hates the Packer posters?

We have Aaron and TT appreciation threads almost 100 pages long, we [inappropriate/removed] on everyone who dares question Packers management, and over react to any assessment that doesn't paint the Packers in a good light.


Dunder,

You are acting naive, sorry. Do you honestly believe what you say?

Sherrod was on PUP, that's six weeks for sure he was out. Who was the first backup, if not Lang? Don't even joke and say Datko. Lang is the only realistic replacement.

Going into the season having your LG as the primary back up is stupid. So is having a C as your LG replacement.

Sherrod not being back healthy is no ones fault, the way you prepare for said injury is the issue.

Franchise LTs are rare. A dancing bear who can handle JPP one on one are rare. An aging, or journeyman T, that can get you through a few games, not so much.

One injury = two different starters

Stupid.


I can buy that.
I was really surprised that they cut Wells in camp for that reason. Would have been a safer play to keep him on and then cut him if Sherrod came back- or kept him along if it turned out like it did.

Either way, we rolled the dice and it didn't turn out that great this year.

Would we be in the same position here if we had kept heavy Oline on the roster and BJ and Pickett went on IR? Sometimes its just the way the dice roll on injuries.


I feel like the BJ and Pick scenario would be entirely different though. Neither started the season on PUP, so we wouldn't have been down one already.

Losing Wells hurt, the Saturday move I can understand because of our cap situation. It was a low risk move that looked good on paper, not much you can do about poor performance. I agree though having Wells would make a big difference right now.

The tackle situation I feel was just poorly handled. Most teams have two designated back ups just for tackle, because it is so vital to a passing offense. We went into the season without a single reliable back up tackle available. That's an oversight IMO.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dubyajay


Joined: 23 Mar 2010
Posts: 1590
PostPosted: Fri Nov 30, 2012 7:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Blink wrote:
Dubyajay wrote:
Blink wrote:
Want to know why everyone on FF hates the Packer posters?

We have Aaron and TT appreciation threads almost 100 pages long, we [inappropriate/removed] on everyone who dares question Packers management, and over react to any assessment that doesn't paint the Packers in a good light.


Dunder,

You are acting naive, sorry. Do you honestly believe what you say?

Sherrod was on PUP, that's six weeks for sure he was out. Who was the first backup, if not Lang? Don't even joke and say Datko. Lang is the only realistic replacement.

Going into the season having your LG as the primary back up is stupid. So is having a C as your LG replacement.

Sherrod not being back healthy is no ones fault, the way you prepare for said injury is the issue.

Franchise LTs are rare. A dancing bear who can handle JPP one on one are rare. An aging, or journeyman T, that can get you through a few games, not so much.

One injury = two different starters

Stupid.


I can buy that.
I was really surprised that they cut Wells in camp for that reason. Would have been a safer play to keep him on and then cut him if Sherrod came back- or kept him along if it turned out like it did.

Either way, we rolled the dice and it didn't turn out that great this year.

Would we be in the same position here if we had kept heavy Oline on the roster and BJ and Pickett went on IR? Sometimes its just the way the dice roll on injuries.


I feel like the BJ and Pick scenario would be entirely different though. Neither started the season on PUP, so we wouldn't have been down one already.

Losing Wells hurt, the Saturday move I can understand because of our cap situation. It was a low risk move that looked good on paper, not much you can do about poor performance. I agree though having Wells would make a big difference right now.

The tackle situation I feel was just poorly handled. Most teams have two designated back ups just for tackle, because it is so vital to a passing offense. We went into the season without a single reliable back up tackle available. That's an oversight IMO.


You're not thinking of the Wells I am. Not Scott, the other dude.
_________________
McThreadski wrote:

Fear of re-injuring is a real thing. Years ago, I messed up my left leg in a freak break dancing incident... I never recovered mentally from it and I no longer "own" the dance floor at weddings and bar mitzvahs.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Blink


Joined: 05 Aug 2011
Posts: 717
Location: Denver, CO
PostPosted: Fri Nov 30, 2012 9:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh yeah, the guy who played with Arizona last? I didn't see enough of him to judge, but I remember being suprised he got cut and I basically assumed it meant we had someone else ready to step in just in case.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pugger


Joined: 01 May 2010
Posts: 7388
Location: N. Fort Myers, FL
PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2012 10:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Blink wrote:
Pugger wrote:
Blink wrote:
Want to know why everyone on FF hates the Packer posters?

We have Aaron and TT appreciation threads almost 100 pages long, we [inappropriate/removed] on everyone who dares question Packers management, and over react to any assessment that doesn't paint the Packers in a good light.


Dunder,

You are acting naive, sorry. Do you honestly believe what you say?

Sherrod was on PUP, that's six weeks for sure he was out. Who was the first backup, if not Lang? Don't even joke and say Datko. Lang is the only realistic replacement.

Going into the season having your LG as the primary back up is stupid. So is having a C as your LG replacement.

Sherrod not being back healthy is no ones fault, the way you prepare for said injury is the issue.

Franchise LTs are rare. A dancing bear who can handle JPP one on one are rare. An aging, or journeyman T, that can get you through a few games, not so much.

One injury = two different starters

Stupid.


I suspect we aren't universally loved here on FF is because we outnumber them big time. Laughing

TT and company decided to roll the dice and went with Newhouse at LT and Bulaga at RT. Had we drafted another O lineman high and not addressed the defense last April a riot might have enused. Wink I think both Sherrod and Bulaga will be back in 2013. Getting a CENTER should be the top priority this offseason along with a RB with decent vision.


I've never said he should have drafted a tackle high, or made a blockbuster trade. I'm only pointing out the fact that we didn't have a single back up on the roster before Lang, even though we've known for almost a year it would be suprising if Sherrod played a game this year.

That's all. I disagree with the logic of lacking even a single backup T before you have to start moving guards to tackle.

We've seen this play out with Colledge, which was always a disaster, I'm not sure why everyone is ok with repeating a failed experiment.


I don't know if I'd say I was okay with it but I understand why they did what they did. They gambled on our starters on the O line not getting injured and lost. Of course had a guard gone down and not a tackle it wouldn't have been as big a loss.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
Page 9 of 9

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group