| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
gizmo2012
Joined: 11 Mar 2007
Posts: 2854
|
 Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2012 12:00 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
|
| 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 |
|
 |
PackFan4Life
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Posts: 4341
Location: De Pere, WI
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2012 12:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
Blink
Joined: 05 Aug 2011
Posts: 743
Location: Denver, CO
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2012 4:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| 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. 
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.  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 |
|
|
Blink
Joined: 05 Aug 2011
Posts: 743
Location: Denver, CO
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2012 4:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
Dubyajay
Joined: 23 Mar 2010
Posts: 1819
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2012 6:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Blink
Joined: 05 Aug 2011
Posts: 743
Location: Denver, CO
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2012 8:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
Pugger
Joined: 01 May 2010
Posts: 9925
Location: N. Fort Myers, FL
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2012 9:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| 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.
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. 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 |
|
|
|
|
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
|
FAQ
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
