http://www.jsonline.com/story/sports...ness/99380788/
good read
Printable View
SOFT!Quote:
Originally Posted by McGinn
Review of this kind of Bob McGinn breakdown: :roll:
SAWFTQuote:
Originally Posted by Smidgeon
i heard that you can't believe a damn word that mcginn types
Clearly Bob McGinn is SatanQuote:
Originally Posted by red
I believe most of Bob's reported material.
I do not believe most of Bob's conclusions. Remember, this is a man who was taught the only way he knows to develop a winning football team by Ron Wolf and one of his main conclusions is that you need a big running back and good running game to win in December at Lambeau.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pbmax
Once upon a time I defended Brett Favre's overall character in his dealings with GB
As more information came out I changed my mind about that and openly admit I was wrong
Often I think our judgment of McGinn does not give him that flexibility. Dude has won a ton of accolades as a sportswriter. Despite being hated by most in here he's good at what he does.
And back when Wolf was GM the game was different. The running game was valued much more than it is now. If you asked him if that was still the case in today's game I'd bet he'd note the game has changed and he no longer believes that to be the case.
We are better off because the run game is not "valued" so much now. That being said, I'm coming around to the point of view that we are better off with the two new guys - even with just Bennett - than with Cook. Bennett's pass blocking mentioned in the article was impressive. Also, I didn't know he had basketball skills. And Kendricks I remember as a deep threat at Wisconsin, in addition to being a good blocker. The net effect of this is more flexibility in the passing game and possibly better run blocking, which I HOPE is used sparingly/as a change of pace with speed backs rather than plodders. I don't know if Kendrick has ever done much at fullback, but I really could see him lining up there occasionally, as Packer TEs often do. I also like Bennett's relatively high Wonderlic score, as one of Cook's weaknesses was mental lapses.
Between our 2 new te helping out the oline transition I think that the team must like what they saw in both Spriggs and Murphy, or I dont think TT would have let both Tretter and lang go.
If it was the DL evaluation I would be more concerned, but TT has proven efficent at drafting OL, plus rodgers helps the ol as well.
My only problem with McGinn, is that he'll offer these backhanded comments (e.g. [McCarthy and Rodgers limit how tough the Packers can become]) and then does not support that comment at all in the article. The part I bolded should have been edited out of the article completely. It's just sloppy.
No he actually still trots out the adage that you need to be able to run specifically in December. He's not good at changing with the times.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bretsky
Exactly. He said this in relation to this years free agency proceedings. He wanted a big back too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zool
You do need to be able to run. Once we were one dimensional, Atlanta pinned back the ears and had Rodgers scrambling for his life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zool
I think I've posted once or twice (or 100x) my preference for a TE who can actually..you know...block someone in the run game otherwise you have a glorified fat WR.
I know its just my pipe dream going on 5 years now, but I still am dreaming of taking advantage of the skill set we have on this team and going with no true RB, but having Monte or Cobb on the field with a Joe Mixon (yea, I went there, but he fits the role) mixed in. If the D doesn't honor the run, use those new TEs to crush it, wear them down and force them to honor it, then when they do, split the "RB" out wide with the TE inline, but upright and throw it.
Ellington would have fit that role, McCaffrey probably does, but Eddie certainly did not.
Bob isn't saying you need to run to balance out the threats to your passing attack. He wants a big back to succeed in the cold of Lambeau come December.Quote:
Originally Posted by bobblehead
A defense pinning its ears back wasn't the insurmountable problem. Packers ran the ball 23 and 15 times in the WC and Divisional games, and they didn't seem to have any issues protecting Rodgers in those games. While I have almost entirely suppressed any memory of the Atlanta game, I suspect the problems with leaky pass pro against Atlanta probably had more to do with key injuries than an offense become one-dimensional. After all, once Lacy went down McCarthy developed a very successful one-dimensional passing attack. I don't remember, did Atlanta do something to negate the quick breaking routes and was GB unable to find a counter?
What PB said. He states that you need a big bruising back to have a chance to win in December. This came a couple months after Monty put up 180 against the Bears in December.Quote:
Originally Posted by bobblehead
Neither is TT. He still thinks you can have a quality defense in this era of football using ILB's with pedestrian speed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zool
Who cares if McGinn changes with the times, he's just a journalist. He has no impact on what the team does. Unlike the GM.
Packers defense needs an injection of speed. Hopefully this draft will put some salve on that weeping sore.
I understand. What I disagree with is that it takes a big back. A good OL and a normal back will suffice. The problem with building a team around winning in Lambeau in December is that the superbowl is played in a warm area.Quote:
Originally Posted by pbmax
Not only suffice but better - give Montgomery or Michael or whatever speed back the same blocking that it takes to get a plodder like Lacy yardage, and the speed guy will get you a lot more yards. Miss blocks or get pushed back, and most everybody this side of Jim Brown will lose yardage.Quote:
Originally Posted by bobblehead
And how long has it been since the turf was so frozen that it really affected things? I mean Ice Bowl bad.
Hopefully the loss of Hyde and Datone Jones will enhance our speed. Those guys were plodders. I definitely agree it'd be nice to get more speed on the D.Quote:
Originally Posted by esoxx
I dunno. Joe Thomas is on the roster and its not because he is a Guard destroyer. Same with Signing Chillar a long time ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by esoxx
Its not the point of emphasis that QB, CB or Tackle is.
But say if Shazier and Ha-Ha were available at the Packers pick that year, you don't think he at least considers Shazier?
He would have drafted HaHa because TT reads us in here and never picks who I want....lol........ TJ WATT ANYBODY ????Quote:
Originally Posted by pbmax
Quote:
Originally Posted by esoxx
THIS
TJ Watt should sue you for Pat Leeifying him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bretsky