TE problem

[Patler]

I am still not willing to make that admission.

I think Mackey benefited greatly from the pass-oriented offense of Unitas and company. The Packers were more rush first and pass second. Kramer was a blocker first. If Mackey played for the Pack and Kramer for the Colts, their stats might be reversed and today's John Mackey Award might be the Ron Kramer Award.

At least that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

I wouldn't argue strenuously against you, either. In some ways, Kramer may have made it possible for Mackey to be Mackey, by showing how an athletic TE could be a legitimate receiving threat. Kramer was a devastating blocker; of course, he was as big as any of the Packer's o-linemen at the time. Mackey wasn't quite as big, but was probably faster and almost impossible for one DB of that time to tackle. Great hands, too; although I remember Kramer as very sure-handed too.

[Maxie the Taxi]

By the way, Patler, you're so right about the "Who is better?" names you added. Of the four, only Gregg has occasionally got his due and he was the only one drafted. Davis and Jordan were perfect examples of players who came into their own after being traded to the Packers. Wood, of course, was the undrafted free agent made good. Despite all the big names around them, Davis, Jordan and Wood were the heart of that Packer defense (along with Nitschke)...and I mean "heart." Davis especially. I can't imagine that defense without him. IMO, Davis was the Reggie White of his era.

[Patler]

By the way, Patler, you're so right about the "Who is better?" names you added. Of the four, only Gregg has occasionally got his due and he was the only one drafted. Davis and Jordan were perfect examples of players who came into their own after being traded to the Packers. Wood, of course, was the undrafted free agent made good. Despite all the big names around them, Davis, Jordan and Wood were the heart of that Packer defense (along with Nitschke)...and I mean "heart." Davis especially. I can't imagine that defense without him. IMO, Davis was the Reggie White of his era.

Agreed. Not only was Wood undrafted, he had been a QB in college. Who could have expected he would be a tough-as-nails, big hitting, HOF safety? Lombardi, I guess.

[Fritz]

I agree with everything you wrote, and would add a number of other names to the "who is better" arguments that were common: the "Willies" on defense, Davis & Wood, as well as Henry Jordan and Forrest Gregg. What set the Packers apart is that the same Packers were in those debates for years, but the players against whom they were compared changed several times. For example, early in his career Adderley was compared to Lane, later in his career it was Barney. In the middle of his career guys like Fisher and LeBeau were compared to Adderley, but Adderley's greatness stood the test of time. The one Packer I remember who was compared to only one other for his entire career was Jim Taylor. The debate was Taylor vs Brown, with various occasional interlopers from time to time.

I agree that Ron Kramer was ahead of his time, and the best there was for a number of years; but when John Mackey got going, I think he took it to yet another level for TEs. As Kramer's career began winding down, about the time he went to Detroit, I remember admitting to myself that as good as Kramer had been, Mackey was/would be even better. (That was quite an admission for a Packer fan to make regarding a Colt, and one I have never made in the Unitas/Starr debate.)

Seriously did people debate Jim Taylor and Jim Brown? I was but a wisp of a lad in those years, but I recollect - mostly from reading in the late 60's and early 70's - that hands down, it was Jim Brown. In fact, as best my fuzzy memory can recall, Jim Brown and Gale Sayers were #1 and 1A. I thought Jim Taylor was more the fullback type, and Hornung the halfback.

[Harlan Huckleby]

My point is that they could probably IR Quarless, sign a replacement off the street and not see much of a decline. Who, you ask? It doesn't matter.

I think more of Q than most. He has the blocking and receiving skills to function as #1 TE if Dickrod goes down. I know he is a below average starter, but he was significantly better than other guys in camp last summer, as well as any street urchin.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Seriously did people debate Jim Taylor and Jim Brown? I was but a wisp of a lad in those years, but I recollect - mostly from reading in the late 60's and early 70's - that hands down, it was Jim Brown. In fact, as best my fuzzy memory can recall, Jim Brown and Gale Sayers were #1 and 1A. I thought Jim Taylor was more the fullback type, and Hornung the halfback.

Brown was a FB too, I think. Patler can answer with statistics, but it seems every year Taylor and Brown were vying for the rushing title. Brown's career numbers were probably better.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I'd hate to use the IR-designation on Quarless. I believe the guy you use it on has to be out 8 weeks before he can return.

1 - Quarless isn't that good
2 - who knows who will get injured in the next few weeks. You could lose somebody week 7 and still bring them back at the end of the year.

Time for the FB to prove their worth.

It doesn't matter that Q is not that good - he's better than other options for a backup TE.
Your comment about losing Q for 8 weeks reminds me of the old restaurant joke, "The food is disgusting but the portions are generous."

I don't see the FBs being very functional at TE.

[Maxie the Taxi]

I don't see the FBs being very functional at TE.

Even though we've got two of them?

[Harlan Huckleby]

Even though we've got two of them?

If Mike Sherman can keep two punters, Mike McCarthy can keep two FBs. It's good to keep that T-formation in the bag of tricks.

[Patler]

Despite all the big names around them, Davis, Jordan and Wood were the heart of that Packer defense (along with Nitschke)...and I mean "heart." Davis especially. I can't imagine that defense without him. IMO, Davis was the Reggie White of his era.

Davis was special to that defense, no doubt. While Nitschke was their emotional leader, Davis always had the air of the man in charge, the CEO.

But the most under-appreciate Packer of the '60s may have been someone else altogether. A man I have argued about for years, who is just now receiving some appreciation as a result of Starr's comments a few years ago. An offense filled with HOF'ers like Ringo, Gregg, Starr, Hornung and Taylor, and widely recognized and appreciated all-pros like Thurston, R. Kramer, J. Kramer, McGee, Dale and Dowler, was captained by Bob Skoronski, a guy even many Packer fans quickly forgot. Funny thing is, if you ask many Packer fans who protected Starr's blind side, they will say Forrest Gregg; but it was Bob Skoronski, perhaps the least recognized and least remembered of the starters on offense under Lombardi.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Davis was special to that defense, no doubt. While Nitschke was their emotional leader, Davis always had the air of the man in charge, the CEO.

But the most under-appreciate Packer of the '60s may have been someone else altogether. A man I have argued about for years, who is just now receiving some appreciation as a result of Starr's comments a few years ago. An offense filled with HOF'ers like Gregg, Starr, Hornung and Taylor, and widely recognized and appreciated all-pros like Ringo, Thurston, R. Kramer, J. Kramer, McGee, Dale and Dowler, was captained by Bob Skoronski, a guy even many Packer fans quickly forgot. Funny thing is, if you ask many Packer fans who protected Starr's blind side, they will say Forrest Gregg; but it was Bob Skoronski, perhaps the least recognized and least remembered of the starters on offense under Lombardi.

Fascinating, and if I remember right, Skoronski shared time with Norm Masters as a regular.

[Patler]

Seriously did people debate Jim Taylor and Jim Brown? I was but a wisp of a lad in those years, but I recollect - mostly from reading in the late 60's and early 70's - that hands down, it was Jim Brown. In fact, as best my fuzzy memory can recall, Jim Brown and Gale Sayers were #1 and 1A. I thought Jim Taylor was more the fullback type, and Hornung the halfback.

Yes, Brown and Taylor were often debated, Brown usually (always) won!
Jim Brown was a fullback, too. In those days, the fullback was often the primary ball carrier.
Gale Sayers didn't get to the NFL until Brown's and Taylor's careers were mostly done.

[George Cumby]

So was Skoronski the Barney Fuckdoogle of the Lombardi years?

[Maxie the Taxi]

So was Skoronski the Barney Fuckdoogle of the Lombardi years?

Negative. That would be Chuck Mercein. Came out of nowhere to be a key player in the Ice Bowl.

[Patler]

Fascinating, and if I remember right, Skoronski shared time with Norm Masters as a regular.

Only a few years, I think. When Jerry Kramer missed a season due to almost dying, Gregg moved to RG, and I think Masters started at RT.

[pbmax]

Did Lombardi allow that almost dying was a good enough reason to miss practice?

[Maxie the Taxi]

Seriously did people debate Jim Taylor and Jim Brown? I was but a wisp of a lad in those years, but I recollect - mostly from reading in the late 60's and early 70's - that hands down, it was Jim Brown. In fact, as best my fuzzy memory can recall, Jim Brown and Gale Sayers were #1 and 1A. I thought Jim Taylor was more the fullback type, and Hornung the halfback.

Brown, Jim

9 Years

1957 - 1965

Att:

2,359

Yds:

12,312

Avg:

5.2

TD:

106

1971

Taylor, Jim

10 Years

1958 - 1967

Att:

1,941

Yds:

8,597

Avg:

4.4

TD:

83

1976

Again, their teams' respective offensive philosophies played a role. Brown was the focal point of the Cleveland offense. Taylor was one of many Green Bay weapons, though a very potent one.

[Patler]

Negative. That would be Chuck Mercein. Came out of nowhere to be a key player in the Ice Bowl.

Or perhaps Ben Wilson who had a solid Super Bowl for them after a similarly nondescript career before coming to GB.

[Patler]

Brown, Jim

9 Years

1957 - 1965

Att:

2,359

Yds:

12,312

Avg:

5.2

TD:

106

1971

Taylor, Jim

10 Years

1958 - 1967

Att:

1,941

Yds:

8,597

Avg:

4.4

TD:

83

1976

Again, their teams' respective offensive philosophies played a role. Brown was the focal point of the Cleveland offense. Taylor was one of many Green Bay weapons, though a very potent one.

That, and the fact that Jim Brown was nearly just as good in every one of his 9 seasons, whereas Taylor didn't last as long as an effective back. In Taylor's prime, from '60-64, he put together 5 consecutive 1,000 yard seasons. However, after that he wasn't the same player anymore. Brown never did put 5 together, but he did 4 seasons and three seasons, separated by one season with 900+.

[Bossman641]

It doesn't matter that Q is not that good - he's better than other options for a backup TE.
Your comment about losing Q for 8 weeks reminds me of the old restaurant joke, "The food is disgusting but the portions are generous."

I don't see the FBs being very functional at TE.

Quarless got 24 offensive snaps in week 1, 20 in week 2, and 14 in week 3 before he went down. That's not tag-worthy to me. I'd rather save it in case someone else gets injured. Especially the way this year is going when we are losing 2+ players a week.