More Banjo: Week 2 @ Atlanta

[mraynrand]

And last but not least, we had a shitty (IMO) hyper-cautious game plan - programming Rodgers to do what so many in here whine for him to do, rush to get rid of the ball quick because of the new tackles - in reality, they weren't that much worse than the plow horses they replaced.

Sometimes I think you can't really be as stupid as I think you are, but then you totally redeem yourself.

[texaspackerbacker]

Sometimes I think you can't really be as stupid as I think you are, but then you totally redeem yourself.

Generally I'll reserve calling you a self-consumed IDIOT for FYI, but since you infected this area of the forum, I'll respond. You are seriously blind to the rottenness of our O Line? how QBs like Brady actually get time to set up and throw, which Aaron Rodgers virtually never does? how other teams have holes to run through, which the Packers virtually never do?

It's a testament to Aaron Rodgers that the Packers are as great as they are with as awful an O Line as they have.

[mraynrand]

Generally I'll reserve calling you a self-consumed IDIOT for FYI, but since you infected this area of the forum, I'll respond. You are seriously blind to the rottenness of our O Line? how QBs like Brady actually get time to set up and throw, which Aaron Rodgers virtually never does? how other teams have holes to run through, which the Packers virtually never do?

It's a testament to Aaron Rodgers that the Packers are as great as they are with as awful an O Line as they have.

If the success of the O-line is completely due to Rodgers, then why weren't they as successful yesterday, and in 2015 at AZ with Bac out, or any other time they have multiple O-line injuries? See how your stupid moronic theory collapses on itself?

[texaspackerbacker]

If the success of the O-line is completely due to Rodgers, then why weren't they as successful yesterday, and in 2015 at AZ with Bac out, or any other time they have multiple O-line injuries? See how your stupid moronic theory collapses on itself?

Who said anything about "success of the O-line"? I said the team has been successful - to a great extent anyway. The O Line has never provided adequate pass protection and has almost never opened decent holes for the running game. We pass successfully because Rodgers is so damn good, both throwing accurately and with his mobility to get away from the rush. The only time we can run the ball at all is when there is deception - draw, misdirection, etc. Line up and run right at 'em, and it just doesn't work.

As for theory as you call it hahahahaha, overrated "stars" like Sitton and Lang leave and flounder elsewhere, while mediocre replacements come in and it's all about the same. We beat Seattle with scrubs at tackle, and if necessary, we'll beat Cincinnati and whoever else down the line that way.

As I said, the Atlanta game was a perfect shitstorm in a lot of ways.

[mraynrand]

Who said anything about "success of the O-line"? I said the team has been successful - to a great extent anyway.

So what? You're still wrong. The point is that if Rodgers is the guy who makes the line, then he should play just as well behind Murphy and McCray as behind Bahktiari and Bulaga. But he didn't and he doesn't because you're wrong - the Packer O-line has been good in the past and was pretty good to start this season.

And they draft agile guys specifically to block for a mobile guy like Rogers. Maybe they give up a bit in the run game, but it's a passing league and they have the best QB, so they should play to their strengths.

Packers got rid of Sitton and Lang because they were getting too old and too beat up. Taylor has been fine and I don't know about Evans yet.

But, to summarize: 1) you're wrong 2) you didn't address the point.

[texaspackerbacker]

So what? You're still wrong. The point is that if Rodgers is the guy who makes the line, then he should play just as well behind Murphy and McCray as behind Bahktiari and Bulaga. But he didn't and he doesn't because you're wrong - the Packer O-line has been good in the past and was pretty good to start this season.

And they draft agile guys specifically to block for a mobile guy like Rogers. Maybe they give up a bit in the run game, but it's a passing league and they have the best QB, so they should play to their strengths.

Packers got rid of Sitton and Lang because they were getting too old and too beat up. Taylor has been fine and I don't know about Evans yet.

But, to summarize: 1) you're wrong 2) you didn't address the point.

You're grasping at straws hahahaha. Draft agile guys? Just because Spriggs has less of a gut than the rest of the bunch doesn't make him agile - not much evidence of agility on any of them. Lack of power to move D Lines, though? There's plenty of evidence of that.

And in case you missed the Seattle game, Rodgers did pretty well with Murphy blocking (if you can call it that) instead of what Bulaga did. We'll see how it goes against Cincy if the two are called on in that game. Somehow, I don't see Rodgers having the problems he had against Atlanta.

The primary thing wrong with Sitton and Lang was they wanted more money. Lane Taylor has been as good as Sitton, even though he was a journeyman who came out of nowhere and is nothing special for talent or athleticism. Evans sure doesn't seem like a pro-bowler any more, but he's adequate in Green Bay - which is pretty much the point, isn't it? Don't get too many penalties, slow down the pass rush just a little bit, and Mr. Rodgers will do the rest.

[woodbuck27]

Whoops !

[QBME]

Lane Taylor has been as good as Sitton, even though he was a journeyman who came out of nowhere and is nothing special for talent or athleticism.

Lane Taylor is not a journeyman who came out of nowhere. He was drafted by the Packers in 2013 and has developed nicely the past 3 seasons. Just sayin'.