TT as GM. What's w/ the OL and DL lines? Just Atrocious.....

[SnakeLH2006]

Packnut made some good points on a different topic and Snake got to thinking...

Personally I like Ted as our GM. Seems shrewd with FA and resignings....Good overall and likes to pay the top guys..which again is good.

But what is the core of philosophy of what good GM's/talent evaluators/media, etc. say? Good lines (OL and DL) win games. That is so true in the NFL for many decades.

Packnut made a topic about the sorry state of our OL. Then I thought about that even sorrier DL.

Draft picks (no real FA acquisitions)....and that is is fine. But rarely have they worked out other than "next year" and the year after under TT for either DL or OL, thus far.

Really, Snake likes TT, but to take a body of work over 5 seasons (it has been 5 now) I came to realization that that the OL is pretty below average and the DL is just dreadful coming into 2009.

So WTF now? Ted has done wonders with QB (Rodgers), WR (good drafts, resignings), TE, even RB looks Ok.....CB and Safety look good. LB look awesome IMO....but that subtracts from what is crucial...

The OL looks poor and the DL looks real bad.

I love BJ Raji (see the sig) but one man does not a D make. With Kampy off DL that looks bad for the poor, underequipped personall we have now. The OL looks poor, but how many draft picks do we need? 5 years, and yet it's still a weakness to the most die-hard Packer fan? Really?

Both lines (OL and DL) look weak in comparison to most NFL rosters. If this is the core to win..how do we do that? Arod can have 36 TD's 12 Int's in 2009 (and I love the guy) but if we can't stop guys (DL Run Stuffing, pressures, sacks) or make room (OL run blocking, esp.) we are not going anywhere.

Sad to say..I've been on the TT bandwagon for the past year, but looking at our roster and the body of work (OL and DL transitions on our current roster) it looks moot...as TT has NOT delivered to get us better at the CORE.

This is NOT an ANTI-TT thread...I like TT, but WTF is up with the OL and DL as that much is core with what wins in the NFL, and we (the Pack) are weak in both? WTF? Our 2 biggest weaknesses are now the 2 greatest things to prevent us from being elite (NFL post-season winner). It's pretty straight-forward. OL and DL dominance wins championships. We are far from either on either Line.

[MichiganPackerFan]

A couple seasons ago, we had a lot of depth at the d-line and TT made the decision to trade some depth to strengthen other areas. A couple injuries and slow/non developing draft picks later and it's the questionable/ garbage line of 2008. This just proves there are a couple positions where depth is tremendously important, but none is as important as the DL where it can be instantly stripped by an injury. It's a bit different on the OL where you need five solid players because they don't tend to rotate as much, and seem to play every down.

[Waldo]

So if our offensive line was merely average, would would clearly have the best offense in the NFL? After all, MM has fielded a top 5 offense every year here.

They can't be THAT bad.

While I think that the OL is important, I think that it is most important that you send no more resources than required to be a good OL. IMO this means 1 out of every 5-6 draft picks should be on the OL, and they should make around 20% of the teams total salary cap space tops. Any more and it is impacting other positions too much to field a winner.

The only reason a team should field a great OL is if they didn't cost any more than a good line to construct, and don't get paid any more than a good OL.

I like TT's method of bringing in 1 high ceiling hit-or miss prospect in the mid rounds yearly, then augmenting that as needed. That is a drafting recipe that will take years to fully work (5-8 IMO) but should provide a constant stream of talent.

The only team in the NFL whose fans don't think that their OL is "horrible", is the team whose OL is constantly lauded as the best. Fans don't know how to evaluate the OL, most fans only can evaluate when a bad play is made, don't recognize a good play, and have a poor frame of reference as to how much "bad" a good group has.

Last year fans of the NFL were treated to the best OL in the league, great at getting a yard, stuffed 2 plays straight on 3rd and 4th down on two back to back drives in a critical game. That happens in any single game, most fans of most teams will be up in arms, wanting to replace their line for their "horrible" play.

[Packnut]

A couple seasons ago, we had a lot of depth at the d-line and TT made the decision to trade some depth to strengthen other areas. A couple injuries and slow/non developing draft picks later and it's the questionable/ garbage line of 2008. This just proves there are a couple positions where depth is tremendously important, but none is as important as the DL where it can be instantly stripped by an injury. It's a bit different on the OL where you need five solid players because they don't tend to rotate as much, and seem to play every down.


While I believe there is a serious problem with Thompson's core philosophy about offensive linemen, (insert comment made 5 years ago by Teddy about "guards being a dime a dozen"), the switch to the ZBS has turned out to be a horrendous mistake.

I blame that scheme switch for where we are now. Because of the switch, the Packer brain trust limited themselves to getting linemen made for that scheme in particular. That in turn, cut down the amount of linemen that they could draft or sign through free agency.

The Jags episode also had a negative impact on this whole mess. May-be he would have made a huge difference. In any event, we are where we are which is filled with a ton of what ifs and may-be.

Thompson has assembled what could be a prolific offense at the skill positions. It will help our line a great deal if Grant retains his 07 skills where he only needed a small crease and if Rodgers makes the next step up in progressing through his reads a tad quicker which in turn will cut down on the number of sacks.

It's not all doom and gloom for the o-line. I can see some potential there. It's just it would feel a whole lot better if there were not so many question marks at this point. One huge positive will come the day Moll is cut. The fact that they still think so highly of him worries me greatly.

[sharpe1027]

IMO, some of your assumptions are not well supported by the facts. I don't see it anywhere as pitiful as you make it out, but this year will tell us much.


Packnut made some good points on a different topic and Snake got to thinking...

Personally I like Ted as our GM. Seems shrewd with FA and resignings....Good overall and likes to pay the top guys..which again is good.

But what is the core of philosophy of what good GM's/talent evaluators/media, etc. say? Good lines (OL and DL) win games. That is so true in the NFL for many decades.


Yes...and no. The skill players naturally get more attention than the lineman, so good lines deserve more credit than they often get. As a single position, however, there are other positions that are more important.



Packnut made a topic about the sorry state of our OL. Then I thought about that even sorrier DL.

Draft picks (no real FA acquisitions)....and that is is fine. But rarely have they worked out other than "next year" and the year after under TT for either DL or OL, thus far.


Pickett may was an outstanding FA acquisition that has served us very well. He has brought in for several FA OL, Preston being the latest.



Really, Snake likes TT, but to take a body of work over 5 seasons (it has been 5 now) I came to realization that that the OL is pretty below average and the DL is just dreadful coming into 2009.


Our offense has been pretty damn good over the past three years. Our DL was considered deep and talented only two years ago.



So WTF now? Ted has done wonders with QB (Rodgers), WR (good drafts, resignings), TE, even RB looks Ok.....CB and Safety look good. LB look awesome IMO....but that subtracts from what is crucial...

The OL looks poor and the DL looks real bad.


Pickett, Raji, Jolly/Harrell is real bad for a 3-4?



I love BJ Raji (see the sig) but one man does not a D make. With Kampy off DL that looks bad for the poor, underequipped personall we have now. The OL looks poor, but how many draft picks do we need? 5 years, and yet it's still a weakness to the most die-hard Packer fan? Really?


Welcome to the NFL. The biggest ? is that young guys are unproven. Every team deals constantly deals with this.



Both lines (OL and DL) look weak in comparison to most NFL rosters.


No.

[]{ilr]3]

I liked our D-line until Jenkins went down last year. Everything seemed to go down hill from there.

But Picket, Raji, Kampman and Jenkins are some pretty awesome d-linemen and they will be running plently of plays with all 4 down.

I am frustrated with our O-line though. I hope they can develop some solid starters instead of the lets try this guy here or here crap they have been doing.

[MichiganPackerFan]

I think that one area that the line will improve the much is if Justin Harrell can get on the field. He's not like a lot of the DLine Sherman picks (lazy as shit). Reportedly the kid has trained and rehabbed as hard as he can. If we can get some productivity there, the DL will be closer to a strength than a liability.

[Packnut]

So if our offensive line was merely average, would would clearly have the best offense in the NFL? After all, MM has fielded a top 5 offense every year here.

They can't be THAT bad.

While I think that the OL is important, I think that it is most important that you send no more resources than required to be a good OL. IMO this means 1 out of every 5-6 draft picks should be on the OL, and they should make around 20% of the teams total salary cap space tops. Any more and it is impacting other positions too much to field a winner.

The only reason a team should field a great OL is if they didn't cost any more than a good line to construct, and don't get paid any more than a good OL.

I like TT's method of bringing in 1 high ceiling hit-or miss prospect in the mid rounds yearly, then augmenting that as needed. That is a drafting recipe that will take years to fully work (5-8 IMO) but should provide a constant stream of talent.

The only team in the NFL whose fans don't think that their OL is "horrible", is the team whose OL is constantly lauded as the best. Fans don't know how to evaluate the OL, most fans only can evaluate when a bad play is made, don't recognize a good play, and have a poor frame of reference as to how much "bad" a good group has.

Last year fans of the NFL were treated to the best OL in the league, great at getting a yard, stuffed 2 plays straight on 3rd and 4th down on two back to back drives in a critical game. That happens in any single game, most fans of most teams will be up in arms, wanting to replace their line for their "horrible" play.

A simplistic point of view with more holes in it than swiss cheese. I will again use the baseball analogy of "don't tell me how much you hit, tell me when you hit em".

The offensive ranking means nothing when during 4 of those years, a vet QB who mades quick reads and had a inate ability to avoid a sack was under center. We saw the difference last season.

Many teams seem able to pay their linemen without it hurting the rest of the team. To many examples to list through out history.

The "NFL fans are stupid" comment is ludicrous. Instant replay has been fine tuned enough that if you watch for it, you can see what the O-line is doing and remember that they replay damn near every down. I don't have to be a rocket scientist to notice Moll ending up on his ass in the backfield!

Nor do I have to be brilliant in order to understand a crucial hold or offsides at a key point in a drive or in a game. The majority of fans are very knowledgable about the players on their team and how they preform.

[sharpe1027]

We saw the difference last season.


2007/2008 Offense:
Yds per game: 370.7/351.1; Difference = 19.6 yds
Points per game: 27.2/26.2; Difference = 1 pt

2007/2008 Defense:
Opponents total yards: 313.3/334.3 ; Difference = 21 yds
Points per game: 18.2/23.8; Difference = 5.6 pts

[Patler]

A simplistic point of view with more holes in it than swiss cheese. I will again use the baseball analogy of "don't tell me how much you hit, tell me when you hit em".

The offensive ranking means nothing when during 4 of those years, a vet QB who mades quick reads and had a inate ability to avoid a sack was under center. We saw the difference last season.

Many teams seem able to pay their linemen without it hurting the rest of the team. To many examples to list through out history.

The "NFL fans are stupid" comment is ludicrous. Instant replay has been fine tuned enough that if you watch for it, you can see what the O-line is doing and remember that they replay damn near every down. I don't have to be a rocket scientist to notice Moll ending up on his ass in the backfield!

Nor do I have to be brilliant in order to understand a crucial hold or offsides at a key point in a drive or in a game. The majority of fans are very knowledgable about the players on their team and how they preform.

I think there are holes in your analysis as well.

What difference did we see last year regarding sacks? More of them? Sure. BUT, we also saw fewer interceptions from Rodgers than Favre in all but three seasons ('92, '95 and '96) when Favre and Rodgers had the same 13 interceptions, and last year we saw a higher completion percentage than Favre had in all but 4 seasons in GB. So maybe Rodgers was willing to take a few sacks rather than throw an interception or risk an interception.

Besides, if the low sack total was due to Favre's wizardry the last few seasons, then why did Favre have 30 sacks in 2008, just 4 fewer than Rodgers? Where was that "innate ability to avoid a sack" in New York?

You want to blame TT for the decline in performance of the O'line, yet the players who declined in pass protection performance last year were the holdover tackles, guys TT has not yet replaced. Age and injuries started catching up to them.

TT took over a roster with very capable starters in the O-line, but an expiring contract for one and an extreme roster bonus for the other that could not be reasonably accommodated with the cap situation he inherited. That was bad enough, but an even worse factor was the bare cupboard for O-line reserves. Thus, he was given two players he couldn't afford and no one to replace either one.

Spitz and Colledge are just entering their 4th seasons and have played more and better than either Wahle or Rivera at similar stages of their careers. It is now time for them to become the leaders on the O-line as guys like Sitton, Barbre, Lang or Giacomini move in to starting roles. A couple years from now we might be taking about the solid O-line TT put together with these guys, or TT (or someone else in his place) might be starting over. I tend to think it will be the first.

[Waldo]

The "NFL fans are stupid" comment is ludicrous. Instant replay has been fine tuned enough that if you watch for it, you can see what the O-line is doing and remember that they replay damn near every down. I don't have to be a rocket scientist to notice Moll ending up on his ass in the backfield!

Nor do I have to be brilliant in order to understand a crucial hold or offsides at a key point in a drive or in a game. The majority of fans are very knowledgable about the players on their team and how they preform.

How many fans can ID which guys are good technicians? How many fans can recognize guys that are good run blockers on the line? How many can recognize a good puller? How many can recognize a good 2nd level blocker? How many fans know what player types their guys have a hard time pass blocking, and which type they excel against?

Really? Fans are knowledgeable? Then why isn't Wells more highly regarded? How many fans even know who our best run blocking OL is?

Why do fans even want Tausher back? The guy was clearly our worst OL all year. The only reason Tausher>Moll in peoples minds is history, as on the field last year by and large Tausher=Moll. Moll was easier to bench though, he has that working against him.

I would also argue that this isn't a TT issue in the least bit. That in fact we had the talent on our team to field a much better OL last year. It was McCarthy, and his want to have a set lineup and not do "musical chairs" that prevented us from being better. Knowing how they played, I'd take Colledge-Barbre-Wells-Spitz-Sitton over our line last year any day. Might they pass protect a little worse, maybe, but lets call it like it was, "protecting" is a gross exaggeration when describing Clifton and Taushers play last year. They sure as hell would be 10X the run blocking unit though. Moll was even a much better run blocker last year that either Clifton or Tausher. Then again, it's hard to put 15M+ on the bench in favor of 700K.


A simplistic point of view with more holes in it than swiss cheese. I will again use the baseball analogy of "don't tell me how much you hit, tell me when you hit em".

Many teams seem able to pay their linemen without it hurting the rest of the team. To many examples to list through out history.

The fact that you still think the interior is the problem, tells the rest of the world how useful your opinion is.

The Packers had a great OL earlier this decade. And payed for it too, on the other side of the ball. The Chiefs had a great OL earlier this decade. And paid for it on the other side of the ball.

Who has a great OL, pays their OL like a great OL, and can sustain being a good team. Examples please.

[Scott Campbell]

The majority of fans are very knowledgable about the players on their team and how they preform.


I strongly disagree. You may get an overall sense of how players perform, but fans can't come close to professional analysis. And I'm not talking about media hack analysis. That's why the insight of our former college players is so valuable here.

[denverYooper]

How many fans can ID which guys are good technicians? How many fans can recognize guys that are good run blockers on the line? How many can recognize a good puller? How many can recognize a good 2nd level blocker? How many fans know what player types their guys have a hard time pass blocking, and which type they excel against?


How many fans can take a soundbite and run with it because it supports their preconceived notion? Most, I'd say. I will freely admit that I'm not really capable of critical analysis of line play. But I also try to avoid just taking commonly proffered memes and running with them like they were truth. I generally try to stay out of discussions wrt line play because I don't really have any insight into it. In fact, before I started coming to this forum, I didn't really pay any attention to it at all.

That said, I enjoy coming here for some education on how to identify what constitutes "good line play" because it makes me work on paying more attention to it during games to see if I can identify the things discussed. The only question I feel like I might be able to answer above is that I feel like I can sort of recognize a good 2nd level blocker. Thanks to some discussion on here and Colledge :P. I felt like he made some great plays in the second level last year.

[bobblehead]

The "NFL fans are stupid" comment is ludicrous. Instant replay has been fine tuned enough that if you watch for it, you can see what the O-line is doing and remember that they replay damn near every down. I don't have to be a rocket scientist to notice Moll ending up on his ass in the backfield!

Nor do I have to be brilliant in order to understand a crucial hold or offsides at a key point in a drive or in a game. The majority of fans are very knowledgable about the players on their team and how they preform.

How many fans can ID which guys are good technicians? How many fans can recognize guys that are good run blockers on the line? How many can recognize a good puller? How many can recognize a good 2nd level blocker? How many fans know what player types their guys have a hard time pass blocking, and which type they excel against?

Really? Fans are knowledgeable? Then why isn't Wells more highly regarded? How many fans even know who our best run blocking OL is?

Why do fans even want Tausher back? The guy was clearly our worst OL all year. The only reason Tausher>Moll in peoples minds is history, as on the field last year by and large Tausher=Moll. Moll was easier to bench though, he has that working against him.

I would also argue that this isn't a TT issue in the least bit. That in fact we had the talent on our team to field a much better OL last year. It was McCarthy, and his want to have a set lineup and not do "musical chairs" that prevented us from being better. Knowing how they played, I'd take Colledge-Barbre-Wells-Spitz-Sitton over our line last year any day. Might they pass protect a little worse, maybe, but lets call it like it was, "protecting" is a gross exaggeration when describing Clifton and Taushers play last year. They sure as hell would be 10X the run blocking unit though. Moll was even a much better run blocker last year that either Clifton or Tausher. Then again, it's hard to put 15M+ on the bench in favor of 700K.


A simplistic point of view with more holes in it than swiss cheese. I will again use the baseball analogy of "don't tell me how much you hit, tell me when you hit em".

Many teams seem able to pay their linemen without it hurting the rest of the team. To many examples to list through out history.

The fact that you still think the interior is the problem, tells the rest of the world how useful your opinion is.

The Packers had a great OL earlier this decade. And payed for it too, on the other side of the ball. The Chiefs had a great OL earlier this decade. And paid for it on the other side of the ball.

Who has a great OL, pays their OL like a great OL, and can sustain being a good team. Examples please.
This is a great post waldo. I have been a monster cliffy and tausch fan over the years, but they really slipped last season. Tausch was a monster against seattle 2 years ago in the playoffs, but I don't kid myself about his play last season. Same with Cliffy, one game (can't recall which) when they had to pull him due to "injury" and put college in we instantly ripped off several good runs.

Moll, yea, we can bag on him. He sucks right? Except for when he was blowing super mario 4 yards off the LOS on 3 consecutive plays before a phantom holding call cost us that game. Will he make it thru camp...no clue, but like you said, last year he played close to tauschers level when he got the chance.

The problem I had last season is that most of the line played 6 out of 7 good games, but they took turns STINKING up the joint so we seemed to have one weak link a game. It made the unit look worse than it was.

As for average fans judging....no shot. Most fans would see a classic seal off and think the OL didn't do anything cuz he failed to move his man. Most fans don't realize how SPECTACULAR college was on the wynn TD to end the season....maybe 5 guards in the entire LEAGUE have the athleticism to do what he did on that play.

[CaptainKickass]

I might be wrong -

But my gut tells me the Offensive Line is going to be better this year. At the very least, if they can limit/eliminate the stupid penalties - that will be a large improvement.

The line should be a focus and I look to the coaches and practices to drill it into the players until they become outstanding. The talent seems to be there.

[retailguy]

I think Bobblehead nailed it. They were inconsistent, but never together. I never thought they were all in sync at the same time.

I am not a fan of this line, at all, but I will concede that every single one of them flashed brilliance last year. If they could do that together? then I might forget about the last good line Green Bay had.

[Patler]

McCarren mentioned that during a broadcast last year, that on too many plays someone screwed up, but not being the same "someone" each time it couldn't be fixed by replacing a player.

So, does that make it a coaching issue, or a thick-skulled player issue?

[rbaloha1]

IMO TT has done a good job of rebuilding lines to meet the schemes. The o-line is blessed with big, young and athletic linemen capable of reaching the second level in the zbs scheme. A slight concern is pass protection though.

The d-line is also blessed with young talent. Raji and Harrell are two young athletic wrecking balls which should make it difficult to run against the Packers.

[Waldo]

McCarren mentioned that during a broadcast last year, that on too many plays someone screwed up, but not being the same "someone" each time it couldn't be fixed by replacing a player.

So, does that make it a coaching issue, or a thick-skulled player issue?

It's tough because on the flipside, when you watch GB's OL from a technical POV, the front line starters are all very good. If you switch coaches from one to another, are you gaining anything by bringing in a coach that has his guys playing more focused and making less errors, but poor at teaching technique?

[retailguy]

McCarren mentioned that during a broadcast last year, that on too many plays someone screwed up, but not being the same "someone" each time it couldn't be fixed by replacing a player.

So, does that make it a coaching issue, or a thick-skulled player issue?

Not sure. I guess I'd say both.

I'm of the belief that you don't make it to the NFL without enough talent to succeed. That leaves coaching and desire.

You guys see different things in Colledge than I ever have. I have never really been a fan of the guy, and have always believed he's a better tackle than guard.

Spitz is definitely a better center than guard, but I like Wells too. I don't see the need to get rid of him, and don't see upside with Spitz there, even if he's a better center than guard.

I also think Wells did an admirable job filling in at guard in 2005. Not an all pro, surely, but better than some of the backups were. (I'm largely alone in this viewpoint.)

[Waldo]

You guys see different things in Colledge than I ever have. I have never really been a fan of the guy, and have always believed he's a better tackle than guard.

I used to think that, but Colledge has gotten pretty darn good at doing some G tasks.

The guy always gets push. No matter who is in front of him, Colledge crosses the line of scrimmage. He is very reliable to sneak behind. This is a pretty much a trait that matter more to a G than anybody else.

He's really good at sealing the big hogs himself. When it is him vs. a DT and his task to seal a hole open instead of trying to blow open a closed hole, he can beat any DT. Several times he knocked phat Pat around himself, and prevented Pat from getting involved in the play. He does not struggle with size at all when his task is to keep open a hole. Again a trait that becomes largely wasted at T.

And he is one of the most dominant 2nd level blockers you will find. He has said it before, since he's moved to G, he says he enjoys G more than T because he gets the chance to maul linebackers. When the rest of our guys get to the second level they just stand around like "uhhhhhh"where they are supposed to be, sometimes oblivious to threats to the play. DC goes and starts throwing guys to the ground, and seems to be always be looking for someone to hit, even if they aren't in his zone. He's so athletic that LB's can't use their speed to get around/away from him. Again, a G trait that is largely wasted were he to move to T.

[Patler]

You guys see different things in Colledge than I ever have. I have never really been a fan of the guy, and have always believed he's a better tackle than guard.

I used to think that, but Colledge has gotten pretty darn good at doing some G tasks.


Last year at this time I fully expected that Barbre take the starting job away from Colledge, who was very inconsistent his first two seasons, and when he was bad he was very conspicuously bad. I was disappointed when Barbre never rose to the challenge, and I went into 2008 expecting Spitz to be the better guard from a performance aspect even though Colledge seemed to have the higher potential.

When Colledge started playing better, I thought "just wait, it won't last". But it did last. His "what the heck?" plays, like getting beat on a pass rush without ever touching the guy, which happened somewhat regularly in the past, became less frequent. He had a couple in the first half of the season, not so much in the second half. More importantly, with more frequency I found myself saying "who was that?" after a good play, and realizing it was Colledge.

Slowly and somewhat begrudgingly I accepted that he was getting better. The funny thing is, I remembered that I felt the same way about Wahle early in his career. He struggled a lot for the first two seasons that he played, and like with Colledge, some thought Wahle should be a tackle. When they tried him there he failed miserably. He started catching on during his third season starting, and got better and better for several years. I could see Colledge following a similar path.

[cheesner]

You guys see different things in Colledge than I ever have. I have never really been a fan of the guy, and have always believed he's a better tackle than guard.

I used to think that, but Colledge has gotten pretty darn good at doing some G tasks.


Last year at this time I fully expected that Barbre take the starting job away from Colledge, who was very inconsistent his first two seasons, and when he was bad he was very conspicuously bad. I was disappointed when Barbre never rose to the challenge, and I went into 2008 expecting Spitz to be the better guard from a performance aspect even though Colledge seemed to have the higher potential.

When Colledge started playing better, I thought "just wait, it won't last". But it did last. His "what the heck?" plays, like getting beat on a pass rush without ever touching the guy, which happened somewhat regularly in the past, became less frequent. He had a couple in the first half of the season, not so much in the second half. More importantly, with more frequency I found myself saying "who was that?" after a good play, and realizing it was Colledge.

Slowly and somewhat begrudgingly I accepted that he was getting better. The funny thing is, I remembered that I felt the same way about Wahle early in his career. He struggled a lot for the first two seasons that he played, and like with Colledge, some thought Wahle should be a tackle. When they tried him there he failed miserably. He started catching on during his third season starting, and got better and better for several years. I could see Colledge following a similar path.The parallels between Colledge and Wahle are interesting. I hope it continues and I believe it will with Colledge improving to elite status this season.

The reason some fans refuse to believe Colledge is actually good:

1. They get stuck on generalities. They see a few bad plays and it sticks with them.

2. They just hate to admit that TT did something positive.

3. Issues are discussed on this board and when typed long enough, it becomes accepted as fact even if it was an extreme exaggeration to begin with. After MM's first game as HC someone posted that he looked like a deer caught in the headlights on the sidelines. I saw others post the same opinion for months later. Even though I rewatched that first game, there was no such 'stupid confused look' ever on MM's face. Yet, it got accepted by some as fact.

[Patler]

3. Issues are discussed on this board and when typed long enough, it becomes accepted as fact even if it was an extreme exaggeration to begin with.

You mean like the facetious comment on here about the player (who shall not be named) that fell so far so fast on the depth chart, that a poster jokingly suggested he must have punched a coach? Shortly thereafter, and ever since, people suggest he will be released, will not be re-signed or should get anger-management help because he punched a coach! :lol:

....or that Patler is an old fart who has been following the Packers since their inception! (I'm really in high school!) :lol:

[Waldo]

3. Issues are discussed on this board and when typed long enough, it becomes accepted as fact even if it was an extreme exaggeration to begin with.

You mean like the facetious comment on here about the player (who shall not be named) that fell so far so fast on the depth chart, that a poster jokingly suggested he must have punched a coach? Shortly thereafter, and ever since, people suggest he will be released, will not be re-signed or should get anger-management help because he punched a coach! :lol:

....or that Patler is an old fart who has been following the Packers since their inception! (I'm really in high school!) :lol:

Seriously. Damn. You don't seem like it at all.

When I was in HS we were questioning this Wolf guy that overpayed ridiculously for this inconsistent QB. Sucked Don went down and tore up his shoulder because he was the bomb. I can remember the hype when we picked Tony. I don't know that a draft pick has ever carried that aura of hope in GB. Tony was touted as the safest pick and the best OL prospect ever. The team really didn't start getting good until my senior year. Prior to that they were the same mediocre team that they had been since I was a kid, that was right on the verge of the playoffs every year.

For how much we were said to be "saved" by Favre and Wolf, people act like it was immediate and dramatic, which was not the case, it wasn't until his 4th year (this is MM's 4th year) that we actually started to see signs of being better than the same mediocre team that flirted around .500 that we'd been since the mid 80's.

[HarveyWallbangers]

When I was in high school, Forrest Gregg was the coach and I rarely got to see the Packers.
:D

[Scott Campbell]

3. Issues are discussed on this board and when typed long enough, it becomes accepted as fact even if it was an extreme exaggeration to begin with.

You mean like the facetious comment on here about the player (who shall not be named) that fell so far so fast on the depth chart, that a poster jokingly suggested he must have punched a coach? Shortly thereafter, and ever since, people suggest he will be released, will not be re-signed or should get anger-management help because he punched a coach! :lol:



Allen Barbre.

Who'd he punch anyway?

[Patler]

When I was in HS we were questioning this Wolf guy that overpayed ridiculously for this inconsistent QB. Sucked Don went down and tore up his shoulder because he was the bomb. I can remember the hype when we picked Tony. I don't know that a draft pick has ever carried that aura of hope in GB. Tony was touted as the safest pick and the best OL prospect ever. The team really didn't start getting good until my senior year. Prior to that they were the same mediocre team that they had been since I was a kid, that was right on the verge of the playoffs every year.

For how much we were said to be "saved" by Favre and Wolf, people act like it was immediate and dramatic, which was not the case, it wasn't until his 4th year (this is MM's 4th year) that we actually started to see signs of being better than the same mediocre team that flirted around .500 that we'd been since the mid 80's.

Ya, I remember all that. People couldn't wait for Mandarich to step onto the field and flatten some D-lineman. And what kind of idiot is running the show in GB now, giving up a 1st round pick for a QB drafted in the second round just a year before, a guy at the bottom of the depth chart in Atlanta?

We had a thread on here last fall (probably before you started participating) comparing Holmgren's and MM's first three seasons. You are right, people want to think that it was immediate success with Wolf & Holmgren, but it wasn't entirely. Three straight years at 9-7, seemed great at the time only because back to back winning seasons had not been heard of for a long time. But it wasn't clear if Holmgren would ever get them over the hump or not, or if they would ever be able to beat the really good teams in a meaningful game. There were questions about Homgren after three years, because the team wasn't "getting bettter".

The memories of Favre's early years are also quite inaccurate for a lot of people. He was both exciting and maddening. There were questions about whether he would ever truly master Holmgren's offense, or if he would even put in the study time to do it. He was hyper on the field, would look for Sharpe and take off running if he couldn't find him. A much different QB than he became down the road.

(BTW -I am honestly NOT old enough to have foll0wed ALL the Packer seasons! :lol: )

[Patler]

When I was in high school, Forrest Gregg was the coach and I rarely got to see the Packers.
:D



...and I watched Forrest Gregg play for the Packers. :( :(

[Rastak]

When I was in high school, Forrest Gregg was the coach and I rarely got to see the Packers.
:D



...and I watched Forrest Gregg play for the Packers. :( :(


I watched the very end of his career but was much more concerned about watching Eller and Page, Krause and Bobby Bryant. I don't recall much about the late 60's Packers, just when Brockington and Lane were the dynamic duo in the early 70's.

[Patler]

When I was in high school, Forrest Gregg was the coach and I rarely got to see the Packers.
:D



...and I watched Forrest Gregg play for the Packers. :( :(


I watched the very end of his career but was much more concerned about watching Eller and Page, Krause and Bobby Bryant. I don't recall much about the late 60's Packers, just when Brockington and Lane were the dynamic duo in the early 70's.

Too bad. You just missed the really good part of the Packers! That was a really amazing time, the 1960s. Football had made its move into big time entertainment, and a team from little old Green Bay WI was THE team to beat.

[Rastak]

When I was in high school, Forrest Gregg was the coach and I rarely got to see the Packers.
:D



...and I watched Forrest Gregg play for the Packers. :( :(


I watched the very end of his career but was much more concerned about watching Eller and Page, Krause and Bobby Bryant. I don't recall much about the late 60's Packers, just when Brockington and Lane were the dynamic duo in the early 70's.

Too bad. You just missed the really good part of the Packers! That was a really amazing time, the 1960s. Football had made its move into big time entertainment, and a team from little old Green Bay WI was THE team to beat.


I remember the name Vince Lombardi being discussed all the time when I was a 5 year old kid. The first superbowl I watched was the Vikings - Chiefs, so yea, I missed some dominant football.

[MJZiggy]

I'm WAYYYYYYY too young for this conversation...

[cheesner]

...and I watched Forrest Gregg play for the Packers. :( :(



....or that Patler is an old fart who has been following the Packers since their inception! (I'm really in high school!) :lol:

Dang! How many years have you been held back?!?

[Patler]

...and I watched Forrest Gregg play for the Packers. :( :(



....or that Patler is an old fart who has been following the Packers since their inception! (I'm really in high school!) :lol:

Dang! How many years have you been held back?!?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Waldo]

...and I watched Forrest Gregg play for the Packers. :( :(



....or that Patler is an old fart who has been following the Packers since their inception! (I'm really in high school!) :lol:

Dang! How many years have you been held back?!?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

HS math teacher?

[Patler]

...and I watched Forrest Gregg play for the Packers. :( :(


....or that Patler is an old fart who has been following the Packers since their inception! (I'm really in high school!) :lol:
Dang! How many years have you been held back?!?
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
HS math teacher?

No. I was just kidding about the high school part. That whole line was just meant to be an absurdity, just like the story of the player belting a coach. I haven't seen the inside of a high school for a long, long time, since the last of my brood graduated; and they are all long since done with college.

[SnakeLH2006]

Interesting take on Snake's Take but here goes. We all have an opinion...


IMO, some of your assumptions are not well supported by the facts. I don't see it anywhere as pitiful as you make it out, but this year will tell us much.


Packnut made some good points on a different topic and Snake got to thinking...

Personally I like Ted as our GM. Seems shrewd with FA and resignings....Good overall and likes to pay the top guys..which again is good.

But what is the core of philosophy of what good GM's/talent evaluators/media, etc. say? Good lines (OL and DL) win games. That is so true in the NFL for many decades.


Yes...and no. The skill players naturally get more attention than the lineman, so good lines deserve more credit than they often get. As a single position, however, there are other positions that are more important.

I DO agree.



Packnut made a topic about the sorry state of our OL. Then I thought about that even sorrier DL.

Draft picks (no real FA acquisitions)....and that is is fine. But rarely have they worked out other than "next year" and the year after under TT for either DL or OL, thus far.


Pickett may was an outstanding FA acquisition that has served us very well. He has brought in for several FA OL, Preston being the latest.

When I said no real FA acquisitions, I meant overall, but I understand what you are saying. 1 guy in 5 years that did something on either OL or DL from FA...Pickett has been solid, but he slipped last year a bit, and don't expect a top-tier guy this year from him. Preston?? Ok...then.



Really, Snake likes TT, but to take a body of work over 5 seasons (it has been 5 now) I came to realization that that the OL is pretty below average and the DL is just dreadful coming into 2009.


Our offense has been pretty damn good over the past three years. Our DL was considered deep and talented only two years ago.

Yes...That was 2 years ago. Times have changed. With injuries, FA's leaving, busts, and felony charges for diff. guys who made up that line...This is now. It's pretty shaky.



So WTF now? Ted has done wonders with QB (Rodgers), WR (good drafts, resignings), TE, even RB looks Ok.....CB and Safety look good. LB look awesome IMO....but that subtracts from what is crucial...

The OL looks poor and the DL looks real bad.


Pickett, Raji, Jolly/Harrell is real bad for a 3-4?

Yes..Pickett slipped a bit last year, and looks older and wearing down a bit. Raji is a rookie. Who knows what he'll bring in 2009. Jolly....Will he even play? Harrell will play...?? I won't even go there.



I love BJ Raji (see the sig) but one man does not a D make. With Kampy off DL that looks bad for the poor, underequipped personall we have now. The OL looks poor, but how many draft picks do we need? 5 years, and yet it's still a weakness to the most die-hard Packer fan? Really?


Welcome to the NFL. The biggest ? is that young guys are unproven. Every team deals constantly deals with this.

That DL is riddled with question marks. The bright side is Jenkins MAY come back healthy, as I love him....and Kampy will prob. line up on the line, but is not a DL anymore. With the last bolded comment I just made, it seems pretty clear that there are tons of ? marks. Hopefully it works out.



Both lines (OL and DL) look weak in comparison to most NFL rosters.


No.

Disagree...The OL has promise as it's mostly a matter of the young guys putting it together over a full season. I concluded early last year that Cliffy and Tauch were toast. Yes, we have tons of young guys to step in and step up and maybe they do. The DL....just riddled with ? marks for a variety of reasons. If have of them step up...we'll be fine. But looking at the current roster and injury/legal/ and youth issues for both LINES, St. Peter would have a hard time having faith in both units coming together with so many issues at this point for the 2009 season. I hope I'm wrong, and have some optimism that we'll be OK, but right now, it looks kinda shaky.

[SnakeLH2006]

On another note...damn some of you Rats are some old bastards. :shock: :lol: I always wondered...was Max McGee the party/bar nut that he's portrayed as?

Snake would have loved to have been grilling some brats pregame, and have Max come up, sign some autographs, slam a few Schlitz's, and proceed to see him rip off 8 catches for 110 yards and a coupla TD's. :D :glug: That is just good stuff.