Official Andrew Quarless Thread

[SkinBasket]

Because I don't want to search through 100+ pages for info on each of our picks...

[SkinBasket]

http://www.colinmlenton.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/1111tufootball00631clr_tone.jpg

[Chubbyhubby]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqhQW82fszw

Andrew Quarless interview

[Maxie the Taxi]

Apparently, Penn State had two tight ends because the Viqueens drafted the other one. :)

[wist43]

The only way it matters if he is a good player or not is if Finley goes down...

Even if he turns into a decent player... I hate this pick. By TT's reckoning, there wasn't a single LB, S, CB, or OL in the entire draft that will have as good a career as this guy???

The guy looks like he has upside, and has matured from his off the field issues... but still, the reality is he will provide next to nothing for the next few years unless Finley goes down, or TT dumps Lee, and even then, with Finley still on the team and healthy, he'll be playing 2nd fiddle.

Stupid pick.

[gbgary]

i hate those over-sized helmits penn state has.

[Lurker64]

The only way it matters if he is a good player or not is if Finley goes down...

Even if he turns into a decent player... I hate this pick. By TT's reckoning, there wasn't a single LB, S, CB, or OL in the entire draft that will have as good a career as this guy???

The guy looks like he has upside, and has matured from his off the field issues... but still, the reality is he will provide next to nothing for the next few years unless Finley goes down, or TT dumps Lee, and even then, with Finley still on the team and healthy, he'll be playing 2nd fiddle.

Stupid pick.

He was apparently the highest rated player on Thompson's board at the time of the pick by a very large margin. Guy's got first round talent, but his character concerns had a bunch of scouts giving him a third or fourth round grade as a result. Packers thought they got information on him that they trusted that he had really turned things around, so they took a guy who had a 3rd or 4th round grade in the late fifth.

I can't really hate that.

[Bretsky]

The only way it matters if he is a good player or not is if Finley goes down...

Even if he turns into a decent player... I hate this pick. By TT's reckoning, there wasn't a single LB, S, CB, or OL in the entire draft that will have as good a career as this guy???

The guy looks like he has upside, and has matured from his off the field issues... but still, the reality is he will provide next to nothing for the next few years unless Finley goes down, or TT dumps Lee, and even then, with Finley still on the team and healthy, he'll be playing 2nd fiddle.

Stupid pick.


Maybe Lee is gone soon and we get a Chewy/Jackson combo

[rbaloha1]

Reminds of Keith Jackson. There was a reason he was TT's highest rated player by far at this point in the draft.

Off the field incidents prevented him from being drafted on Friday.

[wist43]

I understand the arguments for...

Again, not a single other player at a position of need will have as good a career as this guy???

And truthfully, this guys career stats are going to be fairly shallow the first few years if Finley stays healthy... so we spent a 5th round pick on 15 catches for 153 yds and 1TD per year for the next 3 years??? As opposed to moving up, or down and taking a prospect at a position of need who might see the field and contribute earlier b/c there is work available there???

Lest I remind you guys, Harrell was TT's top rated guy too... we were solid at DT at the time - all the same arguments apply. TT isn't as much concerned about winning championships, as he is just plodding along to his own beat.

TT simply will not make the necessary moves to fill holes - it's always about BPA, regardless of whether it helps build the team or not... if it creates a log jam at a position, so what??? we'll just dump one of the good players the next year - presto, no more log jam. How does that help your team progress to the next level... all it does is keep you where you were - and where we were was short of the SB :roll:

I know most of you guys think we have a top 5 defense... but Arizona just butchered us - it was embarrassing. We were solid at DE, but with big ??? at LB, CB, and S... so what does TT do??? he drafts 2 DE's, no LB's, and no CB's :shock:

We're solid at TE, TT drafts a TE... we were okay at RB, could use some help, but okay... TT drafts a RB that hasn't played football in over a year. Again??? No CB, LB, or S drafted after Starks will have a better career than Starks???

These guys may all turn out to be good players... but TT is just setting the table to release other players who were contributing at a hight level, or at least fulfilling their roll, and it amounts to spinning your wheels.

I seriously doubt we can ever win a championship with TT at the helm... we'll be good year in and year out, but we'll always be stacked at 2 or 3 positions, and flailing at others.

[Lurker64]

I seriously doubt we can ever win a championship with TT at the helm... we'll be good year in and year out, but we'll always be stacked at 2 or 3 positions, and flailing at others.

I think this is where I disagree with you greatly. Winning championships isn't about having the most talented team, or the team with the fewest holes. It's about having a good talented team that comes together and gets hot at the right time (and gets a few favorable breaks along the way). The best team regularly does not win the superbowl in this day and age. I think it's better to be consistently good, giving you more shots to get hot at the right time, than to alternate between "extremely talented" and "rebuilding."

I mean, 2 years ago Pittsburgh and Arizona faced off in the superbowl with the two worst offensive lines in football. Last year a two teams with patchwork defenses faced off in the superbowl. Three years ago a New York Giants team with a secondary full of holes and a plodding offense but with an extremely good pass rush beat the vastly superior New England Patriots for the championship, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum.

[rbaloha1]

The problem is not TT's roster management but MM's gameday coaching.

Recall the roster prior to TT. TT has built a super bowl team just like Ron Wolf. Its up to the coaching staff to win.

Every team has weaknesses. Agree our defense is still suspect. But with another year, a young ball hawk and developing corners (plus the return of Harris) the Packers should be in the Super Bowl.

[wist43]

I seriously doubt we can ever win a championship with TT at the helm... we'll be good year in and year out, but we'll always be stacked at 2 or 3 positions, and flailing at others.

I think this is where I disagree with you greatly. Winning championships isn't about having the most talented team, or the team with the fewest holes. It's about having a good talented team that comes together and gets hot at the right time (and gets a few favorable breaks along the way). The best team regularly does not win the superbowl in this day and age. I think it's better to be consistently good, giving you more shots to get hot at the right time, than to alternate between "extremely talented" and "rebuilding."

I mean, 2 years ago Pittsburgh and Arizona faced off in the superbowl with the two worst offensive lines in football. Last year a two teams with patchwork defenses faced off in the superbowl. Three years ago a New York Giants team with a secondary full of holes and a plodding offense but with an extremely good pass rush beat the vastly superior New England Patriots for the championship, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum.

TT has built a playoff team... and from that standpoint, anyone in the playoffs has a sluggers chance.

Prior to switching to the 3-4, I gave us exactly zero chance of ever winning a SB under TT... switching to the 3-4 gave me some hope; but, with Dom Capers drawing up Pop Warner game plans against good QB's - accepted orthodoxy amongst DC's over 75 years of age - and TT's refusal to address needs... I just don't see it.

Our OL is, and has been since TT has been here, a huge problem... our LB'ing is average at best; our Safety situation got better with the drafting of Burnett, but DB overall is a problem...

I would argue that TT will be chasing holes in perpetuity, but TT doesn't recognize holes... if he has 12 pro bowl TE's, and his BPA at the next pick is a TE - guess what??? we're going to have 13 TE's.

You can keep turning your roster over that way, but it's pretty tough to win championships without at least most of your bases covered.

[3irty1]

lol wist.

If this TE breaks out and is a stud you don't think MM will find a way to get him on the field? Super weird for a team to have more than one TE. New England drafted 2! Belichick prolly won't win a superbowl for the Pats either. :roll:

[wist43]

lol wist.

If this TE breaks out and is a stud you don't think MM will find a way to get him on the field? Super weird for a team to have more than one TE. New England drafted 2! Belichick prolly won't win a superbowl for the Pats either. :roll:

Well, that's kind of the point isn't it... we're definitely going to be needing to outscore everyone, coz we sure aint gonna be stoppin em.

[mission]

lol wist.

If this TE breaks out and is a stud you don't think MM will find a way to get him on the field? Super weird for a team to have more than one TE. New England drafted 2! Belichick prolly won't win a superbowl for the Pats either. :roll:

Well, that's kind of the point isn't it... we're definitely going to be needing to outscore everyone, coz we sure aint gonna be stoppin em.

if my pregnant wife knew more about football, she'd probably sound a lot like you :lol:

[The Leaper]

I agree it was a bit of a head scratcher for me...Finley is a bona-fide TE stud. Even if this guy is a player, he won't see much of the field.

Still, I don't see how you can complain that TT didn't take someone to "fill a hole" like Wist is. Is a 5th round pick really going to be the difference in building a title contender? I doubt it. In the first 100 or so picks, I would agree with Wist's viewpoint that you need to keep your needs in mind. Once you reach the mid to late 4th, I don't mind taking a guy who you grade out as a 3rd round caliber pick if he's still available...even if it creates a logjam currently. Those situations typically will work themselves out over time...via injury/trade/free agency.

[vince]

Maybe Lee is gone soon and we get a Chewy/Jackson combo
Exactly. A Finley clone as an added threat makes Finley way more dangerous than he is alone. This combo could be better than Chewy and Jackson were. Finley is a damn tough match-up by himself. Putting two of him on the fields at the same time makes it impossible.

I just hope he has great hands, because once he understands the offense, the only thing that could hurt are (like Lee) drops. Havner has the hands, but not the athleticism to threaten linebackers and safeties. Lee can block, but seems to have forgotten how to catch and is only a marginal threat down the middle.

On paper, this kid looks like he can do it all. That makes EVERYONE better.

[SkinBasket]

Jesus Christ people, it was a 5th round pick. It's not like we blew a 2nd or 3rd on the guy. As I recall, more people than me were lamenting the fact that Lee sucked massive cock last season and was an absolute non factor the second half of the season.

Having two highly athletic, skilled TEs can't hurt us. And as far as Wists concerns that there wasn't player of need that will have a better career - I think it's obvious they feel there wasn't one. It's hard to argue against that when it seems widely agreed this guy has top level talent, and needs coaching and maturing to take advantage of it. I would think backing up Finley in GB is the perfect position for that to happen.

[wist43]

Jolly was a 6th round pick - and he was our best DL last year. Picks matter.

I agree with TT that building thru the draft is the way to go, and I believe he is a damn good judge of talent - that said, he has a blind spot... he is married to his "process" to the exclusion of team building.

TT's philosophy is BPA regardless of position, and over the course of years of drafting, eventually you fill out your roster to the point where all of your bases are covered.

This is TT's 6th draft... shouldn't we have the bases covered by now??? Well, given TT's unwillingness to adapt and adjust his philosophy, we have some log jammed positions, and some severely deficient positions. The severely deficient positions are of no concern to TT, b/c his hard and fast rule of BPA doesn't allow him to even consider filling the hole.

He said in his news conference that he will never go up to fill a need... he will only go up to draft a player. What's wrong with identifying a player that fits the value, and fills the need, and go up and get him???

Quarless is a good athlete, maybe he can play OLB or CB???

We'll likely make the playoffs again, but don't be surprised when we get ambushed for 50+ pts again.

[falco]

What's wrong with identifying a player that fits the value, and fills the need, and go up and get him???

Like Matthews?

:roll:

[falco]

Never mind.

[Fritz]

"TT isn't as much concerned about winning championships, as he is just plodding along to his own beat."

Wist, I can respect your arguments against picks even if I don't agree, but to make claims like this...he doesn't care about winning championships? That's a load of hooey.

[Bossman641]

I agree it was a bit of a head scratcher for me...Finley is a bona-fide TE stud. Even if this guy is a player, he won't see much of the field.

Still, I don't see how you can complain that TT didn't take someone to "fill a hole" like Wist is. Is a 5th round pick really going to be the difference in building a title contender? I doubt it. In the first 100 or so picks, I would agree with Wist's viewpoint that you need to keep your needs in mind. Once you reach the mid to late 4th, I don't mind taking a guy who you grade out as a 3rd round caliber pick if he's still available...even if it creates a logjam currently. Those situations typically will work themselves out over time...via injury/trade/free agency.

Amen.

After seeing the work they did with Finley over the past 2 years, I'm fine with trying to develop a Finley clone.

[mission]

"TT isn't as much concerned about winning championships, as he is just plodding along to his own beat."

Wist, I can respect your arguments against picks even if I don't agree, but to make claims like this...he doesn't care about winning championships? That's a load of hooey.

ya that's why ive just ignored most of the posts... hard to take em too seriously :)

[falco]

hard to take em too seriously :)

+1

[Scott Campbell]

"TT isn't as much concerned about winning championships, as he is just plodding along to his own beat."

Wist, I can respect your arguments against picks even if I don't agree, but to make claims like this...he doesn't care about winning championships? That's a load of hooey.

ya that's why ive just ignored most of the posts... hard to take em too seriously :)


He makes lots of great points, and always remains respectful. Though I routinely don't reach some of the same conclusions he does.

[mission]

"TT isn't as much concerned about winning championships, as he is just plodding along to his own beat."

Wist, I can respect your arguments against picks even if I don't agree, but to make claims like this...he doesn't care about winning championships? That's a load of hooey.

ya that's why ive just ignored most of the posts... hard to take em too seriously :)


He makes lots of great points, and always remains respectful. Though I routinely don't reach some of the same conclusions he does.

Just from a standpoint of spending my energy on trying to correct his thinking... I used to do that, now I don't care so much :D

[pbmax]

"TT isn't as much concerned about winning championships, as he is just plodding along to his own beat."

Wist, I can respect your arguments against picks even if I don't agree, but to make claims like this...he doesn't care about winning championships? That's a load of hooey.
When I see him say that, I just substitute "TT isn't concerned with drafting players that I think should be drafted" and it reads much better.

[TennesseePackerBacker]

Jolly was a 6th round pick - and he was our best DL last year. Picks matter.

I agree with TT that building thru the draft is the way to go, and I believe he is a damn good judge of talent - that said, he has a blind spot... he is married to his "process" to the exclusion of team building.

TT's philosophy is BPA regardless of position, and over the course of years of drafting, eventually you fill out your roster to the point where all of your bases are covered.

This is TT's 6th draft... shouldn't we have the bases covered by now??? Well, given TT's unwillingness to adapt and adjust his philosophy, we have some log jammed positions, and some severely deficient positions. The severely deficient positions are of no concern to TT, b/c his hard and fast rule of BPA doesn't allow him to even consider filling the hole.

He said in his news conference that he will never go up to fill a need... he will only go up to draft a player. What's wrong with identifying a player that fits the value, and fills the need, and go up and get him???

Quarless is a good athlete, maybe he can play OLB or CB???

We'll likely make the playoffs again, but don't be surprised when we get ambushed for 50+ pts again.

Same story just a different year for you. What would we do without our resident Negative Nancy Wist? It must suck to be so negative and cynical all the time.

[Scott Campbell]

He keeps us grounded.

[Bretsky]

wist provides the anti homer view, and there is nothing wrong with that

If we never win a title Wist can note his points are valid; if we do win a title wist can happily admit he's wrong

[wist43]

wist provides the anti homer view, and there is nothing wrong with that

If we never win a title Wist can note his points are valid; if we do win a title wist can happily admit he's wrong

Something like that, lol...

I want to win a title as much as you guys 8-)

[TennesseePackerBacker]

He keeps us grounded.

Grounded with unfounded opinions maybe. Seriously? TT is not out to win a championship? That's maybe the dumbest thing I've ever heard. To each his own I guess. I mostly ignore Wist's posts(he was surprisingly positive last year), but the complete negativity when we have no results gets old. There is no feasible way to judge a draft 1 day after it has been completed.

And Scott, I don't get it. You hate the Favre-lovers but love Wist's anti-homerism? It's not like people are doing the opposite of Wist and penciling us in for a Super Bowl run because of that draft.

[wist43]

He keeps us grounded.

Grounded with unfounded opinions maybe. Seriously? TT is not out to win a championship? That's maybe the dumbest thing I've ever heard. To each his own I guess. I mostly ignore Wist's posts(he was surprisingly positive last year), but the complete negativity when we have no results gets old. There is no feasible way to judge a draft 1 day after it has been completed.

And Scott, I don't get it. You hate the Favre-lovers but love Wist's anti-homerism? It's not like people are doing the opposite of Wist and penciling us in for a Super Bowl run because of that draft.

I think we're close enough to target needs that fill holes - Burnett was a nice move. I wanted more of that, and that makes me an "anti-homer"???

I like this team in general... I just want to get the rest of the way there, and TT didn't significantly address shortcomings.

Whether you agree with it or not, it is certainly a legitimate argument. Make a counter argument and leave it at that... I'm certainly in the minority most of the time, trust me, I won't be so offended as to get personal :wink:

[Joemailman]

I understand the arguments for...

Again, not a single other player at a position of need will have as good a career as this guy???

And truthfully, this guys career stats are going to be fairly shallow the first few years if Finley stays healthy... so we spent a 5th round pick on 15 catches for 153 yds and 1TD per year for the next 3 years??? As opposed to moving up, or down and taking a prospect at a position of need who might see the field and contribute earlier b/c there is work available there???

If Quarless is as good as TT thinks he is, he can make a bigger contribution than you think. The Packers threw to the TE more than any team in the league last year, and that was with Driver/Jennings still being one of the top WR combos in the league. They may throw to the TE's even more in the future. I could agree with your point if TT took this guy in Round 2-3, but in the 5th round he probably wasn't impressed with the OLB's available.

[Bretsky]

He keeps us grounded.

Grounded with unfounded opinions maybe. Seriously? TT is not out to win a championship? That's maybe the dumbest thing I've ever heard. To each his own I guess. I mostly ignore Wist's posts(he was surprisingly positive last year), but the complete negativity when we have no results gets old. There is no feasible way to judge a draft 1 day after it has been completed.

And Scott, I don't get it. You hate the Favre-lovers but love Wist's anti-homerism? It's not like people are doing the opposite of Wist and penciling us in for a Super Bowl run because of that draft.

I think we're close enough to target needs that fill holes - Burnett was a nice move. I wanted more of that, and that makes me an "anti-homer"???

I like this team in general... I just want to get the rest of the way there, and TT didn't significantly address shortcomings.

Whether you agree with it or not, it is certainly a legitimate argument. Make a counter argument and leave it at that... I'm certainly in the minority most of the time, trust me, I won't be so offended as to get personal :wink:


Wist....you should note that from me, I've never considered anti homer to be a bad thing. I'd define homerism to mean taking everything regarding the Packers and making a positive spin out of it. I've called myself the anit homer plenty of times in here. It has nothing to do with what type of fan you are IMO.

[steve823]

If Quarless does develop, which I think he will, I think we would use him as a TE/WR. We can do just like we did with Finley and line them both up all over the field and create mismatches. Imagine Arod being able to have 2 options to throw a fade to in the red zone. Of course it might take a year or two for him to develop, like it did with Finley.

This year is looking great already, all homer-ism aside. The only thing that can really hurt us is if we get all our CB's injured again and have to put Bush and Martin on the field :( .

[TennesseePackerBacker]

He keeps us grounded.

Grounded with unfounded opinions maybe. Seriously? TT is not out to win a championship? That's maybe the dumbest thing I've ever heard. To each his own I guess. I mostly ignore Wist's posts(he was surprisingly positive last year), but the complete negativity when we have no results gets old. There is no feasible way to judge a draft 1 day after it has been completed.

And Scott, I don't get it. You hate the Favre-lovers but love Wist's anti-homerism? It's not like people are doing the opposite of Wist and penciling us in for a Super Bowl run because of that draft.

I think we're close enough to target needs that fill holes - Burnett was a nice move. I wanted more of that, and that makes me an "anti-homer"???

I like this team in general... I just want to get the rest of the way there, and TT didn't significantly address shortcomings.

Whether you agree with it or not, it is certainly a legitimate argument. Make a counter argument and leave it at that... I'm certainly in the minority most of the time, trust me, I won't be so offended as to get personal :wink:

I apologize if I offended you wist. The negativity just hits a nerve with me after seeing it in every thread. I agree with you, I feel as if Burnett was a great move. But how can we even know that? How can you possibly have such strong feelings one way or another before we really know anything about the players we drafted? Hell, we haven't even made it to mini-camp yet.

[Brandon494]

TT doesn't want to win championships because he drafted a TE in the 5th round?

Its nothing wrong with building depth at TE. Donald Lee blows and Havner is nothing special. When you start drafting for need instead of BPA is when teams screw themselves. This guy has 3rd roud value and its a late 5th round draft pick, stop complaining.

[steve823]

Since we all agree Donald Lee sucks and has gone to shit...if Quarless plays good and Havner gets healthy do you think we cut him ? We all know Finley is the man now and having Quarless and Havner for depth might finally get Lee off the roster.

[twoseven]

i think i love this pick. it sounds like he has a fire inside him that not every other guy will have, you can't coach that. if this kid can keep off the substances i think we got ourselves another real weapon opposite Finley. TT took a chance on Finley too. for my money, you can keep that TE that never gets in trouble if has zero playmaking ability. that's just me, though.

[Lurker64]

Since we all agree Donald Lee sucks and has gone to shit...if Quarless plays good and Havner gets healthy do you think we cut him ? We all know Finley is the man now and having Quarless and Havner for depth might finally get Lee off the roster.

It probably depends on how Havner and Quarless do as blockers. Finley is a spirited blocker, but Lee is our best blocking TE.

That being said though, I wouldn't be surprised in situations where you just want to have an extra TE simply for blocking purposes that we do the "six offensive linemen" thing that the Bengals did a lot last year, to get their first round LT who wasn't starting on the field. That worked pretty well for them.

[steve823]

Since we all agree Donald Lee sucks and has gone to shit...if Quarless plays good and Havner gets healthy do you think we cut him ? We all know Finley is the man now and having Quarless and Havner for depth might finally get Lee off the roster.

It probably depends on how Havner and Quarless do as blockers. Finley is a spirited blocker, but Lee is our best blocking TE.

That being said though, I wouldn't be surprised in situations where you just want to have an extra TE simply for blocking purposes that we do the "six offensive linemen" thing that the Bengals did a lot last year, to get their first round LT who wasn't starting on the field. That worked pretty well for them.

I think that's a great idea. It'll help Bulaga get some game action and give Arod more time. Also, it's not like Lee would've caught the ball if he was in there instead of an extra lineman.

[wist43]

He keeps us grounded.

Grounded with unfounded opinions maybe. Seriously? TT is not out to win a championship? That's maybe the dumbest thing I've ever heard. To each his own I guess. I mostly ignore Wist's posts(he was surprisingly positive last year), but the complete negativity when we have no results gets old. There is no feasible way to judge a draft 1 day after it has been completed.

And Scott, I don't get it. You hate the Favre-lovers but love Wist's anti-homerism? It's not like people are doing the opposite of Wist and penciling us in for a Super Bowl run because of that draft.

I think we're close enough to target needs that fill holes - Burnett was a nice move. I wanted more of that, and that makes me an "anti-homer"???

I like this team in general... I just want to get the rest of the way there, and TT didn't significantly address shortcomings.

Whether you agree with it or not, it is certainly a legitimate argument. Make a counter argument and leave it at that... I'm certainly in the minority most of the time, trust me, I won't be so offended as to get personal :wink:

I apologize if I offended you wist. The negativity just hits a nerve with me after seeing it in every thread. I agree with you, I feel as if Burnett was a great move. But how can we even know that? How can you possibly have such strong feelings one way or another before we really know anything about the players we drafted? Hell, we haven't even made it to mini-camp yet.

I'm not offended, and I'm not easily offended... although Harlan gets the blood pressure up over in FYI once in a while, lol... might I suggest medical marijuana as a stress reducer :D

That said, I don't have "strong feelings" about the players one way or the other - as I said, I didn't study this draft like I usually do b/c I've been too busy. What I'm pointing to is philosophy... I like the team, I agree with building thru the draft; but I also think you have to realize when you're close, and make moves to seize that opportunity.

Building more depth with early picks, at positions of current relative strength, while ignoring positions of need - that if shored up might put you over the top and into a SB, makes no sense to me. - if not now??? When???

If you're that close - and I think we could be - you have to be bold enough to take the shot. TT may have solved our saftey problem... nice move. We still have big problems at corner, and outside of Matthews we have no impact LB's. We have LB's, but no play maker/impact LB's.

They could all turn out to be good players... but they'll be good players replacing current good players down the road; as I said, at best it keeps us where we are; and, as I've also said, where we left off at was a 51 point embarrassment.

[Gunakor]

where we left off at was a 51 point embarrassment.

Wist, have you ever considered the fact that maybe, just maybe, that was a freak occurance? You know, like if we lined the same two teams up for a game this afternoon, perhaps the score would be different?

Just because we have the same players doesn't mean we're the same team, first of all. Players develop and improve. When you're talking about the youngest team in the NFL you're talking a lot of potential improvement without adding even one single new body to the mix.

Secondly, as I've been trying to say, the best team doesn't always win this game. Just look at the shape of the ball they play with and you can tell that luck is involved to some degree. So even if we were to stay exactly the same talent wise, and we continue to win 10+ games per season, and we become yearly playoff participants, the law of averages says eventually we would get lucky - and have a ring to show for it.

[Zool]

Finley lined up in the slot so often last year, that this kid could see a lot of time in a the single back. If teams go nickle in that situation either TE will manhandle a CB. If they stay base one of them will outrun a LB. Matchups matter a lot and Lee is dropping way too many balls now.

If you focus too much on one side of the ball, you end up neglecting the other side in the short and long term. Lets see what M3 can cook up with formations.

[RashanGary]

I could envision some pretty cool packages in a couple years.


Jennings Finley Quarless Nelson

Starks in the backfield


Now we have a 2 TE set with two solid blocking TE's, one great blocker at WR and then the deep threat in Jennings.

Watching tape, Starks is such a natural pass catcher. I can envision him being able to line up wide and catch like a receiver.


In this set, if teams go nickle or dime, we can run it down their throat with all of the good blockers on the field. If they stay base, we can move Starks out wide and attack their coverage.

Maybe if they have a weak nickle back, we could go 5 wide and attack nickle too. . .. .


Just one little package that might work against some teams.

[swede]

If Quarless does develop, which I think he will, I think we would use him as a TE/WR. We can do just like we did with Finley and line them both up all over the field and create mismatches. Imagine Arod being able to have 2 options to throw a fade to in the red zone. Of course it might take a year or two for him to develop, like it did with Finley.

This year is looking great already, all homer-ism aside. The only thing that can really hurt us is if we get all our CB's injured again and have to put Bush and Martin on the field :( .

Finley could absolutely split out or drop into the slot.

It would be fun to see a defense scramble the first time Quarles lined up at TE and Finley went out wide against a corner.

[get louder at lambeau]

I have no problem with them getting a TE. Sounds great to me.

But I hate this guy already. He's an arrogant douchebag-
http://bustersports.com/blog/buster-blog/2009/09/16/andrew-quarless-is-confident-in-his-ability-as-a-football-player/

[Brandon494]

I have no problem with them getting a TE. Sounds great to me.

But I hate this guy already. He's an arrogant douchebag-
http://bustersports.com/blog/buster-blog/2009/09/16/andrew-quarless-is-confident-in-his-ability-as-a-football-player/

Because of tattoos?

[wist43]

where we left off at was a 51 point embarrassment.

Wist, have you ever considered the fact that maybe, just maybe, that was a freak occurance? You know, like if we lined the same two teams up for a game this afternoon, perhaps the score would be different?

Just because we have the same players doesn't mean we're the same team, first of all. Players develop and improve. When you're talking about the youngest team in the NFL you're talking a lot of potential improvement without adding even one single new body to the mix.

Secondly, as I've been trying to say, the best team doesn't always win this game. Just look at the shape of the ball they play with and you can tell that luck is involved to some degree. So even if we were to stay exactly the same talent wise, and we continue to win 10+ games per season, and we become yearly playoff participants, the law of averages says eventually we would get lucky - and have a ring to show for it.

"If ifs and buts were candy and nuts we'd all have a wonderful Christmas" :D

"IF" did not happen... a 51 pt debacle happened; and our ranking was a mirage... who did they play??? Rams, Lions twice, TB, Browns, Niners, Seahawks??? That's 7 of the worse offenses in the league. Defensively we need more to really be a player in the tournament.

[get louder at lambeau]

I have no problem with them getting a TE. Sounds great to me.

But I hate this guy already. He's an arrogant douchebag-
http://bustersports.com/blog/buster-blog/2009/09/16/andrew-quarless-is-confident-in-his-ability-as-a-football-player/

Because of tattoos?

No, because of what his choice in tattoos says about him. He feels the need to make sure he lets everyone around him know he thinks he's "GODS GIFT" in the biggest block lettering that would fit on his arms.

That = he's an arrogant douchebag. I don't see any other possible interpretation, personally. Hope I'm wrong.

[CaptainD]

I have no problem with them getting a TE. Sounds great to me.

But I hate this guy already. He's an arrogant douchebag-
http://bustersports.com/blog/buster-blog/2009/09/16/andrew-quarless-is-confident-in-his-ability-as-a-football-player/

I agree. Let's give "God's Gift" a bunch of money in Green Bay WI and see if he can be a good boy ( Coach I won't drink no more
:violin: )
Sorry he might have a huge upside but he's a big risk.

[Guiness]

It probably depends on how Havner and Quarless do as blockers. Finley is a spirited blocker, but Lee is our best blocking TE.

That being said though, I wouldn't be surprised in situations where you just want to have an extra TE simply for blocking purposes that we do the "six offensive linemen" thing that the Bengals did a lot last year, to get their first round LT who wasn't starting on the field. That worked pretty well for them.

Um, you mean the U-72?

Nooooooooooooo!

[Guiness]

Picking someone who all agree is top flight talent down in the 5th is a no brainer. Position of need or not.

Not a good idea because of Finley? Even if you ignore how potent a good two TE set can be, depth at any position can not be overstated. Every player on every team is always one play away from a season ending injury.

HOWEVER I would very much like to know more about that tat. That's something else if it isn't being taken out of context. If that guy didn't make the NFL, he'd be wearing long sleeves to job interviews for the rest of his life.

[Gunakor]

where we left off at was a 51 point embarrassment.

Wist, have you ever considered the fact that maybe, just maybe, that was a freak occurance? You know, like if we lined the same two teams up for a game this afternoon, perhaps the score would be different?

Just because we have the same players doesn't mean we're the same team, first of all. Players develop and improve. When you're talking about the youngest team in the NFL you're talking a lot of potential improvement without adding even one single new body to the mix.

Secondly, as I've been trying to say, the best team doesn't always win this game. Just look at the shape of the ball they play with and you can tell that luck is involved to some degree. So even if we were to stay exactly the same talent wise, and we continue to win 10+ games per season, and we become yearly playoff participants, the law of averages says eventually we would get lucky - and have a ring to show for it.

"If if and buts were candy and nuts we'd all have a wonderful Christmas" :D

"IF" did not happen... a 51 pt debacle happened; and our ranking was a mirage... who did they play??? Rams, Lions twice, TB, Browns, Niners, Seahawks??? That's 7 of the worse offenses in the league. Defensively we need more to really be a player in the tournament.

That was the only time a team scored 51 points against us last year. You make it sound like this is was the norm. I think we have an above average defense that had a horrible game. You think we have a below average defense that overachieved. Yet the fact remains, that was the only game where our opponent scored that many points.

The truth probably lies somewhere in the midde.

In any case, our defense only gave up 45 points that game, not 51. Their defense also gave up 45 points that day, and the year prior that defense was playing Pittsburgh in the Super Bowl. So I don't read a whole lot into that game in particular. It was a freak occurance, one that would not happen again if we were to have played that game again this afternoon.

[Lurker64]

It probably depends on how Havner and Quarless do as blockers. Finley is a spirited blocker, but Lee is our best blocking TE.

That being said though, I wouldn't be surprised in situations where you just want to have an extra TE simply for blocking purposes that we do the "six offensive linemen" thing that the Bengals did a lot last year, to get their first round LT who wasn't starting on the field. That worked pretty well for them.

Um, you mean the U-72?

Nooooooooooooo!

Come on, how much fun would this be:

http://www.michaellivingston.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/3TEOffense.png

With Bulaga, Finley, and Quarless as your TEs...

[Bretsky]

where we left off at was a 51 point embarrassment.

Wist, have you ever considered the fact that maybe, just maybe, that was a freak occurance? You know, like if we lined the same two teams up for a game this afternoon, perhaps the score would be different?

Just because we have the same players doesn't mean we're the same team, first of all. Players develop and improve. When you're talking about the youngest team in the NFL you're talking a lot of potential improvement without adding even one single new body to the mix.

Secondly, as I've been trying to say, the best team doesn't always win this game. Just look at the shape of the ball they play with and you can tell that luck is involved to some degree. So even if we were to stay exactly the same talent wise, and we continue to win 10+ games per season, and we become yearly playoff participants, the law of averages says eventually we would get lucky - and have a ring to show for it.

"If if and buts were candy and nuts we'd all have a wonderful Christmas" :D

"IF" did not happen... a 51 pt debacle happened; and our ranking was a mirage... who did they play??? Rams, Lions twice, TB, Browns, Niners, Seahawks??? That's 7 of the worse offenses in the league. Defensively we need more to really be a player in the tournament.

That was the only time a team scored 51 points against us last year. You make it sound like this is was the norm. I think we have an above average defense that had a horrible game. You think we have a below average defense that overachieved. Yet the fact remains, that was the only game where our opponent scored that many points.

The truth probably lies somewhere in the midde.

In any case, our defense only gave up 45 points that game, not 51. Their defense also gave up 45 points that day, and the year prior that defense was playing Pittsburgh in the Super Bowl. So I don't read a whole lot into that game in particular. It was a freak occurance, one that would not happen again if we were to have played that game again this afternoon.


Agree that our defense is above average; but we had several horrible games so I'm not sure I'd call us getting lit up against a stellar offense a freak occurance. Toi me our most impressive showing at home was against Dallas. Otherwise, we got torched by some very good offenses, and shut out some bad ones, and had some average games as well.



Bad Games
Cincy- 31 pts
Tamps Bay 38pts
MN 38pts
MN 30pts
AZ 45pts
PIT 38

Stellar Games

Lions 0pts
Browns 3pts
Dallas 7pts
Lions 12pts
Seahawks 10pts
Arizona 7pts (Although they did not seem to be trying

Decent Games

49ers 24pts
Ravens 14pts
Bears 14pts
Bears 15pts
Rams 17pts

[swede]

Regarding AQ's tatoos:

I can't keep a sig longer than a week, so I know better than to get a tattoo.

They are kind of permanent.

Joe Pa nearly booted this kid off the team after his 2nd JA, the 2nd one coming with a DUI. Considering that AQ is the one who broke Joe Pa's leg in Camp Randall you would think that Coach would have been looking for the first excuse to get rid of him, and the kid got two more chances than Joe Pa usually gives anybody. He's had his nose clean for quite a while, and the Pack got good character references.

I lean toward the idea that the tats acknowledge a little spiritual play on words.

Me, personally, I don't do tats for Jesus.

I can't run a 4.65 40 with a 38" vertical either.

[twoseven]

I have no problem with them getting a TE. Sounds great to me.

But I hate this guy already. He's an arrogant douchebag-
http://bustersports.com/blog/buster-blog/2009/09/16/andrew-quarless-is-confident-in-his-ability-as-a-football-player/

Because of tattoos?

No, because of what his choice in tattoos says about him. He feels the need to make sure he lets everyone around him know he thinks he's "GODS GIFT" in the biggest block lettering that would fit on his arms.

That = he's an arrogant douchebag. I don't see any other possible interpretation, personally. Hope I'm wrong.i would bet that i have more ink on me than most people you'll meet, not all of it as good an idea as when it was first set. i can tell you with great conifidence this kid's tattoo will take care of itself. when he gets older and his attitude eventually matures or at least changes, those words still written on him will be the worst punishment he could endure. he'll either get it worked on to change it, or spend a good deal of time trying to convince others he's not like that anymore. either way it will work itself out.

[wootah]

Come on, how much fun would this be:

http://www.michaellivingston.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/3TEOffense.png

With Bulaga, Finley, and Quarless as your TEs...

Usually the amount of fun is limited when you have only six player on the LoS...

[get louder at lambeau]

I have no problem with them getting a TE. Sounds great to me.

But I hate this guy already. He's an arrogant douchebag-
http://bustersports.com/blog/buster-blog/2009/09/16/andrew-quarless-is-confident-in-his-ability-as-a-football-player/

Because of tattoos?

No, because of what his choice in tattoos says about him. He feels the need to make sure he lets everyone around him know he thinks he's "GODS GIFT" in the biggest block lettering that would fit on his arms.

That = he's an arrogant douchebag. I don't see any other possible interpretation, personally. Hope I'm wrong.i would bet that i have more ink on me than most people you'll meet, not all of it as good an idea as when it was first set. i can tell you with great conifidence this kid's tattoo will take care of itself. when he gets older and his attitude eventually matures or at least changes, those words still written on him will be the worst punishment he could endure. he'll either get it worked on to change it, or spend a good deal of time trying to convince others he's not like that anymore. either way it will work itself out.

I wonder if the coaches will make him wear sleeves on the field, or if he'll get knocked down more than a few pegs by some of the veterans. I wish him the best because he's a Packer now, but I wouldn't mind seeing another Packer TE knock him off the roster, or a Packer defender knock him on his ass.

Gotta admit, I might even laugh if Urlacher or someone knocked the snot out of him. I find it really hard to root for arrogant people. That tattoo just makes me think he's the kind of guy I wouldn't be able to stand being around.

[pbmax]

I hope he knocks Urlacher into retirement and then I would pay to put a Superman tattoo on his backside.

[Lurker64]

He may well regret some of his tattoos, since reports are that he's likely turned his life around at least a little. But as a college football player (for Joe Pa) he probably couldn't afford to get them removed/changed.

Let's let the guy cash his first NFL check before we condemn him for bad ink.

[twoseven]

i hadn't actually seen the tattoo in question until now. wow, that's going to take some serious removal or cover up work to get around should he decide to change things one day. at least it's on the back of his arms so people will see it when he's running away from them with the ball, i hope. he's going to look pretty f-ing stupid if he is laid out on his face with those tags showing.

[twoseven]

He may well regret some of his tattoos, since reports are that he's likely turned his life around at least a little. But as a college football player (for Joe Pa) he probably couldn't afford to get them removed/changed.

Let's let the guy cash his first NFL check before we condemn him for bad ink.they do look like some homeade shit that 'friends' will do for friends when they are trying to learn the craft. could have gotten them when he was a dumb teen for all we know.

[wist43]

What's wrong with identifying a player that fits the value, and fills the need, and go up and get him???

Like Matthews?

:roll:

Yeah, like Matthews, and like Burnett...

Multiple trades are allowed :)

[wist43]

He keeps us grounded.

Grounded with unfounded opinions maybe. Seriously? TT is not out to win a championship? That's maybe the dumbest thing I've ever heard. To each his own I guess. I mostly ignore Wist's posts(he was surprisingly positive last year), but the complete negativity when we have no results gets old. There is no feasible way to judge a draft 1 day after it has been completed.

And Scott, I don't get it. You hate the Favre-lovers but love Wist's anti-homerism? It's not like people are doing the opposite of Wist and penciling us in for a Super Bowl run because of that draft.

I think we're close enough to target needs that fill holes - Burnett was a nice move. I wanted more of that, and that makes me an "anti-homer"???

I like this team in general... I just want to get the rest of the way there, and TT didn't significantly address shortcomings.

Whether you agree with it or not, it is certainly a legitimate argument. Make a counter argument and leave it at that... I'm certainly in the minority most of the time, trust me, I won't be so offended as to get personal :wink:


Wist....you should note that from me, I've never considered anti homer to be a bad thing. I'd define homerism to mean taking everything regarding the Packers and making a positive spin out of it. I've called myself the anit homer plenty of times in here. It has nothing to do with what type of fan you are IMO.

I just argue my point, and I don't think I'm an "anti-homer" at all... I love my Green Bay Packers, and I wanna win.

Some folks can't bring themselves to see things critically... it's not a matter of criticizing, it's a matter of analyzing. I see what I see, I state my case, and I defend it - that's what these boards are all about.

As I've said, I see TT as a good judge of talent. He's successfully rebuilt the roster, and we're not too far away from contending - overall, he's done a good job. That said, I have my disagreements with him philosophically, and I have strong concerns that he may never get us over the top and win a SB.

[SkinBasket]

i hadn't actually seen the tattoo in question until now. wow, that's going to take some serious removal or cover up work to get around should he decide to change things one day. at least it's on the back of his arms so people will see it when he's running away from them with the ball, i hope. he's going to look pretty f-ing stupid if he is laid out on his face with those tags showing.

Isn't it at least possible that he meant his arms, or the skill they represent, are god's gift to him?

I've heard of and/or seen enough tattoos that were unintentionally stupid/benign depending on the interpretation.

[twoseven]

i hadn't actually seen the tattoo in question until now. wow, that's going to take some serious removal or cover up work to get around should he decide to change things one day. at least it's on the back of his arms so people will see it when he's running away from them with the ball, i hope. he's going to look pretty f-ing stupid if he is laid out on his face with those tags showing.

Isn't it at least possible that he meant his arms, or the skill they represent, are god's gift to him?

I've heard of and/or seen enough tattoos that were unintentionally stupid/benign depending on the interpretation.good point, dude. hadn't thought of that. does that mean you have a 'God's Gift' tattoo on your manhandle then? i have a 'God's Cruel Joke' tattoo on what used to be my hairline.

[SkinBasket]

i hadn't actually seen the tattoo in question until now. wow, that's going to take some serious removal or cover up work to get around should he decide to change things one day. at least it's on the back of his arms so people will see it when he's running away from them with the ball, i hope. he's going to look pretty f-ing stupid if he is laid out on his face with those tags showing.

Isn't it at least possible that he meant his arms, or the skill they represent, are god's gift to him?

I've heard of and/or seen enough tattoos that were unintentionally stupid/benign depending on the interpretation.good point, dude. hadn't thought of that. does that mean you have a 'God's Gift' tattoo on your manhandle then? i have a 'God's Cruel Joke' tattoo on what used to be my hairline.

Actually it reads "God's Hammer."

[Lurker64]

i hadn't actually seen the tattoo in question until now. wow, that's going to take some serious removal or cover up work to get around should he decide to change things one day. at least it's on the back of his arms so people will see it when he's running away from them with the ball, i hope. he's going to look pretty f-ing stupid if he is laid out on his face with those tags showing.

Isn't it at least possible that he meant his arms, or the skill they represent, are god's gift to him?

I've heard of and/or seen enough tattoos that were unintentionally stupid/benign depending on the interpretation.good point, dude. hadn't thought of that. does that mean you have a 'God's Gift' tattoo on your manhandle then? i have a 'God's Cruel Joke' tattoo on what used to be my hairline.

Actually it reads "God's Hammer."

Your penis is Mjolnir?

[get louder at lambeau]

i hadn't actually seen the tattoo in question until now. wow, that's going to take some serious removal or cover up work to get around should he decide to change things one day. at least it's on the back of his arms so people will see it when he's running away from them with the ball, i hope. he's going to look pretty f-ing stupid if he is laid out on his face with those tags showing.

Isn't it at least possible that he meant his arms, or the skill they represent, are god's gift to him?

I've heard of and/or seen enough tattoos that were unintentionally stupid/benign depending on the interpretation.

I'm not sure that's any better. Pretty much a fucktard either way.

[CaptainKickass]

does that mean you have a 'God's Gift' tattoo on your manhandle then?

Actually it reads "God's Hammer."


Mine says:

"Shorties All Night Truck-Stop and Diner Chattanooga Tennessee"

:P :lol:

[twoseven]

i hadn't actually seen the tattoo in question until now. wow, that's going to take some serious removal or cover up work to get around should he decide to change things one day. at least it's on the back of his arms so people will see it when he's running away from them with the ball, i hope. he's going to look pretty f-ing stupid if he is laid out on his face with those tags showing.

Isn't it at least possible that he meant his arms, or the skill they represent, are god's gift to him?

I've heard of and/or seen enough tattoos that were unintentionally stupid/benign depending on the interpretation.good point, dude. hadn't thought of that. does that mean you have a 'God's Gift' tattoo on your manhandle then? i have a 'God's Cruel Joke' tattoo on what used to be my hairline.

Actually it reads "God's Hammer."

Your penis is Mjolnir?so, Thor is swinging Skinbasket's dick? where does Loki fit in with all this shit?

[twoseven]

does that mean you have a 'God's Gift' tattoo on your manhandle then?

Actually it reads "God's Hammer."


Mine says:

"Shorties All Night Truck-Stop and Diner Chattanooga Tennessee"

:P :lol:i don't have that much room for a welcome to Jamaica type message. i make up for with a shirt that says 'Mustache Rides' like Gar (Sam Elliot) had in Mask.
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y200/scariel/mask01.jpg

[Patler]

Insight into the "GODS" "GIFTS" tattoos:

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/92563389.html

[Fritz]

Too much is being made of this tattoo thing. Lots of those players are tattooed all over, and I'm guessing most of the tattooes with words don't say things like "Gosh I'm just glad to be here" or anything.

[MichiganPackerFan]

Fair enough. Move along: nothing to see here!

[retailguy]

Too much is being made of this tattoo thing. Lots of those players are tattooed all over, and I'm guessing most of the tattooes with words don't say things like "Gosh I'm just glad to be here" or anything.

If I get you a locker room pass, will you check into this and let us know?

If it is as you suspect, we can convince Harlan to get the Government involved. This sounds like something they need to fix.

[mission]

Quarless was asked about the tats and he says they refer to his faith and that he has other religious-related ones... not that he's god's gift (to women/football for example).

:huh:

[MadScientist]

The tats are a minor thing. I wouldn't mind a concreted player who could back it up. This quote bothers me more:

Asked if he was an alcoholic, Quarless said, "Well, I actually had to go to an AA meeting, so I guess so. And when I first sat down with the counselors I told them, 'I haven't had a drink in over a year. I don't think I have a problem.'

"And she said, 'Just the fact it happened.' If I was 21, both of those situations might have been different because of where my (alcohol) levels were. I was never lying over in the middle of the street."

It just gives me the feeling that he doesn't think he has a problem, and now that he's over 21 and had the toast to break the ice, I just don't have a good feeling about it.

[Fritz]

I will enlist one of the Packer ladies to check the tattoos out, Retail.

As for Quarless' statements about the alcohol, they do make me uneasy.

[mission]

I will enlist one of the Packer ladies to check the tattoos out, Retail.

As for Quarless' statements about the alcohol, they do make me uneasy.

Definitely not how someone who's overcame an addiction/problem speaks.

[Brandon494]

The tats are a minor thing. I wouldn't mind a concreted player who could back it up. This quote bothers me more:

Asked if he was an alcoholic, Quarless said, "Well, I actually had to go to an AA meeting, so I guess so. And when I first sat down with the counselors I told them, 'I haven't had a drink in over a year. I don't think I have a problem.'

"And she said, 'Just the fact it happened.' If I was 21, both of those situations might have been different because of where my (alcohol) levels were. I was never lying over in the middle of the street."

It just gives me the feeling that he doesn't think he has a problem, and now that he's over 21 and had the toast to break the ice, I just don't have a good feeling about it.

Umm you think any 20 year old college kid think they have a problem with drinking?

[MadScientist]

The tats are a minor thing. I wouldn't mind a concreted player who could back it up. This quote bothers me more:

Asked if he was an alcoholic, Quarless said, "Well, I actually had to go to an AA meeting, so I guess so. And when I first sat down with the counselors I told them, 'I haven't had a drink in over a year. I don't think I have a problem.'

"And she said, 'Just the fact it happened.' If I was 21, both of those situations might have been different because of where my (alcohol) levels were. I was never lying over in the middle of the street."

It just gives me the feeling that he doesn't think he has a problem, and now that he's over 21 and had the toast to break the ice, I just don't have a good feeling about it.

Umm you think any 20 year old college kid think they have a problem with drinking?
Well given that it almost cost him his career, he should at least take the possibility more seriously than the statements indicate. It strikes me like he stopped drinking while he was under the gun (would have been kicked off the team), and now feels like he is home free.

[Patler]

The tats are a minor thing. I wouldn't mind a concreted player who could back it up. This quote bothers me more:

Asked if he was an alcoholic, Quarless said, "Well, I actually had to go to an AA meeting, so I guess so. And when I first sat down with the counselors I told them, 'I haven't had a drink in over a year. I don't think I have a problem.'

"And she said, 'Just the fact it happened.' If I was 21, both of those situations might have been different because of where my (alcohol) levels were. I was never lying over in the middle of the street."

It just gives me the feeling that he doesn't think he has a problem, and now that he's over 21 and had the toast to break the ice, I just don't have a good feeling about it.

Umm you think any 20 year old college kid think they have a problem with drinking?
Well given that it almost cost him his career, he should at least take the possibility more seriously than the statements indicate. It strikes me like he stopped drinking while he was under the gun (would have been kicked off the team), and now feels like he is home free.

I found that comment troubling too, and inconsistent with some of his earlier statements that he had quit drinking. Now he quit drinking...except for....

With two drinking related situations he needs to find out if he has a problem or not. Ambivalence won't cut it.

[Tarlam!]

OK, the DUI thingy was shitty. Bur come on! If any of you had grown up in Australia, you'd think nothing of this. The DUI aside.

[Patler]

OK, the DUI thingy was shitty. Bur come on! If any of you had grown up in Australia, you'd think nothing of this. The DUI aside.

Growing up in Wisconsin isn't much different, I suspect

[pbmax]

The tats are a minor thing. I wouldn't mind a concreted player who could back it up. This quote bothers me more:

Asked if he was an alcoholic, Quarless said, "Well, I actually had to go to an AA meeting, so I guess so. And when I first sat down with the counselors I told them, 'I haven't had a drink in over a year. I don't think I have a problem.'

"And she said, 'Just the fact it happened.' If I was 21, both of those situations might have been different because of where my (alcohol) levels were. I was never lying over in the middle of the street."

It just gives me the feeling that he doesn't think he has a problem, and now that he's over 21 and had the toast to break the ice, I just don't have a good feeling about it.

Umm you think any 20 year old college kid think they have a problem with drinking?
Well given that it almost cost him his career, he should at least take the possibility more seriously than the statements indicate. It strikes me like he stopped drinking while he was under the gun (would have been kicked off the team), and now feels like he is home free.

I found that comment troubling too, and inconsistent with some of his earlier statements that he had quit drinking. Now he quit drinking...except for....

With two drinking related situations he needs to find out if he has a problem or not. Ambivalence won't cut it.
You wouldn't think ambivalence would cut it at AA either. If he was entered as part of his diversionary program, was that the best choice for him, or the most convenient?

I don't think AA attempts to treat kids who don't know how to handle alcohol. They treat and support people who cannot afford to drink again. Two incidents (if indeed, that is all there is to the story) doesn't tell us much.

[Scott Campbell]

Sorry he might have a huge upside but he's a big risk.


They only dropped a 5th rounder on him. I don't see much risk.

[twoseven]

at least in WI binge drinking is an everyday thing in college. getting nipped for a DUI is not. i cannot remember even a single DUI on my WI campus from my college stint (not that they did not happen, just very rare). not often you need to be behind the wheel in those situations, everything is typically within walking distance and/or students still have enough sense to have a sober driver along or call a cab. don't know what Penn State is like, maybe the bars and house parties are a greater distance from typical living quarters?

[Deputy Nutz]

Wisconsin Badgers are getting nailed all the time with DUIs. One guy crashed his scooter while drunk into the back of a van.

Anyways. People are making too big of a deal about the drinking, No matter what level of football, It seemed that whatever team I was on, the football players where the biggest drinkers on campus. Some of us got caught, some didn't. I got an underage drinking ticket my freshman year while football was in season. The coaches treated like a slap on the wrist. A DUI would probably be a different story, but really I think it has more to do with the overall makeup of this kid, plus throw in the drinking and it could be a bad combination.

Brett Favre might have been one of the heaviest drinkers in the 1991 draft, and not once was it ever mentioned, hell he even crashed his Nissian Maxima coming back from a round of golf before his senior year, and the excuse, "loose gravel"(12 Beers).

[Scott Campbell]

Brett Favre might have been one of the heaviest drinkers in the 1991 draft, and not once was it ever mentioned, hell he even crashed his Nissian Maxima coming back from a round of golf before his senior year, and the excuse, "loose gravel"(12 Beers).



I'm not sure that Bert is a great example seeing that he ended up in a substance abuse program. Didn't he have to give up either drinking or Deanna?

I hope our new guy is able to keep it together.

[pbmax]

No matter what level of football, It seemed that whatever team I was on, the football players where the biggest drinkers on campus.
Watch out for the band. Especially the tuba players.

[RashanGary]

Wisconsin Badgers are getting nailed all the time with DUIs. One guy crashed his scooter while drunk into the back of a van.

Anyways. People are making too big of a deal about the drinking, No matter what level of football, It seemed that whatever team I was on, the football players where the biggest drinkers on campus. Some of us got caught, some didn't. I got an underage drinking ticket my freshman year while football was in season. The coaches treated like a slap on the wrist. A DUI would probably be a different story, but really I think it has more to do with the overall makeup of this kid, plus throw in the drinking and it could be a bad combination.

Brett Favre might have been one of the heaviest drinkers in the 1991 draft, and not once was it ever mentioned, hell he even crashed his Nissian Maxima coming back from a round of golf before his senior year, and the excuse, "loose gravel"(12 Beers).

That's very true.

[MJZiggy]

The tats are a minor thing. I wouldn't mind a concreted player who could back it up. This quote bothers me more:

Asked if he was an alcoholic, Quarless said, "Well, I actually had to go to an AA meeting, so I guess so. And when I first sat down with the counselors I told them, 'I haven't had a drink in over a year. I don't think I have a problem.'

"And she said, 'Just the fact it happened.' If I was 21, both of those situations might have been different because of where my (alcohol) levels were. I was never lying over in the middle of the street."

It just gives me the feeling that he doesn't think he has a problem, and now that he's over 21 and had the toast to break the ice, I just don't have a good feeling about it.

I think you guys are making too big a deal of this. In the article in the other thread, it said that when he got the DUI, his blood alcohol level was 0.04 and he only got the DUI because he was a minor. And have none of us ever gone out and tied one on before? From what I read in that article, I don't see the addiction. He probably had to go to the AA meeting (just one?) as a result of the DUI. I'm willing to believe that he's outgrown it if he can have a birthday toast without going on a drunken spree.

Umm you think any 20 year old college kid think they have a problem with drinking?
Well given that it almost cost him his career, he should at least take the possibility more seriously than the statements indicate. It strikes me like he stopped drinking while he was under the gun (would have been kicked off the team), and now feels like he is home free.

I found that comment troubling too, and inconsistent with some of his earlier statements that he had quit drinking. Now he quit drinking...except for....

With two drinking related situations he needs to find out if he has a problem or not. Ambivalence won't cut it.
You wouldn't think ambivalence would cut it at AA either. If he was entered as part of his diversionary program, was that the best choice for him, or the most convenient?

I don't think AA attempts to treat kids who don't know how to handle alcohol. They treat and support people who cannot afford to drink again. Two incidents (if indeed, that is all there is to the story) doesn't tell us much.

[run pMc]

Actually, I don't mind TT picking a TE in the 5th, especially if he's rated much higher. The quotes and things I've heard don't impress me or make him sound as talented as Finley, but Finley took some time to develop.

Remember, Finley said some pretty stupid things to the press.

Assuming this kid can play, I like that having two athletic TE's on the field could cause some matchup problems for opposing teams.

As for picking for need (I think the secondary was specifically mentioned), I'm admittedly in the BPA camp. I do agree that the starters are old, though. Think about this: Williams, Blackmon, Lee, and Underwood are behind Harris and Woodson...I'm not convinced there was anyone left on the board who was better than any of those guys.

All that said, Rodgers looked to Finley a lot in the 2nd half of the season, and when Finley was hurt the offense was impacted. IMO TT is thinking bigger picture here. If Finley gets hurt or decides he wants a fat new contract and TT ships him to the Broncos, he now has an understudy for M3 to coach up.

[get louder at lambeau]

No matter what level of football, It seemed that whatever team I was on, the football players where the biggest drinkers on campus.
Watch out for the band. Especially the tuba players.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYWQAg12Ko0

[LP]

I drank before I was "legal". And that was when the drinking age was 18. Now let me say before you all "I do not have a drinking problem." Does that make me an alcoholic?

[bobblehead]

our Safety situation got better with the drafting of Burnett, but DB overall is a problem...


I defy anyone to name a team who can field 5 guys (nickel included) as good as the packers do. And don't go bringing in the 6ht or 7th guy when you are upset about our backup TE not seeing the field.

Also you talk about the Jolly pick and say picks matter. We were considered stacked at DL when we drafted Jolly.

[MichiganPackerFan]

I drank before I was "legal". And that was when the drinking age was 18. Now let me say before you all "I do not have a drinking problem." Does that make me an alcoholic?

Not necessarily. But the hip flash you have crudely stashed underneath the stack of papers next to your computer at work that you think no one can see may be an indication of such.

Seriously, what self-respecting college kid did NOT drink before the legal drinking age? My theory is that the legal drinking age is established with the assumption that kids up to three years younger will have access to it, so with the legal age set at 21 the access extends to 18 year olds rather than 15 year olds. (obviously there's a lot of grey area, but i do think far fewer 15 year olds have access now than if the legal age was at 18)

[Fred's Slacks]

I was also dissapointed that we didn't get a CB in the draft.

But one thing to think about with the Quarless pick: behind Wood, Harris and Tramon, we have a 2nd round pick entering his 3rd year, a 6th round pick entering his second year and a 4th round pick entering his 5th year.

So does adding another 5th round pick in his rookie year really do much to upgrade that position?

It could, but with all picks, its a crapshoot. So I'd rather we better our odds and take the best player.