Daryn Colledge Fan Club

[pbmax]

Yes, it will be an intimate affair when we meet to celebrate the Left Guard of the Past, Present and Future. Members must be steady in mind, strong in spirit and possibly stubborn.

Outside of Allen Barbre in four games last year, Colledge wears the mantle of Thompson's failure to get better then mediocre production (and mediocre consistency) out of his retooled offensive line. A second round pick, he was Thompson's highest O line pick until Bulaga this year. As such, he gets blame both deserved and undeserved, often for failures not of his own making.

People look to the line before almost any other position group on the Packer offense when it struggles, perhaps even more often than QB, now that Rodgers has two seasons of solid play. But the O Line has been better than advertised (it has been advertised as the O Line equivalent of the Maginot Line) and Colledge's strengths and weaknesses are misunderstood and in the case of the latter, overstated.

Colledge performed as the best lineman on a Packer's team in 2008 that allowed 34 sacks and was completely average running the football (14th in Att, 17th in Yards and 18th in Y/A). Of the team's starters, he may be the team's best run blocker (Barbre might be as good, but sources close to me have suggested that Rodgers will retire if he starts anywhere for the Packers again). This gets virtually no notice because both tackles struggle with the run game, one historically (Clifton) and both because age have made them less mobile and ill-suited to the ZBS cutoff blocks. That, and the Packer running backs are in the last 1/3rd of the league in getting second tier yards and going deep.

Few remember that the increased success of the Packer's run game in 2009 often came from plays right behind Colledge. He also shares credit with Sitton for increased success in Power situations, as witnessed by the curious but continued success of the fantabulous fullback dive. The Packers best running plays were up between the guards (4.71 Adjusted Line Yards-Football Outsiders), with the only greater results coming from runs to Right End (4.86 ALY) which defies explanation and must have happened when a seismic tremor caused the defense to fall down. Often. Only on runs to the Right End.

That he has largely solved his first year weakness (run blocking) is usually ignored to focus on his continued difficulty with anchoring (he can be bull rushed) and the occasional whiff on a stunt or quick pass rusher. It is the latter technique issue that is maddening because Colledge has pass blocked well against quick DTs (Justin Tuck) and if his only pass blocking flaw was anchoring, he would be performing similar to the previous longstanding LG Mike Wahle.

But it is worth noting that a significant percentage of Colledge's worst performances last year were while at Left Tackle. Its clear now that he is not ready for LT and some percentage of his midseason struggle moving back to guard can likely be attributed to the adjustment. More importantly, while Barbre was behaving like a turnstile at the beginning of the year, Clifton struggled as well. With Rodgers on skates, a lot of lineman gave up sacks on unexpected change of direction as pass rushers redirected to chase the shuffling Rodgers.

Once Lang, then Tauscher stabilized RT and Clifton got healthy at LT, the entire line pass blocked better. If Colledge had continued to be the sieve he has been made out to be, Rodgers sack numbers would not have fallen as dramatically. Its also worth noting that a change in game plan (and in Rodgers assignments at the LOS) also affected the rate of sacks. In this environment, its difficult to assess how much Colledge regressed in pass blocking. While everyone will remember the pressure he gave up on the last play of the playoff game, that single play, nor his time at LT, should define his season.

You read it here first, at what might be the only single Rat fan club on this board, Colledge will be at LG in 2010, ahead of Spitz, Lang and Newhouse.

[Gunakor]

I agree with everything you said here PB. But I'm still not joining your club.

:lol:

[pbmax]

I agree with everything you said here PB. But I'm still not joining your club.

:lol:
I understand. We don't judge those unwilling to commit. And I recognize that I might be holding several offices at once.

[Brandon494]

After drafting Bugula I see the coaches giving Lang a chance to start at LG and I don't see Colledge beating him.

I don't dislike the guy but he is nothing special in my eyes and could easily be replaced.

[pbmax]

After drafting Bugula I see the coaches giving Lang a chance to start at LG and I don't see Colledge beating him.

I don't dislike the guy but he is nothing special in my eyes and could easily be replaced.
Lang might be able to do it, but M3 is on record that his coaches want Lang at RT. So only 30% of his snaps will come at LG (M3's approximation).

If he can do it, great. We need more consistent O Line play. But I don't see it as the plan stands.

[Bretsky]

HOT FROM THE PRESSES

PB is serving up free HALF POUND CHEESEBURGERS for anybody willing to join his club.

[RashanGary]

Nice summary of Colledge. I think you are spot on with who will be starting in 2010 too.

[RashanGary]

I'd rather have an average starting 5 and well trained depth than a good starting 5 and disaster if we have injury.

The way McCarthy is handling this, I think the season will start faster (having guys training more exclusively at one position) and finish stronger (being more prepared to handle injury).

This is the best depth McCarthy has ever had on the line. I look forward to a really stable season of line play. And Colledge might be the weak link, but he's pretty alright. I think pb hit it right on the head here.

[Freak Out]

I'll sign up.....after all he is a fellow Alaskan. :)

I think he gets this thing figured out and dominates.

[Gunakor]

I'd rather have an average starting 5 and well trained depth than a good starting 5 and disaster if we have injury.

The way McCarthy is handling this, I think the season will start faster (having guys training more exclusively at one position) and finish stronger (being more prepared to handle injury).

This is the best depth McCarthy has ever had on the line. I look forward to a really stable season of line play. And Colledge might be the weak link, but he's pretty alright. I think pb hit it right on the head here.

That fast start and strong finish is dependent on Colledge beating out Spitz at LG. Spitz can back up at any interior line position in case of injury, so if he wins the starting job and Scottie Wells goes down we are shuffling guys around again. It's critical from a depth standpoint IMO that Colledge win that job.

[rbaloha1]

Extremely well written analysis of Colledge. DC has the physical tools but lacks consistency. Lack of upper body strength is still embarrassing.

IMO Colledge's failure to secure a long term contract shall continue to plague him. Another player will demonstrate more consistency and snag his position. Maybe we can get a Tony Moll deal.

[twoseven]

that's the funniest new topic title i have read in awhile

[retailguy]

let me know where you are meeting and I'll show up with a protest sign.

[pbmax]

let me know where you are meeting and I'll show up with a protest sign.
Will do.

No tomatoes.

:D

[swede]

I expect the club will require leather patches on the elbows, you being a colledge man and all.

[pbmax]

I expect the club will require leather patches on the elbows, you being a colledge man and all.
Yes. However, a pipe is optional.

[retailguy]

let me know where you are meeting and I'll show up with a protest sign.
Will do.

No tomatoes.

:D

I'm bringing snowballs in honor of the north pole.

[CaptainKickass]

PB is serving up free HALF POUND CHEESEBURGERS for anybody willing to join his club.


I'm only here for the cheeseburgers.

[vince]

Blutarsky: Man was I wasted last night. I dreamt some guy was giving away cheeseburgers, and I was the only one who showed up to eat 'em. So I just pounded on these cheeseburgers until I was ready to puke, which was awesome.

Otto: It looks like you puked all over your new sweatshirt, Bluto...

Blutarsky: What the fuck is that? Wait, what the fuck happened last night?

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c343/twernke/Packers/john_belushi.jpg

[Fritz]

It's common knowledge that many people's opinions of a particular player rest on a few plays the fan sees and remembers. So if you're a wide receiver or running back or even a d-back, you can screw up very publicly - a big drop, a missed tackle on a reciever - and your rep is in the toilet thanks to one play. However, you can redeem yourself with a highlight reel t.d. catch or a big interception.

For linemen it's more difficult, I think. While you get occasional film of a blocker pancaking a linebacker, most of what you see is a guy engaging a defender and struggling and keeping him at bay. So when an offensive lineman screws up - the big last play where Colledge looked like a matador - it's hard to come back from that in terms of public perception. Cuz if he does recover and do a good job, the result is that ....nothing happens. And that's not as memorable.

So whether Colledge is better than advertised, it's going to be tough to get folks to put on the ears and join the club. Even Annette Funicello might be shirking.

[MichiganPackerFan]

I don't think Colledge is nearly as bad as popular opinion depicts. I think he could be a pretty solid guard. However, I do think its going to be hard to keep Spitz off the field.

[Harlan Huckleby]

After drafting Bugula I see the coaches giving Lang a chance to start at LG and I don't see Colledge beating him . I like Lang at RT. Lang is unlikely to beat-out Colledge.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I don't think Colledge is nearly as bad as popular opinion depicts. I think he could be a pretty solid guard. However, I do think its going to be hard to keep Spitz off the field. The little-engine-that-could had a decent year at center. But I think they let Spitz compete with him there again. If Spitz can't beat-out a very average starter, it is not so hard to keep him off the field.

[Tarlam!]

If Spitz can't beat-out a very average starter, it is not so hard to keep him off the field.

Reminds me of what I read about Ryan Grant - they have to play him 'cause he leaves them no choice.

PB, I aint joining your fanclub. Colledge aint no Packer People.

[swede]

If Spitz can't beat-out a very average starter, it is not so hard to keep him off the field.

Reminds me of what I read about Ryan Grant - they have to play him 'cause he leaves them no choice.

PB, I aint joining your fanclub. Colledge aint no Packer People.

He seems like the Andy Bernard of the O-Line.

[twoseven]

If Spitz can't beat-out a very average starter, it is not so hard to keep him off the field.

Reminds me of what I read about Ryan Grant - they have to play him 'cause he leaves them no choice.

PB, I aint joining your fanclub. Colledge aint no Packer People.

He seems like the Andy Bernard of the O-Line.The nard dog will at least make a sale when given the opportunity.

[rbaloha1]

MM recently made comments how much he respects DC especially since DC has lost starting status a few times and responded positively.

The next time DC loses the job its aloha.

[twoseven]

MM recently made comments how much he respects DC especially since DC has lost starting status a few times and responded positively.in other words, he tries harder after he gets benched? trying harder before he is benched and while he's still out there blocking seems a better strategy to me.

[Tarlam!]

The next time DC loses the job its aloha.

Mayybe what I read about the guy is incorrect. What I read about his attitude isn't what i want to be reading.

I admire the way Nick Collins did it.

[3irty1]

I think Colledge will bounce back. It seemed like he gained a little weight last year that ruined some of this game a la AJ Hawk. He's prone to some antics at the line but he's a great 2nd level blocker.

[RashanGary]

The next time DC loses the job its aloha.

Mayybe what I read about the guy is incorrect. What I read about his attitude isn't what i want to be reading.

I admire the way Nick Collins did it.


Collins was also an RFA. He did not sign the tender until just before he signed his contract. The reason? So his agent could call it an extension rather than averaging in that low 4th year. Because they signed the tender before they signed the contract, it read like a 3 year, 8 mil per year extension. If he would not have signed the tender, it would have read a 4 year, 6 mil per year deal. One makes the agent look great, the other makes him look bad.

And many of the Packs RFA's waited until a couple weeks ago to sign the tender. They were all together in the holdout but for whatever reason Colledge was singled out from the start as the bad guy. I didn't get it then, don't get it now.

DC thinks he's a solid player, thinks a team might be willing to trade for him and pay him. He was an older rookie. This is his only chance to really get paid. He owes it to himself to do his best to get a contract now.

He'll come in. The situation those RFA's got stuck with just stinks, but he'll come around, realize there's nothing he can do and if the Packers don't want to keep him around, he'll be rightfully waiting and hoping to get with the team taht does as soon as possible. That's the reality of the situation. DC is not a bad guy. It's not in the rules that he has to sign this tender at a certain time. Everything he's doing is well within the rules and well within good common sense judgment.

[mission]

If Spitz can't beat-out a very average starter, it is not so hard to keep him off the field.

Reminds me of what I read about Ryan Grant - they have to play him 'cause he leaves them no choice.

PB, I aint joining your fanclub. Colledge aint no Packer People.

He seems like the Andy Bernard of the O-Line.

LOL I'm watching office reruns right now... exactly right.

[Joemailman]

Colledge's inconsistency drives me nuts. However, he does know the position and is able to avoid injuries and stay in the lineup. I like the idea of going into next season with a veteran offense line. If they're going to have Lang concentrate on RT, then I'm okay with Colledge. He's a better Guard than Spitz.

[rbaloha1]

Lets see if DC shows up to mini camps. Hopefully he holds out forcing a trade.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Does Colledge still do those player interview-things on Packer TV? Or did he get cancelled?

They weren't all that bad, but I kept thinking as I watched them: Shouldn't this guy be studying the playbook, or practicing or something?

[Brohm]

I'd like to see him get back to the success he had in 2008. Would make for a strong left side down the road with Bulaga.

[rbaloha1]

I'd like to see him get back to the success he had in 2008. Would make for a strong left side down the road with Bulaga.

What was the Packers record in 2008. Expecting Newhouse to be another Sitton.

[Gunakor]

The next time DC loses the job its aloha.

Mayybe what I read about the guy is incorrect. What I read about his attitude isn't what i want to be reading.

I admire the way Nick Collins did it.

Contract squabbles happen all the time. I like the way Collins did it better too, but that has little to do with their abilities on a football field.

Packer People is a tad overrated. I don't want a guy who's running into trouble with the law or causing problems in the locker room. But I'm not going to cut a serviceable starting lineman simply because he doesn't agree with his contract. He may be full of himself but as long as he gets it done on the field and doesn't cause any problems in the locker room I could care less how full of himself he is. Winning football games takes priority over winning popularity contests.

As I've stated earlier in the thread, I think it's imperative that he win the starting LG job. Because if he doesn't, that means our backup center is the starting left guard. That's not what I want to see. I want to see our starters start and our backups back up. Not musical chairs every time someone gets injured. We finally have the players on our roster now that we can actually enjoy that kind of stability, but Colledge starting at LG is the key to that.

[packrulz]

Good post pb, I agree the Pack has too much invested in Colledge to just let him go, contract squabbles happen every year. I am trying to figure out the depth chart though, and I'm thinking the starters might be Clifton/Colledge/Spitz/Sitton/Taucher and the backups might be Bulaga/Lang/Wells/Barbre/Newhouse, makes sense to me. I'm thinking if the players could just practice at one position they might have a better chance to excel than if they're having to switch positions all the time. Giacomini, Daniels, & EDS will probably be cut.

[Fritz]

The center position is crowded. The team seems to really like Erectile Dysfunction-Smith, and Spitz's best spot is supposed to be center as well. Last year the talk was of trading Wells, but good thing they didn't. But what about this year?

[Gunakor]

The center position is crowded. The team seems to really like Erectile Dysfunction-Smith, and Spitz's best spot is supposed to be center as well. Last year the talk was of trading Wells, but good thing they didn't. But what about this year?

You have to go through camp and preseason first. If Wells doesn't win the starting job you trade him or cut him. No sense holding onto a roster spot for a guy that can only play that one position and couldn't win the starting job at that position.

If Wells does win that starting job, you need to have someone who can back him up. And you don't want his backup to be starting at another OL position, because you don't want one injury to affect multiple positions like we've been seeing for a couple years now. Which is why I'm hoping that not only Wells win the starting job at center, but that Colledge win the starting job at guard. I want Spitz to be my backup interior lineman, not a starter.

[retailguy]

Lets see if DC shows up to mini camps. Hopefully he holds out forcing a trade.

Can we trade with the CFL? :shock: :twisted:

[retailguy]

I agree the Pack has too much invested in Colledge to just let him go,

Colledge is what is commonly known as a "sunk cost".

[vince]

If Wells doesn't win the starting job you trade him or cut him. No sense holding onto a roster spot for a guy that can only play that one position and couldn't win the starting job at that position.
This was the stance that was assumed by many last offseason to occur. It didn't. If Spitz beats out Wells, and Wells still looks like a good option, there is a good chance they would continue to keep him as a primary backup center, as they did last year. Granted EDS has another year and probably more flexibility, so that's certainly not a slam dunk, but neither is Wells getting cut if he's not the starter going into the season.

[vince]

Like Bigby, I'd love to have Colledge on the team as a serviceable back-up, assuming he could accept that. He may be the best LG we have still, as it looks like Bulaga will (and should IMO) stay at Tackle. But I remain hopeful that someone will beat him out in camp. If not, so be it, but I don't think he is deserving of any kind of long-term deal that would tie up significant dollars at that spot for a long time.

[ThunderDan]

I agree the Pack has too much invested in Colledge to just let him go,

Colledge is what is commonly known as a "sunk cost".

No Colledge is not a "sunk cost." At this point in time he is costing the Packers exactly nothing. Colledge is not under contract with the Packers. When he finally signs his RFA tender he will be under contract. His salary will be set by the CBA at a relatively low level. Much lower than he would have of gotten as a UFA per the old rules.

As much as I don't think Colledge is a "great" starter as a backup DC has plenty of value and would have gotten multiple offers as an UFA. Teams like Washington, Buffalo, KC, Pittsburgh would have been kicking the tires.

[Tarlam!]

He may be the best LG we have still. But I remain hopeful that someone will beat him out in camp. If not, so be it, but I don't think he is deserving of any kind of long-term deal that would tie up significant dollars at that spot for a long time.

Totally agree, and it's appalling that he is the best LG and plays so inconsistantly.

TT has shown that he rewards his own when it's earned by the player rather than go via FA to fill needs. Clearly, Colledge hasn't played consistantly enough to get top Guard money - at least not from TT.

He graded out distrously with McGinn


Daryn Colledge: Didn't play with strength, athleticism or savvy. Allowed an astronomical 40½ pressures, 10 more than the previous leader (RG Will Whitticker, 2005) in the last 10 seasons. Not only that, but he was the runaway leader in bad runs with 18½. Four of his 7½ sacks allowed came at LT, where he was like a fish out of water. Falls off too many blocks at LB level. Just not a tough guy. His awful overtime holding penalty in the playoffs might have cost him a contract offer. Grade: D-minus


With two rookie guards coming in and what promises to be a heated battle with the veterans on the roster I really wonder why he hasn't signed his tender.

[retailguy]

I agree the Pack has too much invested in Colledge to just let him go,

Colledge is what is commonly known as a "sunk cost".

No Colledge is not a "sunk cost." At this point in time he is costing the Packers exactly nothing. Colledge is not under contract with the Packers. When he finally signs his RFA tender he will be under contract. His salary will be set by the CBA at a relatively low level. Much lower than he would have of gotten as a UFA per the old rules.

As much as I don't think Colledge is a "great" starter as a backup DC has plenty of value and would have gotten multiple offers as an UFA. Teams like Washington, Buffalo, KC, Pittsburgh would have been kicking the tires.

Yes, it's a sunk cost. We've dumped a ton of money into the guy and gotten very mixed results. Dumping further money, even the veteran miniumum because he "might" be able to play is asinine.

Let him go, and get the diet pepsi machine.


Dan, my good friend, we do not have to make everyone in the room an accountant. The point I was responding to talked about "investment" in Colledge, more commonly known as a time investment. You'll argue since his contract has "expired" he earned his money. I disagree, and would call Colledge a thief, giving low return for high dollars.

In any event, the investment of time in Dayrn Colledge has been wasted and that investment is indeed a sunk cost.

[Patler]

With a young player a coach is willing to accept some inconsistencies in performance as the player learns and matures. But at some point you expect to be able to rely on a certain level of performance, whatever that is. Colledge has reached the point where coaches will expect consistency.

Spitz may not have the same capability as Colledge, but has always been a consistent performer at a decent level. Assuming his back is OK (and we don't know if it is or isn't) if the two battle for a position, I expect the consistency of Spitz to win out over the unpredictability of Colledge.

Colledge is 28 years old. I don't expect much to change in his performance.

[ThunderDan]

I agree the Pack has too much invested in Colledge to just let him go,

Colledge is what is commonly known as a "sunk cost".

No Colledge is not a "sunk cost." At this point in time he is costing the Packers exactly nothing. Colledge is not under contract with the Packers. When he finally signs his RFA tender he will be under contract. His salary will be set by the CBA at a relatively low level. Much lower than he would have of gotten as a UFA per the old rules.

As much as I don't think Colledge is a "great" starter as a backup DC has plenty of value and would have gotten multiple offers as an UFA. Teams like Washington, Buffalo, KC, Pittsburgh would have been kicking the tires.

Yes, it's a sunk cost. We've dumped a ton of money into the guy and gotten very mixed results. Dumping further money, even the veteran miniumum because he "might" be able to play is asinine.

Let him go, and get the diet pepsi machine.


Dan, my good friend, we do not have to make everyone in the room an accountant. The point I was responding to talked about "investment" in Colledge, more commonly known as a time investment. You'll argue since his contract has "expired" he earned his money. I disagree, and would call Colledge a thief, giving low return for high dollars.

In any event, the investment of time in Dayrn Colledge has been wasted and that investment is indeed a sunk cost.

So you think a reasonable NFL starter that gave us 60 starts in 64 regular season games for $2.4 million over those four years is a sunk cost? GB paid Colledge $40,000 a start over his contract.

Sure it's money that was spent and will never get back but Colledge isn't the million dollar piece of equipment you put in the backroom because it doesn't meet your needs. He isn't J Russell in Oakland.

[Tarlam!]

Sure it's money that was spent and will never get back but Colledge isn't the million dollar piece of equipment you put in the backroom because it doesn't meet your needs. He isn't J Russell in Oakland.

Yes he is like equipment, but no, he didn't flop on as grand a scale as Ryan Leaf or as Russell appears he will.

The Packers invested a 2nd round pick on the guy. As a rookie LG, he was "playing out of position", because he played LT in school. Most fans demonstrated patience with the guy his first couple of years and he rewarded us with a pretty decent 2008 only to dash our hopes last season.

If we only have a "decent" back-up after 4 years and a 2nd round investment, I call that a bust. Maybe I expect too much from 2nd rounders....

[ThunderDan]

Dan, my good friend, we do not have to make everyone in the room an accountant.

Let's not kid ourselves here RG. You aren't my friend.

This is how you responded to one of my posts, after I had just joined the forum and you were still a Moderator, not having any idea of who I was.

"Dan, you really need an economics class at your local community college. If you tell me where you live, I will find a class for you to enroll in. Macro Economics 101 or Micro Economics 101 would be a great place to start."

What a friendly thing to do.

[Tarlam!]

What a friendly thing to do.

Well, that was a tough time to be a mod around here oftentimes, the tone and content was rather personal. RG was the most heavily critized of all the Mods, despite his good intentions to keep things running smoothly. I can understand why you'd be offended.

I can tell you that RG was/is very supportive; he's sent me a number of PMs over the years offering encouragement as I face(d) some pretty serious issues in my life. He's a very genuine man.

So, enough of my love fest for RG! :oops:

[MichiganPackerFan]

I won't steal the Thunder or drink the Kool-Aid - dig both you guys!

[ThunderDan]

Sure it's money that was spent and will never get back but Colledge isn't the million dollar piece of equipment you put in the backroom because it doesn't meet your needs. He isn't J Russell in Oakland.

Yes he is like equipment, but no, he didn't flop on as grand a scale as Ryan Leaf or as Russell appears he will.

The Packers invested a 2nd round pick on the guy. As a rookie LG, he was "playing out of position", because he played LT in school. Most fans demonstrated patience with the guy his first couple of years and he rewarded us with a pretty decent 2008 only to dash our hopes last season.

If we only have a "decent" back-up after 4 years and a 2nd round investment, I call that a bust. Maybe I expect too much from 2nd rounders....

Tarlam, I don't know this off of the top of my head but how many 2nd round picks started 94% of the games played in their first 4 years in the league? I don't think it is that many. The average NFL career is a little over 3 years.

Like I said before, I would be happy to replace him at LG but until we have that person on our roster it would be silly not to pay Colledge and make sure we have a servicable starter.

[sharpe1027]

Hardly anyone feels that Colledge has played consistently enough to warrant an automatic starting job. That being said, teams pay a lot of money for quality backups. He is at least that and if he could play like he did in 2008, he could be better than that.

[retailguy]

Dan, my good friend, we do not have to make everyone in the room an accountant.

Let's not kid ourselves here RG. You aren't my friend.

This is how you responded to one of my posts, after I had just joined the forum and you were still a Moderator, not having any idea of who I was.

"Dan, you really need an economics class at your local community college. If you tell me where you live, I will find a class for you to enroll in. Macro Economics 101 or Micro Economics 101 would be a great place to start."

What a friendly thing to do.

Dan, I'm very happy to hear you don't hold a grudge.

You certainly don't have to like me. Since that day, you've continously tried to "correct me". I hope you have reached a point where you have corrected me enough that you have gotten even, so you can let that go.

I do remember that thread. I do remember differing with you on many things, and probably will always disagree with you regarding those things. Since I offended you, and didn't focus very well on the point at hand, I apologize for treating you unfairly.

[retailguy]

What a friendly thing to do.

Well, that was a tough time to be a mod around here oftentimes, the tone and content was rather personal. RG was the most heavily critized of all the Mods, despite his good intentions to keep things running smoothly. I can understand why you'd be offended.

I can tell you that RG was/is very supportive; he's sent me a number of PMs over the years offering encouragement as I face(d) some pretty serious issues in my life. He's a very genuine man.

So, enough of my love fest for RG! :oops:

Aw shucks. Now I'm embarassed and Tar, you're ruining my asshole image. :wink:

Truth be told, I do have good intentions and sometimes shitty execution. I just like this place, and the vast majority of the folks I've been privileged to meet.

It's really good to see you back Tarlam!. I've missed you and your contributions.

Now, help me get rid of Colledge! We've got limited resources on the coaching staff, and we need to find someone with more upside than our good buddy Daryn Colledge! :twisted:

[Tarlam!]

Tarlam, I don't know this off of the top of my head but how many 2nd round picks started 94% of the games played in their first 4 years in the league? I don't think it is that many. The average NFL career is a little over 3 years.

Like I said before, I would be happy to replace him at LG but until we have that person on our roster it would be silly not to pay Colledge and make sure we have a servicable starter.

Maybe the appropriate question would be how many players that were drafted to fill an immediate need played 94%. By asking it collectively, it's not really a legitimate comparison, IMHO. But I don't know the answer to that either! :lol:

Colledge was reported to have been "furious" that the Packers didn't tender him with a first round pick.His own opinion of himself doesn't add up to his 2009 Grade. IIRC, he reportedly wanted out of Green Bay.

If no team thinks he's worth a 2nd and no offer was made that TT needed to match, it can't be just RG and I that think he's expendable.

He may be interesting to teams as a back up, but he wants top dollars.An unhappy and demotivated Colledge after he accepts backup money from TT isn't what we fans would like to see.

I don't see this being reconciled very easily.

[ThunderDan]

Tarlam, I don't know this off of the top of my head but how many 2nd round picks started 94% of the games played in their first 4 years in the league? I don't think it is that many. The average NFL career is a little over 3 years.

Like I said before, I would be happy to replace him at LG but until we have that person on our roster it would be silly not to pay Colledge and make sure we have a servicable starter.

Maybe the appropriate question would be how many players that were drafted to fill an immediate need played 94%. By asking it collectively, it's not really a legitimate comparison, IMHO. But I don't know the answer to that either! :lol:

Colledge was reported to have been "furious" that the Packers didn't tender him with a first round pick.His own opinion of himself doesn't add up to his 2009 Grade. IIRC, he reportedly wanted out of Green Bay.

If no team thinks he's worth a 2nd and no offer was made that TT needed to match, it can't be just RG and I that think he's expendable.

He may be interesting to teams as a back up, but he wants top dollars.An unhappy and demotivated Colledge after he accepts backup money from TT isn't what we fans would like to see.

I don't see this being reconciled very easily.

With such a horrible LG it is amazing that we have been a top 10 offense for the last 4 years. And that ARod is the first quarter back in NFL history to throw for over 4,000 yards his first 2 years starting in the league.

I understand that DC is not a Pro Bowl Player but is a servicable lineman. Getting rid of DC when we don't have anyone yet who has proven that they can fill his shoes is silly. If we see that we have someone in place during training camp and the pre-season (I am not too sure of this statement after how last years pre-season went) I have no prbolem cutting DC at the end.

With no cap this year, I think a lot of vets will get cut on the last cut down because it won't screw up cap space going forward.

[Tarlam!]

With such a horrible LG it is amazing that we have been a top 10 offense for the last 4 years. And that ARod is the first quarter back in NFL history to throw for over 4,000 yards his first 2 years starting in the league.

I understand that DC is not a Pro Bowl Player but is a servicable lineman. Getting rid of DC when we don't have anyone yet who has proven that they can fill his shoes is silly. If we see that we have someone in place during training camp and the pre-season (I am not too sure of this statement after how last years pre-season went) I have no prbolem cutting DC at the end.


C'mon, Dan. McGinn has better access to tape than we do and I think he's a pretty unbiased and well informed journo. He graded last season a D-Minus for DC. That's pretty darn close to an F. Doesn't equate to a servicable lineman, it equates to he was a turnstile, at least to me. Let's not forget how critical M3 was of DC in his post season presser.

There's a reason they are only the 10th best offense. With the weapons they have and A-Rod at the helm, they should be top 3. I'll give you the line really sucked until Cliffy and Tausch got back. BTW, Colldge had a strong season 2008. It's no secret that he was ticked last year when TT didn't extend his contract. Is that distraction why he nos dived last season? Was it the mental stress after he got 4 butt kicking playing LT early in the season?

I think you're missing my point, though; DC started and he feels like the legitimate starter, even though he played atrociously at times. I am saying TT will not pay DC the premium that DC clearly believes he deserves. This will cause bad blood and, as a result, weaken the line.

The different camps are in their respective trenches and I don't think it will be pretty. TT can legitimately wait and see if any teams come-a-knocking. I bet he'd let him go for a 4th or a player, say a decent backup CB.

The possible solution is an incentive laden contract, but I don't have any idea how that would look for a left guard.

I think TT is hoping that OT he picked late can move into the spot and show more upside.

[retailguy]

I would add Tarlam!, that the dropoff between Spitz and Colledge isn't that dramatic (for those who claim that Colledge is better).

I'd rather have Spitz hold down the line for a year or so, or get a free agent.

Colledge has shown us his ceiling and his attitude. The coaches time is better spent elsewhere with someone who has potential than wasted on the current incumbent. We got what we're getting out of Colledge and it's pretty pathetic.

This offense was "top 10" IN SPITE of colledge, not because of him.

[Tarlam!]

This offense was "top 10" IN SPITE of colledge, not because of him.

Too funny, RG. I was going to write that exact same thought. Hahah.

[ThunderDan]

Here are the GB Offensive stats for 2009:

379.1 ypg 6th in the NFL 24.7 ypg less than NO at #1
28.8 ppg 3rd 3.1 ppg less than NO at #1
33:03 time of possession 2nd :02 less than NE at #1

With a D- blocker it doesn't seem like any of those should be possible.

[Patler]

Here are the GB Offensive stats for 2009:

379.1 ypg 6th in the NFL 24.7 ypg less than NO at #1
28.8 ppg 3rd 3.1 ppg less than NO at #1
33:03 time of possession 2nd :02 less than NE at #1

With a D- blocker it doesn't seem like any of those should be possible.

Goes to show how valuable Rodgers ability to run away from trouble really was.

[sharpe1027]

Here are the GB Offensive stats for 2009:

379.1 ypg 6th in the NFL 24.7 ypg less than NO at #1
28.8 ppg 3rd 3.1 ppg less than NO at #1
33:03 time of possession 2nd :02 less than NE at #1

With a D- blocker it doesn't seem like any of those should be possible.

Goes to show how valuable Rodgers ability to run away from trouble really was.

I thought most of the sacks were because he held the ball too long?

[Tarlam!]

Dan, I don't remember how often I heard last year that DC missed his assignment. His guy got a pressure or sack or whatever.

And I listen to the Packers Network on NFL.com. Those guys are pure homers.

If you dismiss McGinn (brave of you) you cannot dismiss M3 - he's the head coach. He all but crucified DC of last season.

But, I can see you can't be convinced, so, I'll leave it at that. You ignore my main point, which is TT will not pay the guy a premium in my opinion and try and convince me instead that he should. Of that, you won't convince me.

Let's just agree to disagree.

[hoosier]

McGinn also acknowledges that Colledge's brutal experience filling in for Clifton at LT played a large part in his overall poor season. If you leave him at LG for the entire season I wouldn't be surprised to see the 2009 Colledge looking a lot like the 2008 version. It is true that he has sometimes shown inconsistency from one game to the next, but overall his performance at LG has been adequate and at times more than adequate. Given Spitz's recent history with back problems and the questions that raises about his future health, I would much prefer to see Colledge have the chance to compete at LG and keep him as a viable second option if Spitz beats him out.

[Tarlam!]

I thought most of the sacks were because he held the ball too long?

About 16.5 out of 51 were attributed to that, IIRC.

[Tarlam!]

I would much prefer to see Colledge have the chance to compete at LG and keep him as a viable second option if Spitz beats him out.

Yes, but at what cost? He want a big payday. Do you think he's worth it?

[ThunderDan]

Dan, I don't remember how often I heard last year that DC missed his assignment. His guy got a pressure or sack or whatever.

And I listen to the Packers Network on NFL.com. Those guys are pure homers.

If you dismiss McGinn (brave of you) you cannot dismiss M3 - he's the head coach. He all but crucified DC of last season.

But, I can see you can't be convinced, so, I'll leave it at that. You ignore my main point, which is TT will not pay the guy a premium in my opinion and try and convince me instead that he should. Of that, you won't convince me.

Let's just agree to disagree.

I don't think offering DC a RFA tender at his level is paying him a premium. Where have I once said that DC should be signed long-term with a big contract?

Right now DC is our only "known" quantity at LG that hasn't gone down for major portions of the season with an injury. I read all of the post-game transcripts and heard what MM said. I don't think Colledge is a good player. I said he is servicable.

I have been posting for the last 4 months that if we solidify our O-line for 2010 we could break some of the all time NFL offensive records.

[Tarlam!]

Dan, you said you think TT should "pay DC". TT has already tendered DC, but he hasn't signed his tender. So, I really must conclude that you feel TT should "pay DC" more than the tender. Otherwise, I would expect you to say "DC should sign his tender". That would be consistant with what you posted just now.

DC was clearly the weak link in the OL last year after Tausch came back. If you call that servicable, well, that's your perogative.

I would rather insert a rookie that might play just as inconsistantly as DC his rookie year (as you point out, they were top 10), but also might become a pro bowler in 4 years.

I also expect far less sacks, simply cause A-Rod adjusted to getting rid of the ball faster.

[ThunderDan]

Dan, you said you think TT should "pay DC". TT has already tendered DC, but he hasn't signed his tender. So, I really must conclude that you feel TT should "pay DC" more than the tender. Otherwise, I would expect you to say "DC should sign his tender". That would be consistant with what you posted just now.



TT should pay DC. He should pay him the tender amount. With the way the league is structured this year GB holds all the power over guys who initally signed 3-5 year contracts that were hoping to get to UFA early in their careers but no longer can. As much as DC is bitching and he will skip OTAs he will be back in time for training camp. He knows as well as any fan that he didn't play well and so cannot try to hold out like JWalk tried to do to TT which doesn't work either.

I'm pretty sure that DC didn't put enough of his original 2+ million dollar cotract away to not have to worry about working in his prime earning years. DC, if he is smart, signs the tender plays well in 2010 and hits the UFA market in 2011 if a season does happen.

[hoosier]

I would much prefer to see Colledge have the chance to compete at LG and keep him as a viable second option if Spitz beats him out.

Yes, but at what cost? He want a big payday. Do you think he's worth it?

Where did the Packers finally slot him as an RFA? $1.4M for next year? That is hardly a big payday.

[Tarlam!]

I would much prefer to see Colledge have the chance to compete at LG and keep him as a viable second option if Spitz beats him out.

Yes, but at what cost? He want a big payday. Do you think he's worth it?

Where did the Packers finally slot him as an RFA? $1.4M for next year? That is hardly a big payday.

He hasn't signed his tender, though and I guarantee you, if the reports are accurate, he will be one disgruntled player if he doesn't get his payday.

[hoosier]

I would much prefer to see Colledge have the chance to compete at LG and keep him as a viable second option if Spitz beats him out.

Yes, but at what cost? He want a big payday. Do you think he's worth it?

Where did the Packers finally slot him as an RFA? $1.4M for next year? That is hardly a big payday.

He hasn't signed his tender, though and I guarantee you, if the reports are accurate, he will be one disgruntled player if he doesn't get his payday.

What payday?? I have read reports (or speculations) about Colledge being upset because (a) he didn't get slotted higher or (b) he doesn't like the way the Packers have been using him, but I have never read anything that would suggest that he is delusional enough to think that he might be getting paid anything more than his slotted amount for next year. Have you read something that suggests otherwise? Or are you confusing him with Nick Collins?

[Tarlam!]

What payday?? I have read reports (or speculations) about Colledge being upset because (a) he didn't get slotted higher or (b) he doesn't like the way the Packers have been using him, but I have never read anything that would suggest that he is delusional enough to think that he might be getting paid anything more than his slotted amount for next year. Have you read something that suggests otherwise? Or are you confusing him with Nick Collins?

Not being slotted higher means he get way less money, but I vaguely remember being ticked last season 'cause TT didn't extend back then.

By not signing his tender, it's pretty clear he wants more than a 1 year 1.4 mio deal, wouldn't you say?

[pbmax]

Here are the GB Offensive stats for 2009:

379.1 ypg 6th in the NFL 24.7 ypg less than NO at #1
28.8 ppg 3rd 3.1 ppg less than NO at #1
33:03 time of possession 2nd :02 less than NE at #1

With a D- blocker it doesn't seem like any of those should be possible.

Goes to show how valuable Rodgers ability to run away from trouble really was.
True. But running from trouble like Rodgers did (esp. first half) causes almost as much trouble as it escapes. He quite literally ran into several sacks and in several other instances increased the number of defenders who had a shot at him. However, without that skill, he probably doesn't survive. I would prefer a return to the calm feet and purposeful sliding in the pocket he demonstrated in preseason and through the first half of the Bears game.

Favre, after initially running around like neo-Tarkenton while young, developed tremendous pocket awareness as a vet. I think part of the learning curve for both Colledge and Spitz in their rookie season was masked (or rendered immaterial) by Favre's lightning fast decision-making in the pocket. But as with all things, there are unintended consequences. For instance, thinking Driver would be open on his last pass that year.

[swede]

About 16.5 out of 51 were attributed to that, IIRC.

51 sacks! Wow.

I thought I'd heard that in the '09 regular season the Packers never scored at all on a series that included a sack of Rodgers.

They must have scored on a high percentage of the remaining series.

[pbmax]

As for his signing and reporting, I think he will come to camp and the mandatory sessions, but not the voluntary ones.

The Packers hold all the leverage. Unlike the last time this happened to a player who ostensibly no leverage (Grant), Colledge knows his eventual replacement is on the roster. He also knows the Packers can afford to carry the tender and will not be moved to withdraw it at a time convenient for him. And, unlike Grant, he is not exactly coming off a breakthrough year.

He needs to get his head right (it may already be there) and solve what problems he can this year so that he can qualify for a multi-year contract in one or two years. It makes no sense to sit out this season; he is bright and I don't see him doing that. The risk is even bigger than usual this year, since if he incurs fines or doesn't play part of the season, he may not have a payday next year should there be a work stoppage.

[pbmax]

About 16.5 out of 51 were attributed to that, IIRC.

51 sacks! Wow.

I thought I'd heard that in the '09 regular season the Packers never scored at all on a series that included a sack of Rodgers.

They must have scored on a high percentage of the remaining series.
At one point, the JSO had him responsible for close to 33% of the sacks, but that percentage went down as the year went on.

[hoosier]

What payday?? I have read reports (or speculations) about Colledge being upset because (a) he didn't get slotted higher or (b) he doesn't like the way the Packers have been using him, but I have never read anything that would suggest that he is delusional enough to think that he might be getting paid anything more than his slotted amount for next year. Have you read something that suggests otherwise? Or are you confusing him with Nick Collins?

Not being slotted higher means he get way less money, but I vaguely remember being ticked last season 'cause TT didn't extend back then.

By not signing his tender, it's pretty clear he wants more than a 1 year 1.4 mio deal, wouldn't you say?

I think it's probably more of a case of Colledge being frustrated and wanting the Packers to know it. No reasonable person would think that someone who has played at his level is about to get a big pay day if they can be had for less. Problem is, the party that is most likely to be hurt in the long run by his delay in signing is him. I agree with Max that the writing is on the wall and that Colledge knows how to read it. Maybe that is what has him pissed: he suspects that someone (Spitz or Lang) will be starting at LG next year anyway, so why bother being a good citizen?

[pbmax]

I would much prefer to see Colledge have the chance to compete at LG and keep him as a viable second option if Spitz beats him out.

Yes, but at what cost? He want a big payday. Do you think he's worth it?

Where did the Packers finally slot him as an RFA? $1.4M for next year? That is hardly a big payday.

He hasn't signed his tender, though and I guarantee you, if the reports are accurate, he will be one disgruntled player if he doesn't get his payday.

What payday?? I have read reports (or speculations) about Colledge being upset because (a) he didn't get slotted higher or (b) he doesn't like the way the Packers have been using him, but I have never read anything that would suggest that he is delusional enough to think that he might be getting paid anything more than his slotted amount for next year. Have you read something that suggests otherwise? Or are you confusing him with Nick Collins?
If Colledge had not been hit with a double whammy (one mostly under his control and another not) he likely would have attracted a multi-year deal somewhere with a signing bonus. Not for Hutchinson money certainly, but that bonus and first year salary would have essentially been guaranteed, which his current offer is not.

But fate intervened. His play was spotty at Guard and horrible at Tackle, so his year looks lost. I am sure he blames most of it on moving to Tackle; whether another team (or the Packers) would agree with this is an open question. But he never got to find out as the CBA cancellation and the failed NFL/NFLPA negotiations left him an RFA. So he is left to ponder what might have been.

So Tar is right that he thinks he has missed out on a better deal. But my point is that the door is shut so tight against him, he has no other option. Unlike Grant, a holdout is not going to gain him anything. And my judgment of him (just an opinion) is that he knows this. And I expect him back for the mandatory stuff.

[Gunakor]

C'mon, Dan. McGinn has better access to tape than we do and I think he's a pretty unbiased and well informed journo. He graded last season a D-Minus for DC. That's pretty darn close to an F. Doesn't equate to a servicable lineman, it equates to he was a turnstile, at least to me...

BTW, Colldge had a strong season 2008.

You are assuming 2008 was the fluke and last year was the norm. What if last year was the fluke? If he returns to his 2008 form, are you okay with him starting at LG?

[Gunakor]

I would much prefer to see Colledge have the chance to compete at LG and keep him as a viable second option if Spitz beats him out.

Yes, but at what cost? He want a big payday. Do you think he's worth it?

TT doesn't owe it to him. If no other team is willing to give it to him he has no choice but to sign his tender if he wants to continue playing football in the NFL. So we don't have to worry about what he wants. What he wants is completely irrelevant. Nobody else is going to give it to him, so we don't have to either.

If he wants any chance at a big payday down the road, he'll sign his tender and play his ass off this year in hopes of getting one. If he doesn't sign his tender, he must have an idea of somewhere else to get his big payday because it won't be from the NFL.

We really shouldn't be concerned with his contract squabbles at all. Colledge holds no leverage whatsoever. He's full of himself, but he's a serviceable lineman. He's a bust for where he was drafted, perhaps. But, as with AJ Hawk, we shouldn't be concerning ourselves with where he was drafted anymore. That's also irrelevant. True, you'd expect more than a serviceable backup from a 2nd round pick, but if he's the best backup you have you don't get rid of him simply because he was drafted in the second round. Not if you're interest is in winning football games.

[Tarlam!]

My concern with DC signing his tender is the locker room. He seems pretty chummy due in part to his interview series.

Is it common for champioship teams to have disgruntled players on their roster? I don't know, of course.

[Gunakor]

Again, I'm not concerned. If he's after a big payday, he won't become a locker room cancer and he'll be giving full effort on the field. The whole reason I'm not concerned with any of that is because he's not getting his payday this season, which means he has to play it cool if he wants one in the future.

[pbmax]

My concern with DC signing his tender is the locker room. He seems pretty chummy due in part to his interview series.

Is it common for champioship teams to have disgruntled players on their roster? I don't know, of course.
It depends on the level of disgruntlement. :lol:

On the one hand, a bunch of guys in contract drives might provide production from some unexpected quarters. But even there, if its a chase for stats (catches, rushes, INTs, etc.) that can have an impact on team cohesiveness on the field. Guys not sticking to their roles, etc.

Andre Rison was as disgruntled as they come when he arrived in GB, but he was just happy to have a chance. Walker was a distraction looking to leave. Wayne Simmons worried Holmgren but played some great football and his coaches and fellow D guys liked him.

Colledge plays a position where he would be hard pressed to perform well and simply be on the lookout for himself. He is not like a CB or safety who could abandon an assignment to try to make a big play. Or a WR who could loaf when he is not the primary target or just run blocking. He also does not seem poised to make a public spectacle. The Packers are in week 2 or 3 of the offseason program and we haven't heard boo from him since the tenders were made public at the end of Feb.

So I think Colledge would fall into the category of non-problematic disgruntled and the team could function fine with him.

[pbmax]

According to Pro Football Focus, Daryn Colledge was tied for 19th among Guards in the NFL. Ignoring injury, there are 64 starting guards in the NFL. That makes Colledge top 1/3. You also might notice Josh Sitton is 10th.

http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k75/paisans_2006/GuardGrades.png

[rbaloha1]

According to Pro Football Focus, Daryn Colledge was tied for 19th among Guards in the NFL. Ignoring injury, there are 64 starting guards in the NFL. That makes Colledge top 1/3. You also might notice Josh Sitton is 10th.

http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k75/paisans_2006/GuardGrades.png

Okay. Does this mean the Packers should sign your homeboy to a long term k?

[pbmax]

I could see it going to either way. If I was the one making the call, I would base my decision on the other choices available to me, but I don't think T2 considers that first in most cases.

Colledge is a reliable run blocker. But he remains inconsistent in pass blocking. If 19th is any kind of accurate assessment, I would seriously consider it. But since he is a guard and Spitz and Newhouse are around, TTs offer could be limited.

If he leaves, I could easily see a drop off in production even as it appears Spitz is fighting hard. While he gets beat spectacularly at times in pass pro, its harder to notice when Colledge is winning in the running game. If Spitz plays there, I would expect less overall success but fewer obvious blown protections.

[Tarlam!]

Well, PB, I am no longer adamantly calling for Colleges head, thanks mostly to your sound argumentation and the ensuing lack of sensationalism out of DC's corner.

TT is in a win/win situation. TT doesn't have to take a risk by investing big bucks and can sit back and see which season was the outlier, '08 or '09. College needs to earn the big bucks this coming season, so he'll need to do well.

All the while TT has given M3 and Campen a few more chess pieces to develop/ integrate.

[ThunderDan]

Well, PB, I am no longer adamantly calling for Colleges head, thanks mostly to your sound argumentation and the ensuing lack of sensationalism out of DC's corner.

TT is in a win/win situation. TT doesn't have to take a risk by investing big bucks and can sit back and see which season was the outlier, '08 or '09. College needs to earn the big bucks this coming season, so he'll need to do well.

All the while TT has given M3 and Campen a few more chess pieces to develop/ integrate.

Thanks to PBs persuasion, are you going to appoligize for the page 3 comments? :lol:

[pbmax]

Well, before we get too carried away, I just noticed that Ryan Lilja's name is a spot of two above Colledge. And Lilja became the fall guy for the Colts line problems this offseason after the Super Bowl loss.

Polian is not perfect and he has had trouble with the O line before, especially left tackle. In fact, I think he is trying to get bigger at it like McCarthy has mentioned as we speak. But that list apparently wasn't convincing to an NFL GM. Although, looking at the individual numbers, it appears Lilja was ahead of Colledge mainly because he was not knocked for penalties. Otherwise, Colledge had some better scores.

[run pMc]

With 60 starts, he should know what's going on by now and show some consistency.
Since he's signed the tender, let him come in and compete for a spot. If he doesn't win it, he's either a decent backup or trade material.

The stats ranking him tied with Gallery at 19 are surprising...although I noticed they only have him responsible for 12 pressures. Not sure how that jives with McGinn's rating. Clearly, he's not a good option at LT.

Not gonna join the fan club (yet). Nor am I going to get worked up over Colledge -- if they have someone better, they will play him. Personally, I wonder about Campen more than Colledge.

[run pMc]

OK found it from a few pages back...


He graded out distrously with McGinn

Quote:
Daryn Colledge: Didn't play with strength, athleticism or savvy. Allowed an astronomical 40½ pressures, 10 more than the previous leader (RG Will Whitticker, 2005) in the last 10 seasons. Not only that, but he was the runaway leader in bad runs with 18½. Four of his 7½ sacks allowed came at LT, where he was like a fish out of water. Falls off too many blocks at LB level. Just not a tough guy. His awful overtime holding penalty in the playoffs might have cost him a contract offer. Grade: D-minus

So he either gave up 28 pressures at LT, or they count pressures very differently. They also counted responsibility for sacks differently. I suppose counting this stuff is subjective. I have the feeling that he'd rank much lower if they went with McGinn's numbers.

I don't get the sense that Colledge is a top 1/3 LG. I'd put him somewhere in the middle 1/3. It's that he has good games and bad games that drives people crazy.

[Joemailman]

I wonder if Pro Football Focus takes into account how long the QB holds the ball in determining whether to charge the OL with a pressure. If they do, that might explain the difference in numbers compared with McGinn.

[pbmax]

They do use a system with a stopwatch, rather than the result, to determine effectiveness in pass blocking for O lineman. They don't mention it, but I would guess that is somewhere between 3 and 5 seconds, 4 seconds being the ideal I believe. The benefit is that this puts some of the blame on the QBs progressions, decision making and internal clock. It would explain the differences between their numbers and McGinn, even after you factor out time at LT.

But even if the system is different, the list is apples to apples. Those aren't McGinn's numbers for everyone else and the better numbers for Colledge.

What I would be curious about is if McGinn gave Rodgers credit for his own pressures. So if it was 80 for the season, was Rodgers credited with 20 or so? Or did
McGinn double count the pressures and assign them to both?

One of McGinn's criticisms of Colledge seems applicable here. I have no idea if it accounts for his atrocious numbers, but more than once, when the pocket breaks down or Rodgers needs to bail, it seems like Colledge's guy makes the hit. He may lack tenacity to finish the block at times. Perhaps part of the inconsistency puzzle.

[Joemailman]

One of McGinn's criticisms of Colledge seems applicable here. I have no idea if it accounts for his atrocious numbers, but more than once, when the pocket breaks down or Rodgers needs to bail, it seems like Colledge's guy makes the hit. He may lack tenacity to finish the block at times. Perhaps part of the inconsistency puzzle.

I'm not absolving Colledge here, but some of that had to do with Allen Barbre last year. I thought there were lots of times last year where Rodgers was getting pressure from his center/left, but couldn't roll right because Barbre had been beat. That's why Tauscher made such a difference.

Colledge does get pushed back too much though. Sometimes with disastrous results.

http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee20/joemailman25/fumble11010.jpg

[Guiness]

That's some kind of a run block number for J. Evans - skews the results.
I had a look at the site, but can't quite figure out how they calculate it.

[Tarlam!]

Personally, I wonder about Campen more than Colledge.

Indeed! +1 :tup:

[run pMc]

What I would be curious about is if McGinn gave Rodgers credit for his own pressures. So if it was 80 for the season, was Rodgers credited with 20 or so? Or did McGinn double count the pressures and assign them to both?

Good question...and I wonder how much of the pressures and sacks were on Rodgers holding the ball too long. I do agree having an apples to apples is helpful, and the fact that Barbre played like he was on skates probably forced Rodgers to the left.

One other thing I noticed -- where's Steve Hutchinson in that list? If he's an Pro-Bowl player, you'd think he'd have graded in the top 1/3...especially since Favre is usually good at quickly getting rid of the ball.

[pbmax]

Hutchinson was 37th. He was good in pass blocking and got horrible grades on run blocking.

37 LG (16), RG (0) Steve Hutchinson MIN 1094.....0.7.....13.3.....1.0.....-11.1.....-2.5.....3-0.....2.....2.....8

[pbmax]

All from ProFootballFocus (http://profootballfocus.com/by_player.php?tab=by_player&season=2009&lastname=Colledge&surn=Colledge&playerid=2992)


http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k75/paisans_2006/ColledgeWeekByWeek.png

http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k75/paisans_2006/ColledgeDetail.png

[pbmax]

All Offensive Lineman. Wells is best behind Sitton. Then Clifton and Colledge. But I think these numbers include Colledge's time as LT. On the Guard page he has 912 snaps and overall is at 4.8, second best behind Sitton. On this chart, he is listed at his full (LT included) 1164 snaps.

http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k75/paisans_2006/OlineRatings.png

[hoosier]

All from ProFootballFocus (http://profootballfocus.com/by_player.php?tab=by_player&season=2009&lastname=Colledge&surn=Colledge&playerid=2992)


http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k75/paisans_2006/ColledgeWeekByWeek.png

http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k75/paisans_2006/ColledgeDetail.png

This would seem to support the conclusion that if you take away his three-week adventure at LT, Colledge had a pretty ordinary, ok season. The only surprise I see are the two putrid ratings in run blocking at home against MN and BAL. I suppose those couple of bad games are no big deal and will come out in the wash as long as Colledge isn't also responsible for getting his QB killed.

[Upnorth]

The data above seems to indicate Barbre was the weakest link overall (IMO). Colledge has shown himself to be a solid contributor week to week, but never a standout. Quite often not standing out on the OL is a good thing!

[mraynrand]

I take it that no one can have a positive penalty rating...

[pbmax]

I take it that no one can have a positive penalty rating...
Yes.

# ZERO (0.0) IS THE AVERAGE GRADE

If a player does something you would normally expect then this scores 0. If a LB makes an unblocked tackle 5 yards down the field or a linemen holds back a rusher for 4+ seconds. This is scored as 0. Grades are given as things which reasonably considered better or worse than average.

But reading this: http://profootballfocus.com/about.php
makes me trust the numbers less. If I read this correctly, their grades change depending on the situation.

How do we Grade?

Each grade given is between +2 and -2 with 0.5 increments and an average of 0. A positive intervention in the game rates a positive grading and vice versa. Very (very) little draws a +/-2 rating. In fact the distribution of non-zero grades is like this:
+2.0 0.01%
+1.5 0.3%
+1.0 16%
+0.5 37% (unbalanced because of the way WRs and HBs are rated)
-0.5 24%
-1.0 22%
-1.5 0.5%
-2.0 0.01%

The grading takes into account many things and effectively brings "intelligence" to raw statistics. For example a raw stat might tell you a Tackle conceded a sack. However, how long did he protect the QB for before he gave it up? Additionally when did he give it up? If it was within the last two minutes on a potentially game tying drive it may be rather more important than when his team is running out the clock in a 30 point blow out.

[hoosier]

I take it that no one can have a positive penalty rating...
Yes.

# ZERO (0.0) IS THE AVERAGE GRADE

If a player does something you would normally expect then this scores 0. If a LB makes an unblocked tackle 5 yards down the field or a linemen holds back a rusher for 4+ seconds. This is scored as 0. Grades are given as things which reasonably considered better or worse than average.

But reading this: http://profootballfocus.com/about.php
makes me trust the numbers less. If I read this correctly, their grades change depending on the situation.

How do we Grade?

Each grade given is between +2 and -2 with 0.5 increments and an average of 0. A positive intervention in the game rates a positive grading and vice versa. Very (very) little draws a +/-2 rating. In fact the distribution of non-zero grades is like this:
+2.0 0.01%
+1.5 0.3%
+1.0 16%
+0.5 37% (unbalanced because of the way WRs and HBs are rated)
-0.5 24%
-1.0 22%
-1.5 0.5%
-2.0 0.01%

The grading takes into account many things and effectively brings "intelligence" to raw statistics. For example a raw stat might tell you a Tackle conceded a sack. However, how long did he protect the QB for before he gave it up? Additionally when did he give it up? If it was within the last two minutes on a potentially game tying drive it may be rather more important than when his team is running out the clock in a 30 point blow out.

It sounds like you're saying that a numerical grading system should not be taking context into consideration, just evaluating end results and not looking at what happened before the end or how much the play really mattered in the context of the entire game. I think those contextual questions SHOULD matter, though it is not easy for me to say how much context should matter (Does a sack allowed at the end of a blowout count only half as much against an OL as a sack given up in a close finish? Does a sack recorded in a blowout count less for a DL than in a close game?)

[mraynrand]

I take it that no one can have a positive penalty rating...
Yes.

# ZERO (0.0) IS THE AVERAGE GRADE

If a player does something you would normally expect then this scores 0. If a LB makes an unblocked tackle 5 yards down the field or a linemen holds back a rusher for 4+ seconds. This is scored as 0. Grades are given as things which reasonably considered better or worse than average.

But reading this: http://profootballfocus.com/about.php
makes me trust the numbers less. If I read this correctly, their grades change depending on the situation.

How do we Grade?

Each grade given is between +2 and -2 with 0.5 increments and an average of 0. A positive intervention in the game rates a positive grading and vice versa. Very (very) little draws a +/-2 rating. In fact the distribution of non-zero grades is like this:
+2.0 0.01%
+1.5 0.3%
+1.0 16%
+0.5 37% (unbalanced because of the way WRs and HBs are rated)
-0.5 24%
-1.0 22%
-1.5 0.5%
-2.0 0.01%

The grading takes into account many things and effectively brings "intelligence" to raw statistics. For example a raw stat might tell you a Tackle conceded a sack. However, how long did he protect the QB for before he gave it up? Additionally when did he give it up? If it was within the last two minutes on a potentially game tying drive it may be rather more important than when his team is running out the clock in a 30 point blow out.

It sounds like you're saying that a numerical grading system should not be taking context into consideration, just evaluating end results and not looking at what happened before the end or how much the play really mattered in the context of the entire game. I think those contextual questions SHOULD matter, though it is not easy for me to say how much context should matter (Does a sack allowed at the end of a blowout count only half as much against an OL as a sack given up in a close finish? Does a sack recorded in a blowout count less for a DL than in a close game?)

We'll get that contextual algorithm to you by, say, middle next week.

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2010-03-24-nerds.jpg

[pbmax]

It sounds like you're saying that a numerical grading system should not be taking context into consideration, just evaluating end results and not looking at what happened before the end or how much the play really mattered in the context of the entire game. I think those contextual questions SHOULD matter, though it is not easy for me to say how much context should matter (Does a sack allowed at the end of a blowout count only half as much against an OL as a sack given up in a close finish? Does a sack recorded in a blowout count less for a DL than in a close game?)
Well, I am not sure a contextual approach works given the limits they have. They cannot review every game, they do not see the whole field and they do not evaluate matchups, playcalling or gameplans. Its just results and a stopwatch. So to add in game situations seems like picking and choosing context.

And I do not think game situations performance influences the pass blocking. Do we really believe there are Left Tackles who choke on Game Winning drives in pass protection? More importantly, do we really think we have enough information to separate that out from the rest of the factors?

But most importantly, if I read this correctly, they are not tracking just context (red zone, game winning/tying drive, 2 minute offense/defense, etc.) They are giving different scores for different situations. Which will alter players scores in non comparable ways depending on the competitiveness of their teams.

[hoosier]

It sounds like you're saying that a numerical grading system should not be taking context into consideration, just evaluating end results and not looking at what happened before the end or how much the play really mattered in the context of the entire game. I think those contextual questions SHOULD matter, though it is not easy for me to say how much context should matter (Does a sack allowed at the end of a blowout count only half as much against an OL as a sack given up in a close finish? Does a sack recorded in a blowout count less for a DL than in a close game?)
Well, I am not sure a contextual approach works given the limits they have. They cannot review every game, they do not see the whole field and they do not evaluate matchups, playcalling or gameplans. Its just results and a stopwatch. So to add in game situations seems like picking and choosing context.

And I do not think game situations performance influences the pass blocking. Do we really believe there are Left Tackles who choke on Game Winning drives in pass protection? More importantly, do we really think we have enough information to separate that out from the rest of the factors?

But most importantly, if I read this correctly, they are not tracking just context (red zone, game winning/tying drive, 2 minute offense/defense, etc.) They are giving different scores for different situations. Which will alter players scores in non comparable ways depending on the competitiveness of their teams.

Ok, so they claim to consider context but the tools they have at their disposal to define "context" are somewhat arbitrary. I understand your scepticism now.

[Guiness]

Hutchinson was 37th. He was good in pass blocking and got horrible grades on run blocking.

37 LG (16), RG (0) Steve Hutchinson MIN 1094.....0.7.....13.3.....1.0.....-11.1.....-2.5.....3-0.....2.....2.....8

Hutchinson rated below Colledge? Unless I missed something last year (and granted, I didn't see a lot of purple games) that makes me pretty skeptical about this system myself!

[Joemailman]

There was a lot of talk last year that Hutch was declining as the season wore on. Could well be a big reason for Peterson's less than dazzling second half of the season. http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/8261/gamelog;_ylt=AqyVJ1aTTn7CW.udRrXyiDz.uLYF

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

I think Colledge rebounds.

I have a good feeling about our line in a year or two.

Bulaga Colledge Splitz Sitton Lang

Young strong starting five.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

And add Rodgers, Jennings, Finley, Jones, and Nelson to that and our offense is looking good for another 5-8 years.

Need to find another back soon and maybe another Wr to replace Driver. But Grant still has another 2-3 good years so we can take our time.

[pbmax]

Hutchinson was 37th. He was good in pass blocking and got horrible grades on run blocking.

37 LG (16), RG (0) Steve Hutchinson MIN 1094.....0.7.....13.3.....1.0.....-11.1.....-2.5.....3-0.....2.....2.....8

Hutchinson rated below Colledge? Unless I missed something last year (and granted, I didn't see a lot of purple games) that makes me pretty skeptical about this system myself!
Its much easier to spot blown pass protection (and it is potentially more costly to the team) than blown run blocking, with the possible exception of short yardage.

I think the typical assessment of the Packers run game is that it is below average. Then when Colledge struggles in pass blocking, people throw their hands up and say enough, he does nothing right.

But the Vikings played to Hutchinson's strength last year. They became a more and more passing dominant team as the year went on. To a degree, it hides his decline from easy detection. Is here still better than Colledge? He is if you are a passing dominant team.

[vince]

Thanks for posting those stats pb. They're far from perfect, but they're as good as anything else I've seen in terms of breaking down performance on a somewhat objective play-by-play basis.

It's a little bit surprising to see Colledge in the top 20 of the guards listed, but when you look at his actual ratings, they tend to support what has been said by many. He had a negative rating in 10 of his 16 games last year, and his pass protection was clearly worse than his run blocking.

Given that the Packers' offense lives or dies on its passing game, he has left himself a lot of room for improvement in important areas.

[falco]

I think the OL is probably one of the most difficult positions for the "casual fan" to monitor and evaluate. Its easier to develop misconceptions.

[Bretsky]

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/94671334.html


SUAP

[Zool]

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/94671334.html


SUAP

As always, the comment section below the article is hilarious.

[pbmax]

Colledge's Quotes:

"Well that's kind of the promise every year, but due to injuries and things like that, I don't try to rely on that," Colledge said during the first session of organized team activities last week.

"I would absolutely love to be the left guard full time and take every rep in every game because I feel like that's my best position. It doesn't always work like that.

"For now, we're going to go in with the same goal we have every year: Bust our (expletive), stay healthy and have a great offensive line."
There is definitely a need for Colledge to play better. But Nickel hasn't figured out yet what he needs to do. She and Bedard are doing a good job of making it appear that Philbin and Colledge are at odds, when what is most clear is that Philbin doesn't agree with the problem as presented by the reporters.

[vince]

That's an interesting article. While Colledge doesn't explicitly use the excuse that the couple times he moved from guard to tackle hindered his performance, he certainly doesn't do anything to squash the notion either. In fact, he cleverly fuels that argument while letting others make it for him.

It seems to me that Philbin too is insinuating one thing while simultaneously explicitly stating something a bit different. Philbin is correct in avoiding criticizing a player through media channels, which is a clearly a basic tenet of this regime's approach from top to bottom. But he's not exactly gushing praise for Colledge or sqaushing the suggestion some excuse-making (in his opinion) may be going on either, so I think it's fair to interpret what he said a bit.

I get the impression that Philbin believes - or perhaps knows through individual discussions with Colledge - that Colledge is using the fact that he's played a bit of tackle in addition to guard as an excuse for any criticism of his play, and to the extent it's happening, it doesn't jive with McCarthy's philosophy of accountability.

[swede]

That's an interesting article. While Colledge doesn't explicitly use the excuse that the couple times he moved from guard to tackle hindered his performance, he certainly doesn't do anything to squash the notion either. In fact, he cleverly fuels that argument while letting others make it for him.

It seems to me that Philbin too is insinuating one thing while simultaneously explicitly stating something a bit different. Philbin is correct in avoiding criticizing a player through media channels, which is a clearly a basic tenet of this regime's approach from top to bottom. But he's not exactly gushing praise for Colledge or sqaushing the suggestion some excuse-making (in his opinion) may be going on either, so I think it's fair to interpret what he said a bit.

I get the impression that Philbin believes - or perhaps knows through individual discussions with Colledge - that Colledge is using the fact that he's played a bit of tackle in addition to guard as an excuse for any criticism of his play, and to the extent it's happening, it doesn't jive with McCarthy's philosophy of accountability.

+1

Credit Philbin for carefully refusing to criticize Colledge's play while at the same time telling him to grow up and accept the fact that his JOB is to do whatever the team needs him to do. It is very, very telling that he had some statistics ready to defend the team's position in regard to Colledge's comments. One can surmise he (Philbin) is sharing information he had already prepared for meetings with McCarthy or Colledge himself.

In one of the last paragraphs Colledge says the right things about wanting to be with his team preparing for a new season. I think he's a good guy and a decent player. He just rubs people the wrong way, and one still wonders if his tendency to be a little lawyerly bothers his coaches.

And look at the comments below the article. Holy cow do people have it in for Colledge. It reminds me of the animosity fans had for the big-talking Darren Sharper. I myself was really hard on Sharper and I wasn't sad to see him go. He was pretty good, he just wasn't as good as he thought himself to be. In the end, like Timmerman and Wahle, moving on will probably be Colledge's fate as well.

[pbmax]

That's an interesting article. While Colledge doesn't explicitly use the excuse that the couple times he moved from guard to tackle hindered his performance, he certainly doesn't do anything to squash the notion either. In fact, he cleverly fuels that argument while letting others make it for him.
He refused to say it has hurt him. They didn't quote that. What they did quote was then presented as if Philbin rebutted it. But he did not. Philbin rebutted a reporter's question that Colledge refused to answer.


If moving around the offensive line has greatly hindered the career of Daryn Colledge, he wouldn't say so last week.

To get a controversy, they used previous statements as a wedge and then presented them to Philbin as if this was a new point of contention. Philbin rejected them out of hand. Philbin even said if this was about a newer player, they might have some validity. Nickel conveniently does not tell us when the previous statements were made.


In the past, he has said that changing positions, mostly to fill in at left tackle when Chad Clifton was injured, might have affected his overall development.

There is no doubt Colledge doesn't want to move. In this, he is typical. What isn't explained is why he played so bad last year. We got heat, but no explanation. It is disappointing Colledge isn't talking solely about how he plans to do better, but this line of questioning isn't about that.

[Bretsky]

I give credit to Nickel for writing this; normally she's the fluffer

I wonder if we'd be more critical of the article if Bedard or McGinn wrote it ?

[pbmax]

It is very, very telling that he had some statistics ready to defend the team's position in regard to Colledge's comments. One can surmise he (Philbin) is sharing information he had already prepared for meetings with McCarthy or Colledge himself....

... In the end, like Timmerman and Wahle, moving on will probably be Colledge's fate as well.
I do find that snap total summary interesting, and it might mean this topic has come up before. But I would also expect an OC to know how many snaps a O lineman gets in a season and know how many years Colledge has been in the league. To guess to within a range of 500 is probably not hard, Philbin may be defending the staff or personnel people.

As for leaving, it will only be like Wahle or Timmerman in that Colledge may leave with some tread on the tires. But unlike the former two, he will leave to a low contract without a ton of suitors at his asking price.

[pbmax]

I give credit to Nickel for writing this; normally she's the fluffer

I wonder if we'd be more critical of the article if Bedard or McGinn wrote it ?
The topic is serious, the evaluation is poor. I would like to know why the staff thinks Colledge struggled. Even if switching to LT is Colledge's excuse, why did the staff believe in him to play guard AND LT? Was that Thompson?

[bobblehead]

There is no doubt Colledge doesn't want to move. In this, he is typical. What isn't explained is why he played so bad last year. We got heat, but no explanation. It is disappointing Colledge isn't talking solely about how he plans to do better, but this line of questioning isn't about that.

College didn't lead the direction of the interview though. What he DID say was that there was no way he was missing team activites. He says it would be unfair to Aaron, his teammates, the coaches and the fans. Thats a pretty solid statement by a guy NOT making excuses.

I've got no problem with DC off the field, and I'm hoping he gets off to a good start this year. I'm still a DC fan, but my loyalty was stretched at times last year.....if not for Babre I might have been down on DC even more.

[vince]

There is no doubt Colledge doesn't want to move. In this, he is typical. What isn't explained is why he played so bad last year. We got heat, but no explanation. It is disappointing Colledge isn't talking solely about how he plans to do better, but this line of questioning isn't about that.

College didn't lead the direction of the interview though. What he DID say was that there was no way he was missing team activites. He says it would be unfair to Aaron, his teammates, the coaches and the fans. Thats a pretty solid statement by a guy NOT making excuses.

I've got no problem with DC off the field, and I'm hoping he gets off to a good start this year. I'm still a DC fan, but my loyalty was stretched at times last year.....if not for Babre I might have been down on DC even more.
I agree that Colledge said the right things here, and I also agree that the reporter directed the responses, but a misguided or irrelevant question could easily be rebuffed. I think the direction of this article is appropriate given Colledge's record on this subject.

While I think there's a legitimate issue here worth reporting on, and the way it's being reported is generally fair, both sides are professional enough to get through it. Ultimately, what he said here and has said in the past may resurface to some extent, but this issue will mostly sort itself out on the field.

[vince]

I thought this was a good article that shows Colledge's approach to this offseason. I've been a critic of Colledge's play last year, but he seems to be taking a very constructive approach and attitude to his work this offseason. It makes me more confident now that, even if Colledge wins/keeps the job, we could see improved play at LG this year. I'll be happy to eat some crow in about six months.
http://www.espnmilwaukee.com/includes/news_items/40/news_items_more.php?id=3628&section_id=40

'I’m going to give them every reason to not get rid of me'
By JASON WILDE
jwilde@espnwisconsin.com

GREEN BAY – The Green Bay Packers returned to work Tuesday, and there was Daryn Colledge, again taking the snaps with the No. 1 offense at left guard.

Whether or not he’s still there when the regular season begins Sept. 13 at Philadelphia, well, Colledge figures that’s all up to him.

With Jason Spitz, his primary competition – and best friend – still sidelined following his season-ending back surgery of last year, Colledge has been working with the No. 1 offensive line throughout organized team activity practices, which resumed Tuesday after coach Mike McCarthy gave the players 10 days off following the first week of OTA workouts. Practices continue with Wednesday’s open-to-the-public (and the media) session and will run three-days-a-week until the team’s mandatory minicamp kicks off June 21.

And while Colledge has endured more than his share of criticism since joining the team as a second-round pick in 2006, he has been a mainstay on the line, seeing action in every one of the 67 games (including playoffs) the Packers have played during his four-year career.

So if Spitz, second-year man T.J. Lang (who’s out until training camp following wrist surgery) or anyone else wants to take away his starting gig once the competition heats up in camp, Colledge can guarantee one thing: They’re in for a fight.

“Right now, I’m the starting left guard until someone tells me otherwise. I’m getting almost every single rep, and until I’m informed otherwise, I’ll play that way,” Colledge said. “Who knows what they’ll do? That’s up to them. I’m going to give them every reason to not get rid of me.

“I’m not planning on going quietly into the night. I’m not going to lie down. I’ve got 63 starts counting playoff games, and I’m not giving those up for nothing. I plan on competing my ass off. I’m going to give them a reason to have to play me, and if they choose to go in another direction, that’s their decision.”

While there’s no denying that Colledge has been inconsistent at times at left guard, one also must grant that moving outside to left tackle when Chad Clifton has been unavailable – including when he went down in Week 2 with an ankle injury – didn’t help Colledge, either.

“I would absolutely love to be the left guard full-time and take every rep in every game at that (spot) because I feel like that’s my best position. It doesn’t always work like that,” Colledge said. “There’s injuries and there’s things that happen on the football field that are unexpected and you’ve got to react to it.”

Of Colledge’s 63 career starts, 59 have come at left guard, four at left tackle and one at right tackle – although he has shifted to left tackle a number of other times during games when Clifton was injured, as he was against Cincinnati last Sept. 20.

“Sure, I think any player is,” offensive line coach James Campen replied when asked if Colledge is more comfortable at left guard than left tackle, where he played in college for four years at Boise State. “Daryn was asked to back up left tackle last year, but the majority of his (practice) reps were spent at guard. I don’t know if he got any reps at tackle last year (in practice before Clifton’s injury).

“(This year), he’ll still go in there at left guard and that’s exclusively where he’ll play. We have other tackles now, so we’re covered at this point in time.”

With first-round draft pick Bryan Bulaga set to back up Clifton at left tackle and Lang viewed as the right tackle of the future behind veteran Mark Tauscher, Colledge can focus on improving at left guard. While he had a costly penalty late in the Packers’ season-ending loss to the Arizona Cardinals in the NFC Wild Card playoffs, his play improved during the second half of last season, when Lang took over as Clifton’s backup and Colledge knew he’d only be playing left guard.

“Obviously I didn’t have the first half of the season I wanted to have,” said Colledge, who was part of an offensive line that gave up 37 sacks in the team’s first eight regular-season games – and only 14 in the final eight. “I felt like I had a good last half of the season when I got focused on left guard.”

There were reports after Colledge received a second-round tender (a one-year deal for 2010 worth $1.76 million) in March as a restricted free agent that he was unhappy with his deal, but Colledge vehemently denied those reports at the time and did so again when OTAs began. Instead, Colledge said he missed the start of the offseason workout program – his signed his tender on May 10 – while working out at home in Boise, where his altered diet and workouts

“Everybody thought I wasn’t here because I was holding out, but it was nothing like that,” Colledge said. “I was at home taking care of myself physically and mentally so I can be the best offensive lineman I can be. Aaron (Rodgers) deserves it, this team deserves it and the city deserves it. And I expect to do it.”

If Colledge’s past responses to having his job security challenged are any indication, don’t bet against him.

When he was benched following the preseason opener at San Diego as a rookie in 2006, he regained the starting left guard spot in the second week of the regular season when Spitz suffered a thigh injury. In 2007, he held off competition for his job after a Nov. 4 game at Kansas City, and although he was benched during a loss at Dallas on Nov. 29, he was back starting when the playoffs began. And during training camp in 2008, he retained his starting gig by thoroughly outperforming Allen Barbre.

“In his defense, this kid comes to work every day,” Campen said. “Every time Daryn has been challenged – this isn’t the first time – (he’s responded). And I’ll make it perfectly clear, too – there’s a bunch of challenges on that offensive line now. It’s not just a focal point right there. But he has responded every time. And I expect him to respond. I do.

“Now, whether or not he is the starting left guard, other people are going to respond as well. But as far as Daryn backing down from a challenge or saying, ‘What the heck, the odds are against me,’ that’s not in his makeup whatsoever. Yeah, he takes some criticism, but I’ll say this: As far as an accountable person, he is always available and ready to go.”

Now he just has to play better.

“I feel like – and I need to feel like – I’m the best option there is available,” Colledge said. “Whether that’s competition between me and Barbre, or me and Spitz, or me and T.J. Lang, I’ve got to feel like I’m the best guy there is. I’ve got to give them the reason to play me every year.

“This year, I’ll do what I do every year – compete my ass off, play left guard the best I can, and then see where the cards fall. And if I get to be the left guard and everybody stays healthy, I think we’ve got a great opportunity. If I’m not the best player, then they’ve got somebody else out there that’s making this team better and I’ll push that guy.”

[retailguy]

I'll be happy to eat some crow in about six months.


And I'll be happy to join you on that. Sincerely.

On that note, I won't be losing any sleep over that mea culpa, because I doubt it's happening. :wink:

[pbmax]

I forgot that Clifton left the Cincinnati game. That explains, to some degree, why that game looked so bad in the game charting from Pro Football Focus.


Of Colledge’s 63 career starts, 59 have come at left guard, four at left tackle and one at right tackle – although he has shifted to left tackle a number of other times during games when Clifton was injured, as he was against Cincinnati last Sept. 20.

All in all, he should have one goal for improvement: pass protect better.

[Joemailman]

Colledge has always seemed to be a guy who needs to be prodded and pushed in order to stay motivated. That's disappointing, but it is what it is I guess. The good news is that I think the Packers have better depth on the OL than they've had since Colledge has been here. There may be enough to keep competition to keep Colledge motivated. If he doesn't perform satisfactorily, I don't think MM will hesitate to go with Spitz or Lang.

[pbmax]

Ladies and Gentleman, Game 1 has come and gone and, as predicted (http://www.packerrats.com/ratchat/viewtopic.php?p=517451#517451), Daryn Colledge is your starting Left Guard.

There is also cause for mixed celebration and consternation as he is also not the worst O lineman on the Packers after Week 1. That title goes to Clifton and Tauscher who each struggled and gave up sacks.

By the way, Josh Sitton nearly killed a DT on a run drive block today. Took him eight yards off the ball before depositing him on the turf. It was glorious and brought a tiny tear to my eye!

[retailguy]

sitton's block was awesome.

Colledge actually played better than I thought he would. It was only one game, too early to declare victory, but one good game is an accomplishment.

[MJZiggy]

I only heard 73 called for stupidity once...

[pbmax]

I only heard 73 called for stupidity once...
He had to trip that guy. Called him a real nasty name as he went by.

[Freak Out]

The O line played better than I thought they would considering the talent on the other side of the ball.

Was that really the packers 1st win in Philly since 61?

[pbmax]

The O line played better than I thought they would considering the talent on the other side of the ball.

Was that really the packers 1st win in Philly since 61?
Yes. But its only been nine games in 40 years. They took turns being terrible until the mid 90s and then played several times in Lambeau.

[gbgary]

Josh Sitton nearly killed a DT on a run drive block today. Took him eight yards off the ball before depositing him on the turf. It was glorious and brought a tiny tear to my eye!

was charged with attempted murder after the game.