Rookies have a tough road with Packers

[RashanGary]

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/93170544.html


But is he really the favorite? He starts his career behind veterans Chad Clifton and Mark Tauscher, who for the past decade have held down the two tackle positions. Bulaga probably will be Clifton's backup, but he wouldn't be the first rookie lineman to spend the year on the bench if things went badly in camp.


Q. But obviously the offensive line was affected by the situation at left tackle, with Chad Clifton getting hurt and Daryn Colledge and T.J. Lang having to play there. When you put together your 53-man roster, you were OK with Colledge backing up an aging Clifton, who hadn't started all 16 games since 2007 and was coming off four surgeries?



When they were trying to put a spin that Thompson didn't pay attention to the backup LT position, they say, "Clifton hasn't started all 16 games since 2007". When they want to put a spin that the rookie LT they drafted won't see the field, they say, "he is behind Clifton and Tauscher who have held down the Packers tackle positions for a decade".

Both true statements, but one is phrased like Clifton cannot stay healthy, so the Packers are dumb to not have a backup. The other is phrased like he's ol' reliable and there is a good chance their 1st round pick is on the bench all season.

The common denominator, they are looking to stir shit and will do it in any way possible when they are scratching for a story.

You have to pick and choose what to believe. They'll tell you one thing one day and the opposite the next if it helps them write a story. When the season begins and McGinn gives his season prediction, that will tell you what he really thinks. He takes pride in that, and is very right on it a lot of the time. He's also very positive about what he thinks of the Packers. The rest of this is JS trying to fill in dead space with drama that doesn't exist.

[The Leaper]

Sorry...but the two articles are not related. I don't see the spin factor you do.

It was moronic for Thompson to go into last season with his OL assembled as he had it. Clifton can't make it through 16 games...and you didn't have a reliable backup. Our RT situation was a joke, and Tauscher should've been on the roster weeks before he was. The criticism on Thompson's approach to the OL last season was absolutely warranted.

In terms of the rookie...yeah, he isn't a sure thing to start early on in the season behind either Clifton or Tauscher, who still remain capable when healthy. That's the point, and it is a reasonable one. I don't see any reference to the vets as being good bets to play 16 games...just that there is a strong chance the rookie isn't starting week 1. I would tend to agree...and actually think it is a good thing for the kid.

[Bretsky]

Sorry...but the two articles are not related. I don't see the spin factor you do.

It was moronic for Thompson to go into last season with his OL assembled as he had it. Clifton can't make it through 16 games...and you didn't have a reliable backup. Our RT situation was a joke, and Tauscher should've been on the roster weeks before he was. The criticism on Thompson's approach to the OL last season was absolutely warranted.

In terms of the rookie...yeah, he isn't a sure thing to start early on in the season behind either Clifton or Tauscher, who still remain capable when healthy. That's the point, and it is a reasonable one. I don't see any reference to the vets as being good bets to play 16 games...just that there is a strong chance the rookie isn't starting week 1. I would tend to agree...and actually think it is a good thing for the kid.


ditto

[Patler]

It was moronic for Thompson to go into last season with his OL assembled as he had it. Clifton can't make it through 16 games...and you didn't have a reliable backup. Our RT situation was a joke, and Tauscher should've been on the roster weeks before he was. The criticism on Thompson's approach to the OL last season was absolutely warranted.

Prior to 2009, Chad Clifton had started 94 of a possible 96 games the previous six years. The two he missed? One for the flu, one for an adverse drug reaction from a shot he had at game time. Colledge filled in both games, and did reasonably well, though he started out the game very poorly against Miami in 2006.

I think Tauscher was signed as soon as he was ready to go. He wouldn't have played any sooner even if he had been signed earlier.

So how was TT's approach "moronic"?
He had an LT that rarely missed a game, and a seemingly capapble backup in Colledge.
With Wells, Sitton and Spitz he had the middle covered if Colledge moved out to LT.
He had two options for RT.
He had a wildcard in Lang.
He knew he had a good shot at Tausher by midseason, as a fallback plan.

Spitz went down, Clifton went down. Colledge was worse than he had ever been and both Barbre and Giacomini failed to live up to expectations. It happens. They worked out the kinks with what they had available to them.

[pbmax]

It was moronic for Thompson to go into last season with his OL assembled as he had it. Clifton can't make it through 16 games...and you didn't have a reliable backup. Our RT situation was a joke, and Tauscher should've been on the roster weeks before he was. The criticism on Thompson's approach to the OL last season was absolutely warranted.

Prior to 2009, Chad Clifton had started 94 of a possible 96 games the previous six years. The two he missed? One for the flu, one for an adverse drug reaction from a shot he had at game time. Colledge filled in both games, and did reasonably well, though he started out the game very poorly against Miami in 2006.

I think Tauscher was signed as soon as he was ready to go. He wouldn't have played any sooner even if he had been signed earlier.

So how was TT's approach "moronic"?
He had an LT that rarely missed a game, and a seemingly capapble backup in Colledge.
With Wells, Sitton and Spitz he had the middle covered if Colledge moved out to LT.
He had two options for RT.
He had a wildcard in Lang.
He knew he had a good shot at Tausher by midseason, as a fallback plan.

Spitz went down, Clifton went down. Colledge was worse than he had ever been and both Barbre and Giacomini failed to live up to expectations. It happens. They worked out the kinks with what they had available to them.
I think his approach in the offseason as you lay it out is logical. But before the last roster cutdown he knew the following information:

Colledge received no practice time at LT and minimal snaps (a series or two if memory serves) at LT in the preseason games.
Jamon Meredith was not ready.
Moll was viewed as a dead end and trade bait.
Giacomini had not won the confidence of his coaches.
Lang spent more time at LG and LT than RT after the first week of practice.
Barbre had trouble in pass protection in camp and there were signs of it in the preseason games (I freely admit I did not foresee the turnstile he would become and thought it was a natural, developmental step to struggle somewhat)

The approach is flawed because the coaches conducted a camp that made no sense after the final cutdown day. They needed Colledge to back up LT and he spent no time there. They needed Lang at RT and he was removed from there before the first week of practice. Sometimes, it does not seem that the coaches and GM are on the same page.

Colledge was OK as a tackle when he had to fill in (twice I think). But Jason Taylor killed him early in Miami with Favre at QB and he required help from RBs, TEs and Favre's hair trigger to compete for the whole game. He is limited in pass pro at guard. He wasn't better at it at Tackle. Combine that with a new QB who holds the ball and is reluctant to throw INTs or throw it away, that was a recipe for disaster.

The presence of Breno Giacomini on the 53 man roster is flabbergasting, as Thompson had to know by the end of August the coaches did not trust him to play. That left RT (a position manned by new starter Barbre) backed up by the same guy who practiced at LT.

I don't think the O coaches (McCarthy, Philbin, Campen and Fontenot) do a good job of communicating what the players on the roster are capable of doing to Thompson. The same might be true of Thompson when it comes to roster composition. And they need to be more decisive. If, before the final preseason game Moll and Meredith were in danger of both leaving the roster, Colledge should have started getting snaps at LT.

[Patler]

I think his approach in the offseason as you lay it out is logical. But before the last roster cutdown he knew the following information:

Colledge received no practice time at LT and minimal snaps (a series or two if memory serves) at LT in the preseason games.
Jamon Meredith was not ready.
Moll was viewed as a dead end and trade bait.
Giacomini had not won the confidence of his coaches.
Lang spent more time at LG and LT than RT after the first week of practice.
Barbre had trouble in pass protection in camp and there were signs of it in the preseason games (I freely admit I did not foresee the turnstile he would become and thought it was a natural, developmental step to struggle somewhat)

The approach is flawed because the coaches conducted a camp that made no sense after the final cutdown day. They needed Colledge to back up LT and he spent no time there. They needed Lang at RT and he was removed from there before the first week of practice. Sometimes, it does not seem that the coaches and GM are on the same page.

Colledge was OK as a tackle when he had to fill in (twice I think). But Jason Taylor killed him early in Miami with Favre at QB and he required help from RBs, TEs and Favre's hair trigger to compete for the whole game. He is limited in pass pro at guard. He wasn't better at it at Tackle. Combine that with a new QB who holds the ball and is reluctant to throw INTs or throw it away, that was a recipe for disaster.

The presence of Breno Giacomini on the 53 man roster is flabbergasting, as Thompson had to know by the end of August the coaches did not trust him to play. That left RT (a position manned by new starter Barbre) backed up by the same guy who practiced at LT.

I don't think the O coaches (McCarthy, Philbin, Campen and Fontenot) do a good job of communicating what the players on the roster are capable of doing to Thompson. The same might be true of Thompson when it comes to roster composition. And they need to be more decisive. If, before the final preseason game Moll and Meredith were in danger of both leaving the roster, Colledge should have started getting snaps at LT.

I agree with that mostly. The problem is, there isn't much you can do by that time. Wolf even said that your roster is pretty much set by the draft. You can delete players, but can't really add much that will help.

What you summarized about practice time etc. is a coaching issue. I'm sure they expected that Barbre would have ups and downs, but I assume they also expected him to respond to the challenge of starting and eventually settle in.

Any reason for Colledge to have been given more practice at LT than he had in the past? Clifton was supposedly feeling better than he had in years after all the off season cleanup procedures.

I really have little confidence in the O-line coaching on this team. Some coaches make lines better than the sum of its parts. So far under MM the line seems to perform at levels less than the sum of the abilities of its members.

[Fritz]

Giacomini was the wild card there. There was some considerable praise pre-camp, I thought, then suddenly no news about him at all. Barbre was the one I think disappointed them most. He looked good in preseason against vanilla defenses and I don't think too many people foresaw his crappiness.

I think there was concern about the line but the preseason seemed to assuage that. But when the real thing came down, the line fell apart.

I think Patler's right about the o-line coaching. It ain't that great. Makes you worry about their ability to get Bulaga ready and Newhouse down the road.

[pbmax]

Any reason for Colledge to have been given more practice at LT than he had in the past? Clifton was supposedly feeling better than he had in years after all the off season cleanup procedures.
I think last year was an aberration for Colledge. McCarthy spent a lot of time trying to ensure "musical chairs" did not detract from the development of his lineman. Continuity was the buzzword. Colledge was one benefactor in that he spent nearly all his time at LG.

In the preseasons past, he spent time as the primary LT backup in practice (I think that was 2008, in other years, LT was one of two backup destinations).

But if you evaluate Colledge as a stop gap or last resort LT (which I think is accurate), I understand giving snaps to Meredith and Moll. But once they were not even slated to be backups, then it would seem prudent to get Colledge some time there. I agree that musical chairs have hurt them in the past, but a veteran spending time at two positions (75/25 or so) is not running the same risk. Its also less that the three positions some young players have found themselves playing before (Lang last year. Colledge and Spitz earlier).

I just have a hard time imagining the coaches were all that comfortable with Colledge at LT. He has been exposed to it less than Barbre was and struggled in pass pro like Barbre.

To put it in perspective, if he was the primary backup at LT going into camp (that is, say Moll had been traded early and the coaches knew Meredith would need a year like Giacomini) wouldn't they have had him get some reps at LT? I think there is some circumstantial evidence that the personnel guys and the coaches are not on the same page here. It might be just the coaching, but how do you explain Wells, Spitz, Sitton and Lang (and two years of Colledge)?

[Patler]

I think there is some circumstantial evidence that the personnel guys and the coaches are not on the same page here. It might be just the coaching, but how do you explain Wells, Spitz, Sitton and Lang (and two years of Colledge)?

I'm not sure what you are asking, but I have argued for several years that the O-line coaches have not developed players much at all. Basically, they are what they came in as, and little changes, develops or improves. I look at other staffs who took talented O-linemen who struggled early, and made significant improvements in their play. I haven't seen that with the current staff.

[RashanGary]

I get the impression McCarthy puts his nose where it doesn't really belong on the OL too. He was on O-coordinator, but his specialty has always been QB's and the passing game.

It seems him and Philbin are always going back and forth about who should play what position. TJ Lang, it sounds like Philbin wants him at RT and McCArthy wants him at guard. Philbin's whole career has been coaching OL. Most of McCarthys career has not.

Until we drafted Bulaga and Newhouse (essentially ending the debate for them), it looked like McCarthy, a guy inexperienced with the OL, was dictating what was happening over Philbin, a guy who's very inexperienced on the OL.

I've also questioned the OL coaching on this team for some time. I don't exactly have it pinned down though. Is it Philbin and Campen being below average coaches, is it McCarthy making bad decisions, is it Thompson not getting the talent, is it because the team they took over was a cap disaster with aging talent inside, and then another wave of aging talent shortly after on the outside and they've been trying to get a lot done in a little bit of time from day one? Is it a combination of all of it?


The OL looks more settled today, with more promising talent that should be here for an extended amount of time than any time in the past. Just the way our whole interior aged and was just gone as soon as Thompson took over, I always gave him some leash there. It's been 5 years now. If it doesn't get better, I think the first thing that has to happen is Philbin and Campen have to lose their jobs. If not them, someone higher should.

[pbmax]

I think there is some circumstantial evidence that the personnel guys and the coaches are not on the same page here. It might be just the coaching, but how do you explain Wells, Spitz, Sitton and Lang (and two years of Colledge)?

I'm not sure what you are asking, but I have argued for several years that the O-line coaches have not developed players much at all. Basically, they are what they came in as, and little changes, develops or improves. I look at other staffs who took talented O-linemen who struggled early, and made significant improvements in their play. I haven't seen that with the current staff.
I guess I am asking if the interior players who have played well are qualitatively different from the Tackle prospects who have been less than mediocre or inconsistent. You make a reasonable case for players not developing beyond their initial level under Campen, et al., but at our distance, I am reluctant to accept it the entire answer.

Wells became a starter under Philbin and performed adequately. He had not been asked to do that prior. Colledge developed enough to best Spitz and Barbre after each had been promoted ahead of him. And the coaches thought Sitton improved from one year to the next. And with the exception of Colledge, most of these guys were mid-round picks who may not have a high top end. The first half of last year was lost for Colledge, but in 2008, there was no question he had turned the corner.

There is also perception. While pass blocking at Tackle last year was horrendous, I think that the line has by and large under this group been entirely average. Even in 2007, I think Favre hid the pass blocking issues that were developing at tackle and the line has been at least average in running in each year, with slow but steady improvement.

The glaring weakness is at tackle, where they have found only one player (Lang) in their 4 years. And there has not been a true left tackle prospect drafted. Not even Lovat found a mid round Left Tackle. He had a succession of first and second round picks to develop.

There were two specific cases of player development that have not been repeated. Wahle was a catastrophe of a LT and converted to guard in his second or third season very well. He was also a 2nd round pick. Rivera was a mid round guy who entrenched himself at Guard after one year. It did take him a position switch (from left to right guard) and one year in NFL-E.

I think the missing pieces at tackle make the whole look worse than it is individually.

[get louder at lambeau]

It's been 5 years now. If it doesn't get better, I think the first thing that has to happen is Philbin and Campen have to lose their jobs. If not them, someone higher should.

Sounds reasonable to question Campen's job security if the OL doesn't play well, but Philbin? He's the OC of the highest scoring Packer team in history and the third most productive Packer offense ever in total yardage. The 45 points scored in the AZ playoff game this year is also an all time Packer record.

I think he's safe.

[bobblehead]

I think you will see the OL get much better from here. Our biggest problem from coaching was trying to run the ZBS with no one qualified to teach it. If you recall the first year the run game struggled for about half the season then came on like gang busters. Exit Jags, and we have never really had someone who knows it well to teaach it, yet we were still trying to run it most of the time.

Recently we got away from the ZBS style OL in the draft and results have been much better. Sitton is a beast, and Lang looks like a keeper. Hopefully BB is the real deal as well. We ran less ZBS last year than any of the previous several years (from what I can see on the TV).

I guess my point is that since TT stopped trying to draft ZBS linemen to coach up and started drafting OL who simply do the job, the results look much more promising. I have a hunch that when we start camp this year there will be very little ZBS left. I also think thats the reason they aren't concerned with locking college up right now....he is more a ZBS style lineman.

[The Leaper]

Prior to 2009, Chad Clifton had started 94 of a possible 96 games the previous six years. The two he missed? One for the flu, one for an adverse drug reaction from a shot he had at game time.

So what?

Clifton was old...and his play on the field had started to noticeably slip. His footwork was no longer as quick, and he went from subpar in run blocking to virtually useless.

That's a HUGE red flag Patler, regardless of his injury history.

[Lurker64]

I think you will see the OL get much better from here. Our biggest problem from coaching was trying to run the ZBS with no one qualified to teach it. If you recall the first year the run game struggled for about half the season then came on like gang busters. Exit Jags, and we have never really had someone who knows it well to teaach it, yet we were still trying to run it most of the time.

Recently we got away from the ZBS style OL in the draft and results have been much better. Sitton is a beast, and Lang looks like a keeper. Hopefully BB is the real deal as well. We ran less ZBS last year than any of the previous several years (from what I can see on the TV).

I guess my point is that since TT stopped trying to draft ZBS linemen to coach up and started drafting OL who simply do the job, the results look much more promising. I have a hunch that when we start camp this year there will be very little ZBS left. I also think thats the reason they aren't concerned with locking college up right now....he is more a ZBS style lineman.

I think you're overstating what "zone blocking" is and what being a "zone blocking" team is all about. Ultimately, the vast majority of our runs last year were zone runs, and our most effective runs were almost uniformly zone runs. This is not going to change. What we've done, for the most part, is abandon any ideas of building a Shanahan style "finesse zone" team and gone for a more modern "power zone" running style (remember, zone vs. man just indicates how you decide who to block, not how you actually block them.) We'd be far from the only team in the league that runs a power zone style (Oakland, Houston, the Redskins pre-Shanahan).

Also, you know how the Iowa Hawkeyes did run blocking for the entirety of Bulaga's tenure there? That's right, zone blocking.

Remember, the real difference between zone blocking and man blocking is that in zone blocking, the OL is responsible for an area and engages with whatever defender enters his area, while in man blocking each OL is responsible for blocking a specific defender according to the play. To be effective in zone blocking, you need guys who are athletic enough to get to and make plays at the second level, but you don't necessarily need a bunch of converted TEs.

[Gunakor]

Prior to 2009, Chad Clifton had started 94 of a possible 96 games the previous six years. The two he missed? One for the flu, one for an adverse drug reaction from a shot he had at game time.

So what?

Clifton was old...and his play on the field had started to noticeably slip. His footwork was no longer as quick, and he went from subpar in run blocking to virtually useless.

I agree his play on the field had started to noticeably slip, but is that alone an indicator of your earlier observation of him?


Clifton can't make it through 16 games

What does going from subpar to virtually worthless in run blocking have to do with making it through 16 games? If you're argument is that TT should have had a backup because of Cliffy's decline in play I'd agree that a future replacement might have been worth drafting and developing starting before last season began, but that's a far different argument than saying TT should have had a ready backup because Cliffy is injury prone and won't last 16 games. Especially considering he hadn't missed very many at all since recovering from the Warren Sapp incident, I don't think that argument would have held up prior to week 3 of the 2009 season.