OL Rankings

[HarveyWallbangers]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=Al7WeSSpzbtdsjU40QaHgU_sYNAF?slug=jc-olinerankings061810


23. Green Bay Packers: When it came to keeping the quarterback clean, no playoff team was worse last year than the Packers, who ranked No. 30 in adjusted sacks per pass attempt. Only Oakland and Buffalo were worse. Of course, a lot of that falls on quarterback Aaron Rodgers, who has a tendency to hold the ball too long in an effort to make a play. But the fact is that tackles Chad Clifton and Mark Tauscher were near the end last year, yet the Packers were so desperate that they re-signed Clifton to a long-term deal this offseason. At least this group showed that it can run the ball OK, ranking No. 8.

I'd put us higher. The sack numbers were bad, but they weren't bad when Clifton and Tauscher were healthy, and Rodgers learned to get rid of the ball quicker. Of course, a lot depends on Clifton and Tauscher staying healthy. Bulaga gives me a better fallback though. There are a lot of teams with bad OLs though.

[bobblehead]

I can understand this ranking. In order to make the argument they are better than that AR has to stay clean this year. I think that keeping Babre off the field is paramount to improving our ranking though.

[Lurker64]

I can see not giving the Packers a good ranking, but I don't think they deserve as poor of one. The offensive line disaster of last year was largely caused by two factors, both of which have been corrected at this point:
1) Having Barbre at RT with no backup plan to speak of.
2) When Clifton got injured, his replacement was our starting LG (who didn't play all that well).

Now, we have Tauscher and Lang in line at RT (with Bulaga being able to play there in emergencies) and Clifton and Bulaga in line at LT (with Lang being able to play there in emergencies). The interior is okay, Sitton is a terribly under-appreciated player, Wells is a smart enough and a good enough technician to rarely be completely overmatched despite his lack of size and power, Colledge is a tease but he's very good when he's on, and Spitz is another one of those "not pretty, but gets the job done" kind of brawlers. Barbre and Giaco are terrible, but they're probably not long for this team, Newhouse has the the athleticism to be a good player inside if he can make the adjustment (a great player if he can be cured of some sloppy play). I'd say they're middle of the pack, but they have a lot of untapped potential.

[Pugger]

This ranking doesn't make sense if we rank #8 in running the ball. Passing, yeah, but overall? No.

[retailguy]

Did you guys miss the 1st eight games the past 3 seasons?

This ranking is fair, as inconsistent as they've played. This line is the key to the success of the 2010 packers. They've got the personnel now, they need to follow up the last half of 2009 and come out of the gate ready to play. Every down, every game.

Until they do that, they don't deserve the respect you guys think they've earned.

I believe that if the 2010 Packer don't meet expectations, this will be the player group that you can point to as the reason why.

[woodbuck27]

Did you guys miss the 1st eight games the past 3 seasons?

This ranking is fair, as inconsistent as they've played. This line is the key to the success of the 2010 packers. They've got the personnel now, they need to follow up the last half of 2009 and come out of the gate ready to play. Every down, every game.

Until they do that, they don't deserve the respect you guys think they've earned.

I believe that if the 2010 Packer don't meet expectations, this will be the player group that you can point to as the reason why.

I agree with your assessment there man. It amazes me that with the way it's been with our OL that we still see awesome numbers for our offense...passing and not terrible... running ythe ball. Well Ryan Grant isn't bad we need depth at RB. What do we do if Grant falls?

It always comes down to the battle in the trenches. How good is the Packer OL and DL? Too simple and also protecting the ball. Aaron Rodgers has to show improvement there with the ball behind the line of scrimmage.

Some questions? in the secondary as well. but...God smiled on us Re: Chuck Woodson and that fire he escaped today's news. Is that a sign of something special this season ?

Of course it is!

GO PACKERS!!

[HarveyWallbangers]

Don't buy it. I've seen a lot of bad OLs. This isn't one of the 10 worst OLs in the league. Maybe if we had to start Barbre and a rookie every week, but not with Clifton and Taushcer. What did we give up, 8 sacks after Tauscher came back and Clifton got healthy and Rodgers learned to get rid of the ball quicker? Hopefully, with Bulaga we have depth now.

[retailguy]

Don't buy it. I've seen a lot of bad OLs. This isn't one of the 10 worst OLs in the league. Maybe if we had to start Barbre and a rookie every week, but not with Clifton and Taushcer. What did we give up, 8 sacks after Tauscher came back and Clifton got healthy and Rodgers learned to get rid of the ball quicker? Hopefully, with Bulaga we have depth now.

I agree, "hopefully". But until they play like we hope, I don't disagree with the article. You know I've been down on the OL for a long, long time. Just because "it looks solved", doesn't mean that it is solved. We've been here before.

I don't think Clifton makes it through the season. I believe we will need Bulaga, sooner, rather than later.

I'll be pulling for Lang to take a step this year too. Good insurance to have both Clifton and Tauscher around, but I don't think they are what makes this line good.

Sitton is clearly the most reliable OL at this point, and we need much better production from the LG, whomever that happens to be. We're looking at another year from Wells, which is fine by me, but the interior must play more consistently for this to work.

If those things happen, I agree, we aren't 23rd best, but if we see what we have seen at the start of each of the past 3 seasons, we'll be the WORST OL pretty damn fast.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I agree, "hopefully". But until they play like we hope, I don't disagree with the article.

But the rankings are based on this year--not how well they did last year. As a whole they didn't play well last year, but they were solid in the second half of the year after a horrendous first half of the year. The team has basically added Tauscher, Spitz, and Bulaga (you might even say Clifton--since he was injured so much) since those first 8 games.

[Joemailman]

The #23 ranking only makes sense if you believe Alan Barbre will be the Packers starting RT this year. (I don't think he'll make the team). Once he was replaced, the Packers OL was much better than average.

[Fritz]

I agree with RG that some consistency will need to be demonstrated before any of us can get too excited...

[sharpe1027]

It seems that most of us agree that the OL should be rated about average relative to other teams, with the possibility of some significant movement up or down depending on the unknowns.

Could this be the year they don't completely and utter suck for the first half of the season?

[retailguy]

It seems that most of us agree that the OL should be rated about average relative to other teams, with the possibility of some significant movement up or down depending on the unknowns.

Could this be the year they don't completely and utter suck for the first half of the season?

If it's not, I'm going postal! :evil: (no offense Joe.)

[The Leaper]

#23 is low. Thompson was a major buffoon last season for believing he had an NFL caliber OL going into the season. It was more like a Mountain West caliber OL.

Once Thompson pulled his head out of his ass (800 sacks in the first 6-8 weeks finally brought him around) he bolstered the OL with Tauscher and the line was not nearly as bad in the second half of the season. Now you add a first round pick (Bulaga) who some thought was good enough to be a top ten pick, and this OL isn't a bottom feeder.

Still not enough depth and too injury prone for my tastes...but they are probably more in the 15-18 range right now, with the potential to move up if Bulaga is a horse and our old guys stay healthy.

[Smidgeon]

#23 is low. Thompson was a major buffoon last season for believing he had an NFL caliber OL going into the season. It was more like a Mountain West caliber OL.

Once Thompson pulled his head out of his ass (800 sacks in the first 6-8 weeks finally brought him around) he bolstered the OL with Tauscher and the line was not nearly as bad in the second half of the season. Now you add a first round pick (Bulaga) who some thought was good enough to be a top ten pick, and this OL isn't a bottom feeder.

Still not enough depth and too injury prone for my tastes...but they are probably more in the 15-18 range right now, with the potential to move up if Bulaga is a horse and our old guys stay healthy.

Right. Because Tauscher was sitting around unemployed because Thompson didn't want him instead of because he was recovering from a serious knee injury. <sigh>

EDIT: Unless you were being sarcastic, in which case I totally misread your tone and withdraw my exasperated sigh.

[swede]

#23 is low. Thompson was a major buffoon last season for believing he had an NFL caliber OL going into the season. It was more like a Mountain West caliber OL.

Once Thompson pulled his head out of his ass (800 sacks in the first 6-8 weeks finally brought him around) he bolstered the OL with Tauscher and the line was not nearly as bad in the second half of the season. Now you add a first round pick (Bulaga) who some thought was good enough to be a top ten pick, and this OL isn't a bottom feeder.

Still not enough depth and too injury prone for my tastes...but they are probably more in the 15-18 range right now, with the potential to move up if Bulaga is a horse and our old guys stay healthy.

Right. Because Tauscher was sitting around unemployed because Thompson didn't want him instead of because he was recovering from a serious knee injury. <sigh>

EDIT: Unless you were being sarcastic, in which case I totally misread your tone and withdraw my exasperated sigh.

I don't think Teddy anticipated that Tausch was going to be vital to our late-season success. I think he thought that Tausch was done playing for the Packers, though. And he probably was quite relieved that the old man recovered and was still available when we needed him. So, yeah, TT was not stupid to handle the Tauscher situation the way he did, but he was a little bit lucky that it turned out the way it did.

[Smidgeon]

Agreed that he was lucky that Tauscher's addition helped so much. Disagree (personally) that he mucked it up in the first place. I will agree that it appears evaluating O-Linemen is not his specialty. He's been working on that O-line ever since he came in.

The number of O-linemen drafted since TT joined staff:

2010: 2
2009: 2
2008: 2
2007: 1
2006: 2
2005: 2

That doesn't include the non-drafted free agent O-linemen that have made the team. While he (or his staff) may not be great at evaluating O-linemen (which is debateable since Sitton's been a success, Lang appears to have a bright future, Spitz was solid before the injury, and Colledge has been ranked by some to be the best LG in the division), he appears to at least be trying to stock his team with good linemen.

With nine draft picks in the first 5 drafts, I would think that GB'd have more starters on the line than two (Colledge/Sitton). The other three are Sherman holdovers. In my opinion that speaks either to poor evaluating of those positions by the talent scouts or to poor development. But hardly because TT was ignoring the position.

[Lurker64]

The number of O-linemen drafted since TT joined staff:

2010: 2
2009: 2
2008: 2
2007: 1
2006: 2
2005: 2


Thompson clearly is neglecting the offensive line, otherwise he would have drafted 2 OL in 2007.

[Patler]

I don't think Teddy anticipated that Tausch was going to be vital to our late-season success. I think he thought that Tausch was done playing for the Packers, though. And he probably was quite relieved that the old man recovered and was still available when we needed him. So, yeah, TT was not stupid to handle the Tauscher situation the way he did, but he was a little bit lucky that it turned out the way it did.

I think Tauscher was always his fall-back plan. I think he hoped (expected?) Barbre to take the position and run with it; but in the event he didn't, Thompson knew Tauscher would likely be available at mid-season. I also think after the first few weeks of the season it was obvious to both TT and Tauscher that he would be back in GB. Had Barbre played well, Tauscher would have shopped himself more aggressively.

[Fritz]

Agreed that he was lucky that Tauscher's addition helped so much. Disagree (personally) that he mucked it up in the first place. I will agree that it appears evaluating O-Linemen is not his specialty. He's been working on that O-line ever since he came in.

The number of O-linemen drafted since TT joined staff:

2010: 2
2009: 2
2008: 2
2007: 1
2006: 2
2005: 2

That doesn't include the non-drafted free agent O-linemen that have made the team. While he (or his staff) may not be great at evaluating O-linemen (which is debateable since Sitton's been a success, Lang appears to have a bright future, Spitz was solid before the injury, and Colledge has been ranked by some to be the best LG in the division), he appears to at least be trying to stock his team with good linemen.

With nine draft picks in the first 5 drafts, I would think that GB'd have more starters on the line than two (Colledge/Sitton). The other three are Sherman holdovers. In my opinion that speaks either to poor evaluating of those positions by the talent scouts or to poor development. But hardly because TT was ignoring the position.

Yes, I think this is the bottom line. Are there ex-Packer linemen drafted by TT whom we can evaluate under other offensive line coaching staffs? I can think of James Meredith, and it'll be interesting to see how he does this year in Buffalo. Any others?

[Patler]

Agreed that he was lucky that Tauscher's addition helped so much. Disagree (personally) that he mucked it up in the first place. I will agree that it appears evaluating O-Linemen is not his specialty. He's been working on that O-line ever since he came in.

The number of O-linemen drafted since TT joined staff:

2010: 2
2009: 2
2008: 2
2007: 1
2006: 2
2005: 2

That doesn't include the non-drafted free agent O-linemen that have made the team. While he (or his staff) may not be great at evaluating O-linemen (which is debateable since Sitton's been a success, Lang appears to have a bright future, Spitz was solid before the injury, and Colledge has been ranked by some to be the best LG in the division), he appears to at least be trying to stock his team with good linemen.

With nine draft picks in the first 5 drafts, I would think that GB'd have more starters on the line than two (Colledge/Sitton). The other three are Sherman holdovers. In my opinion that speaks either to poor evaluating of those positions by the talent scouts or to poor development. But hardly because TT was ignoring the position.

Yes, I think this is the bottom line. Are there ex-Packer linemen drafted by TT whom we can evaluate under other offensive line coaching staffs? I can think of James Meredith, and it'll be interesting to see how he does this year in Buffalo. Any others?

He actually drafted 3 in 2006, Colledge, Spitz and Moll. Most of his draft picks are still with the team. Not sure what can be learned from the post Packer careers of Coston, Whitticker, Moll, Meredith. One was a 7th round pick, the other 3 were 5th rounders. Not many picked that low have careers beyond their 4th or 5th seasons anyway. Two of the four are still on rosters.

This is what the Baltimore site says about Moll:


Tony Moll, 5th season
What He’s Done: The most-experienced of the backups, Moll owns 18 career starts, at right and left tackle and right guard. He was a key reserve last year, seeing action in five games.
What He’s Going For: Moll is pushing for a job as the top reserve tackle, mainly a battle with Cousins. His versatility makes Moll a valuable part of the roster.
What He Needs To Do: The fifth-year veteran needs to hold down the right tackle position when he’s on the field with the second team. Moll will likely play there to bookend Cousins during preseason games.

...and a Bill's article on Meredith, who is lining up as the starter at LT with Bell out:

http://www.buffalobills.com/news/article-3/Meredith-finding-a-comfort-zone/abc98e53-af3f-43b1-b74d-cbaa763fbb4f

[Scott Campbell]

............. with the potential to move up if Bulaga is a horse and our old guys stay healthy.


Those two things might be mutually exclusive. If Cliffy stays healthy, Bulaga probably won't play.

[Joemailman]

I think TT has gotten better at drafting offensive linemen lately. Sitton was their best lineman last year, and Lang was pretty impressive for a rookie who had to keep switching positions. Now he's drafted Bulaga. I think the Packers were overly fixated on drafting guys with great mobility, and are now drafting guys who can also push you around a little bit.

[swede]

I think TT has gotten better at drafting offensive linemen lately. Sitton was their best lineman last year, and Lang was pretty impressive for a rookie who had to keep switching positions. Now he's drafted Bulaga. I think the Packers were overly fixated on drafting guys with great mobility, and are now drafting guys who can also push you around a little bit.

Excellent take, Joe.

To look at it in a positive light, it is possible that as McCarthy and TT have dialed in on an offensive philosophy they have both improved at evaluating OL talent that matches their needs.

That or the draft is always a crap shoot.

[Scott Campbell]

I'm a lot more concerned about the DL than the OL.