Future looks bright

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

There has been a lot of talk about how the packers might be the next dynasty in football. So I went to look at the contracts of most of the players on the team and most of them are already locked up for many years. Contracts that are expiring soon and that need to be re-done will probably coincide with a lot of older higher paid vets leaving around the same time. The way it’s shaping up is that we probably won’t lose a significant YOUNG player for money reasons for at least another 4-5 years. Lets look at the whole team.

I left out players I assumed we be losing in free agency this offseason.

http://rotoworld.com/teams/contracts/nfl/gb/green-bay-packers?rw=1


Safety:

Collins: 3 years remaining
Burnett: 3 years remaining
Peprah: 2 years remaining
Bush: 1 year remaining

Corners:

Woodson: 4 years remaining
Williams: 4 years remaining
House: Probably will sign 4 year deal
Shields: 2 years remaining and then restricted, so essentially 3 years remaining
Lee: 1 year remaining

MLB:

Hawk: 5 years remaining
Bishop: 4 years remaining
Williams: Probably will sign 4 year deal
Chillar: 3 years remaining
Barnett: 2 years remaining


OLB:

Elmore: Probably will sign 4 year deal
Matthews: 3 years remaining (probably needs to be redone in 2 or less though)
Zombo: 2 years remaining and then restricted, so essentially 3 years remaining
Jones: 2 years remaining
Poppinga: 2 years remaining
Walden: 1 year remaining

NT:

Raji: 3 years remaining (probably needs to be redone in 2 or less though)
Green: 1 year remaining

DE:

Guy: Probably will sign 4 year deal
Pickett: 3 years remaining
Neal: 3 years remaining
Wilson: 3 years remaining
Wynn: 3 years remaining
Harrell: 2 years remaining


OT:

Sherrod: Probably will sign 5 year deal
Bulaga: 4 years remaining
Newhouse: 3 years remaining
Clifton: 2 years remaining
Tauscher: 1 year remaining

G:

Caleb: Probably will sign 4 year deal
Lang: 2 years remaining
Sitton: 1 year remaining


C:

McDonald: 2 years remaining and then restricted, so essentially 3 years remaining
Wells: 1 year remaining


TE:


Williams: Probably will sign 4 year deal
Quarless: 3 years remaining
Crabtree: 2 years remaining and then restricted, so essentially 3 years remaining
Finley: 1 year remaining


WR:

Cobb: Probably will sign 4 year deal
Jennings: 2 years remaining
Driver: 2 years remaining
Nelson: 1 year remaining

FB:

Taylor: Probably will sign 4 year deal
Kuhn: Assuming we re-sign cheap
Johnson: 2 years remaining

RB:

Green: Probably will sign 4 year deal
Starks: 3 years remaining
Grant: 1 year remaining

QB:

Rodgers: 4 years remaining (probably needs to be redone in 3 or less though)
Flynn: 1 year remaining


K:

Crosby: assuming we resign cheap


P:

Masthay: 2 years remaining and then restricted, so essentially 3 years remaining


LS:

Goode: 2 years remaining


Players I think that are important to re-sign with one year left:

Finley
Sitton
Nelson

Players I think that are important to re-sign with two years left:

Jennnigs
Shields
Lang (depends on play)
Masthay
Goode
Maybe a couple other young guys if they prove themselves, i.e., Zombo, Jones, Mcdonald, etc.

Players I think that are important to re-sign with three years left or need to be re-signed around this time:

Collins
Burnett (depends on play)
Raji
Matthews
Neal (depends on play)

Throw in Rodgers around this time as well.


Now look at the money we probably will be getting during that same time frame from players who are not that young, making a lot of money, and probably won’t need to be re-signed once therir contracts are up:

Grant - will be 29 when contract expires.
Clifton - will be 36 when contract expires.
Tauscher - will be 34 when contract expires.
Driver - will be 38 when contract expires.
Poppinga - will be 33 when contract expires.
Chillar - will be 31 when contract expires
Barnett - will be 31 when contract expires.
Pickett - will be 34 when contract expiries
Woodson (if he retires) - already 34
Harrell

Looks to me that once we need money for our young up and coming players, it will be available simply by older players past their prime being let go. Many of whom are not even starters. If TT follows up with another 2-3 drafts that include a couple gems like Raji, Matthews, Jennings, etc. and I could really see us winning another 2-3 supebowls in the next 5+ years if everyone stays heathly.

Thoughts?

[RashanGary]

Fuckin-A


And there are going to be some stars that emerge from the last years draft and this years draft. Even if we loose a star or two, we're replenishing them but younger and cheaper. Who knows when this ride will end, what we do know is we're on it now.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

Fuckin-A


And there are going to be some stars that emerge from the last years draft and this years draft. Even if we loose a star or two, we're replenishing them but younger and cheaper. Who knows when this ride will end, what we do know is we're on it now.

Yep and if you add up the money we probably will be getting from the ten or so old players I listed its probably around 30 million. Now consider the fact the players like Rodgers, Jennings, Collins, and Raji, are already making a good amount of money and thus re-signing them probably won't take a big chuck of additional cap space and all of a sudden that re-signing list looks even smaller. I think the key to winning multiple superbowls in the coming years simply comes down to TT continuing to draft well. Real exciting to think about.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

Couple more thoughts:

At rb:

Assuming Grant leaves after this season, I have full confidence in Starks starting for two years after that (the last two years of his contract). At which time he will be 28 himself and may not get a second contract. I would assume we draft a 21-22 yo replacement. Basically what I'm saying is I don't see us spending big bucks on the running back position for 5+ years. Starks finishing out his rookie contract and then another rookie taking over?


At OLB:

The more I think about it, the more "okay" I am that we are going with guys like Jones, Zombo, Elmore and Walden opposite Clay Matthews for a couple more years. Imagine if we drafted an OLB last season with our number pick and he turned out to be a probowler. You would have to re-sign Matthews and him to 60+ million dollar contracts around the same time. If we wait another year or two a find a stud opposite Matthews and let Jones, Zombo, Walden, and Elmore hold it down for a couple years, by then Matthews will just have signed his big contract and the other guy will be early in his rookie contract. Doubt TT is thinking this way, but I would love if it plays out that way since this is where we are now anyways.

[Bretsky]

DAM....are we really stuck with Justine Harrell for two more years..........lol

IF we could just find a way to bring Jenkins back.....

We are set up nicely for a while

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

DAM....are we really stuck with Justine Harrell for two more years..........lol

IF we could just find a way to bring Jenkins back.....

We are set up nicely for a while

Jenkins would really be nice to have back, but a lot of that I think depends on the numbers. Would keeping Jenkins mean losing one of the young guys in a year or two? That would depend on the cap. Sure seems like the team is fine moving on without him.

If we keep Barnett, do we go with a 2-5-4 look in the base defense. I'm sure Capers could find packages that have Raji and Green one the line and Matthews, Hawk, Bishop, Barnett, and Zombo lining up all over the field lol.

[vince]

OT:

Sherrod: Probably will sign 5 year deal
Bulaga: 4 years remaining
Newhouse: 3 years remaining
Clifton: 2 years remaining
Tauscher: 1 year remaining

G:

Caleb: Probably will sign 4 year deal
Lang: 2 years remaining
Sitton: 1 year remaining


C:

McDonald: 2 years remaining and then restricted, so essentially 3 years remaining
Wells: 1 year remaining
Not to be a downer on a very encouraging thread, but this jumped out at me in looking at those contracts. Take out those players in red, who all at this point have only a year left on their deal or in the tank in the likely case of Cliffy, and there's a serious need for depth all along the oline. Sitton is a major piece and will not be cheap. Wells is getting up there in age, but there's no depth there either.

[Guiness]

Couple more thoughts:

At rb:

Assuming Grant leaves after this season, I have full confidence in Starks starting for two years after that (the last two years of his contract). At which time he will be 28 himself and may not get a second contract. I would assume we draft a 21-22 yo replacement. Basically what I'm saying is I don't see us spending big bucks on the running back position for 5+ years. Starks finishing out his rookie contract and then another rookie taking over?



Damn, Starks is 25 at the end of his rookie year? I wonder what happened there? I guess he wasn't going to be a first day choice and finished his degree. You're right, he might not see that lucrative second contract.

His bio at Packers.com said he played 3 years at Buffalo, plus his senior season which he didn't play. Working backwards, he was 20 when he started college. He has an early birthday (February) so might have started school a year late, and must have lost another year in there somewhere.

I saw an article calling for a drop-off from his next year...of course, it is Bleacher Report, so is essentially worthless.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/623453-james-starks-and-10-nfl-players-headed-for-sophomore-slumps/page/2

How come Bleacher Report has such a high damn ranking on Google? Everytime I search for something sports related, I get one or two hits from there, instead of Sportsline or some other reasonable source. I'd rather hits from PFT than BR.

[Tarlam!]

It's an unquestionably a great contract situation that has been crafted. But Vince is absolutely right pointing out the OL depth. And, sorry to piss on the parade, but if anything should happen to Rodgers, the contract situation means diddly squat.

We Packer fans have had 3 QBs start in the last near on 2 decades. I don't know what the NFL average is for all teams, but take away the Packers' stat, that number rises again. The point being, how long will this luck last?

I'm glad to see TT is drafting to protect him.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

Not to be a downer on a very encouraging thread, but this jumped out at me in looking at those contracts. Take out those players in red, who all at this point have only a year left on their deal or in the tank in the likely case of Cliffy, and there's a serious need for depth all along the oline. Sitton is a major piece and will not be cheap. Wells is getting up there in age, but there's no depth there either.

The way I look at it is hopefully we have the two tackles for the future already on the roster in Bulaga and Sherrod. Both guys signed 5 year deals and should be cheap for a while. The point of this thread was to point out that who ever the team wants to re-sign shouldn't be much of a problem. So basically I don't see Sitton going anywhere regardless the price. Clifton/Tauscher leaving only frees up money that basically goes to Sitton on the o-line. While we have Clifton/Tauscher both on the team they are a lxury b/c they let us bring Sherrod and Bulaga along slowly. So out of the three starters of the future in Sitton, Bulaga, and Sherrod, only Sitton probably will be making a lot of money in the next 4/5 years. Very similar to what we have set up currently with Clifton the only one making a large amount of money.

That leaves Colledge and Wells. Colledge to me is the definition of a servable starter. He's as good as he's going to get. He's not a guy that I would spend money for a second contract on, which means his replacement is probably Lang or a guy in the draft next year. If we draft someone to replace him next year he comes with a cheap 4/5 year deal.


As for Wells, the guy is a good player, but he is already 30 years old. His frame is not going to help as he gets deeper in his 30's either. Is this a guy the team invests in? I really don't know. If they do I don't think he will "break the bank." If they move on without him that would not be a surprise either b/c TT has been running the show like that for the last 6 years.
If Sherrod and Bulaga turn out, we really just need another guy or two through the draft to built a very strong young o-line.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

I don’t think we are lacking depth either. Look at tackle for example. We have:
Clifton
Tauscher
Sherrod
Bulaga
Newhouse
Lang (T/G)

When Clifton and Tauscher leave, Sherrod and Bulaga take over starters. Lang can play tackle if needed and Newhouse is only entering year two and hopefully gets better. That’s four young guys at tackle behind the two aging vets. What team can say they have that type of depth?

We have Wells at center and McDonald backing him up. The team seemed too really like him or else I don’t think they would have kept him on the roster all year with all those injuries. Is he the replacement to Wells? If he is that would mean we have 4 out of 5 starters for the future on the roster.

If Colledge leaves this year we would need to add talent at guard moving forward. Obvious we need to continue to draft well to maintain excellence or the run won’t last. We did add some depth in Caleb this year though, plus we haven't seen what UDFA's we bring in.

Future online?

Sherrod -------- Mcdonald Sitton Bulaga
Lang -------- ------------- Caleb Newhouse

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

Damn, Starks is 25 at the end of his rookie year? I wonder what happened there? I guess he wasn't going to be a first day choice and finished his degree. You're right, he might not see that lucrative second contract.

His bio at Packers.com said he played 3 years at Buffalo, plus his senior season which he didn't play. Working backwards, he was 20 when he started college. He has an early birthday (February) so might have started school a year late, and must have lost another year in there somewhere.

I saw an article calling for a drop-off from his next year...of course, it is Bleacher Report, so is essentially worthless.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/623453-james-starks-and-10-nfl-players-headed-for-sophomore-slumps/page/2

How come Bleacher Report has such a high damn ranking on Google? Everytime I search for something sports related, I get one or two hits from there, instead of Sportsline or some other reasonable source. I'd rather hits from PFT than BR.

Yeah he was a 24 yo rookie last year. I would put him and Grant neck and nack going into camp. I am fine moving forward with him, just wish he was a little younger.

[vince]

Good point about Sitton and the vet contracts MD. I agree that he can be re-signed and is likely to stay.


Sherrod -------- Mcdonald Sitton Bulaga
Lang -------- ------------- Caleb Newhouse
Regarding depth though, I can't say much about Schladeraff at this point, but I have seen enough of Newhouse to say that I think he needs more developing and is anything but established. I'm not sure that he's anything more than Giacomini. So far, what I've seen is soft and slow - a bad combination. I like Lang and McDonald. Lang's a brawler as is McDonald who also has great feet. Hopefully, all of the young guys will pan out, but that's probably optimistic to think that'll happen. Even if it does occur, there are at least 2 spots that remain unfilled for the future at this point.

[Patler]

O-line depth is always a concern because to be two-deep you need 10, and no team ever has that many with proven capability. What you really hope for is capable starters and 2 or 3 reserves. Assuming you have good starters, among the overall group, one has to be capable as a backup LT and one at center. These can come from your starters at other positions, so long as your 7 or 8 deep roster is solid. If you have 7 or 8 decent players, the backup guard and RT spots are covered almost by default.

Lang played pretty well at LT two years ago when pressed into service. I'm not overly concerned with last season, because he missed all of the off-season conditioning and was limited in TC. I think he will bounce back. Not having organized off-season this year is unfortunate, but the problem last year (per several articles) seemed to be that his wrist surgery prevented him from maintaining his upper body conditioning, and it was difficult to regain it during the season. Hopefully he has worked on that this summer.

With Bulaga, Sherrod and Lang I think they are covered for a backup at LT. Last year they reported that Newhouse "had left-tackle feet" and that it might be his best position in the long run. He's sort of a wild-card, having his own back problems.

The backup at center could be McDonald. They also still have Dietrich-Smith who seems to hang around pretty strongly. I'm not sure that Spitz is out of the mix yet either. Another year post-surgery could make a real difference, and he might have to sign a vet-minimum type contract for a year to reprove himself. Nothing certain about the backups here, but they have enough options with promise that I'm not too worried about them finding one. As a fall-back, often there seems to be some journey-men centers available at the end of TC, some with a fair amount of starting experience. I think they will be covered at backup center.

If backup LT and backup center are covered, do you have eight good o-linemen for the game day roster? I think so, with or without Colledge and Tauscher. Lets take the worst case scenario, without Tauscher and without Colledge:

Clifton, Wells, Sitton, Bulaga as starters, with one of Lang or McDonald as the other starter. With no off-season camps, it might be difficult for any of the rookies to jump in at the start of the season. The reserves will be the other of Lang or McDonald, Sherrod and one other. There will be two more on the 53 man roster. Basically, the last three spots will be filled from

Shlauderaff
Dietrich-Smith
Newhouse
Battles
Spitz
Campbell
Tauscher
A likely UDFA that will be signed.

Every year brings changes to the 9 or 10 deep roster of the O-line. They seem to have the game day eight covered for 2011 with or without Colledge and Tauscher. As for 2012 and beyond; with Bulaga, Sherrod, Lang and Newhouse they seem to have the tackles covered. Any of those four seem to also be options at guard, along with McDonald and Sclauderaff even if Sitton were to leave. All but Bulaga are unproven, but with Sitton included you have two solid starters and 5 promising young players for the 4 starting spots. By 2012 there will probably one or two new faces in the mix.

Depth on the O-line looks better than it has any year since TT came.

[Bretsky]

we need to lock Sitton down; it sounds like one major debate between the owners and players is owners would like to name 3 players whose offers they can match. Sitton is that guy. This NFL labor thing still might take a while. I'm thinking we lose 2 preseason games

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

Good point about Sitton and the vet contracts MD. I agree that he can be re-signed and is likely to stay.


Regarding depth though, I can't say much about Schladeraff at this point, but I have seen enough of Newhouse to say that I think he needs more developing and is anything but established. I'm not sure that he's anything more than Giacomini. So far, what I've seen is soft and slow - a bad combination. I like Lang and McDonald. Lang's a brawler as is McDonald who also has great feet. Hopefully, all of the young guys will pan out, but that's probably optimistic to think that'll happen. Even if it does occur, there are at least 2 spots that remain unfilled for the future at this point.

I agree it is being somewhat optimistic, but you could say the same thing about the corner position last year. Al Harris was 36 and hurt, Woodson was getting older, Lee was always injured, and Williams had yet completed a whole season as a starter. All of a sudden Williams gets tons better, Shields comes out of nowhere, Woodson continues to amaze, Lee shows up in the superbowl, and we draft another guy in House. Now corner looks great moving forward. Corner looked to be in worse shape for the future this time last year than the o-line does right now. The o-line looks to have 3-4 young starters in place and only needs probably one other starter and a couple decent players for depth from being in great shape. Its hard to predict who will emerge, but they have been investing on the o-line a lot in recent years. I think we have enough (with Clifton and Wells still here) to get us through another year until draft day 2012.

[vince]

I agree that the starting o-line looks as good as it has in TT's time here, and Sherrod has promise to be a long-term stalwart at LT, but he could bust like John Michels too. I'm just taking a snapshot of who's under contract now and seeing the uncertainty.

In terms of guys currently under contract for any length of time beyond one year, which is the subject of this thread, I'm not sure how anyone can say there's depth on the o-line.

Optimistically you're looking at Sherrod (completely unproven) -- Lang -- McDonald (completely unproven) -- Sitton (not yet re-signed) -- Bulaga

Back-ups - Schladeraff, Newhouse and EDS - all completely unproven.

There are guys to fill the spots, every one of which except Bulaga is either completely unproven in the NFL or not under contract beyond this year. That can't be debated.

I agree with those who are bullish on Sherrod, Lang and McDonald - and with Sitton being re-upped, but you have to say there are a lot of serious questions there right now. I also agree with those who have confidence in TT to get the guys re-signed and to effectively evaluate the guys who are unproven and continue to round out the line.

[vince]

I agree it is being somewhat optimistic, but you could say the same thing about the corner position last year. Al Harris was 36 and hurt, Woodson was getting older, Lee was always injured, and Williams had yet completed a whole season as a starter. All of a sudden Williams gets tons better, Shields comes out of nowhere, Woodson continues to amaze, Lee shows up in the superbowl, and we draft another guy in House. Now corner looks great moving forward. Corner looked to be in worse shape for the future this time last year than the o-line does right now. The o-line looks to have 3-4 young starters in place and only needs probably one other starter and a couple decent players for depth from being in great shape. Its hard to predict who will emerge, but they have been investing on the o-line a lot in recent years. I think we have enough (with Clifton and Wells still here) to get us through another year until draft day 2012.
I'm with you in terms of having confidence in the future of this o-line and the young guys' development. I think the talent will prove out and TT will get his guys re-upped.

[Patler]

When you are looking at the O-line, you are looking at 45% of the starters on offense. Of course there will be one or two that need to re-signed. It will always be that way. There is only one old man to worry about replacing and that is Clifton, and there seem to be a lot of candidates to do that. As to younger guys like Sitton, it is likely that he will be resigned, or if he is let go it will be because TT is confident in a backup taking over, even if he is not as good as SItton. It doesn't appear there will be cap problems like in 2005 when TT had little choice but to let players go without replacements on hand.

In 2005 the Packers drafted 2 and 3rd round guards who were almost immediately penciled in as starters. In 2010 and 2011 first round draft picks were/are looked at as reserves coming into camp. Bulaga ended up becoming a starter, but he wasn't relied on to do that when drafted. I'm sure some of the young guys we have mentioned will not work out; but now they seem to be picking 10 for the roster from 12 or 13 capable/promising ones. Five and six years ago they were picking 10 for the roster from 8 capable ones and a bunch that nobody had much hope for.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

I just don't see Sitton going anywhere. The only mistake TT has ever publicly admitted to if I remember correctly is when he said he should I tried harder to keep Whale/Rivera. No way does he repeat the same mistake with Sitton. I am more concerned about losing Finely than Sitton to be honest. They are number one and two as far as players I think should be next to get new deals.

[Tarlam!]

I am more concerned about losing Finely than Sitton to be honest. They are number one and two as far as players I think should be next to get new deals.

I would challenge this. They wona SB without Finley for 2/3 rds of a season, got hot and stayed hot without him. Sitton helped in keeping Rodgers alive. The Packers have proven they can score with all sorts of TE, FB, WR. I think Sitton is far more valuable to the team. Admitedly, Finley is a great to have/ horror to play against kinda guy.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

I would challenge this. They wona SB without Finley for 2/3 rds of a season, got hot and stayed hot without him. Sitton helped in keeping Rodgers alive. The Packers have proven they can score with all sorts of TE, FB, WR. I think Sitton is far more valuable to the team. Admitedly, Finley is a great to have/ horror to play against kinda guy.

Actually for the most part I agree. I'm just saying the next two guys who I think should get extensions would be those two. Whether Sitton is more important than Finley is yet to be decided. Granted we functioned well without Finley, but he still could very well take our offense to a whole new level this year. If he is not the focus of the offense like he was the first four weeks of the season last year, I think that will actually make him more dangerous. When they are not keying in on him is when he'll take the offense to another level. I will say this, I think its a lot harder to find an eilte TE than an eilte guard. But if I had to choose who I think is more likely to get an extension, that would be Sitton.

[Tarlam!]

Whether Sitton is more important than Finley is yet to be decided.(...)I think its a lot harder to find an eilte TE than an eilte guard. But if I had to choose who I think is more likely to get an extension, that would be Sitton.

Well, I would ask you, what's more important, an upright Great QB that can throw to TDs to FB if need be, or an elite TE with a QB that can't get him the ball because your great QB had to retire early and aint throwing it anymore? I mean, I really don't know, but I saw someone post in Fritz's Suh thread that he'd line Sitton up over from anyone and likes Sitton's chances.

I love the Finley potential and I'm smacking my chops just thinking about it! The fact is, they've proven that they can go all the way without an elite TE. I must concede though, it was Rodgers' running that got him concussed so that he had to be replaced, that's not on the OL. Have at it. I'm as delighted as anyone about the overall situation capwise, playerwise, staffwise. I'm just paranoid about losing Rodgers, and ya gotta be thinking Flynn is gone after his contract is up. That's why my priorities differ. Pure paranoia! ;)

[vince]

There is only one old man to worry about replacing and that is Clifton, and there seem to be a lot of candidates to do that. Without getting into semantics of the term “worry,” the Packers have replaced Tauscher with Bulaga and Spitz with Sitton on the starting o-line from the last two years. Between now and the end of this season, it appears likely that they’ll need to replace Colledge, Wells and Clifton (not counting Sitton, who we assume will be re-upped). Ideally, there would be one, maybe two – preferably zero – guys along the line that needs to be re-signed or replaced in any year. Hopefully Sherrod, Lang and McDonald will be effective in replacing those three starters within the next year. I think they can. But they have virtually no experience to draw from – and that’s an unusually high amount of turnover in a short time.

Then the depth issue looking past this year and into the future as the thread suggests deals with who’s going to replace those inexperienced guys (who are now “depth”) when they join the starting lineup. There you’ve got

- EDS - undrafted guy who was previously cut by the Packers, then Seattle, the team with the worst line in the league
- a fifth-round first-year guy with a bad back,
- a couple undrafted practice squad guys, and
- a sixth-round rookie

Besides a few snaps a couple years ago by EDS, none of those guys have played a down in the league. I'm talking about getting to eight guys, not 10. The sixth-round rookie may well be the best of that bunch. Maybe he and others will pan out, but right now, you can’t call that any depth much less good depth – again, for the future. If any of the three new guys to the starting lineup OR any of the three guys replacing them falter, get injured, etc. that’s yet another guy that needs to be added. If any two of them falter, there's another.

I’ll be the first one to argue that inexperience doesn’t mean they won’t succeed. That’s what TT is paid to do and he’s the best in the business at it. I’m not suggesting TT hasn’t done a good job re-building the o-line. Even with the guys he’s added, it seems likely to me that he has more work to do on the o-line in the coming couple years than any other position group by far. I personally wouldn't want anyone else in the world in charge of getting it done.

[Patler]

Between now and the end of this season, it appears likely that they’ll need to replace Colledge, Wells and Clifton (not counting Sitton, who we assume will be re-upped).

Clifton, I agree will have to be replaced soon, if not during or after this season, then almost certainly by the end of 2012. But, they will not have to or need to replace Colledge or Wells unless they chose to. (I'm assuming both would be willing to return to GB if offered a fair contract.) I doubt that either will receive outlandish contracts like Wahle and Rivera received. The Packers should be able to retain one or both, and consequently should replace one or both only if they decide they have as good or potentially better players behind them. I think that is likely to happen with Colledge this year.



Ideally, there would be one, maybe two – preferably zero – guys along the line that needs to be re-signed or replaced in any year. Hopefully Sherrod, Lang and McDonald will be effective in replacing those three starters within the next year. I think they can. But they have virtually no experience to draw from – and that’s an unusually high amount of turnover in a short time.

Your preference for zero guys on the O-line needing to be resigned or replaced is not realistic. You are dealing with 45% of the offensive starters and about 40% of the entire offensive roster. Once in a while a player can be resigned early, but a team simply can not afford to do that with everyone. I think it was Belichick who pointed out that to be competitive with a salary cap in place means you have to have a few guys who are outplaying their contracts by a lot. The cap prevents you from paying everyone what they are worth. You can afford to do an early extension with some, while others like Sitton outplay their deals and go into the final year of their contracts needing to be resigned or replaced before the next season. That's all part of salary cap management. But it doesn't mean you have to lose them.


Then the depth issue looking past this year and into the future as the thread suggests deals with who’s going to replace those inexperienced guys (who are now “depth”) when they join the starting lineup. There you’ve got

I’ll be the first one to argue that inexperience doesn’t mean they won’t succeed. That’s what TT is paid to do and he’s the best in the business at it. I’m not suggesting TT hasn’t done a good job re-building the o-line. Even with the guys he’s added, it seems likely to me that he has more work to do on the o-line in the coming couple years than any other position group by far. I personally wouldn't want anyone else in the world in charge of getting it done.

I will be very surprised if they end up replacing as many guys as you suggest. If they do, it will be a good thing, because I think it will mean they have replaced then with players just as good but cheaper, thereby freeing money to use on others, or with players better than those replaced. Ideally those replacements will come from guys currently on the roster. However, the depth behind them in 2012 and 2013 is likely to come from guys not currently on the roster. I'm not at all concerned that all 5 backups this year be good enough two years from now. If a couple are, that will be enough along with the 2, 3 or 4 that TT will draft and/or sign over the next couple years. The 8-deep roster in 2013 will likely include at least one and maybe 2 or 3 guys not currently on the team.

[vince]

I am not saying that replacing Wells and/or Colledge is a bad thing. I think it would be a good thing actually. Colledge is frustratingly inconsistent, Spitz has not held up, and Wells is undersized, been beaten up for the better part of 8 years and is on the wrong side of 30. I'm hoping they're all replaced and it's reasonable to think there's a decent chance for them all to be replaced.

What I am saying is that replacing those guys eliminates the depth for the future along the line, which is what MD is assessing in the thread. Re-upping them is fine, but they haven't been signed yet. Only 1 of the 5 starting o-linemen are locked in for the future right now, and their back-ups have basically zero experience, and all but one of them have come from more or less off the scrapheap. Some of those guys become great linemen, and like you, I'm high on the future of guys like Sherrod, Lang, and McDonald, but that's not depth for the future yet.

It's a result of how the draft board has fallen in Thompson's first few years in the early rounds combined with what look like short runs by Spitz and Colledge along with later-round guys like Whittacker, Thompson, Giacomini, Barbre, and a few others I'm sure I'm missing all whiffing in short succession.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

Well if you are trying to get to eight solid linemen for the future, I think we are more than half way there already. I would consider Bulaga, Sitton, Sherrod, Lang, and Mcdonald as guys who will be here long term. Now add Clifton, Wells, and possibly Colledge for this year, and we look to be in decent shape for the upcoming season. Now assume we lose ALL THREE going into next season and we are back to Bulaga, Sitton, Sherrod, Lang, and Mcdonald. That gives us this training camp and next off season as well to find 2-3 guys who can either start or add depth. More likely is only one of those three new guys will probably need to be immediate starters. I agree with Vince that there will be a lot of transition in the upcoming year, but I feel that we already have 4 starters for the future on the roster. So the most important thing will probably be how fast they can gel once the vets like Clifton and Wells leave. But having the talent on the roster already in place is more than half the battle IMO.

And like Patler said you can't have 8 young guys all on the roster now AND in the next 5 years. That would be very unrealistic. The fact that I can name five young guys that I would keep moving forward is pretty good.

Say TT drafts a guard in the second round of the draft next year. The starting o-line could be Sherrod, 2nd, Mcdonald, Sitton, Bulaga. That would leave Lang, Newhouse, and whoever else he brings in for depth. Does he keep Wells for another 2-3 years? Very possible. If so, Mcdonald moves to guard or goes back to the bench. Will Sherrod, Mcdonald, and the future drafts we spend on the o-line all pan out? Probably not, but judging from TT track record I would bet at least a couple do.

We won the superbowl this with a rookie starting at tackle, and with Colledge (who is only an average player IMO) starting at guard. Clifton played well but you can't say there wasn't some uncertainty about how he would perform going into the season. Point is, unless we get an oline like we had from 00-04, there will always be a couple guys you are worried about. But with Sitton and two recent first round picks already invested on the oline I am not as worried as some are moving forward. Let’s not forget that the oline of our 2010 superbowl team wasn't all that good. They couldn't run block entirely well and Rodgers covered up a lot of the passing blocking with his ability to escape. For all we know the oline could a 100 times better in two years from now. Sherrod should easy be a better run blocker than Clifton, Bulaga will be in his third year, Sitton should only have gotten better, and it’s very possible we replace Colledge with a better player. Once that happens, the possibility of having an oline like we had from 00-04 is real.

[get louder at lambeau]

Great discussion. Thanks for starting such a solid topic, PF_n_MD.

One thing I think is being underrated is Scott Wells and his chances of being re-signed. He was better than most fans realize this year, and is only 30 right now.


Packers coach Mike McCarthy said in his Monday press conference that C Scott Wells has been the team's best offensive lineman this season.
McCarthy called it a "Pro Bowl-type season." The Packers tried to replace Wells two seasons ago, but the 30-year-old never relented and started all 16 games in 2010. According to Pro Football Focus, Wells has allowed just one sack, committed just one penalty, and graded out well as a run blocker. Jan 3, 12:55 PM

http://rotoworld.com/player/nfl/2940/scott-wells

[Smidgeon]

Great discussion. Thanks for starting such a solid topic, PF_n_MD.

One thing I think is being underrated is Scott Wells and his chances of being re-signed. He was better than most fans realize this year, and is only 30 right now.



http://rotoworld.com/player/nfl/2940/scott-wells

Plus, I'm seeing more and more national recognition that peg Wells as a Top 10 center...

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

Great discussion. Thanks for starting such a solid topic, PF_n_MD.

One thing I think is being underrated is Scott Wells and his chances of being re-signed. He was better than most fans realize this year, and is only 30 right now.



http://rotoworld.com/player/nfl/2940/scott-wells

If he's willing to sign a 2-3 year extension at a fair salary I could see him back. I don't really see him holding up in his 30's though, esp. with his size. It would be ideal if someone like Mcdonald keeps getting better and replaces him in a year from now. Then again having a solid vet on what looks to be a very young oline in a year from now is probably a good thing. I'm on the fence about Wells.