Seven OL on the 53?

[Guiness]

I'm a little shocked at there being only 7 OL on the PS. I couldn't remember anyone carrying that few, so I checked rosters around the league. Nine is most common, with 16 teams carrying that many, 10 teams have eight, but there are 5 other teams carrying 7! Other than us, there's Jax, KC, Minn, SD and St-L.

Is this a new trend I haven't noticed? We have 3 OL on our practice squad, so the idea must be to call one up in case of an injury.

Noticed two other things when looking at the league's OLs - Giacomini is now the starting RT in Seattle, J. Meredith is made TB's 53.

[Lurker64]

The logic, as I understand it, is as follows: they only will have 7 active OL on game days anyway (that's how many they've dressed in previous years), Sherrod will come back around week 6-9 which will put us at 8 (the same number we had last year) and if somebody will miss a game between now and week 6 the PS is 3/8ths OL.

[Joemailman]

I think they felt they were okay at Guard and guys like Wells and Allard weren't worth keeping as Tackles. TT doesn't reach in the draft to fill a need, and he tries not to keep below average football players just to fill a need either.

[rbaloha1]

IMO it does not stay 7. TT was unhappy with numbers 8-10 of Packers o-linemen.

Expect a move for additional active o-linemen soon.

[mission]

They have 10 OL including PS players... only 7 on gameday so I think they're pretty much set numbers wise. Might swap out a bottom of the order type of guy but wont add another.

[Lurker64]

IMO it does not stay 7. TT was unhappy with numbers 8-10 of Packers o-linemen.

Expect a move for additional active o-linemen soon.

Well, they dress 7 on game-day anyway, the 8th (and 9th) OL just hangs out on the bench, while the 6th and 7th guys are fill-ins. EDS is fine backing up all 3 interior positions, so if you want to replace someone in the top 7 it's Barclay. I personally think Barclay is the sort of guy who can get you out of a game at every position except left tackle, and the backup left tackle for now (until Sherrod comes back) is T.J. Lang.

So if they made a move it would be to find a backup OT of some kind, but I'm not sure they're honestly going to do a lot better than Sherrod (who they can have again after week 6), Barclay (who is on the team), and Datko (who is on the PS).

If somebody gets hurt and will miss at least one game, you promote someone from the PS (or you give Reggie Wells or Herb Taylor a call.) If nobody gets hurt bad enough to miss games in the first six weeks, you get Sherrod back.

So I'm not sure a move is necessary. There aren't a lot of great backup OTs available anywhere.

[Guiness]

Well, they dress 7 on game-day anyway, the 8th (and 9th) OL just hangs out on the bench, while the 6th and 7th guys are fill-ins. EDS is fine backing up all 3 interior positions, so if you want to replace someone in the top 7 it's Barclay. I personally think Barclay is the sort of guy who can get you out of a game at every position except left tackle, and the backup left tackle for now (until Sherrod comes back) is T.J. Lang.

So if they made a move it would be to find a backup OT of some kind, but I'm not sure they're honestly going to do a lot better than Sherrod (who they can have again after week 6), Barclay (who is on the team), and Datko (who is on the PS).

If somebody gets hurt and will miss at least one game, you promote someone from the PS (or you give Reggie Wells or Herb Taylor a call.) If nobody gets hurt bad enough to miss games in the first six weeks, you get Sherrod back.

So I'm not sure a move is necessary. There aren't a lot of great backup OTs available anywhere.

I understand the reasoning - only 7 are generally dressed, not useful on STs. It used to be said that the third most important position on a team was the backup LT. Most teams choose to keep that guy on the 53. I'd think you'd want him making good money (that has to help development) and you'd be worried about your backup LT being plucked off your PS.

Interesting, we'll see how it works out.

btw Would Lang slide over to LT if Newhouse went down, or would Bulaga move there? I don't want to find out, but I don't think either choice is a given. Bulaga seems to project better at LT.

[Lurker64]

btw Would Lang slide over to LT if Newhouse went down, or would Bulaga move there? I don't want to find out, but I don't think either choice is a given. Bulaga seems to project better at LT.

I think the substitutions would be as follows:

Saturday unavailable: EDS plays center
Sitton unavailable: EDS plays RG
Lang unavailable: EDS plays LG
Newhouse unavailable: Lang slides to LT, EDS plays LG

What you do if Bulaga is unavailable, I'm not sure. You could just sub Barclay in for him, or you could do the same Lang/EDS switch.

[pbmax]

As expected, Thompson found a tackle prospect for the eighth spot on the PS.


Green Bay -- The Packers announced their eight-player practice squad prior to Monday's practice. New to the group is G/T Chris Scott, a 2010 fifth-round pick by the Pittsburgh Steelers out of Tennessee. He played in two games the 2011 season, also spending time on the Steelers' practice squad.

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/168376236.html

The only fear? The Steelers have been trying to solidify their tackle positions for years and this year two guys expected to play got hurt. So we have to hope a desperate Steelers team missed something.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I wonder if Clifton would be an option in a pinch.

I guess TT cut down to 7 because the players he cut are not better than the mooks on the practice squad, who can easily be promoted. Makes sense. You got to play the ball where it lies.

[Patler]

The o-lineman that is inactive on game day is no more help to you than one on your practice squad. Since they usually have only 7 active, it doesn't matter that they have only 7 on the 53. However, it does show that their options for the 8th spot, until Sherrod is available, are lacking in experience (the PS guys) or in ability such that the packers are willing to risk they won't be available (Wells, etc.)

If a lineman were to go down for multiple weeks early in the season, Wells might be the guy they sign, not one from the practice squad.

Could be they don't want to guarantee Wells' salary for the entire season, so cut him to avoid that, but hope to resign him next week, though I doubt it.

[Joemailman]

I think the substitutions would be as follows:

Saturday unavailable: EDS plays center
Sitton unavailable: EDS plays RG
Lang unavailable: EDS plays LG
Newhouse unavailable: Lang slides to LT, EDS plays LG

What you do if Bulaga is unavailable, I'm not sure. You could just sub Barclay in for him, or you could do the same Lang/EDS switch.

Last year against the Bears with both Bulaga and Sherrod out, Lang started at RT with EDS at LG.

[Guiness]

The o-lineman that is inactive on game day is no more help to you than one on your practice squad. Since they usually have only 7 active, it doesn't matter that they have only 7 on the 53. However, it does show that their options for the 8th spot, until Sherrod is available, are lacking in experience (the PS guys) or in ability such that the packers are willing to risk they won't be available (Wells, etc.)

If a lineman were to go down for multiple weeks early in the season, Wells might be the guy they sign, not one from the practice squad.

Could be they don't want to guarantee Wells' salary for the entire season, so cut him to avoid that, but hope to resign him next week, though I doubt it.

Did Wells play any tackle? I thought he was just a guard. It's pretty much impossible to know anything about OL camp bodies. If he's not a tackled, I can't see them bringing him back, since they seemingly have two backup guards on the roster. Maybe if Wells is a better option than Barclay is right now, they could bring him back after week 1 and try to get Barclay to the PS. I agree though, not unless there's an injury.

You have to think Boykin's sitting in an OL's roster spot. He must've shown enough in camp to make them afraid to try and get him on the PS, because I doubt he's going to be on the game day roster.

[Guiness]

I wonder how Barclay will progress? Obviously, he'll be gameday active, unlike other OL prospects (say, McDonald) that we've held on to. Pretty low opinion on him at Total Packers list of UDFA's the pack brought in!

http://www.totalpackers.com/2012/04/29/packers-2012-undrafted-free-agents/

Don Barclay, tackle/guard, West Virginia (6-4, 305) — A two-year starter at left tackle for the Mountaineers, Barclay was named first-team All-Big East by the coaches in 2011. He’ll probably play guard at the pro level because of his size. Unfortunately, that’s about all we know about him. It doesn’t seem like he was scouted heavily and that probably means it’s unlikely he’ll make an NFL roster.

Boykin's not on that list! Was he brought in after the first round of signings?

[Lurker64]

Last year against the Bears with both Bulaga and Sherrod out, Lang started at RT with EDS at LG.

Then yeah, in every case EDS is the first man off the bench, and Lang will slide to either tackle spot if needed.

[rbaloha1]

Well, they dress 7 on game-day anyway, the 8th (and 9th) OL just hangs out on the bench, while the 6th and 7th guys are fill-ins. EDS is fine backing up all 3 interior positions, so if you want to replace someone in the top 7 it's Barclay. I personally think Barclay is the sort of guy who can get you out of a game at every position except left tackle, and the backup left tackle for now (until Sherrod comes back) is T.J. Lang.

So if they made a move it would be to find a backup OT of some kind, but I'm not sure they're honestly going to do a lot better than Sherrod (who they can have again after week 6), Barclay (who is on the team), and Datko (who is on the PS).

If somebody gets hurt and will miss at least one game, you promote someone from the PS (or you give Reggie Wells or Herb Taylor a call.) If nobody gets hurt bad enough to miss games in the first six weeks, you get Sherrod back.

So I'm not sure a move is necessary. There aren't a lot of great backup OTs available anywhere.

Wells may not be available. Taylor is not an option.

Remaining at 7 at kickoff is a huge gamble imo given injuries.

[Patler]

Wells may not be available. Taylor is not an option.

Remaining at 7 at kickoff is a huge gamble imo given injuries.

How is it a huge gamble? Normally, they only have seven active on game day anyway. The guy on the sidelines in street clothes is no help anyway. If one or two guys go down in the game, they have a week to sign someone from the PS, or someone like Wells, Tony Moll, etc. If three guys go down, it wouldn't have mattered in that game if they had nine on the 53 man roster, only seven would have been active anyway.

Since they didn't have an 8th guy good enough to protect on the 53 man roster, there was no point in keeping any more than 7.

[Guiness]

How is it a huge gamble? Normally, they only have seven active on game day anyway. The guy on the sidelines in street clothes is no help anyway. If one or two guys go down in the game, they have a week to sign someone from the PS, or someone like Wells, Tony Moll, etc. If three guys go down, it wouldn't have mattered in that game if they had nine on the 53 man roster, only seven would have been active anyway.

Since they didn't have an 8th guy good enough to protect on the 53 man roster, there was no point in keeping any more than 7.

That about sums it up. Love the reference to Tony Moll, btw!

What scares me is the (seemingly) no obvious answer for a tackle going down. I'm sure they have it all laid out though, I doubt they're acting like ostriches on this!

[Fritz]

That about sums it up. Love the reference to Tony Moll, btw!

What scares me is the (seemingly) no obvious answer for a tackle going down. I'm sure they have it all laid out though, I doubt they're acting like ostriches on this!

I did not know that the Packers traditionally have only seven active game-day offensive lineman. That seems scary to me, even though it's what they've done.

What if three offensive linemen go down in the same game? Then what? And has that ever happened, to anyone's knowledge?

That seems like the worst-case scenario. If you lose too many d-linemen, it seems a TJ Lang could fill in to try to take up space, but if you put a d-lineman in on the offensive line, Aaron Rodgers will get killed and no points would be scored at all.

[Patler]

I did not know that the Packers traditionally have only seven active game-day offensive lineman. That seems scary to me, even though it's what they've done.

What if three offensive linemen go down in the same game? Then what? And has that ever happened, to anyone's knowledge?

That seems like the worst-case scenario. If you lose too many d-linemen, it seems a TJ Lang could fill in to try to take up space, but if you put a d-lineman in on the offensive line, Aaron Rodgers will get killed and no points would be scored at all.

A few years ago they had a situation where three guys got hurt. They picked the most capable of the first two injuries, and put him back in. They said at the time they had contingency plans to use a TE or DL and just try to get through by play calling to keep the QB alive.

The problem they have now days is that they need so many extra receivers, DBs LBs etc. for the multiple alignments they use. The extra O-linemen are mostly non-contributors on game day. Unless someone gets hurt, they serve little to no purpose. An extra DB, TE, WR, etc. can contribute on special teams, at least. Since it would be rare to have three injured in one game, they take the chance.

At times when a starting OL has been gimpy, they have carried an extra OL on game day.

[Guiness]

I did not know that the Packers traditionally have only seven active game-day offensive lineman. That seems scary to me, even though it's what they've done.

What if three offensive linemen go down in the same game? Then what? And has that ever happened, to anyone's knowledge?

That seems like the worst-case scenario. If you lose too many d-linemen, it seems a TJ Lang could fill in to try to take up space, but if you put a d-lineman in on the offensive line, Aaron Rodgers will get killed and no points would be scored at all.

I know. We should have kept Havner, I heard he could play a little LT...

I think 7 game day active OL is pretty normal on most teams. Those big guys are known for staying in there and gutting it out. Marco Rivera was known for not coming out no matter the problem.

I have to wonder though with the new concussion rules. Newhouse was out for a bit because of that...I would assume the linemen to get more than a few. If you start to see players from the OL failing those tests on the sideline and not being allowed to come back in, dressing just seven of them might have to change. You don't want Ravi out there at guard, or Crabtree trying to hold off Peppers with help from Benson...

We've had the sideline concussion testing for what, 2 years now? I wonder how many positives there have been? Maybe the NFL needs to adopt a rule similar to the 3rd QB rule with other positions...guy doesn't count as a game day active, but can be used with the caveat the guy he replaced can't come back into the game.

[Guiness]

A few years ago they had a situation where three guys got hurt. They picked the most capable of the first two injuries, and put him back in. They said at the time they had contingency plans to use a TE or DL and just try to get through by play calling to keep the QB alive.

That wouldn't be allowed if the injury was a concussion. I guess 3 concussions aren't likely, so you would bypass that player and take the next least injured. Scary.

[Patler]

That wouldn't be allowed if the injury was a concussion. I guess 3 concussions aren't likely, so you would bypass that player and take the next least injured. Scary.

Obviously. It also wouldn't work for a player who broke his leg like Sherrod. They are not the least injured and able to return. The concussion issue is getting a bit more dicey, because it happens so randomly and in situations where no other injury is even an issue. It also seems if you talk to old o-linemen, "getting their bells rung" is not uncommon in routine plays. Until teams are put in the predicament of having run out of O-linemen, I don't expect they will change much.

[Guiness]

Obviously. It also wouldn't work for a player who broke his leg like Sherrod. They are not the least injured and able to return. The concussion issue is getting a bit more dicey, because it happens so randomly and in situations where no other injury is even an issue. It also seems if you talk to old o-linemen, "getting their bells rung" is not uncommon in routine plays. Until teams are put in the predicament of having run out of O-linemen, I don't expect they will change much.

That's exactly what I meant - this is a new wrinkle teams have to contend with. In the past, smelling salts, a can of Red Bull and back in you'd go and that's not an option anymore. Unless you're Colt McCoy.

[smuggler]

Last year in a game, the Chargers had one player (G Kris Dielman) go out with a bad concussion. Then they lost two other players on the line to injuries they couldn't 'rub dirt upon'. They put Dielman back into the game with his concussion, and he almost died on the flight back because of the resulting seizures. He was IR'd and promptly retired over the offseason. No charges or lawsuits have yet been filed.

Moral of the story is that having gameday inactives is detrimental to the health of the players, and having people go back in while injured is almost always a bad idea.

[Guiness]

Last year in a game, the Chargers had one player (G Kris Dielman) go out with a bad concussion. Then they lost two other players on the line to injuries they couldn't 'rub dirt upon'. They put Dielman back into the game with his concussion, and he almost died on the flight back because of the resulting seizures. He was IR'd and promptly retired over the offseason. No charges or lawsuits have yet been filed.

Moral of the story is that having gameday inactives is detrimental to the health of the players, and having people go back in while injured is almost always a bad idea.

Wow, didn't hear that one. How the heck did they get him back into the game, isn't that strictly against the rules until he passes a test?

edit: seems it wasn't diagnosed at the time even though it was obvious
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/chargers-kris-dielman-ultimate-old-school-self-made-211017768.html

[Patler]

I have to admit, I have never heard a good reason for inactives. Reasons, yes; good reasons, no.

[Fritz]

I have to admit, I have never heard a good reason for inactives. Reasons, yes; good reasons, no.

The responses above make a good point: with the new concussion testing and rules, it seems the odds of three linemen being hurt and out in the same game have increased. Perhaps it's time not to increase roster sizes, but to lower the number of, or get rid of, inactives. Make it possible for teams to be more careful with injuries.

[Upnorth]

I understand the reasoning - only 7 are generally dressed, not useful on STs. It used to be said that the third most important position on a team was the backup LT. Most teams choose to keep that guy on the 53. I'd think you'd want him making good money (that has to help development) and you'd be worried about your backup LT being plucked off your PS.

Interesting, we'll see how it works out.

btw Would Lang slide over to LT if Newhouse went down, or would Bulaga move there? I don't want to find out, but I don't think either choice is a given. Bulaga seems to project better at LT.

What worries me is that after protecting only 7 linemen no other team thought enough of our backups to sign them. There are some pretty crappy oline's out there...

[smuggler]

The coaching staff directed the medical staff not to attend to him, so he'd still be available, despite the horrible concussion.

[Lurker64]

The "only 7 OL active on gameday" isn't really that worrisome since every team dresses 7, and every team has to deal with the same rules about concussions and every team has more or less the same chance for an injury to their OL.

The worrisome thing for the Packers is that Don Barclay is a big step down from Derek Sherrod. Let's hope we don't have to play him.

[Patler]

The worrisome thing for the Packers is that Don Barclay is a big step down from Derek Sherrod. Let's hope we don't have to play him.

I think Barclay played better in preseason 2012 week 4 than Sherrod did in preseason 2011 week 4.
To be honest, I don't recall Sherrod being anything but mediocre at any time during the regular season; but he did improve from awful to mediocre. I think Barclay has already done that.

The Packers might be in big trouble if either one has to play for an extended period.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I have to admit, I have never heard a good reason for inactives. Reasons, yes; good reasons, no.

By having inactives, it helps teams that are hit by a lot of injuries to remain competitive, they don't have to suit-up fewer players. That's sensible.

[Patler]

As expected, Thompson found a tackle prospect for the eighth spot on the PS.



http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/168376236.html

The only fear? The Steelers have been trying to solidify their tackle positions for years and this year two guys expected to play got hurt. So we have to hope a desperate Steelers team missed something.

Maybe not as bad as it looked. They seem to have gotten their tackles back They list as tackles:
Max Starks
Willie Colon
Mike Adams - 2nd round pick 2012
Marcus Gilbert - 2nd round pick 2011

Two vets and two high drafts picks.