O-LINE ANALYSIS, PACKERS VS. FALCONS (MOLL EDITION!)

[gbpackfan]

I think by now you guys know how I do this, but in case you forgot, I'll run it down real quick. I watched Wells, Spitz, and Moll individually on each play. I give them a (+) for positive plays and a (-) for negative plays. Like always, positive grades do not always mean the play produced positive yards, it just means they did their job (in my point of view). So there it is, pretty basic. I'm not claiming it is a perfect system, but it is fun to compare week 1 to week 2!

The starting line ran 40 plays together. During one of those plays, there was a fumbled snap. I could not pick up if it was Brett's fault or Wells' fault and I could not tell if it was going to be a running or a passing a play, so I based my analysis off of 39 plays. 24 of these plays were pass plays, 15 were runs.

OVERALL

Wells: 36 of 39 plays were positive or 92%
Moll: 31 of 39 plays were positive or 79%
Spitz: 33 of 39 plays were positive or 85%

PASSING:

Wells: 23 of 24 plays were positive or 96%
Moll: 20 of 24 plays were positive or 83%
Spitz: 23 of 24 plays were positive or 96%

RUNNING

Wells: 13 of 15 plays were positive or 87%
Moll: 11 of 15 plays were positive or 73%
Spitz: 10 of 15 plays were positive or 67%

WEEK 1 COMPARISION

Because Moll did not play G week 1, I will compare his play to Colledge's. % listed is positive %. It should also be noted that week 1 % is based on 20 plays compared to the almost double the plays, 39, the 1 offense ran week 2.

OVERALL

Wells: Wk 1 90% vs. Wk 2 92%
Spitz: Wk 1 90% vs. Wk 2 85%
Moll: Wk 1 (Colledge) 75% vs. Wk 2 79%

PASSING

Wells: Wk 1 100% vs. Wk 2 96%
Spitz: Wk 1 100% vs. Wk 2 96%
Moll: Wk 1 (Colledge) 71% vs. Wk 2 83%

RUNNING

Wells: Wk 1 67% vs. Wk 2 87%
Spitz: Wk 1 67% vs. Wk 2 67%
Moll: Wk 1 (Colledge) 83% vs. Wk 2 73%

INTERESTING TID-BITS

Wells' last 27 plays were positive!

Spitz and Molls longest string of positive plays was 12.

Wells had 1 borderline play (+/-) and Moll had 3. I gave them the benefit of the doubt and graded them a + since their assigned defender did not make the tackle or sack.

Spitz's positive play % is exactly the same that it was in week 2.

Moll did a better job keeping Favre off his arse!

The offense line looked MUCH better then it did it week 1. They seemed to work together a lot better.

Moll took advantage of his opportunity and should be given the starting position. Let's let these guys work together for awhile before Chicago comes to town!

[pack4to84]

thank you for this post. I like seeing the stats like this.

[gbpackfan]

You are very welcome. :mrgreen:

[RashanGary]

Amazing thread. Informative, to the point, original. GREAT work.

This makes me think Moll might win the job. It also makes you wonder if Colledge will just hold down a back up job and be the glue that holds things together if 1 injury occurs. He would also be the perfect replacement when Tauscher's contract is up.

Moll looked damn agile. For being his first week at OG, he sure looked pretty good. I have a feeling he might be the gut to win the job. Colledge would be a good back up piece. He can play T at a high level in college. He can play G at a below average level in the NFL and might get better each week. He's pretty much all that's left of the depth. Him and Whittaker.

[MuttnJeff]

Colledge ought to stay at left tackle
By Chris Havel


Daryn Colledge has gone from starting left guard to a second-team backup in what has been a frustrating first 17 days of training camp.

The second-round draft pick is down in the depth chart, but he isn't out of the Green Bay Packers' plans.

Coach Mike McCarthy's best move is to move Colledge back to left tackle, his natural position, and the sooner the better. I applaud the Packers' attempt to transform Colledge from a tackle to a guard, but not as much as I disagree with it.

McCarthy has shown the ability to make changes if he feels it is necessary, thus the reshuffling of the offensive line. Now, he needs to show he isn't stubborn by going the whole nine yards and moving Colledge to left tackle behind Chad Clifton.

Colledge is no more a left guard than Junius Coston is a left tackle.

The 6-foot-4, 299-pound lineman from Boise State has the long arms, quick feet and patient demeanor to be a truly special left tackle. He is strong enough to stone a bull-rushing defensive end, and clever enough to neutralize a pure speed rusher.

He isn't capable of brawling with powerful, immovable mountains in the interior defensive line. That isn't his forte. If that isn't obvious to McCarthy and his coaching staff by now, it ought to be.

Some have compared Colledge to Mike Wahle, the Packers' former left guard, by suggesting the rookie also could make the move to guard from tackle. It sounds nice, but Colledge and Wahle have entirely different approaches.

Where Colledge is similar to Clifton, a natural counterpuncher, Wahle was too aggressive to be successful at tackle. Once Wahle went to guard, he could use his innate toughness and nasty disposition to trade blows with the big boys. Colledge is more of a cerebral, finesse blocker best suited to left tackle.

As it stands, Colledge is languishing behind fellow rookie Jason Spitz while Tony Moll, like Colledge a former WAC player, moved into the starting lineup at right guard.

I suspect Colledge's pride and confidence have been rocked. I also suspect he will do everything he can to regain both.

That isn't going to happen at guard. Colledge plays too high, thinks too much and lacks the natural aggression required to thrive in the NFL's version of hell.

The Packers are a sprained ankle away from Josh Bourke, an undrafted free agent out of Grand Valley State, being asked to protect Brett Favre's blindside.

If Colledge, the sixth offensive lineman chosen in the April draft, isn't better than an undrafted rookie left tackle — and I say that with all due respect to Bourke — the Packers' scouting department blew it.

McCarthy needs to switch Colledge back to left tackle, where he can battle Bourke for the right to back up Clifton.

It creates competition at a critical position, and it just might prevent Colledge from losing whatever confidence remains.

He is too talented a lineman, and too valuable a backup left tackle, to be miscast at left guard.

[gbpackfan]

I agree with Havel.

It should be:

LT LG C RG RT
Clifton Sptiz Wells Moll Tauscher
Colledge Peko White Moore Coston/Bourke


Colledge should be given reps at both the L and R side and be the top back-up T. I am not sure who makes this team, Peko, Coston or Bourke. I haven't seen anything all that great out of Coston. And I KNOW, Bourke is a LT on the depth chart, but he better be able to play on both sides if he wants to make this roster!

[RashanGary]

I like some things about Havel but this is a perfect example of why he will never be on Bob McGinn or Cliff Christl's level.

At any point in that artical did Havel sight any stats or observations from the games or practice field. He didn't show any coaches opinions. He didn't bother to ask a scout or two what they thought about Colledge at LG. All he did was say College was meant to be a LT because he has quick feet and not enough nastyness. He didn't bother to site examples where Colledge was too finess. He didn't sight even one circumstance that lead him to believe what he wrote. He just wrote it and expected us to believe it becuase he said so.

He may damn well have good reason to believe what he wrote, he just didn't show his readers the respect to back his opinion on paper with a sound research oriented approach. Patler needs to tear this guy a new a-hole. I know I've generated some damn horrible unsubstanciated arguements and for the love of god, I've gotten my damn head ripped off for it. I just once what to see Havel called to task on this rubbish. This guy has made a living on Brett Favre's generousity. He's got some entertainment value but he can't be taken seriously by you guys. Am I the only one who feels this way?

[Bretsky]

Colledge ought to stay at left tackle
By Chris Havel


Daryn Colledge has gone from starting left guard to a second-team backup in what has been a frustrating first 17 days of training camp.

The second-round draft pick is down in the depth chart, but he isn't out of the Green Bay Packers' plans.

Coach Mike McCarthy's best move is to move Colledge back to left tackle, his natural position, and the sooner the better. I applaud the Packers' attempt to transform Colledge from a tackle to a guard, but not as much as I disagree with it.

McCarthy has shown the ability to make changes if he feels it is necessary, thus the reshuffling of the offensive line. Now, he needs to show he isn't stubborn by going the whole nine yards and moving Colledge to left tackle behind Chad Clifton.

Colledge is no more a left guard than Junius Coston is a left tackle.

The 6-foot-4, 299-pound lineman from Boise State has the long arms, quick feet and patient demeanor to be a truly special left tackle. He is strong enough to stone a bull-rushing defensive end, and clever enough to neutralize a pure speed rusher.

He isn't capable of brawling with powerful, immovable mountains in the interior defensive line. That isn't his forte. If that isn't obvious to McCarthy and his coaching staff by now, it ought to be.

Some have compared Colledge to Mike Wahle, the Packers' former left guard, by suggesting the rookie also could make the move to guard from tackle. It sounds nice, but Colledge and Wahle have entirely different approaches.

Where Colledge is similar to Clifton, a natural counterpuncher, Wahle was too aggressive to be successful at tackle. Once Wahle went to guard, he could use his innate toughness and nasty disposition to trade blows with the big boys. Colledge is more of a cerebral, finesse blocker best suited to left tackle.

As it stands, Colledge is languishing behind fellow rookie Jason Spitz while Tony Moll, like Colledge a former WAC player, moved into the starting lineup at right guard.

I suspect Colledge's pride and confidence have been rocked. I also suspect he will do everything he can to regain both.

That isn't going to happen at guard. Colledge plays too high, thinks too much and lacks the natural aggression required to thrive in the NFL's version of hell.

The Packers are a sprained ankle away from Josh Bourke, an undrafted free agent out of Grand Valley State, being asked to protect Brett Favre's blindside.

If Colledge, the sixth offensive lineman chosen in the April draft, isn't better than an undrafted rookie left tackle — and I say that with all due respect to Bourke — the Packers' scouting department blew it.

McCarthy needs to switch Colledge back to left tackle, where he can battle Bourke for the right to back up Clifton.

It creates competition at a critical position, and it just might prevent Colledge from losing whatever confidence remains.

He is too talented a lineman, and too valuable a backup left tackle, to be miscast at left guard.


THIS MAY BE RIGHT BUT I HATE THE CONTENTS HERE

IF Colledge can't play OG, TEDDY Botched this pick. He was slated as the OG starter from day one and a 4-12 team in desperate need of OG help doesn't use a 2nd round draft pick for a backup at one of the few positions that we have an excelling starter at.

Clifton is still one of the better OT's in the game, as is Tauscher.

The Packers coaching staff needs to help him develop as an OG, and if he doesn't have the ability to play there then TT Blew It.


B

[Bretsky]

I like some things about Havel but this is a perfect example of why he will never be on Bob McGinn or Cliff Christl's level.

At any point in that artical did Havel sight any stats or observations from the games or practice field. He didn't show any coaches opinions. He didn't bother to ask a scout or two what they thought about Colledge at LG. All he did was say College was meant to be a LT because he has quick feet and not enough nastyness. He didn't bother to site examples where Colledge was too finess. He didn't sight even one circumstance that lead him to believe what he wrote. He just wrote it and expected us to believe it becuase he said so.

He may damn well have good reason to believe what he wrote, he just didn't show his readers the respect to back his opinion on paper with a sound research oriented approach. Patler needs to tear this guy a new a-hole. I know I've generated some damn horrible unsubstanciated arguements and for the love of god, I've gotten my damn head ripped off for it. I just once what to see Havel called to task on this rubbish. This guy has made a living on Brett Favre's generousity. He's got some entertainment value but he can't be taken seriously by you guys. Am I the only one who feels this way?


I think you are right on here with this analyis. And I hope the article proves to be incredibly wrong.

[RashanGary]

I agree to a degree as well gbpackfan. At least you backed your opinion with some damn fine research and examples. Havel didn't even bother to say why. He just said this is what he is, take my word for it.

[the_idle_threat]

I was thinking the same thing as Havel re: Colledge. We need a good backup at tackle and that is his natural position. It's kind of a no-brainer.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I wouldn't agree with that at all, Bretsky. Having a potential great LT is like drafting a potential great QB. They are hard to find. Clifton is over 30 now and is hobbling. If Colledge is a good starting LT in year 3 it would still be a great draft pick. Hell, Ron Wolf drafted Clifton when it looked like there was no need for him. Who's to say Clifton can hold up all year. It wouldn't be out of the realm for Colledge to "save our bacon" at some point this year at LT.

[Bretsky]

I wouldn't agree with that at all, Bretsky. Having a potential great LT is like drafting a potential great QB. They are hard to find. Clifton is over 30 now and is hobbling. If Colledge is a good starting LT in year 3 it would still be a great draft pick. Hell, Ron Wolf drafted Clifton when it looked like there was no need for him. Who's to say Clifton can hold up all year. It wouldn't be out of the realm for Colledge to "save our bacon" at some point this year at LT.

Ron Wolf had the luxury of drafting for depth. Ted Thompson was not drafting for depth. And who knows what kind of potential he has at LT ? As all we know so far is he seems to have failed at OG.

TT and his scouts (wist would have a field day with these comments) were thoroughly convinced that Colledge would excel as an OG in this system. That is what he was drafted for. You could argue Clifton is breaking down; I could argue he may have another successful 5-6 years in the league. Time will tell to see who is right, but he''s being paid big money to excel at OT and Colledge was drafted to play OG as he was immediately given the starters job to lose, which he did.

Colledge could certainly save our bacon as a backup OT; so could any other backup on our roster. But Teddy didn't draft him to be a backup on one of the worst OL's in football in 2005.

B

[RashanGary]

If Colledge is backup because Moll is so damn good they can't keep him off the field, I'm OK with it. If Colledge is backup because he sucks so damn bad and cant' get ti fixed then I'm not OK with it.

I've far from given up on the guy after on preseason game, but it looks like Moll played better in his first week of OG than Colledge did after a couple months of studying and practicing it. Moll is a damn fine athlete according to Thompson. It's not like Colledge is getting beat out by some try hard, low upside player. He's getting beat out by a raw, extremely talented guy with a ton of upside. Still, it's not a good sign yet not the end of the world. Colledge could turn out just fine. Wahle took a couple years. Rivera was the same way.

It's great when draft picks become quality starters like Collins, Hawk and Jenning look to be right away but it's rare. We're getting a little spoiled here. Colledge is following a pretty common path for young players. I don't think this bodes well, but he could be damn fine lineman. He could even be a damn fine gaurd.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Ron Wolf had the luxury of drafting for depth. Ted Thompson was not drafting for depth. And who knows what kind of potential he has at LT ? As all we know so far is he seems to have failed at OG.

TT and his scouts (wist would have a field day with these comments) were thoroughly convinced that Colledge would excel as an OG in this system. That is what he was drafted for. You could argue Clifton is breaking down; I could argue he may have another successful 5-6 years in the league. Time will tell to see who is right, but he''s being paid big money to excel at OT and Colledge was drafted to play OG as he was immediately given the starters job to lose, which he did.

Colledge could certainly save our bacon as a backup OT; so could any other backup on our roster. But Teddy didn't draft him to be a backup on one of the worst OL's in football in 2005.

Clifton was drafted after the Packers were coming off an 8-8 season. That team wasn't deep, and he didn't have that luxury, but Wolf didn't go with conventional wisdom. He understood the importance of some positions. That's why he drafted QBs every year.

You can't say the scouts thought he would be a great OG. Maybe they thought he might make it at OG, but if nothing else, they'll have a good LT down the line.

Incredible. You've really gotten pessimistic about everything. So, you are going to judge Colledge before his first regular season game? I'll choose to wait a few years. You make me look like tex.
:D

[RashanGary]

Bretsky is not pessimistic, he's opinionated in my view.

If it comes to Favre or Chambers, he's all optimist.

When it comes to TT he's all pessimist.

He just looks for excuses to jab at the guys he hates. WE could probably sort through all of his football posts and get a reoccuring theme. 25% are Fergi hating. 25% are TT hating and 50% are related to something else.

Most posts, like many of us are non football related, but if we just take the football ones, I'll bet we get almost all jabs at those two guys.....

He just wants an excuse to bang his little drum. I'm sorry, it gets old.

[Bretsky]

Ron Wolf had the luxury of drafting for depth. Ted Thompson was not drafting for depth. And who knows what kind of potential he has at LT ? As all we know so far is he seems to have failed at OG.

TT and his scouts (wist would have a field day with these comments) were thoroughly convinced that Colledge would excel as an OG in this system. That is what he was drafted for. You could argue Clifton is breaking down; I could argue he may have another successful 5-6 years in the league. Time will tell to see who is right, but he''s being paid big money to excel at OT and Colledge was drafted to play OG as he was immediately given the starters job to lose, which he did.

Colledge could certainly save our bacon as a backup OT; so could any other backup on our roster. But Teddy didn't draft him to be a backup on one of the worst OL's in football in 2005.

Clifton was drafted after the Packers were coming off an 8-8 season. That team wasn't deep, and he didn't have that luxury, but Wolf didn't go with conventional wisdom. He understood the importance of some positions. That's why he drafted QBs every year.

You can't say the scouts thought he would be a great OG. Maybe they thought he might make it at OG, but if nothing else, they'll have a good LT down the line.

Incredible. You've really gotten pessimistic about everything. So, you are going to judge Colledge before his first regular season game? I'll choose to wait a few years. You make me look like tex.
:D

OK, "excellent" was an overexaggeration, but adequate would certainly be fair. And it's tough to argue he wasn't drafted with the intention of him starting. I think your long post threw me into a Packer morale downspin. :wink: . I'm not going to judge Colledge's career; I have no idea how it'll turn out. I just gather impressions from what I see on the playing field. Ditto for Aaron Rodgers, who I do see more reasons to be optomistic about.

If I'm making you look like Tex, maybe I need to lighten up a bit cause it's not my intention. A while back I predicated 7-9 give our take two games. I'm about the same now as I think they'll win between 6-8 games, but I'm more critical of Ted Thompson lately........but that's another story.

Cheers,
B

[Bretsky]

Bretsky is not pessimistic, he's opinionated in my view.

If it comes to Favre or Chambers, he's all optimist.

When it comes to TT he's all pessimist.

He just looks for excuses to jab at the guys he hates. WE could probably sort through all of his football posts and get a reoccuring theme. 25% are Fergi hating. 25% are TT hating and 50% are related to something else.

Most posts, like many of us are non football related, but if we just take the football ones, I'll bet we get almost all jabs at those two guys.....

He just wants an excuse to bang his little drum. I'm sorry, it gets old.

I think I have about 2G in posts; by your unsubstantiated count I'd have 500 posts about Robert Ferguson. Either you are a wonderful exaggerator or a good comedian.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Well, I wouldn't say Bretsky gets old. Well, he is. But not his posts. He's just been abnormally pessimistic. I think I might have pushed him over the edge with my post last week. I'm still worried about this team. I'll stick with 7-9, but I'm okay with the direction of the team. Maybe Tony Friggin' Moll is the answer to our OG problems. I thought it was our worst draft pick, but I've been wrong before. Of course, he could be another Will Whitticker (a guy who started only because of the pathetic competition).

[RashanGary]

GregJennings“Most posts, like many of us are non football related, but if we just take the football ones, I'll bet we get almost all jabs at those two guys..... “

Bretsky “I think I have about 2G in posts; by your unsubstantiated count I'd have 500 posts about Robert Ferguson. Either you are a wonderful exaggerator or a good comedian.”

Either English isn’t your first language and you have a hard time understanding what I wrote or you just forgot to read my post before you responded.

[woodbuck27]

I agree to a degree as well gbpackfan. At least you backed your opinion with some damn fine research and examples. Havel didn't even bother to say why. He just said this is what he is, take my word for it.

It's what is called a summary Article GregJennings and paints the picture that Daryn College is useless to us this season except as Chad Cliftons backup. As OUR second pick in the draft that isn't cool.

If we lost Chad Clifton to injury,would that give us any cause for concern, having Daryn Colledge as his replacement? Havel makes it seem that Colledge has to be placed " in NFL Tackle School", and is otherwise useless.

Take that and Bretsky's post and giving OUR needs on the OL, going back a full year plus.

Indeed if we grip onto Havel's claim. Ted Thompson messed up with that pick taking Daryn Colledge. Some draft guru's commented on being surprised, that Ted Thompson used that pick to choose Colledge.

Essentially, Bretsky's post has merit.

We needed a chance at a player/starter with OUR second pick, certainly not a backup on OUR OL.

GO PACKERS ! FAITH FOR 2006 !!!

[Bretsky]

GregJennings“Most posts, like many of us are non football related, but if we just take the football ones, I'll bet we get almost all jabs at those two guys..... “

Bretsky “I think I have about 2G in posts; by your unsubstantiated count I'd have 500 posts about Robert Ferguson. Either you are a wonderful exaggerator or a good comedian.”

Either English isn’t your first language and you have a hard time understanding what I wrote or you just forgot to read my post before you responded.


I didn't read your rambly sentence closely enough. Regarding your clever cunning insults, I could easily throw some back but I won't stoop to your level because that's not what the forum it about. But you keep if that's what you are about.


B

[HarveyWallbangers]

http://packerrats.com/ratchat/viewtopic.php?t=2385&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=

[woodbuck27]

I wouldn't agree with that at all, Bretsky. Having a potential great LT is like drafting a potential great QB. They are hard to find. Clifton is over 30 now and is hobbling. If Colledge is a good starting LT in year 3 it would still be a great draft pick. Hell, Ron Wolf drafted Clifton when it looked like there was no need for him. Who's to say Clifton can hold up all year. It wouldn't be out of the realm for Colledge to "save our bacon" at some point this year at LT.

Yea! I forgot again that we're just along for the ride this year and the REAL time to cheer will be in 2011 ?. .2012 ? or is it 2013 ? . . . .

Anybody not see OUR needs at guard this season? Shouldn't a Great potential LT be able to learn to play guard and help the TEAM now?

Should he just stain the pine as we wait for OUR present pretty decent LT to become silly puddy?

[HarveyWallbangers]

Every fan and GM says you shouldn't draft for need, and then when you don't, they complain. I remember Wolf taking a OG in the 2nd round. They tried to play him at OT and it failed. It took him a few years, but he became a great OG. His name is Mike Wahle.

[LEWCWA]

Seems to me the Packers had more problems on the edges in game one than the interior. Frome the ol stats posted here Moll wasn't any better really than College, the ol was just better overall. I get the impression the tackles played better...It is my humble opinion that if Moll is the starter Green Bay is in trouble...The stats show me they were both about the same!! How did College do in his playing time!

[RashanGary]

I think Colledge just needs to play stronger straight ahead. I think Moll might have taken it by the throat though. Hopefully that is the case and Colledge can take the next open tackle position. When is Tauscher's contract up?

[RashanGary]

Colledge has been a Tackle his whole career. He's used to being tenative as to defend the outside and not just whiff going straight ahead. OG's can go full steam ahead without worry of a guy going around him because of the tight space. I think part of Colledge's problem was that he didn't use all of hsi power straight ahead but instead used some of hsi energy to defend a corner that wasn't there.

Gaurds just have to stop the bull rush. that is it. Nothing more. I think Colledge tried to be too fancy. I wish he had another shot, but I think Moll might have grabbed it by the throat.

Also, Moll seems loved by Favre adn the other lineman. Thompson said he takes that Chemistyr thing into account. I think him and McCArth are on the same page that way. I think Moll might have it, but if College got another shot, I think he could redeem himself.

[SD GB fan]

reading some articles, im impressed with wat Moll has done. yes hes been beat badly some times but i didnt think he wud make the 53 man roster. sounds like he has improved a lot and hopefully will continue to improve as the season progresses. colledge is probably more natural at tackle. i read somewhere that he reacts like a tackle instead of aggressively play like guards in ZBS.

[Bretsky]

I think College will get more shots at OG, but you are right in that he has to learn to play stronger. I'm pretty sure both OT's are signed for at least this year and next so the three will have plenty of time to compete barring injuries to Clifton and Tauscher.

[woodbuck27]

Every fan and GM says you shouldn't draft for need, and then when you don't, they complain. I remember Wolf taking a OG in the 2nd round. They tried to play him at OT and it failed. It took him a few years, but he became a great OG. His name is Mike Wahle.

Well let's not point the finger again at Ted in this discussion Harvey.

gbpackfan supplied us with very good stat's again this week, that examines the progress of the midddle of OUR OL.

Excellent work again by the way gbpackfan.Very solid.

Is Colledge out at LG and Moll in based on the excellent pass protection that Favre got? I don't know based on one game.

Spitz's numbers reflect that he's a Rookie of accomplishment with us so far. Between Spitz and Colledge "the facts" so far, support that Spitz will be useful to us in 2006.

There I go again. Screwing up ! Even mentioning 2006 in terms of getting it right. As this season is like the design phase of the project not actual construction.

Why do we even post here, now? Maybe just postpone posting - till we get to April 2007?

Free Agency and The Draft, and then the loooong slow period of time till . . OH BOY ! It's back again - Training Camp !!! The next 53 Man Roster and another long season of losing, and a high draft pick on and on into Ted's NFL World PLAN. . on and on and on. . .season after season . .on and on. .

Oh Boy!! Five years after this season we get to reminess about Brett Favre as we have Reggie White this Off Season, as Brett was a borderline first ballot selection to the NFL HOF.

Jeeee !!!

[woodbuck27]

Seems to me the Packers had more problems on the edges in game one than the interior. Frome the ol stats posted here Moll wasn't any better really than College, the ol was just better overall. I get the impression the tackles played better...It is my humble opinion that if Moll is the starter Green Bay is in trouble...The stats show me they were both about the same!! How did College do in his playing time!

It just might be a different personality thing between Colledge and Moll, and let's not ever forget that with Colledge in there - it was San Diego not Atlanta. Big difference.

First game of the season and high hopes based on no game plan? High personal expectations, as all that stuff crammed into these fellas in TC has to be used for REAL.

You can train the soldier, but you never know how he'll react till his head is getting near shot off.

DAM it - I'm not comparing WAR to NFL football.

In fact, I see litle difference bet. Colledge and MOLL in gbpackfan's nice set of Stat's. We have two more preseason games . . . and look out.

Next up . . .can kick OUR ass !!!

Is Carson Palmer going to have to be ready in TC? Good story there. I will get on it. :mrgreen:

[the_idle_threat]

I don't see the problem with Moll winning the guard spot over Colledge. From what I've read, it sounds like Moll is plenty talented and he has that great intangible attitude to play interior line. He just suprised some people by being more ready to play than anticipated, given his background. He isn't going to be perfect, but there will be growing pains regardless of who we throw in there. Some have said we should put the veteran "Mookie" in there, but that guy gave up 2 sacks in Saturday's otherwise good game, and on top of that he's injury-prone ... so we'll be right back to where we are today at some point in midseason.

Is Colledge a failure because he was expected to fill that spot but lost out to Moll? Well ... yes and no. On one hand it's a setback for him and a change of plans. It would have been nice to give Moll the practice time in OTAs with the starters if he was going to end up there. But on the other hand, comparisons to Mike Wahle are spot on. Some guys take a little longer to develop than others. Nothing I've read about Colledge implies or states that he's less talented than we thought ... it's just that he hasn't been as quick to pick up playing guard as his immediate competitor. If he remains a backup and develops into a good tackle with the potential to take over after Cliffy hangs 'em up, he'll be well worth a #2 pick.

I don't understand why people are so quick to throw the G.M. under the bus when things don't work out perfectly and immediately. Best laid plans almost always go awry, and you just roll with the punches. In this case, we might end up way ahead of the plan if Moll & Spitz can nail down the guard jobs, leaving Colledge to develop into an eventual starting tackle. Years from now, we might be talking about this as one of the best drafts in Packer history if we get 3 starting offensive linemen out of it ... in addition to 2 star linebackers and a starting WR.

[woodbuck27]

It's all good!

Moll-Colledge. Colledge-Moll. Who really cares as long as OUR QB and RB's don't get mauled.

Could all three of the Offensive Lineman selected in Aprils Draft, be eventual starters? Sure they can. You mention OUR new WR Greg Jennings.

I love Will Blackmon (I predict he'll be very good) and arguably OUR best player on "D", considering both preseason games was S Tyrone Culver. DE Dale Tollefson and DT Johnny Jolly have been showing well of late. They may come on for a push to make OUR Roster.

Then (Yes . . . I forgot to mention) :mrgreen: there's HAWK and HODGE. WOW !!

An outstanding Draft by Ted Thompson and OUR Scouting Dept.

Looking GREAT !! We are really discussing semantics.

WE won't hang Ted in efigy because Colledge gets moved to backup LT or Tackle. Some of us might want to hang Ted if Favre takes unusual punishment again this season and. . . FALLS.

GO PACKERS ! PROTECT FAVRE TED !!

[gbpackfan]

Thanks Woodbuck (and the rest of you gave me "props")

[Scott Campbell]

Those of you wanting to rip Ted a new one for the College pick need to remember to kiss Ted's butt in the Jennings threads. Fair is fair.

[Bretsky]

Those of you wanting to rip Ted a new one for the College pick need to remember to kiss Ted's butt in the Jennings threads. Fair is fair.

Point well taken Scott; I didn't fall in love with either pick as I really liked Chad Jackson. And it looks like I was really wrong.

[vince]

I respect the TT detractors' opinions. His unconventional approaches leave himself open to criticism... but some people appear to be so invested in ripping Ted Thompson that they don't see the forest through the trees.

2 things led to our downfall last year...both of which Ted Thompson either has addressed or is doing a good job of building. And as much as we all want it to happen, football teams don't get rebuilt overnight!

1. Inherited salary cap problems led to the departure of both our all-pro caliber guards. The fact that we had little or no depth along the line meant that we had to scour the free agent market (with no cap space to sign quality people) and waiver wires to find replacements - an impossible proposition.

2. Injuries decimated the offensive skilled positions. When injuries decimated the team, a lack of depth once again (granted, no team is going to have 5 quality RB's on the roster) forced us to pluck guys off of other teams' practice squads to come here and play for us.

As for the draft, it's a little early yet, but the Packers appear to be on the cusp of having the MOST successful draft in the league, and maybe in all of DRAFT HISTORY.

There will be a plethora of first, second and third rounders that just don't pan out - for a number of reasons. My money's on Colledge NOT being one of them.

If he can come in his rookie year and be either a starter or a quality backup... That's a quality pick.

The fact that Jennings, Hawk, Spitz, and Hodge appear to be everything anyone hoped for and then some, and the fact that that the guy people expected to be a project is handling Pro-Bowl defenders also means they are QUALITY PICKS.

You guys that expect Ted Thompson to be a frickin clairavoyant, and hit a grand slam on EVERY SINGLE pick are being a little unrealistic, I'd say.

And to Woody...

Man you are a great roller coaster ride.... Sarcasm, Optimism, Pessimism, and Realism - all wrapped into each post...

[Scott Campbell]

One other thing to keep in mind is that he employed a draft strategy of trading down to accumulate more picks knowing full well that the draft is a crap shoot. He wanted more picks so that he could make more draft mistakes and still produce a quality number of contributors. More picks means more mistakes as well as more contributors. So there is no doubt that there will be draft mistakes.

Even though I'm talking about mistakes, I'm not close to writing off Daryn Colledge yet.

[MuttnJeff]

Colledge could certainly save our bacon as a backup OT; so could any other backup on our roster. But Teddy didn't draft him to be a backup on one of the worst OL's in football in 2005.


It really doesn't matter what Thompson intended 6 months ago. What matters is to try and move players to their best positions. You can't count on any rookie to be an immediate starter, maybe with exception of top 10 picks.

[Cobra Kai]

It really doesn't matter what Thompson intended 6 months ago. What matters is to try and move players to their best positions. You can't count on any rookie to be an immediate starter, maybe with exception of top 10 picks.

That's a good point. Sometimes it doesn't matter what position a draft choice was picked to play. What matters is that a coaching staff and the player are flexible enough (which doesn't always happen because of egos and/or poor coaches) to move to other positions that best help the team. They are doing that with the O-line, now if they could only do that with the LB's and get Barnett on the outside where he should be. And while they're at it, here's another suggestion, move Carroll to Safety. He's already a pretty solid talker and his coverage skills or lack there of will be less of a liability there...

[woodbuck27]

And to Woody...

" Man you are a great roller coaster ride.... Sarcasm, Optimism, Pessimism, and Realism - all wrapped into each post..." Vince

Your taking me back . . . to the Merry GO Round Vince.

Believe that !! :mrgreen:

I'm really for Ted Thompson - RESULTS Chapter.

I just watched that 7 minute Falcons at Packers Highlights Video and Favre and Driver looked like "Oh MERCY - NFLN Division - LOOK OUT !!" We are coming at you.

A solid TEST coming this weekend. PACKERS - BENGALS

This joint will be tuned in for that Vince.

Let's see what we really have after that game. The Falcons "D" couldn't handle Donald Driver and Favre, and Brett had other options to go to Saturday night, Favre's is already focused, and that's not good for. . .
" the NFLNorth " opponents.

Just a preseason game, but LORDY, that was needed for this young and talent ridden team. Poor TED and the headaches he'll have, in regard to cuts. Can't keep em all, but some good one's will be cut, and that's all a testament to Ted Thompson and OUR Scouting and Player Department.

Prop's there!

I'm almost riding the Ted Thompson bandwagon, but is that my role as a Packer fan at PACKERRATS?

Bretsky, might say NO !??

Thanks for mentoring to me Vince. :mrgreen:

GO PACKERS ! HOLD THE FAITH PACKER FANS !!

[Guiness]

MuttnJeff hit the nail on the head - doesn't matter what was intended. What matters is what we've got now, and what we're doing with it.

I also agree with earlier observations that Havel's article was fluff. But he's writting an opinion column, and I guess that's what he gave us. I just wish he'd put in at least one observation where he thought Colledge was too tentative.

Oh ya - props to gbpackfan for his analysis. Not necessarily to my taste, but the effort put into it was obvious.

Lastly - GregJennings, wtf was that??? I liked your original post, but there was no reason for a young buck like yourself to beat up on an (admitedly) out of shape old man 8-)

Seriously - they Polish Grail Rat voiced an opinion, and shouting him down is not what this place is all about 8-(

[pbmax]

Colledge ought to stay at left tackle
By Chris Havel

.....


THIS MAY BE RIGHT BUT I HATE THE CONTENTS HERE

IF Colledge can't play OG, TEDDY Botched this pick. He was slated as the OG starter from day one and a 4-12 team in desperate need of OG help doesn't use a 2nd round draft pick for a backup at one of the few positions that we have an excelling starter at.

Clifton is still one of the better OT's in the game, as is Tauscher.

The Packers coaching staff needs to help him develop as an OG, and if he doesn't have the ability to play there then TT Blew It.


B
C'mon Bretsky, did Wolf blow the Wahle pick because he had to switch positions tofind success?

[pbmax]

Whoops, jumped the thread and Harvey had beaten me to this nugget of 20/20 hindsight. Apologies.

In any event, I am only concerned if Colledge can't contribute. Then I am concerned only as far as it impacts getting 2 starting contributors on average each year.

If Colledge becomes misplaced at Guard but Moll can be sufficient, then TT is ahead of the curve because he has upgraded both talent and depth.

Remember his anchor and strength were both things people were concerned about before the draft. Wahle could also struggle with his anchor and bull rushers.

A year in the weight program could easily be all that he needs.

[woodbuck27]

Whoops, jumped the thread and Harvey had beaten me to this nugget of 20/20 hindsight. Apologies.

In any event, I am only concerned if Colledge can't contribute. Then I am concerned only as far as it impacts getting 2 starting contributors on average each year.

If Colledge becomes misplaced at Guard but Moll can be sufficient, then TT is ahead of the curve because he has upgraded both talent and depth.

Remember his anchor and strength were both things people were concerned about before the draft. Wahle could also struggle with his anchor and bull rushers.

A year in the weight program could easily be all that he needs.

YES pbmax.

GO PACKERS ! FAITH FANS !!

[Fritz]

If Colledge ends up a good or very good starter, doesn't matter to me if it's left guard, left tackle, or tight end. If the dude is not cut out for guard, why force it? If he can play left tackle, well, that'll fill a position of need, since right now our backup is looking a little shaky.

[Terry]

GregJennings“Most posts, like many of us are non football related, but if we just take the football ones, I'll bet we get almost all jabs at those two guys..... “

Bretsky “I think I have about 2G in posts; by your unsubstantiated count I'd have 500 posts about Robert Ferguson. Either you are a wonderful exaggerator or a good comedian.”

Either English isn’t your first language and you have a hard time understanding what I wrote or you just forgot to read my post before you responded.

Well, you also said, "WE could probably sort through all of his football posts and get a reoccuring theme. 25% are Fergi hating. 25% are TT hating and 50% are related to something else."

Now, maybe I don't speak English very well either. But assuming that we're not into Sophism here and that this forum isn't a study group for legal analysis of contracts, where is the major failure in suggesting that 25% of Bretsky's themes are Fergi hating translates roughly, in practical terms, to 500 posts about Ferguson? Is your difficulty here concerning your use of the word 'themes' instead of 'posts'?

You came down really hard on him. I'd sure like to know exactly what you meant in the first place that so justifies questioning his English comprehension skills.

@ Woodbuck, I'm glad to see you doing a wee bit of cheering for Thompson. I don't mind the roller coaster ride. :cool: I do wonder, though, why you so vehemently insist that you do not compare war to football. Why not? Ok, granted, in war the stakes are ever so much higher and the fans ten times as irrational, but as a general metaphor and analogy (depending), it seems to me that the reference to war is a legitimate one.

[KYPack]

If we wind up with solid starting guards, I could care what round they get drafted in.

College looks like a good hand, it might take time for him to get mature. I made a prediction that Moll would spend the year on the practice patrol, getting experience, guess i jumped the gun on that deal.

This draft reminded me of the one where we draft 3 corners to stop Moss. Who cares which one of 'em does the job, just so we fill the hole?

[4and12to12and4]

Well, we are all gonna have to just hope that TT and M3 know what they're doing and have the skills to know what's best for the line. The stats that are here as far as + and -'s for each individual lineman are nice to see, but we need to be reminded that we don't know the exact responsibility for each lineman without knowing the playbook, and understanding the zone blocking scheme. We can see whether or not Moll or Colledge gets knocked backward or pushed forward, but there are alot of nuances to this scheme that these guys are doing that we don't know. So, a grading system is nice, as long as we know it's got it's weaknesses. It does show us who seems to be getting pushed around or not. But, some plays call for a lineman to allow his blocker to go through, while he slides over and helps in a different area, etc.. I will say that Colledge seemed to get pushed backwards more than Moll, but in Colledge's defense, he was going against sheer brut power and size, Moll didn't have to deal with that test. As someone stated earlier in this thread, the whole line was better. Many of us here predicted this would happen last week, because we knew their blocking scheme wasn't even close to the complicated, overpowering, overloading scheme that Schottenheimer brought. Believe me, our line WILL look more like the one against the Chargers when we play the Bear's. It will probably be a little better because of the 3 more games of experience and because with Chicago's scheme, you pretty much know who you will be blocking from play to play, unlike SD's "mystery" defense.

I want to remind those who are happy that the staff is saying that Moll is more agressive and has a "take no prisoners" attitude, that when we drafted Colledge, that's what was said about him also. He was regarded as a mentally tough bruiser type tackle with a chip on his shoulder. So, I'm just taking this for what it's worth. I didn't think Moll was that great an improvement when watching him Sunday. But, I do like the idea of having a young guy with potential backing up at the tackle postition. I'll just trust the coaching staff on this one. Jags is suppose to be pretty good. I guess time will tell.

[vince]

I do wonder, though, why you so vehemently insist that you do not compare war to football. Why not? Ok, granted, in war the stakes are ever so much higher and the fans ten times as irrational, but as a general metaphor and analogy (depending), it seems to me that the reference to war is a legitimate one.
I like your style, Terry.

A few war metaphors by the immortal one...

"The harder you work, the harder it is to surrender."

"Football desire is built on pride and effort forged by raw combat."

"I firmly believe that any man's finest hour, the greatest fulfillment of all that he holds dear, is that moment when he has worked his heart out in a good cause and lies exhausted on the field of battle - victorious."

[Partial]

If we wind up with solid starting guards, I could care what round they get drafted in.

College looks like a good hand, it might take time for him to get mature. I made a prediction that Moll would spend the year on the practice patrol, getting experience, guess i jumped the gun on that deal.

This draft reminded me of the one where we draft 3 corners to stop Moss. Who cares which one of 'em does the job, just so we fill the hole?

Also, it was the last selected that turned out to be the NFL player. Perhaps similiar fate with Moll and Spitz? Hopefully, all three turn out. I foresee Colledge regaining the spot, to tell you the truth.

If not this year, then definitely next. If the knock on him is strength, then he'll fix that. I, for one, find it a little weird that the TE convert to tackle is stronger and more physical then the 4 year starter at LT. Weird, I know. The benefit of this however, is he has some experience at the tackle spots and guard, which makes him a versatile back-up.

[TOP HAT]

I wish to express my thanks for the opening neat analysis
about the OL and its progress.

Also, I am looking for a packer rats fan to do any hopeful
analysis for a dl with a pass rush attitude. Yesterday, one
fan indicated a poor pass rush, so far.

Thus, with the national espn game next week, we will all
see what is going on...as you know great LBs and CBs will
not stop an offense without a good pass rush.


top hat

[Bretsky]

As much as I disliked how TT handled free agency, I must also give him his kudos for the 2006 draft up to this point.

Truth be told, as another poster pointed out, 2006 might be the best Packer draft any of us can remember and if it is TT gets his credit for that.

Early returns are

Hawk looks the Part as a Very Solid Pro
Colledge is a TBD
Jennings looks like a steal and a NFL ready WR
Spitz appears to be a steal as well
Hodge will be a player
Rodgers looks like a questionable pick
Blackmond is TBD
Moll looks like a steal
Culver looks like a solid pick and keeper
Tolleson, Martin, and Jolly are TBD's.

So we got Hawk, Jennings, Spitz, Hodge, who certainly seem to be great picks and Moll and Culver seem to be a solid ones as well. And if College or Blackmond develops, this is a truly outstanding draft for our future. Plus a couple wildcards so that list may go higher. TT's early 2006 draft grade would be in the A range now.

The 2006 draft so far would be labled an incredible success.

[woodbuck27]

As much as I disliked how TT handled free agency, I must also give him his kudos for the 2006 draft up to this point.

Truth be told, as another poster pointed out, 2006 might be the best Packer draft any of us can remember and if it is TT gets his credit for that.

Early returns are

Hawk looks the Part as a Very Solid Pro
Colledge is a TBD
Jennings looks like a steal and a NFL ready WR
Spitz appears to be a steal as well
Hodge will be a player
Rodgers looks like a questionable pick
Blackmond is TBD
Moll looks like a steal
Culver looks like a solid pick and keeper
Tolleson, Martin, and Jolly are TBD's.

So we got Hawk, Jennings, Spitz, Hodge, who certainly seem to be great picks and Moll and Culver seem to be a solid ones as well. And if College or Blackmond develops, this is a truly outstanding draft for our future. Plus a couple wildcards so that list may go higher. TT's early 2006 draft grade would be in the A range now.

The 2006 draft so far would be labled an incredible success.

Just this B.

CONGRATULATIONS on 2000 posts Packer Fan !! :mrgreen:

[woodbuck27]

As much as I disliked how TT handled free agency, I must also give him his kudos for the 2006 draft up to this point.

Truth be told, as another poster pointed out, 2006 might be the best Packer draft any of us can remember and if it is TT gets his credit for that.

Early returns are

Hawk looks the Part as a Very Solid Pro
Colledge is a TBD
Jennings looks like a steal and a NFL ready WR
Spitz appears to be a steal as well
Hodge will be a player
Rodgers looks like a questionable pick
Blackmond is TBD
Moll looks like a steal
Culver looks like a solid pick and keeper
Tolleson, Martin, and Jolly are TBD's.

So we got Hawk, Jennings, Spitz, Hodge, who certainly seem to be great picks and Moll and Culver seem to be a solid ones as well. And if College or Blackmond develops, this is a truly outstanding draft for our future. Plus a couple wildcards so that list may go higher. TT's early 2006 draft grade would be in the A range now.

The 2006 draft so far would be labled an incredible success.

I was away from here for about 8 weeks and missed that Draft, but when I really assessed it back in early June I was very pleased with what TT did that appeared promising.

NOW - Ted Thompson AND his Scouts and people who worked up OUR DRAFT Board, deserve alot of credit - as we see it all developing now.

I just pray that adversity doesn't strip it away. I can't wait for Blackmon to come back. He'll be good. That fella, is one hell of an athlete.

THE PACKER FUTURE LOOKS GOOD !!

[Bretsky]

As much as I disliked how TT handled free agency, I must also give him his kudos for the 2006 draft up to this point.

Truth be told, as another poster pointed out, 2006 might be the best Packer draft any of us can remember and if it is TT gets his credit for that.

Early returns are

Hawk looks the Part as a Very Solid Pro
Colledge is a TBD
Jennings looks like a steal and a NFL ready WR
Spitz appears to be a steal as well
Hodge will be a player
Rodgers looks like a questionable pick
Blackmond is TBD
Moll looks like a steal
Culver looks like a solid pick and keeper
Tolleson, Martin, and Jolly are TBD's.

So we got Hawk, Jennings, Spitz, Hodge, who certainly seem to be great picks and Moll and Culver seem to be a solid ones as well. And if College or Blackmond develops, this is a truly outstanding draft for our future. Plus a couple wildcards so that list may go higher. TT's early 2006 draft grade would be in the A range now.

The 2006 draft so far would be labled an incredible success.

Just this B.

CONGRATULATIONS on 2000 posts Packer Fan !! :mrgreen:


Thanks Woody; on a sidenote hope things are going well for you on the personal side in Canada.

Cheers,
B

[KYPack]

Those of you wanting to rip Ted a new one for the College pick need to remember to kiss Ted's butt in the Jennings threads. Fair is fair.

Point well taken Scott; I didn't fall in love with either pick as I really liked Chad Jackson. And it looks like I was really wrong.

Jackson was easily the star of the combine. The fastest, quickest, best hands WR at the place. But hat doesn't mean he was the best wr prospect. I was in love with this kid. He is a workout warrior, but not the player that Jennings is.

I was pissed we didn't take him, & it looks like I was wrong.

In TT we trust, I guess.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Jackson was easily the star of the combine. The fastest, quickest, best hands WR at the place. But hat doesn't mean he was the best wr prospect. I was in love with this kid. He is a workout warrior, but not the player that Jennings is.

Fastest? Yes. Quickest? No. Jennings actually had a faster 3-cone and shuttle times. Best hands? Doubtful.

Jackson had the speed/size ratio that's ideal. That's why he went in the 2nd round. If he were also the quickest and showed the best hands, you can bet he would have been a top 15 pick.

[swede]

I wouldn't agree with that at all, Bretsky. Having a potential great LT is like drafting a potential great QB. They are hard to find. Clifton is over 30 now and is hobbling. If Colledge is a good starting LT in year 3 it would still be a great draft pick. Hell, Ron Wolf drafted Clifton when it looked like there was no need for him. Who's to say Clifton can hold up all year. It wouldn't be out of the realm for Colledge to "save our bacon" at some point this year at LT.

Agreed Harv. I was startled at Bretsky's pronouncement as well. To me, it would all be good if Moll were to keep the starting job at guard and Colledge were to become a quality backup at tackle.

It scared the dickens out of me to see Clifton hobbling around after the Atlanta game with his knees on ice. What would we do without him or Tausch? Frightening to contemplate! ANY quality backups on the o line would pull this team another blessed inch away from the brink of another crappy season.

I don't know if Havel is right or not, but the article at least was plausible. Perhaps Colledge's best natural position is his former position at left tackle. Having him back up Clifton would not be disturbing or disaappointing to me if Moll is doing well at left guard.

[BooHoo]

I don't care who starts on the O Line or who the backups are. Just get the job done!

[woodbuck27]

" @ Woodbuck, I'm glad to see you doing a wee bit of cheering for Thompson. I don't mind the roller coaster ride. I do wonder, though, why you so vehemently insist that you do not compare war to football. Why not? Ok, granted, in war the stakes are ever so much higher and the fans ten times as irrational, but as a general metaphor and analogy (depending), it seems to me that the reference to war is a legitimate one. " Terry

Thanks Terry.

I've changed my position (somewhat) :mrgreen: the past two weeks...Look at my NFL Division Winners and Wild Cards.

That is due to me (maybe) understanding and trusting some things I see, yet moreso....it's the people here (you included Terry), that have made me revise certain negative feelings, I didn't enjoy in me...

my overall attitude is diferent for a specdific reason. That is mine - come what may?

I asked myself. Why not enjoy/celebrate, the length of time I've been a Packer fan, and possibly the final games of Brett Favre and/or Ahman Green?

Support this Forum - as much as possible positively, and douse doubt, yet be fair/real as we move forward in 2006.

That's where I have arrived for this season Terry.

My Dad was through all the crap of WW II. Oversea's for about six and a half years. He was a gunner in the oldest Canadian Artillary Regiment in the Canada's proud military history.

Our young men went through "the schitt" Terry throughout WW II. We were there !

Vince Lombardi left us quotes - that are "a foundation" for Corporation's/Company's/business's ... To instill proper attitude in men and women.

Vince may have borrowed phrases in quotations, or whole quotations that are inspred from Military history, but I have a problem Terry with this in general day to day terms in reference to football:

This is merely my personal stance, and I have no wish to impose that on other's.

Simply put Terry.... NFL football and NFL football players, should not or hardly be compared, to the horrors of past and near present military history, and the sacrifices of soldiers at WAR.

Football players "play" football. They often fall to adversity. We even have seen players die on a football field.

yet...

Soldiers "in action" at WAR - OFTEN face crippling physical and emotional/mentle injury... and too often soldiers ...DIE... to serve their countries stance against the Enemy (foe) !!

Some may say: jeee but it comes with the territory. War is what it is. Football players are not soldiers in battle. I respect that fact.It's just that simple for me.

That is only my personal position and others my do as they see fit.....

I hope I've clarified that for YOU Terry....

GO PACK GO ! FAITH PACKER FANS in 2006 !!

[Patler]

Ron Wolf had the luxury of drafting for depth. Ted Thompson was not drafting for depth. And who knows what kind of potential he has at LT ? As all we know so far is he seems to have failed at OG.

TT and his scouts (wist would have a field day with these comments) were thoroughly convinced that Colledge would excel as an OG in this system. That is what he was drafted for. You could argue Clifton is breaking down; I could argue he may have another successful 5-6 years in the league. Time will tell to see who is right, but he''s being paid big money to excel at OT and Colledge was drafted to play OG as he was immediately given the starters job to lose, which he did.

Colledge could certainly save our bacon as a backup OT; so could any other backup on our roster. But Teddy didn't draft him to be a backup on one of the worst OL's in football in 2005.

Clifton was drafted after the Packers were coming off an 8-8 season. That team wasn't deep, and he didn't have that luxury, but Wolf didn't go with conventional wisdom. He understood the importance of some positions. That's why he drafted QBs every year.

You can't say the scouts thought he would be a great OG. Maybe they thought he might make it at OG, but if nothing else, they'll have a good LT down the line.

Incredible. You've really gotten pessimistic about everything. So, you are going to judge Colledge before his first regular season game? I'll choose to wait a few years. You make me look like tex.
:D

OK, "excellent" was an overexaggeration, but adequate would certainly be fair. And it's tough to argue he wasn't drafted with the intention of him starting.

B

I know I'm a couple days behind in this topic, but I wanted to comment on this because it demonstrates how easily it is to forget the "bad" things.

I'm not sure that the line entering 2000 was even considered "adequate" at best it was "unsettled". Taylor had left as a FA after 1997, Timmerman left after 1998. In 1999 the line was really not very good. Favre had been sacked over 30 times and Levens averaged less than 4 yards/carry. McKenzie and Wahle had split time at left guard and Earl Dotson was already suffering from the back problems, but playing through it. They never really liked Verba at tackle, even though he played relatively well. The only thing settled was that Winters was the center and Rivera the right guard.

Wolf wanted to shake things up, which was why they moved Verba from LT to LG, and inserted Wahle at left tackle, while hoping that Dotson would continue to hold up. The line clearly needed upgrading.

Wolf often commented that you needed to continually bring in offensive line prospects via the draft. Not all his picks worked out, obviously, but Wolf was able to get past continual changes in the O-line by drafting Dotson in '93, Taylor in '94, Timmerman in '95, Rivera and Flanagan in '96, Verba in '97, Wahle in '98 as a supplemental pick who counted against the 1999 draft, and Clifton and Tauscher in 2000. That's a pretty impressive string of picks.

Sherman brought in one, Wells, via the draft, even though contracts were structured so that Rivera and Wahle would both need to be re-signed in the same off-season, with Flanagan up the next year. He also gets credit for signing Barry, but we really have no idea if Barry was a capable starter at tackle or just a great blocking TE. The depth of the o-line was allowed to erode to the point that there was not adequate backups at either guard position or at LT when Thompson came on board.

Thompson appears to be trying to do what Wolf did, drafting Coston and signing White in 2005, then drafting Colledge, Spitz and Moll this year. Bourke might even get to be included on the list. Tauscher and Clifton each have a couple years left on their contracts, but each is getting to the stage in their careers where injuries might linger. Replacements are always needed, and you need young guys waiting to take over.

[woodbuck27]

Posted August 22, 2006

Revamped O-line passes test

By Rob Demovsky
rdemovsk@greenbaypressgazette.com

Barring injury, the Green Bay Packers will open the regular season with the same starting offensive line they used in Saturday's preseason game against Atlanta — with rookies Tony Moll and Jason Spitz at the two guard spots.

The rookie guards held up well enough that coach Mike McCarthy and offensive coordinator Jeff Jagodzinski decided to leave them where they are and work on continuity and chemistry between them and the other three offensive line starters.

"I thought it was important and I think we've talked about it the last couple of weeks that I was not comfortable waiting until the end of training camp to name the starting five," McCarthy said on Monday.

"So by going in this direction, it gives us a chance to get these five guys prepped and ready for Chicago."

Moll, a fifth-round draft pick, had a couple of breakdowns in his first start at right guard, and Spitz, a third-rounder, performed better in his first start at left guard than he did in the preseason opener at right guard. That leaves second-round draft pick Daryn Colledge on the outside looking in.

"If we can get three weeks (of practice) with the same five guys working towards Chicago," Jagodzinski said,

"that's what we're doing. We're working toward that first ballgame."

When asked if he thinks he and offensive line coach Joe Philbin have the right guys in the right spots, Jagodzinski said: "I think so. I think we're getting there."

Moll, who opened camp as a backup tackle, still has plenty to learn about playing guard. Philbin said he was responsible for two pressures of quarterback Brett Favre in Saturday's game against the Falcons. One came when Moll whiffed against veteran defensive tackle Rod Coleman, and the other came early in the third quarter when the Packers were backed up against their end zone.

"Coleman just slapped me to the side and said, 'Get out of here, kid,'" Moll said.

"The other one, they ran a twist and I was a little slow getting back to the defensive end, and the defensive tackle slipped through."

Moll said he hasn't been told by any of the coaches that he has won the starting job, but the best indication came on Monday when he was told he would continue to work with the starters.

"I think that means I proved myself to the coaches, that I can stick around and be a good player," Moll said.

Spitz said:

"You still have to do your job. You still have to perform every day. If I'm not doing my job a couple of weeks from now, it's not going to be the same five."

Moll and Spitz, along with center Scott Wells, left tackle Chad Clifton and right tackle Mark Tauscher, are expected to play well into the third quarter of Monday's preseason game at Cincinnati.

"I can't sit here and say this is the right thing for the next five years, and the guys are in the exact perfect spots," Philbin said.

"But with the information that we have today, yeah, I feel good about it. I think they responded well to the changes. Spitz played better than he did in San Diego even though he switched sides. Moll did a nice job. He had no glaring weaknesses.

"A week ago, everybody thought we were nothing. We've got to make sure we play well at Cincinnati. That's a national (TV) game on the road. There will be more pressure to perform there than playing at home, so we've still got a lot left to prove."

[Guiness]

As usual, well put Patler.

[The Leaper]

I agree completely with Patler. TT clearly went into this draft looking to stockpile OL prospects. I don't think he clearly labeled any of them as being specific answers...which is why he accumulates picks. Thompson is well aware that there are no givens in the process of drafting college talent. By bringing in plenty of young kids, he has provided depth that has withstood a rash of injuries to the OL.

With Clifton's knees and Favre's age, we NEED a capable reserve at LT. If that is the role Colledge can fill adequately this season, fabulous. I'm not going to label the pick as a failure after one poor outing in preseason.

[Patler]

I actually hope that Colledge can be a decent backup at LT this year. Who else is there? Clifton has had a couple games each of the last couple years in which he was questionable for playing right up until game time or games that he was not able to finish. Each year it will become more difficult for him to get ready, I was comfortable with Klemm as the backup, but who now?