The offensive O-line, Barclay the answer?

[Patler]

Sometimes the "double switch" to cover for an injury works, but it is usually when the backup at the switch position is a borderline starter. For example, the double switch worked when:


Tauscher periodically played guard in place of Rivera, and Earl Dotson came in for Tauscher. Dotson was a long-time starter at RT, and was not starting primarily due to a troublesome back issue. The drop-off at RT was not significant.

Flanagan moved out to LT, and Winters returned to starting center. Again, a long-time starter who was still capable came in at his normal position and allowed the double switch to work.


The current double switch for the replacement of Bulaga may be making a suspect O-line a very weak one. By moving Lang to RT and Dietrich-Smith to starting guard, they really have two players playing out of position, positions they are not best suited for.. EDS is said to be a center long term, not a guard. By moving Lang, two positions are now significantly weaker.

Might they be better off biting the bullet and trying Barclay at RT while returning Lang to LG? The loss of Bulaga would then weaken only one position, not two, even if the one position is significantly weaker.

[packrulz]

I've wondered that too, you could keep in a TE or RB to help him out. NY has one of the best D-lines though, Super Bowl caliber.

[pbmax]

A strong point, because Lang really struggled last night.

[run pMc]

By moving Lang to RT and Dietrich-Smith to starting guard, they really have two players playing out of position, positions they are not best suited for

I'm not a big fan of these kinds of moves for this reason. I think moving Lang and plugging EDS in essentially is like putting in two new starters instead of one, since Lang has been at LG. The way GB likes to have OLinemen play multiple positions might mitigate that a little, but I think Lang is better suited to G than T. That said, who else can play T? Wasn't Barclay's play iffy in preseason?

[LegandofthePack15]

Sometimes the "double switch" to cover for an injury works, but it is usually when the backup at the switch position is a borderline starter. For example, the double switch worked when:


Tauscher periodically played guard in place of Rivera, and Earl Dotson came in for Tauscher. Dotson was a long-time starter at RT, and was not starting primarily due to a troublesome back issue. The drop-off at RT was not significant.

Flanagan moved out to LT, and Winters returned to starting center. Again, a long-time starter who was still capable came in at his normal position and allowed the double switch to work.


The current double switch for the replacement of Bulaga may be making a suspect O-line a very weak one. By moving Lang to RT and Dietrich-Smith to starting guard, they really have two players playing out of position, positions they are not best suited for.. EDS is said to be a center long term, not a guard. By moving Lang, two positions are now significantly weaker.

Might they be better off biting the bullet and trying Barclay at RT while returning Lang to LG? The loss of Bulaga would then weaken only one position, not two, even if the one position is significantly weaker.

If the Packers are truly a playoff team and not the hapless, tasteless team we saw last night, they would be better off NOT experiencing with an undrafted rookie nobody (Barclay) at this stage of the season. Could get Rodgers killed and disturb order in the universe if they do (not that Rodgers isn't getting killed with the current lineup).

I am in favor of bringing back Clifton to play LT. Move Newhouse to RT, move Lang back to LG, and get EDS out of the line up.

[Bossman641]

I'd love to be a fly on the wall at 1265 Lombardi Ave today. I believe that Friday is decision time on Sherrod, right? Have to wonder if they feel like they have to move him to the active roster, just on the off chance that he could be ready in 4-5 weeks.

[Packers4Glory]

Lang may have struggled but he never looked as bad as Newhouse. Newhouse is so slow. He may still be on the field

[mmmdk]

Voodoo dolls of ALL of the front sevens that Packers OL will face the rest of the season and with pain pins in them, is what will fix Packers OL this season.

[denverYooper]

Lang may have struggled but he never looked as bad as Newhouse. Newhouse is so slow. He may still be on the field

Lang got a lot more help. Newhouse had a lot more 1-1s.

[George Cumby]

Was MN that bad? When I did watch him, it seemed he did ok, not great but ok.

[red]

what happen to all the depth i thought we had? we've been drafting guys for years that can play multiple positions on the line. now we lose one fucking starter and we look like a god damn joke.

no one last night looked like they were comfortable playing where they were playing

heres a question for MM. you gave lang extra help on the right side all night, leaving newhouse 1 on 1 with osi. HUGE MISTAKE. why is it so difficult for you to say during the game, "ok, we need help on the left side too. lets get rid of one of the 5 wr's that a-rod doesn't have time to throw to, and throw a TE like crabtree in there to do nothing but help newhouse block".

why couldn't we make that adjustment? it was clear about 10 minutes into the game that we needed a lot more help up front

[red]

Was MN that bad? When I did watch him, it seemed he did ok, not great but ok.

he was that bad, but like DY said. he was left 1 on 1 all night with one of the best pass rushers in the game. no help at all, no chip blocks, no nothing

[Cheesehead Craig]

Lang may have struggled but he never looked as bad as Newhouse. Newhouse is so slow. He may still be on the field

This made me laugh. Well played.

[Patler]

... now we lose one fucking starter and we look like a god damn joke.


I was not very impressed with the play of the O-line before we lost Bulaga.

[red]

I was not very impressed with the play of the O-line before we lost Bulaga.

that is true, bulaga was having a pretty crappy year

FIRE CAMPEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[sharpe1027]

IMO, the problem was as much play calling and game planning as anything. The Giants used the bye week to really put together a cohesive coverage game plan. They were disrupting timing and to make it difficult to find the gaps on the coverage. Rodgers often unable to find an open WR even when he had time. On the early interception, it seemed like they knew the play before the snap. Why else would a DB leave his man wide open?

I expect opponents will be watching a lot of film on this game. I hope MM has an answer.

[Iron Mike]

On the early interception, it seemed like they knew the play before the snap. Why else would a DB leave his man wide open?


And why couldn't Rodgers find the guy that was left wide open???

[sharpe1027]

And why couldn't Rodgers find the guy that was left wide open???

I am not a mind reader, but Rodgers was probably making a read based upon the assumption that the other DB would not break off his coverage and leave his man wide open. It was a quick hitter/timing route and there was no time for Rodgers to survey the entire field before making the pass. This is especially true because I believe he was selling the play fake, which occupies his attention.

I think the Giants knew this and took a calculated gamble.

[mraynrand]

And why couldn't Rodgers find the guy that was left wide open???

That's all on Rodgers. He had tunnel vision for Cobb. Webster vacated his coverage and had safety help over the top, but there was a huge gap to throw into. Rodger's vision on that one sucked. He also blew several pre-snap reads. Ok, give credit to the Giants for disguising them, but Rodgers was pedestrian in the two areas where he's normally excellent: presnap reads and vision.

About the Cobb deal: It was clear that the Giants made stopping him their top concern; the Packers reacted by continuing to try and go to him. Finley may be a pariah (Collinsworth's comment about Finley not sucking up to Rodgers was very interesting) but I don't care if he drops a couple of passes - he should be open - it should be possible to get him the ball.

It remains a mystery to me why the Packers seemingly have very little in their playbook to counter an aggressive outside pass rush. The one play to Kuhn was excellent, but it's hard to run something like that with an empty backfield.

Oh well, time to face fact: The whole night was a clustersuck.

[Bossman641]

IMO, the problem was as much play calling and game planning as anything. The Giants used the bye week to really put together a cohesive coverage game plan. They were disrupting timing and to make it difficult to find the gaps on the coverage. Rodgers often unable to find an open WR even when he had time. On the early interception, it seemed like they knew the play before the snap. Why else would a DB leave his man wide open?

I expect opponents will be watching a lot of film on this game. I hope MM has an answer.

Giants were playing a cover 2 on the INT. For whatever reason, Webster just abandoned Jones and came onto Cobb instead. Don't know if Webster recognized something in film study or just took a gamble, but it paid off for him.

[pbmax]

what happen to all the depth i thought we had? we've been drafting guys for years that can play multiple positions on the line. now we lose one fucking starter and we look like a god damn joke.

no one last night looked like they were comfortable playing where they were playing

heres a question for MM. you gave lang extra help on the right side all night, leaving newhouse 1 on 1 with osi. HUGE MISTAKE. why is it so difficult for you to say during the game, "ok, we need help on the left side too. lets get rid of one of the 5 wr's that a-rod doesn't have time to throw to, and throw a TE like crabtree in there to do nothing but help newhouse block".

why couldn't we make that adjustment? it was clear about 10 minutes into the game that we needed a lot more help up front

One reason is that JPP played a lot of LDE yesterday which is not his normal home base.

[pbmax]

Giants were playing a cover 2 on the INT. For whatever reason, Webster just abandoned Jones and came onto Cobb instead. Don't know if Webster recognized something in film study or just took a gamble, but it paid off for him.

That play is designed, like play action, to such up attention from some defender in a short pass zone. Webster probably recognized it from film and knew his guy inside would want to watch the zone option/read first.

[sharpe1027]

Giants were playing a cover 2 on the INT. For whatever reason, Webster just abandoned Jones and came onto Cobb instead. Don't know if Webster recognized something in film study or just took a gamble, but it paid off for him.

I would bet that it was something he was coached to do based upon the Packer's tendencies. Completely abandoning your man is not something you see every day.

[sharpe1027]

Might they be better off biting the bullet and trying Barclay at RT while returning Lang to LG? The loss of Bulaga would then weaken only one position, not two, even if the one position is significantly weaker.

I liked the theory behind this, but then I remembered just how bad it can be having an incompetent RT. Anyone remember Allen Barbre's infamous stint at RT? He is proof that sometimes it is better to have two crappy players than a single really really really really really crappy player. I'm not saying Barclay is necessarily that bad, but he may be bad enough to justify sticking with their current lineup.

[pbmax]

IMO, the problem was as much play calling and game planning as anything. The Giants used the bye week to really put together a cohesive coverage game plan. They were disrupting timing and to make it difficult to find the gaps on the coverage. Rodgers often unable to find an open WR even when he had time. On the early interception, it seemed like they knew the play before the snap. Why else would a DB leave his man wide open?

I expect opponents will be watching a lot of film on this game. I hope MM has an answer.


And why couldn't Rodgers find the guy that was left wide open???

This. Or these.

I thought several times the Giants clearly had an answer for a Packers maneuver. Several times they blitzed after motion and were able to send a guy right into an open gap despite the slide. Double teaming JPP over Lang was leaving a space wide open for a blitzer in the Guard Tackle gap. They had several free runs at Rodgers. My suspicion is that the Packers got next to nothing out of empty backfield sets. I get the sense that opponents don't fear a single back run play nor Cobb getting a shovel pass/run play. So they can play run pass based only on personnel. I would love to get Quarless back and be able to run/throw with two effective blocking TEs who could also get out into a pattern.

On Defense, the Packers would adjust to motion or alignment, play a zone and then get caught late on the play I learned to hate in 2009/10; the late crossing route. I felt like the Giants could manipulate the Packers D to their will far too many times.

Some of that is youth on defense. Matthews or Woodson (or Collins) might have tattooed someone in a similar circumstance or called a different Defense. But like House having a largely effective game versus Hicks, I am encouraged by the young players. Less encouraged by the pass rush.

Offense has me more worried with inept play all season on the line.

[sharpe1027]

Less encouraged by the pass rush.


Given the combination of Moses/Zombo/Walden, it was to be somewhat expected. Did anyone else notice several blatant holds on Moses? He was giving the Giants' RT some trouble with his speed, but got hooked and grabbed several times with no call.

[Guiness]

Given the combination of Moses/Zombo/Walden, it was to be somewhat expected. Did anyone else notice several blatant holds on Moses? He was giving the Giants' RT some trouble with his speed, but got hooked and grabbed several times with no call.

Geez, was the hold worse than the one that did get called, against Crabtree blocking JPP? The replay showed very little, other than the offended appealing to the ref. Successfully.

[Freak Out]

Given the combination of Moses/Zombo/Walden, it was to be somewhat expected. Did anyone else notice several blatant holds on Moses? He was giving the Giants' RT some trouble with his speed, but got hooked and grabbed several times with no call.

I seem to remember seeing him tackled a few times.

[Patler]

I liked the theory behind this, but then I remembered just how bad it can be having an incompetent RT. Anyone remember Allen Barbre's infamous stint at RT? He is proof that sometimes it is better to have two crappy players than a single really really really really really crappy player. I'm not saying Barclay is necessarily that bad, but he may be bad enough to justify sticking with their current lineup.

We won't know unless they try it. Barclay struggled early in camp at the one-on-one drill, but was 15-5 the last two weeks. Bulaga commented on his toughness, nasty streak and all-out effort on every play. Scouts have said he has a chance to make it in the NFL because he understands the game, has good technique and can play anywhere. Concerns are his strength, power and overall athleticism. In a lot of ways, he is almost the opposite of Barbre.

Sure, Barbre was a disaster but Tauscher was not. We won't know if he is more Tauscher-like or Barbre-like until he plays.

[sharpe1027]

We won't know unless they try it. Barclay struggled early in camp at the one-on-one drill, but was 15-5 the last two weeks. Bulaga commented on his toughness, nasty streak and all-out effort on every play. Scouts have said he has a chance to make it in the NFL because he understands the game, has good technique and can play anywhere. Concerns are his strength, power and overall athleticism. In a lot of ways, he is almost the opposite of Barbre.

Sure, Barbre was a disaster but Tauscher was not. We won't know if he is more Tauscher-like or Barbre-like until he plays.

You are right that we won't know, but the coaches might already have a pretty good idea. As for the positive praise, I heard a lot of positive praise for Barbre prior to them starting him. They may be opposite players, but that doesn't mean they won't have similar results. He might be OK, but the coaches know he is an option and he has not got so much as a sniff of playing time.

If the line play does not improve, they may get desperate enough to put him in, but I won't hold my breath for a big improvement.

[Patler]

You are right that we won't know, but the coaches might already have a pretty good idea. As for the positive praise, I heard a lot of positive praise for Barbre prior to them starting him. They may be opposite players, but that doesn't mean they won't have similar results. He might be OK, but the coaches know he is an option and he has not got so much as a sniff of playing time.

If the line play does not improve, they may get desperate enough to put him in, but I won't hold my breath for a big improvement.

I never heard positive comments about Barbre's practices, training camps or preseasons. In fact, it was just the opposite. In the off season they talked about his physical attributes that gave him potential, but year after year he lost favor in TC and preseason. He would be penciled in at a spot early, but lose it. They tried to give him Colledge's spot one year, and he choked in camp immediately. Finally, one year they started him almost in a stubborn effort to put him on the spot, and it failed miserably.

I don't expect Barclay to step in and be a solid RT. I would expect him to need help. Maybe even a fair amount of help. But at least with Lang back at LG that position should be solid.. Now, both are weak.

[denverYooper]

I never heard positive comments about Barbre's practices, training camps or preseasons. In fact, it was just the opposite. In the off season they talked about his physical attributes that gave him potential, but year after year he lost favor in TC and preseason. He would be penciled in at a spot early, but lose it. They tried to give him Colledge's spot one year, and he choked in camp immediately. Finally, one year they started him almost in a stubborn effort to put him on the spot, and it failed miserably.

I don't expect Barclay to step in and be a solid RT. I would expect him to need help. Maybe even a fair amount of help. But at least with Lang back at LG that position should be solid.. Now, both are weak.

It's very possible that Lang's return would help Newhouse also, as the two were used to working together. But Rodgers's bread and butter is being able to move to create plays. He was getting pinched in on Sunday night.

[mmmdk]

Talk won't help the Packers OL this season; not saying 'don't talk' though - but it's really a bleak topic to me.

[rbaloha1]

AR's phenomenal abilities have reduced an already mediocre line's shortcomings.

I will go with Sitton's comments about fundamentals and MM's comments about protection schemes that Packers will improve.

Unsure if Barclay is a temporary fix.

[sharpe1027]

I never heard positive comments about Barbre's practices, training camps or preseasons. In fact, it was just the opposite. In the off season they talked about his physical attributes that gave him potential, but year after year he lost favor in TC and preseason. He would be penciled in at a spot early, but lose it. They tried to give him Colledge's spot one year, and he choked in camp immediately. Finally, one year they started him almost in a stubborn effort to put him on the spot, and it failed miserably.

I don't expect Barclay to step in and be a solid RT. I would expect him to need help. Maybe even a fair amount of help. But at least with Lang back at LG that position should be solid.. Now, both are weak.

I disagree. MM and reporters both gave positive reviews of Barbre's practices: http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/48118232.html


"Allen's had a very positive camp," Packers coach Mike McCarthy said last week. "You never try to get too excited too fast, because you don't want to create unrealistic expectations, but every day in the film sessions with the coaches, Allen Barbre has done a very good job so far."

Two weeks ago, Barbre looked dominant at times in a pads-free practice. With the defense gradually installing its 3-4 scheme, Barbre more than held his own against linebacker Aaron Kampman. Barbre allowed no penetration and was quick enough to absorb the twists and turns of the constant whirl of motion that is Kampman's style. The two locked up and battled down after down.

I would assume that he was penciled in at starting spots because he showed enough to the coaches. That is more than we can currently say for Barclay. I'm not saying Barclay would fail miserably, but I see nothing that makes me very encouraged about him.

[mraynrand]

I'd rather put Breno Giacomini in there instead of Barclay. He's a capable starter.

[Patler]

I would assume that he was penciled in at starting spots because he showed enough to the coaches. That is more than we can currently say for Barclay. I'm not saying Barclay would fail miserably, but I see nothing that makes me very encouraged about him.

Na, Barbre was penciled in during the off season for the same reason that a lot of rookies and younger players are, motivation. When did Barbre ever show any promise at all on the field?

Again, it's not Barclay that I am particularly interested in getting on the field, it's getting Lang back at LG so that position is solid, unlike now. To do that, Barclay is the only real option. I just can't help but wonder if a noticeably weakened LG plus a noticeably weakened RT might not be a worse overall than just a perhaps even weaker RT.

If EDS can pick up his game, I am in favor of leaving it as is.

[sharpe1027]

Na, Barbre was penciled in during the off season for the same reason that a lot of rookies and younger players are, motivation. When did Barbre ever show any promise at all on the field?

Again, it's not Barclay that I am particularly interested in getting on the field, it's getting Lang back at LG so that position is solid, unlike now. To do that, Barclay is the only real option. I just can't help but wonder if a noticeably weakened LG plus a noticeably weakened RT might not be a worse overall than just a perhaps even weaker RT.

If EDS can pick up his game, I am in favor of leaving it as is.

That's your theory on why they penciled him in. My theory is they did it because they thought he was their best option. Also, Barclay's positive reviews are no more proof that he can cut it than they were for Barbre.

In any event, I remain very concerned about the effect of having a really shitty RT and am not at all convinced that it would be balanced out by having an improvement at guard. The old cliche is at least partially correct, the o-line is only as good as its weakest link (yes I know you can do things to compensate so it is not 100% true). I think that they might try it if things get really desperate, but I really hope it never gets to that point.

[mraynrand]

You make an overall good point Patler. The issue is whether there is anyone who can reasonably play that RT spot even close to acceptable. The Packers are only going to look terrible when they face teams with multiple quick aggressive strong outside pass rushers. There are only a few teams like that; unfortunately, the Packers would probably have to get by the two of them - Giants and Niners - to make the Superb Owl. I think you will see a difference this week, where the Packers can focus on stopping Allen, and let other guys single block. As PB suggests, would like to see more chip blocks as TEs and RBs head out for those dump off/ shorter/ flat passes.

Unless Sherrod can come back healthy and effective, the Packers have zero chance at a championship this year.

[Patler]

I disagree. MM and reporters both gave positive reviews of Barbre's practices: http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/48118232.html

That was in June, after practices in shirts and shorts at probably no more than half to three-quarters speed, playing against the Packers defense installing the 3-4 for the first time, and facing Kampman trying to adjust to a change in position.

Simply a typical off season fluff piece by Lori Nickel. We've seen dozens of them making players sound like future all-pros, when they ultimately fail to make the roster just a few weeks later.

Granted, you may find a positive comment or two about him, players and coaches try to build each other up. But by and large Barbre was simply a string of disppointments, especially for a guy with his athleticism.

[Patler]

That's your theory on why they penciled him in. My theory is they did it because they thought he was their best option. Also, Barclay's positive reviews are no more proof that he can cut it than they were for Barbre.

In any event, I remain very concerned about the effect of having a really shitty RT and am not at all convinced that it would be balanced out by having an improvement at guard. The old cliche is at least partially correct, the o-line is only as good as its weakest link (yes I know you can do things to compensate so it is not 100% true). I think that they might try it if things get really desperate, but I really hope it never gets to that point.

I think it is already close to the point of having to try something else. They have been eaten alive by two D-lines in a row. With the Vikings twice, Bears and Lions yet to come, something has to change; either EDS and/or Lang picking up their new spots significantly, or trying a different combination.

In the end, I couldn't care less who plays and who doesn't play, I just want to see improved play; and if that doesn't happen with the current starters I want to see others get their chances. Heck, I would prefer to see Van Roten get a chance at guard, or maybe even Barclay at guard, if EDS doesn't pick up his game.

[sharpe1027]

I think it is already close to the point of having to try something else. They have been eaten alive by two D-lines in a row. With the Vikings twice, Bears and Lions yet to come, something has to change; either EDS and/or Lang picking up their new spots significantly, or trying a different combination.

In the end, I couldn't care less who plays and who doesn't play, I just want to see improved play; and if that doesn't happen with the current starters I want to see others get their chances. Heck, I would prefer to see Van Roten get a chance at guard, or maybe even Barclay at guard, if EDS doesn't pick up his game.

I would just say that you should be careful what your wish for, because you may actually get it. ;)

[Patler]

I think it is already close to the point of having to try something else. They have been eaten alive by two D-lines in a row. With the Vikings twice, Bears and Lions yet to come, something has to change; either EDS and/or Lang picking up their new spots significantly, or trying a different combination.

In the end, I couldn't care less who plays and who doesn't play, I just want to see improved play; and if that doesn't happen with the current starters I want to see others get their chances. Heck, I would prefer to see Van Roten get a chance at guard, or maybe even Barclay at guard, if EDS doesn't pick up his game.


I would just say that you should be careful what your wish for, because you may actually get it. ;)


As I said, all I want to see is improved play, whether from the existing players or different ones. Is that so bad to wish for? :cnf:

[Patler]

Nothing says they can't go back to EDS and Lang if another combination doesn't work any better. But can it get much worse than having the QB hit on over 50% of his dropbacks as he did this week?

[sharpe1027]

As I said, all I want to see is improved play, whether from the existing players or different ones. Is that so bad to wish for? :cnf:

I'd respectfully ask that you apply a little common sense to my statement. I was simply implying that inserting backup may make matters worse.

If you want to parse words, then technically you did not just say you wanted to see improved play. You stated that if you do not see improvement from the current players you "want to see others get their chances." I stand by my statement to be careful what you wish for: even if the current player's don't improve your proposal has a chance to make matters even worse.

[sharpe1027]

Nothing says they can't go back to EDS and Lang if another combination doesn't work any better. But can it get much worse than having the QB hit on over 50% of his dropbacks as he did this week?

Sadly, I think it can. They're already scraping the bottom of the barrel due to injuries.

[Pugger]

Giants were playing a cover 2 on the INT. For whatever reason, Webster just abandoned Jones and came onto Cobb instead. Don't know if Webster recognized something in film study or just took a gamble, but it paid off for him.

Maybe the Gnats felt comfortable about abandoning Jones then because all game long Aaron ignored him and focused to much on Cobb. :|

[Patler]

I'd respectfully ask that you apply a little common sense to my statement. I was simply implying that inserting backup may make matters worse.

If you want to parse words, then technically you did not just say you wanted to see improved play. You stated that if you do not see improvement from the current players you "want to see others get their chances." I stand by my statement to be careful what you wish for: even if the current player's don't improve your proposal has a chance to make matters even worse.

I have never been afraid of giving players a chance when those ahead of them are not getting the job done. We did it all the time in hockey, even with players who did not show a lot in practice. The combination you never really gave much of a chance really starts to click when given an opportunity. Sometimes the bright lights make things happen you didn't expect.

If things continue as poorly as they have been, what does it hurt to give another combination a try? If a player is overwhelmed by the opportunity, you can switch back quickly, even in a matter of just a few plays if necessary. They don't have to stick with it for the season, a game, a quarter or even a full offensive series.

The sad part is that the O-line struggles are not because of injuries, it has gone down hill significantly from a single injury. But they have structured it such that the single injury is impacting two positions. When the line was not playing great to start with, weakening 40% of it because of one injury might not be the answer. Maybe it is the best option, but I hope something can be changed in the results. Maybe they just need more time. Maybe they need different people.

An interesting point by one of the writers, I think McGinn. Lang has had a bad arm for most of the season, and now he is trying to play right tackle with a very troublesome right arm. It leaves his outside very vulnerable.

[Pugger]

I can see where Patler is coming from. It may be better to have Lang back at G and only have one weak spot on the line rather than 2. You can cover up one spot on the line easier with a TE or RB rather than the situation we have presently.

[sharpe1027]

Patler, you have a point, but I don't really think it is the answer in this instance. You ask what it hurts? The danger is you lose a game that you could have won with the current players.

I just don't think that there is much reason to believe that the combination of Barclay and Lang is better than EDS and Lang. Making a change for the sake of making a change reeks of desperation to me. We're not there yet. On the other hand, if they think that Barclay (or anyone else) can get the job done then pull the trigger.

IMHO, we simply do not have a combination of linemen that would have won the game against the Giants. Perhaps a different game plan would have made some difference, but I remain skeptical that inserting Barclay is the answer.

[Bossman641]

I'm coming around to the idea of giving Barclay a shot at tackle. A short-armed, injured Lang at RT is not getting the job done.

[red]

Sadly, I think it can. They're already scraping the bottom of the barrel due to injuries.

1 injury

they already knew the glass bear(sherrod), could probably miss the year

[Patler]

IMHO, we simply do not have a combination of linemen that would have won the game against the Giants. Perhaps a different game plan would have made some difference, but I remain skeptical that inserting Barclay is the answer.

I like to think of it more in terms of returning Lang to guard than inserting Barcaly at tackle! :grin::grin:

I'm not suggesting that anything in the O-line only would have changed the result against the Giants. Too much went wrong there.

To be honest, I am frustrated with EDS. I expected Lang to have some problems at RT, but I was hopeful that EDS would be more steady at guard than he has been. Throw in Newhouse being a little up and down in his play, and all of a sudden you don't know what to expect from play to play at three positions. With Lang back at guard, there would be concerns for only two positions, unfortunately both tackles.

[red]

Patler, you have a point, but I don't really think it is the answer in this instance. You ask what it hurts? The danger is you lose a game that you could have won with the current players.


i think what patler is trying to say is that the lang at tackle, eds at guard has failed miserably in two straight games against good d-lines. unless those two pick up there game big time at those two positions, you're going to get a-rod killed before we get to the playoffs.

we're gonna have a hell of a time with the current line beating the bears, lions, and vikings twice. thats 4 games against good d-lines

[sharpe1027]

1 injury

they already knew the glass bear(sherrod), could probably miss the year

It is still two injuries at the same position. Regardless, knowing that he might not make it back did not magically improve their depth. Their backup plan at RT was apparently to move Lang. They really do not seem to have another viable option. You do not have to take my word for it. Unless MM is holding back Barclay for non-football reasons, he must think he sucks quite a bit more than the Lang/EDS combo.

I really hope I'm wrong and they can fix everything and win the Superbowl by inserting the next Bruce Wilkerson at tackle. I just think it is unrealistic to think that starting Barclay will fix their problems.

I think it is not much different than fans clamoring for the backup QB when the starter struggles. More times than not, if the backup does get his shot he shows why he was the backup.

[sharpe1027]

i think what patler is trying to say is that the lang at tackle, eds at guard has failed miserably in two straight games against good d-lines. unless those two pick up there game big time at those two positions, you're going to get a-rod killed before we get to the playoffs.

we're gonna have a hell of a time with the current line beating the bears, lions, and vikings twice. thats 4 games against good d-lines

Yeah, I don't disagree. I just think that Rodgers is likely to killed even faster with Barclay at tackle. I understand the thought process and can't prove it one way or another. I just don't think that there is enough reason to believe that Barclay/Lang will be any better than Lang/EDS. Maybe, but it seems like a long shot to me.

[mraynrand]

Simply a typical off season fluff piece by Lori Nickel.

As a made for TV movie, it gets good ratings on the Hallmark Channel.

[sharpe1027]

That was in June, after practices in shirts and shorts at probably no more than half to three-quarters speed, playing against the Packers defense installing the 3-4 for the first time, and facing Kampman trying to adjust to a change in position.

Simply a typical off season fluff piece by Lori Nickel. We've seen dozens of them making players sound like future all-pros, when they ultimately fail to make the roster just a few weeks later.

Granted, you may find a positive comment or two about him, players and coaches try to build each other up. But by and large Barbre was simply a string of disppointments, especially for a guy with his athleticism.

I missed this post earlier. Of course Barbre was a string of disappointments. That's exactly my point. Before he failed, the coaches gave him positive praise in the media (like Barclay is getting now). Hindsight is 20/20. The exact same thing might be said for Barclay in two years.

The main reasons I hear for inserting Barclay are 1) positive reviews of his practice (like Barbre) and 2) change for the sake of change.

Neither fills me with much confidence that it is the right thing to do.

[Patler]

The main reasons I hear for inserting Barclay are 1) positive reviews of his practice (like Barbre) and 2) change for the sake of change.

Neither fills me with much confidence that it is the right thing to do.

No, you keep skipping over my main point. The primary reason to insert Barclay is to get Lang back at guard and solidify one more position on the line. It has nothing to do with Barclay himself, other than that he is the next man up at tackle, presumably.

But if you want to continue the comparison to Barbre, at least Barclay's positive reviews came from his work at the end of camp. He got better. Barbre's positive reviews were mostly in the off seasons. During TCs and preseason games, Barbre regularly disappointed.

Until he proves me wrong, I will try to think of Barclay along the lines of Mark Tauscher, a low round pick who no one expected a lot from, but he picked it up in TC, got better in spite of physical limitations, and jumped in as a rookie when needed.

I take comfort in my blissful ignorance....! :-)

[sharpe1027]

No, you keep skipping over my main point. The primary reason to insert Barclay is to get Lang back at guard and solidify one more position on the line. It has nothing to do with Barclay himself, other than that he is the next man up at tackle, presumably.

But if you want to continue the comparison to Barbre, at least Barclay's positive reviews came from his work at the end of camp. He got better. Barbre's positive reviews were mostly in the off seasons. During TCs and preseason games, Barbre regularly disappointed.

Until he proves me wrong, I will try to think of Barclay along the lines of Mark Tauscher, a low round pick who no one expected a lot from, but he picked it up in TC, got better in spite of physical limitations, and jumped in as a rookie when needed.

I take comfort in my blissful ignorance....! :-)

Patler, I am very much aware of that point, I've repeatedly compared Lang/ED with Lang/Barclay. I just don't want to repeat the entire argument each time. Forgive my laziness. :) I am not confident that Barclay's ability at tackle is close enough to Lang's ability at tackle to be a net gain relative Lang's ability at guard relative to EDS.

The arguments for why it is a net gain remain 1) his positive reviews and 2) the fact that sometimes change is good when the current situation is not working well. I am not convinced, but readily admit that I could be wrong. I hope that I am.

***Disclaimer**** All points made hereafter and before were presented under the assumption that the comparative value of the starting Barclay vs. EDS includes the value of moving Lang to his natural position at guard. This assumption need not be expressly restated in each post. ****End Disclaimer****

[Patler]

Patler, I am very much aware of that point, I've repeatedly compared Lang/ED with Lang/Barclay. I just don't want to repeat the entire argument each time. Forgive my laziness. :) I am not confident that Barclay's ability at tackle is close enough to Lang's ability at tackle to be a net gain relative Lang's ability at guard relative to EDS.

The arguments for why it is a net gain remain 1) his positive reviews and 2) the fact that sometimes change is good when the current situation is not working well. I am not convinced, but readily admit that I could be wrong. I hope that I am.

***Disclaimer**** All points made hereafter and before were presented under the assumption that the comparative value of the starting Barclay vs. EDS includes the value of moving Lang to his natural position at guard. This assumption need not be expressly restated in each post. ****End Disclaimer****




Well, if you understand and are aware of the argument I gave for moving Lang back to guard and playing Barclay. (the very argument I started the thread with) it is a bit disingenuous on your part to specifically enumerate the "main reasons (you) hear for inserting Barclay" and completely ignore my reason while listing just two others.

It has not really much at all to do with any reviews Barclay may or may not have had. Those never mean much. Barclay made the team as one of only two reserve linemen initially. It had to be assumed that his services might be needed at some point, possibly during any game, especially since Bulaga has not been an example of rugged durability so far in his career..

This is very much different than the years when GB kept 8, 9 and even 10 O-lineman on the 53 man roster, and routinely had spots on the game day inactive list for extra developmental linemen like Giacomini, McDonald and even Barbre a good portion of the games his first two seasons. From Day 1, Barclay was going to be active for games. He was two of any combination of injuries, equipment problems, illness, personal issues, etc. away from playing. They let other more experienced veterans go and stayed with only EDS and Barclay until Van Roten was signed to the 53 man roster. Maybe its time to find out why, and if they were right in doing so.


I think Lang is a huge improvement over EDS at guard. To me, it is starting to look like a net gain so long as Barclay isn't a complete and absolute train wreck at tackle, because right now neither EDS nor Lang are very good at the positions they are playing. The O-line as currently played has been overwhelmed by a four man front in Detroit on a defense that (per McGinn) did not blitz a single time and ran very few stunts. He said the Giants rushed 5 only 5 times.

Basically, our 5 O-linemen have been overwhelmed by vanilla D line schemes the last two weeks. Maybe it is time for desperation. If not his week, next week for sure if EDS and Lang don't ramp it up a few notches. If nothing changes, a late season collapse and missing the playoffs would not surprise me at all.

[sharpe1027]

Well, if you understand and are aware of the argument I gave for moving Lang back to guard and playing Barclay. (the very argument I started the thread with) it is a bit disingenuous on your part to specifically enumerate the "main reasons (you) hear for inserting Barclay" and completely ignore my reason while listing just two others.

No it is not disingenuous. The point I have repeatedly made is that I am concerned that Barclay could be so bad (your train wreck example) that it won't matter that Lang is moved back to guard. I gave a concrete example of how a much single really bad tackle can affect a team (Barbre). The question I repeatedly posed is what basis do we have to believe that Barclay is good enough to result in an net gain. I apologize again for not repeating, in every post, that I am (still) considering the move of Lang to guard. I've acknowledged it in many different posts, so I admittedly got sloppy in that one post and did not again mention that the context was (of course) that Lang would move to guard. I have never once disputed this and have many times acknowledged that this is what we are discussing.

The general discussion point I am honing in on is: why do we believe that Barclay will not be a complete disaster so as to negate the benefit of moving Lang. I stated the two reasons why. It is not disingenuous at all, it is just me not wanting to spell everything out over and over.

I would also note that others have pointed out Lang is playing hurt, so moving him to guard may not result in him returning to his previous level of play.

***Disclaimer**** All points made hereafter and before were presented under the assumption that the comparative value of the starting Barclay vs. EDS includes the value of moving Lang to his natural position at guard. This assumption need not be expressly restated in each post. ****End Disclaimer****

[mraynrand]

My broker from Barclays just told me I made a killing in FX today. Suck on it packerrats.

[Patler]

No it is not disingenuous. The point I have repeatedly made is that I am concerned that Barclay could be so bad (your train wreck example) that it won't matter that Lang is moved back to guard. I gave a concrete example of how a much single really bad tackle can affect a team (Barbre). The question I repeatedly posed is what basis do we have to believe that Barclay is good enough to result in an net gain. I apologize again for not repeating, in every post, that I am (still) considering the move of Lang to guard. I've acknowledged it in many different posts, so I admittedly got sloppy in that one post and did not again mention that the context was (of course) that Lang would move to guard. I have never once disputed this and have many times acknowledged that this is what we are discussing.

The general discussion point I am honing in on is: why do we believe that Barclay will not be a complete disaster so as to negate the benefit of moving Lang. I stated the two reasons why. It is not disingenuous at all, it is just me not wanting to spell everything out over and over.

I would also note that others have pointed out Lang is playing hurt, so moving him to guard may not result in him returning to his previous level of play.

***Disclaimer**** All points made hereafter and before were presented under the assumption that the comparative value of the starting Barclay vs. EDS includes the value of moving Lang to his natural position at guard. This assumption need not be expressly restated in each post. ****End Disclaimer****


Well, it's not that you don't repeat it, its that you say the MAIN arguments you hear are 1. blah, blah blah....., 2. blah, blah, blah. To specifically enumerate the "main arguments" and ignore the argument that started the thread is disingenuous.

I gave you lots of reason in my last post as to why Barclay may not be the reincarnation of Barbre, most prominently that he was kept as the 7th O-lineman and should have been expected to be needed. They brought in a couple older and experienced vet linemen, one who wasn't completely awful in preseason (only partly awful), but let them all go for Barclay, knowing he was just two instances away from playing (injury, illness, equipment issue, personal matter, etc.)

Sure, Barbre was bad (and that was what, his third year?), but as rookies Clifton, Tauscher, Colledge, Spitz, Moll, Wells, and even Whitticker were serviceable enough to play with; some for only a few games, some for a lot more.

If they try Barclay, and he is a train wreck, so what? Pull him after a series and go back to EDS. If it works OK for one series, try two, a quarter, a game.

Now lets look at the other side. What make you think he would be as bad as Barbre was, (or Wahle for that matter during his brief stint at LT)? What is the reason to stick with what is failing miserably and not try something different? At some point they will have to if things don't improve.

[sharpe1027]

Well, it's not that you don't repeat it, its that you say the MAIN arguments you hear are 1. blah, blah blah....., 2. blah, blah, blah. To specifically enumerate the "main arguments" and ignore the argument that started the thread is disingenuous.

Jesus Patler, give me a little credit. I apologize again for not including the context -- it had been repeated several times before. I thought it was implied from all of the previous post and obviously it was not to you. As I have stated in the post you quote above, those two main points are relevant to evaluating the effectiveness of Barclay/Lang combination and that is how it was intended to be read. If you need to believe I was not relying upon the context of previous posts and was instead being disingenuous, then that is within your rights. I was not, and I am sorry that you feel that way you are normally a pretty easy going poster so I must have hit a nerve or something. Sorry.


I gave you lots of reason in my last post as to why Barclay may not be the reincarnation of Barbre, most prominently that he was kept as the 7th O-lineman and should have been expected to be needed. They brought in a couple older and experienced vet linemen, one who wasn't completely awful in preseason (only partly awful), but let them all go for Barclay, knowing he was just two instances away from playing (injury, illness, equipment issue, personal matter, etc.)

Those new points are relevant and make sense.


Sure, Barbre was bad (and that was what, his third year?), but as rookies Clifton, Tauscher, Colledge, Spitz, Moll, Wells, and even Whitticker were serviceable enough to play with; some for only a few games, some for a lot more.

Yes, that is true.


If they try Barclay, and he is a train wreck, so what? Pull him after a series and go back to EDS. If it works OK for one series, try two, a quarter, a game.

Now lets look at the other side. What make you think he would be as bad as Barbre was, (or Wahle for that matter during his brief stint at LT)? What is the reason to stick with what is failing miserably and not try something different? At some point they will have to if things don't improve.

I would assume that they would game plan for Barclay being in. That would include both protection schemes to help him, possibly different set of plays and Lang would probably practice mostly at guard all week. So, it is not as simple as moving them in and out like in Madden.

My main point for why I am not convinced about Barclay being ready, the people with the most knowledge on his capabilities have not played him despite there being serious protection problems for some time now. They have not yet considered him a viable option. Is he? I don't know, but I'd bet against it.

[Bossman641]

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_/id/49908/packers-priority-protecting-aaron-rodgers

Some pretty damning statistics

With Bulaga, Rodgers was sacked or under duress 19.8% of the time while opponents have rushed four 72.6% of the time
Without Bulaga, it has almost doubled to 39.1% of the time and opponents are now rushing four 89.2% of the time.

[pbmax]

1 injury

they already knew the glass bear(sherrod), could probably miss the year

That is the big question about the Tackle situation this season (or past offseason), however, even if the setback, which McCarthy said happened in the Spring, happened before the draft, they may have still had good reason to expect Sherrod back after a PUP stint at worst.

[Patler]

Jesus Patler, give me a little credit. I apologize again for not including the context -- it had been repeated several times before. I thought it was implied from all of the previous post and obviously it was not to you. As I have stated in the post you quote above, those two main points are relevant to evaluating the effectiveness of Barclay/Lang combination and that is how it was intended to be read. If you need to believe I was not relying upon the context of previous posts and was instead being disingenuous, then that is within your rights. I was not, and I am sorry that you feel that way you are normally a pretty easy going poster so I must have hit a nerve or something. Sorry.

It has nothing to do with giving you credit or not giving you credit.
There is no need to apologize to me for anything.
I am just flabbergasted that for some reason you think a main argument to switch the lineup has anything at all to do with newspaper articles, or to switch just for the sake of switching. In attempting to distill down the arguments, you came up with two to discuss that have no impact. The ONLY thing that matters is a more effective performance on the field, and to improve the play at two positions that have tanked the last two weeks. Lang is a clear answer to the current problem at LG.



I would assume that they would game plan for Barclay being in. That would include both protection schemes to help him, possibly different set of plays and Lang would probably practice mostly at guard all week. So, it is not as simple as moving them in and out like in Madden.

How is it any worse than when Bulaga was hurt necessitating a mid-game change at two positions, with no preparation? Or than it would be if any current starter were hurt during the game and Barclay or Van Rotten had to come in? It's not a game plan changer. At least they would be reverting to a lineup they have several games experience with.

As for any comparison to "Madden", I wouldn't know. I have never even seen it played, let alone played it myself.



My main point for why I am not convinced about Barclay being ready, the people with the most knowledge on his capabilities have not played him despite there being serious protection problems for some time now. They have not yet considered him a viable option. Is he? I don't know, but I'd bet against it.

They started Bush at CB for a few games too, until it became apparent something else was better. They have adjusted the playing times of their safeties as performances have improved and declined. I have to believe there is disappointment on the effectiveness of EDS at guard and Lang at tackle. Maybe it is time to try something else.

[Patler]

That is the big question about the Tackle situation this season (or past offseason), however, even if the setback, which McCarthy said happened in the Spring, happened before the draft, they may have still had good reason to expect Sherrod back after a PUP stint at worst.

Ya, I've wondered if that was partof the reason to go with only EDS and Barclay, they hoped Sherrod would make it back.

[Joemailman]

I believe they entered the season with just 7 OL on the roster, whereas they usually go with 8 or 9. I suspect they did that with the anticipation that Sherrod would be activated at some point in the season.

[Fritz]

I believe they entered the season with just 7 OL on the roster, whereas they usually go with 8 or 9. I suspect they did that with the anticipation that Sherrod would be activated at some point in the season.

The offensive line is clearly the weakest link on the team, despite TT's having drafted two tackles in the first round in two of the last three years.

I agree with Red that Newhouse was a big problem in the Giants game. I had hopes for the Marshmallow, thinking he would develop with time, but he just cannot keep Rodgers clean against the top pass rushers. Even against middling competition he gets off balance, it seems.

I am also concerned that Saturday is just not that good, and that is why in part Lang and Sitton have not looked so good at guard this year, having to give extra help to Saturday.

Bulaga was clearly better than Lang at RT, but he wasn't even having that great of a year.

There appears to be a lack of talent on that line. I say try Barclay in practice and see how he responds.

I also think that MM needs to suck it up and keep more backs and tight ends in to help on both sides. Newhouse clearly can't handle talented pass rushers one-on-one, nor can Lang on the other side. Keep two tight ends in, let them chip and release over the middle.

When the hell is Stubby going to work the middle of the field?

When is Rodgers going to go to the open man five yards downfield instead of slinging it into coverage fifteen yards away?

[pbmax]

When is Rodgers going to go to the open man five yards downfield instead of slinging it into coverage fifteen yards away?

I wonder how much of this is due to changing coaches? Because we saw evidence of Cobb blowing a hot read versus the Giants, I wonder if there should have been other adjustments that players have failed to make?

I have to think that getting Quarless back would increase the odds of running two TEs, one RB sets, would would be a nice counter to two deep. He's both practicing and on the regular 53, so he should be available to play.

[sharpe1027]

OK, I think I see where the disconnect is coming. This explanation is provided to explain the thought process behind my posts. Please understand that you may have meant something slightly different, but hopefully you can see that I was not being disingenuous or making stuff up.


It has nothing to do with giving you credit or not giving you credit.
There is no need to apologize to me for anything.
I am just flabbergasted that for some reason you think a main argument to switch the lineup has anything at all to do with newspaper articles, or to switch just for the sake of switching.

Mentioning positive praise in the press as suggesting Barclay might be a decent option:


Bulaga commented on his toughness, nasty streak and all-out effort on every play. Scouts have said he has a chance to make it in the NFL because he understands the game, has good technique and can play anywhere.

Mentioning making a change even when there is no evidence to suggest the change will work, i.e., making a change for the sake of making a change:


I have never been afraid of giving players a chance when those ahead of them are not getting the job done. We did it all the time in hockey, even with players who did not show a lot in practice. The combination you never really gave much of a chance really starts to click when given an opportunity. Sometimes the bright lights make things happen you didn't expect.


In attempting to distill down the arguments, you came up with two to discuss that have no impact.

Then what was the point of you bringing them up in the first place?


The ONLY thing that matters is a more effective performance on the field, and to improve the play at two positions that have tanked the last two weeks. Lang is a clear answer to the current problem at LG.

Obviously. What we are discussing is what basis we have to believe that one option will result in a more effective performance on the field. Barclay has not been on the field, so unless we must discuss other facts there's nothing to discuss at all.


How is it any worse than when Bulaga was hurt necessitating a mid-game change at two positions, with no preparation? Or than it would be if any current starter were hurt during the game and Barclay or Van Rotten had to come in? It's not a game plan changer. At least they would be reverting to a lineup they have several games experience with.

It is not that different. I never said it was impossible or that it would not work at all. I just explained why it was not as simple as you made it sound. If it really had little effect, I would have expected to have seen it done often by teams. In reality, it is very much the exception. Players sometimes get benched, but you almost never see a O-tackle get "tested" for a few series.


As for any comparison to "Madden", I wouldn't know. I have never even seen it played, let alone played it myself.

It was a reference to how in video games you can move players around at the drop of the hat without any adverse consequences.

[Patler]

I'm really not too interested in running around this circle for another day, but I will take one last half-lap: :-D




OK, I think I see where the disconnect is coming. This explanation is provided to explain the thought process behind my posts. Please understand that you may have meant something slightly different, but hopefully you can see that I was not being disingenuous or making stuff up.
Rest assured, I never thought you were making things up, it just seemed that you ignored the very argument used to start the thread, and seemed to want to take it a different direction. More on that toward the end of this post..





Mentioning positive praise in the press as suggesting Barclay might be a decent option:


Originally Posted by Patler
Bulaga commented on his toughness, nasty streak and all-out effort on every play. Scouts have said he has a chance to make it in the NFL because he understands the game, has good technique and can play anywhere.
Interesting that in the quote above, you started without the immediately preceding sentence I wrote, which was a strictly a performance based comment. I wrote; "We won't know unless they try it. Barclay struggled early in camp at the one-on-one drill, but was 15-5 the last two weeks." I then continued with the Bulaga statement that you quoted.





Mentioning making a change even when there is no evidence to suggest the change will work, i.e., making a change for the sake of making a change:

(I am omitting your quotes from my posts for brevity. I acknowledge the content thereof).

Then what was the point of you bringing them up in the first place?

Obviously. What we are discussing is what basis we have to believe that one option will result in a more effective performance on the field. Barclay has not been on the field, so unless we must discuss other facts there's nothing to discuss at all.
All of those came after I posed the question and made the first argument. They were secondary responses. Again. more on that toward the end of this post.






Originally Posted by Patler
How is it any worse than when Bulaga was hurt necessitating a mid-game change at two positions, with no preparation? Or than it would be if any current starter were hurt during the game and Barclay or Van Rotten had to come in? It's not a game plan changer. At least they would be reverting to a lineup they have several games experience with.It is not that different. I never said it was impossible or that it would not work at all. I just explained why it was not as simple as you made it sound. If it really had little effect, I would have expected to have seen it done often by teams. In reality, it is very much the exception. Players sometimes get benched, but you almost never see a O-tackle get "tested" for a few series.
I wasn't proposing it as a test, my proposal was to make the change assuming that it would work and he would play the game with results no worse than the current mess. The alternative was intended simply as a reply to your concern that he would be awful and could cause the Packers to lose a game that could otherwise be won. In response to that concern, I stated that if he is awful, they can pull the plug, regardless of when that happens, after one series, two, a half or a game. You don't have to stick with it. It is not my proposal to do it as a test at all. You do it expecting to stick with it, but having a fall back plan just like you do for injuries. Didn't mean to confuse the two, just respond to your concern.




My argument was stated in my opening post for this topic:

Sometimes the "double switch" to cover for an injury works, but it is usually when the backup at the switch position is a borderline starter. For example, the double switch worked when:


Tauscher periodically played guard in place of Rivera, and Earl Dotson came in for Tauscher. Dotson was a long-time starter at RT, and was not starting primarily due to a troublesome back issue. The drop-off at RT was not significant.

Flanagan moved out to LT, and Winters returned to starting center. Again, a long-time starter who was still capable came in at his normal position and allowed the double switch to work.


The current double switch for the replacement of Bulaga may be making a suspect O-line a very weak one. By moving Lang to RT and Dietrich-Smith to starting guard, they really have two players playing out of position, positions they are not best suited for.. EDS is said to be a center long term, not a guard. By moving Lang, two positions are now significantly weaker.

Might they be better off biting the bullet and trying Barclay at RT while returning Lang to LG? The loss of Bulaga would then weaken only one position, not two, even if the one position is significantly weaker.

What I implied but might not have been the clearest on is that the current double switch is failing because EDS has been a big step down from Lang at LG. He is no Dotson at RT in the double switch with Tauscher, or Winters at center during the double switch with Flanagan. In response to your concern that Barclay would be so bad as to make it unworkable (as with Barbre) I threw lots of stuff against the wall, including his performance record in TC (15-5 the last two weeks), comments by others (Bulaga and scouts), the facts of his place on the roster (6/7th O-lineman, not a developmental game day inactive spot), the fact that returning Lang to LG would solve the current deficiency at that position. You compared him to Barbre, I compared him to many others who performed at least somewhat better, such that the team was able to play with them in the lineup.

Something has to be done to protect Rodgers better, different game plans, different players, different approach by Rodgers. They can't continue with him getting hit as much as he has the last two games, and really the entire season. Even if he makes it through in relatively good health, it impacts how he plays the game.

That's about it. You can have the last word if you want it. I am certainly more than ready to move on to a different discussion.

[sharpe1027]

I did not repeat the part of the discussion that nobody disagreed with: Lang is better at guard than EDS. Since nobody disagreed on that point, I was focusing on the only point of disagreement: does the evidence suggest that Barclay is good enough to have net positive effect (guard play improves but tackle may get worse). Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Calling my post disingenuous seems a bit disingenuous.

[red]

That is the big question about the Tackle situation this season (or past offseason), however, even if the setback, which McCarthy said happened in the Spring, happened before the draft, they may have still had good reason to expect Sherrod back after a PUP stint at worst.

then that was a massive gamble that backfired bigtime. that left us with no decent backups, and we are now one rolled ankle from having an undrafted rooking protecting the nfl mvp

or, in the overprotective MM's case. we might be one severe grass stain away from placing a current lineman on IR and starting an undrafted rookie in front of a-rod

[Freak Out]

http://www.highlyeffectivecoaching.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/The-Weakest-Link.jpg

[RashanGary]

McGinn's article about the Packers after the preseason had favorable comments about Barclay from scouts.

[Pugger]

But with our defense needing talent I'm sure had TT drafted yet another O lineman high that move would have created a riot. Newhouse hasn't been that horrible (until Sunday night) and I do agree, they hoped Sherrod would be back sometime this season. Unfortunately Sherrod needs more time and Bulaga got hurt. This sucks big time. Hopefully they have a Plan B for MN this Sunday or Aaron is gonna get killed. If that happens this season is truly toast anyway.

[Fritz]

It will be a weird draft. It seems clear - well, to me - that the offensive line is the weakest link. Thus, you'd think TT would be drafting a few o-linemen pretty high. But with Bulaga coming back and Sherrod coming back next year, and with Lang and Sitton seemingly set (due to their contracts), then do you draft only a center and hope you get one that is NFL ready? Or do you draft another left tackle since Sherrod is a question mark? And what do you do about the fact that tackles, specifically, take so long to develop (except for the occasional Mark Tauscher)?

[Upnorth]

It will be a weird draft. It seems clear - well, to me - that the offensive line is the weakest link. Thus, you'd think TT would be drafting a few o-linemen pretty high. But with Bulaga coming back and Sherrod coming back next year, and with Lang and Sitton seemingly set (due to their contracts), then do you draft only a center and hope you get one that is NFL ready? Or do you draft another left tackle since Sherrod is a question mark? And what do you do about the fact that tackles, specifically, take so long to develop (except for the occasional Mark Tauscher)?

Just to throw another monkey wrench in the mix, how certain are they that when Sherrod comes back that he will be any good? He did not / could not supplant Newhouse last year, and a lot of pundits and fans thought he was below average to poor. Why would anyone expect him to be different after not playing for 18+months?

[sharpe1027]

I think they should still go BPA, but if there are any close calls they should draft the OL over other positions. As long as Bulaga is back they may not be that bad off. EDS slides to center, which is where he is more suited to play, Lang goes back to RG. You've suddenly improved two to three different positions on the OL. In theory it would really solidify the right side and make sliding protection to help Newhouse much easier.

It would be nice if Sherrod or a draft pick could challenge Newhouse, but IMO it is not worth passing up drafting a player at another position just to draft tackle (that they have rated lower).

[mraynrand]

I think they should still go BPA, but if there are any close calls they should draft the OL over other positions. As long as Bulaga is back they may not be that bad off. EDS slides to center, which is where he is more suited to play, Lang goes back to RG. You've suddenly improved two to three different positions on the OL. In theory it would really solidify the right side and make sliding protection to help Newhouse much easier.

It would be nice if Sherrod or a draft pick could challenge Newhouse, but IMO it is not worth passing up drafting a player at another position just to draft tackle (that they have rated lower).


You have to draft 3 more linemen for when all these guys are lost to injury next year. But then, if you draft O-line, you will probably have six defensive linemen get injured. Oh well.

[red]

we spent, what, 7 of our 9 picks on defense this draft because our defense needed a big boost.

maybe next year we should draft 6 or 7 o-linemen

[ThunderDan]

we spent, what, 7 of our 9 picks on defense this draft because our defense needed a big boost.

maybe next year we should draft 6 or 7 o-linemen

Remeber when we drafted 2 of the same position in a row to start a draft?

We got:
Ahmad Carroll and Joey Thomas

Boy was 2004 a horrible draft.
Carroll, Thomas, Donnell Washington, BJ Sanders, Corey Williams, Scott Wells

Thank god for the late round picks or that draft is a TOTAL BUST!

[mraynrand]

Remeber when we drafted 2 of the same position in a row to start a draft?


How about three in a row:

Edwards, Vinson and McKenzie in 1999. Pretty crappy, although, Vinson ultimately netted Ahman Green....

[Freak Out]

First three picks should be game changing shifty HOF caliber RBs.

[Freak Out]

Then go QB... because Rodgers is a choke job.

[denverYooper]

Then go QB... because Rodgers is a choke job.

Yeah, it's about time to move on.

[Freak Out]

He does not have "it"...we know that now.

[Freak Out]

Not sure who the author is.


2013 NFL Free Agent Offensive Linemen
By: Roshan Bhagat


Jake Long (MIA) - OT - A year ago, Joe Thomas set a new standard for offensive tackles with a 7-year, $84 million contract. The Dolphins are not expected to allow one of the best tackles in the league walk, but with a franchise tag number 120% of his cap number this year, $15.4 million will give Jake Long some leverage in negotiations.

Ryan Clady (DEN) - OT - After several seasons as one of the better left tackles in the league, Clady's is on his expiring rookie contract. After turning down a 5-year, $50 million offer from the Broncos prior to this season, there is some indication that he's looking for something more in the Joe Thomas ballpark. It's unlikely the Broncos, or any other team, will be willing to go that high, but if his demands persist, it brings the franchise tag into play.

Branden Albert (KC) - OT - Albert is among the best all-around left tackles in the league today. With the Chiefs emphasis on the run game and returning to the dominant offensive line that made them offensive powerhouses early last decade, even an offseason with other key free agents ready to hit the market, Albert should get his payday in red.

Sebastian Vollmer (NE) - OT - After a back injury that cost him most of the 2011 season, Vollmer returns to the starting lineup in 2012. He'll be 29 prior to the start of the next season and just coming off his rookie contract. When healthy, Vollmer has been among the league's best right tackles. If they can trust him to remain healthy, they will make a play for him.

Brandon Moore (NYJ) - OG - Though Moore will be 33 when the 2013 season begins, he may also be the best offensive guard on the market. With a Jets offensive line that was not too long ago the best in the league, they are now a unit that has felt pain attempting to replace former starters. Losing a player of Moore's caliber on the line could be devastating to an offense that has struggled to form an identity and develop even a sign of consistency.

Andy Levitre (BUF) - OG - Starting every game of his career so far, Levitre's versatility and consistency has brought tremendous value to the organization over the past couple years. With a healthy offensive line the Bills have found terrific success in running the ball with Fred Jackson, CJ Spiller, and even Tashard Choice. Keeping this unit intact will be important for the Bills offense.

Andre Smith (CIN) - OT - Though the former 6th overall pick probably hasn't lived up to his expectations, Smith has developed into an effective right tackle for the Bengals. Though Cincinnati would probably have to search for another right tackle if he moves on, but generally these high draft picks have a way of not staying with their original team if they don't pan out all the way. Weight is a concern, but Smith could be one of the more realistic possible options in free agency.

Sam Baker (ATL) - OT - Over the last year or two, Sam Baker has been battling a chronic injury and Will Svitek for a starting job. At full health, Baker has been an effective left tackle for the Falcons. At less than full health, he's been a borderline liability. Baker is an example of the type of player every year where his own team has the best injury read on him. If the Falcons can trust his health, they will trust signing him to a solid second contract.

[RashanGary]

I'm not sure we're all that bad on the OL. Center, we absolutely need. It's not like these projects we have in the wings have a high chance of turning out. Saturday, until recently, was our worst OL.

At tackle, Newhouse has been one of our better players. In pass protection he's really held his own. The Packers even chose to leave him on an island against JPP and Osi and slide protection to Lang. It says as much about Lang as it does Newhouse, but to even attempt that, they had to have some confidence in him, and all reports, subjectively outside of the Packers, are that he's doing a really good job.

The run game is the huge problem. It's awful. Green can't break a tackle and has marginal to horrible vision. He also goes backwards when hit. It's just bad. Starks has horrible vision. He runs hard, falls forward, but he consistently runs away from daylight.

Our running backs are pathetic. It's a major hole in our team. I'm all for giving Cobb some carries, even on 1st and 2nd down. He may have to avoid the big hits and run a little safe that way, but he's the only guy who has any vision in the backfield, and he's excellent at breaking tackles. He'd be a big play guy for us, I think. With Jennings coming back, I think it would be a good way to use him. 10 runs a game or so, and returns. . . . Teams are playing us man with 2 safeties over. There are those huge gaps on the outside. Green can get there, he just trips on pinky tackles. Cobb can get through those and exploit that defense. I'd risky, but if we want to win why not give it a try? Jennings, Nelson and Jones are really good outside. Our hole is at RB. Just like Wood playing safety. We have corners. With Hayward coming on, I think Wood will stay at safety even in nickel, coming down only in dime, even though he's great in nickel. It's a matter of where we need him most. I think the same goes for Cobb. Wood is a little undersized in how he plays, but he's smart, he has a way of making it happen. Cobb would too. He's a similar type of instinctual player on offense as Wood is on D. He can do it all.

Next draft, we're desperate for a back. Desperate. NE has done a good job bringing in so/so talented backs who have vision. They make it work. To Thompson's credit, he goes for the premier talent. It's not safe, but he has the win it all mentality. Unfortunately, we have two very talented players who can't find a hole if it was right between their but cheeks.

[red]

Not sure who the author is.


2013 NFL Free Agent Offensive Linemen
By: Roshan Bhagat


Jake Long (MIA) - OT - A year ago, Joe Thomas set a new standard for offensive tackles with a 7-year, $84 million contract. The Dolphins are not expected to allow one of the best tackles in the league walk, but with a franchise tag number 120% of his cap number this year, $15.4 million will give Jake Long some leverage in negotiations.

Ryan Clady (DEN) - OT - After several seasons as one of the better left tackles in the league, Clady's is on his expiring rookie contract. After turning down a 5-year, $50 million offer from the Broncos prior to this season, there is some indication that he's looking for something more in the Joe Thomas ballpark. It's unlikely the Broncos, or any other team, will be willing to go that high, but if his demands persist, it brings the franchise tag into play.

Branden Albert (KC) - OT - Albert is among the best all-around left tackles in the league today. With the Chiefs emphasis on the run game and returning to the dominant offensive line that made them offensive powerhouses early last decade, even an offseason with other key free agents ready to hit the market, Albert should get his payday in red.

Sebastian Vollmer (NE) - OT - After a back injury that cost him most of the 2011 season, Vollmer returns to the starting lineup in 2012. He'll be 29 prior to the start of the next season and just coming off his rookie contract. When healthy, Vollmer has been among the league's best right tackles. If they can trust him to remain healthy, they will make a play for him.

Brandon Moore (NYJ) - OG - Though Moore will be 33 when the 2013 season begins, he may also be the best offensive guard on the market. With a Jets offensive line that was not too long ago the best in the league, they are now a unit that has felt pain attempting to replace former starters. Losing a player of Moore's caliber on the line could be devastating to an offense that has struggled to form an identity and develop even a sign of consistency.

Andy Levitre (BUF) - OG - Starting every game of his career so far, Levitre's versatility and consistency has brought tremendous value to the organization over the past couple years. With a healthy offensive line the Bills have found terrific success in running the ball with Fred Jackson, CJ Spiller, and even Tashard Choice. Keeping this unit intact will be important for the Bills offense.

Andre Smith (CIN) - OT - Though the former 6th overall pick probably hasn't lived up to his expectations, Smith has developed into an effective right tackle for the Bengals. Though Cincinnati would probably have to search for another right tackle if he moves on, but generally these high draft picks have a way of not staying with their original team if they don't pan out all the way. Weight is a concern, but Smith could be one of the more realistic possible options in free agency.

Sam Baker (ATL) - OT - Over the last year or two, Sam Baker has been battling a chronic injury and Will Svitek for a starting job. At full health, Baker has been an effective left tackle for the Falcons. At less than full health, he's been a borderline liability. Baker is an example of the type of player every year where his own team has the best injury read on him. If the Falcons can trust his health, they will trust signing him to a solid second contract.

i read that same thing the other day, probably monday. some of those guys sure would be nice, but i just don't see us having the cap space to sign a FA LT

JH. i disagree. i thought saturday has been ok, with Newhouse being the one massive weak spot on the line (until the line switch up). he's just not starting NFL LT material. can anyone say will whitaker? the guy should not be starting

[Fritz]

i read that same thing the other day, probably monday. some of those guys sure would be nice, but i just don't see us having the cap space to sign a FA LT

JH. i disagree. i thought saturday has been ok, with Newhouse being the one massive weak spot on the line (until the line switch up). he's just not starting NFL LT material. can anyone say will whitaker? the guy should not be starting

He's not Will Whitaker, but he's probably best suited as your top backup swing tackle. The problem with the free agents listed above is that the left tackles will be way too expensive, and the others are mostly right tackles - so what do you do with Bulaga? If your team didn't think he was best-suited there before, how could you suddenly decide he'd be just fine at left tackle? In a way, you could argue he didn't even beat out Marshmallow Newhouse.

I think drafting a center who's NFL ready would be really important - if there's one out there. Then maybe a left tackle you think is a quick learner and has a higher ceiling than Newhouse. Someone who could swing inside too, in case Sherrod pans out at left tackle.

Not asking for much, am I?

I am one of the few here who believe that Sherrod did begin to show signs of development just before he was hurt. I have hope for him.

In the meantime, I'm sure Campen and Company are evaluating the hell out of Don Barclay every day.

[Pugger]

He's not Will Whitaker, but he's probably best suited as your top backup swing tackle. The problem with the free agents listed above is that the left tackles will be way too expensive, and the others are mostly right tackles - so what do you do with Bulaga? If your team didn't think he was best-suited there before, how could you suddenly decide he'd be just fine at left tackle? In a way, you could argue he didn't even beat out Marshmallow Newhouse.

I think drafting a center who's NFL ready would be really important - if there's one out there. Then maybe a left tackle you think is a quick learner and has a higher ceiling than Newhouse. Someone who could swing inside too, in case Sherrod pans out at left tackle.

Not asking for much, am I?

I am one of the few here who believe that Sherrod did begin to show signs of development just before he was hurt. I have hope for him.

In the meantime, I'm sure Campen and Company are evaluating the hell out of Don Barclay every day.

I'm the other. ;-) I think he'll be fine as soon as his leg heals. It took Mike Flanagan a long time to come back and his injury was even worse.

[sharpe1027]

He's not Will Whitaker, but he's probably best suited as your top backup swing tackle. The problem with the free agents listed above is that the left tackles will be way too expensive, and the others are mostly right tackles - so what do you do with Bulaga? If your team didn't think he was best-suited there before, how could you suddenly decide he'd be just fine at left tackle? In a way, you could argue he didn't even beat out Marshmallow Newhouse.

I think drafting a center who's NFL ready would be really important - if there's one out there. Then maybe a left tackle you think is a quick learner and has a higher ceiling than Newhouse. Someone who could swing inside too, in case Sherrod pans out at left tackle.

Not asking for much, am I?

I am one of the few here who believe that Sherrod did begin to show signs of development just before he was hurt. I have hope for him.

In the meantime, I'm sure Campen and Company are evaluating the hell out of Don Barclay every day.

Given up on EDS at cetner already? I think he's better suited for center than guard so he still might be a good option.

[run pMc]

I think they'll:
- draft a tackle and (of course) play him at guard
- transition EDS to replace Saturday at C
- hope Sherrod comes back and either beats Newhouse for LT or becomes the backup swing tackle
- hope Bulaga comes back better than ever
- hope either Barclay or Datko develops into backup tackle #4
- hope Van Roten develops into the interior swing guy - basically taking on EDS' role
>>that's a lot of hopes, folks. (I am facing fact right now.)
- draft a WR in the top 2-3 rounds to replace Jennings when he walks in FA
- kick the tires on resigning Benson
- draft a RB somewhere in rounds 3-5 to push Starks/Green -- especially if Benson goes elsewhere or looks done post-surgery
- probably draft a OLB to backup Perry as he slides into the starting role if Walden moves on in FA

Right now, the OL isn't very good...but I think if the coaches are smart they will get enough out of them to make the playoffs. It's not a SB-winning OL though.

[woodbuck27]

First three picks should be game changing shifty HOF caliber RBs.

Rather than waiting three years for an offensive lineman to develop.

Would Aaron Rodgers be willing to surrender some portion of his star power? Doesn't anyone see the benefit of drafting a high quality RB? I'd settle for one RB of quality and screw the horrible OL if we get someone even remotely as decent as this fella:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayl8K79MseI

Since Green Bay and a quality RB cannot realistically be part of the same sentence. I realize that's an unrealistic thought and just wanted y'all to 'simply imagine' Aaron Rodgers and a RB that's a real difference maker.

Geee ! Even someone like this guy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ftn68PZSws

GO PACKERS !

[KYPack]

I hope the Pack signs Andre Smith. He can play RTor LT. We could sign him, flop Bulaga to LT OR just play Smith on the left side. He has amazing feet and is strong as a bull. He beat the dog shit out of Justin Tuck when the Gnats played Cincy a couple weeks ago.

Smith is a fat bastard and can be tough to motivate, but when he's right, he's the real deal. He'll go for some bucks, but he'll help whatever team he signs with.

if we got him, he'd be our best or second best OL.

[mission]

We could have drafted Doug Martin... :cry: :cry:

[Joemailman]

Bob McGinn on the Barclay bandwagon. http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/barclay-could-help-fortify-packers-offensive-line-1h7rd68-181711651.html

[denverYooper]

Bob McGinn on the Barclay bandwagon. http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/barclay-could-help-fortify-packers-offensive-line-1h7rd68-181711651.html

I was just coming here to post this.

Has anyone seen Patler and McGinn together in the same room?

[pbmax]

I was just coming here to post this.

Has anyone seen Patler and McGinn together in the same room?

No, but Bob talks more about HS Basketball and Football while Patler seems fond of Hockey.

[pbmax]

You know its gotten bad when een Bob is referencing Mike Sherman in assessing O line attributes.

[mraynrand]

You know its gotten bad when een Bob is referencing Mike Sherman in assessing O line attributes.

maybe Sherman was OK at that. But who would know? Sherman walked into a sit with both Tackles in place and most of the line set for the entire duration of his coaching tenue until TT blew it up the middle in 2005. Sherman was responsible for Scott Wells, U71, and managing the Flanagan Winters double swap for Clifton, which effectively ended the 2002 season. Thompson is responsible for drafting two (injury prone!) tackles. It's TT's fault that Sherrod and Bulaga are not reliable bookend tackles. He should have known they would get injured. BBS: BRING BLACK SHERMAN!!!

[pbmax]

maybe Sherman was OK at that. But who would know? Sherman walked into a sit with both Tackles in place and most of the line set for the entire duration of his coaching tenue until TT blew it up the middle in 2005. Sherman was responsible for Scott Wells, U71, and managing the Flanagan Winters double swap for Clifton, which effectively ended the 2002 season. Thompson is responsible for drafting two (injury prone!) tackles. It's TT's fault that Sherrod and Bulaga are not reliable bookend tackles. He should have known they would get injured. BBS: BRING BLACK SHERMAN!!!

Actually, I believe Sherman would know, or at least, could be trusted to have some insight. He was an old O line coach and had success in the pros with them obviously. Even if he cannot be given credit as GM for finding them.

But McGinn rarely references Sherman in a positive way except when detailing something about that running game of his. And when he gets to that point, you know Bob is at his wits end about what further to write.

[Fritz]

Well, be careful what you ask for....We got Barclay now, because Lang got hurt. They gave Barclay a lot of help, but he seemed to do okay. Not as strong as you'd like, but his positioning seemed good

[pbmax]

M3 said they didn't change the play calls much but they ran wide right a lot after he went in. Curious what else we find out this week.

[hoosier]

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/thompsons-offensive-line-is-built-to-last-em6go7h-166363056.html

Tom Silverstein's column on the offensive line from back in August is not looking like it's going to win the prophetic insight of the year award.

[KYPack]

The kid scrambled and busted his ass in a tough spot.

Long term?

Whee boy.

[George Cumby]

The kid scrambled and busted his ass in a tough spot.

Long term?

Whee boy.

Is that "whee boy" bad or "whee boy" good?

[George Cumby]

I was just coming here to post this.

Has anyone seen Patler and McGinn together in the same room?

My thinking was Bobbie boy reads PR..........

If so, fuck you Bob!

[KYPack]

Is that "whee boy" bad or "whee boy" good?

Whee boy, like holy shit, I don't think this'll work, but i hope the hell it does.

I can't imagine that we get far down the play-off road with a green kid like him at RT, but stranger things have happened, like Tausch.

[denverYooper]

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_/id/50112/packers-don-barclay-is-next-man-up

[denverYooper]

Whee boy, like holy shit, I don't think this'll work, but i hope the hell it does.

I can't imagine that we get far down the play-off road with a green kid like him at RT, but stranger things have happened, like Tausch.

You think they're better off with Lang at RT and EDS at LG or Barclay at RT and Lang back at LG?

[Lurker64]

Whee boy, like holy shit, I don't think this'll work, but i hope the hell it does.

I can't imagine that we get far down the play-off road with a green kid like him at RT, but stranger things have happened, like Tausch.

There is actually a little bit of Tausch in Barclay's game. He's a big potatoey kid who moves a lot better than you would expect, plays relatively mistake-free, and is a battler. I'm not saying he's vintage Tauscher right now, but it's not an awful comparison. Had Barclay played in a more traditional blocking scheme in college, he'd probably have been drafted late.

[mraynrand]

There is actually a little bit of Tausch in Barclay's game. He's a big potatoey kid who moves a lot better than you would expect, plays relatively mistake-free, and is a battler. I'm not saying he's vintage Tauscher right now, but it's not an awful comparison. Had Barclay played in a more traditional blocking scheme in college, he'd probably have been drafted late.

Good observation. I saw him come in and slapped my head, looking at those little stubby arms of his. Man did he look short. Guy gutted it out though - gotta give him some credit for that.

[pbmax]

Good observation. I saw him come in and slapped my head, looking at those little stubby arms of his. Man did he look short. Guy gutted it out though - gotta give him some credit for that.

I know what you mean but McGinn pointed out in his column his arms are longer than Lang's and TJ is still battling an elbow injury. It was part of his case for making the switch.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Give the young man a week's worth of practice with the #1s and a lot of reps and see what happens. I think it will be something good.

[Joemailman]

I know what you mean but McGinn pointed out in his column his arms are longer than Lang's and TJ is still battling an elbow injury. It was part of his case for making the switch.

He actually has the same arm length as Bulaga, although he is shorter at 6-3-7/8. I'm intrigued by the fact that his run blocking looked pretty good. Running the ball well is the best way to make these teams stop dropping 7 guys into coverage.

[Pugger]

You think they're better off with Lang at RT and EDS at LG or Barclay at RT and Lang back at LG?

How serious is Lang's ankle sprain?

[Fritz]

How serious is Lang's ankle sprain?

I don't know, but I hope it's not serious. This injury business is ridiculous, totally ridiculous. And how about Nelson's injury?

As for Barclay, despite MM's protestations, it would seem he called more running plays after Barclay went in. My hope is that MM, who says he "self scouts" all the time, will learn from his second-half play calling. That shit worked.

As did the play-calling on the first two drives of the game. I watched those first two drives and thought, finally, it's exactly what we've been clamoring for. Running the ball, looking for Finley over the middle, short passes.

How about another dose of that next week, Mikey?

[mraynrand]

I know what you mean but McGinn pointed out in his column his arms are longer than Lang's and TJ is still battling an elbow injury. It was part of his case for making the switch.

I'm not gonna look it up, but wasn't that one of the reasons Lang wasn't a Tackle prospect - stubby arms? Barclays arms just looked stubbier - perhaps it is the stubby frame.

[mraynrand]

He actually has the same arm length as Bulaga, although he is shorter at 6-3-7/8.

linemen are big these days. 6-3-7/8 seemed short to me ....

[pbmax]

I don't know, but I hope it's not serious. This injury business is ridiculous, totally ridiculous. And how about Nelson's injury?

As for Barclay, despite MM's protestations, it would seem he called more running plays after Barclay went in. My hope is that MM, who says he "self scouts" all the time, will learn from his second-half play calling. That shit worked.

As did the play-calling on the first two drives of the game. I watched those first two drives and thought, finally, it's exactly what we've been clamoring for. Running the ball, looking for Finley over the middle, short passes.

How about another dose of that next week, Mikey?

He did. First half versus second half it was 2:1 pass versus 1:1 with running plays having a slight edge. And a lot of those runs were wide right. I assume this is meant to force the LDE to respect contain from any formation with a running back and give Barclay an extra moment.

Not sure what to make of running game. We've seen the backs do it before but not with this O line. Hard to say if it goes that well again.

What I can say is that Barclay is decent as a run blocker and EDS can cut a D lineman in pursuit. Saw him drop the DT twice to th eground with a cut block.

[sharpe1027]

Barclay did alright out there. I now have confidence that he is much better than A. Barbre. :) If Lang can't play, I think Barclay will in for more of a challenge against the Lions. On the plus side, he'll have more reps to get ready and MM can take the week to game plan around his strengths and weaknesses. On the negative side, the Lions also get a week to game plan to expose any weaknesses.

[denverYooper]

You have to wonder if they have been a.) working on more running plays in practice and b.) will continue to do so given the results of yesterday's game.

[pbmax]

M3 said the initial report from the Docs was that Lang wasn't serious. We just don't want to hear the dreaded "high-ankle" sprain tossed around in diagnosis.

[denverYooper]

M3 said the initial report from the Docs was that Lang wasn't serious. We just don't want to hear the dreaded "high-ankle" sprain tossed around in diagnosis.

Good sign. As long as he didn't say "significant"...

[woodbuck27]

Whee boy, like holy shit, I don't think this'll work, but i hope the hell it does.

I can't imagine that we get far down the play-off road with a green kid like him at RT, but stranger things have happened, like Tausch.

" I don't think this'll work, but i hope the hell it does. " KYpack

It's right here:

Fr: http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/thompsons-offensive-line-is-built-to-last-em6go7h-166363056.html

Having drafted right tackle Bryan Bulaga in the first round and left tackle Marshall Newhouse in the fifth round of the 2010 draft and backup left tackle Derek Sherrod in the first round of the 2011 draft, Thompson is deep in young, developing talent.

The next starters whose contracts are up are Newhouse and Saturday after the 2013 season.

"Locking up T.J. was great," said Bulaga, who has three years left on his deal. "We have a chance to really get things going having these same guys around for the next couple years.

"We have to make things happen. I think we jell well as a unit; it's just a matter of going out and playing. That's what it comes down to. You look at it and we have guys who have played a lot of football and are still young, so you can't be upset about that."

Of the starters other than Saturday, Sitton is the oldest at 26, Lang and Newhouse are 24 and Bulaga and Sherrod are 23. Sitton has started 54 games, Lang 20, Newhouse 13 and Sherrod none.

Saturday saw the value in keeping an offensive line together in Indianapolis, where he was quarterback Peyton Manning's center for 10 seasons. During the 13 years Manning started, his offensive line was generally a constant.



Marshall Newhouse is still raw. We have to allow patience with him.

We see good things with our starting guards in their best positions. T.J. Lang at LG and Josh Sitton at RG. We like Bryan Bulaga at RT.....and await Don Barclay or give him time to develop as an NFL tackle in a starting and backup role. We await LT Derek Sherrod to return healthy and finally ready to contribute coming off a serious injury. Sherrod, who was slated to back up both tackle positions, has been slow to recover from the gruesome broken leg he suffered in December. It is what it is with regards to this injured and recovering tackle.

Evan Dietrich-Smith is maybe going to take over fr. Jeff Saturday who's seen his best play behind him but EDS is with our team primarily to back up all three interior positions.

We've Don Barclay as our backup for the tackle positions and Greg Van Roten as a backup at the guard positions.

I know it's about the now; but as fans what can we expect with all the adversity we're seeing on our OL. We hope for our teams HC to game plan to accomodate situations. To ensure that that game plan has contingency plans, as often in the NFL the situation swings in the other direction.

GO PACKERS !

[Tony Oday]

Draft a stud Center, seriously that would be awesome. I mean really for draft pics we need a RB, OLB and a C...what else do we need?....oh yeah a Kicker but those are late picks anyway.

[woodbuck27]

If I look at our OL today I see that the depth chart is 'only seven players' deep. Not enough eggs left in the carton.

(*) = Backup

LT Marshall Newhouse.......(*) Don Barclay
LG Evan Dietrich-Smith.....(*) Greg Van Roten
C Jeff Saturday...............(*) Evan Dietrich-Smith
RG Josh Sitton ...............(*) Greg Van Roten
RT T.J. Lang...................(*) Don Barclay

Count them...7 offensive lineman.

GO PACKERS !

[Fritz]

If I look at our OL today I see that the depth chart is 'only seven players' deep. Not enough eggs left in the carton.

(*) = Backup

LT Marshall Newhouse.......(*) Don Barclay
LG Evan Dietrich-Smith.....(*) Greg Van Roten
C Jeff Saturday...............(*) Evan Dietrich-Smith
RG Josh Sitton ...............(*) Greg Van Roten
RT T.J. Lang...................(*) Don Barclay

Count them...7 offensive lineman.

GO PACKERS !


Okay, let's really stretch this thing: if Barclay turns out to be leading candidate for the Bruce Wilkerson Award, sending Lang back to his left guard spot, is anyone up for suggesting that EDS slide over to center and send Saturday to the bench?

Anyone?....Bueller?....Anyone?

[sharpe1027]

Okay, let's really stretch this thing: if Barclay turns out to be leading candidate for the Bruce Wilkerson Award, sending Lang back to his left guard spot, is anyone up for suggesting that EDS slide over to center and send Saturday to the bench?

Anyone?....Bueller?....Anyone?

Maybe next season.

[KYPack]

Lotta tough choices.

Lang wasn't setting the world on fire at RT.

Move him back to LG, and go with the kid at that spot? Maybe.

EDS seems to have leveled out.

Even with practice time and the knowlege he's starting, he doesn't appear to show that much improvement. His job looks like he is the "human tool" on the interior.

Barclay at RT means you can help at one spot & the rest sink or swim.

This season has shown that on any given play one of 'em can sink.

Even Sitton hasn't really regained his level of play from two years ago.

[Patler]

Lotta tough choices.

Lang wasn't setting the world on fire at RT.

Move him back to LG, and go with the kid at that spot? Maybe.

EDS seems to have leveled out.

Even with practice time and the knowlege he's starting, he doesn't appear to show that much improvement. His job looks like he is the "human tool" on the interior.

Barclay at RT means you can help at one spot & the rest sink or swim.

This season has shown that on any given play one of 'em can sink.

Even Sitton hasn't really regained his level of play from two years ago.

EDS has been a disappointment. I thought he played better last year than he has this year. They pointed out in the paper today, that in about 2 1/2 games, he has 5 penalties. You could maybe live with that if he was otherwise a stud, but he just hasn't been very good this year so far.

Lang was just holding on at RT. I've seen a couple comments that sort of suggest his elbow injury is more of a problem than they are letting on. It doesn't limit him from practicing or playing, so he doesn't appear on the injury report, but it could be impacting his play quite a lot at tackle. A one-armed tackle will struggle.

Under TT, MM and Campen, the Packers just don't seem to get real solid O-line play. It has never been like it was under Sherman with Clifton, Wahle, Winters/Flanagan, Rivera and Tauscher. Favre would drop back in a perfectly formed pocket, and was seldom hit. I don't often see Rodgers in a well-formed pocket. Even when he has reasonable time, protection looks tenuous at best.

[Fritz]

I agree wholeheartedly. How often - if ever - is Rodgers afforded that perfect, U-shaped pocket? Even when he's got a little time, there is generally an offensive guard or center getting shoved in his face, and a defensive end circling around, with a big mitt - at least - grabbing at Rodgers's shoulder.

It ain't picture perfect. Hell, it barely works. And that's with the other team rushing four.

[KYPack]

In a thread bitching about pass pro, even Kuhn seems to have more dirt on his skirt than in previous seasons. Many times I see him lunging, stumbling and missing, even in double teams.

On a positive note, the TE's all seem to do well in double teams or picking up LB's. The Crab is real good in those situations and even Fin appears to pitch in with some real fire in that job.

[LP]

With the way he's played and the love he's getting around here, I think this deserves a bump. And since Patler was so prophetic, but won't blow his own horn, I'll do it for him. Toot toot, little dog, toot toot.

[mission]

Ya, great call Patler!