MCGINN POST NFL DRAFT CHAT

[Bretsky]

Some interesting stuff in here

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/204935441.html

[Upnorth]

Good find, thanks.
His comment on the safety class was interesting.

[call_me_ishmael]

I really like this draft for the Packers. I don't know much about the players picked but it seems to be filling the positions of need with bigger, heartier guys. Seemed a little more 'old school' TT in the trading back and acquiring lots of picks. I wonder how many will make the final roster. Seems like a safe bet that most of them will.

[Patler]

From his comments on Bakhtiari;

- lacks strength and power
- short for LT
- lacks the pop needed for LG, RG and RT
- scouts don't think he can get on the field or be legit player without increases in weight and strength

Doesn't this sound more like a 6th or 7th round pick than a highish fourth round? 109th player taken?

[smuggler]

Perhaps TT was thinking of turning him into a center. Supposedly he moves well for his size.

[wist43]

I liked his comments on the release of DJ Smith.

Attributes it as much to size as the injury. McGinn makes note of Thompson making too many exceptions to height-weight standards, stating, "You start taking too many exceptions, before long your roster is undersized. That's what happened to GB the past two years".

A player like Smith can survive in the NFL in the right system. Sam Mills played for Capers in Carolina, but what both of those players need is a good DL in front of them - especially a good 2-gap NT, something the Packers lack whenever Pickett isn't on the nose.

[Patler]

It is clear that he will now throw a size spin into ever Packer move that he can, just to justify his claim about the team's epiphany and commitment. For DJ Smith, it may have been a factor, but I wonder if his injury and the roster #s at mlb had as much to do with it as anything. Following the normal Packer scenario, Smith would have done nothing all summer, and might have been PUP'ed for TC and the start of the year. There are enough healthy bodies without him.

His spin on things actually makes me laugh. How anyone can take the selections of Bakhtiari, Tretter, Franklin, Hyde, Boyd, Palmer, Barrington and even Jones and spin it into a commitment to get bigger makes me chuckle. Not one is big for his position; several are on the small side and the others are average at best. He now constantly references Jones as having "prototypical size", yet in the past we have been told that weight has been a significant detriment to other DEs for their 3-4, and that they needed DEs around 300#. Suddenly, a guy who is 6'4", 275# is "prototypical size" while being only a bit taller but a lot lighter than Wilson and Neal. What was Mike Montgomery, at 6'5", 285# ?

[Cleft Crusty]

You've got old McGinn pegged there, Mr. Patler. The Urinalscented loves them some controversy - It sells digital access. It would have made a lot more sense for Bob to stick with the theme that the Packers were not going to let their 200 million dollar QB get the snot beat out of him. Move your best linemen to the left, and focus more on the run game. Pretty obvious the coaches and personnel staff saw the deficiency in the run game as a huge problem. The new O linemen fit the typical profile: versatile, athletic guys who have the physical skills and can and should get bigger and stronger with a year or two of NFL training. The one guy they select with a top pick on defense is there to get more pressure from - it seems - all over the defensive line. As usual, they expect huge internal improvement from rookies and/or guys on injured reserve. But its "all about size?" - nonsense, unless your hawking Extenze on a late night TV commercial.

[woodbuck27]

From his comments on Bakhtiari;

- lacks strength and power
- short for LT
- lacks the pop needed for LG, RG and RT
- scouts don't think he can get on the field or be legit player without increases in weight and strength

Doesn't this sound more like a 6th or 7th round pick than a highish fourth round? 109th player taken?

In a word....YES.

[woodbuck27]

I liked his comments on the release of DJ Smith.

Attributes it as much to size as the injury. McGinn makes note of Thompson making too many exceptions to height-weight standards, stating, "You start taking too many exceptions, before long your roster is undersized. That's what happened to GB the past two years".

A player like Smith can survive in the NFL in the right system. Sam Mills played for Capers in Carolina, but what both of those players need is a good DL in front of them - especially a good 2-gap NT, something the Packers lack whenever Pickett isn't on the nose.

It's al OK now.

TT has the focus:

This or that prospect drafted 'looks the part'.

He looks like a WR or a LBer.

Very re-assuring ....if not effusively eloquent stuff from Ted Thompson.

Are you kidding me Ted !!?? What's up with that secret manner of language? Is that supposed to inform me that you have even half a clue what your doing?

[pbmax]

At one point when we were discussing the transition to a 3-4 with Caper's hiring and how personnel would fit, Harvey did a survey of the (then) 5 or 6 teams using a 3-4. Most DEs were in the 280-290 range. They were step heavier than a pass rushing 4-3 DE from the right side and a step below the Power End on the left for a 4-3.

We are going to have to dig up the numbers again because I don't think the average and prototypical size is at 300 yet. The Packers ran heavy at that position in most years, esp. with starters. But those guys mostly topped 300 by a noticeable margin.

[swede]

At one point when we were discussing the transition to a 3-4 with Caper's hiring and how personnel would fit, Harvey did a survey of the (then) 5 or 6 teams using a 3-4. Most DEs were in the 280-290 range. They were step heavier than a pass rushing 4-3 DE from the right side and a step below the Power End on the left for a 4-3.

We are going to have to dig up the numbers again because I don't think the average and prototypical size is at 300 yet. The Packers ran heavy at that position in most years, esp. with starters. But those guys mostly topped 300 by a noticeable margin.


We are sorry to observe that you have replaced unnamed high level NFL sources with facts.

You have failed to frighten the readersheep with controversial positions that can be walked back or explained away or ignored completely, if discredited, at a later time.

Sorry, but you are no Bob McGinn.

[rbaloha1]

McGinn writes what the Packers are actually thinking but can not publically say.

The question is -- Are the Packers given their organizational directive of getting bigger and tougher drafting correctly to meet this directive? McGinn sometimes mocks this directive by the Packers trying too much to meet this directive by drafting a player like Lacy with a big injury history. Is it worth the risk?

It is just like the MM going into games attempting to run the ball more but gets caught up in the game and forgets. Postgame he mentions his mistake.

Suggest listening to the podcast then post comments about this stuff. Very insightful podcast imo even for the McGinn detractors.

[Bretsky]

From his comments on Bakhtiari;

- lacks strength and power
- short for LT
- lacks the pop needed for LG, RG and RT
- scouts don't think he can get on the field or be legit player without increases in weight and strength

Doesn't this sound more like a 6th or 7th round pick than a highish fourth round? 109th player taken?

I picked that up very clearly as well. What I read was a nice developmental guy ....nice finesse athlete guy who lacks strength. That would be consistent with why Wist hates the pick.....and the trade. I hope I'm wrong but I tend to agree with Wist on this one.

[Fritz]

I picked that up very clearly as well. What I read was a nice developmental guy ....nice finesse athlete guy who lacks strength. That would be consistent with why Wist hates the pick.....and the trade. I hope I'm wrong but I tend to agree with Wist on this one.


Same here. While I am quite opposed to Wist's world view of the Packer organization, and probably his world view of the world, too, I agree with him in a few specifics. This is one of them. Choosing another athletic, not strong, offensive lineman who isn't even accomplished right in the middle of the draft just doesn't make sense. I thought Ted was done with that Daryn Colledge mold.

[pbmax]

Given McCarthy's answers to the news that Bulaga and Sitton were moving to the let side, I think we need to consider that the athletic and long lineman is exactly who McCarthy is asking for.

http://host.madison.com/sports/football/professional/tom-oates-offensive-line-changes-show-mccarthy-moving-forward/article_62b3b9b7-1281-572b-ac51-c41d3c3848f4.html

Look near the end for the paragraph that starts with "It really doesn't (matter) ...'

[Joemailman]

I picked that up very clearly as well. What I read was a nice developmental guy ....nice finesse athlete guy who lacks strength. That would be consistent with why Wist hates the pick.....and the trade. I hope I'm wrong but I tend to agree with Wist on this one.

I agree with some of this. Although I liked the trade, I was a bit underwhelmed by the pick. It might be premature to label him a finesse player though. The scouting reports I've read on him talk of his aggressive play and ability to really finish off blockers once he gets them off balance. If he can improve his weight and strength, he would have more in common with someone like Sitton than with someone like Colledge. But if he can't then he's pretty much Daryn Colledge.

[Packman_26]

"Datone Jones needs to be a player immediately. He must be better than any of their rushers on the D-line, and he must take quality snaps at five-technique in the base. This DL is in trouble if he isn't."
It's statements like this that simply drive me nuts. While I think its fair to say that the Packers will need to get better on defense this year, but to say that one player "needs" to be anything is either uneducated or sensationalizing. Sure, it would be great if Jones becomes their best rush DE but if he isn't that means what? They are doomed to get Kapernicked every week? Can't the defense also improve with schematic changes or, gasp, other defense players getting better? Maybe Perry comes back and turns out to be the player we hoped he'd be. Maybe Neal builds upon last years improvements and becomes a factor. The list goes on, Daniels, Worthy, Moses, even Jolly.
I'm very hopeful that Jones becomes a star just like all Packers fans, but to put the fate or the DL and I'd argue in turn, the entire defense on his shoulders is asinine.

[RashanGary]

Given McCarthy's answers to the news that Bulaga and Sitton were moving to the let side, I think we need to consider that the athletic and long lineman is exactly who McCarthy is asking for.

http://host.madison.com/sports/football/professional/tom-oates-offensive-line-changes-show-mccarthy-moving-forward/article_62b3b9b7-1281-572b-ac51-c41d3c3848f4.html

Look near the end for the paragraph that starts with "It really doesn't (matter) ...'


I like that he's committed to being something, to having an identity. I don't particularly love the idea of not finding balance.

I've heard Larry McCarren say the RB makes the line, not the other way around. He's also said the QB makes the line, not the other way around. There is some of both, but in McCarren's opinion, the QB and RB make their respective games tick.

MM had solid rushing attacks in 2008 and 2009; with Ryan Grant getting 1200 yds/season and 4.4 yards per carry. Even then, we had trouble converting short yardage.

Hopefully Lacy is as good as he looks on the clips. Hopefully MM runs as often as he did when Grant was our top back (we were in the middle of the pack, as a rushing team.) Hopefully we convert short yardage better than we have, even in MM's best years.

If our running game can make that kind of improvement, it doesn't have to be like a Minnesota or SanFrancisco, but if we can be middle of the pack with a good short yardage back, I think our offense can be the most explosive offense in the NFL, and push records like it did in 2010.

If we're going to be realistic, we have the best plaeyr in the NFL playing QB for our team. Even if we had Adrian Peterson, the ball would go to AR first. That said, we have to run it better than last year, and significantly so. Whether we spread'em out or not, we have to be able to break those soft looks on D.

[RashanGary]

If MM was really honest, he'd say "We couldn't run against the softest coverages in the NFL. Teams sold out to stop our passing game, and succeeded more often than we like. Aaron Rodgers is great, but not great enough put up 2010 like numbers against those defenses. We have to improve our running game if we want to let AR loose."

He won't say that, and honestly, I hope he's not too proud to admit, when he looks in the mirror, that his offense couldn't do the things they wanted to do last year because they couldn't run the ball. If he (they) don't admit that to themselves, it's kinda scary.

It doesn't take a 20 year offensive coordinator to figure out our running game stunted our entire offense last year. We're just fans, but that much was obvious.


His stubbornness, to suggest running the ball is some sort of side-bar to his grand offense, is a little scary. Hopefully he's just posturing and being stubborn for the media, and behind closed doors, recognizing they NEED to run the ball better. NEED to.

[George Cumby]

I like that he's committed to being something, to having an identity. I don't particularly love the idea of not finding balance.

I've heard Larry McCarren say the RB makes the line, not the other way around. He's also said the QB makes the line, not the other way around. There is some of both, but in McCarren's opinion, the QB and RB make their respective games tick.

MM had solid rushing attacks in 2008 and 2009; with Ryan Grant getting 1200 yds/season and 4.4 yards per carry. Even then, we had trouble converting short yardage.

Hopefully Lacy is as good as he looks on the clips. Hopefully MM runs as often as he did when Grant was our top back (we were in the middle of the pack, as a rushing team.) Hopefully we convert short yardage better than we have, even in MM's best years.

If our running game can make that kind of improvement, it doesn't have to be like a Minnesota or SanFrancisco, but if we can be middle of the pack with a good short yardage back, I think our offense can be the most explosive offense in the NFL, and push records like it did in 2010.

If we're going to be realistic, we have the best plaeyr in the NFL playing QB for our team. Even if we had Adrian Peterson, the ball would go to AR first. That said, we have to run it better than last year, and significantly so. Whether we spread'em out or not, we have to be able to break those soft looks on D.

I'm with you, J.

Last year the running game was just a different critter when Benson was in there. His ability to identify the whole and commit to it made the line look a LOT better.

I think we'll be in good shape with the rooks and Harris as the change of pace.

[RashanGary]

Drew Smith sat down with Pickett. He said he's 20lbs under his usual weight. For Pickett, that's a big deal. He's a big man. For him to lose weight, or stay at the same weight he finished a season at means he has to be working hard. Raji is in a contract year.

I like the odds of our two top DL being ready to rumble. Then the other 3 or 4 guys can hopefully fill in roles around them.

[RashanGary]

I'm with you, J.

Last year the running game was just a different critter when Benson was in there. His ability to identify the whole and commit to it made the line look a LOT better.

I think we'll be in good shape with the rooks and Harris as the change of pace.


Yeah. They were steadier with Benson. Kept AR in good down and distance, kept the offense moving.

MM would be cheating all that is good about football if AR wasn't the center of his offense. The only person he'll be fooling if he doesn't think he needs to run the ball better, unfortunately, is himself. Hopefully Lacy is a bell-cow for us. HOPEFULLY!!!

[pbmax]

Harris made it look better late as well. A healthy RB would really help. Look what even Starks did when he had an actual string of starts in a row.

[Carolina_Packer]

Yeah. They were steadier with Benson. Kept AR in good down and distance, kept the offense moving.

MM would be cheating all that is good about football if AR wasn't the center of his offense. The only person he'll be fooling if he doesn't think he needs to run the ball better, unfortunately, is himself. Hopefully Lacy is a bell-cow for us. HOPEFULLY!!!

I'll 2nd that! Here's a quote from a guy who knew a little something about building an NFL team, regarding the Packers drafting Eddie Lacy.

"The happiest guy in America tonight is (quarterback) Aaron Rodgers," NFL executive Bill Polian said. "He made 40 million dollars and he got a guy who's going to make his life a whole heck of a lot easier.

"He's got a running back he can rely on every down to carry the mail and they no longer have to substitute and use overgrown fullbacks in short yardage situations. That's a huge addition for the Packers."

[cheesner]

A: Bob McGinn - Grizz: . . . They vowed to get bigger players and tougher players. Period. Almost every roster move that they have made in 2013 has been done with those two factors in mind, as colleague Tom Silverstein eloquently pointed out in his fine Sunday story. Lacy and Franklin were drafted to be the team's future backfield. It could happen by September.

. . . Dave: Bakhtiari's issue is strength and power. He is on the short side for LT and seems to lack pop for LG, RG and RT. He's just 21. He needs to get bigger and stronger.
Lol. His contradiction is only 2 questions apart.

[wist43]

I agree we need to run the ball, and I agree that running the ball will take a lot of heat off Rodgers. That said, I was okay with Benson. I thought he played well, and MM actually broke out a few power plays - Sitton and Lang looked good pulling and smashing LB'ers in the hole. Why MM doesn't do more of that is beyond me.

I have no idea what to expect of the musical chairs on the line, although I view it as positive and can only help. It seems like a more natural fit for everyone... we'll see. Lot of moving pieces there... early going could be rough.

Lacy is definitely an upgrade over Benson, so maybe that combined with the reshaped OL, and MM finding his call sheet with the running plays on it... put it all together, maybe we can improve enough to take a step forward. Flipping the line was the best thing they did. If Bulaga can hold up, that will go a long way toward righting the ship.

[Fritz]

I agree we need to run the ball, and I agree that running the ball will take a lot of heat off Rodgers. That said, I was okay with Benson. I thought he played well, and MM actually broke out a few power plays - Sitton and Lang looked good pulling and smashing LB'ers in the hole. Why MM doesn't do more of that is beyond me.

I have no idea what to expect of the musical chairs on the line, although I view it as positive and can only help. It seems like a more natural fit for everyone... we'll see. Lot of moving pieces there... early going could be rough.

Lacy is definitely an upgrade over Benson, so maybe that combined with the reshaped OL, and MM finding his call sheet with the running plays on it... put it all together, maybe we can improve enough to take a step forward. Flipping the line was the best thing they did. If Bulaga can hold up, that will go a long way toward righting the ship.

I have talked about the way that growing up in the 70's influenced my view of running the ball. Contrary to pop op, the 70's was more of a running decade than the 60's and maybe the 50's.

Thus I too yearn for some power running plays. I loved Shermy's U-71 package, if that's the correct name. Brought in an extra lineman as a TE and shaved it down people's throats.

[Joemailman]

I agree we need to run the ball, and I agree that running the ball will take a lot of heat off Rodgers. That said, I was okay with Benson. I thought he played well, and MM actually broke out a few power plays - Sitton and Lang looked good pulling and smashing LB'ers in the hole. Why MM doesn't do more of that is beyond me.

I have no idea what to expect of the musical chairs on the line, although I view it as positive and can only help. It seems like a more natural fit for everyone... we'll see. Lot of moving pieces there... early going could be rough.

Lacy is definitely an upgrade over Benson, so maybe that combined with the reshaped OL, and MM finding his call sheet with the running plays on it... put it all together, maybe we can improve enough to take a step forward. Flipping the line was the best thing they did. If Bulaga can hold up, that will go a long way toward righting the ship.

Well, that was rather positive. What's gotten into you? :wink: I pretty much agree. Not sure how much of a transition period there will be. Bulaga will be going back to playing his natural position. Moving to RT in 2010 was more of an adjustment for him than this will be. Hopefully Sitton and Lang are quick studies. Not sure who to hope for at RT. Barclay played pretty well there last year, but Sherrod, if healthy, is more talented. RT will be a battle to watch in training camp.

[Bretsky]

I agree we need to run the ball, and I agree that running the ball will take a lot of heat off Rodgers. That said, I was okay with Benson. I thought he played well, and MM actually broke out a few power plays - Sitton and Lang looked good pulling and smashing LB'ers in the hole. Why MM doesn't do more of that is beyond me.

I have no idea what to expect of the musical chairs on the line, although I view it as positive and can only help. It seems like a more natural fit for everyone... we'll see. Lot of moving pieces there... early going could be rough.

Lacy is definitely an upgrade over Benson, so maybe that combined with the reshaped OL, and MM finding his call sheet with the running plays on it... put it all together, maybe we can improve enough to take a step forward. Flipping the line was the best thing they did. If Bulaga can hold up, that will go a long way toward righting the ship.

Who has kidnapped Wist : :)

[denverYooper]

I agree we need to run the ball, and I agree that running the ball will take a lot of heat off Rodgers. That said, I was okay with Benson. I thought he played well, and MM actually broke out a few power plays - Sitton and Lang looked good pulling and smashing LB'ers in the hole. Why MM doesn't do more of that is beyond me.


I'm with you there. I thought Lang at one point last season made a comment about the line wanting to run more because it gave the OL a chance to be the aggressors.

[woodbuck27]

Lol. His contradiction is only 2 questions apart.

Yes but.... Bob McGinn used the word ... 'almost' ... in the first comment... that you quote.

Could that 'almost'... be in reference to TT's pick at Rd. 3 #109 OT David Bakhtiari... in the next comment that you quote?

PACKERS !

[rbaloha1]

Lol. His contradiction is only 2 questions apart.

Again -- McGinn is only repeating the Packer's organizational directive. If you view the Packers draft not meeting the directive criticize TT's drafting not McGinn's player analysis.

McGinn detractors need to listen to the post Packer draft podcast.:oops:

[cheesner]

Again -- McGinn is only repeating the Packer's organizational directive. If you view the Packers draft not meeting the directive criticize TT's drafting not McGinn's player analysis.

McGinn detractors need to listen to the post Packer draft podcast.:oops:
Packer directive? McGinn was very pro-Favre anti-TT. I tend to think the Packers don't respect him enough to give him anything of interest. I think he looks for clues in what they do tell him and he runs with a story. If our first pick was Sylvester WIlliams and we took Jesse Williams in the 2nd, maybe there would be something to it. McGinn is throwing darts.

Woodbuck - Looking at all the picks, I see no emphasis on size. I think, if anything, we went smaller more athletic, than larger.

[Guiness]

I'm with you there. I thought Lang at one point last season made a comment about the line wanting to run more because it gave the OL a chance to be the aggressors.

All OL always think that way. They'd want a chance to hit the DL, instead of sitting on their heels trying to stop an oncoming freight train.

[pbmax]

I am not sure Sitton pulled much, but Lang sure did. Having moved the best straight line run blockers to the left, a lot of the O line's run improvement is going to be driven by the winner of the RT competition. And health.

But the biggest thing might be the young talent. Even if injuries strike, Lacy/Franklin/Starks/Harris/Green ought to be a better bang for your buck. If they are healthy.

[rbaloha1]

Packer directive? McGinn was very pro-Favre anti-TT. I tend to think the Packers don't respect him enough to give him anything of interest. I think he looks for clues in what they do tell him and he runs with a story. If our first pick was Sylvester WIlliams and we took Jesse Williams in the 2nd, maybe there would be something to it. McGinn is throwing darts.

Woodbuck - Looking at all the picks, I see no emphasis on size. I think, if anything, we went smaller more athletic, than larger.


That is the point -- The Packer directive is not for the public -- no team admits to being a little soft. McGinn is not a friend of the organization -- thank goodness.

Did you listen to the podcast?

[wist43]

Well, that was rather positive. What's gotten into you? :wink: I pretty much agree. Not sure how much of a transition period there will be. Bulaga will be going back to playing his natural position. Moving to RT in 2010 was more of an adjustment for him than this will be. Hopefully Sitton and Lang are quick studies. Not sure who to hope for at RT. Barclay played pretty well there last year, but Sherrod, if healthy, is more talented. RT will be a battle to watch in training camp.

My bigger hang-ups with the running game were with the line and playcalling. Flipping the line makes sense, given everyone's strengths and weaknesses. I don't expect the playcalling to change much - to my dismay.

I do now view the Lacy pick in a more positive light. Without major change on the OL it would have been a wasted pick. We simply could not have continued trying to play the way we were. Flipping the line is a drastic measure, but in this case it was needed. Guys ended up at positions that weren't their most natural fit b/c of injuries, having to replace departed vets, and having to shore up spots b/c of non-performance. The line hasn't had much stability at all during TT's reign - some of it self inflicted, some of it injuries and the other issues.

In the end, this move gets guys into positions more suited to their strengths. The key is Bulaga holding up at LT... we gave up way too much pressure from the left side last year. If Bulaga can stabalize LT, I would expect that would show up in the skill position stat lines.

[QBME]

Again -- McGinn is only repeating the Packer's organizational directive. If you view the Packers draft not meeting the directive criticize TT's drafting not McGinn's player analysis.

McGinn detractors need to listen to the post Packer draft podcast.:oops:

I keep seeing references to the "Packer's organizational directive". From whom did this directive come? Mark Murphy? The Executive Committee? Or is TT schizoid and is giving himself directives?

[rbaloha1]

I keep seeing references to the "Packer's organizational directive". From whom did this directive come? Mark Murphy? The Executive Committee? Or is TT schizoid and is giving himself directives?

Please e-mail McGinn and ask him since you are in doubt.

[denverYooper]

I keep seeing references to the "Packer's organizational directive". From whom did this directive come? Mark Murphy? The Executive Committee? Or is TT schizoid and is giving himself directives?

TT has only 3 directives:

1.) TT may not harm the Packers
2.) TT must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3.) TT must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

[Zool]

TT has only 3 directives:

1.) TT may not harm the Packers
2.) TT must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3.) TT must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

Does that mean McCarthy is Wil Smith?

[Cheesehead Craig]

Does that mean McCarthy is Wil Smith?

Repped.

[Patler]

I keep seeing references to the "Packer's organizational directive". From whom did this directive come? Mark Murphy? The Executive Committee? Or is TT schizoid and is giving himself directives?


Please e-mail McGinn and ask him since you are in doubt.

QBME raises a solid point. In an organization like the Packers, any such "directive" would come from TT, and no one else. No one above TT would (or should) issue football operation directives relating to the roster.

More than likely, just another example of McGinn sensationalizing a comment he heard.

[rbaloha1]

QBME raises a solid point. In an organization like the Packers, any such "directive" would come from TT, and no one else. No one above TT would (or should) issue football operation directives relating to the roster.

More than likely, just another example of McGinn sensationalizing a comment he heard.

What evidence do you have about sensationalizing? Did you listen to the post packer draft podcast?

[Patler]

What evidence do you have about sensationalizing? Did you listen to the post packer draft podcast?

Why are you so hung up on a specific podcast? I have read his articles for years and years. I have read the transcripts of his chats for years and years. I have listened to some podcasts, although I am not certain of which podcast you are referring to.

Based on my observations of his writings over years and years, his common over-dramatization of his insider information as it relates to problems he perceives on the team, and his writings with respect to the "bigger" and "tougher" issue; and based on my understanding of the current Packer organization and how the key people in that organization view their roles in the organization, , I feel comfortable with the opinion I offered:


QBME raises a solid point. In an organization like the Packers, any such "directive" would come from TT, and no one else. No one above TT would (or should) issue football operation directives relating to the roster.

More than likely, just another example of McGinn sensationalizing a comment he heard.

[run pMc]

I've listened to the podcasts...several times.
Once you get past the crap about HGH in the last one, they talk a little bit about the draft class. Most of it is around Lacy and his injuries. The rest is about how TT ignored Safety and backup QB and basically doubled up -- i.e., drafted pairs of players -- at RB, OT, DL, and WR. Those were, I thought, interesting points.

The whole thing about how Jones has to produce as a rookie is a bit of a squishy exaggeration. What does that mean? If we expect Datone Jones, in his first year, to be Cullen Jenkins in his last year in GB then I think we're setting ourselves up for a lot of frustration and disappointment. I think he'll contribute this year and has a shot at being a good player long term. The fate of the defense is not in Jones' hands. Talk of getting bigger and tougher with Jones is dubious -- he's taller, but Howard Green was bigger. Hard to say about "tougher" with any of the draft picks since none of them were known for being fiery enforcers and haven't played a pro snap yet. Bahktiari played to the whistle -- good for him -- but I read it as aggressive more than nasty, and at a cheeseburger shy of 300lbs. he's considered undersized.

Does Lacy make them a bigger/tougher team? Only if he can stay healthy and play well enough to give McCarthy reason to run the ball...that will give the OL more of an attitude. Personally I don't think Lacy will hold up for more than 200 carries a season on the pro level so they'll have to platoon him. (I will gladly eat crow on that BTW.) If they can find a running game regardless of the RB it will make them tougher...a successful running game gives that impression.

Honestly, the "bigger and tougher" argument, regardless of source, could be spun anyway McGinn wants to:
Bahktiari is light and needs a NFL weight room? He's soft and small!
He plays aggressive and finishes? He's a tough guy!

Arguing either way is kind of pointless...did TT make moves to improve the team this year and beyond? Anything beyond that is selling fishwrappers.

[pbmax]

You know, I had not put together the "bigger, tougher" thing with the HGH article. I wonder if they were aware of the other's work in this area? Maybe one of them has inside, deep background info that not enough Packers are using it :lol:

Seriously though, it is one reason this mantra continues after the draft when Bob can point to no specific player and say "See? Bigger and tougher than before".

I do think, however, that reporters are asked to do two things that often collide and conflict with each other. One is to report only confirmed facts* and the other is to write articles covering topics and angles the editors want to see and know the public will consume. Only a fool would not have expected some form of "tougher, bigger" coverage this offseason after the struggle with the Giants twice in the playoffs were followed by the 49ers debacle and the Vikings regular season.

Everyone, even yahoo's on sports radio are talking about the Packers getter tougher in the trenches. And every move this offseason is viewed through that prism.

Even one of my favorite writers (Tanier) cannot comment on the Packers without mentioning the running game, though to be fair he is looking for a joke AND trying to decipher the Packer offense's problems rather than "tougher, bigger".

We were going to get this article before the draft no matter who did or did not talk to Bob from with 1265 Lombardi. But let's consider the converse of what McGinn reported. Is it ever an edict on a team to be "smaller and softer"? Not by that name certainly. Faster, yes, but not the other two. So Bob could have asked nearly anyone at the Packer's Offices about "bigger, tougher" and been given an answer that they ALL are and ALWAYS are looking to get bigger and tougher players. Which makes this draft no different than any other. Its like a new D coordinator coming into town. They never promise to be soft and reactive. Tough and aggressive are always the bywords.


* May, by necessity, include confirmed facts with only one, unnamed, source. Your mileage may vary.

[Cheesehead Craig]

So the Packers need to get more "tougher and bigger", in other words more physical:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWz9VN40nCA

[KYPack]

Also,

4) No Robot can have sex with a human, unless it is a special episode during sweeps week.

[swede]

Also,

4) No Robot can have sex with a human...

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_33OMyOW6tYM/THv8ONyuz1I/AAAAAAAAAag/vLQhzzt12e4/s1600/Futurama-BenderSad.jpg

...


unless it is a special episode during sweeps week.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7184/6938005123_ba0889e458_z.jpg

[Fritz]

I suppose the two poles in the buzzword or phrase-of-the-day world of what passes for reporting are "bigger and tougher" and "faster and more athletic."

[smuggler]

Right as always, resident journalist fanboy and whiteknight.

[Fritz]

???

[bobblehead]

I've heard Larry McCarren say the RB makes the line, not the other way around. He's also said the QB makes the line, not the other way around. There is some of both, but in McCarren's opinion, the QB and RB make their respective games tick.


If I felt like researching i could disprove the RB making the line. At different times in the NFL a great rusher goes down and the backup gets multiple 100 yard games. With the packers remember when Ahman was a stud, but we could plug in the pooper or even ??Fischer?? and they would have good games.

Now, if you are talking the 1 in 100 back. Payton, Peterson, Brown, Sanders. Then yes, they make the line better, and of course in all cases its symbiotic, but as a general statement a good line blowing guys off the ball is more vital than a back that can squeak through a tight hole for a couple extra yards.

[bobblehead]

If MM was really honest, he'd say "We couldn't run against the softest coverages in the NFL. Teams sold out to stop our passing game, and succeeded more often than we like. Aaron Rodgers is great, but not great enough put up 2010 like numbers against those defenses. We have to improve our running game if we want to let AR loose."

He won't say that, and honestly, I hope he's not too proud to admit, when he looks in the mirror, that his offense couldn't do the things they wanted to do last year because they couldn't run the ball. If he (they) don't admit that to themselves, it's kinda scary.

It doesn't take a 20 year offensive coordinator to figure out our running game stunted our entire offense last year. We're just fans, but that much was obvious.


His stubbornness, to suggest running the ball is some sort of side-bar to his grand offense, is a little scary. Hopefully he's just posturing and being stubborn for the media, and behind closed doors, recognizing they NEED to run the ball better. NEED to.

Both Holmgren and MM have the same pattern. In weeks 1-8 they forget that running is part of the game. They remember it suddenly and things click. One of the problems in the SF game is that even tied at 24-24 midway through the 3rd we had abandoned the run. Again, I don't feel like researching, but I think we had something like 6 carries in the first quarter and 4 more the rest of the game. It was absurd to think we could get away with that against that D.

[smuggler]

Fritz, it wasn't directed at you. ;)

[bobblehead]

All OL always think that way. They'd want a chance to hit the DL, instead of sitting on their heels trying to stop an oncoming freight train.

soooo....maybe there is something to it?

[Fritz]

Fritz, it wasn't directed at you. ;)

Ah, gotcha.

As to the running game, it is maddening the way the headcoach forgets about the run at crucial times, except when he does try to run out the clock with a lead and Packer running backs get the ball, sweep right, and have defenders two or three yards behind the line of scrimmage waiting to greet them.

Better blocking, more holes to run through. That's what I say. The rare ones, as Bobble points out, make the line better, but yes, even mediocre Packer backs could get yards when Green was out. That was a damn fine offensive line.