Bigger and Beefier

[pbmax]

He's at it again.

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/packers-make-big-change-in-roster-b9986677z1-222751031.html

A short breakdown of the players Bob says are evidence of the teamwide initiative to be bigger and beefier than ether of the last two teams the Packers fielded.

His evidence:

Greg Jennings FA - this one is simply stupid. If Bob actually believes Jennings was not resigned because of size he needs his head examined. His replacement, Randall Cobb, is not any bigger. Boykin is bigger but was signed in 2012, during Thompson's years adrift. Jeremy Ross, same story. Also of note, all four potential replacements for Tuny Jennings were on the roster last year.

Jeff Saturday Retired - Ol' Bob glosses right over Saturday's benching last year around Week 12 I think and says even Saturday got the memo on bigger and beefier and retired because of it. My money is that Saturday is smart enough that he got the memo when he was benched.

Examples of small players who simply cannot help you defeat San Francisco 49ers? Joe Washington and Mike Singletary.

Ravens D - Bob mentions they are brawny. Not sure whether that means bigger or beefier to Bob but Ravens were 12 pounds heavier measured by the roster. Funny thing is, the Ravens D was the poorest unit on the team last year. They did manage to pull it together late, but their weight did their health and record no favors until the playoffs.

DJ Smith released - 2 backups they think are now capable and an injured Smith. Hmm, size or options?

Tom Crabtree FA - Crab was offered same deal as supreme big and beefy Matt Mulligan. Cost factor or organization directive? Both were released. Maybe playing ability is supreme. And Andrew Quarless.

Jerron McMillan somehow still on team - obvious evidence that Thompson was on a walkabout in 2011-12 as he is only 5' 11". Know who else is 5' 11"? Nick Collins.

Charles Woodson released - Deemed not tough enough. The player that kept having to sit out games because he kept detaching bones from each other. Between a ridiculous contract and age, toughness was the least of concerns with Woodson. Anyone want to be he would still be here at $1.25 mil per season?

Erik Walden FA - Obviously released because of size and not occasional incompetence. Also not a factor? Money. Also also not a factor? Nick Perry, drafted while Thompson was signing midgets in the 2012 dwarf draft.

Desmond Bishop released - Bob admits this was about injury and size as well. Lists Bishop at 6' 2" and 240 lbs. Replaced by 6' 3" 242 pound Brad Jones. Also, if there was a tougher Packer defender, I would like to know who it was.

2013 Draft Class - Once again ignores size deficiencies of Bakhtiari and Tretter (both light in the pants according to wist - Bob says they will get bigger!) to tout a prototype DE in Round 1 (funny how that happens in Round 1 more often than in any other round similar to Nick Perry, Derrick Sherrod and Bryan Bulaga) and Lacy. A RB Thompson was so desperate for that he traded down twice without taking him, seemingly content with either Lacy or Montee Ball (5' 10", 216).

Hyde is mentioned though at his size he is a prototype for Thompson's CBs. Boyd at 6' 2" 310 is a size guy but Jerel Worthy at 6' 2" and 308 is not. Both seventh round WRs on on the good list despite on being on the PS and the other waived.

Brandon Bostick - on roster - kept over Crabtree (indirectly) makes the TE position bigger. No mention by Bob that Bostick cannot block yet.

Tyrone Walker released - I will give Bob this one as I cannot imagine why he isn't on the practice squad.

D line - overall might be the League's heaviest. Bob doesn't specify avg or total. I give him this but say the average is probably not much higher than last year. What is remarkable is the number that made the roster. But is that beefier and bigger? Or different scheming?

We'll see.

[red]

why are casey hayward and tramon still on the team, those guys are both twigs

and i don't care what the roster lists guys at, bishop was a bigger guy then jones, or at least he played a lot bigger then jones

i don't buy for a second that we got much bigger then we were

[pbmax]

why are casey hayward and tramon still on the team, those guys are both twigs

and i don't care what the roster lists guys at, bishop was a bigger guy then jones, or at least he played a lot bigger then jones

i don't buy for a second that we got much bigger then we were

The average size of the roster that started this thing for McGinn is very dependent on roster competition. Keep a sixth WR over a DL or OL and the average dips Despite the fact that it might never affect your starters. If you are a 3-4 team that does not believe in the large ILB theory your average is going to be below 3-4 teams with Levon Kirkland back there.

Its just a way to put an analytical gloss on the emotional reaction that the Packers got overrun in two straight playoff games and that it means they are soft and small as a result.

[mraynrand]

I lost 10 pounds, but gained muscle and 30 sec/mile. Am I smaller and softer, or stronger and better conditioned? I guess it depends on scheme. I am betting I will be improperly aligned and unsound.

[Patler]

Jerel Worthy was evidence of TT drafting players that are too small, and Boyd was a "size guy". Somehow, a half inch and 5 pounds doesn't seem that significant to me on someone 6'3" and 305 ibs.

According to McGinn, Walden (6'2", 245) was "undersized for a 3-4 team" but Palmer (6-2, 248) and Barrington (6-1, 238) "have average size for linebacker." Huh?

What good did it do to sign a "beast of a blocking tight end" in Mulligan if he was released in favor of Bostick who is a lot smaller and their worst blocking TE?

How much of a commitment to size was there when they used a mid-round pick for the smallest O-lineman they have had in years? Saying he should "fill out" is ridiculous without recognizing that the too small picks of previous years could also fill out. No matter how you look at it, the Packers might have the smallest pair of starting tackles in the league.

Well, at least they did keep Crosby over Tavecchio.

[Bossman641]

Bob is really hammering home this bigger initiative thing huh?

Repeating PB here, but I instantly caught Bob listing Worthy as undersized (6' 2 1/2", 308) and Boyd as a "size guy" (6' 2 1/2", 310).

[Fritz]

Jerel Worthy was evidence of TT drafting players that are too small, and Boyd was a "size guy". Somehow, a half inch and 5 pounds doesn't seem that significant to me on someone 6'3" and 305 ibs.

According to McGinn, Walden (6'2", 245) was "undersized for a 3-4 team" but Palmer (6-2, 248) and Barrington (6-1, 238) "have average size for linebacker." Huh?

What good did it do to sign a "beast of a blocking tight end" in Mulligan if he was released in favor of Bostick who is a lot smaller and their worst blocking TE?

How much of a commitment to size was there when they used a mid-round pick for the smallest O-lineman they have had in years? Saying he should "fill out" is ridiculous without recognizing that the too small picks of previous years could also fill out. No matter how you look at it, the Packers might have the smallest pair of starting tackles in the league.

Well, at least they did keep Crosby over Tavecchio.


The number one rule of new journalism: never let the facts get in the way of a storyline that will sell papers.

I just read the McGinn interview with McCarthy. What Wist sees as arrogance and ego in McCarthy I see more as irritation with McGinn's attempts to bend truth to fit the storyline.

Here's a great exchange that occurs after McGinn had already tried out the "small'n'soft" theory on McCarthy:

"Q. You don't have undersized guys like D.J. Smith and D.J. Williams here anymore. You didn't make a hard, conscious effort to rid your roster of that?

A. I'd like to give you some credit, but it hasn't changed. We're looking for good football players. The bigger and faster and stronger they are, the better. That has never changed in pro football. I don't think I've ever been in a meeting where we said, "Let's get smaller and slower and shorter.""

McCarthy does slip once, though, on a different front. After saying over and over he doesn't pay attention or at least doesn't give a care what others on the outside think, he makes reference to McGinn's story on live tackling from August 29th.

[bobblehead]

I agree bob is reaching here, but I also think there is a smidgeon of truth in here. TT dropped the dwarf LB and then got rid of the too small TE that didn't make any plays. Those were foregone conclusions before the season started imo. I also think Dejuan Harris' being pimped my MM flew right in the face of that logic though.

The entire argument is "DUH!!". Of course you would rather be bigger and there comes a point of TOO small. However, 6'5" 300lb. DE's that have zero talent doesn't help a team. Using Datone Jones (a 1st rounder) as an example of size and 4th rounders as examples of "making exceptions" is foolish. Guys who have size and talent don't last long. By the 4th round you have to choose size vs. talent. The biggest problem with the packers is injury. Our 2 bookend tackles are hurt. And if I want to reach a prototypical DE (Harrell) never got off the ground either.

This whole debate can run in circles all day. Bottom line is that TT did make too many exceptions in one draft over the years. Overall, he drafts for size. Look at all his 1st and 2nd round picks over the years and you will see a ton of size. I have noticed a theme with TT. 1st-3rd round he drafts guys who can play. Mostly total package guys, but by round 3 you get on the lower end of the size scale. 4th round he drafts guys who can develope (think OLine that can gain size). 5th-7th he looks for freak athletes, problem children who might turn around, and ST ace types who won't ever be positional players. 5-7 are wildcards. Guys like Ryan Taylor on one end, or Charles Johnson on the other. It just depends on whats out there, and what he thinks the roster needs.

Bottom line, of course size matters, but Datone Jones twin brother isn't available after the first round. Josh Boyd and Mike Danials were.

[pbmax]

The number one rule of new journalism: never let the facts get in the way of a storyline that will sell papers.

I am not sure how new it is, but it definitely is the case here.

Far more fascinating would have been an answer to why they are carrying 7 1/2 D lineman (Neal is the 1/2).

[pbmax]

Mike Daniels might be the best evidence that Bob is simply flogging one obvious truth (bigger is better) and hand waving the other (ability to play).

Whatever his size, he might have had the best D lineman camp of all.

[Fritz]

I am not sure how new it is, but it definitely is the case here.

Far more fascinating would have been an answer to why they are carrying 7 1/2 D lineman (Neal is the 1/2).


I think MM answered that in his McGinn interview. He was asked about not keeping Mulligan despite his blocking skills, and McGinn gave an example of blocking on third and one or at the goal line. MM's response was that the team kept more defense in part b/c the ones he kept can play ST better. Then MM asked rhetorically how many third and one's and goal line situations would Mulligan be a part of, as opposed to the (higher) number of ST plays the guys who presumably "took" Mulligan's roster spot would be involved in.

[Patler]

I think MM answered that in his McGinn interview. He was asked about not keeping Mulligan despite his blocking skills, and McGinn gave an example of blocking on third and one or at the goal line. MM's response was that the team kept more defense in part b/c the ones he kept can play ST better. Then MM asked rhetorically how many third and one's and goal line situations would Mulligan be a part of, as opposed to the (higher) number of ST plays the guys who presumably "took" Mulligan's roster spot would be involved in.

In discussing releasing Mulligan, he also said this, which I found to be quite interesting:


"From 27 (on defense) to 23 on offense is the biggest discrepancy I've ever been through, and I'm perfectly fine with it."

So the 27th player on defense is a much better player than the 23 player on offense.

Has TT invested too much in trying to improve the defense?
Has he let the talent on offense slide too far?

[pbmax]

So the 27th player on defense is a much better player than the 23 player on offense.

Has TT invested too much in trying to improve the defense?
Has he let the talent on offense slide too far?

I think M3 is talking about net player difference on each side of the ball, not talent, though talent is a factor, obviously.

[KYPack]

Mulligan was supposed to be this bruiser, but he couldn't block worth shit.

I think his shoulder or elbow were hurt.

I couldn't believe the Hoody picked him up. He lasted 3 -4 days in NE.

[pbmax]

Mulligan was supposed to be this bruiser, but he couldn't block worth shit.

I think his shoulder or elbow were hurt.

I couldn't believe the Hoody picked him up. He lasted 3 -4 days in NE.

Yes, but what did you think about him pre-injury? Average was the word that kept coming to mind. I think Quarless is as effective if healthy.

[Patler]

Mulligan was supposed to be this bruiser, but he couldn't block worth shit.

I think his shoulder or elbow were hurt.

I couldn't believe the Hoody picked him up. He lasted 3 -4 days in NE.


Yes, but what did you think about him pre-injury? Average was the word that kept coming to mind. I think Quarless is as effective if healthy.

Before Mulligan got hurt, one of the writers watching practices said GB hasn't had a guy who blocked like that since Bubba Franks.

[pbmax]

Before Mulligan got hurt, one of the writers watching practices said GB hasn't had a guy who blocked like that since Bubba Franks.

I remember that. I just was not as impressed, though he was probably the best blocker of that group. It just never jumped out at me. Might have been my viewing habits as I struggled to stay focused on the line play in the preseason games. Too many interruptions and bad QB play.

[Smidgeon]

I agree bob is reaching here, but I also think there is a smidgeon of truth in here. TT dropped the dwarf LB and then got rid of the too small TE that didn't make any plays. Those were foregone conclusions before the season started imo. I also think Dejuan Harris' being pimped my MM flew right in the face of that logic though.

The entire argument is "DUH!!". Of course you would rather be bigger and there comes a point of TOO small. However, 6'5" 300lb. DE's that have zero talent doesn't help a team. Using Datone Jones (a 1st rounder) as an example of size and 4th rounders as examples of "making exceptions" is foolish. Guys who have size and talent don't last long. By the 4th round you have to choose size vs. talent. The biggest problem with the packers is injury. Our 2 bookend tackles are hurt. And if I want to reach a prototypical DE (Harrell) never got off the ground either.

This whole debate can run in circles all day. Bottom line is that TT did make too many exceptions in one draft over the years. Overall, he drafts for size. Look at all his 1st and 2nd round picks over the years and you will see a ton of size. I have noticed a theme with TT. 1st-3rd round he drafts guys who can play. Mostly total package guys, but by round 3 you get on the lower end of the size scale. 4th round he drafts guys who can develope (think OLine that can gain size). 5th-7th he looks for freak athletes, problem children who might turn around, and ST ace types who won't ever be positional players. 5-7 are wildcards. Guys like Ryan Taylor on one end, or Charles Johnson on the other. It just depends on whats out there, and what he thinks the roster needs.

Bottom line, of course size matters, but Datone Jones twin brother isn't available after the first round. Josh Boyd and Mike Danials were.

You rang?

[mraynrand]

MMMMMmmmmmmm......extra beefy burger......


http://aht.seriouseats.com/images/20090917-tpl-dw.jpg

[pbmax]

Christl and Baranczyk Proclaim Bigger Is Not Better

Mike Vandermause ‏@MikeVandermause 29m
Baranczyk and Christl debunk "cockamamie" theory that because #Packers got bigger this season, they got nastier, more physical and better.

Mike Vandermause ‏@MikeVandermause 29m
Baranczyk and Christl: Size on defense helps, but not nearly as important as speed, power and quickness: http://pck.rs/I1MmrS

[denverYooper]

NM. I was just going to link to the same article that our resident tweeter just did.

So I'll just add: FOOD FIGHT!

[pbmax]

I don't know why McGinn started this and I certainly don't know why he kept it up this season after it was clear he had nothing.

The aftermath of the Giants and 49er games along with a decline of run defense begs the soft angle and that's fine. I don't agree but that is understandable. Everyone was doing that. But small was dumb.

His numbers were based on team averages that include specialists and non-starters and depend for much of the variation on roster composition (how many DL versus WR). The draft put the lie to the who notion.

[woodbuck27]

Christl and Baranczyk Proclaim Bigger Is Not Better

Mike Vandermause ‏@MikeVandermause 29m
Baranczyk and Christl debunk "cockamamie" theory that because #Packers got bigger this season, they got nastier, more physical and better.

Mike Vandermause ‏@MikeVandermause 29m
Baranczyk and Christl: Size on defense helps, but not nearly as important as speed, power and quickness: http://pck.rs/I1MmrS

Brilliant. . . . 'just brilliant' deductions.

Who could ever refer to the Packer defense and in a sentence use these three words...Packers - Defense - Nasty and come off as informed?

Size on defense Vs speed/power/quickness is like comparing a plate of food with too many calories on it Vs a healthy plate.... not comparable.

Size isn't relevant in terms of talent except for taking up space.

[bobblehead]

Size matters. So does talent. Put enough small talent on the field you will be fine. Put enough big guys without talent on the field and you won't.

MM is a scientist. He likes to win by scheme. I prefer a nasty defense, and I don't care about size. Small and swarming to the ball, sure tackling, positioning all matter. Size helps, no doubt, but if you are a big slug, you are a slug.

I can't imagine giving big contracts to anyone on D as they take turns failing. I do think that has a lot to do with coaching, but players are accountable too.

[Freak Out]

Christl and Baranczyk Proclaim Bigger Is Not Better

Mike Vandermause ‏@MikeVandermause 29m
Baranczyk and Christl debunk "cockamamie" theory that because #Packers got bigger this season, they got nastier, more physical and better.

Mike Vandermause ‏@MikeVandermause 29m
Baranczyk and Christl: Size on defense helps, but not nearly as important as speed, power and quickness: http://pck.rs/I1MmrS

http://www.worldwidewords.org/weirdwords/ww-coc1.htm

[woodbuck27]

http://www.worldwidewords.org/weirdwords/ww-coc1.htm


" The link between decalcomania and cockamamie isn’t proved, but the evidence suggests strongly that children in New York City in the 1930s (or perhaps a decade earlier) converted the one into the other. There was a fashion for self-decoration at that period, using coloured transfers given away with candy and chewing gum.

Anyone who adopted the craze for sticking transfers on oneself may have been regarded by adults or more serious-minded youngsters as silly — certainly the first sense was of a person who was ridiculous or crazy. "


http://www.totalpackers.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/packers-tattoo-4.jpeg


http://www.totalpackers.com/2012/04/13/green-bay-packers-tattoos-photos/

Comment woodbuck27:

How time and perspective and /or acceptance changes.

[pbmax]

Cockamamie is my second favorite word after whopper-jawed. My Dad used it all the time. Tremendous all purpose word for something that is just this side of FUBAR.

http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-who4.htm

[Freak Out]

Cockamamie is my second favorite word after whopper-jawed. My Dad used it all the time. Tremendous all purpose word for something that is just this side of FUBAR.

http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-who4.htm

I prefer cockamamie but that is a great one. Don't recall ever hearing it either.

[Pugger]

IMO McCarthy knows more about football than McGinn. McGinn is just a sports journalist trying to fill space in the paper.