It's the off-season, how many "ifs" are too many to hope for?

[Patler]

... if Shields continues to get better, or at least doesn't regress
... if Williams plays like the last half of last season, and not like the previous season and a half
... if Burnett proves that 2013 was just an off year for him
... if Hyde flourishes in a transition to safety
... if Hayward returns to health
... if Hayward progresses from his rookie season performance
... if House can find some consistency and play as well as he has shown that he can play

if all that happens, the Packers might have a reasonably competent defensive backfield!

Is that too much to hope for?

[Joemailman]

Not really. To me the one that really matters is Hyde (or someone else currently not on the roster) flourishing at Safety. Hard to have a good backfield with someone like Jennings starting at Safety.

The rest are pretty attainable.

[Patler]

Not really. To me the one that really matters is Hyde (or someone else currently not on the roster) flourishing at Safety. Hard to have a good backfield with someone like Jennings starting at Safety.

The rest are pretty attainable.

But, are there just too many "ifs"? Individually, I think each is very much attainable. But collectively the scenario involves all six members achieving things that players often fail at. The pessimist in me expects that at least one, maybe two will fail, and then the house of cards will fall.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

Having a competent backfield also relies on having at least a decent pass rush. If they can discover a consistent pass rush then a lot of the troubles in the secondary will get resolved. With that said, I don't have a lot of faith in Burnett and I still think we need to select a good safety in the draft. Overall, the secondary has talent and they have invested a lot in that talent. Hopefully this year they will see a return in investment.

[denverYooper]

Having a competent backfield also relies on having at least a decent pass rush. If they can discover a consistent pass rush then a lot of the troubles in the secondary will get resolved.

This x1000. Consistent is the key word.

[Patler]

Having a competent backfield also relies on having at least a decent pass rush. If they can discover a consistent pass rush then a lot of the troubles in the secondary will get resolved. With that said, I don't have a lot of faith in Burnett and I still think we need to select a good safety in the draft. Overall, the secondary has talent and they have invested a lot in that talent. Hopefully this year they will see a return in investment.

I disagree. The competency of the players in the backfield is not dependent on having a decent pass rush. The overall effectiveness of the defense requires also a decent pass rush, but a pass rush does not make a bad DB into a good one, it just minimizes the negative impact of the bad DB. Conversely, competent and effective play by the DBs can mask at least partly the ineffective play of those in front of the DBs, but it doesn't make a poor pass rusher into a good pass rusher. It can make him more successful just by giving him more of an opportunity, but that shouldn't be confused with improving his innate ability.

I'm not concerned at this point about the overall performance of the defense. I'm talking about the competency of the DBs in contributing to the defense.

[Joemailman]

But, are there just too many "ifs"? Individually, I think each is very much attainable. But collectively the scenario involves all six members achieving things that players often fail at. The pessimist in me expects that at least one, maybe two will fail, and then the house of cards will fall.

I disagree that they all have to happen. For instance, Hyde doesn't need to flourish at Safety if the safety position is addressed in FA or the draft. If Hyde doesn't have to move to Safety, then he can be used to bolster the nickel position in the event that Hayward continues to have problems. Or the CB position could be addressed by a strong draft for CB's. Obviously some of the things you listed have to happen, but not all. My personal belief is that if they can achieve competency at the Safety position, everything else falls into place.

[red]

i'd say its a bigger "if" for TT to get a competent S in free agency, or even in the draft

[Bretsky]

It would be stupid of Ted Thompson to figure a starting safety is on our roster; it's time to stop jerking around at that position and go get some quality there

[Patler]

I disagree that they all have to happen. For instance, Hyde doesn't need to flourish at Safety if the safety position is addressed in FA or the draft. If Hyde doesn't have to move to Safety, then he can be used to bolster the nickel position in the event that Hayward continues to have problems. Or the CB position could be addressed by a strong draft for CB's. Obviously some of the things you listed have to happen, but not all. My personal belief is that if they can achieve competency at the Safety position, everything else falls into place.

Well, of course, but then you are simply adding more "ifs". I didn't intend the list to be an exhaustive one. My point was that there are significant question marks about each of the top 6 positions in the D-backfield. Shields is probably the most certain of the bunch.

[Fritz]

... if Shields continues to get better, or at least doesn't regress
... if Williams plays like the last half of last season, and not like the previous season and a half
... if Burnett proves that 2013 was just an off year for him
... if Hyde flourishes in a transition to safety
... if Hayward returns to health
... if Hayward progresses from his rookie season performance
... if House can find some consistency and play as well as he has shown that he can play

if all that happens, the Packers might have a reasonably competent defensive backfield!

Is that too much to hope for?

Here is the order of the "ifs" in my mind, from most likely to occur to least likely:

-Williams plays like the last half of last season
- Burnett proves that 2013 was an off year
- Hayward progresses - though this is tied to the last point -
- Hyde flourishes in his transition to safety
- House finds consistency
- Hayward returns to health

I just don't trust that this team can stay healthy the way teams like SF and Seattle have.

[Pugger]

I'd rather Ted get a FA safety or one in the draft rather than relying on Hyde.

[red]

if TT and M3 decided that capers, perry and whitt were not the reason for our secondary being so horrible, then its on the player, so we better be working hard to fix the problems

lets sum it up

capers- not the problem
perry-not the problem
whitt- not the problem
shields-not the problem
tramon- not the problem
hyde- not the problem
hayward-didn't play, but not considered to be the problem
house- not great, but not bad for your #5 cb
bush- see above, but for #6 cb
burnett- a problem that we can't get rid of, but people think he can work with a better safety partner
jennings- a big problem, needs to be replaced

so, looking at that, we just have one problem that can either be fixed by FA or by drafting one

is one safety really the only problem we have with our secondary?

[Fritz]

Safety and that old bugaboo, health.

[Patler]

Here is the order of the "ifs" in my mind, from most likely to occur to least likely:

-Williams plays like the last half of last season
- Burnett proves that 2013 was an off year
- Hayward progresses - though this is tied to the last point -
- Hyde flourishes in his transition to safety
- House finds consistency
- Hayward returns to health

I just don't trust that this team can stay healthy the way teams like SF and Seattle have.

Pretty much agree. House has been given a fair share of chances, and just can't seem to put it together.
That injury to Hayward must have been severe. It happened before TC, and ruined his entire season. Not sure how he comes back from that.

Williams, Burnett and Hyde hitting their "ifs" I view about equally hitting, although I might list Williams as the third as much due to age as to accumulated injuries.

[Joemailman]

Pretty much agree. House has been given a fair share of chances, and just can't seem to put it together.
That injury to Hayward must have been severe. It happened before TC, and ruined his entire season. Not sure how he comes back from that.

Williams, Burnett and Hyde hitting their "ifs" I view about equally hitting, although I might list Williams as the third as much due to age as to accumulated injuries.

The Hayward situation was interesting. He injured himself right before training camp. He was held out until the 3rd preseason game when he injured it again. Then he played in games 7-9 before getting hurt, and being shut down for the season. It's hard to know whether the original injury was that serious, or whether he was brought back too early, resulting in a re-aggravation. The Hayward situation and the House consistency situation are the 2 biggest question marks IMO.

[KYPack]

The Hayward situation was interesting. He injured himself right before training camp. He was held out until the 3rd preseason game when he injured it again. Then he played in games 7-9 before getting hurt, and being shut down for the season. It's hard to know whether the original injury was that serious, or whether he was brought back too early, resulting in a re-aggravation. The Hayward situation and the House consistency situation are the 2 biggest question marks IMO.

The "Hayward hammy" drove me nuts all year.

So much so, I don't know how to second guess it.

Should we have held him back until the 4th regular season game? or at least the opener?

I hate to join the herd and blame the trainer.

[Patler]

The Hayward situation was interesting. He injured himself right before training camp. He was held out until the 3rd preseason game when he injured it again. Then he played in games 7-9 before getting hurt, and being shut down for the season. It's hard to know whether the original injury was that serious, or whether he was brought back too early, resulting in a re-aggravation. The Hayward situation and the House consistency situation are the 2 biggest question marks IMO.

Hayward worries me. I'm tired of seeing promising careers in GB cut short or permanently altered by injuries. There are always some, and I remember a few from the Lombardi era and ever since, but it just seems so much more common now.

No one from the team seems to be talking about Hayward. I'm not sure if that is good or bad.

[mraynrand]

I was going to create an iterative probability matrix to assess the likelihood of these what ifs, their cumulative probabilities, including several alternative scenarios, calculating the influence of topological mixing (assuming stationary Markov principles of course) on positive reinforcement; then integrate it with other positives and negatives, but I figured, what's the point? Everything is going to work out well for the Packers this year and they will win it all. Or not.

[PlantPage55]

I'd rather Ted get a FA safety or one in the draft rather than relying on Hyde.

If I were TT (and thank heavens I'm not), I would get a FA safety (mid-tier guy), draft one, AND try Hyde out at the position. I don't feel like that would be too many resources put toward a position that is easily our most attackable weakness.

While I think Burnett is fine at that position going forward, it wouldn't be a bad thing if we overdid it on Safeties and ended up finding one better than him, too, by pure chance.

[Patler]

If I were TT (and thank heavens I'm not), I would get a FA safety (mid-tier guy), draft one, AND try Hyde out at the position. I don't feel like that would be too many resources put toward a position that is easily our most attackable weakness.

While I think Burnett is fine at that position going forward, it wouldn't be a bad thing if we overdid it on Safeties and ended up finding one better than him, too, by pure chance.

Besides, you need one in addition to the starters, and I'm not sure Richardson should be the #3 safety, either. Maybe he can be, but it's no sure thing either.

[3irty1]

Hyde's a great football player and I wouldn't count him out but I agree it'd be foolish not to bring quality competition for that spot. Personally I think the best solution both long and short term would come through the draft. It's not uncommon for a rookie safety to be solid right out of camp so an early big school player would be a good get. My 2nd choice would be to sign a starting calibre fella like Chris Clemons or Mike Mitchell. My 3rd choice would be to roll with what we got and hope that Richardson, Hyde, Banjo, and new late round rookies/street FA's can produce a starter. My last choice would be to add a big name FA like Byrd to an already overpaid secondary. We don't need to turn a strength into a weakness at the cost of a fat contract. Just plug the hole.

[denverYooper]

I was going to create an iterative probability matrix to assess the likelihood of these what ifs, their cumulative probabilities, including several alternative scenarios, calculating the influence of topological mixing (assuming stationary Markov principles of course) on positive reinforcement; then integrate it with other positives and negatives, but I figured, what's the point? Everything is going to work out well for the Packers this year and they will win it all. Or not.

Molecular phylogeny or figuring out when the Packers' DBs will gel again... it's pretty much the same science. I don't know why they haven't unified the two fields by now.

[run pMc]

So maybe sign Nate Allen and draft a safety in R3 or 4?
Not sold on Richardson (yet), definitely not sold on Jennings, and I think Banjo's a ST guy. Hyde can play S and would be used to cover in the dime, but I agree with those who think the safety starting next to Burnett isn't on the roster.

As to the if's, I worry a little about Shields being happy at getting paid and his play suffers for it.

[mraynrand]

Molecular phylogeny or figuring out when the Packers' DBs will gel again... it's pretty much the same science. I don't know why they haven't unified the two fields by now.

it's far easier to figure out how proteins fold than how Packer dbs do the same.

[pbmax]

Banjo has to stick, Packers running out of good football names for Threads.

[Joemailman]

Banjo has to stick, Packers running out of good football names for Threads.

Just wait until they draft Clinton-Dix.

[denverYooper]

Just wait until they draft Clinton-Dix.

Keep it in FYI.

[smuggler]

Anything concerning the defense is too much to hope for.

[pittstang5]

IMO, regarding the safety position, the Packers just need a guy back there that knows what the hell they are doing and can line everybody up. Since Collins left, there's been too many "miscommunications." Get a vet. that knows the system or is at least familiar with it (don't know if there is anyone out there like that) or get someone that has the intelligence to play in this system. I don't think we need a world beater or a high dollar FA. Someone average/mid-tier will be better than what we have now. Then you draft a guy that you feel can be the future after a year or two and learn from said vet.

[woodbuck27]

i'd say its a bigger "if" for TT to get a competent S in free agency, or even in the draft

Ted Thompson simply has to get that done.

How much CAP space do we have left now that Sam Shields and his agent got that huge contract from the Packers?

TT has to concentrate on ensuring our DL (without BJ Raji's head games) and the safety position. After that I hope he upgrades at ILB.

GO PACK GO !

[denverYooper]

it's far easier to figure out how proteins fold than how Packer dbs do the same.

Someone needs to code up PackerDBs@Home so that some 14-year-old kid from Oconomowoc can come up with a solution that prevents 20+ yard plays and stops the run.

[mraynrand]

Someone needs to code up PackerDBs@Home so that some 14-year-old kid from Oconomowoc can come up with a solution that prevents 20+ yard plays and stops the run.


LOL. We need gamers to AID us! Of course, nothing helps you model something so much as having the solution beforehand! Foresight is 20-20!

[red]

Ted Thompson simply has to get that done.

How much CAP space do we have left now that Sam Shields and his agent got that huge contract from the Packers?

TT has to concentrate on ensuring our DL (without BJ Raji's head games) and the safety position. After that I hope he upgrades at ILB.

GO PACK GO !

27.5 ish, by my math

plenty of room to sign the top safeties available, maybe a mid tier d-lineman, get our draft picks signed up, and resign one if not both of nelson and cobb

[woodbuck27]

27.5 ish, by my math

plenty of room to sign the top safeties available, maybe a mid tier d-lineman, get our draft picks signed up, and resign one if not both of nelson and cobb

It appears from what I'm seeing that TT can sign a top safety for $6-9 million$.

TJ Ward ($7 million$) ; Jarius Byrd (about $ 9 million), Donte Whitner ($7 million$) are top candidates. For less money TT may look to snag Mike Mitchell but Philly is going HARD for a solid Safety and has also looked at seriously at TJ Ward.

TT has to be set to go as the safety market will move quickly.

The Cleveland Browns might try seriously to land Safety Jarius Byrd but the rumor now is that Cleveland may offer a homecoming of sorts for Donte Whitner ( San Fran 49ers) for about 8 million or less.

[3irty1]

27.5 ish, by my math

plenty of room to sign the top safeties available, maybe a mid tier d-lineman, get our draft picks signed up, and resign one if not both of nelson and cobb

I'd be more excited about signing Finley or Garrett Graham than I would have signing one of the "top" 2 safeties. Especially Byrd. He's a great player but he's also got a very unique set of skills that pretty much needs to be built around. I'd rather get someone who can plug in and stop the bleeding without dictating what we can and can't do on defense. Ward is a little bit the same or at least probably would be when paired with Burnett. Whitner is a much more versatile and compatible with the pieces we've got IMO. Mike Mitchell or Chris Clemons would also be options that let us dust off sections of the playbook rather than limiting it further.

[red]

I'd be more excited about signing Finley or Garrett Graham than I would have signing one of the "top" 2 safeties. Especially Byrd. He's a great player but he's also got a very unique set of skills that pretty much needs to be built around. I'd rather get someone who can plug in and stop the bleeding without dictating what we can and can't do on defense. Ward is a little bit the same or at least probably would be when paired with Burnett. Whitner is a much more versatile and compatible with the pieces we've got IMO. Mike Mitchell or Chris Clemons would also be options that let us dust off sections of the playbook rather than limiting it further.

the problem i have whith that, when looking at the other safeties, is the idea i have that we need a "ball hawk", capers system relies on turnovers, int's mostly

we got none from our safeties last year. byrd gives you int's. ward does not (5 int's in 4 years), whitner (10 int's in 8 seasons)and clemons (4 int's in 5 years)really don't give you that. mitchell had 4 last year, but only 2 int's in his first 4 seasons as a pro, which guy is he?

i don't know what the hell burnett is, he's not a ballhawk, he's not a cover guy. we drafted him to be a SS to play along collins, but he's not really physical, or a great tackler.

i mean, any of the guys you listed would be improvements over either of our safeties, but are they what we really need?

[woodbuck27]

the problem i have whith that, when looking at the other safeties, is the idea i have that we need a "ball hawk", capers system relies on turnovers, int's mostly

we got none from our safeties last year. byrd gives you int's. ward does not (5 int's in 4 years), whitner (10 int's in 8 seasons)and clemons (4 int's in 5 years)really don't give you that. mitchell had 4 last year, but only 2 int's in his first 4 seasons as a pro, which guy is he?

i don't know what the hell burnett is, he's not a ballhawk, he's not a cover guy. we drafted him to be a SS to play along collins, but he's not really physical, or a great tackler.

i mean, any of the guys you listed would be improvements over either of our safeties, but are they what we really need?


http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000289608/article/earl-thomas-jairus-byrd-top-list-of-nfls-best-safeties

Earl Thomas, Jairus Byrd top list of NFL's best safeties

By Chris Wesseling ... Around the League Writer

Earl Thomas, Jairus Byrd top list of NFL's best safeties

" Top shelf: Earl Thomas, Jairus Byrd, T.J. Ward, Devin McCourty, Eric Berry

Next level: Eric Weddle, Troy Polamalu, Donte Whitner, Glover Quin, Louis Delmas, LaRon Landry, Kam Chancellor

Solid starters: Duke Ihenacho, Antrel Rolle, Dashon Goldson, Chris Clemons, Charles Woodson, James Ihedigbo, Reggie Nelson, Steve Gregory, Barry Church, Morgan Burnett, Matt Elam

Best of the rest: William Moore, Thomas DeCoud, Malcolm Jenkins, Michael Griffin, Bernard Pollard, Will Hill, Antoine Bethea, George Iloka, Aaron Williams, Rahim Moore, Ryan Clark, Kendrick Lewis, Michael Mitchell, Marcus Gilchrist, Ryan Mundy, Reshad Jones, Tashaun Gipson, M.D. Jennings, Yeremiah Bell, Ed Reed "

Published: Nov. 29, 2013 at 09:58 a.m. ... Updated: Nov. 29, 2013 at 02:46 p.m.

[woodbuck27]

http://fansided.com/2014/03/11/2014-nfl-free-agency-best-available-safeties/#!zjOlG

On Tuesday afternoon 11 March, 2014, the NFL free agency period officially opens and teams around the league will be able to sign the players who are available on the open market.

Here are a number of safeties that will be available:

1.) Jairus Byrd, 2013 Team: Buffalo Bills

2.) TJ Ward, 2013 Team: Cleveland Browns

3.) Donte Whitner, 2013 Team: San Francisco 49ers

4.) Chris Clemons, 2013 team Miami Dolphins

5.) Louis Delmais , 2013 team Detroit Lions (signed a 1 year 3.5 Million $ deal with the Miami Dolphins.)

6.) Malcolm Jenkins , 2013 team N. O. Saints

7.) Stevie Brown , 2013 team New York Giants

8.) Michael Mitchell, 2013 team Carolina Panthers

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MitcMi99.htm

9.) Nate Allen, 2013 team Philadelphia Eagles

10. Major Wright, 2013 team

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/W/WrigMa99.htm

11.) Charles Woodson, 2013 team Oakland Raiders

[3irty1]

I'd say the Capers system should produce a lot of opportunities for turnovers compared to the average because its a fire blitz heavy scheme. The whole no interceptions thing for safeties is as much about the lack of opportunities as it was a criticism of their shitty play. Now I don't think the defense is meant to "rely" on ints unless you think the Capers defense was running exactly the way he intended in 2011. That secondary picked off a shitload of passes with Burnett and Peprah as safeties. I don't think its the safest assumption to consider all Burnett's past seasons as the outliers rather than 2013 when judging him as a player either. Burnett got that contract by looking like a player on his way to being one of the best in the league. We have little choice but to hope he bounces back but its not exactly unlikely either.

I think if you get someone who can be trusted to cover more than a deep half or third and not hemorrhage yards like Jennings, McMillian, and Peprah you've solved the biggest problem back there. As far as ball skills if a guy can make a routine play look routine then anything more is icing on the cake.

[bobblehead]

I would gladly take 4 out of the first 6 if's. I think that is reasonable.

[bobblehead]

if TT and M3 decided that capers, perry and whitt were not the reason for our secondary being so horrible, then its on the player, so we better be working hard to fix the problems

lets sum it up

capers- not the problem
perry-not the problem
whitt- not the problem
shields-not the problem
tramon- not the problem
hyde- not the problem
hayward-didn't play, but not considered to be the problem
house- not great, but not bad for your #5 cb
bush- see above, but for #6 cb
burnett- a problem that we can't get rid of, but people think he can work with a better safety partner
jennings- a big problem, needs to be replaced

so, looking at that, we just have one problem that can either be fixed by FA or by drafting one

is one safety really the only problem we have with our secondary?

NO, at least not last year. Raji didn't disrupt, Picket had trouble holding the anchor, Jones/Hawk didn't get off blocks when Picket/Raji didn't gobble up blockers. We need better play all around, and while I have hopes that this D can take a step in the right direction, I don't believe for a second a safety is the biggest panacea ever.

Have you ever changed your water pump and had a hose leak? You don't see every weak spot in your coolant system, only the weakest one because it leaks. When you shore that up, the next weakest spot may prove that it isn't strong enough to handle fully operational pressure. That is my fear with replacing the safety is we might just find out how bad our MLB really are.

[bobblehead]

I'd say the Capers system should produce a lot of opportunities for turnovers compared to the average because its a fire blitz heavy scheme. The whole no interceptions thing for safeties is as much about the lack of opportunities as it was a criticism of their shitty play. Now I don't think the defense is meant to "rely" on ints unless you think the Capers defense was running exactly the way he intended in 2011. That secondary picked off a shitload of passes with Burnett and Peprah as safeties. I don't think its the safest assumption to consider all Burnett's past seasons as the outliers rather than 2013 when judging him as a player either. Burnett got that contract by looking like a player on his way to being one of the best in the league. We have little choice but to hope he bounces back but its not exactly unlikely either.

I think if you get someone who can be trusted to cover more than a deep half or third and not hemorrhage yards like Jennings, McMillian, and Peprah you've solved the biggest problem back there. As far as ball skills if a guy can make a routine play look routine then anything more is icing on the cake.

I disagree about Burnett's deal. I believe he got that deal because he was always "available" (prior to last years beginning). TT and MM seem to really like guys who are always there (see Hawk, AJ).

[bobblehead]

6.) Malcolm Jenkins , 2013 team N. O. Saints



Let me widdle this list down a bit. This is a TT signing. Malcom, I think, was a cb in college, made a good transition, the saints can't possibly offer him anything, he is down the list due to a good FA market, and must be about 26/27 years old.

[3irty1]

That might be an excuse not to expend big resources on a shiny new safety but the position must still be addressed. That secondary plays a lot worse than the sum of its parts yet we have to pay for the parts ala carte. I'm not asking for a new water pump, I want some duct tape so I stop pissing coolant on the ground and my new $39 million dollar radiator, $26 million dollar heating core, and old $33 million dollar thermostat can do what I paid for long enough to get me through a season.

[bobblehead]

That might be an excuse not to expend big resources on a shiny new safety but the position must still be addressed. That secondary plays a lot worse than the sum of its parts yet we have to pay for the parts ala carte. I'm not asking for a new water pump, I want some duct tape so I stop pissing coolant on the ground and my new $39 million dollar radiator, $26 million dollar heating core, and old $33 million dollar thermostat can do what I paid for long enough to get me through a season.

I tried that....blew a head gasket :(

[red]

I disagree about Burnett's deal. I believe he got that deal because he was always "available" (prior to last years beginning). TT and MM seem to really like guys who are always there (see Hawk, AJ).

agreed. at no point have i ever though that burnett looked like a future star, at best i thought he could be a decent starter, nothing more

[Patler]

I disagree about Burnett's deal. I believe he got that deal because he was always "available" (prior to last years beginning). TT and MM seem to really like guys who are always there (see Hawk, AJ).

The 12 games he missed as a rookie didn't count?

[3irty1]

Also its good enough for Burnett but not Raji?

[Bossman641]

In the offseason I let the "ifs" fly. If Sherrod and Bulaga come back healthy and Tretter is the answer at center, we will have an unbelievable OL.

[red]

i'd like to know why anyone thinks tretter is the answer at center?

have we ever even seen him play the position, even in pre season? or are we just taking the coaches word that they think he could make a good center?

[Smidgeon]

i'd like to know why anyone thinks tretter is the answer at center?

have we ever even seen him play the position, even in pre season? or are we just taking the coaches word that they think he could make a good center?

Word around his draft was that he was a better Matt Birk prototype than Matt Birk was.

[red]

Word around his draft was that he was a better Matt Birk prototype than Matt Birk was.

he was a tackle in college, who many thought would have to move to guard, who the hell was comparing him to birk?

from what i can tell, all the optimism comes from this article

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/packers-rookie-tackle-jc-tretter-showing-skills-at-center-b99158059z1-234857661.html

where larry mac says he has "a long ways to go but has good knee bend"

the article also talks about how he could be a center because his body looks like a center

are we ready to hand over the starting center job to a guy who's never played there, and has only practiced at the position for a few weeks at the end of this season, when he was splitting time between center and guard?

the big thing i can find where people compare tretter to birk is the fact that they are both o-linemen that went to ivy league schools

[Smidgeon]

he was a tackle in college, who many thought would have to move to guard, who the hell was comparing him to birk?

from what i can tell, all the optimism comes from this article

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/packers-rookie-tackle-jc-tretter-showing-skills-at-center-b99158059z1-234857661.html

where larry mac says he has "a long ways to go but has good knee bend"

the article also talks about how he could be a center because his body looks like a center

are we ready to hand over the starting center job to a guy who's never played there, and has only practiced at the position for a few weeks at the end of this season, when he was splitting time between center and guard?

the big thing i can find where people compare tretter to birk is the fact that they are both o-linemen that went to ivy league schools

I remember the optimism regarding center from at least training camp if not long before. If I recall correctly, people were projecting him to center instead of guard, probably due to his Wonderlic.

[3irty1]

The Birk comparisons are because Birk was also a super athletic Ivy League tackle turned center. He's a former TE so you know he's got the hands for it as well. Also while both him and Rodgers were hurt last year they he got a golden opportunity to work with #12 for a couple of weeks before Rodgers was working with the number 1 offense again.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I'm guessing Tretter is a pretty good prospect. OCs don't get drafted very high because teams undervalue OCs, so one when one gets taken in the 4th round, he's usually a pretty good prospect--somewhat similar to when a FB or K gets taken that high. Word out of practice was he looked pretty good. We'll see. I'd like to get some veteran to compete with him.

[Patler]

McGinns work from the draft:


NFC scout: "One of the favorite guys I did this year. He was a late riser. He wasn't on my list until November. He played left tackle there. He has been the backup center, which he doesn't practice. He's an inside player. He is very athletic. Very smart and very tough. He could go as high as the third round, but you get him in the fourth you're getting a bargain. He will start at an interior position. I would work him at center right away. His strength isn't bad. He's not overwhelming but he's not a guy who's going to lose on strength. And he's only going to get better now that you've got him in an NFL system and he's not going to Ivy League classes all day long."

AFC scout: "He's a good developmental guy. I see him as a fourth- or fifth-round guy. Good up side."

AFC scout: "He's all right. I think he's a center but he never played there. He was a left tackle. He was a quarterback in high school. He's way better than (Greg) Van Roten."

AFC scout: "He actually has some ability. He's not a bad player, he really isn't. Mid-to-late rounds. He is physical."

Read more from Journal Sentinel: http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/what-scouts-say-s29n656-204799811.html#ixzz2vhPPCZST
Follow us: @JournalSentinel on Twitter

[red]

alright, alright

[bobblehead]

The 12 games he missed as a rookie didn't count?

No. In true statistical fashion I chose the sample that started immediately after that and thus fit my story best. TT has a lousy playoff record in the last 3 years.

[pbmax]

MULTIPLE ENDPOINTS!

[mraynrand]

"You're a man haunted by those two most terrible words: What if?"
http://yeartwo.cinema52.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Time10.jpg