Joey Porter

[texaspackerbacker]

I'd sure like to see the Packers get him in a trade. He's holding out for the Steelers. Supposedly they want a first rounder - which we don't have - for him. Hopefully Gutekunst can work some magic and get him. Would they then get damn Keisan Nixon off the field? I hope so. It would be a damn shame if they still started Keisan and replaced Cisse.

[Vincenzo]

LOL Tex, you are a scream as we Irish would say.

A few weeks ago you predicted 13-4 at worse for our Packers -
I thought you were either crazy, but later thought you could be dyslexic, so then came to understand that you were thinking 4-13.

[texaspackerbacker]

I'll double down on 13-4. Actually, I think I picked 15-2, which I also wouldn't back away from.

Your screen name is a disgrace to the Great One.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

I'd sure like to see the Packers get him in a trade. He's holding out for the Steelers. Supposedly they want a first rounder - which we don't have - for him. Hopefully Gutekunst can work some magic and get him. Would they then get damn Keisan Nixon off the field? I hope so. It would be a damn shame if they still started Keisan and replaced Cisse.

I would love to see Porter in the Forest Green and Mustard Yellow.

Given that there are starting 3 corner spots (two outsiders and the slot), Cisse ain’t getting replaced in the lineup unless he starts stinking like cigarette smoke or gets injured.

[Fritz]

I think the Packers' needs go beyond what Porter could do for them. Now, if you said there was an offensive guard out there who was holding out and could be had for a reasonable draft pick, I'd say hell yeah.

[bobblehead]

Can Porter play OL??

[texaspackerbacker]

Corner is the only Packer weakness that makes a significant difference. O Line? Hell no. We have won there with mediocrity for decades and will continue to do so. Tucker Kraft could have filled in at Tackle, and the only way we would have been worse would have been missing him at TE.The manic caring about O Line in hear is just plain irrational.

Replacing Keisan Nixon with Porter or some other solution is the key to increased success.

[Fritz]

Boy, Tex, having the evidence thrown right in your face doesn't even matter to you, does it? That offensive line is causing the entire offense to bog down, period. It's affected Love's play, the play of the running backs, and the play of the tight ends and receivers. It forces LeFleur to narrow his game plan to protect Love. It messes everything up. Period.

[texaspackerbacker]

No no no, Fritz. You're still seeing it wrong. LaFleur's run first playcalling is a problem in itself. If he does less of it due to O Line mediocrity, that's a good thing. Mostly, though, I think less runs, less successful runs is because of Jacobs not being there.

As for the importance of O Line and comparison to the Bears - which some or many think we lose that comparison, the damn Bears scored 3 points and got their QB hurt (maybe not the line's fault) against the Vikings that we Love got 387 yards against in the game that the refs stole from us. Yes, something needed to be done against the extreme blitzing we saw at the end of the Vikings game, but in general, Love's mobility lessens the need for good line blocking - same as we saw for so many years with Rodgers.

Did the offense bog down in the game we won against the Jets? Maybe some. I'd give the O line some blame for that, but mostly it was ultra-cautious playcalling and ball control by the opponent, And the fact that we won the game makes it hard to argue against the playcalling. Did LaFleur call plays that way out of necessity, or just because that's his way of doing things?

If good or non-mediocre O Line play meant so much, the Packers woulda been a distinctly sub-.500 team for pretty much all of the last thirty plus years.