Packers Host Kevin Zeitler On Free Agent Visit

[run pMc]

OL matters. Finding vets who are replacement level at G isn't usually that difficult. Tackles are a different story, and recent pipeline of college C's hasn't been all that great.
All the same, this is pretty wild swing by Gute to bring in a lot of old players. Even if they get enough to stick to the wall this season, I have to think there will be big changes re: OL this off season.

[Joemailman]

The one-year deal signed by veteran right guard Kevin Zeitler with the Green Bay Packers will pay $4 million as a base total and up to $5 million overall in 2026, per Ian Rapoport of NFL Network.

The minimum base salary for a player with Zeitler's experience is $1,300,000. The rest of the contract is likely a signing bonus and per-game roster bonuses, plus incentives that can push the total value to $5 million.

[texaspackerbacker]

I'm glad that Zeitler was relatively cheap at least. Time sure flies - 14 years since he was a Badger. Now they're gonna snap back to some semblance of what the Packers should play like, and the O Line-ophiles will be saying we told you so hahahaha. I'll just be happy if we get back to consistent winning.

I say again, though, the biggest problem in the Atlanta game was that the D turned to shit - shockingly and suddenly IMO. Fritz and others, you seriously would dispute that?

The O Line got overwhelmed for 5 minutes or so at the end of the Vikings game, and we couldn't run much in any of the games, probably more because of mediocre RBs than the O Line. Our O Line was not significantly better all last season when we were 9-3 at one point and we had Josh Jacobs carrying the ball. Last year too, the shitstorm came when the D failed - Parsons, Wyatt, etc. gone.

Fritz, good you're reading and soaking up my posts. Yes, I don't see much relevance in O Line. A perceived "good" O Line 1. won't win games without high quality skilled players and 2. will get a lot of undeserved praise and overrating because of those skilled players - obviously the old sacred cow, Bakhtiari but also APB's snow white fantastic five. O Line makes very little difference on the good side of things. On the bad side of things, the only time in many decades when it was so bad that it made a difference was when Marshall House was in the lineup.

The current group may approach that House threshold, especially Monk and maybe Jennings, but replacing them with slight upgrades isn't IMO gonna make much difference. It can't hurt getting a former Badger, and I sorta like the idea of a 360 pounder (slimmed down maybe to 345 hahahaha).

It will all be meaningless, though, if we let teams that couldn't do shit in other games run wild on our D and take advantage of our Corners - THAT is where they maybe should be upgrading.

[MadScientist]

Marshmallow Newhouse was bad as a Packer, though he wound up with a decent career. He'd still be a big upgrade over Burton or Monk. Burton isn't remotely ready and Monk doesn't deserve to be in the NFL. The difference between a good line and an average one is not as big as the difference between good and average skill players, but what the Packers put out on Thursday was historically bad. Bad enough that the difference between them and the Chargers line last year (rated as the worst in the league last year) is enough to override the difference between good skill players and bad skill players.

The defense stunk on Thursday, but maybe they would look better if the offense wasn't going 3 and out all the fucking time.

[Fritz]

Tex, what Mad said. The defense was constantly being put in bad positions, and in the offense-driven NFL, no defense can hold up for too long if the offense is going three-and-out all the time. The Packers are last in the league on offense in terms of drive times, averaging just over two minutes per drive. So the defense gets no rest, and because the offense doesn't move the ball, the opposing teams end up with good field position, over and over.

[pbmax]

Its more than a little ironic to espouse the view that skill position players are what makes the difference, then flat out deny that the protectors of that player are of little consequence in and of themselves.

Like Ron Wolf said, you can't put stumblebums in front of Favre and expect to succeed.

[Joemailman]

Tex on the offensive line:

6uoble.jpg

[texaspackerbacker]

Tex, what Mad said. The defense was constantly being put in bad positions, and in the offense-driven NFL, no defense can hold up for too long if the offense is going three-and-out all the time. The Packers are last in the league on offense in terms of drive times, averaging just over two minutes per drive. So the defense gets no rest, and because the offense doesn't move the ball, the opposing teams end up with good field position, over and over.

Just not a description of what happened on the field. From beginning to end - before any pattern of bad offense - Bijan was running wild/getting yardage at will. And in the passing game, I'd expect Keisan to play like shit, but Cisse didn't have a good game, Bullard didn't either. The disparity of possession time was at least as much because Atlanta was running it down our throat as it was due to bad offense. I wholeheartedly agree the offense needs to get better, but in the Atlanta game, the D was worse than the O.

If you want to say the O Line played like crap, yeah, I'll buy that. But that was true against the Jets also, and the D didn't fail miserably then. Ditto for most of the game against Minnesota.