TT as GM. What's w/ the OL and DL lines? Just Atrocious.....

[retailguy]

I think Bobblehead nailed it. They were inconsistent, but never together. I never thought they were all in sync at the same time.

I am not a fan of this line, at all, but I will concede that every single one of them flashed brilliance last year. If they could do that together? then I might forget about the last good line Green Bay had.

[Patler]

McCarren mentioned that during a broadcast last year, that on too many plays someone screwed up, but not being the same "someone" each time it couldn't be fixed by replacing a player.

So, does that make it a coaching issue, or a thick-skulled player issue?

[rbaloha1]

IMO TT has done a good job of rebuilding lines to meet the schemes. The o-line is blessed with big, young and athletic linemen capable of reaching the second level in the zbs scheme. A slight concern is pass protection though.

The d-line is also blessed with young talent. Raji and Harrell are two young athletic wrecking balls which should make it difficult to run against the Packers.

[Waldo]

McCarren mentioned that during a broadcast last year, that on too many plays someone screwed up, but not being the same "someone" each time it couldn't be fixed by replacing a player.

So, does that make it a coaching issue, or a thick-skulled player issue?

It's tough because on the flipside, when you watch GB's OL from a technical POV, the front line starters are all very good. If you switch coaches from one to another, are you gaining anything by bringing in a coach that has his guys playing more focused and making less errors, but poor at teaching technique?

[retailguy]

McCarren mentioned that during a broadcast last year, that on too many plays someone screwed up, but not being the same "someone" each time it couldn't be fixed by replacing a player.

So, does that make it a coaching issue, or a thick-skulled player issue?

Not sure. I guess I'd say both.

I'm of the belief that you don't make it to the NFL without enough talent to succeed. That leaves coaching and desire.

You guys see different things in Colledge than I ever have. I have never really been a fan of the guy, and have always believed he's a better tackle than guard.

Spitz is definitely a better center than guard, but I like Wells too. I don't see the need to get rid of him, and don't see upside with Spitz there, even if he's a better center than guard.

I also think Wells did an admirable job filling in at guard in 2005. Not an all pro, surely, but better than some of the backups were. (I'm largely alone in this viewpoint.)

[Waldo]

You guys see different things in Colledge than I ever have. I have never really been a fan of the guy, and have always believed he's a better tackle than guard.

I used to think that, but Colledge has gotten pretty darn good at doing some G tasks.

The guy always gets push. No matter who is in front of him, Colledge crosses the line of scrimmage. He is very reliable to sneak behind. This is a pretty much a trait that matter more to a G than anybody else.

He's really good at sealing the big hogs himself. When it is him vs. a DT and his task to seal a hole open instead of trying to blow open a closed hole, he can beat any DT. Several times he knocked phat Pat around himself, and prevented Pat from getting involved in the play. He does not struggle with size at all when his task is to keep open a hole. Again a trait that becomes largely wasted at T.

And he is one of the most dominant 2nd level blockers you will find. He has said it before, since he's moved to G, he says he enjoys G more than T because he gets the chance to maul linebackers. When the rest of our guys get to the second level they just stand around like "uhhhhhh"where they are supposed to be, sometimes oblivious to threats to the play. DC goes and starts throwing guys to the ground, and seems to be always be looking for someone to hit, even if they aren't in his zone. He's so athletic that LB's can't use their speed to get around/away from him. Again, a G trait that is largely wasted were he to move to T.

[Patler]

You guys see different things in Colledge than I ever have. I have never really been a fan of the guy, and have always believed he's a better tackle than guard.

I used to think that, but Colledge has gotten pretty darn good at doing some G tasks.

Last year at this time I fully expected that Barbre take the starting job away from Colledge, who was very inconsistent his first two seasons, and when he was bad he was very conspicuously bad. I was disappointed when Barbre never rose to the challenge, and I went into 2008 expecting Spitz to be the better guard from a performance aspect even though Colledge seemed to have the higher potential.

When Colledge started playing better, I thought "just wait, it won't last". But it did last. His "what the heck?" plays, like getting beat on a pass rush without ever touching the guy, which happened somewhat regularly in the past, became less frequent. He had a couple in the first half of the season, not so much in the second half. More importantly, with more frequency I found myself saying "who was that?" after a good play, and realizing it was Colledge.

Slowly and somewhat begrudgingly I accepted that he was getting better. The funny thing is, I remembered that I felt the same way about Wahle early in his career. He struggled a lot for the first two seasons that he played, and like with Colledge, some thought Wahle should be a tackle. When they tried him there he failed miserably. He started catching on during his third season starting, and got better and better for several years. I could see Colledge following a similar path.

[cheesner]

You guys see different things in Colledge than I ever have. I have never really been a fan of the guy, and have always believed he's a better tackle than guard.

I used to think that, but Colledge has gotten pretty darn good at doing some G tasks.

Last year at this time I fully expected that Barbre take the starting job away from Colledge, who was very inconsistent his first two seasons, and when he was bad he was very conspicuously bad. I was disappointed when Barbre never rose to the challenge, and I went into 2008 expecting Spitz to be the better guard from a performance aspect even though Colledge seemed to have the higher potential.

When Colledge started playing better, I thought "just wait, it won't last". But it did last. His "what the heck?" plays, like getting beat on a pass rush without ever touching the guy, which happened somewhat regularly in the past, became less frequent. He had a couple in the first half of the season, not so much in the second half. More importantly, with more frequency I found myself saying "who was that?" after a good play, and realizing it was Colledge.

Slowly and somewhat begrudgingly I accepted that he was getting better. The funny thing is, I remembered that I felt the same way about Wahle early in his career. He struggled a lot for the first two seasons that he played, and like with Colledge, some thought Wahle should be a tackle. When they tried him there he failed miserably. He started catching on during his third season starting, and got better and better for several years. I could see Colledge following a similar path.

The parallels between Colledge and Wahle are interesting. I hope it continues and I believe it will with Colledge improving to elite status this season.

The reason some fans refuse to believe Colledge is actually good:

1. They get stuck on generalities. They see a few bad plays and it sticks with them.

2. They just hate to admit that TT did something positive.

3. Issues are discussed on this board and when typed long enough, it becomes accepted as fact even if it was an extreme exaggeration to begin with. After MM's first game as HC someone posted that he looked like a deer caught in the headlights on the sidelines. I saw others post the same opinion for months later. Even though I rewatched that first game, there was no such 'stupid confused look' ever on MM's face. Yet, it got accepted by some as fact.

[Patler]

3. Issues are discussed on this board and when typed long enough, it becomes accepted as fact even if it was an extreme exaggeration to begin with.

You mean like the facetious comment on here about the player (who shall not be named) that fell so far so fast on the depth chart, that a poster jokingly suggested he must have punched a coach? Shortly thereafter, and ever since, people suggest he will be released, will not be re-signed or should get anger-management help because he punched a coach!

....or that Patler is an old fart who has been following the Packers since their inception! (I'm really in high school!)

[Waldo]

3. Issues are discussed on this board and when typed long enough, it becomes accepted as fact even if it was an extreme exaggeration to begin with.

You mean like the facetious comment on here about the player (who shall not be named) that fell so far so fast on the depth chart, that a poster jokingly suggested he must have punched a coach? Shortly thereafter, and ever since, people suggest he will be released, will not be re-signed or should get anger-management help because he punched a coach!

....or that Patler is an old fart who has been following the Packers since their inception! (I'm really in high school!)

Seriously. Damn. You don't seem like it at all.

When I was in HS we were questioning this Wolf guy that overpayed ridiculously for this inconsistent QB. Sucked Don went down and tore up his shoulder because he was the bomb. I can remember the hype when we picked Tony. I don't know that a draft pick has ever carried that aura of hope in GB. Tony was touted as the safest pick and the best OL prospect ever. The team really didn't start getting good until my senior year. Prior to that they were the same mediocre team that they had been since I was a kid, that was right on the verge of the playoffs every year.

For how much we were said to be "saved" by Favre and Wolf, people act like it was immediate and dramatic, which was not the case, it wasn't until his 4th year (this is MM's 4th year) that we actually started to see signs of being better than the same mediocre team that flirted around .500 that we'd been since the mid 80's.

[HarveyWallbangers]

When I was in high school, Forrest Gregg was the coach and I rarely got to see the Packers.

[Scott Campbell]

3. Issues are discussed on this board and when typed long enough, it becomes accepted as fact even if it was an extreme exaggeration to begin with.

You mean like the facetious comment on here about the player (who shall not be named) that fell so far so fast on the depth chart, that a poster jokingly suggested he must have punched a coach? Shortly thereafter, and ever since, people suggest he will be released, will not be re-signed or should get anger-management help because he punched a coach!

Allen Barbre.

Who'd he punch anyway?

[Patler]

When I was in HS we were questioning this Wolf guy that overpayed ridiculously for this inconsistent QB. Sucked Don went down and tore up his shoulder because he was the bomb. I can remember the hype when we picked Tony. I don't know that a draft pick has ever carried that aura of hope in GB. Tony was touted as the safest pick and the best OL prospect ever. The team really didn't start getting good until my senior year. Prior to that they were the same mediocre team that they had been since I was a kid, that was right on the verge of the playoffs every year.

For how much we were said to be "saved" by Favre and Wolf, people act like it was immediate and dramatic, which was not the case, it wasn't until his 4th year (this is MM's 4th year) that we actually started to see signs of being better than the same mediocre team that flirted around .500 that we'd been since the mid 80's.

Ya, I remember all that. People couldn't wait for Mandarich to step onto the field and flatten some D-lineman. And what kind of idiot is running the show in GB now, giving up a 1st round pick for a QB drafted in the second round just a year before, a guy at the bottom of the depth chart in Atlanta?

We had a thread on here last fall (probably before you started participating) comparing Holmgren's and MM's first three seasons. You are right, people want to think that it was immediate success with Wolf & Holmgren, but it wasn't entirely. Three straight years at 9-7, seemed great at the time only because back to back winning seasons had not been heard of for a long time. But it wasn't clear if Holmgren would ever get them over the hump or not, or if they would ever be able to beat the really good teams in a meaningful game. There were questions about Homgren after three years, because the team wasn't "getting bettter".

The memories of Favre's early years are also quite inaccurate for a lot of people. He was both exciting and maddening. There were questions about whether he would ever truly master Holmgren's offense, or if he would even put in the study time to do it. He was hyper on the field, would look for Sharpe and take off running if he couldn't find him. A much different QB than he became down the road.

(BTW -I am honestly NOT old enough to have foll0wed ALL the Packer seasons! )

[Patler]

When I was in high school, Forrest Gregg was the coach and I rarely got to see the Packers.

...and I watched Forrest Gregg play for the Packers.

[Rastak]

When I was in high school, Forrest Gregg was the coach and I rarely got to see the Packers.

...and I watched Forrest Gregg play for the Packers.

I watched the very end of his career but was much more concerned about watching Eller and Page, Krause and Bobby Bryant. I don't recall much about the late 60's Packers, just when Brockington and Lane were the dynamic duo in the early 70's.