Rebuilding the OL, again

[rbaloha1]

Yes, Colledge has problems with stunts but also gets overpowered at the point of attack.

Colledge should not be resigned.

[Partial]

But I've seen the same thing Fritz has -- our OL guys being walked, no run, right back in to Rodgers' lap. We seem especially weak in dealing with bull rushes, which is unfortunate given the number of big strong men who play defense in the NFL.

[wist43]

Surprised on your Colledge take ND; the only time we saw him at LT he was a nightmare this year

But he played there last year and did pretty good. I think if we moved him to tackle, even if he sits next year, it pays off. Like I said, not a big contract, make it worth something if he contributes.

As far as Teddy going to sign some big time FA.....who knows who will actually become a FA next year, and none of us know how the whole uncapped deal will work out.

I think that speaks to what Colledge actually is - wildly inconsistent. Probably always will be... he was a major headcase in his rookie camp; seemed to grow up a bit; but has really done nothing with opportunity in front of him.

Right now, this is just a bad OL all the way around.

[Smidgeon]

Classy to pick and choose data. Naturally we entered the season with those players as starters.

Make your own list if you want to compare the starters who started the season. I didn't put Brady Poppinga in there either for 2009. I chose to present who's been starting (or did start) most of the season at that position.

[Smidgeon]

From a rebuilding argument you can't take injuries into account. You've got to go with the talent the team was given in the beginning of the season. Also I think you've got to compare 3-4 DE's to 4-3 DT's and 4-3 DE's to 3-4 OLBs.

You look at how we now have Woodson instead of Carroll and laugh but the 2005 secondary was excellent. Harris's best year IMO. KGB while not fully suck and Kampman in his prime is more pass rush than we have now. We're certainly better off against the run now.

On offense we're worse on the line certainly as we've not been able to replace our old pro-bowl tackles who are starting to break down. Despite DD getting older and no longer having Walker I'd say were better at WR although not by much. We're much better at TE. We're about the same at RB. And if you assume that Brett Favre was at least as good then as he is now we were better at QB although I don't believe this.

I'd take 2009 Favre over 2005 Favre. They are two different players. Partial makes a good point IMO. Some very important areas of the team have dropped off. The 2005 line was good enough to make Samkon Gado a star. Weird to think about now. Also we have a worse pass rush.

There was no way the 2005 secondary was excellent with Grabby McFlag aka Ahmad Carroll starting back there. I happen to think Al Harris has gotten better since then.

I agree that the 2005 pass rush was better.

In general, I think BF is better (as he's proven over the course of his career), but in this instance, 2005 was his worst year as a QB when you look at QB rating. He threw 29 interceptions to 20 touchdowns. AR is on pace for 32 touchdowns and 10 interceptions. Say he only gets 25 and 15: I'd still say that taking this one year to one year comparison that AR is playing better.

[Fritz]

Surprised on your Colledge take ND; the only time we saw him at LT he was a nightmare this year

But he played there last year and did pretty good. I think if we moved him to tackle, even if he sits next year, it pays off. Like I said, not a big contract, make it worth something if he contributes.

As far as Teddy going to sign some big time FA.....who knows who will actually become a FA next year, and none of us know how the whole uncapped deal will work out.

I think that speaks to what Colledge actually is - wildly inconsistent. Probably always will be... he was a major headcase in his rookie camp; seemed to grow up a bit; but has really done nothing with opportunity in front of him.

Right now, this is just a bad OL all the way around.

I would think this must be driving the coaches Nuts. Deputy Nutz. He looks like an NFL guard for a while, then he looks like Don Knotts. WTF?

[retailguy]

I think there is more to look at than just phyiscal play. There have been so many blown assignments and missed calls it is pathetic. The coaching and fundamentals both mentally and physically is a huge disappointment and it is the right thing to do to blame the coaching staff, you have to be able to coach up young players and even veterans.

I am very down on this coaching staff as a whole so I am going to reserve judgement on the offensive line at this point because who really knows where the talent is, if there is any at all.

I think Tony Moll is proof that there is talent on the line. He'll never be a pro bowler, but has played relatively well in Baltimore. That is what has me down on the coaching staff. What did Baltimore see that we missed?

That guy was horribly inconsistent here, and has played consistently there in Baltimore. That HAS to be coaching. You could make a little argument that he'd rather be in Balt. than here, but if that's the case, then why?

[Scott Campbell]

There was no way the 2005 secondary was excellent with Grabby McFlag aka Ahmad Carroll starting back there.

That guy had two of the funniest nicknames in Packer History:

Grabby Smurf
Highway 24

[3irty1]

From a rebuilding argument you can't take injuries into account. You've got to go with the talent the team was given in the beginning of the season. Also I think you've got to compare 3-4 DE's to 4-3 DT's and 4-3 DE's to 3-4 OLBs.

You look at how we now have Woodson instead of Carroll and laugh but the 2005 secondary was excellent. Harris's best year IMO. KGB while not fully suck and Kampman in his prime is more pass rush than we have now. We're certainly better off against the run now.

On offense we're worse on the line certainly as we've not been able to replace our old pro-bowl tackles who are starting to break down. Despite DD getting older and no longer having Walker I'd say were better at WR although not by much. We're much better at TE. We're about the same at RB. And if you assume that Brett Favre was at least as good then as he is now we were better at QB although I don't believe this.

I'd take 2009 Favre over 2005 Favre. They are two different players. Partial makes a good point IMO. Some very important areas of the team have dropped off. The 2005 line was good enough to make Samkon Gado a star. Weird to think about now. Also we have a worse pass rush.

There was no way the 2005 secondary was excellent with Grabby McFlag aka Ahmad Carroll starting back there. I happen to think Al Harris has gotten better since then.

I agree that the 2005 pass rush was better.

In general, I think BF is better (as he's proven over the course of his career), but in this instance, 2005 was his worst year as a QB when you look at QB rating. He threw 29 interceptions to 20 touchdowns. AR is on pace for 32 touchdowns and 10 interceptions. Say he only gets 25 and 15: I'd still say that taking this one year to one year comparison that AR is playing better.

That secondary was ranked 5th.

[Smidgeon]

That secondary was ranked 5th.

What was the run defense ranked that year?

[ThunderDan]

From a rebuilding argument you can't take injuries into account. You've got to go with the talent the team was given in the beginning of the season. Also I think you've got to compare 3-4 DE's to 4-3 DT's and 4-3 DE's to 3-4 OLBs.

You look at how we now have Woodson instead of Carroll and laugh but the 2005 secondary was excellent. Harris's best year IMO. KGB while not fully suck and Kampman in his prime is more pass rush than we have now. We're certainly better off against the run now.

On offense we're worse on the line certainly as we've not been able to replace our old pro-bowl tackles who are starting to break down. Despite DD getting older and no longer having Walker I'd say were better at WR although not by much. We're much better at TE. We're about the same at RB. And if you assume that Brett Favre was at least as good then as he is now we were better at QB although I don't believe this.

I'd take 2009 Favre over 2005 Favre. They are two different players. Partial makes a good point IMO. Some very important areas of the team have dropped off. The 2005 line was good enough to make Samkon Gado a star. Weird to think about now. Also we have a worse pass rush.

There was no way the 2005 secondary was excellent with Grabby McFlag aka Ahmad Carroll starting back there. I happen to think Al Harris has gotten better since then.

I agree that the 2005 pass rush was better.

In general, I think BF is better (as he's proven over the course of his career), but in this instance, 2005 was his worst year as a QB when you look at QB rating. He threw 29 interceptions to 20 touchdowns. AR is on pace for 32 touchdowns and 10 interceptions. Say he only gets 25 and 15: I'd still say that taking this one year to one year comparison that AR is playing better.

That secondary was ranked 5th.

Sorry, 3irty1. No one had to throw the ball against the Pack because they could run it all day in 2005.

[3irty1]

From a rebuilding argument you can't take injuries into account. You've got to go with the talent the team was given in the beginning of the season. Also I think you've got to compare 3-4 DE's to 4-3 DT's and 4-3 DE's to 3-4 OLBs.

You look at how we now have Woodson instead of Carroll and laugh but the 2005 secondary was excellent. Harris's best year IMO. KGB while not fully suck and Kampman in his prime is more pass rush than we have now. We're certainly better off against the run now.

On offense we're worse on the line certainly as we've not been able to replace our old pro-bowl tackles who are starting to break down. Despite DD getting older and no longer having Walker I'd say were better at WR although not by much. We're much better at TE. We're about the same at RB. And if you assume that Brett Favre was at least as good then as he is now we were better at QB although I don't believe this.

I'd take 2009 Favre over 2005 Favre. They are two different players. Partial makes a good point IMO. Some very important areas of the team have dropped off. The 2005 line was good enough to make Samkon Gado a star. Weird to think about now. Also we have a worse pass rush.

There was no way the 2005 secondary was excellent with Grabby McFlag aka Ahmad Carroll starting back there. I happen to think Al Harris has gotten better since then.

I agree that the 2005 pass rush was better.

In general, I think BF is better (as he's proven over the course of his career), but in this instance, 2005 was his worst year as a QB when you look at QB rating. He threw 29 interceptions to 20 touchdowns. AR is on pace for 32 touchdowns and 10 interceptions. Say he only gets 25 and 15: I'd still say that taking this one year to one year comparison that AR is playing better.

That secondary was ranked 5th.

Sorry, 3irty1. No one had to throw the ball against the Pack because they could run it all day in 2005.

I take it back they were 1st against the pass. 23rd against the run. 19th in scoring.

[Waldo]

From a rebuilding argument you can't take injuries into account. You've got to go with the talent the team was given in the beginning of the season. Also I think you've got to compare 3-4 DE's to 4-3 DT's and 4-3 DE's to 3-4 OLBs.

You look at how we now have Woodson instead of Carroll and laugh but the 2005 secondary was excellent. Harris's best year IMO. KGB while not fully suck and Kampman in his prime is more pass rush than we have now. We're certainly better off against the run now.

On offense we're worse on the line certainly as we've not been able to replace our old pro-bowl tackles who are starting to break down. Despite DD getting older and no longer having Walker I'd say were better at WR although not by much. We're much better at TE. We're about the same at RB. And if you assume that Brett Favre was at least as good then as he is now we were better at QB although I don't believe this.

I'd take 2009 Favre over 2005 Favre. They are two different players. Partial makes a good point IMO. Some very important areas of the team have dropped off. The 2005 line was good enough to make Samkon Gado a star. Weird to think about now. Also we have a worse pass rush.

There was no way the 2005 secondary was excellent with Grabby McFlag aka Ahmad Carroll starting back there. I happen to think Al Harris has gotten better since then.

I agree that the 2005 pass rush was better.

In general, I think BF is better (as he's proven over the course of his career), but in this instance, 2005 was his worst year as a QB when you look at QB rating. He threw 29 interceptions to 20 touchdowns. AR is on pace for 32 touchdowns and 10 interceptions. Say he only gets 25 and 15: I'd still say that taking this one year to one year comparison that AR is playing better.

That secondary was ranked 5th.

Sorry, 3irty1. No one had to throw the ball against the Pack because they could run it all day in 2005.

I take it back they were 1st against the pass. 23rd against the run. 19th in scoring.

Yards is a stupid measure for defense.

They were 22nd in TD's given up
They were 25th in passer rating agaisnt
They were 13th in passing YPA
They were 26th in interceptions
They were 16th in 1st down %
They were 20th in sacks
They were 1st in the volume of yards given up

They were not effective at stopping the pass. It was so easy to run, that passing was pointless. Hence they hardly gave up any yards. When opponents did pass, our pass defense sucked.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I think there is more to look at than just phyiscal play. There have been so many blown assignments and missed calls it is pathetic. The coaching and fundamentals both mentally and physically is a huge disappointment and it is the right thing to do to blame the coaching staff, you have to be able to coach up young players and even veterans.

I am very down on this coaching staff as a whole so I am going to reserve judgement on the offensive line at this point because who really knows where the talent is, if there is any at all.

I think Tony Moll is proof that there is talent on the line. He'll never be a pro bowler, but has played relatively well in Baltimore. That is what has me down on the coaching staff. What did Baltimore see that we missed?

That guy was horribly inconsistent here, and has played consistently there in Baltimore. That HAS to be coaching. You could make a little argument that he'd rather be in Balt. than here, but if that's the case, then why?

Well, this folks is why we all love Retail. He has played relatively well. He has played consistently there in baltimore.

Sounds reasonable. Seems like RG is actually watching the games. We might wonder how many games he has watched? Surely he has seen some. Right?

He wouldn't be pulling this out of his ass would he?

Wk 1: Moll inactive
Wk 2: Moll inactive
Wk 4: Moll inactive
Wk 7: Moll inactive
Wk 8: Moll inactive

http://www.nfl.com/inactives?team=BAL

[SnakeLH2006]

Yes, Colledge has problems with stunts but also gets overpowered at the point of attack.

Colledge should not be resigned.

Amen.