Future looks bright

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

Good point about Sitton and the vet contracts MD. I agree that he can be re-signed and is likely to stay.


Regarding depth though, I can't say much about Schladeraff at this point, but I have seen enough of Newhouse to say that I think he needs more developing and is anything but established. I'm not sure that he's anything more than Giacomini. So far, what I've seen is soft and slow - a bad combination. I like Lang and McDonald. Lang's a brawler as is McDonald who also has great feet. Hopefully, all of the young guys will pan out, but that's probably optimistic to think that'll happen. Even if it does occur, there are at least 2 spots that remain unfilled for the future at this point.

I agree it is being somewhat optimistic, but you could say the same thing about the corner position last year. Al Harris was 36 and hurt, Woodson was getting older, Lee was always injured, and Williams had yet completed a whole season as a starter. All of a sudden Williams gets tons better, Shields comes out of nowhere, Woodson continues to amaze, Lee shows up in the superbowl, and we draft another guy in House. Now corner looks great moving forward. Corner looked to be in worse shape for the future this time last year than the o-line does right now. The o-line looks to have 3-4 young starters in place and only needs probably one other starter and a couple decent players for depth from being in great shape. Its hard to predict who will emerge, but they have been investing on the o-line a lot in recent years. I think we have enough (with Clifton and Wells still here) to get us through another year until draft day 2012.

[vince]

I agree that the starting o-line looks as good as it has in TT's time here, and Sherrod has promise to be a long-term stalwart at LT, but he could bust like John Michels too. I'm just taking a snapshot of who's under contract now and seeing the uncertainty.

In terms of guys currently under contract for any length of time beyond one year, which is the subject of this thread, I'm not sure how anyone can say there's depth on the o-line.

Optimistically you're looking at Sherrod (completely unproven) -- Lang -- McDonald (completely unproven) -- Sitton (not yet re-signed) -- Bulaga

Back-ups - Schladeraff, Newhouse and EDS - all completely unproven.

There are guys to fill the spots, every one of which except Bulaga is either completely unproven in the NFL or not under contract beyond this year. That can't be debated.

I agree with those who are bullish on Sherrod, Lang and McDonald - and with Sitton being re-upped, but you have to say there are a lot of serious questions there right now. I also agree with those who have confidence in TT to get the guys re-signed and to effectively evaluate the guys who are unproven and continue to round out the line.

[vince]

I agree it is being somewhat optimistic, but you could say the same thing about the corner position last year. Al Harris was 36 and hurt, Woodson was getting older, Lee was always injured, and Williams had yet completed a whole season as a starter. All of a sudden Williams gets tons better, Shields comes out of nowhere, Woodson continues to amaze, Lee shows up in the superbowl, and we draft another guy in House. Now corner looks great moving forward. Corner looked to be in worse shape for the future this time last year than the o-line does right now. The o-line looks to have 3-4 young starters in place and only needs probably one other starter and a couple decent players for depth from being in great shape. Its hard to predict who will emerge, but they have been investing on the o-line a lot in recent years. I think we have enough (with Clifton and Wells still here) to get us through another year until draft day 2012.

I'm with you in terms of having confidence in the future of this o-line and the young guys' development. I think the talent will prove out and TT will get his guys re-upped.

[Patler]

When you are looking at the O-line, you are looking at 45% of the starters on offense. Of course there will be one or two that need to re-signed. It will always be that way. There is only one old man to worry about replacing and that is Clifton, and there seem to be a lot of candidates to do that. As to younger guys like Sitton, it is likely that he will be resigned, or if he is let go it will be because TT is confident in a backup taking over, even if he is not as good as SItton. It doesn't appear there will be cap problems like in 2005 when TT had little choice but to let players go without replacements on hand.

In 2005 the Packers drafted 2 and 3rd round guards who were almost immediately penciled in as starters. In 2010 and 2011 first round draft picks were/are looked at as reserves coming into camp. Bulaga ended up becoming a starter, but he wasn't relied on to do that when drafted. I'm sure some of the young guys we have mentioned will not work out; but now they seem to be picking 10 for the roster from 12 or 13 capable/promising ones. Five and six years ago they were picking 10 for the roster from 8 capable ones and a bunch that nobody had much hope for.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

I just don't see Sitton going anywhere. The only mistake TT has ever publicly admitted to if I remember correctly is when he said he should I tried harder to keep Whale/Rivera. No way does he repeat the same mistake with Sitton. I am more concerned about losing Finely than Sitton to be honest. They are number one and two as far as players I think should be next to get new deals.

[Tarlam!]

I am more concerned about losing Finely than Sitton to be honest. They are number one and two as far as players I think should be next to get new deals.

I would challenge this. They wona SB without Finley for 2/3 rds of a season, got hot and stayed hot without him. Sitton helped in keeping Rodgers alive. The Packers have proven they can score with all sorts of TE, FB, WR. I think Sitton is far more valuable to the team. Admitedly, Finley is a great to have/ horror to play against kinda guy.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

I would challenge this. They wona SB without Finley for 2/3 rds of a season, got hot and stayed hot without him. Sitton helped in keeping Rodgers alive. The Packers have proven they can score with all sorts of TE, FB, WR. I think Sitton is far more valuable to the team. Admitedly, Finley is a great to have/ horror to play against kinda guy.

Actually for the most part I agree. I'm just saying the next two guys who I think should get extensions would be those two. Whether Sitton is more important than Finley is yet to be decided. Granted we functioned well without Finley, but he still could very well take our offense to a whole new level this year. If he is not the focus of the offense like he was the first four weeks of the season last year, I think that will actually make him more dangerous. When they are not keying in on him is when he'll take the offense to another level. I will say this, I think its a lot harder to find an eilte TE than an eilte guard. But if I had to choose who I think is more likely to get an extension, that would be Sitton.

[Tarlam!]

Whether Sitton is more important than Finley is yet to be decided.(...)I think its a lot harder to find an eilte TE than an eilte guard. But if I had to choose who I think is more likely to get an extension, that would be Sitton.

Well, I would ask you, what's more important, an upright Great QB that can throw to TDs to FB if need be, or an elite TE with a QB that can't get him the ball because your great QB had to retire early and aint throwing it anymore? I mean, I really don't know, but I saw someone post in Fritz's Suh thread that he'd line Sitton up over from anyone and likes Sitton's chances.

I love the Finley potential and I'm smacking my chops just thinking about it! The fact is, they've proven that they can go all the way without an elite TE. I must concede though, it was Rodgers' running that got him concussed so that he had to be replaced, that's not on the OL. Have at it. I'm as delighted as anyone about the overall situation capwise, playerwise, staffwise. I'm just paranoid about losing Rodgers, and ya gotta be thinking Flynn is gone after his contract is up. That's why my priorities differ. Pure paranoia!

[vince]

There is only one old man to worry about replacing and that is Clifton, and there seem to be a lot of candidates to do that.

Without getting into semantics of the term “worry,” the Packers have replaced Tauscher with Bulaga and Spitz with Sitton on the starting o-line from the last two years. Between now and the end of this season, it appears likely that they’ll need to replace Colledge, Wells and Clifton (not counting Sitton, who we assume will be re-upped). Ideally, there would be one, maybe two – preferably zero – guys along the line that needs to be re-signed or replaced in any year. Hopefully Sherrod, Lang and McDonald will be effective in replacing those three starters within the next year. I think they can. But they have virtually no experience to draw from – and that’s an unusually high amount of turnover in a short time.

Then the depth issue looking past this year and into the future as the thread suggests deals with who’s going to replace those inexperienced guys (who are now “depth”) when they join the starting lineup. There you’ve got

- EDS - undrafted guy who was previously cut by the Packers, then Seattle, the team with the worst line in the league
- a fifth-round first-year guy with a bad back,
- a couple undrafted practice squad guys, and
- a sixth-round rookie

Besides a few snaps a couple years ago by EDS, none of those guys have played a down in the league. I'm talking about getting to eight guys, not 10. The sixth-round rookie may well be the best of that bunch. Maybe he and others will pan out, but right now, you can’t call that any depth much less good depth – again, for the future. If any of the three new guys to the starting lineup OR any of the three guys replacing them falter, get injured, etc. that’s yet another guy that needs to be added. If any two of them falter, there's another.

I’ll be the first one to argue that inexperience doesn’t mean they won’t succeed. That’s what TT is paid to do and he’s the best in the business at it. I’m not suggesting TT hasn’t done a good job re-building the o-line. Even with the guys he’s added, it seems likely to me that he has more work to do on the o-line in the coming couple years than any other position group by far. I personally wouldn't want anyone else in the world in charge of getting it done.

[Patler]

Between now and the end of this season, it appears likely that they’ll need to replace Colledge, Wells and Clifton (not counting Sitton, who we assume will be re-upped).

Clifton, I agree will have to be replaced soon, if not during or after this season, then almost certainly by the end of 2012. But, they will not have to or need to replace Colledge or Wells unless they chose to. (I'm assuming both would be willing to return to GB if offered a fair contract.) I doubt that either will receive outlandish contracts like Wahle and Rivera received. The Packers should be able to retain one or both, and consequently should replace one or both only if they decide they have as good or potentially better players behind them. I think that is likely to happen with Colledge this year.

Ideally, there would be one, maybe two – preferably zero – guys along the line that needs to be re-signed or replaced in any year. Hopefully Sherrod, Lang and McDonald will be effective in replacing those three starters within the next year. I think they can. But they have virtually no experience to draw from – and that’s an unusually high amount of turnover in a short time.

Your preference for zero guys on the O-line needing to be resigned or replaced is not realistic. You are dealing with 45% of the offensive starters and about 40% of the entire offensive roster. Once in a while a player can be resigned early, but a team simply can not afford to do that with everyone. I think it was Belichick who pointed out that to be competitive with a salary cap in place means you have to have a few guys who are outplaying their contracts by a lot. The cap prevents you from paying everyone what they are worth. You can afford to do an early extension with some, while others like Sitton outplay their deals and go into the final year of their contracts needing to be resigned or replaced before the next season. That's all part of salary cap management. But it doesn't mean you have to lose them.

Then the depth issue looking past this year and into the future as the thread suggests deals with who’s going to replace those inexperienced guys (who are now “depth”) when they join the starting lineup. There you’ve got

I’ll be the first one to argue that inexperience doesn’t mean they won’t succeed. That’s what TT is paid to do and he’s the best in the business at it. I’m not suggesting TT hasn’t done a good job re-building the o-line. Even with the guys he’s added, it seems likely to me that he has more work to do on the o-line in the coming couple years than any other position group by far. I personally wouldn't want anyone else in the world in charge of getting it done.

I will be very surprised if they end up replacing as many guys as you suggest. If they do, it will be a good thing, because I think it will mean they have replaced then with players just as good but cheaper, thereby freeing money to use on others, or with players better than those replaced. Ideally those replacements will come from guys currently on the roster. However, the depth behind them in 2012 and 2013 is likely to come from guys not currently on the roster. I'm not at all concerned that all 5 backups this year be good enough two years from now. If a couple are, that will be enough along with the 2, 3 or 4 that TT will draft and/or sign over the next couple years. The 8-deep roster in 2013 will likely include at least one and maybe 2 or 3 guys not currently on the team.

[vince]

I am not saying that replacing Wells and/or Colledge is a bad thing. I think it would be a good thing actually. Colledge is frustratingly inconsistent, Spitz has not held up, and Wells is undersized, been beaten up for the better part of 8 years and is on the wrong side of 30. I'm hoping they're all replaced and it's reasonable to think there's a decent chance for them all to be replaced.

What I am saying is that replacing those guys eliminates the depth for the future along the line, which is what MD is assessing in the thread. Re-upping them is fine, but they haven't been signed yet. Only 1 of the 5 starting o-linemen are locked in for the future right now, and their back-ups have basically zero experience, and all but one of them have come from more or less off the scrapheap. Some of those guys become great linemen, and like you, I'm high on the future of guys like Sherrod, Lang, and McDonald, but that's not depth for the future yet.

It's a result of how the draft board has fallen in Thompson's first few years in the early rounds combined with what look like short runs by Spitz and Colledge along with later-round guys like Whittacker, Thompson, Giacomini, Barbre, and a few others I'm sure I'm missing all whiffing in short succession.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

Well if you are trying to get to eight solid linemen for the future, I think we are more than half way there already. I would consider Bulaga, Sitton, Sherrod, Lang, and Mcdonald as guys who will be here long term. Now add Clifton, Wells, and possibly Colledge for this year, and we look to be in decent shape for the upcoming season. Now assume we lose ALL THREE going into next season and we are back to Bulaga, Sitton, Sherrod, Lang, and Mcdonald. That gives us this training camp and next off season as well to find 2-3 guys who can either start or add depth. More likely is only one of those three new guys will probably need to be immediate starters. I agree with Vince that there will be a lot of transition in the upcoming year, but I feel that we already have 4 starters for the future on the roster. So the most important thing will probably be how fast they can gel once the vets like Clifton and Wells leave. But having the talent on the roster already in place is more than half the battle IMO.

And like Patler said you can't have 8 young guys all on the roster now AND in the next 5 years. That would be very unrealistic. The fact that I can name five young guys that I would keep moving forward is pretty good.

Say TT drafts a guard in the second round of the draft next year. The starting o-line could be Sherrod, 2nd, Mcdonald, Sitton, Bulaga. That would leave Lang, Newhouse, and whoever else he brings in for depth. Does he keep Wells for another 2-3 years? Very possible. If so, Mcdonald moves to guard or goes back to the bench. Will Sherrod, Mcdonald, and the future drafts we spend on the o-line all pan out? Probably not, but judging from TT track record I would bet at least a couple do.

We won the superbowl this with a rookie starting at tackle, and with Colledge (who is only an average player IMO) starting at guard. Clifton played well but you can't say there wasn't some uncertainty about how he would perform going into the season. Point is, unless we get an oline like we had from 00-04, there will always be a couple guys you are worried about. But with Sitton and two recent first round picks already invested on the oline I am not as worried as some are moving forward. Let’s not forget that the oline of our 2010 superbowl team wasn't all that good. They couldn't run block entirely well and Rodgers covered up a lot of the passing blocking with his ability to escape. For all we know the oline could a 100 times better in two years from now. Sherrod should easy be a better run blocker than Clifton, Bulaga will be in his third year, Sitton should only have gotten better, and it’s very possible we replace Colledge with a better player. Once that happens, the possibility of having an oline like we had from 00-04 is real.

[get louder at lambeau]

Great discussion. Thanks for starting such a solid topic, PF_n_MD.

One thing I think is being underrated is Scott Wells and his chances of being re-signed. He was better than most fans realize this year, and is only 30 right now.

Packers coach Mike McCarthy said in his Monday press conference that C Scott Wells has been the team's best offensive lineman this season.
McCarthy called it a "Pro Bowl-type season." The Packers tried to replace Wells two seasons ago, but the 30-year-old never relented and started all 16 games in 2010. According to Pro Football Focus, Wells has allowed just one sack, committed just one penalty, and graded out well as a run blocker. Jan 3, 12:55 PM

http://rotoworld.com/player/nfl/2940/scott-wells

[Smidgeon]

Great discussion. Thanks for starting such a solid topic, PF_n_MD.

One thing I think is being underrated is Scott Wells and his chances of being re-signed. He was better than most fans realize this year, and is only 30 right now.



http://rotoworld.com/player/nfl/2940/scott-wells

Plus, I'm seeing more and more national recognition that peg Wells as a Top 10 center...

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

Great discussion. Thanks for starting such a solid topic, PF_n_MD.

One thing I think is being underrated is Scott Wells and his chances of being re-signed. He was better than most fans realize this year, and is only 30 right now.



http://rotoworld.com/player/nfl/2940/scott-wells

If he's willing to sign a 2-3 year extension at a fair salary I could see him back. I don't really see him holding up in his 30's though, esp. with his size. It would be ideal if someone like Mcdonald keeps getting better and replaces him in a year from now. Then again having a solid vet on what looks to be a very young oline in a year from now is probably a good thing. I'm on the fence about Wells.