Packer players compare Lang to Colledge

[Patler]

If we were in FYI you would argue that people make their own "luck". Availability was Colleges strongest attribute and it was worth more than Jason Spitz's strength.

I agree with that, which is why I said "Availability means a lot..." I kind of thought that Spitz might have to sign a one or two year incentive laden contract, maybe even at minimum salary, just to prove that he was recovered from his surgery and could still play. He didn't show it last year with the Packers. He did a little better than I thought he might with his new contract, but not a lot at $1.5M/year.

My point with Colledge has nothing to do with what Spitz got. It seems to me that Colledge is being paid for both sides of the coin, availability and performance. In my opinion, his performance mitigates the advantages of his availability, because while he is there game after game, he doesn't perform that well.

I have always given Colledge credit for being available, but it just got to be uncanny that as soon as a player replaced or challenged Colledge's spot, that player went down for a few weeks. His being "charmed" was not so much his own health, but the timing of injuries to those who replaced him. Must be Voo Doo! Someone should check his locker for dolls with pins in them!

[Patler]

I've seen this type of thread before. Start a topic without really sharing your opinion on it, just open the door. Then when someone makes a post about the topic you disagree with, you come with a list of evidence/context that is in stark contrast. More than actually saying anything, it discredits the post before.

The way it's done, it feels like the old, I gotchya bait and hook tactic. A direct post would have started with the topic opener and been followed by some thoughts and opinions on the matter. The timing of the whole list coincidentally ended in the classic "Patlerized" "I gotchya" routine. Either you just happen to be smarter than everyone else and you just happen to show people up in a way that has been affectionately titled, "patlerized." or you open these topics, wait for an opportunity and then pounce.

You probably don't even know you're doing it. Subconsciouses are a bitch that way. We have a funny way of chasing feelings that feel good and avoiding ones that feel bad, even if we don't know it. You seem to like that feeling of patlerizing people.

There are plenty of smart people here and across the web. Smart as you, smart as tacks. There aren't many of them who patlerize people on a regular basis.

Thing is, I never said anything about Colledge being worth his money or him being a good guard. Your post read like an, "I gotchya." I don't even know why you quoted me to share your thoughts and opinions on the matter. Those would have been equally effective to start the thread. But then you would have missed your "gotchya" opportunity.

Apparently you are now a psychologist too, huh?. Do I have to pay you for that analysis?

I started the thread to share the link for the article with people. Nothing more. I thought it was interesting that former team mates would be as opinionated publicly as they were. That's why I mentioned it and quoted one comment about Lang and one about Colledge.

I really don't understand what you are so upset about. If you read your initial post and my response objectively, I was agreeing with your conclusions more than I was disagreeing, although I had a different perspective as to why things have turned out for Colledge the way they have. How could I have baited you when the entirety of my response was simply my opinion?

You seem to be upset because I quoted you. If I had written what I did without quoting you, would it be any different? As I said, I quoted you for continuity, not contradiction, because your comments brought to mind what I wrote, which was nothing but my opinions.

However, since quoting you has upset you so much (this isn't the first time), I will be sure to never do it again. If I can figure out how to do it, I will put you on "Ignore" so that I will not see your posts and can not quote them. A simple solution which should make things more pleasant for both of us.

[Lurker64]

I always thought Colleges best spot was RT. He was simply too small physically to play LT in the NFL. I figured that out after he played several games there. Sherrod is what? 330? Much bigger than DC, longer arms, moves like a LT, slides like an LT. DC never slid like Sherrod does.

Colledge looked really good at RT in that game where we played the 0-15 Lions. Then the next season we had the Right Tacklatastrophe with Barbre and Breno, and even when Colledge got snaps there he didn't look half as good as I thought I remembered him looking. Maybe that 0-16 Lions team was just bad, dunno.

[Joemailman]

Apparently you are now a psychologist too, huh?. Do I have to pay you for that analysis?

I started the thread to share the link for the article with people. Nothing more. I thought it was interesting that former team mates would be as opinionated publicly as they were. That's why I mentioned it and quoted one comment about Lang and one about Colledge.

I really don't understand what you are so upset about. If you read your initial post and my response objectively, I was agreeing with your conclusions more than I was disagreeing, although I had a different perspective as to why things have turned out for Colledge the way they have. How could I have baited you when the entirety of my response was simply my opinion?

You seem to be upset because I quoted you. If I had written what I did without quoting you, would it be any different? As I said, I quoted you for continuity, not contradiction, because your comments brought to mind what I wrote, which was nothing but my opinions.

However, since quoting you has upset you so much (this isn't the first time), I will be sure to never do it again. If I can figure out how to do it, I will put you on "Ignore" so that I will not see your posts and can not quote them. A simple solution which should make things more pleasant for both of us.

Justin is just having one of those days.

http://packerrats.com/showthread.php...ht=#post596725

Originally Posted by JustinHarrell
I don't drink any more. Turns out I'm mentally ill and incredibly unstable. But hey, it gives me personality / builds character I wouldn't trade it for the world. God put me here to shake things up.

[Zool]

I can't wait for the day Patler has had enough and tells someone to fuck off. JH is apparently off his meds or back on the bottle. He seems quite hurt about being contradicted in a rational and thought provoking manner. Maybe he needs to change his log on to Alex Green? Mad can you help a non-brotha out?

College is adequate.

[rbaloha1]

And here I thought Patler just liked using stats to back his thoughts.

IMO, I didn't get the feeling he was trying to trap anyone at all.

Colledge is what he is, an average guard with certain warts (strength in run-blocking and occasional mental lapses). I still think people give him unfair criticism to an extent. A second round pick who will more than likely have a 8-10 year career as a starter certainly doesn't suck.

Lets see what happens after DC collects the guaranteed money. Over inflated self that played well in his last season for the payday.

[rbaloha1]

It may be that Lang is just a nastier, meaner football player, which the d-linemen see as an asset to the team.

Expect improved running game.

[Yoop]

I always thought Colleges best spot was RT. He was simply too small physically to play LT in the NFL. I figured that out after he played several games there. Sherrod is what? 330? Much bigger than DC, longer arms, moves like a LT, slides like an LT. DC never slid like Sherrod does.

it's possible, but normally your RT is as big or bigger than the LT, course thats changed now some with the advent of the 34 popularity thruout the league with olb speed versus DE power which would be Colledges weak point, when Colledge got here he had Tackle feet and some decent skillset to match,but the only spot for him to play was G or C, and we needed both, it's hard to say if he could have been a starting T in this league, he never really got a chance when he got here to try, and obviously he lost what little skillset he had as the years past, oh well, shit happens. lol

[Fritz]

I agree with Bossman - Colledge is "an average guard with certain warts."

[pbmax]

Holy Cow Fritz, that nearly brought up lunch.

Number 1 Colledge defender here and just a couple of points.

1. I forget which media narrative we are on right now, but Colledge was always a better run blocker than advertised and a worse pass blocker at Guard. I still remember him moving Fat Pat Williams out of the way and back on the goal line a few years ago. This does run contrary to McGinn's numbers, though I do have one partial explanation. He functioned OK in the zone blocking scheme. And contrary to something mentioned earlier, the Packers favored running left (both inside and outside zone) until Sitton came of age last year. And even when running right it was more traditional blocking schemes. However, the reason they ran zone left might have had more to do with their tackles than with Colledge (Tauscher was not the best cut off pursuit tackle, but Clifton was/is worse).

Pass blocking for Colledge was a mystery at times. He could be bull rushed, which was understandable as he wasn't built low like most guards and was quite tall. But he could also be beat by quickness, which should have been his strength and this happened often on T-E stunts, where he was late to pass off and then pick up the DE. I once saw the Bears run a stunt where they ran a twist and despite the fact that Colledge was already setup outside near Clifton, the DE scooted through that gap while Colledge completely whiffed his punch. In a way, you could see him take the time to think.

2. I can see Raji's point about him being a technician over a physical player and I think that caused him dismay over having to cover tackle as well. Clearly Colledge felt most comfortable with reps mainly at one spot. The two years he got that, rookie and 09, he played well. Last year was more of a mixed bag. Perhaps Bulaga being a threat threw him off.

3. Not sure I agree with injuries being fortuitous for Colledge. Barbre didn't lose a starting spot because of an injury, he lost it because he was outplayed. He was a better Guard than Tackle, but he became terrible when the pads went on. Bulaga, on the other hand, was simply a better player and built even better than Colledge for Guard. He did luck out on that one. When Sitton battled Spitz for the job, Spitz was not his old self and that injury was more than a year old.

4. I think Colledge would have had a chance to beat out Sherrod.

5. I am sure Lang is more of a bully and fiesty. But that doesn't make up for technique. He will need to be better than mean to compete versus the tackles he is going to face. Suh even made Sitton look average.

6. Essentially, we are arguing which side of average he belongs on. Packer fans feel he is below average. I think he was above it at Guard. I suspect Russ Grimm agrees with me, but we will see.

[HarveyWallbangers]

This is just not right.

I agree with Bossman - Colledge is "an average guard with certain warts."

[Bossman641]

Fritz you earned some negative reputation with that picture.

[Lurker64]

Fritz, I would have gone with the "Indonesian Treeman" Dede Koswara for the joke. It's probably a little less gross.

You can click this link if you want to find out more, I won't link the picture: http://bodygeeks.com/2011/04/dede-ko...-the-tree-man/

They're weird looking warts, but they are caused by the Human Papilomavirus (HPV).

[Smidgeon]

This is just not right.

Easy to tell it's CGI ish.