The offensive O-line, Barclay the answer?

[Patler]

You are right that we won't know, but the coaches might already have a pretty good idea. As for the positive praise, I heard a lot of positive praise for Barbre prior to them starting him. They may be opposite players, but that doesn't mean they won't have similar results. He might be OK, but the coaches know he is an option and he has not got so much as a sniff of playing time.

If the line play does not improve, they may get desperate enough to put him in, but I won't hold my breath for a big improvement.

I never heard positive comments about Barbre's practices, training camps or preseasons. In fact, it was just the opposite. In the off season they talked about his physical attributes that gave him potential, but year after year he lost favor in TC and preseason. He would be penciled in at a spot early, but lose it. They tried to give him Colledge's spot one year, and he choked in camp immediately. Finally, one year they started him almost in a stubborn effort to put him on the spot, and it failed miserably.

I don't expect Barclay to step in and be a solid RT. I would expect him to need help. Maybe even a fair amount of help. But at least with Lang back at LG that position should be solid.. Now, both are weak.

[denverYooper]

I never heard positive comments about Barbre's practices, training camps or preseasons. In fact, it was just the opposite. In the off season they talked about his physical attributes that gave him potential, but year after year he lost favor in TC and preseason. He would be penciled in at a spot early, but lose it. They tried to give him Colledge's spot one year, and he choked in camp immediately. Finally, one year they started him almost in a stubborn effort to put him on the spot, and it failed miserably.

I don't expect Barclay to step in and be a solid RT. I would expect him to need help. Maybe even a fair amount of help. But at least with Lang back at LG that position should be solid.. Now, both are weak.

It's very possible that Lang's return would help Newhouse also, as the two were used to working together. But Rodgers's bread and butter is being able to move to create plays. He was getting pinched in on Sunday night.

[mmmdk]

Talk won't help the Packers OL this season; not saying 'don't talk' though - but it's really a bleak topic to me.

[rbaloha1]

AR's phenomenal abilities have reduced an already mediocre line's shortcomings.

I will go with Sitton's comments about fundamentals and MM's comments about protection schemes that Packers will improve.

Unsure if Barclay is a temporary fix.

[sharpe1027]

I never heard positive comments about Barbre's practices, training camps or preseasons. In fact, it was just the opposite. In the off season they talked about his physical attributes that gave him potential, but year after year he lost favor in TC and preseason. He would be penciled in at a spot early, but lose it. They tried to give him Colledge's spot one year, and he choked in camp immediately. Finally, one year they started him almost in a stubborn effort to put him on the spot, and it failed miserably.

I don't expect Barclay to step in and be a solid RT. I would expect him to need help. Maybe even a fair amount of help. But at least with Lang back at LG that position should be solid.. Now, both are weak.

I disagree. MM and reporters both gave positive reviews of Barbre's practices: http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/48118232.html

"Allen's had a very positive camp," Packers coach Mike McCarthy said last week. "You never try to get too excited too fast, because you don't want to create unrealistic expectations, but every day in the film sessions with the coaches, Allen Barbre has done a very good job so far."

Two weeks ago, Barbre looked dominant at times in a pads-free practice. With the defense gradually installing its 3-4 scheme, Barbre more than held his own against linebacker Aaron Kampman. Barbre allowed no penetration and was quick enough to absorb the twists and turns of the constant whirl of motion that is Kampman's style. The two locked up and battled down after down.

I would assume that he was penciled in at starting spots because he showed enough to the coaches. That is more than we can currently say for Barclay. I'm not saying Barclay would fail miserably, but I see nothing that makes me very encouraged about him.

[mraynrand]

I'd rather put Breno Giacomini in there instead of Barclay. He's a capable starter.

[Patler]

I would assume that he was penciled in at starting spots because he showed enough to the coaches. That is more than we can currently say for Barclay. I'm not saying Barclay would fail miserably, but I see nothing that makes me very encouraged about him.

Na, Barbre was penciled in during the off season for the same reason that a lot of rookies and younger players are, motivation. When did Barbre ever show any promise at all on the field?

Again, it's not Barclay that I am particularly interested in getting on the field, it's getting Lang back at LG so that position is solid, unlike now. To do that, Barclay is the only real option. I just can't help but wonder if a noticeably weakened LG plus a noticeably weakened RT might not be a worse overall than just a perhaps even weaker RT.

If EDS can pick up his game, I am in favor of leaving it as is.

[sharpe1027]

Na, Barbre was penciled in during the off season for the same reason that a lot of rookies and younger players are, motivation. When did Barbre ever show any promise at all on the field?

Again, it's not Barclay that I am particularly interested in getting on the field, it's getting Lang back at LG so that position is solid, unlike now. To do that, Barclay is the only real option. I just can't help but wonder if a noticeably weakened LG plus a noticeably weakened RT might not be a worse overall than just a perhaps even weaker RT.

If EDS can pick up his game, I am in favor of leaving it as is.

That's your theory on why they penciled him in. My theory is they did it because they thought he was their best option. Also, Barclay's positive reviews are no more proof that he can cut it than they were for Barbre.

In any event, I remain very concerned about the effect of having a really shitty RT and am not at all convinced that it would be balanced out by having an improvement at guard. The old cliche is at least partially correct, the o-line is only as good as its weakest link (yes I know you can do things to compensate so it is not 100% true). I think that they might try it if things get really desperate, but I really hope it never gets to that point.

[mraynrand]

You make an overall good point Patler. The issue is whether there is anyone who can reasonably play that RT spot even close to acceptable. The Packers are only going to look terrible when they face teams with multiple quick aggressive strong outside pass rushers. There are only a few teams like that; unfortunately, the Packers would probably have to get by the two of them - Giants and Niners - to make the Superb Owl. I think you will see a difference this week, where the Packers can focus on stopping Allen, and let other guys single block. As PB suggests, would like to see more chip blocks as TEs and RBs head out for those dump off/ shorter/ flat passes.

Unless Sherrod can come back healthy and effective, the Packers have zero chance at a championship this year.

[Patler]

I disagree. MM and reporters both gave positive reviews of Barbre's practices: http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/48118232.html

That was in June, after practices in shirts and shorts at probably no more than half to three-quarters speed, playing against the Packers defense installing the 3-4 for the first time, and facing Kampman trying to adjust to a change in position.

Simply a typical off season fluff piece by Lori Nickel. We've seen dozens of them making players sound like future all-pros, when they ultimately fail to make the roster just a few weeks later.

Granted, you may find a positive comment or two about him, players and coaches try to build each other up. But by and large Barbre was simply a string of disppointments, especially for a guy with his athleticism.

[Patler]

That's your theory on why they penciled him in. My theory is they did it because they thought he was their best option. Also, Barclay's positive reviews are no more proof that he can cut it than they were for Barbre.

In any event, I remain very concerned about the effect of having a really shitty RT and am not at all convinced that it would be balanced out by having an improvement at guard. The old cliche is at least partially correct, the o-line is only as good as its weakest link (yes I know you can do things to compensate so it is not 100% true). I think that they might try it if things get really desperate, but I really hope it never gets to that point.

I think it is already close to the point of having to try something else. They have been eaten alive by two D-lines in a row. With the Vikings twice, Bears and Lions yet to come, something has to change; either EDS and/or Lang picking up their new spots significantly, or trying a different combination.

In the end, I couldn't care less who plays and who doesn't play, I just want to see improved play; and if that doesn't happen with the current starters I want to see others get their chances. Heck, I would prefer to see Van Roten get a chance at guard, or maybe even Barclay at guard, if EDS doesn't pick up his game.

[sharpe1027]

I think it is already close to the point of having to try something else. They have been eaten alive by two D-lines in a row. With the Vikings twice, Bears and Lions yet to come, something has to change; either EDS and/or Lang picking up their new spots significantly, or trying a different combination.

In the end, I couldn't care less who plays and who doesn't play, I just want to see improved play; and if that doesn't happen with the current starters I want to see others get their chances. Heck, I would prefer to see Van Roten get a chance at guard, or maybe even Barclay at guard, if EDS doesn't pick up his game.

I would just say that you should be careful what your wish for, because you may actually get it.

[Patler]

I think it is already close to the point of having to try something else. They have been eaten alive by two D-lines in a row. With the Vikings twice, Bears and Lions yet to come, something has to change; either EDS and/or Lang picking up their new spots significantly, or trying a different combination.

In the end, I couldn't care less who plays and who doesn't play, I just want to see improved play; and if that doesn't happen with the current starters I want to see others get their chances. Heck, I would prefer to see Van Roten get a chance at guard, or maybe even Barclay at guard, if EDS doesn't pick up his game.

I would just say that you should be careful what your wish for, because you may actually get it.

As I said, all I want to see is improved play, whether from the existing players or different ones. Is that so bad to wish for?

[Patler]

Nothing says they can't go back to EDS and Lang if another combination doesn't work any better. But can it get much worse than having the QB hit on over 50% of his dropbacks as he did this week?

[sharpe1027]

As I said, all I want to see is improved play, whether from the existing players or different ones. Is that so bad to wish for?

I'd respectfully ask that you apply a little common sense to my statement. I was simply implying that inserting backup may make matters worse.

If you want to parse words, then technically you did not just say you wanted to see improved play. You stated that if you do not see improvement from the current players you "want to see others get their chances." I stand by my statement to be careful what you wish for: even if the current player's don't improve your proposal has a chance to make matters even worse.