The offensive O-line, Barclay the answer?

[Patler]

Patler, I am very much aware of that point, I've repeatedly compared Lang/ED with Lang/Barclay. I just don't want to repeat the entire argument each time. Forgive my laziness. I am not confident that Barclay's ability at tackle is close enough to Lang's ability at tackle to be a net gain relative Lang's ability at guard relative to EDS.

The arguments for why it is a net gain remain 1) his positive reviews and 2) the fact that sometimes change is good when the current situation is not working well. I am not convinced, but readily admit that I could be wrong. I hope that I am.

***Disclaimer**** All points made hereafter and before were presented under the assumption that the comparative value of the starting Barclay vs. EDS includes the value of moving Lang to his natural position at guard. This assumption need not be expressly restated in each post. ****End Disclaimer****

Well, if you understand and are aware of the argument I gave for moving Lang back to guard and playing Barclay. (the very argument I started the thread with) it is a bit disingenuous on your part to specifically enumerate the "main reasons (you) hear for inserting Barclay" and completely ignore my reason while listing just two others.

It has not really much at all to do with any reviews Barclay may or may not have had. Those never mean much. Barclay made the team as one of only two reserve linemen initially. It had to be assumed that his services might be needed at some point, possibly during any game, especially since Bulaga has not been an example of rugged durability so far in his career..

This is very much different than the years when GB kept 8, 9 and even 10 O-lineman on the 53 man roster, and routinely had spots on the game day inactive list for extra developmental linemen like Giacomini, McDonald and even Barbre a good portion of the games his first two seasons. From Day 1, Barclay was going to be active for games. He was two of any combination of injuries, equipment problems, illness, personal issues, etc. away from playing. They let other more experienced veterans go and stayed with only EDS and Barclay until Van Roten was signed to the 53 man roster. Maybe its time to find out why, and if they were right in doing so.


I think Lang is a huge improvement over EDS at guard. To me, it is starting to look like a net gain so long as Barclay isn't a complete and absolute train wreck at tackle, because right now neither EDS nor Lang are very good at the positions they are playing. The O-line as currently played has been overwhelmed by a four man front in Detroit on a defense that (per McGinn) did not blitz a single time and ran very few stunts. He said the Giants rushed 5 only 5 times.

Basically, our 5 O-linemen have been overwhelmed by vanilla D line schemes the last two weeks. Maybe it is time for desperation. If not his week, next week for sure if EDS and Lang don't ramp it up a few notches. If nothing changes, a late season collapse and missing the playoffs would not surprise me at all.

[sharpe1027]

Well, if you understand and are aware of the argument I gave for moving Lang back to guard and playing Barclay. (the very argument I started the thread with) it is a bit disingenuous on your part to specifically enumerate the "main reasons (you) hear for inserting Barclay" and completely ignore my reason while listing just two others.

No it is not disingenuous. The point I have repeatedly made is that I am concerned that Barclay could be so bad (your train wreck example) that it won't matter that Lang is moved back to guard. I gave a concrete example of how a much single really bad tackle can affect a team (Barbre). The question I repeatedly posed is what basis do we have to believe that Barclay is good enough to result in an net gain. I apologize again for not repeating, in every post, that I am (still) considering the move of Lang to guard. I've acknowledged it in many different posts, so I admittedly got sloppy in that one post and did not again mention that the context was (of course) that Lang would move to guard. I have never once disputed this and have many times acknowledged that this is what we are discussing.

The general discussion point I am honing in on is: why do we believe that Barclay will not be a complete disaster so as to negate the benefit of moving Lang. I stated the two reasons why. It is not disingenuous at all, it is just me not wanting to spell everything out over and over.

I would also note that others have pointed out Lang is playing hurt, so moving him to guard may not result in him returning to his previous level of play.

***Disclaimer**** All points made hereafter and before were presented under the assumption that the comparative value of the starting Barclay vs. EDS includes the value of moving Lang to his natural position at guard. This assumption need not be expressly restated in each post. ****End Disclaimer****

[mraynrand]

My broker from Barclays just told me I made a killing in FX today. Suck on it packerrats.

[Patler]

No it is not disingenuous. The point I have repeatedly made is that I am concerned that Barclay could be so bad (your train wreck example) that it won't matter that Lang is moved back to guard. I gave a concrete example of how a much single really bad tackle can affect a team (Barbre). The question I repeatedly posed is what basis do we have to believe that Barclay is good enough to result in an net gain. I apologize again for not repeating, in every post, that I am (still) considering the move of Lang to guard. I've acknowledged it in many different posts, so I admittedly got sloppy in that one post and did not again mention that the context was (of course) that Lang would move to guard. I have never once disputed this and have many times acknowledged that this is what we are discussing.

The general discussion point I am honing in on is: why do we believe that Barclay will not be a complete disaster so as to negate the benefit of moving Lang. I stated the two reasons why. It is not disingenuous at all, it is just me not wanting to spell everything out over and over.

I would also note that others have pointed out Lang is playing hurt, so moving him to guard may not result in him returning to his previous level of play.

***Disclaimer**** All points made hereafter and before were presented under the assumption that the comparative value of the starting Barclay vs. EDS includes the value of moving Lang to his natural position at guard. This assumption need not be expressly restated in each post. ****End Disclaimer****

Well, it's not that you don't repeat it, its that you say the MAIN arguments you hear are 1. blah, blah blah....., 2. blah, blah, blah. To specifically enumerate the "main arguments" and ignore the argument that started the thread is disingenuous.

I gave you lots of reason in my last post as to why Barclay may not be the reincarnation of Barbre, most prominently that he was kept as the 7th O-lineman and should have been expected to be needed. They brought in a couple older and experienced vet linemen, one who wasn't completely awful in preseason (only partly awful), but let them all go for Barclay, knowing he was just two instances away from playing (injury, illness, equipment issue, personal matter, etc.)

Sure, Barbre was bad (and that was what, his third year?), but as rookies Clifton, Tauscher, Colledge, Spitz, Moll, Wells, and even Whitticker were serviceable enough to play with; some for only a few games, some for a lot more.

If they try Barclay, and he is a train wreck, so what? Pull him after a series and go back to EDS. If it works OK for one series, try two, a quarter, a game.

Now lets look at the other side. What make you think he would be as bad as Barbre was, (or Wahle for that matter during his brief stint at LT)? What is the reason to stick with what is failing miserably and not try something different? At some point they will have to if things don't improve.

[sharpe1027]

Well, it's not that you don't repeat it, its that you say the MAIN arguments you hear are 1. blah, blah blah....., 2. blah, blah, blah. To specifically enumerate the "main arguments" and ignore the argument that started the thread is disingenuous.

Jesus Patler, give me a little credit. I apologize again for not including the context -- it had been repeated several times before. I thought it was implied from all of the previous post and obviously it was not to you. As I have stated in the post you quote above, those two main points are relevant to evaluating the effectiveness of Barclay/Lang combination and that is how it was intended to be read. If you need to believe I was not relying upon the context of previous posts and was instead being disingenuous, then that is within your rights. I was not, and I am sorry that you feel that way you are normally a pretty easy going poster so I must have hit a nerve or something. Sorry.

I gave you lots of reason in my last post as to why Barclay may not be the reincarnation of Barbre, most prominently that he was kept as the 7th O-lineman and should have been expected to be needed. They brought in a couple older and experienced vet linemen, one who wasn't completely awful in preseason (only partly awful), but let them all go for Barclay, knowing he was just two instances away from playing (injury, illness, equipment issue, personal matter, etc.)

Those new points are relevant and make sense.

Sure, Barbre was bad (and that was what, his third year?), but as rookies Clifton, Tauscher, Colledge, Spitz, Moll, Wells, and even Whitticker were serviceable enough to play with; some for only a few games, some for a lot more.

Yes, that is true.

If they try Barclay, and he is a train wreck, so what? Pull him after a series and go back to EDS. If it works OK for one series, try two, a quarter, a game.

Now lets look at the other side. What make you think he would be as bad as Barbre was, (or Wahle for that matter during his brief stint at LT)? What is the reason to stick with what is failing miserably and not try something different? At some point they will have to if things don't improve.

I would assume that they would game plan for Barclay being in. That would include both protection schemes to help him, possibly different set of plays and Lang would probably practice mostly at guard all week. So, it is not as simple as moving them in and out like in Madden.

My main point for why I am not convinced about Barclay being ready, the people with the most knowledge on his capabilities have not played him despite there being serious protection problems for some time now. They have not yet considered him a viable option. Is he? I don't know, but I'd bet against it.

[Bossman641]

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/pos...-aaron-rodgers

Some pretty damning statistics

With Bulaga, Rodgers was sacked or under duress 19.8% of the time while opponents have rushed four 72.6% of the time
Without Bulaga, it has almost doubled to 39.1% of the time and opponents are now rushing four 89.2% of the time.

[pbmax]

1 injury

they already knew the glass bear(sherrod), could probably miss the year

That is the big question about the Tackle situation this season (or past offseason), however, even if the setback, which McCarthy said happened in the Spring, happened before the draft, they may have still had good reason to expect Sherrod back after a PUP stint at worst.

[Patler]

Jesus Patler, give me a little credit. I apologize again for not including the context -- it had been repeated several times before. I thought it was implied from all of the previous post and obviously it was not to you. As I have stated in the post you quote above, those two main points are relevant to evaluating the effectiveness of Barclay/Lang combination and that is how it was intended to be read. If you need to believe I was not relying upon the context of previous posts and was instead being disingenuous, then that is within your rights. I was not, and I am sorry that you feel that way you are normally a pretty easy going poster so I must have hit a nerve or something. Sorry.

It has nothing to do with giving you credit or not giving you credit.
There is no need to apologize to me for anything.
I am just flabbergasted that for some reason you think a main argument to switch the lineup has anything at all to do with newspaper articles, or to switch just for the sake of switching. In attempting to distill down the arguments, you came up with two to discuss that have no impact. The ONLY thing that matters is a more effective performance on the field, and to improve the play at two positions that have tanked the last two weeks. Lang is a clear answer to the current problem at LG.

I would assume that they would game plan for Barclay being in. That would include both protection schemes to help him, possibly different set of plays and Lang would probably practice mostly at guard all week. So, it is not as simple as moving them in and out like in Madden.

How is it any worse than when Bulaga was hurt necessitating a mid-game change at two positions, with no preparation? Or than it would be if any current starter were hurt during the game and Barclay or Van Rotten had to come in? It's not a game plan changer. At least they would be reverting to a lineup they have several games experience with.

As for any comparison to "Madden", I wouldn't know. I have never even seen it played, let alone played it myself.

My main point for why I am not convinced about Barclay being ready, the people with the most knowledge on his capabilities have not played him despite there being serious protection problems for some time now. They have not yet considered him a viable option. Is he? I don't know, but I'd bet against it.

They started Bush at CB for a few games too, until it became apparent something else was better. They have adjusted the playing times of their safeties as performances have improved and declined. I have to believe there is disappointment on the effectiveness of EDS at guard and Lang at tackle. Maybe it is time to try something else.

[Patler]

That is the big question about the Tackle situation this season (or past offseason), however, even if the setback, which McCarthy said happened in the Spring, happened before the draft, they may have still had good reason to expect Sherrod back after a PUP stint at worst.

Ya, I've wondered if that was partof the reason to go with only EDS and Barclay, they hoped Sherrod would make it back.

[Joemailman]

I believe they entered the season with just 7 OL on the roster, whereas they usually go with 8 or 9. I suspect they did that with the anticipation that Sherrod would be activated at some point in the season.

[Fritz]

I believe they entered the season with just 7 OL on the roster, whereas they usually go with 8 or 9. I suspect they did that with the anticipation that Sherrod would be activated at some point in the season.

The offensive line is clearly the weakest link on the team, despite TT's having drafted two tackles in the first round in two of the last three years.

I agree with Red that Newhouse was a big problem in the Giants game. I had hopes for the Marshmallow, thinking he would develop with time, but he just cannot keep Rodgers clean against the top pass rushers. Even against middling competition he gets off balance, it seems.

I am also concerned that Saturday is just not that good, and that is why in part Lang and Sitton have not looked so good at guard this year, having to give extra help to Saturday.

Bulaga was clearly better than Lang at RT, but he wasn't even having that great of a year.

There appears to be a lack of talent on that line. I say try Barclay in practice and see how he responds.

I also think that MM needs to suck it up and keep more backs and tight ends in to help on both sides. Newhouse clearly can't handle talented pass rushers one-on-one, nor can Lang on the other side. Keep two tight ends in, let them chip and release over the middle.

When the hell is Stubby going to work the middle of the field?

When is Rodgers going to go to the open man five yards downfield instead of slinging it into coverage fifteen yards away?

[pbmax]

When is Rodgers going to go to the open man five yards downfield instead of slinging it into coverage fifteen yards away?

I wonder how much of this is due to changing coaches? Because we saw evidence of Cobb blowing a hot read versus the Giants, I wonder if there should have been other adjustments that players have failed to make?

I have to think that getting Quarless back would increase the odds of running two TEs, one RB sets, would would be a nice counter to two deep. He's both practicing and on the regular 53, so he should be available to play.

[sharpe1027]

OK, I think I see where the disconnect is coming. This explanation is provided to explain the thought process behind my posts. Please understand that you may have meant something slightly different, but hopefully you can see that I was not being disingenuous or making stuff up.

It has nothing to do with giving you credit or not giving you credit.
There is no need to apologize to me for anything.
I am just flabbergasted that for some reason you think a main argument to switch the lineup has anything at all to do with newspaper articles, or to switch just for the sake of switching.

Mentioning positive praise in the press as suggesting Barclay might be a decent option:

Bulaga commented on his toughness, nasty streak and all-out effort on every play. Scouts have said he has a chance to make it in the NFL because he understands the game, has good technique and can play anywhere.

Mentioning making a change even when there is no evidence to suggest the change will work, i.e., making a change for the sake of making a change:

I have never been afraid of giving players a chance when those ahead of them are not getting the job done. We did it all the time in hockey, even with players who did not show a lot in practice. The combination you never really gave much of a chance really starts to click when given an opportunity. Sometimes the bright lights make things happen you didn't expect.

In attempting to distill down the arguments, you came up with two to discuss that have no impact.

Then what was the point of you bringing them up in the first place?

The ONLY thing that matters is a more effective performance on the field, and to improve the play at two positions that have tanked the last two weeks. Lang is a clear answer to the current problem at LG.

Obviously. What we are discussing is what basis we have to believe that one option will result in a more effective performance on the field. Barclay has not been on the field, so unless we must discuss other facts there's nothing to discuss at all.

How is it any worse than when Bulaga was hurt necessitating a mid-game change at two positions, with no preparation? Or than it would be if any current starter were hurt during the game and Barclay or Van Rotten had to come in? It's not a game plan changer. At least they would be reverting to a lineup they have several games experience with.

It is not that different. I never said it was impossible or that it would not work at all. I just explained why it was not as simple as you made it sound. If it really had little effect, I would have expected to have seen it done often by teams. In reality, it is very much the exception. Players sometimes get benched, but you almost never see a O-tackle get "tested" for a few series.

As for any comparison to "Madden", I wouldn't know. I have never even seen it played, let alone played it myself.

It was a reference to how in video games you can move players around at the drop of the hat without any adverse consequences.

[Patler]

I'm really not too interested in running around this circle for another day, but I will take one last half-lap:

OK, I think I see where the disconnect is coming. This explanation is provided to explain the thought process behind my posts. Please understand that you may have meant something slightly different, but hopefully you can see that I was not being disingenuous or making stuff up.

Rest assured, I never thought you were making things up, it just seemed that you ignored the very argument used to start the thread, and seemed to want to take it a different direction. More on that toward the end of this post..

Mentioning positive praise in the press as suggesting Barclay might be a decent option:

Originally Posted by Patler
Bulaga commented on his toughness, nasty streak and all-out effort on every play. Scouts have said he has a chance to make it in the NFL because he understands the game, has good technique and can play anywhere.

Interesting that in the quote above, you started without the immediately preceding sentence I wrote, which was a strictly a performance based comment. I wrote; "We won't know unless they try it. Barclay struggled early in camp at the one-on-one drill, but was 15-5 the last two weeks." I then continued with the Bulaga statement that you quoted.

Mentioning making a change even when there is no evidence to suggest the change will work, i.e., making a change for the sake of making a change:

(I am omitting your quotes from my posts for brevity. I acknowledge the content thereof).

Then what was the point of you bringing them up in the first place?

Obviously. What we are discussing is what basis we have to believe that one option will result in a more effective performance on the field. Barclay has not been on the field, so unless we must discuss other facts there's nothing to discuss at all.

All of those came after I posed the question and made the first argument. They were secondary responses. Again. more on that toward the end of this post.

Originally Posted by Patler
How is it any worse than when Bulaga was hurt necessitating a mid-game change at two positions, with no preparation? Or than it would be if any current starter were hurt during the game and Barclay or Van Rotten had to come in? It's not a game plan changer. At least they would be reverting to a lineup they have several games experience with.

It is not that different. I never said it was impossible or that it would not work at all. I just explained why it was not as simple as you made it sound. If it really had little effect, I would have expected to have seen it done often by teams. In reality, it is very much the exception. Players sometimes get benched, but you almost never see a O-tackle get "tested" for a few series.

I wasn't proposing it as a test, my proposal was to make the change assuming that it would work and he would play the game with results no worse than the current mess. The alternative was intended simply as a reply to your concern that he would be awful and could cause the Packers to lose a game that could otherwise be won. In response to that concern, I stated that if he is awful, they can pull the plug, regardless of when that happens, after one series, two, a half or a game. You don't have to stick with it. It is not my proposal to do it as a test at all. You do it expecting to stick with it, but having a fall back plan just like you do for injuries. Didn't mean to confuse the two, just respond to your concern.




My argument was stated in my opening post for this topic:

Sometimes the "double switch" to cover for an injury works, but it is usually when the backup at the switch position is a borderline starter. For example, the double switch worked when:

• Tauscher periodically played guard in place of Rivera, and Earl Dotson came in for Tauscher. Dotson was a long-time starter at RT, and was not starting primarily due to a troublesome back issue. The drop-off at RT was not significant.
• Flanagan moved out to LT, and Winters returned to starting center. Again, a long-time starter who was still capable came in at his normal position and allowed the double switch to work.

The current double switch for the replacement of Bulaga may be making a suspect O-line a very weak one. By moving Lang to RT and Dietrich-Smith to starting guard, they really have two players playing out of position, positions they are not best suited for.. EDS is said to be a center long term, not a guard. By moving Lang, two positions are now significantly weaker.

Might they be better off biting the bullet and trying Barclay at RT while returning Lang to LG? The loss of Bulaga would then weaken only one position, not two, even if the one position is significantly weaker.

What I implied but might not have been the clearest on is that the current double switch is failing because EDS has been a big step down from Lang at LG. He is no Dotson at RT in the double switch with Tauscher, or Winters at center during the double switch with Flanagan. In response to your concern that Barclay would be so bad as to make it unworkable (as with Barbre) I threw lots of stuff against the wall, including his performance record in TC (15-5 the last two weeks), comments by others (Bulaga and scouts), the facts of his place on the roster (6/7th O-lineman, not a developmental game day inactive spot), the fact that returning Lang to LG would solve the current deficiency at that position. You compared him to Barbre, I compared him to many others who performed at least somewhat better, such that the team was able to play with them in the lineup.

Something has to be done to protect Rodgers better, different game plans, different players, different approach by Rodgers. They can't continue with him getting hit as much as he has the last two games, and really the entire season. Even if he makes it through in relatively good health, it impacts how he plays the game.

That's about it. You can have the last word if you want it. I am certainly more than ready to move on to a different discussion.

[sharpe1027]

I did not repeat the part of the discussion that nobody disagreed with: Lang is better at guard than EDS. Since nobody disagreed on that point, I was focusing on the only point of disagreement: does the evidence suggest that Barclay is good enough to have net positive effect (guard play improves but tackle may get worse). Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Calling my post disingenuous seems a bit disingenuous.