O-LINE ANALYSIS, PACKERS VS. FALCONS (MOLL EDITION!)

[gbpackfan]

I think by now you guys know how I do this, but in case you forgot, I'll run it down real quick. I watched Wells, Spitz, and Moll individually on each play. I give them a (+) for positive plays and a (-) for negative plays. Like always, positive grades do not always mean the play produced positive yards, it just means they did their job (in my point of view). So there it is, pretty basic. I'm not claiming it is a perfect system, but it is fun to compare week 1 to week 2!

The starting line ran 40 plays together. During one of those plays, there was a fumbled snap. I could not pick up if it was Brett's fault or Wells' fault and I could not tell if it was going to be a running or a passing a play, so I based my analysis off of 39 plays. 24 of these plays were pass plays, 15 were runs.

OVERALL

Wells: 36 of 39 plays were positive or 92%
Moll: 31 of 39 plays were positive or 79%
Spitz: 33 of 39 plays were positive or 85%

PASSING:

Wells: 23 of 24 plays were positive or 96%
Moll: 20 of 24 plays were positive or 83%
Spitz: 23 of 24 plays were positive or 96%

RUNNING

Wells: 13 of 15 plays were positive or 87%
Moll: 11 of 15 plays were positive or 73%
Spitz: 10 of 15 plays were positive or 67%

WEEK 1 COMPARISION

Because Moll did not play G week 1, I will compare his play to Colledge's. % listed is positive %. It should also be noted that week 1 % is based on 20 plays compared to the almost double the plays, 39, the 1 offense ran week 2.

OVERALL

Wells: Wk 1 90% vs. Wk 2 92%
Spitz: Wk 1 90% vs. Wk 2 85%
Moll: Wk 1 (Colledge) 75% vs. Wk 2 79%

PASSING

Wells: Wk 1 100% vs. Wk 2 96%
Spitz: Wk 1 100% vs. Wk 2 96%
Moll: Wk 1 (Colledge) 71% vs. Wk 2 83%

RUNNING

Wells: Wk 1 67% vs. Wk 2 87%
Spitz: Wk 1 67% vs. Wk 2 67%
Moll: Wk 1 (Colledge) 83% vs. Wk 2 73%

INTERESTING TID-BITS

Wells' last 27 plays were positive!

Spitz and Molls longest string of positive plays was 12.

Wells had 1 borderline play (+/-) and Moll had 3. I gave them the benefit of the doubt and graded them a + since their assigned defender did not make the tackle or sack.

Spitz's positive play % is exactly the same that it was in week 2.

Moll did a better job keeping Favre off his arse!

The offense line looked MUCH better then it did it week 1. They seemed to work together a lot better.

Moll took advantage of his opportunity and should be given the starting position. Let's let these guys work together for awhile before Chicago comes to town!

[pack4to84]

thank you for this post. I like seeing the stats like this.

[gbpackfan]

You are very welcome.

[RashanGary]

Amazing thread. Informative, to the point, original. GREAT work.

This makes me think Moll might win the job. It also makes you wonder if Colledge will just hold down a back up job and be the glue that holds things together if 1 injury occurs. He would also be the perfect replacement when Tauscher's contract is up.

Moll looked damn agile. For being his first week at OG, he sure looked pretty good. I have a feeling he might be the gut to win the job. Colledge would be a good back up piece. He can play T at a high level in college. He can play G at a below average level in the NFL and might get better each week. He's pretty much all that's left of the depth. Him and Whittaker.

[MuttnJeff]

Colledge ought to stay at left tackle
By Chris Havel


Daryn Colledge has gone from starting left guard to a second-team backup in what has been a frustrating first 17 days of training camp.

The second-round draft pick is down in the depth chart, but he isn't out of the Green Bay Packers' plans.

Coach Mike McCarthy's best move is to move Colledge back to left tackle, his natural position, and the sooner the better. I applaud the Packers' attempt to transform Colledge from a tackle to a guard, but not as much as I disagree with it.

McCarthy has shown the ability to make changes if he feels it is necessary, thus the reshuffling of the offensive line. Now, he needs to show he isn't stubborn by going the whole nine yards and moving Colledge to left tackle behind Chad Clifton.

Colledge is no more a left guard than Junius Coston is a left tackle.

The 6-foot-4, 299-pound lineman from Boise State has the long arms, quick feet and patient demeanor to be a truly special left tackle. He is strong enough to stone a bull-rushing defensive end, and clever enough to neutralize a pure speed rusher.

He isn't capable of brawling with powerful, immovable mountains in the interior defensive line. That isn't his forte. If that isn't obvious to McCarthy and his coaching staff by now, it ought to be.

Some have compared Colledge to Mike Wahle, the Packers' former left guard, by suggesting the rookie also could make the move to guard from tackle. It sounds nice, but Colledge and Wahle have entirely different approaches.

Where Colledge is similar to Clifton, a natural counterpuncher, Wahle was too aggressive to be successful at tackle. Once Wahle went to guard, he could use his innate toughness and nasty disposition to trade blows with the big boys. Colledge is more of a cerebral, finesse blocker best suited to left tackle.

As it stands, Colledge is languishing behind fellow rookie Jason Spitz while Tony Moll, like Colledge a former WAC player, moved into the starting lineup at right guard.

I suspect Colledge's pride and confidence have been rocked. I also suspect he will do everything he can to regain both.

That isn't going to happen at guard. Colledge plays too high, thinks too much and lacks the natural aggression required to thrive in the NFL's version of hell.

The Packers are a sprained ankle away from Josh Bourke, an undrafted free agent out of Grand Valley State, being asked to protect Brett Favre's blindside.

If Colledge, the sixth offensive lineman chosen in the April draft, isn't better than an undrafted rookie left tackle — and I say that with all due respect to Bourke — the Packers' scouting department blew it.

McCarthy needs to switch Colledge back to left tackle, where he can battle Bourke for the right to back up Clifton.

It creates competition at a critical position, and it just might prevent Colledge from losing whatever confidence remains.

He is too talented a lineman, and too valuable a backup left tackle, to be miscast at left guard.

[gbpackfan]

I agree with Havel.

It should be:

LT LG C RG RT
Clifton Sptiz Wells Moll Tauscher
Colledge Peko White Moore Coston/Bourke


Colledge should be given reps at both the L and R side and be the top back-up T. I am not sure who makes this team, Peko, Coston or Bourke. I haven't seen anything all that great out of Coston. And I KNOW, Bourke is a LT on the depth chart, but he better be able to play on both sides if he wants to make this roster!

[RashanGary]

I like some things about Havel but this is a perfect example of why he will never be on Bob McGinn or Cliff Christl's level.

At any point in that artical did Havel sight any stats or observations from the games or practice field. He didn't show any coaches opinions. He didn't bother to ask a scout or two what they thought about Colledge at LG. All he did was say College was meant to be a LT because he has quick feet and not enough nastyness. He didn't bother to site examples where Colledge was too finess. He didn't sight even one circumstance that lead him to believe what he wrote. He just wrote it and expected us to believe it becuase he said so.

He may damn well have good reason to believe what he wrote, he just didn't show his readers the respect to back his opinion on paper with a sound research oriented approach. Patler needs to tear this guy a new a-hole. I know I've generated some damn horrible unsubstanciated arguements and for the love of god, I've gotten my damn head ripped off for it. I just once what to see Havel called to task on this rubbish. This guy has made a living on Brett Favre's generousity. He's got some entertainment value but he can't be taken seriously by you guys. Am I the only one who feels this way?

[Bretsky]

Colledge ought to stay at left tackle
By Chris Havel


Daryn Colledge has gone from starting left guard to a second-team backup in what has been a frustrating first 17 days of training camp.

The second-round draft pick is down in the depth chart, but he isn't out of the Green Bay Packers' plans.

Coach Mike McCarthy's best move is to move Colledge back to left tackle, his natural position, and the sooner the better. I applaud the Packers' attempt to transform Colledge from a tackle to a guard, but not as much as I disagree with it.

McCarthy has shown the ability to make changes if he feels it is necessary, thus the reshuffling of the offensive line. Now, he needs to show he isn't stubborn by going the whole nine yards and moving Colledge to left tackle behind Chad Clifton.

Colledge is no more a left guard than Junius Coston is a left tackle.

The 6-foot-4, 299-pound lineman from Boise State has the long arms, quick feet and patient demeanor to be a truly special left tackle. He is strong enough to stone a bull-rushing defensive end, and clever enough to neutralize a pure speed rusher.

He isn't capable of brawling with powerful, immovable mountains in the interior defensive line. That isn't his forte. If that isn't obvious to McCarthy and his coaching staff by now, it ought to be.

Some have compared Colledge to Mike Wahle, the Packers' former left guard, by suggesting the rookie also could make the move to guard from tackle. It sounds nice, but Colledge and Wahle have entirely different approaches.

Where Colledge is similar to Clifton, a natural counterpuncher, Wahle was too aggressive to be successful at tackle. Once Wahle went to guard, he could use his innate toughness and nasty disposition to trade blows with the big boys. Colledge is more of a cerebral, finesse blocker best suited to left tackle.

As it stands, Colledge is languishing behind fellow rookie Jason Spitz while Tony Moll, like Colledge a former WAC player, moved into the starting lineup at right guard.

I suspect Colledge's pride and confidence have been rocked. I also suspect he will do everything he can to regain both.

That isn't going to happen at guard. Colledge plays too high, thinks too much and lacks the natural aggression required to thrive in the NFL's version of hell.

The Packers are a sprained ankle away from Josh Bourke, an undrafted free agent out of Grand Valley State, being asked to protect Brett Favre's blindside.

If Colledge, the sixth offensive lineman chosen in the April draft, isn't better than an undrafted rookie left tackle — and I say that with all due respect to Bourke — the Packers' scouting department blew it.

McCarthy needs to switch Colledge back to left tackle, where he can battle Bourke for the right to back up Clifton.

It creates competition at a critical position, and it just might prevent Colledge from losing whatever confidence remains.

He is too talented a lineman, and too valuable a backup left tackle, to be miscast at left guard.

THIS MAY BE RIGHT BUT I HATE THE CONTENTS HERE

IF Colledge can't play OG, TEDDY Botched this pick. He was slated as the OG starter from day one and a 4-12 team in desperate need of OG help doesn't use a 2nd round draft pick for a backup at one of the few positions that we have an excelling starter at.

Clifton is still one of the better OT's in the game, as is Tauscher.

The Packers coaching staff needs to help him develop as an OG, and if he doesn't have the ability to play there then TT Blew It.


B

[Bretsky]

I like some things about Havel but this is a perfect example of why he will never be on Bob McGinn or Cliff Christl's level.

At any point in that artical did Havel sight any stats or observations from the games or practice field. He didn't show any coaches opinions. He didn't bother to ask a scout or two what they thought about Colledge at LG. All he did was say College was meant to be a LT because he has quick feet and not enough nastyness. He didn't bother to site examples where Colledge was too finess. He didn't sight even one circumstance that lead him to believe what he wrote. He just wrote it and expected us to believe it becuase he said so.

He may damn well have good reason to believe what he wrote, he just didn't show his readers the respect to back his opinion on paper with a sound research oriented approach. Patler needs to tear this guy a new a-hole. I know I've generated some damn horrible unsubstanciated arguements and for the love of god, I've gotten my damn head ripped off for it. I just once what to see Havel called to task on this rubbish. This guy has made a living on Brett Favre's generousity. He's got some entertainment value but he can't be taken seriously by you guys. Am I the only one who feels this way?

I think you are right on here with this analyis. And I hope the article proves to be incredibly wrong.

[RashanGary]

I agree to a degree as well gbpackfan. At least you backed your opinion with some damn fine research and examples. Havel didn't even bother to say why. He just said this is what he is, take my word for it.

[the_idle_threat]

I was thinking the same thing as Havel re: Colledge. We need a good backup at tackle and that is his natural position. It's kind of a no-brainer.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I wouldn't agree with that at all, Bretsky. Having a potential great LT is like drafting a potential great QB. They are hard to find. Clifton is over 30 now and is hobbling. If Colledge is a good starting LT in year 3 it would still be a great draft pick. Hell, Ron Wolf drafted Clifton when it looked like there was no need for him. Who's to say Clifton can hold up all year. It wouldn't be out of the realm for Colledge to "save our bacon" at some point this year at LT.

[Bretsky]

I wouldn't agree with that at all, Bretsky. Having a potential great LT is like drafting a potential great QB. They are hard to find. Clifton is over 30 now and is hobbling. If Colledge is a good starting LT in year 3 it would still be a great draft pick. Hell, Ron Wolf drafted Clifton when it looked like there was no need for him. Who's to say Clifton can hold up all year. It wouldn't be out of the realm for Colledge to "save our bacon" at some point this year at LT.

Ron Wolf had the luxury of drafting for depth. Ted Thompson was not drafting for depth. And who knows what kind of potential he has at LT ? As all we know so far is he seems to have failed at OG.

TT and his scouts (wist would have a field day with these comments) were thoroughly convinced that Colledge would excel as an OG in this system. That is what he was drafted for. You could argue Clifton is breaking down; I could argue he may have another successful 5-6 years in the league. Time will tell to see who is right, but he''s being paid big money to excel at OT and Colledge was drafted to play OG as he was immediately given the starters job to lose, which he did.

Colledge could certainly save our bacon as a backup OT; so could any other backup on our roster. But Teddy didn't draft him to be a backup on one of the worst OL's in football in 2005.

B

[RashanGary]

If Colledge is backup because Moll is so damn good they can't keep him off the field, I'm OK with it. If Colledge is backup because he sucks so damn bad and cant' get ti fixed then I'm not OK with it.

I've far from given up on the guy after on preseason game, but it looks like Moll played better in his first week of OG than Colledge did after a couple months of studying and practicing it. Moll is a damn fine athlete according to Thompson. It's not like Colledge is getting beat out by some try hard, low upside player. He's getting beat out by a raw, extremely talented guy with a ton of upside. Still, it's not a good sign yet not the end of the world. Colledge could turn out just fine. Wahle took a couple years. Rivera was the same way.

It's great when draft picks become quality starters like Collins, Hawk and Jenning look to be right away but it's rare. We're getting a little spoiled here. Colledge is following a pretty common path for young players. I don't think this bodes well, but he could be damn fine lineman. He could even be a damn fine gaurd.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Ron Wolf had the luxury of drafting for depth. Ted Thompson was not drafting for depth. And who knows what kind of potential he has at LT ? As all we know so far is he seems to have failed at OG.

TT and his scouts (wist would have a field day with these comments) were thoroughly convinced that Colledge would excel as an OG in this system. That is what he was drafted for. You could argue Clifton is breaking down; I could argue he may have another successful 5-6 years in the league. Time will tell to see who is right, but he''s being paid big money to excel at OT and Colledge was drafted to play OG as he was immediately given the starters job to lose, which he did.

Colledge could certainly save our bacon as a backup OT; so could any other backup on our roster. But Teddy didn't draft him to be a backup on one of the worst OL's in football in 2005.

Clifton was drafted after the Packers were coming off an 8-8 season. That team wasn't deep, and he didn't have that luxury, but Wolf didn't go with conventional wisdom. He understood the importance of some positions. That's why he drafted QBs every year.

You can't say the scouts thought he would be a great OG. Maybe they thought he might make it at OG, but if nothing else, they'll have a good LT down the line.

Incredible. You've really gotten pessimistic about everything. So, you are going to judge Colledge before his first regular season game? I'll choose to wait a few years. You make me look like tex.