MCGINN POST NFL DRAFT CHAT

[Patler]

What evidence do you have about sensationalizing? Did you listen to the post packer draft podcast?

Why are you so hung up on a specific podcast? I have read his articles for years and years. I have read the transcripts of his chats for years and years. I have listened to some podcasts, although I am not certain of which podcast you are referring to.

Based on my observations of his writings over years and years, his common over-dramatization of his insider information as it relates to problems he perceives on the team, and his writings with respect to the "bigger" and "tougher" issue; and based on my understanding of the current Packer organization and how the key people in that organization view their roles in the organization, , I feel comfortable with the opinion I offered:

QBME raises a solid point. In an organization like the Packers, any such "directive" would come from TT, and no one else. No one above TT would (or should) issue football operation directives relating to the roster.

More than likely, just another example of McGinn sensationalizing a comment he heard.

[run pMc]

I've listened to the podcasts...several times.
Once you get past the crap about HGH in the last one, they talk a little bit about the draft class. Most of it is around Lacy and his injuries. The rest is about how TT ignored Safety and backup QB and basically doubled up -- i.e., drafted pairs of players -- at RB, OT, DL, and WR. Those were, I thought, interesting points.

The whole thing about how Jones has to produce as a rookie is a bit of a squishy exaggeration. What does that mean? If we expect Datone Jones, in his first year, to be Cullen Jenkins in his last year in GB then I think we're setting ourselves up for a lot of frustration and disappointment. I think he'll contribute this year and has a shot at being a good player long term. The fate of the defense is not in Jones' hands. Talk of getting bigger and tougher with Jones is dubious -- he's taller, but Howard Green was bigger. Hard to say about "tougher" with any of the draft picks since none of them were known for being fiery enforcers and haven't played a pro snap yet. Bahktiari played to the whistle -- good for him -- but I read it as aggressive more than nasty, and at a cheeseburger shy of 300lbs. he's considered undersized.

Does Lacy make them a bigger/tougher team? Only if he can stay healthy and play well enough to give McCarthy reason to run the ball...that will give the OL more of an attitude. Personally I don't think Lacy will hold up for more than 200 carries a season on the pro level so they'll have to platoon him. (I will gladly eat crow on that BTW.) If they can find a running game regardless of the RB it will make them tougher...a successful running game gives that impression.

Honestly, the "bigger and tougher" argument, regardless of source, could be spun anyway McGinn wants to:
Bahktiari is light and needs a NFL weight room? He's soft and small!
He plays aggressive and finishes? He's a tough guy!

Arguing either way is kind of pointless...did TT make moves to improve the team this year and beyond? Anything beyond that is selling fishwrappers.

[pbmax]

You know, I had not put together the "bigger, tougher" thing with the HGH article. I wonder if they were aware of the other's work in this area? Maybe one of them has inside, deep background info that not enough Packers are using it

Seriously though, it is one reason this mantra continues after the draft when Bob can point to no specific player and say "See? Bigger and tougher than before".

I do think, however, that reporters are asked to do two things that often collide and conflict with each other. One is to report only confirmed facts* and the other is to write articles covering topics and angles the editors want to see and know the public will consume. Only a fool would not have expected some form of "tougher, bigger" coverage this offseason after the struggle with the Giants twice in the playoffs were followed by the 49ers debacle and the Vikings regular season.

Everyone, even yahoo's on sports radio are talking about the Packers getter tougher in the trenches. And every move this offseason is viewed through that prism.

Even one of my favorite writers (Tanier) cannot comment on the Packers without mentioning the running game, though to be fair he is looking for a joke AND trying to decipher the Packer offense's problems rather than "tougher, bigger".

We were going to get this article before the draft no matter who did or did not talk to Bob from with 1265 Lombardi. But let's consider the converse of what McGinn reported. Is it ever an edict on a team to be "smaller and softer"? Not by that name certainly. Faster, yes, but not the other two. So Bob could have asked nearly anyone at the Packer's Offices about "bigger, tougher" and been given an answer that they ALL are and ALWAYS are looking to get bigger and tougher players. Which makes this draft no different than any other. Its like a new D coordinator coming into town. They never promise to be soft and reactive. Tough and aggressive are always the bywords.


* May, by necessity, include confirmed facts with only one, unnamed, source. Your mileage may vary.

[Cheesehead Craig]

So the Packers need to get more "tougher and bigger", in other words more physical:

[KYPack]

Also,

4) No Robot can have sex with a human, unless it is a special episode during sweeps week.

[swede]

Also,

4) No Robot can have sex with a human...

...

unless it is a special episode during sweeps week.

[Fritz]

I suppose the two poles in the buzzword or phrase-of-the-day world of what passes for reporting are "bigger and tougher" and "faster and more athletic."

[smuggler]

Right as always, resident journalist fanboy and whiteknight.

[Fritz]

???

[bobblehead]

I've heard Larry McCarren say the RB makes the line, not the other way around. He's also said the QB makes the line, not the other way around. There is some of both, but in McCarren's opinion, the QB and RB make their respective games tick.

If I felt like researching i could disprove the RB making the line. At different times in the NFL a great rusher goes down and the backup gets multiple 100 yard games. With the packers remember when Ahman was a stud, but we could plug in the pooper or even ??Fischer?? and they would have good games.

Now, if you are talking the 1 in 100 back. Payton, Peterson, Brown, Sanders. Then yes, they make the line better, and of course in all cases its symbiotic, but as a general statement a good line blowing guys off the ball is more vital than a back that can squeak through a tight hole for a couple extra yards.

[bobblehead]

If MM was really honest, he'd say "We couldn't run against the softest coverages in the NFL. Teams sold out to stop our passing game, and succeeded more often than we like. Aaron Rodgers is great, but not great enough put up 2010 like numbers against those defenses. We have to improve our running game if we want to let AR loose."

He won't say that, and honestly, I hope he's not too proud to admit, when he looks in the mirror, that his offense couldn't do the things they wanted to do last year because they couldn't run the ball. If he (they) don't admit that to themselves, it's kinda scary.

It doesn't take a 20 year offensive coordinator to figure out our running game stunted our entire offense last year. We're just fans, but that much was obvious.


His stubbornness, to suggest running the ball is some sort of side-bar to his grand offense, is a little scary. Hopefully he's just posturing and being stubborn for the media, and behind closed doors, recognizing they NEED to run the ball better. NEED to.

Both Holmgren and MM have the same pattern. In weeks 1-8 they forget that running is part of the game. They remember it suddenly and things click. One of the problems in the SF game is that even tied at 24-24 midway through the 3rd we had abandoned the run. Again, I don't feel like researching, but I think we had something like 6 carries in the first quarter and 4 more the rest of the game. It was absurd to think we could get away with that against that D.

[smuggler]

Fritz, it wasn't directed at you.

[bobblehead]

All OL always think that way. They'd want a chance to hit the DL, instead of sitting on their heels trying to stop an oncoming freight train.

soooo....maybe there is something to it?

[Fritz]

Fritz, it wasn't directed at you.

Ah, gotcha.

As to the running game, it is maddening the way the headcoach forgets about the run at crucial times, except when he does try to run out the clock with a lead and Packer running backs get the ball, sweep right, and have defenders two or three yards behind the line of scrimmage waiting to greet them.

Better blocking, more holes to run through. That's what I say. The rare ones, as Bobble points out, make the line better, but yes, even mediocre Packer backs could get yards when Green was out. That was a damn fine offensive line.