In Play at the OTAs (2014)

[Just Jeff]

Solid. No one beat him out. He landed a starters deal with another team and no one beat him out there. What is your definition of solid NFL guard?

Of course no one beat him out. Did you see the list of Olinemen that Patler posted? Colledge is the tallest midget on the list. It took a half a season for EDS to beat out Saturday. Was Saturday "solid" for half a season, by way of your logic? Also the Cardinals picking Colledge up doesn't make him "solid" either. If TT is anything, he's a big resigner of his own guys and he didn't resign Colledge. So in TT's mind, Colledge did get beat out, by TJ Lang.

Not saying that TT might have been better off keeping Colledge and Wells, but I'm not sure Lang and Saturday were improvements.

[bobblehead]

Of course no one beat him out. Did you see the list of Olinemen that Patler posted? Colledge is the tallest midget on the list. It took a half a season for EDS to beat out Saturday. Was Saturday "solid" for half a season, by way of your logic? Also the Cardinals picking Colledge up doesn't make him "solid" either. If TT is anything, he's a big resigner of his own guys and he didn't resign Colledge. So in TT's mind, Colledge did get beat out, by TJ Lang.

Not saying that TT might have been better off keeping Colledge and Wells, but I'm not sure Lang and Saturday were improvements.

So, excuses. Sounds about right. College sucks, just that everyone else sucks more. TT didn't feel like paying college. TT didn't resign wells, does that mean that someone beat him out for the position? EDS walked, did he get beat out? Your idea of getting beat out is kinda weird. Jennings got beat out for his job?

Look, I am not backing any poster in this debate, but Daryn College while not an all pro, was/is a solid pro. To argue otherwise is to stare facts in the face and deny them. The guy missed virtually no starts, played 3 positions at times (although only 2 of them well), and played against stud DT's in the NFC north. He won some he lost some. He won't be in the hall of fame. He isn't as good as sitton. There are however most teams that would take him at the right price. If he were a FA right now he would start again somewhere. He likely will get 10-14 seasons as an NFL starter when its said and done....what isn't solid about that?

[Just Jeff]

EDS walked, did he get beat out? Your idea of getting beat out is kinda weird. Jennings got beat out for his job?

Yes the reason that EDS walked is because we didn't want him back, which is an impolite way fo saying he got beat, by X. Jennings didn't come back, because we didn[t want him back, which is an impolite way of saying he got beat by X. EDS was particularly pointed in that we don't have a center in the roster who has taken a snap and he still wasn't wanted back, even as insurance. You could say he was beat or you can say he was bad, but he's not back, so TT made one of those conclusions. You can say Colledge was beat or you can say he was bad, but he's didn't get resigned by the GM who is imfamous for signing he own picks, so it was one of them.

Now I don't have a horse in this race as Colledge is old news and I'm not saying that he was a bum, but he's just a servicable guard who has stayed healthy. He'll never be and never was a stud (solid). Just a guy.

The better debate is would you rather have a stud who plays 10 games a year or a servicable guy who can play 15-16 for 10-14 years. Not sure I would disagree with taking Colledge over Bulaga in that one.

[Just Jeff]

So, excuses. Sounds about right. College sucks, just that everyone else sucks more.

OK, who on that list was better than Colledge when we let Colledge go? His replacement was Lang. Is Lang better? I don't think so? If we would have had a better replacement, don't you think we would have played him?

[pbmax]

Yes the reason that EDS walked is because we didn't want him back, which is an impolite way fo saying he got beat, by X. Jennings didn't come back, because we didn[t want him back, which is an impolite way of saying he got beat by X.

I undertand the point, but I think you make the decision to leave/stay too determinative. Jennings had been offered more than $8 mil per season prior to his last year. He got hurt and the market was not what he hoped for, but I think the offer is a testament to how he was viewed in the organization in his last packer season. Had he accepted the deal, would the Packers have been saying they viewed him as irreplaceable?

He clearly was a player they liked, given the offer. But he also was a player who they have capped in terms of how much value they think they will see in return. I think in large measure that had to do with his age.

Jennings was beat out of his job, but he was beat out of his job by someone with better value, which quite literally means a dollar amount per future production for the Packers. The Packers have done this with a number of players who did not have someone better behind them (Woodson).

[pbmax]

I still have no idea what Dom and M3 are trying to tell us:

from JSO and Ty Dunne: http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/261334071.html

Q: Peter, Vienna, Austria - Hi Tyler, glad to see you're still rocking the beard - obviously a great decision you made a couple of years ago. I can't really combine the whole the "more packages, less plays" bit and "too vanilla last year" comment; usually, less plays implies a more basic approach. To me it wouldn't make sense to have less plays, but just rather complex ones. I know there's not a lot of information yet on the schematic changes on defense, but what do you make of this? And how does the Elephant-position fit into this? Thanks and greetings from Europe!

A: Tyler Dunne - Peter: You got it. If you can't grow it on your head anymore, you might as well on your face. ...You're not alone in that confusion. I think a lot of us in the media were a tad puzzled at first, too. Asked to clear it all up, here's what Dom Capers said last week: “Less volume, more packages. ..."In this package you might have five or six different things, as opposed to having 15. … I’ve always believed your personnel dictates that so much. You can go back and say, ‘did we get too vanilla last year?’ Well, we were forced to get pretty vanilla. And the problem is, in this league, you can be vanilla if you’re just better than the people you’re playing against. You can be pretty vanilla. So the deal is, it’s going to be, we’ve got the different personnel groups. There’s ones we’ve put together that will feature our best personnel that are the most successful for us.” .... So my understanding is that they want to have many different packages, but less confusion within those packages. And to do this, you need versatile players --- a Julius Peppers who can stand up, and go down into a stance, a Mike Neal who could be an interior rusher one play and a stand-up OLB the next, etc.

[mraynrand]

^^^^ does sound a little like semantics. 6 packages with 5 options each is the similar (but not identical to) 3 packages with 10 options each.

[Fritz]

^^^^ does sound a little like semantics. 6 packages with 5 options each is the similar (but not identical to) 3 packages with 10 options each.

If someone could define for me what a "package" is, exactly, and what "options" are, that might help.

The only "package" references I know are via UPS and via my girlfriend's comments about other men.

[pbmax]

^^^^ does sound a little like semantics. 6 packages with 5 options each is the similar (but not identical to) 3 packages with 10 options each.

And I don't think they are playing that game.

Source of my confusion is that one of McCarthy's problems he talked about in the offseason was the a couple of guys also get hurt and suddenly you are vanilla. Lot's of stuff done in the offseason is out the window.

But he also said they want to simplify and trust the players to win the battle's where they had the advantage. And I took that to mean no more square pegs in round holes to fit the D scheme. It also would fit with draft and develop. However, it would require some changes to the base scheme as they are short of 6' 5" DEs and one ILB.

But Dom seems to be saying it might be vanilla, but if you are physically superior, you can win that way. But is he just making a point and not telling us what will actually happen OR is vanilla the new plan? Can you win the physical matchup with versatile players? Rather than dominant, prototypical players?

I would think you either go versatile and throw multiple looks at them by mixing and matching players versus what you think the O will actually do.

Or you would go vanilla and get the exact players the scheme calls for and win the battles one on one.

[pbmax]

If someone could define for me what a "package" is, exactly, and what "options" are, that might help.

The only "package" references I know are via UPS and via my girlfriend's comments about other men.

Package is the player lineup. Oakie-Base, Nickel, Big Nickel, Run-Stopping Hippo Nickel, Dime, etc.

Options are the scheme you can run with that personnel on the field. Options and tweaks (adjustments based on opponent personnel or tendency) are generally where the complexities manifest themselves and mark the difference between the preseason and the regular season.

However, as LeBeau as said of his valuing veterans, his baseline D installation is more than most young players can handle.

[Fritz]

I think the "vanilla" example was just an example; I don't think Dom meant they're going vanilla. I think he meant that once he lost a certain number of players to injury, he didn't have other guys cross-trained, so he was limited in what packages (that word!) he could use - thus, the vanilla.

My understanding is that they'll cross-train guys to play lots of spots, so they can use the defense they want to and not be so dependent on who's available.

So Mike Neal can be an OLB or a down lineman, Peppers can be a DE or an OLB or rush inside, Tramon Williams will be able to play inside or out, Micah Hyde can play the slot or the safety spots, Mike Daniels will be able to play nose, DE, and safety, Clay Matthews will be able to play OLB and ILB - at the same time! - and so on.

[Brandon494]

http://www.acmepackingcompany.com/2014/5/30/5765556/packers-2014-ota-weigh-ins-reveal-progress-for-second-year-players

Bakhtiari and Datonoe Jones both put on 10 lbs during the off season while Josh Boyd put on 25 pounds bringing him to 328. Boyd played DE last season but with that weight he has to be the favorite to backup at NT which I believe is his best position. I can't wait for the season to start, expecting big things from the defense this year. I see a rematch of Super Bowl XXXII in the near future.

[mraynrand]

And I don't think they are playing that game.

Source of my confusion is that one of McCarthy's problems he talked about in the offseason was the a couple of guys also get hurt and suddenly you are vanilla. Lot's of stuff done in the offseason is out the window.

But he also said they want to simplify and trust the players to win the battle's where they had the advantage. And I took that to mean no more square pegs in round holes to fit the D scheme. It also would fit with draft and develop. However, it would require some changes to the base scheme as they are short of 6' 5" DEs and one ILB.

But Dom seems to be saying it might be vanilla, but if you are physically superior, you can win that way. But is he just making a point and not telling us what will actually happen OR is vanilla the new plan? Can you win the physical matchup with versatile players? Rather than dominant, prototypical players?

I would think you either go versatile and throw multiple looks at them by mixing and matching players versus what you think the O will actually do.

Or you would go vanilla and get the exact players the scheme calls for and win the battles one on one.

I agree: you are very confused. But I don't think I can help.

[esoxx]

So, excuses. Sounds about right. College sucks, just that everyone else sucks more. TT didn't feel like paying college. TT didn't resign wells, does that mean that someone beat him out for the position? EDS walked, did he get beat out? Your idea of getting beat out is kinda weird. Jennings got beat out for his job?

Look, I am not backing any poster in this debate, but Daryn College while not an all pro, was/is a solid pro. To argue otherwise is to stare facts in the face and deny them. The guy missed virtually no starts, played 3 positions at times (although only 2 of them well), and played against stud DT's in the NFC north. He won some he lost some. He won't be in the hall of fame. He isn't as good as sitton. There are however most teams that would take him at the right price. If he were a FA right now he would start again somewhere. He likely will get 10-14 seasons as an NFL starter when its said and done....what isn't solid about that?

Actually, Colledge is a FA right now as Arizona cut him loose this off-season and he remains unsigned. I could see a team signing him for OL depth but his starting days are likely over.

[Guiness]

Package is the player lineup. Oakie-Base, Nickel, Big Nickel, Run-Stopping Hippo Nickel, Dime, etc.

Options are the scheme you can run with that personnel on the field. Options and tweaks (adjustments based on opponent personnel or tendency) are generally where the complexities manifest themselves and mark the difference between the preseason and the regular season.

However, as LeBeau as said of his valuing veterans, his baseline D installation is more than most young players can handle.

That's the way I see it too - several players who are versatile in the way they line up. Also makes it harder for offenses to find matchup problem an exploit it. You've got Neal and Peppers who can play with a hand in the dirt or standing up, and Daniels who I think is stout enough (290lbs at 6') to be a play in a situation where they stand Peppers up and are left with only 2 DL. One player who's role I'm not sure of in all this is Datone Jones.