TC OL thread

[pbmax]

Simply don't have the time to beat this dead horse. We are 2-0 running more efficiently and often. Our D is fresh and dominant. Play action is awesome when we use it. Running still allows you to wear down a DL so it has MANY impacts and DOES help slow a pass rush. The Rams, Pats, Saints all run effectively and often. Who played in the NFCC and AFCC last year, I forget? Who keeps drafting RBs high...not the packers I'll say that.

Notice the new metric stats geeks are suddenly using...run efficiency. Yea, AJones was more efficient than Cook was Sunday. Incidentally the Vikes, down 21-0 KEPT RUNNING. They almost ended up winning. You think fat mike would call ONE run play down 21-0?? Jones set Rodgers up with favorable down/distance all day sunday. Rodgers did NOT play a good game, but it wasn't BECAUSE we ran too much.

Play action is great. But it works no matter whether you are running well or not. This is because on defense, anywhere form 5 to 8 players are playing run responsibility first.

McCarthy would not run much down 21-0 that is true. But down three scores you are going to pass more. You need the clock on your side. Vikings won't do it because their coach doesn't trust their QB or the passing game.

[pbmax]

PS...the Texans are down to using a scat back as their primary. The problem isn't that they call too many run plays or that running doesn't help.

You mentioned, as a good thing, metrics guys talking about run efficiency. Were the Texans being efficient by running it that much with a scatback?

[bobblehead]

Radagast said correctly, we won the first two games primarily because of our defense - that and having a QB who did not overtly lose the game. It was not because of increased or more efficient run plays - although I would concede the O Line has blocked better and the run game has been better this season. The goodness of the offense, though, as was on display early in the Vikings game, was when we passed first to set up a few change of pace runs. The fact is, Jones found more room to run when they passed first and often. Then, we went back to LaFleur's "new offense", and 21-0 dropped to 21-16 - but a win is a win is a win hahahahaha.

Strangely, I haven't read anything in Packerrats about the alleged "spat" between Rodgers and LaFleur during the game (or was it discussed here and I missed seeing it?). Maybe that "spat" - if indeed it happened - was about getting away from what got us the quick 21 points.

Really? After we got past the plays M4 scripted we went back to his offense? You make about as much sense as Maxine Waters.

[bobblehead]

You mentioned, as a good thing, metrics guys talking about run efficiency. Were the Texans being efficient by running it that much with a scatback?

I haven't looked. Do you actually know how they define run efficiency? It basically is exactly as I have said for years.

[pbmax]

I haven't looked. Do you actually know how they define run efficiency? It basically is exactly as I have said for years.

I don't remember where I got that quote. Send me a link and I will read through.

[texaspackerbacker]

Seems like we've got some Woody Hayes fans in here - run first, etc.

That quote talk got me reminded of a couple of his: "Only 3 things can happen if you throw the ball, and 2 of them are bad." And of course, the immortal, "3 yards and a cloud of dust." The trouble is, with the Packers O Line, you certainly can't count on that 3 yards consistently.

[Zool]

Ahh Tex. Nothing exists outside your world does it?

Maybe taking what the defense gives you is better than trying to impose your will. Isn't trying to unsuccessfully impose your will what got Fat Mike fired?

[texaspackerbacker]

Is that the best you can do, Zool? hahahahahaha - yeah, considering your history of posting, I guess it's above average.

[pbmax]

Now leave, or I will taunt you a second time!

[mraynrand]

Is there someone else up there I can talk to?

[Zool]

Is that the best you can do, Zool? hahahahahaha - yeah, considering your history of posting, I guess it's above average.

Considering your post history, why do I bother?

[RashanGary]

After seeing the season unfold a little, I don’t think we have any star OL. A future one, possibly and maybe even probably, but none at the moment.

Bakh, Bulaga and Lindsley are good players who are better at pass pro and below average in second level run blocking or any type of movement

Jenkins is a good player who’s young, but has a complete skillset and could be a future star

Turner is average. He’s a good run blocker, especially movement and second level and a bad pass protector

All in all, I’m not crowning this group, but they look solid. Even the backups Patrick and Light can fill in and not lose games. 5 games in, just having Rodgers and a decent OL, if the defense is good, the Packers should be in every game.


Tackles getting older. Definitely gonna wanna draft one to develop ASAP.

[call_me_ishmael]

Bakhtiari is 28 - that's not getting older in any way beyond the sense of everyone is literally getting older every second. Bakhtiari is a premier, super star LT. Bulaga is a premier, super star RT. Those things are reality and happening right now. Jenkins *might* turn out to be that, but he also might not.

[RashanGary]

I think the reason we stink at outside zone is cuz 3 of our OL struggles with movement and space.

[RashanGary]

Bakhtiari is 28 - that's not getting older in any way beyond the sense of everyone is literally getting older every second. Bakhtiari is a premier, super star LT. Bulaga is a premier, super star RT. Those things are reality and happening right now. Jenkins *might* turn out to be that, but he also might not.

I don’t agree. I watch a lot of football. Off the top, there’s a LT in Jax who’s a good pass protector and an absolute mauler. The guy in Dallas is more complete as well. I see OL every week who move better and run block better than our guys and still hold up as pass protectors. So I just don’t see it that way. I think we’ve overrated our guys.