Official Fire Bisaccia Thread

[texaspackerbacker]

Do they generally put back up O Linemen in for FGs and extra points? Maybe, but not much, I think.

[pbmax]

Do they generally put back up O Linemen in for FGs and extra points? Maybe, but not much, I think.

Prior to the block in Dallas it was four O lineman plus a couple D lineman and TEs.

After that, Jenkins was on the FG kicking team, making it five O line and I think the five starters.

[texaspackerbacker]

Five starters, that's the point. Unlike every other position group except QB, reserve O Linemen don't do much on special teams. That's why I say too many O Linemen is a waste of roster space.

[pbmax]

Five starters, that's the point. Unlike every other position group except QB, reserve O Linemen don't do much on special teams. That's why I say too many O Linemen is a waste of roster space.

Except the Packers would prefer to have the backups out there taking those snaps. The starters were out there because the backup didn't get the job done.

[texaspackerbacker]

You did say 4 out of 5 starters before the blocked kick, then 5 starters after. Then why would a team need 4 or even 3 backups/9 or even 8 total O Lineman? I'd say they don't. 7 is plenty.

[pbmax]

You did say 4 out of 5 starters before the blocked kick, then 5 starters after. Then why would a team need 4 or even 3 backups/9 or even 8 total O Lineman? I'd say they don't. 7 is plenty.

7 lineman are normal game day actives. Its a must. Someone to play Tackle and one to play the interior. You get a special dispensation for the 8th lineman if he needs to be active (something like the emergency QB). They are frequently called upon or maybe you didn't watch the Packers in 2025

There are 5 starting OL in a game. Which other position doesn't have a backup for each? 8 is the bare minimum to cover tackle, guard and center. And you rarely can make it through a season with 8 or less.

[pbmax]

You did say 4 out of 5 starters before the blocked kick, then 5 starters after. Then why would a team need 4 or even 3 backups/9 or even 8 total O Lineman? I'd say they don't. 7 is plenty.

Injuries put 4 starters out there and further injuries put Banks in when he allowed the block and got benched for Jenkins.

You see they tend to get injured, and need to be replaced during the game. You can't wait for tryouts on Tuesday.

[Patler]

Didn't the Packers lose 3 OL in a playoff game a few years ago?

[texaspackerbacker]

I would agree with the idea of 7 of them - 5 starters and 2 big plugs who waste roster spots - just in case. Beyond that, you use the practice squad.

I don't recall that game Patler mentioned, but maybe - shit happens, after all. For that extreme exceptional case, you need to have a D Lineman or maybe a reserve TE who used to play O Line in college trained for that emergency situation, just like having somebody as the "Tom Matte" - emergency backup QB. I assume you two, Patler and PB, are old enough to remember Matte.

[pbmax]

I would agree with the idea of 7 of them - 5 starters and 2 big plugs who waste roster spots - just in case. Beyond that, you use the practice squad.

I don't recall that game Patler mentioned, but maybe - shit happens, after all. For that extreme exceptional case, you need to have a D Lineman or maybe a reserve TE who used to play O Line in college trained for that emergency situation, just like having somebody as the "Tom Matte" - emergency backup QB. I assume you two, Patler and PB, are old enough to remember Matte.

That's a recipe for disaster even if I know who Tom Matte is (yes, but never saw him play).

The only way your proposition makes sense is if you think they aren't important (which I could not disagree with more) or you think they don't get hurt at the same rate as other positions.

You simply cannot find starting caliber O lineman on the waiver wire each Tuesday.

[Patler]

I would agree with the idea of 7 of them - 5 starters and 2 big plugs who waste roster spots - just in case. Beyond that, you use the practice squad.

I don't recall that game Patler mentioned, but maybe - shit happens, after all. For that extreme exceptional case, you need to have a D Lineman or maybe a reserve TE who used to play O Line in college trained for that emergency situation, just like having somebody as the "Tom Matte" - emergency backup QB. I assume you two, Patler and PB, are old enough to remember Matte.

Of course I remember Tom Matte and the playoff game when he played QB against the Packers. That was in the days of the 40-man rosters and the Colts lost both Unitas and his backup. It was also the days when teams ran as much or more than they passed, and the HB option was run commonly. The Colts with Matte, who (like Hornung) was a QB in college, ran it regularly. So playing QB was not much of a stretch for the Colts and Tom Matte. How did the game against the pack turn out for the Colts?

[texaspackerbacker]

"if you think they aren't important (which I could not disagree with more) or you think they don't get hurt at the same rate as other positions" - actually, yes, I think both are true. The Packers have thrived many times over the years with mediocre O Line play. A pass first offense and a mobile QB greatly lessens the importance of O Line play. And as for getting injured less, there are five O Line starters. The chances of all of them or two or more of them getting hurt at the same time certainly would be less than other position groups. So I stand by what I said.

As for Matte as an emergency backup QB, yeah, like most emergency QBs, he was a QB at lower levels. True, he lost a close game to the Packers, but as I recall, he won a game or two at QB to get to that championship game.

[pbmax]

And as for getting injured less, there are five O Line starters. The chances of all of them or two or more of them getting hurt at the same time certainly would be less than other position groups. So I stand by what I said.
.

Let's see the numbers then. Let's see some dynamic analysis.

[texaspackerbacker]

double post - just trying to edit

[texaspackerbacker]

I don't generally do "digging up the numbers". I just settle for stating the obvious. I'll leave the digging to those trying to contradict the obvious.

Dynamic analysis, as I've often stated, applies to the salary cap, in fact, it's the essence of the salary cap.