the Aaron Kampman mold

[wist43]

Morrency and Jackson are not third down backs. In ability, they have what you want your starter to have. They may not have the durability/stamina of a so-called "feature back", but that doesn't make them third down backs in my opinion.

Combined, they easily can be as good, or maybe even better than Green was in 2006. He was nothing more than "OK" last year. I'm not suggesting he is washed up by any means. But if you are comparing the Packers potential in 2007 to what they were in 2006, RB is not an area that has clearly declined. Green himself may be better in 2007 than in 2006, and the Packers may have been able to "improve" in 2007 by having kept him.

If you look at the final numbers, no Green didn't have a great year... if you go back and look at the tapes - he had a great year.

I'm a big Green supporter... don't see how we're not going to miss him. To me, if Jackson doesn't prove to be the starter, and a move the chains/every down back, then they wasted the pick.

Like I said, I think we now have 3 3rd down backs, and no legit starter... I know most of you guys will disagree with that.

[Patler]

Don't get me wrong, I am a huge Ahman Green fan. Always have been. Very few backs combined speed, power and running attitude they way Green does. A very good blocker and a very good receiver, too.

Green ran hard last year. Continued to deliver blows at the end of runs. BUT, if you watch replays from last year, notice how many times he stumbled at the end of runs. That is an indicator of an aging back, who no longer has the quick feet he once had. His body gets ahead of his feet, and he loses his balance. He also missed more blocks by not getting set than I ever saw him miss before. Many of his drops on passes were because he didn't get his body and shoulders turned as he did in the past. Again, all iindicators of an aging back. The question for Green will be if he adapts to it. I have no doubt he will continue to be a decent back, and I really wanted him to stay in GB, but he is no longer as irreplaceable as he was a few years ago.

[motife]

Regarding Alan Barbre, James Campen said he offers a lot of versatility, because he can play either tackle or guard. His position in college was left tackle.

Ted Thompson said he was the fastest offensive lineman at the combine, but I wonder if someone can verify that.

And, as someone said, it's AMAZING that a 300 lb. tackle was the "gunner" on the punt team.

I'm wondering if this is a sign the Packers are NOT happy with Chad Clifton's run blocking. In the analysis at the end of the year, Clifton was not singled out, but if you read between the lines they didn't appear to be thrilled with him in the running game.

Barbre could play left tackle, according to Campen. The only other backup to Clifton I believe is Daryn Colledge, who appears to be unavailable generally as he's starting at guard.

I'm not sure Tony Moll will be capable of playing left tackle, and is more of a backup for Tauscher, Colledge and Spitz.

[Lurker64]

I'm wondering if this is a sign the Packers are NOT happy with Chad Clifton's run blocking. In the analysis at the end of the year, Clifton was not singled out, but if you read between the lines they didn't appear to be thrilled with him in the running game.

I believe Barbre was drafted to be Clifton's eventual replacement a few years down the line, and in the meantime provide much needed depth at tackle (since we have very little.)

I think it's more of acknowledgment that Clifton is getting up there in years and isn't the player he once was, so it's best to draft the guy's replacement before you absolutely need to. LTs that can start in a couple years can be found in the fourth round, but LTs that can start right away cost 1st round picks.

[pittstang5]

I'm wondering if this is a sign the Packers are NOT happy with Chad Clifton's run blocking. In the analysis at the end of the year, Clifton was not singled out, but if you read between the lines they didn't appear to be thrilled with him in the running game.

I believe Barbre was drafted to be Clifton's eventual replacement a few years down the line, and in the meantime provide much needed depth at tackle (since we have very little.)

I think it's more of acknowledgment that Clifton is getting up there in years and isn't the player he once was, so it's best to draft the guy's replacement before you absolutely need to. LTs that can start in a couple years can be found in the fourth round, but LTs that can start right away cost 1st round picks.

Those are my thoughts as well and I loved the Barbre pick. Barbre is Clifton's eventual replacement and adds depth to a thin area at tackle. I can't remember how many times in the past couple years, I've read about Clifton needing knee surgery or a scope - whatever, in the offseason. Sure, these might be minor problems, but Clifton isn't getting any younger and is eventually going to breakdown. Not too mention his contract will be up in a couple years. This gives Barbre time to develop behind him and if Cliffy hits the wall or TT doesn't want to pay to keep him, the Pack has their starter waiting in the wings. Hate to see it happen, I like Clifton - I think he had an ok year compared to last year, but depth is always a good thing.

[pbmax]

I don't think this blanket covers his approach. He had no depth (and no interior starters) on his O Line last year and had three lineman drafted. That doesn't sound like BPA to me.

This year, K Allen is leaving, Cole fights like hell while in tactical retreat and Jolly is a cipher (to me anyway). So even if you like the starters at the end of last year, you have no quality depth. Drafts Harrel.

At safety, he has three possibilities, Manuel with a full camp (hopefully), Culver and Underwood. Waits to third round to find a safety.

Its just possible he has a different list of needs than you do.

I won't pretend to know if Manuel's play suffered solely from the lack of playing experience with his backfield mates, but the coaches might. Unless its Schottenheimer, in which case he should be ignored.

Denver hasn't run their offense with a first round running back. If you don't need one, why pay the premium to move up?

I like Harrell as a player... if he can stay healthy (a big if) he immediately becomes our best DT.

Don't know that that will appreciably improve the team though... this team still has some huge holes on the roster, and TT is pretty oblivious to that.

I also like Jackson as a player, but it's not like he's a 20-25 carry per game guy... I like him better than Morency, but I think what we have there now is 3 third down backs.

The Packers have the worst RB situation in the league... and they're not much better at WR or TE.

After TT's third draft, I think we can start putting together a pattern... team building be damned; BPA no matter what; no moves to address needs - yes, it is possible to move up and down in the draft to address needs.

He seems to be shaping up as a 6-10 to 10-6 type of GM, more interested in proving how good a scout/talent evaluator he is, than in actually building a contender.

I know he'd argue that taking the BPA religiously year after year, will eventually add up to a contending team... 5 year plan??? Forget about that - TT is on the 15 year plan.