Is Ted interested in this guy?

[13 Times Champs]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/04/06/versatile-offensive-lineman-catches-packers-eye/

 

[HardRightEdge]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/04/06/versatile-offensive-lineman-catches-packers-eye/

Here's a decent overview:

http://www.nfl.com/draft/2013/profiles/david-quessenberry?id=2539301

Quessenberry got some high marks at the Senior Bowl. His very good 20 yard shuttle at the Combine indicates quick feet and agility. His arm length and hand size would not be considered optimal at LT, but they're in line with Fisher's....NFL-acceptable if everything else is working. He might need to bulk a bit, but he fits the Packer profile of pass block first, run block second. A guy like this could steal the LT spot if he hits the top end of expectations; more likely a backup in year 1.

MM likes to carry just 7 OL on the 53 man roster, so this guy's versatility would be attractive.

I think there's a general consensus we'll be looking to add an O-Lineman in the first 3 rounds; this guy carries a 3rd. round grade in some quarters. The question becomes who will be the odd man out in a 7 OL roster configuration?

Lang, EDS, Sitton are probably set. MM has mentioned looking at Bulaga at LT; in any event he'll man one side or the other. The fact they're even talking about Bulaga going to the left side indicates a high regard for Barclay. We know Barclay can run block, probably has some upside, and can back up at G. If we add a guy like Quessenberry, or go higher for an OT starter, there is a good chance Newhouse or Sherrod will not make it to opening day.

The problem with going higher for a starting tackle is that the 7 man configuration would be without a backup center, a position where Quessenberry shows some promise.

MM could always go with an 8 man OL configuration. He's a pretty stubborn guy so I would not count on it, and you can't stash a pick from the first 3 rounds on the PS without somebody signing him away.

 

[HyponGrey]

I'm certainly interested in him and have been since day one. Wherever this info came from, it certainly wasn't from us, but he DOES fit our profile.

 

[DevilDon]

Here's a decent overview:

http://www.nfl.com/draft/2013/profiles/david-quessenberry?id=2539301

Quessenberry got some high marks at the Senior Bowl. His very good 20 yard shuttle at the Combine indicates quick feet and agility. His arm length and hand size would not be considered optimal at LT, but they're in line with Fisher's....NFL-acceptable if everything else is working. He might need to bulk a bit, but he fits the Packer profile of pass block first, run block second. A guy like this could steal the LT spot if he hits the top end of expectations; more likely a backup in year 1.

MM likes to carry just 7 OL on the 53 man roster, so this guy's versatility would be attractive.

I think there's a general consensus we'll be looking to add an O-Lineman in the first 3 rounds; this guy carries a 3rd. round grade in some quarters. The question becomes who will be the odd man out in a 7 OL roster configuration?

Lang, EDS, Sitton are probably set. MM has mentioned looking at Bulaga at LT; in any event he'll man one side or the other. The fact they're even talking about Bulaga going to the left side indicates a high regard for Barclay. We know Barclay can run block, probably has some upside, and can back up at G. If we add a guy like Quessenberry, or go higher for an OT starter, there is a good chance Newhouse or Sherrod will not make it to opening day.

The problem with going higher for a starting tackle is that the 7 man configuration would be without a backup center, a position where Quessenberry shows some promise.

MM could always go with an 8 man OL configuration. He's a pretty stubborn guy so I would not count on it, and you can't stash a pick from the first 3 rounds on the PS without somebody signing him away.

I think you misread what McCarthy said. He didn't ever say he'd try Bulaga at LT. He said the left side would improve. However you take that to mean it's not certain or likely that Bulaga is going there. Also, if they draft Quessenberry, it in no way at all suggests that Newhouse or Sherrod wouldn't have a job. "Q" wouldn't be expected to start so it would be a reach to suggest this guy will just come in and unseat a vet. He's not considered a starter material tackle, guard or center. His versatility is a plus but it's not as high as Barrett Jones. He is NOT a LT prospect and I think it's just a bit of a reach to think the Packers might look at him here.
I like your thinking outside the box but this just doesn't make any sense. If you want a tackle because you're not comfortable with Newhouse, draft a darned tackle. "Q" isn't it! If you want a guard to compete with TJ Land, get a guard and that is what Q is. But he will not make the starting roster his first year. He will not supplant EDS at center either this year as he has to learn the system. I don't see one upside with drafting Q except the long term plans of the team. He would likely only be considered by the Packers in the 5th or later rounds.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I'm certainly interested in him and have been since day one. Wherever this info came from, it certainly wasn't from us, but he DOES fit our profile.

Are you claiming to be in the front office?

 

[HardRightEdge]

I think you misread what McCarthy said. He didn't ever say he'd try Bulaga at LT.

I did not misread anything; that's not what I said. I said he was "looking" at it. That means he's thinking about it, it is a possibility in his mind:

"We're not doing anything like that right now," McCarthy said. "We've got to look at the draft and see what happens." In other words, it is a possibility, he's looking at it, as opposed to last off-season when it was only reporter speculation that was answered with a "no". I'm sorry if I seem impatient...that happens with me when dealing with people for whom English is a second language.[/quote]

However you take that to mean it's not certain or likely that Bulaga is going there.

Correct. I think it is unlikely Bulaga would work out at LT if they tried him there. However, any "trying" would take place after the draft.

Also, if they draft Quessenberry, it in no way at all suggests that Newhouse or Sherrod wouldn't have a job.

I'm not sure if you read my entire post, but I was counting to 7. If they draft Q, or anybody else for that matter in the first 3 rounds, name your 7.

"Q" wouldn't be expected to start so it would be a reach to suggest this guy will just come in and unseat a vet.

I did not say he'd be expected to start. I said he could start if he hit the top end of expectations. Barclay was not expected to be an NFL player, and here we are. Quite frankly, Newhouse sucks and is a one-position player; Sherrod may never take another NFL snap. There's not a high bar there. By the way, when MM dissed the left side of the line, he was talking about Newhouse. Lang had nothing to do with it. How do I know this? Because Newhouse sucks and Lang does not.

He's not considered a starter material tackle, guard or center. His versatility is a plus but it's not as high as Barrett Jones. He is NOT a LT prospect and I think it's just a bit of a reach to think the Packers might look at him here.

Newhouse was not much of a LT prospect either, so you probably should not be downgrading Q in this regard. Braclay, EDS? Not "starter material"; again, here we are. Besides, who says Q is not starter material? Some graded him out as the 3rd. best O-Lineman at the Senior Bowl. I would also note that in all measureables, Q and Fisher are indistinguishable with the exception that Fisher is 2" taller, which is not necessarily good.

Barret Jones would likely require a higher pick.

I like your thinking outside the box...

I renounce any claim to thinking outside any box. People who use that expression typically don't know what they are talking about and I'd rather not be associated with them. There are reasons why that expression became passe about 10 years ago. So here's a secret I'll share with you...when you use that expression in the way you just used it, you come off as simultaneously patronizing and a little dim...that's not a good look.

If you want a tackle because you're not comfortable with Newhouse, draft a darned tackle." isn't it! If you want a guard to compete with TJ Land, get a guard and that is what Q is. But he will not make the starting roster his first year. He will not supplant EDS at center either this year as he has to learn the system. I don't see one upside with drafting Q except the long term plans of the team. He would likely only be considered by the Packers in the 5th or later rounds.

See all of the above...then count to 7, count how many 1st. and 2nd. round picks we have, count the holes in the roster, and count the number of free agent starters we've signed.

Dude...Q in an interesting idea, nothing more, nothing less. When I come up with something "outside the box" I'll let you know. If the Pack waits until the 5th. round, he'll be off the board and the matter will be moot.

 

[ivo610]

Id like to see some game tape before I get exited about a workout warrior

 

[Bagadeez04]

I'm sure there are dozens of players ted has his eye on for draft. This speculation by media-types almost never materializes in the draft, particularly for mid-late round prospects. There's just too many possibilities and variables.

 

[Darth Garfunkel]

My buddies little brother is a projected 4th -7th rounder. I know Ted likes the small school guys with potential so maybe...
http://www.nfl.com/draft/2013/profiles/brandon-kaufman?id=2540191

 

[Jordyruns]

The problem I am having with the 7 man OL is that we would have no back up center or guards, unless Queesenbury makes his position C/G. I know MM likes to push the envelope with as few OL on the 53 man roster as possible, just look at last year, but this just seems suicidal.

I would hope Newhouse is gone in favor of a healthy Sherrod but whichever one performs in preseason should be the guy, can't deny Sherrod's talent though imo. Try Barclay out one more year and look for improvement and draft an interior offensive lineman, we have enough OT already (Bulaga, Sherrod, Newhouse, Barclay, Datko).

 

[HyponGrey]

Are you claiming to be in the front office?

Nope, just using the second person fan "us"

 

[HyponGrey]

My buddies little brother is a projected 4th -7th rounder. I know Ted likes the small school guys with potential so maybe...
http://www.nfl.com/draft/2013/profiles/brandon-kaufman?id=2540191

I dunno dude, he's a big red zone target, but that's about all. We already have Jones and Boykin to do that, and they run much better routes. Really he's more of a Gurley type.

 

[HyponGrey]

The problem I am having with the 7 man OL is that we would have no back up center or guards, unless Queesenbury makes his position C/G. I know MM likes to push the envelope with as few OL on the 53 man roster as possible, just look at last year, but this just seems suicidal.

I would hope Newhouse is gone in favor of a healthy Sherrod but whichever one performs in preseason should be the guy, can't deny Sherrod's talent though imo. Try Barclay out one more year and look for improvement and draft an interior offensive lineman, we have enough OT already (Bulaga, Sherrod, Newhouse, Barclay, Datko).

Barclay swings to G, and Quess plays G/C as well. We also have GVR, but meh.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Barclay swings to G, and Quess plays G/C as well. We also have GVR, but meh.

That implies Newhouse or Sherrod is gone, and Bulaga swings to LT with an injury. That takes me back to Q as a backup at LT. Moving Bulaga to LT would be a mistake in just about any scenario. I don't endorse the 7 man OL, but MM has gone with that several years running, so it is what it is.

I actually watched the OL Combine workouts...as far as I'm concerned, Q moved as well as anybody out there, including the consensus high pick guys. I also actually watched the Senior Bowl. The kid can play.

Of course, the way things get interpreted around here it's either black or white, so I guess I must have just designated him the second coming of Jon Ogden.

Or maybe he could just be better than Newhouse in pass pro; it's a low bar.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I'm sure there are dozens of players ted has his eye on for draft. This speculation by media-types almost never materializes in the draft, particularly for mid-late round prospects. There's just too many possibilities and variables.

Thompson will likely have about 250 guys on the board. And even if he's got a particular guy as the BPA for the upcoming pick, you'll never know it if somebody takes him in front of us.

Whether Thompson will actually take a particular player we discuss is not entirely the point.

These discussions make you think about the kinds of player that are needed, how they fit into the roster, what they cost, the opportunity cost of taking that kind of player over somebody else or a player at another position. It's also a way of testing and refining your knowledge.

Last year at this time I identified about a 1/2 dozen low to mid-round picks on the GBPG forum, in part based on a close look at the East-West Shrine game. One was B.J. Coleman, who TT did in fact pick. Another was Michael Brewster, who went UFA to Jacksonville; he was their starter at center by week 3. Another was Bobby Wagner who I liked for the third round. Seattle "reached" for this guy at #47 (most teams won't touch a 6' 0" ILB at that spot), and he ends up being all-rookie.

So, when I mention Cory Fuller as a good 6th. or 7th. round developmental pick, circumstances dictate it's a long shot TT will take him. Any pick projection is a long shot at this juncture. Then again, that's not really the point.

 

[DevilDon]

I did not misread anything; that's not what I said. I said he was "looking" at it. That means he's thinking about it, it is a possibility in his mind:

"We're not doing anything like that right now," McCarthy said. "We've got to look at the draft and see what happens." In other words, it is a possibility, he's looking at it, as opposed to last off-season when it was only reporter speculation that was answered with a "no". I'm sorry if I seem impatient...that happens with me when dealing with people for whom English is a second language.

Really HRE? The fact that MM said they were "looking" at Bulaga now suggests they're considering it? You might also want to point out that they are probably looking at every single possibility. Either way, my point was that does not put Newhouse or Sherrod in threat of not making the roster.

Correct. I think it is unlikely Bulaga would work out at LT if they tried him there. However, any "trying" would take place after the draft.

Well there ya go genius. I was pointing out that it was unlikely he be moved to LT. What part is difficult for you to understand?

I'm not sure if you read my entire post, but I was counting to 7. If they draft Q, or anybody else for that matter in the first 3 rounds, name your 7.

I got that buddy, but at what point do you think that the upper echelons of the depth chart are in danger of losing jobs? If anybody, might it be a Datko or Barclay? You don't have to be a genius to figure that if a new starter is inherent or crowned the bottom of the depth chart is in peril, not the top.

I did not say he'd be expected to start. I said he could start if he hit the top end of expectations. Barclay was not expected to be an NFL player, and here we are. Quite frankly, Newhouse sucks and is a one-position player; Sherrod may never take another NFL snap. There's not a high bar there. By the way, when MM dissed the left side of the line, he was talking about Newhouse. Lang had nothing to do with it. How do I know this? Because Newhouse sucks and Lang does not.

How was Barclay not expected to be an NFL player? Clearly TT thought he was. I would argue Newhouse is average but he does not suck. Your emotions are all over your sleeve HRE. He was a late round draft pick who is handling one of the premier positions in the NFL against the premier defensive players in the league. He's done OK and to me that spells success for a guy who was drafted so late. He's a stop gap and was due to be replaced but injuries negated that. I give him props for doing what he has so far.

Newhouse was not much of a LT prospect either, so you probably should not be downgrading Q in this regard. Braclay, EDS? Not "starter material"; again, here we are. Besides, who says Q is not starter material? Some graded him out as the 3rd. best O-Lineman at the Senior Bowl. I would also note that in all measureables, Q and Fisher are indistinguishable with the exception that Fisher is 2" taller, which is not necessarily good.

Barret Jones would likely require a higher pick.

You should be able to read just a tiny bit between the lines. I didn't mean to imply Q could never be a starter, what I meant was that he wouldn't be expected to start this season. Sorry if you were confused about that. As a Packer fan who sees many UDFAs make the team and some start I would have thought you'd know I consider every pick to be a potential starter at some point. I didn't think I had to spell that out to you.
Also, are you talking about grading out in regards to pure numbers, height, weight, 40 times and those kinds of things? The difference is that Fisher has done plenty on tape in real football games, that's why pretty much everybody has Fisher top 10 and nobody has Q up there. Last, height may or may not be an advantage but it's clearly not a disadvantage.

I renounce any claim to thinking outside any box. People who use that expression typically don't know what they are talking about and I'd rather not be associated with them. There are reasons why that expression became passe about 10 years ago. So here's a secret I'll share with you...when you use that expression in the way you just used it, you come off as simultaneously patronizing and a little dim...that's not a good look.

So now you are able to categorize people, their thinking, their intellect on the use of a single expression? I'm not hoping to be associated with you. In fact, it's that kind of narrow thinking.... that a single expression defines the user... that makes me wonder how you view the world.
That may make me look a bit patronizing and/or a little dim to your HRE but do you really think people in general will consider your view of me accurate? Because I used the term "outside the box" you think a greater than average percentage of the population will consider me dim? Patronizing maybe, I'll lay claim to that but dim? It's telling that you nitpick to this degree. One might think you are a bit **** and an angry little person, but I'm not saying it.

See all of the above...then count to 7, count how many 1st. and 2nd. round picks we have, count the holes in the roster, and count the number of free agent starters we've signed.

Dude...Q in an interesting idea, nothing more, nothing less. When I come up with something "outside the box" I'll let you know. If the Pack waits until the 5th. round, he'll be off the board and the matter will be moot.

Yep, do that math, you might notice that it doesn't make alot of sense to shuffle off high round draft picks and starters for a "maybe".
If Sherrod and Datko are healthy we have Newhouse, Sherrod, Datko, Bulaga and Barclay. You and I agree the guards are set but backing them up is Van Roten and again Barclay. You could say EDS but his backup is Van Roten and Garth Gerhart.
I have no idea what your intent of the count the number of free agent starters is meant to imply. Do you think the Pack should have signed more high priced free agents?
And I will not need you to notify me when you have an idea outside of the box, I'll recognize it for what it is. The fact that you acknowledge it happens confuses me... you just said that it's dim to use the term. If the Packers pass on Q I won't be hurt, it would seem to me that many teams would not feel a dire sense of loss if they didn't get him, else he'd be a top 10 pick like Fisher.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Really HRE? The fact that MM said they were "looking" at Bulaga now suggests they're considering it? You might also want to point out that they are probably looking at every single possibility. Either way, my point was that does not put Newhouse or Sherrod in threat of not making the roster.


Well there ya go genius. I was pointing out that it was unlikely he be moved to LT. What part is difficult for you to understand?


I got that buddy, but at what point do you think that the upper echelons of the depth chart are in danger of losing jobs? If anybody, might it be a Datko or Barclay? You don't have to be a genius to figure that if a new starter is inherent or crowned the bottom of the depth chart is in peril, not the top.


How was Barclay not expected to be an NFL player? Clearly TT thought he was. I would argue Newhouse is average but he does not suck. Your emotions are all over your sleeve HRE. He was a late round draft pick who is handling one of the premier positions in the NFL against the premier defensive players in the league. He's done OK and to me that spells success for a guy who was drafted so late. He's a stop gap and was due to be replaced but injuries negated that. I give him props for doing what he has so far.


You should be able to read just a tiny bit between the lines. I didn't mean to imply Q could never be a starter, what I meant was that he wouldn't be expected to start this season. Sorry if you were confused about that. As a Packer fan who sees many UDFAs make the team and some start I would have thought you'd know I consider every pick to be a potential starter at some point. I didn't think I had to spell that out to you.
Also, are you talking about grading out in regards to pure numbers, height, weight, 40 times and those kinds of things? The difference is that Fisher has done plenty on tape in real football games, that's why pretty much everybody has Fisher top 10 and nobody has Q up there. Last, height may or may not be an advantage but it's clearly not a disadvantage.



So now you are able to categorize people, their thinking, their intellect on the use of a single expression? I'm not hoping to be associated with you. In fact, it's that kind of narrow thinking.... that a single expression defines the user... that makes me wonder how you view the world.
That may make me look a bit patronizing and/or a little dim to your HRE but do you really think people in general will consider your view of me accurate? Because I used the term "outside the box" you think a greater than average percentage of the population will consider me dim? Patronizing maybe, I'll lay claim to that but dim? It's telling that you nitpick to this degree. One might think you are a bit **** and an angry little person, but I'm not saying it.


Yep, do that math, you might notice that it doesn't make alot of sense to shuffle off high round draft picks and starters for a "maybe".
If Sherrod and Datko are healthy we have Newhouse, Sherrod, Datko, Bulaga and Barclay. You and I agree the guards are set but backing them up is Van Roten and again Barclay. You could say EDS but his backup is Van Roten and Garth Gerhart.
I have no idea what your intent of the count the number of free agent starters is meant to imply. Do you think the Pack should have signed more high priced free agents?
And I will not need you to notify me when you have an idea outside of the box, I'll recognize it for what it is. The fact that you acknowledge it happens confuses me... you just said that it's dim to use the term. If the Packers pass on Q I won't be hurt, it would seem to me that many teams would not feel a dire sense of loss if they didn't get him, else he'd be a top 10 pick like Fisher.

Q is a low 3rd. round talent, not a low round pick. As for the rest, I have to be honest and say I can't bring myself to read it. So you get the last word there, once again.

 

[DevilDon]

Q is a low 3rd. round talent, not a low round pick.

No matter, you suggested if the Packer didn't pick him at 5 it was all moot. I'd tell you that if nobody picked him before the Packers pick at 5 then nobody is really liking him.

 

[HardRightEdge]

No matter, you suggested if the Packer didn't pick him at 5 it was all moot. I'd tell you that if nobody picked him before the Packers pick at 5 then nobody is really liking him.

Jeez, Louise. YOU said he'd be a possibility in the 5th. round, not me. I said if you expected to be able to wait that long he'd be gone. You really don't read well.

 

[DevilDon]

Jeez, Louise. YOU said he'd be a possibility in the 5th. round, not me. I said if you expected to be able to wait that long he'd be gone. You really don't read well.

Right, that's where I see him for the Packers. You said he'd be gone by then and I'm okay with that.
I read perfectly well. What I do wonder is why you consistently attack my ability to read or understand english yet I've consistently shown I can. I wonder this HRE - do you make a habit of attacking people for their english competence as a general rule? Do you not have any other of personal attack or is it just that you consider yourself so well versed that nobody is in your league?

 

[HardRightEdge]

I wonder this HRE - do you make a habit of attacking people for their english competence as a general rule?

Don, you're a regular reader of these boards. You'd know the answer is "no" if your reading comprehension was up to snuff. It's just you Don, just you.

Correction: That PapaSan guy can't read either, but I think he's like 14 years old. Can't think of any others.

 

[Darth Garfunkel]

I dunno dude, he's a big red zone target, but that's about all. We already have Jones and Boykin to do that, and they run much better routes. Really he's more of a Gurley type.

Oh, I know he's not going to the Pack. Just goofing around. But I am pretty hyped to see where he goes, if anywhere.

 

[HyponGrey]

That implies Newhouse or Sherrod is gone, and Bulaga swings to LT with an injury. That takes me back to Q as a backup at LT. Moving Bulaga to LT would be a mistake in just about any scenario. I don't endorse the 7 man OL, but MM has gone with that several years running, so it is what it is.

Your logic escapes me... I have the OL7 being

LT Sherrod Newhouse
LG Lang Quess GVR
C EDS Quess GVR
RG Sitton Barclay
RT Bulaga Barclay

Barclay plays G/RT, Quess plays G/C/RT. Does that clear up your misconception?

 

[Bagadeez04]

Thompson will likely have about 250 guys on the board. And even if he's got a particular guy as the BPA for the upcoming pick, you'll never know it if somebody takes him in front of us.

Whether Thompson will actually take a particular player we discuss is not entirely the point.

These discussions make you think about the kinds of player that are needed, how they fit into the roster, what they cost, the opportunity cost of taking that kind of player over somebody else or a player at another position. It's also a way of testing and refining your knowledge.

Last year at this time I identified about a 1/2 dozen low to mid-round picks on the GBPG forum, in part based on a close look at the East-West Shrine game. One was B.J. Coleman, who TT did in fact pick. Another was Michael Brewster, who went UFA to Jacksonville; he was their starter at center by week 3. Another was Bobby Wagner who I liked for the third round. Seattle "reached" for this guy at #47 (most teams won't touch a 6' 0" ILB at that spot), and he ends up being all-rookie.

So, when I mention Cory Fuller as a good 6th. or 7th. round developmental pick, circumstances dictate it's a long shot TT will take him. Any pick projection is a long shot at this juncture. Then again, that's not really the point.

I hear ya man...for me though over the years I found myself getting excited about this player or that player and how perfectly they would help the Packers, and they almost never get them. In the first round obviously it's easier to speculate, but other than that seems like a fruitless exercise.

Can't hurt to familiarize yourself with some of these prospects though I guess...I usually just wait til the draft and lookup all the scouting reports.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Your logic escapes me... I have the OL7 being

LT Sherrod Newhouse
LG Lang Quess GVR
C EDS Quess GVR
RG Sitton Barclay
RT Bulaga Barclay

Barclay plays G/RT, Quess plays G/C/RT. Does that clear up your misconception?

My misconception? I wouldn't point out that, like Don, you have trouble counting to 7 had you not been so snarky. That's 9 names you got there, dude.