Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
State of the Line Offensive Line Coach/Scheme/Players
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="TJV" data-source="post: 475613" data-attributes="member: 4300"><p><span style="color: #000000"><span style="font-family: 'Tahoma'">I agree McCarthy was foolish for not protecting Rodgers more when it was obvious the OL was struggling mightily. He’s done it in the past too – even when it was just one player on the OL struggling. I get the idea of adhering to the “next man up” principle – that the Packers don’t change their game plan because of injury. That’s probably supposed to instill confidence in the replacement player. But the principle of protecting your franchise QB is more important to me. </span></span></p><p> </p><p><span style="color: #000000"><span style="font-family: 'Tahoma'">BTW, who is making the decision to stick with the status quo – Lang at RT - on the OL? McCarhty? Campen? That’s why IMO those advocating that the replacement of Campen will fix the problems on the OL don’t have enough information to make that call. I’d like to see Barclay replace Lang at RT so only one spot would be affected by Bulaga’s absence. If the rest of the OL is solid McCarthy would only have to help out the RT. (But the rest of the OL hasn’t been solid.) But I don’t have enough information to predict how well Barclay would do at that spot. Those advocating for Datko to start have no information to support their opinion. Datko resides on the PS along with Joe Gibbs, an OG (<em>why not advocate for his promotion to the active roster?</em>). Meanwhile G/T Barclay and OG Greg Van Roten are on the active roster. If the Packers believed Datko was the best backup at OT, why wouldn’t they have Barclay and Datko on the active roster? The answer IMO is easy: If they believed that, they would. Of course every decision any person or organization makes isn’t correct. My point here is just that the team has much more information about these players than we do. And regarding Datko, we have almost none. </span></span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="TJV, post: 475613, member: 4300"] [COLOR=#000000][FONT=Tahoma]I agree McCarthy was foolish for not protecting Rodgers more when it was obvious the OL was struggling mightily. He’s done it in the past too – even when it was just one player on the OL struggling. I get the idea of adhering to the “next man up” principle – that the Packers don’t change their game plan because of injury. That’s probably supposed to instill confidence in the replacement player. But the principle of protecting your franchise QB is more important to me. [/FONT][/COLOR] [COLOR=#000000][FONT=Tahoma] [/FONT][/COLOR] [COLOR=#000000][FONT=Tahoma]BTW, who is making the decision to stick with the status quo – Lang at RT - on the OL? McCarhty? Campen? That’s why IMO those advocating that the replacement of Campen will fix the problems on the OL don’t have enough information to make that call. I’d like to see Barclay replace Lang at RT so only one spot would be affected by Bulaga’s absence. If the rest of the OL is solid McCarthy would only have to help out the RT. (But the rest of the OL hasn’t been solid.) But I don’t have enough information to predict how well Barclay would do at that spot. Those advocating for Datko to start have no information to support their opinion. Datko resides on the PS along with Joe Gibbs, an OG ([I]why not advocate for his promotion to the active roster?[/I]). Meanwhile G/T Barclay and OG Greg Van Roten are on the active roster. If the Packers believed Datko was the best backup at OT, why wouldn’t they have Barclay and Datko on the active roster? The answer IMO is easy: If they believed that, they would. Of course every decision any person or organization makes isn’t correct. My point here is just that the team has much more information about these players than we do. And regarding Datko, we have almost none. [/FONT][/COLOR] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
RicFlairoftheNFL
SudsMcBucky
Green_Bay_Packers
Latest posts
2024 2nd Rd pick #58 Javon Bullard S
Latest: Dantés
17 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2024 3rd Rd #91 Ty’Ron Hopper LB
Latest: PikeBadger
26 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Most hated teams outside of the division
Latest: Guacamole
28 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
The 11th Annual Amish Draft Contest 2024
Latest: Pokerbrat2000
Today at 9:42 AM
Draft Talk
Assessing the Draft Class (2024)
Latest: Krabs
Today at 9:37 AM
Draft Talk
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
State of the Line Offensive Line Coach/Scheme/Players
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top