1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!

    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers. You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!
    Dismiss Notice

Do we really need a OG/OT when we have Marshall Newhouse?

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by OldSchoolFan, Apr 16, 2011.

  1. OldSchoolFan

    OldSchoolFan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2010
    Messages:
    793
    Ratings:
    +307
    Look at the size of this guy, did everyone forget about him?
    He was part of TCU's undefeated season team. At 6'4" and 320, all he needs to do is blow some bad breath on some DT and Grant/Starks/Kuhn goes for 6 yards...

    Green Bay Packers: Marshall Newhouse
     
  2. ivo610

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    16,590
    Ratings:
    +4,273
    I would like to see one or the other myself but if TT doesnt draft anyone I trust his judgement that we have solid backups.
     
  3. PackersRS

    PackersRS Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2008
    Messages:
    8,471
    Ratings:
    +980
    I believe management are pretty high on him.

    But he's unproven. Newhouse, Lang, you can't count on them as sure things...
     
  4. JoshuaRHuffman

    JoshuaRHuffman Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2010
    Messages:
    414
    Ratings:
    +60
    I believe players like Newhouse and Lang are reasons that the Packers may look more into defensive line or "Best overall player" with the 32nd pick.

    Even if Newhouse starts, they still need to acquire trench depth. Doesn't necessarily need to be a first round pick, though.
     
  5. Future

    Future He did WHAT?

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    Messages:
    362
    Ratings:
    +87

    That's what I've heard/read as well. But management has been pretty high on Allen Barbre too.

    If somebody like Gabe Carimi or even Derek Sherrod is there at #32, I think they get a ton of consideration. We just can't count on Clifton for much longer.
     
  6. GBPack2010

    GBPack2010 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2011
    Messages:
    483
    Ratings:
    +67
    He's been pretty untested so far though. Wouldn't be bad to bring in competition.
     
  7. FrankRizzo

    FrankRizzo Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 2, 2010
    Messages:
    5,889
    Ratings:
    +1,679
    He might have a chronic injury problem though. That's a big concern with him.
    He also doesn't have the "look" that the Packers like in their O-line.
     
  8. TJV

    TJV Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    5,389
    Ratings:
    +4,176
    "Do we really need a OG/OT when we have Marshall Newhouse?"

    IMO yes. Newhouse looked OK in the limited time we saw him in pre season and the staff is high on him. But there was a reason he was a fifth round draft pick who was inactive for every game until he went on IR in December.

    I think Lang is more of a sure thing than Newhouse and even Lang isn't a sure thing. I think Bulaga is more of a sure thing at LT than Lang is at LG, and IMO even Bulaga isn't a sure thing at LT. I hope and expect the Packers will select two OL in this draft. Not necessarily in the first round but I hope early and I hope the early one is an OT, not G/T. Versatility is great but look at Clifton - if he can "only" play LT, who cares? Much better to have rookie who can be great at OT instead of one who can be pretty good at OG, OT or OC. To get one of those guys probably means picking him early.
     
  9. NelsonsLongCatch

    NelsonsLongCatch Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Messages:
    2,686
    Ratings:
    +845
    To answer the question, YES.

    Newhouse looks good and sounds good, but he's unproven. He got no playing time last year. A Super Bowl defending/ready team testing out a new left guard is very scary.
     
  10. DergaSmash

    DergaSmash Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Messages:
    412
    Ratings:
    +20
    Yes, Green Bay does need to pick an OL in the draft. Hell, maybe two. I don't think it NEEDS to be in the first round. Yet if there is a run on the quarterbacks early like I hope there will be, the Pack might have a shot at one of the really good big guys they normally wouldn't have had a shot at.

    OL is one of three positions that I feel a team cannot have enough depth at, and one of 2 positions I feel can always improve. It is also in my mind, the most critical of positions in all of football.

    Skill positions are easy. Once a team has 1 or 2 good backs, that team is pretty much set at that position until injuries, age, or pay vs cap becomes a problem. It is the same thing for QBs, WRs, LBers, and Saftey. Once a team gets 'set' at these positions with proven, established starters, and a reliable/serviceable backup, the need is only to provide competition or to weed out a number 2 guy for a better and cheaper one. Now before everyone screams for my blood, let me explain. I don't feel the other positions aren't important overall, I just have reasons to value OL/DL/CB slightly more and OL above all else.

    As for OL, DL, and CB, things are a bit different in my mind. An OL and DL can never be too good or too dominant. They can be too expensive however. They also can be too injured. Most SB winning teams, and most perennial postseason contending teams have shown that depth in at least one of these 3 positions is critical to success. Look at the Pack last year. Our depth heading into the season was pretty good at OL and CB, and very good at DL. I think the Packer's ability to overcome all of those injuries was nothing short of amazing and really points to the coaching staff's ability to coach and game plan. Yet the depth at those positions was critical.

    OL and DL are the most physically intensive and demanding positions in all of football. Nearly every person who has played positions both on the line and off the line will agree, as well as anybody who has wrestled or trained in any kind of grappling. Every down these guys go full bore into each other and battle to control the line. Injuries are commonplace on the line. Depth at defensive line allows teams to have multiple defensive line packages and line rotations which adds complexity and keeps the lineman fresher into the 4th quarter respectively.

    As for the OL, things are even harder. Nearly every team asks their 5 guys to play just about every offensive snap and play each one of those snaps as hard as they can. Most OL don't have the added benefit of rotations and subs. Sure different formations may add TEs or FBs to help out, but not really sub in for them to give them a breather. This is compounded by the fact that the more a team's offense is on the field, the fewer chances their opponent is getting to score. They are at a considerable disadvantage when it comes to their assignment during a possession. For example, when the Pack are playing the Bears, on 1st and 2nd down Chad Clifton has to block any of the Bears DEs, DTs, or LBs depending on the offensive play and the defensive front. Yet on 3rd down, Clifton is almost always going to be the guy keeping Peppers off of Rodgers. As the game goes on both the Bears D and the Packers O get breaks with changes is possession, yet the BEars D rotates lineman and uses blitzes. So Clifton, who is playing every offensive snap, has to deal with fresh pass rushers either in the form of LBs who are faster or fresher Dlineman who had the last few snaps off in order to catch their breath and have a gatorade. So these 5 men have to be durable, smart, tough, agressive, and possess both great mental fortitude and physical endurance.

    This is why I think that a team can never be 100% set at OL. Sure a team can have the 5 guys who have great chemistry, skill, strength, and all the other intangibles to make up the starting 5. Yet if one guy goes down, the team needs to have at least one guy at each position who is at least serviceable, so the drop off in production isn't insane. If a teams backup at tackle can't pass block, then once one of the starters goes down, the QB probably will sooner or later.

    Now look at where the Packers are right now with their OL. The Packers don't even have every one of the starting 5 guys who can come out and dominate the entire game. Sure, GB won the SB, but how many multiple concussion season can Rodgers have before it effects his play or even his health after football? For this next season, the Packers are set at both Tackles, Center, and one of the Guard positions. Yet, long term, its only one tackle, one guard, and the center. The Packers need a long term solution at left tackle and at the other guard position.
     
  11. AmishMafia

    AmishMafia Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2010
    Messages:
    2,975
    Ratings:
    +2,226
    Do the Packers have any NEEDS?

    I don't think so - we just won the SB! We have as complete a team as there is in the NFL. The only position I think that comes close to a need is KR/PR.

    Therefore, we should "dance with the gal who brung us". In other words, draft independent of need and take BPA, whatever position that may be. I could see our first pick being OL, DL, CB, WR, RB or OLB. Not because they are needs, but because they are the deepest positions in the draft or that is where I figure the top player available to us should be. Still, dont' be shocked if we take a TE. About the only thing that will shock me is a QB or a K.
     
  12. DergaSmash

    DergaSmash Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Messages:
    412
    Ratings:
    +20
    Oh we do have needs. The CBA and resulting free agency will change them a bit, but regardless, we do have needs. Drafting a player with no greater job than KR/PR earlier than round 4 or 5 is probably foolish. Depending who is on the board, a good WR/CB/RB prospect who can return kicks and punts as well as play his actual position is a better approach.

    Saying that GB won the SB, and they're the most complete team in football is mostly true but completely dangerous. That is called "resting on one's laurels," and it is why many teams win the SB and then move into the land of the mediocre the following season.

    Yes, GB won the SB, and sure they're pretty complete. A lot of players are returning from injury. Yet when FA comes, and it will come, it will hit GB pretty hard. We cannot have football without a CBA, and that means there will be FA as well. I think that if the CBA isn't ironed out before the draft, it would make sense for the GB to treat the draft as if all of their free agent players will be leaving.

    That FA list looks like this:
    WR- James Jones, Brett Swain
    DE- Cullen Jenkins, Johnny Jolly (Johnny Jolly is included because he is done due to idiocy)
    OL- Daryn Colledge, Jason Spitz
    S- Atari Bigby, Anthony Smith
    FB- Korey Hall, John Kuhn
    TE- Spencer Havner
    CB- Josh Bell
    LB- Matt Wilhelm
    RB- Brandon Jackson
    K- Mason Crosby

    Now that is a big list. Some players on this list I feel can and should go. While I feel that there are also some that TT and the front office will be able to re-sign to new deals. Yet there are some who will not be back, this is for certain. There are always teams that will spend the money on FA players from SB winning teams in hopes that they can bolster their own roster and maybe even work some postseason magic.

    Wilhelm, Bigby, Hall, Havner, Bell, and Jolly, are in my mind, players that can go without really any let down or change in performance. This is also due to what players are returning from injury as well. Bigby and Jolly do have skill and talent, and they can contribute, but not enough to outweigh their downsides. Bigby can be a very good player at times, but his style of play keeps him hurt a lot. He isn't worth what he will want for a new deal, especially if he can't stay healthy. Jolly is just a moron and shouldn't be a Packer anymore.

    James Jones and Cullen Jenkins are the two players that I feel will get the biggest offers from other teams. I think GB either won't match those numbers or won't be able to match the money or position. It's Jenkins last big payday. He is a very good player who can play both the 3-4 and the 4-3 and play them well. A lot of teams need line help and they will offer Jenkins more than GB is willing or able to offer in terms of money, and Jenkins will walk. Jones on the other hand, shows flashes of great ability, but is inconsistent. I do think he has shown enough to be offered a starting job as a number 2 WR by teams who need help at WR. I don't think these teams will offer huge sums of money that GB can't or won't be able to match. It will be the starting job that gets Jones to walk. There is no way he beats out Jennings or Driver barring injury.

    Spitz, Colledge, Jackson, Crosby, Kuhn, Swain, and Anthony Smith, are the players that I think fall between those 2 extremes. They all can and do contribute. Some more than others. Yet I think that most of these guys will re-sign with GB due to the fact that the offers they get from other teams won't be more that what GB is willing to give them. So unless they want a change of scenery, I think they will stick around, well some of them.

    I think Crosby and Kuhn are re-signed for sure. I don't think any other teams are in love with Crosby enough to offer him more than the Packers do. Kuhn is loved by the fans and coaches. He will probably get a nice little raise, which will be equal or greater than what other teams will probably offer him. Swain and Smith will probably get offers because of their special team play and stay, at the very least I think Swain will stay. Brandon Jackson is a tricky one. He might want more money and/or more responsibility than GB is willing to offer, or he might be content with his 3rd down back job and money. I don't know. My gut tells me he walks however. That leaves us with Colledge and Spitz. I see the Colledge situation going down in one of two ways. Either some teams offer Colledge more money than GB does or he asks for more money than GB offers. Either way, he walks. I think Spitz is offered enough money and a shot to compete for a spot at guard and stays.

    Regardless of how I feel about the specifics, or how I think the GB front office handles the Packer's FAs, the big needs still remain or loom large.
    GB needs another DE. Jolly will be gone, either cut or suspended or whatever. Also, if Jenkins goes, that is a huge hole on the defensive front.
    GB needs help on the OL. Sure it was better than 09. Yet Rodgers still had 2 concussions. Clifton is in the twilight of his career. And I really don't think anyone can argue that there is still lots of room for improvement on the OL. The OL is also on the field a great deal more than a KR/PR.
    GB could really use another OLB. GB is set on the inside. Yet another OLB opposite Matthews would be great. The level of this need is related to the DE issue. If Jenkins is gone and no one fill his shoes, the lack of another OLB rush threat will be even more apparent.

    Those are the 3 biggest needs, that I feel beset the Packers. I also think they could use a quality backup for Rodgers because there is no way Flynn re-signs after the 2011 season as a backup. I also think the Packers could use a WR, especially if Jones leaves.

    Oh and I don't think GB could ever have enough CBs fighting for roster spots. An eventual replacement for Woodson should begin the grooming process soon as well.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  13. PackersRS

    PackersRS Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2008
    Messages:
    8,471
    Ratings:
    +980
    Great take DergaSmash! Very throughout.
     
  14. ivo610

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    16,590
    Ratings:
    +4,273
    walterfootball.com has the packers at #32 in 2012. :) Pats picking at #31.
     
  15. PackersRS

    PackersRS Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2008
    Messages:
    8,471
    Ratings:
    +980
    He also had us losing to the Steelers in the SB (and losing to the Eagles in the wildcard round)...
     
  16. DergaSmash

    DergaSmash Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Messages:
    412
    Ratings:
    +20
    Oh the prediction game...

    I think those predictions are funny. I do like the draft predictions a little more. There is almost always a great deal of variation in mock drafts between analysts. I think that variation between the analysts' mock drafts is a good indicator of the talent level in that draft, and more specifically, the round that is being mocked up. Most teams draft for best player, but some go on need. So if you take that into account, and there is still a great deal of variation, I think it points to a wide talent pool. The other side of this is when analysts just copy off of other analysts and put up cookie cutter mocks.
     

Share This Page