NelsonsLongCatch
Cheesehead
So if he gives up 10 1/2 sacks like last year is that good enough?
Ideally, he should improve... but if he gives up 10.5 sacks, Rodgers win the MVP (again) and the Packers go 15-1 (again), then yes, it is good enough.
So if he gives up 10 1/2 sacks like last year is that good enough?
How about you answer my question: Who, right now, today, is available and is an upgrade at the position?
He disagreed with my post that Newhouse is the best option avaiable, but still hasn't named a replacement.
Ideally, he should improve... but if he gives up 10.5 sacks, Rodgers win the MVP (again) and the Packers go 15-1 (again), then yes, it is good enough.
He gave up 7 sacks and 21 pressures in his first season going against elite talent.
http://www.acmepackingcompany.com/2011/12/13/2634247/offensive-line-and-sacks-given-up
Edit- The article linked above doesn't appear to be the most updated. Regardless, again, I ask you- Who, right now, is available that would be an upgrade at the position?
How about you answer my question: Who, right now, today, is available and is an upgrade at the position?
Where did I disagree. Newhouse may be the best option but where does that take away from his deficiencies. Also contrary to your post he allowed 10.5 sacks.
http://www.jsonline.com/sports/pack...touches-at-left-tackle-op6k1qb-167402385.html
\
That is so superficial. Overlooking the deficiencies of a player based on last season is fools gold.
Where did I disagree? Newhouse may be the best option but where does that take away from his deficiencies. Also contrary to your post he allowed 10.5 sacks.
http://www.jsonline.com/sports/pack...touches-at-left-tackle-op6k1qb-167402385.html
You disagreed with my post #22.
I never posted that he allowed more/less than 10.5 sacks.
Very impressive going 0-2 in one post!
Asking you again where I disagree with Newhouse not being the best answer based on the current roster? You aren't impressing me.What does that have to do with his play?
So we all agree that we're a bit worried about Newhouse at LT....
I don't care about the # of sacks per se.
It's that each one that Newhouse (or anyone) allows increases the liklihood that Rodgers gets injured. That's my only concern. We can afford punts, just not to lose #12.
Well, since you're complaining about him, you obviously have someone better in mind. So who is it?
Nobody is over-looking deficiencies, but the Packers have no other options. Herb Taylor can't play. Datko needs at least a year to learn. Sherrod is still unable to fully practice or do anything. Newhouse is the man.
So we all agree that we're a bit worried about Newhouse at LT....
I don't care about the # of sacks per se.
It's that each one that Newhouse (or anyone) allows increases the liklihood that Rodgers gets injured. That's my only concern. We can afford punts, just not to lose #12.
You're right, he wasn't a pro-bowl caliber player his first partial season as a starter. And he looked a bit rusty in his pre-season debut the other night. The guy's obviously got no hope of improving this season, so what are we to do?


Here's the good news according to the article: Newhouse has the physical attributes to succeed at LT. So what's he missing? Back to McGinn as he quotes two NFL scouts/personnel guys from other teams:The real issue with the Green Bay Packers' offensive line … (isn't depth, it is) whether Marshall Newhouse can provide championship play in his first season as the full-fledged starter at left tackle.
I'd be much more concerned if he didn't have the physical attributes to succeed (ala Barbre for example). He can learn to finish blocks better - that just requires a change in attitude and determination. I hope the staff is keeping after him to do just that."He's got the feet, but he has to play physical," said one after the Cleveland game. Added another: "He just needs to finish. He gives it up way too easy." Newhouse has looked improved in pass protection this summer, but you can't really tell until the regular season."