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!
  2. Announcement is LIVE: Read the Forum Post

O-lines not vital to success in today's NFL

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by ThxJackVainisi, Nov 18, 2012.

  1. mradtke66

    mradtke66 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Messages:
    472
    Ratings:
    +189
    I know you're not a fan of our line in general, but normally it is above that magical line. Right now, I agree it isn't, particularly against the Giants, but there isn't a magical fix.

    Next year, we need a new center. He should probably be a high draft pick. Assuming Bulaga's tendonitis and hip a healed, we'd be fine from LG to RT. We can survive having one guy who's a little weak. If that guy is Newhouse, we can work around it. If Newhouse, Saturday, and Lang (AT TACKLE) are all weak, it's a hell of a lot harder.

    Right now, the 2013 line depth, with no changes other than cutting Saturday and drafting his replacement looks like:

    Newhouse, Lang, Draft Pick, Sitton, Bulaga
    Sherrod, Barclay, EDS, Van Rotten, Datko.

    Is that an All Pro line in any combination? Of course not. But the 1 or 2 guys we cut (presuming we keep 8 or 9) from that lot will stick around in the league. It would be good enough to not lose. And have a couple viable backups for each position.
     
  2. shockerx

    shockerx Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2010
    Messages:
    10
    Ratings:
    +3
    2013 draft pick Barrlet Jones, then use trade bait...Finley, T.Williams, Hawk, or N.Perry a combination of, and or a high draft pick. to get Quality vet or higher draft pick... RODGERS must be protected at all cost.

    LT LG C RG RT
    high draft pick LANG B. JONES SITTON BULAGA
    top notch vet
     
  3. ivo610

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    16,122
    Ratings:
    +4,084
    You're suggesting trade perry and a draft pick to get a "quality vet" on the o line?!?!

    Seems extremely irrational
     
  4. HyponGrey

    HyponGrey Caseus Locutus Est

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2012
    Messages:
    3,758
    Ratings:
    +1,030
    Biggest problem with our line? We REALLY struggle against speed rushers. What happened to our footwork?
     
  5. shockerx

    shockerx Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2010
    Messages:
    10
    Ratings:
    +3
    A high quality proven vet, that could keep Roders form injury is not irrational.
     
  6. HyponGrey

    HyponGrey Caseus Locutus Est

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2012
    Messages:
    3,758
    Ratings:
    +1,030
    Just elusive on a budget
     
  7. jaybadger82

    jaybadger82 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2012
    Messages:
    810
    Ratings:
    +387
    No. I value our QB above all else and I recognize that the only way our offense is going to move the ball is by keeping him healthy and upright.

    Not sure where I suggested it would solve all problems. However, I think enhancing the security around our franchise player and the engine of our offense would make such an addition particularly valuable to the Packers.

    Elite pass rushers are extremely valuable but there are currently 17 players with eight or more sacks on pace to break 10 for the season. You're overstating their rarity (as well as the importance of the sack statistic).

    I would argue that reliable left tackles are rarer and I think they have a tremendous effect on a QB's performance in the pocket: confidence that your blindside is protected helps quarterbacks work through their progressions and if opponents are going to line up their stud pass rushers on the right, it's easy for the signal caller to keep tabs on them in the periphery of their vision.

    It's just one person's valuation, which doesn't really matter since I'm not GM, and I would never shop Matthews. But, if presented with this absurd proposition (Matthews for Thomas, straight up), I would take Thomas and shore up the offense that was elite when Rodgers had better protection in the past. Just to be clear, I'm not endorsing any trades that are being floated in this thread.
     
  8. mradtke66

    mradtke66 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Messages:
    472
    Ratings:
    +189
    Sacks are rather over-valued, I'll agree to that. However, you point out that there are only 17 such players in the NFL. Presuming only one per team, only 53% of the teams have such a player. I'd call that quite rare.

    That you personally would trade Matthews for Thomas straight up is your opinion, which is why I'm just picking on you. ;)

    You are clearly of the opinion that you need great offensive linemen to win. I think just need good enough. For left tackle, which I would certainly prefer to be our best lineman, anything much better than the 12th, 13th best does not appreciably improve the offense. A player as good as a healthy, 2009, late 2010 (as health as he got those years, anyway) Chad Clifton is all the offense needs. I'd like better of course, but that's probably all that is needed.

    Conversely, if the defense loses Matthews, the defense folds. Period, full stop. He IS the defense. Giving up 30 points would be a common occurrence. We have no other SuperStars on defense.

    No player is untradeable, including Rodgers, but the price for him or Matthews would be so high as to make the effectively untradable.

    For Rodgers, hypothetically, I'd take Luck or RG3, and the next 5 number one picks, next 5 2s, and any other player of my choice. For Matthews, it'd be a player and two ones, minimum.
     
  9. jaybadger82

    jaybadger82 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2012
    Messages:
    810
    Ratings:
    +387
    No, you're ascribing an opinion to me that I haven't advocated.

    But generally I think the widespread discounting on the importance of offensive line play in today's NFL is both shortsighted and stupid.

    The number of quality offensive linemen coming out of college has declined over the past several years, so I question whether teams should invest lots of first and second-round picks on this portion of the roster. But good teams draft and develop linemen via the practice squad. The Packers appear to have fallen behind in this regard. Nobody notices offensive line play in today's NFL until it becomes fatal but this still doesn't lend any real meaning or insight to statements like, "The offensive line must be good enough."
     
  10. adambr2

    adambr2 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2012
    Messages:
    1,871
    Ratings:
    +1,400
    Generally with offensive linemen, you have your "meat and potatoes" linemen usually drafted early on who can often be productive from the start, like Bulaga, or you have your "project" guys who can be anywhere from the mid-rounds to undrafted guys. So like has been mentioned, you can't just throw your first few draft picks at the problem and fix it.

    Now, I don't think we should overreact and do exactly that. We do have a healthy Bulaga and presumably healthy Sherrod returning. Presumably we might draft a C, but Rodgers is actually very confident in EDS being the Center of the future. I do like EDS better as a Center than a Guard.
     
  11. HyponGrey

    HyponGrey Caseus Locutus Est

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2012
    Messages:
    3,758
    Ratings:
    +1,030
    Sherrod is done. He'll stay on pup
     
  12. Shawnsta3

    Shawnsta3 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2011
    Messages:
    1,032
    Ratings:
    +372
    If our biggest problems this year are on pass rush and cover 2 defenses, why don't we bring back the slant pass more often? Which is the common fix for both. Heck it's even kind of a fix for a bad running game as well.

    I'm sure our recievers wouldn't mind getting their YAC numbers back up too.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slant_(route)
     
  13. Shawnsta3

    Shawnsta3 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2011
    Messages:
    1,032
    Ratings:
    +372
    Alright so now you guys are saying we should take offensive linemen higher in the draft?

    How many Championships have Jake Long and Joe Thomas won?
     
  14. jaybadger82

    jaybadger82 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2012
    Messages:
    810
    Ratings:
    +387
    I wish it were possible to rate posts "Who taught you to read?"
     
  15. Kitten

    Kitten Feline Cheesehead Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2010
    Messages:
    5,093
    Ratings:
    +1,427
    Could be injuries and some are new and not used to working together. What I noticed the most is a they just haven't been synced up. That chemistry or trust more like it between O-Line and QB just isn't there. I think it's a lot deeper than an issue of footwork as that would be something that can be resolved in coaching. I'm starting to think and I hate to even suggest it that this combo of O-Lineman just might not work well together and that brings up a whole new problem. I don't see the situation improving this season. Our best chance is to hope they can adapt and find a way to make it work with what they have. I don't see it being as much as a problem with the remainder of games in the season, I see it becoming a much bigger problem in the playoffs where those speed rushers you mentioned are going to be a certainty.
     
  16. ThxJackVainisi

    ThxJackVainisi Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    3,939
    Ratings:
    +3,035
    As a serious assertion this is one of the most foolish ideas advanced here in quite a while IMO. (Although I agree with ivo610 that the notion of trading Perry for a "quality vet" on the OL is "extremely irrational" as well.) You say you advanced it to demonstrate the importance of the LT position but then call it a ridiculous proposition. That kind of contradiction makes the opposite point. And if you called it ridiculous because the trade would never be made, that's correct - because Thompson would have lost his mind to agree to such a trade. And I think it's telling you continue to "walk back" that admittedly ridiculous idea.


    Some seem to be posting as though LT is the only problem on the OL and that Newhouse is worth next to nothing. Couldn't disagree more. If the rest of the OL was solid, he'd be good enough at LT IMO. BTW, once you complete that "trade", who starts at LT? And it's not only the season-starting OL that has to pass the "adequate" test, the "reasonably expected to play" depth does too. (IOW, no team could overcome losing four starting OL.) Depth on the OL is where the Packers are falling down IMO.

    mradtke66 has been posting good points on this thread IMO and this is the essence of the great LT vs. the great pass rusher argument. And BTW, Clay is great vs. the run as well.
     
  17. jaybadger82

    jaybadger82 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2012
    Messages:
    810
    Ratings:
    +387
    That's funny. I thought the same of your endorsement of McGinn's article in your original post.


    I referred to it as a "ridiculous proposition" because such a one-for-one swap of marquee players would never occur.

    In a vacuum, I value Matthews and Thomas similarly as players and, yes, I think Thomas' value to the Packers is greater because our entire offense seems to shut down when teams get pressure on Rodgers. Although the absence of Matthews is a huge blow for the defense, I don't think it shuts down to the same degree.

    You're not of the same opinion. So be it. You'll be happy to learn that I have no power over the Packers roster, much less the opportunity to act on such a ridiculous trade offer were it to come about.

    Part of the reason, I called the entire Thomas-for-Matthews swap "ridiculous" was because I wasn't interested in hyper-analyzing potential outcomes for such a pie-in-the-sky idea on my part.

    Although LT isn't the only problem with our offensive line, it seems like reshuffling around an elite LT would certainly boost the performance of the unit as a whole. But it probably isn't a one player solution (the same principles apply on the defensive side of the ball as well). So what if the hypothetical deal were Clay in exchange for four "solid" offensive linemen? :confused:

    BTW, I agree with you about the Packers' depth issues at OL and, in reality, there's no "silver bullet" solution. It's going to take a year or two (or three) of drafts, maybe some smart FA signings...

    He's made some good points.

    As far as walking back my original statement, sure. I would not actively shop Clay if I were managing the Packers. But I think there are very few elite LTs in the NFL that can be relied upon to neutralize elite pass rushers one-on-one. Thomas is one of the few. Given the composition of our offense, where virtually everything depends on Rodgers distributing the ball to our receivers, I value such elite LTs very highly. Yes, the loss of Clay would be a major blow for the defense.

    If I managed a different roster then I might come down differently on such a swap.

    P.S., Clifton was a pro bowler in 2010. He was better than "good enough" in protection.
     
  18. jaybadger82

    jaybadger82 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2012
    Messages:
    810
    Ratings:
    +387
    Bump. Someone ask McGinn about SF's offensive line dominating tonight's game.
     
  19. melvin dangerr

    melvin dangerr Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2012
    Messages:
    407
    Ratings:
    +105
    It just seemed like the 49ers were in the back feild almost every play, the 49ers looked too big and too strong, and MM tried to finesse his way too a win....
     
  20. HyponGrey

    HyponGrey Caseus Locutus Est

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2012
    Messages:
    3,758
    Ratings:
    +1,030
    We didn't run enough.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  21. jaybadger82

    jaybadger82 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2012
    Messages:
    810
    Ratings:
    +387
    And the Niners did.
     
  22. HyponGrey

    HyponGrey Caseus Locutus Est

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2012
    Messages:
    3,758
    Ratings:
    +1,030
    Really Starks should have gotten a few carries, just to throw some size at em.
     
  23. HyponGrey

    HyponGrey Caseus Locutus Est

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2012
    Messages:
    3,758
    Ratings:
    +1,030
    Ugh did they ever. What happened to our contain? We either bit or we let the back carve us up
     

Share This Page