Packers want to speed up offense

  • Thread starter Deleted member 6794
  • Start date

GreenBaySlacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Messages
3,008
Reaction score
184
Numbers dictate. More plays equals more yards. More TDs, more wins. The whole ball control thing is becoming obsolete along with the running game. Greatest show on turf had it right. as well as Moss and the cheatriots. Spread the field, and let the RB catch the ball too. Then the RB can net the same amount of yards in 15 carries, than McCarthy would get lining up a FB and pounding it 30 times... (our strategy 3+ years ago) Marshall Faulk should have been our proto-type RB back in those days IMO.
Score as many TDs as possible in 60 minutes. And let Capers and the defense try to stop the other team more than they can stop us. Our big 5 was a great play. Unstopable in that there wasn't any team with 5 cover guys good enough to cover our big 5 with Rodgers throwing it. Eventually our weak O-line was exposed, and our 50 ypg rushing average allowed defenses to punish Rodgers for making them look TERRIBLE the year before! lol. We've beefed up the O-line again. Sherrod and Bulaga coming back is going to solidify our quality and quantity problems FINALLY!!! Then we got Lacy.... Thank god we got the RB that wins one on one battles consistently. Steven Jackson-esque. He is going to be the difference maker this season. His #27 in the backfield will be what gives our receivers that extra half step they need to break loose. A 230 pound beast to block for Rodgers, or is he a delayed handoff??? Run up the gut, or oh chit Jordy for 80 yards down the sideline??? And the off chance the defense plays it right and manages to cover Jordy/Cobb, and our army of up and coming WR/TEs...Rodgers will dump it off to Lacy and blow them up that way... Just like Faulk always did... Faulk was the unstoppable wild card. Defenses couldn't stop him with Warner/ Holt/Bruce forcing teams to play them... And Teams wont have anything left to stop Lacy with Rodgers/Nelson/ Cobb embarrassing the secondary....

The only way to get better is to do it strategically. More plays= more scores. And having a base Nelson/Cobb/Boykin or 2 TEs and Lacy, that we can run or pass out of. Keeping the defense on the field without personel changes... We can have advantages on top of our advantages... I love it. Open this offense up!!!
 

GreenBaySlacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Messages
3,008
Reaction score
184
Anyone remember the Matt Flynn record breaking game he played??? Did everyone know that Rodgers was calling the plays the first half??? He did. McCarthy wanted his head to be in the game. After a half, McCarthy had to take the play book to save face!!! lol. then he had to keep the offense wide open to try to win it. Or speculation Rodgers was a batter play caller than MM was a possibility. lol McCarthy walked the walk though. And with Matt Flynn playing QB, we not only set yardage and TD records for a team with 100 year history and a string of hall of fame QBs in its own hall. We beat the best WR to play the game on his best game he ever played. Stafford too. He's a 5000yd a year QB, and he had his best game that day too...

Open up this offense, and we can beat anyone!!!

Let Rodgers loose. Give him Marino status, and see what happens???:)
 

TJV

Lifelong Packers Fanatic
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
5,389
Reaction score
954
Right now were not getting much respect as Vegas has us as 6 point dogs. That's just crazy to me looking at current packer roster in place.
Home teams usually get a 3 point advantage in the spread and Seattle's home field advantage is as good as there is in the league. The Seahawks are coming off a complete dismantling of the best team on offense last season in the Super Bowl. This game will be a huge test for the Packers OL, including an OC who will be making his first snap in an NFL game. IMO from all but a Packers fan’s point of view, the spread is reasonable.
Numbers dictate. More plays equals more yards. More TDs, more wins. The whole ball control thing is becoming obsolete along with the running game. Greatest show on turf had it right….
This is an interesting post particularly from the perspective of which team currently holds the title.

Let’s see if the numbers dictate more plays equal more yards and more TDs. Last year in the regular season that was true for one team, the Broncos who finished first in plays, yards, and scoring. But the team with the title finished 29th in offensive plays from scrimmage and tied the Packers for 8th in points and won the same number of regular season games as the Broncos. The Packers finished 11th in offensive plays from scrimmage but gained more yards than every team running more plays except the Broncos. The Eagles finished 13th in plays but gained more yards than every team running more plays (including the Packers) except the Broncos. The Eagles finished 4th in points scored.

If any season emphasized the importance of defense, it was last season. The Broncos were a fantastic example of the wide open offense you’re advocating and their offense was dominated and embarrassed by the Seahawk’s defense.
 

GreenBaySlacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Messages
3,008
Reaction score
184
Home teams usually get a 3 point advantage in the spread and Seattle's home field advantage is as good as there is in the league. The Seahawks are coming off a complete dismantling of the best team on offense last season in the Super Bowl. This game will be a huge test for the Packers OL, including an OC who will be making his first snap in an NFL game. IMO from all but a Packers fan’s point of view, the spread is reasonable. This is an interesting post particularly from the perspective of which team currently holds the title.

Let’s see if the numbers dictate more plays equal more yards and more TDs. Last year in the regular season that was true for one team, the Broncos who finished first in plays, yards, and scoring. But the team with the title finished 29th in offensive plays from scrimmage and tied the Packers for 8th in points and won the same number of regular season games as the Broncos. The Packers finished 11th in offensive plays from scrimmage but gained more yards than every team running more plays except the Broncos. The Eagles finished 13th in plays but gained more yards than every team running more plays (including the Packers) except the Broncos. The Eagles finished 4th in points scored.

If any season emphasized the importance of defense, it was last season. The Broncos were a fantastic example of the wide open offense you’re advocating and their offense was dominated and embarrassed by the Seahawk’s defense.

I appreciate your due diligence. But as in any odds, the odds can be broken. And you cant hardly go back and check odds on the past, because 3 years ago when I said we should use the passing game to open up the run, everyone scoffed, and I was eventually hunted like a witch. Todays game the passing game makes or breaks offenses and teams.
I did approach my last comments from an offensive standpoint. And I did say its up to the defense to hold the other team to less points... Its fairly obvious the broncos lost because their defense sucked. And seattle won with a less than all-pro offense, because their world class defense gave them every opportunity to succeed. And despite the odds IMO. Dominant defenses seem to be winning the championships in recent memory... So a lot is left up in the air when I say its up to capers and the defense to hold the other team to less points.
Seattles legion of boom did in fact embarrass the most prolific pass attack in history that game. But back to the base point of Lacy being the back breaker. Broncos didn't have the back breaker. And if seattle had Lacy to worry about, Manning may have turned the table and dominated them, as he usually does...
Would the greatest show on turf be anything without Marshall Faulk? I doubt it highly
 

brandon2348

GO PACK GO!
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
5,342
Reaction score
339
I appreciate your due diligence. But as in any odds, the odds can be broken. And you cant hardly go back and check odds on the past, because 3 years ago when I said we should use the passing game to open up the run, everyone scoffed, and I was eventually hunted like a witch. Todays game the passing game makes or breaks offenses and teams.
I did approach my last comments from an offensive standpoint. And I did say its up to the defense to hold the other team to less points... Its fairly obvious the broncos lost because their defense sucked. And seattle won with a less than all-pro offense, because their world class defense gave them every opportunity to succeed. And despite the odds IMO. Dominant defenses seem to be winning the championships in recent memory... So a lot is left up in the air when I say its up to capers and the defense to hold the other team to less points.
Seattles legion of boom did in fact embarrass the most prolific pass attack in history that game. But back to the base point of Lacy being the back breaker. Broncos didn't have the back breaker. And if seattle had Lacy to worry about, Manning may have turned the table and dominated them, as he usually does...
Would the greatest show on turf be anything without Marshall Faulk? I doubt it highly


I agree with all of this and there are many other factors to consider. Denver as you pointed out didn't have a "power running game". Denver's D was really beat up and already was not that good, I mean Champ Bailey was out there. Peyton Manning appears to have some questionable arm strength IMO and has some limitations throwing down the field. Manning is also an "Iron Deer" in the pocket. Lastly, Fox was out-coached and had no answer for Seattle secondary playing the Denver receivers with "tight zone" disrupting Denver's "**** and dunk offense".

I hate the Seahawks obviously but you can't take away the fact they had a very dominate defense. Although; it is very difficult to keep a defense that dominates together for any significant time as there are so many moving parts. There secondary is good but the most important key for there defense to be dominant is the ability to get pressure and disrupt with 4 guys up front. If they can't disrupt with 4 it changes everything. They lost 19 years of experience on the defensive line to free agency. I know people are going to say they have guys waiting in the wings but these guys have never proved anything in NFL yet so its no guarantee.

I hope the Seahawk hype show continues and they become even bigger favorites. Right now the money line is at like "plus 220" which I believe to be a huge value and I think the Packers have a good a chance to win this game. In fact, if we do a good job protecting the football I would be surprised if we lose.
 
Last edited:

TJV

Lifelong Packers Fanatic
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
5,389
Reaction score
954
I appreciate your due diligence. But as in any odds, the odds can be broken. And you cant hardly go back and check odds on the past, because 3 years ago when I said we should use the passing game to open up the run, everyone scoffed, and I was eventually hunted like a witch. Todays game the passing game makes or breaks offenses and teams.
I am not sure what you’re talking about when you say, “odds”. The only odds I talked about was Seattle being a 6 point favorite, but that wasn’t in reply to your post. In replying to you, I didn’t cite odds, I cited facts – the stats of the last regular season according to nfl.com. You said “numbers dictate” and those are the numbers. BTW, three years ago you weren’t posting here and the consensus here was, and still is, that the NFL is a passing league.
I did approach my last comments from an offensive standpoint. And I did say its up to the defense to hold the other team to less points... Its fairly obvious the broncos lost because their defense sucked. And seattle won with a less than all-pro offense, because their world class defense gave them every opportunity to succeed. And despite the odds IMO. Dominant defenses seem to be winning the championships in recent memory... So a lot is left up in the air when I say its up to capers and the defense to hold the other team to less points.
IMO there’s a contradiction in what you wrote. ‘Holding the other team to less points” implies that if the Packers score 40 points, the D just has to hold the opponent to 39 points. That obviously wins that game, but that’s not how the majority of championship teams operate. That was the 2011 regular season situation for the Packers, wasn’t it? And in the playoffs, the importance of defense is emphasized. I also disagree that the Broncos lost because their defense sucked. IMO the main factor in that game was the absolute domination by the Seahawks defense against the best offense of last season.
But back to the base point of Lacy being the back breaker.
That certainly doesn’t look like the base point of the post to which I responded. The base point looked like this: “Numbers dictate. More plays equals more yards. More TDs, more wins. The whole ball control thing is becoming obsolete along with the running game.

Don’t get me wrong, I like your optimism about the Packers. But I think you picked a very odd time to emphasize prolific offense, when we “just” saw one of the most prolific offenses in NFL history get mauled and embarrassed by a great defense.
 

brandon2348

GO PACK GO!
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
5,342
Reaction score
339
Home teams usually get a 3 point advantage in the spread and Seattle's home field advantage is as good as there is in the league. The Seahawks are coming off a complete dismantling of the best team on offense last season in the Super Bowl. This game will be a huge test for the Packers OL, including an OC who will be making his first snap in an NFL game. IMO from all but a Packers fan’s point of view, the spread is reasonable.
 

brandon2348

GO PACK GO!
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
5,342
Reaction score
339
Home teams usually get a 3 point advantage in the spread and Seattle's home field advantage is as good as there is in the league. The Seahawks are coming off a complete dismantling of the best team on offense last season in the Super Bowl. This game will be a huge test for the Packers OL, including an OC who will be making his first snap in an NFL game. IMO from all but a Packers fan’s point of view, the spread is reasonable.

I understand the whole 3 pt thing. I understand there the Super Bowl Champs which actually doesn't mean a whole lot considering a Super Bowl champ hasn't followed a championship with a playoff win in 10 years. I live in Seattle and I am going to Vegas for the game for a couple reasons. I was at the last game and I believe there are a lot of intangibles and factors in this game that favor the Packers. I hope the Seahawks become even bigger favorites because the money line is becoming "an early Christmas present".


[/QUOTE]
 

TJV

Lifelong Packers Fanatic
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
5,389
Reaction score
954
brandon2348, I'm optimistic about the Packers chances against the Seahawks too. All I am saying is I think a 6 point spread against them on the road at one of the toughest venues in the NFL is reasonable. And IMO the importance of the play of the Packers' OL in that game can hardly be overstated.
 

brandon2348

GO PACK GO!
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
5,342
Reaction score
339
brandon2348, I'm optimistic about the Packers chances against the Seahawks too. All I am saying is I think a 6 point spread against them on the road at one of the toughest venues in the NFL is reasonable. And IMO the importance of the play of the Packers' OL in that game can hardly be overstated.

Yes. I agree 100 percent. The offensive line is the key. If they can hold Seahawks D-line at bay and not allow them to disrupt Rodgers with 4, I really like our chances. I I believe that's where the game will be decided as well.
 

GreenBaySlacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Messages
3,008
Reaction score
184
I am not sure what you’re talking about when you say, “odds”. The only odds I talked about was Seattle being a 6 point favorite, but that wasn’t in reply to your post. In replying to you, I didn’t cite odds, I cited facts – the stats of the last regular season according to nfl.com. You said “numbers dictate” and those are the numbers. BTW, three years ago you weren’t posting here and the consensus here was, and still is, that the NFL is a passing league. IMO there’s a contradiction in what you wrote. ‘Holding the other team to less points” implies that if the Packers score 40 points, the D just has to hold the opponent to 39 points. That obviously wins that game, but that’s not how the majority of championship teams operate. That was the 2011 regular season situation for the Packers, wasn’t it? And in the playoffs, the importance of defense is emphasized. I also disagree that the Broncos lost because their defense sucked. IMO the main factor in that game was the absolute domination by the Seahawks defense against the best offense of last season. That certainly doesn’t look like the base point of the post to which I responded. The base point looked like this: “Numbers dictate. More plays equals more yards. More TDs, more wins. The whole ball control thing is becoming obsolete along with the running game.

Don’t get me wrong, I like your optimism about the Packers. But I think you picked a very odd time to emphasize prolific offense, when we “just” saw one of the most prolific offenses in NFL history get mauled and embarrassed by a great defense.
Odds. You can have something that 9 times out of 10 it happens one way. But theres always the chance it goes the other way. How many times does seattle beat the broncos is they play 10 times? IMO seattle couldn't do what they did again with 100 trys. And before that game, if you asked the odds that seattle wins 48 to 8 or whatever the hell it was, it would be 100/1 or so... That's what I'm talking about. They broke the odds. And I wouldn't write the results of the 29th in plays dominating like that ever again, let alone consistently. And about the time GB blew things wide open in 2011 is when the nfl started realizing running backs were less important, and passing attack was the backbone of a winning team. Was probabally 5+ years ago I was all alone damn near. But yes. 3 years ago there would still be a half dozen old school boys preaching run every time I brought up the pass opening up the run.

And yes, I started posting on yahoo and when they shut down I went to espn and when they died I came here. In yahoo and espn, I had 10 know it all a-holes to every 1 here. and I consistently proved all of them wrong... So yea I generalize "you all", as in all you armchair GMs on the internet. Not the 3 posters on this website.

And this whole 2011 thing where we score 40, and they score 39, we are fine? Way to put words in my mouth... You get me talking about defense, and I'm shutting teams out. Nobody here is claiming 2011 was ok. Offense had it right. Open it up!!! And we got it right now. Open it up!!! Defense failed in 2011. Very similar to the Broncos last year. But this time around we have defensive talent to compliment... And technically, if its the championship game against seattle, 40-39 GB would be fine. And it would take offense and defense to get there. But you seem to twist my intentions when I say I spoke from an offensive standpoint. I was on a kick about more plays raises our odds of scoring. and to add strategy like that to our talent. we can keep the same guys in and run or pass effectively from the same formations. Saying we will get the same production from 15 runs now, as we got from 30 (3+ years ago)when we advertised run with Kuhn and ran into a wall for no gain 10 times a game....So not only do our odds go up on scoring by more plays. Our production on those plays should go up. One reason. #27... Not in a 30 carries a game way. He will get the dump off safety valve for Rodgers. And when we catch them off guard, Lacy will have open field for his properly timed runs. He is the back breaker. He is what the broncos didn't have. He is what the 2011 Packers didn't have. Used right, nobody can stop us. And in that position, I can be a little lackadaisical sounding about defense.

I swear, I'm repeating myself?
 

TJV

Lifelong Packers Fanatic
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
5,389
Reaction score
954
I swear, I'm repeating myself?
I don’t know but I do know you aren’t dealing with the contradictions I pointed out in your posts. For example, you posted 'the numbers dictate that more plays equal more yards, more TDs, and more wins'. I pointed out with facts that that was only true for one team last season. If you don’t like the facts of the most recent season regarding the number of plays the Seahawks ran, check the facts of the 2013 Eagles who finished 13th in plays but were 2nd in yards gained and 4th in points scored. You haven’t answered that point. What you did do is change your story to “…back to the base point of Lacy being the back breaker”. I pointed out that in your first post on this thread you posted, “The whole ball control thing is becoming obsolete along with the running game.” You haven’t answered that point either since your base point seems to be the importance of the passing game. So whether or not you are repeating yourself you seem to be unable to respond to challenges to what you have posted.

You also seem a bit confused: You posted, “But as in any odds, the odds can be broken. And you cant hardly go back and check odds on the past, because 3 years ago when I said we should use the passing game to open up the run, everyone scoffed…” When I asked what you meant by "the odds" you post you meant the odds of Seattle beating Denver a certain number of times. Go back and read your post #29 and tell us how we were supposed to know that’s what you meant. BTW, if the two teams that lined up in that Super Bowl played 10 times, I would expect Seattle to win it 7 or 8 times.
In yahoo and espn, I had 10 know it all a-holes to every 1 here. and I consistently proved all of them wrong... So yea I generalize "you all", as in all you armchair GMs on the internet. Not the 3 posters on this website.
Aren’t you an armchair GM too?
 

JBlood

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Messages
3,159
Reaction score
467
Speeding up play makes sense to limit a defense's ability to make situational substitutions. I like the idea, but I hope we have the type of offense that can control the clock in the 4th quarter to protect a lead. There's nothing more satisfying than watching a team grind out first downs by running the ball. That depends on the power of our offensive line more than anything. I'm still a skeptic with regards to our offensive line; but here's hoping I'm wrong.
 

TJV

Lifelong Packers Fanatic
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
5,389
Reaction score
954
There's nothing more satisfying than watching a team grind out first downs by running the ball. That depends on the power of our offensive line more than anything. I'm still a skeptic with regards to our offensive line; but here's hoping I'm wrong.
The good news is even with last season’s OL, “according to Pro Football Focus, Lacy finished the year with 647 rushing yards after contact, which ranked sixth in the league. He forced 56 missed tackles, the NFL's fourth-highest figure.” http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/eddie-lacy-hardens-run-attack-b99191226z1-242525201.html

And that was with defenses not respecting the Packers’ passing game as they’ll have to if Rodgers is healthy all season. The big question mark on the OL is Tretter – and my guess is that in time he’ll be better than EDS. He’s better physically but obviously is missing experience. How long will it take him to get up to speed? If he is a quick study – and the coaches seem to love every aspect of his game – he should be OK and improve as the season progresses. I expect Bakhtiari to be better because he seems smart and dedicated with a bit of a mean streak (which I really like). Bulaga will upgrade Barclay at RT in both the run and passing games if he can stay healthy. So what I’m saying is the OL doesn’t have to be that much better than last season to finish out games running the ball because Rodgers’ presence should prevent them from completely loading up to stop the run. And I think it's likely the OL will be better.
 

JBlood

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Messages
3,159
Reaction score
467
The good news is even with last season’s OL, “according to Pro Football Focus, Lacy finished the year with 647 rushing yards after contact, which ranked sixth in the league. He forced 56 missed tackles, the NFL's fourth-highest figure.” http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/eddie-lacy-hardens-run-attack-b99191226z1-242525201.html

And that was with defenses not respecting the Packers’ passing game as they’ll have to if Rodgers is healthy all season. The big question mark on the OL is Tretter – and my guess is that in time he’ll be better than EDS. He’s better physically but obviously is missing experience. How long will it take him to get up to speed? If he is a quick study – and the coaches seem to love every aspect of his game – he should be OK and improve as the season progresses. I expect Bakhtiari to be better because he seems smart and dedicated with a bit of a mean streak (which I really like). Bulaga will upgrade Barclay at RT in both the run and passing games if he can stay healthy. So what I’m saying is the OL doesn’t have to be that much better than last season to finish out games running the ball because Rodgers’ presence should prevent them from completely loading up to stop the run. And I think it's likely the OL will be better.
I agree with you about the center position. Tretter has no experience; the rookie from Ohio State might be better. Nobody currently on the team has any experience starting at the center position in the NFL. It's a scary situation, particularly for Rogers; and we now know what the offense is like without him. The coaching staff has not been successful in fielding a dominating line since MM took over, in spite of numerous player changes and expectations of improvement year after year. Maybe this is the year it happens.
 

TJV

Lifelong Packers Fanatic
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
5,389
Reaction score
954
I agree with you about the center position. Tretter has no experience; the rookie from Ohio State might be better. Nobody currently on the team has any experience starting at the center position in the NFL. It's a scary situation, particularly for Rogers; and we now know what the offense is like without him. The coaching staff has not been successful in fielding a dominating line since MM took over...
Regarding the OC position, I was surprised to read this quote by an NFL personnel guy in the jsonline story of a few days ago on the OL:
“Disdaining making a veteran acquisition such as Jeff Saturday in 2012, Thompson will ride the rapids at center with Tretter and rookie Corey Linsley, a small but strong fifth-round draft choice. "In general, it's the easiest need in the NFL to fix or replace or find," an executive in personnel for another club said. "There's more college free agents starting at center than any other position. That's not a position to worry about."

Of course we both hope he’s right but I think it’s reasonable to be a bit concerned until he gets up to speed – Seattle will be a huge test for Tretter. From the same article: "He has good size," Clements said. "He moves very well. He doesn't make mistakes." Said McCarthy: "He's made of the right stuff." Cushioning Tretter's baptismal will be the comforting presence of Sitton and Lang, a pair of salty campaigners with big personalities.” http://www.jsonline.com/sports/pack...ulfill-its-promise-b99313293z1-267817221.html

IMO the reason the Packers haven’t fielded a dominating OL since McCarthy took over is because of their (Thompson too) early reliance on the ZBS. We’ve discussed it several times on this board but one of the so-called advantages of it is acquiring finesse types that cost less money and cap-wise. IMO the acquisition of Sitton – although he was a 4th rounder – signaled somewhat of a switch from that philosophy and it coincided with less reliance on the ZBS generally. All good news IMO. Now if the two first round OTs could get and/or stay healthy…
 
OP
OP
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
I agree with you about the center position. Tretter has no experience; the rookie from Ohio State might be better.

McCarthy seems to be very high on Tretter and I fully expect him to beat out Linsley for the starting job.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

brandon2348

GO PACK GO!
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
5,342
Reaction score
339
I agree with you about the center position. Tretter has no experience; the rookie from Ohio State might be better. Nobody currently on the team has any experience starting at the center position in the NFL. It's a scary situation, particularly for Rogers; and we now know what the offense is like without him. The coaching staff has not been successful in fielding a dominating line since MM took over, in spite of numerous player changes and expectations of improvement year after year. Maybe this is the year it happens.


The center position though it might sound strange is probably the easiest
McCarthy seems to be very high on Tretter and I fully expect him to beat out Linsley for the starting job.

Exactly, they could of easily paid EDS and you have to believe they would of if they thought they needed too. Everything points to them being completely comfortable with Tretter moving in at center. As captain pointed out center's are one of the easiest position to re-load at based on what a lot of scouts say. Rodgers has had a new center last few seasons. I would not call this a "scary situation" as Barclay could play center if it came to that.
 

Oshkoshpackfan

YUT !!!
Joined
Aug 14, 2012
Messages
3,286
Reaction score
260
Location
Camp Lejeune NC
The center position though it might sound strange is probably the easiest


Exactly, they could of easily paid EDS and you have to believe they would of if they thought they needed too. Everything points to them being completely comfortable with Tretter moving in at center. As captain pointed out center's are one of the easiest position to re-load at based on what a lot of scouts say. Rodgers has had a new center last few seasons. I would not call this a "scary situation" as Barclay could play center if it came to that.

Right, but I can see Arods point about having a different center for years in a row now. Personally I would think that having kept EDS would have provided more consistancy and would make the comfort level with Arod better. It all starts with the center and QB being on the same page. I would like consistancy and I hope that tretter works out and is a long term solution.
 

brandon2348

GO PACK GO!
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
5,342
Reaction score
339
Right, but I can see Arods point about having a different center for years in a row now. Personally I would think that having kept EDS would have provided more consistancy and would make the comfort level with Arod better. It all starts with the center and QB being on the same page. I would like consistancy and I hope that tretter works out and is a long term solution.

Yeah consistency is great and I am hoping Tretter is the guy. They wanted to get more athletic at the position and that's what Tretter brings over EDS as McCarthy will sometimes pull the center in running game on sweeps and screen game. Also, center has to be pretty smart and I think Tretter qualifies being a Princeton guy.

Im not saying you but I hear people on hear questioning are offensive line and I don't get it. It's deep and good. I'm just crossing my fingers Bulaga doesn't have another freak injury.
 
Last edited:

Oshkoshpackfan

YUT !!!
Joined
Aug 14, 2012
Messages
3,286
Reaction score
260
Location
Camp Lejeune NC
Yeah consistency is great and I am hoping Tretter is the guy. They wanted to get more athletic at the position and that's what Tretter brings over EDS as McCarthy will sometimes pull the center in running game on sweeps and screen game. Also, center has to be pretty smart and I think Tretter qualifies being a Princeton guy.

Im not saying you but I hear people on hear questioning are offensive line and I don't get it. It's deep and good. I'm just crossing my fingers Bulaga doesn't have another freak injury.

I have no issues with the O line, just hope that center does not become an issue. Other than that we are deep. I really like LT Baktiari (sp?), he brings a much needed attitude.
 

TJV

Lifelong Packers Fanatic
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
5,389
Reaction score
954
Im not saying you but I hear people on hear questioning are offensive line and I don't get it. It's deep and good.
I'm optimistic about the OL but here's the concern: Tretter hasn't made a snap in an NFL game. If Linsley is his backup and main competition, he hasn't either. If neither work out it's probably Lang who will be switched to OC and that "musical chairs" wouldn't be a good idea IMO. You expressed the concern at RT: "I'm just crossing my fingers Bulaga doesn't have another freak injury." (BTW, I thought Sherrod suffered a freak injury, why do you think Bulaga's was?) If Bulaga gets hurt again, it's probably Barclay at RT. He led the team in pressures allowed - not good particularly at RT. I think Bakhtiari did very well, particularly for a 4th round pick being thrown into the starting LT job. But he has to improve and I expect he will. But that's not a certainty. As to depth, if the starters are Bakhtiari, Sitton, Tretter, Lang, and Bulaga, who except Barclay is proven depth? I hope Barclay doesn't have to start but I do think he provides good depth. But if they're "deep and good", who else are you looking at for depth? Sherrod is a questionmark and here's the rest of the OL roster: Linsley, McCray, Taylor, Tiller, Adams, Fullington, and Vujnovich.

As I posted, I too am optimistic but I think there's reason for legitimate concern.
 

Members online

Latest posts

Top