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

Scott Wells, Daryn College.

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by Eli Haugen, Jun 5, 2015.

  1. Eli Haugen

    Eli Haugen Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2014
    Messages:
    1,529
    Ratings:
    +255
    These guys had a pretty good rep here during a time when our O-line was notoriously average (at best). A lot of starts for the green and gold... Now they cant fins a job...

    How did they stick around here so long???
     
  2. 7thFloorRA

    7thFloorRA Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2011
    Messages:
    2,257
    Ratings:
    +1,065
    Colledge wasn't very good. Wells got hurt after leaving I believe.
     
  3. rodell330

    rodell330 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    3,510
    Ratings:
    +1,282
    Wells was a top 3 center in the league when he was here.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. captainWIMM

    captainWIMM Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Messages:
    12,597
    Ratings:
    +6,592
    Wells was an above average center during his eight season in Green Bay. After his best season in 2011 he was rewarded with a nice contract by the Rams. Unfortunately for him he got injured in his first game with the team and was never able to return to his performance with the Packers and was absolutely terrible last season. No NFL team takes a gamble on a 34-year old who has steadily declined over the last few years.

    Colledge retired after the 2014 season.
     
  5. Half Empty

    Half Empty Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2014
    Messages:
    1,753
    Ratings:
    +661
    Wonder about the reason for the question. As noted, Wells was excellent, then had injury problems. Colledge had a nine year career (and nfl.com still lists him as an UFA active 33 year old player), played every game except for three last year, started every game he played from his third year on - hardly "can't find a job"
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  6. AmishMafia

    AmishMafia Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2010
    Messages:
    2,975
    Ratings:
    +2,226
    They got old.
     
  7. captainWIMM

    captainWIMM Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Messages:
    12,597
    Ratings:
    +6,592
  8. sschind

    sschind Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2014
    Messages:
    997
    Ratings:
    +498

    They stuck around here for so long, like a lot of players do, because they were good enough and cheap enough to make them the best alternative. Once one or both of those things stopped being true their services were no longer needed. Its not like they left and fell off the map. Teams did still want them and gave them jobs but they are older now and it looks like they have decided to retire. Wells and Colledge were nothing special and the Packers don't have some sort of magic elixir or force that keeps players serviceable while they are here if that is what you are looking for. It happens all the time to every team.
     
  9. captainWIMM

    captainWIMM Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Messages:
    12,597
    Ratings:
    +6,592
    It seems like Wells is still looking for a team to play for next season.
     
  10. buggybill2003

    buggybill2003 Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    May 22, 2012
    Messages:
    4,944
    Ratings:
    +3,010
    Do the Vikings know ???
     
    • Funny Funny x 4
    • Like Like x 1
  11. sschind

    sschind Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2014
    Messages:
    997
    Ratings:
    +498
    Might be, I don't know I don't follow players once the leave the Packers. I was kinda going off what you said about no team hiring a 34 year old who has been in decline. He may be retired and just isn't aware of it yet.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. JBlood

    JBlood Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2004
    Messages:
    3,154
    Ratings:
    +1,312
    Wells was solid and fit the mold of a smaller lineman the zone blocking scheme that Jagodzinski started in Green Bay. Colledge was average, which is better than below average. And, as has been pointed out, they both got old.
     
  13. NelsonsLongCatch

    NelsonsLongCatch Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Messages:
    2,685
    Ratings:
    +844
    Both guys made their name in Green Bay then made a ton of money to leave Green Bay. Both had long careers and just got old. Hazard of the job is that year a new crop of younger players enter the league to take your job.

    I also think that playing in front of Hall of Fame QBs helped their careers.
     
  14. paulska

    paulska Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 1, 2006
    Messages:
    110
    Ratings:
    +46
    Colledge was drafted in the hopes that he could play left tackle for us, but he couldn't cut it on the edge. We moved him to guard, he played credibly there, and when his contract came to the end, he was overvalued by Arizona based on the production of our offense when they had Warner slinging it. They figured Colledge could slide outside and paid him close to tackle money on his deal. He never made it out there for them either, and he played credibly, but didn't deliver anywhere near what he was being paid. Guys like that look for lesser, but still more than rookies/journeymen, money, but don't deliver better performance. He was never a bad guy, he just offered poor bang for the buck...

    The other posters who highlighted Wells injury woes hit it on the head. He got a nice deal from St. Louis and couldn't get healthy/right again. Now he's a bottom of the roster guy fighting the same value battle that drove Colledge to retire. It seems to me teams want OL depth that's versatile down the depth chart. Both of them are strictly one positioners... That doesn't help the career extension prospects.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  15. bozz_2006

    bozz_2006 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2006
    Messages:
    4,576
    Ratings:
    +652
    Colledge was cheap because he was young. Wells was cheap because he was a 7th round draft pick.
     
  16. bozz_2006

    bozz_2006 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2006
    Messages:
    4,576
    Ratings:
    +652
    and the stuck around because it took Ted a handful of years before he got the hang of drafting OL.
     
  17. Curly Calhoun

    Curly Calhoun Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2015
    Messages:
    551
    Ratings:
    +269
    Colledge announced his retirement after the 2014 season. He played nine season in the NFL, the first five with Green Bay. Nine years is longer that most players last.

    Wells lasted 11 years in the NFL, the first eight in Green Bay. He's had injury issues in recent years.



    By NFL standards, I'd say both men have relatively long and productive careers, and both have a ring. Few who play in the trenches last as long as they did.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. El Guapo

    El Guapo Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    3,518
    Ratings:
    +1,990
    This is an important note. Smart players quickly learn that versatility is the key if you aren't a stud. Don Barclay has stuck around because he can play guard or tackle. Trettor is grooming himself nicely since he doesn't have a specific spot. For other guys it's learning to be a special teams ace, such as Jarrett Bush. He surely wouldn't have stuck around just as a CB.

    For any young folks out there, this lesson is applicable to your work life as well. Learn how to do a lot of things, because you are more valuable to a company when you are versatile and willing to take on different challenges.
     
  19. paulska

    paulska Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 1, 2006
    Messages:
    110
    Ratings:
    +46
    I teach high school in a region where student enrolment is declining, and there's no question the number of staff required to teach school will decline too in the next couple of decades. A lot of my colleagues assume that their jobs, because they are unionized, will always be there, and will always be like they are right now. I recognize that if all I can teach is one thing, I'll be one of those that doesn't last. The time is coming in the not too distant future when if you can't provide meaningful teaching in different subject areas, you won't be someone schools can really justify having on staff. We are permitted three certification upgrades where I work, and I'm really thinking about the two I haven't done and how I can get degrees or certificates so I can teach in departments I'm not currently qualified to teach in.

    In a micro way, you're right that guys like Bush and Barclay end up insulating themselves from job insecurity with an NFL team because they offer quality and depth in a variety of roles- that makes them really good value for the money paid. To replace their functionality in all respects would take multiple contracts AND more roster spots. It's a pretty savvy way to make a living in a pro sport, and in this light, it's not hard to see why TT is OK with paying them with what appears to be a contract that's somewhat above market.
     
  20. JBlood

    JBlood Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2004
    Messages:
    3,154
    Ratings:
    +1,312
    There's some truth to this, but if you want to be a starter on a top defense or offense, I think you've got to follow Richard Sherman's advice:
    "Great players stay on their side and do what they're supposed to do. How many guys have you seen switching from side to side on a No. 1 defense? You've never seen it. We're the No. 1 defense for a reason. Who coaches a No. 1 defense to be worse?" (http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/sto...romartie-response-criticism-seahawks-jets-cbs)

    Versatile players can be valuable when injuries hit, or on special teams and every team needs a few of them. But great teams have great players at each position, for the most part.
     
  21. paulska

    paulska Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 1, 2006
    Messages:
    110
    Ratings:
    +46
    Sherman is right, in my mind, about this: you want your elite, dominant players to be in positions where they can maximize their impact. You don't want Revis playing spy at the ILB spot of a defense, ever, for any reason.

    But I'm not talking about Colledge or Wells as players of that ilk. Never in their careers were they considered one of the top impact players at their positions, and the question posed in this thread not only wondered where they went, but why they don't have jobs at the moment.

    I think the discussion has pointed out two reasons: age (both guys have been around for eons in NFL terms, and age has caught up with them) and lack of versatility given where they would fit on a current NFL roster (since they really can only do one thing as players low on the depth chart, their greater salary hit, inability to play quality reps at multiple positions and the opportunity cost to develop younger players in keeping them).

    No one is suggesting all players should do everything. I am saying that players who are not stars are smart to provide quality in more than one respect to empower teams to maximize their salary expenditures and roster flexibility.

    As for great teams having great players at each position, I don't know that that statement holds water. The kid who made the game saving pick for the Patriots could hardly be considered great- no one knew who he was before that moment. I would agree that great teams typically have great players at IMPORTANT positions (QB especially, pass rusher, receiver, CB) and effective players at the others...
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  22. TJV

    TJV Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    5,389
    Ratings:
    +4,176
    I don't think a great defense is adversely effected by having it’s best cover CB cover the opponent’s best WR no matter where the WR lines up.
    ...
    It depends upon what you mean “for the most part”, because obviously no team has great players at each position. Even if you mean “the majority” of players, I don’t think that’s true. But I do agree teams can go overboard emphasizing versatility. I think the Packers OL has been a victim of it in the past. For example, it doesn’t matter if Sitton can play OC or OT, he’s a great OG and that’s more than enough. And I’d love for the Packers to acquire a fantastic LT, even if he’d struggle at the other four positions on the line. Having one versatile starter and two versatile backups on the active roster on game day is enough IMO.
     
  23. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    7,753
    Ratings:
    +3,693
    I think moving corners around pre-snap might be preferred out of necessity, where one corner is superior to the other by some margin, but there are issues with it.

    When the offense puts receivers in motion, it can set a rotation in motion at the safety position as well toward where the help is needed...everybody in the D-backfield is moving at the snap. It also takes away press coverage as the DB is moving laterally at the snap with the motion receiver. Not being set at the snap should be avoided wherever possible.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  24. captainWIMM

    captainWIMM Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Messages:
    12,597
    Ratings:
    +6,592
    I would actually fine with none of the starters on the offensive line being versatile as long as the backups can play several positions.
     
  25. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    7,753
    Ratings:
    +3,693
    The reality is there's no plug-and-play backup at LT, and there's not going to be one out of this group of 90. Should the need arise, it will have to be Bulaga at LT with somebody, probably Barclay, taking RT. I say "probably" because you never know how he'll be coming off the ACL once contact begins.
     

Share This Page