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

sign Timmerman

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by paxvogel, Feb 27, 2007.

  1. paxvogel

    paxvogel Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2005
    Messages:
    503
    Ratings:
    +0
    Released by Rams he would give us a veteran guard as starter or backup.
     
  2. PackerLegend

    PackerLegend Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,947
    Ratings:
    +0
    I already posted that he was cut before you in the nfl forum you could have put that you wanted him in that topic. Anyways he is old and I does he even fit our system? Wasnt he hurt last year as well.
     
  3. CaliforniaCheez

    CaliforniaCheez Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2005
    Messages:
    2,486
    Ratings:
    +0
    So let's look at a "rumor"

    [​IMG]

    Timmerman is signed
    Colledge moves out to his natural LT position and Timmerman is LG.
    Clifton is traded on draft day for a high pick
    Ted Thompson trades down with that pick adding more draft choices.
    The Packers gain a million dollars in cap room by trading Clifton.

    http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=541946
     
  4. cheesey

    cheesey Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,000
    Ratings:
    +3
    To me you don't trade Clifton. Good oline men are too important.
    I think Timmerman has too many miles on him now.
     
  5. slackerbacker

    slackerbacker Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2004
    Messages:
    228
    Ratings:
    +0
    Timmerman is a right guard and Clifton was franchiased at one time I believe. I believe that makes it a little more difficult to move him??

    Why not sign LG Dielman from SD, consider Davis from Arizona for RG as many are now projecting him there and make Colledge and Spitz earn their jobs this season while they continue to gain strength? That way we'd be able to scrap the Zno Blocking System and pound the ball down our opponents throats again and actually close out games we have won early in the 3rd Qtr.
     
  6. digsthepack

    digsthepack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,486
    Ratings:
    +0
    Timmerman is an old mant with injury problems in recent times.

    Hey....lets sigh Paul Hornung and Fuzzy Thurston...I hear they are available.
     
  7. CaliforniaCheez

    CaliforniaCheez Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2005
    Messages:
    2,486
    Ratings:
    +0
    Timmerman had his first injury last year in game 14. Until then he started 204 consecutive games. That makes him more reliable than all but one Packer player.
     
  8. all about da packers

    all about da packers Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    7,033
    Ratings:
    +0
    Cheesey, Clifton looked below his usual standards last year. I've heard a lot about how his knees are breaking down, and I think that within the next couple of years we might need a replacement. That is my opinion though, but I do agree people like Clifton shouldn't be traded...

    I'm not sure we need O-line depth. Berry is coming back, and Moll was outstanding filling in just about any role asked of him. Coston also was a candidate to start, so he has some ability as well. There are options already on the roster IMO.
     
  9. all about da packers

    all about da packers Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    7,033
    Ratings:
    +0
    Once again another creative suggestion. The difference between you and other individuals who haven't supported TT that have been banned here is that you provide some alternatives and keep it cool. Thanks.

    I'd say the Packers are trying to get into a Denver situation, so it doesn't really matter that they have the best RB back there. A decent one can be made to look good.

    The problem would be that we invested so much time last year in Spitz/Colledge/Moll that it might be counterproductive to have them benched this year.

    I don't think it would be too much of a problem switching back to a man to man blocking scheme because if I remember correctly, the Packers still used man to man blocking in certain pass protection schemes last season. It is still a part of their pass blocking stable, and I must admit Tausch and Cliffy seem more suited to man to man blocking than zone blocking.
     
  10. digsthepack

    digsthepack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,486
    Ratings:
    +0
    Yes, he missed a game due to that injury, but his performance prior to that had been compromised due to nagging injurues as well. So much so that he, as my memory serves, was facing demotion.

    We are a young team...he is not the type of vet we should sign.
     
  11. bozz_2006

    bozz_2006 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2006
    Messages:
    4,576
    Ratings:
    +652
    i also think it would be a step in the wrong direction to demote colledge, spitz, or moll, as all of last year was a trial by fire to get them in a position to play competively this year, or at least that's what i think. this is not to say that they shouldn't have to compete for their jobs, but bringing in someone to replace them is not the same thing.
     
  12. slackerbacker

    slackerbacker Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2004
    Messages:
    228
    Ratings:
    +0
    So what you're saying is you'd rather TT mortgage next season on the backs of the rookie OL (like he did last year) instead of actually fixing the OL and moving forward as a playoff team??
     
  13. Obi1

    Obi1 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2005
    Messages:
    1,110
    Ratings:
    +0
    Good point. :thumbsup:
     
  14. bozz_2006

    bozz_2006 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2006
    Messages:
    4,576
    Ratings:
    +652
    i don't think it's a matter of fixing. rather, i think it's 'developing'. if there was a blockbuster O lineman out there, of course i'd say pick him up if he will help the team. i do not believe timmerman is that type of player, therefore i think he would hurt the development of our young offensive linemen and in turn cause our team to move backward.
     
  15. paxvogel

    paxvogel Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2005
    Messages:
    503
    Ratings:
    +0
    I love our young guys and would consider Timmerman primarily as a backup but I strongly believe we need some veteran depth and he is also a guy with a proven record and not considered a great physical specimen that would be like an extra coach. He missed two games with injury and this is a cap move.
     
  16. cheesey

    cheesey Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,000
    Ratings:
    +3
    He probably is on the down side of his career (Clifton). I just don't think that picking up someone's old throw away would be a good way to replace him now. Maybe i'm wrong and Timmerman can still go. Maybe he would be a good backup, if cheap enough.
     
  17. cheesey

    cheesey Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,000
    Ratings:
    +3
    I think the O-line came together pretty darn good towards the end of the season. They won't be "rookies" anymore, and should be pretty strong. The ONLY way to get them to be good together, was to PLAY them together. They did that, and should be in pretty good shape come this new season. They are all used to each other, and should be good as a unit for Brett and the running game.
     
  18. digsthepack

    digsthepack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,486
    Ratings:
    +0
    They were especially good at pass protection, and an off-season weight/conditioninig program, coupled with experience and greater knowledge of the ZB scheme shouold bode well for the running game as well.
     
  19. porky88

    porky88 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Messages:
    3,991
    Ratings:
    +0
    Your against the zone blocking scheme because your more old school. That is fine. A lot of people are. However you can't hate McCarthy or Thompson because their ideas are different from yours. I have different ideas as well but by no means am I going to hate someone for doing something different.

    They won't sign Davis and they won't scrap the zone blocking scheme. They've invested to much in it by drafting 3 offensive lineman whom primary fit the zone blocking scheme. They traded Samkon Gado because he was not a good fit for it and Vernand Morency was. They kept Noah Herron over Najeh Davenport because he was the better fit. McCarthy hired coaches who know this scheme because he wants to run it. Regardless of whether or not the zone blocking scheme is not as good as man to man it's the Packers scheme now and signing players that don't fit your scheme isn't going to work.

    Green Bay has some continuity with zone blocking scheme. Giving up on it after a year when the Packers produced 3 different running backs who had 100 yard games and a 1000 yard back would not make sense. If the scheme struggles next year then the Packers might need to make a change but last year it was fairly successful for it’s 1st year.

    I’m all for bringing in competition. I think it’s needed and I think it should be needed for every position. However you bring in players that fits your scheme and if Green Bay is running the zone blocking scheme then the players they need to sign are offensive lineman that fit that scheme. Not a different one.
     
  20. warhawk

    warhawk Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,922
    Ratings:
    +38
    It would be a HUGE mistake to switch gears now and abandon what has been started here. A monster investment in personnel and time to develope has been made and you suggest canning it now? That we would actually be in a better playoff position if we did that?

    How about we stick with the plan and have some faith that it can work. Considering we had as many as three rookies and first year center in there it is beyond my ability to comprehend that consideration would be given to not continue that course. Geez.

    I would be much more for that than to continually trying to change crap around all the time. The teams that tend to do that never seem to get anywhere.

    I will add that if anything like this were done all those that do think we have it going in the right direction would be jumping off that ship and fast. The young line and how well they did is where the room for optimism comes from in the first place. To quit now on it would be stupid.
     
  21. Bobby Roberts

    Bobby Roberts Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2005
    Messages:
    770
    Ratings:
    +0
    Just because the suggestion is creative, it doesn't mean that it isn't crap. The promotion of our OL coach to OC makes it obvious that this silly idea will not happen.

    If you want offseason fun about ways to change the team, then go for some more realistic ones:
    - Fire TT and hire Wolf back. That way we can restore the '90s glory.
    - Force Favre to retire and become the QB coach. Best of both worlds - Favre still leads the team and teaches Rodgers while we get to learn if Rodgers is the right QB for the job.
    - Make trades for Drew Brees, Gates and LT. That will make our offense great again.
    - Fire MM and bring back Sherman.
    - Fire MM and bring back Holmgren.
    blah blah blah!

    Now back to the topic, no. Signing Timmerman to the vets minimum as a backup is the only option for him in GB at this point of his career IMO. Even at that, he doesn't fit on the current team -- older, slower, bigger make him a mismatch for ZBS. I like him as a player and person and wish him the best, but no longer as a Packer.

    GO PACK GO!!!
     
  22. PackerLegend

    PackerLegend Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,947
    Ratings:
    +0
    We have Two great up and coming Rookie Guards why sign Timmerman who is 35 makes no sense at all.



    Packers, Timmerman unlikely to be reunited

    By Pete Dougherty
    pdougher@greenbaypressgazette.com

    The Green Bay Packers don’t have any initial interest in veteran guard Adam Timmerman, who was released earlier this week by the St. Louis Rams, his agent, Mark Bartelstein, said Wednesday afternoon.


    The Rams cut Timmerman, 35, to save salary-cap money and open a spot in their lineup for second-year pro Mark Setterstom, a less expensive alternative.

    The Packers originally drafted the 6-foot-4, 300-pound Timmerman in the seventh round of the 1995 draft, and he became a starter in his second season, the Packers’ Super Bowl year of 1996. He held that job through 1998, then signed with the Rams as an unrestricted free agent and was a fixture at right guard thereafter, playing in two Pro Bowls.

    The Packers probably could use some quality veteran help at backup guard.

    However, with Jason Spitz and Daryn Colledge playing well and showing improvement over the course of their rookie seasons at right guard and left guard, respectively, the Packers don’t have a strong need for a starting guard.

    So, Timmerman probably wouldn’t have much interest in the Packers.

    Bartelstein said he’s received calls from several teams, but not the Packers.

    “(Timmerman) is definitely a starter,” Bartelstein said. “He’s still playing at the same level. This is just the function of a new coaching staff and they got a young guy they drafted they want to go with.”
     
  23. Greg C.

    Greg C. Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 31, 2005
    Messages:
    2,856
    Ratings:
    +0
    Do we have to go through this every time some old ex-Packer becomes available? I'll answer my own question: I guess we do. There are always fans who think we can somehow relive the glory years of the 90's (or worse yet, the "glory years" of the early 2000's), regardless of how poor a fit the player now is for our team. Timmerman would not be a good fit for the current blocking scheme, and we need young guys as backups, not veterans.
     

Share This Page