Spriggs replaces Lang?

[McKnowledge]

Let's stick it the Vikings. Let's make a one year offer to (OG) Mike Harris. He's 26 and probably motivated to play well. He either provides depth or competes for starter. Or maybe Louis Vazquez from Bears and Broncos, he's still out there.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Let's stick it the Vikings. Let's make a one year offer to (OG) Mike Harris. He's 26 and probably motivated to play well. He either provides depth or competes for starter. Or maybe Louis Vazquez from Bears and Broncos, he's still out there.

Harris wasn't able to play last season because of an illness and as far as I know hasn't been medically cleared to play again. Vasquez has been out of the league for a year and probably doesn't present a significant upgrade.

 

[McKnowledge]

Harris wasn't able to play last season because of an illness and as far as I know hasn't been medically cleared to play again. Vasquez has been out of the league for a year and probably doesn't present a significant upgrade.

Depth purposes?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Depth purposes?

There are better options available than Harris and Vasquez for the Packers to add depth on the offensive line.

 

[Curly Calhoun]

I truly don't believe the coaching staff wants to move Bulaga to guard.

That may be true. Spriggs, however, seems more like a tackle than a guard, and if you want to get him into the lineup, that would be one way to do it. The other players listed at guard currently on the roster, besides Taylor, are Don Barclay and Patrick Lucas. The pickings are pretty slim with regard to the remaining free agents, so unless they find a guard in the draft ready to start on day one, those are the options.

 

[Poppa San]

so unless they find a guard in the draft ready to start on day one

Not good odds as it would almost need to be someone that has played guard to be ready to go and that won't happen after the fourth round.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

That may be true. Spriggs, however, seems more like a tackle than a guard, and if you want to get him into the lineup, that would be one way to do it. The other players listed at guard currently on the roster, besides Taylor, are Don Barclay and Patrick Lucas. The pickings are pretty slim with regard to the remaining free agents, so unless they find a guard in the draft ready to start on day one, those are the options.

There's no reason to force Spriggs into the starting lineup though. Bulaga most likely presents the better option at right tackle entering next season therefore he should continue to start there. Spriggs might be given a chance to compete at right guard but has to earn the job to get on the field.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Hopefully the Packers don't have to find their starting guard by using a top draft pick, since once again, it appears those picks should be spent on the defense. You would hope and think that since they have yet to sign a FA Guard, they already have a plan or at least a good idea who that guy on the team is. With as much cap space as the Packers currently have, I am still holding out hope for the signing of a FA or two (or three) to add depth on the OL, RB, OLB, DL or CB. However, TT once again may be content to just find that depth with draft picks and UDFA's.

 

[El Guapo]

By adding "depth" at this point, you're talking about journeyman Don Barclay-types that are likely not to be starters. I agree that it's not a bad idea to add a few of these guys as the worst is that you cut them coming out of camp, but the up side is that you find one or two that contribute to the team.

Like last year with the departure of Sitton, I think that the Packers have a promotion plan from within. We will start to see it in OTAs and especially in camp. They won't be plugging in a rookie at RG. I suspect that it's Spriggs and Murphy in a camp battle for RG with a Adrian Klemm type of FA brought in sometime in the next month.

 

[Curly Calhoun]

There's no reason to force Spriggs into the starting lineup though. Bulaga most likely presents the better option at right tackle entering next season therefore he should continue to start there. Spriggs might be given a chance to compete at right guard but has to earn the job to get on the field.

Spriggs is is listed at 6'7" (Bulaga at 6'5")........Spriggs probably isn't a guard.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Spriggs is is listed at 6'7" (Bulaga at 6'5")........Spriggs probably isn't a guard.

I agree that Spriggs doesn't seem to be a great fit at guard but there's no reason to start him at tackle either as long as Bulaga is the better player at the position.

 

[Curly Calhoun]

I agree that Spriggs doesn't seem to be a great fit at guard but there's no reason to start him at tackle either as long as Bulaga is the better player at the position.

I think the idea may be to get your best five on the field, and this might be the only way to do it. Of course, it is possible between now and week one that another player emerges at the guard position.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I think the idea may be to get your best five on the field, and this might be the only way to do it. Of course, it is possible between now and week one that another player emerges at the guard position.

I am actually only partially concerned about "the best 5", I am more concerned about the "best 7". Rarely does the starting 5 make it through an entire season. Right now our depth chart looks like this.

LT Bakhtiari, Spriggs
LG Taylor, Patrick
C Linsley, Flores
RG Barclay
RT Bulaga, Murphy

 

[Curly Calhoun]

I am actually only partially concerned about "the best 5", I am more concerned about the "best 7". Rarely does the starting 5 make it through an entire season. Right now our depth chart looks like this.

LT Bakhtiari, Spriggs
LG Taylor, Patrick
C Linsley, Flores
RG Barclay
RT Bulaga, Murphy

When there's an injury, you make an adjustment. Until that time, you play your best five, no?

 

[Dantés]

For what it's worth, Spriggs measured in at 6'5.5" at the combine. Some sites record that as 6'5" and some as 6'6". He's on the taller end for guards, but under 6'6" really isn't all that unusual for the position. 6'7" would be a very high number for an interior lineman, but that listed measurement is incorrect if you take the combine figures as accurate.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

When there's an injury, you make an adjustment. Until that time, you play your best five, no?

Yup, same kind of "adjustments" we saw at the CB and RB positions last year and at the WR position in 2015, a great way to win. An NFL team can have a quality group of 22 starters to begin the season, but if they are thinking those same 22 are going to finish the season, than they are fooling themselves. One of my biggest knocks on TT is building a 52 man roster too heavily weighted with "development" guys that have no NFL experience. I get it, he thinks he has found the next budding NFL star and doesn't want to lose him, but far to often we are seeing guys taking the field who aren't ready for prime time. Use your practice squad to stash those guys and don't be afraid to have a few more Veterans for depth.

 

[Curly Calhoun]

Yup, same kind of "adjustments" we saw at the CB and RB positions last year and at the WR position in 2015, a great way to win. An NFL team can have a quality group of 22 starters to begin the season, but if they are thinking those same 22 are going to finish the season, than they are fooling themselves. One of my biggest knocks on TT is building a 52 man roster too heavily weighted with "development" guys that have no NFL experience. I get it, he thinks he has found the next budding NFL star and doesn't want to lose him, but far to often we are seeing guys taking the field who aren't ready for prime time. Use your practice squad to stash those guys and don't be afraid to have a few more Veterans for depth.

So, what would you do differently? Keep the better players on the bench and start the back-ups?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

So, what would you do differently? Keep the better players on the bench and start the back-ups?

I have no clue what you are saying/asking in relation to my point. Why would you play back-ups in favor of better healthy players?

What I am saying is, players from the bottom 25% (arbitrary #) of your roster could and have been called on to get starting snaps due to injuries during the season. When that 25% is predominantly made up of guys with little or no NFL experience, you are taking a big gamble. Much more than the gamble of having a vet backing up that position or actually finding that vet elsewhere at the time of the need. TT and the Packers have been putting too much reliance on guys with little or no experience IMO and using the bottom portion of the 52 man roster like an extended PS.

 

[Curly Calhoun]

I have no clue what you are saying/asking in relation to my point. Why would you play back-ups in favor of better healthy players?

What I am saying is, players from the bottom 25% (arbitrary #) of your roster could and have been called on to get starting snaps due to injuries during the season. When that 25% is predominantly made up of guys with little or no NFL experience, you are taking a big gamble. Much more than the gamble of having a vet backing up that position or actually finding that vet elsewhere at the time of the need. TT and the Packers have been putting too much reliance on guys with little or no experience IMO and using the bottom portion of the 52 man roster like an extended PS.

I said you start your best five and make adjustments after injuries occur. You seemed to take exception to that. If you're not going to start your best five, who do you plan on starting?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I said you start your best five and make adjustments after injuries occur. You seemed to take exception to that. If you're not going to start your best five, who do you plan on starting?

I didn't take "exception" to what you said, I merely pointed out that I was less worried about finding a starting 5 than I was about having depth.

I am actually only partially concerned about "the best 5", I am more concerned about the "best 7". Rarely does the starting 5 make it through an entire season.

No different than I would be worried about the QB position if you had "Joe Rookie" and "Jack UDFA" backing up Rodgers.

 

[swhitset]

I didn't take "exception" to what you said, I merely pointed out that I was less worried about finding a starting 5 than I was about having depth.



No different than I would be worried about the QB position if you had "Joe Rookie" and "Jack UDFA" backing up Rodgers.

I agree with your premise.... but unless we are backing up Rodgers with another HOF Qb.... frankly I don't really care who the back up is there....

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I agree with your premise.... but unless we are backing up Rodgers with another HOF Qb.... frankly I don't really care who the back up is there....

No doubt the Packers are screwed if AR goes down. But if he does go down, would you rather have someone with experience backing him up and take your chances on salvaging the season or just say "screw it, time to groom the rookie".

Obviously, i took an extreme example with AR and the QB position to make a point. But we have seen what happens when inexperienced, UDFA's no less, are thrust into starting roles. I really don't want to see that happen on the O-line this year, but right now, it looks like there is a very good chance at some point in the season it may happen.

 

[Arthur Squires]

How in the world does Barclay keep sticking around? I would think the tape speaks for itself! I understand he is ultra familiar with the system and playbook, but come on enough is enough. He can't seriously be considered a replacement for Lang!

 

[PackerDNA]

How in the world does Barclay keep sticking around? I would think the tape speaks for itself! I understand he is ultra familiar with the system and playbook, but come on enough is enough. He can't seriously be considered a replacement for Lang!

He is in TT's world.

 

[PikeBadger]

How in the world does Barclay keep sticking around? I would think the tape speaks for itself! I understand he is ultra familiar with the system and playbook, but come on enough is enough. He can't seriously be considered a replacement for Lang!

Taylor was considered a replacement for Sitton. Were you one of the posters freaking out when that took place? I fully expect that Spriggs, Barclay, Murphy, Patrick and a draft pick will battle it out in preseason. Should be an interesting battle.