TJV
Lifelong Packers Fanatic
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2011
- Messages
- 5,389
- Reaction score
- 954
I agree McCarthy was foolish for not protecting Rodgers more when it was obvious the OL was struggling mightily. He’s done it in the past too – even when it was just one player on the OL struggling. I get the idea of adhering to the “next man up” principle – that the Packers don’t change their game plan because of injury. That’s probably supposed to instill confidence in the replacement player. But the principle of protecting your franchise QB is more important to me.
BTW, who is making the decision to stick with the status quo – Lang at RT - on the OL? McCarhty? Campen? That’s why IMO those advocating that the replacement of Campen will fix the problems on the OL don’t have enough information to make that call. I’d like to see Barclay replace Lang at RT so only one spot would be affected by Bulaga’s absence. If the rest of the OL is solid McCarthy would only have to help out the RT. (But the rest of the OL hasn’t been solid.) But I don’t have enough information to predict how well Barclay would do at that spot. Those advocating for Datko to start have no information to support their opinion. Datko resides on the PS along with Joe Gibbs, an OG (why not advocate for his promotion to the active roster?). Meanwhile G/T Barclay and OG Greg Van Roten are on the active roster. If the Packers believed Datko was the best backup at OT, why wouldn’t they have Barclay and Datko on the active roster? The answer IMO is easy: If they believed that, they would. Of course every decision any person or organization makes isn’t correct. My point here is just that the team has much more information about these players than we do. And regarding Datko, we have almost none.
BTW, who is making the decision to stick with the status quo – Lang at RT - on the OL? McCarhty? Campen? That’s why IMO those advocating that the replacement of Campen will fix the problems on the OL don’t have enough information to make that call. I’d like to see Barclay replace Lang at RT so only one spot would be affected by Bulaga’s absence. If the rest of the OL is solid McCarthy would only have to help out the RT. (But the rest of the OL hasn’t been solid.) But I don’t have enough information to predict how well Barclay would do at that spot. Those advocating for Datko to start have no information to support their opinion. Datko resides on the PS along with Joe Gibbs, an OG (why not advocate for his promotion to the active roster?). Meanwhile G/T Barclay and OG Greg Van Roten are on the active roster. If the Packers believed Datko was the best backup at OT, why wouldn’t they have Barclay and Datko on the active roster? The answer IMO is easy: If they believed that, they would. Of course every decision any person or organization makes isn’t correct. My point here is just that the team has much more information about these players than we do. And regarding Datko, we have almost none.