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

Tyrone Culver - 6th Round Gold? or another TT bust?

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by tromadz, Aug 20, 2006.

  1. tromadz

    tromadz Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    Messages:
    1,000
    Ratings:
    +3
    it was ONLY a preseason game, but in a couple weeks, REAL games begin. Underwood is done for the year. Manuel hasn't played one down due to injuries, and when he does, we still don't know how good he is going to be.

    Tyrone Culver could easily be the starting strong safety in a lot of games in 2006.

    Preseason games dont have much meaning. The main one is to get ready for the real games, and to watch progression of players. Rayner,O-line,etc.

    Culver is another one to watch, not because he is great, but because of injuries.

    He allowed the only touchdown in the game, which is bad. But he also got an interception and played well after it, which is good. Is he going to be consistent? Was it just a lucky flukey preseason game?

    Next week vs. The Bengals on Monday Night Football....keep an eye on Tyrone Culver.
     
  2. PackerLegend

    PackerLegend Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,947
    Ratings:
    +0
    He looked like Gold Tonight being a 6th round pick and a rookie Culver and Underwood both looked good to bad for Underwood getting hurt because there both looking like they are going to be something. There still very young make mistakes and the extra time playing is going to help a lot. The TD was his fault but in time that shouldnt happen as often or be as easy
     
  3. all about da packers

    all about da packers Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    7,033
    Ratings:
    +0
    The thing that got me was that he has been making plays wich a rookie shouldn't. He has been baiting our QBs, using LB and D-Line to hide and come out at the last second. He has potential, and this is just the surface.
     
  4. porky88

    porky88 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Messages:
    3,991
    Ratings:
    +0
    Manuel was practicing all week. He was held out just to be on the safe side. He'll be starting next week and that's good.

    Outside of the INT, Culver didn't look like he's good enough to be a starting SS in the league. Not yet, that's for sure.
     
  5. cyoung

    cyoung Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2006
    Messages:
    1,276
    Ratings:
    +2
    I think Culver played good but I'd still want Manuel over him
     
  6. PackerLegend

    PackerLegend Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,947
    Ratings:
    +0
    :agree: me to
     
  7. packedhouse01

    packedhouse01 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2005
    Messages:
    1,560
    Ratings:
    +1
    The great teams have one ingredient that average teams don't have, it's called depth. The Packers of the 90's had great players in their starting lineup, but their depth might have been as big of a reason for their success as their starting lineup. Culver is what may be known as a depth player. Remember, the kid is a rookie. He shows a nose for the ball. He seems like a pretty tough kid. He's willing to learn and he won't be a guy who will cry about playing time and lets hope he doesn't have to be forced into the starting lineup before he's ready. He seems like a guy who has taken advantage of the situation. Good for him. I hope he makes the team.
     
  8. kmac

    kmac Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2006
    Messages:
    849
    Ratings:
    +0
    I'm surprised it took until after this game for someone to start a Culver thread. IIRC, he had an awesome week 1 as well.
     
  9. Bruce

    Bruce Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,078
    Ratings:
    +0
    This is certainly a position of concern.

    I think Culver has been a pleasant surprise, but agree that he is not yet ready for prime time. My problem is, I am not sure that Manuel has ever shown that he is good enough to be a starting SS in this league either. Seattle had a great defense which was able to switch things up and disquise coverages to cover up for his weak cover skills last season when he was forced into the lineup (for the first time in his career) by injury.

    Underwood had taken such a big leap forward, his injury may turn out to be a bigger deal that some realize.
     
  10. TOPackerFan

    TOPackerFan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2004
    Messages:
    2,084
    Ratings:
    +0
    The great teams have playmakers. Depth is nice, but without playmakers, you don't win in the NFL. Culver has good ball skills and seems to be picking up the defense and the NFL game quite nicely, but he'll never be more than a servicable starter i.e. there are probably 25 other guys just like him starting right now.
     
  11. Zero2Cool

    Zero2Cool I own a website

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    11,903
    Ratings:
    +8
    'another' Ted Thompson bust... Who were or are the others?
     
  12. tonytokes

    tonytokes Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2006
    Messages:
    82
    Ratings:
    +0
    I don't think it's possible to use "6th round" and "bust" in the same sentence. 6th rounders don't bust. They just don't pan out.

    That said, I think he could be the real deal. What's that mean? A solid starter with a limited lid IMO.
     
  13. warhawk

    warhawk Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,922
    Ratings:
    +38
    The TD was not actually Culvers responsibility. Hawkins was supposed to pick up the TE there but went with the fullback leaving him wide open.

    Just a pre-season mistake. They happen. It was obvious something wasn't right on that play though.
     
  14. warhawk

    warhawk Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,922
    Ratings:
    +38
    Sorry, I meant Ben Taylor. Taylor was supposed to go with the TE there but took the wrong read and went with the FB.
     
  15. Zero2Cool

    Zero2Cool I own a website

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    11,903
    Ratings:
    +8
    Yes warhawk and I liked how they know the mistake and it was a communication error. Communication errors typically are easy to rectify.
     
  16. Zero2Cool

    Zero2Cool I own a website

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    11,903
    Ratings:
    +8
    After two games. Culver leads the Packers with 13 Tackles.
     
  17. paxvogel

    paxvogel Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2005
    Messages:
    503
    Ratings:
    +0
    The two players I was really impressed with for playing above what I expected were Culver and Montgomery. He makes the team and contributes. If not I doubt we can sneak him through waivers to put on the practice squad.
     
  18. Culver29

    Culver29 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2006
    Messages:
    13
    Ratings:
    +0
    No doubt he'll make the team. Pakers don't have anybody behind him. So unless they trade for another saftey, Cluver making the team isn't even a question. As far as him being a bust...I agree, 6th rounders can't really bust.

    Culver has been a bright spot all training camp and in both preseason games. We know he has the physical tools, but don't forget he's also a Four-time Academic All-WAC selection. Very smart guy.

    Maybe I'm a little bias as a Fresno State fan, but I'd rather Culver start than Manuel. He's out-performed everyone else at his position drafted ahead of him. As mentioned, Manuel hasn't really proved to be anything but a backup in the NFL as of yet, and he's coming off an injury. Both him and Culver are unproven as a starter, so why not let the younger guy play this year and have a solid starter for next year? Even if Manuel starts I just don't see him as an upgrade over Culver. He may not be worse, but can you really say he'd perform better than Culver has thus far?

    Let Manuel start the next couple preseason games and see how he does. Neither has proven anything--in fact, Manuel has played in 59 games and has 0 ints and only 5 pass def. Also, in 2 games Culver has more tackles than Manuel had his entire 04 season. Of course this is just preseason, but still, Culver's int and most tackles came against first team. Then again, who doesn't pick off Vick?

    Anyhow, if the Packers had a proven SS on the team I'd say put Culver #2. But I don't see how starting Manuel would make the Packers better...and as it looks now, Culver isn't making the Packers look worse.
     
  19. all about da packers

    all about da packers Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    7,033
    Ratings:
    +0
    Welcome Culver29, thanks for sharing your thoughts.

    Don't take it personally, but I think starting Culver would be a mistake. IMO, Manuel is the way to go. First of all, Manuel is a veteran, and knows the ins and outs of the pros, but Culver is a rookie and the speed of the NFL is something new to him.

    Secondly, Culver isn't a run support specialist. Manuel is, and that is one of the main reasons TT got him. Our run D was bad last year, and Manuel will help improve that, while Collins will be the guy to go out and make plays in coverage. Culver may be faster and have more range, but with Collins at FS, it isn't the best match for us, although it is a damn fine one with huge potential.

    Thirdly, Manuel is a a leader. He is coming in assuming the role of the vet back at safety, and will be taking care of the play calling. It falls on his shoulders to make sure that the players are where they need to be, and he is accountable for making subtle adjustments when he sees fit. Culver can't do that right now, simply because he is a rookie.

    Finally, Manuel is a proven vet. By this I mean he has shown he can play with the top competition against the different schemes of the NFL. Culver is still a rookie who has excelled mostly against 2nd and 3rd stringers, and hasn't had a decent run against 1st stringers. Also, Culver has played against very basic schemes, and there is a huge difference between the vanilla playcalling in the pre-season vs the playcalling in the regular season. Culver hasn't shown he can pick-up different audibles, shifts, motions, etc. that are common practice.

    IMO it is a little too early for Culver to start. However he has some talent, and a great head on his shoulders. No doubt he should improve big time this season. Something that I noticed was Manuel talking to Culver after Culver gave up the TD last game against the Falcons. That will greatly help Culver adjust faster to the NFL learning curve.
     
  20. Culver29

    Culver29 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2006
    Messages:
    13
    Ratings:
    +0
    Thanks for the welcome, and of course I don't take it personally...after all, I am a bit bias :)

    All your points make perfect sense, and I agree completely. Veteran leadership is important, and no doubt Manuel will be a huge help to Culver. Naturally I'd want Culver to start, and we'll see in the next two games if Manuel can perform just as good or beter. I've always been a big advocate for sacrificing a little for the better of the future, and if Culver was playing the better game throw him to the dogs and let him learn.

    It's often said that unlearning something is a lot more difficult than learning from scratch...so I wonder how much of an issue this will be with Manuel unlearning the Seahawks scheme/terminology. If it takes Manuel a year to learn a new sheme perhaps that year would be better spent developing Culver. Then you'd have a product made in-house.
     
  21. DePack

    DePack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    3,904
    Ratings:
    +1
    In another thread I stated that I thought Culver will be the starting safety by week 6 over Manuel. I hope I'm wrong because that would mean that Manuel was a flop and our defense was struggling.
     
  22. tromadz

    tromadz Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    Messages:
    1,000
    Ratings:
    +3
    I dont know much about manuel, except hes good against the run, and a great leader and teammate.


    I'm not even gonna guess who is gonna start. I just whoever is on the field(maybe culver on some passing downs?) does great!
     
  23. digsthepack

    digsthepack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,486
    Ratings:
    +0
    Manuel has, by all accounts, absorbed and digested this defense and is ready to lead it. He was brought in for his in-the-box presence, hard hitting nature, and the smarts and leadership he has displayed whenever he has hit the field. Manuel will start, but it is sure nice to have a young guy like Culver show the way he has. Our secondary has a nice mix of youth and experience. I look forward to their wreaking havoc this season....especially if the D-line turns up the heat.
     
  24. DePack

    DePack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    3,904
    Ratings:
    +1
    I hadn't heard of his leadership. Do you think Manuel will be the leader of this defense? He hasn't even been a starter for a full season has he?
     
  25. tromadz

    tromadz Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    Messages:
    1,000
    Ratings:
    +3
    you havent heard of his leadership?

    thats all i seemed to hear about him when i was asking "who is he?" when we got him.

    he wont be THE leader of the defense, but hes a leader, and that helps. You cant have 1 leader, and 10 other shmucks or tools. you gotta have a number of guys who will hold people accountable (Barnett,Harris, Manuel, Hawk eventually)
     

Share This Page