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!

What Do The Packers Need Most In 2013

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by 13 Times Champs, Feb 12, 2013.

  1. JBlood

    JBlood Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2004
    Messages:
    2,572
    Ratings:
    +995
    I'd be interested to know how often opposing teams rushed Rogers with 3 or 4 men--leaving 7 or 8 to cover the receivers. I believe our 5 man line has great trouble blocking even 3 good rushers. So we keep a tight end or back in to block, leaving 3 or 4 receivers to beat 7 or 8 defenders. It's not working.
     
  2. ThxJackVainisi

    ThxJackVainisi Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    3,732
    Ratings:
    +2,826
    I don't recall too many times the OL had "great trouble" blocking 3 rushers, particularly when they kept an extra blocker in, so I'd have to see some evidence to back up your belief. That's not to say there weren't problems in pass protection - that was obvious to everyone. As for evidence, in one of his post season columns, McGinn wrote that opponents blitzed on about 20% of pass plays, which was down from 23.7% the previous year - but that's only about a 4% difference from 2011. He also wrote that the average release time of Rodgers' 9 INTs was 3.11 seconds. (Remember the 2.5 second "clock" McCarthy installed in TC?) I haven't seen the average time per sack but I'll bet it's longer. That of course points to Rodgers and/or the receivers being somewhat culpable as well.

    The OL was charged with 35 of the 55 sacks surrendered and Rodgers was responsible for 14. Some here don't like to read it but the biggest problem on the OL was Marshall Newhouse. He surrendered nearly twice as many pressures (42.5) as any other OL. That's the most recorded by jsonline since they began keeping track of 'em in 1999. Some here want to blame Campen for that but how many OL coaches can make an NFL-quality starting LT on a passing team out of a player picked as a compensation pick after the 5th round of the draft? IMO if that guy becomes an adequate backup NFL OT, that's a feather in the coaching staff's caps. Newhouse shouldn't have to be the one starting. Thompson provided Sherrod as an alternative and due to the fault of no one, he got hurt. I hope we see an open competition at LT when TC begins. If Sherrod can't do it, I would like to see Bulaga and one of the youngsters like Datko given a shot. Of course I'd love it, but I don't think the Packers need a dominant OL. Fix the problem at LT and I think they'd be plenty good enough.

    There is hope for the OL. If you haven't already, I suggest finding the McGinn review of the OL in the playoff game at San Fran as it's very instructive. The OL received a grade of 4.5 out of 5 - they showed up against a very good front 7. They didn't give up a "bad" run. EDS had a very strong game, delivering a "heavy punch" and "hits hard, works extremely hard and goes after people. He also was the only lineman who didn't yield a pressure." He played much better than Saturday last season IMO. Sitton gave up 0.5 pressures. Lang matched up against Justin Smith and "held up just fine". Barclay gave up two pressures and Newhouse's "maddening inconsistencies were evident…"

    Having said all that if they have a LT prospect rated higher than a player on defense I'm all in favor of them drafting the LT. But because there are at least three players on the roster who can upgrade the LT spot (including Newhouse himself - if he was just determined to finish plays he'd be significantly better); because those who argue the D was much more responsible for the debacle in San Fran than the O have a point and stats to back them up; and because IMO there is a huge need for another playmaker on defense, I'm hoping a defender is the obvious pick at #26.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. JBlood

    JBlood Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2004
    Messages:
    2,572
    Ratings:
    +995
    TJV: "There is hope for the OL."

    TJV, check out the offensive line stats on Football Outsiders. Run blocking ranked 25 of 32; pass blocking 31 of 32. Both tackles are near the bottom of the league. Guards/center are ok, in the upper 1/3 (12th) of the league's offensive linemen, but not elite. The sack times don't take into consideration when the QB is pressured. Agile QBs, like Rogers, can buy time with their feet. Brady has trouble scrambling. The sack times for both QBs are the same, but Rogers is sacked over twice as often in spite of his scrambling ability. You can blame Rogers for holding the ball too long, but many of his greatest plays are from his scrambling--and much of the scrambling starts before 3 sec, I would imagine. I haven't seen any of those time breakdowns as to when the QB is looking for survival and not downfield for a receiver. I'm sure the team statisticians have them.
     
  4. 13 Times Champs

    13 Times Champs Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,924
    Ratings:
    +1,379
    Spot on with your analysis Jack. You will get no argument from me. I think you can compensate to some extent for the other positions on the OL. But how do you compensate for a guy that is a turnstile like Newhouse? He is the problem!!!!! Our OL wouldn't look as awful if we had a capable LT. I just don't know if we have a solution on the current roster.
     
  5. ivo610

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    15,997
    Ratings:
    +4,014
    I'd love a great DT.
     
  6. NelsonsLongCatch

    NelsonsLongCatch Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Messages:
    2,183
    Ratings:
    +615
    I'm actually completely comfortable with whoever the Packers choose to take in the first round as long it is an Offensive Lineman (tackle/guard/center... any works), Wide Receiver , Running Back, Defensive End, Defensive Tackle, Inside Linebacker or Outside Linebacker. I think the Packers could use either a body or upgrade at all of those positions.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. ThxJackVainisi

    ThxJackVainisi Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    3,732
    Ratings:
    +2,826
    J Blood, I do think there's hope for the OL but that's hardly a statement affirming that all is well. I do think the middle of the OL is OK-to-good but it lacks quality depth. Right now Greg Van Roten, Garth Gerhart and Joe Gibbs are listed on the Packers depth chart as backups to LG, OC, and RG respectively. I don't have confidence in any of 'em (it's not their fault since they haven't had the chance to succeed or fail). While I'd like better depth (like when EDS was waiting in the wings) I'm OK with a middle to late round pick plus UDFAs brought in to compete for the backup spots inside.

    The obvious problems are at OT. What the hell happened to Bulaga before he went on IR is beyond me: The difference between the way he played prior to 2012 and during 2012 was stark. I hope he was hurt before his big injury. At least with him, we've seen him play RT very well so "hoping" he can return to that kind of play isn't unrealistic IMO. Barclay got better and better at RT but in order to start or even be a solid backup he can't require so much help in pass protection. I think it's reasonable to expect him to continue to improve and at this point, I'd be OK with him backing up RT because I think he's continue to improve. He certainly wasn't overwhelmed by having to start.

    That leaves LT. The rest of the OTs on the roster are: Newhouse, Sherrod, Datko and Kevin Hughes. If need be, Bulaga can be switched to LT but I'm sure they'd prefer to leave him at RT and I'm hoping for Bulaga returning to playing well there before considering him seriously for the other side. I won't rehash LT beyond that but I think it's obvious that's the spot that has to be fixed. The reason I don't advocate Thompson targeting a LT at pick 26 is I don't know who will be there and the last thing I'd want to see is the drafting of John Michels II (who was picked at #27 in the first round) in an attempt to fix the problem. The reason I'm hopeful is I don't think a complete reconstruction is necessary. If the Packers can upgrade the play at just one spot to average, the line will be significantly better protecting and run blocking. Yes it's the toughest spot but its only one spot.
     
  8. DevilDon

    DevilDon Inclement Weather Fan

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    1,391
    Ratings:
    +445
    Do you get comp money for mentioning McGinn or are you related or do you just like to pontificate based on a single sports writer's opinion?
    You reference him in many posts and I wonder if you've just decided you'll read his material and take it up as fact.
     
  9. ThxJackVainisi

    ThxJackVainisi Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    3,732
    Ratings:
    +2,826
    As I've written many times I'm not related to McGinn and I don't always agree with him. But I believe he gets inside information from the Packers regarding stats and he definitely has sources throughout the league and I respect his knowledge and research. But as I said I don't always agree with him (or anyone else) but when what McGinn writes coincides with what I witnessed, I cite him.

    Three other points: 1) After your diatribe about "leadership" you should hesitate in accusing others of pontificating. 2) I find it interesting that you accuse me of pontificating on a thread you have contributed nothing to, save sniping at my post. What exactly did you disagree with? Where's your analysis? 3) If my citing McGinn and/or "pontificating" bothers you so much, I suggest you put me on ignore. Or at least deal with the substance of my posts.
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
  10. BorderRivals.com

    BorderRivals.com Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2012
    Messages:
    594
    Ratings:
    +499
    What's wrong with citing to McGinn, widely considered by those in the industry as one of the best beat writers in the league? Peter King cites to McGinn often throughout the season. If McGinn's good enough for SI's lead writer, he should be good enough for our consideration.
     

Share This Page