We've got big trouble on the OL.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by 30gut

Again, this speaks to your evaluation of the receivers vs the OL and your individual football theory/philosophy about the essential components of a passing offense.
(i think you're making a huge leap when you call Garcon a game-breaking WR)
For me first and foremost I want to create an environment for the optimal comfort of my rookie QB.
Imo there is no question that improved RT play and the resulting fewer sacks, fewer QB hits, improved rushing ability-->improved playaction ability, increased QB comfort/poise are all vital to QB play, especially rookie QBs. (who are more dependent upon pass protection for their success because they tend to hold the ball longer.)

Hey, don't just take JR's take on the situation, take Mike Shanahan's actions on it. Remember last off-season? Remember how Shanahan brought in a crap ton of WRs to compete? Remember how he even picked up David Anderson during the season? Notice he didn't make as many changes with the OL, yet they played pretty damn good the last 1/2 of the season once they had a chance to jell.

Also, what did Shanahan do immediately this off-season? He went after WR, which is a clear sign that he has thought the WR has been the weak link for a couple years now. Granted, he did bring in some FA OL, but their asking price was probably more than he would be willing to pay.

All in all, I think Shanahan's actions back up JR's notion that the WR spot has been our weak link on the offense. This is not to say it wouldn't hurt to upgrade what we have, but this notion we put a "Hogs" or a all pro-bowl type of line in front of our QB is unrealistic.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

All in all, I think Shanahan's actions back up JR's notion that the WR spot has been our weak link on the offense. This is not to say it wouldn't hurt to upgrade what we have

Um, the question isn't about whether the FO actions speak to their assessment that WR was a higher priority then RT.
Clearly the outcomes suggest that was their thought process.
The question is were they right? That remains to be seen.

but this notion we put a "Hogs" or a all pro-bowl type of line in front of our QB is unrealistic

Um...okay? But is that your notion? Because it surely isn't mine.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by 30gut

Um...okay? But is that your notion? Because it surely isn't mine.

Most definitely not, and forgive me if I gave off the impression you implied as much. I've just seen all too often how people keep harping on building the lines and they aren't going to be happy unless the team is spending 1st and 2nd rounders on OL, when quality OL can be found in the later rounds in the NFL. Aaron Rodgers did fine with a crappy OL, but he had wonderful WRs/TEs. You don't need 5 pro-bowlers on the OL to have great production from your offense. You do however, need a fantastic QB and WRs to get it done.

Were they right in their assessment? Well, considering they have been in this business all of their life, and the HC has won 2 Super Bowls, you'll excuse me if I defer to his judgement.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Most definitely not, and forgive me if I gave off the impression you implied as much. I've just seen all too often how people keep harping on building the lines and they aren't going to be happy unless the team is spending 1st and 2nd rounders on OL, when quality OL can be found in the later rounds in the NFL. Aaron Rodgers did fine with a crappy OL, but he had wonderful WRs/TEs. You don't need 5 pro-bowlers on the OL to have great production from your offense. You do however, need a fantastic QB and WRs to get it done.

Well you should find someone that espouses this point of view and have this argument with them.

As an aside I'm not sure what you mean by crappy, but Rodgers OL was far from bad.
And IIRC they've since added two 1st round picks.

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Were they right in their assessment? Well, considering they have been in this business all of their life, and the HC has won 2 Super Bowls, you'll excuse me if I defer to his judgement.

By this logic the FO is infallible.
Imo its fairly evident the Jammal Brown experiment was a mistake for the FO.
It wasn't there first mistake and i'm certain it won't be the last.
And such is the case for every FO even for teams that win championships.
Hopefully RT doesn't become a weak link in the offense.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by 30gut

As an aside I'm not sure what you mean by crappy, but Rodgers OL was far from bad.
And IIRC they've since added two 1st round picks.

Yeah, because they had the luxury of being able to pick OL in the first rounds. They are stacked at QB/WR/TE/OLB and their defense was one of the tops in the NFL so they can afford to spend those picks on OL. When our skills positions are that of theirs, we can do the same. Rodgers OL was horrible 2-3 years ago and was even up there with Jason Campbell on the most amount of sacks taken. Their run game was all but non-existent as well or it appeared that way.

Originally Posted by 30gut

By this logic the FO is infallible.
Imo its fairly evident the Jammal Brown experiment was a mistake for the FO.
It wasn't there first mistake and i'm certain it won't be the last.
And such is the case for every FO even for teams that win championships.
Hopefully RT doesn't become a weak link in the offense.

They aren't infallible as noted by the horrible McDummy trade. However, you act as if the team can predict a person's health. If he passed a physical and checks out with the doctors, then it was worth a shot trading a 3rd or 4th rounder for a pro-bowl tackle. I'm sure many would have done the same.

Also, why would RT become a weak link? Was it last year? In fact, the line performed better when TW and JB weren't in the lineup. (mostly) I posted the starting lineup the last 4 games.


12 @ Seattle Seahawks 110 yards
13 New York Jets 100 yards
14 New England Patriots 170 yards
15 @ New York Giants 123 yards
16 Minnesota Vikings 141 yards
17 @ Philadelphia Eagles 130 yards


The first half of last season was dismal only having two games over 100 yards rushing (172 and 196) against the Cards and Rams. The second half they turned it on and produced against VERY good teams with legit defense lines. We need WRs that can get open and that have the ability to produce YAC as well. We had none up until now.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Yeah, because they had the luxury of being able to pick OL in the first rounds. They are stacked at QB/WR/TE/OLB and their defense was one of the tops in the NFL so they can afford to spend those picks on OL. When our skills positions are that of theirs, we can do the same.

Um...okay?
I stated that the Packers drafted 2 1st round OTs.
Your diatribe doesn't change that.

Rodgers OL was horrible 2-3 years ago and was even up there with Jason Campbell on the most amount of sacks taken. Their run game was all but non-existent as well or it appeared that way.

All sacks are not created equal.
Quick pressure on a (1.2-1.5s) on 3-step drop where the QB gets hit even after a completion is much worse then a pressure after 2s on a 5-7 step drop.
Zorn/Campbell used a 3 step drop heavy WCO vs McCarthy/Rodgers 5-7 step drop heavy vertical WCO.

Also the Packers sack totals 2009/2010-32/38 Redskins 2009/2010-44/46

The Packers don't run the ball by choice.

However, you act as if the team can predict a person's health. If he passed a physical and checks out with the doctors, then it was worth a shot trading a 3rd or 4th rounder for a pro-bowl tackle. I'm sure many would have done the same.

You make a lot of false assumptions about my position.
I don't have a problem with bringing Jammal Brown in, its the subsequent re-signing and lack of up-grade after his sub-standard and injured plagued performance I consider a mistake.
And Jammal Brown's health was a 'prediction' it was a gamble.
He was injured when the Saints releases him, he was injured when we signed him, he's been injured during the season and he's injured now.

...In fact, the line performed better when TW and JB weren't in the lineup. (mostly) I posted the starting lineup the last 4 games.

lol, This actually speaks to my point about Jammal Brown's level of play and why RT should have been addressed.
I also noticed an uptick in the OL plays when Hurt and Polombus settled into their positions. (to be objective credit has to be given to the Helu and Royster)
And the advanced metics from Profootball Focus bear this out as Tyler Polombus graded out less poorly IIRC (-16ish) vs Jammal Brown (-18ish).
However being less bad doesn't equal good.
And if a journeyman OL pressed into the line-up outperforms your oft injured starter then imo its time to replace that 'starter'.
And extending that thought out further the level of performance from Brown/Polombus could very well be improved and likely matched by a mid-round OL.
Extending this line of thinking further...
You would still need to target and draft OL even if you think Willie Smith can be Jammal Brown's replacement.
But you would still need (a) a back-up for Willie Smith (b) a capable player if Willie Smith doesn't replicate his level of play (c) insurance against Trent weed use

Polombus was basically a gift, he's cheap and at the very least we know he's a capable back-up that can start some games and not vomit on himself.
But as a prospect Polombus wasn't highly regarded, he could keep improving and become a solid starter like Kory or he could regress like Heyer.
But, what if they could've drafted a prospect that is potentially better then Polombus going forward?
2 young cheap OTs (osentensibly both better then Jammal Brown) and improving for the future?
Have them compete in an open competition best OT plays that would have been the ulitmate win-win even.

Also, why would RT become a weak link? Was it last year?

Where did I say RT would become a weak link? (is everyone of your replies gonna contain things I didn't say and views I don't hold?)
And if you meant to ask how could RT become a weak link my answers would be the same as yours or anyone elses: if there is substandard level of play from the starter and lack of quality depth.

And in as much as Jammal Brown was one of the worst RT/OT in football, yes RT was a weak link last year.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by 30gut

Um...okay?
I stated that the Packers drafted 2 1st round OTs.
Your diatribe doesn't change that.

Diatribe? Nobody is attacking you or forcing anything. Quit being a drama queen.

Originally Posted by 30gut

lol, This actually speaks to my point about Jammal Brown's level of play and why RT should have been addressed.

Originally Posted by 30gut

And in as much as Jammal Brown was one of the worst RT/OT in football, yes RT was a weak link last year.

It's really not fair to assess his play when you know the man is playing injured. Now, if you want to argue whether he should be playing or not, that is a different argument all together and a valid one at that.

Originally Posted by 30gut

But, what if they could've drafted a prospect that is potentially better then Polombus going forward?

You can't depend on draft picks panning out or becoming better talent than what you currently have. That too is a gamble as well. We can play the "what if" game all day long.

Originally Posted by 30gut

Where did I say RT would become a weak link? (is everyone of your replies gonna contain things I didn't say and views I don't hold?)
And if you meant to ask how could RT become a weak link my answers would be the same as yours or anyone elses: if there is substandard level of play from the starter and lack of quality depth.

I didn't claim you did say that. I simply showed you the stats and who was playing RT. Now if you want to talk about the DEPTH of the OL, then that could be a valid concern. Then again, we have that same concern with many positions on this team. QB/ILB/CB/S/PK/P/WR...etc I respect your opinion, but we'll agree to disagree on the matter.


I'll remind you again, it's only 1 week into training camp. Long ways to go.