Packers Huddle

Posted: **25 Oct 2021 15:31**

I can't believe Yoop's offhand comment about cutting the guards has gained traction, but here we are.

Let's remember many things about that:

Getting rid of Wahle and Rivera was the right move. They were old and had minimal (none for Rivera) success after leaving

The replacements brought in as veterans were subpar, and that mattered more than the cutting

Most importantly, IT DIDN'T WORK. The team stunk. They couldn't block and eschewing the OLine cost the team greatly

So yeah, TT let the guards go. He also did NOT use a bunch of capital on WRs that year, contrary to the original statement. He got the QB of the future, a Pro Bowl safety, and yeah, Terrance Murphy. And the results were "oh crap, I thought we could get by with subpar guards and it turned out we couldn't." So the next year in came Colledge and Spitz and yeah, Moll.

So my point stands, strongly--even more strongly than before this conversation. If you think you can build a team from the outside in, you will fail. TT's moves on the OL in his first year failed. And the team suffered because of it. Had they needed to play the rookie QB behind that line (say Favre got hurt), it would have been a disaster. I dunno if we thought that bringing up TT would make me be like "oh you're right! He never made any mistakes, so having a garbage OLine in 2005 didn't matter and wasn't bad" But no.

So let's get back to the point--these teams who grab a young QB and give him weapons while neglecting the OLine... they're making a very dumb mistake and we've seen it a million times.

Posted: **25 Oct 2021 16:09**

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑
25 Oct 2021 15:31
I can't believe Yoop's offhand comment about cutting the guards has gained traction, but here we are.

Let's remember many things about that:
Getting rid of Wahle and Rivera was the right move. They were old and had minimal (none for Rivera) success after leaving

The replacements brought in as veterans were subpar, and that mattered more than the cutting

Most importantly, IT DIDN'T WORK. The team stunk. They couldn't block and eschewing the OLine cost the team greatly
So yeah, TT let the guards go. He also did NOT use a bunch of capital on WRs that year, contrary to the original statement. He got the QB of the future, a Pro Bowl safety, and yeah, Terrance Murphy. And the results were "oh crap, I thought we could get by with subpar guards and it turned out we couldn't." So the next year in came Colledge and Spitz and yeah, Moll.

So my point stands, strongly--even more strongly than before this conversation. If you think you can build a team from the outside in, you will fail. TT's moves on the OL in his first year failed. And the team suffered because of it. Had they needed to play the rookie QB behind that line (say Favre got hurt), it would have been a disaster. I dunno if we thought that bringing up TT would make me be like "oh you're right! He never made any mistakes, so having a garbage OLine in 2005 didn't matter and wasn't bad" But no.

So let's get back to the point--these teams who grab a young QB and give him weapons while neglecting the OLine... they're making a very dumb mistake and we've seen it a million times.

Murphy was a 2nd round pick, thats high capital, that he didn't pan out is besides the point, other then College, Ted didn't spend higher then a 4th rounder on OL till 2010 on Bullaga ( drafted to play T) same in 011 for Sherrod, ( replacements for Cliffy and Taush) point is Ted didn't like to spend high pick on interior OL, yet spent 2nd and 3rd rounders on receivers every year for 5 years.

Posted: **25 Oct 2021 16:27**

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑
25 Oct 2021 13:34

Raptorman wrote: ↑
25 Oct 2021 13:30
Packers can easily be 7-5 after the next 6 games.
I guarantee they aren't!

Oh, they most likely won't be. But anything is possible.

Posted: **25 Oct 2021 16:43**

Yoop wrote: ↑
25 Oct 2021 16:09
Murphy was a 2nd round pick, thats high capital, that he didn't pan out is besides the point, other then College, Ted didn't spend higher then a 4th rounder on OL till 2010 on Bullaga ( drafted to play T) same in 011 for Sherrod, ( replacements for Cliffy and Taush) point is Ted didn't like to spend high pick on interior OL, yet spent 2nd and 3rd rounders on receivers every year for 5 years.

I sdon't care about draft capital. The Packers tried to go budget on the OLine and failed. Then they BUILT A GOOD OLINE. Period. Name draft picks all you want. The team stunk in 2005 when they signed Klemm and O'Dwyer, they immediately drafted 3 OL and 2 of them hit right away. They had some pieces already. But they tried doing it without having a line and they failed. Then they got the guys on the OL and they succeeded.

Talking draft capital is a loser ;pundit strategy. It's all the "spend a first on this" or "David Bakhtiari is a 4th round pick."

I don't care about the rounds they were taken. The team invested in the OL bigtime starting in 2006. Colledge, Spitz, Moll, Bulaga, Sherrod, Lang, Tretter, Bakhtiari... all home-grown OL talent. The list goes on. The Packers saw, clearly, in 2005 what happens when you think you can get away without it. Then the adjusted accordingly.

There is no argument here. You're being obtuse for the sake of it. TT invested in the OLine from 2006 on; he made sure they had a good starting unit and a couple depth pieces. He invested in offensive weapons, also. He spent a ton of 2nd and 3rds on guys that panned out beautifully. But we KNEW that you need the OL before you can see any benefits from the rookie QB or the fancy outside weapons. When the roster needed a revamp, we didn't draft 3-4 WRs; we kept a strong OL going and the team has succeeded despite the "lack" of shiny toy investment.

You need an OL. This isn't even an argument. Everyone knows that if you can't block and protect, your offense stinks. What are you even talking about? Why do you have to fight about everything. You need to build a good OL. Stop your stupid draft-round talk and look at what we had and what we did and how we got it. If you want to say TT wanted a "loaded weapon" more than he wanted an OL, you're just wrong. If you're saying that approach to building a football team works, you're just wrong. Take a look at the KC offense this year. They tried to build up their line but whiffed and now they can't protect Mahomes and he stinks. MAHOMES STINKS without good protection. let that sink in.

Posted: **25 Oct 2021 16:49**

Raptorman wrote: ↑
25 Oct 2021 16:27

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑
25 Oct 2021 13:34

Raptorman wrote: ↑
25 Oct 2021 13:30
Packers can easily be 7-5 after the next 6 games.
I guarantee they aren't!

Oh, they most likely won't be. But anything is possible.

Nope, I guarantee after the next 6 games there is no possible way the Packers are 7-5.

Posted: **25 Oct 2021 21:08**

LOL.

Posted: **25 Oct 2021 21:46**

No hate, and good for him...but I am really shocked the NFL career of Ty Montgomery has lasted 7 years.

Posted: **25 Oct 2021 21:55**

Drj820 wrote: ↑
25 Oct 2021 21:46
No hate, and good for him...but I am really shocked the NFL career of Ty Montgomery has lasted 7 years.

I get that, but I'm not; he's always had some natural ability, but never seemed to have the head and drive to make it turn into very much... but there are plenty of spots in the league for guys with just some marginal ability. I mean, Christian Ringo is playing in this game, as well. I'm more surprised he's still around than TyMo. If the guy ever puts it together and finds the right spot, he could have a season like Corderelle Patterson is having this year. But if he never does, he can keep being a RB4/returner/STer/WR7 for some team

Posted: **25 Oct 2021 22:01**

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑
25 Oct 2021 21:55

Drj820 wrote: ↑
25 Oct 2021 21:46
No hate, and good for him...but I am really shocked the NFL career of Ty Montgomery has lasted 7 years.
I get that, but I'm not; he's always had some natural ability, but never seemed to have the head and drive to make it turn into very much... but there are plenty of spots in the league for guys with just some marginal ability. I mean, Christian Ringo is playing in this game, as well. I'm more surprised he's still around than TyMo. If the guy ever puts it together and finds the right spot, he could have a season like Corderelle Patterson is having this year. But if he never does, he can keep being a RB4/returner/STer/WR7 for some team

Fair enough, I just figured somebody on a rookie contract could give a team what Ty gives the teams he’s on. Again tho, no hate.

Posted: **25 Oct 2021 22:07**

I feel like a coach like MLF would have gotten a lot more out of TyMont than late-stage-McCaurthie.

Then again, I'd expected Randall Cobb to be used more creatively than he has been up to this point.

Posted: **25 Oct 2021 23:49**

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑
25 Oct 2021 16:43

Yoop wrote: ↑
25 Oct 2021 16:09
Murphy was a 2nd round pick, thats high capital, that he didn't pan out is besides the point, other then College, Ted didn't spend higher then a 4th rounder on OL till 2010 on Bullaga ( drafted to play T) same in 011 for Sherrod, ( replacements for Cliffy and Taush) point is Ted didn't like to spend high pick on interior OL, yet spent 2nd and 3rd rounders on receivers every year for 5 years.
I sdon't care about draft capital. The Packers tried to go budget on the OLine and failed. Then they BUILT A GOOD OLINE. Period. Name draft picks all you want. The team stunk in 2005 when they signed Klemm and O'Dwyer, they immediately drafted 3 OL and 2 of them hit right away. They had some pieces already. But they tried doing it without having a line and they failed. Then they got the guys on the OL and they succeeded.

Talking draft capital is a loser ;pundit strategy. It's all the "spend a first on this" or "David Bakhtiari is a 4th round pick."

I don't care about the rounds they were taken. The team invested in the OL bigtime starting in 2006. Colledge, Spitz, Moll, Bulaga, Sherrod, Lang, Tretter, Bakhtiari... all home-grown OL talent. The list goes on. The Packers saw, clearly, in 2005 what happens when you think you can get away without it. Then the adjusted accordingly.

There is no argument here. You're being obtuse for the sake of it. TT invested in the OLine from 2006 on; he made sure they had a good starting unit and a couple depth pieces. He invested in offensive weapons, also. He spent a ton of 2nd and 3rds on guys that panned out beautifully. But we KNEW that you need the OL before you can see any benefits from the rookie QB or the fancy outside weapons. When the roster needed a revamp, we didn't draft 3-4 WRs; we kept a strong OL going and the team has succeeded despite the "lack" of shiny toy investment.

You need an OL. This isn't even an argument. Everyone knows that if you can't block and protect, your offense stinks. What are you even talking about? Why do you have to fight about everything. You need to build a good OL. Stop your stupid draft-round talk and look at what we had and what we did and how we got it. If you want to say TT wanted a "loaded weapon" more than he wanted an OL, you're just wrong. If you're saying that approach to building a football team works, you're just wrong. Take a look at the KC offense this year. They tried to build up their line but whiffed and now they can't protect Mahomes and he stinks. MAHOMES STINKS without good protection. let that sink in.

your the one getting all pissy here, and Spitz, College and Moll where no more then average OL, which has been my point, a QB can get by fine with OL like that as long as you give him some decent receivers to throw to which Ted did, never did I say that you don't need at least a average OL, and Ted did want weapons, I just pointed out he spent a high draft pick on a receiver for 5 years straight, of course he wanted weapons, I also made a point of saying the only high draft pick he spent on OL other then the very average College was to replace the tackles, and obviously draft capitol does matter, those are the only first round picks he ever spent on OL, I don't get the anger, and I wont accept that I'am wrong either, don't see why ya can't just add a decent receiver the same time your building the OL, which is actually what Thompson did in the beginning.

Posted: **26 Oct 2021 00:34**

Yoop wrote: ↑
25 Oct 2021 23:49
your the one getting all pissy here, and Spitz, College and Moll where no more then average OL, which has been my point, a QB can get by fine with OL like that as long as you give him some decent receivers to throw to which Ted did, never did I say that you don't need at least a average OL, and Ted did want weapons, I just pointed out he spent a high draft pick on a receiver for 5 years straight, of course he wanted weapons, I also made a point of saying the only high draft pick he spent on OL other then the very average College was to replace the tackles, and obviously draft capitol does matter, those are the only first round picks he ever spent on OL, I don't get the anger, and I wont accept that I'am wrong either, don't see why ya can't just add a decent receiver the same time your building the OL, which is actually what Thompson did in the beginning.

The whole conversation was about that YOUNG QBs need a good OL over good weapons. And everyone already agreed yes, they do. You're talking about years when we had a 35+ year old Favre.

The only reason TT got away with not using way more high picks on OL, is that he was the best later round OL drafter of all time, and OL tend to have long careers. You would not complain about using high picks on WR if the Three Stooges had instead been Three Musketeers.

Posted: **26 Oct 2021 01:28**

salmar80 wrote: ↑
26 Oct 2021 00:34

Yoop wrote: ↑
25 Oct 2021 23:49
your the one getting all pissy here, and Spitz, College and Moll where no more then average OL, which has been my point, a QB can get by fine with OL like that as long as you give him some decent receivers to throw to which Ted did, never did I say that you don't need at least a average OL, and Ted did want weapons, I just pointed out he spent a high draft pick on a receiver for 5 years straight, of course he wanted weapons, I also made a point of saying the only high draft pick he spent on OL other then the very average College was to replace the tackles, and obviously draft capitol does matter, those are the only first round picks he ever spent on OL, I don't get the anger, and I wont accept that I'am wrong either, don't see why ya can't just add a decent receiver the same time your building the OL, which is actually what Thompson did in the beginning.
The whole conversation was about that YOUNG QBs need a good OL over good weapons. And everyone already agreed yes, they do. You're talking about years when we had a 35+ year old Favre.

The only reason TT got away with not using way more high picks on OL, is that he was the best later round OL drafter of all time, and OL tend to have long careers. You would not complain about using high picks on WR if the Three Stooges had instead been Three Musketeers.

neither of Spitz or College lasted, and where replaced within 3 years by Sitton and Lang, and Rodgers did fine with both, but only because he had receivers, to say a young QB needs a OL more then he needs receivers just is not accurate, obviously he needs both, the goal of this game is to score points, not build OL's, thing is the 3 stooges actually where the 3 stooges though, and because of that our offense did sputter in 017 and 018, WR is a position where you do get what you pay for most of the time

Posted: **26 Oct 2021 06:37**

I think that Sith meme posted in another thread applies very much to this discussion, as well. This board tends to gravitate toward arguing in absolutes which is futile when discussing the makeup of a football team.

We've seen over and over how one weak component of the team can spell disaster.

Of course you won't be consistently successful on offense with a subpar O-Line. Of course you won't be consistently successful on offense with a corps of subpar WRs. If you're not addressing roster weaknesses on a macro level from year-to-year then you're team is gonna struggle. Whether it's draft capital, FA signings...whatever.

Will there be prioritization? Absolutely, but I'm sure the decisions that are/were made are/were based upon roster evaluation AND player upgrade availability among other variables.

All that to say using cherry-picked hindsight data in making the case for/against one or the other - OL vs WR in this case - is sorta dumb. It's much deeper than that.

Oh, and then there's this gem:

Yoop wrote:I wont accept that I'am wrong either

Then what is the point of even pursuing this debate engagement?

That question is addressed to both sides btw

Posted: **26 Oct 2021 07:19**

Yeah. I agree with Yoho's premise the most that having a successful Oline is the key. I feel this has been MN's, CHI's and DET's issue for forever.

They get some really fancy toys and their fans get really excited but they lose every year because they can't figure their Oline out. I attribute MN always coming up short to GB the last decade to really one reason. Inconsistent Oline play. And it's not that they don't invest in the Oline, it's that their investments stink. Just like our investments on the defensive front stink.

I don't see the argument that WR was invested heavier than Oline for Thompson. We already had top tier tackles. So it was 3 positions to be filled going into 2006.

The 2005 draft we got the 3 shiny toys in QB, FS, WR. The WR lasted about 3 weeks until his career was over. So we had to draft WR again - making the appearance of heavier WR investment.

2006 Draft we went heavy on Oline getting three guards in the draft. Our interior Oline was incredibly raw with Colledge, Wells, Spitzy and Moll for the 3 spots, but 2006 they proved to they could hang. 2007 they proved they can really hang.

After the foundation was built for both Oline and WR, Ted just kept supplementing both position groups. He drafted a WR every year adding to the room. He also drafted 2 Olinemen it seemed every year adding to the room and making the room better.

The only real thing I see the Packers do with Oline is they draft Oline each year and their day 3 Oline picks are top tier in the league.

But to start the Ted Thompson era of offensive success, I usually go back to 2006 and it turning into a new era of great Oline play the 2nd half of the season that lasted until 2017 (it stunk in 2018). Gute then brought it back in 2019 with the additions of Turner and Elgton.

Posted: **26 Oct 2021 07:30**

I think Yoho's primary point is to not trot out a rookie QB and shiny WR toy or two with a terrible Oline.

And the Packers didn't do that. They trotted Favre out, a veteran, with a rebuilding Oline in 2006 and the season went as expected. Really bad to start but you could see the improvement and progression and I think Favre is owed a lot for that.

Obviously we all know what happened in 2007 and then when Rodgers walked out in 2008, he already had a solid Oline with WR veteran, young and talented Greg Jennings and young and unproven James Jones to play with.

Rodgers really had one of the best situations to start. And this continued in 2009 and 2010 with Nelson and Finley added as weapons. The only thing that era of GB didn't really have was a serious RB. They got lucky with Grant and was able to pretty much ride him for 2007 - 2009.

Posted: **26 Oct 2021 08:07**

Thompson's first 3 years as GM preparing for Aaron Rodgers:

2006
2nd OL - Daryn Colledge
2nd WR - Greg Jennings
3rd OL - James Spitz
4th WR - Cory Rodgers
5th OL - Tony Moll

2007
2nd WR - James Jones
4th OL - Allen Barbre
5th WR - David Clowney

2008
2nd WR - Jordy Nelson
4th OL - Josh Sitton
5th OL - Breno Giacomini
7th WR - Brett Swain

2009
4th OL - TJ Lang
5th OL - Jamon Meredith

That's 3 years of drafting before Rodgers ever makes a start, but is on the team and 1 year after he starts the full year. I am not sure anything can be glean from looking at Ted Thompson's drafts.

BTW Clark Harris is still playing NFL football. You would be fine in saying who the hell is Clark Harris. 2nd longest and oldest active Packers draftee behind Aaron Rodgers. 7th round TE in 2016.

Posted: **26 Oct 2021 08:13**

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑
25 Oct 2021 21:55

Drj820 wrote: ↑
25 Oct 2021 21:46
No hate, and good for him...but I am really shocked the NFL career of Ty Montgomery has lasted 7 years.
I get that, but I'm not; he's always had some natural ability, but never seemed to have the head and drive to make it turn into very much... but there are plenty of spots in the league for guys with just some marginal ability. I mean, Christian Ringo is playing in this game, as well. I'm more surprised he's still around than TyMo. If the guy ever puts it together and finds the right spot, he could have a season like Corderelle Patterson is having this year. But if he never does, he can keep being a RB4/returner/STer/WR7 for some team

The longer I watch the NFL, the more I get it. The really talented Ty Montgomery who just skates through his career. The marginally talented Christian Ringo who works his $%@# ass off. They both stick around. 99/100 stars in this league are both talented and hard working. I use those terms loosely, too, because I am sure Ty Montgomery works at his craft, but I will almost guarantee if you did a study on these two you would point to Ringo as the one who really wants it despite limited physical gifts.

Posted: **26 Oct 2021 08:35**

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑
26 Oct 2021 08:07
Thompson's first 3 years as GM preparing for Aaron Rodgers:

2006
2nd OL - Daryn Colledge
2nd WR - Greg Jennings
3rd OL - James Spitz
4th WR - Cory Rodgers
5th OL - Tony Moll

2007
2nd WR - James Jones
4th OL - Allen Barbre
5th WR - David Clowney

2008
2nd WR - Jordy Nelson
4th OL - Josh Sitton
5th OL - Breno Giacomini
7th WR - Brett Swain

2009
4th OL - TJ Lang
5th OL - Jamon Meredith

That's 3 years of drafting before Rodgers ever makes a start, but is on the team and 1 year after he starts the full year. I am not sure anything can be glean from looking at Ted Thompson's drafts.

BTW Clark Harris is still playing NFL football. You would be fine in saying who the hell is Clark Harris. 2nd longest and oldest active Packers draftee behind Aaron Rodgers. 7th round TE in 2016.

actually James Jones was a 3rd rounder, thing is Ted did do it right, he drafted both positions, my point was that it's not enough for a team to just draft there QB, then prioritize OL over WR, and Ted imho didn't, he took at least one of each in every draft class, and used the high picks on WR, obviously if ya don't score points ya wont win, of course it's important to protect that new QB, but G's like College or Spitz can be bought every year, just as they where when we let them go to get better just a couple years later with Sitton and Lang.

I started this by saying Guards are a lower priority in the scheme of things, and that tends to be true.
also that Ted took to heart comments made by Ron Wolf that he should have helped Favre more over the years with better WR corps, he did actually say that, and from the way Ted used a 2 or 3rd round pick 5 straight years on WR does lend to the idea that Ted felt his new QB would need them.

sure there is middle ground here, but I still say a young QB can get buy with a average OL as long as he has quality receivers to help him, and Ted made sure Rodgers did.

the problems these young QB's are going through has more to do with not being ready to play then it does OL issues.

Posted: **26 Oct 2021 08:47**

Yoop wrote: ↑
26 Oct 2021 08:35

actually James Jones was a 3rd rounder

Just fyi, nitpicking should never be an accusation from you ever again.

Packers Huddle

Cheese Curds - News Around The League 2021

Re: Cheese Curds - News Around The League 2021

Re: Cheese Curds - News Around The League 2021

Re: Cheese Curds - News Around The League 2021

Re: Cheese Curds - News Around The League 2021

Re: Cheese Curds - News Around The League 2021

Re: Cheese Curds - News Around The League 2021

Re: Cheese Curds - News Around The League 2021

Re: Cheese Curds - News Around The League 2021

Re: Cheese Curds - News Around The League 2021

Re: Cheese Curds - News Around The League 2021

Re: Cheese Curds - News Around The League 2021

Re: Cheese Curds - News Around The League 2021

Re: Cheese Curds - News Around The League 2021

Re: Cheese Curds - News Around The League 2021

Re: Cheese Curds - News Around The League 2021

Re: Cheese Curds - News Around The League 2021

Re: Cheese Curds - News Around The League 2021

Re: Cheese Curds - News Around The League 2021

Re: Cheese Curds - News Around The League 2021

Re: Cheese Curds - News Around The League 2021