Call Me Crazy, but....

[NCF]

I'm just saying there's still plenty of benefit to having your best, most reliable OL be the guy at LT.

This is where I disagree, some. Defensive schemes are too good at identifying weaknesses on your OL and exploiting them. Offenses have also evolved a ton. A TE no longer lines up next to the RT 90% of the time. You can put him next to the LT if you need help there. I guess my thoughts are I would rather have 5 good/not great OL versus 4 elite and 1 inept player. I think that is what also very much what played out in the playoff game, too. You can win with Josh Myers. You can't win with rookie Travis Glover or Kadeem Telfort. So, when you develop an elite RT (like Zach Tom) you pay him and don't hesitate because he's "not a LT".

[YoHoChecko]

I guess my thoughts are I would rather have 5 good/not great OL versus 4 elite and 1 inept player. I think that is what also very much what played out in the playoff game, too. You can win with Josh Myers. You can't win with rookie Travis Glover or Kadeem Telfort. So, when you develop an elite RT (like Zach Tom) you pay him and don't hesitate because he's "not a LT".

I agree 100% with everything here. It's much more about eliminating weaknesses than having one strength on OL.

And I agree 100% you don't hesitate to pay Zach Tom because he plays RT. I'm simply saying that if I only fully trust 1 OL on my team, and he played LT in college and as a rookie in spot duty and has shown that he isn't one of those linemen who struggles changing sides, I'd prefer to play that guy at LT than right.

I agree you don't want any weaknesses. But I still think that if forced to play a question mark, I'd prefer that question be at RT than LT, especially when Tom's strength is dependable pass protection. If your "best" OL was a road-grader with mediocre pass protection skills, then I don't care where he plays.

And again, this isn't universal, I just think it's more often true than it is not--and is specifically true in our specific scenario.

[Yoop]

years back most teams had one stud pass rusher, and 3 mediocre, and that guy most often rushed from the QB blind side, and QB's were eating the pass rush alive, to counter defenses found two stud pass rushers, which put more emphasis on pass protection from both tackles, and slowly the pay scale increased for RT, still offenses countered edge rushers with PA, RPO etc to force edge contain as we saw with our own defense, it slows the rush, so we see more inside stunts, now offenses are going to bigger bigs at G and C, the only way to slow down the pass game is with near free release to QB, I love the inside stunts, best PRWR we had last season came from off ball rushers.

I hope this explanation was helpful, u's guys would complicate a one car funeral

[Pckfn23]

[APB]

[go pak go]

I mean if the Steelers offer is good the Packers will pull the trigger (think Day 2 selection). I just don't think the offer will be good enough at this point.

I do honestly think the Packers will demand nothing less than a Day 2 pick at this point. That asking price could absolutely change as the season goes on.

[NCF]

I'm not denying that the gap is shrinking. I'm just saying it still exists.

What has gone away completely is that it used to be LTs had to be pass protectors and RTs were more run-oriented. And you could get away with a mediocre RT more so than a left. Now you for sure need two good pass-protecting Tackles. That has been a major shift. And the adjustment to that has been more interior rush. And the adjustment to that has been now Guards make $20M.

It's all change all the time. I'm not unaware of shifts. I'm just saying there's still plenty of benefit to having your best, most reliable OL be the guy at LT. And there's still a good amount of evidence of that being the case, even if some coaches and scouts have stopped caring about it.

Let's move this discussion to OG's. Do you also feel LG is more valuable than RG? It would seem that the Packers do, but I am also curious about this. Is C more valuable than either or both? Here, again, the largest contracts are actually at RG. Also, as it stands, currently, the Packers are paying Top-3 contracts in terms of per year averages to both LG and C.

[RingoCStarrQB]

I mean if the Steelers offer is good the Packers will pull the trigger (think Day 2 selection). I just don't think the offer will be good enough at this point.

I do honestly think the Packers will demand nothing less than a Day 2 pick at this point. That asking price could absolutely change as the season goes on.

I hope Heath and Melton don't get lost in the shuffle. They only receiver I trust right now is Reed. The rest (including the rookies) still need to up their games. I have no issues with Doubs.

[RingoCStarrQB]

I'm not denying that the gap is shrinking. I'm just saying it still exists.

What has gone away completely is that it used to be LTs had to be pass protectors and RTs were more run-oriented. And you could get away with a mediocre RT more so than a left. Now you for sure need two good pass-protecting Tackles. That has been a major shift. And the adjustment to that has been more interior rush. And the adjustment to that has been now Guards make $20M.

It's all change all the time. I'm not unaware of shifts. I'm just saying there's still plenty of benefit to having your best, most reliable OL be the guy at LT. And there's still a good amount of evidence of that being the case, even if some coaches and scouts have stopped caring about it.

Let's move this discussion to OG's. Do you also feel LG is more valuable than RG? It would seem that the Packers do, but I am also curious about this. Is C more valuable than either or both? Here, again, the largest contracts are actually at RG. Also, as it stands, currently, the Packers are paying Top-3 contracts in terms of per year averages to both LG and C.

Interesting debate topic. I don't have a good argument other than reminding myself how great the '96 Packers interior linemen Gs and C were. The guards make the running game GO. The center's supposed to have his head on a swivel on pass plays. Ahman Green must have had great interior linemen.
Need to do a historical deep dive .......
Why did Terdell Middleton only have 1 great year? Who made Levens, Bennett and Brockington gain all those yards when it mattered? Why did Paul Ott Carruth and Barty Smith suck? Why did Gerry Ellis and Eddie Lee sometimes flash brilliance? Why was Aaron Jones successful? And now Jacobs.

[Labrev]

I don't like making trades that create new needs.

If you remove Doubs from the equation, there is basically no room for error at WR: we need Golden and/or Williams to be able to replace his and Watson's production this year, Wicks and Reed to stop dropping and play better in general this season, and no injuries at WR.

The only way I do it is if Doubs's camp is forcing the issue. Otherwise, that is too much to rely on going right.

[go pak go]

I mean if the Steelers offer is good the Packers will pull the trigger (think Day 2 selection). I just don't think the offer will be good enough at this point.

I do honestly think the Packers will demand nothing less than a Day 2 pick at this point. That asking price could absolutely change as the season goes on.

I hope Heath and Melton don't get lost in the shuffle. They only receiver I trust right now is Reed. The rest (including the rookies) still need to up their games. I have no issues with Doubs.

They won't get lost if they prove themselves worthy. But there are a lot of WRs on the roster. The bubble guys are gonna have to earn it just to make the roster let alone playing time.

Doubs
Reed
Wicks
Golden
Williams
Heath
Melton
Hardman

8 guys fighting for 6 roster spots assuming Watson starts the year on PUP.

[Acrobat]

*whispers Gabe Davis

[Acrobat]

Also, reminder, we did sign Mecole Hardman.

[go pak go]

Also, reminder, we did sign Mecole Hardman.

Oh cripes I forgot about that.

The competition at WR is going to unreal this summer.

[RingoCStarrQB]

I'm not denying that the gap is shrinking. I'm just saying it still exists.

What has gone away completely is that it used to be LTs had to be pass protectors and RTs were more run-oriented. And you could get away with a mediocre RT more so than a left. Now you for sure need two good pass-protecting Tackles. That has been a major shift. And the adjustment to that has been more interior rush. And the adjustment to that has been now Guards make $20M.

It's all change all the time. I'm not unaware of shifts. I'm just saying there's still plenty of benefit to having your best, most reliable OL be the guy at LT. And there's still a good amount of evidence of that being the case, even if some coaches and scouts have stopped caring about it.

Let's move this discussion to OG's. Do you also feel LG is more valuable than RG? It would seem that the Packers do, but I am also curious about this. Is C more valuable than either or both? Here, again, the largest contracts are actually at RG. Also, as it stands, currently, the Packers are paying Top-3 contracts in terms of per year averages to both LG and C.

The best all time Packers guards were mostly left guards. Ringo was the top center.

[lupedafiasco]

Also, reminder, we did sign Mecole Hardman.

Oh cripes I forgot about that.

The competition at WR is going to unreal this summer.

No different than any other year IMO. Competitively sure, because they’re all the same skill level. There’s a little more excitement with Golden but it’s still a lot of unknowns or underachievers at the position. We desperately need Wicks to bounce back or have hit big on Golden or Williams. And when I say hit big they need to be like Brian Thomas last year level of good. This team needs a go to guy so badly.

I know this bird loves to say things like four #2s are better than a WR1 but that’s such a wrong opinion. Teams need go to guys that can make a play when you need it. Scheme can only take you so far. There’s a reason players make more than coaches.