Shanedorf Posted August 26, 2018 Share Posted August 26, 2018 3 hours ago, Cheech said: You've just given us the history of one Ted Thompson. He wasn't down with OPP. (Other Peoples Players for those of you that appreciate that little guy.) Actually what I've done is called research. Post-cutdowns, the Packers signed dozens of players at a wide variety of positions over that same time frame, its just that none of them were OTs. So the idea that this was a reflection of Ted not liking other peoples players doesn't stand up to scrutiny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheech Posted August 26, 2018 Share Posted August 26, 2018 46 minutes ago, Shanedorf said: Actually what I've done is called research. Post-cutdowns, the Packers signed dozens of players at a wide variety of positions over that same time frame, its just that none of them were OTs. So the idea that this was a reflection of Ted not liking other peoples players doesn't stand up to scrutiny Your "research" doesn't stand up to scrutiny. "Dozens" and "wide variety" indicate that you, in fact, haven't done jack for research. You've still got that sample size (1 GM) and extrapolation problem as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire12 Posted August 26, 2018 Share Posted August 26, 2018 Has GB had a need at OT in years past compared to this year? Comparing each year as if it is identical to the current situation is foolish. Might be better to consider how many OT are signed to new teams after cutdowns league wide. That would give you a better representation of how much OT talent their is in supply/demand across the league Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted August 27, 2018 Author Share Posted August 27, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted August 28, 2018 Share Posted August 28, 2018 On 8/25/2018 at 11:29 PM, Shanedorf said: Next week there will be about 135+ OTs on NFL rosters, the ones who are released were considered not good enough to make those rosters - some of which are crappy teams still looking for starters. And none of the guys released will know the Packers offense or have spent the OTAs, mini-camps and training camp in Green Bay gelling with their line-mates. Murphy struggled, nobody is arguing that point. (And Pankey is already a Packer) But this idea that there will be a handful of better options from other teams is not supported by NFL GMs nor NFL history Since 2009, do you know how many OTs the Packers have signed after cutdowns in September/October ? Exactly 1 over the last 9 NFL seasons. They grabbed Ulrick John because they got creamed with multiple OT injuries... and he didn't work out. That's it. History and reality say that viable OTs are indeed a rare commodity. Its true, you can look it up. Now I wanna look the last few years and see how many OT's cut before the season ended up playing and not being complete horse**** from the league overall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted August 28, 2018 Share Posted August 28, 2018 On 8/25/2018 at 11:29 PM, Shanedorf said: History and reality say that viable OTs are indeed a rare commodity. Its true, you can look it up. Unfortunately, this is the cold reality. The demand for capable OL far exceeds the supply. If you manage to find one, you lock them up long-term and you don't let capable ones walk. Hell, I'm not sure there's many teams whose 2nd string OL is significantly better than the Packers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasquatch Posted August 28, 2018 Share Posted August 28, 2018 21 minutes ago, CWood21 said: Unfortunately, this is the cold reality. The demand for capable OL far exceeds the supply. If you manage to find one, you lock them up long-term and you don't let capable ones walk. Hell, I'm not sure there's many teams whose 2nd string OL is significantly better than the Packers. Exactly why I jumped off the “Get Mack” train. We need to draft some stud OLineman in the first round next year. Bulaga and Bak aren’t getting any younger, and we’re thin behind them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted August 28, 2018 Share Posted August 28, 2018 49 minutes ago, Sasquatch said: Exactly why I jumped off the “Get Mack” train. We need to draft some stud OLineman in the first round next year. Bulaga and Bak aren’t getting any younger, and we’re thin behind them. We could trade other firsts for proven lineman, most firsts are nobody's like Justin Harrell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanedorf Posted August 28, 2018 Share Posted August 28, 2018 17 minutes ago, Norm said: We could trade other firsts for proven lineman, most firsts are nobody's like Justin Harrell. Well duh, that's why the Packers get their starting OL in the 4th and 5th rounds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted August 28, 2018 Share Posted August 28, 2018 1 hour ago, Sasquatch said: Exactly why I jumped off the “Get Mack” train. We need to draft some stud OLineman in the first round next year. Bulaga and Bak aren’t getting any younger, and we’re thin behind them. The left side of our offensive line (Bakh, Taylor, and Linsley) are locked up for the next 2 years, and short of a catastrophic injury, they're going to be the starters there. The right side of the OL is a bit more of a question mark. Right now, Justin McCray is slotted as our starting RG, and depending on how that goes we could be in the market to upgrade. But the Packers have never invested a high draft pick into the IOL. I believe the highest we've drafted an IOL is the 4th round, and I don't anticipate that changing under Gute. The bigger question is Bryan Bulaga. The Packers could cut him after the year, and save around $7.5M but they'd have to replace him. We're going to have a better idea of where the future stands with regards to Bulaga after this season. If he stays healthy and plays well, he will return for the 2019 season. But if he plays poorly or struggles with injuries, he's a likely cap casualty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanedorf Posted August 28, 2018 Share Posted August 28, 2018 Packer ILBs mugging the A gap vs Raiders https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DlpY78BW0AAUepC.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beast Posted August 28, 2018 Share Posted August 28, 2018 On 8/26/2018 at 12:29 AM, Shanedorf said: Next week there will be about 135+ OTs on NFL rosters, the ones who are released were considered not good enough to make those rosters - some of which are crappy teams still looking for starters. And none of the guys released will know the Packers offense or have spent the OTAs, mini-camps and training camp in Green Bay gelling with their line-mates. Murphy struggled, nobody is arguing that point. (And Pankey is already a Packer) But this idea that there will be a handful of better options from other teams is not supported by NFL GMs nor NFL history Since 2009, do you know how many OTs the Packers have signed after cutdowns in September/October ? Exactly 1 over the last 9 NFL seasons. They grabbed Ulrick John because they got creamed with multiple OT injuries... and he didn't work out. That's it. History and reality say that viable OTs are indeed a rare commodity. Its true, you can look it up. I very much agree with this. There are just certain key positions that you can't find good options for during the season and you better make sure you have those filled during the offseason, such as QB, OT, edge rusher and CB... there simply isn't enough good ones for there to be enough good backups th a t are cut... hurt the Seahawks and Giants had horrible starting at OTs to start last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.