Jump to content

Preseason Week 3 - GDT vs. Oakland

Leader

By Leader
in Green Bay Packers

Recommended Posts

Cheech

Cheech

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Ragnar Danneskjold said:

If they are more consistent than Murphy, their current team will likely keep them.

Disagree if you want.  It doesn't change the situation.

Murphy had a terrible game.  He was going up against some very good edge rushers.  From what the public has seen, he's been playing LT most of training camp until this week, where he and Spriggs switched.  In the first two PS games, he looked better than Spriggs. 

I think he'll be OK if he's allowed to focus on one position.  

 

But I have a problem with blanket statements like that.  There absolutely could be a handful of better options after cut-downs than Murphy.  Hell, it is possible that Pankey could unseat Murphy before the end of the preseason.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Norm

Norm

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, packfanfb said:

Sounds like you got it all figured out.

I do though. Also, I like you, but when ToT likes all your posts, you should be scared.

I TOTALLY get you, you truly believe that adding FAs and **** will help the team. It isn't ****ting on the front office, it's about doing what you believe will help. That guy is a dope, all he wants to do is cry and incite people over his crying. When he likes your posts I get sad. lol

You have to admit, perspective isn't great for most any fan of any team. We all know how good our OT4 is, how many know anything about any other teams OT4 without cheating on google before answering online? Few. Hardly any. 

You just want the team to be better. I dig that. We always cool. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Norm

Norm

Posted
Posted
42 minutes ago, Cheech said:

In the first two PS games, he looked better than Spriggs. 

Order is so important. If he stinks first game then looks better after, nobody cares. But this is the latest we've seen. Murphy is NOT a good OT, especially at LT. But still. I can deal with him as OT4. That doesn't mean you cannot possibly get better. But when cuts happen, how many guys we think are better our out there? Now how many slip to us at our waiver order?

Like I said the other day, we aren't the only team in the NFL with the Raiders. We aren't the only team who needs OT depth. Hell WHO DOESN'T need OT depth

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Norm

Norm

Posted
Posted
50 minutes ago, cannondale said:

MM so not breaking down Oakland film. Just saw him at Target East buying pool noodles with his daughters. He's shorter than I thought.

Holy **** lol I was like okay, kinda funny. Then the shorter thing tipped me. Then again, I have been drinking and I'm tired AF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ragnar Danneskjold

Ragnar Danneskjold

Posted
Posted
51 minutes ago, Cheech said:

Murphy had a terrible game.  He was going up against some very good edge rushers.  From what the public has seen, he's been playing LT most of training camp until this week, where he and Spriggs switched.  In the first two PS games, he looked better than Spriggs. 

I think he'll be OK if he's allowed to focus on one position.  

 

But I have a problem with blanket statements like that.  There absolutely could be a handful of better options after cut-downs than Murphy.  Hell, it is possible that Pankey could unseat Murphy before the end of the preseason.  

 

 

You need to learn to read.  The reason the word "likely" is in there is because it accounts for uncertainty.  

A blanket statement would not include the word likely.  

There always could be a handful.   I suspect it is unlikely.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cannondale

cannondale

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Norm said:

Holy **** lol I was like okay, kinda funny. Then the shorter thing tipped me. Then again, I have been drinking and I'm tired AF.

I wouldn't kid about such a thing. I wouldn't have even noticed him but I'd never seen star shaped pool noodles before. I'm 6'-4" and for some reason he seemed short. He looked happy and two or three kids were chasing after him. He was going one way and I was going the other so it was all of 5 seconds.

And no, Khalil Mack wasn't with him

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shanedorf

Shanedorf

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Cheech said:

But I have a problem with blanket statements like that.  There absolutely could be a handful of better options after cut-downs than Murphy.  Hell, it is possible that Pankey could unseat Murphy before the end of the preseason. 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ThatJerkDave

ThatJerkDave

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Lodestar said:

I don't know much about OL play, but I assume part of it must also be the fact that it's preseason and we have a whole line of backups out there, right? Murphy obviously looked terrible, but in a real game, lined up alongside starters, with a game plan designed to help him, he's probably going to look better—right? I don't remember him being this bad.

I think this is also key.  We played our second string OL as a unit against guys that will make a pretty good Raiders team.  If and when these linemen get to play in the regular season they will have other starters next to them, and a TE and RB to help out as well.  They all had a rough game in Oakland.  But the previous two games were solid in my opinion.  It just shows that the team cannot function with 5 replacements on the OL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cheech

Cheech

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, 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.

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.)

I don't think you should extrapolate Ted's doings into "NFL history."

I mean, if I do that, then NFL history could show us that some teams even trade away excess OL talent like Ted did in 2009 when he swapped tackle Tony Moll for DB Derick Martin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...