Create Account

Or log in with Facebook


Log in

Or log in with Facebook

Cole No Great Loss

By Category

Cole No Great Loss

Colin Cole signed with the Seattle Seahawks over the weekend, leaving the depth along the defensive line a serious issue. But losing Cole is not the harbinger of doom that Tom Silverstien and others in the media are making it out to be. I mean, the guy is a perfect 4-3 defensive tackle on a rotational basis. He's not worth near what Seattle paid him, but I'm happy for him as he was a try-hard guy who improved every year he was with the Packers. But his individual skill-set, namely being a less-than-athletic mountain, was't exactly a perfect fit at either nose or end in the Packers' one gap system. 

All that said, Thompson does have some serious work to do on the defensive line. But we knew that already...

UPDATE: Brilliant visual evidence of why Cole is, indeed, no great loss... (Hattip: Chicago Hooligan)

  • Like Like
  • 0 points

Fan friendly comments only: off Comments (16) This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.

Donald's Designated Driver's picture

I agree that Cole is no big loss, but I am starting to get nervous about not only the front three, but the whole front seven.

Thompson is going to need to pull a rabit out of his hat somehow . . . .

Ron La Canne's picture


Me too! I've been saying Front Seven needs addressing since the begining of pre-season 2008. GB has done nothing to fix that serious problem. They can field an average to slightly below average front line (3 or 4)if healthy. One injury and it turns to crap.

Jenkins' health is a key. Why the ankle surgery in Feb? Is his progress so slow from the chest injury that they don't think he'll be ready until late in the pre-season? Pickett was very slow to recover from his hamstring injury last year. Is that a sign of future issues? Harrell? tsk, tsk, tsk. Thompson too small for the 3-4. Malone? I can't stop laughing. I guess maybe they're thinking Montogomery won't get picked up in FA. Oh, he's the guy who was consistently trapped inside on outside runs, I almost forgot.

Cole was in the NFL for six years and could not progress to a regular starting position. I suspect there is a reason for that. As negative as I am about TT's decision making, the Cole signing was the correct one.

To get the immediate defensive help needed, GB is going to have to consider trading up in the draft. And that will be a crap shoot.

And the $7 million committed to tenders is really going to help.

buckslayernyc's picture

Cole is now making more guaranteed than Jenkins....that is a problem and I don't see it as really benifitting Seattle...the guy is just OK. Talk about throwing money away.

The other challenge with Canty and Igor Olshansky is that there were (and are) questions regarding their locker room demeanor...etc. In other words Canty's agent wanted a figure in stone before Ted could decide if he even wanted him on his team...that would be a tough one for anyone. I don't see us signing Igor Either....guy is a schmuck from what I have heard.

I would say that the Giants are now loaded at Dline however. They have got it going on there. I guess we wait it out, but are there even any other bodies out there?

Chicago Hooligan's picture

It seems like Seattle was desperate to replace Rocky Bernard, who signed with NYG. But if that's the case, I'd much rather opt for B.J. Raji at #4 (unless Seattle doesn't like him). They must be looking to draft a different position there.

DaveK's picture

from the JSonline blog:

"The agents for San Diego's Igor Olshansky, Baltimore's Marques Douglas and New England's Mike Wright have all had preliminary discussions with the Packers, although no visits have been set up, according to NFL sources. All three of the players would be able to help the Packers at the end position."

Andrew n Atlanta's picture

I continue to ask the question - is it not possible to "trade" for a player as opposed to signing one in FA? If the FA lineman cupboard is almost bare, why not package a pick of two to get a better player in a trade? KC got Cassell for what, a 2nd rounder I think? What I'm asking is - is "buying" a player the only option? Can't we also trade for one?

PackerAaron's picture

Andrew, Andrew, Andrew. You and your 'logic' have no place here...

Donald's Designated Driver's picture

Andrew, IMO the Packers have too many holes to fill (with the scheme change) to trade away any draft picks.

Andrew n Atlanta's picture

Ok, sorry, my bad. I'll try to be more dense:)

Andrew n Atlanta's picture

For DDD - that's exactly why we should do it IMO (assuming there was a taker). Do you want a developing player (talking rounds 2+ here) or an established one in the new scheme?

buckslayernyc's picture

You gotta go to this link and see what this Seattle writer had to say about the Cole signing. Hah!

PackerAaron's picture

buck - I already posted that in an update above ;)

Donalds Designated Driver's picture

Andrew, I'd rather take my chances with the draft. Of course, we are speaking in total hypothetical, so **maybe** if some team wanted to give up a decent player for a modest draft pick, well ok.

But, by and large, the Packers have so many holes to fill after the switch to 3-4. Are there any positions that are settled in the front seven? Sure there are guys penciled in as starters, that's just because you have to pencil someone in as a starter. The two best defensive linemen last year (Kampman and Jenkins) are now huge question marks. Pickett is a question mark. Then you get to the linebackers. . . . (I for one also think the Packers need a man or two on the offensive line as well).

The Packers just don't have the luxury of trading away high round picks or multiple picks (like the Vikings did last year for Allen). There are too many holes to fill. So then you are left trading away a fifth or sixth round draft pick for an "established player." If a team is willing to give up an established player for a fifth or sixth round draft pick, I would suspect that the Packers could find a third tier free agent that will be just as good or almost as good once the dust settles.

If you want to trade, I think you have to look at trading away some of those newly-minted question marks like Kampman.

(I really hate the switch to the 3-4.)

Nick's picture

That link shows how out of position and undisciplined the defense was at times under Sanders. I bet you just by having Capers there the defense will tighten up a lot. Just an observation

I'm sure he'll also focus on pad level as well.I heard part of his responsibilities as McCarthy's DC is to mention it least 5 times per practice.

Andrew n Atlanta's picture

So then here's my question DDD - if you want to draft (as opposed to trade) because there are so many needs and a few question marks in the 3-4, then aren't you really insinuating a defensive "build?" And doesn't a defensive build take some time, especially with a new scheme & draft picks?

IPBprez's picture

I'm little ticked - course, that's just me. Colin Cole (average player - no big deal) is gone.
My question: Was he ever used properly by the DC, Sanders? And, is that a larger part of why no one thinks he's much of a football player? I would say YES. Sanders was very vanilla and you cannot discount that evidence. I think it affected the whole team chemistry.

Log in to comment, upload your game day photos and more!

Not a member yet? Join free.

If you have already commented on Cheesehead TV in the past, we've created an account for you. Just verify your email, set a password and you're golden.

Or log in with Facebook



"A school without football is in danger of deteriorating into a medieval study hall. "
"I firmly believe that any man’s finest hour, the greatest fulfillment of all that he holds dear, is that moment when he has worked his heart out in a good cause and lies exhausted on the field of battle – victorious."
"The Bears still suck!"