Content
X

Create Account

Or log in with Facebook

X

Log in

Or log in with Facebook

Green and Bold: Packers Must Have Offensive Line Contingency Plan

By Category

Green and Bold: Packers Must Have Offensive Line Contingency Plan

Missouri's Connor McGovern is an intriguing guard prospect in the draft.

Missouri's Connor McGovern is an intriguing guard prospect in the draft.

There's no doubt that as the Packers move through the early rounds of the 2016 NFL Draft they will be addressing areas of obvious need, such as linebacker and defensive line. 

However, the mid-rounds of the draft are also an ideal place for Ted Thompson to begin targeting developmental offensive linemen. 

For as meticulously as Thompson manages the Packers' salary cap, seemingly always keeping the team a step ahead, sometimes logjams cannot be avoided.

In this case, one is slated to happen at the end of the 2016-17 season, when the contracts of starting guards T.J. Lang and Josh Sitton, starting left tackle David Bakhtiari, and starting center JC Tretter are all set to expire. 

Yikes. 

If the Packers only had a few impending free agents in 2017, and if Sitton and Lang weren't two of the league's top guards, it would be easy to say that surely Thompson and Russ Ball would find a way to get Sitton, Lang, Bakhtiari, and Tretter re-signed—at the very least, three of the four. 

But the Packers are set to have 18 players hitting free agency in 2017 in addition to the o-linemen—names like Eddie Lacy, Sam Barrington, Micah Hyde, Nick Perry, Jayrone Elliott, Mike Pennel, to list just a few. 

And the fact is that Sitton and Lang are two of the best guards in the NFL, and certainly the best duo on any one team in the league.

They deserve to be paid for their accomplishments and their future potential; now, Thompson and Ball get to figure out how to do that, or if they even can do that. 

Needless to say, drafting a guard in Rounds 3-6 should be a priority for Thompson.

The Packers re-signed former UDFA guard Lane Taylor to a two-year, $4.15 million contract prior to him reaching restricted free agency in March, but the move seems proactive more than anything.

Taylor, who only played 153 snaps on offense in 2015, performed well in the two games he started in place of Lang and Sitton, but it's hardly a convincing sample size. Thompson is wise to keep the young guard on hand to see what he can become, but Taylor alone is not a complete contingency plan. 

In terms of draft prospects, guards who could catch the Packers' eye in the mid-rounds of the draft include Sebastian Tretola (Arkansas), Connor McGovern (Missouri), and Spencer Drango (Baylor), who played tackle in college but projects to guard in the NFL.

All three prospects are projected to come off the board in Rounds 3 or 4 and could be ready to start if the Packers needed them to in 2017.

And the Packers are in the sights of some of these prospects as well; per Packer Report's Bill Huber, McGovern likes the "classic" Packers offensive line. The Mizzou prospect is likely high on the Packers' big board; he's one of the strongest guards in this class but can also move surprisingly well for his size. 

It's always possible Thompson picks up a guard in the late rounds, as well; Cincinnati's Parker Ehinger seems like just the type of steal Thompson could target on the final day of the draft. 

Whichever of the Packers' nine selections Thompson uses to do it, guard will certainly be an important position for Green Bay to target later this month. 

NFL Categories: 
  • Like Like
  • 0 points

Fan friendly comments only: off Comments (82) This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.

RCPackerFan's picture

Almost 1 thing I am willing to guarantee when it comes to Thompson and the draft. He will draft an OL in the mid rounds. Most likely in the 4th or 5th round. And this year with 3- 4th round draft picks, I wouldn't be surprised if they drafted 2 again in the 4th.

Since taking over as GM, Thompson has been in charge of 11 drafts. In those 11 drafts, he has taken an OL in 10 of those 11 drafts. Below is a break down of what round he took a player on the OL.

2005 - Rnd 5: Junius Coston
Rnd 7: William Whitticker

2006 - Rnd 2: Daryn Colledge
Rnd 3: Jason Spitz
Rnd 5: Tony Moll

2007 - Rnd 4: Allen Barbre

2008 - Rnd 4: Josh Sitton
Rnd 5: Breno Giacomini

2009 - Rnd 4: T.J. Lang
Rnd 5: Jamon Meredith

2010 - Rnd 1: Bryan Bulaga
Rnd 5: Marshall Newhouse

2011 - Rnd 1: Derek Sherrod
Rnd 6: Caleb Schlauderaff

2012 - Rnd 7: Andrew Datko

2013 - Rnd 4: David Bakhtiari,
J.C. Tretter

2014 - Rnd 5: Corey Linsley

Thompson has been very good overall in drafting OL especially in the mid rounds.

Nick Perry's picture

There's 18 picks there for the O-Line. Sitton, Lang, and Lindsey have been Home Runs. Bakhtiari and Bulaga have been triples (Bulaga would be HR if not for the injuries). I like Tretter and think he'd be an excellent Center or Guard and am in favor of keeping him past next year. So that's 6 picks out of 18 that I would call pretty damn good picks, 33%.

Colledge was okay but I was never crazy about him and Newhouse just sucked, can't be any more honest about that guy. Barbre was pretty bad in his own right too. Giacomini, Meredith, and Schlauderaff never played a down for the Packers if I remember correctly but I might be wrong, they might have been in Green Bay one year. Sherrod I think would have been good and still our LT if not for that horrible injury. All in all Ted's been pretty damn good on the O-Line, he need's 2 more this year IMO...

BUT

Sorry, I know this is about O-Linemen but I just saw the Bengals signed Carlos Dansby for $2.25 Million with basically $700,000 Guaranteed. Maybe all of you already knew this but like I said, I just saw it. He's 35 but still is an excellent coverage LB'er. Contract's like that for someone that would be a huge upgrade over anyone the Packers have Inside right now are what drives me absolutely nuts about Thompson.

HEY Ted, ILB is a position that's been "Lacking" even LONGER than TE!

RCPackerFan's picture

The way I look at it. Packers have had 5 great picks on the OL. Bulaga, Bakhtiari, Sitton, Linsley, & Lang. Getting 4 good-great starters in the 4th round or later is really impressive. People may not like Bakhtiari but he has started more games at LT then any of the other Tackles taken in that draft.

They have had 2 good -very good picks in Colledge, and Tretter. College has had a long career. Tretter would likely be the starting Center if it wasn't for Linsley taking over.

They have had 3 good picks that have netted good careers just not necessarily for Green Bay. I view them as good picks because they were talented enough to have good careers. Barbre, Giacomini, and Newhouse. Newhouse played well for Green Bay, but has had a long enough career with other teams. Barbre and Giacomini really played well after leaving Green Bay.
Another player that was a decent pick at the time was Jamon Meredith has kind of been a player that is good enough to keep getting signed, just hasn't been able to stick with anyone.

Bearmeat's picture

For a 4th round pick, Bakh has been a home run. LTs don't grow on trees and Bakh is a top 15 LT.

RCPackerFan's picture

Completely agree. Bakhtiari has started more games at LT then all the first round Tackles taken that year. That is including Eric Fisher and Luke Joeckel who were the first 2 picks of the draft. Add in Lane Johnson, D.J. Fluker, & Justin Pugh who were all taken in the first round.

dschwalm's picture

His effectiveness is cancelled by the plethora of holding penalties he gets, and he will get more and more with each passing season as the refs get to know him. He's the weak link ok a pretty good OL. After the play-offs last year, I hope they give Tretter a shot.

PaulRosik's picture

The Packers have 18 free agents next year. If they resign half of these that's 9 new contracts. They are not going to spend any money on outside players with that many contracts to renew.

Nick Perry's picture

Double Post

Nick Perry's picture

Again off the subject and normally I always agree with your comments Paul, but the Jets just signed Bruce Carter to a 1 year contract for $840,000 with $250,000 Guaranteed. If you recall Carter was a very effective ILB, especially in coverage for the Cowboys in 2014, he was actually one of the NFL's best playing in the Cowboys 3-4 defense.

Fast forward a year later and Tampa Bay being Tampa Bay throws a lot of money at Carter and he signs as a FA. Nevermind they play a 4-3 defense, a defense Carter isn't a good fit so he's released (TT favorite) after a year in Tampa.

Now call me foolish but to spend $840,000 and only Guarantee $250,000 isn't what I would call "Spending Money On Outside Players". I'd call that a STEAL for the Packers at a position of need for chump change except Carters no chump. Instead of worring about saving LESS than $1,000,000 for NEXT year, lets worry about getting players for THIS year to actually put them in a position to win the SB.

I'm sorry, but I'm just sick of CHEAP and trying to make do or fit square pegs in round holes.

Tundraboy's picture

Just makes you wonder if they want to fix the ILB problem at all. I too am tired of hearing about next year, the next draft and now budget issues. This year comes first.

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

Hi, Nick. I forgot to reply to you on Karlos Dansby and his $1M guaranteed, $1M base salary, $250K incentives 1-year contract. Here is a quote from the cincyjungle blog:

"More than anything, that deal shows how much Dansby cares about getting a Super Bowl ring compared to scoring as much money as possible before his career ends."

'Nuff said.

Nick Perry's picture

Nuff said is right! SO frustrating.

Nick Perry's picture

At THAT kind of money I'd hate to think it has anything to do with budget issues. As it sits now the Packers will have roughly $5 million after signing the Rookies. Thompson has been wrong about the ILB and TE position for the last 3 or 4 years, they haven't been good enough and he continues to be blind to the idea there's better players available for minimum $$$ and risk.

Bearmeat's picture

For this reason, I'm personally hoping that GB wins it all and TT retires after the year so Wolf can take over.

Oppy's picture

"Wolf... spent the past year as the director of player personnel after serving as the director of pro personnel for three years... he was...working as the team’s assistant director of pro personnel from 2008-10. Wolf originally joined the Packers as a pro personnel assistant in 2004 and spent four seasons in that position... During the season, he is responsible for... evaluating potential free-agent signees and recommending player tryouts."
http://www.packers.com/team/staff/eliot-wolf/554e5cf2-a949-4cb5-8d85-11e...

You're betting an awful lot that Wolf isn't one of the conservative voices at 1225 when it comes to Free Agents. Yes, TT makes the final decision, but Eliot has played a significant role in the assessment and recommendation of said FAs over his time in Green Bay.

Sure, Eliot might be a huge proponent of FA signings. Perhaps he pusho dozens of memos across TT's desk each week that have "PLEASE SIGN THIS GUY" written in red pen and big letters on the cover page. But then again..

DrealynWilliams's picture

At least we can say TT has been on fire with drafting OL in these past few drafts.

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

I think it is hard to dispute that TT is very good at picking OL. I quibble with the suggestion that Colledge was a good pick given that TT used a 2nd round pick, #47 on him. Colledge was okay, low starter, so at #47 (third OG taken), he should have been better. GB kept trying to find a spot for Spitz, taken at #75, but he too was a bit of a disappointment. Not terrible, just not good. TT had to take more OGs 2 and 3 years later in Sitton and Lang, and struck gold. GB let Colledge and Spitz leave w/o much regret.

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

Nice article. I agree with you and RC above. The reasons GB has enjoyed a healthy cap include TT's discipline, some good extensions, proper contract structure, but most or all getting good play from guys still on their rookie contracts at premium positions.

James Jones and Greg Jennings at WR. Lang and Sitton both played well starting in year 2 of their rookie contracts. Shields and to a lesser extent Tramon played well at CB for years and saved us big money. Bakhtiari has played pretty well for 3 years at LT, saving us big money. Ditto for Linsley. Due to injuries, the most we'll get from Tretter is this season, and we hope we don't need him too much. Now we hope Randall and Rollins will provide good, cheap, CB play for the next 3 years.

Razer's picture

Good article Michelle. The O-line is the next frontier for the Packers. Both FA and injury threaten to set this team back. The last season game against a mediocre Cardinals pass rush showed just how vulnerable we are in both protection and run blocking. Between Bulaga and Bakhtiari we will be covering for an injury. And, between Sitton and Lang we are dealing with back, knees and shoulder. We need another starting caliber LT and a plug'n play guard just to get through the year.

As for TT and his mid to late round O-line drafting, we miss more than we hit. If you want quality, you need to spend, particularly at the tackle position. I like Joe Haeg out of North Dakota St but I doubt we'll see him in the 4th round. As last season showed, once you get past our starters and Tretter, the rest are very average at best.

Packer fans will be watching another couple of Rodgers years slip away as we rebuild the O-line with projects. This year's draft will be huge for the future of the line. Let's hope that we aren't hoping for some projects to be the answer.

dobber's picture

"As last season showed, once you get past our starters and Tretter, the rest are very average at best."

I think you just described the current state of affairs for 90+% of the teams in the league.

MarkinMadison's picture

I don't remember TT ever picking a guy who played G in college. Not saying I agree or disagree with that approach (I look at Linsley as being an example of the value you can get by drafting an interior lineman to be an interior lineman), but that is what history bears out. So of the players Michelle listed I would expect that only Drango is a likely target.

Of the names on the 2018 FA list only Lacy and Hyde have made significant contributions to date, and both are replaceable. So I don't see that crop as a great reason to keep the powder dry in 2017.

Opinions will vary on who TT should open the wallet for. I think Bakh stays unless he regresses this year. Linsley is ready to take the C job back from Tretter whenever needed, so C is clearly not a position to look at. I look for TT to pick up multiple college Ts with a eye towards converting one into a RT and one into a G.

holmesmd's picture

Lacy is replaceable after one off year?! Yeah, whatever. He will be our starting RB for the next 4-5 years at least. Fans are so impatient. Everyone must be all world all of the time NOW! Lol. #12 is fleeting, let's all panick! It's really pretty silly if you ask me. Favre played for how many seasons? How many rings did he get? The guy is the immortal iron man at the position. Perhaps the fan base should chill the heck out and enjoy the journey. That's not possible with so much impatience and angst. Geez!

MarkinMadison's picture

You think TT is going to invest big money in a RB? Yeah whatever. He either prices himself out of GB or he eats himself out of GB. One of the two.

Evan's picture

"You think TT is going to invest big money in a RB? "

Re-sign one of his draft picks...yes, I think he will do exactly that.

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

Not sure Evan if you are advocating re-signing Lacy to a fairly large contract or simply predicting what TT will do. In any event, Lacy's conduct and type of player makes me very leery of giving him a contract with serious guaranteed money. At the risk of repetitive posting, by many accounts, the 2017 draft should be an excellent to spectacular class for featured RBs.

dobber's picture

Some hidden gems in this year's class, as well, but many have had significant injury issues or are plagued by one trait that scares away scouts (often, it's size). Some just haven't had the exposure.

I agree, though, in that Lacy probably shouldn't get a big contract from TT. A RB of his type is anticipated to have a short shelf-life in the league.

Evan's picture

Both, I suppose.

Based on TT's track record and MO, I'm thinking he'll re-sign Lacy at the 11th hour before free agency starts, the deal will look a little pricey at first blush (I dunno...maybe 4 years, $29 million, $10-13 million guaranteed), but as free agency gets going and other deals are signed, the deal will start to look better, and then in the subsequent seasons, it'll look like a bargain.

RCPackerFan's picture

Mike Daniels...

Wasn't the 11th hour, but look at the deal they signed him for compared to what others signed for.

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

Evan - just to be clear - Giving Lacy 4 yrs. $29M with $10 - $13M guaranteed:

Hard Pass.

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

Double post. So might as well suggest taking a RB in 2017 and take the comp pick for Lacy.

Point Packer's picture

A contingency plan? No way! Like a plan that doesn't force you to march out that ass clown Don Barclay to play tackle? Or a plan that allows you to match out a better player at RT that you actually have on your roster? TT not supplying even a serviceable backup at RT and then MM going with Sitton/Barclay over Tretter at LT are two of the biggest head scratching idiotic moments of the last five years in GB.

Hey TT - find a backup LT that would actually make another team in the NFL. Barclay wouldn't or won't after he theoretically is cut (likely will be on the team again next year)

dobber's picture

I think you're on the money in the sense that he doesn't need a contingency plan (a contingency plan is, by definition, the plan B that you do when plan A fails). I think that TT has a plan in general...and that it's not fully formed because those last pieces that come from the impending draft have not been dropped in place, yet. So the plan will truly begin to materialize in a couple weeks...and will continue to evolve through the early weeks of the season. It could be he'll lock up Bakhtiari, Tretter, or one of the OGs before September...plan evolves one step further. I don't know that there's ever really a contingency plan except when you're pursuing free agents to fill immediate needs.

mnbruton's picture

Insofar as this article's title, my point was that Plan A would be retaining the current starting five offensive linemen...Plan B, the contingency plan, would be preparing for the possibility/probability that the Packers will lose at least one or two of those starting five.

dobber's picture

Sure, but my argument is that there's really no such thing as plan A or plan B, but rather an evolving evaluation of what's needed and what's reasonable. With the current state of the cap and the roster, I would argue that retaining the starting 5 OL beyond 2016 is not feasible...and that it can't be "plan A".

lou's picture

Point Packer is right on "point", he accurately described what happened last season and it appears 2 people thought he was being negative, he was just being realistic. Certainly an experienced Tackle (especially LT) at a reasonable salary has to be available and based on what we saw last season that should have been Ted's first transaction. It was embearassing to watch Plan A (Barclay), Plan B (Walker), and Plan C (moving Sitton) being run around and through at will as Rodgers scrambled to stay upright. My guess too is that Barclay will be back again in 2016.

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

Spot on, Dobber. The only real "plan" that might be in place is TT's view regarding re-signing Sitton and Lang. He may have already decided that he would prefer to let one or both walk. He may be waiting to see the results of Lang's 2 shoulder surgeries.

I think it would be difficult to pay Bakh $7M, Sitton and Lang $7M each, Bulaga $6.75M, and Tretter whatever he will command. A year later Linsley comes up in free agency. I do not think the $35M a year OL is feasible. Truth is it is easier to find quality OGs than OTs, and the draft capital necessary is less. I think Bakh has improved each year, and is about average. He is young. My bet is that TT looks to re-sign him as a priority.

The TKstinator's picture

Not really sure if an experienced LT at a reasonable price is (or is going to be) available. If he's any good, why is he available? And why would he be reasonably priced? It's not like GB would be the only team interested in a player like that. And if there are multiple teams interested, there goes the reasonable price.

Evan's picture

I mean, right?! People really think there are quality, reasonably priced backup LTs just waiting for their phone to ring.

Here's a hint: if there is a LT out there who can play half-way decently, he's not sitting on the street, he's starting for a team. There aren't 32 quality starting LTs in the league, let alone back-ups.

lou's picture

I should have qualified my comments, "one that can get you through a couple of games" as a replacement, and those are available. A past example is when Wolf brought in Bruce Wilkerson for that very purpose, and not only could he get you through a couple games, when Ruettgers went down he held his own the rest of the season and through the Super Bowl run. Ted evidently thought he had a Wilkerson type in Barclay and we now no that was not the case.

RCPackerFan's picture

Isn't that guy Tretter? A guy we already have?

Evan's picture

Bingo.

lou's picture

One or two games says we don't know yet and he is likely to receive solid offers to start at center after 2016 when he becomes a free agent.

Evan's picture

Dude...I'm sorry, but your one example is like 25 years old. The NFL is a completely different animal. O-line play in particular has gone to shit thanks to college spread offenses. There are far fewer quality o-linemen today, especially OTs, then there were in the mid-90s.

lou's picture

I totally disagree, the foundation of the game is still blocking and tackling and there are vets available at the league minimum that have previously been solid starters that are looking to add 1 or 2 years to their career that can get the team through games better than last years Plan A-B-C. paid he league minimum. The game is not rocket science 25 years ago or now (spread offenses - give me a break), I played high school, college, and military, its still blocking and tackling.

Evan's picture

Sorry, you're wrong.

lou's picture

And I am sorry you probably never played the game at any level.

Evan's picture

Ha! I fail to see how my highly decorated* high school football career (as an OT) has any bearing on the lack of quality mid-season free agent offensive tackles or the general decline in offensive line play across the NFL.

But don't take my word for it. I think LeCharles Bentley played some football in his day.

"Colleges are sending more mentally, technically and physically unprepared players to the NFL. Pro coaches are then expected to fix issues that have been reinforced over the last four or five years of a kid's career. Offensive line coaches are so overwhelmed with responsibilities that even the most-seasoned coaches are having a hard time managing the coaching and teaching,”

Or Tony Bosselli...I think he played too.

“Offensive line is the most technical position there is, and it's a position of repetition. The guy who plays now gets half the reps that I got in training camp. Maybe even less. So you have a position that isn't coached pro-style in college and you ask the guys in the pros to fix it and they don't have the time to teach it. There is limited time on the field. They have to put in the scheme and the offense and still try and teach the nuances needed to play the position. The natural evolution is that it is not as good as it once was.”

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/writer/pete-prisco/25285796/preseason-musin...

*sarcasm

Evan's picture

One more great quote from Bentley: "The biggest drop-off of all position, maybe in all of sports, between starter and backup is at offensive line."

But, yea, go pick up the phone in November and find a guy you can plug in.

Evan's picture

Hi, Tom Cable, highly respected OL coach:

"I'm not wanting to offend anybody, but college football, offensively, has gotten to be really, really bad fundamentally. Unfortunately, I think we're doing a huge disservice to offensive football players, other than a receiver, that come out of these spread systems. The runners aren't as good. They aren't taught how to run. The blockers aren't as good. The quarterbacks aren't as good. They don't know how to read coverage and throw progressions. They have no idea.”

http://www.si.com/nfl/2015/09/09/mythbusters-declining-offensive-lines-s...

Oppy's picture

Wow, I never saw this coming.

You're a guy who bravely played the game at the highest amateur level, and Evan is just some poor schlub whom you assumed never played the game (Because, macho bullshit, amirite or what?), even though he apparently did play some less-than-stellar high school OT.

You guys have a disagreement about the game of football, and, WHAM! out of nowhere, it turns out that a whole bunch of guys who played football far longer, and at a much higher level than you did, actually seem to support that sally Evan.

That's got to hurt, lou. Yowzer.

Since '61's picture

I don't see the Packers being able to sign all 4 FA linemen for 2017. However our salary cap situation will get some relief by not resigning J. Peppers, a $10.5 million cap hit in 2016, plus an increase in the overall cap. We may not resign Nick Perry so we could pick up about $4 million there as well. I say that we re-sign Tretter since he is the youngest, will cost less and has the most upside. Beyond that LT is the most important position on the OL and we need to protect AR. If we draft an OT we may be able to let Bakh go to FA, unless he is willing to sign for a reasonable price. I would prefer not to overpay Bakh but we need to be as sure as possible about our LT. If we end up paying Bakh we will need to decide between Sitton or Lang. I doubt that we can keep both since we will likely be resigning Lacy, Hyde, and hopefully Elliott and Pennel. I would not be surprised if TT Drafts 2 OTs. One to move to guard and another to possibly replace Bakh. Let's not forget that he can add another OL or two with UDFAs plus a couple more in the 2017 draft. Thanks, Since '61

dobber's picture

I fully believe that any plan for succession won't begin to clarify until we get to the early stages of the regular season and they can better assess the growth of some of these draft picks and retainees (Taylor, Rotherham, etc.). I think that if they draft a guy they believe has the potential to play on the left side in 2017, Bakhtiari is history and they'll be happy to reap the compensatory pick. If one of those picks doesn't have what it takes at OLT, then they resign Bakhtiari as soon as it's clear and they let the OGs go.

You point to the OLB question which is the issue looming on the horizon. They've got to find OLBs in this draft, as well as OL/DL because three OLBs would be gone at this time next season. People cringe at the 4-3 DE/3-4 OLB conversion projects, but it's par for the course. If Datone shows he can play elephant end, he sticks for next year, but will cost money...a lot of money. Even as it stands, the Packers are currently losing Neal out of the OLB rotation...he needs to be replaced. We can say that CMIII will eat up those snaps, but it won't be all of them. In the end, the Packers have to come up with at least two guys who can play OLB out of this draft/UDFA class. As we look at how Peppers's cap hit gets redistributed, there's no real way to resign many of these starters based on his cap relief. This draft is vitally important to the continued health of this franchise.

Tarynfor12's picture

" In the end, the Packers have to come up with at least two guys who can play OLB out of this draft/UDFA class."

I have said outside linebacker is a 1st priority no matter what is done at inside or dl, but as usual was put off, cast aside and berated by most who think it not an issue until next year because Peppers is still around this year.
There is a large possibility that we may only have 1/2 a outside guy as Matthews gets flipped like a coin as both spots are dried up.
Please get Kyler Fackrell.

Evan's picture

"...but as usual was put off, cast aside and berated by most who think it not an issue until next year because Peppers..."

That's utter nonsense.

I've seen you bring up the need for OLB countless times and pretty much every single time people have agreed with you.

dobber's picture

I think it's the unwillingness of others to endorse Kyler Fackrell as the "go-to" guy in this context that might be where the issue lies...

Tarynfor12's picture

Fackrell is the guy that will warrant an extension during his rookie contract that the Draft and Develop needs to allow a more costly retention of another. This is the guy that will stabilize and maintain a level when the more acclaimed leave for more money or simply fail in play expected.
Thompson has reached on every 1st rd pick going back to Sherrod but I'm not advocating 1st rd but simply getting him ASAP after that 1st pick as he will be gone by our 3rd for sure as will a solid player for years for us at outside linebacker and more likely a diamond than average.

RCPackerFan's picture

'Thompson has reached on every 1st rd pick going back to Sherrod '

Ok, I'm not going to yell or tarnish you. Just going to simply disagree.
Its easy to go back and look at a players production 5 years after they were drafted and say a person was a reach. Its simply not true. You have to go back to the time they were drafted and see what the experts were saying about those players at the time.

-Sherrod was considered a good pick where the Packers took him. Was not a reach. He had a terrible injury in his rookie year and never recovered.
-Nick Perry was considered a player that could have went higher then where Green Bay picked. Was considered a good pick at the time. Injuries have hurt his career.
-Datone Jones was thought to go much higher then where Green Bay picked. Not a reach.
-Clinton-Dix by far not a reach. One of the best first round picks by the Thompson.
-Randall was probably considered a reach by fans, but not by experts. Was a late riser in the draft process and was thought of possibly going a lot higher. And by his play on the field, he showed he was not a reach.

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

Naughty, RC. You admonish Taryn for using hindsight to evaluate reaches, then write: "And by his [Randall's] play on the field, he showed he was not a reach." I think you were just yanking her chain, LOL.

I do agree though. None of those picks was a reach, other than possibly Randall. Hard for us to know whether TT could have traded back a few spaces and still have gotten Randall or if some other team would have swooped in and nabbed him.

barutanseijin's picture

There should be an edit button here...

Anyway, Sherrod played in a couple games before the injury in the KC game. He was your classic gelatinous blob. Got flagged a couple times in minimal snaps, too. Later rounders pushed him down on the depth chart because he had the size to play T, but nothing else. Not a good pick at all.

4EVER's picture

It's the edit not button puzzle...you'll find the answer conspicuously placed at the end of the posts timestamp.

Oppy's picture

I think there might be a lack of an edit button for the mobile app, but I'm not sure, I almost always post from my home base.

Oppy's picture

Sherrod had the LENGTH to play tackle, but he needed to fill out his frame, actually.

As far as Sherrod's worthiness as a pick/performance..

He was a ROOKIE. And his game was based around his above average footwork... Something that he was robbed of after the -EMERGENCY- leg surgery experienced EXTREME complications that resulted in his entire leg from hip to ankle being misaligned.

Bad pick? I guess i'd say that's debatable, but I'd call it bad luck with a bad injury.. To paint him to have had no talent is offensive IMO.

RCPackerFan's picture

lol. mind games. ;)

Randall pick I thought at the time was a reach. But during the draft last year Mel Kiper said that he thought the Ravens were going to take him 4 picks ahead of him. And the more I read about him, I quickly realized he wasn't a reach. He just wasn't well known by fans.

barutanseijin's picture

Sherrod played in a couple games before the injury in the KC game. He played

RCPackerFan's picture

remember that season was the lockout season. No rookies were allowed to be with the team until training camp. That also hindered his an others progress to start the season.

The thing to remember is that Sherrod was a rookie, didn't have an offseason with the team. He was getting better as the season wore on. He was a classic draft and develop player. We really have no idea how good he could have been had he not got injured.
Did he play well right out of the gate? No. But it doesn't mean he wasn't going to get better and it doesn't mean it was a reach pick.

Evan's picture

A couple games?! Well, case closed then!

barutanseijin's picture

Just a couple games because Newhouse beat him out. That should tell you something.

barutanseijin's picture

Just a couple games because Newhouse beat him out. That should tell you something.

Evan's picture

I don't think you can learn anything of value in just "a couple games."

And weren't those games at guard, too?

RCPackerFan's picture

I agree Packers need to draft an OLB. But to me its about draft value. I don't want to see them reach for a player regardless of position.

Evan's picture

Will you stop berating Taryn, RC...jesus. Just lay off.

Bearmeat's picture

lol

RCPackerFan's picture

lol

The TKstinator's picture

SQ

Nick Perry's picture

I do like Frackell, that much I agreee with!

holmesmd's picture

GB had the #7 pass rush last year and much of CMII's time was spent at ILB. If it is to remain as good or get better, we must prioritize a true 3-4 NT. If you can't stop the run, you can't rush the passer, and you then can't stop the pass either. We can acquire an OLB in r2-3 and hopefully a chase inside backer in the same rounds. Alternatively, if NT's with r1 grades drop into the 2nd and early 3rd, an OLB could be prioritized in r1. WE MUST GAIN DEPTH AT NT in this draft if GB wishes to maintain and improve the defense. MIke Pennel should develop into a very good player IMO but we must find a true mauler that can 2 gap as a true anchor NT.

Tundraboy's picture

We have several needs of course but what we really need is a mauler at NT to complement Daniels and a mauler on the OL, ideally a LT. Good luck finding the latter.

holmesmd's picture

GB had the #7 pass rush last year and much of CMII's time was spent at ILB. If it is to remain as good or get better, we must prioritize a true 3-4 NT. If you can't stop the run, you can't rush the passer, and you then can't stop the pass either. We can acquire an OLB in r2-3 and hopefully a chase inside backer in the same rounds. Alternatively, if NT's with r1 grades drop into the 2nd and early 3rd, an OLB could be prioritized in r1. WE MUST GAIN DEPTH AT NT in this draft if GB wishes to maintain and improve the defense. MIke Pennel should develop into a very good player IMO but we must find a true mauler that can 2 gap as a true anchor NT.

Since '61's picture

Dobber - Excellent post and I agree completely. Most fans are focused on the obvious and immediate needs at ILB and DL. But the future success of the team depends on how TT handles the OL over the next 2 draft and FA cycles. We need to settle at LT ASAP for the remainder of ARs career. TT also needs to focus on OLB since Malumba is gone and by this time next year we may lose Perry and Neal along with Peppers. He needs a DL starter and a starting ILB from this draft and the rest can be used to build depth on the OL and OLB with some developed for starting in 2017. With his usual UDFAs signings TT can keep the team solid as we turnover some players at OL and OLB. Interesting times. Thanks, Since '61

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

I agree. The pickings at OLB, ILB (Ragland, Brothers) , and 5 Technique, are much slimmer than the choices at NT and 3 technique. 5 Techniques might include Robinson and Reed (but both look better at 3 Tech), :awson and Dodd who both played there in college. Dodd is a little small, Lawson even smaller, both are probably better prospects for a 4-3 DE, or some want to try the conversion to OLB on them. Rankins, and Day are both shorter than desired, and look more like 3 Techniques. Billings and Austin Johnson have the length but I look at both as NTs. Chris Jones is the perfect size; Nkemdich also can probably play the 5 spot, but there are character concerns with each. Kenny Clark is a little small for NT and doesn't offer much pass rush. Shawn Oakman is hard to figure - size, strength, does everything well except make plays. Kaufusi looks like a sleeper to me. Bullard, Willie Henry, Adolphus Washington, Matt Ionnaidis, David Onyemata are possibilities later. Agree with Dobber that getting Vernon Butler in the 2nd would be fine, leaving TT choices in the first on D 7, or even offense.

dobber's picture

I think you hit on this before with DC and whether he's willing to adjust to personnel (players over scheme)...guys like Sheldon Day: if there's a guy in this draft who looks like a Mike Daniels clone, it's him. At first I was concerned with his workout numbers, but he put up 26 reps on bench at his pro day, which helps a lot. I'd take 4 of him in a heartbeat.

holmesmd's picture

Don't forget Vernon Butler. Probably the best pure NT in the draft!

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

Packers Tickets, Ticket King
 
 
 

Quote

"A school without football is in danger of deteriorating into a medieval study hall. "
"The Bears still suck!"
"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."