Not me. I think it will work out great. By all indications, Bulaga is completely healed from his season-ending hip injury and says he feels just like he did before it happened.
I think Bulaga just needs to improve against speed rushers. He has a tendency to overextend his hips when a rusher flashes an outside move and he leaves himself vulnerable to a spin or secondary inside move.
quote:I think Bulaga just needs to improve against speed rushers.
Practicing against Jones will help in that regard.
My biggest concern about the line change is that every single starter (except possibly EDS) will be starting off the season at a new position. By all accounts, there's not a huge difference between LG and RG, but any player that makes the move will always talk about how it takes time to adjust.
The difference between LT and RT, on the other hand, is significant. There are a number of players that couldn't cut it at LT but became fine RTs. I'm in the camp the believes Bulaga can make the switch, but I also thought he would reach elite RT status last year, and he was struggling even before the injury.
Even if it all works out, and the Packers find the right players for all 5 spots, I have to imagine that there will be a transition period - just like there was for the defense at the beginning of last year.
And while some might be concerned about a shaky OL against San Francisco in week one, I'm more worried about the possibility of dropping games against Washington, Cincinnati and Detroit. The schedule is notably more difficult toward the back of the season, and losing games like those early on could put the Packers is a difficult spot toward playoff time.
The difference between LT and RT, on the other hand, is significant. There are a number of players that couldn't cut it at LT but became fine RTs. I'm in the camp the believes Bulaga can make the switch, but I also thought he would reach elite RT status last year, and he was struggling even before the injury.
Even if it all works out, and the Packers find the right players for all 5 spots, I have to imagine that there will be a transition period - just like there was for the defense at the beginning of last year.
And while some might be concerned about a shaky OL against San Francisco in week one, I'm more worried about the possibility of dropping games against Washington, Cincinnati and Detroit. The schedule is notably more difficult toward the back of the season, and losing games like those early on could put the Packers is a difficult spot toward playoff time.
they all sounded happy as clams to know where they would be playing today, right now, rather than playing musical chairs right up to Game 1. any pro that can't handle the transition with that much lead time... probably doesn't belong on the team to begin with.
Really looking forward to see how the left side of the O-Line works the run game.
I see defenses flooding that side of the line which should open up Finley down the right side seam as well as Jordy/James/Cobb down the right sideline. Or maybe even Franklin out of the backfield.
Try & stop us bitches! Pick your friggin poison.
I see defenses flooding that side of the line which should open up Finley down the right side seam as well as Jordy/James/Cobb down the right sideline. Or maybe even Franklin out of the backfield.
Try & stop us bitches! Pick your friggin poison.
Yes, but how many drops is Finley going to have? 
Obviously MM made this decision with the thought of keeping his franchise QB healthy in mind, but I wonder if he also is planning on implementing some new schemes that would just work better with Bulaga and Sitton on the left.
I really have no idea what those schemes might be but it could be interesting if they start showing some new stuff in OTA's or training camp.
Personally I'd like to see Newhouse out in a pattern or two. Talk about matchup problems...
I really have no idea what those schemes might be but it could be interesting if they start showing some new stuff in OTA's or training camp.
Personally I'd like to see Newhouse out in a pattern or two. Talk about matchup problems...
No; they're supposed to go vanilla in TC so that when other teams beat the Packers in pre-season we can all bitch and moan about how who the Packers' schemes suck and they're not going to be anybody in the regular season. 
[QUOTE]Originally posted by bubbleboy789:
.... but I wonder if he also is planning on implementing some new schemes that would just work better with Bulaga and Sitton on the left.
I really have no idea what those schemes might be but it could be interesting if they start showing some new stuff in OTA's or training camp.
QUOTE]
Wait until teams see this amazing trickery.
.... but I wonder if he also is planning on implementing some new schemes that would just work better with Bulaga and Sitton on the left.
I really have no idea what those schemes might be but it could be interesting if they start showing some new stuff in OTA's or training camp.
QUOTE]
Wait until teams see this amazing trickery.
that rightside wide-out is a slacker
Must be Randy Moss out there.
The shaded dot must be Finley. It looks like his job is to get right in the path of the RB two yards in the backfield.
In no way am I implying anything by combining "shaded dot / Finley" together. Just that he's a terrible blocker.
In no way am I implying anything by combining "shaded dot / Finley" together. Just that he's a terrible blocker.
quote:Originally posted by bubbleboy789:
Obviously MM made this decision with the thought of keeping his franchise QB healthy in mind, but I wonder if he also is planning on implementing some new schemes that would just work better with Bulaga and Sitton on the left.
Play action left with roll-outs to his right per a recent article I came across.
GB rarely ran left and even rarer that it was successful. So when Rodgers fakes left and rolls right, nobody bought it and he got pressured from the back-side
IF you have a viable running game to the left it makes those plays more successful
Its also easier on the RT if the initial play motion is to the QBs left
Rodgers prefers to roll right, so you want the defense going the other direction and the best way to do that is with a real threat of a left run.
quote:Originally posted by Satori:quote:Originally posted by bubbleboy789:
Obviously MM made this decision with the thought of keeping his franchise QB healthy in mind, but I wonder if he also is planning on implementing some new schemes that would just work better with Bulaga and Sitton on the left.
Play action left with roll-outs to his right per a recent article I came across.
GB rarely ran left and even rarer that it was successful. So when Rodgers fakes left and rolls right, nobody bought it and he got pressured from the back-side
IF you have a viable running game to the left it makes those plays more successful
Its also easier on the RT if the initial play motion is to the QBs left
Rodgers prefers to roll right, so you want the defense going the other direction and the best way to do that is with a real threat of a left run.
...we used to run that play a lot with Favre, with TE initially blocking, then releasing and was often wide open.
Well, if Newhouse is thought to even be let go, offensive line looks totally uncertain to me. Who knows what Sherrod is gonna do. So look at the line minus Newhouse and Sherrod as a slightly pessimistic, conservative perspective.
I don't know. Looks like an average line that may be lacking in adequate depth.
At least RB looks promising and even if a not so good line, it might be enough to better free up a strong passing game.
I don't know. Looks like an average line that may be lacking in adequate depth.
At least RB looks promising and even if a not so good line, it might be enough to better free up a strong passing game.
quote:Originally posted by phaedrus:
Well, if Newhouse is thought to even be let go, offensive line looks totally uncertain to me. Who knows what Sherrod is gonna do. So look at the line minus Newhouse and Sherrod as a slightly pessimistic, conservative perspective.
I don't know. Looks like an average line that may be lacking in adequate depth.
At least RB looks promising and even if a not so good line, it might be enough to better free up a strong passing game.
The two rookies would really have shine before they let Newhouse go. Newhouse has a year experience and can be a serviceable backup.
quote:Originally posted by chickenboy:quote:Originally posted by ammo: I'm trying understand something. Ryan Grant had 2 1,200 yard rushing seasons and yet many say he sucked as a RB...
I don't recall anybody saying he sucked. I think everybody has/had a ton of respect for the guy. I think most fans saw him for what he was, a nice serviceable back. Maybe your thinking of BJack...
I have said, and still say, he sucks.
He's not a legendary rb or anything but he definitely had his moments as a Packer and was far from sucking. Fifth all time leading rusher in Packer history. C'mon Man!!
quote:Originally posted by Sep:quote:Originally posted by chickenboy:quote:Originally posted by ammo: I'm trying understand something. Ryan Grant had 2 1,200 yard rushing seasons and yet many say he sucked as a RB...
I don't recall anybody saying he sucked. I think everybody has/had a ton of respect for the guy. I think most fans saw him for what he was, a nice serviceable back. Maybe your thinking of BJack...
I have said, and still say, he sucks.
I, for one, am shocked by this revelation. Your takes have been historically accurate.
quote:Originally posted by titmfatied:
He's not a legendary rb or anything but he definitely had his moments as a Packer and was far from sucking. Fifth all time leading rusher in Packer history. C'mon Man!!
300 B.J. Raji 2011 2011 16 7 1 1 1 1 1.0 0.1 0
#300 on this list has a shameful YPC.
funny that Freeman and Schroeder are right next to each other at #218 and #219 (17 yards each)
Also funny that we have a guy that played in the thirties listed as "Tuffy" Thompson. His real name was Clarence Leonard Thompson
"Buster" Mott was really Norman Mott. Wonder what happened if you called either of these guys by their real names.
Also funny that Starks is currently at #44 if he doesn't get his butt in gear in training camp he might end his time as a Packer there
Also funny that we have a guy that played in the thirties listed as "Tuffy" Thompson. His real name was Clarence Leonard Thompson
"Buster" Mott was really Norman Mott. Wonder what happened if you called either of these guys by their real names.
Also funny that Starks is currently at #44 if he doesn't get his butt in gear in training camp he might end his time as a Packer there
quote:Originally posted by Brak:quote:Originally posted by Sep:quote:Originally posted by chickenboy:quote:Originally posted by ammo: I'm trying understand something. Ryan Grant had 2 1,200 yard rushing seasons and yet many say he sucked as a RB...
I don't recall anybody saying he sucked. I think everybody has/had a ton of respect for the guy. I think most fans saw him for what he was, a nice serviceable back. Maybe your thinking of BJack...
I have said, and still say, he sucks.
I, for one, am shocked by this revelation. Your takes have been historically accurate.
quote:Originally posted by Herschel:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by bubbleboy789:
.... but I wonder if he also is planning on implementing some new schemes that would just work better with Bulaga and Sitton on the left.
I really have no idea what those schemes might be but it could be interesting if they start showing some new stuff in OTA's or training camp.
QUOTE]
Wait until teams see this amazing trickery.
Nice play, but it's going to end with a penalty for 12 men on the field.
Plus that's way to many white guys, need more skill players.
quote:Originally posted by Brak:
I, for one, am shocked by this revelation. Your takes have been historically accurate.
Stupidity abhors a vacuum. I give you the new the-icon.
quote:Stupidity abhors a vacuum. I give you the new the-icon.
Attachments
Files (1)
