Protect The Franchise - A Look At Offensive Line

This is a false flag thread.

Outraged for the sake of outrage. 

Does the OL need to perform better? Yes, the entire organization needs to ****in perform better.

The right side of the O-Line is an issue.  Bulaga has trouble making it through games and we have a backup level player starting at RG.  Heck, even our projected starter was a backup level player.

I somewhat agree with Phaedrus that I'd hope the Pack finds a top O-Lineman in one of its' first 3 picks next year or signs a top FA O-Lineman.  Bulaga still can play when he's in there, but that's the catch... he's not available as consistently as you would like.  I would totally understand it if the Pack decided to move on to someone else for that spot even though he still can play. 

The good news is that Bahktiari seems to be highly thought of in NFL circles and LT is the key position on the line.  Just a few years ago he was the weak link, now he's the best player.   It's probably going to be awhile before we see a combination of guards as good as Sitton and Lang were, those guys were rock solid. 

They are solid with Bakhtiari, Taylor, and Linsley.

I believe Spriggs can handle the RT spot. He has shown steady improvement over the past year.

I also see Lucas Patrick as the RG in the future. 

Gutekunst needs depth to develop. Maybe Kyle Murphy develops, Adam Pankey has shown some against lesser opponents so maybe he continues to develop. Then there is Cole Madison. We'll see if he is in their plans for 19. 

Gutekunst may not need to blow it up or even over-invest come next spring.

We had sooo many holes to fill and only so many bullets.     So far I am more than impressed with Gute's drafting and willingness to explore FA.

Trading back to get Alexander and then still getting Jackson in the 2nd was phenomenal.   Both guys look like long time starters and he successfully filled our biggest need instantly WHILE ADDING A 1st IN NEXT YEARS DRAFT.    That is ludicrous.    Anything they get from Burks or the WR's after that is drowning the taters in gravy.

This is year 1 of the rebuild.   He was left with gaping holes at CB, S, OLB, and OL.   He also has to consider that the WR group was aging and approaching FA.    I don't know if he targeted CB first or if that's how the cards fell, but he has absolutely nailed it so far. 

I completely trust Gute to get the OL fixed.  I am sure we wouldn't have to remind him that you need a solid OL to protect the franchise and I am sure he will leave no stone unturned to do just that. 

As Brainded said this is year 1 of the roster rebuild and I have a feeling that in a year or so we will be very happy with the job he has done.

Everything stated in this thread is a myth spawned by crisis actors. 

Henry posted:

This is a false flag thread.

Accurate. 

AR's sack total this year (and really going back to the 2nd half of 2015)  is all too often due to AR's instance on playing sand lot football, continually trying to hit the home run ball all while refusing to check down to open WR's and live another series, and forcing his OL to protect him for 7-9 seconds. An eternity for any OL. Not to mention that McStubborn can't accept the concept of running the football. 

ESPN just did a ranking of the best OL's in football in 2018. I don't care enough about this topic to link it here but the bottom line is GB's OL was rated amongst the top in the entire league. 

In what ails the Packers, the OL is far, far down the list. 

I don't know how ESPN constructs their OL ratings but watching our OL would not give you the impression they are amongst the tops in the league.

The Oline are really lizard people.  

As I wrote, I think o-line lacked sufficient attention.  I would have drafted one less WR and either a punter or a long-snapper, thereby drafting a stable of 3 lineman (probably 2 guards and 1 tackle) rather than just one.

In most of the observations contrary to my own, I do not really see justification for drafting 3 WR's, a punter, and a long snapper as opposed to what I suggest above. 

Appreciating that in most things, not all folks are completely like-minded.

Thanks for the inputs.

"Thanks for the inputs"

--Stormy Daniels

Mushroom stamp. 

I had to Google that.

I wish I didn't.

You’re welcome. 

phaedrus posted:

I cannot conceive 

 

Pretty sure its something the gov't puts in gatorade

Qline.  

El-Ka-Bong posted:

phaedrus posted:

I cannot conceive 

 

Pretty sure its something the gov't puts in gatorade

Wasn't that fluoride?

That's what the deep state called it.

Blair Kiel posted:

I had to Google that.

I wish I didn't.

 

You wish you didn't google it, or you wish you didn't have to google it? 

Brainded:
This is year 1 of the rebuild.   He was left with gaping holes at CB, S, OLB, and OL.   He also has to consider that the WR group was aging and approaching FA.    I don't know if he targeted CB first or if that's how the cards fell, but he has absolutely nailed it so far. 

The Heckler:
I completely trust Gute to get the OL fixed.  I am sure we wouldn't have to remind him that you need a solid OL to protect the franchise and I am sure he will leave no stone unturned to do just that. 

Just one thought in this thread I started which is its original context.  Brainded (above) refers to this past draft emphasizing cornerback and Gut nailing it.  Heckler refers to leaving no stone unturned.

The scenario I offered was if the Packers drafted 2 WR's instead of 3 and either a punter or a long snapper instead of both and drafted 2 more offensive linemen instead.

With that scenario every position is unchanged, including corner, except WR and long snapper or punter.

I would have rather had two extra (drafted) o-linemen in camp instead of only 2 FA pick ups and I see very little compromise with other needs.

I am surprised the near consensus seems to be going with 3 WR and a long snapper and punter is better than what I proposed.

Sorry. I've been too busy trying to get the flouride out of my Gatorade to consensus anything.

The consensus is the thread starter is a POS.

You guys are being hard on P.  He's right, if you swap out Moore and use that pick on a fatboy who can kick ass, everyone is even happier.  

It is especially noteworthy when you consider how much information Gutestradamus should have as an Adeptus Exemptus in the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn to help him make his picks.  I suspect, since there are other GM's who are Third Order, he might be compelled to defer to them.  

El-Ka,

I was thinking one of the latter picks of the three WR's and so I see with that the Pack may have lost out on Marquez Valdez-Scantling, which would have been a bummer.

Thanks for keeping the conversation (mostly) football.

Hard on P?  How's that work?  Asking for a friend.

Like using a sandblaster on a bucking bronco.

Pikes Peak posted:

Hard on P?  How's that work?  Asking for a friend.

My guess is writing something like the entire x4 community (read: consensus) thinks I am a piece of shit qualifies.

Just a guess.

I'm still trying to understand why 2 posts were needed to say the same exact thing.  Has this become an echo chamber? 

It would be nice if a few of their former OL picks worked out.  Spriggs in particular has been disappointing. 

But Gute can’t exactly solve all their issues in one year.  I think he solved the CB and WR problem this draft and that’s a big accomplishment.  Hopefully next year he can figure out OL and LB and S.  

phaedrus posted:

Pikes Peak posted:

Hard on P?  How's that work?  Asking for a friend.

My guess is writing something like the entire x4 community (read: consensus) thinks I am a piece of shit qualifies.

Just a guess.

Fake news.  Reality needs to be stopped at all costs to preserve the American way.

ammo posted:

I'm still trying to understand why 2 posts were needed to say the same exact thing.  Has this become an echo chamber? 

I just thought there may have been a disconnect from the standpoint of how little the suggested scenario I offered would impact other areas of positional emphasis.

I'm still trying to understand why 2 posts were needed to say the same exact thing.  Has this become an echo chamber? 

Hello......

PackerHawk posted:

I'm still trying to understand why 2 posts were needed to say the same exact thing.  Has this become an echo chamber? 

It is killing me trying to decipher what "Its horse shib" means, but I'm close to cracking this nut wide open

phaedrus posted:

Brainded:
This is year 1 of the rebuild.   He was left with gaping holes at CB, S, OLB, and OL.   He also has to consider that the WR group was aging and approaching FA.    I don't know if he targeted CB first or if that's how the cards fell, but he has absolutely nailed it so far. 

The Heckler:
I completely trust Gute to get the OL fixed.  I am sure we wouldn't have to remind him that you need a solid OL to protect the franchise and I am sure he will leave no stone unturned to do just that. 

Just one thought in this thread I started which is its original context.  Brainded (above) refers to this past draft emphasizing cornerback and Gut nailing it.  Heckler refers to leaving no stone unturned.

The scenario I offered was if the Packers drafted 2 WR's instead of 3 and either a punter or a long snapper instead of both and drafted 2 more offensive linemen instead.

With that scenario every position is unchanged, including corner, except WR and long snapper or punter.

I would have rather had two extra (drafted) o-linemen in camp instead of only 2 FA pick ups and I see very little compromise with other needs.

I am surprised the near consensus seems to be going with 3 WR and a long snapper and punter is better than what I proposed.

I agree with the premise but I'm not educated enough to know the value of the o-line players available in those slots compared to what we selected. 

Brainded,

Me neither.