Packers to re-sign Don Barclay

Ted better still look to improve the OL depth in draft as Barclay is nothing you can't count as the future.
 
Barclay does ok as backup for RT, but not LT. They should never have put him out there at LT as they knew it wouldnt go well, they set him up for failure. Didnt some say he could play at a inside spot? For me, its not a big deal they re-signed him, but wouldnt of been a big deal if they let him go either.
 
If TT gave him no guarantees, I'm fine with this.

Barclay was coming back from an ACL injury, and sometimes it takes a full year to get back to 100%. I do hope we draft some guys who push Barclay off the roster.

I gave him a rather scathing review in my PFF analysis -thingie:

OT Don Barclay -35.2, 72nd/77 OTs - Holy #¤%& was he bad. Coming off an ACL and another injury, he just crumbled. Allowed 9 sacks and 43 pressures in just 241 snaps, and was THE worst in the league in pass block efficiency. Projecting for full season of starting snaps, it would've been about 26 sacks and 120 pressures :shock: . Also 11th worst run blocker.
Click to expand...
 
Return of the human turnstile part 2... coming to a training camp near you. :p:D
 
All. Right. Ted!! You NAILED FA this year! sc))

Barclay was downright horrid last year. The guy was a revolving door. If this is the depth he's shooting for on his OL, kiss the SB goodbye...because he'll get Aaron killed. cra)
 
Since today is Don Barclay's birthday, I choose to list the positive:

1) He turned 27 today. That's career prime age for an OL.

2) Remember the Old Jungle Saying "It takes 2 years to be fully back from an ACL?" It's kinda been forgotten with the speedy miracle returns of a some high profile players, but every knee injury is different. Barclay isn't athletic enough to play at 80%. At 100%, he could hold the fort at RT and could probably play guard.

3) I expect no guarantees in his 1-year-deal. He costs next to nothing if he doesn't make the 53.

4) With 5 pre-season games, there's no lack of reps. We always bring a ton of OL to camp, many of whom have zero chance at making it. No reason to worry about camp fodder reps.

5) Barclay's not likely to be the no 1 option as backup tackle. Tretter was clearly better than him, and the draft class has quality and depth. Chances of him playing significant snaps is comfortably low.
 
Barclay was horrid at LT but he might be better suited as a backup guard. I have a feeling we'll be drafting an O lineman later this month.
 
Just because he's signed, doesn't mean he's on the roster next fall. If the guarantees are small, he just becomes a camp body and if he shows something he might stick. If not, see ya.

This won't change the draft. I suspect TT still takes an OT in the draft, so there is no harm in bringing Barclay back to have a look at whether he'll be better in year 2 after the ACL.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top