Green Bay’s advantage at quarterback isn’t what it used to be

[eyecatcher]

Um no... your supposed to have the depth on your roster or acquire the people to play OT. Using a OG and plugging him was on the staff.

MM has stated over and over, Injuries will not be an excuse. When this team overcame them and won an SB everyone was on that bandwagon... it goes the other way and it's "injuries stole our talent"

Bottomline is you want to along with others here want to play the injury card. That's fine but IMHO that's a cheap out for bigger problems on this FB team.

The Packers typically keep 8 or 9 o-linemen on the roster. 5 play at a time. If you sustain injuries to one or two you have the depth to replace them. When 4-5 players miss time depth is obviously going to be a problem.

It's not a cheap out. It's truth. When the Packers had injuries in 2010 it wasn't an entire position group. Last year it was the secondary. This year it was the o-line. Yes next man up should be good enough and for the most part the next man up is good enough. No team is good enough 3-4 deep at a position. Did the team do enough to plug holes when they were exposed? Nope. That is probably one of the gripes that MM had with TT. No one is going to say the depth is great but it also wasn't as bad as some are making it out to be.

I do agree that there are bigger problems with this team. Lack of confidence in the DC seemed to be a big one. I think the D actually quit listening to Capers last year. There were obvious rifts in the staff that have come to light in the last few months. Time will tell if keeping MM and adding some new pieces was enough.

 

[dannobanano]

Um no... your supposed to have the depth on your roster or acquire the people to play OT. Using a OG and plugging him was on the staff.

But they did go out and sign OT Ulrick John (from AZ's PS), and he's still on the roster, so he must not be a total POS. Problem is, when you lose 3 of your 4 OT's, it's not exactly easy to find decent quality OT's walking the street that are just waiting for you to call. If you stock up with 15-16 OL to insure yourself against the injury bug, what other position(s) are you going to run bare bones on and hope for no injuries?

MM has stated over and over, Injuries will not be an excuse. When this team overcame them and won an SB everyone was on that bandwagon... it goes the other way and it's "injuries stole our talent"

MM did use that as his mantra for the 2010 season, but in reality it was the only year (during his tenure) that they have been able to overcome injuries using that "next man up" line. To me, it was an abberation. A good abberation for that one year, but not so much since then. It sounded good at that time and was a feel good moment for his players.

MM isn't the only coach who says that, btw.

 

[rpiotr01]

But they did go out and sign OT Ulrick John (from AZ's PS), and he's still on the roster, so he must not be a total POS. Problem is, when you lose 3 of your 4 OT's, it's not exactly easy to find decent quality OT's walking the street that are just waiting for you to call. If you stock up with 15-16 OL to insure yourself against the injury bug, what other position(s) are you going to run bare bones on and hope for no injuries?



MM did use that as his mantra for the 2010 season, but in reality it was the only year (during his tenure) that they have been able to overcome injuries using that "next man up" line. To me, it was an abberation. A good abberation for that one year, but not so much since then. It sounded good at that time and was a feel good moment for his players.

MM isn't the only coach who says that, btw.

The difference in 2010 was that the roster was stocked at a few positions with up and coming players who were actually better than the starters. Bishop was better than Barnett. Jordy better than Driver. Bulaga better than Tauscher.

We certainly got lucky that the injuries hit positions where we had depth (great as the starting secondary was, how far would we go if Jarrett Bush had to play big minutes for Williams/Woodson/Shields?) On the other hand, at least that team had depth at a few positions. How many positions are there on this team where a young player is legit pushing a vet? Zero. Hell, we have been starting or giving lots of PT to guys that should be buried 3 deep down the roster. It’s roster decay and Gutey needs to fix it, but it’s not going to happen in a year. Just can’t see it.

 

[Cheesedog]

Bulaga better than Tauscher.

The rest I can agree with.

 

[rpiotr01]

The rest I can agree with.

At the time he was. Tausch was done.

 

[dannobanano]

The difference in 2010 was that the roster was stocked at a few positions with up and coming players who were actually better than the starters. Bishop was better than Barnett. Jordy better than Driver. Bulaga better than Tauscher.

We certainly got lucky that the injuries hit positions where we had depth (great as the starting secondary was, how far would we go if Jarrett Bush had to play big minutes for Williams/Woodson/Shields?) On the other hand, at least that team had depth at a few positions. How many positions are there on this team where a young player is legit pushing a vet? Zero. Hell, we have been starting or giving lots of PT to guys that should be buried 3 deep down the roster. It’s roster decay and Gutey needs to fix it, but it’s not going to happen in a year. Just can’t see it.

No argument on Bishop. There had been a lot of talk as to why he wasn't playing more prior to Barnett's injury.

As for Nelson v. Driver, they had almost identical stats for the year. The biggest difference in the two was age. Nelson's "coming out party" was the Super Bowl.

I'll debate Bulaga v. Tauscher. Tausch was a savy veteran/technician. He had to be, because he lacked the athletic talent that others had. He also had the heart of a lion. Give me that in a player, any day.

Your post actually reinforces what I was saying earlier. Each of your three examples exemplifies the "next man up" mantra. But they didn't have to go any deeper than that one man.
So, how deep do you have to be at one position with quality talent to avoid the problems that plagued the Packers last year, where they lost 3 Right OT's to injury?(Bulaga, Murphy, Spriggs [twice])

How many OT's should they have had on the roster to avoid having to move a OG (McCray) out there to play?
[Sorry. I'm just being redundant here.]

It's a dilema that every team faces. And it's also why teams (Green Bay included) value OL-men that can play multiple positions, so they don't have to be 4 deep at each position.

 

[rpiotr01]

Your post actually reinforces what I was saying earlier. Each of your three examples exemplifies the "next man up" mantra. But they didn't have to go any deeper than that one man.
So, how deep do you have to be at one position with quality talent to avoid the problems that plagued the Packers last year, where they lost 3 Right OT's to injury?(Bulaga, Murphy, Spriggs [twice])

How many OT's should they have had on the roster to avoid having to move a OG (McCray) out there to play?
[Sorry. I'm just being redundant here.]

It's a dilema that every team faces. And it's also why teams (Green Bay included) value OL-men that can play multiple positions, so they don't have to be 4 deep at each position.

I agree with you overall. However, remember our primary OT backup appears well on his way to bust status, so really our depth there is lacking. Campen worked a miracle and McCray and Taylor get a lot of credit for grabbing their lunch pails and just getting the job done at OT when they needed to, but primary depth - 1 deep - at OT was still lacking.

Further, look at the secondary. As I said above, that team in 2010 would've gone nowhere if Woodson/Williams/Shields hadn't stayed healthy but at least we were a solid 3 deep at CB. In 2016 and 2017 we've had, what, 1 dependable corner per year? Our starters are lacking, let alone our depth. So yeah we've been banged up there and no team has great talent that far down the depth chart - but we don't even have it at the top of the depth chart. We've got to do much better.