despite weapons, offense needs another piece

[XPack]

Called it in Page 1, O-Line needs more pieces. Week 1 was clear enough, but got covered up with the win. Now it's down to the dregs.

I hate to do it this early, but I have to place the blame on MM/TT. Great first team. abysmal depth everywhere except WR. O-Line, D-LB, CB.

God save Aaron!

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Called it in Page 1, O-Line needs more pieces.

The Packers need Bakhtiari and Bulaga to get healthy. Murphy might be a decent backup to fill in sporadically at several spots on the offensive line after all.

 

[Dantés]

TT/MM should have had a plan for when they would lose three OT's at once.

 

[Mondio]

TT/MM should have had a plan for when they would lose three OT's at once.

but only if they lose 3 OT's at once. If not, then they need a plan at DB in case they lose a bunch of them at once. and if it's not them, then they need a plan at RB when they lose 3,4,5 of those in a season. And if it's not the RB's they need WR's and OLB's too. It's a damn shame those 2 old coots are too ****ing stupid to use those roster and cap exemptions to sign extra players every year.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

TT/MM should have had a plan for when they would lose three OT's at once.

While there's no way to equivalently replace Bakhtiari and Bulaga I guess it should have been possible not being forced having to start your backup center at right tackle who hadn't taken a single snap at the pro level before Sunday night.

 

[Dantés]

While there's no way to equivalently replace Bakhtiari and Bulaga I guess it should have been possible not being forced having to start your backup center at right tackle who hadn't taken a single snap at the pro level before Sunday night.

I don't know about that. They were forced into it because their 2nd string RT had to play the left because their 2nd string LT was also out. There's no reasonable expectation that a team should have enough tackle depth that they can lose 3 guys and be ok.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I don't know about that. They were forced into it because their 2nd string RT had to play the left because their 2nd string LT was also out. There's no reasonable expectation that a team should have enough tackle depth that they can lose 3 guys and be ok.

It was probably advantageous the coaching staff had to start McCray over Spriggs though.

 

[Dantés]

but only if they lose 3 OT's at once. If not, then they need a plan at DB in case they lose a bunch of them at once. and if it's not them, then they need a plan at RB when they lose 3,4,5 of those in a season. And if it's not the RB's they need WR's and OLB's too. It's a damn shame those 2 old coots are too ******* stupid to use those roster and cap exemptions to sign extra players every year.

Some people have no category in their minds for bad luck that's no one's fault.

Cornerback I can understand. They had chances to pursue a guy like Jason McCourty and further hedge against Randall/Rollins not being the answer. But they chose not to, and I think that's a shortcoming on the part of the front office.

But when three of your tackles are out at once? What team in the entire NFL is prepared with a good answer in that contingency? It's ridiculous.

 

[Dantés]

It was probably advantageous the coaching staff had to start McCray over Spriggs though.

I understand Spriggs' struggles, but I think it's extreme to assume that the backup center was a better option than him.

 

[PackerDNA]

I had thought Bak and Bulaga were playing. Then when the starting lineups were announced, I thought well, we're in the soup now. We needed to match them in a shootout, but even if Jordy and Cobb didn't get hurt, minus both tackles, you're deep passing game is gone.

 

[swhitset]

I had thought Bak and Bulaga were playing. Then when the starting lineups were announced, I thought well, we're in the soup now. We needed to match them in a shootout, but even if Jordy and Cobb didn't get hurt, minus both tackles, you're deep passing game is gone.

Agreed. I'm not sure how good the Packers are this year, but to suggest that those injuries were not a significant factor in how the game was played is ridiculous. I have seen a few people suggest that the backups played adequately. I would say compared to what? Yes they probably did as well or even better than expected considering their lack of experience, but that does not change the fact that the offense was dramatically crippled by the lack of Bak and Bulaga. Most on this board have stated countless times that this team is only great because it has Rodgers. Well Rodgers can only be Rodgers when he has time for his receivers to get downfield. He often likes to scramble to the outside to buy some more of that time. That is pretty hard to do when the tackles don't have the ability or experience to know what to do when Rodgers leaves the pocket. Combine that with the fact that his best WR was also out means that the Packers had almost no long passing game. That made it extremely difficult to be successful in the short passing game since the Falcons could simply focus on that. Defensively... I am not happy with Randle or Rollins, but I think having Daniels would have helped tremendously. Yes I know he was in there in the first series, but we don't know when the injury occurred.. He played the first series... then never came back... and it was only one series. Do you really think it would have been so easy for the Falcons to run the ball with Daniels in there? The crowd that likes to say that injuries are not an excuse are being silly. If you don't want to call it an excuse... fine, but I for one would have liked to see the Packers best players competing against the Falcons best. The Falcons may have still won, but I truly think it would have been more interesting.

 

[Raptorman]

Wait, didn't the Packers need "one more weapon" last year? And the year before? And the year before that? Amazing how bad the offense can look when your starting tackles are out of the lineup. Pretty sure we saw that last year somewhere.

 

[PackAttack12]

Some of us have been talking about the need for more depth on the o-line since the offseason began several months ago. This isn't a hindsight observation in light of the events that have transpired. It's not difficult to see that when you lose 3 quality linemen in a year's time and only replace them with a single free agent that your depth for the unit is going to be much less quality than before.

 

[PackAttack12]

Wait, didn't the Packers need "one more weapon" last year? And the year before? And the year before that? Amazing how bad the offense can look when your starting tackles are out of the lineup. Pretty sure we saw that last year somewhere.

Hmm. I wonder if we should bring up the number of years in a row that your team has needed how many more pieces to get over the hump?

 

[swhitset]

Wait, didn't the Packers need "one more weapon" last year? And the year before? And the year before that? Amazing how bad the offense can look when your starting tackles are out of the lineup. Pretty sure we saw that last year somewhere.

What is your point? .... I don't recall anybody claiming that the Vikings offensive line wasn't a significant handicap last year.

 

[Raptorman]

Hmm. I wonder if we should bring up the number of years in a row that your team has needed how many more pieces to get over the hump?

Actually, I would say for the last few years the one piece we were missing was a QB. Wait till Rodgers retires and the Packers are once again in the position of trying to find a good QB. You guys got very lucky in having two good QB's in a row. That rarely happens. They just don't make QB's in college like they used to. Or, the QB's in college just don't the NFL game because the college game has changed so much over the years.

 

[Raptorman]

What is your point? .... I don't recall anybody claiming that the Vikings offensive line wasn't a significant handicap last year.

I don't think the Packers need one more piece. I think they need a change at some of the coaching positions. Chiefly, Capers. He has proved time and again that he can't do the job with whatever people he is given. Other than the tackles being out for the game the Packers offense is just fine. It's the defense that is suspect once again. And don't point to the Seattle game. After watching what he Niners did to them I wouldn't be to hopped up on the Packers defense in that game.

 

[PackAttack12]

Actually, I would say for the last few years the one piece we were missing was a QB. Wait till Rodgers retires and the Packers are once again in the position of trying to find a good QB. You guys got very lucky in having two good QB's in a row. That rarely happens. They just don't make QB's in college like they used to. Or, the QB's in college just don't the NFL game because the college game has changed so much over the years.

Two great quarterbacks in a row. And you're right. It's very rare for that to happen.

Do you think Bradford is the guy that can get it done with the other pieces the team has?

 

[Raptorman]

Two great quarterbacks in a row. And you're right. It's very rare for that to happen.

Do you think Bradford is the guy that can get it done with the other pieces the team has?

Bradford or Bridgewater. Yes, I do. As long as they can stay healthy. A broken QB does nothing for a team.

 

[PackAttack12]

I don't think the Packers need one more piece. I think they need a change at some of the coaching positions. Chiefly, Capers. He has proved time and again that he can't do the job with whatever people he is given. Other than the tackles being out for the game the Packers offense is just fine. It's the defense that is suspect once again. And don't point to the Seattle game. After watching what he Niners did to them I wouldn't be to hopped up on the Packers defense in that game.

I've been trying to get some to calm down about this defense. To me, it hasn't shown much of anything so far. Our front 7 is getting more consistent pressure, but our CB group is still a disaster. The only thing keeping me optimistic is Kevin King hopefully becoming a difference maker.

 

[Dantés]

Wait, didn't the Packers need "one more weapon" last year? And the year before? And the year before that? Amazing how bad the offense can look when your starting tackles are out of the lineup. Pretty sure we saw that last year somewhere.

"Your OL has sucked really hard for a while."

Feel better?

 

[Raptorman]

I've been trying to get some to calm down about this defense. To me, it hasn't shown much of anything so far. Our front 7 is getting more consistent pressure, but our CB group is still a disaster. The only thing keeping me optimistic is Kevin King hopefully becoming a difference maker.

King looked good the other night. I am sure he will make some mistakes but I think they should let him play and get the experience.

 

[Raptorman]

"Your OL has sucked really hard for a while."

Feel better?

Actually they haven't. Last year was the worst because of injuries. The year before they could have done better but they weren't that bad. This year, we shall see.

 

[swhitset]

I don't think the Packers need one more piece. I think they need a change at some of the coaching positions. Chiefly, Capers. He has proved time and again that he can't do the job with whatever people he is given. Other than the tackles being out for the game the Packers offense is just fine. It's the defense that is suspect once again. And don't point to the Seattle game. After watching what he Niners did to them I wouldn't be to hopped up on the Packers defense in that game.

We have no argument... I am in complete agreement.

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

I say this. Stick Lance Kendricks in either the 5-Wide or 4-Wide-1-RB Package split out wide and do with him like we did with Jermichael Finley. Rodgers oughtta let him go up and get a few balls as I think he could outleap shorter CBs.