despite weapons, offense needs another piece

[GleefulGary]

The running game is not equally as important as the passing game.

Absolutely not, no way.

 

[Patriotplayer90]

The running game is not equally as important as the passing game.

Absolutely not, no way.

So Prescott could have lead a one-dimensional offense and average defense to a 13 win season? Whatever you say. Obviously with a QB like Rodgers, you expect the passing game to be the bread winner. That doesn't mean being able to run the ball wouldn't benefit the passing game in a big way.

 

[GleefulGary]

To find an OL who is very good at both facets of the game is very difficult.

Look at the guys Dallas/Ten have. Drafted early to mid first round. We don't have the opportunity to get them. I would love Tyron Smith, Frederick, Conklin or Lewan. I also have to be realistic. I mean, Bakh will never be a great run blocker. Just not his game. He's still really good. Lane Taylor is a good run blocker. Linsley is pretty good. Evans isn't anymore. Bulaga does ok. Guys who are good at both are hard to find, if you have to prioritize (and you do), you pick pass blocking.

I agree that we don't have a guy who can 100% of the time get open. Most teams don't. WR is a big need in the draft. I don't think anybody would disagree.

When healthy, our play calling is good. When not, it struggles. If everybody is good to go, we're hard to beat. It's hard to argue with that, but there definitely is room for argument and improvement.

 

[GleefulGary]

So Prescott could have lead a one-dimensional offense and average defense to a 13 win season? Whatever you say. Obviously with a QB like Rodgers, you expect the passing game to be the bread winner. That doesn't mean being able to run the ball wouldn't benefit the passing game in a big way.

I never said running wasn't important.

I said it's not AS important. They do not have an equal value. It's why Dallas should have taken Jalen Ramsey over Elliot.

I'm not saying any team should be one dimensional, but if they are going to be, it should be in the direction of passing.

So to clarify, running is good. Passing is better. I would love to be good at both, but if I have to choose, I choose to be better at passing.

 

[GleefulGary]

And fwiw, Dallas is 2-1 with a below average running game (3.8 ypc average as a team), and an average defense right now.

 

[Patriotplayer90]

To find an OL who is very good at both facets of the game is very difficult.

Look at the guys Dallas/Ten have. Drafted early to mid first round. We don't have the opportunity to get them. I would love Tyron Smith, Frederick, Conklin or Lewan. I also have to be realistic. I mean, Bakh will never be a great run blocker. Just not his game. He's still really good. Lane Taylor is a good run blocker. Linsley is pretty good. Evans isn't anymore. Bulaga does ok. Guys who are good at both are hard to find, if you have to prioritize (and you do), you pick pass blocking.

I agree that we don't have a guy who can 100% of the time get open. Most teams don't. WR is a big need in the draft. I don't think anybody would disagree.

When healthy, our play calling is good. When not, it struggles. If everybody is good to go, we're hard to beat. It's hard to argue with that, but there definitely is room for argument and improvement.

Tennessee does have excellent bookend tackles. But so do we. The guys they have in the middle probably weren't even drafted. But who knows, maybe Montgomery really isn't getting the most out of the blocking. He's getting YAC, but that doesn't always mean you are getting as far as you can down the field before first contact is made.

And fwiw, Dallas is 2-1 with a below average running game (3.8 ypc average as a team), and an average defense right now.

Talk about skewed stats. Denver shut down the run game and forced Prescott to beat them, and they got blown out. Elliot isn't as effective as he was last year yet because all teams are essentially doing that. Prescott has answered the challenge, but they beat two awful teams. But the run game is something each and every team prepare for against Dallas, and if they were able to focus the entirety of their attention on Prescott as they do Rodgers, things would to nearly as smooth for him.

 

[Dantés]

"Probably weren't even drafted?"

If we're going to be making strong statements about the Packers OL, maybe it would help to actually know who they are.

 

[Patriotplayer90]

"Probably weren't even drafted?"

If we're going to be making strong statements about the Packers OL, maybe it would help to actually know who they are.

My mistake. Center was drafted in the 4th by former team and signed for a cheap in FA, both guards undrafted, one signed off waivers. So they didn't spend any draft stock for those guys, and very little money.

 

[GleefulGary]

My mistake. Center was drafted in the 4th by former team and signed for a cheap in FA, both guards undrafted, one signed off waivers. So they didn't spend any draft stock for those guys, and very little money.

That's because, as we've learned, iOL aren't that hard to find. Especially run blocking ones.

OT's that excel at both pass and run blocking are hard to find. The ones that Tennessee has, were both drafted in the top 11. It's hard for me to be realistic and expect the Packers to get guys like that.

 

[Dantés]

It can be helpful to just look around the league and ask yourself who else is in the same tier (or a higher one) compared to the unit in question. For my money, if I'm trying to put together a top 10 list at OL, these are the names I include:

Chiefs, Raiders, Titans, Saints, Falcons, Cowboys, Eagles, Redskins, Steelers, and Packers

I would say that the Raiders, Titans, and Steelers are solidly ahead of the Packers when they're right. After that it's a discussion. Dallas is reknowned for their OL, but two of their starters are pretty lousy at this point. Realistically, the Packers probably land in the 5-7 range.

 

[Patriotplayer90]

It can be helpful to just look around the league and ask yourself who else is in the same tier (or a higher one) compared to the unit in question. For my money, if I'm trying to put together a top 10 list at OL, these are the names I include:

Chiefs, Raiders, Titans, Saints, Falcons, Cowboys, Eagles, Redskins, Steelers, and Packers

I would say that the Raiders, Titans, and Steelers are solidly ahead of the Packers when they're right. After that it's a discussion. Dallas is reknowned for their OL, but two of their starters are pretty lousy at this point. Realistically, the Packers probably land in the 5-7 range.

We haven't seen this unit healthy, so it's really tough to say how they stack up. I think the following teams have good units:

Titans
Raiders
Steelers
Falcons
Redskins
Patriots
Chiefs
Bears
Cowboys (once they accept Collins sucks)
Eagles (once they plug a leak or two)
Browns (once they figure things out. The unit is exceptional on paper)
Packers

I'm not sure where we are on that list. I think the best is superior to ours by a respectable margin, but that were not much better than the " least" good. Which is still much better than having a unit like the one we had in week 2.

 

[Dantés]

We haven't seen this unit healthy, so it's really tough to say how they stack up. I think the following teams have good units:

Titans
Raiders
Steelers
Falcons
Redskins
Patriots
Chiefs
Bears
Cowboys (once they accept Collins sucks)
Eagles (once they plug a leak or two)
Browns (once they figure things out. The unit is exceptional on paper)
Packers

I'm not sure where we are on that list. I think the best is superior to ours by a respectable margin, but that were not much better than the " least" good. Which is still much better than having a unit like the one we had in week 2.

I think the point that we might agree on is that the Packers have a line that's anywhere from top 10 to top 5 depending on how things shake out and how people perceive the unit. Which, to come full circle, is one of my contentions when people argue that Green Bay has no real talent outside of Rodgers.

I would make a similar case with his receivers. The only teams I would put in the conversation with Nelson, Adams, Cobb, and Allison are the Steelers, Patriots, Dolphins, Giants, and Jaguars. It's hard to pin down, but you can easily make a case for them being at #1, and I don't think it's reasonable to put them anywhere lower than 6th. So that's another contention.

At TE, you can also make a case for the Packers being among the best-- though that really needs time to unfold as the top two guys are new.

 

[Patriotplayer90]

I think the point that we might agree on is that the Packers have a line that's anywhere from top 10 to top 5 depending on how things shake out and how people perceive the unit. Which, to come full circle, is one of my contentions when people argue that Green Bay has no real talent outside of Rodgers.

I would make a similar case with his receivers. The only teams I would put in the conversation with Nelson, Adams, Cobb, and Allison are the Steelers, Patriots, Dolphins, Giants, and Jaguars. It's hard to pin down, but you can easily make a case for them being at #1, and I don't think it's reasonable to put them anywhere lower than 6th. So that's another contention.

At TE, you can also make a case for the Packers being among the best-- though that really needs time to unfold as the top two guys are new.

Packers are definitely not among the best at TE, they were just so bad for a few years that any solid unit seems glamorous.

At WR, I'd agree that not many units have 3 guys at their level. But it's still a lot of steak and little sizzle. Need a bit more vertical ability before I'd put them at 1. The Chargers, Raiders, Buccaneers, Titans, Bengals, Falcons, Broncos, and Redskins also have WR/TE units which I think would be deadly if healthy and paired with Rodgers, in addition to the ones you listed.

 

[Dantés]

Packers are definitely not among the best at TE, they were just so bad for a few years that any solid unit seems glamorous.

At WR, I'd agree that not many units have 3 guys at their level. But it's still a lot of steak and little sizzle. Need a bit more vertical ability before I'd put them at 1. The Chargers, Raiders, Buccaneers, Titans, Bengals, Falcons, Broncos, and Redskins also have WR/TE units which I think would be deadly if healthy and paired with Rodgers, in addition to the ones you listed.

A lot of units would be really good with Rodgers, but that doesn't mean they're all as good as the guys Green Bay already has. But I agree that they could use a vertical threat.

I think it's too soon to saying anything "definitely" about the TE group. However, if Bennett rounds into form as a pass catcher in addition to what they get from Kendricks and Rodgers, they will be among the league's best at that spot.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

As good as Ezekiel Elliot is, the Cowboys win because of Prescott.

The Cowboys win because of having a balanced offense. Prescott isn't capable of carrying the team once their rushing attack struggles.

That's because, as we've learned, iOL aren't that hard to find. Especially run blocking ones.

Yet the Packers haven't been able to find any.

 

[Dantés]

The Cowboys win because of having a balanced offense. Prescott isn't capable of carrying the team once their rushing attack struggles.



Yet the Packers haven't been able to find any.

Run blocking is about reps and consistency as much as it is about having the ability. The Packers are a pass first team because they have the best QB in the game. Thus their linemen are pass first linemen. I'm not saying that they'd be all pro run blockers give the chance or anything, but they could be better than what they are if they geared the offense that direction.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Run blocking is about reps and consistency as much as it is about having the ability. The Packers are a pass first team because they have the best QB in the game. Thus their linemen are pass first linemen. I'm not saying that they'd be all pro run blockers give the chance or anything, but they could be better than what they are if they geared the offense that direction.

It's definitely true the Packers are first and foremost looking for offensive linemen capable of protecting Rodgers. I'm not convinced they would significantly improve blocking for the run in an offense predicated on rushing the ball though.

 

[Dantés]

It's definitely true the Packers are first and foremost looking for offensive linemen capable of protecting Rodgers. I'm not convinced they would significantly improve blocking for the run in an offense predicated on rushing the ball though.

Well it's hypothetical so I guess we will never know.