Early offensive line predictions

[Dantés]

Just wondering. Seems like you're just stating what the two guys above you said, just in slightly different terms. Don't understand the 'false' comment. Just for my own edification, can you explain?

I think he was saying "false" in regards to the argument that Rodgers will never see pass blocking as good as what he had from 2011-2014.

I think we can all agree that the offensive design needs to do a better job helping Rodgers (shorter drops, quicker snap to throw, more play action) AND that Rodgers needs to be willing to buy in and take the shorter, quicker play. McCarthy's offense did not lend itself to a quick passing game, but Rodgers also often chose to forego open receivers in the short game because he wanted to pick up big chunks.

 

[HardRightEdge]

https://lombardiave.com/2019/05/01/packers-53-man-roster-predictions-2019-nfl-draft/6/

It’s interesting. What a coincidence that this article came out just this am and also left out McCray. Hmmm... Interesting coincidence
Hey guess he’s a forgetful kinda guy!

He also seems to be saying the Packers will keep 10 OL on the 53 man roster. I don't envision that.

 

[C-Lee]

McCray will 100% be fighting for a job.

 

[gopkrs]

I would like them to at least try Jenkins at center and Linsley at guard.

 

[sschind]

The picture changes quite a bit if Dan Quinn's idea gets any traction:

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.c...nd-game-day-active-rosters-beyond-46-players/

It does beg the questions, "Why only 46?" or "Why not all 53?"

I believe the smaller game day roster is traditionally viewed as a challenge to the coach's and GM's abilities to construct a roster and develop players with positional flexibility. Maybe that's eventually going to be viewed as antique in what has become an increasingly specialized game. We'll see where it goes, if anywhere at all.

In the mean time, rather than evaluate players solely on their viability at their position listed in the roster you have to ask, "what else can they do?"

I've always felt it was more to even things out injury wise. Every team can have 53 players but not every player is capable of suiting up every week. It wouldn't be fair if one team had 5 or 6 guys with minor injuries who couldn't suit up and the other team was fully healthy with 53 guys able to play. Its really the only logical explanation to me and I like it. That doesn't mean they couldn't change any of the numbers and have the same affect. Raise the overall to 57 and have 50 active.

 

[Half Empty]

I think he was saying "false" in regards to the argument that Rodgers will never see pass blocking as good as what he had from 2011-2014.

I think we can all agree that the offensive design needs to do a better job helping Rodgers (shorter drops, quicker snap to throw, more play action) AND that Rodgers needs to be willing to buy in and take the shorter, quicker play. McCarthy's offense did not lend itself to a quick passing game, but Rodgers also often chose to forego open receivers in the short game because he wanted to pick up big chunks.

Thanks. Hadn't thought of that option.

 

[C-Lee]

I would like them to at least try Jenkins at center and Linsley at guard.

Linsley hasn't missed a snap in two years at center and is really good....

 

[PackerDNA]

McCray will 100% be fighting for a job.

I never understood the fascination with McCray. He's the definition of a journeyman/JAG; not a guy you want taking a lot of snaps.
I don't believe he makes the roster. If he does, the line- especially it's depth- isn't as good as we hoped.

 

[gbgary]

I never understood the fascination with McCray. He's the definition of a journeyman/JAG; not a guy you want taking a lot of snaps.
I don't believe he makes the roster. If he does, the line- especially it's depth- isn't as good as we hoped.

cuz he added semi-competent depth to an o-line that had none. the depth situation is different now.

 

[OldSchool101]

I've always felt it was more to even things out injury wise. Every team can have 53 players but not every player is capable of suiting up every week. It wouldn't be fair if one team had 5 or 6 guys with minor injuries who couldn't suit up and the other team was fully healthy with 53 guys able to play. Its really the only logical explanation to me and I like it. That doesn't mean they couldn't change any of the numbers and have the same affect. Raise the overall to 57 and have 50 active.

I’ve been saying that for several years now. I don’t believe the roster limit conforms to the recent increase in injury protocols.
They could do it in increments to test the results. Adding 1 extra roster spot per year for 5 years or whatever...

I also think the league should consider having a few extra spots on the practice squad that are immune to be signed elsewhere through waivers and that would carry an ERPS (Exclusive Rights Practice Squad) designation.
That way you could stash your 3rd QB, that fresh draft pick that might need more time to develop or a few of your teams most valued guys without concern of having them yanked out of the system.

 

[Heyjoe4]

It could... or it could have been happenstance.

There wasn't a RT prospect on the board worthy of the 12th pick.

Safety was the biggest, immediately glaring hole on the roster.

So basically #44 was the first chance to address the position, and they took an iOL. So either they like their OT situation, they really don't like their iOL situation, or both. My personal guess is that they would have liked to draft a tackle but felt interior offensive line was the bigger need.

I would also argue that #44 was also their last chance to address OT with a prospect who has a strong chance to start in 2020. After Scharping came off the board, I didn't love many of the remaining choices.

Is there a chance that Jenkins can play T? I just don’t like Spriggs and Bulaga is great when he plays, but his body is giving in to age and injuries. Spriggs has shown me nothing, but maybe I missed it.

 

[PackerDNA]

cuz he added semi-competent depth to an o-line that had none. the depth situation is different now.

Semi competent. here's a ringing endorsement.

 

[gbgary]

Semi competent. here's a ringing endorsement.

ha! well, competent, to me, would be the least you'd expect from an every game starter. he's a backup so that's semi-competent to me. when he came in he wasn't horrible.

 

[gopkrs]

Is there a chance that Jenkins can play T? I just don’t like Spriggs and Bulaga is great when he plays, but his body is giving in to age and injuries. Spriggs has shown me nothing, but maybe I missed it.

I would say yes...there is a chance he could play tackle. And he should practice at tackle a bit imho. But I think we picked him for the interior and he would only go out to tackle if absolutely needed. And if Spriggs is all we got, and if the new line coach can't coach him up better than Campen did; then Jenkins would probably be absolutely needed there.imo

 

[Dantés]

Is there a chance that Jenkins can play T? I just don’t like Spriggs and Bulaga is great when he plays, but his body is giving in to age and injuries. Spriggs has shown me nothing, but maybe I missed it.

From what I've seen, Jenkins should only be considered an emergency backup at tackle.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I think the fact that an OT was not drafted says an awful lot about what Packers staff and management feel about the current tackles on the roster.

The Packers are definitely fine with the starting tackles but the backup at both sides is a huge question mark entering the season. Gutekunst not selecting a tackle in the draft shouldn't result in the team feeling more comfortable about the quality depth at the position.

Rodgers MUST make changes in his game or we’ll see more of the same old problems we’ve seen for about 4 years. He is probably never going to see as good a pass blocking line as he had from 2010-2014.

The Packers starting offensive line has been pretty good in pass protection over the past few years as well. The team didn't have quality depth though.

I would like them to at least try Jenkins at center and Linsley at guard.

There's no reason to move Linsley to guard as he has been one of the best centers in the league.

 

[PikeBadger]

Are you sure you're not confusing 53 man game day inactives with the practice squad?

Game day inactives are paid like anybody else worthy of a job toward the bottom of the roster. If anything, the owners would have the beef in paying guys subject to the league minimums who are not available to play any given week.

Yes, you’re correct. I was thinking that the extra 7 would be practice squad. Temporary brain death. I’d fall in line with a 53 game day roster.

 

[Heyjoe4]

I think this will be an interesting discussion to have.

- signed Billy Turner to a 4 year deal.
- drafted Jenkins early
- Cole Madison to return after missing last year
- Bulaga decision looming
- Lane Taylor's current fit schematically?
- still have a lot invested in Spriggs (took 3 draft picks to get him by the way... )


Just wanted to get a gauge on where everyone stands in regards to the future of this position group. What is your take? And/or what do you think is the direction that Gute and company are going? What is your early (pre-training camp) prediction for our starting 5 for 2019?

With the recent additions, and anyone they can pick up off waivers, I’m ok with any OL group that does NOT include Spriggs. I know, we traded up in rd 2 to get him. Water under the bridge. Trade him or cut him. I don’t think he has any trade value, well maybe a 6th or 7th rounder, and I’d Gladly take that.

 

[Mondio]

With the recent additions, and anyone they can pick up off waivers, I’m ok with any OL group that does NOT include Spriggs. I know, we traded up in rd 2 to get him. Water under the bridge. Trade him or cut him. I don’t think he has any trade value, well maybe a 6th or 7th rounder, and I’d Gladly take that.

Springs is cheap and probably better to have than Murphy, Pankey, McCray and of Taylor doesn’t pull it together and his cost, add him to the list too.

For one I’m excited this year as a guy like McCray should be last man off the bench and not a starter or 1st guy off the bench. We may actually have enough potential on the line that he’s replaced completely or at the very least is relegated to the last guy off the bench where he probably should be

 

[Deleted member 6794]

With the recent additions, and anyone they can pick up off waivers, I’m ok with any OL group that does NOT include Spriggs. I know, we traded up in rd 2 to get him. Water under the bridge. Trade him or cut him. I don’t think he has any trade value, well maybe a 6th or 7th rounder, and I’d Gladly take that.

I definitely don't want Spriggs competing for a starting role but he might be able to give the Packers better quality depth than other offensive linemen currently on the roster.