Thurs Bears game: Stopping Howard will be Key

[Deleted member 6794]

When Bahktiari is healthy, the line improves 40%. IF he and Linsley stay healthy, it'll be OK. IF Bulaga also gets healthy, we could have a very good line again in 3 weeks. Today, I am an optimist. Don't ruin my dreams.

While that's definitely true the Packers have to keep Rodgers healthy somehow until Bakhtiari and Bulaga are able to play again.

 

[sschind]

They did do ok in there as backups. Murphy had a tougher time last game, but then he was also put on IR afterwards so something tells me there was a reason he looked worse last week than the week before that we don't know about. Regardless, they were ok as backups, but some people don't think our back ups were good enough anyway and this is a way they can bring it up again, to say "see, we needed more OLinemen" What they're not seeing is, even if we had our 2 starters and 3 other quality backups, NOBODY has #6,7, and8 on their roster as quality backup tackles. They are all development guys. Every single last one of them. There isn't a veteran in the league worth a **** that is sitting at a #4 tackle position let alone 6,7 or 8 deep. Nobody even keeps that many. Why can't people just accept the situation for what it is? It's not good, and any scenario you've made up in your mind in which you've prepared for this is insane at best.

If you are forced to sign a street free agent to replace a bunch of injured starters and a few depth guys he is simply not going to be as good. Hell, even if you did keep 7 or 8 tackles the 7 and 8 guys wouldn't be as good. This is exactly why the phrase "injuries are no excuse" is a bunch of BS. I don't like to use it and I certainly don't want to hear players and coaches using it but the fact is when your team is riddle with injuries there is no way they can be as good as they would be if they had all their starters. People blast TT for not having enough depth at certain positions but the fact is there are only so many players to choose from and these depth players are not as good (usually) as the starters. You are not going to get starter quality players at the bottom of the roster because there are 31 other teams that have rosters to fill as well.

Having guys like Barclay and Spriggs as your top backups may have been cause for alarm for some but you have to remember its not you making the decisions. The reason we had them is because TT obviously thought they were better than the other options available to him. If you want to fault him for being wrong that's fine but you can't really fault him for not addressing the situation.

 

[PackerDNA]

Nobody has 'enough' depth.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Bull... you did not see Bakh, Murphy, and Spriggs getting hurt and Bulaga getting reinjured.

Did I say I saw who was getting hurt? Go back and read the posts I and others made concerning the depth of the OL as the preseason unfolded. There was no depth to speak of, the backups pretty much stunk all of preseason. As far as injuries I will repeat myself, are you honestly expecting all 5 starters on the OL to make it through 16+ games.

Probably one of those guys who thinks he could get a quality tackle in a trade for Fackrell.

Or one of those guys who understands that I wouldn't trade Fackrell for anyone named Patrick, Pankey or McCray.

So if someone says something you disagree with, is that all you got?

 

[Dantés]

Did I say I saw who was getting hurt? Go back and read the posts I and others made concerning the depth of the OL as the preseason unfolded. There was no depth to speak of, the backups pretty much stunk all of preseason. As far as injuries I will repeat myself, are you honestly expecting all 5 starters on the OL to make it through 16+ games.

No man, of course not. But I didn't expect all four tackles to be hurt at the same time by week four. Who would expect that?

It's also easy to say "go find better/more tackles." But it's a lot harder to accomplish when there's a scarcity. Mediocre tackles get paid like studs. Heck, Khalil got a huge contract and he sucks. There's a shortage.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

If you are forced to sign a street free agent to replace a bunch of injured starters and a few depth guys he is simply not going to be as good. Hell, even if you did keep 7 or 8 tackles the 7 and 8 guys wouldn't be as good. This is exactly why the phrase "injuries are no excuse" is a bunch of BS. I don't like to use it and I certainly don't want to hear players and coaches using it but the fact is when your team is riddle with injuries there is no way they can be as good as they would be if they had all their starters. People blast TT for not having enough depth at certain positions but the fact is there are only so many players to choose from and these depth players are not as good (usually) as the starters. You are not going to get starter quality players at the bottom of the roster because there are 31 other teams that have rosters to fill as well.

Having guys like Barclay and Spriggs as your top backups may have been cause for alarm for some but you have to remember its not you making the decisions. The reason we had them is because TT obviously thought they were better than the other options available to him. If you want to fault him for being wrong that's fine but you can't really fault him for not addressing the situation.

I haven't seen a single poster suggesting it would be possible to replace Bakhtiari and Bulaga with equally talented players. There's no doubt in my mind the Packers could have definitely done better than Spriggs and Murphy being the primary backups on the edge though. In addition it's not using hindsight pointing that out as several members of the forum mentioned the need for improvement behind the starting tackles long before the end of training camp.

 

[Dantés]

I haven't seen a single poster suggesting it would be possible to replace Bakhtiari and Bulaga with equally talented players. There's no doubt in my mind the Packers could have definitely done better than Spriggs and Murphy being the primary backups on the edge though. In addition it's not using hindsight pointing that out as several members of the forum mentioned the need for improvement behind the starting tackles long before the end of training camp.

There's a disconnect going on here.

Yes, many people pointed out that the OL depth was suspect.

However, the problem the Packers are facing isn't that the depth is on the field and playing poorly. It's that everyone, including the backups, is hurt.

No one saw this coming. This is absurd. All four tackles unavailable due to injury? That's crazy.

But somehow people see that they're hurt and say "see, I told you they sucked." How does that make any sense?

I'm also still wondering where the heck the Packers were supposed to find good tackles during preseason.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

That's a disconnect going on here.

Yes, many people pointed out that the OL depth was suspect.

However, the problem the Packers are facing isn't that the depth is on the field and playing poorly. It's that everyone, including the backups, is hurt.

No one saw this coming. This is absurd. All four tackles unavailable due to injury? That's crazy.

But somehow people see that they're hurt and say "see, I told you they sucked." How does that make any sense?

I'm also still wondering where the heck the Packers were supposed to find good tackles during preseason.

I agree there was no way the Packers could have anticipated their top four tackles on the depth chart getting hurt within the first three weeks of the season.

On the other hand I'm absolutely convinced there are currently better players available on the street than entering tonight's game with McCray, Pankey and John being the only options.

 

[mradtke66]

Pretty sure Spriggs was hurt before the season started.

Incorrect. He pulled his hamstring blocking on the field goal team, week 1.

 

[Dantés]

I agree there was no way the Packers could have anticipated their top four tackles on the depth chart getting hurt within the first three weeks of the season.

On the other hand I'm absolutely convinced there are currently better players available on the street than entering tonight's game with McCray, Pankey and John being the only options.

I have no idea if that's true or not. I mean, they've gone outside of the organization with John so it would seem that they're willing to sign guys from the outside. So maybe they just don't see anything better out there? Or maybe they do, but not that they could get ready to start on a limited basis? I don't know.

But I'm baffled that people look at this injury situation and point a finger at Thompson like he ought to have seen it coming. That's the kind of stuff that makes some fans think there's just an anti-TT agenda that's going to rear its head regardless of what happens. There are certainly holes to be poked in the job he's done this offseason, but this ain't one of them.

 

[Dantés]

As far as the game goes, I can see it going either way. I think there's a real chance that Bakhtiari, Bulaga, Perry, and Daniels are all out again. That's a lot of top players to be without. And then you have the issue with the decimated OT depth. The Bears are playing well at the moment, however it's hard to say how the Packers will defend a running team.

Working in the Packers' favor is the home field advantage on a short week. The road teams tend to struggle more often in these TNF games. I also think it's a positive that edge rushing hasn't been the Bears' bread and butter to this point in the season (though that may change in a hurry against the Packers' tackles). Their three main edge players, Will Young, Leonard Floyd, and Pernell McPhee, have combined for 3 sacks so far this season. Akiem Hicks has been their best player in the front seven thus far, and it will be much easier for this depleted line to deal with an interior threat than an exterior one.

I think the Packers need to incorporate a lot of the screen game, and get some of these young backs into the mix to see if they can make anything pop in the running game. slow down the rush that way, and then see if you can make something work on the outside. Whatever they do will be tough and subject to a lot of busted plays just given what they're working with at tackle.

If they can scratch, claw, and win ugly, that would be huge. A loss doesn't sink them. But it's a huge bonus to pick up W's when the team is so banged up. Either way, the 10 day lay-off will be big.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I have no idea if that's true or not. I mean, they've gone outside of the organization with John so it would seem that they're willing to sign guys from the outside. So maybe they just don't see anything better out there? Or maybe they do, but not that they could get ready to start on a limited basis? I don't know.

I don't have time to assemble a list of veteran tackles currently available in free agency but in my opinion the Packers would have been better off signing a player that has started a decent amount of games in the league as a stopgap for most likely a single game assuring Rodgers doesn't get killed out there tonight.

 

[PackAttack12]

As far as the game goes, I can see it going either way. I think there's a real chance that Bakhtiari, Bulaga, Perry, and Daniels are all out again. That's a lot of top players to be without. And then you have the issue with the decimated OT depth. The Bears are playing well at the moment, however it's hard to say how the Packers will defend a running team.

Working in the Packers' favor is the home field advantage on a short week. The road teams tend to struggle more often in these TNF games. I also think it's a positive that edge rushing hasn't been the Bears' bread and butter to this point in the season (though that may change in a hurry against the Packers' tackles). Their three main edge players, Will Young, Leonard Floyd, and Pernell McPhee, have combined for 3 sacks so far this season. Akiem Hicks has been their best player in the front seven thus far, and it will be much easier for this depleted line to deal with an interior threat than an exterior one.

I think the Packers need to incorporate a lot of the screen game, and get some of these young backs into the mix to see if they can make anything pop in the running game. slow down the rush that way, and then see if you can make something work on the outside. Whatever they do will be tough and subject to a lot of busted plays just given what they're working with at tackle.

If they can scratch, claw, and win ugly, that would be huge. A loss doesn't sink them. But it's a huge bonus to pick up W's when the team is so banged up. Either way, the 10 day lay-off will be big.

I really want to see a lot of Jamaal Williams in this game.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I really want to see a lot of Jamaal Williams in this game.

Just curious but why? I mean, we haven't seen much of him so I'm not saying he's bad but Ty has been pretty good while trying to run behind a bad oline so I'm not sure why the desire to see a different guy.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

With both starting offensive tackles doubtful for the game tonight, i think the key to the game is actually going to be how the oline is able to block in the passing game and the run game. Luckily, the Bears defense lacks any serious pass rush threats (McPhee is their best but his best days are past) so their really shouldn't be any excuse for the offense to NOT score 25+ points in this game and force the Bears to abandon the run pretty early.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Just curious but why? I mean, we haven't seen much of him so I'm not saying he's bad but Ty has been pretty good while trying to run behind a bad oline so I'm not sure why the desire to see a different guy.

Montgomery didn't put up numbers to keep defenses honest against the Bengals though. In addition the Packers have to reduce Montgomery's workload.

 

[GBkrzygrl]

I am very doubtful that the offense will be able to put up a lot of points, not with the OL the way it is. We know that McCray will be starting but we don't know who the other tackle will be....at least I don't think that they have announced that yet.

They will have to design some roll-outs for Rodgers a give these guys help with protections. We can't have Aaron keep getting all the sacks. He broke his collarbone in a Bears' game.

I don't know how good their DL is. But they can't presume anything.

If they win, I think it will be close.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I don't have time to assemble a list of veteran tackles currently available in free agency but in my opinion the Packers would have been better off signing a player that has started a decent amount of games in the league as a stopgap for most likely a single game assuring Rodgers doesn't get killed out there tonight.

Agreed. I think we are on the same page Captain. Isn't this starting to feel a lot like the CB and RB debacle of last year? Only difference this time, AR's health and thus, probably the Packers season, could very well be on the line.

The Packers do not live in a bubble, there ARE, were and continue to be other better players available out there either via FA, practice squads or god forbid....the elusive trade that some think is impossible, because is doesn't happen. If a poster is satisfied with saying "it's just bad luck the Packers find themselves where they are on the OL and it is ALL due to injuries", nothing we say will change that mindset.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Agreed. I think we are on the same page Captain. Isn't this starting to feel a lot like the CB and RB debacle of last year? Only difference this time, AR's health and thus, probably the Packers season, could very well be on the line.

The Packers do not live in a bubble, there ARE, were and continue to be other better players available out there either via FA, practice squads or god forbid....the elusive trade that some think is impossible, because is doesn't happen. If a poster is satisfied with saying "it's just bad luck the Packers find themselves where they are on the OL and it is ALL due to injuries", nothing we say will change that mindset.

FWIW just let me throw out a name here. Michael Oher, who has started a total of 110 games in the league and even won a Super Bowl playing left tackle for the Ravens, definitely would be an upgrade over any of the options currently on the roster.

 

[PackAttack12]

Just curious but why? I mean, we haven't seen much of him so I'm not saying he's bad but Ty has been pretty good while trying to run behind a bad oline so I'm not sure why the desire to see a different guy.

Like captain alluded to, Montgomery's workload has been quite heavy in the 1st three games. I would prefer for Williams to get a lot of the carries tonight, particularly with it being on a short week. If the team thinks Montgomery is an essential piece moving forward, I think it makes a lot of sense to reduce his workload. And in a game where ideally the Packers would prefer to rely more upon the running game, I think it makes plenty of sense to at least split some of the backfield work between Montgomery and Williams.

Williams is obviously more of a pure RB than Montgomery, and this is a game where I feel as if he could play a nice role.

Not to mention, Montgomery's 3.0 yards per rush attempt is pedestrian at best. Additionally, Williams is considerably better in pass protection than Montgomery, which could prove valuable in a game in which the Packers will feature a makeshift offensive line.

 

[Mondio]

Agreed. I think we are on the same page Captain. Isn't this starting to feel a lot like the CB and RB debacle of last year? Only difference this time, AR's health and thus, probably the Packers season, could very well be on the line.

The Packers do not live in a bubble, there ARE, were and continue to be other better players available out there either via FA, practice squads or god forbid....the elusive trade that some think is impossible, because is doesn't happen. If a poster is satisfied with saying "it's just bad luck the Packers find themselves where they are on the OL and it is ALL due to injuries", nothing we say will change that mindset.

yes, let's trade, for who? Devlopment player? nice choice LOL Let's trade picks for development players. a bona fide tackle? and we already have investments in BahkT and Bulaga, so you're eating one of them, trading big picks and big money for a hopefully soon to be back up? Nice choice LOL

expecting to be 7 deep at tackle thru trades and FA LOL Teams don't have 2 tackles a lot of times, Ted should have 6 LOL you guys are too ****ing much. You're going to the pile too. It's one thing to talk football, it's another to live in fantasy land while trying to be halfway serious. Neither Bulaga nor BahkT are on IR. we're 2-1. We faced one of the best already with a back up and came out fine.

Just come out and say, until Ted has every best player in the league on the roster, it's never good enough. Because that's basically your position. Who you trading for? Development or a replacement for BahkT or Bulaga?

 

[PackAttack12]

Agreed. I think we are on the same page Captain. Isn't this starting to feel a lot like the CB and RB debacle of last year? Only difference this time, AR's health and thus, probably the Packers season, could very well be on the line.

The Packers do not live in a bubble, there ARE, were and continue to be other better players available out there either via FA, practice squads or god forbid....the elusive trade that some think is impossible, because is doesn't happen. If a poster is satisfied with saying "it's just bad luck the Packers find themselves where they are on the OL and it is ALL due to injuries", nothing we say will change that mindset.

Patriots get depleted at receiver, what do they do? They go out and get Dorsett.

There are avenues to improve certain aspects of your football team, as you allude to, besides hoping that your team stays healthy. An argument could be made that oh my goodness, this position group is so depleted. But when it goes from corner back, to running back, and now to offensive line, how much more evidence do you need to understand that this is a disturbing trend?

We're going into this game tonight with a bunch of sponges protecting AR.

 

[PackAttack12]

yes, let's trade, for who? Devlopment player? nice choice LOL Let's trade picks for development players. a bona fide tackle? and we already have investments in BahkT and Bulaga, so you're eating one of them, trading big picks and big money for a hopefully soon to be back up? Nice choice LOL

expecting to be 7 deep at tackle thru trades and FA LOL Teams don't have 2 tackles a lot of times, Ted should have 6 LOL you guys are too ******* much. You're going to the pile too. It's one thing to talk football, it's another to live in fantasy land while trying to be halfway serious. Neither Bulaga nor BahkT are on IR. we're 2-1. We faced one of the best already with a back up and came out fine.

Just come out and say, until Ted has every best player in the league on the roster, it's never good enough. Because that's basically your position. Who you trading for? Development or a replacement for BahkT or Bulaga?

It's hard to have a discussion with you when you engage in such flagrant hyperbole. smh.

 

[Mondio]

It's hard to have a discussion with you when you engage in such flagrant hyperbole. smh.

in a league where we can succeed with Jarret Boykin as a WR, you ask yourself why replacing a WR is so much different than going 6 tackles deep. Maybe you'll understand the reason for Hyperbole. It's an assinine assumption that Tackles are out there for the tacking. you watch the NFL, yes? So you know exactly what i'm talking about.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

yes, let's trade, for who? Devlopment player? nice choice LOL Let's trade picks for development players. a bona fide tackle? and we already have investments in BahkT and Bulaga, so you're eating one of them, trading big picks and big money for a hopefully soon to be back up? Nice choice LOL

expecting to be 7 deep at tackle thru trades and FA LOL Teams don't have 2 tackles a lot of times, Ted should have 6 LOL you guys are too ******* much. You're going to the pile too. It's one thing to talk football, it's another to live in fantasy land while trying to be halfway serious. Neither Bulaga nor BahkT are on IR. we're 2-1. We faced one of the best already with a back up and came out fine.

Just come out and say, until Ted has every best player in the league on the roster, it's never good enough. Because that's basically your position. Who you trading for? Development or a replacement for BahkT or Bulaga?

Would you feel more comfortable with Michael Oher being a stopgap for tonight's game starting at left tackle over McCray, Pankey or John??? I definitely would and that's the kind of a move a lot of posters are advocating for. There hasn't been any talk about the ridiculous scenarios you come up with when someone doesn't 100% agree with all of Thompson's moves.