Packers chat with Pete Dougherty

Packers chat with Pete Dougherty

Submit your questions for Pete's chat at 1 p.m. Tuesday in advance of the Bears-Packers game Thursday night.

  • Hmmmm, interesting question. I have to say no, because they already have a good LT in Bakhtiari, and signing Brown would take more than $10M, a year, so that's two guys on the OL you're paying in that range, and one of them has to move to RT. I don't see Thompson paying two tackles that kind of elilte money. And I doubt either Bakhtiari or Brown would be real keen on moving to RT. So, no, that's not going to happen. But it is thinking big. Now, if there were a pass rusher of that caliber available, different story.
  • Has there ever been a game in your recollection where a team , due to injury during the game, lined up 1 TE in the OT position, and a 2nd TE on the same side in order to finish a game pass blocking ? I remember last year Letroy Guion lining up as an OG to finish a game..
  • I was thinking about that, and I'm almost positive I watched an NFL game in the last five years where a team finished a game with a TE at LT, but I don't ever remember that happening with the Packers in my 25 years covering the team. That's always a possibility though, because most teams suit up only seven O-linemen on game day, so all it would take is both starting tackles getting hurt and you could end up with a TE at tackle (or a DL at guard).
  • Who is waived to make room for OT to be signed off the street or another teams' practice squad ?? Hope that that person clears waivers so we can get them on our practice squad
  • Pete, As the season wears on its understandable for bodies to grow tired. With smaller bodies from the DBs playing Nitro, doesn't it make sense that the mainstayers of that (Burnett etc) simply won't be as effective taking all that pounding week in and week out. There's a reason RBs have short life spans, and in the Nitro I think you've gotta be careful letting your top players play LB. Thoughts?
  • Definitely could be an issue, but what's the alternative? You have to play the defense that gives you the best chance to win, and that means having LBs who can match up with backs and TEs in the passing game. Maybe you can rotate Burnett out occasionally, but I don't know that they have the depth to do that, plus you have to dilute practice snaps to have everybody prepared. So yeah, it's tough on those guys playing up there, but that makes it incumbent on the Packers to have depth at the nitro LB.
  • I can't imagine they would trust Rodgers playing behind a line that had 2 undrafted tackles that are at best 3rd string. Do they either strictly play 2 TE lineup, or always have RBs in to block, or throw simply put in Brett Hundley?
  • There's no way they're playing Hundley, they need to win this game, and the best chance for that is playing Rodgers. The two tight end alignment could get more of a look, and keeping the RBs in as you suggest. Or maybe they instead use the RBs on short swing passes to get the ball out fast. Agree you have to make sure you don't get your quarterback killed while playing these deep backups at tackle, but Rodgers has to play.
  • Pete - in light of the Ulrick John signing, can you give any insight into which positions are the easiest and/or most difficult for a player joining a new system?
  • I'd think defensive line and cornerback would be the easiest, maybe running back after that. OL would be difficult, so much nuance and teamwork at those positions. Receiver not the easiest either, you have to develop timing with the quarterback, that takes at least a little time.
  • Pete. For years MM has talked about having a running game. When is it going to happen? AR may be dead by the time we see it.
  • Yeah, it's not going to happen until they get a top running back. And that might be never. This is a passing league, though you need to run it some for several reasons.
  • Pete, Ted has drafted poorly the last several years and contributing to that is drafting basketball players to play CB (Collins, Goodsen) and another S to play CB. If he would have drafted guys with more experience, perhaps we wouldn't be third or fourth best in the NFC. He's done it again this year with the late round RB's and he's drafted late for ILB's in the past when there was clearly a strong need at that position. Did TT finally realize the error of his ways this year or is he feeling the window slowly closing on this team with an aging HOF QB?
  • I'll say this: I don't have that big an argument with taking Randall as a CB or Goodson and Rollins as basketball players. In and of itself, nothing wrong with that. When teams do that and it works, they're praised for having great scouting eyes, or for being open minded. Think, for instance, of the basketball players who make it as TEs, or all the guys who played one position but were drafted at another. Now, those picks you mentioned might all end up being more miss than hit, or even flat-out busts, but GMs have to trust their scouting eye and ability to project. I'd just criticize them for missing on the picks. With Rollins, for instance, maybe his 4.57-second speed should have been taken more into account.
  • Pete, people always use the combine for speed indicators, but very simply someone could've had an off day at the combine, or they can become faster by training. Do you ever see guys who had a slower than ideal combine but became faster as the years went on? I thought HaHa could've been one of those guys.
  • I've found that those combine speeds are pretty accurate, and a good way to compare the speed of players within the same draft and from different draft classes. They get a couple cracks at it, and if they're fast, they're going to run fast. You're right that 40 speed isn't everything -- play speed, instincts, all-around athletic ability, etc., all those things matter. So the 40 can tell you only so much. But for just a measure of pure speed, the combine 40 is pretty good, and for the most part if a guy runs well, he'll run a good 40 at the combine.
  • Pete. If you could choose any player in the NFL that you could add to the Packer roster, who would it be and why?
  • If I were the Packers and could get any player from another roster, I'd take Von Miller. He's the best pass rusher in the game. He'd improve their defense drastically.
  • How has McCray played at tackle the past two games? Obviously, the line has struggled but has he shown anything suggesting he can be the swing tackle the rest of the way?
  • He was kind OK, I guess. It's a struggle for him, noticed it more against Atlanta than last week. You wouldn't want him to be the swing tackle the rest of the season.
  • Pete, We hear we are saving our cap money to give Rodgers a massive five year or so contract. However if he gets sacked six times a game, he will not last five years. It is too late this year but do you see us going after another starting offensive line in free agency? I don't see anyone who is not a starter improving much, and there is almost always one or two starters hurt. Paying for some depth is not a bad idea.
  • They probably will need a starting guard to replace Evans next year. They could do that with a relative bargain-type free agent signing like they did with Evans this year, or with a draft pick. Or do both and let the best man win. I don't see them spending big money there, though. Agreed also, they need depth. They need a lot of things, they do every year, so yeah, I could see signing a veteran OL in the $2 million range as a backup also.
  • Pete,

    I'm going to put you on the spot: what do the Packers have in Montravius Adams?

    I know there's not much to go on, but what current player(s) might he most resemble as he gets more snaps??
  • I'll just tell you this. Last week I was talking with a scout from another team and said that while I understood why the Packers drafted defensive backs with their first two picks, I found it a little hard to believe there wasn't an OLB worth taking in round 3. The scout defended the Packers' decision, said he Adams is a good prospect as an inside rusher. I asked him if he was, say, Mike Daniels good, and he wasn't sure. But he liked Adams and thought he was good value at the end of the third round. So that was one expert's take.
  • Hey Pete! I think its safe to say that many of the issues we have as Packers fans stems from a lack of success in the post-season. I think the moves made on Sunday from the defensive side (Josh Jones playing and Kevin King on the top WR) projects to the post-season, since they have most potential. I'm in line with the consensus that its time to get these rookie RB's some playing time to see what we have. More importantly, what do you think about the Packers simply having Davis get snaps, since he has the most speed on the team? I know that means less snaps for Jordy or Adams, but come January, we've seen what speed can do on either side of the ball and its clear the offense is missing the big-play threat right now. Thanks.
  • OK, have to end it here, lots of other work to get to with the short week. I'm wondering the same thing also. There is a speed issue at WR, for sure. Davis and Janis are the fastest receivers and aren't playing. Davis has such a slight build and isn't a big target, but it seems like the QB trusts him more than Janis. I'm inclined to agree with you. Either that or go big, and play Allison a lot even when Cobb gets back, so you'd have Allison, Nelson and Bennett (and Kendricks too) playing together, at least provide some big targets over the middle. And that does it for today, thanks for all the great questions, my apologies for not getting to them all, way too many for that. But if you didn't get answered, try again next week, we'll be back on our normal day, Thursday. Take care everybody, we'll talk again soon.
Powered by ScribbleLive Content Marketing Software Platform