Colledge and Spitz Have Trade Value
Daryn Colledge and/or Jason Spitz could be enticing to teams in need of offensive line help sometime during preseason...
By PackerAaron
Coming into training camp the assumption from fans and the media, aided by several press conference declarations from head coach Mike McCarthy, was that Daryn Collegde and Jason Spitz would be battling for the starting left guard position.
That battle never materialized.
For whatever reason, when the Packers lined up for their first 2010 training camp practice, Daryn Colledge was there in his old starting left guard spot - and there he stayed. Always with the starters. Spitz, on the other hand, began camp backing up Scott Wells at center and then proceeded to work all along the interior - but always with the second string.
At the time, Spitz said:
If that’s the hand you’re dealt, you play it. That’s the way it’s been for anyone coming in and trying to get a starting job. Obviously, there’s a lot of unknowns with me coming into training camp, and they just want to get a feel for me, moving around to different spots and see where I fit best.
Where he fits best would appear to be on the bench.
That's the conclusion any rational observer has to come to when looking at the move the team made this week when they thrust their first round pick Bryan Bulaga into the competition for the starting left guard spot - only against Colledge.
Jason Wilde had an interesting post about Spitz' reaction to this development over on his blog the other night:
No one knew what Packers coach Mike McCarthy and guard/center Jason Spitz talked about after practice Tuesday night, but if it was Spitz’s role on the Packers’ offensive line, it certainly would be understandable.After McCarthy finished his nightly post-practice press briefing, Spitz called over to the coach and asked to speak with him. The two men then walked into the Don Hutson Center together.
Wilde expanded on this storyline a bit later during one of his radio appearances when he informed listeners that, after witnessing the above, Wilde approached Spitz for an interview only to be denied permission by the player for the first time ever since joining the Packers back in 2006.
Now, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to work out that Spitz is less than thrilled with the way things have developed over the course of the first few weeks of training camp. And McCarthy's words when asked about where the Bulaga move leaves Spitz are interesting:
I think it leaves him where he’s always been. Jason is a very valued member of our offensive line. He has excellent flexibility. He has started in football games, a number of football games for us. He’s played multiple positions, and I don’t view him any differently. He’s someone that can battle for a starting position, but he’s also someone that can play three positions if needed as a backup.
Spitz...is a valuable commodity.
None of this means much, obviously. But there's little question in my mind that the Packers will try to move someone on the offensive line before the end of camp. I know teams have called about Spitz prior to this season. Perhaps they'd be scared away by the back injury from last year, though Spitz seems to be moving just fine. I also think there is little chance Bulaga doesn't end up the starting left guard, leaving Colledge on the bench. Having an offensive lineman who has three seasons worth of reps and starts under his belt, inconsistent though they may be, is another valuable commodity to have.
It will be interesting to see if another team comes knocking looking to pry away one or the other.
PLEASE SUBSCRIBE TO OUR CHEESEHEAD NATION WEEKLY NEWSLETTER HERE.
__________________________
Comments (28)
August 12, 2010 at 04:55 pm
We've come a long way from mid-way through last season huh? I think Spitz is the guy to move if we're going to. A power running team in the ilk of a Steelers or Cardinals would prob love to add a guy like Spitz to the middle of their O-Line. I think the depth in our interior is good enough to lose a guy like Colledge/Spitz and still be more than OK. You would still have Bulaga/Lang-Wells/EDS-Sitton/Lang plus either Spitz or Colledge. Should be an interesting storyline to follow. I'll be paying VERY close attention to the O-Line this Saturday.
August 12, 2010 at 04:57 pm
If they are going to start Bulaga at LG and get rid of one of these two, it should be Colledge. A benched Colledge would be a serious PITA in the locker room I suspect.
August 12, 2010 at 05:13 pm
I dont think Spitz is untradeable by any means. But if he really can back up 3 positions on the Oline and do it successfully , I dont see us getting equal value.
On a team that struggled to protect its best asset last year, what could be more valuable than a solid back up lineman who has starting potential?
I highly doubt we can get a starting safety or a probowl level outside linebacker from Spitz or Colledge. I dont know maybe we can, I just know that we are just now getting some good depth on a line that is crucial to our success. No need to go trading it away just yet.
August 12, 2010 at 05:35 pm
could not agree more.
areas of depth can become areas of need real quick.
unless you're gonna get a STUD olb or db - i'd stand pat.
August 12, 2010 at 05:34 pm
No doubt that to the Packers, Spitz is more valuable. But another team in need of a left guard couldn't be blamed for thinking we can get Colledge on the right track by putting him at guard and leaving him there. Basically "fix" him of what the Packers "broke" by moving him around so much.
PackerAaron
August 12, 2010 at 09:46 pm
Totally agree with this Al.
August 12, 2010 at 05:45 pm
Realistically, is TT going to get offered a player better then what we currently have at our perceived "need" positions? Is a GM really going to offer a 3-4 OLB better then Jones for D. Colledge? Maybe if they get desperate because of injuries.
In general, and this isn't directed at Aaron, I hear a lot of fans complain about lack of depth when the Packers have injuries (see CB spot last year) but as soon as the Packers get depth at a position (WR, TE, OL) fans want to trade it away.
August 12, 2010 at 06:42 pm
We don't need someone better than Mathews or Jones. We need someone better than Chillar/Obiozor/Havner.
August 12, 2010 at 07:09 pm
... I just want to say that this is the problem with Hawk. not even brought up in that comment.
To the point at hand, let's not discount draft picks for one of these two. I mean does anyone think that if TT could get a 2nd rounder back for Colledge and keep a guy who provides solid depth at 3 interior positions (after adding guys like Lang and Bulaga in the last two years) he might just wipe the slate and start over?
I have a feeling with two 2nd round picks in next years draft you could fill a couple of those big needs on defense.
August 12, 2010 at 06:50 pm
DaveK - It's more complex than that, really. Spitz and College have contracts that expire after this year. Neither has differentiated themselves as franchise guys. Packers are likely to only keep 10 OL on the roster with only 7 active on gameday.
TT really needs to consider cost-to-benefit of each player in the long-term, not just this year.
So yes, depth is great, but the Packers may feel they still have substantial depth even after they move one of the players, and potentially get value (player trade or draft pick).
August 12, 2010 at 06:36 pm
Isn't it fair to say the ongoing development and progression of EDS is the pivot point to the trade of Spitz?
I watched Raji walk him back a few times at the scrimmage, but I'm guessing Raji will be walking a lot of folks back this year. EDS battles, but has he progressed? Is he savvy from the neck up when it comes to line calls?
August 12, 2010 at 07:49 pm
While I tend to agree that it could be likely either Colledge or Spitz could be traded, our positions of need (OLB, S, maybe CB) likely can't be filled by such a trade. I think that more than likely it would be for a 2011 pick. And based upon the two in question's original pick, it would need to be either a 2 or a 3 in return. How does everyone feel about this potential?
August 12, 2010 at 07:56 pm
I don't 'feel' as though CB is going to be a need (not even for depth) provided the core group can stay healthy. They look good now and that's with Harris set to return early in the regular season.
In terms of value, assuming we don't go the route of a 2011 pick (nothing wrong with that) I doubt the Pack can get more than a 2nd. College didn't even get a sniff this year while tendered at a 2nd roudn pick. I'm guessing 3rd at best, likely 4th.
Packers will only get depth if it's player-for-player. A lot like Moll for Ravens Martin last year. They can get depth, but not an 'impact' guy. I only rationalize it this way because gaurd is so easy to replace on most squads, therefore College/Spitz won't garner as much value.
My 2cents.
August 12, 2010 at 08:08 pm
I agree, and your response was what I expected to see. So why, then, would the Packers trade? With Colledge and Spitz we have excellent depth on the OL - which for the last few years was what was questioned. Also, the OL is a position which can have significant injury issues throughout an NFL season. I think we need to see what happens over the remaining four weeks of TC - I'm sure we'll have injuries, some season ending.
August 12, 2010 at 08:14 pm
I understand what you're saying, but the Pack will only keep 10 OL and 7 active on gameday. You have guys emerging like EDS, Giacomini and the drafting of Bulaga and Newhouse.
Don't get put out by a compensation pick beyond round 3. Collins, Finley, Sitton, etc. all came round 4 or beyond.
IF we enter the season with all healthy then it's ever so tempting to want compensation for either Spitz or Colledge knowing you may not sign them after 2011. Good GM's need to think at least 3 years ahead, not just 'in the moment.'
Again, not saying I have the answer, it's just complex...
August 12, 2010 at 08:24 pm
Collins was a mid-round 2. But, I do agree with what you are saying. Even getting a 4 for a player originally drafted as a 2 or 3, after 4 years, still is a plus. Thanks for the discussion.
August 12, 2010 at 08:27 pm
I knew Collins was a 2, at #51, my bad.
Cheers, ZeroTolerance!
August 12, 2010 at 08:35 pm
So who is a likely trading partner?
August 12, 2010 at 08:40 pm
That's the rub when any team starts to speculate about trading guards, it's an easier position to replace. In a situation like this the question doesn't answer itself until some poor team is nipped by the injury bug by week 3 of the pre-season. Circumstance meets opportunity......
August 12, 2010 at 08:45 pm
But some teams may view Colledge as a left Tackle.
August 12, 2010 at 08:52 pm
I would be honestly shocked if any team viewed him as such considering his struggles at LT. Did well in college, but has been pumbled in the pros at LT. He was likely considered best LG in the NFC North prior to Hutchinson, but I've never heard of a franchise consider him a legit LT in the pros.
August 12, 2010 at 08:55 pm
But Meredeth played tackle in Buffalo? Released by the Packers last year. Some teams can be desperate.
August 12, 2010 at 09:00 pm
Buffalo is (honestly) probably the most talent deficient roster in the NFL. Honestly, I don't dispute your sentiment, but the franchise isn't one I would hold up as a standard. Also (for arguements sake) Meridith is 6'5" and >310 lbs. I doubt Colledge is >300 lbs. by midpoint of the season.
Seriously, Meridith couldn't beat out Breno Giacomini or Allen Barbre. That's how bad the Bills depth chart is.
August 12, 2010 at 09:06 pm
CSS - I guess that what I'm getting at is that the position some teams may find themselfs in may place the Packers in a position to take advantage?
Great discussion - and good evening!
August 13, 2010 at 12:18 pm
I guess my thought as far as who to trade would be, next year when Bulaga moves to left tackle(hopefully) who would be the best bet to be our LG? Whoever doesn't have the best shot should be traded. Unless there is someone else we have groomed to be the guy...
August 13, 2010 at 07:32 pm
Here's the thing--there isn't any real depth if they trade Colledge, and he's the most tradeable guy. If Colledge is traded and Bulaga goes down, you have to put Spitz at LG and suddenly you have absolutely nothing backing up the left side (assuming Newhouse and Barbre are cut, which seems somewhat likely). But more importantly, if Clifton goes down, you again have Spitz playing LG and nothing behind the left side.
Where it makes sense to trade a guy is at TE, where the Packers truly have too much depth and would benefit by trading for another body--like Donald Lee for a deep team's backup RB or OLB. Because you'd assume you would receive equal value, the team would actually get better by doing this deal, where you remove an abundance of depth for depth at a needed position.
August 14, 2010 at 06:59 am
Amazing how quickly everyone forgets the OL problems of last year and more,but now seem ready to trade away the only true depth guys we have.
If the packers do trade or cut OL I would hope that they are looking at the schedule somewhat and using it as a barometer as we play some tough defenses and injuries accrue in defense games to OLmen.
As for trading away depth for depth is great(different positions)and I again feel that D.LEE is the guy to get depth for us.Havner has to much up side long term to lose and may bring a better trade but to much to gamble away.Quarless brings nothing and at this time will get you the same,Crabtree has alot for the Pack in time but was un-drafted.So unless we really need a ton of depth elsewhere the only guy will be Finley and that is assinine to even think about,so Lee is the guy that we would hate to trade but the one guy would could bring any value in return for us.
August 15, 2010 at 03:13 pm
true