Green Bay Packers News 2023

[BSA]

There are quite a few veteran QBs available in a back up role and a few more will get released after their teams draft a QB in April

Here's a league wide depth chart on QBs.

https://www.ourlads.com/nfldepthcharts/depthchartpos/QB

I noticed that the Tim Boyle Laser Show is now a free agent.
Are the Packers all done with the Boyle experience or is he a person of interest for the 2023 QB room ?

[Crazylegs Starks]

There are quite a few veteran QBs available in a back up role and a few more will get released after their teams draft a QB in April

Here's a league wide depth chart on QBs.

https://www.ourlads.com/nfldepthcharts/depthchartpos/QB

I noticed that the Tim Boyle Laser Show is now a free agent.
Are the Packers all done with the Boyle experience or is he a person of interest for the 2023 QB room ?

My gut feeling is they'd only bring back Boyle in an emergency. This team seems to like projects, for lack of a better term, with certain measurables as YoHo noted in the other thread. Which I find kind of surprising as Matt Flynn, an unremarkable athlete, has been their most successful backup to date.

[BSA]

This team seems to like projects, for lack of a better term, with certain measurables as YoHo noted in the other thread.

Yes they do. On the project side, they have Danny Etling who meets the measurables criteria and has 4 years bouncing around practice squads
They'll probably look at another guy with measurables for a late round UDFA to develop going forward

https://www.packers.com/team/players-ro ... ny-etling/

But it seems like there's a role for a vet back up, both to continue mentoring Love and to play in case Jordan breaks a chinstrap.

[Pckfn23]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FroGSqoXwAAe1Wo

[Scott4Pack]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FroGSqoXwAAe1Wo

Some good defenses play >70% zone.
:-)

[Madcity_matt]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FroGSqoXwAAe1Wo

Some good defenses play >70% zone.
:-)

Agreed, I don't think our issue last year was how much zone we played, it was how poorly we played zone when we played zone last year.

[YoHoChecko]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FroGSqoXwAAe1Wo

Some good defenses play >70% zone.
:-)

Agreed, I don't think our issue last year was how much zone we played, it was how poorly we played zone when we played zone last year.

Yeah, but the issue IS how much we played zone because we have expensive, awesome corners who are better at other things. The scheme of a soft zone that keeps everything in front of you (often) with two high safeties is designed for players who may have tremendous feel for the game but don't have the match-and-mirror athleticisim to stay with players in man. We have the reverse. So our scheme does not really fit our current personnel. We saw what happens to a team/weapon when Jaire just hassles a player at the line of scrimmage all game. We specifically drafted a guy who runs in the 4.2s (Stokes) who is proud of his ability not to let guys get behind him. We have a safety whose biggest asset is his speed and range and coverage but whose football IQ and awareness haven't been where they need to be. And we're asking them to think all game long. Some players are better suited to that. Ours are not.

[Madcity_matt]

Some good defenses play >70% zone.
:-)

Agreed, I don't think our issue last year was how much zone we played, it was how poorly we played zone when we played zone last year.

Yeah, but the issue IS how much we played zone because we have expensive, awesome corners who are better at other things. The scheme of a soft zone that keeps everything in front of you (often) with two high safeties is designed for players who may have tremendous feel for the game but don't have the match-and-mirror athleticisim to stay with players in man. We have the reverse. So our scheme does not really fit our current personnel. We saw what happens to a team/weapon when Jaire just hassles a player at the line of scrimmage all game. We specifically drafted a guy who runs in the 4.2s (Stokes) who is proud of his ability not to let guys get behind him. We have a safety whose biggest asset is his speed and range and coverage but whose football IQ and awareness haven't been where they need to be. And we're asking them to think all game long. Some players are better suited to that. Ours are not.

That's fair. I think most of us would agree that a healthy mix is best. Personally I would like to think players of the caliber we think we have (while having a preference) shouldn't be able to do both at least at an above average level.

[Yoop]

Some good defenses play >70% zone.
:-)

Agreed, I don't think our issue last year was how much zone we played, it was how poorly we played zone when we played zone last year.

Yeah, but the issue IS how much we played zone because we have expensive, awesome corners who are better at other things. The scheme of a soft zone that keeps everything in front of you (often) with two high safeties is designed for players who may have tremendous feel for the game but don't have the match-and-mirror athleticisim to stay with players in man. We have the reverse. So our scheme does not really fit our current personnel. We saw what happens to a team/weapon when Jaire just hassles a player at the line of scrimmage all game. We specifically drafted a guy who runs in the 4.2s (Stokes) who is proud of his ability not to let guys get behind him. We have a safety whose biggest asset is his speed and range and coverage but whose football IQ and awareness haven't been where they need to be. And we're asking them to think all game long. Some players are better suited to that. Ours are not.

the problems with Man are the weak positions, 1 weak link and the chain breaks, same with the defense, a QB will just keeping dialing up passes against that player forever, obviously as you said ya have to have talent at both corner and safety to play man.

zone has the draw back of locking a Alexander in a empty zone while a Jefferson eats up less talented players every where else, and obviously communications issues for less experienced players, the advantages imo are stopping the run and jumping pass routes because the DB is able to watch as the play unfolds, zone is better against PA or RPO.

Savage has played well at Star, hopefully Ford and Monroe do well filling the 2 safety positions

[Madcity_matt]

Agree with Yoop here too.

The strangest thing about our zone last year is, philosophically, the idea was to keep the play in front of the DB and give up the short stuff without giving up the big stuff. Unfortunately we gave up a ridiculous amount of big plays on broken coverages last year.

[go pak go]

Agree with Yoop here too.

The strangest thing about our zone last year is, philosophically, the idea was to keep the play in front of the DB and give up the short stuff without giving up the big stuff. Unfortunately we gave up a ridiculous amount of big plays on broken coverages last year.

And broken coverage comes as a result of players not knowing their assignments.

Man assignments are a lot harder to screw up

[Pckfn23]

Agree with Yoop here too.

The strangest thing about our zone last year is, philosophically, the idea was to keep the play in front of the DB and give up the short stuff without giving up the big stuff. Unfortunately we gave up a ridiculous amount of big plays on broken coverages last year.

And broken coverage comes as a result of players not knowing their assignments.

Man assignments are a lot harder to screw up

Plus teams are almost NEVER playing cover 0. Meaning everyone is in man coverage or rushing the passer. So, there is usually someone in a deep zone. It allows for a weak link to be masked somewhat.

In 2021 we were just really poor at missing up coverages or playing the appropriate coverage for the down and distance, especially early in the year. As an example, there were too many times it was 3rd and ? And we played the corners at ?+2 yards in a soft zone.

[BF004]

[BF004]

I can dig it.



Fix the basic &%$@ before we start getting too cute

[Drj820]

[lupedafiasco]

This team should have been taking STs seriously after 2014. Unfortunately we don’t learn.

[go pak go]

This team should have been taking STs seriously after 2014. Unfortunately we don’t learn.

BG's first draft was a lot of STs investment. It just didn't pan out.

You should remember this. You were pretty vocal on the waste of resources to draft a punter and long snapper.

I think our issue is more to do with coaching and culture than it is players.

[Labrev]

This team should have been taking STs seriously after 2014. Unfortunately we don’t learn.

BG's first draft was a lot of STs investment. It just didn't pan out.

You should remember this. You were pretty vocal on the waste of resources to draft a punter and long snapper.

I think our issue is more to do with coaching and culture than it is players.

JK Scott starts for LA-C and from the two games I saw, looked just fine.

Scott probably wasn't a bad player, it's just that everything our ST coaches touched during the pre-Bisaccia period turned to &%$@. Drayton was so bad that even our old reliable vet kicker Crosby's play suffered, because the FG operation was so &%$@ that it gave him the yips.

One can only wonder how it affected other players who had the talent but needed coaching.

[go pak go]

This team should have been taking STs seriously after 2014. Unfortunately we don’t learn.

BG's first draft was a lot of STs investment. It just didn't pan out.

You should remember this. You were pretty vocal on the waste of resources to draft a punter and long snapper.

I think our issue is more to do with coaching and culture than it is players.

JK Scott starts for LA-C and from the two games I saw, looked just fine.

Scott probably wasn't a bad player, it's just that everything our ST coaches touched during the pre-Bisaccia period turned to &%$@. Drayton was so bad that even our old reliable vet kicker Crosby's play suffered, because the FG operation was so &%$@ that it gave him the yips.

One can only wonder how it affected other players who had the talent but needed coaching.

Which is so frustrating because coaches have no cap. The idea to go cheap on the Menenga hire is absolute malpractice.

Now THAT was a legitimate reason to fire Murphy. I have no problem yelling at the front office, but people yell about the wrong things. The largest error the Packers front office made was not paying for STs coaching talent in the spring of 2019. And that I believe is most likely on Murphy.

[Yoop]

BG's first draft was a lot of STs investment. It just didn't pan out.

You should remember this. You were pretty vocal on the waste of resources to draft a punter and long snapper.

I think our issue is more to do with coaching and culture than it is players.

JK Scott starts for LA-C and from the two games I saw, looked just fine.

Scott probably wasn't a bad player, it's just that everything our ST coaches touched during the pre-Bisaccia period turned to &%$@. Drayton was so bad that even our old reliable vet kicker Crosby's play suffered, because the FG operation was so &%$@ that it gave him the yips.

One can only wonder how it affected other players who had the talent but needed coaching.

Which is so frustrating because coaches have no cap. The idea to go cheap on the Menenga hire is absolute malpractice.

Now THAT was a legitimate reason to fire Murphy. I have no problem yelling at the front office, but people yell about the wrong things. The largest error the Packers front office made was not paying for STs coaching talent in the spring of 2019. And that I believe is most likely on Murphy.

how many times have I brought this up, and was told that we pay plenty for our coaches, we had to make Bisaccia the highest paid ST's coach in the league to lure him here, and I'd bet it's the same with OL coaches and other assistants, I remember we lost a very good WR coach years back because we low balled his contract, he stayed one or two seasons and split, talent cost money with Coaches too