General Packers News 2020

[BF004]

[Pckfn23]

What?! No!!! Lazarus ain't fast. He ain't got the measurables!

[go pak go]

What?! No!!! Lazarus ain't fast. He ain't got the measurables!

He ain't no number 2. He hasn't even caught a ball since week 3 when I looked at his stats.

BTW, MLF said his deadline to be activiated is Wednesday and it sounds like they will do that barring any setback.

[Christo]

Shoot me now!

Scratch that, just fire Pettine.

I'm mentioned before, would the Packers move to a 4-3 defense next year under a new D-coordinator?
I personally would love to see it. Think they have the personal to make it work.

It would hurt us short term to switch to a 4-3. Preston Smith doesn’t really fit anywhere in that defense. Maybe strong-side backer but it’s still not a great fit. Then you have Kirksey and Kamal who both probably make the most sense in the middle. They don’t have a true weak side backer either. I guess as things stand Kirksey would be best there and Martin inside.

Gary just dropped a lot of weight he would have to put back on to play with his hand in the dirt. I do think that’s his best fit. I think Z is better suited for a 4-3 as well. Clark can play in any defense. The rest of the interior guys are pretty average in any defense.

I’ve always hated the 3-4. I’ve been saying for years it’s a gimmick defense that takes a lot of resources to make it exceptional. Now that teams force so much nickel I think it’s way too small in the front 6 where you have these athletic but smaller pass rushers compared to the heavier defensive ends in a 4-3.

My mistake, I didn't mean this year. Hopefully next with a new D-coordinator. Yeah, this year would be a total mess. Though they could use a 4 man line a little bit more this year.

[YoHoChecko]

It would hurt us short term to switch to a 4-3. Preston Smith doesn’t really fit anywhere in that defense. Maybe strong-side backer but it’s still not a great fit. Then you have Kirksey and Kamal who both probably make the most sense in the middle. They don’t have a true weak side backer either. I guess as things stand Kirksey would be best there and Martin inside.

Gary just dropped a lot of weight he would have to put back on to play with his hand in the dirt. I do think that’s his best fit. I think Z is better suited for a 4-3 as well. Clark can play in any defense. The rest of the interior guys are pretty average in any defense.

I’ve always hated the 3-4. I’ve been saying for years it’s a gimmick defense that takes a lot of resources to make it exceptional. Now that teams force so much nickel I think it’s way too small in the front 6 where you have these athletic but smaller pass rushers compared to the heavier defensive ends in a 4-3.

Gary did not drop weight.

[Pckfn23]

Preston Smith also fits the body type of a 4-3 DE, as does Zadarius Smith.

Clark would be a good undertackle. Lowry, Adams, and Keke would be fine at the 3 technique.

Martin as the Mike, Kirskey as the Sam. The only think really missing is a Will, but Barnes could do it.


I don't think we are far off from a 4-3 at all.

[BSA]

I don't think we are far off from a 4-3 at all.

On paper - You can put all of "those" guys in "those" spots.
But the 2020 Packers defense is further away from a being good 4-3 defense than they are from being a good 3-4 defense.
It makes very little sense at this point in the Packers trajectory.

[Pckfn23]

I don't think we are far off from a 4-3 at all.

On paper - You can put all of "those" guys in "those" spots.
But the 2020 Packers defense is further away from a being good 4-3 defense than they are from being a good 3-4 defense.
It makes very little sense at this point in the Packers trajectory.

Oh, I agree. You can't just switch midseason. It doesn't really matter though. We play 4 guys on the line more than we do 5.

[salmar80]

A pretty weird stat. What springs to mind is that both Lazard and MVS have been our end-around guys - meaning they've carried the ball with built-up speed more than, say, Adams, who often gets those WR screens where you don't get to top speed.

[Drj820]

The 3-4 is a fine defense, the 3 guys on the DL better be able to stuff the run though, and you need at least one above average ILB.

It doesn’t matter if we were to run the 4-3, or stick with what we run now...no “elite” defense has below average ILB play and plays a guy like dean lowry as many snaps as he gets.

The structure of the 3-4 is fine, we have the secondary to stay in base more and play good d out of it...Pettine just needs to trust his secondary more. We have put the resources into the secondary to where they should be relied on to do their job without being protected so much.

It’s not like it was impossible to give the team exactly what I believe it needs too. Patrick Queen was there for the taking and he could have been the upgrade the ILB position needs for years to come, and Jeffrey Simmons would have looked dang good next to Kenny Clark on the DL.

3-4 is fine, need to draft better to fill in the holes and need a DC that trusts the highly resourced areas of the defense more.

[Yoop]

The 3-4 is a fine defense, the 3 guys on the DL better be able to stuff the run though, and you need at least one above average ILB.

It doesn’t matter if we were to run the 4-3, or stick with what we run now...no “elite” defense has below average ILB play and plays a guy like dean lowry as many snaps as he gets.

The structure of the 3-4 is fine, we have the secondary to stay in base more and play good d out of it...Pettine just needs to trust his secondary more. We have put the resources into the secondary to where they should be relied on to do their job without being protected so much.

It’s not like it was impossible to give the team exactly what I believe it needs too. Patrick Queen was there for the taking and he could have been the upgrade the ILB position needs for years to come, and Jeffrey Simmons would have looked dang good next to Kenny Clark on the DL.

3-4 is fine, need to draft better to fill in the holes and need a DC that trusts the highly resourced areas of the defense more.

spot on people gloss over the talent short comings at DL and ILB and think back to how shurmers 43 (which was loaded with talent) would be better, both schemes need talent to succeed, heck we play a 40 front most of the time as it is, and most defenses now use some sort of hybrid front and 5 DB package over 60% of the snaps, so defining a scheme seems irelevent anyway.

look around the league this year and all defenses seem to struggle more, imo it's due to the lack of pre season work outs and training.

we had obvious needs on this defense last year that where not addressed, and out prior drafts didn't address them either, thats a huge fail for both Pettine and Gute.

[Pugger]

A pretty weird stat. What springs to mind is that both Lazard and MVS have been our end-around guys - meaning they've carried the ball with built-up speed more than, say, Adams, who often gets those WR screens where you don't get to top speed.

I just looked at MVS's 40 time at the combine and it was 4.37.

[NCF]

A pretty weird stat. What springs to mind is that both Lazard and MVS have been our end-around guys - meaning they've carried the ball with built-up speed more than, say, Adams, who often gets those WR screens where you don't get to top speed.

Yep. This list tells the story of who gets schemed wide open and contrarily who also cannot win one-on-ones, make contested catches, etc. Also, in Lazard's case, some big early production followed by injury, meaning not enough plays to regress to the mean.

[BSA]

Also, in Lazard's case, some big early production followed by injury, meaning not enough plays to regress to the mean.

Lazard ran faster than his legs could handle - both in Det game and the Saints game he had deep passes that would have been TDs but his body/mind outran his legs and he stumbled. That's Max velocity for the long-legged WR, its as if he was running from the police.

[NCF]

Interesting...

[Christo]

The 3-4 is a fine defense, the 3 guys on the DL better be able to stuff the run though, and you need at least one above average ILB.

It doesn’t matter if we were to run the 4-3, or stick with what we run now...no “elite” defense has below average ILB play and plays a guy like dean lowry as many snaps as he gets.

The structure of the 3-4 is fine, we have the secondary to stay in base more and play good d out of it...Pettine just needs to trust his secondary more. We have put the resources into the secondary to where they should be relied on to do their job without being protected so much.

It’s not like it was impossible to give the team exactly what I believe it needs too. Patrick Queen was there for the taking and he could have been the upgrade the ILB position needs for years to come, and Jeffrey Simmons would have looked dang good next to Kenny Clark on the DL.

3-4 is fine, need to draft better to fill in the holes and need a DC that trusts the highly resourced areas of the defense more.

Sorry, but it's becoming harder and harder to trust Savage. Stupid mistake after another. As far as taking Queen, isn't it clear the Packers don't value linebackers very high, They've passed year after year on some really good ones. I'm not all that sure they're wrong. My only beef with them is, they don't seem to value speed at that position. I guess Burks was supposed to fill that need, but he's just a LB version of Savage.
I think they have something in Martin, be nice if they played him more.
Which goes back to my gripe with Pettine. We see this every week. Player X has a really good outing, the next week, he gets less than a dozen snaps. Can anyone explain that?
Perfect example is Savage. he keeps letting receivers get behind him, yet Pettine keeps him out there. And I'm not going to listen to the same old story, he's the best they have. It isn't physical with him, it's all between his ears. Simply put, he's stupid.
I have a nagging feeling, he's the one who's going to cost them in the playoffs.

[Labrev]

The 3-4 is a fine defense, the 3 guys on the DL better be able to stuff the run though, and you need at least one above average ILB.

It doesn’t matter if we were to run the 4-3, or stick with what we run now...no “elite” defense has below average ILB play and plays a guy like dean lowry as many snaps as he gets.

The structure of the 3-4 is fine, we have the secondary to stay in base more and play good d out of it...Pettine just needs to trust his secondary more. We have put the resources into the secondary to where they should be relied on to do their job without being protected so much.

It’s not like it was impossible to give the team exactly what I believe it needs too. Patrick Queen was there for the taking and he could have been the upgrade the ILB position needs for years to come, and Jeffrey Simmons would have looked dang good next to Kenny Clark on the DL.

3-4 is fine, need to draft better to fill in the holes and need a DC that trusts the highly resourced areas of the defense more.

Sorry, but it's becoming harder and harder to trust Savage. Stupid mistake after another. As far as taking Queen, isn't it clear the Packers don't value linebackers very high, They've passed year after year on some really good ones. I'm not all that sure they're wrong. My only beef with them is, they don't seem to value speed at that position. I guess Burks was supposed to fill that need, but he's just a LB version of Savage.
I think they have something in Martin, be nice if they played him more.
Which goes back to my gripe with Pettine. We see this every week. Player X has a really good outing, the next week, he gets less than a dozen snaps. Can anyone explain that?
Perfect example is Savage. he keeps letting receivers get behind him, yet Pettine keeps him out there. And I'm not going to listen to the same old story, he's the best they have. It isn't physical with him, it's all between his ears. Simply put, he's stupid.
I have a nagging feeling, he's the one who's going to cost them in the playoffs.

I think it's not just Pettine (who at this point, I am more than okay with firing), but NFL coaches in general tend to only promote players to the starting lineup if they are clearly, unambiguously, head-and-shoulders better than the incumbent rather than just hand out starting positions to players by default of the incumbent not being very good. If a guy is stinking up the field but his backup can't establish himself as head-and-shoulders better than that guy, what does that say about the backup?

The idea of "let's at least see what we have with [X] by playing him" is for fans. Coaches know what they have with guys like that from practice. And to the fan refrain that "Some people are better in games than practice and vice-versa" ... coaches kinda have to trust that their players can execute, so I can't fault them for not wanting to take that chance.

I thought starting Lane Taylor over Jenkins last year was stupid because by the eyeball test and all camp reports, Jenkins had a great camp and was clearly better than Taylor, but other than that, I can't say I disagree with it.

[Christo]

The 3-4 is a fine defense, the 3 guys on the DL better be able to stuff the run though, and you need at least one above average ILB.

It doesn’t matter if we were to run the 4-3, or stick with what we run now...no “elite” defense has below average ILB play and plays a guy like dean lowry as many snaps as he gets.

The structure of the 3-4 is fine, we have the secondary to stay in base more and play good d out of it...Pettine just needs to trust his secondary more. We have put the resources into the secondary to where they should be relied on to do their job without being protected so much.

It’s not like it was impossible to give the team exactly what I believe it needs too. Patrick Queen was there for the taking and he could have been the upgrade the ILB position needs for years to come, and Jeffrey Simmons would have looked dang good next to Kenny Clark on the DL.

3-4 is fine, need to draft better to fill in the holes and need a DC that trusts the highly resourced areas of the defense more.

Sorry, but it's becoming harder and harder to trust Savage. Stupid mistake after another. As far as taking Queen, isn't it clear the Packers don't value linebackers very high, They've passed year after year on some really good ones. I'm not all that sure they're wrong. My only beef with them is, they don't seem to value speed at that position. I guess Burks was supposed to fill that need, but he's just a LB version of Savage.
I think they have something in Martin, be nice if they played him more.
Which goes back to my gripe with Pettine. We see this every week. Player X has a really good outing, the next week, he gets less than a dozen snaps. Can anyone explain that?
Perfect example is Savage. he keeps letting receivers get behind him, yet Pettine keeps him out there. And I'm not going to listen to the same old story, he's the best they have. It isn't physical with him, it's all between his ears. Simply put, he's stupid.
I have a nagging feeling, he's the one who's going to cost them in the playoffs.

I think it's not just Pettine (who at this point, I am more than okay with firing), but NFL coaches in general tend to only promote players to the starting lineup if they are clearly, unambiguously, head-and-shoulders better than the incumbent rather than just hand out starting positions to players by default of the incumbent not being very good. If a guy is stinking up the field but his backup can't establish himself as head-and-shoulders better than that guy, what does that say about the backup?

The idea of "let's at least see what we have with [X] by playing him" is for fans. Coaches know what they have with guys like that from practice. And to the fan refrain that "Some people are better in games than practice and vice-versa" ... coaches kinda have to trust that their players can execute, so I can't fault them for not wanting to take that chance.

I thought starting Lane Taylor over Jenkins last year was stupid because by the eyeball test and all camp reports, Jenkins had a great camp and was clearly better than Taylor, but other than that, I can't say I disagree with it.

OK, I understand what you're saying. But Pettine goes against that by playing guys that aren't performing.
Example one is Montravious Adams. One week he plays a solid game, next week he sits on the sideline and watches Pettine's guys get run over.
So you can't say that Lowrey or Lancaster are playing head and shoulders above him. No doubt he's the better option over those two.
He even provides a little pass rush over those guys.
And at this point, I'm not all that sure Will Redmond isn't a better choice over Savage. I'm assuming he plays only because he was a first round pick.

[BSA]

No doubt he's the better option over those two.

I don't think you can say that with such certainty. MLF has talked about Montravious and commented on a few things
1) lack of consistency. He doesn't bring it every down
2) unsure about his assignments
3) does his job in beating his guy, but doesn't find the ball
4) He struggles handling double teams

DCs and OCs game plan specifically for each opponent and there may be attributes where Lowry or Lancaster are a better match up vs some OL while Adams is a better match-up in others.

[Christo]

Interesting...

MVS is certainly the most frustrating player on the Packers. Personally I think Daniel Jones is the leader in the NFL in that category.
And he's shown up more the past few weeks, and it's about time.
And I find it odd that he only has 22 catches, seem like more. So he's on pace for less than 40?
In todays NFL, a number 3 wide out should be able to snag at least 50 a season.
Maybe I'm just spoiled because of guys like Cobb and J Jones being so much more productive in the # 3 roll.