Re: General Packers News 2020
Posted: 16 Nov 2020 18:50
The Way a Packers Forum Should Be
https://packers-huddle.com/phpBB/
He ain't no number 2. He hasn't even caught a ball since week 3 when I looked at his stats.
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.lupedafiasco wrote: ↑16 Nov 2020 16:44It 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.lupedafiasco wrote: ↑16 Nov 2020 16:44It 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.
On paper - You can put all of "those" guys in "those" spots.
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.
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.Drj820 wrote: ↑16 Nov 2020 23:49The 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.
I just looked at MVS's 40 time at the combine and it was 4.37.
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.
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.
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.Drj820 wrote: ↑16 Nov 2020 23:49The 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.
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?Christo wrote: ↑17 Nov 2020 10:16Sorry, 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.Drj820 wrote: ↑16 Nov 2020 23:49The 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.
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.
OK, I understand what you're saying. But Pettine goes against that by playing guys that aren't performing.Labrev wrote: ↑17 Nov 2020 10:34Christo wrote: ↑17 Nov 2020 10:16Sorry, 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.Drj820 wrote: ↑16 Nov 2020 23:49The 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.
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.
I don't think you can say that with such certainty. MLF has talked about Montravious and commented on a few things
MVS is certainly the most frustrating player on the Packers. Personally I think Daniel Jones is the leader in the NFL in that category.