Packers 2021 Defense

[Scott4Pack]

I agree. S is not a hole, it is a +. WR is not a hole, it is a +. RB is not a hole, it is a +. And if the Packers find a way to keep Jones it is the best group of RB's in the league.

OT is a hole. CB #2 is a hole. Dline is a neutral.

M. Adams needs to go. He is a bust.

So we have 3 safety spots and 2 of them are filled.

We have 3 RB spots and 1 of them is filled but a virtually unproven rookie.

We have 5 to 6 Dline spots and have 2 of them who are likely locks in Clark and Keke.

We have 2 OT spots and 3 OT starters on the roster. Why is OT a clear hole but safety, RB, DL isn't?

I'm not disputing that OT isn't a hole. But I am saying there are virtually holes at every position of this roster that would justify draft capital except at the QB position, TE position, IOL and probably Edge position (at least high draft capital).

The one spot that HAS to get filled one way or the other is CB2.

That is basically what I was saying too. Agreed.

[NCF]

Filling a CB spot is so much easier when you have CB1 in place.

[go pak go]

Filling a CB spot is so much easier when you have CB1 in place.

This is absolutely the luxury that GB has.

Literally every position we have except RB...we have a TOP END Blue talent.

QB - League MVP
Tackle - All Pro LT
WR - All Pro WR
IOL - Up and coming blue in Jenkins
TE - TD Reception leader (and honestly has room to grow)

DL - Blue chip DT
Edge - Blue Chip Edge and up and comer Red
CB - All Pro CB (the AP got it wrong)
Safety - two Blue/Red chippers

The only positions our team where we don't have the spot filled by a proven blue chipper is honestly RB and ILB. And RB there is serious reason to be excited about.

So yes. Filling in the holes from that perspective should be a lot easier. We are looking for complimentary players at this point.

[Yoop]

Filling a CB spot is so much easier when you have CB1 in place.

OK, but the man still has to be as good as King which will require a high pick or a expensive FA, and say what we will concerning King ( he really sucked at times) he did have recovery speed, as poorly and slow as he is in the transition (hip turn) he often catches up by the time the ball arrives, problem is thats about all he's able to do is catch up and wave his arms as is what happened against Miller on the last play of the first half.

[NCF]

Filling a CB spot is so much easier when you have CB1 in place.

OK, but the man still has to be as good as King which will require a high pick or a expensive FA, and say what we will concerning King ( he really sucked at times) he did have recovery speed, as poorly and slow as he is in the transition (hip turn) he often catches up by the time the ball arrives, problem is thats about all he's able to do is catch up and wave his arms as is what happened against Miller on the last play of the first half.

I don't fully agree with anything you just said. I mean, yeah, I don't want to lower the bar, but I don't think that means we need a high draft pick or an expensive FA. I actually think a new scheme could possibly even make Josh Jackson salvageable, but even aside from that, if we are starting a mid-round pick, I think we can get competent play. Yeah, there will probably be a few lumps along the way as there would be for any rookie, but with a really good secondary surrounding him, I think we can live through the transition.

[Yoop]

Filling a CB spot is so much easier when you have CB1 in place.

OK, but the man still has to be as good as King which will require a high pick or a expensive FA, and say what we will concerning King ( he really sucked at times) he did have recovery speed, as poorly and slow as he is in the transition (hip turn) he often catches up by the time the ball arrives, problem is thats about all he's able to do is catch up and wave his arms as is what happened against Miller on the last play of the first half.

I don't fully agree with anything you just said. I mean, yeah, I don't want to lower the bar, but I don't think that means we need a high draft pick or an expensive FA. I actually think a new scheme could possibly even make Josh Jackson salvageable, but even aside from that, if we are starting a mid-round pick, I think we can get competent play. Yeah, there will probably be a few lumps along the way as there would be for any rookie, but with a really good secondary surrounding him, I think we can live through the transition.

I have not been at all impressed with Jackson, zipo, he gets beat in both zone and man coverage, in fact the only reaso he's still around is that he was a high pick, but still a cheap backup, and when was the last time you saw a 2nd round rookie hold down a job and do well on the edge? seriously now, I'am sure it happens but the odds are slim.

I don't understand your comments, if you have a weak player across from Alex then your going to have your safety play strong to that side of the field, and against teams which have 2 and 3 excellent receivers ( like who doesn't these days, us I guess) then your basically locked into some sort of 2 high safety coverage, imo if you want a rookie corner to start fast round 1 is where ya need to look.

[NCF]

OK, but the man still has to be as good as King which will require a high pick or a expensive FA, and say what we will concerning King ( he really sucked at times) he did have recovery speed, as poorly and slow as he is in the transition (hip turn) he often catches up by the time the ball arrives, problem is thats about all he's able to do is catch up and wave his arms as is what happened against Miller on the last play of the first half.

I don't fully agree with anything you just said. I mean, yeah, I don't want to lower the bar, but I don't think that means we need a high draft pick or an expensive FA. I actually think a new scheme could possibly even make Josh Jackson salvageable, but even aside from that, if we are starting a mid-round pick, I think we can get competent play. Yeah, there will probably be a few lumps along the way as there would be for any rookie, but with a really good secondary surrounding him, I think we can live through the transition.

I have not been at all impressed with Jackson, zipo, he gets beat in both zone and man coverage, in fact the only reaso he's still around is that he was a high pick, but still a cheap backup, and when was the last time you saw a 2nd round rookie hold down a job and do well on the edge? seriously now, I'am sure it happens but the odds are slim.

I don't understand your comments, if you have a weak player across from Alex then your going to have your safety play strong to that side of the field, and against teams which have 2 and 3 excellent receivers ( like who doesn't these days, us I guess) then your basically locked into some sort of 2 high safety coverage, imo if you want a rookie corner to start fast round 1 is where ya need to look.

I think that is an extreme oversimplification of what I said. Whoever they have out there, I would think they would not have to play any differently than they did with King. Let them play. As to your pedigree comment, look no further than Tampa Bay. Davis = late 2nd, Murphy-Bunting = 2nd, Dean = 3rd... you absolutely do not have to spend a 1st-round pick on a CB to get a talented guy.

[Cdragon]

OK, but the man still has to be as good as King which will require a high pick or a expensive FA, and say what we will concerning King ( he really sucked at times) he did have recovery speed, as poorly and slow as he is in the transition (hip turn) he often catches up by the time the ball arrives, problem is thats about all he's able to do is catch up and wave his arms as is what happened against Miller on the last play of the first half.

I don't fully agree with anything you just said. I mean, yeah, I don't want to lower the bar, but I don't think that means we need a high draft pick or an expensive FA. I actually think a new scheme could possibly even make Josh Jackson salvageable, but even aside from that, if we are starting a mid-round pick, I think we can get competent play. Yeah, there will probably be a few lumps along the way as there would be for any rookie, but with a really good secondary surrounding him, I think we can live through the transition.

I have not been at all impressed with Jackson, zipo, he gets beat in both zone and man coverage, in fact the only reaso he's still around is that he was a high pick, but still a cheap backup, and when was the last time you saw a 2nd round rookie hold down a job and do well on the edge? seriously now, I'am sure it happens but the odds are slim.

I don't understand your comments, if you have a weak player across from Alex then your going to have your safety play strong to that side of the field, and against teams which have 2 and 3 excellent receivers ( like who doesn't these days, us I guess) then your basically locked into some sort of 2 high safety coverage, imo if you want a rookie corner to start fast round 1 is where ya need to look.

Casey Hayward

[Yoop]

I said rare, now u's two are going to list the few that played well as rookies, and we played a ton of cover two this year simply because King could not be trusted to win his matchups, if that works for you just resign king.

[NCF]

I said rare, now u's two are going to list the few that played well as rookies, and we played a ton of cover two this year simply because King could not be trusted to win his matchups, if that works for you just resign king.

I would re-sign King if it wouldn't cost an arm and a leg. If we spent a 1st, I am fine with it, I just don't think we necessarily need to.

[Yoop]

I said rare, now u's two are going to list the few that played well as rookies, and we played a ton of cover two this year simply because King could not be trusted to win his matchups, if that works for you just resign king.

I would re-sign King if it wouldn't cost an arm and a leg. If we spent a 1st, I am fine with it, I just don't think we necessarily need to.

sure, we may have to, thing is a guy like King really limits what you can do on defense, he's a torch waiting on a match, you have to lean over the top support his way, so now if you have two very good receivers and a field stretching TE you have to play some sort of 2 high safety or that torch will get lit, the only thing in Kings favor is his recovery speed, and as we have seen plenty, to often that is not enough to over come his poor hip turn, whats Lupe call it" pan fried noodles

[TheSkeptic]

I agree. S is not a hole, it is a +. WR is not a hole, it is a +. RB is not a hole, it is a +. And if the Packers find a way to keep Jones it is the best group of RB's in the league.

OT is a hole. CB #2 is a hole. Dline is a neutral.

M. Adams needs to go. He is a bust.

So we have 3 safety spots and 2 of them are filled.

We have 3 RB spots and 1 of them is filled but a virtually unproven rookie.

We have 5 to 6 Dline spots and have 2 of them who are likely locks in Clark and Keke.

We have 2 OT spots and 3 OT starters on the roster. Why is OT a clear hole but safety, RB, DL isn't?

I'm not disputing that OT isn't a hole. But I am saying there are virtually holes at every position of this roster that would justify draft capital except at the QB position, TE position, IOL and probably Edge position (at least high draft capital).

The one spot that HAS to get filled one way or the other is CB2.

The Packers are going to resign either Jones or Williams. So 2 of the 3 RB's are filled. And they will get Deguara back as the H-back.

If the Packers go to a 4-3 officially, as opposed to what they are already often in unofficially, they have Z, Preston, Gary and Garvin as DE's, assuming that Gary does not become MLB in that scheme. Why do we need 5 or 6 defensive tackles when only 2 will play significant snaps? 4, max and we have those 4 in Clark, Keke, Lowry and Lancaster.

A 4-3 also means reorganizing the ILB's to 3 starters.

I was thinking that Bak was the only starting OT on the roster and he will be coming off an ACL. Yes, they could move Jenkins to RT but then they would need to resign Linsley. But, maybe you are right, maybe Veldheer, maybe he wants it bad enough now and he can play RT without help on every play. He is certainly better than Turner or Wagner and he was a legitimate starter at OT. Its not like he has has a lot of wear and tear the last couple of years either.

IMO we all agree that something needs to be done at CB. I do like Sullivan but they really need 4 CB's and after re-watching the loss I don't think King should be resigned.

[go pak go]

I agree. S is not a hole, it is a +. WR is not a hole, it is a +. RB is not a hole, it is a +. And if the Packers find a way to keep Jones it is the best group of RB's in the league.

OT is a hole. CB #2 is a hole. Dline is a neutral.

M. Adams needs to go. He is a bust.

So we have 3 safety spots and 2 of them are filled.

We have 3 RB spots and 1 of them is filled but a virtually unproven rookie.

We have 5 to 6 Dline spots and have 2 of them who are likely locks in Clark and Keke.

We have 2 OT spots and 3 OT starters on the roster. Why is OT a clear hole but safety, RB, DL isn't?

I'm not disputing that OT isn't a hole. But I am saying there are virtually holes at every position of this roster that would justify draft capital except at the QB position, TE position, IOL and probably Edge position (at least high draft capital).

The one spot that HAS to get filled one way or the other is CB2.

The Packers are going to resign either Jones or Williams. So 2 of the 3 RB's are filled. And they will get Deguara back as the H-back.

If the Packers go to a 4-3 officially, as opposed to what they are already often in unofficially, they have Z, Preston, Gary and Garvin as DE's, assuming that Gary does not become MLB in that scheme. Why do we need 5 or 6 defensive tackles when only 2 will play significant snaps? 4, max and we have those 4 in Clark, Keke, Lowry and Lancaster.

A 4-3 also means reorganizing the ILB's to 3 starters.

I was thinking that Bak was the only starting OT on the roster and he will be coming off an ACL. Yes, they could move Jenkins to RT but then they would need to resign Linsley. But, maybe you are right, maybe Veldheer, maybe he wants it bad enough now and he can play RT without help on every play. He is certainly better than Turner or Wagner and he was a legitimate starter at OT. Its not like he has has a lot of wear and tear the last couple of years either.

IMO we all agree that something needs to be done at CB. I do like Sullivan but they really need 4 CB's and after re-watching the loss I don't think King should be resigned.

I think there are a lot of assumptive liberties happening here.

1. I do not assume any player will be resigned and that's why pre-free agency period I will not include any Packer who is not under contrac tin 2021 in that spot any longer.

2. We don't have a DC yet. So projecting if we will go 4-3 or stay 3-4 is also irrelevant at this time. It will be interesting to see how our OLBs would convert to being 4-3 players.

3. There was certainly nothing glaring to me, outside of the Tampa games, that showed honestly Wagner or Turner struggling at RT. And I for certain would not assume Veldheer would be an upgrade over those two. In fact I would very strong presume Veldheer would be a step down. If he was that good, teams would have actually wanted him to play a full season.

I agree that OT, CB, DL, WR, RB are all spots we will need to either retain our own players, sign externally or draft come April.

And I think at this point that's about all we can honestly say.

[RingoCStarrQB]

Just realized that the 1961, 1962, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1996 and 2010 championship defenses all had great defensive lines. 2020 defense did not have a great defensive line. If we're going to win this thing the 2021 defense must have a great defensive line. Hope Gutey and Barry understand this.

[TheSkeptic]

Our challenge is we have 3 holes on offense: would like a WR, RB and OT.

We also have 3 or 4 holes on defense: S, CB, DL, ILB and maybe another CB.

So even though we have a solid roster, we still do have enough holes to fill with maybe 2 coming from the draft and 1 coming from FA.

We more than likely will be able to only address 3 of our 6 to 7 holes. So I guarantee we will be hearing the same complaining in 2021 of "we don't have X" all year long.

I don't see all of those as holes. S, RB, WR, and ILB are not holes in my opinion. There are either positions where depth is needed or you would like to see a starter upgrade, but that isn't critical.

Going to NEED a CB for sure. OT and DL are probably other big needs, but not as big.

I also see starter CB as critical. I would not mind drafting a second CB high, someone who could play the slot and be the primary outside backup.
Depending on how the draft breaks, OT is an almost critical need and should be either the 1st round or 2nd round pick.
Rookies can start at CB and OT.

Rounds 4-5
Backup safety/Dime DB.
Assuming that the Packers lose Jones and keep Williams, drafting a RB here makes sense

Rounds 6 and 7 - Dline and whoever should not have dropped that far.

As for FA, if the Packers cannot afford Linsley or to tag Jones, they cannot afford any FA worth bothering with.

Under no circumstances before the 4th round : QB, WR, TE (unless they lose Tonyan), Safety, interior OL, ILB. The Packers cannot afford any more benchwarmers in the early rounds.

Except for OT and maybe RB, all the picks should be on D.

[Yoop]

Our challenge is we have 3 holes on offense: would like a WR, RB and OT.

We also have 3 or 4 holes on defense: S, CB, DL, ILB and maybe another CB.

So even though we have a solid roster, we still do have enough holes to fill with maybe 2 coming from the draft and 1 coming from FA.

We more than likely will be able to only address 3 of our 6 to 7 holes. So I guarantee we will be hearing the same complaining in 2021 of "we don't have X" all year long.

I don't see all of those as holes. S, RB, WR, and ILB are not holes in my opinion. There are either positions where depth is needed or you would like to see a starter upgrade, but that isn't critical.

Going to NEED a CB for sure. OT and DL are probably other big needs, but not as big.

I also see starter CB as critical. I would not mind drafting a second CB high, someone who could play the slot and be the primary outside backup.
Depending on how the draft breaks, OT is an almost critical need and should be either the 1st round or 2nd round pick.
Rookies can start at CB and OT.

Rounds 4-5
Backup safety/Dime DB.
Assuming that the Packers lose Jones and keep Williams, drafting a RB here makes sense

Rounds 6 and 7 - Dline and whoever should not have dropped that far.

As for FA, if the Packers cannot afford Linsley or to tag Jones, they cannot afford any FA worth bothering with.

Under no circumstances before the 4th round : QB, WR, TE (unless they lose Tonyan), Safety, interior OL, ILB. The Packers cannot afford any more benchwarmers in the early rounds.

Except for OT and maybe RB, all the picks should be on D.

ahhhhhhhhhhhhh, the only time a rookie OT starts is when you don't have anyone better then the rookie T, yes it happens, but it sure isn't something ya want to happen, specially at LT.

I think people complicate team needs, I look for reasons we lose, and al though our offense seemed to have plenty of receivers and guys for Rodgers to throw to, it obviously was lacking, we lost because Rodgers got stuck holding the ball to often, sure if our receivers didn't drop a TD's a 2 pt conversion and several other passes we probably win, however we may have over come those short coming if Rodgers could have gotten rid of the ball quicker more often, we desperatly need that type player, sure we need a T, maybe even a center, but we also need that receiver, had we taken one last year we might have another Lombardi in the Trophy room.

[Pckfn23]

Mark Tauscher
Chad Clifton
David Bakhtiari

[YoHoChecko]

I think people complicate team needs, I look for reasons we lose, and al though our offense seemed to have plenty of receivers and guys for Rodgers to throw to, it obviously was lacking, we lost because Rodgers got stuck holding the ball to often, sure if our receivers didn't drop a TD's a 2 pt conversion and several other passes we probably win, however we may have over come those short coming if Rodgers could have gotten rid of the ball quicker more often, we desperatly need that type player, sure we need a T, maybe even a center, but we also need that receiver, had we taken one last year we might have another Lombardi in the Trophy room.

We also probably win that game if there was a CB playing better than Kevin King, who gave up the pre-halftime gut shot, several other completions (I think i read 6) and the game-ending PI.

When seasons get very close to going our way but don't, it is easy and accurate to point to any ONE area and say "if that was fixed, we win." It's true. But that doesn't help rank which is more important than the other. That's why taking the best players at ANY need position instead of taking the perceived BIGGEST need first makes sense. Strengthening the roster at any position could have put us over the top in 2020. And could in 2021.

On defense, which the thread is about, I want a DL and a CB or two. I genuinely don't get the safety thing. We have two high-end guys and a number of options behind them and can continue to pick up depth with low-level assets like 5th-7th round picks AND we just fired the DC who loved playing 3 safeties. I'd much rather stock the roster with extra CBs than Ss. Plus I love Vernon Scott's potential.

[Yoop]

I think people complicate team needs, I look for reasons we lose, and al though our offense seemed to have plenty of receivers and guys for Rodgers to throw to, it obviously was lacking, we lost because Rodgers got stuck holding the ball to often, sure if our receivers didn't drop a TD's a 2 pt conversion and several other passes we probably win, however we may have over come those short coming if Rodgers could have gotten rid of the ball quicker more often, we desperatly need that type player, sure we need a T, maybe even a center, but we also need that receiver, had we taken one last year we might have another Lombardi in the Trophy room.

We also probably win that game if there was a CB playing better than Kevin King, who gave up the pre-halftime gut shot, several other completions (I think i read 6) and the game-ending PI.

When seasons get very close to going our way but don't, it is easy and accurate to point to any ONE area and say "if that was fixed, we win." It's true. But that doesn't help rank which is more important than the other. That's why taking the best players at ANY need position instead of taking the perceived BIGGEST need first makes sense. Strengthening the roster at any position could have put us over the top in 2020. And could in 2021.

On defense, which the thread is about, I want a DL and a CB or two. I genuinely don't get the safety thing. We have two high-end guys and a number of options behind them and can continue to pick up depth with low-level assets like 5th-7th round picks AND we just fired the DC who loved playing 3 safeties. I'd much rather stock the roster with extra CBs than Ss. Plus I love Vernon Scott's potential.

sure defense allowed to many big plays, but I'am not so quick to blame KIng for the TD just before the half as I'am Pettine for using man coverage minus over the top support in that situation.

Yoho I am fed up with spending all our high picks on defense, year after year thats what we do cept for taking the QB last year.

I hate taking DT's at the end of the first, to many struggle and don't play up to that slotting, I havn't checked out this class to much, but Barmore sounds the best and he gets a late first our 2nd round grade, and needs a lot of coaching up, he's young.

I think most of our 3 safety scheme under Capers and then Pettine has to do with our lack of coverage ability at ILB, we've used Amos, Green, and others to play that will backer spot simply because not to would amount to giving up even more inside receptions, I don't know how you can change that minus better ILB coverage, Barnes got a 42 coverage grade and Martin about the same last season, so imo we are forced to continue that unless we see improvement, we often have 3 safety's and 3 CB's on the field at the same time, I agree we have enough safety's

we obviously are going to have to spend one of our top few picks on a CB, maybe even two since I doubt we bring King back, as Barry said, he wants to be able to move several players in and out to keep the QB guessing.

[YoHoChecko]

Yoho I am fed up with spending all our high picks on defense, year after year thats what we do cept for taking the QB last year.

Ya know what? Me too. Honestly, I am. It's just difficult to avoid when you have a top offense and a mediocre defense. Like, we probably need a CB in the first 2 rounds and we have a clear need at DT. And while I DEFINITELY want a C, a WR or two, and an OT--C goes late, generally, anyway and WR and OT are the literal two deepest positions in this draft.

Value-wise, it still, again, makes a ton of sense to wind up with 2 of our first 3 picks on D. But you're right. I am also tired of it.