Packers Huddle

NCF wrote: ↑

04 Nov 2021 10:52

Two ways of looking at it.

The way @YoHoChecko is. They don't value ILB, they got lucky, and still don't care and won't place additional value on ILB.

The way @Drj820 is. They don't value ILB, they got lucky, but based on Campbell's impact will change their value in the future.

We'll see.

I don't think that's the accurate interpretation of my way of looking at it, though.

I think "they got lucky and they will continue trying to get lucky." (I see it similarly to the RB position, honetsly)

I think the volume-based approach of taking a lot of swings at athletically talented (Burks, Summers) or highly instinctive (Barnes, Kirksey) low-budget players will lead to a payoff, and Campbell is the payoff. And Gutey is in year 3 of running this team and has already taken ILB with a 3rd, a 5th, a 7th, an UDFA, and two veterans on cheap 1-team deals.

There seems to be a thought that we're looking at the Packers over a 15 year timespan as if we don't have a new GM and coach in place who are looking at things differently. You guys are looking at a ILB hole that has been apparent for a decade, but the new GM just started building his version of the roster 3 years ago.

From Gutey's perspective, it took him 3 years to fill the hole at ILB through a volume-based, low-budget approach; given that there were higher priorities to rebuilding the roster, and given that the team went 13-3 in the two previous years, I think filling the hole by year 3 isn't going to cause them to change their approach to filling it. It doesn't mean they won't change their valuation on the impact of it. It doesn't even mean they don't value it.

It means there are competing resources on a team and the approach Gutey has taken to ILB was "take a lot of shots and one is bound to pay off." That Campbell fulfilled the "bound to pay off" part of it doesn't, to me, seem like a reason to expect them to change what they're doing.

top 10 defenses have one thing in common, they all hav e very good ILB's, we are seeing offense prioritizing getting the ball past the LOS as quickly as possible now because defenses have prioritized stopping that from happening, hense the need for 3 dn lbers that are good at both coverage and tackling as Campbell has shown to be this year.

it's not good enough to throw mid round picks at the position, look at our lists of failures using that approach, to say Burks is good in space is to say he knows how to fly a kite, same with Summers, by the time either react to a play, the play is already over, so using a 1st or 2nd rounder to plug a area that offenses now exploit more then ever imo makes more sense now then it did a few years back

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

04 Nov 2021 11:01

I don't think that's the accurate interpretation of my way of looking at it, though.

I think "they got lucky and they will continue trying to get lucky." (I see it similarly to the RB position, honetsly)

I think I nailed it, actually. The continuing to try to get lucky is pretty much what I meant by not assigning additional value. I don't expect a big contract for Campbell and I don't expect we will see him replaced by a high draft pick.

NCF wrote: ↑

04 Nov 2021 11:25

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

04 Nov 2021 11:01

I don't think that's the accurate interpretation of my way of looking at it, though.

I think "they got lucky and they will continue trying to get lucky." (I see it similarly to the RB position, honetsly)

I think I nailed it, actually. The continuing to try to get lucky is pretty much what I meant by not assigning additional value. I don't expect a big contract for Campbell and I don't expect we will see him replaced by a high draft pick.

Yeah, that's fair. I guess my real disagreement was the assessment that the current Packers front office doesn't value the position very much. They aren't investing big capital in it, but they are investing a lot of little capital in it. It's tough for me to see a team add 4 rookies and 2 vets to a position group over three years, no matter the size of those investments, and say "they don't place value on the position."

I mean every discussion is the same when we talk about a position in the isolated frame - position X needs strong investment. All good Offenses/Defenses have a good X.

QB - need a good QB to have a good offense. Must invest.
RB - Might be the only exception and yet the Packers invested money and a 2nd rounder and the RBs are currently carrying the offense
WR - Need WRs to get open so they make the QB look good. Must invest
OT - Need good OTs to stop the edge rushers. Must invest
OG - Look at what Elgton Jenkins did to bring this position up. Guard is more important than we thought.
C - GB's great offenses have always had a great center. Must keep it going

DT - Every defense needs two good DTs to open space for the ILBs and stop the run game. Must invest
DE/Edge - We need a pass rush to get to pressure the QB. Must invest
ILB - Every top defense has a good one. Must invest
CB - Need to stop the pass. Must invest
S - Need to have that safety net in the back end. Must invest

And the thing is, we have literally invested in EVERY POSITION. That is how good this team is. But it also shows how hard it is to do and how rare it is to keep it consistently.

Right now our only real weak spots are 2nd DT, 2nd/3rd WR, and Center. Everything else is basically in their prime in the league and heavy resources invested into it.

But. Have said all of that, I would pay Campbell. I think we can get him for a decent contract and I think adding stability at the ILB spot is important.

I also am thinking this with the assumption that the 2022 Packers will look a lot different with a number of vets no longer on the team.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

04 Nov 2021 11:39

NCF wrote: ↑

04 Nov 2021 11:25

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

04 Nov 2021 11:01

I don't think that's the accurate interpretation of my way of looking at it, though.

I think "they got lucky and they will continue trying to get lucky." (I see it similarly to the RB position, honetsly)

I think I nailed it, actually. The continuing to try to get lucky is pretty much what I meant by not assigning additional value. I don't expect a big contract for Campbell and I don't expect we will see him replaced by a high draft pick.

Yeah, that's fair. I guess my real disagreement was the assessment that the current Packers front office doesn't value the position very much. They aren't investing big capital in it, but they are investing a lot of little capital in it. It's tough for me to see a team add 4 rookies and 2 vets to a position group over three years, no matter the size of those investments, and say "they don't place value on the position."

So you think throwing paint (the nice way to put it) on the wall and hoping some sticks is placing value on the position?

Drj820 wrote: ↑

04 Nov 2021 11:56

So you think throwing paint (the nice way to put it) on the wall and hoping some sticks is placing value on the position?

2 buckets of paint per year?

Yeah, I think it is.

"Mid-round volume and little-regarded vets" is exactly how we got our OL and most of our running game (exception, Dillon a 2nd rather than a 3rd or 4th)

We've only made 4 first round picks and 3 second round picks under Gutey. Obviously, not every position is gonna get a pick there.

We've signed a handful of free agents, but only have room for a couple big ones. Not every position can get a name signing.

Drafting guys in the 3rd, 5th, and 7th rounds, adding multiple UDFAs to compete for spots, and signing a veteran who has familiarity with your coaching staff in two consecutive years, to me, does not say "we don't care."

And remember that if an ILB HAD been acquired earlier in the draft, it just as easily could have been a disappointing Patrick Queen or Darron Lee as it could be a Darius Leonard or... huh, who else outside of the top 20 has hit the past couple years? I'm sure there are names, anyway, pick your examples.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

04 Nov 2021 11:39

NCF wrote: ↑

04 Nov 2021 11:25

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

04 Nov 2021 11:01

I don't think that's the accurate interpretation of my way of looking at it, though.

I think "they got lucky and they will continue trying to get lucky." (I see it similarly to the RB position, honetsly)

I think I nailed it, actually. The continuing to try to get lucky is pretty much what I meant by not assigning additional value. I don't expect a big contract for Campbell and I don't expect we will see him replaced by a high draft pick.

Yeah, that's fair. I guess my real disagreement was the assessment that the current Packers front office doesn't value the position very much. They aren't investing big capital in it, but they are investing a lot of little capital in it. It's tough for me to see a team add 4 rookies and 2 vets to a position group over three years, no matter the size of those investments, and say "they don't place value on the position."

Yeah, that's fair, too. In terms of percentage of financial resources, they do not value the position even though, in quantity of resources, they have shown a fair amount of interest in improving.

go pak go wrote: ↑

04 Nov 2021 11:48

But. Have said all of that, I would pay Campbell. I think we can get him for a decent contract and I think adding stability at the ILB spot is important.

I also am thinking this with the assumption that the 2022 Packers will look a lot different with a number of vets no longer on the team.

I think he is a prime candidate to get done now (or in December, which is fairly normal). If he makes it to the offseason, I think he is gone.

NCF wrote: ↑

04 Nov 2021 12:13

go pak go wrote: ↑

04 Nov 2021 11:48

But. Have said all of that, I would pay Campbell. I think we can get him for a decent contract and I think adding stability at the ILB spot is important.

I also am thinking this with the assumption that the 2022 Packers will look a lot different with a number of vets no longer on the team.

I think he is a prime candidate to get done now (or in December, which is fairly normal). If he makes it to the offseason, I think he is gone.

We've been known to do bye week deals. Focus will be on Adams by the media (which won't happen), but I could see Campbell happening. Or other players potentially.

We are now running a defense that is very ILB-friendly, so much so that it has even made Oren Bust look serviceable. Or compare how good Cory Littleton looked for LA versus now in Vegas where he has been mediocre.

I do think there is value in locking up a guy who fits your system like a glove and thrives. Sure, he may be a product of the system, but if he's producing then it's justified. Of course, as always, gotta balance that against all the other uses of that money, and there is reason to believe (more than previous years) that we can get comparable production without giving Campbell a big contract.

go pak go wrote: ↑

04 Nov 2021 11:43

I mean every discussion is the same when we talk about a position in the isolated frame - position X needs strong investment. All good Offenses/Defenses have a good X.

QB - need a good QB to have a good offense. Must invest.
RB - Might be the only exception and yet the Packers invested money and a 2nd rounder and the RBs are currently carrying the offense
WR - Need WRs to get open so they make the QB look good. Must invest
OT - Need good OTs to stop the edge rushers. Must invest
OG - Look at what Elgton Jenkins did to bring this position up. Guard is more important than we thought.
C - GB's great offenses have always had a great center. Must keep it going

DT - Every defense needs two good DTs to open space for the ILBs and stop the run game. Must invest
DE/Edge - We need a pass rush to get to pressure the QB. Must invest
ILB - Every top defense has a good one. Must invest
CB - Need to stop the pass. Must invest
S - Need to have that safety net in the back end. Must invest

And the thing is, we have literally invested in EVERY POSITION. That is how good this team is. But it also shows how hard it is to do and how rare it is to keep it consistently.

Right now our only real weak spots are 2nd DT, 2nd/3rd WR, and Center. Everything else is basically in their prime in the league and heavy resources invested into it.

Reminds me a bit of "you can't have enough _______" One can reasonably fill in that blank with just about any position.

NCF wrote: ↑

04 Nov 2021 12:12

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

04 Nov 2021 11:39

NCF wrote: ↑

04 Nov 2021 11:25

I think I nailed it, actually. The continuing to try to get lucky is pretty much what I meant by not assigning additional value. I don't expect a big contract for Campbell and I don't expect we will see him replaced by a high draft pick.

Yeah, that's fair. I guess my real disagreement was the assessment that the current Packers front office doesn't value the position very much. They aren't investing big capital in it, but they are investing a lot of little capital in it. It's tough for me to see a team add 4 rookies and 2 vets to a position group over three years, no matter the size of those investments, and say "they don't place value on the position."

Yeah, that's fair, too. In terms of percentage of financial resources, they do not value the position even though, in quantity of resources, they have shown a fair amount of interest in improving.

spending a couple mid round picks shows me there looking for hole fillers, we got lucky to find a 3 dn ILB, the reason the defense looks better is that we now have two ILBs that can play zone coverage, it allows the safety's to disguise there coverages, and jump into places the QB's don't expect them to be, such as Blacks pick last week.
the goal of a 3-4 scheme is to put more speed on the field, problem is if players don't know how to use that speed you might as well just load the secondary with Elephants, Rhino's or Wildibeast for all the good mis placed speed can produce

to think we'll get Campbell to resign for what we think is a bargain is a tough sell for me, D player of the month will cost easy 10 mil..

The last time a Packer player won an NFC Player of the Month Award was Clay Matthews in 2010.

If I were Campbell, I'd play out the season and see how high his price tag rocket can fly... You do one-year prove-it deals for a season exactly like this one.

If the Packers believe in him long term, they COULD make something happen. 1st year cap hit on a long term deal can be made low even if Campbell warrants a 10M+ average.

I feel like 3 years 27 is fair for Campbell. He’s on his 3rd team and turns 29 in the off season.

BF004 wrote: ↑

04 Nov 2021 08:52

Davante
MVS
Tonyan
Patrick
Kelly
Lancaster
Campbell
King
Sullivan

Starting out like 30 million over the cap

Gunna be a very different looking team next year.


Not sure what the Saints did, but they passed us up as worst cap scenario heading into next offseason at 52 million over.

Lets go up the list:
Sullivan will not be expensive and Jean Charles will compete with him for slot corner
King will be gone, Douglas is the 3rd outside corner
Yeah, Campbell is going to cost some money
Lancaster will be gone. Replaced by Heflin and Slayton
Kelly will either be gone or Turner will be gone. Yosh or Jenkins will be the starting RT. So that is 2 starters and a swing tackle.
Patrick will be gone. Lots of cheap young guards and Hanson will be the backup center
Tonyan will be a lot less expensive seeing as he is coming off an ACL

Mason Crosby is going to leave also, so there will be some cap savings there

MVS or Davante will be gone. Cobb will be gone too, replaced by Rodgers. There is no way the Packers keep Cobb at almost 10 mil cap.
Regarding WR's, there are 2 young receivers that look very promising. Makil Taylor is on the 53. He is roughly the same size as Davante but he ran a 4.46 and a 6.81 3-cone at 6'1"+ and 211 pounds. This kid has all the tools. Winfree is the same size but not as fast but he seems to make plays which might be more important than speed. At any rate, either MVS or Davante is going to be WR#1

Regarding Rodgers: https://packerswire.usatoday.com/2021/0 ... h-packers/
Basically if they keep him they have a salary cap hit of 46 million - that is impossible. If they trade him before June they have 26 mil in dead cap but 19 mil in cap savings. If they trade him after June 1, they have almost 27 mil in cap savings.

Campbell will get his payday and will stay as a Packer

paco wrote: ↑

04 Nov 2021 08:56

go pak go wrote: ↑

04 Nov 2021 08:47

paco wrote: ↑

04 Nov 2021 08:28

He's going to cost so much money to bring back. But I think it has to be a priority.

I'm curious about what his market will be.

We are his 3rd team. He has sucked everywhere and then has one really good season.

What does that honestly command?

Campbell far from sucked for the Cardinals or Atlanta. He was not this level, but also wasn't given the opportunity to do what he does here. Just a shot in the dark, but maybe $7M/year like Trevathan got? Maybe more. Hell, Blake Martinez got $10M+. Probably looking at around $20M in practical guarantees on a 3 year type of deal.

This is how I remember it as well. Obviously Deion Jones got all the attention in ATL, but I remember Campbell being pretty darn good. I remember thinking he was better than any LB we have had since Barnett, and we could have had him for a 3rd.

Now I think he is better than Barnett, for us at least.

Gosh. People seem to have a more fond memory of Nick Barnett than I do.