Jeff Hafley Packers new DC

[Yoop]

Hadn't heard of Anthony Campanile




Sold.

He cusses, lots, he a professional cusser, quotes Big Vince, and shouts F bombs

[NCF]

Didn't the Chargers defense, pass defense in particular, suck under the Staley regime?

The 49ers offense sucked when MM was OC. The Titans offense sucked when LaFleur was OC. At least on that side of the ball, it doesn't seem to correlate to success. I personally don't think it does on defense, either. Too many variables. I would like all of our coaches to have come from successful gigs, but many times, if they had recent success, they would not be available.

[YoHoChecko]

Didn't the Chargers defense, pass defense in particular, suck under the Staley regime?

The 49ers offense sucked when MM was OC. The Titans offense sucked when LaFleur was OC. At least on that side of the ball, it doesn't seem to correlate to success. I personally don't think it does on defense, either. Too many variables. I would like all of our coaches to have come from successful gigs, but many times, if they had recent success, they would not be available.

Yeah, there are also different roles beyond position-specific things when assembling a staff. A confident but curious/innovative coach will want to balance out his weaknesses. If Hafley is coming in with Doward, who he has previously worked with, excelling in press man-heavy teaching and single-high safety schemes... and they know they're transitioning a team that was incredibly heavy in quarters and zone shell schemes, they might want to bring someone into the room whose strengths lie in that scheme and who can balance out the approach and smooth the transition for the players.

So is a good teacher and communicator of secondary play? That's an evaluation that has to be made at a more granular level than the public has access to. And it is the most important question, bar none; no denying that.

But once that assessment has been made, you might be intentionally bringing in someone who has strengths in systems and techniques that you, the leader, are personally a bit less experienced in so that you can grow as a defensive mind, and also so that you can ensure good communication with the players who might have different scheme familiarity.

[Labrev]

It is hard to know how much of the bad play on D is on Ansley or with Staley, who called the shots on D. It looks like the interim HC they promoted was also from the defensive side and presumably also had play-calling duties over Ansley, so even the midseason coaching change does not help us much in evaluating Ansley on his own accord.

Not an inspiring hire, but as NCF said, coach hiring is a bit of a crapshoot. We are not hiring him to be DC, just to coordinate pass defense. And since DBs are Hafley's specialty, I am inclined to defer to his judgment on a pass defense hire. He probably won't be that consequential given how much Hafley will probably be involved with the secondary anyway.

[Madcity_matt]

I understand 4 down linemen. The Packers have the players for that, 3 capable DT's as a rotation and 3 capable DE's as a rotation. Personally I think 4 down linemen fits the Packers roster much better than a 3-4 fits their roster.

However they only have 1 starting LB in Quay Walker and a maybe in McDuffie. Possibly they could move Kingsley Enagbare to ILB and ask him to lose 15 pounds, except he tore his ACL at the end of the season. Possibly they can do the same with Brenton Cox but he seems to be a strong guy with limited athletic ability, don't know anything about the others.

The Packers are going to have to find 2 more ILB's if they want to run a 4-3-4. I think it is much more likely that their base will be 4-2-5. They are also going to have to find another CB (maybe Stokes but that is a long shot) and 2 starting quality safeties. Having another draft like last year where they found Van Ness, Musgrave, Reed, Kraft, Wicks, Valentine and Brooks ( 7 starters ) is unlikely. If it were me I would be shopping a OLB for an ILB knowing that if you want someone good you have to give up someone good ( but not Gary or Van Ness ). Or shopping a DT for a safety (but not Clark or Brooks).

Signing a UFA depends on Bakh's contract, if the Packers can't fix that cap problem then they can't do much in free agency.

Gute has his work cut out to give Hafley what he needs.

Even if they can't get rid of Bakh's contract there are plenty of moves the Packers can make to free up plenty of additional cap with restructures. The biggest question will be how much they want to push out. I saw a figure with max voids and cutting Bakh putting the Packers at 60-75 M range. Obviously they wouldn't push them all, and hopefully they can resolve Bakh but there is enough there to sign a few vets, especially at safety where the good ones can be had in the 6-11 M range typically

[Pckfn23]

I understand 4 down linemen. The Packers have the players for that, 3 capable DT's as a rotation and 3 capable DE's as a rotation. Personally I think 4 down linemen fits the Packers roster much better than a 3-4 fits their roster.

However they only have 1 starting LB in Quay Walker and a maybe in McDuffie. Possibly they could move Kingsley Enagbare to ILB and ask him to lose 15 pounds, except he tore his ACL at the end of the season. Possibly they can do the same with Brenton Cox but he seems to be a strong guy with limited athletic ability, don't know anything about the others.

The Packers are going to have to find 2 more ILB's if they want to run a 4-3-4. I think it is much more likely that their base will be 4-2-5. They are also going to have to find another CB (maybe Stokes but that is a long shot) and 2 starting quality safeties. Having another draft like last year where they found Van Ness, Musgrave, Reed, Kraft, Wicks, Valentine and Brooks ( 7 starters ) is unlikely. If it were me I would be shopping a OLB for an ILB knowing that if you want someone good you have to give up someone good ( but not Gary or Van Ness ). Or shopping a DT for a safety (but not Clark or Brooks).

Signing a UFA depends on Bakh's contract, if the Packers can't fix that cap problem then they can't do much in free agency.

Gute has his work cut out to give Hafley what he needs.

Even if they can't get rid of Bakh's contract there are plenty of moves the Packers can make to free up plenty of additional cap with restructures. The biggest question will be how much they want to push out. I saw a figure with max voids and cutting Bakh putting the Packers at 60-75 M range. Obviously they wouldn't push them all, and hopefully they can resolve Bakh but there is enough there to sign a few vets, especially at safety where the good ones can be had in the 6-11 M range typically

They have SOME moves, but I would not say they have plenty, especially without jettisoning Bakhtiari. Here is probably what you saw:

[Madcity_matt]

Yep, that or one like it. It's not great, but it's workable

[Acrobat]

I understand 4 down linemen. The Packers have the players for that, 3 capable DT's as a rotation and 3 capable DE's as a rotation. Personally I think 4 down linemen fits the Packers roster much better than a 3-4 fits their roster.

However they only have 1 starting LB in Quay Walker and a maybe in McDuffie. Possibly they could move Kingsley Enagbare to ILB and ask him to lose 15 pounds, except he tore his ACL at the end of the season. Possibly they can do the same with Brenton Cox but he seems to be a strong guy with limited athletic ability, don't know anything about the others.

The Packers are going to have to find 2 more ILB's if they want to run a 4-3-4. I think it is much more likely that their base will be 4-2-5. They are also going to have to find another CB (maybe Stokes but that is a long shot) and 2 starting quality safeties. Having another draft like last year where they found Van Ness, Musgrave, Reed, Kraft, Wicks, Valentine and Brooks ( 7 starters ) is unlikely. If it were me I would be shopping a OLB for an ILB knowing that if you want someone good you have to give up someone good ( but not Gary or Van Ness ). Or shopping a DT for a safety (but not Clark or Brooks).

Signing a UFA depends on Bakh's contract, if the Packers can't fix that cap problem then they can't do much in free agency.

Gute has his work cut out to give Hafley what he needs.

Even if they can't get rid of Bakh's contract there are plenty of moves the Packers can make to free up plenty of additional cap with restructures. The biggest question will be how much they want to push out. I saw a figure with max voids and cutting Bakh putting the Packers at 60-75 M range. Obviously they wouldn't push them all, and hopefully they can resolve Bakh but there is enough there to sign a few vets, especially at safety where the good ones can be had in the 6-11 M range typically

They have SOME moves, but I would not say they have plenty, especially without jettisoning Bakhtiari. Here is probably what you saw:

I'm all about restructuring but I hate to push too much money out because we're going to need to resign a lot of players from the last 2 drafts who will cost a lot more.

[YoHoChecko]

I don't feel as though our needs merit a big mortgaging of the future in terms of maxing out void restructures and such. We're not even out of the previous cap hole. Our needs are, like, CB/nickel, OL depth, LB, RB depth, and safety. Aside from the CB depth/nickelback need, these are literally the lowest-paid positions aside from specialists and TEs in the league, on average. We're super young and likely to see a lot of improvement from within from the players on our roster.

Sign steady starters at LB and S, draft each of these needs with CB/nickel going early, profit.

Go cheap/diamond-in-the-rough hunting this year. No need to stretch the cap as far as you can just to say you did.

[lupedafiasco]

I agree with Yoho. We need to be ruthless this year and move on from anything not in our long term plans. Had Enagbare not gotten hurt Id say that even includes Preston. Clear as much dead cap this year so we dont have to next year and roll over a good portion of what we have left over this year.

This is a big draft class. You can go young and cheap again and fill in the gaps. Expect growing pains like last season, especially defensively because we are going through a scheme shift.

Next off season we should have very little dead cap and a lot of money to work with but that only happens if we are ruthless this year.

[NCF]

Pretty shocked at the masses predicted the Packers to take a big swing at RB. Odds are Jones will be back on a re-worked deal, but that will still be a large investment. I just don't see the logic in doubling-down with another big contract at that position. Draft with some numbers or sign a minimum salary vet. I am wholly against signing Barkley or Swift or Jacobs or any other big name RB.

[Yoop]

Pretty shocked at the masses predicted the Packers to take a big swing at RB. Odds are Jones will be back on a re-worked deal, but that will still be a large investment. I just don't see the logic in doubling-down with another big contract at that position. Draft with some numbers or sign a minimum salary vet. I am wholly against signing Barkley or Swift or Jacobs or any other big name RB.

obviously our interest in Johnathon Taylor last season has something to do with it, a bird in hand is worth a thousand unknowns, and as has been reported this isn't a very good draft class, Jones goes down and this offense will look like mid 2023 season.

I was fine using the draft to fortify the RB situation, till I looked at available RB in this draft, one of the best in this class barely stands 5.8, another is coming off acl surgery, this class is less then spectacular to say the least

[Papa John]

Whenever someone minimizes the importance of the RB position, I always think of the season (2011 or 2012?) when we had to start Alex Green. I don't know if I've ever seen a starter with worse vision. Contrast that with Aaron Jones, who has an ability to gain positive yardage on plays where defenders are in the backfield early on. This team had a glaring problem at RB for 2-3 years until we found Eddie Lacy.

[YoHoChecko]

Whenever someone minimizes the importance of the RB position, I always think of the season (2011 or 2012?) when we had to start Alex Green. I don't know if I've ever seen a starter with worse vision. Contrast that with Aaron Jones, who has an ability to gain positive yardage on plays where defenders are in the backfield early on. This team had a glaring problem at RB for 2-3 years until we found Eddie Lacy.

No one is minimizing the importance of RBs--everyone here will tell you that Aaron Jones makes the offense work better.

But many people are questioning the wisdom and logic behind spending a lot of resources on a position that frequently produces competent players at low costs--such as finding Aaron Jones in the 5th round; or such as more recent players around the league like Isaiah Pacheco, Keaton Mitchell, or Kyren Williams.

People who want to keep Aaron Jones--who is a pricey RB and worth it to us--saying they don't want to invest much or at all in the rest of the RB depth chart, are rationally expressing their opinions that the position may be near the reasonable limit of appropriate resources to allocate.

[lupedafiasco]

I’ll say it. Jones isn’t worth what his cap hit is going to be next season for a player you need to load manage all season.

[Scott4Pack]

I’ll say it. Jones isn’t worth what his cap hit is going to be next season for a player you need to load manage all season.

OK. I'll say this. Even if a big check goes to Aaron Jones... Even if he needs to be limited on number of snaps to prevent fatigue...

Pay him and don't look back. If he makes a big difference in 10-12 games this coming season, it's worth it. He is a unique guy and his performance merits this.

Besides, like it or not, this league is looking at more "snap counts" for anybody not a QB than we've ever seen in the past. Take that into consideration.

[dsr]

Whenever someone minimizes the importance of the RB position, I always think of the season (2011 or 2012?) when we had to start Alex Green. I don't know if I've ever seen a starter with worse vision. Contrast that with Aaron Jones, who has an ability to gain positive yardage on plays where defenders are in the backfield early on. This team had a glaring problem at RB for 2-3 years until we found Eddie Lacy.

No one is minimizing the importance of RBs--everyone here will tell you that Aaron Jones makes the offense work better.

But many people are questioning the wisdom and logic behind spending a lot of resources on a position that frequently produces competent players at low costs--such as finding Aaron Jones in the 5th round; or such as more recent players around the league like Isaiah Pacheco, Keaton Mitchell, or Kyren Williams.

People who want to keep Aaron Jones--who is a pricey RB and worth it to us--saying they don't want to invest much or at all in the rest of the RB depth chart, are rationally expressing their opinions that the position may be near the reasonable limit of appropriate resources to allocate.

The difference between Aaron Jones and Patrick Robinson/AJ Dillon was huge. Yes, you can get a Jones in the 5th round, but you might get a Robinson or Dillon instead. Let's keep paying Jones what we have to unless and until we know we have found our player-just-as-good-in-the-fifth-round.

[mnkcarp]

I’ll say it. Jones isn’t worth what his cap hit is going to be next season for a player you need to load manage all season.

Say... did you happen to catch the last 5 games of the season? He does for this offense what nobody else on the roster can do, and it makes the whole thing work.

Maybe the term "load manage" wouldn't sound so ugly if snaps were going to a productive back as happens in Detroit and a few places. My own opinion is that we should invest high in the draft for the back we wanted Dillon to be. We can't bank on a draft pick to give our offense what Jones gives it, though, so I think we need to pay him until we have another answer.

[Labrev]

Jones is worth every penny, not only for what he gives us as a rusher and receiver, but the way that offenses have to honor the run when he's in, because he can make any touch become an explosive. He not only helps with the plays he makes, but with the way the PA game becomes that much more of a danger. Not to mention his uplifting, positive veteran presence on-field and, I would assume, in the locker room (unlike the STINKY presence of a certain other cart-riding veteran player).

He looks like he has another 1-2 elite or borderline-elite RB1 years left in the tank. Hell, I wouldn't mind giving him another contract to keep playing 3-4 years from now, though it would be for backup RB money and with him taking more of a Kevin Faulk role.

[YoHoChecko]

Honestly if this were fantasyland and these types of things existed and happened, I'd sign Jones to a "lifetime" deal and give him something like $30 Million guaranteed signing bonus if he plays on minimum salary for the next five years with incentive and play-time based bonuses.

Basically he'd cost $7-8M per year against the cap baseline and then have roster bonuses for when he's active and incentives for certain performance tiers that can keep him well-played when playing well and fairly compensated when more of a backup/injured and/or locker room presence; a steady mix of security/stability and pay-as-you g.o

But that's not how these things work and this thread was supposed to be about the new defense, so I won't go as far as to make such a recommendation.