The Way a Packers Forum Should Be
https://packers-huddle.com/phpBB/
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.NCF wrote: ↑07 Feb 2024 09:26The 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.
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 typicallyTheSkeptic wrote: ↑07 Feb 2024 04:56I 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.
They have SOME moves, but I would not say they have plenty, especially without jettisoning Bakhtiari. Here is probably what you saw:Madcity_matt wrote: ↑07 Feb 2024 10:32Even 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 typicallyTheSkeptic wrote: ↑07 Feb 2024 04:56I 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.
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.Pckfn23 wrote: ↑07 Feb 2024 10:37They have SOME moves, but I would not say they have plenty, especially without jettisoning Bakhtiari. Here is probably what you saw:Madcity_matt wrote: ↑07 Feb 2024 10:32Even 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 typicallyTheSkeptic wrote: ↑07 Feb 2024 04:56I 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.
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.NCF wrote: ↑07 Feb 2024 13:48Pretty 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.
No one is minimizing the importance of RBs--everyone here will tell you that Aaron Jones makes the offense work better.Papa John wrote: ↑07 Feb 2024 15:23Whenever 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.
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...lupedafiasco wrote: ↑07 Feb 2024 16:15I’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.
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.YoHoChecko wrote: ↑07 Feb 2024 15:45No one is minimizing the importance of RBs--everyone here will tell you that Aaron Jones makes the offense work better.Papa John wrote: ↑07 Feb 2024 15:23Whenever 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.
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.
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.lupedafiasco wrote: ↑07 Feb 2024 16:15I’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.
