Packers Huddle

Yoop wrote: ↑

29 Jun 2022 18:40

salmar80 wrote: ↑

29 Jun 2022 14:22

Yoop wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2022 10:46

one reminder though , it is better to avoid a blocker then to ever engage one, in my day the middle lber was called the sweeper, the will lber the cleaner, the MLB takes on the blocker ( typically they are the bigger player) the will lber makes the tackle, now obviously that isn't the case with every play and with so much mis direction even less, but on pure run downs it still happens, if you could go back to the early years of Hawk and Barnett, Hawk funneled the RB to Barnett a lot and took on the lead blocker.

obviously we are hoping to have to pretty hefty lbers with Campbell and Walker, but Walker has a very slim build for a guy that tops 240lbs, so Campbell will remain as the MLB in this duo.

again coverage for lbers has taken on a new meaning. imo.

What?

Wasn't your whole point that we can't have "sweeper" -type LBs anymore, because they are the exact types of big LBs who suck at coverage!?

Was it not your point that we need to have two coverage ILBs even on early downs, because coverage is so much more important these days? And if you only have one, there's a weakness to be exploited? That it's OK to sacrifice not being good vs the run, since running the ball doesn't win games anymore?

Or are you now saying there are "pure run downs" where we should field a big ILB or two who don't have to be good at coverage? If so, what's the difference between "pure run downs" and regular early downs? I understand the extreme cases, like opponent in lead trying to bleed clock in in 4th quarter, with zero threat of pass. But don't get how to otherwise differentiate "pure run downs" from "run downs with threat of play action passes".


Personally, I'd LOVE for teams to play two coverage LBs versus us on early downs. Because there's such a glaring weakness:

Fictional example: Lets say Chicago was in an ideal situation, and was able to field not only one, but two Roquan Smiths (6-1, 225 coverage LB), which I think is what your idea is all about.

Now, if we were to run AJ Dillon at them, then one of the 225 -pound Roquans is gonna have to try to play "sweeper". It would be ideal for Roquans to always avoid blocks, but since they can't magically teleport, they often WILL have to take on blocks. And as a sweeper, you can't avoid a block, since it's your entire job on the play to take it on. So one Roquan is gonna get blown up by an Elg, or get easily handled by even a Royce Newman.

The failure of that block makes the path to Dillon real hard for the "cleaner" -role Roquan Smith, who has to go around traffic (if he's not blocked too), will bleed yards, and is likely to take damage from the now full steam Dillon. I'd LOVE to see a game where an opponent would try that, because I get sadistic pleasure from light defenders getting bowled over.


Luckily for the Packers, it seems we have lucked into one of the super rare bigger ILBs who can cover in Campbell. I will agree Campbell could make it work with a Roquan. The real ideal is to have two Campbells, and drafting Quay was Gutey's attempt at that. IF that pick hits, we may go from utter suckage at ILB to having one helluva great ILB corps in such a short span. Hopefully that happens and your faulty theory fades into oblivion.

wow, you twist what I say, never said we don't need a guy with the bulk to take on a lead blocker, no ya don't want two Bush or or 220 lb lbers, never meant to imply that at all, but what choice do you have if you can't get the quality in a bigger player.

and my faulty ( not mine anyway) has been the tech used against the run by lbers since I can remember, one takes on the blocker so someone else can make the tackle, when you see the ilbs switching , the goal is to put the best on the strong side, he'll take on the lead blocker, if possible, shed, and make the tackle, if not, at least he took away the blocker so either the other ILB or a safety can make a stop

I don't get why anyone would argue with me about the increased need for coverage at the lber position, I never said it was the main task, but what I am saying is with out the coverage ability, we would be seeing what went on here till Martinez, years after years of watching crossing routes moving the chains against us.

and it is also a higher priority do to the increase of up tempo passing, more routes are in the second level, where lbers play, and they need quick reaction time and speed to defend them, obviously ya'd like to have the right personal for any offense look they through at ya, but with todays amount of deception you simply can't have a big, slow, guy on the field if you can avoid it in any way, we've gotten burned for years because of that.

IMO we brought in Walker to play the Will position, there main task is coverage, but with Campbell having good coverage ability they could be interchangeable once Walker settles in.

anyway a team has to adapt to the players available to it, if you can't get a Walker, then ya take the smaller guy, it's not as though ya have slot 22 to take a shot at a guy like Walker, there where a couple in this class with a higher rating.

when ya see the lbers switch sides the goal is to either put the MLB in position to take on the lead blocker, or the Will, one on one with the TE or RB, not always , but the intent is to get the best suited player in position to do what they do best, I agree, I hope we have two now that can do either task, I get dizzy watching those lbers switching so much

salmar80 wrote: ↑

29 Jun 2022 19:35

Yoop wrote: ↑

29 Jun 2022 18:40

salmar80 wrote: ↑

29 Jun 2022 14:22

What?

Wasn't your whole point that we can't have "sweeper" -type LBs anymore, because they are the exact types of big LBs who suck at coverage!?

Was it not your point that we need to have two coverage ILBs even on early downs, because coverage is so much more important these days? And if you only have one, there's a weakness to be exploited? That it's OK to sacrifice not being good vs the run, since running the ball doesn't win games anymore?

Or are you now saying there are "pure run downs" where we should field a big ILB or two who don't have to be good at coverage? If so, what's the difference between "pure run downs" and regular early downs? I understand the extreme cases, like opponent in lead trying to bleed clock in in 4th quarter, with zero threat of pass. But don't get how to otherwise differentiate "pure run downs" from "run downs with threat of play action passes".


Personally, I'd LOVE for teams to play two coverage LBs versus us on early downs. Because there's such a glaring weakness:

Fictional example: Lets say Chicago was in an ideal situation, and was able to field not only one, but two Roquan Smiths (6-1, 225 coverage LB), which I think is what your idea is all about.

Now, if we were to run AJ Dillon at them, then one of the 225 -pound Roquans is gonna have to try to play "sweeper". It would be ideal for Roquans to always avoid blocks, but since they can't magically teleport, they often WILL have to take on blocks. And as a sweeper, you can't avoid a block, since it's your entire job on the play to take it on. So one Roquan is gonna get blown up by an Elg, or get easily handled by even a Royce Newman.

The failure of that block makes the path to Dillon real hard for the "cleaner" -role Roquan Smith, who has to go around traffic (if he's not blocked too), will bleed yards, and is likely to take damage from the now full steam Dillon. I'd LOVE to see a game where an opponent would try that, because I get sadistic pleasure from light defenders getting bowled over.


Luckily for the Packers, it seems we have lucked into one of the super rare bigger ILBs who can cover in Campbell. I will agree Campbell could make it work with a Roquan. The real ideal is to have two Campbells, and drafting Quay was Gutey's attempt at that. IF that pick hits, we may go from utter suckage at ILB to having one helluva great ILB corps in such a short span. Hopefully that happens and your faulty theory fades into oblivion.

wow, you twist what I say, never said we don't need a guy with the bulk to take on a lead blocker, no ya don't want two Bush or or 220 lb lbers, never meant to imply that at all, but what choice do you have if you can't get the quality in a bigger player.

and my faulty ( not mine anyway) has been the tech used against the run by lbers since I can remember, one takes on the blocker so someone else can make the tackle, when you see the ilbs switching , the goal is to put the best on the strong side, he'll take on the lead blocker, if possible, shed, and make the tackle, if not, at least he took away the blocker so either the other ILB or a safety can make a stop

I don't get why anyone would argue with me about the increased need for coverage at the lber position, I never said it was the main task, but what I am saying is with out the coverage ability, we would be seeing what went on here till Martinez, years after years of watching crossing routes moving the chains against us.

and it is also a higher priority do to the increase of up tempo passing, more routes are in the second level, where lbers play, and they need quick reaction time and speed to defend them, obviously ya'd like to have the right personal for any offense look they through at ya, but with todays amount of deception you simply can't have a big, slow, guy on the field if you can avoid it in any way, we've gotten burned for years because of that.

IMO we brought in Walker to play the Will position, there main task is coverage, but with Campbell having good coverage ability they could be interchangeable once Walker settles in.

anyway a team has to adapt to the players available to it, if you can't get a Walker, then ya take the smaller guy, it's not as though ya have slot 22 to take a shot at a guy like Walker, there where a couple in this class with a higher rating.

when ya see the lbers switch sides the goal is to either put the MLB in position to take on the lead blocker, or the Will, one on one with the TE or RB, not always , but the intent is to get the best suited player in position to do what they do best, I agree, I hope we have two now that can do either task, I get dizzy watching those lbers switching so much

OK. This was my last attempt at making some sense of a theory of yours. It might've been legit. I gave it a fair chance. It was not. It was all &%$@.

Thanks for all the good times!