Packers Huddle

NCF wrote: ↑

03 Apr 2020 15:08

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

03 Apr 2020 14:21

Casey Toohill is the closest missing the bench by 5 reps.

Never heard of him, but let's pick him up.

Would be another Edge convert.

I still think as a 2 downer, and run plugger we should consider this option, and make him our mover lber, from edge to 3 tech to ILB, I'd be damn happy with the Gary pick then, just look at these combine stats, he's certainly better then average, and it's a way to keep him on the field.

https://www.nfl.com/prospects/rashan-ga ... 0e2dfb98cd

We haven't had good ilbs since Barnett..Bishop and Chillar. I am also tired of them not trying to get the good ones! Bush and White were close to our range last year. We probably never even tried to get either one!!

Freewheelingutey wrote: ↑

03 Apr 2020 16:57

We haven't had good ilbs since Barnett..Bishop and Chillar. I am also tired of them not trying to get the good ones! Bush and White were close to our range last year. We probably never even tried to get either one!!

"We probably never even tried to get either one" is an utterly baseless claim. You don't know, have zero evidence of it. It's just something you choose to believe outta your frustration.

But no GM worth their salt is ever gonna talk about what they tried to do in the draft. They'll never ever say "well, we didn't really want to draft X, and tried to trade for Y or Z". All that would do is destroy the morale of the player you did draft. We won't know for sure unless Gutey writes a tell-all book after retiring.

What we can do is look at the potential trade partners, assuming Gutey knew exactly White & Bush were gonna be drafted, and that the teams who picked White & Bush were not willing to trade:

Trade up to 4th to get White would've cost two first rounders, or 1st, 2nd and 3rd... That's a heavy price for a non-QB. Would Oakland have taken it? Sliver of a chance, but doubtful, since they really didn't need extra picks: They already had three 1st rounders, and seven picks in first 4 rounds.

Trading up to 9th for Bush would've been feasible from cost standpoint, but it's hiiighly unlikely Buffalo would've been willing to risk missing out on Ed Oliver, who was widely considered The steal of the draft. Above them, Detroit. Trading with a division rival this high is a GM killer. Not happening. Above them the price starts getting pretty steep, and there is Jacksonville, who took a great value pass rusher they really needed. Unlikely to want to trade. Then the Giants, who took their QB of choice and also had three 1st rounders.

It's entirely possible Gutey called all of them, and all he got was "thanks, bro, but we're good where we are". Looking at the above, I think it's way more likely than "never even tried".

Freewheelingutey wrote: ↑

03 Apr 2020 16:57

We haven't had good ilbs since Barnett..Bishop and Chillar. I am also tired of them not trying to get the good ones! Bush and White were close to our range last year. We probably never even tried to get either one!!

when we get down to nitty gritty, our 2 best ILB's the last 15 years has been Barnett, and Burnett, and we let Burny go because of a few mil, and we have tried to man up that position with a safety ever since, simply because it's so hard to get a lber with the needed coverage ability, we've tried with Burks and a few others, but invariably we go back to a safety, we used a 2nd on Josh Jones, a big athletic safety, who we simply gave up on because he lacked the mental capacity need to do it, same could be said for Burks, so thats two relatively high picks that have basically bombed.

now we hear Martinez complain that his job description was very broad, and that his larger zone of coverage left him more challenged, and harder to perform, or something to that affect, the point is why are we doing that? we play more nickle and dime then any other team, so where and who are all these 5 or 6 DB's covering that forces our MLB to cover tackle to tackle 10 yards deep? none of this stuff even makes sense, and if thats how Pettine is scheming this up it's no wonder teams can run on us, hybrid safety/lber isn't the problem, coaching is.

In 2018 if Gutekunst would have stayed at #14 he could have drafted Tremaine Edmunds. Edmunds was drafted #16 by the Bills and after a so-so rookie year played much better in 2019.

Instead he traded back, then traded up. For those of you who state that the team doesn't value ILB, this example I would think can help validate the claim.

HeavyD wrote: ↑

04 Apr 2020 07:40

In 2018 if Gutekunst would have stayed at #14 he could have drafted Tremaine Edmunds. Edmunds was drafted #16 by the Bills and after a so-so rookie year played much better in 2019.

Instead he traded back, then traded up. For those of you who state that the team doesn't value ILB, this example I would think can help validate the claim.

Good point, however I bet if ya asked every GM which position is more critical they'd all come back with CB over ILB, and KIng had been injured so CB was still high priority, Edmunds was my Choice then, but I understand the move back and taking Alexander, who has played up to slot value just as much as Edmunds.

How do you know they tried? They don't value ilb..remember? Gary was supposedly their guy all along. Which I still have no idea why. There were better players there.

Yoop wrote: ↑

04 Apr 2020 07:19

Freewheelingutey wrote: ↑

03 Apr 2020 16:57

We haven't had good ilbs since Barnett..Bishop and Chillar. I am also tired of them not trying to get the good ones! Bush and White were close to our range last year. We probably never even tried to get either one!!

when we get down to nitty gritty, our 2 best ILB's the last 15 years has been Barnett, and Burnett, and we let Burny go because of a few mil, and we have tried to man up that position with a safety ever since, simply because it's so hard to get a lber with the needed coverage ability, we've tried with Burks and a few others, but invariably we go back to a safety, we used a 2nd on Josh Jones, a big athletic safety, who we simply gave up on because he lacked the mental capacity need to do it, same could be said for Burks, so thats two relatively high picks that have basically bombed.

now we hear Martinez complain that his job description was very broad, and that his larger zone of coverage left him more challenged, and harder to perform, or something to that affect, the point is why are we doing that? we play more nickle and dime then any other team, so where and who are all these 5 or 6 DB's covering that forces our MLB to cover tackle to tackle 10 yards deep? none of this stuff even makes sense, and if thats how Pettine is scheming this up it's no wonder teams can run on us, hybrid safety/lber isn't the problem, coaching is.

I agree.. I can never understand why the other teams receivers and te's are always so open if we are using 6 dbs. I say draft a few dts..and lbs and go back to a 4-3! Tired of this 3-4..2-5 crap! If Pettine doesn't fix it..I have a feeling he will be gone.

Side note:

I still don't understand why people are so ignorant when it comes to the 3-4, 4-3 debate. There is no debate. They are both valid, proven defenses in the NFL. AND no team actually runs them a majority of their snaps.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

04 Apr 2020 20:26

Side note:

I still don't understand why people are so ignorant when it comes to the 3-4, 4-3 debate. There is no debate. They are both valid, proven defenses in the NFL. AND no team actually runs them a majority of their snaps.

Easy miracle cures are alluring.

Tired of switching personnel to match up with what your opponent does? Switch to 4-3™ now, and your LBs magically gain ability to cover TEs, even WRs!!! When you get 4-3™, you get one Tampa-2 pass defense for free! Is your garage chock-full of sub-packages? No more! 4-3™ works on running and passing plays, goal line, and even versus 5WR. (Disclaimer: Results may vary. 4-3™ is not liable for damages or losses) Many famous coaches have used 4-3™ versus screens and sweeps. But that's not all! When you call your pass rushers DEs instead of OLBs, they automatically stop the run better, too! Only available in 4-3™! 4-3™, the innovative choice of Champions since 1956.

If the Packers were to switch to a 4-3 then we would likely see Clark and Lowery as DT's and Z and Preston as DE's. I have no problem with that. But who can play LB? The Packers would need 3 LB's and most likely they have none that are more then JAGs. Plus, MLB become a critical position demanding a big LB with speed and an attitude and size and smarts - who on the team fits that description???

TheSkeptic wrote: ↑

05 Apr 2020 08:16

If the Packers were to switch to a 4-3 then we would likely see Clark and Lowery as DT's and Z and Preston as DE's. I have no problem with that. But who can play LB? The Packers would need 3 LB's and most likely they have none that are more then JAGs. Plus, MLB become a critical position demanding a big LB with speed and an attitude and size and smarts - who on the team fits that description???

Yeah, we hardly even have the (off-the-ball) LB talent to run our 3-4, much less 4-3, and this draft is not ideal for teams with that need.

Personally, I have always been partial to the hybrid 4-3 scheme, where one of the DEs is a "Joker" that can handle LB duties just as well as getting after the QB. I thought that that was what we may have been getting with Pettine, but what he has been running seems little different than what Capers used to run.

That said, I do think 3-4 is superior to 4-3. It allows you to field a more athletic group of players on defense.

Maybe Kirksey can be that guy? We do have an athlete in Burks. Of course they would have to actually stay healthy. Maybe draft a couple more? I guess they will never have a complete defense. It would be nice to have enough guys to plug the running lanes, and make the 3rd downs less manageable.

As far as 4-3 vs 3-4 I guess it really doesn't matter much..we can all agree to disagree. I just wish they would finally build a defense that is not week in the middle. Obviously picking later in the draft almost every year is gonna pose some challenges.
I just don't get all the love for the pac-10..and not much for sec and acc. It seems we have drafted alot of pac-10 guys vs guys from the "power" conferences. Maybe that has been our down fall...too many "soft" players?

Freewheelingutey wrote: ↑

05 Apr 2020 15:58

As far as 4-3 vs 3-4 I guess it really doesn't matter much..we can all agree to disagree. I just wish they would finally build a defense that is not week in the middle. Obviously picking later in the draft almost every year is gonna pose some challenges.
I just don't get all the love for the pac-10..and not much for sec and acc. It seems we have drafted alot of pac-10 guys vs guys from the "power" conferences. Maybe that has been our down fall...too many "soft" players?

It doesn’t help that when you get the earliest pick you’ve had in a decade and you pick a backup.

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

05 Apr 2020 17:35

Freewheelingutey wrote: ↑

05 Apr 2020 15:58

As far as 4-3 vs 3-4 I guess it really doesn't matter much..we can all agree to disagree. I just wish they would finally build a defense that is not week in the middle. Obviously picking later in the draft almost every year is gonna pose some challenges.
I just don't get all the love for the pac-10..and not much for sec and acc. It seems we have drafted alot of pac-10 guys vs guys from the "power" conferences. Maybe that has been our down fall...too many "soft" players?

It doesn’t help that when you get the earliest pick you’ve had in a decade and you pick a backup.

NCF wrote: ↑

05 Apr 2020 19:00

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

05 Apr 2020 17:35

Freewheelingutey wrote: ↑

05 Apr 2020 15:58

As far as 4-3 vs 3-4 I guess it really doesn't matter much..we can all agree to disagree. I just wish they would finally build a defense that is not week in the middle. Obviously picking later in the draft almost every year is gonna pose some challenges.
I just don't get all the love for the pac-10..and not much for sec and acc. It seems we have drafted alot of pac-10 guys vs guys from the "power" conferences. Maybe that has been our down fall...too many "soft" players?

It doesn’t help that when you get the earliest pick you’ve had in a decade and you pick a backup.

I’m curious what it was the last 10 years vs the first 10 years.

There have been very good draft picks:

Aaron Rodgers
Clay Matthews
Aaron Jones
Jordy
D. Adams
Donald Driver
Clark
Bak
Jenkins
Linsley

The Packers did not make the playoffs all those years without good drafting.

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

06 Apr 2020 02:35

NCF wrote: ↑

05 Apr 2020 19:00

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

05 Apr 2020 17:35

It doesn’t help that when you get the earliest pick you’ve had in a decade and you pick a backup.

I’m curious what it was the last 10 years vs the first 10 years.

I'm not doing every team, but below are some teams' 2010-2019.

Wondering about some other team? Do it yourself: https://www.pro-football-reference.com/ ... finder.cgi

[mention]lupedafiasco[/mention], before you jump into conclusions, keep in mind the way PFR's Career AV score is calculated: It accumulates over players' entire careers -> the more years you play, the higher the score.

Players drafted in recent years have not yet had time to accumulate an entire careers' worth of score. Therefore you can't directly compare AV scores of the drafts of the last 10 years with those of the 10 years before that.

For the same reason, teams that had great drafts in early 2010s will have the highest scores on this list. If you have drafted great lately, that will hardly even register, because those players have so little time to accumulate AV score.

Seahawks 1291 (Those epic 2010-2012 drafts carry take 'em to the top)
Patriots 1081
Packers 1051
Cowboys 1001
Chiefs 994
Browns 972
Broncos 970
Ravens 960
Eagles 947
Vikings 918
49ers 908
Panthers 888
Lions 860
Bears 747