Packers Huddle

Labrev wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2023 08:37

Yoop wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2023 08:21

why would you go with DL over edge rushers? for every good DL man there are 10 good edge rushers.

Labrev wrote:I know, I should have gone the yoop route: 1 QB, 5 WRs, and 1 TE it's 2011 all over again bro!!!

Serious answer is, DL are major "force multipliers" possibly more than any position other than QB, good ones just do so much for your D:
(1a) they can stop the run themselves,
(1b) or help your LBs or S do it.
(3) they get pressure up the middle, and this is way harder to avoid than pressure from edge-rushers (QB can't step up or stay in the pocket, and just getting rid of the ball quickly doesn't stop it -as- easily as it stops edge rushers).
(4) IOL having their hands full makes it easier to blitz with success.
(5) pressure in general helps the secondary make plays.
(6) putting the opposing offense in lots of down-and-distance situations makes them abandon the run and have to try to complete longer passes, which also helps the secondary make plays.

Yoop wrote:you decided to design your defense to stop the run and your offense to pass the ball, your fired as my general manager

Not so. I also had 1 CB and 1 S, so it's not just a run-stop D. I am officially re-hire as your general manager!

Okey Doky, but on a a short leash

It's a passing league, so ya need a passer, guys that protect him, on defense ya need guys that scare the passer, and stop people from catching the ball, thats it, Andy, nor you, or I put a RB on the team, so there is no need for run stoppers, it's passing only on our teams

Yoop wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2023 09:29

Okey Doky, but on a a short leash

It's a passing league, so ya need a passer, guys that protect him, on defense ya need guys that scare the passer, and stop people from catching the ball, thats it, Andy, nor you, or I put a RB on the team, so there is no need for run stoppers, it's passing only on our teams

Sure, that's why I want elite DTs, i.e. guys who bring value against the run *and* the pass; if I just wanted 1-dimensional run stuffers, then I would not prioritize the position.

I am going for the Aaron Donalds, Quinnen Williamses, DeForest Buckners, Arik Armsteads of the world, not Al Woods and DJ Reader.

PHI had a great rotation, and Chris Jones by himself gave KC all the pass-rush they needed without anyone great at EDGE.

Labrev wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2023 09:49

Yoop wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2023 09:29

Okey Doky, but on a a short leash

It's a passing league, so ya need a passer, guys that protect him, on defense ya need guys that scare the passer, and stop people from catching the ball, thats it, Andy, nor you, or I put a RB on the team, so there is no need for run stoppers, it's passing only on our teams

Sure, that's why I want elite DTs, i.e. guys who bring value against the run *and* the pass; if I just wanted 1-dimensional run stuffers, then I would not prioritize the position.

PHI had a great rotation, and Chris Jones by himself gave KC all the pass-rush they needed without anyone great at EDGE.

I get all of that, but the hit rate is terrible for DT's, and most take 2 years to learn how to leverage the heavier and stronger NFL ol man, I hate drafting DT's for just that reason, and why I prefer to buy older established vets as we did last year with Reed and now are bringing another in for a look, we took Wyatt last year at about the same slot range 3 or 4 others we've taken busted out, only Clark was a success the last 15 years, so I hope Wyatt breaks that trend

and Philly brought in Suh, Hargrave, old vets to bolster there DL and KC had Karlaftis, Clark and others to help Jones,
I think again, that Andy's point is that this is a passing league, and ya get the biggest bang for the buck with the positions he chose.

Yoop wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2023 10:15

I get all of that, but the hit rate is terrible for DT's, and most take 2 years to learn how to leverage the heavier and stronger NFL ol man, I hate drafting DT's for just that reason, and why I prefer to buy older established vets as we did last year with Reed and now are bringing another in for a look, we took Wyatt last year at about the same slot range 3 or 4 others we've taken busted out, only Clark was a success the last 15 years, so I hope Wyatt breaks that trend

But it isn't just about drafting; this was the original quote (underlined for emphasis):

Andy Reid told the Philadelphia owner upon his hire :

"I want two offensive tackles, a quarterback, two pass rushers, two corners, and I'll figure the rest out.

An owner can provide the requested players through more than just drafting.

It's just about what positions you want to build around, doesn't mean you only ever draft those positions high.

If I have my cornerstones, I will use high draft picks or throw a lot of cap dollars at luxury guys e.g. RB, WR2, LB2.

Look at how bored I am everyone.

Yoop wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2023 08:26

APB wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2023 07:17

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

18 Apr 2023 20:51

Either way, we're a safety and a 2nd-year jump from Wyatt away from having both ideals.

Exactly.

Prognosticators are oh-so-willing to categorize the 2023 Packers as being in a "rebuild" year, and that's fine, but I don't think the Packers will fit the typical box definition of "rebuild" that the typical fan would expect.

This 2023 version won't likely compete for a title but I definitely think they'll compete in a relatively weak NFC North division. The projections for a last place 5-win season will be long forgotten come January. And if Gute and Co. can manage a decent draft next week, look out in 2024.

Rebuild, my ass...retool is more like it.

prognosticators???? half the members of this forum think this team is in rebuild mode, some want to trade anyone with a 2nd contract to clear the books, some have predicted a 5 or 6 win season, maybe less, so it isn't just the talking heads, lots of negative opinions thrown about.

I honestly have no clue why you chose to respond in the manner in which you did.

At what point did I make a distinction between "prognosticators" that excluded those individuals making predictions on this forum...? I even mentioned "typical fan" in my post!

It seems lately you're stuck in "attack mode" no matter what anybody posts. Chill, dude.

Labrev wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2023 10:35

Yoop wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2023 10:15

I get all of that, but the hit rate is terrible for DT's, and most take 2 years to learn how to leverage the heavier and stronger NFL ol man, I hate drafting DT's for just that reason, and why I prefer to buy older established vets as we did last year with Reed and now are bringing another in for a look, we took Wyatt last year at about the same slot range 3 or 4 others we've taken busted out, only Clark was a success the last 15 years, so I hope Wyatt breaks that trend

But it isn't just about drafting; this was the original quote (underlined for emphasis):

Andy Reid told the Philadelphia owner upon his hire :

"I want two offensive tackles, a quarterback, two pass rushers, two corners, and I'll figure the rest out.

An owner can provide the requested players through more than just drafting.

It's just about what positions you want to build around, doesn't mean you only ever draft those positions high.

If I have my cornerstones, I will use high draft picks or throw a lot of cap dollars at luxury guys e.g. RB, WR2, LB2.

Labreve your the one who disagreed with Andy prefered cornerstones, I simply pointed out the imbalance of your passing first offense to your run stopping defense preferences, again why even bother with a lber or even a safety.

your preference of DT's versus edge rushers is noted, I don't get that, but OK, but Andy never mentioned elite players, simply positional preference.

I think his focus of the two tackles has to do with the era, the time he made that statement was when edge rushers was in vogue as the premier way to pressure the QB, hense his mention of pass protectors first, then his QB and then the defensive players best suited to counter that with edge defenders

APB wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2023 10:47

Yoop wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2023 08:26

APB wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2023 07:17

Exactly.

Prognosticators are oh-so-willing to categorize the 2023 Packers as being in a "rebuild" year, and that's fine, but I don't think the Packers will fit the typical box definition of "rebuild" that the typical fan would expect.

This 2023 version won't likely compete for a title but I definitely think they'll compete in a relatively weak NFC North division. The projections for a last place 5-win season will be long forgotten come January. And if Gute and Co. can manage a decent draft next week, look out in 2024.

Rebuild, my ass...retool is more like it.

prognosticators???? half the members of this forum think this team is in rebuild mode, some want to trade anyone with a 2nd contract to clear the books, some have predicted a 5 or 6 win season, maybe less, so it isn't just the talking heads, lots of negative opinions thrown about.

I honestly have no clue why you chose to respond in the manner in which you did.

At what point did I make a distinction between "prognosticators" that excluded those individuals making predictions on this forum...? I even mentioned "typical fan" in my post!

It seems lately you're stuck in "attack mode" no matter what anybody posts. Chill, dude.

thin skinned a little? I was simply adding to your statement, albeit with a little gusto,both fans and sports talk show host are saying it, you, me, BSA and only a few others are predicting this team any success this season, I'am not in attack mode, don't lay that label on me, every post of mine you respond to is to attack whatever I say, so I gave some back, practice what ya preach for a change.

I'am

Yoop wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2023 10:58

I simply pointed out the imbalance of your passing first offense to your run stopping defense preferences, again why even bother with a lber or even a safety.

Okay... but it isn't imbalanced. 2 DL versus 1 CB, 1 LB, 1 S.

DL are not by-definition run stoppers, some DL are liabilities against the run but are lethal pass-rushers. Elite ones, i.e. what I am angling for, are guys that are good at both.

Even if DL were just run stoppers, I also listed two pass defenders (CB and S), LB do a little of both, so it would still be very balanced.

But I actually think my setup would do an excellent job stopping the pass in a passing league: take away the running game, make it tougher for the passing game by forcing lots of third-and-long, keep them from getting in a rhythm. And if the DTs bring pressure up the middle, it messes everything up. If not, I have my CB and S to take away options, plus an LB that could either bring pass-rush by blitzing or takes away underneath passes and TEs in coverage.

Besides, if I bring pressure up the middle well, then the EDGEs are just playing contain. You don't need great talent at EDGE to play contain. Honestly the EDGE position is very overrated. I am cool with EDGE guys if they are versatile enough to move around the field and exploit mismatches, but straight-up EDGE guys like Preston Smith, I don't value them that highly.

but Andy never mentioned elite players, simply positional preference.

I think the point of having positional preference is to try to get guys who are elite, or close to it.

I think his focus of the two tackles has to do with the era, the time he made that statement was when edge rushers was in vogue as the premier way to pressure the QB, hense his mention of pass protectors first, then his QB and then the defensive players best suited to counter that with edge defenders

Yup, it's an old quote and I'm not sure he'd name the same seven positions anymore. Oddly, his CB corps. is not very strong despite the need to defend the pass in today's league, and his best OL are not his Ts, they are his C and LG. Also his "pass rushers" are not both EDGEs. One is an EDGE (Clark) the other is a DL (Jones).

But really, KC is just Pat Mahomes going godmode and elevating everyone around him.

I think most of the posters here expect GB to win 8 or more. The negative posters who think we are in a 5 year rebuild, need to fire everyone etc are just very loud.

Maybe about 11 months away from Kenny Clark being the longest tenured player.

Could be a scenario where Jordan Love is 5th longest tenured after Clark, Jaire, Gary, and Elgton next year.

cra

BF004 wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2023 15:57

Maybe about 11 months away from Kenny Clark being the longest tenured player.

Could be a scenario where Jordan Love is 5th longest tenured after Clark, Jaire, Gary, and Elgton next year.

cra


image.png

hard to understand why some think we have to get rid of all the old players, when it seems most of our starters are on rookie contracts or just a season into there second, we are a young team, yes we will lose a couple as we add a few this season and next, but it seems pretty normal to me

Madcity_matt wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2023 11:34

I think most of the posters here expect GB to win 8 or more. The negative posters who think we are in a 5 year rebuild, need to fire everyone etc are just very loud.

I suppose, just seems like I heard a bunch claiming we need to dump a lot of bloated contracts, Lupe of course being the megaphone of it, of course passing the on line course to become a GM, he does have that going for him

I predict between 5 and 8 wins

Drj820 wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2023 18:42

I predict between 5 and 8 wins

Fair but I think we would need a really weak out of division schedule to get to 8 and even then i don't know if it will be possible.

I will say 4-6 wins.

When was the last year the packers were last in odds to win the North?

If the line can run block and give the running game a 2500 rushing yard season we'll get 12 wins. It's a weak division and a weak schedule.

RingoCStarrQB wrote: ↑

20 Apr 2023 00:26

If the line can run block and give the running game a 2500 rushing yard season we'll get 12 wins. It's a weak division and a weak schedule.

Packers are maybe the weakest team in the division, until proven otherwise.

bud fox wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2023 22:02

Drj820 wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2023 18:42

I predict between 5 and 8 wins

Fair but I think we would need a really weak out of division schedule to get to 8 and even then i don't know if it will be possible.

I will say 4-6 wins.

When was the last year the packers were last in odds to win the North?

My guess is 2006. New coach, qb had 29 int, 4-12 prior year.

I agree, think 5-6 wins.

wallyuwl wrote: ↑

20 Apr 2023 00:58

bud fox wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2023 22:02

Drj820 wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2023 18:42

I predict between 5 and 8 wins

Fair but I think we would need a really weak out of division schedule to get to 8 and even then i don't know if it will be possible.

I will say 4-6 wins.

When was the last year the packers were last in odds to win the North?

My guess is 2006. New coach, qb had 29 int, 4-12 prior year.

I agree, think 5-6 wins.

8 was top possible. 4 was minimum. Probably too broad of a prediction..to be precise, I predict 6-11