Join Our Green Bay Packers Interactive Community!

We have been providing fans with the best source of Packers information since 2006!
Your participation is greatly anticipated!
Login or Register.
10 Pages«<678910>
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline PackFanWithTwins  
#71 Posted : Monday, January 14, 2013 11:26:10 AM(UTC)
PackFanWithTwins

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Joined: 9/26/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 13
Applause Received: 398

Originally Posted by: DakotaT Go to Quoted Post
The problem with restocking the pond is the position from which we pick every year. San Francisco and Seattle repeatedly picked in the top 10 of each round for nearly a decade to build what they currently have, while we remained competitive and picked in the twenties. There is going to be a difference in blue chip talent on your teams. With the exception of Raji and Hawk, the rest of our team consists of Green Bay draft picks below above 20. Is the answer to tank and reload, or remain as competitive as possible, while doing an exceptional job drafting from a disadvantage? Uncle Ted has hit on a lot of picks, but without the infusion of top level talent once in a while - the team suffers. The biggest need of this team is a power running back, to help us control the clock, so our defense is not worn down all the time, and a head coach that doesn't abandon the run when he gets behind. I thought he learned that lesson already.



I disagree with the biggest need being a power running back. I think our RB are fine. It is the run blocking that lacks. Later in the year, I have finally seen a move away from the outside stretch zone blocking, and it improved our run game. Improve the Oline, and concentrate more on running between the tackles. No more finese, let the Oline get mean.

If we tank for a season or two in order to get a couple "blue chippers", what are we going to lose in the process? Players dont' like playing for losing teams. with this team and the needs, I would be much happier trading up to get one. We have depth and for a year, can afford not to draft 7 or 8 guys and come out with 3,4 or 5 better quality guys.
The world needs ditch diggers to Danny!!!
UserPostedImage
Offline DakotaT  
#72 Posted : Monday, January 14, 2013 11:26:47 AM(UTC)
DakotaT

Rank: Super Bowl MVP

Joined: 8/18/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 665
Applause Received: 1,365

Originally Posted by: gbguy20 Go to Quoted Post
I agree we should tank a few seasons so we can be competitive with the niners and seattle.


You agree with whom? I asked a question if tanking was the way to go. I don't think you tank with the caliber of quarterback we have in his prime. My point it is extremely difficult to keep the talent level on the field drafting so low in each round.
UserPostedImage
Offline gbguy20  
#73 Posted : Monday, January 14, 2013 11:33:14 AM(UTC)
gbguy20

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Joined: 8/28/2009(UTC)

Applause Given: 208
Applause Received: 285

fuck it lets tank
call me Dan
Offline DakotaT  
#74 Posted : Monday, January 14, 2013 11:34:27 AM(UTC)
DakotaT

Rank: Super Bowl MVP

Joined: 8/18/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 665
Applause Received: 1,365

Originally Posted by: gbguy20 Go to Quoted Post
fuck it lets tank


Yeah but what if you draft another Hawk, or worse Jamal Reynolds or Tony Mandarich?
UserPostedImage
Offline gbguy20  
#75 Posted : Monday, January 14, 2013 11:36:02 AM(UTC)
gbguy20

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Joined: 8/28/2009(UTC)

Applause Given: 208
Applause Received: 285

what if we draft alex smith?
call me Dan
Offline doddpower  
#76 Posted : Monday, January 14, 2013 12:10:28 PM(UTC)
DoddPower

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Gold: 2011

United States
Joined: 9/24/2007(UTC)
Location: Visalia, CA

Applause Given: 2,086
Applause Received: 526

Originally Posted by: gbguy20 Go to Quoted Post
what if we draft alex smith?


I'm obviously a little bias because I have been high on Nick Perry since he was drafted, but I think his development could have a lot to do with the Packers defensive success in the future, regardless of 3-4 or 4-3 schemes. I read an article that said the Packers have to get bigger, stronger, more physical, and faster on defense. Perry is all of those things. His technique isn't refined, especially as a 3-4 OLB, but the guy is a physical freak in terms of the combination of strength and speed. I have no doubt that's why Ted Thompson drafted him due to his athleticism and trusted Perry and the coaching staff for his development. He is just the kind of player the defense needs more of. He may never develop and may be a bust pick, but from a pure size, strength, and speed standpoint, the guy has it all. His development will have a lot to do with the progress of the Packers defense. I think he would very quickly be an impact player as a 4-3 defensive end.

To that point, I've been thinking the Packers current personnel on defense is much better suited to a traditional 4-3 scheme, anyway. Most of our defensive tackles are likely better suited and have played in a 4-3 style in college: BJ Raji, Worthy, Daniels, etc. Defensive ends like Mike Neal would still make solid depth in a 4-3, but can also move inside to DT on passing downs. Pickett would still be a beast next to Raji as the two DT's in the base defense. Nick Perry is likely better suited as a pass rushing defensive end, regardless if he can make the transition to OLB, or not. Clay Mathews, of course, would be the one wildcard. It's obvious he can still rush the passer as a hybrid type of defensive end, but it would be interesting to see how they would use him in the base defense. Dallas is changing to a traditional 4-3 Tampa 2 defense this season, despite having two great OLB's. It will be interesting to see how they utilize Ware.

Additionally, I don't think we have any great 3-4 MLB's. Bishop could certainly qualify, but that's about it. At the same time, he would still be a solid 4-3 MLB, although his same deficiencies would still be there. Scheme can only cover up so much. Hawk can be a decent Will or Sam OLB as he has in the past, and the combination of Brad Jones and DJ Smith make for great depth and/or replacement starters. There are many who have argued Hawk isn't a 3-4 ILB from the beginning, and they are probably correct.

I personally really like the 3-4, and would like to see it stick around in Green Bay. I think it can offer the most flexibility for a very creative coach with the proper amount of talent. However, Green Bay doesn't seem to have that talent currently. Also, a lot of the recent players that have been brought it are arguably better fits for the traditional 4-3 style, so I can't help but wonder if there's been some thought about transitioning to a 4-3 in the near future. Of course, those players could have simply been the best available, so who knows. It's interesting to think about, though, because this defense might be much more suited for a hybrid 4-3 style of defense, perhaps like the Patriots are running, rather than Dom Capers aggressive 3-4. A bright young 4-3 coach might be able to turn this defense around very quick, given the personnel. Who knows.
thanks Post received 1 applause.
play2win on 1/14/2013(UTC)
Offline Bigbyfan  
#77 Posted : Monday, January 14, 2013 1:14:05 PM(UTC)
Bigbyfan

Rank: 4th Round Draft Pick

Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 26
Applause Received: 81

Quote:
Green Bay - Inside Green Bay Packers headquarters Sunday, the defense was nowhere to be found, just like the night before in a 45-31 divisional playoff loss to the San Francisco 49ers.

As the offense, special teams and injured players made their final locker room appearance in front of reporters Sunday, defensive players were conspicuous by their absence. Not a single starter was around to assess the future of a unit that for the third time in four years failed the team in the playoffs.

Maybe it was appropriate that the whereabouts of roughly half the team was uncertain because so is its future. When the Packers convene for organized team activities after the April draft, a whole bunch of introductions might be in order.

The task in front of general manager Ted Thompson and Mike McCarthy following the 579-yard beating the Packers' defense took Saturday night is to figure out whether they can go forward with the same coaches and same personnel philosophy.

Under defensive coordinator Dom Capers the past four seasons, the defense has at times been unable to stop the run, unable to communicate consistently in the secondary and unable to stand up to hot quarterbacks. Its saving grace other times has been creating turnovers and getting sacks, but too often the season has ended on a disappointing note.

As the week goes on, McCarthy is going to have to decide whether Capers has lost his touch and no longer has the ability to keep up with the NFL's increasingly diverse offensive attacks or is a victim of Thompson's draft-only philosophy and neglect in acquiring the bruising linebackers and safeties it takes to compete with the physical offenses of NFC contenders San Francisco and the New York Giants.

As players are wont to do, the Packers defend Capers and his staff to reporters, refusing publicly to turn on the same guys who helped them win Super Bowl rings. But it was also clear after the loss what players were speaking of when they said they were out-schemed and underprepared against 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick and the read-option plays he used en route to breaking the NFL record for quarterback rushing yards with 181.

"Coach Capers is a great coach," said linebacker Desmond Bishop, who spent the season on injured reserve. "You can't have a great defense and win the Super Bowl one year and then be kicked out the next year, or a year or two later. I don't think it should work like that at all.

"I think Dom Capers is a great coach. It's just something I think we have to look at internally as a team and not really worry about going outside of the team. It's something we have to look at within ourselves. I think we will address that and be fine."

Should he decide to part ways with Capers, McCarthy wouldn't necessarily have to scrap the Steelers 3-4 system the Packers are currently using. Defensive line coach Mike Trgovac and safeties coach Darren Perry would be options if McCarthy chose to promote from within and keep the same system.

There are plenty of 3-4 practitioners so it wouldn't necessarily mean McCarthy would have to start from scratch on defense if he hired from somewhere else. The Packers have invested a lot into 3-4-type players and McCarthy likes the attacking style of that scheme.

But before McCarthy decides a coaching change is necessary, Thompson needs to examine his philosophy for stocking the roster with talent. Thompson devoted his first six draft choices last spring to defensive players, but did not sign a veteran free agent and made Capers and his staff make do this season with a bunch of rookies.

It's hard to have a successful defense when the roster is continually turning over and isn't allowed to mature. Whether that has been the case with the Packers is up for debate.

But what isn't is that Thompson has leaned away from acquiring big, physical players like Bishop in favor of more agile players like A.J. Hawk, Morgan Burnett, Brad Jones, D.J. Smith, M.D. Jennings, Sam Shields, Frank Zombo, Casey Hayward and Mike Daniels.

First-round pick Nick Perry was more in the Bishop style of physical player but was tentative in his transition from college end to pro outside linebacker and was lost for the season halfway through with a wrist injury. Rookie inside linebacker Terrell Manning might be able to add some pop to the lineup next year, but after battling a training camp illness the best he could do was contribute on special teams.

Safety Jerron McMillian, another physical type played like a rookie and the jury is still out on his future. His height will always be an issue. Cornerback Davon House looked like he might add some muscle to the defense, but he dislocated his shoulder in training camp and was not the same the rest of the season.

The combination of Ryan Pickett and B.J. Raji has been solid in the middle, but when C.J. Wilson got hurt Capers had no one who could serve as the third run-stuffer in his base defense. Mike Neal, Jerel Worthy and Daniels were poor substitutes for the double-team-eating ends necessary to stop the run in the 3-4 defense.

As safety Charles Woodson said after the loss to the 49ers, "Maybe we have to get bigger and faster."

It will be up to Thompson to decide whether to go on with Hawk and his $5.45 million salary cap number or use a top pick to find a complement to Bishop, who is coming off a torn hamstring and has a lot of hurdles to clear before proving he's the player he once was.

Thompson also probably will part ways with Woodson, who with a $10 million salary cap number is way too expensive to keep around for a 14-year veteran that has suffered two broken collarbones.

Thompson is not one open to change, but he did commit to rebuilding the defense last spring with the six draft picks and he might need to break his resistance to free agency to turn this defense around. Salary cap space would be available if he dumps Hawk and Woodson.

As for the rest of the roster, receivers Donald Driver and Greg Jennings are all but gone, which will mean salary cap money can be spent elsewhere. Tight end Jermichael Finley came around enough at the end that his $8.25 million cap number is worth carrying, but decisions have to be made on whether to keep running backs James Starks ($1.3 million) and John Kuhn ($1.9 million).

There will be change around 1265 Lombardi Ave. How much is a question only Thompson and McCarthy can answer.


Link

This article pretty sums up my feelings on the subject. Ted Thompson has focused more on "finesse" type players and this has hurt us. Yes turnovers look good, but I'd give up being among the league leaders in turnovers if it meant we would get some bruisers who could stand up to the elite offenses we traditionally struggle against.
blank
thanks Post received 1 applause.
dyeah_gb on 1/14/2013(UTC)
Offline dyeah_gb  
#78 Posted : Monday, January 14, 2013 1:58:58 PM(UTC)
dyeah_gb

Rank: 5th Round Draft Pick

Joined: 8/22/2009(UTC)

Applause Given: 27
Applause Received: 24

Originally Posted by: Bigbyfan Go to Quoted Post
Link

This article pretty sums up my feelings on the subject. Ted Thompson has focused more on "finesse" type players and this has hurt us. Yes turnovers look good, but I'd give up being among the league leaders in turnovers if it meant we would get some bruisers who could stand up to the elite offenses we traditionally struggle against.


I Like the article. One of my worries about this team is whether we have to enter rebuilding mode. Maybe we just completed our rebuilding year because of all the injuries.

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool - R. Feynman
Offline doddpower  
#79 Posted : Monday, January 14, 2013 2:16:21 PM(UTC)
DoddPower

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Gold: 2011

United States
Joined: 9/24/2007(UTC)
Location: Visalia, CA

Applause Given: 2,086
Applause Received: 526

Originally Posted by: dyeah_gb Go to Quoted Post
I Like the article. One of my worries about this team is whether we have to enter rebuilding mode. Maybe we just completed our rebuilding year because of all the injuries.



The Packers aren't in rebuilding mode, necessarily. A lot depends on the 2012 draft class and the six defensive players that were drafted. How Perry, Worthy, Hayward, McMillan, Daniels, and Manning develop will have a lot to do with the success of this defense for the next 2-3 seasons. Guys like House and Neal will also factor in, as they both need to continue to improve, but have shown flashed. At this point, I think the Packers pretty much know what they're going to get out of Raji, Burnett, Williams, Shields, Hawk, Pickett, Wilson, Woodson, etc. Naturally, if the 2012 draft class flops, it could be a rough few years. I'm not that worried about the offense. Yeah, it might not be able to ever reach the level of 2011 again, but that doesn't mean they won't be good enough to compete in every game, even with losing Jennings and/or Finley. They just need the defense to help pick up some of the slack, imo.
Offline Gaycandybacon  
#80 Posted : Monday, January 14, 2013 2:33:21 PM(UTC)
Gaycandybacon

Rank: 4th Round Draft Pick

United States
Joined: 9/17/2012(UTC)
Location: Hanover Park, IL

Applause Given: 145
Applause Received: 178

Originally Posted by: doddpower Go to Quoted Post
I'm obviously a little bias because I have been high on Nick Perry since he was drafted, but I think his development could have a lot to do with the Packers defensive success in the future, regardless of 3-4 or 4-3 schemes. I read an article that said the Packers have to get bigger, stronger, more physical, and faster on defense. Perry is all of those things. His technique isn't refined, especially as a 3-4 OLB, but the guy is a physical freak in terms of the combination of strength and speed. I have no doubt that's why Ted Thompson drafted him due to his athleticism and trusted Perry and the coaching staff for his development. He is just the kind of player the defense needs more of. He may never develop and may be a bust pick, but from a pure size, strength, and speed standpoint, the guy has it all. His development will have a lot to do with the progress of the Packers defense. I think he would very quickly be an impact player as a 4-3 defensive end.

To that point, I've been thinking the Packers current personnel on defense is much better suited to a traditional 4-3 scheme, anyway. Most of our defensive tackles are likely better suited and have played in a 4-3 style in college: BJ Raji, Worthy, Daniels, etc. Defensive ends like Mike Neal would still make solid depth in a 4-3, but can also move inside to DT on passing downs. Pickett would still be a beast next to Raji as the two DT's in the base defense. Nick Perry is likely better suited as a pass rushing defensive end, regardless if he can make the transition to OLB, or not. Clay Mathews, of course, would be the one wildcard. It's obvious he can still rush the passer as a hybrid type of defensive end, but it would be interesting to see how they would use him in the base defense. Dallas is changing to a traditional 4-3 Tampa 2 defense this season, despite having two great OLB's. It will be interesting to see how they utilize Ware.

Additionally, I don't think we have any great 3-4 MLB's. Bishop could certainly qualify, but that's about it. At the same time, he would still be a solid 4-3 MLB, although his same deficiencies would still be there. Scheme can only cover up so much. Hawk can be a decent Will or Sam OLB as he has in the past, and the combination of Brad Jones and DJ Smith make for great depth and/or replacement starters. There are many who have argued Hawk isn't a 3-4 ILB from the beginning, and they are probably correct.

I personally really like the 3-4, and would like to see it stick around in Green Bay. I think it can offer the most flexibility for a very creative coach with the proper amount of talent. However, Green Bay doesn't seem to have that talent currently. Also, a lot of the recent players that have been brought it are arguably better fits for the traditional 4-3 style, so I can't help but wonder if there's been some thought about transitioning to a 4-3 in the near future. Of course, those players could have simply been the best available, so who knows. It's interesting to think about, though, because this defense might be much more suited for a hybrid 4-3 style of defense, perhaps like the Patriots are running, rather than Dom Capers aggressive 3-4. A bright young 4-3 coach might be able to turn this defense around very quick, given the personnel. Who knows.


So our big,strong guys on our defense now is Bishop, Raji, Picket, Perry, Matthews and Woodson. Respectfully at their positions of course. Maybe we could weed some of the smaller guys out that aren't productive?

Like Hawk, we could probably easily replace him in this draft, free agency or on our team. I could see them letting him go like a lot of you. I like Jones potential too, and he's big, strong, and fast. Just starting out at the MLB position. I bet he'll be a lot better next year. I wouldn't mind seeing him play beside Bishop. Maybe even provide a complex scheme to the will or mike linebacker if we decide to go with another D-coach. Our secondarys excellent but they have problems tackling. The weak links are Willams and Burnett. Burnett can tackle, He's just really inconsistent at it. Tramon looks like he has trouble shedding blocks. Maybe bring in some taller, more physical guys in the mix. Most of our Corners right now are 5'11 or lower.

All in all I agree we need a BIG front 7 no matter the scheme, and we're track with that Perry pick. We just took some production over product with Dainels and Mcmillian in the draft. Even though they have been decent you can't just rely on doing that again.
Rss Feed 
Users browsing this topic
Guest (2)
10 Pages«<678910>
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Notification

Icon
Error

Tweeter

Recent Topics
8m / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / DoddPower

3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

5h / Green Bay Packers Talk / DakotaT

13h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Reignman

18h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

20-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Since69

20-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / TheKanataThrilla

20-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / sschind

19-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

19-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

19-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / sschind

18-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / luigis

18-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / PackFanWithTwins

18-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / sschind