Packers vs Ravens: Studs and Duds

[HardRightEdge]

I wouldn't want Kuhn for $1 next year. Our RB situation looks good, at this point in time. Lacy can do everything Kuhn can do as a rusher. Our pass pro is looking better too. The line still is ***** but its getting better and Bulaga may give us his average 6 games per season. Also TT will probably draft his 58th and 59th olineman next draft, so I like our PP going forward (not yet, but going forward). Special teams is a place for developement so I don't really see Kuhn as doing anything but keeping other, younger players from getting on the field.
In short, Kuhn has no value at this point. Every rep he takes, is at the expense of someone else, who needs the reps in order to complete the point, that Kuhn is no longer needed.

If you had to find value, it would be that a bunch of drunk, white, folk, like to groan his name.

You forgot to bash his value as a special teamer.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Neal has looked uncomfortable in coverage since the preseason. Hopefully things will click for him fairly soon. I wish Capers flashed a few 4-2-5 looks while we are perilously thin at OLB. You'd think it'd be a consideration being as we are the 2nd ranked defense against the run.

None of our linemen are geared to rush the passer at 7 or 9 technique, in keeping with a 3-4 defense.

 

[12theTruth]

None of our linemen are geared to rush the passer at 7 or 9 technique, in keeping with a 3-4 defense.

Could you provide the source for that little nugget of info please? Or is that based on opinion? Once again I'm not advocating making wholesale changes. Just an situational different look.

Could it be worse than a possible Mike Neal out there stumbling around trying to cover a TE or RB when the opportunity presents itself.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Could you provide the source for that little nugget of info please? Or is that based on opinion? Once again I'm not advocating making wholesale changes. Just an situational different look.

It is based on observation. Neal in his current iteration, along with Perry, are likely the best approximations of 4-3 DEs, but that doesn't solve the problem you identified, it makes it worse...too few LBs.

If the thought does not resonate with you, then so be it. If I quoted a "knowledgeable source", that would be opinion as well.

 

[Oshkoshpackfan]

yeah, we would need more beef to play the 4-3. It has taken a while, but the 3-4 has grown on me.

 

[12theTruth]

yeah, we would need more beef to play the 4-3. It has taken a while, but the 3-4 has grown on me.

We have plenty of beef on the D-line. My point was only as a necessity when we are at an extreme shortage at LB like this weekends game. I like the 3-4 too as I also agree it best fits the personnel.

 

[12theTruth]

It is based on observation. Neal in his current iteration, along with Perry, are likely the best approximations of 4-3 DEs, but that doesn't solve the problem you identified, it makes it worse...too few LBs.

If the thought does not resonate with you, then so be it. If I quoted a "knowledgeable source", that would be opinion as well.

In a pinch we could have Datone Jones as one end and Neal as the other. Brad Jones was converted from outside backer so he could move back to the outside in the advent that he makes it back this week.

So it would look something like this Datone Jones.. Jolly/Daniels.. Raji/Pickett.. Neal along the line Mulumbo-- Hawk--- Jones at backers.

Definitely not preferable but with the injury situation being so precarious at LB I'm sure it's something Capers would have to consider if yet another injury occurs. Ultimately an opponent is going to tragically expose Neal in coverage, thankfully its just Brandon Weeden this week.

 

[TJV]

No fan of Kuhn nor his big salary, but does anyone think that he's here to do something other than protect AR?

Yes, everyone paying attention. Against the Ravens, Kuhn stayed in to block for Rodgers on 4 of 35 drop backs. That's just over 10% of the passing plays. As HRE posted, Kuhn is on the roster mostly for STs.

Good argument though, just obviously different opinions

I enjoy a good argument with differing opinions but my disagreement wasn't about opinions, Bill. It was about facts. Statements like, “Kuhn has been in the game more often than not on third down passing situations… He's been doing it most of this season as well.” And posting regarding the most recent game, “He played 10 offensive snaps in that game. Guess when he played almost all of them... that's right, THIRD and long.”, no matter how emphatically or repeatedly presented are demonstrably incorrect.

We can have differing opinions about things like the value of Finley to the team and we can back up those opinions with facts and no one can say with certainty either opinion is incorrect. But the number of times a player was in the game is not an opinion. It is an objective fact. So when a poster posts Kuhn “played almost all of” ten (he only played eight) offensive snaps on “THIRD and long” when he was only on the field for one third down play, that’s not a difference of opinion. That is (again) a demonstrably false statement. I understand the argument got out of hand, but IMO it’s too bad that you and few others don’t appear to care about facts. And worse, that the poster in question won’t even admit he is wrong about facts.

Look, in the vast scheme of things this isn’t that important but if you’re going to spend time discussing the Packers here, since there are plenty of things to legitimately disagree about, why not at least begin with facts?
And just so you and others know Bill, while the argument got out of hand, I am unrepentant about challenging falsehoods presented as facts and will continue to challenge them as long as I’m here. Anyone having a problem with that may want to consider putting me on ignore.

 

[Bus Cook]

Yes, everyone paying attention. Against the Ravens, Kuhn stayed in to block for Rodgers on 4 of 35 drop backs. That's just over 10% of the passing plays. As HRE posted, Kuhn is on the roster mostly for STs. I enjoy a good argument with differing opinions but my disagreement wasn't about opinions, Bill. It was about facts. Statements like, “Kuhn has been in the game more often than not on third down passing situations… He's been doing it most of this season as well.” And posting regarding the most recent game, “He played 10 offensive snaps in that game. Guess when he played almost all of them... that's right, THIRD and long.”, no matter how emphatically or repeatedly presented are demonstrably incorrect.

We can have differing opinions about things like the value of Finley to the team and we can back up those opinions with facts and no one can say with certainty either opinion is incorrect. But the number of times a player was in the game is not an opinion. It is an objective fact. So when a poster posts Kuhn “played almost all of” ten (he only played eight) offensive snaps on “THIRD and long” when he was only on the field for one third down play, that’s not a difference of opinion. That is (again) a demonstrably false statement. I understand the argument got out of hand, but IMO it’s too bad that you and few others don’t appear to care about facts. And worse, that the poster in question won’t even admit he is wrong about facts.

Look, in the vast scheme of things this isn’t that important but if you’re going to spend time discussing the Packers here, since there are plenty of things to legitimately disagree about, why not at least begin with facts?
And just so you and others know Bill, while the argument got out of hand, I am unrepentant about challenging falsehoods presented as facts and will continue to challenge them as long as I’m here. Anyone having a problem with that may want to consider putting me on ignore.

A friend of mine is the editorial page editor for IBD. He has a saying that I love to repeat, about writing. "I'd have made it shorter, but I didn't have the time."

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

Yes, everyone paying attention. Against the Ravens, Kuhn stayed in to block for Rodgers on 4 of 35 drop backs. That's just over 10% of the passing plays. As HRE posted, Kuhn is on the roster mostly for STs. I enjoy a good argument with differing opinions but my disagreement wasn't about opinions, Bill. It was about facts. Statements like, “Kuhn has been in the game more often than not on third down passing situations… He's been doing it most of this season as well.” And posting regarding the most recent game, “He played 10 offensive snaps in that game. Guess when he played almost all of them... that's right, THIRD and long.”, no matter how emphatically or repeatedly presented are demonstrably incorrect.

We can have differing opinions about things like the value of Finley to the team and we can back up those opinions with facts and no one can say with certainty either opinion is incorrect. But the number of times a player was in the game is not an opinion. It is an objective fact. So when a poster posts Kuhn “played almost all of” ten (he only played eight) offensive snaps on “THIRD and long” when he was only on the field for one third down play, that’s not a difference of opinion. That is (again) a demonstrably false statement. I understand the argument got out of hand, but IMO it’s too bad that you and few others don’t appear to care about facts. And worse, that the poster in question won’t even admit he is wrong about facts.

Look, in the vast scheme of things this isn’t that important but if you’re going to spend time discussing the Packers here, since there are plenty of things to legitimately disagree about, why not at least begin with facts?
And just so you and others know Bill, while the argument got out of hand, I am unrepentant about challenging falsehoods presented as facts and will continue to challenge them as long as I’m here. Anyone having a problem with that may want to consider putting me on ignore.

Answering personally TJV, as you mention me by name several times, I don`t have a problem with you at all, never have, my comment was not meant as a dig at you or anybody else. I merely thought you two had obviously different opinions and you both continued to stand by those opinions. If my comment offended you I`m sorry, as there was no offence intended. I`ve nothing more to add.

 

[HardRightEdge]

A friend of mine is the editorial page editor for IBD. He has a saying that I love to repeat, about writing. "I'd have made it shorter, but I didn't have the time."

"Everything should be mad as simple as possible, but not simpler." - Albert Einstein

While brevity may be the soul of wit (Shakespeare, though expressed ironically), it is not necessarily the soul of exposition.

 

[mradtke66]

In a pinch we could have Datone Jones as one end and Neal as the other. Brad Jones was converted from outside backer so he could move back to the outside in the advent that he makes it back this week.

So it would look something like this Datone Jones.. Jolly/Daniels.. Raji/Pickett.. Neal along the line Mulumbo-- Hawk--- Jones at backers.

Definitely not preferable but with the injury situation being so precarious at LB I'm sure it's something Capers would have to consider if yet another injury occurs. Ultimately an opponent is going to tragically expose Neal in coverage, thankfully its just Brandon Weeden this week.

This tells me you don't really understand the differences between the 3-4 and 4-3.

What the 3-4 calls "ends" are roughly equivalent to 4-3 tackles. Big boys to clog up the middle. Moving (most of) them outside is a recipe for disaster. They lack speed for outside contain and the moves to be a legitimate pass rusher. Neal would probably be okay at it, because he can apparently play alright almost anywhere up front. The only other real, 7-9 technique players we have are our OLBs. Datonne played in a 3-4 in college. He's not going to magically turn into a edge rusher.

Which moves us along. 3-4 OLBs are 4-3 ends. If we had our guys healthy, (Matthews and Perry), they're the ones to play 4-3 end. Even then, Mulumbo and Palmer are converted 4-3 ends. Those guys converted to 3-4 OLB because they were undersized. Remember: 3-4 OLBs have more in common with 4-3 ends that any player. Consider them "stand up defensive ends" if you must.

Which brings us to 4-3 linebackers. Hawk is really the only one that projects cleanly and even then, I'm not sure where the right place to put every one. Jones would probably do alright at SAM, but would Hawk be a better MIKE or WILL? He was a WILL in our most recent 4-3, but which 4-3 we'd play matters. I'd guess MIKE for Hawk, as that's the closest position to what he plays now, but that leaves a HUGE gap at WILL. That's your playmaker, under-sized, pass covering, clean up guy who gets a lot of tackles. No one on our roster projects there, except maybe Barrington? But now we have a new problem--we're short on that class of player. Jones, Barrington, and Hawk, and Lattimore are it. One injury and we're in trouble. Yes, Jones and Lattimore made the transition from OLB to ILB in our scheme. But that's more because they weren't particularly good OLBs.

It sucks we're light at OLB for this game, but flipping to a 4-3 would hurt us more. What I could see us doing is using a 3-3 nickel package. Put the three best rushing linemen we have (Jones, Daniels, and Raji?), 2 ILBs, and 1 OLB to rove and pick his spot.

 

[mradtke66]

yeah, we would need more beef to play the 4-3. It has taken a while, but the 3-4 has grown on me.

Eh, 3-4s actually tend to be heavier up front than 4-3s.

 

[12theTruth]

This tells me you don't really understand the differences between the 3-4 and 4-3.

What the 3-4 calls "ends" are roughly equivalent to 4-3 tackles. Big boys to clog up the middle. Moving (most of) them outside is a recipe for disaster. They lack speed for outside contain and the moves to be a legitimate pass rusher. Neal would probably be okay at it, because he can apparently play alright almost anywhere up front. The only other real, 7-9 technique players we have are our OLBs. Datonne played in a 3-4 in college. He's not going to magically turn into a edge rusher.

Which moves us along. 3-4 OLBs are 4-3 ends. If we had our guys healthy, (Matthews and Perry), they're the ones to play 4-3 end. Even then, Mulumbo and Palmer are converted 4-3 ends. Those guys converted to 3-4 OLB because they were undersized. Remember: 3-4 OLBs have more in common with 4-3 ends that any player. Consider them "stand up defensive ends" if you must.

Which brings us to 4-3 linebackers. Hawk is really the only one that projects cleanly and even then, I'm not sure where the right place to put every one. Jones would probably do alright at SAM, but would Hawk be a better MIKE or WILL? He was a WILL in our most recent 4-3, but which 4-3 we'd play matters. I'd guess MIKE for Hawk, as that's the closest position to what he plays now, but that leaves a HUGE gap at WILL. That's your playmaker, under-sized, pass covering, clean up guy who gets a lot of tackles. No one on our roster projects there, except maybe Barrington? But now we have a new problem--we're short on that class of player. Jones, Barrington, and Hawk, and Lattimore are it. One injury and we're in trouble. Yes, Jones and Lattimore made the transition from OLB to ILB in our scheme. But that's more because they weren't particularly good OLBs.

It sucks we're light at OLB for this game, but flipping to a 4-3 would hurt us more. What I could see us doing is using a 3-3 nickel package. Put the three best rushing linemen we have (Jones, Daniels, and Raji?), 2 ILBs, and 1 OLB to rove and pick his spot.

I understand the difference JUST fine! We are not talking about permanent transition here. We have enough athletic ability to roll out a few different looks in a game. Don't make this to be more out than it is.

I have emphasized before and I'll do it again, IF providing different looks injury will be what forces us to make schematic changes. And the way it has been going we could se that day soon. My thought is actually quite an approriate consideration as we are stacked on the defensive line and are in scathers at the LB position.

If replacements at OLB were to struggle you're idea apparently would be to leave them out there. We do not know for certain how the green horns at OLB this week will respond. It is not so much as a bad idea to provide an alternative that provides prior experience at the OLB there and even if it means trotting out 4 defensive lineman into the games at times!!

Datone Jones has tremendous flexibility and his college coach had stated he played at multiple positions along the defensive line. This thread isn't about whether Datone Jones would be a good 4-3 end long term it is that he'd have the flexibility unlike many other defensive lineman to do yeomans work at perform in that kind of a role in a pinch.

Brad Jones could play the will and Hawk the Mike. It is once again due to injuries. A 3-3 nickel package would leave us outmanned against the run. Weeden doesn't scare anyone and having a 4 man front actually plays against one of the Brown's strengths- their offensive line.

 

[12theTruth]

Anyone having a problem with that may want to consider putting me on ignore.

Actually not a bad idea except that the ignore feature only will block the response from showing. I believe there is still a small underlined link which allows the user to view material from ignored poster. What would be more effective is a complete ignore/block as in the way facebook does it! Then you have some posters being ultra sensitive about receiving negative ratings. A complete block would insulate those poor chaps from getting their feelings hurt.

 

[TJV]

Actually not a bad idea except that the ignore feature only will block the response from showing. I believe there is still a small underlined link which allows the user to view material from ignored poster. What would be more effective is a complete ignore/block as in the way facebook does it!

You don't need a feature on this board to ignore my posts. Just ignore them.

 

[12theTruth]

You don't need a feature on this board to ignore my posts. Just ignore them.

Just as it is easier to ignore a mosquito when the door is closed and they aren't buzzing in your ear (thus you're keeping them outside). There in lies the beauty of more comprehensiveness in relation to the particular forum feature ignore/block --- whether or not it gets your approval or not or it allows you to get that last word

 

[mradtke66]

Brad Jones could play the will and Hawk the Mike. It is once again due to injuries. A 3-3 nickel package would leave us outmanned against the run. Weeden doesn't scare anyone and having a 4 man front actually plays against one of the Brown's strengths- their offensive line.

See that right there gives me pause. A 3-4 is a better defense against a running team. It is effectively a 5-2 on running plays.

Jones playing WILL? I don't see it. He's a pretty rangey player for a 3-4 ILB, but I don't think he has enough to a 4-3 WILL. That part is subjective I'll agree.

As far as the Rookies playing OLB in base, they will certainly be exposed a bit, but in theory only in coverage. Rushing and setting the edge is an easier transition from what they did in college.

A 3-3 leaving us weak against the run? It would, but that's why it'd be nickel. That's where your idea translates the best. Instead of our 2-4 (which really is a 4-2) nickel, play an extra lineman, tada 3-3.

 

[12theTruth]

See that right there gives me pause. A 3-4 is a better defense against a running team. It is effectively a 5-2 on running plays.

Jones playing WILL? I don't see it. He's a pretty rangey player for a 3-4 ILB, but I don't think he has enough to a 4-3 WILL. That part is subjective I'll agree.

As far as the Rookies playing OLB in base, they will certainly be exposed a bit, but in theory only in coverage. Rushing and setting the edge is an easier transition from what they did in college.

A 3-3 leaving us weak against the run? It would, but that's why it'd be nickel. That's where your idea translates the best. Instead of our 2-4 (which really is a 4-2) nickel, play an extra lineman, tada 3-3.

Interesting take and it should sure be an experience if it ends up being Palmer, Lattimore, Hawk, and Mulamba being the 4 LB's that end up starting for the Pack this Sunday. I'd think that'd be some sort of record for least amount of career starts by a Packer linebacker group in a long time if ever! Probably not a record I suppose as Hawk has been at it a long time.

The Packers will really have to execute to the fullest on Sunday. I for one and very worried.

 

[easyk83]

In a pinch we could have Datone Jones as one end and Neal as the other. Brad Jones was converted from outside backer so he could move back to the outside in the advent that he makes it back this week.

So it would look something like this Datone Jones.. Jolly/Daniels.. Raji/Pickett.. Neal along the line Mulumbo-- Hawk--- Jones at backers.

Definitely not preferable but with the injury situation being so precarious at LB I'm sure it's something Capers would have to consider if yet another injury occurs. Ultimately an opponent is going to tragically expose Neal in coverage, thankfully its just Brandon Weeden this week.

We might wind up seeing some 33 packages, but with two ILBs instead of two OLBs. Trust our secondary to keep guys covered while our big bodies crush and break down the pocket. Maybe we use AJ Hawk as a situational pass rusher, he's never been particularly effective in the position but he does have the speed to turn the corner and force quarterbacks to step up in the pocket. Otherwise I do like Lumba and Neal, both are very physical and effective against the run.

BTW, apparently Perry is expected to only miss 2-3 weeks per Coach McCarthy. Not sure how accurate that will be because usually this is a 6+ week injury. Must be a very very slight hairline fracture, and they probably caught it early.

 

[easyk83]

Neal has looked uncomfortable in coverage since the preseason. Hopefully things will click for him fairly soon. I wish Capers flashed a few 4-2-5 or 4-3-4 looks while we are perilously thin at OLB. You'd think it'd be a consideration being as we are the 2nd ranked defense against the run.

Neal is never going to look natural in coverage, at least not until he sheds some more weight.

 

[easyk83]

Neal may have been pushing his man into the backfield but he didn't record a tackle during the game. Offenses don't care where the defender ends up just so long as he's blocked on the play. Seems to me that Neal was terrific at taking on the block but bad at getting off the block. Remember, he's a linebacker, his job isn't just to "occupy blockers".

He graded out well by both Coaches and Bob McGinn. He did blow up atleast two outside runs by my count, that's production no matter what your philosophy is.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[easyk83]

He graded out well by both Coaches and Bob McGinn. He did blow up atleast two outside runs by my count, that's production no matter what your philosophy is.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

Sorry 13 times, all bow before the altar of STATS!

 

[13 Times Champs]

Sorry 13 times, all bow before the altar of STATS!

So where are your STATS Easy? Your jaded count is hardly fact based. See post # 39 for some actual facts. Several of us have seen his play entirely different than you. All McGinn said about Neal was that he had two pressures and kept going after people. Going after and then delivering are two different things. Neal played bad in space and missed several tackles when Raven ball carriers came his way.

And cute little videos are just that.