The argument for improving the linebackers

HyponGrey

Caseus Locutus Est
Joined
Mar 18, 2012
Messages
3,758
Reaction score
221
Location
South Jersey
I don't know if I'm on board with that yet. You got to give the guy a chance to play the position he was drafted to play.

Also, wouldn't Mike Neal 1.0 have to be good enough to warrant wanting a Mike Neal 2.0?
I'm saying he was drafted for his pass rush to play NickelDT/RDE, but Daniels locked down RDE. It's why I said we disagree whenever you said that he was drafted for his run stopping to play LDE. Catch the drift already, so I don't have to be frank. It's no fun to spoon feed.

Not necessarily. 2.0 is supposed to be the working model, until it fails and 3.0 comes out.
 

NelsonsLongCatch

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 7, 2008
Messages
2,808
Reaction score
270
Location
Chi-Town
I'm saying he was drafted for his pass rush to play NickelDT/RDE, but Daniels locked down RDE. It's why I said we disagree whenever you said that he was drafted for his run stopping to play LDE. Catch the drift already, so I don't have to be frank. It's no fun to spoon feed.

Not necessarily. 2.0 is supposed to be the working model, until it fails and 3.0 comes out.

:tup:
 

paulska

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
112
Reaction score
14
Location
Nova Scotia, Canada
I agree that the talen is lacking but I disagree with the concern regarding development of talent. Mike Daniels has become a VERY good player. You can't just dismiss Tramon, Shields and Hayward from the discussion, they're part of the defense. Also playing into that is this, how many defensive players are actually on the roster from the past four drafts?

Mike Neal (always hurt) actually developed pretty well at OLB and Burnett has developed well at safety (this year he was bad, prior two years he was good) are the only guys from the 2010 draft. In 2011 the only defensive player added that's proven to be NFL_worthy was Davon House but I'm willing to bet it's the player and not the coaches considering their success with other corners. In 2012 we got Perry (injured a lot but has looked good when healthy), Worthy Hayward, Daniels and McMillian as the only guys that have actually stuck on an NFL roster. 2013 I'm not willing to evaluate yet because they were rookies.

Looking at the most recent drafts I would actually say the coaches just haven't been supplied with the players to improve.

I didn't dismiss Tramon, Shields and Hayward- they were at the core of the group I listed as above average starters on defense, and they also served as the best examples of talent that has been developed through coaching (notably Shields and Tramon) to perform at that level.

Mike Neal is not an above average starter. He was a basketcase at DE for three seasons and did some mildly good things at OLB, but he's not an above average starter at EITHER DE or OLB for any team in the league. Perhaps we differ on the concept of development- for me it means that a player is playing consistently well over a number of seasons. Anyone can play a decent stretch of games, but that doesn't mean you're consistently one of the better players at your position.

Davon House has a ways to go- he got abused as much as he played well (although I really like his physical tools), Nick Perry doesn't seem to have the "it" to perform at a level close to CM3, although he may become serviceable. Worthy is likely only a player who could dominate out of the nickel, but he'll never be a base player, and depending on his health, we may never get good pop out of him on the pass rush. He's still a wait and see proposition at best.

I like Mike Daniels, but is he an above average starter? I don't think so. Not saying he's terrible, but he's just a guy, for the most part.

My point was that our defense seems to lack BOTH the raw talent to be effective, and the coaching acumen to take players whose attributes don't make them consensus high round talents and help them perform at a high level...
 

paulska

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
112
Reaction score
14
Location
Nova Scotia, Canada
That would result in $16,4 million of dead money, not going to happen.

BTW Burnett is only paid like an above average safety, he doesn't play like one though.

Good point. One thing I have never mastered are the vagaries of cap ramifications of trading players in the NFL- the math certainly doesn't work out in the way it does in trading in the NBA and NHL...
 

paulska

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
112
Reaction score
14
Location
Nova Scotia, Canada
Terrell Suggs and Demarcus Ware are potentially both cap cuts because of their cap numbers and the state of their respective team's cap.

I know TT isn't a big spend large money in FA, but either of these guys would be worth a big deal for what they would do for our defense. We keep looking in the bargain bin for impact, and it ain't happening.

We plunged once, for Charles Woodson, and not only did he deliver tremendous value for what many felt was a bloated, overvalued deal when it was signed, but he became a tremendous leader whose impact on Tramon and Shields continues to be a factor in the quality of play we see at CB even after he's gone...

They'd be big names on the open market, and who knows how high the price gets, but if you're TT, don't you have to at least throw an offer out there for the chance to play with ARod and CM3 and be an instant difference maker on a team with the goods to win each week simply because of your QB?
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
Terrell Suggs and Demarcus Ware are potentially both cap cuts because of their cap numbers and the state of their respective team's cap.

I know TT isn't a big spend large money in FA, but either of these guys would be worth a big deal for what they would do for our defense. We keep looking in the bargain bin for impact, and it ain't happening.

We plunged once, for Charles Woodson, and not only did he deliver tremendous value for what many felt was a bloated, overvalued deal when it was signed, but he became a tremendous leader whose impact on Tramon and Shields continues to be a factor in the quality of play we see at CB even after he's gone...

They'd be big names on the open market, and who knows how high the price gets, but if you're TT, don't you have to at least throw an offer out there for the chance to play with ARod and CM3 and be an instant difference maker on a team with the goods to win each week simply because of your QB?

None of them would be a great fit for the Packers as they would line up at ROLB in a 3-4, the same position Matthews plays.
 

HyponGrey

Caseus Locutus Est
Joined
Mar 18, 2012
Messages
3,758
Reaction score
221
Location
South Jersey
True, for a moment I forgot about the fact that we don't have a natural LOLB on the roster. I think Suggs would be too expensive though.
By far. It's weird because Perry is a bit of a tweener, but I feel he was an average player this past year at a position he's not entirely comfortable playing in a system that minimizes that position. I didn't think he could play LB at all when we drafted him, now it looks like he could develop into a solid LOLB for us in 2-3 years IF he stays healthy. He has a year before I label him "injury prone."
 
Last edited:

ARodsBelt12

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 18, 2011
Messages
26
Reaction score
4
Location
SE WI
I'm not huge on all the offseason talk, especially this early, because most of it is still overreactions from the way the past season ended. (a 3 point loss to a team that most on here seem to envy)

With that said I don't think anyone would argue with some upgrades at the LB position, both inside and outside. As we know Perry has the tools and hopefully it's just a matter of time before he breaks out, don't be surprised if he is moved to ROLB (where it is documented that he is more comfortable and productive) and CM3 is moved back to LOLB.

The DL needs some pieces filled in as well but without knowing what's going to happen with Raji, Pick, and Jolly yet it's a little early to be discussing which pieces we need, not to mention we have some guys that could step up and fill those voids.

As for the whole FA thing, everyone knows TT isn't a big spender there yet they love to point out the Woodson signing. This was a huge signing for us, no debating that, but what people tend to forget is that Woodson was on the market for a long time with little to no offers, everyone thought he was washed up. GB gave him a very affordable contract, one he didn't want to sign but didn't have any better offers. Just something to remember when everyone starts throwing a fit that TT isn't signing any big names.
 

paulska

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
112
Reaction score
14
Location
Nova Scotia, Canada
As for the whole FA thing, everyone knows TT isn't a big spender there yet they love to point out the Woodson signing. This was a huge signing for us, no debating that, but what people tend to forget is that Woodson was on the market for a long time with little to no offers, everyone thought he was washed up. GB gave him a very affordable contract, one he didn't want to sign but didn't have any better offers. Just something to remember when everyone starts throwing a fit that TT isn't signing any big names.

I find it interesting the way the rose coloured glasses have tainted the Woodson signing. I couldn't agree more about Woodson being someone who sat for a very long time before he signed with us.

But that long wait made people absolutely furious with the amount we gave him to come to Green Bay.

People conveniently forget that the only three FA's that signed for bigger money that offseason, one of which was LB LaVar Arrington who took more money from the Giants because he used the Packers as leverage.

The contract, in hindsight, was cap genius- Woodson's first year salary was immense- over $12 mil, nearly a quarter of the value of the whole deal, and tons of analysts wondered what giving a guy whose play had clearly declined over his final years in Oakland that much money up front would mean about his play.

However, at the time, Woodson's deal was one of the four richest given to a FA that offseason, and the knives were out for TT for that one. It took two full years of Woodson playing at a DPOY level before TT was roundly affirmed for that signing.

I think your point is well made though. I don't know if you win a SB by winning the Dan Snyder first day of FA MVP trophy. The thing about Suggs and Ware is that they are both going to expect such massive money. The cap isn't going up by any significant amount yet until the new TV deal kicks in. I wonder if some patience, and a savvy contract structure that one of them may see the light like Woodson once did.

I know one thing for sure- I wouldn't be signing Suggs for any term longer than 5 years. Harrison got that big extension in Pittsburgh only to fall off dramatically a couple years in, leaving them with some serious dead space when they cut him.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
By far. It's weird because Perry is a bit of a tweener, but I feel he was an average player this past year at a position he's not entirely comfortable playing in a system that minimizes that position. I didn't think he could play LB at all when we drafted him, now it looks like he could develop into a solid LOLB for us in 2-3 years IF he stays healthy. He has a year before I label him "injury prone."

I hope you´re right about Perry, but last season Mike Neal actually was the better option at LOLB.

As we know Perry has the tools and hopefully it's just a matter of time before he breaks out, don't be surprised if he is moved to ROLB (where it is documented that he is more comfortable and productive) and CM3 is moved back to LOLB.

Don´t see that happening.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
I think your point is well made though. I don't know if you win a SB by winning the Dan Snyder first day of FA MVP trophy. The thing about Suggs and Ware is that they are both going to expect such massive money. The cap isn't going up by any significant amount yet until the new TV deal kicks in. I wonder if some patience, and a savvy contract structure that one of them may see the light like Woodson once did.

I know one thing for sure- I wouldn't be signing Suggs for any term longer than 5 years. Harrison got that big extension in Pittsburgh only to fall off dramatically a couple years in, leaving them with some serious dead space when they cut him.

The new TV deal, which kicks in this season, will only add an additional $3.2 million to the cap starting in 2015.

Suggs and Ware will ask for way too much money for the Packers to sign them.
 

HyponGrey

Caseus Locutus Est
Joined
Mar 18, 2012
Messages
3,758
Reaction score
221
Location
South Jersey
I hope you´re right about Perry, but last season Mike Neal actually was the better option at LOLB.
By the end of the year when he started getting comfortable in coverage and figuring out how to play the run, yeah if only slightly. Which is part of the reason I got so upset that they had Perry on LOLB and Neal on ROLB against the 9ers. It's like we forgot what a personnel package was.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
Which is part of the reason I got so upset that they had Perry on LOLB and Neal on ROLB against the 9ers. It's like we forgot what a personnel package was.

If I remember it correctly the Packers started Neal at LOLB vs. the Niners in the playoffs with Mulumba starting on the right side. Neal got injured after five snaps and Perry played on the left side the rest of the game.
 

HyponGrey

Caseus Locutus Est
Joined
Mar 18, 2012
Messages
3,758
Reaction score
221
Location
South Jersey
If I remember it correctly the Packers started Neal at LOLB vs. the Niners in the playoffs with Mulumba starting on the right side. Neal got injured after five snaps and Perry played on the left side the rest of the game.
Couldve sworn I saw Neal on the ROLB at some point with Perry on the LOLB. Why did Mulumba start again?
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
Couldve sworn I saw Neal on the ROLB at some point with Perry on the LOLB. Why did Mulumba start again?

I have absolutely no idea why Mulumba started. The thing I got really upset about though was that Nate Palmer was inactive for that game, leaving us with only three healthy OLB to start the game.

After Neal got injured, Mulumba had to finish the game on a bad knee, with Datone Jones taking some snaps at OLB as well.
 

paulska

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
112
Reaction score
14
Location
Nova Scotia, Canada
The new TV deal, which kicks in this season, will only add an additional $3.2 million to the cap starting in 2015.

Suggs and Ware will ask for way too much money for the Packers to sign them.

The cap increases early in the deal are indeed modest, but for a team like the Packers that have been able to steward their cap wisely enough to have some play to pay big time players big money early in deals so that later years are not onerous in terms of cap implications, the fact that no team (shy of the ones that have lots of room) is really in a position to drop huge, market changing coin on two players who probably have 3 top years left.

I'm not saying these guys have to be our targets or bust, but I'll be interested to see what the market dictates for them, and whether they find themselves waiting a long time like Woodson did. If it plays out that way, and sometimes it does, then I think our situation and a smartly structured contract offer may be an enticement, especially to Ware, to join a team with legitimate title hopes. Ware gets to play in the same conference too, which for him would be added motivation because Packer success would mean continued Cowboy futility.
 

Members online

Latest posts

Top