1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!
    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers.

    You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!
  2. Announcement is LIVE: Read the Forum Post

Clay Matthews ... Inside linebacker?

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by ivo610, Mar 18, 2014.

  1. ivo610

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    16,244
    Ratings:
    +4,116
  2. 98Redbird

    98Redbird Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2010
    Messages:
    799
    Ratings:
    +234
    Interesting.

    It's really the only word I can come up with regarding the thought.
     
  3. Vrill

    Vrill Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2011
    Messages:
    795
    Ratings:
    +306
    That blog should have waited until after the draft. If CJ Mosley is there when we pick, I think TT pulls the trigger and drafts him.
     
  4. armand34

    armand34 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 24, 2010
    Messages:
    1,861
    Ratings:
    +280
    the draft is too damn far away still
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. rodell330

    rodell330 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    2,991
    Ratings:
    +1,013
    No. Leave him on the outside. Why would anyone take their best pass rusher and put him in the middle? When has any mlb ever led his team in sacks? Way to easy to block him that way.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  6. Einstein McFly

    Einstein McFly Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2012
    Messages:
    381
    Ratings:
    +235
    The cure is worse than the disease. First off, who knows if Daniels and Jones will be effective if CM3 isn't rushing. Second, CM3 is also our best run stuffer on the outside. Third, on passing downs the middle backer often needs to run with the TE, not rush the passer. There's nothing that makes sense about this. Even the bit about "shortest distance is a line" etc. CM3's most amazing move is how fast and low he can turn the corner on the tackles. Guys like Hawk can be successful blitzing up the middle if things are timed right. It'd be a huge waste of your best player's best move to line him up there.

    Now, I can see him doing some new stuff with stunts and twists with Peppers, but that's nothing like putting him at ILB.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. Ace

    Ace Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2014
    Messages:
    847
    Ratings:
    +357
    I guess I just don't see how Clay being on the field more instead of Hawk or Jones could ever be a bad thing? I understand the points that have been made here, and I completely agree that this article probably should have been written after the draft. Clay IMO can and will be effective in any situation he's put in on this defense. Is his best spot coming off of the edge? Ofcourse it is but the idea of mixing things up is interesting. The goal should be to have the best 11 players on the field at all times. Clay is better then Hawk or Jones so replacing one of them with Clay who is our best defensive player to me seems logical.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 2
  8. El Guapo

    El Guapo Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    2,614
    Ratings:
    +1,470
    Nope. He'll be more likely to pull a hamstring with more snaps
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  9. Einstein McFly

    Einstein McFly Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2012
    Messages:
    381
    Ratings:
    +235
    Huh? CM3 is the definition of a three down player. The only time he's off the field is to rest. It's not like we have to invent ways to get him on the field in nickel or dime. The whole point of nickel and dime is that it's a likely passing down and it's time for Mathews to tee off rushing the passer. I can't think of any time when we take him off the field for Hawk or Jones or anybody else.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. wist43

    wist43 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2014
    Messages:
    201
    Ratings:
    +61
    I brought this up as a plausible nickel subpackage.

    A 4-2 nickel

    DL: Peppers, Daniels, D. Jones, Perry

    LB's: Matthews, and any one of Neal/Hawk/B. Jones/Mulumba

    Also in the 3-3 nickel

    DL: Peppers, Daniels, D. Jones

    LB's: Matthews, Neal, and any one of Hawk/B. Jones/Mulumba

    Everyone remembers Clay's sack of Vick in the 2010 playoff game - he came on a delayed blitz from MLB. We were in a 2-4 (which I hate - unless it's used this way, i.e. to dial up unpredictable pressure), Raji and Jenkins were the DL; and Matthews, Hawk and Walden all came on the blitz.

    Presnap movement, and bringing pressure from different positions are critical to sustaining a consistent pass rush. I hate the 2-4, but if Capers used it properly, and blitzed out of it, I wouldn't complain about it as a subpackage. As it is, he's become far too static with it, i.e. the 2 interior linemen rush, the 2 OLB's rush upfield, and that's it - very predictable. The players have to win the physical battle every time, as opposed to getting the assist of confusing blocking assignments, and forcing offensive linemen to pass off rushers to catch a blitzer, etc.

    I wouldn't want Clay to play straight up ILB, but in subpackages?? Absolutely.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Sunshinepacker

    Sunshinepacker Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2013
    Messages:
    1,244
    Ratings:
    +457
    I don't see a problem with this thought process. If Peppers is playing OLB in a 3-4 then we can be pretty much assured he's actually just playing defensive end about 3 yards off the line. Matthews can still rush very effectively from where he's at AND by having Peppers playing next to Matthews they can actually stunt off one another. In that scenario you'd have to have Matthews in the inside so that there was a possibility of the ILB dropping into coverage (don't think many offenses are going to stay up late worrying about Peppers in coverage). Just think about how bad a TE/tackle combo is going to feel not only having to worry about Peppers barreling into them with a full head of steam but also the fact that it could actually be a stunt and now they're faced with Matthews coming from a different angle (and the same is true of the interior oline). Should be noted that this would most likely only be on obvious passing downs.
     
  12. Ace

    Ace Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2014
    Messages:
    847
    Ratings:
    +357
    The article suggested that he came off the field not me.
     
  13. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    5,632
    Ratings:
    +2,557
    I think there's something to be said for those looks on a here-and-there basis especially given the frequency with which Capers rushes 5. However, we're not paying Matthews what he's being paid to be an ILB on any regular basis; he's paid to rush the passer..
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. wist43

    wist43 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2014
    Messages:
    201
    Ratings:
    +61
    I agree, and I would surely be looking to send him on just about every snap out of the 4-2/3-3.

    I have a few problems with the 2-4, and one of them is, Matthews is lined up at ROLB almost every snap, and almost every snap is a static 4 man rush. If there is a blitz, who are you going to send?? Hawk or B. Jones?? neither of whom are strong blitzers??

    I would much rather have high-end pass rushers, i.e. the Defensive Linemen we've invested so heavily in, on the field, and make use of the LB's that we have that are strong pass rushers, i.e. Matthews, Neal, and Mulumba. Maybe Matthews rushes out of that ROLB spot in the 4-2/3-3, same as he would the 2-4, but at that point it is a blitz instead of just a regular 4 man rush - the offensive line has to account for that, and that's when you can pop rushers free to the QB.
     
  15. GoPGo

    GoPGo Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2013
    Messages:
    1,774
    Ratings:
    +815
    I completely understand the idea of putting him at ILB. Clay can be a sideline-to-sideline guy and putting him inside would be an instant improvement to the middle of our defense, where we are weakest. But unless we have two other guys who can consistently get pressure on the QB, he must play outside for now. As to the idea that playing him inside would be a waste of his talents, one word - Urlacher. Urlacher could have been an outside pass rusher too, but instead he was a more complete player at ILB. It makes one wonder. I wouldn't mind seeing some ILB work from him in preseason just to see what kind of effect it has on our defense.

    Another point to consider is the possibility that his talents may actually be wasted in his current role. Over the last 3 seasons, he's averaging 2.6 tackles per game and 0.7 sacks per game. It's easy to look across the opposite side of the field and say, "well, it's because he has no help" but is that really the case or is it merely an assumption? Does adding another pass rusher mean Clay will be back to 13 sacks a year? I'm not so sure. There's also the availabilty factor. A guy can be the most talented player ever but if he's not available, what's the point? We all know Clay has tight hammies for whatever reason. Most hamstring injuries happen on explosive exertion, like he does at the start of nearly every play right now. Given the read and react nature of the ILB position, it might be the answer to eliminating his chronic hamstring problems.

    Either way, for the time being we clearly need him at OLB. But I do think for longevity of his career, an eventual move inside is probably in order sooner rather than later.

    Bash away ;)
     
  16. Poppa San

    Poppa San SB I trophy First of four Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2010
    Messages:
    4,447
    Ratings:
    +1,043
    Really?:rolleyes:
    [sarcastic font] Let's see, at this point you have 17 posts and have made this or a nearly identical observation in just about every one. Why don't you go to one of the pet peeve threads and tell us how you really feel. [/sarcastic font]
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. rodell330

    rodell330 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    2,991
    Ratings:
    +1,013
    One thing I never understand is how under rated Clay is vs the run . He's one of the best rushers in the league yes but you hardly see teams have much luck when they run at him. He probably sets the best edge out of all the top rushing olbs in the NFL . That includes Demarcus ware, Aldon smith, Von miller all of em. Watch the SB game vs Pittsburgh if you need proof. Pittsburgh had been reluctant to run on his side virtually all game and when they did he set the edge and caused IMO the fumble that saved the game IMO.
     
  18. wist43

    wist43 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2014
    Messages:
    201
    Ratings:
    +61
    It is our #1 correctable problem - it is so glaring, that I don't think there can even be an honest evaluation of the defensive players. Capers is simply not putting them in positions to be successful.
     
  19. easyk83

    easyk83 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2013
    Messages:
    818
    Ratings:
    +337
  20. Einstein McFly

    Einstein McFly Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2012
    Messages:
    381
    Ratings:
    +235
    Mathews is solid in all areas, but his #1 special ability is getting low to the ground and turning the corner on a speed rush to get around tackles. It's amazing the body control he has on that move and when you see him take inside moves it's because the tackles are terrified of him just flying around them and they overcompensate. Moving CM3 around is smart because he's the best guy on the field, but moving him from a position where he can do what almost no one else can to a position where he just runs straight up the field (it's a lot easier to find a guy who can do that) makes no sense. Now, if we cloned him and already had one playing on each side then sure, I'd be happy to see him play in the middle too. But there's only one and he should be bending around the end like a maniac as much as possible.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  21. easyk83

    easyk83 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2013
    Messages:
    818
    Ratings:
    +337
    An oldie but a goodie, I think the season to damned far away as well.[/quote]
    I hate the idea of Clay Matthews on the inside, permanently. I think Matthews should be allowed to roam and attack as much as possible. Give him the green light to call adjustments and become the one man wrecking crew he was always destined to be.
     
  22. easyk83

    easyk83 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2013
    Messages:
    818
    Ratings:
    +337
    I think you have to move him around to maximize his versatility and freakish instincts. When he's forced to function like a pseudo DE he just isn't the same player as he is when he's allowed to roam and attack. Clay unleashed and healthy=DPOY, no other Defensive player in the league will be as disruptive.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  23. Ace

    Ace Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2014
    Messages:
    847
    Ratings:
    +357
    So Much THIS. I have people tell me all the time that Clay is JUST a pass rusher. They obviously don't watch him play. He is one of the most compete players I have seen in a while.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  24. El Guapo

    El Guapo Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    2,614
    Ratings:
    +1,470
    That was the big talk heading into the 2010 Super Bowl...just run to his side. Well how did that work out for Pittsburgh?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  25. adambr2

    adambr2 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2012
    Messages:
    1,898
    Ratings:
    +1,433
    Love where they're going with this.

    Get your best 11 on the field. We have outside pass rushers even with Matthews inside. He doesn't need to be there every down, he can roam, but we've been sorely lacking that interior pretense which Matthews now gives us.

    As others have pointed out, Matthews isn't a 1 trick pony. We're not trying a KGB experiment here. He has the skill set to play inside and I would gladly trade a few sacks every year if he were to develop into an Urlacher/Willis type presence inside.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1

Share This Page