Declined Perry's Option...thoughts on what will happen?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Carl

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 6, 2013
Messages
3,073
Reaction score
272
Location
Madison, Wisconsin
That's not the point... The point im trying to make is take a different approach. Draft olbs who are true olbs and see how that works. Time to scrap the experiment mindset and build a top defense around 12. IMO the Packers should have at least 2 more appearances in the SB...AT LEAST. As over hyped as Wilson is in Seattle they have built a top defense around him . Offensively the Packers are better at every position except Rb and they've been to two straight.

Many very good 3-4 OLBs in the league have previously played D- line: Aldon Smith, Terrell Suggs, Tamba Hali (who even played DT), Robert Mathis, Mario Williams, Elvis Dumervil, Brain Orakpo, Paul Kruger.

Moving guys to OLB is not an experiment. It's common and to not look at guys who could make the switch would leave out a lot of talented players to pick from.
 
Last edited:

Packerboy95

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 6, 2013
Messages
22
Reaction score
5
It's a prove it year for perry. That's why they declined the 5th year option. When healty he's a solid player but he can't stay healthy. If he stays healthy and plays well he'll get payed. Maybe they keep clay matthews at ILB and perry starts opposite peppers and then on passing downs they put clay back at OLB.
 

Sunshinepacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
5,766
Reaction score
896
Harrison was not a UDFA on talent. His fate was similar to that of Burfict...graded high on talent but deemed high risk as being uncoachable and unmanageable.

Is there a high talent OLB, or any player for that matter, who fell for bringing guns in the locker room like Harrison?

How is this relevant? Harrison was undrafted. That was my point. And why are you asking me about high talent OLBs who fell for bringing guns in? I was saying that it's not great planning when your team is relying on UDFAs to become starters at OLB. What does an oddly specific scenario about UDFA OLBs and guns in the locker room have to do with that?
 

Sunshinepacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
5,766
Reaction score
896
That's not the point... The point im trying to make is take a different approach. Draft olbs who are true olbs and see how that works. Time to scrap the experiment mindset and build a top defense around 12. IMO the Packers should have at least 2 more appearances in the SB...AT LEAST. As over hyped as Wilson is in Seattle they have built a top defense around him . Offensively the Packers are better at every position except Rb and they've been to two straight.

It's very common for 3-4 defenses to draft college DEs. College players are smaller than NFL players and OLBs in college, generally, aren't big enough to play 3-4 OLB in the NFL.
 

Sunshinepacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
5,766
Reaction score
896
I'm not assuming anything, I'm disagreeing with your assertion that it's "poor planning". They drafted Perry in the first round to be the bookend - that hasn't worked out but not because of poor planning. They were high on Bradford at OLB and that hasn't worked out either. They acquired Peppers, Mulumba, Hubbard, and Elliott and of course switched Neal to OLB. So IMO it's not bad planning. It may be poor execution but as you posted, it's not so easy to find a starting OLB.

Semantics. The Packers are in a position of relying on UDFAs to become starters at the most important position in the 3-4 defense or hoping Peppers can continue to defy his age for two more years (not including Perry because it's obvious the Packers don't have an immense amount of hope for him to improve considerably). That's poor planning.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
How is this relevant? Harrison was undrafted. That was my point. And why are you asking me about high talent OLBs who fell r bringing guns in? I was saying that it's not great planning when your team is relying on UDFAs to become starters at OLB. What does an oddly specific scenario about UDFA OLBs and guns in the locker room have to do with that?
You presented the "oddly specific scenario" of Harrison, not me.

The point is relevant because the most likely way to hit a home run with a UDFA is with a high-talent guy like Harrison (or Burfict) with character issues. It's also highly likely they will strike out. High ceiling, low floor. The Packers took a stab at one last year with Lyerla.

So the point is that while we agree, and as everyone should know, that getting an eventual UDFA starter is a low probability event, the odds drop further when passing over the problem children.
 

TJV

Lifelong Packers Fanatic
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
5,389
Reaction score
954
Semantics. The Packers are in a position of relying on UDFAs to become starters at the most important position in the 3-4 defense or hoping Peppers can continue to defy his age for two more years (not including Perry because it's obvious the Packers don't have an immense amount of hope for him to improve considerably). That's poor planning.
Matthews is signed through the 2018 season so unless you think the difference between one and two is "semantics" they'll be looking for one starter if Peppers declines or retires. And the plan included using pick #28 in the 2012 to find the starter opposite Matthews. Would you have preferred the Packers use early draft picks on players they rated below the ones they picked?
 

Carl

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 6, 2013
Messages
3,073
Reaction score
272
Location
Madison, Wisconsin
More worry about another position, a current position that was fine last year also.

Peppers showed no signs of slowing down and his backups did well in their limited roles.

Until Peppers shows decline, there's no reason to worry. It's like posters are trying to find things to worry about.
 

easyk83

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
2,783
Reaction score
280
That's not the point... The point im trying to make is take a different approach. Draft olbs who are true olbs and see how that works. Time to scrap the experiment mindset and build a top defense around 12. IMO the Packers should have at least 2 more appearances in the SB...AT LEAST. As over hyped as Wilson is in Seattle they have built a top defense around him . Offensively the Packers are better at every position except Rb and they've been to two straight.

And then after that let's plant money trees. Because we all know that every draft there's an abundance of NFL OLB prospects who played 34 OLB in College.
 

easyk83

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
2,783
Reaction score
280
Many very good 3-4 OLBs in the league have previously played D- line: Aldon Smith, Terrell Suggs, Tamba Hali (who even played DT), Robert Mathis, Mario Williams, Elvis Dumervil, Brain Orakpo, Paul Kruger.

Moving guys to OLB is not an experiment. It's common and to not look at guys who could make the switch would leave out a lot of talented players to pick from.

Out of necessity of course, if you want a 34 OLB who can rush the passer you pretty much have to draft a DL and convert him. If you compiled a list of the best rush OLBs over the last 20 years the overwhelming majority played DE in College.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
It's a prove it year for perry. That's why they declined the 5th year option.

The Packers declined the fifth year option for Perry because there´s no way he´s worth $7.75 million.

More worry about another position, a current position that was fine last year also.

Peppers showed no signs of slowing down and his backups did well in their limited roles.

Until Peppers shows decline, there's no reason to worry. It's like posters are trying to find things to worry about.

And other posters don´t have the foresight to realize it´s better to address possible shortcomings on the roster BEFORE the team is actually in dire need of an upgrade.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
It's amazing how TT won't usually sign proven free agents but he will snatch up an undrafted unproven rookie FA In a heart beat. No I don't mean a guy who's going to have a high price tag either... There care guys that were to be had and will be available in the next couple if months. Serviceable guys. I hate the Steelers but they generally draft a lb in the fist 3 rds every yr because they know having solid lbs are a staple of the 3-4. The Packers still don't know how to draft lbs for the 3-4. That's why you see all these stop ago at olb like Mike Neal, Nick Perry, Julius Peppers, etc. guys who played on the line NOT true lbs. Then you wonder why they look unnatural in coverage and out in space.
The 3-4 does not typically require much in the way of coverage skills from the OLBs. This is certainly the case in Capers' defense.

The job typically requires covering the flats and short zones, roughly the area between the hash and the sidelines to around 15 yards depth. Every once in while, the guy might get caught in isolation on a bad defensive call and have to run down the field. Secondarily, they function as a twist on the signature Capers' zone blitz...dropping into hot read lanes on blitzes, particularly when a DB is coming off the corner.

If I recall correctly, Peppers had something like 35 coverage snaps last year according to PFF. That amounts to about 2 drops per game on fewer than 5% of his snaps, while getting 2 picks out of the bargain.

A couple years back, I recall reading around mid-season that Matthews was dropping about 6-7 times per game, about 10% of the downs. I think that's about as high as it ever gets in this defense.

The optimal OLB in this defense is a guy (1) who can rush the passer, (2) hold the edge in the run game, and (3) has "zone awareness", i.e., being able to read the QB, read the play, and be aware of who's coming into the zone and where they're heading. I have a hard time seeing a player balancing these roles better than Peppers.

Perry on the other hand, has shown himself to be merely a bull rusher, good at the point of attack, while having poor zone awareness.

The Packers have invested a ton at the position...Matthews' pick and Matthews' and Peppers' contracts, and first and second round picks in Perry and Neal. If the #3 is not quite up to snuff it's not from lack of trying, as THX noted. Peppers age is an issue. There's is reason to think a pass rush specialist to be developed into a 3-down player would have been on the draft agenda; I'll give you that.

The pass defense at the LB primarily falls to the middle backers. It's the reason some of us thought Thompson should have taken Kendricks at #30 to bring some glue to this array. Instead, they went with Ryan...he shows good zone awareness (as I wear out that phrase) and I reckon they figure his 4.65 speed will come to bear on the occasions where he's caught having to run the seam or peel out on a wheel route. What I don't see is that 40 time showing up in sideline-to-sideline run pursuit...but you can't get everything in the 4th. round.
 

Sunshinepacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
5,766
Reaction score
896
Matthews is signed through the 2018 season so unless you think the difference between one and two is "semantics" they'll be looking for one starter if Peppers declines or retires. And the plan included using pick #28 in the 2012 to find the starter opposite Matthews. Would you have preferred the Packers use early draft picks on players they rated below the ones they picked?

Really? You're going to nitpick me using Swype on a phone an putting an 's' after one word by mistake? This is what I love about the Internet. It should have been obvious that I was only discussing the position opposite Matthews since your initial reply in this discussion was to a message where I said the Packers need an OLB opposite Matthews.
 

Sunshinepacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
5,766
Reaction score
896
You presented the "oddly specific scenario" of Harrison, not me.

The point is relevant because the most likely way to hit a home run with a UDFA is with a high-talent guy like Harrison (or Burfict) with character issues. It's also highly likely they will strike out. High ceiling, low floor. The Packers took a stab at one last year with Lyerla.

So the point is that while we agree, and as everyone should know, that getting an eventual UDFA starter is a low probability event, the odds drop further when passing over the problem children.

I brought up Harrison in reply to someone saying that those UDFAs will have been in the Packers system for a while and that they should be good players (also brought up were Shields and Williams). I only brought up Harrison to forestall someone else mentioning him and to illustrate how rare that type of scenario is. I wasn't bringing up Harrison in support of the idea that UDFAs are solid bets to make an impact.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
I brought up Harrison in reply to someone saying that those UDFAs will have been in the Packers system for a while and that they should be good players (also brought up were Shields and Williams). I only brought up Harrison to forestall someone else mentioning him and to illustrate how rare that type of scenario is. I wasn't bringing up Harrison in support of the idea that UDFAs are solid bets to make an impact.
I get that.

It's worth pointing out that for Shields and Williams are 2 guys over 10 years. How many UDFAs have been in camp and filtered in and out of the practice squad over that perios? I guess something like 150. So, that's a 1 in 75 chance, or 1 player every 5 years, who has achieved solid starter or better status out of the UDFA classes. The main utility of these players is filling out the bottom of the roster and to play special teams, or as emergency reserves on the PS. Even then, most of them are gone after a year or two when they don't make the jump.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
Matthews is signed through the 2018 season so unless you think the difference between one and two is "semantics" they'll be looking for one starter if Peppers declines or retires. And the plan included using pick #28 in the 2012 to find the starter opposite Matthews. Would you have preferred the Packers use early draft picks on players they rated below the ones they picked?
McCarthy has confirmed that Matthews will see duty at ILB this season, stating that Matthews has been in the meetings for both OLB and ILB. Whatever resistance Matthews may have had according to rumors, he's going along with it. I would expect the answer to "how much and for how long" has satisfied the player. even if there was a dance or negotiation of a sort was involved.

With the timing of Pepper's hitting the wall being uncertain, and no qualified pass rusher opposite Peppers when Matthews plays the middle, an OLB with pass rushing credentials in this draft would not have been a stretch.

But with high draft capital already invested in Perry and Neal, they chose to stand pat this year and shore up the depleted area of previous strength...the D-backfield...where interceptions and passer-rating-against is generated. I don't see it as necessarily choosing the highest-rated players.
 

Carl

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 6, 2013
Messages
3,073
Reaction score
272
Location
Madison, Wisconsin
The Packers declined the fifth year option for Perry because there´s no way he´s worth $7.75 million.



And other posters don´t have the foresight to realize it´s better to address possible shortcomings on the roster BEFORE the team is actually in dire need of an upgrade.

Can't address everything every year. Should we draft a player almost every position?

If we picked an OLB, then we wouldn't have addressed another spot. I guarentee if we picked one high, then we'd be talking about not addressing corner enough.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
Can't address everything every year. Should we draft a player almost every position?

If we picked an OLB, then we wouldn't have addressed another spot. I guarentee if we picked one high, then we'd be talking about not addressing corner enough.

There´s no denying it´s not possible to address every single position during a draft. But ignoring the fact that OLB will most likely turn into a position of need before next year´s draft is not the smart way to go about it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

PackMan13x

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 9, 2009
Messages
310
Reaction score
71
Location
Steubenville, OH
Who would you have taken instead? From what I remember it was pretty much between Upshaw and Perry and if I'm not mistaken Upshaw hasn't amounted to much either.
Between upshaw and perry? According to who? The fans? Have you ever heard of Ted Thompson? It was anything BUT between those 2. The odds of him drafting someone you never heard of were just as good as him drafting Upshaw.
 

TJV

Lifelong Packers Fanatic
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
5,389
Reaction score
954
There´s no denying it´s not possible to address every single position during a draft. But ignoring the fact that OLB will most likely turn into a position of need before next year´s draft is the smart way to go about it.
(I'm guessing you meant NOT the smart way...) Who would you have had them take in the draft to address OLB? Both us didn't like the trade up for Hundley but chances of getting a difference-making OLB there are slim. I looked at a couple OLB taken by the Pats after the Montgomery pick and neither looks like they'll be the kind of pass rushers needed. The best thing they have going for them IMO is the Pats picked 'em so the analysis I read could turn out to be wrong.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
(I'm guessing you meant NOT the smart way...) Who would you have had them take in the draft to address OLB? Both us didn't like the trade up for Hundley but chances of getting a difference-making OLB there are slim. I looked at a couple OLB taken by the Pats after the Montgomery pick and neither looks like they'll be the kind of pass rushers needed. The best thing they have going for them IMO is the Pats picked 'em so the analysis I read could turn out to be wrong.

Dammit, TJV, I really have to be more careful with you around. ;) While I understand the Randall pick I would have liked Thompson to take a gamble on Randy Gregory in the first round. IMO the secondary would have been fine with the Rollins pick and spending one of the sixth rounders on Ifo Ekpre-Olomu (who was a possible first round pick before tearing his ACL).
 

Sunshinepacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
5,766
Reaction score
896
Can't address everything every year. Should we draft a player almost every position?

If we picked an OLB, then we wouldn't have addressed another spot. I guarentee if we picked one high, then we'd be talking about not addressing corner enough.

Or the Packers might have passed on a WR/RB prospect in the third...
 

TJV

Lifelong Packers Fanatic
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
5,389
Reaction score
954
Or the Packers might have passed on a WR/RB prospect in the third...
Who? As a posted above: "I looked at a couple OLB taken by the Pats after the Montgomery pick and neither looks like they'll be the kind of pass rushers needed." It's easy to say they should have taken an OLB but since the Packers had the 9th pick in the '09 draft, their average pick in the last 6 drafts in the first round is 26-27. So again who should they have picked? Certainly not a player just so they could say they picked one, right?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top