H
HardRightEdge
Guest
The overall picture is "stay the course", add depth and bring numbers for competitive positions.
1. Cover Corner Replacement / DB Depth
The Packers lost the #2 and #3 cover corners. Besides setting up a competition at cover corner opposite Shields, adding these two particular players in the first round is a move for depth in scheme diversity.
Single High Free Safety: Dix - Randall
While I like Hyde for nickel, some safety duty and punt returns, his lack of long speed does get exposed and is problematic in the single-high role. This looks like Randall's natural position where play recognition and ball skills are at a premium over face-up tackling ability.
Two High Free Safety: Dix - Randall
Ditto.
Box Strong Safety: Burnett - Richardson - Rollins
Rollins has physicality that belies his size; he could show some ability here.
Two High Strong Safety: Burnett - Rollins/Hyde
After Burnett, Hyde is the only incumbent who is at least an average secondary tackler while also bringing some coverage skills if not the preferred speed. At this point, Rollins looks like the #2 if Hyde is ensconced at nickel. Rollins looks best at this stage with the play in front of him, a natural safety perhaps, and he brings physicality. Hyde brings savvy and experience, but Rollins has more upside at this position with somewhat better speed and ball skills and is a logical #2 with Hyde at nickel.
Nickel Corner: Hyde/Hayward - Rollins
Hayward's status in this group depends on the outcome of the cover corner competition.
Dime Corner: Lots of options in an alignment run about 5% - 10% of the time; outcome to be determined based on who secures the cover corner spot.
Cover Corner: ???
This is where it gets interesting, of course. Hayward lacks long speed; he's most productive as a zone nickel guy where most of his interceptions came from; he falls off in man coverage. Randall looks like he has the skills, except for being a bad tackler, thereby not a good complement to Shields. Further, since no sideline-to-sideline quickness was added at the ILB position, a Shields/Randall combo leaves the edges exposed. Rollins brings the physicality that would be the complement to Shields, but his technique to flip-run-track looks like it needs a lot of work; he'll need a fast ramp up to steal this job.
Conclusion: These first two picks have a lot of bet-hedging built in. As Thompson put it, "life happens, injuries happen", and the picks have covering all eventualities written all over them. Further, these picks, together with the approach to the ILB position, indicate a "stay the course" in terms of defensive approach. That's disappointing.
2. Roster Depth
The position numbers on the roster tell much of the tale.
WR: After the top 3 WRs on the roster going into the draft, there were development and health concerns. Without a legit receiving threat at TE, and injury to any of the top 3 leaving the passing attack exposed, a WR is not a bad choice in this spot. Further, there wasn't anybody on the roster going into the draft one would consider a slot receiver behind Cobb. Mongomery fits the cover-the-bases depth theme. This is a guy with the physical stature and quickness for the backup slot role. Further, he covers the wide out injury scenario in the same way that Barclay covers the LT injury scenario; Cobb has the route tree to go to wide out with Montgomery taking the slot. Montgomery has the widely reported hands issues, which is somewhat troublesome in the slot role working in traffic. We'll see how that shapes up. He should get his eyes thoroughly checked.
FB/TE: Coming into the draft, there were only 4 on the roster. Perillo is bubble guy to start with. Neither Quarless nor Rodgers have looked good lead blocking in the H-back role, and both are thoroughly unfit as a short yardage running options as an up-back, if that even needs to be said. If Kuhn were to go down, there was no backup on the roster for lead blocking and short yardage.
Enter Ripkowski, an old school sledgehammer FB, but he'll need to show some promise as a pass blocker to legitimately fill the back-up role. His presence on the roster could signal the return of the "inverted bone" 3-back short yardage alignment. Ugh.
Backman is more a pass catching developmental prospect than a guy in the H-back profile. 4.66 speed with 17 lifts, indicative of his not being known as much of a blocker in college. Could fill a 3rd. TE spot if (1) McCarthy wants to go with 5 FB/TEs under the assumption that none of the TEs are H-back types and (2) he can beat out Perrilo. He looks more like a PS internship guy.
ILB: The Ryan pick is disappointing, not so much because of the player himself but what it signals. His name is added to the numbers game in a group with similar characteristics...more physical than fast; more downhill than sideline-to-sideline; perhaps adequate in short zone coverage while questionable in seam running or covering slot or wheel-running RBs. This is a particular concern now that we hear Matthews is resisting the ILB role. Not getting a 3-down ILB says to me "cover the injury depth bases; bring numbers to a competitive position; stay the course", as is the case with cover corner selections. "Stay the course" in an underachieving and brittle defense is at the root of my disappointment with the defensive draft picks.
QB: I find this pick far less surprising than most. First of all, there were only 2 QBs on the roster going into the draft, with no evidence the Packers would bring Flynn back. What you want in a backup QB is a guy who can come in and beat bad teams and provide a solid chance at mediocre teams in the event of a short term Rodgers injury. Take 2013 and mark it in bold. Many in these confines might view this pick as superfluous under the assumption that the home state guy neatly fills this role. I have questioned this assumption rigorously in the past. Ask the question: why was Tolzien signed to a one year deal, not two years? It stands to reason they need to see more progress in being comfortable having him filling that beat-the bad-to-mediocre teams role.
Enter Hundley. He has the physical tools, but having played in that spread offense, he has a lot to learn. I doubt he'll leap frog Tolzien in 2015. But he has a solid chance to move to #2 in 2016 with Tolzien's contract up. In the mean time, Hundley can bring spread/option offense concepts to the scout team in preparing for those pesky teams that like to run this stuff. We do play Seattle and SF this season, after all, with QBs that have a history of giving us fits.
DE: Ringo is a depth pick at the D-Line. They found a winner in Daniels who went against the DT/DE physical prototype. He's a shot at finding lightning in a bottle...twice.
RB: I thought the Packers might draft a RB as soon as the 3rd. round. There were only 3 on the roster going into this draft. Starks will be 30 next year and has the ever-present durability issues. I don't think he can be counted on for 20 - 25 touches in the event of a Lacy injury. The #3 is largely and unkown coming off injury. Instead, the #3 becomes a numbers game with a raft of UDFAs.
1. Cover Corner Replacement / DB Depth
The Packers lost the #2 and #3 cover corners. Besides setting up a competition at cover corner opposite Shields, adding these two particular players in the first round is a move for depth in scheme diversity.
Single High Free Safety: Dix - Randall
While I like Hyde for nickel, some safety duty and punt returns, his lack of long speed does get exposed and is problematic in the single-high role. This looks like Randall's natural position where play recognition and ball skills are at a premium over face-up tackling ability.
Two High Free Safety: Dix - Randall
Ditto.
Box Strong Safety: Burnett - Richardson - Rollins
Rollins has physicality that belies his size; he could show some ability here.
Two High Strong Safety: Burnett - Rollins/Hyde
After Burnett, Hyde is the only incumbent who is at least an average secondary tackler while also bringing some coverage skills if not the preferred speed. At this point, Rollins looks like the #2 if Hyde is ensconced at nickel. Rollins looks best at this stage with the play in front of him, a natural safety perhaps, and he brings physicality. Hyde brings savvy and experience, but Rollins has more upside at this position with somewhat better speed and ball skills and is a logical #2 with Hyde at nickel.
Nickel Corner: Hyde/Hayward - Rollins
Hayward's status in this group depends on the outcome of the cover corner competition.
Dime Corner: Lots of options in an alignment run about 5% - 10% of the time; outcome to be determined based on who secures the cover corner spot.
Cover Corner: ???
This is where it gets interesting, of course. Hayward lacks long speed; he's most productive as a zone nickel guy where most of his interceptions came from; he falls off in man coverage. Randall looks like he has the skills, except for being a bad tackler, thereby not a good complement to Shields. Further, since no sideline-to-sideline quickness was added at the ILB position, a Shields/Randall combo leaves the edges exposed. Rollins brings the physicality that would be the complement to Shields, but his technique to flip-run-track looks like it needs a lot of work; he'll need a fast ramp up to steal this job.
Conclusion: These first two picks have a lot of bet-hedging built in. As Thompson put it, "life happens, injuries happen", and the picks have covering all eventualities written all over them. Further, these picks, together with the approach to the ILB position, indicate a "stay the course" in terms of defensive approach. That's disappointing.
2. Roster Depth
The position numbers on the roster tell much of the tale.
WR: After the top 3 WRs on the roster going into the draft, there were development and health concerns. Without a legit receiving threat at TE, and injury to any of the top 3 leaving the passing attack exposed, a WR is not a bad choice in this spot. Further, there wasn't anybody on the roster going into the draft one would consider a slot receiver behind Cobb. Mongomery fits the cover-the-bases depth theme. This is a guy with the physical stature and quickness for the backup slot role. Further, he covers the wide out injury scenario in the same way that Barclay covers the LT injury scenario; Cobb has the route tree to go to wide out with Montgomery taking the slot. Montgomery has the widely reported hands issues, which is somewhat troublesome in the slot role working in traffic. We'll see how that shapes up. He should get his eyes thoroughly checked.
FB/TE: Coming into the draft, there were only 4 on the roster. Perillo is bubble guy to start with. Neither Quarless nor Rodgers have looked good lead blocking in the H-back role, and both are thoroughly unfit as a short yardage running options as an up-back, if that even needs to be said. If Kuhn were to go down, there was no backup on the roster for lead blocking and short yardage.
Enter Ripkowski, an old school sledgehammer FB, but he'll need to show some promise as a pass blocker to legitimately fill the back-up role. His presence on the roster could signal the return of the "inverted bone" 3-back short yardage alignment. Ugh.
Backman is more a pass catching developmental prospect than a guy in the H-back profile. 4.66 speed with 17 lifts, indicative of his not being known as much of a blocker in college. Could fill a 3rd. TE spot if (1) McCarthy wants to go with 5 FB/TEs under the assumption that none of the TEs are H-back types and (2) he can beat out Perrilo. He looks more like a PS internship guy.
ILB: The Ryan pick is disappointing, not so much because of the player himself but what it signals. His name is added to the numbers game in a group with similar characteristics...more physical than fast; more downhill than sideline-to-sideline; perhaps adequate in short zone coverage while questionable in seam running or covering slot or wheel-running RBs. This is a particular concern now that we hear Matthews is resisting the ILB role. Not getting a 3-down ILB says to me "cover the injury depth bases; bring numbers to a competitive position; stay the course", as is the case with cover corner selections. "Stay the course" in an underachieving and brittle defense is at the root of my disappointment with the defensive draft picks.
QB: I find this pick far less surprising than most. First of all, there were only 2 QBs on the roster going into the draft, with no evidence the Packers would bring Flynn back. What you want in a backup QB is a guy who can come in and beat bad teams and provide a solid chance at mediocre teams in the event of a short term Rodgers injury. Take 2013 and mark it in bold. Many in these confines might view this pick as superfluous under the assumption that the home state guy neatly fills this role. I have questioned this assumption rigorously in the past. Ask the question: why was Tolzien signed to a one year deal, not two years? It stands to reason they need to see more progress in being comfortable having him filling that beat-the bad-to-mediocre teams role.
Enter Hundley. He has the physical tools, but having played in that spread offense, he has a lot to learn. I doubt he'll leap frog Tolzien in 2015. But he has a solid chance to move to #2 in 2016 with Tolzien's contract up. In the mean time, Hundley can bring spread/option offense concepts to the scout team in preparing for those pesky teams that like to run this stuff. We do play Seattle and SF this season, after all, with QBs that have a history of giving us fits.
DE: Ringo is a depth pick at the D-Line. They found a winner in Daniels who went against the DT/DE physical prototype. He's a shot at finding lightning in a bottle...twice.
RB: I thought the Packers might draft a RB as soon as the 3rd. round. There were only 3 on the roster going into this draft. Starks will be 30 next year and has the ever-present durability issues. I don't think he can be counted on for 20 - 25 touches in the event of a Lacy injury. The #3 is largely and unkown coming off injury. Instead, the #3 becomes a numbers game with a raft of UDFAs.
Last edited by a moderator:
