Fackrell the NEXT Aaron Kampman

gonzozab

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 31, 2011
Messages
1,133
Reaction score
287
Location
Parts unknown
That can work or backfire as well, I don't think either way is a guaranteed and it all comes down to having good scouts. I have a feeling the whole scouting department is being evaluated right now and some may be losing their jobs as well.

I remember just dropping my jaw at what Atlanta gave up to get Julio Jones, but that seemed to have worked out for them. Not sure I want to see Gute give up that much to move up for Bosa, but hey, might be a career move for him if Bosa is the stud many think he is.

Also, with as many holes as the Packers seem to currently have, I would probably favor the "more is better approach". Now 3-5 years ago, maybe TT should have seen we just needed a few solid players and made Julio Jones like moves in the draft.
Well, whichever way they decide to go, they have to take best player available with all their picks regardless of position, including their first rounders, not best player available at greatest position of need. It's time to get some real talent in here. Teddy did alot of overreaching on players he could've had a round or two later. Every time you draft a lesser player than you could've had, another team gets that much better than you.
 

easyk83

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
2,783
Reaction score
280
The trade down and collect extra draft picks philosophy has been the strategy of this organization under Teddy's entire career here. It has not worked. Maybe that could change under Gute if he becomes a better GM than Teddy, which should be a slam dunk, but I think we need to change that philosophy. Playing it safe and being afraid of risk is not how you should play it when you have a franchise quarterback. It's time to be aggressive and trade up and get an elite, Hall of Fame type player like Bosa.

Teddys problem was relying on the draft and failing to realize that either A) there was a problem of scouting or B) there was a problem of coaching. I tend to think there was more a problem with the Coaching on the defensive side of the ball which necessitated multiple draft picks over there which drained talent from the offense. I also think that Teddys drafting took a downward turn when he started trying to find guys who could fit into Doms defense as opposed to drafting high upside types who could run fast.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
Fackrell had a good year, if we had another OLB like him we'd be more than fine at the position. Is he an All Pro, probably not. But his emergence does give us some flexibility moving forward.

Fackrell had a lot of sacks but other than that wasn't able to generate pressure on a consistent basis. The Packers need to do better at edge rusher than relying on him to replicate his numbers next season.

Ok, maybe I got a little carried away, but I don't think any of those guys you mentioned are on the same level as Adams. At least, the jury is still out on Alexander and Jones.

Bakhtiari is most likely the best left tackle in the league, definitely being on a level with Adams.

Well, whichever way they decide to go, they have to take best player available with all their picks regardless of position, including their first rounders, not best player available at greatest position of need.

Position of need always factors into a selection.
 

sschind

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
4,969
Reaction score
1,244
Well, whichever way they decide to go, they have to take best player available with all their picks regardless of position, including their first rounders, not best player available at greatest position of need.

I would say you draft the best player available at A position of need not the best player available at the greatest position of need. If you are focusing on the greatest position of need you risk reaching for a less talented player or passing on someone who could really help your team. Like WIMM says, need does factor into it.

If the best player available at #17 is a QB the Browns would be stupid to take him if there is a highly rated WR or OT available.
 

RepStar15

"We're going to relentlessly chase perfection."
Joined
Feb 4, 2015
Messages
1,461
Reaction score
265
Location
Cranston, RI
It’s really too bad Frakrell has his breakout season in such an overall poor Packers season. If his productivity translates into 2019, he may be too expensive to keep in GB in 2020. We already overpaid an edge rusher that had 1.5 good season, got paid and has been invisible. I don’t think the packers would take another chance like that after Nick Perry.
 

AmishMafia

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 27, 2010
Messages
7,279
Reaction score
2,395
Location
PENDING
Bakhtiari, Linsley, Jones, Clark, Alexander..
Packers record is 6-9-1 is the only analysis many fans can handle. Until then, all players suck. Except if you were really good before (like Adams) - even if you are now playing poorly (like AR).

In this case, Fackrell took a step and needs to keep working to become "good". Not sure how he got to 10.5 sacks, but he is headed in the right direction. Many seem to forget players need time to develop. We cut Cullen Jenkins 2 years in a row before he finally made the roster. No reason Fackrell cant become a very good player.
 

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
15,893
Reaction score
3,795
Packers record is 6-9-1 is the only analysis many fans can handle. Until then, all players suck. Except if you were really good before (like Adams) - even if you are now playing poorly (like AR).

In this case, Fackrell took a step and needs to keep working to become "good". Not sure how he got to 10.5 sacks, but he is headed in the right direction. Many seem to forget players need time to develop. We cut Cullen Jenkins 2 years in a row before he finally made the roster. No reason Fackrell cant become a very good player.
He surprised me this year, and i've said it before and I'll say it again, it wasn't just the sacks that stood out. His ability to set the edge in the run game or turn it all back inside can't be understated, nor his ability in pass coverage. I don't remember the last time I actually saw one of our OLB's legitimately covering someone downfield, and he did on a weekly basis. That ability gave Pettine great flexibility to use players he had to keep a respectable defense on the field. and week after week, I'd see them run right at Gilbert who either got blown out of the play, but more often than not, took himself right out of it by crashing down rather than playing his position. On the flip side, Fackrell repeatedly was playing his position well and working within the defense and turning plays back inside. They rarely got around him, at least not compared to the others.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,077
Reaction score
7,893
Location
Madison, WI
My only "problem" with Fackrell is wondering if its safe to rely on him as a starter and deem one of the OLB positions as being "fixed." This seemed to be the approach used too often by TT, expecting guys like Perry, Randall, Rollins, Dix, etc. to continue to improve and they seemed to do the opposite. Or expecting backups to improve enough the next season to be a starter.

While there is never really a sure thing due to injuries and guys under performing, you want to make sure you are at least "one deep" at every position with guys that can step in and play without too big of a drop off. I think Fackerell can be considered one of 3 or 4 OLB's you need, but depending on what is done with Perry and Matthews, I still think the Packers may need 1-2 more guys to strengthen the position.
 

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
15,893
Reaction score
3,795
My only "problem" with Fackrell is wondering if its safe to rely on him as a starter and deem one of the OLB positions as being "fixed." This seemed to be the approach used too often by TT, expecting guys like Perry, Randall, Rollins, Dix, etc. to continue to improve and they seemed to do the opposite. Or expecting backups to improve enough the next season to be a starter.

While there is never really a sure thing due to injuries and guys under performing, you want to make sure you are at least "one deep" at every position with guys that can step in and play without too big of a drop off. I think Fackerell can be considered one of 3 or 4 OLB's you need, but depending on what is done with Perry and Matthews, I still think the Packers may need 1-2 more guys to strengthen the position.
we need more anyway. We have Fackrell and PS players. I forget about Perry I guess, but I don't consider him anymore. Even if we decide to keep paying him, he won't be available anyway. So we basically have 1 OLB at this point and PS player(s).

At this point I think we're relying on him to be a starter and if this is what we get from him, it's ok. in 2 years I hope he's not the best one we have, but heading into next year, unless something crazy happens, I don't see any other options. Even a rookie is going to be behind him or the other starter.
 

easyk83

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
2,783
Reaction score
280
Fackrell had a lot of sacks but other than that wasn't able to generate pressure on a consistent basis. The Packers need to do better at edge rusher than relying on him to replicate his numbers next season.

No but you can generate pressure with multiple solid options, Fackrell Daniels and Clark. We could use an additional option but its not exactly a desperate need.
 

Dantés

Gute Loot
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
11,949
Reaction score
2,899
Packers record is 6-9-1 is the only analysis many fans can handle. Until then, all players suck. Except if you were really good before (like Adams) - even if you are now playing poorly (like AR).

In this case, Fackrell took a step and needs to keep working to become "good". Not sure how he got to 10.5 sacks, but he is headed in the right direction. Many seem to forget players need time to develop. We cut Cullen Jenkins 2 years in a row before he finally made the roster. No reason Fackrell cant become a very good player.

I do have to admit for the sake of the negative nancies, it is unusual for players to be as bad as Fackrell was for two seasons and then suddenly start being a useful. Certainly there are examples, but it isn't the norm.

As to your wondering about getting to 10.5 sacks-- it helped a lot that 6 came in two games. And Pettine is great at manufacturing pass rush. I'm not saying Fackrell never beat an opponent one on one, but I distinctly remember some of his sacks being created by scheme.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
His ability to set the edge in the run game or turn it all back inside can't be understated, nor his ability in pass coverage.
Not that it makes any difference, but by all rights it should be 9 1/2 sacks. One came when Fackrell had been pancaked and the QB tripped over his lineman's foot. The play was blown dead without the QB even being touched down. Fackrell just happened to be the closest to the action.

I think he has improved considerably over time in edge contain in this defense and he has looked pretty decent in dropping into short zone on the zone blitzes. Of course you would not want him running down the field on a wheel route. I think he's developed into a solid player, but the sack count is an exageration of overall impact. Given other needs, I would find him to be an acceptable starter if he's paired with an impactful threat on the other side, along with Clark, that demands attention. Matthews is not that guy anymore.

Fackrell, Gilbert and Spriggs have something in common--they play to the level of the competition.

We were encouraged by Gilbert's performance in preseason playing against 2nd., 3rd., 4th. stringers. He pretty much disappeared against legit competition. Fackrell and Spriggs show well against guys who are on the same talent and ability plane. Fackrell doesn't show up against better competition, and Spriggs gets blown up against those guys, and I'm not just talking about elite players like Mack.

What these guys have in common is they are 3 years in the league, with sufficient money game snaps to take their measure. They are pretty close to who they are going to be, average starters or rotational NFL players, give or take.

Unlike Lake Woebegone, not all of the children can be above average. But if a critical mass of impact players is not achieved, you end up in the "average" range where the difference between 6-9-1 and 9-7 pretty small and may hinge on just a few plays.

These 3 players also have in common playing at positions where is a changing of the guard. Perry's and Bulaga's injuries have mounted to the point of unreliability. Matthews has descended into mediocrity. Even if you roll with those average players there is no discernable depth or youthful progress toward that status.

The definition of idiocy is repeating what you've done and expecting a different result. The theme of the last free agency period was players long in the tooth and past their primes. Cap got squandered in a chunk with Graham if by "squandered" we mean production below cap cost. Frankly, I don't know what else that term can mean. And then an equal amount squandered in dribs and drabs with other players.

I think Gutekunst sees that as indicated in what I called his Draft 2.0, bringing in previously drafted guys with youth in-season and on the cheap who have a little or a lot of NFL experience, some with injury concerns in Breeland and Siragusa. I doubt he expected many of these guys to get the playing time they got because of the rash of injuries, but it certainly helps in evaluating whether they'd be wanted for 2019 camp. Some came and went already. It's an effort to do some bottom-up building of the roster for depth, maybe getting a starter out of the process.

I'd like to see some top down with fewer, younger FAs in than this last go-round to inject some impact. Now, we cannot expect all of Matthews, Cobb, Bulaga, Perry, Graham and Tramon Williams to go unsigned or cut, as the case may be. There simply isn't the depth to handle all of that unless the plan is a full-blown rebuild and taking lumps in 2019 in the process while not having and excess of cap and draft capital to execute it. Gutekunst, et. al. are not going to do that in plowing the middle ground between the now and the future. Gutekunst has said just that which is only reinforced by a restless fan base.

But I gotta say they ought to part with most of these aging guys to avoid a repeat of mediocrity. Plugging aging vets into holes as the difference in getting over the top didn't work then and will not work now. Paying a Matthews or a Cobb $5 mil as some suggest is just a repeat of the same mistake, and retaining Perry in the hopes of a healthy season in lieu of capturing the cap savings does not provide a good risk/reward proposition. On a less accute note, Bulaga is falling into the Perry category.

Much of this is a digression from the topic at hand, but no decision is taken in isolation.

The short answer is start Fackrell, let Matthews walk and capture the Perry cap savings, then shoot for impact at OLB in FA or the draft. Second, the right side of this O-Line needs to be seriously addressed. For my money, move Spriggs to RG and as a second key priority go find an RT in FA or the draft who presents the prospect of not getting regularly whipped by better pass rushers and capture cap savings by releasing Bulaga.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

gonzozab

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 31, 2011
Messages
1,133
Reaction score
287
Location
Parts unknown
I would say you draft the best player available at A position of need not the best player available at the greatest position of need. If you are focusing on the greatest position of need you risk reaching for a less talented player or passing on someone who could really help your team. Like WIMM says, need does factor into it.

If the best player available at #17 is a QB the Browns would be stupid to take him if there is a highly rated WR or OT available.
QB would be the exception of course. It's just that drafting for need in the early rounds is antiquated thinking.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
My only "problem" with Fackrell is wondering if its safe to rely on him as a starter and deem one of the OLB positions as being "fixed."

I'm fine with Fackrell being one of the primary backups but he shouldn't be counted on as a starter.

No but you can generate pressure with multiple solid options, Fackrell Daniels and Clark. We could use an additional option but its not exactly a desperate need.

The Packers are definitely in desperate need to add an edge rusher with only Perry, Fackrell, Gilbert and Donnerson currently under contract for next season.
 

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
15,893
Reaction score
3,795
I can't even count Perry other than cap money gone. Fackrell can be a starter. I think he has to be. I just don't see it as likely we upgrade that position that much in one year. Gilbert should be replaced if he doesn't make a big jump this offseason. He has so many weaknesses in his game I'm embarrassed to admit I thought he was going to surprise us this year in a good way. They elevated Donnerson from PS to roster didn't they? But I don't think I saw him active or in a game, so who knows what he has.

I think Fackrell's sacks were a bit of an outlier for him, he's not a dominant pass rusher, and who knows where the defense is going if we change coordinators. But with Pettine and using scheme to put players in position to win, with more starters on the DL and confusion, I think he could have another decent year. He's not a standout, but he's turned into solid in the all around game. While I'd love to have a dominant pass rusher at both ends, I think we're asking for a bit much in 1 year with all the other needs and change going on around this team. But having 1 solid guy in a defense with Pettine who doesn't need dominant OLB's like Capers scheme called for can work. Our defenses will only get better with better players, but Pettine has shown he can put a good defense out there with less than stellar players. He just needs guys that can do their jobs and he'll give them opportunities to make plays. Even a stud rookie is probably not going to replace Fackrell at this point. Like I said earlier, maybe by year 2 or 3. and maybe last year he would have jumped ahead of him quickly, but he really worked on all aspects of his game and it became respectable.

Of course all this depends on the direction of the team and coordinators.
 

hasamikun

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 25, 2017
Messages
124
Reaction score
23
Pettines ability to create pass rush outta nowhere really helped Fackrell to this good season. I dont think he is starting caliber but he is a more than solid rotational rusher, if he can confirm his progress next season. And if gets similar numbers next season he he is a must sign for the packers as i think he wont get paid much starting caliber money anyways.
Packers dont have much for the pass rush, that is the reason why I would like to have Pettine back for the next season, at least. We all saw what he can do with nothing and it kind of worked over the season. So lets see what he can do with some nice draft picks and a new overall team.

Drafting a high potential pass rusher like Polite and adding 1-2 in later rounds, while maybe getting a solid FA at that position helps improving the pass rush. Some of this 3-4 guys gonna be a hit. Do it like WR and RB the last drafts where we hit 2 out of 3 for every position. Ofc this is to say with caution because WRs played their first season, but MVs and EQ showed real talent and promise. I am hyped for them playing a functional and mdoern offense scheme.
 

rodell330

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 18, 2012
Messages
5,611
Reaction score
493
Location
Canton, Ohio
He is best of the worst on this defensive crew this season. Hope he can build on this season and isnt just making a run to get a lump of money and go missing like Nick Perry.

And Clay Matthews, and Randall Cobb. I think Fackrell has the pass rushing skills and motor to get you 5-6 sacks a year but that’s not enough. He needs to get stronger so that he’s not a liability in the run game. He also needs to work on his moves as a pass rushing specialist. Can’t out quick every one he’s gotta get stronger.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
QB would be the exception of course. It's just that drafting for need in the early rounds is antiquated thinking.
There's no reason to think QB is the exception. If a team has a young and talented position group with clear deficiencies elsewhere it is no different than if they have a young and talented QB, or even and older and talented one.

I don't know why people view the draft differently from free agency. When you see Gutekunst reportedly in the bidding for Robinson and Watkins, with confirmed bids for Graham, T. Williams, House and Kyle Fuller, does anybody see themes? Or when Fuller could not be landed and the Packers went CB with the first two picks, does anybody see a continuation of that theme? Does anybody believe the determination to bid, sign or draft these players was, alternatively, the "best available player" regardless of position at their respective FA price points or strictly the "best available player" regardless of position ("excluding QB") in the draft?

The best available player at one of several positions of need is a starting point, but it goes deeper than that. Need at one position may be identified but it may be less acute than another. If, for example, the "best available player" in this draft was a center who has never played guard with a draft grade comparable to Quenton Nelson's and that guy fell to #12, would you be OK with taking him even if his grade was meaningfully better than the next guy? I wouldn't. I'd try to trade it, and that is itself a need consideration.

But that's an atypical example. Typically, grade differences among multiple players are within the margin of error at any pick.

I think it's absurd to believe need does not and should not factor into the equation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

El Guapo

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 7, 2011
Messages
6,111
Reaction score
1,590
Location
Land 'O Lakes
According to my memory, most of Fackrell's sacks game against bad teams or bad right tackles. He disappeared against the good teams. I'm downing on the kid as he really took his game from the dumps and improved it. However, if he wants to be a starter and help win another trophy for this team, he will need to improve to the point of creating consistent pressure and getting sacks - even against the good players. Luckily he's got youth on his side and is the only person that can determine the cap on his ability.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
Fackrell had only a total of 12 pressures aside of his sacks. There's no reason to expect him putting up a similar number of sacks next season again.
 

Members online

Latest posts

Top