Gary's Role

[Sunshinepacker]

In an ideal world, Gary could put on weight and kick down to play DE and become a great player on the dline; more realistically though, he sits behind the Smiths and gives them a break every once in a while and replaces them if they get hurt. It was always one of the issues with drafting Gary that high, he doesn't have a place on this team after the GM signed two expensive OLBs. Unless the team plans on transitioning to a 4-3 (which would be unwise), Gary needs to be able to play DE if he's going to get more time on the field.

It's not really THAT far-fetched to think Gary could become a good DE (ignoring his lack of production at the college level); Bradley Chubb was smaller than Gary coming out of college. It's a reach considering his history of production but not impossible.

 

[GreenNGold_81]

In an ideal world, Gary could put on weight and kick down to play DE and become a great player on the dline; more realistically though, he sits behind the Smiths and gives them a break every once in a while and replaces them if they get hurt. It was always one of the issues with drafting Gary that high, he doesn't have a place on this team after the GM signed two expensive OLBs. Unless the team plans on transitioning to a 4-3 (which would be unwise), Gary needs to be able to play DE if he's going to get more time on the field.

It's not really THAT far-fetched to think Gary could become a good DE (ignoring his lack of production at the college level); Bradley Chubb was smaller than Gary coming out of college. It's a reach considering his history of production but not impossible.

Gary will sit behind the Smith's because they drafted him to be a project IMO. He's a hope to be a perennial pro-bowler in three years kinda guy (Like Z) and in the meantime insurance in case one of the aforementioned players gets hurt. I'd consider him to be behind both the Smith's and **** until probably his third year with the team (assuming we sign ****, but if not then he'll be the third OLB).

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Gary will sit behind the Smith's because they drafted him to be a project IMO. He's a hope to be a perennial pro-bowler in three years kinda guy (Like Z) and in the meantime insurance in case one of the aforementioned players gets hurt. I'd consider him to be behind both the Smith's and **** until probably his third year with the team (assuming we sign ****, but if not then he'll be the third OLB).

I get that he's a project, I just don't get the thinking that says you draft a project with the 12th overall pick...

 

[GreenNGold_81]

I get that he's a project, I just don't get the thinking that says you draft a project with the 12th overall pick...

Fair criticism. I for one wanted DK Metcalf at that spot and was lambasted. The Packers loved the pick tho at the time.

 

[LambeauLombardi]

I'm with a lot of you guys, I'd like to know more of the plan with him. I hope he adds some weight and moves to DE, but I can also see him spelling Z and Preston (which if I'm being honest bothers me some if that's your plan as the #12 overall pick considering he won't be on a rookie contract for that long).

 

[GreenNGold_81]

I'm with a lot of you guys, I'd like to know more of the plan with him. I hope he adds some weight and moves to DE, but I can also see him spelling Z and Preston (which if I'm being honest bothers me some if that's your plan as the #12 overall pick considering he won't be on a rookie contract for that long).

I mean, at the time, who else would they have taken? Sweat...? possibly, but was diagnosed with a heart condition that may or may not have been a false diagnosis. He had 7 sacks this season. Fant? That seemed a little high for him. Burns had 7.5 sacks... I guess Sweat or Burns may have been better choices, but factor in their playing time, I'd be willing to wager they had more snaps though I'm too lazy to look. Brown (either one, wr) would probably have been better picks who could contribute more this year, but if the team picked him to spell the Smith's in a couple years which is my theory then maybe he's the better long term pick. I dunno. Certainly, the pick could cost Gutey his job in a few years if he busts as realistically how many years will we have two first-round picks with Rodgers. The word last year was that THIS draft (2020) was going to be chalk full of WR's. What sucks though is in the mocks I've seen like 3-4 wr's are taken before the Packers pick. This may be a good year to trade up then and take the guy we want.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Brown (either one, wr) would probably have been better picks who could contribute more this year, but if the team picked him to spell the Smith's in a couple years which is my theory then maybe he's the better long term pick. The word last year was that THIS draft (2020) was going to be chalk full of WR's. What sucks though is in the mocks I've seen like 3-4 wr's are taken before the Packers pick. This may be a good year to trade up then and take the guy we want.

Gary will have to earn playing time from either one of the Smiths though as both are signed through the 2022 season after which Gary's rookie contract expires.

The Packers most likely won't need to trade up to select a quality receiver in this year's draft with the class being considered extremely deep at the position.

 

[shockerx]

So just maybe Gute is playing 3D chess while we play checkers....Gute knew when he brought in the Smiths that they were pass specialist and not great at setting the edge or at run defending. So at 12 he takes Gary. its seems run defending will be his strong point. when the season started off so well for the Smiths and the D....Gary just wasnt going to get on the field. But as the season wore on tape showed the bad run D and teams took it to us...ending with the epic failure in SF. Could it be next year we see Gary at one edge and the Smiths rotating a bit more to stay fresh....also with Fackrell gone were looking at Garys snaps going up as high as 40-50%. so i think thats Grays role, we are going to see a whole bunch of Gary next year. not saying Gary will start ahead of smiths...but my bet is his snap totals will match theirs next year.

 

[HardRightEdge]

It was always one of the issues with drafting Gary that high, he doesn't have a place on this team after the GM signed two expensive OLBs.

Actually, no. We've been over this numerous times before. The plan was to use Z inside for a lot of snaps, 3 "OLBs" on the field, so to speak. Pettine in fact did that, more as the season wore on.

Consider the season snap counts:

Z - 84%
P - 84%
Fackrell - 40%
Gary - 23%

That totals 231% which means, on average, there were 3 of them on the field for 31% of the snaps. There were a few snaps with all 4.

It's evident that the question is development, not redundancy. With Fackrell probably heading out in free agency, there's 63% snaps right there on the table for Gary if he can earn them.

Further, with Gary's development, there's no reason for Z's and P's snap counts to be that high if you want to keep them fresh throughout games and the season. These guys were gassed in the latter parts of the SF game. You'd like to avoid that. Even earlier in the season there is reason to believe injuries were being faked to get a free time out and a blow.

If Gary realizes his potential, that could mean more 3 OLB sets and surely more rest snaps for Z and P. An 80% snap count for each of the 3 hardly budges the OLB snap count from this past season.

How soon we forget the way Matthews-Perry-Peppers were used when all were healthy, which of course was not very often. These hybrid 3-4 defenses are becoming increasingly common, by the way, not just a Capers/Pettine commonality, dependent on having the right horses.

 

[shockerx]

I get a real feeling that Gute and MLF are really pissed at the effort and outcome in SF. If Gary can get his snap count up to 40-50% and we add a FA or High draft pick at DL and ILB....it will feel like adding 3 new starters to the D. just like 2019 with smiths..amos. MLF has to go through the off season listening to his brother and best friend dog him on our D... change is coming.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I get a real feeling that Gute and MLF are really pissed at the effort and outcome in SF. If Gary can get his snap count up to 40-50% and we add a FA or High draft pick at DL and ILB....it will feel like adding 3 new starters to the D. just like 2019 with smiths..amos. MLF has to go through the off season listening to his brother and best friend dog him on our D... change is coming.

While I'm sure they were not happy with the SF outcome, I betcha Gutekunst's and LaFleur's overriding feelings about this season are ones of satisfaction and vindication. These guys came into this season with largely unproven concepts of what it takes to build a roster, coach it and win football games. I'd think they'd come away from this season with a sense they are heading in the right direction.

Mostert and Breida led the league in yards before contact this season, 3.5 and 3.3 yards respectively, according to theringer.com, whoever that is. Regardless, we knew SF had one of the best, if not the best, run blocking lines. That against a Packer front that was not particularly affective against the run.

What you would not expect is Mostert, an undrafted player previously cut by 6 teams running for 140 some yards before contact with holes you could drive at least a compact pickup truck through. That is wildly unprecedented against even this less than stout run defense. I think the brain trust would have to be pretty dim to attribute that solely to the talent on the field. I don't think they are that.

Clearly the game plan was not right, and then adjustments not made. Either that or the front was uncommonly undisciplined, pinning their ears back on way too many snaps for the pass rush, an alternative coaching issue. Or both.

I'd be the last to dispute that a D-Line position and the ILB spots could stand for upgrades. But talent is only half the story, if that. Pettine is getting a pass for this one since it has been announced he's returning. I guess its a case of, "coaches have bad games too." You cannot, however, burn those two SF game tapes. Pettine needs to find solutions, if not to play SF again then the next team that comes down the pike taking lessons from SF's performance.

 

[shockerx]

Make no mistake SF is now the mountain top....you have to find a way to get by them....there is a large gap to close between GB and SF. Gute MLF will have to make some real progress this off season....i think they can. i hope they start with the front 7...maybe add some athletic mean nasty guys...via FA and early pick. i want are D to dictate situations not be on their heels....lets knock the ball loose and get a couple of defensive TDs. i think Pettine is on notice and hangs by a thread.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Actually, no. We've been over this numerous times before. The plan was to use Z inside for a lot of snaps, 3 "OLBs" on the field, so to speak. Pettine in fact did that, more as the season wore on.

Consider the season snap counts:

Z - 84%
P - 84%
Fackrell - 40%
Gary - 23%

That totals 231% which means, on average, there were 3 of them on the field for 31% of the snaps. There were a few snaps with all 4.

It's evident that the question is development, not redundancy. With Fackrell probably heading out in free agency, there's 63% snaps right there on the table for Gary if he can earn them.

Further, with Gary's development, there's no reason for Z's and P's snap counts to be that high if you want to keep them fresh throughout games and the season. These guys were gassed in the latter parts of the SF game. You'd like to avoid that. Even earlier in the season there is reason to believe injuries were being faked to get a free time out and a blow.

If Gary realizes his potential, that could mean more 3 OLB sets and surely more rest snaps for Z and P. An 80% snap count for each of the 3 hardly budges the OLB snap count from this past season.

How soon we forget the way Matthews-Perry-Peppers were used when all were healthy, which of course was not very often. These hybrid 3-4 defenses are becoming increasingly common, by the way, not just a Capers/Pettine commonality, dependent on having the right horses.

"Use Z inside on a lot of snaps" is nice on 3rd down but in order to stop the run (against good running teams) the team can't rely on Z being a DT. Regarding subbing one of the Smiths out for Gary, you're effectively saying one of the best players on defense is going to be on the bench all the time. There needs to be a way to get all three on the field at the same time if the pick is going to help this team win a Super Bowl in the next 4 years (and while Peppers and Matthews were REALLY good players, I cringe at the comparison of any current player to Perry).

If you want to get all three on the field at the same time, then one of them needs to be able to play DE in base defense against teams that run the ball very well (yes, you can argue that OLBs are effectively 4-3 DEs but the responsibilities are usually different). When Za'Darius moved to the inside it was to rush the QB, not stop the run. You can occasionally scheme something to surprise the offense by moving him around but there needs to be an upgrade at 3-4 DE on this team and the player most likely to do that is Gary.

I'm not sitting here trying to say that Gary is a bust. I've gone on the record as saying he was drafted far too highly by Green Bay but with the success of the Smiths this year, it's important that either Za'Darius or Rashan be able to play more of a DE role rather than edge rusher/roamer role if the team wants to improve their run defense. I mean, Mostert ran for over 100 yards before contact in the first half alone against the Packers; that tells me it wasn't just the ILB that was an issue. The team can sign Cory Littleton in free agency and get a very good ILB who won't be able to do anything to help the run if the dline plays like they did against the 49ers.

 

[HardRightEdge]

"Use Z inside on a lot of snaps" is nice on 3rd down but in order to stop the run (against good running teams) the team can't rely on Z being a DT. Regarding subbing one of the Smiths out for Gary, you're effectively saying one of the best players on defense is going to be on the bench all the time. There needs to be a way to get all three on the field at the same time if the pick is going to help this team win a Super Bowl in the next 4 years (and while Peppers and Matthews were REALLY good players, I cringe at the comparison of any current player to Perry).

If you want to get all three on the field at the same time, then one of them needs to be able to play DE in base defense against teams that run the ball very well (yes, you can argue that OLBs are effectively 4-3 DEs but the responsibilities are usually different). When Za'Darius moved to the inside it was to rush the QB, not stop the run. You can occasionally scheme something to surprise the offense by moving him around but there needs to be an upgrade at 3-4 DE on this team and the player most likely to do that is Gary.

I'm not sitting here trying to say that Gary is a bust. I've gone on the record as saying he was drafted far too highly by Green Bay but with the success of the Smiths this year, it's important that either Za'Darius or Rashan be able to play more of a DE role rather than edge rusher/roamer role if the team wants to improve their run defense. I mean, Mostert ran for over 100 yards before contact in the first half alone against the Packers; that tells me it wasn't just the ILB that was an issue. The team can sign Cory Littleton in free agency and get a very good ILB who won't be able to do anything to help the run if the dline plays like they did against the 49ers.

I find enough vagaries and unanswered questions in this post that I don't know where to begin other than:

1) It sounds like you're proposing a 4-3 defense, which is somewhat interesting as an academic exercise, but we're not going there, at least for 2020.

2) No runner came near Mostert's performance this season against this defense, and Mostert came nowhere near this kind of performance against any other defense including some worse than this one. And you will never, ever again see a team put this many points up while throwing the ball only 8 times. I would guard against knee-jerk overreactions to these wild outliers. We know there are some issues with the defense, upgrades at ILB and a DE position, but this beat down was more about a very bad game plan and failure to adjust with probably too much pass rush sell-out from the guys up front.

3) Perry had a good season in 2016 and the Packers signed him to a very nice deal. Like I said, it wasn't very often he was available enough or playing well enough to get to high snap counts. But that was not always the case.

4) OLBs need rest snaps to stay fresh, whether or not that means having your best players off the field from time to time. This is also true of DLs. It's also something you do to extend careers. Getting to the end of a season with the crap beat out of you, on the injury report or not, over time takes the mental edge off a guys game. Raji was over-played and went into decline fairly quickly. The same thing happened to Wilkerson. The list goes on. The Packers risk the same with Clark if they keep up what they are doing. They better find a way to lighten his snaps if they expect to get their money's worth over the next 4 years.

 

[tynimiller]

2) No runner came near Mostert's performance this season against this defense, and Mostert came nowhere near this kind of performance against any other defense including some worse than this one. And you will never, ever again see a team put this many points up while throwing the ball only 8 times. I would guard against knee-jerk overreactions to these wild outliers. We know there are some issues with the defense, upgrades at ILB and a DE position, but this beat down was more about a very bad game plan and failure to adjust with probably too much pass rush sell-out from the guys up front.

Tried explaining this very thing to a buddy the other day. The moment you make landscape changes based on statistical outliers is the moment you open yourself up for knee-jerk reactions which rarely ever work out. In anything really; sports, business, family life...anything.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

So just maybe Gute is playing 3D chess while we play checkers....Gute knew when he brought in the Smiths that they were pass specialist and not great at setting the edge or at run defending. So at 12 he takes Gary. its seems run defending will be his strong point. when the season started off so well for the Smiths and the D....Gary just wasnt going to get on the field. But as the season wore on tape showed the bad run D and teams took it to us...ending with the epic failure in SF. Could it be next year we see Gary at one edge and the Smiths rotating a bit more to stay fresh....also with Fackrell gone were looking at Garys snaps going up as high as 40-50%. so i think thats Grays role, we are going to see a whole bunch of Gary next year. not saying Gary will start ahead of smiths...but my bet is his snap totals will match theirs next year.

If Gary would have improved the run defense against the Niners he would have been on the field more often yet he only played three snaps all game long.

And you will never, ever again see a team put this many points up while throwing the ball only 8 times.

FYI there hasn't been a team in the NFL since 1940 that scored more points while than the Niners did against the Packers throwing eight or fewer passes with the 1973 Bills scoring 37 against the Patriots as well.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I find enough vagaries and unanswered questions in this post that I don't know where to begin other than:

1) It sounds like you're proposing a 4-3 defense, which is somewhat interesting as an academic exercise, but we're not going there, at least for 2020.

2) No runner came near Mostert's performance this season against this defense, and Mostert came nowhere near this kind of performance against any other defense including some worse than this one. And you will never, ever again see a team put this many points up while throwing the ball only 8 times. I would guard against knee-jerk overreactions to these wild outliers. We know there are some issues with the defense, upgrades at ILB and a DE position, but this beat down was more about a very bad game plan and failure to adjust with probably too much pass rush sell-out from the guys up front.

3) Perry had a good season in 2016 and the Packers signed him to a very nice deal. Like I said, it wasn't very often he was available enough or playing well enough to get to high snap counts. But that was not always the case.

4) OLBs need rest snaps to stay fresh, whether or not that means having your best players off the field from time to time. This is also true of DLs. It's also something you do to extend careers. Getting to the end of a season with the crap beat out of you, on the injury report or not, over time takes the mental edge off a guys game. Raji was over-played and went into decline fairly quickly. The same thing happened to Wilkerson. The list goes on. The Packers risk the same with Clark if they keep up what they are doing. They better find a way to lighten his snaps if they expect to get their money's worth over the next 4 years.

1) I didn't intend to propose a 4-3 defense. I want the coaches to see if Gary could play 3-4 DE. He's big enough to play that position and it would provide the easiest/most impactful way for him to see the field more often.

2) The Packers defense was NOT good against the run this year. The 49ers were just able to take advantage of that because the 49ers were a very good running team. The Packers' dline is, outside of Clark, not good. Packers were 23rd in yards allowed and 24th in yards per attempt allowed, and those numbers don't include the playoff against the 49ers.

3) Perry had a career year during a contract season. It was a mistake to pay him big after that (as history as shown).

4) You don't spend the 12th overall pick in the draft on a guy who comes in to give the starters a breather. I do, however, agree with your point on overuse of dlinemen and think the team needs to get some better players on the dline to allow Clark to take a break every now and then.

 

[GleefulGary]

If Gary would have improved the run defense against the Niners he would have been on the field more often yet he only played three snaps all game long.

Do you think the coaches are always right? Gary showed all year he was good against the run. He should have played more against SF.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I didn't intend to propose a 4-3 defense. I want the coaches to see if Gary could play 3-4 DE. He's big enough to play that position and it would provide the easiest/most impactful way for him to see the field more often.

Then I would say you are excessively focused on the 25% base defense snaps.

We were discussing whether Gary is a redundancy with respect to the Smiths. So lets start with the assumption that Gary is capable of being a 3-down player, at whatever position, good for a 70 - 80% snap count. Otherwise, the redundancy issue is moot--he'd be just a bad draft pick.

So lets say he is your starting base DE for 25% snaps. That is a non-redundancy as you suggest. Where would you put him for the other 45 - 55% of snaps assuming he's not a bust? The most obvious possibility is he plays 3-tech DT in nickel. This is a common approach in 3-4 defenses with that 3-down player who happens to be the starting base DE. We've had some guys like that--Cullen Jenkins, Raji after they moved him off the nose to base DE. Clark might be that guy sooner or later if they bring in nose tackle for base play.

In any case, let's say Gary is that Cullen Jenkins type guy as you suggest, assuming he is a player. I don't consider that entirely unreasonable. However, he would still not be a redundancy. He'd be taking Z's inside snaps, confining Z to the outside.

When you listen to Gutekunst's comments, after the draft up to now, he envisions Z and Gary interchangeability at Gary's upside, where either could play inside in nickel. Given the fact Gary was a high pick. we can presume he's not blowing happy talk smoke about that projection.

The key problem with your proposal is once you shift Gary to a hand-in-the-dirt player, coaching him up as that kind of player, you've lost your OLB depth. But either way, OLB or DE/3-tech, Gary is not a redundancy at all if he actually becomes a player.

As I already noted, 80% is at the high end of a reasonable snap count for a 3-4 OLB. As an OLB alone, that's 40% snaps on the table for Gary right there. Play him inside in nickel instead of Z and you're already up past a 60% snap count. If he develops to a point in line with his draft spot, you can split those snaps at 75% across the board where you're less likely to see these guys gassed at the end of games.

You know, 1 or 2 down base NT run stuffers are not very expensive. Sign or draft one of those and move Clark to DE. While I would not expect that, it is more plausible than your proposal.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Then I would say you are excessively focused on the 25% base defense snaps.

We were discussing whether Gary is a redundancy with respect to the Smiths. So lets start with the assumption that Gary is capable of being a 3-down player, at whatever position, good for a 70 - 80% snap count. Otherwise, the redundancy issue is moot--he'd be just a bad draft pick.

So lets say he is your starting base DE for 25% snaps. That is a non-redundancy as you suggest. Where would you put him for the other 45 - 55% of snaps assuming he's not a bust? The most obvious possibility is he plays 3-tech DT in nickel. This is a common approach in 3-4 defenses with that 3-down player who happens to be the starting base DE. We've had some guys like that--Cullen Jenkins, Raji after they moved him off the nose to base DE. Clark might be that guy sooner or later if they bring in nose tackle for base play.

In any case, let's say Gary is that Cullen Jenkins type guy as you suggest, assuming he is a player. I don't consider that entirely unreasonable. However, he would still not be a redundancy. He'd be taking Z's inside snaps, confining Z to the outside.

When you listen to Gutekunst's comments, after the draft up to now, he envisions Z and Gary interchangeability at Gary's upside, where either could play inside in nickel. Given the fact Gary was a high pick. we can presume he's not blowing happy talk smoke about that projection.

The key problem with your proposal is once you shift Gary to a hand-in-the-dirt player, coaching him up as that kind of player, you've lost your OLB depth. But either way, OLB or DE/3-tech, Gary is not a redundancy at all if he actually becomes a player.

As I already noted, 80% is at the high end of a reasonable snap count for a 3-4 OLB. As an OLB alone, that's 40% snaps on the table for Gary right there. Play him inside in nickel instead of Z and you're already up past a 60% snap count. If he develops to a point in line with his draft spot, you can split those snaps at 75% across the board where you're less likely to see these guys gassed at the end of games.

You know, 1 or 2 down base NT run stuffers are not very expensive. Sign or draft one of those and move Clark to DE. While I would not expect that, it is more plausible than your proposal.

3-4 DEs don't only play in base defense. Lowry played 726 snaps and Lancaster played 442 snaps last year. There is also no reason that having Gary play DE suddenly means he can't play OLB anymore if they need depth. Although, even if that was the case, who cares? If you can get your 12th overall pick on the field for more than the 256 snaps he played last year, then that's a POSITIVE. Having a good back-up at OLB isn't as valuable as having a good starting dlineman.

Playing Gary at DE in a base defense would be helpful in improving the play of the dline, even if only for 25% of the snaps. In situational defenses, he could still rush from the edge with his hand down and not affect Za'Darius' role in the slightest; in fact, by having an additional starting caliber player on the line, he would make everyone's jobs easier.

Look, if Gary is destined to be the back-up for the Smiths, then the Packers wasted the 12th overall pick, that's it. You can't draft a guy that high and hope he can become a really good part-time player on a defense that needs help in numerous places. Do I personally think that Gary will actually turn into a good 3-4 DE? Not really, but I can hope he can so that the Packers will have more great players on the field for the majority of the defensive snaps; that would be a better outcome than having to have one of the Smiths on the bench whenever Gary was on the field.

And moving Clark to DE is most certainly NOT more plausible than Gary playing DE.

 

[HardRightEdge]

3-4 DEs don't only play in base defense.

And I said exactly that. The issue was redundancy. Whether Gary is a DE, with no indication the Packers are contemplating that, or an OLB, there's a full boat of snaps waiting for him if he's up to the task. Moving on....

 

[mradtke66]

And moving Clark to DE is most certainly NOT more plausible than Gary playing DE.

In a 3-4, sure it is.

Most 3-4s are really defensive tackles. The exception can be the LDE if you play a more hybrid front, which I think we do. Your LDE is a 5T, your RDE is really a 3T.

I'd like a big run plugger at 0/1 to give us the freedom play Clark at 3T in base. That would technically be moving Clark to DE in a 3-4 and I think he'd excel there.

The LDE/5T is still a big man. Lowry honest projects pretty well to the spot. Obviously a little more pass rush would be desired in an ideal world, but one could do a lot worse.

Part of that job is to absorb a double-team from the T and TE. I don't know if Gary has the skill/power to do that on a consistent basis. Perhaps he does, but if that means adding 20 pounds, we probably ruined him as an OLB.

As far as a waste if all he does is back up Smith and Smith...I'd argue that both potentially wrong and potentially short sighted.

If we get The Smiths to each slip down to 70% of snaps each, that means Gary would be playing 60%. (Perhaps a bit naive math, but I think it's accurate enough for this discussion.)

As far as wrong...if he turns into the second coming of LT (I mean, probably not, but it is possible) then he cannot be a waste. He'd bump one of the Smiths to the backup. And we'd still have a 3-pack of really good pass rusher. Partially for depth, partially for 3rd and Long.

 

[Mondio]

In a 3-4, sure it is.

Most 3-4s are really defensive tackles. The exception can be the LDE if you play a more hybrid front, which I think we do. Your LDE is a 5T, your RDE is really a 3T.

I'd like a big run plugger at 0/1 to give us the freedom play Clark at 3T in base. That would technically be moving Clark to DE in a 3-4 and I think he'd excel there.

.

I would like to get another big man to either spell Clark between the 20's so to speak and to get him back on the field as a DE in this 3-4. I think he can be a lot more disruptive

 

[mradtke66]

I would like to get another big man to either spell Clark between the 20's so to speak and to get him back on the field as a DE in this 3-4. I think he can be a lot more disruptive

I agree on another NT to spell him between the 20s. Partially because it'd be useful, partially because that player can be had cheaply.

As far as moving him to DE making him more disruptive...maybe? Make he works better as a 1 vs. a 3? Regardless, yes, I'd like another NT and maybe a developmental 3T. Never enough pass rushers!

 

[Sunshinepacker]

And I said exactly that. The issue was redundancy. Whether Gary is a DE, with no indication the Packers are contemplating that, or an OLB, there's a full boat of snaps waiting for him if he's up to the task. Moving on....

If he plays OLB a full boat of snaps, then I'm assuming that means the Packers are paying Preston Smith all that money to sit on the bench?