ILB the FS of last year for the Packers

[RyanO4]

Everyone was angry with our safety play before last years draft, and then Haha (Clinton-Dix)! I think most would agree our ILB play last year was horrendous. The Packers need to take an ILB within the first two rounds of the upcoming draft. Matthews should not be forced to move inside, which is outside of his natural position. He already stated last year that he wasn't happy playing ILB, and an unhappy player is a less motivated player. Rushing the passer is his game. A veteran would be nice like Brandon Spikes for a year, but just as a 2 down player and mentor to the rookie ILB/s. I wouldn't mind the Packers drafting two ILBs in the first 3 rounds too, and grabbing a CB with the other pick. Thoughts?

 

[SoonerPack]

I'm a Kendricks guy myself although I don't think any of them are stiffs. We need a 3 down backer and to me he seems to be most ready to step into that roll. If we can hit on an ILB (immediate quality starter) and lock up our bigs I have very high hopes for the defense next season. I think Ted is due for a few defensive homeruns and if he can indeed do so our boys are gonna give anybody a run for their money. As I said I'm not opposed to any of them but Dawson would be last on my list because of the character issues and blocking tight end speed.

 

[RyanO4]

I'm a Kendricks guy myself although I don't think any of them are stiffs. We need a 3 down backer and to me he seems to be most ready to step into that roll. If we can hit on an ILB (immediate quality starter) and lock up our bigs I have very high hopes for the defense next season. I think Ted is due for a few defensive homeruns and if he can indeed do so our boys are gonna give anybody a run for their money. As I said I'm not opposed to any of them but Dawson would be last on my list because of the character issues and blocking tight end speed.

I like Kendricks too, but I have a feeling he might get stolen from right under the Packers nose like Mosley was last year. If that were to happen I wouldn't mind TT moving back to gain an extra pick, while being able to draft another ILB without reaching. Also, I agree the Pack should be set for next year at NT if they resign Raji and Guion, but if they draft a NT so be it. I still don't think CB is as a pressing need as people think to the Packers besides ILB and NT.

 

[yooperpackfan]

I think the Packers NEED to draft 2 ILB and pick up a veteran if possible.
I wish for Kendricks and Anthony, but if Kendricks is gone I would like to see Ted trade back and pick up another pick.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I'm a Kendricks guy myself although I don't think any of them are stiffs. We need a 3 down backer and to me he seems to be most ready to step into that roll. If we can hit on an ILB (immediate quality starter) and lock up our bigs I have very high hopes for the defense next season. I think Ted is due for a few defensive homeruns and if he can indeed do so our boys are gonna give anybody a run for their money. As I said I'm not opposed to any of them but Dawson would be last on my list because of the character issues and blocking tight end speed.

I have said it repeatedly that Kendricks is by far the best choice for the Packers at ILB in this year´s draft as he´s a guy capable of playing all three downs. If he´s gone by the time the team picks Anthony is the only other guy I´m interested in drafting.

We already have a guy on the roster like Perryman in Barrington and I would rather see Thompson sign Spikes to be a two down, run stopper at the position. I don´t like McKinney and Dawson isn´t a great fit for a 3-4.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Matthews should not be forced to move inside, which is outside of his natural position. He already stated last year that he wasn't happy playing ILB, and an unhappy player is a less motivated player.

I agree that I would prefer to have Matthews play exclusively on the outside but it seems Clay would be OK to continue playing inside:

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/pack...l-with-inside-role-b99436783z1-290489241.html

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I like Kendricks too, but I have a feeling he might get stolen from right under the Packers nose like Mosley was last year. If that were to happen I wouldn't mind TT moving back to gain an extra pick, while being able to draft another ILB without reaching. Also, I agree the Pack should be set for next year at NT if they resign Raji and Guion, but if they draft a NT so be it. I still don't think CB is as a pressing need as people think to the Packers besides ILB and NT.

I would prefer the Packers to draft a NT early as well as there´s no guarantee Raji will be motivated for an entire season and Guion faces a suspension.

 

[TomBrownFan40]

I joined the Kendricks bandwagon as well. I've heard a lot of buzz about Perryman lately. It is really tough to find Mike backers nowadays.

Last year at this time, if someone had said a year from now we'd be pretty well set for the future at Center and FS, I would have said they were smoking some still-illegal substance. Let us hope we fare as well with NT and ILB this year.

 

[Vrill]

Paul Dawson's pro day is today. A lot can change.

 

[RyanO4]

I agree that I would prefer to have Matthews play exclusively on the outside but it seems Clay would be OK to continue playing inside:

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/pack...l-with-inside-role-b99436783z1-290489241.html

That is encouraging but you know he's going to be nagging to rush the passer at some point, it's just how pass rushers are. My question is then who is the other olb if he does move inside? Perry, Neal, Elliot, Mulumba?

 

[HardRightEdge]

I voted for Kendricks as my preference among those choices.

But you omitted from the list an obvious (and what appears to be the most likely) option: Matthews.

Had you included Matthews as an option, I would have voted for him. He's going to be playing there at least part time, regardless. It's time to start working from the givens, and McCarthy has amply provided us with sufficient repeated commentary regarding his intentions with respect to Matthews.

Better to use the pick for another immediate need, or even an OLB which is likely to be an acute need in a 2-year view, the case for which I've made in other threads.

The position to be filled with the #30 pick should come down to who's on the board among the several positions of need.

 

[RyanO4]

I voted for Kendricks as my preference among those choices.

But you omitted from the list an obvious (and what appears to be the most likely) option: Matthews.

Had you included Matthews as an option, I would have voted for him. He's going to be playing there at least part time, regardless. It's time to start working from the givens, and McCarthy has amply provided us with sufficient repeated commentary regarding his intentions with respect to Matthews.

Better to use the pick for another immediate need, or even an OLB which is likely to be an acute need in a 2-year view, the case for which I've made in other threads.

The position to be filled with the #30 pick should come down to who's on the board among the several positions of need.

I was saying only the ilb prospects in the draft, but you make a valid point. BPA is a great philosophy to stick too. I just really want our defense to improve, and not come out of the gates slow like they have been the last few years.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I was saying only the ilb prospects in the draft, but you make a valid point. BPA is a great philosophy to stick too. I just really want our defense to improve, and not come out of the gates slow like they have been the last few years.

Just to be clear. I don't believe in BPA as a principle. Nor do I believe anybody practices it in reality, except perhaps those who finish very badly and need to clean house and rebuild. It's been a long time since there's been an expansion team.

There's just too much evidence that BPA, or even "best value available", is not the ruling principle even in the World According to Ted. Just go back through Thompson's first round picks and the incumbents at their positions, who in many cases were cut, let go in free agency, or were nearing retirement. The most glaring example is the draft (and the guys let go) in advance of the Packer conversion to 3-4.

I do believe that the preponderance of high picks go to the best player available among the positions of need. It could be a pick filling a current gaping need, or a gaping need in the two-year horizon, or even a first round QB in a 3-year-or-less horizon if the incumbent franchise guy has made serial threats of leaving the team high and dry.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Paul Dawson's pro day is today. A lot can change.

According to Brandt, Dawson ran 4.78 - 4.82 at his Pro Day.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap30...improves-40-meets-with-rams-saints-at-pro-day

The random scouting assessment that he "looks like a 4.5 guy on tape" is, frankly, bad analysis.

There are some freely available videos of a couple cut ups of entire Dawon games. From what I saw, he wasn't asked to do much beyond 10 yards from the line of scrimmage, and he got grabby as guys went by him, some called, some not.

His anticipation and burst on the tape makes him look like he'd project to a 4.5 guy. It just so happens he is not.

While we might have a need for 2-down player, are you going to spend a #30 pick on one? I don't think so.

But if the Rams think they can make him work at ILB, and want to pick up $3 mil in cap by releasing Laurinitis, that might be interesting.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

That is encouraging but you know he's going to be nagging to rush the passer at some point, it's just how pass rushers are. My question is then who is the other olb if he does move inside? Perry, Neal, Elliot, Mulumba?

Most likely a combination of Perry and Neal.

According to Brandt, Dawson ran 4.78 - 4.82 at his Pro Day.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap30...improves-40-meets-with-rams-saints-at-pro-day

The random scouting assessment that he "looks like a 4.5 guy on tape" is, frankly, bad analysis.

There are some freely available videos of a couple cut ups of entire Dawon games . From what I saw, he wasn't asked to do much beyond 10 yards from the line of scrimmage, and he got grabby as guys went by him, some called, some not.

His anticipation and burst on the tape makes him look like he'd project to a 4.5 guy. It just so happens he is not.

While we might have a need for 2-down player, are you going to spend a #30 pick on one? I don't think so.

But if the Rams think they can make him work at ILB, and want to pick up $3 mil in cap by releasing Laurinitis, that might be interesting.

Laurinaitis has been mostly bad in run defense over his career. Spikes would be a way better option.

 

[sschind]

Just to be clear. I don't believe in BPA as a principle. Nor do I believe anybody practices it in reality, except perhaps those who finish very badly and need to clean house and rebuild. It's been a long time since there's been an expansion team.

There's just too much evidence that BPA, or even "best value available", is not the ruling principle even in the World According to Ted. Just go back through Thompson's first round picks and the incumbents at their positions, who in many cases were cut, let go in free agency, or were nearing retirement. The most glaring example is the draft (and the guys let go) in advance of the Packer conversion to 3-4.

I do believe that the preponderance of high picks go to the best player available among the positions of need. It could be a pick filling a current gaping need, or a gaping need in the two-year horizon, or even a first round QB in a 3-year-or-less horizon if the incumbent franchise guy has made serial threats of leaving the team high and dry.

I agree. I like how everyone says this GM or that GM is a BPA guy and yet almost every single mock draft has almost every team taking the player that best fits their needs and in almost every single draft teams take players that fill their needs. Is Jameis Winston the best player in the draft? I doubt it and I doubt most mockers would say so and yet they almost all have him going #1. Of course that may be because Tampa Bay's GM is not a BPA guy.

Most likely the draft philosophy followed by most GMs is some sort of hybrid philosophy. Players may indeed be ranked or grouped according to their bestness but when it comes time to actually make the pick I think need factors in. I also need factors in when the rankings are made. A team with a young stud RB and a need at CB may have a CB ranked higher than someone like M. Gordon whereas a team with a glaring need at RB and a stacked secondary may well have Gordon ranked higher than the CB.