Is it safe to say we will never address the ILB position?

[HardRightEdge]

Oh, I get it. You like to play with semantics and verbiage. You got me, Hawk wasn’t drafted as an ILB because at the time we played in a 4-3 not a 3-4, though his skill set and responsibilities were much more like what Martinez does than what Perry did.

Anyway. How many years did Hawk play inside? Vs his Outside linebacker days LOL. I forgot AJ played WLB'er for a season and a half and the last almost 8 years in the middle stood out more. You got me. I can see how that pertains to Clay Matthews moving for a season and a half part time because of injury. They had almost 8 seasons to replace Hawk as an ILB and didn't.

And clay Matthews was a defensive elephant end in college. Maybe Ted really didn’t like LBers as he drafted another DE in Nick Perry rather high. LOL

Spill as much digitial ink as you want. I'm not going to play debate club defending some position I never made in the first place. I'll simply repeat the single point I was making: that a 4-3 Will is not a 3-4 Will. If you want to believe otherwise I can't stop you.

 

[Mondio]

Sherman made a lot of mistakes but he actually never drafted a kicker. As far as I can tell the Packers never kept two kickers on the roster under him either with Longwell kicking off as well.

WOlf did though, in the 3rd I think. Just think if Ted would have done that, in a draft where we had only 7 or 8 picks, took a kicker in the 3rd? Didn't Sherman draft a punter in the 3rd?

 

[Mondio]

Spill as much digitial ink as you want. I'm not going to play debate club defending some position I never made in the first place. I'll simply repeat the single point I was making: that a 4-3 Will is not a 3-4 Will. If you want to believe otherwise I can't stop you.

you're the king of spilling ink LOL

Was Hawks 9 years as a GB Packer linebacker closer to Martinez or to Matthews? It's an easy question and answer. 3rd time you've avoided it now? that must be your limit to tap out of something you don't want to defend, though if that were the case, you wouldn't have in the first place. But you do, you know you do

 

[AmishMafia]

Sherman made a lot of mistakes but he actually never drafted a kicker. As far as I can tell the Packers never kept two kickers on the roster under him either with Longwell kicking off as well.

Was it a punter maybe?

 

[HardRightEdge]

I understand that Hawk was originally drafted to be a 4-3 OLB, not a MLB, but the distinction between those roles is way smaller than the difference between 3-4 OLB and 3-4 ILB. The major difference, regardless of scheme, is between edge positions (34OLB/43DE) and off-ball positions (34ILB/43LB).

And in today's NFL, you're usually talking about the same positions regardless of base defense, because teams are so rarely in their actual base defenses. Essentially everyone plays a MIKE and a WILL in some variation of a 4-2-5 or 2-4-5.

The reality is probably that TT did not value the off-ball linebacker positions highly, whether you're talking about a MIKE or a WILL. This is assumed based on the fact that he spent two picks in the top 100 on the position in 13 years (both in 2006).

We're talking apples and oranges here, which I aluded to earlier but did not elaborate. Today, with the league going 75-80% nickel and dime, if you're running a 4-3 and keep your WILL OLB on the field for those snaps, he doesn't look much different than a WILL ILB in 3-4 for those same snaps.

That is not how the game was played in 2006 when Hawk was drafted into Bob Sanders' 4-3, with a lot more base D being played.

The question at hand, lest we forget, is whether Thompson spent high picks on ILBs. To repeat, to put Hawk in that category is simply wrong.

 

[Dantés]

We're talking apples and oranges here, which I aluded to earlier but did not elaborate. Today, with the league going 75-80% nickel and dime, if you're running a 4-3 and keep your WILL OLB on the field for those snaps, he doesn't look much different than a WILL ILB in 3-4 for those same snaps.

That is not how the game was played in 2006 when Hawk was drafted into Bob Sanders' 4-3, with a lot more base D being played.

The question at hand, lest we forget, is whether Thompson spent high picks on ILBs. To repeat, to put Hawk in that category is simply wrong.

This is my opinion, and nothing more, but I highly doubt that TT felt markedly different, value wise, about 4-3 OLB's and a 4-3 MLB. My guess is that he never had off-ball linebackers of any sort high on his list of preferred positions, and that in Hawk's case he felt the player was too good to pass on. But I understand your point that 4-3 OLB and 4-3 MLB are not the same position, especially when teams were running a lot more base.

 

[HardRightEdge]

This is my opinion, and nothing more, but I highly doubt that TT felt markedly different, value wise, about 4-3 OLB's and a 4-3 MLB. My guess is that he never had off-ball linebackers of any sort high on his list of preferred positions, and that in Hawk's case he felt the player was too good to pass on. But I understand your point that 4-3 OLB and 4-3 MLB are not the same position, especially when teams were running a lot more base.

It seems a little odd to say Thompson did not highly value the 4-3 OLB position in Bob Sanders' defense and then went ahead and drafted Hawk at #5 anyway simply because he was "too good to pass on". Though Terrell Suggs was a different kind of player, it is more plausible to believe Thompson was looking for a similar level of impact if in different ways.

 

[Dantés]

It seems a little odd to say Thompson did not highly value the 4-3 OLB position in Bob Sanders' defense and then went ahead and drafted Hawk at #5 anyway simply because he was "too good to pass on". Though Terrell Suggs was a different kind of player, it is more plausible to believe Thompson was looking for a similar level of impact if in different ways.

I would base that opinion on 2 picks out of ~42 picks in the top 100 spent on any type of off-ball linebacker. And after 2006, zero top 100 picks were spent on off-ball linebackers of any sort. I think that suggests that TT didn't place a lot of value in off-ball linebackers. Of course, that is still speculation. But I don't think it's baseless.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I would base that opinion on 2 picks out of ~42 picks in the top 100 spent on any type of off-ball linebacker. And after 2006, zero top 100 picks were spent on off-ball linebackers of any sort. I think that suggests that TT didn't place a lot of value in off-ball linebackers. Of course, that is still speculation. But I don't think it's baseless.

We seem to be going around in circles here.

During Thompson's first 4 years as GM in 2005-2008 the Packers were playing a 4-3. In the same draft as the Hawk pick in 2006 he drafted Abdul Hodge with the #67 pick. There was obvious value placed on the off-the-ball linebacker positions.

We seem to have overlooked the fact Hodge was a MLB, we think, but he played so little defense it is hard to know where Thompson was going with him and he was gone after one year. So, in the argument made by others that Thompson did value the MLB/ILB positions over the years, it's ironic it was Hodge and not Hawk in the 2006 draft that makes the best argument when it was a 4-3 up until Josh Jones when it was a 3-4.

With the switch to the Capers 3-4 in 2009 Thompson stopped spending draft capital on off-the-ball LBs until Jones which at that point are only the ILBs. So, Hawk goes to 3-4 ILB in 2009. How else would you use him? He sure wasn't going to be an edge rusher. Matthews played ILB for a season plus. Well, in that case the position was in dire straights and Matthews effectiveness as an edge rusher was already in decline while Peppers and Perry were on board.

So, Hawk and Matthews being valuable assets playing ILB was never the plan when they were drafted, obviously, and were instances of trying to make lemonade out of lemons at the IBl position. And Capers still got beat up over the short to intermediate middle no matter what he did.

 

[Dantés]

We seem to be going around in circles here.

During Thompson's first 4 years as GM in 2005-2008 the Packers were playing a 4-3. In the same draft as the Hawk pick in 2006 he drafted Abdul Hodge with the #67 pick. There was obvious value placed on the off-the-ball linebacker positions.

We seem to have overlooked the fact Hodge was a MLB, we think, but he played so little defense it is hard to know where Thompson was going with him and he was gone after one year. So, in the argument made by others that Thompson did value the MLB/ILB positions over the years, it's ironic it was Hodge and not Hawk in the 2006 draft that makes the best argument when it was a 4-3 up until Josh Jones when it was a 3-4.

With the switch to the Capers 3-4 in 2009 Thompson stopped spending draft capital on off-the-ball LBs until Jones which at that point are only the ILBs. So, Hawk goes to 3-4 ILB in 2009. How else would you use him? He sure wasn't going to be an edge rusher. Matthews played ILB for a season plus. Well, in that case the position was in dire straights and Matthews effectiveness as an edge rusher was already in decline while Peppers and Perry were on board.

So, Hawk and Matthews being valuable assets playing ILB was never the plan when they were drafted, obviously, and were instances of trying to make lemonade out of lemons at the IBl position. And Capers still got beat up over the short to intermediate middle no matter what he did.

A few things are possible.

TT could have viewed off-ball linebackers as more valuable/important in 2006 than he did later, due to the scheme that the Packers were running at the time.

TT could have viewed off-ball linebackers as more valuable/important early in his tenure than he did later. Perhaps the less than stellar returns that Hawk and Hodge brought him influenced his draft philosophy. Or perhaps as he gained experience as a GM and realized how expensive players at other positions are/were, it changes his approach.

TT could have taken Hawk against his own standards of value because he viewed him as a special, transcendent prospect (which he was, though the promise of his talent never fully materialized).

Or it could be a combination of multiple things.

We can't really know. But I do think the complete absence of off-ball linebackers in the top 100 picks for 11 years after Hawk/Hodge support the idea that he didn't value them as being particularly important.

If we roughly categorize positions on the field into: QB, RB, TE, WR, OT, iOL, iDL, ED, LB, CB, and S, this is the breakdown in the top 100 from 2007 on:

• QB: 1
• RB: 3
• TE: 2
• WR: 5
• OT: 3
• iOL: 0
• iDL: 8
• ED: 3
• LB: 0
• CB: 5
• S: 4

It was one of only two spots on the roster that were given zero top 100 picks from 2007-2017.

 

[Mondio]

I think the 2 biggest reasons were scheme when we switched over to Dom as DC and where we were picking. those that are considered "elite" linebackers are gone early, just like this year. So are most positions I think. But you can project DE's as OLB's and tackles as dominant guards and all sorts of DB's to chose from that are fast or have physical traits you think you can reach for and mold etc. Those guys that are in the 6' give or take and 230-250lb range that can de-cleat a RB, take on a 290lb pulling guard/shed/and tackle, and can turn and run with TE's down the field are pretty rare. They go fast.

There aren't even many of those guys you can reach for, but DE's that could play OLB are not a rarity. Lots of teams try and do that every year. I think draft position had something to do with it too. After you get past 1-3 of those guys, I think there is a pretty big drop off. Not always, but when there are all sorts of other needs and you have a DC who wants DB's and pass rushers and fat dlinemen we get what we got.

 

[HardRightEdge]

A few things are possible.

TT could have viewed off-ball linebackers as more valuable/important in 2006 than he did later, due to the scheme that the Packers were running at the time.

TT could have viewed off-ball linebackers as more valuable/important early in his tenure than he did later. Perhaps the less than stellar returns that Hawk and Hodge brought him influenced his draft philosophy. Or perhaps as he gained experience as a GM and realized how expensive players at other positions are/were, it changes his approach.

TT could have taken Hawk against his own standards of value because he viewed him as a special, transcendent prospect (which he was, though the promise of his talent never fully materialized).

Or it could be a combination of multiple things.

We can't really know. But I do think the complete absence of off-ball linebackers in the top 100 picks for 11 years after Hawk/Hodge support the idea that he didn't value them as being particularly important.

If we roughly categorize positions on the field into: QB, RB, TE, WR, OT, iOL, iDL, ED, LB, CB, and S, this is the breakdown in the top 100 from 2007 on:

• QB: 1
• RB: 3
• TE: 2
• WR: 5
• OT: 3
• iOL: 0
• iDL: 8
• ED: 3
• LB: 0
• CB: 5
• S: 4

It was one of only two spots on the roster that were given zero top 100 picks from 2007-2017.

There's a lot to agree with in that post except, to belabor the point, Josh Jones was a #61 pick drafted by Thompson to play ILB. Burks at #88 came next, but he's a Gutekunst pick and therefore a different topic.

 

[GleefulGary]

Josh Jones was drafted to play safety, he just hasn't very good at it. In the opening presser Gute said Jones is versatile enough to come down and play, but that they see him as a versatile piece of their backfield. That would not be a LB.

I mean...they drafted him with the intent of being a safety that could come down and play LB in some fronts, but wanted to predominantly play him at safety. Saying they drafted him to play ILB is blatantly false. That was not their intent with him.

 

[Dantés]

There's a lot to agree with in that post except, to belabor the point, Josh Jones was a #61 pick drafted by Thompson to play ILB. Burks at #88 came next, but he's a Gutekunst pick and therefore a different topic.

Jones is harder to categorize. I think he was originally drafted with the intention to use him as a Morgan Burnett replacement-- that is, as a base SS and a dime linebacker. I categorize those guys as safeties, but the line between those types of safeties and true linebackers is blurring.

 

[mradtke66]

Spill as much digitial ink as you want. I'm not going to play debate club defending some position I never made in the first place. I'll simply repeat the single point I was making: that a 4-3 Will is not a 3-4 Will. If you want to believe otherwise I can't stop you.

You are correct 200% that WILL in a 3-4 is NOT the same as WILL in 4-3. WILL in a 3-4 refers to the position that Matthews played in 2009.

However, a 4-3 WILL is more or less equivalent to a 3-4 wILB, often referred to as BUCK. The linebackers in a 3-4 being WILL, BUCK, MACK, and SAM.

3-4 BUCK and 4-3 WILL line up in almost exactly the same position. This is particularly true in a 4-3 Under like the Seahawks run. Or the 4-3 under Fritz back in the 90s. 4-3 WILL has weakside B-gap, the 3-4 BUCK the weakside A-gap. That's really the only difference. Both tend to be the clean up, chase and tackle player, and have the most coverage responsibilities, etc.

Of course I'm helping us get further off course. No, we haven't valued off-the-ball linebackers. I don't see that changing unless we find a special player worth an early pick. The ILB player worth it with the right skillset is rare.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

WOlf did though, in the 3rd I think. Just think if Ted would have done that, in a draft where we had only 7 or 8 picks, took a kicker in the 3rd? Didn't Sherman draft a punter in the 3rd?

True, Wolf drafted a kicker in the third round in Brett Conway in 1997. He didn't attempt a single field goal for the Packers.

Was it a punter maybe?

Sherman drafted punter B.J. Sander in the third round who was with the team for only a season.

Talking about draft picks wasted.

 

[Dblbogey]

He only used the # 5 pick in the draft on one.

That turned out below expectations. We finally had a top 5 pick but it was really a lousy draft class at the top.

 

[Dblbogey]

ILB may be going the way of the running back. Sure, there are some running backs who will get paid, but most of the league seems to see the position as interchangeable. It’s almost a mirror reflection on the field. Use a big, pounding back on first and second downs, and sub in a speedy receiving back on third down and passing situations. Use a big, pounding linebacker on first and second down. Sub in a specialist on third and passing downs.

Problem for the Packers, they really don't have a proven speedy ILB right now. Also, while an offense can substitute their RB's in and out, knowing which one is suited for the play being called, the defense doesn't have that luxury.

Come to think of it, the Packers don't really have the speedy receiving RB either.

If things don't work as planned we could move Rashan Gary to running back. 280 lbs, really fast, really strong. Just a thought. It would certainly be fun to watch.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

If things don't work as planned we could move Rashan Gary to running back. 280 lbs, really fast, really strong. Just a thought. It would certainly be fun to watch.

Might be fun on goal line plays. Speaking of, I do hope we see a little more creativity from MLF than we saw from MM.

 

[Dblbogey]

Might be fun on goal line plays. Speaking of, I do hope we see a little more creativity from MLF than we saw from MM.

No doubt about it. I'm looking forward to not knowing what is coming when the Packers line up.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Strike Zach Brown from the "wanted to sign FA" list. Eagles are signing him.

 

[Favre>Rodgers259]

NFL.com reported his contract is "up to $3M". He's not known for injury to my knowledge so I'm guessing there are some performance/appearance milestones in there for him to get the full amount, but I'm sticking to my prediction that he's probably getting $2M roughly regardless.

 

[HardRightEdge]

NFL.com reported his contract is "up to $3M". He's not known for injury to my knowledge so I'm guessing there are some performance/appearance milestones in there for him to get the full amount, but I'm sticking to my prediction that he's probably getting $2M roughly regardless.

I would not be surprised if Brown has a snap count incentive. The more use they find for him the more he gets paid.

Why so cheap for a guy who was a top rated ILB by PFF last season, with high grades against both the run and pass? Sure, he's pushing 30 years old but the salary appears low even for a rent-a-player when he is graded so highly.

I think there are some clues here:

https://www.profootballfocus.com/ne...king-him-one-of-the-best-lb-options-available

While his PFF coverage grade in 2018 was 7th. best among linebackers, his 2017 grade was a "putrid" 38.1.

Did Brown suddenly acquire outstanding coverage skills in his 7th. season? There's a more plausible explanation.

PFF grades players on what they actually do, not for the snaps they don't take because of a circumscribed role as a result of perceived limitations. Consider:

• Brown's defensive snap counts dropped from 834 in 2017 to 703 in 2018. Something tells me the lower snap count represents predominantly 131 fewer opportunities to be downgraded in coverage.
• He allowed 35 catches on 45 targets for 283 yards according to that link. That's a 78% completion rate with 8.1 yards per catch surrendered.

This data suggests a more circumscirbed role in 2018 where his coverage responsibilities were limited to short zone coverages. His high coverage grade would have been a product of limiting YAC on short throws, screens, check-downs, under routes, not surprising from a guy who is a sure tackler with decent speed.

Now, Brown has more utility than a Morrison type who's among the kind of ILBs who are an endangered species, Morrison being a downhill thumper with limited speed and a liability in coverage that limits his role to base defender when not pressed into more service through either injury or disappointments elsewhere. Brown may no longer have the 4.5 speed he logged at the Combine but he's certainly not slow as with a Morrison type.

At the same time, the data suggests Brown is no longer viewed as a 3-down linebacker. Combine that with age and you get a modest contract.

 

[PikeBadger]

WOlf did though, in the 3rd I think. Just think if Ted would have done that, in a draft where we had only 7 or 8 picks, took a kicker in the 3rd? Didn't Sherman draft a punter in the 3rd?

Ah yes, even traded up and it cost him an extra pick to snatch the incomparable and forgetable BJ Sanders.

Exhibit A that Mike Sherman was a disaster as a GM.

 

[PackinMSP]

While I dislike lack of investments here

It's safe to say the ILB in this scheme just gets things "funneled" to him. So we just need a sure tackler who can cover some. Like Blake.

The DL and EDGE/OLBers should pretty much free up all the blockers and create enough pressure where the ILB just needs to be a guy who can make the tackler and make plays here and there