making a trade

[Pack93z]

I don't think so.

Any LB that we get would need time to understand our scheme. That'd limit the amount of work that new LB would see.

The only other LB that could challenge Popp is Bishop. But not sure Bishop is capable of playing the SLB.

bishop can not be any worse than Brady!

Brady & bush are huge liabilities on the Packers defense!

I think after the bye... you will start to see Rouse with his size and speed start to play a hybrid player in passing downs... he is big enough to play the run and has better coverage skills than Pop... Only in passing situations moreso.. at least that is what I would do.

 

[Zero2Cool]

I don't think so.

Any LB that we get would need time to understand our scheme. That'd limit the amount of work that new LB would see.

The only other LB that could challenge Popp is Bishop. But not sure Bishop is capable of playing the SLB.

bishop can not be any worse than Brady!

Brady & bush are huge liabilities on the Packers defense!

I think after the bye... you will start to see Rouse with his size and speed start to play a hybrid player in passing downs... he is big enough to play the run and has better coverage skills than Pop... Only in passing situations moreso.. at least that is what I would do.

That's a good idea. I like it.

 

[millertime]

A-Rod for Ronnie Brown???

I'd do it if we got a promise from Favre to play 2 more years.

 

[Tiger]

lol its pure fantasy that to think a team would give up their franchise back (edge, brown etc) for an untested, basically rookie QB. Some people on this board seem to be using Madden NFL computer game logic when you devise trades!

 

[bozz_2006]

I don't think we should trade away Rodgers. Edge and Ronnie are great backs, but we have a lot invested in Rodgers, and i don't feel that our running game, considering who we've played, is anywhere close to the point where we need to ship off Rodgers for a running back. All you naysayers watch, we're going to get on track.

EDIT: Not that this trade scenario would EVER come up.

 

[yooperfan]

I don't think so.

Any LB that we get would need time to understand our scheme. That'd limit the amount of work that new LB would see.

The only other LB that could challenge Popp is Bishop. But not sure Bishop is capable of playing the SLB.

bishop can not be any worse than Brady!

Brady & bush are huge liabilities on the Packers defense!

I think after the bye... you will start to see Rouse with his size and speed start to play a hybrid player in passing downs... he is big enough to play the run and has better coverage skills than Pop... Only in passing situations moreso.. at least that is what I would do.

I was thinking about that yesterday when I saw how big he was compared to the other DB's on the sideline. The dude is huge.
I like that hybrid idea.
Remember Urlacher was a safety in college.

 

[longtimefan]

I don't think so.

Any LB that we get would need time to understand our scheme. That'd limit the amount of work that new LB would see.

The only other LB that could challenge Popp is Bishop. But not sure Bishop is capable of playing the SLB.

bishop can not be any worse than Brady!

Brady & bush are huge liabilities on the Packers defense!

I think after the bye... you will start to see Rouse with his size and speed start to play a hybrid player in passing downs... he is big enough to play the run and has better coverage skills than Pop... Only in passing situations moreso.. at least that is what I would do.

I was thinking about that yesterday when I saw how big he was compared to the other DB's on the sideline. The dude is huge.
I like that hybrid idea.
Remember Urlacher was a safety in college.

Rouse
6-4 223

 

[Packnic]

I don't think we should trade away Rodgers. Edge and Ronnie are great backs, but we have a lot invested in Rodgers, and i don't feel that our running game, considering who we've played, is anywhere close to the point where we need to ship off Rodgers for a running back. All you naysayers watch, we're going to get on track.

EDIT: Not that this trade scenario would EVER come up.

I agree... no way would i ship off the guy weve been grooming as our future QB. for a rb not named LT. QB is more important than a RB as is... but especially with the ZBS. like it or not it was brought in to take away the need for the Big Name Back. with a few more tweaks and some years experience the ZBS should be as good for us as it is for Denver.

It would never ever ever ever happen... and i wouldnt do it if we could.



as to Rouse moving to LB.... i like that idea .... but Pack93 do you have any reason to think the staff would make that move... or were just saying they should think about it? Because i like it... he could cover most TEs with some playing time... and seems big enough to put the hit on a charging Running back. I always thought the staff was pretty high on BradyPop.....

id definetly like to see that experimented with.

 

[Pack93z]

as to Rouse moving to LB.... i like that idea .... but Pack93 do you have any reason to think the staff would make that move... or were just saying they should think about it? Because i like it... he could cover most TEs with some playing time... and seems big enough to put the hit on a charging Running back. I always thought the staff was pretty high on BradyPop.....

id definetly like to see that experimented with.

No I don't have any proof that is what they are thinking other than in the second half Bigby and Bush sat about 5 yards deep over Cooley and the Skins still didn't have much success running the ball. After looking at the tape, it would make since to put a more athletic man over a pass catching TE. If the guy is a masher.. well then put Pop on him.

Additionally the only place the Packers have really been ran on is on the edges.. Pop and Hawk both were caught crashing inside to much.. let the line and MLB do there jobs inbetween the tackles and stay outside.. a player like Rouse would be more apt to stay a little deeper on the outside plays and turn the RB back inside..

But like I said, it would be on a limited or matchup basis.. one thing is apparent... Poppinga struggles to stay with a pass catching TE.. and the hand off between him and our young safeties isn't there yet.

The one good sign though for the development of the safeties.. is that they are getting beat moreso on the edges of the field.. to me that is an experience thing of reading the play and reacting... that will come with time.

 

[Pack93z]

Back to the make a trade start of this thread.. yep I probably steered it off course...

But here is a nugget that was brought up.. yes only speculation but a dark horse that I forgot about...

Fargas would bring speed to the offense on third downs, but isn't a game in and out workhorse. Jordan is a complete back, but no way that the Raider deal him.. Rhodes, he is a strike away from another suspension.

Anyway more media fodder...

At least one team has a wealth at running back. A couple of teams do not.

Here’s a suggestion: Make a deal!

First, in the surplus category, the Raiders. Though starter LaMont Jordan has been great, he is out with a back injury. Jordan, who is first in the NFL in rushing yards per game at 106.0 and is sixth in rushing yards despite playing only parts of three games. He should be back soon, though he might not play this weekend.

Back from a four-game suspension is Dominic Rhodes, who isn’t terribly exciting, but he’s a serviceable No. 2 option. Then there’s Justin Fargas, who is averaging 6.1 yards a carry and has four 20-or-more-yard runs this season. He’s quick and smaller and would be an excellent complement for a team that has a big back as its No. 1 option.

The Raiders’ wild card in this whole derby is Michael Bush. Remember him? He was the Louisville star who dropped to the first pick of the fourth round because of injury and conditioning concerns. Bush, like JaMarcus Russell, has done nothing to date, but the coaches are raving about his potential. He’s on the physically unable to perform (PUP) list and could be activated as soon as he’s able, in Week Seven. Expect the coaches to get him out there right away. Lane Kiffin seems very intrigued.

It’s possible that one of these guys could be dealt, and if I were handicapping it, I would say that Fargas is the most likely to go, followed by Rhodes and Jordan. Bush is staying put.

So who needs a back?

The Packers, sure. But they traded for Ryan Grant in the preseason (he has battled fumbling issues) and spent a second-rounder on Brandon Jackson, so they might not be wont to deal too many draft choices. Ted Thompson really likes to stockpile his picks.

The Bucs could use a running back with Cadillac Williams out for the season and Michael Pittman out two months. They looked into Mewelde Moore, but passed because the Vikings were asking too much. I wonder if Jon Gruden would take on a former Raiders running back — Fargas, I’d imagine, or Rhodes — but I don’t know why not. Gruden was in Tampa when Fargas became a Raider.

Other teams that might look for help include the Saints (doubtful though) and the Bengals if Rudi Johnson is hurt worse than expected.

 

[porky88]

I don't think so.

Any LB that we get would need time to understand our scheme. That'd limit the amount of work that new LB would see.

The only other LB that could challenge Popp is Bishop. But not sure Bishop is capable of playing the SLB.

bishop can not be any worse than Brady!

Brady & bush are huge liabilities on the Packers defense!

Actually going back and looking at it the Packers were playing zone. It was really Nick Collins who gave up most of the catches as it's his responsibility to defend his zone.

I heard the same thing on the radio after the game. Poppinga wasn't perfect but he wasn't near as bad as what some people had originally thought.

 

[all about da packers]

bishop can not be any worse than Brady!

Brady & bush are huge liabilities on the Packers defense!

In reference to Popp, I don't think you can measure his effectiveness by stats alone. Popp is a converted DE, and as a SLB he has to be able to take on and subsequently shed blockers. Granted Popp isn't exceptional at doing this.

In the little I saw of Bishop during pre-season, he seemed to struggle with this even more so than Popp. Especially the Seattle game (even though we won) Bishop got caught inside on occasions and then got completely taken out of being in a position to make a play by the FB.

Currently our LBs active for the past few games have been: Popp, Hawk, Barnett, and Tracey White. Desmond Bishop has been a scratch, and surely it should say something (bad) about how impactful he can be as a LB.

 

[all about da packers]

Actually going back and looking at it the Packers were playing zone. It was really Nick Collins who gave up most of the catches as it's his responsibility to defend his zone.

I heard the same thing on the radio after the game. Poppinga wasn't perfect but he wasn't near as bad as what some people had originally thought.

Porky from what I heard afterwards, Cooley's role was to either stay back and help block or go out and run. He did both of them exceptionally well during the first half, so that allowed Cooley to fake as if he was blocking and roll out into space. On the Skins first TD drive, he was really effective doing this.

Popp buckled down and made some solid plays amidst his bad ones. Cooley was paid something like 14 million guaranteed for a reason, and in the first half he showed what that reason was.

 

[Pack93z]

I don't think so.

Any LB that we get would need time to understand our scheme. That'd limit the amount of work that new LB would see.

The only other LB that could challenge Popp is Bishop. But not sure Bishop is capable of playing the SLB.

bishop can not be any worse than Brady!

Brady & bush are huge liabilities on the Packers defense!

Actually going back and looking at it the Packers were playing zone. It was really Nick Collins who gave up most of the catches as it's his responsibility to defend his zone.

I heard the same thing on the radio after the game. Poppinga wasn't perfect but he wasn't near as bad as what some people had originally thought.

Oh I disagree that turning the bulk of the blame over to Collins.. it wasn't Collins getting left steps behing on the short outs and especially wasn't the safeties loosing track of Cooley after he released from chip blocks..

Note that they doubled him in the second with Collins and Bigby to take that away... I think it was like 2 catches for 8 yards in the second..

Part of the issues was the safeties were sitting for the deep balls because the Skins were taking some shots downfield.. in the second half with the safeties doubling Cooley they had a couple of should have been's get by them.. In one you can see Bigby trying to recover but played way to shallow to help the LBers cover the flares out of the backfield and Cooley.