Packers are interested in Everson Griffen

[Deleted member 6794]

You're talking about having 5(!) guys that size, or bigger, on the field regularly, in a league that's more pass happy than ever. That's not a good recipe for covering RBs out of the backfield.

Your stats are great, but I was replying to the idea of regularly playing both Smiths, Clark, Griffen, and Gary so the stats you mention are kinda irrelevant since those guys weren't all regularly playing. Let's say you leave Kirksey in for coverage, that means you now have two corners and two safeties to cover 2 WRs, 1 TE, and a RB; that can work with disguising the defense with two coverage linebackers but no OC in the league is going to be scared of any of the the pass-rush specialist linebackers on the Packers in coverage. The base defense for most teams in the NFL is the nickel and I guess the Packers are doubling down with the $5 defense?

I agree that having only 10 defenders on the field isn't a smart idea. It would make more sense to have another cornerback lining up as the nickel back.

I've suggested moving Gary to DE before and most are against that idea. If neither Gary nor the Smiths are DE, that means Lowry, Clark, and Griffen are on the line, Kirksey at ILB, with two corners, a two safeties; ONE of those three linebackers is going to have to play the role of an ILB no matter what you title him. That's an anti-nickel defense. That defense isn't going to fare well against modern, pass-heavy offenses.

It's not necessary to have three defensive linemen or two inside linebackers on the field. The Packers could line up with both Smiths and Gary and still play a dime defense.

 

[HardRightEdge]

You're talking about having 5(!) guys that size, or bigger, on the field regularly, in a league that's more pass happy than ever. That's not a good recipe for covering RBs out of the backfield.

I said nothing of the sort. I don't know where you come up with 5. You're either overlooking rotations or having trouble counting heads.

Yes, it's a passing league. 75 - 80% of snaps are nickel and dime. As I've noted several times the Smiths played too many snaps last season--75% each is a good number.

You might have noticed that I do not endorse signing Griffen because, among other things, he's an edge player not a 3-4 base DE. But lets say they did sign him as an edge.

With Z. Smith playing a good deal of 3-tech, maybe Griffen and Gary getting snaps there as well, and P. Smith each playing 75% of the snaps gets you to 300%--3 on the field on any one play on average.

I've suggested moving Gary to DE before and most are against that idea. If neither Gary nor the Smiths are DE, that means Lowry, Clark, and Griffen are on the line, Kirksey at ILB, with two corners, a two safeties; ONE of those three linebackers is going to have to play the role of an ILB no matter what you title him. That's an anti-nickel defense. That defense isn't going to fare well against modern, pass-heavy offenses.

Again, that head counting and rotations thing seems to be a problem there.

So, your nickel defense defense looks like this:

DL - Clark and Z. Smith (with maybe Griffen or Gary in rotation with Lowry on reduced snaps)
OLB - P. Smith and Griffen (with Z. Smith and Gary in rotation)

That's 6 guys covering 4 positions, each getting on average 67% of those nickel/dime snaps. Somebody(s) will miss game(s). Some will be less effective than others, probably Lowry or maybe Gary shifting some snaps to the other guys. By the way, Clark's 84% snap count last season is too high as well.

ILB - Kirsey and either Martin (if he demonstates 3-down coverage chops) or Greene as the nickel/dime hybrid ILB which is what he was doing week 1 last year before he was injured.
CB - 3 guys with the slot corner TBD
S - 2 guys

You've got 7 guys in coverage assuming no blitz, while subbing and rotating to keep everybody up front fresh.

And I still do not endorse signing Griffen, but if they did this is what you're looking at unless Pettine is going to play a lot more 4-3 hybrid. Looking at Griffen as a base 3-4 DE, strikes me as barking up the wrong tree.

 

[Favre>Rodgers259]

And I still do not endorse signing Griffen, but if they did this is what you're looking at unless Pettine is going to play a lot more 4-3 hybrid. Looking at Griffen as a base 3-4 DE, strikes me as barking up the wrong tree.

To me this is what needs to happen, and might give Pettine a chance at keeping his job in 2021. With the addition of Griffen, this defense is set for a 4-3 hybrid transformation.

You'd have the DL of Gary-Clark-Lancaster-Griffen. Lowry and Z. Smith rotate in at DE for fresh legs. Keke is scheme diverse so he can give either Clark or Lancaster a break plus come in for DE work as well. Garvin is most likely a PS stash but this scheme could also serve him well as his potential would unlock quicker.

The LB Corps is P. Smith-Kirksey-Z. Smith. Burks could have a resurgence as a traditional 4-3 MLB with Bolton pushing for reps. Summers would probably be better as a Sam OLB with Tim Williams as the Will OLB. Galeai, Ramsey, and Roberts could be interesting depth choices. & Martin might be relegated to early downs, ST, or PS.

Just my thoughts.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I agree that having only 10 defenders on the field isn't a smart idea. It would make more sense to have another cornerback lining up as the nickel back.



It's not necessary to have three defensive linemen or two inside linebackers on the field. The Packers could line up with both Smiths and Gary and still play a dime defense.

And Clark? I remember the howling when Capers played one dlineman, are you suggesting that Pettine should do so?
My numbers only added to 11 because I wasn't sure who else would be on the dline. I actually don't mind only playing Clark on the dline for passing downs but "regularly playing" isn't just on passing downs.

A defense featuring Griffen, Clark, ZSmith, PSmith, and Kirksey with 6 secondary players would be a stellar lineup for passing downs; I'm just not sure that works as a "regular" defense.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I said nothing of the sort. I don't know where you come up with 5. You're either overlooking rotations or having trouble counting heads.

Yes, it's a passing league. 75 - 80% of snaps are nickel and dime. As I've noted several times the Smiths played too many snaps last season--75% each is a good number.

You might have noticed that I do not endorse signing Griffen because, among other things, he's an edge player not a 3-4 base DE. But lets say they did sign him as an edge.

With Z. Smith playing a good deal of 3-tech, maybe Griffen and Gary getting snaps there as well, and P. Smith each playing 75% of the snaps gets you to 300%--3 on the field on any one play on average.


Again, that head counting and rotations thing seems to be a problem there.

So, your nickel defense defense looks like this:

DL - Clark and Z. Smith (with maybe Griffen or Gary in rotation with Lowry on reduced snaps)
OLB - P. Smith and Griffen (with Z. Smith and Gary in rotation)

That's 6 guys covering 4 positions, each getting on average 67% of those nickel/dime snaps. Somebody(s) will miss game(s). Some will be less effective than others, probably Lowry or maybe Gary shifting some snaps to the other guys. By the way, Clark's 84% snap count last season is too high as well.

ILB - Kirsey and either Martin (if he demonstates 3-down coverage chops) or Greene as the nickel/dime hybrid ILB which is what he was doing week 1 last year before he was injured.
CB - 3 guys with the slot corner TBD
S - 2 guys

You've got 7 guys in coverage assuming no blitz, while subbing and rotating to keep everybody up front fresh.

And I still do not endorse signing Griffen, but if they did this is what you're looking at unless Pettine is going to play a lot more 4-3 hybrid. Looking at Griffen as a base 3-4 DE, strikes me as barking up the wrong tree.

ZSmith doesn't lineup at 3-tech, he often rushes through there, but lining him up there lessens Pettine's ability to surprise the offense. Your defense hinges on ZSmith playing dline and I'm fine with that (though I'd much prefer Gary there since Smith is a much better OLB than Gary). Many are not. Ideally, a passing defense would feature Griffen, Gary, and Clark on the dline with the Smiths at linebacker. What keeps getting missed is that I was responding to a post that said they would be playing "regularly" together; I don't think that's a defense that can play "regularly" in the NFL, it would get run on too easily.

 

[HardRightEdge]

ZSmith doesn't lineup at 3-tech, he often rushes through there.

That's distinction without a difference if I've ever heard one.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

That's distinction without a difference if I've ever heard one.

When a guy lines up outside the tackle and then stunts to rush over the guard, that's a big difference from lining up in a 3-point stance over the guard, right? When playing OLB, there are a LOT of gaps Z can rush through; lining up at 3-tech limits those options tremendously.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Actually there's no way of clearing any meaningful cap space during the season as the base salary of vested veterans becomes fully guaranteed if they're on the roster in week 1.

This is true. The pickings would be pretty slim among players with fewer than 4 accrued seasons. If out of cap and a PS guy or guys need to be elevated, Jamaal Williams would be the most likely candidate. That would pay for quite a few minimum salary game replacements.

The point being, you don't want to find yourself in that position. A PUP/IR reserve is essential, more this year than any prior.

 

[HardRightEdge]

When a guy lines up outside the tackle and then stunts to rush over the guard, that's a big difference from lining up in a 3-point stance over the guard, right? When playing OLB, there are a LOT of gaps Z can rush through; lining up at 3-tech limits those options tremendously.

You forgot something--lining up in the three hole, standing up. You know, Z. did that last season with some frequency besides hand in the dirt. I don't know why you resist the idea of Z. taking snaps at DT in nickel/dime when (1) Pettine said he was going to use him there and (2) he went right ahead and did it. Wanting to use Z. in this way is a reason why Gary was drafted.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

You'd have the DL of Gary-Clark-Lancaster-Griffen. Lowry and Z. Smith rotate in at DE for fresh legs.

The LB Corps is P. Smith-Kirksey-Z.

Do you really want to have four defensive linemen and two outside liebackers on the field on a regular basis??? That won't work.

And Clark? I remember the howling when Capers played one dlineman, are you suggesting that Pettine should do so?
My numbers only added to 11 because I wasn't sure who else would be on the dline. I actually don't mind only playing Clark on the dline for passing downs but "regularly playing" isn't just on passing downs.

A defense featuring Griffen, Clark, ZSmith, PSmith, and Kirksey with 6 secondary players would be a stellar lineup for passing downs; I'm just not sure that works as a "regular" defense.

I prefer the Packers to use two defensive linemen on the majority of snaps. Pettine could still have them lined up in nickel with three outside linebackers on the field as long as there's only a single inside linebacker on the field.

BTW the pass defense is the main formation in today's league.

Ideally, a passing defense would feature Griffen, Gary, and Clark on the dline with the Smiths at linebacker. What keeps getting missed is that I was responding to a post that said they would be playing "regularly" together; I don't think that's a defense that can play "regularly" in the NFL, it would get run on too easily.

Well, teams have to find some balance to contain the run but there's no doubt defenses mainly focus on stopping the pass. On average teams lined up in nickel and dime 71.6% of the snaps last season (Packers 79%).

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Do you really want to have four defensive linemen and two outside liebackers on the field on a regular basis??? That won't work.



I prefer the Packers to use two defensive linemen on the majority of snaps. Pettine could still have them lined up in nickel with three outside linebackers on the field as long as there's only a single inside linebacker on the field.

BTW the pass defense is the main formation in today's league.



Well, teams have to find some balance to contain the run but there's no doubt defenses mainly focus on stopping the pass. On average teams lined up in nickel and dime 71.6% of the snaps last season (Packers 79%).

Yes, nickel is the base defense. However, only two dlinemen, the Smtihs, Gary, and Kirksey isn't going to do well against the run unless that second dlineman turns into Calais Campbell or Cameron Hayward. Assuming it's 2nd-and-5, that means teams will still be willing to run on that defense.

Last point, all of this discussion is really pointless until Gary shows he actually deserves time on the field.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Yes, nickel is the base defense. However, only two dlinemen, the Smtihs, Gary, and Kirksey isn't going to do well against the run unless that second dlineman turns into Calais Campbell or Cameron Hayward. Assuming it's 2nd-and-5, that means teams will still be willing to run on that defense.

Unfortunately I don't believe any defensive lineman other than Clark currently on the roster would significantly improve the run defense while receiving a decent amount of snaps.

 

[Favre>Rodgers259]

Do you really want to have four defensive linemen and two outside linebackers on the field on a regular basis??? That won't work.

How can you be certain? I was only speaking in regards to a "base defense"(4-3); but it's really all about the personnel. Keep in mind that a Nickel Defense can be 4 or 3 defensive linemen. With a 4-2-5 approach, we aren't suspect to the run, and until we can stop the run, 4 defensive linemen might be preferred, as a 3 defensive lineman approach resulted in the disaster that was the NFCCG. Griffen-Clark-Lancaster-Gary with P. Smith-Kirksey-Z.Smith should do us some good.

A 3-3-5 approach isn't horrible, but again it's all about the personnel, and we don't have it in my opinion. For a 3-3-5 I'd prefer a Gary-Clark-Lowry with a P. Smith-Kirksey-Z. Smith approach.

Last point, all of this discussion is really pointless until Gary shows he actually deserves time on the field.

He deserves it, because Lowry, Lancaster, and Adams aren't the answer....although they could be a part of it.

Unfortunately I don't believe any defensive lineman other than Clark currently on the roster would significantly improve the run defense while receiving a decent amount of snaps.

I believe if Gary was given a full-time spot at DE last year, he would have came away with 5 or 6 sacks off physical gifts alone. Keke probably would have registered at least a sack and a couple tackles for loss if he had gotten the playbook down quicker.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

How can you be certain? I was only speaking in regards to a "base defense"(4-3); but it's really all about the personnel. Keep in mind that a Nickel Defense can be 4 or 3 defensive linemen. With a 4-2-5 approach, we aren't suspect to the run, and until we can stop the run, 4 defensive linemen might be preferred, as a 3 defensive lineman approach resulted in the disaster that was the NFCCG. Griffen-Clark-Lancaster-Gary with P. Smith-Kirksey-Z.Smith should do us some good.

A 3-3-5 approach isn't horrible, but again it's all about the personnel, and we don't have it in my opinion. For a 3-3-5 I'd prefer a Gary-Clark-Lowry with a P. Smith-Kirksey-Z. Smith approach.

Actually NFL teams mostly use only two defensive lineman in nickel defense. Otherwise if they don't have dominant players on the line there's no way to put enough pressure on opposing quarterbacks.

He deserves it, because Lowry, Lancaster, and Adams aren't the answer....although they could be a part of it.

Gary doesn't deserve to receive more playing time because the Packers lack talent on the defensive line. He needs to earn his snaps based on performance.

 

[Favre>Rodgers259]

As a Top 15 Pick Gary absolutely deserves more playing time due to the lack of talent on the defensive line. Improvement isn't going to come from anywhere else, except Kingsley Keke. Unless Keke turns into all-world talent in the next 2-3 weeks, I would highly expect a Top 15 pick to play before a Top 150 pick.

To do the same thing by trotting out Lowry, Clark, and Lancaster and expect better results is insanity....and will most likely cost Pettine his job if the Packers get bounced from the playoffs in the same fashion as 2019. They need to just put him out there and let him learn through trial by fire. Again, based on physical gifts alone, I highly doubt Gary will be the reason we lose a game; especially if we let him do what he did best at Michigan, which was disrupting the LOS coming off the edge.

 

[El Guapo]

As a Top 15 Pick Gary absolutely deserves more playing time due to the lack of talent on the defensive line.

I can't disagree with the first statement more. That's the kind of Dan Devine thinking that will put us in a hole quickly. Does it conversely hold true the a undrafted free agent absolutely deserves to ride the bench?

Gary would deserve more playing time if he showed in practice and his limited playing time that he is ready and deserves more. Whether a guy was the #1 pick or Mr. Irrelevant only points to how the GM and scouts felt about a player from his college days. What the coaches see each day in practice/games means incredibly more in terms of playing time.

 

[gopkrs]

Gary has shown me (in the little he played) some real speed and strength. I agree a spot needs to be found for him to grow into.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

He deserves it, because Lowry, Lancaster, and Adams aren't the answer....although they could be a part of it.

I know it's fun to believe that, but if he deserved the time he would play over those guys. He was not a good player last year. He had some moments which people like to highlight in videos, but those were very far and few between. I'm not saying he can't improve, just that his history above the high school level doesn't inspire much confidence.

 

[AmishMafia]

As a Top 15 Pick Gary absolutely deserves more playing time due to the lack of talent on the defensive line.

To do the same thing by trotting out Lowry, Clark, and Lancaster and expect better results is insanity....

PFF scores:

Tyler Lancaster: 64.5
Dean Lowry: 62.3
Rashaan Gary: 54.1


By my eye as well, I though lowry and lancaster both played better than Gary. I know PFF is not the be-all-end-all, but its an attempt at subjective analysis. And it isn't going to show a 18% rating difference if there isn't some size of a gap.

Gary has shown me (in the little he played) some real speed and strength. I agree a spot needs to be found for him to grow into.

We knew that from the combine. We need football players and Gary is not that, at least not yet.

If you want to say Gary has more upside, then I agree. But until he realizes that potential, we are a better team with others on the field.

 

[Favre>Rodgers259]

I agree that PFF is not the be-all-end-all. But if it's any consolation, in my opinion Gary is playing out of position. He should be a full time DE. I really hate for him to go the way of Datone Jones or to a lesser extent Damarious Randall, but Gute might have inherited that God-awful trait from TT of turning guys from unpolished pro to a full on project.

 

[GB psyco]

Get Griffen and bring back Matthews!!

 

[HardRightEdge]

If you want to say Gary has more upside, then I agree. But until he realizes that potential, we are a better team with others on the field.

He has no chance of realizing his potential unless you put him on the field.

Even if Z. never takes another snap at DT, which is not at all the plan, Gary's still going to get at least a 50% snap count with Z. and Preston at more productive 75% snap counts. First of all, who is this other OLB you're going to put on the field instead? Practice squad fodder? Second, if this was not the plan, something, anything, would have been done by now to secure a #3, at least a prospect of some kind.

As for the title of this thread, many are called, few choose to sign on the dotted line.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Get Griffen and bring back Matthews!!

The Packers don't have the cap space to make it work as well as no need to bring Matthews back.

 

[PackerDNA]

Signed with the Cowboys for 6 million.
Guess it wasn't about getting leverage with the Vikings.

 

[Sanguine camper]

Pack never had the cap space for Griffen and signing him would've signaled that Gary couldn't be counted on to back up the Smith's.