1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!
    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers.

    You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!
  2. Announcement is LIVE: Read the Forum Post

Packers to be More Physical

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by 13 Times Champs, Apr 21, 2013.

  1. El Guapo

    El Guapo Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    2,564
    Ratings:
    +1,452
    I find your remark here curious. Why would Bishop be replaced? He's still our starter. Yes I'd love for all of our backups to be elite players too, but that's not reality.

    Collins I agree it would be great to have Collins 2.0 playing back there, but your "adequate" statement leads me to believe that the staff somehow screwed up? While safety is a need, I think that most fans and media would agree that they've had bigger needs for our top draft picks. You can only do so much when looking for safety in the mid-to-late rounds and/or free agency.

    As to my original post that Bozz got hammered on, I don't mind his response. His broader point was that when we play aggressive we more often play undisciplined. I can buy that argument. I disagree with the hail mary point mainly because I don't agree that it was an undisciplined play, but I recognize that wasn't the main thrust of his point.
     
  2. ThxJackVainisi

    ThxJackVainisi Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    3,917
    Ratings:
    +3,009
    That's an interesting comment because we can now contrast the 6-2, 304 lb. Worthy to the 6-0, 294 lb. Daniels after their rookie seasons. If I could turn back the clock and convince Thompson not to select one of these two players it would be Worthy I'd suggest he bypass and it's not even close. (According to McGinn) Daniels was second on the DL in pressures per snap at one every 22.4 snaps while Worthy was fourth in pressures with one every 73.8 Daniels was quick and displayed a non-stop motor and unfortunately Worthy didn't. [sarcasm]Maybe if Worthy weren't so tall…[/sarcasm]

    BTW, McGinn says after finding out his quick first step wasn't enough in the NFL, Worthy dropped about 20 pounds to the mid-280s, "in hopes of shedding baby fat and rebuilding his body". So there's still hope for Worthy if he's dedicated. At this point I hope he's on IR all season, gets completely healthy and in the process adds good weight and returns quicker and stronger in 2014.
     
  3. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    5,180
    Ratings:
    +2,369
    The point is somewhat obvious.

    The 23 posts on the topic before Bishop got a mention indicates the backward looking character of the discussion.

    Bishop returning to form is an open question; if he does, then we have a partial solution.
     
  4. 13 Times Champs

    13 Times Champs Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,924
    Ratings:
    +1,379
    Well I agree with Shawnsta that both he and Neal have limited roles to play. I guess we have to remember that Daniels was picked at the end of the 4th round so maybe that's what you get at that point. I just wonder if that is is the situation maybe you look at another position. And no I don't know who else was around at another position that may have been better.
     
  5. ThxJackVainisi

    ThxJackVainisi Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    3,917
    Ratings:
    +3,009
    [killing time before the draft] If Neal and Daniels have limited roles, what was Worthy's role? He was not stout enough vs. the run to play DE in the base well and Neal and Daniels were both better getting pressure on the QB.

    Maybe I can simplify this:

    Facts: Worthy was picked at #51 in the last draft. Thompson traded picks #59 and #123 to move up to pick him. Daniels was picked with a compensation pick at #132.

    Opinion: Daniels was better than Worthy.

    So it seems odd to me that someone would post they don't understand why the Packers would draft a 6' DL when an example exists from that very same draft of a taller DL who wasn't as good as the shorter DL. Not only that, but Daniels was selected 81 picks after Worthy. In fact, Thompson traded two picks above #132 to select a player not as good as Daniels. So with the benefit of hindsight wouldn't it make more sense to wonder if it wouldn't have made more sense to look at another position with pick #51, or better yet not trade picks #59 and #123 and look at two other positions? [/]
     
  6. Oshkoshpackfan

    Oshkoshpackfan YUT !!!

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2012
    Messages:
    3,286
    Ratings:
    +1,453
    I think we just need to get plain mean, physical yes, but we need a few guys that are just down right p!ssed off all the time and want to kill anyone not in our uniform.......old school attitude is no longer alive. I'm not talking about head hunting illegal hits, just a plain out mean @ss individual who will strike fear into opposing players.
     
  7. 13 Times Champs

    13 Times Champs Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,924
    Ratings:
    +1,379
    Someone is just trying to nitpick my post. Worthy has nothing to do with my point about Daniels lack of height and being selected despite it. They knew he was 6-0 when they drafted him. I think short smallish defensive linemen have limitations especially in the 3-4. You need big DL guys to play in that system. OPINION.

    Worthy is a separate argument.
     
  8. El Guapo

    El Guapo Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    2,564
    Ratings:
    +1,452
    We all nitpick....because we're sitting on our hands, waiting for the season to start!
     
  9. PackFanNChiTown

    PackFanNChiTown Bear Fan's Bane

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2008
    Messages:
    731
    Ratings:
    +364
    So taking a look at our 2013 draft class, did TT accomplish the goal of getting more physical players?
     
  10. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    5,180
    Ratings:
    +2,369
    In a word, no. They went in the other direction, in fact...on balance more athleticism, more speed, more versatility.

    The goal of getting more physical was promoted in the media. I recall no direct quote that said more physicality was a goal of the organization, though some reporters claimed that claimed that it was. Then some of us bought into the claim because we thought it had merit.

    I believe the principals...TT, MM, Capers...are philosophically biased toward the aforementioned athleticism, speed and versatility.
     
  11. PackFanNChiTown

    PackFanNChiTown Bear Fan's Bane

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2008
    Messages:
    731
    Ratings:
    +364
    The existing players can play more physical if they choose. Whoever heard of a finesse defense?
     
  12. realcaliforniacheese

    realcaliforniacheese A-Rods Boss

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,264
    Ratings:
    +966
    The Planet theory, There are only so many big guys.
     

Share This Page