Reggie Ragland

[TJV]

Not sure where this belongs but here are a couple of items I thought were interesting. A few days ago Michael Cohen wrote this in a story on Ragland and Lee.

The season-ending injury to Sam Barrington, a former seventh-round pick from South Florida, snatched from the Packers the only inside linebacker other than Matthews with legitimate game experience. It deprived them, too, of the linebacker designated to play 100% of the snaps in base, nickel and dime formations, a crucial situation if Capers hoped to use Matthews as an edge rusher in passing situations.

Was that everyone else’s impression before the season started? I don’t remember that Barrington was going to be playing in the dime - I assumed he'd struggle in coverage in the dime.
http://www.jsonline.com/sports/pack...backer-for-packers-b99676281z1-370398001.html

This appeared a couple of days ago in a Dougherty piece on the defense.

“We need to be a championship defense,” McCarthy said last week at the NFL scouting combine, essentially repeating what he’d said in a press conference the week before. “So we took a step toward that last year, but we need to take another step.” McCarthy said he’s in the second year of a three-year plan with the defense, though he shared no details on what that actually means. And really, for all that can be done with schemes and approach, the Packers’ chances of going from a decent defense (No. 12 in points allowed, No. 15 in yards last year) to a “championship defense” will depend more on personnel.

Again, this is news to me, anyone else have a heads-up this is year 2 in a three year plan?
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com...8/packers-face-big-decision-defense/81005950/

 

[Mondio]

That was also the first of a 3 year plan I've heard of. And Barrington as the every down backer? Please tell me no. And I never heard that was the plan before either. Or maybe that's what they may have said at one point, like " we're giving Sam the opportunity to be a 3 down guy and we never want our signal caller coming off the field" type statements and the journalist fave it his own interpretation

 

[OldSchool101]

Just throwing it out there, but given that at times of the season our home games can be played in temps of -15 to -30 with wind chill, what makes you think players from the west coast would rush to join the Packers anyway ?

They like watching Oktoberfest Parades and driving their cars on the lake?

 

[Poppa San]

They like watching Oktoberfest Parades and driving their cars on the lake?

Or you can be in your boat on.the river walleye fishing 10 minutes after leaving the stadium.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

ragland is one of those guys who holds the front. You need those big violent guys to manage the trenches. Otherwise we are giving up the trenches, and hoping we can stop the play downfield... I cant stand that mentality. You MUST own the trenches!!!

 

[Deleted member 6794]

ragland is one of those guys who holds the front. You need those big violent guys to manage the trenches. Otherwise we are giving up the trenches, and hoping we can stop the play downfield... I cant stand that mentality. You MUST own the trenches!!!

Do you realize that Ragland is an inside linebacker???

 

[Patriotplayer90]

Do you realize that Ragland is an inside linebacker???

I'm not sure if this was his point, but I do see him getting involved at the line more than the other LBs like Lee, Jack, etc. He seems much better at plugging up holes and getting off of blocks. An old school LB indeed, but I've seen him drop into coverage successfully several times, and he held Hunter Henry to basically nothing.

 

[Vrill]

Ragland is a slightly better version of Brandon Spikes. That is how I see him. He is a little bit faster than Spikes. Can rush the passer better than Spikes, and is probably a 3 down ILB. If nothing else, teams will blitz Ragland on 3rd down or let him be a pass rusher (Its what Saban did with him at Bama)

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I'm not sure if this was his point, but I do see him getting involved at the line more than the other LBs like Lee, Jack, etc. He seems much better at plugging up holes and getting off of blocks. An old school LB indeed, but I've seen him drop into coverage successfully several times, and he held Hunter Henry to basically nothing.

I agree with what you've said about Ragland getting more involved at the line than other inside linebacker prospects in this year's draft but trust me, I've been around this forum long enough and seen several posts from Eli lacking complete understand of the basic principles of the game of football to be sure he either didn't know that Ragland is an ILB or has no idea about what the trenches are.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

Do you realize that Ragland is an inside linebacker???

Wow! You and TJV are so closed minded.... You made my case for me, in the process of trying to make me look bad. For you two to say the ILB has nothing to do with the trenches??? THAT is the problem!!!!!!!!!!! In the same multi year debate, You and the talking heads claim our 3-4 only has 2 down linemen 80+% of the time. But the OLB is basicly a down lineman (BUT DONT CALL HIM THAT!!!) ......

So you wise guys wonder why we cant stop the run unless we play Mathews in the middle, and have our big beef in the trenches? You want a Jones and Daniels and a 230 pound ILB who can cover. That should work now, even though it hasnt worked EVER! Give me a break.

This witch hunt is going to turn this offseason into another fight. Im not going to put up with this highschool click bullcrap.

And yes. a 260+ pound ILB would help very much in the trenches..... How is it that you cant figure that out? are you that lopsided in your strategy? or are you that dense?

 

[TJV]

eli, since you included me in your post here's the part of captainWIMM's with which I agree: IMO in the guise of "thinking outside the box" you have displayed a misunderstand of the basic principles of the game of football.

 

[thisisnate]

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Wow! You and TJV are so closed minded.... You made my case for me, in the process of trying to make me look bad. For you two to say the ILB has nothing to do with the trenches??? THAT is the problem!!!!!!!!!!! In the same multi year debate, You and the talking heads claim our 3-4 only has 2 down linemen 80+% of the time. But the OLB is basicly a down lineman (BUT DONT CALL HIM THAT!!!) ......

So you wise guys wonder why we cant stop the run unless we play Mathews in the middle, and have our big beef in the trenches? You want a Jones and Daniels and a 230 pound ILB who can cover. That should work now, even though it hasnt worked EVER! Give me a break.

This witch hunt is going to turn this offseason into another fight. Im not going to put up with this highschool click bullcrap.

And yes. a 260+ pound ILB would help very much in the trenches..... How is it that you cant figure that out? are you that lopsided in your strategy? or are you that dense?

I'm done explaining basic stuff about football to you as you haven't shown the will to learn something about the game several times when being completely wrong.

If you want to believe an inside linebacker like Ragland is the big guy necessary for the Packers to own the trenches I'm fine with it from now on.

It's too bad for you though that you will never understand the basic concepts of this game because you're too ignorant to take some advice from some really smart people around here, something that helped me tremendously improve my knowledge about a sport I was unfortunately not able to grow up with.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

I'm done explaining basic stuff about football to you as you haven't shown the will to learn something about the game several times when being completely wrong.

If you want to believe an inside linebacker like Ragland is the big guy necessary for the Packers to own the trenches I'm fine with it from now on.

It's too bad for you though that you will never understand the basic concepts of this game because you're too ignorant to take some advice from some really smart people around here, something that helped me tremendously improve my knowledge about a sport I was unfortunately not able to grow up with.

I understand what you guys are preaching. I simply disagree. Its you all who seem to have a problem whith my idea of what a 3-4 is. And remember TECHNICALLY you all are talking about a 2-4-5, not a 3-4. You call it a 3-4 but you are talking about capers scheme. Which is not a 3-4 85% of the time or so...

My only hope is that some day you jerks will get off your high horses.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

I agree with what you've said about Ragland getting more involved at the line than other inside linebacker prospects in this year's draft but trust me, I've been around this forum long enough and seen several posts from Eli lacking complete understand of the basic principles of the game of football to be sure he either didn't know that Ragland is an ILB or has no idea about what the trenches are.

WOW really? Lets talk football strategy. Seriously. I think all you have the ability to do is comprehend what other people told you, and regurgitate it back up. You dont see the numbers, the weights and measures at work. The basis of strategy. You are unable to come up with a new idea. And people who come up with new ideas, and back it up are apparently not allowed...

Lets talk football. quit calling names and acting foolish... Im not leaving. 365.25 .

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

I'm done explaining basic stuff about football to you as you haven't shown the will to learn something about the game several times when being completely wrong.

If you want to believe an inside linebacker like Ragland is the big guy necessary for the Packers to own the trenches I'm fine with it from now on.

It's too bad for you though that you will never understand the basic concepts of this game because you're too ignorant to take some advice from some really smart people around here, something that helped me tremendously improve my knowledge about a sport I was unfortunately not able to grow up with.

You are damn right Ragland will help us control the trenches! What am i in crazy land here???? And I didnt say he IS the missing piece. But he fills a missing piece. Even in the days of Barnett, we havnt had a ILB who can hold the front. Call it strategy... I call it crazy. I like barnett for his strengths. But i was never happy with the strength of our ILBs, until Mathews moved inside. Which IMO, wastes his speed. But dang it! It got the job done!!! Point is im willing to see how bad he might be in coverage, if we can be dominant in the middle against strong teams. when it counts. we need the beef imo.

I understand guys who are 260+ typically are not great in coverage. and our 85% of the time we are in coverage schemes... But the fact is you want a smallish LB who is better in coverage vs. a bruiser who's coverage skills might need to be compensated for? Right? Sort of like the smallish ILB having to be compensated for in the battle of the trenches?

Im still of the belief that the trenches are where its won and lost. Everything i ever seen, other than rare circumstances, like when woodson, collins, and the whole secondary played lights out in our superbowl run. Basicly our Dline hanging by a string, and the secondary pulling off miracles. Im not going to bank on it though. I want to own the trenches first!

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

eli, since you included me in your post here's the part of captainWIMM's with which I agree: IMO in the guise of "thinking outside the box" you have displayed a misunderstand of the basic principles of the game of football.

How would you know? every time i start a thought, you two start the childish name calling, and dumbing me down process. whats the problem? you dont like to talk strategy?

I would call our defense far from perfect. Very far. in capers 8th or what ever year. we are still developing? I dont think the packers brass has a real understanding of capers genius. But i believe capers took his scheme a 1/2 step too far. and much too far in the past with lack of tallent dictating. He has basicly abandoned the trenches for years at a time.

I am much happier with the defense as it stands now, vs any time in capers era. So he is coming around. IMO.

 

[thisisnate]

Four. Four consecutive posts. Muahahaha!

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

I'm done explaining basic stuff about football to you as you haven't shown the will to learn something about the game several times when being completely wrong.

If you want to believe an inside linebacker like Ragland is the big guy necessary for the Packers to own the trenches I'm fine with it from now on.

It's too bad for you though that you will never understand the basic concepts of this game because you're too ignorant to take some advice from some really smart people around here, something that helped me tremendously improve my knowledge about a sport I was unfortunately not able to grow up with.

By the way. this debate started when GB didnt have anything but Raji and a young daniels backed up by a corps of corpses. Breaking the records you dont want to be breaking...
Last year we held Raji, Guion, Pennell (3 NTs) Plus Daniels, Boyd who are both 310+......

Ask yourself seriously. 3 years ago, with the scheme we had, and what we were trying to do on defense. Do you think it would be possible to hold 3 NTs and 2 big/ do all, DE, on the roster, besides the stable of DEs like Jones, Neal. and OLBs like Peppers, Perry(who are used for their DE skills most).

I remember being laughed out the building when talking about having 3 NTs on the roster. and a pair of big/ do all DEs too?!?!?!? Im still like , ummmmm yea. duh. In fact, i would like us to keep raji, AND add a 1st round younger, faster, bruiser DT to add to the group. Give us the Dline strength and depth we need to actually play a base 3-4, and still cover with our very good secondary, with the pocket pressure forcing mistakes.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

Four. Four consecutive posts. Muahahaha!

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

all replies to attacks...

 

[TJV]

How would you know? every time i start a thought, you two start the childish name calling, and dumbing me down process. whats the problem? you dont like to talk strategy?

No, every time you display your misunderstanding of football you get corrected. You misunderstood the 3-4 defense and a few of us, not just captainWIMM and myself, attempted to teach you the basic concepts of that defense. You posted as if you didn’t realize Capers plays the 3-4 a minority of the time (congrats on finally catching up). You posted your expectation of getting 12 sacks from each DE in the 3-4 and 6 from the NT is realistic. You called the 1985 Bears defense a 6-4. And now you have the gall to say we call the 2-4-5 a 3-4: That was you consistently confusing and misunderstanding Capers' defensive alignments. Shortly after joining this site, in addition to giving yourself credit for ideas which can't be substantiated, you called yourself a mathematical wizard, but you seldom back up your points with math (stats) and still haven't displayed anything close to such "wizardry".

However, I do agree with an early post of yours:

I've never gotten credit for my outside the box thinking. Which has been admitedly ignorant, and uninformed at times.

Was that you calling yourself names?

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

No, every time you display your misunderstanding of football you get corrected. You misunderstood the 3-4 defense and a few of us, not just captainWIMM and myself, attempted to teach you the basic concepts of that defense. You posted as if you didn’t realize Capers plays the 3-4 a minority of the time (congrats on finally catching up). You posted your expectation of getting 12 sacks from each DE in the 3-4 and 6 from the NT is realistic. You called the 1985 Bears defense a 6-4. And now you have the gall to say we call the 2-5-4 a 3-4: That was you consistently confusing and misunderstanding Capers' defensive alignments. Shortly after joining this site, in addition to giving yourself credit for ideas which can't be substantiated, you called yourself a mathematical wizard, but you seldom back up your points with math (stats) and still haven't displayed anything close to such "wizardry".

However, I do agree with an early post of yours: Was that you calling yourself names?

I am man enough to admit when i am wrong.....

But first off i call capers scheme a 2-4-5 85% of the time. not a 2-5-4. What exactly would you call it?

And you are pulling stuff out from 3 years ago. What do you keep a file of my faults? Jeez. And again I called the bears defense a 4-6, and simply was stating that the bears defensive coaches werent afraid to think outside the box, and play a scheme that allows their best players to do what they do best. In this situation their defense over powered, and out played everyone until their defense was figured out. But before the 4-6 code was cracked, they had arguably the best defense ever. Historical. Side note, since i expect ridicule from small obscure off points. 85 bears was before my time. I just heard it being called a 4-6 before. If i had watched it i could give a more accurate description of what they did. But the point im making is they they broke the mold to use their best players, and over powered and confused everyone for a whole year. Different era (run). That took balls and it took the right personel. But it shows the bears coaches had the ability to shift scheme like Capers does.

85 bears owned the trenches...

 

[sschind]

They like watching Oktoberfest Parades and driving their cars on the lake?

Just stay off Lake Geneva. I couldn't pick one representative picture so I just linked to the google search.

https://www.google.com/search?q=lak...Lo6qzLAhWHw4MKHYsQCK8QsAQIHw&biw=1024&bih=653

 

[TJV]

And again I called the bears defense a 4-6, and simply was stating that the bears defensive coaches werent afraid to think outside the box, and play a scheme that allows their best players to do what they do best.

I debated we should impliment a 5-2-4 defense. Inspired by the apparent 6-4 of the 85 bears.

And when you call(ed) it a 4-6, you were and are wrong about that as well as HardRightEdge pointed out at the time:

The Bears 6-4 defense, as you call it, was a classic 4-3, or 4-4 including a box safety/LB hybrid. Said hybrid was originally Doug Plank wearing jersey number 46 after which the "46 defense" was named.

The defense was named after a player’s number, not an alignment, something you apparently continue to misunderstand.

And no, I don't keep a file on your faults - [joke]I don't have the room[/joke]. But I do have a memory and there is a search feature on this forum. (BTW I'll bet I'm not the only one who remembers the attempt to school you on the 3-4 defense, which you posted you knew nothing about before Capers installed it in Green Bay.) For example, I remember you taking credit for coming up with the idea of Matthews playing inside and I remember I pointed out that you never mentioned it on this board until Matthews actually lined up inside. I could do a search but you probably remember that too.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

And when you call(ed) it a 4-6, you were and are wrong about that as well as HardRightEdge pointed out at the time: The defense was named after a player’s number, not an alignment, something you apparently continue to misunderstand.

And no, I don't keep a file on your faults - [joke]I don't have the room[/joke]. But I do have a memory and there is a search feature on this forum. (BTW I'll bet I'm not the only one who remembers the attempt to school you on the 3-4 defense, which you posted you knew nothing about before Capers installed it in Green Bay.) For example, I remember you taking credit for coming up with the idea of Matthews playing inside and I remember I pointed out that you never mentioned it on this board until Matthews actually lined up inside. I could do a search but you probably remember that too.

Pretty sure that was a typo. i believed there was 6 LBs. and the 5-2-4 i thought i made up, based on our personel. Turns out i was basicly talking about a 3-4, Only i called the OLBs DE's that were athletic enough to drop back into coverage if needed... You still miss my point. I wasnt claiming to know what the bears defense was. I simply stated that their coaches werent afraid to play a new style of defense to maximize pressure, and use the players they had. Even if i was completely wrong on the bears scheme, it doesnt change the original point i was trying to make.