Small ILB Recap & Conclusions

[jetfixer]

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

 

[HardRightEdge]

I have no idea if Killebrew can play LB.

Not in the conventional sense. The whole point of the tweener discussion is whether the defense benefits from this type of player in this position. It kinda sorta makes sense in a 3-4 where you have a run stuffer at the other ILB position.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I can agree with that.
Whose has the best coverage skill for the linebackers this year?

Ragland isn't a problem in coverage and that's really all the Packers need. Most ILBs have zone coverage responsibilities and what's really important for that is understanding where routes are going and where you need to be; 40 time isn't nearly as important as some seem to think.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Hate to beat a dead horse, but the Packers have also not invested much into this position in a long time. Jake Ryan being picked in the 4th round is the closest thing you could call a substantial investment since AJ Hawk in 2006. I hope to see that change in this draft.

Having a terrific ILB isn't that important in the NFL. Only appears that way for the Packers because they've had terrible ILBs (also terrible luck with ILB health). Packer's coaches could justifiably be perfectly comfortable thinking that Barrington will come back healthy and that Ryan showed enough that they don't feel the need for a new starter at ILB.

Which brings up the point, why are so many people just completely ignoring Sam Barrington? I'm not saying he's going to be an elite guy but why do people just automatically assume that the team has given up on him?

 

[Mondio]

Which brings up the point, why are so many people just completely ignoring Sam Barrington? I'm not saying he's going to be an elite guy but why do people just automatically assume that the team has given up on him?

I think their last impression is of a guy that, although played the play perfectly earlier in the game, was beaten badly by Lynch in the playoff loss on a long pass on their way to a come back and then followed it up getting run all over the field by the Eagles in a preseason game. Neither of which were impressive, but without perspective, it was the last image most of us have of him. And for me, he showed potential, but never "arrived" for me. Will he continue getting better after the inujury? I'm willing to let him compete and win the spot, but i'm also not comfortable penciling him in either. We have lots of room at ILB to win a job. I expect at least 2 more added to the roster before the draft is over.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Having a terrific ILB isn't that important in the NFL. Only appears that way for the Packers because they've had terrible ILBs (also terrible luck with ILB health). Packer's coaches could justifiably be perfectly comfortable thinking that Barrington will come back healthy and that Ryan showed enough that they don't feel the need for a new starter at ILB.

Which brings up the point, why are so many people just completely ignoring Sam Barrington? I'm not saying he's going to be an elite guy but why do people just automatically assume that the team has given up on him?

I would be comfortable agreeing with that if it wasn't for the fact that the importance of the position for the Packers was clearly shown when they moved Clay Matthews inside to try and fill the glaring weakness. Taking your best player on Defense and moving him like that, is very telling as to how important it was to the Packers to make a change and the other options available to them at the time (2 years). Besides getting Barrington back, nothing has changed on the Packer defense since Matthews last played ILB.

I definitely think the Packers are hoping Barrington and Ryan are the answer to the position, or maybe they would have done something in the FA market, but they didn't. The 2 problems with that logic, IMO, one....Barrington is coming off of an injury and to this point hasn't really shown to be much more then being an average at best ILB and the second problem, depth. What happens if either Ryan or Barrington go down?

Improved 3 down play and depth is what I am looking for at the ILB position and that doesn't include moving your best OLB back into the position. It definitely doesn't include the level of play we have seen there for the last 4 or so years.

Ask the Denver Broncos how important having good linebackers are, including ILB's.

 

[jetfixer]

Bengals just cut an ILB named Hawk. Any takers?

 

[PackerDNA]

For me, Kentrall Brothers has edged slightly ahead of Ragland. More instinctive and athletic.

 

[Patriotplayer90]

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

Seems like an impressive guy. Very charismatic for his age. Has the personality traits of a leader.

 

[Patriotplayer90]

For me, Kentrall Brothers has edged slightly ahead of Ragland. More instinctive and athletic.

Huh? More athletic?

Ragland isn't a problem in coverage and that's really all the Packers need. Most ILBs have zone coverage responsibilities and what's really important for that is understanding where routes are going and where you need to be; 40 time isn't nearly as important as some seem to think.

Ragland is a very good and underrated coverage LB. He kept Hunter Henry in check in man coverage, which isn't surprising given how much the entire defense was giving it to Arkansas.

But he also played well against Engram at Ole Miss, who is a basically an 230 pound receiver in the position whose athleticism receives comparison to Jordan Reed. These guys were held to one catch a piece-one. And Alabama's defense looked terrible against Ole Miss that day. Knocking him for his coverage skills is foolish.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Which brings up the point, why are so many people just completely ignoring Sam Barrington? I'm not saying he's going to be an elite guy but why do people just automatically assume that the team has given up on him?

I don't see him being ignored at all in these pages.

The general perception is that neither Ryan nor Barrington are adequate in coverage, both viewed as run stuffers. While I don't share that opinion with respect to Ryan, at least not yet, it is the consensus. Besides, Barrington was injured all last season...you don't know what you have with him at this point.

I don't mind drafting a SS safety with coverage skills to play some coverage LB for the simple reason Hyde will be a FA after this season and there isn't another safety on the roster you'd like to put on the field short of converting Randall.

I like Ragland in the first round because he's an outstanding football player and athlete. If he's on the board at #27 there's a good chance he'll be the best player available while also being a significant upgrade over a 100% Barrington.

 

[PackerDNA]

Huh? More athletic?


Ragland is a very good and underrated coverage LB. He kept Hunter Henry in check in man coverage, which isn't surprising given how much the entire defense was giving it to Arkansas.

But he also played well against Engram at Ole Miss, who is a basically an 230 pound receiver in the position whose athleticism receives comparison to Jordan Reed. These guys were held to one catch a piece-one. And Alabama's defense looked terrible against Ole Miss that day. Knocking him for his coverage skills is foolish.

I'm fine with Ragland. What I'm reading is that any knocks on his pass coverage are overblown.
With Brothers, the knock is his height and short arms. Otherwise the general consensus is he'd be the #1 rated ILB and a 1st rounder. No where did I knock Ragland for his coverage skills.

 

[HardRightEdge]

For me, Kentrall Brothers has edged slightly ahead of Ragland. More instinctive and athletic.

Brothers ran a 4.89 at the Combine and did only 19 lifts at 245 lbs.

I found the available tape on this guy unimpressive. He hops around a lot until he figures out where the play is going, which is not entirely instinctive. Frankly, for a run stuffing ILB, I like Chubb's tape better, he's more athletic, and looks more natural at the position.

Ragland is in another class entirely.

 

[PackerDNA]

Brothers ran a 4.89 at the Combine and did only 19 lifts at 245 lbs.

I found the available tape on this guy unimpressive. He hops around a lot until he figures out where the play is going, which is not entirely instinctive. Frankly, for a run stuffing ILB, I like Chubb's tape better, he's more athletic, and looks more natural at the position.

Ragland is in another class entirely.

Going off several scouting reports on him, because I haven't gotten to see much of him.

 

[HardRightEdge]

He kept Hunter Henry in check in man coverage, which isn't surprising given how much the entire defense was giving it to Arkansas.

But he also played well against Engram at Ole Miss, who is a basically an 230 pound receiver in the position whose athleticism receives comparison to Jordan Reed. These guys were held to one catch a piece-one. And Alabama's defense looked terrible against Ole Miss that day. Knocking him for his coverage skills is foolish.

Engram averaged about 3 catches per game for about 39 yards, and scored 2 TDs on the season. Regardless of any pro projections he was not a particularly productive TE, with the whole country holding him in check.

There is a cut up of the Arkansas game with by my count 10 Arkansas pass plays. Ragland had coverage on Henry on 3 of those 10 plays. He did give up a catch to #83, whoever that is, for a decent gain.

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

2 of those 3 plays were Henry releasing into the flat. On one I would not call it man coverage; it was an outstanding middle linebacker reacting off the play action to make the tackle at the LOS. On the other he chucked Henry into another player at the line of scrimmage messing up the play. This is not what we're talking about here. We want to know about coverage outside the box. Is he a 360 degree player?

That takes us to the last play in this clip at 4:46. Now that's good man coverage up the seam even if the QB led Henry into the safety. That single play shows more than we've seen out any ILB in Green Bay, including Matthews, in quite some time. Sometimes one play is worth a whole lot more than 2 games worth of stats.

The more I look at Ragland the more I believe Thompson would be an idiot to pass on him if he's available. And I don't know what these mock draft guys are doing. This guy should not get out of the top 15.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I would be comfortable agreeing with that if it wasn't for the fact that the importance of the position for the Packers was clearly shown when they moved Clay Matthews inside to try and fill the glaring weakness. Taking your best player on Defense and moving him like that, is very telling as to how important it was to the Packers to make a change and the other options available to them at the time (2 years). Besides getting Barrington back, nothing has changed on the Packer defense since Matthews last played ILB.

I definitely think the Packers are hoping Barrington and Ryan are the answer to the position, or maybe they would have done something in the FA market, but they didn't. The 2 problems with that logic, IMO, one....Barrington is coming off of an injury and to this point hasn't really shown to be much more then being an average at best ILB and the second problem, depth. What happens if either Ryan or Barrington go down?

Improved 3 down play and depth is what I am looking for at the ILB position and that doesn't include moving your best OLB back into the position. It definitely doesn't include the level of play we have seen there for the last 4 or so years.

Ask the Denver Broncos how important having good linebackers are, including ILB's.

I'd rather ask the Broncos how nice it is to have two terrific corners, Von Miller, Demarcus Ware and an excellent dline since those pieces were vastly more important than the ILB to the Bronco's success.

Packers moved Clay inside not because the position was enormously important but because the team had three OLBs that they were comfortable with on the field and only Clay was capable of playing inside. The overall defense was better with Clay inside and Perry on the field rather than Perry sitting on the bench to allow some other guy to play inside. Clay wasn't even a very good ILB. I have no problems drafting an ILB but it just seems like there's a ton of focus on a position group that the majority of the NFL agrees isn't the most important position on the field.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I'd rather ask the Broncos how nice it is to have two terrific corners, Von Miller, Demarcus Ware and an excellent dline since those pieces were vastly more important than the ILB to the Bronco's success.

Packers moved Clay inside not because the position was enormously important but because the team had three OLBs that they were comfortable with on the field and only Clay was capable of playing inside. The overall defense was better with Clay inside and Perry on the field rather than Perry sitting on the bench to allow some other guy to play inside. Clay wasn't even a very good ILB. I have no problems drafting an ILB but it just seems like there's a ton of focus on a position group that the majority of the NFL agrees isn't the most important position on the field.

I agree with you, last year the Broncos had an overall better Defense then the Packers, but that defense also included Marshall and Trevathan at ILB. Did you see how much the Bears valued Trevathan? Marshall's contract alone is almost $1M more then the combined contracts of Barrington, Ryan and Bradford. Not saying that salary guarantees performance, but its obvious to me that the Packers have tried to fill the ILB as cheaply as possible in the past several year and it shows. I don't see your logic about moving Matthews. You are admitting that the ILB position sucked and the only way to even attempt to fix it was to move your highest paid defensive player out of his natural position. I understood the move....short term, but 2 years? If we become short handed at TE, do we temporarily move Jordy into the position, because we have better back-up WR's then TE's? Maybe for a game, but not after you have had time to address the problem.

So you are right, maybe the ILB is a position of least importance and the Packers actions over the last few years seem to be backing up your opinion, but IMO if that doesn't change to some extent, we are going to keep seeing the efforts of the other 9 guys on the field undermined by the mistakes being made by our ILB's.

 

[tynimiller]

Ragland to Brothers is like Luke Kuechly is to AJ Hawk version 2016.

 

[Patriotplayer90]

Engram averaged about 3 catches per game for about 39 yards, and scored 2 TDs on the season. Regardless of any pro projections he was not a particularly productive TE, with the whole country holding him in check.

There is a cut up of the Arkansas game with by my count 10 Arkansas pass plays. Ragland had coverage on Henry on 3 of those 10 plays. He did give up a catch to #83, whoever that is, for a decent gain.

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

2 of those 3 plays were Henry releasing into the flat. On one I would not call it man coverage; it was an outstanding middle linebacker reacting off the play action to make the tackle at the LOS. On the other he chucked Henry into another player at the line of scrimmage messing up the play. This is not what we're talking about here. We want to know about coverage outside the box. Is he a 360 degree player?

That takes us to the last play in this clip at 4:46. Now that's good man coverage up the seam even if the QB led Henry into the safety. That single play shows more than we've seen out any ILB in Green Bay, including Matthews, in quite some time. Sometimes one play is worth a whole lot more than 2 games worth of stats.

The more I look at Ragland the more I believe Thompson would be an idiot to pass on him if he's available. And I don't know what these mock draft guys are doing. This guy should not get out of the top 15.

There's 0 chance they'll pass on Ragland. He's a solid day one starter, good character, and they can confidently move Matthews outside. I probably exaggerated his coverage skills, but he's shown enough for me to have faith in him. I'll cut him a break on the gain to #83- it was either busted coverage, or a perfectly executed pick.

Speaking of #83, that is Jeremy Sprinkle, who could be worth a look in the draft next year. He's absolutely huge, as big or bigger than Gronk, and easily as fast. He does a ton of blocking, as well. He's a predicted 3-5 Round grade right now.

 

[tynimiller]

Honestly if Ragland is there and not pick...only justification for that to me would be an asinine trade accepted.....otherwise we better freaking pick him! I wouldn't even be against going and getting him if worried after pick 18-21 ish.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I see Atlanta grabbing Ragland at 17. The only way to prevent that would be to slide up to #15 by giving the Titans our #1 and #2 and not so sure they would do that and really not so sure I want Ragland that bad. But if he was the sure thing, we could do worse with our #1 and #2 (2012 Perry/Worthy).

 

[tynimiller]

I see Atlanta grabbing Ragland at 17. The only way to prevent that would be to slide up to #15 by giving the Titans our #1 and #2 and not so sure they would do that and really not so sure I want Ragland that bad. But if he was the sure thing, we could do worse with our #1 and #2 (2012 Perry/Worthy).

I think I'd make that trade IF and only IF TT feels like Ragland like he did Clay. Otherwise I'd still consider it but wouldn't wanna give up our 2nd this year...perhaps next year's but would prefer a 4th+3rd+1st if possible or something similar.

Who knows...Atlanta is who I worry about as well....he gets past them, it'd "most likely" be a trade up scenario by someone to grab him.

 

[Patriotplayer90]

I see Atlanta grabbing Ragland at 17. The only way to prevent that would be to slide up to #15 by giving the Titans our #1 and #2 and not so sure they would do that and really not so sure I want Ragland that bad. But if he was the sure thing, we could do worse with our #1 and #2 (2012 Perry/Worthy).

Lol! Jack could possible be around at 15, his talent might be worth that trade, but I'm not 100%. He's an elite coverage LB and would give them a lot of flexibility. But I don't think they had as many pro-style opponents as Alabama, so it's hard to project how he'll handle being in the middle compared to Ragland.

 

[tynimiller]

Jack > Ragland in my opinion by a decent margin overall....agreed the difference narrows when you look specifically working only in the middle. I think both will be good.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I agree with you, last year the Broncos had an overall better Defense then the Packers, but that defense also included Marshall and Trevathan at ILB. Did you see how much the Bears valued Trevathan? Marshall's contract alone is almost $1M more then the combined contracts of Barrington, Ryan and Bradford. Not saying that salary guarantees performance, but its obvious to me that the Packers have tried to fill the ILB as cheaply as possible in the past several year and it shows. I don't see your logic about moving Matthews. You are admitting that the ILB position sucked and the only way to even attempt to fix it was to move your highest paid defensive player out of his natural position. I understood the move....short term, but 2 years? If we become short handed at TE, do we temporarily move Jordy into the position, because we have better back-up WR's then TE's? Maybe for a game, but not after you have had time to address the problem.

So you are right, maybe the ILB is a position of least importance and the Packers actions over the last few years seem to be backing up your opinion, but IMO if that doesn't change to some extent, we are going to keep seeing the efforts of the other 9 guys on the field undermined by the mistakes being made by our ILB's.

My point about Matthews was that the coaches didn't see the ILB as so important that they moved Matthews there; I thought it was more of a decision to get the three best players on the field and that Matthews, even as a middling ILB, was better than anything else the Packers had.

I'm not against the Packers drafting an ILB, in fact I think they probably should, but I don't know that, outside of Ragland, there's a first round guy that's really worth it. The problem the Packers have had is that they've just had truly terrible ILB play. Average ILB play would be a massive upgrade for the Packers and all the defense really needs and you can get that kind of play from 4th/5th/6th round picks if you give them time to learn the game (e.g., Barrington or Ryan).

Yes, the Packers need better ILB play. I don't think the position is worthy of demanding a first three round pick if the coaches feel like Ryan and Barrington will be sufficient. If the team can get another decent dlineman to pair with Daniels and allow Matthews to play OLB with Peppers then I think it's perfectly realistic to think that Barrington and Ryan could man the ILB position just fine on a Super Bowl defense.