1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. 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!
    Dismiss Notice

Small ILB Recap & Conclusions

Discussion in '2016 Draft Archive' started by HardRightEdge, Apr 10, 2016.

  1. Pokerbrat2000

    Pokerbrat2000 Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.

    Messages:
    20,261
    Likes Received:
    2,316
    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2012
    Location:
    Madison, WI
    Packer Fan Since:
    1973
    Jack is an interesting one right now. Some are worried about his injury or are just fueling the flames so he drops to them? I don't expect him to be around even at 15, but if he is, I would be fine with giving up our 1 and 2 to get him. The other avenue to go is rolling the dice on Jaylon Smith in round 2 or 3. Maybe bigger risk, but the upside could be huge and even bigger payout then Jack. My dream scenario once again is Ragland with our #1 and Smith as late as we can grab him.
     
  2. Pokerbrat2000

    Pokerbrat2000 Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.

    Messages:
    20,261
    Likes Received:
    2,316
    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2012
    Location:
    Madison, WI
    Packer Fan Since:
    1973
    But that is my whole point. They have tried the later round picks and UDFA's to try and improve the position and its failed, many times. Ryan is the highest pick they have thrown at the ILB position since Hawk. I'm not discounting that Ryan and/or Barrington individually or combined can't fill one or both spots, but that is putting a lot of hope on guys that so far have shown average talent at best. It is also not addressing how seriously thin we are at ILB. Putting either Thomas or Bradford into the starting line-up would be a huge game changer IMO. As would be putting another late round or UDFA into the line-up. Going to be hard to convince me that this isn't the year that ILB shouldn't be addressed and TT already missed that in the FA market and is left with trying to figure out who that guy might be if Ragland isn't available.
     
  3. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Messages:
    14,587
    Likes Received:
    1,029
    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Location:
    Buffalo, NY
    Packer Fan Since:
    1959
    Did I say Thompson would be an idiot to pass up Ragland? ;)
     
  4. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Messages:
    14,587
    Likes Received:
    1,029
    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Location:
    Buffalo, NY
    Packer Fan Since:
    1959
    I'd have no problem with that trade up to #15.
     
  5. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Messages:
    14,587
    Likes Received:
    1,029
    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Location:
    Buffalo, NY
    Packer Fan Since:
    1959
    So, having Neal on the field was worth moving Mathews inside? You mentioned Perry...he took 33% of the defensive snaps. Neal took 70%. Neal was your starting OLB; Perry merely rotational.

    Besides, last time I checked Perry is still on the roster. Why has McCarthy already stated Matthews is going back to the edge? Once again, Perry will be rotational.

    Here's what the Packers were thinking: if we move Matthews to the middle he might play like Pat Willis, the sun around which the planets will revolve. That did not happen. That's why they ditched the idea.

    I wouldn't pass up a Pro Bowl ILB for some stretch pick, which is what would be left at #27, if not #20.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. GreenBaySlacker

    GreenBaySlacker Cheesehead

    Messages:
    2,924
    Likes Received:
    161
    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2014
    Packer Fan Since:
    1989
    Perry was injured.... Again....
    But when he was in healthy, the defense as a whole looked much better to me .
     
  7. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Messages:
    14,587
    Likes Received:
    1,029
    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Location:
    Buffalo, NY
    Packer Fan Since:
    1959
    Nick Perry played in 14 games. You did not address the issues I raised.
     
  8. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Messages:
    14,587
    Likes Received:
    1,029
    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Location:
    Buffalo, NY
    Packer Fan Since:
    1959
    You'll never know what Ted Thompson feels so you're on your own. ;)
     
  9. captainWIMM

    captainWIMM Cheesehead

    Messages:
    24,453
    Likes Received:
    1,211
    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Packer Fan Since:
    1995
    Don´t forget that Hawk wasn´t drafted to play inside linebacker as the team still played a 4-3 defense at the time he was drafted.

    Su´a Cravens would be my favorite choice for a hybrid linebacker/safety prospect in this year´s draft.

    We´ve had this discussion before and I think that ignoring the importance of the inside linebacker position is a huge mistake. The Packers have two players at the position on the field on nearly every down and the below average talent level has come back to haunt the team several times with the loss in the NFCCG at Seattle being the most obvious example. Moving Matthews there for one and a half seasons indicates the coaching staff feels the same way about it.

    Thompson finally has to address the position with an early round draft pick as ignoring it during the first two days of the draft hasn´t worked out at all.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Messages:
    14,587
    Likes Received:
    1,029
    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Location:
    Buffalo, NY
    Packer Fan Since:
    1959
    The only reason Lee is in the conversation is because of 1) speed and 2) blitz ability off the edge.

    He's not an ILB.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. Sunshinepacker

    Sunshinepacker Cheesehead

    Messages:
    3,923
    Likes Received:
    188
    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2013
    Packer Fan Since:
    1992
    McCarthy knows that Matthews is the best OLB on the team. So obviously he wants to put his best OLB at OLB. So his comments to that effect were made in the hopes that Ryan, Barrington and/or a draft pick could man the ILB spot.

    This is not complicated. The Packers had a few good OLBs and some decent OLBs and zero decent ILBs. So you move the only OLB capable of playing inside to ILB. The defense was better with a subpar Matthews at ILB than it would have been with a different, bad ILB. You seem to believe that what McCarthy said about Matthews playing outside is set in stone. I guarantee that if the ILBs don't develop or aren't added then Matthews will be right back inside again this year.

    The defense wanted to get the best players on the field. It's simple.
     
  12. Sunshinepacker

    Sunshinepacker Cheesehead

    Messages:
    3,923
    Likes Received:
    188
    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2013
    Packer Fan Since:
    1992
    And I would say that the loss to the Seahawks was on the offense and coaching FAR more than on the defense so pointing to a lack of ILB play is basically saying we didn't have an ILB good enough to save the team from bad coaching and bad offense. Not sure it's realistic to count on your ILB saving the day when the entire defense was terrific for the prior 55 minutes.

    How many "impact" ILBs are there in the NFL? Three? Four? The position isn't that important. A team just can't have AWFUL at the position like the Packers have had the last few years. There's a VAST difference between decent and what the Packers have fielded.
     
  13. captainWIMM

    captainWIMM Cheesehead

    Messages:
    24,453
    Likes Received:
    1,211
    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Packer Fan Since:
    1995
    The Packers defense is way better with Matthews rushing the passer from the edge though. Moving him inside was evidence for the coaching staff feeling the position is an important piece of the puzzle on defense and happened because of a complete lack of talent at the position.

    I agree the offense and play calling played a huge part in the loss to the Seahawks but the lack of talent at the inside linebacker position directly led to the Seahawks scoring 20 points.

    I´m sorry but repeating over and over again that the inside linebacker position isn´t important although the Packers use two players there on nearly every single snap is kind of ridiculous.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. Sunshinepacker

    Sunshinepacker Cheesehead

    Messages:
    3,923
    Likes Received:
    188
    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2013
    Packer Fan Since:
    1992
    The Packers need NFL caliber ILBs, I fully agree. They do not need "great" ILBs. Average ILBs can be found (and usually are) later in the draft and are developed.
     
  15. captainWIMM

    captainWIMM Cheesehead

    Messages:
    24,453
    Likes Received:
    1,211
    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Packer Fan Since:
    1995
    I agree the Packers don´t need an elite inside linebacker but that doesn´t mean the position isn´t important. There´s absolutely no doubt the team needs to upgrade the position in this year´s draft though.
     
  16. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Messages:
    14,587
    Likes Received:
    1,029
    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Location:
    Buffalo, NY
    Packer Fan Since:
    1959
    I would not be surprised to see Matthews take a few snaps from the middle on blitzes which is the only thing that recommends him as an ILB. Blitz ability aside, he's a substandard ILB. How does an ILB go 2 consecutive games without a tackle, and that's not the only thing one can point to as an issue.

    If Matthews has to go back to ILB out of necessity, I would characterize the situation as something more problematic than ILBs not developing. Somebody should get fired for it.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  17. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Messages:
    14,587
    Likes Received:
    1,029
    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Location:
    Buffalo, NY
    Packer Fan Since:
    1959
    This defense needs a leader in the back 7, not another athlete...the glue that holds things together when it's time to close out a big game. Mathews is like the virtuoso violin soloist who is asked to conduct the string section.

    The whole must be more than the sum of it's parts.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. Pokerbrat2000

    Pokerbrat2000 Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.

    Messages:
    20,261
    Likes Received:
    2,316
    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2012
    Location:
    Madison, WI
    Packer Fan Since:
    1973
    I agree with you that the Packers have drank the same kool-aid and have believed they can find an "average" ILB, without much of an investment. Barrington and/or Ryan hopefully change this, but I'm not that confident either will be a better than average 3 down ILB.

    The problem for the Packers, call it bad luck or bad development, this hasn't happened in a long time. Why hasn't it happened? Go back and look at all of the ILB's that have been in Green Bay over the last 10 years and tell me where they have been drafted. Now go look at all the other positions and tell me what kind of resources the Packers have put into those positions to try and improve them.

    So if you buy into your theory and you draft another ILB in the later rounds this year, how long do we wait to develop said prospect? Until that day he is ready, do we move Matthews back inside or just finally go after a proven ILB in Free Agency? This isn't a punter, kicker or LS we are talking about here. It is 2 important positions in the middle of the Defense, that the Packers have basically ignored investing in. Can a team "get by" on less then average ILB's? Sure, no different then getting by on weak play at other positions. But if that is the case, the offense better be able to bail them out, unless of course its overtime.

    IMO, settling for "average" play from 2 positions on Defense is accepting that your entire defense will most likely just be average as well.
     
  19. Pokerbrat2000

    Pokerbrat2000 Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.

    Messages:
    20,261
    Likes Received:
    2,316
    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2012
    Location:
    Madison, WI
    Packer Fan Since:
    1973
    :tup:
     
  20. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Messages:
    14,587
    Likes Received:
    1,029
    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Location:
    Buffalo, NY
    Packer Fan Since:
    1959
    Sure, among the high profile names on the Denver defense, it is generally ignored that Marshall and Travathan are pretty darn good football players.

    I can't think of a high quality defense that took the field without a good ILB or ILBs. Or is it that a quality defense is not needed? The last one the Packers had was in 2010. Outscoring opponents, particularly those with quality defenses, has not been working out so well.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  21. Sunshinepacker

    Sunshinepacker Cheesehead

    Messages:
    3,923
    Likes Received:
    188
    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2013
    Packer Fan Since:
    1992
    Outside of Ragland there really isn't a guy that appears ready to start in and make an impact right away at ILB. So no matter where you're drafting an ILB (outside of Ragland) you're looking at developing a guy. If you're worried about the team's ability to select/develop guys then that should be an area that's addressed in free agency.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  22. PackerDNA

    PackerDNA Cheesehead

    Messages:
    4,167
    Likes Received:
    304
    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2014
    Packer Fan Since:
    1959
    Yeah, to me it's pretty much Ragland or bust at ILB. If no Ragland, and the Dline class is as deep as it's reputed to be, then pick up the run stuffer later and try to get a pass rusher in the 1st.
     
  23. Pokerbrat2000

    Pokerbrat2000 Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.

    Messages:
    20,261
    Likes Received:
    2,316
    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2012
    Location:
    Madison, WI
    Packer Fan Since:
    1973
    I think we all know the answer to addressing the need at ILB via the FA market.

    After Ragland, there is Jaylon Smith, who at best wouldn't be ready until 2017. If he does make a full recovery, I would take him over Ragland and make do with what we have in 2016. Just a big "if". You are right, after that, the immediate talent pool drops off. However, that is the job of the Packer scouts. Finding a guy that with some work, can play ILB above average. Recent history doesn't bode well for the Packers waiting around until the 4th round or later and having much success finding a draft and develop ILB. Unless Jake Ryan is that guy, which is the one semi-wild card in all of this discussion. Did the Packers begin to see some real talent in Ryan towards the end of last year and don't view a real need at ILB? I hope that he turns out to be that missing link and along with Barrington fill the position well. But even in that scenario, they will still need to draft for depth.
     
  24. captainWIMM

    captainWIMM Cheesehead

    Messages:
    24,453
    Likes Received:
    1,211
    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Packer Fan Since:
    1995
    Even if the coaching staff feels comfortable starting Barrington and Ryan the Packers need to significantly upgrade the backups. Thomas and Bradford should spend Sundays in front of the TV and not being one injury away of playing close to every single snap for a Super Bowl contender.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  25. Pokerbrat2000

    Pokerbrat2000 Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.

    Messages:
    20,261
    Likes Received:
    2,316
    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2012
    Location:
    Madison, WI
    Packer Fan Since:
    1973
    WOW....Ragland and Jack still there on Day 2.

    Today is the day we may need to have an eye for the future in the way of Linebackers. There are 3 guys still on the board that without any medical issues, would have been top 10 picks, Jack, Ragland and Smith. My guess is the Packers would have to trade up to get Ragland or Jack, maybe their 2 and 4 with the Titans. The timing of Smith, is anybody's guess.

    Roll the dice or stay the course?
     

Share This Page

-->