Team Changes for Next Season

[mradtke66]

Hang on....define "impact player" in your definition or opinion.

Fully concede he wasn't the player you'd hope with the pick he was but it BAFFLES my mind how dismissive folks are ofHawk.

Hawk started for a VERY good team 9 years and then started in a tenth year for another team.

It's somewhat a loaded question and opinion, to be fair. And I don't dismiss him, just that he wasn't worth #5. We're going off the rails slightly, but in the modern game, its pass offense and the defenders to match them. Quarterbacks, LTs, pass rushers, and cover men. Most other positions struggle to be worth it.

For a MLB/WOLB/ILB type to make it, he'd have to cover as well as a safety, be able to average 4+ sacks a year, wear the dot, etc etc etc.
For me, the biggest problem with him was that he was topped out in college and didn't have room to grow. Excellent college linebacker, average to above average NFL linebacker.

He was the third highest vote getter for defensive rookie of the year,

There weren't many other options and he had name recognition. Mario Williams needed time to grow into the league.

I'd also say that he made a splash year 1 and never really followed up after that.

averaged over 2 sacks a year,

6+ TFLs a year,

nearly 4 PDs a year....

I'd have to go digging and compare him to his contemporaries. My gut is once again, those are fine.

100+ tackles a year,

Meaningless stat. Linebackers SHOULD get a whole lot of tackles. If they aren't, look into why, but ~100 is table stakes.

If he was say a late round first or early second round pick there are folks that would claim he might be one of the best draft picks of our history that aren't named Rodgers or Davante...over the last three decades.

You're probably right. He was "safe," and there is a time and place for that, but the earlier you're picking, the more safe isn't good enough, imho. I don't know exactly if there is a curve or what it looks like, but I'd like my 1st to be special players or take the gamble that they will be. At some point, you're looking for solid players (3rd?) and then whatever strikes your fancy late.

 

[tynimiller]

It's somewhat a loaded question and opinion, to be fair. And I don't dismiss him, just that he wasn't worth #5. We're going off the rails slightly, but in the modern game, its pass offense and the defenders to match them. Quarterbacks, LTs, pass rushers, and cover men. Most other positions struggle to be worth it.

For a MLB/WOLB/ILB type to make it, he'd have to cover as well as a safety, be able to average 4+ sacks a year, wear the dot, etc etc etc.
For me, the biggest problem with him was that he was topped out in college and didn't have room to grow. Excellent college linebacker, average to above average NFL linebacker.



There weren't many other options and he had name recognition. Mario Williams needed time to grow into the league.

I'd also say that he made a splash year 1 and never really followed up after that.





I'd have to go digging and compare him to his contemporaries. My gut is once again, those are fine.


Meaningless stat. Linebackers SHOULD get a whole lot of tackles. If they aren't, look into why, but ~100 is table stakes.



You're probably right. He was "safe," and there is a time and place for that, but the earlier you're picking, the more safe isn't good enough, imho. I don't know exactly if there is a curve or what it looks like, but I'd like my 1st to be special players or take the gamble that they will be. At some point, you're looking for solid players (3rd?) and then whatever strikes your fancy late.

Was Nick Barnett a good, solid or whatever term you want to use for a guy that was of starting value to a team?
Is Edgerrin Cooper good?

In Nick Barnett's 8 years with GB he averaged less than 2 sacks a season...less 100 tackles a season....worse than Hawk. He averaged .5 PDs more a season, slightly more TFLs at 6.5 while Hawk was 6.1

Edgerrin Cooper this past year when he finally was a full time starter 118 Combined Tackles | .5 Sacks | 4 TFLs | 4 PDs


Again I'm not stating any of this to say Hawk was amazing, but the dismissive nature of him by GB fans is almost ALWAYS entirely based on the fact they focus on where he was picked and confuse discussions of him as a player and grading his pick.

 

[mradtke66]

Was Nick Barnett a good, solid or whatever term you want to use for a guy that was of starting value to a team?
Is Edgerrin Cooper good?

In Nick Barnett's 8 years with GB he averaged less than 2 sacks a season...less 100 tackles a season....worse than Hawk. He averaged .5 PDs more a season, slightly more TFLs at 6.5 while Hawk was 6.1

Edgerrin Cooper this past year when he finally was a full time starter 118 Combined Tackles | .5 Sacks | 4 TFLs | 4 PDs


Again I'm not stating any of this to say Hawk was amazing, but the dismissive nature of him by GB fans is almost ALWAYS entirely based on the fact they focus on where he was picked and confuse discussions of him as a player and grading his pick.

No, your questions are fair.

Honestly, I rate them all about the same, though they were each better at different stuff. I don’t think any of the three are difference makers, though Cooper is still young and could get better. Still hard to truly be an impact player at ILB.

I did think about what do I mean by impact player. It depends a little bit on the position.

A front seven defender? The other team has to game plan for you and say “we will not let number x beat us…” and then you run away from him, double him, etc.

For secondary, it’s identifying him in coverage and not throwing at him.

For offense tackles, it’s the ability to single block any pass rusher.

For pass catchers, it’s demanding coverage rolled their way, doubling them most of the time, etc.

The really special ones get that treatment and win anyway.

 

[gopkrs]

Was Nick Barnett a good, solid or whatever term you want to use for a guy that was of starting value to a team?
Is Edgerrin Cooper good?

In Nick Barnett's 8 years with GB he averaged less than 2 sacks a season...less 100 tackles a season....worse than Hawk. He averaged .5 PDs more a season, slightly more TFLs at 6.5 while Hawk was 6.1

Edgerrin Cooper this past year when he finally was a full time starter 118 Combined Tackles | .5 Sacks | 4 TFLs | 4 PDs


Again I'm not stating any of this to say Hawk was amazing, but the dismissive nature of him by GB fans is almost ALWAYS entirely based on the fact they focus on where he was picked and confuse discussions of him as a player and grading his pick.

Imo Nick Barnett would have been a good outside linebacker but he was not a good middle linebacker. I agree with Mradk that number of tackles don't equal special. And if you were paying attention; him going down and Bishop (a guy who could play ML), taking over was a huge key in our making the super bowl run.

 

[DoURant]

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

 

[tynimiller]

No, your questions are fair.

Honestly, I rate them all about the same, though they were each better at different stuff. I don’t think any of the three are difference makers, though Cooper is still young and could get better. Still hard to truly be an impact player at ILB.

I did think about what do I mean by impact player. It depends a little bit on the position.

A front seven defender? The other team has to game plan for you and say “we will not let number x beat us…” and then you run away from him, double him, etc.

For secondary, it’s identifying him in coverage and not throwing at him.

For offense tackles, it’s the ability to single block any pass rusher.

For pass catchers, it’s demanding coverage rolled their way, doubling them most of the time, etc.

The really special ones get that treatment and win anyway.

Fair, but if I told you this season Quay walks and I could have you draft a LB in the second or third that will go on to put up those numbers and be clear starter for the team for nine years....there isn't a GM or logic driven fan to say no to that.

That's all I am saying and will die on the hill that Hawk was good and a victim solely due to where he was picked.

 

[tynimiller]

Imo Nick Barnett would have been a good outside linebacker but he was not a good middle linebacker. I agree with Mradk that number of tackles don't equal special. And if you were paying attention; him going down and Bishop (a guy who could play ML), taking over was a huge key in our making the super bowl run.

Tackles ain't special but that consistency doesn't grow on trees abundantly like some think

 

[mradtke66]

Fair, but if I told you this season Quay walks and I could have you draft a LB in the second or third that will go on to put up those numbers and be clear starter for the team for nine years....there isn't a GM or logic driven fan to say no to that.

That's all I am saying and will die on the hill that Hawk was good and a victim solely due to where he was picked.

Well now we’re getting into nuance. Some of Quays value is his measurables. We’re not going to confuse him with a safety, but just being fast enough to be in lanes is nice. As is being able to fly across the field to clean up/minimize a deeper play. But that’s getting more and more off track.

Though I don’t know if Hawk was ever consistently good. Assignmet sure and with the very occasional splash play, yes, but he could also get abused in coverage. I stand by my assessment of average to above. Bishop was, imho, held back by Hawk trending towards bad in coverage. That limited Bishop’s blitzing opportunities, even though he was the better of the two, because he was also better in coverage.

 

[milani]

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

He goes on Medicare this year.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Doubt the $4M to cut Banks and eat $20M will be the decision. Restructure maybe...post June 1 possibly...but I just think that is a contract and a guy you give two years before cutting.

Yikes I didn't know the cap situation with Banks was that bad.

I thought his play had improved after a rocky start, so keeping him may not be a huge issue. Reworking his contract to better reflect would be ideal, but I don't see Banks' motivation for doing so.

Anyway, I agree. All things considered, give him another year at LG.

That leaves starting C. What are your thoughts on Rhyan?

 

[Heyjoe4]

He goes on Medicare this year.

Now we know why he was kept so long........

 

[Heyjoe4]

I’m just going off reports that an injection failed around Jan 16th. So obviously the surgery couldn’t have happened until after that timeframe. Now I don’t know the exact timetable but some of our retired Packer OL were talking this isn’t minor either. Training Camp typically starts late July.
So I think they are correct on him rehabbing during training camp. I think it would be overly optimistic to assume he’d be practicing right at 6 months.

Thanks for the info OS. I didn't know the med staff was trying a non-surgical approach. Now that you mention it, that seems to have been the plan from the start, or he would have had surgery back in December, or whenever he first injured his knee.

So yeah - assuming the surgery occurred around the end of January, and with a 6 to 9 month recovery before playing, he would be rehabbing in TC.

Bummer.

Has he had the surgery? I haven't seen anything on that.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Hang on....define "impact player" in your definition or opinion.

Fully concede he wasn't the player you'd hope with the pick he was but it BAFFLES my mind how dismissive folks are ofHawk.

Hawk started for a VERY good team 9 years and then started in a tenth year for another team. He was the third highest vote getter for defensive rookie of the year, averaged over 2 sacks a year, 6+ TFLs a year, 100+ tackles a year, nearly 4 PDs a year....

If he was say a late round first or early second round pick there are folks that would claim he might be one of the best draft picks of our history that aren't named Rodgers or Davante...over the last three decades.

I think saying Hawk would be regarded in the same category as Rodgers or Adams if he was selected late round 1, early round 2 - "one of the best draft picks of our history" - is going way too far Ty. Even CMIII doesn't fall in that category and he's got a SB ring.

I do agree that Hawk was a solid pick and player for the Packers for a long time. Being selected so high meant very high expectations. Sometimes guys taken that high can't win. Their draft position has already set the level of play expected by fans.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Every player is a projection. Every player is a development player.



Hawk was "a football player." He was massively over-drafted. Sure, he contributed, but he wasn't an impact player. Certainly not who you're hoping for with the 5th overall pick. This is the risk with taking a player that looks solid in college--they're done growing, they aren't going to get any better. Picking those players nets you the same spot as swinging for game changing potential and missing. The special players get you over the hump.

The premise I operate from is that you're making a false dichotomy and you can fail either way.

"Every player is a development player". I never looked at the draft that way mradtke, but you are correct. Everyone going to the NFL from college has to adjust, to develop.

Hawk would be held in higher regard had he been selected later, like 2nd round. I think he was a solid starting LB for GB for a lot of years. And that's about it, and that's fine. I don't recall him wrecking opponent games the same way CMIII did. And when people think about the greatest Packer LBs, Hawk's name isn't likely to come up.

 

[mradtke66]

I don't recall him wrecking opponent games the same way CMIII did.

That comes back around to one of my later comments. Ignore the part where both were "linebackers." Other than the year where Matthews had to slide over and help (and he really wasn't good at it, just smart and fast enough paired with just enough smarts to be better than trash), they played completely different positions.

As an EDGE, Matthews was in position to be able to wreck games.

Off the ball linebackers have to drop into coverage, fill their run fits, and maybe get 5 or so pass rush snaps per game. Unless you're the perfect combination of having good instincts and athletically gifted enough to see plays develop early enough, confidently shoot into the backfield, not get blocked up in the process, not compromise the run defense, BE CORRECT, and then actually make the tackle, you're just going to be collecting 1-3 yard tackles. Nothing flash, nothing game wrecking.

 

[Heyjoe4]

That comes back around to one of my later comments. Ignore the part where both were "linebackers." Other than the year where Matthews had to slide over and help (and he really wasn't good at it, just smart and fast enough paired with just enough smarts to be better than trash), they played completely different positions.

As an EDGE, Matthews was in position to be able to wreck games.

Off the ball linebackers have to drop into coverage, fill their run fits, and maybe get 5 or so pass rush snaps per game. Unless you're the perfect combination of having good instincts and athletically gifted enough to see plays develop early enough, confidently shoot into the backfield, not get blocked up in the process, not compromise the run defense, BE CORRECT, and then actually make the tackle, you're just going to be collecting 1-3 yard tackles. Nothing flash, nothing game wrecking.

Good clarification between an Edge "LB" like CMIII and an ILB like Hawk. My comparison between the two wasn't legit as they played very different positions. "Edge" is the new version of OLB.although even that isn't an apples to apples comparison. The game has changed as guys have become stronger, lighter, and faster at these positions.

I remember when they slid CMIII inside on some downs. Agree it wasn't very effective.

 

[milani]

"Every player is a development player". I never looked at the draft that way mradtke, but you are correct. Everyone going to the NFL from college has to adjust, to develop.

Hawk would be held in higher regard had he been selected later, like 2nd round. I think he was a solid starting LB for GB for a lot of years. And that's about it, and that's fine. I don't recall him wrecking opponent games the same way CMIII did. And when people think about the greatest Packer LBs, Hawk's name isn't likely to come up.

Hawk came in with very high expectations. What he did in college convinced many he could do that in the pros. But, although he had a knack for staying on the field, he never became the disrupting force that his NCAA highlights displayed. You would have thought that with Hawk and Matthews and Woodson on the same defense that the Packers could have wreaked havoc all over the league.

 

[mradtke66]

I remember when they slid CMIII inside on some downs. Agree it wasn't very effective.

He finished out 2014, post-bye week, at ILB next to Hawk. And then more or less a whole season in 2015, but he slide back outside in Dime. He wasn't good, but everyone else was so bad ( I think he replaced Brad Jones, with a bad leg?) that him flying around with his hair on fire was an improvement.

He (Matthews) then had back to back weeks with 0 tackles in 2015. That should be impossible at ILB.

 

[gopkrs]

That comes back around to one of my later comments. Ignore the part where both were "linebackers." Other than the year where Matthews had to slide over and help (and he really wasn't good at it, just smart and fast enough paired with just enough smarts to be better than trash), they played completely different positions.

As an EDGE, Matthews was in position to be able to wreck games.

Off the ball linebackers have to drop into coverage, fill their run fits, and maybe get 5 or so pass rush snaps per game. Unless you're the perfect combination of having good instincts and athletically gifted enough to see plays develop early enough, confidently shoot into the backfield, not get blocked up in the process, not compromise the run defense, BE CORRECT, and then actually make the tackle, you're just going to be collecting 1-3 yard tackles. Nothing flash, nothing game wrecking.

The last several years Mathews could not beat 1 on 1 from the edge.

 

[tynimiller]

I think saying Hawk would be regarded in the same category as Rodgers or Adams if he was selected late round 1, early round 2 - "one of the best draft picks of our history" - is going way too far Ty. Even CMIII doesn't fall in that category and he's got a SB ring.

I do agree that Hawk was a solid pick and player for the Packers for a long time. Being selected so high meant very high expectations. Sometimes guys taken that high can't win. Their draft position has already set the level of play expected by fans.

I said OTHER than Rodgers and Davante LOL - easy there with the claim I said same Saying he would be considered one of also doesn't mean is literaly the 3rd if I were to make a list.

 

[tynimiller]

That leaves starting C. What are your thoughts on Rhyan?

Arguably out of all of our free agents (assuming Jenkins is released) Rhyan is subtly one of the biggest ones...he is NOT a great center, but is capable and knows the system and has experience with Love...also capable guard. The security of him being retained honestly might make the most sense out of all of our UFAs.

He is also a perfect example of what I've always said Gute does prior to the draft...he likes to not have himself backed into a corner HAVING to pick a position over the prospect. Even if it is low tier FA signings in a spot that otherwise might be one depleted either in number or skill level too much to ignore...he's done it consistently over the years.

 

[OldSchool101]

Thanks for the summary. 2022 through 2024 were very good drafts for GB.

Yes. Overall I think you’d have to grade those draft classes as favorable. That should be the case though with capital acquired from Davante, Rodgers and Rasul. RD1, RD2, RD2, RD2, RD3. Kinda hard not to hit in the draft with multiple extra draft clips being unloaded at the target.

So far no huge swing and misses like we’ve seen in more historical Packer drafts.

 

[OldSchool101]

Arguably out of all of our free agents (assuming Jenkins is released) Rhyan is subtly one of the biggest ones...he is NOT a great center, but is capable and knows the system and has experience with Love...also capable guard. The security of him being retained honestly might make the most sense out of all of our UFAs.

Oh I agree. The 4 biggest loss risks are Rasheed, Quay, Doubs, Rhyan

Rasheed.
we’ve drafted several Prospects who can probably play LT in the last couple of drafts. Morgan is obviously at the forefront of that list.

Quay
Not to diminish him because I like Quay, yet he is not some top 5 ILB here. He’s highly efficiency in the Run Stop and very active. He’s also suspect in Pass protection, giving up a 120%+ Passer rating when in Coverage. He is an above average Pass Rusher, but you have Eric Wilson who makes 40% of Quays market $ playing more complete ball also. That’s just 1 example I’m not suggesting we can or will get Wilson back. There’s other options for $10Mil yearly at Off Ball.

Doubs
Probably the toughest one to lose here. He played fantastic last year in the absence of Reed and Watson etc. Romeo took some adversity and didn’t just overcome. He rallied. However the fact remains we just drafted his potential replacement in RD1. Not to mention we backed it up with another weapon at WR in RD3 (Savion)..who looked pretty good in small samples. In a budget cutdown he’s gotta be a huge concern imo.

Rhyan.
Here we have a player who might not be top of his position group, but he’s capable of starting at 2 or 3 positions. Center is a really important one. In rhe Run game? He’s the nucleus because his job is to split the Defense into two by means of destroying the Shade. He’s more than adequate. Some concerns there in Pass protect but not detrimental level. Possible he can improve in year 2 at Center. Idk the staff probably does. IF and I Mean a BIG IF.. Sean signs a very reasonable yearly with a contract out (guar) in 2027 if he underperforms? Then it’s hard not to just retain him. Based on need (continuity falling as a sub category) and $$ his chances are probably best of staying by default.

 

[OldSchool101]

If my math is close. GB should be able to get net positive quickly with passing on a few players with expired contracts (most notably Elgton). Then do their usual restructures/converting Signing bonus methodology to free up
$15-20mil without self subjecting themselves to contractual doomsday. I mean “normal level” freeing up cap moves.

My guess is resign Sean and Quay (just a guess because they love Q) in such a way that the capital structure is spread over a couple seasons. Then there’s a few guys that are close to Veteran minimum we can keep (the Niemann types) That and our FO should be able to restructure a couple of incumbents to free some wiggle room for a medium tier or two outside FA signing(s) I’m talking 1 or 2 in that $5-$15M$ annual total together.

We just won’t be anywhere close to being 2025 FA aggressive. Yet we can resign our core guys and shuffle cap to a position of more prominent need, such as DT or CB etc. Yes there will be inherent risks, but every team has them.

 

[gopkrs]

For me Rhyan is the type of player we want as a backup. Is there back up OL type money? Kind of like back up QB money. Because we should imho be thinking about that instead of just drafting linemen late to fill that very important role.