Hypon, I wish you would be a little less vague. You don't think we need better DE play? Or you don't care for Jesse Williams? Or you don't think there is hope for Neal to step up? What "hurts your life"? As for Perry, I agree there is no way he is a 3-4 DE, but given a little learning and experience, I think he could be something close to - although not quite as good as - Matthews at OLB. And what's wrong with Rodell's suggestion of Bishop at OLB? He has shown pass rush ability, and we kinda have a glut of all equal talent at ILB now.
The Packers for a long time have preferred smaller cover safeties - or deep safeties if that's what you want to call them instead of big hitters that are liabilities in coverage. That suits me fine, and I don't think we are too far from where we need to be in that area. It's the front seven that's the problem, or let's say all of the front seven other than Matthews.
I love me some Jesse Williams, but immediately dropping Neal's name (despite MM's recent comments that he will be more of a factor next year) shows a muddled understanding of our system. I've said this a hundred times, and I'm sure most of the guys here are sick of watching me post it: "Wilson is listed as the starter for a reason." Neal and Daniels are BOTH better pass rushers, even Worthy, yet Wilson got the nod. Why? There is a reason, and it's actually pretty obvious (though a little deeper than Neal is coming off an injury and a suspension, and Daniels and Worthy are rookies) if you think about it for half a second. It's because our DL isn't rushing the passer, it's trying (and failing) to stop the run. Our 34 is so traditional (DL plays the run, and all the pressure comes from the OLB) that it isn't funny, yet fans keep expecting us to draft a pass rushing DE for some odd reason. It won't happen, not unless the guy is also great against the run. Trgovac has even said that 3/4 of the time the DL is not looking to put pressure on the QB. The biggest problem with our defense is a complete and total lack of discipline that allows running lanes to open up like a Starbucks in Seattle, and a complete failure to communicate in the secondary. An intelligent Safety will fix the latter, the former should have been dealt with by the coaches ages ago. As much as I love Pickett, he and Raji are the leaders on that DL and that's a big part of the problem. Raji gets undisciplined because he's young and gets headstrong, but Pickett has no excuse at this point. Yes, we need better DE play, but one is only fooling himself by thinking Neal is the answer until Neal shows that he can actually play the run decent enough to warrant a starting spot.
Yes, Perry has the potential to be great at OLB! Apparently a single wrist injury his rookie year disqualifies him from that the way you hear some people talk. People get so desperate to fix the DL they lose all semblance of reason and go full retard sometimes. Was an example listed of something I've actually heard people say to show equivalent ridiculousness from my perspective to Rodell's idea to move Bishop to OLB.
Fit is the problem. Clay was getting WAY too beat up on the strong side, and thrives at ROLB. Bishop has been our best ILB, but he can't really take the strong side either. Plus as you pointed out, with Perry potentially emerging at OLB, what's the point? Why turn our best ILB into a backup at ROLB? All that does is take a playmaker off the field. I could see him getting rotated over there when Clay steps out for a play or two or maybe takes an occasional snap on the strong side, but overall it just seems nonsensical to me. When you consider that Jones can also play ROLB, Moses doesn't play the run well enough to warrant extensive use on the strong side, and ROLB is the only OLB spot Lattimore plays, ROLB is almost as crowded as ILB, maybe more so. We really do need more guys for the strong side...
I love our Safety mold. Capers says that we don't have FS or SS in our system, but rather that both are interchangeable. That's stretching it a bit, but essentially true. Generally you have a low safety that covers TE/Slot WR and supports the run, and a deep safety whose job is self explanatory. Teams can get by with only one low safety, but if you want to run 2 deep shell coverage, you have to have at least two, preferably three deep safeties on your raster just in case. Last season we had 3 low safeties on the roster, and the only two on our current roster who can play deep safety are the very same two who played it last season. Both are in contract years and the way we run our safety spot takes a lot of football IQ and speed. It puts a premium on reps. I'm not a big fan of Jennings (the only other deep safety on the roster besides Burnett, who doesn't have the range to be a true deep safety) If one of those two guys goes down, I'm very uncomfortable. This year's draft however is short on viable deep safety prospects, even more so when you consider that two of the better DS prospects have serious off field concerns. The sad part is that Burnett needs a true DS to fully bring out his potential as a tweener. As I have explained, most of the safeties in this year's draft are low safeties, or tweeners who don't have the speed to translate their game to the next level, especially with our system. Was in response to this year being great for safeties. Not exactly, depends on what you want.
My guess is that he means Jesse Williams is not really a 3-4 DE but a NT. He can play DE but he doesn't have the quicks or body for it.
I see Williams as completely capable of playing either DE or NT for us. The length Trg is now blaming his failure on a lack thereof isn't exactly there, but I'd still love to see "Aussie Thunder" don some green and gold.
