1. 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!
  2. Announcement is LIVE: Read the Forum Post

Who's out position by position next year

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by profile_removed, Jan 5, 2013.

  1. HyponGrey

    HyponGrey Caseus Locutus Est

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2012
    Messages:
    3,758
    Ratings:
    +1,030
    You don't seek to improve yourself? I always try to think of it more in terms of who we can add, instead of who we can get rid of. As we add personnel, others will be left behind. It's an unfortunate business reality, similar to not being able to afford to retain but a certain amount of talent.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  2. jaybadger82

    jaybadger82 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2012
    Messages:
    810
    Ratings:
    +387
    Yeah- it was more a comment about how one thinks about improvement, about framing the discussion.
     
  3. Future

    Future He did WHAT?

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    Messages:
    362
    Ratings:
    +87
    RB - Grant and Benson for sure, not sure when Starks' deal expires. Assuming he's not a FA after this year, he stays.

    WR - Driver retires or goes somewhere else. Jennings leaves in FA.

    TE - Really not sure on Finley. I thought he was gone for sure with that report coupled with his play in the middle of the season. He's been a lot better in the past 6 games or so but with him on the books for $7 million next year, we might need that cap space more than we need him.

    OL - Saturday retires, everyone else stays meaning that Van Roten goes back to the PS.

    DL - Don't know contract situations but I don't see much turnover here.

    LB - Hawk has to restructure, no way we can pay him $10 million for another year of mediocrity. Hopefully Walden is gone too.

    DB - Woodson restructures, everyone else stays.

    ST - If they've let Crosby go this far without cutting him, they're definitely not going to do it in the offseason.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. HyponGrey

    HyponGrey Caseus Locutus Est

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2012
    Messages:
    3,758
    Ratings:
    +1,030
  5. mradtke66

    mradtke66 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Messages:
    474
    Ratings:
    +190
    In our scheme and most 3-4s, we don't have defensive ends. We have three tackles when we play base. Our 'ends' lineup as a 5-technique in base. In the 'eagle' alignment, one of those 'ends,' normally BJ when they call this defense, slides down to a 3-technique.

    All of our linemen are run defenders first and second. Wilson, Raji, and Pickett are the perfect group to trot out on running downs.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  6. HyponGrey

    HyponGrey Caseus Locutus Est

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2012
    Messages:
    3,758
    Ratings:
    +1,030
    Technicalities lol

    I was trying to gauge HIS knowledge, but you are correct, sir. Since he claims he didn't see much out of Pickett, I assumed he only cares about Pass Rush, which as you so aptly pointed out, we are not geared to do.
     
  7. ivo610

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    16,162
    Ratings:
    +4,097
    Where did you see hawk was making $10 mil
     
  8. Future

    Future He did WHAT?

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    Messages:
    362
    Ratings:
    +87
    For some reason I thought he'd signed a 5 year, $50 million deal. I just looked it up and I feel ridiculous. I guess at $5.2 million... he can stay.
     
  9. ivo610

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    16,162
    Ratings:
    +4,097
    I would request a mental eval for TT if he gave hawk 50 mil and kept Crosby
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  10. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    5,394
    Ratings:
    +2,476
    Raji played a fair amount of 5 tech last season, especially early in the year. It didn't work out so well. You'll see him on the nose and Pickett at left DE most of the time in base. In nickel, Pickett sits, with Raji and one of the other DEs at 3 tech. Pickett is Raji's backup at NT, and gives him a blow from time to time in base, though I think Raji's snap count is still very high again this season.

    What most teams look for in a prototypical 3-4 DEs these days is a guy with reach to work off OT blocks to the inside or outside. Usually the reach comes with "tall"...6'4" and up is what most teams look for. The 3-4 DE also has to cover a little more ground and plays against the OTs and TEs who tend to be more athletic than the interior linemen, so 285 - 300 lbs. is becoming typical. You'd also like the guy to be able to pass rush from the 3 tech, otherwise you have to always pull him from nickel (on 70% of the plays in the Packer's case).

    The three linemen in base 3-4 are not interchangeable.

    It is also helpful to keep in mind that the other team doesn't tell you the play in advance. When a team decides to pass against the base D, it would be nice to know the DEs might at least collapse the pocket from time to time. Pickett hasn't been able to do that the last couple of years, and he's gotten very slow to boot.

    It's not like TT/MM/Capers don't concern themselves with the prototype...Jenkins was close; Neal is close in physical dimensions, but most telling of all we tried to get Chris Canty to come for a talk when he was an FA before the 2009 season, but he wasn't interested, or so the story goes.

    I think Pickett is OK playing against the O's strong side in base, but I don't think it's ideal.

    I just think the right players just haven't come along. 3-4 DE prototypes get bid up in the draft. Neal was supposed to be that guy, but the book is open there. I doubt the Packers' ideal game plan is to have a NT playing LDE in base...it's just worked out that way with the personnel on hand. Pickett's effective against the run, but you'd like a little more than that out of the position.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  11. HyponGrey

    HyponGrey Caseus Locutus Est

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2012
    Messages:
    3,758
    Ratings:
    +1,030
    Agreed, Raji needs a few more breaks.

    Wilson is another guy we have to pull on Nickel downs, but he still starts in base.

    Neal is a Nickel guy, I don't really like him and Daniels in base. Worthy and Raji are the ones who can swing formations IMO.

    Yeah, pretty much. Still feel Pickett has done a decent job eating blocks, spilling, and shedding for the tackle, just no push.

    Feels like 3-4 guys wind up as 4-3 guys entirely too often
     
  12. mradtke66

    mradtke66 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Messages:
    474
    Ratings:
    +190
    It's true that the linemen aren't completely interchangeable. I have a bad habit of over-simplifying sometimes. However, we do have 3 tackles in the scheme. If tomorrow we had to play a 4-3 defense, all of our linemen would be defensive tackles. A couple would be a nose and the rest the three-technique, but they're all 'tackles.'

    As far as needing more out of Pickett, yes and no. Yes, they probably want a more complete player to replace Pickett, but you can say that for about 60% of the roster or more.

    I wouldn't necessarily say having a pure run-stopping end is a bad thing. Probably my favorite thing about the 3-4 is the flexibility. Rotate the preferred grouping to the down and distance, etc.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. 12theTruth

    12theTruth Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    p
     
  14. 12theTruth

    12theTruth Guest

    Ratings:
    +0


    A real concern coming off surgery,
    but Benson doesn't
    have the mileage that comes
    with a 30
    year old back.
    In fact Benson and Frank Gore were both drafted in 2005
    yet Benson has 22%
    less rushing and receiving attempts than Gore.
    That equates to about 1.5
    seasons worth of usage.
    If there isn't much demand out there, I'd bet there's a decent chance that Benson is signed for a one year minimum.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  15. 13 Times Champs

    13 Times Champs Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,924
    Ratings:
    +1,379
    The demand wasn't there when we signed him this year so you could be correct. I'd be happy if he stayed.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. Oshkoshpackfan

    Oshkoshpackfan YUT !!!

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2012
    Messages:
    3,286
    Ratings:
    +1,453
    to the OP that wrote that, is your real name forest gump?
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  17. ThxJackVainisi

    ThxJackVainisi Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    4,017
    Ratings:
    +3,105
    WhatTheHellsGoingOnWithThatFirstPost!?

    Seriously, IMO the OP shows a lack of understanding of how to build and maintain a roster. Thank goodness Thompson and company care a lot more about STs and know a lot more about personnel. For example, the idea of getting rid of EDS and Burnett is about as crazy as it gets IMO. At worst EDS is a very good backup OC and backup OG. Even if the Packers select the number rated OC in the draft they'll keep EDS. Also keeping MD Jennings over Burnett? Look at how the Packers viewed these players - Jennings lost his spot to McMillian (and regained it) while Burnett has started every game. And BTW, Burnett is the most talented safety not named Woodson.

    Good to know you'd draft a "very good QB" in 2014. Their usual plan is to draft mediocre players. What the hell is going on in here, indeed!

    As others have posted, the starting DL for the base D are Pickett on the strong side at LDE, Raji at NT and Wilson on the weak side at RDE. Pickett and Raji are the two best run defenders on the DL, by far. And they are the only two legit NTs on the roster. Wilson is the best run defender of the rest. The Packers line up in nickel and dime more than they do in their base D. That's where Neal, Worthy, and Daniels contribute the most. (BTW, I believe Worthy was drafted with the hope of starting on the weak side, ahead of Wilson.)
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. Mr. StyleZ

    Mr. StyleZ Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    1,760
    Ratings:
    +376
    I didn't read all of this but you want to get rid of Mike Neal when he is starting to come on? Why?
     
  19. gatorpack

    gatorpack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2010
    Messages:
    677
    Ratings:
    +153
    This made my head hurt.
     
  20. Alex

    Alex Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2012
    Messages:
    407
    Ratings:
    +213
    Right now I guess I'm not really worried about who's leaving considering we are still in the hunt for the Superbowl. Winning the whole thing could change a lot of things for players available to other teams this off season. But playing the "what if" this is my opinion from the original post:

    -I don't see both of these back ups staying. They'll either draft someone in the late rounds or pick someone up. We can't keep having Harrell back there being incapable of doing anything.

    -I agree Starks, and Grant will be gone. I'm not sure if they'll keep Green with Harris doing so well, but I'd like to think they'll try to sign Benson another season since he started out so well. Him and Harris sharing carries could work out really well for us!

    -I am hoping Driver retires after this year. I couldn't bear to see him in another uniform. Jennings coming back depends on him. Ted will definitely give him a fair offer and if he really wants to stay he will. I think they keep Ross to do full time punt and kick returns and we see more of Boykin on the field after Driver and possibly Jennings moving on.

    -I wouldn't mind seeing Finley gone. He isn't worth the money or the headache. He's been playing better as of recent but I'd still like to see the Pack maybe draft a new TE and go with 3 TE's next year instead of having 4 on the depth chart and use that extra spot for O-Line since we seem to have bad luck there.

    -I wouldn't move Hayward to safety since he's played pretty well at corner for us this year. I'd draft a safety to address that problem. I'm on the fence about Woodson retiring, I think that one depends on how far we go in the playoffs.
     
  21. rodell330

    rodell330 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    2,989
    Ratings:
    +1,011
    Glad you are not the GM my friend. Yikes
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  22. burt packerack

    burt packerack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    250
    Ratings:
    +99
    OP. Just cause Hayward has gotten a couple of ints doesn't mean we stick him at safety. We need more of a run stopper at safety that can step up in the box as Woodson does.
     
  23. ivo610

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    16,162
    Ratings:
    +4,097
    Hayward was the highest rated corner by pff in the league. You start testing him and seeing if he can handle some of the elite WRs in our division
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  24. profile_removed

    profile_removed Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2010
    Messages:
    608
    Ratings:
    +20
    Braxton Cave, Barrett Jones or Mike Golic would be better at Center than EDS, and Golic's only had fill in duty in college at Center
     
  25. ExpatPacker

    ExpatPacker Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2011
    Messages:
    1,323
    Ratings:
    +519
    And we should draft one of those 3 too. EDS is a solid backup, but I don't think he's our answer at C.

    The way I approach the draft is this: what is the weakest link in our team? My answer keeps coming up as our OL. IMO it would be bad idea to rely on the personnel we have. Yes, Bulaga was good last year. Yes, Sherrod has upside, but neither of these two is a guarantee. We need a solid C at least. After that it gets a bit more open. If we don't take a solid C in the 1st 3 round I think that will be a big mistake, and it may very well take one of our 1st two picks. Barrett Jones is the obvious choice, but he may go earlier than 27ish in the 1st round.
     

Share This Page