With their 1st Pick in the 2018 NFL Draft the Packers select...

[jetfixer]

I know he’s not a world beater, but Dean Lowry has been a good pick and nice surprise.

 

[Mondio]

I know he’s not a world beater, but Dean Lowry has been a good pick and nice surprise.

He's like Micah Hyde always was for me, a good football player. he's not going to be the super star, but you put a couple playmakers around him and he's the type you NEED next to them. Because although he might not be the dominant guy, he can look that way or close to it when all the focus isn't on him. He's good enough to make you pay for not dedicating attention and focus on him. He does far more than occupy a position. And because you have to give attention to him, he allow your stars shine. Another year in and I do like our big 3 across there in Clark, Daniels and Lowery. I'd love another Daniels or Clark, but 2 more Lowery's to have a steady rotation in there and this dline is going to do more than let linebackers make plays.

 

[McKnowledge]

Put me down for Edmunds. Okay with Darwin Smith and Josh Jackson as well.

Edmunds would only work in a 4-3. He's a little light for a 3-4. If somehow, someway GB does get Edmunds, I would like to see him try the strong safety position. If he has any coverage skills, he could be a giant Kam Chancellor type of safety.

 

[AmishMafia]

Edmunds would only work in a 4-3. He's a little light for a 3-4. If somehow, someway GB does get Edmunds, I would like to see him try the strong safety position. If he has any coverage skills, he could be a giant Kam Chancellor type of safety.

He has it all, speed, quickness, attitude, strength, and instincts. I think he would be effective either inside or out in a 34 or a 43 defense. My understanding is Pettine values multi dimensional players to attack in varying ways. This makes him an ideal fit. I think he is the pick or Derwin Smith for the same reasons.

236 Lbs is in line with many ILBs. We have needed someone to shutdown the middle of the field on passing downs for years. Edmunds would help with that.

Not sure he is fast enough for a safety, but man if he did hit you, you'd know it.

 

[shockerx]

He has it all, speed, quickness, attitude, strength, and instincts. I think he would be effective either inside or out in a 34 or a 43 defense. My understanding is Pettine values multi dimensional players to attack in varying ways. This makes him an ideal fit. I think he is the pick or Derwin Smith for the same reasons.

236 Lbs is in line with many ILBs. We have needed someone to shutdown the middle of the field on passing downs for years. Edmunds would help with that.

Not sure he is fast enough for a safety, but man if he did hit you, you'd know it.

Not sure on Derwin Smith....but i like Derwin James and Raquan Smith both would work.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Edmunds would only work in a 4-3. He's a little light for a 3-4. If somehow, someway GB does get Edmunds, I would like to see him try the strong safety position. If he has any coverage skills, he could be a giant Kam Chancellor type of safety.

With defenses around the league predominantly lining up in subpackages the base defense has lost a lot of importance. Therefore Edmunds would definitely be a fit for Pettine's scheme.

 

[McKnowledge]

With defenses around the league predominantly lining up in subpackages the base defense has lost a lot of importance. Therefore Edmunds would definitely be a fit for Pettine's scheme.

I think defenses predominately lining up in subpackages is what got GB's defense in trouble and finally got Capers the boot. GB should choose a defensive identity and not get cute. Pettine might mix it up (a little), but his defenses are 3-4. It would be interesting to see if Edmunds could play strong safety.

 

[GleefulGary]

I think defenses predominately lining up in subpackages is what got GB's defense in trouble and finally got Capers the boot. GB should choose a defensive identity and not get cute. Pettine might mix it up (a little), but his defenses are 3-4. It would be interesting to see if Edmunds could play strong safety.

Absolutely nobody plays majority in base.

Capers didn't get in trouble because of sub packages, he got in trouble because of complexity.

The overriding theme word of Pettine and Whitt has been simplicity. It's not hard to read between the lines there.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I think defenses predominately lining up in subpackages is what got GB's defense in trouble and finally got Capers the boot. GB should choose a defensive identity and not get cute. Pettine might mix it up (a little), but his defenses are 3-4. It would be interesting to see if Edmunds could play strong safety.

There's no way defenses can be successful without predominantly lining up in subpackages as offenses field three plus receiving threats on nearly every play.

 

[McKnowledge]

Absolutely nobody plays majority in base.

Capers didn't get in trouble because of sub packages, he got in trouble because of complexity.

The overriding theme word of Pettine and Whitt has been simplicity. It's not hard to read between the lines there.

I could easily argue that subpackages are the very essence of complexity, especially if it doesn't translate to the players on the roster. Also, of course Pettine's scheme will be simple, for this season. Its a new DC, with a mixture of young and veteran players, simple is better...for this season. If Pettine sticks for several seasons, I'm sure his scheme will grow more complex as future players will be acquired to fulfill his vision. Furthermore, there is one team in particular that absolutely dominated the league (2011-2015) with a rather vanilla scheme...the Seattle Seahawks!!!

 

[n4t]

I could easily argue...

Yes but when your initial premise is blatantly flawed you would just be wasting nice people's time.

 

[McKnowledge]

There's no way defenses can be successful without predominantly lining up in subpackages as offenses field three plus receiving threats on nearly every play.

Why can't a base defense conceivably have 5-7 players capable of playing multiple positions? Imagine a 3-4 defense, with 3 down lineman (all three can play DL or DE), 2 outside pass rushing linebackers capable of adequate coverage (safeties), 1 coverage linebacker/safety MLB), 1 inside pass rushing LB, and finally 4 DBs (cornerback/safety hybrids). IS

Yes but when your initial premise is blatantly flawed you would just be wasting nice people's time.

Blatantly flawed? How? Why? And who are you? As a senior system administrator, I'm quite sure you would know about wasting nice people's time.

Don't be this guy...you're not this guy....he saves no one!!!

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

 

[GleefulGary]

I could easily argue that subpackages are the very essence of complexity, especially if it doesn't translate to the players on the roster. Also, of course Pettine's scheme will be simple, for this season. Its a new DC, with a mixture of young and veteran players, simple is better...for this season. If Pettine sticks for several seasons, I'm sure his scheme will grow more complex as future players will be acquired to fulfill his vision. Furthermore, there is one team in particular that absolutely dominated the league (2011-2015) with a rather vanilla scheme...the Seattle Seahawks!!!

Packages are not complex.

Schemes within packages can be complex, they can also be simple.

This isn't rocket science man.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Not that it was ever in doubt, but its official, Saquon Barkley will not still be on the board at #14. Tearing it up in Indy!

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Furthermore, there is one team in particular that absolutely dominated the league (2011-2015) with a rather vanilla scheme...the Seattle Seahawks!!!

True, the Seahawks had way more talent on those units than the Packers currently have on defense though.

Why can't a base defense conceivably have 5-7 players capable of playing multiple positions? Imagine a 3-4 defense, with 3 down lineman (all three can play DL or DE), 2 outside pass rushing linebackers capable of adequate coverage (safeties), 1 coverage linebacker/safety MLB), 1 inside pass rushing LB, and finally 4 DBs (cornerback/safety hybrids).

There's no way an edge rusher capable of pressuring opposing quarterbacks can cover like a safety. In general it's a recipe for disaster having only four defensive backs on the field trying to defend five eligible receivers.

 

[McKnowledge]

True, the Seahawks had way more talent on those units than the Packers currently have on defense though.

Well...that was my point Captain Obvious. A "vanilla" scheme with talent at all levels allows for a free flowing attacking defense. Also, a "vanilla" scheme will mitigate mistakes when the players are young on defense. 2018 season will have more younger players than veterans (5 years+). Pettine will keep it simple and gradually open up the playbook as the season progresses.

There's no way an edge rusher capable of pressuring opposing quarterbacks can cover like a safety. In general it's a recipe for disaster having only four defensive backs on the field trying to defend five eligible receivers.

Never say never. Besides there are many teams that utilize a linebacker/safety hybrid a la Kam Chancellor or Tony Jefferson, that can do it all. Titles/designations (positions) are constantly shifting in the NFL and traditional (conservative) thinking is gradually eroding.

 

[McKnowledge]

Packages are not complex.

Schemes within packages can be complex, they can also be simple.

This isn't rocket science man.

So according to your contradictory statement, packages can either be complex or simple?

 

[AmishMafia]

So according to your contradictory statement, packages can either be complex or simple?

What is your definition of package? Clearly, as with JJ, many use "formation" as a definition of package. Formation are more complex than most realize, but still relatively simple. Scheme is responsibility and is more complex and can be very complex or simple. Additionally, scheme is dynamic and you have a split second to understand and decide.

Where to start: easy.
Where to go and what to do; complex.

 

[GleefulGary]

So according to your contradictory statement, packages can either be complex or simple?

Packages do not equal schemes. I can run a base cover 2 man scheme out of multiple packages. I can run a more complex read and react zone out of those same packages. The package itself is not complex, it's the scheme that is. They're two different things.

A package, is the select players you're using in a package. For example, a power package (bring an OT to play TE) or a Nitro package (slide a safety down to ILB).

So a 3-4 package, a 4-3 package, a dime package, a nickel package, a 4-2-5 package or maybe a 3-3-5 package. Typically different players lined up in different ways.

Then we have the scheme involved in those packages. Are they going cover 6? Cover 2? Cover 3? Safety slide over for shade coverage on the Z deep threat? Safety slide up to help on the TE? Tons and tons of options. You can have a simple scheme within a package. You can have a complex scheme within a package. The package is just what players you have and how you line them up. The scheme is what you're actually doing with the players.

Make sense?

 

[Mondio]

Packages do not equal schemes. I can run a base cover 2 man scheme out of multiple packages. I can run a more complex read and react zone out of those same packages. The package itself is not complex, it's the scheme that is. They're two different things.

A package, is the select players you're using in a package. For example, a power package (bring an OT to play TE) or a Nitro package (slide a safety down to ILB).

So a 3-4 package, a 4-3 package, a dime package, a nickel package, a 4-2-5 package or maybe a 3-3-5 package. Typically different players lined up in different ways.

Then we have the scheme involved in those packages. Are they going cover 6? Cover 2? Cover 3? Safety slide over for shade coverage on the Z deep threat? Safety slide up to help on the TE? Tons and tons of options. You can have a simple scheme within a package. You can have a complex scheme within a package. The package is just what players you have and how you line them up. The scheme is what you're actually doing with the players.

Make sense?

Yes, but most likely not to those it's meant for

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Yes, but most likely not to those it's meant for

You would hope that anyone with a bit of....knowledge of the game, would understand that.

 

[GleefulGary]

Harold Landry had a 1.59 10 yd split. Very very good. I think he'll kill the agility drills. His tape and testing numbers are definitely good enough to slot him in at #14.


Marcus Davenport also ran fast, although his long speed is better than his initial quickness. He ran a faster 40 with a worse 10 yd split than Landry. 10 yd split and 3 fine matter more for Edge rushers imo. Still, freaky numbers for his size.

 

[GleefulGary]

Vita Vea put up 41 reps and ran a 5.11 (1.77 10 yd) at 347 pounds.

Freaky athlete and his tape shows it too.

 

[AmishMafia]

Harold Landry had a 1.59 10 yd split. Very very good. I think he'll kill the agility drills. His tape and testing numbers are definitely good enough to slot him in at #14.


Marcus Davenport also ran fast, although his long speed is better than his initial quickness. He ran a faster 40 with a worse 10 yd split than Landry. 10 yd split and 3 fine matter more for Edge rushers imo. Still, freaky numbers for his size.

Still not on board with Landry at 14. Mayock said he had injuries last season so that may explain poor play at times.

Davenport, however, has helped himself today. He will have a decent career and I can now see him at 14, but still hope we have one of a couple different options.

As far as Vita Vea, I think he has helped himself. I think he will be gone sion after our pick.

 

[GleefulGary]

Still not on board with Landry at 14. Mayock said he had injuries last season so that may explain poor play at times.

Davenport, however, has helped himself today. He will have a decent career and I can now see him at 14, but still hope we have one of a couple different options.

As far as Vita Vea, I think he has helped himself. I think he will be gone sion after our pick.

Watch Landry's 2016 tape. It's very good. Had an ankle injury and didn't seem as explosive this year.

He still has some issues. Not great at setting the edge against the run, only one pass rush move...but he's dang near elite at it. I wouldn't be mad if we took him at 14. I wouldn't love Davenport...just might be too raw. Need to see his agility numbers.