Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

ILB
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
MantyWrestler


Joined: 03 Feb 2009
Posts: 374
Location: Manitowoc, WI
PostPosted: Tue Mar 17, 2015 4:23 pm    Post subject: ILB Reply with quote

I know everyone thinks we need an ILB or 2 in the draft as well as a CB or two.

Question is, does anyone else think that our starting ILB might be on the roster already? Corner back looks like we need a couple since we only have like 4 on the roster but ILB?

Barrington, Sam
Barrington was okay last year, not great but better than what we had.

Bradford, Carl
Bradford looks like an ILB and has the tools. Can he be the thumper we are looking for?

Mulumba, Andy
Palmer, Nate

These 2 quys don't impress me much at OLB and I feel Elliott and Hubard could push them out of a spot there. Does either one have the tools to be an ILB?

Last, If you could trade a #1 and a #2 to move up and get Vic Beasley, would you move Clay to ILB?

Thoughts?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gizmo2012


Joined: 11 Mar 2007
Posts: 2878
PostPosted: Wed Mar 18, 2015 10:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I actually hate the thought of moving Clay back to OLB because, with his range, I felt he made more plays in the inside than on the outside where he often overruns plays. I think Sam Barrington will get plenty of playing time but the Packers do need a legitimate and above average ILB if they are to continue improving on defense.

Bradford and Mulumba are just throw ins until they prove different. Mulumba is probably gone and Bradford may have some potential but all that means is he isn't very good yet.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PackMan22


Joined: 04 May 2007
Posts: 942
Location: Idaho
PostPosted: Wed Mar 18, 2015 11:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I like Bradford and Napalm better on the inside. Not sure if either will amount to more than a backup, but feel they are better fits there.
_________________
Adopt-a-Packer Frank Zombo

Can we please cease and desist with the term 'professional athletes representing their country'? That term should be reserved for one man and one man only: Pat Tillman.-Mike Bianchi, Orlando Sentinel
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gopackgonerd


Joined: 04 May 2013
Posts: 576
PostPosted: Wed Mar 18, 2015 11:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gotta draft both positions high now. And by high I mean rounds 1-3. Can't go into the season with just those guys even if they have potential to be good players. Only guy I feel comfortable starting is Barrington, that's not good. If we draft a ILB in the first round and even if its a little bit of a reach, i'll be a happy camper.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
MantyWrestler


Joined: 03 Feb 2009
Posts: 374
Location: Manitowoc, WI
PostPosted: Fri Mar 20, 2015 9:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

PackMan22 wrote:
I like Bradford and Napalm better on the inside. Not sure if either will amount to more than a backup, but feel they are better fits there.


This is where I stand as well. Clay, Barrington, Bradford and Palmer inside? Maybe a younger guy or later draft pick would be just fine if we could move up to get a guy like Beasley. He's a beast!

We can always put Clay up front on passing downs with Peppers and Vic if we would have a guy like that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Skypilot


Joined: 15 Dec 2013
Posts: 1364
PostPosted: Fri Mar 20, 2015 9:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

MantyWrestler wrote:
PackMan22 wrote:
I like Bradford and Napalm better on the inside. Not sure if either will amount to more than a backup, but feel they are better fits there.


This is where I stand as well. Clay, Barrington, Bradford and Palmer inside? Maybe a younger guy or later draft pick would be just fine if we could move up to get a guy like Beasley. He's a beast!

We can always put Clay up front on passing downs with Peppers and Vic if we would have a guy like that.


Beasley is a beast and the Packers can't have him. He's also not an ILB. The Packers are already better inside because they took out the trash, and at the moment don't seem interested in Latimore. Addition by subtraction. You've got Barrington, Mathews and Bradford, who could be more suited for the position that Palmer and Mulumba. It's not like they haven't tried. They wasted two picks on Terrell Manning a few years ago. Add a few in the draft and let them compete. Maybe get somebody higher than the 5th round for a change. Hawk won't be difficult to replace, but they do need a coverage LB.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
blankman0021


Joined: 02 May 2007
Posts: 1974
Location: MKE
PostPosted: Fri Mar 20, 2015 10:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

OP, don't forget about Joe Thomas (Link to Packers Bio).

He flashed just like Elliot did last pre-season before going on our PS last season. If he's healthy and the game slows down for him, he could be one to watch. Longshot just like Elliot hitting and Janis playing like people talk him up...but he definitely deserves to be in the conversation with Bradford, Palmer, and Co.
_________________


The Doctor wrote:
ALLONS-Y, ALONSO!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tttmikeb


Joined: 12 Nov 2004
Posts: 4011
Location: My heart is in Ferguson
PostPosted: Fri Mar 20, 2015 12:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Skypilot wrote:
MantyWrestler wrote:
PackMan22 wrote:
I like Bradford and Napalm better on the inside. Not sure if either will amount to more than a backup, but feel they are better fits there.


This is where I stand as well. Clay, Barrington, Bradford and Palmer inside? Maybe a younger guy or later draft pick would be just fine if we could move up to get a guy like Beasley. He's a beast!

We can always put Clay up front on passing downs with Peppers and Vic if we would have a guy like that.


Beasley is a beast and the Packers can't have him. He's also not an ILB. The Packers are already better inside because they took out the trash, and at the moment don't seem interested in Latimore. Addition by subtraction. You've got Barrington, Mathews and Bradford, who could be more suited for the position that Palmer and Mulumba. It's not like they haven't tried. They wasted two picks on Terrell Manning a few years ago. Add a few in the draft and let them compete. Maybe get somebody higher than the 5th round for a change. Hawk won't be difficult to replace, but they do need a coverage LB.

What's the best way to address that need? It seems like we've needed that for a long time. Do you think they'll try to find a better version of Manning (who seemed to me to be brought in for a coverage-only role)? Or do they aim for a more all-around ILB prospect?...someone for whom coverage is a strength, but can do other things well also.
_________________

.flash on the sig
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
salmar80


Joined: 17 Mar 2015
Posts: 37
Location: Helsinki, Finland
PostPosted: Sat Mar 21, 2015 7:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

My thinking is a 3-4 team needs one "thumper" for the base 3-4 package, and one "roamer" who stays on the field in nickle and dime on passing downs. (Pro bowl -level ILBs combine both)

A "thumper" ideally takes on blockers and specializes in stopping the run in the box. Needs to be more stout than fast, able to take on an OL without losing ground, and ability to shed the block to cover either gap. It's a thankless role, one that Hawk played 'til he started regressing. Now that job is Barrington's with maybe Napalm as his backup.

A "roamer" is the faster ILB, who has main coverage and play-making responsibility. He needs sideline to sideline speed, agility and skill to cover the TEs and RBs. DL and the other ILB try to keep him clean off blocks, so he can freely attack the LOS. CM3 filled that role last season, Bradford has the athleticism to do it but didn't cover much in college.

I've looked at game cutups of the top ILB prospect in this draft, and here's how I see them fitting:

- Thumper: Anthony, McKinney, Dawson, Perriman. I liked Anthony's aggressiveness and ceiling better than McKinney's. Neither is agile enough to cover man to man. Both fit 2nd round. Dawson and Perriman were clearly tier 2, same style, less size.

- Roamer: Kendricks, Shaq Thompson, Kwon Alexander. Kendricks was a level above the others. Only 1st rounder of all the names here. Thompson and Alexander look like safeties, need 10 pounds of bulk.

Personally I would not "waste" a 1st rounder on a thumper - you can find those guys later. Kendricks would be the best fit for a roamer, but we may have to trade up to get him. If either Thompson and Alexander can bulk up some without losing speed or agility, they aren't bad alternatives.

TT could also work around the problem: Keep CM3 at ILB and draft an OLB instead. Haven't really looked at those yet.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AlexGreen#20


Joined: 13 Jun 2012
Posts: 8249
PostPosted: Sat Mar 21, 2015 8:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

salmar80 wrote:
My thinking is a 3-4 team needs one "thumper" for the base 3-4 package, and one "roamer" who stays on the field in nickle and dime on passing downs. (Pro bowl -level ILBs combine both)

A "thumper" ideally takes on blockers and specializes in stopping the run in the box. Needs to be more stout than fast, able to take on an OL without losing ground, and ability to shed the block to cover either gap. It's a thankless role, one that Hawk played 'til he started regressing. Now that job is Barrington's with maybe Napalm as his backup.

A "roamer" is the faster ILB, who has main coverage and play-making responsibility. He needs sideline to sideline speed, agility and skill to cover the TEs and RBs. DL and the other ILB try to keep him clean off blocks, so he can freely attack the LOS. CM3 filled that role last season, Bradford has the athleticism to do it but didn't cover much in college.

I've looked at game cutups of the top ILB prospect in this draft, and here's how I see them fitting:

- Thumper: Anthony, McKinney, Dawson, Perriman. I liked Anthony's aggressiveness and ceiling better than McKinney's. Neither is agile enough to cover man to man. Both fit 2nd round. Dawson and Perriman were clearly tier 2, same style, less size.

- Roamer: Kendricks, Shaq Thompson, Kwon Alexander. Kendricks was a level above the others. Only 1st rounder of all the names here. Thompson and Alexander look like safeties, need 10 pounds of bulk.

Personally I would not "waste" a 1st rounder on a thumper - you can find those guys later. Kendricks would be the best fit for a roamer, but we may have to trade up to get him. If either Thompson and Alexander can bulk up some without losing speed or agility, they aren't bad alternatives.

TT could also work around the problem: Keep CM3 at ILB and draft an OLB instead. Haven't really looked at those yet.


1. We only play the base about 18% of the time. Our primary defense is the nickel by far. It isn't a package that is only used against the pass, your nickel defense has to be able to stop the run against 11 personnel in 2015.

2. Our ILBs have minimal coverage responsibility. If there's one position in this defense that isn't horribly difficult to play in this defense, it's ILB. We played more Cover-0 with blitzing ILBs outside of our dime package than we did Cover-2 the back half of last year if that gives you some indication of how insane Capers was about not letting his ILBs cover. A lot of that has to do with talent level, but Capers has always had disdain for the Cover-2.

3. If you watched this film and didn't come away thinking that Perryman is the surest run plug in this group, I'm not sure what you were watching. Perryman has next to no ability in man coverage, he's short and slow, but he's one of the more dependable guys that has come out in recent years at filling his gap. Anthony and McKinney both struggle diagnosing. Dawson isn't going to be a Packer, he ran far outside the acceptable window. As for Perryman being smaller, he's 7 pounds lighter and 4 inches shorter, that is a far more built up athlete.

4. I won't argue that Kendricks is a better prospect than Shaq, but that Shaq is four pounds lighter isn't a strong argument. Neither guy is going to excel at point or consistently stalemate an NFL back.

5. Similar to Strong Safety and Free Safety, the designation of "Thumper" needs to die. In an era of consistently motioning to change the strong side of the formation both pre and post snap, both LBs have to able to take on blocks. If a guy can't do that, take him off your board.
_________________
BroncoinGermany wrote:
From the day he was born and subsequently starting to grow into his short neck, round face, scruffy beard and pale face, Bulaga was destined to be a Packers O-Linemen for life.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
salmar80


Joined: 17 Mar 2015
Posts: 37
Location: Helsinki, Finland
PostPosted: Sat Mar 21, 2015 9:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

AlexGreen#20 wrote:


1. We only play the base about 18% of the time. Our primary defense is the nickel by far. It isn't a package that is only used against the pass, your nickel defense has to be able to stop the run against 11 personnel in 2015.

2. Our ILBs have minimal coverage responsibility. If there's one position in this defense that isn't horribly difficult to play in this defense, it's ILB. We played more Cover-0 with blitzing ILBs outside of our dime package than we did Cover-2 the back half of last year if that gives you some indication of how insane Capers was about not letting his ILBs cover. A lot of that has to do with talent level, but Capers has always had disdain for the Cover-2.

3. If you watched this film and didn't come away thinking that Perryman is the surest run plug in this group, I'm not sure what you were watching. Perryman has next to no ability in man coverage, he's short and slow, but he's one of the more dependable guys that has come out in recent years at filling his gap. Anthony and McKinney both struggle diagnosing. Dawson isn't going to be a Packer, he ran far outside the acceptable window. As for Perryman being smaller, he's 7 pounds lighter and 4 inches shorter, that is a far more built up athlete.

4. I won't argue that Kendricks is a better prospect than Shaq, but that Shaq is four pounds lighter isn't a strong argument. Neither guy is going to excel at point or consistently stalemate an NFL back.

5. Similar to Strong Safety and Free Safety, the designation of "Thumper" needs to die. In an era of consistently motioning to change the strong side of the formation both pre and post snap, both LBs have to able to take on blocks. If a guy can't do that, take him off your board.


Good stuff, Alex! Thanks!

I should've written that "thumper" and "roamer" are just ends of a sliding scale, more stereotypes than real - most guys have a bit of both and fall somewhere in between. A pure case of either would get exploited. Still the difference in the two styles is noticeable, and I just don't see the "perfect" all-around ILB prospect in this draft. Mosley was such last year.

1. & 2. All true - nickel is the new base. I would argue our ILBs didn't have much coverage responsibilities because of talent level. CM3 being the only one with the athleticism to do it, but little experience.

3. Forgot all about Dawson's red in the off-the-field department. I watched 3 cutups on him and Perriman and wrote this on the latter: "Looked stiffer and not as quick as Dawson, but far from liability in the box due to good instincts, angles and timing. Doesn't have sideline speed. Can cover short to mid well, but has only limited range. Not nearly the blitzer as Dawson - picked up easily even by RBs. Solid tackler and took on blocks with gusto and strength."

I'm only in my second year of trying to assess players based on tape and my own two eyes. So I'm willing and open to knowing if I'm seeing it all wrong (especially why so).

I can see why McKinney has been "falling". And Anthony's combine was an aberration. Both do struggle diagnosing and just don't make as many plays as their athletic ability would suggest. They're above Perriman mainly because of higher ceiling.

4. Kendricks is not much heavier, but in my eyes somehow played heavier than Shaq. I will have to revisit his film. I was probably too smitten by Kendricks - he looked exactly the type of guy we've been lacking, may have to re-check him with a colder attitude.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SDN40


Joined: 13 Jan 2008
Posts: 4421
PostPosted: Sat Mar 21, 2015 10:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Random thought - we still can't stop the read option. I couldn't believe Seattle didn't try it sooner against us, but when they finally did ...... success as usual. Don't know if or how it can affect prospects, but my stomach turns every time it's run against us. I think we are the last team in the league that hasnt figured out how to stop it
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Skypilot


Joined: 15 Dec 2013
Posts: 1364
PostPosted: Sat Mar 21, 2015 10:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

SDN40 wrote:
Random thought - we still can't stop the read option. I couldn't believe Seattle didn't try it sooner against us, but when they finally did ...... success as usual. Don't know if or how it can affect prospects, but my stomach turns every time it's run against us. I think we are the last team in the league that hasnt figured out how to stop it


That's a coordinator problem, not the players. When Mathews came out late in the contest it was game over.

Quote:
4. I won't argue that Kendricks is a better prospect than Shaq, but that Shaq is four pounds lighter isn't a strong argument. Neither guy is going to excel at point or consistently stalemate an NFL back.


Kendricks is on the light side. Subtract another four pounds and you have Brandon Browner or Thomas Davis. They have Barrington in the thumper role. Need an athlete who can cover TE and RB, and be effective sideline to sideline, rather than stand in cement before giving chase and pile-jumping some 20-yards downfield.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fan-59


Joined: 26 Jan 2008
Posts: 642
PostPosted: Sat Mar 21, 2015 11:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Skypilot wrote:
SDN40 wrote:
Random thought - we still can't stop the read option. I couldn't believe Seattle didn't try it sooner against us, but when they finally did ...... success as usual. Don't know if or how it can affect prospects, but my stomach turns every time it's run against us. I think we are the last team in the league that hasnt figured out how to stop it


That's a coordinator problem, not the players. When Mathews came out late in the contest it was game over.

Quote:
4. I won't argue that Kendricks is a better prospect than Shaq, but that Shaq is four pounds lighter isn't a strong argument. Neither guy is going to excel at point or consistently stalemate an NFL back.


Kendricks is on the light side. Subtract another four pounds and you have Brandon Browner or Thomas Davis. They have Barrington in the thumper role. Need an athlete who can cover TE and RB, and be effective sideline to sideline, rather than stand in cement before giving chase and pile-jumping some 20-yards downfield.


Capers plays more nickle than most DC care to, why? because he has lacked coverage ability inside, add a Kendricks or Thompson and we probably see less nickle
Perryman is probably the best 2 down ILB, basically what your getting though is the same thing we got from Hawk his last 4 or 5 years, that wouldn't be so bad if we would have had a coverage ILB next to him.

this league is all about sideline to sideline range from your ILB's now, if they don't have the ability to do that then you have to scheme around that as we have had to do with our safety's and 3 safety nickle schemes.

I remember people complained about Barnett, not stout at the point, but Barnett had range, and good coverage ability, we rarely gave up big plays inside with Barnett, having a play making ILB affords stronger inside coverage ability something we've lacked since he left.

Both Kendricks and Thompson are sure tacklers, and have the vision to avoid blockers, if your big and slow than your forced to take on blocks, if your quick and agile it's best to avoid them, I like the second way better, this idea of ILB's taking on blocks is so old school football.

did Pittsburg take Shazier last year to take on blockers? of course not, you take those guys because they have skills to avoid blockers and make the play, play makers is what I expect from my first round pick

going back to Barnett a little, Ted has tried to replace that coverage ability before with Guys like Chiller, B. Jones, Francois, etc. they didn't live up to that play making status, I think it's time to invest a top pick to find that player.

we can find competition for Barringtons spot later in this draft.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AlexGreen#20


Joined: 13 Jun 2012
Posts: 8249
PostPosted: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

fan-59 wrote:
Skypilot wrote:
SDN40 wrote:
Random thought - we still can't stop the read option. I couldn't believe Seattle didn't try it sooner against us, but when they finally did ...... success as usual. Don't know if or how it can affect prospects, but my stomach turns every time it's run against us. I think we are the last team in the league that hasnt figured out how to stop it


That's a coordinator problem, not the players. When Mathews came out late in the contest it was game over.

Quote:
4. I won't argue that Kendricks is a better prospect than Shaq, but that Shaq is four pounds lighter isn't a strong argument. Neither guy is going to excel at point or consistently stalemate an NFL back.


Kendricks is on the light side. Subtract another four pounds and you have Brandon Browner or Thomas Davis. They have Barrington in the thumper role. Need an athlete who can cover TE and RB, and be effective sideline to sideline, rather than stand in cement before giving chase and pile-jumping some 20-yards downfield.


Capers plays more nickle than most DC care to, why? because he has lacked coverage ability inside, add a Kendricks or Thompson and we probably see less nickle
Perryman is probably the best 2 down ILB, basically what your getting though is the same thing we got from Hawk his last 4 or 5 years, that wouldn't be so bad if we would have had a coverage ILB next to him.

this league is all about sideline to sideline range from your ILB's now, if they don't have the ability to do that then you have to scheme around that as we have had to do with our safety's and 3 safety nickle schemes.

I remember people complained about Barnett, not stout at the point, but Barnett had range, and good coverage ability, we rarely gave up big plays inside with Barnett, having a play making ILB affords stronger inside coverage ability something we've lacked since he left.

Both Kendricks and Thompson are sure tacklers, and have the vision to avoid blockers, if your big and slow than your forced to take on blocks, if your quick and agile it's best to avoid them, I like the second way better, this idea of ILB's taking on blocks is so old school football.

did Pittsburg take Shazier last year to take on blockers? of course not, you take those guys because they have skills to avoid blockers and make the play, play makers is what I expect from my first round pick

going back to Barnett a little, Ted has tried to replace that coverage ability before with Guys like Chiller, B. Jones, Francois, etc. they didn't live up to that play making status, I think it's time to invest a top pick to find that player.

we can find competition for Barringtons spot later in this draft.


People need to give up on the "less nickel" idea. That isn't something is Capers is forced to do. He likes his nickel defense. He's not going to line up a LB on a slot receiver. He's rarely going to line up a safety on a slot receiver. He likes having 5 DBs on the field because offensive coordinators like having 3 WRs on the field.

Capers has never been a Cover-2 guy. He has ALWAYS leaned heavily on his secondary. This year was more extreme than usual, but he likes having a Safety in the box for run defense as well as coverage ability.

The idea of a "2 down LB" is so overly simplified it's ridiculous. You still have to defend the run on 3rd and medium and 3rd and short. And on 3rd and long, you're going to pull him off the field because you're going to be in your pressure package. There's no reason that Sean Richardson can't be the LB in the pressure package, or that they're particularly difficult to come by if you're in the market.

For our LBs, you're looking for dependability in their fits. Barrington can't run for crap and he's got enough range to play in this scheme. You're telling me Barrington can hack it and Perryman can't? That's crazy talk.

LBs have to take on blocks. They have to take on pulling guards and FBs. That is in the job description and is neither old school nor new school. A LB has to be able to move to avoid getting reached, if they're feet are stuck in concrete they're useless also, but they can't get destroyed by blocks either.

Shazier's biggest flaw is his abilitiy to hold up against blockers. Players with flaws in their game go in the first round all the time. You'll also notice that he played 26% of Pittsburgh's snaps.

For what it's worth, Football Outsiders determined teams ran either right or left end on only 21% of runs.
_________________
BroncoinGermany wrote:
From the day he was born and subsequently starting to grow into his short neck, round face, scruffy beard and pale face, Bulaga was destined to be a Packers O-Linemen for life.


Last edited by AlexGreen#20 on Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:19 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11  Next
Page 1 of 11

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group