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

CW21's 1st Annual Packers Camp Battles Thread
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
bookend57


Joined: 06 Feb 2007
Posts: 12965
Location: aboard Serenity
PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2012 1:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Is Worthy going to win a starting job at DE?
_________________

^gopherwrestler^
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
spilltray


Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 10321
Location: Green Bay, WI
PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2012 1:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Blount_truth wrote:
spilltray wrote:
Blount_truth wrote:
spilltray wrote:
palmy50 wrote:
MNPackfan32 wrote:
Blount_truth wrote:
It's reportedly been reported that the packers have shown at least minor interest in cedric Benson RB previously of the bengals (sirius radio)

If one of our guys goes down in TC do you, the forum, think it'd be a wise move or would you rather just get grant back?
For us, right now, Ryan Grant>>>Cedric Benson. Grant knows the playbook, has had good seasons as a Zone Back and is quality guy in the locker room.


Agreed. Grant is a better fit in Green Bay in just about every possible way IMO. I would much rather give a guy like Tyler a long look if that's the mold you want out there. I'm just not one that feels that style will add up to much in Mac's fit. Still holds value in specific roles but not enough reps to really excel.


Alot of it depends on the price though. If they would both be taking the same deal then yeah I agree Grant every day, but the money tells the tale.


Apparently Benson has stated that he won't play for vet min.(nfl.com) I agree that grant has better value to the pack, and teddyT was putting in the hours looking for an insurance policy in case a young guy goes down and grant signs elsewhere..


Just because Benson isn't willing to take the minimum doesn't mean he might not be willing to take less than Grant would. It's impossible to know unless both sign somewhere but the money differences feed in to which would be a better value.

Personally I'm not worried about RB at all. If someone goes down, sign a young FA. No need to pay significant money for anyone.


I'm just saying he wouldn't come with a 30 year old discount.

Yeaaaa, well I wouldn't sign just anybody but sure I get that running back isn't a big deal but the position needs to be squared away with a guy who can play and take care of the ball to keep the offense on track. A compliment to our passing attack would be neat. I don't think 4.3 yards a carry is too little to ask with the way teams treat our pass game. Why rely 100% on Aaron and the receivers if you don't have to? Telling me you can stick anyone back there and being okay with it is just ignorant and I'm not sure you understand offense vs defense scheming.


RBs are more a product of the scheme and their blocking than any other position on the football field. Why rely 100% on Aaron and the receivers? Because the potential gains massively outweight the gains you can get from the running game. Even at at 4.6 ypa, the average for Rodgers was double that last year. Running the ball is a distraction. Something to get the defense checking first. Nothing more. It's not worth investing anything substantial at all in. I think the Packers can get 400-500 ish yards and 4 ypc out of James Starks and Alex Green and I don't really think it's worth investing any more in to the position.
_________________
Wilfred wrote:
Memory is like the Packers when they are behind by two touchdowns in the 4th quarter... It comes back.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
spilltray


Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 10321
Location: Green Bay, WI
PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2012 1:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bookend57 wrote:
Is Worthy going to win a starting job at DE?


No one can even have a solid read of that battle until the pads go on.
_________________
Wilfred wrote:
Memory is like the Packers when they are behind by two touchdowns in the 4th quarter... It comes back.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Dunderhead


Joined: 13 Nov 2009
Posts: 2547
PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2012 1:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

spilltray wrote:
bookend57 wrote:
Is Worthy going to win a starting job at DE?


No one can even have a solid read of that battle until the pads go on.


Be honest, what is starter in this defense, especially on the defensive line? I think we'll see him out there 35-45% of snaps if we go nickle like we should. The real key is, the more snaps Worthy gets out there the less Raji is out there and the more explosive both players should be.

To me, getting Raji back to rotational (and still keeping enough pressure and contain inside) is the biggest key to this defense getting back on track. I suppose Vic would smack me down and the Pack did use their first pick on OLBer so that disproves what I say a bit. But my belief is Nick Perry is just that great of an athlete and my biggest support is that how many times does TT move up to pick players?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
spilltray


Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 10321
Location: Green Bay, WI
PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2012 2:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dunderhead wrote:

Be honest, what is starter in this defense, especially on the defensive line?


I would say at a minimum top 3 in % of snaps and probably top 2 depending on the % of 2 man nickle fronts the Packers run this year. I definitely don't expect him to have a higher % of the defensive snaps than Raji and Pickett, and it's really up in the air if he can even take the #3 spot right away. Where he falls in that rotation is something we can't even really get a decent read on until they start hitting.
_________________
Wilfred wrote:
Memory is like the Packers when they are behind by two touchdowns in the 4th quarter... It comes back.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Blount_truth


Joined: 29 Oct 2010
Posts: 411
PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

spilltray wrote:
Blount_truth wrote:


Yeaaaa, well I wouldn't sign just anybody but sure I get that running back isn't a big deal but the position needs to be squared away with a guy who can play and take care of the ball to keep the offense on track. A compliment to our passing attack would be neat. I don't think 4.3 yards a carry is too little to ask with the way teams treat our pass game. Why rely 100% on Aaron and the receivers if you don't have to? Telling me you can stick anyone back there and being okay with it is just ignorant and I'm not sure you understand offense vs defense scheming.


RBs are more a product of the scheme and their blocking than any other position on the football field. Why rely 100% on Aaron and the receivers? Because the potential gains massively outweight the gains you can get from the running game. Even at at 4.6 ypa, the average for Rodgers was double that last year. Running the ball is a distraction. Something to get the defense checking first. Nothing more. It's not worth investing anything substantial at all in. I think the Packers can get 400-500 ish yards and 4 ypc out of James Starks and Alex Green and I don't really think it's worth investing any more in to the position.


But you need a RB who can comprehend the system with the physical tools to utilize those blocks. And yea, agreed, I'm fine with James and Alex heck even saine is good enough as a scat back for me; what happens if starks goes down and Green isn't back to form for awhile? The running game can be used to chew clock late and shut games down, and keep those defenders from pinning their ears. I'm not looking for a long term guy to come in with a premier contract just someone who has enough in the tank to keep the running game respectable. Sure rodgers and company are money, but what happens when the dropsies hit? We lost both games that happened. I think right now we have the players in place who can give us a fine rushing compliment but if one goes down id just rather have someone who's able to fill a role competently and keep rodgers happy being assignment sure.
_________________
Adopt-a-Packer: Casey Hayward
Tackles: 46
Passes defended: 19
Interceptions: 6
Forced Fumbles: 1
DROY candidate. Jersey acquired.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
spilltray


Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 10321
Location: Green Bay, WI
PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Blount_truth wrote:
spilltray wrote:
Blount_truth wrote:


Yeaaaa, well I wouldn't sign just anybody but sure I get that running back isn't a big deal but the position needs to be squared away with a guy who can play and take care of the ball to keep the offense on track. A compliment to our passing attack would be neat. I don't think 4.3 yards a carry is too little to ask with the way teams treat our pass game. Why rely 100% on Aaron and the receivers if you don't have to? Telling me you can stick anyone back there and being okay with it is just ignorant and I'm not sure you understand offense vs defense scheming.


RBs are more a product of the scheme and their blocking than any other position on the football field. Why rely 100% on Aaron and the receivers? Because the potential gains massively outweight the gains you can get from the running game. Even at at 4.6 ypa, the average for Rodgers was double that last year. Running the ball is a distraction. Something to get the defense checking first. Nothing more. It's not worth investing anything substantial at all in. I think the Packers can get 400-500 ish yards and 4 ypc out of James Starks and Alex Green and I don't really think it's worth investing any more in to the position.


But you need a RB who can comprehend the system with the physical tools to utilize those blocks. And yea, agreed, I'm fine with James and Alex heck even saine is good enough as a scat back for me; what happens if starks goes down and Green isn't back to form for awhile? The running game can be used to chew clock late and shut games down, and keep those defenders from pinning their ears. I'm not looking for a long term guy to come in with a premier contract just someone who has enough in the tank to keep the running game respectable. Sure rodgers and company are money, but what happens when the dropsies hit? We lost both games that happened. I think right now we have the players in place who can give us a fine rushing compliment but if one goes down id just rather have someone who's able to fill a role competently and keep rodgers happy being assignment sure.


What happens when one of them goes down? You have the other two and hopefully someone else you can pick back up that was in training camp.

What happens when the dropsies hit? The Packers probably lose. It isn't worth investing the money, practice, and game reps in a running game that could bail the passing game out.

Neither Grant or Benson are likely to be a guy you can bring in mid season if someone goes down. If one of them IS available, it's either because their money expectations are too high or multiple teams have judged they don't really have anything in the tank. Grant I could see because he at least knows the team and offense, but otherwise, if you need a RB mid season, I'd rather take a guy with some explosion that didn't quite make a team in Training camp but has some upside over a retread vet like Benson.
_________________
Wilfred wrote:
Memory is like the Packers when they are behind by two touchdowns in the 4th quarter... It comes back.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Blount_truth


Joined: 29 Oct 2010
Posts: 411
PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2012 5:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

spilltray wrote:
Blount_truth wrote:
spilltray wrote:
Blount_truth wrote:


Yeaaaa, well I wouldn't sign just anybody but sure I get that running back isn't a big deal but the position needs to be squared away with a guy who can play and take care of the ball to keep the offense on track. A compliment to our passing attack would be neat. I don't think 4.3 yards a carry is too little to ask with the way teams treat our pass game. Why rely 100% on Aaron and the receivers if you don't have to? Telling me you can stick anyone back there and being okay with it is just ignorant and I'm not sure you understand offense vs defense scheming.


RBs are more a product of the scheme and their blocking than any other position on the football field. Why rely 100% on Aaron and the receivers? Because the potential gains massively outweight the gains you can get from the running game. Even at at 4.6 ypa, the average for Rodgers was double that last year. Running the ball is a distraction. Something to get the defense checking first. Nothing more. It's not worth investing anything substantial at all in. I think the Packers can get 400-500 ish yards and 4 ypc out of James Starks and Alex Green and I don't really think it's worth investing any more in to the position.


But you need a RB who can comprehend the system with the physical tools to utilize those blocks. And yea, agreed, I'm fine with James and Alex heck even saine is good enough as a scat back for me; what happens if starks goes down and Green isn't back to form for awhile? The running game can be used to chew clock late and shut games down, and keep those defenders from pinning their ears. I'm not looking for a long term guy to come in with a premier contract just someone who has enough in the tank to keep the running game respectable. Sure rodgers and company are money, but what happens when the dropsies hit? We lost both games that happened. I think right now we have the players in place who can give us a fine rushing compliment but if one goes down id just rather have someone who's able to fill a role competently and keep rodgers happy being assignment sure.


What happens when one of them goes down? You have the other two and hopefully someone else you can pick back up that was in training camp.

What happens when the dropsies hit? The Packers probably lose. It isn't worth investing the money, practice, and game reps in a running game that could bail the passing game out.

Neither Grant or Benson are likely to be a guy you can bring in mid season if someone goes down. If one of them IS available, it's either because their money expectations are too high or multiple teams have judged they don't really have anything in the tank. Grant I could see because he at least knows the team and offense, but otherwise, if you need a RB mid season, I'd rather take a guy with some explosion that didn't quite make a team in Training camp but has some upside over a retread vet like Benson.


I don't believe the packers have to lose a game just because our recievers are having a bad game. It is in my opinion that their line is better then that as long as you have a back that can do something with the ball for awhile until the receivers pick it back up.

I'm not saying it has to be Benson or it automatically has to be grant either. What I had a problem with was that I don't agree you can just plug and play anyone back there, that the run game has legitimate value and that the packers don't have to be forced into being one dimensional just because we have a good pass game. There's so much more going on then madden will have you believe.

Certain veterans, believe it or not, have value to certain teams. Some even have more value then rookies who didn't make a teams 53. All I was pointing out with benson is that the packers are evidently feeling out certain guys who have been there done that before to continue to give us a semblance of a running attack. We are win now and id personally rather have all the bases covered before I shoot for a developmental prospect. We have the young guys who we want to see grow on the roster already it doesn't hurt to see who's out there for a just in case.
_________________
Adopt-a-Packer: Casey Hayward
Tackles: 46
Passes defended: 19
Interceptions: 6
Forced Fumbles: 1
DROY candidate. Jersey acquired.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
spilltray


Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 10321
Location: Green Bay, WI
PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2012 5:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Blount_truth wrote:

I don't believe the packers have to lose a game just because our recievers are having a bad game. It is in my opinion that their line is better then that as long as you have a back that can do something with the ball for awhile until the receivers pick it back up.

I'm not saying it has to be Benson or it automatically has to be grant either. What I had a problem with was that I don't agree you can just plug and play anyone back there, that the run game has legitimate value and that the packers don't have to be forced into being one dimensional just because we have a good pass game. There's so much more going on then madden will have you believe.

Certain veterans, believe it or not, have value to certain teams. Some even have more value then rookies who didn't make a teams 53. All I was pointing out with benson is that the packers are evidently feeling out certain guys who have been there done that before to continue to give us a semblance of a running attack. We are win now and id personally rather have all the bases covered before I shoot for a developmental prospect. We have the young guys who we want to see grow on the roster already it doesn't hurt to see who's out there for a just in case.


If the entire receiving corps is having a bad day, like the 2 games you were citing last year, no RB the Packers are going to have on their roster is going to bail them out. Period.

I know there is alot going on, and I didn't say just anyone could do it. What I said was you can find someone who can hold down running the ball easy enough. This is as much a testament to the Packers scouting department as the RB position itself. There are always guys who can hold it down in an emergency situation to be found on the street.

Yes certain vets have value to certain teams. I'll name Driver as one. They have values to their own teams, where they are an established locker room presence. I don't believe these vets have much value to other teams unless it was like Driver to Miami to help Philbin install the offense, and other very limited situations like that, or if its a team in need of veteran leadership (cough Detroit cough).

Green Bay always checks out just about everyone that even might be a potential fit. They do their due diligence on absolutely everyone. Thorough barely begins to describe it. That's why you hear the Packers mentioned with just about every player being shopped or looking for work from Tebow to Benson. I can't remember it actually happening though.

I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but it's a long shot at best and I think it's much more likely some young guy no one knows is brought in if injuries happen, or someone from the TC roster rather than paying Benson or Grant to come in.
_________________
Wilfred wrote:
Memory is like the Packers when they are behind by two touchdowns in the 4th quarter... It comes back.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
yooperfan2


Joined: 31 Dec 2009
Posts: 403
PostPosted: Sun Jul 22, 2012 2:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Spilltry wrote
What I said was you can find someone who can hold down running the ball easy enough. This is as much a testament to the Packers scouting department as the RB position itself. There are always guys who can hold it down in an emergency situation to be found on the street.

thats not always true, Ted didn't find one worthy to pick up when Grant got hurt, and Starks contributed heavily to our SB run at the end, but earlier we lost games that a running attack would have helped win.

what convinces anyone that Starks will this year learn how to read a backside block, vision tends to be a instinctive thing, another reason he was a 5th round pick, injury's weren't the only reason he fell.

Green is injured and we wont know what he can do in camp, Saine is a un proven comodity completely, Grant at the minimum is good insurance, and he average 5.5 per in the last 5 games.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kampman74


Joined: 30 Apr 2007
Posts: 6784
PostPosted: Sun Jul 22, 2012 11:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dunderhead wrote:
spilltray wrote:
bookend57 wrote:
Is Worthy going to win a starting job at DE?


No one can even have a solid read of that battle until the pads go on.


Be honest, what is starter in this defense, especially on the defensive line? I think we'll see him out there 35-45% of snaps if we go nickle like we should. The real key is, the more snaps Worthy gets out there the less Raji is out there and the more explosive both players should be.

To me, getting Raji back to rotational (and still keeping enough pressure and contain inside) is the biggest key to this defense getting back on track. I suppose Vic would smack me down and the Pack did use their first pick on OLBer so that disproves what I say a bit. But my belief is Nick Perry is just that great of an athlete and my biggest support is that how many times does TT move up to pick players?


Yeah I think worthy will get his fair share of snaps this season, not sure if he will be the "starter" but he might end up playing the most snaps after Raji and Pickett. Maybe even more than Pickett with how often we are in nickel. I wonder who the 5th and sixth dline men are going to be with Neals suspension not likely going to be uplifted ( even though it should be, right?) and Hargrove for sure going to be suspended.
_________________
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 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Page 6 of 6

 
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