| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kal-El
Joined: 29 Apr 2010
Posts: 2863
Location: Milwaukee, WI. Team: Packers.
|
 Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2013 5:32 am Post subject: |
 |
|
|
| CentralFC wrote: | | justo wrote: | | You didn't hear? Bishop is going to get hurt again and we are cutting Hawk, to save a couple million. We need two new ILBs. Toughness. Also our DBs suck at tackling. We need to look at tackle first DBs. Maybe draft four SSs. Toughness. All in the box type guys. Also Raji sucks. Trade him. Pickett is old. We need three new DL too. New defense. Fire Capers. Toughness. |
Or we want to upgrade Hawk and consider our future with some prudence. |
Given how much we've paid Hawk to stick around, I should doubt that our management has any plans of replacing him in the near future. Unless by "we" you mean the fans, in which case, it was never a matter of what "we" wanted.
| incognito_man wrote: | Not really.
Brad Jones is a free agent, that's one spot.
Robert Francois is a RFA, that's another potential spot. |
Don't get me wrong. I think we could certainly use some depth at the spot.
However, this is 34 ILB depth we're talking about. It's basically the ZBS RB on defense -- a disposable position. If we're not drafting a starter or some truly special talent, going ILB higher than 4th is a waste.
_________________
much thanks to nobody on the sig. FF GBP Forum Wiki Page.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Pugger
Joined: 01 May 2010
Posts: 4327
Location: N. Fort Myers, FL
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2013 8:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| CentralFC wrote: | | nfldraftguru1 wrote: | | Pugger wrote: | | CentralFC wrote: | Common folly of what we want now?
How about replacing Hawk in a year or two and not being sold on an undersized DJ Smith?
Even more, what was the point of drafting Perry then? Isn't he what we technically wanted now? |
Perry was not drafted to be an ILB. He was drafted to play opposite Clay on the outside. |
Perry at ILB is awful. Pure OLB/4-3RE. Has virtually nothing that translates to ILB. |
You're kidding, right?
That point was a reference to not drafting for positions of weakness. Which we undermined last year with Perry to a degree.
Never was I getting at him playing ILB. |
Then what did this sentence mean? Last year we all pined for more pass rush and especially someone to compliment Matthews and hopefully Perry will fill that void. I think we can all agree we need more speed inside. Neither Hawk or Bishop are burners but Desmond does seem to have that attitude that was sorely missing last year.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
incognito_man
Joined: 11 Jan 2007
Posts: 26371
Location: Madison
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2013 1:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Kal-El wrote: |
Don't get me wrong. I think we could certainly use some depth at the spot.
However, this is 34 ILB depth we're talking about. It's basically the ZBS RB on defense -- a disposable position. If we're not drafting a starter or some truly special talent, going ILB higher than 4th is a waste. |
No, it's not. Just ask San Fran. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PossibleCabbage
Joined: 25 Apr 2011
Posts: 2447
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2013 3:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| incognito_man wrote: | | Kal-El wrote: |
Don't get me wrong. I think we could certainly use some depth at the spot.
However, this is 34 ILB depth we're talking about. It's basically the ZBS RB on defense -- a disposable position. If we're not drafting a starter or some truly special talent, going ILB higher than 4th is a waste. |
No, it's not. Just ask San Fran. |
Correlation is not causation.
Yes, the 49ers have some very good ILBs, and they play very well in the defensive front 7, but there's lots of ways to play good defense that don't require guys like Bowman and Willis in the middle.
Heck, the 49ers lost in the Owl to a team with substandard ILB play. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nfldraftguru1
Joined: 07 Feb 2009
Posts: 8036
Location: eau claire, wi
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2013 4:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| PossibleCabbage wrote: | | incognito_man wrote: | | Kal-El wrote: |
Don't get me wrong. I think we could certainly use some depth at the spot.
However, this is 34 ILB depth we're talking about. It's basically the ZBS RB on defense -- a disposable position. If we're not drafting a starter or some truly special talent, going ILB higher than 4th is a waste. |
No, it's not. Just ask San Fran. |
Correlation is not causation.
Yes, the 49ers have some very good ILBs, and they play very well in the defensive front 7, but there's lots of ways to play good defense that don't require guys like Bowman and Willis in the middle.
Heck, the 49ers lost in the Owl to a team with substandard ILB play. |
Also doesn't hurt. And using one game samples is just silly. SF's front 7 is really good, but Willis and Bowman are elite type ILBs and to say that isn't something you should get if you can is not good. I only see Ogletree in this class with that potential.
_________________
packer backer forever-ker
Packerbacker87's work
| Quote: | | Just like anything, the more you know, the more you realize you don't know. |
Follow me @rcon14 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PossibleCabbage
Joined: 25 Apr 2011
Posts: 2447
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2013 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| nfldraftguru1 wrote: | | PossibleCabbage wrote: | | incognito_man wrote: | | Kal-El wrote: |
Don't get me wrong. I think we could certainly use some depth at the spot.
However, this is 34 ILB depth we're talking about. It's basically the ZBS RB on defense -- a disposable position. If we're not drafting a starter or some truly special talent, going ILB higher than 4th is a waste. |
No, it's not. Just ask San Fran. |
Correlation is not causation.
Yes, the 49ers have some very good ILBs, and they play very well in the defensive front 7, but there's lots of ways to play good defense that don't require guys like Bowman and Willis in the middle.
Heck, the 49ers lost in the Owl to a team with substandard ILB play. |
Also doesn't hurt. And using one game samples is just silly. SF's front 7 is really good, but Willis and Bowman are elite type ILBs and to say that isn't something you should get if you can is not good. I only see Ogletree in this class with that potential. |
But this isn't a decision you make in a vacuum. I mean, sure, if the Packers could just magically acquire 2 elite ILBs at no cost, I'd be all for it. But that's not possible, so there's bound to be some cost to upgrading that position group.
Ogletree does have special ILB prospect written all over him, but the character reds are tremendous (he got a DUI last night, which probably knocks him out of the first and off TT's board entirely).
Unless you're okay with Ogletree despite the character issues, then taking another ILB high means you're not taking someone at a different position high. I think the team stands to improve more on defense by spending a high pick to add a DE or a Safety, than an ILB who is a modest upgrade on the guy's we've got (which is how I view all the non-Ogletree guys.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kal-El
Joined: 29 Apr 2010
Posts: 2863
Location: Milwaukee, WI. Team: Packers.
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2013 6:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| incognito_man wrote: | | Kal-El wrote: |
Don't get me wrong. I think we could certainly use some depth at the spot.
However, this is 34 ILB depth we're talking about. It's basically the ZBS RB on defense -- a disposable position. If we're not drafting a starter or some truly special talent, going ILB higher than 4th is a waste. |
No, it's not. Just ask San Fran. |
Ask them what? How to lose a Superbowl? 
We went all the way with this pair, and 15-1 the next year.
If there's truly a Pat Willis talent on the board, by all means. Otherwise... meh.
_________________
much thanks to nobody on the sig. FF GBP Forum Wiki Page. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CentralFC
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 2145
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2013 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Kal-El wrote: | | incognito_man wrote: | | Kal-El wrote: |
Don't get me wrong. I think we could certainly use some depth at the spot.
However, this is 34 ILB depth we're talking about. It's basically the ZBS RB on defense -- a disposable position. If we're not drafting a starter or some truly special talent, going ILB higher than 4th is a waste. |
No, it's not. Just ask San Fran. |
Ask them what? How to lose a Superbowl?
We went all the way with this pair, and 15-1 the next year.
If there's truly a Pat Willis talent on the board, by all means. Otherwise... meh. |
That's awful logic. That defense was the worst in league history. The only reason we won 15 games was because our offense played at an equally historical level.
To stand pat and say, 'hey, we're good, we've won games with who we got,' is asinine. We need to get better. We have youth at literally every position on this team as well as potential (DBs, DL, OL, WR, TE, QB) but not linebacker. Bishop is great, yes. But you draft to improve your football team. Being content with Hawk and his play is foolish. I'm not calling for his release, because he's dependable as hell, but would you be fine if we kept Newhouse at LT and didn't address that issue because "we won 15 games" and "went to the playoffs with him"?
You build to improve the team. As it stands, ILB is a weakness. We got gashed in the middle of the field these past two years. Bishop has his weaknesses. Why not upgrade?
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
spilltray
Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 8650
Location: Green Bay, WI
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2013 6:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| CentralFC wrote: | That's awful logic. That defense was the worst in league history. The only reason we won 15 games was because our offense played at an equally historical level.
To stand pat and say, 'hey, we're good, we've won games with who we got,' is asinine. We need to get better. We have youth at literally every position on this team as well as potential (DBs, DL, OL, WR, TE, QB) but not linebacker. Bishop is great, yes. But you draft to improve your football team. Being content with Hawk and his play is foolish. I'm not calling for his release, because he's dependable as hell, but would you be fine if we kept Newhouse at LT and didn't address that issue because "we won 15 games" and "went to the playoffs with him"?
You build to improve the team. As it stands, ILB is a weakness. We got gashed in the middle of the field these past two years. Bishop has his weaknesses. Why not upgrade? |
Worst in league history by YARDAGE. An overall useless stat. They were middling in points. The offense was so good, teams went into big play hurry up for entire games from the opening stat trying to keep up. Was it a great defense? Obviously not. Was it one of the all time worst defenses? Absolutely not there as well. It was the same group of LBs that was a top D the year before, and pretty decent this year. The changes were on the front and back end, not the LB level.
_________________
| Wilfred wrote: | | Memory is like the Packers when they are behind by two touchdowns in the 4th quarter... It comes back. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CentralFC
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 2145
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2013 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| spilltray wrote: | | CentralFC wrote: | That's awful logic. That defense was the worst in league history. The only reason we won 15 games was because our offense played at an equally historical level.
To stand pat and say, 'hey, we're good, we've won games with who we got,' is asinine. We need to get better. We have youth at literally every position on this team as well as potential (DBs, DL, OL, WR, TE, QB) but not linebacker. Bishop is great, yes. But you draft to improve your football team. Being content with Hawk and his play is foolish. I'm not calling for his release, because he's dependable as hell, but would you be fine if we kept Newhouse at LT and didn't address that issue because "we won 15 games" and "went to the playoffs with him"?
You build to improve the team. As it stands, ILB is a weakness. We got gashed in the middle of the field these past two years. Bishop has his weaknesses. Why not upgrade? |
Worst in league history by YARDAGE. An overall useless stat. They were middling in points. The offense was so good, teams went into big play hurry up for entire games from the opening stat trying to keep up. Was it a great defense? Obviously not. Was it one of the all time worst defenses? Absolutely not there as well. It was the same group of LBs that was a top D the year before, and pretty decent this year. The changes were on the front and back end, not the LB level. |
It was one of the worst defenses in league history, yes.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
spilltray
Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 8650
Location: Green Bay, WI
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2013 6:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| CentralFC wrote: | | spilltray wrote: | | CentralFC wrote: | That's awful logic. That defense was the worst in league history. The only reason we won 15 games was because our offense played at an equally historical level.
To stand pat and say, 'hey, we're good, we've won games with who we got,' is asinine. We need to get better. We have youth at literally every position on this team as well as potential (DBs, DL, OL, WR, TE, QB) but not linebacker. Bishop is great, yes. But you draft to improve your football team. Being content with Hawk and his play is foolish. I'm not calling for his release, because he's dependable as hell, but would you be fine if we kept Newhouse at LT and didn't address that issue because "we won 15 games" and "went to the playoffs with him"?
You build to improve the team. As it stands, ILB is a weakness. We got gashed in the middle of the field these past two years. Bishop has his weaknesses. Why not upgrade? |
Worst in league history by YARDAGE. An overall useless stat. They were middling in points. The offense was so good, teams went into big play hurry up for entire games from the opening stat trying to keep up. Was it a great defense? Obviously not. Was it one of the all time worst defenses? Absolutely not there as well. It was the same group of LBs that was a top D the year before, and pretty decent this year. The changes were on the front and back end, not the LB level. |
It was one of the worst defenses in league history, yes. |
In YARDS, sure... who gives a damn? In points, they were 19th. 22.4 points per game. That is not historically bad at all.
_________________
| Wilfred wrote: | | Memory is like the Packers when they are behind by two touchdowns in the 4th quarter... It comes back. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CentralFC
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 2145
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2013 7:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| spilltray wrote: | | CentralFC wrote: | | spilltray wrote: | | CentralFC wrote: | That's awful logic. That defense was the worst in league history. The only reason we won 15 games was because our offense played at an equally historical level.
To stand pat and say, 'hey, we're good, we've won games with who we got,' is asinine. We need to get better. We have youth at literally every position on this team as well as potential (DBs, DL, OL, WR, TE, QB) but not linebacker. Bishop is great, yes. But you draft to improve your football team. Being content with Hawk and his play is foolish. I'm not calling for his release, because he's dependable as hell, but would you be fine if we kept Newhouse at LT and didn't address that issue because "we won 15 games" and "went to the playoffs with him"?
You build to improve the team. As it stands, ILB is a weakness. We got gashed in the middle of the field these past two years. Bishop has his weaknesses. Why not upgrade? |
Worst in league history by YARDAGE. An overall useless stat. They were middling in points. The offense was so good, teams went into big play hurry up for entire games from the opening stat trying to keep up. Was it a great defense? Obviously not. Was it one of the all time worst defenses? Absolutely not there as well. It was the same group of LBs that was a top D the year before, and pretty decent this year. The changes were on the front and back end, not the LB level. |
It was one of the worst defenses in league history, yes. |
In YARDS, sure... who gives a damn? In points, they were 19th. 22.4 points per game. That is not historically bad at all. |
Sure, they forced turnovers. But that team had no shot of winning a title because of the defense. It could not stop anyone when it mattered. It got no pressure. It was historically bad.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wgbeethree
Joined: 15 Dec 2009
Posts: 2431
Location: Denver, CO via Racine, Wisconsin
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2013 7:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| CentralFC wrote: | | Sure, they forced turnovers. But that team had no shot of winning a title because of the defense. It could not stop anyone when it mattered. It got no pressure. It was historically bad. |
The Giants and Patriots played in that SuperBowl.
Defense 2011...
Passing
TDs Allowed:
Giants 28
Packers 29
Patriots 26
YPA Allowed:
Giant's 7.5
Packers 7.8
Patriots 8.0
Comp % Allowed:
Giants 61.3%
Packers 61.2%
Patriots 62.4%
Running...
TDs Allowed:
Giants 15
Packers 10
Patriots 13
YPC Allowed:
Giants 4.5
Packers 4.7
Patriots 4.6
Third Downs Conversions.....
Total Allowed:
Giants 84
Packers 83
Patriots 83
% Allowed
Giants 38%
Packers 43%
Patriots 43%
They weren't that significant of an amount worse than the two team that actually played for the title that year.
_________________
Adopt-A-Packer Randall Cobb | TytybearsFan21 wrote: | | Justo knows nothing about sportz |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kal-El
Joined: 29 Apr 2010
Posts: 2863
Location: Milwaukee, WI. Team: Packers.
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2013 9:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| CentralFC wrote: | | That's awful logic. That defense was the worst in league history. |
And I can assure you, it had little to do with ILB play, and almost everything to do with pass-rush -- or the fact we had none of it, outside of Clay (who was greatly worn down toward the end of the season that year).
We also had Charlie Peprah starting and, well... yeah. Our S play last year poor, and yet, it was actually an upgrade over when Peprah was starting.
| Quote: | | To stand pat and say, 'hey, we're good, we've won games with who we got,' is asinine. We need to get better. We have youth at literally every position on this team as well as potential (DBs, DL, OL, WR, TE, QB) but not linebacker. Bishop is great, yes. But you draft to improve your football team. |
*pops monocle* ... Why I declare, such a novel concept.
| Quote: | | Being content with Hawk and his play is foolish. I'm not calling for his release, because he's dependable as hell, but would you be fine if we kept Newhouse at LT and didn't address that issue because "we won 15 games" and "went to the playoffs with him"? |
Hawk is not Newhouse. He's more like Scott Wells of old.
| Quote: | | As it stands, ILB is a weakness. |
I disagree. Hawk/Bishop are a solid tandem. If we're looking for ILB depth, it's mid-round value at best. Bishop was a 6th. Hawk was drafted 5th overall to play 43-WILL, and our staff thinks highly enough of him to pay him like one even now.
| Quote: | | We got gashed in the middle of the field these past two years. |
If by "years" you mean "months" then sure, but we were not "gashed in the middle of the field" any more than anywhere else, either. Kaepernick hurt us more than Gore did. Those are not up-the-gut running plays we're talking about.
Our weakness inside was because we were playing Brad Jones. But again, this is a 3rd-string player we're talking about. Then you had Walden, who's play dropped off after Perry went to IR (hardly a coincidence) and a complete lack of any run-stopping presence at Safety while Woodson was out.
The first two actually have simple solutions to them that mock-drafters often don't account for: get Bishop healthy (injuries), get Nick Perry to overtake Walden (player-progression).
As for Safety... I'd say that is actually a legitimate draft need.
Bang for the buck. ILB is just not a premium, and there are more efficient ways to improve this D. Safety is much higher on the list, as is DL depth.
_________________
much thanks to nobody on the sig. FF GBP Forum Wiki Page. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CallMeBarrett
Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 484
Location: Gainesville, Florida
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2013 10:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
We're running a scheme based on defensive line rotation and gap control.
We have neither of these, and if we had just one, we wouldn't even be talking about ILBs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
FAQ
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
