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

TE Martellus Bennett signs with Packers 3yr/$21 million!
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 19, 20, 21
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Stevein2012


Joined: 12 Jul 2013
Posts: 1640
PostPosted: Thu Mar 30, 2017 11:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Shanedorf wrote:
CentralFC wrote:
Trotting out Adams, Nelson, Bennett, and Cobb, with Monty in the backfield or a legitimate rookie back. Wow.


This is the part that's interesting to me. From a defensive package point of view, does the DC match " personnel" or players ? Is this group listed above 11 personnel or 12 ? Or maybe its 01 or possibly 21

Cobb can be a RB or a WR. Monty can be a RB or a WR. Bennett can be a blocker or a pass catcher. You can go five wide with this group or use a 2 RB attack.

When Rodgers gets the defensive package they like, its full speed ahead with an up tempo attack

We also have a FB who can run a little. Bennett inline with Rip leading Monty out of the backfield or Minty and Bennett split out with Rip the lone back
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CWood21


Moderator
Joined: 27 Jun 2008
Posts: 48600
Location: mike23md on the dope sig
PostPosted: Thu Mar 30, 2017 8:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CentralFC wrote:
Mac has never had the opportunity to run a 2 TE look and do it with confidence. Comparing this year's personnel to past rosters is a useless exercise. Our best duo was Cook and Rodgers, and Cook was out most of the season and Rodgers has severe limitations.

I think the biggest benefit is getting opposing defenses in sub packages, and then running with Bennett/Kendricks on the field. Bill B. and New England made a concerted effort to get bigger and counter the surge of sub package defenses. I think this is a step in a similar direction.
[/quote]

And that might very well be the case. But at the end of the day, if you're bringing on a second TE that means you're going to have to bring someone off the field. That means you're either taking a 3rd WR (Davante Adams?) off the field or you're taking your RB (Ty Montgomery) off the field. Given how much of a staple the 3 WR look is for our roster, I'd venture to say that's probably not going to get a significant chop in snaps. I liked the addition of the two TE because it gives us versatility to show more looks, but I don't think it's automatically means that McCarthy is going to completely change directions offensively.
_________________

PackFan4Life wrote:
I have been pooping like a unicorn for two days and it is freaky.

bkobow05 wrote:
So this is what DCR feels like on Saturdays...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
spilltray


Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 11995
Location: Green Bay, WI
PostPosted: Thu Mar 30, 2017 9:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CWood21 wrote:
CentralFC wrote:
Mac has never had the opportunity to run a 2 TE look and do it with confidence. Comparing this year's personnel to past rosters is a useless exercise. Our best duo was Cook and Rodgers, and Cook was out most of the season and Rodgers has severe limitations.

I think the biggest benefit is getting opposing defenses in sub packages, and then running with Bennett/Kendricks on the field. Bill B. and New England made a concerted effort to get bigger and counter the surge of sub package defenses. I think this is a step in a similar direction.


And that might very well be the case. But at the end of the day, if you're bringing on a second TE that means you're going to have to bring someone off the field. That means you're either taking a 3rd WR (Davante Adams?) off the field or you're taking your RB (Ty Montgomery) off the field. Given how much of a staple the 3 WR look is for our roster, I'd venture to say that's probably not going to get a significant chop in snaps. I liked the addition of the two TE because it gives us versatility to show more looks, but I don't think it's automatically means that McCarthy is going to completely change directions offensively.


If you look at it from the POV that right now, Montgomery is your #1 RB and build your offense with that in mind, using the 2TE set in place of the I in the old arsenal makes sense. It spreads the defense, gives a balanced look that can cause issue in run fits, and then can run zone style plays to either side, then that's where I think it fits in. Added in I wouldn't be surprised to see a TE flexed to FB occasionally either. It's going to probably cut into the I package more than the 3 WRs.
_________________
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
incognito_man


Joined: 11 Jan 2007
Posts: 40889
Location: Madison
PostPosted: Fri Mar 31, 2017 11:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lol i just read in the MIN forum that kyle rudolph is a more feared weapon than bennett.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CentralFC


Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 11262
PostPosted: Fri Mar 31, 2017 11:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

incognito_man wrote:
Lol i just read in the MIN forum that kyle rudolph is a more feared weapon than bennett.


Laughing
_________________
Matts4313 wrote:
Those are the stats.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NormSizedMidget


Joined: 28 Mar 2011
Posts: 17363
PostPosted: Fri Mar 31, 2017 1:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yeah and Jared cook wasn't a threat to Dallas.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
CentralFC


Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 11262
PostPosted: Fri Mar 31, 2017 1:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NormSizedMidget wrote:
Yeah and Jared cook wasn't a threat to Dallas.


I think the general sentiment is that GB, apparently, is where TEs go to die (or continue to stay dead?).
_________________
Matts4313 wrote:
Those are the stats.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NormSizedMidget


Joined: 28 Mar 2011
Posts: 17363
PostPosted: Fri Mar 31, 2017 2:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CentralFC wrote:
NormSizedMidget wrote:
Yeah and Jared cook wasn't a threat to Dallas.


I think the general sentiment is that GB, apparently, is where TEs go to die (or continue to stay dead?).


Using the main to talk packers is like using the Klan to talk racial equality. So that's part of it probably.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
BobSacamano


Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 13838
PostPosted: Tue Apr 04, 2017 2:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Savage on the Jonah Hill comment.

https://twitter.com/MartysaurusRex/status/849114363969421312

Laughing
_________________


KingTarvaris7 wrote:
last year's vikings were far better than the packers team that just won
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 ... 19, 20, 21
Page 21 of 21

 
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