Packers Off-season Mini-Camp/Training Camp Discussion Thread

[MacReady]

@TheOnlyThing either believes that Thompson was making coaching decisions or he's a troll.

Sure.  We relied on Rollins the same way you rely on leaves if you're out of toilet paper in the woods.  

It's also impossible that Fackrell knew what was expected of him more than Gilbert did.  No coach ever would put football IQ over physical ability.  That's why Jeff Janis was our primary target all those years.

[Norm]

2 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

@TheOnlyThing either believes that Thompson was making coaching decisions or he's a troll.

Sure.  We relied on Rollins the same way you rely on leaves if you're out of toilet paper in the woods.  

It's also impossible that Fackrell knew what was expected of him more than Gilbert did.  No coach ever would put football IQ over physical ability.  That's why Jeff Janis was our primary target all those years.

He's loving this attention so much

[Patriotplayer90]

43 minutes ago, TransientTexan said:

It makes perfect sense. "More cap space" PRIOR to spending it on FA's to strengthen the rest of the roster. It's not that hard to understand. If 1 team is essentially playing with $20m of assets on IR while another team has that $20m spent on players that are on the field, that $20m difference in talent could easily counteract if they somehow had a worse QB than Tolzien/Hundley. Why do you credit the other team that had a $20m advantage when they did "as poorly as"? Conversely, for the teams that had better assets at QB than Tolzien & Hundley yet did just as poorly as GB with UDFA Tolzien & 5th-R Hundley, why isn't that a point in GB's favor in terms of the strength of the rest of the roster? 

I see little difference between having Hundley and some of the better guys that you listed.  Unless you have an excellent roster which requires the absolute bare minimum from a QB, you will not win consistently with a backup caliber QB like Fitzpatrick , McCown, etc.  Backups are either extremely limited, extremely inconsistent, or both.  

 

You keep referring to cap space as if TT actually spent it.  He did not.  $20M will not turn a crap team with no QB into a winning one. It can add an impact player, sure, or a couple of good ones, but you are playing with fire with Fitz Magic as your QB and it won't matter.

 

Bottom line, teams without good QBs are not good, or inconsistent, at best.  Rodgers would solidify the position with the best player in the league and give any team a chance, every single week

[TheOnlyThing]

18 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

 We relied on Rollins the same way you rely on leaves if you're out of toilet paper in the woods.  

It's also impossible that Fackrell knew what was expected of him more than Gilbert did.  

Quoting Palmy on the subject of how Rollins' physical shortcomings made him a poor CB fit from the get go is simply (additional) "evidence" demonstrating that Rollins was a poor 2nd round pick, nothing more, nothing less. 

As for the Fackrell quote above, I don't think it is impossible as you say, but agree it is unlikely that the reason former 3rd rounder Kyler made the final 53 and was gifted playing time over Reggie Gllbert is simply because he knew what was expected of him more than Gilbert did.

And, I've got to ask, is this the whole he's got to play because he's "assignment sure" argument we heard about AJ Hawk for so many years? 

Because if it is, I wonder why Gilbert is so much more "assignment sure" under Pettine than he was under the previous DC that he has now vaulted over Fackrell on the depth chart?

[packfanfb]

13 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

@TheOnlyThing either believes that Thompson was making coaching decisions or he's a troll.

Sure.  We relied on Rollins the same way you rely on leaves if you're out of toilet paper in the woods.  

It's also impossible that Fackrell knew what was expected of him more than Gilbert did.  No coach ever would put football IQ over physical ability.  That's why Jeff Janis was our primary target all those years.

I mean, we relied on him more than that. We let two vet CBs walk after 2014 and drafted Randall and Rollins to replace them, i.e. to start and contribute immediately, not ride the bench. Then we let another vet CB walk in 2015, again, because Randall and Rollins were the next big thing to pair with Shields. We relied on Rollins a lot. He wasn't a band aid type player like Gunter. We invested a top pick in him and in relative terms, he's been a bust...

[Beast]

19 minutes ago, Greg C. said:

Spriggs did seem to be playing decently late last season before getting injured. But I don't think he's having a good camp. He got demoted from backup RT in favor of Byron Bell, who looked like he had no business playing that position. I think playing with 20 pounds of extra weight has been a challenge for Spriggs. Bulking up can be a risky move. I'm hoping he can eventually make the adjustment and be a viable backup tackle. 

I could be wrong... but I don't think Spriggs actual played any better, just that it looked better... I think Spriggs looked better because

• 2 of his 3 games back were against some of the worst NFL defenses
• MM adjusted the entire offense to run the ball more, because he knew they couldn't hold up as long in pass protection
• Against the Steelers especially (the one good defense they faced with Spriggs back), they ran the ball directly behind Spriggs, letting Spriggs attack T.J. Watt, and it kept Watt's his ears up, because he was the point of attack so often, and therefore it was harder for him to know when to pin his ears back and get a strong up field rush going.

Just my opinion, I'm not sure that I'm correct about it.

[palmy50]

20 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

Okay, but are you saying he doesn't have the legs to play corner in any scheme, or specifically our scheme?  Because if you want to say he wasn't fast enough for Capers I won't disagree with you, but I don't think he would have been drafted if he didn't have the requisite speed to play in the NFL.  

Casey and Micah weren't exactly speedsters either.  And we obviously thought he'd potentially become good enough to not have to have that speed.  

My main issue with who I was responding to was him acting like it was always a terrible draft pick as if the draft is easy.

I personally believe his legs will always be an issue at CB because of the rest of his parts. Much like Jackson from this years class, the two you brought up there had some parts that made the legs play "up". I just haven't seen anything the leads me to believe that will ever be Rollins.

[AlexGreen#20]

4 minutes ago, Beast said:

I could be wrong... but I don't think Spriggs actual played any better, just that it looked better... I think Spriggs looked better because

• 2 of his 3 games back were against some of the worst NFL defenses
• MM adjusted the entire offense to run the ball more, because he knew they couldn't hold up as long in pass protection
• Against the Steelers especially (the one good defense they faced with Spriggs back), they ran the ball directly behind Spriggs, letting Spriggs attack T.J. Watt, and it kept Watt's his ears up, because he was the point of attack so often, and therefore it was harder for him to know when to pin his ears back and get a strong up field rush going.

Just my opinion, I'm not sure that I'm correct about it.

Pro Football Reference has the Packers running behind either Right Tackle or Right End an entire 2 snaps in that game.

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/201711260pit.htm

We were running the ball more because Hundley was struggling, has a lot less to do with the protection than the fact Hundley wouldn't throw the damn ball. 

[MacReady]

5 minutes ago, palmy50 said:

I personally believe his legs will always be an issue at CB because of the rest of his parts. Much like Jackson from this years class, the two you brought up there had some parts that made the legs play "up". I just haven't seen anything the leads me to believe that will ever be Rollins.

That's fair, but do you think that assessment was available at the time Rollins was DRAFTED, or do you think that's something that we had to see in the NFL to assess?  Essentially, do you agree that Rollins was a terrible draft pick?  That's all I'm arguing here.

[Beast]

5 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Pro Football Reference has the Packers running behind either Right Tackle or Right End an entire 2 snaps in that game.

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/201711260pit.htm

We were running the ball more because Hundley was struggling, has a lot less to do with the protection than the fact Hundley wouldn't throw the damn ball. 

And  behind the RG 5 times... which you purpose leave out because it doesn't suppose your statement... of course RG and RT never work together, oh wait they do all the time.

We were running the ball more because all of the above...

[palmy50]

Just now, Outpost31 said:

That's fair, but do you think that assessment was available at the time Rollins was DRAFTED, or do you think that's something that we had to see in the NFL to assess?  Essentially, do you agree that Rollins was a terrible draft pick?  That's all I'm arguing here.

I wouldn't say he was a bad pick. More of a product of circumstance. There was more than enough reason to believe he would develop at CB after one year of playing football in college. That said, when it didn't go as planned I feel they kept him at CB out of need much like they did with Randall. At times you get put in spots where you need to make the best of it. It happens. I don't blame anyone really and would be the first to tell you luck often plays it's part on draft day.

[AlexGreen#20]

2 minutes ago, Beast said:

And  behind the RG 5 times... which you purpose leave out because it doesn't suppose your statement... of course RG and RT never work together, oh wait they do all the time.

We were running the ball more because all of the above...

Because middle is very difficult to discern. 

We ran behind LG 3 times. We weren't helping Spriggs with the running game, come on. 

[TransientTexan]

3 minutes ago, Patriotplayer90 said:

I see little difference between having Hundley and some of the better guys that you listed.  Unless you have an excellent roster which requires the absolute bare minimum from a QB, you will not win consistently with a backup caliber QB like Fitzpatrick , McCown, etc. 

That's because it takes some intellectual work to not oversimplify. And since when did the conversation turn into backup QB's "winning consistently"? you know there is a middle ground between "winning consistently" and being "completely putrid", right?

4 minutes ago, Patriotplayer90 said:

You keep referring to cap space as if TT actually spent it.  He did not. 

He spent plenty of cap space. From 2011-2017, the team had $956.34m of cap charges vs the salary cap total of $963.13. That's 99.3% usage. The only reason you see some space each year is because they've basically been rolling over the same ~$7m every year for emergencies & allowing flexibility when negotiating contracts to re-sign guys. But too many fans mistakenly think that means they could've signed $7m more of contracts for each of those 7 yr. The reality is if they used it in any one of those years, it would not appear in any of the future years and you'd then be seeing $0 free cap space. Or they could have signed a $1m player each of the 7 years. Now what $1m FA was going to be the difference-maker that tipped the scales all of those years?

35 minutes ago, Patriotplayer90 said:

$20M will not turn a crap team with no QB into a winning one. It can add an impact player, sure, or a couple of good ones, but you are playing with fire with Fitz Magic as your QB and it won't matter.

Since when did we start discussing the teams being a "winning one" with that money? Just whether it helps, which could easily be the difference between the 5-win team pace GB has had w/o Arod to the 7-8 win team pace where people wouldn't be whining about supporting cast. Don't try to slither into another discussion. We're just trying to make an apples-to-apples comparison and one team having $20m more is a significant impediment to that. But I'm sure you're more interested in your narrative than making a fair apples-to-apples comparison.

[MrBobGray]

22 hours ago, palmy50 said:

I wouldn't say he was a bad pick. More of a product of circumstance. There was more than enough reason to believe he would develop at CB after one year of playing football in college. That said, when it didn't go as planned I feel they kept him at CB out of need much like they did with Randall. At times you get put in spots where you need to make the best of it. It happens. I don't blame anyone really and would be the first to tell you luck often plays it's part on draft day.

It's hard to overstate just how differently I think people would look at this if Shields hadn't gone down with the concussions. With no true #1 and really no veteran backups, the Packers couldn't move Rollins /Randall around. On top of that, HHCD/Burnett were such a solid safety pair that there wasn't really an opening there either. The packers caught another bad break when Hyde was offered that contract by Buffalo, because there was no way they could match that for a depth CB even though they couldn't really afford to let him walk. They tried to shore it up in '17, but House broke his back and King's shoulder didn't hold up. It is what it is, but it's hard to blame the front office much given how things played out. 

[Lodestar]

3 minutes ago, MrBobGray said:

It's hard to overstate just how differently I think people would look at this if Shields hadn't gone down with the concussions. With no true #1 and really no veteran backups, the Packers couldn't move Rollins /Randall around. On top of that, HHCD/Burnett were such a solid safety pair that there wasn't really an opening there either. The packers caught another bad break when Hyde was offered that contract by Buffalo, because there was no way they could match that for a depth CB even though they couldn't really afford to let him walk. They tried to shore it up in '17, but House broke his back and King's shoulder didn't hold up. It is what it is, but it's hard to blame the front office much given how things played out. 

I constantly forget about Shields, but you're right. Perhaps you could argue that one injury shouldn't have derailed our secondary the way it did, but if Shields hadn't gotten injured everything could have played out so much different.