Oren Burks?

[palmy50]

1 hour ago, ThatJerkDave said:

Do you think, in time, he is a guy that can add more mass without losing much speed or COD ability, so that he is not a weakness in run defense? I know he already has added weight from starting as a safety, just wondering if he is maxed out in that regard.

 

I wouldn't. I don't try molding him into something he clearly isn't. Burks is pretty narrow up top also.

Everyone views those things differently though. I mean, I wouldn't have bulked up Spiggs either.

I'm not willing to grade down an elite part to help a weak spot a hair. IMO, that's backwards thinking. 

[ThatJerkDave]

54 minutes ago, MaryTsraining3s said:

So did Jay Cutler 

Jay Cutler is almost exactly a year younger than me.  He is worth ~50 million dollars and is married to Kristin Cavallari.  

My net worth is in the tens of thousands, and I hope to pull a midwest 6 when I go to the bar before inevitably returning home, alone, to my house plants.

 

Thanks Mizzou!

[Shanedorf]

One thing I did come across with regards to the lighter/ faster ILB guys is that in some instances, they can defeat the OG block - not by taking him on, but by beating him to the spot. That requires instincts and some time getting comfortable in the defense...But if you can't consistently win the mass vs mass battle, then beat the mass with acceleration. Doesn't work in every scenario, but its a skill that others have developed with some success ( The article I read was talking about Shazier, Buchanon)

[TheOnlyThing]

6 hours ago, palmy50 said:

 it's not your fathers NFL and you can stress Ryan pretty easily in coverage. Burks is much more inline with today's game ... Burks has elite movement skills at position played on film. I don't think it's gonna take him long to figure it out either. 

So good to hear about a promising rooking ILBer whose forte is defending the pass. I don't recall the last one.

With a new defensive coordinator and Burks' potentially being an asset in the passing game, perhaps the wide-open middle of the field that has been a staple of the Pack's pass D for so long will finally get resolved.

[HyponGrey]

At the very least he's a different kind of guy.

[Beast]

10 hours ago, palmy50 said:

Jake Ryan was one of mine and I'm a huge Ryan guy. But it's not your fathers NFL and you can stess Ryan pretty easily in coverage. Burks is much more inline with today's game though you can stress his skills just as easily by running right at him. Those numbers translate though. Burks has elite movement skills at position played on film. I don't think it's gonna take him long to figure it out either. 

Yeah though I'm still wondering if he can play physical enough as a rookie. Of course Burks is going to have trouble with dealing with OL coming at him because he's basically a large Safety at this time. Burks got lucky with some of those sideline "tackles" against the Titans RB, one were the RB slipped, two others he went to wraps up and basically fell to the ground without the RB... and he lucked out there was someone else and the sidelines there, that those didn't hurt him in the game, but some will win the games start counting.  

But I'm thinking they might need a physical ILB to go with him. I wonder if that might be Martini.

[MrBobGray]

5 hours ago, palmy50 said:

I wouldn't. I don't try molding him into something he clearly isn't. Burks is pretty narrow up top also.

Everyone views those things differently though. I mean, I wouldn't have bulked up Spiggs either.

I'm not willing to grade down an elite part to help a weak spot a hair. IMO, that's backwards thinking. 

I can see your point here, in that Burks's frame doesn't look like it could carry much as far as mass without it being in issue. That's a lanky, narrow individual, and I doubt he could maintain the movement he has if he puts on any kind of significant weight. 

On top of that, I don't know that it'll matter for the next few years. The packers have some studs on the DL, so a low mass LB isn't a huge concern to me. 

[Cheesehawk]

5 hours ago, ThatJerkDave said:

Jay Cutler is almost exactly a year younger than me.  He is worth ~50 million dollars and is married to Kristin Cavallari.  

My net worth is in the tens of thousands, and I hope to pull a midwest 6 when I go to the bar before inevitably returning home, alone, to my house plants.

 

Thanks Mizzou!

Midwest 6 equates to a 4 everywhere else, right?

[packfanfb]

My biggest complaint about Burks so far is his jersey number. 42 on a LB just doesn't look right....

[Lodestar]

11 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

My biggest complaint about Burks so far is his jersey number. 42 on a LB just doesn't look right....

I'm fascinated by the idea of whoever assigns jersey numbers in Green Bay. Like, I would love to be a fly in the room where they decided to give Woodson's #21 to HaHa, or Randall's #23 to Alexander, or Burnett's #42 to Burks. Because it's too symbolic to be a coincidence, right? Is it a personnel thing? Do they have these numbers built into the system somehow? Or is it branding/PR? Like someone in the front office recognizes that these are iconic (or problematic, in Randall's case) numbers and wants them to stand out?

[HyponGrey]

6 hours ago, Cheesehawk said:

Midwest 6 equates to a 4 everywhere else, right?

I go up 2 points just by moving to the bread basket?!

[Shanedorf]

11 minutes ago, Lodestar said:

I'm fascinated by the idea of whoever assigns jersey numbers in Green Bay. Like, I would love to be a fly in the room where they decided to give Woodson's #21 to HaHa, or Randall's #23 to Alexander, or Burnett's #42 to Burks. Because it's too symbolic to be a coincidence, right? Is it a personnel thing? Do they have these numbers built into the system somehow? Or is it branding/PR? Like someone in the front office recognizes that these are iconic (or problematic, in Randall's case) numbers and wants them to stand out?

Its an interesting area to look at. Start with the idea that you've got 99 numbers to work with and that about 50 of them are taken on the current regular season roster. Then there's a few more that are retired, so that limits the pool a little bit too.

Then you have the positional rules from the League which govern the numbers a CB or an LB can wear and that limits you even more. But the Packers still manage to make some interesting calls with the jersey numbers. In addition to the ones you noted above - they gave CB Herb Waters the same number as HOF CB, Herb Adderley, 26. They did the same thing with Reggie Gilbert, giving him Gilbert Brown's # 93. Nick Collins got Leroy Butler's 36

I remember when Gerg Jennings left in a huff, the Packers immediately gave #85 to some scrub who didn't make the team. ( TE Jake Stoneburner)

TE Jimmy Graham got TE Bennett's number from last year, 80. ( which is really Driver's anyways) Seems like the Packers wanted to get the bad taste out of their mouths from Martellus

When Marcedes Lewis arrived, his favorite number (89) wasn't available, but as soon as Michael Clark retired, he grabbed the 89

As far as Burks, he's an ILB who started as a Safety, not unlike the varied roles Burnett played in GB.
(For the oldsters in the crowd, 42 was RB John Brockington)

[Beast]

6 minutes ago, Lodestar said:

I'm fascinated by the idea of whoever assigns jersey numbers in Green Bay. Like, I would love to be a fly in the room where they decided to give Woodson's #21 to HaHa, or Randall's #23 to Alexander, or Burnett's #42 to Burks. Because it's too symbolic to be a coincidence, right? Is it a personnel thing? Do they have these numbers built into the system somehow? Or is it branding/PR? Like someone in the front office recognizes that these are iconic (or problematic, in Randall's case) numbers and wants them to stand out?

AJ Hawk and Martinez is another.... but you got a point there.

I don't have a clue how they do it, but I know if it was up to me, I'd call them up after they were drafted and tell them all the numbers that were available (IE what numbers weren't currently being used and what numbers the NFL allows at their position) and let them the player decide.

Just looking it up and trying to figure it out... looks like Haha, King, Alexander and Burks all got the lowest number that was available to them.

Examples, Jumal Rolle has #20, so Haha got #21. #20 then become available so King got it. With #20, 21 and (Rip) #22 taken, Alexander got #23.  Kerridge and Pipkins had 40 and 41, so Burks got 42 the lowest LB number he could get. Moore and MVS got the lowest of the available 80s numbers.

Jackson and Madison slightly break the rule (from what I can tell), getting the second lowest numbers left available instead of the lowest... and the lowest was one number below theirs.

And JK Scott got #6... cause they don't seem to like giving out #1, 3, 4, 5 (or at least that's the way it seems to me).

I don't feel like looking up the rest, but the general tread has been getting one of the lowest numbers available... now that's just one draft (and Haha)... and I didn't look up martiez 50. so maybe this year was just lowest number available?

 

[Shanedorf]

3 is Canadeo, 4 is Bert, 5 is Hornung, all retired numbers

[Beast]

1 hour ago, Shanedorf said:

3 is Canadeo, 4 is Bert, 5 is Hornung, all retired numbers

I know, except #1(Curly Lambeau) and #5 (Hornung) number are NOT official retired. Though it's kinda weird that they are in limbo... either retire them or stop holding them back 

Also I feel like (and I'm probably on my own here, but) retired jerseys should have a set limit... like after 50, 75, 100 years after it's been reitred that MAYBE it should be an option again, otherwise sooner or later teams will run out of enough numbers... or refuse to retire some guys jerseys that deserves it.