Jump to content

Packers Draft Position Thread AKA Tankathon 2018


MacReady

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, TheOnlyThing said:

Here are the stats for 2 of the Packers top OLBs during past 3 seasons:

Kyler Fackrell; 1,117 snaps, 14.5 sacks, and $2,200,000 cap hit.

Clay Matthews; 1,799 snaps, 16 sacks, and >$40,000,000 cap hit.

It is amazing how much hand-wringing goes on over the impending loss of a player who has not been outstanding in any way except salary for several years now.

You keep saying this. 

Show me one examply of hand-wringing in the past 8 weeks?

You absolutely can't because there has been none and you're just looking to rip on Matthews because you have an unhealthy obsession.

And again, I'll ask. How come Matthews wasn't cut this offseason when it could have been done for free?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

You keep saying this. 

Show me one examply of hand-wringing in the past 8 weeks?

You absolutely can't because there has been none and you're just looking to rip on Matthews because you have an unhealthy obsession.

And again, I'll ask. How come Matthews wasn't cut this offseason when it could have been done for free?

Matthews should have been cut this past offseason no doubt about it and he likely was not cut because Gute had to dedicate so much capital to remaking the disastrous CB position he was inherited. Only so much Gute could do in one offseason to overcome the talent deficiencies on the roster that he took over.

In any event, while the hand-wringers continue to whine that the Packers are going to miss Clay playing all those snaps at OLB, I am confident Gute will find a way to overcome Clay's absence and put his big salary to better use in 2019.

Now, please tell us yet again how under Pettine's scheme how poor Clay just isn't permitted to rush the passer anymore and this is why he only has 3.5 sacks in 2018 (while ignoring Fackrell's 9.5 sacks this year and Clay's failure to get even 8 sacks at OLB at any time since 2012).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TheOnlyThing said:

Matthews should have been cut this past offseason no doubt about it and he likely was not cut because Gute had to dedicate so much capital to remaking the disastrous CB position he was inherited. Only so much Gute could do in one offseason to overcome the talent deficiencies on the roster that he took over.

In any event, while the hand-wringers continue to whine that the Packers are going to miss Clay playing all those snaps at OLB, I am confident Gute will find a way to overcome Clay's absence and put his big salary to better use in 2019.

Now, please tell us yet again how under Pettine's scheme how poor Clay just isn't permitted to rush the passer anymore and this is why he only has 3.5 sacks in 2018 (while ignoring Fackrell's 9.5 sacks this year and Clay's failure to get even 8 sacks at OLB at any time since 2012).

1. Cutting Matthews saved 11 million dollars this off-season. You're telling me Gute couldn't have replaced Clay's production with 11 million dollars? That's not a good look.

2. The hand wringers are in your head, but that's okay. You do you.

3. We're 0/1 on Gute managing to do that, but still probably a fair guess.

4. Go read the thread if you're curious and go look at Fackrell's sacks of you think he's a stud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Go read the thread if you're curious and go look at Fackrell's sacks of you think he's a stud.

Fackrell has 9.5 sacks in 2018, Clay has 3.5. 

In his previous 4 seasons at OLB, Clay had 7.5, 6.5., 5, and 7.5 sacks.

No one is saying Fackrell is a stud (least of all me), that is a figment of your imagination. 

The same imagination that pretends the only reason Clay is not generating sacks in 2018 is because Pettine's scheme holds him back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TheOnlyThing said:

Fackrell has 9.5 sacks in 2018, Clay has 3.5. 

In his previous 4 seasons at OLB, Clay had 7.5, 6.5., 5, and 7.5 sacks.

No one is saying Fackrell is a stud (least of all me), that is a figment of your imagination. 

The same imagination that pretends the only reason Clay is not generating sacks in 2018 is because Pettine's scheme holds him back.

Find one example of me saying that Clay is good in the past two years? You're making **** up, like you always are. 

I've been saying for the past two seasons that Clay is a #3 rusher. I don't even know why I respond to your dumb ***. 

You won't respond to any of my points, you just parrot the same stupid ****.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Find one example of me saying that Clay is good in the past two years? You're making **** up, like you always are. 

I've been saying for the past two seasons that Clay is a #3 rusher. I don't even know why I respond to your dumb ***. 

You won't respond to any of my points, you just parrot the same stupid ****.

Cool it man.

You know you aren't getting anywhere with this one, just let it be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

1. Cutting Matthews saved 11 million dollars this off-season. You're telling me Gute couldn't have replaced Clay's production with 11 million dollars? That's not a good look.

2. The hand wringers are in your head, but that's okay. You do you.

3. We're 0/1 on Gute managing to do that, but still probably a fair guess.

4. Go read the thread if you're curious and go look at Fackrell's sacks of you think he's a stud.

If Ted did all these same things this dude would be in tears wanting him fired. We don't need to dispute his points anymore lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Mazrimiv said:

Justin Harrell also would have been exponentially more valuable had he hit hit ceiling. 

No doubt.  But I'm not in the business of predicting injuries.  If you can somehow figure out whose going to get injured and who won't, you're going to make a crap ton of money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...