Jump to content

NFC North Rivals 2019 Talk


dll2000

Recommended Posts

58 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

Obviously I didn't mean no one ever plays base defense but for almost all teams they are outdated schemes that are only used in obvious running situations. Its a fairly useless way for most teams to look at how they are using the majority of their defensive packages. 

How can it be obvious when that's exactly what you posted?  With all due respect my ability to read minds was never any good.  Just ask my ex.  LOL.

9 hours ago, soulman said:
6 hours ago, Spartacus said:

No one plays base D anymore. 3-4 4-3 don't even mean anything. 

Since teams are often in more obvious running downs it stands to reason at least some of the time teams are in some form of a base defense.  So it's not at all useless to see them primarily as 3-4 or 4-3 base teams.  In fact they even see themselves that way and draft accordingly.  Our own draft picks, FA signings, and the blockbuster trade for Mack have all been emblematic of a 3-4 team in our base defense.

Even our base package tends to set up how we shift into other packages where we may add a DB in a "Dime Package" or replace DL who are more effective run stoppers on obvious passing downs.  But I can't even recall the last time I saw us line up in a traditional closely grouped 4 man front with all of them having their knuckles in the dirt.  It's all been variations on a 3-4 ever since Fangio arrived.

Look, I'm not looking to get in a battle over terminology just indicate there are no absolutes.  Schemes are fluid and change with down and distance as well as who we're playing against and their tendencies and I know you agree on that as well.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, CWood21 said:

No.  His numbers didn't translate into sacks and TFL because of all the attention he was getting.  If you watched him play and came away under the impression he didn't play well, you really have no idea what you're looking at.  Is he a no brainer?  Absolutely not.  But then again, there weren't any no brainers at 12.

Then again, yes, there were some no-brainers at 12, including a whole slew of offensive linemen. And I'll repeat--Gute had already beefed up the OLB corps in FA. 

I'm sure you'll simply reiterate that I had no idea what I was looking at, as to classify it otherwise would suggest the Packers made a mistake (which is obviously impossible, right?), but I'd characterize  Gary's play as "uneven". And there's also the position change to consider. It was a horrible pick. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Heinz D. said:

Then again, yes, there were some no-brainers at 12, including a whole slew of offensive linemen. And I'll repeat--Gute had already beefed up the OLB corps in FA. 

I'm sure you'll simply reiterate that I had no idea what I was looking at, as to classify it otherwise would suggest the Packers made a mistake (which is obviously impossible, right?), but I'd characterize  Gary's play as "uneven". And there's also the position change to consider. It was a horrible pick. 

None of them were no-brainers.  Brian Burns can't hold on weight and can't set the edge, Montez Sweat has the medical concerns and didn't show the athleticism on the tape, etc.  You can keep going down the list, but they all had their issues.  There was no obvious choice.  And it's a horrible pick because it's a Packers' pick.  If you can't find a reason to believe in Gary, you're not trying to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, CWood21 said:

None of them were no-brainers.  Brian Burns can't hold on weight and can't set the edge, Montez Sweat has the medical concerns and didn't show the athleticism on the tape, etc.  You can keep going down the list, but they all had their issues.  There was no obvious choice.  And it's a horrible pick because it's a Packers' pick.  If you can't find a reason to believe in Gary, you're not trying to.

Garrett Bradbury? Noah Fant? Chris Lindstrom? Andre Dillard? Josh Jacobs?  It didn't have to be a pass rusher. In fact, with what Gute did in FA, there should have been no problem going offense, drafting D later. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Heinz D. said:

Garrett Bradbury? Noah Fant? Chris Lindstrom? Andre Dillard? Josh Jacobs?  It didn't have to be a pass rusher. In fact, with what Gute did in FA, there should have been no problem going offense, drafting D later. 

Hell no.  Is Garrett Bradbury a top 10 prospect?  No.  Noah Fant?  Absolutely not.  You go down the list.  There was no obvious selection.  You don't like Gute, but don't try and pretend that there were clear blue chip prospects available.  There was no Quinnen Williams or Nick Bosa.  Wanna know why Andre Dillard isn't a clear grade lean over Rashan Gary?  He can't run block if his life depended on it, his technique coming out of Washington State is a work in progress at best, and he lacks functional strength.  Josh Jacobs?  You mean the RB that the Raiders were RIDICULED for taking?  We can literally go down the list, and NONE of them are clearly better than Gary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Hell no.  Is Garrett Bradbury a top 10 prospect?  No.  Noah Fant?  Absolutely not.  You go down the list.  There was no obvious selection.  You don't like Gute, but don't try and pretend that there were clear blue chip prospects available.  There was no Quinnen Williams or Nick Bosa.  Wanna know why Andre Dillard isn't a clear grade lean over Rashan Gary?  He can't run block if his life depended on it, his technique coming out of Washington State is a work in progress at best, and he lacks functional strength.  Josh Jacobs?  You mean the RB that the Raiders were RIDICULED for taking?  We can literally go down the list, and NONE of them are clearly better than Gary.

I do like Gute. A lot. He has me fearing the Packers for the first time in a great while. Thompson was (is?) a lunatic. 

Who ridiculed the Raiders for taking Jacobs? And...Andre Dillard is a work in progress, but Gary isn't? Yeah, whatever. 

Glad you're happy with Gary. If you honestly think Fant isn't clearly better than him, then we'll just diverge. 

Edited by Heinz D.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, CWood21 said:

None of them were no-brainers.  Brian Burns can't hold on weight and can't set the edge, Montez Sweat has the medical concerns and didn't show the athleticism on the tape, etc.  You can keep going down the list, but they all had their issues.  There was no obvious choice.  And it's a horrible pick because it's a Packers' pick.  If you can't find a reason to believe in Gary, you're not trying to.

You're right that everyone hates the Packers, but in this guys defense, we did talk about Rashan Gary before the draft and he had a ton of red flags then too

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Heinz D. said:

Who ridiculed the Raiders for taking Jacobs? And...Andre Dillard is a work in progress, but Gary isn't? Yeah, whatever.

Misrepresenting my argument doesn't make your argument better.  I never argued that Gary wasn't a work in progress.  I argued that Dillard wasn't clearly better than Gary, and I'd still agree with that sentiment.  And you must have missed all the negative comments about taking a RB in the first round.  Is Jacobs a Ezekiel Elliott or Saquon Barkley level of RB prospect?  No.

3 hours ago, Heinz D. said:

Glad you're happy with Gary. If you honestly think Fant isn't clearly better than him, then we'll just diverge. 

Fant is a better TE than Gary is an EDGE right now.  But EDGE is an exponentially more impactful position.  And I'd rather have Jace Sternberger in ther 3rd than Noah Fant at 12.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Heinz D. said:

How'd I do that? 

You argued something he wasn't arguing. He was arguing the fact that when the Packers drafted their wasn't any clear blue chip players to take so they took the player with the highest upside at a more impactful position. Fant isn't even a top 20 pick at  TE at this point. Sweat has some of the same issues as Gary except with medical concerns. Your not taking a guard top 15 especially after signing Billy Turner and the return of their 4th round pick last year. There were no top 10 OTs, corners, RBs, or WRs this year. Burns is the only guy I could see them going for that has both production and skill to play at the next level but he doesn't fit the Mike Pettine scheme nor does he look like a 3 down player at this point. The board just didn't have enough depth for that premier blue chip player to fall. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Spartacus said:

You argued something he wasn't arguing. He was arguing the fact that when the Packers drafted their wasn't any clear blue chip players to take so they took the player with the highest upside at a more impactful position. Fant isn't even a top 20 pick at  TE at this point. Sweat has some of the same issues as Gary except with medical concerns. Your not taking a guard top 15 especially after signing Billy Turner and the return of their 4th round pick last year. There were no top 10 OTs, corners, RBs, or WRs this year. Burns is the only guy I could see them going for that has both production and skill to play at the next level but he doesn't fit the Mike Pettine scheme nor does he look like a 3 down player at this point. The board just didn't have enough depth for that premier blue chip player to fall. 

Fant is clearly a better prospect than Gary. As is Bradbury. Argue against that if you must, but Gary had very little production over his entire college career. Search for ways to excuse that, or whatever, but hes a gamble. Maybe it will pay off. Pettine is a very good coach, after all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/1/2019 at 9:16 PM, Heinz D. said:

How'd I do that? 

I argued that there were no blue chip prospects available, and NONE were clearly better than Gary.  You tried to argue that my argument wasn't that Gary was a bit of a project.  That's misrepresenting my argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Heinz D. said:

Fant is clearly a better prospect than Gary. As is Bradbury. Argue against that if you must, but Gary had very little production over his entire college career. Search for ways to excuse that, or whatever, but hes a gamble. Maybe it will pay off. Pettine is a very good coach, after all. 

Fant & Bradbury are both non-impact positions and frankly neither were top 10 talents in this draft anyways. We were able to solidify both of those positions with 2nd & 3rd round prospects that  are not rated that much lower than the two you have referenced. I do agree Rashan Gary is a huge risk as a pass rusher at this point but both Fant and Bradbury were never options at 12. This draft albeit deep did not have the QBs to push the blue chip talent down the boards like years past so the Packers gambled on a high upside player at a premium position vs a safe pick (I still don't think Fant is a safe pick, Bradbury is very safe IMO)  at a non - impact position. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...