Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
FinneasGage

rank the roster: 2019 edition (#18) (complete)

who's the 18th best player on the packers?   

45 members have voted

  1. 1. who's the 18th best player on the packers?

    • Jamal Williams
    • Geronimo Allison
    • Marquez Valdes-Scantling
    • Equanimeous St. Brown
      0
    • Jace Sternberger
      0
    • Marcedes Lewis
      0
    • Elgton Jenkins
      0
    • Billy Turner
    • Lane Taylor
    • Jason Spriggs
      0
    • Dean Lowry
      0
    • Tyler Lancaster
      0
    • Montravius Adams
      0
    • Kyler Fackrell
    • Reggie Gilbert
    • Oren Burks
      0
    • Josh Jones
      0
    • Tony Brown
      0
    • Josh Jackson
    • Tramon Williams


Recommended Posts

To motivate the Fackrell discussion:

He ranked #44 last year. An above average #2 EDGE.

Lane Taylor ranked #26. i.e. better than all #2 Guards, but a below average #1.

Turner was #33.

Id say both guards should be ranked higher than Fackrell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pacman5252 said:

Fackrell is still getting no love even though he was potentially our 3rd best defender last year (behind Clark and Jaire).

That’s not saying much. He’s not bad, but I’m just not sure he’ll get as many snaps. Regardless of how well they play, rookie edge players drafted in the top-16 typically get around 600 snaps. When you combine that with the addition of the Smiths, idk how Fackrell could avoid a reduction in snaps. Unless there are injuries or they give him some ILB snaps (that’s where a lot of Matthews’ snaps came from when they had Peppers).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, TransientTexan said:

That’s not saying much. He’s not bad, but I’m just not sure he’ll get as many snaps.

He's bad.

I like MVS a lot, but he belongs after Turner, Taylor, and probably Jamal Williams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I 100% am putting some projection and wishful thinking into some of my votes. THERE'S NO RULES! It's like the NFL's top 100. Who knows what the requisites are? Someone start posting highlight vids of the winners.  Shakin things up babies. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gopackgonerd said:

I mean you can make a case for King because he hasn't done much. I don't think many are that out of this world projections. Maybe the rookies are a little high but the rest seem fine to me. I think the sacks are a little misleading as well, he had only 20 pressures total on the season which was even less than Clay. 

I agree that the sacks might be misleading but 10.5 sacks are 10.5 sacks.  Anyway you slice it, 10.5 sacks, 12 TFL and 12 QB hits while playing less 60% of the defensive snaps shouldn't be scoffed at.  I don't know how many pressures PFF had credited to Perry in 2016, but his 11 sacks, 12 TFL and 16 QB hits earned him a huge contract.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, TransientTexan said:

That’s not saying much. He’s not bad, but I’m just not sure he’ll get as many snaps. Regardless of how well they play, rookie edge players drafted in the top-16 typically get around 600 snaps. When you combine that with the addition of the Smiths, idk how Fackrell could avoid a reduction in snaps. Unless there are injuries or they give him some ILB snaps (that’s where a lot of Matthews’ snaps came from when they had Peppers).

 

Hard telling.  While he may get fewer snaps, those may come at the expense of running situations.  Green Bay is going to be likely have to replace around 1550 snaps from last year's OLBs (CM3, Perry and Gilbert).  If Fackrell continues the momentum he started last year he shouldn't have an issue getting a simular number of pass rushing oppurtunities.  The Smith's and Gary (if he's healthy) are going to get their snaps but I think we could see some of those snaps coming at the expense of the DL.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SSG said:

I agree that the sacks might be misleading but 10.5 sacks are 10.5 sacks.  Anyway you slice it, 10.5 sacks, 12 TFL and 12 QB hits while playing less 60% of the defensive snaps shouldn't be scoffed at.  I don't know how many pressures PFF had credited to Perry in 2016, but his 11 sacks, 12 TFL and 16 QB hits earned him a huge contract.

Perry was very good against the run that helped him get paid, not sure Fackrell is any good in the run game. Fackrell is  a good situational pass rusher and deserves to be top 20 at the very least, but he won't be anything more than a situational pass rusher especially going forward. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, deathstar said:

He's bad.

I like MVS a lot, but he belongs after Turner, Taylor, and probably Jamal Williams.

We’re discussing Fackrell. I think you could do a lot worse than him as your #3 edge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TransientTexan said:

We’re discussing Fackrell. I think you couldn't do a lot worse than him as your #3 edge.

Fixed that for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, deathstar said:

Fixed that for you.

Then you must be one of those fans who doesn’t pay attention to any teams except the Packers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TransientTexan said:

Then you must be one of those fans who doesn’t pay attention to any teams except the Packers. 

I'm definitely not. But don't take my word for it - Gutekunst signed two players to four year deals and drafted another to play in front of him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, deathstar said:

I'm definitely not. But don't take my word for it - Gutekunst signed two players to four year deals and drafted another to play in front of him.

Try something beyond kindergarten logic. Players aren’t Madden robots. Sometimes they don’t pan out, whether they are free agents or draft picks. That’s why it would behoove a gm to take enough swings, because he doesn’t assume all of them will connect. 

Also, gm’s think about more than the upcoming season when getting FA’s and drafting players. Fackrell’s contract expires after this season. 

And maybe he had the assets and opportunity to do better than average at those positions. That doesn’t mean there aren’t plenty of teams that make do with worse than Fackrell at that spot. Not mutually exclusive concepts.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, TransientTexan said:

Try something beyond kindergarten logic.

How about respectful conversation? No real reason to continue a discussion if you're going to post stuff like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, deathstar said:

How about respectful conversation? No real reason to continue a discussion if you're going to post stuff like this.

Yea, because editting quotes is so respectful...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Some numbers to show just what an anomaly Fackrells stats were.

.....

22 players had double digit sacks last year....

Fackrell ranked 22nd out of them (not surprising as he was 21st in sacks) in QB hits with 12 (T-70th in the league). The next lowest was 18 (T-33rd).

Fackrell ranked  1st in % of sacks to QB hits at 88%. Only two others were >70%. The average was 54%.

If he was getting sacks to QB hits at the "average" rate of the double digit sackers he should have been expected to have ~6.5 sacks.

As far as I can tell in the last decade only two players hit double digit sacks with 12 or fewer QB hits. Willie Young got 10 on 10 in 2014. James Hall had 10.5 on 12 in 2010. (They had Robert Mathis having 11.5 sacks on 10 QB hits in 2008 which is clearly an error as it's the only example I saw of more sacks than QB hits.)

....

9 other players finished last season with 12 QB hits. Those players averaged 5.2 sacks.

....

Based on his QB hits last season he would be expected to have ~6 sacks.

....

Whether that's extremely impressive or extremely flukey is up for debate.

 

Edited by wgbeethree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  



×