Jump to content

2020 Off-season Discussion Thread


squire12

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

So what are you doing then? Nothing and watching SF 2019 all over again? It's either upgrade or die. 

The players were only a small portion of this collapse. Replacing Lancaster with Pierce isn't' going to do anything to fix the problem of just not having enough guys in the box to actually play run defense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, AlexGreen#20 said:

The players were only a small portion of this collapse. Replacing Lancaster with Pierce isn't' going to do anything to fix the problem of just not having enough guys in the box to actually play run defense. 

Pettine has his share of blame, but you also cant have guys up front getting worked one on one. When you trot out Lowry, Lancaster, Adams and Goodson to stop the run, bad things are going to happen against teams like SF. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

The players were only a small portion of this collapse. Replacing Lancaster with Pierce isn't' going to do anything to fix the problem of just not having enough guys in the box to actually play run defense. 

Being able to be singled off and reached as a DL means you need 9 in the box to play the run. Lowry and Lancaster aren't good. Upgrading them along with tweaks to the system is what we need.

Your solution to everything Packer wise is "well X isn't going to change or adapt so we might as well give up and keep the status quo." 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jordan Reid -  Some underrated candidates to run super fast 40-times in Indy:

• JaMychal Hasty
• Darnay Holmes
• LeVante Bellamy
• John Hightower
• Salvon Ahmed
• Troy Pride, Jr.
• Noah Igbinoghene

  • Ben Fennell -   I'll throw Raymond Calais in this group too!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

Being able to be singled off and reached as a DL means you need 9 in the box to play the run. Lowry and Lancaster aren't good. Upgrading them along with tweaks to the system is what we need.

Your solution to everything Packer wise is "well X isn't going to change or adapt so we might as well give up and keep the status quo." 

My solution of, "Replace a ****ty run plug with an actually good Defensive lineman" is just keeping the status quo, but your solution of "Replace a ****ty run plug with a better run plug" is an entire world of difference?

Seems legit 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

My solution of, "Replace a ****ty run plug with an actually good Defensive lineman" is just keeping the status quo, but your solution of "Replace a ****ty run plug with a better run plug" is an entire world of difference?

Seems legit 

Your comment of adding a run plug to stop the run being worthless because of Pettine's scheme than also applies that a 3 down more expensive DL will be worthless to stopping the run because of Pettine's scheme.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Packerraymond said:

Your comment of adding a run plug to stop the run being worthless because of Pettine's scheme than also applies that a 3 down more expensive DL will be worthless to stopping the run because of Pettine's scheme.

If Pettine doesn't fix his light box problem, no DL is going to fix the issue. So why worry about it?

Isn't it more productive to move forward under the assumption that he is going to fix the issue and attempt to build a more traditionally successful DL group?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

If Pettine doesn't fix his light box problem, no DL is going to fix the issue. So why worry about it?

Isn't it more productive to move forward under the assumption that he is going to fix the issue and attempt to build a more traditionally successful DL group?

 

The second paragraph is exactly what I want you to think like, but completely contradicts what you said about Pierce. If Pettine does change his box issue than a Pierce or a Snacks Harrison could go a very long way to helping our defense, even if they don't rush the passer.

Are you aware of the 30% rule? If that CBA doesn't get done and you want a good 3 down DL, you're trading Bulaga for sure, and maybe Linsley for him. You want that trade? A 3/24 deal to a run plug might be all we can afford.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Packerraymond said:

The second paragraph is exactly what I want you to think like, but completely contradicts what you said about Pierce. If Pettine does change his box issue than a Pierce or a Snacks Harrison could go a very long way to helping our defense, even if they don't rush the passer.

Are you aware of the 30% rule? If that CBA doesn't get done and you want a good 3 down DL, you're trading Bulaga for sure, and maybe Linsley for him. You want that trade? A 3/24 deal to a run plug might be all we can afford.

Here's the issue that I've got with the first sentence. 

Lancaster played 381 snaps over 18 games. He averaged roughly 21 snaps per game. Of those 21 snaps (even considering his usage being down/distance dependent), probably 11 of them were passes (and we're assuming he and Pierce bring the same pass game value). Of the 10 runs that he saw, probably 5 of them went far enough away from him, that his play was irrelevant.

So we're to 5 plays a game. Of those 5 plays, Lancaster probably holds up fine in 4 of them, and that one that he blows, probably goes for a gain of about 14 yards. Let's say hypothetically that we give Pierce a yard on each of those plays that Lancaster doesn't blow, and the full 14 yards, on the play that he does blow, we're talking about 18 yards per game. That just doesn't make sense to me to make that the guy you're prioritizing. 

I am aware of the rule. It is going to suck, but realistically it isn't going to be the end of all things. If you sign Chris Jones to a 4/80 contract, that's going to have 36 million guaranteed anyway. Instead of being able to structure it 10/15/20/25, you now basically have to structure it 16/18/21/25. And if we have to lose a Center to get a stud DT, that's got to happen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

The players were only a small portion of this collapse. Replacing Lancaster with Pierce isn't' going to do anything to fix the problem of just not having enough guys in the box to actually play run defense. 

Packers could have used a healthy Mike Daniels type this past season so i expect Gute to go try to find someone similar - or two.. 

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...