Jump to content
pacman5252

Trade Targets?

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, packfanfb said:

Just sign Tramon in November for the stretch run. Should be a no-brainer.

I always felt we should bring him in as an "assistant". Give him access to the facilities and let him sit at the lunch table with coach Gray.  Break glass when it comes time to chase that ring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Beast said:

And yet I believe PFF and other shave cited statistical studies that suggest coverage helps more than the front...

If Clark's stays healthy, we got some pieces around him that can step up if one of the Non-Clark players goes down..

If Alexander stays healthy, do we have the pieces around him that can step up if one of the non-Alexander players go down?

I do think it makes sense coverage is quantitatively more valuable. Elite pass rushers  win their rep 20% of the time. Even with a pressure, you still might not effect the play
 

Corners and coverage players if they lose bad are giving up yards, thus making their situation more leveraged.

 

With that said you need both since you can’t cover 4+ seconds every play, and dirty pockets screw things up.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Send Love to Washington and a pick for one of their DTs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, pacman5252 said:

I do think it makes sense coverage is quantitatively more valuable. Elite pass rushers  win their rep 20% of the time. Even with a pressure, you still might not effect the play
 

Corners and coverage players if they lose bad are giving up yards, thus making their situation more leveraged.

 

With that said you need both since you can’t cover 4+ seconds every play, and dirty pockets screw things up.

Corners and coverage players get burned all the time without giving up yards?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Corners and coverage players get burned all the time without giving up yards?

I think you are missing the point. I never said coverage players don’t get burned. Corners do get beat, but considering they are in plays in open space with a direct impact on yards the situation is more leveraged. Even on a completion the difference between a good and bad corner can be a broken tackle TD.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good defensive coaches can adjust their scheme a bit to accommodate and hide some weak line players, to some degree.  When you've got a coverage liability, opponent coordinators and QB's scheme right at them to expose and exploit.  It's hard for a defense to scheme around weak coverage guys.  

Per snap, Pettine averages what, 1.7 linemen per snap?  Not sure exactly, but it's well below 2.  Nickel and dime, you need a lot of coverage guys.  

I also wonder whether secondary isn't more injury-prone and injury-sensitive?  Linemen play hurt plenty, and I'm sure it compromises play but it's not always glaringly obvious or glaringly compromising.  But coverage guys, it may not take much to compromise their ability to run, stop, and cut, and sometimes it's glaringly obvious.  With such a large number of secondary guys playing so much, plus needing to be running explosively, plus being smaller guys, I wonder if they aren't more prone to compromising injury?  

I'm confident Sullivan will be fine after break, but King and Redmond, who knows?  Savage got pulled for a bit, too, right?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, craig said:

Good defensive coaches can adjust their scheme a bit to accommodate and hide some weak line players, to some degree.  When you've got a coverage liability, opponent coordinators and QB's scheme right at them to expose and exploit.  It's hard for a defense to scheme around weak coverage guys.  

Per snap, Pettine averages what, 1.7 linemen per snap?  Not sure exactly, but it's well below 2.  Nickel and dime, you need a lot of coverage guys.  

I also wonder whether secondary isn't more injury-prone and injury-sensitive?  Linemen play hurt plenty, and I'm sure it compromises play but it's not always glaringly obvious or glaringly compromising.  But coverage guys, it may not take much to compromise their ability to run, stop, and cut, and sometimes it's glaringly obvious.  With such a large number of secondary guys playing so much, plus needing to be running explosively, plus being smaller guys, I wonder if they aren't more prone to compromising injury?  

I'm confident Sullivan will be fine after break, but King and Redmond, who knows?  Savage got pulled for a bit, too, right?   

We do have to be careful here though.  While the Smith Brothers and Gary are listed as LBs, they are also listed as weighing 265, 272, and 277 pounds, respectively.  It isn't like KGB, Brad Jones, and Clay Matthews are taking DT snaps.   If you put Lancaster in the middle of Smith-Smith-Gary, you have a little light, but functional 43 front with regards to weight.  Now, I am not making any claims to the effectiveness of these formations.  Just that with the personnel the Packers currently have, nickel and dime packages don't necessarily mean small, whereas in a classic sense, those formations were generally smaller.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ThatJerkDave said:

We do have to be careful here though.  While the Smith Brothers and Gary are listed as LBs, they are also listed as weighing 265, 272, and 277 pounds, respectively.  It isn't like KGB, Brad Jones, and Clay Matthews are taking DT snaps.   If you put Lancaster in the middle of Smith-Smith-Gary, you have a little light, but functional 43 front with regards to weight.  Now, I am not making any claims to the effectiveness of these formations.  Just that with the personnel the Packers currently have, nickel and dime packages don't necessarily mean small, whereas in a classic sense, those formations were generally smaller.  

We're playing a 270lb NT on like half our snaps. and the other 260lb guy is dropping into coverage on half our passing snaps. 

We're light as hell.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Mazrimiv said:

Whitney Mercilus, Zach Cunningham, Bradley Roby and even a receiver could be on the move

Latest rumors have the Texans possibly going into fire sale mode.

Roby seems to be under a reasonable contract through 2022

11 million each of the next two seasons.  Which would put him around 15th this season.  Is Roby at that rate better than what King will command? So, Roby - draft pick = -King +2022 comp pick?  I honestly have no idea.  

Roby does have a 1 million dollar dead cap in 2022.  So he is cuttable at that time.

Jaire is a free agent in 2022. Do you pay King, cut Roby in 2022, and pay Jaire in 2022? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just based on the conversations in here, I get the impression that something around 14M/YR is on the low end of what should be expected for the next King contract.  I can't even guess what reasonable trade compensation would be for Roby, or why HOU would even want to move him.  Seems like a pretty good contract for a legit man cover CB.

Edited by Mazrimiv

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm back to wanting a WR at the deadline. Feel like a DT is largely a waste because we still have Pettine as the coordinator anyways. Packers need to go full Chiefs and add another playmaker on offense. Defense isn't going to win many, if any, games for us this year. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What irritates me is you see a team like Tampa Bay dominate against an alleged top team, then immediately trade for a DT.  Like that deal was probably done by the 4th quarter.  "We're destroying the Packers, but we've only held Aaron Jones to 15 yards on 10 carries.  We might need another DT by postseason." 

Gute watches his team allow 38 unanswered points and he's gonna sign a practice squad player after the next injury.

It's bull****. 

I'm all about being conservative in today's NFL, but not as conservative as we are. 

We aren't trading for ****. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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...