Wish upon a 'Star'

[cannondale]

8 minutes ago, R T said:

Judging by your rebuttal it would appear you do not know where I am going with this. 

LB / S  that stops the run, covers TE's and WR's ?

[squire12]

3 hours ago, MrBobGray said:

He was a core ST guy on a few units (plays roughly 50% of ST snaps) until he had to step in on defense weeks 5-9, then in week 10 immediately returned to playing 50% of ST snaps.  Unfortunately he had a concussion that week, and missed Chicago/Philly.  Then things get weird.  He came back against Detroit and played 50% of ST snaps again, then was inactive, then 50% of ST snaps against the Titans, then was inactive the next three games, which includes both playoff games.  There was no one to one replacement either, as the Packers bounced a number of guys around over those three games.  More than anything I would say they felt they could do better on ST, and were unlikely to need CB help against either team - Kadar Hollman was inactive for both as well after playing ~50% of ST snaps the last three weeks of the season.  Of course, them elevating KeiVarae Russell from the PS for both playoff games isn't the best look; but he was on the practice squad all year and they only elevated him for those two and Jacksonville.

If he is a core ST, he wouldn't be inactive in the most meaningful games of the season

[Jaire_Island]

Draft Jeremiah Owusu-Koramoah.

He fits this role well as per my analysis. 

[R T]

13 hours ago, cannondale said:

I know where you're going, but IMO just too many moving parts to make that work. The first of which is keeping him clean, which is never gonna happen with the current DL. With the uncertainty with King, I think I'm just down with getting the best cover CB you can and let Barry sort it out. K.I.S.S.

What does the 49er's offense want to do? They exploit the mismatch, they force the defense to play 11 on 11. The defense plays nickel, they force a DB to take on blocks from much larger offensive players. Play base D and they will exploit LB in the passing game. It is why Seattle spent a ton to add Jamal Adams, he can be both effectively. Could JOK be another Jamal Adams for the Packers? I think he could. It has nothing to do with keeping him clean from a traditional ILB spot, nor does getting the best cover CB solve the issues of facing a Shanahan offense.   

[incognito_man]

On 4/26/2021 at 6:12 PM, MrBobGray said:

Star is just Saban/Belichick terminology for the nickle back.  It gets talked about like it's different, but that's more or less how everyone plays the nickle.  Your nickle guy is inside, closer to the ball, which means he's going to take on more LB style roles just based on alignment, pending the play call.  It's why defensive play-calling isn't as simple as just calling Cover-2 man or whatever and taking a nap; the same play call rolls out completely differently in base vs nickle vs dime vs etc. multiplied by the vast array of offensive formations out there.  If you have a 190 lb CB who's supposed to spill the RB to the alley, you better be sure he's up for that level of physicality.  And of course that's not even addressing that your nickle plays vastly different coverage roles depending on man vs zone coverage; in a cover-2 look he's playing the seam, in cover-3 he's playing hook/flat, in man he's either got the slot receiver or the TE and even just that is a real big apples to oranges in coverage.  

The thing is, Jaire is faaaaaar and away the best guy on the team for Star.  He'll ragdoll blockers in the run game, he can play any kind of coverage and he's an aggressive blitzer.  He's also far and away the best outside CB on the team, which means that's where he's going.  I'd honestly pound the table with this group to give Jaire a shot inside and run Jackson/King outside (or Hollman/Ento/whoever jumps at boundary CB), but in today's NFL there's a negative chance of that happening.  So with Jaire off the table, #2 is probably Savage, for basically all of the same reasons.  He doesn't have Jaire's strength or disregard for human life, but he's aggressive and unafraid of contact, and he can play any kind of coverage as well.  Plus he's just so damn fast he can erase a lot of mistakes.  

Unfortunately, he's probably off the table for the same reason Jaire is: if you've got a safety you can play at robber who shines like Savage who can also rotate anywhere else for misdirection, you probably aren't leaving him to ground up at the nickle.  I actually do like Sullivan there, there's far worse fits, but I think teams have started to lock in on the areas he struggles and he'll be an increasing liability if you're playing him 75% of snaps.  He's physical with blockers and willing to throw his body around, plus he's quick as a cat, but the lack of size and speed both means he has a lot of bad match-ups in the slot.  If they let the CBs actually press unlike Pettine, he may still be able to hang more often, but you're looking to upgrade him if at all possible.

My surprise, "probably a stupid idea but whatever" pick for the spot is actually Josh Jackson.  His physicality has come a long way thanks to all his time as a punt gunner, and he's by far at his best facing the QB.  Think you could do some fun stuff with a King/Jackson/Alexander line up from D-left to D-right, especially in a C2 system (which I think Barry likes to run?) - Jackson dropping to cover seam/hook is pretty much your best chance at getting those Iowa ball skills to finally show up in the pros.

Gonna get your Jaire star wish with Stokes and King now.

[MrBobGray]

11 hours ago, incognito_man said:

Gonna get your Jaire star wish with Stokes and King now.

Definitely feels like that's how it should line up, but I have this fear they're gonna do the "rookies don't play" job and just roll Jaire/Sully/King until King gets hurt, then swap him for Stokes and call it a day.  

That being said, Stokes/King is some real length/athleticism on the outside; feels like this secondary could legitimately be special if everyone gels and stokes is ready day one.

[VonKarman]

As I have little idea about coverages and @MrBobGray is around here, I'm gonna ask. Generally speaking, ¿aren't Stokes and King better in a Cover-3 heavy defense?

[craig]

Barry and Gray were both asked about Star. Gray mentioned there being like 4-5 guys who will be looked at, and that they'd probably focus down to a couple of guys by season time.  Barry alluded to the complexity of skills you want, good in zone, good in man, part of the pressure/blitz package, and part of the run stop package.  

On the Packers roster, the only guy listing less than Jean-Charles at 184 is the 2nd kicker (180).  Interesting that when Gray was asked about Jean-Charles, he fairly quickly mentioned star as a possible role he might play.  I'm probably over-reading; I think the reference to 184-lb Jean-Charles for star suggests that size is not necessarily viewed as the primary qualification for that role.  Gray talked favorably about Jean-Charles intelligence and aptitude.  I'm over-reading and stitching together a couple of disconnected Gray comments, but I'm kinda guessing that of all the qualities that star might ideally entail, that smarts/recognition/decision-making may be the least expendable of them all.  

[AlexGreen#20]

On 4/30/2021 at 2:27 PM, VonKarman said:

As I have little idea about coverages and @MrBobGray is around here, I'm gonna ask. Generally speaking, ¿aren't Stokes and King better in a Cover-3 heavy defense?

Define "Better" every boundary CB is gonna look better with a Safety over their head in a C2 than on an island in a C3.

[AlexGreen#20]

2 hours ago, craig said:

Barry and Gray were both asked about Star. Gray mentioned there being like 4-5 guys who will be looked at, and that they'd probably focus down to a couple of guys by season time.  Barry alluded to the complexity of skills you want, good in zone, good in man, part of the pressure/blitz package, and part of the run stop package.  

On the Packers roster, the only guy listing less than Jean-Charles at 184 is the 2nd kicker (180).  Interesting that when Gray was asked about Jean-Charles, he fairly quickly mentioned star as a possible role he might play.  I'm probably over-reading; I think the reference to 184-lb Jean-Charles for star suggests that size is not necessarily viewed as the primary qualification for that role.  Gray talked favorably about Jean-Charles intelligence and aptitude.  I'm over-reading and stitching together a couple of disconnected Gray comments, but I'm kinda guessing that of all the qualities that star might ideally entail, that smarts/recognition/decision-making may be the least expendable of them all.  

It's less about weight and more about want-to. Jean-Charles has want-to to spare. 

It's basically what keeps him alive when the rest of the profile read fairly negative. 

[VonKarman]

4 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Define "Better" every boundary CB is gonna look better with a Safety over their head in a C2 than on an island in a C3.

Aren't their particular skills more suited for a C3? If they are on the field isn't the defense going to perform better if they are in C3 rather than in C2/quarters?

[AlexGreen#20]

5 hours ago, VonKarman said:

Aren't their particular skills more suited for a C3? If they are on the field isn't the defense going to perform better if they are in C3 rather than in C2/quarters?

Again, kinda.

Think about what a Cover-2 is for a boundary CB. The zone they're asked to play is tiny. It's 1/5 of the width of the field and from 5 to 15 yards of depth. Other than that, the only real requirement is to force an inside release, typically via pressing at the line.

In a Cover-3 the boundary CB's zone is 1/3 the width of the field from 5 yards to 65 yards. 

The Cover-2 is WAY easier on the Corners to play. It's the coverage you play when your boundary CBs suck. But it comes at the cost of putting tremendous stress on your slot CB (means a light box, so the slot CB now is far more likely to be a spill player in the run game), ILBs (Better be able to read and fill in the light box, as well as be able to run the deep seam between the safeties) and Safeties (nobody gets a soft curl to flat zone assignment or a nice cushy middle-third, it's all deep-half) in both the pass and the run game.

The guys that can play vertically (in the coverages like the Cover-3) are the elite ones that get paid. That isn't too say that Cover-2 corners aren't important, but it's not the same. 

So to answer your question, yes there are guys who the defense will perform better in the Cover-3 than the Cover-2, but it likely isn't going to come due to increased individual coverage metrics for the CB. The CB is going to give up more receptions, likely including an occasional deep shot. The improvements will come in other spots (Better run defense, fewer balls targeted at the ILBs, not giving up deep seam balls). It's one of the reasons evaluating secondary play is so damn hard. 

Edited May 28, 2021 by AlexGreen#20

[MrBobGray]

6 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Again, kinda.

Think about what a Cover-2 is for a boundary CB. The zone they're asked to play is tiny. It's 1/5 of the width of the field and from 5 to 15 yards of depth. Other than that, the only real requirement is to force an inside release, typically via pressing at the line.

In a Cover-3 the boundary CB's zone is 1/3 the width of the field from 5 yards to 65 yards. 

The Cover-2 is WAY easier on the Corners to play. It's the coverage you play when your boundary CBs suck. But it comes at the cost of putting tremendous stress on your slot CB (means a light box, so the slot CB now is far more likely to be a spill player in the run game), ILBs (Better be able to read and fill in the light box, as well as be able to run the deep seam between the safeties) and Safeties (nobody gets a soft curl to flat zone assignment or a nice cushy middle-third, it's all deep-half) in both the pass and the run game.

The guys that can play vertically (in the coverages like the Cover-3) are the elite ones that get paid. That isn't too say that Cover-2 corners aren't important, but it's not the same. 

So to answer your question, yes there are guys who the defense will perform better in the Cover-3 than the Cover-2, but it likely isn't going to come due to increased individual coverage metrics for the CB. The CB is going to give up more receptions, likely including an occasional deep shot. The improvements will come in other spots (Better run defense, fewer balls targeted at the ILBs, not giving up deep seam balls). It's one of the reasons evaluating secondary play is so damn hard. 

Ugh you're the worst.  I was all ready to come in and write something smort and then you put this informative nonsense in here and say it better.  The bold especially is a great one paragraph breakdown of all the relevant parts of the discussion.  

But because I have a pathological compulsion to never stop talking, let me add on some thoughts.  An easy way to get a sense of some of this is to look at the rough route tree you're asking your boundary guys to cover in each shell:

• Cover-1: the whole route tree.  You've got your single high safety to help out with anything deep and in-breaking, but realistically your coverage here is "anything the guy does".  Where he goes, you follow.
• Cover-3: Take the route tree, slice off the in-breaking stuff.  You need to be able to cover short and long but not wide.
• Cover-2: Take the C3 route tree, now slice off the deep stuff.  You're now down to covering short/medium and outside; basically you're covering the hook/outside seam and reacting to the flat.  
• Cover-4: Take the C3 route tree and slice off the short stuff.  You're now covering deep and outside exclusively; realistically you're calling this coverage because you expect 4 verts or something similarly aggressive.

So when you're talking about whether a CB would be good or bad in a certain coverage, the first thing is determining what's the most coverage you think your CB can handle.  The second thing is to determine what your CB's strengths are, and how they align with the types of routes they'd be covering.  I like King in a C3 because it's tough to fit the ball over so much length, and if he doesn't have to run with the crossers it reduces the issues he has trying to change direction.  I dislike playing King in C2 because he doesn't accelerate well downhill out of a back pedal, leaving him vulnerable to things in the flat if he drops with enough depth to cover the seam. 

That all being said, if you flashed back to the NFC Championship game when I wrote "tough to fit the ball over so much length" above and started laugh crying, we're now full circle back to the point @AlexGreen#20 was making.  A CB being "better" for a certain set of coverage responsibilities doesn't mean that they will necessarily produce better metrics, because mistakes made in more aggressive coverages are going to be magnified.  King might be "better" in C3, but a single 50+ yard TD is a lot worse than giving up a collection of ten yard gains to guys in the flat he couldn't bring down.  However, the defense on the whole benefits from having more personnel to play elsewhere, in run defense/blitzing/robber coverage/etc.  

[Joe]

20 hours ago, craig said:

Gray talked favorably about Jean-Charles intelligence and aptitude.  I'm over-reading and stitching together a couple of disconnected Gray comments, but I'm kinda guessing that of all the qualities that star might ideally entail, that smarts/recognition/decision-making may be the least expendable of them all.  

Savage was another guy that was mentioned early on simply due to his aggression and speed. Personally, I'd rather have him continue on in his current role TBH.

 

18 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

It's less about weight and more about want-to. Jean-Charles has want-to to spare. 

It's basically what keeps him alive when the rest of the profile read fairly negative. 

...and that "want-to" is an aggressive style of play that's designed to be a nuisance for opposing offenses. I can't help but go back to our discussion about "match" coverage and question whether Jean-Charles will man that role full-time. In other words, you have to rhetorically ask whether or not those 4-5 guys are viable to make the final 53 AND rotate in and out of said role given an assumedly fluid defensive strategy. You're right in that the rest of the profile has a few yellow flags and a major red flag(run-support, no surprise). 

----

I went back and re-read some scouting reports on Jean-Charles and a couple particular themes frequently pop-up other than his demeanor on the field:

 

Zierlein says the following:

Boundary corner who stays in the receiver's business all day long. He's a little undersized to be taking on big NFL wideouts, but he's a feisty cover man with good foot agility and short-area quickness and his coverage movement is fairly fluid. He's going to lose some battles due to his lack of size and length, but he plays with route recognition and ball timing to make finishing catches a contested effort. He's a little below average in run support, which could be exploited. He's better in man coverage, but capable in zone, as well, and should find work as a quality backup with CB4/5 potential. 

Source: https://www.nfl.com/prospects/shemar-jean-charles/32004a45-4141-6791-9104-d5dbad16f37c

The only real negatives Zierlein has on him are size and the fact that he can get a bit too grabby(pretty common negatives for DB's FWIW). His positives center around his ball skills and instincts. The SI and Forbes scouting reports had similar write-ups with Rob Reischel pointing out similar negatives to that of Zierlein's.

Sources: 
https://www.si.com/nfl/draft/scouting-reports/shemarjeancharles
https://www.forbes.com/sites/robreischel/2021/05/01/green-bay-packers-scouting-report-on-fifth-round-draft-pick-shemar-jean-charles/?sh=30a7bfe624ae

 

Jordan Reid from TDN focused his negatives on hip tightness and a shift inside as a result lending a somewhat painful transition process with a higher than average ceiling for such a player. In a separate article, SI had a more thorough discussion with various scouts and the general consensus is that Jean-Charles wins more with his instincts and aggressiveness rather than speed or technique per se. NFL Draft Buzz pointed this out as well, but also noted in their scouting report comparison that Tony Pauline was VERY sour on Jean-Charles. In reading a quick write-up from Pauline, however, Pauline refers to him as a "tall" CB.....didn't know 5-10 1/2 was "tall"...he also had good things to say about Jean-Charles' length, yet none of the other reports listed here focus on that.

Source: 
https://www.si.com/nfl/packers/news/scouts-struggle-with-jean-charles-superb-production
https://www.nfldraftbuzz.com/Player/Shemar-Jean-Charles-DB-AppalachianState
https://www.profootballnetwork.com/sun-belt-scouting-reports-2021-nfl-draft/

 

After reading the reports, I'm lukewarm on him playing STAR...

[VonKarman]

Thanks Alex and MrBob, reading these kind of posts makes being in this forum worth it.