The Pass "Rush" After 7 Games

[TheOnlyThing]

4 hours ago, NormSizedMidget said:

"Now, a couple of questions I'm sure you'll provide answers to, do you think Kyler was the best option available as the 3rd/4th OLBer this offseason and do you think his play has warranted TT's faith in him?"

AKA we got Brooks but still needed another 3/4 option. I'm sorry context was obvious. You wanted ANOTHER free agent.

So you accuse me of intellectual dishonesty for not acknowledging that I supposedly "suggested days ago we needed to sign a name free agent to be OLB 3/4 with Brooks still being added."

In response, I challenge you to prove I made that statement and the best you can come up with is with me asking "do you think Kyler was the best option available as the 3rd/4th OLBer this offseason and do you think his play has warranted TT's faith in him?"

Is that all you got? Talk about intellectual dishonesty.

While I am hardly the only one, I've been questioning Thompson's faith in Fackrell all offseason and I will continue to question it as long as his play continues to suck.

No amount of intellectual dishonesty can hide the fact that TT put his faith in Fackrell and that faith has not been rewarded.

Hopefully Biegel can put Fackrell on the bench where he belongs sooner rather than later.  

 

[Norm]

2 hours ago, TheOnlyThing said:

So you accuse me of intellectual dishonesty for not acknowledging that I supposedly "suggested days ago we needed to sign a name free agent to be OLB 3/4 with Brooks still being added."

In response, I challenge you to prove I made that statement and the best you can come up with is with me asking "do you think Kyler was the best option available as the 3rd/4th OLBer this offseason and do you think his play has warranted TT's faith in him?"

Is that all you got? Talk about intellectual dishonesty.

While I am hardly the only one, I've been questioning Thompson's faith in Fackrell all offseason and I will continue to question it as long as his play continues to suck.

No amount of intellectual dishonesty can hide the fact that TT put his faith in Fackrell and that faith has not been rewarded.

Hopefully Biegel can put Fackrell on the bench where he belongs sooner rather than later.  

 

Fackrell sucks. We all admit that. He grabbed Brooks late. Instead of going OMG YOU IDIOT I acknowledge he tried to help the pass rush. How am I being dishonest?

He hoped he'd get better. They saw camp, he didn't. He added a vet. It's what you beg for. Now your complaint is they didn't do it early enough. Meh.

[Norm]

He could have signed Brooks during regular FA and if he had still been what he has been we would have the same complaints. 

[CWood21]

9 hours ago, TheOnlyThing said:

So planning for the possibility that Matthews & Perry would miss time due to injury in 2017 is your definition of insanity?

Despite dealing with injuries, he's only missed 5 games in the previous 3 seasons combined.  Clay has missed 4 games over that same time period.  So despite them being "injury prone" by most people's definition, they are actually quite available.  So...no, I don't think expecting 60%ish of the defensive snaps being taken as outlandish.  Perry did it last year, and Clay's done it two of the past three seasons and is on pace to do so this year.  I expect them to miss time as in they might a game or two, but I'm not expecting any significant time being missed.  If they don't hit that 60% snap count, it's probably because they suffered a significant injury that you really can't anticipate.

9 hours ago, TheOnlyThing said:

While you insist it was a solid plan for Thompson to go into 2017 expecting Perry & Matthews to play 75-80% of the snaps, I'd call it at best wildly optimistic.

When have I ever suggested that Clay or Perry should be playing 75-80% of the defensive snaps?  Because I haven't.  In fact, I've been vocal that Clay's snap count is too high right now.

9 hours ago, TheOnlyThing said:

What is it about the fact that Nick Perry had never once played 60% of the snaps in a season (59%, 33%, 32%, 34%, and 18%), never played a full season, and missed 20 of 80 possible NFL games coming into 2017 that would lead one to such a conclusion?

Again, you're arguing semantics.  If you're going to continue to argue over semantics, I'm not gonna bother with this discussion.  He played in 14 games last year, and still managed to play in almost 59% of the defensive snaps.  That's well within the range of the 60%.  Stop looking at my numbers as hard numbers.

9 hours ago, TheOnlyThing said:

It is just crazy the lengths some will go to in order to deny that the team was counting on Kyler Fackrell to be a key contributor at OLB this season.

You really have no idea how to read, do you?  I said the Packers FO thought that Fackrell was going to take the next step in terms of development.  They gave him ample opportunities, and when he didn't develop they brought in Ahmad Brooks.  Instead, you continue to harp on the fact that they didn't bring in a Brooks-level FA soon enough, which at this point is just complaining to complain.

So..again, I'll ask you this and I know I've asked you this multiple times and I've yet to get answer.  What exactly showed you in his 2016 season that indicated to you that Fackrell wouldn't develop from his rookie to sophomore season?  I'll be waiting.

[Pugger]

14 hours ago, NormSizedMidget said:

He could have signed Brooks during regular FA and if he had still been what he has been we would have the same complaints. 

Its unfortunate he's having back issues.  

[TheOnlyThing]

10 hours ago, CWood21 said:

Despite dealing with injuries, he's only missed 5 games in the previous 3 seasons combined.  Clay has missed 4 games over that same time period.  So despite them being "injury prone" by most people's definition, they are actually quite available.  So...no, I don't think expecting 60%ish of the defensive snaps being taken as outlandish.  

So you now state that a realistic expectation was for Mathews & Perry to play "60%ish percent of the defensive snaps" at OLB.

I agree.

By definition, this means OLBs 3 & 4 had to be expected to play the 40% of snaps when Clay was not on the field and the 40% of snaps when Nick was not on the field.

All offseason, Fackrell was OLB3 until September 3 when Brooks was signed and he became OLB4. 

So far through 7 games, Fackrell has played exactly 38.44% of the snaps -- wow that is really close to the 40% that OLBs 3 & 4 would be expected to play if Matthews & Perry were expected to play 60% of the snaps (as you state above) don't you think?

It is obvious that the plan ever since TT moved on from Peppers & Datone Jones and chose not to select an OLBer at the top of the draft was for Fackrell to play and play a lot in 2017 -- up to 40% of the snaps.

So, given this record, it is pretty clear that your claim CWood a couple pages back that the only reason Fackrell is playing as much as he is is  due to injuries at the OLB position is completely wrong. (In reality, it is Clay who has absorbed the additional snaps at OLB, playing 82% thus far -- a rate that is both unreasonable to expect him to play as you state above and likely unsustainable given his age/injury history).

Again, the record reflects that (1) the Packers decided Kyler Fackrell was going to play a lot of snaps at the all important outside linebacker position in 2017, (2) he has played a lot of snaps, and (3) he has played very poorly. I find it hard to believe there is any controversy over these points, but for some reason some are unwilling to accept them.

The only reason I can see for the ongoing need for some fans to dispute the seemingly indisputable facts concerning Fackrell's role and play in 2017 is to deflect criticism from the decision to place that faith in Fackrell.

Then again, with Brooks probably still out with his back injury and Biegel getting his first taste of NFL action of any kind, Fackrell is likely to be OLB3 on Monday night so perhaps Kyler will prove us doubters wrong and unleash all that ability that led the Packers to selecting him in the 3rd round of the 2016 draft and placing so much faith in him going into the 2017 season.

[CWood21]

4 minutes ago, TheOnlyThing said:

By definition, this means OLBs 3 & 4 had to be expected to play the 40% of snaps when Clay was not on the field and the 40% of snaps when Nick was not on the field.

Have I not said that you essentially need 3 "starting" OLBs?  One of the players won't get the GS credit, but they're playing starter snaps.  In an ideal world, you've got 3 OLBs who are playing roughly 60% of the defensive snaps.  That leaves 20% of the defensive snaps for OLB4 and OLB5, assuming OLB6 is a healthy scratch.  Figure ~15% for OLB4 and ~5% for OLB5, which would fall in line with the numbers that I suggested that an OLB4 would ideally get, which is what Fackrell was slotted to be.  Instead, he's pushing almost 40% of the defensive snaps, or the 39% that you seem to get stuck on.

7 minutes ago, TheOnlyThing said:

It is obvious that the plan ever since TT moved on from Peppers & Datone Jones and chose not to select an OLBer at the top of the draft was for Fackrell to play and play a lot in 2017 -- up to 40% of the snaps.

Yes, because they anticipated him developing over the course of a full offseason.  He didn't, and they made the move for Ahmad Brooks.  Things got sticky when Vince Biegel was placed on the PUP list with his foot injury.  So going from potentially OLB5 to OLB3 because of injuries pushed him into a role that he wasn't ready for.

8 minutes ago, TheOnlyThing said:

So, given this record, it is pretty clear that your claim CWood a couple pages back that the only reason Fackrell is playing as much as he is is  due to injuries at the OLB position is completely wrong. (In reality, it is Clay who has absorbed the additional snaps at OLB, playing 82% thus far -- a rate that is both unreasonable to expect him to play as you state above and likely unsustainable given his age/injury history).

Lulz.  I put facts in front of your face, and you'll ignore them.  As I mentioned, in an ideal world you're looking at a 60/60/60 snap count.  Obviously those numbers aren't firm numbers, but what you'd ideally like to see from your 3 pass rushers.  Clay's went up to 82%, Nick Perry was at 61%, and Ahmad Brooks is currently at 21%.  Clay's snap count goes up ~20% higher than you'd ideally want from him (assuming that all 82% of his snaps come from the OLB position).  So that leaves roughly ~20% that you had slotted for Brooks unaccounted for.  Guess where that went?  You guessed right, Fackrell.  Knock off the 20% of his snap count, and his snap count percentage goes from 38% to 18%.  Egad, that's right where I said OLB4 should be at.   So yes, injuries are a legitimate reason why Fackrell is playing so much.  The fact that you think that this notion is completely wrong is astounding.  You literally have the numbers in front of your face.

12 minutes ago, TheOnlyThing said:

Again, the record reflects that (1) the Packers decided Kyler Fackrell was going to play a lot of snaps at the all important outside linebacker position in 2017, (2) he has played a lot of snaps, and (3) he has played very poorly. I find it hard to believe there is any controversy over these points, but for some reason some are unwilling to accept them.

So your entire "argument" revolves around the fact that the Packers should have KNOWN that he wasn't going to develop, and they should have signed a veteran OLB sooner.  Am I right?

[RoellPreston88]

I’m not sure if they should have known he was not going to improve, but they don’t seem to draft athletic, explosive LBs. For example Ted passed on Carl Lawson about 4 or 5 times. 

[Norm]

5 minutes ago, RoellPreston88 said:

I’m not sure if they should have known he was not going to improve, but they don’t seem to draft athletic, explosive LBs. For example Ted passed on Carl Lawson about 4 or 5 times. 

Other than this random one guy he passed on 4 times with 31 other teams, is there any actual evidence of this or are we just making stuff up again?

[CWood21]

33 minutes ago, RoellPreston88 said:

I’m not sure if they should have known he was not going to improve, but they don’t seem to draft athletic, explosive LBs. For example Ted passed on Carl Lawson about 4 or 5 times. 

You do realize there was a TON of injury risk involved with him right?  It's really not much different than the Vince Biegel situation.

[TheOnlyThing]

Pack now on a pace for 26 sacks on the year. They are tied for 2nd worst in the NFL with 3 other teams.

Perry on pace to lead the team with 8.

Clay would finish with 5. Daniels with 3. Brooks with 2. Clark 0. Fackrell 0.

Dom is coming under a great deal of fire. Most all of it justified.

But somebody made the decision to go into this season with this groups of pass "rushers" and it was not Dom.

[TheOnlyThing]

Brian Carriveau‏ 

More

Brian Carriveau Retweeted Adam Rutz V

I can't either. And for a guy that's apparently played the highest % of special teams snaps in the NFL, he hasn't made a single ST tackle.

Brian Carriveau Retweeted Adam Rutz VI can't either. And for a guy that's apparently played the highest % of special teams snaps in the NFL, he hasn't made a single ST tackle.

Brian Carriveau added,

Adam Rutz V @A_will419

Replying to @BrianCarriveau

I can’t believe Odom and Gilbert are worse than Fackrell

 

 

[Pugger]

14 minutes ago, TheOnlyThing said:

Pack now on a pace for 26 sacks on the year. They are tied for 2nd worst in the NFL with 3 other teams.

Perry on pace to lead the team with 8.

Clay would finish with 5. Daniels with 3. Brooks with 2. Clark 0. Fackrell 0.

Dom is coming under a great deal of fire. Most all of it justified.

But somebody made the decision to go into this season with this groups of pass "rushers" and it was not Dom.

I'll bet they were expecting Perry to replace Peppers' production.  

[TheOnlyThing]

5 minutes ago, Pugger said:

I'll bet they were expecting Perry to replace Peppers' production.  

Perry had 12.5 sacks last season.

No way Perry could replace Peppers production.

The undefined THEY F'ed up royally by leaving the OLB cupboard mostly bare even though they tried to salvage the situation with the late signing of Brooks.

[CWood21]

At least you're consistent...