The Pass "Rush" After 7 Games

[TheOnlyThing]

16 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

And there goes your selective reading again.  How many people were adamantly against Watt?  Honestly, I think I lost count and most of those players were posters I don't think honestly even evaluated him.  In fact, I think I was one of the few people who was firmly in his camp and was semi-surprised the Packers passed on him.  There was a HUGE contingent of Packers fans that wanted nothing to do with T.J. Watt.

Are you so wrapped up in your defense of all things Ted Thompson that you can't read straight anymore even when it comes to Kyler Fackrell?

Pugger posed a question about whether there was anyone available who might have helped at OLB last offseason.

I kidded Pugger about trolling, because of the lengthy and spirited debate among Packer fans over whether TJ Watt should have been the pick over King. (She responded that she does not really follow the draft so was unaware of that debate).

I also suggested that particular debate not be revisited because it served no purpose at this point and personally think the need at CB was just as dire as OLB so I'm agnostic on the whole TJ Watt v. Kevin King (and Biegel) issue. There was no selective reading going on, I just pointed out the undisputed fact that an OLBer was available and many fans wanted GB to take him. 

Because, no matter how anyone tries to reinvent or spin the record, there most certainly was a HUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE contingent of Packer fans who advocated that TJ Watt be the selection in round 1 of last April's draft.

Finally, do you really contend that the play of Kyler Fackrell, who has ZERO sacks and just 7 tackles (none for loss) despite playing nearly 40% of the defensive snaps thus far, has not validated those who expressed concern about the OLB position well before training camp ever began? 

[TheOnlyThing]

52 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

What do you think the Ahmad Brooks signing is?  It's really not a complicated thought process.  The Packers thought that Kyler Fackrell was going to take that next step going from Year 1 to Year 2.  He didn't.  And the Packers responded by signing Ahmad Brooks.  Your entire argument has no backing without using the power of hindsight.  Are you telling me that you knew from the 130 defensive snaps (15.55% of all defensive snaps) he took last year, you knew that he wouldn't develop at all?  Please don't insult my intelligence and say you did without posting any sort of evidence.

First off, is it not the responsibility of the coaches/GM to know that a player like Fackrell cannot play? They are the ones who decided to move on from Peppers, pass on Watt, and not add a veteran OLB until right before the season and to instead count on Fackrell, no?

Secondly, are you serious that those criticizing the decision to rely upon Fackrell are only doing so in hindsight?

I mean I'd love to pretend I was uniquely prescient and the only one to notice the obvious lack of talent/depth at OLB this offseason, but I think half this board pointed out that same reality and I was hardly the only poster to question the wisdom of relying all offseason upon Fackrell and Elliott as the two projected top backups at OLB.

In any event, here is what I wrote about the OLB position last April.

As you can see, I am not all that surprised by the lack of pass rush production at OLB through 7 games (7 sacks combined from the OLBs) even though divine providence delivered the much-need, but unfortunately injured Ahmad Brooks just before the season began.

The other undeniably critical defensive position on this team is Outside Linebacker. Clay and Perry, the starters, are two highly paid former first round picks who both have highly productive seasons on their playing resumes. Indeed, Perry's best season in his 5-year career was last season. With double-digit sacks to go along with his solid run D, Nick earned the big contract TT negotiated with him. He is a good OLBer and is in his prime. 
Clay, on the other hand, is about to turn 31. He returned to OLB last season after 1.5 where he played primarily in the middle. He's only had 1 double digit season of sacks in the past 4 (and just 6.5 and 5 the past two seasons). Now, MM is making noises about moving Clay "all around" again. http://packerswire.usatoday.com/2017/03/29/mike-mccarthy-wants-to-keep-moving-clay-matthews-around-the-field/ 
There is every reason to believe Clay Matthews' best seasons as a pass rushing outside linebacker are behind him. 
Behind Perry and Clay, are the threesome of Fackrell, Elliott, and Biegel. Taking Biegel first, I like him and I like his selection in the 4th round. However, I do not foresee him have much of any impact, as a rookie, at OLB. That leaves the other two. 
I like Elliott and have always wondered why he did not get more of an opportunity, which it certainly appears he will this season. However, just last month the Packers basically told him he was free to go elsewhere when they shockingly (to me given the lack of depth at OLB) chose not to even extend him the "low" RFA tender offer. http://www.acmepackingcompany.com/2017/3/9/14871226/packers-jayrone-elliott-will-not-offer-rfa-tender 
If the Pack was willing to let Jayrone go over a couple 100K or whatever they eventually saved, how can one possibly be confident that this is a guy to rely upon in 2017? 
That leaves Fackrell. As a rookie behind Clay, Perry, Peppers, and D. Jones, Fackrell did not get much playing time. Many are skeptical that this 2nd year player (who will turn 26 during the season) has the ability to play, but even for the optimists the truth is we have no idea. Yet, at this point, Fackrell is the projected #3 OLBer and I guess replacement at the position when Clay gets moved around. 
Now, no discussion of OLB would be complete without remarking about the injury history of our 2 starters. Even in his best season last year, Perry missed multiple games. He has never played all 16 games and though he has missed only 5 games over the past 3 seasons, he has missed a full 1/4 of the games over his career (20 of 80). Moreover, he has also played in games with casts and while nursing other significant injuries. 
Meanwhile, Clay's long history of injury has been well documented and it would be illogical to think that history would improve as he gets older. 
Thus, we are staring at the very real chance that completely untested Kyler Fackrell and/or Jayrone Elliott will staring at OLB this season. Is anyone really OK with this reality? 
It must also be remembered that in 2016, OLB was a very deep position with D. Jones and Peppers getting significant snaps (taking pressure of Clay & Nick and keeping them fresh). How is the position possibly not significantly weaker with Peppers (7.5 sacks, 2 FFs) and D. Jones (team leader in pressures) being replaced by a 4th round rookie, a UDFA whom the Pack was willing to let walk for peanuts, and the great unknown that is Kyler Fackrell? Does anyone else think Kyler f'ing Fackrell may be key to the Pack's D markedly improving next season? 

http://www.footballsfuture.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=585191&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=585

[CWood21]

2 hours ago, TheOnlyThing said:

Are you so wrapped up in your defense of all things Ted Thompson that you can't read straight anymore even when it comes to Kyler Fackrell?

Pugger posed a question about whether there was anyone available who might have helped at OLB last offseason.

I kidded Pugger about trolling, because of the lengthy and spirited debate among Packer fans over whether TJ Watt should have been the pick over King. (She responded that she does not really follow the draft so was unaware of that debate).

I also suggested that particular debate not be revisited because it served no purpose at this point and personally think the need at CB was just as dire as OLB so I'm agnostic on the whole TJ Watt v. Kevin King (and Biegel) issue. There was no selective reading going on, I just pointed out the undisputed fact that an OLBer was available and many fans wanted GB to take him. 

Because, no matter how anyone tries to reinvent or spin the record, there most certainly was a HUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE contingent of Packer fans who advocated that TJ Watt be the selection in round 1 of last April's draft.

Finally, do you really contend that the play of Kyler Fackrell, who has ZERO sacks and just 7 tackles (none for loss) despite playing nearly 40% of the defensive snaps thus far, has not validated those who expressed concern about the OLB position well before training camp ever began? 

Lulz.  The fact that you don't even know my stance is enough to tell me that you don't even know what we're talking about.  I've been critical of Ted, but I'm not nearly at the point that some people are that they want to fire him.  The notion that you should fire him because your starting QB goes down with injuries is laughable at best, and quite frankly just shows how spoiled we are as Packers fans.

As for the whole Watt/King debate, we could literally go digging through the old threads of FF and you'd see a TON of posters who wanted nothing to do with T.J. Watt.  And when the Packers managed to trade down and then grab his teammate, Vince Biegel, in the 4th round there was even fewer people who thought that the Packers chose poorly.  And even then, based on what I've seen from Kevin King I think the Packers made the right choice.  Especially if Vince Biegel is even halfway decent.

As for Fackrell, based purely off of his rookie year and NOTHING after that?  No.  But based on what he showed in training camp until now?  Absolutely.  That's my point.  You're using the power of hindsight to justify your complaints.  IF Fackrell took that next step, we wouldn't be having this discussion.  Your argument was that Ted Thompson should have known that Kyler Fackrell wasn't going to take that next step, and should have acted proactively.

[CWood21]

1 hour ago, TheOnlyThing said:

First off, is it not the responsibility of the coaches/GM to know that a player like Fackrell cannot play? They are the ones who decided to move on from Peppers, pass on Watt, and not add a veteran OLB until right before the season and to instead count on Fackrell, no?

Secondly, are you serious that those criticizing the decision to rely upon Fackrell are only doing so in hindsight?

I mean I'd love to pretend I was uniquely prescient and the only one to notice the obvious lack of talent/depth at OLB this offseason, but I think half this board pointed out that same reality and I was hardly the only poster to question the wisdom of relying all offseason upon Fackrell and Elliott as the two projected top backups at OLB.

In any event, here is what I wrote about the OLB position last April.

As you can see, I am not all that surprised by the lack of pass rush production at OLB through 7 games (7 sacks combined from the OLBs) even though divine providence delivered the much-need, but unfortunately injured Ahmad Brooks just before the season began.

Your argument was that Ted Thompson should have KNOWN before training camp that Kyler Fackrell wasn't going to develop.  My question is how do you think he was supposed to know that?  You do know that OTA's and other "practices" are limited, and are anything but game-like simulations.  The Packers moved on from Peppers because they didn't think he was worth the price and/or they wanted to give Fackrell an extended look.  They took that extended look, went and signed a veteran pass rusher, and you're critical that he didn't do it sooner.  You're intentionally looking at this glass half-full.

Absolutely I'm being serious.  We wouldn't be having this discussion if he was a productive pass rusher.  In fact, we'd be saying that Ted Thompson was smart to let an aging Julius Peppers go in FA.  You're looking for validation based on using hindsight.   I think most people were skeptical of the OLB depth IF Fackrell didn't develop.  You've argued that Ted should have known he wouldn't have developed.  There's a HUGE difference between what you're claiming, and what I'm saying.

[ThatJerkDave]

I thought that Jayrone would become a good player.  He was very good preseason as a rookie and that big game against the Seahawks in 2015.  I thought he was just lost in the shuffle behind Datone, Clay, Perry, and Peppers.  I was apparently incorrect.

This bye hopefully helps Perry, Brooks, and Biegel heal more.  I am also convinced that Fackrell is useless.  Clay is spotty, not nearly as good as he was a few years ago.

[spilltray]

It would have been nice to add more pieces, but as individual moves

10 hours ago, TheOnlyThing said:

First off, is it not the responsibility of the coaches/GM to know that a player like Fackrell cannot play? They are the ones who decided to move on from Peppers, pass on Watt, and not add a veteran OLB until right before the season and to instead count on Fackrell, no?

This is just dumb. Letting Peppers go was completely the right decision. At that point they clearly hoped to add depth in the draft. Fast forward to the draft and even straight up, I take King over Watt. If they take Watt, then you say the same thing about CB right now, except we are talking about how we need a #1 CB not a rotational guy. Then there was no way to predict the guy they did add (Beigel) would be hurt, and neither Elliot or Fackerell would take enough of a step to be a solid rotational body.

 

We KNEW it was a potential weak spot sure. EVERY team has those. They made an effort with Brooks, and it's not like Fackerell showed he doesn't belong on an NFL field. He's your average mediocre level depth player.  Sure you want to get better, but you are going to have some of those guys on your roster.

[Pugger]

I am really looking forward to what Biegel can bring to our defense.  Too bad Brooks has a bad back.  He looked good before he got hurt.   

[vegas492]

It is okay to like Watt, Biegle and King.  I do.  In my mind, I wanted a scenario to play out where GB could get two of those three.  And we did, so I'm very happy.

But, I'm also selfish and wished that somehow we could have had Watt and King together, and that was a dream that just wasn't going to be even close to reality.  

In the back of my mind, though, I have little faith that Watt would be what he is now in Pttsburgh if he were here under Capers' scheme.  King, though, I feel like we do a pretty darned good job of coaching up corners and I'm very excited for his future.  He was the better choice, head up.  Throw in a Biegle kicker and GB did quite well in my eyes.

[MacReady]

Just now, vegas492 said:

In the back of my mind, though, I have little faith that Watt would be what he is now in Pttsburgh if he were here under Capers' scheme.

This I disagree with.  I think pass rushers are good pass rushers in almost any scheme.  It's corners and defensive backs that can get ruined by bad schemes.  At this point, I think our secondary has enough talent to be a top secondary in the NFL if it had the right coach.  I don't think anything close to the same about our pass rush. 

[vegas492]

I think of Perry's early years versus Perry now.  Either we didn't use him right, or scheme wasn't good enough for him right away.

I think that Pittsburgh puts rushers out there and tells them what to do...stunt, drop, rush...etc.  I think that GB puts them out there and has them read formations and think on fly as to what to do.  I think that is why it takes a little time for our young rushers to really get it.  Just my gut feeling based on nothing but coffee and yogurt.

[CWood21]

2 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

I think of Perry's early years versus Perry now.  Either we didn't use him right, or scheme wasn't good enough for him right away.

I think that Pittsburgh puts rushers out there and tells them what to do...stunt, drop, rush...etc.  I think that GB puts them out there and has them read formations and think on fly as to what to do.  I think that is why it takes a little time for our young rushers to really get it.  Just my gut feeling based on nothing but coffee and yogurt.

I mean, how much of Nick Perry's early years were riddled by injury?  Way too many to count.

[Haha21]

When will we see Adams and Biegel? Should be soon right?

 

[vegas492]

All of his years are riddled with injury.  It is a constant with him.  The bright spot is that he normally plays with injuries.  

But...what other young OLB rushers have developed in our system?  Fackrell hasn't.  Elliott hasn't.  Brad Jones didn't.  Peppers came in and was successful, but I think that is because he was as football smart as he was athletic.  I don't have a large sample size of guys with high end talent to compare.  Perry was the only one.  Even Datone...DE in college, DT in pros then a convert...that isn't fair either.

[Pugger]

1 hour ago, Haha21 said:

When will we see Adams and Biegel? Should be soon right?

 

I hope we do after this bye week.  

[CWood21]

9 minutes ago, Pugger said:

I hope we do after this bye week.  

Do people truly believe that Montravius Adams is currently clearly better than Quinton Dial or Dean Lowry?