The Pass "Rush" After 7 Games

[pollino14]

We really haven't done ourselves any favors in regards to our OLBs lately, and it's showing. I think the writing was on the wall that Clay is no longer a plus pass-rusher. I was shocked we didn't draft an OLB sooner, and that we didn't re-sign Peppers or Jones.

 

If you want Clay to move, we'd be rolling with Perry, Brooks (maybe), a high draft pick (hopefully) and hopefully Fackrell or Biegel can become valuable. 

[RoellPreston88]

1 minute ago, pollino14 said:

We really haven't done ourselves any favors in regards to our OLBs lately, and it's showing. I think the writing was on the wall that Clay is no longer a plus pass-rusher. I was shocked we didn't draft an OLB sooner, and that we didn't re-sign Peppers or Jones.

You shouldn’t be shocked if you know who are GM is. It’s going to sound like I’m trolling, but it’s true if people are honest w themselves.

[pollino14]

1 minute ago, RoellPreston88 said:

You shouldn’t be shocked if you know who are GM is. It’s going to sound like I’m trolling, but it’s true if people are honest w themselves.

Not really. I think our* GM has done a good job at least trying to address our needs. I'm not a huge TT fan, but he's done well at least addressing our needs; CB, S, ILB, DL as the most recent examples.

[CWood21]

9 minutes ago, RoellPreston88 said:

You shouldn’t be shocked if you know who are GM is. It’s going to sound like I’m trolling, but it’s true if people are honest w themselves.

What pass rushers did Ted knowingly pass on aside from TJ Watt?  When you look at the EDGE that were available, they generally fell into one of two categories.  Either they had significant injury concerns (i.e. Carl Lawson, Vince Biegel, etc.) or they were questionable fits in the Packers defense (i.e. Dewuane Smoot, Jordan Willis, etc.).

[{Family Ghost}]

Ted looks kind of silly in moving on from Peppers before he was washed up .. guy has more sacks (7.5) than several of our OLB's combined.  He could have been had for relatively cheap dough as well.  

[ReadyToThump]

I REALLY wanted Carl Lawson over Biegel. I liked Biegel at UW but I have my doubts on him as a pro. Hopefully I'm proved wrong!

[TheOnlyThing]

20 hours ago, CWood21 said:

@TheOnlyThing, are you going to agree that Fackrell is being pressed into a role he wasn't supposed to do or you just going to ignore my post?

Here we go CWood.

In 2016, Matthews played 46% of the defensive snaps, Peppers 57%, Perry 59%, and Jones 53%. (Jones and Peppers picked up some snaps at DLine. However, the 5^th and 6^th OLBs Fackrell and Elliott also played 15.5% and 13% of the defensive snaps respectively in 2016).

This record reveals that last year the snaps were widely distributed among the OLBs. Peppers and D. Jones moved on after the season.

Consequently, between March and September of 2017, the top 4 OLBs on the roster were Matthews, Perry, Fackrell and Elliott. Ahmad Brooks became available and was added to the roster just before the season began, which pushed Fackrell to OLB #4 and effectively ended Elliot’s NFL career.

With regard Matthews and Perry both have extensive and well-documented injury histories. Going into 2017, Perry had NEVER PLAYED A FULL SEASON in his 5 years in Green Bay. Instead, coming into 2017, he had missed a full ¼ of the games he could have played in (20 of 80). And in the 60 games Perry did play, injuries often limited his production/playing time, including but not limited to casts on his hand.

As for Matthews, he was able to start only 9 games in 2016, though he played in 12. As stated above, he did not even play 50% of the defensive snaps last year. He has long battled hamstring and other injuries that either forced him to miss games or severely curtailed his effectiveness. At 31, the potential for Clay missing time due to injury was significant heading into 2017.

So, with this factual background in mind, let’s turn to the CWood assertion that there is no possible way that the Green Bay Packers brain trust could ever have possibly imagined that Kyler Fackrell might play 38.44% of the defensive snaps through 7 games.

Yesterday, you stated that ideally Matthews would be projected to play 60% of the defensive snaps. (“Move his snap % close to the standardish 60%, and I'd bet you get a bit more production out of him). In reality, Clay has played 82% of the snaps to date. Thus, so far this season Matthews has far exceeded expectations when it comes to playing time. 

As for Perry, he had never played 60% of the snaps in a season prior to 2017 (59%, 33%, 32%, 34%, and 18%). Nonetheless, let’s assume the Packers projected Perry to play 65% of the snaps this season (he is at 61% so far).

As you can see, even assuming Matthews and Perry were fully healthy throughout the season (a wholly unrealistic assumption), the Packers still had to expect others to pick up approximately 75% of the OLB snaps.

So how many of these projected 75% of snaps could Brooks reasonably be expected to pick up? He was signed on September 3 and exactly 1 week later he was on the field with his brand new teammates. The idea that Brooks was going to play 50+% of the defensive snaps during the first part of the season as he acclimated himself is at best fanciful. But say he played 40% of those snaps, who do you think the Packers were going to give the other 35% of the snaps to? Odom?

The record above demonstrates that even if Matthews and Perry were fully healthy in 2017 the Packers would still be counting on backup OLBs to play (a combined) 75% of the snaps.

Expecting just before the season pickup/33 year-old Ahmad Brooks to absorb more than 45-50% of those remaining snaps would not be realistic, so someone else was going to have to pick up at least 25-30% of the OLB snaps.

Moreover, counting on Matthews and Perry to be fully healthy throughout the season would be at best foolhardy and I do not believe McCarthy, Capers, or Thompson to be so foolish that they did not account for the fact that Matthews and or Perry would likely miss time this season due to injury.

Thus, the only logical conclusion is that it was entirely foreseeable that the GB Packers expected Kyler Fackrell to play a significant percentage (30%+) of snaps heading into this season.

Now, in regard to your direct question to me CWood “Do truly believe that Fackrell would still be playing 40%+ snaps if everyone was healthy?” I have two responses.

First, Fackrell has not played 40+% of the snaps this season even though Brooks & Perry have not been healthy.

Second, is it your position that it would have been reasonable for the Packers to expect Nick Perry and Clay Matthews to be completely “healthy” all season (and thus that there would be no reason to expect Fackrell to contribute at OLB)?

If so, I would love to hear the rationale for why you believe it would have been reasonable for the Packers to expect Matthews and Perry to be fully healthy all season. 

[Packerraymond]

26 minutes ago, {Family Ghost} said:

Ted looks kind of silly in moving on from Peppers before he was washed up .. guy has more sacks (7.5) than several of our OLB's combined.  He could have been had for relatively cheap dough as well.  

Dumped Woodson and Peppers too soon. 

[th87]

That Fackrell was third in line behind Matthews and Perry clearly indicates that the team was okay playing him extensively, given Matthews and Perry miss games pretty reliably. 

That Brooks was available was a lucky break for us. He very well may not have been, in which case, Fackrell was going to be next by design.

I don't see why that's difficult to believe. 

[Norm]

6 minutes ago, th87 said:

That Fackrell was third in line behind Matthews and Perry clearly indicates that the team was okay playing him extensively, given Matthews and Perry miss games pretty reliably. 

That Brooks was available was a lucky break for us. He very well may not have been, in which case, Fackrell was going to be next by design.

I don't see why that's difficult to believe. 

So then why sign Brooks if they were so comfortable with it? Sounds like they weren't so they signed a guy, was it lucky he got cut, sure, I guess. But the fact they signed him seems to contradict that at the point where the season was going to start that they were still okay with that.

[Dubz41]

30 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

Dumped Woodson and Peppers too soon. 

I believe the adage is "better a year early than a year late"

Hindsight is always 20/20.

[th87]

1 hour ago, NormSizedMidget said:

So then why sign Brooks if they were so comfortable with it? Sounds like they weren't so they signed a guy, was it lucky he got cut, sure, I guess. But the fact they signed him seems to contradict that at the point where the season was going to start that they were still okay with that.

They probably weren't pleased, but were okay "enough" going in with Fackrell. Brooks represented a lucky chance to improve, so they took it, to their credit.

However I still don't like that they were in that position to begin with. Fackrell had done nothing to warrant that level of faith.

Unless they planned on some competent edge being available at final cuts. In that case, I'd retract, but that's a pretty rare thing to happen, no?

[Norm]

3 hours ago, th87 said:

They probably weren't pleased, but were okay "enough" going in with Fackrell. Brooks represented a lucky chance to improve, so they took it, to their credit.

However I still don't like that they were in that position to begin with. Fackrell had done nothing to warrant that level of faith.

Unless they planned on some competent edge being available at final cuts. In that case, I'd retract, but that's a pretty rare thing to happen, no?

I'm sure they hoped he'd take a step when the time to make moves was going on. He didn't. They saw that become clear during camp. They then did something. That's what you guys ask for. They did it. Why still complain?

 

[Norm]

4 hours ago, Dubz41 said:

I believe the adage is "better a year early than a year late"

Hindsight is always 20/20.

50/50*

[Pugger]

7 hours ago, NormSizedMidget said:

So then why sign Brooks if they were so comfortable with it? Sounds like they weren't so they signed a guy, was it lucky he got cut, sure, I guess. But the fact they signed him seems to contradict that at the point where the season was going to start that they were still okay with that.

Is Brooks practicing?  We could use him Monday night...