Basically Randall to FS Thread

[spilltray]

13 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Agree with this completely, he can play on the outside.

On the flip side, if you're looking at a quad of Randall, Rollins, House, and King, one of those guys is far more physically suited to play the slot than the other 3. Being a slot CB isn't a badge of shame in today's NFL. That's a tough ask for a lot of guys and if you can do it, that's a feather in your cap. 

For me it's like discussion on Woodson. I'm fine with Randall being CB #2 but I'd prefer #3 to be more of an edge CB so Randall can move into the slot when he comes in.

[AlexGreen#20]

11 minutes ago, spilltray said:

For me it's like discussion on Woodson. I'm fine with Randall being CB #2 but I'd prefer #3 to be more of an edge CB so Randall can move into the slot when he comes in.

That's basically what we did this year with King.

[spilltray]

1 hour ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

That's basically what we did this year with King.

Right. Now we need another. I don't really think House is the answer.

[MacReady]

Just now, spilltray said:

Right. Now we need another. I don't really think House is the answer.

Depends on what the question is.  If the question is, "Who can be a solid #2 cornerback until something better comes along without rushing it?" then I think House is definitely the answer.

I don't like cornerbacks in free agency.  They're always a letdown, or almost always (especially recently).

[spilltray]

2 hours ago, HorizontoZenith said:

Depends on what the question is.  If the question is, "Who can be a solid #2 cornerback until something better comes along without rushing it?" then I think House is definitely the answer.

I don't like cornerbacks in free agency.  They're always a letdown, or almost always (especially recently).

I don't even think he's solid. Very borderline even as a #2. Besides he's a FA and I wouldn't offer him any more than the 1 year deal he just took.

[blankman0021]

On 12/20/2017 at 2:33 PM, Joe said:

Also, is it just me, or was House brought back to be a two year stop-gap until King takes over the starting position?

It's just you. 

House signed before the draft. He has the ceiling to be a top 10 CB in press-man, and has the tape to back it up. He's just inconsistent, and was hurt this year. Either way, I think he was brought in more because of our concern last offseason about Randall and Rollins. King was brought in for the same reason. 

[blankman0021]

On 12/21/2017 at 10:36 AM, minnypackerfan said:

Sometimes when I look at the personnel on defense, I think we have people that could play in either a 3-4 or a 4-3.   Clark and Daniels would be excellent on the inside in a 4-3.  Clay would make an excellent outside linebacker as he is probably still our most athletic linebacker on the team where his pass rush would be less important and his ability to cover would be more important.  Yes...in a 4-3 we would need two defensive ends, but if we pick 12-14 in the first round I think we could get one (Arden Key) and in the second round if we trade up we could get another one (I like the guy from Florida).

Some would argue that Perry is more suited to DE anyways. You would be fine lining up Lowry LE, Clark DT, Daniels DT, Perry RE.

Honestly that's not much different from how we line up normally. The 3-4/4-3 debate is pretty much moot at this point on this roster. On every play we're rushing 4, it's just a debate on whether that player starts in a 3 point stance or a 2 point stance. We're playing nickel most plays regardless of that. 

[AlexGreen#20]

1 hour ago, blankman0021 said:

Some would argue that Perry is more suited to DE anyways. You would be fine lining up Lowry LE, Clark DT, Daniels DT, Perry RE.

Honestly that's not much different from how we line up normally. The 3-4/4-3 debate is pretty much moot at this point on this roster. On every play we're rushing 4, it's just a debate on whether that player starts in a 3 point stance or a 2 point stance. We're playing nickel most plays regardless of that. 

I just violently vomited at the thought of Lowry as a starting 4-3 DE for the Packers. 

This team needs a stud edge rusher. It doesn't matter where or how we're lining up.

Perry is a decent #1, but truthfully most elite defenses have two #1 rushers and an additional sub rusher. At this point we're sitting with a decent starter, potentially a decent sub rusher in Matthews and nothing behind them. Lowry aint it. 

[blankman0021]

On 12/23/2017 at 1:57 PM, AlexGreen#20 said:

I just violently vomited at the thought of Lowry as a starting 4-3 DE for the Packers. 

This team needs a stud edge rusher. It doesn't matter where or how we're lining up.

Perry is a decent #1, but truthfully most elite defenses have two #1 rushers and an additional sub rusher. At this point we're sitting with a decent starter, potentially a decent sub rusher in Matthews and nothing behind them. Lowry aint it. 

Is Lowry much different than a Kampman athletically? I wouldn't want to trot out Lowry for very long, but he'd be good in the run game at LE in my opinion.

[AlexGreen#20]

5 hours ago, blankman0021 said:

Is Lowry much different than a Kampman athletically? I wouldn't want to trot out Lowry for very long, but he'd be good in the run game at LE in my opinion.

Kampman was 2 inches shorter, 25 pounds lighter, had longer arms, was much more bendy, had a couple of effective rush counters, and played with much better natural leverage.

Lowry would be just fine in the run game as a LE. But in a 4-3 your Defensive Ends have to be your sack getters. Does anybody think Dean Lowry is the answer to that problem?

[ChaRisMa]

Lowry would make a good rotational DT in a 43. He can play the run. He’s just not what you want as a pass rusher. 

43 we need a RE, as in, a premier pass rusher, and an OLB similar to Mathews to keep teams guessing. That would actually be really fun to watch. Lots of flexibility to that Defense. But not much different than our 34, either, really.

[AlexGreen#20]

7 hours ago, ChaRisMa said:

Lowry would make a good rotational DT in a 43. He can play the run. He’s just not what you want as a pass rusher. 

43 we need a RE, as in, a premier pass rusher, and an OLB similar to Mathews to keep teams guessing. That would actually be really fun to watch. Lots of flexibility to that Defense. But not much different than our 34, either, really.

Your nickel in your 4-3 looks like one of:

Perry-Clark-Daniels-Matthews

Martinez-Ryan

or

Perry-Clark-Daniels-Brooks/Fackrel/DP

Martinez/Matthews

Still need an Edge. We can rearrange the deckchairs on the titanic all we want, but until we patch the gaping hole at Edge and CB (because of injury) we're gonna hit the same snags.

[ChaRisMa]

On 12/28/2017 at 12:14 AM, AlexGreen#20 said:

Your nickel in your 4-3 looks like one of:

Perry-Clark-Daniels-Matthews

Martinez-Ryan

or

Perry-Clark-Daniels-Brooks/Fackrel/DP

Martinez/Matthews

Still need an Edge. We can rearrange the deckchairs on the titanic all we want, but until we patch the gaping hole at Edge and CB (because of injury) we're gonna hit the same snags.

I was specifically saying we need to ADD a premier pass rushing RE and ADD another LB with Clay’s athleticism to our roster. We’re a dynamo RE (think Julius Peppers in his prime) and a Thomas Davis/Clay OLB away from set if we go 43. 

Im not saying that’s easy.