Jump to content

Random Packer News & Notes


Leader

Recommended Posts

34 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

Not really, that correlated with what the beat guys saw every practice too. Practice isn't games. You can be the most improved player in the off-season and get worse on the field. Just means you aren't a gamer, and it's starting to look like Adams isn't. Can't fault Gute. Still remember saying to my buddies he was the #1 player on my board in the 3rd when we were OTC. I would've picked him too. Just isn't the guy he was at Auburn or the Senior Bowl.

I wanted his teammate (Lawson) over him when we were OTC but wasn't disappointed with Adams. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, packfanfb said:

I wanted his teammate (Lawson) over him when we were OTC but wasn't disappointed with Adams. 

Everyone knew Lawson was a medical red unfortunately. After they passed on him for Josh Jones I kind of figured he wasn't on our board, because he was a clear early day 2 pass rusher with a clean bill of health and we needed one and still passed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/1/2020 at 2:36 PM, coachbuns said:

For those who care about upgrades to compete next year.  Per PFF:  Of the lowest 15 grades on the Packers in 2019 TE, LB, DL dominate those stats  ...    Lowest 1st

With the exception of Rashan Gary and to a lesser extent Blake Martinez, those are all guys we're actively looking to move on from.  Nothing on there is groundbreaking.  But of those guys that the Packers had in the bottom 10 in PFF grading, only Dean Lowry and Blake Martinez played in 50% of the defensive snaps.  If you include anyone who played in 33%+ of the defensive snaps, that would include Tyler Lancaster and Kyler Fackrell.  So realistically, you're only looking to actively replace ~4 players.  The others are the usual roster turnover.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

With the exception of Rashan Gary and to a lesser extent Blake Martinez, those are all guys we're actively looking to move on from.  Nothing on there is groundbreaking.  But of those guys that the Packers had in the bottom 10 in PFF grading, only Dean Lowry and Blake Martinez played in 50% of the defensive snaps.  If you include anyone who played in 33%+ of the defensive snaps, that would include Tyler Lancaster and Kyler Fackrell.  So realistically, you're only looking to actively replace ~4 players.  The others are the usual roster turnover.

The problem is, the majority of those guys were draft choices. The real problem IMO is they were all low ceiling guys to begin with. You will never get a Fred Warner by drafting Jake Ryan every year. I am sooo over the Martinez, Ryan, Summers mold. Have no clue what they are trying to accomplish

Edited by cannondale
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, cannondale said:

The problem is, the majority of those guys were draft choices. The real problem IMO is they were all low ceiling guys to begin with. You will never get a Fred Warner by drafting Jake Ryan every year. 

Player A: 6'3", 236 lbs, 4.64 40 yard dash, 1.55 10 yard, 6.90 3-cone, 4.28 SS, 38.5 VJ, 9'11" broad
Player B: 6'2", 237 lbs, 4.71 40 yard dash, 1.61 10 yard, 6.98 3-cone, 4.20 SS, 28.5 VJ, 9'5" broad
Player C: 6'2", 240 lbs, 4.65 40 yard dash, 1.62 10 yard, 7.11 3 cone, 4.20 SS, 34.5 VJ, 10' broad

Player A is Fred Warner, Player B is Blake Martinez, and Player C is Jake Ryan.  Interesting you brought up Jake Ryan instead of Blake Martinez given that Martinez is a more relevant example.  Athletically, Ryan and Warner aren't terribly far off.  Warner is a bit more explosive (see 10 yard and VJ), and a bit more flexible (see 3 cone), but overall comparable athletes.  Jake Ryan was actually more productive than Fred Warner in his final year at Michigan than Warner was at BYU.  If you've got a guy who was more productive but a slightly lesser athlete, and one excelled in the NFL and one didn't.  That's on the coaching staff.  Jake Ryan was a good gamble.  Unfortunately, he got hurt.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Player A: 6'3", 236 lbs, 4.64 40 yard dash, 1.55 10 yard, 6.90 3-cone, 4.28 SS, 38.5 VJ, 9'11" broad
Player B: 6'2", 237 lbs, 4.71 40 yard dash, 1.61 10 yard, 6.98 3-cone, 4.20 SS, 28.5 VJ, 9'5" broad
Player C: 6'2", 240 lbs, 4.65 40 yard dash, 1.62 10 yard, 7.11 3 cone, 4.20 SS, 34.5 VJ, 10' broad

Player A is Fred Warner, Player B is Blake Martinez, and Player C is Jake Ryan.  Interesting you brought up Jake Ryan instead of Blake Martinez given that Martinez is a more relevant example.  Athletically, Ryan and Warner aren't terribly far off.  Warner is a bit more explosive (see 10 yard and VJ), and a bit more flexible (see 3 cone), but overall comparable athletes.  Jake Ryan was actually more productive than Fred Warner in his final year at Michigan than Warner was at BYU.  If you've got a guy who was more productive but a slightly lesser athlete, and one excelled in the NFL and one didn't.  That's on the coaching staff.  Jake Ryan was a good gamble.  Unfortunately, he got hurt.

Great. Now turn on the tape. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, cannondale said:

Great. Now turn on the tape. 

 

42 minutes ago, cannondale said:

The problem is, the majority of those guys were draft choices. The real problem IMO is they were all low ceiling guys to begin with. You will never get a Fred Warner by drafting Jake Ryan every year. I am sooo over the Martinez, Ryan, Summers mold. Have no clue what they are trying to accomplish

Believe that was what he was getting at. They're all relatively the same "mold" you're complaining about.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Fl0nkerton said:

 

Believe that was what he was getting at. They're all relatively the same "mold" you're complaining about.

Unfortunately, the game isn't played on paper. I guarantee when you turn on the tape you'll see differences. One of the most athletic LB's on paper ever to play for the Packers, who shall forever remain nameless to me,  looked average and stiff on the field. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, cannondale said:

Unfortunately, the game isn't played on paper. I guarantee when you turn on the tape you'll see differences. One of the most athletic LB's on paper ever to play for the Packers, who shall forever remain nameless to me,  looked average and stiff on the field. 

I know the differences between the players on the field lol. Was just saying that on paper (which means little) they're very close to each other athletically which refutes whatever mold thing you were getting at. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Player A: 6'3", 236 lbs, 4.64 40 yard dash, 1.55 10 yard, 6.90 3-cone, 4.28 SS, 38.5 VJ, 9'11" broad
Player B: 6'2", 237 lbs, 4.71 40 yard dash, 1.61 10 yard, 6.98 3-cone, 4.20 SS, 28.5 VJ, 9'5" broad
Player C: 6'2", 240 lbs, 4.65 40 yard dash, 1.62 10 yard, 7.11 3 cone, 4.20 SS, 34.5 VJ, 10' broad

Player A is Fred Warner, Player B is Blake Martinez, and Player C is Jake Ryan.  Interesting you brought up Jake Ryan instead of Blake Martinez given that Martinez is a more relevant example.  Athletically, Ryan and Warner aren't terribly far off.  Warner is a bit more explosive (see 10 yard and VJ), and a bit more flexible (see 3 cone), but overall comparable athletes.  Jake Ryan was actually more productive than Fred Warner in his final year at Michigan than Warner was at BYU.  If you've got a guy who was more productive but a slightly lesser athlete, and one excelled in the NFL and one didn't.  That's on the coaching staff.  Jake Ryan was a good gamble.  Unfortunately, he got hurt.

He's trying to say you can't have white dudes at ILB.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Fl0nkerton said:

I know the differences between the players on the field lol. Was just saying that on paper (which means little) they're very close to each other athletically which refutes whatever mold thing you were getting at. 

The mold I'm talking about can only be seen when looking at the play on the field, so not sure what you're saying

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...