Jump to content

Random Packer News & Notes

Leader

By Leader
in Green Bay Packers

 Share

Recommended Posts

Refugee

Refugee

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, St Vince said:

This kid has a big leg. Wonder why he never stuck to an NFL roster.

 

He just came out last year? It can be tough to crack a roster as a specialist if most teams have their guy already. As has been mentioned, I hope we can PS stash him and if he’s ready, bring him aboard next year. Funny enough, this video says a good comparison to his style/leg strength in O’Donnell. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
craig

craig

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, St Vince said:

This kid has a big leg. Wonder why he never stuck to an NFL roster.

Thanks for the Whelan scouting, Vince. 

  1. Yeah, he's got a big leg.  A big leg seems to have advantages.  But I wonder if Packers and Rich B value that much?  Bjorquez (sp?) had a huge leg, but they didn't value that much, and outkicked the coverage sometimes.  
  2. As we so often heard, Bjorquez was a terrible snap-holder for Crosby, and they loved O'Donnel for that.  If that's Whelan's job, i wonder if he can do that efficiently?  
  3. The video noted that college rules, everybody can fly downfield for coverage.  But not so in NFL.  I think that makes it much easier to outkick the coverage in NFL; the coverage just can't be as good?  
  4. For being such a big guy, longer levers take longer to swing.  In those college videos, he seemed to have incredibly long protection.  I wonder if the block-avoidance timing might need to be completely different and faster in the NFL?  
  5. Still, if you've got a big leg, you ought to be able to just blast it higher and higher, even if you don't want it longer and longer.  Being able to just whack it 50 yards high and have no-return 50-yard fair catches, that would be fun.  And having a big leg, maybe it's easier to take a little bit off when you want?  
  6. Heh heh, a big strong guy might also be a little better as a punt-return stopper?  Don't want to need that very often, but a big guy who can take on a blocker in a crisis, that might be nice!  
  7. I agree with Refugee's point.  We've in a rebuilding operation, so O'Donnell might be fine for now, but how much longer?  Having Whelan in camp and on the PS might be kinda clever?  get some time in with Rich, and figure out if you might have a long-term answer for the Love era?  
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
R T

R T

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, craig said:

Thanks for the Whelan scouting, Vince. 

  1. Yeah, he's got a big leg.  A big leg seems to have advantages.  But I wonder if Packers and Rich B value that much?  Bjorquez (sp?) had a huge leg, but they didn't value that much, and outkicked the coverage sometimes.  
  2. As we so often heard, Bjorquez was a terrible snap-holder for Crosby, and they loved O'Donnel for that.  If that's Whelan's job, i wonder if he can do that efficiently?  
  3. The video noted that college rules, everybody can fly downfield for coverage.  But not so in NFL.  I think that makes it much easier to outkick the coverage in NFL; the coverage just can't be as good?  
  4. For being such a big guy, longer levers take longer to swing.  In those college videos, he seemed to have incredibly long protection.  I wonder if the block-avoidance timing might need to be completely different and faster in the NFL?  
  5. Still, if you've got a big leg, you ought to be able to just blast it higher and higher, even if you don't want it longer and longer.  Being able to just whack it 50 yards high and have no-return 50-yard fair catches, that would be fun.  And having a big leg, maybe it's easier to take a little bit off when you want?  
  6. Heh heh, a big strong guy might also be a little better as a punt-return stopper?  Don't want to need that very often, but a big guy who can take on a blocker in a crisis, that might be nice!  
  7. I agree with Refugee's point.  We've in a rebuilding operation, so O'Donnell might be fine for now, but how much longer?  Having Whelan in camp and on the PS might be kinda clever?  get some time in with Rich, and figure out if you might have a long-term answer for the Love era?  

Bojorquez was a horrible holder and was not great at inside the 20 punting either. O'Donnell and Bojorquez both had a net yards per punt at 40.0, but O'Donnell had one touchback on the whole season and is one of the best holders in the NFL. Freaky long punts get fans as fired up as a 170-pound college WR running fast through the secondary on a Saturday, but freaky long punts in the NFL often lead to freaky long punt returns. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zycho32

Zycho32

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, R T said:

Bojorquez was a horrible holder and was not great at inside the 20 punting either. O'Donnell and Bojorquez both had a net yards per punt at 40.0, but O'Donnell had one touchback on the whole season and is one of the best holders in the NFL. Freaky long punts get fans as fired up as a 170-pound college WR running fast through the secondary on a Saturday, but freaky long punts in the NFL often lead to freaky long punt returns. 

It don't look sex-ay, but it gets the job done. The modern day equivalent of "Don't Punt to Grange".

Link to comment
Share on other sites
craig

craig

Posted
Posted

Holding and positional punting inside-the-20 are primary punter skills.   That Bojorquez was variably poor at both should not lead to the presumption that big-leg punters will be analogously deficient.  There is no cause-and-effect linkage.  

Long punt returns may be facilitated by long punts.  It's also possible that in addition to the punt length, both hang time and punt-coverage skill also factor.   I hypothesize that with Rich B and all of the additional personnel and practice-time that is dedicated to ST, that the coverage capacity is and will be variably superior to the Bojorquez days?  

O'Donnell's net was 40.4, 30th in the league. 

  1. I get that some cold-weather punting may play something of a role.  But cold-weather and intentional-don't-outkick-coverage are contradictory rationalizations.  If using the latter, don't also add in the former.  (Which, nobody has done thus far!)  
  2.  That O'Donnell's net was 30th, suggests that 29 other teams are profitably intentional about kicking/covering further.  So if 29 other teams can punt/cover farther without out-kicking the coverage, it suggests that it would be productive for us to punt/cover further than we do. 
  3. If that's just RichB's strategy to kick/cover them that short, than 29 other coaches seem to have a slightly different and more effective strategy?
  4. If it's not just a strategic choice, then it seems that 29 teams are happy to have punters with variably stronger/farther punting capacity.  If 29 teams prefer strong-legged punters, maybe it isn't just stupid simplistic 170-pound-WR-loving idiot fans that prefer somewhat longer punts?  It appears that almost every team in the league does!  
  5. I kinda hyperbolize.  11 of them are within 1-yard better net than the Packers.  How much difference does 1-yard-per-punt make?  Only 12 teams have punting nets ≥2 yards better, only 6 more than 3 yards better, only 2 more than 4 yards longer, and only 1 more than 5 yards longer.  At ≥50 punts a year, only 2 teams are gained more than 200 yards versus Rich B/McDonnell's punting.  
  6. Having a stronger leg doesn't necessitate out-kicking the coverage.  Outkicking the coverage may be a function of dumbness or poor execution?  
  7. A stronger leg can kick if farther; or can kick it higher.  If 55-yard punt outkicks the coverage, why not kick it 50 but higher and with more air time?  A stronger leg with more big-air-time 50-yard-fair-catches would be just fine.  
Link to comment
Share on other sites
R T

R T

Posted
Posted
33 minutes ago, craig said:

Holding and positional punting inside-the-20 are primary punter skills.   That Bojorquez was variably poor at both should not lead to the presumption that big-leg punters will be analogously deficient.  There is no cause-and-effect linkage.  

Long punt returns may be facilitated by long punts.  It's also possible that in addition to the punt length, both hang time and punt-coverage skill also factor.   I hypothesize that with Rich B and all of the additional personnel and practice-time that is dedicated to ST, that the coverage capacity is and will be variably superior to the Bojorquez days?  

O'Donnell's net was 40.4, 30th in the league. 

  1. I get that some cold-weather punting may play something of a role.  But cold-weather and intentional-don't-outkick-coverage are contradictory rationalizations.  If using the latter, don't also add in the former.  (Which, nobody has done thus far!)  
  2.  That O'Donnell's net was 30th, suggests that 29 other teams are profitably intentional about kicking/covering further.  So if 29 other teams can punt/cover farther without out-kicking the coverage, it suggests that it would be productive for us to punt/cover further than we do. 
  3. If that's just RichB's strategy to kick/cover them that short, than 29 other coaches seem to have a slightly different and more effective strategy?
  4. If it's not just a strategic choice, then it seems that 29 teams are happy to have punters with variably stronger/farther punting capacity.  If 29 teams prefer strong-legged punters, maybe it isn't just stupid simplistic 170-pound-WR-loving idiot fans that prefer somewhat longer punts?  It appears that almost every team in the league does!  
  5. I kinda hyperbolize.  11 of them are within 1-yard better net than the Packers.  How much difference does 1-yard-per-punt make?  Only 12 teams have punting nets ≥2 yards better, only 6 more than 3 yards better, only 2 more than 4 yards longer, and only 1 more than 5 yards longer.  At ≥50 punts a year, only 2 teams are gained more than 200 yards versus Rich B/McDonnell's punting.  
  6. Having a stronger leg doesn't necessitate out-kicking the coverage.  Outkicking the coverage may be a function of dumbness or poor execution?  
  7. A stronger leg can kick if farther; or can kick it higher.  If 55-yard punt outkicks the coverage, why not kick it 50 but higher and with more air time?  A stronger leg with more big-air-time 50-yard-fair-catches would be just fine.  

Ya think. 

On your higher, not longer theory. That is what the Packers spent a couple of years trying to get out of JK Scott, but you are tinkering with something they have been doing most of their lives. Like a golfer being ask to change his swing yet still be elite at what they do. It is not as easy as just saying kick it higher, there is probably going to be consistency issues like we seen with Scott. 

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.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...