Random Packer News & Notes

[Rainmaker90]

24 minutes ago, Leader said:

Acme Packing -  If the Packers wanted to improve their running game, they went about it in a funny way. Aaron Jones and a good line already made them an excellent rushing team, but the loss of a key member of that line and cutting into Jones’ carries will likely make them worse, not better. Failing to add a receiver will likely leave the passing attack unchanged, and another year of 12 has me betting on a decline, not an improvement.

The Packers also still have big holes in the secondary with Tramon Williams likely not returning. Jaire Alexander is their only solid talent at the position, and many of Kevin King’s problems were glossed over due to a nice interception total. While the safeties are fine, this team will still struggle to cover opposing wide receivers. While they added an inside linebacker, they also did nothing to increase their bulk on the defensive line, and they are as vulnerable to teams like the 49ers as they are to pass-heavy teams.

Brian Gutekunst and Matt LaFleur drafted to implement a new offensive scheme while failing to address every major hole. They did so with a buffet of outstanding receivers offered up to them. The teams they are attempting to emulate have all spent high picks on receivers over the past several seasons because even the few run-based teams still understand that passing is king, and that the run can’t set up the pass if the pass is bad.

They failed to understand the relative value of the players they really wanted, reaching for low-value halfbacks and fullbacks when both likely would have been available later.

They picked a questionable quarterback prospect and will lose two key years of financial flexibility as result. And they traded up for the privilege.

It’s honestly hard to imagine a team having a worse draft.

Why do people think the secondary has big holes. 
 

Jaire is going into his third season and has shown a ton of promise. Still only 23 years old. 
 

Kevin King has shown moments of promise and he’s had his rough patches too. He’s going to be 25 in like a week. Missed a lot of time the first two seasons, his third he gained a lot of experience, good chance he improves some.

Darnell Savage another first rounder who showed a ton of promise his first year and also played a ton of snaps. He’s 23.

Adrian Amos is as solid as they come going into  year two in this defense. 
 

That 4 has the potential to be one of the best units in the league. Even if there is a decrease in production at the nickel,  the secondary should still be a strength. 
 

[Leader]

1 minute ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Other than the part about King, pretty much. I don't think things are as dire as he makes it out to be. I think this is still a 10-6 team.

Oh...you were referring to the Acme guy. Got it.
Just an opinion. Taken with a grain of salt and provided for interest only.

It is what it is at this point. The GB FO (and HC....) might have a decidely more negative view of AR than I do - entirely possible - but (in theory at least....) we've got our bridge to the future already on board - and - (again in theory...) he was selected for talents shown on the field.

I can live with their judgements even if the "chronology" is somewhat.....unconventional as I mentioned.

If AR cleans up his game......we'll be fine IMO....or we'll be better. Our offense clicked last year when he played within the system - a system which has been bolstered by recent adds.

[Packerraymond]

39 minutes ago, Leader said:

Acme Packing -  If the Packers wanted to improve their running game, they went about it in a funny way. Aaron Jones and a good line already made them an excellent rushing team, but the loss of a key member of that line and cutting into Jones’ carries will likely make them worse, not better. Failing to add a receiver will likely leave the passing attack unchanged, and another year of 12 has me betting on a decline, not an improvement.

The Packers also still have big holes in the secondary with Tramon Williams likely not returning. Jaire Alexander is their only solid talent at the position, and many of Kevin King’s problems were glossed over due to a nice interception total. While the safeties are fine, this team will still struggle to cover opposing wide receivers. While they added an inside linebacker, they also did nothing to increase their bulk on the defensive line, and they are as vulnerable to teams like the 49ers as they are to pass-heavy teams.

Brian Gutekunst and Matt LaFleur drafted to implement a new offensive scheme while failing to address every major hole. They did so with a buffet of outstanding receivers offered up to them. The teams they are attempting to emulate have all spent high picks on receivers over the past several seasons because even the few run-based teams still understand that passing is king, and that the run can’t set up the pass if the pass is bad.

They failed to understand the relative value of the players they really wanted, reaching for low-value halfbacks and fullbacks when both likely would have been available later.

They picked a questionable quarterback prospect and will lose two key years of financial flexibility as result. And they traded up for the privilege.

It’s honestly hard to imagine a team having a worse draft.

APC should furlough everyone but Peter Bukowski.

This is a bad take, doesn't even bring up the real, true question mark of the 2020 Packers, how are we going to stop good teams from running the ball on us?

[Leader]

Zach Kruse -   Packers were already really good at running the ball. They were 4th in rushing DVOA last year, ahead of the 49ers and Titans.

• Peter Bukowski -   They great on the ground but were bad at play action. Aaron Rodgers was 30th or worse in YPA and passer rating on play-action among qualified starters last year. One of the reasons Green Bay didn’t do well on play action was their lack of disguise with big personnel. Getting Sternberger on the field more and adding Deguara will be an attempt to remedy that.

[Leader]

4 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

APC should furlough everyone but Peter Bukowski. This is a bad take, doesn't even bring up the real, true question mark of the 2020 Packers, how are we going to stop good teams from running the ball on us?

The section provided was the "Conclusion" paragraph....but he doesnt discuss the DL in the earlier text either.

[AlexGreen#20]

1 minute ago, Rainmaker90 said:

Why do people think the secondary has big holes. 
 

Jaire is going into his third season and has shown a ton of promise. Still only 23 years old. 
 

Kevin King has shown moments of promise and he’s had his rough patches too. He’s going to be 25 in like a week. Missed a lot of time the first two seasons, his third he gained a lot of experience, good chance he improves some.

Darnell Savage another first rounder who showed a ton of promise his first year and also played a ton of snaps. He’s 23.

Adrian Amos is as solid as they come going into  year two in this defense. 
 

That 4 has the potential to be one of the best units in the league. Even if there is a decrease in production at the nickel,  the secondary should still be a strength. 
 

Not that I disagree, but we play 6 DBs 50% of the time. 

I like Sullivan, but I don't think we're calling him a steady starter yet. 4/6 pieces being locked down, is worse than the 5 we had last year.

 

[Rainmaker90]

17 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Not that I disagree, but we play 6 DBs 50% of the time. 

I like Sullivan, but I don't think we're calling him a steady starter yet. 4/6 pieces being locked down, is worse than the 5 we had last year.

 

From what you see of Jackson, do you have much confidence he can turn into something?

 

Was not a fan of his as a prospect, but in the second round I thought it was a good value pick. 

[craig]

1 hour ago, Leader said:

Zach Kruse -   Packers were already really good at running the ball. They were 4th in rushing DVOA last year, ahead of the 49ers and Titans.

• Peter Bukowski -   They great on the ground but were bad at play action. Aaron Rodgers was 30th or worse in YPA and passer rating on play-action among qualified starters last year. One of the reasons Green Bay didn’t do well on play action was their lack of disguise with big personnel. Getting Sternberger on the field more and adding Deguara will be an attempt to remedy that.

That's fascinating, hadn't realized it was that bad.  it seems consistent with subjective recall, though.  

Bukowski's thought that "lack of disguise" was a factor is interesting, and may have merit.  But can somebody explain that better to me? 

The logic is supposed to be that "big personnel" would be signaling run; so isn't that supposed to better disguise pass?  So in what way did "big personnel" fail to disguise intended pass?  Or is he actually meaning that we didn't run much play-action-pass with "big personnel"; so with small personnel  D's anticipated pass and disguise was lacking? 

I imagine it's also true that even *if* we ran play action with Mercedes and Jamal "big personnel" sets, play-action probably didn't work too well.  Even if pass was disguised, who cares?  The pass defense could ignore those two anyway, so only had a couple of possible targets to defend and were able to do so whether surprised or not.  

Hopefully Jace and Deguara do help, perhaps Funchess also. 

I wonder whether Dillon will have adequate blocking skill yet?  But I'd like for him to hopefully be a disguise guy, too?  If he's in a package, maybe it's a power run?  Maybe a big-strong guy like that is just in to block?  Maybe he's a screen or swing pass?  I think for him to be effective, it's going to be pretty important that he does figure out blocking enough so that he can be involved in pass plays.  

[Norm]

Good questions Craig. Someone smart please answer those 

[Packerraymond]

45 minutes ago, craig said:

That's fascinating, hadn't realized it was that bad.  it seems consistent with subjective recall, though.  

Bukowski's thought that "lack of disguise" was a factor is interesting, and may have merit.  But can somebody explain that better to me? 

The logic is supposed to be that "big personnel" would be signaling run; so isn't that supposed to better disguise pass?  So in what way did "big personnel" fail to disguise intended pass?  Or is he actually meaning that we didn't run much play-action-pass with "big personnel"; so with small personnel  D's anticipated pass and disguise was lacking? 

I imagine it's also true that even *if* we ran play action with Mercedes and Jamal "big personnel" sets, play-action probably didn't work too well.  Even if pass was disguised, who cares?  The pass defense could ignore those two anyway, so only had a couple of possible targets to defend and were able to do so whether surprised or not.  

Hopefully Jace and Deguara do help, perhaps Funchess also. 

I wonder whether Dillon will have adequate blocking skill yet?  But I'd like for him to hopefully be a disguise guy, too?  If he's in a package, maybe it's a power run?  Maybe a big-strong guy like that is just in to block?  Maybe he's a screen or swing pass?  I think for him to be effective, it's going to be pretty important that he does figure out blocking enough so that he can be involved in pass plays.  

I think he's looking a little too deep into and trying to talk himself into positivity regarding our personnel packages. Play action concepts are usually vertically attacking concepts. We didn't hit consistently on vertical concepts all of last year. Take the play action out of it and I still think Rodgers is probably bottom tier in YPA on vertical routes. You had bad passes, drops, bad routes, etc.. There just wasn't consistency. Incompletions yield a low YPA. 

Long story short, better execution is going to go a long way for better results in the vertical game, moreso than new personnel groups. 

[Leader]

5 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

 Long story short, better execution is going to go a long way for better results in the vertical game, moreso than new personnel groups. 

This ^

The GBP offense simply needs to execute better.

Be that team we all saw during the first 15-20 plays of numerous games and less the one that could go for multiple series / quarters w/o moving the needle (read: yard stick) appreciably and putting it on the defense not to collapse.

Btw....small add on.....

If the GBP offense executes better....hence scores at a better clip....it will help our run D in so much as teams will need to throw the ball more.

Edited April 30, 2020 by Leader

[incognito_man]

2 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Not that I disagree, but we play 6 DBs 50% of the time. 

I like Sullivan, but I don't think we're calling him a steady starter yet. 4/6 pieces being locked down, is worse than the 5 we had last year.

 

Hollman could take a year 2 jump as well. He flashed a couple times. Certainly can't pencil him in as "steady" or anything close to it, but he's another guy capable of stepping into a bigger role. And Tramon will potentially be available for an in-season add if we need him? He graded out pretty well last year and he's the type of guy who will keep himself in football shape if he wants to play again.

Still wouldn't mind adding another vet DL and CB though...

[Leader]

Ben Fennell -   Interesting nugget in PFF Draft Guide on Packers RB AJ Dillon...

Zone Runs: 90 (T-124th)
Man/Gap Runs: 224 (1st)

Boston College utilized a pro-style run game with heavy power/counter elements. Under Center/Multiple TE sets.
The Packers? Heavy zone scheme.

[Leader]

Field Yates -  Some food for thought as we continue to evaluate how the Packers have surrounded Aaron Rodgers: career TD passes to first AND second round picks.

Manning - 309
Brady - 273
Eli - 215
AR - 192
Favre - 167
Brees - 165

[{Family Ghost}]

1 minute ago, Leader said:

Field Yates -  Some food for thought as we continue to evaluate how the Packers have surrounded Aaron Rodgers: career TD passes to first AND second round picks.

Manning - 309
Brady - 273
Eli - 215
AR - 192
Favre - 167
Brees - 165

The Packers are foolish not to have continued using 2nd round picks on wideouts the past several years.  Six drafts have passed since the Packers used a higher pick on a wideout.  With as much success as they have had in round two with receivers it's kind of mindboggling that they have tried to get by with middle and late rounders.