Jake Ryan, pass coverage, and the future of the Packers ILB position

[CWood21]

27 minutes ago, cannondale said:

I can't hear you but I can smell your internet presence

I thought that was just norms stank...

[Cakeshoppe]

3 hours ago, cannondale said:

How many years should we continue ignoring the rest of the defense?  If you haven't found anyone by now, (2 number one picks, a number 2 and a FA signing),  open up the checkbook, solve the problem, and try your luck drafting at another position. I was irate at the amount of DL we drafted in order to find 3 as well . Then you wake up and wonder why the defense is talent poor. Then again, I already said I'd be a crappy GM

I don't think you can look at it this way. We've had success from the CBs we've spent first round picks on. We have a new talent evaluator at GM drafting them, and we have a new DC using them. I don't think our draft history gives any reason not to take one and it is a position of need. In today's NFL, I think CB is rarely a bad use of a first round pick.

That all said, Pass rusher is the higher priority, and I'd prefer that we pick up an edge rusher in the first. I just wouldn't be disappointed to see us take a CB in the first and if the Pass rushers we wanted at 14 aren't around, I'd look to CB first if it was my call.

[OneTwoSixFive]

59 minutes ago, TheOnlyThing said:

There is a silly notion going around, apparently based upon the drafting proclivities of a former GM, that taking ILBs in the 1st or 2nd round is, by definition, a bad allocation of draft resources. This is apparently true for some even if the best player at the draft spot is an ILBer.

So do you think the Vikes made a mistake taking Barr in the 1st and Kendricks in the 2nd and regret those decisions?

An ILB is not automatically a bad idea, when taken in a vacuum. However, when you look at the needs of a team, you must decide if it is THE BEST use of a high pick. Most often, when the time to pick comes, there are several players of roughly equal ability, ie players are in tiers on the Packers board. Sometimes a player (on your own board) drops until they are clearly better than any other option. That was the case when Ted traded up to get Clay Matthews - he had him rated a good deal higher than the spot he traded up to, to get him. This is a good deal less common than finding several options that are about equal in talent when it is your turn to draft. This is what gives you the best chance of combining a highest available tier pick, with a position of great need.

So we have to decide a couple of things: 
Are there several draftees of equal talent available when the Packers pick ? 
Is one of these guys in that top tier, both at a position of serious need, and playing a position worthy of spending a high pick (and imo, that is not guard, nor is it an ILB) ?
If the Packers think Smith is markedly better than any other prospect, then at some point in the draft he becomes the best pick. Quality eventually overrides need. The question is, for the Packers, where is that point ?

There is another option. If you see enough players ranked about the same level, then you may be tempted to try and trade down. trading back may lose a player you really liked, but if you liked him enough you wouldn't have traded down in the first place. This happened last year, when the Packers were happy to trade back for the extra pick and still got a same-tier player in King.

[AlexGreen#20]

1 hour ago, MantyWrestler said:

Thought I read Clark lost 10-15# this past off season to be quicker. He said he felt he was too slow with the extra weight... 305#-310#

Which is still too big. to be playing in the pressure package. You want designated rushers playing those snaps.

[MantyWrestler]

8 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Which is still too big. to be playing in the pressure package. You want designated rushers playing those snaps.

But that makes him roughly the same weight as Daniels but a couple inches taller. To me he looks to have as much pass rush potential as Daniels. 

[squire12]

7 minutes ago, MantyWrestler said:

16 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Which is still too big. to be playing in the pressure package. You want designated rushers playing those snaps.

But that makes him roughly the same weight as Daniels but a couple inches taller. To me he looks to have as much pass rush potential as Daniels. 

Still need another DL player to rotate with those 2.  Hopefully Adams can become that player.  Would be nice to not have to invest a high pick to find someone to partner with Clark and Daniels.

Will be really interesting to see what type of players Pettine will want for various positions and situations.

[AlexGreen#20]

3 minutes ago, MantyWrestler said:

But that makes him roughly the same weight as Daniels but a couple inches taller. To me he looks to have as much pass rush potential as Daniels. 

Clark's at about 315, Daniels about 305 if I'm putting my guess to it. Clark's a great Juice guy for his size, but you want long and lean. In an ideal world Daniels isn't even playing in the pressure group.

[MantyWrestler]

13 minutes ago, squire12 said:

Still need another DL player to rotate with those 2.  Hopefully Adams can become that player.  Would be nice to not have to invest a high pick to find someone to partner with Clark and Daniels.

Will be really interesting to see what type of players Pettine will want for various positions and situations.

Totally agree here. 

[MantyWrestler]

12 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Clark's at about 315, Daniels about 305 if I'm putting my guess to it. Clark's a great Juice guy for his size, but you want long and lean. In an ideal world Daniels isn't even playing in the pressure group.

I agree with this too but they both do get pressure and Clark is pretty young yet. 

[AlexGreen#20]

1 hour ago, MantyWrestler said:

I agree with this too but they both do get pressure and Clark is pretty young yet. 

You're not going to find a bigger Kenny Clark fan than myself, but I just don't think that's a likely future for him. Not a knock on the guy, I don't think playing deep halves is in his future either. He's very good at his role.

[CWood21]

15 hours ago, cannondale said:

Despite the over embellishment of the CB situation (they sucked injured or healthy for the most part / scheme or otherwise) I agree. I think we can win with Martinez and Ryan if they are surrounded by needle movers, because they are not, and it would be great if they were. Is there anything wrong with that ?

I'd hardly call it an over embellishment.  There is a total of 73 available defensive snap counts.  Of those 73, our CB for that game were Damarious Randall (69 snaps), LaDarius Gunter (67 snaps), Micah Hyde (39 snaps), and Quentin Rollins (19 snaps).  That's after losing your #1 CB Sam Shields to a career-ending concussion, your highest draft pick on the roster was dealing with a myriad of lower-body injuries, and you were essentially forced to have your UDFA shadow Julio Jones.  You think it's any coincidence that Gunter was the one given the task of defending Julio Jones?  He was literally the only healthy body we had at CB.

But going back to my point, do you think an ILB changes the defense like say a shutdown CB or elite pass rusher?  Hell no.  It's a luxury at the end of the day.

[CWood21]

15 hours ago, TheOnlyThing said:

There is a silly notion going around, apparently based upon the drafting proclivities of a former GM, that taking ILBs in the 1st or 2nd round is, by definition, a bad allocation of draft resources. This is apparently true for some even if the best player at the draft spot is an ILBer.

So do you think the Vikes made a mistake taking Barr in the 1st and Kendricks in the 2nd and regret those decisions?

And, BTW how many 1st or 2nd round picks have the Vikes used on their DLine?

I really, really don't think you understand statistical averages.  Why do you think the Vikings were afforded the luxury of taking a non-rush LB (although I'd disagree that Barr was viewed as a non-rush LB coming out of UCLA)?  They were able to hit on the mid-round EDGE players.  Danielle Hunter was a 3rd round pick, Everson Griffen was a 4th round pick, and even Brian Robison was a 4th round pick.  I'd ask you to find a team whose had as much success drafting in the mid-round (3rd through 5th rounds) range with pass rushers.  The Vikings are the anomaly.  Not the norm.  You have to give credit to Zimmer and the rest of the coaching staff.  They have them playing well as a unit.

Let me ask you this, if you're sitting with Eric Kendricks on the board or an equally-talented pass rusher or CB, which do you take?  An ILB isn't the reason for our defensive issues the last few years.  It's insane to think otherwise, when there's been enough evidence that suggests that pass rush is significantly more important.

[cannondale]

8 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

I'd hardly call it an over embellishment.  There is a total of 73 available defensive snap counts.  Of those 73, our CB for that game were Damarious Randall (69 snaps), LaDarius Gunter (67 snaps), Micah Hyde (39 snaps), and Quentin Rollins (19 snaps).  That's after losing your #1 CB Sam Shields to a career-ending concussion, your highest draft pick on the roster was dealing with a myriad of lower-body injuries, and you were essentially forced to have your UDFA shadow Julio Jones.  You think it's any coincidence that Gunter was the one given the task of defending Julio Jones?  He was literally the only healthy body we had at CB.

But going back to my point, do you think an ILB changes the defense like say a shutdown CB or elite pass rusher?  Hell no.  It's a luxury at the end of the day.

I didn't know you were going back 3 years. I thought you were talking last year. I've made it quite clear that I'm not suggesting ILB is more important than any other position. I simply disagreed that it was a throw away position. In a vacuum would I like an upgrade ? Sure. Watching Kendricks chase down guys is something we don't have. Luxury is a term tossed around a lot. A player that moves the needle is a player that moves the needle. A great punter is a luxury, until you have a crappy one

[CWood21]

14 hours ago, Cakeshoppe said:

I don't think you can look at it this way. We've had success from the CBs we've spent first round picks on. We have a new talent evaluator at GM drafting them, and we have a new DC using them. I don't think our draft history gives any reason not to take one and it is a position of need. In today's NFL, I think CB is rarely a bad use of a first round pick.

That all said, Pass rusher is the higher priority, and I'd prefer that we pick up an edge rusher in the first. I just wouldn't be disappointed to see us take a CB in the first and if the Pass rushers we wanted at 14 aren't around, I'd look to CB first if it was my call.

If we're looking purely in a vacuum and value is equal, the positional breakdown better be:

EDGE > CB > S > DL > ILB

You could probably make an argument that an interior pass rusher would/could jump ahead of S.

[CWood21]

14 hours ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

If the Packers think Smith is markedly better than any other prospect, then at some point in the draft he becomes the best pick. Quality eventually overrides need. The question is, for the Packers, where is that point ?

Very much this.  It's not that your eliminating taking any ILB in the 1st round, it's that the value has to be overwhelming.  I just can't fathom a scenario where that happens.