2018 Free Agency - Prospects for GB

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

If you go with Elliot, then you lose the ability to go with some of the newer fronts in the Packers defense because he is not going to effectively drop into coverage.  He is similar to Gilbert.

What I think the the Packers want is a guy who can be the hybrid player like Matthews is in this defense-not the old Capers defense, but this defense- able to rush the passer and play in space, and it seems to me that those guys are harder to find.  That's why Fackrell persists despite his weaknesses, because he can play the SAM in these other sets where he can play coverage.

Interestingly, the guy cut by the Raiders, Shillique Callhoun, was drafted by the Raiders 13 picks before Fackrell and failed miserably at the same type of role.

I would guess that if the type of player that can play that role better than Fackrell comes along, he will be signed.  Patience is required though because those types of players don't come along all that often.

I think every body agrees that there are players on the roster that have weaknesses, and in an ideal world they would be upgraded.  Scapegoating Fackrell is getting old though.

[Mr. Fussnputz]

8 hours ago, ReadyToThump said:

Fackrell is trash.

End of story.  

I don't like calling people "trash." I don't think that's what you meant to say. Maybe, "Fackrell is a poor football player at the NFL level" would better? 

And for everyone else, Oshkosh and many other communities world-wide have adopted something call the Civility Project. It provides guidelines for how to discuss hot issues when we disagree. At the risk of sounding namby-pamby in a high testosterone forum, here is the link: http://www.dsaspeakyourpeace.org/about.html

I'm interested in how you think the Civility Project rules for discussion would work here. I for one will try to follow them. 

[Packer_ESP]

5 minutes ago, Mr. Fussnputz said:

I don't like calling people "trash." I don't think that's what you meant to say. Maybe, "Fackrell is a poor football player at the NFL level" would better? 

And for everyone else, Oshkosh and many other communities world-wide have adopted something call the Civility Project. It provides guidelines for how to discuss hot issues when we disagree. At the risk of sounding namby-pamby in a high testosterone forum, here is the link: http://www.dsaspeakyourpeace.org/about.html

I'm interested in how you think the Civility Project rules for discussion would work here. I for one will try to follow them. 

I didn't know about that project but lately I've been trying to follow a homemade rule both in the internet and in day-to-day conversation: if I wouldn't dare say something about a person to their face, I try not to say it behind their backs either (or write it on a forum). I may still criticize that person but it's a lot less abrasive and makes for better conversation.

[packfanfb]

57 minutes ago, Ragnar Danneskjold said:

If you go with Elliot, then you lose the ability to go with some of the newer fronts in the Packers defense because he is not going to effectively drop into coverage.  He is similar to Gilbert.

What I think the the Packers want is a guy who can be the hybrid player like Matthews is in this defense-not the old Capers defense, but this defense- able to rush the passer and play in space, and it seems to me that those guys are harder to find.  That's why Fackrell persists despite his weaknesses, because he can play the SAM in these other sets where he can play coverage.

Interestingly, the guy cut by the Raiders, Shillique Callhoun, was drafted by the Raiders 13 picks before Fackrell and failed miserably at the same type of role.

I would guess that if the type of player that can play that role better than Fackrell comes along, he will be signed.  Patience is required though because those types of players don't come along all that often.

I think every body agrees that there are players on the roster that have weaknesses, and in an ideal world they would be upgraded.  Scapegoating Fackrell is getting old though.

I think they want a guy like Zettel so they can play more 4-3 fronts with maybe Perry standing up for going down. The 3-4 look is likely going to struggle from a pass rush standpoint unless Matthews' play picks up significantly off the EDGE. May have to end up moving Matthews off the ball more into a SAM role unless he starts getting to the QB. 

[OneTwoSixFive]

@Packer_ESP It's easy to dial things up to 10 when there is no physical face to face element, in arguments. A 115lb weakling can go totally nuclear on you, on the net (and they might enjoy that rare sense of domination). The best lesson I learned, to make less 'flamer' posts, was by being a mod on a football  forum (a long time ago). It impresses on you (well, on me, anyway) a greater sense of responsibility. 

Back then, if I read a post that really got me going, I'd type out a scathing reply, nothing held back, insults flying. Then I'd look at what I'd typed (without posting it)  with some satisfaction, before deleting it, and making a much milder reply. I don't need to do that now, but this was in my more argumentative youth.

[AlexGreen#20]

1 hour ago, eyecatcher said:

I'm not gonna argue in favor of Fackrell here but Fackrell took three Chicago blockers on in that play letting the ILB with a free shot on the RB.  If Fackrell did contain the edge here and goes one on one with the blocker that leaves two blockers for the ILB and Howard takes that through the gap for a nice gain.  

This is reaching AJ Hawk levels of insanity.

Your edge crashing C Gap with the ILB filling over the top is something you do on run downs if you respect a QBs ability to be part of the designed running game.

How the **** do you watch an edge player step directly inside, plug an open gap, and then ***** about the man losing contain?

This is the exact **** that makes me want to tear my hair out with PFF. Fackrell is going to have a terrible run "grade" in this game because he's going to have "lost contain" on these plays and then a bunch of mouth breathers are gonna spend 8 weeks bitching about Tempson and playmakerzz. This is the exact **** that makes PFF worthless when evaluating 3-4 DEs. How do you grade without knowing the call?

[eyecatcher]

4 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

This is reaching AJ Hawk levels of insanity.

Your edge crashing C Gap with the ILB filling over the top is something you do on run downs if you respect a QBs ability to be part of the designed running game.

How the **** do you watch an edge player step directly inside, plug an open gap, and then ***** about the man losing contain?

This is the exact **** that makes me want to tear my hair out with PFF. Fackrell is going to have a terrible run "grade" in this game because he's going to have "lost contain" on these plays and then a bunch of mouth breathers are gonna spend 8 weeks bitching about Tempson and playmakerzz. This is the exact **** that makes PFF worthless when evaluating 3-4 DEs. How do you grade without knowing the call?

So you agree with me?  You seem a little upset.  LOL

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

18 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

I think they want a guy like Zettel so they can play more 4-3 fronts with maybe Perry standing up for going down. The 3-4 look is likely going to struggle from a pass rush standpoint unless Matthews' play picks up significantly off the EDGE. May have to end up moving Matthews off the ball more into a SAM role unless he starts getting to the QB. 

Watch the first series from the Chicago game- they already have moved Mathews off the ball for a significant number of snaps!

They are playing 4-3 snaps already- Perry and Gilbert are playing the "rush" backer because they don't have the same ability to play in space as Matthews.

 

[packfanfb]

1 minute ago, Ragnar Danneskjold said:

Watch the first series from the Chicago game- they already have moved Mathews off the ball for a significant number of snaps!

They are playing 4-3 snaps already- Perry and Gilbert are playing the "rush" backer because they don't have the same ability to play in space as Matthews.

 

And I think that is going to only continue to trend up in terms of "snaps" from that front. Reason why I think they were hot on Zettel and if they add another guy in upcoming weeks, it more likely could be a 4-3 end type versus a 3-4 EDGE. Zettel fits that light 4-3 end (around 270) that GB is probably looking to add. 

[AlexGreen#20]

Just now, packfanfb said:

And I think that is going to only continue to trend up in terms of "snaps" from that front. Reason why I think they were hot on Zettel and if they add another guy in upcoming weeks, it more likely could be a 4-3 end type versus a 3-4 EDGE. Zettel fits that light 4-3 end (around 270) that GB is probably looking to add. 

I saw a lot of Wilkerson and Lowry playing that spot. I'll go through and snap things today, but I'm not sure 270 is what they're looking for at that spot. Didn't Pettine run those Sons of Anarchy (Which by the way is a way cooler nickname than Legion of Boom) for a few years and then the team added Leonard Williams?

I really just think Zettel was going to take Davis' spot on the 53 and be another option in the Perry/Gilbert rotation. We're short of front line players as is.

[PACKRULE]

24 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

This is reaching AJ Hawk levels of insanity.

Your edge crashing C Gap with the ILB filling over the top is something you do on run downs if you respect a QBs ability to be part of the designed running game.

How the **** do you watch an edge player step directly inside, plug an open gap, and then ***** about the man losing contain?

This is the exact **** that makes me want to tear my hair out with PFF. Fackrell is going to have a terrible run "grade" in this game because he's going to have "lost contain" on these plays and then a bunch of mouth breathers are gonna spend 8 weeks bitching about Tempson and playmakerzz. This is the exact **** that makes PFF worthless when evaluating 3-4 DEs. How do you grade without knowing the call?

Nothing wrong with this i was critical of Fackerell on one of his plays. Obviously there is another team on the field and often they win. if Fackerell is going to be on the field why not play to his strengths then and let him zone up and play in coverage and space if that is where he belongs. No TT or playmakers crap here but he's just soft and to often he's not effective in much of what he seems to be doing out there. With that said if he's the guy we have and that's the best in house and on the street for what PET wants to do then we ride this pony till it breaks. Thanks for the feedback AG.

[incognito_man]

54 minutes ago, Mr. Fussnputz said:

I don't like calling people "trash." I don't think that's what you meant to say. Maybe, "Fackrell is a poor football player at the NFL level" would better? 

And for everyone else, Oshkosh and many other communities world-wide have adopted something call the Civility Project. It provides guidelines for how to discuss hot issues when we disagree. At the risk of sounding namby-pamby in a high testosterone forum, here is the link: http://www.dsaspeakyourpeace.org/about.html

I'm interested in how you think the Civility Project rules for discussion would work here. I for one will try to follow them. 

F$-# you and your civility

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

8 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

I saw a lot of Wilkerson and Lowry playing that spot. I'll go through and snap things today, but I'm not sure 270 is what they're looking for at that spot. Didn't Pettine run those Sons of Anarchy (Which by the way is a way cooler nickname than Legion of Boom) for a few years and then the team added Leonard Williams?

I really just think Zettel was going to take Davis' spot on the 53 and be another option in the Perry/Gilbert rotation. We're short of front line players as is.

I think what Packfanfb is saying is Zettle gives them another option for attacking the offense, adding depth so if they would benefit in a game by going with a 4 man front they can do it more often and not tire out the big guys.  I agree with that.  On those plays they can move Mathews into the SAM or middle where he has been very effective in the past.

Pettine indicated when he got here that he wants multiplicity in his fronts, and I would expect the team to pursue players to go after that.  

[AlexGreen#20]

1 minute ago, PACKRULE said:

Nothing wrong with this i was critical of Fackerell on one of his plays. Obviously there is another team on the field and often they win. if Fackerell is going to be on the field why not play to his strengths then and let him zone up and play in coverage and space if that is where he belongs. No TT or playmakers crap here but he's just soft and to often he's not effective in much of what he seems to be doing out there. With that said if he's the guy we have and that's the best in house and on the street for what PET wants to do then we ride this pony till it breaks. Thanks for the feedback AG.

Fackrell's strength isn't really coverage. He's a jack of all trades guy who can do a lot of things alright. He's alright in run defense, he's alright rushing the passer, he's alright in coverage. 

He's not really good at anything but he's also cheap and doesn't kill you.

[TheOnlyThing]

This is a thread about 2018 FREE AGENCY PROSPECTS for the Green Bay Packers.

At this point, no one is contending that the Pack needs an addition at TE, placekicker, punter, along the defensive line, etc.

However, most objective fans acknowledge that OLB is currently, and was last season, a position of weakness. Hence, the focus upon possible FA additions at this position.

As for Fackrell, it may well be unfair for PFF to rank him dead last among all NFL edge players after he played just 4 snaps last Sunday, (Just as it may be unfair for this same PFF outfit to rank David Bakhtiari as the number 1 LT in the NFL after game 1).

However, this ranking is hardly an anomaly for Kyler, given that a separate (non-PFF) ranking system listed him as the 123rd best Edge player (out of 123 such players) for the entire 2017 season.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2751015-nfl1000-ranking-the-top-edge-rushers-from-2017-season#slide1

It could be that there is a conspiracy against Fackrell among those compiling these rankings or perhaps those doing the ranking just don't see all the value he brings to the team or it could be that Kyler is just not any good. For those who believe the latter explanation to be the most accurate, the focus on OLB prospects who might help the Pack in 2018 is unlikely to wane anytime soon.