Cheese Curds: Green Bay Packers Updates

[Krauser]

I'll edit your reply down and reply in a few sections. 

15 hours ago, CWood21 said:

if you're content with your team investing in "less valuable" positions, we're probably on different wavelengths.  I'm clearly a proponent of positional value, and I'm assuming you're not.  But the whole argument about not taking a position because you missed before is AWFUL logic...

You missed my point. 

My main point is that it's interesting that the Packers approach to talent evaluation doesn't seem to have changed much with Gute replacing Ted. They're still drafting athletic specimens on defense early. They're still valuing heavier power rushers like Gary (and before him, Perry) over lighter, more agile edge rushers. They're still taking a DB with at least one of their top 2 picks every year (3 times since 2015, their top 2 picks have both been DBs, which is amazing).

I certainly don't fault the Packers for drafting an edge rusher with their top pick. Positional value is a thing, and they haven't had an edge rusher that scares anyone since Matthews declined, aside from the one good year from Perry. Given that they've got a QB, LT and WR1, there aren't many better options available. 

I also don't fault GB for drafting another DB, their 7th taken in the top 2 rounds within 5 years. "If at first you don't succeed", etc. The Packers pass defense has been bad for several years now, and continued to decline last year despite Pettine taking over as DC. If they throw enough talent at the position, maybe they'll eventually find someone worth signing to a long-term extension. 

...

15 hours ago, CWood21 said:

...your three biggest examples are PRIME examples of why you can't just try and pin "busts" on the FO [Hayward, Hyde, Randall, HHCD]....

So let's not pretend like the Packers have misevaluated.  They just didn't put the players in a position to succeed, which falls on the coaching staff.

I do think it's fair, and relevant, that the Packers have struggled to develop their DBs. It's almost as big an organizational black hole for Green Bay over the last few years as the Vikings and their OL. 

You're right that the problem hasn't been talent selection. They've had some excellent players who either didn't find the right roles (Hayward, Hyde, maybe Randall) or otherwise dropped off from promising beginnings (Clinton-Dix, Randall to some extent). It might be good news for Packers fans that at least their front office can find talented DBs, except that the GM who drafted those guys is gone now. 

Packers fans will want to blame the Capers-era coaching staff, but the trend continued right through last year after Pettine took over: Green Bay was 28th in pass defense DVOA in 2018, after being 27th in 2017 and 23rd in 2016 (and 6th in 2015, their last good year as a unit). 

The Packers were again that poor despite what on paper should've been a decent pool of talent: Clinton-Dix in a contract year, 4 DBs drafted in the top 2 rounds in the past 2 years, and some vets who played well at their previous stops (Breeland in Washington, Tramon Williams in Arizona). We could blame their struggles in the secondary on the pass rush except that the Packers were 13th in PFF pass rush grade and 8th in sacks. 

The big question is whether the Packers latest crop of young DBs is doing to disappoint like the last one (Hayward, Clinton-Dix, Randall, Rollins). 

The young guys didn't do great last year under Pettine. Jaire Alexander was good as a rookie, but maybe not quite as good as he thinks he is. Josh Jackson, the 2nd round rookie, didn't impress much. Neither of their DBs taken in the top 2 rounds in 2017 looked good at all in their second years: Kevin King was injured, again, and was mediocre when healthy, again, while Josh Jones looked lost trying to play in coverage as a safety.

From that group, Alexander seems most likely to make it as a top level long term starter. It wouldn't surprise at all if none of the others did. 

The vets they brought in didn't live up to expectations either. Breeland's PFF grade dropped 10 points (from 68 in Washington in 2017 to 58 in Green Bay), while Tramon Williams' dropped nearly 20 points (81 in Arizona in 2017, 63 in Green Bay). And Clinton-Dix was playing OK but then got shipped off to Washington. 

So now the plan to revitalize this group is to add another athletic rookie DB, Savage, and bring in another high-PFF-grade veteran, Amos. 

What are the odds that Amos' performance declines noticeably once he's playing next to a rookie instead of next to Eddie Jackson, and behind Kevin King instead of Kyle Fuller? What are the odds that HHCD outperforms him playing with the rest of the very strong unit in Chicago? 

Again, I'm not criticizing the Savage pick. I'm saying that until the Packers develop another CB or S who plays well through his rookie deal and signs an extension in Green Bay, I won't be too excited about whichever DB they draft. And I'll believe Pettine and the rest of the Packers coaches can build a secondary as good as the group Capers assembled when I see it.

...

15 hours ago, CWood21 said:

Would you rather have guys who can fit in the defensive scheme or guys who might be marginally more talented but don't fit in the defense?  Mike Pettine clearly has a preferred body type, and given that the Packers had the opportunity to draft Brian Burns at 12 but opted for Rashan Gary tells you that it's not fluid.  

They want guys who can provide pressure, but not lose the edge or contain.  Sure, they might not be that sexy double-digit sack player, but they're consistently getting pressure.  

Za'Darius Smith and Preston Smith were among the league leaders in pressures, which is a SIGNIFICANTLY more reliable stat than sacks are.  

I understand the concept that pressures are production for pass rushers, and sacks are more random statistically. 

I realize that Pettine has a type.

Even so, the Packers already signed 2 UFA pass rushers with a similar physical profile to Gary to expensive long-term contracts.

Now either Za'Darius or Gary will likely be rushing from 3-tech in nickel for the bulk of the next 3-4 years. That's not necessarily a bad thing (might actually be Z's best role as a rusher from what I've seen of him), but it's not what you typically get for a UFA paid $16M AAV and a 12th overall draft pick announced as an OLB.

Given that they already have power rushers in Smith & Smith, I wonder if the Packers should've targeted an edge rusher who might've threatened more around the corner. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the scheme would accommodate that. Pettine had Jerry Hughes in Buffalo, across from Mario Williams.

Again, I'm not saying the Gary pick was terrible. But it's fair to point out that he's a bit of an edge/DL tweener who wasn't very productive in college (some of that no doubt limited by scheme), and who overlaps in skill set with 2 pass rushers also added to the roster this year on premium UFA deals. And he reportedly has a shoulder problem? I don't think it's unreasonable to be skeptical.

Edited May 14, 2019 by Krauser

[Krauser]

A few thoughts on the offense this time: 

On 2019-05-13 at 9:46 AM, CWood21 said:

Other than draft status, what separates MVS from say Christian Kirk, Calvin Ridley, DJ Moore, and Courtland Sutton?  Nothing.  They were all very productive as rookie WRs.  

I already said in the post you were replying to -- PFF grades and advanced stats. 

MVS was 11th of 15 rookie WRs (minimum 20% snaps) by PFF grade, with 60.4. ESB was 8th of 15, with 64.4. 

Using your list, Kirk was 3rd, Ridley 4th, Moore 2nd and Sutton 9th. 

YPRR told a similar story. MVS was 10th of 15 at 1.22, ESB was 9th at 1.31. 

Kirk was 5th, Ridley 4th, Moore 2nd and Sutton 8th. 

The other rookies also had other challenges to production, such as Ridley playing as the 3rd WR in Atlanta, and the others dealing with situations of a mediocre QB (Denver, Arizona) and/or poor OL play and/or schemes (Carolina, Arizona) that would limit WR production. 

Meanwhile in Green Bay, Rodgers played almost all year, the tackles and Linsley stayed healthy, there were lots of targets to go around (pass first offense playing mostly from behind) and competition on the team for those targets was limited, with Cobb playing poorly and out for half the year and Allison playing only 5 games.

If ever a WR should be able to put up 500 yards in his rookie season, it would be a WR in MVS's position last year -- running 475 routes as the only other downfield threat (aside from Adams) in the Packers offense. 

So while I don't think MVS (and ESB) are bad or anything, I don't think the Packers can necessarily take their rookie yardage production as a reliable indicator that they can develop into a legitimate secondary targets in the passing offense over the long term.

...

The Packers as an organization have been one of the best in the league at developing WRs -- maybe second only to the Steelers. I was very skeptical of Adams long term prospects after his brutal second year (2015), but he improved dramatically and is now one of the better WR1s in the league. 

Having said that, over the same period Randall Cobb dropped off the map before his time (still hasn't turned 29 yet, he has the same birthday as Adam Thielen) for reasons mysterious, and none of their other depth/developmental options (Davis, Montgomery, Yancey, Janis) amounted to anything at all. 

And the Packers pass offense has declined considerably over that time, IMO in part because of a lack of WR talent and depth. The peak of the Rodgers era was a succession of star WRs, from Jennings to Nelson to Cobb. Now it's really just Adams, unless MVS gets considerably better this year. 

As it stands, an injury to Adams (who IIRC has had a couple of nasty looking concussions) would come close to being season ending for the team as a whole.

So I'm surprised the Packers didn't take a receiver on day 2. They would have had their pick of almost the entire class in the second round, and still could have had some highly rated talent as late as round 3.
...

On 2019-05-13 at 9:46 AM, CWood21 said:

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but it seems like you're "penalizing" the Packers for not having an All Pro on the bench.  Jason Spriggs may not be a stud, but he's a top 64 OT in the NFL.  They've got 3 guys (Lane Taylor, Billy Turner, and Elgton Jenkins) competing for 2 spots, so it seems that the IOL should be considerably better than last year.  Obviously, it's not Lang/Sitton combination, but then again most teams don't have a pair of elite guards.  The OL is fine.  The loss of Campen is legitimate, and probably the only concern I have with the OL.  But talent isn't a concern.

The talent of GB's top 3 OL starters is excellent, and Jenkins should be good before too long. I would've been happy if the Vikings had drafted him.

The depth beyond that isn't impressive.

Spriggs has been a disappointment, given his draft status and the team's reputation for OL development. He has to get considerably better this year if he's going to earn an extension and take over at RT in 2020. If he doesn't the Packers will have a tough time filling the spot. They might have to bring Bulaga back on a short extension despite his age (31 next year) and injury history. 

Last year was Billy Turner's best, and he was still mediocre.  Not sure why a Packers fan would be OK with paying him $28M/4. It's not an easy contract to rework before 2022 -- cap numbers will be $7.6M in 2020 ($6.75M dead) and $8M in 2021 ($4.5M dead). 

The holdovers at guard -- Taylor and McCray -- didn't play well last year. Taylor will likely have to start unless Jenkins can step in as a rookie. 

The loss of Campen is a big question mark. I think he was the secret sauce that kept the Packers OL draft-and-develop assembly line running. The few examples of OL who left GB in recent years got considerably worse as soon as they changed teams / schemes -- Lang in particular went from near Pro Bowl quality his last few years to mediocre in Detroit. 

...

On 2019-05-13 at 9:46 AM, CWood21 said:

The Packers were 7th in offensive DVOA.  They're going to be just fine as long as Aaron Rodgers is at the helm.  And that was with Aaron Rodgers pretty much publicly feuding with Mike McCarthy.

Packers offense was 7th in DVOA thanks to the excellent Aaron Jones (3rd in rushing offense DVOA). They were 12th in passing offense DVOA, at +18%.

Packers' passing DVOA with Rodgers starting all year:

• 2008: 23.1%
• 2009: 31%
• 2010: 29.1%
• 2011: 67.6% (yes, seriously)
• 2012: 40.7%
• 2014: 46.5%
• 2015: 13.8%
• 2016: 31.3%
• 2018: 18.0%

2018 on that list looks closer to the Packers nightmare season of 2015 -- they were 16th in passing offense, nightmare is a relative term here -- than anything Rodgers has produced otherwise as a starter.

...

With that in mind, I think it's interesting that they didn't do much to add talent for the passing offense this year. 

Sternberger is promising as a passing target but he's not a great blocker and so I'm not sure how much he plays if Graham stays healthy. One of them would have to line up as a Y and block in the run game, I guess that's Sternberger. 

I think Graham is getting over the hill (though maybe some of that will revive with a coaching change, if he gets on the same page as Rodgers), and his contract ($12.6M cap hit this year, still $3.7M dead cap next year) is another reason to be skeptical of Gute's approach in free agency. 

Adams is great, and the receivers beyond him are a question mark, as I covered earlier. Didn't mention Allison yet, he's pretty good. 

Best case scenario, the OL will be about the same -- the tackles and Linsley are unlikely to be any better or healthier than they were last year, and the guards may be little better than last year's group. 

They're evidently relying on the scheme change from bringing in LaFleur to have a big effect. It might, but I'm surprised that they don't seem to be trying to remold the roster in anticipation of that change.

Edited June 2, 2019 by Krauser

[wcblack34]

TL;DR: Aaron Rodgers is the 2nd coming. The rapture is upon us, and Green Bay will go undefeated and win the Super Bowl while having the #1 ranked Offense and Defense. 

 

Got it. 

[Arthur Penske]

On ‎5‎/‎11‎/‎2019 at 3:26 PM, Krauser said:

They again will be relying on Bakhtiari, Bulaga and Linsley (two 28 year-olds and a 30 year old, Bulaga) to hold their OL together. Bakhtiari and Linsely have been durable, while Bulaga has struggled with injuries, though he did play most of last year. The depth at tackle is suspect, as Spriggs has failed to impress when given a chance as a starter. Spriggs and Bulaga are both in the final years of their contracts, and there's no clear plan for a starter at RT next year beyond them.

 

I'm confused... is it supposed to be a negative to have Bak and Linsley "holding your oline together"? because they're 28? I don't think it's a reach to say +90% of the teams in the NFL would like to have the combination of those two players at their respective positions over what they have. There are plenty of teams in the league who don't even have a LT worth a damn on their roster but the Packers are in trouble because they have an elite player at a premium position because he's 28 years old? Other parts of your post have some merit, but this section is written with a clear purple lean, sorry.

[JDBrocks]

11 minutes ago, Arthur Penske said:

I'm confused... is it supposed to be a negative to have Bak and Linsley "holding your oline together"? because they're 28? I don't think it's a reach to say +90% of the teams in the NFL would like to have the combination of those two players at their respective positions over what they have. There are plenty of teams in the league who don't even have a LT worth a damn on their roster but the Packers are in trouble because they have an elite player at a premium position because he's 28 years old? Other parts of your post have some merit, but this section is written with a clear purple lean, sorry.

Seems like you were looking for a negative or something to criticize. That section on the OL was pretty fact based and positive from my view. 3 good to great starters and reason for optimism with a rookie. The only thing you might call out as a negative is the criticism of depth, which is valid (and is valid for most teams in the NFL). 

[Krauser]

41 minutes ago, Arthur Penske said:

I'm confused... is it supposed to be a negative to have Bak and Linsley "holding your oline together"? because they're 28? I don't think it's a reach to say +90% of the teams in the NFL would like to have the combination of those two players at their respective positions over what they have. There are plenty of teams in the league who don't even have a LT worth a damn on their roster but the Packers are in trouble because they have an elite player at a premium position because he's 28 years old? Other parts of your post have some merit, but this section is written with a clear purple lean, sorry.

Not saying anything negative about Bakhtiari or Linsley. As I said elsewhere in the same post, the Packers top 3 OL are excellent. Bakhtiari is an All Pro and the other two are top 5-10 at their positions. 

The point is that GB again has little on the OL beyond those 3 guys. Jenkins will probably be good eventually, but he's a rookie and may not contribute much this year. Spriggs is OK as depth but there'd be a big drop-off if he had to start. The veteran guards aren't good. 

The depth is relevant. The 3 core players on the Packers OL were unusually healthy in 2018 -- they got 16 starts out of Bakhtiari and Linsley, plus 14 out of Bulaga. If one of those 3 has to miss significant time this year, I think the effect might be significant. 

The core group is getting older. Vikings fans can remind you how fast an older OL can go downhill. Vikings core OL heading into 2014 were Kalil (25), Sullivan (29), Fusco (26) and Loadholt (28) -- didn't seem especially old, but they were much closer to the end than we realized. 

It's not like GB should be actively trying to replace Bakhtiari or Linsley, but I am a little surprised that they didn't draft a potential replacement for Bulaga this year. 

Bulaga has played 99 games (95 starts) in 9 years. If he stays healthy this year, his career totals will be similar to previous Packers OL at the time they moved on: Sitton had 121 games (112 starts) in 8 years in Green Bay, Lang had 119 games (94 starts) in 8 years. Doubt they'll give Bulaga a 3rd contract either. 

The Packers fairly easily could've landed a RG/RT prospect either late in the first or early 2nd round -- Jawaan Taylor, Dalton Risner, Cody Ford would've all fit the bill. I guess they're more optimistic with Spriggs' potential as a long-term starter than I am. 

[CWood21]

9 hours ago, Krauser said:

You missed my point. 

My main point is that it's interesting that the Packers approach to talent evaluation doesn't seem to have changed much with Gute replacing Ted. They're still drafting athletic specimens on defense early. They're still valuing heavier power rushers like Gary (and before him, Perry) over lighter, more agile edge rushers. They're still taking a DB with at least one of their top 2 picks every year (3 times since 2015, their top 2 picks have both been DBs, which is amazing).

I certainly don't fault the Packers for drafting an edge rusher with their top pick. Positional value is a thing, and they haven't had an edge rusher that scares anyone since Matthews declined, aside from the one good year from Perry. Given that they've got a QB, LT and WR1, there aren't many better options available. 

I also don't fault GB for drafting another DB, their 7th taken in the top 2 rounds within 5 years. "If at first you don't succeed", etc. The Packers pass defense has been bad for several years now, and continued to decline last year despite Pettine taking over as DC. If they throw enough talent at the position, maybe they'll eventually find someone worth signing to a long-term extension. 

That's not totally surprising.  If the Lions fired their GM and hired George Paton as their GM next offseason, it stands to reason that the Lions' draft tendencies are going to be relatively similar to the Vikings.  That's what happens when you hire from within the same tree.  There's going to be similarities, but that's really the extent of it.  There's going to be philosophical points that will remain the same, it's the subtle differences that are going to separate them from their predecessor.  And that's why teams usually don't hire from within the same tree.  If you're moving on from a GM, it's usually because they were no longer effective.  If you don't believe in your current GM, you don't believe in their process which means you're not hiring from within.  It's usually whenever a GM steps away that you see teams hiring from within.

As for the similarities between Ted Thompson and Brian Gutekunst, yes there are some but there's also some significantly different.  In terms of athletic tresholds, the Packers under Thompson had thresholds that were required but they didn't put a huge premium on athletes.  Over the years, I'd argue the "best" athlete they drafted was AJ Hawk.  That's not something I'd say is a strange concept, and I'd argue it's probably a widely used concept.  As for Gute, if you go by RAS grades they've consistently drafted among the best athletes that their position.  I don't think this is by sheer accident, I think the Packers are targeting athletes in the draft and betting on their coaching staff.  Ted Thompson consistently used the phrase "football players" over and over again.  They put a premium on high floor players so long as they hit physical thresholds.  The Packers have shown more willingness to draft athletes and develop them.  The Packers historically haven't drafted EDGE in the first round outside of Clay and Nick Perry.  And when you've had those two and Julius Peppers as your top 3 pass rushers, you don't really have a need to draft EDGE early.  We've had 3 FRPs devoted to EDGE.  Way too early to make an opinion on it, since the TT-drafted EDGE were one big (Nick Perry) and one small (Clay Matthews).

And part of the drafting DBs instead of signing them is because DBs become useless when they lose their legs.  Look at all the DBs who are making big money, they'll almost certainly be released at some point.  Any CB who signs a big deal will either be moved to safety OR released.  You can't lose your legs and expect your CB to be effective.  CB is a position that doesn't age well.  You can have OL who play well in their early 30s.  That's usually not the case with DBs, CBs in particular.

9 hours ago, Krauser said:

I do think it's fair, and relevant, that the Packers have struggled to develop their DBs. It's almost as big an organizational black hole for Green Bay over the last few years as the Vikings and their OL. 

You're right that the problem hasn't been talent selection. They've had some excellent players who either didn't find the right roles (Hayward, Hyde, maybe Randall) or otherwise dropped off from promising beginnings (Clinton-Dix, Randall to some extent). It might be good news for Packers fans that at least their front office can find talented DBs, except that the GM who drafted those guys is gone now. 

Packers fans will want to blame the Capers-era coaching staff, but the trend continued right through last year after Pettine took over: Green Bay was 28th in pass defense DVOA in 2018, after being 27th in 2017 and 23rd in 2016 (and 6th in 2015, their last good year as a unit). 

The Packers were again that poor despite what on paper should've been a decent pool of talent: Clinton-Dix in a contract year, 4 DBs drafted in the top 2 rounds in the past 2 years, and some vets who played well at their previous stops (Breeland in Washington, Tramon Williams in Arizona). We could blame their struggles in the secondary on the pass rush except that the Packers were 13th in PFF pass rush grade and 8th in sacks. 

The big question is whether the Packers latest crop of young DBs is doing to disappoint like the last one (Hayward, Clinton-Dix, Randall, Rollins). 

The young guys didn't do great last year under Pettine. Jaire Alexander was good as a rookie, but maybe not quite as good as he thinks he is. Josh Jackson, the 2nd round rookie, didn't impress much. Neither of their DBs taken in the top 2 rounds in 2017 looked good at all in their second years: Kevin King was injured, again, and was mediocre when healthy, again, while Josh Jones looked lost trying to play in coverage as a safety.

From that group, Alexander seems most likely to make it as a top level long term starter. It wouldn't surprise at all if none of the others did. 

The vets they brought in didn't live up to expectations either. Breeland's PFF grade dropped 10 points (from 68 in Washington in 2017 to 58 in Green Bay), while Tramon Williams' dropped nearly 20 points (81 in Arizona in 2017, 63 in Green Bay). And Clinton-Dix was playing OK but then got shipped off to Washington. 

So now the plan to revitalize this group is to add another athletic rookie DB, Savage, and bring in another high-PFF-grade veteran, Amos. 

What are the odds that Amos' performance declines noticeably once he's playing next to a rookie instead of next to Eddie Jackson, and behind Kevin King instead of Kyle Fuller? What are the odds that HHCD outperforms him playing with the rest of the very strong unit in Chicago? 

Again, I'm not criticizing the Savage pick. I'm saying that until the Packers develop another CB or S who plays well through his rookie deal and signs an extension in Green Bay, I won't be too excited about whichever DB they draft. And I'll believe Pettine and the rest of the Packers coaches can build a secondary as good as the group Capers assembled when I see it.

No.  They haven't put their players in a position to succeed.  There's a HUGE difference.  If you draft a player and they bust with your franchise, but they go to another franchise and find success that's squarely on the coaching staff.  That's not on the FO.  Once the players are drafted, they're given to the coaching staff.  The FO can tell the coaching staff until they're blue in the face how to utilize the player, but if the coaching staff doesn't listen then there's nothing the FO can do.  The only DB I'd argue that the Packers mis-evaluated was Quinten Rollins.  The fact that the other DBs are having success on other franchises shows that it wasn't an evaluation issue.

The issues with the defense were two-fold.  First off, the Packers didn't have Pettine's players in place last year.  When your top pass rusher is Kyler Fackrell (and his unsustainable sack to pressure ratio), you're going to be bad.  Clay Matthews was virtually non-existent, and Nick Perry was injured the entire year.  When your EDGE1 becomes EDGE3 over the course of the offseason, you're going to be better.  Last year, the Packers had two blackholes at safety and they signed arguably the "safest" FA safety in Adrian Amos, and took a big swing with Savage.  I honestly don't think they can be any worse there than they were last year.  And the development of Josh Jackson and health of Kevin King will go a LONG way towards this defense making a HUGE jump.  The Packers simply lacked the personnel to run Pettine's defense, so it's failures aren't surprising.  That's why this year is going to be crucial.  There needs to be a jump, or at least the beginning of the jump for Pettine if he wants more job security.

As for the Packers corners, the only one I'd argue was mediocre was Josh Jackson which isn't surprising since corner is usually one of the hardest positions to transition from college to the NFL.  We've been spoiled in recent years by guys like Marshon Lattimore and Tre'Davious White who came in and were immediate studs.  In college, they could get by on athleticism and that isn't the case in the NFL.  Josh Jackson struggled.  There's no sugarcoating it.  Jaire Alexander looked like a stud.  And no, Kevin King wasn't mediocre.  When he was healthy, I think you could argue he was our most consistent corner.  The problem is he can't stay healthy.

9 hours ago, Krauser said:

I understand the concept that pressures are production for pass rushers, and sacks are more random statistically. 

I realize that Pettine has a type.

Even so, the Packers already signed 2 UFA pass rushers with a similar physical profile to Gary to expensive long-term contracts.

Now either Za'Darius or Gary will likely be rushing from 3-tech in nickel for the bulk of the next 3-4 years. That's not necessarily a bad thing (might actually be Z's best role as a rusher from what I've seen of him), but it's not what you typically get for a UFA paid $16M AAV and a 12th overall draft pick announced as an OLB.

Given that they already have power rushers in Smith & Smith, I wonder if the Packers should've targeted an edge rusher who might've threatened more around the corner. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the scheme would accommodate that. Pettine had Jerry Hughes in Buffalo, across from Mario Williams.

Again, I'm not saying the Gary pick was terrible. But it's fair to point out that he's a bit of an edge/DL tweener who wasn't very productive in college (some of that no doubt limited by scheme), and who overlaps in skill set with 2 pass rushers also added to the roster this year on premium UFA deals. And he reportedly has a shoulder problem? I don't think it's unreasonable to be skeptical.

There's absolutely a role for Za'Darius Smith to rush from the 3T, especially in obvious passing situation.  Rashan Gary is going to be a situational pass rusher in his first year, and I think he's going to be groomed for Z's role moving forward.

[Arthur Penske]

21 minutes ago, Krauser said:

 

The Packers fairly easily could've landed a RG/RT prospect either late in the first or early 2nd round -- Jawaan Taylor, Dalton Risner, Cody Ford would've all fit the bill. I guess they're more optimistic with Spriggs' potential as a long-term starter than I am. 

Perhaps, but I think it's actually Jenkins, Turner, and/or Madison that they're higher on.

[Krauser]

13 minutes ago, Arthur Penske said:

Perhaps, but I think it's actually Jenkins, Turner, and/or Madison that they're higher on.

Jenkins only played a handful of games at tackle in college, none last year AFAIK. I don't think anyone's projected him to tackle in the pros. The Packers need him at guard anyway. 

Turner played a little at RT for the Broncos, but not well.

Madison is a 5th round pick who didn't play in the NFL as a rookie last year, for personal reasons.

Passing up Taylor, Risner and Ford for that group doesn't make much sense.

If Bulaga moves on next year, and Spriggs doesn't develop into a solid starter, the OL group starts looking thin. The Packers haven't had a successful addition to the group since drafting Linsley in 2014.

[Arthur Penske]

8 minutes ago, Krauser said:

Jenkins only played a handful of games at tackle in college, none last year AFAIK. I don't think anyone's projected him to tackle in the pros. The Packers need him at guard anyway. 

Turner played a little at RT for the Broncos, but not well.

Madison is a 5th round pick who didn't play in the NFL as a rookie last year, for personal reasons.

Passing up Taylor, Risner and Ford for that group doesn't make much sense.

If Bulaga moves on next year, and Spriggs doesn't develop into a solid starter, the OL group starts looking thin. The Packers haven't had a successful addition to the group since drafting Linsley in 2014.

- Some have thought he can play RT, not necessarily me.

- I know on Turner

- That's well-known on Cole but I still think the Packers are higher on Madison than Spriggs.

-Spriggs is a UFA after 2019. Doubt he's on GB in 2020 unless he somehow improves and plays well, or even plays at all, in 2019.

[Krauser]

4 hours ago, CWood21 said:

And part of the drafting DBs instead of signing them is because DBs become useless when they lose their legs.

Or, in the case of the Packers DBs, they become useful when they sign elsewhere. 

4 hours ago, CWood21 said:

They haven't put their players in a position to succeed.  There's a HUGE difference.  If you draft a player and they bust with your franchise, but they go to another franchise and find success that's squarely on the coaching staff.  That's not on the FO.

We're saying the same thing here. The Packers under Thompson drafted well at DB. They didn't get enough out of those players. 

I understand the impulse to be optimistic that Pettine will succeed in developing all the young talent in their secondary, but they didn't make much progress last year (and by some measures, they were even worse than in 2017). 

Until the young DBs start to show some developmental success under Pettine, I think it's fair to be skeptical of their secondary group as a whole no matter who they add. 

4 hours ago, CWood21 said:

And the development of Josh Jackson and health of Kevin King will go a LONG way towards this defense making a HUGE jump.

I mean, they might. But King hasn't been healthy since he was drafted. And if Jackson develops into a top flight starter he'll be the first Packers DB to outperform his draft status since Shields (UDFA 2010). 

4 hours ago, CWood21 said:

And no, Kevin King wasn't mediocre.  When he was healthy, I think you could argue he was our most consistent corner.  The problem is he can't stay healthy.

PFF graded King highly for the Niners game, at 85. His next highest graded game was a 64.5. Three of his 6 games were graded below 55. For the year, he was their 103rd ranked CB (out of 131 who played 20%+ snaps).

Last year, King had a great game against Julio Jones and PFF graded that highly, at 80.9. He only had one other positively graded game, 70.9 against the Bears. He had a couple of games in the 60s. 4 of his 9 games graded below 55. For the year, he was their 116th highest rated CB (out of 126).

So while King has shown flashes of his athleticism, his game isn't translating well to the pros at this point. And he hasn't been able to stay healthy, which is more reason for concern long-term (that the injuries will be chronic and recurring) than optimism (that his performance will suddenly improve if and when he stays healthy). 

4 hours ago, CWood21 said:

There's absolutely a role for Za'Darius Smith to rush from the 3T, especially in obvious passing situation.  Rashan Gary is going to be a situational pass rusher in his first year, and I think he's going to be groomed for Z's role moving forward.

I mean sure, you can pay a guy $16M to be an inside nickel pass rusher, and draft a guy 12th overall projecting him to take over that role eventually, but the "draft positional value" argument about taking an edge rusher isn't usually so much DE/DTs so much as pure edge rushers who can beat NFL tackles around the corner on 3rd downs: Miller, Mack, Clark, Hunter, Lawrence, Jones, etc. There are a few exceptions, like Clowney, but I don't know -- will Gary be that good?

I also wonder about "grooming" Gary to take over the role of a player who just signed a 4 year contract -- is he going to be an understudy for 3+ years? Or is Za'Darius going to be released after 2 years? 

In any case, the Packers have big money locked up in Smith & Smith for the foreseeable future -- combined cap hits of $13M this year, $31M in 2020 and $37M in 2021. Clark will play 2020 on his 5th year option at $7.6M (cheap considering how good he is) and will no doubt cost at least double that in 2021. Gary (vs the other options on the board this year) may be the best chance they get to add a difference maker on a rookie contract to that group. 

So they're basically locked in to Smith, Smith Gary and Clark for the next few years. How good will they be? I think there's only one clear blue chip player among them (Clark), despite the big price tag and the premium draft investment. 

Edited May 14, 2019 by Krauser

[vike daddy]

According to Rob Demovsky of ESPN.com, Josh Jones is skipping OTAs in hopes of a trade to a new team. The 2017 second-rounder (61st overall) has asked to be traded and thinks a change of scenery would be best for both sides, but the Packers seem to have come to that conclusion without him.

After being leapfrogged by undrafted rookie Kentrell Brice last year, the handwriting was on the wall in large letters. Then the Packers spent heavily in free agency for Bears safety Adrian Amos, and used a first-round pick on Darnell Savage Jr.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/05/21/packers-safety-josh-jones-wants-to-be-traded/

[swede700]

Wow.  Ol' Gute really blew that one, didn't he?  

EDIT:  Sorry, I blew that one, considering that was Ted's last season running the show.  Carry on.  

Edited May 21, 2019 by swede700

[Krauser]

Even after drafting Savage and signing Amos, Josh Jones still seemed like he could have a role as a big nickel or big dime hybrid safety/LB. 

Packers often play only one non-edge LB. Their 2nd best LB (after Blake Martinez) right now is probably Oren Burks, heading into his second year and himself a converted safety. I though Jones might get ahead of Burks on the depth chart, and/or rotate in as a 5th or 6th DB. Basically a comparable role to Jayron Kearse.

if Jones does leave and find a starting role on another team, 2017 will be the 5th of 6 draft classes in which the Packers drafted a DB who ended up starting elsewhere. Hayward in 2012, Hyde in 2013, Clinton-Dix in 2014, and Randall in 2015 all improved with the move out of Green Bay. They didn’t draft a DB in 2016. 

The Packers draft slot in 2017 was just before the Steelers. They traded down from 29 to the early 2nd round and picked Kevin King, who’s had a couple of good games hasn’t been great even when healthy, which he usually isn’t. The pick after the one the Packers traded out of, the Steelers took TJ Watt at 30, who had 13 sacks last year and went to the Pro Bowl. Late in the second round, GB took Josh Jones at 61, a bust so far who’s requesting a trade. With the next pick, PIT took JuJu Smith-Schuster at 62, who had 1400 receiving yards last year and went to the Pro Bowl. 

[swede700]