Cheese Curds: Green Bay Packers Updates

[vike daddy]

On 7/24/2019 at 9:05 AM, CWood21 said:

 If they had planned on moving on from him already, why wait so late? 

they were trying to trade him.

[Uncle Buck]

On 7/24/2019 at 12:12 PM, CWood21 said:

Like you said, it's about the fact that the Packers have a solid DL depth right now.  Not great, but solid enough especially enough that you really are only going to see the Packers usually roll with 2 down lineman.  You're going to have Kenny Clark out there as much as possible, without wearing him down.  Last year, Clark played in roughly 68% of the defensive snaps.  I'd expect that to jump a bit higher, but not crazy high.  You're probably going to see a bit more of Montravius Adams as well.  In base, you're probably looking at some combination of Adams/Clark/Lowry.  And when you're moving into obvious passing downs, you'll get more snaps out of Za'Darius Smith on the DL there.  Fackrell is our #4 OLB, unless Rashan Gary flops.  His production last year isn't replicable.  I'm hoping Summers turns into something, but if they're getting a jump at the ILB positions it's going to come from Oren Burks.  Looked good in the preseason, but he got hurt and couldn't get back into the lineup.

Maybe it's just a case of the Packers going with the theory that "It's better to get rid of a guy a year too early than a year too late."  If the money can be used elsewhere on the roster, this alone might make sense since he hasn't been as good the last couple years. 

[Krauser]

Daniels had a down year but he was still pretty good. I’d be happy if he ends up in Minnesota. He’s a good scheme fit for the Vikings.

GB invested a lot in a couple of pass rushers who are probably best used inside in pressure packages. Zadarius Smith ($66M/4) had most of his success with the Ravens as a situational pass rusher from 3-tech, and Rashan Gary (12th overall pick) was similarly more effective rushing from inside than trying to get around the edge. Their pressure package is probably those two flanked by Fackrell and Preston Smith as true OLB/edge rushers. No room for Daniels there unless he’s keeping one of the shiny new toys on the bench.

Daniels was less effective on early downs last year. He would’ve been overpaid if they’d kept him and only used him rotationally. So it made sense to move on.

A year or so ago I wrote something to the effect that the Packers needed to turn over most of their team around Rodgers in order to get back in contention, much as the Saints did around Brees in 2016-17. Even if they do make it back up the mountain, the next Packers Super Bowl contender will probably have very little in common with their last era of success, aside from Rodgers and a few holdovers (Adams, Bakhtiari, arguably Clark if he counts as a holdover and not new blood).

So while I’m still not convinced that the pieces he’s assembled are going to add up to a good defense and a strong contender, I think Gutekunst has taken the right approach in cutting ties with building blocks from previous years (Nelson, Cobb, Matthews, Perry, HHCD, now Daniels and soon enough Bulaga). The Packers will rise or fall based in large part on the performance of their recent draft picks and free agent acquisitions. 

[Ozzy]

7 hours ago, Krauser said:

Daniels had a down year but he was still pretty good. I’d be happy if he ends up in Minnesota. He’s a good scheme fit for the Vikings.

GB invested a lot in a couple of pass rushers who are probably best used inside in pressure packages. Zadarius Smith ($66M/4) had most of his success with the Ravens as a situational pass rusher from 3-tech, and Rashan Gary (12th overall pick) was similarly more effective rushing from inside than trying to get around the edge. Their pressure package is probably those two flanked by Fackrell and Preston Smith as true OLB/edge rushers. No room for Daniels there unless he’s keeping one of the shiny new toys on the bench.

Daniels was less effective on early downs last year. He would’ve been overpaid if they’d kept him and only used him rotationally. So it made sense to move on.

A year or so ago I wrote something to the effect that the Packers needed to turn over most of their team around Rodgers in order to get back in contention, much as the Saints did around Brees in 2016-17. Even if they do make it back up the mountain, the next Packers Super Bowl contender will probably have very little in common with their last era of success, aside from Rodgers and a few holdovers (Adams, Bakhtiari, arguably Clark if he counts as a holdover and not new blood).

So while I’m still not convinced that the pieces he’s assembled are going to add up to a good defense and a strong contender, I think Gutekunst has taken the right approach in cutting ties with building blocks from previous years (Nelson, Cobb, Matthews, Perry, HHCD, now Daniels and soon enough Bulaga). The Packers will rise or fall based in large part on the performance of their recent draft picks and free agent acquisitions. 

The Saints arguably have the most talented roster in the NFL in terms of number of very good players that are 25 or under.  The Packers simply do not have that type of youth and talent.  Sure some new guys no doubt and are improved off last year but cannot compare what they are doing to what the Saints have done recently.  Not to mention that head coach hire which is pretty questionable, they hope he hits like Sean McVay did and I just think that is not going to happen.  MaFleur is not Sean McVay or Kyle Shanahan in terms of ability as a head coach I feel, will see.

[swede700]

12 hours ago, vike daddy said:

they were trying to trade him.

That would make more sense to me.

[Krauser]

1 hour ago, Ozzy said:

The Saints arguably have the most talented roster in the NFL in terms of number of very good players that are 25 or under.  The Packers simply do not have that type of youth and talent.  Sure some new guys no doubt and are improved off last year but cannot compare what they are doing to what the Saints have done recently.  Not to mention that head coach hire which is pretty questionable, they hope he hits like Sean McVay did and I just think that is not going to happen.  MaFleur is not Sean McVay or Kyle Shanahan in terms of ability as a head coach I feel, will see.

The comparison to the Saints is with the intent to rebuild, not the results.

Unlike most Packers fans, and most pundits, who’ve been listing GB as a Super Bowl contender every year, Gutekunst correctly (IMO) recognizes that their post-2014 roster wasn’t good enough, and needed to be rebuilt. In doing so, most of the players who were cornerstones the last time the Packers were actually good have been let go: Sitton and Lang and Burnett at the end of the Thompson era, and under Gute now Nelson, Cobb, Matthews, Perry, and Daniels. This is probably Bulaga’s last year, too (he’s 30, in a contract year, still playing well but with a bad track record for injuries).

I’m not convinced that the rebuild has been successful, let alone as good as the Saints. I think they overpaid for 2 good but not great pass rushers in Zadarius and Preston Smith, and gave a long term deal to a mediocre OL in Turner. I think Jimmy Graham is mostly washed up and will be let go after this year. Their young OL and WRs will be OK, and they have a couple of blue chippers in Bakhtiari and Adams, but the talent level on offense still seems noticeably worse than it was in Rodgers’ heyday, which I think is a reason his production has dropped off. I like some of their recent draft picks at DB, but their secondary has been so bad for so long that I think we have to wait and see if they’ll develop into a good coverage unit. 

I agree that LaFleur was a questionable hire. The Shanahan/McVay system they want to run seems like a poor fit for Rodgers, whose best trait at this point is improvisation. He can make all the throws, but I wonder if he’ll be willing to hand the ball off repeatedly on 1st and 2nd down and stick with pass plays that give him fewer and more specific options. 

Maybe it all hits and Rodgers has a Brees-like run of late 30s success. At this point, I doubt it. But he’s an incredibly talented QB — as long as he’s in Green Bay, the Packers will always be a potential threat.

Edited July 26, 2019 by Krauser

[Ozzy]

34 minutes ago, Krauser said:

The comparison to the Saints is with the intent to rebuild, not the results.

Unlike most Packers fans, and most pundits, who’ve been listing GB as a Super Bowl contender every year, Gutekunst correctly (IMO) recognizes that their post-2014 roster wasn’t good enough, and needed to be rebuilt. In doing so, most of the players who were cornerstones the last time the Packers were actually good have been let go: Sitton and Lang and Burnett at the end of the Thompson era, and under Gute now Nelson, Cobb, Matthews, Perry, and Daniels. This is probably Bulaga’s last year, too (he’s 30, in a contract year, still playing well but with a bad track record for injuries).

I’m not convinced that the rebuild has been successful, let alone as good as the Saints. I think they overpaid for 2 good but not great pass rushers in Zadarius and Preston Smith, and gave a long term deal to a mediocre OL in Turner. I think Jimmy Graham is mostly washed up and will be let go after this year. Their young OL and WRs will be OK, and they have a couple of blue chippers in Bakhtiari and Adams, but the talent level on offense still seems noticeably worse than it was in Rodgers’ heyday, which I think is a reason his production has dropped off. I like some of their recent draft picks at DB, but their secondary has been so bad for so long that I think we have to wait and see if they’ll develop into a good coverage unit. 

I agree that LaFleur was a questionable hire. The Shanahan/McVay system they want to run seems like a poor fit for Rodgers, whose best trait at this point is improvisation. He can make all the throws, but I wonder if he’ll be willing to hand the ball off repeatedly on 1st and 2nd down and stick with pass plays that give him fewer and more specific options. 

Maybe it all hits and Rodgers has a Brees-like run of late 30s success. At this point, I doubt it. But he’s an incredibly talented QB — as long as he’s in Green Bay, the Packers will always be a potential threat.

I agree they will always be a threat with a QB like that.  They have gotten stronger with Kizer as the backup who is arguably one of the best backups they have had in years.  At RB they have a lot of options and they will get the job done with either Jamaal Williams, Aaron Jones, Dexter Williams, or Tra Carson.  At WR Allison, St. Brown, Lazard, Valdes-Scantling, and Moore all have potential at WR and all are big dudes who have ability.  Sternberger I think will rip people up at TE, loved him in college, he is a great route runner and could do great things for that offense so hate they have him.

Jenkins is a tough physical center and a potential starter down the road in a few years, really like Nijman who is a mauler and surprisingly athletic, huge dude with a lot of upside.  On D Gary is going to destroy people if he plays up to his potential, he could be really good and Keke will surprise a lot of people as well.  Like Fackrell at OLB and moving on from Matthews was probably a good idea.  The secondary does have questions but they have size and if Savage is good that will help but not sure that will be the case.  I agree they probably over paid for Preston Smith and especially Zadarius Smith but it does make them stronger at the point of attack and against the run.

 

They are a threat no doubt but the Saints it is nuts, I posted this in another thread about most talented teams 25 and under.

 

25 or under:

A. Kamara RB
M. Davenport DE
R. Ramczyk OT
M. Lattimore CB
M. Brown DT
S. Rankins DT
V. Bell S
M. Williams S
E. Apple CB
A. Anzalone LB

 

 

 

So at least the Packers do not have that.  Will be very curious if the Bears can keep up that crazy high level of play especially on D this year.  They will regret letting go of Jordan Howard I think.  But Montgomery is very good and super versatile as a rookie and Mike Davis is a talented guy as well not to mention Cohen who they will probably involve even more.

 

[swede700]

I'm not sure how you can say Kizer is a stronger backup.  Deshone Kizer is terrible.  I think they actually worsened their backup qb situation by obtaining Kizer.  As bad as Hundley is, he's better than Kizer.  

[Ozzy]

1 hour ago, swede700 said:

I'm not sure how you can say Kizer is a stronger backup.  Deshone Kizer is terrible.  I think they actually worsened their backup qb situation by obtaining Kizer.  As bad as Hundley is, he's better than Kizer.  

I thought Kizer came out to early but in no way would I say Brent Hundley is a better QB prospect than Kizer was and is.  Hundley's throwing motion is awful, and was basically just a runner with a big arm in college.  Kizer has far more upside and potential not to mention better pocket awareness and throwing motion than Hundley.  Saying Kizer is one of the best backups they have had considering the list is what Matt Flynn, Scott Tolzien, and Seneca Wallace.  Yeah Kizer is great for them and they would have a chance to win with him if Rodgers goes down, with Hundley there was no chance, they were awful with him.  

Kizer being around more talent and having some time to learn and improve I think he would be far better than he showed his first year in Cleveland.  He should have returned to Notre Dame though instead of coming out when he did, he is still pretty raw as a prospect and probably why he was a 2nd round pick.  

[Guest]

55 minutes ago, Ozzy said:

I thought Kizer came out to early but in no way would I say Brent Hundley is a better QB prospect than Kizer was and is.  Hundley's throwing motion is awful, and was basically just a runner with a big arm in college.  Kizer has far more upside and potential not to mention better pocket awareness and throwing motion than Hundley.  Saying Kizer is one of the best backups they have had considering the list is what Matt Flynn, Scott Tolzien, and Seneca Wallace.  Yeah Kizer is great for them and they would have a chance to win with him if Rodgers goes down, with Hundley there was no chance, they were awful with him.  

Kizer being around more talent and having some time to learn and improve I think he would be far better than he showed his first year in Cleveland.  He should have returned to Notre Dame though instead of coming out when he did, he is still pretty raw as a prospect and probably why he was a 2nd round pick.  

I think it will be interesting what expectations LaFleur will have of the backup QB.  Kizer has SOME potential, nor does he have the worst throwing motion in the NFL.  However, one fault that Kizer does have, and I don't know how you would coach him beyond this fault, is his terrible accuracy in the NFL.  If LaFleur is building his offensive scheme around Rodgers, one of the most accurate throwers of the ball in the game, how does it help the team to have a backup with little accuracy?  But maybe LaFleur will develop an entirely different scheme around Kiser.  It's been done before in the NFL.

Edited July 26, 2019 by Guest

[CWood21]

4 hours ago, Krauser said:

I’m not convinced that the rebuild has been successful, let alone as good as the Saints. I think they overpaid for 2 good but not great pass rushers in Zadarius and Preston Smith, and gave a long term deal to a mediocre OL in Turner. I think Jimmy Graham is mostly washed up and will be let go after this year. Their young OL and WRs will be OK, and they have a couple of blue chippers in Bakhtiari and Adams, but the talent level on offense still seems noticeably worse than it was in Rodgers’ heyday, which I think is a reason his production has dropped off. I like some of their recent draft picks at DB, but their secondary has been so bad for so long that I think we have to wait and see if they’ll develop into a good coverage unit. 

It's not quite an apples-to-apples comparison, especially one is multiple years into a reload and the other is a little over a calendar year into a reload.

[CWood21]

4 hours ago, Ozzy said:

I agree they will always be a threat with a QB like that.  They have gotten stronger with Kizer as the backup who is arguably one of the best backups they have had in years.  At RB they have a lot of options and they will get the job done with either Jamaal Williams, Aaron Jones, Dexter Williams, or Tra Carson.  At WR Allison, St. Brown, Lazard, Valdes-Scantling, and Moore all have potential at WR and all are big dudes who have ability.  Sternberger I think will rip people up at TE, loved him in college, he is a great route runner and could do great things for that offense so hate they have him.

Kizer is the most talented backup they've had, but he's a mess.  He can't stop throwing interceptions.  You're not going to stick around for very long if you continually throw interceptions.  They're playing the numbers game at RB and WR, which I'm a fan of especially given the athletic profile that they got with their 3 WRs last year.  MVS is going to break out this year, and I think we're going to see a Y2 jump from ESB.  If J'Mon Moore can get the hands issue settled, he's got talent there as well.  I'm not as warm about the RB position, but there's reason to be excited.

[Krauser]

34 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

It's not quite an apples-to-apples comparison, especially one is multiple years into a reload and the other is a little over a calendar year into a reload.

The Packers have had 2 offseasons post-Ted Thompson. 

The Saints improved dramatically in 2017 thanks in large part to players they acquired over the previous 2 years: Thomas, Rankins and Bell in 2016, and Kamara, Lattimore, Ramczyk, Warford, Okafor, Ginn and Marcus Williams in 2017. 

So this will be an important year to show if GB's recent additions to the pass rush, secondary and WR corps are going to return them to contender status.  

[Ozzy]

4 hours ago, CWood21 said:

Kizer is the most talented backup they've had, but he's a mess.  He can't stop throwing interceptions.  You're not going to stick around for very long if you continually throw interceptions.  They're playing the numbers game at RB and WR, which I'm a fan of especially given the athletic profile that they got with their 3 WRs last year.  MVS is going to break out this year, and I think we're going to see a Y2 jump from ESB.  If J'Mon Moore can get the hands issue settled, he's got talent there as well.  I'm not as warm about the RB position, but there's reason to be excited.

Yes Kizer has his issues but again I would take him all day long in terms of potential over freaking Brett Hundley.  There is a reason Hundley was what a 5th round pick and Kizer got 1st round talk and ended up being a 2nd round pick.  Hundley to me was a walking loss when they put him in, so really I wish they kept him.  

 

5 hours ago, Virginia Viking said:

I think it will be interesting what expectations LaFleur will have of the backup QB.  Kizer has SOME potential, nor does he have the worst throwing motion in the NFL.  However, one fault that Kizer does have, and I don't know how you would coach him beyond this fault, is his terrible accuracy in the NFL.  If LaFleur is building his offensive scheme around Rodgers, one of the most accurate throwers of the ball in the game, how does it help the team to have a backup with little accuracy?  But maybe LaFleur will develop an entirely different scheme around Kiser.  It's been done before in the NFL.

All I know is that they are better off if Rodgers goes down with Kizer than with Brett Hundley and to me it is not even close.  Sure Kizer has some accuracy issues but I do not believe he was fulled developed or should have started as a rookie.  He should have stayed at Notre Dame one more year instead of leaving as a RS SOPH.  Accuracy can improve and fundamentals can improve with work.  And if given time to develop I think he has higher potential.  

Kind of like the Vikings with Sloter, sure Mannion might be the better option on paper but Sloter has by far a higher potential and upside and I  feel he will most likely win the 2nd job.  

[CWood21]

20 hours ago, Krauser said:

The Packers have had 2 offseasons post-Ted Thompson. 

The Saints improved dramatically in 2017 thanks in large part to players they acquired over the previous 2 years: Thomas, Rankins and Bell in 2016, and Kamara, Lattimore, Ramczyk, Warford, Okafor, Ginn and Marcus Williams in 2017. 

So this will be an important year to show if GB's recent additions to the pass rush, secondary and WR corps are going to return them to contender status.  

The Packers have had 2 drafts (2018 and 2019) under Gute.  They've (so far) had one season (2018) with Gute as GM.  Based on the same timeline, you'd be looking at the Saints going into the 2017-18 season.  Ironically, after finishing the 2016-17 season 7-9, the Saints were fortunate to pick Marshon Lattimore at 11 and Ryan Ramczyk at 32.  The Packers finished 6-9-1 and chose Rashan Gary at 12 and Darnell Savage at 21.  In the 2016, the Saints got 3 starters (Sheldon Rankins, Michael Thomas, and Vonn Bell).  In the 2018 draft, the Packers believe they got 3 starters (Jaire Alexander, Josh Jackson, and MVS).  Sheldon Rankins wasn't very good in his rookie year and was cut short by injury, so I'd say he's actually fairly similar to Josh Jackson in that regard.  Michael Thomas was really good his rookie year as was Jaire Alexander.  Von Bell is a solid starter, and most view MVS in a similar light.  The Saints killed the 2017 draft.  There's no way to sugarcoat it.  The Packers hope they have that kind of draft.