Terrible is Cletidus Clark’s game relatively to the frogskins he’s getting from the Packers. Clark ain’t no dominator. He’s closer to Dean Lowry than Chris Jones. The hard-on for Clark continues to baffle me.Originally Posted by Deputy Nutz
Coldplay is awesome. Arguably the best band of the 21st a Century thus far.
I'm not going to stop the wheel. I'm going to break the wheel.
I prefaced my comments with "as it stands now, they need bodies at S, CB, ILB, RB and OL"You're doing a static analysis. A more dynamic analysis would not assume that anybody who isn't signed is gone. They really ought to re-sign Rudy Ford and Jonathan Owens as well as Ballentine. Savage is not horrible if the price isn't too high. Ditto that for Dillon, and Emmanuel Wilson is not exactly a nobody.
that is basically the majority of their shopping list, whether it be via draft, resigning their own, or FA.
I can see a world where they bring back Rudy Ford just to have someone back there. Bringing back Owens and Ballentine are tougher to see. We already know what they are, they don't improve your team. Dillon is a RB3 and Wilson would only come back for competition. Signing vets to minimums will generally cost as much as a last R3/early R4 pick and won't raise the ceiling of your team's potential. You're better off getting younger, cheaper, more years under control with a rookie contract, and with potential for upside.
No they won't do this everywhere, and there is a benefit to having a veteran in the position room, but there isn't a good reason to bring back a lot of these guys (or any of them, really) - you'd be essentially running back a team that eked their way to a 7 seed, and they are chasing a DET team with 4 top 90 picks and 50M in cap space.
Here again, run pMc, you're evaluating based on the flawed scheme and likely not very good D coaching in general we had with Barry. I think the personnel we had last year was decent enough - Ford, Owens, Savage, Johnson, etc. at Safety. And Valentine for sure looked like starter quality; Ballentine was at least a quality back up. Keisan should be signed for his returning alone, and he's at least serviceable as a DB. Maybe Jaire got prematurely old, and maybe Stokes is damaged beyond repair, but but probably not in both cases with quality coaching. I'd probably put Corner at or near the top choice for the first round , just because, but not really out of necessity. And like I said, star college Safetys don't translate to being NFL stars in a very high percentage.
I agree with the positioning you mentioned in your first line, just not quantitative like a "need for bodies". A superstar always fits in at the top, but less than that we've already got. Signing somebody like Wingfield - a proven star - would be nice, but probably isn't gonna happen.
We've won a helluva lot of games with Joe Barry's D being a drag on the team, and we have a helluva lot of high drafted seemingly good players. Other than maybe getting a star quality ILB to pair with Quay, I say let's just go with what we've got plus maybe a few mid rounders.
And Dillon and Wilson are very decent in rotation with Aaron Jones. Maybe we've been spoiled to think otherwise. Just the same, a star quality RB, Braelon Allen or otherwise, should be available in the 2nd or 3rd. We should grab one.
And APB, granted, Kenny Clark isn't quote as good as Chris Jones or Aaron Donald, but he's damn close - infinitely better than your comparison to Lowery. I'd really like to see what he can do in a 4 man line with Halfley and surrounded by more quality like we now have than when all we had was pieces of crap like Lowery and Lancaster.
And I hope they at least try to find a better kicker.
What could be more GOOD and NORMAL and AMERICAN than Packer Football?
Tex, the Packers played a tons of nickel, which basically features a 4-men” line. Cletidus made a play once every blue moon. Sucks against the run. Mediocre at best. And Clark is aging in a game where Father Time likes to fuck with players as they age. What makes you think Clark’s gonna be better in Haf-Fucked’s D?
Check out the stats. Clark is essentially an overpaid version of Dean Lowry. The Packers would be better off cutting Clark and paying a mofo ILB or hip-hip safety 18M/yr via free agency.
I'm not going to stop the wheel. I'm going to break the wheel.
Clark was 9th among DT's in sacks in 2023. His current contract averages 17.5million, which ranks him 11th among DT's. His cap hit in 2023 ranked 10th among DT's. It is set to be much higher in 2024, but will likely be renegotiated.
Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack, a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in - Leonard Cohen
I'm not basing anything on a flawed scheme, I'm basing it on who's under contract.
Whether you ignore scheme or not, you probably don't want to bring most of these guys back. Let's ignore defense and consider Dillon. His YPC have dropped every year since he's been in the league, bottoming out this year at 3.4 ypc. WHY would you bring a guy back who has declined year over year and started to show signs of wear this year? Wilson is JAG, you don't need to bring him back and can find someone just as good in FA. There is no reason to bring them back, especially with how RBs are valued in the league and draft. Jones might be the best back in the NFCN, but for a one-two RB punch I'd take DET's pair over what GB had last year.
At Corner - Keisean is unreliable at slot, and he's straight line fast and fearless but he's not a great athlete. https://ras.football/2020/01/05/keisean-nixon-ras/ There were games in the first half of the season where Savage or Rasul was looking at him like WTF are you doing. They may not bring hi back, he had void year money that could have been avoided from kicking in by extending/resigning him.
Jaire is banged up and on the smaller side to play slot, and missed a lot of games. Stokes has barely played and the season prior didn't look great. Every thing Stokes does is based not from good technique but from speed, and he might have lost some of that with all his injuries. Valentine has promise but he's a 7th rounder. You can absolutely get better there, doesn't have to be a starter but you have to get better depth. I like Ballentine as very deep depth but I am telling you he will get cooked in the man coverages Hafley will want to play if he gets a lot of snaps.
I could go on and on -- this roster has some big holes. Other teams aren't going to sit still, why should GB? It's silly to run it back with players from a barely .500 team. Football is absolutely a young player's sport and you have to let guys you might think are good or even ok walk because they will age (or injury) out. They have 11 draft picks, time to use the to replace some of these meh players.
The way the Packers played nickel D in Joe Barry's scheme, it was basically a two man line - two interior D Linemen plus two OLBs not in 3 point stances. That left Clark getting double or triple team most of the time even more than when he was part of the base three man line. Barry's scheme - rotten IMO - mostly used his D Linemen like O Linemen, occupying blockers so that his pet position group, ILBs, could make tackles against the run. They did, often about 6-8 yards into the secondary.
As Joe said (our Joe above), Clark did a good job in pass rush. I suspect most of the 8 DTs with more sacks played in different schemes that enabled DT pass rush better. That, I think, is what we will have with Halfley.
Last edited by texaspackerbacker; 02-19-2024 at 06:33 PM.
What could be more GOOD and NORMAL and AMERICAN than Packer Football?
Barry played scared with his secondary. In terms of the DL/EDGE, I don't think things will change a lot to the casual viewer with Hafley's scheme - he's still going to rush with four. That's what SF and other similar 4-3 schemes do. They'll need different bodies at safety and LB, and play different in the back 7. Agree they were too passive.
Clark makes a lot of money, but I don't get the weird hate APB has. Even an above average DT is going to get paid in the NFL, they are that rare. Kenny can rush the passer AND play the run, that's worth more than a burger flipper's wage. The 38 year old ghost of Calais Campbell made 7M for ATL last year. Kenny plays over 70% of the snaps (too much INO), and he's not 30 yet. They're getting something for their money.
Joe Barry was the fat mike of defense. He disguised nothing, ran vanilla D and counted on his 11 guys each winning their individual matchups. In zones he hoped and prayed that teams would make a mistake before they marched down the field exposing soft spots. It was all in the desperate attempt to "not give up a big play". I got news. The other team marching for 8 minutes game time, keeping Love cold and on the sidelines while the D got tired was worse than a big play.
I don't hold Grudges. It's counterproductive.
Expect a lot of the same front with Halfley. Go on youtube and watch some of the Boston College stuff. He was the head coach not the DC there, but Nickel defense is pretty much regulated to 2 down linemen and two stand up edges. Don't know why you need to stand up Gary and Smith when they rush 90% of the time. Usually putting them up in 2 pt stances means they have the possibility of dropping into coverage, I think Halfley will attack more with 5 man and 6 man pressures where Barry didn't trust his secondary to play man, which is a complete mistake because all these guys can play man, they all got their assess beat playing zone. You might get some mint front stuff out of Halfley, but to think you are going to to see an old school 4-3 Tampa or Chicago defense is a fairytale. You might see it in there base defense, but that will be for less than 20 snaps a game.
Nickel defense is just taking your Strong Side Linebacker out of the game and replacing him with another defensive back. He usually has as much run responsibility as your corners.
The change that Joe Barry made very late in the season that worked against the run and pass that I liked was what I call the Big Nickle.
Regular Nickle:
Gary, Clark, Slayton, Smith Campbell and Walker - Ends played wide and we got gashed up the middle over and over
Big Nickle:
Gary, Clark, Slayton, Wyatt, Smith Walker
When the other team passed, we had a 5 man rush that generated pressure and made the QB get the ball out quicker.
But Rodgers leads the league in frumpy expressions and negative body language on the sideline, which makes him, like Josh Allen, a unique double threat.
-Tim Harmston
(mainly in reply to the Nutz post)
Yeah, probably. I guess the fact is, LaFleur likes that style of D also. So our only hope then is that the new guy is more proficient at executing it and adjusting than the old guy was. I have always disliked the 3-4, and if you get into nickel with a 3 man line - 3-3-5, it's even worse. The most successful games in terms of defense came late in the season when we did play something like that Tampa two or even three deep umbrella D. We stopped the run pretty well in addition to being effective against the pass with that. It's the only time in recent memory where we loaded up coverage in the middle of the field, and there was still enough of a pass rush. But yeah, we probably aren't gonna see that much. As for man coverage by the Corners, yeah, I like that too, but why can't you combine that with the umbrella zone behind it?
Anyway, I guess we just have to hope that Halfley can do it better.
What could be more GOOD and NORMAL and AMERICAN than Packer Football?
I also think Barry knew he had subpar safeties and played them extra deep. He was scared about getting beat over the top for a big play. Problem was he played them deeper than he needed to IMO. Also, losing Rasul, and Stokes/Jaire for most of the year made him nervous at corner, the *allentines did ok in zone but when you play a lot of Cover 2 or Cover 4 (or other MOFO variants) you're leaving the short-to-intermediate areas open, and Campbell has lost his speed and Quay isn't the most instinctive in coverage. Rushing 4, dropping 4 deep and leaving 3 to cover the rest is tough and lets offenses dog walk you down the field for 8-10 play drives.
I'm not completely sold on Hafley and wanting to play a lot of Cover 1 - it's going to expose the defense to a lot more explosive pass plays. GB does have pass rushers, so that's the saving grace there. One thing about Hafley based on interviews and all the background pieces coming out is that unlike Barry he seems to be adaptable with his scheme and play calling. Barry was very much attached to a specific scheme and loathe to deviate from it. Hafley has worked in a few different schemes as well which should help him adjust, but I'm taking a wait and see approach with him as DC.
One thing is for sure: he'll need a safety who can actually play MOFC deep Cover-1. The ones who can do it well aren't common. The really good ones are HOF types like Ed Reed, Earl Thomas, etc., which makes me wonder if it's viable to play that a lot (maybe they go Cover-3, but Jordan Love just absolutely roasted Dan Quinn's Cover-3 in Dallas). Hafley is also going to need speed (and instincts) at ILB; Quay and McDuffie aren't enough. Even if they only play 2 ILBs at a time they need a 3rd for depth - Quay and McDuffie missed time with injuries last year, and competition-wise neither player is irreplaceable.
I also noticed Gary and Van Ness putting a hand in the dirt quite a bit down the stretch. He made some adjustments that helped, but it was too little too late. You would always have to fear he reverts to what he likes.
I don't hold Grudges. It's counterproductive.
Packers need to upgrade their safeties. No doubt about it and that frees up your defense quite a bit. If the Packers trust their 3T or 4is to pass rush as effectively as their edge rushers I am all for it. I think Walker is best when he is pressing the LOS. They could play a few versions of 2 man if the corners lock down #1 to their side and then have deep 1/2 coverage by their safeties. I would think Hafley will bring some exotics in 5 and 6 man pressures, and most likely play a lot of cover 1 behind it. There could also be a lot of man-match coverages as well.
It's really hard in the college game, and in the NFL to hold offenses back with 7 guys in the run fit and max fitting it. The RPO game especially in college and in high school is making it hard to play a 3-4 with your OLBs in an apex alignment with a slot to their side. you are most likely playing a 6 man box and your extra fitter has to be a safety. instead of putting your OLB in conflict, you make your safety the conflict player in the RPO game because they are usually playing everything from top down.
Holy shit Nutzy. You are like the fucking nuclear physicist of high school coaches.
"The Devine era is actually worse than you remember if you go back and look at it."
KYPack
Professional sports is the last to adapt to new ideas because of the talent and changing scheme could result in getting fired from a multi million dollar contract. I would say most coaches at the high school level adapt to what is happening at the college level. College level ball still has to adapt to talent gaps so you see some really innovative offenses and defenses, that you can hopefully simplify to the high school game. Adapt or die.
So nobody’s running the Wing T on offense these days . . . .
So college ball is where most of the innovation is happening? Interesting. Makes sense, too.
"The Devine era is actually worse than you remember if you go back and look at it."
KYPack
Gus Mahlzan's offense is based off the Wing T. The Wing T has a lasting impact on just about every level of football. Buck sweep which was the bread and butter of Wing T teams is now getting run as pin/pull with back side RPO glance routes or a slant over the backside linebacker. Buck Sweep can now be run with a read scheme to the backside giving the QB read responsibility for a 4 tech or defensive end. You still see belly and trap at all levels, you certainly see jet sweep. What you don't see is traditional Wing T formations with two backs and a wing. The QB replaces a lot of what the traditional fullback would do.
There is only so many types of run schemes you can create. The real magic is with formations, personnel, and motions to either out number the defense, or dress it up to create confusion. Same can be said for defensive football. You create more hybrid positions so that more guys can insert and more guys can drop into coverage regardless of traditional position assignments. You never want to put yourself in a situation where a defensive end is trying like hell to run man on a WR, but you can blend Fire Zone concepts all day long.
I have often wondered why nobody wants to go back to the old split backs thing - Taylor and Hornung, Anderson and Grabowski, etc. instead of using a mostly useless plug of a fullback and just one RB on the field who is actually capable of a worthwhile run. That sort of thing would also be more beneficial for using backs as receivers and probably would be at least as effective for pass blocking. There seem to be more and more top quality RBs coming out of college all the time also. I've always favored a pass first/run mainly as a counter threat, but regardless, I like the idea of having Aaron Jones and another equal or close to it threat on the field a large share of the time - as much as when we use an I formation now or more.
What could be more GOOD and NORMAL and AMERICAN than Packer Football?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote