Fix Your Packers

[pbmax]

You get one choice, one area that the team will comply with your suggestion. Which area will get you more wins?

[Cheesehead Craig]

Defense, defense, defense.

[red]

i vote for changing the draft and develop plan.

we draft a lot of "project" players, byt the time they start to look like they "get it" or actually "belong in the NFL", ite either time to give them a big deal, or let them go

to be, seattle shows a better way of team building. draft well, but sprinkle in some free agent vets on 1 and 2 year deals to help the younger guys develop

[mraynrand]

I voted stop punting, just because I'd like to see what happens if a team actually does it. Will never happen though.

[pbmax]

Despite my normal agreement with and defense of Thompson's draft draft and more draft philosophy, I think he needs to adjust. Or perhaps more accurately, this needs to be another year he engages in FA (like 2008) if a player fits what they need at S, ILB or DT. He did a nice job converting his 4-3 roster in 2009 and he can certainly do it again (though the FA signings of Wood and Pickett were a year earlier I think).

There is far too much talk about "windows" in the NFL and speculation about how long something will last is ridiculous. However, now is not a bad time to ramp things up. The cap will be going up soon, the large number of FAs on their own roster is both a challenge and opportunity to remake certain positions and there are clear areas of need that would benefit from a vet.

Its also not impossible to clearly be ahead of the NFC race, because the gap with 49ers has closed and the Seahawks were already within reach last year.


Second is S&C, they need to advance this part of the operation.

Last is ST. Maybe he gets a job offer somewhere.

[denverYooper]

I voted stop punting, just because I'd like to see what happens if a team actually does it. Will never happen though.

This.

[denverYooper]

Last is ST. Maybe he gets a job offer somewhere.

The Wendy's at 80th and Wadsworth is hiring.

[Smidgeon]

I voted defense. Not that I (necessarily) think Capers should go, but a scheme tweak might be called for. Maybe.

[Pugger]

You get one choice, one area that the team will comply with your suggestion. Which area will get you more wins?

None of the above.

I'd just improve the talent on the defense.

[pbmax]

None of the above.

I'd just improve the talent on the defense.

What is the best way to improve talent on D?

[Cheesehead Craig]

What is the best way to improve talent on D?

Firing Slocum

[denverYooper]

Firing Slocum

Yeah. That would force opponents to gain about 30 more yards per drive.

[pbmax]

One of you could have voted for that and got the bank shot bonus then.

[oldbutnotdeadyet]

What, no prize? Jesus Christ! I feel offense is regressing but still competitive. Defense just plain sucks, and while it is easy to say talent is to blame, I've gots to think it is more coaching than talent. BUT, what the hell do I know...

[Smeefers]

I picked Special Teams because I think ST is truly a third of your game and I think ST is by far our worst facet.

[run pMc]

Improve the defense.
Get a cheap NT to replace Raji, draft an speedy asskicker at ILB, and find a savior at safety.

If TT hit the trifecta there the defense might hold that lofty early season ranking and actually finish Top 10.
The offense will be better organically if Bulaga, Sherrod come back and can play, and Bahktiari gets stronger. They'll need some help in the draft/FA to fill in gaps if Jones, EDS, and Finley are goners. Likewise, I'm assuming they let Raji walk and sign Shields.

Of course, this is "APRH".

[mraynrand]

run pMc, I agree - fix the defense, right up the middle.

[LP]

i vote for changing the draft and develop plan.

we draft a lot of "project" players, byt the time they start to look like they "get it" or actually "belong in the NFL", ite either time to give them a big deal, or let them go

to be, seattle shows a better way of team building. draft well, but sprinkle in some free agent vets on 1 and 2 year deals to help the younger guys develop

And while you're at it, sprinkle in a few PEDs just for fun.

[Bretsky]

DAMMIT; I SAW FIRE SLOCUME AND JUST VOTED

BUT

I WANT TO CHANGE MY VOTE TO CHANING OUR DRAFT AND DEVELOP PLAN


but


FIRE SLOCUM !!!!

[bobblehead]

Despite my normal agreement with and defense of Thompson's draft draft and more draft philosophy, I think he needs to adjust. Or perhaps more accurately, this needs to be another year he engages in FA (like 2008) if a player fits what they need at S, ILB or DT. He did a nice job converting his 4-3 roster in 2009 and he can certainly do it again (though the FA signings of Wood and Pickett were a year earlier I think).

There is far too much talk about "windows" in the NFL and speculation about how long something will last is ridiculous. However, now is not a bad time to ramp things up. The cap will be going up soon, the large number of FAs on their own roster is both a challenge and opportunity to remake certain positions and there are clear areas of need that would benefit from a vet.

Its also not impossible to clearly be ahead of the NFC race, because the gap with 49ers has closed and the Seahawks were already within reach last year.


Second is S&C, they need to advance this part of the operation.

Last is ST. Maybe he gets a job offer somewhere.

I would say that you want Jarius Byrd then. He fills a gaping hole in a way that would make Peter North proud. We have the room under the cap. I don't see where we lose a "prospect" worth keeping by signing him.

He also showed how important he was to the Bills when he was hurt. He came back and their defense was pretty solid.

[woodbuck27]

"This poll will close on 01-29-2014 at 02:39 PM Be advised that this is a public poll: other users can see the choice(s) you selected."

There now ...you've done it.

I'm too afraid to vote.

Ohh wait...choice (s).

I have choices or more that one choice?!?

[mraynrand]

I would say that you want Jarius Byrd then. He fills a gaping hole in a way that would make Peter North proud..

I shoulda had better sense than to google that.

[red]

I would say that you want Jarius Byrd then. He fills a gaping hole in a way that would make Peter North proud. We have the room under the cap. I don't see where we lose a "prospect" worth keeping by signing him.

He also showed how important he was to the Bills when he was hurt. He came back and their defense was pretty solid.

in a perfect world we tag and trade raji for a second

sign byrd

then use the raji draft pick to move up in the 1st to grab cj mosley

imo, defense fixed

[Joemailman]

According to Football Outsiders, the Packers Special teams have had the following ranks:

2010: 26th
2011: 8th
2012: 18th
2013: 19th

This does lend some credence to the argument that ST are the area most impacted by an injury plagued year. Could it be that Slocum isn't that bad?

I posted this here because I can't post it in the Fire Slocum thread.

[pbmax]

According to Football Outsiders, the Packers Special teams have had the following ranks:

2010: 26th
2011: 8th
2012: 18th
2013: 19th

This does lend some credence to the argument that ST are the area most impacted by an injury plagued year. Could it be that Slocum isn't that bad?

I posted this here because I can't post it in the Fire Slocum thread.

That no doubt has caused some of his problems. And having Cobb for returns helped quite a bit after Slocum's slow start. But remember JSO had another ST coach say the Packers were trying some novel and occasionally unsound things in his first year.

Its such a mess to figure out why ST's struggle Many good teams have terrible special teams and the reverse is often true. But even with injuries, is the roster talented enough to be average at ST (same question with defense I guess)? I say yes.

Capers has a track record outside of the Packer roster, Slocum does not.

[pbmax]

I shoulda had better sense than to google that.

This will help the cleanup: How do I clear my Internet browser history? (http://www.computerhope.com/issues/ch000510.htm)

[woodbuck27]

Defense: Could be Capers gone or insist on scheme alteration

I'm a fair person.

I'll give you something.

You give me something too.

[Striker]

in a perfect world we tag and trade raji for a second

sign byrd

then use the raji draft pick to move up in the 1st to grab cj mosley

imo, defense fixed

That's quite the perfect world...but I doubt anyone would give a second, or even a third, for Raji. Plus, at least last season, Byrd wanted to become the highest paid safety out there.

I'd say draft a safety, and shore up the DL and LB through FA if possible.

[woodbuck27]

That's quite the perfect world...but I doubt anyone would give a second, or even a third, for Raji. Plus, at least last season, Byrd wanted to become the highest paid safety out there.

I'd say draft a safety, and shore up the DL and LB through FA if possible.

Green Bay Packers GM Ted Thompson might look at it this way:

As a preliminary to establishing his target prospects and any Free Agents and 2014 drafting strategy.

TT simply has to convince HC Mike McCarthy and DC Dom Capers to switch the defense from... a Base 3-4 'D' to a Base 4-3 Defense. If that's done, that's a best step towards SUCCESS.

Right there Ted Thompson and Mike McCarthy have demonstrated foresight and established a sincere and intelligent decision/conviction towards re-establishing the Packers to tossing a small 'd' defense to become ... ASA 'reasonably' Possible ... a REAL DEFENSE.

The domino effect arrives in the Green Bay Packers favor and Packer Nation will have something to really hope for, have faith in and CELEBRATE.

Ted Thompson simply has to steer the ship. Take "the BULL by the horns" and roll him to the dusty ground. I'm referring to the stubbornness I observe in Packer Head Coach Mike McCarthy.

Is MM stubborn? Are you paying attention?

I'm NOT insulting MM . I'm simply seeing him for what's too obvious to me. I'm concerned over that as in my lifetime I've concluded that .....stubborness too often morphs into stupidness.

Once Ted Thompson gets that doen he's finally giving himself the best break he can as I see it all right now.

Then TT can focus on " the Front Line" of that 4-3 DEFENSE... THE DL.

Ted Thompson has the three significant "BIG MEN":

**34 year old ... Ryan Pickett

** Seriously injured and needing surgery with a 5th vertebrae issue - Johnny Jolly.

** possibly malcontent .. the seriously under performing DT BJ Raji. Is Raji reacting as he needs to (see Pickett and Jolly) in terms of ALL IN and PACKERS?

Now...toss that to the side in terms of clarity and "the BEST decision" and the Green bay Packers DL. It's rather complicated. There's a lot for Ted Thompson needs to factor in.

See The BIG Three BJ Raji; Ryan Pickett ; Johnny jolly and add DE C.J. Wilson.

That's a fair amount to look at and be decisive in terms of the Packers DL and the current UFA's.

GO PACK GO !

[Pugger]

What is the best way to improve talent on D?

Better drafting, better luck at injuries and perhaps a mid-level FA at safety to shore up the back end of the D while developing a S in the meanwhile. :huh:

[woodbuck27]

BJ Raji wants his BEST DEAL. He believes he'll shine on a team with a scheme that is waiting for his competence / SKILLS.

It might look like he's a fool to many. He's rejected to date, a solid $8 million Per year offer. He's not happy with how he's utilized in th Packers 'D'. He likely feels like he's being wasted and to some extent to that being the TRUTH. Raji is justified in my view to feel that way.

I'll be very surprized, if Ted Thompson turns BJ Raji, all the way back before FA to the Green Bay Packers. it's clear that Raji wants to and will test the FA market. That the present situation and Dom capers and defense and Green Bay Packers doesn't fit to him. He also might have his head a wee bit to high in his clouds and more money than TT's $8 million$ offer.

Some FA experts are predicting a suppressed market in terms of Raji's position and skill set in the order of , TT's NOT ungenerous offer to Raji.

It looks to me like he's gone as it's stood (presently standing) and MM and Dom Capers and NO talk as yet and a switch to a 4-3 Base DEFENSE.

TT can turn that back to all the time spent on Raji's development and invested Draft status.

Some here have suggested that TT TAG BJ Raji. Franchise Tagging Raji sn't an option.

A move in that direction would cost the Packers CAP for 2014 > that the $8 million$ offer....rejected by BJ Ragi. TT should re-affirm an offer to Raji and see if any other team match's that. TT best chance to retain Raji is of course an enhaced offer but that would be flat out silly.

Packer nation can see Packer games. Packer nation is certainly ready to move forward without Raji. Packer nation has simply to check all that and again this:

BJ Raji has been used "out of position". Misused...in the wrong Base 'D' to match up with the present Green Bay Packer Roster.

FRANKLT...I'm very concerned as to why!? Ted Thompson has allowed MM to have his way and Dom Capers and the Dom Capers "missing badly" defense. I'm so often shaking my head over that because it's so in our Packerrat mugs.

A continuing >>>continuing >>>Ever Onward >>>SLAP in the face.

Should TT just "cold cock" let completely go of BJ Raji?

Raji has the youth going for him and the more competence / talent if moved to "Nose Tackle" He wants to be a STAR player. He wants to get SACK's and make the Weekly Highlight Reels"! He knows that he can't do that playing 3-Tech. He's a former proven force as the Packers NT.

You know that he can't cut it playing 3-Teck DE. Raji's obvious BEST position is to be moved to where Ryan Pickett was in 2013 or Nose Tackle. That makes Ryan Picket expendable except for a condition of accepting less $$money$ as his assignments will more than likely decrease in 2014. It's now come to at best a year to year contract with the Packers.

BJ Raji may be convinced to stay and promised he's going to be switched to where he's proven most effective or Nose Tackle ... in to best utilization the present Packer Roster ...a 4-3 Base Defense.

If Ted Thompson secures BJ Raji, at a base contract offer < $ 8 million$ /year CAP hit and possibly with PERFORMANCE BONUS's.

Ted Thompson simply then targets a 3-Teck for the DL in the upcoming draft.

I believe like other Packer UFA's. BJ Raji will hit the market and attempt to exploit his self perceived potential and value to another NFL organization. Again.... If TT forces the switch to a 4-3 Base 'D'; that decisive move, goes furthest to avoiding the loss of BJ Raji.

Present NT Ryan Pickett has to come back at less cost to the CAP. His age is a factor. His attitude and leadership isn't. You have to like Ryan Pickett "a Terrific FREE AGENT acquisition". A Packer now that desires to retire as a Green Bay Packer as is his stated desire in this past year in a conversation with JS Sports writer Bob McGinn.

I hope that DE Johnny Jolly gets reliably repaired. An operation is, as my understanding goes, likely the order for his day. The damage is to the c-5 vertebrae and not as severe in terms of playing football as Nick Collin's and now TE Jermichael Finley's spinal injury was or between the c-3 and c-4 vertebrae.

GO PACKERS...GO PACK GO.

DID YOU VOTE FOR Eddie Lacy ... multiple times ...today?

Yesterday?

The day before yesterday?

[run pMc]

That no doubt has caused some of his problems. And having Cobb for returns helped quite a bit after Slocum's slow start. But remember JSO had another ST coach say the Packers were trying some novel and occasionally unsound things in his first year.

Its such a mess to figure out why ST's struggle Many good teams have terrible special teams and the reverse is often true. But even with injuries, is the roster talented enough to be average at ST (same question with defense I guess)? I say yes.

Capers has a track record outside of the Packer roster, Slocum does not.

I think they'll keep Slocum. I think it's easy to underestimate how much injuries impact ST. Maybe he's covering asses, but based on McCarthy's pressers, it's a big deal. I also think roster decisions impact ST -- some teams have people specifically for ST (Kasim Osgood does not play WR for SF, but he's listed as one). Normally Bush is the closest thing to that, but even he got meaningful snaps this year. I think TT and M3 make roster decisions with other priorities in mind and leave the leftovers to ST. With that strategy and with the injuries, they will really struggle to be above average. Agree that "average" is possible, but they don't have a KR on the roster outside of Cobb.

Also -- GB faces Patterson (Harvin before that) and Hester 2x each a year...that's not gonna do their numbers any favors.

[woodbuck27]

Just this last thing I want to offer Packerrats;

My recommendation offers what my analysis says is the best approach towards getting the BEST possible RESULTS for Ted Thompson and Mike McCarthy and the entire Green Bay Packer Organization.

Watching BJ struggle at 3 - Tech in a sometimes 3 - 4 Base 'D'; so often, as Wist43 points out, a 2-4-5 Base 'D'.

Should prove that . Packer Nation sure has seen the drop off the ledge not getting it done BJ Raji this season. Check that out ! It appears to me that Packerrats is "far less a BUZZ and the failing more Packer Defense" and "ST's Results" and even "a player like BJ Raji"; than I'm generally discovering in the odd excursions into other Packer fan territory.

I sense that, in more conservative Packer fan attitudes. That any critique of TT or MM arrives in a defensive posture (by posters) of that critique.

Their feeling that any critique is an obvious call for TT's or MM's head on a stick.

That a critique is the equivalent of shouts or demands for:

FIRING Ted Thompson and Mike McCarthy. NO! NO !! No way !!!

Please stay calm and think and try to SEE.

Getting all emotionally bent out of shape; over reacting to clear thinking and analysis of what Ted Thompson might do to steer his ship on a TRUER " perceived " COURSE.

Is nonsense personified. ;-)

Such reactions merely get in the way of us all growing here @ Packerrats as "stronger' Packer fans. Such reactions as I see them make me shake my head to ...laugh ...in order to cope with them. :smile:

As I've always tried hard to best understand things...such attitudes are counter productive too severely unproductive.

GO PACK GO !

[Cheesehead Craig]

Just this last thing I want to offer Packerrats;


Liar. :wink: :grin:

[woodbuck27]

Liar. :wink: :grin:

Got me.

quia ego tristis erroris mei.

I am sad for my error.

[Bretsky]

According to Football Outsiders, the Packers Special teams have had the following ranks:

2010: 26th
2011: 8th
2012: 18th
2013: 19th

This does lend some credence to the argument that ST are the area most impacted by an injury plagued year. Could it be that Slocum isn't that bad?

I posted this here because I can't post it in the Fire Slocum thread.

Where do coverage units rank ? If you are bringing stats to the table to keep that chump....I say Fire da Mailman !!

[red]

Where do coverage units rank ? If you are bringing stats to the table to keep that chump....I say Fire da Mailman !!

yup, i'd say those rankings are greatly skewed by having an awesome punter and a damn good kicker

return and coverage teams are what has been so horrible

so can probably count the number of kickoff returns we brought out past the 20 on one hand

[Joemailman]

yup, i'd say those rankings are greatly skewed by having an awesome punter and a damn good kicker

return and coverage teams are what has been so horrible

so can probably count the number of kickoff returns we brought out past the 20 on one hand

Their formula takes into account return and coverage teams. In 2013 Packers kick coverage teams were 27th and kick return teams were 30th. http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamst In 2011, they were 15th and 7th. I'm not advocating keeping Slocum based on those stats. But again, I do think there's some evidence that getting inundated by injuries does affect the play of the coverage and return teams.

[woodbuck27]

Their formula takes into account return and coverage teams. In 2013 Packers kick coverage teams were 27th and kick return teams were 30th. http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamst In 2011, they were 15th and 7th. I'm not advocating keeping Slocum based on those stats. But again, I do think there's some evidence that getting inundated by injuries does affect the play of the coverage and return teams.

That's what MM will deem his reason for NOT letting Shawn Slocum go.

The Packers BRASS can always play the too many injuries card.

It's their "Get Out Of Jail FREE Card."

Excessive injuries is both BAD and GOOD.

[bobblehead]

This will help the cleanup: How do I clear my Internet browser history? (http://www.computerhope.com/issues/ch000510.htm)

Its not kiddie porn or anything illegal...of course running for office is out now because the democrat controlled NSA monitors conservative posters like Rand.

[bobblehead]

yup, i'd say those rankings are greatly skewed by having an awesome punter and a damn good kicker

return and coverage teams are what has been so horrible

so can probably count the number of kickoff returns we brought out past the 20 on one hand

Since we can't play D and we can't cover ST, you think something fundamental about the way we practice is about? I mean, tackling, taking on blockers, is it a coincidence the starters on D and the ST guys suck at it?

[Joemailman]

Since we can't play D and we can't cover ST, you think something fundamental about the way we practice is about? I mean, tackling, taking on blockers, is it a coincidence the starters on D and the ST guys suck at it?

I don't know. Do the Packers practice differently than other teams? You can only have 1 padded practice a week during the regular season.

[Fritz]

Maybe they can go rogue and conduct secret midnight practices in which the players tackle, tackle, tackle. Pay them under the table. Get all New England on everyone else in the league.

[mraynrand]

Maybe they can go rogue and conduct secret midnight practices in which the players tackle, tackle, tackle. Pay them under the table. Get all New England on everyone else in the league.

there will always be someone filming from the rafters

[bobblehead]

I don't know. Do the Packers practice differently than other teams? You can only have 1 padded practice a week during the regular season.

Some coaches push the rules to the edge and some don't even approach the minimum. A team like the packers that relies on youth so much is hurt more by the limited amount you can do as well.

Also, just cuz you can't use pads doesn't mean you can't run full speed drills without contact so players have to react faster and think in real game terms. I also wonder if you can keep guys on the practice field (unpadded) for extra hours. Is there a limit on hours as well?

[pbmax]

I do think M3 is still adjusting to the new CBA practice schedule. He admitted in his year end presser that while it was better than last year, he still did not like where they were when camp ended though part of that this year was injuries.

Gotta get that fixed.

[pbmax]

BTW, the defense that Rodgers struggled to adjust to in the playoff game? Mostly Cover 2 man outside.

Granted, he was getting a lot of traffic in the pocket because his tackles were more like turnstiles, but its kinda a theme now, 2.25 years in.

I do not think Lacy, without breakaway speed, can ever be enough threat that the defense will pull that safety up to defend against Lacy first (which is why Starks must continue to get snaps). So the Packers HAVE to protect well enough for Rodgers to pick apart the 2 deep look.

[QBME]

Some coaches push the rules to the edge and some don't even approach the minimum. A team like the packers that relies on youth so much is hurt more by the limited amount you can do as well.

Also, just cuz you can't use pads doesn't mean you can't run full speed drills without contact so players have to react faster and think in real game terms. I also wonder if you can keep guys on the practice field (unpadded) for extra hours. Is there a limit on hours as well?

It doesn't appear that there is a limit to non padded practice hours. Following is from the latest CBA:

ARTICLE 24 REGULAR SEASON AND POSTSEASON PRACTICES
Section 1. Practice Rules:
(a) During the regular season, padded practices for all players shall be limited to a total of fourteen, eleven of which must be held during the first eleven weeks of the regular season, and three of which must be held during the remaining six weeks of the regular season. The Club may choose the days of the week on which such practices shall be held. Subject to the foregoing rules, each Club may hold two padded practices during the same week during one week of the regular season, provided that such week falls within the first eleven weeks of the regular season.
(b) Clubs participating in the postseason may hold one padded practice per week, on a day of the Club’s choosing, commencing with the week following the Club’s last regular season game.
(c) For purposes of this Article and Article 23, a “padded practice” shall be defined as a practice in which players are required to wear helmets and shoulder pads, in addition to any other equipment required by the Club, subject to the exceptions set forth in Article 23, Section 6(b).
(d) On days when padded practices are permitted under Subsection (a) above, on-field Team activity for all players shall be limited to a maximum of three hours per day, including “first period” (i.e., stretching and calisthenics), provided that (i) players may participate in on-field activities with their position coaches for a period not to ex-ceed thirty minutes, prior to the three-hour maximum on-field period; and (ii) any walk-through of reasonable and customary duration (for purposes of this Subsection, such walk-through to be no helmets and walking pace) that is conducted prior to or after the three-hour maximum on-field period shall not count against that limit. The three-hour time limit described above shall begin as soon as position coaches begin to coach players on the field, subject to provisos (i)–(ii) in this Subsection.
Section 2. Bye Weeks: During any regular season bye week period occurring during the term of this Agreement, players will be given a minimum of four consecutive days off. Such four-day period must include a Saturday and a Sunday unless the Club is scheduled to play a game on the Thursday following the bye week, in which case players may be required to report to the Club on the Sunday preceding the Thursday game. In such an event, the four-day period shall be Wednesday through Saturday. Any injured player may be required to undergo medical or rehabilitation treatment during such four-day period provided that such treatment is deemed reasonably necessary by the Club’s medical staff.
Section 3. Enforcement: Any violation of Section 1 of this Article shall be governed by the same procedures, and shall be subject to the same fines and fine procedures, as set forth in Article 21, Section 8, except that the “Other Penalties” set forth in Article 21, Section 8(d)(ii) shall not apply to any violation of this Article.

[SMBASS]

BTW, the defense that Rodgers struggled to adjust to in the playoff game? Mostly Cover 2 man outside.

Granted, he was getting a lot of traffic in the pocket because his tackles were more like turnstiles, but its kinda a theme now, 2.25 years in.

I do not think Lacy, without breakaway speed, can ever be enough threat that the defense will pull that safety up to defend against Lacy first (which is why Starks must continue to get snaps). So the Packers HAVE to protect well enough for Rodgers to pick apart the 2 deep look.

I agree with what you're saying pb but IMO we also still need a TE who has the ability to beat and get open against a Cover 2. Finley was supposed to be that guy but due to injuries/limited playing time, etc. it never happened. We need a smart TE who has some speed and athletic ability along with the smarts to find holes in zones and get open down the seams against the cover 2.

[pbmax]

I agree with what you're saying pb but IMO we also still need a TE who has the ability to beat and get open against a Cover 2. Finley was supposed to be that guy but due to injuries/limited playing time, etc. it never happened. We need a smart TE who has some speed and athletic ability along with the smarts to find holes in zones and get open down the seams against the cover 2.

Agree. I actually hope its not Finley because even when he played last year he was not a vertical threat. He looked every bit like a guy trying to survive until his second contract.

Who knows what he will do once he gets it.

[mraynrand]

BTW, the defense that Rodgers struggled to adjust to in the playoff game? Mostly Cover 2 man outside.

Granted, he was getting a lot of traffic in the pocket because his tackles were more like turnstiles, but its kinda a theme now, 2.25 years in.

I do not think Lacy, without breakaway speed, can ever be enough threat that the defense will pull that safety up to defend against Lacy first (which is why Starks must continue to get snaps). So the Packers HAVE to protect well enough for Rodgers to pick apart the 2 deep look.

Or they have to have a check down option. One that Rodgers can go to quickly. The Mantra over the past several years has been the vertical routes, but they take time. Even in the SF game, the Packers ran deep verticals on a third and 18 late, with no check down options. And yet, several times they just scorched the Niners with a quick check down. I don't know all the nuances of making sure the LBs are cleared out, etc. but they need something to turn sacks and incompletions into at least 1-2 yard gains. Improved line play is 1, and shorter patterns is 2 (meaning, Cobb for example doesn't have to run to the marker before turning around - how about a 8 yard pattern and come back)

[mraynrand]

Agree. I actually hope its not Finley because even when he played last year he was not a vertical threat. He looked every bit like a guy trying to survive until his second contract.

Well, his first concussion came against the perfect cover two beater. He would have caught it and had a big gain if not for the head shot. Unlucky or too risky?

[pbmax]

Well, his first concussion came against the perfect cover two beater. He would have caught it and had a big gain if not for the head shot. Unlucky or too risky?

And those crossing routes are what he seemed to be asking to run rather than seam routes that threaten a safety, presumably to avoid taking a beating from the safety.

He put himself in harms way by trying to get low because he was slow about it. You have to be ready to absorb that hit. Bobble might be right here that experience would teach him that, though there aren't too many head shots in practices.

I think Finley spends too much time planning his future rather than living in the present, football wise.

EDIT: I am talking about his spinal injury and Rand mentions the concussion hit from earlier. The hit that hurt his spine was a crossing route of some sort (or something in the short center of the field), which he seemed to favor running lately. The concussion was on a seam route that forced to safety to honor the middle of the field.

[mraynrand]

He put himself in harms way by trying to get low because he was slow about it. You have to be ready to absorb that hit. Bobble might be right here that experience would teach him that, though there aren't too many head shots in practices.

Especially with Kevin Greene now out of the picture. Is Brian Cushing a free agent??

[red]

Or they have to have a check down option. One that Rodgers can go to quickly. The Mantra over the past several years has been the vertical routes, but they take time. Even in the SF game, the Packers ran deep verticals on a third and 18 late, with no check down options. And yet, several times they just scorched the Niners with a quick check down. I don't know all the nuances of making sure the LBs are cleared out, etc. but they need something to turn sacks and incompletions into at least 1-2 yard gains. Improved line play is 1, and shorter patterns is 2 (meaning, Cobb for example doesn't have to run to the marker before turning around - how about a 8 yard pattern and come back)

i've been thinking and saying for awhile that our routs take way to long to develop. its like every play called takes 4 seconds to develop and we give the QB 3 seconds of protection

where did the quick slants go?

[bobblehead]

It doesn't appear that there is a limit to non padded practice hours. Following is from the latest CBA:

ARTICLE 24 REGULAR SEASON AND POSTSEASON PRACTICES
Section 1. Practice Rules:
(a) During the regular season, padded practices for all players shall be limited to a total of fourteen, eleven of which must be held during the first eleven weeks of the regular season, and three of which must be held during the remaining six weeks of the regular season. The Club may choose the days of the week on which such practices shall be held. Subject to the foregoing rules, each Club may hold two padded practices during the same week during one week of the regular season, provided that such week falls within the first eleven weeks of the regular season.
(b) Clubs participating in the postseason may hold one padded practice per week, on a day of the Club’s choosing, commencing with the week following the Club’s last regular season game.
(c) For purposes of this Article and Article 23, a “padded practice” shall be defined as a practice in which players are required to wear helmets and shoulder pads, in addition to any other equipment required by the Club, subject to the exceptions set forth in Article 23, Section 6(b).
(d) On days when padded practices are permitted under Subsection (a) above, on-field Team activity for all players shall be limited to a maximum of three hours per day, including “first period” (i.e., stretching and calisthenics), provided that (i) players may participate in on-field activities with their position coaches for a period not to ex-ceed thirty minutes, prior to the three-hour maximum on-field period; and (ii) any walk-through of reasonable and customary duration (for purposes of this Subsection, such walk-through to be no helmets and walking pace) that is conducted prior to or after the three-hour maximum on-field period shall not count against that limit. The three-hour time limit described above shall begin as soon as position coaches begin to coach players on the field, subject to provisos (i)–(ii) in this Subsection.
Section 2. Bye Weeks: During any regular season bye week period occurring during the term of this Agreement, players will be given a minimum of four consecutive days off. Such four-day period must include a Saturday and a Sunday unless the Club is scheduled to play a game on the Thursday following the bye week, in which case players may be required to report to the Club on the Sunday preceding the Thursday game. In such an event, the four-day period shall be Wednesday through Saturday. Any injured player may be required to undergo medical or rehabilitation treatment during such four-day period provided that such treatment is deemed reasonably necessary by the Club’s medical staff.
Section 3. Enforcement: Any violation of Section 1 of this Article shall be governed by the same procedures, and shall be subject to the same fines and fine procedures, as set forth in Article 21, Section 8, except that the “Other Penalties” set forth in Article 21, Section 8(d)(ii) shall not apply to any violation of this Article.

Wow...remind me to be careful what I ask :)

[Carolina_Packer]

Defense: Could be Capers gone or insist on scheme alteration

So far this has gotten the most votes. Everyone wants to hang this on Capers, and ultimately it's easier to fire a DC than replace all the average to sub-par players. I've made this argument before; this is not the 1994 Steelers defense that Capers is coaching (you can look up that incredible defensive roster). This is a defense that is trying to develop a lot of young guys (when are they not?), while asking some guys to change and learn new positions, while fielding an average DL that do not help the LB as they should in the scheme, while dealing with some lack of development of some defenders, while dealing with a rash of injuries to test the depth of the defensive roster.

Does anyone take TT to task regarding the defensive roster he has created? Perhaps it's time to look at the scouting staff that are helping TT stock this defensive roster. Assuming that Capers job is safe (could still get let go, I guess), keeping him is going to shine a bigger spotlight on TT's ability to retool the defensive roster and the methods by which he stocks the roster now that he has a franchise QB that will always keep the team in the hunt. Yes, keep the cap healthy, please. But, also please try and field the best team possible where we don't have to rely on guys to play who should be backups or special teamers. You can fire the cook, but you still have someone else buying the ingredients that go into creating the meal.

If you were the cook, would you be happy with the ingredients?

I'm sick of teams like Seattle and SF, both of whom retooled their teams after 2010 and are now dominant defenses. I get that we have enough success where we draft in the 20's pretty consistently, but there are multiple rounds and college free agency too. It's time to get more Danny Travathon's and less Jerron McMillian's on the defensive roster. When you draft Jerel Worthy in the 2nd round and he's 6-2 310 or so, what is the plan for him? Let's just draft talent and see where it fits. Come on man! Stop with the excuses and get it fixed!!!

[pbmax]

Defense: Could be Capers gone or insist on scheme alteration

... snip ...

I'm sick of teams like Seattle and SF, both of whom retooled their teams after 2010 and are now dominant defenses. I get that we have enough success where we draft in the 20's pretty consistently, but there are multiple rounds and college free agency too. It's time to get more Danny Travathon's and less Jerron McMillian's on the defensive roster. When you draft Jerel Worthy in the 2nd round and he's 6-2 310 or so, what is the plan for him? Let's just draft talent and see where it fits. Come on man! Stop with the excuses and get it fixed!!!

San Fran was retooling long before 2010 as so has a deep reservoir of talent on D. Seattle has had a remarkable turnaround and good luck with a lot of mid round picks.

The Packers have had very mixed results from their first and second round picks (Clay versus Perry, Jones, Burnett and Neal) and the best comparables to Seattle's mid round picks might be the UDFAs (Shields and Williams). Best midrange guy on D roster, Daniels, would be more fearsome if people were healthy (Clay), found a home (Perry and Neal) and/or Jones with another year of seasoning.

Those pieces would probably work OK in nickel and dime pass D if the run D would stop collapsing. There are just too many moving parts and not enough out right studs.

[Fritz]

I think that Carolin Packer has hit on something. And it's not just that maybe Ted is missing on his draft picks, it's that Capers' scheme seems to demand a lot of people doing exactly what they're supposed to, over and over and over. That would call for a defense that plays together for years, that has a core of players in each position group that have been around a long time. New guys ought to be worked in slowly.

But that's not how Ted runs things, as we all know. He relies heavily, very heavily, on rookies and second year guys. Maybe that is just not compatible with the scheme Capers runs.

So the question for me is this: is there a scheme that is more conducive to using lots and lots of inexperienced but athletic guys?

Another possibility is this: that the scheme can work with young guys - as long as they're not rookies or first-time-at-a-position guys (like Neal). However, the margin for error is much slimmer, and so when you have to play Hyde instead of Hayward, when you have to play House instead of Shields, when you have to play Neal instead of Perry, or Mulamba instead of Neal or Perry, you've got problems.

One more thought occurs to me: if this team had a dominating defensive line - in a 3-4, I suppose that means guys who can eat up blocks all day long without being moved an inch, would that free up your more inexperienced players? Would it allow rookie or second year linebackers the time and space to make plays? Would it make up for the problem of having to play so many rooks on defense?

[Joemailman]

I don't buy the whole "You need guys who have been in the system for years" argument. The best defense Capers had here was in 2010, when they were only in the 2nd year of playing the 3-4. The 2010 team had to rely on rookies. Sam Shields was the nickel back, which means he was practically a starter. Frank Zombo started half the games. What that defense had was playmakers on the back end. Collins, Woodson and Tramon were all Pro Bowl players.

That team also got healthy at the end of the year. Matthews and Cullen Jenkins were both 100% at the end of the year which was not the case for much of the year. Contrast that with the 2013 team which lost Jolly and Matthews (again) at the end of the year, and lost Shields and Neal during the playoff game.

The last thing I would point out is that the 2 worst starters on the 2013 team (Brad Jones and Jennings) are veterans in this defense. The Packers had 2 gaping holes in their starting lineup which need to be filled, whether by rookies or veterans.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

Defense is lacking talent, period. Almost no playmakers on defense which is what you need to be a successful. To many players just flat out suck. Burnett sucks, MD Jennings sucks, Brad Jones sucks, Pickett got old, Raji giving half effort, and then throw in injuries. Its that simple. 2010 we had Nick Collins, Woodson, Williams, Shields, Bishop, Matthews, Jenkins, Good Raji, Pickett, and good health considering players we lost on defense that year had backups who were better (see Burnett, Barnett, Chillar).

We need better drafting its that simple.

[mraynrand]

One more thought occurs to me: if this team had a dominating defensive line - in a 3-4, I suppose that means guys who can eat up blocks all day long without being moved an inch, would that free up your more inexperienced players? Would it allow rookie or second year linebackers the time and space to make plays? Would it make up for the problem of having to play so many rooks on defense?

to answer this question, just look at the Giants. Their defense was excellent largely due to a great line. Stop the run, generate pressure - both those things can hide a lot of average guys behind you. But, lose one guy to FA and another to injury, and suddenly, you look like garbage.

[denverYooper]

San Fran was retooling long before 2010 as so has a deep reservoir of talent on D. Seattle has had a remarkable turnaround and good luck with a lot of mid round picks.

The Packers have had very mixed results from their first and second round picks (Clay versus Perry, Jones, Burnett and Neal) and the best comparables to Seattle's mid round picks might be the UDFAs (Shields and Williams). Best midrange guy on D roster, Daniels, would be more fearsome if people were healthy (Clay), found a home (Perry and Neal) and/or Jones with another year of seasoning.

Those pieces would probably work OK in nickel and dime pass D if the run D would stop collapsing. There are just too many moving parts and not enough out right studs.

This is a great point re the 9ers -- they didn't just throw a bunch of FAs together and start dominating. They'd been a middling to good defense for a few years before Harbaugh came along and taught the offense how to play ball control. Once they had a whole-team-game philsophy, some hot yoga included in their S+C ;), and added a handful of difference makers (Aldon Smith, Kaep), it put them over the top for a run.

Take a look at this breakdown of 49ers acquisitions: (http://49ers.pressdemocrat.com/2013/02/inside-the-49ers/how-the-49ers-built-a-championship-roster-2/)

[McCloughan/Nolan]
2005 (4-12): Gore
2006 (7-9): Vernon Davis, Delanie Walker (lost in FA but a big contributor the last 2 years)
2007 (5-11): Patrick Willis, Joe Staley, Ray McDonald, Dashon Goldson, Tarrell Brown
2008 (7-9) : Justin Smith (FA 6 yr/$45m), Ahmad Brooks (waivers)
[McCloughan/Singletary]
2009 (8-8): Michael Crabtree, Alex Boone (FA)
[Baalke]
2010 (6-10): Iupati, Anthony Davis, Navorro Bowman
[Baalke/Harbaugh]
2011 (13-3): Aldon Smith, Kaepernick, Chris Culliver, Kendall Hunter, Bruce Miller, Whitner (FA), Carlos Rodgers (FA), Jonathan Goodwin (FA)
2012 (11-4-1): LaMichael James, Joe Looney
2013 (13-3): Reid, Vance McDonald, Lemonier, Quinton Patton

They most of their core guys pre-Hairball. Jim's 2011 was decent. Out of that group, Aldon Smith seemed to be the piece that put the defense over the top. Kaepernick is a good player. Miller has been a good fullback. Whitner hits hard and talks big, but he went missing on Seattle's game-changing TD, not unlike our guys (the missing part). Of their 2012/2013 offseasons, the pickins have been slim -- a decent return man in James and a good safety in Reid. That's not to say that their 2013 picks won't eventually contribute (2012 was horrible for them), but they had a core group that was there for a long time, even pre-Hairball.

[denverYooper]

So what does that mean for the Packers? Well, if they stick it out and build a strong core of guys on that defense to where they can bring draft picks along more slowly, they are probably set for 10 years because I doubt Capers will want to leave for an HC job. Part of the pain is building that core out of guys who want to be there (probably not Raji), who can stay on the field (any number of players not named Hawk), and who are mature enough within the system takes time -- they have to try out the parts to get what works. It's unfortunate that Raji seems disinterested in being there because he would be an important piece. But maybe that will turn out if it means that they can pay Mike Daniels down the road.

Now, I do think they need to look strongly at an FA or two. But I don't think they have to go crazy signing FA DE's like Seattle has done. And I don't think they need a dominant defense -- just one that can show a little more structural integrity and get after the passer more consistently.

[pbmax]

I don't buy the whole "You need guys who have been in the system for years" argument. The best defense Capers had here was in 2010, when they were only in the 2nd year of playing the 3-4. The 2010 team had to rely on rookies. Sam Shields was the nickel back, which means he was practically a starter. Frank Zombo started half the games. What that defense had was playmakers on the back end. Collins, Woodson and Tramon were all Pro Bowl players.

That team also got healthy at the end of the year. Matthews and Cullen Jenkins were both 100% at the end of the year which was not the case for much of the year. Contrast that with the 2013 team which lost Jolly and Matthews (again) at the end of the year, and lost Shields and Neal during the playoff game.

The last thing I would point out is that the 2 worst starters on the 2013 team (Brad Jones and Jennings) are veterans in this defense. The Packers had 2 gaping holes in their starting lineup which need to be filled, whether by rookies or veterans.

No one wants veterans for veterans sake. I don't prefer Pat Lee or Bush over Shields in 2010 because Lee/Bush has had more camps in the Defense. Jones is in his second year at ILB and he might not be able to do it for 3 downs. Vet or no, that doesn't help him be in the right spot.

The Steelers defense struggled this year despite veterans ALL OVER. Probably because those vets had been there too long.

Its the combo of callowness (and the resulting lack of airtightness) and lack of big play(ers) that hurts. Collins in the backend meant Peprah could be limited and his exposure minimized. Matthews and Jenkins meant Raji was getting free runs at the QB.

Tramon was having an All-Pro year so Woodson could get less challenging match ups and take risks plus he could play the slot to blanket diminutive threats (Welker).

Those pieces made their own sense. The 2013 pieces don't yet. If they were airtight, they could more safety bleed yardage until the O makes a mistake.

The Challenge is getting the players together with the right version of the scheme for that year.

[denverYooper]

Jason Wilde ‏@jasonjwilde 36m
100% agree. RT @pwslavik: Schneider'll be judged in maintaining contender after Wilson/Sherman contracts and drafting near bottom for years

Sherman:


year salary bonus cap hit dead
2013 555,000 45,606 - 600,606 91,212


Wilson:


2013 526,217 154,868 - 681,085 464,604


I'd guess that, APRH, they'll cost ~30 mil per year together. Right now, they're 1.3 mil.

[mraynrand]

Jason Wilde ‏@jasonjwilde 36m
100% agree. RT @pwslavik: Schneider'll be judged in maintaining contender after Wilson/Sherman contracts and drafting near bottom for years

Of course they'll be judged on future performance, but their current squad is filled with highly effective middle round picks. It really looks like they know what they're doing (unfortunately, because I want Pete Carroll to go down in flames!)