Understanding the Neal Pick

[mission]

I actually think we need an upgrade at ILB more than OLB .......

[Lurker64]

We're fine at LB.

Starters are fine (Jones and Matthews presumably), but I worry a little bit about the backups. Generally these guys get rotated and "the next guy in" makes me wonder. Is Cyril Obiozor going to be a player? Is Poppinga going to be adequate in this defense after another year learning it? Are they going to line up Chillar on the outside for passing situations? Is Jeremy Thompson a lost cause? Will Thompson land a veteran (like Bryan Thomas from the Jets?)

There's some cause for consternation, but who knows.

[Gunakor]

I actually think we need an upgrade at ILB more than OLB .......

I think with Barnett, Hawk, Chillar and Bishop we're fine at ILB.

OLB might need depth behind Pop. I'll concede that. But certainly if we'd have drafted, say, Moats in the 5th, Wist would just be complaining that we didn't find anybody better than Brad Jones.

My point is that we don't need anybody better than Brad Jones to start at OLB. Brad Jones is a good football player.

[Gunakor]

We're fine at LB.

Starters are fine (Jones and Matthews presumably), but I worry a little bit about the backups. Generally these guys get rotated and "the next guy in" makes me wonder. Is Cyril Obiozor going to be a player? Is Poppinga going to be adequate in this defense after another year learning it? Are they going to line up Chillar on the outside for passing situations? Is Jeremy Thompson a lost cause? Will Thompson land a veteran (like Bryan Thomas from the Jets?)

There's some cause for consternation, but who knows.

JT probably is a lost cause at this point. But I like Chillar. He's going to be a high quality backup and could seemingly play inside or outside depending on where they needed him at the time. Keep in mind that Desmond Bishop should be progressing and might just surprise some people as a backup ILB this year, which would free up Chillar to move outside more if need be.

I think I like our LB's this year. I really do. I'm not convinced we needed to add anybody in the first place.

[mission]

I actually think we need an upgrade at ILB more than OLB .......

I think with Barnett, Hawk, Chillar and Bishop we're fine at ILB.

OLB might need depth behind Pop. I'll concede that. But certainly if we'd have drafted, say, Moats in the 5th, Wist would just be complaining that we didn't find anybody better than Brad Jones.

My point is that we don't need anybody better than Brad Jones to start at OLB. Brad Jones is a good football player.

i think we're good from a depth standpoint but i dont think either hawk or barnett are a true ILB from a pressure standpoint. they do a lot of things well but it'd be nice to have a guy who could run over a RB picking up a blitz. I know I'm describing a young Ray Lewis but you follow...

[Gunakor]

I actually think we need an upgrade at ILB more than OLB .......

I think with Barnett, Hawk, Chillar and Bishop we're fine at ILB.

OLB might need depth behind Pop. I'll concede that. But certainly if we'd have drafted, say, Moats in the 5th, Wist would just be complaining that we didn't find anybody better than Brad Jones.

My point is that we don't need anybody better than Brad Jones to start at OLB. Brad Jones is a good football player.

i think we're good from a depth standpoint but i dont think either hawk or barnett are a true ILB from a pressure standpoint. they do a lot of things well but it'd be nice to have a guy who could run over a RB picking up a blitz. I know I'm describing a young Ray Lewis but you follow...

I do. I just don't think of ILB's as high quality pass rushers. They'll be sent from time to time, of course, but it's Jones and Matthews I'm trusting to get after the quarterback.

Green Bay had one of the top rated rush defenses in teh NFL last year. That's where the value of ILB's comes into play IMO. If you are leading the league in rush defense then your ILB's are doing their jobs.

[rbaloha1]

Forgot about Bishop who imo is better suited for ilb than the current starters.

Barnett and Hawk are more sideline to sideline guys. It would be nice to see thumpers. Nonetheless Dom does a good job of tweaking the scheme to account for the ilb weaknesses.

[Lurker64]

Forgot about Bishop who imo is better suited for ilb than the current starters.

Barnett and Hawk are more sideline to sideline guys. It would be nice to see thumpers. Nonetheless Dom does a good job of tweaking the scheme to account for the ilb weaknesses.

Bishop's a harder hitter than Hawk, but I much prefer Hawk in coverage and his reading of run/pass cues and play diagnosis. Bishop historically has alternated between "guessing" and indecision.

Don't get me wrong, Bishop is a guy you definitely want on special teams and in goal-line, but Hawk is absolutely a better fit at the Buck backer on 1st and 10 at the 20 yardline at 15:00 in the first quarter. Situationally though, there's room for Bishop.

If we want a dedicated thumper though, Bishop is probably upgradeable.

[twoseven]

I think TT might have been able to find a trading partner to move down 10-15 spots and have gotten Neal anyway.

Everyone seems to think this is such an easy thing to pull off. Us trading back means one of those teams needed to move up to get their man AND also give up picks to us to do so. If it didn't happen it was for a reason, and the most likely one was nobody wanted to trade up. also, assuming that because it didn't happen means TT didn't try to trade back is also a reach, isn't it? (unless TT has already been quoted as saying he didn't try)

[falco]

I think TT might have been able to find a trading partner to move down 10-15 spots and have gotten Neal anyway.

Everyone seems to think this is such an easy thing to pull off. Us trading back means one of those teams needed to move up to get their man AND also give up picks to us to do so. If it didn't happen it was for a reason, and the most likely one was nobody wanted to trade up. also, assuming that because it didn't happen means TT didn't try to trade back is also a reach, isn't it? (unless TT has already been quoted as saying he didn't try)

takes two to tango

[Brohm]

Neal was a good football player on a bad Purdue team. He was the guy that was game-planned for and usually double-teamed. Given his stellar measurables, injury history (lack of) and the fact he never came off the field (~80% of the snaps), I think this is a great pick-up.

As good as Jenkins and Jolly are, they have missed a number of games due to injury in the past and when they are nicked up, their effectiveness, especially Jenkins, drops significantly. Neal will fit into the regular rotation (ultimately starting down the road) and take off some of the pressure/load/snap count and offer more of a pass rush from the position.

This doesn't even take into account the legal/FA/Harrell issues, where it offers coverage.

[Gunakor]

I think TT might have been able to find a trading partner to move down 10-15 spots and have gotten Neal anyway.

Everyone seems to think this is such an easy thing to pull off. Us trading back means one of those teams needed to move up to get their man AND also give up picks to us to do so. If it didn't happen it was for a reason, and the most likely one was nobody wanted to trade up. also, assuming that because it didn't happen means TT didn't try to trade back is also a reach, isn't it? (unless TT has already been quoted as saying he didn't try)

Never said it would be easy, at least not to get fair value in return. Don't put words in my mouth. Just that I thought he could do it. There was much higher rated players available at that pick. Any team that coveted any of those much higher rated players that didn't think that player would remain on the board all the way to their 3rd round pick would have at least been interested. Green Bay might have come up short on the value chart, but we'd have likely wound up with Neal anyway plus another pick. So value charts be damned, if we were gonna draft Neal by staying pat anyway we'd have still come away as winners.

No, I don't think Ted tried very hard. I think he probably took and made a few calls, but wasn't willing to trade for less than (x) amount of value. And when he found no takers he just went and took the guy he'd have had taken anyway, with no added value at all. Take a high 3 and a 7, even though you get fleeced on the value chart big time you still come away with Neal plus another pick. I find it hard to believe that no team in the league would have offered a high 3 and a 7 for that pick, given the talent left on the board at the time. If you were gonna draft Neal anyway, may has well have made the trade.

[twoseven]

I think TT might have been able to find a trading partner to move down 10-15 spots and have gotten Neal anyway.

Everyone seems to think this is such an easy thing to pull off. Us trading back means one of those teams needed to move up to get their man AND also give up picks to us to do so. If it didn't happen it was for a reason, and the most likely one was nobody wanted to trade up. also, assuming that because it didn't happen means TT didn't try to trade back is also a reach, isn't it? (unless TT has already been quoted as saying he didn't try)

Never said it would be easy, at least not to get fair value in return. Don't put words in my mouth. Just that I thought he could do it. There was much higher rated players available at that pick. Any team that coveted any of those much higher rated players that didn't think that player would remain on the board all the way to their 3rd round pick would have at least been interested. Green Bay might have come up short on the value chart, but we'd have likely wound up with Neal anyway plus another pick. So value charts be damned, if we were gonna draft Neal by staying pat anyway we'd have still come away as winners.

No, I don't think Ted tried very hard. I think he probably took and made a few calls, but wasn't willing to trade for less than (x) amount of value. And when he found no takers he just went and took the guy he'd have had taken anyway, with no added value at all. Take a high 3 and a 7, even though you get fleeced on the value chart big time you still come away with Neal plus another pick. I find it hard to believe that no team in the league would have offered a high 3 and a 7 for that pick, given the talent left on the board at the time. If you were gonna draft Neal anyway, may has well have made the trade.

dude, relax, nobody is calling you out. every year people get on here and make trading back in the draft sound too easy. i just put my two cents in and am not trying to put words in peoples mouths or start some stupid back and forth banter, arguing for days. that being said, you are saying you don't think TT tried hard when you have absolutely no idea what he did or did not do, based solely on the fact that we took neal when we took him, and that is not puting words in your mouth. not sure how you expect people to respond to that kind of statement. and if there was a lot of talent on the board at the time, that alone makes the need to trade up less likely. i do not remember, but did anyone trade up around when we picked neal and within the 10-15-20 picks after us? if no, this would be just one more indicator that no one was willing to move up.

[Lurker64]

There was an AFC scout quoted in the JSO insider of saying " "He looks pretty and he's athletic. He could go late second round"

He did go late second. If there were any other teams with similar opinions, there was no guarantee that he'd be available later.

[packers11]

There was an AFC scout quoted in the JSO insider of saying " "He looks pretty and he's athletic. He could go late second round"

He did go late second. If there were any other teams with similar opinions, there was no guarantee that he'd be available later.

exactly, just like last year when Oakland took that safety that wasn't even supposed to be drafted. It was reported the Bears were going to pick him in the 2nd round as well...