The Weakest Area of Every Team's Roster in 2011

[woodbuck27]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/749151-the-weakest-area-of-every-teams-nfl-roster-in-2011

GO PACK GO !

[packrat]

They missed on the Packers--their weak spot is third string quarterback.

[Guiness]

If that's our weakness, we are in good shape for sure (not that anyone here needs to be told).

When you've got a guy who everyone in the league is wishing they had at the position, and it's considered your weak spot (no matter who is on the other side!) you're in good shape for sure.

[Patler]

This does really show that the Packers are a strong team. If you look at their roster regarding the starting positions, OLB opposite Matthews might be the biggest "concern". Jenkin's DE spot and Colledge's spot at guard may be iffy if they don't return, but there seem to be decent prospects to fill them. So that leaves the one OLB spot. But how weak is it?

Jones, Zombo, Walden and Poppinga had 16 starts last year. They combined for 104 tackles and 8 sacks. Collectively they do not make Matthews, but they can't be ignored either. Mathews had sacks in 9 games. JonesZomboWaldenPoppinga had sacks in 6 games, including 3 games in which Matthews did not have sacks. Therefore, the OLBs had sacks in 12 of the 16 games.

Not bad for their biggest weakness.

[hoosier]

One of the most impressive defensive stats from last year's Packers was their ability to get to the QB while rushing 4 or less. They ranked third (sacked QB on 7.9% of attempts), and their success rate was only marginally less than when blitzing (8.9%) whereas with many teams the sack % is close to double when blitzing as compared to not blitzing. I suppose that speaks more to the job done by their front three, and to Capers's ability to create confusion without compromising the coverage scheme. But it probably also means that the absence of another sack specialist opposite CMIII isn't as big a deal as I thought it was last summer.

[Tarlam!]

I remember reading(where?) around draft time that the other OLB position should be addressed. But one commentator (who?) said that was nonsense because CMIII isn't very good dropping into coverage. Also, it's rare to send 2 OLB after the QB on the same play, so, the Packers would in fact weaken CMIII by attempting to solve the socalled problem.

I have no idea whether or not there's any merit to the suggestion.

[Gunakor]

I remember reading(where?) around draft time that the other OLB position should be addressed. But one commentator (who?) said that was nonsense because CMIII isn't very good dropping into coverage. Also, it's rare to send 2 OLB after the QB on the same play, so, the Packers would in fact weaken CMIII by attempting to solve the socalled problem.

I have no idea whether or not there's any merit to the suggestion.

One of the advantages to the 3-4 is the doubt placed into the minds of the offensive line as to where the rush is coming from. To make our 3-4 truly effective, CMIII has to learn to drop into coverage on occasion and his counterpart on the other side has to get to the QB from time to time. Generally you wouldn't send both OLB on a pass rush on the same play, but the threat of either coming on any given down is essential to the success of the defense as a whole. Otherwise OL's would simply shift protection to CMIII's side every down, minimizing the effectiveness of the rush. I think that would weaken CMIII more than the occasional drop into coverage would.

I think whoever said that the need/desire for an edge rusher to complement CMIII was nonsense was stuck on what was best for CMIII, with no concern for what's best for the defense overall. Matthews' sack numbers might go down, but the team total would go up. More blind side hits on the QB could result in more forced fumbles, the added confusion could lead to more interceptions. I see nothing but positives in finding another solid OLB to provide a legitimate pass rush threat from the other side.

[Guiness]

If Raji can learn to drop into coverage, anyone can!

As Patler pointed out, the 'other' side had 8 sacks last year. Three were by Walden in week 17, but I don't think anyone's complaining about that. Hardly a weak position. I'm sure it benefited from coverage being shifted to Mathews, but the trio of players over there did produce.

[Smidgeon]

If Raji can learn to drop into coverage, anyone can!

As Patler pointed out, the 'other' side had 8 sacks last year. Three were by Walden in week 17, but I don't think anyone's complaining about that. Hardly a weak position. I'm sure it benefited from coverage being shifted to Mathews, but the trio of players over there did produce.

+1

[RashanGary]

+1

Both Matthews and Raji receive extra attention. That's a big part of it. Having Jenkins put us over the top. Hopefully Neal can play at that level. He's shown enough flashes where it's a real possibility.

[Smidgeon]

Both Matthews and Raji receive extra attention. That's a big part of it. Having Jenkins put us over the top. Hopefully Neal can play at that level. He's shown enough flashes where it's a real possibility.

Enough flashes? He played in two games, got one sack and one forced fumble (in different games). He's shown some flashes, but not enough that I'm confident in his ability yet. Harrell flashed more his rookie year and was available more.

[RashanGary]

Huh, we'll see. I thought Neal flashed brilliance at times, but time will have to tell on that one. I'm not worried about stats. I thought he showed dominance in spurts as a rookie. He's one of the young players on this team who's ceiling I"m most excited about.

[Guiness]

Enough flashes? He played in two games, got one sack and one forced fumble (in different games). He's shown some flashes, but not enough that I'm confident in his ability yet. Harrell flashed more his rookie year and was available more.

Did he really?

I seem to remember comments more along the line that he didn't have much push or collapse the pocket, and was looking more like a good run stopper than someone who could be impactfull. Maybe I mis-remember?

[bobblehead]

One of the most impressive defensive stats from last year's Packers was their ability to get to the QB while rushing 4 or less. They ranked third (sacked QB on 7.9% of attempts), and their success rate was only marginally less than when blitzing (8.9%) whereas with many teams the sack % is close to double when blitzing as compared to not blitzing. I suppose that speaks more to the job done by their front three, and to Capers's ability to create confusion without compromising the coverage scheme. But it probably also means that the absence of another sack specialist opposite CMIII isn't as big a deal as I thought it was last summer.

We also benefited from "coverage" sacks. We have good CB's and our zone took away the underneath stuff giving that front 3/4 extra time.

That being said we are one very good OLB away from a DOMINATING defense as opposed to a really good one.

[RashanGary]

It could be another dominant DL to pair with Raji too. Losing Jenkins hurts, but a Jenkins isn't truly dominant. It wouldn't matter where the pass rush came, DL or OLB. Pass rush is pass rush.