Inside Linebackers

[Joemailman]

I just looked up the stats on Brian Burns and Montez Sweat, two players taken after Gary, both players that people batted around as far as the Packers. Both have more sacks than Gary. I still think that was a lousy pick. You could've taken one of those guys, or you could've taken an offensive tackle. Any of those seems better than Gary at this point.

I'm not super impressed with Gute so far. Jaire Alexander has been his best pick, and we'll see if Darnell Savage develops, but drafting should be the core of a team, with add-ons through free agency, but Gute's best "picks" have been free agents - and they cost more. So if the Pack can't re-sign Bakh and King and Jones, well, it's because he's got a lot of money tied up in the Smiths. And maybe that's okay. But LeFleur was Murphy's hire, so you can't give Gute kudos for that hire, either. I'm pretty "meh" on Gute so far. But we'll see.

Actually Gute had a lot to do with the LaFleur hire. I remember reading at the time that it was at Gute's insistence that LaFleur was added to the list of coaches to be interviewed. I can't find that article, but I found this:

https://www.packersnews.com/story/sp...ur/2617977002/

Matt LaFleur was the Atlanta Falcons’ quarterbacks coach in 2016 when he first caught Brian Gutekunst’s eye as a potential head coach in the NFL.

Gutekunst was director of player personnel when the Green Bay Packers twice faced the Falcons that season. Forward-thinking front office executives are always on the alert for head-coaching prospects, and LaFleur held a key role on a Falcons team that defeated the Packers 33-32 in October and 44-21 in the NFC Championship game.

Atlanta put up 860 yards in total offense in those games, and quarterback Matt Ryan had a collective 136.5 rating. Ryan also won the NFL’s MVP that year.

That offseason, Gutekunst learned a little more about LaFleur when he interviewed for the GM job in San Francisco with new 49ers coach Kyle Shanahan, who as offensive coordinator in Atlanta was LaFleur’s direct boss.

“That (offense) was always something that stood out to me, I thought it was really creative and put a lot of pressure on our defense,” Gutekunst said in an interview this past week. “LaFleur worked with the quarterbacks there and was moving up through the ranks. Somewhere back then is when I was aware of him and started putting him on those lists.”

Gutekunst was deeply involved in the process that ended with LaFleur’s hire, though only Murphy knows how much influence the GM had in the decision. With many contacts in the scouting world, Gutekunst helped vet all the candidates and was one of three people (Murphy and team vice president of finance Russ Ball were the others) in the room for all 10.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Burns doesn't have the size that Pettine likes, so I doubt he was much of a consideration. He may end up being nice, but he has 3 sacks in 7 games as a starter. He's not exactly dominating.

I watched the ILBs on a rewatch of the game. I think we found something with Barnes. He's built like a run plugger, but he's instinctive and fluid. Martin had some moments, but he runs like a fawn. He doesn't look as naturally fluid as Barnes. Raven Greene played ILB as much as anybody, and I really like him for this defense. He's getting back to the form he had early last year, and I think it's an underrated boost to the defense.

[Fritz]

I wanted brian burns very very much at that spot but bring up the past over and over is like Bashing your head agaist a wall in front of a crowd. You look stupid and lose credibility. Guts has done well at oline which is very important but we tend to do well there so could be our scouts. That's why I trusted the three receiver draft due to scouting history. Perhaps we lost our receiver scouts. Our secondary scouts need glasses or corrective eye surgery. One good pick out of how many tries? With high draft capital spent they should be all world.

One of the great joys of Packerrats is bringing up things from the past and re-living them, especially if you go off half-cocked, as I did in my post.

[run pMc]

One of the great joys of Packerrats is bringing up things from the past and re-living them, especially if you go off half-cocked, as I did in my post.

Two words for you Fritz: Odell Thurman.

[RashanGary]

Kirksey back practicing. I think Barnes and Kirksey give us a maybe decent 1-2 for the first time since Hawk and Bishop for that short period where they were in their prime together.

We kind of need that if we’re going to face off against FB and TE heavy offenses in the playoffs or SB.

[RashanGary]

Situationally:

Bigger teams, short yardage and goal line:
Kirksey/Barnes

Smaller teams, lots of WRs and long down and distances
(Barnes or Kirksey) with Greene


Barnes being a rookie is probably the weak link as far as communication and adjustments and checks. Greene and Kirksey should be good at it and be able to blend cohesively with the secondary.

An ideal scenario is to have our secondary (king/savage) get healthy along with our ILB trio (Barnes, Kirksey, Greene) so they have a few weeks to get on the same page for the stretch run. There is a lot to be said for experience both individually and together and I think our SB chances are very much affected by this group being at their best.

[GB-Brandon]

Kamal Martin!!!

[RashanGary]

Kamal Martin!!!

Rookie! Hesitant. Barnes is a rare rookie who’s good right away. Maybe Kamal has better upside but he sure didn’t look better on Sunday.

[texaspackerbacker]

I wouldn't say Martin looked better than Barnes, but he did look damn good IMO. Summers was the only ILB who looked bad. I don't want to see Kirksey back. He was nothing but bad before being hurt.

[GB-Brandon]

Rookie! Hesitant. Barnes is a rare rookie who’s good right away. Maybe Kamal has better upside but he sure didn’t look better on Sunday.

Martin graded out second highest of any defensive player Sunday. Dude is a stud and will be a star for us. Just wait!!!