Official 2024 NFL Draft Thread

[run pMc]

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.

[texaspackerbacker]

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.

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.

[run pMc]

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.

[bobblehead]

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.

[Deputy Nutz]

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.

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.

[ThunderDan]

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.

[texaspackerbacker]

(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.

[run pMc]

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.

[bobblehead]

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.

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.

[Deputy Nutz]

(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 Hafley can do it better.

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.

[Fritz]

Holy shit Nutzy. You are like the fucking nuclear physicist of high school coaches.

[Deputy Nutz]

Holy shit Nutzy. You are like the fucking nuclear physicist of high school coaches.

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.

[Fritz]

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.

[Deputy Nutz]

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.

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.

[texaspackerbacker]

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.