Fire Capers

[Sunshinepacker]

Sunshine Packer is spot-on questioning the talent of the players Capers has to work with. It can't be dismissed as though the problem is Capers' exclusively.

Amongst Thompson, the coaching staff and the players it's a bit like "Rock, Paper, Scissors." If the talent is performing inadequately is it the GM, coaches, or the players that should be held most accountable? Accountability will vary from individual player to individual player but, in general, the overall dearth of impact players on this defense could be a clue. Maybe too many of them cannot be "coached-up."

Personally, I feel Thompson relies too heavily on the draft and UDFA players. Not exercising all available options gives him less of a margin between success and failure when compared to a GM who will consider exercising all his options. I'm not absolving Capers of any accountability for his part in calling plays that may put players in situations where they fail. But Capers cannot turn chicken stuff into chicken salad, either. Nor can any of the other coaches.

So, when a DB is slow to react, is slow afoot with little or no recovery speed, slow "upstairs" and struggles mightily to tackle consistently, consider who is most responsible for bringing him to the team. The same holds true when a TE - any TE - cannot block to save his life.

I'm not confident that coaches anywhere in the NFL could ever turn some of these current players on the Packer roster into bonafide impact players, let alone average players at their respective positions. JAGS maybe. For some reason drafting impact players for this defense seems to have been mostly a crap-shoot for Thompson over the past decade. It's not his forte, apparently.

Some holes on a roster may need to be addressed in FA. Unfortunately, it's the road rarely traveled in Green Bay, even when all other avenues fall short.

Defense, specifically the front seven, seems to be a weakness for Thompson in the draft (he's really only hit on Matthews, Daniels and Bishop) and I think the Broncos from a couple of years ago and the Giants from this past offseason are terrific examples of teams using free agency wisely on defense. In 2014 the Broncos signed Talib and Ware, two guys who were instrumental in creating the defense that won them the Super Bowl last year. This past offseason the Giants signed Jenkins, Harrison and Vernon and now look like they went from having one of the worst defenses in the NFL last year to the best defense in the NFC this year (since Earl Thomas got hurt anyway). Having a great QB makes it easier to get away with fewer impact guys on offense but the defense NEEDS impact guys to be good/great; Daniels can't do it alone.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Perry is a impact player

Impact players aren't dependent on Matthews being active and taking attention off of them. Perry has been invisible any time a better player isn't on the field to take attention away from him. He's a decent player but he's not an impact player at linebacker. I actually feel for the guy. Thompson drafted him at a position he didn't want to play and Perry has done his best to do what the coaches have asked of him. I honestly think Perry could be close to a Pro Bowl player on a team that played a 4-3 defense and allowed him to play defensive end.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Defense, specifically the front seven, seems to be a weakness for Thompson in the draft (he's really only hit on Matthews, Daniels and Bishop) and I think the Broncos from a couple of years ago and the Giants from this past offseason are terrific examples of teams using free agency wisely on defense. In 2014 the Broncos signed Talib and Ware, two guys who were instrumental in creating the defense that won them the Super Bowl last year. This past offseason the Giants signed Jenkins, Harrison and Vernon and now look like they went from having one of the worst defenses in the NFL last year to the best defense in the NFC this year (since Earl Thomas got hurt anyway). Having a great QB makes it easier to get away with fewer impact guys on offense but the defense NEEDS impact guys to be good/great; Daniels can't do it alone.

This is where I think TT's Draft and Develop philosophy has ultimately hurt the Packers, especially on defense. I won't even go down the list, but for the most part the Packers are investing draft picks and then having to "wait and see" if these guys pan out, which many of them haven't. Now there are no guarantees that a FA is going to be an instant success, but I think mixing in 1-2 more starting FA's wouldn't be a bad thing to solidify a defense "full of potential".

 

[Carl]

Sunshine Packer is spot-on questioning the talent of the players Capers has to work with. It can't be dismissed as though the problem is Capers' exclusively.

Amongst Thompson, the coaching staff and the players it's a bit like "Rock, Paper, Scissors." If the talent is performing inadequately is it the GM, coaches, or the players that should be held most accountable? Accountability will vary from individual player to individual player but, in general, the overall dearth of impact players on this defense could be a clue. Maybe too many of them cannot be "coached-up."

Personally, I feel Thompson relies too heavily on the draft and UDFA players. Not exercising all available options gives him less of a margin between success and failure when compared to a GM who will consider exercising all his options. I'm not absolving Capers of any accountability for his part in calling plays that may put players in situations where they fail. But Capers cannot turn chicken stuff into chicken salad, either. Nor can any of the other coaches.

So, when a DB is slow to react, is slow afoot with little or no recovery speed, slow "upstairs" and struggles mightily to tackle consistently, consider who is most responsible for bringing him to the team. The same holds true when a TE - any TE - cannot block to save his life.

I'm not confident that coaches anywhere in the NFL could ever turn some of these current players on the Packer roster into bonafide impact players, let alone average players at their respective positions. JAGS maybe. For some reason drafting impact players for this defense seems to have been mostly a crap-shoot for Thompson over the past decade. It's not his forte, apparently.

Some holes on a roster may need to be addressed in FA. Unfortunately, it's the road rarely traveled in Green Bay, even when all other avenues fall short.

The Packers had significant contributions from four signed guys vs the Bears in Cook, Peppers, Guion, and Micheal.

With how Ty played, they probably would have been fine without Micheal, but likely do not win the game without any of the other three.

There was also Lowry and Daniels who were comp picks. Not signing anyone and selecting Daniels was an excellent move.

Overall, there was a significant impact from free agents/comp picks yesterday and during the win streak.

I'm just wondering at what point will TT approach to free agency be considered good enough?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The Packers had significant contributions from four signed guys vs the Bears in Cook, Peppers, Guion, and Micheal.

With how Ty played, they probably would have been fine without Micheal, but likely do not win the game without any of the other three.

There was also Lowry and Daniels who were comp picks. Not signing anyone and selecting Daniels was an excellent move.

Overall, there was a significant impact from free agents/comp picks yesterday and during the win streak.

I'm just wondering at what point will TT approach to free agency be considered good enough?

You do realize your statement is kind of a statement against what it appears you are trying to imply? Or at least that is the way I am reading it, maybe I am wrong?

But it sounds like you tout the accomplishments of FA's, yet imply that fans pick on TT for not signing enough FA's?

So your point that all these FA's had a major impact on the game and its outcome would lead me to believe that TT should take note of that and keep an open mind to using the Free Agent market even more?

 

[Carl]

You do realize your statement is kind of a statement against what it appears you are trying to imply? Or at least that is the way I am reading it, maybe I am wrong?

But it sounds like you tout the accomplishments of FA's, yet imply that fans pick on TT for not signing enough FA's?

So your point that all these FA's had an impact on the game would lead me to believe that TT should take note of that and keep an open mind to using the Free Agent market even more?

All I was looking for was an answer to the question I posed.

Six free agents and comp picks played big roles yesterday, which looks pretty good to me.

Since free agents and comp picks have played a huge role in the 4 game winning streak, at what point will TTs free agent activity be considered good to you and other posters?

 

[PikeBadger]

The Packers had significant contributions from four signed guys vs the Bears in Cook, Peppers, Guion, and Micheal.

With how Ty played, they probably would have been fine without Micheal, but likely do not win the game without any of the other three.

There was also Lowry and Daniels who were comp picks. Not signing anyone and selecting Daniels was an excellent move.

Overall, there was a significant impact from free agents/comp picks yesterday and during the win streak.

I'm just wondering at what point will TT approach to free agency be considered good enough?

The answer is never...... because they of course know better how to build a team than Thompson does which is why he should be fired. Juicy, **** names of guys unwanted by their former team are always far superior to the guys Thompson brings in. *sarcasm with a smile*

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

All I was looking for was an answer to the question I posed.

Six free agents and comp picks played big roles yesterday, which looks pretty good to me.

Since free agents and comp picks have played a huge role in the 4 game winning streak, at what point will TTs free agent activity be considered good to you and other posters?

They looked pretty good to me too

I guess my answer would be: When he successfully fills glaring needs with a FA, instead of hoping he fills it with a draft choice. ILB and TE are 2 positions that jump to the front of my mind. How many years did those 2 positions suffer from lack of talent because TT only addressed them through the draft? This year, he finally goes out and gets Cook and by your own words, Cook can be an impact player. I'm still waiting at ILB. IMO in 2017 he should go after a top CB. I know a lot of people are saying draft one, but we did that with Randall and Rollins and here we sit.

 

[Half Empty]

All I was looking for was an answer to the question I posed.

Six free agents and comp picks played big roles yesterday, which looks pretty good to me.

Since free agents and comp picks have played a huge role in the 4 game winning streak, at what point will TTs free agent activity be considered good to you and other posters?

Easy answer from me - when it results in a Lombardi.

However, I assume the reason you include comp picks is because signing UFAs would possibly have negated them? If so, we'll never know about that side of FA activity because we don't know how whoever would have been picked up would have played.

 

[Sky King]

The Packers had significant contributions from four signed guys vs the Bears in Cook, Peppers, Guion, and Micheal.

With how Ty played, they probably would have been fine without Micheal, but likely do not win the game without any of the other three.

There was also Lowry and Daniels who were comp picks. Not signing anyone and selecting Daniels was an excellent move.

Overall, there was a significant impact from free agents/comp picks yesterday and during the win streak.

I'm just wondering at what point will TT approach to free agency be considered good enough?

Fair question. At this point in time I don't believe that TT has utilized free-agency enough to enhance the roster and that the defense may not be strong enough to make a successful playoff run this season. That's my answer.

TT and his staff seem to have a noticeably better eye for offensive rather than defensive players, especially in the draft. That being my conclusion then I also conclude that using free-agency (players subject to compensatory picks being awarded their former teams) is TT's least used method to fill-in weaknesses on his roster.

Other than the strip sack by Peppers on Sunday, who else pressured the passer? Lowry had one credited hurry. Guion had none. Daniels had none. Of course Daniels was neutralized by former Packer Josh Sitton - for whom the Packers will neither receive a compensatory pick nor a draft pick (via trade). But that's another story. The Bears offense had their way with the Packers defense to turn a potential blowout into a tie game late in the game. The lowly Bears racked-up more than 400 yards against a shaky Packer defense.

Are the free-agent acquisitions currently on the Packers roster enough for you to be satisfied?

This will be a subject worth revisiting after the season is over.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Unless your James Stark in 2010.

The Packers didn´t have any better option than Starks to play at running back late in 2010. It´s a different story with Brice at safety right now.

Impact players aren't dependent on Matthews being active and taking attention off of them. Perry has been invisible any time a better player isn't on the field to take attention away from him. He's a decent player but he's not an impact player at linebacker. I actually feel for the guy. Thompson drafted him at a position he didn't want to play and Perry has done his best to do what the coaches have asked of him. I honestly think Perry could be close to a Pro Bowl player on a team that played a 4-3 defense and allowed him to play defensive end.

Perry decided on his own to accept a one-year deal to return to the Packers this offseason. It seems he doesn´t mind playing in a 3-4 scheme anymore.

I'm just wondering at what point will TT approach to free agency be considered good enough?

Once Thompson selectively uses free agency to address obvious positions of need instead of hoping late round picks or undrafted free agents can adequately fill those holes.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

The Packers had significant contributions from four signed guys vs the Bears in Cook, Peppers, Guion, and Micheal.

With how Ty played, they probably would have been fine without Micheal, but likely do not win the game without any of the other three.

There was also Lowry and Daniels who were comp picks. Not signing anyone and selecting Daniels was an excellent move.

Overall, there was a significant impact from free agents/comp picks yesterday and during the win streak.

I'm just wondering at what point will TT approach to free agency be considered good enough?

Peppers has been an impact player on the defense, I shudder to think where this defense would be without him. Guion is a placeholder at best and far from an impact player. One game does not an argument make. My point is that the Packers need to sign impact guys for the defense, I personally don't think that the offense really needs much in the way of offensive help from free agency but I'm certainly not against it.

Peppers is no longer the reliable impact guy that he was. Just because Guion and Peppers had a good game doesn't mean that Thompson has used free agency wisely. Again, the Giants remodeled their entire defense with three signings and went from one of the worst to one of the best defenses. I certainly don't think the Packers need to sign defensive free agents like the Giants did last year (they spent a LOT of money) but signing one or two guys who are expected to be impactful players next year would do a world of good for this defense.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

but signing one or two guys who are expected to be impactful players next year would do a world of good for this defense.

I agree with your statement, but would change the "would" to "could", since there are never any guarantees, especially in Free Agency and the draft.

 

[Scotland Yard]

Have to agree that TT has failed to draft on defense. In the last six years he's drafted two above average defenders in Daniels and Ha-Ha, that is it.

However, look at the Bears. They are completely bereft of homegrown talent. Only by signing McPhee, Young, Hicks, Porter, Trevathon and Freeman were they able to keep things afloat. I have never seen a secondary so putrid (outside of Porter). Yet, despite injuries to Goldman, Trevathon and Fuller, McPhee on PUP for the first six games and the suspension of Freeman, they sit this week 9th best in yards allowed in the NFL.

Fangio has gotten far more out of less talent than Capers (Packers 19th in yards allowed, 24th in points allowed). And remember, this is only the second year that the Bears have been running the 3-4 defense.

If the Bears part ways with Fangio, and there are rumors in CHI that he and Fox are not getting along, maybe the Packers should give Fangio a shot at running the Packers' defense.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Have to agree that TT has failed to draft on defense. In the last six years he's drafted two above average defenders in Daniels and Ha-Ha, that is it.

However, look at the Bears. They are completely bereft of homegrown talent. Only by signing McPhee, Young, Hicks, Porter, Trevathon and Freeman were they able to keep things afloat. I have never seen a secondary so putrid (outside of Porter). Yet, despite injuries to Goldman, Trevathon and Fuller, McPhee on PUP for the first six games and the suspension of Freeman, they sit this week 9th best in yards allowed in the NFL.

Fangio has gotten far more out of less talent than Capers (Packers 19th in yards allowed, 24th in points allowed). And remember, this is only the second year that the Bears have been running the 3-4 defense.

If the Bears part ways with Fangio, and there are rumors in CHI that he and Fox are not getting along, maybe the Packers should give Fangio a shot at running the Packers' defense.

I wouldn´t mind bringing Fangio in as defensive coordinator as he has had success lately but I don´t agree the Packers have more talent on defense than the Bears.

 

[Mavster]

The D has given up an average of 35 points in our playoffs losses under Rodgers. That's not exactly good by my standards

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The D has given up an average of 35 points in our playoffs losses under Rodgers. That's not exactly good by my standards

Sadly, this year's Defense is probably no different, unless they improve. It's going to take some turnovers and the offense being spot on to get very far in the playoffs once again. Possibly the good news for the Packers, I don't view many of the teams that are in the playoff hunt as being that outstanding on defense either.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Possibly the good news for the Packers, I don't view many of the teams that are in the playoff hunt as being that outstanding on defense either.

It's true there aren't any elite defenses in the NFL this season but most of the playoff teams feature units that won't give up enough points to beat them
in a shootout.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

It's true there aren't any elite defenses in the NFL this season but most of the playoff teams feature units that won't give up enough points to beat them
in a shootout.

Will all depend on turnovers IMO. The Seahawks potentially have the best defense of the NFC Playoff bound teams and we were able to put up 38 on them, with the aid of all the turnovers of course.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Will all depend on turnovers IMO. The Seahawks potentially have the best defense of the NFC Playoff bound teams and we were able to put up 38 on them, with the aid of all the turnovers of course.

I don't expect the Packers defense to create six turnovers regularly when facing playoff teams.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I don't expect the Packers defense to create six turnovers regularly when facing playoff teams.

Nor do I, but I'm convinced we will need to be on the plus side of the turnovers from here on out to keep winning and not over expose an average at best defense.

 

[Scotland Yard]

I wouldn´t mind bringing Fangio in as defensive coordinator as he has had success lately but I don´t agree the Packers have more talent on defense than the Bears.

Really? O.K., here's the depth charts and lets compare:

Packer DL = Daniels, Guion, Lowry, Clark, Ringo (Pennel)
Bears DL = Hicks, Goldman, Unrein, Washington, Wilson, Bullard

As for the starters I'll take Daniels over Hicks. Goldman has missed ten games, so, I'll take Guion. Lowry is about even with Unrein or Bullard. Clark is also better than Washington or Wilson. Packers have more talent. (If Goldman could ever stay healthy, it might be different, but, he can't).

Packers OLB = Matthews, Perry, Peppers, Jones, Elliot, Fackrell
Bears OLB = McPhee, Floyd, Young, Acho, Houston

I'll say Matthews is better than McPhee. Perry has 10 sacks, Floyd has 7, Perry is better as of right now. Perry can also set an edge vs. the run, Floyd just can't right now, too skinny. Peppers and Young both have 7.5 sacks, call it a wash. I'll take Jones, Elliot and Fackrell (4 sacks combined) over the Bears Acho and Houston (1 sack combined). Packers have more talent at OLB.

Packers ILB = Ryan, Martinez, Thomas, Tripp
Bears ILB = Freeman, Trevathon, Jones, Kwiatkoski

Trevathon on IR, Freeman suspended four games. With those two the Bears have more talent, so, I'll give you that one, even though on the field last week the Packers had the better ILB's. Bears have more talent at ILB when healthy/not suspended.

Packers Secondary = Burnett, Dix, Randall, Rollins, Gunter, Hyde, Brice, Dorleant, Hawkins, Evans
Bears Secondary = Quartey, Amos, Porter, Callahan, Leblanc, McManis, Bausby, Hall, Bush, Prosinski

This isn't even close. Packers have a Pro Bowler in Dix at safety, plus Burnett and some solid backups, the Bears have nothing. As for CB, Porter is better than Randall, but, after that I'll take Gunter, Hyde, Rollins and Dorleant over the Bears CFL players.

Packers have 16 INT's and 78 PD. Bears have 7 INT's, 63 PD.

I stand by my opinion that Fangio has done more with less. I just don't see much talent on the Bears' defense, especially their downright horrible secondary, which actually manages to make the Packers DB's look elite by comparison.

 

[Scotland Yard]

Another thing to consider in the Capers vs. Fangio comparison is who they each faced this season. Same schedules except for four games.

The Packers played ATL, SEA, CHI, CHI in those four games. The Bears faced TB, SF, GB, GB.

Bears got one gimme in there as SF is horrible, but, TB scored 36 on the Bears.

Packers on the other hand had two easy games vs. the Bears crap QB's.

Seems to me Fangio had the tougher schedule since he had to face Rodgers twice while Capers was up against the third or fourth string QB's of the Bears twice.

 

[Packer Brother]

Pending the Packers win a SB or the D steps up huge in the playoffs, it's time to go. I realize the players stink but come on...

 

[Poppa San]

Pending the Packers win a SB or the D steps up huge in the playoffs, it's time to go. I realize the players stink but come on...

This thread has really never gone away since it started. Tells me that even with almost ALL NEW players, the same issues keep appearing. Have to move beyond the players sometime. He may be a defensive genius but it just doesn't seem to consistently work or stay fixed in Green Bay.