Free Agency: Packers Should Green Bay Pursue?

[Favre>Rodgers259]

But a DE in a 4-3, and an OLB in a 3-4, essentially play the position. But an OLB in a 4-3 isn't the same as an OLB in a 3-4, obviously. So then you get people thinking a 4-3 OLB should be an OLB in a 3-4, or you get people thinking a 4-3 DE cannot play OLB in a 3-4, even though they're essentially the same position. Leads to too much confusion. The way I'm proposing helps eliminate a lot of that confusion.

As far as iDL, Clark, Lowry, Adams, KeKe (do you love me), and Lancaster are all iDL. Zadarius Smith and Rashan Gary are edges who will sometimes play iDL on passing downs (move to 3T). Because, you see, a 4-3 DT would often be a 3-4 DE. Or he might move to more of a 0T/1T role. Depends on the player. So, like I said, 5T, 3T, 0T, 1T, etc, are all iDL. Simple enough?

My argument is more for the "casual fan". For instance, Gary was announced as an OLB. I would have assumed he would have been announced as an "Edge", because he truly can do both positions in the scheme(and has). But Clark was announced purely as DT. When you say "Edge" I think it creates more confusion for the casual fan than the fan who's more studious. "Tomato/Tomato" if you will.

 

[AmishMafia]

My argument is more for the "casual fan". For instance, Gary was announced as an OLB. I would have assumed he would have been announced as an "Edge", because he truly can do both positions in the scheme(and has). But Clark was announced purely as DT. When you say "Edge" I think it creates more confusion for the casual fan than the fan who's more studious. "Tomato/Tomato" if you will.

Edge used to mean a DE in a 4-3 which would play a OLB in a 3-4. During the draft, it was laborious to be saying "a DE in the 4-3 or an OLB in a 3-4". So they started using the term edge. Once a player is playing in a defense, imo, he no longer should be called an edge. Gary is a OLB in a 3-4 who sometimes plays up on the line. When a OLB drops in coverage we dont start calling him a CB on that play.

 

[HardRightEdge]

They've let a lot of receivers go over the seasons. But we don't tend to remember those guys because they didn't amount to anything outside of Green Bay.

For instance, Jarrett Boykin was used pretty heavily one season due to injury, but was let go after 2014 and never recorded another statistic.

They had Chris Harper on the roster for a couple of seasons, and then let him go. He never did anything of note.

Jeff Janis was an untapped HOF talent according to a lot of Packer fans, and after he was allowed to leave he never made another NFL roster.

They cut Jared Abbrederis. He caught three balls for the Lions and hasn't been on a roster since 2017.

They traded Trevor Davis and the Raiders cut him before the season was over.

They cut Max McCaffrey, who then kicked around on the SF practice squad, got drafted by the XFL, and failed to make the XFL roster.

If the truth is that Rodgers holds his receivers back, then someone who gets out of Green Bay should go on to do something. But that hasn't really been the case.

Winding the clock back a little further, there were a couple of other guys whose release disappointed some fans.

Jeremy Ross went to Detroit in 2013 and returned a punt and a KO for TDs in one game against Philly in the snow and mud in his first season there. He was evidently a mudder, an OK return guy otherwise, who kicked around for few years but did little as a receiver.

Charles Johnson, who looked like he was coming on for Minnesota in mid-2014, faded pretty quickly, and was out of the league after 3 seasons. He was an AAF star, signed on with Philly last season, made the 53 man roster, but was promptly put on IR.

Jumping forward, Ty Montgomery became a running back, return man and defier of coaching instructions. He has not done much since his departure.

DeAngelo Yancy has yet to make a 53 man roster. He was signed to play in the XFL last year and ended up going to IR before taking a snap.

After being cut, J'mon Moore finally found a job on Cleveland's practice squad in late November and he's on a futures contract for their camp. Whether he gets his head straight and amounts to something remains to be seen.

The second round picks going back to 2006 all turned out pretty well: Jennings, Nelson, Cobb, Adams. Throw in James Jones in the 3rd. round. You have to go back to Terrence Murphy in 2005 to find a Day 2 pick who did not work out, and that was a guy from the Favre era who retired after 3 games when it was discovered he had spinal stenosis while being treated for a concussion.

Generally speaking, you get what you pay for. You can always point to this guy or that guy on one team or another that amounted to something coming out of the low rounds or UDFA ranks, but when you look at the vast numbers who don't one concludes it is a long shot. Moore aside, a 4th. rounder, that's where the failed receiving "talent" has come from.

 

[GleefulGary]

Edge used to mean a DE in a 4-3 which would play a OLB in a 3-4. During the draft, it was laborious to be saying "a DE in the 4-3 or an OLB in a 3-4". So they started using the term edge. Once a player is playing in a defense, imo, he no longer should be called an edge. Gary is a OLB in a 3-4 who sometimes plays up on the line. When a OLB drops in coverage we dont start calling him a CB on that play.

We call them an edge because a 4-3 DE and a 3-4 OLB do basically the same thing. It's the same freaking position, just out of different stances. Sometimes Smith rushes from a 3 point, even a 4 point, and usually a 2 point. They do, the same thing.

 

[Dantés]

But what if this is the year he falls off a cliff? What then? "Better to part with a player too soon...."

So no redemption contract? Personally I think he was hurt, you don't inexplicably go from ascending Top 15 CB to bottom feeder so quickly otherwise. Worst case scenario he only supplants Josh Jackson, best case we can let Tramon gracefully retire if/when he so chooses and cut Jackson. Sullivan, I can live with as the 3rd or 4th CB but after that it's shaky past him. I like Redmond now more than I did when the season started but I still don't like him or Greene possibly given coverage duty on anything other than RB.

I'm not saying no redemption contract, but your first post suggested that he was the 2nd best guy on the market and that he would get paid what he was already making with the Vikings.

 

[GleefulGary]

My argument is more for the "casual fan". For instance, Gary was announced as an OLB. I would have assumed he would have been announced as an "Edge", because he truly can do both positions in the scheme(and has). But Clark was announced purely as DT. When you say "Edge" I think it creates more confusion for the casual fan than the fan who's more studious. "Tomato/Tomato" if you will.

I would argue that Edge, iDL, etc, makes it easier for the casual fan.

The casual fan is the one who thinks a 4-3 OLB and 3-4 OLB is the same thing because people just say, "OLB". This isn't complicated.

 

[AmishMafia]

We call them an edge because a 4-3 DE and a 3-4 OLB do basically the same thing. It's the same freaking position, just out of different stances. Sometimes Smith rushes from a 3 point, even a 4 point, and usually a 2 point. They do, the same thing.

That's what I said, or meant to say. My response was to F<R who was saying Gary should have been announced as an edge because he plays both for the Packers. No team has a player who plays "edge". In our case, in the 3-4, he is an OLB as his primary position.

Or . . .

A DE in a 3-4 is not an "edge" player.

 

[Dantés]

We call them an edge because a 4-3 DE and a 3-4 OLB do basically the same thing. It's the same freaking position, just out of different stances. Sometimes Smith rushes from a 3 point, even a 4 point, and usually a 2 point. They do, the same thing.

Especially when you consider that base defenses, 4-3 and 3-4, are played ~30-40% of the time. The league's true base defense is sub package defense, nickel or dime.

 

[GleefulGary]

But what if this is the year he falls off a cliff? What then? "Better to part with a player too soon...."



So no redemption contract? Personally I think he was hurt, you don't inexplicably go from ascending Top 15 CB to bottom feeder so quickly otherwise. Worst case scenario he only supplants Josh Jackson, best case we can let Tramon gracefully retire if/when he so chooses and cut Jackson. Sullivan, I can live with as the 3rd or 4th CB but after that it's shaky past him. I like Redmond now more than I did when the season started but I still don't like him or Greene possibly given coverage duty on anything other than RB.

Sure, maybe Tramon falls off. That's the risk with him.

Rhodes already has. His athleticism is far diminished from what it was, and it isn't just injuries. It's been the past two years, for sure. There's a good reason Zimmer, who worships and adores good CB's, is letting Rhodes loose early.

 

[Dantés]

That's what I said, or meant to say. My response was to F<R who was saying Gary should have been announced as an edge because he plays both for the Packers. No team has a player who plays "edge". In our case, in the 3-4, he is an OLB as his primary position.

Or . . .

A DE in a 3-4 is not an "edge" player.

The position he barely ever plays is his primary position?

 

[GleefulGary]

That's what I said, or meant to say. My response was to F<R who was saying Gary should have been announced as an edge because he plays both for the Packers. No team has a player who plays "edge". In our case, in the 3-4, he is an OLB as his primary position.

Or . . .

A DE in a 3-4 is not an "edge" player.

Gary should have been announced as an Edge because it's his primary position.

 

[Dantés]

We're kind of burying the lede with this X. Rhodes talk. Linval Joseph is the ex-Viking who would be great in green and gold.

 

[GleefulGary]

We're kind of burying the lede with this X. Rhodes talk. Linval Joseph is the ex-Viking who would be great in green and gold.

Would fix a lot of problems. Plus him wrecking his former team would be fun. Him and Clark together, whooooo. Wouldn't have to blitz much.

 

[AmishMafia]

The position he barely ever plays is his primary position?

What position does he play?

We're kind of burying the lede with this X. Rhodes talk. Linval Joseph is the ex-Viking who would be great in green and gold.

He may be too expensive for a guy on the wrong side of 30. He is still a very good player though.

 

[Dantés]

What position does he play?


He may be too expensive for a guy on the wrong side of 30. He is still a very good player though.

Depends on the alignment. When the Packers are actually playing a 3-4 base, he's an outside linebacker. But they rarely are. So most of the time, he's playing an edge role, anywhere from the 5 to the 9, in a four man front, either standing or with his hand down. Hence the "edge" designation.

It's true, Joseph could be too expensive. However, there is a glut of good iDL talent on the market. So someone is going to be a value.

 

[AmishMafia]

Depends on the alignment. When the Packers are actually playing a 3-4 base, he's an outside linebacker. But they rarely are. So most of the time, he's playing an edge role, anywhere from the 5 to the 9, in a four man front, either standing or with his hand down. Hence the "edge" designation.

It's true, Joseph could be too expensive. However, there is a glut of good iDL talent on the market. So someone is going to be a value.

I guess what I am trying to say there is no position called "edge". That is a term used to describe a player and not a position. Consult the packer depth chart, nobody is listed as an edge. At one time these players were called "tweeners" when 3-4s became popular again. S/LBers were also called "tweeners" so I think edge came onto vogue to help differentiate.



Hope you are right about Joseph. Kind of glad he is leaving the Vikings. He always played well against us.

 

[Dantés]

I guess what I am trying to say there is no position called "edge". That is a term used to describe a player and not a position. Consult the packer depth chart, nobody is listed as an edge. At one time these players were called "tweeners" when 3-4s became popular again. S/LBers were also called "tweeners" so I think edge came onto vogue to help differentiate.

Hope you are right about Joseph. Kind of glad he is leaving the Vikings. He always played well against us.

I understand that, but calling guys who play on the edge "edges" is a lot simpler than saying "3-4 OLB but sub package DE who sometimes stand up and sometimes don't."

And it creates a lot less confusion. Because people really struggle to understand the differences between the front seven designations, 3-4 vs. 4-3. And it's silly to stick to those designations, with all of their confusion for some people, when teams don't even use those formations as their base defense any more. Those are really the "sub packages" nowadays.

 

[AmishMafia]

I understand that, but calling guys who play on the edge "edges" is a lot simpler than saying "3-4 OLB but sub package DE who sometimes stand up and sometimes don't."

And it creates a lot less confusion. Because people really struggle to understand the differences between the front seven designations, 3-4 vs. 4-3. And it's silly to stick to those designations, with all of their confusion for some people, when teams don't even use those formations as their base defense any more. Those are really the "sub packages" nowadays.

An OLB who plays up on the line sometimes is fine by me they can still be called OLBs. We have safeties and CBs who also play up to the line and blitz and RBs who line up as WRs. Do we really need to come up with new terms for them?

I guess it's what we are used to and I dont see the need.

Anyway, this started with the question why Gary wasnt introduced as an edge, and the answer is, there is no such position.

 

[Dantés]

Side note: The Vikings are pretty royally screwed.

They have released Linval Joseph and Xavier Rhodes.

Everson Griffen opted out of his contract.

Anthony Harris (83% snaps in 2019), Trae Waynes (70%), Mackensie Alexander (50%) are all other members of the secondary who are unrestricted free agents.

Stephen Weatherly (38%), the primary option to replace Griffen, is a free agent.

Their kicker is a free agent!

Cousins and Cook are both UFA's next offseason.

And with all of these important players that are pending free agents, and all of these cuts, they are now at 20M in cap space, 9th least in the league.

That roster is going to be significantly worse in 2020.

 

[Dantés]

An OLB who plays up on the line sometimes is fine by me they can still be called OLBs. We have safeties and CBs who also play up to the line and blitz and RBs who line up as WRs. Do we really need to come up with new terms for them?

I guess it's what we are used to and I dont see the need.

Anyway, this started with the question why Gary wasnt introduced as an edge, and the answer is, there is no such position.

That's a silly comparison. 3-4 OLB's are designated "edge" because they spend the vast majority of their time playing the run or rushing the passer on the edge. It's a label that seeks to match what they spend the majority of their time doing.

That is not at all analogous to the reality that defensive backs blitz sometimes and that running backs can be split out. Those are a handful of snaps compared to the norm for the majority of defensive backs and running backs.

You can continue calling them whatever you like. It makes no difference to me. But you will probably continue to be confused, thinking that 230 lb off-ball linebackers are targets for the Packers to rush the passer on the outside.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Side note: The Vikings are pretty royally screwed.

It couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch of people than the Vikings and their fans.

 

[AmishMafia]

.

You can continue calling them whatever you like. It makes no difference to me. But you will probably continue to be confused, thinking that 230 lb off-ball linebackers are targets for the Packers to rush the passer on the outside.

Oh dont get me going on this "off-ball LB" nonsense! They are closer to the ball than an OLB. And they are more on the ball than anyone else in defense.

 

[Dantés]

Oh dont get me going on this "off-ball LB" nonsense! They are closer to the ball than an OLB. And they are more on the ball than anyone else in defense.

LOL. Sounds good.

 

[morango]

A lot of unsureness on the FA front this year, compared to last year. By now, last year, a number of us were locking in on Amos, Z. Smith ,and P. Smith as potential FA targets for the packers (although I don't think anyone though both Smith bros were a possibility).

I think a good part of this unsureness is due to the lingering CBA, but some of it is its just hard to pin down what the Packers' plans are.

A huge part of this hinges on what they due with Bulaga. All signs are that they are moving on from him, but we will see next week what is reality.

At this point, a double-dip (FA and draft) would not be surprising at WR, OT, and/or ILB.

Personally, I rank TE as a lesser need than most packer fans. I am not sold on Hooper at $12-14 million/yr over four years, and think Sternberger, Lewis, Tonyan, and a draft pick will serve the packer well for the cost.

To me, DL is a much higher need than TE and would like to see the packers bring in some new blood with a mid-round draft pick (Leki Fotu comes to mind) as well as a 2nd-tier FA (A'Shawn Robinson?).

Next few weeks should be interesting with NO OTHER SPORTS AT ALL to watch or even think about.

 

[GleefulGary]

Oh dont get me going on this "off-ball LB" nonsense! They are closer to the ball than an OLB. And they are more on the ball than anyone else in defense.

Oh I'll get you going.

It's not about distance from the ball, it's about role.

An inside backers primary role is a couple things. Unless they are blitzing, they are not rushing the ball. They are reacting to their keys. Step forward, read, react. Hit the gap if it's a run play, drop into coverage if it's a pass (zone), find man and cover him if it's a pass (man). Your iDL, and edge rushers, they are attacking on the ball.

Now some people say the OBLB is more of a coverage backer, some use it to refer to Sam, Mike, and Will as a group. I fall into the latter, but in general, it's a pretty synonymous group meaning LB's who aren't pass rushers.

You're making this whole thing more complicated than what it actually is. Terminology, positions, they change. You don't see tailbacks, or wingbacks, or flankers out there anymore. Heck, even wide receivers aren't all out wide anymore. You probably hate that there are slots, or even X WR's, Z WR's, etc, etc. Perhaps we should just call them ball catchers who sometimes block. Wait.. is that a TE too? FB's block and catch too. Hmmm...

Distinctions between positions are important. They're also relatively simple. Stop trying to make it more confusing than what it is.