Have we improved?

[Carl]

The safety position didn't improve because the Packers released Jennings. The reason was Thompson spending a first round pick on Clinton-Dix and moving Hyde (who played extensively as a rookie) to the position. Getting rid of Hawk and Jones and hoping some guys who have never played a single down at ILB will improve the position isn't a great strategy.



Shields was a rookie that season who proved from the start that he can start in the league. You can't compare the situation to any of the ILBs currently on the roster who weren't able to move ahead of Hawk and Jones on the depth chart last year.

The Packers didn't rely on any of the other guys you mentioned entering 2010. They were backups who got extensive playing time because of injuries.

With the draft still to come, I don't see how the Packers will be relying on guys who have never played ILB. An ILB or two will certainly be drafted.

 

[TJV]

I think this poster got it right with the third post on this thread:

... it's too early for this question, comparable to asking have we won the game at halftime.

I agree the Ross Uglem article is a mess of "facts" and logic. Regarding whether or not Thompson will use #30 on an ILB I think the likelihood (not certainty of course) should be considered in light of McCarthy's statement, "... I think the inside linebacker position could probably be compared to where we were last year at the safety position...”

(BTW, one huge difference between Hawk and Kampman regarding the switch to the 3-4 is Hawk bought in completely and Kampman never gave it a chance. For the first time in his career I was very disappointed in Kampman. BTW II: Kampman wasn't traded.)

 

[rodell330]

If we get stellar play from the inside I can see this being a top 10 defense. Is Raji going to turn the clock back to 2010? Will a rookie have an impact right away? Because I don't think Clay Matthews moving back outside.. Just have a feeling they are comfortable with leaving him inside with an entire off season of preparation .

 

[HardRightEdge]

I think this poster got it right with the third post on this thread: I agree the Ross Uglem article is a mess of "facts" and logic. Regarding whether or not Thompson will use #30 on an ILB I think the likelihood (not certainty of course) should be considered in light of McCarthy's statement, "... I think the inside linebacker position could probably be compared to where we were last year at the safety position...”

(BTW, one huge difference between Hawk and Kampman regarding the switch to the 3-4 is Hawk bought in completely and Kampman never gave it a chance. For the first time in his career I was very disappointed in Kampman. BTW II: Kampman wasn't traded.)

Right you are...Kampman was a UFA.

But neither that fact nor the respective players' buy-in to change would cause me to alter the larger point...the Packers have clearly demonstrated a willingness to commit large investments to the ILB position even if they were sunk costs in the instances I mentioned. I did not mention Hawk's 5 year, $34 mil contract signed in 2011 in case anybody wants to argue about the significance of those other sunk investments.

The McCarthy quote is telling. But even if he had not said it, the need is obvious. As a minimum consideration, an injury to either Matthews or Peppers, or Peppers hitting the wall, unravels the Matthews rotation to ILB which McCarthy has said he'll continue to employ, and an injury to Barrington, given the current roster, would argue for Matthews full-time at ILB. It is very difficult to see how an ILB pick in the first 3 rounds can be avoided.

I can't help but note when a poster quotes himself in the 3rd. person. Are you OK?

 

[TJV]

I can't help but note when a poster quotes himself in the 3rd. person. Are you OK?

No, of course not.

 

[Pack-12]

If we get stellar play from the inside I can see this being a top 10 defense. Is Raji going to turn the clock back to 2010? Will a rookie have an impact right away? Because I don't think Clay Matthews moving back outside.. Just have a feeling they are comfortable with leaving him inside with an entire off season of preparation .

Clay still played mostly outside last season even after they started moving him around, he got all but like 2 or 3 of his sacks outside.

 

[Curly Calhoun]

From last season, I mean.

It was a brilliant piece of marketing from TT to ensure that we did not regress and lose (much) talent, but when I think overall I have lots of questions...

Comparing to last season...

1) Overall have we improved? - Not exactly. Retained par with re-signings at best, regressed at defensive back depth at worst will be my take.
2) Have we fixed any trouble areas? - Not exactly. The patch work at run defence remains with no good alternative to Clay at ILB. Lots riding on 2 NT's, one coming off injury and other liable to get penalized.
3) What can we hope for better? Hope for better performances from Richard Rodgers, Davante Adams & HHCD, I suppose. Can't think of anything else.
​

Thinking overall, I think we are slightly behind what we were as a team from last season. No improvements to defensive line and a weakening in secondary is a slight step backwards.

To summarize, our hopes on bettering ourselves depend on:
- 2015 rookies.
- 3 players from 2014 draft just off their newbie season.
- An injury returned Raji and a liable to be suspended Guion.
- ???

Am I being too pessimistic?

I think that is a question that might be better addressed after the draft. Green Bay does a good job of keeping its core together, not overspending on free-agency, and drafting and developing young talent. I believe this is a formula for long-term success, and I'm looking forward to what Ted does in Chicago starting on April 30th.

 

[PikeBadger]

There is bountiful evidence that says otherwise.

Really? Have you seen Thompson's board? Did he tell you that he drafts need and not BPA?

 

[TJV]

Really? Have you seen Thompson's board? Did he tell you that he drafts need and not BPA?

IMO evidence and common sense indicate no GM drafts purely best player available.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

As of right now, no, the Packers haven't improved. There's no way to argue otherwise. It's the same team minus a starting corner and a backup corner. However, right now is a silly time to ask the question. The answer to whether the Packers have improved or not won't be known until a few games in the regular season when the team starts to know who has improved in the off-season and what they can expect to get from their draft class.

 

[tynimiller]

No...the sky is falling and the Browns and Bears will rule the NFL this year.....sometimes I wonder about folks.

We have needs on Defense...but our Offense is RIDIC....Hayward steps up, ILB gets strengthened there is nothing to say D doesn't get better.....too early for too much pessimism.

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

No...the sky is falling and the Browns and Bears will rule the NFL this year.....sometimes I wonder about folks.

We have needs on Defense...but our Offense is RIDIC....Hayward steps up, ILB gets strengthened there is nothing to say D doesn't get better.....too early for too much pessimism.

And too early for too much optimism too !

 

[TJV]

No...the sky is falling and the Browns and Bears will rule the NFL this year.....sometimes I wonder about folks.
We have needs on Defense...but our Offense is RIDIC....Hayward steps up, ILB gets strengthened there is nothing to say D doesn't get better.....too early for too much pessimism.

I think you missed or ignored the context of the comments on this thread since the title is “Have we improved?” At this point Williams and House are gone and no significant free agents have been signed so the only reasonable argument that the Packers have improved involves depending upon young players improving. Since that’s an unknown, that’s a pretty weak argument. So when the OP asks that question and then adds, “From last season, I mean”, it’s difficult to answer that question yes. For example, posting that at this point the Packers are weaker at CB isn’t being pessimistic as much as it’s recognizing reality. I hope Hayward steps up but that’s not a certainty - didn’t House get more snaps than he did outside? And I expect ILB will be strengthened but those reminding us Barrington is the only ILB with experience are correct.

Most of us don’t see the sky falling, just that the Packers aren’t improved from last season… yet.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

With the draft still to come, I don't see how the Packers will be relying on guys who have never played ILB. An ILB or two will certainly be drafted.

I expect Thompson to address the ILB position in the draft and maybe free agency. The question was about the current state of the roster though.

If we get stellar play from the inside I can see this being a top 10 defense. Is Raji going to turn the clock back to 2010? Will a rookie have an impact right away? Because I don't think Clay Matthews moving back outside.. Just have a feeling they are comfortable with leaving him inside with an entire off season of preparation .

Matthews will probably continue to play inside but the Packers won't line him up there all the time.

Clay still played mostly outside last season even after they started moving him around, he got all but like 2 or 3 of his sacks outside.

Matthews had more sacks from the outside even after the bye week but played 51.7% of the defensive snaps inside.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Really? Have you seen Thompson's board? Did he tell you that he drafts need and not BPA?

Did he show you or tell you those things? I suspect not. And even if he had told you he drafts regardless of need, why would you believe him? It's been several years since he's made that pretense, which in any case is a handy way of deflecting questions about something he does not want to reveal.

So, we go by the evidence, writ large in the 2006, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013 and 2014 drafts. It should be glaringly obvious in the 2006 and 2009 drafts, if nothing else. Or how about the last 7 first round picks?

 

[PackerDNA]

I expect Thompson to address the ILB position in the draft and maybe free agency. The question was about the current state of the roster though.



Matthews will probably continue to play inside but the Packers won't line him up there all the time.



Matthews had more sacks from the outside even after the bye week but played 51.7% of the defensive snaps inside.

This last bit of information indicates to me that the Packers failure to address this position forced them to reduce a strength- Clay as a pass rusher- in an effort to strengthen a weakness.
But it's only a band aid. The problem still exists, and the best answer currently is still to reduce a strength to patch it up.

 

[PFanCan]

And too early for too much optimism too !

And too early for too much middle-of-the-road thinking too !

 

[Joe Nor Cal Packer]

Well the offense will be improved just by virtue of us retaining everybody and the added experience/development the brings.

On D the line should be improved by the return of Raji n development from a guy like D Jones.

LB is dependent on the draft.

CB depends on whether Hayward is able to step up n how we draft.

Saftey will be better due to added experience with Ha Ha and his devlopment along side Burnett.

So yes we're improved in most areas n 2 are contingent on the draft. We're still a pretty young team whos players should only get better or stay the same. The only contibuter Im worried about a drop off for Is Peppers. Pretty much everyone else we can expect the same we got from them last year n at quite a few spots those same players will be better this season having another year of experience and development under their belt. Not a bad position to be in

Agreed. And not participating in FA doesn't bother me, unless it makes sense, ala Woodson and Peppers and even Guion. I'm not that concerned with a fall off from Peppers, but with as well as he played last year, even a slight drop off is ok.

FA just seems like a sucker bet. I would've been more upset if TT had matched the offers for House and Williams. We kept the O intact, and can maybe hold serve on D with one, maybe two starters in the draft, and improved play as others have noted

 

[Pack-12]

Matthews had more sacks from the outside even after the bye week but played 51.7% of the defensive snaps inside.

Either way, he's not likely going to be playing inside OR outside he'll probably keep playing both and when he plays outside he won't be "moving back".

 

[wist43]

TT has shown that he will draft for need. That wasn't necessarily the case early in his tenure, but lately he has been filling needs.

That said, even a casual observer could tell that we've been nothing short of pathetic at ILB for a few years running now, and TT hasn't spent much equity in an attempt to fix the mess. He played it casual with Safety for far too long as well, and those mistakes have cost us.

I expect that TT will draft an ILB or two, but he won't chase them... if the guys he wants are off the board, we're going to get 6th round fodder and hope for the best - it's just the way TT operates.

 

[Curly Calhoun]

They say the biggest jump most players will ever have in their development is from year one to year two. That being the case, I'm excited what that could mean for guys like Ha-Ha Clinton-Dix, Davante Adams, Richard Rodgers and Cory Linsley. Also, we'll see if get anything this year out of Khyri Thornton, Carl Bradford, Dimitri Goodson and Jeff Janis.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

They say the biggest jump most players will ever have in their development is from year one to year two. That being the case, I'm excited what that could mean for guys like Ha-Ha Clinton-Dix, Davante Adams, Richard Rodgers and Cory Linsley. Also, we'll see if get anything this year out of Khyri Thornton, Carl Bradford, Dimitri Goodson and Jeff Janis.

It's reasonable to think second year players could make a huge step in their development if they got extensive playing time as a rookie. Janis and Goodson could be other guys making a jump. That's based on the fact Janis coming from a division II college getting used to the pro level and Goodson learning the position after only having played football for some years

I don't have high hopes for Thornton and Bradford though.

 

[PikeBadger]

IMO evidence and common sense indicate no GM drafts purely best player available.

I agree in concept but I've always suspected that TT's board contains groupings of draft candidates that are valued essentially equal. I truly do not believe that Ted jumps his board to grab a guy because he says, well I need to take a ILB in round 1, then a CB in round 2 regardless of available value. I believe he lets the draft come to him and moves up or down based on circumstances and value availability at positions of need. For instance, I expect to see draft picks used on d-linemen because he has three of them whose contract expires after this season. He's not going to reach for a guy imo. He's a patient man and all of this is second nature to him. He and his scouts just don't agree with most of us on the value of individual draft prospects.

 

[TJV]

I believe he lets the draft come to him and moves up or down based on circumstances and value availability at positions of need.

I agree Thompson uses "talent tiers". My point was and is no GM drafts purely BPA and your post agrees with that: When you include "positions of need" in the evaluation of prospects you are no longer using BPA.

 

[Curly Calhoun]

It's reasonable to think second year players could make a huge step in their development if they got extensive playing time as a rookie. Janis and Goodson could be other guys making a jump. That's based on the fact Janis coming from a division II college getting used to the pro level and Goodson learning the position after only having played football for some years

I don't have high hopes for Thornton and Bradford though.

I tend to agree with your assessment of Thornton/Bradford, but hope springs eternal.