Nick Perry

[Deleted member 6794]

Regarding salary, I've said it before and it's a pretty obvious statement, the QB can create an effect on offense that no single position can duplicate on defense. If you have a great QB then you can spend more money on defense and still have a worse defense. Just because the Packers spend more money on defense doesn't automatically mean the defense is expected to be as good as the offense. I don't understand how else to explain this. What single position, in your opinion, can make the entire defense markedly better in the same fashion that a great QB can make an offense better? If you can point that out to me, then maybe I'll start to think that the aggregate salary matters.

How about if I put it this way; if you think "salary" matters then it would automatically follow that any two defensive players, if there salaries are greater combined than Aaron Rodgers' salary, would be two guys you would happily trade Rodgers for if they would take a pay cut. If salary is what matters, then the opportunity to flip Rodgers for two defensive players who make more money should be a no-brainer, IF salary is what truly determines expected impact.

The Packers are spending the second most amount of salary cap out of all teams in the league on the defensive side of the ball this season. Therefore the front office for sure doesn't expect to field a mediocre unit.

 

[Sky King]

Nick Perry and Datone Jones were better fits in the 4-3 defense coming out of college - square pegs in round holes, if you will. They needed time to adjust both physically and mentally. Evidently this is how long it takes for these specific two players to make such a transition. It may finally be looking good. Enjoy.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Nick Perry and Datone Jones were better fits in the 4-3 defense coming out of college - square pegs in round holes, if you will.

That's true for Perry but Datone actually played and excelled in a 3-4 defense at UCLA.

 

[HardRightEdge]

No, I don't see the contradiction. A player can be "expected" to be really good when he's drafted. After a couple of years however reality might set in and, if the player hasn't lived up to those "expectations", then that player should no longer be expected (got tired of quotes) to be a great player. So yeah, you can draft a bunch of guys in the first round with the expectation that they will all be really good but after a few years you need to start accepting reality and adjust expectations. To think otherwise would be to expect the Browns offense to be really good because they spent a bunch of first round picks on QBs.

Regarding salary, I've said it before and it's a pretty obvious statement, the QB can create an effect on offense that no single position can duplicate on defense. If you have a great QB then you can spend more money on defense and still have a worse defense. Just because the Packers spend more money on defense doesn't automatically mean the defense is expected to be as good as the offense. I don't understand how else to explain this. What single position, in your opinion, can make the entire defense markedly better in the same fashion that a great QB can make an offense better? If you can point that out to me, then maybe I'll start to think that the aggregate salary matters.

How about if I put it this way; if you think "salary" matters then it would automatically follow that any two defensive players, if there salaries are greater combined than Aaron Rodgers' salary, would be two guys you would happily trade Rodgers for if they would take a pay cut. If salary is what matters, then the opportunity to flip Rodgers for two defensive players who make more money should be a no-brainer, IF salary is what truly determines expected impact.

Again, this is an analysis of performance and a reflection of your expectations, not what represents the evident plan.

If the Packer brain trust ever shared this fan misconception, it was clearly abandoned at the time of the 2012 draft, with the first 6 picks on the defensive side, with the ante upped each succeeding year with high picks and higher pay.

Clearly, Rodgers' pay has been no impediment to defensive investment. It may surprise some that Rodgers' cap hit ranks only 10th. in the league for this season, and only $2.25 mil above the 16th. ranked QB, if the obvious defensive investments were not enough:

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/rankings/quarterback/

The key to winning is having a roster play above their cap cost. The defensive side has been coming up short in recent years, however I remain optimistic:

Against Detroit, Matthews, Shields, Burnett, Guion and Jones did not take a snap while Pennel remained on suspension. This represents nearly half the starting line up. Those first 5 players represent about $37.7 in 2016 cap cost or 54% of the total defensive cap cost, while also being a large swath of the veteran leadership.

While this is certainly not a conventional way of looking at it, it is telling. This is the majority of the core defensive players and the lion's share of defensive investment.

If these players return to health and the season is a failure, we can point to the defense.

 

[HardRightEdge]

The Packers are spending the second most amount of salary cap out of all teams in the league on the defensive side of the ball this season. Therefore the front office for sure doesn't expect to field a mediocre unit.

And when you consider that the Packers have 4 defensive first rounders playing on relatively cheap rookie contracts, we could reasonably state that the Packers have more invested on defense than any other team in the league.

 

[sschind]

He seemed to be playing well when I watched him, I never liked PFF and it's "this was graded by some guy in his underwear" approach to football.

I'm not a fan of PFF either but if we assume that this guy in his underwear is unbiased and rating every player using the same standards the rankings should be fairly accurate. I am not sure how that can be done when a lot of what happens on a play can be considered subjective.

PFF offers the most detailled evaluation of players in the NFL. While I agree that there's no reason to take their grades as truth it's a pretty good indicator of a player's performance. With them having access to coaches film and watching every single snap I put more value into their opinion than most posters on a fan forum.

I agree with you on that one except for this forum. We got some pretty savvy dudes here.

I don't know if the Packers evaluated hayward poorly but they may have had too high a view of Randall and Rollins.

Not only the Packers but pretty much every fan on pretty much every fan forum. Even the savvy ones we have here.

I take great offense to your statement sir! I do some of my best work in my underwear!!!

You're and underwear model too? Small world.

No, I don't see the contradiction. A player can be "expected" to be really good when he's drafted. After a couple of years however reality might set in and, if the player hasn't lived up to those "expectations", then that player should no longer be expected (got tired of quotes) to be a great player. So yeah, you can draft a bunch of guys in the first round with the expectation that they will all be really good but after a few years you need to start accepting reality and adjust expectations. To think otherwise would be to expect the Browns offense to be really good because they spent a bunch of first round picks on QBs.

The difference would be how the team was built and how it turned out. Spending 4 first round picks on defense IMO is not building a middle of the road defense. At least it is not set out as building a middle of the road defense. You build a house with all the best materials with the intention that the roof will keep you dry but sometimes the roof leaks. That doesn't mean the house was built to be middle of the road

 

[Sunshinepacker]

The difference would be how the team was built and how it turned out. Spending 4 first round picks on defense IMO is not building a middle of the road defense. At least it is not set out as building a middle of the road defense. You build a house with all the best materials with the intention that the roof will keep you dry but sometimes the roof leaks. That doesn't mean the house was built to be middle of the road

It is if two of those first four round picks haven't lived up to their billing as elite players at their position. Your construction example isn't the same because you don't build the house in one-year increments and put in the wiring in year one only to found out in year three that the wiring is defective; you can't sell the house on the idea that the wiring was "supposed to be great", you have to sell the house based on how good the wiring actually is.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Again, this is an analysis of performance and a reflection of your expectations, not what represents the evident plan.

If the Packer brain trust ever shared this fan misconception, it was clearly abandoned at the time of the 2012 draft, with the first 6 picks on the defensive side, with the ante upped each succeeding year with high picks and higher pay.

Clearly, Rodgers' pay has been no impediment to defensive investment. It may surprise some that Rodgers' cap hit ranks only 10th. in the league for this season, and only $2.25 mil above the 16th. ranked QB, if the obvious defensive investments were not enough:

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/rankings/quarterback/

The key to winning is having a roster play above their cap cost. The defensive side has been coming up short in recent years, however I remain optimistic:

Against Detroit, Matthews, Shields, Burnett, Guion and Jones did not take a snap while Pennel remained on suspension. This represents nearly half the starting line up. Those first 5 players represent about $37.7 in 2016 cap cost or 54% of the total defensive cap cost, while also being a large swath of the veteran leadership.

While this is certainly not a conventional way of looking at it, it is telling. This is the majority of the core defensive players and the lion's share of defensive investment.

If these players return to health and the season is a failure, we can point to the defense.

I have no problem with this. I've been saying that players being injured or out should be considered when evaluating the defense (or offense if that were to occur). My issue is with people who claim that the defense should be terrific even if some really important players are out.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

The Packers are spending the second most amount of salary cap out of all teams in the league on the defensive side of the ball this season. Therefore the front office for sure doesn't expect to field a mediocre unit.

Ok. So you're telling me that you expect the Packers to feature a top-5 defense this year when the second highest defensive salary cap hit (Sam Shields) has missed the majority of the season and the player with the fifth highest defensive salary cap cost (Burnett) missed the Lions game and the player with the sixth highest cost (Guion) hasn't played yet this season? So we can talk about salary all we want but huge chunks of that salary have missed time this year.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

My issue is with people who claim that the defense should be terrific even if some really important players are out.

The Packers defense hasn't been able to perform on a terrific level even when fully healthy for several years running. Therefore expecting the unit to achieve it withiut several starters is completely unrealistic. The target of a successful general manager should be to minimize the drop-off in performance once backups have to play a significant amount of snaps by acquiring excellent depth.

Ok. So you're telling me that you expect the Packers to feature a top-5 defense this year when the second highest defensive salary cap hit (Sam Shields) has missed the majority of the season and the player with the fifth highest defensive salary cap cost (Burnett) missed the Lions game and the player with the sixth highest cost (Guion) hasn't played yet this season? So we can talk about salary all we want but huge chunks of that salary have missed time this year.

First of all Guion played the entire game at Jacksonville before being injured early in the Vikings game. It has been mentioned repeatedly that injuries are part of the game. A team not being able to overcome missing some key players for part of the season most likely doesn't have the depth necessary to compete for a Super Bowl.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I have no problem with this. I've been saying that players being injured or out should be considered when evaluating the defense (or offense if that were to occur). My issue is with people who claim that the defense should be terrific even if some really important players are out.

My problem is with people who expect a mediocre defense when so much has been invested, and those who believe that a mediocre defense is adequate.

The Packer organization is telling you something very different, and they starting telling you this with the 2012 draft and have repeated that message over and over. If this defense regains it's health and then does not show itself to be a championship caliber unit, a change will be necessary, and the first place to look will be Dom Capers, then work your way up through McCarthy and then Thompson in evaluating where the key to this problem lies.

 

[OldSchool101]

No, I'm simply pointing out that when a defense is missing four starters it will naturally perform below the level that it would perform should those four starters actually be playing. It's pretty straightforward and yet everyone seems to believe that Micah Hyde should be as good as Burnett (even though he's not) and that Hyde's backup should then be as good as Hyde while Randall should be as good as Shields (which he's not) and that Rollins should be as good as Randall (which he wasn't last year but Randall hasn't really set the bar that high this year). Additionally, people think that Clark should be as good as Guion and that Clark's backup (who doesn't exist) should be as good as Clark at NT and that's REALLY tough since that player doesn't exist and I've never heard of somone who doesn't exist being as good as someone who does in fact exist.

Why am i pointing out such obvious facts? Because it's not only the guys replacing the missing starters that hurts, it's the fact that all the subpackages get screwed up since Capers has no decent players to change up the defense with. It also hurts in the second half of games when guys are playing more snaps than they should be because Casper the Ghost is backing up Clark at NT and Casper, while he tries hard, doesn't actually exist and therefore you can't actually play him.

And as for Shields dropping INTs...let's remember there was a reason that the Hurricanes switched him from receiver to CB.

I think you both have valid points but the answer lies somewhere in between. I think many of us understand that we are not gonna get a "Shields" level of performance from guys with limited game experience. But at the same time that is the exact reason a backup player needs to make a play on the 1 or 2 underthrown balls that hit his hands.
The best DBs don't have tunnel vision that their job is to only prevent a big play. Their vision is that they have as much right to catching a pass thrown their direction as the WR they're covering. Furthermore, the WR is like a blinking beacon to where the pass is going.. so they initially watch them and then gauge the route and turn to play the ball, not the WR.
Even the refs have this figured out,it's no secret. They allow lenience for a DB to play the ball and If the DB goes after that ball specifically they have great latitude to not throw a flag even when the WR cries foul.
Trained Guys like Sherman are expecting to catch the ball several times a game, not just deflecting. It's a mentality that all great DBs apply

 

[Sunshinepacker]

My problem is with people who expect a mediocre defense when so much has been invested, and those who believe that a mediocre defense is adequate.

The Packer organization is telling you something very different, and they starting telling you this with the 2012 draft and have repeated that message over and over. If this defense regains it's health and then does not show itself to be a championship caliber unit, the a change will be necessary, and the first place to look will be Dom Capers, then work your way up through McCarthy and then Thompson in evaluating where the key to this problem lies.

Capers is at fault? So which players have been bad for Green Bay but gone on to find success elsewhere?

And I hate the excuse, "they've spent X first round picks on defense!" Ask the Browns about their QB situation and how much "quantity of picks" actually matters. How many of those high round draft picks on defense have played up to their draft spot? The best player on this defense is a fourth round pick.

 

[Arthur Squires]

Resign Perry early imo before teams have the chance to throw 9mil per year his way. He will for sure see lucrative numbers for a injury prone player. But if he stays healthy and puts up double digit sacks it's going to be difficult to resign if he hits FA

 

[HardRightEdge]

Capers is at fault? So which players have been bad for Green Bay but gone on to find success elsewhere?

If you want to make that (faulty) argument, then I suggest you follow what I said...work your way up the chain of command. I'm not particularly fond of Thompson either.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

And I hate the excuse, "they've spent X first round picks on defense!" How many of those high round draft picks on defense have played up to their draft spot?

The Packers having spent five consecutive first round picks on defensive prospects strongly indicates the front office is expecting the defense to turn into a dominant unit. It is on Thompson that hasn't worked out because of selecting players not worthy of being drafted that high though.

Resign Perry early imo before teams have the chance to throw 9mil per year his way. He will for sure see lucrative numbers for a injury prone player. But if he stays healthy and puts up double digit sacks it's going to be difficult to resign if he hits FA

If Perry continues to perform on the current level and stays healthy this season he should absolutely be the Packers' #1 priority to re-sign.

If you want to make that (faulty) argument, then I suggest you follow what I said.

I don't think it's a faulty argument as it shows that lack of talent instead of Capers' scheme was mostly responsible for several defensive players not performing on a high level.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I don't think it's a faulty argument as it shows that lack of talent instead of Capers' scheme was mostly responsible for several defensive players not performing on a high level.

The argument I was addressing was: "Capers is at fault? So which players have been bad for Green Bay but gone on to find success elsewhere?"

First of all how many "bad" players on any team go on to perform at a high level elsewhere? Not many. The sample size is sufficiently small to make comparisons irrelevant.

As for "good" players who go on to perform well elsewhere, the opportunities are particularly limited given Thompson is unwilling to swap one free agent for another more than any other GM in the league.

 

[easyk83]

I don't think it's a faulty argument as it shows that lack of talent instead of Capers' scheme was mostly responsible for several defensive players not performing on a high level.

Capers bears some of the blame, his schemes were overly complicated for years after the Super Bowl win. Last year when the team publicly announced that they were simplifying things the defense looked noticeably better.

 

[easyk83]

It's possible the Packers made a mistake evaluating Hayward as he has performed on a pretty high level for the Chargers. Nevertheless I agree that the team's secondary is capable of playing way better.



PFF offers the most detailled evaluation of players in the NFL. While I agree that there's no reason to take their grades as truth it's a pretty good indicator of a player's performance. With them having access to coaches film and watching every single snap I put more value into their opinion than most posters on a fan forum.

Of public services this is true and sometimes it can be a good indication, but always taken with a grain of salt. It's a service that relies on numerical ratings for subjective evaluation. Besides even with the Coaches Film they don't know what the player's assignments were on any given play.

"It might even look to us like somebody made a mistake but then we look at it more closely maybe somebody besides him made a mistake and he was trying to compensate. I think we need a little closer analysis a lot of times. Sometimes the play calls or what was called on the line of scrimmage might be something that we’re not aware of. That could happen in any game. You think a player did something that he shouldn’t have done but maybe he got a call, a line call or a call from a linebacker or he thought the quarterback said something so he did what he thought was the right thing or maybe it was the right thing but that call shouldn’t have been made or should have been on the other side. But yeah, I think we need to be careful about what we’re evaluating."

-Bill Belichick

 

[HardRightEdge]

Capers bears some of the blame, his schemes were overly complicated for years after the Super Bowl win. Last year when the team publicly announced that they were simplifying things the defense looked noticeably better.

I couldn't agree more. I'd been complaining about that for years. His simplification of the play calling looks to be paying dividends.

The way he simplified it is interesting. Instead of a long string of verbiage that included separate calls for each of the defensive units, the calls are now in a short package form where all of the units' calls are embedded in it.

The stated reason for the simplification was that it was taking too long to communicate the call the to the field and then from the ILB play caller (Hawk at the time) to the huddle. But there are a couple of consequences of this simplification that should not be overlooked, and which may be of equal or more consequence.

First, having a set of package calls limits Capers ability to mix and match. By necessity, it reduces the number of possible variations and thereby reduces complexity.

Second, that excessive variety of mix-and-match options under the old method requires an ILB play caller who understands each of the units' calls and terminology and make the needed adjustments. For this reason, Capers clung to Hawk as his guy past the sell by date.

Third, under the old method, a player would understand the terminology for their unit's calls whereas the rest of the call might be Greek to him. By having a compacted call that has everybody's assignments embedded in it, the call is actually a "play call" and not a collection of assignments. A player has a better understanding of what the defense is trying to do as a whole.

Given the Packer's defensive youthfulness over several seasons, the only question we need to ask is, "why did it take so long?"

There has been less confusion as evidenced by the reduced frequency of player realignment just before the snap; inexperienced but more athletic ILBs could be installed with the defense unburdened of excessive complexity; with less confusion comes more instinctual and aggressive play and better speed. These are the chief reasons I'm optimistic about this season.

 

[jrock645]

I still think he system has to be too complex. Granted, this is from a flawed POV, but just watch the secondary. Can't tell if they're in man or zone, and hey are consistently nowhere near the WR's or the ball. These guys can't be that bad. If it was simply a matter of getting beat in man, you'd be able to tell where it happened. Guys are just running free. Seattle runs zone and nobody seems to get open. How is it that we run cover 3 and there's nobody within 10 yards of the receiver? There's got to be too many keys these guys are trying to read. Too much thinking, not enough reacting to what's in front of them. I just don't get it. I watch a fair amount of football and don't typically see a secondary so consistently out of position on a regular basis. It's one thing to give up a completion, it's another one yet to not even contest it.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

The argument I was addressing was: "Capers is at fault? So which players have been bad for Green Bay but gone on to find success elsewhere?"

First of all how many "bad" players on any team go on to perform at a high level elsewhere? Not many. The sample size is sufficiently small to make comparisons irrelevant.

As for "good" players who go on to perform well elsewhere, the opportunities are particularly limited given Thompson is unwilling to swap one free agent for another more than any other GM in the league.

The point is if Capers is to blame for players underachieving for the Packers those guys would have performed significantly better for another defensive coordinator. That hasn't happened though.

Capers bears some of the blame, his schemes were overly complicated for years after the Super Bowl win. Last year when the team publicly announced that they were simplifying things the defense looked noticeably better.

It's true that Capers' scheme has been extremely complicated for most of his tenure with the Packers. It's on Thompson though that he hasn't provided the defensive coordinator with more veterans understanding the system.

Of public services this is true and sometimes it can be a good indication, but always taken with a grain of salt. It's a service that relies on numerical ratings for subjective evaluation. Besides even with the Coaches Film they don't know what the player's assignments were on any given play.

It's true that PFF doesn't have any information about a player's assignment and because of it will err on the evaluation of specific plays. But once again neither has any of the posters on this forum but yet we feel comfortable judging a player's performance.

 

[Arthur Squires]

PROBOWL!!!

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I still think he system has to be too complex. Granted, this is from a flawed POV, but just watch the secondary. Can't tell if they're in man or zone, and hey are consistently nowhere near the WR's or the ball. These guys can't be that bad. If it was simply a matter of getting beat in man, you'd be able to tell where it happened. Guys are just running free. Seattle runs zone and nobody seems to get open. How is it that we run cover 3 and there's nobody within 10 yards of the receiver? There's got to be too many keys these guys are trying to read. Too much thinking, not enough reacting to what's in front of them. I just don't get it. I watch a fair amount of football and don't typically see a secondary so consistently out of position on a regular basis. It's one thing to give up a completion, it's another one yet to not even contest it.

The secondary hasn't been THAT out of position. They've had problems but that's kind of to be expected when 2 of the 4 starters are not in the game. Part of the problem with Randall is that he appears at times to be trying to bait the QB by playing a little too far off but then when he tries to recover and get the ball, discovers he's not fast enough; additionally, Randall was actually in fairly good position on a number of the passes he's given up but he hasn't played the ball well.

As for Capers defense being complicated, yeah, that's been known for decades. Seems weird to hire a guy that's known to have a complicated defense that's a very good defense and then tell him, "Hey, stop running the system that made you a renowned defensive coordinator and run something you don't think is as good because we have young guys"....that's like someone telling Pete Carroll, "hey, we don't want to spend money on safeties anymore so stop playing Cover-3". Also, unless you have some PHENOMENAL talents on defense, a "simple" defense isn't going to work in the NFL. Carrol's Cover-3 is pretty simple but it only works because they have the only safety in the NFL that can cover it's weakness. The Packers don't have the talent on defense to play something "simple".

 

[jrock645]

The secondary hasn't been THAT out of position. They've had problems but that's kind of to be expected when 2 of the 4 starters are not in the game. Part of the problem with Randall is that he appears at times to be trying to bait the QB by playing a little too far off but then when he tries to recover and get the ball, discovers he's not fast enough; additionally, Randall was actually in fairly good position on a number of the passes he's given up but he hasn't played the ball well.

As for Capers defense being complicated, yeah, that's been known for decades. Seems weird to hire a guy that's known to have a complicated defense that's a very good defense and then tell him, "Hey, stop running the system that made you a renowned defensive coordinator and run something you don't think is as good because we have young guys"....that's like someone telling Pete Carroll, "hey, we don't want to spend money on safeties anymore so stop playing Cover-3". Also, unless you have some PHENOMENAL talents on defense, a "simple" defense isn't going to work in the NFL. Carrol's Cover-3 is pretty simple but it only works because they have the only safety in the NFL that can cover it's weakness. The Packers don't have the talent on defense to play something "simple".

I stopped reading after your 2nd sentence. The issue doesn't only apply to this week when Shields and Randall were out. It was evident opening weekend. It has happened routinely happened on a regular basis in the past.

You cannot take this week's injury situation and apply it broadly across past games where it wasn't the case. You have no argument.