Packers by position DLine

[Dantés]

When I was referring to tape I meant his tape as DE.

$7M is a worthy "experiment" in my opinion. He can't do any worse than Blake Martinez, and Blake might fetch $10-13M on the open market. At the very least with his athleticism, we're looking at a guy who will get into the backfield. Pettine can use a Safety(as he as with Greene, Campbell, and Amos) for coverage responsibilities and obvious passing downs which allows Beasley to be a pure rusher.

Even if he shows he can't be a 3-4 ILB, he definitely can be a 3-4 OLB. That allows Z. Smith to come down on the line and tandem with Gary. Beasley plays OLB opposite P. Smith. That's a championship quality pass rush on 3rd down and opposing 2 minute drills.

Don't say he can't do it just because you never saw him do it. He has traits that shows he can.

Exactly-- you have no tape to base that on. You're saying that he CAN do something else because you've noticed what he CAN'T do. It's like me watching a receiver who struggles with drops and deciding he can play corner and saying I'm basing it on "tape."

Given how many needs the Packers have to address, and relative limitations to their cap and draft resources, spending 7M+ on a shot in the dark is not even close to worthy. If Gutekunst did that, he should be relieved of his position. That's utterly irresponsible.

And he absolutely can do worse than Blake Martinez. Way worse. I'm not fan of Martinez, nor do I want him back, but there's a good chance that Beasley straight up just can't play the position. Instincts, awareness, and ability to read and react are paramount at this spot. You can't assume that a guy has those things based on height/weight/speed metrics.

Lastly-- you're saying to move him to off ball linebacker because he isn't a fit at edge, and now you're saying that if he doesn't work out at off ball you can just move him back to edge. He would have the exact same issues at 34OLB in our defense that he's had on the edge for Atlanta. You're talking in circles.

 

[Mondio]

I definitely think there is more to Blake then he has or can show in the Packers current defense. Not a lot more, but he isn't as bad as some want to make him out to be. Maybe he would make a better Middle linebacker in a traditional 4-3?

I think the most disappointing aspect of Blake for me is the fact that he peaked early and seemed to get worse the last season and a half. Also didn't help that he had crap playing next to him at the other ILB spot.

That crap next to him, out played him when it came to the run game. Goodson was the only guy that actually showed up in that regard. He might be slow, but at least he fights. Blake would get skated right out of the play repeatedly. I've never seen an ILB get neutralized by so little over and over and over. Sure, he's fine when he can run right to the ball carrier, but then I'd still be able to make a few tackles if that was all that was expected of me too.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

That crap next to him, out played him when it came to the run game. Goodson was the only guy that actually showed up in that regard. He might be slow, but at least he fights. Blake would get skated right out of the play repeatedly. I've never seen an ILB get neutralized by so little over and over and over. Sure, he's fine when he can run right to the ball carrier, but then I'd still be able to make a few tackles if that was all that was expected of me too.

So what you are saying is Goodson might have been Pro Bowl had it not been for Blake?

I know what you are saying, but Goodson still isn't my idea of a starting ILB.

Like I said in earlier posts, I hope the Packers have a plan for replacing both starting ILB's, if they have any kind of desire to resign Blake, it should be as an emergency plan and at no guaranteed min contract. However, I don't think that will happen, someone is going to pay him more than he is worth....at least to the Packers. Goodson wouldn't be a bad guy to bring back either, but again, for depth only.

 

[Dantés]

So what you are saying is Goodson might have been Pro Bowl had it not been for Blake?

I know what you are saying, but Goodson still isn't my idea of a starting ILB.

Like I said in earlier posts, I hope the Packers have a plan for replacing both starting ILB's, if they have any kind of desire to resign Blake, it should be as an emergency plan and at no guaranteed min contract. However, I don't think that will happen, someone is going to pay him more than he is worth....at least to the Packers. Goodson wouldn't be a bad guy to bring back either, but again, for depth only.

What makes the most sense to me is to pay up for a guy who can cover (e.g. Cory Littleton), because that's the harder-to-find skillset and then draft a rookie to do the heavier lifting in run defense. They could even bring Goodson back on the cheap to compete with the rookie in camp.

This would mirror what the 49ers had working for them this last year. They were typically a two off-ball linebacker defense. They had Fred Warner in house, a stud who can provide coverage. They ended up playing Dre Greelaw, a rookie 5th rounder, next to him 70+% of the time to act as the guy doing more of the heavy lifting in the running game.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I think Littleton is going to be one of the prized catches in Free Agency, at least at ILB. Potentially a $12-15M/year contract.

Now the problem for the Packers and any other team, is the chicken or the egg enigma. Did Littleton have an incredibly productive 2019 because he is just that good? Or would any linebacker playing behind the Rams DL, which includes 5 time All-Pro DT Aaron Donald put up outstanding numbers? Something Gute is probably trying to figure out.

 

[GleefulGary]

And I look forward to Blake's Defensive Player of the Year Award in 2020 because we couldn't utilize him correctly in Green Bay.

Just when I thought your Beasley take was the pinnacle of stupidity, you come out with this gem.

Bless you.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Just when I thought your Beasley take was the pinnacle of stupidity, you come out with this gem.

Bless you.

Say what you want, I guess this is a free country, as well as a free forum, but you being so damn condescending to other posters doesn't sit well for me.

Just saying.

 

[Dantés]

I think Littleton is going to be one of the prized catches in Free Agency, at least at ILB. Potentially a $12-15M/year contract.

Now the problem for the Packers and any other team, is the chicken or the egg enigma. Did Littleton have an incredibly productive 2019 because he is just that good? Or would any linebacker playing behind the Rams DL, which includes 5 time All-Pro DT Aaron Donald put up outstanding numbers? Something Gute is probably trying to figure out.

His coverage skills are in evidence when you watch him play and I don't see how the DL would influence that. But I know what you're saying.

 

[OldSchool101]

Hey Brent Urban is a crappy defensive tackle but he's 6'7" 300 so he's perfect size for play offensive tackle. Let's pay him to replace Bulaga.

How about TE. He’d be unstoppable if he caught it in stride!

 

[GleefulGary]

Say what you want, I guess this is a free country, as well as a free forum, but you being so damn condescending to other posters doesn't sit well for me.

Just saying.

That's fair.

You should try standing.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

That's fair.

You should try standing.

You mean standing up against an internet bully?

To be clear, you were not "standing" for anything, you were just taking cowardly cheap shots at another poster, because you disagree with him.

 

[GleefulGary]

You mean standing up against an internet bully?

To be clear, you were not "standing" for anything, you were just taking cowardly cheap shots at another poster, because you disagree with him.

Lol. You said it didn't sit well with you, so I said try standing. It was a joke.

And no, I'm not standing up for anything. Cowardly? Nah. Cheap shot? Nah. Rude, jerkish, impolite, yes.

People can, and should, get called out for saying stupid ****. Even an opinion can be dumb.

 

[OldSchool101]

I think its safe to say that the Packers aren't in full rebuild mode and actually may just be a couple of players away from making a serious run at the SB. So the importance of fixing the few glaring holes (ILB, WR, TE, DL) should be viewed as a this year thing. I don't want to see the Packers roll the dice on projects at those positions, unless those projects come cheap and don't need to be relied upon in 2020.

Not only do I agree with this. But I agree so much that if I were asked to play GM tomorrow (don’t worry I’d offer you a position as Chief of Personnel ).. I would be 100% prepared to know what we could reasonably sacrifice from the 2021 draft in order to move into a position to nail our objectives now. Now that said, I’m more thinking a 2021 day 2 futures or combination of a current year day 3 selection to position ourselves nicely up the draft board Thursday or Friday.
Especially if it was to cut in front of MN to an early 20’s pick that we knew would be an immediate impact day 1.

 

[Dantés]

You mean standing up against an internet bully?

To be clear, you were not "standing" for anything, you were just taking cowardly cheap shots at another poster, because you disagree with him.

In fairness, I would say about half of the people who express disagreement with me on this forum do it in a condescending way.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

In fairness, I would say about half of the people who express disagreement with me on this forum do it in a condescending way.

Yup, doesn't make it right and totally not my style, although I admit to stooping down to that level on occasion. For all I know it was *** for tat by those posters, I was just pointing out its not a good look. I don't expect it to change.

 

[GleefulGary]

In fairness, I would say about half of the people who express disagreement with me on this forum do it in a condescending way.

And rightfully so.

 

[Dantés]

Yup, doesn't make it right and totally not my style, although I admit to stooping down to that level on occasion. For all I know it was *** for tat by those posters, I was just pointing out its not a good look. I don't expect it to change.

Also fair.

 

[AmishMafia]

Ross Blaylock

I saw McShay mocked him in the 20s in the first. I was contemplating him in my mock in the 2nd. I guess he is picking up some notice. He lost a year for an Achilles injury which is a huge red flag. Would need the docs to take a close look.

https://thedraftnetwork.com/player/ross-blacklock/t7ydLnDRk4

 

[Dantés]

Ross Blaylock

I saw McShay mocked him in the 20s in the first. I was contemplating him in my mock in the 2nd. I guess he is picking up some notice. He lost a year for an Achilles injury which is a huge red flag. Would need the docs to take a close look.

https://thedraftnetwork.com/player/ross-blacklock/t7ydLnDRk4

IIRC, Jeff Cavanaugh and Brian Brauduss noted him as a strong run defender, especially against zone concepts. Lord knows we need that.

 

[Favre>Rodgers259]

Exactly-- you have no tape to base that on. You're saying that he CAN do something else because you've noticed what he CAN'T do. It's like me watching a receiver who struggles with drops and deciding he can play corner and saying I'm basing it on "tape."

Given how many needs the Packers have to address, and relative limitations to their cap and draft resources, spending 7M+ on a shot in the dark is not even close to worthy. If Gutekunst did that, he should be relieved of his position. That's utterly irresponsible.

And he absolutely can do worse than Blake Martinez. Way worse. I'm not fan of Martinez, nor do I want him back, but there's a good chance that Beasley straight up just can't play the position. Instincts, awareness, and ability to read and react are paramount at this spot. You can't assume that a guy has those things based on height/weight/speed metrics.

Lastly-- you're saying to move him to off ball linebacker because he isn't a fit at edge, and now you're saying that if he doesn't work out at off ball you can just move him back to edge. He would have the exact same issues at 34OLB in our defense that he's had on the edge for Atlanta. You're talking in circles.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear, and for that, I apologize.

1. Beasley has the size and measureables to be a more than capable off ball linebacker. Man coverage IS a question mark. I won't dispute that. But defensive ends occasionally drop into zone for containment of mobile QBs and offenses that run a heavy amount of screens.

2. Beasley is an above average OLB at this point, I don't think he's reached that All-Pro status at that position. I never said he was a bad one, he's just not superior. In a 3-4 defense, he could use his speed to get to the QB if the DE does his job and demands a double team(I understand that we lack that currently). Presently the Packers have no significant pass rusher after the Smiths(I fully expect Fackrell to take a starting job elsewhere). Beasley could at the very least be a DPR for Green Bay and give the Smiths some extra wind over the course of a game.

3. Every year, the NFL Draft is full of players listed at ILB/MLB who are either tweeners(Beasley fits that description to a degree), safeties who don't have the speed for the NFL who could add bulk to their frame(Beasley has done that while still maintaining his 4.5 speed), and other size/speed guys who have no natural position(Let's just say Beasley is still looking for a "home" in the NFL).

4. I agree it is an experiment. But for the right price, Beasley fits that "chess piece" description that Mike Pettine needs in the front seven. He will probably be a 4-3/3-4 OLB at his next team, but I wouldn't be surprised if the next team gave him occasional work inside.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

$7M is a worthy "experiment" in my opinion. He can't do any worse than Blake Martinez, and Blake might fetch $10-13M on the open market. At the very least with his athleticism, we're looking at a guy who will get into the backfield. Pettine can use a Safety(as he as with Greene, Campbell, and Amos) for coverage responsibilities and obvious passing downs which allows Beasley to be a pure rusher.

It's a terrible way to manage the salary cap to sign a player to a deal worth $7 million a season to have him line up at a position he doesn't have any experience in. The Packers don't need another outside linebacker but inside ones capable of excelling in coverage as well defending the run. Beasley doesn't fit the bill.

1. Beasley has the size and measureables to be a more than capable off ball linebacker. Man coverage IS a question mark. I won't dispute that. But defensive ends occasionally drop into zone for containment of mobile QBs and offenses that run a heavy amount of screens.

While it's true that defensive ends or outside linebackers occasionally drop into coverage you definitely don't want them to do it regularly.

2. Beasley is an above average OLB at this point, I don't think he's reached that All-Pro status at that position. I never said he was a bad one, he's just not superior. In a 3-4 defense, he could use his speed to get to the QB if the DE does his job and demands a double team(I understand that we lack that currently). Presently the Packers have no significant pass rusher after the Smiths(I fully expect Fackrell to take a starting job elsewhere). Beasley could at the very least be a DPR for Green Bay and give the Smiths some extra wind over the course of a game.

There's no reason to pay a backup several million bucks a season. If the Packers don't feel confident about Gary moving forward they should draft another outside linebacker capable of providing the Smiths with some rest.

 

[Mondio]

Maybe I didn't make myself clear, and for that, I apologize.

1. Beasley has the size and measureables to be a more than capable off ball linebacker. Man coverage IS a question mark. I won't dispute that. But defensive ends occasionally drop into zone for containment of mobile QBs and offenses that run a heavy amount of screens.

2. Beasley is an above average OLB at this point, I don't think he's reached that All-Pro status at that position. I never said he was a bad one, he's just not superior. In a 3-4 defense, he could use his speed to get to the QB if the DE does his job and demands a double team(I understand that we lack that currently). Presently the Packers have no significant pass rusher after the Smiths(I fully expect Fackrell to take a starting job elsewhere). Beasley could at the very least be a DPR for Green Bay and give the Smiths some extra wind over the course of a game.

3. Every year, the NFL Draft is full of players listed at ILB/MLB who are either tweeners(Beasley fits that description to a degree), safeties who don't have the speed for the NFL who could add bulk to their frame(Beasley has done that while still maintaining his 4.5 speed), and other size/speed guys who have no natural position(Let's just say Beasley is still looking for a "home" in the NFL).

4. I agree it is an experiment. But for the right price, Beasley fits that "chess piece" description that Mike Pettine needs in the front seven. He will probably be a 4-3/3-4 OLB at his next team, but I wouldn't be surprised if the next team gave him occasional work inside.

there's a difference between spending a 3-5th rounder for the "athleticism" to play the position and see if they can develop into that, or paying a nice chunk of cap to see if someone can make a position switch after a good number of years in the NFL.

 

[Favre>Rodgers259]

there's a difference between spending a 3-5th rounder for the "athleticism" to play the position and see if they can develop into that, or paying a nice chunk of cap to see if someone can make a position switch after a good number of years in the NFL.

It's unfortunate the Falcons never did that, so the rest of us would have something to study.

 

[Dantés]

Maybe I didn't make myself clear, and for that, I apologize.

1. Beasley has the size and measureables to be a more than capable off ball linebacker. Man coverage IS a question mark. I won't dispute that. But defensive ends occasionally drop into zone for containment of mobile QBs and offenses that run a heavy amount of screens.

2. Beasley is an above average OLB at this point, I don't think he's reached that All-Pro status at that position. I never said he was a bad one, he's just not superior. In a 3-4 defense, he could use his speed to get to the QB if the DE does his job and demands a double team(I understand that we lack that currently). Presently the Packers have no significant pass rusher after the Smiths(I fully expect Fackrell to take a starting job elsewhere). Beasley could at the very least be a DPR for Green Bay and give the Smiths some extra wind over the course of a game.

3. Every year, the NFL Draft is full of players listed at ILB/MLB who are either tweeners(Beasley fits that description to a degree), safeties who don't have the speed for the NFL who could add bulk to their frame(Beasley has done that while still maintaining his 4.5 speed), and other size/speed guys who have no natural position(Let's just say Beasley is still looking for a "home" in the NFL).

4. I agree it is an experiment. But for the right price, Beasley fits that "chess piece" description that Mike Pettine needs in the front seven. He will probably be a 4-3/3-4 OLB at his next team, but I wouldn't be surprised if the next team gave him occasional work inside.

Here's the thing though-- Beasley's job rushing the passer in Green Bay wouldn't be much different from his role in Atlanta. Because all of the distinctions that you're pointing out are between base defense, which neither team plays much. This is a sub package league. In Atlanta, when he's playing edge, he's an outside rusher in a four man front. In Green Bay, when he would play edge, he's be an outside rusher in a four man front.

 

[gopkrs]

What I read was that Beasley's production has been trending down the past couple years.