Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Packers sign Devin Funchess
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="HardRightEdge" data-source="post: 869714"><p>The plan was to have all three players on the field for nickel/dime, more than what we saw would be a good assumption.</p><p></p><p>It would also be a good assumption they would have liked to Gary sub more for the Smiths more often so those guys would not log 84% snap counts. There were some games where the Smiths looked gassed. There were a couple of situations where Z or P was on the ground, an injury time out was called, walked off the field, sat one play, and bounced back in rather than wave in a replacement for a blow.</p><p></p><p>It's reasonable to think the Packers were hoping for or expecting a 50-60% snap count from Gary, eating into what became Fackrell's 40% snap count, along with more blows for the Smiths. That would have been a decent number of snaps for a rookie edge. First round edge players are often not 3-down players to start with. Also getting 36 out of 36 games from the Smiths should be considered an outlier. A couple of games of injury replacement high snap counts for Gary would have bumped his number higher. </p><p></p><p>In 2016, the one good year the Packers got out of Perry, the numbers looked like this in a 19 game season including playoffs:</p><p></p><p>Perry, 17 of 19 games played, 59% snap count</p><p>Matthews, 15 of 19 games played, 59% snap count</p><p>Peppers, 19 of 19 games played, 57% snap count</p><p>Datone Jones, who was an OLB at that point, 18 of 19 games played, 53% snap count</p><p>Fackrell: 16%</p><p>Elliott: 13%</p><p>Bradford: 1%</p><p></p><p>One thing these defenses have in common is scheming 3 OLBs on the field simultaneously with various roles in various situations on a meaningful number of snaps. Factor in rest rotation and injury replacement and having 3 horses who can play is not a luxury. That Gary didn't turn out to be one in his rookie year is whole other question, with the answer coming in 2020, one way or the other. I don't recall anybody thinking that there was luxury somewhere in the Matthews-Perry-Peppers triad.</p><p></p><p>Aonther so-called Packer luxury pick often cited as a presumed BPA is Nelson, the #4 behind Jennings, Driver and Jones in his rookie year. The Packers were fortunate in getting 32 of 32 games out of Jennings and Driver. However, Jones missed 6 games.</p><p></p><p>That 6 games missed is about what you should expect out of the 3-WR group in a typical year, something I point out this time of year and already have. The picture gets a lot worse if your #1 blows an ACL in camp as happened with Nelson. If your offense is oriented toward winning through the air, depth is not a luxury. I don't recall whether any of the top 3 were in contract years, but that may also have been a factor. Official snap counts were not recorded back in 2008, but I'm sure Nelson got a decent portion with the Jones games missed. Expect this year's #4 to do the same if it is a typical injury year, more if worse than normal.</p><p></p><p>As I recall, few here questioned the Spriggs pick in 2016, a straight up bench player behind to two very good OTs. Bulaga came off a season missing 4 games with an accumulating injury history already to that point. I think most fans appreciated the attempt at risk mitigation. Bakhtiari was entering a contract year. You know what I always say--people like more than one reason behind a decision.</p><p></p><p>If the Packers go high for an OT and go down the board for a WR or some other preferred need in one mind or another, I'm sure there will be some commentary about spending on luxuries. Maybe less so in thinking he'd compete for the starting RT under the perception that Wagner is a step down and a merely adequate replacement for Bulaga. However, Wagner's got an injury history himself which should be appreciated. What seems to be less appreciated is that Bakhtiari is in a contract year.</p><p></p><p>In short, I don't believe in luxury picks beyond the perception of the beholders. The insiders have their need perceptions to one degree or another, which can often be found by scratching below the surface into scheme, injury risk mitigation or contract year risk mitigation.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="HardRightEdge, post: 869714"] The plan was to have all three players on the field for nickel/dime, more than what we saw would be a good assumption. It would also be a good assumption they would have liked to Gary sub more for the Smiths more often so those guys would not log 84% snap counts. There were some games where the Smiths looked gassed. There were a couple of situations where Z or P was on the ground, an injury time out was called, walked off the field, sat one play, and bounced back in rather than wave in a replacement for a blow. It's reasonable to think the Packers were hoping for or expecting a 50-60% snap count from Gary, eating into what became Fackrell's 40% snap count, along with more blows for the Smiths. That would have been a decent number of snaps for a rookie edge. First round edge players are often not 3-down players to start with. Also getting 36 out of 36 games from the Smiths should be considered an outlier. A couple of games of injury replacement high snap counts for Gary would have bumped his number higher. In 2016, the one good year the Packers got out of Perry, the numbers looked like this in a 19 game season including playoffs: Perry, 17 of 19 games played, 59% snap count Matthews, 15 of 19 games played, 59% snap count Peppers, 19 of 19 games played, 57% snap count Datone Jones, who was an OLB at that point, 18 of 19 games played, 53% snap count Fackrell: 16% Elliott: 13% Bradford: 1% One thing these defenses have in common is scheming 3 OLBs on the field simultaneously with various roles in various situations on a meaningful number of snaps. Factor in rest rotation and injury replacement and having 3 horses who can play is not a luxury. That Gary didn't turn out to be one in his rookie year is whole other question, with the answer coming in 2020, one way or the other. I don't recall anybody thinking that there was luxury somewhere in the Matthews-Perry-Peppers triad. Aonther so-called Packer luxury pick often cited as a presumed BPA is Nelson, the #4 behind Jennings, Driver and Jones in his rookie year. The Packers were fortunate in getting 32 of 32 games out of Jennings and Driver. However, Jones missed 6 games. That 6 games missed is about what you should expect out of the 3-WR group in a typical year, something I point out this time of year and already have. The picture gets a lot worse if your #1 blows an ACL in camp as happened with Nelson. If your offense is oriented toward winning through the air, depth is not a luxury. I don't recall whether any of the top 3 were in contract years, but that may also have been a factor. Official snap counts were not recorded back in 2008, but I'm sure Nelson got a decent portion with the Jones games missed. Expect this year's #4 to do the same if it is a typical injury year, more if worse than normal. As I recall, few here questioned the Spriggs pick in 2016, a straight up bench player behind to two very good OTs. Bulaga came off a season missing 4 games with an accumulating injury history already to that point. I think most fans appreciated the attempt at risk mitigation. Bakhtiari was entering a contract year. You know what I always say--people like more than one reason behind a decision. If the Packers go high for an OT and go down the board for a WR or some other preferred need in one mind or another, I'm sure there will be some commentary about spending on luxuries. Maybe less so in thinking he'd compete for the starting RT under the perception that Wagner is a step down and a merely adequate replacement for Bulaga. However, Wagner's got an injury history himself which should be appreciated. What seems to be less appreciated is that Bakhtiari is in a contract year. In short, I don't believe in luxury picks beyond the perception of the beholders. The insiders have their need perceptions to one degree or another, which can often be found by scratching below the surface into scheme, injury risk mitigation or contract year risk mitigation. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
No members online now.
Latest posts
Top 30 Visits 2025
Latest: OldSchool101
Yesterday at 11:55 PM
Draft Talk
The 80th Annual Amish Mafia Draft Contest
Latest: Pokerbrat2000
Yesterday at 11:26 PM
Draft Talk
Always Fun To Read These Stories
Latest: OldSchool101
Yesterday at 11:03 PM
Brett Favre Discussion
Dome over Lambeau?
Latest: gopkrs
Yesterday at 6:17 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Bucks 2024-25 Season Thread
Latest: Voyageur
Yesterday at 3:59 PM
Milwaukee Bucks Forum
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Packers sign Devin Funchess
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top
