Pass Rush in 2017

[Packerbacker222]

Clay should play more outside this year anyways and give the middle to the players they drafted a couple years ago and possibly Biegel. Clay is better there anyways and I think they know it...hopefully. The big thing is keeping him healthy. Elliott should take a leap and be productive.

I believe Ted thinks the pass rush is okay and will be fine, hence the attempt to sign Ego Ferguson and then going to get Francois. They addressed that with him and also believe in Adams as the third round pick. I would certainly think there would be a huge rotation this year on that line to keep players more fresh.

I personally think Ted is done adding pass rushers, but you never know when the roster cuts come.

Also, keep an eye on the camp and preseason of Hundley and Callahan. If Hundley has a good preseason again and can stay healthy, they have a chip there after the season to trade to a QB needy team. I know the 2018 draft class is supposed to be good for QB but you never know.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Clay should play more outside this year anyways and give the middle to the players they drafted a couple years ago and possibly Biegel. Clay is better there anyways and I think they know it...hopefully. The big thing is keeping him healthy. Elliott should take a leap and be productive.

I believe Ted thinks the pass rush is okay and will be fine, hence the attempt to sign Ego Ferguson and then going to get Francois. They addressed that with him and also believe in Adams as the third round pick. I would certainly think there would be a huge rotation this year on that line to keep players more fresh.

The Packers don't have quality depth at outside linebacker therefore adding another veteran to the mix might be a smart move, especially as Matthews and Perry have trouble staying healthy.

 

[pizzle]

I don't understand why you think this. Inside/Middle Linbackers get fewer chances to rush the passer. Putting him inside will give him less sacks. We have history on this: See 2015, when he was primarily an ILB. 6.5 sacks.



Why do you think this? CM was at best, a middling ILB. He's athletic and smart, but he takes false steps and poor reads at times. He disappeared in two games. Against Oakland and Arizona, he was blanked entirely from the stat sheet. Not that total tackles are a good measure of a player, zero from an ILB means something is wrong.

OK-let me break this down extensively. Clay's best year as a pro was probably 2010 (our most recent SB year); as a young outside backer playing with his hair on fire he totaled 54 tackles, 13.5 sacks, 4 passes defended, 2 forced fumbles and 1 pick six INT. In 2012 he had 13 sacks, which garnered him getting his fat contract extension.

There are two Clay's though-the rookie contract Clay and the second contract "hurt" Clay. Since his natural trade is as a pass rusher-let's start with analyzing his production in getting to the QB. Since 2013 he has averaged 7.5 sacks a season. Before 2013-just over 10 and a half. I think the difference is due mainly to his health. It's been up and down over the last few years, and it's been a problem for the defensive continuity in the front seven. I think the other issue has simply been Clay's style of play that I think contributes to his health problems. Think the Tiger Woods swing torque/back problems effect. Clay has good bend, but not Von Miller bend. Matthews has been utilizing a combo of quickness to engage/strike, speed around the edge, and strength to battle men that outweigh him by around 50 pounds on average every Sunday. This has to be taking a toll on him physically, when you do it snap after snap after snap. Then, when you look at how Clay plays, you have to consider the fact that he is going up against pros. They look at game tape/study their opponents too. How many times have we seen an offense run off-tackle for chunks of yards right at him in a two-point up-right stance gearing up to set the edge (yet still getting blown off the LOS) OR the 7 hole opening up right where Clay is screaming past in an attempt to get wide and around a LT. Clay has some moves, but most of them are predicated on speed; he doesn't overpower tackles regularly. He isn't crazy long, and has slightly lost a step from when he was a young bull out of the gate. You can see that offensive lines don't fear Clay as much just from his rushing on the edge; they fear him when they don't know where he is coming from.

So, why is Clay still perceived as a "star"? Well, because he had a year like 2014-his best in my opinion as a Packer. He was forced to play outside on both sides and at MLB due to injuries/production issues in run defense. He answered the bell, amassing 52 tackles (2nd most of his career for a season) 9 passes defended, 2 forced fumbles and 1 INT. He also got 11 sacks. He was all over the field, making plays sideline-to-sideline. He was amazing, even though he was technically playing "out-of-position" often as an inside backer.

Clay's speed and motor make him naturally a fit to be disruptive in the middle of the field. In 2011 and 2015 he made the Pro Bowl off of reputation. But if you look at his play over the years, it has been up and down, because when all he is asked to do is be some sack-meister, you get mixed reviews. But make Clay a factor in the middle of the field, and he is "Claymaker" again. Yes, as an ILB he takes some false steps. But he always has been good at diagnosing pre-snap/reading and reacting, which is the only reason why the coaches felt they could move him inside and it would work in the first place.

I think for Clay, his career can be rejuvenated and lengthened by making a switch to playing 70-75 percent of his snaps inside our 3-4/2-4-5, and then getting the rest on either side of the edge. To me, that would make him like a WILL backer in our scheme. It best accentuates his play style and abilities, while also accommodating his susceptibility to injury. I think he can hold up playing more inside than out; I think Clay is an albatross for as long as GB keeps him around if they think they can just put him at ROLB and expect him to be some premier #1 EDGE guy like Von Miller. He won't even be on the field much, or when it matters most.

For the Packers, it is equally beneficial. Off-the-field, it gives you as an organization the logic behind making Clay take a pay cut. Restructuring his salary could add years to his contract, promising him a chance at competing until he's ready to hang 'em up with the only franchise he's known. It'd also free up salary cap space to be used on other key young guys we need to lock up. It also fortifies the whole "Packer" approach of being for the organization. It seems like Ted and the front office are always looking for players to take discounts to stay in Green Bay for the culture when other teams are throwing $$$ at them during free agency, even if they are producing at a level that would garner them to receive more than market value. Clay has played under market value for years now and is still making #1 EDGE guy in the NFL money. He should be sacrificing for us and not treated like a diva. If it's good enough for everyone else not named Aaron to do, it should be for him. On the field, it makes way too much sense. You get one of, if not your best, front seven players when healthy in the best positions to make plays. On early downs, he can be on the inside, making the run defense and pass defense better with his speed/athleticism traits. Blake or Jake are not Clay, even at this point. They are old-school ILBs-which is fine-but not enough. Jake is a thumper. Blake is more athletic/smaller than Jake with really good instincts/read and reaction traits as an inside backer. Clay is a PLAYMAKER, even with his shortcomings from lack of experience playing inside. He's a better athlete than both of them and is best suited inside at this stage in his career. Jake and Blake playing alongside Clay would also make them that much better. On 3rd/obvious passing downs, you can get creative with Clay, and move him all over. That way, he never gets bored, and feels like the catalyst that he is for the D. The key is trying to keep him in the middle of the field as much as possible, so that he can run sideline-to-sideline without the offense knowing where he is attacking from when he does actually blitz. Clay is deadly shooting through A gaps. If he improves stunting through B gaps from the inside/limits his false steps/improves his fits and cover skills, he could be a top ILB well past his prime, and play alot longer than he may even think he can. He would actually be more productive than he has been because he could be a 60 tackle/7.5 sack/3 FF/5 PD/3 INT-type defender for 3-5 more seasons, the type of athletic inside linebacker we NEED to match up with the offenses in the league now. That would solve alot of problems for us; if we also went out this year and got some veteran pass rush help/make sure to plan a safari trip for elephant-hunting in next year's draft-it means we could go on a Patriot-esque SB run.

 

[Sky King]

Good read, pizzle.

 

[mradtke66]

He was amazing, even though he was technically playing "out-of-position" often as an ILB.

Disagree. He was never amazing as an ILB. He was just better than old and broken Hawk and La-La-Land Jones at ILB. Don't trip over that hig bar.

which is the only reason why the coaches felt they could move him inside and it would work in the first place.

Again, he's not good at ILB, just better than...just read up above.

I think for Clay, his career can be rejuvenated and lengthened by making a switch to playing 70-75 percent of his snaps inside our 3-4/2-4-5, and then getting the rest on either side of the edge. To me, that would make him like a WILL backer in our scheme. It best accentuates his play style and abilities, while also accommodating his susceptibility to injury. I think he can hold up playing more inside than out; I think Clay is an albatross for as long as GB keeps him around if they think they can just put him at ROLB and expect him to be some premier #1 EDGE guy like Von Miller. He won't even be on the field much, or when it matters most.

He would actually be more productive than he has been because he could be a 60 tackle/7.5 sack/3 FF/5 PD/3 INT-type defender for 3-5 more seasons, the type of athletic inside linebacker we NEED to match up with the offenses in the league now. That would solve alot of problems for us; if we also went out this year and got some veteran pass rush help/make sure to plan a safari trip for elephant-hunting in next year's draft-it means we could go on a Patriot-esque SB run.

This is fantasy. You've still not explained why he would excel at ILB when the season he was a primary ILB, all of his stats were down.

An ILB (or 4-3 MIKE/WILL) is there to tackle running backs and drop into coverage. Your numbers are still EDGE numbers. 7 sacks is high for an ILB, 60 tackles low. If he's lost a step, how is he going to be good at coverage, when it was never his strong suit in the first place?

I'm not going to say we have 2010 Matthews, clearly the slip of age has happened, but I think he rumors of his demise are greatly exaggerated.

2015: He was an ILB, so he has fewer rush attempts. This is the biggest part your plan over looks, by the way. ILB is not designed to be a playmaking position. ILBs have run-fit and pass-coverage responsibilities. Other than racking up tackles, it isn't a stat position. It's a boring position, fullback of defense, if you will.

2016, he was hurt. Nicked early and then had a separated shoulder to finish the year. What you've said about him blowing past tackles and trying to win with speed, solely as an ROLB? That's the staff protecting his right shoulder. Normally, he's got a good mix of moves (though to be fair, he sets most of that up with speed) but he didn't use them. Literally all he had was rush-wide and hope.

Might he be done? Sure. He's crossed 30 and it could happen at any time. But right now, we have one down year, 2016. I'm willing to cut him some slack due to the shoulder.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Whether he is an ILB or an OLB, my question/issue with Clay is that it is very hard to predict who you will have for 2017. I don't expect he will play up to his full contract value ($15.075 M), that is almost a given, but the Packers have to ask themselves, "will he play up to his contract over the dead cap hit ($10.6M) to warrant keeping him?" Cutting him saves the Packers $10.6 M....that is a lot of coin that could be used going forward. I'm still not sold that he is that great as an ILB (especially $10.6M great), he may have a better chance at getting a sack playing inside, but at what cost is the defense paying by getting an additional sack or two if Clay is vacating the other duties of an ILB? I think both Ryan and Martinez are on the uptick as ILB's and need to keep getting most of the snaps. If they want to stunt Clay inside on obvious pass plays fine, but if he is still on the team come September, barring an injury to Ryan or Martinez, I hope it is as an OLB.

The best solution is a restructuring of his contract, one that reflects his last few years production but provides incentives to Clay to earn back the amounts he was being paid as a top OLB in the NFL.

 

[mradtke66]

There's also a much simpler option: Just move Matthews to LOLB for most of the time. If Perry is the future and Clay the past, feature Perry on the right. He'll get slightly more rushes out of base and face the theoretical best pass blocking tackles.

If Matthews is to be an 8 sack a year guy, put him at the position where 8 sacks a year ain't that bad.

 

[rmontro]

A lot of people are down on Clay, but the defense seems to suffer when he is not on the field. He has to be accounted for.

Personally, I think he's better on the inside, because he can't seem to stay healthy outside anymore, plus he isn't quite as effective as a pass rusher anymore anyway. Neither the inside or outside is particularly strong without him, so pick your poison. I know ILB isn't a "big money" position, and he probably isn't thrilled about playing there, but I think that's where the Packers get the most bang for the buck out of him. Moving him around here and there, of course.

 

[pizzle]

Disagree. He was never amazing as an ILB. He was just better than old and broken Hawk and La-La-Land Jones at ILB. Don't trip over that hig bar.


This is fantasy. You've still not explained why he would excel at ILB when the season he was a primary ILB, all of his stats were down.


An ILB (or 4-3 MIKE/WILL) is there to tackle running backs and drop into coverage. Your numbers are still EDGE numbers. 7 sacks is high for an ILB, 60 tackles low. If he's lost a step, how is he going to be good at coverage, when it was never his strong suit in the first place?


2015: He was an ILB, so he has fewer rush attempts. This is the biggest part your plan over looks, by the way. ILB is not designed to be a playmaking position. ILBs have run-fit and pass-coverage responsibilities. Other than racking up tackles, it isn't a stat position. It's a boring position, fullback of defense, if you will.

I think Clay was a great defensive player in 2014, where most of his work was done as a psuedo ILB that rushed outside regularly. If you see it otherwise, then that's you. I thought what he accomplished that season was amazing.

And I did actually explain why he would excel as an ILB. I said he would cause havoc for an offensive gameplan by being able to make plays sideline-to-sideline. In 2015 and 2016, Clay had health issues. I think in '15 Clay also just didn't have a good season statistically (which is another issue I have with him being paid like he is when his production doesn't match) but I don't equate it to the inside backer vs outside backer thing.



I think you may need to take a look at some things. Like this:

http://www.dawgsbynature.com/2011/4/18/2110445/draft-terminology-the-sam-mike-and-will-linebackers

"Will
The Will linebacker is usually the most athletic of the three linebackers in a 4-3. He usually doesn't have to be as big or physical as the other two because he typically won't see as many immediate blocks from offensive linemen as the Mike or the Sam and because he won't have to deal with a Tight End as often."

If you look at teams like Seattle/Atlanta, they have alot of hybrid positions designated between the weakside DE, SAM and WILL backer positions that allow them to use multiple fronts, from either 3-4, 4-3, or 4-2-5 looks. I think the reason for this is simple, to get different type of pass rushers on the field. The WILL backer position can be just as much a premier pass rushing position as a position that you want someone who can cover/tackle RBs.

Furthermore, confusing your opponent is the goal. What better way to do that than to have a player in a position where you think he is prone to do one thing, and then he does another? Prime example-Week 17 vs the Lions for the division this past season. There was a play where Clay lined up in his usual outside LB spot, but as the ball was hiked he took a curving angle back into the middle of the field, almost "wheeling" his way into coverage sneakily like an ILB. He was in perfect position to pick off a throw by Stafford, but he flat out dropped it. However, that was the type of play Clay is capable of making on a consistent basis, especially when Dom is innovative in his approach/doesn't let tradition dictate how to use his players. I also think if Clay was deprogrammed once and for all and started thinking of himself as an all-around LB who can affect the game in more ways than just edge-rushing, he will tap into his true full potential as a player.




Also, take a look at this:

https://www.profootballfocus.com/defensive-prototypes-linebackers/

"4-3 WILL Linebacker (OLB) – Sean Weatherspoon

The weak side linebacker is the glamour spot in the 4-3. Things are geared for this guy to fly to the football and make plays. Typically the SAM will take care of the first lead blocker, the MIKE linebacker cleans up any other blocks and the WILL linebacker can just penetrate and make a play on the football. The WILL therefore is usually the quickest, most explosive of the 4-3 linebackers."

Simply put, ILBs in a textbook 3-4 are your bigger guys that might fit the mold you described-non-playmakers. But, remember what we're dealing with here as a defense in GB. We have gotten torched up the middle of the field, and then down the field deep on the outside once we get softened up for multiple seasons now by offenses running 10, 11 and 12 personnel formations where they are isolating our slower ILBs in man/finding the soft-spot against our slower ILBs who aren't able to drop fast enough in zone coverage. Teams like Pittsburgh who run a scheme that is somewhat similar to ours have been drafting and developing ILBs with speed FOR YEARS (i.e. Lawrence Timmons, Ryan Shazier) to combat the pass-heavy teams they face. Look at San Francisco. Look at Arizona. Look at Seattle. They don't play slow LBs if they can help it. It don't matter if we're talking inside or out, you gotta have good athletes or you're gonna get exposed. Which is what has been happening to us.

This is why I disagree with your assessment on what an "ILB" can be for the GB defense moving forward. By putting Clay inside permanently as a quasi-WILL backer, he could be a big playmaker that is utilized heavily to rush, but also is athletic enough to cover some backs and tight ends in man/drop into coverage and get some INTs. Alongside a big MIKE in Ryan, and two stout OLBs in Perry and (for the sake of it Ahmad Brooks) Clay could have much more freedom to pass rush. That's how his numbers could easily be what I prognosticated. He would become the disruptive force that also is more consistent in his ability to affect opponents' offenses, simply because he is in the middle of the field where the action is instead of being pigeon-holed into one spot that he can be game-planned easier for. Not to mention, he will prolly be healthier since he will be able to actually play somewhat cleaner since he will be off the ball more. My plan did not overlook anything. It actually is something I think Dom would like to do, because if he didn't Clay would have never been allowed to line up inside a few years ago. The coaching staff has already been trying to groom Clay for this, if you ask me. I think Dom is just hindered right now by what he has at his disposal. If we could add Dumervil and Brooks to the roster, then we would be in position to finally put Clay inside for good and let him roam. Putting up "EDGE" numbers from the inside would make him a stalwart Pro-Bowler/lock for the HOF, and if the starting EDGE guys we had were still getting around 7 sacks apiece we would have a nasty pass rush that would scare the beejeezus out of O-Lines and QBs. I think you need to look at what is going on in the modern game now, and what we need as a defense, in order to understand...

 

[pizzle]

There's also a much simpler option: Just move Matthews to LOLB for most of the time. If Perry is the future and Clay the past, feature Perry on the right. He'll get slightly more rushes out of base and face the theoretical best pass blocking tackles.

If Matthews is to be an 8 sack a year guy, put him at the position where 8 sacks a year ain't that bad.

Unfortunately, for the way our defense is to ideally work-that isn't a good idea. Perry is what you want as a LOLB whether there are 2 or 3 down lineman. Offenses usually favor running to their right, or the defense's left, on average. Some teams probably favor the opposite, but I wouldn't know who they are/what the reasoning is behind it besides they have a really good LG and a LT that likes to run-block. To me, Nick Perry's best attribute is honestly how he sets the edge in the run-game. He is like a tree-trunk. If a team runs 5 times to his side, 4 times they are gonna not have a clean edge. 2 out of those 4 Nick will prolly be there right at the LOS to stop the ball-carrier for little to no gain. You ideally want Nick to stay there and compliment him with a speedy, bendy rusher on the right to get to the QB's back side quickly-while he's looking at Nick's big behind coming right for him.

 

[mradtke66]

If you look at teams like Seattle/Atlanta, they have alot of hybrid positions designated between the weakside DE, SAM and WILL backer positions that allow them to use multiple fronts, from either 3-4, 4-3, or 4-2-5 looks. I think the reason for this is simple, to get different type of pass rushers on the field. The WILL backer position can be just as much a premier pass rushing position as a position that you want someone who can cover/tackle RBs.

Except that's not how WILL backers are used. And there is very little pseudo-WILL. The ILBs in Caper's scheme, called MACK and BUCK are basically a MIKE and WILL analog, though I always forget which which is which.

Furthermore, confusing your opponent is the goal. What better way to do that than to have a player in a position where you think he is prone to do one thing, and then he does another? Prime example-Week 17 vs the Lions for the division this past season. There was a play where Clay lined up in his usual outside LB spot, but as the ball was hiked he took a curving angle back into the middle of the field, almost "wheeling" his way into coverage sneakily like an ILB. He was in perfect position to pick off a throw by Stafford, but he flat out dropped it. However, that was the type of play Clay is capable of making on a consistent basis, especially when Dom is innovative in his approach/doesn't let tradition dictate how to use his players. I also think if Clay was deprogrammed once and for all and started thinking of himself as an all-around LB who can affect the game in more ways than just edge-rushing, he will tap into his true full potential as a player.

As a change up, this works great. But you're designing the curtains of your defense before you've built the foundation.

"4-3 WILL Linebacker (OLB) – Sean Weatherspoon

The weak side linebacker is the glamour spot in the 4-3. Things are geared for this guy to fly to the football and make plays. Typically the SAM will take care of the first lead blocker, the MIKE linebacker cleans up any other blocks and the WILL linebacker can just penetrate and make a play on the football. The WILL therefore is usually the quickest, most explosive of the 4-3 linebackers."

Sure, but athletic in terms of pass coverage and clean up in the running game. As the definition you linked outlines, the MIKE blows up the fullback, the WILL cleans up.

Prototypical WILL backers are in the 230 range. Matthews, is oversized at 255-ish and doesn't have the same kind of athleticism that a typical WILL does.

This is why I disagree with your assessment on what an "ILB" can be for the GB defense moving forward. By putting Clay inside permanently as a quasi-WILL backer, he could be a big playmaker that is utilized heavily to rush, but also is athletic enough to cover some backs and tight ends in man/drop into coverage and get some INTs.

Why do you think this will happen? He's not a great coverage player. Also, if he's the weak-ILB, he'd be aligned away from the TE most of the time.

Alongside a big MIKE in Ryan,

You do realize that Ryan and Matthews are the same height and Matthews is about 15 pounds heavier, right?

And that Ryan's 40 time was ever-so-slightly better than Matthews? (4.67 vs. 4.61)

and two stout OLBs in Perry and (for the sake of it Ahmad Brooks) Clay could have much more freedom to pass rush.

No, no, no. That's not how it works.

The standard NFL rush is 4 guys. More than 4 guys is blitz. In base, the standard 4 guys would be your 3 down lineman and the OLB away from the TE. In nickel, it's both OLBs and the 2 down linemen.

Of course, you have the occasional cute/disguise call where an ILB goes and both OLBs drop, but that's a change up.

And of course, you can send extra rushers. The entire NFL blitzes, ie sends 5 or more guys about 30% of the time. And that's all extra rushers. That's the cross-fire A-gaps that Capers loves, that's the nickel corner, that's the occasional safety blitz.

If you put Matthews at ILB you reduce his chances to rush significantly. Full stop.

It actually is something I think Dom would like to do, because if he didn't Clay would have never been allowed to line up inside a few years ago. The coaching staff has already been trying to groom Clay for this, if you ask me. I think Dom is just hindered right now by what he has at his disposal.

But why? The scheme is built around the OLBs being the playmakers.

If we could add Dumervil and Brooks to the roster, then we would be in position to finally put Clay inside for good and let him roam.

As a standard defense, no one "roams" anymore. You need to get that idea out of your head.

Any player at ILB has to do his basic job first. On running plays, he needs to have good fits to force favorable down-and-distance situations. I have stated and you agreed he takes false steps. Thus he is not optimal at this job.

On pass plays, an ILB has pass coverage responsibilities. Against base personnel, the weak ILB probably draws the tailback, because like you said, he's the athlete. WOLB rushes, SOLB would take the TE, SILB would take the FB, WILB gets the RB. In nickel, SILB takes the TE, WILB takes the RB. And just like that, the opportunity for rushing goes away. Worse, now you've stuck Matthews, who isn't a particularly good coverage guy, with potentially the trickiest coverage job of all the linebackers.

An ILB that roams ruins the integrity of the defense. If Matthews is good enough to violate gap integrity but cover it up with athletic amazingness, then he has enough chutzpah to be an edge rusher.

I'd like Timmons/Shazier at ILB. But Matthews isn't that guy. He's never shown us to be that guy. As an alternative, the Packers seem to be emphasizing coverage by bringing up a Safety as the other ILB in obvious passing downs.

 

[pizzle]

You do realize that Ryan and Matthews are the same height and Matthews is about 15 pounds heavier, right?

And that Ryan's 40 time was ever-so-slightly better than Matthews? (4.67 vs. 4.61)

I see that both are listed around 6'2" 240. In pads to me Jake looks 6'3" 250, Martinez 6'1" 230. But whatever. Clay is clearly heavier, true, but out of the three to me he has the best lateral movement. Martinez does have a nice first step and covers the flats well, but I think #52 could be just as good/better if he saw being inside less as a chore and more of a challenge to master.

As a standard defense, no one "roams" anymore. You need to get that idea out of your head.

Then what is the "spy" technique used for when a team doesn't have a mobile QB-since I've seen it used when a team has a signal-caller that can't move? And why do teams still run variations of "Tampa 2", then? And why is Earl Thomas lauded for his ability as a single-high safety, then?

On pass plays, an ILB has pass coverage responsibilities. Against base personnel, the weak ILB probably draws the tailback, because like you said, he's the athlete. WOLB rushes, SOLB would take the TE, SILB would take the FB, WILB gets the RB. In nickel, SILB takes the TE, WILB takes the RB. And just like that, the opportunity for rushing goes away. Worse, now you've stuck Matthews, who isn't a particularly good coverage guy, with potentially the trickiest coverage job of all the linebackers.

An ILB that roams ruins the integrity of the defense. If Matthews is good enough to violate gap integrity but cover it up with athletic amazingness, then he has enough chutzpah to be an edge rusher.

I will just focus on our D and not the typical 4-3/3-4. I hardly EVER see Nick dropping, and I consider him as a "SOLB"-type in our defense as the LOLB. He has horrible coverage skills, is lumbering, and usually gives up a first down pass play to a RB out of the flat when he is called to drop. I don't think I've ever seen him cover a TE besides maybe give them a chuck and then get to rushing. Clay, however, is the one I have seen in man and carry TEs through the red zone/drop into deep third zones and try to thwart a receiver. I think Dom kinda changes things up based on his personnel. Additionally, the reason why we run so much base nickel (and play so much dime/have started bringing in Morgan as a "money" backer to play inside) is because the coaches have wanted a DB to cover TEs and not our linebackers, inside or outside, as much as possible. I will agree with you that as a WILB, Clay's responsibility has in the past/would be in the future to play the RB. Sometimes I've seen him do it well, others he's gotten toasted. But I think he can improve enough to the point where if he became more competent as a real ILB and not be a liability in terms of gap integrity/zone responsibility, his athleticism and instincts would give us the equivalent of a very poor man's Patrick Willis mixed in with the soul of a pass rusher. The kicker is he would not necessarily even "line up inside" on a good amount of late passing downs; he'd get to be like a "Joker" for the defense. He might line up next to Joe Thomas or Morgan Burnett as an ILB but blitz in any one of 2 gaps on each side, he might start in the middle but right before the snap lurch out to either one of the C gaps and attack like an EDGE, he might start at the EDGE and wheel back inside/cover the flat/spy/cover a deep third, or he might just be the lone wolf in the middle getting his Ray Lewis impersonation on. The point is, the possibilities are endless if we start with a foundation of keeping Clay inside more than keeping him outside. From what he has shown over the years on the field, good and bad, along with the state of the defense/how it could help the franchise business-wise, it is well worth it.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Clay's speed and motor make him naturally a fit to be disruptive in the middle of the field. In 2011 and 2015 he made the Pro Bowl off of reputation. But if you look at his play over the years, it has been up and down, because when all he is asked to do is be some sack-meister, you get mixed reviews. But make Clay a factor in the middle of the field, and he is "Claymaker" again. Yes, as an ILB he takes some false steps. But he always has been good at diagnosing pre-snap/reading and reacting, which is the only reason why the coaches felt they could move him inside and it would work in the first place.

While moving Matthews to inside linebacker might help him stay healthy the Packers defense won't benefit from the move as he is an average player at the position at best. In addition you completely ignore the team would have to start either Elliott, Fackrell or Biegel at right outside linebacker which most likely would result in a huge downgrade at the position.

A lot of people are down on Clay, but the defense seems to suffer when he is not on the field. He has to be accounted for.

While opponents still have to account for Matthews they hardly double team him anymore though.

 

[pizzle]

While moving Matthews to inside linebacker might help him stay healthy the Packers defense won't benefit from the move as he is an average player at the position at best. In addition you completely ignore the team would have to start either Elliott, Fackrell or Biegel at right outside linebacker which most likely would result in a huge downgrade at the position.

The key is obviously grabbing 2 high-quality vet street agents (one who is available now, one whom we would hope will eventually become a cap casualty) in Elvis and Ahmad. I think they complement our scheme well. Elvis has made a career off of getting to the QB, and is probably still better at it than Nick is, or in the ballpark range. So subbing Nick out for Elvis is not a drop-off at all, in my eyes. It's like bringing in a fastball pitcher for a knuckle-baller. Then Brooks solidifies everything, the LB core, our front seven, the whole D and their outlook/mentality. He's a tough guy and has shown how good he is throughout his time as a 49er, specifically when we couldn't get past them a few years back. Could set the edge and get pressure to satisfy our needs at the position. Has playoff experience as well, which is big to me. He would be great as an early down enforcer, who will not only be productive stats-wise but also be a leader on-the-field when it comes to making sure everyone is assignment sound and accountable. We don't necessarily need locker-room leaders because we have enough character guys on our squad. We just need guys who can produce. Guys on defense that are gonna be physical. Brooks is that. He puts Clay where he needs to be. I don't believe #52 is a top EDGE guy anymore for a multitude of reasons, and shouldn't be paid like one. However, Clay can be a really good ILB for quite a few years, and even make some more pro bowls. We win a SB this year with him doing that/us grabbing the two vets, and then we could restructure his contract (along with Aaron's contract retooling/raise) to help the cash out of Davante, Corey, Lane, and HHCD. Plus, it still leaves room for Jayrone, Kyler, and Biegel to get reps and show what they're worth. Ted has got to grab these guys if we're gonna get past teams like Dallas, Atlanta, and ultimately NE to win it all this season.

I said that in an earlier post you must not have read. I want the Packers to sign Elvis Dumervil to "back-up" Nick and Ahmad Brooks when/if the 49ers cut him to start in front of Jayrone and Kyler. Then we could move Clay inside permanently and be set

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I said that in an earlier post you must not have read. I want the Packers to sign Elvis Dumervil to "back-up" Nick and Ahmad Brooks when/if the 49ers cut him to start in front of Jayrone and Kyler. Then we could move Clay inside permanently and be set

Well, you wanting the Packers to sign Dumervil and Brooks, who is still under contract with the Niners, doesn't mean Thompson will bring in another veteran outside linebacker. Therefore I'm evaluating the position based on the players currently on the roster.

In addition that doesn't change anything about Matthews only being a mediocre inside linebacker by any means.

 

[pizzle]

Well, you wanting the Packers to sign Dumervil and Brooks, who is still under contract with the Niners, doesn't mean Thompson will bring in another veteran outside linebacker. Therefore I'm evaluating the position based on the players currently on the roster.

In addition that doesn't change anything about Matthews only being a mediocre inside linebacker by any means.

I kinda already went over that-you should take a look at posts from a few hours ago. It's late/early in the am so I don't want to rehash something I already spent alot of time on. I think Clay should be playing inside, and would rejuvenate himself/find his true self inside. Kinda like becoming a Super Saiyan, lol... But if Ted doesn't bring in a quality vet OLB, it doesn't matter what I think anyway, because that will mean it's Clay and Nick or bust. For the defense and our Super Bowl chances.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I kinda already went over that-you should take a look at posts from a few hours ago. It's late/early in the am so I don't want to rehash something I already spent alot of time on. I think Clay should be playing inside, and would rejuvenate himself/find his true self inside.

I read your posts over the past few hours within this thread but I simply don't agree with your take about Matthews being an above average inside linebacker though.

 

[pizzle]

I read your posts over the past few hours within this thread but I simply don't agree with your take about Matthews being an above average inside linebacker though.

Well mate, I guess we just disagree then. Like I just said, it's a moot point unless we get Dumervil AND Brooks. We need both. If Ted is rolling with the linebacker core as is going into the season, I am essentially already going to not expect a Super Bowl run. It'll be just like all these past years-the story of the GB Packers in 2017 will be battling a brutal schedule/injuries/being the "perennial big dogs" to right the ship in time to capture another divisional crown. Then we'll limp/scrape our way into the playoffs and ultimately get smoked by a team like Dallas/Atlanta/Carolina. The two most important things in the NFL? 1) Get a QB 2) GET 2 the QB. We got the QB, but if we don't add Dumervil and Brooks to our roster, I don't believe we will be able to get to the QB enough to be a real Super Bowl contender. Which is sad tbh, because our offense will prolly look magical at times this year, and the young DB unit just might shore up to give us a Top 5-10 pass defense.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Well mate, I guess we just disagree then. Like I just said, it's a moot point unless we get Dumervil AND Brooks. We need both. If Ted is rolling with the linebacker core as is going into the season, I am essentially already going to not expect a Super Bowl run. It'll be just like all these past years-the story of the GB Packers in 2017 will be battling a brutal schedule/injuries/being the "perennial big dogs" to right the ship in time to capture another divisional crown. Then we'll limp/scrape our way into the playoffs and ultimately get smoked by a team like Dallas/Atlanta/Carolina. The two most important things in the NFL? 1) Get a QB 2) GET 2 the QB. We got the QB, but if we don't add Dumervil and Brooks to our roster, I don't believe we will be able to get to the QB enough to be a real Super Bowl contender. Which is sad tbh, because our offense will prolly look magical at times this year, and the young DB unit just might shore up to give us a Top 5-10 pass defense.

I agree that I would feel better about the Packers' pass rush if the team would add another veteran edge rusher with Dumervil currently being the best one available. In addition I'm still concerned about the cornerback position even after adding King in the second round of the draft.

 

[pizzle]

I agree that I would feel better about the Packers' pass rush if the team would add another veteran edge rusher with Dumervil currently being the best one available. In addition I'm still concerned about the cornerback position even after adding King in the second round of the draft.

I wouldn't worry about the CBs. 1) R&R are gonna bounce back like Davante did this past year 2) We signed House-he knows our system and has alot to prove on a 1 year deal 3) Gunter is gonna be as hungry as he was trying to make the team since he caught so much flack on social media for Julio Jones lighting it up in our last game, and he's actually a good player that is just slow 4) Josh Jones is gonna be a combination of a faster, more athletic Micah Hyde with the hitting ability of HHCD-which is kinda scary 5) King is going to be a Day 1 starter, and be pretty good I think 6) Joe Whitt, Jr. is not gonna let his unit be the scapegoat again this season. That room is gonna be an incubator-unless we are keeping teams under 20 points/250 yards passing (which we won't) he will be in their ***** constantly on technique

The secondary will be fine. Like I said, they are gonna look good and statistically appear to give us a nice D, but the issue is gonna be our pass rush. If Clay/Nick miss any time we are gonna be painfully thin at the OLB position, unless we grab some vets. I think not giving Peppers a 2 yr $10-$12 million swan song is gonna bite us in the butt BIG-TIME. We made Matt Barkley and Kirk Cousins look like HOFers last year, and alot of that had to do with the fact that our pass rush was alot worse than it appeared. Sure, we were tied for 6th in sacks in the NFL, but I watched pretty much every game last year, and there were a bunch of garbage time/meaningless sacks that made that number what it was. When we were losing, and when it mattered most, our pass rush was non-existent. Now, we don't have two of our top rotational guys-and the guys we relied on to play a specific subpackage. I don't see Nick and Jayrone being able to inside rush in dime like JP and Datone did, and unless the rook from Auburn and Dean Lowry prove effective as replacements, it means we kinda are limiting Dom to what he can throw at teams. I just don't like how predictable our 2-4-5 look is to offenses. I think the league has figured it out, and the only way to combat that is to literally have better players. But Ted is only giving Dom backend help. Our pass rush is in trouble...

 

[Reese2017]

Pixie dust and lucky charms? Hope to see this sprite at camp every day.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

Ted's plan is probably continued (hopeful) development of Clark, Price, Lawry. Fackrell, Elliot, Ryan, Martinez with continued or returned health of Clay and Perry. I expect at least 3 of those to disappoint with another 2-3 wiped out by injury. IOW just like every other season.

I think price will be a stud ten snaps against the lions I say look out nfl

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I wouldn't worry about the CBs. 1) R&R are gonna bounce back like Davante did this past year 2) We signed House-he knows our system and has alot to prove on a 1 year deal 3) Gunter is gonna be as hungry as he was trying to make the team since he caught so much flack on social media for Julio Jones lighting it up in our last game, and he's actually a good player that is just slow 4) Josh Jones is gonna be a combination of a faster, more athletic Micah Hyde with the hitting ability of HHCD-which is kinda scary 5) King is going to be a Day 1 starter, and be pretty good I think 6) Joe Whitt, Jr. is not gonna let his unit be the scapegoat again this season. That room is gonna be an incubator-unless we are keeping teams under 20 points/250 yards passing (which we won't) he will be in their ***** constantly on technique.

I'm not that optimistic about the cornerbacks currently on the roster at all. The position group was absolutely terrible last season and while Thompson added House and King there's reason to believe that Davon is an average player at best and that it will take the rookie some time to develop into an impact CB at the pro level. While it's possible Randall, Rollins and Gunter bounce back in a hige way the team relies on it happening way too much in my opinion.

 

[mradtke66]

Then what is the "spy" technique used for when a team doesn't have a mobile QB-since I've seen it used when a team has a signal-caller that can't move?

It's a situational playcall, nothing more. (Though certain quarterbacks require more of it run.) It also takes away a cover or blitz man if you spy.

And why do teams still run variations of "Tampa 2", then?

How does a zone coverage with clearly defined coverage responsibilities have anything to do with a roaming blitzer?

And why is Earl Thomas lauded for his ability as a single-high safety, then?

How does a deep-middle safety have anything to do with this conversation?

I will just focus on our D and not the typical 4-3/3-4. I hardly EVER see Nick dropping, and I consider him as a "SOLB"-type in our defense as the LOLB. He has horrible coverage skills, is lumbering, and usually gives up a first down pass play to a RB out of the flat when he is called to drop. I don't think I've ever seen him cover a TE besides maybe give them a chuck and then get to rushing. Clay, however, is the one I have seen in man and carry TEs through the red zone/drop into deep third zones and try to thwart a receiver.

Better than Perry does not mean "good." It just means "Better than Perry." Like you said, Perry isn't very good at it.

I will agree with you that as a WILB, Clay's responsibility has in the past/would be in the future to play the RB. Sometimes I've seen him do it well, others he's gotten toasted. But I think he can improve enough to the point where if he became more competent as a real ILB and not be a liability in terms of gap integrity/zone responsibility,

Matthews will get better, at his non-native position at 30? How likely is that?

his athleticism and instincts would give us the equivalent of a very poor man's Patrick Willis mixed in with the soul of a pass rusher.

But he has bad ILB instincts. That's what false-steps mean.

The kicker is he would not necessarily even "line up inside" on a good amount of late passing downs; he'd get to be like a "Joker" for the defense. He might line up next to Joe Thomas or Morgan Burnett as an ILB but blitz in any one of 2 gaps on each side, he might start in the middle but right before the snap lurch out to either one of the C gaps and attack like an EDGE,

Okay, but who are you taking out of the rush? Or do you honestly expect to rush 5 on a very regular basis? Are you trying to give up more passing yards?

he might start at the EDGE and wheel back inside/cover the flat/spy/

He does that now. Standard, infrequent OLB responsibilities.

cover a deep third,

I'm sorry, what? You've completely lost me. A deep third? You want to move a aging linebacker from his natural position, due to slipping athleticism, to a position where he would have responsibilities that require athleticism beyond what he hand 4 years ago?

Sir, I'm sorry, but have you gone mad?

 

[rmontro]

While opponents still have to account for Matthews they hardly double team him anymore though.

Still, the defense seems to play better with him on the field, wherever he is.

 

[pizzle]

How does a zone coverage with clearly defined coverage responsibilities have anything to do with a roaming blitzer?

As a standard defense, no one "roams" anymore. You need to get that idea out of your head.

You claimed no one "roams" on defense anymore. I was just trying to show you that statement didn't make any sense. What do you think Troy Polamalu, Charles Woodson, and Ray Lewis are revered for? Or like I said before, what is Earl Thomas revered for being able to do in the Seahawks STANDARD D, where in certain situations (especially in the back end) THEY DON'T SWITCH THEIR DEFENSIVE LOOKS AT ALL AND PLAY STRAIGHT UP BALL, WITH THOMAS DEEPER THAN ANY OTHER FS IN THE LEAGUE AND SINGLE HIGH?

Clay Matthews has even been asked at times to "roam" by Dom Capers in dime, whether it be to cover the middle of the field, spy, or to perform a delayed/staggered blitz. If you don't consider nickel and dime defenses as standard, when the percentages they are played by NFL teams rises every year, then you must not know what you're watching, pal.

I'm sorry, what? You've completely lost me. A deep third? You want to move a aging linebacker from his natural position, due to slipping athleticism, to a position where he would have responsibilities that require athleticism beyond what he hand 4 years ago?

Sir, I'm sorry, but have you gone mad?

Either you didn't understand what I initially meant, or you're taking my words out of context deliberately.

This is what I stated:

I will just focus on our D and not the typical 4-3/3-4. I hardly EVER see Nick dropping, and I consider him as a "SOLB"-type in our defense as the LOLB. He has horrible coverage skills, is lumbering, and usually gives up a first down pass play to a RB out of the flat when he is called to drop. I don't think I've ever seen him cover a TE besides maybe give them a chuck and then get to rushing. Clay, however, is the one I have seen in man and carry TEs through the red zone/drop into deep third zones and try to thwart a receiver. I think Dom kinda changes things up based on his personnel.

I meant that there have been a number of occasions over the years on 3rd and very long that I have seen Clay, from either the OLB or ILB spot, drop into coverage and be nearly 7-15 yards downfield right around the area where one or two DBs and a receiver are competing for a ball. That is regardless of whether his initial drop was only to take him 5-7, or 7-10 yards from the LOS. And just because that happens in a game once or twice doesn't mean Clay is just totally ignoring the scheme assignment/not doing what Dom asked him to do. FOOTBALL IS NOT A SPORT PLAYED BY ROBOTS, at least not yet. It is also not executed by coaches; it is game-planned by coaches to be executed by PLAYERS. And things happen in real life, just like on the gridiron. I'm sure if Clay was near the play after the ball was just about to be obviously thrown near the first down marker, there are some scenarios where even if technically he might not receive a plus grade, he may not get a minus either/get chewed out for not being in his 5-7 drop zone when the action just happened to be 4 yards past that. Stop trying to troll with the "are you mad" comments. That's called sneak-dissing.