Reasons for why the Packers should continue to play Matthews at ILB

[Pkrjones]

Maybe the extended 5 game preseason is a blessing in disguise as it gives the young guys (incl. backup OLB's) more extensive playing time. The vets will be given ample rest to assure they're ready for the regular season.

 

[Ace]

I think with 2 reasonable years left on his contract. A team in need of a OLB would give a 1st rounder for him... that 4 years of rookie contract could become a huge value as well. If the 1st round pick happens to be good.

You're saying a 1st Rd pick for Clay AND you're wanting someone to take on the $26M+ in cap hits over those final 2 years of his deal? Good Luck with that.

 

[Pkrjones]

You're saying a 1st Rd pick for Clay AND you're wanting someone to take on the $26M+ in cap hits over those final 2 years of his deal? Good Luck with that.

I believe the trade situation tossed out was after the 2016 (Super Bowl) season in which CM3 was still "at the top of his game"

GB would take a $4.1Mil dead money hit, the other team would give up the high draft pick AND take on CM3's salary/roster/workout bonuses for 2017 ($11.1Mil) and 2018 ($11.4Mil).

 

[HardRightEdge]

Interesting read by Pro Football Focus about why the Packers should think about lining up Clay at inside linebacker this season.

https://www.profootballfocus.com/pro-clay-matthews-move-back-to-olb-could-be-negative-for-green-bay/

I'll say this much: I would expect to see Matthews getting some snaps inside in nickel on passing downs as a blitzer. Blitzing was the most natural and effective thing he did from inside. The fact he's spent a year and half at the position, it would not be readily obvious to the opponent of the intent: Filling in for somebody who got dinged? The Packers liked a matchup in coverage (somebody not particularly speedy we'd assume?) Come to think of it, those might be other occasional valid reasons to move him inside if somebody (presumably Perry as the top candidate) emerges as an effective edge rusher in his place.

Other than that, it would take both Perry's emergence along with some noticeable failing or injury at ILB to see it happen again on a regular basis.

So, rather than think about it as a preferred starting point as the writer suggests, which will not happen barring multiple injuries at the position, I'd leave open that possibility if circumstances dictate.

 

[PikeBadger]

I'll say this much: I would expect to see Matthews getting some snaps inside in nickel on passing downs as a blitzer. Blitzing was the most natural and effective thing he did from inside. The fact he's spent a year and half at the position, it would not be readily obvious to the opponent of the intent: Filling in for somebody who got dinged? The Packers liked a matchup in coverage (somebody not particularly speedy we'd assume? Come to think of it, those might be other occasional valid reasons to move him inside if somebody (presumably Perry as the top candidate) emerges as an effective edge rusher in his place.

Other than that, it would take both Perry's emergence along with some noticeable failing or injury at ILB to see it happen again on a regular basis.

So, rather than think about it as a preferred starting point as the writer suggests, which will not happen barring multiple injuries at the position, I'd leave open that possibility if circumstances dictate.

I like the fact that Matthews has the versatility to be used as someone who can bring pressure from different angles and I expect that we will see that again at times this season. Just another weapon for Capers to use.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

That's why I threw his cap #'s in my post above... gotta wonder what the GB future of CM3 is. Elliot, Jones, Perry & McCray could use some extended playing time to see what, if anything, they have to offer in the future.

TT hates dead cap $ but $11Mil+ would help keep the OLine a bit more stable and keep 1 or 2 of these experienced vets in-house.

Once again, Matthews is the only elite player on defense. While it might make sense from a financial standpoint to either trade or release him after next season it would be close to impossible for the Packers to adequately replace his production on the field.

Well the NFL seems as confident as you on Mathews elite standing. Im not as confident. he will need to be paid as an elite player to keep him past 2018 as well. Are we going to lose him then anyways?

IMO. Trade while his value is still very high. The 11 mil a year cap saving is only part of the strategy. Getting a high draft pick, who will play 4 years under a rookie deal, saves just as much maybe? The 11mil savings Being able to keep both perry and Jones would diversify the position, and make the OLB rebuild less drastic.

I dont know... I think its an option. Trade him before we lose him.

Matthews is still under contract for another three seasons. That´s a lot of time to evaluate his production over that period and make a decision on what contract to offer him based on his play. Successful teams don´t trade their best players because of limited cap space.

Mathews is contracted through 2018. So the potential trade partner would have 2 years to figure it out... He stays great for another 2 years, and he will most definately get paid. But the 2 reasonable years under contract, IMO, would be a huge incentive. You get the all pro talent at a good price for 2 years, with a 3rd franchise tag year as an option as well. You compare that to the grossly huge numbers VonMiller is going to get, and Mathews is a great value. Even if they dont retain him after the 3 years....

If the bold part is true why should the Packers trade Matthews???

 

[Ace]

If the bold part is true why should the Packers trade Matthews???

No kidding. This would be a splash move just to make a move. In reality, Clay isn't going anywhere so this is all a moot point.

 

[Ace]

I believe the trade situation tossed out was after the 2016 (Super Bowl) season in which CM3 was still "at the top of his game"

GB would take a $4.1Mil dead money hit, the other team would give up the high draft pick AND take on CM3's salary/roster/workout bonuses for 2017 ($11.1Mil) and 2018 ($11.4Mil).

But as Captain pointed out above, why trade him if he's "at the top of his game" Makes no sense. Forget the fact that you'd be extremely hard pressed to get a 1st Rd pick for him.

 

[Sky King]

Is boredom anything less than the sense of one's faculties slowly dying?
--Arthur Helps

 

[El Guapo]

Clay Matthews will be moved around by Capers as in prior years, working matchup wins. Capers is desperate to find capable ILBs and will give them a chance so that Matthews is able to work the outside and everywhere else. However, if we get a major injury at ILB or it turns into the achilles heel of the defense, I expect that Clay will move inside once again to "save the season." It's a nice safety valve to have if all else fails.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

However, if we get a major injury at ILB or it turns into the achilles heel of the defense, I expect that Clay will move inside once again to "save the season." It's a nice safety valve to have if all else fails.

With Matthews only being an average inside linebacker I hope the Packers won't need that safety net.

 

[El Guapo]

Everyone shares that view. However, one can't deny that he has been their crutch the last few seasons at ILB and will once again be their safety net in 2016 should it be needed.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

Once again, Matthews is the only elite player on defense. While it might make sense from a financial standpoint to either trade or release him after next season it would be close to impossible for the Packers to adequately replace his production on the field.



Matthews is still under contract for another three seasons. That´s a lot of time to evaluate his production over that period and make a decision on what contract to offer him based on his play. Successful teams don´t trade their best players because of limited cap space.



If the bold part is true why should the Packers trade Matthews???

It looks like the cap is going to dictate a fairly substantial rebuild. Letting an elite player go is what you have to do imo.
And though mathews is a man beast... At times he has disapeared without a good defense around him.

I just think the option should be considered. Because if we lose peppers, perry, datone, elliott??? I honestly do not think mathews would look elite when he is on an island like that.

That and the whole oline damn near..... somethings got to give or the core of this team is going to get much weaker.
Let a few big names walk such as sitton, lang, peppers?, mathews(for a 1st rounder). And we can keep the rest and have two 1st rounders to help rebuild...

Remember, the following year has some more big names in there too. This rebuild is coming if we like it or not...

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Everyone shares that view. However, one can't deny that he has been their crutch the last few seasons at ILB and will once again be their safety net in 2016 should it be needed.

The reason for that being a complete lack of talent at the position and not Matthews being an above average inside linebacker.

It looks like the cap is going to dictate a fairly substantial rebuild. Letting an elite player go is what you have to do imo.
And though mathews is a man beast... At times he has disapeared without a good defense around him.

I just think the option should be considered. Because if we lose peppers, perry, datone, elliott??? I honestly do not think mathews would look elite when he is on an island like that.

That and the whole oline damn near..... somethings got to give or the core of this team is going to get much weaker.
Let a few big names walk such as sitton, lang, peppers?, mathews(for a 1st rounder). And we can keep the rest and have two 1st rounders to help rebuild...

Remember, the following year has some more big names in there too. This rebuild is coming if we like it or not...

The Packers will have some tough decisions to make next offseason. Trading the team´s best defensive player isn´t the solution to stay competitive though.

 

[tynimiller]

Trading Mathews wouldn't be worth it. Letting Lang or Sitton go (1 will be gone at least)....letting Bahk walk....and probably losing Tretter to play Center somewhere are all highly likely. However, with Spriggs being from all opinions good enough to grab a Tackle spot we would only have 1 starting OL spot in need of plugging (1 of the two guard spots). I don't see that as a huge deal personally and normal part of the sport.

The issue will be the challenge of replacing both Guards...which is possible. I'll be watching the Guard back ups VERY closely this pre season for development and signs of our future.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Trading Mathews wouldn't be worth it. Letting Lang or Sitton go (1 will be gone at least)....letting Bahk walk....and probably losing Tretter to play Center somewhere are all highly likely. However, with Spriggs being from all opinions good enough to grab a Tackle spot we would only have 1 starting OL spot in need of plugging (1 of the two guard spots). I don't see that as a huge deal personally and normal part of the sport.

The issue will be the challenge of replacing both Guards...which is possible. I'll be watching the Guard back ups VERY closely this pre season for development and signs of our future.

The Packers signing Lane Taylor to a lucrative (based on his production so far) contract this offseason makes me believe the team is confident he will be able to fill one of the starting spots in case that Lang and/or Sitton leave. It seems the front office also has high hopes for Matt Rotheram as Thompson increased his practice squad salary in the middle of last season to prevent him from signing with another team.

I´m optimistic the Packers will be able to field a competitive starting offensive line in 2017 even if some of the free agents won´t be re-signed after next season.

 

[Snoops]

I think it's a good thing to talk about the future and stuff and all the contract situations but hey let's let the management make them decisions us as fans should just sit back and worry about the 2016 season and winning the super bowl. There is always gonna be contracts up good players leaving good players coming in.. Did we think 7 yrs ago a guy like jj watt was gonna come around? It's always the next guy up and how they play there will be better players in the yrs to come and some worse it all depends on how they play.. Clay has a few more yrs on the contract let's wait til the time comes before we worry.. Love the talk and all the different opinions!! But let's get another super bowl!!! 2016 GO PACK GO!!!

 

[PackerDNA]

The Packers signing Lane Taylor to a lucrative (based on his production so far) contract this offseason makes me believe the team is confident he will be able to fill one of the starting spots in case that Lang and/or Sitton leave. It seems the front office also has high hopes for Matt Rotheram as Thompson increased his practice squad salary in the middle of last season to prevent him from signing with another team.

I´m optimistic the Packers will be able to field a competitive starting offensive line in 2017 even if some of the free agents won´t be re-signed after next season.

The appearance is one of having decided- a year in advance- to go 'on the cheap', and hope good things just happen. If that's the case, not a good idea when your biggest investment and best chance of winning is the guy you're going to have behind those 'cheap hopes'.

 

[El Guapo]

Well we can talk in circles all day about which positions to "go cheap" on, but we can't stock all positions effectively and still compete year after year. The Packers have to rely on players to take the next step. Rogers could have taken a less lucrative contract if he wanted the Packers to have extra money for linemen.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

The appearance is one of having decided- a year in advance- to go 'on the cheap', and hope good things just happen. If that's the case, not a good idea when your biggest investment and best chance of winning is the guy you're going to have behind those 'cheap hopes'.

The Packers arwn't going on the cheap but they will have limited cap space available next offseason. Therefore the team won't be able to retain all of the core free agents. Re-signing players who could end up replacing one of the starters possibly leaving is a smart move.

 

[PackerDNA]

The Packers arwn't going on the cheap but they will have limited cap space available next offseason. Therefore the team won't be able to retain all of the core free agents. Re-signing players who could end up replacing one of the starters possibly leaving is a smart move.

Not if said guys have shown nothing more than being scrubs.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Not if said guys have shown nothing more than being scrubs.

Taylor hasn't played enough snaps to make an educated guess about his potential to turn into a decent starter down the road.

 

[PackerDNA]

He's been here 3 years, Cap. What year of our Lord can we expect signs of life?

 

[Pkrjones]

He's been here 3 years, Cap. What year of our Lord can we expect signs of life?

From 9/2015 regarding improvement... http://gnb.247sports.com/Bolt/Giving-credit-where-credits-due-Lane-Taylor-39315347

 

[PackerDNA]

From 9/2015 regarding improvement... http://gnb.247sports.com/Bolt/Giving-credit-where-credits-due-Lane-Taylor-39315347

Heh, sorry, but that doesn't inspire confidence. An article from a year ago which points to his inability to play tackle- but he's looked good in preseason? That's such a reach I'd have to think his wife wrote it.