Sam Barrington or Jamari Lattimore?

[60six]

Give Lattimore a shot. These GB coaches are saying one thing about Jones, but I see something different on the field.

 

[Pkrjones]

Supposedly Brad Jones was out for a while with a quad injury in training camp. This is the perfect time to say that he aggravated it in the Seahawks game, scratch Jones from the game-day active roster and see what Barrington can do. Lattimore is part of the nickel or dime package, so we'll get a good look at both against the Jets.

I said it in a different thread, you absolutely can NOT have an ILB waiting for others to make the tackle. I noticed a couple of plays where Jones either stood or slid along with the play waiting for another Packer to make the stop. No aggression, no attempt to do his job... next man up!

 

[El Guapo]

I was a Brad Jones apologist because he played well in the weeks prior to his injury in 2013. He did look terrible against the Seahawks. Then again, I don't think that Guion was making the ILB jobs any easier.

 

[easyk83]

I am not sure how much he played or what he looked like but Borland had 1 tackle against the cowboys

Borland was behind Wilhoite, who is a good player. Trading up can geting Borlan would have been better than drafting Thornton and Bradford.

 

[easyk83]

I was a Brad Jones apologist because he played well in the weeks prior to his injury in 2013. He did look terrible against the Seahawks. Then again, I don't think that Guion was making the ILB jobs any easier.

Brad Jones wasn't just bad because of the line play. He was awful in coverage too. Hawk looked bad on a couple of Marshawn Lynch's runs but not many defenders will look good when Lynch has that much space to run through. I think AJ Hawk looked pretty fast on the field and he's always been a physical tackler, but he's never been a true buck linebacker. He's not a guy who can take on lead blockers and win. However, he is finally playing at the same weight he played at back in college at about 235, which is how much he weighed back when he ran that very respectable 4.59 at the combine. I think with Jones you're basically looking at a softer version of AJ Hawk with less coverage technique.

Last year our defense seemed to be improved, for a while, once we moved the lighter 240 pound Hawk into the Mack position and started playing Lattimore at the Buck. I'd bench Jones until his quad is better and rotate lattimore and Barrington in at the Buck and see who plays better.

Edit: Shameless horn tooting, I did cite Barrington as a guy who could and should contribute this season.

 

[HardRightEdge]

The coaching staff had good reason to wait on Bishop. The guy had a a knack for making plays on the ball. But he was a little too impetuous with leaving his assignments.

I seem to recall Bishop's early snaps included a couple of deep seam balls over his head. He was a liability in coverage. He got better at it though nobody would say he was ever particularly good in coverage. But that's OK...he brought a physical presence where it is needed. Not everybody can be Patrick Willis.

 

[thisisnate]

Edit: Shameless horn tooting, I did cite Barrington as a guy who could and should contribute this season.

Typically, you wait to toot your horn until you're proven correct. I do hope you are, but I've got no reason to believe they won't continue to field Jones and Hawk for the foreseeable future. It's just kinda what they do lol.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Borland was behind Wilhoite, who is a good player. Trading up can geting Borlan would have been better than drafting Thornton and Bradford.

Wilhoite was an undrafted guy in 2011 who has hardly played 200 snaps during his career, not being particularly good at anything. So Borland being stuck behind him on the depth chart is a surprise IMO.

 

[PikeBadger]

Borland was behind Wilhoite, who is a good player. Trading up can geting Borlan would have been better than drafting Thornton and Bradford.

We'll revisit this thought in the fall of 2016 and see if it holds water. We the fans have no idea what Thompson's draft board looked like. Borland may have been graded as a mid third round pick by Thompson and his scouts ( and McCarthy and the custodial staff).

 

[JBlood]

Very true Bishop was far too aggressive and instinctive.

Football is about being aggressive and instinctive, which is why we were a better defense with Bishop. Being instinctive means you know where the ball is going. The good defenses have people flying to the ball and actually tackling people.

 

[easyk83]

Typically, you wait to toot your horn until you're proven correct. I do hope you are, but I've got no reason to believe they won't continue to field Jones and Hawk for the foreseeable future. It's just kinda what they do lol.

It's Brad Jones we're talking about here not the Iron Horse. He's never been a particularly durable player.

 

[lambeaulambo]

I am serious....TT needs to look to find some street FA's that have played ILB in the 3-4 in the last 4 years....it is that dire. Jones and Hawk have been absolutely pathetic for 3 years running now. If MM won't sit em down then it may be time for MM and Capers to both be shown the door. This defense just plain and simple sucks, and it is because of the middle. No instincts what so ever.

 

[mradtke66]

The problem is that our defensive coaches won't play our best players, just like they wouldn't with Desmond Bishop.

That's revisionist.

Bishop struggled mightily early in his career. He turned into a pretty good starter for us, earned his bigger contract, and I was to sad see him go. HOWEVER, until 2010, he was ******** up basic assignments. He didn't deserve to be on the field. He made huge plays and promptly made an even bigger mistake.

Until he would reliably get into his gap and make correct pass drops, he sat on the bench. Once his head was on right and knew the defense, he made the most of his opportunity. Maybe the 3-4 swap helped him more than most. I dunno.

 

[mradtke66]

It's not revisionist if I disagree with you on how good Bishop was when he first came in, which I do. He made a very quick impact IMO.

In 2010, he was damn good. 2007-2008, he was net-terrible. In 2009 he started to look competent.

 

[El Guapo]

Bishop made plays as a backup. The media and fans questioned for years why he wasn't starting. I'm testing my memory here, but I believe that he only got his shot once Barnett got injured. Then he proved that he was starter material. His bread and butter was stopping the run and big hits, his liability was coverage.

On a side note: I saw tweets from practice today that Brad Jones isn't practicing. Nobody knows if it's his pre-season quad injury or something new. No news on who took his place in practice either.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

On a side note: I saw tweets from practice today that Brad Jones isn't practicing. Nobody knows if it's his pre-season quad injury or something new. No news on who took his place in practice either.

I'm sure the beat writers will ask McCarthy about it during his pressconference after practice.

 

[wingrider47]

Hawk is slow but he knows where he should be....he just can't always get there in time. Jones looks like he has no idea where the hell he is supposed to be at any time. I don't know what they see in him in practice that gets him on the field but he looks brutal when he is on the field.

Well Hawk is probably the only ILB in the NFL that has played for this long and not been injured and why? Because he is soft and plays soft. He avoids the hole is in the wrong place more then not, these offensive linemen easily redirect him by just getting in his way a little and he will run around them to avoid the contact. The Hawks offensive line moved this defense around like it was easy, we need more tough guys that play fast and hit hard and this group isn't doing that.

 

[Pkrjones]

After watching the film I'm guessing that Jones' quad (and hemorrhoids) are more serious than originally thought and he'll be inactive on game day. Next man up ~ hopefully someone who's willing to stick his nose (shoulders, helmet and arms, too) into an unfortunate ball carrier behind the line.

 

[PackerDNA]

IMO, Hawk and Jones are not the answer. I don't believe Lattimore or Barrington will be either.
I don't have any knowledge of what went on in the Packers draft room, but I'm willing to bet there was some cursing and throwing things around when Shazier and Mosely were gone so quick and early. I'd also be willing to bet that Ted burned up the phone lines trying to trade up for one of the two, but no one was willing to bite.

 

[TJV]

IMO, Hawk and Jones are not the answer. I don't believe Lattimore or Barrington will be either.
I don't have any knowledge of what went on in the Packers draft room, but I'm willing to bet there was some cursing and throwing things around when Shazier and Mosely were gone so quick and early. I'd also be willing to bet that Ted burned up the phone lines trying to trade up for one of the two, but no one was willing to bite.

Welcome PackerDNA. I haven’t seen enough of Barrington to know whether or not he’s the answer and we probably won’t unless Hawk gets injured. But Lattimore will get his chance tomorrow and Demovsky (and I) believe he has a shot at replacing Jones even when Jones gets healthy. Lattimore started four games last season and he had 2 sacks and 1 pass defensed. On his Packer Update site, Michael Rodney had this to say about Lattimore in July:

… he did a lot of positive things in his 272 snaps. Lattimore showed good lateral agility and he jarred ball carriers on impact. Even in his worst start – the finale at Chicago – I was still impressed by his athleticism and his aggressiveness. The defense needs more players with those particular traits. Yes, Lattimore was out of position a few times against the Bears, but I attribute that more to a lack of experience than anything else. In many ways, he reminds me of Desmond Bishop – another inside linebacker who couldn’t get on the field early in his career.

http://packerupdate.net/?p=34054
I understand why coaches want assignment-sure players. But I would rather have a player who can make plays even if he's not where he should be 100% of the time. In the last game, Brad Jones may have been 100% assignment sure and look at the results. Unless Lattimore is out of position on 25% or more of the plays (and I don't think that's the case), what's the difference if he's out of position on a play vs. Jones being where he's supposed to be but doesn't make the play - or worse commits a penalty on that play negating a play made by a teammate? I hope Rodney is right and all Lattimore lacks is experience.

I don’t know exactly what went on in the Packers draft room either, but I would bet the exact opposite. Cursing and throwing things around just doesn’t fit Thompson’s MO. He and everyone else in the draft are used to watching players they like go off the board before their pick. To fit the need at either safety or ILB, my guess is the Packers preferred Shazier over Mosley at ILB and they may have preferred Clinton-Dix over Pryor at safety. I saw safety being a bigger need than ILB – not sure if they did or not. But – again just a guess because we don’t know – I bet they would have been happy with any of the four. If that’s true, Thompson wouldn’t have his staff burning up the phone lines since he was likely to get value by staying put at 21.

 

[PackerDNA]

Thanks for the welcome, Jack.
My opinion on some of your points;

- Will Lattimore end up with the job because of solid, much better play than Jones, or because he's not quite as bad as Jones? Either way, it'll be interesting to see how he does; there are no other options this time of year. I don't believe he'll have a problem being assignment sure, however. He's been here awhile.

- Just using figure of speech type of things on what went on in the draft room. However, I do believe that one of the LB's was the prefferred choice, and when they were both gone, Ted went to plan B. Ended up a winner anyway in getting Clinton-Dix. My reason for believing the preference was LB is that IMO, the team was ready to roll with Hyde as a solution, so would be able to shore up another weakness with Shazier or Mosely. Value is fine, but I believe they were ready to be more proactive in filling needs.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Lattimore is an enthusiastic, vocal, aggressive and physical player, but if his play last season is any indication he's susceptible to over-committing and being fooled. I'll be interested to see how much he's learned and internalized in his reads and in the passing game in general, and play action and screens in particular.

One would have to figure we might see some Barrington on passing downs, and Hawk in single-ILB sets.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Thanks for the welcome, Jack.
My opinion on some of your points;

- Will Lattimore end up with the job because of solid, much better play than Jones, or because he's not quite as bad as Jones? Either way, it'll be interesting to see how he does; there are no other options this time of year. I don't believe he'll have a problem being assignment sure, however. He's been here awhile.

- Just using figure of speech type of things on what went on in the draft room. However, I do believe that one of the LB's was the prefferred choice, and when they were both gone, Ted went to plan B. Ended up a winner anyway in getting Clinton-Dix. My reason for believing the preference was LB is that IMO, the team was ready to roll with Hyde as a solution, so would be able to shore up another weakness with Shazier or Mosely. Value is fine, but I believe they were ready to be more proactive in filling needs.

I think that's right. There was an obvious commitment to Burnett while Hyde was seen as having solid safety potential. I'd have a hard time believing the Packers would have passed on those two ILBs had either been available. My personal preference would have been Mosely in order to bring some physicality to the middle of the field, but the Packers seem to be preoccupied with speed and athleticism these days, qualities Shazier brings to the table. The latter choice, however, would not have solved the continuing weakness in defending runs between the tackles.

 

[thisisnate]

I don't think there's any way we'd have passed on Shazier or Mosley if they were available. Shame the draft class was so weak at ILB though. After those two, just nowhere to go. Hoping Denzel Perryman finds some way to drop his draft stock to where we might have a shot at him next year.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I actually don't agree with you guys. I personally think that the ILB need was overstated going into the draft. I don't think TT felt the need to get another one, as Hawk and Jones have both been LB's that TT paid for their play. We have other options that haven't gotten a chance, which tells me that the team is happy with Jones and Hawk. There was very little that was special about Shazier, so I don't understand why people think he would be a can't-miss prospect for TT. The team also seemed to heavily prioritize health this year, and Mosley has had significant injuries. Yes, Mosley is a great player, but will he be able to stand up to the test of time? In the end, Clinton-Dix filled our biggest need, and for many people was the top prospect at the position. I see no reason to hope for another prospect over him.

While Brad Jones is a pillar of reliability? As for Shazier, there are not many 6'1", 237 lb. men with those kind of measurables, particularly the sub-4.4 speed. While I agree it remains to be seen if he'll be a good NFL football player and not just a workout warrior, to say there is nothing special about him over-stretches the point. I don't think I'd have picked him, but that's not say Thompson would not.

So far, while Dix looks like he'll be a decent player I'm not seeing what he provides that Hyde does not. They strike me as similar players. Admittedly the Dix pick will look better if Burnett continues to show a high frequency of bad decision making, particularly in run support.