Why do the Packers seem to do this?

[Riley82]

This is just my opinion but it seems like they are slow to fix their issues.
Example we all knew for the past couple of seasons they need pass rush depth but they ignored it i still think they have not realised they need help.
They ignore the safety problems at the minute i do not think they will fix it in the off season.
In about 2 seasons (I am being sarcastic) MM will realise we need to run Aaron Jones more.
It is like they do not realise what issues they have they seem to ignore it.
Is it down to MM being stuborn (and the front office).

Maybe it is just me thinking wrong i do not know.

 

[Title Town USA]

Also it seems to be a trend of starting seasons slowly and then playing well in November/December...which isn't all that bad, but still results in loss of home-field advantage.

 

[Mike McCarthy]

Just how highly successful people take care of business.

 

[Mondio]

They aren't ignoring it. They made big investments and unfortunately they haven't been paying off. It happens. to everyone sometimes. and when you make big investments, there comes a time when you just have to live with it. The salary cap demands that you do. There is no getting around it. i think perry has a motivation problem or an injury one. Matthews was pretty good, had some injury issues, and now is just ok, not elite like we need, but ok. but he's past his prime and it isn't going to get better. they didn't ignore the safety position. They drafted Haha in the 1st round. he played well, fell off some, but everyone round him was hurt and rotating too, so they gave him some time to show he was better. he's showing to be decent is about all.

and still with Aaron Jones. Injured last year after being "the back" for only a couple weeks. injured again at the end of the year. missed a month of training camp because of injury. Came back for 1 week and then was away serving a 2 week suspension and everyone thinks he should be our bell cow. He's an explosive runner. There's also reasons he's not the everydown back or even the most of the downs back right now. His workload might grow in the later part of the season, but I don't think he's ever going to be what people think he could be.

 

[rmontro]

In Gute's case, I think he realized next year is supposed to be a good draft for pass rushers, while this year was a good year for secondary. Knowing we had so many holes, he addressed the secondary in this draft and is waiting until next year to address the pass rush. And they have two first round picks. I think it's a two year plan (at least).

Ted would leave holes in the team, but I think in his mind he had drafted young athletes that were supposed to step up and fill those spots. So he would wait until the next draft to address those spots. Because he was a draft and develop guy, plus he was cheap. He did dip into free agency here and there, but it had to be on his terms. "Next man up" did work pretty well in 2010, but that was a talented team.

 

[Dantés]

This is just my opinion but it seems like they are slow to fix their issues.
Example we all knew for the past couple of seasons they need pass rush depth but they ignored it i still think they have not realised they need help.
They ignore the safety problems at the minute i do not think they will fix it in the off season.
In about 2 seasons (I am being sarcastic) MM will realise we need to run Aaron Jones more.
It is like they do not realise what issues they have they seem to ignore it.
Is it down to MM being stuborn (and the front office).

Maybe it is just me thinking wrong i do not know.

I think there’s a legitimate gripe about not doing more at OLB in recent drafts. They should have invested a high pick or at least multiple higher picks in the position so that Matthews and Perry could be spelled by a more talented young player. However, I think the main issue isn't that they haven't invested to fix the issue, but that the investments haven't paid off.

Staying at the OLB position, they spent a 3rd in 2016, a 4th in 2017, and a 7th in 2018. That's all while they have Matthews under contract. And while they were still on the hook for Matthews, they gave Perry a big extension. Altogether, that's a lot of investment. But the draft picks haven't paid off and Perry hasn't regained the form of his 11 sack season because he's perpetually nicked up with nagging injuries, all while Matthews fades.

Many fans, based on Perry's absentee performances, complain then that we was signed. But that fails to consider the context of when he was resigned-- all of the good, veteran edge rushers of his caliber were tagged or extended before hitting the market. By the time the Packers gave Perry his new deal, he was slated to be the guy in free agency at the position. And they got him for less than the other deals that were handed out at the same time (e.g. Melvin Ingram, Chandler Jones, Olivier Vernon, etc).

Safety is another where they haven't ignored it at all, but players haven't panned out. Haha is a first round pick who, on balance, has been fine as a starting safety. Brice is only starting because Josh Jones, a 2nd rounder, hasn't taken that job based on merit.

This is similar to when fans critique play calls without looking at the execution. Oftentimes, calls would work if players execute. The Packers haven't failed at these spots due to a lack of effort to fix them-- they've failed because their efforts haven't actually panned out.

The life blood of a team's roster are the day 1 and day 2 picks that start/contribute on rookie contracts. That has to be the foundation so that a team can afford to extent the great ones onto much larger second contracts and add free agents to supplement holes in the depth chart. So if you want to know why it seems as though the Packers aren't trying to address annoyingly weak spots on the roster, consider these top 3 round picks from Thompson's last few drafts:

• Kevin King
• Josh Jones
• Montravious Adams
• Kenny Clark
• Jason Spriggs
• Kyler Fackrell
• Damarious Randall
• Quinten Rollins
• Ty Montgomery

One stud (Clark) and one guy we all still have hope for (King). Jones and Adams are not lost causes, but it isn't looking good at the moment. Only one certain hit in 3 seasons. There's your problem.

Hopefully Gutekunst can continue with impactful drafts while being more willing to supplement with free agents. If he does that, then I think the perception that the Packers don't try to address weaknesses will go away.

 

[PackerDNA]

Outstanding analysis Dante's.

 

[Riley82]

You nake some good points Dante`s.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

While Gutekunst made a lot of good moves this offseason it was kind of mind-boggling to see him not addressing edge rusher aside of spending a seventh rounder on the position.

Like other posters have pointed out it seems the Packers are in a mini rebuild mode that will take at least another year.

Also it seems to be a trend of starting seasons slowly and then playing well in November/December...which isn't all that bad, but still results in loss of home-field advantage.

The Packers were a combined 14-4 over their first six games from 2015-17.

 

[Mondio]

It's not mind boggling once you factor in limited resources for going out to get a real edge rusher in FA. They did get a really good interior lineman, and Pettine has said he likes to get pressure from those guys and other LB'ers and DB's not just edge guys. Also that this draft was relatively weak in Edge guys and edge wasn't the only position in need. He seemed to have seen an opportunity to take care of much of the defensive backfield, and took it. They also saw an ILB that they needed, we'll see if he works out, but so far he seems to at least have the physical attributes for that chase LB'er. We're in a much better position in terms of cap and draft next year and have a better crop of Edge guys to chose from. With investments made in Perry and Matthews already, i'm sure they knew it was an area they could use help in, but didn't really identify anyone that was worth the pick or the money over other positions they decided to address.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

It's not mind boggling once you factor in limited resources for going out to get a real edge rusher in FA.

It was pretty obvious for most people following the Packers that the team was in need of an upgrade at edge rusher though.

 

[Mondio]

well yeah it's obvious. But i'm not disappointed in our draft picks. Doesn't mean they all work, but I gotta say the top 3 were pretty solid and one that I liked, but never showed up. and that will have to be addressed again next year. I'm not upset they decided to bolster an interior rush and work with what they had knowing more draft picks, more cap money and more options were coming up soon. I'd rather they ignore it in a draft they see weak or no player worth the pick and shored up another area of weakness. I think our DB's are better than solid at this point.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

They aren't ignoring it. They made big investments and unfortunately they haven't been paying off. It happens. to everyone sometimes. and when you make big investments, there comes a time when you just have to live with it. The salary cap demands that you do. There is no getting around it. i think perry has a motivation problem or an injury one. Matthews was pretty good, had some injury issues, and now is just ok, not elite like we need, but ok. but he's past his prime and it isn't going to get better. they didn't ignore the safety position. They drafted Haha in the 1st round. he played well, fell off some, but everyone round him was hurt and rotating too, so they gave him some time to show he was better. he's showing to be decent is about all.

and still with Aaron Jones. Injured last year after being "the back" for only a couple weeks. injured again at the end of the year. missed a month of training camp because of injury. Came back for 1 week and then was away serving a 2 week suspension and everyone thinks he should be our bell cow. He's an explosive runner. There's also reasons he's not the everydown back or even the most of the downs back right now. His workload might grow in the later part of the season, but I don't think he's ever going to be what people think he could be.

I've pointed it out before, by pretty much ANY running measure, Jones is far-and-away a better RB than Williams or Ty. He should certainly be the most played RB on the team, not the least played RB.

HHCD is showing himself to be a very good safety in the NFL, not decent, but very good. Guys don't have to be Earl Thomas to be good safeties.

And an easy answer to safety would have been to sign Reid. Packers decided that politics was more important than winning on that one though.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Many fans, based on Perry's absentee performances, complain then that we was signed. But that fails to consider the context of when he was resigned-- all of the good, veteran edge rushers of his caliber were tagged or extended before hitting the market. By the time the Packers gave Perry his new deal, he was slated to be the guy in free agency at the position. And they got him for less than the other deals that were handed out at the same time (e.g. Melvin Ingram, Chandler Jones, Olivier Vernon, etc).

I disagree on this point; it's almost always a terrible idea to sign a guy who only showed up in a contract year to a massive deal. The other guys you reference all had great years prior to free agency. Imagine how much easier it might have been to trade for Mack, or some other actual elite pass rusher, if the team didn't have $14m a year going to a guy with about as much on-field impact as Erik Walden with a better pedigree. I hear this logic and then I hear the same people say that re-signing HHCD would be a terrible idea. At least HHCD has been decent in years before free agency.

 

[Dantés]

I disagree on this point; it's almost always a terrible idea to sign a guy who only showed up in a contract year to a massive deal. The other guys you reference all had great years prior to free agency. Imagine how much easier it might have been to trade for Mack, or some other actual elite pass rusher, if the team didn't have $14m a year going to a guy with about as much on-field impact as Erik Walden with a better pedigree. I hear this logic and then I hear the same people say that re-signing HHCD would be a terrible idea. At least HHCD has been decent in years before free agency.

I can only speak for myself, but you don't hear me saying that it would be a terrible idea to resign Clinton-Dix. I'm not 100% sold they do it, but he has been way, way better on the field than fans want to give him credit for.

Perry didn't only show up in a contract year. He just managed to start 12 games, which was way more than what he had previously. On a per snap basis, he wasn't all that different than he had been previously. His problem has always been durability, rather than actual ability.

Now someone could argue that you shouldn't sign a guy who is that injury prone, and I think there's some validity to that argument. But you have to suggest a viable alternative. And to me to, it's not a viable alternative to bring up the possibility of trading for Mack when that possibility didn't come up for over a year after Perry signed his extension. At the time that the Packers kept Perry, the other options were fairly paltry.

 

[Mondio]

I disagree on this point; it's almost always a terrible idea to sign a guy who only showed up in a contract year to a massive deal. The other guys you reference all had great years prior to free agency. Imagine how much easier it might have been to trade for Mack, or some other actual elite pass rusher, if the team didn't have $14m a year going to a guy with about as much on-field impact as Erik Walden with a better pedigree. I hear this logic and then I hear the same people say that re-signing HHCD would be a terrible idea. At least HHCD has been decent in years before free agency.

as far as OLB contracts go, this was not a massive deal with what, 18M guaranteed? I read it somewhere about Mack, The Raiders were terrible on defense with him and are terrible without him. Bears were good on defense without him, they're good with him, but he's been silenced the past couple weeks and has career stats about like Matthews at the same point in their careers. The biggest knock on Perry was injury anything else is just revisionist history and he looked pretty good in a year he was mostly healthy.

 

[Dantés]

as far as OLB contracts go, this was not a massive deal with what, 18M guaranteed? I read it somewhere about Mack, The Raiders were terrible on defense with him and are terrible without him. Bears were good on defense without him, they're good with him, but he's been silenced the past couple weeks and has career stats about like Matthews at the same point in their careers. The biggest knock on Perry was injury anything else is just revisionist history and he looked pretty good in a year he was mostly healthy.

The Bears were fine on defense before Mack, but their defense overcame a bad offense and won them games during the first quarter of the season with Mack. That was a big improvement. Their offense was dreadful against both Seattle and Arizona, but they got W's because their defense controlled the game, with Mack being the biggest factor on said defense. His stats are comparable to Matthews at similar career points-- which is to say, he's on track for the HOF if he can maintain.

There's no way around viewing Mack as a massive addition to any defense and one that would have been huge for the Packers if the cost to acquire him had made it possible to get him in our building.

I agree with what your saying regarding hindsight analysis on Perry and the fact that they got him on a discount. But I don't know how we can fairly downplay how good Mack is.

 

[Mondio]

and you've been around long enough to know there is no way in hell I'd be making a serious judgement on the addition of Mack for the bears after half a season. Just pointing out, things ebb and flow. After a wild flurry of a start, he's been rather quiet the past couple weeks. Calling Mack a success or failure at this point for the bears is extremely premature. Sure he's better for their defense. and if Trub never develops was the draft picks and cap cost worth it? we'll find out.

 

[Dantés]

I disagree on this point; it's almost always a terrible idea to sign a guy who only showed up in a contract year to a massive deal. The other guys you reference all had great years prior to free agency. Imagine how much easier it might have been to trade for Mack, or some other actual elite pass rusher, if the team didn't have $14m a year going to a guy with about as much on-field impact as Erik Walden with a better pedigree. I hear this logic and then I hear the same people say that re-signing HHCD would be a terrible idea. At least HHCD has been decent in years before free agency.

I forgot to address this.

In 2016, Perry had 11 sacks in 14 games.
In 2016, Ingram had 8 sacks in 16 games.
In 2016, Jones had 11 sacks in 16 games.
In 2015 (his last year before FA), Vernon had 7.5 sacks in 16 games.

Sacks aren't the end all, be all, but they're not meaningless either. And you can look into other metrics. Perry's 2016 season heading into free agency was on a level with those guys, and was more productive than any of them in terms of getting to the QB.

 

[Dantés]

and you've been around long enough to know there is no way in hell I'd be making a serious judgement on the addition of Mack for the bears after half a season. Just pointing out, things ebb and flow. After a wild flurry of a start, he's been rather quiet the past couple weeks. Calling Mack a success or failure at this point for the bears is extremely premature. Sure he's better for their defense. and if Trub never develops was the draft picks and cap cost worth it? we'll find out.

Sure... we won't know for a long time whether the move was worth it for the Bears. All I'm saying is that we've known that Mack is elite for a long time, and he hasn't ceased to be anything other than that since he moved over to Chicago.

 

[King of Jeans]

"draft and develop" doesn't work if you consistently draft players with no potential

 

[Title Town USA]

The Packers were a combined 14-4 over their first six games from 2015-17.

The two seasons prior to this season, the Packers have a combined 9-11 record through the first 10 games. They always seem to "flip a switch" come November/December.

 

[Dantés]

"draft and develop" doesn't work if you consistently draft players with no potential

It's hard to make the case that that's been the Packers' problem. They've drafted a ton of athletic potential. They just haven't seen it pay off.

 

[PackAttack12]

The two seasons prior to this season, the Packers have a combined 9-11 record through the first 10 games. They always seem to "flip a switch" come November/December.

What's frustrating is that after starting 6-0 in 2015, the Packers finished 4-6.

I hope to see many playoff games played at Lambeau field the next few years. I understand that now more than ever the first few games of an NFL season is the feel out period, or "extended preseason", but I sincerely hope the Packers figure out a way to be better early in the season.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I can only speak for myself, but you don't hear me saying that it would be a terrible idea to resign Clinton-Dix. I'm not 100% sold they do it, but he has been way, way better on the field than fans want to give him credit for.

Perry didn't only show up in a contract year. He just managed to start 12 games, which was way more than what he had previously. On a per snap basis, he wasn't all that different than he had been previously. His problem has always been durability, rather than actual ability.

Now someone could argue that you shouldn't sign a guy who is that injury prone, and I think there's some validity to that argument. But you have to suggest a viable alternative. And to me to, it's not a viable alternative to bring up the possibility of trading for Mack when that possibility didn't come up for over a year after Perry signed his extension. At the time that the Packers kept Perry, the other options were fairly paltry.

The other option would have been to either franchise Perry or let him walk. I'm not a fan of signing guys that are constantly hurt and only play through those injuries in a contract year. When i say he only showed up in the contract year, that's what i meant, he only played through the injuries (effectively) in a contract year. We've seen the results of paying for one year's worth of a guy actually performing over an entire season, and it's not pretty.