July 20, 2018, 05:39:06 AM

Author Topic: Early Observations R&V  (Read 21912 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline dannobanano

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4489
Re: Early Observations R&V
« Reply #90 on: May 14, 2015, 04:52:56 PM »
Why is it automatically assumed that drafting a DT in the 1st round would automatically make him a starter, and the run defense better??

The Packers are a draft/develop team, and it's a fairly proven stat that DL draftees may take 1-2 years to become major contributors to the cause.

N. Suh is one of the very few notable exceptions to this rule, and I (sincerely) ask, how GB is supposed to find a "Suh" when they are always picking near the bottom of each round??

I think Malcom Brown would have been a fine pick at #30, but I doubt he would have the kind of impact this year that is being alluded to by several defenders of the "poor run defense" mantra.

Not sure the people that would have liked an investment into size are making any bigger of an assumption then the guys that are praising the first 2 selections.  Its not like CB is all that easy of a position to transition too and we drafted 2 of this year's draft's least experienced CBs.  When looking at last year, Donald had a much easier transition than players like Gilbert and Denard both who struggled and couldn't even get not he field.  If either of our CBs struggle like those highly rated CBs, they won't provide the slightest upgrade to Green Bay next season.

I don't recall anyone saying they needed a Suh caliber of player to improve the Packers horrendous run defense.  Not sure its "proven" that all DTs take 2 years.  Players like Donald, Sheldon Richardson, Sharrif Floyd, Star Lotulelei, Dontari Poe, etc.... all made smooth transitions from college and help make impacts as rookies.

I love how you twist and spin things!   ;D  ;D  ;D

First of all, I was talking about 1st round draft picks, not as your assumption............draft picks in general.
"Why is it automatically assumed that drafting a DT in the 1st round would automatically make him a starter"
and
"how GB is supposed to find a "Suh" when they are always picking near the bottom of each round??"

You spin it by saying............."I don't recall anyone saying they needed a Suh caliber of player to improve the Packers horrendous run defense.  Not sure its "proven" that all DTs take 2 years."

I was talking 1st round, because that's where all the comparisons are occuring, and I'm not looking at just the 2014 draft. Go back and look at a longer period of time and compare the "hit" vs "bust" rate of DL to another high "bust" rate position for 1st rounders (QB). DL has a high bust rate, meaning it takes longer for them to develop.

http://walterfootball.com/nfldraftquarterbackriskmyth.php

Offline SSG

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3433
Re: Early Observations R&V
« Reply #91 on: May 14, 2015, 05:08:35 PM »
Why is it automatically assumed that drafting a DT in the 1st round would automatically make him a starter, and the run defense better??

The Packers are a draft/develop team, and it's a fairly proven stat that DL draftees may take 1-2 years to become major contributors to the cause.

N. Suh is one of the very few notable exceptions to this rule, and I (sincerely) ask, how GB is supposed to find a "Suh" when they are always picking near the bottom of each round??

I think Malcom Brown would have been a fine pick at #30, but I doubt he would have the kind of impact this year that is being alluded to by several defenders of the "poor run defense" mantra.

Not sure the people that would have liked an investment into size are making any bigger of an assumption then the guys that are praising the first 2 selections.  Its not like CB is all that easy of a position to transition too and we drafted 2 of this year's draft's least experienced CBs.  When looking at last year, Donald had a much easier transition than players like Gilbert and Denard both who struggled and couldn't even get not he field.  If either of our CBs struggle like those highly rated CBs, they won't provide the slightest upgrade to Green Bay next season.

I don't recall anyone saying they needed a Suh caliber of player to improve the Packers horrendous run defense.  Not sure its "proven" that all DTs take 2 years.  Players like Donald, Sheldon Richardson, Sharrif Floyd, Star Lotulelei, Dontari Poe, etc.... all made smooth transitions from college and help make impacts as rookies.

I love how you twist and spin things!   ;D  ;D  ;D

First of all, I was talking about 1st round draft picks, not as your assumption............draft picks in general.
"Why is it automatically assumed that drafting a DT in the 1st round would automatically make him a starter"
and
"how GB is supposed to find a "Suh" when they are always picking near the bottom of each round??"

You spin it by saying............."I don't recall anyone saying they needed a Suh caliber of player to improve the Packers horrendous run defense.  Not sure its "proven" that all DTs take 2 years."

I was talking 1st round, because that's where all the comparisons are occuring, and I'm not looking at just the 2014 draft. Go back and look at a longer period of time and compare the "hit" vs "bust" rate of DL to another high "bust" rate position for 1st rounders (QB). DL has a high bust rate, meaning it takes longer for them to develop.

http://walterfootball.com/nfldraftquarterbackriskmyth.php

I'm not twisting. You are the one that used the best DT in the NFL as an example as if that was the only caliber of player that could improve the defense.  I wasn't the only poster that questioned the example you used.

I've seen all that data but I don't put a ton into it.  You can write off last year but Donald made a much bigger and quicker impact than the higher regarded CBs.  So while DT may need more time on occasion, clearly not every DT does need time as I can name probably a dozen DTs that didn't require 2 or 3 years in the NFL before they contributed.  If thats your reason that we didn't draft a DT eary, I think it is a bad one.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2015, 05:52:42 PM by SSG »
Act your age, not your shoe size.

Offline cpk1994

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6299
Re: Early Observations R&V
« Reply #92 on: May 15, 2015, 11:03:47 AM »
Sorry dude, there was more than major need.
No, there wasn't. The front 7 was the only major need. Everything else only needed depth restocking.

Not sure you felt that way after the second half of the Atlanta game.  Seems like you thought the whole defense should go.
I said they needed to be playing for their jobs.  Some played well enough after that that I am fine with keeping them. But the front 7 is still a big problem. That's 7 of the 11 positions right there.
"Aaron Rodgers is a baaaaaaad man" - Stephen A. Smith

Offline LMG

  • Administrator
  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4532
    • Where are we?
Re: Early Observations R&V
« Reply #93 on: May 15, 2015, 11:22:35 AM »
Front 7?


Thought we played mostly 3-4-4?


 confused(
If you are not the lead dog the view never changes.

Offline cpk1994

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6299
Re: Early Observations R&V
« Reply #94 on: May 15, 2015, 12:49:42 PM »
Front 7?


Thought we played mostly 3-4-4?


 confused(
What is 3 + 4?
"Aaron Rodgers is a baaaaaaad man" - Stephen A. Smith

Offline LMG

  • Administrator
  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4532
    • Where are we?
Re: Early Observations R&V
« Reply #95 on: May 15, 2015, 01:08:13 PM »
Front 7?


Thought we played mostly 3-4-4?


 confused(
What is 3 + 4?


Let me see...if you add 3 + 4 + 4 you have the total number of starters on the field at the same time.
If you are not the lead dog the view never changes.

Offline cpk1994

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6299
Re: Early Observations R&V
« Reply #96 on: May 16, 2015, 01:36:09 AM »
Front 7?


Thought we played mostly 3-4-4?


 confused(
What is 3 + 4?


Let me see...if you add 3 + 4 + 4 you have the total number of starters on the field at the same time.
Now you are trolling. Stop dodging the question. You know damn well I am talking about the first two numbers with add up to 7, which has always been called the front 7.

Pretty sad that a mod comes into the R&V section to troll.
"Aaron Rodgers is a baaaaaaad man" - Stephen A. Smith

Offline Zyvlyn

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1363
Re: Early Observations R&V
« Reply #97 on: May 16, 2015, 03:51:44 AM »
Is this what we've devolved to?  Pretending to not understand what the front seven is?

You could try reading some of those Bob Fox articles you post.  Several of them mention the front seven.

Offline dannobanano

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4489
Re: Early Observations R&V
« Reply #98 on: May 16, 2015, 04:39:30 PM »
I'm done with this.

This, and the "rage/rant against the picks" thread.

There is nothing we can say that will change what has happened, vis the draft, udfa, and UFA.
We will just have to let it play out.

If the run defense sucks, then those who have taken that side of the issue will have something to "crow" about.

If the run defense (noticeably) improves, then those same folks will have to "eat crow".

I would be more than willing to come back here and "eat humble pie" if the run defense does not show decent improvement in 2015.



I'ther way, we will have to wait and see what happens.

Offline hitnhope

  • All Pro
  • ****
  • Posts: 422
Re: Early Observations R&V
« Reply #99 on: May 18, 2015, 06:45:17 PM »
The result of this draft will be that next year our run defense will be about the same.  Lack of an investment to change it.

The result of this draft will be that our pass defense is worse.  We are replacing a proven veteran starter and experienced backup with two rookies who lack even the normal experience that a rookie tends to have.  Longer term we should see improvement.

The special teams will get better.  We invested most of this draft on improving them.  It was patently obvious that the organization was embaraassed by last years special teams and were desperate to fix them.   

I would have preferred to see a more balanced draft, but understand based on the horrendous ST play.  I think the organization was embarrassed.

Really makes a person wonder why we hung on to Slocum for so long, he was quite obviously overmatched. Do not like retaining Zook for that role either.


Offline Twain

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3159
Re: Early Observations R&V
« Reply #100 on: May 19, 2015, 08:18:06 AM »
The result of this draft will be that next year our run defense will be about the same.  Lack of an investment to change it.

The result of this draft will be that our pass defense is worse.  We are replacing a proven veteran starter and experienced backup with two rookies who lack even the normal experience that a rookie tends to have.  Longer term we should see improvement.

The special teams will get better.  We invested most of this draft on improving them.  It was patently obvious that the organization was embaraassed by last years special teams and were desperate to fix them.   

I would have preferred to see a more balanced draft, but understand based on the horrendous ST play.  I think the organization was embarrassed.

Really makes a person wonder why we hung on to Slocum for so long, he was quite obviously overmatched. Do not like retaining Zook for that role either.

I don't see this as a special teams draft.  The fan belief in that is a result of having a fairly complete roster going in to the draft.
"The trouble ain't that there are too many fools, but that the lightning ain't distributed right."

Offline claymaker

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
Re: Early Observations R&V
« Reply #101 on: May 30, 2015, 07:54:21 AM »
I don't see this as a special teams draft.  The fan belief in that is a result of having a fairly complete roster going in to the draft.

I think outside of the first two picks it was a special teams draft, but I still expect to see Randall and Rollins on special teams.

Look at the picks and tell me special teams weren't one of the top two reasons they were drafted.

Montgomery: Excels at KR/PR and has a nice thick build, a hard-nosed mentality, and speed to be on the coverage units as well. He was drafted for special teams IMO.

Ryan: While he might slated into ILB, he will primarily play special teams. Between Matthews splitting time there and 2nd year players, Bradford+Thomas, coming back strong he'll need to beat them out to play with the defense. He's a smart+instinctive LB and that's never a bad thing to have on special teams. Let's not forget Barrington is their starting ILB, so he's definitely buried down the depth chart atm.

Ripkowski: Obvious special teams player if he manages to make the 53. Him playing on offense instead of Kuhn is unlikely.

Ringo: He's a certified long snapper, so that's a big added benefit to his ST value and why he might have been drafted. He also has a unique body+athleticism to be on the coverage units.

Backman: I think he was drafted with ST in mind, but he'll have a chance to be a part of the offense. He had some surprisingly good tape and athleticism for a TE in the 6th round.

In the now, these players were drafted specifically for special teams. Obviously you hope they develop to become starters or role players down the road, but
looking for more than a couple to do that this year is a very lofty expectation. Like I said outside of Randall+Rollins, I think they'll get one role player but a boatload of core special teams guys. If you look at in that regard, considering how poor they've been in the past, we shouldn't be disappointed with a mainly STs orientated draft.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2015, 07:55:47 AM by claymaker »

Offline claymaker

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
Re: Early Observations R&V
« Reply #102 on: May 30, 2015, 08:10:05 AM »
The result of this draft will be that next year our run defense will be about the same.  Lack of an investment to change it.

The result of this draft will be that our pass defense is worse.  We are replacing a proven veteran starter and experienced backup with two rookies who lack even the normal experience that a rookie tends to have.  Longer term we should see improvement.

The special teams will get better.  We invested most of this draft on improving them.  It was patently obvious that the organization was embaraassed by last years special teams and were desperate to fix them.   

One could argue special teams were the reason they lost the NFCC game. Actually, THAT IS WHY they lost. Gave up 6 on a fake FG, Zook's fault, and botched an onside kick that would have sealed the deal.

Run defense, despite their statistics in the NFCC game was stellar. Seattle was constantly in 3rd and long the entire game. Even though they ran the ball 35 times and only managed to break the 4 YPC rushing mark after Lynch finally broke off 2 big runs in the 4th quarter+OT.

I think Randall and Rollins are going to surprise everyone. While not many like the idea of drafting rather inexperienced CBs to replace Williams and House they were very solid picks. I also believe Rollins will get faster now that he'll be playing football instead of basketball. Also see Clinton-Dix and Burnett being great safety nets.