August 17, 2019, 11:35:23 PM

Author Topic: Position look: ILB  (Read 1575 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Hands

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1551
  • Karma: +6/-0
    • Uncover
Re: Position look: ILB
« Reply #15 on: June 10, 2019, 06:40:38 AM »
1265, sometimes I wonder how healthy guys come off surgery like Ryan's. He wasn't a speed guy to begin with, but had similar speed in the 40 to Martinez. He just wasn't able to claim his spot after surgery recovery. I know that most athletes come back but how much speed is lost? Maybe in his case it was just enough to lose his effectiveness.
In the land of the blind.....the one eye man is king!

Offline RT

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3480
  • Karma: +60/-17
Re: Position look: ILB
« Reply #16 on: June 10, 2019, 07:03:29 AM »
Maybe the reason Ryan wasn't re-signed was because he was not a core player on the Packers defense and backup ILB's can be found for the rookie minimum rather than paying double that for a veteran.

The two most important testing numbers a fan can follow concerning ILB's and who the Packers might be interested in are the 3-cone drill and the 20 yard short shuttle, they are the most telling for the tasks at hand for their position. The Packers have put stock in them for a long time and still do. A.J. Hawk still has the best short shuttle time of any LB in the last 20 years at 3.96 seconds.

              3-cone drill   short shuttle
Martinez   6.98                4.20
Ryan        7.11                4.20

For comparison these are the 2 ILB's who went in the top 10 overall in the draft this year.

White      7.07                4.17
Bush       6.93                4.23

Ryan is not some old-school, throwback LB who is now a dinosaur in the NFL. He had no problem finding employment with another team in Jacksonville, but he was never going to be a Packer re-sign because of the way they do business.       

Online craig

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3867
  • Karma: +22/-4
Re: Position look: ILB
« Reply #17 on: June 10, 2019, 07:39:36 AM »
I think this is perhaps an example where Combine numbers don't tell the story?

One can post combine numbers suggesting that Ryan was relatively comparable to White and Bush and Martinez, Combine-wise.  But actually watching them play indicates otherwise.  Ryan didn't play as quickly as Martinez does, or as White and Bush have looked and scouted on game film.  Plus after 3 years of pounding, including ankle and hamstring injuries, it wasn't clear that he was going to have his combine-speed even prior to the knee surgery.  Now after surgery, as Hands notes, those combine numbers are even less representative. 

I'm not at all suggesting that Ryan is some old-school dinosaur, or that he won't survive as a situational player.  I agree with RT, that he was no longer viewed as a core player, and why pay double for a limited guy who you can replace with a potentially ascending younger player who may end up being a better player with longer club-control at less price? 

I'm just kind of belaboring the point that combine numbers and SPARQ and RAS etc. are tools useful at a point in time, but that they don't measure quickness or play speed super well.  And that over time, with injuries and changes in physique, the combine measurables may become very misrepresentative of what the player's straight-line speed and 3-cone speed is NOW. 

Tangent;  I know this will never happen.  But given how endlessly a college prospect's measurables get cited, I hypothetically wish teams would have each player run the 40 and 3-cone at the start of every camp, while wearing game pads and cleats; and would actually publish those for fan view!  :):):)  I'm guessing we'd see a whole bunch of guys a couple of years in, where their combine numbers wouldn't be very relatively representative anymore. 

I also kind of wish there was some way to make 40 and 3-cone more game-like.  Some fancy technology-style way to vary the placement of the 3-cones and make the player unable to know in advance where they will be, somehow.  I think as is, and as I understand it, some guys have the 3 cones placed such that it more naturally fits their stride length, and they get strong scores as a result. 

Offline RT

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3480
  • Karma: +60/-17
Re: Position look: ILB
« Reply #18 on: June 10, 2019, 08:18:35 AM »
It always starts with the game film first, ALWAYS. But after the potential players are first grouped by their game film then teams will pare them down with the physical testing. The list is very long of college LB's who were very productive in college, but got no chance in the NFL because of pre draft testing. There were several discussed on this site that run over 5 second 40's and over 7.5 three cones and were no longer even draftable. They are not NFL players. The testing doesn't guarantee success, it only gives a chance for success. High SPARQ and RAS scores alone will not get a team anything without the game tape to back it up, but low scores led to little to no chance to succeed.

As for your point about testing players each year in training camp, all that is pointless because they already know athletically that they belonged and their game film will dictate if they remain employed in the future.     

Online craig

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3867
  • Karma: +22/-4
Re: Position look: ILB
« Reply #19 on: June 10, 2019, 08:54:18 AM »
I know I know, teams don't want to mess with re-measuring all those measurables, and certianly players don't want to run them again either!  :):)

I'm just saying for fan talk!  We're constantly, constantly, constantly re-posting combine measurables from years ago.  Sometimes with the idea that it reflects something about their actual athleticism now; obviously often just to recapture how their athleticism appears to be back then. 

Jared Cook got signed many years into his career; of course his combine measurables get posted. 
WR discussions, Allison vs ESB vs Kumerow, etc.:  of course all of their combine measurables get posted, as a reminder that Allison is slow. 
Spriggs?  Look at his great combine speed numbers, isn't he a great athlete maybe just ready to blossom? 

It seems that all fan discussions constantly harken back to combine numbers!  For good reason, it's the only quantitive collection of numbers we've got, other than game stats.  I'm just saying it would be fun to actually compare present numbers for Allison vs ESB vs Kumerow!  For my sake, not for the players sake.  :):):)  And it would be fun to compare present Spriggs numbers compared to Pankey and Bulaga and Bhakti and Light, etc..  For us fans!  :):) 

Offline OneTwoSixFive

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2356
  • Karma: +15/-10
Re: Position look: ILB
« Reply #20 on: June 10, 2019, 10:09:43 AM »
tbh I'd forgotten about Ryan's injury. Thanks to those that reminded me. Although it sucks for Jake, I'm kind of glad that differing positional requirements over time, was not what did for him.

My memory (at 68) isn't what it once was. For memory purposes, oh to be 20 aqain (or 30....or 40.....or 50 even).

I think we all know that Martinez looked faster on the field, not spectacular fast, but fast enough to live with. This is somewhat at odds with their pre-draft 40 times (4.71 for Martinez, 4.65 for Ryan.....apologies to craig for posting this). Burks is much faster at 4.59 (at 233lbs).  I'd still love to see Donnerson in that role, (at 250lb with 4.4 speed), but to be fair to him, he deserves his chance at OLB first. i don't think he'd be close, instictually, to Ryan or Martinez for years, but he has elite physical measurables. If you grafted Ryan's head onto Donnerson's body, you would have someone (or something) very special indeed.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2019, 10:28:00 AM by OneTwoSixFive »
(ricky) "Personally, I'm putting this in a box, driving a stake through its heart, firing a silver bullet into its (empty) head, nailing it shut, loading it into a rocket and firing it into the sun. "

(Pink Floyd) "Set the controls for the heart of the sun"

Offline Hands

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1551
  • Karma: +6/-0
    • Uncover
Re: Position look: ILB
« Reply #21 on: June 11, 2019, 06:26:59 AM »
I'm not too far behind you 1265 in age and our memory is sometimes selective. As an example...my wife told a story about something that we both went through. I stopped her and said that's not the way it happened. We went through the same event, but we have different memories of what happened. Both of us swear we are right. So one of us is wrong, probably her, but we move on.

Getting back to to the position of ILB, RT made a very good point about WRs that applies to players that get drafted knowing they will need seasoning and grow into their positions. He used the example of Moore as a WR and you can say the same for Donnerson. He's big and quick enough, just not experienced enough for the pro game. I read that he made some impressive strides over the off-season and could be in the mix for some real playing time. Moore and Donnerson have the same issue...can you keep them on the roster long enough to see if they will develop? Easier doing it for a 7th rounder verses a 4th rounder.
In the land of the blind.....the one eye man is king!

Online craig

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3867
  • Karma: +22/-4
Re: Position look: ILB
« Reply #22 on: June 11, 2019, 08:46:46 AM »
.... I read that he made some impressive strides over the off-season and could be in the mix for some real playing time. Moore and Donnerson have the same issue...can you keep them on the roster long enough to see if they will develop? Easier doing it for a 7th rounder verses a 4th rounder.

Thanks, Hands, interesting. 

I'm not quite sure I understand the "impressive strides" account?  The only impressive strides a player can make during the offseason are physique-related strides.  But, based on combine measurements etc., didn't Donnerson already have a really good physique and excellent measurables already?  I thought all those were already good; the issue was whether he could learn how to play football?  The shame is that you can't actually play any football and improve yourself football-playing during an offseason, all you can do is improve your physique. 

Offline B

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4273
  • Karma: +16/-8
Re: Position look: ILB
« Reply #23 on: June 11, 2019, 09:46:48 AM »
While the collective bargaining agreement prohibits team driven practice, many players hire training specialists or join groups of players getting specific positional drills and training.

For example:
J'Mon Moore worked out with the well-respected Rischad Whitfield, a former college football player and current Houston-based trainer known for specializing in footwork and agility training.

Known as @footwork_king1 on Twitter, Whitfield has worked with several NFL stars in the past, including Le’Veon Bell, Deandre Hopkins, Emmanuel Sanders, Richard Sherman, Darius Slay, Xavier Rhodes, Aqib Talib, Melvin Gordon and more.

Last year Marquez Valdes-Scantling worked with Randy Moss to prepare for his rookie season...
« Last Edit: June 11, 2019, 09:56:37 AM by B »
The Green Bay Packers never lost a football game.
They just ran out of time.
-Vince Lombardi


Online ricky

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5997
  • Karma: +45/-20
Re: Position look: ILB
« Reply #25 on: July 23, 2019, 01:01:34 PM »
Washington just unceremoniously dumped Mason Foster. His salary this year would be $2.25 million. The cap hit (at least for Washington) would be $4.25 million. Whether this would carry over to the Packers?  :-\  I'm sure someone knows. He'd be a FA next year, and is a solid player, playing all 16 games last season. So, is he worth a look? Would he hamper the development of younger players? What about bringing him in and letting him compete for a job? Seems harmless enough, except for those players already on the roster. 30 years old, so he's still relatively young. This is not something I'm pushing for, but an interesting possibility.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/category/rumor-mill/

Contract details: https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/washington-redskins/mason-foster-7803/
"My hopes are not always realized, but I always hope." Ovid

Offline RT

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3480
  • Karma: +60/-17
Re: Position look: ILB
« Reply #26 on: July 23, 2019, 03:15:29 PM »
Washington just unceremoniously dumped Mason Foster. His salary this year would be $2.25 million. The cap hit (at least for Washington) would be $4.25 million. Whether this would carry over to the Packers?  :-\  I'm sure someone knows. He'd be a FA next year, and is a solid player, playing all 16 games last season. So, is he worth a look? Would he hamper the development of younger players? What about bringing him in and letting him compete for a job? Seems harmless enough, except for those players already on the roster. 30 years old, so he's still relatively young. This is not something I'm pushing for, but an interesting possibility.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/category/rumor-mill/

Contract details: https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/washington-redskins/mason-foster-7803/

Don't think it is out of the question, but really depends on what the Packers think of their young ILB's. Most fans are always for adding marginal older players over the unknown younger players, but in the long run that is a bad business model. If added it would be telling of what they think of their youth at the position. 

Online craig

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3867
  • Karma: +22/-4
Re: Position look: ILB
« Reply #27 on: July 23, 2019, 07:10:05 PM »
Yeah, I don't see it.  Martinez is the main man; they traded up to spend a highish pick on Burks; and there has been a lot of positive talk on Burks being ready to take a step.  Given how limited they play with 2 ILB, I think this is totally the time to go with Martinez + Burks, and trust your D+D evaluators/coaches.