2018 Green Bay Packers Training Camp: Rodgers Extension Reportedly Done

[OldSchoolSnapper]

So then why talk about them at all? Lmao.

 

If I'd come in here saying I loved Pettine and they're going to be 13-3 you wouldn't be so bothered by it.

 

I don't get what the controversy is. I don't think they're going to be good and it's because they don't stack up with the best teams defensively. I think they're the same one-man show they've been for years.

 

Is that not allowed? I think the odds are on my side here.

[pacopete4]

So then why talk about them at all? Lmao.

 

If I'd come in here saying I loved Pettine and they're going to be 13-3 you wouldn't be so bothered by it.

 

I don't get what the controversy is. I don't think they're going to be good and it's because they don't stack up with the best teams defensively. I think they're the same one-man show they've been for years.

 

Is that not allowed? I think the odds are on my side here.

 

Never said it’s not allowed. My opinion is that it is laughable to judge this team right now. Is that not allowed? I’m not bothered by anything you have said, just pointing out how I think it’s foolish to say out loud some of what you are before anything is settled roster wise or a brand new coach gets a crack at running the defense.

[LouisEly]

I see many mocks advocating for the Packers to draft Harold Landry, the edge rusher from Boston College. I only have one response to that: Carl Bradford.

They are not comparable. First, the Packers didn't keep Bradford at OLB - they tried moving him to ILB. Second, Landry not only has more length but also tested much better at the combine:

 

Landry: 4.64 (40), 6.88 (3-cone), 4.19 (short shuttle)

Bradford: 4.76 (40), 7.25 (3-cone), 4.30 (short shuttle)

 

Scouting reports also say that Landry has elite burst, ability to dip and rip, and bend the edge. Landry also forced at least 10 fumbles in his career. There's a reason Bradford lasted until the 4th round, and why Landry will go in the first. Landry's comp is closer to James Harrison than Bradford.

 

Third... how do you know how much effort Bradford put into learning his position and adjusting to the league, and how do you know how much effort Landry will put in?

[superfly]

Expecting a defense that's been terrible for years to be terrible again with mostly the same players is a realistic expectation.

 

That makes you a realist.

 

Packers fans don't live in reality. They never have. You aren't allowed to point out even very obvious holes on the team.

 

Pretending that my view of the defense and management isn't warranted is laughable. You act like I'm the only guy saying this stuff.

 

You're underestimating the upgrade we made finally getting Dom Capers out of town. And I've done my fair share of bashing this organization lately, that's far from a blinders on statement.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

I see many mocks advocating for the Packers to draft Harold Landry, the edge rusher from Boston College. I only have one response to that: Carl Bradford.

They are not comparable. First, the Packers didn't keep Bradford at OLB - they tried moving him to ILB. Second, Landry not only has more length but also tested much better at the combine:

 

Landry: 4.64 (40), 6.88 (3-cone), 4.19 (short shuttle)

Bradford: 4.76 (40), 7.25 (3-cone), 4.30 (short shuttle)

 

Scouting reports also say that Landry has elite burst, ability to dip and rip, and bend the edge. Landry also forced at least 10 fumbles in his career. There's a reason Bradford lasted until the 4th round, and why Landry will go in the first. Landry's comp is closer to James Harrison than Bradford.

 

Third... how do you know how much effort Bradford put into learning his position and adjusting to the league, and how do you know how much effort Landry will put in?

 

I don't. I just know that short, small edge rushers wash out more than they succeed. Landry had great college numbers, but as we all know, that does not equate to NFL success. James Harrison is an obvious exception, but its a very, very rare exception. There's much more of a chance that Landry's career mirrors Bradford's than it does Harrison's.

 

The Packers moved Bradford to ILB because he couldn't cut it as an edge rusher, not because that was their original plan. He was a wasted pick. My personal opinion is that Landry will be as well. If the Packers draft him, and he proves me wrong, I'll be happy.

[FVBrewerFan]

For example, thinking Daniels, Clark, Wilkerson and Lowery should be excellent? Excellent? I would settle for that group being above average, and that's not even a given.

 

Daniels AND Clark graded out as excellent (Yes, excellent) d-linemen last year. I suppose the above assumption does require assuming that Wilkerson rebounds somewhat under Pettine, but I don't think that's crazy.

 

Then the word excellent is getting thrown around too casually. An excellent lineman stops the run and consistently gets pressure on the QB. Daniels and Clark were really good against the run, but they are not pass rushers. Clark has potential to do that.

 

But my comment was really more about the position group as a whole being excellent. I just don't see the ceiling being excellent, but who knows.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

For example, thinking Daniels, Clark, Wilkerson and Lowery should be excellent? Excellent? I would settle for that group being above average, and that's not even a given.

 

Daniels AND Clark graded out as excellent (Yes, excellent) d-linemen last year. I suppose the above assumption does require assuming that Wilkerson rebounds somewhat under Pettine, but I don't think that's crazy.

 

Then the word excellent is getting thrown around too casually. An excellent lineman stops the run and consistently gets pressure on the QB. Daniels and Clark were really good against the run, but they are not pass rushers. Clark has potential to do that.

 

But my comment was really more about the position group as a whole being excellent. I just don't see the ceiling being excellent, but who knows.

 

Daniels and Clark are championship quality players. They aren't guys you need to replace to win a title. As interior DL go, they're pretty good. Their primary job isn't pass rushing, but they both definitely can rush the passer. Clark's jump from Year 1 to Year 2 showed that if he continues progressing he has a chance to be one of the best.

 

Those two and Martinez are the best players on the defense right now all things considered and the only three I would keep if you asked me to blow it up and start over. They're dead last on this list of concerns. Lowry is mediocre and a guy most teams would have given up on by now, but Ted Thompson lets guys like that stick around for 8 years.

 

Matthews and Perry get hurt too often and disappear for games at a time, but they're still valuable and can play on a good defense. The rest of the group is pretty awful. It's a bunch of mediocre or worse players that fans stick by because they're "our guys."

 

Why anyone cared about Burnett leaving blew my mind. That guy never made impact plays; the production out of both S positions has been unacceptable for quite some time now. The secondary is so devoid of talent, it is the primary reason I'm forecasting a bad season. This is a passing league and the Packers just re-signed House, a guy who graded around 50 and people are sort of happy about it. He can't run at all anymore. The hope is that a pass rush helps out back there, but at some point you need some talent and they don't have it.

 

They were totally unprepared for losing Sam Shields and this has been one of the worst 3 secondaries in the league since then. Again, the love affair fans have with King is mysterious to me. The book is completely out on him. Graded poorly then got hurt. We have no idea what he is.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Daniels and Clark are championship quality players. They aren't guys you need to replace to win a title. As interior DL go, they're pretty good. Their primary job isn't pass rushing, but they both definitely can rush the passer.

 

Those two and Martinez are the best players on the defense right now all things considered and the only three I would keep if you asked me to blow it up and start over. They're dead last on this list of concerns. Lowry is mediocre and a guy most teams would have given up on by now, but Ted Thompson lets guys like that stick around for 8 years.

 

Matthews and Perry get hurt too often and disappear for games at a time, but they're still valuable and can play on a good defense. The rest of the group is pretty awful. It's a bunch of mediocre or worse players that fans stick by because they're "our guys."

 

Why anyone cared about Burnett leaving blew my mind. That guy never made impact plays; the production out of both S positions has been unacceptable for quite some time now. The secondary is so devoid of talent, it is the primary reason I'm forecasting a bad season. This is a passing league and the Packers just re-signed House, a guy who graded around 50 and people are sort of happy about it. He can't run at all anymore. The hope is that a pass rush helps out back there, but at some point you need some talent and they don't have it.

 

They were totally unprepared for losing Sam Shields and this has been one of the worst 3 secondaries in the league since then. Again, the love affair fans have with King is mysterious to me. The book is completely out on him. Graded poorly then got hurt. We have no idea what he is.

 

Disagree on Lowry. He is entering year 3, and has improved every year. He's never going to be a star, but provides very solid depth. You need guys like that. You don't give up on them when they are in their early 20s.

 

The secondary is full of a lot of "what ifs". King has all the measurables of a shut-down CB, so hopefully he takes a step this year. The combo of Ha-Ha and Jones really can't be any worse than what Ha-Ha and Burnett provided last year. Ha-Ha's regression from 2016 to 2017 was astounding. I hope that Pettine's defense can get the 2016 Ha-Ha back, but it's not a sure thing. Jones has prototypical safety measureables as well, I just hope he is smart enough to handle the role. I almost wonder if they might try to get James or Fitzpatrick tonight, and let them play safety, which would let Jones rotate between nickel LB and slot corner?

 

I think the Packers went into the offseason intent on grabbing one of the top CBs in free agency, but Gute got sideswiped by the contracts they were getting and froze. That's probably why almost every mock has them trying very hard to get one of the top guys tonight. Also wouldn't surprise me to see them trade a pick/picks for an established vet CB this weekend. I agree that it won't be a good situation if they go into the season banking on guys like Josh Hawkins, Herb Waters, Lenzy Pipkins and Donatello Brown to play significant roles back there. You can get away with one of those type of guys at the back end of the depth chart, but not several like what they have.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

The secondary has a big "what if" in King and Jones but I'd say most of it isn't "what if," but rather "these guys are clearly not good players."

 

Even if they grab a "top" corner tonight, there is no assurance that he is good, can contribute right away, or that he or someone else won't get hurt. Regardless of what happens tonight secondary is not going to be a strength on this team.

 

It's a thin group and a masterful draft may alleviate the problems but it is going to be a group that gets exposed several times this season. It doesn't mean they can't be successful but they will be constantly game planning on how to mask its problems. Getting a better rush going is probably the group's best friend and where they are focusing their energy.

 

Zero interceptions from the safety position is inexcusable. The INT is the single most influential play in the NFL, they cannot go far with that kind of production. When this defense goes up against Goff, Brady, Wentz, etc., can they keep them under 30 points? It's not much to ask but in GB it apparently is. If yes, they have a chance to do anything.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Zero interceptions from the safety position is inexcusable. The INT is the single most influential play in the NFL, they cannot go far with that kind of production. When this defense goes up against Goff, Brady, Wentz, etc., can they keep them under 30 points? It's not much to ask but in GB it apparently is. If yes, they have a chance to do anything.

 

Ha Ha had 3 picks last year, and Josh Jones and Kentrell Brice added one each. Burnett didn't have any which may partially explain why he's a Steeler now.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I was referring to Burnett, who's most memorable play as a Packer is sliding down in the NFCCG.

 

I've never seen a less effective player held up so high by fans for some reason. He was "the quarterback of the defense!" Yes, well, Hundley was the QB of the offense.

[pacopete4]

I was referring to Burnett, who's most memorable play as a Packer is sliding down in the NFCCG.

 

I've never seen a less effective player held up so high by fans for some reason. He was "the quarterback of the defense!" Yes, well, Hundley was the QB of the offense.

 

Good thing he is gone then. Sounds like our defense will improve just based on that.

[adambr2]

I expect the defense to be improved just from Capers not running the show anymore. Maybe that's too optimistic but I do expect it.

 

I agree the corner group as assembled isn't very good but House and Williams are fine as bench depth. Free agency still isn't over and there may be some signings post draft. Guys like Dominique Rodgers Cromartie are still out there.

 

I agree Burnett was nothing special and I think his market reflected that. I totally disagree that the team talent stinks and is in need of a rebuild. There are at least 7 guys on defense that are capable of between average to well above average production for their position when fully healthy (Daniels, Clark, Wilkerson, HHCD, Perry, Matthews, Martinez), while the jury is still out on guys like Jones and King. Every team has competent role players like Lowry.

 

I think it was a Capers problem way more than it was a talent problem. We shall see.

[CheezWizHed]

Just looking at the changes being made on defense, one could say that we are rebuilding. Probably 2 new starting CBs from opening day last year (King became a starter part way through), a new starting safety, a new starting DL (Wilkerson) and a lot of depth changes.

 

One reason that I was done with Caper is that the individual talent never ready reflected on the field. There were so many communication gaps and coverage flaws... I never got the impression that Capers really was in control the last couple years. So simply by that measure, I think we will be better. Top 10? Maybe not, but not bottom 10 either.

 

As for drafting Landry, I keep getting bad Jamal Reynolds flashbacks. Not sure if that is warranted or even if they are comparable players, but my flashbacks are real.

[Point Beer Is Best]

I had to skim through this since it was a lot to digest. But I feel like OSS is the guy who doesn't really pay attention to the players during the game and angrily calls into the post-game show with a hot take that causes the host to eye-roll so hard that you can hear it on the radio. Dean Lowry is a guy most teams would have given up on by now? Rodgers & Adams are the only stars? Rebuild while having the best QB in football? My goodness.

[PeaveyFury]

For example, thinking Daniels, Clark, Wilkerson and Lowery should be excellent? Excellent? I would settle for that group being above average, and that's not even a given.

 

Daniels AND Clark graded out as excellent (Yes, excellent) d-linemen last year. I suppose the above assumption does require assuming that Wilkerson rebounds somewhat under Pettine, but I don't think that's crazy.

 

Then the word excellent is getting thrown around too casually. An excellent lineman stops the run and consistently gets pressure on the QB. Daniels and Clark were really good against the run, but they are not pass rushers. Clark has potential to do that.

 

But my comment was really more about the position group as a whole being excellent. I just don't see the ceiling being excellent, but who knows.

 

Perhaps your definition of 'excellent' differs from others, which is why there is a disconnect. What falls between above average/good and elite? Great? Excellent? If you're equating excellent with elite, that's the reason for the confusion.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I had to skim through this since it was a lot to digest. But I feel like OSS is the guy who doesn't really pay attention to the players during the game and angrily calls into the post-game show with a hot take that causes the host to eye-roll so hard that you can hear it on the radio. Dean Lowry is a guy most teams would have given up on by now? Rodgers & Adams are the only stars? Rebuild while having the best QB in football? My goodness.

 

Yeah, whatever. Or I'm the guy who's simply watched this team fail to play average defense for 8 years.

 

It's such BS the way you guys are framing my opinions, like I'm some whackadoodle with no basis for saying this stuff.

 

Seriously, who is a star on the Packers, besides Rodgers and probably Adams? There is not a single guy on the roster who qualifies as a "star."

 

The closest one is probably Kenny Clark at this point, honestly, if we're excluding Jimmy Graham. It's like nobody watched what happened when Rodgers got hurt last year. The roster was exposed for the mediocrity that it is.

 

The Packers should have been investing in defense for the last decade, not paying Cobbs and Nelsons $10mm when Rodgers could have had adequate success with league minimum type veterans. The difference between the Packers and Patriots? They do the latter and invest money at impact positions, or get the last ounce of football from other team's throwaways. Ted's "I'm keeping my guys even if it means overpaying" has hurt the Packers dearly.

 

Before someone says it, no I don't expect Patriot-type dominance, but I definitely feel justified saying they should have played in more than one Super Bowl by now.

 

What's really bugging me about the attitude towards what I've said is that I don't think any of it has been that unreasonable. I literally just said Clark and Daniels are championship caliber guys and that Blake Martinez is a keeper as well. But you can keep on being a jerk about it.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

"Excellent" literally isn't on the PFF grade chart, which is causing the confusion assuming you were referring to PFF grades. It goes from high quality to elite, and I think most people would say "excellent" is closer to elite than high quality.

 

I would say both Daniels and Clark are high quality but not elite, with Clark definitely showing the potential to be elite possibly this season. That guy is an animal with as good of quickness as any interior DL in football.

[PeaveyFury]

It's like nobody watched what happened when Rodgers got hurt last year. The roster was exposed for the mediocrity that it is.

 

What team has their future HOF QB miss most of the season and doesn't struggle to win games?

 

People are putting the over-under on Packer wins this year in the 9-10 range, solidly in contention for a playoff spot. That's not a team in need of a rebuild.

[PeaveyFury]

"Excellent" literally isn't on the PFF grade chart, which is causing the confusion assuming you were referring to PFF grades. It goes from high quality to elite, and I think most people would say "excellent" is closer to elite than high quality.

 

I would say both Daniels and Clark are high quality but not elite, with Clark definitely showing the potential to be elite possibly this season. That guy is an animal with as good of quickness as any interior DL in football.

 

I'm not the one who used the word excellent originally, for the record. As I said in my post, if you equate 'excellent' to 'elite', then yes, there's confusion, as they're not currently elite. But he said that he didn't think they would even be above average, when they graded-out at a higher level than that even last year. Again, how do you define 'high quality, then?' Great, instead of excellent? Talk about a silly debate about semantics. Either way, he was significantly discounting the expected performance of Clark and Daniels based on their actual performance last year.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Which is funny because I've stated numerous times now that I have them pegged at 8-9 wins but for some reason that's causing people to lose their mind.

 

"Rebuild" is relative. Couldn't one say the Packers are rebuilding? They just traded last year's "best" corner and fired their DC. They brought in a big-name TE and a very talented DL who's had attitude problems. They cut a franchise star.

 

When I said they need to rebuild I think it's pretty obvious that I didn't mean trade Aaron Rodgers for draft picks.

 

Maybe this stuff will work out for them. But I don't think Jimmy Graham and a lame duck McCarthy season are going to do much. I also wish they'd also cut Cobb as he's been a total disappointment after getting paid.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

"Excellent" literally isn't on the PFF grade chart, which is causing the confusion assuming you were referring to PFF grades. It goes from high quality to elite, and I think most people would say "excellent" is closer to elite than high quality.

 

I would say both Daniels and Clark are high quality but not elite, with Clark definitely showing the potential to be elite possibly this season. That guy is an animal with as good of quickness as any interior DL in football.

 

I'm not the one who used the word excellent originally, for the record. As I said in my post, if you equate 'excellent' to 'elite', then yes, there's confusion, as they're not currently elite. But he said that he didn't think they would even be above average, when they graded-out at a higher level than that even last year. Again, how do you definte 'high quality, then?' Great, instead of excellent? Talk about a silly debate about semantics. Either way, he was significantly discounting the expected performance of Clark and Daniels based on their actual performance last year.

 

Yes it was an odd post since they are 2 of the only guys on defense that any other team would love to have.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

"Excellent" literally isn't on the PFF grade chart, which is causing the confusion assuming you were referring to PFF grades. It goes from high quality to elite, and I think most people would say "excellent" is closer to elite than high quality.

 

I would say both Daniels and Clark are high quality but not elite, with Clark definitely showing the potential to be elite possibly this season. That guy is an animal with as good of quickness as any interior DL in football.

 

I'm not the one who used the word excellent originally, for the record. As I said in my post, if you equate 'excellent' to 'elite', then yes, there's confusion, as they're not currently elite. But he said that he didn't think they would even be above average, when they graded-out at a higher level than that even last year. Again, how do you definte 'high quality, then?' Great, instead of excellent? Talk about a silly debate about semantics. Either way, he was significantly discounting the expected performance of Clark and Daniels based on their actual performance last year.

 

Yes it was an odd post since they are 2 of the only guys on defense that any other team would love to have.

 

If they cut Matthews, I think it would take him about 27 seconds to find a new team on a multi-year, multimillion dollar deal.

 

And it was me who used the term "Excellent". Sorry I'm not buying into PFF's terminology and ranking structure.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I don't think Matthews would be signed as much more than a specialist at this point but yes he would still get signed quickly.

 

He's not what he was but still a productive player. I don't really have an issue with him but he's become the popular lightning rod in recent years because he's a star. He does not produce like a star anymore. Guys like that always end up making more than their production in any sport, it's how being a veteran superstar always shakes out.

[Point Beer Is Best]

Seriously, who is a star on the Packers, besides Rodgers and probably Adams? There is not a single guy on the roster who qualifies as a "star."

 

David Bakhtiari might be the best LT in the league now that Joe Thomas is retired. Unless you're one of those people who don't consider OL players to be stars, which would be weird because LT is the second most important position on offense.

 

The Packers should have been investing in defense for the last decade.

 

2011 was the last year the team didn't draft a defensive player with their first pick. Looking at rounds 1-4 from the last 10 years, they've drafted 60% defensive players. That number jumps way up to 80% when looking at their three most recent drafts. If you can't see that's investing in defense for a draft & develop team, then I don't know what to tell you.