I agree with Satan that safety is our biggest need, but I think the guy is already on the roster. Micah Hyde should be beefed up a little and play every down. The guy is a tackling machine and can cover. What else are we looking for. Draft a corner instead.

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 

Not Capers... the scheme, which NFL coaches know can work and has worked. It's the traditional 3-4 scheme... which I think the Patriots used when they won 3 out of 4 straight Super Bowls. Personally I think Capers 3-4 system which is more high risk (and hopefully high reward) is better (just like you) which the Packers ran from 2009 to 2011 but got away from after the DL and DB got a lot worse in 2011 due to injuries, FA and declining vets and Packers need to go to something less aggressive.

I just think you don't understand how coaches can ask certain positions to be role players and do more of the dirty work to open up others t make plays. Almost every system someone has to do the dirty work unless you get something like a full time 4-2 cover or tampa 2 like the bears play under lovie smith.




Nope I didn't... It's just clear your logic is all players equally being trying to be play makers is best which is your philosophy.

Sometimes that's true, sometimes it's not true. Players like Ryan Pickett, Brady Poppinga and many others have been best in role positions doing the dirty work to get other guys open to make the play.




Well if you watch the game you would of saw on 3rd down when the pass rushers would come in and they would still double Matthews. So they whole, if you do this every thing is solved is just not correct. Teams chip the best pass rusher even with other pass rushers in there.

And what's up with the stupid name calling? Fat turds? Are we in middle school or something? If that profile pic is of you, you don't look like the skinniest guy out there.



Ummm I think you misread what I wrote or didn't understand something as you agreed with me about Richards not being the coverage S they seem to want.


What I said was (and said it's probably a horrible idea), but I wonder how Richardson would look if gained some weight and played as a coverage ILB (not S but ILB). Again probably a horrible idea but just something I wondered about.

you just agreed with what I said about Richardson... yet you're saying "come on!" and using a disagreeing tone.

My post said Richardson can't be used like they want at S (cover Safety) that can rotate back and forth between SS and FS.

The thing I was wondering (and I said it's probably a horrible idea) I wonder if they asked him to gain weight and become a coverage ILB (not Safety like you wrot

Originally Posted by: beast 

Richardson to ILB? It's an interesting idea, but I honestly haven't seen that much in the guy to merit the effort.

You are correct that teams still double teamed Matthews even when the Packers had a pass rush package in there, and that double teaming - if YOU watched closely, was more than just the usual TE chipping on him, and they got away with it. However, even the situational D-Line usually included at least one fat pig in there.

So you're calling me fat huh? hahahaha It has taken me 66 years to build up that gut, and it's a good bet I still could beat anybody in this forum on the tennis court. Back on point, I just hate it that when you watch games, there are maybe a dozen or so players around the league with noticeably huge guts hanging over their belts, and way too big a percentage of those are Packers. And while some like that have some toughness, ours play way too soft for their weight.

I couldn't really understand what you were trying to say about role players and play makers. We only have one real defensive play maker - Matthews, and I doubt that is going to change. What I'm talking about is upgrading the D-Line to decent players from the fat slugs who have been vegetating there for a few years now. For somebody to do that "dirty" role you seem to be talking about, they have to be at least credible in terms of capability. Raji and Pickett clearly were not. Good Riddance to them.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 

I couldn't really understand what you were trying to say about role players and play makers. We only have one real defensive play maker

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 

For somebody to do that "dirty" role you seem to be talking about, they have to be at least credible in terms of capability. Raji and Pickett clearly were not. Good Riddance to them.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 

Yeah I don't think I explain it the best and I know you don't understand the general idea of it.

But trying to explain it, it was kind of like when the Packers were in the 4-3 Bates system... Nick Barnett was in the middle of the field and the scheme was asked to funnel plays back into him so he could be the playmaker.

For that to work the OLBers has to be role players and take on blocks a good bit and do the dirty work to keep Barnett clean and let him be the play maker.

Basically one guy does a lot more of the normally unnoticed stuff so another guy can play hero.
The one guy is doing the dirty work so the other one can be a play maker.
That's what the big guys have suppose to be doing, the dirty work and they set up Hawk very well this to be play maker.



Raji seems to have no interest in the dirty work and I think that's a large reason why he's failing.

Pickett on the other hand has been GREAT for the packers (until this last year) at doing the dirty work.

Remember Matthews Super Bowl fumble? Clay made the play but Pickett set that up for Matthews and forced him out towards Matthews, but seems like Pickett was forgotten on that play.

Originally Posted by: beast 

I've heard that theory so many times that Raji is merely dogging it. I don't buy it. He has always played soft for a guy his size. Even when he was relatively better, he was a finesse player - playing more like a 290 pounder than 350 or whatever. I NEVER saw toughness in him. To a great extent, Pickett was the same - give him credit for effort. etc., but toughness? I don't think so.

That whole "role playing" thing, to me, is the wrong philosophy to have - or more precisely, it only works if the ones you mention doing the dirty work have capability on their own to make some plays, and the guys getting things funneled into them - Barnett in the past, Hawk now, etc. are more like Patrick Willis and Navarro Bowman. Barring that sort of thing, you need a LACK of lumps who can't do anything - Raji and Pickett - and creative schemes - the Capers way, rather than plain vanilla like we had with Sanders, etc. before Capers.

As for Nerdman's idea of Richardson at OLB, I like that better than ILB. That makes more sense than turning DEs into OLBs. I just don't see that ability in Richardson to make it all worthwhile, though.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 

I've heard that theory so many times that Raji is merely dogging it. I don't buy

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 

To a great extent, Pickett was the same - give him credit for effort. etc., but toughness? I don't think so.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 

That whole "role playing" thing, to me, is the wrong philosophy to have

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker