Carl Bradford, Demetri Goodson not ready to be factors

Mucky Tundra
Honored Member Topic Starter

10 years ago

From the moment the Packers drafted Bradford at No. 121 overall out of Arizona State, it seemed he might be better suited to play inside linebacker. At 6-foot-1 and 252 pounds, he is the shortest outside linebacker on the roster and the second lightest among those he's competing against for a spot.

To date, however, Bradford has not taken a single snap at inside linebacker.

Didn't he line up at ILB vs the Rams?

The thing with Bradford is potentially a mess. Keep him at the expense of someone else who's shown more but isn't a 4th rounder? Give him the boot only to watch someone else scoop him up, play him at ILB and have success? And whose call was it to keep him at OLB over ILB? Capers? Moss? McCarthy?

“Nah. I like having the island. It’s pretty cool...not too many visitors”

"I’ve got it." -Aaron Rodgers

Wanna join the discussion?! Login to your PACKERSHOME forum account or Register a new forum account

DarkaneRules
Veteran Member

10 years ago

I think a move was/is inevitable. How you make that move and keep him on your team, I don't know. The expansion of the PS helps everyone though so we'll see if he ends up there. If he doesn't earn a spot on the 53, what happens to Bradford will be interesting.

The game is evolving toward players with this guy's measurables and talents. Right now though it is still in a transition period. I don't like this guy winning a lot of 1 on 1s at the LOS. I do however like him to be impactful as a pass rusher in general; A guy who can be moved around. He will need some seasoning to settle into his current role, and next year he will be asked to do more. Whether that is with us or someone else is the big question.

Circular Arguments: They are a heck of an annoyance

steveishere
Veteran Member

10 years ago

Carl Bradford, Demetri Goodson not ready to be factors

Didn't he line up at ILB vs the Rams?

The thing with Bradford is potentially a mess. Keep him at the expense of someone else who's shown more but isn't a 4th rounder? Give him the boot only to watch someone else scoop him up, play him at ILB and have success? And whose call was it to keep him at OLB over ILB? Capers? Moss? McCarthy?

Originally Posted by: Mucky Tundra

I think he still lined up at OLB just stunted inside the DE at the snap. I would understand that they tried out Bradford at OLB first if we were really weak at that position but this year with Perry and Neal as our back ups and some super athletic guys like Mulumba and Elliott behind them it wasn't really necessary. One thing I will say is i've been really unimpressed with Lattimore this offseason and I could see Barrington passing him up as the top back up at ILB. If that's the case I could see keeping Bradford over him and using that 3rd string ILB spot on a prospect like Bradford.

texaspackerbacker
Veteran Member

10 years ago

Hopefully they can get away with letting Goodson develop on the Practice Squad; Bradford, I really doubt it. As was said, losing a lot of 1 on 1's in practice reflects the athleticism or lack of it thing. It's more about instinct in game situations. If I was McCarthy/Capers/Moss/whoever the hell is the prime decider, I'd have him playing until he is exhausted in this Oakland game at ILB - either he shows he deserves to be the 4th ILB - behind Barrington/ahead of Lattimore or he doesn't and gets cut.

Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.

nerdmann
Premier Member

10 years ago

Originally Posted by: steveishere

Yeah it looked like he was rushing from the inside, but he may have been stunting from the outside.

We all know Bradford should get a look at ILB, just like we knew Hyde should get a look at S last year. But that's not Dom's way.

“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”

Mucky Tundra
Honored Member Topic Starter

10 years ago

Originally Posted by: steveishere

Originally Posted by: nerdmann

I get why they wanted to try him at OLB: to try and get as many edge rushers as possible. But I remember when they insisted on trying him at OLB something in the back of my head said "wait a second, this is like Hyde last year." More square pegs into round hole" stuff.

“Nah. I like having the island. It’s pretty cool...not too many visitors”

"I’ve got it." -Aaron Rodgers

DarkaneRules
Veteran Member

10 years ago

Except in Hyde's case, I believe making the transition to safety was easier after getting a year of football under his belt as a corner.

Circular Arguments: They are a heck of an annoyance

Dexter_Sinister
Registered

10 years ago

Except in Hyde's case, I believe making the transition to safety was easier after getting a year of football under his belt as a corner.

Originally Posted by: DarkaneRules

There is a lot of overlap between safety and slot CB.

If Hayward wasn't hurt, they wouldn't have needed Hyde to play the slot and they would have had him at safety.

I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.
Not screaming in terror like his passengers.

DarkaneRules
Veteran Member

10 years ago

There certainly is. I agree with that. But when you transition to the NFL you look for the path of least resistance. The need at corner didn't hurt though 🙂

Circular Arguments: They are a heck of an annoyance

Important Information:

The PACKERSHOME uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More Details Close

Fan Shout

packerfanoutwest (2h) : both games Watson missed, Packers won

Martha Careful (4h) : I hope all of you have a Merry Christmas!

Mucky Tundra (14h) : Oh I know about Jacobs, I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to mimic Zero lol

buckeyepackfan (14h) : Jacobs was just sat down, Watson re-injured that knee that kept him out 1 game earlier

buckeyepackfan (14h) : I needed .14 that's. .14 points for the whole 4th quarter to win and go to the SB. Lol

Mucky Tundra (14h) : Jacobs gonna be OK???

Zero2Cool (14h) : Watson gonna be OK???

packerfanoutwest (18h) : Inactives tonight for the Pack: Alexander- knee Bullard - ankle Williams - quad Walker -ankle Monk Heath

packerfanoutwest (18h) : No Jaire, but hopefully the front 7 destroys the line of scrimmage & forces Rattler into a few passes to McKinney.

packerfanoutwest (18h) : minny could be #1 seed and the Lions #5 seed

Zero2Cool (20h) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them

Zero2Cool (20h) : I just checked. What tie breaker?

bboystyle (20h) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner

Zero2Cool (20h) : Ahh, ok.

bboystyle (20h) : yes due to tie breaker

Zero2Cool (20h) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.

Zero2Cool (20h) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?

bboystyle (20h) : Minny isnt going to lose out so 5th seed is out of the equation. We are playing for the 6th or 7th seed which makes no difference

Mucky Tundra (21h) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network

beast (22h) : If we win tonight the game is still relative in terms of 5th, 6th or 7th seed... win and it's 5th or 6th, lose and it's 6th or 7th

beast (22h) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly

Zero2Cool (22h) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.

bboystyle (22h) : i mean game becomes irrelevant if we win tonight. Just a game where we are trying to play spoilers to Vikings chance at the #1 seed

Mucky Tundra (22h) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv

Zero2Cool (23h) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno

beast (23h) : I agree that it's BS for fans planning on going to the game. But how does it bring in more money? I'm guessing indirectly?

packerfanoutwest (23h) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I see what you did there Mucky

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : dammit. 3:25pm

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Yeah baby!

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.

beast (23-Dec) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.

packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : ok I stand corrected

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?

beast (23-Dec) : Saying no to the 6th lock.

beast (23-Dec) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.

beast (23-Dec) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games

beast (23-Dec) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality

beast (23-Dec) : We already have told you... if Packers lose all their games (they won't, but if they did), and Buccaneers and Falcons win all theirs

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I literally just said it.

packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Falcons, Buccaneers would need to win final two games.

Please sign in to use Fan Shout

2024 Packers Schedule

Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM

Eagles

29 - 34

Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM

COLTS

16 - 10

Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM

Titans

30 - 14

Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM

VIKINGS

29 - 31

Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM

Rams

24 - 19

Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM

CARDINALS

34 - 13

Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM

TEXANS

24 - 22

Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM

Jaguars

30 - 27

Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM

LIONS

14 - 24

Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM

Bears

20 - 19

Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM

49ERS

38 - 10

Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM

DOLPHINS

30 - 17

Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM

Lions

31 - 34

Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM

Seahawks

30 - 13

Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM

SAINTS

34 - 0

Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM

Vikings

Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM

BEARS