Packers' Clay Matthews moves to inside linebacker

MintBaconDrivel
Senior Member Topic Starter

10 years ago

This was only a success because of Aaron Rodgers.

Green Bay Packers coach Mike McCarthy was so excited about his bye-week adjustment on defense that he had to give everyone a hint during the week of preparation for the Chicago Bears.

McCarthy said there would be a change that people would notice, but he never said it would involve his best player on defense playing a completely different position.

But there it was at the start of the Packers' home matchup with the Bears on national television Sunday night: Clay Matthews was at inside linebacker.

Clearly a concession to the 32nd place the Packers ranked in run defense coming into the game and the reality that there was no one else on the roster who could make a difference at inside linebacker, McCarthy and defensive coordinator Dom Capers came up with the idea of moving Matthews.

JSOnline wrote:

Delivering the latest and most important updates on the Green Bay Packers for your convenience.

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

wpr
Preferred Member

10 years ago

While CM3 didn't play every down inside it was a good move. Clay seemed to be reinvigorated as well as the rest of the D.

Mucky Tundra
Honored Member

10 years ago

On 670 the Score they just described this as move that Belicheck would make. I'm not sure what to make of this: nice to be compared to Belicheck but coming from Bears sports radio? 🤔

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

"I’ve got it." -Aaron Rodgers

yooperfan
Veteran Member

10 years ago

I didn't get to see the game but I listened to McCarthy's post game interview on the radio and he was absolutely gushing over the defensive adjustment and Clay Matthews stellar play.
Not having seen the game I was in the dark as to what he was talking about.
Now I know.
Nice piece of work Mike and co.

Zero2Cool
Elite Member

10 years ago

Aaron Rodgers made the Bears one dimensional and it didn't matter much who played where on the Packers defense. The Jay Cutler house of horrors thing came to a top. They could have played Sean Richardson at ILB and he'd be the one being gushed over.

I'm not saying Clay Matthews III can't be a good ILB, I'm saying his performance was more about being able to tee off a team and quarterback that were playing catch up. Every defense wants that because they can pin their ears back and attack.

PackFanWithTwins
Veteran Member

10 years ago

This really comes down to the defense being better with Neal/Perry on the field, rather than Jones/Lattimore/whoever else.

I suggested this move during the offseason as the way to have the best 11 on the field. I looks to put him in position where he can use his motor to attack plays and is a great complement to Hawk more cautious approach.

The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!

hardrocker950
Member

10 years ago

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool

This is true - when you take control of a game like we saw last night, your defense is in a good position to be aggressive. Clay played quite well in his new role, he looked fast and (very) aggressive as we typically expect him to be. I think this was a good coaching decision - you put your best guys in the best situation to make plays and I feel they did that. The ILB position has been mediocre to bad for a while now, so there was no reason to NOT make a change.

This is the type of decision making that you want to see from your coaches. If something isn't working, make a change.

texaspackerbacker
Veteran Member

10 years ago

Of course, you KNOW where McCarthy (or more precisely, CAPERS) got the idea for this move ......... PACKERSHOME!

An October 13 thread started by MBD and strongly embraced by me and several other posters called for this highly intelligent move. As I recall, only one poster opposed it - somebody who said Clay wasn't strong enough to play ILB and that ILB was a more "cerebral" position - apparently hinting that Clay wasn't smart enough. Well, he sure look plenty strong last night, in addition to very fast, and if his brain wasn't good enough, it sure didn't keep him from doing the job sideline to sideline.

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

hardrocker950
Member

10 years ago

Well, he sure look plenty strong last night, in addition to very fast, and if his brain wasn't good enough, it sure didn't keep him from doing the job sideline to sideline.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker

Well said Texas.

I really don't know where the lack of intelligence argument was born, but I really don't think he is lacking in the brains department - seems to be a stereotype that pass rushers often get labeled with. It was fun and refreshing to see someone play inside that can get to the edges and make plays.

Zero2Cool
Elite Member

10 years ago

#10

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker

It was quite evident that Clay Matthews III isn't strong enough. He was manhandled by the Guards when they got their hands on him. As for being smart enough, I don't remember anyone saying that. As long as he can squeeze by the Guards without them touching him, he's going to continue being a menace. I like him in coverage more than any other LB the Packers have tried on the inside.

And my goodness does A.J. Hawk look thin as heck. I think Tim Masthay has more bulk than he does.

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

packerfanoutwest (2h) : No Jaire, but hopefully the front 7 destroys the line of scrimmage & forces Rattler into a few passes to McKinney.

packerfanoutwest (3h) : minny could be #1 seed and the Lions #5 seed

Zero2Cool (5h) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them

Zero2Cool (5h) : I just checked. What tie breaker?

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

Zero2Cool (5h) : Ahh, ok.

bboystyle (5h) : yes due to tie breaker

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

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

bboystyle (5h) : 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 (6h) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network

beast (7h) : 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 (7h) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly

Zero2Cool (7h) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.

bboystyle (7h) : 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 (7h) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv

Zero2Cool (8h) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno

beast (8h) : 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 (8h) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans

Zero2Cool (9h) : I see what you did there Mucky

Zero2Cool (9h) : dammit. 3:25pm

Zero2Cool (9h) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm

Mucky Tundra (9h) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground

Mucky Tundra (9h) : Yeah baby!

Zero2Cool (9h) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah

Zero2Cool (10h) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.

beast (10h) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue

Zero2Cool (11h) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's

Zero2Cool (11h) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.

packerfanoutwest (12h) : ok I stand corrected

Zero2Cool (12h) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th

Zero2Cool (12h) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?

beast (12h) : Saying no to the 6th lock.

beast (12h) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out

Zero2Cool (12h) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.

beast (12h) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games

beast (12h) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality

beast (12h) : 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 (12h) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread

Zero2Cool (12h) : I literally just said it.

packerfanoutwest (12h) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't

Zero2Cool (12h) : Falcons, Buccaneers would need to win final two games.

Zero2Cool (12h) : Yes, if they win one of three, they are lock. If they lose out, they can be eliminated.

packerfanoutwest (12h) : as I just said,,gtheyh are in no matter what

Zero2Cool (12h) : Packers should get in. I just hope it's not 7th seed. Feels dirty.

packerfanoutwest (12h) : If packers lose out, no matter what, they are in

packerfanoutwest (12h) : both teams can not male the playoffs....falcon hold the tie breaker

packerfanoutwest (12h) : if bucs win out they win their division

beast (12h) : Fine, Buccaneers and Falcons can get ahead of us

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

Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM

Vikings

Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM

BEARS