Nick Barnett thinks we need more help on the D-Line· Page 2

Dulak
Veteran Member

15 years ago

Well TT's theory of being the very cautions man either will work or it wont. ie we could lose on a very good player if someone grabs im between now and after the draft.

But it makes sense to wait ...

I wouldnt feel bad thou like some people if we picked up carter; actually quite good.

MattG04
Registered

15 years ago

#12

I agree with Nick, but also hoping we land a really good DE in the draft who can immediately start and generate pressure.

What went wrong in '08 was the QB had way too much time to throw. He'd have a full second and a half more than Aaron Rodgers had, sometimes even averaging two whole seconds more than Aaron.

And that's one of the main reasons we went from 14-4 to 6-10. Our main priorities need to be our lines.

I'd be for signing one or the other plus picking up some big boys in the draft.

"zombieslayer" wrote:

Not trying to be a nitpicker but now that we run a 3-4, Defensive Ends arnt the ones generating pressure, they are there to take up space and free up lanes for our LB's to get to the quarterback. Which is why most 3-4 DE's are supposed to be huge (300+ pounds) and why we are looking at hybrid DE/OLBs in the draft such as Mabin and Orakpo.
That said, I think we all agree that we need some depth on the defensive line. 🙂

blank

DarkaneRules
Veteran Member

15 years ago

#13

Right, but in essence they are still generating pressure aren't they? I see pressure as the whole D-lines job no matter what scheme you run or is that mindset overly simplistic?

Circular Arguments: They are a heck of an annoyance

MattG04
Registered

15 years ago

#14

Well, obviously they want to get to the quarterback, and they will eventually. But what Im saying is that's not their main goal as in a 4-3. I coach a high school 3-4 defensive team, and I know they are two totally different levels, just from my experience though, we don't preach pass rush pass rush pass rush, we want our DE's to take up two blockers so it frees up our OLB to get a hit on the quarterback.

blank

Rios39
Member

15 years ago

#15

Right, but in essence they are still generating pressure aren't they? I see pressure as the whole D-lines job no matter what scheme you run or is that mindset overly simplistic?

"DarkaneRules" wrote:

Not really, DE's are more for eating blockers to create easy lanes for the LB's that are blitzing. The NT is more impact then the DE because they need to eat 2 blocked plus push the pocket back. Which is why I don't think it's necessary to over pay and send long term contracts to guys like Canty and others.

We can probably draft a few DT's and put them at DE if they are around 295-305. Any pressure they create will be an added bonus.

blank

MattG04
Registered

15 years ago

#16

Exactly, Rios. Which is why there is so much debate on who we should sign/draft and to whether what position our current players will play in the new scheme. I've seen some people say well it doesnt matter how much they weigh they can still play that position, well they really cant because their skill set is the exact opposite of what the 3-4 defense needs. A lot of the great 3-4 DE's now, Richard Seymour, Hitoli Nagata, played DT at one point or another.

blank

MassPackersFan
Member

15 years ago

#17

In those debates I usually quote Capers saying we won't try to fit players to a scheme.

MattG04
Registered

15 years ago

#18

Capers did say that, but they are already doing that? Kampman to OLB? Jolly and Harrell moving to DE? Hawk to the MLB? He already has fit players to his scheme. It's all Public Relations IMO, I take anything the coaches say in press conferences with a grain of salt. To me Capers quote is like McCarthy saying "We need better pad level".

blank

Zero2Cool
Elite Member

15 years ago

#19

"MattG04" wrote:

Did he?

You think Kampman would be more effective as DE than OLB in a 3 - 4?
You think Hawk would be more effective as OLB than ILB in a 3 - 4?
You think Jolly and Harrell would be more effective as NT than DE in a 3 - 4?

I think those were logical moves and its more so fitting their talents to the scheme.

MattG04
Registered

15 years ago

#20

They are logical moves, your right, but I don't think its fair to say that we won't try to fit players to the scheme when that's exactly what hes doing. I would have made those same moves as well.

blank

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

Mucky Tundra (6h) : Houston getting dog walked by Baltimore

packerfanoutwest (12h) : Feliz Navidad!

Zero2Cool (17h) : Merry Christmas!

beast (25-Dec) : Merry Christmas 🎄🎁

beast (24-Dec) : Sounds like no serious injuries from the Saints game and Jacobs and Watson should play in the Vikings game

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : both games Watson missed, Packers won

Martha Careful (24-Dec) : I hope all of you have a Merry Christmas!

Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Oh I know about Jacobs, I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to mimic Zero lol

buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : Jacobs was just sat down, Watson re-injured that knee that kept him out 1 game earlier

buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : I needed .14 that's. .14 points for the whole 4th quarter to win and go to the SB. Lol

Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Jacobs gonna be OK???

Zero2Cool (24-Dec) : Watson gonna be OK???

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : Inactives tonight for the Pack: Alexander- knee Bullard - ankle Williams - quad Walker -ankle Monk Heath

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : No Jaire, but hopefully the front 7 destroys the line of scrimmage & forces Rattler into a few passes to McKinney.

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : minny could be #1 seed and the Lions #5 seed

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I just checked. What tie breaker?

bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ahh, ok.

bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes due to tie breaker

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?

bboystyle (23-Dec) : 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 (23-Dec) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network

beast (23-Dec) : 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 (23-Dec) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.

bboystyle (23-Dec) : 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 (23-Dec) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv

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

beast (23-Dec) : 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 (23-Dec) : 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

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