Rymanofthenorth
BGObsessed
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2010
- Messages
- 5,705
- Reaction score
- 106
- Points
- 143
- Alma Mater
And he still could have been a strength, if he'd bought into the system. He never did, and pouted like a 5 year old. And no, I still don't buy your argument that a guy that talented can only play one way - its silly at best. And no, you don't need to rehash it and tell me how dumb I am for not agreeing with you; I can just go back and read one of your 9012432532 threads on the topic if I need a refresher.
Ryans reply
I never said he can only play one way I said that his skill set means that he is best used as an attacking upfield type player, this again is not a point that can be argued, it is not opinion it is fact. the reason there are so many threads is that so many people make such dumb statements, and btw the fat guy wasnt even the guy who was most affected by this change, Carter and Rocky would also like a word lol.
Actually, there's at least 3 - two of them are playing in the superbowl this Sunday; one lost a weekend ago to the Steelers.
Ryans reply
Umm you do understand that both the steelers and the packers have far more 3-4 talent than we do right? you understand that we do not have any players in the 3-4 who are at the level of their counterpart on those teams THEREFORE NO ITS NOT A GOOD REASON TO CHANGE TO THE SAME DEFENCE IN FACT ITS ABJECT STUPIDITY. if we had some players who were even close it might not have been such a fail, but we dont so it was. so what was the third?
Clay Matthews was the 26th overall pick - no need to tank. Takes time to build a defense; whether or not we have the competence to get the right guys in is another thread altogether, however assuming we do, it doesn't happen overnight.
Ryans reply,
You sort of countered your own point, good drafting is often caused by knwing your system and finding players who fit. I dont think we know the system.
You're making the assumption that Jarmon would be an every down contributor like Daniels has been, which may or may not be the case. The point is, if you need to replace those guys anyway, why not replace them with 3-4 personnel? Jarmon and Rak are good fits in the 3-4 D. Now we use draft picks to build around them. Its pretty simple, Ry.
Ryans reply
Jarmon was doing pretty well until he hurt his knee, he was going to be fighting daniels for the reps and best case he won, worst case he was still gonna get some reps. Jarmon is not in fact a good fit in the 3-4 he was sadly the best of a bad set of options, the lose weight gain weight was sort of funny but counterproductive. and Rak is actually not a good fit in the 3-4 thus far, with more rushes as a 3-4 olb he had less sacks than as a situational 4-3 olb and pass rush end. its pretty simple lanky, some numbers dont lie.
Dominate like in 2009 when we went 4-12? Because that's the kind of domination I personally can do without.
Ryans reply
No in 2009 we didnt use our players to their utmost, we ran a simple unaggressive scheme and still played wel enough to be a top 10 defence despite having one of the worst offences in recent history. our record was indicative of the injuries suffered on offence and not on a defence that more than held its own with little support, had we ramped up the aggression and added 2 players (olb and FS) we would have filled the actual holes and been far better off.
Fletcher looked like the youngest guy on the field at the pro-bowl. He's got 2, maybe 3 more solid years left in him. As to the lack of depth, I'm sure they will look to sign an OLB in free-agency, as well as draft one at 10 or 41 (42?).
ryans reply
he may have look good in a game where the other team wasnt playing, but this season he made far more tackles down the field than he usually does and he missed a lot of tackles, dont mistake inflated numbers from THE FRONT 40 BEING DOMINATED, for him playing very well, he was solid but he was also overmatched a lot and used in coverage far too often, I think given his body type he might give us 1 or two more solid years.
I'm sure Green Bay had similar thoughts before drafting Raji and Matthews in the same year. Could happen to us this year. Last year they saw what they had on the roster for the 3-4, this year they will re-build accordingly. The sad truth is, there just wasn't enough draft picks last year to address everything, and there probably won't be this year.
Ryans reply
They had good players in place to make the swap, they depth at DT and LB which are key, the only guy who was hurt by it was Kampmann, they had a great set of starting linebackers with good depth, they had 4 DT's all of whome made the switch because of build and skillset, whereas we had one decent DT (Gholston) one guy who wasnt gonna be a great NT in AH and no other guys in the fornt seven other than Rak who was supposedly gonna be our demarcus ware. the sad truth is that we didnt have any players to make the switch and our draft picks this year are needed to rebuild a brutal offence. so knoiwing this, who could possibly think this was a good switch, your point you just made was an argument for my side.
Well actually, there are plenty. And aren't we beyond this point yet, Ryman? Yes, we may have had a decent 4-3 defense last season; that's not the point. The 3-4 has proven to be even better. I suppose you thought we would compete for a superbowl with a better defense last year? I've got sad news for you Ry, this team is a lot further off than that.
ok name some umm how did the 3-4 prove to be better for us? was it the fact that we finished alsmot dead last in almost every category? I have sad news for you lank, the 3-4 performed exactly as I said it would, we are worse off than if we hadnt changed and AS YOU JUST SAID, we probably wont be able to fix it this year either.
The turnovers were nice, but you're right - that was the function of more aggressive playcalling. All I need to see is this: 4 of the top 5 & 7 of the top 10 defenses this past season ran a 3-4. (6 of the top 10 scoring defenses, also)
I added into your post under Ryans reply as I am not savvy with the quoting