The Packers Have Gotten Bigger, More Physical
By MikeReuter
When I started my piece for this week I had one topic that I was working on, then Jordy got hurt. Once I heard the news of the ACL tear it immediately lead me to starting to look at every pass Rodgers threw Jordy's way last season to start making trends over the season to see how his usage changed, or didn't change, and use that to go forward with what the Packers have now. While I'm almost done with the stats for that piece, I decided I'm sick of hearing about the depressing news of no Jordy Nelson for the season and wanted to write about something else. So this piece is just something I've been thinking about the last couple days and I wanted to throw it out there.
When the 15-1 Packers got beaten fairly handily in the playoffs by the Giants in January of 2012 a trend started to occur: stout, defensive teams beating the Packers in the playoffs. After the Giants it was the 49ers in 2013 and 2014, followed by the Seahawks last season in 2015.
Starting immediately after the playoff loss to the Giants people started to claim the Packers as a "finesse" team and as "soft." With each passing season since then the Packers have slowly replaced more and more of those "finesse" players with bigger, more physical players.
With their first pick of the 2012 draft the Packers took Nick Perry, a 6'2.5" outside linebacker that weighed 270 pounds out of college to replace the 250 pound Erik Walden and 254 pound Frank Zombo. In the fourth round of that draft the Packers also added Mike Daniels, who is about as close as a human being can come to being a bull. Daniels would replace slower guys like C.J. Wilson, Ryan Pickett, and Jarius Wynn at defensive end.
In 2013 Ted Thompson drafted the player that, in my mind, is single-handedly responsible for people no longer thinking of the Packers as soft: Eddie Lacy. With the additions on defense in the 2012 draft, the Packers added their physical presence on offense in 2013. While I think Lacy is more of big back than he is a power back, he is definitely a physical presence... if that makes any sense. With Lacy in the backfield instead of Alex Green, Ryan Grant, or James Starks, suddenly the Packers could beat teams through the air (which is often unfairly what categorizes teams as a "finesse" team) and pound it on the ground.
Then, in 2014 the Packers added Ha Ha Clinton-Dix, a free safety who has the potential to lay big hits, even if he does struggle to tackle at times. They also added Davante Adams, a receiver a little outside of the typical Packer mold. Adams isn't afraid to create a little contact and can mix it up with defenders. A skillset and attitude that is a little different from the technically sound and precise players the Packers usually add like Randall Cobb, Greg Jennings, and Jordy Nelson. Finally from the 2014 draft, the addition of Richard Rodgers at tight end gives them a tight end that, while not with the same athleticism, will play at roughly the same size as Jermichael Finley. I think fans have a little bit of a jaded view of Finley too. He was not a physical player and until his final season, despite his size, he really struggled to break tackles. I'm not saying Rodgers will start breaking tackles left and right, but he has the size-like Finley-to keep off defenders in the red zone.
This season the Packers added Quinten Rollins in the second round. While only playing one season of college football, he showed the ability to not only create turnovers, but throw his body around and be a physical tackler. Since the departure of Charles Woodson the Packers have missed a physical presence at corner. They also added Ty Montgomery at wide receiver in the third round. Montgomery is known as a speed receiver and is closer to Randall Cobb's height than Jordy Nelson, but he weighs just as much as Nelson and is willing to attack defenders to try and force broken tackles. Again, something the Packers receiving corps have not always had.
Through their previous failures the Packers have learned and made themselves better. The added size and experience with each season against these defensive-minded teams has allowed the Packers get closer and closer to winning in the playoffs. No one likes to lose but to see them go from getting rolled by the Giants and 49ers in the 2012 and 2013 playoffs to losing on a last-second field goal in 2014 and completely out-playing the Seahawks and losing in 2015 in what is considered to be the toughest place to play is a long way to come in a short time.
Going forward the Packers have a playing style and the personnel to compete with any team in the league and are an incredibly formidable opponent.
Comments (32)
Handsback
August 27, 2015 at 07:24 am
I like this article better than what you planned to write.
I also want to think that the Packers realize their SB victory came w/ an outstanding FS, a great season by a CB, and OLB-pass rusher. When Collins was lost the next year, Woodson's performance went down and teams neutralized Matthews......the team didn't have enough players to stop top flight teams. Hence I think your feature of getting more physical is right-on.
PaulRosik
August 27, 2015 at 02:26 pm
You hit the nail on the head. Poor safety play was the Packers biggest failure on defense the next year. And the Packers have never had more than a single pass rush threat and that can be game planned and prepared for. Getting better on defense is always a good idea.
On offense I think they took the wrong lesson from the 2011 season. The offense was a juggernaut and the postseason loss was more a case of a bad game and poor preparation than of teams "figuring out" the Packers. That offense was more wide open and played like they needed to score on every possession, which given their defense they nearly did. And as a result they scored an insane number of points. Having a feature back like Lacy is never a bad thing, but I still believe it should be paired with the aggressiveness and mentality the offense had in 2011 to score at all costs on every drive.
Koosh
August 27, 2015 at 09:47 pm
Finally created an account just to respond to this:
"but I still believe it should be paired with the aggressiveness and mentality the offense had in 2011 to score at all costs on every drive."
THIS is the theme we should be talking about! We have what may be the most talented QB that ever played the game and still a decent set of weapons, they just gotta believe in themselves. They lay their fuckin heart out there, now with the beast that is known as Lacy, and they can do some special things.
...I'm just gonna add this here cuz I'm lazy and its on my mind
Really to reaplace Jordy, it may not be as bad as you think. We only had 3 legitimate threats last year (Nelson/Cobb/Adams), so if Cobb and Adams can be legitimate threats along with Ty and DickRod, that may negate the defenses ability to double anyone, as teams rarely even doubled nelson last year. I thought we had a chance to be 2-loses-or-better-good this year, but his clutch play will cost us a good 2 games this year. Unless Rodgers, Adams and Ty beast this year....well....well its gonna be a great 2016!
PaulRosik
August 28, 2015 at 06:44 pm
In 2011 the Packers were rarely able to sit on leads and go into a shell in the 4th quarter because the defense was so bad the offense had to keep the foot on the pedal all game long. They need that attitude and to take what happened in the last 3 minutes of the championship game to motivate them to go for the throat at all times. They need to screw the 4 minute possession offense and go for the score on every drive. Aaron Rodgers has had 11 interceptions the last 2 seasons total, so why they wouldn't let him throw it at any time in the game at any point on the field.
Bearmeat
August 27, 2015 at 08:04 am
"In the fourth round of that draft the Packers also added Mike Daniels, who is about as close as a human being can come to being a bull. "
LOL.
Also, I just read on JSonline that Daniels agent and the Packers just broke off talks. Ball balked at 10 mil a year. With the salary cap going up I say PAY THE MAN. We need him. The only front 7 guy TT has drafted here other than CM3 that is routinely above average.
croatpackfan
August 27, 2015 at 08:35 am
I think TT would like to see how good (or bad) MIke Daniels will play this season for Packers...
DrealynWilliams
August 27, 2015 at 02:26 pm
I brought this up a while back:
If we win the SB and BJ Raji AND Mike Daniels play huge roles on turning our defense around -- could we afford both?
AZPack
August 27, 2015 at 07:43 pm
I think we could. They are under the cap now and presuming the cap increases yet again. Lets hope that's something we have to worry about next offseason after we win SB 50.
Koosh
August 27, 2015 at 09:52 pm
How old is Raji, how old is Daniels. This is TT we are talking about. They are both young enough, he'll find a way, if they are really that good.
Packer Pete
August 31, 2015 at 06:40 am
I think it depends on what happens with the Perry/Mulumba race. If one of those two guys seizes the OLB spot, then you gotta pay him. How long is Peppers going to be around? Mulumba probably comes cheaper than a former 1st Rounder like Perry would, but your still talking OLB numbers. Then theres Guion to consider in the Raji/Daniels argument. This is the full list of FAs for 2016: Tolzien, Starks, AQ, Barclay, Taylor (G), Daniels, Guion, Raji, Perry, Mulumba, Neal, Hayward, Richardson, Crosby and Goode. Quite a list. This will be a proving year for a lot of players. I wouldnt want to be Ted in 2016.
Thegreatreynoldo
August 31, 2015 at 07:54 am
Mulumba and Taylor are RFAs. TT can keep them if he wants. Starks is unlikely to get a big raise given his age and he's maxed out. No reason to think Quarless is suddenly going to be more than a #2/3 TE. His raise will be minimal. Neal already makes $4.25 million. Richardson has never done anything and might make less than he did this year. Crosby is highly paid and might get less as a FA. Goode will get the market for a LS. Tolzien probably gets a raise but it depends on performance. Same for Guion and Raji. Daniels gets a big raise, maybe an extra $7 - $9 million per yr. Hayward gets $3 - $4.5 million raise if he can only play slot CB, more if he proves he can play outside. Perry depends on performance, but he gets a small raise based on what he is today.
AZPack
August 31, 2015 at 11:14 am
Going thru your comment, Mulumba and Taylor will be back. Starks will be let go. Quarless stays or goes depending on performance (if he's a starter he stays, if not he goes).
Perry and Neal of them one will probably stay, the other goes. Salary dependent on play and playing time. If Peppers doesn't get his 3rd season both might be kept.
Richardson probably gets similar to slightly less on a 3 o 4 yr deal. Goode stays at the market as you mentioned.
Tolzien goes to FA and finds a backup job on another team. Hundley and maybe Blanchard are backup QB's.
Raji and Guioun. One gets another 3 yr deal depending on who plays best and how Pennel and other backups perform. Possible, but unlikely both are kept.
Hayward is a tough call right now. Hope he steps up, but if he loses his outside to Randall or Gunter, he is allowed to get to FA, where the Packers would be in the running for him.
RCPackerFan
August 27, 2015 at 08:33 am
That Giants loss in 2012 wasn't as much about physicality as it was about the team was emotionally spent due to the loss of Philbins son that week.
So I would separate that game from the others.
That being said. The Packers have done a good job of drafting more physical players the last few years.
I would like to add to this years draft, no only is Rollins physical, but so is Randal, and Gunter has shown how physical he is too.
BradHTX
August 27, 2015 at 09:57 am
I agree with you on this, RC. Mike Philbin's death might not have caused the loss single-handedly; but the Giants were a team the Packers didn't match up well against, and his death might have been the straw that broke the camel's back.
RCPackerFan
August 27, 2015 at 11:36 am
You could just see the team was flat that day. And its very understandable why.
PaulRosik
August 27, 2015 at 02:28 pm
I agree. The 2011 Packers had such a high powered offense but also such a poor defense that their margin of victory was always very slight. The offense had to play at a high, high level every game to stay in it. That week they were not ready.
PortlandMark
August 27, 2015 at 04:38 pm
While I agree that the defense was historically bad in 2011, they out scored their opponents by over 200 points so the out comes of games usually weren't close. The defense had 6 pick 6s and 30 interceptions overall so it seems like they played for a big play more than making a stop.
croatpackfan
August 27, 2015 at 01:18 pm
It should be added Josh Boyd, Mike Pennel, Letroy Guion and, of course, giant Julius Peppers... Average weight of all (10) players listed as DT or DE for the Packers is 313,1 lbs (or total 3131 lbs). That is something you can not call light!
Thegreatreynoldo
August 27, 2015 at 08:58 am
I do think GB has gotten a bit more physical in the last few years, but I don't think it has to do with physical size so much as attitude. Daniels may be like a bull, but in terms of physical size he is not really any larger than previous GB DEs. Pickett and Jolly were really large guys. Linsley might be more physical but at 299 Lbs, he isn't larger. Bakh is not a large LT. You're right about Perry - both large and very physical. Moving Neal to OLB added beef. Some of the CBs are larger, I suppose. Lacy is the difference on offense, though Lang, Linsley (along with Bulaga and Sitton to a lesser degree) help with that perception. On defense, the perception of physicality is fostered by Barrington and CM3 who are much more physical at ILB than Hawk and Jones, the emergence of Daniels as a force, Peppers and perhaps Hyde. The DBs might contribute more to the perception later but they need to prove to be better tacklers before I give much credence to them. I would not yet say that the rookies look more physical since I haven't really seen them jam or really bump WRs well; they just look grabby to me so far.
EdsLaces
August 27, 2015 at 09:55 am
I think Randall is a hell of a tackler. He reminds me of a more athletic Hyde. It was only the one game but I love this kid so far.
aj
August 27, 2015 at 08:05 pm
After the pick was made, I made the comparison to a faster Casey Hayward. He's just so sticky in coverage and is a straight up ball hawk.
porupack
August 27, 2015 at 12:05 pm
Well, there were always 3 camps of opinion on packers defense in 2011-2014; 1) TT didn't draft talent, 2) Talent was there, but poor coaching schemes and not teaching technique, 3) injuries decimated talent, and disrupted schemes.
So around and around the fan base went, debating who to lay the blame; TT, DCapers or fate.
Based on trends 2011-2013...I was convinced it was DCapers. But, as you observed Mike, I am seeing a different player (partly size, partly disposition) that seems wasn't a characteristic of those years....so maybe, DC is ok afterall, fate played a hand, and TT evolved. Nice observation. Thanks.
acularw
August 27, 2015 at 12:49 pm
While I agree that the Packers have added a couple more "physical" players in the past few years, that is more attitude than actual size. Bill Barnwell did a roster analysis which showed that the Packers are one of the smallest teams in the league:
###
I used Pro-Football-Reference.com to estimate each team’s effective size using games started and each player’s listed height and weight. By that metric, the Seahawks were 19th in the league in terms of height last year and 29th by weight. Only the Dolphins, Packers, and Washington were packing less on their typical frame.
###
gr7070
August 27, 2015 at 03:47 pm
There were some really poor items used for "evidence" to support the articles premise, mentioning the Seattle D (they're small and light, really good does not make them big and physical), Richard Rodgers can't block and is more a finesse TE, Mike Daniels is far from big especially considering who he replaced, on and on.
The author had a story line they wanted to deliver and shoe horned examples to "support" that story line.
I think they could simply state the Packers can now run the ball well, and it just so happens the primary runner is large. Before they couldn't run well. In addition, their defense is better where before the D was awful, especially in run defense.
Most everything else the author was just throwing stuff at the wall to see if it stuck.
ray nichkee
August 27, 2015 at 01:01 pm
With the exception of the OL where the zone blocking system requires more athletic agile players (which i like in most situations) yes, i like the way this team is adapting. Things change from year to year and ted does not appear to have a prototypical team in mind. Dom capers has proven he can adapt and put his players in the best position to make plays even though it doesnt work somtimes. Every coach gets burned. Right now i see detroit(defensive front, WR) chicago(WR, forte) seattle(defence, lynch) as the the biggest challenges in the nfc. Im not sold on the queens until i see it. I see it as injuries and lack of player production/availability as the biggest downfall.
To sum it up, it looks like the failures in the past are being addressed through the draft. I cant wait to see it unfold. Go pack.
gr7070
August 27, 2015 at 03:57 pm
Huh?!
Are you saying that Detroit and Chicago are two of the best teams in the NFC?
If so, that's absurd.
Chicago is one of the few worst in the NFC! And Detroit is a bottom half team in the NFL.
Seattle, Dallas, and Philly are GB's biggest challengers in the NFC. There aren't a lot of good teams in the NFC this year.
hybridauth_Facebook_100002574551585
August 27, 2015 at 05:36 pm
Huh?
Detroit had the #1 defense in the NFL last year and a pretty good offense and made the playoffs, how is that bottom half?
gr7070
August 27, 2015 at 09:21 pm
Detroit's #3 D got them the 14th best *team* last year.
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teameff
And they've lost some good/elite defensive players
They have a mediocre QB.
Terrible special teams.
All that adds up to bottom half team:
http://www.predictionmachine.com/Season-Projections
And here
https://www.numberfire.com/nfl/teams/power-rankings
Anyone have Insider?
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/fo-espn-feature-columns/2015/espn-early...
aj
August 27, 2015 at 08:11 pm
I think Detroit will be better than Philly. Don't buy into the preseason hype. If teams wanted to scheme to shut down that offense, they would be able to. Right now, coaches want to let their guys play defense straight up with a couple blitzes or zone defense. Also, Bradford has shown he isn't likely to last the year.
J0hn Denver's Gavel
August 27, 2015 at 08:26 pm
I think there will be plenty of good and even great teams in the NFC this year. There will be many, many unforseen events and surprising games this year. That's why they play 'em.
ray nichkee
August 27, 2015 at 09:44 pm
Ok, i will add romo, dez, and the OL of the cowboys. Thanks for adding that one.
I was speaking clearly on matchups (not team vs team) in the nfc only. I will add kyle orton if he ends up taking snaps against the packers. I wouldnt call that absurd. Feel free to add to the list or debate but i didnt think i had to further explain myself.
hybridauth_Facebook_100004765273075
August 31, 2015 at 05:58 pm
Ya and a lot slower too. Raji? really? Does anyone zero in on how he has zero latera movement and only is effective he they run right at him. Pass rushing, forgetaboutit, sideways mobility forgetaboutit.