Packers chat with Pete Dougherty
Thursday, Oct. 26 transcript
3rd & 7 37yd
3rd & 7 37yd
B
S
O
close
close

-





-
Yeah, and you can count me in that group as being wrong. I thought it was an upgrade because I thought he'd be close to as good a receiver and a much, much better blocker. As it turns out, he doesn't have anywhere near Cook's downfield speed. Now, Cook still has drop issues, I watched him I think it was last week (or maybe two weeks ago) and he had a good game but dropped one. But he's much faster and stretches and threatens defenses way better than Bennett. Bennett's drops have been a shocker, I don't remember seeing or hearing about drop issues with him in the past, so don't know what's going on there. He's not as dynamic a receiver as I expected, though he is fairly physical with the ball in his hands, and he's a big target who should be good in the red zone. His run blocking generally is good -- not always, but usually. So he's a fairly big upgrade from Cook in that way, Cook was a bad blocker.
-
The Packers haven't truly been out of it, or had a "lost season" since, what?,...2008? A-Rog's first year. If things continue heading south and Hundley and/or difference doesn't show a significant improvement,....how might things look down the stretch in December. Besides the obvious, never activating Rodgers, what else do the brain wizards in charge do to get value out of roster evaluation?
-
-
-
He definitely comes across as a bright guy. The question I have is whether he can play fast enough -- see things quickly enough, and when he sees them act instantaneously. That's what all good QBs have in common. You can be very bright but not able to do that. As for the arm, I'd say by NFL standards it's a little above average for strength. Accuracy is an open question. To be good in this league you have to be very accurate. I'm still not sure about that with him.
-
-
-
Aaron Nagler suggested the other day that perhaps one of the reasons why McCarthy didn't "unleash" Brett Hundley in the passing game was because he simply "Might not be the kind of guy that can ever push it down the field."
My question then is: "Can a QB in this NFL really survive that long or even be on a team if they can't push the ball down the field with medium to deep passes?" -
-
-
I don't know if they have any internal ways to calculate that. It makes the Packers less interesting to a national audience, that's for sure. It takes a Super Bowl contender out of contention, so they lose great playoffs matchups, the Packers draw big TV audiences, and it's because of Rodgers. But I don't know how much ratings will drop. I would think it hurts the league at least a little, I'm sure that's a big reason behind all the rules changes over the past 30 years to protect QBs.
-
In the past 6 drafts, the Packers have selected defense with their top selection (5 of them from the west coast but that's another issue). I'm assuming Capers and company has to like the selections. Yet year after year we can't generate pressure up front and our back end gets sliced through easily against decent quarterbacks. Given that the offense under Rodgers looks pretty stable for the next few years, might it be time (a.k.a. Atlanta) to bring in a Kris Richard (Seahawk DC) to be our head coach in 2018 and tap into the talent that we've been drafting?
-
The only thing I'll say to that is, if I'm running an NFL team I'd much prefer to have an offensive guy, a QB guy, as the head coach. That position is so overwhelmingly important to a franchise's success, you don't want to have what's happened in Atlanta this year, where the coordinator from last season gets a head coaching job, and now you have a new coordinator running the offense for a coach whose expertise is defense. It seems to have hurt the Falcons. That's just my thinking. Plenty of defensive head coaches succeed in the league, but I'd always prefer to have a QB guy as head coach.
-
-
I'd be reluctant to put many in, because you can't have him getting hurt and be down to your No. 3. But he's going to have to convert his share of first downs with scrambles. Maybe an occasional read option to keep the D honest, but I'd have him under strict orders that as soon as he sees trouble, slide.
-
Pete, thanks for the chat. What happens when a team reviews the film of the previous game? Is the entire team together? Is every play reviewed? Do the coaches look for teachable moments? Do players get a chance to explain/defend their actions in a game or do the coaches do all the talking?
-
I don't know this for sure, but from what I've gleaned over the years they go over it by position group. I'm sure there are plays they go over as the offense and defense as a whole, but I think the review of every play is done by position group, with a lot of the corrections done then. That also allows for the discussions that you alluded too. I'm sure there's plenty of discussion, at least on some plays.
-
-
-
Hi Pete, tell me if this take is crazy: The trouble with Dom Capers isn't Dom Capers: it's a poor fit between GM and coordinator.
Here’s how that works: A GM hires a coach, and in doing so, he makes sure that his philosophy matches that of his head coach. The GM does not hire the coordinators, so there we have a disconnect.
In the case of the Packers, that disconnect means that a coordinator who needs veterans to run his complex defense is instead given rookies.
Does this argument hold any water? -
I don't buy into the Capers-veterans argument as much as others do, but maybe I'm wrong. It's hard to have a veteran team in this league because of the roster turnover. So my feeling is, if that really is an issue with this team, then I would say it's up to Capers to adapt. I'm not convinced it is an issue, but I very well could be wrong. But seems to me most teams play their share of young guys.
-
What did you find out about the Ezekiel Elliot pull back on the fourth down reversal. It should not have been a TD because he voluntarily pulled the ball back before being down. It isn't like the end zone. Drew Brees had the exact play called against him a couple of years ago. We would be talking about that extensively if not for Rodgers heroics.
-
-
-
-
Pete The Pack is currently 4-3. A loss at home against Detroit, would make them 4-4. The defense last week was awful. Secondary doesn't seem too eager to stop those screens, specifically to have to take on the offensive linemen. Secondary needs to aggressively engage. Dix was very weak, passive! Your thoughts?
-
I think earlier I said a loss against Detroit next week would make them 4-3, but of course that's what they are now, as you say. They defended the screen poorly, for sure, except for the one that Matthews sniffed out. Clinton-Dix hasn't been the guy he was last year. I thought he'd really take off this season, but instead he's not playing as well. Safeties coach Darren Perry hinted last week that Clinton-Dix has been playing hurt, but CD hasn't been on the injury report. So I'm not sure what to make of that. But he has looked passive on some pass plays, and hasn't tackled well in the open field.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
If Hundley makes a turn around, and becomes a competent starter the rest of the year, why would the Packers even think of trading him in the offseason? If he's good, we'll need someone behind Rodgers next year, God forbid he gets hurt again. If he's terrible, no one would trade for him anyway. Would any team really give up a 1st or 2nd round pick for him?
-
I get your point, but the highest compensatory pick you can get is at the end of the third round. If you can get a second-rounder, or even a high-ish third, I'd make the trade. I understand your thinking, and this is proving how important that position can be. And you're right, he'll have to play pretty well to get somebody to give up a two or a high three. That doesn't look likely now, but it could change.
-
-
It's not just the stats, it's Cook's stretching the field that made a difference the second half of last season. That threat affects how defenses play. So I still think there's a significant difference in the two as receivers. I do think Bennett can be a really good red-zone target, he's huge and a good athlete.
-
-
-
-
-
-
I thought it was a tick late and he made sure he landed on top of him. So I thought with the way they've been calling the game the last couple years he should have been penalized. However, the league watched the video and didn't fine him, so looks like I was wrong.
-
-
That is something I keep coming back to. Now, there are other considerations. Have things become stagnant on defense? Is something just not working right? Is that affecting whether someone isn't a playmaker who could be? Those could be true and would be reason to make a change. But the biggest issue also could be the lack of difference-making talent.
-
Pete,
We are past the Rubicon. Its time to get rid of the same old. TT MM and DC. Rodgers should be traded. never will be the same. Decline will set in. Only 1 won SB and chances of another with this regime is near 0%. Need new blood. New Powerhouse D. Need to do it now. Packers will tank to 5-11. -
-
-
OK everybody, even with the bye I have other duties to get to, but thanks for all the great questions, and sorry I didn't get to so many of them, they just keep rolling in and I can't keep up. As for your question, it makes it a challenge but they know Hundley well enough that they should be able to make the adjustments over a couple weeks. They did it with Flynn. He's much, much different than Rodgers, but they went 2-2-1 in the games he finished, and McCarthy did a really good job playing to Flynn's strengths and minimizing the weaknesses. And that's a wrap. Thanks again everyone, always a pleasure chatting with you. Enjoy the bye weekend and we'll talk again next week. Until then, take care.