Kevin Greene knew...

[kainen]

Pardon me, but I just cannot get enough of Clay Matthews. Here's an article I found that may interest some of you. Some very high praise and thoughts from our exciting Coach Greene on Clay...

Enjoy!

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packe...m_term=packers

Sudden impact

Desire. Heart. Drive. Those are the qualities that endeared Clay Matthews to linebacker coach Kevin Greene. They're also the ones that helped him exceed almost everyone else's expectations in a record-setting rookie year.

By Rob Reischel, Special to Packer Plus
Posted: Jan. 19, 2010 8:23 p.m.
Green Bay — Kevin Greene was hanging on each and every word that came from Clay Matthews' mouth. And in many ways, Greene felt as though he was listening to himself speak.
Greene, the outside linebackers coach for the Green Bay Packers, was part of a group interviewing Matthews at last February's NFL combine.
When the meeting ended, Greene knew he'd do everything possible to convince his bosses to draft Matthews.
"When I spoke to him in Indy, I came away feeling that this man is on a mission, to prove to everybody that he is a good athlete and a heck of a football player on his own," Greene said. "And I understand that hunger and that drive. That spoke volumes to me, and that's what I loved.
"He was my No. 1 player at that spot, and I let it be known to all the powers that be. I said, 'This is the guy that I think you want.' Then they went and got him, which was even better."
The teacher and his prize pupil just wrapped up their first season together. And my, what a year it was.
Matthews led the Packers with 10 sacks, setting a franchise rookie record. Matthews was fifth on the team in tackles (65), was part of six turnover plays and had a 42-yard fumble return for a touchdown in Minnesota.
Matthews finished third overall in defensive rookie of the year voting. He was also voted as a first alternate for the Pro Bowl, then was added to the roster when Chicago's Lance Briggs dropped out.
"Statistically, yes, I'm probably a little surprised," Matthews said. "But to be quite honest, I felt I could make an impact from the day I got here. I didn't really set a goal in terms of statistics, but I believe in myself.
"And I always thought that once I got to full strength and once I fully knew what I was doing out there, I knew I could have an impact with this team."
So did Greene - perhaps because the mentor saw much of himself in the protégé.
Greene, in his first year of coaching after a stellar 15-year playing career, was a walk-on at Auburn in 1983-'84. He went on to lead the Southeastern Conference in sacks as a senior, then posted 160 NFL sacks, more than any linebacker in league history.
Matthews' story followed a similar script. Matthews was a walk-on at USC, earned a scholarship by his sophomore season, yet never started a game until his senior year. Matthews exploded in his final season, though, and scouts everywhere started taking notice.
As Greene sat with Matthews in Indianapolis, he saw several of the same characteristics that once made him great. Desire. Heart. Drive. Greene insisted Matthews had them all and fully believed he'd be an impact player.
"When we met with Clay, I was looking at more than 40-yard dash and all that," Greene said. "I was looking inside. I looked at his background. Being a former walk-on spoke to me&ensp.&ensp.&ensp.&enspand I know what it takes to not have a scholarship, to work your way up to a starting role. You've got to have a lot of love in your heart and I put a lot of weight in that.
"I can relate to someone walking on, scratching and clawing for everything they can to finally seeing the field."
In a few short months Matthews joined Charles Woodson and perhaps Nick Collins as the most impactful members of Green Bay's defense. And Matthews did so despite a hamstring injury that kept him out of the starting lineup until Week 4.
Once Matthews was healthy, though, he took the league by storm.
Matthews had three games in which he had two sacks. He also had sacks in four consecutive games (Weeks 12-15), becoming the first rookie to achieve that since Chicago's Mark Anderson in 2006.
Matthews wowed teammates and foes with a motor that never died, and he seemed to get faster as games went along.
And even though the Packers' defense disappeared in their playoff loss to Arizona, Matthews didn't, becoming the first rookie to record a sack, a forced fumble and a fumble recovery in a postseason game.
"We're excited about his start," Packer coach Mike McCarthy said of Matthews. "The biggest part I'm excited about, too, is his professionalism. I like the way he comes to work.
"He's the same guy every day. Your rookie year there's always an adjustment that you go through.
"Do they fit into the locker room? Is he accepted in the locker room? Every rookie goes through it. And he's made a pretty seamless transition here to our program. I appreciate that, I'm excited about that, because I think he's going to have great days ahead of him."
Greene agrees. In fact, Greene goes so far as to say Matthews could someday challenge his record for sacks by a linebacker.
"I thought I put some numbers on the board that might never be reached," said Greene, a five-time Pro Bowler. "I mean, 160 is a lot of sacks. But I haven't seen a lot of people come through like Clay. If anybody can do it, he can do it."
Matthews doesn't know about that, but he might just have longevity on his side.
His father, Clay Jr., played 19 seasons with the Cleveland Browns and Atlanta Falcons. His uncle, Bruce, also played 19 years with the Houston Oilers&ensp/ Tennessee Titans.
For now, Matthews was thrilled to post the 10 sacks he did in 2009. He'll now spend the off-season adding a little weight to the 250 pounds he played at and then try and come back even better in 2010.
"I'm always striving for goals, whether it's getting to a Pro Bowl or chasing a sack record," Matthews said. "Obviously, we're a little early&ensp.&ensp.&ensp.&enspbut as the same time I'm always trying to make my presence felt or etch my name in whatever history book there is.
"For Kevin to say that is a great compliment and he understands better than anyone that I'm pretty much a self-made man. I've had to fight and scratch and claw for everything I've gotten. You have to keep that same mindset let K.G. did his whole career. And I guess I'm off to a good start."

[12pack]

Love Clay Matthews. BJ should pay close attention to his effort.

[SporTz FrEaK]

Clay Matthews interview from a few days ago.

“I really enjoyed it,” he said. “It’s definitely a change of pace from Los Angeles, obviously. It’s a lot slower pace to live. I think that’s perfect when you’re in a high-paced, high-intensity business. You’re able to slow down and strictly concentrate on football, and that’s what made it such an easy transition for me too, to have a city that rallies around you and respects football so greatly, and there’s not a lot of distractions to get in your way as in other big cities. So for me, I really enjoyed it and I’m looking forward to spending my entire career in Green Bay.”

[kainen]

That's so darn refreshing. A guy who has his head screwed on exactly right.

Hope he knows the fans would love to have him his entire career, too.

12pack...don't know what you mean about Raji. I believe that given the injury he had to endure, he gave about as good as he had - which, imho, was pretty good. I also believe he has his head on correctly and you'll be eating those words of damning feint praise by the middle of next season.

[12pack]

Originally Posted by kainen

12pack...don't know what you mean about Raji. I believe that given the injury he had to endure, he gave about as good as he had - which, imho, was pretty good. I also believe he has his head on correctly and you'll be eating those words of damning feint praise by the middle of next season.

I'll just go with this.

"B.J. Raji: Played 385 snaps (36.4%), had 37 tackles (five for loss) and just three pressures. Played four positions: LE, NT and RE in base, DT in nickel. Erratic at the point. Flashed big-play explosion but was much more easily displaced by double-teams than Pickett or Jolly. His pass rush was disappointing. Wasn't able to string moves together, and neither his bull rush nor his edge quickness was good enough to many win one-on-ones. High-ankle sprain slowed him until midseason. Staff will demand major improvement in his second season. Grade: D-plus"

[Wilbur]

Raji set himself up for an injury when he blew off training camps due to contract negotiations. I can't feel too sorry for him because he put himself first -- he does need to get his shit more together for the 2010 season and make a better contribution to the defense.

[SporTz FrEaK]

Originally Posted by 12pack

I'll just go with this.

"B.J. Raji: Played 385 snaps (36.4%), had 37 tackles (five for loss) and just three pressures. Played four positions: LE, NT and RE in base, DT in nickel. Erratic at the point. Flashed big-play explosion but was much more easily displaced by double-teams than Pickett or Jolly. His pass rush was disappointing. Wasn't able to string moves together, and neither his bull rush nor his edge quickness was good enough to many win one-on-ones. High-ankle sprain slowed him until midseason. Staff will demand major improvement in his second season. Grade: D-plus"

If you're gonna post someones quote, then you should usually give credit and say where its from/who said it.

[cgc73]

From either the Press Gazette or JSOnline -- but yeah posting without attribution isn't cool.

Really don't place much stock in those grades. They're interesting to read but it seems each year the writers are trying to out-do the other person in being tough on the players. For instance I think most would agree that if you're elected to the pro-bowl the season has more often than not been an 'A', but the grades don't come out that way.

Edit: Oh, was also named to the all-rookie team as I recall. Nobody's going to claim he came in and was a force immediately, but for a rookie he had a decent campaign.

[kainen]

Originally Posted by cgc73

Really don't place much stock in those grades. They're interesting to read but it seems each year the writers are trying to out-do the other person in being tough on the players. For instance I think most would agree that if you're elected to the pro-bowl the season has more often than not been an 'A', but the grades don't come out that way.

I see your point but will offer that this in not the case in many circumstances. Would you consider Bryant McKinnie a worthy ProBowler? Not me. His season was pedestrian at best. Yet the fan voting is just like in the baseball All-Star league - a popularity contest. And in McKinnie's case, it has bitten this very spoiled, unprofessional buttcake in his fat rearend.

[think]

Players are named to the Pro Bowl Team and Rookie team mainly on the basis of name recognition. Some players have outstanding seasons and make it on merit but many make it on past play or reputation.

McKinnie has size that contributes to his reputation but does he really stand out at his position?

[cgc73]

That's why I said more often than not rather than always. One would have to be pretty obtuse not to recognize that name recognition goes a long ways in getting to the pro-bowl. But I think one would have to be equally obtuse to say it doesn't mean anything. So I'm sticking with more often than not that player should be getting an 'A'.

[12pack]

Kill the messenger and not the message. The excerpt reinforced what I said. So I didn't reference who said it. Doesn't change a thing.

As has been said, Raji making the all rookie team is no more an indicator of his play than McKinnie making the pro bowl roster.

[think]

I looked at the Pro-Bowl rosters and I don't see many players that had great (A) seasons.

Clay Matthews is in as a replacement for Lance Briggs. I didn't see all of the Bears games but from what I saw against the Packers, Vikings and Lions, how did Briggs get selected to the Pro-Bowl at all, much less ahead of Matthews?

Some players are out due to injury, real or made up, but you have to look at many of these players and wonder how they got there at all.

If you grade on a curve and have to give out a certain number of A grades, many of these players wouldn't get one. Of course the best players should be on the best teams and those two should meet next week.

I believe that A grades should be reserved for the great players and there might not be an A grade at many positions in a given year.

[kainen]

To 12pack:

Way to change your post there buddy. "even Wilbur agrees with me" was the phrase you deleted, I believe.. So what? No disrespect to Wilbur, but is he the penultimate authority here?

And to post a quote that is unattributed leaves the reader (us) to wonder if the author of the quote has any credentials to even make such a statement. For all we know, it could be your Aunt Tilly from her bed in a home for the mentally deranged. However, it may have been from Ted Thompson and then the weight of it would be more germaine.

cgc73 gave us a clue, but there are hacks that write for both publications.


think - I am in complete agreement about the ProBowl roster. "Name" in most cases got the players in. It is a happy coincidence that in many cases, "name" happens to go along with actual talent.

[12pack]

Originally Posted by kainen

To 12pack:

Way to change your post there buddy. "even Wilbur agrees with me" was the phrase you deleted, I believe.. So what? No disrespect to Wilbur, but is he the penultimate authority here?

And to post a quote that is unattributed leaves the reader (us) to wonder if the author of the quote has any credentials to even make such a statement. For all we know, it could be your Aunt Tilly from her bed in a home for the mentally deranged. However, it may have been from Ted Thompson and then the weight of it would be more germaine.

cgc73 gave us a clue, but there are hacks that write for both publications.


think - I am in complete agreement about the ProBowl roster. "Name" in most cases got the players in. It is a happy coincidence that in many cases, "name" happens to go along with actual talent.

So what's your point? Wilbur did agree with me. As far as I know one can edit their post. That is a feature here you know.

cgc73 one the one hand says that making a rookie team is important but a grade given by someone doesn't mean anything. He also argues that someone being on the rookie team is an important criteria but that McKinie being on the pro bowl roster isn't.

hack.

think gets it.

[cgc73]

The excerpt reinforced what I said. So I didn't reference who said it.

Yes, lame. That's exactly what somebody who's writing has been taken without attribution would say -- lame that you'd take my writing without giving me credit. Not that they'd be all that concerned a poster at a small message board used their work. Nonetheless it's basic courtesy.

Think, I'd restrict myself to individuals actually elected to go there, not the alternates and alternates of alternates who end up playing in the game. If you feel like going player by player to see how many deserve an 'A' go at it -- but it's going to be exceedingly subjective.

For the record the quote came from Bob McGinn who also gave Aaron Rodgers a B+. I think most here would agree that while a B+ may not be unrealistic for Rodgers is does represent the lower range of what he should be given.

[12pack]

Originally Posted by cgc73

Yes, lame. That's exactly what somebody who's writing has been taken without attribution would say -- lame that you'd take my writing without giving me credit. Not that they'd be all that concerned a poster at a small message board used their work. Nonetheless it's basic courtesy.

Think, I'd restrict myself to individuals actually elected to go there, not the alternates and alternates of alternates who end up playing in the game. If you feel like going player by player to see how many deserve an 'A' go at it -- but it's going to be exceedingly subjective.

For the record the quote came from Bob McGinn who also gave Aaron Rodgers a B+. I think most here would agree that while a B+ may not be unrealistic for Rodgers is does represent the lower range of what he should be given.

So you agree that the grade given Rodgers (which I happen to agree with) is ok. So what happened with your comment:

"Really don't place much stock in those grades".

Same source as the one for Raji.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by cgc73

For the record the quote came from Bob McGinn who also gave Aaron Rodgers a B+. I think most here would agree that while a B+ may not be unrealistic for Rodgers is does represent the lower range of what he should be given.

NO DOUBT!
"B+", MY ASS!

What AR did, with a Line that was leading the League in Sacks and QB hits for the first half of the season, B4 it finally rounded into an 'average' Line, was nothing short of Superman status. He did more with less than any of your top league QBs imo.

[cgc73]

I'd give Rodgers an 'A' for the year. I don't think that a B+ is a sign of McGinn being clinically insane but I do think he's grading players pessimistically, that would include Raji.

[12pack]

Originally Posted by cgc73

I'd give Rodgers an 'A' for the year. I don't think that a B+ is a sign of McGinn being clinically insane but I do think he's grading players pessimistically, that would include Raji.

I'm ok uping Raji's grade to a solid "D" and AR to an "A".

[think]

Shouldn't an A be reserved for perfection? Rogers still has room to improve. Not much room but still some. B + is likely the grade Rogers would give himself, if not a little lower.

That's why I don't see many players deserving of an A. Everybody can play better.

[Fish]

[quote=think;357160]Shouldn't an A be reserved for perfection? No! A+++ is the one reserved for perfection.Rogers still has room to improve.True. And isn't that scarey for the rest of the league? Not much room but still some. B + is likely the grade Rogers would give himself, if not a little lower.You're probably right. But one of the nice things about AR is he frequently downplays his accomplishments by sharing the credit with his teammates. He doesn't appear to be one that will thump his chest much. Even if asked.

That's why I don't see many players deserving of an A. Everybody can play better. You're right. Sure, they can. I guess it depends on how one wants to grade. Most common, 92% or above is considered an A. Sometimes 90% is an A. Then there is the system that grades on a curve. None these grades require a flawless, perfect effort. So, in my book, if you use any of these three, he'd deserve an A grade. But I'm a well known soft-touch.[/QUOTE]

Some blue direct.