Green/Raji/Pickett
Jenkins/Raji/Pickett
Green/Raji/Wilson
Wynn/Raji/Wilson
I don't know who it's been. . . I've noticed Wynn, Wilson, Green, Pickett and Jenkins throughout the weeks. I just haven't noticed if they were on the field in a group of three and Woodson at rover.
What Waldo's talking about is why I think Raji is the Defensive MVP. His presence inside enables Dom to go mostly nickel without getting gashed by opposing running games. That keeps Woodson inside where he is most effective and dangerous.
Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack, a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in - Leonard Cohen
I like it when Waldo posts drunk.
C.H.U.D.
HOFer
I've made the argument that Waldo is making. Our run stats aren't good, but we are a good run defense. I think Miami and Minnesota established the run against us early in the season, but we were beat up. Earlier in the year, QBs were gouging us pretty good on scrambles. Not so much lately.
Yeah, not to pile on pb, but I too recall mentioning how the Packers were playing mostly nickel and that they weren't giving up points so there was no real problem with the run defense numbers. That's the Packers' best defense to both attack at the LOS and simultaneously protect against big plays, which is a central tenet of Capers' philosophy going back to the advent of the zone blitz.
Even in the last game against the Bears, most of Forte's yards came on 2 plays where Walden failed to hold the edge as I recall. Other than that he was pretty much shut down and it seems as if Walden has learned from those plays.
The 3-3 d I think refers to the nickel package where Walden's been playing off the LOS in the middle spying on the QB. It's not really a 3-3 unless you consider one of the OLB's playing on the LOS as a d-lineman.
I think that Raji had every bit the great season that Matthews did, with more consistency.Originally Posted by Joemailman
I'm still concerned about defending the mid level passing game. CHI has a good TE and the quick passing game killed us v AZ last year. How do they plan to stop the TE? It's not like any of our LB's play the pass very well. It seems to me QB pressure is the only way to disrupt it.
and finally: WALDO!!!!!
Another way to disrupt their mid level passing game is to have Cutler back there. I have also read that Chicago has gone away from the deeper drops and intermediate-to-long passing game that goes with it because their OL couldn't hold up that long.
Regarding the defense, I would imagine that the way we lineup really makes it difficult on opposing offenses. Normally an offense can call a play (in the huddle or audible) based upon what package the other team is in. Not so much with the Packers, they can take the same lineup and come out with completely different schemes. Dom has taken full advantage of having a DB that can lineup and be an effective LB (both for blitzes and run support) while still being good in coverage. Much of this is made possible because of our huge/powerful DL that allows them to go with only three, two or even one DL and still not get run on. It doesn't hurt that Hawk has been solid at standing up blockers to free up others to make plays.
I also love how our Defense looks like they are all just randomly wandering about right up until the ball is snapped. I've also seen them show a blitz, but if the QB doesn't snap the ball and makes an audible, the Defense seems to be making a counter audible. All of this and very few breakdowns. That's says a lot about both the coaching and the players
We just played against Brent Celek and Tony Gonzalez and your worried about Greg Olsen beating us?
Olsen is better than Celek and maybe a better pass catcher now than Gozalez is.
This will be interesting to see how chicago tries to utilize Olsen. he has 10 catches vs GB for 93 yards this yr. thats almost 25% of his receptions on the season. He's not a big part of their offense even tho he is their best receiver. However everyone knows GB hasn't been that great at stopping the TE this yr. I was surprised we held Tony Gonzalez as he was my big concern after stopping Tuner. Its going to be one of those things to look at as the game progresses. I wonder if we'll see a lot of Woodson on him and letting T-will and Shields cover their burners Knox and Hester?
One of the reasons the Packers are so good in the Nickel is that Woodson can tackle, and you rarely - if ever - see a lineman, TE, or FB lay a finger on him for a block. Woodson often has a completely free path to the ball carrier if he wants it and if he 'risks' it. If I were Chicago, I probably would spend some time figuring out how to block Woodson on run plays.
"Never, never ever support a punk like mraynrand. Rather be as I am and feel real sympathy for his sickness." - Woodbuck
Discounting the D's run game numbers is a dangerous game. Now I am all for limiting big pass plays even if it means giving something up in the run D. The improvement in scoring D this year is evidence that this has been worth it. But there is a danger in the tradeoff. Some dope at JSO today subtracted the QB rushing statistics from the Packers Run D and proclaimed them second best in the league. I couldn't find a clear headed individual that mentioned the comparison no longer was meaningful since he was comparing two completely different run categories.
Running QBs get first downs too. And Cutler is not afraid to take off. He is almost as athletic as Rodgers when running and he does not seem to run scared. He is no Vick, so he isn't scoring from 35 yards out, but he can easily keep drives alive. That keeps a defense on the field and alters the field position game. This mattered in both Bear games, the Dolphins and versus the Eagles. It matters more versus the Bears given the ST advantage.
It did not matter versus the Falcons because the offense was going through the Falcon secondary like a knife through butter. Rodgers is not likely to have that kind of success versus the Bears D.
They need to keep the Bears run game in check so that not every Packer drive starts inside their own 20. If it does, the game will look like Week 17.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
I'd agree with PB here, and add that in my limited football knowledge I have been trying to watch Woodson more, and it appeared to me as if he was often playing like an extra linebacker.
"The Devine era is actually worse than you remember if you go back and look at it."
KYPack
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
