Why This Is Going To Be A Great Season

[pbmax]

3 man rush is not a problem when its 3rd and forever as long as you can play effective zone behind it. Capers has done it and the problem has been the coverage behind it. Arizona tore it apart by running shallow crossing routes and just running for the first down.

However, this defense is designed to send 5 and force a quick throw and tackle. The former set of DBs and the terrible team tackling have made that approach a shambles prior to last year. Hyde, Richardson, Banjo, Hayward and (astonishingly) an improved Shields make it more likely this year. It worked several times last year.

[pbmax]

Actually true about Moses. I have the game film. However, actual 3rd tablet was lost like an iPad playbook dropped on the sidewalk.

[Bossman641]

Reason for success - Rodgers and Lacy only played something like 25 quarters together during the regular season last year, well before Lacy hit his stride.

I'm concerned about the run D. We all know neither Hawk or Jones are great at taking on blocks. If Guion/Pennel don't hold up at NT I could easily see teams running the ball down our throats.

That said, the formula for success is pretty obvious. MM knows he has a lethal offense, hence all the no huddle. If we are able to get a lead and force teams to go to the air, we have enough pass rush and secondary to stop teams IMO.

[3irty1]

I know from watching other teams that bigger doesn't necessarily mean better against the run but its still hard to visualize a Packers team that lost Pickett, CJ Wilson, Jolly, and Raji not being a sieve.

[3irty1]

Hyperboles aside, I don't think 3 WR on the field should automatically mean nickel or dime defense. The down and distance is just as important IMO.

[MadScientist]

If you can't cover 3 WR's with 4 DB's - then you should be selling insurance instead of coordinating an NFL defense.

Hyperboles aside, I don't think 3 WR on the field should automatically mean nickel or dime defense. The down and distance is just as important IMO.

Sure, on 3rd and short you gear up to stop the run in that formation, but otherwise it is an advantage to the offense to have 3 WR and 1 TE vs 4 DB. The way a defense can make it work is if you have 1) a safety that can really cover a WR (Woodson, hopefully Hyde), 2) another safety that can really play center field (Collins yes, Burnett ?), and LB's who can handle the TE in one way or another. If you have the personnel to do it, great, otherwise nickel is your best bet.

Flip it around. If you were a DC going up against the Packers and they came out 3 WR, 1 TE and Lacy, what would you do? Would you seriously go with 4 DB?

[pbmax]

If you can't cover 3 WR's with 4 DB's - then you should be selling insurance instead of coordinating an NFL defense.

Add to those 4 DB's - a supposedly adept cover LB like Jones... and if it's a pass, both Jones and Hawk are going to drop - Jones, Hawk, and probably 1 of the OLB's.

You can't cover 3 WR's and 1 TE with 6 guys in coverage??

By dunderdummy's reckoning, and the brainwashed Packer masses - it would seem an absolute impossibility.

If it is an impossiblity to cover anyone out of base - then we should never run base - which we don't run much anyway... so why not just scrap it altogether?? Stopping the run isn't even a consideration for Dom, so why have any DL over 280 lbs at all??

Hyperboles aside, I don't think 3 WR on the field should automatically mean nickel or dime defense. The down and distance is just as important IMO.

Of course there are situations (certain down and distance or even more likely field position-goal to go) that don't call automatically for nickel.

But using nickel to combat 3x1 in typical situations was a lesson finally learned in the NFL by the last hold out Broncos when the 49ers tore their simple 4-3 Cover 2 to shreds in the Super Bowl which yielded a 55 to Doesn't Matter final score. John Taylor said at the time, this offense (both the original Walsh and the Holmgren 3x1 variation) was designed to pull apart the kinds of coverages you get from a base D, especially a Cover 2.

You have 7 in coverage assuming no blitz and almost always one (if not two) is deep safety. That's 6 to cover 4; you can double 2 which leaves 2 in single coverage. And those single coverages can be manipulated to put a LB on a WR or TE at will. See the Packers opening game against the 49ers when Perry was in coverage on Michael Crabtree.

You can play base or you can blitz in your nickel, but if its a medium to short yardage situation, you are playing with fire since the offense is happy with a quick throw.

[wist43]

Hyperboles aside, I don't think 3 WR on the field should automatically mean nickel or dime defense. The down and distance is just as important IMO.

That's been my point all along.

[Fritz]

This season, to me, depends upon two areas: injuries and the play of the defense. IF this team can stay healtrhy, and IF this new fangled defense actually improves, this team can do very well.

[denverYooper]

2 reasons the defense will be better: Peppers and competent safety play.

[CaliforniaCheez]

2 reasons the defense will be better: Peppers and competent safety play.

Well those reasons are gone. Got any others?

Dix is a rookie and it shows. Worse yet he cannot tackle. Seattle exposed Dix, Peppers, Matthews, Jones, and Hawk as liabilities.

[Pugger]

Well those reasons are gone. Got any others?

Dix is a rookie and it shows. Worse yet he cannot tackle. Seattle exposed Dix, Peppers, Matthews, Jones, and Hawk as liabilities.

They also showed our offense is pretty damn anemic too. It's gonna be fun season looking up from the bottom of the NFCN standings the rest of this year.

[Fritz]

I am hopeful in both of those areas, DYoop.

[hoosier]

You guys (and gals) turn quickly in the wind, don't you? Last place in NFCN, fire MM, fire Capers, fire TT. What we learned from last night is that this team isn't going to go 16-0 and that the injury parade is a constant in GB. Fortunately we also know that injury parades and SB crowns are not necessarily incompatible, and that teams can get blown out in week 1 and still turn their seasons around.

[oldbutnotdeadyet]

You guys (and gals) turn quickly in the wind, don't you? Last place in NFCN, fire MM, fire Capers, fire TT. What we learned from last night is that this team isn't going to go 16-0 and that the injury parade is a constant in GB. Fortunately we also know that injury parades and SB crowns are not necessarily incompatible, and that teams can get blown out in week 1 and still turn their seasons around.

I hope so, cause lets face it, last night they were awful, just awful. The thing I cant get my head around is the packers have had poor tackling for many moons. Why would I believe they will turn it around after all the games, and all the new players, and the preseason, etc? Seattle just looked so goddamn much better in the fundamentals, it was really quite embarassing.

[Harlan Huckleby]

You guys (and gals) turn quickly in the wind, don't you? Last place in NFCN, fire MM, fire Capers, fire TT. What we learned from last night is that this team isn't going to go 16-0 and that the injury parade is a constant in GB. Fortunately we also know that injury parades and SB crowns are not necessarily incompatible, and that teams can get blown out in week 1 and still turn their seasons around.

I don't think they have a defensive line to compete for championship, and the offensive line depth is not there. I would say they still can be a good, 10-6 team.

[hoosier]

I don't think they have a defensive line to compete for championship, and the offensive line depth is not there. I would say they still can be a good, 10-6 team.

You may be right, but how can you tell from one game? The '97 Packers were hemorrhaging yards on defense for the first half season and then someone figured out how to stop the run when December and January rolled around. Last night may have exposed a couple of fatal weaknesses left open by injuries to Raji and Bulaga. But it is also conceivable that Sherrod finds his legs (so to speak) after a couple of games, and that MM does what he should have done last night and activates Pennel, who turns out to be a revelation. In the NFL each year is different (except when it comes to the Packers and the injury epidemic), and the worm has a way of turning really quickly. A few years ago everyone had left the Giants smoldering by the side of road and suddenly they woke up and ran the table. If I had to bet, yeah, I would bet that the 2014 Packers will be done in by weaknesses on both lines (and injuries, don't forget the injuries), but as a fan I'm not ready to write them off yet.

[Harlan Huckleby]

You may be right, but how can you tell from one game? The '97 Packers were hemorrhaging yards on defense for the first half season and then someone figured out how to stop the run when December and January rolled around. Last night may have exposed a couple of fatal weaknesses left open by injuries to Raji and Bulaga. But it is also conceivable that Sherrod finds his legs (so to speak) after a couple of games

What you say is reasonable except for the LOL about Sherrod being salvagable.

[Joemailman]

I don't think they have a defensive line to compete for championship, and the offensive line depth is not there. I would say they still can be a good, 10-6 team.

You may be right about the defensive line. On the offensive side though, they've lost 3 of their top 6 guys. That would wipe out the depth of any team. If they can hang in until they get Bulaga, and eventually Tretter back, I think the offensive line situation is pretty decent.

[Harlan Huckleby]

You may be right about the defensive line. On the offensive side though, they've lost 3 of their top 6 guys. That would wipe out the depth of any team. If they can hang in until they get Bulaga, and eventually Tretter back, I think the offensive line situation is pretty decent.

They don't need Tretter except for depth, Linsley looks good. I'm assuming that Bulaga or some other starter will be out throughout the season, that seems par for the course.
Somebody suggested replacing Sherrod with the tackle on practice squad, the guy with suspiciously foreign sounding name to go along with Bakhtiari. Sounds good to me.