The defense seems to be decent at shutting down one aspect of an offense. Last night they stuffed the run because, Ponder. Previous weeks they were focused on stopping the pass. The problem when the other team has a balanced attack (Sea, Chi) the defense looks bad. Those are games where they need to get a lead to force the other team into a pass centric game. It worked in Chicago, not so much in Seattle.
Either the personnel, or the scheme are deficient for a top defense.
Fire Murphy, Gute, MLF, Barry, Senavich, etc!
Yes, its part of the pass alignment, if you see them back there 6 yards deep, they are playing pass first.Originally Posted by Maxie the Taxi
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
How was their O line against non-Falcon defenses? Because my impression of them was that they weren't terrible. Prior to the game, anyway.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
They do play some bail coverage out of a pressure look, but I don't think that was the plan with Ponder or Bridgewater.
Last night they did bring two ILBs up to the A gap to threaten blitz and he usually sent just one, but there were occasions both went in a zone blitz.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
I can't imagine coming off a whooping like that and then having Detroit's DL to look forward to.
70% of the Earth is covered by water. The rest is covered by Al Harris.
Capers actually contested the LOS, and didn't give up the middle of the field much... he needs to do that every game - but of course we know he won't.
If he actually gameplanned to control the LOS and middle of the field like he did against the Vikings, I think we could have a good enough defense to contend. As I've said all along, I think we have the players to be good enough... it all comes down to dunderdummy.
This Vikings game is an example of the kind of defense we could have - but again, will we see it again?? Probably not - I chalk it up to a one-time gameplan, and next week we could be right back to complete disaster.
Until dunderdummy proves otherwise - he simply can't be trusted.
wist
good showing against a crippled team.
Rather than give Dom a backhanded compliment and then proceed to shred him wist....why cant you just simply give him credit for how he called the Vikings game ..
truth be told
he called a very nice game
LIFE IS ABOUT CHAMPIONSHIPS; I JUST REALIZED THIS. The MILWAUKEE BUCKS have won the same number of championships over the past 50 years as the Green Bay Packers. Ten years from now, who will have more championships, and who will be the fart in the wind ?
Really??
That would be like saying a wife beater aint a bad guy cause he brought flowers home last night...
You guys like being abused - then think it impolite if someone doesn't agree.
wist
No, it would be like saying giving flowers is a good thing.
I am not the x's and o's guy like many here, but I'm gonna guess they play off the LOS so much so they don't give up the middle of the field in the passing game. They were flying to the ball much better last night, and were a lot cleaner than previous weeks.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." -Daniel Patrick Moynihan
You're probably right. That's similar to what pbmax was saying. The trouble is they seem to be in that position 90% of the time, whether it's Hawk and Lattimore or Hawk and the nickle back. I rewatched the game yesterday and there was a 3rd and 4 play for the Bears. Hawk and House (I think) were 6 yards deep. Ponder gave the ball to Asiata who was 6 yards deep. Asiata beat Hawk to the line of scrimmage (along with a lead blocker)! Hawk made a good tackle but Asiata was already two yards beyond the LOS and his momentum carried him three yards more for a first down. Hawk had no chance.
It's just frustrating to watch.
One time Lombardi was disgusted with the team in practice and told them they were going to have to start with the basics. He held up a ball and said: "This is a football." McGee immediately called out, "Stop, coach, you're going too fast," and that gave everyone a laugh.
John Maxymuk, Packers By The Numbers
Haha, I don't agree but that's a great analogy.
70% of the Earth is covered by water. The rest is covered by Al Harris.
http://theadvocate.com/sports/saints...are-proof-that
Good read from the link above. I've gotten into reading about how to stop the run from the nickel, since the nickel is accounting for more and more snaps league-wide. Nice shout out to Fritz Shurmur in the article (or Fitz if you notice the typo). This article has a New Orleans slant, but still talks about the trend league-wide. I have a question. Is the difference between Nickel and Dime always the third safety in place of a linebacker? The article mentioned Big Nickel where the safety replaces a linebacker so you not only have coverage but run support. Do the Packers ever do Nickel where they take Hawk out and substitute another safety? Richardson might be good for that role if that was the case. People here have long disparaged Hawk's coverage ability, so who would you rather have on the field when you are betting on pass, but still wanting to stop the run?
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." -Daniel Patrick Moynihan
I think the Packers go more with the Burnett, Clinton-Dix, Hyde rotation. Hyde seems to be more CB than S to me.
But Rodgers leads the league in frumpy expressions and negative body language on the sideline, which makes him, like Josh Allen, a unique double threat.
-Tim Harmston
To me this might be an intriguing possibility. I'm not suggesting Richardson play linebacker, but that he play as an extra safety - but perhaps closer to the LOS. He could cover tight ends but still be around the LOS in case of a run, as in a third-and-four situation.
I wonder if this is realistic.
"The Devine era is actually worse than you remember if you go back and look at it."
KYPack
HOFer
Hawk has played almost every snap this year, so not yet. I think we have the personnel to run Big Nickel. San Fran was projected to use the Big Nickel as their quasi base defense--with Jimmie Ward as the third safety. Similar to Hyde in that he's kind of a S/CB tweener.
"There's a lot of interest in the draft. It's great. But quite frankly, most of the people that are commenting on it don't know anything about what they are talking about."--Ted Thompson
One of the most interesting things said in the article I linked in my previous post is this:
“The question is how are you deploying fronts in nickel?” Saints coach Sean Payton said. “You can get in some heavy run fronts in nickel, favorable defending the run and challenging defending the pass. It’s not just defending the nickel. It’s what’s the front and coverage you’re playing within it?”
The first thing I thought of when I read this is how Wist gives Capers a hard time about conceding the middle of the field. Would you say the Packers ran a "heavy front" (to quote Payton's term above) against the Vikings (or maybe a heavier front)?
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." -Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Capers is very dependent on down and distance when determining whether to play heavy as Payton uses the term here. If the tendency is to pass, whether its 3rd and 11 or 3rd and 4, he might go six in the box in either case.
But they can go heavy, as they did against the Seachickens and the Jets. That's when you see Guion and Boyd instead of Daniels and Jones. The OLBs/DE can squeeze inside too.
One thing I read this week said the Packers, despite Peterson's absence, spent the majority of the game in Oakie, with very few 4-3 snaps.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
So basically, traditional base 3-4?
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." -Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
