Collingsworth said early in the game that he thought the Claymaker switch was an attempt by the Packers to get their 11 best defensive players on the field at the same time. I don't know if that was their motive, but it seemed to be the end result. I hope they continue with it and continue to perfect it.
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
I think it was more desperation at 'backer than an ideal starting 11, but the calculus involved, Perry starting at OLB instead of Lattimore/Barrington at ILB probably makes it their best 11.Originally Posted by Maxie the Taxi
JSO's story said it was Capers idea, and Wilde said they had practiced this in camp. Which means another midseason change for McCarthy after giving the original plan a good 8 games to straighten itself out.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
Perhaps this is something Dom has wanted to do for a while; I'm surprised everybody is on the domderdummy wagon. I think this move was Domgenius and he should be getting a ton of credit for this. It's no secret MM doesn't exactly embrace change easily.
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 ?
Well, before we send him a cake, let's be honest and recognize that M3 will always try to pick up and defend his guys. The postmortems after the season might tell us more about the actual genesis of the idea. We have bandied about the idea of moving Matthews inside on this board before, so I can see it being something launched in the offseason more easily than a idea born of panic. I do think panic helped launch the idea into the game plan for the Bears after the bye week though.
Also to repeat myself, I think M3's stubbornness in this area is a strength overall. There is a reason his teams don't run in emotional hills and valleys every week and why young players (and the team) get better as the season progresses. McCarthy has a pretty steady hand on the (Joe) Tiller.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
McCarthy sounded pretty exasperated after the New Orleans game, and I suspect he let the defensive coaches know the status quo wasn't acceptable. His comment " We need to tackle the damn ball carrier and get him on the ground. That's what we'll be focused on" was, I think an insistence things had to change. Capers may have come up with the plan, (that's his job) but I don't think McCarthy needed to be dragged kicking and screaming to accept a change. I think he was insisting on it.
It really makes sense. Perry can hold point on the strong side, Peppers ain't no slouch on the other side, Captain Steady Eddie in the middle next to arguably one of the best defenders in the league.
It's talent and scheme - that's the point!! And it's what I've been saying all along.
I find it amazing how some of you guys try to spin this stuff - Max
Dunderdummy did play some 2-4 - note: SOME 2-4, not 24/7 2-4; and then he played it with more size and athleticism on the field, and players positioned better (as opposed to his old formula of 2 fat guy non-pass rushers; 2 upfield wingmen who rush upfield and out of the play; and 2 substandard ILB's).
Out of what he had on the field Sunday night he added odd man rushes into it, and the results were encouraging; but on base downs, he was in the Elephant more often than not early in the game when running the ball was a legitimate threat.
Substituting Perry/Neal/DJones for one of the slug ILB's has been one of my longstanding arguments. What I saw on Sunday night was a much better thought out, and logical approach to utilizing the talent available.
I would still argue that we were better positioned last year with the players we had to be a more complete defense - but that is water under the bridge, and what we have now is what we have.
It will be interesting to see if dunderdummy is forced to keep with the changes. I would imagine the gameplan we saw on Sunday night was not of his doing, but rather the result of pressure from above.
Like I said, we'll see.
wist
Well, 2 down linemen is 2 down linemen, otherwise why have any designation at all?? Just call it a bunch of guys on defense - defense!!It's talent and scheme - that's the point!! And it's what I've been saying all along.
I find it amazing how some of you guys try to spin this stuff - Max
Dunderdummy did play some 2-4 - note: SOME 2-4, not 24/7 2-4; and then he played it with more size and athleticism on the field, and players positioned better (as opposed to his old formula of 2 fat guy non-pass rushers; 2 upfield wingmen who rush upfield and out of the play; and 2 substandard ILB's).
Sounds familiar
wist
I agree trading the healthy version of Perry for Lattimore/Barrinton was a talent upgrade. Not as good as a D lineman with his hand in the dirt of course, but better none-the-less ....
However, the question still being begged by this alignment: can Matthews play ILB when the 49ers send Iupati at him? McGinn noted Matthews ran around a few blocks (which he can do better than most because he might be The Flash). Baranczyk noted his footwork was all over the place (again, less of an issue if you have his takeoff speed). So an evaluation won't be finished until teams get to scout him and run right at him.
The bonus, regardless, is that he will help Hawk immensely.
Also noted by the GBPG, Capers, after having his lineman hold gaps against the Bears in the first game, had them moving and stunting this game. That helps Boyd who also has a quick takeoff.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
It's one thing when you're up big on a struggling team and they have to pass more than run to try and come back. What does it look like when you are in a close game and the other team is still running the ball through the middle of the field?
The Packers formula for winning for the most part has been to get up big on offense and get the catch-up version of the other team's offense. The two close games that the Packers eventually won by comeback were vs. the Jets and @Miami. Of the games that they've lost, in only one did the defense outplay the offense (@Lions). In the other two losses, @Seattle and @New Orleans, the defense couldn't stop the run, and got hit for big plays, and the offense struggled with consistency.
It seems like it's either really good or really bad. At 6-3, they are in a decent position. It's just interesting to note the trends of the wins and losses.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." -Daniel Patrick Moynihan
It's been a strange season. 6 wins by an average of 21 points. 3 losses by an average of 18. Games coming up with Philly and New England will be a test of whether the defense can play well enough to make this team a Super Bowl contender.
The run D was a big problem in both games you highlight (Sea, NO) but I am not sure the run defense will setup a win (maybe Detroit?) this year. However, they just need to be mediocre if the Offense can figure out tough defenses and get points on the board (SEA, Det) or keep the QB healthy (NO).
So I still say the pass blocking by the O line is more important that run Defense rank right now. They pass block, the O will help the D's run defense more than the Packers can shore it up this year.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
Especially on away games. It seems like a different OL at home these days.
70% of the Earth is covered by water. The rest is covered by Al Harris.
Maybe he will be exposed, bu knowing this is another option is still a positive. It is not like he couldn't be moved back outside.
The only thing new about this is that Matthews didn't suck. We worked him at ILB in the first game of the season and it didn't look like such a genius move back then.
I was pleased that Matthews still got some edge rushing snaps and got himself a sack. He's still paid like a star pass rusher and it'll be tough for him to earn his check in a different role.
70% of the Earth is covered by water. The rest is covered by Al Harris.
We do need to see more. He can also earn that paycheck by blitzing up the middle, something he has been good at while stunting from OLB.
However, if Wilde is to be trusted (and he isn't usually Captain XandO) then previously Matthews was a WILL in a 4-3 alignment (Quad). So his current job is different as a ILB in a 3-4 (I assume he is likely to play ILB in base).
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
If the move helps them win another ring, he won't have problems getting paid.
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro ~Hunter S.
The 4 new wrinkles were as follows...
1. Perry at OLB. He won't chase down runs from the backside like CM3 does but he is stronger at the point
2. CM3 at ILB...no explanation needed
3. Hyde played more at nickel.....better playing the run then either Hayward or Tramon (Tramon slides to nickel when House is 3rd cb)
4. DL did more slanting and stunting
Go PACK
Thx Boss. I was trying to remember the adjustments & you did the job listing 'em here. On pt 3, you mean Tramon covers the slot in nickel, right? that's getting to be the new move. Put your best coverman on the slot guy and eliminate the slants and sluggo's.
Wist I gotta get on your ass some. Capers isn't a ninny or a boob. He's a man trying to run a stable and he doesn't have all the horses. DC the DC did a masterful job in putting together the D gameplan for the Bears. Before we all break our arms patting ol Don on the back, it needs to be noted that we moved from 32 in the NFL vs the run to 30th. That still ain't gonna hack the program, passing league or not.
Claymat to ILB looks good, but you are still putting a guy in a position we should already have covered, but we don't. That chase ILB spot is well-suited to Clay, but you are still asking a thorobred to pull a milk wagon. Matthews is a great OLB, he will get dinged if we play him inside. Those ILB's have guys coming at them at all angles.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
