or the 2-4-4 at the goal line?
or the 2-4-4 at the goal line?
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro ~Hunter S.
That Capers is a visionary..Im sure he had his reasons for only having 10 guys out there.Originally Posted by denverYooper
The dreaded "amoeba alignment", lol...
Not a fan... certainly not something that could be used with any regularity. They ran it a few times, but the game was already out of hand by the time they messed around with it.
I ran thru the tape and tried to account for alignments and the results - I'll throw a post together of what I saw.
wist
Okay... blazed thru the tape, with the emphasis on blazed. Didn't study anything - why a given alignment failed or succeeded... except on a couple of occassions.
In the 1st half, they ran the 2-4 almost exclusively. I was surprised when I paused each presnap and realized they were actually in a 2-4. Watching the game live, some of what looked like Elephant, or even 3-4 was actually a 2-4 when I went thru the tape.
In the 1st half, they ran the 2-4 20 times out of 28 snaps.
They ran the 3-4 base only 3 times - one of the plays resulting in a Seattle holding call, so it was 'no play'.
They ran the Amoeba or Elephant 7 times, with 1 play (our only actual sack) being nullified by the brain surgeon, Brad Jones.
So in the first half, the results of the plays were (not in order, and with only scant observations):
2-4
Run +5 yds (on 1st and 10)
Pass +8
Run -1
Run +13
Pass - no gain (sack - run out of bounds, no sack really)
Run +5
Pass +4 (forced a 4th down)
Run +10 (on 1st and 20 after Seattle holding penalty)
Pass +9 (1st and 20 is now 3rd and 1)
Run +7 (on 3rd and 1, 3 wides split left, run right - too easy)
Pass -2
Pass +33 (next play was the other 33 yd gash for the TD against the Elephant)
Pass +22 (1st and 10, 2 wides)
Pass Incomplete
Run +21 (on 2nd and 5)
Run +9 (1st and goal from the 9, 3 wides, Hawk was laughable on this play, Touchdown)
Pass +2
Run +7
Run +5 (halftime)
Rushing yds allowed = 81 yds, and 1 TD
Passing yds allowed = 76 yds
3-4
Pass +4
Run (resulted in holding call that put the Seahawks at 1st and 20 from the own 10 yd line)
Run +2 (on 2nd and 1)
Rushing yds allowed = 2 yds
Passing yds allowed = 4 yds
Elephant/Amoeba
E-Run +4 (1st and 10)
E-Pass Incomplete
E-Pass +33 (laughable TD)
E-Run +9
E-Pass (Sack nullified by Jones holding)
E-Run +8
E-Pass Incomplete
Rushing yds allowed = 21 yds
Passing yds allowed = 33 yds, 1 TD
That was the first half.
wist
The 2nd half, dunderdummy actually played more base 3-4.
They ran the 2-4 less, 12 times out of 39 plays. Of those 39, 3 plays were negated by penalties, 1 by Seattle, 2 by us (Jones-holding and Shields-facemask). So the 2nd half saw us run the 2-4 exactly 33% of the time - a sharp drop off from the 1st half... dunderdummy did adjust.
They ran the 3-4 15 times out of the 36 plays.
They ran the Elephant or Amoeba 9 times.
2nd half results (not in order)
2-4
Run +13 yds (1st and 10, 2 TE's)
Pass +1 (forced FG)
Run +16
Run No Gain
Pass Incomplete
Pass +8 (resulted in 1st down)
Run +13 (QB scramble)
Pass +14
Run +4
Pass +5
Run +7 (QB run, Shields facemask)
Rushing yds allowed = 53 yds
Passing yds allowed = 28 yds
3-4
Run +9 (3 wides)
Run +4
Pass Incomplete (Got pressure)
Pass Incomplete (1st and goal)
Run +5 (2nd and goal)
Run +4
Run NG
Run +3 (Touchdown)
Pass +1
Run +2
Run +1
Run +7
Run +2
Pass +15 (Touchdown)
Rushing yds allowed = 35 yds, 1 TD
Passing yds allowed = 16 yds, 1 TD
Elephant/Amoeba
A-Pass Incomplete (blitz)
E-Pass +6 (forced punt)
A-Run +1
E-Pass +9
E-Run +4
Pass Incomplete (4-3, got pressure)
A-Pass +10 (first down)
E-Run +6
Rushing yds allowed = 11 yds
Passing yds allowed = 25 yds
So there it is... as complete a rundown as I could throw together on the fly. I think I might have missed a couple of plays, and I didn't count Wilson's kneel downs... small things. Pretty tired typing this, so I might have screwed some of the math up, but it's close enough for government work
wist
Wist, you deserve a medal or something far watching that shit again. Thanks a ton for putting the effort in, that's a lot of typing.
people are overreacting i think. the nfl fucked us again with the hardest match-up right out of the gate. a game you can't game plan for against the best, most unpredictable, team in the league. we'll be fine.
Fine as in competing for superbowl? Or what is your guess? I may have been over reacting but I thought the loss was a disaster of biblical proportion.
I think the 48-3 loss to a Kyle Boller led Ravens in 2005 on Monday Night Football was a disaster of biblical proportions. We could have hung around in this game if we played even just a little better
yup. we're a top 4 team in our conference. a lot of overreaction everywhere...twitter, blogs, talk shows. i think the 4-3 thing was just for this game...or for anyone using the read-option. it was just a set-up, a bad, no-win situation from the get-go.
Wake up chuggin kool-aid this am??
How in heavens name are we a top 4 team in the conference?? We're 9-11-1 in our last 20 games - Rodgers being out be damned, we're just not that good.
Seattle is light years better; and San Francisco has come back to us a bit with the losses on defense, but they are still better than we are; New Orleans is better; Carolina is better; Philadelphia is probably better - they certainly kicked the crap out of us last year in Lambeau...
The Lions completely embarrassed us last year 40-10... I don't care if Rodgers was out or not, a good team finds a way to at least compete; and I'm sorry, I hate the Bears too, but they are probably better than we are too.
That puts us at being competetive in the middle of the NFC.
That is what our record indicates, that is what our pathetic defense indicates, that is what our head scratching GM and coaching decisions indicate. We're simply not as good as Packer fans want to think we are. You guys are riding on the coat tails of a good run 3-4 years ago, and the fact that we have a franchise QB.
NFL games are won in the trenches, and the Packers are horrid on both the offensive and defensive lines. I think we had some good DL talent, but the cast off any run defenders we had on the roster, and of course dunderdummy is our DC and is committed to misusing everyone.
No, you're on drugs if you think the Packers are a legit SB contender. I think we have the talent to be that good, and I think MM will round the offense into decent form; but I view the defense as being completely hopeless.
I had higher hopes a few weeks ago... hopes that MM would force Capers into actually doing his job - but alas, the Seattle game showed that very little has changed - and what has changed has been for the worse... as if that were possible.
As good as our offense can be, there is no way the Packers can be considered a legit contender as long as dunderdummy is our DC, and the organization continues to believe that gimmicks on defense is a substitute for playing solid, fundamental football.
wist
Wist, I really like that you tell it like it is. Too bad most on here can't handle it.
Got to say I agree with you on this. Usually you are way to negative for me, but realistically I would say we are somewhere in the middle. I see the Hawks, Saints, and 49ers as clearly better teams and I see the Bears, Lions, Eagles, Falcons, and Redskins as teams that will be a lot better than last year. I think the Panthers will suck though. So the very best we are number 4, but could be as low as 9.
I think TT should be held accountable for his drafts since 2010. He has been missing and missing early. While teams like the 49ers and Seahawks are hitting on all top picks and finding studs in the later rounds. Seattle for example has drafted Chancellor, Sherman, Lane, Maxwell, kj wight, Bladwin, Wilson, and most of there oline in the 3rd round or later. The Packers in the meanwhile have drafted Bulaga, Sherrod, and Jones in the first and they all haven't played the way you expect first rounders to play.
Plain and simple we can complain about Capers (and we should bc he sucks), but we just simply aren't as talented as the elite teams in the league. I hate to even think about the teams TT would be fielding had he not drafted Rodgers with his first pick.
Draft Brandin Cooks WR OSU!
Saints gave up 37 points and 568 yards. It wasn't 579 yards but still... I guess you can cross them off your list.
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
The only team that is "light years better" right now is Seattle. And this is the Packers playing possibly the worst football they can.
The Saints? Umm, yeah. Their vastly improved defense just had Atlanta move almost at will against them. The 49ers aren't going to be the powerhouse they normally are.
The Panthers offense is stipped. Philly "destroyed" us with Tolzien at the helm. And I think their offense and Foles is going to be a bit less effective this season.
The Bears? Yeah. Cutler is still their QB. And the Lions, despite destroying the inept Flynn led Packers, couldn't seize control of the division either.
I know it's trendy to be a front runner off the bandwagon, but jeez man.
The first few yes, NO maybe, but these no. That's just trying to seem smarter than everyone else by yelling the loudest.
I want to address this point directly. Philadelphia did not kick the crap out of us last year. They barely beat the Pack. I was at the game.
The end score was 27-13 I believe. Two of PHI TDs that game were pure luck. The perfect example was the DeSean Jackson TD. Two Packers are going to intercept the ball, the two players collide, the ball hits the Packers player's shoulder pads and bounces straight to Jackson who walks into the end zone. After that play I turned to my wife and said there is no way we are going to win if the other team gets breaks like that. And they did later in the game on Cooper's TD.
Now the Pack O was "passable" but it was the Seneca Wallace gets hurt game and Tolzien had to come off the bench to run the O and threw two picks.
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
That's a piss poor whiners excuse, if the pack is as good as everyone here claims, they should be able to be competitive with the best any time anywhere.
This is McGinn's article that Max posted in the other thread... don't know what McGinn was looking at, as we only ran 1 play the entire game with 4 down linemen. Whereas, he writes:
"Although the Packers were in their traditional 3-4 defense on the Seahawks' first play from scrimmage, they used a 4-3 most of the time as their base look."
http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/273960821.html
By definition, a 4-3 requires 4 players to have their hands in the dirt - that only happened 1 time during the game. The rest of the alignments were 2-4, or 2-5 (as Max said in the other thread).
I did not pay attention to who was lurking behind the LOS, only the DL alignment. By definition, we were in the 2-4 more often than not, although some of the plays I assigned to being a 2-4, may in fact have been 2-5. As I said, I did not count back end defenders.
Also, there were a couple of times I did notice that we were in a Dime, but the front was 2-2, i.e. 2 down linemen, and the outside rushers standing up - characteristic of the 2-4, so I just lumped them in with the 2-4 plays.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bottom line is, the Packers have jettisoned all of their genuine 3-4 defensive linemen - whom they either didn't use, or misused last year anyway; and in place of running a 3-4, they have thrown together a mess. A mess predicated on having excellent LB's, when the reality is that we have 1 very good LB (Matthews), 1 very good player transitioning to LB (Peppers), and a whole bunch of junk after that.
Why in heavens name TT would sign off on this is beyond me - unless of course he simply cannot properly evaluate ILB play. He wasn't a very good LB in his playing days - maybe he thought he was, and he's trying to find players that played like he did??
Whatever is going on - the Packer defense has been complete junk for 3 years running, and only seems to have gotten worse with horrid coaching and terrible personnel decisions made by TT.
In the mean time - Rodgers tenure is on the clock, and 2014 is going to be another wasted year.
wist
You can run a 4-3 without four DOWN lineman. One of them can be an elephant position in a two point stance. But their depth, gap and assignment will tell you whether its a 4-3, 3-4 or hybrid (doing some of each from same alignment).
I have to rewatch to see it. But from Thompson, McCarthy and Capers comments, they are running a 4-3 with an Elephant end and substituting Neal/Peppers for Guion in nickel and dime from what little I have interpolated.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote