This team will not go to another SB until something drastic is done on defense.
This team will not go to another SB until something drastic is done on defense.
HOFer
wist, we all know you're driving the anti 2-4 alignment
what are you're thoughts on that wonderful 0-5 or 0-6 front that we saw last night
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
I would love to see a clip of this. I pray after this pitiful performance Jones becomes the water boy and not one of our starting ILBers.
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
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.
Well, if we're going to say that 3 down linemen is a 4-3, then why have any designation at all?? Just call it a bunch of guys on defense - defense!!
They haven't created a 4-3, or a 3-4, or a hybrid anything... they've simply created a huge mess.
If you think what Capers and the brain trust are doing is viable - then they are certainly your guys. The players are miscast for what the coaching staff is asking of them, they looked confused and out of sync, and they sounded completely demoralized after the game - predictably so.
That is not coaching - that is throwing a bunch of eggs on the floor and calling it an omelet.
wist
I think running a 4-3 is viable given the Packers lineman. I am not sure they have the backers for it. Hawk is no MLB and I am not sure Jones is a Sam.
But put that aside for a minute. I haven't watched the film so it could have been some hybrid deal.
If your elephant is in the 9 gap, a 2 point stance makes little difference as even with a TE, no one is getting a direct shot at you unlike a NT, DT or 5 gap power end.
But having only seen the write-ups and a few plays, its hard to say.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
The discussion on alignment is interesting, to be sure, but to some degree moot as the fundamentals are so poor. And poor fundamentals fall solely on the coaches' shoulders.
McGinn is horse shit, as usual.
In this case its not just him. McCarthy commented on it like it was fait accompli and so other writers have reported in a similar vein.
I think they got some wind of this during the offseason.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote