The Defense - Again, the Defense :(

[wist43]

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.

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.

[pbmax]

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.

[Guiness]

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.

Are you saying if they have a DE/OLB (Neale or Peppers) lined up on wide on the line, in a 2 point stance, that counts as a DL? Not sure I buy that.

[pbmax]

Are you saying if they have a DE/OLB (Neale or Peppers) lined up on wide on the line, in a 2 point stance, that counts as a DL? Not sure I buy that.

Not sure how wide you mean by your wide, but yes it changes things.

Its dependent on alignment (and I still haven't reviewed the game) but if that player is attacking the LOS and with no coverage responsibilities (unless zone blitz) then yes, he is behaving like a lineman. The stance might be an issue, but its less of an issue wide.

Remember the argument against the 2-4 nickel and dime is that its vulnerable to the run in the middle due to size. Replacing Matthews and Perry with Neal and Peppers is a size increase that offsets the lost size of a NT. Each guy wist wanted to put on the field in his 3-3 nickel was a 280-285 pound guy so that you could have beef and a little pass rush.

[Guiness]

Not sure how wide you mean by your wide, but yes it changes things.

Its dependent on alignment (and I still haven't reviewed the game) but if that player is attacking the LOS and with no coverage responsibilities (unless zone blitz) then yes, he is behaving like a lineman. The stance might be an issue, but its less of an issue wide.

Remember the argument against the 2-4 nickel and dime is that its vulnerable to the run in the middle due to size. Replacing Matthews and Perry with Neal and Peppers is a size increase that offsets the lost size of a NT. Each guy wist wanted to put on the field in his 3-3 nickel was a 280-285 pound guy so that you could have beef and a little pass rush.

Wide as in the 9 alignment (outside shoulder of TE). I tend to think if he's that wide and standing up, I don't care if it's Howard Greene, he's an LB, not a DL.

[pbmax]

Wide as in the 9 alignment (outside shoulder of TE). I tend to think if he's that wide and standing up, I don't care if it's Howard Greene, he's an LB, not a DL.

Well, we have a hole in the nomenclature that can only be closed by looking at responsibilities.

If you think DL stands for Down Lineman and LB stands for Line Backer, then what do you call a standing lineman? Packers called him Elephant in camp.

If you think DL stands for Defensive Lineman, then there isn't a nomenclature problem at all.

[wist43]

Not sure how wide you mean by your wide, but yes it changes things.

Its dependent on alignment (and I still haven't reviewed the game) but if that player is attacking the LOS and with no coverage responsibilities (unless zone blitz) then yes, he is behaving like a lineman. The stance might be an issue, but its less of an issue wide.

Remember the argument against the 2-4 nickel and dime is that its vulnerable to the run in the middle due to size. Replacing Matthews and Perry with Neal and Peppers is a size increase that offsets the lost size of a NT. Each guy wist wanted to put on the field in his 3-3 nickel was a 280-285 pound guy so that you could have beef and a little pass rush.

If you're going to go to a nickel in an either/or, down/distance situation - the jumbo nickel is idiotic, and it didn't stop either the run or the pass - for very logical reasons. Logical reasons that were completely lost on dunderdummy.

As for my dreamed of 3-3, I don't want any of the down linemen lined up outside the tackles, I think the alignment is best served with those down linemen lined up inside the tackles - there may be exceptions to that of course, depending on opponent, but for the most part it makes the most sense to have a stout, gap penetrating presence on the LOS.

That's probably dunderdummy's biggest flaw - he cares nothing about controlling the LOS, and it shows as we repeatedly get run over, and rarely generate pressure up the middle.

You can do a lot from that alignment. You can have your OLB's playing outside the T's and providing outside pass rush and setting the edge against the run, while roaming another guy along the line, be it Matthews, Neal, or Mulumba; or you can run a wide variety of stunts, blitizes, drops, and zone blitzes out of that alignment.

Call it exotic but sound - what Capers does is exotic and unsound; very, very unsound.

It affords a lot more flexibility, and offers better size/mobility/athleticism in your front. You can play a much more penetrating style, as opposed anything dunderdummy has been throwing out there for the past 3+ years.

And as an added bonus?? It gets either Hawk or Jones off the field - or both of them off the field!!!

[3irty1]

If you're going to go to a nickel in an either/or, down/distance situation - the jumbo nickel is idiotic, and it didn't stop either the run or the pass - for very logical reasons. Logical reasons that were completely lost on dunderdummy.

As for my dreamed of 3-3, I don't want any of the down linemen lined up outside the tackles, I think the alignment is best served with those down linemen lined up inside the tackles - there may be exceptions to that of course, depending on opponent, but for the most part it makes the most sense to have a stout, gap penetrating presence on the LOS.

That's probably dunderdummy's biggest flaw - he cares nothing about controlling the LOS, and it shows as we repeatedly get run over, and rarely generate pressure up the middle.

You can do a lot from that alignment. You can have your OLB's playing outside the T's and providing outside pass rush and setting the edge against the run, while roaming another guy along the line, be it Matthews, Neal, or Mulumba; or you can run a wide variety of stunts, blitizes, drops, and zone blitzes out of that alignment.

Call it exotic but sound - what Capers does is exotic and unsound; very, very unsound.

It affords a lot more flexibility, and offers better size/mobility/athleticism in your front. You can play a much more penetrating style, as opposed anything dunderdummy has been throwing out there for the past 3+ years.

And as an added bonus?? It gets either Hawk or Jones off the field - or both of them off the field!!!

Most 3-3's I've seen would keep the equivalent of Hawk and Jones on the field since those positions are still read and react type roles. If the tradeoff is ultimately to take Matthews off the edge in order to get Hawk or Jones off the field then you can do that from a 2-4 or 4-2 as well especially with all the OLB/DE types we've got. So why specifically the 3-3?

[George Cumby]

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.

[smuggler]

McGinn is horse shit, as usual.

[pbmax]

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.

[Pugger]

The Bears? I know you hate our defense but their defense is worse than ours.

[wist43]

The Bears? I know you hate our defense but their defense is worse than ours.

Well, between us and the Bears?? It's a race to the bottom... we are bad, bad, bad - guess it just depends on what flavor of bad you like

[pbmax]

The 9-11 metric is as bad a measure of this team's quality as any other devised by the criminally insane or Bears fans.

If you expect Rodgers to miss 40% of the next 14 games, speak up.

[wist43]

The 9-11 metric is as bad a measure of this team's quality as any other devised by the criminally insane or Bears fans.

If you expect Rodgers to miss 40% of the next 14 games, speak up.

We were 27th in run defense, 25th in defense... Capers is a gimmick DC, and what we got in the opener was more of the same. Those are just facts.

We can compete with anyone on offense... and I have faith that MM will get the offense straightened out, but the defense simply is not championship calibur.

It is what it is... hopefully, Capers will be shown the door at years end.

[Rutnstrut]

The 9-11 metric is as bad a measure of this team's quality as any other devised by the criminally insane or Bears fans.

If you expect Rodgers to miss 40% of the next 14 games, speak up.

I don't know about 40%, but I would be surprised if he doesn't miss a game or two this season.

[wist43]

I don't know about 40%, but I would be surprised if he doesn't miss a game or two this season.

I didn't look at the offense that much, but I didn't notice any power running plays... if that is the case, then it would seem MM has reverted to his nature, i.e. reducing his run play list to his default 3 plays. Student body right, left, and middle.

With no run to respect, defenses will be teeing off on Rodgers - if that is the case?? Yes, Rodgers will end up missing time.

[Rutnstrut]

I didn't look at the offense that much, but I didn't notice any power running plays... if that is the case, then it would seem MM has reverted to his nature, i.e. reducing his run play list to his default 3 plays. Student body right, left, and middle.

With no run to respect, defenses will be teeing off on Rodgers - if that is the case?? Yes, Rodgers will end up missing time.

Exactly, Stubby as usual will be Mr.predictable,

[3irty1]

I understand the Packers need to take desperate measures in order to avoid injury but should we be surprised that our starters miss this many tackles when the only contact they get before week 1 comes from a handful of reps in the preseason? This may just be a tradeoff that MM is willing to make in his preparation.

I'm always hesitant to blame playcalling because its usually and exercise in hindsight but there were some calls of Capers's that I just can't wrap my head around. We gave a 6 man front to some balanced sets in short yardage situations. I'm not sure we even have the horses to adequately challenge that kind of look with a 7 man front. Taking into account the mobility of their QB and he factors into the headcount, we were asking an awful lot of our guys in those situations. This defense does look like they'll be lights out against the pass though. The other Jones played alright, he was easily our best lineman which is nice to see. Burnett secretly had a decent day. Haha was in position to miss a lot of plays but it seems like he's got the hard part down. Firing Capers and executing Brad Jones are pretty drastic moves, but giving the playcalling duties to Winston Moss and sprinkling in some contact drill in practice might make this defense only half bad. It sure would be nice to get a thorn in the middle of this D like Seattle has but the way the draft and FA shook out I'm not sure who that would have been. Now that the safety and OLB positions seem patched up ILB is clearly the most pressing need of the team.

[pbmax]

I understand the Packers need to take desperate measures in order to avoid injury but should we be surprised that our starters miss this many tackles when the only contact they get before week 1 comes from a handful of reps in the preseason? This may just be a tradeoff that MM is willing to make in his preparation.

I'm always hesitant to blame playcalling because its usually and exercise in hindsight but there were some calls of Capers's that I just can't wrap my head around. We gave a 6 man front to some balanced sets in short yardage situations. I'm not sure we even have the horses to adequately challenge that kind of look with a 7 man front. Taking into account the mobility of their QB and he factors into the headcount, we were asking an awful lot of our guys in those situations. This defense does look like they'll be lights out against the pass though. The other Jones played alright, he was easily our best lineman which is nice to see. Burnett secretly had a decent day. Haha was in position to miss a lot of plays but it seems like he's got the hard part down. Firing Capers and executing Brad Jones are pretty drastic moves, but giving the playcalling duties to Winston Moss and sprinkling in some contact drill in practice might make this defense only half bad. It sure would be nice to get a thorn in the middle of this D like Seattle has but the way the draft and FA shook out I'm not sure who that would have been. Now that the safety and OLB positions seem patched up ILB is clearly the most pressing need of the team.

I don't think the Packers went light on D lineman because they feared the passing attack or doubted the backend. They went light because they feared the speed with Harvin as the 3rd WR and Wilson.

So they play the new 4-2 nickel a lot and try to match quickness for quickness. Sometimes it works. But far too often it failed on the misdirection and sweeps.

Some of that I blame on the first game. Seattle got to rollout a bunch of new stuff with Harvin. And in that alignment, you are going to have trouble with Lynch.

But Lynch's yardage doesn't bother me as much as the fact that the new speed didn't make more of a dent in Seattle's ability to get the edge and break big plays. That plus penalty-fest hurt them a lot.

The one thing I liked, other than having mostly functional safeties, was the pass rush seemed a bit more threatening.