Keep up. Second Chicago game, Perry at OLB in 2-4. Bears went 24-55 in run game.Originally Posted by wist43
Keep up. Second Chicago game, Perry at OLB in 2-4. Bears went 24-55 in run game.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
Tyler Dunne @TyDunne · 9h 9 hours ago
Injuries: Nick Perry questionable
Davante Adams probable
Jarrett Bush quest
T.J. Lang probable
Josh Sitton prob
Brandon Bostick probable
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
I like Wist a lot, but this obsession with 2-4 is over the top. I got tired of this and left. I have analysis somewhere of several more games showing Capers adjusts the 2-4 to essentially a 3-3 for run heavy teams, and runs the 2-4 primarily on (predicted) passing downs (last year). Chicago obviously can do both, so Capers went with a 2-4 that included Perry.
I think that Capers took the new pass interference rules to heart and that the 2-4 this year was an acknowledgement that team were going to be pass-happy. results have been mixed. Obviously Seattle is getting away with a lot of contact and in the playoffs, like last year against SF, the refs are gonna swallow their whistles.
Unfortunately for the Packers, Capers' schemes do require the flexibility of a lot of specialized players, and if guys get hurt, he becomes limited very quickly. It's not like injuries don't hurt other teams (see SF for example), it's just missing a guy here or there can totally kill Dom's schemes (See at Saints, for example).
"Never, never ever support a punk like mraynrand. Rather be as I am and feel real sympathy for his sickness." - Woodbuck
What Capers has been doing the past few years is fundamentally unsound - and the results bear that out.
We've had one of the worst defenses in the league for 4 years running - and when he did manage to stop the bleeding a little bit during '12 season, he got us completely embarrassed and bounced out of the playoffs in infamous record setting fashion.
Everyone knows the weakness of the Green Bay Packers is defense - you guys complain a little bit here and there, but for the most part you see it as substandard players. With respect to the ILB's, yes I'm in complete agreement there, but everywhere else on defense - I like most of the players and see that they can be used to much better effect than what dunderdummy has been doing.
When he did go to the 3-3, our defense looked like an actual NFL calibur defense. It disrupted the LOS, created pressure, and put our best defensive players on the field together - in terms of the nickel?? The 3-3 is the answer for our team given our personnel.
You guys don't want to look at reality - you'd rather shoot the messenger. Given our personnel?? The 2-4 is a recipe for disaster, and that is born out every game we run a lot of 2-4, i.e. we get eaten alive, and give up tons of yds and pts - that is undeniable.
wist
http://packerrats.com/showthread.php...l=1#post807270
You mean a "2-4" look similar to this ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ one??
Max: "Well, its nice to know I haven't lost my mind. Packers did use a Bear front versus Eagles. That's 4 linebackers (Peppers, Hawk, Perry and Matthews) and 2 lineman (Daniels and Guion)."
If Perry is a "LB" in that presnap shot - wouldn't Danels and Guion be "LB's" as well; and if that is the case, isn't that 0-6 alignment by your reckoning??
Since you like to call that a "2-4", then what in God's name would be a 3-3??
Perry played a lot of the Chicago game with his hand in the dirt, i.e. as a DL - which is where he belongs.
The only problem I have the alignment that you posted there is that Hawk is still on the field... I'd much rather see Neal in Matthews spot, and Matthews playing the middle where Hawk is, and Hawk standing on the sideline along with Brad Jones.
wist
This post proves again that you don't know what you're talking about. I guess putting a hand down on the ground makes you a DL. Or not. Or sometimes it does. Or not. 6 OLB who were drafted as DLs or played as DLs means a 2-4 is an 0-6 or a 1-5. Depending on whether a hand is touching dirt. Or not. Or something. Or not.
"Never, never ever support a punk like mraynrand. Rather be as I am and feel real sympathy for his sickness." - Woodbuck
I'm saying that alignment is a 3-3, max is saying it is a 2-4...
He is trying to play a sophistry game by saying that a down linemen is not a defensive linemen. In terms of a 3-3 or a 2-4?? The definition is how many linemen you have, and how many LB's you have.
You guys can try to spin it all you want, but 3 down linemen, lined up inside the tackles, and 3 LB's standing up, 2 outside and 1 inside - that is by definition a 3-3.
wist
There's no spin. The Packers have at least 4 OLBs who can play DE - Neal, Perry, Matthews and Peppers. So when those four (or three plus Hawk) are on the field with two defensive linemen, the D can play any number of combinations from a 4-3, 3-3, 2-4, elephant, whatever. It depends on down and distance and alignment. If you don't take the circumstance and specific alignment into consideration on a specific play, you can be totally wrong about what Capers is trying to do.
The huge difference is that last year they had (for a while) Jolly and Pickett as run stopping DL only. But those guys could get trapped on the field by any team that runs a no-huddle/hurry up.
I think Capers wanted the versatility to run from 4-3 to 2-4 with the same people on the field. Partly because of the demise of Raji (performance and then injury) and now Hawk, he's yielded more in the run game to protect the passing defense. With all the parts in place, the Packer pass D has been doing what Capers intended - turn the ball over. But it's looked bad at times yielding lots of yards, especially in the run game. I don't see it getting better until they improve personnel at DT and ILB.
"Never, never ever support a punk like mraynrand. Rather be as I am and feel real sympathy for his sickness." - Woodbuck
I am giving you that the Bear front* is a 3-3. To describe it as a 2-4 causes more confusion than clarity. But that doesn't transform Perry, body-wise, into a DT.
We have forgotten a small point about your call for the 3-3. You wanted more size to defense the middle of the field. You wanted to take Jones or Hawk off the field for a DB and leave three lineman.
So Capers, in this formation, run for 15 snaps versus 1 team, gave you half of what you want. A formation of 3-3. But he did it by subtracting a lineman for the DB and lining up an OLB at DT. That is a plus of 1 inch and 10 pounds over Jones.
* actual Bear front needs another backer on the LOS, but three lineman over the G-C-G is one of the defining characteristics.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
This is why I don't get into it with Wist anymore.
Earlier this year, I was trying to argue that our 2-4 was really more of a 4-2 when you had Perry and Peppers as the OLBs in the formation. He would have nothing to do with that even with Peppers playing DE in a 4-3 for his whole career. Peppers in a two point stance in the exact same spot as where he was is a 3 point stance the year before didn't count.
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
This is still a debate about down lineman versus defensive lineman. Perry is down, but he is not a defensive lineman. He is a OLB.
However, I do agree that with Perry inside the O Tackle, his role and responsibilities here, hand in dirt or not, are likely to be down lineman like. But they have used this formation less than 20 times in three games.
Problem with Neal for Matthews is that you limit your pass rush.
Also, Bear front was versus Eagles not Bears.
Last edited by pbmax; 11-29-2014 at 01:26 PM.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
There's no point discussing this further max... If you can't bring yourself to admit that a defender that is lined up over the guard in a 3 pt stance is a defensive linemen, then you can use any sophistry imaginable to argue that Gilbert Brown was cornerback.
If Perry were standing up and simply filling a gap, I'd agree with you that he is acting as a LB, but that is not the case in the presnap look you posted. What you posted there is what I've been calling for forever, i.e. a 3-3, with down linemen, in this case Daniels, Giuion, and Perry, and 3 LB's Peppers, Hawk and Matthews.
As I said, I'd prefer that Neal be in there in Matthews spot, and Matthews in Hawk's spot, but at least dunderdummy has a reasonable alignment on the field for the personnel he has on the roster. The problem is he doesn't do that except sporadically. When he did use that alignment against Philly and Chicago, our defense had very good success - when he went to the 2-4, we got gashed, or we got lucky and the QB missed wide open receivers.
Given our personnel, the 3-3 is the best solution; but dunderdummy doesn't like to use it, and therefore we will continue to struggle.
wist
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote