Official Packers vs. Patriots Discussion Thread

[wist43]

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).

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.

[smuggler]

So you're always right because you dismiss anything that doesn't fit your pre-conceived notions.

Modern political strategy ITT; Who cares if it works, so long as it fits my team's ideology!!

[wist43]

Keep up. Second Chicago game, Perry at OLB in 2-4. Bears went 24-55 in run game.

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.

[wist43]

Modern political strategy ITT; Who cares if it works, so long as it fits my team's ideology!!

The example of being able to run for a couple of 1st downs at the end of the Viking game is an outlier - outliers are just that, and have to be dismissed. They are called outliers b/c they lie outside the set of observed data that give you your trend and are therefore unreliable and invalid.

[denverYooper]

Rodgers is going to have a legacy game tomorrow.

[mraynrand]

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.

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.

[pbmax]

The "boot?"

Fake outside zone run to Lacy to one side, QB and TE and one other receiver head back the other direction. They leave the DE/OLB unblocked (or lightly bothered) and hope to get a mismatch or broken coverage.

If DE/OLB reacts well and closes to Rodgers fast, they hit the TE for 5 yards. If DE/OLB blows it and gives Rodgers time, he tries to get to the WR running a crossing route toward that same side of field deeper than the TE.

[pbmax]

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.

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.

[pbmax]

Not going to avoid Revis like Sherman: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...o-avoid-revis/

[Willard]

Potential late season out-of-nowhere weapons: Jeff Janis, Brandon Bostick,
and Dujuan Harris. I predict a surprise tomorrow. Revis and the rest will focus on our traditional weapons only to be torched by these no names. Sweet!

[pbmax]

Packers doomed.

Packers respect, praise Belichick's 'disciplined' Patriots

"Their defense is very consistent shedding blocks. They're very active with their hands. They play with good pad level.

Given the Vikes game, I think they may see some more of this:

"On offense, they do a lot of pick routes and screens. They're almost illegal. At the same time, the refs won't call it. You have to make the refs call it. They definitely challenge every aspect of the game. That's what makes it so tough."

[woodbuck27]

Just what are the playoff implications of a loss for the Green bay Packers in this matchup tomorrow with New England.

ie Making the playoffs. Winning a Division. Winning a 1st Round Bye and winning the TOP SEED.

NFL Week 13 Playoff Implications

By: Mike Beuoy and Reuben Fischer-Baum

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...thanksgiving/:

GO PACK GO !

[wist43]

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.

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.

[wist43]

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.

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.

[woodbuck27]

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol

2014 OFFENSIVE LINE RANKING:

New England is RANKED 4th and the Green Bay Packers 14th.


http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/dl

2014 DEFENSIVE LINE RANKING:

New England is RANKED 24th and the Green Bay Packers 27th.

[Patler]

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol

2014 OFFENSIVE LINE RANKING:

New England is RANKED 4th and the Green Bay Packers 14th.

Yet, in an interview with JSO, Greg Bedard referred to the Patriots O-line as "shaky" and mentioned it first when asked about the Patriots weaknesses.

[mraynrand]

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.

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.

[mraynrand]

Yet, in an interview with JSO, Greg Bedard referred to the Patriots O-line as "shaky" and mentioned it first when asked about the Patriots weaknesses.

Bedard is shaky

[Bossman641]

I love how the Dallas ol gets a pass as the Thursday game being an anomaly yet the Packer ol has fans proclaiming their suckiness on a play to play level.

[woodbuck27]

http://www.packers.com/news-and-even...n=email_141128

Finesse team? Who's saying that now?

Posted Nov 24, 2014

Vic Ketchman ... packers.com editor

Comment: There are some good questions and comments in this RE: NE @ Green Bay Sunday Nov. 30 ,2014.

GO PACK GO !