WHAT IS YOUR VIEW OF DOM CAPERS

[wist43]

I think your original argument was that having linebackers lining up on the line and counting them as defensive lineman was wrong because they were too light and small to do the job, and thus that alignment was not really a 3-3 or 3-4.

You've clearly backtracked from that line, so that now, when the Packer defense, piloted by Capers, gives up only 21 to the Patriots (contrary to your predictions), you claim that Capers is doing what you said he should, and that's why they played well.

You are a piece of work, dude.

I would add to my above post - that my prediction of the game was predicated upon my believe that dunderdummy would be dunderdummy, i.e. that he would revert back to his 2-4, and run his keystone cops anti-coverage scheme.

He obviously ran a lot of what I've been calling for for a long time, and we held them in check and won the game. It sounds like we didn't double Gronk a lot, so if that is the case, I am quite surprised that we held him in check without doubling him. I'm going to watch the game tonight, so I'll pay close attention to how they dealt with Gronk.

The fact is - the fact that you guys can't bring yourselves to admit - is that dunderdummy is finally running the scheme I've been calling for all this time, and it's working. As much as you may hate it - the success of running the 3-3 and more 3-4 is vindicating my arguments in spades.

By the same token, the fact that you guys have argued with me every step of the way, i.e. defending dunderdummy and the 2-4 - proves that you've been wrong all along, and that your attempts to sling shit at my arguments were exactly that - shit!!

[gbgary]

liked the barrington move.

[MadScientist]

I'd say Dom's biggest flaw is how he hides (or rather fails to hide) deficiencies. He can do good things with a couple of stars and the rest solid if unspectacular, but when there is a hole, it doesn't get covered well. It seems other defenses get by with a limited player on defense better than the Packers.

Last year they had a hole at safety and the defense was a mess. This year started with holes at NT and ILB. Guion improved to shore up the line, but Jones and Hawk were weak links and the defense was bleeding yards. Now that they are on the bench most of the time, the defense looks much better. Yes they failed at some tackles yesterday, but I won't put Bell or Gronk running over people on Dom. I'll take 320 yards and 21 points against NE any time (even in February).

Bottom line is that I would put Dom as an above average DC for his scheming abilities. He is not outstanding because he can't cover up weaker players.

[pbmax]

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packe...284424981.html

The Packers played 24 snaps in the 3-4.

I believe that is very close to the number of snaps AJ Hawk played.

So against a team with a stout running game that they are willing to use liberally, Capers adjusts by putting out a stouter front more often (though not exclusively). Same as he has done against the Jets, Atlanta, the Vikings, the 49ers and Seahawks. Its almost as if he watches film, maps tendencies and adjusts accordingly. Like any sane person would.

There is nothing unsound in the design of the approach. Yes, he leverages against the pass earlier than some other DCs, but we are talking 5-7 snaps a game of difference. There is a critique of Capers and why he hasn't been more consistent and successful with the Packers.

Unsoundness and lunacy aren't it.

[Maxie the Taxi]

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packe...284424981.html



I believe that is very close to the number of snaps AJ Hawk played.

So against a team with a stout running game that they are willing to use liberally, Capers adjusts by putting out a stouter front more often (though not exclusively). Same as he has done against the Jets, Atlanta, the Vikings, the 49ers and Seahawks. Its almost as if he watches film, maps tendencies and adjusts accordingly. Like any sane person would.

There is nothing unsound in the design of the approach. Yes, he leverages against the pass earlier than some other DCs, but we are talking 5-7 snaps a game of difference. There is a critique of Capers and why he hasn't been more consistent and successful with the Packers.

Unsoundness and lunacy aren't it.

Neither is intentional wrongdoing. There is no reason to think Capers is not trying his best to do what's necessary for the Packers to win.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Hawk played 26 snaps.

[3irty1]

For years I've been saying this defense would be better if they'd just stay healthy. Dom finally took my advice and look at the result. You're welcome guys.

[Cheesehead Craig]

For years I've been saying this defense would be better if they'd just stay healthy. Dom finally took my advice and look at the result. You're welcome guys.

[RashanGary]

If we win our second Super Bowl in the last 4 years with Capers lead defenses, wist will disappear for a few months, like last time, then come back calling him dunderdummy when he can't hold teams to 3 pints per game every game, every year, no matter how many injuries or circumstNces.

[Zool]

If we win our second Super Bowl in the last 4 years with Capers lead defenses, wist will disappear for a few months, like last time, then come back calling him dunderdummy when he can't hold teams to 3 pints per game every game, every year, no matter how many injuries or circumstNces.

3 pints per game would really hurt the Packers bottom line. I'd say each fan goes at least 4.5 pints per game.

[Maxie the Taxi]

3 pints per game would really hurt the Packers bottom line. I'd say each fan goes at least 4.5 pints per game.

Do you have stats to back that up? Link please!

[wist43]

If we win our second Super Bowl in the last 4 years with Capers lead defenses, wist will disappear for a few months, like last time, then come back calling him dunderdummy when he can't hold teams to 3 pints per game every game, every year, no matter how many injuries or circumstNces.

Are you even 30 years old yet??

Get back to me after you have a couple of heart attacks

[pbmax]

For years I've been saying this defense would be better if they'd just stay healthy. Dom finally took my advice and look at the result. You're welcome guys.

I think KFC thursday was the entire problem.

[wist43]

Okay, here's the FF version of going thru the game...

Didn't really break anything down - tried to make an observation here and there, but for the most part I just denoted alignment, down/distance, personnel, and result.

One thing that stood out to me was Barrington - he was down right studly at times... loved his play at ILB, and hope he is now a fixture.

The other thing that stood out to me was the amount of 2-4 dunderdummy played in the 1st half. We were starting to bleed in the 2nd Quarter running the 2-4, but dunderdummy did the right thing and abandoned it in the 2nd half.

We were starting to bleed running the 2-4, but NE didn't take full advantage by the fact that they ran the ball very little. By the end of game NE had 18 rushing attempts (17 really - Brady kneel down) and 35 passing attempts - penalties notwithstanding.

So out of 55 snaps (some penalties that wiped plays out included), dunderdummy ran the following alignments:

3-4, 23 times
2-4, 14 times
3-3, 5 times
3-2 dime, 3 times
2-3 dime, 7 times
4-3, 1 time
4-2, 1 time
Goal line defense (5 down linemen), 1 time

Gronk was kept in check with man coverage and a lot of zone help. It was exactly the type of coverage that I called for. He did manage to shake loose a couple of times, and on a couple of those he was lined up outside the numbers. Outstanding job on Gronk throughout the game.

When dunderdummy was in the 2-4, NE should have run the ball, but they didn't - and in all honesty, dunderdummy did not run his usual 2-4, he crowded the LOS, filled gaps, and Barrington played lightyears better than anyone we've had at ILB in a long, long time. That said, NE did realize most of their success against the 2-4 when dunderdummy did run it... most notably in the 2nd Quarter.

Dunderdummy did then adjust and he only ran the 2-4 1 time in the 2nd half. He did run some 2 man lines in the Dime, but he brought pressure on those snaps, and on several occassions had both Matthews and Peppers coming on the blitz from ILB positions. Excellent mixing of the blitz.

In the 2nd half, dunderdummy ran the 3-4 predominately - even running against 4 WR's and Gronk, i.e. no RB's on the field.

I give dunderdummy a lot of credit for a good game plan - abandoning the 2-4 when it was beginning to hemorrhage in the 2nd Quarter, and mixing fronts and blitzes very effectively. At the same time, he did not vary his coverage much - and given that the coverage was very effective, i.e. man up on Gronk with zone help, and excellent zone play underneath, dunderdummy made the right calls throughout the game.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

All of that said - I do not trust dunderdummy, and will never trust dunderdummy

[pbmax]

Gronk was kept in check with man coverage and a lot of zone help. It was exactly the type of coverage that I called for. He did manage to shake loose a couple of times, and on a couple of those he was lined up outside the numbers. Outstanding job on Gronk throughout the game.

McGinn: Unofficially, here were the top five primary defenders on TE Rob Gronkowski's 31 routes: Morgan Burnett (nine), Clinton-Dix (seven), Micah Hyde (four), Matthews (four) and Davon House (three).

Packers played single high safety for almost the entire game. What zone support was over the top if it was single-safety?

From Tramon Williams: http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packe...284287911.html

Surprisingly, the Packers did not direct extra attention Gronkowski's way. Williams said the plan was to stick to their defense, their principles — defensive coordinator Dom Capers didn't want to bracket "Gronk" with extra defenders. With Brady so skilled at creating advantageous matchups, at making pedestrian receivers seem like All-Pros, the Packers played a lot of man-to-man coverage and simplified the thinking on the back end.

[woodbuck27]

McGinn: Unofficially, here were the top five primary defenders on TE Rob Gronkowski's 31 routes: Morgan Burnett (nine), Clinton-Dix (seven), Micah Hyde (four), Matthews (four) and Davon House (three).

Packers played single high safety for almost the entire game. What zone support was over the top if it was single-safety?

From Tramon Williams: http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packe...284287911.html

That makes sense to me.

The MVP of that team isn't Rob Grokowski rather it's Tom Brady.

Play it 11 on 11 and don't double up on Gronk and leave 9 on 10.

[wist43]

McGinn: Unofficially, here were the top five primary defenders on TE Rob Gronkowski's 31 routes: Morgan Burnett (nine), Clinton-Dix (seven), Micah Hyde (four), Matthews (four) and Davon House (three).

Packers played single high safety for almost the entire game. What zone support was over the top if it was single-safety?

From Tramon Williams: http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packe...284287911.html

Zone support was underneath... many times Gronk was manned up with zone support underneath. Yes we were in single high safety most of the game, and Gronk was passed along to the safety very effectively when we were not in man against him.

Overall they did an outstanding job of containing Gronk... I haven't watched a lot of NE this year, not sure how often they line him up outside the numbers, but they did that several times against us, and he had some catches out there. I can only suspect that they were trying to free him up from all the traffic and interference he was encountering inside the numbers. Very effective job on Gronk.

Oddly, I saw Matthews outside covering a WR... WTF?? lol... It looked as if dunderdummy simply did not want to change out of base personnel - I suspect due to any confusion that might result from having so much changeover in personnel from snap to snap - we did not substitute very liberally in this game, and think that helped a lot. Snap in, snap out, we had our best players on the field - no Brad Jones, less Hawk; more Neal, more Perry, more D. Jones...

Capers played base 3-4 most of the 2nd half, regardless of offensive personnel. As I mentioned, he was even in base 3-4 against 4 wides and Gronk.

[Fritz]

McGinn: Unofficially, here were the top five primary defenders on TE Rob Gronkowski's 31 routes: Morgan Burnett (nine), Clinton-Dix (seven), Micah Hyde (four), Matthews (four) and Davon House (three).

Packers played single high safety for almost the entire game. What zone support was over the top if it was single-safety?

From Tramon Williams: http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packe...284287911.html

Wist, I've never claimed to be an expert football analyst. But when Tramon Williams says there was not extra help, and the JSO supports that, and my own (limited) knowledge supports that, then it's hard for me to just go along with your claim.

What I'm contending is that you have created a narrative that suits you, and you either ignore or bend any evidence that contradicts your set-in-concrete views. This is something most of us do, to some extent, but you take it to extremes that are hard to stomach.

I think I'll just refrain from commenting any further on your posts. Life's too short.

[Fritz]

Okay, here's the FF version of going thru the game...

Didn't really break anything down - tried to make an observation here and there, but for the most part I just denoted alignment, down/distance, personnel, and result.

One thing that stood out to me was Barrington - he was down right studly at times... loved his play at ILB, and hope he is now a fixture.

The other thing that stood out to me was the amount of 2-4 dunderdummy played in the 1st half. We were starting to bleed in the 2nd Quarter running the 2-4, but dunderdummy did the right thing and abandoned it in the 2nd half.

We were starting to bleed running the 2-4, but NE didn't take full advantage by the fact that they ran the ball very little. By the end of game NE had 18 rushing attempts (17 really - Brady kneel down) and 35 passing attempts - penalties notwithstanding.

So out of 55 snaps (some penalties that wiped plays out included), dunderdummy ran the following alignments:

3-4, 23 times
2-4, 14 times
3-3, 5 times
3-2 dime, 3 times
2-3 dime, 7 times
4-3, 1 time
4-2, 1 time
Goal line defense (5 down linemen), 1 time

Gronk was kept in check with man coverage and a lot of zone help. It was exactly the type of coverage that I called for. He did manage to shake loose a couple of times, and on a couple of those he was lined up outside the numbers. Outstanding job on Gronk throughout the game.

When dunderdummy was in the 2-4, NE should have run the ball, but they didn't - and in all honesty, dunderdummy did not run his usual 2-4, he crowded the LOS, filled gaps, and Barrington played lightyears better than anyone we've had at ILB in a long, long time. That said, NE did realize most of their success against the 2-4 when dunderdummy did run it... most notably in the 2nd Quarter.

Dunderdummy did then adjust and he only ran the 2-4 1 time in the 2nd half. He did run some 2 man lines in the Dime, but he brought pressure on those snaps, and on several occassions had both Matthews and Peppers coming on the blitz from ILB positions. Excellent mixing of the blitz.

In the 2nd half, dunderdummy ran the 3-4 predominately - even running against 4 WR's and Gronk, i.e. no RB's on the field.

I give dunderdummy a lot of credit for a good game plan - abandoning the 2-4 when it was beginning to hemorrhage in the 2nd Quarter, and mixing fronts and blitzes very effectively. At the same time, he did not vary his coverage much - and given that the coverage was very effective, i.e. man up on Gronk with zone help, and excellent zone play underneath, dunderdummy made the right calls throughout the game.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

All of that said - I do not trust dunderdummy, and will never trust dunderdummy

When you look at the above underlined sections, it's just as we knew, and as I posted earlier in another thread -

On playing Gronkowski - you claim above that the Packers played him just as you called for - I wrote:

"As far as I could tell, Capers refused to double or bracket Gronk, yet somehow, miraculously, the Patriots only scored 21, and I don't think Gronk scored those three touchdowns you were so sure he'd get."

So even though no one - not here, not at the JSO, not even the players who played the game (see Tramon Williams's quote from PB's post) - except you is maintaining that the Packers doubled Gronk, by your line of "reasoning," by golly, they actually did.

On how you'd manage to not give credit - I wrote:

"But don't forget to trot out your old schtick about how, really, the other team screwed it up. In this case, I imagine you'll say that if Belichek had run the ball lots more, the Patriots would've surely won."

Sure enough, there you go again - see the above underlined section.


Ding ding ding ding ding! Winner winner chicken dinner!

You live in one strange universe.

[wist43]

When you look at the above underlined sections, it's just as we knew, and as I posted earlier in another thread -

On playing Gronkowski - you claim above that the Packers played him just as you called for - I wrote:

"As far as I could tell, Capers refused to double or bracket Gronk, yet somehow, miraculously, the Patriots only scored 21, and I don't think Gronk scored those three touchdowns you were so sure he'd get."

So even though no one - not here, not at the JSO, not even the players who played the game (see Tramon Williams's quote from PB's post) - except you is maintaining that the Packers doubled Gronk, by your line of "reasoning," by golly, they actually did.

On how you'd manage to not give credit - I wrote:

"But don't forget to trot out your old schtick about how, really, the other team screwed it up. In this case, I imagine you'll say that if Belichek had run the ball lots more, the Patriots would've surely won."

Sure enough, there you go again - see the above underlined section.


Ding ding ding ding ding! Winner winner chicken dinner!

You live in one strange universe.

"As far as I can tell..." you don't understand the first thing about football or strategy - so you really don't have much standing to critique anything I've said.

We did double Gronk a lot; with man coverage and zone help. Doubling a receiver doesn't mean that 2 guys line up head on the guy and both run with him at the snap, ala a gunner on punt coverage.

As for running the ball - it is our achilles heel. I think most people expected NE to run the ball more - Dom played the 3-4 most of the time, regardless of offensive personnel, but NE didn't test it enough for anyone to know if they could have effectively controlled the ball on the ground. It is what it is... if I were them, I would have run the ball more, and would have come in with a run-heavy gameplan.

So since you are taking umbrage with my arguments - I assume you would have preferred that dunderdummy run the 2-4 the whole game?? Or that they should have played Brad Jones and Hawk the whole game?? Or that they shouldn't have accounted for Gronk with bracketed and over the top coverage??

I find it amazing that you guys are so offended by good results. If you had your way, we'd still be running the 2-4 24/7, and you'd be attacking me b/c I deign to attack the approach that is leading to poor performance - how dare anyone question the Gods that reside at 1265??