The Defense - Again, the Defense :(

[3irty1]

The 4-3 is also having WAY too much trouble with misdirection.

This. Against Seattle and again last night we gave up big plays due an absurd number of guys being fooled at the same time. Like 6 or 7 guys running away from the ball at times. Not sure how you fix rampant gullibility but moving to more zone coverages in the 2nd half seemed to help quite a bit. A little more discipline would go a long long way towards dumping fabreeze on this defense.

Anyone watching the tape is going to have more of the same in stock for us until we show we can sniff it out.

[3irty1]

Vic Ketchman of Packers.com has mentioned that Capers has used the 4-3 before with Jacksonville. You guys who understand schemes/alignments well perhaps can shed some light on whether Capers is now doing something similar as what he was doing in Jacksonville (if you recall). Would that make Julius Peppers to this defense the equivalent of how Tony Brackens was used in Jacksonville's defense back in the day?

I don't remember that but in Miami Capers was using a hybrid defense that could morph from a 4-3 to a 3-4 with Jason Taylor moving all over the place. Seems like the plan is to take that to an extreme this season because Clay, Peppers, Neal, and Perry are all playing multiple positions from what I've seen.

[pbmax]

I said this in the Game Day thread but being a 2 point DE has made Perry a veritable wall against the run. He can't be moved.

[Bossman641]

I said this in the Game Day thread but being a 2 point DE has made Perry a veritable wall against the run. He can't be moved.

Not too late to jump on..

[Freak Out]

Who's driving the Perry Wagon?

[Cheesehead Craig]

Perry has some attitude, liking his play the last 2 weeks.

[wist43]

More of this 4-3 subterfuge, lol...

They are not running a 4-3, what you are seeing is a 3-4 Elephant.

Pete Carroll said the Seahawks run a 4-3 with 3-4 principles... define the principles however you want, at least he's telling the truth about the alignment b/c he always has 4 DL with their hand in the dirt.

What Capers has been running is an Elephant with only 3 DL having their hand in the dirt - it is a 3-4 with 4-3 principles.

At the end of the day, it comes down to gap responsibilities - and since the Packers no longer have any 2-gap DL, even when we are in a standard 3-4 alignment, it is going to be a 3-4 with 4-3 principles, i.e. each DL/LB is responsible for a gap, and staying disciplined and controlling their assigned gap is the key to winning the LOS.

The Packers managed to do that a little bit yesterday - after initially getting bitch-slapped; still, if not for Daniels, we would likely be looking at 0-2.

I still like our talent up front overall - but dunderdummy simply can't help himself. It's in his nature to abandon run defense; it's in his nature to abandon the middle of the field without any consideration for the LOS; and it's in his nature to play as small and passive as possible up front. That's who the guy is...

It's the Jets, and somehow dunderdummy and MM found a way to embarrass our team and make it a close game. The national sports talk guys are ripping the Packers today - calling us "pretenders". I don't think they understand why we're pretenders, but even the casual fan is catching on to the fact that something is wrong in Green Bay.

[Pugger]

Perry has some attitude, liking his play the last 2 weeks.

Most likely he is finally healthy. Let's hope this is just the start of good things from him this year.

[3irty1]

More of this 4-3 subterfuge, lol...

They are not running a 4-3, what you are seeing is a 3-4 Elephant.

Pete Carroll said the Seahawks run a 4-3 with 3-4 principles... define the principles however you want, at least he's telling the truth about the alignment b/c he always has 4 DL with their hand in the dirt.

What Capers has been running is an Elephant with only 3 DL having their hand in the dirt - it is a 3-4 with 4-3 principles.

At the end of the day, it comes down to gap responsibilities - and since the Packers no longer have any 2-gap DL, even when we are in a standard 3-4 alignment, it is going to be a 3-4 with 4-3 principles, i.e. each DL/LB is responsible for a gap, and staying disciplined and controlling their assigned gap is the key to winning the LOS.

The Packers managed to do that a little bit yesterday - after initially getting bitch-slapped; still, if not for Daniels, we would likely be looking at 0-2.

I still like our talent up front overall - but dunderdummy simply can't help himself. It's in his nature to abandon run defense; it's in his nature to abandon the middle of the field without any consideration for the LOS; and it's in his nature to play as small and passive as possible up front. That's who the guy is...

It's the Jets, and somehow dunderdummy and MM found a way to embarrass our team and make it a close game. The national sports talk guys are ripping the Packers today - calling us "pretenders". I don't think they understand why we're pretenders, but even the casual fan is catching on to the fact that something is wrong in Green Bay.

People calling it the 4-3 are following the lead of the JS writers. A 4-3 under best describes the positioning and responsibilities of the players but a 3-4 describes the actual number of down lineman and standing linebackers. 4-3 or 3-4 Elephant communicates it although sometimes it looks like there is more than one Elephant. I hope opposing offenses have as much trouble with the vernacular as this board does.

At this point in the season a win is a win. The Jets aren't a layup, especially for us. There is a lot of room to improve and by season's end this could look like the team we hoped for. Or a decimated heap of losers. Everyone in the NFC except Carolina and Arizona has "something wrong."

[Joemailman]

Packers D actually did some nice things against the run. Jets RB's averaged less than 3 YPC. Jets got 63 yards on 7 plays with Smith carrying or pitching the ball. Obviously there are some kinks to work out, but I see signs of improvement. It will be interesting to see what things look like in future weeks against QB's that aren't as mobile as Wilson and Smith.

[Bossman641]

Who's driving the Perry Wagon?

I'm fully on board

[pbmax]

Frankly, if the pass rush can stay healthy, Perry providing run support is a great bonus. Rotate and be able to matchup as needed.

[pbmax]

More of this 4-3 subterfuge, lol...

They are not running a 4-3, what you are seeing is a 3-4 Elephant.

Pete Carroll said the Seahawks run a 4-3 with 3-4 principles... define the principles however you want, at least he's telling the truth about the alignment b/c he always has 4 DL with their hand in the dirt.

What Capers has been running is an Elephant with only 3 DL having their hand in the dirt - it is a 3-4 with 4-3 principles.

People calling it the 4-3 are following the lead of the JS writers. A 4-3 under best describes the positioning and responsibilities of the players but a 3-4 describes the actual number of down lineman and standing linebackers. 4-3 or 3-4 Elephant communicates it although sometimes it looks like there is more than one Elephant. I hope opposing offenses have as much trouble with the vernacular as this board does.

Funny, Pete Carroll doesn't agree with wist. http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2013/12/...-nfc-breakdown

More generally, as Pete Carroll put it:

"Our defense is a 4-3 scheme with 3-4 personnel. It's just utilizing the special talents of our guys."

And sbnation in same article:

Cliff Avril and Chris Clemons can rush the passer and cover in the flats and do so from multiple angles and platforms (i.e., two- or three-point stances). Bruce Irvin can be a pass rusher one play and a run-in-coverage linebacker on the next. Their linebackers too can blitz, stop the run, cover and tackle.

And Greg Cosell in same article:

"With Irvin, a returning Chris Clemons, and newly signed Cliff Avril, the Seahawks have three players who can align anywhere in their nickel sub-package. They all have what we call "Joker" ability, the talent to line up in either three-point or two-point stances and rush from different positions and angles.

And from FieldGulls, Seahawks blog:

How will they get the four best rushers on the field considering only one (Michael Bennett) is really suited for the inside over a guard? Look for Cliff Avril at left end, Bennett inside over the center or a guard, Clemons at the right end and Bruce Irvin playing the "spinner" role. The "spinner" stands up and moves during the snap count, meaning he could rush from anywhere.

As for JSO being the source of the 4-3 confusion, let me introduce you to their source on the matter, McCarthy's press conferences:

(On defense look) Whether three or four-man look. Lot of same concepts. Not trying to trick anybody. Just getting better at it. We practiced it in OTAs.

GBPressGazette is on board:

Wes Hodkiewicz ‏@WesHod 2h
MM on 4-3: Schematically, it's a lot of the same concepts. We're not trying to trick anybody. We're utilizing personnel.

They are playing an under front almost all the time now, 3-4 or 4-3 personnel. Difference is who is OLB and role (backer or lineman). This is the less scheme, more personnel he was talking about.

[wist43]

WTF is your point max?? The article itself says 4-3 with 3-4 personnel... They run a 4-3, we run a 3-4. They have outstanding personnel, with a lot of flexibility, but almost always have 4 down linemen, even if one of those down linemen is Irvin. We ran 4 down linemen once against Seattle; don't know how many times yesterday, but I didn't notice any.

Capers is your man, that is for sure... smallish up front, slow and uninstinctive ILB's, getting routinely gashed on the ground, unsound gap control, missed assignments over and over again - yep, Capers is ur man

[pbmax]

My point is that the Packers are running a 4-3 with 3-4 personnel. One guy is playing elephant in a two point stance. Just like Seattle does. Just as the post points out.

Its a 4-3 scheme, 4-3 techniques and 4-3 assignments. One guy in a 2 point stance.

You may not like the personnel as much, but its the same idea. BTW, its also the same idea that Belichick has been trotting out for 2 years.

[Carolina_Packer]

More of this 4-3 subterfuge, lol...

They are not running a 4-3, what you are seeing is a 3-4 Elephant.

Pete Carroll said the Seahawks run a 4-3 with 3-4 principles... define the principles however you want, at least he's telling the truth about the alignment b/c he always has 4 DL with their hand in the dirt.

What Capers has been running is an Elephant with only 3 DL having their hand in the dirt - it is a 3-4 with 4-3 principles.

At the end of the day, it comes down to gap responsibilities - and since the Packers no longer have any 2-gap DL, even when we are in a standard 3-4 alignment, it is going to be a 3-4 with 4-3 principles, i.e. each DL/LB is responsible for a gap, and staying disciplined and controlling their assigned gap is the key to winning the LOS.

The Packers managed to do that a little bit yesterday - after initially getting bitch-slapped; still, if not for Daniels, we would likely be looking at 0-2.

I still like our talent up front overall - but dunderdummy simply can't help himself. It's in his nature to abandon run defense; it's in his nature to abandon the middle of the field without any consideration for the LOS; and it's in his nature to play as small and passive as possible up front. That's who the guy is...

It's the Jets, and somehow dunderdummy and MM found a way to embarrass our team and make it a close game. The national sports talk guys are ripping the Packers today - calling us "pretenders". I don't think they understand why we're pretenders, but even the casual fan is catching on to the fact that something is wrong in Green Bay.

Nice informative post. I don't say this in defense of Capers. I am not trying to defend him. I want whatever is going to make the Packers a better team. If that's with Capers, fine. If it's without Capers, fine. I couldn't care less about who the coaches are, as long as they are helping the players get the job done. To that end, what are you seeing from the interior of the defensive line? Is Guion struggling because of Guion, or is he horribly miscast as a 3-4 NT? Doesn't it really challenge the linebackers if Guion can't hold the point of attack and the linebackers see more blockers in the second level?

[wist43]

My point is that the Packers are running a 4-3 with 3-4 personnel. One guy is playing elephant in a two point stance. Just like Seattle does. Just as the post points out.

Its a 4-3 scheme, 4-3 techniques and 4-3 assignments. One guy in a 2 point stance.

You may not like the personnel as much, but its the same idea. BTW, its also the same idea that Belichick has been trotting out for 2 years.

It's an Elephant - an Elephant is not a 4-3. Period. Dallas ran the Elephant with Demarcus Ware standing up most of the time - they were always listed as a 3-4... where this nonsense about 3 down linemen actually being 4 came from I can't begin to fathom. 3 is actully 4, is actually 5, is actually 3... don't look now, but here comes the donut-ham-hamburger!!

Do you work for the government max?? 2+2=5 when it is handed to you by Big Brother??

As for New England - their defense has sucked for a while now... almost as epicly bad as ours.

[pbmax]

It's an Elephant - an Elephant is not a 4-3. Period. Dallas ran the Elephant with Demarcus Ware standing up most of the time - they were always listed as a 3-4... where this nonsense about 3 down linemen actually being 4 came from I can't begin to fathom. 3 is actully 4, is actually 5, is actually 3... don't look now, but here comes the donut-ham-hamburger!!

Do you work for the government max?? 2+2=5 when it is handed to you by Big Brother??

As for New England - their defense has sucked for a while now... almost as epicly bad as ours.

I don't know why you are trying to argue with me. Clearly your beef is with Pete Carroll who insists his 4-3 with a standing end is a 4-3 with 3-4 personnel. You must have missed the talking points email.

[George Cumby]

I'm fully on board

Count me in.

[sharpe1027]

No scheme works without solid execution. On the other hand, there are plenty of different schemes that work with good execution.

Why we spend pages of posts about differences in schemes and what they should be called is beyond me. It may be coaching, but IMO it is poor execution that is the main problem.