More Banjo: Week 3 vs Lions

[pbmax]

I know running out the clock on offense is called the 4 minute drill. In a similar, but separate fashion, is this what the defense is trying to do?

I'm sure the D is never trying to let the opponent score, but perhaps the way they choose to defend an opponent when the Packers have a big lead says to keep everything in front of them (hopefully no big plays), so while it seems like a bloodletting by 5-10 yard chunks of short routes by the opposing offense, it keeps the clock going on completions, and if you want to take several minutes to matriculate the ball down the field, that saves wear and tear on my offensive players, and while you might score, we are not giving you any more than we are willing to let you have. We are looking at the play clock and counting potential possessions remaining in the game. Even if we let you score a few touchdowns and look like you are catching up, we figure it's going to take time off the clock for you to do that, and the remainder of the time we will run out on offense.

Do I understand the philosophy correctly?

Is it a philosophy that says, it's a long season, so let's play hard, but play smart and only worry about the final score, but not style points if we happen to shut out an opponent? I'm sure it takes more energy and possible risk to players health to play hard enough to shut down an opponent from the defensive side of the ball. I'm not saying the Packers D will always have that kind of control, but with a big lead, that might become the philosophy. It makes the D look soft in the 2nd half, but if it preserves some health and runs out the clock, and doesn't scare fans half to death, it's a workable philosophy.

I think that is a fair restatement for the D. However, the Packers don't necessarily retreat into zone to keep everything in front of them. They tend to use zone to mix up coverages, but prefer man to man under most circumstances.

[Carolina_Packer]

I think that is a fair restatement for the D. However, the Packers don't necessarily retreat into zone to keep everything in front of them. They tend to use zone to mix up coverages, but prefer man to man under most circumstances.

If they keep giving up big plays or consistently can't cover man to man and give up big chunks of yards (see Stefon Diggs, and Marvin Jones the last two weeks), should they go more zone, assuming they can still stop the run and bring an adequate pass rush?

I'm sure it's frustrating for those on defense who do their job well in run stopping and pass rush, only to have the secondary be leaky. Does it seem to you that the front seven has performed well enough with run stopping and pressure to expect that the DB's can cover long enough to be effective?

[pbmax]

If they keep giving up big plays or consistently can't cover man to man and give up big chunks of yards (see Stefon Diggs, and Marvin Jones the last two weeks), should they go more zone, assuming they can still stop the run and bring an adequate pass rush?

I'm sure it's frustrating for those on defense who do their job well in run stopping and pass rush, only to have the secondary be leaky. Does it seem to you that the front seven has performed well enough with run stopping and pressure to expect that the DB's can cover long enough to be effective?

They did need more pass rush versus Detroit, but big plays have been a problem in each game. Burnett getting healthy will help. Matthews and Jones coming back in will too.