The Defense - Again, the Defense :(

[pbmax]

I think running a 4-3 is viable given the Packers lineman. I am not sure they have the backers for it. Hawk is no MLB and I am not sure Jones is a Sam.

But put that aside for a minute. I haven't watched the film so it could have been some hybrid deal.

If your elephant is in the 9 gap, a 2 point stance makes little difference as even with a TE, no one is getting a direct shot at you unlike a NT, DT or 5 gap power end.

But having only seen the write-ups and a few plays, its hard to say.

[Guiness]

I think running a 4-3 is viable given the Packers lineman. I am not sure they have the backers for it. Hawk is no MLB and I am not sure Jones is a Sam.

But put that aside for a minute. I haven't watched the film so it could have been some hybrid deal.

If your elephant is in the 9 gap, a 2 point stance makes little difference as even with a TE, no one is getting a direct shot at you unlike a NT, DT or 5 gap power end.

But having only seen the write-ups and a few plays, its hard to say.

Are you saying if they have a DE/OLB (Neale or Peppers) lined up on wide on the line, in a 2 point stance, that counts as a DL? Not sure I buy that.

[pbmax]

Are you saying if they have a DE/OLB (Neale or Peppers) lined up on wide on the line, in a 2 point stance, that counts as a DL? Not sure I buy that.

Not sure how wide you mean by your wide, but yes it changes things.

Its dependent on alignment (and I still haven't reviewed the game) but if that player is attacking the LOS and with no coverage responsibilities (unless zone blitz) then yes, he is behaving like a lineman. The stance might be an issue, but its less of an issue wide.

Remember the argument against the 2-4 nickel and dime is that its vulnerable to the run in the middle due to size. Replacing Matthews and Perry with Neal and Peppers is a size increase that offsets the lost size of a NT. Each guy wist wanted to put on the field in his 3-3 nickel was a 280-285 pound guy so that you could have beef and a little pass rush.

[Guiness]

Not sure how wide you mean by your wide, but yes it changes things.

Its dependent on alignment (and I still haven't reviewed the game) but if that player is attacking the LOS and with no coverage responsibilities (unless zone blitz) then yes, he is behaving like a lineman. The stance might be an issue, but its less of an issue wide.

Remember the argument against the 2-4 nickel and dime is that its vulnerable to the run in the middle due to size. Replacing Matthews and Perry with Neal and Peppers is a size increase that offsets the lost size of a NT. Each guy wist wanted to put on the field in his 3-3 nickel was a 280-285 pound guy so that you could have beef and a little pass rush.

Wide as in the 9 alignment (outside shoulder of TE). I tend to think if he's that wide and standing up, I don't care if it's Howard Greene, he's an LB, not a DL.

[pbmax]

Wide as in the 9 alignment (outside shoulder of TE). I tend to think if he's that wide and standing up, I don't care if it's Howard Greene, he's an LB, not a DL.

Well, we have a hole in the nomenclature that can only be closed by looking at responsibilities.

If you think DL stands for Down Lineman and LB stands for Line Backer, then what do you call a standing lineman? Packers called him Elephant in camp.

If you think DL stands for Defensive Lineman, then there isn't a nomenclature problem at all.

[Guiness]

Well, we have a hole in the nomenclature that can only be closed by looking at responsibilities.

If you think DL stands for Down Lineman and LB stands for Line Backer, then what do you call a standing lineman? Packers called him Elephant in camp.

If you think DL stands for Defensive Lineman, then there isn't a nomenclature problem at all.

I equate 'Elephant' with being a DL/LB Hybrid, to you think of it similarly? And DL is Defensive Lineman.

So how do you classify the Elephant on any given play? Are you 3-4 or 4-3 when Peppers is essentially standing up across from the guy in the slot? It might be as you said, it come down to his assignment.

[pbmax]

I equate 'Elephant' with being a DL/LB Hybrid, to you think of it similarly? And DL is Defensive Lineman.

So how do you classify the Elephant on any given play? Are you 3-4 or 4-3 when Peppers is essentially standing up across from the guy in the slot? It might be as you said, it come down to his assignment.

It depends on what they are asked to do. You can say Elephant is a hybrid position, but if they only have responsibilities for the LOS, then the LB part of the hybrid really doesn't apply.

[wist43]

Not sure how wide you mean by your wide, but yes it changes things.

Its dependent on alignment (and I still haven't reviewed the game) but if that player is attacking the LOS and with no coverage responsibilities (unless zone blitz) then yes, he is behaving like a lineman. The stance might be an issue, but its less of an issue wide.

Remember the argument against the 2-4 nickel and dime is that its vulnerable to the run in the middle due to size. Replacing Matthews and Perry with Neal and Peppers is a size increase that offsets the lost size of a NT. Each guy wist wanted to put on the field in his 3-3 nickel was a 280-285 pound guy so that you could have beef and a little pass rush.

If you're going to go to a nickel in an either/or, down/distance situation - the jumbo nickel is idiotic, and it didn't stop either the run or the pass - for very logical reasons. Logical reasons that were completely lost on dunderdummy.

As for my dreamed of 3-3, I don't want any of the down linemen lined up outside the tackles, I think the alignment is best served with those down linemen lined up inside the tackles - there may be exceptions to that of course, depending on opponent, but for the most part it makes the most sense to have a stout, gap penetrating presence on the LOS.

That's probably dunderdummy's biggest flaw - he cares nothing about controlling the LOS, and it shows as we repeatedly get run over, and rarely generate pressure up the middle.

You can do a lot from that alignment. You can have your OLB's playing outside the T's and providing outside pass rush and setting the edge against the run, while roaming another guy along the line, be it Matthews, Neal, or Mulumba; or you can run a wide variety of stunts, blitizes, drops, and zone blitzes out of that alignment.

Call it exotic but sound - what Capers does is exotic and unsound; very, very unsound.

It affords a lot more flexibility, and offers better size/mobility/athleticism in your front. You can play a much more penetrating style, as opposed anything dunderdummy has been throwing out there for the past 3+ years.

And as an added bonus?? It gets either Hawk or Jones off the field - or both of them off the field!!!

[3irty1]

If you're going to go to a nickel in an either/or, down/distance situation - the jumbo nickel is idiotic, and it didn't stop either the run or the pass - for very logical reasons. Logical reasons that were completely lost on dunderdummy.

As for my dreamed of 3-3, I don't want any of the down linemen lined up outside the tackles, I think the alignment is best served with those down linemen lined up inside the tackles - there may be exceptions to that of course, depending on opponent, but for the most part it makes the most sense to have a stout, gap penetrating presence on the LOS.

That's probably dunderdummy's biggest flaw - he cares nothing about controlling the LOS, and it shows as we repeatedly get run over, and rarely generate pressure up the middle.

You can do a lot from that alignment. You can have your OLB's playing outside the T's and providing outside pass rush and setting the edge against the run, while roaming another guy along the line, be it Matthews, Neal, or Mulumba; or you can run a wide variety of stunts, blitizes, drops, and zone blitzes out of that alignment.

Call it exotic but sound - what Capers does is exotic and unsound; very, very unsound.

It affords a lot more flexibility, and offers better size/mobility/athleticism in your front. You can play a much more penetrating style, as opposed anything dunderdummy has been throwing out there for the past 3+ years.

And as an added bonus?? It gets either Hawk or Jones off the field - or both of them off the field!!!

Most 3-3's I've seen would keep the equivalent of Hawk and Jones on the field since those positions are still read and react type roles. If the tradeoff is ultimately to take Matthews off the edge in order to get Hawk or Jones off the field then you can do that from a 2-4 or 4-2 as well especially with all the OLB/DE types we've got. So why specifically the 3-3?