Official Packers vs. Patriots Discussion Thread

[wist43]

Ultimately, it's in the trenches. Just look at what's happened to SF without a great O-line and loss of players in their defensive front 7.

As bizarre as it might seem for the haters, Packers desperately need Perry back and healthy.

I've always thought Perry could be a player - his problem has been in how he's been used since he's been here, i.e. dunderdummy.

Now this year he is finally be used with his hand in the dirt, and all of a sudden he's showing flashes of being player?? Go figure...

If Perry does indeed miss this game, I think that will probably seal our fate. If Perry is out, dunderdummy will almost certainly run very little or no 3-3, and will be thrilled to run 2-4 the whole game. Brady will devour the 2-4, and dunderdummy will be thrilled to hold the Patriots to gains of 15 yds/play.

Dunderdummy has stated openly how much of a pussy he is, i.e. that elite QB's must not be challenged in any way. He will be content to sit back and let Brady pick us apart all day long... we've seen this movie many times.

[pbmax]

Now this year he is finally be used with his hand in the dirt, and all of a sudden he's showing flashes of being player?? Go figure...
\.

Yes. We should definitely ignore the entire Chcago game.

[wist43]

Yes. We should definitely ignore the entire Chcago game.

So let me get this straight... you'd rather give up 150+ yds/game on the ground, and leave receivers running unmolested and uncovered all over the field?? To stick to your (and dunderdummy's) beloved 2-4, you'd rather have that, than put a 3-3 on the field like we had against Chicago??

I'm beginning to think that you are dunderdummy's 'mini-me'.

[pbmax]

So let me get this straight... you'd rather give up 150+ yds/game on the ground, and leave receivers running unmolested and uncovered all over the field?? To stick to your (and dunderdummy's) beloved 2-4, you'd rather have that, than put a 3-3 on the field like we had against Chicago??

I'm beginning to think that you are dunderdummy's 'mini-me'.

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

[pbmax]

Tyler Dunne @TyDunne · 9h 9 hours ago
Injuries: Nick Perry questionable
Davante Adams probable
Jarrett Bush quest
T.J. Lang probable
Josh Sitton prob
Brandon Bostick probable

[mraynrand]

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

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).

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.