2015 Packers Training Camp and Triage Center

[mraynrand]

It isn't a 3-3 if you only have 2 DL inside the tackles - and that's the biggest problem with it, i.e. teams tend to run it down our throat. Aren't you absolutely sick and tired of being run over out of that alignment??

Not if it's 3rd and 15, or even second and long against a good quarterback.

[pbmax]

Not if it's 3rd and 15, or even second and long against a good quarterback.

Not to mention the 270 pound guy who should be a DE who is on the outside shoulder of the Tackle (or his 280 lb sub who used to play DT) plus the 265 pound guy just inside the TE. That's just soft with their hands in the air and whatnot.

That's also why wist doesn't like a 4-3 Under. Only two big guys between the tackles.





Because the most important thing about lineman is where their hand is at the snap.

[wist43]

Not if it's 3rd and 15, or even second and long against a good quarterback.

ayn, how many times have we seen an opponent run for a 1st down against dunderdummy when he abandons the middle of the field and goes to a 2-4 with the G-C-G completely uncovered??

As for the 3-3 vs the 2-4, I'm much rather rush out of a 3-3 anyway - the offensive linemen have to account for the DL, instead of just looking to pick up a guy coming from the second level - which is easy enough to do when there is nothing in front of you, and you can see the guy coming a mile away.

The 3-3 is a much better front for the personnel we have. It's really not even debatable IMO - but we have dunderdummy for our DC, and all of you guys are starry eyed groupies, so I'm stuck with having to argue something that should be obvious.

[mraynrand]

ayn, how many times have we seen an opponent run for a 1st down against dunderdummy when he abandons the middle of the field and goes to a 2-4 with the G-C-G completely uncovered??

It depends on the down and distance, and the QB. Packers played the 2-4 extensively on passing and QB run plays versus guys like Kap and other QBs with running chops - but only on passing downs, longer to gain than 10 yard downs and sometimes first downs, depending on field position. It's a trade-off of course. But SPH and Trgo both told me that essentially nickel is base and they are willing to give up runs to stop the passing game. Again, that will of course vary based on the skill of the opposing QB and their team's ability to run the ball, esp. versus a nickel. Also, Packers and SPH value the ability of their guys to adapt, so even if they have undersized guys for pass defense, they still expect to be able to limit the run damage.

I agree, every once in a while the defense is set up to allow a run, and it can look foolish close to the goal line, but that's not all that frequent, and EVEN IN those cases, the opposition typically has 3-4 receiving threats on the field (think 2013 season finale agains Chicago with Marshall Jeffrey, the TE and Forte all on the field, all threats to burn you in the passing game. You just can't bring in three fatties to defend that).

[wist43]

It depends on the down and distance, and the QB. Packers played the 2-4 extensively on passing and QB run plays versus guys like Kap and other QBs with running chops - but only on passing downs, longer to gain than 10 yard downs and sometimes first downs, depending on field position. It's a trade-off of course. But SPH and Trgo both told me that essentially nickel is base and they are willing to give up runs to stop the passing game. Again, that will of course vary based on the skill of the opposing QB and their team's ability to run the ball, esp. versus a nickel. Also, Packers and SPH value the ability of their guys to adapt, so even if they have undersized guys for pass defense, they still expect to be able to limit the run damage.

I agree, every once in a while the defense is set up to allow a run, and it can look foolish close to the goal line, but that's not all that frequent, and EVEN IN those cases, the opposition typically has 3-4 receiving threats on the field (think 2013 season finale agains Chicago with Marshall Jeffrey, the TE and Forte all on the field, all threats to burn you in the passing game. You just can't bring in three fatties to defend that).

1) Dunderdummy ran the 2-4 as his base, regardless of down/distance, and regardless of personnel, some 75-80% of the time in 2011. He scaled it back a little in '12 and '13, but that isn't saying much; and then of course MM finally had enough, and got involved with the defense; the Elephant became our base; and we saw a lot more 3-3, and less 2-4. With clearly better results.

2) Dunderdummy played the 2-4 in short yardage and goal line often times. He played it inside the 10 yd line with goal to go. There's just no excuse for that.

3) We no longer have "the fat guys" to run a traditional 3-4, hence we have to run the Elephant/hybrid in base - which is fine with me given our personnel.

4) Given our personnel, the same arguments apply to the nickel, i.e. we should be running a 3-3, so Perry can have his hand in the dirt; Neal is standing up rushing; Matthews is in the middle and presents all kinds of problems for the OL and the calls they have to make; Peppers, Daniels, and Jones round out that alignment.

Notice in that alignment, we don't have to have either Barrington or Ryan on the field - either of whom would be a weak link in the nickel; or, in yesteryear, Hawk or B. Jones.

5) If it is as likely as not to be a run, you can go with Richardson are your nickelback; if it is more likely to be a pass, go with one of the midgets.

Q: Haven't heard anything about Richardson in this camp - is he hurt?? Is he running in any of the subpackages??