Packers Using 4 LB Set

[vince]

Final mini-camp practice notes (http://blogs.jsonline.com/packers/archive/2008/06/19/final-mini-camp-practice.aspx)

Without divulging what the situation and other personnel were, the Packers had four linebackers on the field at one point: Brandon Chillar, A.J. Hawk, Nick Barnett and Brady Poppinga. I saw that on more than one occasion during the mini-camp.
I don't think Bedard would mention this if it was just a goalline d or limited-use short yardage front. Perhaps it's an experiment of sorts, but if Chillar is as good as advertised in covering TE's, that's a potentially interesting wrinkle. 3-4 perhaps? Could we possibly see a frontline of Kamp, Pickett and Jenkins along with the 4 backers...

[RashanGary]

I heard Barnett mention a couple times that they had something up their sleeves this year. Maybe this is it.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Without divulging what the situation and other personnel were, the Packers had four linebackers on the field at one point: Brandon Chillar, A.J. Hawk, Nick Barnett and Brady Poppinga. I saw that on more than one occasion during the mini-camp.

Maybe this is why McCarthy likes to keep most of his practices closed to the public.

[KYPack]

That's a formation that lends itself to blitzing.

Can you say zone blitz?

I would love to see Barnett and Hawk run a Fire X.

Maybe we are starting to let our hair down. This bunch is more than ready to have the D coaches put some exotic formations in & blitz the shit out of the opposition.

[mission]

hmm...

taylor, pickett, kampman

chillar, hawk, barnett, pops

i like that...

homer post?

[HarveyWallbangers]

I can't see them changing the scheme at this point. I'm sure they'll use 4 LBs on occasion, but I doubt you'll see it often.

[texaspackerbacker]

The more options you have available the better, but I really don't like this idea.

[mission]

oops wrong thread

[LL2]

hmm...

taylor, pickett, kampman

chillar, hawk, barnett, pops

i like that...

homer post?

I think this is a great idea. I don't know if I would use this line up all game long, but it would be good to throw in there to throw offenses off. Your front 3 have to be VERY good to do a 3-4, and having Taylor would be the key.

[Fritz]

That's a formation that lends itself to blitzing.

Can you say zone blitz?

I would love to see Barnett and Hawk run a Fire X.

Maybe we are starting to let our hair down. This bunch is more than ready to have the D coaches put some exotic formations in & blitz the shit out of the opposition.

Good thing for Hawk's hair, and Harris's too.

Can't do this on offense, though. Rodgers cut his and Driver is bald.

[Joemailman]

That's a formation that lends itself to blitzing.

Can you say zone blitz?

I would love to see Barnett and Hawk run a Fire X.

Maybe we are starting to let our hair down. This bunch is more than ready to have the D coaches put some exotic formations in & blitz the shit out of the opposition.

Kentucky,

I thought of the 3-4 when you mentioned in the other thread that the Packers base defense doesn't lend itself to blitzing because of where the LB's line up. I'm all for mixing things up woth more formations. But what the hell is a Fire X?

[Mazzin]

MailMan, I do belive the fire x he is talking at is a blitz that is on madden, when you use the 4 d line man, and bring the extra saftey into the box (8 man front) and than in the game Nick Barnett, and Aj Hawk, both blitz the OTHER lbs Gap.....Works good on the game, dont know about in real life though, and besides in the game you have 4 dline man eating gaps, instead of 3 so there will be more blockers.

[mraynrand]

Tank?

[KYPack]

MailMan, I do belive the fire x he is talking at is a blitz that is on madden, when you use the 4 d line man, and bring the extra saftey into the box (8 man front) and than in the game Nick Barnett, and Aj Hawk, both blitz the OTHER lbs Gap.....Works good on the game, dont know about in real life though, and besides in the game you have 4 dline man eating gaps, instead of 3 so there will be more blockers.

I'll be damned. Man, this is one savvy group on here. Mazzin perfectly describes the Fire X. It's used with it's evil twin, the Fire Zone, to totally overload the offenses' pass protection scheme. Everybody else plays a very tight zone with specific spots to closely check the O's hot men. Usually, the coverage guys even front their responsibilities so the QB has no one to dump off to. Hopefully, the blitzers do their job and it results in a sack. Fire zone and fire x were developed mainly by Dick LeBeau and Dom Capers, but it has many fathers really.

I used to do a little coaching and always was trying to put in a scheme that would be an all out blitz like these two schemes. I got close, but never had to the balls to commit blitzers (coaches call 'em storms, btw) like the fire schemes do.

The Zone blitz is different from older blitz schemes because you back your blitz with zone cover. In the old days, everybody played a fronting man cover on all blitzes.

[KYPack]

Tank?

Mazzin is not Tank.

She understands the game and has a good feel for it.

Tank tells people he does, but he doesn't.

[KYPack]

MailMan, I do belive the fire x he is talking at is a blitz that is on madden, when you use the 4 d line man, and bring the extra saftey into the box (8 man front) and than in the game Nick Barnett, and Aj Hawk, both blitz the OTHER lbs Gap.....Works good on the game, dont know about in real life though, and besides in the game you have 4 dline man eating gaps, instead of 3 so there will be more blockers.

One other thing.

Most fire zones come from a 3-4, a 3 man front. You can run fires out of a 3 or 4 man front, but most zone blitz teams run 3-4's to do their blitzing. The safety comes up to eliminate blitz control routes, principally by the TE.

34's make it easy to disguise your blitzes. You can stay in your blitz front and look, run it for several plays, then blitz when it's advantageous for you. That's the big problem with your base D. It's very obvious when you are looking to blitz from the Bates/Sanders shell.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I think this is a great idea. I don't know if I would use this line up all game long, but it would be good to throw in there to throw offenses off. Your front 3 have to be VERY good to do a 3-4, and having Taylor would be the key.

Actually, Taylor wouldn't be one of the front 3 in a 3-4 scheme. He'd have to be a LB. In a 3-4 scheme, your front 3 are all big run stuffing type DL that occupy blockers.

[Joemailman]

Jenkins is a perfect 3-4 end. Kampman, though not as big, is probably tough enough against the run to make it work. The Packers do seem to have the personnel to mix things up if the coaching staff is serious about it.

[KYPack]

I think this is a great idea. I don't know if I would use this line up all game long, but it would be good to throw in there to throw offenses off. Your front 3 have to be VERY good to do a 3-4, and having Taylor would be the key.

Actually, Taylor wouldn't be one of the front 3 in a 3-4 scheme. He'd have to be a LB. In a 3-4 scheme, your front 3 are all big run stuffing type DL that occupy blockers.

Oh I dunno about that. A front 3 of Taylor, Pickett, & Kampman could both stop the run and provide good pressure from the ends. NE uses similar sized guys & are pretty effective with their 3-4. Everybody would like to have SD's front 7 to run a 3-4, but you can't always have the perfect personnel groupings to put in your stuff.

I'd like to see us work several D sets and not always run that Bates/Sanders shell. It's too predictazble.

I don't like a real high blitz percentage. the threat of a blitza is just as effective as a blitz. Make the O stay in max protect gives your d a chance. When you blitz too much, you have lots of exposure to big plays.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Oh I dunno about that. A front 3 of Taylor, Pickett, & Kampman could both stop the run and provide good pressure from the ends. NE uses similar sized guys & are pretty effective with their 3-4. Everybody would like to have SD's front 7 to run a 3-4, but you can't always have the perfect personnel groupings to put in your stuff.

New England has much bigger DEs than Kampman and Taylor. Taylor is 6'6" 255 while Kampman is 6'4" 270. New England's DEs (Seymour and Warren) go 6'6" 310 and 6'5" 300. San Diego's DEs (Castillo and Olshansky) go 6'5" 290 and 6'6" 309. So, New England's DEs are actually bigger than San Diego's DEs. Pittsburgh's DEs go 298 and 285 pounds. Baltimore's DEs are 285 and 340. Dallas' DEs go 298 and 300 pounds. There's not a 3-4 team that I know of that goes with a DE under 280 (much less 255). Maybe you could get away with Kampman, but not Kampman and Taylor. Miami is switching to a 3-4 and they'll move Taylor to LB if he is still with the team.

[vince]

As Harv said, Taylor would likely replace Popp in a 3-4 set if a trade (unlikely IMO) were made – and a 3-4 were run at any point. Taylor would get pummeled inside as a 3-4 DE with 3/4 gap responsibility. He needs space to play his game.

If the Packers were going to go to a 3-4 as a base D (which I’m sure isn’t the case), even Kampy would need to bulk up about 15 lbs, which he could do over time. I think he can hold his own inside on occasion if necessary, particularly in passing situations, but would wear down over time at his current weight in that set every down.

I can see a 4-4 wrinkle being used on occasion, given the Packers personnel, with a guy like Rouse as center fielder… Both Harris and Woodson are reasonably sure tacklers, but that would be very susceptible to 3 and 4 wideouts. Perhaps it could be a possibility against a team that is weak at receiver and/or shows strong tendencies toward using 2 wide sets to where the Packers feel comfortable loading the box with a fourth backer in specific situations.

Or perhaps Popp would move to more of a rush end role with the 4 LB personnel and move Jenkins inside.

I think it’s most likely a 3-4 wrinkle that would be used selectively, but enough to give offenses more problems scheming against the Packers D and/or against specific opponents and situations that lend themselves confusing the line blocking schemes and the QB.

[texaspackerbacker]

As a tool in the arsenal, I suppose it ain't a bad idea.

You can do a 3-4 two different ways. If you have the oversize DEs like New England and San Diego, as described above, it's aimed at stopping the run--in effect being the old Oklahoma Sooner 5-2 defense, with the OLBs basically being rush ends. That, however, leaves you very vulnerable to slants and other underneathe pass routes.

Or you can do it with speed rushers or at least normal size DEs like Kampman. That plus a couple of fast OLBs, and you have something that presents a pretty good pass rush. The latter is probably what the Packers have in mind--spot use only, in passing situations.

The thing is, if you go that route more than just as a rare occasional thing, you telegraph your blitz, and you also leave yourself with a flimsy run D if a team decides to buck the trend on 3rd and long.

I say again, practice it, but use it very sparingly.

[KYPack]

Oh I dunno about that. A front 3 of Taylor, Pickett, & Kampman could both stop the run and provide good pressure from the ends. NE uses similar sized guys & are pretty effective with their 3-4. Everybody would like to have SD's front 7 to run a 3-4, but you can't always have the perfect personnel groupings to put in your stuff.

New England has much bigger DEs than Kampman and Taylor. Taylor is 6'6" 255 while Kampman is 6'4" 270. New England's DEs (Seymour and Warren) go 6'6" 310 and 6'5" 300. San Diego's DEs (Castillo and Olshansky) go 6'5" 290 and 6'6" 309. So, New England's DEs are actually bigger than San Diego's DEs. Pittsburgh's DEs go 298 and 285 pounds. Baltimore's DEs are 285 and 340. Dallas' DEs go 298 and 300 pounds. There's not a 3-4 team that I know of that goes with a DE under 280 (much less 255). Maybe you could get away with Kampman, but not Kampman and Taylor. Miami is switching to a 3-4 and they'll move Taylor to LB if he is still with the team.

That's a bit of a surprise to me. SD seems like a jumbo front. Again, I'm talking about going to multiple sets so we can have a lot more flexibility on D. In the Sanders regime, we are limited to that basic shell & it cuts down our options on defense. We need to add some looks and give our guys more options.

Miami is switching Taylor to a 3-4 linebacker?

I doubt it.

[HarveyWallbangers]

http://www.kffl.com/player/1020/nfl/news


Dolphins | Team could change defense - from www.KFFL.com
Wed, 4 Jun 2008 10:02:21 -0700

ESPN.com reports Miami Dolphins head coach Tony Sparano said the team could switch to a 3-4 defense if LB Jason Taylor does not play for the team in 2008.


Dolphins | Taylor projected to start at outside linebacker - from www.KFFL.com
Tue, 1 Apr 2008 18:26:27 -0700

Omar Kelly, of the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, reports Miami Dolphins head coach Tony Sparano listed LB Jason Taylor as one of his projected starting outside linebackers.

http://blogs.sun-sentinel.com/sports_football_dolphins/2008/02/dolphins-defens.html


There are three critical things a 3-4 scheme needs to be successful...

2. BIG, pass rushing outside linebackers who put pressure on the quarterback, but can cover ground on passing downs...

Of these three the Dolphins presently only have No. 2 in Jason Taylor and Joey Porter, and there's a possibility Taylor wants to... or will be... traded this offseason.