Going, Going......................

[bobblehead]

Ok, how about a thread on who is going to get cut.

My guesses:

DeShawn Wynn: Morency is looking good, wynn is hurt again.

Jarret Bush: He just isn't getting it. I only see 3 NFL corners on our roster, Lee and blackman are still questions.

Orrin Thompson/Tony Moll: We'll go with youth and these two aren't NFL caliber.

Brohm (to 3rd string): The game looks too fast for him, but flynn looks suprisingly comfortable.

Tracy White: Its just a numbers game and the younger Bishop is cheaper on special teams.

I know these aren't big surprises at this point of camp, but its just my assessment of how things are shaping up.

[pacfan]

I would add Chris Francies and maybe Chillar

[Tony Oday]

daryn college

[HarveyWallbangers]

I would add Chris Francies and maybe Chillar

Chillar is starting in place of Hawk. He can also play all three LB positions. I'd be surprised if he was cut. The guy is learning a new system, so I'd cut him some slack for some early struggles.

[SkinBasket]

Tracy White: Its just a numbers game and the younger Bishop is cheaper on special teams.

I doubt that they are concerned about the 200K that differentiates these guys and while younger, Bishop still isn't nearly as active or effective on ST. Bishop's still riding the reputation he gained last season with those 2 or 3 big hits.

[BallHawk]

daryn college

lol wut?

[Pacopete4]

daryn college

lol wut?


that might be a frustration post that is still hanging out last weeks game haha

[Tony Oday]

I just heard it when I was in WI this weekend around Waukesha. He cant play inside and he cant play outside what good is he?

[SkinBasket]

I just heard it when I was in WI this weekend around Waukesha. He cant play inside and he cant play outside what good is he?

He tends to get down the field nicely on screens. I'm sure it has something to do with letting his guy run past him being part of the play, but it's something.

[ND72]

I just heard it when I was in WI this weekend around Waukesha. He cant play inside and he cant play outside what good is he?

And yet he's still more valuable than Sitton or Giacomini. He will play a Tackle position, he's seriously out of position at Guard, and no matter how much you all hate him, he's a tackle. All of his techniques at guard are that of a tackle. He struggles at Tackle because he hasn't gotten the reps there, and hasn't focused there.

[ND72]

getting cut - Chris Frances, Wynn, Bush, Smith (WR), even though it pains me, Kregg Lumpkin (my blackhorse to make the team), Tony Moll, Orin Thompson

that's what I got for now.

[Gunakor]

I just heard it when I was in WI this weekend around Waukesha. He cant play inside and he cant play outside what good is he?

And yet he's still more valuable than Sitton or Giacomini. He will play a Tackle position, he's seriously out of position at Guard, and no matter how much you all hate him, he's a tackle. All of his techniques at guard are that of a tackle. He struggles at Tackle because he hasn't gotten the reps there, and hasn't focused there.

He and the rest of the line were coming together pretty well at the end of last season. Continuity is a big part of a good line. IMO they should just go back to the line they were using last season, including Colledge at guard. The longer he plays that position and the longer those 5 guys play together as a unit the better that line will be. The problem right now is that MM isn't just making a decision and riding with it. He keeps shuffling people around on the line and wondering why it isn't working. Hmm... I'm no expert, but I have a pretty good guess.

[ND72]

I just heard it when I was in WI this weekend around Waukesha. He cant play inside and he cant play outside what good is he?

And yet he's still more valuable than Sitton or Giacomini. He will play a Tackle position, he's seriously out of position at Guard, and no matter how much you all hate him, he's a tackle. All of his techniques at guard are that of a tackle. He struggles at Tackle because he hasn't gotten the reps there, and hasn't focused there.

He and the rest of the line were coming together pretty well at the end of last season. Continuity is a big part of a good line. IMO they should just go back to the line they were using last season, including Colledge at guard. The longer he plays that position and the longer those 5 guys play together as a unit the better that line will be. The problem right now is that MM isn't just making a decision and riding with it. He keeps shuffling people around on the line and wondering why it isn't working. Hmm... I'm no expert, but I have a pretty good guess.

as a former OL player, and a current OL coach, could not AGREE any more than that statement. familiarity is so big for OL guys. I do think Barbre will end up being a stud, personally, for us, so I wouldn't mind seeing him crack the starting lineup, but I do think our OL did come on late last year, and continuation is big.

[KYPack]

I just heard it when I was in WI this weekend around Waukesha. He cant play inside and he cant play outside what good is he?

And yet he's still more valuable than Sitton or Giacomini. He will play a Tackle position, he's seriously out of position at Guard, and no matter how much you all hate him, he's a tackle. All of his techniques at guard are that of a tackle. He struggles at Tackle because he hasn't gotten the reps there, and hasn't focused there.

MM seems to be ate up about getting Sitton in there at RG.

I like Colledge at tackle. He was a tackle in school and is much more comfortable there than at guard. In fact, the first rough time I've seen him have playing tackle was Saturday. He got whipped on an inside spin move by the SF RDE. That was defintely a case of lack of reps..

I really like Barbre, but he's fallen out of favor this summer due to the "play Sitton at all costs" program. I'd like to see them play Barbre at LG, let Sptz play RG.

Fouling all this up is Wells situation. He joined the rest of the Oline in playing poorly Saturday. He might be hurt worse than they are letting on. if Wells is hurting, play Spitz at C, Sitton at RG and Barbre at LG. Sitton is a gook kid, but he has times when he just goes on his nose for no reason. Actually, the reason is... he's a rookie.

Continuity has to come into play here. We've got to get a set line-up and give 'em reps.

[Maxie the Taxi]

getting cut - Chris Frances, Wynn, Bush, Smith (WR), even though it pains me, Kregg Lumpkin (my blackhorse to make the team), Tony Moll, Orin Thompson

that's what I got for now.

An Old School idea: Make Lumpy a FB and run both him and Grant in the same backfield.

[Gunakor]

getting cut - Chris Frances, Wynn, Bush, Smith (WR), even though it pains me, Kregg Lumpkin (my blackhorse to make the team), Tony Moll, Orin Thompson

that's what I got for now.

An Old School idea: Make Lumpy a FB and run both him and Grant in the same backfield.

Except I saw the way Korey Hall laid out a pro bowl middle linebacker plowing open a hole to the endzone for Grant last year. I'm sure E.J. Henderson would just love it if we played Lumpkin at FB.

I like Hall at FB. He's a converted linebacker... All linebackers wanna do is hit people. That's what I'd want in a FB. Nothing would make a better FB than a converted linebacker IMO.

[Maxie the Taxi]

getting cut - Chris Frances, Wynn, Bush, Smith (WR), even though it pains me, Kregg Lumpkin (my blackhorse to make the team), Tony Moll, Orin Thompson

that's what I got for now.

An Old School idea: Make Lumpy a FB and run both him and Grant in the same backfield.

Except I saw the way Korey Hall laid out a pro bowl middle linebacker plowing open a hole to the endzone for Grant last year. I'm sure E.J. Henderson would just love it if we played Lumpkin at FB.

I like Hall at FB. He's a converted linebacker... All linebackers wanna do is hit people. That's what I'd want in a FB. Nothing would make a better FB than a converted linebacker IMO.

I'm just Old School. I'd rather see the FB carry the ball instead of block.

[bobblehead]

recent quotes from JS on tony moll.
---------
The versatile Moll, who also had an impressive practice, has come on after a slow start.

“He’s starting to play with some of that energy,” Campen said. “Go after you. Bulldog-type stuff. Nice to see that. Starting to play with a lot of aggression
--------

Seems this stubborn sob is trying to make me wrong...I hope he turns it around big time then...not just enough to squeek onto the squad.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I'm just Old School. I'd rather see the FB carry the ball instead of block.

You are old school.

[Guiness]

I'm just Old School. I'd rather see the FB carry the ball instead of block.

Like the other two in the league that do, eh? Are there even two FB's that get regular carries anymore? T. Richardson for a while in KC is the last I remember.

Anyways, it's just not something you see.

[Merlin]

I would add Chris Francies and maybe Chillar

I am not sure if it's just preseason or not but didn't we have some kind of 2-4 or 2-5 package out there with 4-5 linebackers? I think they are going to stock up on linebackers and possibly run more wierd sets like that.

[Maxie the Taxi]

I would add Chris Francies and maybe Chillar

I am not sure if it's just preseason or not but didn't we have some kind of 2-4 or 2-5 package out there with 4-5 linebackers? I think they are going to stock up on linebackers and possibly run more wierd sets like that.

Exactly right. I couldn't agree more. They're going to compensate for injuries on the D-Line by loading five LB's. They're just not doing a lot of it in preseason because they don't want to create film of it for opponents. They few times they ran it really looked weird but it was effective.

By the way, just to prove I'm still old school, I'd blitz all five LB's.

[KYPack]

I would add Chris Francies and maybe Chillar

I am not sure if it's just preseason or not but didn't we have some kind of 2-4 or 2-5 package out there with 4-5 linebackers? I think they are going to stock up on linebackers and possibly run more wierd sets like that.

Exactly right. I couldn't agree more. They're going to compensate for injuries on the D-Line by loading five LB's. They're just not doing a lot of it in preseason because they don't want to create film of it for opponents. They few times they ran it really looked weird but it was effective.

By the way, just to prove I'm still old school, I'd blitz all five LB's.

NE runs a 3rd down D with 1 lineman and 6 LB's. They also run that "mill around" formation where all of the front seven wanders around and line up at the last second with nobody putting their hand down. Guess that's an 0-7-4

[Maxie the Taxi]

I would add Chris Francies and maybe Chillar

I am not sure if it's just preseason or not but didn't we have some kind of 2-4 or 2-5 package out there with 4-5 linebackers? I think they are going to stock up on linebackers and possibly run more wierd sets like that.

Exactly right. I couldn't agree more. They're going to compensate for injuries on the D-Line by loading five LB's. They're just not doing a lot of it in preseason because they don't want to create film of it for opponents. They few times they ran it really looked weird but it was effective.

By the way, just to prove I'm still old school, I'd blitz all five LB's.

NE runs a 3rd down D with 1 lineman and 6 LB's. They also run that "mill around" formation where all of the front seven wanders around and line up at the last second with nobody putting their hand down. Guess that's an 0-7-4

KY,

You know way more football than I do, tell me this. Do you like the way the Packers have used their LB's in years past? It just seems to me they use them too conservatively. My feeling is put one LB on the tight end, another spying on the HB out of the backfield, and blitz the other all the time. Forget the zone crap. Am I nuts?

[texaspackerbacker]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. There's a helluva lot more bad than good that comes from blitzing. I am completely satisfied, indeed, glad that the Packers play it pretty much straight up--relatively little blitzing.

For those who disagree, it's hard to argue with 13-3.

It seems like a fairly large portion of the big plays we did give up were the result of blitzes. Likely, the same can be said for most other teams too.

[mraynrand]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. There's a helluva lot more bad than good that comes from blitzing. I am completely satisfied, indeed, glad that the Packers play it pretty much straight up--relatively little blitzing..
It depends a lot on your personnel, o course. Still, I'm guessing the NY Giants would vociferously disagree with you.

[KYPack]

I would add Chris Francies and maybe Chillar

I am not sure if it's just preseason or not but didn't we have some kind of 2-4 or 2-5 package out there with 4-5 linebackers? I think they are going to stock up on linebackers and possibly run more wierd sets like that.

Exactly right. I couldn't agree more. They're going to compensate for injuries on the D-Line by loading five LB's. They're just not doing a lot of it in preseason because they don't want to create film of it for opponents. They few times they ran it really looked weird but it was effective.

By the way, just to prove I'm still old school, I'd blitz all five LB's.

NE runs a 3rd down D with 1 lineman and 6 LB's. They also run that "mill around" formation where all of the front seven wanders around and line up at the last second with nobody putting their hand down. Guess that's an 0-7-4

KY,

You know way more football than I do, tell me this. Do you like the way the Packers have used their LB's in years past? It just seems to me they use them too conservatively. My feeling is put one LB on the tight end, another spying on the HB out of the backfield, and blitz the other all the time. Forget the zone crap. Am I nuts?

Short answer is no, I don't like the over-reliance on the Bates/Sanders shell. (BTW can anybody think of a name for this freakin' defense, I really don't what to call it).

This defense was evolved by Coach Jim Bates at Miami. It's a bend- not break type scheme. It's a base 4-3 defense. Ends out wide, DT's in a 3 technique (between the guard and the tackles). Each Dlineman has a two gap responsibility (altho the DE's do stunt and play games.) The linebackers are sheltered. They are positioned 5 - 7 yards deep and the design of the D on the run is to drive the play to the backers to make stops. The safeties are centered in the middle and play half deep. they will alternate and bring one S up, but generally the safeties are twins.

The corners are up and play essentially a man technique. Even tho the corners are on an island, the defense is still a zone. The corners get minimal help from the safeties deep and to their inside. Not much, but it's there.

The thing most don't know, this defense is a cover 2. 2 safeties deep in a zone is a cover 2, but this ain't the Monte Kiffin/Tony Dungy Tampa 2 that the broadcasters think they know.

This Bates D is a good basic defense against the run and the pass, but it is inflexible.

- It's almost impossible to blitz out of the base D. to storm a LB, you got to walk him up to the line. With the backers so deep. one guy coming up to the center (called a zero technique) a couple yards deep to blitz, is so obvious Ray Charles could spot it. when we do blitz out of base it's usually the Wil, the Mike or a safety sneaking up and trying to make the play. This is a defensive set that does not lend itself to blitzing.

That doesn't bother me, when you blitz, you are covering up a weakness. But it is a weapon we can use and by mixing in more and different personnel sets, we have the troops to be a better defensive unit.

The other weakness of this D still grinds my guts. You really can't get much help to a corner if he is getting raped. Think dreadlocks Al in the NFC Championship game. With this shell, there is really little you can do to help the corner. He's out there and nobody can give him any assistance. I don't like that flaw one bit.

Your question about "put one LB on the tight end, another spying on the HB out of the backfield, and blitz the other all the time. Forget the zone crap. Am I nuts?"

No, you're not nuts, just nostalgic. But the fact is, all man now is mixed in and disguised as much as possible. You can't forget the zone and play all man in the NFL anymore. You'll get your brains beat in. As far as one guy being a spy, one guy playing buck and the other constantly blitzing? No you'd get the snot kicked out of you. Sure you could mix that stuff in, but you can't use it as base.

What I'd like to see us mix in is some Zone blitz. Play Popp as the buck LB. Barnett and Hawk in the middle and one of these kids (Hodge?, White?) at the weak side. Some fire zone blitzes and fire X stuff would be great to see. I think our guys could really play the shit out of that set. they are all experienced enough now that they could pick up that stuff pretty fast.

One way or the other, some diversification has to take place. We can't hang back in that shell and hope everything turns out OK.

[texaspackerbacker]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. There's a helluva lot more bad than good that comes from blitzing. I am completely satisfied, indeed, glad that the Packers play it pretty much straight up--relatively little blitzing..
It depends a lot on your personnel, o course. Still, I'm guessing the NY Giants would vociferously disagree with you.

The Giants stunk it up--due in large part to relying on the blitz--for most of the season. Arguably, they got lucky with various conditions coming together to have it succeed in the playoffs.

[mraynrand]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. There's a helluva lot more bad than good that comes from blitzing. I am completely satisfied, indeed, glad that the Packers play it pretty much straight up--relatively little blitzing..
It depends a lot on your personnel, o course. Still, I'm guessing the NY Giants would vociferously disagree with you.

The Giants stunk it up--due in large part to relying on the blitz--for most of the season. Arguably, they got lucky with various conditions coming together to have it succeed in the playoffs.

Maybe the 'luck' was finally getting used to a new scheme. Seemed to me their defense was still pretty good the entire season and their offense struggled more - like against the Vikings. Out of curiosity, what were the 'various conditions' that you refer to?

[texaspackerbacker]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. There's a helluva lot more bad than good that comes from blitzing. I am completely satisfied, indeed, glad that the Packers play it pretty much straight up--relatively little blitzing..
It depends a lot on your personnel, o course. Still, I'm guessing the NY Giants would vociferously disagree with you.

The Giants stunk it up--due in large part to relying on the blitz--for most of the season. Arguably, they got lucky with various conditions coming together to have it succeed in the playoffs.

Maybe the 'luck' was finally getting used to a new scheme. Seemed to me their defense was still pretty good the entire season and their offense struggled more - like against the Vikings. Out of curiosity, what were the 'various conditions' that you refer to?

Weather and an aging QB against the Packers. That's a tougher question regarding the Patriots, though. The only thing I can think of there is being super pumped for the Super Bowl--which might help more in blitzing than say something more cerebral.

[KYPack]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. There's a helluva lot more bad than good that comes from blitzing. I am completely satisfied, indeed, glad that the Packers play it pretty much straight up--relatively little blitzing..
It depends a lot on your personnel, o course. Still, I'm guessing the NY Giants would vociferously disagree with you.

The Giants stunk it up--due in large part to relying on the blitz--for most of the season. Arguably, they got lucky with various conditions coming together to have it succeed in the playoffs.

The Giants won the Superbowl with an ancient fundamental. Brutal and efficient play by their down four lineman. They finished the season with the best Dline in football and rode it right to the Superbowl Championship.

[Harlan Huckleby]

WE have great linebackers and maybe an excellent secondary. Wish we had that talent on the Dline.

[bobblehead]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. There's a helluva lot more bad than good that comes from blitzing. I am completely satisfied, indeed, glad that the Packers play it pretty much straight up--relatively little blitzing..
It depends a lot on your personnel, o course. Still, I'm guessing the NY Giants would vociferously disagree with you.

The Giants stunk it up--due in large part to relying on the blitz--for most of the season. Arguably, they got lucky with various conditions coming together to have it succeed in the playoffs.

The Giants won the Superbowl with an ancient fundamental. Brutal and efficient play by their down four lineman. They finished the season with the best Dline in football and rode it right to the Superbowl Championship.

I'm likely wrong...I agree with tex. If you are the more talented team the base defenses are the way to go...all that fancy stuff is there to cover for inadequate talent. It works til the other teams get enough film on you.

[texaspackerbacker]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. There's a helluva lot more bad than good that comes from blitzing. I am completely satisfied, indeed, glad that the Packers play it pretty much straight up--relatively little blitzing..
It depends a lot on your personnel, o course. Still, I'm guessing the NY Giants would vociferously disagree with you.

The Giants stunk it up--due in large part to relying on the blitz--for most of the season. Arguably, they got lucky with various conditions coming together to have it succeed in the playoffs.

The Giants won the Superbowl with an ancient fundamental. Brutal and efficient play by their down four lineman. They finished the season with the best Dline in football and rode it right to the Superbowl Championship.

I'm likely wrong...I agree with tex. If you are the more talented team the base defenses are the way to go...all that fancy stuff is there to cover for inadequate talent. It works til the other teams get enough film on you.

You, me, Thompson, and McCarthy--I'll settle for that no matter who is on the other side.

[mraynrand]

I could be wrong too. I saw a Giants team with a dominant d line, but a nice scheme that did not rely on the blitz, but that effectively mixed it up. Look, it was Johnson's d from Philly. That's a good scheme that's given a lot of teams fits, even with a lot of tape to look at - so it's hard for me to believe the Giants got lucky. I've seen a lot of beat reporters and commentators argue that the Miami/Bates defense tends to tire out the defense because it relies so heavily on the front four to generate pressure. So it's hard for me to believe that the Packer defense can just stand pat.

[SnakeLH2006]

Ok, how about a thread on who is going to get cut.

My guesses:

DeShawn Wynn: Morency is looking good, wynn is hurt again.

Jarret Bush: He just isn't getting it. I only see 3 NFL corners on our roster, Lee and blackman are still questions.

Orrin Thompson/Tony Moll: We'll go with youth and these two aren't NFL caliber.

Brohm (to 3rd string): The game looks too fast for him, but flynn looks suprisingly comfortable.

Tracy White: Its just a numbers game and the younger Bishop is cheaper on special teams.

I know these aren't big surprises at this point of camp, but its just my assessment of how things are shaping up.

Wynn's a given with Lumpkin's rise.
George ain't the only Bush out this year.
Orrin's gone...looked bad so far, Moll was shaky but camp reports say he's kicking ass lately. 8-0 in his last 2 camp practices vs. DL.
No way Brohm gets cut with his high draft status/pedigree or Flynn (my guess is one of them "tweaks" their knee for an IR visit to sign a veteran.)
Tracy White can't hack it as a reg. LB, yet Hodge is coming on and Bishop hasn't done much yet this year. Bishop is gone unless he's lights out on ST.
Culver's gone.
Cole is gone vs. Muir (younger/slightly cheaper).
Taj and another young WR get stashed on IR to keep Ruvell.
Brett is gone. :oops:

[Maxie the Taxi]

Short answer is no, I don't like the over-reliance on the Bates/Sanders shell. (BTW can anybody think of a name for this freakin' defense, I really don't what to call it).

This defense was evolved by Coach Jim Bates at Miami. It's a bend- not break type scheme. It's a base 4-3 defense. Ends out wide, DT's in a 3 technique (between the guard and the tackles). Each Dlineman has a two gap responsibility (altho the DE's do stunt and play games.) The linebackers are sheltered. They are positioned 5 - 7 yards deep and the design of the D on the run is to drive the play to the backers to make stops. The safeties are centered in the middle and play half deep. they will alternate and bring one S up, but generally the safeties are twins.

The corners are up and play essentially a man technique. Even tho the corners are on an island, the defense is still a zone. The corners get minimal help from the safeties deep and to their inside. Not much, but it's there.

The thing most don't know, this defense is a cover 2. 2 safeties deep in a zone is a cover 2, but this ain't the Monte Kiffin/Tony Dungy Tampa 2 that the broadcasters think they know.

This Bates D is a good basic defense against the run and the pass, but it is inflexible.

- It's almost impossible to blitz out of the base D. to storm a LB, you got to walk him up to the line. With the backers so deep. one guy coming up to the center (called a zero technique) a couple yards deep to blitz, is so obvious Ray Charles could spot it. when we do blitz out of base it's usually the Wil, the Mike or a safety sneaking up and trying to make the play. This is a defensive set that does not lend itself to blitzing.

That doesn't bother me, when you blitz, you are covering up a weakness. But it is a weapon we can use and by mixing in more and different personnel sets, we have the troops to be a better defensive unit.

The other weakness of this D still grinds my guts. You really can't get much help to a corner if he is getting raped. Think dreadlocks Al in the NFC Championship game. With this shell, there is really little you can do to help the corner. He's out there and nobody can give him any assistance. I don't like that flaw one bit.

Your question about "put one LB on the tight end, another spying on the HB out of the backfield, and blitz the other all the time. Forget the zone crap. Am I nuts?"

No, you're not nuts, just nostalgic. But the fact is, all man now is mixed in and disguised as much as possible. You can't forget the zone and play all man in the NFL anymore. You'll get your brains beat in. As far as one guy being a spy, one guy playing buck and the other constantly blitzing? No you'd get the snot kicked out of you. Sure you could mix that stuff in, but you can't use it as base.

What I'd like to see us mix in is some Zone blitz. Play Popp as the buck LB. Barnett and Hawk in the middle and one of these kids (Hodge?, White?) at the weak side. Some fire zone blitzes and fire X stuff would be great to see. I think our guys could really play the shit out of that set. they are all experienced enough now that they could pick up that stuff pretty fast.

One way or the other, some diversification has to take place. We can't hang back in that shell and hope everything turns out OK.

KY, thanks for the lengthy answer. I appreciate it. After your explanation things are starting to clear up. I've been frustrated by the LB's playing so deep. Now I know why. Playing them that deep does make surprise blitzing impossible. Plus, it seems to me on running plays the LB's allow too much bend. By the time they close, the runner has already gained three yards. Moreover, on short passes the LB's are well-positioned, but on longer passes (just behind them) they always seem out of position and worthless.

In general, I don't like bend-but-don't-break defenses. It smacks too much of the dreaded "prevent" defense. I prefer an aggressive defensive scheme. You take it to them and if, every so often, you break, oh well. In the meantime you're punishing them and setting up turnover opportunities.

My intuition is that McCarthy (or whoever) knows our D-Line is not up to making that "shell" thing work right, so he's come up with the five LB scheme. That to me is really covering a weakness, but it might work. I like your zone blitz idea and maybe that's one thing they've got in mind.

Lastly, since virtually every defense has some weakness I don't mind the fact that blitzing covers it up. Moreover, depending on the personnel and judicious use, blitzing can be a weapon itself (at least in my judgement). I don't really want them to blitz every play like the old Bears. But, damn, blitz more than once in a blue moon!

Anyway, thanks for clearing things up.

[cpk1994]

To anyone thinking about heavy blitzing I offer up two words: Bob Slowik.

[Bretsky]

To anyone thinking about heavy blitzing I offer up two words: Bob Slowik.


We didn't have the personnell to stay alive with that system either

Vanilla Sanders have not impressed me so far

[cpk1994]

To anyone thinking about heavy blitzing I offer up two words: Bob Slowik.


We didn't have the personnell to stay alive with that system either

Vanilla Sanders have not impressed me so farYes I agree. Just goes to show there are hazards in both styles of defense.

[Maxie the Taxi]

To anyone thinking about heavy blitzing I offer up two words: Bob Slowik.


We didn't have the personnell to stay alive with that system either

Vanilla Sanders have not impressed me so farYes I agree. Just goes to show there are hazards in both styles of defense.

Ultimately, it comes down to talent. A Reggie White or LeRoy Butler can make any scheme look good. The Packers have some playmakers but not blue-chippers, especially on the d-line.

[Fritz]

I would add Chris Francies and maybe Chillar

I am not sure if it's just preseason or not but didn't we have some kind of 2-4 or 2-5 package out there with 4-5 linebackers? I think they are going to stock up on linebackers and possibly run more wierd sets like that.

Exactly right. I couldn't agree more. They're going to compensate for injuries on the D-Line by loading five LB's. They're just not doing a lot of it in preseason because they don't want to create film of it for opponents. They few times they ran it really looked weird but it was effective.

By the way, just to prove I'm still old school, I'd blitz all five LB's.

NE runs a 3rd down D with 1 lineman and 6 LB's. They also run that "mill around" formation where all of the front seven wanders around and line up at the last second with nobody putting their hand down. Guess that's an 0-7-4

KY,

You know way more football than I do, tell me this. Do you like the way the Packers have used their LB's in years past? It just seems to me they use them too conservatively. My feeling is put one LB on the tight end, another spying on the HB out of the backfield, and blitz the other all the time. Forget the zone crap. Am I nuts?

Short answer is no, I don't like the over-reliance on the Bates/Sanders shell. (BTW can anybody think of a name for this freakin' defense, I really don't what to call it).

This defense was evolved by Coach Jim Bates at Miami. It's a bend- not break type scheme. It's a base 4-3 defense. Ends out wide, DT's in a 3 technique (between the guard and the tackles). Each Dlineman has a two gap responsibility (altho the DE's do stunt and play games.) The linebackers are sheltered. They are positioned 5 - 7 yards deep and the design of the D on the run is to drive the play to the backers to make stops. The safeties are centered in the middle and play half deep. they will alternate and bring one S up, but generally the safeties are twins.

The corners are up and play essentially a man technique. Even tho the corners are on an island, the defense is still a zone. The corners get minimal help from the safeties deep and to their inside. Not much, but it's there.

The thing most don't know, this defense is a cover 2. 2 safeties deep in a zone is a cover 2, but this ain't the Monte Kiffin/Tony Dungy Tampa 2 that the broadcasters think they know.

This Bates D is a good basic defense against the run and the pass, but it is inflexible.

- It's almost impossible to blitz out of the base D. to storm a LB, you got to walk him up to the line. With the backers so deep. one guy coming up to the center (called a zero technique) a couple yards deep to blitz, is so obvious Ray Charles could spot it. when we do blitz out of base it's usually the Wil, the Mike or a safety sneaking up and trying to make the play. This is a defensive set that does not lend itself to blitzing.

That doesn't bother me, when you blitz, you are covering up a weakness. But it is a weapon we can use and by mixing in more and different personnel sets, we have the troops to be a better defensive unit.

The other weakness of this D still grinds my guts. You really can't get much help to a corner if he is getting raped. Think dreadlocks Al in the NFC Championship game. With this shell, there is really little you can do to help the corner. He's out there and nobody can give him any assistance. I don't like that flaw one bit.

Your question about "put one LB on the tight end, another spying on the HB out of the backfield, and blitz the other all the time. Forget the zone crap. Am I nuts?"

No, you're not nuts, just nostalgic. But the fact is, all man now is mixed in and disguised as much as possible. You can't forget the zone and play all man in the NFL anymore. You'll get your brains beat in. As far as one guy being a spy, one guy playing buck and the other constantly blitzing? No you'd get the snot kicked out of you. Sure you could mix that stuff in, but you can't use it as base.

What I'd like to see us mix in is some Zone blitz. Play Popp as the buck LB. Barnett and Hawk in the middle and one of these kids (Hodge?, White?) at the weak side. Some fire zone blitzes and fire X stuff would be great to see. I think our guys could really play the shit out of that set. they are all experienced enough now that they could pick up that stuff pretty fast.

One way or the other, some diversification has to take place. We can't hang back in that shell and hope everything turns out OK.

Dammit, I've been saying this forever: where's the Fire X stuff?

Uh...oh master...what is a "Fire X" stuff?

[Carolina_Packer]

The D-line and O-line may yet gel. Hard to say after two pre-season games. It's like a pitcher who can win without his best stuff. You hope they just find a groove (and health) and can settle in and give consistently decent performances (if not dominating). The D just has to be stout enough to get the offense some more possessions and the offense has to do enough to take some pressure off the defense needing to be that perfect. Then, you just hope the units gel as the season goes on. I'd be surprised if the team got out of the gate strong, but they might be able to get a groove going and be something good. We'll see.