McCarthy reverses 4-3 to 3-4

[Partial]

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/37856129.html

[channtheman]

I only read the first part of the article, but it is exciting to think about how we might do with the 3-4. It gives a lot of hope about our defense for the next year.

[Partial]

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20090119/PKR01/90119169/1058/PKR01

[pbmax]

From Wilde in the Wisconsin State Journal: (http://www.madison.com/wsj/home/sports/packers/433548)

But Charley Casserly, the former NFL GM who hired Capers as the Texans' head coach in 2001, said the Packers are in for a challenging transition period.

"It's a huge (adjustment)," Casserly, now an analyst for CBS and the NFL Network, said in an interview with Steve "The Homer" True on FM 100.5 FM ESPN Madison Monday afternoon. "The big thing is, you have to find pass rushers on the outside that can also stand up and play linebacker."

Casserly projected Kampman as a strong-side outside linebacker in a 3-4 defense and said while the 3-4 "3-4 does give you a little more flexibility with blitzing and coverages" and is "a little more confusing for teams to prepare for," he admitted he was surprised by McCarthy's decision to change.

"The biggest thing is your personnel — their ability to get the players to (fit) the defense. If you had the players in place, (Capers) can teach the scheme," Casserly said. "It does (surprise me). Obviously they must have thought about it, but it's a radical change when you go from a 4-3 to a 3-4 defense."

[Guiness]

my biggest concern with the whole switch is that it's being done because it's 'flavor of the month'

We were supposed to be going whole hog ZBS running scheme, then Jags left after one year...and I feel it never got fully implemented, and never will.

What if Capers gets offered an HC after next season, and we lose our 3-4 guru, same as we lost our ZBS dude?

[HarveyWallbangers]

"The biggest thing is your personnel — their ability to get the players to (fit) the defense. If you had the players in place, (Capers) can teach the scheme," Casserly said. "It does (surprise me). Obviously they must have thought about it, but it's a radical change when you go from a 4-3 to a 3-4 defense."

This is the key point. No offense to Casserly, but I wonder how well he knows our personnel. Personally, I think Pickett fits at NT, Jenkins at DE, Kampman at SOLB, Hawk at ILB. I also think we can find the other OLB from the group of Poppinga, Chillar, Hunter, and Thompson. We need another DE and we need to figure out if Barnett can hold up at either ILB or on the outside.

[HarveyWallbangers]

What if Capers gets offered an HC after next season, and we lose our 3-4 guru, same as we lost our ZBS dude?

By then, he will have taught our players the 3-4, and then we can hire one of those "hot" coordinators from Pittsburgh or Baltimore.

[Lurker64]

I'm a little bit puzzled as to how the media seems to be viewing the 3-4 as this monolithic defense with a set dogma. There is no more "one true 3-4 defense" as there is "one true 4-3 defense". A lot of 3-4 sets are essentially the same as a 4-3 set, except the rush backer doesn't put his hand on the ground, i.e. you play with one DE, an NT, an under-tackle, and a DE who plays up. The second DE's responsibilities may be slightly more complicated (he may have to cover the flat), but we haven't really reinvented the wheel.

While yes, the players may not be immediately ready to line up in all of the goofy sets you see a team like New England or Pittsburgh use, I sincerely doubt that our coaches are incompetent enough to run sets, looks, and plays that the players are not yet comfortable with.

Still, I expect a somewhat rough transition year. The 3-4 is not a panacea, much like the 4-3. The hope is that we have a DC now who's more competent than Sanders, but it's still going to take some time.

[Merlin]

And the rebuilding continues....

[Lurker64]

And the rebuilding continues....

This, however, gets pinned on McCarthy since he's responsible for schemes and the hiring of his staff. The only part of this that comes back to Thompson is "hiring McCarthy in the first place." McCarthy hasn't really engaged in any significant "rebuilding" in his few years here, so I'd say he gets a pass.

[Fritz]

I find it intriguing that MM apparently liked the 3-4 better all along but chose to sta with the Bates system

[Patler]

I find it intriguing that MM apparently liked the 3-4 better all along but chose to sta with the Bates system

I almost started a thread last night to discuss that. He let others, or a situation change his mind about a key element of what his head coaching opportunity was about - the chance to pick his schemes, follow his philosophies.

Does this show that he was not yet quite ready to be a head coach, because he was not yet fully developed in his defensive thinking?

Now some will excuse this blunder by saying that he wanted to stick with the status quo that had some success in a single season under Bates, but that is not a good enough excuse. The Packers had been struggling for a years on defense, they had gone through a DC per year for three seasons, the "Bates philosophy" was not engrained in the team. Contrast MM's actions on defense with his decision to convert the running game to one relying on zone blocking. Under Sherman the Packers were a very good running team (when they had a decent, healthy running back). That was a system engrained in the players, yet MM converted to zone dominated scheme.

Or....does the scheme matter less than the coaches picked to run it?????
Does it really matter what your "philosophy" is on offense or defense (within reason), and is the only important thing picking the right coaches??

[cpk1994]

I find it intriguing that MM apparently liked the 3-4 better all along but chose to sta with the Bates system

I almost started a thread last night to discuss that. He let others, or a situation change his mind about a key element of what his head coaching opportunity was about - the chance to pick his schemes, follow his philosophies.

Does this show that he was not yet quite ready to be a head coach, because he was not yet fully developed in his defensive thinking?

Now some will excuse this blunder by saying that he wanted to stick with the status quo that had some success in a single season under Bates, but that is not a good enough excuse. The Packers had been struggling for a years on defense, they had gone through a DC per year for three seasons, the "Bates philosophy" was not engrained in the team. Contrast MM's actions on defense with his decision to convert the running game to one relying on zone blocking. Under Sherman the Packers were a very good running team (when they had a decent, healthy running back). That was a system engrained in the players, yet MM converted to zone dominated scheme.

Or....does the scheme matter less than the coaches picked to run it?????
Does it really matter what your "philosophy" is on offense or defense (within reason), and is the only important thing picking the right coaches??But you are missing one point. Remember that at the time of McCarthy's hiring, the Packers were about to hire their 4th coordinator in 4 years. At that time, McCarthy probably felt that despite leaning towards a 3-4, that continutiy was best under the circumstances.

[pbmax]

I'm a little bit puzzled as to how the media seems to be viewing the 3-4 as this monolithic defense with a set dogma. There is no more "one true 3-4 defense" as there is "one true 4-3 defense". A lot of 3-4 sets are essentially the same as a 4-3 set, except the rush backer doesn't put his hand on the ground, i.e. you play with one DE, an NT, an under-tackle, and a DE who plays up. The second DE's responsibilities may be slightly more complicated (he may have to cover the flat), but we haven't really reinvented the wheel.

While yes, the players may not be immediately ready to line up in all of the goofy sets you see a team like New England or Pittsburgh use, I sincerely doubt that our coaches are incompetent enough to run sets, looks, and plays that the players are not yet comfortable with.

Still, I expect a somewhat rough transition year. The 3-4 is not a panacea, much like the 4-3. The hope is that we have a DC now who's more competent than Sanders, but it's still going to take some time.
Having not covered a 3-4, most of the media is going off outdated information created when Bum Phillips was coaching the Oilers. They'll catch up. Capers PC might help.

And the scheme will not stop anyone by itself. It will work for half a season because no one will have film of the Packers playing it. But it will be this offseason and next before the roster truly fits the scheme.

[Patler]

I find it intriguing that MM apparently liked the 3-4 better all along but chose to sta with the Bates system

Now some will excuse this blunder by saying that he wanted to stick with the status quo that had some success in a single season under Bates, but that is not a good enough excuse. The Packers had been struggling for a years on defense, they had gone through a DC per year for three seasons, the "Bates philosophy" was not engrained in the team. Contrast MM's actions on defense with his decision to convert the running game to one relying on zone blocking. Under Sherman the Packers were a very good running team (when they had a decent, healthy running back). That was a system engrained in the players, yet MM converted to zone dominated scheme.
But you are missing one point. Remember that at the time of McCarthy's hiring, the Packers were about to hire their 4th coordinator in 4 years. At that time, McCarthy probably felt that despite leaning towards a 3-4, that continutiy was best under the circumstances.

I specifically mentioned the "excuse" of three DCs in three seasons. That is all the more reason for MM to have gone with his philosophy. There was no scheme that the team was deeply tied to emotionally, intellectually or physically. There was no system engrained in the players. He was willing to change the running game scheme away from one that had been very successful and had changed little over the years. But he was unwilling to change a defense that had changed routinely? That shows a HC that did not have confidence in his defensive philosophy. He was confident on offense to the point of changing a successful running game fairly dramatically. But he was unwilling to change a defense that had been floundering for years?

[cpk1994]

I find it intriguing that MM apparently liked the 3-4 better all along but chose to sta with the Bates system

Now some will excuse this blunder by saying that he wanted to stick with the status quo that had some success in a single season under Bates, but that is not a good enough excuse. The Packers had been struggling for a years on defense, they had gone through a DC per year for three seasons, the "Bates philosophy" was not engrained in the team. Contrast MM's actions on defense with his decision to convert the running game to one relying on zone blocking. Under Sherman the Packers were a very good running team (when they had a decent, healthy running back). That was a system engrained in the players, yet MM converted to zone dominated scheme.
But you are missing one point. Remember that at the time of McCarthy's hiring, the Packers were about to hire their 4th coordinator in 4 years. At that time, McCarthy probably felt that despite leaning towards a 3-4, that continutiy was best under the circumstances.

I specifically mentioned the "excuse" of three DCs in three seasons. That is all the more reason for MM to have gone with his philosophy. There was no scheme that the team was deeply tied to emotionally, intellectually or physically. There was no system engrained in the players. He was willing to change the running game scheme away from one that had been very successful and had changed little over the years. But he was unwilling to change a defense that had changed routinely? That shows a HC that did not have confidence in his defensive philosophy. He was confident on offense to the point of changing a successful running game fairly dramatically. But he was unwilling to change a defense that had been floundering for years?But if the Bates system was not ingrained and that the philosophy continued to change, could you not say that the struggles were becuase there was no continuity? Perhpas McCarthy felt that with more time in the Bates system they would get better and have a better chance at success rather than change again with going to a 3-4 being most drastic?

[SkinBasket]

And the rebuilding continues....

It is highly disappointing that the roster and coaching staff has changed since 1995. I say that since Holmgren's available again, we try reuniting that team. We should be able to get our hands on Matt LaBounty and Travis Jervey, but resigning Reggie White and Wayne Simmons might be problematic.

[cpk1994]

And the rebuilding continues....

It is highly disappointing that the roster and coaching staff has changed since 1995. I say that since Holmgren's available again, we try reuniting that team. We should be able to get our hands on Matt LaBounty and Travis Jervey, but resigning Reggie White and Wayne Simmons might be problematic.If you get the ghost whisperer guy, you might have a shot.

[retailguy]

And the rebuilding continues....

Nah, it's just a new coat of paint on the dreamhouse. The last one, well, it must have been the wrong shade of green.

[Patler]

But if the Bates system was not ingrained and that the philosophy continued to change, could you not say that the struggles were becuase there was no continuity? Perhpas McCarthy felt that with more time in the Bates system they would get better and have a better chance at success rather than change again with going to a 3-4 being most drastic?

Change can always cause problems. If that was the reason, why change the running game? What if it got worse? (It did.) I agree with your last statement, but that is just the problem, because MM gave in to a system he did not believe in. I think on defense MM made two mistakes:

1 - He second guessed himself on philosophy. He rationalized himself out of a system he believed in and into one he did not believe in.

2 - He hired an unproven DC to lead a scheme that MM himself did not believe in. This guaranteed that there would be no mentoring of the DC by the HC, no chance to work together on the system. Sanders would sink or swim on his own and would not be "developed" by his HC. A DC with experience in a system, like Bates, can do that, but someone new must be worked with. If your boss does not believe in your system, you're screwed.

I mentioned after Sanders was fired, and while discussing the somewhat peculiar situation unfolding with Moss, that I never felt MM believed in Sanders. He settled for Sanders, and agreed to give him and the scheme a chance. It is now even more apparent that MM never really believed in either one. That almost guaranteed failure. Even more so it guaranteed change and upheaval in the future.

A rookie mistake by a rookie leader, a rookie HC. He did not believe in himself as to his defensive philosophy.

[Waldo]

I think the fact that they were further from a 3-4 when MM was hired, the players and fanbase overall was sick of changing defensive schemes every year (that was touted as "the problem" in the media), and that Favre was nearing the end, changing and rebuilding the D was not the "win now" philosophy needed to keep the old man happy (thus not retired), was primarily the reason to keep doing what we were doing. Bates' scheme theoretically is not all that dissimilar than a 3-4. It is much closer to a 3-4 than most other 4-3 defenses.

Today we have at the very least a very serviceable NT, Kamp is as much an outside rusher as DE (he's lost 15 lbs since MM took over), and we have a plethora of linebackers. When MM took over it was Barnett and crap. And we have the defensive backfield to make up for less than stellar front 7 play during the transition phase (a key that many forget, our guys can stop the pass with little up front help). Switching to a 3-4 in 2006 would have been a several year rebuilding project. Today a lot of the pieces are in place to make for a smoother transition.

[wist43]

I'm an advocate of the 3-4, but I'm very skeptical of what I'm hearing out of 1265.

I don't see Kamp as a LB, I see Barnett as strictly a 4-3 chase guy, Hawk is okay, but certainly not a difference maker, and the other spot isn't even manned.

So, switching if fine, but don't expect it to be a seamless change. The 3-4 calls for the playmakers to come from you LB'ing corp... the Packers have exactly zero playmakers at LB right now.

TT, whether he likes it or not, is going to have to cater to need this offseason... which of course, guarantees TT will take a WR with the 9th pick :)

[Zool]

I'm an advocate of the 3-4, but I'm very skeptical of what I'm hearing out of 1265.

I don't see Kamp as a LB, I see Barnett as strictly a 4-3 chase guy, Hawk is okay, but certainly not a difference maker, and the other spot isn't even manned.

So, switching if fine, but don't expect it to be a seamless change. The 3-4 calls for the playmakers to come from you LB'ing corp... the Packers have exactly zero playmakers at LB right now.

TT, whether he likes it or not, is going to have to cater to need this offseason... which of course, guarantees TT will take a WR with the 9th pick :)

If its Crabtree I'm OK with that.

[BZnDallas]

I'm an advocate of the 3-4, but I'm very skeptical of what I'm hearing out of 1265.

I don't see Kamp as a LB, I see Barnett as strictly a 4-3 chase guy, Hawk is okay, but certainly not a difference maker, and the other spot isn't even manned.

So, switching if fine, but don't expect it to be a seamless change. The 3-4 calls for the playmakers to come from you LB'ing corp... the Packers have exactly zero playmakers at LB right now.

TT, whether he likes it or not, is going to have to cater to need this offseason... which of course, guarantees TT will take a WR with the 9th pick :)


hey wist, i'm curious about some of the thoughts you've had... i agree that none of the LBs have been scary under Vanilla Bob... do you not think that maybe under a better scheme they might flourish?... i wont argue with you that they weren't 'playmakers', but i think with the new scheme it might put them in a place where they will be able to be 'playmakers'?... or am i still coming down off my high from the Dom Dom Dom Dom signing?...

[Waldo]

Sanders' scheme asked the linebackers to be responsible for a million different things. The physical and mental requirements for the LB's to excel was just too much. Because of the two big leaks in the line, both OLB's had to be SLB/WLB hybrids, with the ability to knock heads with FB's, TE's, and pulling G's, and cover in man to man as if they were DB's, and stay back and prevent backside cutbacks. If anything but the RB pierces the middle of the line, the MLB has no help. It is a system that makes the OLB's just guys, and the MLB a star. Unless the UT or NT is having a bad game, then the MLB is pretty useless too.

At full power it is a totally smothering defense. Running into a wall, and nowhere to go with the ball when throwing. Little cracks though make it fall apart. The pass rush needs the coverage to be effective, both DT's have to dominate to stop the run.

Most other schemes, including the zone blitz 3-4, ask less of the linebackers. While the defense is complex, the individual tasks are not. Instead of mirroring receivers in smothering coverage, the LB's drop back into a zone meant to take away a specific route or route combination. They aren't asked to be DB's. While doing so they are looking at the LOS and QB, making draws and QB sneaks less effective. Or they blitz into particular gaps. While the defense requires that they learn a bigger playbook, on a given play there is less for them to think about as the play unfolds. While there is a lot more for them to remember, the bulk of the thinking occurs before the snap, not after, as was the case with Bates' scheme.

I think our LB's (AJ especially) are going to become playmakers in the system. Their stance will be more aggressive, their blitzing less predictable, and in coverage they will be in a position to intercept, not trying to act like Al Harris and prevent. The prevention will come when the QB doesn't throw the ball because he knows it will be intercepted.

[Packnut]

I'm an advocate of the 3-4, but I'm very skeptical of what I'm hearing out of 1265.

I don't see Kamp as a LB, I see Barnett as strictly a 4-3 chase guy, Hawk is okay, but certainly not a difference maker, and the other spot isn't even manned.

So, switching if fine, but don't expect it to be a seamless change. The 3-4 calls for the playmakers to come from you LB'ing corp... the Packers have exactly zero playmakers at LB right now.

TT, whether he likes it or not, is going to have to cater to need this offseason... which of course, guarantees TT will take a WR with the 9th pick :)

The same problem we had in the 4-3 will still be there in any hybrid 3-4 system which is LACK OF TALENT. Barnett is average to a tad above average. The jury is still out on Hawk, but I don't think ANYONE would be stupid enough to claim there is'nt reason to warrant concern. Poppinga is one of the worst OLB's to ever play the game. He makes ZERO impact plays and more often than not gets washed away by any and all O-lineman. In the rare cases where he did get to the ball-carrier, 99% of the time he tackled high and the guy got away. I'll bet anyone any amount right now, Popp will not be starting in a Capers D.

Really this change means Teddy has to now draft LB's and if we're honest, his track record there leaves much to be desired. Remember Mr Hodge?

This is a bold move that McCarthy and Thompson are taking. Pretty much a "winner take all" roll of the dice-or turn of a card type play. IF it fails, neither man will be here in 2 years. Still, ya gotta respect anyone who is willing to gamble like this.