Jeremy Thompson

[Partial]

Scouting Report from last year:

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/31930279.html

I wonder if they'll have him bulk or since he is so thin, or perhaps slim him down to try to get his speed a little better.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Hunter and Thompson = 3-4 OLB

Senior Bowl report from last year:
http://www.nfl-draft-site.com/2008/01/franks-2008-senior-bowl-report.html


DE Jeremy Thompson. More than likely an OLB on 3-4 defense teams...showed good speed and quickness.

[bobblehead]

Come on, I was first on the Jason Hunter Bandwagon, now you and nutz...damn it, I can't have one role player to myself like Ballhawk had.

Mad, if you read this could you find a Jason Hunter bobblehead for my new avatar :P

[SkinBasket]

Come on, I was first on the Jason Hunter Bandwagon, now you and nutz...damn it, I can't have one role player to myself like Ballhawk had.

Mad, if you read this could you find a Jason Hunter bobblehead for my new avatar :P

If it makes you feel better, I think Hunter will suck ass in the new system just as much as he sucked ass in the old system.

[hoosier]

Come on, I was first on the Jason Hunter Bandwagon, now you and nutz...damn it, I can't have one role player to myself like Ballhawk had.

Mad, if you read this could you find a Jason Hunter bobblehead for my new avatar :P

I don't think they make those--yet. But here's a Torii Hunter bobblehead:

http://losangeles.angels.mlb.com/ana/images/promotions/y2008/180x120_hunter_bobblehead.jpg

Or a drunken Irishman bobblehead (it's supposed to be a hunter but after looking carefully I have my doubts):

https://www.horsetales1.com/plugins/MivaMerchants/graphics/00000001/BHO12-Hunter%20Bobble%20Head.jpg

[Harlan Huckleby]

I'm baffled at the theories I see in the forum. The change in scheme will turn Kampman into a bum, and J. Thompson and J. Hunter are going to be gangbusters.

I get it, there are obviously differences between being an upright rush linebacker and a defensive end. But its still football, and they are generally matched up against the same offensive players. Poppinga was not much better when they put him in a three point stance than he performed as a blitzer.

I don't believe being a DE in a 3-4 is drastically different from the responsibilities of a 4-3 DE. The experts here are greatly exaggerating a small kernel of truth.

[Bossman641]

Come on, I was first on the Jason Hunter Bandwagon, now you and nutz...damn it, I can't have one role player to myself like Ballhawk had.

Mad, if you read this could you find a Jason Hunter bobblehead for my new avatar :P

If it makes you feel better, I think Hunter will suck ass in the new system just as much as he sucked ass in the old system.

I agree with the Basket

[Zool]

I'm baffled at the theories I see in the forum. The change in scheme will turn Kampman into a bum, and J. Thompson and J. Hunter are going to be gangbusters.

I get it, there are obviously differences between being an upright rush linebacker and a defensive end. But its still football, and they are generally matched up against the same offensive players. Poppinga was not much better when they put him in a three point stance than he performed as a blitzer.

I don't believe being a DE in a 3-4 is drastically different from the responsibilities of a 4-3 DE. The experts here are greatly exaggerating a small kernel of truth.

Really? What did Corey Williams play when he got to Cleveland? And what did he play in GB?

[Harlan Huckleby]

you got me there, Zool. Corey Williams played both DT and DE in GB. Not sure where he played in Cleveland.

Better tie this all together for me, you lost me with the part about the 4-3 and global warming.

[Waldo]

Actually a 3-4 DE is much more similar to a UT in a 3-4 than a 4-3 DE. 3-4 OLB's are the equivalent of 4-3 DE's.

With some differences. Clogger UT's (Cole, Jolly) don't make the best 3-4 DE's (slow). Penetrator UT's fare better (Jenkins, Williams). Big strong 4-3 DE's that are better run defenders (Jenkins, Montgomery) make poor 3-4 OLBs (too slow). Faster pass rushers (Kamp, KGB, Thompson) make better 3-4 OLB's.

Kamp, Thompson, and Hunter are prototypical 3-4 OLB's, Poppinga could do it but is small. Jenkins is a prototypical 3-4 DE.

Hunter is not good. He is fast in straight line speed, but isn't explosive, and just isn't a very good defender. He isn't a very instinctual football player and doesn't have a natural ability to get past OT's. He is a serviceable backup and good ST player.

Thompson is somewhat explosive and a fine athlete. He isn't very instinctive either, but has more potential than Hunter. Hunter doesn't have the really long arms and "bend" that Thompson has. Thompson has a fair amount of coverage experience.

Kamp is somewhat explosive and an accomplished pass rusher. He has outstanding technique. He is not a natural pass rusher though, but is very strong, and a fine athlete.

We don't have a WOLB. Thompson and Kamp could play it, but both are better suited on the strong side as SOLB's over the TE. Physically Thompson is closer to a WOLB than Kamp, and will probably play that side, unless he somehow gets good enough to push Kamp to the bench on the strong side (doubtful). Kamp could dominate at 3-4 SOLB, as he will face single blocking from a TE much moreso than he did as a DE. KGB was a prototypical WOLB.

Sanders/Bates scheme as we ran it occasionally was not that dissimilar from a 3-4. A line of Kamp-Pickett-Jenkins-KGB.....shift the interior line a half gap toward KGB (Pickett heads up on the C, Jenkins in the B gap between the G and tackle), then swap Poppinga for Williams and put him in the B gap between Kamp and Pickett, and we have a 3-4. Kamp would have to drop into coverage occasionally on passing downs (zone not man, unlike Sanders the SS or ILB covers the TE, not the SOLB), as would KGB, but that group are all prototype 3-4 players, and probably a fairly elite bunch.

[Zool]

Williams rarely if ever played DE in GB. He was signed by Cleveland specifically to be a 3-4 end. 3-4 ends are generally larger dudes.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Williams rarely if ever played DE in GB. He was signed by Cleveland specifically to be a 3-4 end. 3-4 ends are generally larger dudes.

I see. And ya, I know the DE's have more run responsibility it 3-4. But usually the first down DE in 4-3 has some heft, the smaller DE's are rotated in on passing downs.

The differences are not great.

Williams played more DE in GB than you remember.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Kamp, Thompson, and Hunter are prototypical 3-4 OLB's .

Kamp is excellent against the run. HE is fine as a 3-4 DE. (perhaps you don't disagree.)

I get that the DE has to hold contain in 3-4, but it is not drastically different from the starting DE responsibilities in 4-4.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Thompson is somewhat explosive and a fine athlete. He isn't very instinctive either, but has more potential than Hunter. Hunter doesn't have the really long arms and "bend" that Thompson has. Thompson has a fair amount of coverage experience.


I agree with you here. Thompson looks much more hopeful than Hunter.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Hunter is not good. He is fast in straight line speed, but isn't explosive, and just isn't a very good defender. He isn't a very instinctual football player and doesn't have a natural ability to get past OT's. He is a serviceable backup and good ST player.

Thompson is somewhat explosive and a fine athlete. He isn't very instinctive either, but has more potential than Hunter. Hunter doesn't have the really long arms and "bend" that Thompson has. Thompson has a fair amount of coverage experience.

I'm not ready to say this. Hunter was raw when he came to the Packers. I've seen improvement from him every year in the little time that he has played. He was a prototypical 3-4 OLB when he came into the league, and making him bulk up to play 4-3 DE was probably a stretch. Some can do it (KGB). Some don't. I think Hunter has a great deal of potential as a 3-4 OLB. Will he become a good one? I don't know, but you don't find many guys that are 6'4" 270 that run a 4.55 40 very often. Thompson is pretty fast, but 4.75 might not translate as well at 3-4 OLB.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I'm not ready to say this. Hunter was raw when he came to the Packers. I've seen improvement from him every year in the little time that he has played. He was a prototypical 3-4 OLB when he came into the league, and making him bulk up to play 4-3 DE was probably a stretch. Some can do it (KGB). Some don't. I think Hunter has a great deal of potential as a 3-4 OLB. Will he become a good one? I don't know, but you don't find many guys that are 6'4" 270 that run a 4.55 40 very often. Thompson is pretty fast, but 4.75 might not translate as well at 3-4 OLB.

Last summer you chastised me for criticizing Hunter as a DE. You offered Justin Tuck as his prototype. EDIT: wait a sec, you were saying that Hunter could be effective inside as a rush DT. :oops:

Face it Harvey, you have a man-crush on Hunter, and you are standing by your man.

[Patler]

Williams rarely if ever played DE in GB. He was signed by Cleveland specifically to be a 3-4 end. 3-4 ends are generally larger dudes.

Williams played a fair amount at DE his rookie year, backing up both KGB and Kampman. He was listed on the Packer roster as a "DT/DE" until his third season. When the talk was about replacing KGB as a starter in mid-2006, I thought it might be Williams rather than Jenkins who would do it because of his prior experience at DE with the Packers.

[Waldo]

Hunter is not good. He is fast in straight line speed, but isn't explosive, and just isn't a very good defender. He isn't a very instinctual football player and doesn't have a natural ability to get past OT's. He is a serviceable backup and good ST player.

Thompson is somewhat explosive and a fine athlete. He isn't very instinctive either, but has more potential than Hunter. Hunter doesn't have the really long arms and "bend" that Thompson has. Thompson has a fair amount of coverage experience.

I'm not ready to say this. Hunter was raw when he came to the Packers. I've seen improvement from him every year in the little time that he has played. He was a prototypical 3-4 OLB when he came into the league, and making him bulk up to play 4-3 DE was probably a stretch. Some can do it (KGB). Some don't. I think Hunter has a great deal of potential as a 3-4 OLB. Will he become a good one? I don't know, but you don't find many guys that are 6'4" 270 that run a 4.55 40 very often. Thompson is pretty fast, but 4.75 might not translate as well at 3-4 OLB.

3-4 OLB's are lineman mostly. They don't run 40's. Thompson has very good 10 yd splits and had a decent vertical jump (explosion), and outstanding side to side agility. And was a very good defender in college. Hunter ran a 4.55 when he was 250. He was noticeably slower in '08. Hunter may have been a protypical 3-4 OLB size-wise, but there is a reason every 3-4 team in the NFL passed on him 7 times. He wasn't this great secret that only GB knew about.

There is a good reason that Thompson was a projected 2nd-3rd round pick, and Hunter was a projected late round/UDFA, and that TT thought that Thompson was such a steal at the top of the 4th that he traded up for him for the first time in his career.

[Patler]

Thompson is somewhat explosive and a fine athlete. He isn't very instinctive either, but has more potential than Hunter. Hunter doesn't have the really long arms and "bend" that Thompson has. Thompson has a fair amount of coverage experience.

I agree with you here. Thompson looks much more hopeful than Hunter.

Probably a decisive training camp for Hunter this year. Things will either click for him and he will contribute more than just special teams, or he will be gone. He was an interesting prospect with very little experience. He played just one year in high school and sat out one year at Appalachian State. He showed enough natural talent I think for the Packers to invest a few seasons in developing him. Could remain as a special teams specialist I suppose, depending on how many decent special teamers they really have. There should be a lot who will contribute from scrimmage as well, making for less reason to keep a guy like Hunter unless he can be part of the rotation on defense.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Last summer you chastised me for criticizing Hunter as a DE. You offered Justin Tuck as his prototype. EDIT: wait a sec, you were saying that Hunter could be effective inside as a rush DT. :oops:

Face it Harvey, you have a man-crush on Hunter, and you are standing by your man.

I've been intrigued by Hunter's potential, but would you like to show me where I said he'd be similar to Justin Tuck? I also I didn't chastise you for criticizing "Hunter as a DE." We argued whether he could even play the DT position. I pointed out that Justin Tuck is a similar size and played DT for the Giants. You tried to come back with some weak argument that he wasn't a DT for the Giants. I think Hunter's still raw, but I think he's shown growth. When you draw up what you want a 3-4 OLB to look like, you'd draw up Hunter. I'm not even predicting he becomes a starter, but it wouldn't shock me if he ended up surprising some people. Hopefully, the new coaches will get the best out of him. I won't write him off until I see how he makes the transition.

http://packerrats.com/ratchat/viewtopic.php?t=13959&highlight=jason+hunter

[HarveyWallbangers]

Hunter may have been a protypical 3-4 OLB size-wise, but there is a reason every 3-4 team in the NFL passed on him 7 times. He wasn't this great secret that only GB knew about.

I don't buy this argument. KGB was similar to Hunter when he came out. Both were raw. How many teams passed on KGB? There's worse than a 50-50 shot that Thompson becomes a decent starter. There's worse than a 50-50 shot that Hunter becomes a decent starter. I'm not predicting either will become that. I just think both have a shot at fitting in this scheme. It wouldn't surprise me if one became a starter.

[rbaloha1]

Thompson is a good athlete who played tentative and was hurt. Flashed ability.

IMO a good olb candidate.

[Lurker64]

Hunter may have been a protypical 3-4 OLB size-wise, but there is a reason every 3-4 team in the NFL passed on him 7 times. He wasn't this great secret that only GB knew about.

There are, however, a variety of reasons that teams pass on players in the draft. A lot of the time it's just "there is better value at that pick for us" repeated over and over again, but guys fall due to a combination of "we think you have limited upside" and "we think you need a lot of work." Some guys who will need quite a bit of work, but have considerable upside if that all goes well, fall quite low in the draft. It's not insane to think that Hunter might be able to capitalize on his physical ability in this system. He probably wasn't a great secret, but we probably weren't the only team that said "Kid has upside, but needs work, we'll see if he's still there late."

It's also far from insane that Hunter will show considerable improvement when he's asked to play in a position that's more natural for his personal physical ability.

But yeah, it's a reach to pencil him in as a starter. It's just important to observe that we have a bunch of guys to try at rush OLB, and we just don't have very many 3-4 DEs at all.

[HarveyWallbangers]

But yeah, it's a reach to pencil him in as a starter. It's just important to observe that we have a bunch of guys to try at rush OLB, and we just don't have very many 3-4 DEs at all.

Agreed. I also don't know what we have at 3-4 ILB. I'd like to think Hawk could do it. Poppinga and Chillar seem better on the outside. I have no idea on Barnett. We also need another 3-4 NT. I agree with you though: I see 3-4 DE as our most obvious need. Jenkins fits. Kampman may fit there or 3-4 OLB. We don't really have anybody else that we can count on.

[Patler]

This is going to make training camp and preseason games much more interesting than usual. It also means the "starters" might play a bit more on defense in each game than they do in normal years.

The most physical linebacker that played last year was Desmond Bishop. Could this be a system that he fits well at one of the two ILB spots? Time will tell. I'm not on his bandwagon yet, but there will be 7 spots up for "assignment" in the new alignment. Who will fit where is going to be interesting.

[Waldo]

Bishop overpursues (like all college MLB's). He's a guy that will make plays in the backfield and be physical at the line, but if the RB bounces outside and heads for the corner, Bishop won't be stopping him. Barnett is the only LB on the team that is any good at preventing the back from turning the corner on the strong side (Hawk can on the weak side, but his initial reaction is too slow for the strong side, he has WLB instincts).

[rbaloha1]

[quote="Patler"

The most physical linebacker that played last year was Desmond Bishop. Could this be a system that he fits well at one of the two ILB spots? Time will tell. I'm not on his bandwagon yet, but there will be 7 spots up for "assignment" in the new alignment. Who will fit where is going to be interesting.[/quote]

Bishop has a chance to be a very good ilb. Physical with big play ability. Hawk may also benefit from the scheme as ilb.

[Patler]

Bishop overpursues (like all college MLB's). He's a guy that will make plays in the backfield and be physical at the line, but if the RB bounces outside and heads for the corner, Bishop won't be stopping him. Barnett is the only LB on the team that is any good at preventing the back from turning the corner on the strong side (Hawk can on the weak side, but his initial reaction is too slow for the strong side, he has WLB instincts).

I don't think we have seen enough of Bishop to know for sure. Hesitancy comes from unfamiliarity as much as from physical shortcomings. Bishop looked much different this season than last. If he can make similar strides in recognition this year he could enter into the mix. I know, I know, he absolutely froze a couple times this year and gave up big plays because of it, but everyone makes mistakes! :lol:

[Partial]

Hunter is not good. He is fast in straight line speed, but isn't explosive, and just isn't a very good defender. He isn't a very instinctual football player and doesn't have a natural ability to get past OT's. He is a serviceable backup and good ST player.

Thompson is somewhat explosive and a fine athlete. He isn't very instinctive either, but has more potential than Hunter. Hunter doesn't have the really long arms and "bend" that Thompson has. Thompson has a fair amount of coverage experience.

I'm not ready to say this. Hunter was raw when he came to the Packers. I've seen improvement from him every year in the little time that he has played. He was a prototypical 3-4 OLB when he came into the league, and making him bulk up to play 4-3 DE was probably a stretch. Some can do it (KGB). Some don't. I think Hunter has a great deal of potential as a 3-4 OLB. Will he become a good one? I don't know, but you don't find many guys that are 6'4" 270 that run a 4.55 40 very often. Thompson is pretty fast, but 4.75 might not translate as well at 3-4 OLB.

Not only that, but to argue a guy that size running a 40 that fast isn't explosive is crazy. What does he jog the first ten yards and then kick it into high gear? Guy is flying for 40 yards any way you slice it.

[Waldo]

Two examples - Jordy Nelson and James Jones

(40, 20, 10, vert)

Jordy: 4.49, 2.64, 1.57, 31"
Jones: 4.54, 2.65, 1.54, 34"

James is more explosive and quicker off the line, and can cut and accelerate faster, but has a slow top gear. Jordy has a much higher top gear but is a little slow off the line and in and out of breaks.

Jones would be a better (more explosive) pass rusher than Jordy all other things being equal, yet Jordy ran the faster 40. This effect is big time magnified for lineman.

[wist43]

I don't see Thompson, Mongomery, Hunter, or Kampman at LB... none of 'em.

I've been wanting to switch to a 3-4, but with what I'm hearing out of the front office, I'm looking at it like a case of "be careful what you wish for".

The Packers have exactly zero 3-4 LB's... maybe Poppinga, Hawk could be pedestrian in a 3-4. None of the other DL/LB fit. Next year could be a mess, unless TT stands up and admits he doesn't have the right personnel... and even if he does, the transition will take at least a couple 2-3 years.

They're starting with nothing.

[Gunakor]

I'm baffled at the theories I see in the forum. The change in scheme will turn Kampman into a bum, and J. Thompson and J. Hunter are going to be gangbusters.

I get it, there are obviously differences between being an upright rush linebacker and a defensive end. But its still football, and they are generally matched up against the same offensive players. Poppinga was not much better when they put him in a three point stance than he performed as a blitzer.

I don't believe being a DE in a 3-4 is drastically different from the responsibilities of a 4-3 DE. The experts here are greatly exaggerating a small kernel of truth.

3-4 DE's are not pass rushers. They are more like 4-3 DT's meant to clog holes and eat blocks than 4-3 DE's meant to pressure the QB. This isn't to say that Kampy couldn't do it, but it's a different job than a 4-3 DE. I think Kampy would be a better OLB in a 3-4 than a DE, yet I still have my doubts about him as a linebacker. He's the one I worry about the most in this transition, but I'm sure a guy like Dom Capers will find a way to use him effectively.

[Fritz]

I don't see Thompson, Mongomery, Hunter, or Kampman at LB... none of 'em.

I've been wanting to switch to a 3-4, but with what I'm hearing out of the front office, I'm looking at it like a case of "be careful what you wish for".

The Packers have exactly zero 3-4 LB's... maybe Poppinga, Hawk could be pedestrian in a 3-4. None of the other DL/LB fit. Next year could be a mess, unless TT stands up and admits he doesn't have the right personnel... and even if he does, the transition will take at least a couple 2-3 years.

They're starting with nothing.

Wist, maybe you could use a picture of Eeyore as your avatar! You got what you wanted....but you'renot happy.

[Lurker64]

Wist-

You can't hang the "we don't have the personnel for the 3-4" thing on Thompson. Which coaches get hired, and which schemes are implemented are the decisions of the coaches, not the general manager. If we switch to the 3-4, it's because McCarthy and Capers wanted to and they thought we had the personnel in place to do so. If we don't, it's because McCarthy and Capers are wrong and they're hanging the responsibility to correct their mistake on Thompson.

But, like Capers said in the press conference yesterday, this team is not run by abject morons. They're not going to run any particular variant of the 3-4 that is inappropriate to the personnel, and what the personnel can do will, to a large extent, dictate what they run.

That being said, however, it's not as though there's one true kind of 3-4 linebacker. Some variants of the 3-4 scheme have different responsibilities for the LBs than others, just like how some variants of the 4-3 scheme have different demands for their LBs. You wouldn't want to take an average tampa 2 MLB and move him to the Bates system where the MLB is the key part of the defense.

[wist43]

Wist-

You can't hang the "we don't have the personnel for the 3-4" thing on Thompson. Which coaches get hired, and which schemes are implemented are the decisions of the coaches, not the general manager. If we switch to the 3-4, it's because McCarthy and Capers wanted to and they thought we had the personnel in place to do so. If we don't, it's because McCarthy and Capers are wrong and they're hanging the responsibility to correct their mistake on Thompson.

But, like Capers said in the press conference yesterday, this team is not run by abject morons. They're not going to run any particular variant of the 3-4 that is inappropriate to the personnel, and what the personnel can do will, to a large extent, dictate what they run.

That being said, however, it's not as though there's one true kind of 3-4 linebacker. Some variants of the 3-4 scheme have different responsibilities for the LBs than others, just like how some variants of the 4-3 scheme have different demands for their LBs. You wouldn't want to take an average tampa 2 MLB and move him to the Bates system where the MLB is the key part of the defense.

What concerns me is I hear a lot of rhetoric to the effect that they are going to take their mediocre 4-3 personnel, and mistcast them in a 3-4.

Unless TT acknowledges that he doesn't have the players needed to run a 3-4, then they are doomed in the short term. Even best case scenario I think they're going to have a lot of problems in the short term.

If that is the case, and there is a lot of pressure to produce, and there will be... I can easily see the "hybrid" 4-3/3-4 very quickly morphing right back into a 4-3 b/c that is what the personnel is best suited to.

With their current personnel, I can't see them effectively running a 3-4, they simply don't have the talent at LB. This is a huge off season for TT, and I'm skeptical that he will sell out to outfit the defense with 3-4 personnel.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

With their current personnel, I can't see them effectively running a 3-4, they simply don't have the talent at LB. This is a huge off season for TT, and I'm skeptical that he will sell out to outfit the defense with 3-4 personnel.

This also concerns me the most and is the reason I want an overhaul on the front seven. Am still concerned about Barnett and the OLB positions. Am ok with Hawk inside and Kampman outside, but what to see a couple more dominate linebackers to make the system work the best it can. This looks like a good year to get free agent help. I also hope TT doesn't just think that our personal completely fits the 3-4.

[mraynrand]

You wouldn't want to take an average tampa 2 MLB and move him to the Bates system where the MLB is the key part of the defense.

Could you expand on this? How do the roles of the MLB differ exactly between the Bates defense and the Tampa 2?

[Zool]

You wouldn't want to take an average tampa 2 MLB and move him to the Bates system where the MLB is the key part of the defense.

Could you expand on this? How do the roles of the MLB differ exactly between the Bates defense and the Tampa 2?

I might be wrong on this so let me know, but in a 2 deep zone I think the MLB has more coverage responsibility than the Bates scheme.

The Bates MLB is a read and react position. Running plays the OLB's funnel the RB's back to the middle towards the MLB. On passing downs the MLB reads the QB and has RB responsibility in the flats.

In the Tampa 2 the OLB's are the stars. In the Bates scheme its the MLB who is the star.

[Lurker64]

What concerns me is I hear a lot of rhetoric to the effect that they are going to take their mediocre 4-3 personnel, and mistcast them in a 3-4.

Unless TT acknowledges that he doesn't have the players needed to run a 3-4, then they are doomed in the short term. Even best case scenario I think they're going to have a lot of problems in the short term.

If that is the case, and there is a lot of pressure to produce, and there will be... I can easily see the "hybrid" 4-3/3-4 very quickly morphing right back into a 4-3 b/c that is what the personnel is best suited to.

With their current personnel, I can't see them effectively running a 3-4, they simply don't have the talent at LB. This is a huge off season for TT, and I'm skeptical that he will sell out to outfit the defense with 3-4 personnel.

I think what's concerning you is that you assume that they're going to be running a variant of the 3-4 for which their personnel are miscast, when there exist variants of the 3-4 for which their personnel are not miscast.

There are basically two versions of the 3-4 defense:
1) The Fairbanks-Bullough 3-4 system.
2) The Phillips 3-4 system.

In the Fairbanks-Bullough 3-4 defense (so named for Chuck Fairbanks and Hank Bullough), each of the defensive linemen is responsible for the two gaps on each side of the man in front of them. This defense requires your DL to be especially stout, capable of holding the point in order to allow the linebackers to make plays. This defense is the most flexible version of the 3-4, but also the most conservative as it tends to emphasize discipline and physicality over mobility and playmaking. As such, it tends towards large ILBs who are exceptionally physical, and smart quick OLBs, in addition to requiring some outstanding defensive linemen. This is essentially the 3-4 equivalent of the "bend but don't break defense". The Patriots, Browns, and Jets use this system.

In the Phillips 3-4 defense (so named for Bum Phillips). In the Phillips 3-4, the defensive linemen are responsible for only one gap in the offensive line (just like most 4-3 linemen are). The defensive linemen for the Phillips 3-4 need to be more agile, and aggressive than the Fairbanks-Bullough 3-4, since the defense gives more support by the LBs at the line of scrimmage. This defense requires more aggressive, athletic, and mobile players inside to provide a variety of slants, gap charges, and loops designed to get directly to the QB or other ballcarrier. This defense requires smart, quick, attacking ILBs unlike the physicality and discipline the Fairbanks-Bullough needs. By contrast, the Phillips 3-4 requires somewhat stouter OLBs than the alternative. In modern times, the Phillips 3-4 has basically enveloped the 3-4 Zone Blitz that Dick LeBeau created, and tends to be the more aggressive, attacking 3-4 defense (which will both force more plays, and give up more plays). This is the 3-4 defense that teams like Dallas, and San Diego run, and Pittsburgh runs a similar version more directly evolved from the LeBeau Zone Blitz "Blitzburgh" 3-4.

So I think it would be fair to say that the Packers have woefully inadequate personnel for the Fairbanks-Bullough system (though none of the three teams running it, did particularly well on defense in 2008), but we're not many players (but a lot of reps) away from having the personnel to run a Phillips or LeBeau 3-4 defense. Basically, we need some DL helps, and we basically already have the LBs, but we knew that going into the offseason (when we didn't expect the 3-4.)

So we can't play New England's version of the 3-4, but with a few draft picks and a few Free Agents, we can probably run Dallas's or Pittsburgh's. (Baltimore and San Francisco, notable among 3-4 teams not mentioned, run a hybrid 3-4/4-3).

[swede]

The experts here are greatly exaggerating a small kernel of truth.

Leave Al Gore out of this.

[Waldo]

One thing about San Fran's defense that was noted was after the firing of Nolan (while intrigued by the 3-4, I did NOT want him) the defense drastically improved. Nolan was running a hybrid thing also using a lot of big nickel (3 S's, 2 CB's), and calling a widely varied huge playbook. When Singletary took over, he greatly simplified it and stuck to a basic one gap 3-4 and varied the LB blitzing. SF went from having one of the worst defenses in the league to one of the best overnight with the simple change of playcaller.

One thing about the Lebeau zone blitz 3-4, Capers developed a lot of the early concepts with Mora. When he took over as DC in Pittsburgh, the full zone blitz 3-4 was developed by the team of Cowher (HC), Capers (DC), and Lebeau (Secondary Coach). Lebeau however has continued its evolution over the last decade since Capers left. While Lebeau widely gets the credit for it nowadays, Mora, Capers, and Cowher also played pivotal roles in its development.

[Waldo]

The way I see it, a 1 gap 3-4 is quite similar to a 4-3. The main personnel differences being that the SLB and DE are essentially the same type of player, a combination of both, a pass rusher that dabbles in in-space linebacker play and is more stout against the run than the average 4-3 SLB. Other than that, though the presnap alignement is different, once the line executes the slant into the gap it looks exactly like a 4-3 with the SLB lined up over the TE.

Basically a 4-3 that doesn't declare the direction of alignment of its line until after the snap.

[vince]

Waldo and Lurker,

I presume you guys see Pickett at NT, Jenkins at DE, and Kampy at SOLB... Given current personnel, who do you see stepping in at the WOLB and other DE spots?

[Waldo]

With current personnel only I would suspect Jolly or Harrell mans the other DE position, Kampman is the WOLB, and Pops or Thompson is the SOLB. Kamp at SOLB and Thompson at WOLB would not surprise me either, though right now Kamp is our best rusher thus best suited to WOLB.

IMO we are going to try to snag a WOLB in the top 2 rounds of the draft (or Suggs), putting Kamp at SOLB (even though he's a DE, though limited he does have more pro coverage experience and field/play awareness than a rookie would), and will try to target one of the DE's available in FA to start over Jolly. There are two FA 3-4 DE's coming up, both are expected to hit FA, and most 3-4 teams have little money or aren't big shoppers. I think us and Denver, plus maybe a handful of 4-3 teams will primarily be competing for Canty and Olshanky, we've got a good shot of landing one if TT wants to, a good add if we want at least 1 person in our starting front 7 to have experience playing in a 3-4, a valuable resource for teammates and coaches.

[rbaloha1]

The gap assignments are essentially the same.

Its the responsibilities that differ greatly. For example des and the ngs are required to drop back into coverage sometimes during zone blitzes.

Again, the current personnel imo does not fit the zone blitzing 3-4 scheme. Requiring some of the current personnel to drop back into coverage is scary.

However the draft and free agency are filled with players fitting Caper's scheme.

The 64 million dollar question is how quickly will the current players mesh with the newcomers to create a dominant 3-4 zone blitz scheme.

[Waldo]

No personnel ever does until brought onboard with a zone blitz 3-4 team. There is no such thing as a zone blitz 3-4 OLB at the college level, the few teams that do run 3-4's zone don't run pro style zone blitz systems. Almost every 3-4 OLB was at one time a DE. Almost every 3-4 DE was at one time a 4-3 UT. Almost every NT was at one time a 1-tech 4-3 DT. Thompson and Kampman actually have more LB experience than most 3-4 OLB's did when they began OLB training. These guys aren't asked to be CB's. They drop back to a point and watch the QB, taking away specific routes that the QB would throw in reaction to the blitz and are there to make an open field tackles if the QB goes to the back in the flats. When guys turn it upfield and run deeper routes, the S's and ILB's do the covering.

When was the last time you read a scouting report on a DT/DE what said he was good in coverage; having fluid hips and good ball skills and hands. :lol: Jeremy Thompson is one of the only DE scouting reports that I've ever read that said the player had a good amount of coverage experience.

Just because we haven't asked guys to drop into shallow zones.....doesn't mean that they can't. Kamp actually dropped into coverage quite a bit in preseason and in the first quarter of the season.

[mraynrand]

Waldo,

Have you watched Pittsburgh much? It seems like they shift all the time along the Dline prior to the snap. What is up with that? Is it all show(just trying to confuse the O-line's decision on who to block) and/or are they shifting to pick different gaps or ???

[Joemailman]

When the Packers drafted Thompson, they mentioned that they felt his pass rush skills were underrated because he was often asked to drop into coverage. If anyone on the defense is going to come out of nowhere to excel next season, it's probably him. We'll have to see if Kampman can drop effectively, but I'll just say he's had a great career by proving wrong people who said he lacked the athletic ability to be an outstanding player.

I wonder more about Al Harris. He'll be asked to play more zone, and his problems playing zone are well documented. It will be interesting to see what Capers comes up with.

[Waldo]

They shift to create confusion and because they can. By moving the lineman they are distracting the OL, QB, and RB from seeing other shifts and movements that would give away their blitz. Sanders occasionally shifted guys, but he did it well before the snap (and generally with the backups) in the initial stance, for some reason he didn't coach the guys to make the shift once in their stance with the offense at the line, nor the linebackers to menace the line and taunt blitzes. Vanilla Bob just had no concept of defensive aggression and the positive effect (for the defense) it has on the offense.

[Waldo]

When the Packers drafted Thompson, they mentioned that they felt his pass rush skills were underrated because he was often asked to drop into coverage. If anyone on the defense is going to come out of nowhere to excel next season, it's probably him. We'll have to see if Kampman can drop effectively, but I'll just say he's had a great career by proving wrong people who said he lacked the athletic ability to be an outstanding player.

I wonder more about Al Harris. He'll be asked to play more zone, and his problems playing zone are well documented. It will be interesting to see what Capers comes up with.

Having a set it and forget it CB to dedicate to the opponents top WR is never a bad thing. There is no reason to play him in zone if he take take away one of the opponents top weapons.

[rbaloha1]

Just because we haven't asked guys to drop into shallow zones.....doesn't mean that they can't. Kamp actually dropped into coverage quite a bit in preseason and in the first quarter of the season.

Kampy dropped back a few times and looked stiff. Kampy is powerful and explosive moving forward. Moving sideways is not a strength.

Yes, we have not asked players to drop back into coverage but it doesn't mean they can. Its better to draft or bring in free agents that proven they can.

Yes the majority of IA teams run 4-3 schemes with zone blitzes and 3-4 properties.

For example Pete Carroll (USC) (Read Senior Bowl blog comments about his lbs and ability to play the 3-4), Nick Saban (Alabama), Greg Mackmakin (Hawaii, Previously defense coordinator for the Seattle Seahawks and National Champions U of Miami. Coached Ray Lewis).

It makes no sense to switch to a 3-4 unless one zone blitzes. The zone blitz is critical for the success of a 3-4

[Lurker64]

It makes no sense to switch to a 3-4 unless one zone blitzes. The zone blitz is critical for the success of a 3-4

I think this sentence indicates that either you fail to really understand either "the thesis of the 3-4 defense" or "the zone blitz".

The thesis of the 3-4 defense is that it allows you a lot of flexibility in terms of pre-snap motion and alignment. You can send pressure from a lot of different looks and formations, thereby (hopefully) confusing the QB. It gives you excellent flexibility and access to a number of dynamic attacks, at the expense of "vulnerability to the rush" (in theory). There's also an economic reason for the 3-4; since it's not the dominant defense in the league, 3-4 personnel are somewhat cheaper in terms of money and draft picks. But really, you run the 3-4 because you intend to confuse the opposing OL in terms of their blocking assignments and confuse the opposing QB in terms of what's coming and what's going to be there.

The zone blitz is just one of the techniques that you use to generate confusion and pressure, it's not the be-all and end-all, it's just a tool in your arsenal. It has the advantage of mucking up blocking schemes because OL expect to be blocking DL, and it doesn't decrease the number of people in coverage. The disadvantage though, is that it requires defensive linemen to have to cover, and all of then, to a man, are bad at it. In theory, this isn't a problem, since if the blitzers are effective at creating the desired pressure, all the covering DL really has to do is "be a wrong colored jersey in the vicinity of the receiver" and the QB (who is going through his progression in a hurry) will snap to a different receiver, hopefully running out of time. An effective zone blitz executed by the DL doesn't usually require the lineman to cover more than about 5 yards downfield, which shouldn't be a problem.

Also, the zone blitz is not synonymous with the 3-4. Many 4-3 teams do it, particularly the Spagnulo defense in New York, and the Johnson defense in Philadelphia. Yes, Michael Strahan looked silly and unnatural dropping into coverage in the superbowl last year, but Michael Strahan generally looks silly and Tom Brady ended up on his back anyway. I've seen the Vikings run a zone blitz with Fat Pat lumbering back into coverage. "My linemen can't cover" is never a reason that teams elect not to zone blitz, because inherently "having a DL who's no good in coverage just standing there" is going to result in better coverage than "having nobody standing there" with a conventional blitz.

What do you do if you're a 3-4 team that can't zone blitz? You blitz in a different way. It only makes sense to use a defensive technique, set, or strategy insofar as it actually works. It does, however, make no sense to adapt to the 3-4 if you can't blitz at all, but a lot of blitzing is technique, and can be taught. Still, I don't see us zone blitzing much, not because our DL can't cover (none of them can) but because our CBs are much, much better at man coverage than they are at zone. Zone blitzing is inherently more conservative than blitzing, and having corners that you can leave on an island means you don't have to be as conservative.