Hawk and Barnett to switch positions

[SMACKTALKIE]

http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playernews.aspx?sport=NFL

AJ Hawk will play the Mike linebacker in the Packers 3-4 defense, with Nick Barnett taking over the Will spot.

It's a reverse of the past three years, with Hawk concentrating on playing the run and blitzing while shedding coverage duties. Coach Mike McCarthy believes the scheme will help Hawk, and it should certainly increase his tackle numbers.


Interesting move, I thought Hawk looked horrible last season at Mike.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Hawk looked bad last year at WLB and MLB. He was good his first two years. He was injured last year. I'm guessing he rebounds.

[pittstang5]

I think alot of postions, specifically the line and LBs, with this new defense are speculation at this point. Ole Dom is gonna put his best players on the field, once it's determined who's good at what and where they should line up on the field. At this point, I could give a packer's rat a$$ where these guys are, as long as the defense is better than last year.

[Waldo]

They use a weird naming convention, probably the Dallas naming.

I've heard:
Sam-Jack-Mike-Will (SF)
Sam-Ted-Mike-Will (NE)
Sam-Buck-Mike-Will (Pit)
Sam-Mike-Will-Elephant (Dal)

Same positions, different naming convention.

Using the Dallas naming convention, 3-4 Mike is a combination of 4-3 Sam and Mike, 3-4 Will is a combination of 4-3 Mike and Will, by assignment.

Using the Dallas naming convention, the Mike backer is the most aggressive position on the field.

Under Sanders' defense, the Will was the least aggressive position of the front 7, with only the FS being less aggressive.

[rbaloha1]

Interesting move. IMO both guys are better runaround players than run stuffers.

Bishop may better equipped to fill the run stuffer position.

Article again reiterates Hawk's lack of creating turnovers in 08.

[wist43]

As some have pointed out, the Packers are thread bare in terms of being able to put competent 3-4 personnel on the field.... neither Hawk, nor Barnett belong in a 3-4.

Barnett has the football instincts of a kid playing Pop Warner; and, Hawk is okay at most things, but overall JAG... 6'1, 240lbs LB's grow on trees, so even though he is a competent NFL player, he certainly wasnt worth the #5 pick.

They were pretty bad on defense last year, and Dom Capers is an actual NFL calibur coach... so it is likely they will be better next year, but they just dont have the players to be a legitimate contender.

[Guiness]

They use a weird naming convention, probably the Dallas naming.

I've heard:
Sam-Jack-Mike-Will (SF)
Sam-Ted-Mike-Will (NE)
Sam-Buck-Mike-Will (Pit)
Sam-Mike-Will-Elephant (Dal)

Same positions, different naming convention.

Using the Dallas naming convention, 3-4 Mike is a combination of 4-3 Sam and Mike, 3-4 Will is a combination of 4-3 Mike and Will, by assignment.

Using the Dallas naming convention, the Mike backer is the most aggressive position on the field.

Under Sanders' defense, the Will was the least aggressive position of the front 7, with only the FS being less aggressive.

I was thinking roughly the same thing Waldo - what does Will mean in this system? The blurb is confusing...they said Barnett will move to the Will inside spot. But they also say it was Hawk's old spot...which 1)was an outside spot 2) doesn't exist in this system.

[PackerPro42]

If they hold those positions, TT just eliminated the need to draft Brown or Orakpo in the first because our OLB spots would be filled.

[Waldo]

If they hold those positions, TT just eliminated the need to draft Brown or Orakpo in the first because our OLB spots would be filled.

The OLB spots are sam and elephant.

Kamp has sam on lockdown

Pops, Hunter, Thompson, Pettway, and Chillar are currently vying for elephant, which is what Ware and Merriman play.

[PackerPro42]

If they hold those positions, TT just eliminated the need to draft Brown or Orakpo in the first because our OLB spots would be filled.

The OLB spots are sam and elephant.

Kamp has sam on lockdown

Pops, Hunter, Thompson, Pettway, and Chillar are currently vying for elephant, which is what Ware and Merriman play.

Is that what formation we're running?

[HarveyWallbangers]

Pops, Hunter, Thompson, Pettway, and Chillar are currently vying for elephant, which is what Ware and Merriman play.

And it's certainly not a sure thing that one of these guys will step up. They may target at least one "elephant" in FA or the draft. Also, we have nice LB depth, but a lot of the 3-4 teams have up to 10 LBs on their roster. It's such a vital position in the 3-4 defense. I wouldn't be surprised if we load up on more LBs--although it's nice to have some candidates on the roster already. Makes it less of a need to fill. I feel pretty good that one of these guys will step up. Our biggest needs are DE and NT.

[ND72]

Mike & Will in a 3-4, are both MLB positions...

[mission]

If they hold those positions, TT just eliminated the need to draft Brown or Orakpo in the first because our OLB spots would be filled.

The OLB spots are sam and elephant.

Kamp has sam on lockdown

Pops, Hunter, Thompson, Pettway, and Chillar are currently vying for elephant, which is what Ware and Merriman play.

Looks like most of those guys are gonna be out of a job.

[Lurker64]

Who do we have on the roster for the ILB spots? Hawk, Barnett, Bishop, Lansanah?

3-4 teams usually keep 4 ILBs, don't they?

[Fritz]

Elephant? Shouldn't that be a position manned by guys like Grady Jackson?

[texaspackerbacker]

Who do we have on the roster for the ILB spots? Hawk, Barnett, Bishop, Lansanah?

3-4 teams usually keep 4 ILBs, don't they?

Now this is more like it--ILB and OLB.

You play a "mike" and a "will" inside, and that just means one guy gets a little more gap-filling action and the other guy is a little more free to rove. But the bottom line is both do both. Both are like 4-3 MLBs--sideline to sideline, just working in tandem. You NEED two decent MLB types to be the most effective in the 3-4. We've got two more than decent ones.

Similarly, on the outside, both guys do both. You need a rotation; We've got Kampman, who should be a solid every down OLB; We've got Popinga and Chillar who should be better on run downs and Thompson and Hunter who seem like they could break out as excellent pass rushers.

I say we have damn good 3-4 LB personnel.

[Rastak]

Hawk looked bad last year at WLB and MLB. He was good his first two years. He was injured last year. I'm guessing he rebounds.


I agree it was likely due to injury. If the dude had a torn groin, who made the decision to play the guy? He's the guy I'd be pissed at. Sanders? McCarthy? The medical staff?

[mission]

Hawk looked bad last year at WLB and MLB. He was good his first two years. He was injured last year. I'm guessing he rebounds.


I agree it was likely due to injury. If the dude had a torn groin, who made the decision to play the guy? He's the guy I'd be pissed at. Sanders? McCarthy? The medical staff?

Judging by what I know of Hawk, he was probably the guy who made the decision.

[Lurker64]

I agree it was likely due to injury. If the dude had a torn groin, who made the decision to play the guy? He's the guy I'd be pissed at. Sanders? McCarthy? The medical staff?

Well, putting aside the fact that A.J. is an intense guy who would probably try to get the coach to let him play after getting both of his arms ripped off, promising that he'll just tackle with his head... I would have to say that there's definitely a case to be made for: if we gauge effectiveness on a 1-10 scale, and you have a healthy guy who would be about a 3 and an injured guy who, despite his injury, would be about a 5, you start the guy who's hurt if you're trying to win games.

I mean, Barnett with his hand in the cast wasn't as effective as he was without it, but he was still more effective than Hodge.

My guess is that Hawk was playing at Mike, despite his injury, just because the defensive staff just wasn't comfortable with Chillar, Bishop, or Lansanah there full time. Even with a hurt groin that slows him significantly, Hawk has better decisiveness than Chillar, better awareness than Bishop, and more experience than Lansanah.

[Lurker64]

You play a "mike" and a "will" inside, and that just means one guy gets a little more gap-filling action and the other guy is a little more free to rove. But the bottom line is both do both. Both are like 4-3 MLBs--sideline to sideline, just working in tandem. You NEED two decent MLB types to be the most effective in the 3-4. We've got two more than decent ones.

I'm also not sure that, since the 3-4 scheme capitalizes a lot on the offense's inability to predict what the defense is going to do on any play, that if the ILB spots are essentially "gap thumper" and "rover" that Hawk will always be one and Barnett will always be the other. Certainly it helps the defense confuse offensive blocking schemes if the offense doesn't know at the snap which role which guy is going to have.

I think that both Barnett and Hawk can play both ILB roles in this defense, which is the reason of all positions to be concerned about for the 3-4 switch, ILB is probably the least worrying. The only thing I'm concerned about is whether Barnett's knee can heal fully for him to be able to pick up the scheme and be 100% on Week 1.

[mission]

"gap thumper"

That sounds like a PERFECT role for AJ ... I'm excited to see how it plays off this year. Barnett seems like a good fit for a "rove" type position also...

[SnakeLH2006]

Interesting move. IMO both guys are better runaround players than run stuffers.

Bishop may better equipped to fill the run stuffer position.

Article again reiterates Hawk's lack of creating turnovers in 08.

Yes and yes. Hopefully Bishop gets a shot at one of the two ILB spots as I think he has a shot to do something good. Hawk was injured and hope a scheme change can ignite something positive, turning him from a guy, to a guy who makes some big plays. This could work out well.

[wist43]

You play a "mike" and a "will" inside, and that just means one guy gets a little more gap-filling action and the other guy is a little more free to rove. But the bottom line is both do both. Both are like 4-3 MLBs--sideline to sideline, just working in tandem. You NEED two decent MLB types to be the most effective in the 3-4. We've got two more than decent ones.

I'm also not sure that, since the 3-4 scheme capitalizes a lot on the offense's inability to predict what the defense is going to do on any play, that if the ILB spots are essentially "gap thumper" and "rover" that Hawk will always be one and Barnett will always be the other. Certainly it helps the defense confuse offensive blocking schemes if the offense doesn't know at the snap which role which guy is going to have.

I think that both Barnett and Hawk can play both ILB roles in this defense, which is the reason of all positions to be concerned about for the 3-4 switch, ILB is probably the least worrying. The only thing I'm concerned about is whether Barnett's knee can heal fully for him to be able to pick up the scheme and be 100% on Week 1.

Hawk can play on the inside, but I certainly wouldn't draft him as the #5 player in the draft to be a 2 down LB in a 3-4; can't see Barnett functioning at all in a 3-4.

The silver lining to the Packers tepid attempt at transitioning to a 3-4, is that they are talking "hybrid"... e.g. after it is shown that they can't play a 3-4 with the personnel they currently have, they'll probably be almost exclusively back to a 4-3 by the 4th game :lol:

[Pugger]

Elephant? Shouldn't that be a position manned by guys like Grady Jackson?

:lol: :lol:

[Guiness]

Hawk can play on the inside, but I certainly wouldn't draft him as the #5 player in the draft to be a 2 down LB in a 3-4; can't see Barnett functioning at all in a 3-4.


I was wondering about something similar - what does a nickel D look like in the 3-4? Do they generally go with a 3-3-5 alignment? What backer gets dropped, one of the ILB's?

[Waldo]

Hawk can play on the inside, but I certainly wouldn't draft him as the #5 player in the draft to be a 2 down LB in a 3-4; can't see Barnett functioning at all in a 3-4.


I was wondering about something similar - what does a nickel D look like in the 3-4? Do they generally go with a 3-3-5 alignment? What backer gets dropped, one of the ILB's?

They usually go to a 2-4-5 alignment that is essentially the same thing as a 4-2-5 alignment (especially since the OLB's put their hand in the dirt a good % of the time). Remember the OLB's are pretty much 4-3 pass rush DE's. Pickett comes off in nickel.

[Lurker64]

Hawk can play on the inside, but I certainly wouldn't draft him as the #5 player in the draft to be a 2 down LB in a 3-4; can't see Barnett functioning at all in a 3-4.

Umm... all four LBs stay on the field in the nickel for the 3-4, it's the nose tackle that comes off (since it's not a running down.) Also, what makes you think Barnett can't function inside (other than that characteristic pessimism we've come to love you for)? He's no smaller, less instinctive, less aggressive, or less physical than who Pittsburgh has playing inside. Not only that, but he's going to be playing a position very much like the position he's currently playing.

[texaspackerbacker]

Hawk can play on the inside, but I certainly wouldn't draft him as the #5 player in the draft to be a 2 down LB in a 3-4; can't see Barnett functioning at all in a 3-4.


I was wondering about something similar - what does a nickel D look like in the 3-4? Do they generally go with a 3-3-5 alignment? What backer gets dropped, one of the ILB's?

Pittsburgh went with a lot of 2-4-5. Here too, you've got a lot of flexibility, and the Packers have excellent personnel to play it a lot of different ways--contrary to the chronic negativity you read from some posters.

[Guiness]

I was wondering about something similar - what does a nickel D look like in the 3-4? Do they generally go with a 3-3-5 alignment? What backer gets dropped, one of the ILB's?

They usually go to a 2-4-5 alignment that is essentially the same thing as a 4-2-5 alignment (especially since the OLB's put their hand in the dirt a good % of the time). Remember the OLB's are pretty much 4-3 pass rush DE's. Pickett comes off in nickel.

Ok, I get the idea; NT comes off in favor of another DB, but one (or both) the OLB's can move up to the line and play a sort of DE position, coming out of a 3pt stance. Obviously Kampman would be particularly suited for that.

The guys who are normally at the DE positions would effectively end up in a DT alignment, which is fine because Jenkins and Jolly have both played DT - and Jenkins in particular has a good inside rush.

I wonder if another, non-nickel, variation might result from this sort of an idea. Ever heard of the Oklahoma defense, a '5-4'? A nose, and two tackles on the line, and two ends (hybrid guys, our OLB's) on or just off the line.

[wist43]

True enough fella's... of course there should be 4 LB's on the field in most 3-4 nickel packages, I guess I'm just used to viewing the Packers LB's as so completely useless, that I instinctively replace them every chance I get. :lol:

As of now, they don't have the players to play a 3-4... everybody is extrapolating this player here, and that player there; but in every instance you have to go into a dream state to see those guys excelling in the new scheme.

These guys were scouted and drafted to play in that passive POS 4-3 scheme run by Bates and Sanders, and none of them were really worth a damn in that scheme. Simply put, the Packers have very little talent in the front 7, and what talent there is, is 4-3 talent.

Barring a massive infusion of talent in the front 7, I think the Packers will revert back to what they do (best) below average, and that is play a 4-3 most of the time... if the choice is disaster with miscast personnel trying to play a 3-4; or, below average results but not getting gashed every snap... expect a lot more 4-3, than 3-4.

Of course, if TT actually acknowledges reality, and swings for the fences in the draft and in FA at 3-4 personnel, maybe the outlook improves... but, I wouldn't hold my breath on betting that TT will do much to bring in a lot of personnel suited to the 3-4.

Just not feeling warm and fuzzy about how TT is going about this... the indecisive DC search, in which it was rumored that the Packers got stiffed armed, TT's statements about moving players and thinking they'll be fine in new roles, his penchant for ignoring needs at the top end of the draft...

Which would suprise you more??? If TT -

1) traded up and drafted Raji

or

2) traded down and took an offensive player

Of course we can all easily envision scenario #2... scenario #1 is a pipe dream.

Then again, Hawk and Barnett are both stud pass rushers, so no worries :D

[SnakeLH2006]

EDIT: ---messed up the quotes..sorry, lol-- my post follows this one.

[SnakeLH2006]

True enough fella's... of course there should be 4 LB's on the field in most 3-4 nickel packages, I guess I'm just used to viewing the Packers LB's as so completely useless, that I instinctively replace them every chance I get. :lol:

As of now, they don't have the players to play a 3-4... everybody is extrapolating this player here, and that player there; but in every instance you have to go into a dream state to see those guys excelling in the new scheme.

These guys were scouted and drafted to play in that passive POS 4-3 scheme run by Bates and Sanders, and none of them were really worth a damn in that scheme. Simply put, the Packers have very little talent in the front 7, and what talent there is, is 4-3 talent.

Barring a massive infusion of talent in the front 7, I think the Packers will revert back to what they do (best) below average, and that is play a 4-3 most of the time... if the choice is disaster with miscast personnel trying to play a 3-4; or, below average results but not getting gashed every snap... expect a lot more 4-3, than 3-4.

Of course, if TT actually acknowledges reality, and swings for the fences in the draft and in FA at 3-4 personnel, maybe the outlook improves... but, I wouldn't hold my breath on betting that TT will do much to bring in a lot of personnel suited to the 3-4.

Just not feeling warm and fuzzy about how TT is going about this... the indecisive DC search, in which it was rumored that the Packers got stiffed armed, TT's statements about moving players and thinking they'll be fine in new roles, his penchant for ignoring needs at the top end of the draft...

Which would suprise you more??? If TT -

1) traded up and drafted Raji

or

2) traded down and took an offensive player

Of course we can all easily envision scenario #2... scenario #1 is a pipe dream.

Then again, Hawk and Barnett are both stud pass rushers, so no worries :D

I dunno man. I'm a big Barnett fan after the past 2 years, and a tepid wannabe fan of Hawk. But....Snake loved Hawk in college as he really looked the part pressuring the QB when asked and think he might excel in a pass-rush role. As far as Barnett, I doubt he's asked to blitz much, but may do well as he does make plays at times, and esp. with Kampy at OLB, I'm willing to state I 100% believe, barring injury, Kampy gets at least 10 sacks at OLB/hybrid DE this year. He's just to good. We'll be fine bro. We just need another stud (whether it be FA or Draft) in the front 7.

[wist43]

True enough fella's... of course there should be 4 LB's on the field in most 3-4 nickel packages, I guess I'm just used to viewing the Packers LB's as so completely useless, that I instinctively replace them every chance I get. :lol:

As of now, they don't have the players to play a 3-4... everybody is extrapolating this player here, and that player there; but in every instance you have to go into a dream state to see those guys excelling in the new scheme.

These guys were scouted and drafted to play in that passive POS 4-3 scheme run by Bates and Sanders, and none of them were really worth a damn in that scheme. Simply put, the Packers have very little talent in the front 7, and what talent there is, is 4-3 talent.

Barring a massive infusion of talent in the front 7, I think the Packers will revert back to what they do (best) below average, and that is play a 4-3 most of the time... if the choice is disaster with miscast personnel trying to play a 3-4; or, below average results but not getting gashed every snap... expect a lot more 4-3, than 3-4.

Of course, if TT actually acknowledges reality, and swings for the fences in the draft and in FA at 3-4 personnel, maybe the outlook improves... but, I wouldn't hold my breath on betting that TT will do much to bring in a lot of personnel suited to the 3-4.

Just not feeling warm and fuzzy about how TT is going about this... the indecisive DC search, in which it was rumored that the Packers got stiffed armed, TT's statements about moving players and thinking they'll be fine in new roles, his penchant for ignoring needs at the top end of the draft...

Which would suprise you more??? If TT -

1) traded up and drafted Raji

or

2) traded down and took an offensive player

Of course we can all easily envision scenario #2... scenario #1 is a pipe dream.

Then again, Hawk and Barnett are both stud pass rushers, so no worries :D

I dunno man. I'm a big Barnett fan after the past 2 years, and a tepid wannabe fan of Hawk. But....Snake loved Hawk in college as he really looked the part pressuring the QB when asked and think he might excel in a pass-rush role. As far as Barnett, I doubt he's asked to blitz much, but may do well as he does make plays at times, and esp. with Kampy at OLB, I'm willing to state I 100% believe, barring injury, Kampy gets at least 10 sacks at OLB/hybrid DE this year. He's just to good. We'll be fine bro. We just need another stud (whether it be FA or Draft) in the front 7.

I was being facetious :)

My goal is to play championship calibur defense... can't say what TT and MM's goals are. They're to the point now where keeping their jobs has to be in the back of their minds; hence, the hiring of Capers, and the implementation of a hybrid.

If they were going to make a full blown committment to a 3-4, i.e. tear down what they have, and start from scratch... that is a massive rebuilding job... TT and MM don't have enough time to see that process thru, they would be fired before it came to fruition; hence, they hire Capers, and hedge their bets on a "hybrid"... which, as I've stated, I believe will morph right back into the POS 4-3 they ran last year.

They may be hedging their bets b/c their backs are against the wall... but in the end they are setting themselves up for more mediocrity.

[KYPack]

Everyone, including the media seems to think of Capers is a 3-4 coach. Capers has had eight Top 10 NFL defenses, including the #1 defense in the league with Coughlin in Jacksonville which was a 4-3.

Dom believes in stopping the run, bringing pressure and taking his guys and putting 'em in position to make plays. He'll put in some 4-3, some 3-4, hell he may even run some of that 1-6-4 that Bellichik runs in Boston. Don will get his guys playing intense defense and installing schemes that excentuate his guys strengths.

He won't run the same scheme over and over and try and shoe-horn his players into it.

Like our previous commander did during his tenure

[BZnDallas]

True enough fella's... of course there should be 4 LB's on the field in most 3-4 nickel packages, I guess I'm just used to viewing the Packers LB's as so completely useless, that I instinctively replace them every chance I get. :lol:

As of now, they don't have the players to play a 3-4... everybody is extrapolating this player here, and that player there; but in every instance you have to go into a dream state to see those guys excelling in the new scheme.

These guys were scouted and drafted to play in that passive POS 4-3 scheme run by Bates and Sanders, and none of them were really worth a damn in that scheme. Simply put, the Packers have very little talent in the front 7, and what talent there is, is 4-3 talent.

Barring a massive infusion of talent in the front 7, I think the Packers will revert back to what they do (best) below average, and that is play a 4-3 most of the time... if the choice is disaster with miscast personnel trying to play a 3-4; or, below average results but not getting gashed every snap... expect a lot more 4-3, than 3-4.

Of course, if TT actually acknowledges reality, and swings for the fences in the draft and in FA at 3-4 personnel, maybe the outlook improves... but, I wouldn't hold my breath on betting that TT will do much to bring in a lot of personnel suited to the 3-4.

Just not feeling warm and fuzzy about how TT is going about this... the indecisive DC search, in which it was rumored that the Packers got stiffed armed, TT's statements about moving players and thinking they'll be fine in new roles, his penchant for ignoring needs at the top end of the draft...

Which would suprise you more??? If TT -

1) traded up and drafted Raji

or

2) traded down and took an offensive player

Of course we can all easily envision scenario #2... scenario #1 is a pipe dream.

Then again, Hawk and Barnett are both stud pass rushers, so no worries :D

I dunno man. I'm a big Barnett fan after the past 2 years, and a tepid wannabe fan of Hawk. But....Snake loved Hawk in college as he really looked the part pressuring the QB when asked and think he might excel in a pass-rush role. As far as Barnett, I doubt he's asked to blitz much, but may do well as he does make plays at times, and esp. with Kampy at OLB, I'm willing to state I 100% believe, barring injury, Kampy gets at least 10 sacks at OLB/hybrid DE this year. He's just to good. We'll be fine bro. We just need another stud (whether it be FA or Draft) in the front 7.

I was being facetious :)

My goal is to play championship calibur defense... can't say what TT and MM's goals are. They're to the point now where keeping their jobs has to be in the back of their minds; hence, the hiring of Capers, and the implementation of a hybrid.

If they were going to make a full blown committment to a 3-4, i.e. tear down what they have, and start from scratch... that is a massive rebuilding job... TT and MM don't have enough time to see that process thru, they would be fired before it came to fruition; hence, they hire Capers, and hedge their bets on a "hybrid"... which, as I've stated, I believe will morph right back into the POS 4-3 they ran last year.

They may be hedging their bets b/c their backs are against the wall... but in the end they are setting themselves up for more mediocrity.


can you explain to me how you think Dom Capers is going to run the same scheme as Vanilla Bob??? not all 4-3 schemes are the same... (even if they had to revert back to the 4-3, which you proclaim every chance you get) Dom Capers defensives have been known to be more aggresive...

how about something new wist... i normally like the input you have for the packers even though i don't always agree... but the doom and gloom is getting old... just my opinion, no offense (lol, or in some cases no defense, haha)

[Packnut]

Don't know what defense some were watching last season, but for those of us like wist who prefer to live in REALITY, our LB's totally SUCKED. I have no clue how anyone can deny the stats. We could'nt stop the run PERIOD. That is not "opinion" but fact.

The injury excuse for Hawk is nothing more than wishful thinking. He says he was'nt injured the last half of the season. I would think he would know that better than ANYONE else. The track record of LB's out of Ohio St speaks for itself. This guy in 3 seasons has not played like a #5 pick. In fact, Diggs was a better LB when he was here than Hawk has been so far.

Our LB's are slow and un-athletic. It's the reason they suck in coverage. It's the reason they can't stop the run. I understand watching a play keeps our eyes glued to the ball, but if you pay attention to the replay and concentrate on where our LB's are when the play ends, you'd see most of the time they are'nt even in a position to make the play.

Our LB's are terrible at shedding blocks. How many times do you have to see Hawk or Popp getting washed out of the play by an offensive lineman to realize this? The ONLY way these guys are gonna make ANY impact is if we have a Haynsworth type NT. Pickett is that type- IF he's only on the field for half of the plays. That leaves us one NT short.

Now we have seen highly touted rookie D lineman come in and struggle so even if Teddy pulls off a miracle and drafts for need, the draft gives little if any help this season. The reality is that the odds are stacked against us having any kind of a championship caliber defense for at least a few years.

If we win,it will be the offense who carries us. May-be Rodgers takes the next step and learns how to win. May-be MM finally gets his head out of his ass and realizes musical chairs on the O-line is a recipe for futility. At least when it comes to the offense, a small amount of green and gold kool-aid can stimulate how good this offense can be, but when it comes to our D, the only way to get excited is spiking that kool-aid with lot's and lot's of booze.......
:lol:

[HarveyWallbangers]

Our LB's are slow and un-athletic.

Funny.

[sharpe1027]

As of now, they don't have the players to play a 3-4... everybody is extrapolating this player here, and that player there; but in every instance you have to go into a dream state to see those guys excelling in the new scheme.


Nice dig at everyone's contribution to this discussion. Ass.



These guys were scouted and drafted to play in that passive POS 4-3 scheme run by Bates and Sanders, and none of them were really worth a damn in that scheme. Simply put, the Packers have very little talent in the front 7, and what talent there is, is 4-3 talent.


3-4 talent vs. 4-3 talent is not baseball talent vs. soccer talent.



Barring a massive infusion of talent in the front 7, I think the Packers will revert back to what they do (best) below average, and that is play a 4-3 most of the time... if the choice is disaster with miscast personnel trying to play a 3-4; or, below average results but not getting gashed every snap... expect a lot more 4-3, than 3-4.


Meh, they will use what works best. I don't really care which they run "more".



Of course, if TT actually acknowledges my personally constructed and always end of the world reality, and swings for the fences in the draft and in FA at 3-4 personnel, maybe the outlook improves... but, I wouldn't hold my breath on betting that TT will do much to bring in a lot of personnel suited to the 3-4.


Fixed.



Just not feeling warm and fuzzy about how TT is going about this... the indecisive DC search, in which it was rumored that the Packers got stiffed armed, TT's statements about moving players and thinking they'll be fine in new roles, his penchant for ignoring needs at the top end of the draft...


Ignoring needs? You mean ignoring the media and fan's perception of needs? Then sure. Otherwise, it seems every high pick ended up being a need, although some haven't panned out.




Which would suprise you more??? If TT -

1) traded up and drafted Raji

or

2) traded down and took an offensive player

Of course we can all easily envision scenario #2... scenario #1 is a pipe dream.

Then again, Hawk and Barnett are both stud pass rushers, so no worries :D

How many times has he traded down in the first round? How many trades occur each year in the first round? Not very realistic to expect our GM to do hardly any other GM does.

[wist43]

Okay guys... I succumb to your polyanna ways, and now see the Packers defenders for the vaunted and feared group that they are :)

I've been negative on the Packers these past years b/c, quite simply, they are not doing the things necessary to win championships. For me, it's that simple.

Were our players all world beaters... Sanders would still have a job, and we'd be talking about another Lombardi trophy adorning our trophy case...

But,

contrary to most of you guys who sip way too much Kool-Aid... I looked at the product on the field last year - and it sucked.

Point blank guys... the defense sucked last year; and with the exception of that aberrational year two years ago when every player on the defensive side of the ball stayed healthy, AND had a career year, they have in general sucked on defense for years...

It may be upsetting for you Kool-Aid drinkers to hear the truth... but there it is...

You guys are trying to put lipstick on a pig... I want the pig to be pretty too... just not seein it :D

[wist43]

True enough fella's... of course there should be 4 LB's on the field in most 3-4 nickel packages, I guess I'm just used to viewing the Packers LB's as so completely useless, that I instinctively replace them every chance I get. :lol:

As of now, they don't have the players to play a 3-4... everybody is extrapolating this player here, and that player there; but in every instance you have to go into a dream state to see those guys excelling in the new scheme.

These guys were scouted and drafted to play in that passive POS 4-3 scheme run by Bates and Sanders, and none of them were really worth a damn in that scheme. Simply put, the Packers have very little talent in the front 7, and what talent there is, is 4-3 talent.

Barring a massive infusion of talent in the front 7, I think the Packers will revert back to what they do (best) below average, and that is play a 4-3 most of the time... if the choice is disaster with miscast personnel trying to play a 3-4; or, below average results but not getting gashed every snap... expect a lot more 4-3, than 3-4.

Of course, if TT actually acknowledges reality, and swings for the fences in the draft and in FA at 3-4 personnel, maybe the outlook improves... but, I wouldn't hold my breath on betting that TT will do much to bring in a lot of personnel suited to the 3-4.

Just not feeling warm and fuzzy about how TT is going about this... the indecisive DC search, in which it was rumored that the Packers got stiffed armed, TT's statements about moving players and thinking they'll be fine in new roles, his penchant for ignoring needs at the top end of the draft...

Which would suprise you more??? If TT -

1) traded up and drafted Raji

or

2) traded down and took an offensive player

Of course we can all easily envision scenario #2... scenario #1 is a pipe dream.

Then again, Hawk and Barnett are both stud pass rushers, so no worries :D

I dunno man. I'm a big Barnett fan after the past 2 years, and a tepid wannabe fan of Hawk. But....Snake loved Hawk in college as he really looked the part pressuring the QB when asked and think he might excel in a pass-rush role. As far as Barnett, I doubt he's asked to blitz much, but may do well as he does make plays at times, and esp. with Kampy at OLB, I'm willing to state I 100% believe, barring injury, Kampy gets at least 10 sacks at OLB/hybrid DE this year. He's just to good. We'll be fine bro. We just need another stud (whether it be FA or Draft) in the front 7.

I was being facetious :)

My goal is to play championship calibur defense... can't say what TT and MM's goals are. They're to the point now where keeping their jobs has to be in the back of their minds; hence, the hiring of Capers, and the implementation of a hybrid.

If they were going to make a full blown committment to a 3-4, i.e. tear down what they have, and start from scratch... that is a massive rebuilding job... TT and MM don't have enough time to see that process thru, they would be fired before it came to fruition; hence, they hire Capers, and hedge their bets on a "hybrid"... which, as I've stated, I believe will morph right back into the POS 4-3 they ran last year.

They may be hedging their bets b/c their backs are against the wall... but in the end they are setting themselves up for more mediocrity.


can you explain to me how you think Dom Capers is going to run the same scheme as Vanilla Bob??? not all 4-3 schemes are the same... (even if they had to revert back to the 4-3, which you proclaim every chance you get) Dom Capers defensives have been known to be more aggresive...

how about something new wist... i normally like the input you have for the packers even though i don't always agree... but the doom and gloom is getting old... just my opinion, no offense (lol, or in some cases no defense, haha)

I don't think they will run the same scheme as Sanders, but I do think they will, by necessity, have to run more 4-3 than 3-4... and that 4-3 will likely have to be fairly passive.

They are completely lacking in blitzers from the LB position, if they can't generate pressure with their LB's from a 3-4, and history has shown the LB'ers they currently have couldn't generate pressure out of any alignment... they by necessity will have to play more 4-3, and they will probably be unwilling to blitz much out of it simply b/c they don't have the personnel to get home, i.e. they don't have the talent...

Sound familiar??? :D


Sanders sucked and deserved to be fired, but that doesn't mean the Packers disaster of a defense is entirely his fault... TT hasn't given the defensive side of the ball much talent to work with.

[Guiness]

Everyone, including the media seems to think of Capers is a 3-4 coach. Capers has had eight Top 10 NFL defenses, including the #1 defense in the league with Coughlin in Jacksonville which was a 4-3.

Dom believes in stopping the run, bringing pressure and taking his guys and putting 'em in position to make plays. He'll put in some 4-3, some 3-4, hell he may even run some of that 1-6-4 that Bellichik runs in Boston. Don will get his guys playing intense defense and installing schemes that excentuate his guys strengths.

He won't run the same scheme over and over and try and shoe-horn his players into it.

Like our previous commander did during his tenure

1-6-4, eh? I really need to watch more NE games. Whether on not Bellichik is an ass, he does more things that make me gasp than any other coach. Ever see him trot out the 0-4-7 quarter package?

[Joemailman]

Capers is a solid coordinator who will improve this defense. How much remains to be seen. I would question just how good the defense has to be for the Packers to be a top NFC contender. Arizona made it to the Super Bowl this year with the league's #28 defense. Giants made it to the Super Bowl and won it the year before with the league's #17 defense. The Packers lost 7 games this year in which they led in the 4th quarter. If they had just gone 4-3 in those games (not an outlandish expectation), they would have been in the playoffs. Who knows what might have happened? If Capers can get Hawk and Barnett beck to playing at their 2007 levels (Again, not an outlandish expectation), this defense should be very respectable. Which, given the talent the Packers have on offense, might be good enough.

[sharpe1027]

Okay guys... I succumb to your polyanna ways, and now see the Packers defenders for the vaunted and feared group that they are :)

I've been negative on the Packers these past years b/c, quite simply, they are not doing the things necessary to win championships. For me, it's that simple.

Were our players all world beaters... Sanders would still have a job, and we'd be talking about another Lombardi trophy adorning our trophy case...

But,

contrary to most of you guys who sip way to much Kool-Aid... I looked at the product on the field last year - and it sucked.

Point blank guys... the defense sucked last year; and with the exception of that aberrational year two years ago when every player on the defensive side of the ball stayed healthy, AND and a career year, they have in general sucked on defense for years...

It may be upsetting for you Kool-Aid drinkers to hear the truth... but there it is...

You guys are trying to put lipstick on a pig... I want the pig to be pretty too... just not seein it :D

I think I understand where you are coming from. To be fair, I don't recall anyone saying that the Packers were vaunted and feared or that they were all world beaters.

The disagreement was whether or not the LBs were "completely useless",and whether it was even conceivable (not a "dreamstate") that some of the players might excel in the 3-4, and whether the 3-4 will be a "disaster". All of those are from your words, just so that you understand why I reacted the way I did.

[texaspackerbacker]

The world according to wist:

"Were our players all world beaters... Sanders would still have a job, and we'd be talking about another Lombardi trophy adorning our trophy case...

But,

contrary to most of you guys who sip way to much Kool-Aid... I looked at the product on the field last year - and it sucked."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can actually agree with you on this--to some extent.

The thing is--and the reason I opposed getting rid of Sanders--is that the piss poor defensive product on the field in '08 was a result of the bad luck of INJURIES. The decent quality defense we saw in '07 is the more accurate barometer of the Packer talent level.

That being said, I'm getting psyched up to see better performance even than in '07 from a Capers-run defense. While Sanders wasn't near as bad as the detractors claim, Capers likely is a lot smarter and more creative.

Not only that, but the pleasant side effect of all those injuries on defense last season is that some quality players emerged, giving the Packers excellent depth this season--even from the 3-4 perspective.

[Fritz]

I just realized this....Tex's optimism is inversely proportional to Wist's pessimism.

They're the opposite sides of the same coin.

cool.

[cpk1994]

I just realized this....Tex's optimism is inversely proportional to Wist's pessimism.

They're the opposite sides of the same coin.

cool.So if Wist is talking out his ass, what is Tex talking out of?

[Guiness]

I just realized this....Tex's optimism is inversely proportional to Wist's pessimism.

They're the opposite sides of the same coin.

cool.So if Wist is talking out his ass, what is Tex talking out of?

Your ass?

[cpk1994]

I just realized this....Tex's optimism is inversely proportional to Wist's pessimism.

They're the opposite sides of the same coin.

cool.So if Wist is talking out his ass, what is Tex talking out of?

Your ass?I hope not. I'm the only one that should be talking out my ass. :)

[wist43]

I just realized this....Tex's optimism is inversely proportional to Wist's pessimism.

They're the opposite sides of the same coin.

cool.So if Wist is talking out his ass, what is Tex talking out of?

Your ass?I hope not. I'm the only one that should be talking out my ass. :)

Thank you for allowing me to talk out of my own ass... very cathartic :D

[Zool]

I just realized this....Tex's optimism is inversely proportional to Wist's pessimism.

They're the opposite sides of the same coin.

cool.So if Wist is talking out his ass, what is Tex talking out of?

Your ass?I hope not. I'm the only one that should be talking out my ass. :)

Thank you for allowing me to talk out of my own ass... very cathartic :D

All I can hear is a tuba playing.

[KYPack]

Everyone, including the media seems to think of Capers is a 3-4 coach. Capers has had eight Top 10 NFL defenses, including the #1 defense in the league with Coughlin in Jacksonville which was a 4-3.

Dom believes in stopping the run, bringing pressure and taking his guys and putting 'em in position to make plays. He'll put in some 4-3, some 3-4, hell he may even run some of that 1-6-4 that Bellichik runs in Boston. Don will get his guys playing intense defense and installing schemes that excentuate his guys strengths.

He won't run the same scheme over and over and try and shoe-horn his players into it.

Like our previous commander did during his tenure

1-6-4, eh? I really need to watch more NE games. Whether on not Bellichik is an ass, he does more things that make me gasp than any other coach. Ever see him trot out the 0-4-7 quarter package?

Bill B runs all kinds of exotic stuff, mainly to give the offense looks they haven't seen befroe. Rex Ryan does the same thing. Both coaches like guys like Adalis Thomas, Zabel and other tweeners that can put their hand down one play and cover deep the next.

When NE runs that 1-6-4 (I know he runs that deal with 4 backers - 7 dbacks, too) they also do a "mingle" at the line, pre-snap. Joe Montana himself couldn't get much of pre-snap read on that mess.

Wist, I don't think we had horrible personnel in D. A lot of the fault was our sheme. That base D didn't lend itself to any surprise at all. The backers were too deep to blitz and the line was usually in the same technique all the time.

Coach Capers will take our guys and put 'em in different looks to take advantage of their skills. And it will help us, I'm sure.

It can't be as bad as Sanders' base scheme, that stuff was killing us.

[wist43]

I just realized this....Tex's optimism is inversely proportional to Wist's pessimism.

They're the opposite sides of the same coin.

cool.

2nd law of Wistexdynamics :D

[texaspackerbacker]

I just realized this....Tex's optimism is inversely proportional to Wist's pessimism.

They're the opposite sides of the same coin.

cool.So if Wist is talking out his ass, what is Tex talking out of?

I'll reserve the right to talk out of anybody's ass I please. :lol:

I say again, it's all about the luck of injuries--or lack of them. That's not optimism; That's realism.

Just the same, things should be better with Capers and the 3-4.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

My goal is to play championship calibur defense... can't say what TT and MM's goals are.

Ty's goal is for championship caliber spelling...can't say what Wist43's goals are.

[wist43]

My goal is to play championship calibur defense... can't say what TT and MM's goals are.

Ty's goal is for championship caliber spelling...can't say what Wist43's goals are.

It's best to take small steps Ty... coming back from the brink of crack hell like you have... you have our full support my crack addicted friend.

When you went to visit those kids in school??? Pure inspiration... we're behind your rehab 100% Ty, keep up the good work :lol:

[Tyrone Bigguns]

My goal is to play championship calibur defense... can't say what TT and MM's goals are.

Ty's goal is for championship caliber spelling...can't say what Wist43's goals are.

It's best to take small steps Ty... coming back from the brink of crack hell like you have... you have our full support my crack addicted friend.

When you went to visit those kids in school??? Pure inspiration... we're behind your rehab 100% Ty, keep up the good work :lol:

The only rehab ty attends.

http://www.vagablond.com/images/rehab.jpeg

[SnakeLH2006]

The only rehab ty attends.

http://www.vagablond.com/images/rehab.jpeg

If that's the path where crack addiction leads, why the hell are we misleading these young kids in school to those untrue downfalls?

Snake thinks Ty should substitute teach. :shock:

http://indi.ca/images/lanka/tyrone_biggums_crack.jpg