Packers' weakness: Transition to 3-4

[retailguy]

Packers' weakness: Transition to 3-4

May 19, 2009 12:00 PM

Posted by Scouts Inc.'s Matt Williamson


It drives me crazy when teams make a drastic switch in scheme because that is what the cool kids are doing.

In this case, the cool kids are Baltimore, Pittsburgh, New England and other successful 3-4 teams. Of course, I understand many teams are now led by men who come from flourishing teams that ran the 3-4, but that doesn't make it the right decision. I can see -- to some degree -- why Denver would make this switch, as its defense hasn't been successful in recent memory and the defensive players on its roster were inadequate for either an odd or even front.

Kansas City bothers me because its most valuable front seven players -- Tamba Hali, Glenn Dorsey and Derrick Johnson -- all are far better fits for a traditional 4-3 than the 3-4. Doing that to Dorsey is especially sinister. However, it wasn't like Kansas City was a powerhouse on that side of the ball either.

But the Green Bay switch really gets under my skin. Two years ago, the Packers had an upper-tier defense while running the 4-3. The strength of that team was a very deep, talented and versatile defensive line. The Packers rotated big men in, stayed fresh up front and put an awful lot of pressure on opposing offenses for four quarters. Last year, the defensive front was hit hard by injuries, Kabeer Gbaja-Biamila was released and Corey Williams was dealt to the Browns before the season. Why not just bring in one or two more 4-3 linemen and stick with what worked?

Turning Aaron Kampman, Green Bay's best front-seven player, into an outside linebacker is criminal. He was one of the better defensive ends in the league, and those guys don't grow on trees. Surely Kampman will not do it often, but dropping him into coverage with any regularity is a mistake. Although Cullen Jenkins, another very talented defensive lineman, is versatile enough to play end or tackle in the 4-3, he is a penetrator and asking him to hold the point as a 3-4 end could be a waste of what he does best.

I am also not fond of A.J. Hawk, a prototypical 4-3 weakside linebacker, and Nick Barnett, a very successful run-and-hit middle linebacker in the old scheme, being the starting two inside guys in the new 3-4. Neither player is equipped to take on massive guards at the point of attack. I expect to see these two getting swallowed up far too often.

I must admit that I expected the Packers' front seven to be even more ill-equipped to make this change at this point of the year than they are right now. I was shocked that B.J. Raji fell to Green Bay in the first round, and I feel Clay Matthews Jr. should fit the scheme well. Matthews is more linebacker than defensive end, while Kampman is the exact opposite. Those two could complement each other at outside linebacker rather well.

That being said, rookies rarely adapt quickly to the 3-4, and although Matthews did play some of the scheme last year at USC, neither player has extensive experience running it.

It should be noted that Dom Capers will be the one coordinating the change. Capers knows what will make the transformation more palatable.

I still contend that the Packers would have been better off sticking with the 4-3 and still drafting Raji. Without making the change, Green Bay would not have had to uncharacteristically jump back into the first round to fill a position of need, and could have used the resources that it took to get Matthews to add to other areas of the team, such as offensive tackle or another 4-3 defensive end. Expect some growing pains on defense.

Scouts Inc. watches games, breaks down film and studies football from all angles for ESPN.com.

[retailguy]

Interesting analysis. Counter to many other opinions. What say you?

[privatepacker]

I think the problem last year was that Green Bay was weak up the middle which included DT, MLB, and SS. Saunders wasn't able to change enough to get any productivity out of the D. The reason for the change boiled down to 2 years ago they had a good defense but couldn't sustain it. Capers has shown that he can take some talented players and make them play at a higher level. Example Dolphin, Jags, and Texans.Reading between the lines, many think Green Bay has some talented D players. Caper will use the talent wisely...Saunders wasn't able.

[Bossman641]

I can't say for sure whether the 3-4 will or won't work, but I put my faith in Capers and will give him a shot to see what he can make of the group before I write them off.

He's also using events from April (the drafting of Raji) to pick apart the hiring of Capers in January. The Packers could have hired a 4-3 coordinator or retained Sanders but they had no way of knowing at the time they'd have a shot at Raji.

Who were the big 4-3 DL in free agency this year? I remember Canty and Olshansky but they're both more of 3-4 guys.

[sharpe1027]

Interesting analysis. Counter to many other opinions. What say you?

IMO, the problem was not that the 4-3 couldn't work. The problem was that the system or coordinator couldn't make best use of the players. They either had the players for the system or they didn't, pretty much end of the story.

The premise of the article is off-base. The Packer's didn't just switch to the 3-4 for the sake of switching to the 3-4. They picked up the best D-coordinator they could, understanding that he uses the 3-4 defense.

That being said, there is no gurantee that the 3-4 will solve all the problems. However, if the players are better suited for a 4-3, I am confident that they will run 4-3 or a hybrid 3-4. Basically, the article could be pretty much on point for all the assumptions regarding the 3-4 switch and the defense could still improve if they adjust the system for the players and not vice versa.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Interesting analysis. Counter to many other opinions. What say you?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/chi-10-pompei-inside-nfl-may10,0,4146320.column

[packers11]

nothing can be worse than last season and watching vanilla Bob rush the same 4 every time... I think this move will be better for Green Bay (even if we struggle in the first few weeks)....

[Gunakor]

Interesting way of putting it - that we're switching because all the cool kids are doing it. It's worth mentioning that those cool kids are the ones winning championships. If defense wins championships, maybe being one of the cool kids really is cool.

[RashanGary]

Interesting analysis. Counter to many other opinions. What say you?

Before Thompson replaced Sherman as GM, everything was going to work, no matter what it was. Slowik, gonna work. Bates, gonna work. You became known as the koolaid man.

Now, everything the Packers do is not going to work. You avatar is not a symbol of you, but a symbol of what you used to be.



But I digress. . .

I disagree with this article. Capers has made this transition three times successfully in the past (and quickly). I have little reason to doubt him because he's proven.

[retailguy]

Interesting analysis. Counter to many other opinions. What say you?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/chi-10-pompei-inside-nfl-may10,0,4146320.column

Yeah, I'd read this article. That's why I said the ESPN article is counter to some of the other stuff out there.

[retailguy]

Interesting analysis. Counter to many other opinions. What say you?

Before Thompson replaced Sherman as GM, everything was going to work, no matter what it was. Slowik, gonna work. Bates, gonna work. You became known as the koolaid man.

Now, everything the Packers do is not going to work. You avatar is not a symbol of you, but a symbol of what you used to be.


Where did I say what I thought? I thought the article was interesting. I thought it was worth a debate, or a thoughtful analysis. I purposely didn't express an opinion right off the bat because I wanted to avoid your remarks, and I didn't want to pollute other opinions.



But I digress. . .

I disagree with this article. Capers has made this transition three times successfully in the past (and quickly). I have little reason to doubt him because he's proven.

For the most part, I agree with this. What I question is whether or not the success rate will continue, or whether he'll "hit the wall" and have a failure.

Truthfully, I have no idea what is going to happen this time. Neither outcome would come as a shock to me.

I'm unsure that Kampman will make the transition. I'm unsure that Jenkins will last a whole season, with the differing responsibilities. I'm unsure that the rookies will step right in and perform. Those things could go either way. The answers to those situations will determine the "quick" success that you're predicting.

And, for the record, I was never a fan of Slowik. I knew that was going to fail, in the middle of the Carolina game when it looked like the defense was going to be all world.

[pbmax]

McCarthy interviewed 3 other D coordinators, 2 of which likely would have run a 4-3. While there seems to be some doubt whether there was a formal offer to Nolan, two of the guys offered the job would have run the uncool defense for M3. So that argument is bunk.

As for the switch, there will no doubt be some capable performers who are miscast in the 3-4. But one of Capers specialties is making this transition, so the players who will need to reconfigure their game will get good guidance.

But I think McCarthy's motivation for a change was revealed during the process, and it had nothing to do with pleasing Cheesehead TV or causing consternation for Bedard and Scouts Inc. He was rhapsodic about the 3-4 alignment against the run, which was a major problem for the Packers D last year.

McCarthy is a formation guy on offense and he clearly identified the previous 4-3's static alignment as one that was easy to target with the run. So each of his coordinator interviews offered him the opportunity to run a multiple front defense instead of the Bates/Sanders static D.

I would be concerned about an offensive minded head coach insisting on running a specific defensive scheme or game plan as its not his area of specialty. But Holmgren hired Fritz Shumur precisely because he used to give the 49ers fits when he was with the Rams. McCarthy clearly sees some of this with Capers as it pertains to run defense.

Since McCarthy clearly has a good offensive mind, I take this as a good starting point. To read any more into the motivation is stretching it beyond available facts.

[Zool]

The main problem I have with the article is that they know very little about football and pretty much just glombed info from other articles to form an opinion.

Calling a 4-3 traditional is an easy way to spot it.

[rbaloha1]

Packer fans need to trust that Capers shall place players in winning positions within the scheme.

Bob Sanders was too rigid -- the antithesis of Capers.

[CaptainKickass]

put an awful lot of pressure on opposing offenses for four quarters.


I certainly do not remember this.


Nice opposing view article though, certainly made a few of us think a little bit. Even if it was "This column writer is an idiot..".


.

[PlantPage55]

Packer fans need to trust that Capers shall place players in winning positions within the scheme.

Bob Sanders was too rigid -- the antithesis of Capers.

This is my line of thinking. I had ALWAYS been against transitioning to the 3-4. I fully admit that I laughed at any poster that suggested it.

Only a handful of variables would have changed my mind on this. Dom Capers was one of them. I did back-flips when we signed him.

For better or worse, all my chips are completely in with Dom.

[Joemailman]

I think Capers has made it pretty clear he isn't going to try to insert square pegs into round holes. The Packers will play as much 3-4 as Capers thinks they can effectively play. That probably means quite a bit, but not as much as in a year or two. A lot of people talk about the Pittsburgh connection with Capers, but he spent last year in New England, and New England has been running a 3-4/4-3 hybrid defense for years.

[Tony Oday]

I thought I heard we would run a hybrid this year of the 3-4 using a lot of 4-3 fronts...

[Packnut]

It's really very simple. If this switch to the 3-4 works out, then it was the right move and if not it was'nt. :lol:

[sharpe1027]

It's really very simple. If this switch to the 3-4 works out, then it was the right move and if not it was'nt. :lol:

True, but the difficult part is deciding whether or not it worked. There is a lot of the grey area between the 32nd defense and the 1st defense. :wink:

[Gunakor]

It's really very simple. If this switch to the 3-4 works out, then it was the right move and if not it was'nt. :lol:

How much time do we get to evaluate whether it was the right move or the wrong one? If the defense struggles this year, do we write off the switch as a bad move right away after one year? Two years? Three? How about if Dom Capers takes a HC job after this first year, similar to what Jags did after one year teaching ZBS? There's so many things that have to be considered, and so many things that could still change. How long do we give McCarthy to make this thing work before giving up on it?

[retailguy]

It's really very simple. If this switch to the 3-4 works out, then it was the right move and if not it was'nt. :lol:

How much time do we get to evaluate whether it was the right move or the wrong one? If the defense struggles this year, do we write off the switch as a bad move right away after one year? Two years? Three? How about if Dom Capers takes a HC job after this first year, similar to what Jags did after one year teaching ZBS? There's so many things that have to be considered, and so many things that could still change. How long do we give McCarthy to make this thing work before giving up on it?

And this is really the crux of it. Quite honestly, that's always been my beef with the "pro thompson" crowd. I'm not talking about those who "like him" but those to whom he can do no wrong.

For them, they'll always be an excuse or another reason why we have to try it again.

But realistically, when you look at it objectively, "the pieces" they always talk about are now in place. There is seemingly NO REASON why this team should not win now.

Truthfully, you could build a case for not swapping to the 3-4 on that basis, they had experience, cohesiveness, and talent for the 4-3. They had a core group that had played together for several seasons and were comfortable with one another.

I agree with those who say they hired the best guy for the job in capers, and I'm on board with the swap. But I'm not on board with a year of learning, then a year of improvement, and then dominance.

I think that's too long. This defense needs to gel and improve this season. If it goes longer than that, I think it was a bad move. The Packers window, by any analysis is open, and this team should win now. There should not be anymore excuses. Thompsons "non rebuilding" should be complete, wouldn't you think?

[sharpe1027]

This defense needs to gel and improve this season. If it goes longer than that, I think it was a bad move. The Packers window, by any analysis is open, and this team should win now. There should not be anymore excuses. Thompsons "non rebuilding" should be complete, wouldn't you think?

I'm buying a ticket for this train of thinking. 8-)

[Gunakor]

But realistically, when you look at it objectively, "the pieces" they always talk about are now in place. There is seemingly NO REASON why this team should not win now.

But there is. Even if they have all the peices in place (assuming you mean personnel, and I can't say I fully agree) they still have to learn a whole new style of defense. That could take time, considering they've been accustomed to Sanders style of defense for several years. I expect the defense to be better in week 17 than they are in week 1, but that doesn't mean they've reached their maximum potential. Capers' history gives me hope, but it's no guarantee. So if Capers can't take an incredibly average 4-3 defense plus two 3-4 type draft picks and turn them into a dominant 3-4 hybrid in just one year's time, is Thompson at fault? Let reality temper your expectations some. This is brand new to these guys. As I said in a different thread awhile back, this is a season for grand hopes. Not grand expectations.

[Fritz]

It's really very simple. If this switch to the 3-4 works out, then it was the right move and if not it was'nt. :lol:

How much time do we get to evaluate whether it was the right move or the wrong one? If the defense struggles this year, do we write off the switch as a bad move right away after one year? Two years? Three? How about if Dom Capers takes a HC job after this first year, similar to what Jags did after one year teaching ZBS? There's so many things that have to be considered, and so many things that could still change. How long do we give McCarthy to make this thing work before giving up on it?

And this is really the crux of it. Quite honestly, that's always been my beef with the "pro thompson" crowd. I'm not talking about those who "like him" but those to whom he can do no wrong.

For them, they'll always be an excuse or another reason why we have to try it again.

But realistically, when you look at it objectively, "the pieces" they always talk about are now in place. There is seemingly NO REASON why this team should not win now.

Truthfully, you could build a case for not swapping to the 3-4 on that basis, they had experience, cohesiveness, and talent for the 4-3. They had a core group that had played together for several seasons and were comfortable with one another.

I agree with those who say they hired the best guy for the job in capers, and I'm on board with the swap. But I'm not on board with a year of learning, then a year of improvement, and then dominance.

I think that's too long. This defense needs to gel and improve this season. If it goes longer than that, I think it was a bad move. The Packers window, by any analysis is open, and this team should win now. There should not be anymore excuses. Thompsons "non rebuilding" should be complete, wouldn't you think?

I think most people on this board - pro-Thompson, anti-Thompson - believe that TT gets two years. This year and next. If this team isn't in the playoffs and competing in the playoffs by the end of next year, I think TT's window will have closed. I'm not sure if he'd even get a chance to pull a Matt Millen and save his butt by firing coach after coach - not even once.

I could be wrong though. PBMax or somebody, maybe KY or Harvey or Shadow, I don't remember who, made a good case once that TT might get a chance to replace MM and thus extend his own tenure. It could happen.

But I think most folks here believe he's got two years to show that he's got this team pointed toward the Super Bowl and not the toilet bowl.

[sharpe1027]

But there is. Even if they have all the peices in place (assuming you mean personnel, and I can't say I fully agree) they still have to learn a whole new style of defense. That could take time, considering they've been accustomed to Sanders style of defense for several years. I expect the defense to be better in week 17 than they are in week 1, but that doesn't mean they've reached their maximum potential. Capers' history gives me hope, but it's no guarantee. So if Capers can't take an incredibly average 4-3 defense plus two 3-4 type draft picks and turn them into a dominant 3-4 hybrid in just one year's time, is Thompson at fault? Let reality temper your expectations some. This is brand new to these guys. As I said in a different thread awhile back, this is a season for grand hopes. Not grand expectations.

A couple points.

If they don't expect improvment from the switch this year, then they never should have made the switch. The defense was that bad last year.

Nobody said the defense was expected to reach its full potential next year.

Nobody said Capers had to turn the defense into a "dominant" defense in one year's time. They could be a good or even average defense and still be an improvement. The defense was that bad last year.

If the defense was even average last year, they win enough to make the playoffs. Expectations of playoffs this year are reasonable, IMHO.

It seems to me that you have set up a few strawmen in your argument.

[retailguy]

I think most people on this board - pro-Thompson, anti-Thompson - believe that TT gets two years. This year and next. If this team isn't in the playoffs and competing in the playoffs by the end of next year, I think TT's window will have closed. I'm not sure if he'd even get a chance to pull a Matt Millen and save his butt by firing coach after coach - not even once.

I could be wrong though. PBMax or somebody, maybe KY or Harvey or Shadow, I don't remember who, made a good case once that TT might get a chance to replace MM and thus extend his own tenure. It could happen.

But I think most folks here believe he's got two years to show that he's got this team pointed toward the Super Bowl and not the toilet bowl.

I guess I don't agree with that Fritz. Thompson started this whole thing off by saying he 'wasn't rebuilding'. McCarthy agreed with that by making statements about 'putting a fresh coat of paint on the dream house'. By not "fully disclosing" I guess that Thompson was telling me that he didn't need the extra year. What you say, and how you say it is important, I'd think.

Also, the defensive scheme, and leaders needed help, but realistically it didn't need to be blown up to start over from scratch. If you want to do that, fine, but that 'choice' doesn't create the need for an extra year, I don't think.

If the goal is to win, then, the job is to figure out how to do that in the shortest possible timeframe.

Thompson & McCarthy should win this year. Playoffs should be an expectation. I will be satisfied with the playoffs. I will be pleased with a division title and 1st round playoff victory. Anything short of that though, ought to be unacceptable.

[Gunakor]

If they don't expect improvment from the switch this year, then they never should have made the switch. The defense was that bad last year.

Well, they were pretty good 2 years ago. If they thought that they could repeat that success with a 4-3 they might have stuck with it. I am of the opinion that they made the switch for the long haul, and expect this defense to be better 3 years from now than it was in 2007. And if it is, then this was the right move to make - regardless what this year looks like.


Nobody said the defense was expected to reach its full potential next year.

Fair enough. It just seems that your expectations are a little unfair, considering that many of these guys are either miscast entirely or playing a position for the very first time in their professional careers. Suppose they aren't good enough to make the playoffs this year. Does that mean they won't next year or the year after? Should we switch back after one year because our guys couldn't learn it fast enough? Was it the wrong move because it didn't pay dividends in the very first year? That I guess was my point.


If the defense was even average last year, they win enough to make the playoffs. Expectations of playoffs this year are reasonable, IMHO.

Of course they are, same as they were last year. And the year before. And for the 15 years prior to that. Again, I just don't think that the team record in 2009 alone or the defensive production in 2009 alone should be the justification for whether the switch to the 3-4 was the right one. The switch wasn't made for just this year specifically. It was made for the forseeable future, and the future will be the justification for it.

[sharpe1027]

Well, they were pretty good 2 years ago. If they thought that they could repeat that success with a 4-3 they might have stuck with it. I am of the opinion that they made the switch for the long haul, and expect this defense to be better 3 years from now than it was in 2007. And if it is, then this was the right move to make - regardless what this year looks like.


IC what you are saying. IMO, no matter how you slice it, last year showed a significant problem with either the personnel, scheme or both. Maybe they are looking more for long-term success, but I still feel that they expect immediate improvement over last year.



Fair enough. It just seems that your expectations are a little unfair, considering that many of these guys are either miscast entirely or playing a position for the very first time in their professional careers.

Maybe you are right, but it seems to me that my expectations are supported by facts. The same coach has turned around 4-3 teams before. I think you may be over-dramatizing the differences.



Suppose they aren't good enough to make the playoffs this year. Does that mean they won't next year or the year after?

No, which is why I said nobody expected them to max-out this year.



Should we switch back after one year because our guys couldn't learn it fast enough?

Maybe. If they start poorly and still can't improve throughout the year, it would be a very bad sign. If they finish strong, and have similar offense as last year, they probably make the playoffs.



Was it the wrong move because it didn't pay dividends in the very first year? That I guess was my point.


If it pays zero dividends, I would say yes. If it is marginally successful with signs of improvement through the year, then it would be a tougher call.



Of course they are, same as they were last year. And the year before. And for the 15 years prior to that. Again, I just don't think that the team record in 2009 alone or the defensive production in 2009 alone should be the justification for whether the switch to the 3-4 was the right one. The switch wasn't made for just this year specifically. It was made for the forseeable future, and the future will be the justification for it.

Sorry, I never meant to imply that 2009 was the ONLY measure of success. It should, however, tell us SOMETHING. Don't you agree?

[Joemailman]

I think most people on this board - pro-Thompson, anti-Thompson - believe that TT gets two years. This year and next. If this team isn't in the playoffs and competing in the playoffs by the end of next year, I think TT's window will have closed. I'm not sure if he'd even get a chance to pull a Matt Millen and save his butt by firing coach after coach - not even once.

I could be wrong though. PBMax or somebody, maybe KY or Harvey or Shadow, I don't remember who, made a good case once that TT might get a chance to replace MM and thus extend his own tenure. It could happen.

But I think most folks here believe he's got two years to show that he's got this team pointed toward the Super Bowl and not the toilet bowl.

I guess I don't agree with that Fritz. Thompson started this whole thing off by saying he 'wasn't rebuilding'. McCarthy agreed with that by making statements about 'putting a fresh coat of paint on the dream house'. By not "fully disclosing" I guess that Thompson was telling me that he didn't need the extra year. What you say, and how you say it is important, I'd think.

Also, the defensive scheme, and leaders needed help, but realistically it didn't need to be blown up to start over from scratch. If you want to do that, fine, but that 'choice' doesn't create the need for an extra year, I don't think.

If the goal is to win, then, the job is to figure out how to do that in the shortest possible timeframe.

Thompson & McCarthy should win this year. Playoffs should be an expectation. I will be satisfied with the playoffs. I will be pleased with a division title and 1st round playoff victory. Anything short of that though, ought to be unacceptable.

I agree with this. The Packers had a losing record last year because they couldn't hold 4th quarter leads. Capers should be able to fix this. McCarthy needs to transition the Packers from a team that found ways to lose games to a team that wins games in the 4th quarter. Two seasons after Lindy Infante led the Packers to a 10-6 record (which seemed glorious at the time), he was out the door because his teams found ways to lose.

[Gunakor]

I would hope to see something, yes. But given that this is brand new to alot of guys, I don't set my expectations too high. Sure, better than last year I'd hope, but probably not quite as good as the year before. Not yet anyway.

And even if I did, I certainly wouldn't hold TT responsible if it fails this year. TT went with a proven guy who runs a proven scheme. Then he drafted 2 players that proven guy wanted for his scheme, giving up quite a bit to get both of them. If this defense fails us again this year, it isn't due to lack of effort on TT's part to get it fixed. Now if it fails this year and continues to fail in coming years, with Thompson making the same bold moves every year to try and get it fixed, then I'd feel a lot differently. But I'm happy with his effort this year regardless.

[retailguy]

If this defense fails us again this year, it isn't due to lack of effort on TT's part to get it fixed. Now if it fails this year and continues to fail in coming years, with Thompson making the same bold moves every year to try and get it fixed, then I'd feel a lot differently. But I'm happy with his effort this year regardless.

Sherman never had lack of effort. He had a lack of results. Effort should be a given. I'm looking for results. This year.

[falco]

Bottom line is if our personnel is not a good fit for the 3-4, we should at least be running a hybrid between the two offenses until we can complete the transition... which is what I fully expect to do.

I don't think anyone should be making excuses that poor performance is due to the change.

[Partial]

Personnel will be fine imo. They need to add another veteran DE for depth. This team is built to win now!!!

[The Leaper]

The article makes little sense to me. If the 3-4 is such a questionable scheme for most teams, why are the teams who are perennial title contenders running it?

I also disagree that the Packer defense was dominating 2 years ago. The defense looked good because the offense was virtually unstoppable behind Favre and Grant clicking on all cylinders. When the defense had to carry it's share, it was embarrassed by the Giants.

Kampman WAS an elite DE. I don't think he is anymore after seeing him last year. He rarely was around the QB last year...granted, some of that was just the defense doubling him, but he also had some difficulty getting to the QB straight up on some guys. I think he's trending downhill...and the Packers have nothing behind him in terms of dynamic pass rushers off the edge. Those are ESSENTIAL in a 4-3.

Personally, I think the roster fits a 3-4 scheme better now. Jenkins and Harrell are more 3-4 DEs than 4-3 DEs or DTs. I know Kampman will work his ass off...and could prolong his career with a move to 3-4 OLB. We have an interesting array of LBs to work with now.

The burden is on the def coaching staff to get this group on the same page. The last crew couldn't get that done.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Bottom line is if our personnel is not a good fit for the 3-4, we should at least be running a hybrid between the two offenses until we can complete the transition... which is what I fully expect to do.

I don't think anyone should be making excuses that poor performance is due to the change.

I think would could argue that our personnal is a good fit for the 4-3. The only starters who are questionable fits are Barnett and Harris. If you want to throw Kampman in there, so be it. I think it will be proven wrong--as he fits what most teams look for in their pass rushing OLB in a 3-4 and I know he'll work hard to succeed in the transition. I worry about Barnett recovering from his injury more than anything. I think Harris is going to have a hard time if they ask him to play a lot of zone. However, he's closing on his mid-30's, so now is probably a good time to make a transition at that spot.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Here's an interesting take on Cullen Jenkins which was posted in Sporting News by RealScouts. They rank him as the 18th best DE in the game--which puts him in the top 1/3 of starting DEs.


18. Cullen Jenkins, Packers. Jenkins has the size, strength and experience inside to excel in the Packers' new 3-4 scheme. He has a nice array of pass-rush moves, is a sure tackler in the run game and has the agility to make plays on the perimeter.

[SnakeLH2006]

The main problem I have with the article is that they know very little about football and pretty much just glombed info from other articles to form an opinion.

Calling a 4-3 traditional is an easy way to spot it.

That's about how Snake viewed it too. The "cool kids" what is this guy writing this shit in his mom's basement trying to get website hits for his High School? :roll:

Either way, he praised Hawk who has underwhelmed in his 4-3 role and bashed others who excelled? What?

Snake's Take:

What did we have in our 2008 6-10 season, the 25 ranked D or something? So if we change it to a 3-4 with a proven coach in Capers with top-flight assistants we suddenly get worse? This guy is a moron. Maybe we struggle early, but with the lapse of talent on our poor DL and the influx of talented LB's we suddenly have made for the 3-4, there's no reason this D should be worse at worst? No? If anything, those LB's will be the difference makers over the next 2 seasons as Hawk progresses, Clay contributes, Barnett recovers, and Kampy acclimates. BJ will be a force by year 2 and make them all better.....as long as Mission doesn't get him stoned in training camp! :x :lol:

[falco]

I remember watching Cullen Jenkins destroy guys when healthy. I mean physically obliterate o-lineman. I sure hope he can do that this year, especially in this system.

[Fritz]

My point, Retail, is not whether TT should get another year, or two, or whether he was honest about expectations. My point is simply that most people here seem to think that the brass will give TT two more seasons to show that he's the man - that is to say, to produce results.

[Bretsky]

With our powder puff schedule next year I expect the playoffs. If we get bounced in round one that will still be progress that I'll be content with.

[Partial]

With our powerder puff schedule next year I expect the playoffs. If we get bounced in round one that will still be progress that I'll be content with.

I expect this as well.

[pbmax]

With our powerder puff schedule next year I expect the playoffs. If we get bounced in round one that will still be progress that I'll be content with.
Schedules are funny things, they look one way based on last year's records and much different midway through a current season. Even the tough tail end of the Packer's season will look different by week 6.

As for the Packers schedule, the Vikings and Bears also have it soft, which makes the division harder to win and also complicates the wild card.

As I said earlier, if McCarthy hired a coach to be 3-4, I think its a bad basis for a hire. If McCarthy knew he needed a different coach and hired the best guy he could summon who was also running multiple fronts, then I am encouraged by his decision making approach. But in either event, I like the Capers hire. The decision on a coach should not be made because of personnel or the front. You need the best guy, not the best fit.

For a while I though it a lock that Thompson would get one more coach of M3 doesn't pan out. But in two years Thompson will have been here six full years. If McCarthy and the team struggle enough to merit a coach's dismissal in two more years, then Thompson would likely be in trouble as well if he has just one playoff visit in six years.

Much would depend on Thompson's relationship with Murphy and the Exec Committee. But to get a chance to hire a second head coach, Thompson might need to be willing to dump McCarthy after this year. There are a lot of veteran, capable coaches available. I don't think he does that. If he was still unconvinced about M3, then he wouldn't have given his a five year deal like his own.

He's got two years, possibly three if Murphy is totally on board.

[HarveyWallbangers]

With our powerder puff schedule next year I expect the playoffs. If we get bounced in round one that will still be progress that I'll be content with.

I expect this as well.

I expect they'll contend for the playoffs, as well. However, there are two many variables for me to make a blanket statement that Thompson and McCarthy should be fired if they don't. I suspect that they'll get two years to prove their worth.

BTW, I have faith in those guys. I believe barring a rash of injuries to key players, they'll turn 6-10 back into 10-6.

[Gunakor]

If this defense fails us again this year, it isn't due to lack of effort on TT's part to get it fixed. Now if it fails this year and continues to fail in coming years, with Thompson making the same bold moves every year to try and get it fixed, then I'd feel a lot differently. But I'm happy with his effort this year regardless.

Sherman never had lack of effort. He had a lack of results. Effort should be a given. I'm looking for results. This year.

Caught sleeping in the stands at the scouting combine...

Nah, never had lack of effort. Just a lack of results.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[falco]

Caught sleeping in the stands at the scouting combine...


:lol: :lol: :lol:

I doubt Shermy was the only guy who caught some z's there.

I'm convinced Thompson is a better GM than Shermy. Not so sure that McCarthy is a better coach. We'll see how it goes.

[Lurker64]

I think part of the knock on Sherman is that "like many coaches, he wanted to be the general manager as well" combined with "almost nobody is successful when they are both the coach and the general manager at the same time." Holmgren couldn't do it in Seattle, he got fired as the GM (but retained as the coach) after three years. Why would we expect Sherman to be able to do it here?


If there's anything to learn from the Mike Sherman saga it's "Make sure your coach and GM are not the same person."

[HarveyWallbangers]

I'm convinced Thompson is a better GM than Shermy. Not so sure that McCarthy is a better coach. We'll see how it goes.

That's a fair take. Sherman was a pretty good coach. He consistently had the Packers in the playoffs, but had a poor record when he got to the playoffs. He never went as far in the playoffs as McCarthy did in his one playoff season. I have hopes for McCarthy. I think the end of 2006 and 2007 is more indicative of what he is capable of. I think he's changed the culture. He's brought more of a hard-nosed attitude to the team. I'm actually encouraged that he had the guts to bring a veteran DC and change the scheme. I'm not convinced he was a huge believer in the Bates scheme, but decided to go with continuity. That's understandable. You can't argue with Sherman's regular season results and some of the innovations he brought, but I just have a better feeling with McCarthy on the sidelines. There were too many head-scratching moments when Sherman was the coach. I also don't think he gave Favre the tough-nosed coaching that Holmgren and McCarthy did. I think that hurt the team.

[pbmax]

I think Packer Update had a good read on it when they said he didn't have many qualified people banging on his door to interview for the D coordinator job the first time. Sanders might have been the most qualified.

[falco]

I'm convinced Thompson is a better GM than Shermy. Not so sure that McCarthy is a better coach. We'll see how it goes.

That's a fair take. Sherman was a pretty good coach. He consistently had the Packers in the playoffs, but had a poor record when he got to the playoffs. He never went as far in the playoffs as McCarthy did in his one playoff season. I have hopes for McCarthy. I think the end of 2006 and 2007 is more indicative of what he is capable of. I think he's changed the culture. He's brought more of a hard-nosed attitude to the team. I'm actually encouraged that he had the guts to bring a veteran DC and change the scheme. I'm not convinced he was a huge believer in the Bates scheme, but decided to go with continuity. That's understandable. You can't argue with Sherman's regular season results and some of the innovations he brought, but I just have a better feeling with McCarthy on the sidelines. There were too many head-scratching moments when Sherman was the coach. I also don't think he gave Favre the tough-nosed coaching that Holmgren and McCarthy did. I think that hurt the team.

If I had to choose, I'd take McCarthy - but I'm not sure it would be the right decision.

I would say that Sherman's teams played poorly in spite of him, while McCarthy seems to get the most of out of his talent.

[falco]

I remember watching Cullen Jenkins destroy guys when healthy. I mean physically obliterate o-lineman. I sure hope he can do that this year, especially in this system.

My fingers are still crossed, but looks like the Jenkster is off to a good start.