Log in

View Full Version : Wrong defensive personnel?



Lurker64
08-23-2009, 03:52 AM
A common theme in the offseason ever since the hiring of Dom Capers was "do the Packers have the personnel to run the 3-4 defense". Since the results in the preseason so far have been promising, for now, I think, we can say that this is not going to be a problem.

An interesting thing about the Buffalo game, however, is that the starting defensive lineup contained no players who were not on the roster last year. With as good as our holdover personnel was in the 3-4, and as bad as the defense looked last year, I'd like to pose a question:

"Did we have the wrong defensive personnel for the 4-3 (specifically the Bates 4-3) defense?"

Bear with me a minute. The hallmark of the 3-4 is that it is a defense geared around specialists. You don't expect much in the way pass rush from your defensive lineman, and similarly you don't expect your LBs to be able to regularly fight through blocks from offensive linemen.

The 4-3 defense, however, seems to be a better defense geared around "getting the most out of your superstars." The hallmark of the 4-3 defense was the "superstar defensive end" a titan of a man who is stout enough at the point of attack to stop the run, speedy enough to maintain outside contain, and technique savvy enough to beat the NFL's best pass blockers in order to get to the Quarterback. Anybody who can do this has an impressive resume, and as such people who can do this are few and far between (and are expensive to acquire and keep). Generally, the best pass rushing defensive end plays on the right side (against the left tackle), so as to attack the blind side of the quarterback, while the best run stopping DE plays on the opposite side, expecting more running plays to go his direction. The Bates variant of the 4-3 defense split out the defensive ends very wide in order to help them get more pressure on the QB, as such in order to avoid the middle of the defense being not unlike a sieve, the Bates defense requires not one but two very large defensive tackles capable of playing two gaps. The other notable position of the 4-3 defense is the "superstar linebacker", a man agile enough to run sideline to sideline, quick enough to run with backs and TEs in coverage out of the backfield, technique savvy enough to get off blocks when blitzing, stout enough to not get run over by backs, and smart enough to diagnose plays as soon as they are diagnosable. These players exist, and aren't as rare as your 4-3 DEs (as there are simply more people in the 250 range than in the 270 range), but the problem is that you need to have three of them. Whoever's weakest against the run is going to get run at, and whoever's the worst in coverage is going to get picked on. The Bates defense was particularly bad in terms of this, as the lack of zone coverage meant that linebackers had to cover backs and TEs one on one quite frequently.

So let's look at our personnel historically under the Bates defense, and see if we had the personnel to actually execute it. Most problematically, I think, was the DE situation. We had a great one in Kampman, but he was always most comfortable playing on the quarterback's right side, which is not historically a great place to be a pass rusher (as it's much easier to get out of the way of something when you see it coming). At the other DE spot, we had guys like Cullen Jenkins (certainly stout enough, probably not quick enough to be an elite pass rusher), KGB (certainly quick enough to rush the passer, but not stout enough to stop the run), Mike Montgomery (totally average in every way), and really very little developmental talent behind them.

At the DT spot, we had Pickett who was definitely a big strong, 2 gap defensive tackle like Bates wants, but opposite of him? We had Corey Williams (who could shoot a gap as well as any DT in the league, just don't ask him to play 2), Johnny Jolly (inconsistent), Justin Harrell (injured), Cullen Jenkins (aren't we asking him to play a different position?), and Colin Cole (mostly just big, not actually good), and a bunch of nobodies. For all the vaunted depth we had at DT, on most game days we only had about 3-4 guys active.

At the LB spot, certainly we had some good players. Hawk has great instincts, is always around the ball, is a sure tackler, and is pretty good in coverage. He just can't get off a block to save his life. Poppinga has some of the best run fills you'll ever see from a LB, but he was a liability in coverage against many backs and TEs, and he was never all that good about switching gaps. Barnett was a pretty good player all around.

So by my count, to run the 4-3 we were using we needed 2 superstar DEs (we had one), 2 DTs capable of 2-gapping (we had one), and 3 complete players at LB (we had one.)

So just as a hypothesis, our defense played great in 2007 when Jenkins was playing very well, as was Jolly. With both those guys stepping up, we had the DEs we needed and the DTs we needed, and the defense worked well. In 2008, however, Jenkins got hurt, Barnett got hurt, and Jolly regressed and suddenly of the 7 complete players we needed, we were down to 2 or 3.

So am I crazy? Is it possible that we had better personnel for the 3-4 than the 4-3 even before we made the switch, and we were just skeptical because the 4-3 was so familiar?

Gunakor
08-23-2009, 05:49 AM
I don't disagree one bit. Several defensive players TT brought in since his arrival here, especially through the draft, seem more suited to a 3-4 than a 4-3. AJ Hawk as an ILB and Jeremy Thompson as an OLB immediately come to mind.

That said, one cannot take away from the expertise Dom Capers brings to this defense. I'm not sold on the fact that it is simply the new scheme that has brought this out in our defensive players, as if anybody with a lick of expertise in coordinating a 3-4 defense could have come in and done the same job Dom has. I think the players are responding to Dom, even moreso than they are responding to the new scheme. If, say, Green Bay were to have hired the late Jim Johnson to coach up this same group in the 4-3, I think we'd have seen the same type of turnaround from last season. IMO it's the coach, not the scheme, although I think the scheme helps a number of these guys.

wist43
08-23-2009, 07:41 AM
I'll say that I think our 4-3 personnel sucked :lol: can't agree that our previous personnel were better suited to a 3-4 though.

The change in scheme will, in and of itself, make everyone better, even if they are ill-suited to the scheme. Kampman looks like a fish out of water out there at OLB, even though I'm sure Capers can find ways to protect him, he's still going to be exposed from time to time; and truthfully, I really don't think he's happy with his role. He's saying the right things, but then again, they all have to do that.

The Raji pick was a big step in the right direction, and Jolly playing gives me more confidence - Jolly was a beast last night, and Raji just pushed 300+ lb linemen around like they were ragdolls. Those 2 guys, combined with Jenkins lead me to believe we can function fairly well on the line.

LB is another story... Hawk has looked Hawk-like, i.e. pedestrian. All of the pressure they have been generating has been coming from the inside... that is to say more scheme related, and offense deficient than anything to do with talent - of course, that is the point of the scheme... create confusion, and generate pressure as a result. But don't expect Bishop to coming flying free up the middle on a regular basis against the Patriots or Steelers.

They've played 2 preseason games against two abysmal offensive teams... in the regular season, a good offense, with a good OL will blunt most of that inside pressure... if they can't generate pressure from the outside, with a couple of talented edge rushers from the LB position, they could struggle. I actually think Jones has the ability to be a good edge rusher in the future, but he is pretty raw and needs a year in an NFL training program... and we still haven't seen Matthews - both of those guys fit the bill in terms of body type.

Raji collapsing the pocket though... that can't be understated. Pressure up the middle can force a lot of turnovers. Loved the pick when TT made it, and last night Raji looked great... watched his knocking back that OT 5 yards a couple of times just for shits and giggles... Raji is definitely a load.

Gunakor
08-23-2009, 08:34 AM
I don't recall too many outside blitzes to begin with. I'm pretty sure they know very well that Kampman can rush the quarterback. No need to bring him on a rush in preseason when you'd rather get him as many reps as possible in pass coverage, while evaluating other LB's on the blitz. Kampy will get his sacks when the chips finally hit the table.

sheepshead
08-23-2009, 08:39 AM
Personally, I think too many fans like to play GM. Most dont know what the hell they are talking about, usually regurgitating thoughts from one forum to another. Secondly, unless you have game film, you cannot possibly totally evaluate a defensive player. You just do not see them on every play. It's impossible. You're waiting for their name to be called while youre having wings and beer. Football is the only sport that so much happens away from the ball and the camera doesnt catch it. I stay out of these discussions because by-and-large they are total crap.

packrat
08-23-2009, 08:59 AM
I'm like a lot of others here--the less I know, the easier it is to write a post.

GrnBay007
08-23-2009, 09:03 AM
:lol:

pbmax
08-23-2009, 09:56 AM
I'm like a lot of others here--the less I know, the easier it is to write a post.
We should put that on the front page! :lol:

I hope packrat will be forgiving when I steal this line for my signature.

About the personnel, its obviously not been the catastrophe that some quarters predicted. And Capers, so far, held true to form that he could install his defense effectively in one offseason. We have seen little evidence of confusion so far, perhaps less than last year even.

But its preseason and the Browns and Bills each have problems. The Browns are obvious but the Bills, despite the hype, are a marginal playoff team. Teams also don't have tape on us and I doubt they are going back to Capers previous teams for research. Even if they did, teams do not gameplan like they will for the reg season.

That said, a good team should be up both the Bills and Browns, which they have done. So while we won't know what weaknesses we have that can be exploited until midway through the regular season, we clearly aren't struggling in the early tests.

We'll find out how good we can be by Week 8. As long as we don't stink, we'll be better than last year. So far, that looks like a good bet.

sheepshead
08-23-2009, 10:49 AM
I'm like a lot of others here--the less I know, the easier it is to write a post.


:glug: :five:

rbaloha1
08-23-2009, 11:18 AM
Its the coordinator not the personnel. As TT said "Football is football. Good football players can play in any scheme."

ThunderDan
08-23-2009, 01:53 PM
Personally, I think too many fans like to play GM. Most dont know what the hell they are talking about, usually regurgitating thoughts from one forum to another. Secondly, unless you have game film, you cannot possibly totally evaluate a defensive player. You just do not see them on every play. It's impossible. You're waiting for their name to be called while youre having wings and beer. Football is the only sport that so much happens away from the ball and the camera doesnt catch it. I stay out of these discussions because by-and-large they are total crap.

That is exactly why I love going to the games and focusing on one player or position group. You can see what is happening off camera.

Packman_26
08-23-2009, 10:58 PM
Its the coordinator not the personnel. As TT said "Football is football. Good football players can play in any scheme."
Aren't those points contradictory? If good football players can play in any scheme, why does the coordinator and his new scheme matter?

Cheesehead Craig
08-24-2009, 09:18 AM
Its the coordinator not the personnel. As TT said "Football is football. Good football players can play in any scheme."
Aren't those points contradictory? If good football players can play in any scheme, why does the coordinator and his new scheme matter?
Not necessarily. The Packers have a lot of good players on offense but can't run the wishbone. We have good defensive personnel, but we can't rush 7 guys on most plays otherwise we'll get burned.

Those are extreme examples, but you get the point.