Hawk gets praise .... wont be cut or restructured?

[ThunderDan]

McCarthy praises Hawk, lukewarm on Wynn

Per JSO:
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/100372224.html

Looks like Hawk is having a strong start of camp.

[rbaloha1]

The demotion is working.

[HarveyWallbangers]

The demotion is working.

He wasn't demoted. He mostly played in base last year. The only difference is that it's been Bishop that's replaced him in nickel--instead of Chillar. Mainly because Chillar moved outside. Wouldn't surprise me if Hawk actually plays more nickel this year, if they like Chillar outside and Bishop doesn't do well in his chances here early in camp.

[Lurker64]

The demotion is working.

He wasn't demoted. He mostly played in base last year. The only difference is that it's been Bishop that's replaced him in nickel--instead of Chillar. Mainly because Chillar moved outside. Wouldn't surprise me if Hawk actually plays more nickel this year, if they like Chillar outside and Bishop doesn't do well in his chances here early in camp.

Bishop having locked down the nickel role is all but certain from what I've heard. Even the JSO is down on Bishop, as Bedard tweeted earlier this evening:


Lee easily beats Bishop for TD in team red zone. That's beginning to become a bit of a concern, Bishop covering TEs

If your ILB can't cover TEs, why the hell is he in the nickel? I've at least seen Hawk cover some TEs (he was definitely athletic enough to cover Vernon Davis a few years ago.)

Based on what I've seen in past preseasons, Bishop is the last person I'd want in the nickel. Short yardage? Sure. Special teams? Absolutely. But the nickel? He'll get eaten alive by average TEs.

[Tony Oday]

Bishop isnt even Mr August this year...

[PlantPage55]

I think Hawk was visibly hampered by having too much bulky muscle this last year. He looks slim, trim, and ready to win this year.

[packers11]

I think Hawk was visibly hampered by having too much bulky muscle this last year. He looks slim, trim, and ready to win this year.

Yea I noticed the same exact thing... He was way to bulky and less fluid... I guess working out to much (weights) hurt his game (in my opinion) ...

[hoosier]

The Packers released their first depth chart of the season yesterday and had Chillar as starting ROLB and Matthews at LOLB. My first reaction was to wonder why they are screwing around with their best pass rusher like that instead of just letting him what seems to be his most natural position. If Chillar is too small to play strong side then sit him and play Jones instead in the base defense, and let Chillar come on the field on passing downs--but don't force your best linebacker to play out of position, the difference between Chillar and Jones just isn't that great.

After sleeping on it, my hope is that Matthews at LOLB and now Bishop in nickle package are just training camp experiments that will be quickly ditched once the regular season starts. And that all this shuffling around won't negatively affect the cohesiveness on defense.

[Joemailman]

If they're serious about Chillar at ROLB and Matthews at LOLB, perhaps they feel that Chillar is capable of doing close to what Matthews did last year. They apparently are looking for a way to get Matthews and Chillar on the field more at the same time, and this is the way to do it.

Edit:

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/100408459.html

The decision to move Matthews was made because at 255 pounds he's better equipped to handle the strong side of the opposition's offense, where he'll face road-grading tackles and double-teams from tight ends. After that, Capers decided he was going to be proactive and move Chillar from his inside spot to the right side and get him prepared to start in case Jones was out awhile.

[hoosier]

I don't know enough about Capers's system to have any intuition about whether moving CMII to the strong side is likely to diminish his pass rushing opportunities. The conventional wisdom is that you put your best pass rusher on the weak (left) side to minimize the help that the opponents can give his blocker and to put him on the (right handed) QBs blind side. But we have all seen exceptions to that general rule, such as Reggie White in the 4-3 and Sean Merriman or Kevin Greene in the 3-4. I would guess that the left outside backer in the 3-4 needs to pay a little more attention to the run and can't tee off as much as the weak side. I wonder if the additional responsibility against the run, combined with the likelihood of getting a little more worn down against the RT and TE, is likely to cut into Matthews's pass rushing effectiveness.

[pbmax]

The Packers released their first depth chart of the season yesterday and had Chillar as starting ROLB and Matthews at LOLB. My first reaction was to wonder why they are screwing around with their best pass rusher like that instead of just letting him what seems to be his most natural position. If Chillar is too small to play strong side then sit him and play Jones instead in the base defense, and let Chillar come on the field on passing downs--but don't force your best linebacker to play out of position, the difference between Chillar and Jones just isn't that great.

After sleeping on it, my hope is that Matthews at LOLB and now Bishop in nickle package are just training camp experiments that will be quickly ditched once the regular season starts. And that all this shuffling around won't negatively affect the cohesiveness on defense.
McCarthy has put out depth charts before that bore little resemblance to the actual playing assignments. The league forces them to release this info, and in his previous comments, he has made it clear he would rather have his teeth drilled that to do that chart.

Plus, injuries are affecting it greatly at LB.

[ThunderDan]

Just read in the latest Packers.com article that:

Hawk was only 1 of 10 LBs in the NFL who had over 85 tackles, 2 Int and 1 sack in 2009.

Also, even with Hawk's reduced playing time he averaged a tackle every 7 plays or a little over 14% of the snaps he played.

[falco]

Hawk was only 1 of 10 LBs in the NFL who had over 85 tackles, 2 Int and 1 sack in 2009.

Who comes up with these weird situational stats? Why 2 Int and 1 sack instead of 2 sacks and 1 Int???

[get louder at lambeau]

Hawk was only 1 of 10 LBs in the NFL who had over 85 tackles, 2 Int and 1 sack in 2009.

Who comes up with these weird situational stats? Why 2 Int and 1 sack instead of 2 sacks and 1 Int???

I think they just took A.J.'s stats and checked how many LBs bested them.

[Smidgeon]

Hawk was only 1 of 10 LBs in the NFL who had over 85 tackles, 2 Int and 1 sack in 2009.

Who comes up with these weird situational stats? Why 2 Int and 1 sack instead of 2 sacks and 1 Int???

I think they just took A.J.'s stats and checked how many LBs bested them.

Or as is most often the case with statistics, they tweaked the qualifying statistics until they came up with a combination of requirements that few fulfilled completely. Chances are they didn't use 2 Ints and 1 sack instead of 2 sacks and 1 Int because there were several more who qualified that way (pairing with 85 tackles) or several fewer making it an irrelevant grouping.

Statistics are used to identify either a) an elite player (see Rodgers, Aaron: the first QB to throw for 4k yards each of 1st two seasons or the only QB to throw for 30TDs run for 5TDs and throw 7 or fewer Ints) or b) an elite group (see Hawk, AJ: one of 10 LBs to record 85 tackles, two sacks and one Int in the season).

Statistics are largely meaningless. But they're fun too.

[falco]

Statistics are largely meaningless. But they're fun too.

I disagree. Statistics can be very helpful. But only if you don't distort them to support your argument.

[Smidgeon]

Statistics are largely meaningless. But they're fun too.

I disagree. Statistics can be very helpful. But only if you don't distort them to support your argument.

I agree with your point. But my point was: show me a statistic in the news, and I'll show you an incomplete story... not that I'll actually be able to do that since I don't know everything. Just statistics are a tool and not an end all.

[pbmax]

They still are not going to get off this notion that the Packers cannot have him cost $10 million next year. Silly reporters.

Now I fully believe the Packers would be willing to restructure and extend to lower that number, but whether they will want to pay Hawk's asking price for the additional years is yet to be determined.

So, depending on how his year go, I think its as likely he is back at $10 mil next year as he will be given a new deal.

[get louder at lambeau]

I don't know enough about Capers's system to have any intuition about whether moving CMII to the strong side is likely to diminish his pass rushing opportunities. The conventional wisdom is that you put your best pass rusher on the weak (left) side to minimize the help that the opponents can give his blocker and to put him on the (right handed) QBs blind side. But we have all seen exceptions to that general rule, such as Reggie White in the 4-3 and Sean Merriman or Kevin Greene in the 3-4. I would guess that the left outside backer in the 3-4 needs to pay a little more attention to the run and can't tee off as much as the weak side. I wonder if the additional responsibility against the run, combined with the likelihood of getting a little more worn down against the RT and TE, is likely to cut into Matthews's pass rushing effectiveness.

It might also put him in a coverage role on the TE more. Maybe he'll make up for a few less sacks with a couple INTs and FFs.

[falco]

I agree with your point. But my point was: show me a statistic in the news, and I'll show you an incomplete story... not that I'll actually be able to do that since I don't know everything. Just statistics are a tool and not an end all.

Definitely agree.

[sharpe1027]

Statistics are largely meaningless. But they're fun too.

I disagree. Statistics can be very helpful. But only if you don't distort them to support your argument.

Don't blame the statistics or call them meaningless, blame the person using them. Statistics are just facts. You can apply them in a meaningless manner or use the wrong statistics when reaching a conclusion or opinion, but the statistics are still completely valid and meaningful.

Good coaches and scouts make extensive use of statistics, they just have a better understanding of what they mean and, more importantly, what they do not mean.

IMO, its a bad sign that there were ten LBers that statistically beat Hawk in all three of the selected categories, which seem to have been selected to favor Hawk. Those LBers were statistically as good or better than Hawk across the board despite the author using hand-picked categories designed to paint Hawk in the best light.

[get louder at lambeau]

IMO, its a bad sign that there were ten LBers that statistically beat Hawk in all three of the selected categories, which seem to have been selected to favor Hawk. Those LBers were statistically as good or better than Hawk across the board despite the author using hand-picked categories designed to paint Hawk in the best light.

I don't think they were hand picked to paint him in the best light. At least not unfairly so. Tackles, sacks, and INTs (I'd add FFs) are a fairly good measure of playmaking ability for a LB, of which AJ has been criticized for not having much. They may have been selected to show that expectations may be a little high if anything.

[sharpe1027]

I don't think they were hand picked to paint him in the best light. At least not unfairly so. Tackles, sacks, and INTs (I'd add FFs) are a fairly good measure of playmaking ability for a LB, of which AJ has been criticized for not having much. They may have been selected to show that expectations may be a little high if anything.

The comparison leaves much to be desired. A hypothetical LBer that had 100 tackles, 10 sacks, and one INT would not have made the list, but nobody in their right mind would take Hawk's stats over that.

[get louder at lambeau]

I don't think they were hand picked to paint him in the best light. At least not unfairly so. Tackles, sacks, and INTs (I'd add FFs) are a fairly good measure of playmaking ability for a LB, of which AJ has been criticized for not having much. They may have been selected to show that expectations may be a little high if anything.

The comparison leaves much to be desired. A hypothetical LBer that had 100 tackles, 10 sacks, and one INT would not have made the list, but nobody in their right mind would take Hawk's stats over that.

Very true. But it's not that skewed in reality at all.

If you just take INTs, only 10 LBs in the NFL bested Hawk's total of 2. Only one had more than 3, and that guy is about to serve a suspension for using steroids. Only two 3-4 ILBs had more than 2 INTs. Like I said, it shows that fan expectations might be unrealistic.

[sharpe1027]

Very true. But it's not that skewed in reality at all.

If you just take INTs, only 10 LBs in the NFL bested Hawk's total of 2. Only one had more than 3, and that guy is about to serve a suspension for using steroids. Only two 3-4 ILBs had more than 2 INTs. Like I said, it shows that fan expectations might be unrealistic.

It is misleading because the author lists tackles and sacks, but the only relevant stat is INTs. It is also misleading because there were something like other 10 LBers with exactly 2 INTs. Hawk was slightly-above average in that regard because he got 2 instead of 1. What does that say about anything? IMO, not much.

It is like comparing DBs based upon the number of sacks they have, while ignoring the number of interceptions, passes defensed and tackles. It is a valid comparison, but it doesn't mean squat.

[get louder at lambeau]

Very true. But it's not that skewed in reality at all.

If you just take INTs, only 10 LBs in the NFL bested Hawk's total of 2. Only one had more than 3, and that guy is about to serve a suspension for using steroids. Only two 3-4 ILBs had more than 2 INTs. Like I said, it shows that fan expectations might be unrealistic.

It is misleading because the author lists tackles and sacks, but the only relevant stat is INTs. It is also misleading because there were something like other 10 LBers with exactly 2 INTs. Hawk was slightly-above average in that regard because he got 2 instead of 1. What does that say about anything? IMO, not much.

It is like comparing DBs based upon the number of sacks they have, while ignoring the number of interceptions, passes defensed and tackles. It is a valid comparison, but it doesn't mean squat.

There are over 100 starting LBs in the NFL. If half the league runs a 4-3 and half a 3-4, there are 112 starting LBs. 21 of them recorded at least one INT, and about 90 of them got none. About 1 in six starting LBs got one.

One INT is not average for a LB. Closer to zero. Hawk had two. That's not slightly above average. It's significantly above average. It's not easy to get multiple INTs as an LB in the NFL. Give the guy credit where credit is due.

[sharpe1027]

There are over 100 starting LBs in the NFL. If half the league runs a 4-3 and half a 3-4, there are 112 starting LBs. 21 of them recorded at least one INT, and about 90 of them got none. About 1 in six starting LBs got one.

One INT is not average for a LB. Closer to zero. Hawk had two. That's not slightly above average. It's significantly above average. It's not easy to get multiple INTs as an LB in the NFL. Give the guy credit where credit is due.

Maybe so, but I think you are missing the point.

Andy Studebaker had 28 tackles, 0 sacks and 2 ints, only 10 LBers were better Mr. Studebaker in all the same categories.

What good is that type of comparison? Not very.

Let's look a little closer.

Hawk's position in
Total tackles: 40th.
Sacks: tied for 87th with almost 50 other players

Other than INTs, he is no where near 10th.

Personally, I think Hawk is a good player for the things he does that don't show up in the stat sheet. I just don't think he ranks well statistically.

[falco]

I'm not trying to argue the point that Hawk is or isn't good. I'm just saying that the statistical comparison they are making doesn't really hold any water with me.

[Smidgeon]

Statistics are largely meaningless. But they're fun too.

I disagree. Statistics can be very helpful. But only if you don't distort them to support your argument.

Don't blame the statistics or call them meaningless, blame the person using them. Statistics are just facts. You can apply them in a meaningless manner or use the wrong statistics when reaching a conclusion or opinion, but the statistics are still completely valid and meaningful.

Good coaches and scouts make extensive use of statistics, they just have a better understanding of what they mean and, more importantly, what they do not mean.

IMO, its a bad sign that there were ten LBers that statistically beat Hawk in all three of the selected categories, which seem to have been selected to favor Hawk. Those LBers were statistically as good or better than Hawk across the board despite the author using hand-picked categories designed to paint Hawk in the best light.

statistic a numerical fact or datum, esp. one computed from a sample

So while technically AJ Hawk having at least 85 tackles, 1 sack, and 2 Ints are each statistics, the emphasis from the dictionary is regarding the computation. In this case, that would be the "only 10 LBs in the NFL" part.

That part (and my reference to statistics in the news) is the part I'm calling relatively meaningless because they don't tell the entire story. And you're right in that it falls on the person using them to get the story straight, but I'd put out there that no one can present an accurate picture whenever anyone tries to identify trends and variables. Give ten people the same raw data, and they'd probably come up with ten different perspectives and sets of statistics on it.

For example, the QB rating is a standardized statistic in the NFL, meant to determine the effectiveness of a QB over a season, but people use it for the rating during a quarter of a game. Also, other people don't like it because it doesn't take into account sacks (a negative) or throw away passes to avoid sacks (likely neutral though considered a negative in the formula).

Statistics can be meaningful, but on a theoretical level, I believe it's rare to find anyone who can present statistics unbiasedly due to their very nature.

[mraynrand]

Statistics can be meaningful, but on a theoretical level, I believe it's rare to find anyone who can present statistics unbiasedly due to their very nature.

You have any numbers to back that up?

[sharpe1027]

statistic a numerical fact or datum, esp. one computed from a sample

So while technically AJ Hawk having at least 85 tackles, 1 sack, and 2 Ints are each statistics, the emphasis from the dictionary is regarding the computation. In this case, that would be the "only 10 LBs in the NFL" part.

That part (and my reference to statistics in the news) is the part I'm calling relatively meaningless because they don't tell the entire story. And you're right in that it falls on the person using them to get the story straight, but I'd put out there that no one can present an accurate picture whenever anyone tries to identify trends and variables. Give ten people the same raw data, and they'd probably come up with ten different perspectives and sets of statistics on it.

For example, the QB rating is a standardized statistic in the NFL, meant to determine the effectiveness of a QB over a season, but people use it for the rating during a quarter of a game. Also, other people don't like it because it doesn't take into account sacks (a negative) or throw away passes to avoid sacks (likely neutral though considered a negative in the formula).

Statistics can be meaningful, but on a theoretical level, I believe it's rare to find anyone who can present statistics unbiasedly due to their very nature.

Most/all of us realize that you can reach improper conclusions from statistics. That doesn't make all uses of statistics meaningless or only theoretical. As I said, the many coaches/scouts/gms use statistics to their advantage. My best coaches worked out a lot of details from "computed numerical facts" and planned accordingly. It seemed to work for them.

I respectfully disagree.

[hoosier]

This is a good example of a conversation that could only happen during preseason. Only 27 more days.... :lol:

[swede]

This is a good example of a conversation that could only happen during preseason. Only 27 more days.... :lol:

A week from now that number isn't going to be so accurate.

[Joemailman]

This is a good example of a conversation that could only happen during preseason. Only 27 more days.... :lol:

Football tomorrow night...sort of. That should help a little bit.

[Brohm]

Given Hawk's role, a better measure may be the statistics of the guy lining up next to him on the inside, Barnett (who was part-time at the beginning due to knee recovery) and Chillar (played with cast if I recall).

Barnett 105 Tackles (82S/23A) 4 Sacks (with no Ints)

Chillar 42 Tackles (32S/10A) 2 Sacks (with no Ints)

[ThunderDan]

Given Hawk's role, a better measure may be the statistics of the guy lining up next to him on the inside, Barnett (who was part-time at the beginning due to knee recovery) and Chillar (played with cast if I recall).

Barnett 105 Tackles (82S/23A) 4 Sacks (with no Ints)

Chillar 42 Tackles (32S/10A) 2 Sacks (with no Ints)

The problem there is I know for certian that at least 2 of Barnett's sacks were because of Hawk and an X blitz. Hawk comes thru first and takes out the RB and Barnett runs clean to the QB.

[get louder at lambeau]

Given Hawk's role, a better measure may be the statistics of the guy lining up next to him on the inside, Barnett (who was part-time at the beginning due to knee recovery) and Chillar (played with cast if I recall).

Barnett 105 Tackles (82S/23A) 4 Sacks (with no Ints)

Chillar 42 Tackles (32S/10A) 2 Sacks (with no Ints)

The problem there is I know for certian that at least 2 of Barnett's sacks were because of Hawk and an X blitz. Hawk comes thru first and takes out the RB and Barnett runs clean to the QB.

Yeah, I've even heard Barnett say that.

[ThunderDan]

Given Hawk's role, a better measure may be the statistics of the guy lining up next to him on the inside, Barnett (who was part-time at the beginning due to knee recovery) and Chillar (played with cast if I recall).

Barnett 105 Tackles (82S/23A) 4 Sacks (with no Ints)

Chillar 42 Tackles (32S/10A) 2 Sacks (with no Ints)

The problem there is I know for certian that at least 2 of Barnett's sacks were because of Hawk and an X blitz. Hawk comes thru first and takes out the RB and Barnett runs clean to the QB.

Yeah, I've even heard Barnett say that.

Plus Barnett and Hawk have different responsibilities.

[Brohm]

Yep, that was my point there. Hawk's work inside helps those guys shine.

[rbaloha1]

Hawk needs to improve pass coverage. Over committed on the Browns te resulting in a td.

Generally Hawk is overly aggressive in pass coverage and passive during run plays. Blitzing has improved though.

[get louder at lambeau]

Hawk needs to improve pass coverage. Over committed on the Browns te resulting in a td.

Generally Hawk is overly aggressive in pass coverage and passive during run plays. Blitzing has improved though.

So does Barnett. He sucked in coverage yesterday.

[ND72]

Hawk needs to improve pass coverage. Over committed on the Browns te resulting in a td.

Generally Hawk is overly aggressive in pass coverage and passive during run plays. Blitzing has improved though.

So does Barnett. He sucked in coverage yesterday.


I think Capers needs to work on his pass coverage schemes....The TD Hawk gave up had ZERO help over the middle, everyone was man up with no safety deep or anyone in the middle.

As I sat in Lambeau last night studying the game, I really started to wonder what we are doing defensively. Our blitz's looked rather blah, and our blitzing techniques were rather blah. Chillar would run full speed and then as he got to the Tackle on his blitz, he would square up to the blocker...that's crappy. A LB needs to give as little as possible to be blocked, which is where Matthews is so effective. AND, our blitz's were very noticeable and predictable.

The Browns weren't stupid either. We sat in a cover 2 most of the night, they would run someone at a safety, then release a WR up the sideline leaving it wide open....that's High School level stuff.

I was rather disappointed with our entire defensive planning game 1. I sure hope it improves, cause it was U-G-L-Y.

[packers11]

I didn't get to watch the game because I live in New England (and NFL ticket doesn't start until Sept) but isn't preseason supposed to showcase the 'vanilla defenses'

I thought in most preseason games the teams go very vanilla not to give anything away for the regular season...

[Brandon494]

I didn't get to watch the game because I live in New England (and NFL ticket doesn't start until Sept) but isn't preseason supposed to showcase the 'vanilla defenses'

I thought in most preseason games the teams go very vanilla not to give anything away for the regular season...

Yea thats what I saw, we were just running a basic vanilla defense.

On the Hawk TD he bit on a move by the TE bad.

[rbaloha1]

Hawk needs to improve pass coverage. Over committed on the Browns te resulting in a td.

Generally Hawk is overly aggressive in pass coverage and passive during run plays. Blitzing has improved though.

So does Barnett. He sucked in coverage yesterday.


I think Capers needs to work on his pass coverage schemes....The TD Hawk gave up had ZERO help over the middle, everyone was man up with no safety deep or anyone in the middle.

As I sat in Lambeau last night studying the game, I really started to wonder what we are doing defensively. Our blitz's looked rather blah, and our blitzing techniques were rather blah. Chillar would run full speed and then as he got to the Tackle on his blitz, he would square up to the blocker...that's crappy. A LB needs to give as little as possible to be blocked, which is where Matthews is so effective. AND, our blitz's were very noticeable and predictable.

The Browns weren't stupid either. We sat in a cover 2 most of the night, they would run someone at a safety, then release a WR up the sideline leaving it wide open....that's High School level stuff.

I was rather disappointed with our entire defensive planning game 1. I sure hope it improves, cause it was U-G-L-Y.

Nice assessment. Confusion in pass coverage still remains. The top end qbs exploit this confusion.

Nonetheless this is correctable once the proper personnel is determined and with repetition. Bush is still confused.

[Bossman641]

Didn't get a chance to watch the game, but at this point I would be much more concerned with individual battles (which DL can beat their man, can Lee and Underwood man up, etc) then the scheme.

[Gunakor]

I was rather disappointed with our entire defensive planning game 1. I sure hope it improves, cause it was U-G-L-Y.

I'm sure the coordinators weren't sitting around all week scheming up a plan to beat the Browns. If the lack of a quality game plan was the issue then I'm happy as a clam. I wouldn't expect Dom to start planning for an opponent until the regular season starts anyway. Dom wanted to see what this group looks like in base (as reported on the game broadcast anyway), so we sat in base and played cover-2 all night. No worries, the game doesn't count anyway.

[Patler]

As I sat in Lambeau last night studying the game, I really started to wonder what we are doing defensively. Our blitz's looked rather blah, and our blitzing techniques were rather blah. Chillar would run full speed and then as he got to the Tackle on his blitz, he would square up to the blocker...that's crappy. A LB needs to give as little as possible to be blocked, which is where Matthews is so effective. AND, our blitz's were very noticeable and predictable.


Capers said BEFORE the game that he would run very basic blitz schemes, if he even blitzed at all. He said he wanted to be able to assess the individual skills of players in pass coverage and the individual skills of the linemen in pass rushing. He said if you blitz effectively it makes it hard to assess individual skills, and last year he made the mistake of going into the season without a clear understanding of each player's capabilities.

He sounded like a man with a plan, very clearly and very definitely. He ran the defense to be able to see what he wanted to see, regardless of the impact it might have on the outcome of the game. I suspect each week we will see the defense become a little more like what it will be when the season opens.

[Patler]

Double post. sorry! :oops:

[Joemailman]

As I sat in Lambeau last night studying the game, I really started to wonder what we are doing defensively. Our blitz's looked rather blah, and our blitzing techniques were rather blah. Chillar would run full speed and then as he got to the Tackle on his blitz, he would square up to the blocker...that's crappy. A LB needs to give as little as possible to be blocked, which is where Matthews is so effective. AND, our blitz's were very noticeable and predictable.


Capers said BEFORE the game that he would run very basic blitz schemes, if he even blitzed at all. He said he wanted to be able to assess the individual skills of players in pass coverage and the individual skills of the linemen in pass rushing. He said if you blitz effectively it makes it hard to assess individual skills, and last year he made the mistake of going into the season without a clear understanding of each player's capabilities.

He sounded like a man with a plan, very clearly and very definitely. He ran the defense to be able to see what he wanted to see, regardless of the impact it might have on the outcome of the game. I suspect each week we will see the defense become a little more like what it will be when the season opens.

Last year the pressure they brought in the preseason produced turnovers at a rate that could not be maintained. That probably disguised some weaknesses that came back to rear their ugly heads later. The way they did things Saturday night is probably better, even though it's not as much fun to watch.

[packerbacker1234]

As I sat in Lambeau last night studying the game, I really started to wonder what we are doing defensively. Our blitz's looked rather blah, and our blitzing techniques were rather blah. Chillar would run full speed and then as he got to the Tackle on his blitz, he would square up to the blocker...that's crappy. A LB needs to give as little as possible to be blocked, which is where Matthews is so effective. AND, our blitz's were very noticeable and predictable.


Capers said BEFORE the game that he would run very basic blitz schemes, if he even blitzed at all. He said he wanted to be able to assess the individual skills of players in pass coverage and the individual skills of the linemen in pass rushing. He said if you blitz effectively it makes it hard to assess individual skills, and last year he made the mistake of going into the season without a clear understanding of each player's capabilities.

He sounded like a man with a plan, very clearly and very definitely. He ran the defense to be able to see what he wanted to see, regardless of the impact it might have on the outcome of the game. I suspect each week we will see the defense become a little more like what it will be when the season opens.

Last year the pressure they brought in the preseason produced turnovers at a rate that could not be maintained. That probably disguised some weaknesses that came back to rear their ugly heads later. The way they did things Saturday night is probably better, even though it's not as much fun to watch.

Well to be fair, we were the #1 team at causing turnovers last season, so it's not as if all those preseason turnovers didn't translate at all - the packers are the best team in the nfl at causing turnovers.

However, we all know about the QB pressure problems. I like what he is doing and how he is doing it - he really wants to just figure out players individual skill sets better so when he does blitz, he does it correctly, at the right time, and hitting the right hole with the right players. He could of dialed up a bunch of exoctic blitzs and got 6 turnovers, but that wont help translate to doing it in the regular season against a good team like the vikings. So, this is sort of a "lets see what your good at" thing, and I like it.

Preseason games don't actually matter, they are glorified practices. That's what we saw saturday - practice.