Packers Rush Defense Struggles

[pbmax]

If you read the papers, you will hear how Raji is having a Pro Bowl caliber season. You will read that Zombo might have limitations in coverage or rushing the passer but is stout versus the run. Jenkins hand is now cast free and Pickett returned from injury last week.

So why is the Run D so porous this year?

Is Bishop big hits and missed assignments? Has Hawk actually elevated his play? Does Peprah support the run like Bigby/Martin? Does the line miss Jolly versus the run? Or is Raji not as stout as Pickett in the middle? Is Jenkins completely healthy or do we miss Harrell as depth?

Football Outsiders ranks the Packers Run D 22nd in the league (pass D is ranked number 1).

[Joemailman]

I voted Jolly, who was a hell of a player. However, I really think it's a combination of things. I think Raji is less stout against the run than Pickett was. The tradeoff is that Raji offers more pass rush. I think Matthews/Zombo is less effective against the run than Kampman/Matthews was. Peprah is not as good as Bigby was.

[3irty1]

Seems to me like they were trying to isolate their runs on Zombo who was pretty consistently overpowered. Watching a performance like that by Turner yesterday makes me miss Ryan Grant and the success we had with the quick hitting zone reads in past years.

[sharpe1027]

I have not reviewed the whole game for this, so I am only going on a few plays that I remember. Zombo seemed to have trouble consistently setting the edge and Hawk and Bishop got caught in traffic by sticking their noses inside leaving the cutback open. The 4th down touchdown was caused by Collins crashing inside and getting wiped out in the process.

[bobblehead]

Last season we sold out to stop the run, this year we play a lot of nickel and count on the O to pressure teams to pass. I think our run D has been good this year, but yesterday we faced one of the best ZBS cut blocking teams there is and they wore us down. If we had a lead most of the game we would have been fine. If we had run effectively to rest our D we would have been fine. Neither happened and we still had a good shot at winning it.

Atlanta is better than I thought and EXTREMELY well coached....I look forward to the rematch.

[Bossman641]

I'll take the easy way out and say it's a combination of things. Earlier in the year the big issue was the DL depth. The first Viking game, for example, we only had 3 healthy DL (Wilson, Raji, Wynn) after Jenkins got injured during warmups and Pickett re-injured himself after a handful of plays.

The run defense has actually been pretty good up until yesterday. There were a few things going on yesterday. One, I think you have to give Turner a lot of credit. He is just a monster and is one of those guys that falls forward on every run. Two, the tacklin was pretty shoddy yesterday for whatever reason. Three, Atlanta seemed to have pretty good success running left against Zombo. It's not like they exclusively ran left though, I remember a 20-25 yard run off right as well.

I don't think there is any one area to concentrate on going forward. My one worry is that Raji gets worn down. He has played a ton of snaps.

[hoosier]

A combination:
1. They have had several games where they gave up big scrambling yardage to the opponent's QB or WR: Vick, Shaun Hill, Harvin, even Sanchez plus the Jets punter. Vick's big game was hard to classify because they presumably didn't spend much time preparing for him. In the Philly, Det, first Minnesota and Jets games a non-RB got at least 40 yards on them. After a while those yards start to add up.

2. So far this year they have only played two games against teams (Washington and Dallas) whose offenses were highly imbalanced in favor of passing game. The kinds of games where a team just gives up on the running game early on. Last year they had problems stopping the run early on (against Cincinnati and St Louis) but then ran into a bunch of teams (Detroit twice, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, San Fran, Arizona, Chicago twice) who simply couldn't run the ball. I am not so convinced that last year's #1 against the run was really all that dominant, and I am also unconvinced that this year's very mediocre ranked run defense is really that bad.

[MichiganPackerFan]

... I am not so convinced that last year's #1 against the run was really all that dominant, and I am also unconvinced that this year's very mediocre ranked run defense is really that bad.

Damn you and your reasonableness and realistic perspective. Grab a torch and join the rest of the villagers.

[Joemailman]

Down With Reason!!!

http://vulgarmorality.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/mob2.jpg

[ND72]

I vote the nickel personel. The one time yesterday we were Nickel, Raji & Jenkins playing on the Guards, Clay & Zombo off of the Tackles (Clay head up on TE), Hawk and Bishop stacked over Raji and Jenkins....Collins & Peprah deep, Shields, Woodson (slot) and Williams for our DB's...They ran a outside zone away from the TE, so at Zombo & Woodson. Woodson stepped up trying to take the play out, but Turner stepped inside of him, FB blocked Zombo, Tackle got up to Bishop so it was Turner on Peprah. Perfectly ran play. Nobody was getting off of the blocks, and everyone was diving at legs.

The only difference from that play that I remember specifically is that instead of the Guard/Tackle and FB being able to essentially take on Jenkins, Zombo and Bishop all by themselves, is if you have Pickett in, possibly Bishop goes unblocked to make the tackle.

I'm never a fan of us going to that 2-4-5 look, but I hate more against running teams such as Chicago, Minnesota, and Atlanta.

I'm expecting a full force of 2-4-5 when we play New England since they like the shotgun so much.

[pbmax]

A combination:
1. They have had several games where they gave up big scrambling yardage to the opponent's QB or WR: Vick, Shaun Hill, Harvin, even Sanchez plus the Jets punter. Vick's big game was hard to classify because they presumably didn't spend much time preparing for him. In the Philly, Det, first Minnesota and Jets games a non-RB got at least 40 yards on them. After a while those yards start to add up.

2. So far this year they have only played two games against teams (Washington and Dallas) whose offenses were highly imbalanced in favor of passing game. The kinds of games where a team just gives up on the running game early on. Last year they had problems stopping the run early on (against Cincinnati and St Louis) but then ran into a bunch of teams (Detroit twice, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, San Fran, Arizona, Chicago twice) who simply couldn't run the ball. I am not so convinced that last year's #1 against the run was really all that dominant, and I am also unconvinced that this year's very mediocre ranked run defense is really that bad.


I'll take the easy way out and say it's a combination of things. Earlier in the year the big issue was the DL depth. The first Viking game, for example, we only had 3 healthy DL (Wilson, Raji, Wynn) after Jenkins got injured during warmups and Pickett re-injured himself after a handful of plays.

The run defense has actually been pretty good up until yesterday. There were a few things going on yesterday. One, I think you have to give Turner a lot of credit. He is just a monster and is one of those guys that falls forward on every run. Two, the tacklin was pretty shoddy yesterday for whatever reason. Three, Atlanta seemed to have pretty good success running left against Zombo. It's not like they exclusively ran left though, I remember a 20-25 yard run off right as well.

I don't think there is any one area to concentrate on going forward. My one worry is that Raji gets worn down. He has played a ton of snaps.

I think the run defense this year suffers beyond that. Football Outsiders takes into account the result of the play: so the 14 yard gain by the punter on 4th and 15 is viewed as unsuccessful compared to yardage statistics, which would show it positively. So that play would be compared to others that failed to gain a first down when that was the only successful outcome. Same with QB scrambles that result in something other than progress toward a score.

By that same token, FO didn't think the Packer run D last year was the best in the league (it was 5th). But that is a substantial drop off none the less. By the simplest measure, yards per attempt, the Packers are surrendering 4.5 yards a crack this year compared to 3.6 a year ago. That is not good. I think the perception of the defense is off and it is being hurt by its previous strength. These FO numbers are prior to Atlanta's results, the averages includes that game.

I also think the Packers have failed, in multiple games to get the lead and take the other side out of their run game in the second half. But that is just an impression, I haven't tallied the scores. But that should affect the totals more than the average.

[pbmax]

I vote the nickel personel. The one time yesterday we were Nickel, Raji & Jenkins playing on the Guards, Clay & Zombo off of the Tackles (Clay head up on TE), Hawk and Bishop stacked over Raji and Jenkins....Collins & Peprah deep, Shields, Woodson (slot) and Williams for our DB's...They ran a outside zone away from the TE, so at Zombo & Woodson. Woodson stepped up trying to take the play out, but Turner stepped inside of him, FB blocked Zombo, Tackle got up to Bishop so it was Turner on Peprah. Perfectly ran play. Nobody was getting off of the blocks, and everyone was diving at legs.

The only difference from that play that I remember specifically is that instead of the Guard/Tackle and FB being able to essentially take on Jenkins, Zombo and Bishop all by themselves, is if you have Pickett in, possibly Bishop goes unblocked to make the tackle.

I'm never a fan of us going to that 2-4-5 look, but I hate more against running teams such as Chicago, Minnesota, and Atlanta.

I'm expecting a full force of 2-4-5 when we play New England since they like the shotgun so much.

I agree about the nickel and it has had an effect since the team has been short of lineman in several games. McGinn's game grades may prove me wrong, but I think the Packers were in base more in this game than any other save the Dolphins or Jets.

[Bossman641]

I think the run defense this year suffers beyond that. Football Outsiders takes into account the result of the play: so the 14 yard gain by the punter on 4th and 15 is viewed as unsuccessful compared to yardage statistics, which would show it positively. So that play would be compared to others that failed to gain a first down when that was the only successful outcome. Same with QB scrambles that result in something other than progress toward a score.

By that same token, FO didn't think the Packer run D last year was the best in the league (it was 5th). But that is a substantial drop off none the less. By the simplest measure, yards per attempt, the Packers are surrendering 4.5 yards a crack this year compared to 3.6 a year ago. That is not good. I think the perception of the defense is off and it is being hurt by its previous strength. These FO numbers are prior to Atlanta's results, the averages includes that game.

I also think the Packers have failed, in multiple games to get the lead and take the other side out of their run game in the second half. But that is just an impression, I haven't tallied the scores. But that should affect the totals more than the average.

Do you have a link to game by game numbers? I'd be interested in taking a look at that.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Philadelphia - RBs had 8 carries for 35 yards (4.3 avg). (Two words: Mike Vick. I wouldn't say run defense was a concern. They didn't run much outside of Vick.)
Buffalo - RBs had 28 carries for 108 yards (3.8 avg). (They ran the ball even when they fell way behind. We gave them up. I wouldn't say run defense was a concern.)
Chicago - RBs had 14 carries for 38 yards (2.7 avg). (Run defense was a strength.)
Detroit - RBs had 16 carries for 67 yards (4.1 avg). (I wouldn't say run defense was a concern.)
Washington - RBs had 17 carries for 41 yards (2.4 avg). (Run defense was a strength.)
Miami - RBs had 36 carries for 144 yards (4.0 avg). (They gashed us pretty good.)
Minnesota - RBs had 33 carries for 155 yards (4.7 avg). (Two words: Adrian Peterson. Two more words: T.J. Lang. Our DL was decimated.)
Jets - RBs had 22 carries for 76 yards (3.4 avg). (Run defense was a strength.)
Dallas - RBs had 14 carries for 39 yards (2.8 avg). (Run defense was a strength.)
Minnesota - RBs had 15 carries for 75 yards (5.0 avg). (Adrian Peterson in the Dome.)
Atlanta - RB had 27 carries for 117 yards (4.3 avg). (Poor tackling. First game I was concerned about the other team running on us.)

I'm just not feeling the big concern for the run defense. This was the first game that we were mostly healthy that I felt we really had problems stopping the run. Some really poor tackling in that game, but I don't think it's been a big issue. Mike Vick's 11 carries for 103 yards in one half made the stats look worse. If you look at the run defense on a per game basis, this game, the Miami game, and the two games against Adrian Peterson (one of which we had like two healthy DL) were the ones where I'd say our run defense didn't get the job done. That being said, we've been gashed by QBs running the ball in a few games. I guess it's the price you give up when you go after the QB like we do.

[bobblehead]

Philadelphia - RBs had 8 carries for 35 yards (4.3 avg). (Two words: Mike Vick. I wouldn't say run defense was a concern. They didn't run much outside of Vick.)
Buffalo - RBs had 28 carries for 108 yards (3.8 avg). (They ran the ball even when they fell way behind. We gave them up. I wouldn't say run defense was a concern.)
Chicago - RBs had 14 carries for 38 yards (2.7 avg). (Run defense was a strength.)
Detroit - RBs had 16 carries for 67 yards (4.1 avg). (I wouldn't say run defense was a concern.)
Washington - RBs had 17 carries for 41 yards (2.4 avg). (Run defense was a strength.)
Miami - RBs had 36 carries for 144 yards (4.0 avg). (They gashed us pretty good.)
Minnesota - RBs had 33 carries for 155 yards (4.7 avg). (Two words: Adrian Peterson. Two more words: T.J. Lang. Our DL was decimated.)
Jets - RBs had 22 carries for 76 yards (3.4 avg). (Run defense was a strength.)
Dallas - RBs had 14 carries for 39 yards (2.8 avg). (Run defense was a strength.)
Minnesota - RBs had 15 carries for 75 yards (5.0 avg). (Adrian Peterson in the Dome.)
Atlanta - RB had 27 carries for 117 yards (4.3 avg). (Poor tackling. First game I was concerned about the other team running on us.)

I'm just not feeling the big concern for the run defense. This was the first game that we were mostly healthy that I felt we really had problems stopping the run. Some really poor tackling in that game, but I don't think it's been a big issue. Mike Vick's 11 carries for 103 yards in one half made the stats look worse. If you look at the run defense on a per game basis, this game, the Miami game, and the two games against Adrian Peterson (one of which we had like two healthy DL) were the ones where I'd say our run defense didn't get the job done. That being said, we've been gashed by QBs running the ball in a few games. I guess it's the price you give up when you go after the QB like we do.

THIS...plus what I said. " I think our run D has been good this year, but yesterday we faced one of the best ZBS cut blocking teams there is and they wore us down. If we had a lead most of the game we would have been fine. If we had run effectively to rest our D we would have been fine. Neither happened and we still had a good shot at winning it."

[red]

i have to also agree that i think our run d has been pretty damn solid this year. turner is just a monster. he did to us what he's done to everyone

[Pugger]

I voted Zombo. Atlanta bottled up CM3 and so we had little pass rush. Turner is a LOAD and is built like a brick out house. I'm sure our DBs are sore today.

[hoosier]

I think the run defense this year suffers beyond that. Football Outsiders takes into account the result of the play: so the 14 yard gain by the punter on 4th and 15 is viewed as unsuccessful compared to yardage statistics, which would show it positively. So that play would be compared to others that failed to gain a first down when that was the only successful outcome. Same with QB scrambles that result in something other than progress toward a score.

By that same token, FO didn't think the Packer run D last year was the best in the league (it was 5th). But that is a substantial drop off none the less. By the simplest measure, yards per attempt, the Packers are surrendering 4.5 yards a crack this year compared to 3.6 a year ago. That is not good. I think the perception of the defense is off and it is being hurt by its previous strength. These FO numbers are prior to Atlanta's results, the averages includes that game.

I also think the Packers have failed, in multiple games to get the lead and take the other side out of their run game in the second half. But that is just an impression, I haven't tallied the scores. But that should affect the totals more than the average.

I don't know, for some reason I feel better about the Packers defense this year than I did last year. Maybe part of it is they have overperformed after getting gutted by injuries and self-inflicted wounds. But if you asked me which I would rather have, the 2009 Packers defense which was statistically stellar against the run but showed a propensity to get smoked by high caliber passing attacks, or the 2010 version which has shown some bend against the run but which pressures the QB and has yet to get lit up through the air, I would take this year's version in a heartbeat. And then they would probably promptly go and make Alex Smith look like the second coming of Steve Young.

[pbmax]

hoosier- I feel better about the pass defense, especially at CB where Williams and Shields appear to be light years ahead of Bell and Bush. And that is despite Chillar and Barnett being out for long stretches.

harv - If you wish to account for QB scrambles with the Pass D that is fine. But those yards produce first downs and keep possessions and scoring chances alive the same as RB runs or completed passes. I would bet they are worse than passes because the chance for a fumble from a QB run is not as high as an INT or fumble from getting hit in the pocket.

Eliminate Vicks' yards (which is problematic for comparison since we aren't doing it for the rest of the league) and the Packers are still allowing 4.27 yards per carry (1135/264). This year the Packers have allowed 58 first downs by rushing, last year it was 68 for the season (current pace = 84).

[pbmax]

Bob McGinn covers the Packers Run D and makes the following statements on JSO (http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/111304909.html):


Based on rankings, the fall of a run defense from No. 1 in 2009 to No. 18 this year might appear to be a serious blemish. But the yields of 112.6 and 4.50 per carry would be 90.2 and 4.05 if the composite quarterbacks' rushing totals (30-246-8.2) were eliminated.

But he doesn't explain that the filtered RB numbers are still worse than the overall rush D last year.

My first inclination is that the improvement is the Packer pass D has caused teams to shift to the run. But both the metrics for plays, Pass Attempts and Run Attempts are up slightly per game, though run atts have increased more. Total yards yielded are up in both pass and run. So perhaps the offensive struggles have turned over more opportunities for the defense to be on the field? Perhaps, but they are yielding more yards per play than last year.

Turnovers are down per game (1.9 per game versus 2.5 per game last year). Net yards per game on pass plays is nearly the same (5.5 vs. 5.6) and first downs yielded have increased for both the pass and run.

In short, the Packers are yielding fewer points and playing worse defense by many measures. The factor that holds all this together is passing touchdowns allowed. As McGinn covers, both in Red Zone and long TD catch areas, the Packers are playing far better. Teams may be running a bit more (and QBs are running more) and passing a bit more successfully, but they are not finding the endzone and all the improvement is in the passing game.

I think the secondary explains a lot of this. Despite an injury to safety, they have been healthy and Peprah has performed better than the starters and backups at safety last year. Woodson may not be the DPOY, but he and Williams have been as good or better than last year's multiple combos. And perhaps most significantly, Shields (and a couple of others) at nickel have been better than the late years combo platter of Bush, Underwood and Bell. Playing more nickel also might some of this, but I have not come across year to date numbers for this.

The front seven has not been as effective, but they can still rush the QB, more effectively than last year even. Even with Capers blitzing large numbers less (there is a danger here with Matthews injured). This defense does not help its offense as much in field position (turnovers and yards per drive), but it is keeping the game closer. If Special Teams could find a way to be mediocre and help the O, this team would be an absolute force.

[Fritz]

Injuries and Jolly's absence. Raji is playing too many snaps and is wearing down. Had Jolly been here, and Neal not gotten hurt, you'd have a more stout defensive line.

[pbmax]

The Numbers:

http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k75/paisans_2006/PackerD09-10.png

[MichiganPackerFan]

Clay Matthews didn't do much in the third quarter. Started out as the first half defensive player of the year, but now seems far short of that.

[mission]

CM3 had Smith in the grasp a couple times ... what he did yesterday is exactly what he's done all year. Give him a sack on one of those and everyone's talking about how good of a game he had with all his hurries and allowing Zombo and Jenkins to get sacks.

[SnakeLH2006]

Personally, I believe our DL has been pretty good up front. But, with depth issues, and injuries are backups are all but gone (Harrell, Neal, etc.) I'm sure it's taking a toll on the bigger guys (Pickett has had nagging issues and Raji has had to play huge amounts of snaps in 2010).