Just Who Is AJ Hawk's Competition for Buck ILB?

[pbmax]

Is Smith not in competition for Hawk's spot at Buck? Well, I thought I knew how things were stacked up in the middle, but after this article, not so sure.

http://www.foxsportswisconsin.com/06/26/12/Smith-not-competing-with-Hawk-for-time-/landing_packers.html?blockID=752030&feedID=5069

If, as we previously thought, the true difference between Mack and Buck is taking on blockers, then Smith may not be playing Hawk's position.

But if, as the article asserts, its only the question of wearing the headset, I think last year proved Capers thinks Smith can handle it.

[Lurker64]

I think Smith is going after Bishop's job, not Hawk's. I actually wouldn't be surprised of Smith takes Bishop's starting job at some point this season. I don't think Bishop and Smith can actually productively coexist as the ILBs on the field, and Smith might actually be a better player (he certainly looked like that could be the case after Bishop got hurt late last year).

I think Hawk has to worry more about losing snaps to a coverage specialist LB in passing situations, most likely Brad Jones.

[pack4to84]

I think Smith is going after Bishop's job, not Hawk's. I actually wouldn't be surprised of Smith takes Bishop's starting job at some point this season. I don't think Bishop and Smith can actually productively coexist as the ILBs on the field, and Smith might actually be a better player (he certainly looked like that could be the case after Bishop got hurt late last year).

I think Hawk has to worry more about losing snaps to a coverage specialist LB in passing situations, most likely Brad Jones.

If Moss shows with pads on that he can rush the passer. I could see Matthews taking Hawk's spot in the nickel. Perry-Raji-Worthy-Moss on the line. Then having Matthews lined up in the middle picking where he wants to rush. Hard to Double team a player that you don't know where he is coming from. We know that Matthews is a play maker even in coverage.

[pbmax]

If Moss shows with pads on that he can rush the passer. I could see Matthews taking Hawk's spot in the nickel. Perry-Raji-Worthy-Moss on the line. Then having Matthews lined up in the middle picking where he wants to rush. Hard to Double team a player that you don't know where he is coming from. We know that Matthews is a play maker even in coverage.

Dezman, is that the first name of the guy you are thinking of? I think his last name is Moses.

Rookies haven't started a whole lot on the front line for the Packers and he starts way back in the line. Even Matthews and Neal (pre-injury trifecta) had to wait. But he might get some reps if he continues to plow though vets in camp.

[RashanGary]

Dezman, is that the first name of the guy you are thinking of? I think his last name is Moses.

Rookies haven't started a whole lot on the front line for the Packers and he starts way back in the line. Even Matthews and Neal (pre-injury trifecta) had to wait. But he might get some reps if he continues to plow though vets in camp.

Packers are big on best 11. Any LB could take Hawks spot.

Bishop is going nowhere. He's our best ILB by far.

[Lurker64]

If Moss shows with pads on that he can rush the passer. I could see Matthews taking Hawk's spot in the nickel. Perry-Raji-Worthy-Moss on the line. Then having Matthews lined up in the middle picking where he wants to rush. Hard to Double team a player that you don't know where he is coming from. We know that Matthews is a play maker even in coverage.

I think the linebacker quartet that involves Matthews moving away from the edge would actually involve putting So'oto and Perry on the field, and moving Matthews inside. So'oto is easily a better pass rusher than any of our other LBs excepting Matthews and possibly Perry. A full offseason for Vic to work on the subtle things that he was struggling with last year (largely involving coverage and reads) and I'm not sure he doesn't have a shot at winning a starting job.

If Zombo can finally get healthy, he's definitely in the mix ahead of Moses as well.

[RashanGary]

I think the linebacker quartet that involves Matthews moving away from the edge would actually involve putting So'oto and Perry on the field, and moving Matthews inside. So'oto is easily a better pass rusher than any of our other LBs excepting Matthews and possibly Perry. A full offseason for Vic to work on the subtle things that he was struggling with last year (largely involving coverage and reads) and I'm not sure he doesn't have a shot at winning a starting job.

If Zombo can finally get healthy, he's definitely in the mix ahead of Moses as well.

It will be interesting to see some of the packages. If So'oto really does develop into a decent pass rusher on the outside, you could easily see some hybrid 4-2 on passing downs with So'oto and Perry lining up wide as DE types.

Raji and whoever wins between Daniels, Worthy, Neal, Hargrove (or any surprise guy)

I've heard McCarthy and Thompson both talk about Jones as a good pass rusher. They seem to like him in that role. He can also cover. Matthews is a stud pass rusher, and he can cover too. We could easily get 6 guys on the field who can legitimately beat a single block with two of them fully capable of beating a double.

It will be interesting to see what kind of packages they put together. There is a lot more LB talent this year and talent with some experience than in the past. A lot more DL talent too.

With our ST's tilting the field (Cobb, Masthay, Crosby and company) and our offense lighting teams up. . . . We could see some clever pass rush out of these guys. Again, guys like Jones, Matthews, Hawk, Bishop, Zombo, Smith. . . . They all have some experience under their belt. They can all handle a little more flexible roles than in the past without screwing up. . . . . There's a chance we can just roll teams up this year. Teams will have to pass, and we went all out to get pass stopping talent.

Perry might have to be a bit of a pass rush specialist in these complex schemes, but who knows, he might be a hell of a pass rush specialist. If he is, with all of the other guys we have who can handle the other areas, it's certainly not a problem.

We'll see how it goes. I'm excited!

[Iron Mike]

If Zombo can finally get healthy, he's definitely in the mix ahead of Moses as well.

Don't stop, get it, get it--until you're cheddar, header. Watch me as I gravitate, watch the way I navigate.

Ha ha Ha ha haaaa....

[packers11]

A.J. Hawk looks ready for this season

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAcVbT79VB8&feature=player_embedded

Biggest hit i've seen in years. Can't wait until the season starts! ;-)

[KYPack]

I like the new "butch" haircut.

Have to give Hawk a hall pass for last season.

That right side of the D was a disaster area.

3 stooges at RDE and 3 more at ROLB?

He didn't have much help.

That said, he got sloppy in his shed technique and had some big screw-ups in cover.

If he doesn't get back on track, they will have to eventually make a change.

[Lurker64]

If he doesn't get back on track, they will have to eventually make a change.

I agree, but I very much think that Hawk's long term replacement in this defense is not on this roster. If we're going to give up on Hawk, we're going to need to draft a guy who's a natural Buck.

[Fritz]

I agree, but I very much think that Hawk's long term replacement in this defense is not on this roster. If we're going to give up on Hawk, we're going to need to draft a guy who's a natural Buck.

And here he is:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gjgt2XuzYOQ/T97kT8nmD0I/AAAAAAAAAbU/U4oMF4Jp3uo/s1600/IMG_0374.JPG

[Lurker64]

Fritz, that's anything but natural.

I think, honestly, on this team the backup Buck LB is Bishop (if Hawk were to go down for an extended period of time) with Smith taking Bishop's spot.

[pbmax]

And here he is:

[IMG]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gjgt2XuzYOQ/T97kT8nmD0I/AAAAAAAAAbU/U4oMF4Jp3uo/s1600/IMG_0374.JPG[/Img

I don't think Alex Rodriguez wants to play football.

If either Ted Thompson or Mike McCarthy suggested Brad Jones can rush the passer, then each needs to be checked for a concussion. He can do everything an OLB needs to do BUT that.

[Lurker64]

If either Ted Thompson or Mike McCarthy suggested Brad Jones can rush the passer, then each needs to be checked for a concussion. He can do everything an OLB needs to do BUT that.

He might be better at rushing the passer from the inside (since he's an ILB now). It's a little different to beat an OT who's expecting to block you versus charging through a hole in pass pro on a delayed blitz

That may be the reason behind the move to ILB. Since Jones can cover, run, and tackle... but can't rush from the outside. So he has a shot at being a perfectly cromulent ILB.

[KYPack]

You got me on that one, Lurk.

I had to head over to the Urban Dictionary to look up that "cromulent" word.

Now head back to your room, coach.

[Fritz]

If he's cromulent that'll be different than AJ Hawk, who at times looked somnolent.

[pbmax]

If he's cromulent that'll be different than AJ Hawk, who at times looked somnolent.

:lol:

As for Lurk's assertion, as far as the Packer pass rush and Jones, I am willing to try anything, so I hope he earns some playing time in the preseason.

[RashanGary]

Fritz, that's anything but natural.

I think, honestly, on this team the backup Buck LB is Bishop (if Hawk were to go down for an extended period of time) with Smith taking Bishop's spot.

Are you one of the same guys that said we need to draft natural 3-4 DE's?

Anyone closed minded enough to force their player personnel choices into a box by making them fit a certain mold rigidly is leaving themselves incapable of picking real talent in other areas.

James Harrison is a guy TT always quotes as being too small, too slow, too short, too everything to be a 3-4 OLB. Well, mother fuckers, a player is a player is a player. Welcome to the NFL where 6' nothing QB's like Drew Brees dominate. 238 pound OLB's in a 3-4 scheme tear it up, 5'8" WR's like Steve Smith are at the top of the league (when he had a decent QB of course). . . . .

Sorry to say, there are many ways to skin a cat. Get over your in the box thinking, and you won't be so surprised when other things happen.

[ND72]

I love how we are all picking who will take Hawks spot when not a single article or coach has anything to lead in that direction. Hawk will start all year baring injury.

[Lurker64]

I love how we are all picking who will take Hawks spot when not a single article or coach has anything to lead in that direction. Hawk will start all year baring injury.

He'll definitely start every game if healthy, but I could see them taking him off the field some in passing situations. Either Hawk or Bishop, because the two of them are a pretty slow ILB combo, all things considered. Honestly, it wouldn't be surprising to me if Bishop is the guy taken off the field in pass situations.

[BobDobbs]

He'll definitely start every game if healthy, but I could see them taking him off the field some in passing situations. Either Hawk or Bishop, because the two of them are a pretty slow ILB combo, all things considered. Honestly, it wouldn't be surprising to me if Bishop is the guy taken off the field in pass situations.

God I hope not. Granted I don't know the play calls, but to the naked eye Bishop looks better in coverage and far better coming on a blitz.

[pbmax]

Are you one of the same guys that said we need to draft natural 3-4 DE's?

Anyone closed minded enough to force their player personnel choices into a box by making them fit a certain mold rigidly is leaving themselves incapable of picking real talent in other areas.

James Harrison is a guy TT always quotes as being too small, too slow, too short, too everything to be a 3-4 OLB. Well, mother fuckers, a player is a player is a player. Welcome to the NFL where 6' nothing QB's like Drew Brees dominate. 238 pound OLB's in a 3-4 scheme tear it up, 5'8" WR's like Steve Smith are at the top of the league (when he had a decent QB of course). . . . .

Sorry to say, there are many ways to skin a cat. Get over your in the box thinking, and you won't be so surprised when other things happen.

There are many ways and formation isn't as important as players. But neither extreme works. You can't just pick the highest rated talent regardless of where he fits in a defense either. Otherwise, you end up with a lot of Jeremy Thompson's and nowhere to put him. The other end is a bunch of try hard guys who are productive but can't win any battle on talent or dominate the opponent. See every Marty Schottenheimer team.

The Packers have clearly deviated from the standard Pittsburgh 3-4 model with this draft and plan to spend a lot of time rushing the passer with various groups and alignments. Given three years of data and their offense, that makes sense. Whether that works or not will be determined partly by how well the pieces fit together to make an entire unit. The Packers aren't drafting "real talent" and then picking a defensive scheme, they clearly intend to run something different out there a good portion of the time.

[Upnorth]

As to who would replace Hawk, I have no idea, but if we have a player who is good enough to replace him, that is great for us and I hope it happens. If it doesn't I am okay with Hawk. He is not a 5th pick over all player, but he is not a bust either.

[Guiness]

The comment about him not being worth the 5th pick in the draft is brought up so often - but really, who else in that draft?

Of the 4 guys ahead of him, wouldn't want 3 of them - VY, D'Brickshaw or Bush. Then look at the next 5 - Davis, Huff, Whitner, Sims and (ugg!) Leinhart. From that crew, Davis. Maybe. After that, you've got to go to #12 for Ngata.

I think we got the right guy. Only one of the top ten that's a slam dunk better than him is Williams, and he went #1 overall. Going outside of those top ten isn't really something that was going to happen

[Lurker64]

He is not a 5th pick over all player, but he is not a bust either.

Who is this platonic ideal "fifth overall player" that we're comparing the rest of them to? Is it Levi Brown, Mark Sanchez, or Quentin Jammer? Ricky Williams, Terrence Newman, Glenn Dorsey, or Cadillac Williams? Maybe Curtis Enis?

LaDanian Tomlinson was picked 5th overall, but at the time this was perceived to be a reach, and he's definitely an outlier, yet he has fewer rings than Hawk.

I'm reasonably confident that the fifth best player to come out of a draft has *never* been picked at #5 overall.

[Upnorth]

Very good point. I was kinda thinking about listing the busts around the 1st round but still I would like to see more out of the 5th pick. It may have been a down year, and Hawk maybe better than most of the crappy picks around him, but I demand excellenct!

[Guiness]

Very good point. I was kinda thinking about listing the busts around the 1st round but still I would like to see more out of the 5th pick. It may have been a down year, and Hawk maybe better than most of the crappy picks around him, but I demand excellenct!

That's fine, I demand proper spelling but don't get it. It's "excellency". :evil:

:smile::razz:

[Upnorth]

That's fine, I demand proper spelling but don't get it. It's "excellency". :evil:

:smile::razz:

Then you proabaly have a prablem with must of my posits. :taunt:

[sharpe1027]

At some point where a player was drafted doesn't make any difference in whether or not they can contribute to the team. That point begins the day after they are drafted. Draft position provides a good conversation point for fans to discuss whether the GM made a good move, it is a bad way to manage a team.

[Guiness]

Then you proabaly have a prablem with must of my posits. :taunt:

I'm watching your grammar too! That sentence showed proper use of both subject and object pronouns, but consider yourself on notice.:butt:

[wist43]

I'm not a big Hawk fan, but as I said in another thread - the guys who we think belong in the rotation, but seemingly played like shit last year, have to be given a pass for circumstances beyond their control, i.e. the mess that was Green Bay's front seven in positions 6 thru 13.

Assume Raji, Pickett, Matthews, Bishop, and Hawk are players - who else contributed anything?? Not only could the Packers not field 7 NFL calibur starters, they got no benefit from any rotation, nor any boost from sub packages. Walden, Wynn, Wilson, Neal, Jones, Francios, and Zombo - combined!!! contributed nothing.

Hence TT's reaction in the 2012 draft.

Whether Hawk hangs on to a starting gig or not is irrelevent; what matters is that whoever is manning that starting spot is making plays. The days of slow reads, false steps, missed tackles, and no impact plays have to come to an end.

[Joemailman]

I'm not a big Hawk fan, but as I said in another thread - the guys who we think belong in the rotation, but seemingly played like shit last year, have to be given a pass for circumstances beyond their control, i.e. the mess that was Green Bay's front seven in positions 6 thru 13.

Assume Raji, Pickett, Matthews, Bishop, and Hawk are players - who else contributed anything?? Not only could the Packers not field 7 NFL calibur starters, they got no benefit from any rotation, nor any boost from sub packages. Walden, Wynn, Wilson, Neal, Jones, Francios, and Zombo - combined!!! contributed nothing.

Hence TT's reaction in the 2012 draft.

Whether Hawk hangs on to a starting gig or not is irrelevent; what matters is that whoever is manning that starting spot is making plays. The days of slow reads, false steps, missed tackles, and no impact plays have to come to an end.

As in Terrell Manning? :wink:

[pbmax]

I'm not a big Hawk fan, but as I said in another thread - the guys who we think belong in the rotation, but seemingly played like shit last year, have to be given a pass for circumstances beyond their control, i.e. the mess that was Green Bay's front seven in positions 6 thru 13.

Assume Raji, Pickett, Matthews, Bishop, and Hawk are players - who else contributed anything?? Not only could the Packers not field 7 NFL calibur starters, they got no benefit from any rotation, nor any boost from sub packages. Walden, Wynn, Wilson, Neal, Jones, Francios, and Zombo - combined!!! contributed nothing.

Hence TT's reaction in the 2012 draft.

Whether Hawk hangs on to a starting gig or not is irrelevent; what matters is that whoever is manning that starting spot is making plays. The days of slow reads, false steps, missed tackles, and no impact plays have to come to an end.

Well, there is this nugget picked up this offseason. CJ Wilson was given a high grade as a run defender by Pro Football Focus. That's both surprising and shocking. His strength is obviously in run D, but the poor play of the right side last year seemed to start with him. Several posters (including you and Nutz) commented on it. We must remember that Thompson went all out on pass rush, not Run D.

Now PFF has no idea who has what responsibility on each call (though DE in a 3-4 on a run down might be among the easier reads) but he clearly showed something during the broadcasts they re-watch.

So while I believe they have overestimated Wilson's impact, by almost the same token, I am not willing to give Hawk a pass for last year either. He needs to be better than a well positioned body or they should be seeking to replace him sooner rather than later.

[Lurker64]

I'm not a big Hawk fan, but as I said in another thread - the guys who we think belong in the rotation, but seemingly played like shit last year, have to be given a pass for circumstances beyond their control, i.e. the mess that was Green Bay's front seven in positions 6 thru 13.

I think the operative point is: It doesn't matter what happened last year, give everybody a pass for last year, what matters is what guys do this year.

[RashanGary]

I'm not a big Hawk fan, but as I said in another thread - the guys who we think belong in the rotation, but seemingly played like shit last year, have to be given a pass for circumstances beyond their control, i.e. the mess that was Green Bay's front seven in positions 6 thru 13.

Assume Raji, Pickett, Matthews, Bishop, and Hawk are players - who else contributed anything?? Not only could the Packers not field 7 NFL calibur starters, they got no benefit from any rotation, nor any boost from sub packages. Walden, Wynn, Wilson, Neal, Jones, Francios, and Zombo - combined!!! contributed nothing.

Hence TT's reaction in the 2012 draft.

Whether Hawk hangs on to a starting gig or not is irrelevent; what matters is that whoever is manning that starting spot is making plays. The days of slow reads, false steps, missed tackles, and no impact plays have to come to an end.


Good post!!

[Guiness]

I think the operative point is: It doesn't matter what happened last year, give everybody a pass for last year, what matters is what guys do this year.

Um, if we give everybody a pass for last year, don't we end up with the same problem?

[Lurker64]

Um, if we give everybody a pass for last year, don't we end up with the same problem?

You're assuming that players are only interested in self-correcting if it saves their jobs. Moreover, you bench people (or promote them) based on what they're doing this year, not what they did last year.

[Fritz]

There are many ways and formation isn't as important as players. But neither extreme works. You can't just pick the highest rated talent regardless of where he fits in a defense either. Otherwise, you end up with a lot of Jeremy Thompson's and nowhere to put him. The other end is a bunch of try hard guys who are productive but can't win any battle on talent or dominate the opponent. See every Marty Schottenheimer team.

The Packers have clearly deviated from the standard Pittsburgh 3-4 model with this draft and plan to spend a lot of time rushing the passer with various groups and alignments. Given three years of data and their offense, that makes sense. Whether that works or not will be determined partly by how well the pieces fit together to make an entire unit. The Packers aren't drafting "real talent" and then picking a defensive scheme, they clearly intend to run something different out there a good portion of the time.


PB, I'm not too schooled in this sort of thing, so I'd be interested in hearing you explain, if you care to, what the "Pittsburgh model" is and how GB seems to be deviating from it. I'm guessing the Pittsburgh model features a few designated mostly-pass rushers, and uses a limited number of alignments? Is that so, or is it different or more complicated than that, or both?

[pbmax]

PB, I'm not too schooled in this sort of thing, so I'd be interested in hearing you explain, if you care to, what the "Pittsburgh model" is and how GB seems to be deviating from it. I'm guessing the Pittsburgh model features a few designated mostly-pass rushers, and uses a limited number of alignments? Is that so, or is it different or more complicated than that, or both?

Pittsburgh (and other 3-4 teams) tend to have the type of DEs that lurker talks about looking for in the draft. Ideal DE in a 3-4 would be 6-4/5 and around 300 lbs. Space eaters, who even if they can't rush the passer, just take up an enormous amount of space (mostly vertical) and can clog passing lanes. Check the Steelers roster:


-- Mike Blanc DE 25 6-4 297 R Auburn
95 Corbin Bryant DE 24 6-4 300 1 Northwestern
65 Miguel Chavis DE 23 6-5 285 R Clemson
97 Cameron Heyward DE 23 6-5 288 2 Ohio State
96 Ziggy Hood DE 25 6-3 300 4 Missouri
99 Brett Keisel DE 33 6-5 285 11 Brigham Young
-- Adrian Robinson DE 22 6-2 250 R Temple
-- Jake Stoller DE -- 6-4 290 R Yale

No one under 285 (2 players) or 6-3 (1 player). And Aaron Smith just retired and he was listed at 6-5 and 298. CJ Wilson is the closest the Packers have to this ideal. He is also an example of the problem as he can't rush the passer.

The Packers draft featured several players (Worthy, Daniels and Manning) who are small by the normal standards for a 3-4. But each has a capacity to rush the passer. The flip side in this draft was Perry, who is custom built for the role the Packers will put him in.

If you go back a bit further however, to the Tony Dungy era in Pittsburgh (and the beginning of the Cowher/Capers/LeBeau era) the Steelers 3-4 were small compared to the Parcells/Belicheck Pats and Jets 3-4. So its not unheard of. But the trend is taller with reach, rather than short and squat like Pickett and Raji.

Justin had a good point earlier, that its not a good idea to always take the less talented just to satisfy the body type requirement. And there is truth in that. But its also a catch 22. You also cannot be so small in the front seven that you cannot handle the opposing front or interfere with the QBs throwing lanes.

I suspect we have been reading McCarthy and Capers a little too closely this year and the defense will shake out close to the previous three years, with a lot of sub defense regardless of M3 wanting to get back to more base. If that happens, then this draft makes sense. They are not looking to change the defensive approach or even the front seven starters except for Walden. They want one or two other players who can apply heat to the QB on passing downs. The draft was about playing better in 4-2-5 or 4-1-6 on passing downs.

If correct, the only concern is depth of big bodies. But honestly, with as pedestrian as they played last year, there are waiver bodies who could fare as well.

[Fritz]

Ah, thank you. If you're not a teacher/professor/coach, you should be. That was clear and enlightening.

One possible issue I see with this approach - beyond potentially not being able to clog passing lanes - is that all this substitution can be wreaked havoc upon by a no-huddle offense. The defensive coaches have to make sure players know the packages, so they can hustle on and off the field. And no waddling 340 pounders five yards from the sideline when the ball is snapped - that's being called now, I think, as too many men on the field.

So how can a defense do all this subbing if an offense goes no-huddle? Is that why AJ Hawk might have more value, because he can make defensive calls if the right sub package doesn't get on the field in time?

And would Johnny Jolly be a welcome (more traditional) addition to this DE group, then?

[ThunderDan]

Ah, thank you. If you're not a teacher/professor/coach, you should be. That was clear and enlightening.

One possible issue I see with this approach - beyond potentially not being able to clog passing lanes - is that all this substitution can be wreaked havoc upon by a no-huddle offense. The defensive coaches have to make sure players know the packages, so they can hustle on and off the field. And no waddling 340 pounders five yards from the sideline when the ball is snapped - that's being called now, I think, as too many men on the field.

So how can a defense do all this subbing if an offense goes no-huddle? Is that why AJ Hawk might have more value, because he can make defensive calls if the right sub package doesn't get on the field in time?

And would Johnny Jolly be a welcome (more traditional) addition to this DE group, then?

That is the issue will the no-huddle. You put in your D based on the O's personnel. If the O can find a match up to exploit you are in a world of hurt.

In the no huddle offense the O cannot substitute players without allowing the D time to make their own adjustments to the personnel change. This is when you see the referee standing over the football not allowing the center to snap the ball eventhough the O is at the line.

No switching WRs after the play no change in RBs. If the O substitutes any player the D is always allowed to change if they want.

[pbmax]

Jolly is more squat than ideal (6' 3", 320), but he is a more effective run stopper than Wynn, can handle the occasional double team and has more pass rush (but not much more) than Wilson. He would have a role if he is what he was. He would be an upgrade perhaps but not a solution to the pass rush issue.

No huddle is a danger if the opposition can run it. But most teams only do it when they can get a mismatch. Sub packages are called to avoid the mismatch.

One other point about Justin's take on the draft. The draft probably emphasizes the Packers belief that they will be facing a lot of passing again and a recognition that there is a pass rush hole on the D. Justin believes Thompson has selected players that will unearth a fix for that hole and Capers will need to find a spot for them even if it means giving up more 3-4 base. Or playing more 3-4 Eagle Oakie (which, by alignment, looks just like a 4-3 Under--the only difference is one of your DEs is an OLB). Essentially, don't be dogmatic about it and get the players who can succeed out on the field.

But there is a downside to running so much sub without altering the base D. You cannot predict what the offenses will do this year. Opponents will adjust and no one should be surprised if the Packers O comes down a little from astronomical. The Packers D could face more running this year than last. If you trade Base 3-4 roster spots for hybrid players or pass rushers, then you weaken your base D (at least in depth). Such a scenario could be problematic.

The roster is only 53 players and while Justin is right that you can't keep only the right body type and ignore talent, not every player has the same talent. And much off the pass rush talent is young. That young talent might not adapt well to a sudden emphasis on run stopping.

Of all the people on this board, I might be least impressed by running games as an Offensive attack. But it is still true that at some point you might need to stop such an attack, even if its simply in a close game on 4th and short. I would be happiest with 4 DEs at 6-4 who each weigh 295 lbs and can stop the run and collapse a pocket. But that is a rare thing. Even the Steelers D last year proved having such bodies doesn't automatically make an effective unit.

So you have to prioritize. And here I agree with Justin, the priority has to be pass D and pass rush first. Even if Capers playbook says his defense must start by first stopping the run.

[Upnorth]

Capers has never been shy of unortodox D in the past, but I do worry if we over commit to the pass that we will be eaten up (and tired out) by the run. IN 2009 and 2010 we were great run stoppers which forced teams to try to beat out CB's and Safties which were a strenght. While I hope he does increase his focus on the pass rush I still hope we can put a few good run defenders on the field.

[Fritz]

So Dan, if I understand you correctly, the no-huddle only works if the offense keeps the same unit on the field while running it. The minute they sub someone out, the defense then has the whole 30 seconds to sub in, too. Is that so? If it is, then the only time it works in terms of a mismatch is if the offense finds itself in a nice mismatch with a defense, then keeps that personnel on the field and runs the no-huddle. Yes?

And PB, to your point: I know Mike Neal is supposed to have some pass rush, and I know he's suspended, but wasn't he supposed to also be a bigger body that could handle the run? Also, while Jolly would seem to be a long shot to even be reinstated, is there any word as to whether Lawrence Guy has learned anything at all in the offseason? He could be the guy to push Wynn out of a job, perhaps. If they keep what, six defensive linemen?

Pickett
Raji
Worthy
Daniels (is that his name? The Iowa kid?)
Wynn
Wilson
Muir
Guy

Hargrove (suspended)
Neal (suspended)

Long, long shot: Jolly

I wonder, of that group, how many they keep, and how many run-stopping DE's, besides Pickett, they'd like to have on the roster. One other one?

[pbmax]

Without looking up their vitals, I think both Neal and Guy are close to the new "ideal" 3-4 end, yes.

If the Packers found one satisfactory base down end and 1 to 2 more pass rushers (Perry and anyone) in camp, then lookout.

[Fritz]

Do you mean, one besides Pickett?

[pbmax]

Do you mean, one besides Pickett?

Yes.

[Fritz]

Neal, Wilson and Guy are the three most logical possibilities, from a size perspective?

[ThunderDan]

So Dan, if I understand you correctly, the no-huddle only works if the offense keeps the same unit on the field while running it. The minute they sub someone out, the defense then has the whole 30 seconds to sub in, too. Is that so? If it is, then the only time it works in terms of a mismatch is if the offense finds itself in a nice mismatch with a defense, then keeps that personnel on the field and runs the no-huddle. Yes?


Fritz, I don't know if you get the whole 30 secords but you are allowed "enough" time to change your personnel also.

You are exactly correct on the second half. This is another reason Finley is so valuable to the Packers. The Packers can run their standard 21 group (two RDs, one TE) on 1st and 10 and usually see the other teams base 3-4 or 4-3. On second down you go no huddle and split Finley into the slot. The other team now has to cover Finley with a LB or drop a S for the coverage. Or maybe even better you put Driver/Cobb in the slot and put Finley wide 1-on-1 verses the CB.

[Lurker64]

Neal, Wilson and Guy are the three most logical possibilities, from a size perspective?

Phil Merling also has pretty much prototypical size and length, and has excellent physical tools. For him it's just an issue of technique (his hand work is *terrible*) and "want to" (which was probably compounded by playing in Miami.)

I wouldn't write him off.

[Guiness]

Fritz, I don't know if you get the whole 30 secords but you are allowed "enough" time to change your personnel also.

You are exactly correct on the second half. This is another reason Finley is so valuable to the Packers. The Packers can run their standard 21 group (two RDs, one TE) on 1st and 10 and usually see the other teams base 3-4 or 4-3. On second down you go no huddle and split Finley into the slot. The other team now has to cover Finley with a LB or drop a S for the coverage. Or maybe even better you put Driver/Cobb in the slot and put Finley wide 1-on-1 verses the CB.

That's one of the ways I see the no huddle working as well. A defense can compensate for that though, recognizing Finley is on the field, and making sure they've got a safety that can cover.

The other way a no huddle can work is the way the Bill's 'K-Gun' did in the 80's. Seems to me it revolved around the fact that DL subs out a lot, and OL generally plays the whole game. The D throws a few 300lb'ers on the field to stop the run, then on 2nd and 8 and 3rd and 7 you run the no huddle. If you convert, the D is now stuck with a gassed Gilbert Brown-ish type player on the field. I remember teams burning a TO to substitute a defensive player.

[BobDobbs]

Neal, Wilson and Guy are the three most logical possibilities, from a size perspective?

I think it's possible that they may go for a mix that allows them to play to the strength they want to put on the field. We could end up with Raji, Pickett, and Muir as the beefy line and then the rest of the guys being pass rushers. Obviously Daniels and Worthy were drafted for QB pressure then you leave it up to one of the other guys to force themselves into a roster spot with Neal and Hargrove waiting in the wings.

Guy and Merling are total wildcards, they haven't showed enough in their careers to make the team but they've got the body.

I don't know that Muir will make the team, but we have actually been really good in short yardage the last few years and I think one lineman will make the team based on run stopping because there are times when nothing is more important.

[pbmax]

Neal, Wilson and Guy are the three most logical possibilities, from a size perspective?

As a base DE, yes. You would love those guys to break out and be healthy. If Neal can pass rush still, so much the better. As I think you will still see the sub packages more often than base, pass rushers are still the priority.

[ThunderDan]

That's one of the ways I see the no huddle working as well. A defense can compensate for that though, recognizing Finley is on the field, and making sure they've got a safety that can cover.

The other way a no huddle can work is the way the Bill's 'K-Gun' did in the 80's. Seems to me it revolved around the fact that DL subs out a lot, and OL generally plays the whole game. The D throws a few 300lb'ers on the field to stop the run, then on 2nd and 8 and 3rd and 7 you run the no huddle. If you convert, the D is now stuck with a gassed Gilbert Brown-ish type player on the field. I remember teams burning a TO to substitute a defensive player.

I am assuming that the S you bring will not be able to play the run as well. So I will probably run more in that situation a pure 7-on-7 in the box. Also, if you assign the S to Finley alone you allow either Jennings or Nelson 1-on-1 with a CB with no over the top help. If the D played a 1 deep zone man under scheme you are leaving the 12-20 yard window open and I will take ARod on that throw all day.

I completely agree on the gassing of the other team's DL by not letting them rotate.

[Guiness]

I am assuming that the S you bring will not be able to play the run as well. So I will probably run more in that situation a pure 7-on-7 in the box. Also, if you assign the S to Finley alone you allow either Jennings or Nelson 1-on-1 with a CB with no over the top help. If the D played a 1 deep zone man under scheme you are leaving the 12-20 yard window open and I will take ARod on that throw all day.

I completely agree on the gassing of the other team's DL by not letting them rotate.


Getting those mismatches and taking advantage of them definitely requires some finesse and picking your spots. I think the issues Finley creates apply all the time, it's not a matter of catching the D with bad personnel, he causes problems no matter who is on the field for the D!

Gassing the opponents DL is real simple, and something to see...watching those DL struggle to get to the line, and go down on one knee instead of putting a hand in the dirt! You just know the OL has to love it when the no huddle is clicking.

BTW K-Gun was not named after Jim Kelly - anyone know who it referred to? I'm guessing a certain Cincinnati resident would know.

[KYPack]

Getting those mismatches and taking advantage of them definitely requires some finesse and picking your spots. I think the issues Finley creates apply all the time, it's not a matter of catching the D with bad personnel, he causes problems no matter who is on the field for the D!

Gassing the opponents DL is real simple, and something to see...watching those DL struggle to get to the line, and go down on one knee instead of putting a hand in the dirt! You just know the OL has to love it when the no huddle is clicking.

BTW K-Gun was not named after Jim Kelly - anyone know who it referred to? I'm guessing a certain Cincinnati resident would know.

I knew it wasn't named for Kelly, but I couldn't remember who the guy was, had to google the answer.

Tight end Keith McKeller.

I see people claim the Bills invented the no huddle. That's real far from true. Early football was all no-huddle. What Wyche at Cincy and the Bills started was playing the same 11 and calling all plays at the line. Back in the 80's I knew a lot of Bengals and they would tell me shit about the play language, some of it pretty funny. Like on power runs, if the fullback is to block the safety, that's called a BOSS block (Back On Strong Safety). When the Bengals called a run with a BOSS lead, the verbal call was Bruce. That's because Bruce is the boss, ya know?

Wyche had calls with players nicknames, sexual terminolgy and other kinds of funny shit to screw up the opposition and keep the boys paying attention.

[pbmax]

I have also heard that the Bengals used an entire play call at the line. The Bills supposedly could just yell out a number. That would seem to be a dangerous level of simplicity, but I have heard the store repeated more than once.

[Guiness]

I knew it wasn't named for Kelly, but I couldn't remember who the guy was, had to google the answer.

Tight end Keith McKeller.

I see people claim the Bills invented the no huddle. That's real far from true. Early football was all no-huddle. What Wyche at Cincy and the Bills started was playing the same 11 and calling all plays at the line. Back in the 80's I knew a lot of Bengals and they would tell me shit about the play language, some of it pretty funny. Like on power runs, if the fullback is to block the safety, that's called a BOSS block (Back On Strong Safety). When the Bengals called a run with a BOSS lead, the verbal call was Bruce. That's because Bruce is the boss, ya know?

Wyche had calls with players nicknames, sexual terminolgy and other kinds of funny shit to screw up the opposition and keep the boys paying attention.

Yup, McKeller. Like mentioned earlier, the TE is key to running the no huddle successfully. He was a basketball power forward in college, only played one year of football. There have been a lot of converted PF's since him.

Impossible to say when and where the no huddle was invented. The Bill were one of (or the?) first to use the no huddle pretty much exclusively. Story goes that it was a reaction to the Bengals beating them with it by using it for a few key series. Kelly was smart, and they trusted him to make the play calls. He wasn't the OC, but as close as any modern QB has been.