3-Men Rush

[LegandofthePack15]

Is this the only play in Capers' playbook for 3rd and long situations? How many more times must opponents convert 3rd and a million before Capers realize that rushing 3 only work on Madden, where bums can sack the qb by rushing just 1?

I fucking hate the 3-men rush. Have a bad feeling every time I see it.

[Pugger]

You got that right. You can't let a QB like Brees just sit in the pocket and pick your young secondary apart like that. :doh:

[pbmax]

3 men rushing 7 (5 OL plus QB plus TE) means eight are covering four. If the Packers cannot make that work for a short gain, then there are larger problems than the scheme.

The Steelers have made that call work for years.

The Packers made it work in the preseason and the first three games, where their 3rd down conversion rate was very good. Its not time to junk it because it failed to work in the last game.

[Patler]

3 men rushing 7 (5 OL plus QB plus TE) means eight are covering four. If the Packers cannot make that work for a short gain, then there are larger problems than the scheme.

The Steelers have made that call work for years.

The Packers made it work in the preseason and the first three games, where their 3rd down conversion rate was very good. Its not time to junk it because it failed to work in the last game.

That's what aggravates me. With 8 guys in coverage, how can a receiver be so open that no one is within 5 yards of him? 8 guys can't cover 4 or 5?

[LegandofthePack15]

The Packers made it work in the preseason and the first three games, where their 3rd down conversion rate was very good. Its not time to junk it because it failed to work in the last game.

First 3 games? Seems like in all 4 games (and all of last season), the Packers would sack the qb or stuff a rb for a loss and then Capers would rush 3 and opponents would move the chain easily. It didnt just failed against NO, it has been failing since Capers became D-coordinator.

[ThunderDan]

First 3 games? Seems like in all 4 games (and all of last season), the Packers would sack the qb or stuff a rb for a loss and then Capers would rush 3 and opponents would move the chain easily. It didnt just failed against NO, it has been failing since Capers became D-coordinator.

You seem to remember different things from games than I do.

The Packers are 13th in the league on D in stopping 3rd down conversions. They have allowed 18/52 attempts or 34%. And that includes yesterday.

For the first 3 weeks of the season we were 9 of 35 or 26%. That is a phenomenal rate.

[pbmax]

3rd Down Conversion Rate 2012

49ers: 2-9-22%
Bears: 5-15-33%
Seattle: 2-11-18%
Saints: 9-17-53%

Now, that's not to say the defense was perfect, far from it. The 49ers had very few 3rd down attempts because 1st and 2nd down were WAY too successful.

But until the Saints, if the Packers got you into 3rd and not short, you were in trouble.

[sharpe1027]

It got us the game winning interception against Seattle.

[mraynrand]

Saints have a pretty decent O-line. As a coach, you have to adjust. How often do we see, in a third and long situation, that pressure forces the short hot throw and then all you have to do is tackle. Maybe Capers has less confidence in that back end tackling.

[pbmax]

McGinn put the Packers down for one sack in his online writeup. Stat sheet says two (Wilson and Matthews from memory). Was one erased by penalty or something?

[pbmax]

Also, McGinn says the 7 DB look (first rolled out in my recollection by Ed Donatell with Allen Rossum versus the Marshall Faulks in the playoffs) was called Dollar and inserted McMillan for Smith.

I know they ran it, but why was Smith on the field so much on 3 and forever?

[rbaloha1]

Its about mixing it up.

[LEWCWA]

You have to give Brees a little credit here to. that 3rd and 17 to Colston, Smith was a whisker away from tipping it. He should have had more depth, but most QB's don't make that throw and if they do it isn't perfect. Brees is a badass.

[Brandon494]

You have to give Brees a little credit here to. that 3rd and 17 to Colston, Smith was a whisker away from tipping it. He should have had more depth, but most QB's don't make that throw and if they do it isn't perfect. Brees is a badass.

Thats a play where Smith's height was a disadvantage for us, any other MLB would have knocked that ball down.

[Bossman641]

McGinn put the Packers down for one sack in his online writeup. Stat sheet says two (Wilson and Matthews from memory). Was one erased by penalty or something?

There were definitely 2.

[swede]

Thats a play where Smith's height was a disadvantage for us, any other MLB would have knocked that ball down.

I wonder how long DJ could make the fingers on his football gloves before someone complained? He might get another three or four inches come pass deflection time.

[denverYooper]

I wonder how long DJ could make the fingers on his football gloves before someone complained? He might get another three or four inches come pass deflection time.

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR1lY2rKh0skXX7mOsXrRsG3dLgp2cVH S9Jkyp-_iQXIZ_UqlOb

[Joemailman]

http://fashionfetishism.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/edward_scissorhands-5.jpg

[denverYooper]

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRw2H24vgzcMCABFuRvdnsUMg4PgsDYD S-gI_UwhVS-aNjncHefYQ

[LEWCWA]

Thats a play where Smith's height was a disadvantage for us, any other MLB would have knocked that ball down.



probably, but they still don't get deep enough in thier drops on 3rd and extra long. Watch Urlacher play, he gets deep drops and dares people to catch the ball in front of him.

[rbaloha1]

Thats a play where Smith's height was a disadvantage for us, any other MLB would have knocked that ball down.

Brees would have adjusted for height. Smith is improving his drop angles.

[pittstang5]

Rushing 3 against Brees, the Manning brothers, Brady and hell, even Rothlisberger is crazy. If you give them time, they find the open man. Capers should have been blitzing the hell out of Brees all day.

[3irty1]

I like the three man rush sometimes but that's the whole point, its a gamble--same as a blitz. Its especially good against a team like ours or New Orleans whos offense is built on being in the right window at the right time and lots of short passes. A three man rush reduces the benefits of running a quick pass. Of course as a fan its infuriating when we rush three on a long developing pass play with little hope of a sack. To be fair though its probably way worse for fans because in the standard NFL TV coverage angles we don't see that much of the secondary so to us it just looks like we had 10 guys on the field.

[wist43]

Is this the only play in Capers' playbook for 3rd and long situations? How many more times must opponents convert 3rd and a million before Capers realize that rushing 3 only work on Madden, where bums can sack the qb by rushing just 1?

I fucking hate the 3-men rush. Have a bad feeling every time I see it.

Most of the guys on this board like finesse football... so Capers is a wet dream for them.

You don't hear the term much anymore, but back in the 80's when teams offenses were geared much more toward the run, it was customary when you got a lead late in a game to go into a "prevent defense", i.e. rush 3 and drop 8.

Of course all that usually resulted in is what it results in today, i.e. easy yards and eventually good opportunities for points. Nothing much has changed except that teams are now much more geared for the passing game, and the rules have been changed to aid the offense.

Rushing 3 in the 80's was stupid then - it's stupid now. Rushing 3 is the equivalent of saying our front seven sucks so bad, we know we can't get home, so we'll drop everyone and hope for the best. It's a very frustrating style of football to watch.

TT may as well not have even gone out and resupplied the front seven - Capers isn't going to use them anyway.

[sharpe1027]

Most of the guys on this board like finesse football.
I must have missed that poll. Nothing like making shit up to antagonize and try to prove a point. It must be election time.
:lol:

[George Cumby]

Just a thought:

NO scored 34 ppg last year and is scoring 27 ppg this year. The other team does get paid.

And no, I do not prefer finesse football.

[pbmax]

Rushing 3 against Brees, the Manning brothers, Brady and hell, even Rothlisberger is crazy. If you give them time, they find the open man. Capers should have been blitzing the hell out of Brees all day.

I bet the blitz percentage was close to their average. The 3 man rushes were only on 3rd down. I am more worried about the coverages on those 3rd downs than the rush.

[wist43]

I bet the blitz percentage was close to their average. The 3 man rushes were only on 3rd down. I am more worried about the coverages on those 3rd downs than the rush.

I looked at the game a little more last night... Capers did send numbers more often than I thought, but with only 1 or 2 DL on the field we never got any push. Rushers were stymied in their tracks and Brees had a comfortable pocket and clean feet. When Wilson got his sack up the middle it was on Grubbs, not b/c of scheme or anything that Wilson did; and the next play was right back to business as usual as Brees hit Colston over the middle for an easy pitch and catch 15 yds - again no jam on Colston, and a clean pocket for Brees.

Aikman was criticizing Capers quite a bit for not jamming receivers. While giving Brees a clean pocket is bad enough, not doing anything to reroute or disrupt receivers is a recipe to give up a lot of yards, 1st downs, and opportunities for pts.

All of this is glossed over b/c the late NO FG was taken off the board, but the play that resulted in them having to attempt the FG was only b/c Sproles dropped an easy pass.

Rushing 3, not pressuring the pocket inside with beef, giving free releases off the line to receivers and sitting in zones is the very definition of "prevent", soft/finesse defense.

[Fritz]

I looked at the game a little more last night... Capers did send numbers more often than I thought, but with only 1 or 2 DL on the field we never got any push. Rushers were stymied in their tracks and Brees had a comfortable pocket and clean feet. When Wilson got his sack up the middle it was on Grubbs, not b/c of scheme or anything that Wilson did; and the next play was right back to business as usual as Brees hit Colston over the middle for an easy pitch and catch 15 yds - again no jam on Colston, and a clean pocket for Brees.

Aikman was criticizing Capers quite a bit for not jamming receivers. While giving Brees a clean pocket is bad enough, not doing anything to reroute or disrupt receivers is a recipe to give up a lot of yards, 1st downs, and opportunities for pts.

All of this is glossed over b/c the late NO FG was taken off the board, but the play that resulted in them in having to attempt the FG was only b/c Sproles dropped an easy pass.

Rushing 3, not pressuring the pocket inside with beef, giving free releases off the line to receivers and sitting zones is the very definition of "prevent", soft/finesse defense.

You are effing relentless, Wist. First the provocative claim that most on this board prefer finesse football, and then when a Packer player does get a sack it's not because of anything he did.

[wist43]

With the influx of front seven talent TT brought in - I was actually hoping to see some 4 man lines with Perry-Daniels-Raji-Worthy and bring Matthews/Woodson on the blitz from varying gaps and the outside. I was also hoping that Raji would be used less on run downs to keep him fresher as a pass rusher, but that isn't happening either. Raji is very quick for his size, but slugging it out on early downs saps him of his explosiveness on the pass rush.

Capers should be able to generate more pressure with scheme alone, but he's sticking to the same script he used last year. In short, Capers has made exactly zero adjustments to the piece of shit scheme and alignments he ran last year. The miscommunication on the back end has reared its head a few times already this season - that's on Capers.

I was hoping to see more pressure, but Capers is committed to playing small and soft.

[wist43]

You are effing relentless, Wist. First the provocative claim that most on this board prefer finesse football, and then when a Packer player does get a sack it's not because of anything he did.

Watch the play. Wilson got by Grubbs... so what, hooray. It had nothing to do with scheme. It is the scheme and alignments I'm complaining about.

[swede]

3-Men Rush is like so 70's.

http://whitgunn.freeservers.com/Davemusic/R/rush/-foto.jpg

[mmmdk]

Why the 3-men rush? No worries, mates!

[mraynrand]

3-Men Rush is like so 70's.

http://whitgunn.freeservers.com/Davemusic/R/rush/-foto.jpg

It's disturbing that Brees had so much Grace Under Pressure.

[wist43]

It's disturbing that Brees had so much Grace Under Pressure.

Grace under pressure??

Saw a guy stabbed multiple times at a Rush concert - the guy with the knife freaked out, was obviously wacked out on drugs. Started flailing around, I was next closest to him when he started stabbing the guy. All I could do was try to be ready for him if he came at me. Had blood all over me... the grace part came in when me and my chums gracefully exited the floor and went up into the nose bleed seats to smoke a joint and calm our nerves.

Took the fun out of the concert though.

[mraynrand]

Grace under pressure??

Saw a guy stabbed multiple times at a Rush concert - the guy with the knife freaked out, was obviously wacked out on drugs. Started flailing around, I was next closest to him when he started stabbing the guy. All I could do was try to be ready for him if he came at me. Had blood all over me... the grace part came in when me and my chums gracefully exited the floor and went up into the nose bleed seats to smoke a joint and calm our nerves.

Took the fun out of the concert though.

Were they playing 'Losing it' from Subdivisions at the time?

[LegandofthePack15]

Most of the guys on this board like finesse football... so Capers is a wet dream for them.

You don't hear the term much anymore, but back in the 80's when teams offenses were geared much more toward the run, it was customary when you got a lead late in a game to go into a "prevent defense", i.e. rush 3 and drop 8.

Of course all that usually resulted in is what it results in today, i.e. easy yards and eventually good opportunities for points. Nothing much has changed except that teams are now much more geared for the passing game, and the rules have been changed to aid the offense.

Rushing 3 in the 80's was stupid then - it's stupid now. Rushing 3 is the equivalent of saying our front seven sucks so bad, we know we can't get home, so we'll drop everyone and hope for the best. It's a very frustrating style of football to watch.

TT may as well not have even gone out and resupplied the front seven - Capers isn't going to use them anyway.

Well said.

[mmmdk]

I don't like finesse football, especially on Defense. Packers defense is young though and they really look confused at times but is that due mediocre talent or crappy teachings by their coaches? Or both!? I think our offense is only "finesse" due to our lack of power to the O-line as they get pushed around a lot; AR is tough as nails and receivers are slumping.

[denverYooper]

I don't like finesse football, especially on Defense. Packers defense is young though and they really look confused at times but is that due mediocre talent or crappy teachings by their coaches? Or both!? I think our offense is only "finesse" due to our lack of power to the O-line as they get pushed around a lot; AR is tough as nails and receivers are slumping.

Disagree about OL. They have more problems with speed. They seem to do fine against power.

[Patler]

I love finesse football. In fact, I think all the players should wear belts with little plastic flags tucked into them, to be pulled out for a "tackle". That way, they won't hurt each other, and shouldn't even get their uniforms dirty. Think of all the stunning pirouettes to be performed by ball carriers to avoid the grabby-handed defenders! Classical music would be a perfect background.
:roll: :roll: :roll:

[George Cumby]

I love finesse football. In fact, I think all the players should wear belts with little plastic flags tucked into them, to be pulled out for a "tackle". That way, they won't hurt each other, and shouldn't even get their uniforms dirty. Think of all the stunning pirouettes to be performed by ball carriers to avoid the grabby-handed defenders! Classical music would be a perfect background.
:roll: :roll: :roll:

A little "Swan Lake" perhaps?

[ThunderDan]

I love finesse football. In fact, I think all the players should wear belts with little plastic flags tucked into them, to be pulled out for a "tackle". That way, they won't hurt each other, and shouldn't even get their uniforms dirty. Think of all the stunning pirouettes to be performed by ball carriers to avoid the grabby-handed defenders! Classical music would be a perfect background.
:roll: :roll: :roll:

And all the players have to wear bras and tinfoil hats. And the ball is now a ballon so no one gets hurt. And the players have to hug each other while the person with the ballon compliments the other team. Let's call it sarcastiball.

Stole that from South Park.

[Patler]

A little "Swan Lake" perhaps?

A good tune for a playoff game!

[Fritz]

A good tune for a playoff game!

What is getting lost in all this - and I am enjoying the fun, so it's not a criticism - is the question of the effectiveness of the three man rush.

Somewhere PB Max wrote that the bigger issue may be the problem of eight people not being able to cover four or five receivers. But if I understand the coverages correctly, in the three man rush the team drops two safeties very deep, with the mandate that no one gets behind them. To me, this nearly eliminates them from covering anything short or medium or even long range - conceivably, if a receiver runs a pattern that goes fifteen yards, the safeties still are supposed to be behind him. So in one sense you actually have only six guys who can cover the receivers, so your odds aren't so good any more.

I despise Wist's approach to this topic, but if I try not to let my anger get the best of me and just focus on the topic, I come to the conclusion that the three man rush can be used as a change of pace, but Capers's reliance on it is unsettling to me. I much prefer sending four or five guys so if nothing else the pocket is tighter and harder to throw out of, then playing six or seven back.

I do realize that Capers tried to blitz last year, and it just didn't work. How many times did we see Capers send a bunch of guys in, only to have them all picked up and blocked? It was maddening.

I think what really bothers me at the heart of it is the Packers' defensive concept that defensive linemen just take up blockers so linebackers can make tackles. I just don't like it. If you turned Worthy and Raji loose to get upfield, it seems like you'd be using their skills much better. Then you wouldn't have to blitz five or six so much, you'd think. I like the idea of disruptive, penetrating defensive linemen. And I think the Packers have two or three or maybe even four guys who, by the end of the year, could do this.

[mraynrand]

A little "Swan Lake" perhaps?


I suggest Grieg's "In the hall of the Mountain King" for the hurry-up offense.

[mraynrand]

How about Gustav Holst, The Planets; Mars, The Bringer of War, for Clay Matthews sack music?

[mraynrand]

Prokofiev: Romeo and Juliet - Montagues and Capulets - would have been perfect for Favre's return

OK, enough thread jacking....

[sharpe1027]

I'd like to see the percentages on getting to the QB with 4 vs. 3. If they rush 4 and still don't get to the QB, all they have done is remove on player from coverage. I'm guessing the answer is probably why Caper's goes with the 3 man. On the game losing interception for an offensive TD (a weird thing to say), they got to Wilson only a split second late.

[Fritz]

I'd like to see the percentages on getting to the QB with 4 vs. 3. If they rush 4 and still don't get to the QB, all they have done is remove on player from coverage. I'm guessing the answer is probably why Caper's goes with the 3 man. On the game losing interception for an offensive TD (a weird thing to say), they got to Wilson only a split second late.

This is what makes football fun yet maddening. You could measure sacks or "getting to the QB" but if a four man rush produced a tighter pocket and poorer throws, that'd be hard to measure. I suppose you could measure the success rate of getting scores or first downs, though.

[Cheesehead Craig]

I hate 3 man rushes and thus I usually don't like the 3-4 defense because of it. To me you get a better, more consistent pass rush with 4 DL.

[sharpe1027]

I hate 3 man rushes and thus I usually don't like the 3-4 defense because of it. To me you get a better, more consistent pass rush with 4 DL.

3-4 you can also send 4 most of the time, but you can do it in more different ways. Packer's line up in 3-4 and even 2-5/2-4 and generally rush at least 4.

4-3 generally requires quality (rare) DEs to pull it off well. You also trade-off in predictability and flexibility; for 4-3, you know the down 4 are always going after the QB (absent an occasional DL dropping into coverage).

[George Cumby]

How about Gustav Holst, The Planets; Mars, The Bringer of War, for Clay Matthews sack music?

What I really like about this suggestion is that it ignores the more well known, overused to the point of triteness "Flight of the Valkyries" or Orff's "O Fortuna".

As far as the rush is concerned, I think that the criticism is more sound if we look at the defense as a whole and note compartmentalized. The Packer's D is susceptible to those bunch formations, remember the shootout in AZ?

I don't think that one can separate the coverage from the rush, they are one holistic unit.

[wist43]

I hate 3 man rushes and thus I usually don't like the 3-4 defense because of it. To me you get a better, more consistent pass rush with 4 DL.


3-4 you can also send 4 most of the time, but you can do it in more different ways. Packer's line up in 3-4 and even 2-5/2-4 and generally rush at least 4.

4-3 generally requires quality (rare) DEs to pull it off well. You also trade-off in predictability and flexibility; for 4-3, you know the down 4 are always going after the QB (absent an occasional DL dropping into coverage).

I agree with sharpe - the 3-4 offers much more flexibility in terms of where you're bringing pressure from and should give the Def. Coord an advantage in disguising blitzes and creating confusion in the blocking scheme - as a result, you should see more rushers come free, more often, from a 3-4.

And, as sharpe said, All-Pro calibur 4-3 DE's are very hard to come by, and tend to be very expensive on the FA market. They can eat up a lot of cap space; it is therefore generally more economical to employ a 3-4 scheme... depending for course on the level of talent you have at LB and NT. The best of the best cost money at every position, but game changing 4-3 DE's are tough to come by.

Those things said, the front seven talent we have on our Packers squad isn't used to full advantage by Capers. His fronts are very passive and generally easy to block. The talent that TT has brought in is not ideally suited to a standard 3-4 in terms of body type or the tools each brings to the front seven.

Raji is not ideally suited to be a NT; Worhy is not ideally suited to be a 3-4 DE; Daniels doesn't really fit anywhere in a traditional 3-4. That said, I like all those players, I simply want Capers to develop subpackages that cater to their strenths - 2 man, and 1 man lines don't cut it.

Bring heat!! Instead of a 1 man line where Worthy does the dancing bear thing bouncing from the center, to one guard, over to the other guard - put 4 down linemen out there on 3rd 10. Perry wants to put his hand on the ground - let him line up at RDE; have Matthews standing up on that side; Raji and Daniels at DT; and Worthy at the other DE. Assuming the offense has a man in the slot, bring Woodson on the blitz from there occasionally; mix it all up with DE/DT stunts.

Have more subpackages with 3 downlinmen with Raji on the nose, Worthy and Daniels at DE's, and Perry and Matthews coming off the edge.

The 3-4 should afford a DC an awful lot of flexibility that is not there in a 4-3. Dom wastes it though with his gimmick fronts, and plays soft with 1 and 2 DL. As a result we get no push up the middle, and if the outside rushers can't turn the corner on a speed rush, our secondary is at the mercy of a QB who has a comfortable pocket.

Defense is first and foremost about pressuring the QB - Dom's first priority is always coverage. He's far, far, far too passive in his approach to pressure.

[3irty1]

Raji is not ideally suited to be a NT?

[Fritz]

I agree with sharpe - the 3-4 offers much more flexibility in terms of where you're bringing pressure from and should give the Def. Coord an advantage in disguising blitzes and creating confusion in the blocking scheme - as a result, you should see more rushers come free, more often, from a 3-4.

And, as sharpe said, All-Pro calibur 4-3 DE's are very hard to come by, and tend to be very expensive on the FA market. They can eat up a lot of cap space; it is therefore generally more economical to employ a 3-4 scheme... depending for course on the level of talent you have at LB and NT. The best of the best cost money at every position, but game changing 4-3 DE's are tough to come by.

Those things said, the front seven talent we have on our Packers squad isn't used to full advantage by Capers. His fronts are very passive and generally easy to block. The talent that TT has brought in is not ideally suited to a standard 3-4 in terms of body type or the tools each brings to the front seven.

Raji is not ideally suited to be a NT; Worhy is not ideally suited to be a 3-4 DE; Daniels doesn't really fit anywhere in a traditional 3-4. That said, I like all those players, I simply want Capers to develop subpackages that cater to their strenths - 2 man, and 1 man lines don't cut it.

Bring heat!! Instead of a 1 man line where Worthy does the dancing bear thing bouncing from the center, to one guard, over to the other guard - put 4 down linemen out there on 3rd 10. Perry wants to put his hand on the ground - let him line up at RDE; have Matthews standing up on that side; Raji and Daniels at DT; and Worthy at the other DE. Assuming the offense has a man in the slot, bring Woodson on the blitz from there occasionally; mix it all up with DE/DT stunts.

Have more subpackages with 3 downlinmen with Raji on the nose, Worthy and Daniels at DE's, and Perry and Matthews coming off the edge.

The 3-4 should afford a DC an awful lot of flexibility that is not there in a 4-3. Dom wastes it though with his gimmick fronts, and plays soft with 1 and 2 DL. As a result we get no push up the middle, and if the outside rushers can't turn the corner on a speed rush, our secondary is at the mercy of a QB who has a comfortable pocket.

Defense is first and foremost about pressuring the QB - Dom's first priority is always coverage. He's far, far, far too passive in his approach to pressure.

Okay, now we've got some real content to consider. This is some good talk. And I think Wist makes a good point about not using the talent up front to its best effect. I don't quite understand this defensive-linemen-eating-up-blockers scheme in the first place, exactly, but to draft guys who are penetrators (that sounded wrong, somehow) and not use them that way is the whole square-peg-round-hole thing. How will the defensive coaching staff resolve this? Does anyone think they're unsure how to use these guys without changing the scheme?

[sharpe1027]

Okay, now we've got some real content to consider. This is some good talk. And I think Wist makes a good point about not using the talent up front to its best effect. I don't quite understand this defensive-linemen-eating-up-blockers scheme in the first place, exactly, but to draft guys who are penetrators (that sounded wrong, somehow) and not use them that way is the whole square-peg-round-hole thing. How will the defensive coaching staff resolve this? Does anyone think they're unsure how to use these guys without changing the scheme?

According to the popular theme, the loss of Jenkins was a huge blow to the Packers. While he was OK at eating up blockers, his real value was penetration (that does sound wrong). So, if you subscribe to the letting Jenkins go without a replacement was a bad move theory, you should be happy with the new guys.

End of the day, my take is that TT drafts guys that are good football players and trust that the coaches find ways to use them correctly. I think that Wist has a point, but we'll have to see how the Packer's adjust through the rest of the year. They're playing a lot of rookies so you don't want to mess with their heads by having 50 different packages.

Also, don't forget that with all the no huddle the Saints have been known to run, Capers may have be leery of getting stuck in a sub package for an entire drive.

[mraynrand]

Maybe it's not so much the scheme, but the fact that the penetrators are not penetrating far enough or penetrating frequently enough. They probably need to talk to Warren Sapp about how to increase the frequency and intensity of penetration - without going for broke.

[HarveyWallbangers]

What's the percentage of plays are we are only sending 3 men?

[Zool]

Defense is first and foremost about pressuring the QB - Dom's first priority is always coverage. He's far, far, far too passive in his approach to pressure.

I don't believe this is the case. I'd say its available personnel. He currently has good coverage CB's and not so good DL push.

Green Bay
2011 - 29 - T27
2010 - 47 - 2nd
2009 - 37 - 11th

Miami
2007 - 30 - 24th
2006 - 47 - 3rd

Houston
2005 - 37 - T14
2004 - 24 - 32
2003 - 19 - 31 (Bears had 18 and still suck)
2002 - 35 - T18

[Cheesehead Craig]

I don't think you need All-Pro caliber DE's to make a 4-3 work well. I could argue that you need All-Pro LB's to make a 3-4 work and they are about as hard to find as the DE's are of that caliber.

It seems to me that a 3-4 while giving more flexibility to a DC, it also gives him too many choices and lends itself to being too cute at times with trying to outsmart the offense and thus you hurt your defense. Plus, your DL are mainly there to be run stoppers and gap cloggers (if I understand the overall philosophy correctly) and they are not natural pass rushers. If the purpose is to bring heat on a consistent basis, why wouldn't you want a scheme where your DL can bring that over and over again? In a passing-Maddenesque league we're in now I would think you would want as many players who can bring the heat as often as possible.

Again, this is just from a guy who's a bigger fan of the 4-3.

[mraynrand]

What's the percentage of plays are we are only sending 3 men?

Only on 3rd and 14 or longer!

[mraynrand]

Just in fairness to the defense, did you guys notice how fast Bress got the ball out of there, even on some of those third and long downs? That was unreal. You bring the heat on that stuff and it could be goodnight Eileen* on the back end.






* I don't really know what goodnight Eileen means, it just sounded kindof like the Ketih Jacksony thing to say

[sharpe1027]

If the purpose is to bring heat on a consistent basis, why wouldn't you want a scheme where your DL can bring that over and over again? In a passing-Maddenesque league we're in now I would think you would want as many players who can bring the heat as often as possible.

Why is it that you think more pressure can be generated with a 4-3 than with a 3-4? I'll concede that most 4-3 systems are designed to generate more pressure from the DEs. I disagree that you have "more" players that can bring pressure in a 4-3, you simply have "different" players. I think you will find 3-4 teams generate more sacks. My understanding was the 3-4 became so popular recently because it was able to create more pressure, albeit at the downside of being more vulnerable to the run.

In reality though, we are often in something other than a true 3-4 anyway.

[gbgary]

whether we rush 3, 4, or whatever, the fact that we're playing soft zone is more maddening to me than anything else.

[mraynrand]

The 3-4 also has the glorious offshoot of the zone blitz*

http://espn.go.com/photo/2011/0623/nfl_a_raji_bl_600.jpg



*not that you can't zone blitz in the 4-3, but you really don't want Julius Peppers or Aaron Kampman in coverage**

**Well, I guess you don't really want Raji in coverage either, so what the hell is my point?

[gbgary]

The 3-4 also has the glorious offshoot of the zone blitz*

http://espn.go.com/photo/2011/0623/nfl_a_raji_bl_600.jpg



*not that you can't zone blitz in the 4-3, but you really don't want Julius Peppers or Aaron Kampman in coverage**

**Well, I guess you don't really want Raji in coverage either, so what the hell is my point?

they're not really in coverage...they're in a spot that no one is expected to be in. a throwing lane.

[mraynrand]

they're not really in coverage...they're in a spot that no one is expected to be in. a throwing lane.

yeah, I know. i sorta lost control of that post

[wist43]

Just in fairness to the defense, did you guys notice how fast Bress got the ball out of there, even on some of those third and long downs? That was unreal. You bring the heat on that stuff and it could be goodnight Eileen* on the back end.






* I don't really know what goodnight Eileen means, it just sounded kindof like the Ketih Jacksony thing to say

That's what happens when you don't jam receivers and redirect them. Regardless of which front you're running - if you give receivers a free release off the line, and simply allow them to get into their patterns unfettered - yeah, it's gonna be a messy stat line for any defense. Yet that's what Dom does all too often.

It's one thing if you don't have decent CB's, but I would argue we have enough talent at that position to bump and run, or jam and release into a zone. Allowing free releases on top of a soft front?? That's a recipe for big yards and big pts.

[wist43]

The 3-4 was originally designed as a run stopping defense. 2 gapping DL that ate up blockers and allowed the LB's to roam free and make plays. The primary pass rush came from the ROLB (Lawrence Taylor, Derrick Thomas, Tim Harris - remember him??) Harris had 19.5 sacks in 1989 for the Packers.

Offenses eventually caught up to the static look of a base 3-4, and like always happens in the league, the pendulum swung back in favor of 4-3's. DC's that stuck with it though, Dick Lebeau comes to mind, got more creative with their front seven alignments and it actually became more advantagous to rush the passer out of the 3-4, and had the added benefit of being able to go cheap on DL.

My first recollection of any DC going to a 2-5 was Fritz Shurmer when he was with the Rams in the 80's. As I remember, that look got ate alive and nobody else tried to copy it. I assume he went to that look b/c he had more quality LB's than DL and couldn't compete with a standard 3-4/4-3 base, but I don't remember the rationale. Anyway, it didn't work then - and I certainly hate it every time I see Capers trot it out there.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa-QMnXNw3Q

[Fritz]

"That's what happens when you don't jam receivers and redirect them. Regardless of which front you're running - if you give receivers a free release off the line, and simply allow them to get into their patterns unfettered - yeah, it's gonna be a messy stat line for any defense. Yet that's what Dom does all too often."

Wist, while I too wish more jamming had happened in the NO game, if it were really so simple and straightforward that jamming receivers at the line is always, always, better, then why wouldn't every single defensive coordinator in the league do that every single play?

What bothers me is the way you make these blanket statements, as if the right answer is obvious, and the problem is simply that Capers loves himself so much - or loves his effeminate defensive scheme so much - that he can't see the obvious and so calls instead obviously useless defenses.

It's really, really unfair of you to make such statements. Really, a fan on Packerrats can see exactly the right defense, and Capers can't? That's bullshit, period.

Of course we can question Capers's calls. Often, I think you might have some interesting points to make - and I've said so - but you lose me (and others, I think) with this approach, this attitude, that if only Capers and the rest of us weren't so in love with pussy defenses, we'd see the obvious answer.

But it's not that simple. Sure, the choices are debatable. That's partly why we're all here. But the choices are not obvious. So please, stop with the whole "if Capers weren't so stupid/narcissistic/pussified" thing.

[wist43]

"That's what happens when you don't jam receivers and redirect them. Regardless of which front you're running - if you give receivers a free release off the line, and simply allow them to get into their patterns unfettered - yeah, it's gonna be a messy stat line for any defense. Yet that's what Dom does all too often."

Wist, while I too wish more jamming had happened in the NO game, if it were really so simple and straightforward that jamming receivers at the line is always, always, better, then why wouldn't every single defensive coordinator in the league do that every single play?

What bothers me is the way you make these blanket statements, as if the right answer is obvious, and the problem is simply that Capers loves himself so much - or loves his effeminate defensive scheme so much - that he can't see the obvious and so calls instead obviously useless defenses.

It's really, really unfair of you to make such statements. Really, a fan on Packerrats can see exactly the right defense, and Capers can't? That's bullshit, period.

Of course we can question Capers's calls. Often, I think you might have some interesting points to make - and I've said so - but you lose me (and others, I think) with this approach, this attitude, that if only Capers and the rest of us weren't so in love with pussy defenses, we'd see the obvious answer.

But it's not that simple. Sure, the choices are debatable. That's partly why we're all here. But the choices are not obvious. So please, stop with the whole "if Capers weren't so stupid/narcissistic/pussified" thing.

Fritz, it's a chess match... no, there generally aren't "blanket" solutions; but there are antidotes to what an offense is doing. I'm simply pointing out what they are. That's what Aikman was doing when he was criticizing Capers for not jamming receivers during the game.

If they are doing a, b, and c; and the proper response is x, y, and z - if the DC doesn't adjust, then it's noticable. That's what Aikman is criticizing, and that's what I'm pointing out. If an offense isn't geared to 3 step drops, then it isn't as important to get a jam at the line, but if you are giving them a 10 yard cushion, and they are simply playing pitch and catch that's a different story.

Take for example the attempted pass to Graham on the 1 yd line. He was lined up "wide" in the slot, Williams was a couple 2-3 yds off the LOS... it's a physical mismatch in favor of Graham. Given the alignment I was sure they were going to throw either the quick slant (which they did), or a fade to the corner. Williams had to be positioned for either, and given the physical mismatch, jamming Graham didn't make sense. He was lined up properly, played the right coverage, and made the play.

You don't play chess, do you??

[pbmax]

Okay, now we've got some real content to consider. This is some good talk. And I think Wist makes a good point about not using the talent up front to its best effect. I don't quite understand this defensive-linemen-eating-up-blockers scheme in the first place, exactly, but to draft guys who are penetrators (that sounded wrong, somehow) and not use them that way is the whole square-peg-round-hole thing. How will the defensive coaching staff resolve this? Does anyone think they're unsure how to use these guys without changing the scheme?

There is more to consider than just 3-4 scheme though when talking about the assembled talent. Each of his sub packages except 3rd and really long and Sproles (Psycho and Dollar) involve a 4 man line, usually 2 DL and 2 OLBs. That's four, not three. Its undersized compared to 3 DL and one OLB playing the LOS, but its not 2 or 3 people attacking the QB.

If Dom were to run 3-4 most snaps, he would REALLY be misusing his talent. As wist states, Dom's sub packages and TTs talent acquisition this offseason are really geared to pass rushers who work in a 4 man line. Which is what he puts out there for almost all pass plays. Raji, Worthy, Daniels and Merling are all, in some basic way, more 4-3 tackles than 3-4 Ends or Noses. This is why several people on the board said it looked like the draft presaged Dom playing more of a 4-3 look. He is, but as wist is fond of pointing out, its a 4-3 with 2 DL, 2 OLBs, two traditional LBs and Woodson. And that is the pass defense.

The reason that is the plan is because of Matthews and the lack of productive, prototypical 3-4 ends. Matthews has to rush, he is best used moving around and his coverage cannot be his predominant responsibility. Clay in a 2-4 is almost always rushing. Also, Walden plays a lot to remove the need to have Matthews in coverage to prevent mismatches with Perry in base like versus the 49ers.

The lack of prototypical 3-4 ends tracks back to Neal failing to stay healthy and unsuspended, Jenkins leaving (even though he did not start his last year at DE), Jolly being in jail and Wilson simply being just a guy. Outside of Jenkins/Raji and Matthews, the third best pass rushers on the team have been OLBs (Kampman, Jones, Zombo, Walden, Perry). To send one of the OLBs into coverage hurts the pass rush substantially and you would need to do this regularly if you stayed 3-4 in passing downs.

The reason TT went non-traditional DTs this offseason is pass rush, pure and simple. They weren't worried about the run D (or perhaps were worried, but far less so than about pass rush). So when the time came to choose players, pass rush was paramount and they choose players accordingly (Worthy over Penn State dude and Daniels) with fit into base 3-4 a secondary concern.

It fits together given the scheme, but it can leave you thin of big bodies if you need to play more base 3-4. Which is why I think wist will get one wish and see Neal, when activated, take Richardson's spot rather than Merling.

[pbmax]

The 3-4 was originally designed as a run stopping defense. 2 gapping DL that ate up blockers and allowed the LB's to roam free and make plays. The primary pass rush came from the ROLB (Lawrence Taylor, Derrick Thomas, Tim Harris - remember him??) Harris had 19.5 sacks in 1989 for the Packers.

...

My first recollection of any DC going to a 2-5 was Fritz Shurmer when he was with the Rams in the 80's. As I remember, that look got ate alive and nobody else tried to copy it. I assume he went to that look b/c he had more quality LB's than DL and couldn't compete with a standard 3-4/4-3 base, but I don't remember the rationale. Anyway, it didn't work then - and I certainly hate it every time I see Capers trot it out there.

[video=youtube;qa-QMnXNw3Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa-QMnXNw3Q[/]

Fritz went with that Eagle when he was besieged with DL injuries and had just scrubs left.

[NewsBruin]

It's been implied multiple times in this thread, but it is worth emphasizing the distinction between "down linemen" and "pass rushers." Not all pass rushers are down linemen, and, occasionally, a down lineman will not rush the passer.

It's an elementary statement compared to what's already been thrown out here on the last few pages.

When teams were starting to make the most recent great change from 4-3 to 3-4 (something like the early/mid-2000's), I was skeptical, because I thought that smaller guys attacking an o-line would wear down faster over a season and be more easily blocked in run and pass. I didn't think the blocking confusion aspect really was worth the cost in effectiveness. Until the Ravens pulled off a Super Bowl win, I didn't think a 3-4 could be successful over 18-19 games. I just thought it was a way for teams to acquire relatively cheaper tweeners and for football analysts to get excited over something the average fan didn't know much about.

And honestly, I don't know much about Capers' interpretation of the 3-4 and its subsequent variations in our defense to do much more than keep reading. Carry on.

[channtheman]

It got us the game winning interception against Seattle.

*Game losing interception.

[sharpe1027]

*Game losing interception.

I never quite know how to phrase it. :)

[wist43]

Well, Capers soft fronts were on display for all to see on Luck's rushing TD, and Brown's 2 pt conversion.

1 and 2 man lines are an invitation to run - there simply isn't enough beef in there to hold up. Of course the defense's problems are legion beyond that - but the soft front are really hurting the defense.

The good news/bad news?? The good news is we play the Houston Texans - and their run heavy offense should lead to more traditional fronts. The bad news is we are playing the Houston Texans.

[denverYooper]

They looked like meat after Raji went down.

[Smidgeon]

They looked like meat after Raji went down.

That's what I saw too. Until Raji dropped, the defense was playing very well. Raji went down, and suddenly Luck and Wayne were unstoppable. Was that because of Raji's effectiveness collapsing the pocket or coincidence?