PACKERS' ... Secret Superstar: Brad Jones

[woodbuck27]

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2013/05/24/secret-superstar-brad-jones/

Secret Superstar: Brad Jones

Nathan Jahnke ... May 24, 2013

2013 Starter?

" There should certainly be an interesting battle at the inside linebacker position in Green Bay in 2013. In 2010 Desmond Bishop was one of the best inside linebackers in the game, but he regressed some in 2011 and missed all of 2012. The Packers have seemed content leaving A.J. Hawk in the starting lineup, and to their defense Hawk had by far his best season in the pros in 2012, even if it wasn’t as good as Jones. All three have their own weaknesses, with Jones’ being that he missed too many tackles. If he can cut down on those he could put himself among the best inside linebackers in the league.

All three players are getting paid starting money, but unless the Packers get creative only one or two will be on the field at a time. If it were my decision, Jones would be a starter. " Fr. LINK

Please CLICK on the LINK above for the entire story.

GO PACKERS !

[Bretsky]

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2013/05/24/secret-superstar-brad-jones/

Secret Superstar: Brad Jones

Nathan Jahnke ... May 24, 2013

2013 Starter?

" There should certainly be an interesting battle at the inside linebacker position in Green Bay in 2013. In 2010 Desmond Bishop was one of the best inside linebackers in the game, but he regressed some in 2011 and missed all of 2012. The Packers have seemed content leaving A.J. Hawk in the starting lineup, and to their defense Hawk had by far his best season in the pros in 2012, even if it wasn’t as good as Jones. All three have their own weaknesses, with Jones’ being that he missed too many tackles. If he can cut down on those he could put himself among the best inside linebackers in the league.

All three players are getting paid starting money, but unless the Packers get creative only one or two will be on the field at a time. If it were my decision, Jones would be a starter. " Fr. LINK

Please CLICK on the LINK above for the entire story.

GO PACKERS !


Bishop regressed ?
Jones one of the top ILB's ?

The author IMO is a moron

[rbaloha1]

The article attempts to use circumstances and salary to make Jones appear to be on the verge of stardom.

Hogwash.

TT type player that is versatile and not a troublemaker.

Solid player that imo is better as an old and the nickel backer.

[Joemailman]

I didn't see the regression in Bishop in 2011. The defense regressed in 2011, but that had more to do with the loss of Nick Collins and the injury to Tramon Williams. Is it possible though that Jones is better than normally given credit for? The Packers must think so since they gave Jones starter money this year, while reportedly putting Bishop on the trading block. I certainly could see Jones being better this year as he had to learn the ILB position in a hurry last year.

[red]

wow

i have yet to see an ounce of starter potential out of jones, much less superstar potential

he's a ok backup at best

[Guiness]

wow

i have yet to see an ounce of starter potential out of jones, much less superstar potential

he's a ok backup at best

That's the general consensus around here, but a lot of people who matter are thinking differently.

Looking at his contract numbers, is he making more than Hawk this coming year? Things that make you go Mmmmm

[RashanGary]

I'm a Jones fan. He's a heck of a player IMO. I like how he takes on blocks. I like how he covers. I like how he runs. I like how he fills. In some ways, I like him better than Bishop (running, covering). In some ways I like Bishop better than him (tackling, big hits, pass rushing.)

I'd give Bishop an 8 out of 10 grade, Jones a 7.0 and Hawk a 6.5. Bishop might not be all of the way back and Hawk had his best year. Never know what will happen this year.

[RashanGary]

That's the general consensus around here, but a lot of people who matter are thinking differently.

Looking at his contract numbers, is he making more than Hawk this coming year? Things that make you go Mmmmm

I hope you meant "hmmmm", homo :)

That capitol M just makes it worse too, haha.

[swede]

That's the general consensus around here, but a lot of people who matter are thinking differently.

Looking at his contract numbers, is he making more than Hawk this coming year? Things that make you go Mmmmm


I hope you meant "hmmmm", homo :)

That capitol M just makes it worse too, haha.

Mmmmm mmmm.

http://p.twimg.com/Ax4_WDMCAAAre6B.jpg:large

[rbaloha1]

I'm a Jones fan. He's a heck of a player IMO. I like how he takes on blocks. I like how he covers. I like how he runs. I like how he fills. In some ways, I like him better than Bishop (running, covering). In some ways I like Bishop better than him (tackling, big hits, pass rushing.)

I'd give Bishop an 8 out of 10 grade, Jones a 7.0 and Hawk a 6.5. Bishop might not be all of the way back and Hawk had his best year. Never know what will happen this year.

Jones is a slip and slide guy not close to Bishop in taking on blockers.

Clearly Jones is the best coverage guy but Hawk and Bishop improved in this area.

[RashanGary]

Jones is a slip and slide guy not close to Bishop in taking on blockers.

Clearly Jones is the best coverage guy but Hawk and Bishop improved in this area.

Jones had long arms and fights well with his hands for an ILB. Bishop blows through guys better, but also gets shoved out of the way easier too.

Out of our ILB's, Jones is the best at keeping blockers off of his body.

[pbmax]

Bishop does not take on blockers, his job is to run by them or around them. Hawk's job is to take on blockers and he is mediocre at best at it, he does not get disengaged often enough.

Since Jones' job was to replace Bishop, he wasn't supposed to bang with Guards and Centers either. Don't know if he is better than Hawk, though being 6' 3" is not going to help with traditional ILB technique. He was late to recognize plays compared to the other two which is to be expected but this was getting better until the 2nd reg season Vikings game and the 49ers.

I thought Bishop did regress in 2011 because he needs a lane to get to the ball and often there wasn't one is 2011. But whether that was him or his teammates is hard to discern.

[Pugger]

The article attempts to use circumstances and salary to make Jones appear to be on the verge of stardom.

Hogwash.

TT type player that is versatile and not a troublemaker.

Solid player that imo is better as an old and the nickel backer.

I never thought B. Jones was ever star material either.

[RashanGary]

Bishop does not take on blockers, his job is to run by them or around them. Hawk's job is to take on blockers and he is mediocre at best at it, he does not get disengaged often enough.

I've never noticed Hawk taking on appreciably more blockers than Bishop or Jones. It seems to me Jones and Bishop line up more on the strong side of the offense (the side where there is typically an extra blocker.)

Hawk gets plenty of tackles. Just as many per game as Bishop and Jones. I don't see him breaking off blockers and making tackles. I see him running and dragging guys down mostly. Bishop seems to play more downhill than either Jones or Hawk. Jones seems to play a similar style to Hawk, just better in coverage.

I've read the weak-side backer in the 3-4 defense tends to have more space to work in. It's strange that the strong-side backer seems to be Bishop and Jones, yet Hawk is toted (by you) as being the guy who's supposed to take on blockers. I don't know, where are you getting this from?

[RashanGary]

deleted

[RashanGary]

Clay "jack" - Weakside OLB, usually on the offenses left side, quick, fast, playmaker behind the line of scrimmage
Hawk "Will" - Weakside ILB, usually on the offenses left side, plays in space
Bishop/Jones "Mike" - Strongside ILB, usually on the offenses right side, plays in space, takes on more blockers than the weakside backer
Perry "SOLB" - Strongside OLB, usually on the offenses right side, takes OT's and TE's. Usually the biggest, strongest of the linebacker unit

Everything I read, this is how defenses are usually titled and constructed. The bigger guys on the right side of the offense, smaller on the left. Teams like to run to the right, and stack the TE or FB to that side, no?

Am I completely missing something? Is Hawk really on the right side of the offense and I have horrible memory? Do offenses play us with their strongside to the left most of the time with us and I have horrible memory? Are the internet scheme explainations just wrong and the Mike (strongside ILB) actually takes on less blocks than the weakside backer? I don't know, it seems like that whole Hawk takes on blockers things was constructed a long time ago by people who were excusing his lack of playmaking and it never went away.

I just don't see Hawk having big guys on him more than anyone else. He's just bad at beating blocks and really slow to react.

[woodbuck27]

Clay "jack" - Weakside OLB, usually on the offenses left side, quick, fast, playmaker behind the line of scrimmage
Hawk "Will" - Weakside ILB, usually on the offenses left side, plays in space
Bishop/Jones "Mike" - Strongside ILB, usually on the offenses right side, plays in space, takes on more blockers than the weakside backer
Perry "SOLB" - Strongside OLB, usually on the offenses right side, takes OT's and TE's. Usually the biggest, strongest of the linebacker unit

Everything I read, this is how defenses are usually titled and constructed. The bigger guys on the right side of the offense, smaller on the left. Teams like to run to the right, and stack the TE or FB to that side, no?

Am I completely missing something? Is Hawk really on the right side of the offense and I have horrible memory? Do offenses play us with their strongside to the left most of the time with us and I have horrible memory? Are the internet scheme explainations just wrong and the Mike (strongside ILB) actually takes on less blocks than the weakside backer? I don't know, it seems like that whole Hawk takes on blockers things was constructed a long time ago by people who were excusing his lack of playmaking and it never went away.

I just don't see Hawk having big guys on him more than anyone else. He's just bad at beating blocks and really slow to react.

JH:

Your take here is as I see it also.

pbmax will come back with something on this. That's why after reading this article and assessing it Vs the general comments on specific Packer Linebackers i.e. Matthews, HAWK, Bishop/Jones and Perry I was intrigued with what the author had to say.

There is almost a general distain for anything Bleacher Report here at Packerrats. In my opinion that site publishes good and bad. They publish so much that it's not all bad. Some of it will stick to the wall.

The author for this article wrote it for what site? Is this site reputable or not? Acceptable or not at Packerrats? Those questions:

The way I look at it that's all moot. This is a very slow time of the season and to keep things even moderately alive on Packerrats I tried to generate something for us to discuss. It's so slow that over the past two weeks the Brett Favre thread dominated.

Ted Thompson had specific reasons for bringing Brad Jones back. The rumor and Desmond Bishop and trading block during April's Draft is 'a smoke and fire' thing. Desmond Bishop makes just under $5 million$ and he's what? 28 years old. After HAWK at 29 years, Desmond Bishop is the oldest of the LB crew. Then it's Brad Jones and Rob Francois at 27 years.

Desmond Bishop and his rush style of play. If the front three cannot somehow open up a lane for him to get into the backfield where's he going? There we are with this 3-4 defense that as Wist43 is trying and trying to explain to y'all this isn't any longer cutting the mustard and your just not getting it. In fact the way Capers plays it and all the stunting. what kind of defense do the Green bay Packers have?

I'll tell you what kinda defense I've been seeing. A defense that inspite of any Aaron Rodgers heroics isn't going to get to any Super Bowl and win as that defense has been. Is there hope? Yes there's hope as we see our DB's maturing and progressing as they need to just from an experience standpoint.

The sands are shifting at LB. We're seeing the end of HAWK time and Bishop is aging. Rob Francois is now 28 years old. We hopefully will see Nick Perry justify his first round selection. I'm hoping that younger players at the position like Terrell Manning and Dezman Moses show more growth and work out as capable backups and in rotation/packages. Then we have the Rookie crop at LB. Who just might emerge from the new guys.

It's all very exciting.

GO PACKERS !

[Bretsky]

Jones would seem to be the most debated guy in PR on the team as far as what he is.
I think he's junk.....a JAG.........he's JAJ....aka.........Just a Jones to me

[pbmax]

Packers, according to info from the launch of the Capers era run strong side and weak side ILBs. Hawk has been SS the entire time (Buck) and Bishop has only ever worked as weak side (Mack), even when he backed up Barnett. My info is not new, but I believe this has been consistent give coverage about Bishop's role. Hawk is the thumper and gets to take on the Guard or Center who shakes free. One of the OLBs is like a 4-3 Sam and the other is the backside DE if you want to put it in 4-3 terms.

http://packerrats.com/showthread.php?17007-Defensive-Front-Seven&p=414124&viewfull=1#post414124



From today's Green Bay Press Gazette's Nick Barnett article, we finally have the official word on the names for the two inside backers.

Originally Posted by Green Bay Press Gazette - By Rob Demovsky, June 6, 2009 (http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20090606/PKR01/90606026/1058)
He’s moving to one of the inside linebackers in Capers’ 3-4 system. Capers calls the inside positions the “mack,” or the weak-side spot, and the “buck,” or the strong-side spot, in the base defense. Barnett will play the “mack” in the base defense.
I think we had noted these positions would be Mike and Jack, but here is some indication of what the team is using. This earth shattering news is brought to you by: The Department of Sound and Fury Signifying Nothing.


Internal link to GBPG article by Demovsky is broken and I can find it in a search.

[pbmax]

Here is a working link from the same time frame: http://www.packersnews.com/article/20090908/PKR01/90908183/A-look-Packers-depth-chart

[hoosier]

Here is a working link from the same time frame: http://www.packersnews.com/article/20090908/PKR01/90908183/A-look-Packers-depth-chart

That link (from 09/09/09) had Bishop backing up at Buck, not Mack, so presumably Bishop had at least preseason experience playing strongside. In fact, they weren't even considering him as the second option to spell Barnett when Nick was recovering from offseason surgery (Chillar was ahead of Bishop) until Barnett actually went down. Maybe the light hadn't gone on for Bishop yet, but sometimes I have to wonder about this coaching staff and its ability to evaluate its own talent.

[pbmax]

That link (from 09/09/09) had Bishop backing up at Buck, not Mack, so presumably Bishop had at least preseason experience playing strongside. In fact, they weren't even considering him as the second option to spell Barnett when Nick was recovering from offseason surgery (Chillar was ahead of Bishop) until Barnett actually went down. Maybe the light hadn't gone on for Bishop yet, but sometimes I have to wonder about this coaching staff and its ability to evaluate its own talent.

Yeah it does. Every other piece of coverage I recall though had Bishop at Mack. Its possible that Chillar was the reason for this and it ended the moment he went down with an injury in 2009. Its also possible Bishop was simply placed in the list there when he actually practiced at Mack.

I was rooting for Bishop (as he seems vastly more physical on screen than wither Hawk or Bishop) to take the Buck gig from Hawk when he came in and let AJ pursue and get away from blockers. But in camp in 2010, he was the backup solely at Mack and not Buck. Lansanah was the only backup at Buck who got decent reps and he wasn't long for the roster.

Having watched him, his game is more speed and reaction plus solid hitting than it is neutralizing blockers. Nothing wrong with that, but its another example where Packer D skills are slightly mismatched.

[RashanGary]

I don't know about how things are titled, but I went back and watched some tape to make sure. I know what happens in the games. AJ Hawk lines up on the offenses weak side. Bishop and Jones have lined up on the strong side.

Now, we don't play a lot of 3-4 defense. We're more of a 2-4 defense. We have an extra DB on the strong side of the offense. Regardless of how it all works, I don't see in an X's and O's way, nor have I witnessed, AJ Hawk being some block eater while Biship or Jones run around making tackles. Hawk has always gotten as many tackles as the other guys. The job description, in our defense, is not all that different.

The problem with AJ Hawk is not his number of tackles or him not being in position to make them. It's where he makes them and the fact that they rarely to never have any impact. The other problem is his coverage.

He's alright, but I like Jones a little better because of his coverage and Bishop a good notch better because of his high impact plays.

[wist43]

You guys are insane if you think Jones is even a starter, let alone a borderline elite player.

And Bishop is an 8 out of 10?? WTF have you guys been smoking??

We have 1 LB on our team (Matthews); Perry has a chance to be a good player - we'll see. Everyone else needs to be replaced, or they are in the middle of giving an audition. The Packers, outside of Matthews, have one of the worst collection of LB'ers in the league - seriously, are you guys sniffing Packers glue, or what??

Someone posted that we had a "Top 5" stable of Cornerbacks... so we have one of the best sets of DB's, and we have superstar LB'ers all up and down the roster??

Do any of you even realize we have one of the worst defenses in the league?? Seriously, you guys are delusional when it comes to your favorite team.

[Joemailman]

You guys are insane if you think Jones is even a starter, let alone a borderline elite player.

And Bishop is an 8 out of 10?? WTF have you guys been smoking??

We have 1 LB on our team (Matthews); Perry has a chance to be a good player - we'll see. Everyone else needs to be replaced, or they are in the middle of giving an audition. The Packers, outside of Matthews, have one of the worst collection of LB'ers in the league - seriously, are you guys sniffing Packers glue, or what??

Someone posted that we had a "Top 5" stable of Cornerbacks... so we have one of the best sets of DB's, and we have superstar LB'ers all up and down the roster??

Do any of you even realize we have one of the worst defenses in the league?? Seriously, you guys are delusional when it comes to your favorite team.

More bullshit from the Great Pessimistic One. Packers defense was 11th in PPG last year. 11th in YPG last year. In my book, 11th out of 32 isn't one of the worst. If Capers is as bad as you think he is, then to get those results, the Packers defensive personnel has to be better than you say it is.

[packer4life]

Someone posted that we had a "Top 5" stable of Cornerbacks... so we have one of the best sets of DB's, and we have superstar LB'ers all up and down the roster??



That "someone" was me, and if you read my thread starter it was based solely on the prediction that Tramon approaches Tramon performance of 2010, when he was a shutdown #1. If he is back to his old self, a big if, then yes I EASILY think we are top 5 at cornerback. Behind Tramon is a sea of promise: Shields is only getting better AND can tackle, Hayward is clearly a baller, and hell even House if uninjured should flash and definintely be more of a presence as depth.

Now if Tramon is the same old letdown of a player he was last year, then we most definintely are not top 5. If he sucks again, then I still put us in the top 15. Cornerback is the least of our worries on Defense. I am still quite nervous about the defensive line as a whole and I feel it is obvious that outside of Matthews we have a bunch of question marks at LB...I pray Desmond packs a punch and renders my rambling thoughts moot

[George Cumby]

More bullshit from the Great Pessimistic One. Packers defense was 11th in PPG last year. 11th in YPG last year. In my book, 11th out of 32 isn't one of the worst. If Capers is as bad as you think he is, then to get those results, the Packers defensive personnel has to be better than you say it is.

Excruciating, isn't it?

[wist43]

More bullshit from the Great Pessimistic One. Packers defense was 11th in PPG last year. 11th in YPG last year. In my book, 11th out of 32 isn't one of the worst. If Capers is as bad as you think he is, then to get those results, the Packers defensive personnel has to be better than you say it is.

What is that rbaloha always retorts with?? 579??

How's that for a stat?? Or how about the 444 yds, and 199 yds rushing the Peterson put on us in week 17, or the 210 yds we gave up in week 12??

If you think we have the 11th best defense in the league, then you've been inhaling CO2 straight from the tailpipe.

I think we'll be slightly better on defense this year... getting Perry back, and drafting Jones; but there's no overcoming Dom Capers. Can't win against the big boys with a 2-4 as your base. He'll be fired after this year though... so we tread water another year, and hopefully we get a good DC in here next year.

[wist43]

That "someone" was me, and if you read my thread starter it was based solely on the prediction that Tramon approaches Tramon performance of 2010, when he was a shutdown #1. If he is back to his old self, a big if, then yes I EASILY think we are top 5 at cornerback. Behind Tramon is a sea of promise: Shields is only getting better AND can tackle, Hayward is clearly a baller, and hell even House if uninjured should flash and definintely be more of a presence as depth.

There's always "a sea of promise" with the Packers - we're one of the youngest teams in the league every year, and we always will be as long as TT is our GM.

As I said, I like all those players to whatever extent - but they're young, Capers is a dysfunctional DC, and consequently we will have problems in the back end as long as Capers is there.


Now if Tramon is the same old letdown of a player he was last year, then we most definintely are not top 5. If he sucks again, then I still put us in the top 15. Cornerback is the least of our worries on Defense. I am still quite nervous about the defensive line as a whole and I feel it is obvious that outside of Matthews we have a bunch of question marks at LB...I pray Desmond packs a punch and renders my rambling thoughts moot

Tramon put it all together, and played lights out for that brief stretch of games - just like every other Packer did.

Every single player on that team from 3 years ago played way over their heads - it was one of those flukes. Rodgers stayed at that level for most of 2011, but then came the KC game, and everything tightened up after that.

I would love to see Williams return to that level, but when a players career is 93% mediocre, and 7% HOF, you have to figure you're going to get a whole lot more mediocre play out of that player.

Taken as a whole, our secondary is young and shaky - losing Woodson will hurt more than people think; we have no ILB's - Jones and Hawk should simply be cut straight away; and we might as well have no defensive linemen, as Capers would rather keep them on the bench anyway.

Add it all up, and you have the mess that has been our defense for the last 2 years. 2011 was disgusting... you would think Capers couldn't draw up dumber game plans, but then again, Dom is Dom.

If the score of that opening game is 56-0, maybe they'll fire Dom after week 1?? :glug:

[Joemailman]

What is that rbaloha always retorts with?? 579??

How's that for a stat?? Or how about the 444 yds, and 199 yds rushing the Peterson put on us in week 17, or the 210 yds we gave up in week 12??

If you think we have the 11th best defense in the league, then you've been inhaling CO2 straight from the tailpipe.

I think we'll be slightly better on defense this year... getting Perry back, and drafting Jones; but there's no overcoming Dom Capers. Can't win against the big boys with a 2-4 as your base. He'll be fired after this year though... so we tread water another year, and hopefully we get a good DC in here next year.

If you take the worst performance of any unit, they're not going to look good. Based on your criteria, the 49ers defense must suck because they gave up 42 to Seattle in Week 16. Funny thing is though, you only seem to use that criteria when discussing the Packers. Why is that?

[wist43]

If you take the worst performance of any unit, they're not going to look good. Based on your criteria, the 49ers defense must suck because they gave up 42 to Seattle in Week 16. Funny thing is though, you only seem to use that criteria when discussing the Packers. Why is that?

For a team like the 49er's, yeah I would view that as an outlier b/c the overall body of work is very, very solid.

The Packers overall body of work is very, very shaky - at best.

We're an offensive team, period. That's our identity. The 49er's identity is defense and running the ball. We have no interest in doing either. TT may have drafted Jones and 2 RB's - but why?? Jones is going to be playing in that idiotic 2-4, and Lacy will get 12 carries/game. He might as well write a letter to the 49er's asking them to take it easy on us... last time out was kind of embarrassing.

McCarthy wants to pass the ball - period. That's all he cares about. When the defense is on the field - it is just wasting MM's time. Maybe that's why he tells them to bust all those coverages, so he can get the offense back on the field and pass, pass, pass!!!!! YYYYEEEEEEHHHHHAAAAWWWW!!!! Pass that rock!!!!

[RashanGary]

That "someone" was me, and if you read my thread starter it was based solely on the prediction that Tramon approaches Tramon performance of 2010, when he was a shutdown #1. If he is back to his old self, a big if, then yes I EASILY think we are top 5 at cornerback. Behind Tramon is a sea of promise: Shields is only getting better AND can tackle, Hayward is clearly a baller, and hell even House if uninjured should flash and definintely be more of a presence as depth.

Now if Tramon is the same old letdown of a player he was last year, then we most definintely are not top 5. If he sucks again, then I still put us in the top 15. Cornerback is the least of our worries on Defense. I am still quite nervous about the defensive line as a whole and I feel it is obvious that outside of Matthews we have a bunch of question marks at LB...I pray Desmond packs a punch and renders my rambling thoughts moot

It was a fine thread and a fine post. It wasn't something I thought of, but after thinking about it, it made me wonder. We're definitely deep.

[3irty1]

For a team like the 49er's, yeah I would view that as an outlier b/c the overall body of work is very, very solid.

The Packers overall body of work is very, very shaky - at best.

We're an offensive team, period. That's our identity. The 49er's identity is defense and running the ball. We have no interest in doing either. TT may have drafted Jones and 2 RB's - but why?? Jones is going to be playing in that idiotic 2-4, and Lacy will get 12 carries/game. He might as well write a letter to the 49er's asking them to take it easy on us... last time out was kind of embarrassing.

McCarthy wants to pass the ball - period. That's all he cares about. When the defense is on the field - it is just wasting MM's time. Maybe that's why he tells them to bust all those coverages, so he can get the offense back on the field and pass, pass, pass!!!!! YYYYEEEEEEHHHHHAAAAWWWW!!!! Pass that rock!!!!

You know the 49ers run that idiotic 2-4 too right?

[RashanGary]

If you can't play zone defense you either have to be incredibly stout up front, or you have to have a superstar FS who can cover the deep part of the field alone. Either of those qualities is rare. We had Collins in 2010. He's the reason we could play 8 in the box defense almost exclusively and the reason we dominated with that 2-4 defense then and fail with it now.

However, bringing Perry back (if he's not a fat slug) helps shore up the edge. Adding Datone Jones should help the DL rotation. Bishop should help. Our front 7 should be better. Also, Morgan Burnett could be better, maybe good enough to play a little one-high safety, just mix it up enough to get a big stop when we really need it.

This years defense is definitely going to be interesting.

I'll go diving off tower drive bridge if the time comes. Way too early to give up anything now.

[RashanGary]

You know the 49ers run that idiotic 2-4 too right?

49ers are one of the few teams that play a ton of base defense. It's very hard to get them out of it. It helps that Patrick Willis covers like a safety and plays the run like a linebacker.

[wist43]

You know the 49ers run that idiotic 2-4 too right?

Yeah, I saw 'em line up in it a few times... not very often, certainly not using as their base like Capers.

If memory serves me, they were in that idiotic formation when Harris busted up the gut for the TD - it's a shit alignment even for good defenses.

It doesn't offer any tactical advantage, and only serves to make you predictable and small up front. It's completely idiotic, which would explain why Capers can't help himself.

[RashanGary]

Yeah, I saw 'em line up in it a few times... not very often, certainly not using as their base like Capers.

If memory serves me, they were in that idiotic formation when Harris busted up the gut for the TD - it's a shit alignment even for good defenses.

It doesn't offer any tactical advantage, and only serves to make you predictable and small up front. It's completely idiotic, which would explain why Capers can't help himself.

LMFAO. . . Wist, you love you some tough defense, I'll give ya that.

You do realize the reason teams play nickle now is the same reason teams played nickle 20 years ago. They do it when teams bring off a TE or FB and bring in a WR. They do it to match personnel. With the rule changes, teams are using more WR's and less blockers, hence defenses are matching with DB's.

SF is able to play base, because they have the best cover backer in the NFL. They're a pretty damn good defense. No better than our 2010 defense though.

[Fritz]

For a team like the 49er's, yeah I would view that as an outlier b/c the overall body of work is very, very solid.

The Packers overall body of work is very, very shaky - at best.

We're an offensive team, period. That's our identity. The 49er's identity is defense and running the ball. We have no interest in doing either. TT may have drafted Jones and 2 RB's - but why?? Jones is going to be playing in that idiotic 2-4, and Lacy will get 12 carries/game. He might as well write a letter to the 49er's asking them to take it easy on us... last time out was kind of embarrassing.

McCarthy wants to pass the ball - period. That's all he cares about. When the defense is on the field - it is just wasting MM's time. Maybe that's why he tells them to bust all those coverages, so he can get the offense back on the field and pass, pass, pass!!!!! YYYYEEEEEEHHHHHAAAAWWWW!!!! Pass that rock!!!!

"McCarthy wants to pass the ball - period. That's all he cares about."

You sometimes get props from some posters I respect for being a contrarian with intelligence, but lines like these are flat out wrong. Period.

If he only cared about passing, if he really didn't care about defense at all, if Capers were the idiot you say he is, then this team would not have the record it has for the last five years. The last five years have given us one of the winningest records in the NFL. Your descriptions of the GM and coaches would lead any reasonable reader to the conclusion that the Packers must have one of the worst teams in the NFL.

You are wrong.

[wist43]

It's called sarcastic derision, Fritz.

I'm one guy against all of you homers - you walk around like zombies and chant green and gold slogans... a bucket of cold water would do the trick; but alas, until they make a laser printer that can both print a bucket, and fill it with water, then I'm stuck with shooting zingers at you guys ;)

[RashanGary]

It's called sarcastic derision, Fritz.

I'm one guy against all of you homers - you walk around like zombies and chant green and gold slogans... a bucket of cold water would do the trick; but alas, until they make a laser printer that can both print a bucket, and fill it with water, then I'm stuck with shooting zingers at you guys ;)

Draft time wasn't a good time for you though :) You were definitely jumping off the cliff for that weekend, haha.

[Zool]

It's called sarcastic derision, Fritz.

I'm one guy against all of you homers - you walk around like zombies and chant green and gold slogans... a bucket of cold water would do the trick; but alas, until they make a laser printer that can both print a bucket, and fill it with water, then I'm stuck with shooting zingers at you guys ;)

Except that you keep goings on this thing where the Packers, unlike every other team in the NFL, never run the ball. Statistics on he other hand show that they were in the middle of the league last year.

Rushing - 16th in attempts, 21st in ypc, 20th in yards.
Passing - 16th in attempts, 9th in yards, 6th in ypa

Just because they have had shit running backs does not mean McCarthy does not like to run. At least drop some validity in your rants.

[RashanGary]

Just because they have had shit running backs does not mean McCarthy does not like to run. At least drop some validity in your rants.

And MM had a couple really good rushing years with Grant. Good YPC, upper half of the league across the board, with killer passing attacks.

[pbmax]

You know the 49ers run that idiotic 2-4 too right?

I found this while looking for the ILB spot names the Packers used. Its lovely.

http://packerrats.com/showthread.php?16171-Hawk-and-Barnett-to-switch-positions&p=385359&viewfull=1#post385359


True enough fella's... of course there should be 4 LB's on the field in most 3-4 nickel packages, I guess I'm just used to viewing the Packers LB's as so completely useless, that I instinctively replace them every chance I get.

[pbmax]

49ers are one of the few teams that play a ton of base defense. It's very hard to get them out of it. It helps that Patrick Willis covers like a safety and plays the run like a linebacker.


Yeah, I saw 'em line up in it a few times... not very often, certainly not using as their base like Capers.

If memory serves me, they were in that idiotic formation when Harris busted up the gut for the TD - it's a shit alignment even for good defenses.

It doesn't offer any tactical advantage, and only serves to make you predictable and small up front. It's completely idiotic, which would explain why Capers can't help himself.

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/08/05/4694192/corners-need-lbs-skills-to-play.html


Rogers typically started games at left cornerback but moved inside to nickel when opponents used three wide receivers.

Fangio's goal during training camp is to develop a few others.

The position has become a critical chess piece for defensive coordinators who must counter offenses that regularly use three or more wide receivers.

When the 49ers defenders take the field for the season opener Sept. 9 in Green Bay, for example, they are more likely to be in their nickel package than they are their base defense.

Fangio also noted the 49ers use two nickel backs when opponents trot out four wide receivers. And the team's schedule this season is filled with teams that like to do just that.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/08/05/4694192/corners-need-lbs-skills-to-play.html#storylink=cpy

[swede]

Patlerlike in the -ization, PB.

[pbmax]

During 2012 Camp for San Fran, the battle for nickel corner between Cox and Culliver:


"The 49ers easily could have handed the job to Culliver after the 2011 third-round choice played better than 40 percent of the defensive snaps last season.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcwest/post/_/id/71444/49ers-camp-battle-update-nickel-cb

[RashanGary]

Wist was pissing Packer fans off three years ago too. Shocker, haha.

[RashanGary]

During 2012 Camp for San Fran, the battle for nickel corner between Cox and Culliver:



http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcwest/post/_/id/71444/49ers-camp-battle-update-nickel-cb

They played nickle 40% of snaps? That's more than I thought. We played what? 70% or so? Still, all teams play nickle. It's the most common defense in the league.

[Joemailman]

And MM had a couple really good rushing years with Grant. Good YPC, upper half of the league across the board, with killer passing attacks.

Yep. Grant had a total of almost 600 carries in 2008-2009. Give MM a good RB and he'll use him. It would have been crazy to give Alex Green a lot of carries last year

[pbmax]

Football Outsiders: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/game-previews/2013/nfc-divisional-round-preview


This season, the 49ers have faced three-wide sets on 59 percent of plays*, they've responded with nickel personnel on 83 percent of those plays (rest were base), and have given up only 4.9 yards per play (61 percent defensive success rate). In the 14 percent of plays that came against four-wide, however, they were in nickel personnel only 23 percent of the time (rest were dime), and gave up 6.8 yards per play (49 percent defensive success rate).

Carlos Rogers was on the field for 98% of Defensive snaps at 1036. 1036/.98 = 1057 total defensive snaps.

59 perent of plays 49ers faced 3 wide -> 1057 * .59 = 623 snaps

Respond with nickel personnel 83 % of 623 snaps = 517 snaps of nickel

517 nickel snaps / 1036 total = 49.9% of total defensive snaps in nickel.

And just to check my match, Chris Culliver, the nickel back? Played in 669 defensive snaps this year.

[wist43]

Wist was pissing Packer fans off three years ago too. Shocker, haha.

I do my best ;)

[wist43]

As for the Niners playing nickel against us from the opening snap - that makes much more sense than Capers jumping to a 2-4 on 2nd and 6.

The Packers can't run the ball on the Niners. They know it, and we know it. Beyond that, I seriously doubt we can run against them when they're in the nickel. Unless they do something stupid like go to a 2-4, ala Harris's TD run.

The Niners have very good defensive linemen, they believe in controlling the LOS, and they're likely to have at least 3 DL on the field in the nickel. I'd be shocked if they came out an actually ran more 2-4. More 3-3, or 4-2, but not more 2-4.

[wist43]

Except that you keep goings on this thing where the Packers, unlike every other team in the NFL, never run the ball. Statistics on he other hand show that they were in the middle of the league last year.

Rushing - 16th in attempts, 21st in ypc, 20th in yards.
Passing - 16th in attempts, 9th in yards, 6th in ypa

Just because they have had shit running backs does not mean McCarthy does not like to run. At least drop some validity in your rants.

It's certainly not effective running. You want numbers?

- 3.9 yd/rush
- Take Rodgers and Cobb out, and you have a 3.55 yd/rush
- The base RB's (Green, Starks, and Benson) ran for 967 yds, and 3.49 yd avg.

Maybe it's a fluke b/c our offensive linemen are super-awesome pass blockers, right?? Well, not so much... as witnessed by 51 sacks :(

Gee, I wonder if there's something amiss with the OL??

We run only as a function of our passing game. We can't simply line up in a 2-TE formation and run the damn ball. 3rd and 1 is a passing down - and everyone knows it.

[RashanGary]

I do my best ;)

Yes, yes you do.

I would say you have some adjusting to do though. Teams pass against GB mroe than most teams because they have to score against us more than most teams. Hence, they play more WR sets, hence we play more nickle than SF, who teams are more satisfied slugging it out against.

2-4 isn't as bad when one of your 4 is Nick Perry (more of a DE than LB) and the other is Clay Matthews, a stud at everything he does. We'll see how it pans out. Considering we do run the ultra small 2-4 nickle, Perry gives me some hope with his size/strength. It might not be such a soft defense if Perry can set that edge well.

[wist43]

Yes, yes you do.

I would say you have some adjusting to do though. Teams pass against GB mroe than most teams because they have to score against us more than most teams. Hence, they play more WR sets, hence we play more nickle than SF, who teams are more satisfied slugging it out against.

2-4 isn't as bad when one of your 4 is Nick Perry (more of a DE than LB) and the other is Clay Matthews, a stud at everything he does. We'll see how it pans out. Considering we do run the ultra small 2-4 nickle, Perry gives me some hope with his size/strength. It might not be such a soft defense if Perry can set that edge well.

I would agree, without taking the time to check out the numbers (since Zool is checking my math lately, lol), that teams are usually going to have a run/pass disparity - goes back to the quasi-argument of our offense getting off to a lead, and forcing them out of their run game plan, i.e. our offense is a form of run defense. That certainly doesn't apply to teams like the Niners and Giants.

Just b/c you play a lot of nickel though, doesn't mean you have to go small up front. Go with a 3-3, mix up your rushes, bring the S down and show a lot of different fronts, mix in the occassional blitz out of the slot... do those few things alone, and you'd go a long way toward being more productive in your front seven.

Combine that with teaching the kiddies in the secondary how to play a little zone defense, and maybe we bottle up some of the explosive plays. Usually I'm an advocate of playing a lot of man, but given that Capers is letting teams run wild past his front six, it might be prudent to get more eyes lookin at the mess that is comin their way.

[RashanGary]

Just b/c you play a lot of nickel though, doesn't mean you have to go small up front. Go with a 3-3, mix up your rushes, bring the S down and show a lot of different fronts, mix in the occassional blitz out of the slot... do those few things alone, and you'd go a long way toward being more productive in your front seven.

That was my thought initially too. They played a lot of one high safety in 2010. It was the defense we hung our hat on, our identity. Peprah and Woodson played in the box. Collins covered the deep middle alone. Tramon and Shields ran with receivers down the field as well as anyone. Collins could cover sideline to sideline deep. That extra guy in the box made our six man front strong enough to hold because it was an 8 man box. We tried it in 2011 too, even with Collins here. Collins moved into the box, Burnett deep. We got shredded. Then Collins got hurt. We still played one high. We got destroyed. We switched to zone with more one high. Shields and Williams got shredded because they played too far off the ball, afraid to get beat deep. I remember you were just as pissed when teams were passing for record setting numbers as you were last year when SF and Minn ran wild on us at the end of the season.

We don't have zone corners. We can't keep our eyes to the ball. We don't have an elite safety, we can't bring an extra guy in the box with man defense because we'll get shredded over the top. My only remaining hope is that our DL/LB rotation will be stronger this year, and Burnett's play will improve enough to mix in some more one high looks (only if we don't get destroyed by them.)

We'll see though. Jones is tough dude. Perry, although he seems like a complete retard, may be strong enough at the point of attack and pressing the pocket to make that 2-4 defense a little more similar to a 3-3 front.

Clearly, if our run defense is as poor as it was last year, we'll win a ton of regular season games, then lose when we hit that dominant run team in the playoffs or SB. We weren't good enough last year and need to be better.

I'm sure there are solutions I can't imagine. I'm no DC, but I've watched a lot of football at this point in my life. I've seen things fail a few different ways. I've only seen things truly succeed one way for us (the 8 in the box nickle defense.) Hopefully I get to see a second way this year because Nick Collins isn't coming back and Morgan Burnett will never be Nick Collins.

I envision Shields, Williams and Hayward being a little smarter in zone this year. Not using it a lot, but a little bit, just enough to mix it in. I envision Burnett being a little better this year. Not good enough to play one high a lot, but just enough to mix it in. I envision us playing mostly man defense with two-shell over the top like last year (easiest defense to run against, same defenses AR sees most weeks), but I hope this time our DL rotation is a little stronger and Perry is a little stronger on the edge so even though it's our go-to defense, it's a little stronger up fron. . . That's kind of how I envision the defense growing, but that's a hope. The reality could be completely different.

[RashanGary]

And there is no such thing as a perfect team either. The 18-0 NE Patriots ran into their nightmare matchup in 2007. Strahan, Tuck and Osi beat the shit out of Tom Brady. He had wide-eyes, looked scared, confused. That NE team couldn't run the ball and they ran into maybe the best pass rushing front in NFL history. Bad luck.

That's why I'm glad the Packers are good every year. When you're good every year, one of those years you might not run into that nightmare matchup. When you're good for only one or two years, you better hope you're really fucking good and you stay really fucking healthy, and even then, someone could just have a good game or someone might even be having a slightly more perfect, lucky season.

The Packers are an elite team. There are reasons to expect some growth from the defense and run game this year. More reason to expect growth than regression. Hopefully we run into Atlanta and Minnesota, not Seattle and SF. If we do run into Seattle and SF, maybe we're better than they are on that day (and that could happen too.) Winning the SB is a big job. The bright side is we have a chance every year, including this one.

[Cleft Crusty]

It's certainly not effective running. You want numbers?

- 3.9 yd/rush
- Take Rodgers and Cobb out, and you have a 3.55 yd/rush
- The base RB's (Green, Starks, and Benson) ran for 967 yds, and 3.49 yd avg.


That's dishonest cherry picking frankly, due to injuries. What did Harris have for yards? Cobb got carries because he's dynamic and because he was covering for others injured. Other teams use WR for carries as well. Recall also that the Packer had a few injuries along the offensive line that changed their ability to run the ball, not to mention pass protect. You can't have a discussion about the running game in isolation like that.

[denverYooper]

I like the part where the argument with numbers and sources was completely ignored in favor of categorical belief.

[woodbuck27]

More bullshit from the Great Pessimistic One. Packers defense was 11th in PPG last year. 11th in YPG last year. In my book, 11th out of 32 isn't one of the worst. If Capers is as bad as you think he is, then to get those results, the Packers defensive personnel has to be better than you say it is.

How many teams (in the NFL) are eligible to make the playoffs?

Where do the Green Bay Packers rank with those teams on' D'?

GO PACKERS !

[RashanGary]

How many teams (in the NFL) are eligible to make the playoffs?

Where do the Green Bay Packers rank with those teams on' D'?

GO PACKERS !

Woody, the Packers were 11th. That puts them in the top 12 on defense. 12 teams make the playoffs.

Probably the better question, is where do the Packers rank overall (STs, D, O) That question is harder to answer, but probably in the top 4 or 5 teams.

But the best question, for this up coming season, is how will the Packers rank overall in 2013. That's a fun one, one with a lot of grey area, one we'll talk about for a long time

And then there's another fun question, how do they rank in the foreseeable future (age, talent, salary cap, coaching, talent evaluation *liklihood of replenishing*, etc) That's a fun one too.

Of the three main phases of football, you brought up the one the Packers struggle most with. In that area, they're playoff worthy. In the other areas, they're more than playoff worthy. Going forward, they're in great shape.


I pose the question back to you. At the end of the day, if we answer your question based off last year, what do we find out? What does it mean for 2013? What do you think? I have a really long post, above, saying what I think.

[woodbuck27]

Green Bay Packers Depth Charts:

a) 2013 season:

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/teams/depth-chart/GB/green-bay-packers

Another view:

http://www.ourlads.com/nfldepthcharts/depthchart/GB

DEFENSE

LDE 90 Raji, BJ 09/1 96 Neal, Mike 10/2 76 Daniels, Mike 12/4

NT 79 PICKETT, RYAN U/SL 91 Miller, Jordan SF12 97 JOLLY, JOHNNY 06/6 63 Pena, Gilbert CF13

RDE 95 Jones, Datone 13/1 98 Wilson, CJ 10/7 99 Worthy, Jerel 12/2 93 Boyd, Josh 13/5


LOLB 53 Perry, N. 12/1 - 51 Palmer, Nate 13/6 - 94 Savage, Donte CF13

LILB 50 Hawk, AJ 06/1 - 49 Francois, R. SF09 57 Lattimore, J. CF11 - 58 Barrington, S. 13/7

RILB 55 Bishop, D. 07/6 - 59 Jones, B. 09/07 - 56 Manning, T. 12/5 - 47 Wilson, Jarvis CF13

ROLB 52 Matthews, C. 09/1 - 54 Moses, D. CF12 - 46 Mulumba, Andy CF13


LCB 38 WILLIAMS, T. SF06 31 House, D. 11/4 24 Bush, J. W/Car 35 Means, L. SF13 34 Smith, B. SF13

SS 43 Jennings, MD CF11 28 Richardson, Sean CF12

FS 42 Burnett, Morgan 10/3 22 McMillian, J. 12/4 41 Powell, Chaz SF12

RCB 37 Shields, Sam RFA 29 Hayward, Casey 12/2 33 Hyde, Micah 13/5 25 Nixon, James SF12



Unofficial Packers Depth Chart 'DEFENSE' Jan. 7, 2013:

LDE - Ryan Pickett; Mike Neal; Mike Daniels
NT - B.J. Raji; Ryan Pickett; Jordan Miller
RDE - C.J. Wilson; Jerel Worthy

LOLB - Dezman Moses; Erik Walden

LILB - A.J. Hawk; Robert Francois

MLB - Brad Jones; Jamari Lattimore ;Terrell Manning

ROLB - Clay Matthews; Frank Zombo ; Jamari Lattimore

LCB - Tramon Williams; Davon House; Jarrett Bush
RCB - Sam Shields; Casey Hayward
SS - Charles Woodson; M.D. Jennings
FS - Morgan Burnett; Jerron McMillian

GO PACKERS !

[RashanGary]

Woodbuck,

I think the Packers defense will be better than 11th in 2013.

1. We haven't lost anyone who played last year
2. We were not healthy last year, so the likelyhood of being more injured isn't high
3. Sam Shields, Casey Hayward and Davon House are young players. They should improve as zone players and allow us to mix our defense a little (even though we're mostly man)
4. I think Morgan Burnett should be a slightly better player, allowing us to mix in a little more one-high safety. Even though we're mostly a 2-shell team
5. The addition of Jones and the development of Daniels should strengthen our DL rotation. Only Pickett is aging, and I don't project drop off in the role he plays
6. Nick Perry, I've been a big detractor of him, the way I envision his coverage. However, we play 2-4 defense (with a 2-shell secondary, highly pass oriented), not 3-4. We already have the extra DB on the field and the 2-shell help over the top. Perry's size/strength may be a perfect fit for our defense against running teams. It's a question mark. I lean on the side of optimism. I think he improves our run game, and Walden wasn't good dropping back either.
7. We have Eddie Lacy. I love the pick. We have young OL, coming up. I like the chances of our run game opening up or offense. I like the chances of Crosby being better. I like the chances of the points we put up making the offenses we play more one-dimensional this year than they were last year. I think that will have an affect on our defenses production, as offenses will be forced to score.

Last year they were 11th. This year, I predict 6th. What do you think? There are a lot of question marks, but I know you fancy yourself an NFL expert. What do you think? You copied and pasted the roster. How do you put it together?

[Zool]

It's certainly not effective running. You want numbers?

- 3.9 yd/rush
- Take Rodgers and Cobb out, and you have a 3.55 yd/rush
- The base RB's (Green, Starks, and Benson) ran for 967 yds, and 3.49 yd avg.

Maybe it's a fluke b/c our offensive linemen are super-awesome pass blockers, right?? Well, not so much... as witnessed by 51 sacks :(

Gee, I wonder if there's something amiss with the OL??

We run only as a function of our passing game. We can't simply line up in a 2-TE formation and run the damn ball. 3rd and 1 is a passing down - and everyone knows it.

I guess I'm confused. Is your argument that they never run the ball, or that they don't do it effectively? You seem to flip/flop depending on what point the discussion reaches in the thread.

[ThunderDan]

How many teams (in the NFL) are eligible to make the playoffs?

Where do the Green Bay Packers rank with those teams on' D'?

GO PACKERS !

2012 Defensive Rankings.

1. Steelers - Missed playoffs
2. Broncos - Made playoffs
3. 49ers - Made playoffs
4. Seahags - Made playoffs
5. Bears - Missed playoffs
6. Bengals - Made playoffs
7. Texans - Made playoffs
8. Jets - Missed playoffs
9. Charges - Missed playoffs
10. Panthers - Missed playoffs
11. Packers - Made playoffs

So of the 2012 playoff teams the Packers ranked 6th of 12 ahead of the Super Bowl Champions. Of the top 11 defenses in the NFL last year 5 missed the playoffs.

12. Cardinals - Missed Playoffs
13. Lions - Mssed Playoffs
14. Rams - Missed Playoffs
15. Eagles - Missed Playoffs
16. Vikings - Made Playoffs

So of the teams in the top half in defense for 2012, only 44% or less than half made the playoffs.

[woodbuck27]

Woody, the Packers were 11th. That puts them in the top 12 on defense. 12 teams make the playoffs.

Probably the better question, is where do the Packers rank overall (STs, D, O) That question is harder to answer, but probably in the top 4 or 5 teams.

But the best question, for this up coming season, is how will the Packers rank overall in 2013. That's a fun one, one with a lot of grey area, one we'll talk about for a long time

And then there's another fun question, how do they rank in the foreseeable future (age, talent, salary cap, coaching, talent evaluation *liklihood of replenishing*, etc) That's a fun one too.

Of the three main phases of football, you brought up the one the Packers struggle most with. In that area, they're playoff worthy. In the other areas, they're more than playoff worthy. Going forward, they're in great shape.


I pose the question back to you. At the end of the day, if we answer your question based off last year, what do we find out? What does it mean for 2013? What do you think? I have a really long post, above, saying what I think.

I certainly know that Our GM is hoping through his drafting efforts to make things better. That way in terms of this season will not likely be a strong factor except in terms of 'real depth'. We do need to suffer less adversity in 2013 than we felt harm our team last season. Maybe see Bishop have a solid season but with a year down and age creeping in that's a 'real hope'. We certainly need to see Perry healthy and developing. That same goes for Moses.

The real answer to your question going forward is it's simply a wait and see JH. We've got players at LB that have peaked in terms of their potential or cannot offer anymore upside. We have to see Nick Perry show the promise that TT selected him for to assist Clay Matthews and strengthen a QB rush.

RE: Clay Matthews. His recurring trouble with his hamstring cause me real concern.

I have the same worry over Jordy Nelson and that and will maybe see more of that and our new RB Eddie Lacy. MM and specifically on 'D' Dom Capers has to somehow ensure that all players are properly drilled and loosened up or their muscles ready and prepared to play games. They have to somehow stay loose on the sidelines when the offense is doing their thing and vice versa.

If our offense gets out there and instead of long drives goes to quick turnovers with points on the board. That's one thing. The 'D' is ready (in shape to perform and talented) and gets to a quick 3 and out and the ball back to the 'O'. Everything is 'peaches and cream'.

In reality that's seldom the way it works.

It comes down to proper preparation of real talent and luck in terms of adversity JH. It comes down to common sense in terms of the players need to keep their muscles peaked and loose. You know that as a former athlete as well as I do. Imagine playing any sport and not warmed up and down and all the 'in between' stuff required. You get injuries...as a course of not giving your best all over.

I think that we read that MM was wondering about al the injuries and this very thing JH. I havn't heard anything about that since. That's what piss's me off about MM. He talks ohh boy can he talk but get it done and stay with a solid plan.

No way is he strong in that regard. What MM says and what he gets done are two different things and that has to stop. That has to be addressed.

It will be truly interesting to see what happens with our team and that RE: injuries and the running game JH. I'll be watching all that like a hawk. I 'only' criticize what 'as a Green Bay Packer and NFL fan' I see needs to be questioned or criticized. Make no mistake on this...I pay attention JH.

Otherwise....I'm just a fan just like everyone here. No better or less than anyone else. The thing is...we shouldn't take issues and things so damn seriously. We need to post and agree or agree to disagree. We need to lighten up and enjoy Packerrats ,and one another so much more. Really see the value in the contributions the membership as a whole makes.

I mean I love this place. There are times it's so good here I'm literally in tears laughing and in joy for the contributions some posters make. We're fortunate to have some solid minds here JH. Fortunate to have posters that are downright very funny and fun to read.

Do you want to be like a certain poster that doesn't need to be named. To act so stupidly and in my view pathetically crazy? To the degree where his message sends up real alarm for him.

I'm totally against any poster that stalks another with insulting, attack and mocking agendas. I'm against anyone that admires 'a fricken fool'. I'm against those here that are entertained by anything even approaching animosity and clear cut battles and positions of down one another's throats.

You can identify such. The real troubled posters. The one's that get the... 'I've got popcorn' message.

Fuck...they piss me off. They piss me off the most.

That's the BS that does zero good and anyone not capable of anything but that must not get inside at Packerrats. Must not ever have any real influence.

Yea I got off topic.... because this hatred you can demonstrate isn't what I expect from you JH. I need the BEST from you JH and never less man.

I'm kicking you in the ass right now. Why!? Because I like you JH. I need your very best input here.

It's a gentle kick. :idea:

GO PACK GO !

[ThunderDan]

2012 Offensive Rankings.

1. Patriots - Made playoffs
2. Saints - Missed playoffs
3. Lions - Missed playoffs
4. Broncos - Made Playoffs
5. Redskins - Made playoffs
6. Cowgirls - Missed playoffs
7. Texans - Made playoffs
8. Falcons - Made playoffs
9. Buccaneers - Missed playoffs
10. Colts- Made plaoyoffs
11. 49ers - Made playoffs
12. Panathers - Missed playoffs
13. Packers- Made playoffs
14. Giants - Missed playoffs
15. Eagles - Missed playoffs
16. Ravens - Made playoffs, won Super Bowl

So 9 of the 16 teams in the top half in offense in 2012 made the playoffs or 56%.

The team that won the Super Bowl had the 17th best D and 16th best O.

Maybe the guy who said all you have to do is make the playoffs and hope you get hot was right.

[woodbuck27]

2012 Offensive Rankings.

1. Patriots - Made playoffs
2. Saints - Missed playoffs
3. Lions - Missed playoffs
4. Broncos - Made Playoffs
5. Redskins - Made playoffs
6. Cowgirls - Missed playoffs
7. Texans - Made playoffs
8. Falcons - Made playoffs
9. Buccaneers - Missed playoffs
10. Colts- Made plaoyoffs
11. 49ers - Made playoffs
12. Panathers - Missed playoffs
13. Packers- Made playoffs
14. Giants - Missed playoffs
15. Eagles - Missed playoffs
16. Ravens - Made playoffs, won Super Bowl

So 9 of the 16 teams in the top half in offense in 2012 made the playoffs or 56%.

The team that won the Super Bowl had the 17th best D and 16th best O.

Maybe the guy who said all you have to do is make the playoffs and hope you get hot was right.

When you get down to the brass tacks of it. It's simply a wait and see.

There's no sense in getting all fired up about anything.

That's basically what the poster from Hawaii has been trying to tell you. :idea:

GO PACKERS !

[ThunderDan]

When you get down to the brass tacks of it. It's simply a wait and see.

There's no sense in getting all fired up about anything.

That's basically what the poster from Hawaii has been trying to tell you. :idea:



I am quoting the statistics from last year not getting fired up about anything. You asked about defensive ranking so I posted them and then posted the offensive rankings to compare and cotrast with the defensive ones.

Maybe you are the one that need to calm down a little bit. You are only in flame wars with 3 posters on this site at the moment.

[woodbuck27]

I am quoting the statistics from last year not getting fired up about anything. You asked about defensive ranking so I posted them and then posted the offensive rankings to compare and cotrast with the defensive ones.

Maybe you are the one that need to calm down a little bit. You are only in flame wars with 3 posters on this site at the moment.

See how defensive you get and with your agenda against me ThunderDan.

Who are those three posters ThunderDan that to use your term...I'm in 'a flame war' with?

Who are these three posters ThunderDan and be careful to ensure your accurate characterization of such. I'll give you a hint:

I'm not in any flame war with anyone here at Packerrats.

I'm in some open debate with JH but we'll handle that or have. Maybe by simply agreeing to disagree. That's our business and not yours.

Again as usual your out to lunch. You simply deal with your own agenda and me in a positive way. Try to keep away from any silly ass piling on. In other words mind your business.

Again your obsessing on something I cannot even begin to understand. Your certainly fumbling in that regard. Again let go. :?

Why not merely let go. Try to relax here.... rather than emulate the bad guy.

Let go of such utter nonsense.....please for your own sake.

[pbmax]

Are Aaron Kampman and KGB better versus the run than Nick Perry (injured wrist and all) and Clay Matthews? I don't think so.

The interior is the concern and with 3 WR/nickel personnel expecting a pass, all teams put in pass rushers in the interior as well. Packers send in Neal or Worthy for Pickett. They used to send in Williams for Jolly. San Fran slides Justin Smith inside and removes the nose.

Interior is the concern. Which is why all the beat guys are convinced the place to watch for Jones to have an impact is in the 2-4 nickel.

[pbmax]

I don't know about how things are titled, but I went back and watched some tape to make sure. I know what happens in the games. AJ Hawk lines up on the offenses weak side. Bishop and Jones have lined up on the strong side.

Is he lining up there from the get go or does that happen after offense sends a TE, slot or Hback guy in motion?

[RashanGary]

I'm kicking you in the ass right now. Why!? Because I like you JH. I need your very best input here.

It's a gentle kick. :idea:

GO PACK GO !


I'd say thank you for the kick, but I believe it was me giving you the friendly kick and then you coming back and saying you were doing it to me. Woodbuck, my reputation bar says people appreciate my posts, and almost all of them are related to football.

My rep is less than some, more than others. I think it's about right. I'm happy with the new ideas I come up with and the repackaging of other ideas that I do. Another thing, I'm just as happy to give other people the satisfaction of a thought well derived too.

I know you think you're giving me a friendly kick, and I appreciate the gesture. I know that's your personality. But really, this was about you, not me. You have more to share than re-posts of the Packers roster. Honestly, I don't think you're the football expert you thought you were when you were ripping TT for the draft. But I do think you're a damn smart football guy. Shit, Woodbuck, try jogging first, before you compete in the Boston Marathon. Banter back and forth with PB and Patler before you fight Ted in the NFL Draft arena :) I admire your lofty ambition, but shit, man, that was a no win. That would be like me thinking I could kick Jon "Bones" Jones in the steel cage. I could come here and talk all fucking day about how bad I'd kick his ass, but people have met me here. I think everyone would remind me how unrealistic my thinking was. God knows I've had those moments "see Deion Hawkins" LMFAO.

It's cool to be nutty, Woody. You're kinda nutty. I am too. Fuck it, embrace it.

[ThunderDan]

See how defensive you get and with your agenda against me ThunderDan.

Who are those three posters ThunderDan that to use your term...I'm in 'a flame war' with?

Who are these three posters ThunderDan and be careful to ensure your accurate characterization of such. I'll give you a hint:

I'm not in any flame war with anyone here at Packerrats.

I'm in some open debate with JH but we'll handle that or have. Maybe by simply agreeing to disagree. That's our business and not yours.

Again as usual your out to lunch. You simply deal with your own agenda and me in a positive way. Try to keep away from any silly ass piling on. In other words mind your business.

Again your obsessing on something I cannot even begin to understand. Your certainly fumbling in that regard. Again let go. :?

Why not merely let go. Try to relax here.... rather than emulate the bad guy.

Let go of such utter nonsense.....please for your own sake.

Woody, it is sad to see a man with such integrity and life experiences act like you do.

You are flaming with JH, SC and me. I simply post the offensive and defensive rankings for 2012 to help the conversation along and you take it that I have some "AGENDA" and that I am all fired up. Grow up the world doesn't revolve around you no matter how many words you write.

I think JH's post sums you up perfectly. You are a divider. No matter how many times you post that we must bring PackerRats together you don't. No matter how many times you post that you are a shining star at PackerRates you aren't.

I am done with you. I'll keep posting my stats and numbers and you can rant about how I target you and am tearing PackerRats down.

[woodbuck27]

I'd say thank you for the kick, but I believe it was me giving you the friendly kick and then you coming back and saying you were doing it to me. Woodbuck, my reputation bar says people appreciate my posts, and almost all of them are related to football.

My rep is less than some, more than others. I think it's about right. I'm happy with the new ideas I come up with and the repackaging of other ideas that I do. Another thing, I'm just as happy to give other people the satisfaction of a thought well derived too.

I know you think you're giving me a friendly kick, and I appreciate the gesture. I know that's your personality. But really, this was about you, not me. You have more to share than re-posts of the Packers roster. Honestly, I don't think you're the football expert you thought you were when you were ripping TT for the draft. But I do think you're a damn smart football guy. Shit, Woodbuck, try jogging first, before you compete in the Boston Marathon. Banter back and forth with PB and Patler before you fight Ted in the NFL Draft arena :) I admire your lofty ambition, but shit, man, that was a no win. That would be like me thinking I could kick Jon "Bones" Jones in the steel cage. I could come here and talk all fucking day about how bad I'd kick his ass, but people have met me here. I think everyone would remind me how unrealistic my thinking was. God knows I've had those moments "see Deion Hawkins" LMFAO.

It's cool to be nutty, Woody. You're kinda nutty. I am too. Fuck it, embrace it.

JH I refuse to go over all that I felt and TT and Company's last draft. I've explained that 'to death'.

Am I an expert in football. I'm OK with my skills. I've been at it for a long time so I shouldn't be too shabby. I don't have to wave Yahoo football trophy's in front of this membership, to qualify me as anything RE: Football and expertise.

There isn't a lot I don't understand and when I don't I find that source to get there. I'm skilled with a computer.

I've always been competitive and fortunately a winner or close to the winner in all I've ever done. I've been a fortunate man. I've long ago given up on ego and winning. I no longer need to prove anything.

I like woodbuck27.

I'm right now and 100% with anything and Aprils DRAFT. Lets see how that worked out. Let's see how all those prospects that TT shunned trading out of Rd. 3 2X manage in the NFL Vs our picks.

See it's there. As a Packer fan it's OUR picks not 'just TT's' picks.

When it comes to debate. I have skills.

When it comes to reasonableness and intelligence and fairness. I have much.

If I wasn't like some here, or open to learn. I wouldn't be as wise as I am JH.

I thank you for all your efforts and posts to me over these past 3-4 days. I hope that, as one member wants to call me out on. That we havn't been involved in 'any flame war'. What 'a joke'. I believed we were in simple debate. Hard at that 'no less'. We've been there before. Neither of us shy's from such.

The member that desires so badly to undermine me. Dear Lord good luck with that. :-? He's going to stop or end up one very frustrated poster here. That member has a good deal of growing up to do. I hope that he has people around him carrying enough to focus on him. Personally and from a standpoint of 'simply' being a member of Packerrats. That's an impossible task as I view it. To learn takes a certain level of intelligence, combined with competence and good will.

The first thing it takes is intelligence and a proper application of such. Unfortunately intelligence isn't something you learn. It's a gift that has to be better and better utilized.

I really try to ensure that gift and my efforts at Packerrats. Respected or not. I do try.

GO PACK GO !

[RashanGary]

Is he lining up there from the get go or does that happen after offense sends a TE, slot or Hback guy in motion?

2 minute mark, AJ Hawk on the weakside.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-apASSiL0M0

[woodbuck27]

Woody, it is sad to see a man with such integrity and life experiences act like you do.

You are flaming with JH, SC and me. I simply post the offensive and defensive rankings for 2012 to help the conversation along and you take it that I have some "AGENDA" and that I am all fired up. Grow up the world doesn't revolve around you no matter how many words you write.

I think JH's post sums you up perfectly. You are a divider. No matter how many times you post that we must bring PackerRats together you don't. No matter how many times you post that you are a shining star at PackerRates you aren't.

I am done with you. I'll keep posting my stats and numbers and you can rant about how I target you and am tearing PackerRats down.

TunderDan:

Is this a deju vu experience and me trying my best to reach you. dear god man. Please have some mercy here.

I will post this as a simple response as you deserve no more time.

Your wrong. completely wrong.

Please simply place me on ignore as all you will ever do is act confused over any response I give to you.

Your a mixed up young man TunderDan.

I'm not flaming JH or certainly not intending such vile behaviour and JH. I respect JH.

I have ZERO respect for the hopelessness I view in Scott Campbell. Flame him...NOT.

I've had Scott Campbell 'on ignore' for some time now. I don't even care to see his garbage. Once that starts... it goes on and on and on.

You and I and flame war. ThunderDan...in fact 'YOU' flame me. I deal with it as somehow I believe your not all that bright.....or otherwise one very mixed up person. I don't want to seem unkind here. You really confuse me.

Sadly it's you that gets there and me. Don't place the shoe on my foot mister. It's you that has the problem and issue. Like Scott Campbell, I don't believe you'll overcome your limitations. You have an agenda that focus's bad will Vs me.

Your very best avenue is to simply place me on ignore.

My best stance is to hope that you do that Thunderdan. You have an issue and me to work out within yourself.

Otherwise, and if you have the ability.....try to smarten up.

I will not post you again until you demonstrate some decency and moreso dynamics and intelligence.

Thank You for your time. Have a nice day.

[RashanGary]

You know football, woody, no question. Sometimes I wonder if your so pissed at TT that you want him to be wrong, (like Brett said in the Gretta interview, the management should worry about their legacy.) Sometimes I think, ever since that BS, some people were so concerned with Ted being wrong that they're just waiting for it to happen.

Shit, I know I'm worried about him being wrong, because if he is, I fear how ugly it will get. Even worse, if he was wrong with Favre, it would have been a nightmare. The safe thing for the Packers to do would have been to get rid of TT. Favre had the ability to really destroy the fanbase and destroy the Packers (had they let him go to the Vikings, had Ted not gotten to a SB and won it, had Brett won the SB) It would have been a nightmare. Brett knew it. He played that power for all it was worth and I'm just glad he didn't succeed with his plan because I'm a Packer fan and I do think they were doing their best for the team.

All Brett really wanted to do was have TT sell out the future for his final years, and get himself out of offseason work. You know what, nobody else on the team can do that. I'm glad they didn't. HOnestly though, if it was me, I would have been too afraid of Favre doing what he did to get in his way. I would have let him have his way. People with his kind of power and influence get their way because people don't want that type of fight. Know what though, that's because I'm not as brave as TT. That's because I'm more afraid. I respect the hell out of TT for doing what he did. It was not easy. He was the guy fighting from the weaker position. Sometimes I wonder if TT is a sociopath because he showed no fear when clearly he should have had it. Favre, a very powerful figure in GB, was backing that mother fucker down and he stood there without blinking. That's hard to do. Look at it for what it is, man. Favre tried to bully TT down. He wanted to run the show when TT had worked his whole career for a shot at running that show. He finally had that shot, and he stood by it because it mattered so much to him.

Really, the draft, TT is a stud GM, especially with the draft. He's made hoodie look bad a time or two. You're a fan. It's like you're looking really hard for the bad. And you're still in that Favre thread whenever it pops up. I'm just pointing out, sometimes you appear a bit unreasonable. I can't help but think you're driven to see TT fail. Your competitiveness, while it might be a strength, can also be a drag too. I know Favre says he wasn't trying to stick it to TT, you either, but look a little deeper. You guys do want to stick it to TT.

TT is guilty of not giving Favre special treatment. Outside of that, he's been a standup guy and standup GM. So he's not the most friendly, outgoing of gentleman. Big whoop. He's conducted himself with integrity the whole way and he's damn good at what he does. You don't have to like him, but I think he's earned respect.

I don't think you'd be bitching so bad about the Packers if you weren't caught up on something, and I can't help but think it's the Favre stuff. The reason I say that is because you are a football guy, but you're not reasonable on the Packers. I'm calling it like I see it, could be wrong.

[woodbuck27]

Woody, it is sad to see a man with such integrity and life experiences act like you do.

You are flaming with JH, SC and me. I simply post the offensive and defensive rankings for 2012 to help the conversation along and you take it that I have some "AGENDA" and that I am all fired up. Grow up the world doesn't revolve around you no matter how many words you write.

I think JH's post sums you up perfectly. You are a divider. No matter how many times you post that we must bring PackerRats together you don't. No matter how many times you post that you are a shining star at PackerRates you aren't.

I am done with you. I'll keep posting my stats and numbers and you can rant about how I target you and am tearing PackerRats down.

Second post to this above Thunderdan;

GROW UP !

You've heard that before from people that know you alot better than I ever desire to. Right! Right !!

GROW UP! You get over 'YOUR' self. You get over your silly ass'd false ego drift. Just try to be a decent poster/person here. Cut loose your stupid agenda of anything and everything Vs me.

Your the type that will use any crack in your view to drive your silly ass'd agenda.

GROW UP! Am I ever being patient and over polite with you ThunderDan.

It's running out.

[pbmax]

At 1:00 of video (Rodgers INT) Packers run their version of a Stick-Draw I think. Its a draw option with a stick route, Rodgers reads the inside coverage and if they go for draw, he throws it.

In this case, Webster I think peeled off his man and jumped the route from outside of play.

[pbmax]

Well, first play in video Hawk is strong side and its a screen while the Packers are running the cross blitz. So that lines up with what we have been told previously. Manning is under center with 2 backs and 2 WR, 1 TE.

Play at 2 minute mark is a shotgun 3 WRs with 1 TE and 1 RB and we don't get to see pre-snap movement.

Its only two plays so it can't be determinative, but I would score this for Hawk on strong side for run downs.

[woodbuck27]

You know football, woody, no question. Sometimes I wonder if your so pissed at TT that you want him to be wrong, (like Brett said in the Gretta interview, the management should worry about their legacy.) Sometimes I think, ever since that BS, some people were so concerned with Ted being wrong that they're just waiting for it to happen.

Shit, I know I'm worried about him being wrong, because if he is, I fear we would have never heard the end of it. The safe thing for the Packers to do would have been to get rid of TT. Favre had the ability to really destroy the fanbase and destroy the Packers (had they let him go to the Vikings, had Ted not gotten to a SB and won it, had Brett won the SB) It would have been a nightmare. Brett knew it. He played that power for all it was worth and I'm just glad he didn't succeed with his plan because I'm a Packer fan and I do think they were doing their best for the team.

All Brett really wanted to do was have TT sell out the future for his final years, and get himself out of offseason work. You know what, nobody else on the team can do that. I'm glad they didn't. HOnestly though, if it was me, I would have been too afraid of Favre doing what he did to get in his way. I would have let him have his way. People with his kind of power and influence get their way because people don't want that type of fight. Know what though, that's because I'm not as brave as TT. That's because I'm more afraid. I respect the hell out of TT for doing what he did. It was not easy. He was the guy fighting from the weaker position. Sometimes I wonder if TT is a sociopath because he showed no fear when clearly he should have had it. Favre, a very powerful figure in GB, was backing that mother fucker down and he stood there without blinking. That's hard to do. Look at it for what it is, man. Favre tried to bully TT down. He wanted to run the show.

Really, the draft, TT is a stud GM, especially with the draft. He's made hoodie look bad a time or two. You're a fan. It's like you're looking really hard for the bad. And you're still in that Favre thread whenever it pops up. I'm just pointing out, sometimes you appear a bit unreasonable. I can't help but think you're driven to see TT fail. Your competitiveness, while it might be a strength, can also be a drag too. I know Favre says he wasn't trying to stick it to TT, you either, but look a little deeper. You guys do want to stick it to TT.

TT is guilty of not giving Favre special treatment. Outside of that, he's been a standup guy and standup GM. So he's not the most friendly, outgoing of gentleman. Big whoop. He's conducted himself with integrity the whole way and he's damn good at what he does. You don't have to like him, but I think he's earned respect.

I don't think you'd be bitching so bad about the Packers if you weren't caught up on something, and I can't help but think it's the Favre stuff. The reason I say that is because you are a football guy, but you're not reasonable on the Packers. I'm calling it like I see it, could be wrong.

JH the above post gets into things and attempts to characterize me that are simply false.

I want Ted Thompson to fail. I want the Green Bay Packers to fail. Did I read that correctly? I mean I'm in utter disbelief that you imagine I stand on such crap.

Nonsence... clear and utter crap nonsence. However you may perceive me and my posts.... that's frankly.... ridiculous.

I don't have to justify that being a fact JH.

I'm a Green Bay Packer fan and NOT one that you approve of. Can we simply leave it right there. I can accept that JH. That you want more of me that I cannot sensibly give to you. I believe my concerns are real.

It's not 'all roses' where I sit and view it all.

You actually believe that any stances I take Vs criticisms of TT or MM are based in all things Brett Favre and the Fav re Vs Packers Divorce.

I'm a critically analytical person with a clear mind to use intelligently to see things merely differently than you or any homer possibly can. I'm not characterizing you as 'a mere homer', as your a solid analyst. You understand football on a level JH, that enables educating us all as members here.

I've observed you grow in that regard. I saw you struggle to get there. You somehow arrived JH. Some here will never have the ability nor desire or penchant to achieve all that you have.

Please try harder to use your analytical skills; to desist in references that make me out as someone that cannot separate what's long gone with today.

This is not a woodbuck27 (Hatfield) Vs anything McCoys thing. Please don't insult my personal pride to be a reasonable man. More so please recognize the fact that I'm a Canadian in a good way.

Too many want to joke about that and I cannot even begin to explain to you how that irks me and how strong I am in ignoring their ignorance.

So much that you imagine and me is utter NONSENCE !

Do you have any idea the burden such places on me? How many times have you seen me have to stad Vs two..three ..four and more posters. Do you imagine I enjoy such negative attention when I damn well know I overall make a solid contribution here !? I'm not about sympathy as damn you all if you have to push forth your silly agendas.

Do you know how hard it is to not just simply go into a rage with the likes of a ThunderDan or a Scott Campbell? How many times have you seen me go to the mat with posters here and at JSO!? Have I ever shirked such responsibility too myself?

I need to take a break from this now. I will respond succinctly in due time. Count on that JH.

I'm taking a break. This place is getting a tad crazy (again) now.

I can't stand seeing that.

GO PACK GO !

[RashanGary]

Well, first play in video Hawk is strong side and its a screen while the Packers are running the cross blitz. So that lines up with what we have been told previously. Manning is under center with 2 backs and 2 WR, 1 TE.

Play at 2 minute mark is a shotgun 3 WRs with 1 TE and 1 RB and we don't get to see pre-snap movement.

Its only two plays so it can't be determinative, but I would score this for Hawk on strong side for run downs.

It's tough. They seem to do both. I don't remember seeing Hawk taking on all kinds of lineman or having a much harder time getting to backs than anyone else. His impact tackling wasn't any higher or lower than Jones. Bishop is the only one of the three who really made big plays in the run game. Jones didn't make any more than Hawk, Hawk no more than Jones, whatever positions they play. Bishop was the only guy who did. I think it's the player, not the position.

I'd like to see Jones on the strong side, where he can cover TE's leaking out and Bishop on the weakside where he can make impact plays in the run game. That's my gut feeling. Hawk, I wouldn't play him because he doesn't really bring anything special to the table (pass or run.) Hawk might be slightly better against the run, but I haven't seen Hawk do anything Jones doesn't do. On the flip side, I have seen Jones do things in the pass game Hawk doesn't.

[Zool]

Anyone wonder if Mad has to pay by the word? He would be racking up quite a bill right now.

[mraynrand]

You know football, woody, no question. Sometimes I wonder if your so pissed at TT that you want him to be wrong, (like Brett said in the Gretta interview, the management should worry about their legacy.) Sometimes I think, ever since that BS, some people were so concerned with Ted being wrong that they're just waiting for it to happen.

Shit, I know I'm worried about him being wrong, because if he is, I fear how ugly it will get. Even worse, if he was wrong with Favre, it would have been a nightmare. The safe thing for the Packers to do would have been to get rid of TT. Favre had the ability to really destroy the fanbase and destroy the Packers (had they let him go to the Vikings, had Ted not gotten to a SB and won it, had Brett won the SB) It would have been a nightmare. Brett knew it. He played that power for all it was worth and I'm just glad he didn't succeed with his plan because I'm a Packer fan and I do think they were doing their best for the team.

All Brett really wanted to do was have TT sell out the future for his final years, and get himself out of offseason work. You know what, nobody else on the team can do that. I'm glad they didn't. HOnestly though, if it was me, I would have been too afraid of Favre doing what he did to get in his way. I would have let him have his way. People with his kind of power and influence get their way because people don't want that type of fight. Know what though, that's because I'm not as brave as TT. That's because I'm more afraid. I respect the hell out of TT for doing what he did. It was not easy. He was the guy fighting from the weaker position. Sometimes I wonder if TT is a sociopath because he showed no fear when clearly he should have had it. Favre, a very powerful figure in GB, was backing that mother fucker down and he stood there without blinking. That's hard to do. Look at it for what it is, man. Favre tried to bully TT down. He wanted to run the show when TT had worked his whole career for a shot at running that show. He finally had that shot, and he stood by it because it mattered so much to him.

Really, the draft, TT is a stud GM, especially with the draft. He's made hoodie look bad a time or two. You're a fan. It's like you're looking really hard for the bad. And you're still in that Favre thread whenever it pops up. I'm just pointing out, sometimes you appear a bit unreasonable. I can't help but think you're driven to see TT fail. Your competitiveness, while it might be a strength, can also be a drag too. I know Favre says he wasn't trying to stick it to TT, you either, but look a little deeper. You guys do want to stick it to TT.

TT is guilty of not giving Favre special treatment. Outside of that, he's been a standup guy and standup GM. So he's not the most friendly, outgoing of gentleman. Big whoop. He's conducted himself with integrity the whole way and he's damn good at what he does. You don't have to like him, but I think he's earned respect.

I don't think you'd be bitching so bad about the Packers if you weren't caught up on something, and I can't help but think it's the Favre stuff. The reason I say that is because you are a football guy, but you're not reasonable on the Packers. I'm calling it like I see it, could be wrong.

hey, how the hell did I get back into the Favre thread? Is there some sort of funneling thread loop here at the "all new" Packerrats"

[wist43]

I guess I'm confused. Is your argument that they never run the ball, or that they don't do it effectively? You seem to flip/flop depending on what point the discussion reaches in the thread.

There is an MO to MM's playcalling - when they try to run in the 1st half, they don't do it well. He ends up punting a few times, and abandons the charade. Then in the 2nd half he succumbs to his nature and most of the rushing attempts are Rodgers running for his life. MM keeps doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results.

In a perverse way, I'd condemn MM for the lousy running scheme he uses; then turn around and agree with him to abandon the run. Running plays are a waste of a down. Just stick with the gimmick running plays to Cobb; Harris out of the spread... it's all the Packers are capable of.

My argument is what we see on the screen every week - you guys are always trying to put lipstick on the pig; and viola!!! We have a top 5 CB unit, we have potential superstars at sub-package LB, our running game is now the envy of the league b/c we drafted some RB's, Capers 2-4 is ready to terrorize the league... on and on.

[Zool]

There is an MO to MM's playcalling - when they try to run in the 1st half, they don't do it well. He ends up punting a few times, and abandons the charade. Then in the 2nd half he succumbs to his nature and most of the rushing attempts are Rodgers running for his life. MM keeps doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results.

In a perverse way, I'd condemn MM for the lousy running scheme he uses; then turn around and agree with him to abandon the run. Running plays are a waste of a down. Just stick with the gimmick running plays to Cobb; Harris out of the spread... it's all the Packers are capable of.

My argument is what we see on the screen every week - you guys are always trying to put lipstick on the pig; and viola!!! We have a top 5 CB unit, we have potential superstars at sub-package LB, our running game is now the envy of the league b/c we drafted some RB's, Capers 2-4 is ready to terrorize the league... on and on.

Probably no need to lump me in with everyone until I start a thread stating anything about a top5 something or other unit. Take Rodgers and the WR's off the team and its a 6 win team IMO. I'm just pointing out that the head coach is right in the middle of the league for rushing attempts when you said he is pass wacky. 2011 was an outlier for rushing attempts and with good reason. The RB's were garbage and Rodgers was having a year that very few QB's will ever sniff.

Now if you want to talk about how we can eliminate John Kuhn and the FB dive, lets talk.

[hoosier]

There is an MO to MM's playcalling - when they try to run in the 1st half, they don't do it well. He ends up punting a few times, and abandons the charade. Then in the 2nd half he succumbs to his nature and most of the rushing attempts are Rodgers running for his life. MM keeps doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results.

Last year the Packers ran the ball 184 times in the first half vs. 249 times in the second half. Only 33 (13%) of those second half rushes were by Rodgers, and his average per rush was identical to the team average.


In a perverse way, I'd condemn MM for the lousy running scheme he uses; then turn around and agree with him to abandon the run. Running plays are a waste of a down. Just stick with the gimmick running plays to Cobb; Harris out of the spread... it's all the Packers are capable of.

Statistically it was the exact opposite of what you claim: they were more successful in the first half (4.6 yds/rush) than the second half (3.4).

[Upnorth]

It is unsuprising that we had a higher sucsess in the 1st half, when we are building our lead teams assume we are going to pass which opens run lanes. In the second half we are playing with a lead and have a higher probablility to run so teams focus a bit more on stopping the run. If we had a better oline (or less soft as some would argue) my guess is there would not be a 1.2 ypc difference between 1st and 2nd half. Does anyone know league averages on ypc 1st half vrs 2nd half?

My feeling is that the second half # will be lower overall, but not by 1.2 ypc. If so it would lend credence to the GB is a poor running team statement.

[Fritz]

Last year the Packers ran the ball 184 times in the first half vs. 249 times in the second half. Only 33 (13%) of those second half rushes were by Rodgers, and his average per rush was identical to the team average.



Statistically it was the exact opposite of what you claim: they were more successful in the first half (4.6 yds/rush) than the second half (3.4).

Facts, facts, facts - and in context, even. Damn you.

[swede]

Last year the Packers ran the ball 184 times in the first half vs. 249 times in the second half. Only 33 (13%) of those second half rushes were by Rodgers, and his average per rush was identical to the team average.
Statistically it was the exact opposite of what you claim: they were more successful in the first half (4.6 yds/rush) than the second half (3.4).


Facts, facts, facts - and in context, even. Damn you.

I blame Patler.

[hoosier]

I blame Patler.

I blame Hitler.

[pbmax]

Blame Canada.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOR38552MJA

[wist43]

Last year the Packers ran the ball 184 times in the first half vs. 249 times in the second half. Only 33 (13%) of those second half rushes were by Rodgers, and his average per rush was identical to the team average.

Statistically it was the exact opposite of what you claim: they were more successful in the first half (4.6 yds/rush) than the second half (3.4).

It depends on who they're playing... I'd imagine if you went game by game - how many games did we have a big lead, and 3 runs and a punt were okay? or 2 runs for a bunch of nothing, and Rodgers converts; 2 runs for a bunch of nothing, and Rodgers converts; 2 runs for a bunch of nothing, and Rodgers converts...

Then there was that bizaare ass Seattle game... we were sacked more times in the first half than we had rushing attempts, didn't we?? lol... MM can be very stubborn, and doesn't always have the Midas touch.

We're a QB-centric, and pass-centric offensive team... it is what it is.

Heretofor, for at least the last few years, we've had next to no running game. What meager running game we do have, may produce average results against below average opponents, but against the big boys - we have no running game.

How much difference Lacy, Franklin, and the musical chairs on the OL will make is yet to be seen. I'm actually cautiously optimistic that we'll a little better; but, if MM didn't incorporate more power plays in the playbook this offseason, then it'll be another long year watching the Packers flail around trying to run the ball.

When the question is put directly to you - you can't deny that the Packers have sucked ass at running the ball the last few years. You guys keep trying to put lipstick on a pig - and blame me b/c the pig is ugly.

[wist43]

You guys really seem to have a curious view of our offense - so, our running game is among the best in the league?? Is this your argument - so say you all??

Against Jacksonville?? sure, what was the run/pass ratio??

How many games are throwaways in terms of an honest evaluation of the Packers running game??

There are all kinds of in-game scenarios in which rushes are skewed... having a big lead is one of them. How many games did we run just to wind the clock?? How many kneel downs did Rodgers have?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

So let's summarize the last few claims of you Imaginationlanders...

- Top 5 CB's
- Elite subpackage LBer's
- League transforming 2-4 innovation (Clapton aint God - Dom Capers is God!!!)
- Elite rushing attack; Late game, grind it out, smashmouth football type of offense

Gee whiz Wally - WOW!!

I just couldn't see the forest for the trees I guess :cow:

[Zool]

You guys really seem to have a curious view of our offense - so, our running game is among the best in the league?? Is this your argument - so say you all??

Against Jacksonville?? sure, what was the run/pass ratio??

How many games are throwaways in terms of an honest evaluation of the Packers running game??

There are all kinds of in-game scenarios in which rushes are skewed... having a big lead is one of them. How many games did we run just to wind the clock?? How many kneel downs did Rodgers have?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

So let's summarize the last few claims of you Imaginationlanders...

- Top 5 CB's
- Elite subpackage LBer's
- League transforming 2-4 innovation (Clapton aint God - Dom Capers is God!!!)
- Elite rushing attack; Late game, grind it out, smashmouth football type of offense

Gee whiz Wally - WOW!!

I just couldn't see the forest for the trees I guess :cow:

Throwing darts now...getting close to the end.

[wist43]

Blame Canada.

Nah Max - wrong again. It's Kyle's mom's fault ;)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rp1a5oBb9sQ

COME ON, YOU ALL KNOW THE WORDS!!!!

[wist43]

Throwing darts now...getting close to the end.

Look, you guys have no argument - we can't run the ball.

[wist43]

Probably no need to lump me in with everyone until I start a thread stating anything about a top5 something or other unit. Take Rodgers and the WR's off the team and its a 6 win team IMO. I'm just pointing out that the head coach is right in the middle of the league for rushing attempts when you said he is pass wacky. 2011 was an outlier for rushing attempts and with good reason. The RB's were garbage and Rodgers was having a year that very few QB's will ever sniff.

Now if you want to talk about how we can eliminate John Kuhn and the FB dive, lets talk.

And besides - you're now officially the most pessamistic PackerRat, b/c I would say, sans Rodgers, we're a 7 win team.

Good luck fighting them off - you're the new King :)

[Zool]

Look, you guys have no argument - we can't run the ball.

Look, I know they can't run the ball, I'm just saying that they at least try. I blame the o-line for the lack of productivity along with the RB stable, post Ryan Grant. A who's who of IR candidates. I'm actually getting sick of 1st half leads dwindling because of the lack of an effective running game, but I at least acknowledge that they try.

[wist43]

Let's take a look at the first SF game. 14 rushes for 45 yds ;)

1st Quarter

Benson 1 yd
Benson 1 yd
Benson 4 yds
Rodgers 8 yds
Benson 3 yds
Benson 4 yds
Benson 2 yds

2nd Quarter

Benson 1 yd

3rd Quarter

Benson 2 yds
Benson 1 yd
Benson 3 yds
Rodgers 5 yds

4th Quarter

Rodgers 1 yd

[Upnorth]

Since you bastards are blaming canada (and killing kenny i might add) and Bossman ruined my productivity today and this is a thread about Brad Jones I thought I would chime in about the oline (trust me it makes no sense). I was looking for league data on YPC average in the 1st half vrs the second half and found nothing, but I did reread the footballoutsiders post about 2012 offensive lines

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/OL

and boy is ours offensive. I though we sucked at run blocking and we kinda do being the 25th best team at it, however that is the strenght of our oline. Our pass blocking is 31st, or two slots better than cfl. To me this says even with the new oline configuration and rb draft we will still struggle with the run and ARod is a flippin god. I think wist is an optimist saying we win 7 without Rodgers.

[woodbuck27]

Probably no need to lump me in with everyone until I start a thread stating anything about a top5 something or other unit. Take Rodgers and the WR's off the team and its a 6 win team IMO. I'm just pointing out that the head coach is right in the middle of the league for rushing attempts when you said he is pass wacky. 2011 was an outlier for rushing attempts and with good reason. The RB's were garbage and Rodgers was having a year that very few QB's will ever sniff.

Now if you want to talk about how we can eliminate John Kuhn and the FB dive, lets talk.

"Take Rodgers and the WR's off the team and its a 6 win team IMO." Zool

So your switching from what cherry cool-aid to watered down 2X cherry cool-aid Zool; and assessing the team as a six win success!?? Not going to happen Packer fan under the conditions you suggest.

You actually believe that the Green Bay Packers win 'six games' without Aaron Rodgers and without WR's James Jones and Jordy Nelson and Randall Cobb and forget anyone else!

THINK about that one and 'SIX wins' Zool. Do we really get 'SIX' wins.

Then please come back and report to us who we defeat for those SIX wins. Back your SIX win assessment up please. Why!? I need some hope if we do loose Aaron Rodgers. I want to be assured that TT has MM and company covered. Why!? I very concerned about the team in that regard of any potential loss and TT's backup plan and that.

Also and I'm really interested in discovering where those six wins come from with the QB's we have beyond Aaron Rodgers. Forget the loss of any WR's!

A sincere good luck with 'any reality and convincing us', and that lofty SIX win projection without 'even' Aaron Rodgers.

Figuring Aaron Rodgers gone along with those three names above and the Green Bay Packers with it's 11th ranked 'D' is overcooked >>> all the way down >>> down >>> down>>> too the bottom of the bottom quarter of the NFL Zool.

We're certainly hoping that the year after losing Aaron Rodgers and those WR's year is a decent draft year for a QB prospect. Why!? Because very possibly, the light might have come on for Ted Thompson after such loss.

We don't have any reliable back-up QB at present on our roster if Aaron Rodgers falls. May GOD forbid that. If we do then how did I miss that as anything else but that? If you have confidence in our backups.

How did you get there Zool. Just maybe you can enlighten us as to how did Ted Thompson get there as theyb way he acted in regards to the back-up QB position in this off season has passed me by?

I'm thinking that that fact was overlooked by TT when he was using three seventh round draft picks on other that QB position prospects. Ignoring that obvious need when a very decent QB prospect was on the board.

I know .... he likely had a backup plan. What might that have been Zool?

http://www.liesyoungwomenbelieve.com/assets/images/man%20praying.jpg

Prayer !?

[Freak Out]

hey, how the hell did I get back into the Favre thread? Is there some sort of funneling thread loop here at the "all new" Packerrats"

Wormhole.

[Zool]

Words...more words...picture...words

Wonk

[wist43]

hey, how the hell did I get back into the Favre thread? Is there some sort of funneling thread loop here at the "all new" Packerrats"

Where the hell ya been, ya idiot... ObamaZombies slurp ur brains out??

They're everywhere... I hear they're afraid of CO2, so carry a Coca-Cola with you at all times. When you can see the green of their eyes?? Pop the top, and they'll flee in horror... works every time.

[woodbuck27]

Since you bastards are blaming canada (and killing kenny i might add) and Bossman ruined my productivity today and this is a thread about Brad Jones I thought I would chime in about the oline (trust me it makes no sense). I was looking for league data on YPC average in the 1st half vrs the second half and found nothing, but I did reread the footballoutsiders post about 2012 offensive lines

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/OL

and boy is ours offensive. I though we sucked at run blocking and we kinda do being the 25th best team at it, however that is the strenght of our oline. Our pass blocking is 31st, or two slots better than cfl. To me this says even with the new oline configuration and rb draft we will still struggle with the run and ARod is a flippin god. I think wist is an optimist saying we win 7 without Rodgers.

I'd say that under any condition of losing Aaron Rodgers before this next season begins that we don't win six or seven games.

I just pray that never becomes a reality. Dear Lord please.....not that.

NO.... NOT THAT .......PLEASE.

GO PACK GO !

[woodbuck27]

Wonk

WONK !!

Good Zool.

That's the Packers without Aaron Rodgers !

Here's my impression of the Green Bay Packers given your scenario of Packers without Aaron Rodgers and those three WR's taking you seriously 'of course'. The Picture often tells the story:

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcThqe4gvCOCOl5Fsfq5My1dCZk6VjaE_ gZwDMDhYrMHImpUmbhR

One - two - three - four and done !

[pbmax]

Brad Jones will be the starting dime linebacker and play fantastic.

[pbmax]

Pass Wacky
Run Ineffectively
Run First Half, Pass Second Half
Pass First Half, Run Second Half
Can't run versus 49ers
Can run on 49ers in playoff game

Say what you want but wist is not just a broken record. Can we agree that the Packers running game is very situation dependent? Can we also say that 2012 was a terrible year for the O line's health?

More importantly!

I still want an answer to THE burning question in this thread:

Who provides better run defense: Kampman/KGB or Perry/Matthews?

[hoosier]

More importantly!

I still want an answer to THE burning question in this thread:

Who provides better run defense: Kampman/KGB or Perry/Matthews?

Nice Woodbuckian syntax.

And the answer is....

White/Simmons!!!

[pbmax]

Nice Woodbuckian syntax.

And the answer is....

White/Simmons!!!

I am just after the Truth. But your answer would need to be White/Jones to qualify for my survey.

[woodbuck27]

I am just after the Truth. But your answer would need to be White/Jones to qualify for my survey.

'Back to the Future'...it's so confusing.

[hoosier]

It depends on who they're playing... I'd imagine if you went game by game - how many games did we have a big lead, and 3 runs and a punt were okay? or 2 runs for a bunch of nothing, and Rodgers converts; 2 runs for a bunch of nothing, and Rodgers converts; 2 runs for a bunch of nothing, and Rodgers converts...

Then there was that bizaare ass Seattle game... we were sacked more times in the first half than we had rushing attempts, didn't we?? lol... MM can be very stubborn, and doesn't always have the Midas touch.

We're a QB-centric, and pass-centric offensive team... it is what it is.

Heretofor, for at least the last few years, we've had next to no running game. What meager running game we do have, may produce average results against below average opponents, but against the big boys - we have no running game.


As usual your black-and-white generalizations don't quite fit reality. The first game against SF was by far GBs worst rushing effort of the year. After that they fared pretty well against decent run defenses: 106 and 113 against Chicago, 152 and 72 against Minnesota, 84 against Seattle. So they averaged about 96 yds/game against the best run defenses they faced, as compared to 106/game total. Their other struggles came against a mediocre run defense (St Louis) and a bottom of the barrel defense (Jax).

[hoosier]

I am just after the Truth. But your answer would need to be White/Jones to qualify for my survey.

I know, my answer was that your survey needs a paradigm change. Actually I'm only partially joking: what year are you comparing with 2012-13? 2007? 2009? I figured it was '09 but then KGB doesn't make sense.

Odd thing is, if you asked me on paper who provides better run d, Pickett/Jolly or Pickett/Raji, I would intuitively say Pickett/Raji. But if the answer to your other question is as obvious as it seems, that cannot be correct.

[pbmax]

I know, my answer was that your survey needs a paradigm change. Actually I'm only partially joking: what year are you comparing with 2012-13? 2007? 2009? I figured it was '09 but then KGB doesn't make sense.

Odd thing is, if you asked me on paper who provides better run d, Pickett/Jolly or Pickett/Raji, I would intuitively say Pickett/Raji. But if the answer to your other question is as obvious as it seems, that cannot be correct.

Well, I am specifically referring to bigness versus effectiveness of the pass rushes at DE/OLB in the Packers nickel pass defense.

I don't think the size of the DEs is the problem here. I think the inside could be much more sturdy in nickel AND the edges can be had when the CBs are in man or expected to be the primary tackler.

[wist43]

As usual your black-and-white generalizations don't quite fit reality. The first game against SF was by far GBs worst rushing effort of the year. After that they fared pretty well against decent run defenses: 106 and 113 against Chicago, 152 and 72 against Minnesota, 84 against Seattle. So they averaged about 96 yds/game against the best run defenses they faced, as compared to 106/game total. Their other struggles came against a mediocre run defense (St Louis) and a bottom of the barrel defense (Jax).

My generalizations depict a football team that can't run the ball - something most fans, if they are honest, would agree with.

Your generalizations depict a football team that is proficient at running the ball - something most fans, if they are honest, would disagree with.

By your reckoning, the Packers have no weaknesses - none. Jones will be DROY; Lacy OROY; Rodgers MVP; Matthews DPOY, and everyone else is a surefire Pro Bowler.

Phewwww!!!! I bet we beat SF 58-0 on opening day!!!

[RashanGary]

Brad Jones will be the starting dime linebacker and play fantastic.

Gosh, PB, I don't know. Somebody said Jones is making more than Hawk. I have to think it's because they value him more than Hawk, no?

[packer4life]

My generalizations depict a football team that can't run the ball - something most fans, if they are honest, would agree with.

Your generalizations depict a football team that is proficient at running the ball - something most fans, if they are honest, would disagree with.

By your reckoning, the Packers have no weaknesses - none. Jones will be DROY; Lacy OROY; Rodgers MVP; Matthews DPOY, and everyone else is a surefire Pro Bowler.

Phewwww!!!! I bet we beat SF 58-0 on opening day!!!

I saw some of the most atrocious running on a GB team in quite some time last year. Watching Alex Green run for like 60 yards on 40-something carries against the Texans was an interesting display.

On the other hand, Benson's 3 yds and a cloud of dust started to show signs of improvement. His play at Indianapolis in week 5 (before injury, of course) made it seem like he was finally getting the system, and enjoying going against only 6-7 in the box.

I think McCarthy and the rest of the offensive staff have discussed the same issues we have ad nauseum. Their offensive season analysis clearly identified a deficiency. TTs draft is proof. Lots of change to O-line and the addition of some new talented runners will lead to improvement, even if their may be some early hiccups.

For 2013, look for Harris/Green to be a solid tandem to begin of the season. Green's knee will be finally healed and he has flashed in open space. Lacy/Franklin will come on as the season ages. Lacy particularly will cure our 3rd and short woes.

Mark my words, the running game will not be our achilles heal this year.

[wist43]

Let's take a look at the first SF game. 14 rushes for 45 yds ;)

1st Quarter

Benson 1 yd
Benson 1 yd
Benson 4 yds
Rodgers 8 yds
Benson 3 yds
Benson 4 yds
Benson 2 yds

2nd Quarter

Benson 1 yd

3rd Quarter

Benson 2 yds
Benson 1 yd
Benson 3 yds
Rodgers 5 yds

4th Quarter

Rodgers 1 yd


As usual your black-and-white generalizations don't quite fit reality. The first game against SF was by far GBs worst rushing effort of the year. After that they fared pretty well against decent run defenses: 106 and 113 against Chicago, 152 and 72 against Minnesota, 84 against Seattle. So they averaged about 96 yds/game against the best run defenses they faced, as compared to 106/game total. Their other struggles came against a mediocre run defense (St Louis) and a bottom of the barrel defense (Jax).

Okay, let's look at the second 49er game - surely this went much better, yes?? :)

16 rushes for 106 yds... sounds kind of promising. But alas, Cobb and Rodgers account for half of it. Harris had 11-53 yds. Take the 18 yd brain-fart (by the Niners), and you have 10 rushes for 35 yds.

That is right in keeping with the teams overall 3.5 yd/avg.

1st Quarter

Harris 2 yds
Harris 7 yds
Harris 4 yds
Harris 5 yds
Harris 18 yds (TD, SF in that idiotic 2-4... serves 'em right, lol)

2nd Quarter

Harris 2 yds
Harris 3 yds
Rogers 9 yds
Harris 3 yds
Harris 3 yds

3rd Quarter

Harris 3 yds
Harris 3 yds (This was a beautifully executed run, run, sack, punt series)
Cobb 19 yds
Cobb 4 yds
Rodgers 17 yds
Rodgers 2 yds

4th Quarter

Rodgers 2 yds

[wist43]

I saw some of the most atrocious running on a GB team in quite some time last year. Watching Alex Green run for like 60 yards on 40-something carries against the Texans was an interesting display.

On the other hand, Benson's 3 yds and a cloud of dust started to show signs of improvement. His play at Indianapolis in week 5 (before injury, of course) made it seem like he was finally getting the system, and enjoying going against only 6-7 in the box.

I think McCarthy and the rest of the offensive staff have discussed the same issues we have ad nauseum. Their offensive season analysis clearly identified a deficiency. TTs draft is proof. Lots of change to O-line and the addition of some new talented runners will lead to improvement, even if their may be some early hiccups.

For 2013, look for Harris/Green to be a solid tandem to begin of the season. Green's knee will be finally healed and he has flashed in open space. Lacy/Franklin will come on as the season ages. Lacy particularly will cure our 3rd and short woes.

Mark my words, the running game will not be our achilles heal this year.

I like a lot of the players that TT has drafted - I've said that most years.

My main complaints are philosophical - and how those players are used.

I think both our offense and defense can both be better in the trenches - what holds us back are some drawbacks with body type, coaching philosophies, game planning, and play calling.

The offensive line flip was a dramatic move. You just don't see that kind of thing at the NFL level. Our line had become so dysfunctional, that it was killing the entire offense - including our MVP QB.

But it was MM's and TT's obsession with "versatility" that landed us in that boat to begin with. How many years did we play where guys didn't even have a semi-settled position until week 12?? You can't do that year in and year out, and not expect to have major problems.

Add to that MM's pyschotic determination to use only 3 running plays that have the offensive linemen up out of their stance quickly, running tall, reach blocking, zone blocking, and balletically floating left, middle, right - soft, soft, soft. The charge that the Packers are soft up front is entirely valid - and it's mostly self-inflicted.

The OL flip can't help but help, but we need more power running plays incorporated into every game plan. If MM just keeps doing what he's been doing, then we're going to continue to struggle.

It all depends on what MM and Capers do with the players they've been given. If MM sticks to his 3 running plays; and Capers plays 2-4 as his base?? Then we're going to see a repeat of last year, i.e. SF will beat the living hell out of us, and we'll be powerless to do anything about it.

If MM and Capers correct those philosophical shortcomings, then I think we'll see improvement - not holding my breath though.

[packer4life]

If Capers plays 2-4 as his base??

His 2-4 Base with Neal at OLB looks pretty damn solid to me. Sprinkle in Jolly relieving Raji inside and I think a 2-4 might just dominate.

[wist43]

His 2-4 Base with Neal at OLB looks pretty damn solid to me. Sprinkle in Jolly relieving Raji inside and I think a 2-4 might just dominate.

This how you dominate - you have to control the LOS. The Niners do that; the Seahawks do that... the Packers?? not so much.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/blog/pat-kirwan/22315031/tough-days-for-front-sevens-but-best-reside-in-rugged-nfc-west

The Niners and Seahawks are probably the two best front sevens in football. They do something Capers hates to do... they play with 3 DL on the field much more often than Capers does. Capers wants to play 2-4 as his base as much as he can... more soft, soft, soft.

Many people make the charge that the Packers are a soft team - as I've said, those wounds are self-inflicted.

[3irty1]

The 49ers play about the NFL average of 3-4 base, 2-4 nickel, and 2-3dime. Roughly 45%, 45%, 10% respectively. The Packers run an unusual amount of nickel as we all know. The numbers are about 27%, 63%, 5% respectively.

Pittsburgh, Houston, and KC run the most base of any 3-4 team, an above average amount of dime as well for some reason.

Pittsburg: 58% 3-4, 26% 2-4, and 15% 2-3
Houston: 57% 3-4, 2% 2-4, and 38% 2-3
KC: 55% 3-4, 9% 3-4, 33% 2-3

[woodbuck27]

The 49ers play about the NFL average of 3-4 base, 2-4 nickel, and 2-3dime. Roughly 45%, 45%, 10% respectively. The Packers run an unusual amount of nickel as we all know. The numbers are about 27%, 63%, 5% respectively.

Pittsburgh, Houston, and KC run the most base of any 3-4 team, an above average amount of dime as well for some reason.

Pittsburg: 58% 3-4, 26% 2-4, and 15% 2-3
Houston: 57% 3-4, 2% 2-4, and 38% 2-3
KC: 55% 3-4, 9% 3-4, 33% 2-3

Hi 3irty1:

Do you have a Source please? If so ... Thank You Packer fan.

The numbers are about 27% (Base 'D') , 63% (Nickel), 5% (Dime) respectively for the Green Bay Packers.

So could Wist43 have been correct? It seems to me that he was in terms of all the stunting that Dom Capers does.

How can anyone tell what kind of 'D' we really do run!? How given that... can the Packers defensive players settle into any fluid and consistent comfort zone with 'only' playing a Base 'D' < 30 % of the time. Are our defensive players that intelligent? Can they be really comfortable in their roles?

PACKERS !

[3irty1]

I had a friend parse it out for me from data he keeps. Those numbers are from 2011.

You can tell what kind of D a team runs by how many DL and LB are on the field at a given time. Our players aren't any more intellegent, they are just rotated heavily. In a lot of situations other teams would use a 3-4 we use a beefy 2-4 with Raji and Picket. I think that one package probably accounts for the entire difference between us and what's normal.

Those 3 teams that go right from base to dime are what I find the most interesting.

[wist43]

I had a friend parse it out for me from data he keeps. Those numbers are from 2011.

You can tell what kind of D a team runs by how many DL and LB are on the field at a given time. Our players aren't any more intellegent, they are just rotated heavily. In a lot of situations other teams would use a 3-4 we use a beefy 2-4 with Raji and Picket. I think that one package probably accounts for the entire difference between us and what's normal.

Those 3 teams that go right from base to dime are what I find the most interesting.

Read that article from cbssportline I posted... talks about SF staying base 3-4 regardless of what they're facing. They're not static of course, but they stay in base 3-4 a lot. To me, going to a 2-4 is utterly useless. Even we ran against it when SF inexplicably pulled it out against us.

What was the breakdown in the Baltimore vs. NE game?? Now that would be an interesting look. New England with all their midgets.

You think I hate how the Packers ballarina around with the OL - my God, I hate Bill Belichick, and that midget RB, Woodhead is now with my second favorite team, the Chargers.

It looks like Belichick trying to beef up his running game though, bringing in LeGarrett Blount, and Ridley and Boldin are both 220 lbs.

[wist43]

I looked at a little of the Balt @ NE game... Balt had guys standing up on the ends a lot, sometimes had their hand on the ground; but the players they're doing that with are much bigger than ours. Kruger was listed 285, Upshaw 272, Suggs 260. They also had Safeties crowding the line a lot.

[pbmax]

I saw some of the most atrocious running on a GB team in quite some time last year. Watching Alex Green run for like 60 yards on 40-something carries against the Texans was an interesting display.

On the other hand, Benson's 3 yds and a cloud of dust started to show signs of improvement. His play at Indianapolis in week 5 (before injury, of course) made it seem like he was finally getting the system, and enjoying going against only 6-7 in the box.

I think McCarthy and the rest of the offensive staff have discussed the same issues we have ad nauseum. Their offensive season analysis clearly identified a deficiency. TTs draft is proof. Lots of change to O-line and the addition of some new talented runners will lead to improvement, even if their may be some early hiccups.

For 2013, look for Harris/Green to be a solid tandem to begin of the season. Green's knee will be finally healed and he has flashed in open space. Lacy/Franklin will come on as the season ages. Lacy particularly will cure our 3rd and short woes.

Mark my words, the running game will not be our achilles heal this year.

Don't forget that Harris averaged 4.6 per carry. Much of this was after Lang went back to Guard and Barclay went to RT.

[pbmax]

Okay, let's look at the second 49er game - surely this went much better, yes?? :)

16 rushes for 106 yds... sounds kind of promising. But alas, Cobb and Rodgers account for half of it. Harris had 11-53 yds. Take the 18 yd brain-fart (by the Niners), and you have 10 rushes for 35 yds.

That is right in keeping with the teams overall 3.5 yd/avg.

You cannot eliminate the best play by calling it a fluke and not eliminate any other data at the other end of the spectrum and call it an honest analysis. Harris ran for those 18 yards and scored. The play was real and it counted in the most important way.

Harris was 11 for 53, or an average of 4.8 per carry.

BTW, Culliver played 48 snaps of defense versus the Packers in the playoffs, unless there was an injury I forgot about, that's 48 snaps of nickel.

[3irty1]

I looked at a little of the Balt @ NE game... Balt had guys standing up on the ends a lot, sometimes had their hand on the ground; but the players they're doing that with are much bigger than ours. Kruger was listed 285, Upshaw 272, Suggs 260. They also had Safeties crowding the line a lot.

Both of those teams doing do anything consistent, they seem to be true multiples defenses. Both run a good amount of 4-2 even with OLB playing DE.

[pbmax]

Read that article from cbssportline I posted... talks about SF staying base 3-4 regardless of what they're facing. They're not static of course, but they stay in base 3-4 a lot. To me, going to a 2-4 is utterly useless. Even we ran against it when SF inexplicably pulled it out against us.

The article does not say that. It talks specifically about first down. Other material referenced earlier tells us that San Fran, like every other team, matches personnel groups when possible and they spend 50% of their time in nickel versus 3 wides.

Seattle's Marcus Trufant was their nickel back for 2012 until something happened (injury, replacement?) and he appeared in 12 games total. He was on the field for 352 D snaps. Prorated for 12 games, (using one of the safeties to get total snaps) 97% of D snaps for 976 plays yields 1006 total D snaps over 18 games. Playing in 12 of 18 games gives us .66667 * 1006 total D snaps; tells us Trufant was available for 671 snaps.

352/671 = Seattle played nickel approximately 52.5% of their snaps.

[3irty1]

Read that article from cbssportline I posted... talks about SF staying base 3-4 regardless of what they're facing. They're not static of course, but they stay in base 3-4 a lot. To me, going to a 2-4 is utterly useless. Even we ran against it when SF inexplicably pulled it out against us.

What was the breakdown in the Baltimore vs. NE game?? Now that would be an interesting look. New England with all their midgets.

You think I hate how the Packers ballarina around with the OL - my God, I hate Bill Belichick, and that midget RB, Woodhead is now with my second favorite team, the Chargers.

It looks like Belichick trying to beef up his running game though, bringing in LeGarrett Blount, and Ridley and Boldin are both 220 lbs.

You're not talking about this one are you? http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/blog/pat-kirwan/22315031/tough-days-for-front-sevens-but-best-reside-in-rugged-nfc-west

I didn't find where it says anything like the bold part here.

[3irty1]

The article does not say that. It talks specifically about first down. Other material referenced earlier tells us that San Fran, like every other team, matches personnel groups when possible and they spend 50% of their time in nickel versus 3 wides.

Seattle's Marcus Trufant was their nickel back for 2012 until something happened (injury, replacement?) and he appeared in 12 games total. He was on the field for 352 D snaps. Prorated for 12 games, (using one of the safeties to get total snaps) 97% of D snaps for 976 plays yields 1006 total D snaps over 18 games. Playing in 12 of 18 games gives us .66667 * 1006 total D snaps; tells us Trufant was available for 671 snaps.

352/671 = Seattle played nickel approximately 52.5% of their snaps.

Its my understanding that Wist wouldn't have a problem with Seattle playing 100% of their downs in Nickel because they do so with 4 down lineman. That's why I stuck to 3-4 teams that spend the vast majority of their nickel snaps in a 2-4. I can say with confidence though that between nickel and dime, the 49ers spend more snaps with 2 down lineman than they do with 3.

I'm hoping to take the discussion past the point where its obvious that the 2-4 itself isn't idiotic. How the Packers use the 2-4 might be very idiotic and that's what I'd rather talk about.

[Cheesehead Craig]

I like a lot of the players that TT has drafted - I've said that most years.

My main complaints are philosophical - and how those players are used.

I think both our offense and defense can both be better in the trenches - what holds us back are some drawbacks with body type, coaching philosophies, game planning, and play calling.

The offensive line flip was a dramatic move. You just don't see that kind of thing at the NFL level. Our line had become so dysfunctional, that it was killing the entire offense - including our MVP QB.

But it was MM's and TT's obsession with "versatility" that landed us in that boat to begin with. How many years did we play where guys didn't even have a semi-settled position until week 12?? You can't do that year in and year out, and not expect to have major problems.

Add to that MM's pyschotic determination to use only 3 running plays that have the offensive linemen up out of their stance quickly, running tall, reach blocking, zone blocking, and balletically floating left, middle, right - soft, soft, soft. The charge that the Packers are soft up front is entirely valid - and it's mostly self-inflicted.

The OL flip can't help but help, but we need more power running plays incorporated into every game plan. If MM just keeps doing what he's been doing, then we're going to continue to struggle.

It all depends on what MM and Capers do with the players they've been given. If MM sticks to his 3 running plays; and Capers plays 2-4 as his base?? Then we're going to see a repeat of last year, i.e. SF will beat the living hell out of us, and we'll be powerless to do anything about it.

If MM and Capers correct those philosophical shortcomings, then I think we'll see improvement - not holding my breath though.

While I will say I don't like your over the top you do at times about how bad the defense or OL is, I will say that I agree with a large portion of this post.

[Zool]

Okay, let's look at the second 49er game - surely this went much better, yes?? :)

16 rushes for 106 yds... sounds kind of promising. But alas, Cobb and Rodgers account for half of it. Harris had 11-53 yds. Take the 18 yd brain-fart (by the Niners), and you have 10 rushes for 35 yds.

That is right in keeping with the teams overall 3.5 yd/avg.

Take out the longest gain by a RB and their average doesn't look as good. ANY RB. Geezus Wist, SF had the 4th ranked run D last year. No shit the Packers didn't run well against them. I can't tell if you're trying to prove a point, or you've been fighting so long you don't know how to stop.

[3irty1]

I like a lot of the players that TT has drafted - I've said that most years.

My main complaints are philosophical - and how those players are used.

I think both our offense and defense can both be better in the trenches - what holds us back are some drawbacks with body type, coaching philosophies, game planning, and play calling.

The offensive line flip was a dramatic move. You just don't see that kind of thing at the NFL level. Our line had become so dysfunctional, that it was killing the entire offense - including our MVP QB.

But it was MM's and TT's obsession with "versatility" that landed us in that boat to begin with. How many years did we play where guys didn't even have a semi-settled position until week 12?? You can't do that year in and year out, and not expect to have major problems.

Add to that MM's pyschotic determination to use only 3 running plays that have the offensive linemen up out of their stance quickly, running tall, reach blocking, zone blocking, and balletically floating left, middle, right - soft, soft, soft. The charge that the Packers are soft up front is entirely valid - and it's mostly self-inflicted.

The OL flip can't help but help, but we need more power running plays incorporated into every game plan. If MM just keeps doing what he's been doing, then we're going to continue to struggle.

It all depends on what MM and Capers do with the players they've been given. If MM sticks to his 3 running plays; and Capers plays 2-4 as his base?? Then we're going to see a repeat of last year, i.e. SF will beat the living hell out of us, and we'll be powerless to do anything about it.

If MM and Capers correct those philosophical shortcomings, then I think we'll see improvement - not holding my breath though.

Nice post. I think where you and I disagree is that I don't think you scheme "softness" From where I stand that comes from the players. The Bears D under Lovie for the last 10 years was as schematically unagressive as a defense can get but it was full of physical and aggressive players. I don't think it matters that we are playing with 2 down lineman if our OLB are fast and physical enough. Diagnosing the Packers scientifically I think we can rule out the 2-4 as the root of the problem. To me the 2-4 is fine, its the linebackers who suck. Capers probably sucks too but for different reasons mostly having to do with how when his defenses break, they shatter and there is never any adjustments or plan B.

As for 3 running plays that's kind of how offenses work. In fact of the 3 teams usually have a single favorite that shows through and acts as the basis for everything they want to do on the whole offense. The zone blocking system is so incredibly proven at this point. I scientifically rule that out too. Other teams dominate with it. We just have shitty players in there. Whether by injury, musical chairs or whatever circumstance they just suck. Maybe not all of them but as a group they have given up like 90 sacks in the last two years and haven't come remotely close to a 1000 yard rusher.

[pbmax]

Its my understanding that Wist wouldn't have a problem with Seattle playing 100% of their downs in Nickel because they do so with 4 down lineman. That's why I stuck to 3-4 teams that spend the vast majority of their nickel snaps in a 2-4. I can say with confidence though that between nickel and dime, the 49ers spend more snaps with 2 down lineman than they do with 3.

And that is the problem with focusing on the Packers in a 2-4. With two down lineman it sounds like you would have to be undersized and underpowered. But you have to compare like for like and personnel to personnel. For the vast majority of snaps (close to 50% of total D snaps) everyone is in nickel to match personnel. And if you run a 3-4, you take out a lineman and add a DB. Because no one wants a NT on the field to pass rush unless they are Wilfork or Ngata. And if you need to match 3 wide personnel but expect a run anyway, then you use a big nickel or keep the 3 DL, but that is a minority of downs.

We are conflating a problem with Run D and Capers extra 10-15% use of nickel.

The Seahawks nickel 4 lineman will look like Bob Sanders 4 down lineman in terms of size. Bruce Irvin is a DE like KGB was a DE small and fast. Kampman was undersized for a Power side LDE and I cannot name the power side pass rushing LDE on the Seahawks. The 49ers move good sized DE Justin Smith inside (good news rb, I just read somewhere that Smith is 285 now) to tackle and line up a LB as DE.

But none of these edge guys are bigger and do not play tougher than Clay Matthews and Nick Perry. Whatever difference is found is not sizable enough to blame it on the two LBs as DEs.

The 2-4 also does not explain poor run defense even in the base 3-4. Walden was a problem here as well as the nickel, not because of size or strength but because of discipline and patience. He was a terrible backside defender.

If there is a problem on the D line, its interior, not the exterior. And I think the problem on the interior is adherence to scheme.

The Packers did not play much nickel versus Peterson on run downs and for two games the extra DLineman made virtually no difference.

[woodbuck27]

You cannot eliminate the best play by calling it a fluke and not eliminate any other data at the other end of the spectrum and call it an honest analysis. Harris ran for those 18 yards and scored. The play was real and it counted in the most important way.

Harris was 11 for 53, or an average of 4.8 per carry.

BTW, Culliver played 48 snaps of defense versus the Packers in the playoffs, unless there was an injury I forgot about, that's 48 snaps of nickel.

pbmax:

What's going to happen to DuJuan 'Mighty Mouse' Harris this season?

Will he be primarily used as a backup? I believe he'll certainly compete to make the roster. He's got a lot of moxy.

PACKERS !

[run pMc]

I came across this and thought it was interesting:


In as stunning an upset as there has been in recent playoff history, the Green Bay Packers throttled the San Francisco 49ers on Saturday with a big-play offense and a defense that lined up in nickel or dime formations on all but one of 86 plays.

link to story:
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1996-01-07/sports/9601070088_1_49ers-offensive-coordinator-brent-jones-nfc

[pbmax]

pbmax:

What's going to happen to DuJuan 'Mighty Mouse' Harris this season?

Will he be primarily used as a backup? I believe he'll certainly compete to make the roster. He's got a lot of moxy.

PACKERS !

No idea. The Packer have a healthy Alex Green ahead of Harris on the depth chart. Franklin and Lacy have to make the team. That would seem to leave Harris and Starks fighting for the 4th RB slot. With Kuhn, that's 5 back. Unless they keep 6, I think Harris sticks and Starks gets the boot.

[Zool]

No idea. The Packer have a healthy Alex Green ahead of Harris on the depth chart. Franklin and Lacy have to make the team. That would seem to leave Harris and Starks fighting for the 4th RB slot. With Kuhn, that's 5 back. Unless they keep 6, I think Harris sticks and Starks gets the boot.

Can't they just line up a trash can and save Kuhn's salary? Would they really be missing out on much if they did? Granted the FB dive would gain 0 yards instead of .5 but that seems like a good trade off.

[run pMc]

Whether you love or hate the scheme, it's on the players to execute it.
I have to think that with teams throwing the ball so much that there's more value in having a 2-4 than a 3-3...it's easier to disguise which LB you send after the QB. If you have teams like NO, DET, etc. that throw all the time (and from shotgun) on your schedule you either need:
a fearsome pass rushing DL to sack/pressure the QB
-or-
LBs who can cover and tackle.

This is where Brad Jones fits into the scheme.

[3irty1]

And that is the problem with focusing on the Packers in a 2-4. With two down lineman it sounds like you would have to be undersized and underpowered. But you have to compare like for like and personnel to personnel. For the vast majority of snaps (close to 50% of total D snaps) everyone is in nickel to match personnel. And if you run a 3-4, you take out a lineman and add a DB. Because no one wants a NT on the field to pass rush unless they are Wilfork or Ngata. And if you need to match 3 wide personnel but expect a run anyway, then you use a big nickel or keep the 3 DL, but that is a minority of downs.

We are conflating a problem with Run D and Capers extra 10-15% use of nickel.

The Seahawks nickel 4 lineman will look like Bob Sanders 4 down lineman in terms of size. Bruce Irvin is a DE like KGB was a DE small and fast. Kampman was undersized for a Power side LDE and I cannot name the power side pass rushing LDE on the Seahawks. The 49ers move good sized DE Justin Smith inside (good news rb, I just read somewhere that Smith is 285 now) to tackle and line up a LB as DE.

But none of these edge guys are bigger and do not play tougher than Clay Matthews and Nick Perry. Whatever difference is found is not sizable enough to blame it on the two LBs as DEs.

The 2-4 also does not explain poor run defense even in the base 3-4. Walden was a problem here as well as the nickel, not because of size or strength but because of discipline and patience. He was a terrible backside defender.

If there is a problem on the D line, its interior, not the exterior. And I think the problem on the interior is adherence to scheme.

The Packers did not play much nickel versus Peterson on run downs and for two games the extra DLineman made virtually no difference.

Bruce Irvin doesn't play every down, the Seahawks platoon him with Red Bryant when they want beef on the field. Chris Clemons is their other DE.

I agree Walden is a huge addition by subtraction but that LB group as a whole has been a consistent problem for us. OLB was my choice for biggest need this offseason simply because we're an injury away from being right back where we were last year or in 2011. The DL got addressed instead and is now the strongest group in camp. I can see how the front 7 could easily be the best we've ever ever had in the Capers era but we're an injury away from Dezmon Moses starting. Could be worse but still. The Ravens and Giants were all at least 3 deep with pass rushers in recent years and it served them really well in the playoffs.

[pbmax]

Agree on OLB depth.

But Bruce Irvin is exactly my point. Everyone wants to compare the Packers 2-4 lineman to the 3-4 heavy package from 2010 with Howard Green as DE. That's just nuts.

Perry and Matthews are DEs in passing situations just as Irvin or A Smith are. They need to be compared to KGB not Reggie White.

Now if someone can tease out data or film that shows the extra 10-20% of nickel is getting gashed by the run MORE THAN THE BASE D, then I will start to buy the theory. But I haven't seen it yet. The worst play of the 49er game in the second half came against Eagle Oakie and the 3-4 base.

[Pugger]

No idea. The Packer have a healthy Alex Green ahead of Harris on the depth chart. Franklin and Lacy have to make the team. That would seem to leave Harris and Starks fighting for the 4th RB slot. With Kuhn, that's 5 back. Unless they keep 6, I think Harris sticks and Starks gets the boot.

Starks' biggest problem is he cannot stay on the field. If you spend more time on the trainer's table than on the gridiron you won't last long.

[rbaloha1]

Starks' biggest problem is he cannot stay on the field. If you spend more time on the trainer's table than on the gridiron you won't last long.

You can not make the club from the tub.

Depth charts are meaningless at this point.

Backups need to perform when given the opportunity.

[wist43]

You're not talking about this one are you? http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/blog/pat-kirwan/22315031/tough-days-for-front-sevens-but-best-reside-in-rugged-nfc-west

I didn't find where it says anything like the bold part here.

The gist of the article is the ability to handle anything from one personnel group. He uses the 49ers as an example. He does jump from talking about how a team needs to be able to account for any formation with any personnel, and then he goes on to focus on first down, and the need to be able to handle other down and distance situations out of your base b/c of how the league has changed from run-centric to anything goes.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/blog/pat-kirwan/22315031/tough-days-for-front-sevens-but-best-reside-in-rugged-nfc-west

"Nowadays a team like the Patriots can jog onto the field on first down with two tight ends, two wide receivers and a running back and coordinators are forced to use a base defense that has to be ready for everything from a no-back set to a two- or three-back set.

"Add the no huddle concept on second down, and NFL defenses have to be able to play every situation from their base defense. That means the front seven players have to be dynamic athletes who can be stout against a power run game as well as line up against a no-back spread set and have enough calls to confuse the quarterback.

"The front seven comprises the defensive linemen and the linebackers, whether it is a 3-4 or 4-3 defense. The growing popularity of the 3-4 does provide more flexibility to adjust to the challenges that offenses present, but 4-3 teams have their own ways of adjusting. Otherwise, there wouldn't be any 4-3 defenses left.

"Hall of Fame coach Bill Walsh once told me that the key to great offense was the ability to handle every down and distance from one personnel group. That forced defensive coordinators to make the decision about what personnel group they wanted to put on the field.

"What are the challenges that defenses face?

"Over the past three years NFL offenses haven't changed their thinking when it comes to first down philosophy. The last three seasons are carbon copies of themselves in the run/pass ratio on first downs. The formula has been 52 percent run and 48 percent pass.

"Defenses have to be able to handle that balance equally as well. Take the 2012 Bucs, for example. Tampa Bay had the top-ranked run defense on first down, giving up 3.56 yards per run. But the Bucs also had the worst pass defense on first down, giving up the most passing plays over 4 yards at 146.

"Teams have to play both aspects of an offense or they are going to struggle. When it comes to second down there were 12 teams in the NFL that ran the ball at least 45 percent of the time on all second downs. In the old days, a breakdown of every second down situation would provide a solid scouting report about what to do with the front seven. A second down with 2-5 yards to go could be a heavy run down. A second-and-1 or less could be a 'free' down and a deep ball situation. A second down with more than 5 yards to go could be draws and screens. Today the front seven better be ready for anything.

"When it comes to evaluating a defensive front seven, first down is the first place to look. The San Francisco 49ers were the best, giving up 4.38 yards per first down. They were third-best on first downs against the run at 3.79 a rush and No. 1 against the pass at 5.03 per pass. And the Niners' opponents were right on the NFL average with 52.7 percent run and 47.3 percent pass on first down.

"Teams tried everything, and simply, the 49ers could handle it. Consider the 49ers' front seven and the reasons they were so good. Justin Smith led a front three on the defensive line that was strong and could control the line of scrimmage. Everything was funneled to the linebackers and waiting for any formation and any play call was Patrick Willis, NaVorro Bowman, Aldon Smith and Ahmad Brooks. The linebackers had five interceptions, 24 passes defended and 29 sacks."

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/blog/pat-kirwan/22315031/tough-days-for-front-sevens-but-best-reside-in-rugged-nfc-west

Can you imagine?? Linebackers involved in turnover plays?? Been watching the Packers so long I wasn't sure that was still legal ;)

[wist43]

You guys - if we got production out of our 2-4 I'd be okay with it - but we don't get production.

Capers tends to be very static for long stretches, he's impossibly slow to make adjustments, and when he does make adjustments he's more likely to make it worse. If his initial gameplan works, our defense will usually be okay; if his initial gameplan is crap (far too often), we're screwed.

Even old, classy pro Charles Woodson couldn't mind his tongue after the Niner debacle - to paraphrase Charles, when it comes to Dom Capers?? "... WTF is he doing!!!"

[3irty1]

You guys - if we got production out of our 2-4 I'd be okay with it - but we don't get production.

Capers tends to be very static for long stretches, he's impossibly slow to make adjustments, and when he does make adjustments he's more likely to make it worse. If his initial gameplan works, our defense will usually be okay; if his initial gameplan is crap (far too often), we're screwed.

Even old, classy pro Charles Woodson couldn't mind his tongue after the Niner debacle - to paraphrase Charles, when it comes to Dom Capers?? "... WTF is he doing!!!"

Yeah but other teams do. You want to talk about how Capers is bad at it then lets do that. I'd rather not have a discussion where we are talking about how the 2-4 is shit, Capers version of it is shit, Capers is shit, the players are shit, and the shitty players don't fit in the shitty scheme. That's too many claims at once to be serious or credible. Unpacking those claims one at a time I think its safe to at least say there is nothing inherently wrong with the 2-4. It works for other teams. Let's at least narrow down our woes to either Capers's specific use of the 2-4, Capers inability to adjust during a game, shitty players, or shitty fits in the scheme.

Personally I can't pin blame on the Capers scheme, it seems fine. I think Capers sucks on game day and the players are shitty but not bad fits. Shitty and injured are effectively the same thing.

[Brandon494]

Can't they just line up a trash can and save Kuhn's salary? Would they really be missing out on much if they did? Granted the FB dive would gain 0 yards instead of .5 but that seems like a good trade off.

I guarantee with you, I would much rather have a blocking FB instead of Kuhn. Now that we have Lacy its really no reason for Kuhn to be running the ball IMO. I doubt he'll make the team but I like what I hear about this Johnathan Amosa kid we signed as a undrafted free agent.

Positive: Explosive lead blocker with average size/speed numbers for the next level. Quick out of his stance into blocks, attacks assignments and squares into defenders. Plays with terrific knee bend getting leverage on opponents, displays outstanding vision, and strong enough to turn opponents from the play. Adequate pass catcher out of the backfield.

Negative: Rarely used as part of the offensive. Has a combined three receptions during his college career and never carried the ball.

Analysis: Amosa is a high-effort prospect who gets the most from his ability and plays intense football. He possesses the playing style and substance to get consideration as a West Coast fullback.

[pbmax]

No one handles everything from one personnel group on defense. The Seahawks and 49ers run as much sub group as anyone else in the League.

And the front seven is not as determinative as Kirwan would like for the Seahawks. The best unit on the Seahawks is the D backfield. Followed by the D line, last would be the linebackers. His description might hold true for the 49ers or Rams.

But the most glaring error in the article of is learning that no-huddle is an option on second down. You can't no-huddle second down because of favorable matchups without having had the same matchup previously on first down. In either case, the defense gets to choose its matchup.

Kirwan is trying to draw a point about having a versatile, do everything front seven when looking 2 of the best defenses in the League. Well, no kidding. But what he doesn't provide is any proof that these defenses use sub packages less on 1st or 2nd down than the rest of the League. If he did, then we would be onto something.

[wist43]

Yeah but other teams do. You want to talk about how Capers is bad at it then lets do that. I'd rather not have a discussion where we are talking about how the 2-4 is shit, Capers version of it is shit, Capers is shit, the players are shit, and the shitty players don't fit in the shitty scheme. That's too many claims at once to be serious or credible. Unpacking those claims one at a time I think its safe to at least say there is nothing inherently wrong with the 2-4. It works for other teams. Let's at least narrow down our woes to either Capers's specific use of the 2-4, Capers inability to adjust during a game, shitty players, or shitty fits in the scheme.

Personally I can't pin blame on the Capers scheme, it seems fine. I think Capers sucks on game day and the players are shitty but not bad fits. Shitty and injured are effectively the same thing.

Well, we certainly see it a lot different - and when have I said the players are shit?? The Linebackers are shit after Matthews, and I have hope for Perry - but I want more dynamic playmakers on the 2nd level, that's for sure. If you're happy with Hawk and Bishop, then we're talking different languages.

Capers version of the 2-4 is certainly shit though - the results speak to that. We give up huge chunks of yardage, and have major breakdowns far too often - that's Capers.

As I've said many times - I like a lot of the players, but almost to a man they are a strained fit for a 3-4. I watched some of the Balt/NE playoff game in which Balt ran a lot of what could be termed a 2-4. They had Kruger standing up at 285, and their presnap rovers into and out of the gaps were Upshaw at 272 and Suggs at 260. Much bigger than what Capers throws out there.

[3irty1]

Well, we certainly see it a lot different - and when have I said the players are shit?? The Linebackers are shit after Matthews, and I have hope for Perry - but I want more dynamic playmakers on the 2nd level, that's for sure. If you're happy with Hawk and Bishop, then we're talking different languages.

Capers version of the 2-4 is certainly shit though - the results speak to that. We give up huge chunks of yardage, and have major breakdowns far too often - that's Capers.

As I've said many times - I like a lot of the players, but almost to a man they are a strained fit for a 3-4. I watched some of the Balt/NE playoff game in which Balt ran a lot of what could be termed a 2-4. They had Kruger standing up at 285, and their presnap rovers into and out of the gaps were Upshaw at 272 and Suggs at 260. Much bigger than what Capers throws out there.

We're in agreement on the linebackers. I pretty much blame that unit for about everything that's gone wrong. Walden was the worst player on the defense. Hawk is the worst kind of bad because he's just good enough to escape being replaced every year. I like Bishop a lot more than you do but that matters little since he didn't play at all last year. I like Jones too but bottom line if you play MLB you've got to be capable of making splashy plays and he hasn't done that yet. It wasn't a good group. Much worse than the DL I thought. On paper though it looks like they've improved through the subtraction of Walden and the additions of Bishop and Perry. Still lots of room for improvement, still tons of room for depth at OLB.

The bad results on defense could be blamed on a number of factors, other than the 2-4. I think the scheme is capable of working, at one point I even thought it was genius. The scheme was one that highlighted Charles Woodson though and as he aged, it got shittier with him. I expect some noticeable differences in scheme now that he's gone because I do think Capers is a competent architect of a defense, even if he did grow complacent after the superbowl win. If not then I wouldn't be surprised to see your prediction of Capers being fired come true. The other big enabler for his 2-4 heavy scheme was having his 2 best defensive lineman be both 330+ lbs. With expanded roles to Neal, Daniels, and the addition of Jones there could be other talent to highlight besides our excellent big fatties.

You touched on the real reason I dislike Capers and that's his major breakdowns, I differentiate between this and his scheme though. I'd be fine with keeping his scheme and getting Winston Moss or someone else to run it for him on gameday. His schemes don't always break but when they do they hemorrhage yards for the rest of the day and often a few weeks in a row. No scheme is perfect and offenses are always going to find a way to exploit something but Capers just doesn't seem capable of consistently winning the punch, counter-punch war on gameday.

Kruger is more like 270, the Ravens and other teams are similar sized to what the Packers have at OLB. Again why I don't mind the fit. I see guys on the Packers DL who I think would ideally be in other schemes but none that I think would be way better in other schemes or anything. All of them were good value and its a pretty good group when healthy that could play in just about any scheme. The fit thing is going to mostly come down to your belief on Raji as a NT on which our disagreement is already well documented. We both agree though that he has been seeing too many snaps and even if he is miscast he'd be a much better miscast on fresh legs.

That's why I think what I think and I think it explains all the symptoms we see on our defense.

[pbmax]

I don't think those breakdowns for big plays are strategic or tactical. I think they are player related.

I really don't think this positional coaching staff has them ready for game situations. They are still straightening out zone coverages in Year 4.

In the backend I think its the split duties between S (Perry) and CB (Whitt). At LB, I think its mainly player related. Some bad fits there. In the Line, I think its Raji and Trgo getting Raji to play to the scheme.

Is that the DC? Maybe, but he didn't choose each of the coaches. Moss and Whitt were McCarthy.

I tend to side with Perry and Trgo as each was highly regarded coming in and Trgo was John Fox's DC. But I would not be upset if some of them left.

They play that defense too loose for comfort. McCarthy mentioned it at the combine I think. They spent the 2nd half against the 49ers on their heels. They never hunkered down, played it straight and held on while the coaches dialed up an answer.

[3irty1]

If the guys don't have it by now then perhaps there is too much to get. I'd rather them run a simple scheme quickly than a scheme riddled with bullshit only after years of practice.

[rbaloha1]

If the guys don't have it by now then perhaps there is too much to get. I'd rather them run a simple scheme quickly than a scheme riddled with bullshit only after years of practice.

Way too much "overanalysis": bang:: DOH:

The psycho package is designed to create confusion about who should be blocked. IMO its effective in third and long situations. Recall it being effective when it was first used but that was with Bishop. IMMO effective with the correct package.

The 3-4 allows for more flexibility/gimmicks due to the linebackers/tweener sized players.

Recall early-on when the Packers were more vanilla and how qbs like Roethlesberger and Warner dominated the packer defense. Qbs used to point to where the blitzes were coming from. Then audible a pass play to the vacated area.

The problem with the current scheme is the assignments when the blitzes fail. It is the continual breakdowns that are a big issue not what coach is from what coaching tree.

All this "analysis"*is like over siliconed wahines. :butt:

[woodbuck27]

DE Mike Neal talks move to linebacker

Green Bay Packers defensive end Mike Neal discussed the team's OTAs (organized team activities) following Tuesday afternoon's practice.

http://www.packers.com/media-center/videos/DE_Mike_Neal_talks_move_to_linebacker/d3ae29e2-fc83-4f79-8450-845bc4182038

GO PACK GO !

[woodbuck27]

http://www.espnmilwaukee.com/common/page.php?feed=2&id=7911&is_corp=1

(Desmond) Bishop plots next move

By JASON WILDE

jwilde@espnwisconsin.com

GREEN BAY –

" Desmond Bishop doesn’t believe that he was ever on the trading block, and he doesn’t buy that he’s lost his starting job, either.

Regardless of the three-year, $11.75 million contract the Green Bay Packers gave his replacement, Brad Jones, the veteran inside linebacker is certain that once he’s cleared for action, he’ll reclaim what’s rightfully his – even though he’s seen firsthand that a starter can lose his spot due to injury and never get it back.

“I mean, yeah, somebody’s got to fill in right now. It’s not like my job to say who plays and who doesn’t,” Bishop said after watching Tuesday’s organized team activity practice – the second open workout of the offseason – from the sideline of the Don Hutson Center. “All I can do is get healthy to (get back to) my full potential and get back out there.

“Of course, every person should feel like they should play. If you didn’t have that mindset, you wouldn’t be here. It is what it is.”..." Fr. LINK

Please click on LINK for much more on this story.

GO PACKERS !

[wist43]

The bad results on defense could be blamed on a number of factors, other than the 2-4. I think the scheme is capable of working, at one point I even thought it was genius. The scheme was one that highlighted Charles Woodson though and as he aged, it got shittier with him. I expect some noticeable differences in scheme now that he's gone because I do think Capers is a competent architect of a defense, even if he did grow complacent after the superbowl win. If not then I wouldn't be surprised to see your prediction of Capers being fired come true. The other big enabler for his 2-4 heavy scheme was having his 2 best defensive lineman be both 330+ lbs. With expanded roles to Neal, Daniels, and the addition of Jones there could be other talent to highlight besides our excellent big fatties.

I agree there are a lot of problems besides the 2-4, but I think Capers disproportionately plays too much of it, and for that reason I give it increased scrutiny. If it were an occasional sub-package curveball that we saw 3-4 times a game, then I wouldn't single it out... plenty of fish to fry.

In comparing our personnel to Baltimores from last year - assume their 2 fat guys and our 2 fat guys are a wash - they're better than our guys, but we'll call it wash of fat guys.

After that, in a 2-4, Baltimore would throw out there Suggs (260), Upshaw (270), Kruger (270), and Ellerbe (240) for an average of 260.5 lbs for the "4" in their 2-4.

Our 2-4 averaged 248.5 (Matthews, Hawk, Jones, and Walden). We'll get a little bigger with Perry replacing Walden, but Capers going to a 2-4 means going small, which means going soft.


You touched on the real reason I dislike Capers and that's his major breakdowns, I differentiate between this and his scheme though. I'd be fine with keeping his scheme and getting Winston Moss or someone else to run it for him on gameday. His schemes don't always break but when they do they hemorrhage yards for the rest of the day and often a few weeks in a row. No scheme is perfect and offenses are always going to find a way to exploit something but Capers just doesn't seem capable of consistently winning the punch, counter-punch war on gameday.

The breakdowns have to be on Capers. 1 time?? Yeah, you can put it on a player; but over and over again - the principles of Sun Tzu apply - it is the leaders responsibility.

And when it comes to the chess game?? Capers is better suited to checkers.


Kruger is more like 270, the Ravens and other teams are similar sized to what the Packers have at OLB. Again why I don't mind the fit. I see guys on the Packers DL who I think would ideally be in other schemes but none that I think would be way better in other schemes or anything. All of them were good value and its a pretty good group when healthy that could play in just about any scheme. The fit thing is going to mostly come down to your belief on Raji as a NT on which our disagreement is already well documented. We both agree though that he has been seeing too many snaps and even if he is miscast he'd be a much better miscast on fresh legs.

Raji on the nose for me is a huge problem - that's where all of Capers problems start. He then overplays Raji and wears him down. As I've said, if Capers's plan for the season is to negate Raji's impact?? Mission accomplished.

I see all of the other guys being similarly miscast... most of them seem to be average 4-3 tackles. Is Capers going to play Perry, Neal, and Matthews standing up in a 2-4?? That would give us much more of a look similar to Baltimore.

I don't think Neal can play like that, nor Daniels... nor any of the other DL for that matter. We simply don't have front seven personnel that are flexibile enough to create havoc for an offense out of alignments that don't fit their strengths.

That's on Capers as well.

I see almost all of our problems on defense as coming down to 1 guy - Dom Capers.

[RashanGary]

Wist,

Jones adds another player to the DL rotation. That should help with overall quality of play and keeping guys fresh. Perry adds some size. The secondary is another valuable year of experience more ready. We added Lacy. We very likely improved the left side of our OL, and we have a lot of guys on the right side duking it out (numbers alone, one or two should rise to the occasion.) Crosby should kick better. Jennings and Woodson were already out last year, so we haven't lost anyone from last years team.

I know this particular point weighs heavily on your mind, but we were a pretty good team last year. The signs point up, and there isn't very far up we can possibly go.

I'll concede, that possibly you are right. It is possible Capers is incompetent. It is possible he does not know how to coach NFL defense at a high level. You've watched a lot of football, have a lot of good insight (especially when you watch the tape, then talk about it after games.) You definitely have earned respect, enough to be paid attention too. And your opinion on how they use Raji, I too find it absolutely baffling. I think we both know Raji plays well when he gets to penetrate. As good as he is (even still) when he's asked to do it, as much of a non-factor as he is when he's 2-gapping or just holding the point first. His real special talent is his burst and power off the ball, that's neutralized when he shoots up and stays square first. It shocks me to see a coach just stop using a guy in a way that worked and keep using him in a way that doesn't. I scratch my head, hoping Raji is serving some purpose to the greater good, but I can't help but think consistent pressure and sacks are better than what he's doing.

That said, you can admit a couple things too. We are a legit divisional round playoff team. We do appear on the rise at the moment, right? You have to think we're a SB contender if a thing or two you don't expect happens, right? You didn't expect the 2010 defense to do what it did. It's not out of the realm of recent history for Capers to put together that type of defense. You put us in the top 8 teams and have to admit it's possible we could win the SB, right?

[wist43]

Wist,

Jones adds another player to the DL rotation. That should help with overall quality of play and keeping guys fresh. Perry adds some size. The secondary is another valuable year of experience more ready. We added Lacy. We very likely improved the left side of our OL, and we have a lot of guys on the right side duking it out (numbers alone, one or two should rise to the occasion.) Crosby should kick better. Jennings and Woodson were already out last year, so we haven't lost anyone from last years team.

I know this particular point weighs heavily on your mind, but we were a pretty good team last year. The signs point up, and there isn't very far up we can possibly go.

I'll concede, that possibly you are right. It is possible Capers is incompetent. It is possible he does not know how to coach NFL defense at a high level. You've watched a lot of football, have a lot of good insight (especially when you watch the tape, then talk about it after games.) You definitely have earned respect, enough to be paid attention too. And your opinion on how they use Raji, I too find it absolutely baffling. I think we both know Raji plays well when he gets to penetrate. As good as he is (even still) when he's asked to do it, as much of a non-factor as he is when he's 2-gapping or just holding the point first. His real special talent is his burst and power off the ball, that's neutralized when he shoots up and stays square first. It shocks me to see a coach just stop using a guy in a way that worked and keep using him in a way that doesn't. I scratch my head, hoping Raji is serving some purpose to the greater good, but I can't help but think consistent pressure and sacks are better than what he's doing.

That said, you can admit too, we do have a good team and it does appear on the rise at the moment, right? You have to think we're a SB contender. It's possible our defense fails and also possible things fall together really well like in 2010, right?

...aaannnhhhh, yeah, we have a "good team" - sort of.

I'd say we have a kick-ass QB, a very good passing game coach, and enough blue-chip receivers that those high-level components bring the rest of the team up to "good".

Our shortcomings, both in terms of personnel and philosophically, are tough problems to overcome. We're weak in the 1 area you can't be weak in IMO - the trenches. And a lot of those problems are self-inflicted as we've been discussing.

We have a punchers chance just like we did in 2010, just like NE has a punchers chance every year with Brady... are we on an upswing?? We improved with Jones, and we improved our RB's - I grant you that, but what will McCarthy and Capers do with their gameplanning and play calling??

If Capers and MM learn some lessons from last year?? Yeah, we can see improvement... but I don't see them changing. What needs to be changed are things that are foundational to what each of those guys wants to do.

McCarthy wants to call 3 running plays; and Capers wants to sacrifice size and toughness for speed and coverage - Leopard's spots and all that. We'll see.

[RashanGary]

Here are the 4 main coverage schemes (and I'm going to assume all nickle. If we go base, teams will just shift guys around and destroy linebackers covering athletic backs on the outside.) Every team plays nickle against 3-WR sets.


Single shell, man coverage on the corners, 8-man box

This is the defense we dominated with in 2010. Collins, Shields and Williams all have 4.3 speed. We could stop the pass with extremely risky coverage. This allowed us to keep 8 guys in the box and still stop the run. The last time Capers even thought about doing this was about 5 or 6 games into the 2011 season. We were getting the top blown off our defense. It was sick.


Single shell, zone coverage on the corners, 8-man box

This is a rare defense. It's usually a coverage used on blitzes, but you can play it if the corners play soft enough. We do from time to time, and get shredded underneith. I don't really consider this an option with a 4-man pass rush. Way too big of zones for the corners to cover unless there is quick pressure. 3rd and 15, it's great, get some quick pressure, don't let the WR get behind you, tackle, get off the field. 3rd and 7 = disaster.


2-shell, man defense, 7-man box

This is Capers new go-to defense. It is by far the softest run defense you can possibly run, especially if you have 2 DL like we do. The corners turn and run with the WR, leaving huge holes on the outside. We only have 2 DL. Matthews and the other OLB have to cover like 1/3 of the field all by themselves. It requires perfection from the OLB position. It's an awful lot to ask. Like Wist says, it's amazing how obvious we're getting beat, exactly where and exactly why. The problem is, we can't play the other types of coverage well enough to go away from it.


2-shell, zone defense, 7-man box

Cover 2. It's a better run defense than the cover-2 man we play. The CB's play the ball and the ball carrier. It would take pressure off our OLBs from having to play perfect (sorry, but perfect is not a realistic expectation against the best in the NFL.) If Shields was even below average in zone defense, we could probably do this, but he's not. Williams is just average himself. Shields looked good down the stretch for one reason. Capers abandoned zone defense. Capers abandoned zone defense for one reason, Sam Shields. We can't play cover-2 zone defense because Sam Shields is one of our CB's.




So, for one reason or another, we're not great at any one defense. We're clearly a man team. Hayward is the only zone corner on our team and he's always going to play the slot. When it comes to man defense, we don't have the elite FS to stay in single high safety looks so we're forced to play 2-shell, man defense (the softest of soft run defenses.) This is made even softer with 2 DL on the field.

I hope Perry and Jones strengthen up our 6-man front enough to make small gains over last year. I still think this has to be our go-to coverage. We just don't have the zone corners or the elite safety to play anything else without getting destroyed. I hope Shields improves some as a zone corner so we can mix zone in a little more and get some run stops while simultaneously giving the QB something else to think about. I hope Burnett gets a little better covering the deep middle alone so we can take some risks up front with an extra guy in the box. Burnett will never cover the ground Collins did, but if he can get a little better, maybe Capers can use it just enough to get some stops but not often enough for QB's to we waiting for it.

Our 2013 defense, I see it being similar in scheme to the one we played in the playoffs last year, but a little stronger up front and a little more well rounded in our coverages. I don't imagine Capers will change much from last year. I do hope he changes a little and the talent gets a little better.

Going from top 10 to top 5, along with some improvement out of Crosby and improvement from the running game, I think, would be enough to win the SB. You drinkin the kool-aid, Wist? :) :)

[RashanGary]

I'm kind of with you Wist, thinking a 3-3 could be a nice front for us too. If we're going to have to play that 2-shell man defense, it would be nice to have another big body.

Matthews/Bishop/Jones (If we played this, I wouldn't want Perry out there because he'd be asked to play in space far more than he is in the 2-4)
D. Jones / Pickett / Raji

You could 2-gap with Pickett and Raji. Jones and Matthews would pair up on the blind side as a stunting/pass rushing duo. It would take a little away from the pass rush/coverage aspect (having Pickett instead of Perry) but against some teams (Vikings, for example) I think you're a little more concerned with the RB than you are the QB. I do think AP is a good enough player to adjust your game plan a little for.

[3irty1]

I agree there are a lot of problems besides the 2-4, but I think Capers disproportionately plays too much of it, and for that reason I give it increased scrutiny. If it were an occasional sub-package curveball that we saw 3-4 times a game, then I wouldn't single it out... plenty of fish to fry.

In comparing our personnel to Baltimores from last year - assume their 2 fat guys and our 2 fat guys are a wash - they're better than our guys, but we'll call it wash of fat guys.

After that, in a 2-4, Baltimore would throw out there Suggs (260), Upshaw (270), Kruger (270), and Ellerbe (240) for an average of 260.5 lbs for the "4" in their 2-4.

Our 2-4 averaged 248.5 (Matthews, Hawk, Jones, and Walden). We'll get a little bigger with Perry replacing Walden, but Capers going to a 2-4 means going small, which means going soft.



The breakdowns have to be on Capers. 1 time?? Yeah, you can put it on a player; but over and over again - the principles of Sun Tzu apply - it is the leaders responsibility.

And when it comes to the chess game?? Capers is better suited to checkers.



Raji on the nose for me is a huge problem - that's where all of Capers problems start. He then overplays Raji and wears him down. As I've said, if Capers's plan for the season is to negate Raji's impact?? Mission accomplished.

I see all of the other guys being similarly miscast... most of them seem to be average 4-3 tackles. Is Capers going to play Perry, Neal, and Matthews standing up in a 2-4?? That would give us much more of a look similar to Baltimore.

I don't think Neal can play like that, nor Daniels... nor any of the other DL for that matter. We simply don't have front seven personnel that are flexibile enough to create havoc for an offense out of alignments that don't fit their strengths.

That's on Capers as well.

I see almost all of our problems on defense as coming down to 1 guy - Dom Capers.

Upshaw is an OLB for them, the guy you're missing is Ray Lewis (240). For an average of 252.5. Replacing 250lb Walden with 265lb Perry should pretty much make the difference in size negligible. Don't think it'll be necessary to actually play Neal at OLB. Seems like that's just a wrinkle or learning exercise. The difference between our linebacking corps has much more to do with the fact that they had 2 guys who could rush the passer and we had 1. Interesting that we're talking about the Ravens because we were actually the better defense last year during the regular season in pretty much every statistical category including points, rushing yards, and passing yards. Suggs and Lewis both missed half the season but made it back for the playoffs. Shows what a difference health can make!

For most teams the NT is a situational player who really just plays in the base D which is typically slightly less than half of snaps. Pickett could be that type of NT. Raji has the size to be adequate on the nose and the movement skills to be adequate as an interior pass rusher so I don't mind them using him all over although I do agree that he plays far too many snaps. He should be playing 75% of the snaps he's been playing tops.

Again where we disagree is that I don't think Capers is just a complete moron who is hell bent on forcing players into a scheme they're no good at, I think he's just highlighting the wrong players: Woodson. Losing Woodson as the crown jewel of his defense forces Capers to change his spots IMO. Casey Hayward is a fantastic player but he's no OLB like Woodson could be which means your 2-4 nickel that kind of looks like a 4-3 when you want it to is dead. We now have the personnel to play a 3-4 that is as flexible as the 2-4 has been for us. If we wanted we could have a 3-4 sack machine front that looked like: Perry - Neal - Daniels - Jones - Matthews.

[pbmax]

If the guys don't have it by now then perhaps there is too much to get. I'd rather them run a simple scheme quickly than a scheme riddled with bullshit only after years of practice.

If that is truly the case, then the fault is both Thompson and McCarthy keeping undisciplined players. Youth is one thing, youth that can't learn is another. You better be Raji good to keep that up.

[3irty1]

If that is truly the case, then the fault is both Thompson and McCarthy keeping undisciplined players. Youth is one thing, youth that can't learn is another. You better be Raji good to keep that up.

That's assuming the scheme is of reasonable complexity such that reasonably disciplined players could learn it. Do you not think it'd be possible to make the volume of information large enough that nobody could learn it?

[pbmax]

JH, I am not sure about abandoning zone in the latter half of the season. I have no numbers, but that play we highlighted in the Game Thread versus the Vikes during the last regular season game was a zone coverage with Shields playing a deep 1/3 or bail corner. Hayward was underneath and one of the safeties in the deep middle.

To the general point about the Packers and zone, Ponder completed the pass to the sideline for a critical 1st down. In Shields defense, the receiver and QB after the game said they noticed the short zone (Hayward) after passing the initial guy through his zone, would float short in his unoccupied territory rather than get depth.

So the Vikings completed a Cover 2 beater route (basically an out by the slot guy or man in motion) against a Cover 3 zone. Which is more or less unforgivable.

[pbmax]

That's assuming the scheme is of reasonable complexity such that reasonably disciplined players could learn it. Do you not think it'd be possible to make the volume of information large enough that nobody could learn it?

Sure, its possible. But Eli Manning has said a couple of times that there was nothing hidden or hard to read about the Packers defense. Packer opponents don't seem to think they are seeing anything exotic.

So its possibly too much for the packer defenders but its not the League's most complex defense either.

[3irty1]

Sure, its possible. But Eli Manning has said a couple of times that there was nothing hidden or hard to read about the Packers defense. Packer opponents don't seem to think they are seeing anything exotic.

So its possibly too much for the packer defenders but its not the League's most complex defense either.

Was this after the 38-10 game we played without Matthews or Woodson?

The eyeball test for me shows the Capers D has a ton of different looks to it both on the frontend and the backend. The defense is heavily substituted, has lots of different coverage looks and lots of designed false steps to conceal the coverage for the first split second. I mean its a zone blitz scheme... by definition it exists in a high volume of permutations. Our high interception totals would seem to indicate opponents aren't finding the defense a cake walk.

[Joemailman]

Was this after the 38-10 game we played without Matthews or Woodson?

The eyeball test for me shows the Capers D has a ton of different looks to it both on the frontend and the backend. The defense is heavily substituted, has lots of different coverage looks and lots of designed false steps to conceal the coverage for the first split second. I mean its a zone blitz scheme... by definition it exists in a high volume of permutations. Our high interception totals would seem to indicate opponents aren't finding the defense a cake walk.

Except last year the INT total was 18 after averaging nearly 30 2009-2011. Does the absence of Woodson at nickel make the defense less complex for the opposition to figure out? Was it just a one year decline?

[3irty1]

Except last year the INT total was 18 after averaging nearly 30 2009-2011. Does the absence of Woodson at nickel make the defense less complex for the opposition to figure out? Was it just a one year decline?

18 is still a lot. 7 teams had more.

[pbmax]

Was this after the 38-10 game we played without Matthews or Woodson?

The eyeball test for me shows the Capers D has a ton of different looks to it both on the frontend and the backend. The defense is heavily substituted, has lots of different coverage looks and lots of designed false steps to conceal the coverage for the first split second. I mean its a zone blitz scheme... by definition it exists in a high volume of permutations. Our high interception totals would seem to indicate opponents aren't finding the defense a cake walk.

Don't remember, it could have been. We have argued about this before and while I am resistant to your conclusion, I realize I have nothing hugely substantive to back that up except Manning and memories of results.

I cannot speak to coverages as I need to watch the TV clips repeatedly just to find everyone and only rarely does someone with the All22 break down the coverage. So I can't comment on false steps. But I have never seen a breakdown of a Packer coverage as disguised. The most complex concepts I have seen covered are pattern recognition (pattern matching and that was mainly Woodson) and the split field (man one side, zone the other).

And more importantly, it probably doesn't matter how we view it compared to the League. If the players are confused, it doesn't matter how it ranks in the League. So from that perspective, I agree with you.

But INTs don't tell me that a QB has been fooled. A lot of Packer INTs come from free lancing. With no Wood last season there was less unconventional coverage, but the INT total dropped as well. What is the old Bill Russell line? Blocked shots are most often the results of a defensive breakdown? INTs for the Packers are often a player coming off one coverage to jump another.

That being said, the problem overall in the backfield has gotten better. The pass D last year was far superior to 2011. My concern is that coaching is not helping to close these weak spots as fast as they appear. I can identify Collins as a personnel hole that never got filled in 2011 and marginally better in 2012. Other than Walden and maybe an ILB, there are fewer obvious culprits around the rest of the defense.

[3irty1]

Just throwing it out there but I wonder how much the new CBA has to do with this. The CBA now reduces practice time and puts more of the responsibility for preparation on the players to watch film on their own time etc. Less practice time would seem to favor schemes like the Bears with simple base formats which provide a strong foundation on which to add whatever permutations. When the shit hits the fan the Bears always have that basic defense they can resort to that they've all practiced a million times and seen everything from.

Less practice time would also favor shiny new offensive wrinkles as they depend on extra preparation which would now fall on individuals.

[woodbuck27]

Upshaw is an OLB for them, the guy you're missing is Ray Lewis (240). For an average of 252.5. Replacing 250lb Walden with 265lb Perry should pretty much make the difference in size negligible. Don't think it'll be necessary to actually play Neal at OLB. Seems like that's just a wrinkle or learning exercise. The difference between our linebacking corps has much more to do with the fact that they had 2 guys who could rush the passer and we had 1. Interesting that we're talking about the Ravens because we were actually the better defense last year during the regular season in pretty much every statistical category including points, rushing yards, and passing yards. Suggs and Lewis both missed half the season but made it back for the playoffs. Shows what a difference health can make!

For most teams the NT is a situational player who really just plays in the base D which is typically slightly less than half of snaps. Pickett could be that type of NT. Raji has the size to be adequate on the nose and the movement skills to be adequate as an interior pass rusher so I don't mind them using him all over although I do agree that he plays far too many snaps. He should be playing 75% of the snaps he's been playing tops.

Again where we disagree is that I don't think Capers is just a complete moron who is hell bent on forcing players into a scheme they're no good at, I think he's just highlighting the wrong players: Woodson. Losing Woodson as the crown jewel of his defense forces Capers to change his spots IMO. Casey Hayward is a fantastic player but he's no OLB like Woodson could be which means your 2-4 nickel that kind of looks like a 4-3 when you want it to is dead. We now have the personnel to play a 3-4 that is as flexible as the 2-4 has been for us. If we wanted we could have a 3-4 sack machine front that looked like: Perry - Neal - Daniels - Jones - Matthews.

What we need (again) is for some Packerrats to be used as consultants and how the Packers should diagram a defense.

When I read this conversation and I mean what Wist43, JH and 'YOU' 3irty1 present here. It's pretty clear what direction the Packers have to go in in terms of 'D'.

Should all the blame go on DC Dom Capers, MM and Green Bay Packer coaching?

It's also very clear why the Green bay Packers are going with everything 'wish and prayer' or 'all in Johnny Jolly'. It's realistically just 'a good luck', with that proposition; and I hope I'm surprized.

If the defense is supposed to be a 3-4 then you need four solid 'BIG Men', to work on point on some rotational basis. Too often it's 'only' >>> the really only two and talented 'BIG MEN' that the Packers have in terms of necessary skill/talent.

An aging and 'tired easier now', Ryan Pickett; and a much younger and talented but with 'not the stamina required'... as he's being over used / under utilized... B. J Raji. Maybe the talent of Rookie prospect Datone Jones will take some heat off Pickett and Raji; but there's the undercurrent fact that real soon we lose one or both of these two BIG MEN. There's also the fact that Datone Jones is a Rookie in terms of progress and the 2013 season final results.

All off season I expected TT to bring in a solid Big Man in FA. Nope ! He just couldn't get that done. What he did do was the equivalent to me of 'shadow boxing', in this past draft.

That fact is why I was disappointed that TT didn't draft a Big man higher in this past draft or use his Rd. 3 pick. To at least address the impending issues I see with Pickett and Raji more assertively/aggressively.

Where is that Big Man that TT might have brought in? That BIG strong man!?? Isn't he a Rookie prospect with a team noted for it's 'D' or the Baltimore Ravens !? What if Brandon Williams or Sylvester Williams that TT passed on in Rd. 1 ... are solid to exceptional NFL players at DT !?

Even if Raji is retained and Jolly doesn't work out and Pickett is gone. how will this past draft and picking Datone Jones and passing in Rd. 3 and DT Brandon Williams look on the Green Bay Packers going forward?

Watch this guy mature as an NFL DT:

http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/ravens-third-round-pick-brandon-williams-goes-portable-135958683.html

If I'm correct why wasn't he in the Packers colors 'the Green and Gold'. Him being overlooked is a clear oversight; in terms of the outstanding prospect he was. A clear oversight as the DT he would with the proper coaching have become as a Green bay Packer. TT's first three picks this draft could have easily been DE Datone Jones...RB Eddie Lacy and then in Rd. 3 >>> DT Brandon Williams...outstanding then TT. On top of that he could have done 'all that' without trading with the San Fran 49ers. An absolute senseless move and moreso doing that in Rd. 2 and Rd. 3.

I was originally pissed off for a lot more than that that I later sorted out. That stuff is still on Ted Thompson. That's now 'just' a wait and see and to be further upset over it besides the facts >>>useless energy.

Back to the issue and our DL:

These are some of my concerns and our DL issues. If your a bit broken up or beaten down as our defensive front sure looked to be to me last season; and certainly that late and into the playoff's.

If the cupboard is bare to getting there!? Don't you get in the proper supplies to stay healthy? I sure try to do that. Nothing else makes any sense.

PACKERS!

[run pMc]

The difference between our linebacking corps has much more to do with the fact that they had 2 guys who could rush the passer and we had 1.

The Ravens also had better Safeties IMO, and Ngata is better than anyone GB has on the DL.

At the risk of making it an excuse, there's no doubt injuries played a big role in performance. Expecting your backups to play as good as your starter is asking a lot, especially when you have multiple starters hurt.
Young players -- which the GB roster favors -- make mistakes. Hayward's gaffe against MIN was pretty glaring and costly.

Don't know a thing about Brandon Williams, but TT drafted Josh Boyd, who might contribute and at least will provide competition/depth.
Agree they use Raji wrong at times. I'm less annoyed by the scheme than the execution.

Wouldn't be surprised if they line up in a 3-3 with Neal and then switch to a 2-4 by dropping him back. Manning won't be fooled, but even a moment's hesitation can be costly.

The other team's offense has stars that get paid too, so I try to be realistic. GB's team is built to score more points, not pitch shutouts.

[wist43]

Was this after the 38-10 game we played without Matthews or Woodson?

The eyeball test for me shows the Capers D has a ton of different looks to it both on the frontend and the backend. The defense is heavily substituted, has lots of different coverage looks and lots of designed false steps to conceal the coverage for the first split second. I mean its a zone blitz scheme... by definition it exists in a high volume of permutations. Our high interception totals would seem to indicate opponents aren't finding the defense a cake walk.

Our defense has no identity - and does nothing particularly well. Players misused and out of position, confusion, busted coverages, bad angles, and linebackers with exactly no instincts - adds up to the mess we have.

Did you see Capers comments after the SF game?? He literally said that he tried different things, but nothing worked, so he just kept calling the same crap and hoped the refs would stop it on a TKO.

If saying shit like that doesn't get you fired - nothing will. Capers has been fired 579 times in the NFL. He stays a few years, his teams go to shit, and then he gets fired. I'm very glad we're nearing the end of the Capers rodeo.

He has to go.

[RashanGary]

JH, I am not sure about abandoning zone in the latter half of the season. I have no numbers, but that play we highlighted in the Game Thread versus the Vikes during the last regular season game was a zone coverage with Shields playing a deep 1/3 or bail corner. Hayward was underneath and one of the safeties in the deep middle.

To the general point about the Packers and zone, Ponder completed the pass to the sideline for a critical 1st down. In Shields defense, the receiver and QB after the game said they noticed the short zone (Hayward) after passing the initial guy through his zone, would float short in his unoccupied territory rather than get depth.

So the Vikings completed a Cover 2 beater route (basically an out by the slot guy or man in motion) against a Cover 3 zone. Which is more or less unforgivable.

Ponder beat our zone defense (particularly Shields) enough to beat us. SF, we abandoned it completely by my recollection. Joe Webb, I didn't notice as much because he was so horrible, nobody got beat.

[pbmax]

Way too much "overanalysis": bang:: DOH:

The psycho package is designed to create confusion about who should be blocked. IMO its effective in third and long situations. Recall it being effective when it was first used but that was with Bishop. IMMO effective with the correct package.

The 3-4 allows for more flexibility/gimmicks due to the linebackers/tweener sized players.

Recall early-on when the Packers were more vanilla and how qbs like Roethlesberger and Warner dominated the packer defense. Qbs used to point to where the blitzes were coming from. Then audible a pass play to the vacated area.

The problem with the current scheme is the assignments when the blitzes fail. It is the continual breakdowns that are a big issue not what coach is from what coaching tree.

All this "analysis"*is like over siliconed wahines. :butt:

1. Psycho debuted in 2009 with Cullen Jenkins, Hawk and Barnett.

2. Bishop was not in the package until mid-season 2010.

3. Kurt Warner tore apart Capers 3-4, 2-4 and Psycho in 2009 playoffs.

4. Big Ben in 2009 reg season tore Capers D apart as well, though I don't specifically recall if he faced Psycho or not.

[rbaloha1]

Our defense has no identity - and does nothing particularly well. Players misused and out of position, confusion, busted coverages, bad angles, and linebackers with exactly no instincts - adds up to the mess we have.

Did you see Capers comments after the SF game?? He literally said that he tried different things, but nothing worked, so he just kept calling the same crap and hoped the refs would stop it on a TKO.

If saying shit like that doesn't get you fired - nothing will. Capers has been fired 579 times in the NFL. He stays a few years, his teams go to shit, and then he gets fired. I'm very glad we're nearing the end of the Capers rodeo.

He has to go.

Do not forget the buyouts. Capers is like Don Nelson from the NBA.

Super Bowl propaganda smells like rotten cheese and from posters inhaling too much spice.:eyes::bs:

[RashanGary]

Our defense has no identity - and does nothing particularly well. Players misused and out of position, confusion, busted coverages, bad angles, and linebackers with exactly no instincts - adds up to the mess we have.


I agree, last year. We didn't have an identity. In fact, it looks like we're attempting to become a defense that can do a little of everything. I certainly don't see an effort to move one way or the other. It's like we're just trying to get a little better across the board. Honestly, if Capers puts it together, I think it's a huge accomplishment because he's working with mis-matched pieces and he has to get guys able to play a lot of different ways, vs being good at one thing.

Capers can't invent talent to make an identity. He has to work with the talent he has, something I think he's very open to doing (not everyone is willing to just take what they're given and find a way.) He's working with what he has, Wist. One team wins the SB every year. It's almost alwyas a different DC. Whichever DC has the most talent usually looks the smartest.

[rbaloha1]

Too much experimenting.

Find your core guys and rep schemes until the breakdowns are minimized.

It will be interesting to see Capers answer to the read option and pistol plays.