This is What Really Bugs Me About Our Defense

[The Shadow]

Ok, Capers stays. Fine.
But : what about the countless 'secondary miscommunications' that consistently allow receivers - often the opposition's very BEST receivers -to run free in the middle of our secondary? Time after time after time after time.
Why aren't Whitt & Perry being held accountable???????

[red]

when has m3 held anyone accountable

and guy running wide open over the middle isn't a recent development, this problem goes back to the super bowl winning season

[Cleft Crusty]

when has m3 held anyone accountable

were you following the Packers in 2008? Something pretty dramatic happened that offseason.

[Carolina_Packer]

http://nfl.si.com/2014/01/27/seattle-seahawks-team-building-super-bowl-xlviii/

Read the above article about the Seahawks, and you'll see that they have key first rounders, but they also have a number of late round/undrafted guys that Carroll and Schneider were right about, that fit their system, who stayed healthy and played up to their potential quickly. Part of that is the players and evaluation, but another part has to be great coaching.

I think Capers knows what his defensive roster would look like optimally (look up the players on the 1994 Steelers defense). I understand with the salary cap and cap numbers what they are today, that you're not likely to form such a defense with so many starts again, and even harder than that now is keeping them together for very long. Seattle will pay their QB soon enough and be a victim of their own success and not be able to afford some of the talent they currently have on the roster. But they will still have the decision makers who know what their kind of players look like, they will still have that nasty reputation on defense, and will still have a lot of the same coaches coaching them up.

I think in the Packers case they have struggled to form and keep an identity on defense, because with the picks and signings on defense, there have been injuries, slow or lack of development at key positions, some trying to fit some square pegs in round holes with some of their picks and signings. Here's hoping for more good fortune on the injury front, and that TT, MM and Capers can finally get together on what their defense and players on the defense is supposed to look like. Seattle has done it, and fairly quickly, and as you'll see if you read the article above, they are not all 1st rounders. There are a lot of grinders on that roster, who adapted to and contributed to a system quickly. Still waiting on Green Bay's defense...what will it take to finally get this done?

[Maxie the Taxi]

Two things stuck out in that article for me: 1) "Schneider wanted Lynch in Green Bay..." and 2) "Carroll has said that he prefers to have a 4-3 defense with 3-4 principles..."

I've always wanted Lynch in Green Bay. I'd like to know who didn't want him and why.

And what the hell is a 4-3 with 3-4 principles?

Answers to those questions might reveal a lot about Green Bay's core personnel and coaching philosophy.

[bobblehead]

http://nfl.si.com/2014/01/27/seattle-seahawks-team-building-super-bowl-xlviii/

Read the above article about the Seahawks, and you'll see that they have key first rounders, but they also have a number of late round/undrafted guys that Carroll and Schneider were right about, that fit their system, who stayed healthy and played up to their potential quickly. Part of that is the players and evaluation, but another part has to be great coaching.

I think Capers knows what his defensive roster would look like optimally (look up the players on the 1994 Steelers defense). I understand with the salary cap and cap numbers what they are today, that you're not likely to form such a defense with so many starts again, and even harder than that now is keeping them together for very long. Seattle will pay their QB soon enough and be a victim of their own success and not be able to afford some of the talent they currently have on the roster. But they will still have the decision makers who know what their kind of players look like, they will still have that nasty reputation on defense, and will still have a lot of the same coaches coaching them up.

I think in the Packers case they have struggled to form and keep an identity on defense, because with the picks and signings on defense, there have been injuries, slow or lack of development at key positions, some trying to fit some square pegs in round holes with some of their picks and signings. Here's hoping for more good fortune on the injury front, and that TT, MM and Capers can finally get together on what their defense and players on the defense is supposed to look like. Seattle has done it, and fairly quickly, and as you'll see if you read the article above, they are not all 1st rounders. There are a lot of grinders on that roster, who adapted to and contributed to a system quickly. Still waiting on Green Bay's defense...what will it take to finally get this done?

You talk as if the Seahawks have 5 straight playoff appearances and a superbowl victory and the packers are trying desperately to equal them.

[Patler]

Who the heck cares about Lynch in GB anymore? The year they "should have" gotten him, they won the Super Bowl anyway. Yes, they could have used him in 2011 and 2012, but now they have a guy who is four years younger, has no arrests that I am aware of and willingly engages the press without being forced to do so by $50,000 fines from the NFL.

[run pMc]

I'm assuming the communication calls come from the safeties, who had a terrible year.
(1) Burnett's Wonderlic score coming out of college was not high - maybe he's late in reacting and making the calls.
(2) neither Burnett nor Jennings is described as being a vocal leader - maybe they need a more vocal/forceful personality
(3) Jennings tries but is physically on the small side - when I see him he looks more like a corner
Missed tackles and a middling pass rush didn't help either.

What bugs me about the defense? The opposing QB's passer rating, especially when compared with other years. I didn't have a lot of faith they could force a punt on a 3rd and 6 this year.

Better pass rush, better safety play, better health would all contribute to defensive improvement.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Who the heck cares about Lynch in GB anymore? The year they "should have" gotten him, they won the Super Bowl anyway. Yes, they could have used him in 2011 and 2012, but now they have a guy who is four years younger, has no arrests that I am aware of and willingly engages the press without being forced to do so by $50,000 fines from the NFL.

I agree with you. I'm talking about the 2007 draft. I'm guessing Schneider is too. I wanted the Packers to trade up to get Lynch. I'm guessing Schneider is too. Ted didn't and drafted Justin Harrell instead four spots after Lynch was selected. If Schneider is talking about getting Lynch as a FA, then Ted apparently nixed that too. I find it an interesting dynamic. I know it's spilled milk but crying over spilled milk is kinda what we do around here this time of year. ;-)

[Maxie the Taxi]

Ok, Capers stays. Fine.
But : what about the countless 'secondary miscommunications' that consistently allow receivers - often the opposition's very BEST receivers -to run free in the middle of our secondary? Time after time after time after time.
Why aren't Whitt & Perry being held accountable???????

I posted the quote below from Bill Bellichick a while back. Apparently, playing the 3-4 is complicated. It requires lots of communication and players with experience. With injuries and the Packers playing young guys as they do, mistakes and miscommunications result.http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/new-england-patriots/post/_/id/4706060/belichick-explains-d-switch-on-sirius



"We wanted a lot of carryover between our run responsibilities and run fits, and some of our pressure defenses and things like that. We'll transition and build into some of our odds fronts, but we felt like in trying to evaluate young players, asking them to learn one system in a 3-4 and then learn another system in nickel [was too much]. As you know, we were in nickel defense just as much as we were 3-4 defense because of teams using multiple receivers on early downs and two-minute and all those kind of things.

"So we felt like it would be a better opportunity to evaluate our players and not try to over-install and put in a ton of defense. Try to cut it down a little bit and see if we could execute it better. Certainly, we have a long way to go but I do feel like we're making progress, and I think our players at least understand what we're doing.

"There are so many intricacies to a 3-4 defense that I just didn't know if we'd be ready to handle them this year. Probably wouldn't have been, to be honest with you."

[Pugger]

Who the heck cares about Lynch in GB anymore? The year they "should have" gotten him, they won the Super Bowl anyway. Yes, they could have used him in 2011 and 2012, but now they have a guy who is four years younger, has no arrests that I am aware of and willingly engages the press without being forced to do so by $50,000 fines from the NFL.

:tup:

[Pugger]

I'm assuming the communication calls come from the safeties, who had a terrible year.
(1) Burnett's Wonderlic score coming out of college was not high - maybe he's late in reacting and making the calls.
(2) neither Burnett nor Jennings is described as being a vocal leader - maybe they need a more vocal/forceful personality
(3) Jennings tries but is physically on the small side - when I see him he looks more like a corner
Missed tackles and a middling pass rush didn't help either.

What bugs me about the defense? The opposing QB's passer rating, especially when compared with other years. I didn't have a lot of faith they could force a punt on a 3rd and 6 this year.

Better pass rush, better safety play, better health would all contribute to defensive improvement.

And these 3 things can be fixed this offseason. Just getting guys back healthy will do wonders.

[Pugger]

I agree with you. I'm talking about the 2007 draft. I'm guessing Schneider is too. I wanted the Packers to trade up to get Lynch. I'm guessing Schneider is too. Ted didn't and drafted Justin Harrell instead four spots after Lynch was selected. If Schneider is talking about getting Lynch as a FA, then Ted apparently nixed that too. I find it an interesting dynamic. I know it's spilled milk but crying over spilled milk is kinda what we do around here this time of year. ;-)

Nixed? IMO Seattle could offer Buffalo a better/higher draft pick than Ted so that is why Lynch is in Seattle. I think in the long run we'll be better off with Lacy.

[Pugger]

I posted the quote below from Bill Bellichick a while back. Apparently, playing the 3-4 is complicated. It requires lots of communication and players with experience. With injuries and the Packers playing young guys as they do, mistakes and miscommunications result.http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/new-england-patriots/post/_/id/4706060/belichick-explains-d-switch-on-sirius

And this is why I hope Ted seriously looks at FA. He doesn't have to sign a guy like Boyd but there could be other guys who will be a major upgrade over what we have presently (that might not take much :wink:) that won't break the bank.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Nixed? IMO Seattle could offer Buffalo a better/higher draft pick than Ted so that is why Lynch is in Seattle. I think in the long run we'll be better off with Lacy.

I agree we're better off with Lacy now. I'm not questioning that. The question is did Ted ever make a play for Lynch in FA? You're assuming he did. I don't think he did and Schneider's comments kind of imply that. Bottom line is I'm speculating that Schneider would have liked TT to do more in the FA market, as you would like him to do. Based on his history, I don't think we'll see it...at least not to the extent Schneider does it in Seattle. We draft and develop. So we live with that philosophy, for better or worse. It's worked out great for the offense, but it's failed us with regard to Capers and his defense.

[3irty1]

Lynch was traded, not signed as a FA.

[Striker]

Here's something fun to pile on from the Journal today...


An advantage the Seahawks have over some teams — the Green Bay Packers come to mind — is that their defense isn't complicated. They don't out-scheme you — they beat up your receivers, get in the face of your quarterback and use a safety to cover the gap left open when a team keeps just seven men at the line of scrimmage.

In coach Pete Carroll's defense, the Seahawks play a Cover 3 scheme with free safety Earl Thomas patrolling the deep middle and cornerbacks Richard Sherman and Byron Maxwell playing bump-and-run coverage on the receivers. Chancellor is used like a linebacker, and at any time he and the three designated linebackers can drop into coverage and throw a net around the receivers.

Maybe Capers, for as much as they say he needs vets to run such a complicated scheme, should just "dumb it down" and get them to play basic defense before getting too fancy with his 1 down lineman, 10 defensive back schemes.

[3irty1]

Who the heck cares about Lynch in GB anymore? The year they "should have" gotten him, they won the Super Bowl anyway. Yes, they could have used him in 2011 and 2012, but now they have a guy who is four years younger, has no arrests that I am aware of and willingly engages the press without being forced to do so by $50,000 fines from the NFL.

In fact they might not have won the superbowl had Lynch NOT signed with the Seahawks. Remember when he single-handedly knocked out the reigning champion Saints? Had he not done that the Saints could well have been the team we played in the NFCC and history could look quite different.

[denverYooper]

In fact they might not have won the superbowl had Lynch NOT signed with the Seahawks. Remember when he single-handedly knocked out the reigning champion Saints? Had he not done that the Saints could well have been the team we played in the NFCC and history could look quite different.

Ah yes, the old TT as Timelord argument.

[red]

Ah yes, the old TT as Timelord argument.

so you're saying he has a tardis that looks like an old timey phone both?

[Carolina_Packer]

You talk as if the Seahawks have 5 straight playoff appearances and a superbowl victory and the packers are trying desperately to equal them.

If I did, I didn't mean to. The point is simply that Green Bay seems to be spinning its wheels on defense, has not been able to establish a consistently positive identity, while other teams that weren't so hot when we were winning the Super Bowl now have a very dominant defense. I'm jealous as hell and I want what they have. :lol:

[woodbuck27]

Two things stuck out in that article for me: 1) "Schneider wanted Lynch in Green Bay..." and 2) "Carroll has said that he prefers to have a 4-3 defense with 3-4 principles..."

I've always wanted Lynch in Green Bay. I'd like to know who didn't want him and why.

And what the hell is a 4-3 with 3-4 principles?

Answers to those questions might reveal a lot about Green Bay's core personnel and coaching philosophy.


Why are we seeing some 2-4-5 and 2-3-6.

What a waste of those two.

[Iron Mike]

Who the heck cares about Lynch in GB anymore? The year they "should have" gotten him, they won the Super Bowl anyway. Yes, they could have used him in 2011 and 2012, but now they have a guy who is four years younger, has no arrests that I am aware of and willingly engages the press without being forced to do so by $50,000 fines from the NFL.


http://www.jerkassclothing.com/images/2.0/popular/i-love-lacy-27-t-shirt.jpg

[Patler]

If I did, I didn't mean to. The point is simply that Green Bay seems to be spinning its wheels on defense, has not been able to establish a consistently positive identity, while other teams that weren't so hot when we were winning the Super Bowl now have a very dominant defense. I'm jealous as hell and I want what they have. :lol:

The Packers had an identity on defense in 2010, They have lost that identity. Why have they lost it? The single overriding factor, I think, was the loss of Nick Collins without an adequate replacement. The change that has had on the overall performance of the backfield can not be overstated. In turn that has impacted the entire defense. Add in the injury to Williams, which made him a different player in 2011, 2012 and more than half of 2013, and the ball-hawking ability of the defense was gutted, especially with Hayward, missing this season as well. Then, throw in all the games missed by Matthews the last two seasons and the elements that made the identity of the defense in 2010 are completely missing.

I don't even consider the losses of Woodson and Jenkins, because those age-related losses are to be expected. But when you combine those with the losses of Collins and Hayward, the change in Williams, the games missed by Matthews and the injury--forced switch from Bishop to Jones, you are forced to rebuild the identity from scratch. When the players selected to rebuild that identity, Perry, Worthy, Datone Jones are also injured more than healthy the rebulding effort flounders. It sure doen't help when a healthy component, Burnett, underperforms.

[bobblehead]

If I did, I didn't mean to. The point is simply that Green Bay seems to be spinning its wheels on defense, has not been able to establish a consistently positive identity, while other teams that weren't so hot when we were winning the Super Bowl now have a very dominant defense. I'm jealous as hell and I want what they have. :lol:

On this we can agree. I would love a smash mouth defense.

[bobblehead]

The Packers had an identity on defense in 2010, They have lost that identity. Why have they lost it? The single overriding factor, I think, was the loss of Nick Collins without an adequate replacement. The change that has had on the overall performance of the backfield can not be overstated. In turn that has impacted the entire defense. Add in the injury to Williams, which made him a different player in 2011, 2012 and more than half of 2013, and the ball-hawking ability of the defense was gutted, especially with Hayward, missing this season as well. Then, throw in all the games missed by Matthews the last two seasons and the elements that made the identity of the defense in 2010 are completely missing.

I don't even consider the losses of Woodson and Jenkins, because those age-related losses are to be expected. But when you combine those with the losses of Collins and Hayward, the change in Williams, the games missed by Matthews and the injury--forced switch from Bishop to Jones, you are forced to rebuild the identity from scratch. When the players selected to rebuild that identity, Perry, Worthy, Datone Jones are also injured more than healthy the rebulding effort flounders. It sure doen't help when a healthy component, Burnett, underperforms.

There is some reason for hope. A lot of young talent on D is reaching that point where they should/could improve a lot....APRH.

[Smidgeon]

If I did, I didn't mean to. The point is simply that Green Bay seems to be spinning its wheels on defense, has not been able to establish a consistently positive identity, while other teams that weren't so hot when we were winning the Super Bowl now have a very dominant defense. I'm jealous as hell and I want what they have. :lol:

True that they don't have the same established identity as Seattle's D, but I'll take GB's O over Seattle's any day of the week and twice on Sundays. Identity for a complete football team are in two and a half areas (ST only gets half a mention). And GB easily is one of the best on the O side, even with Rodgers out for 8 games. We just need the rest of the puzzle (D) to become a complete team. If we did that, we'd be the most complete team in the NFL.

[Pugger]

The Packers had an identity on defense in 2010, They have lost that identity. Why have they lost it? The single overriding factor, I think, was the loss of Nick Collins without an adequate replacement. The change that has had on the overall performance of the backfield can not be overstated. In turn that has impacted the entire defense. Add in the injury to Williams, which made him a different player in 2011, 2012 and more than half of 2013, and the ball-hawking ability of the defense was gutted, especially with Hayward, missing this season as well. Then, throw in all the games missed by Matthews the last two seasons and the elements that made the identity of the defense in 2010 are completely missing.

I don't even consider the losses of Woodson and Jenkins, because those age-related losses are to be expected. But when you combine those with the losses of Collins and Hayward, the change in Williams, the games missed by Matthews and the injury--forced switch from Bishop to Jones, you are forced to rebuild the identity from scratch. When the players selected to rebuild that identity, Perry, Worthy, Datone Jones are also injured more than healthy the rebulding effort flounders. It sure doen't help when a healthy component, Burnett, underperforms.

:bclap:

[woodbuck27]

Here's something fun to pile on from the Journal today...



Maybe Capers, for as much as they say he needs vets to run such a complicated scheme, should just "dumb it down" and get them to play basic defense before getting too fancy with his 1 down lineman, 10 defensive back schemes.

The 2014 SEASON...Green Bay Packers ... Dom Capers "COVER EVERTHING" DEFENSE.

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTkhVKbjnIGcsBAUTEi6GqrMU91QmPjE w_Qg37wf__EM2V5Fhfm8Q

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQPQfNam-cKdZT8EKgW36TtZ70pif_zoknGAAJ4ooPku8CZTVcS

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSIb4f5c8rKUxzP6wHUO_spOK9BjKuEc jkRDidtY59Yfwhmt-gs

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTovvABpFtd9y9SPvYS_JvaB4TY-m_MUmstSLjrzPpREfsOopn0

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQEfXjxNamsnWxWWF7qmWpraYURxYMUb xXBkKux4O8eFcgT7AZtOg

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTrdnkctCX1NQA-T1yJKkWyBqxBin0TdvitTWIoNdVR8Hm7swrK

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSmpyeiT5wKdYoU8ggLaVnWRDWEkXCVt Y-xtpwaHkG2ErMkztCu

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTubFnk14L0zY8zeS1FHNSqiG1FI4pBo 0IDaeHZXFYJUMGXcHiS

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTNLFesmZA8ynEchbmKHSPoEuCmMTsID 7s9qI1x5NTQxa_THlry

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRsuUnxW-MOVNaEczian2sXPRkQxOginHyBLiYRcJWO9z8vXOzzUw

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTJT4hFZ5AGTYvR739f0U6WEP0MBTnab NDgwO1zVA_U_LxBjKiwSg

In 2014 The GREEN BAY PACKER VICTORY CRY ! ....

MOUSE UP ! ! !

[Carolina_Packer]

I know it may bother some of the readers when people bring up points of admiration/jealousy for another team, but it's hard when you sit back as a fan and see your team's doors get blown off consistency-wise, toughness-wise and execution-wise by a defense that has basically been built since the Packers won the Super Bowl, which was not that long ago. You say to yourself, if Seattle can do it in that amount of time, then why can't the Packers. What is the road block? What is going to get them where they need to be?

One difference is that Seattle drafts Malcolm Smith in the 7th round, and he's a Super Bowl MVP (of course they could have given it to the entire defense), and we draft someone like Brad Jones, who, while he has had some production initially at OLB then moved to ILB, is not nearly as consistent as the Packers need him to be. I'm not saying I expect our 7th rounders to be Super Bowl MVP's. That's over the top. My point is that Seattle does draft and develop too (along with sprinkling in affordable free agents), but when Seattle coaches them up, they get up to speed quickly, are assignment sure and are part of that nasty, fly to the ball collective that Seattle has on defense. They also consistently play way. The Packers defense dials-up a defensive gem against Detroit at home and Baltimore on the road, but then can't maintain the level of play. I want what Seattle has on defense. Ted, how are you going to respond? The same result next year is just not going to cut it.

[Patler]

I know it may bother some of the readers when people bring up points of admiration/jealousy for another team, but it's hard when you sit back as a fan and see your team's doors get blown off consistency-wise, toughness-wise and execution-wise by a defense that has basically been built since the Packers won the Super Bowl, which was not that long ago. You say to yourself, if Seattle can do it in that amount of time, then why can't the Packers. What is the road block? What is going to get them where they need to be?

One difference is that Seattle drafts Malcolm Smith in the 7th round, and he's a Super Bowl MVP (of course they could have given it to the entire defense), and we draft someone like Brad Jones, who, while he has had some production initially at OLB then moved to ILB, is not nearly as consistent as the Packers need him to be. I'm not saying I expect our 7th rounders to be Super Bowl MVP's. That's over the top. My point is that Seattle does draft and develop too (along with sprinkling in affordable free agents), but when Seattle coaches them up, they get up to speed quickly, are assignment sure and are part of that nasty, fly to the ball collective that Seattle has on defense. They also consistently play way. The Packers defense dials-up a defensive gem against Detroit at home and Baltimore on the road, but then can't maintain the level of play. I want what Seattle has on defense. Ted, how are you going to respond? The same result next year is just not going to cut it.

I don't think anyone objects to a frank discussion about why things haven't worked. It's not like the Packers haven't tried. A lot of 1st and 2nd round picks have gone to the front seven, yet collectively it is a mediocre group. Bad drafting? Poor coaching? Inexplicable bad luck? I have kicked that around in my head many times, and can't form a solid opinion myself as to why it is what it is.

[mraynrand]

One difference is that Seattle drafts Malcolm Smith in the 7th round, and he's a Super Bowl MVP (of course they could have given it to the entire defense), and we draft someone like Brad Jones, who, while he has had some production initially at OLB then moved to ILB, is not nearly as consistent as the Packers need him to be.

Maybe the answer is that some of this championship stuff is more due to the vagaries of existence. Think on this - Hyde nearly picks off Kap and Sherman just deflects Kap's pass. A few inches another way, and you could have either SF or GB as your Super Bowl winner. Vick throws it a little higher, T-Will gets scored on in the Wildcard and the Packers don't even win a game in the 2010 playoffs.

For 31 teams the same result next year is just not going to cut it, but for a least a handful, their fate may be in control of a few ergs difference in the strength of a pass or the height of a leap.

[Patler]

Maybe the answer is that some of this championship stuff is more due to the vagaries of existence. Think on this - Hyde nearly picks off Kap and Sherman just deflects Kap's pass. A few inches another way, and you could have either SF or GB as your Super Bowl winner. Vick throws it a little higher, T-Will gets scored on in the Wildcard and the Packers don't even win a game in the 2010 playoffs.

For 31 teams the same result next year is just not going to cut it, but for a least a handful, their fate may be in control of a few ergs difference in the strength of a pass or the height of a leap.

Yup. That's why just getting to the playoffs is important. Things can bounce your way if you at least have a chance.

[bobblehead]

Triple that. The packers are consistently there. Inches from advancing this year. The type of dominance that wins 3 superbowls in a row is a thing of the past and if that is what you want, time to watch the NBA.

[Joemailman]

Triple that. The packers are consistently there. Inches from advancing this year. The type of dominance that wins 3 superbowls in a row is a thing of the past and if that is what you want, time to watch the NBA.

I also think the Packers closed the gap this year on the top teams. In 2012, the 49ers were clearly better than the Packers. The Packers were struggling just to hang close in those games. In 2013 though, the Packers could just have easily won those games. If they find a competent safety, and have a little more typical injury situation, they are right there.

[3irty1]

Triple that. The packers are consistently there. Inches from advancing this year. The type of dominance that wins 3 superbowls in a row is a thing of the past and if that is what you want, time to watch the NBA.

Unless you're comparing the NFC to the AFC. Then that dominance is still around.

[ThunderDan]

Yup. That's why just getting to the playoffs is important. Things can bounce your way if you at least have a chance.

A perfect example of that is the 2nd half kickoff in the Super Bowl. The kicker hit the perfect kick but it bounces straight to Harvin. If the ball hits off the edge of the point it bounces past Harvin and then its a scrum to see who picks up the ball and not a touchdown.

Not saying that would have changed the outcome of the game but a perfect example of doing something exactly right and because of a bounce it turns into horseshit (well the tackling by DEN allowed the TD)

[pbmax]

I posted the quote below from Bill Bellichick a while back. Apparently, playing the 3-4 is complicated. It requires lots of communication and players with experience. With injuries and the Packers playing young guys as they do, mistakes and miscommunications result.http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/new-england-patriots/post/_/id/4706060/belichick-explains-d-switch-on-sirius


"We wanted a lot of carryover between our run responsibilities and run fits, and some of our pressure defenses and things like that. We'll transition and build into some of our odds fronts, but we felt like in trying to evaluate young players, asking them to learn one system in a 3-4 and then learn another system in nickel [was too much]. As you know, we were in nickel defense just as much as we were 3-4 defense because of teams using multiple receivers on early downs and two-minute and all those kind of things.

"So we felt like it would be a better opportunity to evaluate our players and not try to over-install and put in a ton of defense. Try to cut it down a little bit and see if we could execute it better. Certainly, we have a long way to go but I do feel like we're making progress, and I think our players at least understand what we're doing.

"There are so many intricacies to a 3-4 defense that I just didn't know if we'd be ready to handle them this year. Probably wouldn't have been, to be honest with you."

Playing a 3-4 defense might be slightly more complicated versus the pass, one reason is that most often you are sending 4 after the QB and that means you have to choose someone when making your call. Not sure what else he might mean here.

But the major part of his point is that switching between the two for base and nickel is tough because if you get run on, the assignments and responsibilities are completely different. hence, in on set of downs you can play two entirely different concepts of defense.

The Packers do this switching and in run D (both base and nickel) it has caused some problems.

[pbmax]

Here's something fun to pile on from the Journal today...



Maybe Capers, for as much as they say he needs vets to run such a complicated scheme, should just "dumb it down" and get them to play basic defense before getting too fancy with his 1 down lineman, 10 defensive back schemes.

Your JSO description sounds very much like the Packers D in 2010 with Collins deep and Peprah up front.

[Cheesehead Craig]

On this we can agree. I would love a smash mouth defense.

But what exactly is this? A defense that blitzes a lot? One that sacks the QB? Good against the run? Guys who just hit hard? Players that stay healthy?

[pbmax]

Unless you're comparing the NFC to the AFC. Then that dominance is still around.

And the 49ers owe the NFC a Super Bowl.

[mraynrand]

Playing a 3-4 defense might be slightly more complicated versus the pass, one reason is that most often you are sending 4 after the QB and that means you have to choose someone when making your call. Not sure what else he might mean here.

But the major part of his point is that switching between the two for base and nickel is tough because if you get run on, the assignments and responsibilities are completely different. hence, in on set of downs you can play two entirely different concepts of defense.

The Packers do this switching and in run D (both base and nickel) it has caused some problems.

time for some special off-season practices!

http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/4e403c14ecad045b77000009-480/jerry-tarkanian.jpg

[wist43]

It all comes down to Capers. Yes, we lost Collins and Jenkins, and there has been a steady influx of young guys - but that is going to be the case every year with the Packers.

I agree with the sentiment of simplifing the scheme, and have been arguing that for a few years now. If you're consistently blowing coverages, what good does it do to lament the fact over and over again at the post-game presser?? If you're blowing assignments consistently, then simply saying "we'll get that cleaned up" over and over again doesn't cut it - simplify the scheme to the point where you're not blowing coverages - duh!!

Then there is Capers lip service about "stopping the run is our #1 priority"... really?? Seems to me, running a 2-4 front more than any other team in the league is the most polite invitation imaginable to an offense to run the ball down your throat - which is exactly what happens most of the time.

As for guys running loose all over the field I will say this - I prefer to play man most of the time, especially on the outside, but when you're playing a dink and dunk offense like NE or Denver, you have to 1) beat the hell out of the receivers off the line to disprupt the timing, 2) play zone underneath, and when a midget, i.e. Welker catches the ball, blow him up before he can even get his head turned around to turn upfield, and 3) interupt the passing lane in your zone and anticipate the routes coming into your zone - ala what we saw Chancellor do several times in the Superbowl.

I think we have enough talent on defense to be effective - but Capers is entirely capable of making a mess of anything. He's just as capable of putting together a solid game plan, but his MO is to be too cute by half, and it ends up blowing up in his face more often than not.

Capers is the problem - as I've been saying for a few years now, it is extremely difficult to evaluate the players given the disadvantageous positions they are consistently put in by Capers. Until we get a DC that will tailor gameplans to the personnel we have, I have to give the players a pass for the most part.

[3irty1]

I liked the 2-4 when Raji was a 3-down NT and Woodson was a slot CB who tackled like a linebacker. The whole philosophy of the scheme seems tied to the performance of those two players, yet Woodson is old and gone and Hayward/Hyde have been his replacements. Its very unsound thinking to plan on replacing a hall of fame player like Woodson. I'd rather they alter the scheme to highlight the new emerging players like Daniels. Rather than put big run defenders in a passing formation I'd rather use our pass rushers in a running formation. Something like this could replace our 2-4:
.
Perry.....Daniels.....Raji.....Jones.....Matthews
.
....................Jones..........Hawk
.
Raji could be Boyd, or Jolly as well. Worthy could rotate at the 1-gap spots.

[Pugger]

But what exactly is this? A defense that blitzes a lot? One that sacks the QB? Good against the run? Guys who just hit hard? Players that stay healthy?

Yes. ;-)

Seattle was poor for a couple of years so they were drafting in the upper half of each round, they found some gems in later rounds and they were the healthiest team in the playoffs. They had just 7 guys on IR and we had at least double that plus a several other guys playing hurt. If you can stomach it go back and look at SF's last 3rd down conversion in that playoff game and watch Mulumba - I think that was who that was - limping as he tries to run down Kaepernick. :sad:

[denverYooper]

Yes. ;-)

Seattle was poor for a couple of years so they were drafting in the upper half of each round, they found some gems in later rounds and they were the healthiest team in the playoffs. They had just 7 guys on IR and we had at least double that plus a several other guys playing hurt. If you can stomach it go back and look at SF's last 3rd down conversion in that playoff game and watch Mulumba - I think that was who that was - limping as he tries to run down Kaepernick. :sad:

Plus I think they had ADHD issues and had to get some guys on Adderall to clear that up. It seems to have made a difference in their ability to really focus.

[pbmax]

I liked the 2-4 when Raji was a 3-down NT and Woodson was a slot CB who tackled like a linebacker. The whole philosophy of the scheme seems tied to the performance of those two players, yet Woodson is old and gone and Hayward/Hyde have been his replacements. Its very unsound thinking to plan on replacing a hall of fame player like Woodson. I'd rather they alter the scheme to highlight the new emerging players like Daniels. Rather than put big run defenders in a passing formation I'd rather use our pass rushers in a running formation. Something like this could replace our 2-4:
.
Perry.....Daniels.....Raji.....Jones.....Matthews
.
....................Jones..........Hawk
.
Raji could be Boyd, or Jolly as well. Worthy could rotate at the 1-gap spots.

You field that defense when I put my 3rd WR out there, let's say Welker, and I will light you up in the middle. If you bring a safety to help, the you just hit WR or TE down a seam. You will wish for a return to run defense problems.

The reason Woodson worked as a slot guy in nickel wasn't just his tackling. He could shut Welker down as well.

[3irty1]

You field that defense when I put my 3rd WR out there, let's say Welker, and I will light you up in the middle. If you bring a safety to help, the you just hit WR or TE down a seam. You will wish for a return to run defense problems.

The reason Woodson worked as a slot guy in nickel wasn't just his tackling. He could shut Welker down as well.

I should have been more specific in saying that I wish to use this in lieu of our "run stopping" flavor of the 2-4 that we tend to run on first down with the fatties in the middle. I'm not suggesting we ditch the nickel all together although it does seem like teams use personnel groups like I described run more 2-3 dime than 2-4 nickel by snap count.

[pbmax]

I should have been more specific in saying that I wish to use this in lieu of our "run stopping" flavor of the 2-4 that we tend to run on first down with the fatties in the middle. I'm not suggesting we ditch the nickel all together although it does seem like teams use personnel groups like I described run more 2-3 dime than 2-4 nickel by snap count.

OK. But what do you do when its 2nd and 4 or 5 and the opposing team is close to equal to run versus pass tendency and they send the 3rd WR in there?

If you say we go pass rush base, then you have to cover that 3rd WR with a linebacker or safety. The pass rush has to make the play in this case. And it hasn't been doing that.

[3irty1]

OK. But what do you do when its 2nd and 4 or 5 and the opposing team is close to equal to run versus pass tendency and they send the 3rd WR in there?

If you say we go pass rush base, then you have to cover that 3rd WR with a linebacker or safety. The pass rush has to make the play in this case. And it hasn't been doing that.

The nature of zone coverage underneath is going to mean LB's sometimes have to cover Wes Welker. If they can't do that well enough to make a downhill tackle, its probably time for new linebackers because I'm sure their even worse in man coverage on a RB or TE.

From my observation Capers seems to call his D based on down and distance more than trying to match up with offensive personnel. I'd say his ideal defensive stand goes a bit like this:
1st and 10, Roll out the "run defense" version of the 2-4. Bend for 5 or 6. (this is what I'm suggesting replacing with a "passing" 3-4)
2nd and 5, Bring in the 3-4 to stuff the run. Drop guys into curl/hook zones and blitz. This can look like a million things because its Capers.
3rd and 3, Bring in the "pass defense" 2-4 with DL who excel at rushing the passer.

[wist43]

You field that defense when I put my 3rd WR out there, let's say Welker, and I will light you up in the middle. If you bring a safety to help, the you just hit WR or TE down a seam. You will wish for a return to run defense problems.

The reason Woodson worked as a slot guy in nickel wasn't just his tackling. He could shut Welker down as well.

Not if you play it right... you're still in the nickel there max.

Good grief, by your reckoning, we can't possibly stop the pass with anything less than 11 DB's on the field, lol...

How many times did you see Welker get completely blown up by a LB or Chancellor - who is a 6'3", 232lbs SS??

Playing short zones is how you deal with smurfs and the underneath stuff. Jam 'em all of the line, disrupt the timing of the routes, and make them pay a heavy price if they catch a short ball in stride. What you will eventually end up with is what happened to Manning when he didn't have his dump offs there - he held the ball, and that gave the pass rush time to get in his face.

Seriously, this stuff isn't that complicated... Seattle didn't run anything exotic, they just executed a sound scheme, and played tough, physical football.

Unfortunately, TT and Capers don't like physical DB's... they want their safeties to be glorified CB's, and that is a Packer philosophy going back many years - a philosophy that I've always hated.

[mraynrand]

Unfortunately, TT and Capers don't like physical DB's... they want their safeties to be glorified CB's, and that is a Packer philosophy going back many years - a philosophy that I've always hated.

I think the Packers tried to get bigger and tougher at safety. So far it just hasn't worked out. Part of it is Richardson getting hurt, but the idea behind McMilian was that he could play up near the line:


According to scouts, McMillian's best asset is his tackling prowess and his ability to diagnose plays as they unfold. Specifically, he specializes in run support; an advantage since he is stiff in his transitions in pass coverage. The descriptions remind me of Roy Williams, the safety famous for the horsecollar tackle rule. He was essentially an extra linebacker on running downs and passing downs alike, a dynamic that has some significant trade-offs. Great to have on first and second downs, but a liability on third.

I'll leave the topic with a quote from NFL.com's scouting reports, regarding the role McMillian is situated to best fill:

Without doubt he is a player who needs to be heavily involved with the front seven and will be attractive to blitz-heavy defenses.

[pbmax]

The nature of zone coverage underneath is going to mean LB's sometimes have to cover Wes Welker. If they can't do that well enough to make a downhill tackle, its probably time for new linebackers because I'm sure their even worse in man coverage on a RB or TE.

From my observation Capers seems to call his D based on down and distance more than trying to match up with offensive personnel. I'd say his ideal defensive stand goes a bit like this:
1st and 10, Roll out the "run defense" version of the 2-4. Bend for 5 or 6. (this is what I'm suggesting replacing with a "passing" 3-4)
2nd and 5, Bring in the 3-4 to stuff the run. Drop guys into curl/hook zones and blitz. This can look like a million things because its Capers.
3rd and 3, Bring in the "pass defense" 2-4 with DL who excel at rushing the passer.

You do need to occasionally put a LB or safety in a non-ideal coverage and expect a tackle, I agree. But if they are likely to pass, I prefer the coverage of the nickel back.

I think the opposite for Capers. I think he matches up personnel except in very specific down and distance situations. Short and likely to run, team that are threat to run regardless of down.

I think this is one reason the 49ers put so much stress on the Packer D in the first two games. From the same personnel package, they will run or pass based on what you do. It has been less so the last two games with the Packers playing a lot of single-high base and really put an emphasis on stopping the run. This has tilted San Fran more toward passing, which except against the Packers, Kapernick can struggle with.

[pbmax]

Not if you play it right... you're still in the nickel there max.

Good grief, by your reckoning, we can't possibly stop the pass with anything less than 11 DB's on the field, lol...

How many times did you see Welker get completely blown up by a LB or Chancellor - who is a 6'3", 232lbs SS??

Playing short zones is how you deal with smurfs and the underneath stuff. Jam 'em all of the line, disrupt the timing of the routes, and make them pay a heavy price if they catch a short ball in stride. What you will eventually end up with is what happened to Manning when he didn't have his dump offs there - he held the ball, and that gave the pass rush time to get in his face.

Seriously, this stuff isn't that complicated... Seattle didn't run anything exotic, they just executed a sound scheme, and played tough, physical football.

Unfortunately, TT and Capers don't like physical DB's... they want their safeties to be glorified CB's, and that is a Packer philosophy going back many years - a philosophy that I've always hated.

Short zones, LBs and safeties are fine for Welker and the crossing stuff they have been running (http://grantland.com/features/peyton-manning-denver-broncos-offense/). But your single high safety could now be facing three vertical threats and has to choose where to go. If not for a fantastic pass rush and QB NoodleArm Manning those routes are open.

You stick Rodger in versus that defense alignment with two tackles who can pass protect? They will be out of that defense by halftime if not earlier.

Seattle makes it work with pass rush. The Packers do not get consistent enough pressure to prevent the long stuff. Nor am I confident in their deep safety as much as I would be with Thomas/Collins.

Now if its 3 and 5 or 6? Then I expect pass and I am happier to drop into zone underneath, come up and make a tackle.

[Carolina_Packer]

Not if you play it right... you're still in the nickel there max.

Good grief, by your reckoning, we can't possibly stop the pass with anything less than 11 DB's on the field, lol...

How many times did you see Welker get completely blown up by a LB or Chancellor - who is a 6'3", 232lbs SS??

Playing short zones is how you deal with smurfs and the underneath stuff. Jam 'em all of the line, disrupt the timing of the routes, and make them pay a heavy price if they catch a short ball in stride. What you will eventually end up with is what happened to Manning when he didn't have his dump offs there - he held the ball, and that gave the pass rush time to get in his face.

Seriously, this stuff isn't that complicated... Seattle didn't run anything exotic, they just executed a sound scheme, and played tough, physical football.

Unfortunately, TT and Capers don't like physical DB's... they want their safeties to be glorified CB's, and that is a Packer philosophy going back many years - a philosophy that I've always hated.

Isn't the prevailing wisdom that the bigger your CB's are, likely the slower they are? I'm not saying I agree, I'm just relaying a common thought. Obviously Sherman and Chancellor are freaks who are not only tall and can challenge long receivers, but can run and cover. Can we just sign those guys? :-) Perhaps they have brothers or cousins who play football!

[wist43]

Isn't the prevailing wisdom that the bigger your CB's are, likely the slower they are? I'm not saying I agree, I'm just relaying a common thought. Obviously Sherman and Chancellor are freaks who are not only tall and can challenge long receivers, but can run and cover. Can we just sign those guys? :-) Perhaps they have brothers or cousins who play football!

I'm not talking about corners, I'm talking about safties. Chancellor isn't a corner, and Sherman is the exception to the rule.

We can get by just fine with Williams and Shields, I like them both just fine. Where you get into trouble is when your safties are nothing more than converted corners that translate into soft hitting, poor tackling safties - which is what the Packers end up with more often than not.

Combine the soft hitting, poor tackling safties with a leaky front 6 b/c Capers doesn't respect the LOS, and you have a complete mess - which is what we've been suffering to watch for the past few years.

[wist43]

Short zones, LBs and safeties are fine for Welker and the crossing stuff they have been running (http://grantland.com/features/peyton-manning-denver-broncos-offense/). But your single high safety could now be facing three vertical threats and has to choose where to go. If not for a fantastic pass rush and QB NoodleArm Manning those routes are open.

You stick Rodger in versus that defense alignment with two tackles who can pass protect? They will be out of that defense by halftime if not earlier.

Seattle makes it work with pass rush. The Packers do not get consistent enough pressure to prevent the long stuff. Nor am I confident in their deep safety as much as I would be with Thomas/Collins.

Now if its 3 and 5 or 6? Then I expect pass and I am happier to drop into zone underneath, come up and make a tackle.

I don't remember what Seattle ran against us last year, but Rodgers sure as hell didn't light them up... go ahead and play dime on 1 and 10, and 3rd and 1 all you want I guess - I'd rather concentrate on controlling the LOS and go from there.

[mraynrand]

Obviously Sherman and Chancellor are freaks who are not only tall and can challenge long receivers, but can run and cover. Can we just sign those guys? :-) Perhaps they have brothers or cousins who play football!

Sherman, Sherman, Sherman!

http://media.screened.com/uploads/0/3800/260287-naamloos_large.png

more your defensive lineman type...

[pbmax]

I don't remember what Seattle ran against us last year, but Rodgers sure as hell didn't light them up... go ahead and play dime on 1 and 10, and 3rd and 1 all you want I guess - I'd rather concentrate on controlling the LOS and go from there.

He made a few plays in the first half but was overall ineffective early and they didn't begin to straighten it out and score until the second half. You get no argument from me on that.

But it was the pass protection that failed him first. The coverage was still very good and no one was getting a free release so Rodgers had to hold onto the ball a few times, but he was often under assault immediately against last year's line. Your pass protection gets more consistent, those holes will open up.

You won't drop 50 on them, they are too good. But they aren't defying the laws of football physics. I will say this, M3's game plan versus them last year depends on pass protection and it was barely better this year.

[denverYooper]

He made a few plays in the first half but was overall ineffective early and they didn't begin to straighten it out and score until the second half. You get no argument from me on that.

But it was the pass protection that failed him first. The coverage was still very good and no one was getting a free release so Rodgers had to hold onto the ball a few times, but he was often under assault immediately against last year's line. Your pass protection gets more consistent, those holes will open up.

You won't drop 50 on them, they are too good. But they aren't defying the laws of football physics. I will say this, M3's game plan versus them last year depends on pass protection and it was barely better this year.

If they can get one or both of Sherrod or Bulaga healthy for a longer stint, we might get to see your theory play out.

[mraynrand]

He made a few plays in the first half but was overall ineffective early and they didn't begin to straighten it out and score until the second half. You get no argument from me on that.

But it was the pass protection that failed him first. The coverage was still very good and no one was getting a free release so Rodgers had to hold onto the ball a few times, but he was often under assault immediately against last year's line. Your pass protection gets more consistent, those holes will open up.

You won't drop 50 on them, they are too good. But they aren't defying the laws of football physics. I will say this, M3's game plan versus them last year depends on pass protection and it was barely better this year.

Seattle's defense also relied on completely forgetting about the run. In the first half they just went upfield again and again. They were perfectly willing to get gashed for 10-15 max if GB got lucky on a run, but they were focused on pass, pass, pass. It really looked like GB started the game down 45-0 and Seattle was attacking them as though they had to pass. When Stubby figured that out (it took until halftime!) he started seriously running the ball and the pressure came off. That's why I think GB will match up so much better next year. Stubby not only has a running game, but he now has a running game mentality kinda like the Steelers, where he is gonna take it right at you and beat the hell out of you on a certain percentage of plays. Should be a glorious matchup next year (APRH)

[denverYooper]

Seattle's defense also relied on completely forgetting about the run. In the first half they just went upfield again and again. They were perfectly willing to get gashed for 10-15 max if GB got lucky on a run, but they were focused on pass, pass, pass. It really looked like GB started the game down 45-0 and Seattle was attacking them as though they had to pass. When Stubby figured that out (it took until halftime!) he started seriously running the ball and the pressure came off. That's why I think GB will match up so much better next year. Stubby not only has a running game, but he now has a running game mentality kinda like the Steelers, where he is gonna take it right at you and beat the hell out of you on a certain percentage of plays. Should be a glorious matchup next year (APRH)

Lacy changes the complexion of the offense, too, when facing an aggressive D. He's a real-deal bulldozer of an RB. Those hard hitters on Seattle will take him down, but they'll take a ton of punishment, ARPH. Denver's offense had no one to do that the other night.

[mraynrand]

Lacy changes the complexion of the offense, too, when facing an aggressive D. He's a real-deal bulldozer of an RB. Those hard hitters on Seattle will take him down, but they'll take a ton of punishment, ARPH. Denver's offense had no one to do that the other night.

Packers need to beat Seattle and SF. To do so, they need to be able to run the ball and run it with viciousness. Because of this, they need to keep Starks, because guys are just going to miss some games playing this way.

[pbmax]

Packers need to beat Seattle and SF. To do so, they need to be able to run the ball and run it with viciousness. Because of this, they need to keep Starks, because guys are just going to miss some games playing this way.

The Packers had Lacy and Starks and a good run blocking line versus San Fran at home and could not score enough points. They need a better O line and pass protection.

Also, Rodgers is going to have to fit some throws into very tight windows because even good pass pro is going to get beat once in a while while he is waiting for something to open up.

I have nothing against the newly muscular running game, but by itself it is meaningless.

[mraynrand]

I have nothing against the newly muscular running game, but by itself it is meaningless.

well, of course. I was making the counter argument, that just the passing game alone was meaningless, given what Seattle did to it. That being said, I'll acknowledge that with respectable pass protection the 2010 Packers largely went without a run game and beat the Steelers. But the 2010 Steelers didn't pound you or mug your receivers the same way SF and Sea do. Packers need both and, APRH, they may see a serious upgrade to their pass pro and run blocking in 2014.

[bobblehead]

well, of course. I was making the counter argument, that just the passing game alone was meaningless, given what Seattle did to it. That being said, I'll acknowledge that with respectable pass protection the 2010 Packers largely went without a run game and beat the Steelers. But the 2010 Steelers didn't pound you or mug your receivers the same way SF and Sea do. Packers need both and, APRH, they may see a serious upgrade to their pass pro and run blocking in 2014.

don't forget that starks tore up the postseason that year. We were running pretty effectively. The steelers had the number one run D that season, so it makes sense we leaned on the pass. starks was effective in limited carries regardless.