After 1 preseason game - Pack it in, the season is already over

[wist43]

It's preseason, the games don't count, this and that... blah, blah, blah.

Unfortunately, I can tell from the first 2 defensive series of our first preseason game, that our defensive front 6/7 are going to be misused even worse than they were the past few years - and our team is sunk as a consequence.

- Daniels and Jones were playing DE in the base - no way should they be wasted like that.

- The nickel defense looked exactly the same, i.e. 2-4 and pathetic.

- Hawk and Jones are still among the worst ILB's in the game, never come off the field, and have resumed their familiar roles as drag-down tacklers.

They didn't fix that disasterous nickel, and they applied the wrong fixes to the base. Those are the alignments we're going to see all year - it's a disaster.

I had hoped MM's involvement on defense would right the ship - I guess his involvement consisted of getting coffee and donuts for Dunderdummy and the Spraypainted Hair Band.

I can't begin to fathom how MM has allowed this nonsense to continue; but, amazingly, we're in the same mess we've been in the past few years.

THE DEFENSE IS STILL A MESS!!!! :bang:

[red]

well, we all know M3 won't fire anyone for anything. so capers isn't going anywhere while fat mike is here

and the best news of all, we're trying to give the fat retard a new long term deal

so, get use to capers and his fucked up seive of a D. at least we have a high powered high scoring offense that can usually put up more points then the D allows

can you imagine our team without rodgers, we wouldn't win a fucking game. oh right, we don't have to imagine, we saw just how shitty this team was when a-rod was out

so, we're back to what i've brought up before. TT, M3 and the rest of the front office and coaching staff are just riding the coat tails of rodgers, they all owe their careers to him. they have managed to build and coach a team that is just complete shit without him. imagine if we actually had coaches that could teach and improve players each and every year

[oldbutnotdeadyet]

May be a wee bit early to hang up the cleats, but you guys are most likely spot on. As always, I will watch all the games and hope to be pleasantly surprised.

[Just Jeff]

TT, M3 and the rest of the front office and coaching staff are just riding the coat tails of rodgers, they all owe their careers to him.
+1

[Joemailman]

I guess 2010 was all a mirage. I guess Capers didn't put together a defense that was #2 in points allowed. I guess they didn't win the NFC Title in Chicago even though Rodgers, by his admission, played like shit. I guess they weren't dominating the Steelers in the Super Bowl until Woodson and Shields went out on successive plays. I guess New England should can Belichick because he hasn't won a Super Bowl in a while. I guess he'd be nothing without Brady. Tomlin and Payton? They haven't won a Super Bowl in awhile. I guess they suck. I guess if you're not winning the Super Bowl at least every other year you're a fat fuck. Or a dunderdummy. Or something. I guess.

[Just Jeff]

I guess 2010 was all a mirage. I guess Capers didn't put together a defense that was #2 in points allowed. I guess they didn't win the NFC Title in Chicago even though Rodgers, by his admission, played like shit. I guess they weren't dominating the Steelers in the Super Bowl until Woodson and Shields went out on successive plays. I guess New England should can Belichick because he hasn't won a Super Bowl in a while. I guess he'd be nothing without Brady. Tomlin and Payton? They haven't won a Super Bowl in awhile. I guess they suck. I guess if you're not winning the Super Bowl at least every other year you're a fat fuck. Or a dunderdummy. Or something. I guess.

Don't forget superbowls one and two. Those show that we should stay the course too.

[Striker]

It's preseason, the games don't count, this and that... blah, blah, blah.

Unfortunately, I can tell from the first 2 defensive series of our first preseason game, that our defensive front 6/7 are going to be misused even worse than they were the past few years - and our team is sunk as a consequence.

- Daniels and Jones were playing DE in the base - no way should they be wasted like that.

- The nickel defense looked exactly the same, i.e. 2-4 and pathetic.

- Hawk and Jones are still among the worst ILB's in the game, never come off the field, and have resumed their familiar roles as drag-down tacklers.

They didn't fix that disasterous nickel, and they applied the wrong fixes to the base. Those are the alignments we're going to see all year - it's a disaster.

I had hoped MM's involvement on defense would right the ship - I guess his involvement consisted of getting coffee and donuts for Dunderdummy and the Spraypainted Hair Band.

I can't begin to fathom how MM has allowed this nonsense to continue; but, amazingly, we're in the same mess we've been in the past few years.

THE DEFENSE IS STILL A MESS!!!! :bang:

Yep, those first two defensive series shows just how bad this team will be. I bet it will be the exact same scheme they'll use with Seattle as well.

They should just go all out these next 3 preseason games. Placate the fans now. Roll out the full playbook.

[Joemailman]

Don't forget superbowls one and two. Those show that we should stay the course too.

Not sure what point you're trying to make. There was no staying of the course after winning the first 2 Super Bowls. Lombardi left and the Packers had a series of unsuccessful Coach/GM's for the next 25 years. Bengston, Devine, Starr, Gregg, Infante. What it showed is that it's rally hard to find people who can win championships in the NFL. If you have them, don't undervalue them because a replacement as good isn't easy.

[Rutnstrut]

I guess 2010 was all a mirage. I guess Capers didn't put together a defense that was #2 in points allowed. I guess they didn't win the NFC Title in Chicago even though Rodgers, by his admission, played like shit. I guess they weren't dominating the Steelers in the Super Bowl until Woodson and Shields went out on successive plays. I guess New England should can Belichick because he hasn't won a Super Bowl in a while. I guess he'd be nothing without Brady. Tomlin and Payton? They haven't won a Super Bowl in awhile. I guess they suck. I guess if you're not winning the Super Bowl at least every other year you're a fat fuck. Or a dunderdummy. Or something. I guess.

Just in case you didn't know it's 2014 not 2010 anymore. There's a saying that even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while, 2010 was Dom's nut. That all said, I am not totally ready to write the D off based on one pre season game. I will say however, I have ZERO confidence in Capers, so yet another failing defensive season would not surprise me.

[Rutnstrut]

Not sure what point you're trying to make. There was no staying of the course after winning the first 2 Super Bowls. Lombardi left and the Packers had a series of unsuccessful Coach/GM's for the next 25 years. Bengston, Devine, Starr, Gregg, Infante. What it showed is that it's rally hard to find people who can win championships in the NFL. If you have them, don't undervalue them because a replacement as good isn't easy.

He's saying that reveling in past glory, does not win games in the present.

[pittstang5]

I've said this in another thread - I'm concerned about the run D, specifically the D-line. They don't have any run stuffers. Jolly and Pickett are gone. Daniels, Raji and Jones, to me, are pass rushers. The rest of the D-lineman are hurt (Worthy and Guion) or are rookies or one year players. It usually takes the young guys a year or two to do anything in this defense.

I haven't watched the game yet, but I want to pay attention to the starting D-line and see how they hold up. From the sound of it, they didn't do well.

[pbmax]

so, we're back to what i've brought up before. TT, M3 and the rest of the front office and coaching staff are just riding the coat tails of rodgers, they all owe their careers to him. they have managed to build and coach a team that is just complete shit without him. imagine if we actually had coaches that could teach and improve players each and every year

Who drafted him?

Who coached him?

Tell me again how Rodgers carried the team versus the Bears in the NFCCG? Tell me again how Rodgers carried the team versus the Eagles the week before. Did he drag the team kicking and screaming into the playoffs in 09?

He is the best player on the team. He's not Jesus.

[pbmax]

He's saying that reveling in past glory, does not win games in the present.

If you could replace McCarthy and Thompson with a pair of former Super Bowl winners in the same position, would you feel good about that?

Sean Payton? Tony Dungy? Mike Tomlin? Pete Carroll?

John Schneider? Ozzie Newsome? Scott Pioli?

Hoo Boy. Look at all that certainty. You hire any two of those and nothing will stop you from winning three in a row.

[Just Jeff]

Who drafted him?

Who coached him?

Tell me again how Rodgers carried the team versus the Bears in the NFCCG? Tell me again how Rodgers carried the team versus the Eagles the week before. Did he drag the team kicking and screaming into the playoffs in 09?

He is the best player on the team. He's not Jesus.

I in reality have more respect for our front office that I publicly admit, but this argument rings hollow to me. AR fell to us. NO QUESTION. Its no more of an argument at how great of a GM Bellicheat is because of genius of jumping up and grabbing Brady. As to who coached him. Its the same guy that doesn't take any of the blame for AR holding on to the ball too long of going for the long pass rather than checking down. MM didn't make AR the great QB he is. AR is a great QB. If you want to judge AR as being the result of coaching then you can't not blame the coaching for the things that AR doesn't do well. No one here called him Jesus, but he might be Abraham or Moses. Second on the team would be Jude at best.

[pbmax]

I in reality have more respect for our front office that I publicly admit, but this argument rings hollow to me. AR fell to us. NO QUESTION. Its no more of an argument at how great of a GM Bellicheat is because of genius of jumping up and grabbing Brady. As to who coached him. Its the same guy that doesn't take any of the blame for AR holding on to the ball too long of going for the long pass rather than checking down. MM didn't make AR the great QB he is. AR is a great QB. If you want to judge AR as being the result of coaching then you can't not blame the coaching for the things that AR doesn't do well. No one here called him Jesus, but he might be Abraham or Moses. Second on the team would be Jude at best.

Unless you have the #1 pick every year, almost ALL picks fall to you. If he was such a lock, he would have been gone before the 24th pick. This argument is perhaps the worst I have seen on the board.

"The Packers don't grey credit for selecting the good player, 23 other teams get blame for passing on him."

[wist43]

The reason for alarm is where the players are lining up and how they are being used.

We have a roster full of 4-3 players, what we saw last night was Dunderdummy taking these 4-3 players and misusing them in the 3-4. Which is exactly what I would expect from Dunderdummy.

The next thing that should have sank every Packer fan's heart was seeing them line up in that static 2-4 nickel. For the same reasons we shouldn't be using guys like Daniels and Jones in the base, we should not be using the 2-4 in the nickel, but should be using the 3-3.

Nothing has changed except some of the personnel - but with the same problems we had last year, i.e. players not fitting the scheme, but for other reasons. Daniels and Jones are going to wear down if they are asked to play DE in the base - while at the same time reducing their effectiveness as nickel rushers; Hawk and B. Jones are not going to suddenly become better players; Capers can't fathom trying to defend 3 wides with base personnel; on and on...

Nothing has changed - all we've accomplished is that we've gotten smaller.

The only chance this defense has is if our offense can consistently stake them to a big lead, and we don't need to defend both the run and pass. Unfortunately, the road blocks in front of us, i.e. SF, Seattle, Car., etc, are all very physical, tough teams... not likely that we will jump out to big leads on those teams.

I think we have the talent to contend for a title - but our defense simply won't hold up if Capers plays them the way it looks like he is going to. If properly used, I think our defense can be championship calibur - in spite of the fact that we have terrible ILB's.

Our defensive line should be a strength - instead, it is a huge weakness b/c of how Capers uses them.

[pbmax]

One of your criticisms is that Capers play too little base. How exactly will that small amount of base wear down two young players like Jones and Daniels?

Jones was drafted, at least in part, because he was a prototype for a 3 down DE in a 3-4.

Daniels might be their best lineman. He has to play. He doesn't have to play all the snaps, but easily must play most of them.

Who do you prefer in base?

[wist43]

One of your criticisms is that Capers play too little base. How exactly will that small amount of base wear down two young players like Jones and Daniels?

Jones was drafted, at least in part, because he was a prototype for a 3 down DE in a 3-4.

Daniels might be their best lineman. He has to play. He doesn't have to play all the snaps, but easily must play most of them.

Who do you prefer in base?

Guion, Boyd, Worthy, Thorton - and any other slug who might be capable of eating up blocks.

Save Daniels and Jones for nickel pass rush. Why in heavens name would you want to see them wasted as DE's in the base??

Your obtuse observation about "young players like Jones and Daniels" harkens back to a reporter asking MM about burning Raji out, and his response was, "... he's a young man". Well, Raji did burn out and his effectiveness went in the tank.

I think the entire Packers organization is tone deaf when it comes to playing defense. From player procurement to the coaching... that '10 SB really was a fart in the wind.

[wist43]

One of your criticisms is that Capers play too little base. How exactly will that small amount of base wear down two young players like Jones and Daniels?

Jones was drafted, at least in part, because he was a prototype for a 3 down DE in a 3-4.

Daniels might be their best lineman. He has to play. He doesn't have to play all the snaps, but easily must play most of them.

Who do you prefer in base?

About the base...

Yes, I wanted them to play more base - and I want them to play more base now, but not with our pass rush personnel.

We had Pickett and Jolly last year - perfect for running more base, but Dunderdummy ran very little base. Now that those players are gone, and we really don't have the ideal personnel to run a 3-4 base - now??, we're going to run more base??

If we run it with guys like Guion and Boyd eating up snaps at DE... then yes, I'm all for running more of it; but if Dunderdummy is going to waste our nickel pass rushers at DE?? - that's a death sentence for this defense and for this season.

[Joemailman]

Guion, Boyd, Worthy, Thorton - and any other slug who might be capable of eating up blocks.

Save Daniels and Jones for nickel pass rush. Why in heavens name would you want to see them wasted as DE's in the base??

Your obtuse observation about "young players like Jones and Daniels" harkens back to a reporter asking MM about burning Raji out, and his response was, "... he's a young man". Well, Raji did burn out and his effectiveness went in the tank.

I think the entire Packers organization is tone deaf when it comes to playing defense. From player procurement to the coaching... that '10 SB really was a fart in the wind.

Do you really think guys like Guion, Boyd, Worthy, and Thorton won't get snaps in base? I don't think they're going to ask Daniels and Jones to play every down. You are making conclusions from a couple series in the first preseason game. Teams tend not to reveal their strategy for the regular season in preseason games. It's perfectly understandable that they want to see what Daniels and Jones can do in base. Those guys haven't played base much so far in their careers. The first 2 preseason games are for trying things out, not for revealing what your regular season strategy will be.

[pittstang5]

Guion, Boyd, Worthy, Thorton - and any other slug who might be capable of eating up blocks.

Save Daniels and Jones for nickel pass rush. Why in heavens name would you want to see them wasted as DE's in the base??

Your obtuse observation about "young players like Jones and Daniels" harkens back to a reporter asking MM about burning Raji out, and his response was, "... he's a young man". Well, Raji did burn out and his effectiveness went in the tank.

I think the entire Packers organization is tone deaf when it comes to playing defense. From player procurement to the coaching... that '10 SB really was a fart in the wind.

I agree with your concerns Wist about Daniels and Jones in Base. But, that's all they have. Guion and Worthy haven't practiced. I honestly think Guion is going to be gone soon and Worthy will probably end up on Pup. Boyd has one year under his belt and is still a project. Thornton is a rookie and rookie D-lineman don't fair well right away in this system. The rest are no names. Jones and Daniels almost have to start by default. I don't like it and I think we are going to get gashed in the run game....again....this year.

[pbmax]

Of all the people mentioned, the last one I am convinced of is Worthy for base. But as pitt mentioned, 2 of your preferred 4 haven't practiced yet.

[texaspackerbacker]

I don't believe it! Some people are still wishing for the big immobile clods in the D-Line? Bad enough we still have Raji there. Datone and Daniels, in rotation with Boyd is exactly what we need at DE in the base - people who actually have the capability to move a step or two and make a tackle on a running play, not to even mention the ability to rush the passer. I campaigned the whole off season to get rid of the pork and get people who could tackle in there. The D will be better for it.

I still have hope for Worthy - as at least a backup and an eventual replacement to Raji, but at some point, he needs to start playing like he did in college.

[Patler]

Since when did all d-lineman become part time laborers? This crap about "too many snaps" and saving so-and-so for certain situations is mostly just that, crap. Yes, there are pass-rush specialists, and a guy like Pickett probably needed to be monitored after he got into his 30's, but Daniels, Jones, and others should be able to play significant snaps.

As for Raji, I suspect he would be the same player today even if he had played 150 snaps less each year until now.

[Guiness]

IMO there is one shinning light at this point, and some of you will probably put a hex on my house for mentioning this.

Through family night and pre-season game 1, no one yet added to IR yet. :pack::glug::cow:

[Rutnstrut]

IMO there is one shinning light at this point, and some of you will probably put a hex on my house for mentioning this.

Through family night and pre-season game 1, no one yet added to IR yet. :pack::glug::cow:

Had to say it didn't you?

[Guiness]

Had to say it didn't you?

Impossible to ignore

[Just Jeff]

Unless you have the #1 pick every year, almost ALL picks fall to you. If he was such a lock, he would have been gone before the 24th pick. This argument is perhaps the worst I have seen on the board.

"The Packers don't grey credit for selecting the good player, 23 other teams get blame for passing on him."

If a guy projects as a 10 pick and he gets picked 9-11, or some such, he didn't fall, he got picked where he was projected. AR fell like a rock, no question. It was almost embarrassing at the time. In retrospect, of course, it was criminal. Almost every draft prognosticator had AR going before #24. Most had him as a top 10 pick. Almost ALL picks seldom fall. By the very nature of the number of draftees, there are as many that fall as there are "reaches". It is inarguable that if ANY GM in the NFL had ANY idea that AR would be as good as he is, clearly he doesn't fall to #24. Given that he was projected to go WELL before 24, if TT thought that AR was "his guy", he would have been a fool to not have traded up to get him, so that any one of the MANY other teams that passed on him, would not steal his gem. So to agree with Red, the pick was luck and the resultant careers of TT, MM and MM have largely been too.

[Patler]

Ridiculous. TT could have just as easily passed on Rodgers just as the other teams before him did, and pick more for need. Was it an ingenious pick? No, but it was a good, solid GM decision. He saw an opportunity that all those teams before him did not, and he took it. Trading up to get Matthews was also a good, solid GM decision, just as was trading down and being able to get the likes of Nelson.

How many of you who now claim it to be nothing but luck were the ones blasting TT for wasting a pick on a QB and that fall chuckling over AR's poor play initially? How many of you predicted Brohm was going to push AR away and become the starter? There were an awful lot at the time, most will not now admit it. Instead, now it is simply blind luck that TT got AR.

The fact that he was predicted to go high is meaningless for two reasons. It is not uncommon for the predictions to be wrong, and it is very common for the highly regarded players to fail miserably anyway.

If you "blame" TT for taking Hawk, you have to also credit him for taking AR. In reality, he is responsible for both.

[Cheesehead Craig]

If a guy projects as a 10 pick and he gets picked 9-11, or some such, he didn't fall, he got picked where he was projected. AR fell like a rock, no question. It was almost embarrassing at the time. In retrospect, of course, it was criminal. Almost every draft prognosticator had AR going before #24. Most had him as a top 10 pick. Almost ALL picks seldom fall. By the very nature of the number of draftees, there are as many that fall as there are "reaches". It is inarguable that if ANY GM in the NFL had ANY idea that AR would be as good as he is, clearly he doesn't fall to #24. Given that he was projected to go WELL before 24, if TT thought that AR was "his guy", he would have been a fool to not have traded up to get him, so that any one of the MANY other teams that passed on him, would not steal his gem. So to agree with Red, the pick was luck and the resultant careers of TT, MM and MM have largely been too.

TT made a solid call on waiting as Rodgers fell. After Tampa passed on him at #5, there were not any teams that had a definite need that year for a QB. The only other team that had him marked for the first round and needed a QB was Washington and they picked at #25 and they had Jason Campbell rated higher anyways from the stories back then. TT didn't have to trade up as he correctly determined that nobody else would take him once TB passed. There wasn't a need to trade up.

[sharpe1027]

If a guy projects as a 10 pick and he gets picked 9-11, or some such, he didn't fall, he got picked where he was projected. AR fell like a rock, no question. It was almost embarrassing at the time. In retrospect, of course, it was criminal. Almost every draft prognosticator had AR going before #24. Most had him as a top 10 pick. Almost ALL picks seldom fall. By the very nature of the number of draftees, there are as many that fall as there are "reaches". It is inarguable that if ANY GM in the NFL had ANY idea that AR would be as good as he is, clearly he doesn't fall to #24. Given that he was projected to go WELL before 24, if TT thought that AR was "his guy", he would have been a fool to not have traded up to get him, so that any one of the MANY other teams that passed on him, would not steal his gem. So to agree with Red, the pick was luck and the resultant careers of TT, MM and MM have largely been too.
Basically, the conclusion I reach from your logic is that if you pick based up the majority of so called experts you are absolved of credit for a pick. Since it should work both ways, Hawk was simply an unlucky pick.

[Joemailman]

Ridiculous. TT could have just as easily passed on Rodgers just as the other teams before him did, and pick more for need. Was it an ingenious pick? No, but it was a good, solid GM decision. He saw an opportunity that all those teams before him did not, and he took it. Trading up to get Matthews was also a good, solid GM decision, just as was trading down and being able to get the likes of Nelson.

How many of you who now claim it to be nothing but luck were the ones blasting TT for wasting a pick on a QB and that fall chuckling over AR's poor play initially? How many of you predicted Brohm was going to push AR away and become the starter? There were an awful lot at the time, most will not now admit it. Instead, now it is simply blind luck that TT got AR.

The fact that he was predicted to go high is meaningless for two reasons. It is not uncommon for the predictions to be wrong, and it is very common for the highly regarded players to fail miserably anyway.

If you "blame" TT for taking Hawk, you have to also credit him for taking AR. In reality, he is responsible for both.

I agree with everything you said. The thing I would add is that in 2004 the Packers were 5th in the NFL in scoring offense and 23rd in scoring defense. Favre was still playing at a pretty high level. If TT had picked the best defensive player available, it would have been seen as a perfectly logical move. I'll bet most here (or was it still JSO?) were in favor of that idea.

As for those who think that MM deserves no credit for the career Rodgers has had, think back to the way Rodgers looked in 2005 under Sherman. He was overwhelmed. If he had had to play as a rookie, it would have been a disaster. There have been a number of rookie QB's who have come into the NFL in recent years able to play quite well as a rookie. Rodgers wasn't one of them. MM has had a lot to do with the success of Rodgers, and Rodgers would be the first to say so.

[bobblehead]

well, we all know M3 won't fire anyone for anything. so capers isn't going anywhere while fat mike is here

and the best news of all, we're trying to give the fat retard a new long term deal

so, get use to capers and his fucked up seive of a D. at least we have a high powered high scoring offense that can usually put up more points then the D allows

can you imagine our team without rodgers, we wouldn't win a fucking game. oh right, we don't have to imagine, we saw just how shitty this team was when a-rod was out

so, we're back to what i've brought up before. TT, M3 and the rest of the front office and coaching staff are just riding the coat tails of rodgers, they all owe their careers to him. they have managed to build and coach a team that is just complete shit without him. imagine if we actually had coaches that could teach and improve players each and every year

What happened to you man? You used to have somewhat insightful readable posts, but now days you sound more like rbaloha than Red.

[bobblehead]

Just in case you didn't know it's 2014 not 2010 anymore. There's a saying that even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while, 2010 was Dom's nut. That all said, I am not totally ready to write the D off based on one pre season game. I will say however, I have ZERO confidence in Capers, so yet another failing defensive season would not surprise me.

Blind squirrels find nuts, not win superbowls. I don't believe in luck of that caliber.

[bobblehead]

Who drafted him?

Who coached him?

Tell me again how Rodgers carried the team versus the Bears in the NFCCG? Tell me again how Rodgers carried the team versus the Eagles the week before. Did he drag the team kicking and screaming into the playoffs in 09?

He is the best player on the team. He's not Jesus.

Funny enough the same fans that take credit from TT and MM are the ones who were pissed at him for cutting brent loose in favor of Rodgers.

[bobblehead]

I in reality have more respect for our front office that I publicly admit, but this argument rings hollow to me. AR fell to us. NO QUESTION. Its no more of an argument at how great of a GM Bellicheat is because of genius of jumping up and grabbing Brady. As to who coached him. Its the same guy that doesn't take any of the blame for AR holding on to the ball too long of going for the long pass rather than checking down. MM didn't make AR the great QB he is. AR is a great QB. If you want to judge AR as being the result of coaching then you can't not blame the coaching for the things that AR doesn't do well. No one here called him Jesus, but he might be Abraham or Moses. Second on the team would be Jude at best.

Again, same fans were pissed at TT for not grabbing a player to help old brent make one last run at it. HUGE mistake wasting brents final years by drafting his successor.

[wist43]

It isn't that I'm calling for "big clods" on the line... what needs to happen is the scheme needs to be designed around the players and the skills they bring to the table - not drafting a bunch of "good football players" and then throw them in anywhere.

Why not play corners at NT, and NT's at corner??

TT drafted a bunch of 4-3 DT's - and Capers misuses them.

TT brings in some fat guys like Raji, Jolly, and Pickett - and Capers misuses them.

We're supposed to be a 3-4 team, with the emphasis on 4; but TT doesn't much care about LB's it would seem, as he is fine having slugs like Hawk and Jones in his starting lineup - and Capers misuses them anyway!!!

I'm an advocate of the 3-4 base, and 3-3 nickel... TT should be targetting players to fit that scheme, but since he's not, Capers should be doctoring his scheme to accomodate the players TT is bringing in; but Capers isn't holding up his end of the bargain either.

Bottom line is, TT and Capers are both fucking up the defense... and have been for quite a while now. I have exactly zero faith that Capers will do anything other than completely fuck up what he's been given - he needs to retire.

Since nothing has changed except personnel - we can only hope that this year will be the straw that broke the camel's back, and TT finally fires Capers after the season ends. We have the overall talent to contend for a title, but I don't like our chances b/c of the mess that Capers has made of the defense.

[wist43]

The game has changed so much, that it is logical that schemes will change... but regardless of what scheme you run, you need to acquire players that can perform certain duties. Like I said, you can't put a NT at corner - and then when he fails complain that he didn't do his job.

There is a complete disconnect between TT and Capers, and it shows up on the field. TT talked about "body type" and acquiring players that fit the 3-4... at least that's what he talked about 5 years ago.

TT also said that he wasn't that concerned about finding players that could perform within a certain scheme, but rather he was simply more concerned with finding "good football players"... well, I'm sure that D. Jones, Perry, Daniels, Worthy, et al, are fine players when you ask them to perform to their strengths, but asking them to 2-gap, or eat up blocks, or take on double teams?? You might as well ask them to go out and cover Calvin Johnson.

The problem isn't the players - the problem is Capers.

[denverYooper]

Blind squirrels find nuts, not win superbowls. I don't believe in luck of that caliber.

QFT

[Zool]

This type of thread is normally an offseason deal. Glad to see it carrying over into the preseason.

[ThunderDan]

I was camping with the family this weekend and wasn't able to watch the game live. I got home and went to Packerrats and this is the first thread I saw. I thought fuck TENN gashed us and the D played like shit. I didn't know the score.

Then I turned on the game that I DVRed.

First series the D holds TENN to a 3-and-out. Second series should have been a 3-and-out but a holding call on a DB on a pass that wasn't really catchable. So TENN gets a new set of downs and the D doesn't give up a first down and TENN has to punt again.

Adams muffs the punt and TENN got it back. The next play TENN rumbles in from 13 yards out where either Brad Jones or one of the safeties blew an assignment and cost the Packers a TD.

Can't say I saw anything that will dampen my enthusiasm for the season. In fact our running game looked good. We ran for 145 yards with no deep passing threat for 4+ yards per carry.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Starks is a very good NFL back, and he's #2. Offense is absolutely stacked.

[Patler]

well, we all know M3 won't fire anyone for anything. so capers isn't going anywhere while fat mike is here


Bob Sanders, Carl Hairston, Robert Nunn, Kurt Schottenheimer, Lionel Washington. Rock Gullickson, Ty Knott, Mike Stock and Chad Morton would probably disagree! :lol:

It was just a couple years ago, before the 2014 off-season firings, that there was an article critical of MM for not showing the loyalty to his staff that most NFL head coaches do. It suggested that he would have a hard time filling openings on his staff because of it. It also suggested that some who had resigned did so under pressure, and we saw more of that this year in addition to the firings.

[Teamcheez1]

I was camping with the family this weekend and wasn't able to watch the game live. I got home and went to Packerrats and this is the first thread I saw. I thought fuck TENN gashed us and the D played like shit. I didn't know the score.

Then I turned on the game that I DVRed.

First series the D holds TENN to a 3-and-out. Second series should have been a 3-and-out but a holding call on a DB on a pass that wasn't really catchable. So TENN gets a new set of downs and the D doesn't give up a first down and TENN has to punt again.

Adams muffs the punt and TENN got it back. The next play TENN rumbles in from 13 yards out where either Brad Jones or one of the safeties blew an assignment and cost the Packers a TD.

Can't say I saw anything that will dampen my enthusiasm for the season. In fact our running game looked good. We ran for 145 yards with no deep passing threat for 4+ yards per carry.


Agreed. I am always amazed at the psychic ability on this forum after seeing the defense play 10 minutes in the first preseason game.

[pbmax]

If a guy projects as a 10 pick and he gets picked 9-11, or some such, he didn't fall, he got picked where he was projected. AR fell like a rock, no question. It was almost embarrassing at the time. In retrospect, of course, it was criminal. Almost every draft prognosticator had AR going before #24. Most had him as a top 10 pick. Almost ALL picks seldom fall. By the very nature of the number of draftees, there are as many that fall as there are "reaches". It is inarguable that if ANY GM in the NFL had ANY idea that AR would be as good as he is, clearly he doesn't fall to #24. Given that he was projected to go WELL before 24, if TT thought that AR was "his guy", he would have been a fool to not have traded up to get him, so that any one of the MANY other teams that passed on him, would not steal his gem. So to agree with Red, the pick was luck and the resultant careers of TT, MM and MM have largely been too.

The entire logic of this line of thinking is premised on there being a correct or consensus ranking of draft players among teams and that we have access to it.

We don't and there is no consensus. And that doesn't even get into the question of need versus talent.

[ThunderDan]

The entire logic of this line of thinking is premised on there being a correct or consensus ranking of draft players among teams and that we have access to it.

We don't and there is no consensus. And that doesn't even get into the question of need versus talent.

Here, here. I second the motion.

Fuck, you draft a player that falls and it is luck. You draft the player you are supposed to at 5 and you suck even if he has started for your team for 8 years because you should have known to draft a flier at that spot who is now All-Pro.

[wist43]

Agreed. I am always amazed at the psychic ability on this forum after seeing the defense play 10 minutes in the first preseason game.

It isn't how anyone played - it's the scheme that Capers put on the field... it was identical in every way to last year.

People talk about vanilla, and to be sure the preseason is all about vanilla, but what we saw were the base alignments out of which game plans are conjured. What we saw was the exact same base alignments as he ran last year - only with different personnel. That is what is disheartening.

I think we'll be better this year... Peppers makes us better, a healthy Matthews makes us better, maybe the mess in the back end will get cleaned up a bit - terrible, horrible safety play; and our ILB's are both below average - I think we have enough talent to make a playoff run, but Capers puts a damper on those prospects.

[Zool]

It isn't how anyone played - it's the scheme that Capers put on the field... it was identical in every way to last year.

People talk about vanilla, and to be sure the preseason is all about vanilla, but what we saw were the base alignments out of which game plans are conjured. What we saw was the exact same base alignments as he ran last year - only with different personnel. That is what is disheartening.

I think we'll be better this year... Peppers makes us better, a healthy Matthews makes us better, maybe the mess in the back end will get cleaned up a bit - terrible, horrible safety play; and our ILB's are both below average - I think we have enough talent to make a playoff run, but Capers puts a damper on those prospects.

I'm starting to think that the DL ideas Capers is going with, are related to ILB play. They tried to use space pluggers and let Hawk and Jones fill. Hawk had a good season last year, but he's not going to be making any pro-bowls soon. Jones is Jones. Maybe the switch to quicker penetrating DL is indicative of the ILB play. Gotta have playmakers somewhere in the middle.

[Just Jeff]

The entire logic of this line of thinking is premised on there being a correct or consensus ranking of draft players among teams and that we have access to it.

We don't and there is no consensus. And that doesn't even get into the question of need versus talent.

There is no agreeable consensus, correct or otherwise on much of anything, yet every day the price of Apple stock, a Toyota Camry and the relative value of a NFL draftee is there. Wikipedia advances the model that the consensus of ideas, provides a superior outcome to any one idea. If you are saying that consensus does not exist, I really don't know how to even respond. If you are saying that consensus requires agreement, then I have a different definition of consensus than you.

[3irty1]

I'll tell you what, it looks like our team is absolutely stacked at the armchair management positions. I'm optimistic that we could see career levels of logical fallacy out of our veteran leadership just as our emerging stars hit their prime. Just look at these levels of extreme arrogance and aggressive speculation after just one preseason game and its obvious this forum is poised for a deep run.

[Just Jeff]

I'll tell you what, it looks like our team is absolutely stacked at the armchair management positions. I'm optimistic that we could see career levels of logical fallacy out of our veteran leadership just as our emerging stars hit their prime. Just look at these levels of extreme arrogance and aggressive speculation after just one preseason game and its obvious this forum is poised for a deep run.

Would you suggest that we all stop posting until at least the bye week?

[Cheesehead Craig]

Would you suggest that we all stop posting until at least the bye week?

Do we have a bye week on this forum?

[Bossman641]

My wife thanks all of you. 3 series of vanilla first string D and we already know the season is a failure. I guess I won't spend my Sundays watching football. :whaa:

[TravisWilliams23]

There is no agreeable consensus, correct or otherwise on much of anything, yet every day the price of Apple stock, a Toyota Camry and the relative value of a NFL draftee is there. Wikipedia advances the model that the consensus of ideas, provides a superior outcome to any one idea. If you are saying that consensus does not exist, I really don't know how to even respond. If you are saying that consensus requires agreement, then I have a different definition of consensus than you.

Jeff, this one has me confused. Here's the Mirriam-Webster definition of CONSENSUS: con·sen·sus noun, often attributive \kən-ˈsen(t)-səs\
: a general agreement about something : an idea or opinion that is shared by all the people in a group

I lost track of what there is/was a consensus on. That the Rodgers pick was luck or that TT followed the consensus that he was indeed a great prospect who luckily fell to GB?

I guess my point is that for something to be a consensus, you HAVE TO AGREE on whatever. Yes?

[ThunderDan]

There is no agreeable consensus, correct or otherwise on much of anything, yet every day the price of Apple stock, a Toyota Camry and the relative value of a NFL draftee is there. Wikipedia advances the model that the consensus of ideas, provides a superior outcome to any one idea. If you are saying that consensus does not exist, I really don't know how to even respond. If you are saying that consensus requires agreement, then I have a different definition of consensus than you.

Your comments make no sense.

Apple makes millions of transactions a year, Toyota Camry cars are sold every day, used and new, there is plenty of data that supports a price per share or car.

All there is for a college player are his measurable and game tape. That information may or may not correctly predict the value of that player in the NFL.

While there might be a consensus of opinion in the NFL it is just that. Each individual team has its own group that come to its own consensus. That group can come up with a completely different choice than another team's group's consensus. All we ever see is the ESPN and SI draft boards by employees that weren't/aren't good enough to be hired by an NFL team to help with their draft.

32 teams, 32 different draft boards. Obviously that must be the case or ARod wouldn't have fallen so far because everyone would have had the same draft board.

[Just Jeff]

Jeff, this one has me confused. Here's the Mirriam-Webster definition of CONSENSUS: con·sen·sus noun, often attributive \kən-ˈsen(t)-səs\
: a general agreement about something : an idea or opinion that is shared by all the people in a group

I lost track of what there is/was a consensus on. That the Rodgers pick was luck or that TT followed the consensus that he was indeed a great prospect who luckily fell to GB?

I guess my point is that for something to be a consensus, you HAVE TO AGREE on whatever. Yes?

Consensus doesn't mean that everyone thought AR would be picked at 24. Consensus means that there was a general agreement. That general agreement could mean that plus or minus x, it could mean with a margin of error of x, it could mean with a x% confidence interval, it could mean the mean, that could mean the mode, that could mean the median, that could mean any number of possible measurements of consensus. My point was that NONE of those had AR at 24.

[wist43]

I'm starting to think that the DL ideas Capers is going with, are related to ILB play. They tried to use space pluggers and let Hawk and Jones fill. Hawk had a good season last year, but he's not going to be making any pro-bowls soon. Jones is Jones. Maybe the switch to quicker penetrating DL is indicative of the ILB play. Gotta have playmakers somewhere in the middle.

I think the biggest problem we have at ILB is the lack of anyone with instincts at the position. Watch old film of Ray Lewis - even after he couldn't move anymore - he always knew exactly where to be, what hole to fill, if it was a dump off, etc... and when he arrived, he arrived with bad intentions.

Forget the ability to dominate physically - I'll take AJ Hawk with Ray Lewis instincts all day long at ILB; but alas, Hawk is terminally slow to diagnose, and only average in coverage - makes a lot of tackles downfield, but rarely if ever makes a play.

As for the DL going to a more penetrating version of the 3-4, I'm perfectly okay with that, but not with our high-end draft choices that can be difference makers in the nickel - when we are going to be playing nickel most of the time anyway.

Use the base time as a breather for the pass rushers, and save them the wear and tear that comes with trying to stack 320 T's, FBs, TE, pulling G's, etc.

[TravisWilliams23]

Consensus doesn't mean that everyone thought AR would be picked at 24. Consensus means that there was a general agreement. That general agreement could mean that plus or minus x, it could mean with a margin of error of x, it could mean with a x% confidence interval, it could mean the mean, that could mean the mode, that could mean the median, that could mean any number of possible measurements of consensus. My point was that NONE of those had AR at 24.

That is absolutely true! But.....when he DID free-fall, ONLY TT out of the first 24 GM's had the smarts to pull the trigger on him.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I think the biggest problem we have at ILB is the lack of anyone with instincts at the position.

You've been posting this since the Gerald Ford administration.

I was going to say that Hawk has instincts, but now glancing up at your post I see you beat me to it. Hawk is all-around decent player, not a liability in any respect.

[wist43]

You've been posting this since the Gerald Ford administration.

I was going to say that Hawk has instincts, but now glancing up at your post I see you beat me to it. Hawk is all-around decent player, not a liability in any respect.

Hawk is always slow to react - it's why he ends up making so many tackles 5 yds downfield, instead of playing downhill and filling the hole.

[hoosier]

Consensus doesn't mean that everyone thought AR would be picked at 24. Consensus means that there was a general agreement. That general agreement could mean that plus or minus x, it could mean with a margin of error of x, it could mean with a x% confidence interval, it could mean the mean, that could mean the mode, that could mean the median, that could mean any number of possible measurements of consensus. My point was that NONE of those had AR at 24.

I think the original point, Max's I think, was that you seem to be conflating two different bodies of knowledge: those of the league's GMs and scouts, and those of the professional and armchair prognosticators. Granted, the consensus in the second group was that ARod was a top-10 pick. Did the teams picking from number 11 to 23 simply pass up a top ten talent in favor of a bigger need? Maybe. Or did they pass him up because their evaluations were different from the pundits? We will never know, and what is more we will never know whether Minnesota (who took Troy Williamson with the 7th pick and Erasmus James with the 18th) ruled out taking Rodgers for the same reason as Oakland, who took Fabian Jackson with #23. It's possible that Minnesota evaluated Rodgers as a D1 but drafted for need while Oakland evaluated Rodgers as second-round talent.

Your Apple/Toyota analogy is flawed. Those are prices that are set by the give-and-take of the market (Toyota lowers its prices when the sales flow diminishes), whereas in draft prognostications there is no feedback mechanism to orient the process, except insofar as armchair pundits are influenced by paid pundits.

[MadtownPacker]

Would you suggest that we all stop posting until at least the bye week?
I would suggest you chill or maybe Zool will give you the attention you seek.

[red]

Bob Sanders, Carl Hairston, Robert Nunn, Kurt Schottenheimer, Lionel Washington. Rock Gullickson, Ty Knott, Mike Stock and Chad Morton would probably disagree! :lol:

It was just a couple years ago, before the 2014 off-season firings, that there was an article critical of MM for not showing the loyalty to his staff that most NFL head coaches do. It suggested that he would have a hard time filling openings on his staff because of it. It also suggested that some who had resigned did so under pressure, and we saw more of that this year in addition to the firings.
Oh shut up

[vince]

This type of thread is normally an offseason deal. Glad to see it carrying over into the preseason.
The sky falls on beaten dead horses for boys who cry wolf over spilt milk all year long.

[bobblehead]

There is no agreeable consensus, correct or otherwise on much of anything, yet every day the price of Apple stock, a Toyota Camry and the relative value of a NFL draftee is there. Wikipedia advances the model that the consensus of ideas, provides a superior outcome to any one idea. If you are saying that consensus does not exist, I really don't know how to even respond. If you are saying that consensus requires agreement, then I have a different definition of consensus than you.

The consensus in Las Vegas in June of 2007 was that a 3 BR house with a small garage was worth 500k. I disagreed. I am much better off than the consensus.

[bobblehead]

TT really got lucky in that draft. In the second round the best safety in the draft fell to us as well.

[wist43]

TT really got lucky in that draft. In the second round the best safety in the draft fell to us as well.

The argument back then was 'win now'.

Tomorrow is yesterday man... you never know how a completely unproven anything is going to perform. Favre was on the decline, and we had a good core - the argument to make a run for a title is not a hard one to make.

As it is, Collins was complete garbage his first couple of years, and did nothing to help the team while Favre was still here. Rodgers did nothing to help that team, and Collins did nothing to help that team.

The fact that we would win a SB down the line with those 2 players playing integral roles is a long shot compared to having a title within sight, and saying, 'nah... let's take the long road now'.

2010 is proving to be the proverbial 'fart in the wind'... Collins got hurt shortly thereafter, he could just as easily been hurt before 2010 - and so it goes.

There is merit to both arguments, but I tend to side with taking your shot when you're within reach of a title.

[ThunderDan]

The argument back then was 'win now'.

Tomorrow is yesterday man... you never know how a completely unproven anything is going to perform. Favre was on the decline, and we had a good core - the argument to make a run for a title is not a hard one to make.

As it is, Collins was complete garbage his first couple of years, and did nothing to help the team while Favre was still here. Rodgers did nothing to help that team, and Collins did nothing to help that team.

The fact that we would win a SB down the line with those 2 players playing integral roles is a long shot compared to having a title within sight, and saying, 'nah... let's take the long road now'.

2010 is proving to be the proverbial 'fart in the wind'... Collins got hurt shortly thereafter, he could just as easily been hurt before 2010 - and so it goes.

There is merit to both arguments, but I tend to side with taking your shot when you're within reach of a title.

Sorry but in 2004 here are BF's numbers:

64.1% Completion %, 4,088 yards, 30TDs, 17 INTs, 92.4 QB Rating
Statistically one of his best season.

GB went 10-6 that year after starting 1-4. We lost at home in the playoffs to the Vikings.

[Patler]

The argument back then was 'win now'.

Tomorrow is yesterday man... you never know how a completely unproven anything is going to perform. Favre was on the decline, and we had a good core - the argument to make a run for a title is not a hard one to make.

As it is, Collins was complete garbage his first couple of years, and did nothing to help the team while Favre was still here. Rodgers did nothing to help that team, and Collins did nothing to help that team.

The fact that we would win a SB down the line with those 2 players playing integral roles is a long shot compared to having a title within sight, and saying, 'nah... let's take the long road now'.

2010 is proving to be the proverbial 'fart in the wind'... Collins got hurt shortly thereafter, he could just as easily been hurt before 2010 - and so it goes.

There is merit to both arguments, but I tend to side with taking your shot when you're within reach of a title.

Not sure what your point is about Collins. Safety was a huge need with the departure of the accused. Collins came in and started from day 1. He wasn't a completed product, couldn't catch to save his life, but tackled willingly and mostly well and had the speed that covered up a lot of his mistakes and those of others. Collins seemed to be a pick for need that fits a "win now" approach. Certainly he was a better player in 2010 than he was in 2005, aren't most rookies better in their 4th or 5th years than in their 1st? Could TT have drafted someone that would fill a bigger need than start every game he played?

[wist43]

Not sure what your point is about Collins. Safety was a huge need with the departure of the accused. Collins came in and started from day 1. He wasn't a completed product, couldn't catch to save his life, but tackled willingly and mostly well and had the speed that covered up a lot of his mistakes and those of others. Collins seemed to be a pick for need that fits a "win now" approach. Certainly he was a better player in 2010 than he was in 2005, aren't most rookies better in their 4th or 5th years than in their 1st? Could TT have drafted someone that would fill a bigger need than start every game he played?

The point is - it's all well and good to draft and develop, but when you're on the doorstep of a title, you don't throw a rookie into the deep end and hope he can swim... you sign a stop-gap vet to hopefully get you where you need to go, and in a perfect world you win a title with the vet, get rid of him when the rookie is ready, and hopefully win some more.

TT's shortcoming is the fact that he doesn't believe in filling holes for today - it's all about tomorrow... always tomorrow. Signing Peppers was wildly out of character - and signing Peppers upgrades our personnel to the point of making us contenders.

If he doesn't sign Pickett and Woodson - even with the enormous luck we had in '10 - we don't win that title, and without signing Peppers this year, I'd say we'd have no chance this year.

TT should have signed a veteran Safety back then, just like he signed Peppers this year. Our cap situation was stickier, but the cap is always an obstacle.

[bobblehead]

The argument back then was 'win now'.

Tomorrow is yesterday man... you never know how a completely unproven anything is going to perform. Favre was on the decline, and we had a good core - the argument to make a run for a title is not a hard one to make.

As it is, Collins was complete garbage his first couple of years, and did nothing to help the team while Favre was still here. Rodgers did nothing to help that team, and Collins did nothing to help that team.

The fact that we would win a SB down the line with those 2 players playing integral roles is a long shot compared to having a title within sight, and saying, 'nah... let's take the long road now'.

2010 is proving to be the proverbial 'fart in the wind'... Collins got hurt shortly thereafter, he could just as easily been hurt before 2010 - and so it goes.

There is merit to both arguments, but I tend to side with taking your shot when you're within reach of a title.

Still using the "its all luck when you get it right, you suck when injuries cost you your team" argument eh?

[bobblehead]

The point is - it's all well and good to draft and develop, but when you're on the doorstep of a title, you don't throw a rookie into the deep end and hope he can swim... you sign a stop-gap vet to hopefully get you where you need to go, and in a perfect world you win a title with the vet, get rid of him when the rookie is ready, and hopefully win some more.

TT's shortcoming is the fact that he doesn't believe in filling holes for today - it's all about tomorrow... always tomorrow. Signing Peppers was wildly out of character - and signing Peppers upgrades our personnel to the point of making us contenders.

If he doesn't sign Pickett and Woodson - even with the enormous luck we had in '10 - we don't win that title, and without signing Peppers this year, I'd say we'd have no chance this year.

TT should have signed a veteran Safety back then, just like he signed Peppers this year. Our cap situation was stickier, but the cap is always an obstacle.

But that very vet threw a game ending pick (effectively) on the doorstep to the superbowl. Its not like we sucked balls because of the team we put around him. It was the furthest a BF led team had gone since we lost in the SB. By the argument of results matter, TT fielded a better team around the old man than anyone had in a decade....or was it just luck?

[pbmax]

I would like to point out that while Collins didn't become COLLINS™ until 2009/10, he wasn't a basket case for the previous three years. He could tackle and cover. He did not seem to have hands with flexible fingers for catching though.

[Pugger]

My wife thanks all of you. 3 series of vanilla first string D and we already know the season is a failure. I guess I won't spend my Sundays watching football. :whaa:

No shit. I suppose we should forfeit the season so we can get the #1 pick seeing the season is now toast.

/thread

[Patler]

The point is - it's all well and good to draft and develop, but when you're on the doorstep of a title, you don't throw a rookie into the deep end and hope he can swim... you sign a stop-gap vet to hopefully get you where you need to go, and in a perfect world you win a title with the vet, get rid of him when the rookie is ready, and hopefully win some more.

TT's shortcoming is the fact that he doesn't believe in filling holes for today - it's all about tomorrow... always tomorrow. Signing Peppers was wildly out of character - and signing Peppers upgrades our personnel to the point of making us contenders.


Someone like Earl Little, an 8 year vet who had 52 starts the 3 previous seasons? or Arturo Freeman, a five year vet with 29 starts? Maybe Matt O'Dwyer who had 105 NFL starts? or Adrian Klemm, a five year vet that NE used as their 6th O-lineman and tried to keep from leaving? All signed the year he drafted Collins.

[wist43]

The point of the thread is that Capers changed exactly nothing in terms of scheme - since the scheme is unsound - that should be disheartening to every Packer fan.

Ignorance is bliss though I suppose - go team go ;)

[Patler]

Ignorance is making conclusions about anything on the basis of one preseason game, especially when starters either didn't play, or played all of about 10 snaps.
The first preseason game, and much of all preseason games, is to evaluate players in various aspects. It is much less about practicing scheme. Good evaluators put players in situations to assess skills/abilities. The situations they are put in may or may not be related to the schemes that will be played during the season.

If you only knew half of what you pretend to know, a valuable discussion could be had. ;-)

[wist43]

Here's a question for you guys...

If you're an opposing Offensive Coordinator, and you want to play ball control and keep Rodgers and Co. on the sideline - how do you do that?? What is going to be the core of your gameplan??

The answer is simple - run 3 wides, at a minimum, all game long - why?? Because you know exactly how Dom Capers will counter... he'll counter with his mind-numbing 2-4. Once Capers is in the 2-4, as an offensive coordinator, you can now do whatever you want, b/c you know exactly how Capers will react to everything you do. You know he will blitz the corner from the slot when you go to 4 wides, so you can entice him to do that, and attack the weakness; you can run the ball down our throats b/c Capers will only have 4 guys in the box, and you know the OLB's are going to rush upfield; on and on...

Our defense stinks - first and foremost - b/c of Capers scheme, and how he misuses everyone. As for the players - we don't even really know what we have on defense b/c everyone is being misused. So if the players are being misused, how can they be to blame??

I put 80% of the blame on Capers, 10% on MM, and 10% on TT... but in terms of the ultimate responsibility, that lies with TT. TT and Capers are not on the same page, but TT doesn't seem to care.

[wist43]

Ignorance is making conclusions about anything on the basis of one preseason game, especially when starters either didn't play, or played all of about 10 snaps.
The first preseason game, and much of all preseason games, is to evaluate players in various aspects. It is much less about practicing scheme. Good evaluators put players in situations to assess skills/abilities. The situations they are put in may or may not be related to the schemes that will be played during the season.

If you only knew half of what you pretend to know, a valuable discussion could be had. ;-)

The scheme is unsound - the scheme didn't change - something wrong with that picture?? Just b/c they run vanilla everything in the preseason, and you're not going to see "live bullets", that doesn't change the fact that the scheme Capers is using is the equivalent of firing blanks.

The Packers brain trust obviously evaluated the situation, absolved Capers and the coaching, and laid all of the blame on the players - that was exactly the wrong conclusion to reach. Their solution?? Get rid of some of the players, and keep trying to squeeze square pegs into round holes.

In some ways, it's been amazing to watch TT and Capers trying to work together. TT has his philosophy about player procurement, and doesn't much care about how things work on the field; and Capers couldn't care less about the players - NT's playing cornerback?? Sure, why not ;)

Seriously, I can't believe that TT hasn't fired Capers long ago... or at least forced MM to fire him.

We have half of a very good team. The other half is a complete mess, but no one at 1265 seems to care.

[Pugger]

The scheme is unsound - the scheme didn't change - something wrong with that picture?? Just b/c they run vanilla everything in the preseason, and you're not going to see "live bullets", that doesn't change the fact that the scheme Capers is using is the equivalent of firing blanks.

The Packers brain trust obviously evaluated the situation, absolved Capers and the coaching, and laid all of the blame on the players - that was exactly the wrong conclusion to reach. Their solution?? Get rid of some of the players, and keep trying to squeeze square pegs into round holes.

In some ways, it's been amazing to watch TT and Capers trying to work together. TT has his philosophy about player procurement, and doesn't much care about how things work on the field; and Capers couldn't care less about the players - NT's playing cornerback?? Sure, why not ;)

Seriously, I can't believe that TT hasn't fired Capers long ago... or at least forced MM to fire him.

We have half of a very good team. The other half is a complete mess, but no one at 1265 seems to care.

How do you know the scheme hasn't changed? Because of what we witnessed in one preseason game? :lol:

[wist43]

How do you know the scheme hasn't changed? Because of what we witnessed in one preseason game? :lol:

Yeah... b/c our base alignments were the same as last year. They didn't change. Did you miss that when you were watching the game??

They'll probably not be running a "jumbo nickel" (thank God) - I can't imagine that Capers hasn't learned that lesson, but the 2-4 is very unsound the way that Capers uses it. He's still running it, and the personnel are largely the same - so I don't know why you guys expect that things will be substantially different??

Peppers helps, and a healthy everyone can only help... but, we simply don't have the personnel to run a 3-4/2-4. Given our personnel, if we're not going to go back to a 4-3, we can get away with running a 3-4 base by employing some 4-3 principles; but nothing can be done to help the nickel alignment if Capers insists on benching defensive linemen in favor of either/or Hawk and Brad Jones.

I think we'll wear down as the season goes along, and we lose guys to injury... Capers won't adjust, and we'll likely have a repeat of last year. If everyone stays healthy, we can be better than last year, but that isn't saying much - we were terrible last year.

[ThunderDan]

When the Packers run the 2-4 and they have Neal/Perry - D Jones - Daniels - Peppers in the game that is going to be a bigger front than a lot of 4-3 teams that take a LB out for their nickel.

That's what I don't get about Wist's complaints. Our 2-4 is really an inverted 4-2 nickel. With Mathews in the game that 2-4 does become smaller and can cause problems in the run game.

Hopefully you run the 2-4 and use Mathews as one of the 2 ILBs were he can either drop into coverage or become the blitzer in that package. In fact this wouldn't surprise me and set up a lot of zone blitzes where Peppers or Perry drop off and Matthews and a CB/S can be the 3rd and 4th rushers and overload one side of the line.

[wist43]

When the Packers run the 2-4 and they have Neal/Perry - D Jones - Daniels - Peppers in the game that is going to be a bigger front than a lot of 4-3 teams that take a LB out for their nickel.

That's what I don't get about Wist's complaints. Our 2-4 is really an inverted 4-2 nickel. With Mathews in the game that 2-4 does become smaller and can cause problems in the run game.

Hopefully you run the 2-4 and use Mathews as one of the 2 ILBs were he can either drop into coverage or become the blitzer in that package. In fact this wouldn't surprise me and set up a lot of zone blitzes where Peppers or Perry drop off and Matthews and a CB/S can be the 3rd and 4th rushers and overload one side of the line.

I've laid the logic out many times - which should be obvious on the field, but most of you can't seem to see it for some reason. Capers obviously doesn't get it...

1. The first problem with it is run defense.

The 2-4 is supposed to tilted toward dealing with the pass, but Capers runs it as his base much of the time. All an opposing OC need do is put 3 wides on the field, and he knows he's going to get a 2-4 with 4 men in the box - easy to run on.

Capers way of dealing with the run was to go to the "jumbo nickel" with Raji and Pickett at DT - it was a fundamentally flawed approach b/c if you're in the nickel to begin with to deal with the pass, now you're putting 2 non-passing rushing fat guys on the line - and still not sound against the run b/c you only have 4 men in the box. And the 4 men we have in the box are not SF quality defenders... there is no Justin Smith, Navarro Bowman, or Patrick Willis clogging up the middle in our 2-4 nickel. Instead we have Brad Jones and AJ Hawk.

Not surprisingly, we routinely get run over out of this alignment.

2. The second major problem with the way Capers runs his 2-4 is personnel.

TT has not invested in LB's, he has invested in DL. Everyone can clamour all they want about Perry being an OLB - he is not an OLB, he is a situational 4-3 DE, and I expect that as soon as his contract is up, he'll be gone to a 4-3 team.

Furthermore, 2 of the LB's that are on the field in the 2-4, Brad Jones and AJ Hawk, are below average NFL starters - and most teams would be looking to replace them - not the Packers though... Capers instead gameplans to ensure that these 2 substandard players are on the field 24/7 - while the talent that TT invested in is standing on the sideline.

To make better use of the personnel TT has brought in, we should be running a 3-3 nickel. It gets the DL on the field, gives us more size and flexibility up front, and gets one of the 2 ILB slugs mercifully sent to the sidelines.

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

Our defense has been putrid for 3 years running now - and the defense we run is the 2-4. You guys blame the players, and never see fault with how they are being used.

Like I said, Capers puts a NT out at corner, and you guys never bat an eyelash... the fault is obviously the NT's for not getting the job done.

[ThunderDan]

I've laid the logic out many times - which should be obvious on the field, but most of you can't seem to see it for some reason. Capers obviously doesn't get it...

1. The first problem with it is run defense.

The 2-4 is supposed to tilted toward dealing with the pass, but Capers runs it as his base much of the time. All an opposing OC need do is put 3 wides on the field, and he knows he's going to get a 2-4 with 4 men in the box - easy to run on.

Capers way of dealing with the run was to go to the "jumbo nickel" with Raji and Pickett at DT - it was a fundamentally flawed approach b/c if you're in the nickel to begin with to deal with the pass, now you're putting 2 non-passing rushing fat guys on the line - and still not sound against the run b/c you only have 4 men in the box. And the 4 men we have in the box are not SF quality defenders... there is no Justin Smith, Navarro Bowman, or Patrick Willis clogging up the middle in our 2-4 nickel. Instead we have Brad Jones and AJ Hawk.

Not surprisingly, we routinely get run over out of this alignment.

2. The second major problem with the way Capers runs his 2-4 is personnel.

TT has not invested in LB's, he has invested in DL. Everyone can clamour all they want about Perry being an OLB - he is not an OLB, he is a situational 4-3 DE, and I expect that as soon as his contract is up, he'll be gone to a 4-3 team.

Furthermore, 2 of the LB's that are on the field in the 2-4, Brad Jones and AJ Hawk, are below average NFL starters - and most teams would be looking to replace them - not the Packers though... Capers instead gameplans to ensure that these 2 substandard players are on the field 24/7 - while the talent that TT invested in is standing on the sideline.

To make better use of the personnel TT has brought in, we should be running a 3-3 nickel. It gets the DL on the field, gives us more size and flexibility up front, and gets one of the 2 ILB slugs mercifully sent to the sidelines.

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

Our defense has been putrid for 3 years running now - and the defense we run is the 2-4. You guys blame the players, and never see fault with how they are being used.

Like I said, Capers puts a NT out at corner, and you guys never bat an eyelash... the fault is obviously the NT's for not getting the job done.

So what set should we be in with a 3 WR set? If I am playing either a 4-3 or a 3-4 team and they stay in base I am happy to have Cobb against a LB across the middle. Nelson and Adams run go routes. I'll throw 20 times in a row if I know that is the look I am going to get.

As to the personnel issues, I think with Hayward back and Hyde playing safety the Packers are better equipped to play base against a 3 WR set. While not ideal if you can have Shields playing man on the outside, let Hyde cover the third WR, and have Clinton-Dix play center field. You have a lot better chance then what we had last year.

As for a NT dropping out and covering, I remember Raji picking off a pass and scoring a TD in the NFC Championship game to seal the deal. :-)

[bobblehead]

Wist, I am with you mostly, but you don't concede certain points. One is that if a team puts 3 wide on the field they are taking one blocker away from their running game. We should still be able to deal with the run in mid distance situations. My gripe is when we match up on 2nd and goal from the 2. You don't need CB's to cover zones/flats. You need to stay big in these kind of situations to avoid getting run over. 3rd and 7 or more however....we should be able to stop the run in the 2-4. Now, based on what we have seen so far, we can't be sure what will happen in the regular season. I am not necessarily optimistic, but I am not suicidal either.

One of the big problems with our 2-4 was that we had crap opposite Clay. Perry is perfectly capable of playing that role, but he hasn't. He isn't miscast, he simply lacks an attribute. Not sure if its talent, desire, brains, or my guess, health...whatever, but he isn't doing what he is easily strong enough and fast enough to accomplish. Neal did do it, but then Mathews was hurt. Hawk stinks on ice when it comes to taking on a blocker, and Jones isn't much better which exposes the problem even more. Honestly though, in the 2-4, the 2 DL and the OLB have to be stout enough that Jones/Hawk don't have to defeat anyone other than a FB or TE. To date they haven't been, and that's not usually a schematic problem (except in shorter yardage in the red zone).

[pbmax]

I don't think Perry is the issue with run D in the 2-4. His health is an issue, but not specific to run D.

I think wist is right that the middle of the field hasn't been adequately patrolled by Hawk and Jones. However, Bishop was on the field for the worst run D in a generation in 2011, so its not all Jones.

I think Perry's lack of key ingredient is evidenced is his very fitful pass rush. From his normal left side, its all bull rush and nothing else.

[3irty1]

If you were to implement a 3-3 the issue is what to do with Matthews. 1) he's a DE whose rushing the passer off the edge in which case you've still got Jones and Hawk playing Will and Mike. 2) He's a Will or Sam in which case he's taking hook zone and gap assignments. or 3) He's playing a cat linebacker role like Capers did with Jason Taylor in which case the only real difference between the 2-4, 3-3, and even 4-2 formations is the job titles and hand placement of your edge rushers <- all look exactly the same right after the snap.

If you want Jones or Hawk off the field you're talking about #2. The reasoning being that Hawk+Jones are so inadequate that its worth sacrificing the best skill (edge rushing) of your best player to displace one of them. IMO all of this is a terrible plan. Tossing out the beefy version of the 2-4 and using the 3-4 instead in those situations is all the change I really wanted. No reason to throw the baby out with the bath water.

[wist43]

If you were to implement a 3-3 the issue is what to do with Matthews. 1) he's a DE whose rushing the passer off the edge in which case you've still got Jones and Hawk playing Will and Mike. 2) He's a Will or Sam in which case he's taking hook zone and gap assignments. or 3) He's playing a cat linebacker role like Capers did with Jason Taylor in which case the only real difference between the 2-4, 3-3, and even 4-2 formations is the job titles and hand placement of your edge rushers <- all look exactly the same right after the snap.

If you want Jones or Hawk off the field you're talking about #2. The reasoning being that Hawk+Jones are so inadequate that its worth sacrificing the best skill (edge rushing) of your best player to displace one of them. IMO all of this is a terrible plan. Tossing out the beefy version of the 2-4 and using the 3-4 instead in those situations is all the change I really wanted. No reason to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Good gravy you guys drive me nuts!!! :bang:

The first, and I would hope most obvious, difference between a 2-4 and 3-3 is that in the 2-4 you only have 2 defensive linemen on the field with their hand on the ground; while in the 3-3 you have 3.

It makes my head hurt to think you guys cannot wrap your minds around that basic fact.

As for the 3 LBs... do whatever you want with them. Who says Matthews has to rush from the right side, left side, or the middle... or drop in zone coverage, or man up on the RB flaring out of the backfield.

I'd move Matthews all over the place; I'd maximize my defensive line talent by having more of them on the field together; and I'd minimize my ILB weakness by removing one of those slugs from the lineup.

I wouldn't strictly play man behind it... in fact, I'd play a lot more zone than Capers does. You can still play man on the outside, but if you decide to drop a guy like Peppers or Perry - don't man them up on a back or TE, let them play a short zone, and God help any ball carrier or receiver that wanders into their area.

You guys are all defenders of Capers and his 2-4, but you seem incapable of grasping the fact that our defense sucks, and that Capers plays more 2-4 than any other team in the league - by far. You never make the causation connection.

Half the teams in the league don't even run the 2-4 at all - ever!! Only San Francisco (who has a huge talent advantage), Arizona (also a talent advantage), and Green Bay run the 2-4 any appreciable amount of the time. SF and Arizona in the 40% range, and Green Bay 65%.

Green Bay is an the lone 2-4 outlier in the league. If we were getting great results, the rest of the league would copycat, but that isn't happening - b/c we are not getting great results; quite the opposite - our defense sucks.

[vince]

Specialized Passing Defenses are the New Base Defenses Throughout the League (http://www.si.com/nfl/2014/08/12/NFL-nickel-defense-slot-cornerbacks-chris-harris-bradley-roby-jimmie-ward#)

[Rutnstrut]

So imo there are two major problems. 1- Capers refuses to use the talent he has the way they should be, he keeps trying to pound a square peg into a round hole. 2- They are so freaking worried about changing things because Mathews might have to adapt. If a defensive change would benefit the team as a whole and Clay doesn't fit, get rid of him. Some of you used to say the team shouldn't make changes/exceptions for Favre. The same thing goes for any other player, even if it is Mathews.

[3irty1]

You're being intentionally thick. If you stop running the beefy 2-4 on first down are replace it with the 3-4 you're no longer running the 2-4 80% of the time now are you?

Ever wonder why so many college DE's become 3-4 OLB? Because its the 4-3 job that most resembles the responsibilities of a 3-4 OLB. They are primarily pass rushers and many OLB put their hand down regularly to play DE (see Wake, Ware, Suggs, etc) so when I say the only difference is a job title and a hand on the ground that's what I'm talking about. Since this is the most important defensive position in the NFL, you can get cute with Clay on occasion but to get your moneys worth he's going to need to be putting pressure on the QB off the edge.

To turn a 4-3 into a 4-2 you take a LB off the field.
To turn a 4-3 into a 3-3 you take your NT off the field.
To turn a 3-4 into a 3-3 you take your NT off the field and put one of your OLB in a 3 pt stance.
To turn a 3-4 into a 2-4 you take your NT off the field.

The 3-3 isn't more common than the 2-4 even though its used by both 3-4 and 4-3 teams, but seriously go get a look at tell me where you want Clay to play. If its anywhere off the edge then we'll agree to disagree about that. If you think him putting his hand on the ground solves all our defensive problems we'll agree to disagree about that instead.

[Just Jeff]

You're being intentionally thick. If you stop running the beefy 2-4 on first down are replace it with the 3-4 you're no longer running the 2-4 80% of the time now are you?

Ever wonder why so many college DE's become 3-4 OLB? Because its the 4-3 job that most resembles the responsibilities of a 3-4 OLB. They are primarily pass rushers and many OLB put their hand down regularly to play DE (see Wake, Ware, Suggs, etc) so when I say the only difference is a job title and a hand on the ground that's what I'm talking about. Since this is the most important defensive position in the NFL, you can get cute with Clay on occasion but to get your moneys worth he's going to need to be putting pressure on the QB off the edge.

To turn a 4-3 into a 4-2 you take a LB off the field.
To turn a 4-3 into a 3-3 you take your NT off the field.
To turn a 3-4 into a 3-3 you take your NT off the field and put one of your OLB in a 3 pt stance.
To turn a 3-4 into a 2-4 you take your NT off the field.

The 3-3 isn't more common than the 2-4 even though its used by both 3-4 and 4-3 teams, but seriously go get a look at tell me where you want Clay to play. If its anywhere off the edge then we'll agree to disagree about that. If you think him putting his hand on the ground solves all our defensive problems we'll agree to disagree about that instead.
You can agree the keep him on the edge and there are two edges, yes? You can also put him on the two edges, with in a three point. I can't see how that would hurt. I can see how it would help. I can also see putting him inside and having him stunt outside. I could also see him outside stunting inside. I can see lots of things to do that aren't what we've been doing. Having Clay inside would be a new look. I'm not a fan of the old look. If he reads run, I put him ahead of our existing ILB at stopping the run. If he reads pass, he could cover the short zone or matchup with a TE short. Or on a run read he could either rush up the middle or stunt outside. You got a star player (albeit for half a season on average), use him in all sorts of ways. One might work. The one we have him in now..... not so much.

[3irty1]

You can agree the keep him on the edge and there are two edges, yes? You can also put him on the two edges, with in a three point. I can't see how that would hurt. I can see how it would help. I can also see putting him inside and having him stunt outside. I could also see him outside stunting inside. I can see lots of things to do that aren't what we've been doing. Having Clay inside would be a new look. I'm not a fan of the old look. If he reads run, I put him ahead of our existing ILB at stopping the run. If he reads pass, he could cover the short zone or matchup with a TE short. Or on a run read he could either rush up the middle or stunt outside. You got a star player (albeit for half a season on average), use him in all sorts of ways. One might work. The one we have him in now..... not so much.

The one we have him in now is the one that made him a star. When he's on the field you're not happy with what you're getting out of Clay? Wow. I'm with Wist about some of the other 10 guys and just trying to show him the tradeoffs of his scheming. But if you think perennial pro bowler Clay Matthews is held back by the scheme I guess we can agree to disagree about that.

[bobblehead]

Specialized Passing Defenses are the New Base Defenses Throughout the League (http://www.si.com/nfl/2014/08/12/NFL-nickel-defense-slot-cornerbacks-chris-harris-bradley-roby-jimmie-ward#)

True, but as wist points out, nobody is using our 2-4....and getting shitty results.

[wist43]

You're being intentionally thick. If you stop running the beefy 2-4 on first down are replace it with the 3-4 you're no longer running the 2-4 80% of the time now are you?

Ever wonder why so many college DE's become 3-4 OLB? Because its the 4-3 job that most resembles the responsibilities of a 3-4 OLB. They are primarily pass rushers and many OLB put their hand down regularly to play DE (see Wake, Ware, Suggs, etc) so when I say the only difference is a job title and a hand on the ground that's what I'm talking about. Since this is the most important defensive position in the NFL, you can get cute with Clay on occasion but to get your moneys worth he's going to need to be putting pressure on the QB off the edge.

To turn a 4-3 into a 4-2 you take a LB off the field.

Usually, yes that is what a DC will do.


To turn a 4-3 into a 3-3 you take your NT off the field.

You typically won't have a NT on the field in a 4 man line - but if a 4-3 team did go to a 3-3, it would be a DL that would come off, of course.


To turn a 3-4 into a 3-3 you take your NT off the field and put one of your OLB in a 3 pt stance.

Some teams yes - but our personnel certainly don't make that a viable solution - when we go to a 3-3, we would need to replace all 3 down linemen in the base, and replace them with nickel pass rushers - defensive linemen, not linebackers; and the one of the ILB would come off the field along with the 3 defensive linemen.

This is what Baltimore has done for quite some time now - Ngata, used to stay on the field almost every snap, but age and injury are catching up with him... and of course their LB's had heretofore always been much better than ours.


To turn a 3-4 into a 2-4 you take your NT off the field.

Capers doesn't do that... certainly not in his "jumbo nickel". Capers jumbo nickel essentially had 2 NT's line up as the "2"... it killed us in more ways than 1, i.e. not only did we not stop the run with any consistency, we couldn't get any pass rush either, b/c Pickett and Raji were not there to rush the passer, they were there to clog up the middle.

As for our pass rush 2-4 nickel, with D. Jones and Daniels on the line, and Matthews and Peppers at OLB - expect that this alignment will work okay at times, but you still have those below average ILB's on the field, and the pass rush tends to be very, very static.

Given our personnel, the 3-3 is a much, much better fit.


The 3-3 isn't more common than the 2-4 even though its used by both 3-4 and 4-3 teams, but seriously go get a look at tell me where you want Clay to play. If its anywhere off the edge then we'll agree to disagree about that. If you think him putting his hand on the ground solves all our defensive problems we'll agree to disagree about that instead.

About 1/2 of the teams played at least some 2-4... most of them, no more than 10%. No one played it more than 40% of the time - except Green Bay which played it 65% of the time.

Last time I looked up alignments, the 3-3 and 4-2 were the most common nickel alignments.

[pbmax]

Having Clay inside would be a new look. I'm not a fan of the old look. If he reads run, I put him ahead of our existing ILB at stopping the run. If he reads pass, he could cover the short zone or matchup with a TE short. Or on a run read he could either rush up the middle or stunt outside. You got a star player (albeit for half a season on average), use him in all sorts of ways. One might work. The one we have him in now..... not so much.

He has done this and was doing this last year. In fact, it was one of the adjustments Capers made in 2012 to get him off the tackles he wasn't beating as regularly. It had to stop twice last year, once when he got hurt and again when every other OLB was hurt and they had only Muluma and Palmer to spell him. When he got hurt and when every other OLB was hurt and they had no one but Palmer and Mulumba to line up at OLB to spell him.

[Just Jeff]

He has done this and was doing this last year. In fact, it was one of the adjustments Capers made in 2012 to get him off the tackles he wasn't beating as regularly. It had to stop twice last year, once when he got hurt and again when every other OLB was hurt and they had only Muluma and Palmer to spell him. When he got hurt and when every other OLB was hurt and they had no one but Palmer and Mulumba to line up at OLB to spell him.

I know, I was responding to 3irty1 who said he didn't see any other role for CM3 other than OLB standing up.

[wist43]

Wist, I am with you mostly, but you don't concede certain points. One is that if a team puts 3 wide on the field they are taking one blocker away from their running game. We should still be able to deal with the run in mid distance situations. My gripe is when we match up on 2nd and goal from the 2. You don't need CB's to cover zones/flats. You need to stay big in these kind of situations to avoid getting run over. 3rd and 7 or more however....we should be able to stop the run in the 2-4. Now, based on what we have seen so far, we can't be sure what will happen in the regular season. I am not necessarily optimistic, but I am not suicidal either.

I won't concede that 3 wides automatically means pass, or that the offense is at a blocking disadvantage even against a base defense.

Play side - you're going to have the same number of blockers at the point of attack most of the time anyway. You still have a strong side/weak side, you are still going to be sending guys in motion, etc.

Just as a team lining up with 2 WR's, 2 RB's, and 1 TE isn't a slam dunk to run. Most teams are looking for more athletic, get up the seam types of TE's these days anyway - so they're always a threat in the passing game; and RB's like Forte and Gio Bernard are always a threat to catch passes.

It only makes sense to run base against their base personnel - but, when they go 3 wides, a defense needs to be able to defend that out of both the nickel and the base. The nickel response is dependent upon 1) your personnel, and what their strengths and weaknesses are; and 2) your opponent, their personnel, and their strengths, weaknesses, and tendancies.

Against most opponents, there is no reason we shouldn't be in base against 3 wides on 1st and 10 - but again, that is dependent upon the opponent and their tendancies.

By playing 2-4 70% of the time (the breakdown is about 20% base, 10% dime/other, and 70% nickel - almost all of which is 2-4), we're getting run over - the Green Bay Packers are not a good run defense team. I think we had the players to effectively stop the run, but Capers misused them in the jumbo 2-4, and now those guys are gone.


One of the big problems with our 2-4 was that we had crap opposite Clay. Perry is perfectly capable of playing that role, but he hasn't. He isn't miscast, he simply lacks an attribute. Not sure if its talent, desire, brains, or my guess, health...whatever, but he isn't doing what he is easily strong enough and fast enough to accomplish. Neal did do it, but then Mathews was hurt. Hawk stinks on ice when it comes to taking on a blocker, and Jones isn't much better which exposes the problem even more. Honestly though, in the 2-4, the 2 DL and the OLB have to be stout enough that Jones/Hawk don't have to defeat anyone other than a FB or TE. To date they haven't been, and that's not usually a schematic problem (except in shorter yardage in the red zone).

This addresses personnel - the Niners can get away with running the 2-4 40% of the time b/c their personnel are vastly superior to ours. I think we have good personnel, but they need to be used differently. We simply don't have the players to run the 2-4 - that's my point, lol...

I hate the alignment anyway, b/c if I were a DC I would see it as limiting my ability to attack with size and length in the middle of the field. I want 3 DL firing out of their stances that the OL has to deal with - I can dictate those matchups; Matthews is more often than not coming on the blitz, and you can do anything you want with the other 2.

What I don't want is for both of the other 2 to be Brad Jones and AJ Hawk. Those 2 players are a huge liability. If I'm DC, and those are the players my GM stuck me with?? I'd be looking at ways to get them off the field as much as possible.

The 2-4 has a place as a subpackage, just as the 3-3 or 4-2 do... which one a team runs is dependent upon their personnel. Most teams do not run much 2-4 at all, and about half of all the teams don't run it at all.

The 2-4 is an alignment that would be much better manned by true 3-4 personnel, namely top flight linebackers. We do not have top flight linebackers, we have Clay Matthews and a bunch of slugs.

On the other hand, the 3-3 is geared more toward teams with strong defensive linemen and hybrid players - which is what Green Bay has, e.g. we should be running more 3-3, and little if any 2-4.

[Pugger]

Yeah... b/c our base alignments were the same as last year. They didn't change. Did you miss that when you were watching the game??

They'll probably not be running a "jumbo nickel" (thank God) - I can't imagine that Capers hasn't learned that lesson, but the 2-4 is very unsound the way that Capers uses it. He's still running it, and the personnel are largely the same - so I don't know why you guys expect that things will be substantially different??

Peppers helps, and a healthy everyone can only help... but, we simply don't have the personnel to run a 3-4/2-4. Given our personnel, if we're not going to go back to a 4-3, we can get away with running a 3-4 base by employing some 4-3 principles; but nothing can be done to help the nickel alignment if Capers insists on benching defensive linemen in favor of either/or Hawk and Brad Jones.

I think we'll wear down as the season goes along, and we lose guys to injury... Capers won't adjust, and we'll likely have a repeat of last year. If everyone stays healthy, we can be better than last year, but that isn't saying much - we were terrible last year.

And we are going to show the entire world any of our changes in the first preseason game of the year? Seriously? :lol: Now, if it was all lip service and nothing is going to change in 2014 you have an argument. I suggest we wait and see how our D looks against the seachickens in week one before we decide Capers won't adjust. If he won't then he should be shown the door without haste.

[3irty1]

You admit that it seems the beefy nickel, the one with guys like Raji and Pickett, appear to be a thing of the past this season. Even if that's the only change, how are we going to manage to run the 2-4 65% of the time without running it in that situation? Those snaps make up the entire difference between us and the teams running schemes like ours when it comes to subpackage tendencies. Except the steelers who run relatively little nickel of any kind but run more base and much more dime.

Mainly though I don't feel you're recognizing the difference between OLB in a 2-4 and OLB in a 3-3. Sounds like what you really want to run is a 5-1 with the DE's standing up.

[MadScientist]

If one of the 4 in a 2-4 is Peppers, is it really different from a 3-3? If the Packers are in nickel and want to rush their best 4, Mathews and Peppers should both be rushing, so that naturally leads to a 2-4 formation.

Also in the review of the Titan's game, the papers were mentioning the Packers being in a 4-2. Was this something people here saw as well, or just dyslexic reporters?

[wist43]

And we are going to show the entire world any of our changes in the first preseason game of the year? Seriously? :lol: Now, if it was all lip service and nothing is going to change in 2014 you have an argument. I suggest we wait and see how our D looks against the seachickens in week one before we decide Capers won't adjust. If he won't then he should be shown the door without haste.

They stayed with the 2-4... no, nothing has changed except a few of the players. Pickett and Jolly are gone - both good players - and Peppers is in. He's a good player too, and he's a better fit for running a 2-4, but he's 63 years old and playing LB for the first time in his life.

The scheme doesn't fit the players - or - the players don't fit the scheme... take your pick - and that situation has not changed. 'Keep doing the same thing expecting different results'...

Keeping Capers as our DC is wasting Rodgers years... year after year - they have a way of ticking by.

[Rutnstrut]

They stayed with the 2-4... no, nothing has changed except a few of the players. Pickett and Jolly are gone - both good players - and Peppers is in. He's a good player too, and he's a better fit for running a 2-4, but he's 63 years old and playing LB for the first time in his life.

The scheme doesn't fit the players - or - the players don't fit the scheme... take your pick - and that situation has not changed. 'Keep doing the same thing expecting different results'...

Keeping Capers as our DC is wasting Rodgers years... year after year - they have a way of ticking by.

I totally agree with you, but the common reply here is they had a great D in 2010.

[Just Jeff]

I totally agree with you, but the common reply here is they had a great D in 2010.

Or "another armchair defensive cood. If you can't do better, shut up"

Or "who would you replace him with? If you can't name names, shut up"

In fairness, I would like to add that the above does not apply so much to this forum as it does to others. This seems to be a permissive, tolerant board. Other boards have a soft policy of banning people that disagree with the mod/admin.

[wist43]

If one of the 4 in a 2-4 is Peppers, is it really different from a 3-3? If the Packers are in nickel and want to rush their best 4, Mathews and Peppers should both be rushing, so that naturally leads to a 2-4 formation.

Also in the review of the Titan's game, the papers were mentioning the Packers being in a 4-2. Was this something people here saw as well, or just dyslexic reporters?

Peppers makes us better. He is a legit piece in any front six/seven. He's not what he was 5 years ago, but he is still a big, stong, fast dude. He will make us better just with his presence.

But by that same POV, 2 of the 4 are still Brad Jones and AJ Hawk. They're lower end calibur starting NFL Linebackers - so for Green Bay to play those 2, they are sitting one of their more talented defensive linemen. That's the point.

If the argument is that the 2 ILB's are to provide little or no threat of pass rush, but are needed for coverage - why have them on the field at all?? Just go to 7 DB's.

As for the 3-3, by definition you have 3 guys with their hands in the dirt - it helps generate pass rush up the middle. The way Capers does it, outside of the occassional blitz (which he is just brilliant at devising - some of his blitzes are a beautiful thing), the interior OL knows they only have to deal with the 2 DT's with an occasional T-E stunt. The outside guys can be counted on to rush upfield the majority of the time.

It makes pass protection an easier task for the offense - whereas I'm a big believer in controlling the LOS, and the center of the field. By doing so, the defense can make the offense give concessions - which can be counted upon, and a good defensive coordinator can make use of those advantages.

Any of this discussion relates to the 2-4 strictly against the pass - to deal with the run, i.e. Capers's 'jumbo nickel'?? That's a whole other can of worms, but the 3-3 would obviously increase our ability to defend the run in the nickel as well. It only makes sense to go to a 3-3.