The Defense - Again, the Defense :(

[Carolina_Packer]

Is it just me, or do Hawk and Lattimore play deeper than most inside LB's? It seems they are always 5-6 yards behind the LOS. Maybe that accounts for the "running back push" you mentioned.

I am not the x's and o's guy like many here, but I'm gonna guess they play off the LOS so much so they don't give up the middle of the field in the passing game. They were flying to the ball much better last night, and were a lot cleaner than previous weeks.

[Maxie the Taxi]

I am not the x's and o's guy like many here, but I'm gonna guess they play off the LOS so much so they don't give up the middle of the field in the passing game. They were flying to the ball much better last night, and were a lot cleaner than previous weeks.

You're probably right. That's similar to what pbmax was saying. The trouble is they seem to be in that position 90% of the time, whether it's Hawk and Lattimore or Hawk and the nickle back. I rewatched the game yesterday and there was a 3rd and 4 play for the Bears. Hawk and House (I think) were 6 yards deep. Ponder gave the ball to Asiata who was 6 yards deep. Asiata beat Hawk to the line of scrimmage (along with a lead blocker)! Hawk made a good tackle but Asiata was already two yards beyond the LOS and his momentum carried him three yards more for a first down. Hawk had no chance.

It's just frustrating to watch.

[3irty1]

Really??

That would be like saying a wife beater aint a bad guy cause he brought flowers home last night...

You guys like being abused - then think it impolite if someone doesn't agree.

Haha, I don't agree but that's a great analogy.

[Carolina_Packer]

http://theadvocate.com/sports/saints/10244391-148/the-saints-are-proof-that

Good read from the link above. I've gotten into reading about how to stop the run from the nickel, since the nickel is accounting for more and more snaps league-wide. Nice shout out to Fritz Shurmur in the article (or Fitz if you notice the typo). This article has a New Orleans slant, but still talks about the trend league-wide. I have a question. Is the difference between Nickel and Dime always the third safety in place of a linebacker? The article mentioned Big Nickel where the safety replaces a linebacker so you not only have coverage but run support. Do the Packers ever do Nickel where they take Hawk out and substitute another safety? Richardson might be good for that role if that was the case. People here have long disparaged Hawk's coverage ability, so who would you rather have on the field when you are betting on pass, but still wanting to stop the run?

[ThunderDan]

http://theadvocate.com/sports/saints/10244391-148/the-saints-are-proof-that

Good read from the link above. I've gotten into reading about how to stop the run from the nickel, since the nickel is accounting for more and more snaps league-wide. Nice shout out to Fritz Shurmur in the article (or Fitz if you notice the typo). This article has a New Orleans slant, but still talks about the trend league-wide. I have a question. Is the difference between Nickel and Dime always the third safety in place of a linebacker? The article mentioned Big Nickel where the safety replaces a linebacker so you not only have coverage but run support. Do the Packers ever do Nickel where they take Hawk out and substitute another safety? Richardson might be good for that role if that was the case. People here have long disparaged Hawk's coverage ability, so who would you rather have on the field when you are betting on pass, but still wanting to stop the run?

I think the Packers go more with the Burnett, Clinton-Dix, Hyde rotation. Hyde seems to be more CB than S to me.

[Fritz]

http://theadvocate.com/sports/saints/10244391-148/the-saints-are-proof-that

Good read from the link above. I've gotten into reading about how to stop the run from the nickel, since the nickel is accounting for more and more snaps league-wide. Nice shout out to Fritz Shurmur in the article (or Fitz if you notice the typo). This article has a New Orleans slant, but still talks about the trend league-wide. I have a question. Is the difference between Nickel and Dime always the third safety in place of a linebacker? The article mentioned Big Nickel where the safety replaces a linebacker so you not only have coverage but run support. Do the Packers ever do Nickel where they take Hawk out and substitute another safety? Richardson might be good for that role if that was the case. People here have long disparaged Hawk's coverage ability, so who would you rather have on the field when you are betting on pass, but still wanting to stop the run?

To me this might be an intriguing possibility. I'm not suggesting Richardson play linebacker, but that he play as an extra safety - but perhaps closer to the LOS. He could cover tight ends but still be around the LOS in case of a run, as in a third-and-four situation.

I wonder if this is realistic.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Do the Packers ever do Nickel where they take Hawk out and substitute another safety?

Hawk has played almost every snap this year, so not yet. I think we have the personnel to run Big Nickel. San Fran was projected to use the Big Nickel as their quasi base defense--with Jimmie Ward as the third safety. Similar to Hyde in that he's kind of a S/CB tweener.

[Carolina_Packer]

One of the most interesting things said in the article I linked in my previous post is this:

“The question is how are you deploying fronts in nickel?” Saints coach Sean Payton said. “You can get in some heavy run fronts in nickel, favorable defending the run and challenging defending the pass. It’s not just defending the nickel. It’s what’s the front and coverage you’re playing within it?”

The first thing I thought of when I read this is how Wist gives Capers a hard time about conceding the middle of the field. Would you say the Packers ran a "heavy front" (to quote Payton's term above) against the Vikings (or maybe a heavier front)?

[pbmax]

One of the most interesting things said in the article I linked in my previous post is this:

“The question is how are you deploying fronts in nickel?” Saints coach Sean Payton said. “You can get in some heavy run fronts in nickel, favorable defending the run and challenging defending the pass. It’s not just defending the nickel. It’s what’s the front and coverage you’re playing within it?”

The first thing I thought of when I read this is how Wist gives Capers a hard time about conceding the middle of the field. Would you say the Packers ran a "heavy front" (to quote Payton's term above) against the Vikings (or maybe a heavier front)?

Capers is very dependent on down and distance when determining whether to play heavy as Payton uses the term here. If the tendency is to pass, whether its 3rd and 11 or 3rd and 4, he might go six in the box in either case.

But they can go heavy, as they did against the Seachickens and the Jets. That's when you see Guion and Boyd instead of Daniels and Jones. The OLBs/DE can squeeze inside too.

One thing I read this week said the Packers, despite Peterson's absence, spent the majority of the game in Oakie, with very few 4-3 snaps.

[Carolina_Packer]

One thing I read this week said the Packers, despite Peterson's absence, spent the majority of the game in Oakie, with very few 4-3 snaps.

So basically, traditional base 3-4?

[Fritz]

I thought the Okie was the giant guys, three of them, on the line. Does GB even have three giant guys any more?

[pbmax]

I thought the Okie was the giant guys, three of them, on the line. Does GB even have three giant guys any more?

Guion is big enough to be a NT but it doesn't seem to be his best position. Jones is a 3-4 end. They still run it; Daniels is the odd fit.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Dom's unit comes though again with a dominating outing against the Panthers. I'm starting to come back around to him as the defense has been stellar.

In the last 23 quarters (since the 2nd quarter of the Jets game) the defense has given up 88 prs, that's 15.3/game.

Either way you slice it, that's good defense overy the last 6 games. That's not a mirage.

[Joemailman]

Dom's unit comes though again with a dominating outing against the Panthers. I'm starting to come back around to him as the defense has been stellar.

In the last 23 quarters (since the 2nd quarter of the Jets game) the defense has given up 88 prs, that's 15.3/game.

Either way you slice it, that's good defense overy the last 6 games. That's not a mirage.

Their secondary is as good as there is in the NFL. When the defense does a good job against the run, they can be dominant. They've sometimes been able, even when they don't stop the run, to keep the points down. However, in those cases, not being able to get off the field has kept the Packers offense off the field. The best thing is that this defense is getting better as the season goes on.

[King Friday]

Some of the young talent picked in the last few years is starting to pay off. Nick Perry is starting to look like a decent player. We have considerable depth in the secondary. If Clay can ever get back to 100%, this defense is plenty stout considering our offense...which is only going to get better as it gets colder because Lacy is going to be more effective in the elements, and I think the coaches are finally realizing they need to give Starks the ball too. That will keep both of them fresh into December.

[Fritz]

I am still concerned with the lack of stoutness on the defensive line. What will happen when a team with a good offensive line decides to run the ball through the middle? How will NASCAR help then?

[HarveyWallbangers]

I read it was used just 5 times, all in obvious passing situations on 3rd down. Carolina was 1 for 5 converting.

[Bossman641]

Don't look now but the defense is T10 in PPG allowed

[pbmax]

Don't look now but the defense is T10 in PPG allowed

SSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!

[pbmax]

NASCAR was for running QBs, not designated run plays at run down and distance.

[Carolina_Packer]

I'm encouraged by the improvement shown. Should they make the playoffs, which is currently looking very promising, I don't think the bend but don't break stuff is going to cut it. I will be highly encouraged about this team's chances this year if they can consistently stop the run, which will mean more favorable down and distance to allow them to bring pressure more successfully. If Dallas can fix their defense in one year, so can the Packers.

[3irty1]

I am still concerned with the lack of stoutness on the defensive line. What will happen when a team with a good offensive line decides to run the ball through the middle? How will NASCAR help then?

Those teams are going to get more Pyrrhic victories than actual victories. That's bringing a knife to a gun fight.

But even in those cases good safety play has made it viable to play 8 in the box when its called for. In the most obvious of the obvious of run situations, 3rd or 4th and very short, I think the defense has been a pleasant surprise. Seems like most of those have gone our way.

[denverYooper]

Don't look now but the defense is T10 in PPG allowed

And they gave up ~21 points in garbage time.

[3irty1]

Don't look now but the defense is T10 in PPG allowed

The defense has been even better than their ranking. They've played an entire game of garbage time at this point.

[Bretsky]

Don't look now but the defense is T10 in PPG allowed


Wist will be here anytime to sing the praises of Dom

[Joemailman]

Packers defense is on pace to give up just 41 passing plays of 20+ yards and 2 passing plays of 40+ yards. Last year was 61 and 8. 2011 was 71 and 10. 2010 was 44 and 8.

An improved pass rush is a factor, but I think it's mostly improved safety play.

[pbmax]

Wist will be here anytime to sing the praises of Dom

wist would like NASCAR on passing downs. He still probably not in favor of nickel even if run D has had an uptick.

[George Cumby]

Packers defense is on pace to give up just 41 passing plays of 20+ yards and 2 passing plays of 40+ yards. Last year was 61 and 8. 2011 was 71 and 10. 2010 was 44 and 8.

An improved pass rush is a factor, but I think it's mostly improved safety play.

Burnett is a different player this year. How many times did we see him in some discussion with another DB last year after giving up a big play?

I think there is something to the theory that he was trying to do too much last year/didn't trust the help/was flat out scared by his partner.

[smuggler]

Isn't this Burnie's 4th season? That was about when the light went on for Collins. If only Burnett could play the ball like Nickie the Pick.... but he's a better tackler, which is a decent consolation...

[Guiness]

Isn't this Burnie's 4th season? That was about when the light went on for Collins. If only Burnett could play the ball like Nickie the Pick.... but he's a better tackler, which is a decent consolation...

It's his 5th season. IR'd his rookie year, but played well (and played all 16 games) in years 2 and 3. Got a nice new contract. Year 4 (last year) was bad and some thought he was the second coming of Cletius Hunt

[denverYooper]

Packers defense is on pace to give up just 41 passing plays of 20+ yards and 2 passing plays of 40+ yards. Last year was 61 and 8. 2011 was 71 and 10. 2010 was 44 and 8.

An improved pass rush is a factor, but I think it's mostly improved safety play.

Ha ha! Clinton Dix!

We've hashed (Hasean'd) this out a bunch of times here, it seems but they seem to have some stability back there for the first time since Collins.

The DL + OLBs also look improved. I think the growth of a few guys, the addition of Peppers, the surprising emergence of Guion latetly, and health has helped that unit as well. So where they had leaks at all 3 levels last year, they have now have 2 of those 3 functioning competently.

[Guiness]

I'm happy with how the DL is playing, but seeing Pickett out there for the Texans made me wonder why the Pack didn't sign him when Raji went down. He looked pretty effective, and was staying on the field a lot.

Nice to see Guin playing, and I hope he holds the fort while they find out if Pennel can take over. I just don't have much faith in a guy who's been in the league for 7 years and is just now playing well. Maybe being behind the Williams Wall prevented him from getting an opportunities he needed?

[Pugger]

Packers defense is on pace to give up just 41 passing plays of 20+ yards and 2 passing plays of 40+ yards. Last year was 61 and 8. 2011 was 71 and 10. 2010 was 44 and 8.

An improved pass rush is a factor, but I think it's mostly improved safety play.

I'd say its a combination of both.

[Guiness]

I'd say its a combination of both.

It's a chicken egg question.

[gbgary]

it's the runs up the middle that seem to bother me the most. everything else I'm good with.

[wist43]

What we saw against the Bears was a microcosm of what we should have been seeing for the past 2-3 years - and with the beefier DL we had in those years we could have used them in an effective rotation depending on opponent. Against run heavy teams like SF and Minnesota? go to a heavier 3-4; against the New Englands and Denvers of the world, rotate the smaller quicker guys.

The one thing that should never be done is abandon the middle of the field and simply concede the run - which is what dunderdummy has been doing forever.

Against the Bears, dunderdummy lined up primarily in the Elephant as his base - but it was the personnel and where they were playing that made it effective. Perry was playing elephant - at least in most of the snaps I saw (I wasn't able to watch every snap unfortunately), and Matthews was playing ILB - something I've suggested several times only to have PackerRat Nation scream HERESY!!!!

I assume MM and TT sat dunderdummy down and explained the facts of defense to that idiot, and they used the bye week to adjust - should have been done 2 years ago, if not before that!!!

We'll see if this was just a 1 week fart in the wind, or if MM and TT have demanded changes and enforced the law. If the changes stick, I think we can see an improvement to at least a 10-15 defensive ranking, and that might be enough to launch us back into contender status.

I would never have thought I'd see dunderdummy forced into making the necessary adjustments, but the Chicago game has given me hope.

We'll see.

[Joemailman]

What we saw against the Bears was a microcosm of what we should have been seeing for the past 2-3 years - and with the beefier DL we had in those years we could have used them in an effective rotation depending on opponent. Against run heavy teams like SF and Minnesota? go to a heavier 3-4; against the New Englands and Denvers of the world, rotate the smaller quicker guys.

The one thing that should never be done is abandon the middle of the field and simply concede the run - which is what dunderdummy has been doing forever.

Against the Bears, dunderdummy lined up primarily in the Elephant as his base - but it was the personnel and where they were playing that made it effective. Perry was playing elephant - at least in most of the snaps I saw (I wasn't able to watch every snap unfortunately), and Matthews was playing ILB - something I've suggested several times only to have PackerRat Nation scream HERESY!!!!

I assume MM and TT sat dunderdummy down and explained the facts of defense to that idiot, and they used the bye week to adjust - should have been done 2 years ago, if not before that!!!

We'll see if this was just a 1 week fart in the wind, or if MM and TT have demanded changes and enforced the law. If the changes stick, I think we can see an improvement to at least a 10-15 defensive ranking, and that might be enough to launch us back into contender status.

I would never have thought I'd see dunderdummy forced into making the necessary adjustments, but the Chicago game has given me hope.

We'll see.

I think it goes back to MM's PC after the New Orleans game. He said " We need to tackle damn ball carrier and get him on the ground". Her sounded like he had finally had enough. Hopefully he doesn't relent because it was great seeing an ILB knocking people off their feet.

[Bossman641]

I'm not sure I see your point Wist. The Packers still played primarily nickel (they played exactly 1 snap of 3-4).

There was no great change in alignment, just moving CM3 inside and playing Perry in his spot. That's still a 2-4-5. In fact; wasn't your grand point earlier this year that, even when Peppers lines up in a 3 point stance on the line, he is still just a LB and not a DL and therefore Capers is conceding the run?

[pbmax]

What we saw against the Bears was a microcosm of what we should have been seeing for the past 2-3 years - and with the beefier DL we had in those years we could have used them in an effective rotation depending on opponent. Against run heavy teams like SF and Minnesota? go to a heavier 3-4; against the New Englands and Denvers of the world, rotate the smaller quicker guys.

The one thing that should never be done is abandon the middle of the field and simply concede the run - which is what dunderdummy has been doing forever.

Against the Bears, dunderdummy lined up primarily in the Elephant as his base - but it was the personnel and where they were playing that made it effective. Perry was playing elephant - at least in most of the snaps I saw (I wasn't able to watch every snap unfortunately), and Matthews was playing ILB - something I've suggested several times only to have PackerRat Nation scream HERESY!!!!

I assume MM and TT sat dunderdummy down and explained the facts of defense to that idiot, and they used the bye week to adjust - should have been done 2 years ago, if not before that!!!

We'll see if this was just a 1 week fart in the wind, or if MM and TT have demanded changes and enforced the law. If the changes stick, I think we can see an improvement to at least a 10-15 defensive ranking, and that might be enough to launch us back into contender status.

I would never have thought I'd see dunderdummy forced into making the necessary adjustments, but the Chicago game has given me hope.

We'll see.

They played one down of 3-4 according to McGinn and according to Wilde, Matthews was not playing the 4-3 Quad they displayed earlier this year (he labeled it abandoned).

You saw the 2-4-5 nickel in action all night. Daniels and a rotation of Boyd/Guion/Jones.

The only additional beef was Perry instead of Jones/Lattimore/Barrington.

[Zool]

They played one down of 3-4 according to McGinn and according to Wilde, Matthews was not playing the 4-3 Quad they displayed earlier this year (he labeled it abandoned).

You saw the 2-4-5 nickel in action all night. Daniels and a rotation of Boyd/Guion/Jones.

The only additional beef was Perry instead of Jones/Lattimore/Barrington.

So maybe it's not scheme at all, it's talent? That sounds like crazy talk.

[Joemailman]

So maybe it's not scheme at all, it's talent? That sounds like crazy talk.

Maybe it's not scheme or talent, but talent utilization. It seems it took them half a season to figure out that Matthews could be a better ILB than LBJ (Lattimore/Barrington/Jones).

[Carolina_Packer]

Hopefully if they stay with CM3 at ILB, it won't present a fix one thing, break another type situation. That said, fixing the run defense was of highest concern. I guess they are not as concerned about the pass rush depth, and they can be creative with how they bring pressure with CM3 just from a different place on the field.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Collingsworth said early in the game that he thought the Claymaker switch was an attempt by the Packers to get their 11 best defensive players on the field at the same time. I don't know if that was their motive, but it seemed to be the end result. I hope they continue with it and continue to perfect it.

[pbmax]

Collingsworth said early in the game that he thought the Claymaker switch was an attempt by the Packers to get their 11 best defensive players on the field at the same time. I don't know if that was their motive, but it seemed to be the end result. I hope they continue with it and continue to perfect it.

I think it was more desperation at 'backer than an ideal starting 11, but the calculus involved, Perry starting at OLB instead of Lattimore/Barrington at ILB probably makes it their best 11.

JSO's story said it was Capers idea, and Wilde said they had practiced this in camp. Which means another midseason change for McCarthy after giving the original plan a good 8 games to straighten itself out.

[George Cumby]

It really makes sense. Perry can hold point on the strong side, Peppers ain't no slouch on the other side, Captain Steady Eddie in the middle next to arguably one of the best defenders in the league.

[wist43]

It's talent and scheme - that's the point!! And it's what I've been saying all along.

I find it amazing how some of you guys try to spin this stuff - Max :roll:

Dunderdummy did play some 2-4 - note: SOME 2-4, not 24/7 2-4; and then he played it with more size and athleticism on the field, and players positioned better (as opposed to his old formula of 2 fat guy non-pass rushers; 2 upfield wingmen who rush upfield and out of the play; and 2 substandard ILB's).

Out of what he had on the field Sunday night he added odd man rushes into it, and the results were encouraging; but on base downs, he was in the Elephant more often than not early in the game when running the ball was a legitimate threat.

Substituting Perry/Neal/DJones for one of the slug ILB's has been one of my longstanding arguments. What I saw on Sunday night was a much better thought out, and logical approach to utilizing the talent available.

I would still argue that we were better positioned last year with the players we had to be a more complete defense - but that is water under the bridge, and what we have now is what we have.

It will be interesting to see if dunderdummy is forced to keep with the changes. I would imagine the gameplan we saw on Sunday night was not of his doing, but rather the result of pressure from above.

Like I said, we'll see.

[sharpe1027]

It's talent and scheme - that's the point!! And it's what I've been saying all along.

I find it amazing how some of you guys try to spin this stuff - Max :roll:

Dunderdummy did play some 2-4 - note: SOME 2-4, not 24/7 2-4; and then he played it with more size and athleticism on the field, and players positioned better (as opposed to his old formula of 2 fat guy non-pass rushers; 2 upfield wingmen who rush upfield and out of the play; and 2 substandard ILB's).


Well, 2 down linemen is 2 down linemen, otherwise why have any designation at all?? Just call it a bunch of guys on defense - defense!!

[wist43]

Well, 2 down linemen is 2 down linemen, otherwise why have any designation at all?? Just call it a bunch of guys on defense - defense!!

Sounds familiar ;)

[Bretsky]

I think it was more desperation at 'backer than an ideal starting 11, but the calculus involved, Perry starting at OLB instead of Lattimore/Barrington at ILB probably makes it their best 11.

JSO's story said it was Capers idea, and Wilde said they had practiced this in camp. Which means another midseason change for McCarthy after giving the original plan a good 8 games to straighten itself out.


Perhaps this is something Dom has wanted to do for a while; I'm surprised everybody is on the domderdummy wagon. I think this move was Domgenius and he should be getting a ton of credit for this. It's no secret MM doesn't exactly embrace change easily.

[pbmax]

I agree trading the healthy version of Perry for Lattimore/Barrinton was a talent upgrade. Not as good as a D lineman with his hand in the dirt of course, but better none-the-less ....

However, the question still being begged by this alignment: can Matthews play ILB when the 49ers send Iupati at him? McGinn noted Matthews ran around a few blocks (which he can do better than most because he might be The Flash). Baranczyk noted his footwork was all over the place (again, less of an issue if you have his takeoff speed). So an evaluation won't be finished until teams get to scout him and run right at him.

The bonus, regardless, is that he will help Hawk immensely.

Also noted by the GBPG, Capers, after having his lineman hold gaps against the Bears in the first game, had them moving and stunting this game. That helps Boyd who also has a quick takeoff.

[pbmax]

Perhaps this is something Dom has wanted to do for a while; I'm surprised everybody is on the domderdummy wagon. I think this move was Domgenius and he should be getting a ton of credit for this. It's no secret MM doesn't exactly embrace change easily.


Well, before we send him a cake, let's be honest and recognize that M3 will always try to pick up and defend his guys. The postmortems after the season might tell us more about the actual genesis of the idea. We have bandied about the idea of moving Matthews inside on this board before, so I can see it being something launched in the offseason more easily than a idea born of panic. I do think panic helped launch the idea into the game plan for the Bears after the bye week though.

Also to repeat myself, I think M3's stubbornness in this area is a strength overall. There is a reason his teams don't run in emotional hills and valleys every week and why young players (and the team) get better as the season progresses. McCarthy has a pretty steady hand on the (Joe) Tiller.

[Joemailman]

Perhaps this is something Dom has wanted to do for a while; I'm surprised everybody is on the domderdummy wagon. I think this move was Domgenius and he should be getting a ton of credit for this. It's no secret MM doesn't exactly embrace change easily.

McCarthy sounded pretty exasperated after the New Orleans game, and I suspect he let the defensive coaches know the status quo wasn't acceptable. His comment " We need to tackle the damn ball carrier and get him on the ground. That's what we'll be focused on" was, I think an insistence things had to change. Capers may have come up with the plan, (that's his job) but I don't think McCarthy needed to be dragged kicking and screaming to accept a change. I think he was insisting on it.

[Carolina_Packer]

However, the question still being begged by this alignment: can Matthews play ILB when the 49ers send Iupati at him? McGinn noted Matthews ran around a few blocks (which he can do better than most because he might be The Flash). Baranczyk noted his footwork was all over the place (again, less of an issue if you have his takeoff speed). So an evaluation won't be finished until teams get to scout him and run right at him.

It's one thing when you're up big on a struggling team and they have to pass more than run to try and come back. What does it look like when you are in a close game and the other team is still running the ball through the middle of the field?

The Packers formula for winning for the most part has been to get up big on offense and get the catch-up version of the other team's offense. The two close games that the Packers eventually won by comeback were vs. the Jets and @Miami. Of the games that they've lost, in only one did the defense outplay the offense (@Lions). In the other two losses, @Seattle and @New Orleans, the defense couldn't stop the run, and got hit for big plays, and the offense struggled with consistency.

It seems like it's either really good or really bad. At 6-3, they are in a decent position. It's just interesting to note the trends of the wins and losses.

[Joemailman]

It's one thing when you're up big on a struggling team and they have to pass more than run to try and come back. What does it look like when you are in a close game and the other team is still running the ball through the middle of the field?

It seems like it's either really good or really bad. At 6-3, they are in a decent position. It's just interesting to note the trends of the wins and losses.

It's been a strange season. 6 wins by an average of 21 points. 3 losses by an average of 18. Games coming up with Philly and New England will be a test of whether the defense can play well enough to make this team a Super Bowl contender.

[pbmax]

It's one thing when you're up big on a struggling team and they have to pass more than run to try and come back. What does it look like when you are in a close game and the other team is still running the ball through the middle of the field?

The Packers formula for winning for the most part has been to get up big on offense and get the catch-up version of the other team's offense. The two close games that the Packers eventually won by comeback were vs. the Jets and @Miami. Of the games that they've lost, in only one did the defense outplay the offense (@Lions). In the other two losses, @Seattle and @New Orleans, the defense couldn't stop the run, and got hit for big plays, and the offense struggled with consistency.

It seems like it's either really good or really bad. At 6-3, they are in a decent position. It's just interesting to note the trends of the wins and losses.

The run D was a big problem in both games you highlight (Sea, NO) but I am not sure the run defense will setup a win (maybe Detroit?) this year. However, they just need to be mediocre if the Offense can figure out tough defenses and get points on the board (SEA, Det) or keep the QB healthy (NO).

So I still say the pass blocking by the O line is more important that run Defense rank right now. They pass block, the O will help the D's run defense more than the Packers can shore it up this year.

[3irty1]

The only thing new about this is that Matthews didn't suck. We worked him at ILB in the first game of the season and it didn't look like such a genius move back then.

I was pleased that Matthews still got some edge rushing snaps and got himself a sack. He's still paid like a star pass rusher and it'll be tough for him to earn his check in a different role.

[3irty1]

The run D was a big problem in both games you highlight (Sea, NO) but I am not sure the run defense will setup a win (maybe Detroit?) this year. However, they just need to be mediocre if the Offense can figure out tough defenses and get points on the board (SEA, Det) or keep the QB healthy (NO).

So I still say the pass blocking by the O line is more important that run Defense rank right now. They pass block, the O will help the D's run defense more than the Packers can shore it up this year.

Especially on away games. It seems like a different OL at home these days.

[sharpe1027]

I agree trading the healthy version of Perry for Lattimore/Barrinton was a talent upgrade. Not as good as a D lineman with his hand in the dirt of course, but better none-the-less ....

However, the question still being begged by this alignment: can Matthews play ILB when the 49ers send Iupati at him? McGinn noted Matthews ran around a few blocks (which he can do better than most because he might be The Flash). Baranczyk noted his footwork was all over the place (again, less of an issue if you have his takeoff speed). So an evaluation won't be finished until teams get to scout him and run right at him.

The bonus, regardless, is that he will help Hawk immensely.

Also noted by the GBPG, Capers, after having his lineman hold gaps against the Bears in the first game, had them moving and stunting this game. That helps Boyd who also has a quick takeoff.

Maybe he will be exposed, bu knowing this is another option is still a positive. It is not like he couldn't be moved back outside.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Matthews was playing ILB - something I've suggested several times only to have PackerRat Nation scream HERESY!!!!


No you didn't. You've been harping on that the scheme is unsound all along.

[pbmax]

The only thing new about this is that Matthews didn't suck. We worked him at ILB in the first game of the season and it didn't look like such a genius move back then.

I was pleased that Matthews still got some edge rushing snaps and got himself a sack. He's still paid like a star pass rusher and it'll be tough for him to earn his check in a different role.

We do need to see more. He can also earn that paycheck by blitzing up the middle, something he has been good at while stunting from OLB.

However, if Wilde is to be trusted (and he isn't usually Captain XandO) then previously Matthews was a WILL in a 4-3 alignment (Quad). So his current job is different as a ILB in a 3-4 (I assume he is likely to play ILB in base).

[wist43]

You guys are so fickle... I suggest these things in days gone by and you literally scream heresy, and then go on to say that what Dom has been doing is the only way - if only the players would execute his brilliant gameplans!!!

'If Matthews is in the middle, who is going to rush on the outside'?? To you guys a nonstarter...

'If we're not in the 2-4, how can we possibly defend the pass'?? Any other alignment is ludicrous...

'If you remove one of the ILB's for Perry or Jones, who will cover the TE/RB'?? Nuts, insane, crazy...

'Lining up in base 3-4 against 3 wides is suicide'!!! Anyone who would suggest such a thing is a neophyte...

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

So now dunderdummy makes some necessary, and IMO obvious, changes - and he's STILL a genius??

Good grief :roll:

[Tony Oday]

Well you are an unpaid, 72 year old, cabin living, tin hat wearing, doomsday Cultist and Dom is a Multimillionaire Coach in the NFL so yea he is a genius ;)

[Zool]

Well you are an unpaid, 72 year old, cabin living, tin hat wearing, doomsday Cultist and Dom is a Multimillionaire Coach in the NFL so yea he is a genius ;)

The hat is aluminum foil...thank you very much

[Tony Oday]

The hat is aluminum foil...thank you very much

lol nice. Obviously it was a joke Wist so don't get too mad!

[denverYooper]

The only thing new about this is that Matthews didn't suck. We worked him at ILB in the first game of the season and it didn't look like such a genius move back then.

I was pleased that Matthews still got some edge rushing snaps and got himself a sack. He's still paid like a star pass rusher and it'll be tough for him to earn his check in a different role.

If the move helps them win another ring, he won't have problems getting paid.

[Bossman641]

You guys are so fickle... I suggest these things in days gone by and you literally scream heresy, and then go on to say that what Dom has been doing is the only way - if only the players would execute his brilliant gameplans!!!

'If Matthews is in the middle, who is going to rush on the outside'?? To you guys a nonstarter...

'If we're not in the 2-4, how can we possibly defend the pass'?? Any other alignment is ludicrous...

'If you remove one of the ILB's for Perry or Jones, who will cover the TE/RB'?? Nuts, insane, crazy...

'Lining up in base 3-4 against 3 wides is suicide'!!! Anyone who would suggest such a thing is a neophyte...

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

So now dunderdummy makes some necessary, and IMO obvious, changes - and he's STILL a genius??

Good grief :roll:

Except they didn't go 3-4. They played 1 snap of 3-4, that's it.

They still played 2-4-5...your dreaded "Capers is a dumbass and has no interest in stopping the run" defense. You act like Capers scrapped the entire scheme and finally loaded the line up with DL when that's not what they did at all.

[Bossman641]

The 4 new wrinkles were as follows...
1. Perry at OLB. He won't chase down runs from the backside like CM3 does but he is stronger at the point
2. CM3 at ILB...no explanation needed
3. Hyde played more at nickel.....better playing the run then either Hayward or Tramon (Tramon slides to nickel when House is 3rd cb)
4. DL did more slanting and stunting

[wist43]

No you didn't. You've been harping on that the scheme is unsound all along.

Yes I did - and I used Matthews blitz against Philadelphia in the playoff game in which he sacked Vick as an example. That blitz took place out of a 2-4, and Capers sent 6 guys.

[wist43]

Except they didn't go 3-4. They played 1 snap of 3-4, that's it.

They still played 2-4-5...your dreaded "Capers is a dumbass and has no interest in stopping the run" defense. You act like Capers scrapped the entire scheme and finally loaded the line up with DL when that's not what they did at all.

He played SOME 2-4, but not in either/or situations - and he played an Elephant base, which is essentially a 3-4 - with I might add, personnel that I have been calling for in place of of the putrid ILB combos they've been going with for the last few years.

As I've said, you can play 2-4 once in a while as a subpackage, but I would only do it with personnel other than the way he had been running it, i.e. get one of those slug ILB's off the field, get more size into the front, and rush from everywhere/anywhere - which is what he did against the Bears.

Capers essentially did much of what I've been calling for for a long time now, substituting Elephant for the 3-4, which I don't have that much of a problem with. I do have a problem with their letting the fat guys go, and I think that will hurt us against run heavy teams, but at least what they showed against the Bears is a major step in the right direction.

[ThunderDan]

Interesting...

[KYPack]

The 4 new wrinkles were as follows...
1. Perry at OLB. He won't chase down runs from the backside like CM3 does but he is stronger at the point
2. CM3 at ILB...no explanation needed
3. Hyde played more at nickel.....better playing the run then either Hayward or Tramon (Tramon slides to nickel when House is 3rd cb)
4. DL did more slanting and stunting

Thx Boss. I was trying to remember the adjustments & you did the job listing 'em here. On pt 3, you mean Tramon covers the slot in nickel, right? that's getting to be the new move. Put your best coverman on the slot guy and eliminate the slants and sluggo's.

Wist I gotta get on your ass some. Capers isn't a ninny or a boob. He's a man trying to run a stable and he doesn't have all the horses. DC the DC did a masterful job in putting together the D gameplan for the Bears. Before we all break our arms patting ol Don on the back, it needs to be noted that we moved from 32 in the NFL vs the run to 30th. That still ain't gonna hack the program, passing league or not.

Claymat to ILB looks good, but you are still putting a guy in a position we should already have covered, but we don't. That chase ILB spot is well-suited to Clay, but you are still asking a thorobred to pull a milk wagon. Matthews is a great OLB, he will get dinged if we play him inside. Those ILB's have guys coming at them at all angles.

[pbmax]

Tramontana stayed outside actually. Hyde got the call as the nickel corner and played the slot. For run support and occasional assignment on Bennett.

[wist43]

Thx Boss. I was trying to remember the adjustments & you did the job listing 'em here. On pt 3, you mean Tramon covers the slot in nickel, right? that's getting to be the new move. Put your best coverman on the slot guy and eliminate the slants and sluggo's.

Wist I gotta get on your ass some. Capers isn't a ninny or a boob. He's a man trying to run a stable and he doesn't have all the horses. DC the DC did a masterful job in putting together the D gameplan for the Bears. Before we all break our arms patting ol Don on the back, it needs to be noted that we moved from 32 in the NFL vs the run to 30th. That still ain't gonna hack the program, passing league or not.

Claymat to ILB looks good, but you are still putting a guy in a position we should already have covered, but we don't. That chase ILB spot is well-suited to Clay, but you are still asking a thorobred to pull a milk wagon. Matthews is a great OLB, he will get dinged if we play him inside. Those ILB's have guys coming at them at all angles.

Sorry KY, but Dom is a ninny and a boob!!! lol...

As I said, what we saw on Sunday is in large measure a healthy dose of what I've been calling for forever...

Yes he ran some 2-4, but not that idiotic "jumbo 2-4" (not that that is an option now that they've jettisoned all the fat guys), and not in "either/or" situations. He ran the 2-4 as a subpackage, and in primarily pass-pass situations.

Given our personnel, I would still prefer running a 3-3, but given the personnel he had on the field, I view it as a gigantic step in the right direction.

In short, all dunderdummy did was utilize the personnel he has available to him much more effectively - it only took him 3 years to figure it out - or rather, it only took 3 years for MM and TT to pressure him to use them correctly. Any which way, what we saw was a flash of what our defense might could be - which is slightly better than average over the long haul, as opposed to last in run defense and getting repeatedly embarrassed.

We're going to struggle against the run to some extent - but there's no reason we can't be a top 1/2 defense, and that should be enough to give us a legitimate punchers chance.

[smuggler]

Dom looked pretty awesome for this one game. Let's see how he goes against the Eagles - a team in a groove - instead of the Bears (falling apart like Okonkwo).

[Bossman641]

Thx Boss. I was trying to remember the adjustments & you did the job listing 'em here. On pt 3, you mean Tramon covers the slot in nickel, right? that's getting to be the new move. Put your best coverman on the slot guy and eliminate the slants and sluggo's.

Wist I gotta get on your ass some. Capers isn't a ninny or a boob. He's a man trying to run a stable and he doesn't have all the horses. DC the DC did a masterful job in putting together the D gameplan for the Bears. Before we all break our arms patting ol Don on the back, it needs to be noted that we moved from 32 in the NFL vs the run to 30th. That still ain't gonna hack the program, passing league or not.

Claymat to ILB looks good, but you are still putting a guy in a position we should already have covered, but we don't. That chase ILB spot is well-suited to Clay, but you are still asking a thorobred to pull a milk wagon. Matthews is a great OLB, he will get dinged if we play him inside. Those ILB's have guys coming at them at all angles.

Previously, depending on whether Hayward or House were playing nickel, the slot CB would be Hayward or Williams (moves to slot when House plays).
On Sunday, Capers played Hyde as the nickel and kept Williams outside to have a better run defender in there.

[Joemailman]

Previously, depending on whether Hayward or House were playing nickel, the slot CB would be Hayward or Williams (moves to slot when House plays).
On Sunday, Capers played Hyde as the nickel and kept Williams outside to have a better run defender in there.

Hayward played 46% of defensive snaps. Did they play a lot of dime, or was he getting nickel snaps in garbage time?


Player Team Position Started Total Snaps Off Snaps Off Snap Pct Def Snaps Def Snap Pct ST Snaps ST Snap Pct
21-H.Clinton-Dix GB DB YES 72 0 0.0% 70 100. 2 6.0%
24-J.Bush GB DB NO 22 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 22 69.0
28-S.Richardson GB DB NO 44 0 0.0% 21 30.0 23 72.0
29-C.Hayward GB DB NO 44 0 0.0% 32 46.0 12 38.0
31-D.House GB DB NO 32 0 0.0% 21 30.0 11 34.0
33-M.Hyde GB DB YES 71 0 0.0% 55 79.0 16 50.0
37-S.Shields GB DB YES 63 0 0.0% 60 86.0 3 9.0%
38-T.Williams GB DB YES 52 0 0.0% 52 74.0 0 0.0%
39-D.Goodson GB DB NO 0 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
42-M.Burnett GB DB YES 48 0 0.0% 48 69.0 0 0.0%

[wist43]

I don't think Clay should become an ILB on a permanent basis - but I want to see it mixed up. He is a player that needs to be accounted for, so where he lines up requires adjustments by the OL in their blocking assignments. It creates opportunities for blown assignments and miscommunication by the OL.

Beyond that, of course you are getting one of the slug ILB's off the field, and replacing him with either Perry or Neal. Whether you are in a base or nickel, it gives us more size and power up front - something we have been sorely lacking, especially after ousting all the fat guys.

Given our personnel, dunderdummy needs ensure we are sound up the middle, and scheme to create mismatches along the OL - what he did against the Bears accomplished that. If he simply reverts back to his static alignments with the slug ILB's on the field 24/7, then they have learned nothing - on the other hand, if they have truly seen the light, then I think we have the makings of a functional and effective defense; maybe not a dominant one, but at least a competetive one.

[Carolina_Packer]

I don't think Clay should become an ILB on a permanent basis - but I want to see it mixed up. He is a player that needs to be accounted for, so where he lines up requires adjustments by the OL in their blocking assignments. It creates opportunities for blown assignments and miscommunication by the OL.

Beyond that, of course you are getting one of the slug ILB's off the field, and replacing him with either Perry or Neal. Whether you are in a base or nickel, it gives us more size and power up front - something we have been sorely lacking, especially after ousting all the fat guys.

Given our personnel, dunderdummy needs ensure we are sound up the middle, and scheme to create mismatches along the OL - what he did against the Bears accomplished that. If he simply reverts back to his static alignments with the slug ILB's on the field 24/7, then they have learned nothing - on the other hand, if they have truly seen the light, then I think we have the makings of a functional and effective defense; maybe not a dominant one, but at least a competetive one.

I think he's trying to get the most effective defensive players on the field at the same time, and is showing that he's willing to make adjustments not only based on personnel, but based on how certain personnel plays together; like mixing line mates in hockey, I guess.

[Maxie the Taxi]

I think he's trying to get the most effective defensive players on the field at the same time, and is showing that he's willing to make adjustments not only based on personnel, but based on how certain personnel plays together; like mixing line mates in hockey, I guess.

Get 11 of your most talented guys on the field at the same time and let them play. Substitute here and there to keep them fresh.

Wholesale substitution of situational personnel groups sounds good on paper, but I just don't think the Packers are deep enough talent-wise to pull it off. You lose cohesiveness, quality and consistency. Plus, you open yourself up to communication lapses and mistakes.

You have to fit the scheme to the talent you have, not the other way around. Schemes don't make plays, players do.

[Cheesehead Craig]

I don't think Clay should become an ILB on a permanent basis - but I want to see it mixed up. He is a player that needs to be accounted for, so where he lines up requires adjustments by the OL in their blocking assignments. It creates opportunities for blown assignments and miscommunication by the OL.

Beyond that, of course you are getting one of the slug ILB's off the field, and replacing him with either Perry or Neal. Whether you are in a base or nickel, it gives us more size and power up front - something we have been sorely lacking, especially after ousting all the fat guys.

Given our personnel, dunderdummy needs ensure we are sound up the middle, and scheme to create mismatches along the OL - what he did against the Bears accomplished that. If he simply reverts back to his static alignments with the slug ILB's on the field 24/7, then they have learned nothing - on the other hand, if they have truly seen the light, then I think we have the makings of a functional and effective defense; maybe not a dominant one, but at least a competetive one.

The emergence of Perry has really helped the defense. It allows a move like Matthews to the middle. I liked the Polamalu reference that Collinsworth made about Matthews in that he was all over the field and being put into positions to make plays.

Agree that I don't want him there full time, but what was done vs Chicago was a great start.

[ThunderDan]

The emergence of Perry has really helped the defense. It allows a move like Matthews to the middle. I liked the Polamalu reference that Collinsworth made about Matthews in that he was all over the field and being put into positions to make plays.

Agree that I don't want him there full time, but what was done vs Chicago was a great start.

Let him play ILB off and on the rest of the season. Look to the draft to find a replacement for next year and move Clay back outside.

[pbmax]

Get 11 of your most talented guys on the field at the same time and let them play. Substitute here and there to keep them fresh.

Wholesale substitution of situational personnel groups sounds good on paper, but I just don't think the Packers are deep enough talent-wise to pull it off. You lose cohesiveness, quality and consistency. Plus, you open yourself up to communication lapses and mistakes.

You have to fit the scheme to the talent you have, not the other way around. Schemes don't make plays, players do.

I think they have that depth in the secondary and OLB. But there is a reason the ILBs only recently changed for the better.

[Carolina_Packer]

I'm not suggesting that what round a player is chosen in indicates how much success a player will have, but generally it can. What have the Packers acquired/kept on defense at ILB? Hawk who is solid, but not spectacular and has holes in his game. Jamari Lattimore can bring some nice game sometimes, but has about reached his ceiling. Sam Barrington is a 2nd year guy who was drafted in the 7th round and Brad Jones is a 7th rounder who started as an OLB, was moved to ILB and has had mixed results, and the Packers seem to have lost faith in him for good reason. I don't know what the GM guide to spending money on ILB's says, but you wouldn't say that what the Packers have at ILB is an overwhelming lot of players to solidify the middle of the field.

Ryan Shazier and C.J. Mosley would have looked awesome in Green and Gold, but it was not meant to be. I hope for Clay's sake that they shore up that spot in next year's draft or (dare I dream) a free agent ILB hits the market.

[Guiness]

Ryan Shazier and C.J. Mosley would have looked awesome in Green and Gold, but it was not meant to be. I hope for Clay's sake that they shore up that spot in next year's draft or (dare I dream) a free agent ILB hits the market.

I think Ha Ha has plugged a bigger hole than the one the Pack has at ILB. Not just him, but how much better Burnett has played with him there.

[George Cumby]

Get 11 of your most talented guys on the field at the same time and let them play.

End of thread?

[Carolina_Packer]

We've got miles to go to catch up to Brett the Living Legend. :-)

[denverYooper]

I think Ha Ha has plugged a bigger hole than the one the Pack has at ILB. Not just him, but how much better Burnett has played with him there.

Totally agree. They had 2 big gaps there and they filled 1.

[3irty1]

Playing ILB on 1st and 2nd down makes a lot of sense. It lets Perry be the guy setting the edge on most run downs which is an upgrade, gets our worst defender off the field which is nice, and hopefully can squeeze some extra production out of Clay by putting him near the ball more often. Not bad but its still just icing on the cake, Clay's salary is way too high to be justified by anything but rushing the passer and doing it well. Him getting back to probowl form on 3rd down is what would get me excited. Usually early in the season he starts off hot with some multi-sack games, hopefully the law of averages kicks in for him during the playoffs.

[gbgary]

he had a bigger impact in this game than he's had in a while. keep using him this way until it doesn't work anymore.

[Maxie the Taxi]

I hope Capers isn't watching the Cactus Bowl. Washington just stacked three defenders over the center. No other defender was on the LOS.:whaa:

[woodbuck27]

This defense in just poorly coached period. I coach 11-12 year old football and the easiest way to move the ball is misdirection, making three or four total opposite plays look just alike, trying to make the defense figure out who has the ball. Having 3 kids chasing a kid who doesnt even have the ball. Having your fastest guy just flying around as a decoy while the defense is drawn to him like a moth to a flame. Thats exactly what Sea did to us last night, they ran Pop Warner plays, playactions, our players were frozen. One play Peppers literally looked like he was playing freeze tag and was "it" while the guy ran past him, We were chasing guys who didnt even have the ball.

That screen to Lynch when they ran Harvin to the opposite side sucked in all the GB defense and tossed it to Lynch, MAN WE RUN THAT PLAY!!!!

I've seen 12 year old teams play the read option better than GB last night and thats no joke.

No lane/gap discipline, horrible outdated schemes. Its time to give Capers some much needed time off, he obviously is still running plays from his Steelers/ Panthers days. Anybody still calling this guy a guru, is living in the past.

Offseason, whoever is available on Sea or SF defensive staff for a DC position SIGN HIM.

I'm some glad I missed seeing this game. :-)