What The Hell Is A Blitz?

[Maxie the Taxi]

I'm still bummed by the Packers' loss, so maybe I've temporarily lost my mind.

Anyway, I'm trying to figure out the definition of a blitz.

If we run a 3-4 defense, and we send 4 guys to rush the passer (3 DL and 1 LB), is that considered a blitz?

Here's an even better question: The OL always has 5 guys blocking (OT OG C OG OT). Why do we ever rush the passer with less than 5 guys? Wouldn't less than 5 be an automatic mismatch?

It seems to me that a "blitz" should be sending 6 guys or more guys to rush the passer (1 or more defensive players than the OL has blocking).

Another question is: A typical NFL OL probably runs about 300 to 315 lbs per man. DLinemen probably run about the same, more or less. But if we send a LB on a pass rush, he likely weighs 240 to 255 lbs. So if we rush 5 players in our 3-4 defense, our pass rushers are overmatched weight-wise.

Which begs a couple more questions:

Why don't we rush at least 5 guys against the passer every play?

And why don't we play more fat guys on the DL to begin with in order to eliminate the weight mismatch and give us a strong push up the middle?

For instance, why not play a 5-2 defense pretty much all the time? Wouldn't that result in a more efficient pass rush with the same or better probability of stopping the run?

My aging, inquiring mind wants to know. I hope there are some young X and O men out there that can provide smart answers.

[gbgary]

I'm still bummed by the Packers' loss, so maybe I've temporarily lost my mind.

Anyway, I'm trying to figure out the definition of a blitz.

If we run a 3-4 defense, and we send 4 guys to rush the passer (3 DL and 1 LB), is that considered a blitz?

Here's an even better question: The OL always has 5 guys blocking (OT OG C OG OT). Why do we ever rush the passer with less than 5 guys? Wouldn't less than 5 be an automatic mismatch?

It seems to me that a "blitz" should be sending 6 guys or more guys to rush the passer (1 or more defensive players than the OL has blocking).

Another question is: A typical NFL OL probably runs about 300 to 315 lbs per man. DLinemen probably run about the same, more or less. But if we send a LB on a pass rush, he likely weighs 240 to 255 lbs. So if we rush 5 players in our 3-4 defense, our pass rushers are overmatched weight-wise.

Which begs a couple more questions:

Why don't we rush at least 5 guys against the passer every play?

And why don't we play more fat guys on the DL to begin with in order to eliminate the weight mismatch and give us a strong push up the middle?

For instance, why not play a 5-2 defense pretty much all the time? Wouldn't that result in a more efficient pass rush with the same or better probability of stopping the run?

My aging, inquiring mind wants to know. I hope there are some young X and O men out there that can provide smart answers.

if we had experienced, physical/fast, cover guys that could hold their own, then rushing 5 would be cool (if we had guys that could actually get to the qb). when we do it now it only compounds the secondary's trouble.

[Maxie the Taxi]

if we had experienced, physical/fast, cover guys that could hold their own, then rushing 5 would be cool (if we had guys that could actually get to the qb). when we do it now it only compounds the secondary's trouble.I hear what you're saying. On the other hand I am torn. Because if we had guys that COULD get to the QB (and maybe we do if we'd rush five consistently), then wouldn't that make the CB's job easier, i.e., the QB would have to throw it more earlier than planned and maybe without accuracy?

[beveaux1]

I think any time you rush more than 4 it's considered a blitz. I believe that comes from the old 4-3 defense. All DL rushed the passer, but if an extra LB came from the strong, weak, or middle, you were blitzing and left one zone open in a zone defense. An all- out blitz is 7 rushing the passer, meaning all LBs come.

Now that the 3-4 defense is common, rushing the 3 lineman and one LB is accepted as a normal rush. The zones are the same as the 4-3. One of the two MLBs cover the zone vacated by the LB that rushes. A three man rush puts an extra man into coverage and is seen a lot with a 3-4 defense.

[texaspackerbacker]

My definition - and I think THE definition of a blitz is when somebody who is not a D Lineman penetrates into the backfield - either to rush the QB or as they are sometimes described, run blitzes. It's not the number of people coming so much as it's where they are coming from. Why is a blitz better than say lining up 4 or even 5 D Linemen head to head on 5 interior O Linemen? It's the element of surprise - somebody unexpected hopefully getting to the QB before a blocker can react. Also, it allows for loading up a particular side with several pass rushers against an O Lineman.

Anyway, you do it and it creates an advantage, but it also leaves you vulnerable somewhere. It's almost a necessity when your personnel is not all that great - like the Packers D.

[Maxie the Taxi]

I think I like Beveau's definition better.

Tex, I don't understand how blitzing by your definition leaves you vulnerable. Say you're in a 3-4 like the Pack and you blitz two LB's. A total of 5 rushing the passer. The OL still has 5 and the D still has a 6 players on the remaining 6 offensive players, assuming you play man-to-man. In fact, since the QB is occupied with the ball, you have a defensive advantage (6 on 5). So, why not blitz 6. Then you have an advantage over the 5 Olinemen, yet still have 5 guys to cover the remaining 5 offensive players.

What am I missing?

[pbmax]

Ideally, a blitz WOULD mean an unexpected body joining the pass rush. That is what it means to the DC.

But you can blitz and only send four, and that is not what most fans want to know.

People expect 4 pass rushers. They want to know when its more (or less) than that.

[hoosier]

Blitz comes from Blitzkrieg. Maybe that is why David Krieg fumbled so much.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Blitz comes from Blitzkrieg. Maybe that is why David Krieg fumbled so much.You're reading history all wrong, hoosier.

[texaspackerbacker]

I think I like Beveau's definition better.

Tex, I don't understand how blitzing by your definition leaves you vulnerable. Say you're in a 3-4 like the Pack and you blitz two LB's. A total of 5 rushing the passer. The OL still has 5 and the D still has a 6 players on the remaining 6 offensive players, assuming you play man-to-man. In fact, since the QB is occupied with the ball, you have a defensive advantage (6 on 5). So, why not blitz 6. Then you have an advantage over the 5 Olinemen, yet still have 5 guys to cover the remaining 5 offensive players.

What am I missing?

Like pbmax said, you can blitz with only 4 going in - it ain't the number that makes it a blitz. The vulnerability has to do with how many do not blitz. A base defense generally has more LBs and DBs than there are eligible receivers, since single coverage is a lot more likely to get beat - I'm surprised somebody like you even needs an explanation of this. The more LBs and DBs you send on blitzes, the fewer you have dropping into coverage. Also, there was some discussion a day or two ago about screen passes. You have 6 or 7 guys roaring in, and the opposing QB lobs a screen pass over them, and there ain't many people left to handle a lot of blockers and make the tackle. Also, you load up one side, as we often do with Clay Matthews, and there is both a potential open area behind him and maybe a shortage of tacklers to stop a run to the opposite side.

Despite all that negative stuff, though, it's worse IMO if you don't do it - given the fact that we don't have the talent to just go head to head with a lot of opponents' offenses.

[gbgary]

I hear what you're saying. On the other hand I am torn. Because if we had guys that COULD get to the QB (and maybe we do if we'd rush five consistently), then wouldn't that make the CB's job easier, i.e., the QB would have to throw it more earlier than planned and maybe without accuracy?

MUCH easier!! that's why they have to shore up one or the other (although both would be fantastic).

[Maxie the Taxi]

Like pbmax said, you can blitz with only 4 going in - it ain't the number that makes it a blitz. The vulnerability has to do with how many do not blitz. A base defense generally has more LBs and DBs than there are eligible receivers, since single coverage is a lot more likely to get beat - I'm surprised somebody like you even needs an explanation of this. The more LBs and DBs you send on blitzes, the fewer you have dropping into coverage. Also, there was some discussion a day or two ago about screen passes. You have 6 or 7 guys roaring in, and the opposing QB lobs a screen pass over them, and there ain't many people left to handle a lot of blockers and make the tackle. Also, you load up one side, as we often do with Clay Matthews, and there is both a potential open area behind him and maybe a shortage of tacklers to stop a run to the opposite side.

Despite all that negative stuff, though, it's worse IMO if you don't do it - given the fact that we don't have the talent to just go head to head with a lot of opponents' offenses.Contrary to what you may think I'm not the smartest guy in the room. :huh:

My point is "blitzing" is not cut-and-dried, at least in my mind. When a reporter says the Packers "blitzed" 29% of the time in a particular game, what does that mean? If it means we sent 4 guys 29% of the time, as opposed to 3, that's not good IMO. We should be "blitzing" 100% of the time.

On the other hand, if "blitzing" means we're sending 5 or 6 guys 100% of the time, that's another animal.

I'm trying to figure out why we're not getting to the QB. No one has commented on the weight mismatch between the 5 OL guys and the 3 DL guys and 2 LB's. Against a team like Atlanta we should be getting more "push" up the middle, but we weren't. I'm thinking we'd be better off drafting some good fat guys on the DL and leaving them in the game longer. Go with 4 or 5 fat guys. I think then an occasional edge blitz by a S or LB would be more effective.

Plus, it seems from what I've been reading that our guys are too stupid to play a complicated zone, especially when there are injuries. So make the D simpler. Play 5 fat guys on the DL and let the other guys play man, with maybe a S deep. Something like that.

We're not going to solve our anemic pass rush by with a sudden flood of new talent. We don't have enough high draft choices and TT ain't going to sign 2 or 3 FA fat guys for the DL. And even if we do draft a phenom edge rusher, is he going to get home in the current system any more often than Clay or Peppers or Fackrell or Elliott?

I guess I'm not as high on Dom's current magic as you are.

[vince]

Rather than stating that the Packers couldn't/didn't get to the quarterback as if it's fact, let's start with the actual facts.

First, here's the most commonly accepted definition of the term "blitz" (https://www.sportingcharts.com/dictionary/nfl/blitz.aspx). This definition encompasses all the variants of the different types of blitzes, including the zone blitz and/or an overload blitz, which are generally accepted as blitzes even though there may be only 4 players rushing the passer.

A strategy used by a defensive unit in which they will have one or more players other than a member of the defensive line attempt to pressure the quarterback. Typically, this will result in linebackers or defensive backs attempting to find a gap in the offensive line and tackle the quarterback. Teams can choose to blitz one or more players during a play, and this usually results in five or more players attempting to reach the quarterback.

The blitz is a high risk, high reward play by the defense. Since the defense is typically bringing more players to pressure the quarterback, it increases the number of people that the offensive blockers have to account for and increases the chances of a sack or an errant pass. However, this also reduces the number of people in pass defense, so if the blitz is unsuccessful there is a higher likelihood of a completed pass. Players that are effective at blitzing can time the play well and find gaps in the offensive line and reach the quarterback.


1. Most recent 2016 statistic available is the Packers were ranked 18th in blitz percentage (http://www.nj.com/eagles/index.ssf/2016/10/eagles_have_blitzed_less_often_than_any_nfl_team.h tml) at 29.5%.

2. Green Bay was the 6th ranked sack team (http://www.espn.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/defense/sort/sacks/seasontype/2)with 40 sacks for 295 yards lost.

3. They were 7th ranked in sack percentage (https://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats/sack-percentage/2016/) at 6.5%.

4. The Packers were 12th ranked in defensive hurries (https://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats/total-team-defensive-hurries/2016/) with 104.

[woodbuck27]

In football, blitzing is a tactic used by the defense to disrupt the other teams passing game.

During a blitz..... ** a higher than usual number of defensive players ** will rush the opposing quarterback, to try to sack the quarterback or force a hurried pass attempt and thus offer an overall advantage.

** a higher than usual number of defensive players **

[Maxie the Taxi]

Rather than stating that the Packers couldn't/didn't get to the quarterback as if it's fact, let's start with the actual facts.

First, here's the most commonly accepted definition of the term "blitz" (https://www.sportingcharts.com/dictionary/nfl/blitz.aspx). This definition encompasses all the variants of the different types of blitzes, including the zone blitz and/or an overload blitz, which are generally accepted as blitzes even though there may be only 4 players rushing the passer.


1. Most recent 2016 statistic available is the Packers were ranked 18th in blitz percentage (http://www.nj.com/eagles/index.ssf/2016/10/eagles_have_blitzed_less_often_than_any_nfl_team.h tml) at 29.5%.

2. Green Bay was the 6th ranked sack team (http://www.espn.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/defense/sort/sacks/seasontype/2)with 40 sacks for 295 yards lost.

3. They were 7th ranked in sack percentage (https://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats/sack-percentage/2016/) at 6.5%.

4. The Packers were 12th ranked in defensive hurries (ht0tps://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats/total-team-defensive-hurries/2016/) with 104.We were also #22 in Total Defense this past season, and #31 in Pass Defense. The question is: How do we get to be a much higher number in Team Defense?*

*The end result is what matters. I'm assuming a better defense would probably make us a better team. I'm assuming the status quo is unacceptable. If you think it is, I guess we can debate that.

Now, relative to making us a better defense, I'm still confused about the "blitz" statistic. So we "blitzed" 29.5% of the time. Does that mean that 70.5% of the time we only rushed our 3 guys on the DL?

[pbmax]

You're reading history all wrong, hoosier.

You never know, Krieg's family might have been a long line of German military theorists.

[pbmax]

Contrary to what you may think I'm not the smartest guy in the room. :huh:

My point is "blitzing" is not cut-and-dried, at least in my mind. When a reporter says the Packers "blitzed" 29% of the time in a particular game, what does that mean? If it means we sent 4 guys 29% of the time, as opposed to 3, that's not good IMO. We should be "blitzing" 100% of the time.

I could be wrong but McGinn counts number of rushers (he has written this up before). So I am guessing his "blitz" is more than 4 pass rushers.

[pbmax]

I think vince's numbers generally agree with my observation. The Packers were better at pressure this year (esp before Perry's injury) than coverage. But pressure could not fix the injured back end.

I also expect that the pressure's effectiveness tailed off significantly toward the end of the season despite the overall turnaround.

[vince]

I agree that the status quo is unacceptable. The Packers must improve their defense. I'm just trying to establish some facts to base a realistic analysis. It's true that the pass defense was a huge problem. It's not true the the pass rush was "anemic" but there are some things that I think we can say about it...

First off, in the Packers base nickel defense with 2 interior down-linemen and 2 edge rusher/linebackers, rushing those 4 would not be considered a blitz.

Given that the Packers were in the middle of the league in blitz percentage, but generally top 10ish in pressuring the QB, that suggests that the Packers were effective when they did blitz and perhaps should have blitzed more than they did. That can't be concluded definitively based on these stats (we don't know specifically what the success rate/impact of the actual blitzes were) but the suggestion is there at minimum.

And when you look at sacks by game, there's a pretty strong correlation between sacks and defensive effectiveness/wins. The Packers were least effective getting sacks against TEN (1), WAS (2), ATL (2), DAL (2), CHI (2), HOU (2), and IND (2). With the lone exception of the first MN game (4) in which the Vikings scored only 17, those are the teams that either beat the Packers or gave them the most competitive games. All other games (except DAL playoff game (2) resulted in 3 or more sacks - and Packer wins, some decisively.

That could be due to player ineffectiveness or lack of scheme aggressiveness we can't really tell for sure. Some teams/quarterbacks are more effective against a blitz than others obviously. Matt Ryan and Eli Manning for example, were very tough to sack this year. They read defenses well and get the ball out quickly, which tends to make it tough when you blitz them.

However, while this data has a lot of holes in it, given the relationship this year between pressure and winning, and the fact that the information suggests that the Packers were generally effective in getting pressure when they blitzed, I think it's reasonable to say that the Packers should have blitzed more than they did. When you combine that with the ineffective pass defense overall, that argument becomes even stronger I'd say. They were less effective defending the pass when they didn't sack the QB for sure.

I agree with you Maxie that protecting the defensive backs by blitzing more often would have been the way to go this year. While I understand Dom's reasoning behind his soft approach was to help defend against big plays - which plagued this team all year long and blitzing schematically adds to that risk when it doesn't come home - it's pretty clear that it didn't work very well overall.

[texaspackerbacker]

Contrary to what you may think I'm not the smartest guy in the room. :huh:


No, Maxie, I had you pegged for second place hahahaha.

[vince]

I think vince's numbers generally agree with my observation. The Packers were better at pressure this year (esp before Perry's injury) than coverage. But pressure could not fix the injured back end.

I also expect that the pressure's effectiveness tailed off significantly toward the end of the season despite the overall turnaround.
I don't have pressures by game PB, but sack numbers were pretty consistent. Here are the splits by month.

Sep (2-1) - 10
Oct (2-2) - 9
Nov (1-3) - 9
Dec (4-0) - 10
Jan (1-0) - 2

The correlation is very strong between defensive sacks and wins. A lot can be said about the extent to which sacks cause winning or playing from ahead (winning) causes sacks but that correlation is there... I'd say it's bidirectional to at least a significant extent.

[pbmax]

I don't have pressures by game PB, but sack numbers were pretty consistent. Here are the splits by month.

Sep (2-1) - 10
Oct (2-2) - 9
Nov (1-3) - 9
Dec (4-0) - 10
Jan (1-0) - 2

I'll have to go over them more but my impression from watching the games (I only rewatched the philly game) is that pressure was maddeningly uneven at the close of the season. They might have had some games better than others. One game I know they got the QB twice late.

But the backend, if it was going to survive, needed truly frightening pressure to work.

The one big positive I took from McCarthy's season ender is that they are going to start with pass defense on the offseason and prioritize it. They have to be better at both zone and man to man to make Capers designs work. Sometimes, even with good pressure, the QB will have time.

McCarthy wasn't too happy with the pressure versus Atlanta at halftime. I wonder if he felt the same thing in the second half of the Cowboys game.

[texaspackerbacker]

My point is "blitzing" is not cut-and-dried, at least in my mind. When a reporter says the Packers "blitzed" 29% of the time in a particular game, what does that mean? If it means we sent 4 guys 29% of the time, as opposed to 3, that's not good IMO. We should be "blitzing" 100% of the time.

On the other hand, if "blitzing" means we're sending 5 or 6 guys 100% of the time, that's another animal.

I'm trying to figure out why we're not getting to the QB. No one has commented on the weight mismatch between the 5 OL guys and the 3 DL guys and 2 LB's. Against a team like Atlanta we should be getting more "push" up the middle, but we weren't. I'm thinking we'd be better off drafting some good fat guys on the DL and leaving them in the game longer. Go with 4 or 5 fat guys. I think then an occasional edge blitz by a S or LB would be more effective.

Plus, it seems from what I've been reading that our guys are too stupid to play a complicated zone, especially when there are injuries. So make the D simpler. Play 5 fat guys on the DL and let the other guys play man, with maybe a S deep. Something like that.

We're not going to solve our anemic pass rush by with a sudden flood of new talent. We don't have enough high draft choices and TT ain't going to sign 2 or 3 FA fat guys for the DL. And even if we do draft a phenom edge rusher, is he going to get home in the current system any more often than Clay or Peppers or Fackrell or Elliott?

I guess I'm not as high on Dom's current magic as you are.

As I said, it's not about how many; It's about where they come from. A "zone blitz" could have an LB or two coming in and a D Lineman or two dropping into coverage, and a net of zero additional from what you have go in with the base D. I used to hate it when for decades the Packers played the blandest of defenses - hardly ever blitzing. In the Lombardi Era, we had the D personnel to pull that off, but for way too long after, our D was like it is now - not good enough to just line up and beat 'em.

You seriously want 4 or 5 fat guys - 4 or 5 Rajis? I sure as hell don't. Even if it was 4 or 5 Vince Wilforks, the other team would just go right around us.

I do tend to agree, it's more about the Capers system - drafting some phenom edge rusher might not be any better than having guys like Elliot and Fackrell out there. Don't you think that's more in favor of "Dom's magic" than against it? The question, to me, is what happens if you don't do that scheming compensating complicated shit? And I think the answer is you get beat.

It also seems like most of what Dom does - a lot of blitzing or stopping somebody's star RB or whatever - requires taking a chance on single coverage by our Corners. Therefore, what we need, obviously, more than anything else is outstanding cover Corners. They went for that drafting Randall and Rollins, but it kinda seems like didn't choose too wisely. It says something (I'm not sure what) that the best two Corners we've had recently were UDFAs (I mean Shields and Gunter). That gives me some hope that Hawkins will amount to something. Mostly, though, I'd like to see them go after a proven cover Corner - the kind of free agent we usually only dream of as Packer fans.

[Maxie the Taxi]

I agree with you Maxie that protecting the defensive backs by blitzing more often would have been the way to go this year. While I understand Dom's reasoning behind his soft approach was to help defend against big plays - which plagued this team all year long and blitzing schematically adds to that risk when it doesn't come home - it's pretty clear that it didn't work very well overall.I'm glad that we agree on that. Now the next question is: Where (and how) do we go from here?

First off, I am not naive enough to believe that anything we say here will have any effect whatsoever on what the Packers' brain trust will actually do. I guess what we do here is basically just the equivalent of fan bar talk. The thing is the noise I hear from the powers that be at Lambeau pretty much tells me not much is going to change to that status quo that both of us think is unacceptable. If that's the case, I think it's too bad 'cause IMO a significant change is needed to bring the defense up to snuff.

That said, I'm thinking if I were in charge my first priority would be to get Daniels and Clark some significant help on the DL. I'm talking more than one cause I think I'd like to see at least four fat guys on the DL every play. We need to win the battle at the LOS.

Second off, if we use all our draft choices on defensive players, I'd be fine with that, but I'd focus on big, strong, fat linemen who can make a difference. Maybe I'd even trade up to get the premier at guy in the draft, whoever that is. If we can pick up a vet FA worth his salt, that would help. I don't think investing in a phenom edge rusher is the answer for this defense.

So it's more than just new players IMO. It's a new emphasis on the DL.

[Maxie the Taxi]

As I said, it's not about how many; It's about where they come from. A "zone blitz" could have an LB or two coming in and a D Lineman or two dropping into coverage, and a net of zero additional from what you have go in with the base D. I used to hate it when for decades the Packers played the blandest of defenses - hardly ever blitzing. In the Lombardi Era, we had the D personnel to pull that off, but for way too long after, our D was like it is now - not good enough to just line up and beat 'em.

You seriously want 4 or 5 fat guys - 4 or 5 Rajis? I sure as hell don't. Even if it was 4 or 5 Vince Wilforks, the other team would just go right around us.

I do tend to agree, it's more about the Capers system - drafting some phenom edge rusher might not be any better than having guys like Elliot and Fackrell out there. Don't you think that's more in favor of "Dom's magic" than against it? The question, to me, is what happens if you don't do that scheming compensating complicated shit? And I think the answer is you get beat.

It also seems like most of what Dom does - a lot of blitzing or stopping somebody's star RB or whatever - requires taking a chance on single coverage by our Corners. Therefore, what we need, obviously, more than anything else is outstanding cover Corners. They went for that drafting Randall and Rollins, but it kinda seems like didn't choose too wisely. It says something (I'm not sure what) that the best two Corners we've had recently were UDFAs (I mean Shields and Gunter). That gives me some hope that Hawkins will amount to something. Mostly, though, I'd like to see them go after a proven cover Corner - the kind of free agent we usually only dream of as Packer fans.

Just to be clear, by "fat guy" I don't mean Raji or Gilbert Brown EXCLUSIVELY. I'm talking athletic, strong ~300 pounders like Daniels that can get the push upfield rather than 240 pound LB's who half the time get bounced backward by big OT's and OG's.

As I posted in response to Vince, I'm sort of done with Dom's 3-4 approach. I'd like to have 6-8 really good, big guys on the DL trench that we could rotate in an out so they stay fresh. The problem with Dom's system is you need very exceptional and athletic LB's to make it work, guys like Mathews and the old version of Peppers. Those guys are hard to find (especially given our perennial draft position) and fragile.

[vince]

I'm glad that we agree on that. Now the next question is: Where (and how) do we go from here?

First off, I am not naive enough to believe that anything we say here will have any effect whatsoever on what the Packers' brain trust will actually do. I guess what we do here is basically just the equivalent of fan bar talk. The thing is the noise I hear from the powers that be at Lambeau pretty much tells me not much is going to change to that status quo that both of us think is unacceptable. If that's the case, I think it's too bad 'cause IMO a significant change is needed to bring the defense up to snuff.

That said, I'm thinking if I were in charge my first priority would be to get Daniels and Clark some significant help on the DL. I'm talking more than one cause I think I'd like to see at least four fat guys on the DL every play. We need to win the battle at the LOS.

Second off, if we use all our draft choices on defensive players, I'd be fine with that, but I'd focus on big, strong, fat linemen who can make a difference. Maybe I'd even trade up to get the premier at guy in the draft, whoever that is. If we can pick up a vet FA worth his salt, that would help. I don't think investing in a phenom edge rusher is the answer for this defense.

So it's more than just new players IMO. It's a new emphasis on the DL.
There's where we disagree.

Pass defense was clearly the Achilles' heel and that's attributable to a combination of Capers' soft zone schemes when not pressuring the QB, the perimeter defenders' inability to cover downfield without help over the top, and some blitzers' relative ineffectiveness, notably the safeties, in disguising/timing the blitz and getting home for most of the year.

Every team can always use another effective fatty inside, but I don't think more big fat d-linemen will help what ails the Packers' defense.

A more aggressive approach to pressuring the QB, a more effective perimeter pass defense, and the ability to better disguise and adjust pass defensive alignments and coverages is needed.

Capers is relatively effective in bringing pressure but for some reason that I haven't quite put my finger on, he's not effective in disguising/adjusting coverages to surprise and confuse QB's downfield. QB's seem to consistently have too easy of a time reading what the Packers defensive backfield is doing and making the adjustments and throwing the ball to the soft spots in the defense. Some of that has to do with the range of deep defenders as well and the tendency of young linebackers to bite up on play fakes, failure to get proper depth, etc., but my gut says it also has to do with being too transparent, predictable and recognizable in their coverages overall.

In the absence of a new defensive approach altogether, better cover corner play will help, as will more aggressive pressure packages but that all comes more consistently from perimeter corner play and edge rushers than the fatties.

[Maxie the Taxi]

There's where we disagree.

Pass defense was clearly the Achilles' heel and that's attributable to a combination of Capers' soft zone schemes when not pressuring the QB, the perimeter defenders' inability to cover downfield without help over the top, and some blitzers' relative ineffectiveness, notably the safeties, in disguising/timing the blitz and getting home for most of the year.

Every team can always use another effective fatty inside, but I don't think more big fat d-linemen will help what ails the Packers' defense.

A more aggressive approach to pressuring the QB, a more effective perimeter pass defense, and the ability to better disguise and adjust pass defensive alignments and coverages is needed.

Capers is relatively effective in bringing pressure but for some reason that I haven't quite put my finger on, he's not effective in disguising/adjusting coverages to surprise and confuse QB's downfield. QB's seem to consistently have too easy of a time reading what the Packers defensive backfield is doing and making the adjustments and throwing the ball to the soft spots in the defense. Some of that has to do with the range of deep defenders as well and the tendency of young linebackers to bite up on play fakes, failure to get proper depth, etc., but my gut says it also has to do with being too transparent, predictable and recognizable in their coverages overall.

In the absence of a new defensive approach altogether, better cover corner play will help, as will more aggressive pressure packages but that all comes more consistently from perimeter corner play and edge rushers than the fatties.I respect your opinion. You may be right. Now, assuming you're right, the question becomes how do we get from here to there? And, is Dom the appropriate coach to take us there?

The Baltimore Ravens run the 3-4. They seem to be always in the top ranks for all categories of defense. I think if we had our offense and the Ravens' defense this year we'd be playing next week.

How do the Ravens do it year to year (seemingly, I haven't checked the data)? What is different about the Ravens' defense compared to ours? Is it philosophy, scheme, players? Should Dom's replacement come from the Ravens' coaching tree?

Inquiring, aged minds want to know and want to know now. Aged fans have neither the time nor inclination to wait out an elaborate rebuilding scheme.

[vince]

I respect your opinion. You may be right. Now, assuming you're right, the question becomes how do we get from here to there? And, is Dom the appropriate coach to take us there?

The Baltimore Ravens run the 3-4. They seem to be always in the top ranks for all categories of defense. I think if we had our offense and the Ravens' defense this year we'd be playing next week.

How do the Ravens do it year to year (seemingly, I haven't checked the data)? What is different about the Ravens' defense compared to ours? Is it philosophy, scheme, players? Should Dom's replacement come from the Ravens' coaching tree?

Inquiring, aged minds want to know and want to know now. Aged fans have neither the time nor inclination to wait out an elaborate rebuilding scheme.
My preference is a new DC because these problems have persisted over a number of years. I think Mccarthy has a better sense of what's happening and how they should best be addressed though. In the end a couple additions and development of some young guys may be the best course vs. Introducing a whole new program. Regardless of scheme, you gotta have enough horses to implement it well.

Shields absence and other injuries had a big impact.

[beveaux1]

Our pass rush under Capers has usually put us in the top 10 in sacks yearly. This [I]usually[I]means that our defense applies good pressure. My eyes tell me that when we play on the road, the amount of pressure is diminished. Crowd noise and playing surface could both be factors for what my eye perceives.

I've been watching the Packers for many, many years and the pass defense for the whole of this year was the worst of the Capers era by my perception even if it wasn't so statistically. We set a record in 2011 for yardage allowed, but we played with a large lead in most games. It was definitely bend but don't break and our 15-1 record attests to that. Poor safety play was the main culprit that year, but I don't remember ever seeing receivers as open as they were throughout this year.

Capers' normal blitz percentage in previous years had to be higher than this year because of the lack of availability of NFL quality personnel at the CB position and his need to protect them. In order to bring this defense back to an acceptable level, a #1 CB has to be procured through whatever means necessary. I don't believe additional blitzing or anything short of Von Miller could disguise the problems in our secondary.

[vince]

Our pass rush under Capers has usually put us in the top 10 in sacks yearly. This [I]usually[I]means that our defense applies good pressure. My eyes tell me that when we play on the road, the amount of pressure is diminished. Crowd noise and playing surface could both be factors for what my eye perceives.

I've been watching the Packers for many, many years and the pass defense for the whole of this year was the worst of the Capers era by my perception even if it wasn't so statistically. We set a record in 2011 for yardage allowed, but we played with a large lead in most games. It was definitely bend but don't break and our 15-1 record attests to that. Poor safety play was the main culprit that year, but I don't remember ever seeing receivers as open as they were throughout this year.

Capers' normal blitz percentage in previous years had to be higher than this year because of the lack of availability of NFL quality personnel at the CB position and his need to protect them. In order to bring this defense back to an acceptable level, a #1 CB has to be procured through whatever means necessary. I don't believe additional blitzing or anything short of Von Miller could disguise the problems in our secondary.
I agree about the shutdown corner. And I can look some of that up beveaux to see but it will be a bit later on.

[Vincenzo]

Our pass rush under Capers has usually put us in the top 10 in sacks yearly. This [I]usually[I]means that our defense applies good pressure. My eyes tell me that when we play on the road, the amount of pressure is diminished. Crowd noise and playing surface could both be factors for what my eye perceives.

I've been watching the Packers for many, many years and the pass defense for the whole of this year was the worst of the Capers era by my perception even if it wasn't so statistically. We set a record in 2011 for yardage allowed, but we played with a large lead in most games. It was definitely bend but don't break and our 15-1 record attests to that. Poor safety play was the main culprit that year, but I don't remember ever seeing receivers as open as they were throughout this year.

Capers' normal blitz percentage in previous years had to be higher than this year because of the lack of availability of NFL quality personnel at the CB position and his need to protect them. In order to bring this defense back to an acceptable level, a #1 CB has to be procured through whatever means necessary. I don't believe additional blitzing or anything short of Von Miller could disguise the problems in our secondary.
Pressuring the QB will always help out a lousy secondary. Put it this way, if the Packers had generated a greater pass rush upon Matt Ryan the game would have been a different story.

[KYPack]

To my way of thinking, blitzing is when you rush 5 at the QB and cover with 6. then you get into exotic blitz packages where you send 6 rushing the QB and cover with 5. Capers did blitz early and had one exotic (S & CB) blitz, that I saw. They generated a bad play or two, but no blitzes or blitz schemes were anything you could make a living out of. We flat out didn't have the defensive troops to stop ATL. For us to win that game, we had to get a break someplace, match their offense with ours, & catch a freak score (PR or pick) to put us over the top.

We had to have a similar scenario that happened in Dallas the week before. When the offense got stymied, we were dead. Our 15 or so D players flat out were out matched by the team ATL put out on the field. Capers knows how to blitz and ain't afraid to do so. Shit, Capers invented a few NFL blitz packages. We didn't have the horses in that race and we lost.

Next year, we need a few more horses. Hopefully, the additions will be better and faster than the bunch that took the field down in Atlanta.

[vince]

Here are a host of defensive stats since 2011.

Packers Defensive Ranking by Year
QB Pressures..Sack%...Big Plays All..Takeaways..Passing Yds.All..Points All.
2016..12th...........11th..........28th........... 14th............32nd.........26th
2015..6th.............3rd...........9th........... ..16th............13th.........11th
2014..23rd............5th.........11th............ .4th.............7th...........14th
2013..10th............5th.........28th............ 20th............21st..........24th
2012..20th............4th.........13th............ 16th............10th..........13th
2011..4th..............32nd.......31st............ 2nd...........32nd...........22nd

The strongest determinant of points allowed is consistently big pass plays (25+ yds.) allowed. The Big Plays stat above is just passing plays BTW. For example, 2013 was a year the Packers had decent success pressuring and sacking the QB but the big plays allowed hurt.

As you said beveaux 2011 was a year the Packers were almost always playing with a lead, and their bend-don't-break defense allowed a lot of yards but their forced turnovers helped offset that. It's interesting that they pressured the QB well but didn't really get many sacks that year.

Hindsight's 20/20. It's unfair of me to state that pass defense has been a recurring problem because that hasn't really been the case. Capers was not successful in avoiding big pass plays this year but his approach was designed to prevent them. I think it's probably fair to say that he tried a lot of different approaches, and none of them worked with any consistency.

[vince]

I still believe that Capers needs to work on disguising coverages and timing adjustments, DB blitzes, etc. but in fairness that could be due to the youth he's dealing with as much as him needing to update the same scheme he's been running for 30 years.

[pbmax]

I don't think there was much more to be gained by blitzing more (as in sending more players than 4 more often).

With the Packers sack rate (vince's numbers as well as Football Outsiders) was ranked higher than their blitz rate (meaning when they sent people they seemed to be quite effective*), I see the temptation to read numbers as indicating that more pressure would be more effective. But the backend yielded so many big plays there was huge risk is pulling people from coverage and sending them after the QB. What we really need is to see results while pressuring with more than 4. Despite sack rate, if completions and yardage went up, then no amount of success will make them bleed less.

This thread is speaking about protecting DBs by pressuring the QB, but its only protection if three things happen:

1. Pressure forces a worse throw (or a sack)
2. DBs can hold up in coverage until pressure arrives
3. Completions that are made can be held to a reasonable yardage

Against a good QB, the backend could not hold up its end of the bargain. Too much confusion, too much cushion, too much YAC.


* One thing to keep in mind is we REALLY need sack rate while blitzing and sack rate when not to be able to suss out this option for Capers.

[pbmax]

I still believe that Capers needs to work on disguising coverages and timing adjustments, DB blitzes, etc. but in fairness that could be due to the youth he's dealing with as much as him needing to update the same scheme he's been running for 30 years.

Yeah, I would like to see it too. But there will be times with Ted that this is not possible. Its part of their disconnect.

Its why I think if you keep Ted and Dom, you start out simple and forget trying to disguise coverage. Learn to play man and zone to maximize each DB on roster because some of them are going to get hurt.

Put you disguise efforts into odd blitzes, overload and single-ing a guy up with a favorable matchup.

As the season goes on and you can add things, then maybe go to disguise later.

I want to see more Seattle and less Baltimore or Ryan Bros defense. Think you will always need veterans for the most complex schemes. Even Belichick thinned out his D playbook from earlier this decade when he had to rebuild his defense with the draft.

[pbmax]

Just to be clear, by "fat guy" I don't mean Raji or Gilbert Brown EXCLUSIVELY. I'm talking athletic, strong ~300 pounders like Daniels that can get the push upfield rather than 240 pound LB's who half the time get bounced backward by big OT's and OG's.

As I posted in response to Vince, I'm sort of done with Dom's 3-4 approach. I'd like to have 6-8 really good, big guys on the DL trench that we could rotate in an out so they stay fresh. The problem with Dom's system is you need very exceptional and athletic LB's to make it work, guys like Mathews and the old version of Peppers. Those guys are hard to find (especially given our perennial draft position) and fragile.

Its easier to find 260-270 edge rushers than 300 pounders that can push the pocket. Guys in the middle who can truly pass rush are the rare finds.

[vince]

I don't think there was much more to be gained by blitzing more (as in sending more players than 4 more often).

With the Packers sack rate (vince's numbers as well as Football Outsiders) was ranked higher than their blitz rate (meaning when they sent people they seemed to be quite effective*), I see the temptation to read numbers as indicating that more pressure would be more effective. But the backend yielded so many big plays there was huge risk is pulling people from coverage and sending them after the QB. What we really need is to see results while pressuring with more than 4. Despite sack rate, if completions and yardage went up, then no amount of success will make them bleed less.

This thread is speaking about protecting DBs by pressuring the QB, but its only protection if three things happen:

1. Pressure forces a worse throw (or a sack)
2. DBs can hold up in coverage until pressure arrives
3. Completions that are made can be held to a reasonable yardage

Against a good QB, the backend could not hold up its end of the bargain. Too much confusion, too much cushion, too much YAC.


* One thing to keep in mind is we REALLY need sack rate while blitzing and sack rate when not to be able to suss out this option for Capers.
Agreed. It's one of those, "whatever they did do didn't work so they should have done something different." arguments. I couldn't find blitz effectiveness data anywhere.

My impression (which is clearly unreliable), is that teams had too easy of a time finding holes when they played soft zone as well as man defense. The notion of trying to force the ball out of the QB's hand as quickly as possible in order to protect the coverage from breaking down likely had marginal success but it seems as if it wouldn't have been worse than sitting back and watching them get carved up.

In the end, after reading others' opinions and breaking down some of the actual results, I remain open to Capers' retiring but am less determined to argue for DC change than I was previously.

[pbmax]

I am just not sure there was any combo that would have worked. Maybe Rollins and Gunter in a zone, since Rollins seems to get it, but he was healthy less than Randall and he had a worse season going before that.

In retrospect, for everyone wanting to scream about being one RB short when Lacy got hurt again, the real devastation was losing both House and Hayward and having both Randall and Rollins fall apart with a Shields injury.

[vince]

The sophomore slump of these three DB's was remarkable this year. Look at those passer ratings against. It's like every QB that threw against them was Aaron Rodgers caliber. Rollins was particularly putrid after being borderline stellar as a rook.

https://media.profootballfocus.com/2017/01/GB-CBs.png

The Packers need to solve their secondary issues this offseason. (https://www.profootballfocus.com/pro-packers-need-to-solve-their-secondary-issues-this-offseason/)


The bottom line for the Packers is that they have a young group of coverage players that has shown the ability to play all over the map when it comes to coverage. That group was arguably the biggest determining factor in costing the team a place in the Super Bowl this season (with injuries playing a clear and important part, too), and if they don’t improve, they will remain an Achilles heel for an otherwise talented roster in 2017.

If the Packers can get this group to realize its potential and return to the promising play of 2015, they will have taken a huge step in the right direction without making a single personnel move. On the other hand, expecting that to happen may be an exercise in faith, and a gamble which could cost them dearly.

[texaspackerbacker]

Just to be clear, by "fat guy" I don't mean Raji or Gilbert Brown EXCLUSIVELY. I'm talking athletic, strong ~300 pounders like Daniels that can get the push upfield rather than 240 pound LB's who half the time get bounced backward by big OT's and OG's.

As I posted in response to Vince, I'm sort of done with Dom's 3-4 approach. I'd like to have 6-8 really good, big guys on the DL trench that we could rotate in an out so they stay fresh. The problem with Dom's system is you need very exceptional and athletic LB's to make it work, guys like Mathews and the old version of Peppers. Those guys are hard to find (especially given our perennial draft position) and fragile.

Glad you 'splained that about "fat guys" hahahaha. The trend around the league seems to be away from what you are wishing for and toward more speed - which generally means less size. In the case of the Packers, they haven't had much luck drafting that kind of guy either. They kinda got lucky with Daniels, who I can't recall if he was a low draft pick or UDFA, other than that, not much for a decade or more. Kenny Clark has potential, but he ain't there yet. I think the same trend exists in colleges, which makes finding quality D Linemen even more difficult. Even if we had the potential to brutalize O Lines and have a consistent push into the backfield, I'm thinking that sort of thing is too easy for O Coordinators to beat - mobile QBs getting outside or quick traps with fast RBs - you know, when the 3-4 first became popular, it was because more LBs were deemed better suited to foil the run game.

I would disagree about elite LBs being hard to find. Maybe Ted et al hasn't found them, but there certainly are a lot of outstanding rush LBs around the league. Also, just because we've had some injuries there doesn't necessarily mean it's that way all over. And of course, we have had a some D Linemen hurt too, probably as much or more considering they probably are on the field less total man minutes.

So no, you shouldn't be done with Capers' D. It's necessary the way things are now, and I think would be better than the alternative even if we miraculously managed to get better overall personnel.

[texaspackerbacker]

I am just not sure there was any combo that would have worked. Maybe Rollins and Gunter in a zone, since Rollins seems to get it, but he was healthy less than Randall and he had a worse season going before that.

In retrospect, for everyone wanting to scream about being one RB short when Lacy got hurt again, the real devastation was losing both House and Hayward and having both Randall and Rollins fall apart with a Shields injury.

The best thing to do IMO was what they did. Gunter did a pretty decent job against arguably THE 3 best wideouts in the NFC, maybe NFL. Zone D just doesn't seem to be the Packers thing, and it seems like good QBs can defeat zones in general better than man coverage. The one and only game where Randall played good, we were not in too bad shape. But not having any decent second Corner at all just was too much to overcome.

That's why going forward, I really hope we sign a proven quality cover Corner. That with Gunter as the number 2 and nickel and diming Randall and Rollins or whoever should work - assuming we get even borderline good front seven play.

[vince]

The best thing to do IMO was what they did. Gunter did a pretty decent job against arguably THE 3 best wideouts in the NFC, maybe NFL. Zone D just doesn't seem to be the Packers thing, and it seems like good QBs can defeat zones in general better than man coverage.
Tex Gunter was abused in the playoffs. He handled OBJ ok - with a ton of help - but not the other two guys - at all.

Dez Bryan had 9 catches on 12 targets for 132 and 2 TDs - both of which he manhandled Gunter.

Julio Jones also had 9 catches on 12 targets for 180 yds and 2 TD's - both of which he manhandled Gunter.

That's 18 catches for 312 yds and 4 TD's in 2 games - a 156.25 Defensive Passer Rating.

Yeah those two guys are real good but they demonstrated just how far out of their league Gunter is at this point. He was hanging on for dear life against Jones - completely abused.

[texaspackerbacker]

Tex Gunter was abused in the playoffs. He handled OBJ ok - with a ton of help - but not the other two guys - at all.

Dez Bryan had 9 catches on 12 targets for 132 and 2 TDs - both of which he manhandled Gunter.

Julio Jones also had 9 catches on 12 targets for 180 yds and 2 TD's - both of which he manhandled Gunter.

That's 18 catches for 312 yds and 4 TD's in 2 games - a 156.25 Defensive Passer Rating.

Yeah those two guys are real good but they demonstrated just how far out of their league Gunter is at this point. He was hanging on for dear life against Jones - completely abused.

To some extent, that's my point - he's the best we have (thanks Ted for that). He was "abused" more when we were in zone than man coverage, although obviously he got beat straight up sometimes too. Those receivers have similarly "abused" a lot of good Corners. Ideally we would have doubled up on them a large part of the time, but that wasn't feasible given our overall inadequate D personnel. If Ted finally gets off his ass and signs a quality cover Corner, Gunter would probably be good enough against most team's second receiver.

[vince]

Ted's a convenient scapegoat but as has been said many times, the corner depth looked very much like a strength of the team going in.

How does anyone reasonably foresee the shutdown corner sustaining a career-ending injury in game 1 - combined with the huge dropoff in play by the three 2nd year corners - who were universally touted as rising performers.

Then, once the regular season was underway, I'd say it's unrealistic to expect any GM to find a perimeter corner off the street who can reasonably be expected to step right in and succeed. If they could still cover they'd still be playing.

Ultimately it's his responsibility but there is only so much any GM can reasonably control in any single season. Now, if the same problems continue next year I'd say Ted's more than fair game.

I perceived a trend in poor pass defense but that wasn't the case. Defensive inconsistency has been an issue. One year it's poor run defense, the next they're top 10 overall, the next it's failure to pressure the QB, the next they're top 15, and the next it's coverage gaffes. I attribute that to injuries at different positions (and possibly coaching/scheme overcompensation).

Players performing one year but underperforming the next (normally due to injury) and then coming back strong the year after doesn't strike me as being a talent issue overall. Nick Perry underperformed for the better part of 4 years (You suck Ted.) due to his lack of availability, now he's a stud (Great talent eval. Ted) and everyone almost universally wants him re-signed for big money.

[vince]

To some extent, that's my point - he's the best we have (thanks Ted for that). He was "abused" more when we were in zone than man coverage, although obviously he got beat straight up sometimes too.
I don't think it's being overly dramatic to say that Gunter and the whole crew got beat every which way but loose this year. If they could man up with any reliability they wouldn't have been playing the soft zone with safeties over the top so much - which they couldn't play either.

Normally with this team, these types of problems have gotten fixed. We'll see.

[texaspackerbacker]

No, normally with this team, these types of problems have NOT gotten fixed - THAT is the whole point about Ted Thompson.

[vince]

No, normally with this team, these types of problems have NOT gotten fixed - THAT is the whole point about Ted Thompson.
What are the recurring "problems" that haven't been fixed?

[pbmax]

No, normally with this team, these types of problems have NOT gotten fixed - THAT is the whole point about Ted Thompson.

Tight End: Cook

Inside Linebacker: Martinez, Ryan

S: Ha Ha Clinton Dix, whom you will not be able to contact until later this week as he is playing in the Pro Bowl

RB (youth and speed): Pressley, Michael

WR (depth after last year): Geronimo


It took a while to make safety a strong suit after Collins went down but it did get fixed. And does anyone remember the other guy people were clamoring for in Dix's draft? Tight End looks as promising as it has since Finley lost his hands and mind in his contract year. Inside linebacker is still a jury out situation, but they were part of a very good run defense early and Martinez and Thomas can both cover better than anyone they have had inside since Barnett.

RB was a big problem this year but Thompson spent some resources looking for the rarest of all things in GB, speed at RB.

And tell me Geronimo doesn't make you happier about the WR group if one has to be shed due to age or contract*.


* People are now making noise that Cobb or Nelson will need to take a paycut to stay in GB for much longer. My money is they both finish out their deals. The offseason is replete with stories about cap casualties in GB, and almost none of them come true. The last one was Hawk, who did have to take a reduced deal.

[vince]

If the Packers miss the playoffs or even go into the playoffs next year with the same guys getting beat with the same frequency, I'll be first in line on the Ted Bashing machine. The whole world pretty much can see where and why the Packers came up short in the NFC Championship game.

But what happened this year at cornerback was realistically unforseeable, and if you think Ole Cromartie would have been the answer and a good fit for this team then I'm not sure what to say about that.

Anyone who argued that Hayward should have been re-signed last offseason has a credible argument - but I don't recall many who weren't saying "Those knees and hamstrings - how many million? Plus we have Rollins and Randall ready to step in.... Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out".

[Joemailman]

Tight End: Cook

Inside Linebacker: Martinez, Ryan

S: Ha Ha Clinton Dix, whom you will not be able to contact until later this week as he is playing in the Pro Bowl

RB (youth and speed): Pressley, Michael

WR (depth after last year): Geronimo




Who is Pressley?

[pbmax]

Who is Pressley?

Jhurell Pressley (http://www.packersnews.com/story/sports/nfl/packers/2016/09/04/packers-claim-rb-pressley-vikings/89817492/)

[texaspackerbacker]

Tight End: Cook

Inside Linebacker: Martinez, Ryan

S: Ha Ha Clinton Dix, whom you will not be able to contact until later this week as he is playing in the Pro Bowl

RB (youth and speed): Pressley, Michael

WR (depth after last year): Geronimo


It took a while to make safety a strong suit after Collins went down but it did get fixed. And does anyone remember the other guy people were clamoring for in Dix's draft? Tight End looks as promising as it has since Finley lost his hands and mind in his contract year. Inside linebacker is still a jury out situation, but they were part of a very good run defense early and Martinez and Thomas can both cover better than anyone they have had inside since Barnett.

RB was a big problem this year but Thompson spent some resources looking for the rarest of all things in GB, speed at RB.

And tell me Geronimo doesn't make you happier about the WR group if one has to be shed due to age or contract*.


* People are now making noise that Cobb or Nelson will need to take a paycut to stay in GB for much longer. My money is they both finish out their deals. The offseason is replete with stories about cap casualties in GB, and almost none of them come true. The last one was Hawk, who did have to take a reduced deal.

hahahahaha Speaking of HaHa, he's good, but not on the Nick Collins level. I'll give you Cook, for sure. Martinez and Ryan are gonna need to get a helluva lot better to be adequate at ILB. Pressley? You're kidding, right? They cut several players better than him. Michael I like, but we're gonna have to wait and see if there were good reasons why Seattle gave up on him that are gonna bite us too. I don't buy that he is "dumb as a rock", but the accusation has been made. And Geronimo? One thing (maybe the only thing) Ted is good for is UDFAs, and it seems to me that the reason why is going for players there who are completely the opposite of the kind he drafts - Gunter, Elliot, Shields, etc.

I agree with you about Nelson and Cobb. Both shaped up nicely toward the end of the season.

There have been various other problems, though, in recent years that haven't been solved at all.

[woodbuck27]

The sophomore slump of these three DB's was remarkable this year. Look at those passer ratings against. It's like every QB that threw against them was Aaron Rodgers caliber. Rollins was particularly putrid after being borderline stellar as a rook.

https://media.profootballfocus.com/2017/01/GB-CBs.png

The Packers need to solve their secondary issues this offseason. (https://www.profootballfocus.com/pro-packers-need-to-solve-their-secondary-issues-this-offseason/)

http://media.beliefnet.com/~/media/photos-with-attribution/faith/001/religiousmanprayingrosaryjpg.jpg?h=318

I am a Green Bay Packer fan ... Please ... help Ted Thompson and the Green Bay Packers staff get their shit together.