Packer Defense: Half Good or Half Terrible?

[pbmax]

They keep playing entirely different halves of football.

Is this progress as they figure out how to adjust and play the scheme in its first year? Is this Pettine having a handle on how teams are defeating his scheme?

Or is it the same defense that holds on for periods and then gives up the ghost? Or are they too short of talent at key positions to make it work for an entire game?

[Joemailman]

I'm going half good for now. If Safety play doesn't improve though, I'll be wrong.

[mraynrand]

I can't pick either - it's a blend of both. There seem to be good things in the scheme, but they don't have the horses or sufficient experience across the board to consistently execute. To be a good defense, more young players need to improve in a hurry and everyone remain healthy. Jones, Burks, Jackson, Gilbert and Mt. Adams all need to contribute significantly. In other words, they're in a lot of trouble.

[pbmax]

I am at half good. I suspect the efficacy of his adjustments shows that there is a good D buried in bad half performances.

I have no theories about why it takes halftime to make those adjustments and can only speculate that youngsters are seeing things for the first time and are reacting poorly.

Swapping out King for House isn't a win either. They have to ride Jackson, though we can see now why Alexander was targeted to start early in camp. The kid is human stick'um.

[Pugger]

Still having a lousy pass rush (and getting inane penalties for getting there) isn't helping. I wonder if the inconsistency of these calls our other defenders are not being aggressive enough...?

[texaspackerbacker]

Capers got a bunch of criticism - unjustified IMO - for compensating with scheme and trickery due to the lame-assed personnel Ted provided him. Now, Pettine is still dealing with a lot of that lame-assed personnel, and with less of the scheme and trickery, the result is worse. Pettine clearly seemed to be outcoached by the Redskins offensive people last Sunday.

[Cheesehead Craig]

The defense was outstanding in the 3rd Q and most of the 4th. I think the personnel is getting better, once they get a bit more experience in the secondary, they will be better. I still believe in Pettine.

[pbmax]

Capers got a bunch of criticism - unjustified IMO - for compensating with scheme and trickery due to the lame-assed personnel Ted provided him. Now, Pettine is still dealing with a lot of that lame-assed personnel, and with less of the scheme and trickery, the result is worse. Pettine clearly seemed to be outcoached by the Redskins offensive people last Sunday.

For a half.

No one but you thought trickery was a part of Capers plan. The rest of us though his predictability and commitment to age old blitzes were bigger problems. There was also the complex scheme adjustments to bring a 1990s defense up to par in the current age, which steepened the learning curve for young players.

[texaspackerbacker]

The great thing about Capers was his unpredictability. The negative about him was his inability (sometimes) to counter when other teams adapted to his schemes. Pettine seems less creative to begin with than Capers, and he doesn't seem any better at the "chess game" - countering what opponents do in response to what he does.

Sorry, I don't buy the idea that present-day players were too dumb to execute Capers' schemes. The schemes just weren't enough to make up for bad personnel. I hate to think of what things would have been like some of those years without the compensation of those schemes, though.

As somebody said, though, the personnel does seem to be getting a little bit better. That would be Gutekunst superior to Ted. If it gets good enough, maybe Pettine's kind of D will be good enough.

[ThunderDan]

The great thing about Capers was his unpredictability. The negative about him was his inability (sometimes) to counter when other teams adapted to his schemes. Pettine seems less creative to begin with than Capers, and he doesn't seem any better at the "chess game" - countering what opponents do in response to what he does.

Sorry, I don't buy the idea that present-day players were too dumb to execute Capers' schemes. The schemes just weren't enough to make up for bad personnel. I hate to think of what things would have been like some of those years without the compensation of those schemes, though.

As somebody said, though, the personnel does seem to be getting a little bit better. That would be Gutekunst superior to Ted. If it gets good enough, maybe Pettine's kind of D will be good enough.

I always get a kick out of reading your interpretation of a football game.

Capers was so vanilla other teams were saying they knew the coverage before the play started.

And when did Capers last bring 6 players to the line for a blitz and then drop back and blitz a safety from the edge?

[pbmax]

Capers was the reverse of unpredictable. All his pressure packages were well scouted by opponents. It was one of the problems.

He had some late term success with DB blitzes, but even that faded away.

[texaspackerbacker]

You couldn't see it coming when we faked the blitz several times, leaving our good pass rushers in coverage and our DBs ALMOST getting to the QB? I could. and apparently Washington could too.

How many of those modernistic Pettine blitz packages got to Smith? I think it was uh ...... none?

[pbmax]

You couldn't see it coming when we faked the blitz several times, leaving our good pass rushers in coverage and our DBs ALMOST getting to the QB? I could. and apparently Washington could too.

How many of those modernistic Pettine blitz packages got to Smith? I think it was uh ...... none?

I saw Matthews in coverage from the middle twice. It worked once and went for a big gain the second time.

It worked to perfection last week twice.

[ThunderDan]

I saw Matthews in coverage from the middle twice. It worked once and went for a big gain the second time.

It worked to perfection last week twice.

The one that went for a long gain to Reed, Clay was in perfect position and then turned/stopped about 7 yards down the field and let Reed get the step and a half he needed. I have no idea why Clay stopped. Wasn't sure if he was covering man-to-man until a drop point and then stopping in his zone? Thinking he was passing Reed off to the next player?

[pbmax]

The one that went for a long gain to Reed, Clay was in perfect position and then turned/stopped about 7 yards down the field and let Reed get the step and a half he needed. I have no idea why Clay stopped. Wasn't sure if he was covering man-to-man until a drop point and then stopping in his zone? Thinking he was passing Reed off to the next player?

Someone doing X and Os on Twitter showed his coverage last week against a slot guy (RB or TE, not WR) versus the Vikes. He dropped well into a zone and was in exactly the right place to force a difficult throw above him.

My suspicion is that they knew this was a coverage they might see and told that TE to forget the route and sit down in a hole in zone. But I don't have any idea of it was supposed to be man or zone.

[mraynrand]

I haven't re-watched yet, but I thought the reason they played better in the second half was that man coverage in the secondary held up. Generally I think they will have to be successful with man to be consistently good as a defense. That's the only way they can gain an advantage because they have so little natural pass rush talent. Then watch for a huge increase in crossing routes and rubs.

[pbmax]

I haven't re-watched yet, but I thought the reason they played better in the second half was that man coverage in the secondary held up. Generally I think they will have to be successful with man to be consistently good as a defense. That's the only way they can gain an advantage because they have so little natural pass rush talent. Then watch for a huge increase in crossing routes and rubs.

Problem with man is that Gruden, unlike McCarthy who still believes his WR group is the Big Five from 2009-10, will scheme you open.

He picked off the safety and slot corner multiple times that way, including the big Reed catch down the sideline.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Whether the D is half good or half terrible they are somewhere in the middle. So all systems normal. The potential is there for the offense to be dominant. As we've seen throughout the Rodgers era when the O takes the pressure off, the D magically becomes above average. I think the D looks like a typical Packer D.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Still having a lousy pass rush (and getting inane penalties for getting there) isn't helping. I wonder if the inconsistency of these calls our other defenders are not being aggressive enough...?

The pass rush is why I voted half terrible. But I'm still half pissed about yesterday's result so maybe my response was half cocked.

[Carolina_Packer]

I'm going half good for now. If Safety play doesn't improve though, I'll be wrong.

I know that tracking the ball in the air is not easy, but if it's your job, it should be easier than it looks for Brice. I also see HaHa overrun plays a lot, and give up extra yards.

[pbmax]

I know that tracking the ball in the air is not easy, but if it's your job, it should be easier than it looks for Brice. I also see HaHa overrun plays a lot, and give up extra yards.

The other problem is what Charles Davis pointed out (I took Rand's advice and listened to him this time).

Even if Brice cannot pick up the football in the air, he has inside leverage. Need to squeeze the window shut for the throw/catch. Brice looked toward the ball, lost all reference points, and drifted out of the picture. Had he just watched the receiver, he would have been positioned perfectly to make a play.

[red]

how bout same old defense, POOR effort?

how many times do we need to watch haha just stand there and watch someone else make the tackle? clay and perry both running 20 yards behind the LOS to avoid the blocks is not helping the pass rush. it gets no pressure on the QB and leaves 2 massive holes for the QB to step up into. this is an old problem which is still around in the new system

we needed to blow that shit up last off season and get away from the 3-4, we don't have the guys to play it

[pbmax]

Josh Jones Twitter
I just wanna Play and Ball.... please. Is that too much to ask for? :(

Forget Daniels. Maybe Jones in the doghouse?

[red]

Josh Jones Twitter
I just wanna Play and Ball.... please. Is that too much to ask for? :(

Forget Daniels. Maybe Jones in the doghouse?

its a little nuts that after the shitshow that brice had yesterday that fat mike already has said he is sticking with him and not giving jones his shot

did he even get on the field yesterday? even on ST?

[Bossman641]

its a little nuts that after the shitshow that brice had yesterday that fat mike already has said he is sticking with him and not giving jones his shot

did he even get on the field yesterday? even on ST?

Thought they said he was inactive. Maybe I'm wrong though

[Joemailman]

Thought they said he was inactive. Maybe I'm wrong though

He was inactive. Think I heard he was a late scratch.

[Bretsky]

When I first saw the poll I expected nearly everybody to vote half good.

Capers was very average. It was silly to pin all the blame on him. We need more players that play like TJ Watt and less that play like Kyle Fackrell (why is he on the team again)

[denverYooper]

Josh Jones Twitter
I just wanna Play and Ball.... please. Is that too much to ask for? :(

Forget Daniels. Maybe Jones in the doghouse?

He has an ankle.

[pbmax]

He only had about three practices in him. Would have been surprised to see him much. Jones went for the week and played less than 15 snaps

More surprised by him Tweet. But at least he wants to play

[pbmax]

He was inactive. Think I heard he was a late scratch.

Hope he didn't re-injure.

[wist43]

I think it comes down to the second level.... the back bone of a 3-4 is supposed to be the LB'ers - ours suck!

The DL is okay, the DB's are a work in progress (Clinton-Dix?? Yikes!!!!), but across that board our LB's are bottom of the barrel. If your team is giving significant minutes to Kyler Fackrell, you're in big trouble.