Keys To A Monday Night Win In Philly

[Packnut]

I firmly believe this will be the make or break game for Sanders as a DC. He's had 3 games to see the same problems repeat themselves and now we'll see if this guy has any clue about running a defensive scheme that works. This is what must be done in order to avoid our D being embarrassed on national tv:

1- Brian Westbrook. This guy has the ability to put up HUGE numbers against us. IF I see Poppinga singled up on Westbrook just once, I swear I'll drive up to GB next week and slap Sanders silly! It's obvious to everyone that we do not have a LB or saftey who can man up on Westbrook.
This is pretty much a pick your poison deal but I'd rather see their TE making plays against our D than BW controlling the game. I'd key Woodson on him all night long.

2- OK with Woodson on Westbrook, Harris has to man up all night long on Brown. This is a battle he should win. Stallworth is likely to play so that put's Collins on him. Keep Manuel up close to the line on 1st and 2nd down cause he's useless in coverage anyway.

3- If we keep Manuel in the box to stop the run, then we need to play an awful lot of nickel in order for Carrol to cover the #3 guy. He has improved his coverage skills and this is a match-up he should win.

4- Yep, I'm saying we go back to a srtictly man coverage. Our biggest problem is coming in zone coverages due to the fact that a certain DB coach is the worst coach in the history of football. Simplify the defense, cause nothings worked so far so we have nothing to lose. You know you've reached rock bottom when a scrub like Kitna throws for 350 against you. Desperate times call for desperate measures!

5- Screens. Sanders had better spend a lot of time this week on it cause no one does it better than Philly.

On offense, don't change a damn thing. MM has Brett in a zone, so go with it. I wanna see at least 4 or 5 screens to Green and may-be a DD reverse in order to keep the Philly D honest. They love to blitz, so 3 and 5 step drops are a must. 1st down PA is also a must.

The fan in me thinks an upset is possible here, but the realistic side of me knows it's almost impossible. I just want us to be competitive and not have a repeat of our last Monday night debacle.

[Pack0514]

.....go back to a srtictly man coverage. Our biggest problem is coming in zone coverages.......


I agree with this. I see poor communication in the defensive backfield. I cringe everytime a see a corner release a receiver to a safety. I dont know if our safeties are not in proper position or if our corners are releasing at the wrong time but its not a transition that is happening correctly and smoothly. Somethings not right and it needs to get fixed and fixed FAST

[pittstang5]

I see Andy " Fat Arse" Reid setting up playaction and going deep - alot. The Pack's defense has rolled over these past three games...now would be a good time to step up and get their sheet together or their gonna be in a hole....fast.

Westbrook is the one player that scares me on the Eagles team. He has the ability to break one everytime he touches the ball. If the pack D can contain him...they have a chance.

McNabb is absolutley horrible when under pressure. I'd like to see a game plan like the Pack had against the first game of Minnesota last year when they came out and just Blitzed, Blitzed, Blitzed. Culpepper was so confused, he didn't know whether he was coming or going. (nevermind what happened after half time - let the past be the past)

I'd like to see the Pack have a nice running attack for this game as well, but against the Eagles D - it ain't gonna happen. They'll have to set up screen passes, but they'll need to be careful that the Eagles D doesn't sniff that out. I'm thinking we'll see alot of quick slants for 5 - 6 yards to compensate.

[Tony Oday]

1. Approach Westbrook like we did Bush. Collins on him with Barnett Spying his direction.

2. Man up D Stizzle and Reggie Brown-eye with Woodson and Harris with Manuel helping Woodson.

3. This is Hawks day to cover a TE MAN UP!

4. This leaves Popp to not have to cover anyone so he has the FB and D Mcnizzle

5. Kamp, KGB, Jenkins, Williams and anyone else we rotate in there PREASURE D MCNIZZLE! But stay in your lanes and keep contain on him.

I think we can hold them to 17-21 points if that happens we win in my mind.

What do you guys think? I think this maximizes out strength and hides some weakness.

[mmmdk]

We've all seen improvement from our young Packers each week. Philadelphia, that's just a bad, bad matchup for the Packers. I think it's the most difficult game of the season. McNabb should have a field day and Westbrook might not get much on the ground but he'll get it on screens. I think two things could happen: either the Eagles trounces the Pack 38-17 or it's a shootout. In a shootout, Packers might have a chance, say 34-31. I really meant it when I said it was the most difficult game on the schedule. At Chicago? I don't think so! Packers will be better in week 17 and Bears might even play reserves. At Seattle is the only other candidate but Packers matchup better vs the Seahawks. I think Packers loses to Philly but comes back to Lambeau to trounce the Rams.

[Packnut]

We've all seen improvement from our young Packers each week. Philadelphia, that's just a bad, bad matchup for the Packers. I think it's the most difficult game of the season. McNabb should have a field day and Westbrook might not get much on the ground but he'll get it on screens. I think two things could happen: either the Eagles trounces the Pack 38-17 or it's a shootout. In a shootout, Packers might have a chance, say 34-31. I really meant it when I said it was the most difficult game on the schedule. At Chicago? I don't think so! Packers will be better in week 17 and Bears might even play reserves. At Seattle is the only other candidate but Packers matchup better vs the Seahawks. I think Packers loses to Philly but comes back to Lambeau to trounce the Rams.

Yep, your right, this is our most difficult game match-up wise. This has the potential to be very ugly.

[Packnut]

1. Approach Westbrook like we did Bush. Collins on him with Barnett Spying his direction.

2. Man up D Stizzle and Reggie Brown-eye with Woodson and Harris with Manuel helping Woodson.

3. This is Hawks day to cover a TE MAN UP!

4. This leaves Popp to not have to cover anyone so he has the FB and D Mcnizzle

5. Kamp, KGB, Jenkins, Williams and anyone else we rotate in there PREASURE D MCNIZZLE! But stay in your lanes and keep contain on him.

I think we can hold them to 17-21 points if that happens we win in my mind.

What do you guys think? I think this maximizes out strength and hides some weakness.

While some of us may differ on the scheme, we all agree it's time to try something different. What pisses me off is that for 3 straight Mondays, MM states the same damn thing-"it's mis-communication and we're gonna get that fixed". What a load of crap! They have had all training camp and the first 3 games of the season to fix it. Hell, at this point, I would'nt be upset if they drop everyone back and play the bend but don't break defense. Like I said, ANYTHING is better than what we've seen.

[havanother]

Westbrook put up like 170 total yards last week with TWELVE TOUCHES!!! I'd like to see the stats on how many times that's been done. He will kill our pathetic line. If he gets twenty touches catches or runs we lose by twenty. I'm buying extra beer and mixing it with the Kool-aid before I watch this future embarassmentl.

[ahaha]

Bend but don't break. On defense, we need to hold them to field goals. Hopefully get a few breaks like turnovers, key penalties, or dropped passes. The offense needs to be on the top of its game.

[Chester Marcol]

Rex Grossman was able to pass against us. Drew Brees tore us up. Kitna at times fired away at will. These aren't the most mobile of QB's. We got pressure only sparingly. After the first quarter, Drew Brees was mostly untouched. Our D finished good in Detroit, but at times Kitna was made to look better than he is.

Now comes McNabb. We have trouble getting consistant pressue on QB's with cement feet. I say McNabb rolling out and mobility is what will kill us. Our only hope is a shoot out, IMO. Reid is smart enough to script plays to put recievers in motion to have us covering Stalworth with a LB. The question that will be answered Monday night will be, are our coaches smart enough to fix these defensive issues so Poppinga isn't covering Stalworth and Woodsen is covering a FB.

[MadtownPacker]

Great thread!

I agree, stick Collins on Westbrook or else he is gonna kill the D. McMuffin stats dont tell the whole story cuz like half his pass yards are from westbrook making it happen.

Shut Westbrook down, win the game.

[woodbuck27]

We've all seen improvement from our young Packers each week. Philadelphia, that's just a bad, bad matchup for the Packers. I think it's the most difficult game of the season. McNabb should have a field day and Westbrook might not get much on the ground but he'll get it on screens. I think two things could happen: either the Eagles trounces the Pack 38-17 or it's a shootout. In a shootout, Packers might have a chance, say 34-31. I really meant it when I said it was the most difficult game on the schedule. At Chicago? I don't think so! Packers will be better in week 17 and Bears might even play reserves. At Seattle is the only other candidate but Packers matchup better vs the Seahawks. I think Packers loses to Philly but comes back to Lambeau to trounce the Rams.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I'll take that...2 - 3 at the Bye with a W1 streak. That...cool to me. :cool:

The Philly "D" although suffering is still deadly.

Their "D" matched up to OUR "D" well really... we are seeing it. Teams are throwing on us at will.

The only way we possible keep their "O" held back is with aggressive play or man to man with OUR "D" and properly matched up athletically and talent wise.

If Our HC and his Coaching Staff cannot totally restructure OUR Defensive scheme (say to alot of man to man coverage) they will kill us with the combination of McNabb and Brian Westbrook. Donovan McNabb will have us stuck in the mud.

Here ..this game will emphasize just what we have as a Coaching Staff.

and..It's MONDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL.

On "O". M3 has to mix it up still and not go all HOG on Favre. Nothing over 40 pass's. Unless he has to go "to hurry up" inside the 2 min warning as Tom Brady did so well last Monday night... but NE had " Dick all" in their Running game.

I don't care to see Brett Favre passing more than (well 35 times) is really good (the benchmark) and that would inform me that we're gaining yards on the ground (with a benchmark of say 30 touch's).

Keep OUR TE's in it... and how about the strange fella that plays FB for us??? Is Hendo alive??

I just don't wan't us to be embarassed again on national TV...esp. Favre embarassed. NO NO NO !!!


GO PACK GO ! PACKER FAN FAITH !!

[Packnut]

Speaking of the hurry up offense, would'nt it be fantastic to see MM start the game with a no huddle offense? I never understood why Sherman did'nt give Favre the same chance that Manning or Palmer have. Take advantage of his experience and go with it. MM seem's to like the shotgun so what the hell, give it a try.This way you take away the Philly D's advantage and you dictate to them. There is a HUGE advantage in checking their defensive alignment BEFORE calling the play. The QB mike works up to the 15 second mark so MM will still have input.

[mmmdk]

Could Collins contain or at least limit Westbrook?

Here are the Philly stats:
Offense points scored -28.7 total yards, 436.0, pass-307.0, rush-129.0
Defense points allow.-21.3 total yards, 345.7, pass-252.7, rush-93.0


307.0 passing yards per game..ugh..and McNabb is mobile. Packers need to watch the game tape of Eagles vs. Giants or even last years Packer win over Falcons. Last year Packers got beat my McMahon, right? I think Poppinga spied on Mike Vick last year with great success - to some extend McNabb should be spied too but only when the defense brings the heat and the secondary would actually have cover TIGHTLY or McNabb burns you. Then mayby, just maybe.

[MJZiggy]

So McNabb gets 307, Favre gets 340. Ok.

[RashanGary]

I don't think PHL is very good. We're horrible so we'll probably lose but I'm not a big believer in Philly.

[pbmax]

Everyone Repeat After Me: "A Safety or Linebacker In Coverage Is Not The Same As Zone Pass Coverage"

1. Manuel getting toasted by Berrien, Bryson or Williams was not zone coverage.
2. Woodson switching on motion to the outside WR is not zone coverage.
3. Poppinga coverage on Horn is not zone coverage. Stupid maybe, but not zone.
4. Safeties deep is not zone coverage. Could be, doesn't have to be.

See below:

Defense must defuse situation
Explosive plays hurt Packers
By TOM SILVERSTEIN
tsilverstein@journalsentinel.com
Posted: Sept. 25, 2006

Green Bay - Big plays helped the Green Bay Packers win their first game Sunday in Detroit, but they just as easily could have been what lost it for them.

Were it not for a near flawless performance from quarterback Brett Favre and his pass catchers, the story of the day at Ford Field would have been the big-play disease that continues to afflict the Packers defense.

In the 31-24 victory over the Lions, the Packers gave up nine explosive plays, which by coach Mike McCarthy's definition are runs of more than 12 yards and pass completions of more than 16. Through three games, the Packers have allowed a whopping 23 explosive plays, 19 of which have come through the air. Eleven of the 23 have gone for at least 25 yards and six have gone for touchdowns.

At best, defensive coordinator Bob Sanders figures a team can handle five explosive plays a game, but when you're averaging eight per game and two of them are touchdowns, it's a recipe for disaster.

"The problem right now is we can't give up any for touchdowns," he said. "We're giving them up for touchdowns. That's what we're looking at hard to eliminate."

As hard as they're looking, Sanders gave no indication he planned to make any significant schematic changes even though a common theme through it all has been the defense's inability to handle one-on-one match-ups, especially when the safeties have been involved.

Communication has often been identified as a cause for the problems, but often it's the fact that safeties Marquand Manuel and Nick Collins and linebacker Brady Poppinga have been exposed in single coverage. Other times it's players who don't seem to understand where their help is on the field or don't receive the help they're supposed to.

"We're trying to get the best matchups we can and we'll work at that," said Sanders, who is in his first year as coordinator after serving as one of Jim Bates' defensive line coaches last season.

It would seem to be a priority with the Philadelphia Eagles and their multi-talented tandem of quarterback Donovan McNabb and running back Brian Westbrook on deck for a Monday night meeting in Philadelphia. Westbrook had 162 yards and three touchdowns from scrimmage against San Francisco Sunday and in his last two games against the Packers has 324 yards from scrimmage and four touchdowns.

The Packers should be nervous, but Sanders insisted matchups weren't the problem against the Lions even though Manuel gave up a touchdown when matched up with running back Shawn Bryson, and Collins gave up a touchdown when matched up against receiver Roy Williams.

Both Sanders and McCarthy said Manuel's mistake was not coming up to the line of scrimmage soon enough to cover Bryson, who was a release for quarterback Jon Kitna with the blitz coming. Manuel gave so much room to Bryson that he left himself open for a hard juke, which he couldn't handle.

"Manuel's got to come down quicker," McCarthy said. "He gave him way too much room to get up on him. We were blitzing. That should have been a positive play for us."

Manuel, who was signed to five-year, $10 million free agent contract in March, has ties to Sanders from their days at the University of Florida in the late 1990s. Several football executives questioned the Packers' decision to sign Manuel because they felt he was not good in coverage and needed to be in a defense in which he could play close to the line of scrimmage.

The Packers play their safeties back on most passing downs and require them to play man-to-man coverage in some instances. Manuel's lack of speed has been evident on a number of plays, but Sanders disputed observations that he was a one-dimensional player.

"Scouting report from who?" Sanders said. "You'll have to ask those people. He made a lot of good plays for us this week. We go from there."

Collins is a much better athlete than Manuel and continues to make outstanding plays in other areas of the game. He was a major factor in bottling up New Orleans' Reggie Bush two weeks ago and had three pass break-ups and several saving tackles against the Lions.

After giving up two long plays against the Saints in which he was in single coverage, he gave up a 42-yard touchdown to Williams Sunday. Not all of it was Collins' fault because he was supposed to have help from linebacker A.J. Hawk, who dropped his coverage and left Collins to handle both options on Williams' route.

"We were a little late getting some help on the inside, so he (Collins) had a two way go on him," Sanders said. "He's as good a athlete as there is, but we try to work hard so those type things don't happen. For the most part, I don't think any of the big plays were any kind of mismatches."

Nevertheless, the safeties have been involved in coverage on four of the team's five touchdown passes allowed this season.

The weakness the Packers have shown in coverage and their inability to function as a cohesive unit in the secondary won't go unnoticed by future opponents. Detroit offensive coordinator Mike Martz saw it and was successful putting pressure on the safeties.

It's unlikely Sanders will do anything drastic with his defense, which is basically the same as Bates' was last year. One option would be for him to play more zone coverage, but that requires a lot of coordination and this group doesn't seem to have that right now.

All it has is a résumé of big plays and touchdowns.

"That's a problem," McCarthy said. "That's our problem on defense right now. We need to get it fixed. We had seven (explosive plays) last week; we had nine yesterday. Communication is the start of a lot of them. It's really not one individual. We need cleaner communication; we've got to be more decisive, more urgent. We'll get that cleaned up."

[BF4MVP]

2-2 would be nice.Let's hope Sanders can get this unbelievably talented defense to perform better this week..Go Pack

[mraynrand]

I was at that game in Philly in 2004 (the shellacking), and was really able to watch the secondary wrok. I was impressed by the difference between the free safeties - back then Sharper versus Dawkins. Dawkins had a much better sense of where the play was going - he seemed to take no false steps and guess right almost every time. Sharper guessed wrong and took bad steps, but often covered with his tremendous athleticism. In any case, Reid took advantage of weaknesses (too many to count) in the secondary and created matchups that the Packers weren't able to counter - specifically moving Westbrook over LBs and safeties. Barnett, as fast as he is, is too slow to cover Westbrook and he also takes false steps.

That being said, I don't think the Packers can go with a safety on Westbrook - they really need to line up a corner over him. Woodson seems too soft for the job, and Harris too slow. The guy they need to step up is Carroll. But overall, they need a secondary that recognizes plays as they develop or before (like Dawkins), whether they are running zone or man. And they can't afford mental errors (like Collins on the TD to Williams last week) or physical errors (Like Manuel not being able to break down and tackle the RB out of the backfield).

On offense, they need to protect Favre against the exotic blitzes, and this would be a good game to have the running game start to produce. The most amazing thing about the Detroit game is that the Lions pretty much knew what play was coming at them (pass or run) on almost every down, and yet the Packers still moved the ball. Showing the same to Philly will make it very hard to win. They really need to have some play-action working.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Isn't it obvious what needs to happen?

We all need to drink more for the Packers to win!

http://www.crafts-outlet.com/images/gel_candles/beer-mug-packers-small.JPG

So drink up kids!

[KYPack]

[quote="pbmax"]Everyone Repeat After Me: "A Safety or Linebacker In Coverage Is Not The Same As Zone Pass Coverage"

1. Manuel getting toasted by Berrien, Bryson or Williams was not zone coverage.
2. Woodson switching on motion to the outside WR is not zone coverage.
3. Poppinga coverage on Horn is not zone coverage. Stupid maybe, but not zone.
4. Safeties deep is not zone coverage. Could be, doesn't have to be.

Good post BTW

We'd have to have tape to correctly debate this.

1. He was in zone on two of 'em.
2. It doesn't have to be, but Woodson was playing the wide zone and shifted to pick up the guy that went to his outside.
3 Looked like a blown cover, but that would have to be zone to have a LB on Horn. Where his help was coming from, I dunno
4. Two deep safeties deep is zone 98% of the time. The only two S deep man coverage is the old cloud coverage which NFL teams play as often the single wing.

Most of the man cover in the Bates D in Man underneath, Zone on top.

I haven't seen manuel play much man & Silverstein doesn't know what he's talkin' about, he only knows what he's told.

[pbmax]

Glad to have this discussion. And I wish I had tape to review, it would be nice rather than memory.

On point 4, two deep safeties, yes, the Safeties playing the deep zones waiting for the routes to come to them, but the CBs are in man and if a RB goes wide, the OLBs must cover them.

These are man responsibilities, are they not?

And this is the defense Bates ran last year. We haven't switched schemes, and to bring up a safety to cover the TE or a back moving wide is not the Bates D.

Aren't we basically running the same coverages as last year?

My question to the critics of the two deep safeties is which safety do you bring up to the line to play man to man against if the offense goes three wide?

Isn't this why Woodson was brought in, so Carroll could be the nickle?

[Packnut]

[quote=pbmax]Everyone Repeat After Me: "A Safety or Linebacker In Coverage Is Not The Same As Zone Pass Coverage"

1. Manuel getting toasted by Berrien, Bryson or Williams was not zone coverage.
2. Woodson switching on motion to the outside WR is not zone coverage.
3. Poppinga coverage on Horn is not zone coverage. Stupid maybe, but not zone.
4. Safeties deep is not zone coverage. Could be, doesn't have to be.

Good post BTW

We'd have to have tape to correctly debate this.

1. He was in zone on two of 'em.
2. It doesn't have to be, but Woodson was playing the wide zone and shifted to pick up the guy that went to his outside.
3 Looked like a blown cover, but that would have to be zone to have a LB on Horn. Where his help was coming from, I dunno
4. Two deep safeties deep is zone 98% of the time. The only two S deep man coverage is the old cloud coverage which NFL teams play as often the single wing.

Most of the man cover in the Bates D in Man underneath, Zone on top.

I haven't seen manuel play much man & Silverstein doesn't know what he's talkin' about, he only knows what he's told.


I believe youjust nailed the problem! Sanders does'nt know what coverage scheme he's using. He thinks it's man but it's really zone. When a corner releases a man to the saftey, that IS NOT MAN COVERAGE. We all saw the Berian play and that's what happened. Frankly I'm surprised that someone who claims to know so much would fall for the Silverstein article and use it to try and prove us wrong. I guess we're not suppossed to believe what we see. No big surprise as it's the same guy who told me Dr Z forgot more about football than I'll ever know. I believe that was when I said Favre was'nt washed up when Z said he was. Gee, let's see, who was right about that one?????????????????

[KYPack]

Glad to have this discussion. And I wish I had tape to review, it would be nice rather than memory.

On point 4, two deep safeties, yes, the Safeties playing the deep zones waiting for the routes to come to them, but the CBs are in man and if a RB goes wide, the OLBs must cover them.

These are man responsibilities, are they not?

And this is the defense Bates ran last year. We haven't switched schemes, and to bring up a safety to cover the TE or a back moving wide is not the Bates D.

Aren't we basically running the same coverages as last year?

My question to the critics of the two deep safeties is which safety do you bring up to the line to play man to man against if the offense goes three wide?

Isn't this why Woodson was brought in, so Carroll could be the nickle?

You are confused.

Man coverage is cover 1
Corners take the x & z
Strong safety takes the TE
Free safety gives help in a variety of ways
Mike on FB (Cover 1 was used when there was FB)
Sam chuck the TE & drops
Sam or Wil takes the HB on circles or rainbow routes, etc.

Cover 1 is what has been classically called man to man.
Man to man that people refer to is man all the way and is rarely used. The Pack hasn't used it all year.

Are there man elements in the covers that Pack uses?

Hell yeah

Solo technique IS man cover and almost any Dback will find himself in Man through out the course of a games. When the D does there roll-overs to give support on the strong side, the weak safety will find himself in single technique with the Z receiver, fer instance. if the WS gets beat, it is his fault, but he ain't in man to man. It's still a zone cover.

Many other covers have man AND Zone elements.
Cover 3 can be Zone on top, Man underneath, Fritz Shurmur was a cover 3 and cover 4 pioneer,

Cover 4 can be quarters (zone) on top, Man underneath.

The Bates zone runs some zone on top man underneath, but it isn't a true man to man.

All of 'em are special Covers with a ton of man responsibilities, but they are zones.

Cover 1 is the only true man to man & I never see it anymore, cause nobody runs it. Unless you got a secondary like Philly had few years ago, Cover 1 will get yer ass beat.

[Joemailman]

Speaking of the hurry up offense, would'nt it be fantastic to see MM start the game with a no huddle offense? I never understood why Sherman did'nt give Favre the same chance that Manning or Palmer have. Take advantage of his experience and go with it. MM seem's to like the shotgun so what the hell, give it a try.This way you take away the Philly D's advantage and you dictate to them. There is a HUGE advantage in checking their defensive alignment BEFORE calling the play. The QB mike works up to the 15 second mark so MM will still have input.


No way was Sherman going to let a scrub like Favre mess with Rossley's brilliant game plans. :wink: I think McCarthy Has planned to give Favre more leeway on calling audibles than Sherman did, so the no-huddle wouldn't be a bad idea. I think the objective should be to expect more responsibility from Favre in terms of decision making, but give him more responsibility in terms of play selection.

[BEARMAN]

"Key" to winning, ..... simple, .....
1. Block better
2. Protect Farve better
3. Tackle better
4. Protect Farve better
5. Special teams..... better
6. Protect Farve better
7. Run pass paterns better
8. Protect Farve better
9. play the game of football better
10. Did I mention, Protect Farve better ?

Good luck Monday Night ! (you are goning to need it) :shock:

GO BEARS !

[Kiwon]

No killer ints. Brett needs to keep his hot streak going.

[Terry]

The question that will be answered Monday night will be, are our coaches smart enough to fix these defensive issues so Poppinga isn't covering Stalworth and Woodsen is covering a FB.

There's only so much any coach can do in the space of a week. I'm sure they are working on the Poppinga problem - they aren't blind. But they can't perform magic either. There just may be problems until Poppy gets better in coverage. One weak spot can make the entire unit look bad.

It would be nice to see them come out with 90% of the pass protection problems solved. I'm sure stranger things have happened. But it's not the sort of thing that one can expect, really.

[Fritz]

This has all the makings of a blowout, one of those games where I leave the bar at halftime, unable to stomach the Packers' (lack of) defense. But they do play the games for a reason, so I'll be there, hoping that the Packers will show improvement on both sides of the ball, and keep the game tight.

I do think the game plan for the Lions will help - lots of three-step drops against that blitzing Philly D. Defensively, man, I don't know. It looks like a mess out there, kind of that keystone kops routine from 2004.

I keep fantasizing that Sander will step down claiming stress or exhaustion, and Bates will come back, fire Shittenheimer, and whip these guys into shape.

[BooHoo]

Everyone Repeat After Me: "A Safety or Linebacker In Coverage Is Not The Same As Zone Pass Coverage"

1. Manuel getting toasted by Berrien, Bryson or Williams was not zone coverage.
2. Woodson switching on motion to the outside WR is not zone coverage.
3. Poppinga coverage on Horn is not zone coverage. Stupid maybe, but not zone.
4. Safeties deep is not zone coverage. Could be, doesn't have to be.

See below:

Defense must defuse situation
Explosive plays hurt Packers
By TOM SILVERSTEIN
tsilverstein@journalsentinel.com
Posted: Sept. 25, 2006

Green Bay - Big plays helped the Green Bay Packers win their first game Sunday in Detroit, but they just as easily could have been what lost it for them.

Were it not for a near flawless performance from quarterback Brett Favre and his pass catchers, the story of the day at Ford Field would have been the big-play disease that continues to afflict the Packers defense.

In the 31-24 victory over the Lions, the Packers gave up nine explosive plays, which by coach Mike McCarthy's definition are runs of more than 12 yards and pass completions of more than 16. Through three games, the Packers have allowed a whopping 23 explosive plays, 19 of which have come through the air. Eleven of the 23 have gone for at least 25 yards and six have gone for touchdowns.

At best, defensive coordinator Bob Sanders figures a team can handle five explosive plays a game, but when you're averaging eight per game and two of them are touchdowns, it's a recipe for disaster.

"The problem right now is we can't give up any for touchdowns," he said. "We're giving them up for touchdowns. That's what we're looking at hard to eliminate."

As hard as they're looking, Sanders gave no indication he planned to make any significant schematic changes even though a common theme through it all has been the defense's inability to handle one-on-one match-ups, especially when the safeties have been involved.

Communication has often been identified as a cause for the problems, but often it's the fact that safeties Marquand Manuel and Nick Collins and linebacker Brady Poppinga have been exposed in single coverage. Other times it's players who don't seem to understand where their help is on the field or don't receive the help they're supposed to.

"We're trying to get the best matchups we can and we'll work at that," said Sanders, who is in his first year as coordinator after serving as one of Jim Bates' defensive line coaches last season.

It would seem to be a priority with the Philadelphia Eagles and their multi-talented tandem of quarterback Donovan McNabb and running back Brian Westbrook on deck for a Monday night meeting in Philadelphia. Westbrook had 162 yards and three touchdowns from scrimmage against San Francisco Sunday and in his last two games against the Packers has 324 yards from scrimmage and four touchdowns.

The Packers should be nervous, but Sanders insisted matchups weren't the problem against the Lions even though Manuel gave up a touchdown when matched up with running back Shawn Bryson, and Collins gave up a touchdown when matched up against receiver Roy Williams.

Both Sanders and McCarthy said Manuel's mistake was not coming up to the line of scrimmage soon enough to cover Bryson, who was a release for quarterback Jon Kitna with the blitz coming. Manuel gave so much room to Bryson that he left himself open for a hard juke, which he couldn't handle.

"Manuel's got to come down quicker," McCarthy said. "He gave him way too much room to get up on him. We were blitzing. That should have been a positive play for us."

Manuel, who was signed to five-year, $10 million free agent contract in March, has ties to Sanders from their days at the University of Florida in the late 1990s. Several football executives questioned the Packers' decision to sign Manuel because they felt he was not good in coverage and needed to be in a defense in which he could play close to the line of scrimmage.

The Packers play their safeties back on most passing downs and require them to play man-to-man coverage in some instances. Manuel's lack of speed has been evident on a number of plays, but Sanders disputed observations that he was a one-dimensional player.

"Scouting report from who?" Sanders said. "You'll have to ask those people. He made a lot of good plays for us this week. We go from there."

Collins is a much better athlete than Manuel and continues to make outstanding plays in other areas of the game. He was a major factor in bottling up New Orleans' Reggie Bush two weeks ago and had three pass break-ups and several saving tackles against the Lions.

After giving up two long plays against the Saints in which he was in single coverage, he gave up a 42-yard touchdown to Williams Sunday. Not all of it was Collins' fault because he was supposed to have help from linebacker A.J. Hawk, who dropped his coverage and left Collins to handle both options on Williams' route.

"We were a little late getting some help on the inside, so he (Collins) had a two way go on him," Sanders said. "He's as good a athlete as there is, but we try to work hard so those type things don't happen. For the most part, I don't think any of the big plays were any kind of mismatches."

Nevertheless, the safeties have been involved in coverage on four of the team's five touchdown passes allowed this season.

The weakness the Packers have shown in coverage and their inability to function as a cohesive unit in the secondary won't go unnoticed by future opponents. Detroit offensive coordinator Mike Martz saw it and was successful putting pressure on the safeties.

It's unlikely Sanders will do anything drastic with his defense, which is basically the same as Bates' was last year. One option would be for him to play more zone coverage, but that requires a lot of coordination and this group doesn't seem to have that right now.

All it has is a résumé of big plays and touchdowns.

"That's a problem," McCarthy said. "That's our problem on defense right now. We need to get it fixed. We had seven (explosive plays) last week; we had nine yesterday. Communication is the start of a lot of them. It's really not one individual. We need cleaner communication; we've got to be more decisive, more urgent. We'll get that cleaned up."

Good article. Thanks for posting.

[Bretsky]

Speaking of the hurry up offense, would'nt it be fantastic to see MM start the game with a no huddle offense? I never understood why Sherman did'nt give Favre the same chance that Manning or Palmer have. Take advantage of his experience and go with it. MM seem's to like the shotgun so what the hell, give it a try.This way you take away the Philly D's advantage and you dictate to them. There is a HUGE advantage in checking their defensive alignment BEFORE calling the play. The QB mike works up to the 15 second mark so MM will still have input.

Good points; gosh, while you are a bit more outspoken on your views than I tend to be, I've noticed in your posts that we agree on just about everything.


Cheers,
B

[Bretsky]

First off, Phily is on another level than Green Bay so we need to play as well as we can and Phily needs to be off to win.

What I'd like to see is Andy Reid NOT outcoach the Green Bay staff for once. Sherman lost several games to Reid with more talent, yet he was outsmarted and maneuvered.

I think Ahmad Carroll has to have a very solid game and play often. He needs to be that 3rd reliable cover guy to blanket either Westbrook, Brown, or Stallworth. Collins isn't going to be able to stick to those guys well enough IMO.

I think Monday will be a long night for us.

B

[mraynrand]

What I'd like to see is Andy Reid NOT outcoach the Green Bay staff for once. Sherman lost several games to Reid with more talent, yet he was outsmarted and maneuvered.

Interesting POV. Perhaps, due to Philly injuries, the 2003 team was better. I'd say they were equally matched when Sherman won his first game in Lambeau (6-3 if I recall correctly) and with injuries to both teams they were about the same last year too. The 2004 Philly team was clearly better.

When you have to rely on converting a 4th and 26 to stay alive, you're really not outsmarting anyone. More than anything else, you got lucky.

[pbmax]

Are there man elements in the covers that Pack uses?

Hell yeah

Solo technique IS man cover and almost any Dback will find himself in Man through out the course of a games. When the D does there roll-overs to give support on the strong side, the weak safety will find himself in single technique with the Z receiver, fer instance. if the WS gets beat, it is his fault, but he ain't in man to man. It's still a zone cover.

Many other covers have man AND Zone elements.
Cover 3 can be Zone on top, Man underneath, Fritz Shurmur was a cover 3 and cover 4 pioneer,

Cover 4 can be quarters (zone) on top, Man underneath.

The Bates zone runs some zone on top man underneath, but it isn't a true man to man.
Thanks for the explanation. Esp. pointing out difference between solo technique and man coverage.

But if Bates/Sanders runs zone on top, and it seems in base, zone underneath middle, with the CBs in solo technique, do we want MORE man coverage?

In base defense, does anyone want more safety's in man coverage? Or Poppinga? Maybe Hawk on the RB is OK.

My point is that both are safeties have struggled in coverage, as has the SAM. And while there has been problems executing the zone, I can't imagine this getting better if anyone of these three players are asked to cover someone solo.

I say stick with what you have and find a way to execute it better.

[MJZiggy]

"Key" to winning, ..... simple, .....
1. Block better
2. Protect Favre better
3. Tackle better
4. Protect Favre better
5. Special teams..... better
6. Protect Favre better
7. Run pass paterns better
8. Protect Favre better
9. play the game of football better
10. Did I mention, Protect Favre better ?

Good luck Monday Night ! (you are goning to need it) :shock:

GO BEARS !

I thought they protected Favre fine last week. No sacks and I recall one play off the top of my head where Favre had time to reload twice before launching a long pass. I'm far more concerned with the pass coverage than the pass protection. And we're supposed to have better than no missed field goals and a 44 yard punting average? Admittedly, this team does have its problems, you've just managed to miss every single one of them.

[wist43]

They need to play nickel as their base defense. I don't think Philly can run the ball between the Tackles, so play nickel and make sure Westbrook is accounted for with either Hawk, Barnett, or a Safety.

I don't think Sanders will be able to figure it out though.

[HarveyWallbangers]

They need to play nickel as their base defense. I don't think Philly can run the ball between the Tackles, so play nickel and make sure Westbrook is accounted for with either Hawk, Barnett, or a Safety.

I've thought the same thing. Philly isn't going to kill us running the ball, so replace Poppinga with Carroll, and let Collins concentrate on covering Westbrook out of the backfield.

[ahaha]

"Key" to winning, ..... simple, .....
1. Block better
2. Protect Favre better
3. Tackle better
4. Protect Favre better
5. Special teams..... better
6. Protect Favre better
7. Run pass paterns better
8. Protect Favre better
9. play the game of football better
10. Did I mention, Protect Favre better ?

Good luck Monday Night ! (you are goning to need it) :shock:

GO BEARS !

You seem to think our biggest weakness is pass protection. But, that's one area that's actually looked pretty good. Favre has only been sacked 5 times, which is tied for 9th best in the NFL. That's not too shabby when you consider the fact the Packers have attempted the most passes of any team in the NFL.

[pbmax]

They need to play nickel as their base defense. I don't think Philly can run the ball between the Tackles, so play nickel and make sure Westbrook is accounted for with either Hawk, Barnett, or a Safety.

I don't think Sanders will be able to figure it out though.
This is what killed me in the Detroit game and on several other plays. Where has Carroll been?

I thought Hawk together with Barnett was going to bring back the 4-2-5 (3 CB) nickel?

Has McGinn given the pecentages of nickel defense in his game grades each week?

[packers11]

They need to play nickel as their base defense. I don't think Philly can run the ball between the Tackles, so play nickel and make sure Westbrook is accounted for with either Hawk, Barnett, or a Safety.

I don't think Sanders will be able to figure it out though.
This is what killed me in the Detroit game and on several other plays. Where has Carroll been?

I thought Hawk together with Barnett was going to bring back the 4-2-5 (3 CB) nickel?

Has McGinn given the pecentages of nickel defense in his game grades each week?

man... thats what ive been yelling @ my tv about.... I ALWAYS SEE 3 lb's even on long passing plays... HMM... Carroll is pretty good why not put him in there?? Look what he did last week, the hot head caused a int td :mrgreen: ....
Ill go Carroll > Pooppinga in coverage anyday....

[BEARMAN]

"Key" to winning, ..... simple, .....
1. Block better
2. Protect Favre better
3. Tackle better
4. Protect Favre better
5. Special teams..... better
6. Protect Favre better
7. Run pass paterns better
8. Protect Favre better
9. play the game of football better
10. Did I mention, Protect Favre better ?

Good luck Monday Night ! (you are goning to need it) :shock:

GO BEARS !

I thought they protected Favre fine last week. No sacks and I recall one play off the top of my head where Favre had time to reload twice before launching a long pass. I'm far more concerned with the pass coverage than the pass protection. And we're supposed to have better than no missed field goals and a 44 yard punting average? Admittedly, this team does have its problems, you've just managed to miss every single one of them.
Hey, I'm trying.... :crazy:

GO BEARS !

[BooHoo]

What I'd like to see is Andy Reid NOT outcoach the Green Bay staff for once. Sherman lost several games to Reid with more talent, yet he was outsmarted and maneuvered.

Interesting POV. Perhaps, due to Philly injuries, the 2003 team was better. I'd say they were equally matched when Sherman won his first game in Lambeau (6-3 if I recall correctly) and with injuries to both teams they were about the same last year too. The 2004 Philly team was clearly better.

When you have to rely on converting a 4th and 26 to stay alive, you're really not outsmarting anyone. More than anything else, you got lucky.

We have been out-coached by Andy Reid. Maybe we should have tried to hire him to replace Sherman. Actually, I wonder if someone "off the record" gave him a call to see what his interest was. Let's see if our new brain trust can give Andy a run for his money. :smile:

[KYPack]

Are there man elements in the covers that Pack uses?

Hell yeah

Solo technique IS man cover and almost any Dback will find himself in Man through out the course of a games. When the D does there roll-overs to give support on the strong side, the weak safety will find himself in single technique with the Z receiver, fer instance. if the WS gets beat, it is his fault, but he ain't in man to man. It's still a zone cover.

Many other covers have man AND Zone elements.
Cover 3 can be Zone on top, Man underneath, Fritz Shurmur was a cover 3 and cover 4 pioneer,

Cover 4 can be quarters (zone) on top, Man underneath.

The Bates zone runs some zone on top man underneath, but it isn't a true man to man.
Thanks for the explanation. Esp. pointing out difference between solo technique and man coverage.

But if Bates/Sanders runs zone on top, and it seems in base, zone underneath middle, with the CBs in solo technique, do we want MORE man coverage?

In base defense, does anyone want more safety's in man coverage? Or Poppinga? Maybe Hawk on the RB is OK.

My point is that both are safeties have struggled in coverage, as has the SAM. And while there has been problems executing the zone, I can't imagine this getting better if anyone of these three players are asked to cover someone solo.

I say stick with what you have and find a way to execute it better.

I'd think your last statement is sound advice.

I'll comment on few more of these points when I hit the office tommorrow.

[LEWCWA]

score early and often!!!!

[pbmax]

Are there man elements in the covers that Pack uses?

Hell yeah

Solo technique IS man cover and almost any Dback will find himself in Man through out the course of a games. When the D does there roll-overs to give support on the strong side, the weak safety will find himself in single technique with the Z receiver, fer instance. if the WS gets beat, it is his fault, but he ain't in man to man. It's still a zone cover.

Many other covers have man AND Zone elements.
Cover 3 can be Zone on top, Man underneath, Fritz Shurmur was a cover 3 and cover 4 pioneer,

Cover 4 can be quarters (zone) on top, Man underneath.

The Bates zone runs some zone on top man underneath, but it isn't a true man to man.
Thanks for the explanation. Esp. pointing out difference between solo technique and man coverage.

But if Bates/Sanders runs zone on top, and it seems in base, zone underneath middle, with the CBs in solo technique, do we want MORE man coverage?

In base defense, does anyone want more safety's in man coverage? Or Poppinga? Maybe Hawk on the RB is OK.

My point is that both are safeties have struggled in coverage, as has the SAM. And while there has been problems executing the zone, I can't imagine this getting better if anyone of these three players are asked to cover someone solo.

I say stick with what you have and find a way to execute it better.

I'd think your last statement is sound advice.

I'll comment on few more of these points when I hit the office tommorrow.
Looking forward to it. Also curious, if Fritz was a pioneer in cover 3 and 4, did he change his approach with the Pack?

I remember Butler with lots of responsibility for the TE and LOS, also Simmons trying to beat the Bejeesus out of Brent Jones, Jay Novacek and Wesley Walls. Was this cover 3?

[KYPack]

Are there man elements in the covers that Pack uses?

Hell yeah

Solo technique IS man cover and almost any Dback will find himself in Man through out the course of a games. When the D does there roll-overs to give support on the strong side, the weak safety will find himself in single technique with the Z receiver, fer instance. if the WS gets beat, it is his fault, but he ain't in man to man. It's still a zone cover.

Many other covers have man AND Zone elements.
Cover 3 can be Zone on top, Man underneath, Fritz Shurmur was a cover 3 and cover 4 pioneer,

Cover 4 can be quarters (zone) on top, Man underneath.

The Bates zone runs some zone on top man underneath, but it isn't a true man to man.
Thanks for the explanation. Esp. pointing out difference between solo technique and man coverage.

But if Bates/Sanders runs zone on top, and it seems in base, zone underneath middle, with the CBs in solo technique, do we want MORE man coverage?

In base defense, does anyone want more safety's in man coverage? Or Poppinga? Maybe Hawk on the RB is OK.

My point is that both are safeties have struggled in coverage, as has the SAM. And while there has been problems executing the zone, I can't imagine this getting better if anyone of these three players are asked to cover someone solo.

I say stick with what you have and find a way to execute it better.

I'd think your last statement is sound advice.

I'll comment on few more of these points when I hit the office tommorrow.
Looking forward to it. Also curious, if Fritz was a pioneer in cover 3 and 4, did he change his approach with the Pack?

I remember Butler with lots of responsibility for the TE and LOS, also Simmons trying to beat the Bejeesus out of Brent Jones, Jay Novacek and Wesley Walls. Was this cover 3?

No.

We are going from basics to nuclear fission when we start discussing one of my personal favorite DC's of all-time, the great Fritz Shurmur. Fritz was called the Doctor of Defense (Steve Young called him the
"Dr Frankenstein of D" ) and any discussion of his D's would be presumptuous on my part. That man was a flat out genius. But I can describe what the man did.

His base D was a 4-3 Strong side rotation with a buck. That buck linebacker would play right over the TE and deliver a blow every play. Let's call him Wayne Simmons, one of the strongest, scariest bastards ever to step on a football field. So crazy, he's dead now.

The other frequently used defense was the Eagle ( also called the Packer, or Big Nickel) 4 lineman in an odd or even alignment, 2 backers, 5 backs 2 deep. This D was used in spots that Nickel's weren't used traditionally used, that is, on running downs. This was Fritz's baby and nobody really uses it now that he's gone.

Another D (and the answer to your cover 3 question) was the 4 1 6 (don't remember the name or if it had one). In this one Fritz deployed 6 DB's with the back line in the "Cloud" alignment. That's two safties and one CB deep. Fritz pioneered his own form of this exotic defense, & I also don't see anybody running it now. (Not counting Belichick, another genius, but nowhere near as charming as Fritz)

Another thing you must remember, It ain't the plays, it's the players. Fritz used athletes with smarts, athletic talent and fierce hearts. He would design his defenses to maximize that player's talents.

Case in point is LeRoy Butler. I'll never forget LeRoy against the Lions & Scott Mitchell one year. The Lions broke the huddle on third and long. The pack were in the Eagle with LeRoy at SS. As Scott Mitchell went under center, LeRoy stated to march towards the line. Mitchell was starting to freak as Lee crept closer and closer to the line. Lee staying in a crouch but forcefully moved closer to the rattled QB. LeRoy kept it up until he was a yard or two from Mitchell. This goof only had Barry Sanders in the backfield with him and had exhausted all his checkdowns. All he could do was call time. Which he did. The Lions went to a Max cover scheme with a TE in close, two bruising backs for big time pass pro. Except Lee just went back to his position and the Packers double covered his two eligible recievers. Mitchell threw another incompletion. & the Lions were beat, game, set & match! They had lost the mental challenge and knew they had nothing to beat the Packers that day.

Fritz loved Lee, who opened up to Fritz. Shurmur poured his knowlege into Lee's head, &#36 became a full blown coach on the field.

But if Bates/Sanders runs zone on top, and it seems in base, zone underneath middle, with the CBs in solo technique, do we want MORE man coverage?

Underneath, they use some match-up ( a form of man to man). Better execution is need, the scheme is OK

In base defense, does anyone want more safety's in man coverage? Or Poppinga? Maybe Hawk on the RB is OK.

Yer groping, my boy!

S is the last line, when the S's cover it's defacto man like we discussed earlier. Hawk is a great young LB and his cover and overall pass defense is improving by leaps and bounds every game. He's fine & he ain't the problem.

Pop's improving too. But by baby steps. I don't know if he'll make it or not.

[cheese_man]

Hawk will have brain shut down on monday, and if farve plays good you have a chance. also the D needs to force at least two turnovers.

[MJZiggy]

Hawk will have brain shut down on monday, and if Favre plays good you have a chance. also the D needs to force at least two turnovers.

Why do you think Hawk will have a brain shut down on Monday?

[Creepy]

The Eagles are a pass first and run sometimes offense. Gb should come out with a nickel dfense and set Poppinga down. Use the extra DB to blitz from difefrent angles to include the LBs. Keep the pressure up and McNabb will throw a few picks. I expect he Eagles to throw a lot and get yards, but the right blitz at the right time will get that back.

GBs run defense is solid and they use Westbrook more on draws than straight forward runs. have a player key on Westbrook, but mix it so McNabb won't know which guy is keying. This offense gets tired by the fourth, much like their defense. Keep it close and keep pressure and it will crack late in thethrid or early fourth.

The Eagle defense is good againstthe run, when running up the gut. GB needs to run siode to side even if it doesn't gain much yardage. With Kearse out you want to wear down the DL. By the middle of the fourth quarter they will get tires and be easily exploited. I do not like Brett throwing long, but with the Eagles Dbs hurt a few long shots need to be taken to backthe LBs off and keep the safeties honest. Without Kearse, the DL of the Eagles won't be as menancing as before, so roll outs and short passes will keep the DL moving and gettng tired.

GB mainly needs to stay away from the big turnover. No fumbles/ints in our territory. Theymust score at least three evrytime they cross the 50. Anytime GB gets within the Eagles 45 yard lien they should go on fourth down (unless a FG is makeable). If Gb is in Eagle territory at or inside the 45 they should go on fourth down if it is less than 5 yards.

I believe GB can win this with an aggressive defense and offense. Neither side can play soft. The eagles are hurt on defense and are a pass oriented offense. Pressure on both side of the ball is what can beat them.

[pbmax]

In base defense, does anyone want more safety's in man coverage? Or Poppinga? Maybe Hawk on the RB is OK.

Yer groping, my boy!

S is the last line, when the S's cover it's defacto man like we discussed earlier. Hawk is a great young LB and his cover and overall pass defense is improving by leaps and bounds every game. He's fine & he ain't the problem.

Pop's improving too. But by baby steps. I don't know if he'll make it or not.
Great post. One more on Shurmur. When Fritz worked for the LA Rams, he ran a 2-5 defense (2 DLs, 5 LBs, 4 DBs) due to injuries and (I wasn't a Rams fan so I can only go on memory from the press accounts) it was called the Eagle defense.

Did this D have any relation to the Eagle you mentioned the Packers running? Clearly, and I did see them run it (Kevin Greene was on that team) one or two of the LBs were playing down lineman positions, essentially. So while the Packers did not run this personnel grouping out on the field, was the scheme similar or just the name?

And didn't McGinn, when describing Bates defense as an over 4-3, refer also to the D Fritz was running as an under 4-3? Under 4-3 same as strong side with a buck?

Back to the original point. Several posters commented that we needed to play less zone. I take for granted they are talking about the base defense. I disagree.

If we play more solo techniques or man coverage (cover 1) I think out DBs and LBs would get exposed more, not less. This wouldn't be an improvement over current play.

My thinking is, that in base, the current CBs are already playing one on one technique on the outside in our base defense. To increase the amount of solo coverage or technique, means that either the safeties or the LBs would be handed more one on one matchups, with less help. I can't consider this a good thing from what I have seen so far. The excetion might be Hawk, who seems to be aquitting himself OK in coverage.

Does that finally make sense?

One thing I think could be done is to play more nickle, substituting Carroll for Pop seems to be a clear win in the area of coverage.

[LaFours]

Hawk will have brain shut down on monday, and if Favre plays good you have a chance. also the D needs to force at least two turnovers.

Why do you think Hawk will have a brain shut down on Monday?

Yes, I would like to see your reasoning behind this contention as well...

[Oscar]

I'm thinkin that if we take the ai in brain and switch them to ia as in Brian... Westbrook.. Thats just a guess though. :lol: Who really knows.

[KYPack]

In base defense, does anyone want more safety's in man coverage? Or Poppinga? Maybe Hawk on the RB is OK.

Yer groping, my boy!

S is the last line, when the S's cover it's defacto man like we discussed earlier. Hawk is a great young LB and his cover and overall pass defense is improving by leaps and bounds every game. He's fine & he ain't the problem.

Pop's improving too. But by baby steps. I don't know if he'll make it or not.
Great post. One more on Shurmur. When Fritz worked for the LA Rams, he ran a 2-5 defense (2 DLs, 5 LBs, 4 DBs) due to injuries and (I wasn't a Rams fan so I can only go on memory from the press accounts) it was called the Eagle defense.

Did this D have any relation to the Eagle you mentioned the Packers running? Clearly, and I did see them run it (Kevin Greene was on that team) one or two of the LBs were playing down lineman positions, essentially. So while the Packers did not run this personnel grouping out on the field, was the scheme similar or just the name?

The Ram defense you describe was just another of Fritz's "Dr Fankenstein" deals to cause OC's to tear their hair out. Fritz may have labeled that one "Eagle" but the Eagle I describe that he used in GB is the classic Eagle D that's used at many levels. Fritz got into fancy labels for his stuff after Buddy Ryan hijacked his 46 defense (Invented by Fritz at the U of Wyoming in the early - mid 70's) and got all the credit for it *& never acknolwleging Fritz as the creator of it.
And didn't McGinn, when describing Bates defense as an over 4-3, refer also to the D Fritz was running as an under 4-3? Under 4-3 same as strong side with a buck?

Over and under (also called and even) are fronts. If the D tackle plays over the center that's an over (Odd). If he plays in the gap, that's an under (even). Fronts are for the knuckledraggers to work out. We smart guys (the backs) have far greater things to worry about. Buck means the stronside plugger plays aggressive technique over the TE and jack's him up every play. (There is another way the term "Buck" is used, but let's not get too techical here.)

Back to the original point. Several posters commented that we needed to play less zone. I take for granted they are talking about the base defense. I disagree.

To be crude about the whole deal, they don't know or understand what they are talking about. They are fans and want quick fixes. Less zone with this personnel grouping would get our asses beat off the field

If we play more solo techniques or man coverage (cover 1) I think out DBs and LBs would get exposed more, not less. This wouldn't be an improvement over current play.

No shit

My thinking is, that in base, the current CBs are already playing one on one technique on the outside in our base defense. To increase the amount of solo coverage or technique, means that either the safeties or the LBs would be handed more one on one matchups, with less help. I can't consider this a good thing from what I have seen so far. The excetion might be Hawk, who seems to be aquitting himself OK in coverage.

Does that finally make sense?

You are wandering again, but if yer happy, I'm estatic


One thing I think could be done is to play more nickle, substituting Carroll for Pop seems to be a clear win in the area of coverage.

Yeah, I'm for more zone, not less. These lads need all the support they can get. I've spotted fundamental technique errors all over our D backfield and the guys are talking about communication errors. 3 games into the season? That shit is inexcusable. They should be playing as one tight group right now. They aren't and I think some of 'em are scared and some don't give a shit.

[Packnut]

Now another article out saying the Pack is playing a "match zone system". Gee, was'nt that the original point before someone (not gonna mention any names) told us we did'nt know what we were talking about? :crazy: