A few Questions

[Ballboy]

Most people here understand the Packers inside and out. It was going to be a tough game last night, then when I heard Westbrok wasn't playing I felt we had a really good chance of winning. We didn't.

A few things bothered me and was wondering if someone could give some good, non-BS answers:

1) Why in the first half was Rayner only kicking off to the 15 yard line? One of the things TT said when we let Longwell go was the kickoff distance and for the most part, Rayner kicks somewhat deep. On both times, he put the Eagles in great field position, not to really score, but IF our defense stopped them, it would put our offense in bad field position.

2) This defense is a mess. I'm tired of hearing MM say we gotta fix this or that. MAKE SOME CHANGES!! Maybe the DC isn't a good DC? Maybe the players don't take to him? Why, in the second quarter was the defense only rushing 3 guys? It looked like to me we were in a prevent D...Why? All of the great corners will tell you that they can only cover for so long....does DC or MM think we can generate pressure with 3 guys? What is our defense ranked? Then, now this is really good....while I am screaming for some sort of pressure with more than 4 guys, they blitz all the LB's....but wait, its better...first Brady tries the right tackle/guard hole, then Barnett tries the SAME HOLE, then even better Hawk comes through the same hole...ALL ON THE SAME PLAY!!!(this was in the 2nd quarter) That is real sneaky and special...who designed that?

Has anyone brought up the possiblity of the Pack going to a 3-4 defense? I know the time isn't right, but I like our LB's for the most part. It would get Hodge on the field, allow Brady to blitz more like he did in college and maybe give Hawk a little more play-making ability.

[Terry]

The answer to #1 was that the coaches told him to kick for hangtime rather than distance. When they saw that it clearly wasn't working, they told him to drop the idea.

I don't know what it is, but does anyone ever get the feeling that whenever the coaches start messing with how a guy kicks, it screws him up?

I can only give one of those BS answers you mentioned to the second question. I'm sure you'll get better ones. But one thing the robbing Peter to pay Paul principle - you change your defense to try to make up for weaknesses in one area and find yourself creating weaknesses in another area that had been ok. The Packers problem right now, if I may be excused for oversimplifying, is that there just isn't sufficient talent (or good coaching schemes, perhaps) to allow for every unit on the field doing very well.

I wondered myself why they didn't blitz a little more in the second half. It seemed to work pretty well in the first half. I've seen many people say that the way to disrupt the Eagle offense is to rattle McNabb - they say he rattles and then his passing effectiveness starts to crumble. I don't know myself, so maybe someone can comment on this.

A 3-4 defense wouldn't seem to make much difference in terms of what you're talking about, because you still have to have a fourth man rushing, but in this case a linebacker - and any blitzing would still have to come from rushing others as well.

[jack's smirking revenge]

I can only give one of those BS answers you mentioned to the second question. I'm sure you'll get better ones. But one thing the robbing Peter to pay Paul principle - you change your defense to try to make up for weaknesses in one area and find yourself creating weaknesses in another area that had been ok. The Packers problem right now, if I may be excused for oversimplifying, is that there just isn't sufficient talent (or good coaching schemes, perhaps) to allow for every unit on the field doing very well.

I agree with this point. I have a hard time laying this fully on the feet of the coaching staff when the players are out on the field making (or not making plays). The fault has to go both ways, but we just don't have enough talented depth to make a difference--that and we're a VERY young team.

Hope for the future; be patient with the present.

tyler

[Ballboy]

I guess my thought on the 3-4 defense is the fact that in a 4-3, you know what 4 guys are rushing. In the 3-4, you can have any combination of the front 7 rushing the passer, which makes it more difficult for the OL to pick up.

Kampman - Pickett - Jenkins
Hawk - Hodge - Barnett - Poppy

[the_idle_threat]

We don't have enough defensive linemen that fit the scheme to play 3-4. We might be better off against the pass, but teams would simply run all day at our undersized defensive ends.

[Ballboy]

I was thinking that we move Jenkins to DE and leave Kampman at the other. Your're right, KGB, Hunter, Monty would all be gone. Williams and Cole could rotate at DE and NT. Pickett, Allen & Jolly would all be limited to NT.

I guess one would have to evaluate the overall talent that we have on the defensive line vs. the linebackers......top 4 of each, who is better, DL or LB?

[Patler]

I'm not sure that Kampman would be a good fit at DE in a 3-4 defense.

[Patler]

I'm not sure that Kampman would be a good fit at DE in a 3-4 defense.

I better qualify that remark, before everyone jumps down my throat for hating Kampman.

I wish we had 10 Kampmans. My point is that his game seemed to really come together when Bates got here and he was moved out wider than even in a more standard alignment for a 4-3. In a 3-4 he would necessarily be in tighter, which would not play to his strengths. Bulking up is not the answer if its not natural weight for him to carry.

[Zool]

Bulking up is not the answer if its not natural weight for him to carry.

Kampman himself has said this exact same thing. He's too light to be a 3-4 end.