Overestimating the Defense

[pbmax]

Let's have some glass half-empty speculation. Found the following in Lori Nickel's article (I know KYPack and wist, she's taken over Silverstein's job as unofficial team shill, but its just a starting point here):


Last season, the Packers were solid in pass defense, thanks to the defensive line's pass rush, cornerback Al Harris clamping down on the opponents' top receiver and cornerback Charles Woodson's eight interceptions.

If the Packers did get beat, it was usually the linebackers who caught the blame, or the safeties. Veteran Marquand Manuel, the Packers' free-agent pickup last year, and Nick Collins gave up 9½ touchdowns combined. Manuel's share - 5½ - was the most by any Packers safety from 1994-2006.
I am not convinced that the Packer team pass rush is anything to write home about. I think the pass rush is exactly a macrocosm of KGB. Looks like a world beater against mediocre competition, folds miserably against good teams.

Just look what New England and the Jets were able to do with solid talent and a good plan. Remember many plays where Brady or Pennington were harrassed?

I think the team D is exactly mediocre after being worse than average in 2005. The run D is average statistically which is why I was happy to have Harrell selected. But his rep is that he won't help with the pass rush.

Now there is the Cullen Jenkins at end factor. At he seemed to be far better than KGB against the run. But its still KGB on passing downs at end.

Will this team be better at pass rushing in 2007? Will a fresh KGB make all the difference?

I am betting no. I say we improve against the run (which is the most important) and stay flat against the pass. We'll be better overall, but next offseason everyone will be wondering who T2 is drafting to bolster the pass rush.

[BallHawk]

I think if the safety issue sorts itself out, we have a Top 10 Defense.

[wist43]

I think what you see is what you get. I don't think the Jets and Patriots games were aberrations - good offensive teams will beat this defense up b/c the scheme requires consistent pressure from the front 4. Good OL's can stymie that, and the Packers have no recourse b/c the LB's are cover/tackle LB's and not blitzers.

Beyond that, once the pass rush from the front 4 is blunted, the scheme is so simplistic and straight forward that any attempt to bring additional people is easily recognized and easily picked up, be they LB's are DB's.

This scheme requires an elite front 4, which of course, is very difficult to put together. The Packers have a good DL, but they're not elite, and individually they don't scare anyone... Kampman may of had a good year last year, but that didn't prevent the 49'ers from repeatedly blocking him one-on-one with Vernon Davis - and Davis blocked him pretty effectively.

They can be a decent defense against the offensive dregs of the NFC North and other offensively challenged teams, but against the elite teams, with solid OL's and good QB's, the Packers will continue to get smoked.

In the end, yes, they're overrated.

[run pMc]

wist -- not necessarily disagreeing with you, but I'm curious:
since you seem so down on the current defensive scheme, what kind of scheme would you run with the roster of players that exists? Next: hypothetically, if you could bring in a full squad of defensive players to fit a scheme, what scheme would that be?

I think the pass rush was spotty and the run D disappeared a few times last year (e.g., vs. SEA), so I don't have a big problem with the Harrell pick. Aside of the CB's, there are some pass coverage issues (S & LB) that I hope get corrected. This is a young defense, but I think it will improve. I highly doubt top 10, but it should be better than last year if for no reason because of gaining a year of experience. Given the teams in the NFC and the North, that might be enough to get a wildcard.

[woodbuck27]

I think what you see is what you get. I don't think the Jets and Patriots games were aberrations - good offensive teams will beat this defense up b/c the scheme requires consistent pressure from the front 4. Good OL's can stymie that, and the Packers have no recourse b/c the LB's are cover/tackle LB's and not blitzers.

Beyond that, once the pass rush from the front 4 is blunted, the scheme is so simplistic and straight forward that any attempt to bring additional people is easily recognized and easily picked up, be they LB's are DB's.

This scheme requires an elite front 4, which of course, is very difficult to put together. The Packers have a good DL, but they're not elite, and individually they don't scare anyone... Kampman may of had a good year last year, but that didn't prevent the 49'ers from repeatedly blocking him one-on-one with Vernon Davis - and Davis blocked him pretty effectively.

They can be a decent defense against the offensive dregs of the NFC North and other offensively challenged teams, but against the elite teams, with solid OL's and good QB's, the Packers will continue to get smoked.

In the end, yes, they're overrated.

That post seems to certainly defend the Justin Harrel pick as a logical move to fit our needs.

[4and12to12and4]

wist -- not necessarily disagreeing with you, but I'm curious:
since you seem so down on the current defensive scheme, what kind of scheme would you run with the roster of players that exists? Next: hypothetically, if you could bring in a full squad of defensive players to fit a scheme, what scheme would that be?

I think the pass rush was spotty and the run D disappeared a few times last year (e.g., vs. SEA), so I don't have a big problem with the Harrell pick. Aside of the CB's, there are some pass coverage issues (S & LB) that I hope get corrected. This is a young defense, but I think it will improve. I highly doubt top 10, but it should be better than last year if for no reason because of gaining a year of experience. Given the teams in the NFC and the North, that might be enough to get a wildcard.

I'll tell you the scheme i like, and i know it helps to have talent, but, i love the way the Chargers run their defense, you never know who the hell is coming or going to the QB. The are the most fun defense to watch, with Baltimore a close second. How about implementing some of that. I guess we'd have to switch to a 3,4, which is what in my eyes is more condusive to the talent on our team anyway. So, that's it. Go to the 3,4, get all of our talent on linebacker out there, and start fooling some friggin' people. Doesn't seem too complicated to me.

[AV David]

Legitimate question.

I have to say I was as impressed as I was surprised by the defensive play at the end of the season. I am hopeful but need to be convinced.

I do think KGB will be a much better pass rusher as a situational player.

One reason for some optimism is they did have like 48 sacks. That is a lot of sacks. They had to be doing something right and I think they will be significantly better this year with Hawk's experience, a rested KGB and C Jenkins at DE from the start.

Hawk is reported to be a very good blitzer.

[Charles Woodson]

wist -- not necessarily disagreeing with you, but I'm curious:
since you seem so down on the current defensive scheme, what kind of scheme would you run with the roster of players that exists? Next: hypothetically, if you could bring in a full squad of defensive players to fit a scheme, what scheme would that be?

I think the pass rush was spotty and the run D disappeared a few times last year (e.g., vs. SEA), so I don't have a big problem with the Harrell pick. Aside of the CB's, there are some pass coverage issues (S & LB) that I hope get corrected. This is a young defense, but I think it will improve. I highly doubt top 10, but it should be better than last year if for no reason because of gaining a year of experience. Given the teams in the NFC and the North, that might be enough to get a wildcard.

I'll tell you the scheme i like, and i know it helps to have talent, but, i love the way the Chargers run their defense, you never know who the hell is coming or going to the QB. The are the most fun defense to watch, with Baltimore a close second. How about implementing some of that. I guess we'd have to switch to a 3,4, which is what in my eyes is more condusive to the talent on our team anyway. So, that's it. Go to the 3,4, get all of our talent on linebacker out there, and start fooling some friggin' people. Doesn't seem too complicated to me.

first of all, We have barnett and Hawk that would do the linebacker but after that we dont have much. And who do you suggest we start on the D-line. Its a little bit more complicated than you think to switch schemes. And yes it means the defense has to learn yet another scheme.

[The Leaper]

I think Hawk is a capable blitzer from the LB position. He won't be a sack monster, but he is capable of getting 4 or 5 a year. He won't look as lost as Barnett when making a pass rush. I think there is still the potential for a little more pass rush in 2007 due to increased depth and a better rotation that will emphasize getting after the passer on passing downs. However, I agree that the lack of a dominating pass rusher likely will prevent the unit from ever being truly effective against above average offensive blocking units.

Overall, I agree that we played great against some pretty awful offenses last year...so it is difficult to gauge just how good we are. Moving Jenkins to DE full-time and adding Harrell to the mix in the middle should considerably improve the run defense in 2007. The bottom line is that on defense, playmaking trumps most other factors. Opportunities to turn the ball over and create big negative plays are paramount, especially for a defense that has a lot of "good" defenders, but no one who is really "great" as of yet.

[BallHawk]

For every team, there are fans that want to switch to a 3-4. Why? Because it's different. People think "Hey, the (insert scheme here) isn't working, why not run a 3-4?" There's a reason why so few teams run a 3-4 and that's because it's a difficult scheme to run effectively. Only 6 teams ran the 3-4 last year. Funny enough, 4 of those teams made the playoffs. People see the Steelers run a 3-4 or the Chargers do it and think "Damn, they look good. We should do that." However, the 3-4, not only being difficult to find personnel to run the scheme, takes a long time to learn. It's taking the 49ers 3 years to learn the 3-4. It's not something that happens over night.

Personally, I don't think the 3-4 is that great, but that's just me.

[4and12to12and4]

I agree, i don't really want to see our defense have relearn an entire system again, we would be taking two steps back and guaranteeing that our defense wouldn't get it together for at least two years. I was just responding to the question "what is wrong with our scheme, and what is a better one?" I do think that the 3-4 is superior if you have the right players for it. It makes it so much harder on the offense not knowing who to block. We have more than Hawk and Barnett to fit the scheme. Hodge and Poppinga would round our LB's out nicely in a 3-4. I was stating that it woulda been nice if we had been running it the last couple of years. Also, it keeps the three down lineman healthy and fresh, because of the ability to rotate them in and out throughout the game.

But, I agree, that at this stage, I'd much rather just keep our scheme, simpy because everyone has so much experience in it now, we finally have run the same scheme more than one year. So, we definitely should stick with it, I just am not a big fan of it, because, it makes it easier on the offense, like stated before, when you have the same four rushing, that's fine, if their beasts and pressure consistently. We pressure here and there, but not consistently, which is why we lose to high powered offenses. Hopefullly, that will change with everyone having a year under their belt in this scheme. You are right, we did collect a ton of sacks last year, but to expect Kaampman to get 15 again is not realistic.

[pbmax]

If you are a fan of "Moneyball" there is another reason to like the 3-4. Since it is run by so few teams, its easier to draft and sign for. The players aren't as coveted because the number of slots to fill is smaller.

The D line in a 3-4 can be average and be effective as their job is to occupy blockers. You do not need Reggie White at the end to be effective, though it helps (Richard Seymour). You also need the big NT like Casey Hampton.

The LBs though, especially outside, need to be unique. Hybrid DEs and LBs who can pass rush. Kevin Green, Greg Lloyd, Willie McGinest. Still, there are fewer teams that need this guy, so the logic is you will be able to find him.

I agree with wist, I still think we will need to upgrade the line even after Harrell (esp. Jenkins/KGB at end). But as the scheme is designed to succeed around speed, I am less concerned by its design, than by the holes in personnel we still need to fill. Safety, 3rd CB and DE.


For every team, there are fans that want to switch to a 3-4. Why? Because it's different. People think "Hey, the (insert scheme here) isn't working, why not run a 3-4?" There's a reason why so few teams run a 3-4 and that's because it's a difficult scheme to run effectively. Only 6 teams ran the 3-4 last year. Funny enough, 4 of those teams made the playoffs. People see the Steelers run a 3-4 or the Chargers do it and think "Damn, they look good. We should do that." However, the 3-4, not only being difficult to find personnel to run the scheme, takes a long time to learn. It's taking the 49ers 3 years to learn the 3-4. It's not something that happens over night.

Personally, I don't think the 3-4 is that great, but that's just me.

[pbmax]

The last four games worry me as much as reassure me. 2 of those offenses were horrible and one wasn't trying. While I think our coverage got tighter as we finally got on the same page middle of the season on, I don't think Cullen Jenkins was that big of an improvement.


Legitimate question.

I have to say I was as impressed as I was surprised by the defensive play at the end of the season. I am hopeful but need to be convinced.

I do think KGB will be a much better pass rusher as a situational player.

One reason for some optimism is they did have like 48 sacks. That is a lot of sacks. They had to be doing something right and I think they will be significantly better this year with Hawk's experience, a rested KGB and C Jenkins at DE from the start.

Hawk is reported to be a very good blitzer.

[HarveyWallbangers]

For every team, there are fans that want to switch to a 3-4. Why? Because it's different. People think "Hey, the (insert scheme here) isn't working, why not run a 3-4?" There's a reason why so few teams run a 3-4 and that's because it's a difficult scheme to run effectively. Only 6 teams ran the 3-4 last year. Funny enough, 4 of those teams made the playoffs. People see the Steelers run a 3-4 or the Chargers do it and think "Damn, they look good. We should do that." However, the 3-4, not only being difficult to find personnel to run the scheme, takes a long time to learn. It's taking the 49ers 3 years to learn the 3-4. It's not something that happens over night.

Personally, I don't think the 3-4 is that great, but that's just me.

There may have been 6 teams last year that ran it, but that doesn't count a number of teams that ran the 3-4 and have switched in the last couple of years (primarily because of the lack of success). Houston, Atlanta, Oakland come to mind. Those teams--along with Cleveland and San Fran haven't exactly had a lot of success with the scheme. Most of the ones that have had success have stuck with it. The ones that haven't are starting to switch back to the 4-3. I think you'll see Pittsburgh gradually move to a 4-3 now that Tomlin (with his cover-2 background) has been hired. Baltimore runs a lot more 4-3 stuff now.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I don't think Cullen Jenkins was that big of an improvement.

Jenkins was a huge improvement. Whether he can follow that up with another good season is the big question.

[KYPack]

Let's have some glass half-empty speculation. Found the following in Lori Nickel's article (I know KYPack and wist, she's taken over Silverstein's job as unofficial team shill, but its just a starting point here):



Ya got me there, PB. Lori is pretty poor.

Silverstein was a comic figure. He was a shill, but was even more comfortable playing Sherman's lap dog. His most pathetic period was the week before MS was fired. Shermy got his pet journalist to write TWO pro-Sherm articles in a week. It was way too late, a new GM and 4 - 12 sealed Mikey's fate, but Silverstein tried for his pal, who'd been feeding him material for four years.

Nickel is the team shill, but at least she's trying to learn the game.

Her most comic moment came when she was spoon fed an assignment to write on the ZBS. Coach Mac talked with her about the ZBS, but failed to give her any relevant details. Lori didn't know the difference, and just wrote the piece anyhow.

[RashanGary]

I skim most of the junk that comes out of all of the papers. I do pay attn and read carefully everything McGinn writes and I did with Cliff too. Wilde is pretty good at stirring a controversy and that is about he extent of the local sports writers that I care to read.

[Patler]

I think the defense can be OK, I'm not convinced it has the players to be great, yet.

DL- I'm certainly not ready to annoint Jenkins as great, or even good yet. He didn't have a very long audition last year. Harrell may have no impact at all, if he gets or remains injured. I personally think KGB's best days are behind him. I saw no evidence the last four games that he will contribute anything more as a situational pass rusher than he has the last few years as a starter. His effectiveness has been declining steadily. He is following the same path as Keith McKenzie and a number of other undersized DE's that have only one move and speed. They have a couple very good years, but as they reach 30, their effectiveness declines. Finally, Kampman. Not a knock at all, but you can't expect him to approach what he did last year, one of the league leaders in both sacks and tackles. It was a career year and not likely to be duplicated. Overall, however, with Williams, Jolly, Cole, etc. this unit is of the least concern for the defense.

LB - Still looking for a playmaker, a guy who rises to the occassion when the team needs it. Barnnett never has, Hawk didn't last year and Poppinga isn't capable of it. Hawk might become one, or he might not. Barnett will remain good, but is unlikely to get any better than he is already. He has reached that point in his career. He is what he is. No backups in sight. Unfortunately though, as "average" as it is; this is the second most solid unit on defense.

DBs - This group is actually a little scary. Any season Harris and Woodson could come back as mere shells of what they were. Harris has always been on the edge athletically, and as he ages he could fall off the edge any off-season. Woodson's injury history, including last season, makes him a big question all the time. If one goes out, who is behind them? Blackmon is an unknown. Dendy won't make a lot of mistakes, but probably won't make a lot of plays either. Safeties, is there even ONE? Collins has a moment now and then, very infrequently, but goes game after game without showing up. He could step forward this year, or may never be anything more than promising. I saw nothing last year that convinced me he will step up. Quite frankly, I expected more from him last year. He really only had one notable game. Manual, Underwood, Bigby, Rouse; all are just names. If one doesn't become a player, the backfield will suffer. This unit could be good, or if just one or two injuries occur, it could be awful, as a unit.

On the other hand, Harrell could make a big impact. Kampman could remaiin steady, Woodson and Harris could stay at the tops of their games and Jenkins, Hawk, Collins and another safety (maybe even Poppinga, too) could make big strides with the added experience. Blackmon and a safety or two could show they have what it takes to play in the NFL. IF... IF...IF enough of those things happen, it COULD be a very good defense. By no means is it a certainty that it will be a very good defense, or that they won't be looking to replace half of it in 2008 or 2009, including the entire starting backfield..

[Fritz]

I have to agree that the lack of a pass rush scares me most. The really good teams have defensive ends that can flat out get to the QB. And with Kampman being the only one capable of that on a regular basis, he will be double teamed or chip-blocked and thus negated.

I do think that changing to another scheme like the 3-4 is a bad idea. First of all, it would take years to draft the right players and get players comfortable with it. Secondly, there's been so much change on defense the last four or five years it will be good to actually have the same coordinator for two years in a row.

I never liked the 3-4, even when it was all the rage years ago. It seemed like a defense that you could run on.

[retailguy]

Patler. you nailed it. There are very few positions on this team that aren't question marks. Some will surely step up and become focal points to build around. Others will not. Which ones are the question, that will determine how good - or how bad - this defense will look.

I am unconvinced. I was at the Minnesota game that everyone talks about as a "great" defensive game. It wasn't. It was pathetic on BOTH sides of the ball. We won because Minnesota was MORE pathetic.

[pbmax]

That's the goofiest thing about prognosticating this team. As someone wrote, 45 or so sacks can't mean its a weakness. But as others (including myself) see it, the pass rush can be a large void against a good team.

It all depends on your point of reference and your goal. If you want a winning record, then this pass rush might be good enough to do it.

You want a win in the playoff game? Then be prepared for the void. All about matchups.

I am on board the young players theory. Everything else equal, why not pay the same or less for a young developing player who might develop into something special over a known commodity veteran? But at some point, those young players need to make the jump. There is a better chance for the young player than the vet, but its still risky.

I think Patler is right. We need to root for Collins, Blackmon, Underwood, Bigby, (Manuel? Dendy?), Poppinga, possibly Rouse and Harrell to make a jump. Each one leaves you shaking your head now. But if they play a level above previous in 2007, you could also say: "I knew this would happen".

Maddening.

[BallHawk]

The strange thing about this team is that they are on the brink of being a 9-7, 10-6 team, yet, they are also so close to being a 5-11, 6-10 team. Nothing on this team is certain. If you're a Chargers fan then you're certain that LT will have 20+ TDs. If you're a Colts fan, you're certain Peyton Manning will be a Top 5 QB.

However, with the Packers, nothing is set in stone. We can't expect Favre to throw 25+ TDs, we can't expect our RB to get 1,000 yards, and we can't expect the defense to stop getting beat deep, consistently. We need about 75% of the "what ifs" to fall our way; if Kampman can repeat last year, if Hawk can step up and be a star, if the secondary stays healthy, if the WRs can catch the ball, etc.

Listen, every team has "what ifs" but the better of a team you are, the less "what ifs" you have. We're on our way to becoming better, but a lot of things have to fall our way for us to be competitive.

[Patler]

Regarding the pass rush, I'm not all that concerned that against the best offensive lines the D-line didn't get pressure. That is usually the case. When the GB O-line was great, no one was effective against them in generating game-long pressure. Even the good pass rushes got there only occassionally. When they were giving up only a dozen sacks a year, even some of those were coverage sacks and miscues.

The D-line has enough guys who CAN get to the QB that no one can be ignored by the offense. If they consentrate on Kampman, Williams, Jenkins, or KGB can get there with a good matchup. Not that they are all great pass rushers, but they are good enough that the Packers can line up with four guys who don't surprise you if they get a sack; Kampman, KGB, Williams and Jenkins are all effective at least. Others might be too.

Will they dominate everyone? No, but if the coverage is decent the pressure should be there too, most of the time.

[The Shadow]

The key here is that the Packers are slowly upgrading all phases of the defense.
When you add gifted, instinctual players like Hawk to smart effort players like Kampman, players beginning to hit their strides, like Barnett, Collins, and Jenkins and experienced vets like Woodson, KGB, and Harris- and youngsters on the rise....it's a good thing.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I think the defense will be good--if Harris and Woodson stay relatively healthy and a safety steps up. Those might be pretty big ifs, but the DL played decently most of the year. You are going to have bad games against some of the best teams. However, they faced some pretty good offenses early in the year--when they were struggling. That's a point to be made to counter the argument that they only did well against poor defenses at the end of the year. Chicago (when Grossman was actually playing lights out), St. Louis, New Orleans, New England, Philadelphia all finished in the top 10 in scoring offense last year. Seattle (with Hasselbeck and Alexander healthy), Arizona (tons of offensive talent), and the Jets weren't too shabby either. Their early season schedule was pretty brutal--playing 4 of the top 10 offenses in the first 5 games.

[Patler]

The key here is that the Packers are slowly upgrading all phases of the defense.
When you add gifted, instinctual players like Hawk to smart effort players like Kampman, players beginning to hit their strides, like Barnett, Collins, and Jenkins and experienced vets like Woodson, KGB, and Harris- and youngsters on the rise....it's a good thing.

I agree completely. And you never know when that one addition all of a sudden makes a huge difference to the overall performance. It can be a guy you look to for being an upgrade, like Harrell, who takes off and becomes a Pro-bowler. Or it can be someone you don't expect greatness from, like Rouse, or Blackmon or others. When you have all starters that are decent, one or two surprises can make a big difference. Right now it is uncertain if all the starters are decent, or not. Might be, might not.

[pbmax]

But this is the very definition of being mediocre. Looking good against inferior competition and bad against better competition. Its a chicken and egg paradox, where the answer doesn't matter, its the situation you find yourself in.

You can say don't be overly concerned about the early season defense because they faced some tough competition. But that is exactly who I want to be competitive with. I don't just want them to make the playoffs, I want them to beat somebody like the Eagles, Jets, Rams or Patriots. Especially at home.

Now from last year's team you can say Jenkins makes a difference for a full year. Healthy Manuel makes a difference. D Backfield being on same page makes a difference.

But even if I buy all those items, it doesn't help the pass rush. And I think its mediocre, maybe slightly above average. And with Harrell and even a fresh KGB, I don't see it getting better this year.

If your goal is 8-8 (and exit or miss playoffs early) against a tougher schedule, then this may be the defense for you. But they still struggled to end drives and get off the field last year. Some of that is execution. Some of that is big plays that effectively end drives; INTs, FUM and QB pressure.

The point of the thread was that if you believe we are hanging our hat on the defense, we still have some big holes. The only one of these holes that do not have potential answers in camp, is pass rush.


I think the defense will be good--if Harris and Woodson stay relatively healthy and a safety steps up. Those might be pretty big ifs, but the DL played decently most of the year. You are going to have bad games against some of the best teams. However, they faced some pretty good offenses early in the year--when they were struggling. That's a point to be made to counter the argument that they only did well against poor defenses at the end of the year. Chicago (when Grossman was actually playing lights out), St. Louis, New Orleans, New England, Philadelphia all finished in the top 10 in scoring offense last year. Seattle (with Hasselbeck and Alexander healthy), Arizona (tons of offensive talent), and the Jets weren't too shabby either. Their early season schedule was pretty brutal--playing 4 of the top 10 offenses in the first 5 games.

[Patler]

I think there are many reasons to expect the defense to be better than it was early in the season last year. In no particular order:

1. The all new coaching staff has now been together for a year. They should work better together. They know the players better and what each can do.

2. The new, inexperieced DC and HC each has a year's worth of experiences to draw on in their positions.

3. All the players know the defense and the coaches better.

4. The defense had 5 new starters at the beginning of last year. Several didn't practice all that much because of injuries during the off season. They were not familiar with the defense or the coaches, and the coaches didn't know what to expect from them. The players didn't know each other that well. Five new starters is a huge turnover.


If the defense could have played some of those early games over again at the end of the year, they may have played much better.

Basically, this defense is unproven, but there are reasons to assume it will not be as bad as early in the season last year.

[Charles Woodson]

I think there are many reasons to expect the defense to be better than it was early in the season last year. In no particular order:

1. The all new coaching staff has now been together for a year. They should work better together. They know the players better and what each can do.

2. The new, inexperieced DC and HC each has a year's worth of experiences to draw on in their positions.

3. All the players know the defense and the coaches better.

4. The defense had 5 new starters at the beginning of last year. Several didn't practice all that much because of injuries during the off season. They were not familiar with the defense or the coaches, and the coaches didn't know what to expect from them. The players didn't know each other that well. Five new starters is a huge turnover.


If the defense could have played some of those early games over again at the end of the year, they may have played much better.

Basically, this defense is unproven, but there are reasons to assume it will not be as bad as early in the season last year.

I agree the biggest fact to expect better next year is that they have had time to learn the system. With the addition of harrell at DT, it should free the LB's more and they can show us what they can really do

[HarveyWallbangers]

But this is the very definition of being mediocre. Looking good against inferior competition and bad against better competition. Its a chicken and egg paradox, where the answer doesn't matter, its the situation you find yourself in.

Maybe, but I'm banking on the fact they don't have a new coordinator and they played their best ball at the end of the year. Plus, they have a lot of guys that you can realistically expect to improve (Jenkins, Harrell, Williams, Hawk, Poppinga, perhaps Barnett, Collins, one of the other safeties could give improved play over Manuel's play last year). I didn't say they were more than middle of the road last year. In fact, they were probably slightly worse than average. There's reason to think they could be a legitimate top 10 defense this year though.

[Rastak]

But this is the very definition of being mediocre. Looking good against inferior competition and bad against better competition. Its a chicken and egg paradox, where the answer doesn't matter, its the situation you find yourself in.

Maybe, but I'm banking on the fact they don't have a new coordinator and they played their best ball at the end of the year. Plus, they have a lot of guys that you can realistically expect to improve (Jenkins, Harrell, Williams, Hawk, Poppinga, perhaps Barnett, Collins, one of the other safeties could give improved play over Manuel's play last year). I didn't say they were more than middle of the road last year. In fact, they were probably slightly worse than average. There's reason to think they could be a legitimate top 10 defense this year though.



Homer.


j/k :lol: :wink:


There's reason for both optimism and pesimism. Gotta see how it shakes out.

[BallHawk]

Mad, we seriously need a Kool-Aid man emoticon.

:D

[Tarlam!]

Mad, we seriously need a Kool-Aid man emoticon.

:D

Seconded.

[4and12to12and4]

Mad, we seriously need a Kool-Aid man emoticon.

:D

Seconded.

thirded

[Joemailman]

Mad, we seriously need a Kool-Aid man emoticon.

:D

http://www.freedomcrowsnest.org/forum/images/smiles/koolaid.gif

I also like http://www.freedomcrowsnest.org/forum/images/smiles/flip.gif

[4and12to12and4]

BTW, ive tried to post pictures from the internet, you know like google images, i wanted to put in the pic of Moss' moonjob, but couldnt figure out how to do it. Can anyone enlighten me?

[wist43]

I've been advocating switching to a 3-4 for some time, for many of the reasons that some on this thread have already mentioned.

I remember reading an article about the Baltimore Ravens quite a few years ago, and Billick was talking about the plan they put together when he first arrived, and their rationale in focusing on defense, and why they preferred the 3-4.

Their #1 reason for advocating a 3-4 was that they thought they could build a championship calibur defense faster and cheaper than if they went with the 4-3. Arguing that elite 4-3 DE's are very difficult to find, and they're very expensive.

Their second reason was flexibility in terms of the types of atletes they could bring in on that side of the ball... I absolutely hate the idea that we run a scheme that eliminates from consideration players like Adalius Thomas and Shawn Merriman.

I hated the 3-4 back in the 80's, but it has evolved into a very effective and complicated scheme - to the point where I think the advantages far outweight the negatives.

There is something to be said about coaching however; not very many teams run the 3-4, so relatively speaking, there are fewer coaches that are experienced in the scheme... I don't know if that would factor into a teams decision as to whether to switch or not, but I think it's a consideration.

All of that notwithstanding, there's no way the Packers are going to switch anything; and, consequently, I think the defense is doomed to mediocrity. I don't think it matters how much they draft on that side of the ball... the current scheme has too many limitations, and can't be counted on against the upper etchelon offenses - which, of course, is who you have to beat if you ever plan on being a contender.

The passive defensive scheme, the midget offense, Rodgers as our future QB... I just don't see them getting back to the top any time soon.

[Merlin]

We have the talent on our defense to stack up with anyone (accept Manual). What we don't have is the coaching to go with that talent. Bates is still out there I believe. If TT were smart (LMFGDAO), he should try to take a run at him and mend the fences.

Shitteheimer.....LMFGDAO.....hahaha

I see his secondaries in the Super Bowl EVERY YEAR!

LOL

Sanders on a team with a veteran coaching staff would probably work out well. McCarthy is now in his sophomore season as a head coach. We now have a new OC as well. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Boy......nothing like having green coaches on every side of the ball!

[Zool]

Bates is still out there I believe. If TT were smart (LMFGDAO), he should try to take a run at him and mend the fences.
Err....nope

:see Denver Broncos

[Merlin]

Then I suspect if the Bronco's field a decent offense they will go deep in the playoffs!

[pbmax]

Its the Broncos, so its always more complicated than that. Bates is Assistant Head Coach for the Defense. Slowik is the Defensive Coordinator. Last article I read didn't know who was calling the defense.

[Patler]

Then I suspect if the Bronco's field a decent offense they will go deep in the playoffs!

Historically, has Bates run defenses that go deep in the playoffs, or that perform strong in the playoffs? Or, are Bates' defenses just strong statistically during the season?