Underwood cut???

[wist43]

Caught the back end of a report on WSSP... thought I heard them say that Underwood was going to be cut.

Anybody hear anything???

I thought Underwood would end up as the starter opposite Collins, but I guess the knee injury has completely robbed him of his burst.

Bigby is making everyone forget about Underwood or Manuel very quickly though.

[Partial]

Yeah, he was cut.

BTW, if you ever hear Steve from the East Side on either Gary and Cliff or Wickett and Russell that is me.

[Bretsky]

Hard to believe this; he was coming off a torn ACL. Figured he'd get thrown on the IR if anything, although I can't find confirmation he was actually but. He sure does not seem to be the same player

[The Leaper]

The guy seems to have zero durability...and personally I never saw him as a guy who was going to be an impact player. He looked like he could potentially be better Manual, but that isn't saying much.

[Fritz]

I feel bad for Underwood. Remember, in college and early in his first season he was NOT "injury prone." I think this is a guy who had some lousy luck. He suffered a major injury, and it takes over a year to get the speed back, if you ever do.

I wonder why the Pack doesn't put him on IR, but perhaps they believe, based on medical reports, that the guy has some damage that will never allow him to regain his speed.

Ah, but Atari Bigby is there to pick up the slack. Cool. Now let's hope TT just cuts Manuel, so we can get on with Culver or Peprah as the final safety.

[wist43]

Yeah, he was cut.

BTW, if you ever hear Steve from the East Side on either Gary and Cliff or Wickett and Russell that is me.

Cool, I'll keep an ear out for ya...

Gotta admit, I'm tempering my enthusiasm for Bigby, but if he can play the way he played the other night, our Safety problem may be solved.

Very surprised to see Sanders incorporating multiple fronts and blitzes... I'm hoping against all hope that they actually tweaked the scheme this past offseason.

Even with a very good front 4, if you don't show multiple fronts and can't blitz effectively, you're not going to have a playoff calibur defense.

I'd hate to have to start being hopeful. :wink:

[cheesner]

First Fergy now Undy; it looks like TT won't bother waiting for required cutdown period until he cuts someone. I have 2 explanations for this:

1, Allowing them more time to catch on with another team.
2. Does not want these guys taking reps from the young developing players

[Joemailman]

Stand in line Wist. Yours is the third Underwood thread. I was 2nd. :mrgreen:

[wist43]

Stand in line Wist. Yours is the third Underwood thread. I was 2nd. :mrgreen:

I don't usually start threads... I scrolled down and didn't see one - and, of course, we need to discuss this. Just didn't scroll down far enough to see the others.

[MadScientist]

First Fergy now Undy; it looks like TT won't bother waiting for required cutdown period until he cuts someone. I have 2 explanations for this:

1, Allowing them more time to catch on with another team.
2. Does not want these guys taking reps from the young developing players

3. Not wanting to take the risk of having to pay them for a year on IR if they get injured in pre-season.

[The Leaper]

Very surprised to see Sanders incorporating multiple fronts and blitzes... I'm hoping against all hope that they actually tweaked the scheme this past offseason.

Why is it surprising?

You can't incorporate all these things when your BASE DEFENSE is struggling to be effective on a consistent basis...which was where we were at during much of last season. The defense was YOUNG and several of the veterans (Manual, Woodson, Pickett) were also getting acclimated to a new system.

Wist, you love to sit here and blather on and on and on about how this team is doomed because of their "passive defensive scheme", completely ignorant of the success this same scheme has had with other franchises. It has NEVER been a failure of the scheme...it has been a failure on the part of inexperienced young players and veterans.

Now that the defense has come into camp with a solid base of knowledge THROUGHOUT the lineup, it is far easier for the coaches to start tweaking things and bringing different looks...rather than merely work almost exclusively on getting guys in the right position in the base defense. The Ravens and Steelers didn't suddenly wake up one morning and discover their multiple front schemes suddenly worked when they hadn't before. It takes EXPERIENCED TALENT to incorporate the confusing defenses those teams execute...and at some point those teams also had more of a vanilla defense while their talent base gained knowledge enough to incorporate additional schemes and fronts.

Now that Green Bay finally has some promising young talent on defense that is starting to get acclimated to the system, it isn't surprising to see the coaches expand the envelope.

It also wasn't surprising to me that they did not do it before...because it would've been a complete and utter disaster.

[wist43]

If they get more aggressive with the scheme - nobody will be happier than me. The Packers defense has been nothing if not passive for over a decade - until a leopard does, in fact, change his spots...

That said, TT has brought in some tough, hard nosed players on the defensive side of the ball - Hawk, Poppinga, and now Bigby.

Bigby is exactly the type of Safety I've been looking for... we don't know if he'll be able to hold up in coverage or in the open field, but the very fact that they're giving him a shot is indicative of a shift in philosophy.

Bigby is a box safety - something the Packers have wanted nothing to do with going back to Wolfe's days. His strengths are born out of aggressiveness, playing downhill, and being physical... definitely a departure from the type of safety the Packers have preferred in the past 15 years.

That said, I'm encouraged, if not yet believing, that they may be getting more aggressive philosophically on the defensive side of the ball.

[Partial]

Hard to believe this; he was coming off a torn ACL. Figured he'd get thrown on the IR if anything, although I can't find confirmation he was actually but. He sure does not seem to be the same player

Yes, I don't understand why they didn't do that. That way he won't be uprooted, and will still have an opportunity to play for the pack when healthy next year.

My guess is he's back in Packers camp next year. He probably won't make a team this year.

[Partial]

First Fergy now Undy; it looks like TT won't bother waiting for required cutdown period until he cuts someone. I have 2 explanations for this:

1, Allowing them more time to catch on with another team.
2. Does not want these guys taking reps from the young developing players

3. Not wanting to take the risk of having to pay them for a year on IR if they get injured in pre-season.

That just seems cheap. It's not like Underwood is making anything more than 600k or so this year. He looked very good last year in camp and tore two ligaments. Dante tore three and he still isn't completely back. I say give this kid some time and IR him. He fought for you, now fight for him. That would be my philosophy, anyway.

[Joemailman]

If they get more aggressive with the scheme - nobody will be happier than me. The Packers defense has been nothing if not passive for over a decade - until a leopard does, in fact, change his spots...

That said, TT has brought in some tough, hard nosed players on the defensive side of the ball - Hawk, Poppinga, and now Bigby.

Bigby is exactly the type of Safety I've been looking for... we don't know if he'll be able to hold up in coverage or in the open field, but the very fact that they're giving him a shot is indicative of a shift in philosophy.

Bigby is a box safety - something the Packers have wanted nothing to do with going back to Wolfe's days. His strengths are born out of aggressiveness, playing downhill, and being physical... definitely a departure from the type of safety the Packers have preferred in the past 15 years.

That said, I'm encouraged, if not yet believing, that they may be getting more aggressive philosophically on the defensive side of the ball.

Wist, why do I get the feeling that Chuck Cecil was once your favorite Packer?

[The Leaper]

Bigby is a box safety - something the Packers have wanted nothing to do with going back to Wolfe's days.

Again, ENTIRELY wrong Wist.

WTF was LeRoy Butler? A pussy who sat back 15 yards from the line of scrimmage, scared to attack the offense?

Ron Wolf didn't need to go after a "box safety" because he already had the best one in the entire league.

Sherman clearly didn't value that...he never did attempt to find a suitable replacement for Butler. That much I can agree with you on.

As for Thompson, Collins was one of his first picks...and he certainly isn't a pure coverage safety. He's got some size and isn't afraid to stick his nose in the box. The one thing holding Collins back was his brains...he wasn't able to step in and be the quarterback of the defense as an "in-the-box" safety as a young player. He still relies more on his athletic ability than in his "feel" for the game...although as he gains experience, he is starting to show a better "feel" with an increased comfort level.

The bottom line is that Thompson knows exactly what it takes to put together a kick ass defense...the proof is sitting there on the field Wist. This is the YOUNGEST ROSTER IN THE NFL, yet we could have one of the best defensive units in the NFL.

[wist43]

If they get more aggressive with the scheme - nobody will be happier than me. The Packers defense has been nothing if not passive for over a decade - until a leopard does, in fact, change his spots...

That said, TT has brought in some tough, hard nosed players on the defensive side of the ball - Hawk, Poppinga, and now Bigby.

Bigby is exactly the type of Safety I've been looking for... we don't know if he'll be able to hold up in coverage or in the open field, but the very fact that they're giving him a shot is indicative of a shift in philosophy.

Bigby is a box safety - something the Packers have wanted nothing to do with going back to Wolfe's days. His strengths are born out of aggressiveness, playing downhill, and being physical... definitely a departure from the type of safety the Packers have preferred in the past 15 years.

That said, I'm encouraged, if not yet believing, that they may be getting more aggressive philosophically on the defensive side of the ball.

Wist, why do I get the feeling that Chuck Cecil was once your favorite Packer?

The joys one can derive from ripping someone's head off???

Priceless...

[wist43]

I didn't consider Butler a box safety... he was just a damn good football player, who had excellent instincts, and great timing on the blitz - not to mention very tough for his size.

Butler started out as a corner... Bigby is a pure safety - couldn't play corner if he wanted to. Two completely different types of players. Bigby shows promise, but he has a long, long way to go b/4 you can mention him in the same sentence as Butler.

[The Leaper]

I didn't consider Butler a box safety... he was just a damn good football player, who had excellent instincts, and great timing on the blitz - not to mention very tough for his size.

In other words...you've sat here and criticized GMs for not taking guys with "measureables" at safety, when you openly admit a guy like Butler...a converted CB...is exactly that kind of guy you bemoan time and time again for lacking size and not being intimidating. So...we shouldn't take a guy like Butler?

To me, I could care less what the guys measureables are. If he can execute a task, that's what he is. As such, Butler was an "in-the-box" safety...capable of attacking the run and blanketing the TE while also occasionally blitzing with a high degree of success. He rarely sat back in the secondary as a coverage safety.

Whether or not he was 6'2" and 225 pounds didn't mean one damn thing to me. Granted, it certainly helps (or at least doesn't hurt) but I'm not about to write anyone off simply because they don't match a few numbers on a sheet of paper.

[wist43]

I didn't consider Butler a box safety... he was just a damn good football player, who had excellent instincts, and great timing on the blitz - not to mention very tough for his size.

In other words...you've sat here and criticized GMs for not taking guys with "measureables" at safety, when you openly admit a guy like Butler...a converted CB...is exactly that kind of guy you bemoan time and time again for lacking size and not being intimidating. So...we shouldn't take a guy like Butler?

To me, I could care less what the guys measureables are. If he can execute a task, that's what he is. As such, Butler was an "in-the-box" safety...capable of attacking the run and blanketing the TE while also occasionally blitzing with a high degree of success. He rarely sat back in the secondary as a coverage safety.

Whether or not he was 6'2" and 225 pounds didn't mean one damn thing to me. Granted, it certainly helps (or at least doesn't hurt) but I'm not about to write anyone off simply because they don't match a few numbers on a sheet of paper.

WTF are you trying argue???

The Packers are acquiring players that fit my criteria... and, I acknowledge that, and am happy about that. They are also showing signs of being more aggressive, I'm also happy about that.

It's only preseason, and I'm not ready to jump on the SB bandwagon, but I'm encouraged by what I'm seeing.

So, WTF are you trying to argue??? That I can't acknowledge that I like some of the things I'm seeing simply b/c I haven't liked moves and acquisitions in the past???

I tend to be pretty consistent in my positions... and, when I'm wrong I can admit it; but, you haven't argued anything here that refutes my positions. The team is actually doing some of the things I've been advocating for years, i.e. getting tougher and more physical, and, if one preseason game can be used as a barometer, more aggressive in play calling. These things absolutely have to happen for them to have any chance at winning a SB.

If you want them to stay with the 11 corners defense, then make the argument - but, don't come at me, spouting a bunch of BS that I don't know football.

If we have differing opinions, we have differing opinions; and, not only can I can live with that, I don't need to call you "ignorant" to make my point... I'll just make as valid an argument as I can to support my position until the debate has run its course.

Which this one has, b/c quite frankly I don't think we're debating or making argument here. It would seem to me that you've personalized this as a means by which to try to attack me b/c you haven't liked my positions on issues in the past; hence, there's nothing to debate here.

[The Leaper]

WTF are you trying argue???

I'm not trying to argue really. I'm trying to figure out what you want. You claim Green Bay never gets physical safties...haven't for 15 years.

However, LeRoy Butler in fact WAS a physical safety, even if he did not have prototypical size. So, a large reason why a physical safety wasn't necessary in the 1990s was because we had one of the best in the league on the roster.

That also plays into the logic that if Butler can be physical and an All Pro caliber player, why are you so demanding that our safeties be large hulking behemoths? I certainly can agree with you that is preferred if everything else is equal...but what is the big deal if we can find one who is physical even if undersized? Many elite safeties in the NFL haven't been the prototypical size...and in fact many of the best to play the position were in fact no bigger than average for the time period in which they played.

You've also been pretty clear in your disdain for our current defensive scheme...more or less saying it couldn't be successful. You now seem to be changing your tune simply because of seeing some talent fill out the lineup and because the defense finally has grown enough in the system and with each other to start moving past page one of the defensive playbook. I've always maintained the system was fine...the hiccups our defense had last year was due to inexperience and lack of cohesion for the most part. Once you get talent in place and let it develop, just about any defensive system can prosper if it promotes pressuring the offense. This scheme, and similar ones developed in places like Miami, have proven they can be championship caliber.

The problem isn't the scheme. Put the right kind of players in the scheme and get them to play the right way, and you'll have a hell of a defense. The system we employ has the opportunity to be highly successful...perhaps even moreso than the 3-4 fronts you seem to love. I remember Favre absolutely carving up the Raven defense following their Super Bowl year. We didn't have some kind of elite offense at that point either.

I'm just trying to figure out where you are coming from. I agree that defense has to be aggressive...but I just don't see many defensive coaches in the NFL that poo-poo that assessment. The point is that aggression isn't something that happens on its own...it is a process that comes about from a group of guys playing together and forming a cohesive unit. Guys can be more aggressive when they know they've got teammates that will have their back. Guys will be more aggressive when their level of experience allows them to play by feel and instinct rather than thinking through everything.

[wist43]

The scheme they've been running for two years has been very passive... we have two years worth of games to prove it. Even the Kool-Aid drinkers acknowledge that it's been passive. Like everything else G&G, they try to defend it. You, typically have not been among them, although you, and most everyone else in here is more optimistic than I am.

What they've been running in the 1st two preseason games may have morphed out of the original scheme, but Sanders seems to have made considerable strides in personalizing it with more aggression.

If this continues, no one will be more shocked than me. We've seen no evidence from the Bates based systems that there is any place in the scheme for consistent, creative attacks on the pocket - especially from the safety position.

That said, the base scheme hasn't changed. Sanders, and I can't believe I'm saying this, appears to have a brain. If they were to continue to run this defense the way they've been running it the last two years, I would give them no chance of playing playoff calibur football - which, of course, they haven't been playing. If they continue to show multiple fronts and get more aggressive with their blitz packages, however, then they're really moving away from the base concepts of the scheme - and, I'm all for that.

I've always felt like they could be successful with the scheme - to the tune of 9-7/10-6, but don't think it's the kind of scheme that can carry the whole team to a championship, ala Baltimore. The scheme has had moderate success in Miami, but even with a bevy of pro bowlers on their defense, they couldn't even sniff a playoff run. As I said earlier, however, what Sanders has been running these first two preseason games has been much more aggressive than anything we've seen the previous two years.

My argument wrt to defense has been, and always will be, pressure. Running the scheme the way they were running it wasn't going to produce the consistent pressure necessary to play playoff/championship calibur football.

As for the talent... several players have been very, very good. While Jenkins has been awesome - going against substandard OT's mind you, but he has looked great. It's not as if I rail against every player TT acquires. On the contrary, I was a strong advocate of extending Jenkins, arguably the most dominant player on the defense thus far in camp.

I missed on Collins, and still can't stand Barnett... Hawk's play really exposes Barnett. I've spent a decent amount of time just watching those two, rolling the tape back and forth - Hawk is far and away superior to Barnett in every phase of the game.

Kampman has been better than I think anyone could have imagined... I was wondering if his performance last year was a fluke, but based on the first two preseason games, I'd have to say no.

Then of course there's Bigby... he's the type of Safety I've always wanted, and never thought the Packers would even look at, let alone bring in and give him a chance to win the job. If Bigby can step up and prove to be a dominant safety, and if Sanders has the good sense to use him in multiple ways, then there may be some hope. Something I haven't dared allow myself to dabble in.

[The Leaper]

The scheme they've been running for two years has been very passive... we have two years worth of games to prove it.

True...but again, the inexperience both in terms of the players and coaches can be blamed for much of that. This defense had to be rebuilt from the bottom up when Bates came to town 3 years ago. If you take up running as a hobby, you aren't going to complete a marathon during your first week pounding the pavement. In the same respect, we couldn't expect the Packer defense to show any greatness in the last few years. It takes time and growth to reach that level...and hopefully we are starting to see some signs of that on the field with our defense.


If this continues, no one will be more shocked than me. We've seen no evidence from the Bates based systems that there is any place in the scheme for consistent, creative attacks on the pocket - especially from the safety position.

No evidence? Bates' defenses were in the top 7 of the league in sacks three of the five years he was in Miami. How can you claim the scheme can't put consistent pressure on the pocket?


I've always felt like they could be successful with the scheme - to the tune of 9-7/10-6, but don't think it's the kind of scheme that can carry the whole team to a championship, ala Baltimore.

The Raven defense has only ONE POSTSEASON WIN in the six years since they won the Super Bowl, despite playing in a rather weak division. I'll give them their due for being so dominant in 2000, but they've hardly been good enough in terms of producing postseason success CONSISTENTLY to make them a lofty model for what needs to be done.

[Merlin]

I am not that surprised at the move. Underwood was having problems making his turns on his reconstructed knee. He still had flat out speed but he was struggling making a move. Underwood is a veteran, we don't want that remember? With the emergence of Bigby, he became expendable. Although I think an injured Underwood is better then a healthy Manual, but he's 3T's guy so it's no surprise he's still with the team.

[MJZiggy]

Uhhh Merlin? Bigby's no rookie either, remember? He's had the coolest name in the NFL for two seasons now....

[RashanGary]

If we had a crappy front 4 like we did in years past it wouldn't matter how we blitzed. Teams would just protect with five and then the RB's would get the blitzers becasue they wouldn't be focusing in the DL. The way it stands now the extra protection has to be focused on stopping Jenkins, Kampman, Jolly, Williams and KGB. They get beat over and over and eventually they stand there before the snap planning on how they are going to stop Jenkins. Then, a LB sneaks in and the RB is so focused on stopping what beat him the play before that he misses the LB and we get a sack that looks like a confusion sack but it's really just a team dominace sack.

You can't put out a bunch of cruddy talent and expect to get away with a bunch of blitzes. You have to have talent and then everything you do can be misconstrude as genius when it's really just dominace.

[Joemailman]

I am not that surprised at the move. Underwood was having problems making his turns on his reconstructed knee. He still had flat out speed but he was struggling making a move. Underwood is a veteran, we don't want that remember? With the emergence of Bigby, he became expendable. Although I think an injured Underwood is better then a healthy Manual, but he's 3T's guy so it's no surprise he's still with the team.

Wasn't Underwood also one of TT's guys?

[Rastak]

I am not that surprised at the move. Underwood was having problems making his turns on his reconstructed knee. He still had flat out speed but he was struggling making a move. Underwood is a veteran, we don't want that remember? With the emergence of Bigby, he became expendable. Although I think an injured Underwood is better then a healthy Manual, but he's 3T's guy so it's no surprise he's still with the team.

Wasn't Underwood also one of TT's guys?


He sure was.......him and Collins were drated together.

[Merlin]

Sure, he was one of 3T's guys but at some point, they are all of your guys as is the case at safety. You have to cut the one you have the smallest tent pitched for and keep the one who makes the redwood(y) grow, that would be Manual.

[wist43]

The scheme they've been running for two years has been very passive... we have two years worth of games to prove it.

True...but again, the inexperience both in terms of the players and coaches can be blamed for much of that. This defense had to be rebuilt from the bottom up when Bates came to town 3 years ago. If you take up running as a hobby, you aren't going to complete a marathon during your first week pounding the pavement. In the same respect, we couldn't expect the Packer defense to show any greatness in the last few years. It takes time and growth to reach that level...and hopefully we are starting to see some signs of that on the field with our defense.


If this continues, no one will be more shocked than me. We've seen no evidence from the Bates based systems that there is any place in the scheme for consistent, creative attacks on the pocket - especially from the safety position.

No evidence? Bates' defenses were in the top 7 of the league in sacks three of the five years he was in Miami. How can you claim the scheme can't put consistent pressure on the pocket?


I've always felt like they could be successful with the scheme - to the tune of 9-7/10-6, but don't think it's the kind of scheme that can carry the whole team to a championship, ala Baltimore.

The Raven defense has only ONE POSTSEASON WIN in the six years since they won the Super Bowl, despite playing in a rather weak division. I'll give them their due for being so dominant in 2000, but they've hardly been good enough in terms of producing postseason success CONSISTENTLY to make them a lofty model for what needs to be done.

Can't believe you're trying to argue that Baltimore's defense isn't a "lofty model" b/c they haven't had post season success since they won the SB. That's not the defenses fault. Year in and year out, the Ravens have one of the top 5 defensive units in the league - and they do, in fact strike fear in opponents. Baltimores problems are, and always have been, offensive.

By that reckoning, Miami's defense can't be used as a "lofty model" b/c they haven't had any post season success.

Some schemes can put up numbers that at the end of the day don't look bad, but in reality the numbers don't add up to overall production or wins. Kampman gets a sack and it's 3rd and 17 - somebody blows an assignment, misses a tackle, takes a bad angle, blah, blah, blah, and 3rd and 17 all of a sudden it's back to 1st and 10. The sack looks good in the stats, but ultimately the defense didn't get it done.

The Dolphins used to put up decent sack numbers due to having a damn good line, but nobody runs around talking about them being dominant then, or now. The Packers had 46 sacks last year (I think it was 46), a very good number, but they didn't consistently pressure the pocket. They'd get a sack, and then nothing for the next two series. Then another sack, and again nothing for two more series. The Packers defensive stats were horrific prior to the last 4 games, but they were still getting enough sacks to at least make that stat look decent.

Then there are other teams that put much more consistent pressure on the QB but the sack numbers don't reflect it. Can't remember when I saw it, but I was shocked when I saw a stat of how paltry the Bears sack totals were - this may have been a year or two ago - but, the point is, they harassed the QB and the offense into submission, but their sack totals were considerably short of what you'd expect from a defense that generated that much pressure. Pressure is more than sacks.

[wist43]

I am not that surprised at the move. Underwood was having problems making his turns on his reconstructed knee. He still had flat out speed but he was struggling making a move. Underwood is a veteran, we don't want that remember? With the emergence of Bigby, he became expendable. Although I think an injured Underwood is better then a healthy Manual, but he's 3T's guy so it's no surprise he's still with the team.

Wasn't Underwood also one of TT's guys?

I liked Underwood as a player... can't fault TT for an injury like this. And even a guy like Murphy, you can't fault him - you may be able to fault the medical staff, but if the docs say a guy has a clean bill of health, that's what you have to act on.

Same thing with Hodge... despite the fact that I never thought he was a good fit for this system - I've always viewed him as an ILB in a 3-4. I would think Petellor tendonitis would be detectable.

[Rastak]

Every injury is different of course but guys come back from ACL's all the time. I'm surprised they cut him.

[wist43]

Every injury is different of course but guys come back from ACL's all the time. I'm surprised they cut him.

I'm somewhat surprised. I had Underwood penciled in as the starter based on his performance last preseason; but, his recovery was/is problematic.

We've gotten spoiled by advances in surgical techniques and we just expect that a guy is going to bounce back. Just goes to show that coming back from this type of injury isn't automatic.

[Fritz]

I guess I'm most surprised that they didn't put Underwood on the PUP list, give him another six or eight weeks to recover, then give him a tryout. My guess is that the medical staff must have determined that he just wasn't going to get it back.

[The Leaper]

Can't believe you're trying to argue that Baltimore's defense isn't a "lofty model" b/c they haven't had post season success since they won the SB. That's not the defenses fault. Year in and year out, the Ravens have one of the top 5 defensive units in the league - and they do, in fact strike fear in opponents. Baltimores problems are, and always have been, offensive.

My point is that you have been down on Bates' defensive scheme...when his defenses were arguably almost as good as Baltimore's in the early part of this decade. You can't blame his defenses for Miami's ineptitude on offense either.

Baltimore's defense consistently got pressure one year...in 2000. Since then, they haven't been as consistent. Favre absolutely torched that defense in 2001...precisely because they couldn't get any pressure on him whatsoever.

Pressure is the result of one thing...EXPERIENCED TALENT. It isn't scheme. It isn't fronts. It isn't coaching genius. It is about having guys up front who can flat out beat the OL guys in front of them. I agree completely with the sentiment that blitzing is USELESS if your front four can't get it done. Blitzing only becomes effective when your front four disrupts the OL and forces the RBs to wonder where their blocking assignment will come from, causing miscues which get the QB to start throwing the ball earlier than he wants to.

The reason we are getting pressure now when we didn't 2 years ago has NOTHING to do with the scheme or coaching gameplan. It has to do with the talent and depth of a DL with guys like Jenkins, Kampman, KGB, Williams and the rest. You put that kind of talent out there, and you could be successful in just about whatever scheme you wish to run.

[Harlan Huckleby]

My point is that you have been down on Bates' defensive scheme...when his defenses were arguably almost as good as

Excuse the interuption .... I just found out yesterday that Bates is the DC for Denver. I suppose everybody else knew.

carry on.

[Bretsky]

I guess I'm most surprised that they didn't put Underwood on the PUP list, give him another six or eight weeks to recover, then give him a tryout. My guess is that the medical staff must have determined that he just wasn't going to get it back.

Makes ya wonder how good hit attitude is

I had that torn ACL; I know the Packer brass was saying he was way ahead of schedule and all, but that is truly the exception rather than the norm so I didn't buy their company line for a second. Most of the time it takes 6-12 months to get it back, and then you spend a year working through the kinks to hopefully get back to 100% with no pain. Mine, it stayed at 95%. Anything under full recovery is not up to NFL Standards.

I too am surprised we didn't give him more time.

[wist43]

Can't believe you're trying to argue that Baltimore's defense isn't a "lofty model" b/c they haven't had post season success since they won the SB. That's not the defenses fault. Year in and year out, the Ravens have one of the top 5 defensive units in the league - and they do, in fact strike fear in opponents. Baltimores problems are, and always have been, offensive.

My point is that you have been down on Bates' defensive scheme...when his defenses were arguably almost as good as Baltimore's in the early part of this decade. You can't blame his defenses for Miami's ineptitude on offense either.

Baltimore's defense consistently got pressure one year...in 2000. Since then, they haven't been as consistent. Favre absolutely torched that defense in 2001...precisely because they couldn't get any pressure on him whatsoever.

Pressure is the result of one thing...EXPERIENCED TALENT. It isn't scheme. It isn't fronts. It isn't coaching genius. It is about having guys up front who can flat out beat the OL guys in front of them. I agree completely with the sentiment that blitzing is USELESS if your front four can't get it done. Blitzing only becomes effective when your front four disrupts the OL and forces the RBs to wonder where their blocking assignment will come from, causing miscues which get the QB to start throwing the ball earlier than he wants to.


Leaper, there's absolutely no comparison between Miami's D and Baltimores... even if the numbers some how come out looking similar. That's just too much of a stretch.

As for your contention that pressure is the result of one thing - "experienced talent"... can't agree with that either. Yes, talent makes up for a lot of sins, but you have to have a scheme that makes maximum use of that talent. In general, you're right that blitzing is useless w/o the talent to get home, but confusing the OL, QB, and RB's in blitz pick up is all about scheme. If an OT gets beat physically, that's talent; but, guys coming free, the QB making the wrong read b/c he's not sure of what he's seeing, the RB not knowing who to pick up... those things are all scheme/game plan related.

It is, or at least has been, extremely rare to see a Packer defender come free on the blitz... that right there should tell you that there is no confusion on the part of the offensive players. They see the blitz coming, and they pick it up. That's scheme, not talent.

Talent may allow a Def Coord to be more creative, and you can make the arguement that Bates, and now Sanders haven't had the talent to be more creative; but, if you can't generate pressure with your base 4 man rush, you've got to do it with the blitz; and, heretofore, the Packers schemes and blitz packages have been simplistic, predictable, and telegraphed. Even if you have a ton of talent on the defensive side of the ball - a good offense usually won't have much trouble shutting down the pass rush under those circumstances.

Hopefully the talent we've been seeing flashed this preseason isn't exactly that - a flash in the pan. If Sanders continues to show multiple fronts, and continues to be more aggressive in his play calling, and the players continue to grow and develop, then the defense has a chance to be better than average. If he reverts back to sitting back in zones, and uses his LB's and S's more as glorified CB's than as "search and destroy" killing machines, then no, I don't think they can be much better than average.

[RashanGary]

Talent may allow a Def Coord to be more creative, and you can make the arguement that Bates, and now Sanders haven't had the talent to be more creative; but, if you can't generate pressure with your base 4 man rush, you've got to do it with the blitz; and, heretofore, the Packers schemes and blitz packages have been simplistic, predictable, and telegraphed. Even if you have a ton of talent on the defensive side of the ball - a good offense usually won't have much trouble shutting down the pass rush under those circumstances.



I'd argue that if your front four is not talented enough to get pressure that it makes it easy to pick up blitzers and therefor renders the blitz much less effective if not useless. It all starts with talent.

[wist43]

Talent may allow a Def Coord to be more creative, and you can make the arguement that Bates, and now Sanders haven't had the talent to be more creative; but, if you can't generate pressure with your base 4 man rush, you've got to do it with the blitz; and, heretofore, the Packers schemes and blitz packages have been simplistic, predictable, and telegraphed. Even if you have a ton of talent on the defensive side of the ball - a good offense usually won't have much trouble shutting down the pass rush under those circumstances.



I'd argue that if your front four is not talented enough to get pressure that it makes it easy to pick up blitzers and therefor renders the blitz much less effective if not useless. It all starts with talent.

True... if you're completely devoid of talent up front, you might as well sit back, play zone, and try to pick off passes. Of course you're going to give up 836 pts/gm doing that, and you're going to be drafting in the top 5 the next year.

[Partial]

Wist is completely right on this one. Stats aren't super meaningful when not taking into account pressures and whatnot.

For example, Freeney's stats looked very pedestrian last year (I think he had 3 sacks) but he forced more quarterbacks to scramble and make bad throws than anyone by leading the league in pressures.

[The Leaper]

Leaper, there's absolutely no comparison between Miami's D and Baltimores... even if the numbers some how come out looking similar. That's just too much of a stretch.

So let me get this straight. Even if Baltimore and Miami can have similar defensive stats for a five year period...you are going to argue that it is then a STRETCH to compare the two?

That makes absolutely NO SENSE to me.

If two teams put up similar numbers over the course of five games...I see your point. Look to the last 4 games Green Bay played last year compared to Chicago. Does that mean we had a better defense last year? Of course not.

However, if our defense puts up numbers similar to Chicago over five years...then I see no reason to suggest it would be a stretch to compare the two. Miami's defense during Bates' tenure was comparable to Baltimore's...both were top 5 defenses. I'll give you the point that Baltimore overall probably was a TAD better during that timeframe (don't have time right now to look up all the numbers) but not enough to claim it is a stretch to compare the two.

[wist43]

Leaper, there's absolutely no comparison between Miami's D and Baltimores... even if the numbers some how come out looking similar. That's just too much of a stretch.

So let me get this straight. Even if Baltimore and Miami can have similar defensive stats for a five year period...you are going to argue that it is then a STRETCH to compare the two?

That makes absolutely NO SENSE to me.

If two teams put up similar numbers over the course of five games...I see your point. Look to the last 4 games Green Bay played last year compared to Chicago. Does that mean we had a better defense last year? Of course not.

However, if our defense puts up numbers similar to Chicago over five years...then I see no reason to suggest it would be a stretch to compare the two. Miami's defense during Bates' tenure was comparable to Baltimore's...both were top 5 defenses. I'll give you the point that Baltimore overall probably was a TAD better during that timeframe (don't have time right now to look up all the numbers) but not enough to claim it is a stretch to compare the two.

I would argue all day long that Miami isn't in the same class as Baltimore - regardless of what the stats said.

That said, I did look up a few stats - like you, I don't want to turn this into a dissertation/research project, but here are a few numbers.

Balt Mia
Pts/gm 12.6 17.7
Sacks 60 47
INTs 26 8
Fum 11 18
Yds/gm 264 289

From 2002-2006, they ranked in yds (admittedly a poor measure):

22,3,6,5,1 3,10,8,18,4

The 22nd ranking for Baltimore in 2002 I can only assume that was the year of their ill-fated attempt to switch to a 4-3... Ray Lewis demanding a trade if they didn't switch back... I'm with him on that one.

I forget how many TD's the Baltimore defense scored themselves last year, but I'm pretty sure they were #1 in defensive TD's as well.

About the only 4-3 teams in the league that I rank with the top 3-4 teams would be Jax and Chicago.

When you see Baltimore, San Diego, and Pittsburgh on your schedule, the first thing you think of is defense. When you Miami on the schedule, you think, "we can win that game".

To me, there's a huge difference between the dominant 3-4 defenses and the rest of the league.

[The Leaper]

To me, there's a huge difference between the dominant 3-4 defenses and the rest of the league.

Perhaps. However, when it comes to postseason success, there really isn't any evidence that a 3-4 defense has an advantage. That is basically my point. I'm not seeing the huge difference that you do. Posting big numbers in the regular season, but not getting it done consistently in the postseason doesn't do it for me. Again...ONE PLAYOFF WIN since 2000 for Baltimore, despite all those glossy top 5 rankings you point out. Hell, Mike Sherman got TWO playoff wins in Green Bay in five years time!

New England, Tampa Bay, Philly, Tennessee, Jacksonville, Carolina...there are plenty of examples of 4-3 teams in recent years that have had just as much success (typically moreso) as Baltimore/SD/Pittsburgh in terms of the postseason.

Besides, Baltimore and Pittsburgh feasted for years on the hapless Browns and Bengals 4 times a year...plus the Pittsburgh and Baltimore offenses weren't anything to be scared of either. Those defenses had a nice spate of divisional games to help boost their defensive numbers.

The only 3-4 that truly scares me now is San Diego. They've put up comparable numbers recently...and done so against a far superior offensive division that includes Denver and KC. Plus, they have the offense to match the defense.

Baltimore is still to be respected IMO, but not scary in terms of dominance. As you point out, they make big plays off your mistakes more than they physically dominate you for 4 quarters. Pittsburgh isn't what they used to be at this point IMO.

[Partial]

New England won the super bowls running a 3-4.

[Guiness]

If we had a crappy front 4 like we did in years past it wouldn't matter how we blitzed. Teams would just protect with five and then the RB's would get the blitzers becasue they wouldn't be focusing in the DL. The way it stands now the extra protection has to be focused on stopping Jenkins, Kampman, Jolly, Williams and KGB. They get beat over and over and eventually they stand there before the snap planning on how they are going to stop Jenkins. Then, a LB sneaks in and the RB is so focused on stopping what beat him the play before that he misses the LB and we get a sack that looks like a confusion sack but it's really just a team dominace sack.

+1

Generating pressure with those front four opens up so much more. Kamp and Jenkins creating pressure from the edges, and all of a sudden our DT's (whoever they happen to be) are collapsing the pocket, and a lot of other stuff starts to happen pretty quickly.



You can't put out a bunch of cruddy talent and expect to get away with a bunch of blitzes. You have to have talent and then everything you do can be misconstrude as genius when it's really just dominace.


We saw that in spades the year Slowik ran things...I remember them bragging about bringing some sort of a blitz on like 60% of the plays at the beginning of the season, and thinking 'oh shit'

[Lurker64]

New England won the super bowls running a 3-4.

Well, actually they won superbowls running "Bellichick's crazy defensive scheme" which is a base 3-4 but morphs into things as crazy as 0-7-4 fronts. It's not really a typical example of the scheme or a defense that really anybody else could emulate.