My view of Capers is terrible - probably because he's hidden up in the coach's box.
Printable View
My view of Capers is terrible - probably because he's hidden up in the coach's box.
http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packe...284424981.html
I believe that is very close to the number of snaps AJ Hawk played.Quote:
The Packers played 24 snaps in the 3-4.
So against a team with a stout running game that they are willing to use liberally, Capers adjusts by putting out a stouter front more often (though not exclusively). Same as he has done against the Jets, Atlanta, the Vikings, the 49ers and Seahawks. Its almost as if he watches film, maps tendencies and adjusts accordingly. Like any sane person would.
There is nothing unsound in the design of the approach. Yes, he leverages against the pass earlier than some other DCs, but we are talking 5-7 snaps a game of difference. There is a critique of Capers and why he hasn't been more consistent and successful with the Packers.
Unsoundness and lunacy aren't it.
Hawk played 26 snaps.
I think your original argument was that having linebackers lining up on the line and counting them as defensive lineman was wrong because they were too light and small to do the job, and thus that alignment was not really a 3-3 or 3-4.
You've clearly backtracked from that line, so that now, when the Packer defense, piloted by Capers, gives up only 21 to the Patriots (contrary to your predictions), you claim that Capers is doing what you said he should, and that's why they played well.
You are a piece of work, dude.
Oy vey, lol...
I think you guys read every 3rd word I write, and fill the inbetweens with your own prerecordings...
I've never deviated in my contention of how these personnel should be used. Yes, the way Dom ran his 2-4, both the jumbo and the pass rush version was severely flawed, and I've pointed out why on both counts.
I've also laid out the case for why the 3-3 is vastly superior, given our personnel, and that does involve having more size and pass rush on the field simultaneously. For the longest time I've wanted to have Perry inserted as a down linemen b/c 1) he is bigger than Brad Jones, 2) I wanted him as a down linemen, not a LB b/c he wasn't natural at LB, and he's stated all along he wanted to play DL, 3) played inside the T's he gives us better gap control, and thus we are better equipped to handle the run, should the opponent decide to run it, and 4) he provided much more pass rush potential than anything that could be generated out of dunderdummy's Jumbo.
The next thing I wanted done was to have Neal at either OLB or ILB. Since I think Neal is a very good outside rusher, my preference was to have him on the outside, and use Matthews as a rover. Before we signed Peppers we would have necessarily had to play either Brad Jones, Hawk, or Lattimore somewhere, but now with Peppers - and given our personnel, it is entirely doable to craft nickel alignments that don't have either Brad Jones or Hawk on the field at all - and of course we are much the better for it.
What you are referrencing with the LB's rushing from the 2-4 is that I don't accept the argument that that alignment is in effect a 4-2 simply b/c the 2 OLB's always rush. I don't like that alignment b/c 1) it is very static and predictable, thus easy to block, 2) it ensures that Brad Jones and Hawk remain on the field, 3) it ensures that more talented players like Perry, Neal, and D. Jones are left standing on the sidelines, 4) there are fewer downlinemen firing off and taking on offensive linemen with leverage, and 5) it limits pass rush/blitz options.
The 3-3 is the cure all for all those things - and now that dunderdummy is actually running much more 3-3 and 3-4, our defense is starting to look like a legitimate NFL defense. It only took dunderdummy how many years to come around to this realization??
I would add to my above post - that my prediction of the game was predicated upon my believe that dunderdummy would be dunderdummy, i.e. that he would revert back to his 2-4, and run his keystone cops anti-coverage scheme.
He obviously ran a lot of what I've been calling for for a long time, and we held them in check and won the game. It sounds like we didn't double Gronk a lot, so if that is the case, I am quite surprised that we held him in check without doubling him. I'm going to watch the game tonight, so I'll pay close attention to how they dealt with Gronk.
The fact is - the fact that you guys can't bring yourselves to admit - is that dunderdummy is finally running the scheme I've been calling for all this time, and it's working. As much as you may hate it - the success of running the 3-3 and more 3-4 is vindicating my arguments in spades.
By the same token, the fact that you guys have argued with me every step of the way, i.e. defending dunderdummy and the 2-4 - proves that you've been wrong all along, and that your attempts to sling shit at my arguments were exactly that - shit!!
You cannot be serious!
http://www.webtennis.com/players/wp-...hn_mcenroe.jpg
Wist, Capers adjusts. He really does. People have viewpoints that differ from you, and that's fine, but in some ways you are not arguing honestly. When presented with facts that don't fit your view, you've been changing conditions, etc., just as you did when I presented you with the exact numbers, down and distance for the 2-4 versus the 3-3. Dave, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye.
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/x56O4G8VsiA/hqdefault.jpg
For years I've been saying this defense would be better if they'd just stay healthy. Dom finally took my advice and look at the result. You're welcome guys.
If we win our second Super Bowl in the last 4 years with Capers lead defenses, wist will disappear for a few months, like last time, then come back calling him dunderdummy when he can't hold teams to 3 pints per game every game, every year, no matter how many injuries or circumstNces.
Okay, here's the FF version of going thru the game...
Didn't really break anything down - tried to make an observation here and there, but for the most part I just denoted alignment, down/distance, personnel, and result.
One thing that stood out to me was Barrington - he was down right studly at times... loved his play at ILB, and hope he is now a fixture.
The other thing that stood out to me was the amount of 2-4 dunderdummy played in the 1st half. We were starting to bleed in the 2nd Quarter running the 2-4, but dunderdummy did the right thing and abandoned it in the 2nd half.
We were starting to bleed running the 2-4, but NE didn't take full advantage by the fact that they ran the ball very little. By the end of game NE had 18 rushing attempts (17 really - Brady kneel down) and 35 passing attempts - penalties notwithstanding.
So out of 55 snaps (some penalties that wiped plays out included), dunderdummy ran the following alignments:
3-4, 23 times
2-4, 14 times
3-3, 5 times
3-2 dime, 3 times
2-3 dime, 7 times
4-3, 1 time
4-2, 1 time
Goal line defense (5 down linemen), 1 time
Gronk was kept in check with man coverage and a lot of zone help. It was exactly the type of coverage that I called for. He did manage to shake loose a couple of times, and on a couple of those he was lined up outside the numbers. Outstanding job on Gronk throughout the game.
When dunderdummy was in the 2-4, NE should have run the ball, but they didn't - and in all honesty, dunderdummy did not run his usual 2-4, he crowded the LOS, filled gaps, and Barrington played lightyears better than anyone we've had at ILB in a long, long time. That said, NE did realize most of their success against the 2-4 when dunderdummy did run it... most notably in the 2nd Quarter.
Dunderdummy did then adjust and he only ran the 2-4 1 time in the 2nd half. He did run some 2 man lines in the Dime, but he brought pressure on those snaps, and on several occassions had both Matthews and Peppers coming on the blitz from ILB positions. Excellent mixing of the blitz.
In the 2nd half, dunderdummy ran the 3-4 predominately - even running against 4 WR's and Gronk, i.e. no RB's on the field.
I give dunderdummy a lot of credit for a good game plan - abandoning the 2-4 when it was beginning to hemorrhage in the 2nd Quarter, and mixing fronts and blitzes very effectively. At the same time, he did not vary his coverage much - and given that the coverage was very effective, i.e. man up on Gronk with zone help, and excellent zone play underneath, dunderdummy made the right calls throughout the game.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
All of that said - I do not trust dunderdummy, and will never trust dunderdummy :)
http://www.foxsports.com/wisconsin/s...ent-win-120114
Packers report card: Offense outperforms Patriots in statement win
Paul Imig ... FOX Sports Wisconsin
DEC 01, 2014 1:00p ET
I watched the game again today. One player really stood out to me on our 'D'
That was Clay Matthews. He was flying all over. I felt he had the best game for us on the 'D'.
AJ Hawk was out and Sam Barrington in and that move helped the 'D'.
Our secondary is small. I'll be happy when TT gets CB's on board that are taller, fast and more physical. I realize that's a difficult task.
The Packers still have lots to be desired tackling (tackling high doesn't cut it) and often the secondary play receivers too soft or too up and personal near the LOS and get beat early. Tramon Williams didn't have the game I originally thought he had. In fairness to him and our secondary. NE has very quick WR's in LaFell and Edelman.
The front of the 'D' just did enough to keep Tom Brady off balance.
Tom Brady overall still had a solid effort with a QBR > 100. He remains a solid MVP candidate.
MM has lots of work to do with his team to get it to the Super Bowl. This win all the same has to be a real confidence booster and that's good as long as the packers don't rest on it for any length of time.
GO PACK GO !
McGinn: Unofficially, here were the top five primary defenders on TE Rob Gronkowski's 31 routes: Morgan Burnett (nine), Clinton-Dix (seven), Micah Hyde (four), Matthews (four) and Davon House (three).
Packers played single high safety for almost the entire game. What zone support was over the top if it was single-safety?
From Tramon Williams: http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packe...284287911.html
Quote:
Surprisingly, the Packers did not direct extra attention Gronkowski's way. Williams said the plan was to stick to their defense, their principles — defensive coordinator Dom Capers didn't want to bracket "Gronk" with extra defenders. With Brady so skilled at creating advantageous matchups, at making pedestrian receivers seem like All-Pros, the Packers played a lot of man-to-man coverage and simplified the thinking on the back end.
Zone support was underneath... many times Gronk was manned up with zone support underneath. Yes we were in single high safety most of the game, and Gronk was passed along to the safety very effectively when we were not in man against him.
Overall they did an outstanding job of containing Gronk... I haven't watched a lot of NE this year, not sure how often they line him up outside the numbers, but they did that several times against us, and he had some catches out there. I can only suspect that they were trying to free him up from all the traffic and interference he was encountering inside the numbers. Very effective job on Gronk.
Oddly, I saw Matthews outside covering a WR... WTF?? lol... It looked as if dunderdummy simply did not want to change out of base personnel - I suspect due to any confusion that might result from having so much changeover in personnel from snap to snap - we did not substitute very liberally in this game, and think that helped a lot. Snap in, snap out, we had our best players on the field - no Brad Jones, less Hawk; more Neal, more Perry, more D. Jones...
Capers played base 3-4 most of the 2nd half, regardless of offensive personnel. As I mentioned, he was even in base 3-4 against 4 wides and Gronk.
Come on man; just set yourself free and admit you were completely wrong and off base in the way you noted Dom would call this game and melt down. Dom called a fabulous game and outsmarted Josh McDaniels.
Gronk didn't score 6 plus TD's as you noted, and IMO Capers didn't just do what you told him to by bracketing Gronk the entire game.
We might need to have a packerrats session with you to rid yourself of the Dom Demons :))
I'd think a lot more of Dom Capers if he was the defensive coordinator for two Super Bowl champions at the end of the year.
:-)
What is with you guys... good grief. He did call the game largely the way I've been calling for, and he did bracket Gronk - not every play, but it's impossible to do the same thing play after play. You guys are so determined to poke me in the eye, that if 1 single play doesn't fit my narrative you're calling shenanigans on me... get over it.
I said Dom called a good game. I went thru the game, quickly I admit, but from what I saw I liked just about everything he did... I still don't trust the guy, and never will - I know his history, and I know he can't be trusted; but for a 1 game deal, for a few game stretch?? He's shown marked improvement.
I've been saying all along that I like the players - if Dom can get out of his own way long enough, I think we have the talent to make a run at a title. Heretofore I haven't been in the least optimistic that could happen b/c of Dom's track record and recent history, but if he can keep his shit together for another 7 games, we have a decent shot - but that's a big IF.
Wist:
Capers:Quote:
It looked as if dunderdummy simply did not want to change out of base personnel - I suspect due to any confusion that might result from having so much changeover in personnel from snap to snap - we did not substitute very liberally in this game, and think that helped a lot. Snap in, snap out, we had our best players on the field - no Brad Jones, less Hawk; more Neal, more Perry, more D. Jones...
It seems the common goal is to get the best 11 players on the field at any one time. I really don't understand what the fuss is all about.;-)Quote:
“I would say it would vary from week to week,” Capers said. “Again, based off what our opponent is doing, you’ll see different personnel groups and different people involved in those. It could change from one week to the next based on your injury situation, who’s available. The purpose is to try to get your best 11 people against who they put out there and the match-ups.”
Well, 4 wides and Matthews lined up as a cornerback?? Even I wouldn't have done that, lol...
There were also many occasions in which Barrington was on the field - which I counted as a 3-4, but he was actually lined up 10 yds off the slot receiver. He wasn't in man coverage, but that is where he lined up. He played the underneath zone between the hash and the numbers, ala Cam Chancellor.
Against NE, we were very effective against their 3 and 4 WR packages out of the base - I have argued we should have been playing more base against 3 WR sets, but I would have dumped Hawk for a DB against the 4 WR sets NE showed. Regardless, anything is better than that static, or jumbo 2-4 Capers used to run.
NE was able to get the ball moving against the 2-4, but dunderdummy 1) played tight coverage behind it, 2) wasn't entirely static in his presnap movement, and 3) didn't stay with it when they began to get the better of it. All 3 of those conditions have been sorely lacking for over 3 years now.
I hate to think there is hope - b/c dunderdummy has such an abysmal track record. For all we know, he'll behave himself all the way to the Superbowl, and then on Super Sunday he'll revert back to his static 2-4 and stab us in the heart. No matter that he did a good job in this game - and he did - he simply cannot be trusted, ever.
When you look at the above underlined sections, it's just as we knew, and as I posted earlier in another thread -
On playing Gronkowski - you claim above that the Packers played him just as you called for - I wrote:
"As far as I could tell, Capers refused to double or bracket Gronk, yet somehow, miraculously, the Patriots only scored 21, and I don't think Gronk scored those three touchdowns you were so sure he'd get."
So even though no one - not here, not at the JSO, not even the players who played the game (see Tramon Williams's quote from PB's post) - except you is maintaining that the Packers doubled Gronk, by your line of "reasoning," by golly, they actually did.
On how you'd manage to not give credit - I wrote:
"But don't forget to trot out your old schtick about how, really, the other team screwed it up. In this case, I imagine you'll say that if Belichek had run the ball lots more, the Patriots would've surely won."
Sure enough, there you go again - see the above underlined section.
Ding ding ding ding ding! Winner winner chicken dinner!
You live in one strange universe.
"As far as I can tell..." you don't understand the first thing about football or strategy - so you really don't have much standing to critique anything I've said.
We did double Gronk a lot; with man coverage and zone help. Doubling a receiver doesn't mean that 2 guys line up head on the guy and both run with him at the snap, ala a gunner on punt coverage.
As for running the ball - it is our achilles heel. I think most people expected NE to run the ball more - Dom played the 3-4 most of the time, regardless of offensive personnel, but NE didn't test it enough for anyone to know if they could have effectively controlled the ball on the ground. It is what it is... if I were them, I would have run the ball more, and would have come in with a run-heavy gameplan.
So since you are taking umbrage with my arguments - I assume you would have preferred that dunderdummy run the 2-4 the whole game?? Or that they should have played Brad Jones and Hawk the whole game?? Or that they shouldn't have accounted for Gronk with bracketed and over the top coverage??
I find it amazing that you guys are so offended by good results. If you had your way, we'd still be running the 2-4 24/7, and you'd be attacking me b/c I deign to attack the approach that is leading to poor performance - how dare anyone question the Gods that reside at 1265??
Wist,
Capers does different things because he has different players. The addition of Peppers and the growth of Neal/Perry into their new roles means Capers can do different things. I'm pretty sure he wanted to do better than last year too. It's the NFL. If you get a championship every few years, you're doing ducking great.
Is it just me or does reading this thread make anyone else feel like they are wandering the desert with Moses?
I remember that conversation. As far a I can tell, if Peppers and Perry line up as the OLB in a 2-4 and it works, Wist counts that as crowding the line and attacking the LOS (regardless of whether Perry and Peppers are in a 2 or 3 point stance). If it doesn't work, it's an example of dunderdummy conceding the run and running his tired old 2-4.
Wist, I've never claimed to be an expert football analyst. But when Tramon Williams says there was not extra help, and the JSO supports that, and my own (limited) knowledge supports that, then it's hard for me to just go along with your claim.
What I'm contending is that you have created a narrative that suits you, and you either ignore or bend any evidence that contradicts your set-in-concrete views. This is something most of us do, to some extent, but you take it to extremes that are hard to stomach.
I think I'll just refrain from commenting any further on your posts. Life's too short.
This from the Official Packers-Pats Discussion Thread
In the same thread, you also went on to rip the OL on the heels of a strong performance both run and pass blocking against Minnesota - on top of a strong run of dominating performances which demonstrates they're shaping into one of the top lines in the league.
Then Fritz prophesizes about your likely retorts before they're even made and you comically fall right into form, ignoring facts, twisting some, and making up others .. and then this gem.
And you wonder why the homers and rabble take you on with these proclamations. You can only ignore for so many months/years before it's time for a calling-out, so I'm gonna follow Fritz' lead.
Wist you really are a broken record of doom and gloom followed by selective reasoning to support your perspectives, no matter how wrong or misguided.
The one that sticks out to me was when you proclaimed with authority that the Packers were minimum of two years away from being "remotely competitive" - the offseason before they won the Super Bowl.
The (un)funny thing is you actually believe yourself wist. Denial is a powerful force I see.
It's really tough to win it all, but I'd bet my left nut that if the Packers come up short somehow, you'll once again step up on your perch and proclaim how you've been right all along - and the NFL defensive coordinator who has dedicated pretty much every waking minute of his adult life to scheming and coaching some of the best players in the world to stop some other of the best players in the world can't hold your jock or that of the neighborhood Pop Warner coach when it comes to understanding football.
Based on some of the responses you get to your posts, I don't think I'm alone when I say ... It really does get old man. Maybe you exaggerate to make your point (the same one over and over and over and over. I hope you have a shortcut set up for dunderdummy because you've had to have worn out a few D's on the ol keyboard by now), but reread those quotes of yours. You'd have been hard-pressed to have been more wrong about the game - and then to make it worse you try to twist things around and proclaim that you were right. Dunder finally listened. Whoda thunkit. Everyone's wrong a lot, but you're just so far out of touch not seeing it that I don't even know what else to say.