Going, Going......................

[Gunakor]

getting cut - Chris Frances, Wynn, Bush, Smith (WR), even though it pains me, Kregg Lumpkin (my blackhorse to make the team), Tony Moll, Orin Thompson

that's what I got for now.

An Old School idea: Make Lumpy a FB and run both him and Grant in the same backfield.

Except I saw the way Korey Hall laid out a pro bowl middle linebacker plowing open a hole to the endzone for Grant last year. I'm sure E.J. Henderson would just love it if we played Lumpkin at FB.

I like Hall at FB. He's a converted linebacker... All linebackers wanna do is hit people. That's what I'd want in a FB. Nothing would make a better FB than a converted linebacker IMO.

[Maxie the Taxi]

getting cut - Chris Frances, Wynn, Bush, Smith (WR), even though it pains me, Kregg Lumpkin (my blackhorse to make the team), Tony Moll, Orin Thompson

that's what I got for now.

An Old School idea: Make Lumpy a FB and run both him and Grant in the same backfield.

Except I saw the way Korey Hall laid out a pro bowl middle linebacker plowing open a hole to the endzone for Grant last year. I'm sure E.J. Henderson would just love it if we played Lumpkin at FB.

I like Hall at FB. He's a converted linebacker... All linebackers wanna do is hit people. That's what I'd want in a FB. Nothing would make a better FB than a converted linebacker IMO.

I'm just Old School. I'd rather see the FB carry the ball instead of block.

[bobblehead]

recent quotes from JS on tony moll.
---------
The versatile Moll, who also had an impressive practice, has come on after a slow start.

“He’s starting to play with some of that energy,” Campen said. “Go after you. Bulldog-type stuff. Nice to see that. Starting to play with a lot of aggression
--------

Seems this stubborn sob is trying to make me wrong...I hope he turns it around big time then...not just enough to squeek onto the squad.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I'm just Old School. I'd rather see the FB carry the ball instead of block.

You are old school.

[Guiness]

I'm just Old School. I'd rather see the FB carry the ball instead of block.

Like the other two in the league that do, eh? Are there even two FB's that get regular carries anymore? T. Richardson for a while in KC is the last I remember.

Anyways, it's just not something you see.

[Merlin]

Re: Going, Going......................

I would add Chris Francies and maybe Chillar

I am not sure if it's just preseason or not but didn't we have some kind of 2-4 or 2-5 package out there with 4-5 linebackers? I think they are going to stock up on linebackers and possibly run more wierd sets like that.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Re: Going, Going......................

I would add Chris Francies and maybe Chillar

I am not sure if it's just preseason or not but didn't we have some kind of 2-4 or 2-5 package out there with 4-5 linebackers? I think they are going to stock up on linebackers and possibly run more wierd sets like that.

Exactly right. I couldn't agree more. They're going to compensate for injuries on the D-Line by loading five LB's. They're just not doing a lot of it in preseason because they don't want to create film of it for opponents. They few times they ran it really looked weird but it was effective.

By the way, just to prove I'm still old school, I'd blitz all five LB's.

[KYPack]

Re: Going, Going......................

I would add Chris Francies and maybe Chillar

I am not sure if it's just preseason or not but didn't we have some kind of 2-4 or 2-5 package out there with 4-5 linebackers? I think they are going to stock up on linebackers and possibly run more wierd sets like that.

Exactly right. I couldn't agree more. They're going to compensate for injuries on the D-Line by loading five LB's. They're just not doing a lot of it in preseason because they don't want to create film of it for opponents. They few times they ran it really looked weird but it was effective.

By the way, just to prove I'm still old school, I'd blitz all five LB's.

NE runs a 3rd down D with 1 lineman and 6 LB's. They also run that "mill around" formation where all of the front seven wanders around and line up at the last second with nobody putting their hand down. Guess that's an 0-7-4

[Maxie the Taxi]

Re: Going, Going......................

I would add Chris Francies and maybe Chillar

I am not sure if it's just preseason or not but didn't we have some kind of 2-4 or 2-5 package out there with 4-5 linebackers? I think they are going to stock up on linebackers and possibly run more wierd sets like that.

Exactly right. I couldn't agree more. They're going to compensate for injuries on the D-Line by loading five LB's. They're just not doing a lot of it in preseason because they don't want to create film of it for opponents. They few times they ran it really looked weird but it was effective.

By the way, just to prove I'm still old school, I'd blitz all five LB's.

NE runs a 3rd down D with 1 lineman and 6 LB's. They also run that "mill around" formation where all of the front seven wanders around and line up at the last second with nobody putting their hand down. Guess that's an 0-7-4

KY,

You know way more football than I do, tell me this. Do you like the way the Packers have used their LB's in years past? It just seems to me they use them too conservatively. My feeling is put one LB on the tight end, another spying on the HB out of the backfield, and blitz the other all the time. Forget the zone crap. Am I nuts?

[texaspackerbacker]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. There's a helluva lot more bad than good that comes from blitzing. I am completely satisfied, indeed, glad that the Packers play it pretty much straight up--relatively little blitzing.

For those who disagree, it's hard to argue with 13-3.

It seems like a fairly large portion of the big plays we did give up were the result of blitzes. Likely, the same can be said for most other teams too.

[mraynrand]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. There's a helluva lot more bad than good that comes from blitzing. I am completely satisfied, indeed, glad that the Packers play it pretty much straight up--relatively little blitzing..

It depends a lot on your personnel, o course. Still, I'm guessing the NY Giants would vociferously disagree with you.

[KYPack]

Re: Going, Going......................

I would add Chris Francies and maybe Chillar

I am not sure if it's just preseason or not but didn't we have some kind of 2-4 or 2-5 package out there with 4-5 linebackers? I think they are going to stock up on linebackers and possibly run more wierd sets like that.

Exactly right. I couldn't agree more. They're going to compensate for injuries on the D-Line by loading five LB's. They're just not doing a lot of it in preseason because they don't want to create film of it for opponents. They few times they ran it really looked weird but it was effective.

By the way, just to prove I'm still old school, I'd blitz all five LB's.

NE runs a 3rd down D with 1 lineman and 6 LB's. They also run that "mill around" formation where all of the front seven wanders around and line up at the last second with nobody putting their hand down. Guess that's an 0-7-4

KY,

You know way more football than I do, tell me this. Do you like the way the Packers have used their LB's in years past? It just seems to me they use them too conservatively. My feeling is put one LB on the tight end, another spying on the HB out of the backfield, and blitz the other all the time. Forget the zone crap. Am I nuts?

Short answer is no, I don't like the over-reliance on the Bates/Sanders shell. (BTW can anybody think of a name for this freakin' defense, I really don't what to call it).

This defense was evolved by Coach Jim Bates at Miami. It's a bend- not break type scheme. It's a base 4-3 defense. Ends out wide, DT's in a 3 technique (between the guard and the tackles). Each Dlineman has a two gap responsibility (altho the DE's do stunt and play games.) The linebackers are sheltered. They are positioned 5 - 7 yards deep and the design of the D on the run is to drive the play to the backers to make stops. The safeties are centered in the middle and play half deep. they will alternate and bring one S up, but generally the safeties are twins.

The corners are up and play essentially a man technique. Even tho the corners are on an island, the defense is still a zone. The corners get minimal help from the safeties deep and to their inside. Not much, but it's there.

The thing most don't know, this defense is a cover 2. 2 safeties deep in a zone is a cover 2, but this ain't the Monte Kiffin/Tony Dungy Tampa 2 that the broadcasters think they know.

This Bates D is a good basic defense against the run and the pass, but it is inflexible.

- It's almost impossible to blitz out of the base D. to storm a LB, you got to walk him up to the line. With the backers so deep. one guy coming up to the center (called a zero technique) a couple yards deep to blitz, is so obvious Ray Charles could spot it. when we do blitz out of base it's usually the Wil, the Mike or a safety sneaking up and trying to make the play. This is a defensive set that does not lend itself to blitzing.

That doesn't bother me, when you blitz, you are covering up a weakness. But it is a weapon we can use and by mixing in more and different personnel sets, we have the troops to be a better defensive unit.

The other weakness of this D still grinds my guts. You really can't get much help to a corner if he is getting raped. Think dreadlocks Al in the NFC Championship game. With this shell, there is really little you can do to help the corner. He's out there and nobody can give him any assistance. I don't like that flaw one bit.

Your question about "put one LB on the tight end, another spying on the HB out of the backfield, and blitz the other all the time. Forget the zone crap. Am I nuts?"

No, you're not nuts, just nostalgic. But the fact is, all man now is mixed in and disguised as much as possible. You can't forget the zone and play all man in the NFL anymore. You'll get your brains beat in. As far as one guy being a spy, one guy playing buck and the other constantly blitzing? No you'd get the snot kicked out of you. Sure you could mix that stuff in, but you can't use it as base.

What I'd like to see us mix in is some Zone blitz. Play Popp as the buck LB. Barnett and Hawk in the middle and one of these kids (Hodge?, White?) at the weak side. Some fire zone blitzes and fire X stuff would be great to see. I think our guys could really play the shit out of that set. they are all experienced enough now that they could pick up that stuff pretty fast.

One way or the other, some diversification has to take place. We can't hang back in that shell and hope everything turns out OK.

[texaspackerbacker]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. There's a helluva lot more bad than good that comes from blitzing. I am completely satisfied, indeed, glad that the Packers play it pretty much straight up--relatively little blitzing..

It depends a lot on your personnel, o course. Still, I'm guessing the NY Giants would vociferously disagree with you.

The Giants stunk it up--due in large part to relying on the blitz--for most of the season. Arguably, they got lucky with various conditions coming together to have it succeed in the playoffs.

[mraynrand]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. There's a helluva lot more bad than good that comes from blitzing. I am completely satisfied, indeed, glad that the Packers play it pretty much straight up--relatively little blitzing..

It depends a lot on your personnel, o course. Still, I'm guessing the NY Giants would vociferously disagree with you.

The Giants stunk it up--due in large part to relying on the blitz--for most of the season. Arguably, they got lucky with various conditions coming together to have it succeed in the playoffs.

Maybe the 'luck' was finally getting used to a new scheme. Seemed to me their defense was still pretty good the entire season and their offense struggled more - like against the Vikings. Out of curiosity, what were the 'various conditions' that you refer to?

[texaspackerbacker]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. There's a helluva lot more bad than good that comes from blitzing. I am completely satisfied, indeed, glad that the Packers play it pretty much straight up--relatively little blitzing..

It depends a lot on your personnel, o course. Still, I'm guessing the NY Giants would vociferously disagree with you.

The Giants stunk it up--due in large part to relying on the blitz--for most of the season. Arguably, they got lucky with various conditions coming together to have it succeed in the playoffs.

Maybe the 'luck' was finally getting used to a new scheme. Seemed to me their defense was still pretty good the entire season and their offense struggled more - like against the Vikings. Out of curiosity, what were the 'various conditions' that you refer to?

Weather and an aging QB against the Packers. That's a tougher question regarding the Patriots, though. The only thing I can think of there is being super pumped for the Super Bowl--which might help more in blitzing than say something more cerebral.