Give Bob Sanders Some Credit!

[boiga]

M3 simply out coached the Bears this week. The Bears came into the game focused on stopping the pass. So, M3 runs 4 times in a row until the Bears adjust with 9 in the box. Then he passes four times in a row until the Bears adjust and he starts running again.

The Bears lack the personnel to adequately stop both the run and the pass, so they ended up being gashed by both. They were completely thrown off by the play calling early on and never recovered.

The mix of run, pass and option plays we perfect this week. Major credit to Mike.

[Bretsky]

The thing is, this year the Bears haven't been all that bad on offense. Their running game has been decent, and since they have started Orton, they have done OK passing on a lot of teams. And sore ankle or not, Orton didn't look that bad today--mobility isn't is thing even when he's healthy.

As for "Vanilla Bob", it is pure idiocy to whine about the Packers not blitzing enough. You get about 5 to 10 bad results from blitzing for every good result. Not only that, but even if you get to the QB, you take away the prospect of our outstanding DBs making plays with interceptions.

Pro, college, whatever, check out the teams that blitz a lot--"unvanilla" defenses. You'll find that the great majority of them are chronic losers.

As I said in the other thread, though, I have now come around to the point of view that Hawk IS better suited for MLB, and Barnett is more suited for OLB.

Back to commenting on idiocy, however, for people to conclude at this point that Barnett won't be able to come back as good as ever is just plain stupid--probably the same people spewing irrational hate about Barnett for years.

It is not even so much about blitzing. He doesn't change his scheme at all. He doesn't go with 3 down line scheme, or use 4 linebackers, it is either a base 4-3 or nickel. Sometimes he brings up the 8th guy in the box, but still offensive coordinators certainly are not challenge trying to break down the Packers defense.

I will give Bob credit for today, and for the fact that the secondary has been playing pretty well without a significant pass rush. Corey Williams pass rush from the inside is missed right now, and last year KGB was still an effective rusher from the edge to take pressure off of Kampman. Now there is nothing opposite Kampman that puts fear in an opposing teams offense.

I am not going to sit here and argue that the Packers need to blitz more, but what I will argue is that the Packers are going to need to pick up their pass rush in the next 6 games if they want to win the division,

[DonHutson]

MM stuck with the run, that was a big difference in playcalling.

Did the run game work becuase he stuck with it, or did he stick with it because it was working? I'd say the latter, which gets back to my point about execution.

If you can't block, if you can't find the hole, if you hold the ball too long, etc. etc. I'm not sure it matters all that much which plays you call. If everything is working it opens up all kinds of options, to the point where you could call almost anything.

Sure there will always be plays or even series where you can question the strategy in any game. But for the most part I think the play calling gets blown out of proportion around here. A great play call, poorly executed looks like crap. Executing the play properly is more important than the play itself.

[denverYooper]

MM stuck with the run, that was a big difference in playcalling.

Did the run game work becuase he stuck with it, or did he stick with it because it was working? I'd say the latter, which gets back to my point about execution.

If it's the latter, then McCarthy learned something from the 2 games previous to the Bears.

[Gunakor]

MM stuck with the run, that was a big difference in playcalling.

Did the run game work becuase he stuck with it, or did he stick with it because it was working? I'd say the latter, which gets back to my point about execution.

If you can't block, if you can't find the hole, if you hold the ball too long, etc. etc. I'm not sure it matters all that much which plays you call. If everything is working it opens up all kinds of options, to the point where you could call almost anything.

Sure there will always be plays or even series where you can question the strategy in any game. But for the most part I think the play calling gets blown out of proportion around here. A great play call, poorly executed looks like crap. Executing the play properly is more important than the play itself.

The run game has been working the previous 2 games as well, but MM abandoned the run too early. The problem in Tennessee and Minnesota was pass pro, not run blocking. Grant was finding holes and gaining good yardage in both of those games, but MM abandoned the run too early or used it to infrequently. Especially against Minnesota, where the game was close at the end and a productive run game (which we had up until that point) could have swung the tide the other way. Instead we kept calling pass play after pass play, knowing our OL was getting beat to a bloody pulp by the Vikings DL. They were beating Rodgers senseless all game long. All while Grant was averaging 4+ ypc. in limited carries. That's my point.

[texaspackerbacker]

The thing is, this year the Bears haven't been all that bad on offense. Their running game has been decent, and since they have started Orton, they have done OK passing on a lot of teams. And sore ankle or not, Orton didn't look that bad today--mobility isn't is thing even when he's healthy.

As for "Vanilla Bob", it is pure idiocy to whine about the Packers not blitzing enough. You get about 5 to 10 bad results from blitzing for every good result. Not only that, but even if you get to the QB, you take away the prospect of our outstanding DBs making plays with interceptions.

Pro, college, whatever, check out the teams that blitz a lot--"unvanilla" defenses. You'll find that the great majority of them are chronic losers.

As I said in the other thread, though, I have now come around to the point of view that Hawk IS better suited for MLB, and Barnett is more suited for OLB.

Back to commenting on idiocy, however, for people to conclude at this point that Barnett won't be able to come back as good as ever is just plain stupid--probably the same people spewing irrational hate about Barnett for years.

It is not even so much about blitzing. He doesn't change his scheme at all. He doesn't go with 3 down line scheme, or use 4 linebackers, it is either a base 4-3 or nickel. Sometimes he brings up the 8th guy in the box, but still offensive coordinators certainly are not challenge trying to break down the Packers defense.

I will give Bob credit for today, and for the fact that the secondary has been playing pretty well without a significant pass rush. Corey Williams pass rush from the inside is missed right now, and last year KGB was still an effective rusher from the edge to take pressure off of Kampman. Now there is nothing opposite Kampman that puts fear in an opposing teams offense.

I am not going to sit here and argue that the Packers need to blitz more, but what I will argue is that the Packers are going to need to pick up their pass rush in the next 6 games if they want to win the division,

You guys would actually prefer to see some kind of a D scheme emphasizing pass rush over what we have--with what is it, seven TDs by the D, etc.?

I could see somebody pushing for better D against the run, etc., but pass rush without the blitzes is kinda like frosting on the cake. It helps, but it isn't what determines the outcome of games. Pass rush BECAUSE of overdoing the blitz actually contributes to losing more games than it wins because of the coverage that gets sacrificed to have the blitzing.

How many of those pick sixes do you guys think we would have missed out on if our pass rush had been a step or two quicker and sacked the QB?.

This goes way beyond just "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". It's more like "trying to kill the golden goose" that you guys are talking about.

[The Gunshooter]

The thing is, this year the Bears haven't been all that bad on offense. Their running game has been decent, and since they have started Orton, they have done OK passing on a lot of teams. And sore ankle or not, Orton didn't look that bad today--mobility isn't is thing even when he's healthy.

As for "Vanilla Bob", it is pure idiocy to whine about the Packers not blitzing enough. You get about 5 to 10 bad results from blitzing for every good result. Not only that, but even if you get to the QB, you take away the prospect of our outstanding DBs making plays with interceptions.

Pro, college, whatever, check out the teams that blitz a lot--"unvanilla" defenses. You'll find that the great majority of them are chronic losers.

As I said in the other thread, though, I have now come around to the point of view that Hawk IS better suited for MLB, and Barnett is more suited for OLB.

Back to commenting on idiocy, however, for people to conclude at this point that Barnett won't be able to come back as good as ever is just plain stupid--probably the same people spewing irrational hate about Barnett for years.

It is not even so much about blitzing. He doesn't change his scheme at all. He doesn't go with 3 down line scheme, or use 4 linebackers, it is either a base 4-3 or nickel. Sometimes he brings up the 8th guy in the box, but still offensive coordinators certainly are not challenge trying to break down the Packers defense.

I will give Bob credit for today, and for the fact that the secondary has been playing pretty well without a significant pass rush. Corey Williams pass rush from the inside is missed right now, and last year KGB was still an effective rusher from the edge to take pressure off of Kampman. Now there is nothing opposite Kampman that puts fear in an opposing teams offense.

I am not going to sit here and argue that the Packers need to blitz more, but what I will argue is that the Packers are going to need to pick up their pass rush in the next 6 games if they want to win the division,

You guys would actually prefer to see some kind of a D scheme emphasizing pass rush over what we have--with what is it, seven TDs by the D, etc.?

I could see somebody pushing for better D against the run, etc., but pass rush without the blitzes is kinda like frosting on the cake. It helps, but it isn't what determines the outcome of games. Pass rush BECAUSE of overdoing the blitz actually contributes to losing more games than it wins because of the coverage that gets sacrificed to have the blitzing.

How many of those pick sixes do you guys think we would have missed out on if our pass rush had been a step or two quicker and sacked the QB?.

This goes way beyond just "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". It's more like "trying to kill the golden goose" that you guys are talking about.

The problem this year with bend don't break is a lack of depth on the d-line and injuries. By the end of the game GB can't stop anyone because they were on the field for too many snaps early in the game. The offense has something to do with it too but if you can see your defense is on the field too much you might want to take a risk or two like more guys at the line of scrimmage or blitzing one of the cornerbacks. GB lost two close games in a row that may have went differently if the defense was fresher at the end.

To me as a defense, you have to change it up. I would like to see GB be a little more aggressive on defense early in the game.

[Deputy Nutz]

The thing is, this year the Bears haven't been all that bad on offense. Their running game has been decent, and since they have started Orton, they have done OK passing on a lot of teams. And sore ankle or not, Orton didn't look that bad today--mobility isn't is thing even when he's healthy.

As for "Vanilla Bob", it is pure idiocy to whine about the Packers not blitzing enough. You get about 5 to 10 bad results from blitzing for every good result. Not only that, but even if you get to the QB, you take away the prospect of our outstanding DBs making plays with interceptions.

Pro, college, whatever, check out the teams that blitz a lot--"unvanilla" defenses. You'll find that the great majority of them are chronic losers.

As I said in the other thread, though, I have now come around to the point of view that Hawk IS better suited for MLB, and Barnett is more suited for OLB.

Back to commenting on idiocy, however, for people to conclude at this point that Barnett won't be able to come back as good as ever is just plain stupid--probably the same people spewing irrational hate about Barnett for years.

It is not even so much about blitzing. He doesn't change his scheme at all. He doesn't go with 3 down line scheme, or use 4 linebackers, it is either a base 4-3 or nickel. Sometimes he brings up the 8th guy in the box, but still offensive coordinators certainly are not challenge trying to break down the Packers defense.

I will give Bob credit for today, and for the fact that the secondary has been playing pretty well without a significant pass rush. Corey Williams pass rush from the inside is missed right now, and last year KGB was still an effective rusher from the edge to take pressure off of Kampman. Now there is nothing opposite Kampman that puts fear in an opposing teams offense.

I am not going to sit here and argue that the Packers need to blitz more, but what I will argue is that the Packers are going to need to pick up their pass rush in the next 6 games if they want to win the division,

You guys would actually prefer to see some kind of a D scheme emphasizing pass rush over what we have--with what is it, seven TDs by the D, etc.?

I could see somebody pushing for better D against the run, etc., but pass rush without the blitzes is kinda like frosting on the cake. It helps, but it isn't what determines the outcome of games. Pass rush BECAUSE of overdoing the blitz actually contributes to losing more games than it wins because of the coverage that gets sacrificed to have the blitzing.

How many of those pick sixes do you guys think we would have missed out on if our pass rush had been a step or two quicker and sacked the QB?.

This goes way beyond just "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". It's more like "trying to kill the golden goose" that you guys are talking about.

Sweet mother god if you could only digest what you read as much as you post we would be a lot further along in this process. I enjoy the defensive touchdowns, but you want to sit here and tell me that you know for a fact that it is going to continue this way the rest of the season than I say by all means I hope they continue to do it.

I just don't see the Packers scoring 5 or 6 more touchdowns this season on defense. The with or without the blitz, I simply don't care how they do it, but they are going to need to pressure the QB some where down the line.

Besides if you want to call Jason Hunter picking up a bobbled snap for a touchdown a Bob Sanders miracle be my guest.

Have you ever heard of a stunt?

[Bretsky]

The thing is, this year the Bears haven't been all that bad on offense. Their running game has been decent, and since they have started Orton, they have done OK passing on a lot of teams. And sore ankle or not, Orton didn't look that bad today--mobility isn't is thing even when he's healthy.

As for "Vanilla Bob", it is pure idiocy to whine about the Packers not blitzing enough. You get about 5 to 10 bad results from blitzing for every good result. Not only that, but even if you get to the QB, you take away the prospect of our outstanding DBs making plays with interceptions.

Pro, college, whatever, check out the teams that blitz a lot--"unvanilla" defenses. You'll find that the great majority of them are chronic losers.

As I said in the other thread, though, I have now come around to the point of view that Hawk IS better suited for MLB, and Barnett is more suited for OLB.

Back to commenting on idiocy, however, for people to conclude at this point that Barnett won't be able to come back as good as ever is just plain stupid--probably the same people spewing irrational hate about Barnett for years.

It is not even so much about blitzing. He doesn't change his scheme at all. He doesn't go with 3 down line scheme, or use 4 linebackers, it is either a base 4-3 or nickel. Sometimes he brings up the 8th guy in the box, but still offensive coordinators certainly are not challenge trying to break down the Packers defense.

I will give Bob credit for today, and for the fact that the secondary has been playing pretty well without a significant pass rush. Corey Williams pass rush from the inside is missed right now, and last year KGB was still an effective rusher from the edge to take pressure off of Kampman. Now there is nothing opposite Kampman that puts fear in an opposing teams offense.

I am not going to sit here and argue that the Packers need to blitz more, but what I will argue is that the Packers are going to need to pick up their pass rush in the next 6 games if they want to win the division,

You guys would actually prefer to see some kind of a D scheme emphasizing pass rush over what we have--with what is it, seven TDs by the D, etc.?

I could see somebody pushing for better D against the run, etc., but pass rush without the blitzes is kinda like frosting on the cake. It helps, but it isn't what determines the outcome of games. Pass rush BECAUSE of overdoing the blitz actually contributes to losing more games than it wins because of the coverage that gets sacrificed to have the blitzing.

How many of those pick sixes do you guys think we would have missed out on if our pass rush had been a step or two quicker and sacked the QB?.

This goes way beyond just "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". It's more like "trying to kill the golden goose" that you guys are talking about.

I've never advocated the all out blitz scheme for this team

I want to see variety...etc...stunts....halftime adjustments....

[Patler]

Tex makes a valid point. The Packers pass defense:

has allowed a 51.5% completion rate, lowest in the league.
has allowed 1763 yards, third best in the league, and only 71 yards from #1
has allowed 5.7yds/pass, tied for lowest in the league
has 16 interceptions, #1 in the league
has allowed a QB rating of 59.5, lowest in the league

It would be nice to be able to generate a great pass rush without changing what is already being done and is clearly working very well. With the performance from the pass defense as above, why would you want to make any significant change just to generate more sacks? Sacks are nice. Sacks look impressive, but leading or being near the top in virtually every pass defense category is the goal whether or not sacks contribute to it. To change significantly might do more harm than good.

[Gunakor]

We do need to get a better pass rush, but it has to come from our front 4. I don't want to see any more blitzing than I already see. Sanders does send 6 a couple times a game, and I don't think we really need to do more than that. Blitzing only takes people out of coverage. There is no way that taking people out of pass coverage more often is going to help this team. When we start toying around with that, we give up the 60+ yard TD passes that we saw so frequently not too long ago. Whatever the struggles are on defense, I'm extremely happy that I don't have to witness those every week anymore.

[texaspackerbacker]

Thank you for the support and stats, Patler. All that with Harris and Bigby missing a bunch of games and Woodson and Collins playing with some degree of injury.

Nutz, maybe I'm not digesting your post correctly, but it really seemed like you were implying that the major success of the Packers in pass defense--or at very least the touchdowns scored by the D--are a product of LUCK. Past performance is usually a pretty good indicator of future results--except when it's all just luck, after all.

I'm not saying you're wrong, mind you. I used to cite luck as a major factor in a lot of Packer and other football results. Others who liked to call themselves "realists" ridiculed that concept. I can't really remember what position (if any) you took about such things--things like Sheman's Packers going 4-12 with a ton of injuries among a whole lot of other examples.

Gunakor, I agree better pressure from the front four would certainly be a good thing. I honestly think, though, that we can win just fine without it--assuming the coverage performs near what it has, the defense against the run improves moderately, and the offense gets a little more consistent.

[Partial]

Even if they don't blitz often, it is still the threat of the blitz and the keeping the other team off balance that causes false starts, max protects, etc.

Teams like the Ravens and Chargers are at an advantage defensively imo because they run stunts, line up players all over the field, etc.

Take the Giants from last year. Spagnolo or whatever used a million different looks despite them having a very solid front 4 that could generate pressure without blitzing. The confusion created and the offense having to adapt to different personal and threats often times causes more problems than the actual blitz itself.

[rbaloha1]

Sanders scheme is sound. The players are executing.

Sure helps when you have shutdown corners.

[Fritz]

It will be hard for Sanders to get any credit right now.

Nobody has any money to loan.