"SHODDY RUN DEFENSE"

[Bretsky]

We've beaten this horse pretty hard in here

Regardless the JS has been reading in here and did a long aritcle

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/35628029.html

[Joemailman]

It is this team's biggest problem. I wonder if Justin Harrell has any idea how much his failure has hurt this team. That said, this defensive scheme does not really lend itself to stuffing the run. Even last year, they were only 14th. It is a bend but don't break philosophy. I just wonder if a team with shutdown cornerbacks should have that philosophy.

[LEWCWA]

I don't know, the dolphins always used to shut down the run with this scheme.

[LL2]

The run defense is atrocious! I get nervous every time I see the other team run the ball. I've been a big supporter of TT and M3 but this is something they have to get fixed in the next year.

[Fritz]

Let me throw my usual comment about the way the writers for the JSO try to shape reality for their readers: if my memory serves me correctly, the knowledgeable posters of PAckerrats, Mr. Bretsky included, have commented frequently on Wiliams's absence. But it's his inside pass-rushing ability that gets focused upon, over and over. So my understanding is that Williams is missed due to his ability to pressure the QB. In fact, if I recall correctly, many posters here have said Williams got pushed around against the run.

But here's the line Silverstein slipped into the article: "He [TT] did not find another big body with run-stopping ability to make up for Williams' loss."

Now, you could argue that TT did not replace Williams' inside pass rush ability. I can see that argument. But since this article is about run-stopping and not pass-rushing, it is clear to me that Silverstein is just beating the ""TT screwed this up" horse with that ridiculous line above.

I'll say it again: TT is not above reproach. I think it's fair to question some of his moves, but to revise history (Williams was a run-stopper, in this case, is the new history) is simply wrong.

[Joemailman]

Williams' absence is felt in the fact that Pickett and Jolly have been forced to be on the field for more plays than last year. Harrell was supposed to be the real run stopper this year. A factor the article doesn't mention, unless I missed it, is Daniel Muir. I think one reason TT was willing to let Williams go was that he thought Muir could step in and provide some of the pass rush that Williams did last year. That didn't materialize either.

[Patler]

Let me throw my usual comment about the way the writers for the JSO try to shape reality for their readers: if my memory serves me correctly, the knowledgeable posters of PAckerrats, Mr. Bretsky included, have commented frequently on Wiliams's absence. But it's his inside pass-rushing ability that gets focused upon, over and over. So my understanding is that Williams is missed due to his ability to pressure the QB. In fact, if I recall correctly, many posters here have said Williams got pushed around against the run.

But here's the line Silverstein slipped into the article: "He [TT] did not find another big body with run-stopping ability to make up for Williams' loss."

Now, you could argue that TT did not replace Williams' inside pass rush ability. I can see that argument. But since this article is about run-stopping and not pass-rushing, it is clear to me that Silverstein is just beating the ""TT screwed this up" horse with that ridiculous line above.

I'll say it again: TT is not above reproach. I think it's fair to question some of his moves, but to revise history (Williams was a run-stopper, in this case, is the new history) is simply wrong.

As I read the article, I copied the same sentence to make essentially the same comment you did. Do these guys even think about what they write before they write it? Do they do ANY analysis at all? Last season Williams was considered a liability in the run game. Cole was (and probably still is) better against the run than Williams.

It is not the loss of any one player that has caused the decline. As the article does suggest, losing so many, and having less capable replacements has caused the others to play more, decreasing their effectiveness.

Heck, have they forgotten how Williams productivity declined when he was forced to play more in the last part of 2007? The Packers do not have studs at DT who can play more than as a part of a rotation. Their scheme puts demands on DTs such that rotations are needed. The Packers rotation at DT has been hampered all year due to injuries and the lack of numbers to start with. They started the season with just three true tackles, Pickett, Jolly and Cole, and a whole bunch of DE types.. Sure they could put Jenkins there, but that was a pass rush ploy, because any DE replacement for Jenkins was a big step-down in run stopping ability. Last year the Packers often had a healthy DT inactive for games. This year they have barely had enough for a rotation.

Sure the Williams trade hurt the DT rotation, but last season most thought the Packers had too many DTs on their 53 man roster. Losing one shouldn't have hurt. Harrell's injury and Muir's lack of performance made the loss three DTs. Ultimately it is TT's responsibility, but occasionally bad things happen because players simply disappoint. Now that the problem is evident, the test will be to see if he can fix it.

[KYPack]

Williams' absence is felt in the fact that Pickett and Jolly have been forced to be on the field for more plays than last year. Harrell was supposed to be the real run stopper this year. A factor the article doesn't mention, unless I missed it, is Daniel Muir. I think one reason TT was willing to let Williams go was that he thought Muir could step in and provide some of the pass rush that Williams did last year. That didn't materialize either.

Muir had his moments. I saw him play for Indy this year. He held his own for a bit, then got crushed. 'Bout like his play for us.

The Pack will have to draft a DE and a DT in the upcoming draft, maybe a whole herd of 'em.

We went from riches to rags at that spot in the blink of an eye.

[digitaldean]

I know TT thinks the most of the draft, which is fine.

But all the great teams use FA as final ingredient for key components. TT can't be a wuss and bail out of FA this year.

Some of these FAs should be pursued next fall.
Haynesworth
Terrell Suggs
Bertrand Barry
Peppers (not sure if he re-signed or not with Carolina)
Jonathan Babineaux

One of these can bring a huge improvement to our D-Line.

[Fritz]

Let me throw my usual comment about the way the writers for the JSO try to shape reality for their readers: if my memory serves me correctly, the knowledgeable posters of PAckerrats, Mr. Bretsky included, have commented frequently on Wiliams's absence. But it's his inside pass-rushing ability that gets focused upon, over and over. So my understanding is that Williams is missed due to his ability to pressure the QB. In fact, if I recall correctly, many posters here have said Williams got pushed around against the run.

But here's the line Silverstein slipped into the article: "He [TT] did not find another big body with run-stopping ability to make up for Williams' loss."

Now, you could argue that TT did not replace Williams' inside pass rush ability. I can see that argument. But since this article is about run-stopping and not pass-rushing, it is clear to me that Silverstein is just beating the ""TT screwed this up" horse with that ridiculous line above.

I'll say it again: TT is not above reproach. I think it's fair to question some of his moves, but to revise history (Williams was a run-stopper, in this case, is the new history) is simply wrong.

As I read the article, I copied the same sentence to make essentially the same comment you did. Do these guys even think about what they write before they write it? Do they do ANY analysis at all? Last season Williams was considered a liability in the run game. Cole was (and probably still is) better against the run than Williams.

It is not the loss of any one player that has caused the decline. As the article does suggest, losing so many, and having less capable replacements has caused the others to play more, decreasing their effectiveness.

Heck, have they forgotten how Williams productivity declined when he was forced to play more in the last part of 2007? The Packers do not have studs at DT who can play more than as a part of a rotation. Their scheme puts demands on DTs such that rotations are needed. The Packers rotation at DT has been hampered all year due to injuries and the lack of numbers to start with. They started the season with just three true tackles, Pickett, Jolly and Cole, and a whole bunch of DE types.. Sure they could put Jenkins there, but that was a pass rush ploy, because any DE replacement for Jenkins was a big step-down in run stopping ability. Last year the Packers often had a healthy DT inactive for games. This year they have barely had enough for a rotation.

Sure the Williams trade hurt the DT rotation, but last season most thought the Packers had too many DTs on their 53 man roster. Losing one shouldn't have hurt. Harrell's injury and Muir's lack of performance made the loss three DTs. Ultimately it is TT's responsibility, but occasionally bad things happen because players simply disappoint. Now that the problem is evident, the test will be to see if he can fix it.

This is an interesting point, I think - that the composition of the roster, numbers-wise, might be partly the problem. Instead of keeping so many offensive linemen, it might have been more important to ditch an offensive lineman and keep an extra defensive tackle.

Of course, this brings its own set of issues. What if TT had gone that route - it would appear that he'd be faced with the possibility of cutting someone who is more talented in one position group just to keep an extra body in another position group.

Like, who would you cut to keep an extra (and undoubtedly mediocre) defensive tackle? I can't see cutting an offensive lineman - the young ones hold too much promise to risk losing, I think. It takes time for an offensive lineman to develop. Look at ol' Tony Moll. He's actually filled in rather well this year, and he's considered the stiff of the line. Cut Giancomnocomomococo (that name, I never get it) and you might be cutting a 2009 or 10 starting right tackle in exchange for journeyman Daniel Muir.

I suppose you could consider cutting someone else - maybe a defensive back? But with Lee on I.R. do you need a guy like Bush more than you need an extra d-lineman?

These are tough calls. I think fans are so focused on the short term that sometimes they fail to see the intricacy of it all. Uh, except for Packerrats posters, of course.

[Bretsky]

If Wiliams had to play on a full time basis for us he lost much of his effectiveness.

BUT If Williams was part of a defensive line rotation he was a well above average rushing DT and slightly below average to average against the rush.
Silverstein should have mentioned that and then I'd be fine with most of what he wrote.

Bottom line is TT didn't have a guy on the roster that could make up for anything Williams gave us this year.

[Fritz]

Bretsky, for what Williams gave this team would you have been willing to give him the type of contract that Cleveland gave him? Just curious.

I think trading him was a good idea but I can see the other side of it, too.

[Patler]

Whether or not TT made significant mistakes this year might not be known until 2010 or 2011. The bottom of the 53 man roster was filled with developmental type players; Giacomini, Finley, Thompson, Lee, Flynn, Brohm. None were expected to be significant contributors in 2008. It essentially amounted to a 47 man roster from which to pick the guys that would play each week. If in a few years all four of the non-QBs are starters and major contributors, and if one or more of the QBs has value of some sort (backup, playing, trade), the risk may have been worth it. If not, TT may have made a mistake.

The 2008 draft was clearly a draft for the future. TT was comfortable with his starters and top-line reserves for 2008. The 2008 draft was all about future replacements, not current contributors.

[Bretsky]

Bretsky, for what Williams gave this team would you have been willing to give him the type of contract that Cleveland gave him? Just curious.

I think trading him was a good idea but I can see the other side of it, too.

Two edged sword; at the time of the deal I was in favor of taking a 2nd round draft pick. I never liked the Brohm pick though; I was hopeful TT would use that pick for a younger defender and sign a vet FA at QB.

I think he got paid about what he should have been. I'd have been fine with TT giving him that deal; in today's market it was fair. There are not too many guys who can play DT and offer the pass rush and occasional run penetration CW did.

[Bretsky]

Whether or not TT made significant mistakes this year might not be known until 2010 or 2011. The bottom of the 53 man roster was filled with developmental type players; Giacomini, Finley, Thompson, Lee, Flynn, Brohm. None were expected to be significant contributors in 2008. It essentially amounted to a 47 man roster from which to pick the guys that would play each week. If in a few years all four of the non-QBs are starters and major contributors, and if one or more of the QBs has value of some sort (backup, playing, trade), the risk may have been worth it. If not, TT may have made a mistake.

The 2008 draft was clearly a draft for the future. TT was comfortable with his starters and top-line reserves for 2008. The 2008 draft was all about future replacements, not current contributors.

Honestly, are we good enough to be drafting projects for the future ? If I agree with what you just stated I then derive that TT overestimated the top line reserves on this team.