McCarthy reverses 4-3 to 3-4

[Partial]

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/37856129.html

[channtheman]

I only read the first part of the article, but it is exciting to think about how we might do with the 3-4. It gives a lot of hope about our defense for the next year.

[Partial]

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20090119/PKR01/90119169/1058/PKR01

[pbmax]

From Wilde in the Wisconsin State Journal:

But Charley Casserly, the former NFL GM who hired Capers as the Texans' head coach in 2001, said the Packers are in for a challenging transition period.

"It's a huge (adjustment)," Casserly, now an analyst for CBS and the NFL Network, said in an interview with Steve "The Homer" True on FM 100.5 FM ESPN Madison Monday afternoon. "The big thing is, you have to find pass rushers on the outside that can also stand up and play linebacker."

Casserly projected Kampman as a strong-side outside linebacker in a 3-4 defense and said while the 3-4 "3-4 does give you a little more flexibility with blitzing and coverages" and is "a little more confusing for teams to prepare for," he admitted he was surprised by McCarthy's decision to change.

"The biggest thing is your personnel — their ability to get the players to (fit) the defense. If you had the players in place, (Capers) can teach the scheme," Casserly said. "It does (surprise me). Obviously they must have thought about it, but it's a radical change when you go from a 4-3 to a 3-4 defense."

[Guiness]

my biggest concern with the whole switch is that it's being done because it's 'flavor of the month'

We were supposed to be going whole hog ZBS running scheme, then Jags left after one year...and I feel it never got fully implemented, and never will.

What if Capers gets offered an HC after next season, and we lose our 3-4 guru, same as we lost our ZBS dude?

[HarveyWallbangers]

"The biggest thing is your personnel — their ability to get the players to (fit) the defense. If you had the players in place, (Capers) can teach the scheme," Casserly said. "It does (surprise me). Obviously they must have thought about it, but it's a radical change when you go from a 4-3 to a 3-4 defense."

This is the key point. No offense to Casserly, but I wonder how well he knows our personnel. Personally, I think Pickett fits at NT, Jenkins at DE, Kampman at SOLB, Hawk at ILB. I also think we can find the other OLB from the group of Poppinga, Chillar, Hunter, and Thompson. We need another DE and we need to figure out if Barnett can hold up at either ILB or on the outside.

[HarveyWallbangers]

What if Capers gets offered an HC after next season, and we lose our 3-4 guru, same as we lost our ZBS dude?

By then, he will have taught our players the 3-4, and then we can hire one of those "hot" coordinators from Pittsburgh or Baltimore.

[Lurker64]

I'm a little bit puzzled as to how the media seems to be viewing the 3-4 as this monolithic defense with a set dogma. There is no more "one true 3-4 defense" as there is "one true 4-3 defense". A lot of 3-4 sets are essentially the same as a 4-3 set, except the rush backer doesn't put his hand on the ground, i.e. you play with one DE, an NT, an under-tackle, and a DE who plays up. The second DE's responsibilities may be slightly more complicated (he may have to cover the flat), but we haven't really reinvented the wheel.

While yes, the players may not be immediately ready to line up in all of the goofy sets you see a team like New England or Pittsburgh use, I sincerely doubt that our coaches are incompetent enough to run sets, looks, and plays that the players are not yet comfortable with.

Still, I expect a somewhat rough transition year. The 3-4 is not a panacea, much like the 4-3. The hope is that we have a DC now who's more competent than Sanders, but it's still going to take some time.

[Merlin]

And the rebuilding continues....

[Lurker64]

And the rebuilding continues....

This, however, gets pinned on McCarthy since he's responsible for schemes and the hiring of his staff. The only part of this that comes back to Thompson is "hiring McCarthy in the first place." McCarthy hasn't really engaged in any significant "rebuilding" in his few years here, so I'd say he gets a pass.

[Fritz]

I find it intriguing that MM apparently liked the 3-4 better all along but chose to sta with the Bates system

[Patler]

I find it intriguing that MM apparently liked the 3-4 better all along but chose to sta with the Bates system

I almost started a thread last night to discuss that. He let others, or a situation change his mind about a key element of what his head coaching opportunity was about - the chance to pick his schemes, follow his philosophies.

Does this show that he was not yet quite ready to be a head coach, because he was not yet fully developed in his defensive thinking?

Now some will excuse this blunder by saying that he wanted to stick with the status quo that had some success in a single season under Bates, but that is not a good enough excuse. The Packers had been struggling for a years on defense, they had gone through a DC per year for three seasons, the "Bates philosophy" was not engrained in the team. Contrast MM's actions on defense with his decision to convert the running game to one relying on zone blocking. Under Sherman the Packers were a very good running team (when they had a decent, healthy running back). That was a system engrained in the players, yet MM converted to zone dominated scheme.

Or....does the scheme matter less than the coaches picked to run it?????
Does it really matter what your "philosophy" is on offense or defense (within reason), and is the only important thing picking the right coaches??

[cpk1994]

I find it intriguing that MM apparently liked the 3-4 better all along but chose to sta with the Bates system

I almost started a thread last night to discuss that. He let others, or a situation change his mind about a key element of what his head coaching opportunity was about - the chance to pick his schemes, follow his philosophies.

Does this show that he was not yet quite ready to be a head coach, because he was not yet fully developed in his defensive thinking?

Now some will excuse this blunder by saying that he wanted to stick with the status quo that had some success in a single season under Bates, but that is not a good enough excuse. The Packers had been struggling for a years on defense, they had gone through a DC per year for three seasons, the "Bates philosophy" was not engrained in the team. Contrast MM's actions on defense with his decision to convert the running game to one relying on zone blocking. Under Sherman the Packers were a very good running team (when they had a decent, healthy running back). That was a system engrained in the players, yet MM converted to zone dominated scheme.

Or....does the scheme matter less than the coaches picked to run it?????
Does it really matter what your "philosophy" is on offense or defense (within reason), and is the only important thing picking the right coaches??

But you are missing one point. Remember that at the time of McCarthy's hiring, the Packers were about to hire their 4th coordinator in 4 years. At that time, McCarthy probably felt that despite leaning towards a 3-4, that continutiy was best under the circumstances.

[pbmax]

I'm a little bit puzzled as to how the media seems to be viewing the 3-4 as this monolithic defense with a set dogma. There is no more "one true 3-4 defense" as there is "one true 4-3 defense". A lot of 3-4 sets are essentially the same as a 4-3 set, except the rush backer doesn't put his hand on the ground, i.e. you play with one DE, an NT, an under-tackle, and a DE who plays up. The second DE's responsibilities may be slightly more complicated (he may have to cover the flat), but we haven't really reinvented the wheel.

While yes, the players may not be immediately ready to line up in all of the goofy sets you see a team like New England or Pittsburgh use, I sincerely doubt that our coaches are incompetent enough to run sets, looks, and plays that the players are not yet comfortable with.

Still, I expect a somewhat rough transition year. The 3-4 is not a panacea, much like the 4-3. The hope is that we have a DC now who's more competent than Sanders, but it's still going to take some time.

Having not covered a 3-4, most of the media is going off outdated information created when Bum Phillips was coaching the Oilers. They'll catch up. Capers PC might help.

And the scheme will not stop anyone by itself. It will work for half a season because no one will have film of the Packers playing it. But it will be this offseason and next before the roster truly fits the scheme.

[Patler]

I find it intriguing that MM apparently liked the 3-4 better all along but chose to sta with the Bates system

Now some will excuse this blunder by saying that he wanted to stick with the status quo that had some success in a single season under Bates, but that is not a good enough excuse. The Packers had been struggling for a years on defense, they had gone through a DC per year for three seasons, the "Bates philosophy" was not engrained in the team. Contrast MM's actions on defense with his decision to convert the running game to one relying on zone blocking. Under Sherman the Packers were a very good running team (when they had a decent, healthy running back). That was a system engrained in the players, yet MM converted to zone dominated scheme.

But you are missing one point. Remember that at the time of McCarthy's hiring, the Packers were about to hire their 4th coordinator in 4 years. At that time, McCarthy probably felt that despite leaning towards a 3-4, that continutiy was best under the circumstances.

I specifically mentioned the "excuse" of three DCs in three seasons. That is all the more reason for MM to have gone with his philosophy. There was no scheme that the team was deeply tied to emotionally, intellectually or physically. There was no system engrained in the players. He was willing to change the running game scheme away from one that had been very successful and had changed little over the years. But he was unwilling to change a defense that had changed routinely? That shows a HC that did not have confidence in his defensive philosophy. He was confident on offense to the point of changing a successful running game fairly dramatically. But he was unwilling to change a defense that had been floundering for years?