CNNSI.com Take on Switch to 3-4

[Farley Face]

I hadn't seen this posted yet. Encouraging. Bucky on the Pack Kool-Aid. I'll take a swig.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/bucky_brooks/01/23/scouts.buzz/index.html

Thought so. http://www.packers.com/history/all_t..._1995-96,1997/

[Jimx29]

[texaspackerbacker]

It makes a lot of sense. What he said about personnel seems completely valid, especially the comparison to other players Capers has coached. This article should help shut up those claiming Barnett and Hawk wouldn't be suitable. I'm beginning to get psyched up for the idea of Kampman at OLB, although I'm still not convinced they will switch him from end. If they do, then the Packers main area of need in the draft might be a true 3-4 DE. We've had a bunch of talk about pass rushers and nose tackles, but very little about heavier DEs. This kinda sets the stage for Thompson coming up with another pick nobody expects.

The zone blitzing thing is about as high risk as there is, and I really don't like the way the article says Capers favors zone coverage. You can do 3-4 easily enough with man coverage, and Capers did say he adapts his scheme to personnel, so maybe he won't use much zone.

All in all, it should be an interesting camp and preseason, and, I think, a great season.

Keep that Kool-Aid coming.

[RashanGary]

Tex, I thought you wanted us to say with the 4-3 and wanted no part of that 3-4 shit.

[KYPack]

.

The zone blitzing thing is about as high risk as there is, and I really don't like the way the article says Capers favors zone coverage. You can do 3-4 easily enough with man coverage, and Capers did say he adapts his scheme to personnel, so maybe he won't use much zone.

All in all, it should be an interesting camp and preseason, and, I think, a great season.

Keep that Kool-Aid coming.

Tex, you really can't play Capers defense with Man cover. It just isn't built that way. That's the whole point of zone blitz, you play zone behind the blitz.

There are aspects of Capers scheme that will make you comfortable. They don't really blitz as much as people think. They rush 4 and cover with 7 a lot. But the 4 they send aren't always the traditional pass rushers. I've seen Capers send both corners, a LB, and only one traditional DL. The other DL's cover instead of rushing, so you still have 7 men in cover but their numbers are funny.

I do wonder about Barnett in this D for one reason. The Jack LB in this scheme takes on OL a lot, espec. guards. Nick has trouble shedding the blocks of lineman (something he didn't have to do much in the Bates shell). He is better suited to the Mike. I, too think our ILB's will be fine.

We have two areas of concern.

- We don't have a 3-4 NT. Pickett is a solid player, but he's a classic 4-3 three technique DT. A NT? Don't think so.

- A press cover corner like Al Harris is a fish out of water. The CB's play in a lot of 3-3 situations. His base technique can't be press, he's too far from his coverage area. Al is pretty much press only. I just can't see where he fits in this scheme. Tramon williams is more comfortable in off technique, he seems better suited to this scheme.

[Cheesehead Craig]

I do wonder about Barnett in this D for one reason. The Jack LB in this scheme takes on OL a lot, espec. guards. Nick has trouble shedding the blocks of lineman (something he didn't have to do much in the Bates shell). He is better suited to the Mike. I, too think our ILB's will be fine.

One of the things going for Nick is that OL in general don't play against a 3-4 very often so they get confused on who to block. That's where I think Nick can use his speed to be a disruptor.

It's all speculation at this point anyways.

[rbaloha1]

The writer makes the transition appear so simple. Its obvious the writer watched few Packer games this season.

Asking bump and run corners play zone coverage may not be the best use of personnel. Hope Capers keeps the corners in bump and run the majority of snaps.

Lets wait for the preseason.

[pbmax]

The Jack LB in this scheme takes on OL a lot, espec. guards. Nick has trouble shedding the blocks of lineman (something he didn't have to do much in the Bates shell). He is better suited to the Mike. I, too think our ILB's will be fine.

KYP, which Outside LB is the Jack? I was thinking Barnett's speed and size (if he really is close to 240) would allow him to play the WOLB. But he does not look as strong as say Harrison in playing with leverage against a big.

You don't have to take on every block, Greg Lloyd spent a good part of the Super Bowl going around not through Cowboys lineman to make TFLs. But in some scenarios, you are going to have to man up and take that guy on if there is help available.

[bobblehead]

Hmmm....makes ya wonder if Harris has any trade value left and would we take Jenkins if he is there at 9??

[Lurker64]

KYP, which Outside LB is the Jack? I was thinking Barnett's speed and size (if he really is close to 240) would allow him to play the WOLB. But he does not look as strong as say Harrison in playing with leverage against a big.

The Jack is an ILB, the Jack (or "Ted" sometimes, the terminology is not standard) has the responsibility to occupy blockers inside so that the Mike can run sideline to sideline unmolested and make plays. In the variant of the 3-4 we're going to be running (basically a branch of the Phillips-LeBeau tree), Hawk and Barnett have the perfect size to be playing inside, but are a little small for OLBs.

As I see it, right now we're one good DE and one good WOLB short of having the (at least starting) personnel to run this scheme. It's conceivable that Jeremy Thompson could play the WOLB spot though.

[texaspackerbacker]

Tex, I thought you wanted us to say with the 4-3 and wanted no part of that 3-4 shit.

I'm not tied to the 4-3, just to strictly limiting the amount of blitzing--and also to man coverage instead of zone.

As I said in other posts, sending four--three linemen and one of the four LBs, that I don't even count as blitzing. I like the fact that you create a situation with the 3-4 where they don't know where the rush is coming from, but you do so without sending additional people. The zone blitz is just a more extreme/high risk case of the same thing. I don't really like it, but as a rare surprise, it has its place.

You can go crazy sending a bunch of people in either the 4-3 or the 3-4, but I don't think Capers is likely to do that--hopefully not much, anyway.

It sounds like he might use more zone coverage than I like, but on the other hand, there is his statement that he adapts scheme to personnel. I also like what he said about disguising coverages.

The bottom line to me, as I said when Capers was first announced as the choice is that it could have been much worse--Williams, McDermott, etc.

The other thing I said right from the start is that the silver lining in the injury-ruined season is that we now do have plenty of LB depth as needed for the 3-4.

I'm not above flip-flopping, but this isn't really a case of that.

[TennesseePackerBacker]

The Jack LB in this scheme takes on OL a lot, espec. guards. Nick has trouble shedding the blocks of lineman (something he didn't have to do much in the Bates shell). He is better suited to the Mike. I, too think our ILB's will be fine.

KYP, which Outside LB is the Jack? I was thinking Barnett's speed and size (if he really is close to 240) would allow him to play the WOLB. But he does not look as strong as say Harrison in playing with leverage against a big.

You don't have to take on every block, Greg Lloyd spent a good part of the Super Bowl going around not through Cowboys lineman to make TFLs. But in some scenarios, you are going to have to man up and take that guy on if there is help available.

Jack is the other ILB in the 3-4, think Bart Scott. The traditional name for a middle linebacker is of course, mike.

[texaspackerbacker]

Hmmm....makes ya wonder if Harris has any trade value left and would we take Jenkins if he is there at 9??

Keep in mind, it was a mere writer dissing Harris, not Capers or McCarthy. Harris was a nickel back with the Eagles before coming to Green Bay, so I would assume he played a lot of zone there. More importantly, though, is the likelihood that Harris will still be manning up most of the time, just as he did with the old scheme.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Hmmm....makes ya wonder if Harris has any trade value left and would we take Jenkins if he is there at 9??

Mel has us taking jenkins.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Hmmm....makes ya wonder if Harris has any trade value left and would we take Jenkins if he is there at 9??

Keep in mind, it was a mere writer dissing Harris, not Capers or McCarthy. Harris was a nickel back with the Eagles before coming to Green Bay, so I would assume he played a lot of zone there. More importantly, though, is the likelihood that Harris will still be manning up most of the time, just as he did with the old scheme.

Why would you assume a nickleback played zone. I certainly dont' recall that.

More importantly, what he did then has no bearing on now as Harris is much older and his speed, which was never great to begin with, has started the inevitable decline.