Back to the future with the 3-4 defense

[Waldo]

Unlike the 4-3 where there is a nice naming convention, the LB names tend to vary somewhat from scheme to scheme in the 3-4. I've heard sam, mike, will, elephant, or sam, ted, mike, will, or sam, jack, mike, and will, depends o the coach. But yes, Jack is a ILB spot, the strongside inside linebacker, who is typically the lead block eater in addition to covering a little. This guy is one of the guys that'll be replaced by a DB on passing downs depending on the play. It is overall a very similar position to 4-3 sam, which Pops played. It can be a more happening spot though than it was in the 4-3 and there typically isn't as much in traffic trash to sift through, but I can see Hawk as the starter with Bishop and Pops fighting for the backup spot, while Barnett plays mike with Chillar behind him.

Who typically covers the TE in a base 3-4? SOLB, SS, zone, or yes to all depending on the call? Chillar did ok in TE man last year but quality TEs have been giving us headaches for awhile.

Depends on the call, but I wouldn't expect to see any LB other than Barnett and Hawk in man coverage ever. Most 4-3 teams don't put their SLB in man coverage, a task almost all of them suck at. Sanders was an idiot for continuously covering with Pops in man. A Sanders SLB is a superbacker, good in traffic and good at covering, there is no such thing, especially at the level of a guy that comes off the field in nickel situations. The scheme was designed prior to Shannon Sharpe, and Sanders ran such a strict interpretation that it was unable to adapt to players like him (Witten, Gonzo, Gates, Cooley, etc....).

[Pugger]

I'm hoping players like Hawk will thrive with our new D scheme. I wonder if the past scheme didn't utilize our players to the upmost?

[KYPack]

I tend to agree with what Waldo said above--that personnel doesn't have that much to do with the change, and that the great majority of players aren't overly suited for one and not the other.

It boils down to a matter of preference for the coaching staff on going to the 3-4. I've gotten psyched up about the change mainly because of the inherent effectiveness against the run--which was a clear weakness for the Packers last season. I don't like the idea that maybe (although not necessarily) the Packers will use more zone and less man coverage, but Capers is saying the right stuff--talking about flexibility and disguising coverage, so hopefully there won't be too much deviation, and what deviation there is will work.

What I also see as true, though, is that you can generally get more mileage out of lesser players with the 3-4. We're talking about Jamie Thompson and Jason Hunter--who basically weren't adequate in the 4-3. as good players--some say possible stars in the 3-4. We have two high quality ILBs, but arguably, less skill is required there too in the 3-4, as you have two to go sideline to sideline instead of just one. The DE position takes significantly less athleticism in the 3-4, and also is a haven for 4-3 "tweeners". Safety also should be easier to play, as I would assume with four LBs, they would have slightly less responsibility in run stopping.

I do not foresee a bad period early in the season while the players get used to the new scheme. That might be the case if coaches were learning right along with the players, but with Capers and his crew of 3-4 vets, the transition should be quick.

Well Tex and Waldo, I disagree with you two lads. And so does Mike McCarthy. We ended last season without the 4 down lineman necessary to play a 4-3. That means, we didn't have the PERSONNEL to put an effective defense on the field.

We had no RDE. We had guys who could line up there, but we didn't have players who could be effective at that spot. We could hope to catch a
RDE someplace and move ahead with a new 4-3 coordinator. We could also take our exisiting PERSONNEL, shuffle 'em around and quite possibly field an effective 3-4 based defense.

We did the latter. The Packers do have a core of hard chargin' young backers, several of whom could well be very good in a 3-4 scheme. We also have a very solid secondary made up of a good mix of young turks and very good cover vets who can slam the back door on teams. I like our chances with our existing personnel to cobble together a solid 3-4. It gives chances to some playmakers to go make plays.

I have concerns though,

- We are gonna take our best down lineman and make him a LB. I love Kamp. The guy is everthing you want, on and off the field. Are we screwing up our top defender by moving him this late in his career?

- Hawk and Barnett. Call it the Jonathan Vilma factor. Vilma was a very solid young backer. When the Jet moved him to a 3-4, he flopped around like a fish on the deck. I really hope our two boys make the transition. Both can play Mike, but which one is the Jack?

- Not as big a concern as a hope is the safety spot. Bigby and Rouse have got to come back healthy and one of 'em has to take over that spot as a playmaker. AND STOP PEEKIN' Them two boys are the peekin-est mf'ers I've ever seen. Good coaching will fix it. If they don't knock it off, you can find a guy to be solid in that spot with his mates all Pro Bowlers.

I think we will make it go. For real, no pom-pom bullshit, we can do it.

And it'll be fun to watch.

[texaspackerbacker]

You're right about the end of last year, KY, but that was because Jenkins was injured. With him coming back, they would have been OK in the 4-3 also.

Yeah, there's a chance Barnett or Hawk will be like Vilma, but I don't think so. Wasn't Vilma injured that season also?

Waldo, did I read you right? Chillar backing up at ILB? I could see Popinga maybe moving inside, but Chillar seems ideally suited for 3-4 OLB--pass rushing ability and limited coverage skills. Popinga also seems better suited for the outside. I'd have Bishop and then Lansanah or somebody new backing up inside.

[cheesner]

I'm hoping players like Hawk will thrive with our new D scheme. I wonder if the past scheme didn't utilize our players to the upmost?

I think the new scheme will help, but the biggest impact is just better coaching. Better game planning. Better player preparation. How many times in the last 2 years have we heard about communication breakdowns in the secondary or assignment breakdowns or saw no in-game adjustments or . . .

I don't think the defensive side of the ball was very well coached and actually got by on just being very talented.

I am very excited to see what a great D coach can do with the talent we have.

[Waldo]

You're right about the end of last year, KY, but that was because Jenkins was injured. With him coming back, they would have been OK in the 4-3 also.

Yeah, there's a chance Barnett or Hawk will be like Vilma, but I don't think so. Wasn't Vilma injured that season also?

Waldo, did I read you right? Chillar backing up at ILB? I could see Popinga maybe moving inside, but Chillar seems ideally suited for 3-4 OLB--pass rushing ability and limited coverage skills. Popinga also seems better suited for the outside. I'd have Bishop and then Lansanah or somebody new backing up inside.

Vilma's struggles were due in large part to the fact that they took a Tampa-2 undersized defense and ran a 2 gap 3-4 without adding any new pieces. Their DE's were undersized, their NT was ridiculously undersized, being 6'1" 308 lb Dewayne Robertson. That is like us playing Jenkins at nose. You can see why Vilma may have struggled a bit. 340-350 lb Ryan Pickett is just a wee bit better suited to the nose.

Chillar's pass rushing ability is as a 4-3 OLB, where he sneaks though between the lineman being blocked and has to beat a RB. Against a 3-4 an OL typically flares out with the G's blocking the ends and T's blocking the OLB's in pass protection. If not they use an underneath coverage where the T's block the ends and G's step to the side and block the OLB's. Chillar may be good at getting past running backs, but getting past an OT is a whole different animal. This is why 3-4 teams don't draft linebackers to play OLB. They draft athletic college DE's, pass rushers, to play OLB, as the average LB is absolutely useless rushing against an OT. Against the run, the OLB's have the exact same job the DE's had in Sanders' scheme. Do you think that Chillar would have been a good replacement for Jenkins when he went down? Because that is the OLB's job.

Chillar would probably be a good fit at mike though. The mike is the best coverage LB of the bunch typically, and they are the ones that are least likely to be blocked. If Barnett doesn't have his speed 100% off the bat next year, I can definitely see him subbing for Barnett at mike on passing downs. He could probably play Jack too, but I'd put Hawk, Poppinga, and Bishop ahead of him there right not, possibly Lansanah too. Poppinga is by far our most stout LB that can handle playing amongst lineman. He's the only LB that we have that I can see playing OLB. I wouldn't want him to start, but I think that he's the only guy that can actually back up all 4 positions, making him very valuable on roster cutdown day.

[KYPack]

Vilma's struggles were due in large part to the fact that they took a Tampa-2 undersized defense and ran a 2 gap 3-4 without adding any new pieces. Their DE's were undersized, their NT was ridiculously undersized, being 6'1" 308 lb Dewayne Robertson. That is like us playing Jenkins at nose. You can see why Vilma may have struggled a bit. 340-350 lb Ryan Pickett is just a wee bit better suited to the nose.

Chillar's pass rushing ability is as a 4-3 OLB, where he sneaks though between the lineman being blocked and has to beat a RB. Against a 3-4 an OL typically flares out with the G's blocking the ends and T's blocking the OLB's in pass protection. If not they use an underneath coverage where the T's block the ends and G's step to the side and block the OLB's. Chillar may be good at getting past running backs, but getting past an OT is a whole different animal. This is why 3-4 teams don't draft linebackers to play OLB. They draft athletic college DE's, pass rushers, to play OLB, as the average LB is absolutely useless rushing against an OT. Against the run, the OLB's have the exact same job the DE's had in Sanders' scheme. Do you think that Chillar would have been a good replacement for Jenkins when he went down? Because that is the OLB's job.

Chillar would probably be a good fit at mike though. The mike is the best coverage LB of the bunch typically, and they are the ones that are least likely to be blocked. If Barnett doesn't have his speed 100% off the bat next year, I can definitely see him subbing for Barnett at mike on passing downs. He could probably play Jack too, but I'd put Hawk, Poppinga, and Bishop ahead of him there right not, possibly Lansanah too. Poppinga is by far our most stout LB that can handle playing amongst lineman. He's the only LB that we have that I can see playing OLB. I wouldn't want him to start, but I think that he's the only guy that can actually back up all 4 positions, making him very valuable on roster cutdown day.

Holy Mackerel,

I agree with this 100%.

I think we were light at DL in a 4-3, and have some good hands and depth in a 3-4 at DL. I'd like to see us get some more NT prospects. Pickett and some of our other guys could get worn out/burned out at that job in 09.

The new shell could be just the thing for Brady. He was a fish out of water really in a 4-3. An Olb in a 3-4 is really a stand-up DE. Brady is perfect for that gig.

How about Bishop for a Jack? That would play to his strengths perfectly. We have a bit of a logjam at Mike. Barnett, Hawk and Chillar can all be pretty good at that spot.

One of the big pluses for the team is the new staff. Darren Perry was in Cincy and all they guys raved about what a great coach he is. Just the thing to get our two young, aggressive safties going at it the right way. Kevin Greene and Winston Moss coaching the backers? Kevin will love Popp and Kamp.

Winston should get the Mike/Ted situation lined up for us, also.

Hey, let's start mini-camp and get it going!

[Waldo]

I really like Bishop at Jack, I think Lansanah will be a good fit there too. But I'd have a real hard time sitting either Barnett or Hawk. Playing Jack could be good for Hawk, especially if we take the NT off the field in nickel situations and play that 46 type thing that Pittsburgh plays on passing downs, with a DE sliding over to the nose and standing up linebackers filling the spot a few yards back.

The Jack 'backer is the attack 'backer, whereas mike is more of the safety of the front 7. Playing the spot that requires aggression might be exactly what Hawk needs to bust out, and it is more of a playmaking spot than SLB is in a 4-3. Playing the weak side Hawk always had to guard against cutbacks and misdirection, at jack he has the mike behind him to worry about things like that.

[Fritz]

I learn more from you guys than I ever have from the JSO or Press Gazette.

[mraynrand]

Chillar would probably be a good fit at mike though. The mike is the best coverage LB of the bunch typically, and they are the ones that are least likely to be blocked. If Barnett doesn't have his speed 100% off the bat next year, I can definitely see him subbing for Barnett at mike on passing downs. He could probably play Jack too, but I'd put Hawk, Poppinga, and Bishop ahead of him there right not, possibly Lansanah too. Poppinga is by far our most stout LB that can handle playing amongst lineman.

I agree. It seems though that the Pack has Jack, but doesn't like Mike. I am pessimistic about Barnett's return and Chillar is OK. Who would back up Chillar if Barnett can't go - Hawk?

[Waldo]

Definitely. Hawk would start over Chillar.

Just going through all the 3-4 rosters, most keep 9 LB's, 4 OLB's and 4 ILB's. I think that Pops is guaranteed spot #9 since he can flex between OLB and ILB.

Which leaves Barnett, Hawk, Chillar, Bishop, and Lansanah vying for 4 spots.

[Bossman641]

I learn more from you guys than I ever have from the JSO or Press Gazette.

Seriously. Watching Waldo and KY (and others) go back and forth is amazing.

[mission]

This is really a *great* site for Packer fans.

It's a lot less frustrating without PP around ... that helps me out a lot.

I'm with KY tho ... let's get this damn thing going already! At least FA ... sum'n, damn! :P

We have a lot of forum superstars now ... let's hope it translates to wins!

[sharpe1027]

Definitely. Hawk would start over Chillar.

Just going through all the 3-4 rosters, most keep 9 LB's, 4 OLB's and 4 ILB's. I think that Pops is guaranteed spot #9 since he can flex between OLB and ILB.

Which leaves Barnett, Hawk, Chillar, Bishop, and Lansanah vying for 4 spots.

I tend to agree.

IMO, Pop was at his best when he was playing down-hill and attacking the line-of-scrimmage, but he didn't get a lot of pressures on the QB last year. However, I am pretty sure that they lined him up at end a few times late in the year when there was an obvious passing down. His coverage has improved to the point that I didn't see his man running open three times a game (although part of that was Chillar). All of it bodes well for him being able to handle the OLB spot. However, if Kampman makes the transition to OLB, Kamp will be the guy doing more of the blitzing so maybe it would be OK to have Hawk opposite him on the outside.

I am not optimistic of Bishop's chances. He is a relatively strong guy, but his mobility is questionable, and I haven't been impressed with his ability to sniff out the hole. If we already have Kampman and Pop on the edges, can we afford another stiff in coverage?

I would think that some combination of Hawk, Barnett and Chillar will be the starting inside guys and some combination of Kampman, Pop and Hawk on the outside.

Consider that by moving Kampman to OLB they could make transitions between a 3-4 and a 4-3 without changing personnel. Basically, the opposing offense would be left guessing until they lineup for the snap.

[texaspackerbacker]

You're right about the end of last year, KY, but that was because Jenkins was injured. With him coming back, they would have been OK in the 4-3 also.

Yeah, there's a chance Barnett or Hawk will be like Vilma, but I don't think so. Wasn't Vilma injured that season also?

Waldo, did I read you right? Chillar backing up at ILB? I could see Popinga maybe moving inside, but Chillar seems ideally suited for 3-4 OLB--pass rushing ability and limited coverage skills. Popinga also seems better suited for the outside. I'd have Bishop and then Lansanah or somebody new backing up inside.

Vilma's struggles were due in large part to the fact that they took a Tampa-2 undersized defense and ran a 2 gap 3-4 without adding any new pieces. Their DE's were undersized, their NT was ridiculously undersized, being 6'1" 308 lb Dewayne Robertson. That is like us playing Jenkins at nose. You can see why Vilma may have struggled a bit. 340-350 lb Ryan Pickett is just a wee bit better suited to the nose.

Chillar's pass rushing ability is as a 4-3 OLB, where he sneaks though between the lineman being blocked and has to beat a RB. Against a 3-4 an OL typically flares out with the G's blocking the ends and T's blocking the OLB's in pass protection. If not they use an underneath coverage where the T's block the ends and G's step to the side and block the OLB's. Chillar may be good at getting past running backs, but getting past an OT is a whole different animal. This is why 3-4 teams don't draft linebackers to play OLB. They draft athletic college DE's, pass rushers, to play OLB, as the average LB is absolutely useless rushing against an OT. Against the run, the OLB's have the exact same job the DE's had in Sanders' scheme. Do you think that Chillar would have been a good replacement for Jenkins when he went down? Because that is the OLB's job.

Chillar would probably be a good fit at mike though. The mike is the best coverage LB of the bunch typically, and they are the ones that are least likely to be blocked. If Barnett doesn't have his speed 100% off the bat next year, I can definitely see him subbing for Barnett at mike on passing downs. He could probably play Jack too, but I'd put Hawk, Poppinga, and Bishop ahead of him there right not, possibly Lansanah too. Poppinga is by far our most stout LB that can handle playing amongst lineman. He's the only LB that we have that I can see playing OLB. I wouldn't want him to start, but I think that he's the only guy that can actually back up all 4 positions, making him very valuable on roster cutdown day.

You state your case very well. I say that sincerely.

I still think, though, that the Packers have Chillar in mind as an OLB--opportunity to start opposite Kampman, more likely being a backup.

I also think there is no way in hell that Barnett and Hawk won't start at ILB--Hawk being better suited for the "Jack" as you describe it, and Barnett better suited for the "Mike", with Bishop and Lansanah as the primary backups.