Packers' weakness: Transition to 3-4

[PlantPage55]

Packer fans need to trust that Capers shall place players in winning positions within the scheme.

Bob Sanders was too rigid -- the antithesis of Capers.

This is my line of thinking. I had ALWAYS been against transitioning to the 3-4. I fully admit that I laughed at any poster that suggested it.

Only a handful of variables would have changed my mind on this. Dom Capers was one of them. I did back-flips when we signed him.

For better or worse, all my chips are completely in with Dom.

[Joemailman]

I think Capers has made it pretty clear he isn't going to try to insert square pegs into round holes. The Packers will play as much 3-4 as Capers thinks they can effectively play. That probably means quite a bit, but not as much as in a year or two. A lot of people talk about the Pittsburgh connection with Capers, but he spent last year in New England, and New England has been running a 3-4/4-3 hybrid defense for years.

[Tony Oday]

I thought I heard we would run a hybrid this year of the 3-4 using a lot of 4-3 fronts...

[Packnut]

3-4

It's really very simple. If this switch to the 3-4 works out, then it was the right move and if not it was'nt.

[sharpe1027]

Re: 3-4

It's really very simple. If this switch to the 3-4 works out, then it was the right move and if not it was'nt.

True, but the difficult part is deciding whether or not it worked. There is a lot of the grey area between the 32nd defense and the 1st defense.

[Gunakor]

Re: 3-4

It's really very simple. If this switch to the 3-4 works out, then it was the right move and if not it was'nt.

How much time do we get to evaluate whether it was the right move or the wrong one? If the defense struggles this year, do we write off the switch as a bad move right away after one year? Two years? Three? How about if Dom Capers takes a HC job after this first year, similar to what Jags did after one year teaching ZBS? There's so many things that have to be considered, and so many things that could still change. How long do we give McCarthy to make this thing work before giving up on it?

[retailguy]

Re: 3-4

It's really very simple. If this switch to the 3-4 works out, then it was the right move and if not it was'nt.

How much time do we get to evaluate whether it was the right move or the wrong one? If the defense struggles this year, do we write off the switch as a bad move right away after one year? Two years? Three? How about if Dom Capers takes a HC job after this first year, similar to what Jags did after one year teaching ZBS? There's so many things that have to be considered, and so many things that could still change. How long do we give McCarthy to make this thing work before giving up on it?

And this is really the crux of it. Quite honestly, that's always been my beef with the "pro thompson" crowd. I'm not talking about those who "like him" but those to whom he can do no wrong.

For them, they'll always be an excuse or another reason why we have to try it again.

But realistically, when you look at it objectively, "the pieces" they always talk about are now in place. There is seemingly NO REASON why this team should not win now.

Truthfully, you could build a case for not swapping to the 3-4 on that basis, they had experience, cohesiveness, and talent for the 4-3. They had a core group that had played together for several seasons and were comfortable with one another.

I agree with those who say they hired the best guy for the job in capers, and I'm on board with the swap. But I'm not on board with a year of learning, then a year of improvement, and then dominance.

I think that's too long. This defense needs to gel and improve this season. If it goes longer than that, I think it was a bad move. The Packers window, by any analysis is open, and this team should win now. There should not be anymore excuses. Thompsons "non rebuilding" should be complete, wouldn't you think?

[sharpe1027]

Re: 3-4

This defense needs to gel and improve this season. If it goes longer than that, I think it was a bad move. The Packers window, by any analysis is open, and this team should win now. There should not be anymore excuses. Thompsons "non rebuilding" should be complete, wouldn't you think?

I'm buying a ticket for this train of thinking.

[Gunakor]

Re: 3-4

But realistically, when you look at it objectively, "the pieces" they always talk about are now in place. There is seemingly NO REASON why this team should not win now.

But there is. Even if they have all the peices in place (assuming you mean personnel, and I can't say I fully agree) they still have to learn a whole new style of defense. That could take time, considering they've been accustomed to Sanders style of defense for several years. I expect the defense to be better in week 17 than they are in week 1, but that doesn't mean they've reached their maximum potential. Capers' history gives me hope, but it's no guarantee. So if Capers can't take an incredibly average 4-3 defense plus two 3-4 type draft picks and turn them into a dominant 3-4 hybrid in just one year's time, is Thompson at fault? Let reality temper your expectations some. This is brand new to these guys. As I said in a different thread awhile back, this is a season for grand hopes. Not grand expectations.

[Fritz]

Re: 3-4

It's really very simple. If this switch to the 3-4 works out, then it was the right move and if not it was'nt.

How much time do we get to evaluate whether it was the right move or the wrong one? If the defense struggles this year, do we write off the switch as a bad move right away after one year? Two years? Three? How about if Dom Capers takes a HC job after this first year, similar to what Jags did after one year teaching ZBS? There's so many things that have to be considered, and so many things that could still change. How long do we give McCarthy to make this thing work before giving up on it?

And this is really the crux of it. Quite honestly, that's always been my beef with the "pro thompson" crowd. I'm not talking about those who "like him" but those to whom he can do no wrong.

For them, they'll always be an excuse or another reason why we have to try it again.

But realistically, when you look at it objectively, "the pieces" they always talk about are now in place. There is seemingly NO REASON why this team should not win now.

Truthfully, you could build a case for not swapping to the 3-4 on that basis, they had experience, cohesiveness, and talent for the 4-3. They had a core group that had played together for several seasons and were comfortable with one another.

I agree with those who say they hired the best guy for the job in capers, and I'm on board with the swap. But I'm not on board with a year of learning, then a year of improvement, and then dominance.

I think that's too long. This defense needs to gel and improve this season. If it goes longer than that, I think it was a bad move. The Packers window, by any analysis is open, and this team should win now. There should not be anymore excuses. Thompsons "non rebuilding" should be complete, wouldn't you think?

I think most people on this board - pro-Thompson, anti-Thompson - believe that TT gets two years. This year and next. If this team isn't in the playoffs and competing in the playoffs by the end of next year, I think TT's window will have closed. I'm not sure if he'd even get a chance to pull a Matt Millen and save his butt by firing coach after coach - not even once.

I could be wrong though. PBMax or somebody, maybe KY or Harvey or Shadow, I don't remember who, made a good case once that TT might get a chance to replace MM and thus extend his own tenure. It could happen.

But I think most folks here believe he's got two years to show that he's got this team pointed toward the Super Bowl and not the toilet bowl.

[sharpe1027]

Re: 3-4

But there is. Even if they have all the peices in place (assuming you mean personnel, and I can't say I fully agree) they still have to learn a whole new style of defense. That could take time, considering they've been accustomed to Sanders style of defense for several years. I expect the defense to be better in week 17 than they are in week 1, but that doesn't mean they've reached their maximum potential. Capers' history gives me hope, but it's no guarantee. So if Capers can't take an incredibly average 4-3 defense plus two 3-4 type draft picks and turn them into a dominant 3-4 hybrid in just one year's time, is Thompson at fault? Let reality temper your expectations some. This is brand new to these guys. As I said in a different thread awhile back, this is a season for grand hopes. Not grand expectations.

A couple points.

If they don't expect improvment from the switch this year, then they never should have made the switch. The defense was that bad last year.

Nobody said the defense was expected to reach its full potential next year.

Nobody said Capers had to turn the defense into a "dominant" defense in one year's time. They could be a good or even average defense and still be an improvement. The defense was that bad last year.

If the defense was even average last year, they win enough to make the playoffs. Expectations of playoffs this year are reasonable, IMHO.

It seems to me that you have set up a few strawmen in your argument.

[retailguy]

Re: 3-4

I think most people on this board - pro-Thompson, anti-Thompson - believe that TT gets two years. This year and next. If this team isn't in the playoffs and competing in the playoffs by the end of next year, I think TT's window will have closed. I'm not sure if he'd even get a chance to pull a Matt Millen and save his butt by firing coach after coach - not even once.

I could be wrong though. PBMax or somebody, maybe KY or Harvey or Shadow, I don't remember who, made a good case once that TT might get a chance to replace MM and thus extend his own tenure. It could happen.

But I think most folks here believe he's got two years to show that he's got this team pointed toward the Super Bowl and not the toilet bowl.

I guess I don't agree with that Fritz. Thompson started this whole thing off by saying he 'wasn't rebuilding'. McCarthy agreed with that by making statements about 'putting a fresh coat of paint on the dream house'. By not "fully disclosing" I guess that Thompson was telling me that he didn't need the extra year. What you say, and how you say it is important, I'd think.

Also, the defensive scheme, and leaders needed help, but realistically it didn't need to be blown up to start over from scratch. If you want to do that, fine, but that 'choice' doesn't create the need for an extra year, I don't think.

If the goal is to win, then, the job is to figure out how to do that in the shortest possible timeframe.

Thompson & McCarthy should win this year. Playoffs should be an expectation. I will be satisfied with the playoffs. I will be pleased with a division title and 1st round playoff victory. Anything short of that though, ought to be unacceptable.

[Gunakor]

Re: 3-4

If they don't expect improvment from the switch this year, then they never should have made the switch. The defense was that bad last year.

Well, they were pretty good 2 years ago. If they thought that they could repeat that success with a 4-3 they might have stuck with it. I am of the opinion that they made the switch for the long haul, and expect this defense to be better 3 years from now than it was in 2007. And if it is, then this was the right move to make - regardless what this year looks like.

Nobody said the defense was expected to reach its full potential next year.

Fair enough. It just seems that your expectations are a little unfair, considering that many of these guys are either miscast entirely or playing a position for the very first time in their professional careers. Suppose they aren't good enough to make the playoffs this year. Does that mean they won't next year or the year after? Should we switch back after one year because our guys couldn't learn it fast enough? Was it the wrong move because it didn't pay dividends in the very first year? That I guess was my point.

If the defense was even average last year, they win enough to make the playoffs. Expectations of playoffs this year are reasonable, IMHO.

Of course they are, same as they were last year. And the year before. And for the 15 years prior to that. Again, I just don't think that the team record in 2009 alone or the defensive production in 2009 alone should be the justification for whether the switch to the 3-4 was the right one. The switch wasn't made for just this year specifically. It was made for the forseeable future, and the future will be the justification for it.

[sharpe1027]

Re: 3-4

Well, they were pretty good 2 years ago. If they thought that they could repeat that success with a 4-3 they might have stuck with it. I am of the opinion that they made the switch for the long haul, and expect this defense to be better 3 years from now than it was in 2007. And if it is, then this was the right move to make - regardless what this year looks like.

IC what you are saying. IMO, no matter how you slice it, last year showed a significant problem with either the personnel, scheme or both. Maybe they are looking more for long-term success, but I still feel that they expect immediate improvement over last year.

Fair enough. It just seems that your expectations are a little unfair, considering that many of these guys are either miscast entirely or playing a position for the very first time in their professional careers.

Maybe you are right, but it seems to me that my expectations are supported by facts. The same coach has turned around 4-3 teams before. I think you may be over-dramatizing the differences.

Suppose they aren't good enough to make the playoffs this year. Does that mean they won't next year or the year after?

No, which is why I said nobody expected them to max-out this year.

Should we switch back after one year because our guys couldn't learn it fast enough?

Maybe. If they start poorly and still can't improve throughout the year, it would be a very bad sign. If they finish strong, and have similar offense as last year, they probably make the playoffs.

Was it the wrong move because it didn't pay dividends in the very first year? That I guess was my point.

If it pays zero dividends, I would say yes. If it is marginally successful with signs of improvement through the year, then it would be a tougher call.

Of course they are, same as they were last year. And the year before. And for the 15 years prior to that. Again, I just don't think that the team record in 2009 alone or the defensive production in 2009 alone should be the justification for whether the switch to the 3-4 was the right one. The switch wasn't made for just this year specifically. It was made for the forseeable future, and the future will be the justification for it.

Sorry, I never meant to imply that 2009 was the ONLY measure of success. It should, however, tell us SOMETHING. Don't you agree?

[Joemailman]

Re: 3-4

I think most people on this board - pro-Thompson, anti-Thompson - believe that TT gets two years. This year and next. If this team isn't in the playoffs and competing in the playoffs by the end of next year, I think TT's window will have closed. I'm not sure if he'd even get a chance to pull a Matt Millen and save his butt by firing coach after coach - not even once.

I could be wrong though. PBMax or somebody, maybe KY or Harvey or Shadow, I don't remember who, made a good case once that TT might get a chance to replace MM and thus extend his own tenure. It could happen.

But I think most folks here believe he's got two years to show that he's got this team pointed toward the Super Bowl and not the toilet bowl.

I guess I don't agree with that Fritz. Thompson started this whole thing off by saying he 'wasn't rebuilding'. McCarthy agreed with that by making statements about 'putting a fresh coat of paint on the dream house'. By not "fully disclosing" I guess that Thompson was telling me that he didn't need the extra year. What you say, and how you say it is important, I'd think.

Also, the defensive scheme, and leaders needed help, but realistically it didn't need to be blown up to start over from scratch. If you want to do that, fine, but that 'choice' doesn't create the need for an extra year, I don't think.

If the goal is to win, then, the job is to figure out how to do that in the shortest possible timeframe.

Thompson & McCarthy should win this year. Playoffs should be an expectation. I will be satisfied with the playoffs. I will be pleased with a division title and 1st round playoff victory. Anything short of that though, ought to be unacceptable.

I agree with this. The Packers had a losing record last year because they couldn't hold 4th quarter leads. Capers should be able to fix this. McCarthy needs to transition the Packers from a team that found ways to lose games to a team that wins games in the 4th quarter. Two seasons after Lindy Infante led the Packers to a 10-6 record (which seemed glorious at the time), he was out the door because his teams found ways to lose.