Just Who Is AJ Hawk's Competition for Buck ILB?

[pbmax]

Without looking up their vitals, I think both Neal and Guy are close to the new "ideal" 3-4 end, yes.

If the Packers found one satisfactory base down end and 1 to 2 more pass rushers (Perry and anyone) in camp, then lookout.

[Fritz]

Do you mean, one besides Pickett?

[pbmax]

Do you mean, one besides Pickett?

Yes.

[Fritz]

Neal, Wilson and Guy are the three most logical possibilities, from a size perspective?

[ThunderDan]

So Dan, if I understand you correctly, the no-huddle only works if the offense keeps the same unit on the field while running it. The minute they sub someone out, the defense then has the whole 30 seconds to sub in, too. Is that so? If it is, then the only time it works in terms of a mismatch is if the offense finds itself in a nice mismatch with a defense, then keeps that personnel on the field and runs the no-huddle. Yes?

Fritz, I don't know if you get the whole 30 secords but you are allowed "enough" time to change your personnel also.

You are exactly correct on the second half. This is another reason Finley is so valuable to the Packers. The Packers can run their standard 21 group (two RDs, one TE) on 1st and 10 and usually see the other teams base 3-4 or 4-3. On second down you go no huddle and split Finley into the slot. The other team now has to cover Finley with a LB or drop a S for the coverage. Or maybe even better you put Driver/Cobb in the slot and put Finley wide 1-on-1 verses the CB.

[Lurker64]

Neal, Wilson and Guy are the three most logical possibilities, from a size perspective?

Phil Merling also has pretty much prototypical size and length, and has excellent physical tools. For him it's just an issue of technique (his hand work is *terrible*) and "want to" (which was probably compounded by playing in Miami.)

I wouldn't write him off.

[Guiness]

Fritz, I don't know if you get the whole 30 secords but you are allowed "enough" time to change your personnel also.

You are exactly correct on the second half. This is another reason Finley is so valuable to the Packers. The Packers can run their standard 21 group (two RDs, one TE) on 1st and 10 and usually see the other teams base 3-4 or 4-3. On second down you go no huddle and split Finley into the slot. The other team now has to cover Finley with a LB or drop a S for the coverage. Or maybe even better you put Driver/Cobb in the slot and put Finley wide 1-on-1 verses the CB.

That's one of the ways I see the no huddle working as well. A defense can compensate for that though, recognizing Finley is on the field, and making sure they've got a safety that can cover.

The other way a no huddle can work is the way the Bill's 'K-Gun' did in the 80's. Seems to me it revolved around the fact that DL subs out a lot, and OL generally plays the whole game. The D throws a few 300lb'ers on the field to stop the run, then on 2nd and 8 and 3rd and 7 you run the no huddle. If you convert, the D is now stuck with a gassed Gilbert Brown-ish type player on the field. I remember teams burning a TO to substitute a defensive player.

[BobDobbs]

Neal, Wilson and Guy are the three most logical possibilities, from a size perspective?

I think it's possible that they may go for a mix that allows them to play to the strength they want to put on the field. We could end up with Raji, Pickett, and Muir as the beefy line and then the rest of the guys being pass rushers. Obviously Daniels and Worthy were drafted for QB pressure then you leave it up to one of the other guys to force themselves into a roster spot with Neal and Hargrove waiting in the wings.

Guy and Merling are total wildcards, they haven't showed enough in their careers to make the team but they've got the body.

I don't know that Muir will make the team, but we have actually been really good in short yardage the last few years and I think one lineman will make the team based on run stopping because there are times when nothing is more important.

[pbmax]

Neal, Wilson and Guy are the three most logical possibilities, from a size perspective?

As a base DE, yes. You would love those guys to break out and be healthy. If Neal can pass rush still, so much the better. As I think you will still see the sub packages more often than base, pass rushers are still the priority.

[ThunderDan]

That's one of the ways I see the no huddle working as well. A defense can compensate for that though, recognizing Finley is on the field, and making sure they've got a safety that can cover.

The other way a no huddle can work is the way the Bill's 'K-Gun' did in the 80's. Seems to me it revolved around the fact that DL subs out a lot, and OL generally plays the whole game. The D throws a few 300lb'ers on the field to stop the run, then on 2nd and 8 and 3rd and 7 you run the no huddle. If you convert, the D is now stuck with a gassed Gilbert Brown-ish type player on the field. I remember teams burning a TO to substitute a defensive player.

I am assuming that the S you bring will not be able to play the run as well. So I will probably run more in that situation a pure 7-on-7 in the box. Also, if you assign the S to Finley alone you allow either Jennings or Nelson 1-on-1 with a CB with no over the top help. If the D played a 1 deep zone man under scheme you are leaving the 12-20 yard window open and I will take ARod on that throw all day.

I completely agree on the gassing of the other team's DL by not letting them rotate.

[Guiness]

I am assuming that the S you bring will not be able to play the run as well. So I will probably run more in that situation a pure 7-on-7 in the box. Also, if you assign the S to Finley alone you allow either Jennings or Nelson 1-on-1 with a CB with no over the top help. If the D played a 1 deep zone man under scheme you are leaving the 12-20 yard window open and I will take ARod on that throw all day.

I completely agree on the gassing of the other team's DL by not letting them rotate.

Getting those mismatches and taking advantage of them definitely requires some finesse and picking your spots. I think the issues Finley creates apply all the time, it's not a matter of catching the D with bad personnel, he causes problems no matter who is on the field for the D!

Gassing the opponents DL is real simple, and something to see...watching those DL struggle to get to the line, and go down on one knee instead of putting a hand in the dirt! You just know the OL has to love it when the no huddle is clicking.

BTW K-Gun was not named after Jim Kelly - anyone know who it referred to? I'm guessing a certain Cincinnati resident would know.

[KYPack]

Getting those mismatches and taking advantage of them definitely requires some finesse and picking your spots. I think the issues Finley creates apply all the time, it's not a matter of catching the D with bad personnel, he causes problems no matter who is on the field for the D!

Gassing the opponents DL is real simple, and something to see...watching those DL struggle to get to the line, and go down on one knee instead of putting a hand in the dirt! You just know the OL has to love it when the no huddle is clicking.

BTW K-Gun was not named after Jim Kelly - anyone know who it referred to? I'm guessing a certain Cincinnati resident would know.

I knew it wasn't named for Kelly, but I couldn't remember who the guy was, had to google the answer.

Tight end Keith McKeller.

I see people claim the Bills invented the no huddle. That's real far from true. Early football was all no-huddle. What Wyche at Cincy and the Bills started was playing the same 11 and calling all plays at the line. Back in the 80's I knew a lot of Bengals and they would tell me shit about the play language, some of it pretty funny. Like on power runs, if the fullback is to block the safety, that's called a BOSS block (Back On Strong Safety). When the Bengals called a run with a BOSS lead, the verbal call was Bruce. That's because Bruce is the boss, ya know?

Wyche had calls with players nicknames, sexual terminolgy and other kinds of funny shit to screw up the opposition and keep the boys paying attention.

[pbmax]

I have also heard that the Bengals used an entire play call at the line. The Bills supposedly could just yell out a number. That would seem to be a dangerous level of simplicity, but I have heard the store repeated more than once.

[Guiness]

I knew it wasn't named for Kelly, but I couldn't remember who the guy was, had to google the answer.

Tight end Keith McKeller.

I see people claim the Bills invented the no huddle. That's real far from true. Early football was all no-huddle. What Wyche at Cincy and the Bills started was playing the same 11 and calling all plays at the line. Back in the 80's I knew a lot of Bengals and they would tell me shit about the play language, some of it pretty funny. Like on power runs, if the fullback is to block the safety, that's called a BOSS block (Back On Strong Safety). When the Bengals called a run with a BOSS lead, the verbal call was Bruce. That's because Bruce is the boss, ya know?

Wyche had calls with players nicknames, sexual terminolgy and other kinds of funny shit to screw up the opposition and keep the boys paying attention.

Yup, McKeller. Like mentioned earlier, the TE is key to running the no huddle successfully. He was a basketball power forward in college, only played one year of football. There have been a lot of converted PF's since him.

Impossible to say when and where the no huddle was invented. The Bill were one of (or the?) first to use the no huddle pretty much exclusively. Story goes that it was a reaction to the Bengals beating them with it by using it for a few key series. Kelly was smart, and they trusted him to make the play calls. He wasn't the OC, but as close as any modern QB has been.