3-Men Rush

[mraynrand]

How about Gustav Holst, The Planets; Mars, The Bringer of War, for Clay Matthews sack music?

[mraynrand]

Prokofiev: Romeo and Juliet - Montagues and Capulets - would have been perfect for Favre's return

OK, enough thread jacking....

[sharpe1027]

I'd like to see the percentages on getting to the QB with 4 vs. 3. If they rush 4 and still don't get to the QB, all they have done is remove on player from coverage. I'm guessing the answer is probably why Caper's goes with the 3 man. On the game losing interception for an offensive TD (a weird thing to say), they got to Wilson only a split second late.

[Fritz]

I'd like to see the percentages on getting to the QB with 4 vs. 3. If they rush 4 and still don't get to the QB, all they have done is remove on player from coverage. I'm guessing the answer is probably why Caper's goes with the 3 man. On the game losing interception for an offensive TD (a weird thing to say), they got to Wilson only a split second late.

This is what makes football fun yet maddening. You could measure sacks or "getting to the QB" but if a four man rush produced a tighter pocket and poorer throws, that'd be hard to measure. I suppose you could measure the success rate of getting scores or first downs, though.

[Cheesehead Craig]

I hate 3 man rushes and thus I usually don't like the 3-4 defense because of it. To me you get a better, more consistent pass rush with 4 DL.

[sharpe1027]

I hate 3 man rushes and thus I usually don't like the 3-4 defense because of it. To me you get a better, more consistent pass rush with 4 DL.

3-4 you can also send 4 most of the time, but you can do it in more different ways. Packer's line up in 3-4 and even 2-5/2-4 and generally rush at least 4.

4-3 generally requires quality (rare) DEs to pull it off well. You also trade-off in predictability and flexibility; for 4-3, you know the down 4 are always going after the QB (absent an occasional DL dropping into coverage).

[George Cumby]

How about Gustav Holst, The Planets; Mars, The Bringer of War, for Clay Matthews sack music?

What I really like about this suggestion is that it ignores the more well known, overused to the point of triteness "Flight of the Valkyries" or Orff's "O Fortuna".

As far as the rush is concerned, I think that the criticism is more sound if we look at the defense as a whole and note compartmentalized. The Packer's D is susceptible to those bunch formations, remember the shootout in AZ?

I don't think that one can separate the coverage from the rush, they are one holistic unit.

[wist43]

I hate 3 man rushes and thus I usually don't like the 3-4 defense because of it. To me you get a better, more consistent pass rush with 4 DL.

3-4 you can also send 4 most of the time, but you can do it in more different ways. Packer's line up in 3-4 and even 2-5/2-4 and generally rush at least 4.

4-3 generally requires quality (rare) DEs to pull it off well. You also trade-off in predictability and flexibility; for 4-3, you know the down 4 are always going after the QB (absent an occasional DL dropping into coverage).

I agree with sharpe - the 3-4 offers much more flexibility in terms of where you're bringing pressure from and should give the Def. Coord an advantage in disguising blitzes and creating confusion in the blocking scheme - as a result, you should see more rushers come free, more often, from a 3-4.

And, as sharpe said, All-Pro calibur 4-3 DE's are very hard to come by, and tend to be very expensive on the FA market. They can eat up a lot of cap space; it is therefore generally more economical to employ a 3-4 scheme... depending for course on the level of talent you have at LB and NT. The best of the best cost money at every position, but game changing 4-3 DE's are tough to come by.

Those things said, the front seven talent we have on our Packers squad isn't used to full advantage by Capers. His fronts are very passive and generally easy to block. The talent that TT has brought in is not ideally suited to a standard 3-4 in terms of body type or the tools each brings to the front seven.

Raji is not ideally suited to be a NT; Worhy is not ideally suited to be a 3-4 DE; Daniels doesn't really fit anywhere in a traditional 3-4. That said, I like all those players, I simply want Capers to develop subpackages that cater to their strenths - 2 man, and 1 man lines don't cut it.

Bring heat!! Instead of a 1 man line where Worthy does the dancing bear thing bouncing from the center, to one guard, over to the other guard - put 4 down linemen out there on 3rd 10. Perry wants to put his hand on the ground - let him line up at RDE; have Matthews standing up on that side; Raji and Daniels at DT; and Worthy at the other DE. Assuming the offense has a man in the slot, bring Woodson on the blitz from there occasionally; mix it all up with DE/DT stunts.

Have more subpackages with 3 downlinmen with Raji on the nose, Worthy and Daniels at DE's, and Perry and Matthews coming off the edge.

The 3-4 should afford a DC an awful lot of flexibility that is not there in a 4-3. Dom wastes it though with his gimmick fronts, and plays soft with 1 and 2 DL. As a result we get no push up the middle, and if the outside rushers can't turn the corner on a speed rush, our secondary is at the mercy of a QB who has a comfortable pocket.

Defense is first and foremost about pressuring the QB - Dom's first priority is always coverage. He's far, far, far too passive in his approach to pressure.

[3irty1]

Raji is not ideally suited to be a NT?

[Fritz]

I agree with sharpe - the 3-4 offers much more flexibility in terms of where you're bringing pressure from and should give the Def. Coord an advantage in disguising blitzes and creating confusion in the blocking scheme - as a result, you should see more rushers come free, more often, from a 3-4.

And, as sharpe said, All-Pro calibur 4-3 DE's are very hard to come by, and tend to be very expensive on the FA market. They can eat up a lot of cap space; it is therefore generally more economical to employ a 3-4 scheme... depending for course on the level of talent you have at LB and NT. The best of the best cost money at every position, but game changing 4-3 DE's are tough to come by.

Those things said, the front seven talent we have on our Packers squad isn't used to full advantage by Capers. His fronts are very passive and generally easy to block. The talent that TT has brought in is not ideally suited to a standard 3-4 in terms of body type or the tools each brings to the front seven.

Raji is not ideally suited to be a NT; Worhy is not ideally suited to be a 3-4 DE; Daniels doesn't really fit anywhere in a traditional 3-4. That said, I like all those players, I simply want Capers to develop subpackages that cater to their strenths - 2 man, and 1 man lines don't cut it.

Bring heat!! Instead of a 1 man line where Worthy does the dancing bear thing bouncing from the center, to one guard, over to the other guard - put 4 down linemen out there on 3rd 10. Perry wants to put his hand on the ground - let him line up at RDE; have Matthews standing up on that side; Raji and Daniels at DT; and Worthy at the other DE. Assuming the offense has a man in the slot, bring Woodson on the blitz from there occasionally; mix it all up with DE/DT stunts.

Have more subpackages with 3 downlinmen with Raji on the nose, Worthy and Daniels at DE's, and Perry and Matthews coming off the edge.

The 3-4 should afford a DC an awful lot of flexibility that is not there in a 4-3. Dom wastes it though with his gimmick fronts, and plays soft with 1 and 2 DL. As a result we get no push up the middle, and if the outside rushers can't turn the corner on a speed rush, our secondary is at the mercy of a QB who has a comfortable pocket.

Defense is first and foremost about pressuring the QB - Dom's first priority is always coverage. He's far, far, far too passive in his approach to pressure.

Okay, now we've got some real content to consider. This is some good talk. And I think Wist makes a good point about not using the talent up front to its best effect. I don't quite understand this defensive-linemen-eating-up-blockers scheme in the first place, exactly, but to draft guys who are penetrators (that sounded wrong, somehow) and not use them that way is the whole square-peg-round-hole thing. How will the defensive coaching staff resolve this? Does anyone think they're unsure how to use these guys without changing the scheme?

[sharpe1027]

Okay, now we've got some real content to consider. This is some good talk. And I think Wist makes a good point about not using the talent up front to its best effect. I don't quite understand this defensive-linemen-eating-up-blockers scheme in the first place, exactly, but to draft guys who are penetrators (that sounded wrong, somehow) and not use them that way is the whole square-peg-round-hole thing. How will the defensive coaching staff resolve this? Does anyone think they're unsure how to use these guys without changing the scheme?

According to the popular theme, the loss of Jenkins was a huge blow to the Packers. While he was OK at eating up blockers, his real value was penetration (that does sound wrong). So, if you subscribe to the letting Jenkins go without a replacement was a bad move theory, you should be happy with the new guys.

End of the day, my take is that TT drafts guys that are good football players and trust that the coaches find ways to use them correctly. I think that Wist has a point, but we'll have to see how the Packer's adjust through the rest of the year. They're playing a lot of rookies so you don't want to mess with their heads by having 50 different packages.

Also, don't forget that with all the no huddle the Saints have been known to run, Capers may have be leery of getting stuck in a sub package for an entire drive.

[mraynrand]

Maybe it's not so much the scheme, but the fact that the penetrators are not penetrating far enough or penetrating frequently enough. They probably need to talk to Warren Sapp about how to increase the frequency and intensity of penetration - without going for broke.

[HarveyWallbangers]

What's the percentage of plays are we are only sending 3 men?

[Zool]

Defense is first and foremost about pressuring the QB - Dom's first priority is always coverage. He's far, far, far too passive in his approach to pressure.

I don't believe this is the case. I'd say its available personnel. He currently has good coverage CB's and not so good DL push.

Green Bay
2011 - 29 - T27
2010 - 47 - 2nd
2009 - 37 - 11th

Miami
2007 - 30 - 24th
2006 - 47 - 3rd

Houston
2005 - 37 - T14
2004 - 24 - 32
2003 - 19 - 31 (Bears had 18 and still suck)
2002 - 35 - T18

[Cheesehead Craig]

I don't think you need All-Pro caliber DE's to make a 4-3 work well. I could argue that you need All-Pro LB's to make a 3-4 work and they are about as hard to find as the DE's are of that caliber.

It seems to me that a 3-4 while giving more flexibility to a DC, it also gives him too many choices and lends itself to being too cute at times with trying to outsmart the offense and thus you hurt your defense. Plus, your DL are mainly there to be run stoppers and gap cloggers (if I understand the overall philosophy correctly) and they are not natural pass rushers. If the purpose is to bring heat on a consistent basis, why wouldn't you want a scheme where your DL can bring that over and over again? In a passing-Maddenesque league we're in now I would think you would want as many players who can bring the heat as often as possible.

Again, this is just from a guy who's a bigger fan of the 4-3.