This is What Really Bugs Me About Our Defense

[Patler]

I know it may bother some of the readers when people bring up points of admiration/jealousy for another team, but it's hard when you sit back as a fan and see your team's doors get blown off consistency-wise, toughness-wise and execution-wise by a defense that has basically been built since the Packers won the Super Bowl, which was not that long ago. You say to yourself, if Seattle can do it in that amount of time, then why can't the Packers. What is the road block? What is going to get them where they need to be?

One difference is that Seattle drafts Malcolm Smith in the 7th round, and he's a Super Bowl MVP (of course they could have given it to the entire defense), and we draft someone like Brad Jones, who, while he has had some production initially at OLB then moved to ILB, is not nearly as consistent as the Packers need him to be. I'm not saying I expect our 7th rounders to be Super Bowl MVP's. That's over the top. My point is that Seattle does draft and develop too (along with sprinkling in affordable free agents), but when Seattle coaches them up, they get up to speed quickly, are assignment sure and are part of that nasty, fly to the ball collective that Seattle has on defense. They also consistently play way. The Packers defense dials-up a defensive gem against Detroit at home and Baltimore on the road, but then can't maintain the level of play. I want what Seattle has on defense. Ted, how are you going to respond? The same result next year is just not going to cut it.

I don't think anyone objects to a frank discussion about why things haven't worked. It's not like the Packers haven't tried. A lot of 1st and 2nd round picks have gone to the front seven, yet collectively it is a mediocre group. Bad drafting? Poor coaching? Inexplicable bad luck? I have kicked that around in my head many times, and can't form a solid opinion myself as to why it is what it is.

[mraynrand]

One difference is that Seattle drafts Malcolm Smith in the 7th round, and he's a Super Bowl MVP (of course they could have given it to the entire defense), and we draft someone like Brad Jones, who, while he has had some production initially at OLB then moved to ILB, is not nearly as consistent as the Packers need him to be.

Maybe the answer is that some of this championship stuff is more due to the vagaries of existence. Think on this - Hyde nearly picks off Kap and Sherman just deflects Kap's pass. A few inches another way, and you could have either SF or GB as your Super Bowl winner. Vick throws it a little higher, T-Will gets scored on in the Wildcard and the Packers don't even win a game in the 2010 playoffs.

For 31 teams the same result next year is just not going to cut it, but for a least a handful, their fate may be in control of a few ergs difference in the strength of a pass or the height of a leap.

[Patler]

Maybe the answer is that some of this championship stuff is more due to the vagaries of existence. Think on this - Hyde nearly picks off Kap and Sherman just deflects Kap's pass. A few inches another way, and you could have either SF or GB as your Super Bowl winner. Vick throws it a little higher, T-Will gets scored on in the Wildcard and the Packers don't even win a game in the 2010 playoffs.

For 31 teams the same result next year is just not going to cut it, but for a least a handful, their fate may be in control of a few ergs difference in the strength of a pass or the height of a leap.

Yup. That's why just getting to the playoffs is important. Things can bounce your way if you at least have a chance.

[bobblehead]

Triple that. The packers are consistently there. Inches from advancing this year. The type of dominance that wins 3 superbowls in a row is a thing of the past and if that is what you want, time to watch the NBA.

[Joemailman]

Triple that. The packers are consistently there. Inches from advancing this year. The type of dominance that wins 3 superbowls in a row is a thing of the past and if that is what you want, time to watch the NBA.

I also think the Packers closed the gap this year on the top teams. In 2012, the 49ers were clearly better than the Packers. The Packers were struggling just to hang close in those games. In 2013 though, the Packers could just have easily won those games. If they find a competent safety, and have a little more typical injury situation, they are right there.

[3irty1]

Triple that. The packers are consistently there. Inches from advancing this year. The type of dominance that wins 3 superbowls in a row is a thing of the past and if that is what you want, time to watch the NBA.

Unless you're comparing the NFC to the AFC. Then that dominance is still around.

[ThunderDan]

Yup. That's why just getting to the playoffs is important. Things can bounce your way if you at least have a chance.

A perfect example of that is the 2nd half kickoff in the Super Bowl. The kicker hit the perfect kick but it bounces straight to Harvin. If the ball hits off the edge of the point it bounces past Harvin and then its a scrum to see who picks up the ball and not a touchdown.

Not saying that would have changed the outcome of the game but a perfect example of doing something exactly right and because of a bounce it turns into horseshit (well the tackling by DEN allowed the TD)

[pbmax]

I posted the quote below from Bill Bellichick a while back. Apparently, playing the 3-4 is complicated. It requires lots of communication and players with experience. With injuries and the Packers playing young guys as they do, mistakes and miscommunications result.http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/new-e...itch-on-sirius

"We wanted a lot of carryover between our run responsibilities and run fits, and some of our pressure defenses and things like that. We'll transition and build into some of our odds fronts, but we felt like in trying to evaluate young players, asking them to learn one system in a 3-4 and then learn another system in nickel [was too much]. As you know, we were in nickel defense just as much as we were 3-4 defense because of teams using multiple receivers on early downs and two-minute and all those kind of things.

"So we felt like it would be a better opportunity to evaluate our players and not try to over-install and put in a ton of defense. Try to cut it down a little bit and see if we could execute it better. Certainly, we have a long way to go but I do feel like we're making progress, and I think our players at least understand what we're doing.

"There are so many intricacies to a 3-4 defense that I just didn't know if we'd be ready to handle them this year. Probably wouldn't have been, to be honest with you."

Playing a 3-4 defense might be slightly more complicated versus the pass, one reason is that most often you are sending 4 after the QB and that means you have to choose someone when making your call. Not sure what else he might mean here.

But the major part of his point is that switching between the two for base and nickel is tough because if you get run on, the assignments and responsibilities are completely different. hence, in on set of downs you can play two entirely different concepts of defense.

The Packers do this switching and in run D (both base and nickel) it has caused some problems.

[pbmax]

Here's something fun to pile on from the Journal today...



Maybe Capers, for as much as they say he needs vets to run such a complicated scheme, should just "dumb it down" and get them to play basic defense before getting too fancy with his 1 down lineman, 10 defensive back schemes.

Your JSO description sounds very much like the Packers D in 2010 with Collins deep and Peprah up front.

[Cheesehead Craig]

On this we can agree. I would love a smash mouth defense.

But what exactly is this? A defense that blitzes a lot? One that sacks the QB? Good against the run? Guys who just hit hard? Players that stay healthy?

[pbmax]

Unless you're comparing the NFC to the AFC. Then that dominance is still around.

And the 49ers owe the NFC a Super Bowl.

[mraynrand]

Playing a 3-4 defense might be slightly more complicated versus the pass, one reason is that most often you are sending 4 after the QB and that means you have to choose someone when making your call. Not sure what else he might mean here.

But the major part of his point is that switching between the two for base and nickel is tough because if you get run on, the assignments and responsibilities are completely different. hence, in on set of downs you can play two entirely different concepts of defense.

The Packers do this switching and in run D (both base and nickel) it has caused some problems.

time for some special off-season practices!

[wist43]

It all comes down to Capers. Yes, we lost Collins and Jenkins, and there has been a steady influx of young guys - but that is going to be the case every year with the Packers.

I agree with the sentiment of simplifing the scheme, and have been arguing that for a few years now. If you're consistently blowing coverages, what good does it do to lament the fact over and over again at the post-game presser?? If you're blowing assignments consistently, then simply saying "we'll get that cleaned up" over and over again doesn't cut it - simplify the scheme to the point where you're not blowing coverages - duh!!

Then there is Capers lip service about "stopping the run is our #1 priority"... really?? Seems to me, running a 2-4 front more than any other team in the league is the most polite invitation imaginable to an offense to run the ball down your throat - which is exactly what happens most of the time.

As for guys running loose all over the field I will say this - I prefer to play man most of the time, especially on the outside, but when you're playing a dink and dunk offense like NE or Denver, you have to 1) beat the hell out of the receivers off the line to disprupt the timing, 2) play zone underneath, and when a midget, i.e. Welker catches the ball, blow him up before he can even get his head turned around to turn upfield, and 3) interupt the passing lane in your zone and anticipate the routes coming into your zone - ala what we saw Chancellor do several times in the Superbowl.

I think we have enough talent on defense to be effective - but Capers is entirely capable of making a mess of anything. He's just as capable of putting together a solid game plan, but his MO is to be too cute by half, and it ends up blowing up in his face more often than not.

Capers is the problem - as I've been saying for a few years now, it is extremely difficult to evaluate the players given the disadvantageous positions they are consistently put in by Capers. Until we get a DC that will tailor gameplans to the personnel we have, I have to give the players a pass for the most part.

[3irty1]

I liked the 2-4 when Raji was a 3-down NT and Woodson was a slot CB who tackled like a linebacker. The whole philosophy of the scheme seems tied to the performance of those two players, yet Woodson is old and gone and Hayward/Hyde have been his replacements. Its very unsound thinking to plan on replacing a hall of fame player like Woodson. I'd rather they alter the scheme to highlight the new emerging players like Daniels. Rather than put big run defenders in a passing formation I'd rather use our pass rushers in a running formation. Something like this could replace our 2-4:
.
Perry.....Daniels.....Raji.....Jones.....Matthews
.
....................Jones..........Hawk
.
Raji could be Boyd, or Jolly as well. Worthy could rotate at the 1-gap spots.

[Pugger]

But what exactly is this? A defense that blitzes a lot? One that sacks the QB? Good against the run? Guys who just hit hard? Players that stay healthy?

Yes.

Seattle was poor for a couple of years so they were drafting in the upper half of each round, they found some gems in later rounds and they were the healthiest team in the playoffs. They had just 7 guys on IR and we had at least double that plus a several other guys playing hurt. If you can stomach it go back and look at SF's last 3rd down conversion in that playoff game and watch Mulumba - I think that was who that was - limping as he tries to run down Kaepernick.