This is What Really Bugs Me About Our Defense

[denverYooper]

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.

Plus I think they had ADHD issues and had to get some guys on Adderall to clear that up. It seems to have made a difference in their ability to really focus.

[pbmax]

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.

You field that defense when I put my 3rd WR out there, let's say Welker, and I will light you up in the middle. If you bring a safety to help, the you just hit WR or TE down a seam. You will wish for a return to run defense problems.

The reason Woodson worked as a slot guy in nickel wasn't just his tackling. He could shut Welker down as well.

[3irty1]

You field that defense when I put my 3rd WR out there, let's say Welker, and I will light you up in the middle. If you bring a safety to help, the you just hit WR or TE down a seam. You will wish for a return to run defense problems.

The reason Woodson worked as a slot guy in nickel wasn't just his tackling. He could shut Welker down as well.

I should have been more specific in saying that I wish to use this in lieu of our "run stopping" flavor of the 2-4 that we tend to run on first down with the fatties in the middle. I'm not suggesting we ditch the nickel all together although it does seem like teams use personnel groups like I described run more 2-3 dime than 2-4 nickel by snap count.

[pbmax]

I should have been more specific in saying that I wish to use this in lieu of our "run stopping" flavor of the 2-4 that we tend to run on first down with the fatties in the middle. I'm not suggesting we ditch the nickel all together although it does seem like teams use personnel groups like I described run more 2-3 dime than 2-4 nickel by snap count.

OK. But what do you do when its 2nd and 4 or 5 and the opposing team is close to equal to run versus pass tendency and they send the 3rd WR in there?

If you say we go pass rush base, then you have to cover that 3rd WR with a linebacker or safety. The pass rush has to make the play in this case. And it hasn't been doing that.

[3irty1]

OK. But what do you do when its 2nd and 4 or 5 and the opposing team is close to equal to run versus pass tendency and they send the 3rd WR in there?

If you say we go pass rush base, then you have to cover that 3rd WR with a linebacker or safety. The pass rush has to make the play in this case. And it hasn't been doing that.

The nature of zone coverage underneath is going to mean LB's sometimes have to cover Wes Welker. If they can't do that well enough to make a downhill tackle, its probably time for new linebackers because I'm sure their even worse in man coverage on a RB or TE.

From my observation Capers seems to call his D based on down and distance more than trying to match up with offensive personnel. I'd say his ideal defensive stand goes a bit like this:
1st and 10, Roll out the "run defense" version of the 2-4. Bend for 5 or 6. (this is what I'm suggesting replacing with a "passing" 3-4)
2nd and 5, Bring in the 3-4 to stuff the run. Drop guys into curl/hook zones and blitz. This can look like a million things because its Capers.
3rd and 3, Bring in the "pass defense" 2-4 with DL who excel at rushing the passer.

[wist43]

You field that defense when I put my 3rd WR out there, let's say Welker, and I will light you up in the middle. If you bring a safety to help, the you just hit WR or TE down a seam. You will wish for a return to run defense problems.

The reason Woodson worked as a slot guy in nickel wasn't just his tackling. He could shut Welker down as well.

Not if you play it right... you're still in the nickel there max.

Good grief, by your reckoning, we can't possibly stop the pass with anything less than 11 DB's on the field, lol...

How many times did you see Welker get completely blown up by a LB or Chancellor - who is a 6'3", 232lbs SS??

Playing short zones is how you deal with smurfs and the underneath stuff. Jam 'em all of the line, disrupt the timing of the routes, and make them pay a heavy price if they catch a short ball in stride. What you will eventually end up with is what happened to Manning when he didn't have his dump offs there - he held the ball, and that gave the pass rush time to get in his face.

Seriously, this stuff isn't that complicated... Seattle didn't run anything exotic, they just executed a sound scheme, and played tough, physical football.

Unfortunately, TT and Capers don't like physical DB's... they want their safeties to be glorified CB's, and that is a Packer philosophy going back many years - a philosophy that I've always hated.

[mraynrand]

Unfortunately, TT and Capers don't like physical DB's... they want their safeties to be glorified CB's, and that is a Packer philosophy going back many years - a philosophy that I've always hated.

I think the Packers tried to get bigger and tougher at safety. So far it just hasn't worked out. Part of it is Richardson getting hurt, but the idea behind McMilian was that he could play up near the line:

According to scouts, McMillian's best asset is his tackling prowess and his ability to diagnose plays as they unfold. Specifically, he specializes in run support; an advantage since he is stiff in his transitions in pass coverage. The descriptions remind me of Roy Williams, the safety famous for the horsecollar tackle rule. He was essentially an extra linebacker on running downs and passing downs alike, a dynamic that has some significant trade-offs. Great to have on first and second downs, but a liability on third.

I'll leave the topic with a quote from NFL.com's scouting reports, regarding the role McMillian is situated to best fill:

Without doubt he is a player who needs to be heavily involved with the front seven and will be attractive to blitz-heavy defenses.

[pbmax]

The nature of zone coverage underneath is going to mean LB's sometimes have to cover Wes Welker. If they can't do that well enough to make a downhill tackle, its probably time for new linebackers because I'm sure their even worse in man coverage on a RB or TE.

From my observation Capers seems to call his D based on down and distance more than trying to match up with offensive personnel. I'd say his ideal defensive stand goes a bit like this:
1st and 10, Roll out the "run defense" version of the 2-4. Bend for 5 or 6. (this is what I'm suggesting replacing with a "passing" 3-4)
2nd and 5, Bring in the 3-4 to stuff the run. Drop guys into curl/hook zones and blitz. This can look like a million things because its Capers.
3rd and 3, Bring in the "pass defense" 2-4 with DL who excel at rushing the passer.

You do need to occasionally put a LB or safety in a non-ideal coverage and expect a tackle, I agree. But if they are likely to pass, I prefer the coverage of the nickel back.

I think the opposite for Capers. I think he matches up personnel except in very specific down and distance situations. Short and likely to run, team that are threat to run regardless of down.

I think this is one reason the 49ers put so much stress on the Packer D in the first two games. From the same personnel package, they will run or pass based on what you do. It has been less so the last two games with the Packers playing a lot of single-high base and really put an emphasis on stopping the run. This has tilted San Fran more toward passing, which except against the Packers, Kapernick can struggle with.

[pbmax]

Not if you play it right... you're still in the nickel there max.

Good grief, by your reckoning, we can't possibly stop the pass with anything less than 11 DB's on the field, lol...

How many times did you see Welker get completely blown up by a LB or Chancellor - who is a 6'3", 232lbs SS??

Playing short zones is how you deal with smurfs and the underneath stuff. Jam 'em all of the line, disrupt the timing of the routes, and make them pay a heavy price if they catch a short ball in stride. What you will eventually end up with is what happened to Manning when he didn't have his dump offs there - he held the ball, and that gave the pass rush time to get in his face.

Seriously, this stuff isn't that complicated... Seattle didn't run anything exotic, they just executed a sound scheme, and played tough, physical football.

Unfortunately, TT and Capers don't like physical DB's... they want their safeties to be glorified CB's, and that is a Packer philosophy going back many years - a philosophy that I've always hated.

Short zones, LBs and safeties are fine for Welker and the crossing stuff they have been running. But your single high safety could now be facing three vertical threats and has to choose where to go. If not for a fantastic pass rush and QB NoodleArm Manning those routes are open.

You stick Rodger in versus that defense alignment with two tackles who can pass protect? They will be out of that defense by halftime if not earlier.

Seattle makes it work with pass rush. The Packers do not get consistent enough pressure to prevent the long stuff. Nor am I confident in their deep safety as much as I would be with Thomas/Collins.

Now if its 3 and 5 or 6? Then I expect pass and I am happier to drop into zone underneath, come up and make a tackle.

[Carolina_Packer]

Not if you play it right... you're still in the nickel there max.

Good grief, by your reckoning, we can't possibly stop the pass with anything less than 11 DB's on the field, lol...

How many times did you see Welker get completely blown up by a LB or Chancellor - who is a 6'3", 232lbs SS??

Playing short zones is how you deal with smurfs and the underneath stuff. Jam 'em all of the line, disrupt the timing of the routes, and make them pay a heavy price if they catch a short ball in stride. What you will eventually end up with is what happened to Manning when he didn't have his dump offs there - he held the ball, and that gave the pass rush time to get in his face.

Seriously, this stuff isn't that complicated... Seattle didn't run anything exotic, they just executed a sound scheme, and played tough, physical football.

Unfortunately, TT and Capers don't like physical DB's... they want their safeties to be glorified CB's, and that is a Packer philosophy going back many years - a philosophy that I've always hated.

Isn't the prevailing wisdom that the bigger your CB's are, likely the slower they are? I'm not saying I agree, I'm just relaying a common thought. Obviously Sherman and Chancellor are freaks who are not only tall and can challenge long receivers, but can run and cover. Can we just sign those guys? Perhaps they have brothers or cousins who play football!

[wist43]

Isn't the prevailing wisdom that the bigger your CB's are, likely the slower they are? I'm not saying I agree, I'm just relaying a common thought. Obviously Sherman and Chancellor are freaks who are not only tall and can challenge long receivers, but can run and cover. Can we just sign those guys? Perhaps they have brothers or cousins who play football!

I'm not talking about corners, I'm talking about safties. Chancellor isn't a corner, and Sherman is the exception to the rule.

We can get by just fine with Williams and Shields, I like them both just fine. Where you get into trouble is when your safties are nothing more than converted corners that translate into soft hitting, poor tackling safties - which is what the Packers end up with more often than not.

Combine the soft hitting, poor tackling safties with a leaky front 6 b/c Capers doesn't respect the LOS, and you have a complete mess - which is what we've been suffering to watch for the past few years.

[wist43]

Short zones, LBs and safeties are fine for Welker and the crossing stuff they have been running. But your single high safety could now be facing three vertical threats and has to choose where to go. If not for a fantastic pass rush and QB NoodleArm Manning those routes are open.

You stick Rodger in versus that defense alignment with two tackles who can pass protect? They will be out of that defense by halftime if not earlier.

Seattle makes it work with pass rush. The Packers do not get consistent enough pressure to prevent the long stuff. Nor am I confident in their deep safety as much as I would be with Thomas/Collins.

Now if its 3 and 5 or 6? Then I expect pass and I am happier to drop into zone underneath, come up and make a tackle.

I don't remember what Seattle ran against us last year, but Rodgers sure as hell didn't light them up... go ahead and play dime on 1 and 10, and 3rd and 1 all you want I guess - I'd rather concentrate on controlling the LOS and go from there.

[mraynrand]

Obviously Sherman and Chancellor are freaks who are not only tall and can challenge long receivers, but can run and cover. Can we just sign those guys? Perhaps they have brothers or cousins who play football!

Sherman, Sherman, Sherman!



more your defensive lineman type...

[pbmax]

I don't remember what Seattle ran against us last year, but Rodgers sure as hell didn't light them up... go ahead and play dime on 1 and 10, and 3rd and 1 all you want I guess - I'd rather concentrate on controlling the LOS and go from there.

He made a few plays in the first half but was overall ineffective early and they didn't begin to straighten it out and score until the second half. You get no argument from me on that.

But it was the pass protection that failed him first. The coverage was still very good and no one was getting a free release so Rodgers had to hold onto the ball a few times, but he was often under assault immediately against last year's line. Your pass protection gets more consistent, those holes will open up.

You won't drop 50 on them, they are too good. But they aren't defying the laws of football physics. I will say this, M3's game plan versus them last year depends on pass protection and it was barely better this year.

[denverYooper]

He made a few plays in the first half but was overall ineffective early and they didn't begin to straighten it out and score until the second half. You get no argument from me on that.

But it was the pass protection that failed him first. The coverage was still very good and no one was getting a free release so Rodgers had to hold onto the ball a few times, but he was often under assault immediately against last year's line. Your pass protection gets more consistent, those holes will open up.

You won't drop 50 on them, they are too good. But they aren't defying the laws of football physics. I will say this, M3's game plan versus them last year depends on pass protection and it was barely better this year.

If they can get one or both of Sherrod or Bulaga healthy for a longer stint, we might get to see your theory play out.