Shield's testing the market

[Fritz]

This points up an issue that Wist does not seem to consider: the personnel. With the injuries at that point in the season, they were extremely limited in what and who they could put out there. I wonder - though of course I don't know - if Capers would've called a different formation if he'd had a fuller complement of players.

And you don't know the answer to that either, Wist, so don't come back please with your fatalistic "Capers would've called it anway because I have decided I know that he loves that defense so much that he would've called it no matter what."

Truth is, we just don't know.

[wist43]

This points up an issue that Wist does not seem to consider: the personnel. With the injuries at that point in the season, they were extremely limited in what and who they could put out there. I wonder - though of course I don't know - if Capers would've called a different formation if he'd had a fuller complement of players.

And you don't know the answer to that either, Wist, so don't come back please with your fatalistic "Capers would've called it anway because I have decided I know that he loves that defense so much that he would've called it no matter what."

Truth is, we just don't know.

Fritz, you really should look this stuff up before you try to poke me in the eye, lol...

I looked it up for week 17 against the Bears. As it happens, Brad Jones was inactive - so, since he's every 2-4 lovers poster boy, it would seem all the more reason not to be in the 2-4.

Beyond that, we had the following defensive linemen active for that game: Raji, Pickett, Daniels, Boyd, and D. Jones.

Of course Jolly was already on IR, Worthy was an injury inactive; but Wilson was a healthy scratch. In place of Wilson being active, MM had 3 QB's active - when there is absolutely no need for that, b/c you can have 3 suited up, and if your starter goes down, the 3rd QB can become active, but the starter cannot reenter the game. So there is absolutely no need to have 3 QB's active - ever.

Another caveat, Mulumba started in place of Perry.

[run pMc]

There were 3 QBs active because it was Rodgers first game back. God knows what Flynn or Tolzien could give you from one game to the next, so with all the other injuries having 3 QBs wasn't truly awful. They aren't going to have a lot of active DL in a 3-4D, especially if they play so much 2-4, and by then they didn't have a lot of healthy LBs (or anyone, it seemed).

B.Jones was pretty gimpy and not impressing before the CHI game; I doubt he would have been much help. Mulumba was beat up too. Whether you like him or not, I've no doubt Capers was limited in what he could call. He was starting rookie UDFAs...if one of the other NFCN teams does that, you don't think M3 and Rodgers don't take notice and try to take advantage? Playing rookies can payoff or backfire...sometimes in the same game.

I realize that makes me sound like a Capers apologist. He does stuff that drives me crazy, but I thought he was limited by personnel and injuries. TT's a pretty good GM, but he's got his work cut out for him on the personnel side and Capers by way of finding the best uses of the talent TT gives him.
Agree that a 2-4 that gives up 7 yds on 1st down is bad, but I'd hope on a run the safeties would come down to fill, and the DL would play their fits to prevent a gain like that. I'm not smart enough (or in the film room) to know if that's scheme or players, but I don't think most DC's would have done any better with the injuries and youth.

[Guiness]

Yes it was but I remember more 7 DBs and 1 ILB than I remember 6 DBs and 2 ILBs. Could be mistaken here but at one point there was only 1 dime linebacker.

The 7DBs on the field made possible by Woodson's ability to come up and make a play in run support, IMO.

[pbmax]

The 7DBs on the field made possible by Woodson's ability to come up and make a play in run support, IMO.

Yeah, he would often start out where an ILB would be as well.

After further thought, I suspect many of the three man rushes we saw were dime but I did not notice the 2 ILBs dropping into zones deep.

[Fritz]

Fritz, you really should look this stuff up before you try to poke me in the eye, lol...

I looked it up for week 17 against the Bears. As it happens, Brad Jones was inactive - so, since he's every 2-4 lovers poster boy, it would seem all the more reason not to be in the 2-4.

Beyond that, we had the following defensive linemen active for that game: Raji, Pickett, Daniels, Boyd, and D. Jones.

Of course Jolly was already on IR, Worthy was an injury inactive; but Wilson was a healthy scratch. In place of Wilson being active, MM had 3 QB's active - when there is absolutely no need for that, b/c you can have 3 suited up, and if your starter goes down, the 3rd QB can become active, but the starter cannot reenter the game. So there is absolutely no need to have 3 QB's active - ever.

Another caveat, Mulumba started in place of Perry.

I'm not sure how your educated, researched response somehow contradicts what I wrote. If MM had 3 QB's active and you want to complain about that, then fine - but that only suggests you'd have preferred the defense to have another player for Capers to choose from...and your "caveat" about Mulumba starting in place of Perry? Why didn't Neal play instead? Perhaps had it been Neal or Perry in the game the defensive call might've been different.

[mraynrand]

Dude - TT paid Brad Jones a bushel full of money to cover TE's, did he not?? And if you are in a 3-4, you still have 4 DB's and Jones on the field, do you not??

So right there, you have 5 players committed to covering 3 receivers, and 1 TE - more if your defensive call is zone and you drop x-number of LB's. On those 2 plays, you're only defending 5 yds and 1 yd!!!

By being the 2-4 in those down/distance/goal to go situations - why would any Offensive Coordinator call a pass, when he can just run it up the middle and walk into the end zone?? Which is exactly what happened!!!

How is it that you miss any of that?? lol...

I didn't miss anything. Let Jones cover the TE, APRH. The Packers were in a 3-4, if you consider Neal a DE, which the Packers essentially do. The play worked for Chicago because they went against tendency and because Mulumba and Lattimore were in there instead of any combination of Perry Matthews and Jones. That's just reality. The TD on that play was due to Chicago having a pretty good passing offense and still being able to go against tendency and exploit a weakened defenses weaknesses, and/or poor individual play. It had nothing to do with scheme necessarily.

[mraynrand]

I'm not sure how your educated, researched response somehow contradicts what I wrote. If MM had 3 QB's active and you want to complain about that, then fine - but that only suggests you'd have preferred the defense to have another player for Capers to choose from...and your "caveat" about Mulumba starting in place of Perry? Why didn't Neal play instead? Perhaps had it been Neal or Perry in the game the defensive call might've been different.

Neal was lined up at ROLB or LDE, however you want to look at it. He beat his guy, blew up run to his area, and would have sacked Cutler had it been a pass. The failure was on the right side of the line with Mulumba and Lattimore - and no help from the DL of Pickett and Raji. Considering how beat up Pick was and how useless Raji was, the outcome doesn't surprise me all that much. But that's not a scheme issue.

[wist43]

I'm not sure how your educated, researched response somehow contradicts what I wrote. If MM had 3 QB's active and you want to complain about that, then fine - but that only suggests you'd have preferred the defense to have another player for Capers to choose from...and your "caveat" about Mulumba starting in place of Perry? Why didn't Neal play instead? Perhaps had it been Neal or Perry in the game the defensive call might've been different.

Fritz, lol... you said Capers had to play the 2-4 b/c he didn't have a full compliment of players to choose from, i.e. he didn't have enough healthy DL to choose from.

He had 2 DL on the field in those 2-4, goal-to-go, alignments. He had 5 to choose from; and one of his constant 2-4 LB's, Brad Jones, was not even active for the game!!

So your contention is without merit - that's the point. Capers could have had 3 DL, or 4 DL, or even an actual "goal line defense" on the field - he certainly had enough DL to do it. So your point of injury leading to an insufficient number defensive linemen available simply doesn't hold water.

[red]

Neal was lined up at ROLB or LDE, however you want to look at it. He beat his guy, blew up run to his area, and would have sacked Cutler had it been a pass. The failure was on the right side of the line with Mulumba and Lattimore - and no help from the DL of Pickett and Raji. Considering how beat up Pick was and how useless Raji was, the outcome doesn't surprise me all that much. But that's not a scheme issue.

and yet thats the guy we decided to resign

wonderful

[mraynrand]

He had 2 DL on the field in those 2-4, goal-to-go, alignments.

If you count Neal, he had three. And Pick and Raji are his run stoppers. It's not like he had his pass defense 2-4 out there - which consists of D. Jones and Neal as the DL. So the scheme is entirely different from the 'base' 2-4 you keep harping on, and is actually closer to a typical run-stopping base 3-4.

[mraynrand]

and yet thats the guy we decided to resign

wonderful

To a one-year, bargain contract. Why is Raji not getting an 8 mil/year deal with 20+ guaranteed? I suspect TT said something like "I see the good in you Raji, the conflict"

[red]

To a one-year, bargain contract. Why is Raji not getting an 8 mil/year deal with 20+ guaranteed? I suspect TT said something like "I see the good in you Raji, the conflict"

if he saw something good about him, he must be watching him in the shower or something, because no one that saw him play the last 2 years on the field saw much to get excited about

[denverYooper]

I used to get feels on a trick,
now I throw Shields on the dick
to stop me from that HIV shit.

[Fritz]

Fritz, lol... you said Capers had to play the 2-4 b/c he didn't have a full compliment of players to choose from, i.e. he didn't have enough healthy DL to choose from.

He had 2 DL on the field in those 2-4, goal-to-go, alignments. He had 5 to choose from; and one of his constant 2-4 LB's, Brad Jones, was not even active for the game!!

So your contention is without merit - that's the point. Capers could have had 3 DL, or 4 DL, or even an actual "goal line defense" on the field - he certainly had enough DL to do it. So your point of injury leading to an insufficient number defensive linemen available simply doesn't hold water.

I didn't say injury to defensive linemen; I said injury may have limited Capers's choices for preferred defenders