Tweet
Got brought back to this article today: http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/261284361.html
OK, here is my attempt to reconcile the disparate pronouncements made by the Packers coaching staff this offseason about how the defense will change. McCarthy has been talking about players and losing their offseason plans due to injury, Capers has been talking vanilla D, personnel packages and volume.
1. Fewer alignments. Jumbo sets (both in base 3-4 and the 2-4 tilted to play run D) looks like its not going to be featured with Pick gone and Jolly questionable to return. The Packers have some replacements, Boyd, Guion, but they are not Howard Green types. It would seem these guys (possible exception of Boyd) will see less snaps. So I take this to mean less Jumbo. With fewer alignments to learn (and more reps in certain alignments), younger players might be able to play more.
2. More personnel packages. The offensive variety the Packers see won't diminish, so you still need to matchup. But instead of an alignment change or alteration, they will sub out people to bring different skills onto the field.
3. Duplication of player skills. On a defense that is dependent on its OLB putting pressure on the QB, the Packers were dealt a serious blow with injures to Matthews, Perry and Mulumba. Its easy to read too much into Peppers signing, but a Peppers last year probably makes the D's pass rush more of a threat every down even if he is paired with Nate Palmer. I don't know if OLBs could be more important to this team, but Peppers specifically at OLB means the Packers are committing resources to the position so that even the normal run of injuries won't decimate it and cause half the playbook to be tossed aside. There are two basic types of D lineman bodies on this roster outside of Raji and its either DE from a 3-4 or a 4-3 3-technique tackle. Without much Jumbo, those players are a bit more interchangeable than last year when pass rush and quickness often had to be sacrificed for stoutness.
4. No matter how you try to square the very general pronouncements, there is always a conflict or two and we won't know the reality until preseason games. This is evident with Item #2; by going with more interchangeable body types, the skill sets kinda start to merge. There are a lot of D lineman who are supposed to supply a pass rush, but fewer who are run pluggers. this does have the advantage of making it less likely you cannot run your favorite packagers after injuries (something M3 has mentioned). However, it means you could get short handed against specific kinds of teams.
5. Capers really singles out personnel groups. So what alignments with the most successful players dictate? I'm not sure anyone knows, but they haven't shown anything in camp that is a radical departure according to press coverage. But Capers does mention Woodson, who played himself into a new position in nickel. Could the same thing happen with Peppers and Matthews?
OK, here is my attempt to reconcile the disparate pronouncements made by the Packers coaching staff this offseason about how the defense will change. McCarthy has been talking about players and losing their offseason plans due to injury, Capers has been talking vanilla D, personnel packages and volume.
1. Fewer alignments. Jumbo sets (both in base 3-4 and the 2-4 tilted to play run D) looks like its not going to be featured with Pick gone and Jolly questionable to return. The Packers have some replacements, Boyd, Guion, but they are not Howard Green types. It would seem these guys (possible exception of Boyd) will see less snaps. So I take this to mean less Jumbo. With fewer alignments to learn (and more reps in certain alignments), younger players might be able to play more.
2. More personnel packages. The offensive variety the Packers see won't diminish, so you still need to matchup. But instead of an alignment change or alteration, they will sub out people to bring different skills onto the field.
3. Duplication of player skills. On a defense that is dependent on its OLB putting pressure on the QB, the Packers were dealt a serious blow with injures to Matthews, Perry and Mulumba. Its easy to read too much into Peppers signing, but a Peppers last year probably makes the D's pass rush more of a threat every down even if he is paired with Nate Palmer. I don't know if OLBs could be more important to this team, but Peppers specifically at OLB means the Packers are committing resources to the position so that even the normal run of injuries won't decimate it and cause half the playbook to be tossed aside. There are two basic types of D lineman bodies on this roster outside of Raji and its either DE from a 3-4 or a 4-3 3-technique tackle. Without much Jumbo, those players are a bit more interchangeable than last year when pass rush and quickness often had to be sacrificed for stoutness.
4. No matter how you try to square the very general pronouncements, there is always a conflict or two and we won't know the reality until preseason games. This is evident with Item #2; by going with more interchangeable body types, the skill sets kinda start to merge. There are a lot of D lineman who are supposed to supply a pass rush, but fewer who are run pluggers. this does have the advantage of making it less likely you cannot run your favorite packagers after injuries (something M3 has mentioned). However, it means you could get short handed against specific kinds of teams.
5. Capers really singles out personnel groups. So what alignments with the most successful players dictate? I'm not sure anyone knows, but they haven't shown anything in camp that is a radical departure according to press coverage. But Capers does mention Woodson, who played himself into a new position in nickel. Could the same thing happen with Peppers and Matthews?
Comment