Where do we think the Packers rate in the NFC ???

[Smeefers]

You guys probably need to rethink your voting - I'm in the majority

A lot of us agree with a lot of your points in principle. Its when you start demanding complete regime changes, go to the extremes, and demand player replacement regardless of salary cap implications that people have a hard time swallowing your arguments. You also tend to beat dead horses well past the point of death which gets people argumentative. Screaming about the 2-4 does nothing for me. Putting forth the idea of the 3-3 and giving personnel suggestions has lead to stimulating debate.

[woodbuck27]

It would be great of Bulaga could put together a string of health. He's all-pro caliber right tackle IF healthy. If the line can stay relatively healthy all year, I think the offense will be tough to stop. A WR and TE is really all the more anyone could ask for. They'll fill the center position. Shit they filled it with EDS. They'll do it again.

They maybe need a couple pieces on defense but it's very possible those pieces could be added through the draft. If the draft is a decent one - and I'm reading that it's supposed to be very deep this year - and you get three or four quality contributors - it's not too hard to predict which areas they'd be likely to fill - you could have a pretty complete team - depending on injury which if it happens to Rodgers, Matthews, Sitton, Shields, and maybe a couple others depending on how the rest of the offseason goes. would be a huge factor again.

Hi Vince.

Great to see your alive. I hope your very well.

[wist43]

A lot of us agree with a lot of your points in principle. Its when you start demanding complete regime changes, go to the extremes, and demand player replacement regardless of salary cap implications that people have a hard time swallowing your arguments. You also tend to beat dead horses well past the point of death which gets people argumentative. Screaming about the 2-4 does nothing for me. Putting forth the idea of the 3-3 and giving personnel suggestions has lead to stimulating debate.

I could say our team colors are green and gold, and the homers on this forum would be up in arms.

I offer up the 3-3 and 4-2 alignments and give the reasons why they would be superior to the 2-4, and max musters the troops and they launch into a defense of the 2-4. If I'm the only one making these observations, and most everyone else is attacking changes, and defending Capers and the 2-4, I am left to carry on the fight alone.

As for regime change - when have I once said MM or TT should be fired?? Capers needs to go, but I should think that obvious.

As for personnel changes - I like the personnel outside of a few guys. As I've said all along, and some of you actually agree, the personnel do not fit a traditional 3-4 - hence, it only makes sense to use them according to their strengths. It is true that Capers doesn't use the 3-4 much - but what he does is actually worse; much, much worse than using the 3-4, i.e. the 2-4.

And therein lies our problems on defense, at least in large part. We have consistently put up very dismal numbers and results on defense over the past 3 years - and we have predominantly been running the 2-4 as our base. The 2-4 is at the core of our defensive problems - hence, it should be the focus of discussion.

[red]

I'm usually the one wanting TT and M3 fired

[bobblehead]

I could say our team colors are green and gold, and the homers on this forum would be up in arms.

I offer up the 3-3 and 4-2 alignments and give the reasons why they would be superior to the 2-4, and max musters the troops and they launch into a defense of the 2-4. If I'm the only one making these observations, and most everyone else is attacking changes, and defending Capers and the 2-4, I am left to carry on the fight alone.

As for regime change - when have I once said MM or TT should be fired?? Capers needs to go, but I should think that obvious.

As for personnel changes - I like the personnel outside of a few guys. As I've said all along, and some of you actually agree, the personnel do not fit a traditional 3-4 - hence, it only makes sense to use them according to their strengths. It is true that Capers doesn't use the 3-4 much - but what he does is actually worse; much, much worse than using the 3-4, i.e. the 2-4.

And therein lies our problems on defense, at least in large part. We have consistently put up very dismal numbers and results on defense over the past 3 years - and we have predominantly been running the 2-4 as our base. The 2-4 is at the core of our defensive problems - hence, it should be the focus of discussion.

I am with you wist. I wanted a 3-3 long ago. We aren't strong at LB and the 2-4 was getting our asses run over on 3rd and 6. Now we lost CJ Wilson and with him, all hope that we stop the run next year

[pbmax]

You better pray that the pass rush gets home because either your short zone is manned by a DL (or an OLB-one of your best pass rushers) or you are playing man across the board. Both these concepts are nice tendency breakers or allow for blitzing. It cannot be the base pass defense on 3rd and medium to long.

While I agree some use of the 2-4 seems ludicrous given down, distance and field position, there is a reason the 2-4 its the preferred nickel package for a 3-4.

By the way, a 4-2 for the Packers would still leave Jones and Hawk on the field. The most likely guy off the field is Perry as he is subbed by Neal or Peppers.

[red]

you better pray that that pass rush gets home in 1.5 seconds, because thats all the longer it takes for WR's to get behind out shitty safeties

[wist43]

You better pray that the pass rush gets home because either your short zone is manned by a DL (or an OLB-one of your best pass rushers) or you are playing man across the board. Both these concepts are nice tendency breakers or allow for blitzing. It cannot be the base pass defense on 3rd and medium to long.

While I agree some use of the 2-4 seems ludicrous given down, distance and field position, there is a reason the 2-4 its the preferred nickel package for a 3-4.

By the way, a 4-2 for the Packers would still leave Jones and Hawk on the field. The most likely guy off the field is Perry as he is subbed by Neal or Peppers.

You do realize it is permissible to have a safety within 10 yds of the LOS?? How in the bloody hell do any other teams manage to cover the flat and underneath stuff?? You make it sound like it is next to impossible to defend any passing formation out of anything other than the 2-4, lol... How many hard hits did we see Chancellor, Sherman, and Seattle's other DB's making on underneath routes against Denver?? The same thing goes for how Baltimore always plays New England.

My preference is usually to play man, but given how teams have figured us out, and take advantage of us when we play man, and we're so weak with our base ILB's, it only makes sense to play more zone, and bring pressure with the defensive line talent we have.

As for the 4-2, how are Hawk and Brad Jones still on the field at all in a 4-2?? Maybe one of them, but for my money both of their asses would be on the bench, and the "2" LB's I would have on the field would be Matthews and any 1 of Neal, Mulumba, Hawk, or Jones.

My 4 down linemen would be Peppers, Daniels, D. Jones, and Perry.

I could throw together other alignments from that 4-2, but that would be my first personnel grouping in a 4-2. Perry is a fish out of water at OLB, Neal looked good there - accomodate them both. Neal should be our full time starter at ROLB, and Perry should be a situational pass rusher from the DE position.

Am I the only one who sees this... seriously, I think it's pretty obvious.

[pbmax]

Peppers could be a different maker here. But with Matthews, the Packers did not generate enough pressure with a 4 man front to consistently stop a pass attacks. So they had to send numbers, overload or send the cross blitz. You do that with three lineman and someone who should not be in coverage will be in coverage waiting to be exposed.

You are simply trading one problem for another. You stick a 4 DL formation out there and they will pass as often as you see them run at a 2-4. In fact, unlike the 2-4 where at some down and distance they would be giving up on a first down by running, passing attacks could be used to convert ANY down and distance for a first.

And unless Peppers transforms the pass rush, the counter will work often enough to do damage. Prior to Peppers, it would have been even worse.

As for your two LBs, having Matthews out there means one of those DL will be in coverage because the best use of Matthews is in pressure. You can counter your tendency by putting him in coverage, but that weakens your pass rush. I would be OK with Jones in coverage, but you don't have a seventh guy to spare.

[packer4life]

Taking Matthews away from your pass rush in the 4-2 is absurd. It really is that simple.

[bobblehead]

Peppers could be a different maker here. But with Matthews, the Packers did not generate enough pressure with a 4 man front to consistently stop a pass attacks. So they had to send numbers, overload or send the cross blitz. You do that with three lineman and someone who should not be in coverage will be in coverage waiting to be exposed.

You are simply trading one problem for another. You stick a 4 DL formation out there and they will pass as often as you see them run at a 2-4. In fact, unlike the 2-4 where at some down and distance they would be giving up on a first down by running, passing attacks could be used to convert ANY down and distance for a first.

And unless Peppers transforms the pass rush, the counter will work often enough to do damage. Prior to Peppers, it would have been even worse.

As for your two LBs, having Matthews out there means one of those DL will be in coverage because the best use of Matthews is in pressure. You can counter your tendency by putting him in coverage, but that weakens your pass rush. I would be OK with Jones in coverage, but you don't have a seventh guy to spare.

This explanation would be more effective if we actually got to the QB with the 2-4 alignment (in the cases where an offense actually passed).

[pbmax]

This explanation would be more effective if we actually got to the QB with the 2-4 alignment (in the cases where an offense actually passed).

I think it still stands. The Packers had a more than acceptable number of sacks. But the total pressures, and snaps with virtually unlimited time were preposterously bad.

But if that is the case, then the worst thing to do is to beg them to pass more.

[wist43]

Taking Matthews away from your pass rush in the 4-2 is absurd. It really is that simple.

Why would you be taking Matthews out of the pass rush?? Is there a rule that says you can only rush 4??

You've been listening to max for too long.

[wist43]

I think it still stands. The Packers had a more than acceptable number of sacks. But the total pressures, and snaps with virtually unlimited time were preposterously bad.

But if that is the case, then the worst thing to do is to beg them to pass more.

The lack of pressure usually came out of the 2-4 when they went static, i.e. looped the OLB's upfield and rushed the 2 DL in a straight 4 man rush, with no stunts, blitz, presnap disguise, etc. It's easy to block if you know what is coming, and who is coming. Pay extra attn to Matthews and the rest can be dealt with easy enough.

When Capers did bring pressure out of the 2-4, he would force the offenses hand, and we would usually get a good result - but he played a static front far more often than he did anything in terms of blitz or disguise.

You're a hand wringer when it comes to coverage max... a chicken little who can't see the wisdom of creating pressure. For sure and for certain, Dom Capers is your DC wet dream. I think if you had your way, we'd rush 3 every snap, and sending 4 would be your version of blitz - risky, risky stuff sending 4!!! Who will be left in coverage???!!!

[mraynrand]

The lack of pressure usually came out of the 2-4 when they went static, i.e. looped the OLB's upfield and rushed the 2 DL in a straight 4 man rush, with no stunts, blitz, presnap disguise, etc. It's easy to block if you know what is coming, and who is coming. Pay extra attn to Matthews and the rest can be dealt with easy enough.

When Capers did bring pressure out of the 2-4, he would force the offenses hand, and we would usually get a good result - but he played a static front far more often than he did anything in terms of blitz or disguise.

You're a hand wringer when it comes to coverage max... a chicken little who can't see the wisdom of creating pressure. For sure and for certain, Dom Capers is your DC wet dream. I think if you had your way, we'd rush 3 every snap, and sending 4 would be your version of blitz - risky, risky stuff sending 4!!! Who will be left in coverage???!!!

SF is sort of the upper standard for OL play. So when you are sending 4, you're gonna get blocked more often than not. If you have McMillian and Jennings as your safeties, sending extra pressure is going to make you nervous. But basically, last year, you had kind of the worst of all worlds, right up the middle - Hawk and Jones are both mediocre in pass coverage and in pass rush, and the safeties were blah all around. Send Hawk and/or Jones and that middle is wide, wide open. A reasonable upgrade throughout the ILB and safety group could do wonders - give Capers more confidence in coverage due to improved safety coverage and improved pass rush from ILB spot. That's got to come from whomever challenges Richardson and Jones for playing time, as I'm guessing the coaches want Hawk and Burnett out there as much as possible. (Still, if I have to see Hawk do his pre-pass rush hop again, I'll puke).

Wouldn't hurt to have DL healthy, D. Jones improve, and Peppers rejuvenate.