Help Me Understand...The New Defensive Line

[woodbuck27]

C'mon, Woody - you remember the lyrics!!!

A long tie since I heard that song Fritz ...Thanks.

With B. J. Raji and being an Irish Canadian I "only" see this:



Look at that...... B.J. Raji got his helmet knocked off !

[pbmax]

This one is for wist:

It’s still unclear, though, what Raji’s role will be in the defense this season. Packers coach Mike McCarthy estimates the Packers have played their base “Okie” defense only 24 percent of the time over the past three seasons, meaning Raji’s role would be limited if he only saw action in the base defense. But with veteran Ryan Pickett not having been re-signed, it should open up more snaps for Raji, who’ll turn 28 in July.

http://www.espnwisconsin.com/common/page.php?feed=2&id=14311&is_corp=1

[run pMc]

They're paying Raji $4M; he'll play more than 24% of the snaps if he's healthy.

Seems to me the DL is moving away from "fat slugs" to more athletic types. Yes, they lose some size, but I think they gain quickness, probably better pursuit, and improved pass rush. What I don't know is if it will hurt the run defense. I'm still not sure where they will play some of these guys...not a lot of what I'd consider classic 3-4 DEs or NTs on the squad, so I'm as curious about the DL as anyone.

[Fritz]

Agreed, it seems a bit odd. Other than Raji, no real nose-tackle types, and other than Datone Jones, no classic 3-4 DE body types, either. Lots of guys who are built like defensive tackles in a 4-3.

[run pMc]

Agreed, it seems a bit odd. Other than Raji, no real nose-tackle types, and other than Datone Jones, no classic 3-4 DE body types, either. Lots of guys who are built like defensive tackles in a 4-3.

Yeah. The could play Peppers, Datone, Neal, Perry, and Mulumba at DE and the rest (Worthy, Raji, Boyd, Thornton, Daniels, Guion) at DT. Looks more like a 4-3 team to me. Maybe that's the whole point of all the "Elephant" hubbub. What's really interesting is there were a couple of classic 3-4 DE's available in R3 when TT took Thornton. They must have a plan for what to do with these guys...I guess we'll find out.

[mraynrand]

I don't think Mulumba holds up at DE

[run pMc]

I don't think Mulumba holds up at DE

True. I was thinking if they actually moved to a 4-3, it probably wouldn't be a stretch for Mulumba to put on 10 pounds and play DE. He'd still be far down the depth chart.
As it is, he's a 3-4 OLB. I do think he could play "Elephant" in a pinch, but wouldn't want him there for more than a handful of snaps.

[Fritz]

Yeah. The could play Peppers, Datone, Neal, Perry, and Mulumba at DE and the rest (Worthy, Raji, Boyd, Thornton, Daniels, Guion) at DT. Looks more like a 4-3 team to me. Maybe that's the whole point of all the "Elephant" hubbub. What's really interesting is there were a couple of classic 3-4 DE's available in R3 when TT took Thornton. They must have a plan for what to do with these guys...I guess we'll find out.

This has crossed my mind, too - if you were building a 4-3 defense you'd want these types of defensive linemen. I'm not as up on the draft prospects as I used to be, so I did not and do not know who the others were who were more classic 3-4 DE's available in round three this year, but the fact that they were there and Thompson did not take them indicates that perhaps TT did not think they were as good as Thornton -- or that Dom Capers was giving us all a hint when he made reference recently to working for a coach in Jacksonville who favored a 4-3, and creating a defense that fit those players, who'd been drafted to play the 4-3 (in the previous years).

Is this a new, weird, hybrid 4-3/3-4? Or is this just that general idea that MM now wants defenders who can play multiple positions, so they're drafting (and signing!) d-lineman who could play DE or OLB, and others who could play inside or outside?

I admit to being bothered by what seems an about-face from last year: being vocal (if I recall correctly) about wanting a "classic" 3-4 DE, to now drafting more of these Worthy/Daniels tweener types.

I'm so confused!

[texaspackerbacker]

They sometimes refer to the base 3-4 D as the "Okie" - basically an old Oklahoma 5-2. A lot of times on passing downs, they went to just 2 down linemen. If our 3-4 is basically a 5-2, then our 2-5 or 2-3 or whatever is pretty much a 4 man line - 4-3 unless you load up with DBs instead of LBs. It's all just terminology - you try to load up against the opponent's weakness and/or stop what they do best. I'm just glad that we stand to have a lot more mobile D-Line this season - D Linemen who can actually tackle instead of just take up space.

[Joemailman]

This has crossed my mind, too - if you were building a 4-3 defense you'd want these types of defensive linemen. I'm not as up on the draft prospects as I used to be, so I did not and do not know who the others were who were more classic 3-4 DE's available in round three this year, but the fact that they were there and Thompson did not take them indicates that perhaps TT did not think they were as good as Thornton -- or that Dom Capers was giving us all a hint when he made reference recently to working for a coach in Jacksonville who favored a 4-3, and creating a defense that fit those players, who'd been drafted to play the 4-3 (in the previous years).

Is this a new, weird, hybrid 4-3/3-4? Or is this just that general idea that MM now wants defenders who can play multiple positions, so they're drafting (and signing!) d-lineman who could play DE or OLB, and others who could play inside or outside?

I admit to being bothered by what seems an about-face from last year: being vocal (if I recall correctly) about wanting a "classic" 3-4 DE, to now drafting more of these Worthy/Daniels tweener types.

I'm so confused!

It seems we don't know what to expect. Maybe that's the impact he wants to have on opposing offenses. I remember some years back when the Patriots had Willie McGinest. He could line up either at OLB or DE. Opposing offenses wouldn't know what kind of defense the Patriots were in until they figured out what McGinest was doing. Maybe that's what the Packers are shooting for.

[mraynrand]

True. I was thinking if they actually moved to a 4-3, it probably wouldn't be a stretch for Mulumba to put on 10 pounds and play DE. He'd still be far down the depth chart.
As it is, he's a 3-4 OLB. I do think he could play "Elephant" in a pinch, but wouldn't want him there for more than a handful of snaps.

It's funny how you draw conclusions about a guy. Mulumba is an edge rusher and I saw him as being too small, but he's listed at 6'3" 260 pounds. For comparison, KGB was 6'4" and played at 255.

I know there are a lot of people (Wist) who hate Capers 'miscasting' these DEs (Perry, Neal, ?Mulumba?) as OLBs. But just my impression from watching Mulumba made me think he's too small for DE. But that all depends on how often they make him defend the run. I'm interested now in seeing how well Mulumba plays the run, since Matthews obviously can defense the run as an OLB, and he's pretty small. I guess the bottom line for me is that I don't like to see Mulumba - or Matthews for that matter - getting worn down defending the run, when their strengths are in their pass-rush burst upfield and speed/quickness in pursuit.

[Fritz]

They sometimes refer to the base 3-4 D as the "Okie" - basically an old Oklahoma 5-2. A lot of times on passing downs, they went to just 2 down linemen. If our 3-4 is basically a 5-2, then our 2-5 or 2-3 or whatever is pretty much a 4 man line - 4-3 unless you load up with DBs instead of LBs. It's all just terminology - you try to load up against the opponent's weakness and/or stop what they do best. I'm just glad that we stand to have a lot more mobile D-Line this season - D Linemen who can actually tackle instead of just take up space.

So, to recap:

The Packers run a 3-4 defense, which indicates three down linemen and four linebackers. This is the "base," or basic, defense of the Green Bay Packers. Somehow, though, the base 3-4 features not three defensive linemen and four linebackers, but five defensive linemen and two linebackers.

However, on obvious passing down this became a 2-5 defense, though in Green Bay's scheme this 2-5 is actually a four man line with three linebackers - a 4-3 - unless they play more DB's, in which case it's a 4-2 or even a 4-1.

So a 3-4 base is a 5-2, and our 2-5 is a 4-3 or 4-2 or even a 4-1.


Ooooooookay...

No wonder these players have so much trouble picking up the defense as rookies.

[run pMc]

Ooooooookay...

and Peppers is a tackler for the Packers and no longer a Packer tackler.

I think 3-4 vs 5-2 depends on where your LBs are lined up -- on the line or not. It may also have to do with the personnel: few would confuse Mike Daniels with a LB.

FWIW, I do think they are moving to a more hybrid defense. Many NFL defenses are doing this, not just NE.

[pbmax]

How NOT to defend the run. Mike Neal version.

The other question is what gap is Jones watching. He and Hawk are almost stacked behind the line. Weird.

On TV, this play looks like a speed problem. But everyone crashes in and thereby puts themselves a step or two slow right at the beginning.

[Bossman641]

MM seems to be looking for a DL that can slip blocks and play in the opposing backfield. In the past the game plan has always been to have the slugs muck everything up and create a stalemate at the LOS. I think we'll see more tackles for loss but also a few long runs busted when somebody misplays a gap.