Studs/ Duds Week 1

[KYPack]

I got a different category. Guys that weren't exactly duds or something.

Neal played hard and battled his ass off all game. He never gave up and gave 100% even when that didn't make sense.

Our corners are really great players and missed some stuff, but that's a top tandem out there.

The young center was also battling his ass off all game and I only saw one high snap. He had the fuck-up Rodgers reamed him for, but that's par.

Bahk was rated by one of the rating services as having a C+ game, but he only had his normal hands penalty that I saw.

Nick Perry never backed off and is country strong out there. He gave guys he is gonna face some tape to think about. That bull rush of his is powerful

[Patler]

Bahk was rated by one of the rating services as having a C+ game, but he only had his normal hands penalty that I saw.

Didn't he also have a head-butt penalty after the safety, making the soon-to-be great field position for the Seahawks offense even better?

[Tony Oday]

Still think we need a fat guy up front. Ray Lewis was better when Ngata because well he eats blockers.

[call_me_ishmael]

Entirely possible, it was reported he lost some more weight but I didn't remember the official or reported number. So I played it even by going with listed weights.

However, even at 265 Neal is a pretty typically sized pass rushing DE. He is not small and my bet is he is still pretty strong. He isn't KGB out there.

100% agreed. I think the lighter Neal is, the healthier he'll stay going forward. He is going to be a player this year I think.

[wist43]

Positioning for the 4 isn't as important as the fits with them and the LB. Butler made the point on the JSO video casts with Silverstein that Jones and Hawk too often seem to be making uncoordinated movements, like they are playing two different calls or seeing two different plays.

But Matthews is no more an ILB than Jones.

I watched LeRoy's video cast... he called the Elephant a 4-3 too, I simply don't agree with that designation. If you're standing up on the end of the line, and you can be called on to drop - I'm sorry, but by definition, you're a LB.

They list Peppers as a LB.

Still, the Elephant alignment would be an improvement over that idiotic 2-4, so that is a step in the right direction. The 2-5 on the other hand - is more Capers Gimmickry.

Capers simply can't bring himself to play straight up, hard nosed defense anymore - it's just one gimmick after another. He's killing our team, and he's wasting Rodgers best years.

In 5 years we're gonna look back and wonder how in the hell we could have squandered a HOF QB's best years like that.

[3irty1]

I was wondering what the hell they were talking about with the 4-3. I called it a 3-4 when I saw it because Neal was standing at ROLB, Peppers was at LDE and Matthews was at LOLB. Other than some musical chairs I'm not sure what's so new about that, we've had 3-4 underfronts before that are essentially the same concept as a 4-3 under.

[pbmax]

I was wondering what the hell they were talking about with the 4-3. I called it a 3-4 when I saw it because Neal was standing at ROLB, Peppers was at LDE and Matthews was at LOLB. Other than some musical chairs I'm not sure what's so new about that, we've had 3-4 underfronts before that are essentially the same concept as a 4-3 under.

Couple of things:

1. The elephant end is probably defined by the fact that they don't want Matthews to have to play it. They want him to roam, so that duplication of physical form/skill set we talked about and M3 mentioned is where Peppers, Neal and maybe Perry come into play as elephants.

2. Its a bigger set of ends/OLB without Mathews (not that he is the problem).

3. Its the placement of Jones over the TE.

4. Assignments along the line change as they might no longer have 2 ILBs. Hawk is a Will is that alignment I think. They count on Matthews to draw another blocker to keep Hawk clean OR for Mathews to chase it down on his own.

[wist43]

Couple of things:

1. The elephant end is probably defined by the fact that they don't want Matthews to have to play it. They want him to roam, so that duplication of physical form/skill set we talked about and M3 mentioned is where Peppers, Neal and maybe Perry come into play as elephants.

2. Its a bigger set of ends/OLB without Mathews (not that he is the problem).

3. Its the placement of Jones over the TE.

4. Assignments along the line change as they might no longer have 2 ILBs. Hawk is a Will is that alignment I think. They count on Matthews to draw another blocker to keep Hawk clean OR for Mathews to chase it down on his own.

You still can't call it a 4-3. Call an Elephant, call it a 3-4, in the nickel call it a 3-3... but in no way can you call it a 4-3.

As for ILB's?? With rare exception, Hawk and Jones never come off the field!!! How insane is that?? 2 of our worst starting players - who should no longer be starting - never come off the field, when there are more useful and talented DL inactive and/or standing on the sidelines??

Capers has fucked this team, and TT/MM have gone along with it. Can't begin to fathom why that is so hard for you homers to admit.

[pbmax]

You still can't call it a 4-3. Call an Elephant, call it a 3-4, in the nickel call it a 3-3... but in no way can you call it a 4-3.

As for ILB's?? With rare exception, Hawk and Jones never come off the field!!! How insane is that?? 2 of our worst starting players - who should no longer be starting - never come off the field, when there are more useful and talented DL inactive and/or standing on the sidelines??

Capers has fucked this team, and TT/MM have gone along with it. Can't begin to fathom why that is so hard for you homers to admit.

You can't even be happy when Dom and Mike agree with you, can you?

[pbmax]

BTW, just because this is the ONLY thing I was even close to right about this offseason, the Packers have adopted the Patriots approach to covering for injuries and fewer practices.

Regardless of personnel, the role and assignments out there are a 4-3 under on almost every down. They did play 3-4 in the game, but my bet is that it was the Eagle Oakie, which mimics the 4-3 but uses 3-4 personnel to do it.

That means that the younger players have fewer techniques and positions to learn and substitutes can be brought up to speed faster. The result is that you hope to not have to dumb the playbook down if you lose some guys.

[pbmax]

I watched LeRoy's video cast... he called the Elephant a 4-3 too, I simply don't agree with that designation. If you're standing up on the end of the line, and you can be called on to drop - I'm sorry, but by definition, you're a LB.

As I recall, one of your contentions for a 3-3 not harming coverage appreciably with either Jones or Hawk out was that you could, in order to confuse the offense and allow Matthews to continue to rush, drop one of the LOS players (lineman, Perry or Peppers) into coverage.

So unless you are gong to tell me that your 3-3 was manned by five or six linebackers, I get to call Peppers on the LOS a lineman if he spends the majority of his time and assignments on the LOS.

[wist43]

You can't even be happy when Dom and Mike agree with you, can you?

They haven't fixed anything - I think the Elephant is an improvement, but what wouldn't be an improvement from what dunderdummy has been doing for 3 years??

So even though the Elephant look is a legitimate NFL alignment, they only ran it sparingly. The 2-5 has replaced the 2-4 on run/pass downs, and the 2-4 is still the go-to nickel. The 2-5 is a joke - especially when your LB's suck!!

It's just gimmick after gimmick; so, no they haven't fixed what ails us, they just loaded up another gimmick.

How dunderdummy sold MM on more 2-4, and as a supposed substitute for actually running a base defense that focused on controlling the LOS and taking away the run first - the 2-5, is beyond me.

Gimmicks are no substitute for playing fundamental football.

[wist43]

As I recall, one of your contentions for a 3-3 not harming coverage appreciably with either Jones or Hawk out was that you could, in order to confuse the offense and allow Matthews to continue to rush, drop one of the LOS players (lineman, Perry or Peppers) into coverage.

So unless you are gong to tell me that your 3-3 was manned by five or six linebackers, I get to call Peppers on the LOS a lineman if he spends the majority of his time and assignments on the LOS.

Why not call Matthews a defensive lineman then?? He rushes upfield on almost every play.

Max = Dom

[Tony Oday]

Oh and Sherrod is fucking terrible. I think he must still have a broken leg with how dismal is performance was.

[pbmax]

Why not call Matthews a defensive lineman then?? He rushes upfield on almost every play.

Max = Dom

Because Matthews has three strikes against him.

1. He is in coverage more

2. He moves around a lot

3. And size could be an issue if he was supposed to hold an interior gap on a regular basis.

But we are still just arguing semantics. The 4-3 in both base and nickel form has bigger men in it now at the two ends/OLB. Which was specifically your concern. You hated jumbo (no pass rush) and didn't like being small for pass rush because its an invitation to get run on.

This addresses it. It just isn't a 3-3.

Capers also addressed how much they used it. After blowing two personnel group calls in the first half, they abandoned it in the second and went almost straight nickel.