The Defense - Again, the Defense :(

[Carolina_Packer]

More of this 4-3 subterfuge, lol...

They are not running a 4-3, what you are seeing is a 3-4 Elephant.

Pete Carroll said the Seahawks run a 4-3 with 3-4 principles... define the principles however you want, at least he's telling the truth about the alignment b/c he always has 4 DL with their hand in the dirt.

What Capers has been running is an Elephant with only 3 DL having their hand in the dirt - it is a 3-4 with 4-3 principles.

At the end of the day, it comes down to gap responsibilities - and since the Packers no longer have any 2-gap DL, even when we are in a standard 3-4 alignment, it is going to be a 3-4 with 4-3 principles, i.e. each DL/LB is responsible for a gap, and staying disciplined and controlling their assigned gap is the key to winning the LOS.

The Packers managed to do that a little bit yesterday - after initially getting bitch-slapped; still, if not for Daniels, we would likely be looking at 0-2.

I still like our talent up front overall - but dunderdummy simply can't help himself. It's in his nature to abandon run defense; it's in his nature to abandon the middle of the field without any consideration for the LOS; and it's in his nature to play as small and passive as possible up front. That's who the guy is...

It's the Jets, and somehow dunderdummy and MM found a way to embarrass our team and make it a close game. The national sports talk guys are ripping the Packers today - calling us "pretenders". I don't think they understand why we're pretenders, but even the casual fan is catching on to the fact that something is wrong in Green Bay.

Nice informative post. I don't say this in defense of Capers. I am not trying to defend him. I want whatever is going to make the Packers a better team. If that's with Capers, fine. If it's without Capers, fine. I couldn't care less about who the coaches are, as long as they are helping the players get the job done. To that end, what are you seeing from the interior of the defensive line? Is Guion struggling because of Guion, or is he horribly miscast as a 3-4 NT? Doesn't it really challenge the linebackers if Guion can't hold the point of attack and the linebackers see more blockers in the second level?

[wist43]

My point is that the Packers are running a 4-3 with 3-4 personnel. One guy is playing elephant in a two point stance. Just like Seattle does. Just as the post points out.

Its a 4-3 scheme, 4-3 techniques and 4-3 assignments. One guy in a 2 point stance.

You may not like the personnel as much, but its the same idea. BTW, its also the same idea that Belichick has been trotting out for 2 years.

It's an Elephant - an Elephant is not a 4-3. Period. Dallas ran the Elephant with Demarcus Ware standing up most of the time - they were always listed as a 3-4... where this nonsense about 3 down linemen actually being 4 came from I can't begin to fathom. 3 is actully 4, is actually 5, is actually 3... don't look now, but here comes the donut-ham-hamburger!!

Do you work for the government max?? 2+2=5 when it is handed to you by Big Brother??

As for New England - their defense has sucked for a while now... almost as epicly bad as ours.

[pbmax]

It's an Elephant - an Elephant is not a 4-3. Period. Dallas ran the Elephant with Demarcus Ware standing up most of the time - they were always listed as a 3-4... where this nonsense about 3 down linemen actually being 4 came from I can't begin to fathom. 3 is actully 4, is actually 5, is actually 3... don't look now, but here comes the donut-ham-hamburger!!

Do you work for the government max?? 2+2=5 when it is handed to you by Big Brother??

As for New England - their defense has sucked for a while now... almost as epicly bad as ours.

I don't know why you are trying to argue with me. Clearly your beef is with Pete Carroll who insists his 4-3 with a standing end is a 4-3 with 3-4 personnel. You must have missed the talking points email.

[George Cumby]

I'm fully on board

Count me in.

[sharpe1027]

No scheme works without solid execution. On the other hand, there are plenty of different schemes that work with good execution.

Why we spend pages of posts about differences in schemes and what they should be called is beyond me. It may be coaching, but IMO it is poor execution that is the main problem.

[wist43]

I don't know why you are trying to argue with me. Clearly your beef is with Pete Carroll who insists his 4-3 with a standing end is a 4-3 with 3-4 personnel. You must have missed the talking points email.

I live in a world where everyone accepts that 2+2=5... I gotta the memo, I just rejected it as being idiotic. The rest of you robots say, "... of course 2+2=5, and anyone who doesn't agree is a heretic".

[pbmax]

I live in a world where everyone accepts that 2+2=5... I gotta the memo, I just rejected it as being idiotic. The rest of you robots say, "... of course 2+2=5, and anyone who doesn't agree is a heretic".

I live in the world where if the coach of the defense to which you are contrasting the object of your ire tells you its a 4-3 with 3-4 personnel and three or more people have spotted the fourth lineman in a two point stance, then you concede that the following statement:

Pete Carroll said the Seahawks run a 4-3 with 3-4 principles... define the principles however you want, at least he's telling the truth about the alignment b/c he always has 4 DL with their hand in the dirt.

is incorrect. Twice over.

Far more interesting is why is Capers still running a 3-4 with two standing OLBs rather than the 4-3 all the time? I presume its to get Matthews back on the LOS, but I would like to know more.

[sharpe1027]

I live in a world where everyone accepts that 2+2=5... I gotta the memo, I just rejected it as being idiotic. The rest of you robots say, "... of course 2+2=5, and anyone who doesn't agree is a heretic".

Everyone is against you. You see the light and everyone else is in the dark. Lead us to salvation!

[wist43]

No scheme works without solid execution. On the other hand, there are plenty of different schemes that work with good execution.

Why we spend pages of posts about differences in schemes and what they should be called is beyond me. It may be coaching, but IMO it is poor execution that is the main problem.

The point about the 2-4 is we don't have the personnel to run it - so the coaching staff is asking them to execute an alignment for which they are completely ill-suited. That is lousy coaching.

The same applies to one of the supposed fixes dunderdummy and MM dreamed up - the 2-5. We have terrible ILB's, yet the coaching staff refuse to acknowledge that. Instead, they dream up a scheme that keeps those poor players on the field full-time. That is lousy coaching.

TT has done a horrible job of acquiring players that fit the style of play that Capers wants; and at the same time, Capers has done a terrible job of using the talent that TT has acquired. As I've been saying for a few years now - there is a complete disconnect between the GM and the coaching staff, and we can see the mess on the field.

On the other side of the ledger, in the world were 2+2=4; they've incorporated the Elephant, which for my money is a 3-4 that uses 4-3 principles; and they've been using more base 3-4, even though it is not a standard 3-4, as it uses 4-3 principles as well. So they have adjusted a little bit from last seasons endless debacles.

The Elephant is progress... a step in the right direction. Any 4-3 they throw out there is progress; and playing some actual 3-4 is progress - even though now we don't have the personnel to run a base 3-4 any longer. As long as it is a base 3-4 that uses 4-3 principles, we can get by with it, but it is not ideal given the players we have.

Now that we have 2 games under our belt to see what the dummies at 1265 have been up to this offseason, I can envision a middle of the pack finish in defense - don't think that's good enough to get past the good teams in the playoffs. Dunderdummy still wants to play as small as possible; our ILB's are still complete junk... the bottom line is, dunderdummy is still our DC - that alone is too much to overcome to get back to the SB.

[wist43]

I live in the world where if the coach of the defense to which you are contrasting the object of your ire tells you its a 4-3 with 3-4 personnel and three or more people have spotted the fourth lineman in a two point stance, then you concede that the following statement:



is incorrect. Twice over.

Far more interesting is why is Capers still running a 3-4 with two standing OLBs rather than the 4-3 all the time? I presume its to get Matthews back on the LOS, but I would like to know more.

I'm done with you on this subject max - you are just being obtuse.

[denverYooper]

I live in a world where everyone accepts that 2+2=5... I gotta the memo, I just rejected it as being idiotic. The rest of you robots say, "... of course 2+2=5, and anyone who doesn't agree is a heretic".

You clearly never understood algebra.

[3irty1]

Every scheme needs a second level of linebackers at least to some degree you'll have to sink or swim with what's on the roster.

In pretty much any formation you can displace one of them by moving Clay into a second level role, but now you're building a scheme around getting your worst player in a position to sit on the bench rather than get your best player in a position to play their best. Is our ILB play so poor that its worth sacrificing a pro bowl pass rusher to mitigate? Any scheme that gets Hawk or Jones/Lattimore off the field without going into dime is basically saying yes to that question.

These questions are way above the paygrade of even the most infallible armchair coaches and GMs but I'd say no, the highest paid pass rusher in the league needs to be rushing the passer most of the time.

[Teamcheez1]

I live in a world where everyone accepts that 2+2=5... I gotta the memo, I just rejected it as being idiotic. The rest of you robots say, "... of course 2+2=5, and anyone who doesn't agree is a heretic".

It may be better than saying 2 + 2 = 3.

[pbmax]

I'm done with you on this subject max - you are just being obtuse.

Not at all. We just need to get past the idea that a Defensive lineman must also be a Down lineman. A down lineman is not as important a distinction in a defense as a lineman having LOS responsibilities.

And that standing elephant is clearly playing a D lineman's role.

Second better question, why are they never in a 3 point stance across the board. Why that technique?

[pbmax]

Every scheme needs a second level of linebackers at least to some degree you'll have to sink or swim with what's on the roster.

In pretty much any formation you can displace one of them by moving Clay into a second level role, but now you're building a scheme around getting your worst player in a position to sit on the bench rather than get your best player in a position to play their best. Is our ILB play so poor that its worth sacrificing a pro bowl pass rusher to mitigate? Any scheme that gets Hawk or Jones/Lattimore off the field without going into dime is basically saying yes to that question.

These questions are way above the paygrade of even the most infallible armchair coaches and GMs but I'd say no, the highest paid pass rusher in the league needs to be rushing the passer most of the time.

And Clay hasn't been exactly reliable in the middle.