If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Good read from the link above. I've gotten into reading about how to stop the run from the nickel, since the nickel is accounting for more and more snaps league-wide. Nice shout out to Fritz Shurmur in the article (or Fitz if you notice the typo). This article has a New Orleans slant, but still talks about the trend league-wide. I have a question. Is the difference between Nickel and Dime always the third safety in place of a linebacker? The article mentioned Big Nickel where the safety replaces a linebacker so you not only have coverage but run support. Do the Packers ever do Nickel where they take Hawk out and substitute another safety? Richardson might be good for that role if that was the case. People here have long disparaged Hawk's coverage ability, so who would you rather have on the field when you are betting on pass, but still wanting to stop the run?
To me this might be an intriguing possibility. I'm not suggesting Richardson play linebacker, but that he play as an extra safety - but perhaps closer to the LOS. He could cover tight ends but still be around the LOS in case of a run, as in a third-and-four situation.
I wonder if this is realistic.
"The Devine era is actually worse than you remember if you go back and look at it."
Do the Packers ever do Nickel where they take Hawk out and substitute another safety?
Hawk has played almost every snap this year, so not yet. I think we have the personnel to run Big Nickel. San Fran was projected to use the Big Nickel as their quasi base defense--with Jimmie Ward as the third safety. Similar to Hyde in that he's kind of a S/CB tweener.
"There's a lot of interest in the draft. It's great. But quite frankly, most of the people that are commenting on it don't know anything about what they are talking about."--Ted Thompson
One of the most interesting things said in the article I linked in my previous post is this:
“The question is how are you deploying fronts in nickel?” Saints coach Sean Payton said. “You can get in some heavy run fronts in nickel, favorable defending the run and challenging defending the pass. It’s not just defending the nickel. It’s what’s the front and coverage you’re playing within it?”
The first thing I thought of when I read this is how Wist gives Capers a hard time about conceding the middle of the field. Would you say the Packers ran a "heavy front" (to quote Payton's term above) against the Vikings (or maybe a heavier front)?
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." -Daniel Patrick Moynihan
One of the most interesting things said in the article I linked in my previous post is this:
“The question is how are you deploying fronts in nickel?” Saints coach Sean Payton said. “You can get in some heavy run fronts in nickel, favorable defending the run and challenging defending the pass. It’s not just defending the nickel. It’s what’s the front and coverage you’re playing within it?”
The first thing I thought of when I read this is how Wist gives Capers a hard time about conceding the middle of the field. Would you say the Packers ran a "heavy front" (to quote Payton's term above) against the Vikings (or maybe a heavier front)?
Capers is very dependent on down and distance when determining whether to play heavy as Payton uses the term here. If the tendency is to pass, whether its 3rd and 11 or 3rd and 4, he might go six in the box in either case.
But they can go heavy, as they did against the Seachickens and the Jets. That's when you see Guion and Boyd instead of Daniels and Jones. The OLBs/DE can squeeze inside too.
One thing I read this week said the Packers, despite Peterson's absence, spent the majority of the game in Oakie, with very few 4-3 snaps.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
Dom's unit comes though again with a dominating outing against the Panthers. I'm starting to come back around to him as the defense has been stellar.
In the last 23 quarters (since the 2nd quarter of the Jets game) the defense has given up 88 prs, that's 15.3/game.
Either way you slice it, that's good defense overy the last 6 games. That's not a mirage.
Their secondary is as good as there is in the NFL. When the defense does a good job against the run, they can be dominant. They've sometimes been able, even when they don't stop the run, to keep the points down. However, in those cases, not being able to get off the field has kept the Packers offense off the field. The best thing is that this defense is getting better as the season goes on.
I can't run no more
With that lawless crowd
While the killers in high places
Say their prayers out loud
But they've summoned, they've summoned up
A thundercloud
They're going to hear from me - Leonard Cohen
Some of the young talent picked in the last few years is starting to pay off. Nick Perry is starting to look like a decent player. We have considerable depth in the secondary. If Clay can ever get back to 100%, this defense is plenty stout considering our offense...which is only going to get better as it gets colder because Lacy is going to be more effective in the elements, and I think the coaches are finally realizing they need to give Starks the ball too. That will keep both of them fresh into December.
It's such a GOOD feeling...13 TIME WORLD CHAMPIONS!!
I am still concerned with the lack of stoutness on the defensive line. What will happen when a team with a good offensive line decides to run the ball through the middle? How will NASCAR help then?
"The Devine era is actually worse than you remember if you go back and look at it."
I read it was used just 5 times, all in obvious passing situations on 3rd down. Carolina was 1 for 5 converting.
"There's a lot of interest in the draft. It's great. But quite frankly, most of the people that are commenting on it don't know anything about what they are talking about."--Ted Thompson
Comment