The Defense - Again, the Defense :(

[oldbutnotdeadyet]

people are overreacting i think. the nfl fucked us again with the hardest match-up right out of the gate. a game you can't game plan for against the best, most unpredictable, team in the league. we'll be fine.

Fine as in competing for superbowl? Or what is your guess? I may have been over reacting but I thought the loss was a disaster of biblical proportion.

[Teamcheez1]

Fine as in competing for superbowl? Or what is your guess? I may have been over reacting but I thought the loss was a disaster of biblical proportion.

I think the 48-3 loss to a Kyle Boller led Ravens in 2005 on Monday Night Football was a disaster of biblical proportions. We could have hung around in this game if we played even just a little better

[wist43]

This is McGinn's article that Max posted in the other thread... don't know what McGinn was looking at, as we only ran 1 play the entire game with 4 down linemen. Whereas, he writes:

"Although the Packers were in their traditional 3-4 defense on the Seahawks' first play from scrimmage, they used a 4-3 most of the time as their base look."

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/273960821.html

By definition, a 4-3 requires 4 players to have their hands in the dirt - that only happened 1 time during the game. The rest of the alignments were 2-4, or 2-5 (as Max said in the other thread).

I did not pay attention to who was lurking behind the LOS, only the DL alignment. By definition, we were in the 2-4 more often than not, although some of the plays I assigned to being a 2-4, may in fact have been 2-5. As I said, I did not count back end defenders.

Also, there were a couple of times I did notice that we were in a Dime, but the front was 2-2, i.e. 2 down linemen, and the outside rushers standing up - characteristic of the 2-4, so I just lumped them in with the 2-4 plays.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The bottom line is, the Packers have jettisoned all of their genuine 3-4 defensive linemen - whom they either didn't use, or misused last year anyway; and in place of running a 3-4, they have thrown together a mess. A mess predicated on having excellent LB's, when the reality is that we have 1 very good LB (Matthews), 1 very good player transitioning to LB (Peppers), and a whole bunch of junk after that.

Why in heavens name TT would sign off on this is beyond me - unless of course he simply cannot properly evaluate ILB play. He wasn't a very good LB in his playing days - maybe he thought he was, and he's trying to find players that played like he did??

Whatever is going on - the Packer defense has been complete junk for 3 years running, and only seems to have gotten worse with horrid coaching and terrible personnel decisions made by TT.

In the mean time - Rodgers tenure is on the clock, and 2014 is going to be another wasted year.

[pbmax]

You can run a 4-3 without four DOWN lineman. One of them can be an elephant position in a two point stance. But their depth, gap and assignment will tell you whether its a 4-3, 3-4 or hybrid (doing some of each from same alignment).

I have to rewatch to see it. But from Thompson, McCarthy and Capers comments, they are running a 4-3 with an Elephant end and substituting Neal/Peppers for Guion in nickel and dime from what little I have interpolated.

[wist43]

You can run a 4-3 without four DOWN lineman. One of them can be an elephant position in a two point stance. But their depth, gap and assignment will tell you whether its a 4-3, 3-4 or hybrid (doing some of each from same alignment).

I have to rewatch to see it. But from Thompson, McCarthy and Capers comments, they are running a 4-3 with an Elephant end and substituting Neal/Peppers for Guion in nickel and dime from what little I have interpolated.

Well, if we're going to say that 3 down linemen is a 4-3, then why have any designation at all?? Just call it a bunch of guys on defense - defense!!

They haven't created a 4-3, or a 3-4, or a hybrid anything... they've simply created a huge mess.

If you think what Capers and the brain trust are doing is viable - then they are certainly your guys. The players are miscast for what the coaching staff is asking of them, they looked confused and out of sync, and they sounded completely demoralized after the game - predictably so.

That is not coaching - that is throwing a bunch of eggs on the floor and calling it an omelet.

[pbmax]

I think running a 4-3 is viable given the Packers lineman. I am not sure they have the backers for it. Hawk is no MLB and I am not sure Jones is a Sam.

But put that aside for a minute. I haven't watched the film so it could have been some hybrid deal.

If your elephant is in the 9 gap, a 2 point stance makes little difference as even with a TE, no one is getting a direct shot at you unlike a NT, DT or 5 gap power end.

But having only seen the write-ups and a few plays, its hard to say.

[George Cumby]

The discussion on alignment is interesting, to be sure, but to some degree moot as the fundamentals are so poor. And poor fundamentals fall solely on the coaches' shoulders.

[smuggler]

McGinn is horse shit, as usual.

[pbmax]

McGinn is horse shit, as usual.

In this case its not just him. McCarthy commented on it like it was fait accompli and so other writers have reported in a similar vein.

I think they got some wind of this during the offseason.

[gbgary]

Fine as in competing for superbowl? Or what is your guess? I may have been over reacting but I thought the loss was a disaster of biblical proportion.

yup. we're a top 4 team in our conference. a lot of overreaction everywhere...twitter, blogs, talk shows. i think the 4-3 thing was just for this game...or for anyone using the read-option. it was just a set-up, a bad, no-win situation from the get-go.

[wist43]

yup. we're a top 4 team in our conference. a lot of overreaction everywhere...twitter, blogs, talk shows.

Wake up chuggin kool-aid this am??

How in heavens name are we a top 4 team in the conference?? We're 9-11-1 in our last 20 games - Rodgers being out be damned, we're just not that good.

Seattle is light years better; and San Francisco has come back to us a bit with the losses on defense, but they are still better than we are; New Orleans is better; Carolina is better; Philadelphia is probably better - they certainly kicked the crap out of us last year in Lambeau...

The Lions completely embarrassed us last year 40-10... I don't care if Rodgers was out or not, a good team finds a way to at least compete; and I'm sorry, I hate the Bears too, but they are probably better than we are too.

That puts us at being competetive in the middle of the NFC.

That is what our record indicates, that is what our pathetic defense indicates, that is what our head scratching GM and coaching decisions indicate. We're simply not as good as Packer fans want to think we are. You guys are riding on the coat tails of a good run 3-4 years ago, and the fact that we have a franchise QB.

NFL games are won in the trenches, and the Packers are horrid on both the offensive and defensive lines. I think we had some good DL talent, but the cast off any run defenders we had on the roster, and of course dunderdummy is our DC and is committed to misusing everyone.

No, you're on drugs if you think the Packers are a legit SB contender. I think we have the talent to be that good, and I think MM will round the offense into decent form; but I view the defense as being completely hopeless.

I had higher hopes a few weeks ago... hopes that MM would force Capers into actually doing his job - but alas, the Seattle game showed that very little has changed - and what has changed has been for the worse... as if that were possible.

As good as our offense can be, there is no way the Packers can be considered a legit contender as long as dunderdummy is our DC, and the organization continues to believe that gimmicks on defense is a substitute for playing solid, fundamental football.

[Pugger]

The Bears? I know you hate our defense but their defense is worse than ours.

[Rutnstrut]

Wake up chuggin kool-aid this am??

How in heavens name are we a top 4 team in the conference?? We're 9-11-1 in our last 20 games - Rodgers being out be damned, we're just not that good.

Seattle is light years better; and San Francisco has come back to us a bit with the losses on defense, but they are still better than we are; New Orleans is better; Carolina is better; Philadelphia is probably better - they certainly kicked the crap out of us last year in Lambeau...

The Lions completely embarrassed us last year 40-10... I don't care if Rodgers was out or not, a good team finds a way to at least compete; and I'm sorry, I hate the Bears too, but they are probably better than we are too.

That puts us at being competetive in the middle of the NFC.

That is what our record indicates, that is what our pathetic defense indicates, that is what our head scratching GM and coaching decisions indicate. We're simply not as good as Packer fans want to think we are. You guys are riding on the coat tails of a good run 3-4 years ago, and the fact that we have a franchise QB.

NFL games are won in the trenches, and the Packers are horrid on both the offensive and defensive lines. I think we had some good DL talent, but the cast off any run defenders we had on the roster, and of course dunderdummy is our DC and is committed to misusing everyone.

No, you're on drugs if you think the Packers are a legit SB contender. I think we have the talent to be that good, and I think MM will round the offense into decent form; but I view the defense as being completely hopeless.

I had higher hopes a few weeks ago... hopes that MM would force Capers into actually doing his job - but alas, the Seattle game showed that very little has changed - and what has changed has been for the worse... as if that were possible.

As good as our offense can be, there is no way the Packers can be considered a legit contender as long as dunderdummy is our DC, and the organization continues to believe that gimmicks on defense is a substitute for playing solid, fundamental football.

Wist, I really like that you tell it like it is. Too bad most on here can't handle it.

[Rutnstrut]

people are overreacting i think. the nfl fucked us again with the hardest match-up right out of the gate. a game you can't game plan for against the best, most unpredictable, team in the league. we'll be fine.

That's a piss poor whiners excuse, if the pack is as good as everyone here claims, they should be able to be competitive with the best any time anywhere.

[pbmax]

The 9-11 metric is as bad a measure of this team's quality as any other devised by the criminally insane or Bears fans.

If you expect Rodgers to miss 40% of the next 14 games, speak up.