WHAT IS YOUR VIEW OF DOM CAPERS

[mraynrand]

But you're talking about predictably dedicating two guys to Jones and never taking them off - the whole game on all downs from start to finish as if it's some grade school strategy that would be guaranteed to shut down the Falcons. It's grade school alright.....

I don't know about Bretsky, but this is not what I was talking about. I think you could mix a few double teams in - and hit the guy hard at the LOS. And then you also make sure you shade the safety to his side. Or just stay in mostly two-deep zone so it isn't hard to get over the top in a hurry. Perhaps this is just a Clinton-Dix issue - maybe he hasn't yet learned the subtleties of appearing to be covering both sides, but then shading late to one side, etc. etc. He should watch some tape of Brian Dawkins.

[vince]

I was referring to Coordinator wist's prescription above sorry ayn.

[wist43]

There are a number of different ways to cheat the defense to a guy and a number of situations where you might want to do so - or not. You can play a soft cover 2 like teams do against the Packers which comes short of doubling a guy like you're talking about and still has more than its share of holes. But you're talking about predictably dedicating two guys to Jones and never taking them off - the whole game on all downs from start to finish as if it's some grade school strategy that would be guaranteed to shut down the Falcons. It's grade school alright.

You spew terms like "unsound" around like there's no tomorrow and now you're talking about sacrificing the integrity of the D - not around the ball with layers of back-up - but leaving gaping holes from the ball all the way to the end zone. And you want to do it in a completely predictable way like it's a no-brainer strategy but Capers isn't smart enough to have thought of it.

You think Mike Smith and Matt Ryan aren't good enough to use White, Douglas and Hester against a boundary corner, slot/backup corner and a safety (or worse) with no one else between them and the end zone - when they know what's coming, how and when (all game long) - no ifs ands or buts with no attempt to hide coverage or change anything up. You talk about stressing a defense that'll do it quickly and all day long... and you think that's what Bellichek would do?

What they did (with a big lead) was too simple, too soft much of the time and guys played like shit but it was at least fundamentally sound. With the exception of the 80 yarder to start the half when Tramon bit on a double move they forced time off the clock in spite of poor individual perimeter play. They gave up yards in 10-yard chunks instead of 50 yard chunks like would likely happen in your approach.

You're right about one thing. There's no logical reason to keep that defense a secret. No surprises indeed.

Double post

[wist43]

There are a number of different ways to cheat the defense to a guy and a number of situations where you might want to do so - or not. You can play a soft cover 2 like teams do against the Packers which comes short of doubling a guy like you're talking about and still has more than its share of holes. But you're talking about predictably dedicating two guys to Jones and never taking them off - the whole game on all downs from start to finish as if it's some grade school strategy that would be guaranteed to shut down the Falcons. It's grade school alright.

You spew terms like "unsound" around like there's no tomorrow and now you're talking about sacrificing the integrity of the D - not around the ball with layers of back-up - but leaving gaping holes from the ball all the way to the end zone. And you want to do it in a completely predictable way like it's a no-brainer strategy but Capers isn't smart enough to have thought of it.

You think Mike Smith and Matt Ryan aren't good enough to use White, Douglas and Hester against a boundary corner, slot/backup corner and a safety (or worse) with no one else between them and the end zone - when they know what's coming, how and when (all game long) - no ifs ands or buts with no attempt to hide coverage or change anything up. You talk about stressing a defense that'll do it quickly and all day long... and you think that's what Bellichek would do?

What they did (with a big lead) was too simple, too soft much of the time and guys played like shit but it was at least fundamentally sound. With the exception of the 80 yarder to start the half when Tramon bit on a double move they forced time off the clock in spite of poor individual perimeter play. They gave up yards in 10-yard chunks instead of 50 yard chunks like would likely happen in your approach.

You're right about one thing. There's no logical reason to keep that defense a secret. No surprises indeed.

There you guys go again - taking a general statement of mine and extrapolating it to all circumstances, and then declaring it null and void. More intellectually dishonesty.

Of course teams are going send guys in motion, and shift presnap to drop a safety down on one side or the other, etc... all that means is that the coverage would change with who has what responsibility to cover the #1 threat on any given play depending on personnel.

To be sure, there would be instances in which a guy like Jones would be isolated one on one, or could only be covered within a zone - that is the presnap chess game of formation, personnel, motion, and audibles; but for the most part, the gameplan should be such that those instances would be limited.

When the offense would be able to iso a guy like Jones - that would be a "win" them in the game within a game - even if they weren't able to execute and connect.

Is this rocket science to you guys??

[vince]

Just going by what you wrote wist. I need to re-remind myself not to get mired in the circle-jerk of scheme discussion guaranteed to go nowhere. "That's not what I meant. I really meant this you idiot." Carry on with your authoritative solutions Mr. Coordinator.

[pbmax]

From Bob McGinn's rating the Packers vs Falcons: http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packe...285318851.html

Sam Barrington (44) joined Matthews in nickel and A.J. Hawk (eight) in base, and Brad Jones (23) was the dime. Barrington's alignments are far from precise. He does play downhill, and is a heavier hitter than Hawk or Jones. His vulnerability in coverage was apparent on a 14-yard pass to Jacquizz Rodgers when he was slow reacting and didn't get through a pick. Jones wasn't a dependable presence in the middle. Hawk didn't see the field until 4 minutes remained in the half.

If you have to play Hawk, why would you pick base when, if he has a strength, its coverage? Whatever is affecting him, the new development has to be his legs or something else affecting his speed.

It would really help if Jones could be passable in coverage, but he seems incapable of improvement.

[wist43]

Just going by what you wrote wist. I need to re-remind myself not to get mired in the circle-jerk of scheme discussion guaranteed to go nowhere. "That's not what I meant. I really meant this you idiot." Carry on with your authoritative solutions Mr. Coordinator.

And I really meant this you idiot - if you don't know anything about football, you should probably keep your commentary restricted to how much like the team colors.

[Fritz]

PB, I do agree that the entire ILB corp is now a tire fire. Jones is less than a JAG, Hawk is slower than my mom, Barrington is a part-time guy who can plug the run but can't cover his ears, Lattimore is ST only, and obviously the team feels that Carl Bradford is still nowhere near being able to play inside. Or probably outside.

I wonder if Dom - or if anyone - will be able to scheme around that weakness in the middle of the field. Thank the gods that Matthews is playing inside at all.

[pbmax]

PB, I do agree that the entire ILB corp is now a tire fire. Jones is less than a JAG, Hawk is slower than my mom, Barrington is a part-time guy who can plug the run but can't cover his ears, Lattimore is ST only, and obviously the team feels that Carl Bradford is still nowhere near being able to play inside. Or probably outside.

I wonder if Dom - or if anyone - will be able to scheme around that weakness in the middle of the field. Thank the gods that Matthews is playing inside at all.

The one theory of wist that I do find interesting is the old chestnut that the Packers don't draft defense well and haven't since Wolf came on board.

While I think that is overstating it, they do go through streaks at positions where nothing they try hits. And then at QB and WR, Ted could wake up from a year long coma 5 days before the draft and get you 3 guys who can play in the NFL.

[wist43]

PB, I do agree that the entire ILB corp is now a tire fire. Jones is less than a JAG, Hawk is slower than my mom, Barrington is a part-time guy who can plug the run but can't cover his ears, Lattimore is ST only, and obviously the team feels that Carl Bradford is still nowhere near being able to play inside. Or probably outside.

I wonder if Dom - or if anyone - will be able to scheme around that weakness in the middle of the field. Thank the gods that Matthews is playing inside at all.

I actually like what I saw from Barrington in the NE game - didn't see the Atlanta game, so I don't know how he did there; but overall, I'd say Barrington should be given an opportunity to stick. The rest of 'em should all be cut in the offseason.

That said, the lack of playmakers in the middle is all the more reason to gameplan more to have guys like Perry, Neal, and D. Jones on the field, and Matthews/Neal roving in the middle. In base 3-4, count Barrington as 1... why not try Neal there?? He's primarily a pass rusher and edge guy, but he's got a lot of bulk and movement skill for the position. I'd rather have Neal on the field at ILB than any of the actual ILB's we have.

In base you could have Daniels, Guion, D. Jones on the line; and Peppers, Neal, Barrington, and Matthews at LB.

Just about anything is better than having Hawk and Brad Jones on the field.

[wist43]

The one theory of wist that I do find interesting is the old chestnut that the Packers don't draft defense well and haven't since Wolf came on board.

While I think that is overstating it, they do go through streaks at positions where nothing they try hits. And then at QB and WR, Ted could wake up from a year long coma 5 days before the draft and get you 3 guys who can play in the NFL.

I like a lot of the players we have now... the question for this current crop of players is, '... where do you play them, and how do you use them'?? There absolutely has been a disconnect between TT and dunderdummy. Less so this year, as I think dunderdummy was brought into the principles office during the offseason.

That said, it is just true that the Packers historically don't draft very well on the defensive side of the ball, but I'm taking that back to the 70's when I really began to pay attention to our drafts - and as you said, they could sling a spitball at the wall and hit on a WR.

[George Cumby]

And I really meant this you idiot - if you don't know anything about football, you should probably keep your commentary restricted to how much like the team colors.

I really like forest green!

[Maxie the Taxi]

I really love gold!

[pbmax]

I like a lot of the players we have now... the question for this current crop of players is, '... where do you play them, and how do you use them'?? There absolutely has been a disconnect between TT and dunderdummy. Less so this year, as I think dunderdummy was brought into the principles office during the offseason.

That said, it is just true that the Packers historically don't draft very well on the defensive side of the ball, but I'm taking that back to the 70's when I really began to pay attention to our drafts - and as you said, they could sling a spitball at the wall and hit on a WR.

Well we diverge here too. Daniels, Guion, Boyd and Jones all had awful, pedestrian games against a bunch of scrubs. Neal was the only front seven guy to show up other than Matthews.

[Fritz]

Against Russell Wilson in a passing situation, how about the NASCAR package, if one of the guys is a spy? That might keep those ILB's on the bench.