2019 Green Bay Packers @ Chicago Bears Week 1 Discussion Thread

[pbmax]

Found an article on Belichick's defense for the Rams in the Super Bowl. Sounds here much less like disguising early and instead forcing pass calls with 8 in the box (6 on the LOS). This isn't pass defense fakery as there are 6 men on the LOS, four lineman, one OLB and a safety. Standard nickel personnel against the 11 personnel for the Rams.

Sounds like BB figured out the difference between the 11 personnel they passed with (Gerald Everett at TE) and the 11 personnel they ran with (Higbee at TE). Less of a problem with 2 TEs hopefully.

https://ftw.usatoday.com/2019/02/super-bowl-53-bill-belichick-gameplan-genius

[RashanGary]

Found an article on Belichick's defense for the Rams in the Super Bowl. Sounds here much less like disguising early and instead forcing pass calls with 8 in the box (6 on the LOS). This isn't pass defense fakery as there are 6 men on the LOS, four lineman, one OLB and a safety. Standard nickel personnel against the 11 personnel for the Rams.

Sounds like BB figured out the difference between the 11 personnel they passed with (Gerald Everett at TE) and the 11 personnel they ran with (Higbee at TE). Less of a problem with 2 TEs hopefully.

https://ftw.usatoday.com/2019/02/sup...ameplan-genius

6 on the LOS is an aggressive look to stop outside zone running because it is aggressive at setting edges, especially vs 11 personnel, which the Rams mostly employed. So I do think that was intended to coax the Rams out of zone runs. Post snap, BB played a lot of quarters, which was designed to stop the passing attack.

[mraynrand]

I believe McCarthy later said he was sent to the locker room after the blow up. More to the point, he went on from this to be there best DB in the second half of the season.

I dunno. I bet Randall will still blow up. He has blue hair and a fragile psyche. I call him “Blue Emo”

[pbmax]

6 on the LOS is an aggressive look to stop outside zone running because it is aggressive at setting edges, especially vs 11 personnel, which the Rams mostly employed. So I do think that was intended to coax the Rams out of zone runs. Post snap, BB played a lot of quarters, which was designed to stop the passing attack.

But coaxing Rams out of runs is not trapping them. Teams stack boxes all the time and its not a trap, its saying we don't want you to run against us on early downs.

Somehow I doubt anyone would do that against Rodgers unless its 3rd and short.

And the coverage the Patriots usually run is called Cover 7, which is matchup Quarters. So that shouldn't have been a surprise.

Its possible the Pats didn't run it as much last year, I am not sure.

But this was a bet against Goff. And it paid off.

[pbmax]

The coverage wrinkle, at least as identified by this writer, wasn't Quarters. It was a three level zone. See the article for the pics and clips of the Lions and Patriots using it.

In a typical zone defense, there are two levels of coverage, so offenses will run three-level stretches to create a numbers advantage.

The bulk of the Rams’ play-action passing game is made up of three-level stretches. So, against Los Angeles, Patricia simply added a third level to his zone defense, with the strong safety (black circle) playing in between the second- and third levels of the defense in order to defend the intermediate crossing routes (yellow circle) that power the Rams’ play-action game.

[pbmax]

What I don't understand is that by either dropping a safety (Lions) or fast CB (Patriots) into the intermediate zone to cover crossers shouldn't work that well. Crossers are designed to beat man coverage and versus a zone there should be two or three dead open windows.

Either getting a head start in the middle of the field helped, or screwed up the read. Or Goff just did not recognize the opening would be either early or late.

The solution to this would be to flood the same side of the field with another route. Don't run a route at the lurking DB.

[mraynrand]

Found an article on Belichick's defense for the Rams in the Super Bowl....

https://ftw.usatoday.com/2019/02/sup...ameplan-genius

At least early on in that article it's acknowledged that Bill B. was the main reason for the Giants Super Bowl wins. As good as he may have been, Parcells couldn't win without BB.

[mraynrand]

What I don't understand is that by either dropping a safety (Lions) or fast CB (Patriots) into the intermediate zone to cover crossers shouldn't work that well. Crossers are designed to beat man coverage and versus a zone there should be two or three dead open windows.

Either getting a head start in the middle of the field helped, or screwed up the read. Or Goff just did not recognize the opening would be either early or late.

The solution to this would be to flood the same side of the field with another route. Don't run a route at the lurking DB.

Maybe BB's defense just run that matchup zone better than anyone else. Flawless 'Handing off' of coverages between the zones just leaves smaller windows for pass completions. At least causes hesitation and disrupts timing.

[Fosco33]

Week 5 2017 - last time ARod finished a game actually healthy. Top10 D and improved running game. Should at least be watchable football.

That said - I see a low score tonight and a L. 17-14

[George Cumby]

Does Rodgers even make it through this game healthy?

IDK.

I wouldn't put to much on that.

[Fritz]

Week 5 2017 - last time ARod finished a game actually healthy. Top10 D and improved running game. Should at least be watchable football.

That said - I see a low score tonight and a L. 17-14

Given the quality of the Bears' defensive personnel, and the fact they're in year two of the offensive system, and given that the Packers' offensive system is brand new to them, I think that, if the Packers are going to win, it's going to take either a defensive score or a punt/kick return for a score, plus no Bears' defensive touchdowns or ST scores, for a Packer win.

So, go Trevor Davis, go!

[pbmax]

Just had an argument with a person at work. Person was dead set on leaving Bulaga alone against Mack, as McCarthy was won't to do so as not to mess with the pretty drawings he made of routes*.

I claimed BB would be fine now that he is healthy and more than a year away from ACL surgery. Coworker claimed BB can't pass protect and that is why he is a RT.

This is the reason this board can never die.

BB might have trouble with Mack but its not because he could never pass block. Its age and injury that will catch him.


*cheap shot, I know

[mraynrand]

Just had an argument with a person at work.

kick his ass

[SudsMcBucky]

kick his ass

[texaspackerbacker]

Just had an argument with a person at work. Person was dead set on leaving Bulaga alone against Mack, as McCarthy was won't to do so as not to mess with the pretty drawings he made of routes*.

I claimed BB would be fine now that he is healthy and more than a year away from ACL surgery. Coworker claimed BB can't pass protect and that is why he is a RT.

This is the reason this board can never die.

BB might have trouble with Mack but its not because he could never pass block. Its age and injury that will catch him.


*cheap shot, I know

Yeah, likely letting Bulaga go solo against Mack would be a bad idea, but that just highlights one of the MANY reasons the Packers should beat the Bears without too much difficulty and score a decent amount of points: a healthy Bulaga - to start with anyway. Also, our pass receivers are a lot better, and arguably our RBs will be slightly improved too compared to last year. The most significant thing I can see, though, is that puffed up Bear defense that so many are so afraid of has taken a step or two backwards in their secondary. That, and the Packers have, of course, improved across the board on D.

Actually, I could even see letting Bulaga have a go at Mack part of the time - and trusting our mobile QB to beat the rush and throw it down field - or at least to Aaron Jones coming out of the back field rather than staying in to block Mack after he gets away from Bulaga.