Keys To A Monday Night Win In Philly

[KYPack]

Are there man elements in the covers that Pack uses?

Hell yeah

Solo technique IS man cover and almost any Dback will find himself in Man through out the course of a games. When the D does there roll-overs to give support on the strong side, the weak safety will find himself in single technique with the Z receiver, fer instance. if the WS gets beat, it is his fault, but he ain't in man to man. It's still a zone cover.

Many other covers have man AND Zone elements.
Cover 3 can be Zone on top, Man underneath, Fritz Shurmur was a cover 3 and cover 4 pioneer,

Cover 4 can be quarters (zone) on top, Man underneath.

The Bates zone runs some zone on top man underneath, but it isn't a true man to man.

Thanks for the explanation. Esp. pointing out difference between solo technique and man coverage.

But if Bates/Sanders runs zone on top, and it seems in base, zone underneath middle, with the CBs in solo technique, do we want MORE man coverage?

In base defense, does anyone want more safety's in man coverage? Or Poppinga? Maybe Hawk on the RB is OK.

My point is that both are safeties have struggled in coverage, as has the SAM. And while there has been problems executing the zone, I can't imagine this getting better if anyone of these three players are asked to cover someone solo.

I say stick with what you have and find a way to execute it better.

I'd think your last statement is sound advice.

I'll comment on few more of these points when I hit the office tommorrow.

Looking forward to it. Also curious, if Fritz was a pioneer in cover 3 and 4, did he change his approach with the Pack?

I remember Butler with lots of responsibility for the TE and LOS, also Simmons trying to beat the Bejeesus out of Brent Jones, Jay Novacek and Wesley Walls. Was this cover 3?

No.

We are going from basics to nuclear fission when we start discussing one of my personal favorite DC's of all-time, the great Fritz Shurmur. Fritz was called the Doctor of Defense (Steve Young called him the
"Dr Frankenstein of D" ) and any discussion of his D's would be presumptuous on my part. That man was a flat out genius. But I can describe what the man did.

His base D was a 4-3 Strong side rotation with a buck. That buck linebacker would play right over the TE and deliver a blow every play. Let's call him Wayne Simmons, one of the strongest, scariest bastards ever to step on a football field. So crazy, he's dead now.

The other frequently used defense was the Eagle ( also called the Packer, or Big Nickel) 4 lineman in an odd or even alignment, 2 backers, 5 backs 2 deep. This D was used in spots that Nickel's weren't used traditionally used, that is, on running downs. This was Fritz's baby and nobody really uses it now that he's gone.

Another D (and the answer to your cover 3 question) was the 4 1 6 (don't remember the name or if it had one). In this one Fritz deployed 6 DB's with the back line in the "Cloud" alignment. That's two safties and one CB deep. Fritz pioneered his own form of this exotic defense, & I also don't see anybody running it now. (Not counting Belichick, another genius, but nowhere near as charming as Fritz)

Another thing you must remember, It ain't the plays, it's the players. Fritz used athletes with smarts, athletic talent and fierce hearts. He would design his defenses to maximize that player's talents.

Case in point is LeRoy Butler. I'll never forget LeRoy against the Lions & Scott Mitchell one year. The Lions broke the huddle on third and long. The pack were in the Eagle with LeRoy at SS. As Scott Mitchell went under center, LeRoy stated to march towards the line. Mitchell was starting to freak as Lee crept closer and closer to the line. Lee staying in a crouch but forcefully moved closer to the rattled QB. LeRoy kept it up until he was a yard or two from Mitchell. This goof only had Barry Sanders in the backfield with him and had exhausted all his checkdowns. All he could do was call time. Which he did. The Lions went to a Max cover scheme with a TE in close, two bruising backs for big time pass pro. Except Lee just went back to his position and the Packers double covered his two eligible recievers. Mitchell threw another incompletion. & the Lions were beat, game, set & match! They had lost the mental challenge and knew they had nothing to beat the Packers that day.

Fritz loved Lee, who opened up to Fritz. Shurmur poured his knowlege into Lee's head, &#36 became a full blown coach on the field.

But if Bates/Sanders runs zone on top, and it seems in base, zone underneath middle, with the CBs in solo technique, do we want MORE man coverage?

Underneath, they use some match-up ( a form of man to man). Better execution is need, the scheme is OK

In base defense, does anyone want more safety's in man coverage? Or Poppinga? Maybe Hawk on the RB is OK.

Yer groping, my boy!

S is the last line, when the S's cover it's defacto man like we discussed earlier. Hawk is a great young LB and his cover and overall pass defense is improving by leaps and bounds every game. He's fine & he ain't the problem.

Pop's improving too. But by baby steps. I don't know if he'll make it or not.

[cheese_man]

Hawk will have brain shut down on monday, and if farve plays good you have a chance. also the D needs to force at least two turnovers.

[MJZiggy]

Hawk will have brain shut down on monday, and if Favre plays good you have a chance. also the D needs to force at least two turnovers.

Why do you think Hawk will have a brain shut down on Monday?

[Creepy]

The Eagles are a pass first and run sometimes offense. Gb should come out with a nickel dfense and set Poppinga down. Use the extra DB to blitz from difefrent angles to include the LBs. Keep the pressure up and McNabb will throw a few picks. I expect he Eagles to throw a lot and get yards, but the right blitz at the right time will get that back.

GBs run defense is solid and they use Westbrook more on draws than straight forward runs. have a player key on Westbrook, but mix it so McNabb won't know which guy is keying. This offense gets tired by the fourth, much like their defense. Keep it close and keep pressure and it will crack late in thethrid or early fourth.

The Eagle defense is good againstthe run, when running up the gut. GB needs to run siode to side even if it doesn't gain much yardage. With Kearse out you want to wear down the DL. By the middle of the fourth quarter they will get tires and be easily exploited. I do not like Brett throwing long, but with the Eagles Dbs hurt a few long shots need to be taken to backthe LBs off and keep the safeties honest. Without Kearse, the DL of the Eagles won't be as menancing as before, so roll outs and short passes will keep the DL moving and gettng tired.

GB mainly needs to stay away from the big turnover. No fumbles/ints in our territory. Theymust score at least three evrytime they cross the 50. Anytime GB gets within the Eagles 45 yard lien they should go on fourth down (unless a FG is makeable). If Gb is in Eagle territory at or inside the 45 they should go on fourth down if it is less than 5 yards.

I believe GB can win this with an aggressive defense and offense. Neither side can play soft. The eagles are hurt on defense and are a pass oriented offense. Pressure on both side of the ball is what can beat them.

[pbmax]

In base defense, does anyone want more safety's in man coverage? Or Poppinga? Maybe Hawk on the RB is OK.

Yer groping, my boy!

S is the last line, when the S's cover it's defacto man like we discussed earlier. Hawk is a great young LB and his cover and overall pass defense is improving by leaps and bounds every game. He's fine & he ain't the problem.

Pop's improving too. But by baby steps. I don't know if he'll make it or not.

Great post. One more on Shurmur. When Fritz worked for the LA Rams, he ran a 2-5 defense (2 DLs, 5 LBs, 4 DBs) due to injuries and (I wasn't a Rams fan so I can only go on memory from the press accounts) it was called the Eagle defense.

Did this D have any relation to the Eagle you mentioned the Packers running? Clearly, and I did see them run it (Kevin Greene was on that team) one or two of the LBs were playing down lineman positions, essentially. So while the Packers did not run this personnel grouping out on the field, was the scheme similar or just the name?

And didn't McGinn, when describing Bates defense as an over 4-3, refer also to the D Fritz was running as an under 4-3? Under 4-3 same as strong side with a buck?

Back to the original point. Several posters commented that we needed to play less zone. I take for granted they are talking about the base defense. I disagree.

If we play more solo techniques or man coverage (cover 1) I think out DBs and LBs would get exposed more, not less. This wouldn't be an improvement over current play.

My thinking is, that in base, the current CBs are already playing one on one technique on the outside in our base defense. To increase the amount of solo coverage or technique, means that either the safeties or the LBs would be handed more one on one matchups, with less help. I can't consider this a good thing from what I have seen so far. The excetion might be Hawk, who seems to be aquitting himself OK in coverage.

Does that finally make sense?

One thing I think could be done is to play more nickle, substituting Carroll for Pop seems to be a clear win in the area of coverage.

[LaFours]

Hawk will have brain shut down on monday, and if Favre plays good you have a chance. also the D needs to force at least two turnovers.

Why do you think Hawk will have a brain shut down on Monday?

Yes, I would like to see your reasoning behind this contention as well...

[Oscar]

I'm thinkin that if we take the ai in brain and switch them to ia as in Brian... Westbrook.. Thats just a guess though. Who really knows.

[KYPack]

In base defense, does anyone want more safety's in man coverage? Or Poppinga? Maybe Hawk on the RB is OK.

Yer groping, my boy!

S is the last line, when the S's cover it's defacto man like we discussed earlier. Hawk is a great young LB and his cover and overall pass defense is improving by leaps and bounds every game. He's fine & he ain't the problem.

Pop's improving too. But by baby steps. I don't know if he'll make it or not.

Great post. One more on Shurmur. When Fritz worked for the LA Rams, he ran a 2-5 defense (2 DLs, 5 LBs, 4 DBs) due to injuries and (I wasn't a Rams fan so I can only go on memory from the press accounts) it was called the Eagle defense.

Did this D have any relation to the Eagle you mentioned the Packers running? Clearly, and I did see them run it (Kevin Greene was on that team) one or two of the LBs were playing down lineman positions, essentially. So while the Packers did not run this personnel grouping out on the field, was the scheme similar or just the name?

The Ram defense you describe was just another of Fritz's "Dr Fankenstein" deals to cause OC's to tear their hair out. Fritz may have labeled that one "Eagle" but the Eagle I describe that he used in GB is the classic Eagle D that's used at many levels. Fritz got into fancy labels for his stuff after Buddy Ryan hijacked his 46 defense (Invented by Fritz at the U of Wyoming in the early - mid 70's) and got all the credit for it *& never acknolwleging Fritz as the creator of it.
And didn't McGinn, when describing Bates defense as an over 4-3, refer also to the D Fritz was running as an under 4-3? Under 4-3 same as strong side with a buck?

Over and under (also called and even) are fronts. If the D tackle plays over the center that's an over (Odd). If he plays in the gap, that's an under (even). Fronts are for the knuckledraggers to work out. We smart guys (the backs) have far greater things to worry about. Buck means the stronside plugger plays aggressive technique over the TE and jack's him up every play. (There is another way the term "Buck" is used, but let's not get too techical here.)

Back to the original point. Several posters commented that we needed to play less zone. I take for granted they are talking about the base defense. I disagree.

To be crude about the whole deal, they don't know or understand what they are talking about. They are fans and want quick fixes. Less zone with this personnel grouping would get our asses beat off the field

If we play more solo techniques or man coverage (cover 1) I think out DBs and LBs would get exposed more, not less. This wouldn't be an improvement over current play.

No shit

My thinking is, that in base, the current CBs are already playing one on one technique on the outside in our base defense. To increase the amount of solo coverage or technique, means that either the safeties or the LBs would be handed more one on one matchups, with less help. I can't consider this a good thing from what I have seen so far. The excetion might be Hawk, who seems to be aquitting himself OK in coverage.

Does that finally make sense?

You are wandering again, but if yer happy, I'm estatic


One thing I think could be done is to play more nickle, substituting Carroll for Pop seems to be a clear win in the area of coverage.

Yeah, I'm for more zone, not less. These lads need all the support they can get. I've spotted fundamental technique errors all over our D backfield and the guys are talking about communication errors. 3 games into the season? That shit is inexcusable. They should be playing as one tight group right now. They aren't and I think some of 'em are scared and some don't give a shit.

[Packnut]

D

Now another article out saying the Pack is playing a "match zone system". Gee, was'nt that the original point before someone (not gonna mention any names) told us we did'nt know what we were talking about?