Overestimating the Defense

[pbmax]

Let's have some glass half-empty speculation. Found the following in Lori Nickel's article (I know KYPack and wist, she's taken over Silverstein's job as unofficial team shill, but its just a starting point here):

Last season, the Packers were solid in pass defense, thanks to the defensive line's pass rush, cornerback Al Harris clamping down on the opponents' top receiver and cornerback Charles Woodson's eight interceptions.

If the Packers did get beat, it was usually the linebackers who caught the blame, or the safeties. Veteran Marquand Manuel, the Packers' free-agent pickup last year, and Nick Collins gave up 9½ touchdowns combined. Manuel's share - 5½ - was the most by any Packers safety from 1994-2006.

I am not convinced that the Packer team pass rush is anything to write home about. I think the pass rush is exactly a macrocosm of KGB. Looks like a world beater against mediocre competition, folds miserably against good teams.

Just look what New England and the Jets were able to do with solid talent and a good plan. Remember many plays where Brady or Pennington were harrassed?

I think the team D is exactly mediocre after being worse than average in 2005. The run D is average statistically which is why I was happy to have Harrell selected. But his rep is that he won't help with the pass rush.

Now there is the Cullen Jenkins at end factor. At he seemed to be far better than KGB against the run. But its still KGB on passing downs at end.

Will this team be better at pass rushing in 2007? Will a fresh KGB make all the difference?

I am betting no. I say we improve against the run (which is the most important) and stay flat against the pass. We'll be better overall, but next offseason everyone will be wondering who T2 is drafting to bolster the pass rush.

[BallHawk]

I think if the safety issue sorts itself out, we have a Top 10 Defense.

[wist43]

I think what you see is what you get. I don't think the Jets and Patriots games were aberrations - good offensive teams will beat this defense up b/c the scheme requires consistent pressure from the front 4. Good OL's can stymie that, and the Packers have no recourse b/c the LB's are cover/tackle LB's and not blitzers.

Beyond that, once the pass rush from the front 4 is blunted, the scheme is so simplistic and straight forward that any attempt to bring additional people is easily recognized and easily picked up, be they LB's are DB's.

This scheme requires an elite front 4, which of course, is very difficult to put together. The Packers have a good DL, but they're not elite, and individually they don't scare anyone... Kampman may of had a good year last year, but that didn't prevent the 49'ers from repeatedly blocking him one-on-one with Vernon Davis - and Davis blocked him pretty effectively.

They can be a decent defense against the offensive dregs of the NFC North and other offensively challenged teams, but against the elite teams, with solid OL's and good QB's, the Packers will continue to get smoked.

In the end, yes, they're overrated.

[run pMc]

wist -- not necessarily disagreeing with you, but I'm curious:
since you seem so down on the current defensive scheme, what kind of scheme would you run with the roster of players that exists? Next: hypothetically, if you could bring in a full squad of defensive players to fit a scheme, what scheme would that be?

I think the pass rush was spotty and the run D disappeared a few times last year (e.g., vs. SEA), so I don't have a big problem with the Harrell pick. Aside of the CB's, there are some pass coverage issues (S & LB) that I hope get corrected. This is a young defense, but I think it will improve. I highly doubt top 10, but it should be better than last year if for no reason because of gaining a year of experience. Given the teams in the NFC and the North, that might be enough to get a wildcard.

[woodbuck27]

I think what you see is what you get. I don't think the Jets and Patriots games were aberrations - good offensive teams will beat this defense up b/c the scheme requires consistent pressure from the front 4. Good OL's can stymie that, and the Packers have no recourse b/c the LB's are cover/tackle LB's and not blitzers.

Beyond that, once the pass rush from the front 4 is blunted, the scheme is so simplistic and straight forward that any attempt to bring additional people is easily recognized and easily picked up, be they LB's are DB's.

This scheme requires an elite front 4, which of course, is very difficult to put together. The Packers have a good DL, but they're not elite, and individually they don't scare anyone... Kampman may of had a good year last year, but that didn't prevent the 49'ers from repeatedly blocking him one-on-one with Vernon Davis - and Davis blocked him pretty effectively.

They can be a decent defense against the offensive dregs of the NFC North and other offensively challenged teams, but against the elite teams, with solid OL's and good QB's, the Packers will continue to get smoked.

In the end, yes, they're overrated.

That post seems to certainly defend the Justin Harrel pick as a logical move to fit our needs.

[4and12to12and4]

wist -- not necessarily disagreeing with you, but I'm curious:
since you seem so down on the current defensive scheme, what kind of scheme would you run with the roster of players that exists? Next: hypothetically, if you could bring in a full squad of defensive players to fit a scheme, what scheme would that be?

I think the pass rush was spotty and the run D disappeared a few times last year (e.g., vs. SEA), so I don't have a big problem with the Harrell pick. Aside of the CB's, there are some pass coverage issues (S & LB) that I hope get corrected. This is a young defense, but I think it will improve. I highly doubt top 10, but it should be better than last year if for no reason because of gaining a year of experience. Given the teams in the NFC and the North, that might be enough to get a wildcard.

I'll tell you the scheme i like, and i know it helps to have talent, but, i love the way the Chargers run their defense, you never know who the hell is coming or going to the QB. The are the most fun defense to watch, with Baltimore a close second. How about implementing some of that. I guess we'd have to switch to a 3,4, which is what in my eyes is more condusive to the talent on our team anyway. So, that's it. Go to the 3,4, get all of our talent on linebacker out there, and start fooling some friggin' people. Doesn't seem too complicated to me.

[AV David]

Legitimate question.

I have to say I was as impressed as I was surprised by the defensive play at the end of the season. I am hopeful but need to be convinced.

I do think KGB will be a much better pass rusher as a situational player.

One reason for some optimism is they did have like 48 sacks. That is a lot of sacks. They had to be doing something right and I think they will be significantly better this year with Hawk's experience, a rested KGB and C Jenkins at DE from the start.

Hawk is reported to be a very good blitzer.

[Charles Woodson]

wist -- not necessarily disagreeing with you, but I'm curious:
since you seem so down on the current defensive scheme, what kind of scheme would you run with the roster of players that exists? Next: hypothetically, if you could bring in a full squad of defensive players to fit a scheme, what scheme would that be?

I think the pass rush was spotty and the run D disappeared a few times last year (e.g., vs. SEA), so I don't have a big problem with the Harrell pick. Aside of the CB's, there are some pass coverage issues (S & LB) that I hope get corrected. This is a young defense, but I think it will improve. I highly doubt top 10, but it should be better than last year if for no reason because of gaining a year of experience. Given the teams in the NFC and the North, that might be enough to get a wildcard.

I'll tell you the scheme i like, and i know it helps to have talent, but, i love the way the Chargers run their defense, you never know who the hell is coming or going to the QB. The are the most fun defense to watch, with Baltimore a close second. How about implementing some of that. I guess we'd have to switch to a 3,4, which is what in my eyes is more condusive to the talent on our team anyway. So, that's it. Go to the 3,4, get all of our talent on linebacker out there, and start fooling some friggin' people. Doesn't seem too complicated to me.

first of all, We have barnett and Hawk that would do the linebacker but after that we dont have much. And who do you suggest we start on the D-line. Its a little bit more complicated than you think to switch schemes. And yes it means the defense has to learn yet another scheme.

[The Leaper]

I think Hawk is a capable blitzer from the LB position. He won't be a sack monster, but he is capable of getting 4 or 5 a year. He won't look as lost as Barnett when making a pass rush. I think there is still the potential for a little more pass rush in 2007 due to increased depth and a better rotation that will emphasize getting after the passer on passing downs. However, I agree that the lack of a dominating pass rusher likely will prevent the unit from ever being truly effective against above average offensive blocking units.

Overall, I agree that we played great against some pretty awful offenses last year...so it is difficult to gauge just how good we are. Moving Jenkins to DE full-time and adding Harrell to the mix in the middle should considerably improve the run defense in 2007. The bottom line is that on defense, playmaking trumps most other factors. Opportunities to turn the ball over and create big negative plays are paramount, especially for a defense that has a lot of "good" defenders, but no one who is really "great" as of yet.

[BallHawk]

For every team, there are fans that want to switch to a 3-4. Why? Because it's different. People think "Hey, the (insert scheme here) isn't working, why not run a 3-4?" There's a reason why so few teams run a 3-4 and that's because it's a difficult scheme to run effectively. Only 6 teams ran the 3-4 last year. Funny enough, 4 of those teams made the playoffs. People see the Steelers run a 3-4 or the Chargers do it and think "Damn, they look good. We should do that." However, the 3-4, not only being difficult to find personnel to run the scheme, takes a long time to learn. It's taking the 49ers 3 years to learn the 3-4. It's not something that happens over night.

Personally, I don't think the 3-4 is that great, but that's just me.

[4and12to12and4]

I agree, i don't really want to see our defense have relearn an entire system again, we would be taking two steps back and guaranteeing that our defense wouldn't get it together for at least two years. I was just responding to the question "what is wrong with our scheme, and what is a better one?" I do think that the 3-4 is superior if you have the right players for it. It makes it so much harder on the offense not knowing who to block. We have more than Hawk and Barnett to fit the scheme. Hodge and Poppinga would round our LB's out nicely in a 3-4. I was stating that it woulda been nice if we had been running it the last couple of years. Also, it keeps the three down lineman healthy and fresh, because of the ability to rotate them in and out throughout the game.

But, I agree, that at this stage, I'd much rather just keep our scheme, simpy because everyone has so much experience in it now, we finally have run the same scheme more than one year. So, we definitely should stick with it, I just am not a big fan of it, because, it makes it easier on the offense, like stated before, when you have the same four rushing, that's fine, if their beasts and pressure consistently. We pressure here and there, but not consistently, which is why we lose to high powered offenses. Hopefullly, that will change with everyone having a year under their belt in this scheme. You are right, we did collect a ton of sacks last year, but to expect Kaampman to get 15 again is not realistic.

[pbmax]

If you are a fan of "Moneyball" there is another reason to like the 3-4. Since it is run by so few teams, its easier to draft and sign for. The players aren't as coveted because the number of slots to fill is smaller.

The D line in a 3-4 can be average and be effective as their job is to occupy blockers. You do not need Reggie White at the end to be effective, though it helps (Richard Seymour). You also need the big NT like Casey Hampton.

The LBs though, especially outside, need to be unique. Hybrid DEs and LBs who can pass rush. Kevin Green, Greg Lloyd, Willie McGinest. Still, there are fewer teams that need this guy, so the logic is you will be able to find him.

I agree with wist, I still think we will need to upgrade the line even after Harrell (esp. Jenkins/KGB at end). But as the scheme is designed to succeed around speed, I am less concerned by its design, than by the holes in personnel we still need to fill. Safety, 3rd CB and DE.

For every team, there are fans that want to switch to a 3-4. Why? Because it's different. People think "Hey, the (insert scheme here) isn't working, why not run a 3-4?" There's a reason why so few teams run a 3-4 and that's because it's a difficult scheme to run effectively. Only 6 teams ran the 3-4 last year. Funny enough, 4 of those teams made the playoffs. People see the Steelers run a 3-4 or the Chargers do it and think "Damn, they look good. We should do that." However, the 3-4, not only being difficult to find personnel to run the scheme, takes a long time to learn. It's taking the 49ers 3 years to learn the 3-4. It's not something that happens over night.

Personally, I don't think the 3-4 is that great, but that's just me.

[pbmax]

The last four games worry me as much as reassure me. 2 of those offenses were horrible and one wasn't trying. While I think our coverage got tighter as we finally got on the same page middle of the season on, I don't think Cullen Jenkins was that big of an improvement.

Legitimate question.

I have to say I was as impressed as I was surprised by the defensive play at the end of the season. I am hopeful but need to be convinced.

I do think KGB will be a much better pass rusher as a situational player.

One reason for some optimism is they did have like 48 sacks. That is a lot of sacks. They had to be doing something right and I think they will be significantly better this year with Hawk's experience, a rested KGB and C Jenkins at DE from the start.

Hawk is reported to be a very good blitzer.

[HarveyWallbangers]

For every team, there are fans that want to switch to a 3-4. Why? Because it's different. People think "Hey, the (insert scheme here) isn't working, why not run a 3-4?" There's a reason why so few teams run a 3-4 and that's because it's a difficult scheme to run effectively. Only 6 teams ran the 3-4 last year. Funny enough, 4 of those teams made the playoffs. People see the Steelers run a 3-4 or the Chargers do it and think "Damn, they look good. We should do that." However, the 3-4, not only being difficult to find personnel to run the scheme, takes a long time to learn. It's taking the 49ers 3 years to learn the 3-4. It's not something that happens over night.

Personally, I don't think the 3-4 is that great, but that's just me.

There may have been 6 teams last year that ran it, but that doesn't count a number of teams that ran the 3-4 and have switched in the last couple of years (primarily because of the lack of success). Houston, Atlanta, Oakland come to mind. Those teams--along with Cleveland and San Fran haven't exactly had a lot of success with the scheme. Most of the ones that have had success have stuck with it. The ones that haven't are starting to switch back to the 4-3. I think you'll see Pittsburgh gradually move to a 4-3 now that Tomlin (with his cover-2 background) has been hired. Baltimore runs a lot more 4-3 stuff now.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I don't think Cullen Jenkins was that big of an improvement.

Jenkins was a huge improvement. Whether he can follow that up with another good season is the big question.