Overestimating the Defense

[KYPack]

Re: Overestimating the Defense

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):

Ya got me there, PB. Lori is pretty poor.

Silverstein was a comic figure. He was a shill, but was even more comfortable playing Sherman's lap dog. His most pathetic period was the week before MS was fired. Shermy got his pet journalist to write TWO pro-Sherm articles in a week. It was way too late, a new GM and 4 - 12 sealed Mikey's fate, but Silverstein tried for his pal, who'd been feeding him material for four years.

Nickel is the team shill, but at least she's trying to learn the game.

Her most comic moment came when she was spoon fed an assignment to write on the ZBS. Coach Mac talked with her about the ZBS, but failed to give her any relevant details. Lori didn't know the difference, and just wrote the piece anyhow.

[RashanGary]

I skim most of the junk that comes out of all of the papers. I do pay attn and read carefully everything McGinn writes and I did with Cliff too. Wilde is pretty good at stirring a controversy and that is about he extent of the local sports writers that I care to read.

[Patler]

I think the defense can be OK, I'm not convinced it has the players to be great, yet.

DL- I'm certainly not ready to annoint Jenkins as great, or even good yet. He didn't have a very long audition last year. Harrell may have no impact at all, if he gets or remains injured. I personally think KGB's best days are behind him. I saw no evidence the last four games that he will contribute anything more as a situational pass rusher than he has the last few years as a starter. His effectiveness has been declining steadily. He is following the same path as Keith McKenzie and a number of other undersized DE's that have only one move and speed. They have a couple very good years, but as they reach 30, their effectiveness declines. Finally, Kampman. Not a knock at all, but you can't expect him to approach what he did last year, one of the league leaders in both sacks and tackles. It was a career year and not likely to be duplicated. Overall, however, with Williams, Jolly, Cole, etc. this unit is of the least concern for the defense.

LB - Still looking for a playmaker, a guy who rises to the occassion when the team needs it. Barnnett never has, Hawk didn't last year and Poppinga isn't capable of it. Hawk might become one, or he might not. Barnett will remain good, but is unlikely to get any better than he is already. He has reached that point in his career. He is what he is. No backups in sight. Unfortunately though, as "average" as it is; this is the second most solid unit on defense.

DBs - This group is actually a little scary. Any season Harris and Woodson could come back as mere shells of what they were. Harris has always been on the edge athletically, and as he ages he could fall off the edge any off-season. Woodson's injury history, including last season, makes him a big question all the time. If one goes out, who is behind them? Blackmon is an unknown. Dendy won't make a lot of mistakes, but probably won't make a lot of plays either. Safeties, is there even ONE? Collins has a moment now and then, very infrequently, but goes game after game without showing up. He could step forward this year, or may never be anything more than promising. I saw nothing last year that convinced me he will step up. Quite frankly, I expected more from him last year. He really only had one notable game. Manual, Underwood, Bigby, Rouse; all are just names. If one doesn't become a player, the backfield will suffer. This unit could be good, or if just one or two injuries occur, it could be awful, as a unit.

On the other hand, Harrell could make a big impact. Kampman could remaiin steady, Woodson and Harris could stay at the tops of their games and Jenkins, Hawk, Collins and another safety (maybe even Poppinga, too) could make big strides with the added experience. Blackmon and a safety or two could show they have what it takes to play in the NFL. IF... IF...IF enough of those things happen, it COULD be a very good defense. By no means is it a certainty that it will be a very good defense, or that they won't be looking to replace half of it in 2008 or 2009, including the entire starting backfield..

[Fritz]

I have to agree that the lack of a pass rush scares me most. The really good teams have defensive ends that can flat out get to the QB. And with Kampman being the only one capable of that on a regular basis, he will be double teamed or chip-blocked and thus negated.

I do think that changing to another scheme like the 3-4 is a bad idea. First of all, it would take years to draft the right players and get players comfortable with it. Secondly, there's been so much change on defense the last four or five years it will be good to actually have the same coordinator for two years in a row.

I never liked the 3-4, even when it was all the rage years ago. It seemed like a defense that you could run on.

[retailguy]

Patler. you nailed it. There are very few positions on this team that aren't question marks. Some will surely step up and become focal points to build around. Others will not. Which ones are the question, that will determine how good - or how bad - this defense will look.

I am unconvinced. I was at the Minnesota game that everyone talks about as a "great" defensive game. It wasn't. It was pathetic on BOTH sides of the ball. We won because Minnesota was MORE pathetic.

[pbmax]

That's the goofiest thing about prognosticating this team. As someone wrote, 45 or so sacks can't mean its a weakness. But as others (including myself) see it, the pass rush can be a large void against a good team.

It all depends on your point of reference and your goal. If you want a winning record, then this pass rush might be good enough to do it.

You want a win in the playoff game? Then be prepared for the void. All about matchups.

I am on board the young players theory. Everything else equal, why not pay the same or less for a young developing player who might develop into something special over a known commodity veteran? But at some point, those young players need to make the jump. There is a better chance for the young player than the vet, but its still risky.

I think Patler is right. We need to root for Collins, Blackmon, Underwood, Bigby, (Manuel? Dendy?), Poppinga, possibly Rouse and Harrell to make a jump. Each one leaves you shaking your head now. But if they play a level above previous in 2007, you could also say: "I knew this would happen".

Maddening.

[BallHawk]

The strange thing about this team is that they are on the brink of being a 9-7, 10-6 team, yet, they are also so close to being a 5-11, 6-10 team. Nothing on this team is certain. If you're a Chargers fan then you're certain that LT will have 20+ TDs. If you're a Colts fan, you're certain Peyton Manning will be a Top 5 QB.

However, with the Packers, nothing is set in stone. We can't expect Favre to throw 25+ TDs, we can't expect our RB to get 1,000 yards, and we can't expect the defense to stop getting beat deep, consistently. We need about 75% of the "what ifs" to fall our way; if Kampman can repeat last year, if Hawk can step up and be a star, if the secondary stays healthy, if the WRs can catch the ball, etc.

Listen, every team has "what ifs" but the better of a team you are, the less "what ifs" you have. We're on our way to becoming better, but a lot of things have to fall our way for us to be competitive.

[Patler]

Regarding the pass rush, I'm not all that concerned that against the best offensive lines the D-line didn't get pressure. That is usually the case. When the GB O-line was great, no one was effective against them in generating game-long pressure. Even the good pass rushes got there only occassionally. When they were giving up only a dozen sacks a year, even some of those were coverage sacks and miscues.

The D-line has enough guys who CAN get to the QB that no one can be ignored by the offense. If they consentrate on Kampman, Williams, Jenkins, or KGB can get there with a good matchup. Not that they are all great pass rushers, but they are good enough that the Packers can line up with four guys who don't surprise you if they get a sack; Kampman, KGB, Williams and Jenkins are all effective at least. Others might be too.

Will they dominate everyone? No, but if the coverage is decent the pressure should be there too, most of the time.

[The Shadow]

The key here is that the Packers are slowly upgrading all phases of the defense.
When you add gifted, instinctual players like Hawk to smart effort players like Kampman, players beginning to hit their strides, like Barnett, Collins, and Jenkins and experienced vets like Woodson, KGB, and Harris- and youngsters on the rise....it's a good thing.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I think the defense will be good--if Harris and Woodson stay relatively healthy and a safety steps up. Those might be pretty big ifs, but the DL played decently most of the year. You are going to have bad games against some of the best teams. However, they faced some pretty good offenses early in the year--when they were struggling. That's a point to be made to counter the argument that they only did well against poor defenses at the end of the year. Chicago (when Grossman was actually playing lights out), St. Louis, New Orleans, New England, Philadelphia all finished in the top 10 in scoring offense last year. Seattle (with Hasselbeck and Alexander healthy), Arizona (tons of offensive talent), and the Jets weren't too shabby either. Their early season schedule was pretty brutal--playing 4 of the top 10 offenses in the first 5 games.

[Patler]

The key here is that the Packers are slowly upgrading all phases of the defense.
When you add gifted, instinctual players like Hawk to smart effort players like Kampman, players beginning to hit their strides, like Barnett, Collins, and Jenkins and experienced vets like Woodson, KGB, and Harris- and youngsters on the rise....it's a good thing.

I agree completely. And you never know when that one addition all of a sudden makes a huge difference to the overall performance. It can be a guy you look to for being an upgrade, like Harrell, who takes off and becomes a Pro-bowler. Or it can be someone you don't expect greatness from, like Rouse, or Blackmon or others. When you have all starters that are decent, one or two surprises can make a big difference. Right now it is uncertain if all the starters are decent, or not. Might be, might not.

[pbmax]

But this is the very definition of being mediocre. Looking good against inferior competition and bad against better competition. Its a chicken and egg paradox, where the answer doesn't matter, its the situation you find yourself in.

You can say don't be overly concerned about the early season defense because they faced some tough competition. But that is exactly who I want to be competitive with. I don't just want them to make the playoffs, I want them to beat somebody like the Eagles, Jets, Rams or Patriots. Especially at home.

Now from last year's team you can say Jenkins makes a difference for a full year. Healthy Manuel makes a difference. D Backfield being on same page makes a difference.

But even if I buy all those items, it doesn't help the pass rush. And I think its mediocre, maybe slightly above average. And with Harrell and even a fresh KGB, I don't see it getting better this year.

If your goal is 8-8 (and exit or miss playoffs early) against a tougher schedule, then this may be the defense for you. But they still struggled to end drives and get off the field last year. Some of that is execution. Some of that is big plays that effectively end drives; INTs, FUM and QB pressure.

The point of the thread was that if you believe we are hanging our hat on the defense, we still have some big holes. The only one of these holes that do not have potential answers in camp, is pass rush.

I think the defense will be good--if Harris and Woodson stay relatively healthy and a safety steps up. Those might be pretty big ifs, but the DL played decently most of the year. You are going to have bad games against some of the best teams. However, they faced some pretty good offenses early in the year--when they were struggling. That's a point to be made to counter the argument that they only did well against poor defenses at the end of the year. Chicago (when Grossman was actually playing lights out), St. Louis, New Orleans, New England, Philadelphia all finished in the top 10 in scoring offense last year. Seattle (with Hasselbeck and Alexander healthy), Arizona (tons of offensive talent), and the Jets weren't too shabby either. Their early season schedule was pretty brutal--playing 4 of the top 10 offenses in the first 5 games.

[Patler]

I think there are many reasons to expect the defense to be better than it was early in the season last year. In no particular order:

1. The all new coaching staff has now been together for a year. They should work better together. They know the players better and what each can do.

2. The new, inexperieced DC and HC each has a year's worth of experiences to draw on in their positions.

3. All the players know the defense and the coaches better.

4. The defense had 5 new starters at the beginning of last year. Several didn't practice all that much because of injuries during the off season. They were not familiar with the defense or the coaches, and the coaches didn't know what to expect from them. The players didn't know each other that well. Five new starters is a huge turnover.


If the defense could have played some of those early games over again at the end of the year, they may have played much better.

Basically, this defense is unproven, but there are reasons to assume it will not be as bad as early in the season last year.

[Charles Woodson]

I think there are many reasons to expect the defense to be better than it was early in the season last year. In no particular order:

1. The all new coaching staff has now been together for a year. They should work better together. They know the players better and what each can do.

2. The new, inexperieced DC and HC each has a year's worth of experiences to draw on in their positions.

3. All the players know the defense and the coaches better.

4. The defense had 5 new starters at the beginning of last year. Several didn't practice all that much because of injuries during the off season. They were not familiar with the defense or the coaches, and the coaches didn't know what to expect from them. The players didn't know each other that well. Five new starters is a huge turnover.


If the defense could have played some of those early games over again at the end of the year, they may have played much better.

Basically, this defense is unproven, but there are reasons to assume it will not be as bad as early in the season last year.

I agree the biggest fact to expect better next year is that they have had time to learn the system. With the addition of harrell at DT, it should free the LB's more and they can show us what they can really do

[HarveyWallbangers]

But this is the very definition of being mediocre. Looking good against inferior competition and bad against better competition. Its a chicken and egg paradox, where the answer doesn't matter, its the situation you find yourself in.

Maybe, but I'm banking on the fact they don't have a new coordinator and they played their best ball at the end of the year. Plus, they have a lot of guys that you can realistically expect to improve (Jenkins, Harrell, Williams, Hawk, Poppinga, perhaps Barnett, Collins, one of the other safeties could give improved play over Manuel's play last year). I didn't say they were more than middle of the road last year. In fact, they were probably slightly worse than average. There's reason to think they could be a legitimate top 10 defense this year though.