Tweet
I don't get to watch all the games like many of you do, and it's tough to get a great sense just reading about most games. When you watched the games last year and saw all the big plays being given up, do you think it was squarely on blown assignments, do you think there wasn't enough line push or pressure from the line, or was it a combo of both for the most part? A defense can get great pressure as a DL, but if a safety or linebacker has blown the coverage, it doesn't take even a great throw from the QB to get it to the wide-open man. Do you think the DB's had to cover receivers too long because of lack of line pressure? What's your assessment? Do you think this situation will be improved in 2007 and why?
-
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." -Daniel Patrick Moynihan -
No the DB's would release WR's to over the top coverage that wasnt there for the first 10 games of the year. Hard to say where the problem was, but it finally got fixed.Originally posted by 3irty1 -
Yup. For whatever reason they didn't seem to grasp the concept that when the safeties drop back, they need to stay deep enough to stay in front of the receiver.Originally posted by Zool
Other times it was an LB blowing coverage or getting beat.
Other times it was the S just getting beat or caught flat footed. (cough, Manuel, cough)
And yeah, there were times when the QB had all day to throw.Comment
-
There were several issues. First, the Sch-NOT is a lame coach who clearly struggled to get his secondary players on the same page during the first half of the season. Second, Woodson and Manual needed time to adjust to the system and players around them. Third, the pressure on the QB was better in the last 4-6 weeks of the year against poor OLs and with the switch of Jenkins to DE, which helps the secondary make more plays.My signature has NUDITY in it...whatcha gonna do?Comment
-
Re: Packers Defense in 2007
I attribute the early season breakdowns mostly to Manual and Schottenheimer, and can't really say that the problems actually got fixed.Originally posted by Carolina_Packer
I think you have to take the final four games with a grain or salt. SF (whose number we've always had), Det (it's Detroit), Minnesota (Tavaris Jacksons first start), Chi (mailed it in).
All in all, regardless of how much talent they acquire on that side of the ball and whether or not everyone gets on the same page, the scheme is limited and passive, so good offensive teams, with good OL's and QB's, will continue to blow them off the field.
Playing offensive dregs they can look ok, against the NE's and Indy's of the league - the game is over b/4 it starts.wistComment
-
Re: Packers Defense in 2007
I don't agree. The scheme is what it is, a scheme. The players need to implement, of course.Originally posted by wist43
When NE runs 4 WR and a TE, it's difficult for any scheme to hold up, unless the DL collopses the pocket before Brady finds a target. Fat chance!
Brady is too quick, that's all. How many teams boast a secondary that can contain 5 pass threats?Comment
-
Early in the year, no one was blameless. Harris blew a couple for TDs, which he readily admitted at the time were blown coverages by him. Hawk struggled early, and Poppinga was clueless in coverage for a while. Woodson played quite tentatively early in the year, and Collins looked initially like he was headed for a big sophmore slump.
Some of the improvement came from Harris again playing like Harris, Woodson becoming familiar with everything and being rejuvenated, Hawk settling down, Poppinga being given fewer coverage responsibilities and Collins coming alive (to some degree)
Hard to say what it all means for 2007. You would like to think that Collins, Hawk and Poppinga will continue to improve. You hope Harris and Woodson can continue at least another season without decline. The biggest hope is that a second safety can be found from Manual, Underwood, Rouse, Culver, Bigby, etc.
Ya, I know, I skipped Barnett. He was in 2006 what he has been, and probably what he will continue to be.Comment
-
D
It was'nt just one thing, but rather a combination of mistakes. There were scheme problems such as Poppinga on the slot WR which happened more than once. If I see that again, my head will explode.
Manuel acted like he had never seen play action. He was beaten more times than a dusty rug.
Then there was the confusion of which coverage was called and which cover responsibility went with said coverage.
Next problem was Dendy who was in way over his head as the nickel back. (from the Demovsky chat):
Rob,
Who do you believe will be the nickel back? Blackmon has problems staying on the field, and the coaches keep talking about the improvement Dendy has made in the off season. Of course, the off season is not real football, but it appears that Dendy has attended all the off season program. I thought Dendy was much better than Carroll, but still not a top nickel back. Is Walker better than either Balckmon or Dendy? Thanks for your thoughts.
ROB DEMOVSKY: Unless Dendy has made major improvements, I don't see him being the guy. Or if he is the guy, that might mean big trouble and big plays. I thought he was in over his head last year. Haven't seen enough of Walker to know if he's better than Dendy. Blackmon's the leader for that spot going into camp, but he's got to be healthy.
It seemed most of the problems were corrected but since we played offenses that sucked the last 4 games, it's impossible to know where we really stand.Comment
-
The secondary became better when Dendy replaced Carroll. Maybe it was just the wake-up call from Carroll being waived, but as a unit they became better.Comment
-
Tar, yes the scheme is what it is - and what it is, is passive.
By design, the scheme calls for pressure to come from the front 4 - almost exclusively. You have to have some pretty damn good players up front to get consistent pressure from your front 4.
If they can't generate pressure with the front 4, they have to blitz - the problem with that in this scheme is that the backers are chase/tackle backers and aren't very good blitzers.
The Packers scheme is very static, and they don't engage in much presnap movement up front. Everything the Packers do on defense is very easy to see presnap. In short, if they can't get pressure with they're front 4, they can't generate it either.
If you watched the SD/NE game, SD pretty much shut Brady down b/c of their multidementional fronts. The Packers don't have that... once plan A is foiled, i.e. rushing 4, they're done... the best they can hope for is to have blanket coverage, but given enough time, even a lousy QB can find an open receiver.wistComment
-
Dendy
Originally posted by Patler
Dendy sucked. Only difference between him and Carroll is that Dendy was never close enough to the wideout to get flagged for holding or illegal contact.Comment
-
In general, the defense played pretty good most of the year.
There were just a few plays each game where there was a complete breakdown in coverage and the opposing team would get a big play. I think if you would take away 4-5 plays per game, the first 10 games, we would have had an excellent defense. Of course you can't do that so we had a mediocre to poor defense.
That is where my optimism comes in. In the last few games, it appeared that the big play was finally shut down throughout the entire game. Whether it was a single player, the scheme, communication, or whatever, it appears to be a very correctable problem. Now this season with our defensive upgrades (Harrell, maturation of Hawk, Poppinga, Collins), there is the potential of taking the next step to dominance.Comment
-
Re: Dendy
Disagree here. While Dendy isn't desirable as a long term option, and naturally I hope he isn't out starting nickel guy when the season starts, that guy played his butt off and filled in just fine. Dendy didn't cost them games, which is a hellova lot more than you can say for Carroll, who was capable of handing a game to the opposition on his own. Dendy got every last ounce of performance out of his natural ability, which was adequate, neither great nor bad, just in the middle. He got the job done when he had to.Originally posted by Packnut
So no, he's not the solution but he wasn't a problem either. He deserves more credit than he gets.Comment
-
Re: Dendy
Originally posted by rpiotr01
Well, Demovsky is'nt the only Packer beat writer to have the same opinion on Dendy that I do. A couple of others have made similiar comments. These guys very seldom are critical of a player since they work around them, so when they are critical, you can bet they have no doubt. I remember seeing Dendy get beat very badly on 2 td's last season and I also remember him giving up some critical 3rd down catches.Comment
-
Damned, Wisty, that breakdown makes so much sense to me, I wanna shoot Sanders!
I think TT agrees with you, and selected Harrel #1 to provide the pressure you just described.Comment
Comment