Packers Defense in 2007

[Packnut]

Dendy

This is from ESPN scouts on Dendy. I believe the nickel back has to be pretty close in talent to your starting CB's in order to be effective. In today's NFL, nickel backs are on the field more and more. Also the majority of slot WR's are speed guys so being slow is a real killer.

Grade: 57 | Key
Alert: Y

Comment:
Dendy is aggressive and plays with a high motor. He is a solid cover guy on special teams. He is effective moving forward on balls as a straight-line player. He will attack short and intermediate routes. He loves to press and reroute receivers at the line. He is aware in zone coverage and has decent range and ball skills. He seems to know his limitations and will play accordingly. But Dendy isn't very athletic and he lacks speed. He isn't natural in his pedal or in turn-and-run situations. He appears stiff in his turns and loses a lot in transition. He doesn't show great lateral-movement or change-of-direction skills. He doesn't adjust to routes well.

[Partial]

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.

What about the super bowl winning Bucannears, Colts, Broncos, Cowboys, 49ers, etc. They seemed to do alright with a 4-3 passive scheme. Hell, the dynasty of the 90s ran the same scheme we ran with an ancient charles hailey.

[wist43]

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.

What about the super bowl winning Bucannears, Colts, Broncos, Cowboys, 49ers, etc. They seemed to do alright with a 4-3 passive scheme. Hell, the dynasty of the 90s ran the same scheme we ran with an ancient charles hailey.

The Bucs are the only one of those teams that was carried by their defense... all of the other examples you give were offensive teams - with either HOF'ers or All-Pro's all over the rosters (Aikman, Smith, Irvin, Young, Manning, Harrison, Elway, Davis, etc...). The best that can be said of those teams is that the defenses didn't screw it up.

And in the case of the Bronco's, if you remember the '97 SB, they were nothing if not a blitzing team - they blitzed the living daylights out of the Packers on just about every play. Hardly passive. I'm a huge advocate of the blitz, and enjoy watching a well coordinated blitzing scheme... Denver was definitely a blitzing team in those years.

And in the Bucs case they had several dominant players on their D and arguably two HOF'ers (Sapp and Brooks). John Lynch (may get some HOF votes), Simeon Rice (close to his prime), Dexter Jackson (played way over his head that year), Barber, et al.

The Packers have a collection of good players on that side of the ball, but none of them is a special player. Beyond the players is the coaching... Sanders??? Schottenheimer???

[The Leaper]

If you watched the SD/NE game, SD pretty much shut Brady down b/c of their multidementional fronts.

Well, that is the entire premise of the 3-4 defense...have 4 LBs out there, with 1 or 2 blitzing on every down...but you never know which ones are. However, that hardly means a 3-4 defense is better. It was in that specific instance. However, since 3-4 defenses haven't dominated the league and won the last 12 Super Bowls, I fail to see how you can make a case that we are doomed with the current system. In reality, the current system has actually fared very well for several teams in the last decade.

The system has nothing to do with it Wist. It is about getting the players in place that can adequately run the system. If we have 11 guys out there on defense who fit the system and are good talents, we will be successful on defense.

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.

So what? Are you intimating that a "multidimensional" front ALWAYS gets to the QB? When that front can't put pressure on the QB, it fares no better than a 4-3 that can't put pressure on the QB.

Bottom line...San Diego is a kick ass defense because they have a kick ass front 7. They could probably run a 2-2-1-4-2 defense and still kick ass.

It is about PLAYERS, not scheme. When it comes to talent, SD's defense has far more on the field right now than Green Bay...but the gap IS closing.

[The Leaper]

The Packers have a collection of good players on that side of the ball, but none of them is a special player. Beyond the players is the coaching... Sanders??? Schottenheimer???

I can agree with that. The coaching staff on defense leaves a lot to be desired...and proved their ineptitude during the first 8-10 weeks of the season last year. You can have the most aggressive, hard nosed scheme in the world...if your coaches are inept, it won't matter.

Sanders...I'm still on the fence with him. I think he is an OK coach, but just is inexperienced in terms of leading the entire defense. Sch-NOT is a joke...I can't stand the fact he is on the Packer payroll.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I don't care whose scouting report you post, Dendy did a much better job last year at nickel than Carroll. I have serious doubts whether he'll be in the league two years from now, but it doesn't take a scout to see that Dendy fared much better than Carroll last year. Throw in the second half of the Philly game again or most of the other games before he got cut. He was atrocious. Dendy gave up a few plays (all corners do), but it wasn't nearly as frequent as Carroll, and he actually made some plays on balls. Carroll has ZERO ball skills.

[Carolina_Packer]

Yeah, Carroll was just a bust instead of a beast. Man, I hope Blackmon can stay healthy. Frank Walker could be serviceable at nickel. Let's hope Manuel has the light turn on now that he's healthy, and that Collins grows even more in year 3. We know what we have at starting corner at least.

Do any of our other DB's or new D prospects interest you? I keep hearing Bigby could be in the mix. It's interesting to have tons of guys fighting for jobs in camp; you just hope enough of them are worth a flip.

[Patler]

Re: Dendy

This is from ESPN scouts on Dendy. I believe the nickel back has to be pretty close in talent to your starting CB's in order to be effective. In today's NFL, nickel backs are on the field more and more. Also the majority of slot WR's are speed guys so being slow is a real killer.

Grade: 57 | Key
Alert: Y

Comment:
Dendy is aggressive and plays with a high motor. He is a solid cover guy on special teams. He is effective moving forward on balls as a straight-line player. He will attack short and intermediate routes. He loves to press and reroute receivers at the line. He is aware in zone coverage and has decent range and ball skills. He seems to know his limitations and will play accordingly. But Dendy isn't very athletic and he lacks speed. He isn't natural in his pedal or in turn-and-run situations. He appears stiff in his turns and loses a lot in transition. He doesn't show great lateral-movement or change-of-direction skills. He doesn't adjust to routes well.

Doesn't sound to me like the description of a guy who "sucks". Sounds more like a guy who gets the most out of the ability he has.

In an ideal world your nickel back is as good as your starters, but how many teams have that? Absolutely I want to see someone better than Dendy, but I believe your criticism of him was overly harsh.

[KYPack]

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.

Agree with all of this, but there is one omission. I felt the move that improved the defense a great deal was the insertion of Jenkins at RDE and making Williams the 3 down RDT eliminated a huge weakness. With KGB at RDE, teams could run at our right side at will. jenkins improved both the run D and gave a solid push in passing situations. Both these guys should improve with the ability to play together and gel.

Wist, I agree with you to a large extent, but I'm no blitz fan. When you blitz, you are covering up a weakness. Jimmy Johnson (the Philly guy, not the hair-do guy) would disagree, but I think this bunch can get it done without adding more storms to the D package.

As far as giving teams more pre-snap looks, this does help, but we really couldn't do a lot of this. With our two young pluggers (Popo & Hawk), we basically had to get 'em lined up right. Any pre-snap gimmicks might have fouled 'em up more than it confused the opposing offenses.

I must add, this really is a great forum. The knowlege of football is really high on here. If this thread was on, say,JSO, there'd be a couple posts suggesting we move Hodge into the starting line-up and run a 3-4. or some shit like that.

[Carolina_Packer]

>>I must add, this really is a great forum. The knowlege of football is really high on here. If this thread was on, say,JSO, there'd be a couple posts suggesting we move Hodge into the starting line-up and run a 3-4. or some shit like that.<<

or the rantings of Anti-Polar Bear aka Tank about how bad TT is and how great Sherman is! Oy! Yeah, this is a much better forum, indeed. Good football fans.

[Tarlam!]

Do any of our other DB's or new D prospects interest you? (...) It's interesting to have tons of guys fighting for jobs in camp; you just hope enough of them are worth a flip.

I am enticed with Rouse, only because of his size. If only as the twin cover with Al Harris on one Calvin Johnson twice a year, I hope Rouse isn't too slow to play.

[KYPack]

Do any of our other DB's or new D prospects interest you? (...) It's interesting to have tons of guys fighting for jobs in camp; you just hope enough of them are worth a flip.

I am enticed with Rouse, only because of his size. If only as the twin cover with Al Harris on one Calvin Johnson twice a year, I hope Rouse isn't too slow to play.

So am I.

That combo of size & speed is always intriguing.

From the sound of the guy, he'll be an ST monster, but he's probably too green to play.

[4and12to12and4]

Re: Packers Defense in 2007

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?

I attribute the early season breakdowns mostly to Manual and Schottenheimer, and can't really say that the problems actually got fixed.

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.

Have to completely disagree with this nonsense that the Bears mailed it in the final game. I'm tired of hearing that. I still have that game tvo'd and have watched it over 15 times this offseason, and we plain and simply kicked their ass!! They played their starters, they were playing hard, and our defense and offense just played an outstanding, error free game. The Bears, unlike some here believe, DID want to win that game. They understood what it means to the fans and the city to beat Green Bay, and they did not roll over. Maybe they came in a bit on their heels due to overconfidence, but that was the only edge we may have had. Favre, the young receivers, and our DB's all played smart, fast football that night, and we BEAT them, period. They underestimated how much improved we were from week one, and paid dearly for it. But to say, that they mailed it in, and didn't care is ridiculous. Those players did not want to lose that game and go into the playoffs with an embarrassing loss to their archenemy.

As I said before, I have watched that game over and over again, and the Bears were busting their asses on every play, and we simply outplayed them. We were the better team that night. 'Nuff said.

[Patler]

Do any of our other DB's or new D prospects interest you? (...) It's interesting to have tons of guys fighting for jobs in camp; you just hope enough of them are worth a flip.

I am enticed with Rouse, only because of his size. If only as the twin cover with Al Harris on one Calvin Johnson twice a year, I hope Rouse isn't too slow to play.

So am I.

That combo of size & speed is always intriguing.

From the sound of the guy, he'll be an ST monster, but he's probably too green to play.

When Sharper was drafted, he was viewed as a big safety. If Rouse is as big as they say, he will make Sharper look small.

[BallHawk]

From the sound of the guy, he'll be an ST monster, but he's probably too green to play.

There is no such thing as being to green to play in Green Bay....