Underwood cut???

[The Leaper]

Bigby is a box safety - something the Packers have wanted nothing to do with going back to Wolfe's days.

Again, ENTIRELY wrong Wist.

WTF was LeRoy Butler? A pussy who sat back 15 yards from the line of scrimmage, scared to attack the offense?

Ron Wolf didn't need to go after a "box safety" because he already had the best one in the entire league.

Sherman clearly didn't value that...he never did attempt to find a suitable replacement for Butler. That much I can agree with you on.

As for Thompson, Collins was one of his first picks...and he certainly isn't a pure coverage safety. He's got some size and isn't afraid to stick his nose in the box. The one thing holding Collins back was his brains...he wasn't able to step in and be the quarterback of the defense as an "in-the-box" safety as a young player. He still relies more on his athletic ability than in his "feel" for the game...although as he gains experience, he is starting to show a better "feel" with an increased comfort level.

The bottom line is that Thompson knows exactly what it takes to put together a kick ass defense...the proof is sitting there on the field Wist. This is the YOUNGEST ROSTER IN THE NFL, yet we could have one of the best defensive units in the NFL.

[wist43]

If they get more aggressive with the scheme - nobody will be happier than me. The Packers defense has been nothing if not passive for over a decade - until a leopard does, in fact, change his spots...

That said, TT has brought in some tough, hard nosed players on the defensive side of the ball - Hawk, Poppinga, and now Bigby.

Bigby is exactly the type of Safety I've been looking for... we don't know if he'll be able to hold up in coverage or in the open field, but the very fact that they're giving him a shot is indicative of a shift in philosophy.

Bigby is a box safety - something the Packers have wanted nothing to do with going back to Wolfe's days. His strengths are born out of aggressiveness, playing downhill, and being physical... definitely a departure from the type of safety the Packers have preferred in the past 15 years.

That said, I'm encouraged, if not yet believing, that they may be getting more aggressive philosophically on the defensive side of the ball.

Wist, why do I get the feeling that Chuck Cecil was once your favorite Packer?

The joys one can derive from ripping someone's head off???

Priceless...

[wist43]

I didn't consider Butler a box safety... he was just a damn good football player, who had excellent instincts, and great timing on the blitz - not to mention very tough for his size.

Butler started out as a corner... Bigby is a pure safety - couldn't play corner if he wanted to. Two completely different types of players. Bigby shows promise, but he has a long, long way to go b/4 you can mention him in the same sentence as Butler.

[The Leaper]

I didn't consider Butler a box safety... he was just a damn good football player, who had excellent instincts, and great timing on the blitz - not to mention very tough for his size.

In other words...you've sat here and criticized GMs for not taking guys with "measureables" at safety, when you openly admit a guy like Butler...a converted CB...is exactly that kind of guy you bemoan time and time again for lacking size and not being intimidating. So...we shouldn't take a guy like Butler?

To me, I could care less what the guys measureables are. If he can execute a task, that's what he is. As such, Butler was an "in-the-box" safety...capable of attacking the run and blanketing the TE while also occasionally blitzing with a high degree of success. He rarely sat back in the secondary as a coverage safety.

Whether or not he was 6'2" and 225 pounds didn't mean one damn thing to me. Granted, it certainly helps (or at least doesn't hurt) but I'm not about to write anyone off simply because they don't match a few numbers on a sheet of paper.

[wist43]

I didn't consider Butler a box safety... he was just a damn good football player, who had excellent instincts, and great timing on the blitz - not to mention very tough for his size.

In other words...you've sat here and criticized GMs for not taking guys with "measureables" at safety, when you openly admit a guy like Butler...a converted CB...is exactly that kind of guy you bemoan time and time again for lacking size and not being intimidating. So...we shouldn't take a guy like Butler?

To me, I could care less what the guys measureables are. If he can execute a task, that's what he is. As such, Butler was an "in-the-box" safety...capable of attacking the run and blanketing the TE while also occasionally blitzing with a high degree of success. He rarely sat back in the secondary as a coverage safety.

Whether or not he was 6'2" and 225 pounds didn't mean one damn thing to me. Granted, it certainly helps (or at least doesn't hurt) but I'm not about to write anyone off simply because they don't match a few numbers on a sheet of paper.

WTF are you trying argue???

The Packers are acquiring players that fit my criteria... and, I acknowledge that, and am happy about that. They are also showing signs of being more aggressive, I'm also happy about that.

It's only preseason, and I'm not ready to jump on the SB bandwagon, but I'm encouraged by what I'm seeing.

So, WTF are you trying to argue??? That I can't acknowledge that I like some of the things I'm seeing simply b/c I haven't liked moves and acquisitions in the past???

I tend to be pretty consistent in my positions... and, when I'm wrong I can admit it; but, you haven't argued anything here that refutes my positions. The team is actually doing some of the things I've been advocating for years, i.e. getting tougher and more physical, and, if one preseason game can be used as a barometer, more aggressive in play calling. These things absolutely have to happen for them to have any chance at winning a SB.

If you want them to stay with the 11 corners defense, then make the argument - but, don't come at me, spouting a bunch of BS that I don't know football.

If we have differing opinions, we have differing opinions; and, not only can I can live with that, I don't need to call you "ignorant" to make my point... I'll just make as valid an argument as I can to support my position until the debate has run its course.

Which this one has, b/c quite frankly I don't think we're debating or making argument here. It would seem to me that you've personalized this as a means by which to try to attack me b/c you haven't liked my positions on issues in the past; hence, there's nothing to debate here.

[The Leaper]

WTF are you trying argue???

I'm not trying to argue really. I'm trying to figure out what you want. You claim Green Bay never gets physical safties...haven't for 15 years.

However, LeRoy Butler in fact WAS a physical safety, even if he did not have prototypical size. So, a large reason why a physical safety wasn't necessary in the 1990s was because we had one of the best in the league on the roster.

That also plays into the logic that if Butler can be physical and an All Pro caliber player, why are you so demanding that our safeties be large hulking behemoths? I certainly can agree with you that is preferred if everything else is equal...but what is the big deal if we can find one who is physical even if undersized? Many elite safeties in the NFL haven't been the prototypical size...and in fact many of the best to play the position were in fact no bigger than average for the time period in which they played.

You've also been pretty clear in your disdain for our current defensive scheme...more or less saying it couldn't be successful. You now seem to be changing your tune simply because of seeing some talent fill out the lineup and because the defense finally has grown enough in the system and with each other to start moving past page one of the defensive playbook. I've always maintained the system was fine...the hiccups our defense had last year was due to inexperience and lack of cohesion for the most part. Once you get talent in place and let it develop, just about any defensive system can prosper if it promotes pressuring the offense. This scheme, and similar ones developed in places like Miami, have proven they can be championship caliber.

The problem isn't the scheme. Put the right kind of players in the scheme and get them to play the right way, and you'll have a hell of a defense. The system we employ has the opportunity to be highly successful...perhaps even moreso than the 3-4 fronts you seem to love. I remember Favre absolutely carving up the Raven defense following their Super Bowl year. We didn't have some kind of elite offense at that point either.

I'm just trying to figure out where you are coming from. I agree that defense has to be aggressive...but I just don't see many defensive coaches in the NFL that poo-poo that assessment. The point is that aggression isn't something that happens on its own...it is a process that comes about from a group of guys playing together and forming a cohesive unit. Guys can be more aggressive when they know they've got teammates that will have their back. Guys will be more aggressive when their level of experience allows them to play by feel and instinct rather than thinking through everything.

[wist43]

The scheme they've been running for two years has been very passive... we have two years worth of games to prove it. Even the Kool-Aid drinkers acknowledge that it's been passive. Like everything else G&G, they try to defend it. You, typically have not been among them, although you, and most everyone else in here is more optimistic than I am.

What they've been running in the 1st two preseason games may have morphed out of the original scheme, but Sanders seems to have made considerable strides in personalizing it with more aggression.

If this continues, no one will be more shocked than me. We've seen no evidence from the Bates based systems that there is any place in the scheme for consistent, creative attacks on the pocket - especially from the safety position.

That said, the base scheme hasn't changed. Sanders, and I can't believe I'm saying this, appears to have a brain. If they were to continue to run this defense the way they've been running it the last two years, I would give them no chance of playing playoff calibur football - which, of course, they haven't been playing. If they continue to show multiple fronts and get more aggressive with their blitz packages, however, then they're really moving away from the base concepts of the scheme - and, I'm all for that.

I've always felt like they could be successful with the scheme - to the tune of 9-7/10-6, but don't think it's the kind of scheme that can carry the whole team to a championship, ala Baltimore. The scheme has had moderate success in Miami, but even with a bevy of pro bowlers on their defense, they couldn't even sniff a playoff run. As I said earlier, however, what Sanders has been running these first two preseason games has been much more aggressive than anything we've seen the previous two years.

My argument wrt to defense has been, and always will be, pressure. Running the scheme the way they were running it wasn't going to produce the consistent pressure necessary to play playoff/championship calibur football.

As for the talent... several players have been very, very good. While Jenkins has been awesome - going against substandard OT's mind you, but he has looked great. It's not as if I rail against every player TT acquires. On the contrary, I was a strong advocate of extending Jenkins, arguably the most dominant player on the defense thus far in camp.

I missed on Collins, and still can't stand Barnett... Hawk's play really exposes Barnett. I've spent a decent amount of time just watching those two, rolling the tape back and forth - Hawk is far and away superior to Barnett in every phase of the game.

Kampman has been better than I think anyone could have imagined... I was wondering if his performance last year was a fluke, but based on the first two preseason games, I'd have to say no.

Then of course there's Bigby... he's the type of Safety I've always wanted, and never thought the Packers would even look at, let alone bring in and give him a chance to win the job. If Bigby can step up and prove to be a dominant safety, and if Sanders has the good sense to use him in multiple ways, then there may be some hope. Something I haven't dared allow myself to dabble in.

[The Leaper]

The scheme they've been running for two years has been very passive... we have two years worth of games to prove it.

True...but again, the inexperience both in terms of the players and coaches can be blamed for much of that. This defense had to be rebuilt from the bottom up when Bates came to town 3 years ago. If you take up running as a hobby, you aren't going to complete a marathon during your first week pounding the pavement. In the same respect, we couldn't expect the Packer defense to show any greatness in the last few years. It takes time and growth to reach that level...and hopefully we are starting to see some signs of that on the field with our defense.

If this continues, no one will be more shocked than me. We've seen no evidence from the Bates based systems that there is any place in the scheme for consistent, creative attacks on the pocket - especially from the safety position.

No evidence? Bates' defenses were in the top 7 of the league in sacks three of the five years he was in Miami. How can you claim the scheme can't put consistent pressure on the pocket?

I've always felt like they could be successful with the scheme - to the tune of 9-7/10-6, but don't think it's the kind of scheme that can carry the whole team to a championship, ala Baltimore.

The Raven defense has only ONE POSTSEASON WIN in the six years since they won the Super Bowl, despite playing in a rather weak division. I'll give them their due for being so dominant in 2000, but they've hardly been good enough in terms of producing postseason success CONSISTENTLY to make them a lofty model for what needs to be done.

[Merlin]

I am not that surprised at the move. Underwood was having problems making his turns on his reconstructed knee. He still had flat out speed but he was struggling making a move. Underwood is a veteran, we don't want that remember? With the emergence of Bigby, he became expendable. Although I think an injured Underwood is better then a healthy Manual, but he's 3T's guy so it's no surprise he's still with the team.

[MJZiggy]

Uhhh Merlin? Bigby's no rookie either, remember? He's had the coolest name in the NFL for two seasons now....

[RashanGary]

If we had a crappy front 4 like we did in years past it wouldn't matter how we blitzed. Teams would just protect with five and then the RB's would get the blitzers becasue they wouldn't be focusing in the DL. The way it stands now the extra protection has to be focused on stopping Jenkins, Kampman, Jolly, Williams and KGB. They get beat over and over and eventually they stand there before the snap planning on how they are going to stop Jenkins. Then, a LB sneaks in and the RB is so focused on stopping what beat him the play before that he misses the LB and we get a sack that looks like a confusion sack but it's really just a team dominace sack.

You can't put out a bunch of cruddy talent and expect to get away with a bunch of blitzes. You have to have talent and then everything you do can be misconstrude as genius when it's really just dominace.

[Joemailman]

I am not that surprised at the move. Underwood was having problems making his turns on his reconstructed knee. He still had flat out speed but he was struggling making a move. Underwood is a veteran, we don't want that remember? With the emergence of Bigby, he became expendable. Although I think an injured Underwood is better then a healthy Manual, but he's 3T's guy so it's no surprise he's still with the team.

Wasn't Underwood also one of TT's guys?

[Rastak]

I am not that surprised at the move. Underwood was having problems making his turns on his reconstructed knee. He still had flat out speed but he was struggling making a move. Underwood is a veteran, we don't want that remember? With the emergence of Bigby, he became expendable. Although I think an injured Underwood is better then a healthy Manual, but he's 3T's guy so it's no surprise he's still with the team.

Wasn't Underwood also one of TT's guys?

He sure was.......him and Collins were drated together.

[Merlin]

Sure, he was one of 3T's guys but at some point, they are all of your guys as is the case at safety. You have to cut the one you have the smallest tent pitched for and keep the one who makes the redwood(y) grow, that would be Manual.

[wist43]

The scheme they've been running for two years has been very passive... we have two years worth of games to prove it.

True...but again, the inexperience both in terms of the players and coaches can be blamed for much of that. This defense had to be rebuilt from the bottom up when Bates came to town 3 years ago. If you take up running as a hobby, you aren't going to complete a marathon during your first week pounding the pavement. In the same respect, we couldn't expect the Packer defense to show any greatness in the last few years. It takes time and growth to reach that level...and hopefully we are starting to see some signs of that on the field with our defense.

If this continues, no one will be more shocked than me. We've seen no evidence from the Bates based systems that there is any place in the scheme for consistent, creative attacks on the pocket - especially from the safety position.

No evidence? Bates' defenses were in the top 7 of the league in sacks three of the five years he was in Miami. How can you claim the scheme can't put consistent pressure on the pocket?

I've always felt like they could be successful with the scheme - to the tune of 9-7/10-6, but don't think it's the kind of scheme that can carry the whole team to a championship, ala Baltimore.

The Raven defense has only ONE POSTSEASON WIN in the six years since they won the Super Bowl, despite playing in a rather weak division. I'll give them their due for being so dominant in 2000, but they've hardly been good enough in terms of producing postseason success CONSISTENTLY to make them a lofty model for what needs to be done.

Can't believe you're trying to argue that Baltimore's defense isn't a "lofty model" b/c they haven't had post season success since they won the SB. That's not the defenses fault. Year in and year out, the Ravens have one of the top 5 defensive units in the league - and they do, in fact strike fear in opponents. Baltimores problems are, and always have been, offensive.

By that reckoning, Miami's defense can't be used as a "lofty model" b/c they haven't had any post season success.

Some schemes can put up numbers that at the end of the day don't look bad, but in reality the numbers don't add up to overall production or wins. Kampman gets a sack and it's 3rd and 17 - somebody blows an assignment, misses a tackle, takes a bad angle, blah, blah, blah, and 3rd and 17 all of a sudden it's back to 1st and 10. The sack looks good in the stats, but ultimately the defense didn't get it done.

The Dolphins used to put up decent sack numbers due to having a damn good line, but nobody runs around talking about them being dominant then, or now. The Packers had 46 sacks last year (I think it was 46), a very good number, but they didn't consistently pressure the pocket. They'd get a sack, and then nothing for the next two series. Then another sack, and again nothing for two more series. The Packers defensive stats were horrific prior to the last 4 games, but they were still getting enough sacks to at least make that stat look decent.

Then there are other teams that put much more consistent pressure on the QB but the sack numbers don't reflect it. Can't remember when I saw it, but I was shocked when I saw a stat of how paltry the Bears sack totals were - this may have been a year or two ago - but, the point is, they harassed the QB and the offense into submission, but their sack totals were considerably short of what you'd expect from a defense that generated that much pressure. Pressure is more than sacks.