Underwood cut???

[wist43]

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?

I liked Underwood as a player... can't fault TT for an injury like this. And even a guy like Murphy, you can't fault him - you may be able to fault the medical staff, but if the docs say a guy has a clean bill of health, that's what you have to act on.

Same thing with Hodge... despite the fact that I never thought he was a good fit for this system - I've always viewed him as an ILB in a 3-4. I would think Petellor tendonitis would be detectable.

[Rastak]

Every injury is different of course but guys come back from ACL's all the time. I'm surprised they cut him.

[wist43]

Every injury is different of course but guys come back from ACL's all the time. I'm surprised they cut him.

I'm somewhat surprised. I had Underwood penciled in as the starter based on his performance last preseason; but, his recovery was/is problematic.

We've gotten spoiled by advances in surgical techniques and we just expect that a guy is going to bounce back. Just goes to show that coming back from this type of injury isn't automatic.

[Fritz]

I guess I'm most surprised that they didn't put Underwood on the PUP list, give him another six or eight weeks to recover, then give him a tryout. My guess is that the medical staff must have determined that he just wasn't going to get it back.

[The Leaper]

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.

My point is that you have been down on Bates' defensive scheme...when his defenses were arguably almost as good as Baltimore's in the early part of this decade. You can't blame his defenses for Miami's ineptitude on offense either.

Baltimore's defense consistently got pressure one year...in 2000. Since then, they haven't been as consistent. Favre absolutely torched that defense in 2001...precisely because they couldn't get any pressure on him whatsoever.

Pressure is the result of one thing...EXPERIENCED TALENT. It isn't scheme. It isn't fronts. It isn't coaching genius. It is about having guys up front who can flat out beat the OL guys in front of them. I agree completely with the sentiment that blitzing is USELESS if your front four can't get it done. Blitzing only becomes effective when your front four disrupts the OL and forces the RBs to wonder where their blocking assignment will come from, causing miscues which get the QB to start throwing the ball earlier than he wants to.

The reason we are getting pressure now when we didn't 2 years ago has NOTHING to do with the scheme or coaching gameplan. It has to do with the talent and depth of a DL with guys like Jenkins, Kampman, KGB, Williams and the rest. You put that kind of talent out there, and you could be successful in just about whatever scheme you wish to run.

[Harlan Huckleby]

My point is that you have been down on Bates' defensive scheme...when his defenses were arguably almost as good as

Excuse the interuption .... I just found out yesterday that Bates is the DC for Denver. I suppose everybody else knew.

carry on.

[Bretsky]

I guess I'm most surprised that they didn't put Underwood on the PUP list, give him another six or eight weeks to recover, then give him a tryout. My guess is that the medical staff must have determined that he just wasn't going to get it back.

Makes ya wonder how good hit attitude is

I had that torn ACL; I know the Packer brass was saying he was way ahead of schedule and all, but that is truly the exception rather than the norm so I didn't buy their company line for a second. Most of the time it takes 6-12 months to get it back, and then you spend a year working through the kinks to hopefully get back to 100% with no pain. Mine, it stayed at 95%. Anything under full recovery is not up to NFL Standards.

I too am surprised we didn't give him more time.

[wist43]

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.

My point is that you have been down on Bates' defensive scheme...when his defenses were arguably almost as good as Baltimore's in the early part of this decade. You can't blame his defenses for Miami's ineptitude on offense either.

Baltimore's defense consistently got pressure one year...in 2000. Since then, they haven't been as consistent. Favre absolutely torched that defense in 2001...precisely because they couldn't get any pressure on him whatsoever.

Pressure is the result of one thing...EXPERIENCED TALENT. It isn't scheme. It isn't fronts. It isn't coaching genius. It is about having guys up front who can flat out beat the OL guys in front of them. I agree completely with the sentiment that blitzing is USELESS if your front four can't get it done. Blitzing only becomes effective when your front four disrupts the OL and forces the RBs to wonder where their blocking assignment will come from, causing miscues which get the QB to start throwing the ball earlier than he wants to.

Leaper, there's absolutely no comparison between Miami's D and Baltimores... even if the numbers some how come out looking similar. That's just too much of a stretch.

As for your contention that pressure is the result of one thing - "experienced talent"... can't agree with that either. Yes, talent makes up for a lot of sins, but you have to have a scheme that makes maximum use of that talent. In general, you're right that blitzing is useless w/o the talent to get home, but confusing the OL, QB, and RB's in blitz pick up is all about scheme. If an OT gets beat physically, that's talent; but, guys coming free, the QB making the wrong read b/c he's not sure of what he's seeing, the RB not knowing who to pick up... those things are all scheme/game plan related.

It is, or at least has been, extremely rare to see a Packer defender come free on the blitz... that right there should tell you that there is no confusion on the part of the offensive players. They see the blitz coming, and they pick it up. That's scheme, not talent.

Talent may allow a Def Coord to be more creative, and you can make the arguement that Bates, and now Sanders haven't had the talent to be more creative; but, if you can't generate pressure with your base 4 man rush, you've got to do it with the blitz; and, heretofore, the Packers schemes and blitz packages have been simplistic, predictable, and telegraphed. Even if you have a ton of talent on the defensive side of the ball - a good offense usually won't have much trouble shutting down the pass rush under those circumstances.

Hopefully the talent we've been seeing flashed this preseason isn't exactly that - a flash in the pan. If Sanders continues to show multiple fronts, and continues to be more aggressive in his play calling, and the players continue to grow and develop, then the defense has a chance to be better than average. If he reverts back to sitting back in zones, and uses his LB's and S's more as glorified CB's than as "search and destroy" killing machines, then no, I don't think they can be much better than average.

[RashanGary]

Talent may allow a Def Coord to be more creative, and you can make the arguement that Bates, and now Sanders haven't had the talent to be more creative; but, if you can't generate pressure with your base 4 man rush, you've got to do it with the blitz; and, heretofore, the Packers schemes and blitz packages have been simplistic, predictable, and telegraphed. Even if you have a ton of talent on the defensive side of the ball - a good offense usually won't have much trouble shutting down the pass rush under those circumstances.

I'd argue that if your front four is not talented enough to get pressure that it makes it easy to pick up blitzers and therefor renders the blitz much less effective if not useless. It all starts with talent.

[wist43]

Talent may allow a Def Coord to be more creative, and you can make the arguement that Bates, and now Sanders haven't had the talent to be more creative; but, if you can't generate pressure with your base 4 man rush, you've got to do it with the blitz; and, heretofore, the Packers schemes and blitz packages have been simplistic, predictable, and telegraphed. Even if you have a ton of talent on the defensive side of the ball - a good offense usually won't have much trouble shutting down the pass rush under those circumstances.

I'd argue that if your front four is not talented enough to get pressure that it makes it easy to pick up blitzers and therefor renders the blitz much less effective if not useless. It all starts with talent.

True... if you're completely devoid of talent up front, you might as well sit back, play zone, and try to pick off passes. Of course you're going to give up 836 pts/gm doing that, and you're going to be drafting in the top 5 the next year.

[Partial]

Wist is completely right on this one. Stats aren't super meaningful when not taking into account pressures and whatnot.

For example, Freeney's stats looked very pedestrian last year (I think he had 3 sacks) but he forced more quarterbacks to scramble and make bad throws than anyone by leading the league in pressures.

[The Leaper]

Leaper, there's absolutely no comparison between Miami's D and Baltimores... even if the numbers some how come out looking similar. That's just too much of a stretch.

So let me get this straight. Even if Baltimore and Miami can have similar defensive stats for a five year period...you are going to argue that it is then a STRETCH to compare the two?

That makes absolutely NO SENSE to me.

If two teams put up similar numbers over the course of five games...I see your point. Look to the last 4 games Green Bay played last year compared to Chicago. Does that mean we had a better defense last year? Of course not.

However, if our defense puts up numbers similar to Chicago over five years...then I see no reason to suggest it would be a stretch to compare the two. Miami's defense during Bates' tenure was comparable to Baltimore's...both were top 5 defenses. I'll give you the point that Baltimore overall probably was a TAD better during that timeframe (don't have time right now to look up all the numbers) but not enough to claim it is a stretch to compare the two.

[wist43]

Leaper, there's absolutely no comparison between Miami's D and Baltimores... even if the numbers some how come out looking similar. That's just too much of a stretch.

So let me get this straight. Even if Baltimore and Miami can have similar defensive stats for a five year period...you are going to argue that it is then a STRETCH to compare the two?

That makes absolutely NO SENSE to me.

If two teams put up similar numbers over the course of five games...I see your point. Look to the last 4 games Green Bay played last year compared to Chicago. Does that mean we had a better defense last year? Of course not.

However, if our defense puts up numbers similar to Chicago over five years...then I see no reason to suggest it would be a stretch to compare the two. Miami's defense during Bates' tenure was comparable to Baltimore's...both were top 5 defenses. I'll give you the point that Baltimore overall probably was a TAD better during that timeframe (don't have time right now to look up all the numbers) but not enough to claim it is a stretch to compare the two.

I would argue all day long that Miami isn't in the same class as Baltimore - regardless of what the stats said.

That said, I did look up a few stats - like you, I don't want to turn this into a dissertation/research project, but here are a few numbers.

Balt Mia
Pts/gm 12.6 17.7
Sacks 60 47
INTs 26 8
Fum 11 18
Yds/gm 264 289

From 2002-2006, they ranked in yds (admittedly a poor measure):

22,3,6,5,1 3,10,8,18,4

The 22nd ranking for Baltimore in 2002 I can only assume that was the year of their ill-fated attempt to switch to a 4-3... Ray Lewis demanding a trade if they didn't switch back... I'm with him on that one.

I forget how many TD's the Baltimore defense scored themselves last year, but I'm pretty sure they were #1 in defensive TD's as well.

About the only 4-3 teams in the league that I rank with the top 3-4 teams would be Jax and Chicago.

When you see Baltimore, San Diego, and Pittsburgh on your schedule, the first thing you think of is defense. When you Miami on the schedule, you think, "we can win that game".

To me, there's a huge difference between the dominant 3-4 defenses and the rest of the league.

[The Leaper]

To me, there's a huge difference between the dominant 3-4 defenses and the rest of the league.

Perhaps. However, when it comes to postseason success, there really isn't any evidence that a 3-4 defense has an advantage. That is basically my point. I'm not seeing the huge difference that you do. Posting big numbers in the regular season, but not getting it done consistently in the postseason doesn't do it for me. Again...ONE PLAYOFF WIN since 2000 for Baltimore, despite all those glossy top 5 rankings you point out. Hell, Mike Sherman got TWO playoff wins in Green Bay in five years time!

New England, Tampa Bay, Philly, Tennessee, Jacksonville, Carolina...there are plenty of examples of 4-3 teams in recent years that have had just as much success (typically moreso) as Baltimore/SD/Pittsburgh in terms of the postseason.

Besides, Baltimore and Pittsburgh feasted for years on the hapless Browns and Bengals 4 times a year...plus the Pittsburgh and Baltimore offenses weren't anything to be scared of either. Those defenses had a nice spate of divisional games to help boost their defensive numbers.

The only 3-4 that truly scares me now is San Diego. They've put up comparable numbers recently...and done so against a far superior offensive division that includes Denver and KC. Plus, they have the offense to match the defense.

Baltimore is still to be respected IMO, but not scary in terms of dominance. As you point out, they make big plays off your mistakes more than they physically dominate you for 4 quarters. Pittsburgh isn't what they used to be at this point IMO.

[Partial]

New England won the super bowls running a 3-4.