1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!
    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers.

    You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up/a> or Log In

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member! Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!

Carl Bradford Thread

Discussion in 'Draft Talk' started by ThxJackVainisi, May 10, 2014.

  1. wist43
    Offline

    wist43 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2014
    Messages:
    105
    Ratings:
    +35 / 5 / -7
    Packer Fan Since:
    1968
    Well, the Packers obviously don't care much about ILB - at all, lol... even though, amazingly, Capers plays the inside guys on almost every snap, while he sits highly drafted DL talent.

    The Packers have one of the worst defenses in the league for a reason.
  2. captainWIMM
    Offline

    captainWIMM Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Messages:
    2,375
    Ratings:
    +743 / 31 / -7
    Packer Fan Since:
    1995
    Once again, a lot of teams play their ILB more often than the Packers.

    Yes, because we don´t have enough talent on the defensive side of the ball.
  3. Sunshinepacker
    Offline

    Sunshinepacker Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2013
    Messages:
    607
    Ratings:
    +218 / 24 / -0
    Packer Fan Since:
    1992
  4. Dylan Hoppe
    Offline

    Dylan Hoppe Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2013
    Messages:
    454
    Ratings:
    +70 / 5 / -0
    Packer Fan Since:
    1994
    I would hope that they give him a chance at ILB only AFTER he fails at OLB. Gotta agree with WIMM. Have to cover more at ILB too.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  5. NelsonsLongCatch
    Offline

    NelsonsLongCatch Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Messages:
    2,106
    Location:
    Chi-Town
    Ratings:
    +578 / 31 / -20
    If anybody cares, Chris Simms loves this kid. He thinks he'll see the field on passing downs to begin before moving a permanent role either inside or outside.
  6. wist43
    Offline

    wist43 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2014
    Messages:
    105
    Ratings:
    +35 / 5 / -7
    Packer Fan Since:
    1968
    Where ya gonna play him or Thorton??

    Matthews is pencilled in at ROLB; Brad Jones and Hawk will never come off the field - that's 3 of your front 6 right there.

    So that leaves 3 spots for Peppers, Raji, Daniels, D. Jones, Perry, Neal, Worthy, Boyd, Mulumba, Guion, Thorton, Bradford, Barrington, Lattimore, and Palmer.

    Assume Guion, Barrington, Lattimore, and Palmer all get sent packing. That's still 3 playing spots divvied up between 11 guys??
  7. captainWIMM
    Offline

    captainWIMM Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Messages:
    2,375
    Ratings:
    +743 / 31 / -7
    Packer Fan Since:
    1995
    I don´t think either Thornton or Bradford will play a lot as long as everyone stays healthy. As it won´t take long until injuries start depleting the roster they´ll get their chances.
  8. jaybadger82
    Offline

    jaybadger82 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2012
    Messages:
    750
    Ratings:
    +342 / 20 / -6
    Packer Fan Since:
    1992
    I think they're looking to rotate players more frequently in the defensive front in order to keep guys fresh and the pass rush consistent.

    Also, I'm of the belief that fatigue increases the chance of injury so a bigger rotation may help.
    • Agree Agree x 3
  9. wist43
    Offline

    wist43 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2014
    Messages:
    105
    Ratings:
    +35 / 5 / -7
    Packer Fan Since:
    1968
    I agree... I want to see a rotation - but what will that look like if you're going to play a 3-4??

    Who do you have that can play NT?? Raji, but he's not much of a 2-gapper, and he's garbage against the double team. Gion can't play the nose, Boyd or Thorton either. So as of now, we have exactly 1 NT who is not an ideal fit at NT.

    That being the case, what are we going to run for a scheme then?? All of the rest of the DL are either 3 or 5T's... and most of them are best suited as 3T's in pass rushing situations.

    Daniels, D. Jones. Thorton, Boyd, and Gion inside; and Peppers, Perry, Worthy, and Neal on the outside - with Neal, Mulumba, and Bradford slated for OLB.

    How do you make all that work within a 3-4?? I think the answer is obvious - you can't make work within a traditional 3-4... with that personnel group, how do you not run a ton of 3-3?? If we're still running a ton of 2-4, we right back where we started, only worse, b/c we don't have any run stoppers left - with Pickett gone.

    I like the players - but have zero faith that Capers will put together a workable scheme and rotation. We had good players last year - and look at the mess we ended up with!!
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. longtimefan
    Offline

    longtimefan Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2005
    Messages:
    15,694
    Location:
    Milwaukee
    Ratings:
    +2,544 / 76 / -14
    Packer Fan Since:
    1975
    So what was 2010? Solid rotation which led to a SB, maybe I am wrong?
  11. rodell330
    Offline

    rodell330 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    2,446
    Location:
    Canton, Ohio
    Ratings:
    +831 / 174 / -43
    Packer Fan Since:
    1990
    Your partial correct but I'll lean more towards the players vs the scheme or rotation. Woodson, Collins, jolly, Jenkins etc.

    anyways I still don't get this pick. People are saying he's an olb but we need help in the middle more then the outside.
  12. captainWIMM
    Offline

    captainWIMM Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Messages:
    2,375
    Ratings:
    +743 / 31 / -7
    Packer Fan Since:
    1995
    Raji played at his best when he was playing NT, not sure though he will put in the effort necessary to be succesful in 2014. In addition I think Boyd and Guion can line up there as well.

    I think there are numerous possibilities as to how to line up at the front. IMO there are nine guys capable of playing DE, five players that could line up either as DE or OLB and another four OLBs on the roster. If Capers can´t come up with some packages and schemes that will result in an improved pass rush he has to be fired.

    Right now I don´t see anyone capable of replacing either Hawk or Jones at ILB, so the position will probably be the weak link in the defense. An improved pass rush should help the secondary though, so I would expect the defense to take a step in the right direction.
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
  13. Sunshinepacker
    Offline

    Sunshinepacker Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2013
    Messages:
    607
    Ratings:
    +218 / 24 / -0
    Packer Fan Since:
    1992
    Nose tackles don't have to be 330+ lb behemoths, there are 3-4 teams that use NT weighing 300-315 lbs and both Boyd aand Thorton are guys that could hit that range. I mean, after watching Raji get thrown around by double teams, size alone oobviously doesn't matter.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. wist43
    Offline

    wist43 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2014
    Messages:
    105
    Ratings:
    +35 / 5 / -7
    Packer Fan Since:
    1968
    Depends on how you use the guy you have playing on the nose... is he gonna 2-gap in an Oakie?? play under??

    What Capers has done far too much of in the past few years, is play the 2-4 with Raji and Pickett taking on 5 offensive linemen. They were put in an impossible situation down after down.

    We weren't going to get any pass rush out of either one of them b/c they were geared up to deal with eating up blocks, and Pickett didn't have any pass rush to his game anyway. So if it was a pass, we literally on had a 2 man rush; and if it was a run, we were undermanned in the box b/c we only had 6 guys in there, and 2 of them were Brad Jones and AJ Hawk - two very pedestrian players.

    Raji on the nose is fine, but you're going to have to 1 gap him, slant the line, and have 3 DL on the field. You can go to a 2-4 in passing situations, but they must be actual passing situations - not run/pass situations of 1st and 10, 2nd and 6, 3rd and 3 that Capers has been using it in.

    My preference would still be to use a 3-3 and 4-2 over the 2-4, but Capers is married to it, so we're stuck with it.

    I have no faith in Capers. In 2010, he had more talent available, and he made it work to some extent... it was still problematic even back then, but we had Woodson, Collins, Bishop, and Jenkins on the field - so the alignment was more workable; but given the personnel we have on the roster today, there's no way the 2-4 can be justified. We simply have too much invested in the defensive line to leave those guys standing on the sideline, while slugs like AJ Hawk and Brad Jones never come off the field.
  15. mradtke66
    Offline

    mradtke66 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Messages:
    388
    Location:
    Madison, WI
    Ratings:
    +133 / 8 / -0
    Not exactly. The OLBs are defacto ends in the 2-4. They are dealing with the tackles.

    The switch to nickel is dictated by offensive personnel. If the other team is going to come out 3-wide, we're going nickel. I, and more sane people in the world, want a CB on a WR 955-99% of the time. This means nickel.
    [/quote]

    That is, once again, a gross oversimplification from you. Hawk and Jones may not be great (I'd rate them both about average,) they are the best on the roster for the job. They are responsible for hook zones, man to man on tight ends and backs, and scraping down the line and filling gaps in the run game.

    I know your preferred counter: you want Matthews playing one of the inside backer positions in nickel a '4-2'. Terrific, you've neutralized our best player on defense. Opposing offensives love you, you've made their job one thousand times easier.

    Okay, you want a 3-3. Guess what? Same personnel will be on the field. Let's say Daniels or Raji as the pass rushing nose, Datone or Daniels or Worthy as the pass rushing 3-technique, and Perry as the 7-technique end. Your linebackers would likely Hawk, Jones, and Matthews. What did you change? Nothing.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. ThxJackVainisi
    Offline

    ThxJackVainisi Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    2,719
    Ratings:
    +1,870 / 48 / -17
    This AGAIN displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the 2-4: How can someone watch the Packers and the 2-4 for any length of time and believe it was "literally" a 2 man rush formation. And to think the two down linemen were supposed to be taking on 5 OL?

    It's one thing to repeat the same complaint over and over and over again, but to also get it wrong...
  17. wist43
    Offline

    wist43 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2014
    Messages:
    105
    Ratings:
    +35 / 5 / -7
    Packer Fan Since:
    1968
    1st and 10, you have Raji and Pickett on the field to deal with the run. It ends up being a pass... guess what?? They are going to get exactly zero pass rush; they really didn't even push the pocket much.

    So yeah, in that alignment?? it's a 2 man pass rush.

    An alignment that has Matthews, Daniels, D. Jones and Neal on the other hand?? You have 4 legimate pass rushers on the field - I'd expect more pressure.
  18. mradtke66
    Offline

    mradtke66 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Messages:
    388
    Location:
    Madison, WI
    Ratings:
    +133 / 8 / -0
    And a much more likely chance that the offense checks to a run right at the lighter front 4. Not a big deal on 3-10, but both are legitimate options on 1-10.

    That seems to be the root of the problem here. You don't appear to get the risk/reward compromise that defensive alignments have.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. wist43
    Offline

    wist43 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2014
    Messages:
    105
    Ratings:
    +35 / 5 / -7
    Packer Fan Since:
    1968
    Well, your 3-3 might look like that, but my 3-3 wouldn't.

    Last year, I'd have had Daniels, D. Jones, and probably Perry on the line. And Matthews, Neal, and one of Hawk/Jones/Mulumba - depending on who I'm gameplanning against. I also would have had Raji available for more pass rush duty, as I wouldn't have burned him out trying to 2-gap and take on double teams on run downs.

    This year??

    I'd be looking at Peppers, Daniels, and D. Jones on the line, with Matthews, Neal, and one of the 3 mentioned above.

    I'd much rather have one of those 3 DL on the field than both Brad Jones and Hawk - those 3 DL, and one of Hawk or Jones is a much better looking front than the mess that is Brad Jones and AJ Hawk on the field together all the time.

    The purpose of going to a 3-3 is to get one of Brad Jones or Hawk off the field, and one of your more talented DL on the field. You get more size on the field, and you get more talent on the field. Why Packer fans get in such a twist over the very idea is pretty comical, lol...

    The results from what Capers has been doing, and what you and the others are cheering for - has been a train wreck; yet you keep saber rattling for it. Really, it's amazing to watch you guys try to make these arguments.
  20. wist43
    Offline

    wist43 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2014
    Messages:
    105
    Ratings:
    +35 / 5 / -7
    Packer Fan Since:
    1968
    I wouldn't be in the nickel unless it was a passing situation... unlike Capers, I don't have a problem playing base 3-4 on 1st and 10 ;)
  21. wist43
    Offline

    wist43 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2014
    Messages:
    105
    Ratings:
    +35 / 5 / -7
    Packer Fan Since:
    1968
    Trying to scramble out the door here, so didn't give my reply to this much thought...

    But the argument you cite there, is the argument I use against the 2-4 all the time. The alignment I gave you there of Matthews, Peppers, D. Jones, and Neal is the 2-4 I would run - if I ran it, but I don't like the 2-4 even with those personnel.

    I'd much prefer to use a 3-3 as my base nickel; a 4-2 next; and maybe only an occasional 2-4 look.

    We have a lot more DL talent, than we do LB talent - it only makes sense to marshall those strengths, and seek to find ways to mitigate our weaknesses, i.e. our LB's; specifically B. Jones and Hawk.
  22. mradtke66
    Offline

    mradtke66 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Messages:
    388
    Location:
    Madison, WI
    Ratings:
    +133 / 8 / -0
    In either case, you have failed pass coverage. Please explain how you can play man-2-deep (cover 2 man, whatever you want to call it) and not immediately die?

    In your proposed lineup, TWO of Matthews, Neal, and one of Hawk/Jones/Mulumba will have to take the tight end and a running back in man to man coverage. If I'm the quarterback, I'm licking my chops.
  23. mradtke66
    Offline

    mradtke66 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Messages:
    388
    Location:
    Madison, WI
    Ratings:
    +133 / 8 / -0
    Once again: explain how you will play coverage if the offense comes out in a 3WR, 1TE, 1TB set on 1st and 10? You'll play base defense?

    Are you trying to lose?
  24. Dylan Hoppe
    Offline

    Dylan Hoppe Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2013
    Messages:
    454
    Ratings:
    +70 / 5 / -0
    Packer Fan Since:
    1994
    Yeah if I see Neal guarding say... Eric Ebron at any time this year I will cry


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  25. wist43
    Offline

    wist43 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2014
    Messages:
    105
    Ratings:
    +35 / 5 / -7
    Packer Fan Since:
    1968
    Are you saying 7 guys in coverage isn't enough?? lol...

    Hawk or Jones can cover the TE or RB... just depends on how you want to matchup with the opponent.

    How does anyone else in the league ever cover anyone - if they aren't in a 2-4??

    You guys make it sound like playing anything other than a 2-4 is akin to insanity ;)

Share This Page