5 Moves for Every NFC North Team over the Offseason

[GreenBaySlacker]

The Packers offense is centered around the passing game. There's no reason to take the ball out of the best player in the league in Rodgers to accomodate a 32 year old running back in Peterson.



Geez, linung up in a nickle defense doesn't result in a team having only four or five players in the box at the time of the snap.

What are you saying??? You have to take the ball out of Rodgers hands, or it wouldn't be a run.
Or maybe you are saying we should abandon the run completely, sort of the way capers abandoned the dline...
Either way I disagree

But seriously. When it is a called run. Why couldn't Peterson be back 7 yards and do what he has always done? Since asking him to play 4 yards back in the shotgun, isn't an option apparently.

And as far as this whole 4 or 5 in the box thing. What do you call our base defense? The nickel . The one that's not the base def but the one we play the most? You know, 2 dlinemen, 4 lbs, but peppers was actually a de but not really. And the nickel who is a tweener... what the hell do you call that defense? Because I see 2 dlinemen, what used to be peppers. Our other olb, that makes 4. Usually the nickel or a safety up there covering someone. And everyone else back playing soft....

So technically. How am I wrong? Or are you generalizing?

 

[RRyder]

Packers play 4 or 5 in the box all the time. That's called the capers 2/4/5 defense. With everyone back in coverage. Then we rely on our tweener dbs to tackle well...

Funny how we play that defense against offenses that are trying to keep up with Rodger's. But according to you, opposing defenses keep at least 6 in the box against Rodger's himself.... not a qb trying to keep up with Rodger's, but actually Rodger's...

That tells me our 2/4/5 scheme sucks.

Also tells me that Rodger's would eat teams alive with 6 in the box consistently to guard against a rb like peterson, and try to rush the qb....

I know you can count. If we're playing a 2/4/5 defense that means there will almost always be 6 men in the box (2+4=6) and if they bring down a Saftey that means 7 (6+1). That's not them playing 4 or 5 in the box. No defense does that unless they're in prevent or facing an empty backfield with 5 Wide

Wtf are you talking about? The problem with not having a running game is precisely because teams are ONLY LINING UP 6 in the box most plays. You are literally the first person I've seen to think a team is stacking the box and trying to stop the run by only having 6 players in the box. 6 in the box is pretty much the epitome of the nickle defense

To give you a point a reference a "stacked" box by the defense is generally defined as 8 in the box if we're running a traditional lineup with 2 WRs and would be 7 in the box in a 3 WR set as in either of those situations the defense needs to bring another player up closer to the line (a Saftey generally) that normally wouldn't be there. Hense why they call it "stacking the box"

I'm against signing AP because I think he's washed up. But thats neither here nor there. Your argument that it would MAKE defenses play Rodgers with 6 in the box is asinine. That's what teams do now because it's a rarity that anyone brings a Saftey up in run support against us. It's kinda the problem.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

What are you saying??? You have to take the ball out of Rodgers hands, or it wouldn't be a run.
Or maybe you are saying we should abandon the run completely, sort of the way capers abandoned the dline...
Either way I disagree

But seriously. When it is a called run. Why couldn't Peterson be back 7 yards and do what he has always done? Since asking him to play 4 yards back in the shotgun, isn't an option apparently.

There's no reason to sign a running back in Peterson that doesn't excel in the Packers system. With the team's offensive line struggling to block for the run the unit would have a tough time opening up any holes against stacked boxes with AP lining up seven yards behind the LOS, indicating they are going to run the ball.