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 or

    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!
  2. Big Announcement Coming for 2015 Football Season!!

    Be on the look out for a big Packer Forum announcement when the schedule is released. Full details coming soon... Update: Announcement to be released on MONDAY!

Changing of the guard on the DL

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by captainWIMM, Jun 29, 2014.

  1. HyponGrey

    HyponGrey Caseus Locutus Est

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2012
    Messages:
    3,758
    Ratings:
    +1,030
    Click on wist43's name. It will pull up a small menu. On that menu is the word ignore. Click it. You can thank me later. The amount of fail I have just finished reading is truly mindboggling. It's not worth correcting him.
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2014
    • Old Old x 1
  2. mradtke66

    mradtke66 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Messages:
    467
    Ratings:
    +183
    The problem is you want perfection without compromise. That's not how life works. We've been over this before. Bringing in an extra lineman at the expense of the an ILB doesn't improve the defense on the whole.

    It might improve the pass rush.

    A 3-3 creates more natural running lanes to my eye. Without two ILBs to clog up the middle, both A-gaps are suddenly vulnerable.

    A 3-3 is also more likely to weaken our under (linebacker provided) coverage. This is the biggest thing I don't like about a 3-3. Draw up a simple cover-2 zone and cover-2 man against 3-1-1 offensive personnel. Who covers who? Hopefully you start seeing problems and weaknesses immediately.

    And yes, straight up cover-2. A defense needs an emergency, safe check for unscouted looks. For most teams, that means some form of cover-2.
     
  3. HyponGrey

    HyponGrey Caseus Locutus Est

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2012
    Messages:
    3,758
    Ratings:
    +1,030
    Just to reiterate, 3-3 is the 4-3 equivalent of 1-5. They still put 2 edge rushers and one DT. I don't think I've seen a 3-3 run with 3 DT in the NFL.

    Also just for reference, the more common front 7 designations are: NT, DT, edge rusher, off ball LB.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • Old Old x 1
  4. mradtke66

    mradtke66 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Messages:
    467
    Ratings:
    +183
    That's a good observation and I like it. I must have missed it previously.

    Maybe instead of common, you mean generic? Regardless, this is also correct. Helps hammer home the idea that on running plays, a 3-4 is a 5-2: two ends, two tackles, one nose guard.
     
  5. HyponGrey

    HyponGrey Caseus Locutus Est

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2012
    Messages:
    3,758
    Ratings:
    +1,030
    Most of the scouting circles I run with use those designations, but generic feels like a better fit
     
    • Old Old x 1
  6. wist43

    wist43 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2014
    Messages:
    133
    Ratings:
    +49
    D. Jones, Perry, and Neal are not DT's... they are DE's, and Neal can play either.

    I'd rather have any of them on the field rushing the passer and adding more size to the middle of the line than have both of B.Jones and Hawk on the field.

    What I'm talking about is more in line with how Baltimore runs their nickel - you guys react like it's throwing holy water on a demon, lol...
     
  7. wist43

    wist43 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2014
    Messages:
    133
    Ratings:
    +49
    Along with Jack, you guys are wildly childish...

    I put Jack on ignore months ago, and he still negative reps me, lol... you guys need to get a life.

    Wow, just wow :)
     
  8. captainWIMM

    captainWIMM Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Messages:
    5,109
    Ratings:
    +2,209
    Replacing both of them with DEs in the nickel package would result in them having to cover the RB and the TE. A recipe for disaster.
     
  9. mradtke66

    mradtke66 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Messages:
    467
    Ratings:
    +183
    You're wrong.

    Yes, we call Jones and Neal "ends" in a 3-4. At normal playing weights of 280 or more, they interior linemen, which is what 3-4 "ends" are. Jones is actually pushing 295 last I checked. If we played a 4-3, they would both project to 3-technique tackle. In the right scheme (4-3/3-4 hybrid or 4-3 with a dash of 3-4 like we ran in the 90s or Seattle runs), MAYBE they'd be the strong side (typically left) defensive end in base, playing head up on a tackle, kicking down to 3-technique in nickel. HEY, same thing they do for us in our scheme!

    They're both too slow to be a true edge player down after down (imho.) I will admit that Neal surprised me at OLB this year, but he was to easy to run around. I don't know if that's a speed problem or a "I've been an interior lineman my whole life, wtf is this thing called 'outside contain' " problem.

    Perry is a 4-3 end/3-4 OLB/edge defender. And I agree that having those three on the field would be a great start to a nickel front (I presume Daniels is taking a breather.) Let's just add CM3 and hey! Look at that, more or less the same nickel front already run.
     
  10. captainWIMM

    captainWIMM Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Messages:
    5,109
    Ratings:
    +2,209
    It´s true those guys would make up a formidable nickel front, but wist wants to replace the ILBs with those guys.
     
  11. wist43

    wist43 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2014
    Messages:
    133
    Ratings:
    +49
    If it's an either/or down, i.e. 1st and 10, 2nd and 6, etc... and the offense throws 3 wides out there, you need more beef up the middle, and you need to account for the possibility of the run.

    Capers does that by putting 2 fat guys out there in the middle that offer zero pass rush.

    With our personnel, we would be better off going with Daniels, D. Jones, and Perry on the line with their hand in the dirt, and Matthews, Neal/Bradford, and one of the slugs Hawk or Brad Jones depending on if you think run or pass is more likely over the other.

    Play the down linemen inside the tackles, and blitz drop however you want, play zone behind it... It's how Baltimore runs their 3-3 nickel, but they usually keep Ngata on the field.

    As for 3-3 vs 1-5... I'm not advocating 1-5 at all - unless you want to call Perry, Neal, and D.Jones LB's. Neal can be either, but Perry is NOT a LB - I think that has been proven over in spades. Play him to his strength, i.e. with his hand in the dirt, and rushing the passer.
     
  12. captainWIMM

    captainWIMM Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Messages:
    5,109
    Ratings:
    +2,209
    If the Packers line up that way you don't have to guess what the offense will be doing. They will throw the ball to either the RB or TE being covered by one of the OLBs.

    The problem at the ILB position isn't the scheme they're used in but the lack of talent. That falls on Thompson and not on Capers though.
     
  13. ThxJackVainisi

    ThxJackVainisi Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    3,825
    Ratings:
    +2,932
    So this poster says others are "wildly childish" for suggesting he be put on ignore and then posts he put me on ignore. What is wildly childish is blindly posting the same thing over and over again without dealing with legitimate counter arguments. He/she may as well end each post with a smilie of a child holding his breath in an attempt to get his way.

    Oh, and here's another concept this poster apparently struggles with: Just because he put me on ignore doesn't mean I put him on ignore. So when he posts BS, I'm free to rate it as I see fit.
     
  14. wist43

    wist43 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2014
    Messages:
    133
    Ratings:
    +49
    Everyone should 'do as Dom do, huh?? It's a wonder any other team in the NFL can even make a tackle ;)

    Although I agree with you about Thompson and the ILB's - they're junk... TT and Dom way, way over-value them.
     
  15. wist43

    wist43 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2014
    Messages:
    133
    Ratings:
    +49
    You comment about the ILB's backs up my point though... I want those guys off the field, and I want to replace them with some of our higher end DL talent that TT has invested in.

    That's my point.

    If we had San Francisco's LB's... I wouldn't bitch as much about the 2-4, which they use too much for my liking as well; but at least they have the talent to pull it off.
     
  16. wist43

    wist43 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2014
    Messages:
    133
    Ratings:
    +49
    I went back and looked at an alignment breakdown from the 2011 season that I posted in the "Why should I feel any different about the defense" thread.

    The NFL average from the 2011 season for the following alignments were -

    2-4 alignment: 10%
    3-3 alignment: 9%
    4-2 alignment: 20%

    Green Bay's percentages for that season were:

    2-4 alignment: 62%
    3-3 alignment: 0%
    4-2 alignment: 0%

    Granted we were woefully underpowered on defense that year as TT did absolutley less than nothing to help the unit in the offsesaon, but it is worth noting that the Packers set an all-time record for pass defense futility that year.

    Nobody seemed to care b/c Rodgers and the offense were also setting records - which of course to some degree contributed to the putrid defensive numbers - but that doesn't excuse the pathetic performance altogether - overall, that defense was nothing short of painful to watch.
     
  17. wist43

    wist43 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2014
    Messages:
    133
    Ratings:
    +49
    Other teams that ran a 2-4 or 3-3 what percentage of the time...

    Baltimore
    2-4: 8%
    3-3: 21%

    Cleveland
    2-4: 0%
    3-3: 9%

    Denver
    2-4: 0%
    3-3: 44%

    Miami
    2-4: 29%
    3-3: 27%

    New England
    2-4: 3%
    3-3: 33%

    New Orleans
    2-4: 0%
    3-3: 36%

    New York Giants
    2-4: 0%
    3-3: 22%

    New York Jets
    2-4: 3%
    3-3: 19%

    Oakland
    2-4: 1%
    3-3: 18%

    Pittsburgh (They played 3-4 base 58% of the time - most in the league)
    2-4: 26%
    3-3: 0%

    San Diego
    2-4: 37%
    3-3: 6%

    San Francisco (They're an outlier b/c of their LB's; and Aldon Smith might just as well be a DE)
    2-4: 42%
    3-3: 0%

    Washington (Another base 3-4 team that plays the 2nd most 3-4 base, 53% of the time)
    2-4: 44%
    3-3: 0%

    Note: Green Bay played 3-4 base 27% of the time. The 62% 2-4, was by far the highest. Washington and SF were the only other teams over 40%, and they played far more 3-4 base than Green Bay.

    Those are the numbers. Green Bay is by far the highest 2-4 outlier.
     
  18. captainWIMM

    captainWIMM Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Messages:
    5,109
    Ratings:
    +2,209
    Just answer this one simple question: If you would replace both ILBs with some DL who would cover the RB and the TE???
     
  19. wist43

    wist43 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2014
    Messages:
    133
    Ratings:
    +49
    Didn't say I'd replace them both... one or the other, depending on down/distance/opponent/formation/etc.

    Long term, or last year for that matter, I'd like to see TT get rid of both Hawk and Brad Jones. When they drafted Bradford I had hopes they'd move him inside, but I guess he's going to stay outside. Pre-draft, a lot of people had their hopes up for CJ Mosley or Ryan Shazier - Mosley was gone, and TT ended up passing on the position entirely.

    Brad Jones is supposed to be a good cover LB - I've only seen that sporadically; Hawk is pedestrian at everything. Pick your poison with either guy, but for sure and for certain, they are both below average NFL starters.

    If anyone else on the roster showed anything at playing ILB, I'd certainly like to see them given the shot to unseat them.
     
  20. captainWIMM

    captainWIMM Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Messages:
    5,109
    Ratings:
    +2,209
    Even if you replace only one of them with a DL the offense will be able to create a mismatch with either the RB or the TE in the passing game.

    I agree with you though on the lack of talent at ILB and don't understand Thompson not addressing the position at all this offseason.
     
  21. wist43

    wist43 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2014
    Messages:
    133
    Ratings:
    +49
    Then how do the other 31 NFL teams deal with covering TE's and RB's in the nickel when they don't play the 2-4 at all??

    As I pointed out by posting the percentages that other teams play the 2-4, they manage just fine. I didn't post all of the teams, only the ones that played either a 2-4 or a 3-3 some percentage of the time. The teams I didn't list, didn't play a 2-4 at all, ever.

    You guys are either so locked into 'all things Dom', or just arguing the point with me b/c you don't like anyone saying everything the Packers do isn't the essence of perfection.

    -------------------------------------------------------

    Let me ask you this - if you can't cover 3 wides, a TE, and a RB with 5 DB's and at least 1 LB (and that's assuming a blitz by sending 5 on the pass rush)... what kind of alien coverages would you be running that wouldn't afford you to be able to do that??

    I find it amazing that every guy on this board can't wrap their mind around playing nickel in any way other than the 2-4, when the rest of the league functions just fine without it.

    It sounds as if you would argue that it would be nothing short of idiotic to blitz out of any nickel formation??

    I'll give you an example of Dom blitzing out of the 2-4 to great effect (problem is he doesn't do this enough) - and that was Clay Matthews sack of Michael Vick in the 2010 playoff game. We were technically in a 2-4 on that play, but Capers had his backers roaming. Matthews actually came on the blitz from an ILB spot - coming underneath 2 defenders stunting (Hawk and Raji I think it was). He sent at least 5 on that play as I remember (Hawk, Raji, Matthews, Jenkins, and Walden).

    And what about all those corner and safety blitzes out of the slot?? How many sacks did Woodson have in 2010??

    Dom is entirely capable of putting together a good scheme, but the last 3 years he's done little more than line 'em up the way you guys seem to like, i.e. a static 2-4 and the results have been disasterous.

    It seems by the reckoning of every guy on this board is that the ONLY way to play the nickel is a straight up 2-4, and blitzing is against the rules ;)
     
  22. ThxJackVainisi

    ThxJackVainisi Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    3,825
    Ratings:
    +2,932
    This is one of the more idiotic things posted. How far do you have to search to find many of us calling for Capers’ job over the past couple of seasons?
    Here’s a concept apparently too difficult for this poster to comprehend: There are legitimate criticisms of Capers without arguing the 2-4 is the ‘root of all evil’.
    When a poster begins by calling Capers names; when (s)he exaggerates by repeatedly listing OLBs with the DLs; when (s)he frequently forgets to include the Packers best D lineman last season (Daniels) in suggested lineups; when (s)he posts Capers just has to make players like MD Jennings and McMillian play well; When (s)he ignores the percentage of time OLBs spent in coverage (the 2-4 = 4-2), you know (s)he is blindly locked into one idea in spite of evidence to the contrary.

    Here’s another example:
    That’s just ignorant: PPF has the Packers at #5 in the league in blitz percentage but this poster must believe none of those came from the formation they played the most. https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2014/04/07/team-blitzing/
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2014
  23. wist43

    wist43 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2014
    Messages:
    133
    Ratings:
    +49
    http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-...ld-card-playoffs-Packers-vs-Eagles-highlights

    Notice on the 1st play of the game - the Eagles have 4 WR's on the field, and the Packers are in the 2-4.

    The Eagles send 5 out into the pattern, we cover with 6 (including Matthews dropping), and blitz Bishop from LOLB. We send 5 on the rush, drop Matthews, result - sack.

    By the reckoning of most on this board - that is an impossibility.

    ---------------------------------------------------------

    Then notice on the next highlight, the Eagles have 3 WR's, 1 TE, and 1 RB. We are in a static 2-4.

    They run, and Leshon McCoy gains 7 yds before S Josh Bell comes up from 15 yds deep and makes the tackle. We are simply outmanned at the LOS and on the 2nd level to be able to get to McCoy.

    The conclusion should be that if we are in the 2-4 on a run/pass downs, we can't have a static 2-4 called. If we are in the 2-4, it has to be a blitz/gap responsibility call. Playing static in that situation is simply too easy for any NFL offensive line to block.

    ---------------------------------------------------------

    The next play to look at is at 1:11 - the Clay Matthews sack.

    They have 3 wides, 1 TE, 1 RB, we are in a 2-4 again.

    On this play we actually send 6 - on my previous post I didn't notice that Woodson had come up into the A gap, but his blitz got eaten up, which helped free up Matthews.

    We sent Jenkins, Raji, Matthews, Hawk, Walden, and Woodson on the rush.

    That's 6 pass rushers and 5 in coverage against 3 WR, 1 TE, 1 RB personnel. By what I'm reading from you guys on this website - THAT SHOULD NOT EVEN BE POSSIBLE!!! Result?? SACK.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When we went static 2-4, more often than not they hit us pretty good.

    The bottom line is, you can play 2-4 as a subpackage, but not your base; and when you do play it on either/or downs, you can't play static.

    With the Packers personnel, I might play some 2-4 here and there, but certainly not 60-70% of the time. That's just nuts, but that's what Capers has been doing, and that is what you guys are trying to defend.

    No other team in the NFL plays defense like Dom Capers - and the last 3 years the results have been disasterous. Over half of the league doesn't even play a 2-4 - EVER!!! Yet you guys think the nickel can't be played in anything other than a 2-4??

    Maybe you guys need to watch some other teams play sometimes and see how the rest of the league lives??
     
  24. captainWIMM

    captainWIMM Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Messages:
    5,109
    Ratings:
    +2,209
    Other teams don't take their ILBs off the field. 17 teams played a 3-4 defense in the NFL last season. The Packers played with two ILBs on the field for 82.7% of the defensive snaps. Only three teams (Buffalo, Kansas City and Pittsburgh) lined up with two ILBs on fewer occasions than the Packers. The 3-4 defenses which finished in the top 10 in yards and points allowed (Arizona, New Orleans, San Francisco) had two ILBs on the field for a combined 96.1% of the snaps.

    In that case the three corners would cover the three WRs. If you take both ILBs off the field that leaves the defense and rush five guys to pressure the QB that would leave the two safeties and an OLB to cover the RB and TE. Even if you play with a single high free safety (which the Packers weren't able to do last season) the OLB would have to cover either the RB or TE. If you do that constantly teams will exploit the mismatch.
     
  25. wist43

    wist43 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2014
    Messages:
    133
    Ratings:
    +49
    You're ignoring all of the evidence I have provided that shoots the static 2-4 down, and shows the way Dom plays it is suicide.

    You mention NO, Arizona, and SF. SF has two All-Pro ILB's, and just about everyone on their defense is a pro bowler; NO never plays the 2-4, they play a 3-3, so what they do with there personnel is apples and oranges compared to what we do; and Arizona 1) has much better personnel; and 2) plays a base 3-4 approx. 50% of the time, while we play it only about 25% of the time (I think much less since 2011).

    You're grasping as straws to avoid admitting that the way Dom plays the 2-4 nickel is the single biggest outlier in relation to the rest of the league. If Dom was putting a championship calibur defense on the field, and pregame all anyone talked about was how could the opponents offense possibly match up to Dom's genius - then you would be right, and all of the NFL would be following suit; but no one is following suit, and other than Rodgers and the offense, what people are talking about pre-game is how pathetic our defense is. Dom's defenses have sucked royally for the past 3 years.

    Dom is your man that's for sure. NFL records for pass defense futility, 31st defensive ranking in 2011, all-time NFL record for most passing yds allowed, NFL records set against us in the playoffs, embarrassing blowout losses, 25th defensive ranking last year, on and on...

    If that's what you're looking for in your defense... then by all means, follow Dom - he's definitely your man.
     

Share This Page