Defense under Barry

milani

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 11, 2012
Messages
1,919
Reaction score
450
If we solely take a look at teams that have won the Super Bowl over the last 11 years the average ranking of the scoring offense (6.9) is still better compared to their defense (8.4). With the team having changed dramatically over the Super Bowl era I don't think it makes a lot of sense to include teams that were successful more than 50 years ago.

I agree that a well rounded team is the one to thrive for though.
More than 50 years ago means you are excluding Lombardi's championship teams along with the Jets, the Chiefs, and the Colts. And from what I recall when watching those SBs the defenses had as much if not more to do with winning the game than the offenses.
 

mradtke66

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
1,315
Reaction score
284
Location
Madison, WI
More than 50 years ago means you are excluding Lombardi's championship teams along with the Jets, the Chiefs, and the Colts. And from what I recall when watching those SBs the defenses had as much if not more to do with winning the game than the offenses.

Honestly, I think going back "only" 50 years already skews the results. The game has changed significantly over the last 30 (hell, the last 15) years. Rule changes, philosophy changes, sports medicine...Yes, we still play 11 on 11 with an egg shaped ball, but man...wow.

During Lombardi's time, offensive linemen could not use their hands (I think the rule was changed around 1975, but I'd have to go look that up.) If you blocked with your hands, immediate holding call.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
10,481
Reaction score
3,068
Id say its not really relevant going back any further than the 90s
I know you say that but that research we’ve displayed only showed O vs D rankings really hadn’t changed that much for the SB winner. Certainly not enough to erase the history before you were born :roflmao:
I’m sorry you T’d that up perfectly!
 

thequick12

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 17, 2014
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
290
I know you say that but that research we’ve displayed only showed O vs D rankings really hadn’t changed that much for the SB winner. Certainly not enough to erase the history before you were born :roflmao:
I’m sorry you T’d that up perfectly!

Hahahah all good but just so you know I wasnt born in the 90s...however your point still stands as i only started watching the Packers at the very end of the majic man and the begining of the favre era...and i am unfortunately the first of what has become the millenial generation, i swear thats not what it was called when i was a kid but idk maybe i never really paid attention
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
10,481
Reaction score
3,068
Hahahah all good but just so you know I wasnt born in the 90s...however your point still stands as i only started watching the Packers at the very end of the majic man and the begining of the favre era...and i am unfortunately the first of what has become the millenial generation, i swear thats not what it was called when i was a kid but idk maybe i never really paid attention
It’s crazy it doesn’t seem that long ago Majkowski was pretty good. Actually Lynn ****ey wasn’t too bad in most cases. He had great hair :tup: That guy was always having surgery.

Anyway our Defenses weren’t very good for a generation before that (my generation). I guess it’s all relative to what you’ve experienced. I missed (literal) the dynamic Packer 60’s Defenses. We were in a hard downward spiral in the 70’s when I was old enough to be considered a fan.
Maybe that’s why I’m not afraid to start over fresh and backup for a couple years? I grew up as a young grasshopper in Packers Poverty years. :roflmao:
 
Last edited:

milani

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 11, 2012
Messages
1,919
Reaction score
450
Honestly, I think going back "only" 50 years already skews the results. The game has changed significantly over the last 30 (hell, the last 15) years. Rule changes, philosophy changes, sports medicine...Yes, we still play 11 on 11 with an egg shaped ball, but man...wow.

During Lombardi's time, offensive linemen could not use their hands (I think the rule was changed around 1975, but I'd have to go look that up.) If you blocked with your hands, immediate holding call.
Yes, it did happen right around then. The Packers played the Raiders in Oakland and a near record number of offensive holding penalties were called on both sides. Think the score was like 18-14. Ugly football and the league knew it. In addition to the no hands the penalty itself was 15 yards before it went to 10. But I did like it that O linemen blocked with closed fists and locked in forearms. Many of the holding calls of today are against wide receivers and tight ends. If they had some of these fundamentals less would be called. I still believe defense wins championships. In 1961 the Pack shut out the Giants. In 62 they forced 3 turnovers and gave the Giant offense nothing. In 65 they held Jim Brown to 50 yards rushing. In 66 it was Dave Robinson forcing Don Meredith to throw the INT to ice the game. In SB 1 it was Willie Woods INT after a blitz that turned the game. Even in the Ice Bowl the Cowboys offense produced only 7 points. In SB 3 the Jets held the might Colts to 7 points. In SB 5 Chuck Howley's INT set up the winning FG. Yes, defense did the trick back then and it still does it now.
 

Voyageur

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 10, 2021
Messages
1,195
Reaction score
761
Yes, it did happen right around then. The Packers played the Raiders in Oakland and a near record number of offensive holding penalties were called on both sides. Think the score was like 18-14. Ugly football and the league knew it. In addition to the no hands the penalty itself was 15 yards before it went to 10. But I did like it that O linemen blocked with closed fists and locked in forearms. Many of the holding calls of today are against wide receivers and tight ends. If they had some of these fundamentals less would be called. I still believe defense wins championships. In 1961 the Pack shut out the Giants. In 62 they forced 3 turnovers and gave the Giant offense nothing. In 65 they held Jim Brown to 50 yards rushing. In 66 it was Dave Robinson forcing Don Meredith to throw the INT to ice the game. In SB 1 it was Willie Woods INT after a blitz that turned the game. Even in the Ice Bowl the Cowboys offense produced only 7 points. In SB 3 the Jets held the might Colts to 7 points. In SB 5 Chuck Howley's INT set up the winning FG. Yes, defense did the trick back then and it still does it now.
Great recollection. Defense is forgotten way too often. It isn't necessarily the total stats line that makes the difference, but in-game plays, like those you're mentioning, that turn what could have been losses into wins. That's why I always shake my head and think that it's an opportunity squandered, when a defender can't hang onto a ball he should have intercepted. You can never extend more plays for the other team's offense. It will bite you in the keester!
 

milani

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 11, 2012
Messages
1,919
Reaction score
450
Great recollection. Defense is forgotten way too often. It isn't necessarily the total stats line that makes the difference, but in-game plays, like those you're mentioning, that turn what could have been losses into wins. That's why I always shake my head and think that it's an opportunity squandered, when a defender can't hang onto a ball he should have intercepted. You can never extend more plays for the other team's offense. It will bite you in the keester!
Like the Kaepernick pass that Micah Hyde could not hang onto in the last minutes of that playoff game in 2013?
 

Voyageur

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 10, 2021
Messages
1,195
Reaction score
761
Like the Kaepernick pass that Micah Hyde could not hang onto in the last minutes of that playoff game in 2013?
Exactly the point. In an awful lot of cases we can point at one play and show that it was the singular play that lost the game, or won it.
 
OP
OP
Dantés

Dantés

Gute Loot
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
11,245
Reaction score
2,176
This isn't to be understood as evidence that Barry is a rockstar, because I still have outstanding questions. But I did think it was interesting.

Defensive Series Results:

-Packers allow a first down or touchdown on 65% of their drives faced, which is 4th best behind the Bengals, Niners, and Saints.

-Packers force a punt on 22% of their drives faced, which is 2nd best in the NFL.

-But they only force a turnover on 5% of drives faced, which is on the low end (in the 20's, tied with a bunch of teams).

Green Bay's defense isn't super satisfying to watch because they don't blitz, they don't play man, and they use light boxes. So they give up yards, but seek to avoid explosives, wait for the offense to get behind the sticks, and then capitalize.

To this point, with consideration given to a small sample size, it's working.
 

Voyageur

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 10, 2021
Messages
1,195
Reaction score
761
This isn't to be understood as evidence that Barry is a rockstar, because I still have outstanding questions. But I did think it was interesting.

Defensive Series Results:

-Packers allow a first down or touchdown on 65% of their drives faced, which is 4th best behind the Bengals, Niners, and Saints.

-Packers force a punt on 22% of their drives faced, which is 2nd best in the NFL.

-But they only force a turnover on 5% of drives faced, which is on the low end (in the 20's, tied with a bunch of teams).

Green Bay's defense isn't super satisfying to watch because they don't blitz, they don't play man, and they use light boxes. So they give up yards, but seek to avoid explosives, wait for the offense to get behind the sticks, and then capitalize.

To this point, with consideration given to a small sample size, it's working.
Excellent points. Even though it's not the same defense, Barry has the same philosophy as Fritz Shurmur, who I thought was one of the best DCs the Packers ever had. At least in my time, since the late 40s. The jury is still out as to whether or not the Barry defense works as well, but there's a similarity in philosophy.

Fritz had a philosophy. "Bend but don't break." He was the first one I heard say that. His philosophy is that with every snap the opponent takes, they risk losing the ball, committing penalties, and just plain get closer to handing the ball back to the Packers. It worked, and they won a Super Bowl.
 

Sunshinepacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
5,468
Reaction score
648
Joe Barry has, over the entirety of his career as a DC, only coached bad defenses. Last season was his best showing as a DC (by far) and the Packers defense was 22nd in DVOA. He's not a good DC and I doubt that he'll make some scheme change that will turn things around massively. Luckily, the Packers don't play even a mediocre offense for three more weeks (Giants, Jets, Commanders, then the Bills) so the players have time to figure out how to play an admittedly passive scheme that doesn't do a very good job of maximizing individual player skills. The main issue though is that the Packers are playing the best RB in the NFL this week and he might run for 200+ yards against the defense that has shown up to start the season.

Again though, fans will recycle the "it's the player(s)" problem and defend poor coaching until it's been a problem for half-a-decade (see MM for the most recent example), so Barry, despite having 5 first rounders playing consistent minutes on defense (I'm removing Jaire and Wyatt), the Packers still can't stop the run and it's now become a much larger issue with the offense sputtering while it incorporates rookies as important pieces. I don't think the defense is going to keep the team from making the playoffs (probably a high seed) but I don't think Barry is a DC that can coach a Super-Bowl worthy defense.
 
OP
OP
Dantés

Dantés

Gute Loot
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
11,245
Reaction score
2,176
Excellent points. Even though it's not the same defense, Barry has the same philosophy as Fritz Shurmur, who I thought was one of the best DCs the Packers ever had. At least in my time, since the late 40s. The jury is still out as to whether or not the Barry defense works as well, but there's a similarity in philosophy.

Fritz had a philosophy. "Bend but don't break." He was the first one I heard say that. His philosophy is that with every snap the opponent takes, they risk losing the ball, committing penalties, and just plain get closer to handing the ball back to the Packers. It worked, and they won a Super Bowl.

One thing we have to keep in mind, though, is that they've played Kirk Cousins, Justin Fields, Tom Brady sans virtually all his receivers, Brian Hoyer, and Bailey Zappe.

However, none of these players were able to move the ball effectively. Cousins clearly had a great half, but that was solely because of blown coverage assignments. No one was really "getting beat." Once they actually covered Jefferson, Cousins couldn't do much (2 punts and 2 FG's in the second half-- the FG "drive" was actually for a total of -5 yards; they had great starting field position because of Rodgers' sack/fumble).
 
OP
OP
Dantés

Dantés

Gute Loot
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
11,245
Reaction score
2,176
Joe Barry has, over the entirety of his career as a DC, only coached bad defenses. Last season was his best showing as a DC (by far) and the Packers defense was 22nd in DVOA. He's not a good DC and I doubt that he'll make some scheme change that will turn things around massively. Luckily, the Packers don't play even a mediocre offense for three more weeks (Giants, Jets, Commanders, then the Bills) so the players have time to figure out how to play an admittedly passive scheme that doesn't do a very good job of maximizing individual player skills. The main issue though is that the Packers are playing the best RB in the NFL this week and he might run for 200+ yards against the defense that has shown up to start the season.

Again though, fans will recycle the "it's the player(s)" problem and defend poor coaching until it's been a problem for half-a-decade (see MM for the most recent example), so Barry, despite having 5 first rounders playing consistent minutes on defense (I'm removing Jaire and Wyatt), the Packers still can't stop the run and it's now become a much larger issue with the offense sputtering while it incorporates rookies as important pieces. I don't think the defense is going to keep the team from making the playoffs (probably a high seed) but I don't think Barry is a DC that can coach a Super-Bowl worthy defense.

Green Bay's defense has been one of the most effective in the NFL this season in actually limiting points.

You can loathe Barry. That's fine. I'm far from convinced that he's the right guy for the job. But citing rush defense as though it's a total indicator of defensive production is dishonest.

If you remove the 10 points resulting directly from turnovers (the pick 6 and the Viking's field goal that came after the fumble), the Packers are allowing just under 15 points per game.

Time will tell what happens against higher quality opponents.
 

Sunshinepacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
5,468
Reaction score
648
Green Bay's defense has been one of the most effective in the NFL this season in actually limiting points.

You can loathe Barry. That's fine. I'm far from convinced that he's the right guy for the job. But citing rush defense as though it's a total indicator of defensive production is dishonest.

If you remove the 10 points resulting directly from turnovers (the pick 6 and the Viking's field goal that came after the fumble), the Packers are allowing just under 15 points per game.

Time will tell what happens against higher quality opponents.

I’m also taking into account the type of offenses this team has faced; Vikings are probably good but a crippled Bucs and basically defunct Pats team. I’m not saying the defense is putrid, just that I’m not expecting anything significant scheme-wise from Barry to correct an obvious problem on the defense.
 
OP
OP
Dantés

Dantés

Gute Loot
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
11,245
Reaction score
2,176
I’m also taking into account the type of offenses this team has faced; Vikings are probably good but a crippled Bucs and basically defunct Pats team. I’m not saying the defense is putrid, just that I’m not expecting anything significant scheme-wise from Barry to correct an obvious problem on the defense.

And I think that's fair. But it doesn't necessarily mean that they won't perform well against better teams. It just remains to be seen. We also don't know how much they're inviting the run. If teams have a strong YPC against them, but a low drive success rate, then who really cares?
 

Voyageur

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 10, 2021
Messages
1,195
Reaction score
761
Joe Barry has, over the entirety of his career as a DC, only coached bad defenses. Last season was his best showing as a DC (by far) and the Packers defense was 22nd in DVOA. He's not a good DC and I doubt that he'll make some scheme change that will turn things around massively. Luckily, the Packers don't play even a mediocre offense for three more weeks (Giants, Jets, Commanders, then the Bills) so the players have time to figure out how to play an admittedly passive scheme that doesn't do a very good job of maximizing individual player skills. The main issue though is that the Packers are playing the best RB in the NFL this week and he might run for 200+ yards against the defense that has shown up to start the season.

Again though, fans will recycle the "it's the player(s)" problem and defend poor coaching until it's been a problem for half-a-decade (see MM for the most recent example), so Barry, despite having 5 first rounders playing consistent minutes on defense (I'm removing Jaire and Wyatt), the Packers still can't stop the run and it's now become a much larger issue with the offense sputtering while it incorporates rookies as important pieces. I don't think the defense is going to keep the team from making the playoffs (probably a high seed) but I don't think Barry is a DC that can coach a Super-Bowl worthy defense.
I don't think he's a long term fix either. It's just his philosophy is similar to Fritz. I don't believe the Packers should be playing a 3-4 for openers, because we just don't seem to get the kind of guys that can play 3 down who can create pressure, without constant help from 1 or two LBs, and when that happens, we're vulnerable up the middle to the point that 15 to 20 chunks are nauseatingly happening.

To stop it, we end up in a 2-4-5 alignment of some sort, and they gash us on the ground.

I long for the old 4-3. Teams are no longer in awe of the 3-4.
 

mradtke66

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
1,315
Reaction score
284
Location
Madison, WI
I don't think he's a long term fix either. It's just his philosophy is similar to Fritz. I don't believe the Packers should be playing a 3-4 for openers, because we just don't seem to get the kind of guys that can play 3 down who can create pressure, without constant help from 1 or two LBs, and when that happens, we're vulnerable up the middle to the point that 15 to 20 chunks are nauseatingly happening.

To stop it, we end up in a 2-4-5 alignment of some sort, and they gash us on the ground.

I long for the old 4-3. Teams are no longer in awe of the 3-4.

3-4's aren't meant to just get pressure with 3. The idea is to almost always rush a 4th. In the times of simpler offenses (ie, single tight end and 2 running backs) it would be your weak outside linebacker a majority of the time.

I think 4-3 vs. 3-4 is overblown. Especially in the new world where nickel is the defacto base defense.

If we ran a 4-3 tomorrow, our nickel package would look exactly the same. Gary and Preston at the ends, Clark and a rotation of Lowry et al at DT. The only difference would be Gary and Preston would spend more time in a 3pt stance rather than a 2pt.
 

milani

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 11, 2012
Messages
1,919
Reaction score
450
I don't think he's a long term fix either. It's just his philosophy is similar to Fritz. I don't believe the Packers should be playing a 3-4 for openers, because we just don't seem to get the kind of guys that can play 3 down who can create pressure, without constant help from 1 or two LBs, and when that happens, we're vulnerable up the middle to the point that 15 to 20 chunks are nauseatingly happening.

To stop it, we end up in a 2-4-5 alignment of some sort, and they gash us on the ground.

I long for the old 4-3. Teams are no longer in awe of the 3-4.
I agree 100%! I always like the 4-3. And after watching years of our defenses get torn up with 3-4s I wish we would change.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
10,481
Reaction score
3,068
While we have shown weak at Run D this far, this D unit has the talent and speed to create a formidable obstacle for NY. We need to play downhill attack style and challenge our players to rally into gang tackles. This is about respect because all eyes will be on Saquon and our Run D
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
Dantés

Dantés

Gute Loot
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
11,245
Reaction score
2,176
I don't think he's a long term fix either. It's just his philosophy is similar to Fritz. I don't believe the Packers should be playing a 3-4 for openers, because we just don't seem to get the kind of guys that can play 3 down who can create pressure, without constant help from 1 or two LBs, and when that happens, we're vulnerable up the middle to the point that 15 to 20 chunks are nauseatingly happening.

To stop it, we end up in a 2-4-5 alignment of some sort, and they gash us on the ground.

I long for the old 4-3. Teams are no longer in awe of the 3-4.

There would be absolutely no difference between a 2-4-5 and a 4-2-5. Literally the same players would play the same roles.
 

Voyageur

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 10, 2021
Messages
1,195
Reaction score
761
There would be absolutely no difference between a 2-4-5 and a 4-2-5. Literally the same players would play the same roles.
That's true based on the limitations of your roster. Not all players fit into the same mold. That's why the Packers didn't keep Aaron Kampmann. He was great as a down DE, but couldn't hack it as an OLB in the 3-4. But, if you believe the players would be the same, I agree based on roster, but that doesn't mean they really meet the criteria you hope for with the defense.

I can just imagine how poorly it would have worked out if the Packers would have went from a 4-3 to 3-4, when Reggie White was playing DE. He had the moves, and enough speed to work off the line, but wasn't fast enough to play OLB.

But, it's all a matter of opinion.
 
OP
OP
Dantés

Dantés

Gute Loot
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
11,245
Reaction score
2,176
That's true based on the limitations of your roster. Not all players fit into the same mold. That's why the Packers didn't keep Aaron Kampmann. He was great as a down DE, but couldn't hack it as an OLB in the 3-4. But, if you believe the players would be the same, I agree based on roster, but that doesn't mean they really meet the criteria you hope for with the defense.

I can just imagine how poorly it would have worked out if the Packers would have went from a 4-3 to 3-4, when Reggie White was playing DE. He had the moves, and enough speed to work off the line, but wasn't fast enough to play OLB.

But, it's all a matter of opinion.

In modern football, I think the distinction is irrelevant. Teams play sub. Gary, Smith, Clark, and Reed/Lowry are a 4 man front. Rarely are in the Packers in odd fronts.
 

Members online

Latest posts

Top