Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Improvements in 2013
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="TJV" data-source="post: 499108" data-attributes="member: 4300"><p>I would add another category I expect to be improved: The DL in sub packages. Since the Packers play sub packages (anything but the base 3-4) more than they play base, #3 for me would be "2-man DL". That's where I think Jones will add the most if he's a capable NFL pass rusher. If he can also succeed at DE in the base D, then Wilson (until they find a replacement) could man the other DE spot and Raji and Pickett could concentrate on NT in the base. Everyone should be fresher if that comes to pass.</p><p> </p><p>Another area of improvement I expect is the scheme on offense. I expect the Packers to counter the cover 2 D better this year and I think that's what adding the two rookie RBs and the run blocking TE was all about. As Wilde (and others) have talked about, I expect the Packers to be less vertical. That along with a better run game will also provide benefits for the D in time of possession.</p><p> </p><p>I don't think safety play will decline but it probably won't improve significantly either and that's too bad. But I don't think it has anything to do with Woodson's absence. I saw a stat comparing the performance of the D with and without Woodson and the stats were better without him. Of course that was also a function of their opponents. But I'm not sure Woodson is a safety - his inclination is not to play it "safe". And the "new" Woodson is Hayward - of course he's not as good as Woodson in his prime but Hayward played in the slot and defended a lot of passes and intercepted a few as well. That's why I'm not among those who hope/expect to see Hayward take over at starting CB - I think he's better inside and I'd rather have Shields, Williams, and House battle for the outside jobs. </p><p> </p><p>BTW, I agree with AmishMafia about Rodgers. From the perspective of my eye test (not stats), Rodgers was "other worldly" good in 2011: It was the best single season of QBing I've ever seen. Last season he was "just" <em>extremely</em> good. BTW#2, the proliferation of the cover 2 last season was a response to how good Rodgers and the Packers' passing attack was in 2011.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="TJV, post: 499108, member: 4300"] I would add another category I expect to be improved: The DL in sub packages. Since the Packers play sub packages (anything but the base 3-4) more than they play base, #3 for me would be "2-man DL". That's where I think Jones will add the most if he's a capable NFL pass rusher. If he can also succeed at DE in the base D, then Wilson (until they find a replacement) could man the other DE spot and Raji and Pickett could concentrate on NT in the base. Everyone should be fresher if that comes to pass. Another area of improvement I expect is the scheme on offense. I expect the Packers to counter the cover 2 D better this year and I think that's what adding the two rookie RBs and the run blocking TE was all about. As Wilde (and others) have talked about, I expect the Packers to be less vertical. That along with a better run game will also provide benefits for the D in time of possession. I don't think safety play will decline but it probably won't improve significantly either and that's too bad. But I don't think it has anything to do with Woodson's absence. I saw a stat comparing the performance of the D with and without Woodson and the stats were better without him. Of course that was also a function of their opponents. But I'm not sure Woodson is a safety - his inclination is not to play it "safe". And the "new" Woodson is Hayward - of course he's not as good as Woodson in his prime but Hayward played in the slot and defended a lot of passes and intercepted a few as well. That's why I'm not among those who hope/expect to see Hayward take over at starting CB - I think he's better inside and I'd rather have Shields, Williams, and House battle for the outside jobs. BTW, I agree with AmishMafia about Rodgers. From the perspective of my eye test (not stats), Rodgers was "other worldly" good in 2011: It was the best single season of QBing I've ever seen. Last season he was "just" [I]extremely[/I] good. BTW#2, the proliferation of the cover 2 last season was a response to how good Rodgers and the Packers' passing attack was in 2011. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
No members online now.
Latest posts
Prior to Training Camp - Predicting the 53 Man Roster
Latest: GreenBaySlacker
Yesterday at 11:32 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Josh Jacobs facing charges…
Latest: OldSchool101
Yesterday at 9:27 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Why I Love The 2026-2027 Green Bay Packers
Latest: OldSchool101
Yesterday at 8:45 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2026 WR room
Latest: OldSchool101
Yesterday at 6:56 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
The Crew - 2026
Latest: weeds
Yesterday at 6:47 PM
Milwaukee Brewers Forum
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Improvements in 2013
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top
Prior to Training Camp - Predicting the 53 Man Roster
