Josh Jones at ILB?

[GreenBaySlacker]

Maybe I am reading it wrong but it looks to me like you are saying 3 dlinemen, 2 lbs and then Jones. I count 6.

Jones is in there to be a cover ilb. In coverage.

I was also replying to the comment saying Jones would be buried by a blocker. I was saying there wouldn't be a blocker to bury him if they had our 5 guys rushing.

 

[RRyder]

Shredded worse than what our defense has recently?

One of Lombardi's big things was to make the other team play our game...

Pulling a dlineman to put in a extra db is one thing when you start in the 4-3. But starting from the 3-4, you literally concede the trenches, and play a reactionary bend but don't break defense from the secondary...
Maybe I'd Lombardi was facing the pass attacks we are today, he might look at things differently. But I doubt that...

With the 3 dominant dlineman, and two stud speed olbs of Perry, and Mathews caliber. You bring our game to them. Now we got two stud safety's ,two physical CBs who can man up, and two ilbs who can cover well. One of which could be our rookie 221 pound 4.41 safety. Great secondary depth. That secondary will hold strong long enough for the front 5 to get to their qb... even with 6 blockers...

Now we have pressure.

Some offenses will just buckle.
Some offenses will put up a fight, and their qb will get smeared. They might win sometimes. But we have to remember they have to beat #12 on the other side of the ball...
Some of the elite offenses will test the defense as a whole. If the defense begins to fail at that point. We always have the option to fall back to a bend but don't break defense.

But we need to bring our game to them.

Now figure this! If we played a great offense with one weakness in blocking that's 6 blockers with their hands full. We already have taken a te or rb out of the play, being forced to stay back and block. If our guys continue to beat the one on ones. They will be forced to take another skill player out of their attack, to protect their qb..... that's called making them play our game....

I still believe the game is won and lost in the trenches. Even if the rest of the positions ate becoming continuously more valuable in a pass happy league. It all comes down to them protecting their qb, and making room for their rb. And it's our job to break through the line and stop them. You win that battle, and you win the game.

Even when the league wasn't pass happy rushing 5 most downs was a horrible idea. Wansdatt tried doing that for the Bears and guess what happened? They got roasted.

The last D that ran a scheme as blitz heavy as your suggesting was probably the 85 Bears. When we start rolling out 5-7 HoFs on D we can talk. We don't have that talent though. Even Eagles back in the day, known for their blitz packages and aggressive nature, didn't blitz as much as your suggesting.

And yes we'd get burned even more then last year. Rushing 5 or more most every play is just a horrible idea on so many levels. Right up there with the idea last year proposed by one poster that we should run a two TE set with Tackles playing the TE spots.

I'll say this very clearly. BLITZING ON DAMN NEAR EVERY SINGLE PLAY, which is what rushing 5 or more on damn near every play is considered, IS A HORRIBLE IDEA. Yes games are won in the trenches. The problem is when your crippling the other parts of your unit to win those battles it has the opposite effect then what your intending

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

Even when the league wasn't pass happy rushing 5 most downs was a horrible idea. Wansdatt tried doing that for the Bears and guess what happened? They got roasted.

The last D that ran a scheme as blitz heavy as your suggesting was probably the 85 Bears. When we start rolling out 5-7 HoFs on D we can talk. We don't have that talent though. Even Eagles back in the day, known for their blitz packages and aggressive nature, didn't blitz as much as your suggesting.

And yes we'd get burned even more then last year. Rushing 5 or more most every play is just a horrible idea on so many levels. Right up there with the idea last year proposed by one poster that we should run a two TE set with Tackles playing the TE spots.

I'll say this very clearly. BLITZING ON DAMN NEAR EVERY SINGLE PLAY, which is what rushing 5 or more on damn near every play is considered, IS A HORRIBLE IDEA. Yes games are won in the trenches. The problem is when your crippling the other parts of your unit to win those battles it has the opposite effect then what your intending

Tell that to the teams going back to the 4-3...

You act like its impossible to cover 4 guys with 6? What gives? I don't buy it.

 

[mradtke66]

Pulling a dlineman to put in a extra db is one thing when you start in the 4-3. But starting from the 3-4, you literally concede the trenches,

Except, no, you don't.

Get over the idea that there is some significant difference between a 3-4 and 4-3. There isn't. Our OLBs have the approximate size, shape, and responsibilities of 4-3 ends. Maybe giving up 5-15 pounds, depending on how you're comparing, but they are also about 5-15 pounds heavier than a typical 4-3 SOLB, which lines up with the rest of their responsibilities, so it evens out.

Compare our 2-4 nickel to a typical 4-2 nickel. The only difference is our two EDGE guys are in a two point stance.

Or consider this: If we switched to a 4-3 tomorrow, our front 7 (and nickel 6) would almost certainly be the same. Clark is our current NT, he'd be the new NT. Daniels would become our 3-technique DT. Lowry the left/strong side DE. Perry or Matthews would be the weak/right DE and the other the left/strong OLB.

Jake Ryan the MIKE, Martinez the WILL, we're done, and have a front 7 scheme that lines up with what Seattle does and what Green Bay did under Fritz-- 4-3 under, aka, the 3-4/4-3 hybrid.

Now, in this crazy 4-3 world, when it's time to go nickel, Clark would probably be pulled, because the's the worst pass rusher. So we move Clay from SOLB to DE, which is pretty much what Denver did when they were a 4-3 team with Von Miller.

 

[mradtke66]

Tell that to the teams going back to the 4-3...

You act like its impossible to cover 4 guys with 6? What gives? I don't buy it.

There are 5 eligible receivers on every play. The idea that every defensive coordinator follows, is to rush 4, keep 2 safeties deep, and run your preferred coverage under the safeties. More specifically, 1 CB to one 1WR.

Cover-2-man? Cover-2-zone? Tampa-2? Cover-3? Cover-4? To do all of them correctly, you have to drop 7.

You only rush extra guys when your front 4, however you get to four, aren't getting the job. Or to exploit a situation. The league average for rushing 5 or more is about 30%.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

There are 5 eligible receivers on every play. The idea that every defensive coordinator follows, is to rush 4, keep 2 safeties deep, and run your preferred coverage under the safeties. More specifically, 1 CB to one 1WR.

Cover-2-man? Cover-2-zone? Tampa-2? Cover-3? Cover-4? To do all of them correctly, you have to drop 7.

You only rush extra guys when your front 4, however you get to four, aren't getting the job. Or to exploit a situation. The league average for rushing 5 or more is about 30%.

If we rush 5 guys like Daniels, Guion, Clark, Perry, and Mathews. You don't think the offense will keep their te in to block? Or the rb?....

That's my whole point. You send 5 very good guys, and their 5 olinemen can't block them all. The qb will get injured if they want to send 5 receivers out. Even if they try and succeed, the qb will get smeared. And they risk their entire season by doing so.
So when they keep the te in to block, that's a victory. They are playing our game. Their 6 blockers will still have their hands full with players like Clark, Guion, Mathews and either Daniels or Perry , playing one on one. We will have pressure, and only 4 receivers running routes that we need to cover....with our remaining 6 cover guys.

I feel a lot better with this plan then to rush 4, and try to cover 5 with 7, and the qb has all day to throw.

 

[Poppa San]

He isn't? He drafted Clark and a similar 3rd rounder this year. As well as adding Francois. And hasn't let Guion go yet..... he got rid of the elephant olb with peppers and datone gone.... started going bigger and faster at cb, and even got a safety to play ilb...

Seems to me like dom is finally listening to me.

You realize in five of the past six drafts Ted has taken a DT or DE in the first four rounds, sometimes both? Usually the DT. Plus signed Guion as a FA. Another FA this year means nothing.
2012: Perry, Worthy, Daniels
2013: Datone
2014:Khyri Thornton, signed Letroy
2015: nobody drafted, signed Letroy.
2016: Clarke, Lawry
2017: Adams, signed RJ-F

The most recent additions are bodies for replacements of low round UFDA level players or more likely those that have left not an impending scheme change.

EDIT: had Guion signed the wrong year.

 

[mradtke66]

If we rush 5 guys like Daniels, Guion, Clark, Perry, and Mathews. You don't think the offense will keep their te in to block? Or the rb?....

That's my whole point. You send 5 very good guys, and their 5 olinemen can't block them all. The qb will get injured if they want to send 5 receivers out. Even if they try and succeed, the qb will get smeared. And they risk their entire season by doing so.
So when they keep the te in to block, that's a victory. They are playing our game. Their 6 blockers will still have their hands full with players like Clark, Guion, Mathews and either Daniels or Perry , playing one on one. We will have pressure, and only 4 receivers running routes that we need to cover....with our remaining 6 cover guys.

I feel a lot better with this plan then to rush 4, and try to cover 5 with 7, and the qb has all day to throw.

You seem presume that's the only counter to a 5 man rush. Have you forgotten:

HB Screens? WR Screens? Draws? Sprint-outs, rolling pockets? 3-step slants where the ball is gone even before rush can get home?

The read-option just got a lot more potent because the man responsible for forcing the pitch is on the rush. Hell, even straight run plans at the blitz can win big, because you've taken a man out of the second level.

Rushing 5 or more is a risk. It can be a big one. Which is why the entire league uses it sparingly.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

You seem presume that's the only counter to a 5 man rush. Have you forgotten:

HB Screens? WR Screens? Draws? Sprint-outs, rolling pockets? 3-step slants where the ball is gone even before rush can get home?

The read-option just got a lot more potent because the man responsible for forcing the pitch is on the rush. Hell, even straight run plans at the blitz can win big, because you've taken a man out of the second level.

Rushing 5 or more is a risk. It can be a big one. Which is why the entire league uses it sparingly.

I realize you need to play different formations through the game. But I would like to see the base defense played more, with personal to counter pass heavy attacks. Namely 3 very good dlineman and Perry to take up all the blockers. And the strike with one of the three remaining lbs. Like I said earlier. If they keep a te in, then blitz a ilb, and put Clay in coverage. If they keep a rb in to block, the bring Clay around the edge at top speed.
The whole point of a 3-4 is to get more pressure, and still be able to play zones to compensate. With 3 dlineman and Perry rushing every down. And three lbs who can cover. Strong secondary . You can use strategy to blitz that 5th guy much more than the league average of 30%.

I have seen our own hall of fame qb buckle under pressure of aggressive defenses. It's not impossible to get to great qbs...even with roll outs, screens, draws, etc.

Bring the heat

 

[mradtke66]

But I would like to see the base defense played more, with personal to counter pass heavy attacks.

You've just described nickel. Capers doesn't play nickel for his health, he's just following the same basic blue-print the entire league does: 1WR=1CB. As modern offenses trot out 3WR as a base offense, defenses have to counter with nickel as a base defense. It's simple math. Now, depending on down and distance, there is some wiggle room, but generally defenses will only add more defensive backs, not fewer.

Namely 3 very good dlineman

And where do we find these good pass rushing defensive linemen? We have Daniels and maybe Lowry. Clark isn't much of a rusher. Which is kind of why we roll with the front 4 we do in nickel. Those guys are, at least in theory, the best rushers.

The whole point of a 3-4 is to get more pressure, and still be able to play zones to compensate.

Actually, the 3-4 is the better run defense. After all, those three d-linemen are all d-tackle or bigger. The secondary strength is flexibility and having more specialists. Ie, that 2-down run plugger NT, the 3rd down pass rusher but not a complete vulnerability against the run NT....

And three lbs who can cover.

And where are we going to find those guys?

Strong secondary .

We don't even know if we have an average secondary yet.

You can use strategy to blitz that 5th guy much more than the league average of 30%.

Right. Of course. The entire NFL, with its statistics, knowledge, and experience is wrong and you're right. Couldn't be that every time a a coordinator tries to run a blitz-heavy scheme, he gets destroyed. Even the might '85 Bears fell to the upstart Miami Dolphins...because they were a pass-first, quick passing team. And the 46 defense has faded from memory, the useful parts scavenged, the rest of the carcass left to rot.

I have seen our own hall of fame qb buckle under pressure of aggressive defenses. It's not impossible to get to great qbs...even with roll outs, screens, draws, etc.

Pressure, yes, but not via extra rushers. Even Rodgers gets it wrong sometimes and will get blindsided. But good quarterbacks want to be blitzed for just the reasons I've outlined. You've weakened coverage. Let him identify the hot receiver, hot route to a 1 or 3 step drop, plant, and throw.

Rodgers struggles when the front 4 can get to him and back seven can play Man-2. Extra rushers has very little to do with it.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Looks like the plan might be to have 4 safties on the field at one time on obvious passing downs.

http://www.packersnews.com/story/sp...y-safety-jones-linebacker-disguise/101332724/

Even if the Packers use Jones as a hybrid safety/inside linebacker the defense won't have four safeties on the field.

Jones is in there to be a cover ilb. In coverage.

I was also replying to the comment saying Jones would be buried by a blocker. I was saying there wouldn't be a blocker to bury him if they had our 5 guys rushing.

Geez, when people are mentioning Jones having troubles getting off blockers they're obviously talking about running plays as offensive players aren't allowed to block downfield on passing plays before the ball is thrown.

 

[brandon2348]

Even if the Packers use Jones as a hybrid safety/inside linebacker the defense won't have four safeties on the field.

The article specifically talks of a package with Jones and Burnett at ILB and Brice and Dix at Safety. I could see Randall being used as a safety here too.

I don't see it being an every down package but I could for sure on obvious passing downs.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

The article specifically talks of a package with Jones and Burnett at ILB and Brice and Dix at Safety. I could see Randall being used as a safety here too.

I don't see it being an every down package but I could for sure on obvious passing downs.

We'll see, but so far it is solely an idea by Pete Dougherty.

 

[brandon2348]

We'll see, but so far it is solely an idea by Pete Dougherty.

Well it kind of makes sense and I believe Randall is moving inside. We have these big corners now that can take away the boundary and deep 3rd. It will allow are speed guys in the middle to make plays.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Well it kind of makes sense and I believe Randall is moving inside. We have these big corners now that can take away the boundary and deep 3rd. It will allow are speed guys in the middle to make plays.

As I've mentioned repeatedly I believe Randall is best suited to line up at free safety. I would be a bit cautious about declaring the perimeter cornerbacks as addressed as King hasn't taken a single snap in the league and House is most likely an average player at best.

 

[brandon2348]

As I've mentioned repeatedly I believe Randall is best suited to line up at free safety. I would be a bit cautious about declaring the perimeter cornerbacks as addressed as King hasn't taken a single snap in the league and House is most likely an average player at best.

I agree on Randall. He is more of a hybrid type middle of the field guy then a corner. He isn't physical enough to play outside effectively. Hopefully the Packers have figured that out.

Well, "If King and House can hold down the boundaries and deep 3rd" we would have something to work within the middle with all these safeties/ILB's/Hybrids or whatever people want to call them.

I also belive the D-line will be the strength of the defense this year which will allow for more of these creative Capers packages we could see.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Well, "If King and House can hold down the boundaries and deep 3rd" we would have something to work within the middle with all these safeties/ILB's/Hybrids or whatever people want to call them.

I also belive the D-line will be the strength of the defense this year which will allow for more of these creative Capers packages we could see.

Absolutely agree that if King and House perform at a decent level on the outside the pass defense should be significantly improved. Unfortunately that isn't a given though.

In addition I'm worried about the pass rush as the team lacks quality depth at outside linebacker.

 

[brandon2348]

In addition I'm worried about the pass rush as the team lacks quality depth at outside linebacker.

It's a concern. The way it's set up and then add an injury we could have a situation at OLB like we had at corner last year.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

Absolutely agree that if King and House perform at a decent level on the outside the pass defense should be significantly improved. Unfortunately that isn't a given though.

In addition I'm worried about the pass rush as the team lacks quality depth at outside linebacker.

So let's see... we are stacked at dline. We only have 5 olbs, and the secondary is full of 1St and 2nd round picks....

You guys love to see what the packers are doing and claim it as fact.... well fact is our defense scheme failed... over and over and over. .

Now we dumped the elephant olb, and added some very good dlineman. (Like I said) . Added big physical fast secondary players who aren't 5'11" 190, and can't turn on a dime. But also don't get man handled and injured constantly(like I said)... and reduced the olb position, even though as you all believe. That is where the pass rush comes from? Mind you we had peppers, Mathews, and Perry the last three years that our defense sucked...(I have always said the 3 dlineman are the block eaters, and the olbs will be open if we have 3 good ones...)

Like it or not, but GB is changing strategy away from your version. And are going towards my version. Proof is in the roster moves.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

Even if the Packers use Jones as a hybrid safety/inside linebacker the defense won't have four safeties on the field.



Geez, when people are mentioning Jones having troubles getting off blockers they're obviously talking about running plays as offensive players aren't allowed to block downfield on passing plays before the ball is thrown.

Yea, because teams never run out of passing formations....

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Yea, because teams never run out of passing formations....

I'm absolutely speechless. There's no reason to discuss with you any further as you completely lack understanding of the game but continue to act as if you're the smartest poster around.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

You've just described nickel. Capers doesn't play nickel for his health, he's just following the same basic blue-print the entire league does: 1WR=1CB. As modern offenses trot out 3WR as a base offense, defenses have to counter with nickel as a base defense. It's simple math. Now, depending on down and distance, there is some wiggle room, but generally defenses will only add more defensive backs, not fewer.



And where do we find these good pass rushing defensive linemen? We have Daniels and maybe Lowry. Clark isn't much of a rusher. Which is kind of why we roll with the front 4 we do in nickel. Those guys are, at least in theory, the best rushers.




Actually, the 3-4 is the better run defense. After all, those three d-linemen are all d-tackle or bigger. The secondary strength is flexibility and having more specialists. Ie, that 2-down run plugger NT, the 3rd down pass rusher but not a complete vulnerability against the run NT....



And where are we going to find those guys?



We don't even know if we have an average secondary yet.



Right. Of course. The entire NFL, with its statistics, knowledge, and experience is wrong and you're right. Couldn't be that every time a a coordinator tries to run a blitz-heavy scheme, he gets destroyed. Even the might '85 Bears fell to the upstart Miami Dolphins...because they were a pass-first, quick passing team. And the 46 defense has faded from memory, the useful parts scavenged, the rest of the carcass left to rot.



Pressure, yes, but not via extra rushers. Even Rodgers gets it wrong sometimes and will get blindsided. But good quarterbacks want to be blitzed for just the reasons I've outlined. You've weakened coverage. Let him identify the hot receiver, hot route to a 1 or 3 step drop, plant, and throw.

Rodgers struggles when the front 4 can get to him and back seven can play Man-2. Extra rushers has very little to do with it.

Well in my strong opinion, Daniels, Clark, Guion, and Francois will collapse the pocket. That's how sacks are born...

What 3 lbs can cover??? Mathews, Ryan, and rookie Jones. You don't think they are good in coverage?

As far as every blitz heavy scheme getting destroyed? Referencing a team from 32 years ago who lost one game??? Not impressed... you are claiming that every team that blitzes over the 30% average get destroyed like clock work across the NFL for the last 30+ years?

It's true good qbs want blitzes... but when the blitz consistantly destroys the blocking scheme, and Rodgers gets buried on nearly every throw. We blame the wrs for not getting separation. Instead of accepting the fact that blitzes are only good for qbs when the blocking picks it up and the receivers can get open. Rodgers has had to run for his life, take wicked hits, and has laid some rotten egg games because of great defenses blowing up the oline, and our wrs getting plugged at the line by big physical dbacks... and it always seems to happen during the playoffs , ending our season... my point is if #12 is able to get blown up with pressure, then any qb is able to.

As far as our CBs not being proven? We have two pro bowl caliber safety's, and 4 CBs who were picked in round 1 or 2 the last 3 years. Our CBs have a chance to be great imo. Because we now have a dline to collapse the pocket and get pressure, and safety's who aren't forced to play nickel, and play up to stop the run. I'm very confident our CBs will look great because of those reasons. Now I admit if the half dozen CBs we have all decide to suck or get injured, then we can't play as aggressive. But if you look at the personal drafted and picked up, you will clearly see the direction this is headed

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

I'm absolutely speechless. There's no reason to discuss with you any further as you completely lack understanding of the game but continue to act as if you're the smartest poster around.

I act like the smartest poster??? You stubbornly haven't budged one inch since I met you. The infallible captwimm...

Am I wrong in saying that teams like to show pass, and run, so that they can run against smaller defenders who aren't expecting it??? Or is that comment just a basic fact that makes your condescending remark sound short sighted and douschey.

Also. Do you actually expect Jones to play ilb when we expect a run? No! So what are you trying to prove?

 

[Patriotplayer90]

I act like the smartest poster??? You stubbornly haven't budged one inch since I met you. The infallible captwimm...

Am I wrong in saying that teams like to show pass, and run, so that they can run against smaller defenders who aren't expecting it??? Or is that comment just a basic fact that makes your condescending remark sound short sighted and douschey.

Also. Do you actually expect Jones to play ilb when we expect a run? No! So what are you trying to prove?

I'll admit that I don't understand defensive schemes and formations. Unfortunately, neither does our DC.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Am I wrong in saying that teams like to show pass, and run, so that they can run against smaller defenders who aren't expecting it??? Or is that comment just a basic fact that makes your condescending remark sound short sighted and douschey

The discussion started with you calling me out on not being able to count after you mentioned rushing three defensive linemen, two outside linebackers and Jones for a total of six. After being asked about it you changed your mind suggesting that you were talking about posters questioning the safety's ability to get off blockers, something that is mostly of interest on running plays only though. Now you're posting about teams running out of pass formations which has absolutely nothing to do with what the point you tried to make originally.