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
Packers ink Peppers
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="wist43" data-source="post: 547760" data-attributes="member: 9839"><p>In the last 2 SF games Capers has played more 3-4 than against any other team. And the results were far better.</p><p> </p><p>Go back and look at the SF playoff debacle, and you'll see the Niners just eating the 2-4 alive. Capers played more 3-4 in the next game, the season opener, and we shut down the run, but gave up 412 yds passing.</p><p> </p><p>Out of 72 plays in that game, Capers ran the 2-4 or 1-5, 22 times. The results were, 4 punts, 10 first downs, a TD, and a FG - but the FG wasn't a stop due to the 2-4, it was a stop due to the 3-4, as we had a TFL of -7 out of the 3-4, and the Niners then had a 5 yd penalty. On third and goal from the 22, they gained 14 yds against the 2-4, and then kicked the FG.</p><p> </p><p><strong>Out of those plays, we gave up 225 yds - which is an average of 10.23 yds/play.</strong></p><p> </p><p>Futhermore, one of my chief complaints about the 2-4, is that Capers plays it on early downs, or downs that could be either/or.</p><p> </p><p>On 1st and 2nd down in that game, or 3rd and 5 or less, there were 7 such plays where Capers ran a 2-4. On those 7 plays, we gave up, 115 yds, and had 1 sack.</p><p> </p><p><strong>That's an average of 16.43 yds/play on those downs.</strong></p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>I agree that TT has not provided traditional 3-4 personnel - but that only means that Capers has to find a way to make it work. We certainly did have enough 3-4 personnel that could run a traditional 3-4 last year though. Pickett and Jolly are both effective 2-gappers, and anyone of Raji, Jolly, CJ Wilson, D. Jones, and Boyd could play DE in a rotation.</p><p> </p><p>As for subpackages, the best approach would be a 3-3 nickel that allows the most talent on the field in those situations. I would save Daniels for subpackages only; I would not play Perry at OLB at all, and would save him for DE in a 3-3 front; and while I would play D.Jones some in the base, I would have looked at a 3-3 alignment D. Jones, Daniels, and Perry with their hands on the ground; Matthews and Neal at OLB; and any combination of Hawk, B. Jones, or Mulumba as the 3rd LB, depending on opponent, down/distance, etc.</p><p> </p><p>Now with Peppers, I would hope to see a 3-3 of Peppers, Daniels, and D.Jones/Perry as down linemen, with Matthews, Neal, and Hawk/B. Jones/Mulumba.</p><p> </p><p>I would also look at an honest 4-2, with 4 down linemen, and Matthews with any one of Hawk/Neal/B. Jones/ and Mulumba at the other LB.</p><p> </p><p>I do not agree that the 2-4 is really a 4-2. Our 2-4 is very static. The OLB's always rush upfield, and the DT's very rarely stunt. It's a 4 man rush, but it's very predictable and offers no flexibility. Worse still, is the fact that Hawk and B. Jones are always on the field - they don't come off in the 2-4; whereas in a 4-2, at least one of those guys will be on the bench - a good thing.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Capers is great at dialing up creative blitizes, he just doesn't do it very often out of the 2-4, and the personnel he has on the field severely limit the possibilies. Brad Jones and AJ Hawk are both substandard players, and are a big reason why the 2-4 as run by the Packers is so bad.</p><p> </p><p>We would have infinitely better options from a 3-3, and the personnel on the field are much better suited to generating pass rush.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wist43, post: 547760, member: 9839"] In the last 2 SF games Capers has played more 3-4 than against any other team. And the results were far better. Go back and look at the SF playoff debacle, and you'll see the Niners just eating the 2-4 alive. Capers played more 3-4 in the next game, the season opener, and we shut down the run, but gave up 412 yds passing. Out of 72 plays in that game, Capers ran the 2-4 or 1-5, 22 times. The results were, 4 punts, 10 first downs, a TD, and a FG - but the FG wasn't a stop due to the 2-4, it was a stop due to the 3-4, as we had a TFL of -7 out of the 3-4, and the Niners then had a 5 yd penalty. On third and goal from the 22, they gained 14 yds against the 2-4, and then kicked the FG. [B]Out of those plays, we gave up 225 yds - which is an average of 10.23 yds/play.[/B] Futhermore, one of my chief complaints about the 2-4, is that Capers plays it on early downs, or downs that could be either/or. On 1st and 2nd down in that game, or 3rd and 5 or less, there were 7 such plays where Capers ran a 2-4. On those 7 plays, we gave up, 115 yds, and had 1 sack. [B]That's an average of 16.43 yds/play on those downs.[/B] I agree that TT has not provided traditional 3-4 personnel - but that only means that Capers has to find a way to make it work. We certainly did have enough 3-4 personnel that could run a traditional 3-4 last year though. Pickett and Jolly are both effective 2-gappers, and anyone of Raji, Jolly, CJ Wilson, D. Jones, and Boyd could play DE in a rotation. As for subpackages, the best approach would be a 3-3 nickel that allows the most talent on the field in those situations. I would save Daniels for subpackages only; I would not play Perry at OLB at all, and would save him for DE in a 3-3 front; and while I would play D.Jones some in the base, I would have looked at a 3-3 alignment D. Jones, Daniels, and Perry with their hands on the ground; Matthews and Neal at OLB; and any combination of Hawk, B. Jones, or Mulumba as the 3rd LB, depending on opponent, down/distance, etc. Now with Peppers, I would hope to see a 3-3 of Peppers, Daniels, and D.Jones/Perry as down linemen, with Matthews, Neal, and Hawk/B. Jones/Mulumba. I would also look at an honest 4-2, with 4 down linemen, and Matthews with any one of Hawk/Neal/B. Jones/ and Mulumba at the other LB. I do not agree that the 2-4 is really a 4-2. Our 2-4 is very static. The OLB's always rush upfield, and the DT's very rarely stunt. It's a 4 man rush, but it's very predictable and offers no flexibility. Worse still, is the fact that Hawk and B. Jones are always on the field - they don't come off in the 2-4; whereas in a 4-2, at least one of those guys will be on the bench - a good thing. Capers is great at dialing up creative blitizes, he just doesn't do it very often out of the 2-4, and the personnel he has on the field severely limit the possibilies. Brad Jones and AJ Hawk are both substandard players, and are a big reason why the 2-4 as run by the Packers is so bad. We would have infinitely better options from a 3-3, and the personnel on the field are much better suited to generating pass rush. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
rmontro
Latest posts
R
Valuation of NFL Teams
Latest: rmontro
10 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
R
Cam Achord new ST coach - Fire him
Latest: rmontro
19 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
H
Why I Love The 2026-2027 Green Bay Packers
Latest: Heyjoe4
33 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
H
Christian Watson signs a 4 year 110m extension
Latest: Heyjoe4
52 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
The Crew - 2026
Latest: weeds
Today at 6:44 AM
Milwaukee Brewers Forum
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Packers ink Peppers
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
