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!
    Dismiss Notice

The 3-4 D-Line...better? or worse?

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by armand34, May 30, 2010.

  1. armand34

    armand34 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 24, 2010
    Messages:
    1,920
    Ratings:
    +298
    Justin Harrel......who?.........yea Justin Harrel, supposedly he is looking healthy this season, supposedly this guy was worth a 14th Over all pick....is this the year we can cash in on this investment???

    Johnny Jolly...made some big plays throughout the season...expendable...I think so

    Cullen Jenkins...is just a beast as long as he is healthy to play

    Raji....i'm very skeptical about him

    Picket...solid

    Neal, CJ, Wynn...I don't know

    What are your guys thoughts??
     
  2. NYPacker

    NYPacker Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    1,582
    Ratings:
    +38
    What exactly do you mean when you say that the 3-4 D-line is better? Do you mean it's better than how our D-line would have been if we ran a 4-3? Idk but a line consisting of Jenkins-Raji-Pickett-Kampman(if we kept him since he would've stayed in a 4-3) with backups CJ-Neal-Jolly-Harrell wouldn't have been so bad. But most of our players have more potential as 3-4 D-lineman. Case in point Jolly and Harrell, Jolly showed that the 3-4 was for him and Harrell's abilities are better suited for a 3-4 DE.
     
  3. PackersRS

    PackersRS Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2008
    Messages:
    8,471
    Ratings:
    +980
    Better than last year, for sure. No doubt about it.

    That was the whole point of picking Neal (Wilson was a no-brainer, a steal that late).

    Thing is, our DL was completely wasted late last year, with only Raji able to rotate, and with him being injuried early on, and then Pickett later on.

    I really like our DL. I think Raji has the potential to be the most disruptive NT of the game, and Jenkins can be a beast when he's fresh. Jolly was a non-factor in the pass rush department, so Neal may be the answer there.

    But I can't count on Harrell. He was healthy by this time last year, and still ended up in the IR...
     
  4. aaronqb

    aaronqb Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 6, 2010
    Messages:
    583
    Ratings:
    +73
    I think there will be a significant improvement in the DL this year. Raji is suited perfectly be a 3-4 NT. When healthy, he can generate tremendous push and really disrupt plays. I believe Jenkins will play well (it's his contract year) and I trust TT that Neal will be good. I also agree that CJ Wilson was a no brainer. Jolly is expendable, but I think they keep him unless they get a great offer for him (maybe for an OLB). Unless Harrell lights up the place, I don't see him on the 53. There is too much risk and his back could act up again at any time.

    I believe they will keep 7 DL, because it is likely that both Jolly and Jenkins will be gone in 2011 and they will want 5 proven guys going into 2011.

    I think they keep:

    Raji
    Pickett
    Jenkins
    Jolly
    Neal
    Wilson
    Wynn
     
  5. FrankRizzo

    FrankRizzo Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 2, 2010
    Messages:
    5,889
    Ratings:
    +1,679
    Well the main thing is they totally improved against the run last year, which was essential.

    I don't know many 3-4 defenses where the DL guys get a lot of sacks, so I can't really blame these guys for the lack of pass rush.
    I blame the interior LBers for not being strong enough to blow up a one-on-one block, and for not timing their A-gap or double-A-gap blitzes. I blame Capers a bit for not generating more pass rush a la Greggy Williams for the Saints. And I blame Ted Thompson for not trading Aaron Kampman for a 2nd round draft pick and then taking a guy who's built to play a 3-4 OLB.

    But I have wondered how good we'd have been with this DL, from left to right, last year had we stayed in a 4-3.

    DE- Kampman DT- Raji DT- Pickett DE- Jenkins
     
  6. PackersRS

    PackersRS Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2008
    Messages:
    8,471
    Ratings:
    +980
    You're right that 3-4 DL don't get many sacks. But they disrupt the pocket and get pressure on QBs, which only Jenkins was able to do, and when he was fresh.

    And about the ILB, I don't know... Barnett had 4 sacks, as much as Patrick Willis and more than Ray Lewis, despite not playing a lot of snaps early on. Chillar had 2, and he lost time also... I thought the ILB cross blitz was actually one of our best plays... Barnett himself had a blast doing it against DAL and SEA...

    And one more thing. If we stay 4-3, we don't draft CM3.

    And call me crazy, I love Aaron Kampman (see here:http://cheeseheadtv.com/blog/kampman-not-as-good-as-advertised/comment-page-1#comment-8542. See the whole debate if you will). But CM3 is quite frankly the best pass rusher I've seen since Reggie White in GB. He's a beast, he could very well be the best in the league in a few years. And I would absolutely trade Kampman for CM3.

    Plus, like some other said, our personel actually fits better in the 3-4 than in the 4-3:
    Jolly=3-4
    Pickett=3-4
    Jenkins=4-3
    CM3=3-4
    Barnett=good in both, but he had quite a year last year...
    Hawk=3-4 (compare Hawk in 08 to Hawk in 09 and you'll know what I'm talking about)
    Jones=3-4
    Chillar=3-4
    I'll even throw in Kampman=4-3

    Fact is, we had 2 DEs to work the 4-3, but absolutely no depth whatsoever after them, and we didn't have any DT for the 4-3. Our guys weren't very good in generating pressure, which was still a problem in the 3-4, but in the 3-4 they could hold the point of attack, and become a stout run D...

    BTW, I didn't thought it would work at first, and I'm actually more of a 4-3 guy, I think it's much harder to pull nowadays, with every college using smaller linemen, but nothing is better for a D when the 4-3 DL can generate pressure everytime.

    But I believe we're better off with the 3-4... Now with film of themselves playing Capers' version of the 3-4, I believe they'll be better. Capers' playbook is thick enough to still have some new plays that aren't out there, so the element of surprise isn't totally out. And I believe that practice and familiarity are way better than a supposed surprise...
     
  7. DergaSmash

    DergaSmash Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Messages:
    412
    Ratings:
    +20
    I'm a 4-3 guy as well, but I think the Packers front office made the right decision to go with a 3-4. Most of our players fit that scheme better than the 4-3, especially the D-line.

    To play 4-3 you have to have one tackle who will always demand double teams, like ever snap. Pickett and Raji can do that. Yet if you have a pair of those guys (like the Vikings do) your 4-3 line can do more. The biggest part of the 4-3 line are the ends. Both have to be able to rush the passer effectively but also keep running plays to the inside, by forcing the RB to cutback to the middle. The Packers haven't had that in a long time. Now I love Kampman as much as anybody. He was a stand-up guy, and his motor never quit. But he wasn't awesome against the run. Playing DE is more than getting 13 sacks in a season. I remember many times Kampman would get too far upfield or come far inside, only to the the RB scoot by him and the only defensive players within 15 yards of him was the CB and the Saftey to that side.
     
  8. aaronqb

    aaronqb Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 6, 2010
    Messages:
    583
    Ratings:
    +73
    I believe the Packer staff made the decision to go 3-4 because they think the system is better than the 4-3 for today's offenses - not because their existing personnel after the 2008 season was better suited to the 3-4. Once they decided on the 3-4 system, they began acquiring the players that perform best in it. Jenkins and Kampman are both better suited to the 4-3 than the 3-4 and I'm sure the Packer brass expected that not all the existing players from 2008 would be able to adapt to the 3-4.

    However, now that they are into the 3-4, they are now drafting different types of players than they did two years ago. Matthews and Brad Jones are perfect fits in the 3-4; they may not have been in a 4-3. We'll know more about how well Raji fits this year, especially now that he will playing NT. If they are correct that the 3-4 is a superior system, then we should expect the Packer defense to improve as they continue to acquire the right guys for the system - such as Mike Neal, CJ Wilson.
     
  9. NYNeal

    NYNeal Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 30, 2010
    Messages:
    13
    Ratings:
    +2
    I love the switch to the 3-4, and was hoping the Pack would do that long before they did. The main reason is, I think it gives the offense way more things to think about and leads to confusion.
    I expect Dom Capers to expand on things the Packers did well last year, and it wouldn't surprise me at all to see this defense take another step up.......
     

Share This Page