The Key for the Green Bay Packers at Outside Linebacker May Be Jayrone Elliott

[GreenBaySlacker]

Wilfork and dumerville added to the mix would put us in great position.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Elliott's a special teamer good for some spot play. That's about it.

 

[Dantés]

Wilfork and dumerville added to the mix would put us in great position.

They'd have the best defense in 2009.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Funny, I was well aware of this 4-4-3 formation that he's been using for quite some time....if you don't believe me, I even googled it for you for your own reading:

http://allgbp.com/2013/07/02/packers-playbook-part-8-the-hippo-defense/

You're welcome.

Boy oh boy!!! Here's what the author of the article you linked to wrote in the first paragraph:

This formation is obviously used in short-yardage situations, particularly on third and fourth down where a running play is expected. It adds an extra lineman by sacrificing a defensive back, usually a corner.

While the Hippo package is technically a subpackage it's for sure not used to put pressure on opposing quarterbacks.

 

[Favre>Rodgers259]

The hippo can be used to bring pressure on opposing QBs, especially when you don't respect opposing offensive WRs, am I the only one who's paid attention to Vikings games when AP was in his prime? You stack the box to stuff the run, but if there is no run, the extra guy doesn't just stand there, he takes down the QB.

In today's league it's hard to apply that formation in passing situations for only a select few teams, for example the Vikings, Browns, Jets, etc.

 

[Dantés]

The hippo can be used to bring pressure on opposing QBs, especially when you don't respect opposing offensive WRs, am I the only one who's paid attention to Vikings games when AP was in his prime? You stack the box to stuff the run, but if there is no run, the extra guy doesn't just stand there, he takes down the QB.

No one in the league is using a package with only 3 DB's to defend the pass. That would get shredded.

 

[Favre>Rodgers259]

No one in the league is using a package with only 3 DB's to defend the pass. That would get shredded.

Not necessarily, it depends on the personnel the offense is using, at the end of the day it's all about matchups. If the opposing offensive set is running a "Big" Formation aka 2 TE sets, or a multiple RB formation such as a Split Backs, Strong/Weak side Ace/I formation, etc a 4-4-3 works perfectly(If you have LBs who can cover, granted ours can be shaky at times). If you understood situational football in regards to personnel, you wouldn't make such a generalizing statement.

I could quote the history of 3-4 defenses and big nickels all day, and it seems like I'll just get countered with some simple statement that has no actual Football IQ behind it apparently.

 

[PackerFanLV]

I know this is a OLB post, but i think Dean Lowry needs to start this year at DE. Back to OLB perry and mathews are the men.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Not necessarily, it depends on the personnel the offense is using, at the end of the day it's all about matchups. If the opposing offensive set is running a "Big" Formation aka 2 TE sets, or a multiple RB formation such as a Split Backs, Strong/Weak side Ace/I formation, etc a 4-4-3 works perfectly(If you have LBs who can cover, granted ours can be shaky at times). If you understood situational football in regards to personnel, you wouldn't make such a generalizing statement.

It seems you don't understand that offenses line up in three or more receiver sets on 70% of the snaps therefore defenses would get torched lining up in a hippo scheme. There are some situations in which it makes sense to use the package but for sure not to defend the pass.

 

[Dantés]

Not necessarily, it depends on the personnel the offense is using, at the end of the day it's all about matchups. If the opposing offensive set is running a "Big" Formation aka 2 TE sets, or a multiple RB formation such as a Split Backs, Strong/Weak side Ace/I formation, etc a 4-4-3 works perfectly(If you have LBs who can cover, granted ours can be shaky at times). If you understood situational football in regards to personnel, you wouldn't make such a generalizing statement.

I could quote the history of 3-4 defenses and big nickels all day, and it seems like I'll just get countered with some simple statement that has no actual Football IQ behind it apparently.

"If you understood situational football..." *sigh*

Look dude, we don't know each other. So I don't know where you get off calling into question what I do and don't know about football in what I think might be our first forum interaction.

The reality is that 5+ defensive back sub package defense has been steadily climbing for the last ten years. In 2008, 43.4% of defense in the NFL deployed 5 or more DB's. By 2015, it was 63.4%. This season it will probably approach 70%. And the fact is that the Packers have always been on the extreme edge of nickel/dime defense use under Capers. Heck, they were staying in nickel against the Cowboys 6 OL looks in the playoffs.

Even going back to 2011, defensive formations with 4-7 defensive backs accounted for 97% of all defensive snaps league wide. That 3% of the time with less than 4 would basically account for GL formations and no much else.

So maybe before you call into question my understanding or football IQ, you should close your mouth and get your facts straight. Otherwise you might look like a fool.

 

[OldSchool101]

One thing that will be interesting to see is the transition of size between the tandem of JP and Datone
(6'7-290)paired with (6'4-285)
VS
(6'3-255) paired with (6'5-245)
In Elliott and Fackrell

 

[Favre>Rodgers259]

It seems you don't understand that offenses line up in three or more receiver sets on 70% of the snaps therefore defenses would get torched lining up in a hippo scheme. There are some situations in which it makes sense to use the package but for sure not to defend the pass.

"If you understood situational football..." *sigh*

Look dude, we don't know each other. So I don't know where you get off calling into question what I do and don't know about football in what I think might be our first forum interaction.

The reality is that 5+ defensive back sub package defense has been steadily climbing for the last ten years. In 2008, 43.4% of defense in the NFL deployed 5 or more DB's. By 2015, it was 63.4%. This season it will probably approach 70%. And the fact is that the Packers have always been on the extreme edge of nickel/dime defense use under Capers. Heck, they were staying in nickel against the Cowboys 6 OL looks in the playoffs.

Even going back to 2011, defensive formations with 4-7 defensive backs accounted for 97% of all defensive snaps league wide. That 3% of the time with less than 4 would basically account for GL formations and no much else.

So maybe before you call into question my understanding or football IQ, you should close your mouth and get your facts straight. Otherwise you might look like a fool.

I give you football knowledge, and you people give me percentages, you do realize 70 is less than 100 correct? I NEVER said that the team runs Hippo ALL the time, nor was it the base defensive package. I simply brought up the package's existence as well as our lack of production with its use, and the two of you continue to beat your chest about multiple WR sets, with no real valid information other than the fact of the league percentage of those sets, which any Joe Blow can pull off of probably PFF and ESPN. I'm not trying to insult either of your intelligences or Football IQs, but if you want to talk real football, you better come at me with something better than info that your garden variety Madden player can just toss out. Otherwise we can just agree to disagree; and I'll make sure I send you two a singing telegram when we have the Hippo against Seattle Week 1 on a 3rd and 7.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I give you football knowledge.

That quote truly made me laugh out loud as you haven't demonstrated any knowledge of the game in this thread at all. Just because you keep telling everybody about your high football IQ doesn't make it true by any means.

 

[Dantés]

I give you football knowledge, and you people give me percentages, you do realize 70 is less than 100 correct? I NEVER said that the team runs Hippo ALL the time, nor was it the base defensive package. I simply brought up the package's existence as well as our lack of production with its use, and the two of you continue to beat your chest about multiple WR sets, with no real valid information other than the fact of the league percentage of those sets, which any Joe Blow can pull off of probably PFF and ESPN. I'm not trying to insult either of your intelligences or Football IQs, but if you want to talk real football, you better come at me with something better than info that your garden variety Madden player can just toss out. Otherwise we can just agree to disagree; and I'll make sure I send you two a singing telegram when we have the Hippo against Seattle Week 1 on a 3rd and 7.

You suggested that the Packers should use a formation to defend the pass in certain situations that is only run in today's NFL in GL sets and other extenuating circumstances. Don't backtrack now. And try to keep up-- 70% is about how often 5+ DB's is now used. But 4 or more (i.e. more than in a 4-4-3 look) is 97%.

I don't care if you don't like percentages. They reflect what is actually happening in the NFL today. I prefer them to your condescending lectures regarding the nature of defense circa 2001. Clearly you understand the workings of a 2 gapping 3-4 defense, but unfortunately that style of defense is rarely played any more (though significantly more than alignments that only feature 3 DB's). Perhaps football will cycle back to the running game and base defense will return to prominence. But that's not the reality right now. I'm not "beating my chest," I'm just explaining the reality of the league. But evidently I need to give you some irrelevant explanation of the Bears' 46 defense of old or something..

You absolutely have tried to insult mine and Captain's intelligence, and you succeeded. You can't say that someone lacks an IQ or an understanding and then say "not trying to be insulting." That's just silly. Own what you are doing. And if the Packers deploy 3 defensive backs on any 3rd & 7 play this season, feel free to gloat.

 

[elcid]

In other news, did I already mention that I would love to see Elvis enter the building?

 

[OldSchool101]

I give you football knowledge, and you people give me percentages, you do realize 70 is less than 100 correct?

This information could be revolutionary!

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

They'd have the best defense in 2009.

I'm not talking about playing them like they are in their prime. But you bring in alpha guys, and the veteran leadership. You play them on a snap count, or only when we need them. And they will give us the last bit of high end talent, rotation on the dline, and olbs.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

Also Wilfork played 600 snaps last year, for the great Texans defense without watt...

 

[Dantés]

I'm not talking about playing them like they are in their prime. But you bring in alpha guys, and the veteran leadership. You play them on a snap count, or only when we need them. And they will give us the last bit of high end talent, rotation on the dline, and olbs.

I just saw an opportunity for a joke, bud.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

I just saw an opportunity for a joke, bud.

it's all good. I just really like the idea of bringing in Wilfork as a part timer. Dummerville would be great too.
That's no joke

 

[Deleted member 6794]

it's all good. I just really like the idea of bringing in Wilfork as a part timer. Dummerville would be great too.
That's no joke

I'm all in favor of the Packers signing Dumervil. Wilfork didn't perform on a high level last season and is still contemplating retirement though.

 

[Favre>Rodgers259]

QUOTE="Dantés, post: 725004, member: 12283"]You suggested that the Packers should use a formation to defend the pass in certain situations that is only run in today's NFL in GL sets and other extenuating circumstances. Don't backtrack now. And try to keep up-- 70% is about how often 5+ DB's is now used. But 4 or more (i.e. more than in a 4-4-3 look) is 97%.

I don't care if you don't like percentages. They reflect what is actually happening in the NFL today. I prefer them to your condescending lectures regarding the nature of defense circa 2001. Clearly you understand the workings of a 2 gapping 3-4 defense, but unfortunately that style of defense is rarely played any more (though significantly more than alignments that only feature 3 DB's). Perhaps football will cycle back to the running game and base defense will return to prominence. But that's not the reality right now. I'm not "beating my chest," I'm just explaining the reality of the league. But evidently I need to give you some irrelevant explanation of the Bears' 46 defense of old or something..

You absolutely have tried to insult mine and Captain's intelligence, and you succeeded. You can't say that someone lacks an IQ or an understanding and then say "not trying to be insulting." That's just silly. Own what you are doing. And if the Packers deploy 3 defensive backs on any 3rd & 7 play this season, feel free to gloat.[/QUOTE]


I'm not backtracking, I don't have to when I'm right, and the fact that you claim such means you don't even know what you're debating and why.

This all started because you didn't even know we have a formation that includes 4 linemen and 4 linebackers, and I educated you. If I need to present you actual film study, I can educate you further.

Secondly I'm well aware that this is currently a passing era and that multiple WR sets are the norm, I never presented the Hippo as the Swiss army knife to pass coverage, it's purely a situational formation, so you continuing to throw your high percentages of passing sets against an entirely null and void. The fact that you're throwing useless information into a debate to which it has no merit I could easily take the slippery slope and say you take me as ignorant. If anything, it's not me backtracking, it's you turning my argument into something it is not.

But I'm done with this, you're completely incapable of understanding a simple football concept. I don't even think Lombardi could explain this to you, and he started the first day of every training camp with "This is a football....".

 

[Deleted member 6794]

This all started because you didn't even know we have a formation that includes 4 linemen and 4 linebackers, and I educated you. If I need to present you actual film study, I can educate you further.

Secondly I'm well aware that this is currently a passing era and that multiple WR sets are the norm, I never presented the Hippo as the Swiss army knife to pass coverage, it's purely a situational formation, so you continuing to throw your high percentages of passing sets against an entirely null and void.

It's truly a shame that posts are saved on this forum to subsequently evaluate the content. What actually started this discussion was a post by you suggesting the Packers line up in subpackages with four down linemen on 70% of the defensive snaps:

To add to that further, with 70% of snaps being in subpackages where there are 4 down linemen, the fact that Elliott still can't get it done is even more apparent, and DC can occasionally draw up some exotic blitzes from time to time.

You only backtracked from that point of view after being educated by Dantés and me that the hippo package is solely used in short yardage situations. But never mind.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

I'm all in favor of the Packers signing Dumervil. Wilfork didn't perform on a high level last season and is still contemplating retirement though.

The job of a nose is to force two blockers, and not get pushed back. That opens up the rest of the team to make plays... the fact Wilfork played 600 snaps, on the #1 defense , without jj watt out there...
I would disagree that he didn't play at a fairly high level. Especially when you consider they way over played him.
He is contemplating retirement because he doesn't want to put in 600 snaps for a qb less team to fail in the wild card game again... but to play 250 snaps for a team with Aaron Rodgers at qb? I think he would be done contemplating ,and looking for a condo on the lake.