The Official 2019 Packers Takes Thread

[HardRightEdge]

Look at Derwin James.

He lined up SS, BS, ILB, OLB, Edge, NB, and probably some more that I'm missing.

Or look at Charles Woodson in those brilliant 2009-2010 seasons. You could probably find a game where he played perimeter corner, slot corner, ILB, and what PFF might categorize as off-the-ball OLB as they counted some of Whitehead's snaps.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Another example--

If the Packers come out in 12 personnel with Lewis and Graham lined up in line, and then motion Graham out wide, they didn't transition to 11 personnel. Even though functionally that lineup would be virtually identical to 11, it's still 12... because it's about personnel, not alignment.

I'll disagree on that one too.

 

[HardRightEdge]

https://steelersdepot.com/2018/05/film-room-what-the-dime-linebacker-means-in-pittsburghs-defense/

Here's another helpful visual. Notice the dime linebacker is the 6th DB (not 7th).

This gets to the heart of the matter and the problem with this guy's and your terminology.

So, here you have a writer who calls that DB-looking guy with a DB number who might be identified on the roster sheet as a DB a "dime LB". He he's lined up in an off-the-ball LB position but not over a TE. PFF might count that as an off-the-ball OLB snap because he's a shade outside the OT. I'd call it an ILB position given there are only two off-the ball guys in the box.

Regardless, if you're going to call that guy a "dime LB", then what do you call the classic "dime ILB", a Joe Thomas or a Martinez or a Jones or a Burks or whoever, dropping into the middle zone with 6 other guys playing DB position? That guy is classically designated a "dime ILB".

So, if you subscribe to this guy's terminolgy you have a problem. You've described two different defenses with the same term ("dime"), and you've called two different players doing very different things "dime LB".

If instead you call what is illustrated here nickel, with a DB-like guy playing an ILB position, you have differentiated what are two different things.

If you want to call this a dime, which you yourself agreed involves 6 DBs, then why would you call that 6th. guy a LB at all? Now you have only 5 DBs?! The terminology used in these examples muddies the water and is not at all useful.

 

[Dantés]

Back from golf. I already described it a couple of times.

6 DBs, 4 rush men, and guy who drops into short middle zone. That could be a 3-safety dime or a 4-corner dime. That latter case is where you see a "dime corner" on the field, by the way. If all goes well that will be Williams coming off the bench in place of an ILB, upping the pass coverage from nickel to dime. It's a long yardage defense run about 10% of the time.

In 2016 it was often Joe Thomas playing dime ILB, and he wasn't very good at it. Since, we've had a parade of guys try their had at it including Martinez. Martinez is not a good fit. It was supposed to be Jones then Burks, just the kind of thing you'd want a converted safety to play. It has been Whitehead for a brief wihile, now it could be Greene evidently, or maybe even Amos.

On those rare occasions where they rush 3 and drop 8 in very long yardage, lets say playing 4 across zone high and 4 across intermediate, I don't care what you call those 2 guys in the short intermediate middle. It doesn't happen often enough to parse it out. Call it a half dollar if you like.

What you're describing is simply a linebacker who is on the field in dime. The designation "dime linebacker" refers to either the coverage specialist LB or the defensive back who plays a linebacker role in dime.

When the Packers were in dime with Whitehead next to Martinez, Whitehead was the dime linebacker, not Martinez.

The link above of the Steelers defense illustrates this. Edmunds, a safety, is the 6th DB in dime and is playing in the box as the "dime linebacker."

 

[Dantés]

I'll disagree on that one too.

And you'd be wrong again.

It's even more obvious in that example. It's called 11 personnel.

Another example:

If Shanahan sends out his offense in 21 personnel with Juszczyk at FB he may be trying to match his pass catching FB against a LB.

Say the defense comes out against the 21 personnel in 4-3 base defense. Juszczyk motions into the slot, and the SAM follows him. This is still 21 personnel vs. Base Defense. By your definition, this has now morphed into 11 personnel vs nickel, but that would not be accurate.

 

[HardRightEdge]

While that's true Whitehead didn't perform at a high level and wasn't good enough to be retained.

To change the subject, I have a hard time believing that was the issue.

In the Rams game, Whitehead took 75 of 78 defensive snaps, playing all over the field, ILB, S, slot, perimenter corner. They must have liked him to that point. Jones got zero defensive snaps in that game, perfectly healthy, taking 24 special teams snaps. Josh Jackson took only 2 defensive snaps in that game, perfectly healthy, taking 18 special teams snaps.

Clearly, they thought quite a bit of Whitehead if they were going to let him play perimeter corner on some snaps with Jackson on the bench, and they certainly thought more of him than Josh Jones who sat on the bench all day while Whitehead was taking safety snaps, not to mention the ILB snaps that Jones was supposed to be taking when he was drafted.

You mentioned PFF gave him a bad coverage grade because the opponent had a perfect QB rating on 5 throws, I think it was, into his coverage. Well, 5 throws is a pretty small sample size to start with, and certainly a small sample size on which to base cutting a guy that you gave these snaps to in this difficult assignment, playing him over your two second round picks.

Goff threw 35 balls that day, was sacked 5 times, and he had a couple of runs that were not kneel downs if memory serves. If Whitehead did draw 5 throws, that's less than 1/8 of the drop backs. It's not like they were picking on him all day. And it's not like he had any prior money game corner experience to build on.

Flash forward one week to the New England game. Whitehead took 15 of the first 16 defensive snaps. Clearly his Rams game performance was not a factor in his being released regardless of what PFF had to say about it. To the contrary, they must have thought his performance was pretty decent under the circumstances to give him another go-round of starter snaps.

Then he slapped a guy, got ejected, and was cut the following week.

Was he cut because he "wasn't good enough"? No. He was cut because he wasn't good enough to not be made an example of. And there's a good chance there was some prior (or subsequent?) non-public incident(s) where this was a third strike.

 

[Dantés]

This gets to the heart of the matter and the problem with this guy's and your terminology.

So, here you have a writer who calls that DB-looking guy with a DB number who might be identified on the roster sheet as a DB a "dime LB". He he's lined up in an off-the-ball LB position but not over a TE. PFF might count that as an off-the-ball OLB snap because he's a shade outside the OT. I'd call it an ILB position given there are only two off-the ball guys in the box.

Regardless, if you're going to call that guy a "dime LB", then what do you call the classic "dime ILB", a Joe Thomas or a Martinez or a Jones or a Burks or whoever, dropping into the middle zone with 6 other guys playing DB position? That guy is classically designated a "dime ILB".

So, if you subscribe to this guy's terminolgy you have a problem. You've described two different defenses with the same term ("dime"), and you've called two different players doing very different things "dime LB".

If instead you call what is illustrated here nickel, with a DB-like guy playing an ILB position, you have differentiated what are two different things.

If you want to call this a dime, which you yourself agreed involves 6 DBs, then why would you call that 6th. guy a LB at all? Now you have only 5 DBs?! The terminology used in these examples muddies the water and is not at all useful.

Lol. Literally no one uses the terminology the way you're describing. But we are the ones with the problem?

I am not saying the way the terms are used are optimal or even better than your preference. I am merely explaining what they mean in the industry.

You may like your way better. I'm sure you do. But you're creating your own way of using the terminology. That's all.

Another thing I came across-- per PFF, the Packers were in dime defense 56% of the time in 2017. The vast majority of those snaps came with two players lined up in LB roles. By your definition, PFF is wrong and they were actually in nickel.

At a certain point if everyone else in the world seems to be wrong, it may not be the consensus who is confused.

 

[HardRightEdge]

And you'd be wrong again.

It's even more obvious in that example. It's called 11 personnel.

In the huddle perhaps, with a glance at the roster sheet positional designation, not at the snap. TE's have also become increasingly hybrid players, as much oversized WRs as they are are in-line TEs. Put him in the slot (or even wide as is sometimes the case) and he's a big WR, with the defense adjusting accordingly.

I'm done with this now.

 

[Dantés]

In the huddle perhaps, with a glance at the roster sheet positional designation, not at the snap. TE's have also become increasingly hybrid players, as much oversized WRs as they are are in-line TEs. Put him in the slot (or even wide as is sometimes the case) and he's a big WR, with the defense adjusting accordingly.

I'm done with this now.

Here's the thing-- I totally agree with this. He is basically a big WR. But the league still calls that 12 personnel because they're both designated TE's.

 

[HardRightEdge]

To change the subject, I have a hard time believing that was the issue.

In the Rams game, Whitehead took 75 of 78 defensive snaps, playing all over the field, ILB, S, slot, perimenter corner. They must have liked him to that point. Jones got zero defensive snaps in that game, perfectly healthy, taking 24 special teams snaps. Josh Jackson took only 2 defensive snaps in that game, perfectly healthy, taking 18 special teams snaps.

Clearly, they thought quite a bit of Whitehead if they were going to let him play perimeter corner on some snaps with Jackson on the bench, and they certainly thought more of him than Josh Jones who sat on the bench all day while Whitehead was taking safety snaps, not to mention the ILB snaps that Jones was supposed to be taking when he was drafted.

You mentioned PFF gave him a bad coverage grade because the opponent had a perfect QB rating on 5 throws, I think it was, into his coverage. Well, 5 throws is a pretty small sample size to start with, and certainly a small sample size on which to base cutting a guy that you gave these snaps to in this difficult assignment, playing him over your two second round picks.

Goff threw 35 balls that day, was sacked 5 times, and he had a couple of runs that were not kneel downs if memory serves. If Whitehead did draw 5 throws, that's less than 1/8 of the drop backs. It's not like they were picking on him all day. And it's not like he had any prior money game corner experience to build on.

Flash forward one week to the New England game. Whitehead took 15 of the first 16 defensive snaps. Clearly his Rams game performance was not a factor in his being released regardless of what PFF had to say about it. To the contrary, they must have thought his performance was pretty decent under the circumstances to give him another go-round of starter snaps.

Then he slapped a guy, got ejected, and was cut the following week.

Was he cut because he "wasn't good enough"? No. He was cut because he wasn't good enough to not be made an example of. And there's a good chance there was some prior (or subsequent?) non-public incident(s) where this was a third strike.

As a postscript, who was it that claimed Whitehead of waivers? You guessed it, the Cleveland Browns, where the tolerance for problem children is very high.

 

[Dantés]

As a postscript, who was it that claimed Whitehead of waivers? You guessed it, the Cleveland Browns, where the tolerance for problem children is very high.

And could lead to some trouble in that locker room.

 

[HardRightEdge]

And could lead to some trouble in that locker room.

If you mean Whitehead in particular, I don't think he got cut for the slap/ejection alone as noted above. Mouthing off to a coach one too many times? Maybe getting into a locker room or practice fracus we don't about? Given the circumstances I would not be surprised if there was something along these lines that tipped the balance to his release.

If you mean Cleveland in general, and not Whitehead specifically, they also have cocky big mouths with a QB who sets that tone, along with those various problem children. It's not anything I'd want, but team dynamics are hard to assess without being inside. There have been championship teams in various sports that appeared dysfunctional from the outside but not on game day.

From the Dorsey press conferences I've seen, he comes off as a no-nonsense hard ***. Maybe he can keep it together, laying down the law when it is called for, keeping it from spinning out of control. Or maybe he just doesn't gcare what they say or do outside the building, on twitter, whatever, so long as they don't get suspended and are pulling together in the building and on the field. Al Davis' great teams were loaded with characters and big mouths and party boys, but they got that "us against the world" thing going.

I don't know. I wouldn't assume they won't continue on their current upward trajectory. The QB's in year 2. That seems to be when things happen or break down.

 

[Dantés]

If you mean Whitehead in particular, I don't think he got cut for the slap/ejection alone. Mouthing off to a coach one too many times? Maybe getting into a locker room fracus we don't about? Given the circumstances I would not be surprised if there was something along these lines that tipped the balance to his release.

If you mean Cleveland in general, and not Whitehead specifically, they also have cocky big mouths with a QB who sets that tone along, with those various problem children. It's not anything I'd want, but team dynamics are hard to assess without being inside. There have been championship teams in various sports that appeared dysfunctional from the outside.

From the Dorsey press conferences I've seen, he comes off as a no-nonsense hard ***. Maybe he can keep it together, laying down the law when it is called for, keeping it from spinning out of control. Or maybe he just doesn't care what they say or do outside the building, on twitter, whatever, so long as they don't get suspended and are pulling together in the building and on the field.

I don't know. I wouldn't assume they won't continue on their current upward trajectory. The QB's in year 2. That seems to be when things happen or break down.

You never really know, but anecdotally it seems like collecting malcontents and thugs doesn't turn out well in the long run.

 

[HardRightEdge]

You never really know, but anecdotally it seems like collecting malcontents and thugs doesn't turn out well in the long run.

Probably not, but few things do. There are the outliers, though they are not very common.

I did a late edit to that last post mentioning the great Al Davis Raiders teams. The Billy Martin/Reggie Jackson Yankees were a circus. I don't know if you caught the 60 Minutes interview with the Warriors, rerun recently, where the tension between Durant and Curry was palpable, and yet for my money this team's chemistry on the floor is the first NBA basketball I've made a point of watching since the Magic-Bird-Jordan era.

I wouldn't count out the Browns continuing on their upward trajectory, but the malcontent history of many of those players would make them one of those outliers.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Yeah, this is totally incorrect.

Got it, if the Ravens decided to designate Levine as a linebacker you would consider it a nickel defense while in your opinion the team would line up in a dime with him being listed as a safety. All while playing the completely same position. That doesn't make any sense.

Okay guys, so if your definitions are correct, what's a "dime linebacker?"

A dime linebacker is the lone inside linebacker in a scheme with six defensive backs on the field (position not designation on the team's website).

So what if you just took out a bona fide linebacker to have the DB play there?

That doesn't change the fact that a designated defensive back would line up at inside linebacker.

When the Packers were in dime with Whitehead next to Martinez, Whitehead was the dime linebacker, not Martinez.

No, they weren't lined up in a dime formation on those plays.

Was he cut because he "wasn't good enough"? No. He was cut because he wasn't good enough to not be made an example of.

I guess you're completely correct about that.

Another thing I came across-- per PFF, the Packers were in dime defense 56% of the time in 2017. The vast majority of those snaps came with two players lined up in LB roles. By your definition, PFF is wrong and they were actually in nickel.

According to Football Outsiders the Packers lined up in dime on 40% of their defensive snaps. Do you have any proof that according to PFF the Packers lined up with two players lined up as inside linebackers???

At a certain point if everyone else in the world seems to be wrong, it may not be the consensus who is confused.At a certain point if everyone else in the world seems to be wrong, it may not be the consensus who is confused.

I'm glad Galileo Galilei didn't think that way, otherwise we would still believe the earth is flat.

 

[Bob Vance Refrigeration]

Hot takes? Cold takes? Lukewarm takes? THIS IS THE PLACE FOR THEM!! I'll start them off for you.

1) Aaron Jones is a Pro Bowl player.

2) Raven Greene plays over 50% of defensive snaps. And eventually whenever he makes a good play, we are all obligated to say "that's so Raven." It is written in the scrolls.

3) The defense is a top 10 unit.

4) Trevor Davis is on the roster, Kumerow is cut/PS.

5) Rashan Gary has more sacks in his rookie year than he did in his final college season.

6) Mike Daniels will be an unhappy camper, and this is his final year here.

7) MVS has 6+ TD's.

8) We make the playoffs, but a Super Bowl is not in the cards.

1) Aaron Jones is absolutely a Pro Bowl player as long as he's healthy.

2) I'm very excited about Greene and think he can make a huge leap this year.

3) Been saying this since the draft, this defense is gonna be legit.

4) I'm rooting for Kumerow but if he doesn't have a monster camp/Preseason I don't think he makes it.

5) He better! The 12th overall pick has to make a year 1 impact.

6) Unfortunately I can see this happening but hopefully, he stays healthy and is productive, that should keep him around.

7) MVS is in store for a huge breakout year, I can feel it. I think 6 TD's is his floor.

8) Definitely make the playoffs, the biggest reason why we wouldn't win Super Bowl is that Lafleur is a 1st-year head coach. I could be wrong on this but I'm pretty damn sure that no coach ever won a SB his first year.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Definitely make the playoffs, the biggest reason why we wouldn't win Super Bowl is that Lafleur is a 1st-year head coach. I could be wrong on this but I'm pretty damn sure that no coach ever won a SB his first year.

Don McCafferty (1970 Colts) and George Seifert (1989 Niners) are the only head coaches who won a Super Bowl during their first year as an NFL head coach. Both previously worked as coordinators for those teams though.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Got it, if the Ravens decided to designate Levine as a linebacker you would consider it a nickel defense while in your opinion the team would line up in a dime with him being listed as a safety. All while playing the completely same position. That doesn't make any sense.



A dime linebacker is the lone inside linebacker in a scheme with six defensive backs on the field (position not designation on the team's website).



That doesn't change the fact that a designated defensive back would line up at inside linebacker.



No, they weren't lined up in a dime formation on those plays.



I guess you're completely correct about that.



According to Football Outsiders the Packers lined up in dime on 40% of their defensive snaps. Do you have any proof that according to PFF the Packers lined up with two players lined up as inside linebackers???



I'm glad Galileo Galilei didn't think that way, otherwise we would still believe the earth is flat.

I wasn't going to comment on this topic any further, but something occurred to me with the FO reference.

Let's go to Football Outsiders and consider the Rams game last season. Plug in GB/Week 8/DB/2018.

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/snapcounts

There were 78 defensive plays. Here are the so-called DB snap counts:

King: 76
Whitehead: 75
Alexander: 78
T. Williams: 78
Clinton-Dix: 78
Brice: 66
Jackson: 2

The total so-called DB snaps were 453, or 5.77 DBs per snap. If one is going to say Whitehead is either a DB or that "Dime LB" designation, then the Packers were in dime (together with somewhere between 0 and 2 quarter coverage snaps), for 77% dime/quarter coverage in that game. If we categorize the large chunk of Whitehead's snaps in the box correctly as ILB, which he was in replacing Burks in that role, we get to a more reasonable number.

I don't think you or I need to be Copernicus and Galileo to say that 77% figure doesn't make any sense. It would be a minority interpretation.

Calling a defense a "dime" while categorizing one of the 6 DBs a "dime linebacker" is bizarre contradiction of terms. Calling a defense a "nickel" when it is Burks because the roster sheet says "LB" while Whitehead is in the same position and role calling it "dime" makes no sense.

In considering Dante's screen shots from that Steeler commentator using the "dime LB" designation, what if I photoshopped out that guy's uniform number and added 10 lbs. to his frame so that you couldn't guess which specific player it was. And then we ran the play. If I asked that Steeler commentator the question, "Is that dime or nickel?", he couldn't say. That makes no sense either.

 

[Dantés]

Got it, if the Ravens decided to designate Levine as a linebacker you would consider it a nickel defense while in your opinion the team would line up in a dime with him being listed as a safety. All while playing the completely same position. That doesn't make any sense.

A dime linebacker is the lone inside linebacker in a scheme with six defensive backs on the field (position not designation on the team's website).

No, they weren't lined up in a dime formation on those plays.

According to Football Outsiders the Packers lined up in dime on 40% of their defensive snaps. Do you have any proof that according to PFF the Packers lined up with two players lined up as inside linebackers???

I'm glad Galileo Galilei didn't think that way, otherwise we would still believe the earth is flat.

Well... in reality, I wouldn't worry about changing the entire way the NFL industry uses the term "dime" just because some guy on a forum found an obscure player with a dual designation.

A dime linebacker is typically the coverage specialist LB or the 6th DB lining up as a linebacker in dime defense. I've illustrated this with visuals. It could also refer to a lone linebacker in a dime package, but that's not usually what the term "dime linebacker" is referring to.

The Packers are in dime when they field 6 defensive backs, even if one lines up in a LB spot.

I cited PFF, but that was incorrect. I should have cited NFL Matchup. About halfway through the season, the Packers were in dime 56% of the time. If anyone watched the Packers play that season, they know that they weren't using just one linebacker the majority of the time. They were using a DB, usually Burnett, as a linebacker.

As to your last comment-- your defense of your incorrect position has officially jumped the shark.

 

[Dantés]

Pettine often liked using a safety down in the box in the dime defense, providing a player who can both cover in the intermediate areas and play the run inside. Greene might be the next man up there.

 

[PackFan2]

At 197 pounds, Greene would be an odd choice to line up next to Martinez.

That was just a hot take because of last seasons tape. Alot of time they had Eddie plesant and Campbell lined up at dime linebacker, which sparked my curiosity that 'hey Raven Green looks bigger this season with the strength program, maybe he'll get reps there.' just a hot take.

 

[PackFan2]

Lukewarm takes
1) LaFleur brings in some of his Tennessee offense experience and uses the running game more, and doesn't rely on QB greatness to win games
2) Josh Jones sticks around long enough to get enough playing time to look below average and then be traded

I've been watching some Titans game last season. My God Mariota runs hot and cold. One play he's throwing big boy throws deep. the next they run an option pass and misses the open receiver by a long shot (ended with INT). I believe that was the late season Jaguars game. With Rodgers at the helm making those simple throws, in THEORY we should be okay.

 

[PackFan2]

And a S moving down to play as a LB doesn't make him a LB. It's a role, not a position.

And none of it matters!

Sorry lol all started with my comment bout Raven Greene getting reps at linebacker.

Another HOT take till they put on pads and start hitting. Ty Summers vs Curtis Bolton. Bolton shows up in specials teams and makes the 53. Summers gets stashed on practice squad.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I'm glad Galileo Galilei didn't think that way, otherwise we would still believe the earth is flat.

If I may be permitted an OT, the number of people who believe the earth is flat is increasing thanks to these guys https://www.tfes.org/ and others like them. The recent Netflix documentary, "Behind the Curve" https://www.netflix.com/title/81015076, rather than focusing on these "theorists" as either nuts or snake oil salesmen selling conspiracies in exchange for clicks and eyeballs, took a "journalistic" tone where a neutral, and thereby serious, consideration was give to these "theories" in equal time with actual scientists.

Not everything is worthy of journalistic consideration.

It fits this moment in time, selling consipiracy and confirmation bias, while giving science and vetted research into facts short shrift. Of course making sh*t up out of whole cloth has much lower production costs.

 

[sschind]

I'm glad Galileo Galilei didn't think that way, otherwise we would still believe the earth is flat.

Are you saying that in the roughly 375 years since Galileo's death NO ONE would have figured out the earth was not flat.


Besides that everyone knows the earth to be banana shaped.