Jump to content

Is it time to switch to a 4-3 defense?


Skippy

Recommended Posts

51 minutes ago, pacman5252 said:

I still think our D will finish and is middle of the pack. Perception has been screwed a bit since our schedule is front loaded. In 5 weeks once our numbers are more normalized beating up on the bad qbs of our schedule, the tune of the board will shift (from early season wow, to mid season oh no, to late season okay).

The fact is most teams have a few minus defenders playing. We are in line with that.

No argument here, but I'd say the two biggest issues are scheme and lack of talent alongside Clark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 11/30/2019 at 12:55 PM, MrBobGray said:

I don't know why we would want to run a 4-3; that requires more off ball LBers than a 3-4.  Do people feel we have an excess of talent there, because I thought we were in agreement that's our worst group.  There's a reason Pettine runs so much 3-3 and 4-2 with safeties; he's trying to keep our godawful back-up ILB talent off the field.

Not sure I understand what you are trying to say here. In a 3-4, you'd have a extra backer on the field. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/30/2019 at 2:25 PM, Mazrimiv said:

So we are going to call the Smith's DE's instead of OLB's and pretend that will fix the defense?  Cool.

You'd add an extra DT on the field and the Smith's would be more down linemen and an extra backer or two would play true coverage backer on passing situations. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/1/2019 at 9:59 AM, squire12 said:

Regardless of the 3-4 or 4-3 or 3-3, it is pretty evident that GB needs another high quality DL player.    

The group of Adams, Lowry, Lancaster have just not cut it in terms of quality play/production.    I was hopeful that Adams would provide better play, but that has just not happened.

Early on in training camp I had heard rumors of this raw new kid Lancaster and how much of a breakout he could have this season. I went to training camp to watch and even heard a fan raving about how good he looks in shorts and we won't be missing Daniels one bit. Well playing in pads is different. Lowry to me is so/so. Lancaster, Adams, etc. all need to do a little more. I still think a early draft pick at this position wouldn't be out of the question. Heck I'm even for packing 10 more pounds on Gary and putting his hand in the dirt. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Skippy said:

You'd add an extra DT on the field and the Smith's would be more down linemen and an extra backer or two would play true coverage backer on passing situations. 

We don't have that. That's the point Bob was trying to make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Skippy said:

Early on in training camp I had heard rumors of this raw new kid Lancaster and how much of a breakout he could have this season. I went to training camp to watch and even heard a fan raving about how good he looks in shorts and we won't be missing Daniels one bit. Well playing in pads is different. Lowry to me is so/so. Lancaster, Adams, etc. all need to do a little more. I still think a early draft pick at this position wouldn't be out of the question. Heck I'm even for packing 10 more pounds on Gary and putting his hand in the dirt. 

As far as Daniels go, if he was on the team this year, he would have been disappointing. He’s done physically. 
 

As far as the guys on the team Lancaster was not raw. He has been what he is, a plug run defender who doesn’t add pass rush. He’s actually graded out well in that role role. Just if he’s on the field in passing downs he’s a liability. Lowry is kind of the same way. The real disappointment has been Adams. We were kind of banking on him being a viable collapse the pocket on passing down guy. He’s had rave camp reviews and been hurt and been a non factor (outside a few games to end last year).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, pacman5252 said:

As far as Daniels go, if he was on the team this year, he would have been disappointing. He’s done physically. 
 

As far as the guys on the team Lancaster was not raw. He has been what he is, a plug run defender who doesn’t add pass rush. He’s actually graded out well in that role role. Just if he’s on the field in passing downs he’s a liability. Lowry is kind of the same way. The real disappointment has been Adams. We were kind of banking on him being a viable collapse the pocket on passing down guy. He’s had rave camp reviews and been hurt and been a non factor (outside a few games to end last year).

 Packers absolutely need IDL regardless what scheme they decide to use.  Other than Clark .. sad accumulation of talent and productivity.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, coachbuns said:

 Packers absolutely need IDL regardless what scheme they decide to use.  Other than Clark .. sad accumulation of talent and productivity.   

Lancaster and Lowry aren’t really sad. They are do your job players. We can definitely do better and should add talent in the group but I wouldn’t call the situation sad. I’d take our current group over pretty much any line from 13-17

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, pacman5252 said:

Lancaster and Lowry aren’t really sad. They are do your job players. We can definitely do better and should add talent in the group but I wouldn’t call the situation sad. I’d take our current group over pretty much any line from 13-17

Our defense has no interior pressure whatsoever except Clark.  Lancaster and Lowry are supposed to stop the run and overall ... not much.  Look at some other lines and we are indeed sad.  If you mean 13-17 where they are rated defensively,  we have to be better than that especially with the Smith fellas on the outside. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, coachbuns said:

Our defense has no interior pressure whatsoever except Clark.  Lancaster and Lowry are supposed to stop the run and overall ... not much.  Look at some other lines and we are indeed sad.  If you mean 13-17 where they are rated defensively,  we have to be better than that especially with the Smith fellas on the outside. 

I feel like we have different definitions of sad. Sad is where we were 4 years ago with Letroy Guion a top 4-5 player on the defense., not 13th-17th. It's really hard to be above average everywhere in the NFL today. With our current development players at DL (Keke/Adams +serviceable Lancaster/Lowry), and the fact we play a lot of 2 DL sets (will want Gary in more next year as well) I think we can brush off IDL for a year. and focus on where we are weak and need to start succession planning (WR, TE, OT). If a stud DL falls I'm always willing to change my mind, but we also have to get out of this defense every year mindset. Our QB is 36, and weapons are bottom quarter of the league.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, pacman5252 said:

I feel like we have different definitions of sad. Sad is where we were 4 years ago with Letroy Guion a top 4-5 player on the defense., not 13th-17th. It's really hard to be above average everywhere in the NFL today. With our current development players at DL (Keke/Adams +serviceable Lancaster/Lowry), and the fact we play a lot of 2 DL sets (will want Gary in more next year as well) I think we can brush off IDL for a year. and focus on where we are weak and need to start succession planning (WR, TE, OT). If a stud DL falls I'm always willing to change my mind, but we also have to get out of this defense every year mindset. Our QB is 36, and weapons are bottom quarter of the league.

You can draft good receivers in other rounds. D lineman that can play are almost exclusively top 50 picks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, pacman5252 said:

Lancaster and Lowry aren’t really sad. They are do your job players. We can definitely do better and should add talent in the group but I wouldn’t call the situation sad. I’d take our current group over pretty much any line from 13-17

They've played 1101 snaps between the two of them and have 9 pressures. 

That's a level of pass trusting futility that's almost impossible to achieve.

Mike Daniels who was truly cooked this year played 203 snaps and recorded 4. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

They've played 1101 snaps between the two of them and have 9 pressures. 

That's a level of pass trusting futility that's almost impossible to achieve.

Mike Daniels who was truly cooked this year played 203 snaps and recorded 4. 

Actually, Lowry & Lancaster have played 897 DEFENSIVE snaps between them (not 1101) but the point still stands.

Lancaster is an UDFA whose role was never supposed to be anything more than a run stuffer. He has probably played too often (335) this season.

But the much bigger problem has been Lowry. How do you not get a single sack over 562 snaps (Lancaster has 1.5)? 

Dean was given a second contract and is supposed to be able to get some push. With the way the Smiths and Clark have created havoc it is well past time that Lowry do something when it comes to generating pressure.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...