Defensive Coordinator Search

[Packerraymond]

1 hour ago, Norm said:

It's been *** most weeks this year, but **** you. 

NFL shouldn't even exist. The most generic boring trash and the only thing that makes it exciting, they stole from college. 

I actually hate the NFL. It's football for tards. I'm glad there isn't viable college fantasy, but all the guys I know who "know" football love college. It's FF douches that blew up the NFL and can't comprehend college and act like it's so complicated because they don't know every player like it's TMZ or Jersey Shore or some ****.

Do I need to keep going?

 

NFL sucks. 

College is the real ****. Though it's starting to piss me off more and more but that's another subject

If college football was still authentic I'd agree a little more with this, but it's currently a battle between Dabo and Saban about who can have more sleepovers and Venmo kids parents for their services. 

There's only 3-4 teams capable of winning a title right now, and you can't say that's the case in the NFL.

[deathstar]

1 hour ago, Norm said:

Only opinion they have that's right

Food.

[Arthur Penske]

1 hour ago, incognito_man said:

plus, the quality of football is just...orders of magnitude better in the NFL.

college football is boring because the players aren't as talented. It's like trying to get excited for a mcchicken when there's a popeyes right there

By Popeyes did you mean chick fil a?

[incognito_man]

4 minutes ago, Arthur Penske said:

By Popeyes did you mean chick fil a?

Popeyes >>> Chick fil a >>> McChicken

the equal number of ">'s" is intentional. 

[mikebpackfan]

Incognito_man has a lot of correct opinions in this thread. 

[PossibleCabbage]

The appeal of college football is not "the quality of play", the appeal is how spontaneous and weird it can be.  Florida literally lost a game on Saturday because a defensive back threw a shoe "about 20 yards downfield" after a third down stop.  Ole Miss lost the Egg Bowl last year because their WR who caught the would-be game tying touchdown earned a 15 yard penalty after mimicking a dog peeing. A&M and LSU played 7 overtimes in 2018 after Coach O was drenched in gatorade, and you had coaches throwing hands after the game.

The NFL will never generate entertainment of this calibre- it's too corporate to risk being embarrassing. 

[Arthur Penske]

10 hours ago, incognito_man said:

Popeyes >>> Chick fil a >>> McChicken

the equal number of ">'s" is intentional. 

Popeyes is like the Dom Capers of fast chicken restaurants. 

[Mr Bad Example]

13 hours ago, Norm said:

College is the real ****. Though it's starting to piss me off more and more but that's another subject

Football at every level damages the participants and is full of people who are just gross - everyone knows that the NFL owners are crap, college presidents are hypocrites, college coaches are petty tyrants, everyone has had that HS coach who is only there because he wants to terrorize people but couldn't become a cop, etc. 

 

It really makes it tough to love, or even enjoy, the sport sometimes. 

[Mr Bad Example]

7 hours ago, PossibleCabbage said:

The appeal of college football is not "the quality of play", the appeal is how spontaneous and weird it can be.  Florida literally lost a game on Saturday because a defensive back threw a shoe "about 20 yards downfield" after a third down stop.  Ole Miss lost the Egg Bowl last year because their WR who caught the would-be game tying touchdown earned a 15 yard penalty after mimicking a dog peeing. A&M and LSU played 7 overtimes in 2018 after Coach O was drenched in gatorade, and you had coaches throwing hands after the game.

The NFL will never generate entertainment of this calibre- it's too corporate to risk being embarrassing. 

Not only that, the idiosyncracy of individual programs can be great as well - you have some programs that barely throw it (GA Tech) and some that hardly bother to run (wherever Mike Leach currently is).

[Norm]

12 hours ago, Packerraymond said:

If college football was still authentic I'd agree a little more with this, but it's currently a battle between Dabo and Saban about who can have more sleepovers and Venmo kids parents for their services. 

There's only 3-4 teams capable of winning a title right now, and you can't say that's the case in the NFL.

Y'all way too worried about the end game. 

[Norm]

2 minutes ago, Mr Bad Example said:

Football at every level damages the participants and is full of people who are just gross - everyone knows that the NFL owners are crap, college presidents are hypocrites, college coaches are petty tyrants, everyone has had that HS coach who is only there because he wants to terrorize people but couldn't become a cop, etc. 

 

It really makes it tough to love, or even enjoy, the sport sometimes. 

Debbie downer up in here

[incognito_man]

10 hours ago, mikebpackfan said:

Incognito_man has a lot of correct opinions in this thread. 

thank you, but this is an unnecessary qualifier

[MacReady]

I want a 4-3.

Shut up and listen to me.

The proliferation of the 3-4 defense happened because it let tweener prospects reach great teams who frequently picked later in the draft.  It started right around 2010.  Packers got ahead of the curve about a year early and then after that Packers defense won the Super Bowl, the majority followed. 

Two reasons for this.  The first I mentioned.  Tweener talent went to teams who couldn't go up and get that EDGE if they were in the 4-3 and a good team.

The second reason was flexibility and coverage ability of their EDGE players.  Now?  Half the teams who run a 3-4 don't even use their premier rushers in pass coverage.  You think Mack is dropping back as frequently as Preston?  The Bears got rid of Floyd, who is like a prototypical 3-4 EDGE as far as versatility. 

The end of the benefit of the 3-4 really stopped in 2009.  Curry was drafted 4th overall.  Raji, Matthews...

I'm gonna keep rambling. 

Look at Z. Smith.  Prototypical 4-3 defensive end.  272 pounds.  Same with Preston Smith.  How many times has dropping Preston into coverage actually worked? 

The only drawback to this is that it puts a higher premium on ILB talent I feel.  But then again maybe not.  I haven't really thought of it.  Let's think of it.  Four down linemen instead of three means less gaps for the ILB to be responsible for, doesn't it @AlexGreen#20?  This is assuming it's always four down linemen, which I think it ****ing better be.  If I was ever interviewing a defensive coordinator candidate my first question would be, "In what scenario would you rush less than 4 players?"  If his answer was anything other than, "No scenario does that happen as long as I'm calling the defense," they would get the **** out. 

Then I'd be like, "Really?  Even if you were up by 6 with 1 second left and the ball is on the opponent's 30 yard line?"  He better say something like, "If you can't cover an 80 yard Hail Mary with 7 defensive backs you need to worry about what DB talent you've acquired, not how many people I'm sending on the rush." 

Like... Literally everything about Pettine's defense in the 3-4 works better in the 4-3.

He's dropping 7 men in coverage and still rushing four.  Is that literally not the benefit of a 4-3?  The ability to rush 4 players while still dropping 7 into coverage? 

I think I've made some errors here after reading this:

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1289011-showcasing-the-biggest-differences-in-the-4-3-and-3-4-pass-rush

But I am still convinced I want the 4-3 defense.

I ****ing hate how the 3-4 defense works.  There's no order, there's no symmetry. 

 

[incognito_man]

9 hours ago, Arthur Penske said:

Popeyes is like the Dom Capers of fast chicken restaurants. 

You spelled bill and bellichick wrong

[AlexGreen#20]

10 hours ago, Outpost31 said:

I want a 4-3.

Shut up and listen to me.

The proliferation of the 3-4 defense happened because it let tweener prospects reach great teams who frequently picked later in the draft.  It started right around 2010.  Packers got ahead of the curve about a year early and then after that Packers defense won the Super Bowl, the majority followed. 

Two reasons for this.  The first I mentioned.  Tweener talent went to teams who couldn't go up and get that EDGE if they were in the 4-3 and a good team.

The second reason was flexibility and coverage ability of their EDGE players.  Now?  Half the teams who run a 3-4 don't even use their premier rushers in pass coverage.  You think Mack is dropping back as frequently as Preston?  The Bears got rid of Floyd, who is like a prototypical 3-4 EDGE as far as versatility. 

The end of the benefit of the 3-4 really stopped in 2009.  Curry was drafted 4th overall.  Raji, Matthews...

I'm gonna keep rambling. 

Look at Z. Smith.  Prototypical 4-3 defensive end.  272 pounds.  Same with Preston Smith.  How many times has dropping Preston into coverage actually worked? 

The only drawback to this is that it puts a higher premium on ILB talent I feel.  But then again maybe not.  I haven't really thought of it.  Let's think of it.  Four down linemen instead of three means less gaps for the ILB to be responsible for, doesn't it @AlexGreen#20?  This is assuming it's always four down linemen, which I think it ****ing better be.  If I was ever interviewing a defensive coordinator candidate my first question would be, "In what scenario would you rush less than 4 players?"  If his answer was anything other than, "No scenario does that happen as long as I'm calling the defense," they would get the **** out. 

Then I'd be like, "Really?  Even if you were up by 6 with 1 second left and the ball is on the opponent's 30 yard line?"  He better say something like, "If you can't cover an 80 yard Hail Mary with 7 defensive backs you need to worry about what DB talent you've acquired, not how many people I'm sending on the rush." 

Like... Literally everything about Pettine's defense in the 3-4 works better in the 4-3.

He's dropping 7 men in coverage and still rushing four.  Is that literally not the benefit of a 4-3?  The ability to rush 4 players while still dropping 7 into coverage? 

I think I've made some errors here after reading this:

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1289011-showcasing-the-biggest-differences-in-the-4-3-and-3-4-pass-rush

But I am still convinced I want the 4-3 defense.

I ****ing hate how the 3-4 defense works.  There's no order, there's no symmetry. 

 

Standard formational conversation disclaimer: the label of the base formation is vastly vastly over rated by fans. If the Packers are going to play 60+% of their snaps in a Dime, the base formation is irrelevant to the conversation. The Packers only really play Base against 1 WR sets. 

As far as your question about how many gaps need to be filled by off-ball-Linebackers, that's entirely situationally dependent. Common thought is that you play base against 2 TE sets. 2 TE sets equate to 8 gaps. If you have 4 down lineman, that covers 4 of them. You then have 3 off ball linebackers to to fill 4 gaps without involving a safety. 

In a 3-4, you fill 5 of 8 gaps with down lineman and edge rushers. You then have 2 off ball linebackers to fill 3 gaps without involving a safety. So regardless of formation, you still have one gap that requires a safety. 

++++++++

The lack of symmetry is the point of the 30 front defenses. It's supposed to make you less predictable, and give you more flexibility to respond to various options.

If the opposition is going to run a trips set to the left, maybe you drop the OLB on that side in order to help out your secondary on that side. You still have 4 rushers, and then can backfill a rush by the DB opposite the trips side if he's all alone (we don't do this, we stand Jaire by himself in case he has to play the deep third, while simultaneously creating double fill in one run gap and no fill in another) 

The 3-4 was designed to be a 5 man rush defense based on the zone blitz concepts of blitz and replace. The QB doesn't know who is going to rush, because the ILB, slot CB, and Box Safety can all be replaced in coverage by an OLB dropping.

However there's an evolutionary problem and a Packers problem with these concepts. The evolutionary problem is that QBs are increasingly more mobile. 20 years ago, if you dropped your ROLB, and blitzed with your LILB, it didn't matter that your rush contain was compromised. Philip Rivers/Peyton Manning wasn't going to flush out of the pocket and beat you with his legs. Even modern same side replacement blitzes have this problem. 210lb safeties just can't hold rush lanes. They give up escape routes if they get picked up. 

The Packers problem is that we just don't like to blitz (24th in the league in blitz percentage, and that's up in recent weeks) and when we do blitz, it's just the 5th guy in the 3-3 (Preston) rushing with the other front line guys (Z, Clark, and pick 2 of Lowry/Keke/Adams/Lancaster).

And when we don't blitz, we're dropping Preston into coverage and rushing with Z, Clark, and (pick 2 of Lowry/Keke/Adams/Lancaster). Obviously that's far less efficient. Buy you're supposed to be able to live with that because the lost efficiency should be made up with unpredictability sacks. We're not getting those, because we're not unpredictable. 

I think you have a strong argument for a switch to the 4-3 . . . IF . . . Pettine isn't going to vary his blitz scheme. It is not generating negative plays via unpredictability, you might as well just put your best 4 front line guys out there and let them work. 

+++

This leads into the far more relevant formational question about this defense, 3-3 vs 2-4 heavy vs 2-4 light vs 2-3.

The 3-3 is (academically) less predictable, in reality we just know it means Preston drops. 2 mediocre pass rushers rushing is tough to accept.  

The 2-4 heavy, Preston-Z-Gary-Kirksey as your 4 LBs, can really bring it when pass rushing but is really light in run defense and the pass coverage isn't great. 

2-4 light (Preston-Z-Kirksey-Martin/Barnes) actually let's Preston rush, but only has 2 real down lineman and Martin/Barnes taking snaps.

2-3 you're relying on one of your safeties to play linebacker. Greene wasn't terrible at it. I'm not sure any of the depth is up for it regularly.