Defense Discussion [2017]

[MacReady]

Just now, packfanfb said:

Maybe soft isnt the right word, but we are very poor tackling team (especially in the secondary) and we don't rally to the ball for ****. When I watch other teams tackle and rally on ball carriers, its night and day sometimes. 

This is true.  Soft isn't the right word.  The defense isn't respected, and it's not fundamentally sound, and it doesn't play with any swagger or attitude whatsoever.  Just like dogs take on the personality of their owners, a defense takes on the personality of its coordinator.

[RoellPreston88]

18 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said:

This is true.  Soft isn't the right word.  The defense isn't respected, and it's not fundamentally sound, and it doesn't play with any swagger or attitude whatsoever.  Just like dogs take on the personality of their owners, a defense takes on the personality of its coordinator.

I would agree with this, but it also doesn't help that our GM seems to draft guys who were just like him as a player - choir boys, limited athletically, try hards.

[Shanedorf]

11 hours ago, incognito_man said:

I do, I think our defense will be more aggressive the rest of the season.

Dom's aggressiveness is directly tied to his confidence in the CBs holding up on their own. When he's had 2 he can count on, it opens up the playbook

When he doesn't he has to call the defense differently

http://archive.jsonline.com/sports/packers/packers-defense-transformed-by-cornerbacks-coverage-b99418753z1-287430621.html/

"Obviously, the more you pressure, the more the corners become a premium," said Capers. "They've got to be able to run with the receivers. The more single-high that you play, it puts more pressure on the corners. If you go split-safety, you take some of the pressure off the corners."

"We definitely put a lot on our guys if you want to break them all down and say, 'Times locked up.'"

It should go without saying that Capers couldn't begin to play such daring defense with zone-type corners. (That's why Hayward is gone)

"The decision you have to make is, can we break the quarterback's rhythm and force him to throw the ball on a time clock as opposed to if they block those things up and you leave those guys hung out there one-on-one?" said Capers. "If you can't, you become vulnerable to big plays."

[packfanfb]

1 hour ago, HorizontoZenith said:

This is true.  Soft isn't the right word.  The defense isn't respected, and it's not fundamentally sound, and it doesn't play with any swagger or attitude whatsoever.  Just like dogs take on the personality of their owners, a defense takes on the personality of its coordinator.

You mean Dom "Sleepy" Capers? 

 

[MacReady]

Yeah, that's one thing I don't understand when it comes to defending Capers.  I get defending scheme and everything because there are definitely arguments to be made to defend him, and  I defended him for a long damn time, but the image of him sitting up there just bothers me so, so, so much. 

[skibrett15]

On 10/16/2017 at 5:24 PM, skibrett15 said:

To me, the task of the defense is 2 pronged:

1) You have a front 7 (more like front 6, but I'll stick with normal terminology for now) which has the majority of our quality players: Clark, Daniels, Clay, Perry, Martinez.  It has some role guys who have been ok-good in the past but not so good this year: Brooks, Lowry.  It has some proven nobodies: Jake Ryan, Kyler Fackrell, and some unproven nobodies: Dial, Biegel, Montravious Adams.

The scheme of the defense and the objective of the playcaller should be to put our quality players in positions to make plays WITHOUT exposing fundamental flaws vs commonly run plays/schemes.  It's the job of the front 7 to play soundly first, then to make plays when opportunity presents itself.  It's NOT the job of the front 7 to try to make plays outside the scheme that MIGHT work, or might result in big plays.  When it comes to the passing game, the front 7 MUST contribute enough pressure to alleviate the stress on our under-manned secondary.  This is the ONLY way this team will win games.  When the ball goes up to the short areas and flats, the front 7 players must rally to the ball with greater urgency, and look to make plays on the ball.  It's ok for the secondary to "slow up" the ball carrier, and wait for reinforcements to bring that player to the ground.

2) We have a secondary which cannot tackle the ball-carrier or make plays/take angles in space.  While the defense is giving up big plays, it's actually quite rare that there are WIDE OPEN players running through the middle of the defense (there were vs Atlanta, mostly due to PA breakdowns by safeties Brice/HHCD) or players who aren't accounted for by the secondary in coverage.  The players in the secondary are actually very fundamentally sound during coverage, but they CONSISTENTLY fail to play fundamentally sound once the ball is in the air/caught by the opponent.  Perfect example is the Brice/Hawkins double coverage vs Thielen which led to a 40 yard DPI penalty.  Perfect coverage, players don't make play on the ball AND cause a penalty in the process.

Still, plays on the ball are actually less relevant than tackling the ball-carrier.  There is a very good reason that Kevin King was so impressive when he came in vs Atlanta and in the following game.  He tackles like a solid NFL player.  That level of play needs to be the norm rather than the exception -- tackling with the arms and shoulder pads around the hips/waist of the offensive player.  Most teams are full of these players.  Green Bay is not, and never has been.

The remainder of our players are so far out of position that they attempt to reach for shoelaces, occasionally succeeding.  When in zone coverage, King is able to see the receivers and the quarterback, so when the quarterback releases it, he is running to the spot where the receiver will catch the ball.  Often, he meets the receiver there, and when he does, the ball carrier has no chance to advance.  This also causes incompletions when he gets there at the RIGHT time.  Morgan Burnett is the only other player who usually plays in this manner, but he is not the explosive athlete King is so it's not as impressive looking. 

Brice, HHCD (who is ok when he is playing the ball, not when playing the man), Rollins, Randall, Hawkins are all HORRIBLE at this part of defense.  They are soft, weak, scared players who play like they are scared of being or getting injured.  Brice is not scared, he simply has no spatial awareness or ability to change directions.  He runs around the field and his tackles are MOBA skillshots that he has to line up perfectly or completely whiff.

It's the job of the secondary to turn these 8-15 yard gains into 4 yard gains which set up 2nd and 6 and 3rd and 2.  This front 7 can destroy 2nd and 6 and 3rd and 2.

BUMP.

[AlexGreen#20]

Still disagree this secondary tackles any worse than your average NFL secondary.

If you think House/King/Randall is a bad tackling trio, what the hell did you think of Shields/Tramon/Hayward? 

[Mr. Fussnputz]

I can't remember which of the Packer's corners said it, but he said something like, they don't pay me to tackle; they pay me to cover. Being able to cover is paramount; being a great tackler is just a bonus. That said, I agree tha the defense lacks something. They tend to play too much on their collective heels. I agree that the scheme is too complex. Dom wants to play chess; this is football. Simplify the scheme and unleash the players. Let them play downhill. Turn overs will still happen, because QBs, even good ones like Brees, will get rattled and make mistakes. 

 

 

[SassyFascistAlphaGuy]

31 minutes ago, Mr. Fussnputz said:

I can't remember which of the Packer's corners said it, but he said something like, they don't pay me to tackle; they pay me to cover. Being able to cover is paramount; being a great tackler is just a bonus. That said, I agree tha the defense lacks something. They tend to play too much on their collective heels. I agree that the scheme is too complex. Dom wants to play chess; this is football. Simplify the scheme and unleash the players. Let them play downhill. Turn overs will still happen, because QBs, even good ones like Brees, will get rattled and make mistakes. 

 

 

Lots of assumptions in your argument. 

[Mr. Fussnputz]

17 minutes ago, SassyFascistAlphaGuy said:

Lots of assumptions in your argument. 

Yeah, I'm not a football expert, just a fan. So take my opinion for what it's worth. I could be way off. Always willing to listen and learn! 

[incognito_man]

1 hour ago, Mr. Fussnputz said:

I can't remember which of the Packer's corners said it, but he said something like, they don't pay me to tackle; they pay me to cover. Being able to cover is paramount; being a great tackler is just a bonus. That said, I agree tha the defense lacks something. They tend to play too much on their collective heels. I agree that the scheme is too complex. Dom wants to play chess; this is football. Simplify the scheme and unleash the players. Let them play downhill. Turn overs will still happen, because QBs, even good ones like Brees, will get rattled and make mistakes. 

 

 

if one of the corners actually said that...immediately my least favorite player on the team ha

[SassyFascistAlphaGuy]

No Packers corner said that. Deion Sanders did. 

Quote

"It was a statement I made when I played for the [Atlanta] Falcons," Sanders recalled. "A reporter asked me to describe my play at corner. I said 'They pay me to cover. They don't pay me to tackle. They pay me to cover, that's my No. 1 job.'"

 

[squire12]

1 hour ago, Mr. Fussnputz said:

I can't remember which of the Packer's corners said it, but he said something like, they don't pay me to tackle; they pay me to cover. Being able to cover is paramount; being a great tackler is just a bonus. That said, I agree tha the defense lacks something. They tend to play too much on their collective heels. I agree that the scheme is too complex. Dom wants to play chess; this is football. Simplify the scheme and unleash the players. Let them play downhill. Turn overs will still happen, because QBs, even good ones like Brees, will get rattled and make mistakes. 

 

 

Was that a current GB corner?

That seems like something T Buckley would have said.

[TransientTexan]

On 10/18/2017 at 4:05 PM, HorizontoZenith said:

I brought up the effect of a poor running game on the pass defense NUMBERS a long while back.  Believe it, don't believe it, but the old adage about lies, damn lies and something else is a saying for a reason.  The statistics of 2012 being a "good" pass defense doesn't make it a "good" pass defense. 

Since we started this discussion, you haven't once explained how an offense succeeding with the run falsely deflates their passing yards-per pass attempt. I agree that it can deflate passing yards per game, but I have never reference passing yards per game to support any points. In fact you are the one that likes to place importance in a problematic stat like total passing yards in a game. So you're saying that because the stat that you like to use is a bad indicator, all stats lie? How convenient.~ Oh wait, no, it's just every stat that might support my side of the argument lies because reasons. also convenient. 

On 10/18/2017 at 4:05 PM, HorizontoZenith said:

By your own stats, we held less than half of the teams under their average yards per attempt.  Why?  Because, like I said, teams ran against us, and they ran well against us.  

Funny that you ignored the stats I supplied except for the one that you think supports your argument. fyi, 4 of the 17 teams you referenced also held less than half of the teams under their yd per attempt. as for your statement about the running success, see above...

On 10/18/2017 at 4:05 PM, HorizontoZenith said:

Seattle, Chicago, San Francisco, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Denver, Miami, Arizona, Baltimore, Atlanta, Houston, Chargers, Giants, Jets, Rams, Patriots and Panthers.  I'm gonna say those 17 teams were better pass defenses than us that year. 

lol, Houston, San Diego, & New England are stretches, and probably Miami too. if you were applying your Packers criteria to them, you'd be complaining and disqualifying them for allowing guys like Chad Henne & Mark Sanchez & Ryan Fitzpatrick rack up major yards (since total passing yards are the only stats that matter~). 

Stats vs. 6 common opponents (R.Wilson, C.Kaepernick, M.Schaub, S.Bradford,A.Luck, J.Locker)

GB: 23.3 pnt allowed, 112/204 (54.9% comp), 1382 Pass-yd (6.77 pass-yd per pass attempt), 74.84 QB rating, 

MIA: 25.3 pnt allowed, 124/189 (65.6% comp), 1545 Pass-yd (8.17 pass-yd per pass attempt), 103.16 QB rating.

On 10/18/2017 at 4:05 PM, HorizontoZenith said:

mostly because they were all clearly better defenses than us that year because we allowed 26 points on the road that year and we were not a good defense, which was clear based on Kaepernick obliterating us in the playoffs, and our pass defense wasn't "good" because, as is always the case in the NFL, pass defense rankings lie when you are a bad defense overall.

lol here comes another qualifier so we can do some more confirmation bias. yay. success doesn't count when it's at home...

On 10/18/2017 at 4:05 PM, HorizontoZenith said:

The Bears, Chargers, Bengals and Jaguars?  All better pass defenses than the Seahawks  based on pass yards per game.  Saints, Colts, Jets... All better than the Seahawks based on interceptions this year. 

Just because the particular stats you cling to like total pass yards are bad indicators doesn't mean all stats are bad indicators. I included the INT's as a part of a bigger picture. Just because any individual stat by itself won't show a 100% accurate picture doesn't mean they are meaningless and have zero correlation with success, though I'm sure that is difficult to comprehend for someone that enjoys binary thinking. if correlation isn't 100%, it's 0%.~

On 10/18/2017 at 4:05 PM, HorizontoZenith said:

IT WAS A BAD PASS DEFENSE BECAUSE IT WAS A BAD DEFENSE PERIOD.

You haven't supplied any reasoning for this beyond your saying so. 

On 10/18/2017 at 4:05 PM, HorizontoZenith said:

Just admit it because it wasn't a good pass defense and I'm sick of arguing this.

Not until you come up with something better than anecdotal evidence. And decide whether you will commit to saying they were a "bad pass defense" or retreat to "not a good pass defense". Those aren't synonymous. Unless of course you're in the binary thinking club.

at any rate, it's a waste of time for me to continue arguing with someone dogmatically stuck on their viewpoint.

 

[MacReady]

8 hours ago, TransientTexan said:

Not until you come up with something better than anecdotal evidence.

You keep saying anecdotal evidence and I don't think you know what that means.  It's not anecdotal to say we gave up career games to Blaine Gabbert and John Skelton.  It's not anecdotal to say we played historically bad quarterbacks that year.  It's not anecdotal to take specific games instead of season totals to fit my argument.    You think going by season totals and DVOA tells the story, I don't think it does.  I think 446 yards (season high from Brees) against the only good non-rookie QB we played that year says everything we need to know about that pass defense.  You think season totals compared to other teams means more.  And most importantly, I think 8.3 yards per attempt and 198 yards rushing in two games from Colin Kaepernick says everything it needs to say about that defense, as well as the pass defense. 

You keep saying that every good defense gives up a lot of yards to good quarterbacks when that's not true.  This might all be semantics with the difference between bad/not good.  Based on statistical results and season totals, it was a good pass defense.  Based on "anecdotal" evidence, it was a bad pass defense.  Poor performances when it mattered most.  The biggest reason I say that is because Woodson missed all but the first 7 games of the regular season, which meant one of McMillian or Jennings were starting at safety.  If you want to cling to statistics and think it was a good pass defense, fine.  I remember those years with Jennings/McMillian (mostly because of the Fail Mary), but also because they were horrible. 

So since you can't respond to specific games (against good quarterbacks), I won't respond to your season totals.  Because I don't think season totals mean much of anything at all when we played the crap quarterbacks we played that year.  When your pass defense is built around confusing less than good quarterbacks and less than good quarterbacks perform badly against your defense, season totals are going to be to your advantage.  But just like everybody says, and it's true, okay to good quarterbacks aren't fooled by our pass defense, and they haven't been ever since 2011. 

So yeah, we'll have to agree to disagree.  I'll say it was a good statistical pass defense, but a bad pass defense in theory and in practice against good quarterbacks.