Defense Discussion [2017]

[Packerraymond]

8 minutes ago, deltarich87 said:

King had his shoulder surgery today

 

Gain 10 pounds and we'll see you in camp hopefully playing press.

[Norm]

1 hour ago, skibrett15 said:

every team can use the personnel vs in the past the key spot was the NT (vince wilfork, Jamal Williams) since everyone wanted that guy.  But the DEs were viewed as "undersized DTs" for the 4-3 at the time, and the OLB/edge guys were easy pickings because they were viewed as "too small" to play 4-3 DE.

 

So that's the general trend, and teams are more multiple and playing a ton of Sub, so undersized DTs and DEs aren't an issue 

Of course. So what's supposedly changed that makes it harder to find small fast DEs and undersized DTs? Nothing. NTs like you named were never numerous really at any point in league history either so that's not the case either. If anything, they want to move away from those guys.

NCAA is producing a billion smaller line players these days. 43 is more open to them now. But they basically play the same way as a 34 in many ways. So why fear a certain front? I sure don't.

Let me put it this way. If there fewer of them because the 43 is now using them, then why go that way if it's just using the same guys? What's the difference...

I also think it's more of an 80s view that 34 defense is the anti run defense. I don't agree with that anymore and I think he implied 43 is better against the pass overall. Not sure there is anything to that either.

[Norm]

1 hour ago, cannondale said:

It was well documented back when we made the change. Everyone was running the 4-3 and looking for Reggie Whites. Grabbing the next OLB from Troy in the 4th round was attractive. Add a NT and you were supposedly all set to go. I thought this was pretty common knowledge. A lot more teams running the 3-4 now 

So just go 43 and get some Reggie Whites? EZPZ. Go look at the talent coming out of the draft and their sizes. There's no chance it favors the traditional 43. I thought that was common knowledge...

Lot more teams run amorphous defenses and in my opinion favoring one or the other with stress is a thing of the past. Used by those stuck there.

 

There's not this plethora of 43 talent dropping every year prime for stealing. 34 teams are taking guys everyone pegged for 43, and the opposite. It doesn't really matter.

[Dubz41]

2 minutes ago, NormSizedMidget said:

 I thought that was common knowledge...

Lot more teams run amorphous defenses and in my opinion favoring one or the other with stress is a thing of the past. Used by those stuck there.

Just a bit of editing and it is the most awesome post in the thread! Maybe on the whole board.

[Norm]

5 minutes ago, Dubz41 said:

Just a bit of editing and it is the most awesome post in the thread! Maybe on the whole board.

It's really like Ford vs Chevy guy. It's not really about the brand but the specific vehicle. That being whoever the hell the coach is and his specific scheme.

I get the logic of well 34 isn't working do the "opposite" but I don't find that to be really what the case is.

[Dubz41]

I bet Capers can't even spell "amorphous defense"'.   But ya, base package is a minority of the time.  Just draft some guys who can go Mongo on the QB.  More concerned about attitude than how they line up.

[skibrett15]

27 minutes ago, NormSizedMidget said:

Of course. So what's supposedly changed that makes it harder to find small fast DEs and undersized DTs? Nothing. NTs like you named were never numerous really at any point in league history either so that's not the case either. If anything, they want to move away from those guys.

NCAA is producing a billion smaller line players these days. 43 is more open to them now. But they basically play the same way as a 34 in many ways. So why fear a certain front? I sure don't.

Let me put it this way. If there fewer of them because the 43 is now using them, then why go that way if it's just using the same guys? What's the difference...

I also think it's more of an 80s view that 34 defense is the anti run defense. I don't agree with that anymore and I think he implied 43 is better against the pass overall. Not sure there is anything to that either.

There used to be 2-5 teams running the 3-4: San Diego, New England, Wade Phillips Dallas, Baltimore, Cleveland, Pitt and maybe 1-2 others like arizona.  Now everyone uses those players so there is more competition for the body type.  Dallas and Zona were more 1 gap 3-4s, while NE/SD were 2 gap 3-4 scheme with both NT and 3-Tech were never rushing and had to protect 2 gaps and/or draw double teams to free up the LBs.

You're exactly right that the 4-3 teams are now more open to the smaller faster guys.  There's nothing to 3-4 or 4-3 being better worse at run/pass.  Perhaps the 3-4 better operates like a 5-2 when you go heavy, but very few teams are going THAT heavy anymore except vs very specific situations.

There isn't a big difference in personnel types when it comes to DL and pass rusher/edge. 

The bigger difference is that there are more playmaking opportunities and personnel differences at off ball LB positions.  Our scheme relies much more on deception as far as who is rushing the passer and who is dropping into coverage than a team like seattle or atlanta.  They rely much more on playmaking from their off ball LBs Wagner and KJ Wright.  They might show blitz 20 snaps, but they are only actually coming once or twice.  Martinez might show blitz 20 snaps, but he's coming 5+ times and clay/perry is dropping.

Not a lot of that has much to do with 4-3 or 3-4 anymore IMO, but there's still the relic and foundation that these "schemes" in terms of tendencies are still built on either a 43 or a 34. 

For example: Denver D and STL are still built on the foundation of 1 gap DTs who can pass rush like Jay Ratliff/Malik Jackson etc.  Older school 3-4 teams don't really exist in that form -- where you have 2 guys 2-gapping.

[cannondale]

59 minutes ago, NormSizedMidget said:

So just go 43 and get some Reggie Whites? EZPZ. Go look at the talent coming out of the draft and their sizes. There's no chance it favors the traditional 43. I thought that was common knowledge...

Lot more teams run amorphous defenses and in my opinion favoring one or the other with stress is a thing of the past. Used by those stuck there.

 

There's not this plethora of 43 talent dropping every year prime for stealing. 34 teams are taking guys everyone pegged for 43, and the opposite. It doesn't really matter.

You asked - I answered. Nowhere do I say to abandon the 3-4. I simply stated that it's much harder to find the talent than when we first switched over (allegedly). I remember the transition pretty clearly. Wondering if Kampman could transition and the building blocks being NT and of course OLB. That's why we went Raji Matthews in the same draft. I also wondered if Capers version of the 3-4 is antiquated. You're trying to pick a fight that isn't there. I don't care which defense we run. I just don't want Capers running it

[AlexGreen#20]

22 minutes ago, skibrett15 said:

There used to be 2-5 teams running the 3-4: San Diego, New England, Wade Phillips Dallas, Baltimore, Cleveland, Pitt and maybe 1-2 others like arizona.  Now everyone uses those players so there is more competition for the body type.  Dallas and Zona were more 1 gap 3-4s, while NE/SD were 2 gap 3-4 scheme with both NT and 3-Tech were never rushing and had to protect 2 gaps and/or draw double teams to free up the LBs.

You're exactly right that the 4-3 teams are now more open to the smaller faster guys.  There's nothing to 3-4 or 4-3 being better worse at run/pass.  Perhaps the 3-4 better operates like a 5-2 when you go heavy, but very few teams are going THAT heavy anymore except vs very specific situations.

There isn't a big difference in personnel types when it comes to DL and pass rusher/edge. 

The bigger difference is that there are more playmaking opportunities and personnel differences at off ball LB positions.  Our scheme relies much more on deception as far as who is rushing the passer and who is dropping into coverage than a team like seattle or atlanta.  They rely much more on playmaking from their off ball LBs Wagner and KJ Wright.  They might show blitz 20 snaps, but they are only actually coming once or twice.  Martinez might show blitz 20 snaps, but he's coming 5+ times and clay/perry is dropping.

Not a lot of that has much to do with 4-3 or 3-4 anymore IMO, but there's still the relic and foundation that these "schemes" in terms of tendencies are still built on either a 43 or a 34. 

For example: Denver D and STL are still built on the foundation of 1 gap DTs who can pass rush like Jay Ratliff/Malik Jackson etc.  Older school 3-4 teams don't really exist in that form -- where you have 2 guys 2-gapping.

Ultimately though it boils down to how you rush. There's nothing really stopping us from rushing as the Atlanta/Seattle teams do. You could sit Martinez back there and let him run bandit, smoke, and hook to curl coverages underneath all day. The reason we don't do that is a matter of choice, not a matter of necessity caused by scheme.

If you want to argue that we need to make the front less complicated and motion/matchup based, I've got no argument with that. But switching to a 40 front doesn't make that happen without buy in from the staff. 

[skibrett15]

Just now, AlexGreen#20 said:

Ultimately though it boils down to how you rush. There's nothing really stopping us from rushing as the Atlanta/Seattle teams do. You could sit Martinez back there and let him run bandit, smoke, and hook to curl coverages underneath all day. The reason we don't do that is a matter of choice, not a matter of necessity caused by scheme.

If you want to argue that we need to make the front less complicated and motion/matchup based, I've got no argument with that. But switching to a 40 front doesn't make that happen without buy in from the staff. 

yeah, call it philosophy or call it scheme I feel like it's basically different words for the same idea. 

I agree the front doesn't matter.  It's more a symptom of how the architect of the defense was taught/brought up in the NFL -- those that were taught to do more fire zones/blitzes have tended to come from 3-4 fronts.  Which also reflects the DC's philosophy as far as zone vs man tendencies, press vs trail, types of fire zones, frequency of blitz, etc.

Where the guys line up is like 5% of it... it's what they tend to do post-snap which better defines what the defensive identity is.

[AlexGreen#20]

1 minute ago, skibrett15 said:

yeah, call it philosophy or call it scheme I feel like it's basically different words for the same idea. 

I agree the front doesn't matter.  It's more a symptom of how the architect of the defense was taught/brought up in the NFL -- those that were taught to do more fire zones/blitzes have tended to come from 3-4 fronts.  Which also reflects the DC's philosophy as far as zone vs man tendencies, press vs trail, types of fire zones, frequency of blitz, etc.

Where the guys line up is like 5% of it... it's what they tend to do post-snap which better defines what the defensive identity is.

I agree, though our blitz percentage has been disgustingly low the last few years. Like, bottom 5 in the league, low. There's no ability to hold up on the outside against any real #1, so we sit back in the Cover-6 and try not to get killed ala Steelers.

[cannondale]

We used to bring a corner or coverage safety twice a game with great success. That seems like 100 years ago

[skibrett15]

4 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

I agree, though our blitz percentage has been disgustingly low the last few years. Like, bottom 5 in the league, low. There's no ability to hold up on the outside against any real #1, so we sit back in the Cover-6 and try not to get killed ala Steelers.

yeah, this defense has not been the same since shields went down.  The team hasn't trusted a single corner with any responsibility since.

There's a talking point that DBs need to have a short memory... but the packers DC and staff are the opposite. 

They are taking the BB strategy of "don't lose the game to their best option" to it's extreme fringe condition -- trying to mitigate a ton of options. This basically leads to death by exhaustion and paper cuts and eventually cuts from plastic cutlery and finally big plays from good players.

[packfanfb]

Yuck. Outside of points allowed, these are probably the worst categories to be bad at for a defense. Confirms what a lot of us have known for a while. We are one of the worst defenses in the NFL. 

[Norm]

1 hour ago, cannondale said:

You asked - I answered. Nowhere do I say to abandon the 3-4. I simply stated that it's much harder to find the talent than when we first switched over (allegedly). I remember the transition pretty clearly. Wondering if Kampman could transition and the building blocks being NT and of course OLB. That's why we went Raji Matthews in the same draft. I also wondered if Capers version of the 3-4 is antiquated. You're trying to pick a fight that isn't there. I don't care which defense we run. I just don't want Capers running it

I am only fundamentally disagreeing that it's easier to find talent on one or the other. I was actually was responding through you to the larger conversation. On that note, I completely agree with this post here.