Jump to content

Pettine Strikes Back [So much off coverage]


Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Jaire_Island said:

Man if we leave the same cushion to Brady.. he is going to dink and dunk those 3-4 yard passes all day long..

The difference is he will find the weaknesses in the redzone and exploit them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Jaire_Island said:

Man if we leave the same cushion to Brady.. he is going to dink and dunk those 3-4 yard passes all day long..

Exactly like he did the first game, everyone in the world knows Brady is captain check down but Pettine still played soft coverage. That game was a mess anyways, playing soft coverage the whole game didn't lose that game either.

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

@AlexGreen#20 do we play much cover 2? Know we're a big fan of cover 3 looks and gaining depth with Jaire and KK, and keeping a S down around the LOS. Just don't see why when game planning for Trubisky, cover 2 wouldn't be your preferred zone. Most of his passes are going to go less than 10 yards, keep King, Jaire and Sully around the LOS with a chance to make plays.

We play a ton of Cover-2. It's our most common coverage. 

Cover-2

Cover-4

Cover-6

Cover-3

is how I would rank it over the course of the year. I think the avoidance of the Cover-2 against the Bears was about Pettine fearing the running game more than Trubisky. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Q1:  In terms of secondary cushion, how much of that is Gray vs Pettine? 

Q2:  In terms of cushion, and zone vs man, how does that impact vision, run support, and INT's?  I'm wondering if you're playing man/press, your eyes are on your guy and you're preoccupied chasing/entangling him.  If your guy doesn't get the ball, doesn't that compromise your ability to help in run, or on a screen, or to see a possible interception?  

Q3: The Bears scored TD only on first possession, captured in the pictures.  Did Pettine and the defense adjust after that, with heavier box and less cushion?  Or did they maintain the same "light box"/cushion thereafter and allow no further TD's for the game?   If the latter, perhaps to some degree that partially vindicates the approach?  If the former, perhaps that partially vindicates the adjustment?  

I partly wonder whether they thought the front with the 2 ILB would be sufficient to contain Montgomery inside?  And that even with that degree of cushion, plus with eyes able to watch what was developing, that the cushion guys could get up fast enough to suppress outside runs or screens?  But then maybe they realized the initial plan couldn't really contain Montgomery well enough, so they adjusted after that?  

Seems to me the Bears had been running a lot of outside screens to the backs, in recent games.  I suspect the defense may have been pretty conscious of trying to not get gashed on those?  

I'm suspecting MLF and Pettine my see vindicating success, rather than a need to change?  The defense allowed 16 points and one TD in the victory.  It's supported back-to-back 13-win seasons.  Top-10 in yards-per-game, 7th in passing yards per game, and only 4 rushing-yards-per-game from being top 8 there, too.  I'm suspecting MLF would like better execution, fewer missed tackles, more hats to the ball more quickly; he'd like the defense to be a little more situation-conscious, not so much cushion on 3rd-and-5; he'd maybe like to use Snacks more on run-downs than he did after only half a week in the building; etc.  But while he may want the defense to perform variably better, he may also see the framework and defensive philosophy as being already successful and vindicated, and NOT needing substantial revision?  

Edited by craig
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah....had a feeling last week was a fluke. 😑

 

I'm not predicting Wash will win, but I think that game is going to be a lot closer than we think. Wash's front-7 is one of the best in the league, especially that DL so I think it's safe to say that Brady will get sacked at least twice in that game. In each of Brady's 6 losses, the majority of the sacks(combined) were by a rusher coming off weak side.  The Saints defense sacked him 5 times off weak side blitzes alone. Here's to hoping that we'll run some of those 5 and 6 DL sets to at least, at worst, collapse the pocket and contain the running game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So Pettine was finally kinda asked about it here at 3:30 by Nagler https://www.packers.com/video/pettine-on-what-s-spurred-uptick-in-packers-red-zone-defense

 

I think a lot of it was coach speak and he really didn't want to say it was all scheme related and said they need to be better situationally that the corners can play it differently depending on recievers position. He  then says they can't give up easy throws like that situationally, but its like its not one or 2 plays here and there its consistently being called. Then he goes into how good they have been at not allowing the explosive play which is true, but I think he mostly beat around the bush a bit about the question. Idk if there's much to read into it, but its something.

 

 

 

Edited by Gopackgonerd
Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a third and 5 play where King played 10 yards off of Robinson, who unsurprisingly got a first down. I mean, I get the one time we probably "showed" Savage had a terrible deep ball play, but I just don't understand not forcing Trubs to make more difficult decisions. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, oldmansmell said:

There was a third and 5 play where King played 10 yards off of Robinson, who unsurprisingly got a first down. I mean, I get the one time we probably "showed" Savage had a terrible deep ball play, but I just don't understand not forcing Trubs to make more difficult decisions. 

There have been several games this year when it was 3rd and long and our guys couldn't get off the damn field.  Drives me crazy...

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Pugger said:

There have been several games this year when it was 3rd and long and our guys couldn't get off the damn field.  Drives me crazy...

I think it's 3rd and med/short where the GB defense is not so good. Seems like I saw something a couple weeks back where the GB defense was near top of the league on 3rd and long.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Mazrimiv said:

I think it's 3rd and med/short where the GB defense is not so good. Seems like I saw something a couple weeks back where the GB defense was near top of the league on 3rd and long.

Yea they are still among the best defenses in 3rd and long scenarios. I mean every team is going to give up 3rd and 10s occasionally but when you basically spot an offense 5 yards on the first two downs it makes it much easier to convert. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pettine:

We have to have better situational awareness. The corners, depending on the call, if they have deep responsibility, whether it's man or whether it's three-deep or quarters, they do have some options on how to play it. But situationally, we have to better understanding that we can't give easy throws

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Smidgeon said:

Pettine:

We have to have better situational awareness. The corners, depending on the call, if they have deep responsibility, whether it's man or whether it's three-deep or quarters, they do have some options on how to play it. But situationally, we have to better understanding that we can't give easy throws

I knew it was King

Fire King

Extend Pettine

  • Like 1
Link to post
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...