Jump to content

Barry it is.....


Leader

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, MaximusGluteus said:

I don't understand MLF.  When he went to hire his first ST coordinator he found the very best there was and it fell through, so he instead found the very worst he could find and hired him.  Now the exact same scenario happened except with the DC.  Why the **** does he do this ****?

The ST coordinator didn’t want to live in GB and basically said he needed to be like crazily over paid to be there.

Leonard didn’t want to leave UW.

Not much LaFleur can do...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Green19 said:

The ST coordinator didn’t want to live in GB and basically said he needed to be like crazily over paid to be there.

Leonard didn’t want to leave UW.

Not much LaFleur can do...

My point was why go from targeting the best to scraping the bottom of the barrel when the first choice doesn't work out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought we were already a zone scheme defence?

I always assumed that when defenders are 10 yards off the receiver at the snap this means we're in zone coverage. If they're at the receiver's face then it's man.

Or is that a too simplistic way of looking at it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Chili said:

I thought we were already a zone scheme defence?

I always assumed that when defenders are 10 yards off the receiver at the snap this means we're in zone coverage. If they're at the receiver's face then it's man.

Or is that a too simplistic way of looking at it?

Press has nothing to do with coverage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Leader said:

Peter Bukowski -     If there’s someone who I think the Joe Barry hiring can be good for, it’s Josh Jackson if he’s bringing the Staley/Fangio philosophy. It is an extremely zone-heavy scheme.

Lol. We really going to start this again? Josh Jackson is done. In fact, the Packers could save $1.3m by cutting him. Seems like an easy choice when we need $$.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've come out of hibernation to discuss our new DC and what it means moving forward.

I can overlook his lackluster performances in WAS and DET as a coach with a lack of talent around him.  Bill Belichick couldn't have faired much better with that personnel.  I can subscribe to the argument that other coaching hires didn't look great on paper, but turned out to be homeruns.  

As is often the case, this move carries with it a lot of questions.  I'm not sure if anyone outside of Gutenkinst and La Fleur truly know the answers, but I thought I would pose them as I have often been surprised and learned something on this site.

1)  Are we running a 4-3 or a 3-4

2)  I live in the Chicago media market.  The Bears used to run a Tampa 2 under Lovie Smith.  Many people have commented that NFL teams are moving away from it in today's NFL.  The lackluster performance of the Dallas defense under a Tampa 2 makes me think that is the case, is there a place for a Tampa 2 in today's NFL?

3)  How do our currently LBs fit in a 4-3?  Kirksey is the WILL, Barnes is the MIKE and Martin is the SAM? 

4)  How does Vic Fangio and Wade Phillips' 3-4s (both of which Barry has experience under) differ from Pettine's?

5)  If we stay in a 3-4 how doe Tampa 2 principles Barry is no doubt immersed in improve our defense?

6)  Are our defensive positional coaches staying on under Barry?  Or is he bringing his own people in?

Any thoughts appreciated...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, daintrain28 said:

I've come out of hibernation to discuss our new DC and what it means moving forward.

I can overlook his lackluster performances in WAS and DET as a coach with a lack of talent around him.  Bill Belichick couldn't have faired much better with that personnel.  I can subscribe to the argument that other coaching hires didn't look great on paper, but turned out to be homeruns.  

As is often the case, this move carries with it a lot of questions.  I'm not sure if anyone outside of Gutenkinst and La Fleur truly know the answers, but I thought I would pose them as I have often been surprised and learned something on this site.

1)  Are we running a 4-3 or a 3-4

I don't think anyone really knows.   GB has been 3-4 in name, but rarely run a 3-4 set.   I think a good part of it comes down to personnel that fits either set up.  

22 minutes ago, daintrain28 said:

2)  I live in the Chicago media market.  The Bears used to run a Tampa 2 under Lovie Smith.  Many people have commented that NFL teams are moving away from it in today's NFL.  The lackluster performance of the Dallas defense under a Tampa 2 makes me think that is the case, is there a place for a Tampa 2 in today's NFL?

Dallas had a void of talent on D, so I am not sure that is a great comparison measure.  

22 minutes ago, daintrain28 said:

3)  How do our currently LBs fit in a 4-3?  Kirksey is the WILL, Barnes is the MIKE and Martin is the SAM? 

Kirksey might be dependent on the cap situation.   Not sure how Burks would fair in a 4-3 LB set up vs the 3-4 ILB

22 minutes ago, daintrain28 said:

4)  How does Vic Fangio and Wade Phillips' 3-4s (both of which Barry has experience under) differ from Pettine's?

5)  If we stay in a 3-4 how doe Tampa 2 principles Barry is no doubt immersed in improve our defense?

6)  Are our defensive positional coaches staying on under Barry?  Or is he bringing his own people in?

Any thoughts appreciated...

I'm not sure how Barry views the strengths/weaknesses of each and how the current GB roster fairs and fits based on those strengths/weaknesses

I think it is a pretty big unknown until Barry either does an interview and lays out more specifics or we get to TC/preseason and we can see the product on the field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1.] 3-4 but in nickel and dime packages we might switch to a variation of the 4-3.

2.] The NFL isn't moving away from 4-3 Tampa. In fact it is more popular than ever thanks to Pete Carroll successful legion of boom. Carroll implemented his own version of it in Seattle and the NFL jumped on the bandwagon. This has led to teams hiring away his staff members which resulted in the spread of that system throughout the NFL. The likes of Saleh, Bradley and Quinn has brought that knowledge to places such as 49ers, Jets, Falcons, Chargers, Oakland. Even Woods who hails from the Kiffin tree is using a similar form of it in Cleveland.

3.] I understand that 4-3 linebackers are more rangy and has more speed and athleticism whilst the DL with an extra man up front does the grunt work.

In the 3-4 with one fewer lineman the linebackers will have to take up the slack a little. Those linebackers tend to be bigger, slower and more physical. With an extra linebacker they cover less of the field negating the need for speed. However in todays NFL that is changing with a larger empathis on stopping the pass, especially in a pass happy league. With fewer running plays being called there's little need for big, slow and physical linebackers.

Either way now in both systems linebackers are expected to be athletic and quick. Being physical would be an added bonus. Kamal Martin look good for that. Barnes looks more of a traditional 3-4 linebacker to me .

4.] Fangio is probably closer to Capers style of defence as they worked together developing their 3-4 philosophies for years. All I can remember is Capers was much more conservative with his bend and don't break defence whereas Fangio was more aggressive. Fangio always got more out of his defences with the 49ers and Bears.

Unlike Capers who like to use speed edge rushers, Pettine relies on on bigger and longer DL and edge rushers. It was more about power and being physical but with the increasingly pass happy league Pettine has lost his identity a little and became very bend and don't break.

I'm not as familiar with Phillips defence. It often proves highly effective until it got figured out.

It will be interesting what style 3-4 Barry will use. Is most recent work was in Fangio style 3-4 but he has worked longest in Phillips.

5.] No idea

6.] Yet to be determined. I'm sure he will be allowed to hire at least one person. No guarantees Gray will stay either. I imagine for the most part we will keep the same coaching staff.

Edited by Chili
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Leader said:

Peter Bukowski -     If there’s someone who I think the Joe Barry hiring can be good for, it’s Josh Jackson if he’s bringing the Staley/Fangio philosophy. It is an extremely zone-heavy scheme.

I think if there was someone who I was going to say would benefit it would be Martin/Barnes considering his caching history and work with guys like Littleton from UDFA to probowl/2nd team All-pro.

Edited by Arthur Penske
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...