Jump to content

Joe Barry'd again

Old Guy

By Old Guy
in Green Bay Packers

 Share

Joe Barry'd  

49 members have voted

  1. 1. What should the Packers do about their defensive coordinator?

    • Fire MLF, he hired him
      1
    • Fire Joe Barry immediately and get somebody who will play aggressive defense
      14
    • MLF should lay down the law with Barry to stop playing not to lose, get aggressive
      24
    • Ride it out and see what happens this season then make a decision
      3
    • Joe Barry is great
      7

This poll is closed to new votes

  • Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.
  • Poll closed on 10/14/2022 at 06:46 PM

Recommended Posts

Packerraymond

Packerraymond

Posted
Posted

DC is much less about scheme than OC. There's man to man and standard 5 or so zone coverages, and the variants of those coverage that have robbers/hybrids/spies etc... Still a much smaller playbook. DC's really vary and can be creative when it comes to the subpackage and blitz package, that's really what you're buying when you hire a DC.

To me the most important thing about a DC is the attitude, defensive players are a different breed from the O guys. You'd like a guy like Rich B that players openly want to run through a wall for, inspired, amped players play defense better than guys being told to bend but not break.

  • Like 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Leader

Leader

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Arthur Penske said:

You know it’s bad when the talking heads call it out 

Yup. It's a new chat topic amongst the sport networks pundits. Far as I can tell, he's been flying below the radar up until now. Somebody should forward that tweet to MLF, Gute & Murphy.

 

Edited by Leader
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MrBobGray

MrBobGray

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Leader said:

Joe B's shortfalls have gone national...........

 

So my issue with this is it's a bunch of made up lies?

For one, they absolutely did change their defense to stop him running.  They had McDuffie show a rush then drop out to QB spy a number of times in the second half, at the very least.  For two, the stat about how they averaged more yards per play when they ran zone read feels like the definition of lying by omission: she deliberately never explains the context of that, but her wording suggests that the Giants averaged more yards per play on those 13 zone read plays than any other NFL offense is averaging for all their plays this season.  Which would be 6.7 yards per play.  It's not hard to average more than 6.7 yards per play across 13 plays; a few big explosive gains and you're basically guaranteed to. 

This is always my problems with the criticisms of Barry (or Pettine or Capers).  It's not that there aren't lots of things to be critical of, but those are never the things that actually get criticized.  For instance people love to claim that Barry is calling a lot of "soft zones" and "prevent defense" because the Packers run off coverage, but there's nothing inherently passive about off coverage.  Part of the reason you play off is because it gives you vision to the ball; it's a lot easier to break on a pass if you have the space to see it coming.  The issue isn't that it's passive, it's that they pair often under-manned off coverage with overly aggressive rush plans.  If you're going to aggressively rush the QB, you need to take away the routes he can hit easily under pressure because otherwise you're just speeding the QB along to the right decision.  Instead you have five at the LoS, three guys covering deep, and three guys trying to cover roughly 800 square yards in between.  That's not a joke number; 15 yards of depth x 53.3 yards across = 799.5 square yards.  The Packers put a bunch of guys deep to take away shot plays and then rush the QB hard to ensure he doesn't have time to take those shots anyway, defeating their own coverage. 

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Leader

Leader

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, MrBobGray said:

So my issue with this is it's a bunch of made up lies?

For one, they absolutely did change their defense to stop him running.  They had McDuffie show a rush then drop out to QB spy a number of times in the second half, at the very least.  For two, the stat about how they averaged more yards per play when they ran zone read feels like the definition of lying by omission: she deliberately never explains the context of that, but her wording suggests that the Giants averaged more yards per play on those 13 zone read plays than any other NFL offense is averaging for all their plays this season.  Which would be 6.7 yards per play.  It's not hard to average more than 6.7 yards per play across 13 plays; a few big explosive gains and you're basically guaranteed to. 

This is always my problems with the criticisms of Barry (or Pettine or Capers).  It's not that there aren't lots of things to be critical of, but those are never the things that actually get criticized.  For instance people love to claim that Barry is calling a lot of "soft zones" and "prevent defense" because the Packers run off coverage, but there's nothing inherently passive about off coverage.  Part of the reason you play off is because it gives you vision to the ball; it's a lot easier to break on a pass if you have the space to see it coming.  The issue isn't that it's passive, it's that they pair often under-manned off coverage with overly aggressive rush plans.  If you're going to aggressively rush the QB, you need to take away the routes he can hit easily under pressure because otherwise you're just speeding the QB along to the right decision.  Instead you have five at the LoS, three guys covering deep, and three guys trying to cover roughly 800 square yards in between.  That's not a joke number; 15 yards of depth x 53.3 yards across = 799.5 square yards.  The Packers put a bunch of guys deep to take away shot plays and then rush the QB hard to ensure he doesn't have time to take those shots anyway, defeating their own coverage. 

So what's the point of all this? The pundits didn't exactly detail things as you have? They're calling our DC into question from afar. They dont watch or scrutinize the nuts and bolts of GBs defense like fans and the local media does. They check in - report what they think - then move on to 30 other teams or issues. I appreciate their scrutiny.....as "specific detail-less" as it apparently is.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MantyWrestler

MantyWrestler

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, MrBobGray said:

So my issue with this is it's a bunch of made up lies?

For one, they absolutely did change their defense to stop him running.  They had McDuffie show a rush then drop out to QB spy a number of times in the second half, at the very least.  For two, the stat about how they averaged more yards per play when they ran zone read feels like the definition of lying by omission: she deliberately never explains the context of that, but her wording suggests that the Giants averaged more yards per play on those 13 zone read plays than any other NFL offense is averaging for all their plays this season.  Which would be 6.7 yards per play.  It's not hard to average more than 6.7 yards per play across 13 plays; a few big explosive gains and you're basically guaranteed to. 

This is always my problems with the criticisms of Barry (or Pettine or Capers).  It's not that there aren't lots of things to be critical of, but those are never the things that actually get criticized.  For instance people love to claim that Barry is calling a lot of "soft zones" and "prevent defense" because the Packers run off coverage, but there's nothing inherently passive about off coverage.  Part of the reason you play off is because it gives you vision to the ball; it's a lot easier to break on a pass if you have the space to see it coming.  The issue isn't that it's passive, it's that they pair often under-manned off coverage with overly aggressive rush plans.  If you're going to aggressively rush the QB, you need to take away the routes he can hit easily under pressure because otherwise you're just speeding the QB along to the right decision.  Instead you have five at the LoS, three guys covering deep, and three guys trying to cover roughly 800 square yards in between.  That's not a joke number; 15 yards of depth x 53.3 yards across = 799.5 square yards.  The Packers put a bunch of guys deep to take away shot plays and then rush the QB hard to ensure he doesn't have time to take those shots anyway, defeating their own coverage. 

It comes across as soft coverage because it is though. 3 guys to cover that area leaves a ton of easy throws. 

Combine that with a standard 4 man rush and that is why we scream at our TV and less than average QB’s excel against our defense. If pressure and tight coverage makes it hard on a guy like Mahomes and Goff, why doesn’t Barry think it will work against a scrub like Devito?

Edited by MantyWrestler
Link to comment
Share on other sites
incognito_man

incognito_man

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, Norm said:

No I got lost, IDK what's going on lol my fault

But yes in the other thread it's because there are comparisons everywhere between Rodgers and Love and their first 13 starts in their first full year of starting. And obviously it's intellectually dishonest to try and include that first KC start of his on 1-2 day notice for him as some weird counter example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Norm

Norm

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

But yes in the other thread it's because there are comparisons everywhere between Rodgers and Love and their first 13 starts in their first full year of starting. And obviously it's intellectually dishonest to try and include that first KC start of his on 1-2 day notice for him as some weird counter example.

Even if you include it, it doesn't change all that much of anything I don't think. It was just a weird way to whine I guess? I don't make **** of those comps anyways and nor do most anyone. It's just, interesting, I guess.

  • Like 1
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.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...