Packers D Coordinator Watch

[jleisher]

23 hours ago, {Family Ghost} said:

I think Fangio is my top choice, but Marvin Lewis would be a strong hire.  He's a quality football man .. might bring the pipe hitter out in some of our guys.  Gregg Williams is a ****, but he also gets his guys to play tough and nasty.

I agree with you on Gregg Williams.  Don't see him leaving the Browns.  That is the type of coach I hope they hire.

[jleisher]

14 hours ago, cooters22 said:

I was thinking the same thing about getting a younger guy with a fire in his belly. I'm not sure Leonard has enough experience yet, but what do I know. 

If I had to choose between Aranda or Leonhard, I would go with Leonhard, only because of his NFL background.

[CWood21]

57 minutes ago, jleisher said:

I agree with you on Gregg Williams.  Don't see him leaving the Browns.  That is the type of coach I hope they hire.

I want nothing to do with Gregg Williams.

[CWood21]

1 hour ago, Packerraymond said:

All I'm saying is we got Dom in the beginning of Mike's tenure and he clearly picked the guys other than Greene and Perry. Why would that change now?

I believe the only carry over from Bob Sanders' staff to Dom Capers' staff was Winston Moss.  What makes you believe that Whitt, Trg, etc. were Mike's choices and not Dom's?

[Pugger]

1 hour ago, jleisher said:

If I had to choose between Aranda or Leonhard, I would go with Leonhard, only because of his NFL background.

I am a big fan of Jimmy Leonard but Aranda might have more experience so he could be the better choice right now.

[{Family Ghost}]

34 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

I want nothing to do with Gregg Williams.

Why .. still hung up on bountygate?

[Chili]

I keep coming back to the example of the England Rugby Union team.

Under head coach Stuart Lancaster he had lots of talented players at his disposal but he failed to put together a successful team to win major tournaments. He was unable to bring that talent together and didn't have any clear vision for his team. After poor results he got fired.

The management hired an experienced coach in Aussie Eddie Jones and everyone expected him to chop/change the team and create a brand new team and style of rugby. Much to the surprise of everyone he didn't and basically kept the same players. All he did was make some very subtle changes by increasing the work ethic of the team and having very clear tactical ideas which was simple and easy to execute. The England team became dominant and excelled in many aspects of the game going on to achieve a 22 win record in 23 games.

I can't help but think something like this can be applied to our defence. We do have good players but we need to bring in a co-ordinator with clear simplified ideas that brings the best out of our players and turn us into a high performing defensive unit. I don't think we require wholesale changes, just hire someone who can steer us into the right direction just like what Eddie Jones has done with England.

[jleisher]

6 minutes ago, Pugger said:

I am a big fan of Jimmy Leonard but Aranda might have more experience so he could be the better choice right now.

True point on the experience part, however, Jimmy would be more respected and received by the players for being one of them.  That's my edge there.

[jleisher]

42 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

I want nothing to do with Gregg Williams.

I agree, however, I would want a coach that can fire up the players.

[jleisher]

44 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

I believe the only carry over from Bob Sanders' staff to Dom Capers' staff was Winston Moss.  What makes you believe that Whitt, Trg, etc. were Mike's choices and not Dom's?

Didn't Trg work for Dom in Carolina?  Wasn't he DL then DC there?

[Joe]

17 hours ago, CWood21 said:

Why does everyone think that switching defensive schemes is going to magically solve our defensive issues?  You only change schemes for one of two reasons.  Either your personnel doesn't fit in your current defense OR you think finding pieces in the other defense will be easily.  The former seems to be overplayed, as only Mike Daniels and Nick Perry are the only two players who are more natural fits in a 43 defense and even then I'm not sure it's as big as some are making it out to be.  We're already hearing people complaining about the inconsistent pass rush from Dean Lowry as a 5T, how much do you think that's going to change as a SDE?  Kenny Clark's value probably actually goes down in a 43 defense if we're being honest.  Clay Matthews may have his issues, but he's not going to magically become this great SAM LB who becomes the second coming of Von Miller.  It's not going to happen.  LIS, it goes back to one of two reasons.  The first one is being overstated, and the second one is debatable.

*rubs hands*

There's a lot to be said here so I'll keep my post as short as I can.

1. Switching defensive schemes will help this group as it may not be as much of a major adjustment as one would think. We've debated sub vs. base package here frequently so you're really only debating what the DL does in its base package at this point. In fact, one could argue we really run a 4-3 scheme given that we seem to routinely put Daniels and Clark in the middle with CMIII and Perry rushing from a two-point stance at the LOS. That's essentially a 4-3 look. Additionally, the LB's behind them have functioned as a 4-3 MLB and a 4-3 WILL LB, especially in packages with Joe Thomas. It's become more common than not for 4-3 teams to essentially use a Safety as a WILL LB or something similar. Landon Collins is the best example with the Giants and we do this as well with Burnett.

2. Our personnel has proven time and again, especially at LB, that it does not fit well in a 3-4 scheme; or, in fairness, at least what Dom is doing. We can all agree that Dom is the problem here. Still, we've debated time and again whether or not we're trying too many experiments with players and/or we're failing with those experiments on a regular basis. When does the insanity end?

3. There are far more players that naturally fit a 4-3 than one would think. Blake Martinez has proven he can play MLB in a 4-3 scheme just as Joe Thomas would be an excellent WILL LB. Vince Biegel was considered to be more of a SAM LB in a 4-3 when we drafted him but has been groomed to play strong-side EDGE in our system; it's not like he can't go back to being a SAM LB or function in a similar role. The same could be argued of Fackrell who, IIRC, played all 3 LB positions in a 4-3 scheme at USU. However, along the DL, if Lowry doesn't fit the 4-3 he doesn't fit; oh well. The least he could do is draw a double team trying to shoot the B gap for our SAM LB to rush as a result. The argument made is that he was having problem getting penetration in a 3-4 front, isn't that a red flag regardless of where he's lined up?

4. Has Kenny Clark really been the savior of that DL that some thought he'd be? He's certainly not a bust, but it's not like he's lighting the world on fire. Saying he can't transition to a 4-3 is giving up before even trying. Secondly, CMIII is not going to be Von Miller regardless of where he lines up either. He's a shell of his former self; go watch the Carolina game. He can still make a big play off and on, but what you see out of him is what you're going to get regardless of the scheme. 

 

I suggested yesterday that if we keep a 3-4 defense(if that's what you could even call it at this point) that we do more power rushing the way New England does. We drop too many pass rushers into coverage and our blitz scheme, when we actually do blitz, is anemic and vanilla. We need an incredible change on defense, everyone can agree on that...

[chillparsi1]

Serious question, how much of the Jim Leonhard love on this board is Wisconsin homerism? Again I'm not an X's and O's guy...but you want to hand over the keys - for ideally a championship caliber team - over to a guy who's coached all of 2 years, never in the NFL, and only 1 as a DC. It sounds like a BIG leap to me. 

[Joe]

50 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

I want nothing to do with Gregg Williams.

I think we can safely say that the organization, and myself, thoroughly agree with you.

[Dubz41]

58 minutes ago, Chili said:

I keep coming back to the example of the England Rugby Union team.

Under head coach Stuart Lancaster he had lots of talented players at his disposal but he failed to put together a successful team to win major tournaments. He was unable to bring that talent together and didn't have any clear vision for his team. After poor results he got fired.

The management hired an experienced coach in Aussie Eddie Jones and everyone expected him to chop/change the team and create a brand new team and style of rugby. Much to the surprise of everyone he didn't and basically kept the same players. All he did was make some very subtle changes by increasing the work ethic of the team and having very clear tactical ideas which was simple and easy to execute. The England team became dominant and excelled in many aspects of the game going on to achieve a 22 win record in 23 games.

I can't help but think something like this can be applied to our defence. We do have good players but we need to bring in a co-ordinator with clear simplified ideas that brings the best out of our players and turn us into a high performing defensive unit. I don't think we require wholesale changes, just hire someone who can steer us into the right direction just like what Eddie Jones has done with England.

Exactly.  It's not rocket science.  This team needs Passion and Direction.  Success will quickly follow.  Just an attitude makeover.

[AlexGreen#20]

Discussing Leonard vs Aranda in a discussion about the next Packers Defensive Coordinator is just utterly mind-boggling.