| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
68md
Joined: 08 Feb 2009
Posts: 41
|
 Posted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:29 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
|
| Quote: | | B) The player types and numbers used for a 3-4 base defenses appear to be superior to those used by 4-3 defenses for 3rd down situational defense. |
That is purely speculative and opinionated on your part Waldo. Packers third down package installed this week and reported by Packerhq staff was a 2-5 or 5-2 depending on verbiage eagle package. Most teams do not stay 4-3 or 3-4 base regardless in a third down situation.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
AirOnRodgers
Joined: 04 Apr 2008
Posts: 7919
Location: Madison, WI
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| 68md wrote: | | Quote: | | B) The player types and numbers used for a 3-4 base defenses appear to be superior to those used by 4-3 defenses for 3rd down situational defense. |
That is purely speculative and opinionated on your part Waldo. Packers third down package installed this week and reported by Packerhq staff was a 2-5 or 5-2 depending on verbiage eagle package. Most teams do not stay 4-3 or 3-4 base regardless in a third down situation. |
Thats why he used the word appear.
_________________
[quote="detfan782004"]
When teams step on the field both teams have a 50% chance to win. Pretty simple[/quote]
DETFAN782004 - The man who can bankrupt Las Vegas |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Waldo
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Posts: 22679
Location: The ATL
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| 68md wrote: | | Quote: | | B) The player types and numbers used for a 3-4 base defenses appear to be superior to those used by 4-3 defenses for 3rd down situational defense. |
That is purely speculative and opinionated on your part Waldo. Packers third down package installed this week and reported by Packerhq staff was a 2-5 or 5-2 depending on verbiage eagle package. Most teams do not stay 4-3 or 3-4 base regardless in a third down situation. |
Do you have an explanation as to why there is almost a 100% rate of improvement in the 3rd down defense when installing a full 3-4 versus the previous season, often dramatic, whereas there is little to no improvement in 3rd down defense across the board when installing a hybrid.
What is the primary difference between the two that could have effects when not in base defense?
The numbers and types of players kept on the final roster. Hybrids tend to use numbers and types more similar to 4-3 defenses.
If you have a better reason for why the data shows that trend I'm all ears.
Took me a while to think about why the data showed that. It was very odd and unexpected. That is the best reason I could come up with.
You got a better reason?
| Quote: | Significant Improvement (>6.9% 3D)
2002 New England Patriots (9% 3D)^
2004 San Diego Chargers (7% 3D)^
Good Improvement (>3.9% 3D)
2006 New York Jets (6% 3D)^
2002 Atlanta Falcons (6% 3D)
2005 Dallas Cowboys (4% 3D)^
Slight Improvement (>1.9% 3D)
2005 Minnesota Vikings (3% 3D)(H)
1999 Jacksonville Jaguars (2% 3D)^
2005 San Francisco 49ers (2% 3D)(H)
No Change (1.9% > 3D > -1.9%)
2007 Arizona Cardinals (1% 3D)(H)
Decline (<-1.9% 3D)
2005 Cleveland Browns (-4% 3D)
2005 Miami Dolphins (-8% 3D)(H)
2002 Baltimore Ravens (-9% 3D)(H) |
Why?
_________________
| Title Town USA wrote: | | Waldo was right! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thepackattack97
Joined: 21 Apr 2008
Posts: 477
Location: Arkansas
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 9:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Thepackattack97 wrote: | | Waldo wrote: |
No, the reporters would rather talk about who is there and who is absent.
People that have been there noted that AJ was basically an on-field coach and was doing the play calling. |
Like people you know personally or?.. |
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Waldo
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Posts: 22679
Location: The ATL
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 9:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Thepackattack97 wrote: | | Thepackattack97 wrote: | | Waldo wrote: |
No, the reporters would rather talk about who is there and who is absent.
People that have been there noted that AJ was basically an on-field coach and was doing the play calling. |
Like people you know personally or?.. |
|
No, on MB's, but I seen it more than once from different people that don't know each other.
Nobody here goes to practice for some reason.
_________________
| Title Town USA wrote: | | Waldo was right! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jordyzzz
Joined: 12 May 2009
Posts: 573
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 10:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Here's another factor to consider in team's improvements in year one of the switch: Nobody made a switch because they were thrilled with their defensive performance the previous year. That means they did crappy the year before their switch. So the odds are they would get better the following year, unless they just were a crappy defense and not one that just underperformed.
In our case, we just did badly last year. We weren't bad the year before. We were slightly above average.
So even if we didn't switch, you'd have to expect this defense would be better than the 2008 one, because A) we added good guys in the draft, B) we threw the horrible Bob Sanders overboard, C) we missed Cullen Jenkins and Atari Bigby last year and D) we just underperformed last year.
_________________
^^ epack
CAN the PACKERS go UNDEFEATED in 2009? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bucktuck
Joined: 03 May 2008
Posts: 2939
Location: <- Coast
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 10:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Great post, can't argue facts, data, and the truth. I even sigged it... 
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ROBOKOP
Joined: 19 Jan 2006
Posts: 1977
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 10:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Seriously Waldo, you need to get paid to do this kind of work.
_________________
Thanks to epackfan for the sig |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yordmachine
Joined: 14 Feb 2007
Posts: 13484
Location: Treetops
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 11:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
I think you should post this in NFL General.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Waldo
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Posts: 22679
Location: The ATL
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 11:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| yordmachine wrote: | | I think you should post this in NFL General. |
Done.
_________________
| Title Town USA wrote: | | Waldo was right! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CWood21
Joined: 27 Jun 2008
Posts: 35088
Location: 'Merica
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 06, 2009 1:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Great post Waldo. Definitely adding this to the Packers forum directory. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bears2308
Joined: 20 Feb 2008
Posts: 2431
Location: Indianapolis
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 06, 2009 2:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Waldo wrote: | | bears2308 wrote: | | Willink wrote: | | bears2308 wrote: | | Thepackattack97 wrote: | | bears2308 wrote: | | The 3rd player that I can see regressing is Nick Collins. Look how long it took him to become a solid starter since first coming into the NFL. Now he has to be the "smart man". Correct me if I'm wrong, but intelligence is not Nick Collins forte. |
How does Collins have to be the "smart man"? I've been a lineman since peewees, so please forgive me ignorance on the matter.  |
The free safety is basically the quarterback of the defense in a 3-4. |
http://www.footballsfuture.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=7216335#7216335 |
Ok? Forgive me if I missed something, but all you did was show me other peoples thoughts. They seem to be what they think would work best. Usually the FS is the quarterback of the defense. Who are you telling me will be making the defensive calls? Do you know? Or is it pure speculation. There is probably a reason the FS has that role. |
AJ has been doing it in OTA's.
Just like I figured he would..... |
Umm...has Nick Collins been to OTA's?
All this data is great and all, but most of those teams had a terrible defense before the switch. Obviously they are going to improve the next year. The Packers have the talent on defense, they were just decimated by injuries last year. Besides Clay Matthews and maybe Cullen Jenkins, all your players are a better fit in a 4-3.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Waldo
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Posts: 22679
Location: The ATL
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 06, 2009 4:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| bears2308 wrote: | | Waldo wrote: | | bears2308 wrote: | | Willink wrote: | | bears2308 wrote: | | Thepackattack97 wrote: | | bears2308 wrote: | | The 3rd player that I can see regressing is Nick Collins. Look how long it took him to become a solid starter since first coming into the NFL. Now he has to be the "smart man". Correct me if I'm wrong, but intelligence is not Nick Collins forte. |
How does Collins have to be the "smart man"? I've been a lineman since peewees, so please forgive me ignorance on the matter. |
The free safety is basically the quarterback of the defense in a 3-4. |
http://www.footballsfuture.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=7216335#7216335 |
Ok? Forgive me if I missed something, but all you did was show me other peoples thoughts. They seem to be what they think would work best. Usually the FS is the quarterback of the defense. Who are you telling me will be making the defensive calls? Do you know? Or is it pure speculation. There is probably a reason the FS has that role. |
AJ has been doing it in OTA's.
Just like I figured he would..... |
Umm...has Nick Collins been to OTA's?
All this data is great and all, but most of those teams had a terrible defense before the switch. Obviously they are going to improve the next year. The Packers have the talent on defense, they were just decimated by injuries last year. Besides Clay Matthews and maybe Cullen Jenkins, all your players are a better fit in a 4-3. |
I would argue that Poppinga, Thompson, Bishop, Malone, and Bigby are better suited to a 3-4 defense than a 4-3 defense (many wondered if we were going to a 3-4 or hybrid last year when we drafted Thompson because he is so much better suited to hands up play), and I think that Raji, Pickett, Harrell, Hawk, and Chillar are scheme independent and fit either, as do all other secondary members.
I think Kamp or Barnett not fitting is a bunch of hooey. We already got rid of the poorest fit on the team, Cole, the other guy that I think is a pretty poor fit is Jolly, but I don't really think that he's any better than Malone, and Malone has experience in Capers' 3-4 already.
_________________
| Title Town USA wrote: | | Waldo was right! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bucktuck
Joined: 03 May 2008
Posts: 2939
Location: <- Coast
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 06, 2009 7:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| bears2308 wrote: |
Umm...has Nick Collins been to OTA's?
All this data is great and all, but most of those teams had a terrible defense before the switch. Obviously they are going to improve the next year. The Packers have the talent on defense, they were just decimated by injuries last year. Besides Clay Matthews and maybe Cullen Jenkins, all your players are a better fit in a 4-3. |
This statement fits the Packers as well. Rivals keep saying we're going to struggle this year, but we struggled last year and it sure looks like we are going to/at least have to improve. If our defense improves and proves themselves to be an above average defense, which I don't see as far-fetched at all considering the talent we have on D; then the only beef I would have with the Packers are the offensive tackles.
Besides your IMO, Bear fan-slanted opinion, do you have any other facts that back up your bolded statement?
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bears2308
Joined: 20 Feb 2008
Posts: 2431
Location: Indianapolis
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 07, 2009 12:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Bucktuck wrote: | | bears2308 wrote: |
Umm...has Nick Collins been to OTA's?
All this data is great and all, but most of those teams had a terrible defense before the switch. Obviously they are going to improve the next year. The Packers have the talent on defense, they were just decimated by injuries last year. Besides Clay Matthews and maybe Cullen Jenkins, all your players are a better fit in a 4-3. |
This statement fits the Packers as well. Rivals keep saying we're going to struggle this year, but we struggled last year and it sure looks like we are going to/at least have to improve. If our defense improves and proves themselves to be an above average defense, which I don't see as far-fetched at all considering the talent we have on D; then the only beef I would have with the Packers are the offensive tackles.
Besides your IMO, Bear fan-slanted opinion, do you have any other facts that back up your bolded statement? |
The Packers had a bad defense due to injury. Am I right? That's all I heard last year. If it's good when healthy, which it looked that way in 2007, why is there a need to change the whole defense?
I don't know what "facts" you want me to post, I'm just putting up reasons for my argument on why they would have been better off running a 4-3.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
