| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ShimSham
Joined: 06 Dec 2008
Posts: 11095
Location: Hattiesburg, MS
|
 Posted: Sun Jun 07, 2009 12:21 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
|
| bears2308 wrote: | | 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? |
The wheels of the Packers defense did certainly fall off last year as we started to lose guys like Jenkins, Harris, Bigby, and Barnett all throughout the season.
Now I'm just speaking personally, but the reason I hated Bob Sanders' scheme is because he couldn't adjust. Everything had to go just perfectly (like it pretty much did in 2007) for the scheme to have success, and even then it was limited success. I mean we had a good defense in 2007, but it wasn't great. And considering our familiarity with Sanders, I think most Pack fans would agree that's just about as good as our defense could be with him.
So yeah, Sanders defense was basically predicated on all of the starters staying healthy and all parts of the defense playing great. I know all defenses want to operate this way, but what I'm saying is that if one part of the defense ever was weakened by injury or something, then he would/could never do anything to stop the bleeding so to speak. Whether it was early in a game, or early in the season, the problems seemingly wouldn't even be addressed.
We were lucky in 2007 to have no significant defensive injuries. Injuries are almost always going to happen. And with Sanders' inability to adjust, and the unlikelihood we'd be as healthy as we were in 2007, then yeah I think it was time for a change.
_________________
WORLD CHAMPIONS |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Beast
Joined: 29 Jun 2008
Posts: 2278
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 07, 2009 12:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| ShimSham wrote: | | bears2308 wrote: | | 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? |
The wheels of the Packers defense did certainly fall off last year as we started to lose guys like Jenkins, Harris, Bigby, and Barnett all throughout the season.
Now I'm just speaking personally, but the reason I hated Bob Sanders' scheme is because he couldn't adjust. Everything had to go just perfectly (like it pretty much did in 2007) for the scheme to have success, and even then it was limited success. I mean we had a good defense in 2007, but it wasn't great. And considering our familiarity with Sanders, I think most Pack fans would agree that's just about as good as our defense could be with him.
So yeah, Sanders defense was basically predicated on all of the starters staying healthy and all parts of the defense playing great. I know all defenses want to operate this way, but what I'm saying is that if one part of the defense ever was weakened by injury or something, then he would/could never do anything to stop the bleeding so to speak. Whether it was early in a game, or early in the season, the problems seemingly wouldn't even be addressed.
We were lucky in 2007 to have no significant defensive injuries. Injuries are almost always going to happen. And with Sanders' inability to adjust, and the unlikelihood we'd be as healthy as we were in 2007, then yeah I think it was time for a change. |
I mostly agree with you. Sanders sucked because he's system was so basic a 5 five year old might of been able to break it down. It was almost the same thing over and over and over.... no changes.
Also if one person got injured their were no adjustments... just throw the next guy in their. He wouldn't change the system at all to help the players.
The system was as simple as middle school football or earlier.....
Also the Packers did have a significant defensive injury. The whole season seemed to change when Jolly and Cole got injured and put on IR. Jolly was the starter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thrillhouse
Joined: 08 Jan 2006
Posts: 29774
Location: Minneapolis, Hell
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 07, 2009 1:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
That's just it. Just because we performed very well as a defense, doesn't mean that we didn't see signs in Sanders coaching that didn't bode well for him. There were things in 2007 that he did not do well - but we had the talent to overcome that. In 2008, those same things were holding us back, especially with 3 devastating injuries to each of our best run defenders from their respective defensive units.
The point is, just because things end up well, doesn't mean the coach didn't make mistakes. In this case, they were clear mistakes in gameplan (mostly) and adjustments (or lack thereof) that KEPT popping up.
Come on, people. It is NOT as easy as looking at a stat line! When will people learn that?!?!
_________________
| LeGarrette Blount wrote: | | Aaron Rodgers...makes me feel incredible. |
| Uncle Buck wrote: | | Barbara Streisand - Can't go into it on this site. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bfavre4moyears
Joined: 01 Jan 2007
Posts: 2097
Location: iwishiwasinGB
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 07, 2009 1:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Sanders takes a lot of crap for his vanilla wafer defense - and rightfully so.
He did not manipulate his defense to meet the needs, and more particularly highlight the skills of his players.
This idea of his defense being "set in stone" no matter who the players are, is why he had so much trouble adjusting (from game to game as well as from half-to-half).
HOWEVER, his defense works. If everyone executes their job, the defense works. In 2007 we had a very talented team where everyone was doing their job (for the most part) and we saw that his defense WORKED.
I would like to point out that before everyone went down with injuries last season, this defense was working very well. Turnovers were being created, roles were being filled, and he keeping the other team off of the board.
When Jenkins, Barnett, and Bigby went down (3 HUGE losses in the run game), other teams were able to captilize on the lack of talent we had on the field. I'm not sure that any coach could have adjusted that defense back to the level it was at before those injuries. Some coaches, however, are better at it then others.
Capers is one of those coaches. He understands how to manipulate the system to the player, not vice versa. This makes TT's job easier because he can draft "football players" and let Capers go to work on them, instead of drafting players that fit the scheme perfectly.
Sanders was an average DC who could succeed with enormous amounts of talent. An upgrade was needed because the offense was leaving the defense in the dust.
That upgrade has happened, and we are very excited about it here at FF. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AirOnRodgers
Joined: 04 Apr 2008
Posts: 7919
Location: Madison, WI
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 07, 2009 1:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| bears2308 wrote: | | 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. |
You've obviously never taken any sort of class or formal education when it comes to making an argument.
When you assert an argument, the burden of proof is on you. You need to provide some sort of evidence when you supply an argument. Not just "I feel this way" and thats why its right.
Come back with some sort of evidence, or anything, that would prove your point. We have supplied ample evidence as to the 3-4 generally being a superior defense, especially in a certain situation, you've made yourself look like a dude who uses his opinion as gospel. Not a good way to come off.
Just trying to help you improve as a poster.
_________________
[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 |
|
|
bears2308
Joined: 20 Feb 2008
Posts: 2436
Location: Indianapolis
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 07, 2009 7:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| AirOnRodgers wrote: | | bears2308 wrote: | | 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. |
You've obviously never taken any sort of class or formal education when it comes to making an argument.
When you assert an argument, the burden of proof is on you. You need to provide some sort of evidence when you supply an argument. Not just "I feel this way" and thats why its right.
Come back with some sort of evidence, or anything, that would prove your point. We have supplied ample evidence as to the 3-4 generally being a superior defense, especially in a certain situation, you've made yourself look like a dude who uses his opinion as gospel. Not a good way to come off.
Just trying to help you improve as a poster. |
Nice way to try and take a jab at my intelligence. Good post.
Anyway, do you expect me to argue with the numbers?
Yes, the numbers show that when a team moves to the 3-4 they improve. They also had little talent when they made the switch to the 3-4. That's usually the reason they made the switch. I can't come up with facts about how Green Bay will play in the 3-4, because THEY HAVEN'T PLAYED YET!
The Packers have plenty of talent on defense. They have also succeeded in the 4-3. If not for the injuries, they might not have even brought in Dom Capers. I'm thinking a defensive line with Jenkins, Harrell, Raji, and Kampman sounds pretty damn good. Also, Nick Barnett has shown to be a good MLB, same with A.J. on the outside. You think their play will improve in the 3-4? The secondary was insane last year, the scheme will be changed which could lead to a drop off in Al Harris' play. You also have Kampman playing out of position. At his age I'm not sure if he can make the transition and still play at a Pro-Bowl level. Do you think he will also improve in the 3-4?
I'm not saying the switch is going to drastically hurt your defense, but I do think the 4-3 would be more productive.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kampman74
Joined: 30 Apr 2007
Posts: 8049
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 07, 2009 7:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| bfavre4moyears wrote: | Sanders takes a lot of crap for his vanilla wafer defense - and rightfully so.
He did not manipulate his defense to meet the needs, and more particularly highlight the skills of his players.
This idea of his defense being "set in stone" no matter who the players are, is why he had so much trouble adjusting (from game to game as well as from half-to-half).
HOWEVER, his defense works. If everyone executes their job, the defense works. In 2007 we had a very talented team where everyone was doing their job (for the most part) and we saw that his defense WORKED.
I would like to point out that before everyone went down with injuries last season, this defense was working very well. Turnovers were being created, roles were being filled, and he keeping the other team off of the board.
When Jenkins, Barnett, and Bigby went down (3 HUGE losses in the run game), other teams were able to captilize on the lack of talent we had on the field. I'm not sure that any coach could have adjusted that defense back to the level it was at before those injuries. Some coaches, however, are better at it then others.
Capers is one of those coaches. He understands how to manipulate the system to the player, not vice versa. This makes TT's job easier because he can draft "football players" and let Capers go to work on them, instead of drafting players that fit the scheme perfectly.
Sanders was an average DC who could succeed with enormous amounts of talent. An upgrade was needed because the offense was leaving the defense in the dust.
That upgrade has happened, and we are very excited about it here at FF. |
Dont forget Hawk was as good as hurt. And we didnt have Harrell who will be there this year. oh and good post TC. 
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Xx KiLLa G X
Joined: 13 Mar 2009
Posts: 392
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 12:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Just because the 3-4 defense is typically more effective doesn't mean that we have the personnel to pull it off. Could it be that the few defenses that didnt succeed in the 3-4 had the same problems? I agree Bob Sanders needed to go, but I believe we could've found a talented defensive coordinator that ran the 4-3. I hope the transition goes smoothly and that everything works out great, but this change could make/break our team for the next few years, when bringing in a 4-3 DC would've come with far less risk. However I do believe that if our guys adapt quickly and everyone knows their role, this could be one of the better drastic changes in Packer history.
_________________
Rashaan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jmoney
Joined: 18 Oct 2006
Posts: 1735
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 1:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| bears2308 wrote: | | AirOnRodgers wrote: | | bears2308 wrote: | | 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. |
You've obviously never taken any sort of class or formal education when it comes to making an argument.
When you assert an argument, the burden of proof is on you. You need to provide some sort of evidence when you supply an argument. Not just "I feel this way" and thats why its right.
Come back with some sort of evidence, or anything, that would prove your point. We have supplied ample evidence as to the 3-4 generally being a superior defense, especially in a certain situation, you've made yourself look like a dude who uses his opinion as gospel. Not a good way to come off.
Just trying to help you improve as a poster. |
Nice way to try and take a jab at my intelligence. Good post.
Anyway, do you expect me to argue with the numbers?
Yes, the numbers show that when a team moves to the 3-4 they improve. They also had little talent when they made the switch to the 3-4. That's usually the reason they made the switch. I can't come up with facts about how Green Bay will play in the 3-4, because THEY HAVEN'T PLAYED YET!
The Packers have plenty of talent on defense. They have also succeeded in the 4-3. If not for the injuries, they might not have even brought in Dom Capers. I'm thinking a defensive line with Jenkins, Harrell, Raji, and Kampman sounds pretty damn good. Also, Nick Barnett has shown to be a good MLB, same with A.J. on the outside. You think their play will improve in the 3-4? The secondary was insane last year, the scheme will be changed which could lead to a drop off in Al Harris' play. You also have Kampman playing out of position. At his age I'm not sure if he can make the transition and still play at a Pro-Bowl level. Do you think he will also improve in the 3-4?
I'm not saying the switch is going to drastically hurt your defense, but I do think the 4-3 would be more productive. |
It is true that the personnel would be very good for a 4-3 defense, but the big thing for me is that the talent on the defense in 2007 was top notch, but the defense was not. It was a good defense, but it was not a great defense. With a coordinator and a scheme that does a better job of mixing it up and confusing the offense, the defense could get more out of the talent that they already have. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CharlesHarris31
Joined: 06 Jun 2009
Posts: 246
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Well as a brand spankin' new member of this wonderful land of die hard Packer fans, I'd like to simply say thank you Waldo for your insight into the 3-4. I'd like to think I've become much keener on this subject now because of you guys. I look forward to reading much, much more!
_________________
props to chucknorris101 on the sig^ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gilbert Burger
Joined: 23 Dec 2005
Posts: 3145
Location: The 414
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 10:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
The best part of your analysis, Waldo, is none of those teams drafted two first round front 7 defensive players AND had two returning starters AND a first round pick appearing healthy enough to contribute.
We're winning the north this year. Mark it, dude.
_________________
"Fundamentals are a crutch for the talentless" - Kenny Powers |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ShimSham
Joined: 06 Dec 2008
Posts: 11095
Location: Hattiesburg, MS
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 10:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Actually the Patriots spent three first round picks over three years making their front three guys. (I think) 'Course they had a slower transition. Whereas I think most of us are expecting a much faster transition.
_________________
WORLD CHAMPIONS |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Waldo
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Posts: 22679
Location: The ATL
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 10:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Xx KiLLa G X wrote: | | Just because the 3-4 defense is typically more effective doesn't mean that we have the personnel to pull it off. |
You absolutely 100% completely missed the point of everything that I wrote.
Try again.
_________________
| Title Town USA wrote: | | Waldo was right! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gilbert Burger
Joined: 23 Dec 2005
Posts: 3145
Location: The 414
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 10:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| ShimSham wrote: | | Actually the Patriots spent three first round picks over three years making their front three guys. (I think) 'Course they had a slower transition. Whereas I think most of us are expecting a much faster transition. |
That is over 3 years. With Harrell coming back, we actually have 3 new 1st round pick defensive starters, and with Jenkins and Barnett, we have 5 new defensive starters in one year (from last year).
_________________
"Fundamentals are a crutch for the talentless" - Kenny Powers |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kampman74
Joined: 30 Apr 2007
Posts: 8049
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 10:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Gilbert Burger wrote: | | ShimSham wrote: | | Actually the Patriots spent three first round picks over three years making their front three guys. (I think) 'Course they had a slower transition. Whereas I think most of us are expecting a much faster transition. |
That is over 3 years. With Harrell coming back, we actually have 3 new 1st round pick defensive starters, and with Jenkins and Barnett, we have 5 new defensive starters in one year (from last year). |
And I know that this isn;t your point but on our defense 9 overall first round picks or pro-bowlers and that looks pretty good
_________________
|
|
| 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
