Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

The 3-4, Debunking the Myths
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
BrettFavre004


Joined: 08 Feb 2007
Posts: 20150
Location: Galesville, WI
PostPosted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 6:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I wouldn't say I am buying into the fact that just because we are moving to a 3-4, but I am remaining very optimistic about that fact that teams traditionally improve with the switch, and don't need a year to adjust just because the switch was made. That makes me feel better about our chances next year, along with the additions of Cullen Jenkins, BJ Raji, Justin Harrell, Nick Barnett, Clay Matthews and Atari Bigby can really all help make our defense better. Top that off with the maturation, chemistry, and all erased doubts on the ARod front and damnit all, the season can't start soon enough.
_________________


http://www.footballsfuture.com/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=17
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
Waldo


Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Posts: 22679
Location: The ATL
PostPosted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 2:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If there is one thing people should take away from this thread it is that:

"Struggling" to pick up the new defense isn't all it is cracked up to be. While I'm sure all teams had a little bit of growing pains, it appears more than offset by the tactical and strategic advantage that the DC has over opponents.

There is no factual basis behind that which Packer fans are told "they are going to a 3-4, therefore they will struggle for a year or two". False. They could suck for a year or two or even longer, but I highly doubt the transition is the reason for the suck, even if it is blamed for it.

For some reason fan perceptions about a 4-3 to 3-4 transition is shaped mostly by the Jets and the 49ers for some reason. Most of the myths devised about the switch relate to one or both of these teams, and few others.
_________________

Title Town USA wrote:
Waldo was right!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Shaw66


Joined: 12 May 2010
Posts: 13
PostPosted: Tue May 18, 2010 9:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello, Packer fans. I'm Shaw66, Buffalo Bills Fan and regular poster on the Bills forum at www.BuffaloBills.com. I had to come here and tip my hat to Waldo.

A couple of weeks ago some of us were discussing the Bills' switch this year from the 4-3 to the 3-4. Someone said what is always said - that defenses struggle in the first year after the switch. One of the posters did some research and discovered this thread and Waldo's incredible analysis of teams that had made the switch. Of course, his analysis didn't include the Pack in 2009, since that hadn't happened yet.

So I started a thread on the Bills forum so everyone could see Waldo's work. People talked about the subject and Waldo's analysis for a week. Here are some of the comments:

Quote:
Wow! Those Packer fans sure are dedicated.


Quote:
Fantastic thread. Very thorough analysis.


Quote:
Thanks to the Packers fanatic and for the Bills fanatics (for searching for it) for the read.


Quote:
Really great stuff, its nice to see some logical, thought out analysis using real statistics.


Quote:
Outstanding attention to detail in this thread.


Quote:
Great stuff.


Quote:
Great analysis.


Quote:
Thanks Mikey, Waldo, and Shaw for posting.


Quote:
This represents a disturbing amount of research.

Props to waldo and shaw for posting this.


Quote:
Fantastic thread. Football still lives at BBMB.

Great analysis by this guy.


Quote:
Wow - we're talking football! Excellent post!


Quote:
Wowwww!!!!!


So, thanks, Waldo. Your work opened the eyes of a lot of Bills fans.

See you guys on September 19. I have a friend who's a Giants fan, but he goes to one Bills game a year with me. Last year we decided this year would be a road trip, and when the Packers showed up on the schedule, we knew it had to be Lambeau.

Beware, the Bills will be better than you think.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Linkness


Joined: 22 May 2008
Posts: 795
PostPosted: Tue May 18, 2010 9:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Can we get Waldo a job at the GB Press-Gazette? Then I might actually read their site again.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TheRealJB


Joined: 10 May 2010
Posts: 520
Location: Minneapolis, MN
PostPosted: Tue May 18, 2010 10:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I would love to see one of the newspapers have the guts to scan the Packers forums for outstanding content like what started this thread and occasionally run some of the best stuff they find (with permission, of course). They'd never do that, though, because some of the stuff they'd run from forums would be better than a lot of what their paid staff produce.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Shaw66


Joined: 12 May 2010
Posts: 13
PostPosted: Tue May 18, 2010 11:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I write about this a lot.

Although some of the posters on forums like this don't know much, there are some posters who know more about their team, and have a better understanding of what drives the success (or failure) of their team, than just about all the writers and broadcasters.

On top of that, the writers and broadcasters don't have to be correct about anything. All they have to do is write or say stuff that sounds sensible to most fans (most of whom don't know much). If it sounds sensible, the fans think the writer is knowledgeable.

So, to take the Bills as an example, SOME year the Bills will be good. It has to happen sooner or later. In the months running up to the season when the Bills are going to be good, practically no writer or broadcaster is going to say they'll be ggod, because there's nothing in it for him to say that. If he says it, the fans won't believe it, so the fans will think the writer/broadcaster doesn't know what he's talking about. And when the season is over, no one is going to give the guy an award for having predicted what no one else saw. So they just write the ordinary stuff that we all see every year.

The only lesson here is that since you know that what most media types say about the Packers is shallow or wrong, you have to stop believing what most media types tell you about other teams, too. The reality is they haven't done the homework you have on the Packers, and they haven't done the homework on any other team, either.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Willink


Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Posts: 11443
Location: Albany, NY
PostPosted: Tue May 18, 2010 12:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Some rough stats from 2009's three 3-4 converts:

(Using net YPP given I cba to measure out average YPP rankings)

Denver Broncos:
2008 Performance (8-Cool: 28.0 PPG (30th), 5.0 YPC (30th), 7.0 YPP (27th), 98.5 PRA (31st), 44% 3D (25th), 26 sk (26th), 6 int (31st), 83 pen (12th)

2009 Performance (8-Cool: 20.2 PPG (12th), 4.5 YPC (27th), 5.4 YPP (3rd) , 75.0 PRA (8th), 37% 3D (13th), 39 sk (10th), 18 INT (T-13th), 78 pen (3rd)

Green Bay Packers:

2008 Performance (6-10): 23.8 PPG (22nd), 4.6 YPC (26th), 6.0 YPP (12th), 71.9 PRA (4th), 38% 3D (14th), 27 sk (25th), 22 INT (T-3rd), 89 pen (T-18th)

2009 Performance (11-5): 18.6 PPG (7th), 3.6 YPC (1st), 5.6 YPP (6th), 68.8 PRA (4th), 36% 3D (9th), 37 sk (T-11th), 30 INT (1st), 107 pen (T-26th)

Kansas City Chiefs:

2008 Performance (2-14): 27.5 PPG (29th), 5.0 YPC (31st), 7.0 YPP (28th), 91.1 PRA (25th), 47% 3D (32nd), 10 sk (32nd), 13 INT (T-17th), 81 pen (T-8th)


2009 Performance (4-12): 26.5 PPG (29th), 4.7 YPC (31st), 7.0 YPP (28th), 87.1 PRA (20th), 38% 3D (15th), 16 sk (31st), 15 int (T-16th), 106 pen (25th)

And updating Waldo's rankings:

Overall Defense:

Drastic Improvement (>6 PPG)
2009 Denver Broncos (7.8 PPG)
1999 Jacksonville Jaguars (7.5 PPG)*
2004 San Diego Chargers (7.1 PPG)
2003 New England Patriots (6.7 PPG)*
2005 Dallas Cowboys (6.1 PPG)

Good Improvement (5.99 - 3 PPG)
2005 Cleveland Browns (5.6 PPG)
2009 Green Bay Packers (5.2 PPG)^
2006 New York Jets (3.8 PPG)^
2002 Atlanta Falcons (3.7 PPG)^
2005 Minnesota Vikings (3.2 PPG)(H)

Slight Improvement (2.99 - 1 PPG)
2005 Miami Dolphins (2.3 PPG) (H)
2005 San Francisco 49ers (1.4 PPG)(H)
2009 Kansas City Chiefs (1.0 PPG)

No Improvement (.99 - -.99 PPG)
2007 Arizona Cardinals (-0.6 PPG)(H)

Decline (<-1 PPG)
2002 Baltimore Ravens (-5.5 PPG)(H)


Run Defense:

Drastic Improvement (>0.61 YPC)
2003 New England Patriots (1.1 YPC)^
2009 Green Bay Packers (1.0 YPC)*

Good Improvement (0.60-0.31 YPC)
2005 Miami Dolphins (0.6 YPC)(H)^
2005 San Diego Chargers (0.6 YPC)^
2005 Minnesota Vikings (0.6 YPC)(H)
1999 Jacksonville Jaguars (0.5 YPC)
2009 Denver Broncos (0.5 YPC)

Slight Improvement (0.30 - 0.11 YPC)
2009 Kansas City Chiefs (0.3 YPC)
2007 Arizona Cardinals (0.2 YPC)(H)^
2005 San Francisco 49ers (0.2 YPC)(H)
2002 Atlanta Falcons (0.2 YPC)

No Change (0.10 - -0.10 YPC)
2005 Cleveland Browns (0.1 YPC)
2006 Dallas Cowboys (0.0 YPC)

Decline (<-0.11 YPC)
2002 Baltimore Ravens (-0.3 YPC)(H)*
2006 New York Jets (-0.7 YPC)

Pass Defense:

Overall Improvement
2009 Denver Broncos (1.6 YPP, 23.5 PRA, 12 INT)^
2005 Minnesota Vikings (1.0 YPP, 20.3 PRA, 13 int)(H)^
2002 New England Patriots (0.8 YPP, 22.0 PRA, 11 int)*
2002 Atlanta Falcons (1.0 YPP, 20.5 PRA, 6 int)
2005 Dallas Cowboys (0.7 YPP, 19.1 PRA, 2 int)
1999 Jacksonville Jaguars (0.2 YPP, 9.1 PRA, 6 int)^
2009 Green Bay Packers (0.4 YPP, 3.1 PRA, 8 INT)*

Playmaking Improvement, Average Effectiveness Decline
2004 San Diego Chargers (-0.1 YPP, 17.7 PRA, 10 int)^
2005 49ers (-0.5 YPP, 2.3 PRA, 7 int)(H)
2002 Baltimore Ravens (-0.7 YPP, -0.6 PRA, 9 int)(H)^

Give Up More Short Stuff
2007 Arizona Cardinals (0.6 YPP, -0.4 PRA, 2 int)(H)

Very Little Change
2009 Kansas City Chiefs (0.0 YPP, 4.0 PRA, 2 INT)
2005 Cleveland Browns (0.0 YPP, 0.8 PRA, 0 int)
2006 New York Jets (0.0 YPP, -4.9 PRA, -5 int)^

Declined
2005 Miami Dolphins (-0.2 YPP, -5.5 PRA, -1 int)(H)


Sacks:

Drastic Improvement (>9.9 sk)
1999 Jacksonville Jaguars (27 sk)*
2005 Miami Dolphins (13 sk)(H)*
2009 Denver Broncos (13 sk)^
2002 Atlanta Falcons (10 sk)*
2009 Green Bay Packers (10 sk)

Good Improvement (>4.9 sk)
2002 New England Patriots (7 sk)^
2009 Kansas City Chiefs (6 sk)
2006 New York Jets (5 sk)

Slight Improvement (>1.1 sk)
2005 Dallas Cowboys (4 sk)

No Change (1.1 > sk > -1.1)
2004 San Diego Chargers (-1 sk)
2005 San Francisco 49ers (-1 sk)(H)

Decline (<-1.1 sk)
2007 Arizona Cardinals (-2 sk)(H)
2005 Minnesota Vikings (-5 sk)(H)
2005 Cleveland Browns (-9 sk)
2002 Baltimore Ravens (-12 sk)(H)


3rd Down Defense:

Significant Improvement (>6.9% 3D)
2002 New England Patriots (9% 3D)^
2009 Kansas City Chiefs (9% 3D)
2004 San Diego Chargers (7% 3D)^
2009 Denver Broncos (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)^
2009 Green Bay Packers (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)
_________________

Quote:
If I have not lost my mind I can sometimes hear it preparing to defect


Last edited by Willink on Tue May 18, 2010 1:17 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TYGER


Joined: 16 Mar 2010
Posts: 344
Location: packerbacker87 awesome sig!
PostPosted: Tue May 18, 2010 1:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Willink wrote:


Green Bay Packers

2008 Performance (6-10): 23.8 PPG (22nd), 4.6 YPC (26th), 6.0 YPP (12th), 71.9 PRA (4th), 38% 3D (14th), 27 sk (25th), 22 INT (T-3rd), 89 pen (T-18th)
2009 Performance (11-5): 18.6 PPG (7th), 3.6 YPC (1st), 5.6 YPP (6th), 68.8 PRA (4th), 36% 3D (9th), 37 sk (T-11th), 30 INT (1st), 107 pen (T-26th)


Jeez!! You'd think we would get better with those Sad ... Evil or Very Mad
_________________


Brad Jones is my BOI!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
packfan4


Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 10799
Location: South Jersey
PostPosted: Tue May 18, 2010 4:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's pretty simple to me, if you have a coaching staff capable of teaching the scheme and talented players to pull it off, then there's absolutely no reason a scheme switch shouldn't be successful. We had both, and then some...
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
packerbacker87


Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 8127
Location: Zone 6
PostPosted: Tue May 18, 2010 5:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This sheds light to my immediate displeasure of the Mike Neal pick. When you see the right person that fits your scheme, you have to move on them. You can't just go with the bigger names and try to make something work that can't. Neal obviously measured up to exactly what we needed on the defensive side of the ball. If you have the players to make it work, it will.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
incognito_man


Joined: 11 Jan 2007
Posts: 30488
Location: Madison
PostPosted: Tue May 18, 2010 6:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

packerbacker87 wrote:
This sheds light to my immediate displeasure of the Mike Neal pick. When you see the right person that fits your scheme, you have to move on them. You can't just go with the bigger names and try to make something work that can't. Neal obviously measured up to exactly what we needed on the defensive side of the ball. If you have the players to make it work, it will.


huh?

Are you pleased or displeased with the Neal pick?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dubyajay


Joined: 23 Mar 2010
Posts: 1686
PostPosted: Tue May 18, 2010 8:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

incognito_man wrote:
packerbacker87 wrote:
This sheds light to my immediate displeasure of the Mike Neal pick. When you see the right person that fits your scheme, you have to move on them. You can't just go with the bigger names and try to make something work that can't. Neal obviously measured up to exactly what we needed on the defensive side of the ball. If you have the players to make it work, it will.


huh?

Are you pleased or displeased with the Neal pick?


What I got from that incog is that although he was displeased with the pick at the time, Waldo's write-up has softened him on his stance.


I could be wrong though.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
N. Collins Fan


Joined: 16 Feb 2007
Posts: 6908
Location: Twin Cities
PostPosted: Wed May 19, 2010 9:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

incognito_man wrote:
packerbacker87 wrote:
This sheds light to my immediate displeasure of the Mike Neal pick. When you see the right person that fits your scheme, you have to move on them. You can't just go with the bigger names and try to make something work that can't. Neal obviously measured up to exactly what we needed on the defensive side of the ball. If you have the players to make it work, it will.


huh?

Are you pleased or displeased with the Neal pick?


He was immediately displeased, then pleased when he realized TT knows how to pick 'em. The same way a lot of us probably felt when we heard Mike Neal's name in Round 2.
_________________


Read more. Post less.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
packerbacker87


Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 8127
Location: Zone 6
PostPosted: Wed May 19, 2010 5:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

N. Collins Fan wrote:
incognito_man wrote:
packerbacker87 wrote:
This sheds light to my immediate displeasure of the Mike Neal pick. When you see the right person that fits your scheme, you have to move on them. You can't just go with the bigger names and try to make something work that can't. Neal obviously measured up to exactly what we needed on the defensive side of the ball. If you have the players to make it work, it will.


huh?

Are you pleased or displeased with the Neal pick?


He was immediately displeased, then pleased when he realized TT knows how to pick 'em. The same way a lot of us probably felt when we heard Mike Neal's name in Round 2.


Yes, I wasn't happy at first because I really diddn't know much about him and thought we could have gotten him later on. But what I'm saying is that Ted and company know what they are doing, and they saw that Neal would be a perfect fit in our system, so it was necessary to get him when we did. As of now, I am very pleased and interested to see what kind of a player we got in Neal.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
boodumy


Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Posts: 2
PostPosted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 4:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

How does “Split Pots in Texas Hold’em Poker” happen? I have a question about tiebreaker in Texas Holdem no limit. In the situation that two players are left. The board cards are 10, 9, 7,6, and 2 of mixed suits. Player one has 8 and 2 and player two has 8 and Ace. Obviously the best hand is “straight” made by the 8. My question is which player wins? Player one, because his sixth card is the ace? Or it is split because in such case the sixth card is not interfered.
________________________
external keyword tool ~ keyworddiscovery.com ~ keycompete.com ~ compete.com ~ webmasterworld.com


Last edited by boodumy on Sun Feb 27, 2011 3:39 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 6 of 8

 
Jump to:  
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