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: 20161
Location: Galesville, WI
PostPosted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 11:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kampman74 wrote:
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


Stupid Bigby and Jenkins.
_________________


http://www.footballsfuture.com/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=17
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
bfavre4moyears


Joined: 01 Jan 2007
Posts: 2097
Location: iwishiwasinGB
PostPosted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 11:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If JH starts over Jenkins, and Raji plays the other end, we have 10 out of 11.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Waldo


Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Posts: 22679
Location: The ATL
PostPosted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 11:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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).


As it relates to our long term success, I agree, this is important.

As it relates to 2009, I think this year the most important things as it relates to our overall performance will be our error level (not making big errors is IMO more important first year than dominant play), Dom's resourcefulness (milk that huge tape advantage as long as possible), and our ability to perform in the primary 2 sub packages (nickel defense and short yardage defense).

I'd like to think that we look good in all 3 areas.

All of Dom's defenses have been low penalty over all over the years, that and his stressing of the teaching aspect of coaching leads me to believe that our guys will at least work well as a whole, even if some individual parts aren't great.

Dom's experience, especially with several of the premier 3-4 minds (Cowher, Lebeau, Saban, Bellicheck, plus his own, plus some very good 4-3 coaches) leads me to believe that the well runs very deep, and he can keep our opponents guessing for a very long time when it comes to how to attack us.

We were pretty good in sub packages last tear, all signs point to improvement in that area this year too.
_________________

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


Joined: 06 Dec 2008
Posts: 11095
Location: Hattiesburg, MS
PostPosted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 11:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yeah, on the subject of sub defenses, didn't we play Nickel for the majority of the snaps against the Colts in 2008?
_________________
WORLD CHAMPIONS
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kampman74


Joined: 30 Apr 2007
Posts: 6949
PostPosted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 11:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BrettFavre004 wrote:
Kampman74 wrote:
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


Stupid Bigby and Jenkins.


to make matters worse Jenkins was probably on his way to the pro-bowl
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Xx KiLLa G X


Joined: 13 Mar 2009
Posts: 392
PostPosted: Tue Jun 09, 2009 2:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Waldo wrote:
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.


That wasn't directed toward you. It was directed toward people who think that just because 3-4 defenses typically do better, without thinking about personnel. 3-4 defenses have failed in the past.

Try again.
_________________

Rashaan
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Waldo


Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Posts: 22679
Location: The ATL
PostPosted: Tue Jun 09, 2009 7:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Xx KiLLa G X wrote:
Waldo wrote:
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.


That wasn't directed toward you. It was directed toward people who think that just because 3-4 defenses typically do better, without thinking about personnel. 3-4 defenses have failed in the past.

Try again.


And the point of putting that in this thread is?

I fail to see a team that "failed" in the first year of conversion, which is entirely the scope of this study.

And I don't think that I missed a team that converted in the last 10 years.
_________________

Title Town USA wrote:
Waldo was right!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fan-59


Joined: 26 Jan 2008
Posts: 514
PostPosted: Sat Jun 27, 2009 8:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Waldo wrote:
Xx KiLLa G X wrote:
Waldo wrote:
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.


That wasn't directed toward you. It was directed toward people who think that just because 3-4 defenses typically do better, without thinking about personnel. 3-4 defenses have failed in the past.

Try again.


And the point of putting that in this thread is?

I fail to see a team that "failed" in the first year of conversion, which is entirely the scope of this study.

And I don't think that I missed a team that converted in the last 10 years.



great job Waldo, you should send this over to packer report, some good response also, except for the few, that just dont seem to grasp much anyway.

dont know if I've ever read a better breakdown of the transition to 3-4 of the currant teams running it with stats on there performance.

no team has switched to the 3-4 having every player in place, no team would have made the switch if that was the case, so sure we'll be adding players as we go along, but thats no reason not to make the switch either.

the 3-4 defense seems to be the best defense for the currant NFL, it excells in two catagory's

stopping the run and rushing the passer, and we didn't do well in either last year, and not that great in a few games in 07 either, this switch was long over due, sitting pat in the antiquated bates scheme would have been at best the 07 defense again, remember how it failed against the giants, no pass rush, couldn't stop the run.

the 4-3 requires more good big guys up front, and theres always a shortage, 3-4 needs less of em.

colleges are pumping out more good LBers and the 3-4 needs more of them, so that works too.

how many more teams will be switching to the 3-4 next year? probably another 2 or 3 maybe more, it's the trend now and will continue to be till someone figures out how to beat it consistantly, so look for it to be around for a while, no one's done it yet Laughing

again great read Waldo, stop in for some chatter at the net when ya get the chance, always enjoy your train of thought Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Willink


Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Posts: 11480
Location: Albany, NY
PostPosted: Sat Jun 27, 2009 10:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Xx KiLLa G X wrote:
Waldo wrote:
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.


That wasn't directed toward you. It was directed toward people who think that just because 3-4 defenses typically do better, without thinking about personnel. 3-4 defenses have failed in the past.

Try again.


What a bizarre non sequitur.
_________________

Quote:
If I have not lost my mind I can sometimes hear it preparing to defect
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BuckeyeBengal77


Joined: 27 Feb 2006
Posts: 786
PostPosted: Thu Jul 02, 2009 8:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hey guys. Was browsing espn and came across something that said Brady Poppinga could be released? This surprised me a little. I was wondering if you guys could fill this in for me...





S S

CB OLB SLB WLB OLB CB
DE NT DE

I have a good idea but id just like your guys take. I did hear they are putting AJ at strong and Barnett at weak? Thanks for any help!
_________________

GangGreen64 on the Sig

Bengals - 4. Green - Fairley - Peterson
35. Mallet (A little free fall?)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
palmy50


Joined: 26 Nov 2006
Posts: 13863
PostPosted: Thu Jul 02, 2009 8:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BuckeyeBengal77 wrote:
Hey guys. Was browsing espn and came across something that said Brady Poppinga could be released? This surprised me a little. I was wondering if you guys could fill this in for me...





S S

CB OLB SLB WLB OLB CB
DE NT DE

I have a good idea but id just like your guys take. I did hear they are putting AJ at strong and Barnett at weak? Thanks for any help!


Big boy coin for a backup LB! It's a shame because Popps was a very nice 3-4 fit when he came out of BYU. At this point I feel he brings nice value off the bench inside and out but doubt he would excel at either. Guys a very hard worker. Our staff wanted him to mold his body into a 4-3 Sam and that's just what he did. At his age there could be know turning back. He still has a strong shot at this roster IMO because he is the type of MAN Greene may fall in love with.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
007


Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 7089
Location: BOSS!
PostPosted: Thu Jul 02, 2009 11:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BuckeyeBengal77 wrote:
Hey guys. Was browsing espn and came across something that said Brady Poppinga could be released? This surprised me a little. I was wondering if you guys could fill this in for me...!


can i please have the link to that? i come across stuff that says crazy stuff all the time, but i dont think most of it will come true.

yesterday i read that the world will end, it didnt...
_________________

packerbacker87,Best Sig on FF!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
BuckeyeBengal77


Joined: 27 Feb 2006
Posts: 786
PostPosted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 11:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Id link it but I think its ESPN Insider. Im not supposed to link that right? It was in the NFL Rumors Link on the Front page of the NFL section.
_________________

GangGreen64 on the Sig

Bengals - 4. Green - Fairley - Peterson
35. Mallet (A little free fall?)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bfavre4moyears


Joined: 01 Jan 2007
Posts: 2097
Location: iwishiwasinGB
PostPosted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 11:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

007 wrote:
BuckeyeBengal77 wrote:
Hey guys. Was browsing espn and came across something that said Brady Poppinga could be released? This surprised me a little. I was wondering if you guys could fill this in for me...!


can i please have the link to that? i come across stuff that says crazy stuff all the time, but i dont think most of it will come true.

yesterday i read that the world will end, it didnt...



Relax 007. He is just a visitor in our forum trying to get some information, no need to jump all over him about it.

Buckeye, I saw that as well. I broke down our roster in the FB's thread and showed why I think that Popps will be kept.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Xx KiLLa G X


Joined: 13 Mar 2009
Posts: 392
PostPosted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 6:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Willink wrote:
Xx KiLLa G X wrote:
Waldo wrote:
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.


That wasn't directed toward you. It was directed toward people who think that just because 3-4 defenses typically do better, without thinking about personnel. 3-4 defenses have failed in the past.

Try again.


What a bizarre non sequitur.


That actually wouldn't be considered non sequitur.

And the point of putting it in this thread is due to the posters in this thread who are buying into the fact that just because teams have decent success converting to 3-4, definitely means we will...
_________________

Rashaan
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 5 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