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

My Case Against Capers and the "no talent" Excuse
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 9, 10, 11  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
fan-59


Joined: 26 Jan 2008
Posts: 514
PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 2:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NCPackFan wrote:
jrock645 wrote:
Dunderhead wrote:
NCPackFan wrote:
Dunderhead wrote:
All of these threads and all the debate of the folks that don't care for Capers can be summed up with, "I don't like Dom, he make me angry". The reasoning is lacking for anything else...


We've given plenty of hard, statistical evidence and gameplay. You, and others, just don't want to accept it...


No, you belly ache... There's a difference. One changes things, the other is just goofy and senseless and akin to a toddler stomping his feet and throwing a tantrum.

Repeat after me... We did not lose to San Fran because of defense... We did not lose to San Fran because of defense... We did not lose to San Fran because of defense... Dontcha feel better?


Ever occur to you that its not just about the SF game? This is a big picture problem based off of 3 FULL SEASONS of bad defense.


Clearly it doesn't and it not only shows a lack of objectivity, but it makes me wonder if this person was one of the people who couldn't stand to let Favre go a few years ago and deep down inside they still haven't moved on to Rodgers, thus the reason they blame the lack of output by the offense against one of the best defenses in the league.

If they were also paying attention to this thread, they would've noticed that several posters mentioned our base defense of 2 down linemen with OLB's serving essentially as stand-up DE's who blitz. I'm sorry, but you can't stop the run with only 2 down linemen and a coverage ILB behind them. 3 down linemen on the other hand...


lets leave Favre and that past where it belongs, it has nothing to do with this convo.

and the 24 is not our base defense either, it's become a front Capers has went to more than ever in the past simply because we dont support the base very well in coverage, and if that extra pass rush ability doesn't hurry or deliver sacks we get burned in it lots, that seems to be a fact you and others wont accept, and it really just that simple.

people have went to extremes complicating the hell out of this, and thats what is so baffling to me, it's pretty easy to see why Capers does it just watching the games.

He starts out in a base front nearly every game, and we stop the run, it's only when a Offense starts going 3 wide or play action that he has to drop a DL and use more DB's, and if he didn't do it you and others would be complaining about even more big plays down field, I have no idea why or how people dont realize this, but the coverage has to support whatever front you use.

I want more pass rush just like everyone, more base front to, but we have not gotten the pressure consistantly enough out of it to support our poor safety play.

does he use it to much? obviously it looks that way, but it's a roll the dice thing, and at times he gets locked into it with no huddle, but if there is a chance they'll option to pass out of a run set he is forced to go coverage over rush, and most cords would do the same thing, what choice is there, specially with Mad Dog Jennings in coverage, the object is dont give up the big play, and to possibly get a pick.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ugLymayNe


Joined: 31 Oct 2006
Posts: 12477
Location: Wisconsin
PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 3:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NCPackFan wrote:
several posters mentioned our base defense of 2 down linemen with OLB's serving essentially as stand-up DE's who blitz. I'm sorry, but you can't stop the run with only 2 down linemen and a coverage ILB behind them. 3 down linemen on the other hand...


I'm just confused.

I'd hope most people view 3-4 OLB's comparable to 4-3 DE's. They have the same responsibilities in the run game, setting the edge and more often than not are blocked by the OT. If we ran a nickel package with three 3-4 DL we would generate no pass rush. Matthews and Perry can set the edge just fine, and Mulumba/Neal did as well. The Packers OLB's actually take pride in their run defense and you can tell by the way they set the edge and play with excellent leverage. Don't blame them for the lack of run D. Blame Raji/Pickett for not being able to get off blockers, Brad Jones for taking a second and a half to react to a run(and more times than not taking the wrong gap) and AJ Hawk for not being able to play sideline to sideline. Teams ran well on the Packers out of their 3 WR sets because they were able to spread out the defense and attack the weak points(the middle). It's sad when Mike Daniels(your RDE/UT type) has more TFL's than your NT/LDE type player.

I said before that I'd like to see the Packers play more base defense but anyone that wants the Packers to trot their base D out there against 3+ WR's really doesn't know football very well. That's why I'm looking at guys like Skov and Zumwalt that are mid-round draft picks that read and react quickly and play a physical brand of football. They need to find that 2010 version of Desmond Bishop again. I'd like Borland and Smallwood in round three but I doubt they will be there.
_________________
@PJHotel_

Sig brought to you by Justo
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fan-59


Joined: 26 Jan 2008
Posts: 514
PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 3:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ugLymayNe wrote:
NCPackFan wrote:
several posters mentioned our base defense of 2 down linemen with OLB's serving essentially as stand-up DE's who blitz. I'm sorry, but you can't stop the run with only 2 down linemen and a coverage ILB behind them. 3 down linemen on the other hand...


I'm just confused.

I'd hope most people view 3-4 OLB's comparable to 4-3 DE's. They have the same responsibilities in the run game, setting the edge and more often than not are blocked by the OT. If we ran a nickel package with three 3-4 DL we would generate no pass rush. Matthews and Perry can set the edge just fine, and Mulumba/Neal did as well. The Packers OLB's actually take pride in their run defense and you can tell by the way they set the edge and play with excellent leverage. Don't blame them for the lack of run D. Blame Raji/Pickett for not being able to get off blockers, Brad Jones for taking a second and a half to react to a run(and more times than not taking the wrong gap) and AJ Hawk for not being able to play sideline to sideline. Teams ran well on the Packers out of their 3 WR sets because they were able to spread out the defense and attack the weak points(the middle). It's sad when Mike Daniels(your RDE/UT type) has more TFL's than your NT/LDE type player.

I said before that I'd like to see the Packers play more base defense but anyone that wants the Packers to trot their base D out there against 3+ WR's really doesn't know football very well. That's why I'm looking at guys like Skov and Zumwalt that are mid-round draft picks that read and react quickly and play a physical brand of football. They need to find that 2010 version of Desmond Bishop again. I'd like Borland and Smallwood in round three but I doubt they will be there.


Good points, I thought Jones played much better in 2012 against the run though, around a 100 tackles, give or take, I was really hoping for a big year from him, so I'am hoping to see him get back to that next year, unless Ted finds improvement in the draft.

I think Hawk is the harder to replace, his knowledge of the system trumps his speed and ability, but they love his consistant play.

I'd love a upgrade, and the guys you mentioned are on my radar as well, Smallwood looks like a guy that could shoot up the boards with a good combine.

It's early and I'am not far into scouting out our needy positions yet, any info is appreciated.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PackOfLuck27


Joined: 04 Dec 2013
Posts: 75
PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 3:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

UgLymayNe

Your last post made no sense at all first you say that the OLB hold the edge but than you blame Hawk for not being able to go sideline to sideline? If we held the edge Hawk should not need to do that.

Next you say that Pickett an Raji need to get off their blocks?? You realize that their job is to take on the blocks that allow jones and hawk to get to the ball carrier.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
spilltray


Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 10355
Location: Green Bay, WI
PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 3:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

PackOfLuck27 wrote:
UgLymayNe

Your last post made no sense at all first you say that the OLB hold the edge but than you blame Hawk for not being able to go sideline to sideline? If we held the edge Hawk should not need to do that.

Next you say that Pickett an Raji need to get off their blocks?? You realize that their job is to take on the blocks that allow jones and hawk to get to the ball carrier.


Setting the edge doesn't mean what you think it means. It can happen plenty wide. The ILBs still need to be able to scrape wide enough that the RB can't turn it up field.

Yes Pickett and Raji are supposed to take on blocks, but they also need to be able to shed those blocks and get penetration from time to time. Not ALWAYS, but enough to discourage teams from trying to run right past them.
_________________
Wilfred wrote:
Memory is like the Packers when they are behind by two touchdowns in the 4th quarter... It comes back.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
NCPackFan


Joined: 12 Jan 2013
Posts: 2122
Location: Kinston, NC
PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 5:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

fan-59 wrote:

and the 24 is not our base defense either, it's become a front Capers has went to more than ever in the past simply because we dont support the base very well in coverage, and if that extra pass rush ability doesn't hurry or deliver sacks we get burned in it lots, that seems to be a fact you and others wont accept, and it really just that simple.


Ok, now we're getting somewhere. You basically just made the case that the 2-4 is our base defense and gave a legitimate reason why. However, this goes back to my argument that Capers doesn't play our players to their strengths. In this instance, I'd refer you back to our CB's. We draft big, fast, and physical CB's(sparing Shields in the size category) and then we expect them to play zone. If we would play man, our CB's would be much more effective in coverage. Instead, we have a confusing zone scheme. I remember people drooling over Seattle's defense last year. What coverage does Seattle run? Also, look who they run it with. Brandon Browner was a failure in the NFL and went to the CFL for awhile before Pete Carroll brought him back and plugged him into a scheme that fit his strengths. Richard Sherman kinda falls into that same boat; he's big and physical and hardly gets beat.

fan-59 wrote:

people have went to extremes complicating the hell out of this, and thats what is so baffling to me, it's pretty easy to see why Capers does it just watching the games.

He starts out in a base front nearly every game, and we stop the run, it's only when a Offense starts going 3 wide or play action that he has to drop a DL and use more DB's, and if he didn't do it you and others would be complaining about even more big plays down field, I have no idea why or how people dont realize this, but the coverage has to support whatever front you use.


I'd argue that he starts out in a 3-4 base, but this too is why we need to go back to man coverage in the secondary.

fan-59 wrote:

I want more pass rush just like everyone, more base front to, but we have not gotten the pressure consistently enough out of it to support our poor safety play.

does he use it too much? obviously it looks that way, but it's a roll the dice thing, and at times he gets locked into it with no huddle, but if there is a chance they'll option to pass out of a run set he is forced to go coverage over rush, and most cords would do the same thing, what choice is there, especially with Mad Dog Jennings in coverage, the object is dont give up the big play, and to possibly get a pick.


Yeah, bend don't break. How's that going? Just about any defense is going to be on it's heels when an opposing offense runs a no-huddle successfully. The way you break it is by coming up with a solution. Dom rarely does this when opposing offenses are NOT running the no-huddle.

This is why I've been hammering on investing at OLB. We see Matthews and Perry go down and we have nothing. People will then blame the DL. It is time to fix the defensive backfield and the utter lack of depth at OLB. We do these two things and tweak our scheme to fit the players' strengths and we'd be much better.

Dom has run aggressive defensive schemes before. Week 2 against the Bears in 2012 is a fine example. The problem is that he doesn't run an aggressive scheme often enough and I was actually happy that Jay Cutler called him out because he needed to hear it. Our defense is soft until someone gives them bulletin board material. It's frustrating to watch and keeping the defense consistently aggressive is on the coordinator, not the players. Dom doesn't do this; therefore, that's yet another reason he should go.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SE500


Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 528
Location: WISCONSIN
PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 5:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"... and then we expect them to play zone. If we would play man, our CB's would be much more effective in coverage.."

Why did we play much more man when Collins and a younger Woodson were at safety? Because we could. We do not presently have the over the top talent to allow us to play man as much as we used to or as much as we'd like to. Capers is flexing the system based on our talent.

We need to improve our overall middle defense talent. Some of that improvement will come from the maturation of our young players (D.Jones, Boyd, Worthy, Hyde etc) and hopefully some will come from new talent that is able to come in and immediately make a difference. There is nothing wrong with our coaching.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kampman74


Joined: 30 Apr 2007
Posts: 6949
PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 6:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ugLymayNe wrote:
NCPackFan wrote:
several posters mentioned our base defense of 2 down linemen with OLB's serving essentially as stand-up DE's who blitz. I'm sorry, but you can't stop the run with only 2 down linemen and a coverage ILB behind them. 3 down linemen on the other hand...


I'm just confused.

I'd hope most people view 3-4 OLB's comparable to 4-3 DE's. They have the same responsibilities in the run game, setting the edge and more often than not are blocked by the OT. If we ran a nickel package with three 3-4 DL we would generate no pass rush. Matthews and Perry can set the edge just fine, and Mulumba/Neal did as well. The Packers OLB's actually take pride in their run defense and you can tell by the way they set the edge and play with excellent leverage. Don't blame them for the lack of run D. Blame Raji/Pickett for not being able to get off blockers, Brad Jones for taking a second and a half to react to a run(and more times than not taking the wrong gap) and AJ Hawk for not being able to play sideline to sideline. Teams ran well on the Packers out of their 3 WR sets because they were able to spread out the defense and attack the weak points(the middle). It's sad when Mike Daniels(your RDE/UT type) has more TFL's than your NT/LDE type player.

I said before that I'd like to see the Packers play more base defense but anyone that wants the Packers to trot their base D out there against 3+ WR's really doesn't know football very well. That's why I'm looking at guys like Skov and Zumwalt that are mid-round draft picks that read and react quickly and play a physical brand of football. They need to find that 2010 version of Desmond Bishop again. I'd like Borland and Smallwood in round three but I doubt they will be there.


Man I want another Bishop type. That would awesome!!
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SDN40


Joined: 13 Jan 2008
Posts: 3705
PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 6:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Another thing came to mind for me. We've drafted a heck of a lot of DL pretty darn high for a team who spends the majority of the time playing only 2. If the Raji situation goes south as expected we'll probably continue that trend
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ugLymayNe


Joined: 31 Oct 2006
Posts: 12477
Location: Wisconsin
PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 6:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

PackOfLuck27 wrote:
Your last post made no sense at all first you say that the OLB hold the edge but than you blame Hawk for not being able to go sideline to sideline? If we held the edge Hawk should not need to do that.


Uh, yeah? Holding the edge is different from making the play. In certain instances the OLB needs to force the RB to either cut back up the field(where the ILB should be waiting)or go east/west towards the sideline. If they can get off their blocker and make the play in the backfield, great, if not it's either the ILB or the safeties job to clean up. Hawk is a decent enough LB but sometimes we get gashed on off-tackle runs that bounce outside.

PackOfLuck27 wrote:
Next you say that Pickett an Raji need to get off their blocks?? You realize that their job is to take on the blocks that allow jones and hawk to get to the ball carrier.


Same thing as above but slightly different. One of the DT's in the nickel package will be double teamed(play side) while the other should have a one on one(back side). If the backside DT can get off blocks here and there and seal off that cutback lane it will let that ILB behind them to commit to where the run was "supposed" to go.

That is the reason why we get ran on in our nickel package, we are average at best in the middle of our defense.
_________________
@PJHotel_

Sig brought to you by Justo
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kampman74


Joined: 30 Apr 2007
Posts: 6949
PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 6:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ugLymayNe wrote:
PackOfLuck27 wrote:
Your last post made no sense at all first you say that the OLB hold the edge but than you blame Hawk for not being able to go sideline to sideline? If we held the edge Hawk should not need to do that.


Uh, yeah? Holding the edge is different from making the play. In certain instances the OLB needs to force the RB to either cut back up the field(where the ILB should be waiting)or go east/west towards the sideline. If they can get off their blocker and make the play in the backfield, great, if not it's either the ILB or the safeties job to clean up. Hawk is a decent enough LB but sometimes we get gashed on off-tackle runs that bounce outside.

PackOfLuck27 wrote:
Next you say that Pickett an Raji need to get off their blocks?? You realize that their job is to take on the blocks that allow jones and hawk to get to the ball carrier.


Same thing as above but slightly different. One of the DT's in the nickel package will be double teamed(play side) while the other should have a one on one(back side). If the backside DT can get off blocks here and there and seal off that cutback lane it will let that ILB behind them to commit to where the run was "supposed" to go.

That is the reason why we get ran on in our nickel package, we are average at best in the middle of our defense.


Do you think Daniels did that or can do that down the road? I know he is good in the pass rush department, but I want him on full time next year.

Do you think it is more the NT or the ILB.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ugLymayNe


Joined: 31 Oct 2006
Posts: 12477
Location: Wisconsin
PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 6:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kampman74 wrote:
Do you think Daniels did that or can do that down the road? I know he is good in the pass rush department, but I want him on full time next year.

Do you think it is more the NT or the ILB.


Hopefully he does. I think he got better late last year and the Packers will be more apt to use their base with him playing so well at RE. Same as Cullen Jenkins in the past though, you can run right at those types, especially in our nickel D. Hopefully Daniels will be playing more often next season but I think they will still mix/match the DL based on who they are playing.

I also think it was more on Brad Jones/AJ Hawk than Raji. Raji held his own ground but really didn't do anything else. I personally think he got lazy after Rodgers was hurt because he was playing like 2010's version up until that point(slight exaggeration but he was pretty stout early on). It always seemed like the Mike was a half step too slow. Brad Jones played about half as well as he did in 2012 and that's why the D went from 11th in total yards to the low 20s(not to mention the glaring hole at slot CB without Hayward).
_________________
@PJHotel_

Sig brought to you by Justo


Last edited by ugLymayNe on Wed Jan 22, 2014 7:17 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kampman74


Joined: 30 Apr 2007
Posts: 6949
PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 7:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ugLymayNe wrote:
Kampman74 wrote:
Do you think Daniels did that or can do that down the road? I know he is good in the pass rush department, but I want him on full time next year.

Do you think it is more the NT or the ILB.


Hopefully he does. I think he got better late last year and the Packers will be more apt to use their base with him playing so well at RE. Same as Cullen Jenkins in the past though, you can run right at those types, especially in our nickel D. Hopefully Daniels will be playing more often next season but I think they will still mix/match the DL based on who they are playing.

I also think it was more on Brad Jones/AJ Hawk than Raji. Raji held his own ground but really didn't do anything else. I personally think he got lazy after Rodgers was hurt because he was playing like 2010's version up until that point. It always seemed like the Mike was a half step too slow. Brad Jones played about half as well as he did in 2012 and that's why the D went from 11th in total yards to the low 20s(not to mention the glaring hole at slot CB without Hayward).


I was doing another Raji project and noticed that he seemed pretty dominate in the early games, I have not gotten to the later games. I really wonder if Ted and company can resign a guy that basically quit though.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
spilltray


Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 10355
Location: Green Bay, WI
PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 7:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kampman74 wrote:
I was doing another Raji project and noticed that he seemed pretty dominate in the early games, I have not gotten to the later games. I really wonder if Ted and company can resign a guy that basically quit though.


It's possible it's not completely effort related though. He just didn't seem to move the same and without being on the inside of the organization, I can't tell if he wasn't trying or dinged up. I've seen guys completely give up before, and while it's possible that's what it was, it's possible it wasn't too. The results either way weren't what we want to see from Raji, but the reasons are pretty important too.
_________________
Wilfred wrote:
Memory is like the Packers when they are behind by two touchdowns in the 4th quarter... It comes back.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
incognito_man


Joined: 11 Jan 2007
Posts: 30906
Location: Madison
PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 8:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

quote wrote:
RashaanSalaami:

I a

ma

I d ot.

Like this?

incognito_man: close, but not quite


incognito_man wrote:
it is more like this


something like that
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 ... , 9, 10, 11  Next
Page 10 of 11

 
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