| . | ||
 |
||
|
|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
 Location: Gillette, New Jersey
Registered: 06-10-2002
Posts: 541
|
Posted
Good article today: http://pu2006.typepad.com/ Found insights on CB Williams and LB Chillar to be most surprising -- in a positive way.
|
 Location: KHAAANNNN!!!!!
Registered: 04-21-2000
Posts: 7702
|
Posted
I love that site. Great stuff.
|
 Location: I'll crown you
Registered: 01-22-2002
Posts: 14378
|
Posted
C'mon football season. Start! I've got a good feeling about this year.
|
 Registered: 09-11-2005
Posts: 795
|
Posted
Great to read, and I hope these guys continue to impress. I've seen several reporters/sites sing the praises of both Rodgers and Nelson, so those guys must be making an impression.
I keep hearing of Jordy's solid routes and steady hands in camp, the qualities that got him drafted. I like Jones' potential, but Nelson could have a big impact as our #3. |
|
Location: I'll crown you
Registered: 01-22-2002
Posts: 14378
|
Posted
Nelson's develpment is essential given the imminent release of Jennings.
|
 Location: I can't come to bed now honey, someone is wrong on the interweb!
Registered: 01-19-2005
Posts: 6559
|
Posted
This is the one I found most interesting:
8) LB Jeremy Thompson - “He looks the part of a 3-4 outside linebacker, but I won’t jump on the bandwagon until he shows the ability to beat a veteran left tackle and get to the quarterback on a consistent basis. Can he do that? Maybe, but I have my doubts. The one thing I’m sure of, however, is that he has a much better chance of finding success at outside linebacker than he had at defensive end.” If this is accurate, did Thompson "miss" on him as a DE or was "Boring Bob" essentially already on his way out and the conversion was being planned last season? Looking at the rest of the draft last season, the latter makes the most sense. The two guys Thompson has traded up for are the most important pieces (and not on the roster outside of Kampman who is unproven and coming in to a contract year) in the new scheme outside of NT where they had Pickett and chances are another would have been acquired this year. |
 Location: Defensive Player Of The Year
Registered: 01-09-2001
Posts: 8675
|
Posted
That seems to have been a best available athlete pick by TT.
Speaking of boring Bob .. should have been fired after the loss to the Giants in the championship game. NFLN showed that game again just recently, and his failure to alter his scheme to contain Burress should have got him a pink slip. Al Harris was overmatched, and it was clear early on that he wasn't going to be able to handle him. To sit back and really do nothing about it showed some serious ineptitude. |
|
Location: I can't come to bed now honey, someone is wrong on the interweb!
Registered: 01-19-2005
Posts: 6559
|
Posted
Maybe, but they weren't guys who were there when they picked, they were guys he went up to get.
|
 Location: Atlanta, GA via the Town of Lisbon, WI
Registered: 02-02-2000
Posts: 9360
|
Posted
 |
|
Location: Defensive Player Of The Year
Registered: 01-09-2001
Posts: 8675
|
Posted
That's right .. it slipped my mind that TT traded up for Thompson. |
 Location: Thanks Ted.
Registered: 10-04-2004
Posts: 12767
|
Posted
Call me grassy-knoll boy
|
 Location: Hey, what did I tell you about staring at my new girlfriend?!
Registered: 07-26-2002
Posts: 5261
|
Posted
Yes, he traded up to get Jeremy Thompson, but it was in the fourth round. It's hardly an indictment against Ted if Jeremy doesn't become a good player. How many fourth rounders become starters in the NFL? I'm guessing the percentage is pretty low.
On the other hand, Matthews better become a quality starter. That trade up is one that has to work out for the Packers. |
 Location: Cary,NC - GoPack.com
Registered: 02-05-2004
Posts: 1978
|
Posted
" This is the kind of player who will always look great in shorts because of his size"
 |
|
Location: I can't come to bed now honey, someone is wrong on the interweb!
Registered: 01-19-2005
Posts: 6559
|
Posted
No indictment in any way, just interesting that a former scout thinks he looks more natural as a rush 'backer than at DE and maybe TT was thinking he could go either way or the same thing. Plus, both trades up have been for guys at that position. I'm pretty sure TT has a good early grasp on the seniors coming out next year and a good idea on a number of juniors too. It's not like he starts thinking about whom to draft in February. It wouldn't surprise me to find out they've been wanting to go to a 3-4 for a couple of seasons now. |
 Location: Atlanta Burbs
Registered: 12-03-2004
Posts: 1665
|
Posted
If TT had plans to switch to a 3-4 defense, it would have been a result of how our conference foes have been developing their teams. It would seem that the Vikes and Bears (primarily) have been gravitating towards a rush-orientated offense. Not necessarily by design, but because of their limitations at QB and WR. So if the 3-4 is the best base defense to stop the rush, then it would indeed make sense.
In regards to the draft of Thompson, TT drafts players. The fact that he looks better (more natural?) as an OLB doesn't surprise me, as Sanders always seemed to have a knack of not playing our guys in their best positions. Regardless, TT knew who/what he was drafting. |
 Registered: 02-02-2000
Posts: 24637
|
Posted
I have seen this a lot lately, and it surprises me. When did the 3-4 receive the reputation as a run stopping formation? You are removing a big guy from the line and replacing him with a smaller guy in the back. That would seem to be more conducive to stopping the pass than it would the run, no? Last year, of the top 10 run stopping defenses, 4 were 3-4 defenses, this despite the fact that only 1/3rd of the teams run the 3-4. Clearly, there is evidence to back this. Why is the 3-4 superior to the 4-3 as a run defense?
|
 Location: Bakersfield, CA via Manitowoc, WI
Registered: 09-24-2000
Posts: 10785
|
Posted
I think it's because ideally those 4 backers are roaming free and ready to move to the ball and plug the gaps IF the 3 DL are doing their job and taking up more than one blocker. The downside as I see it, and the way to attack a 3-4, is to get those linebackers in pass coverage, particularly if any are weak at that (Brady Poppinga?). If any of our LBs are slow, we'll see a lot more short passes or 4-5 wideout packages with an LB on coverage. The good news in our division is we're the only team with five wideouts who can actually terrorize opponents! |
|
Registered: 02-02-2000
Posts: 24637
|
Posted
LOL, GOOD POINT ABOUT THE DIVISION. You points make a lot of sense. I think we beat the Chargers in 2007 by running lots of multiple receiver sets. |
 Location: I like Dooley better than Lane anyway.
Registered: 03-20-2005
Posts: 8729
|
Posted
You are removing a big guy from the line, but you're adding another stout ILB between the tackles. You also have 2 quick OLBs that get to sit back and read and fill gaps where needed and should be untouched because the OT is occupied by your DE. Having a 330 lb. giant in the middle clogging up the A gaps and 2 quick 300 pounders occupying the OTs doesn't hurt either. |
|
Registered: 02-02-2000
Posts: 24637
|
Posted
Yeah, but you can have all that plus one extra big guy in the 4-3. |
|
Location: I like Dooley better than Lane anyway.
Registered: 03-20-2005
Posts: 8729
|
Posted
The real power of the 3-4 is in the blitzes and stunts. Offensive linemen prefer facing a 4-3, big on big is what they like. Most have size, so they can counter a big DT's size with his size all day. With the 3-4, it doesn't matter how big or strong you are because those LBs will sit back, read the play and attack. They have to counter speed/quickness with size and that just doesn't work. What happens is, in theory of course, they lose the battles with the quick LBs who aren't just filling some gap, they're attacking the ball. That hurts the interior Olinemen...they're in the interior because they don't have the quickness or the feet to keep up with LBs. And the Tackles, they get eaten up by your big DE's and they can't get out in space to pick up one of those LBs. I'm sure if you surveyed any pro Olineman they would rather face a big DT than a smaller, quicker LB any day. Is the 3-4 a BETTER run defense? No, but it's not any worse. 7 in the box is 7 in the box in my opinion. The collective weight of our front 7 last year versus this year isn't much different I bet (I bet this year we will weigh more)...we're going to have just as much meat. It's a better pass defense, it's easier to find players for, and offenses hate it...sounds like a winner to me!  |
|
Location: Bakersfield, CA via Manitowoc, WI
Registered: 09-24-2000
Posts: 10785
|
Posted
Hopefully Capers can be as artful at disguising them as the Eagles and Giants are. Those D coordinators are the best at deception in that area. |
|
Registered: 02-02-2000
Posts: 24637
|
Posted
I think you are right. The 3-4 is not inherently better than the 4-3 at stopping the run. |
 Location: Camp Taji, Iraq
Registered: 01-19-2004
Posts: 253
|
Posted
One thing that helps a 3-4 in run defense is that the big guys are bigger. Jolly and Raji never play end in a 4-3, but they can in a 3-4. DTs and DEs do not make the big plays in run games most often. LBs are tackle machines in all defenses. The 4-3 always has a pass rusher guy at one DE and that was Kampman for us with a heavier guy on the other side like Jenkins. The freer ILBs are to move around the better the defense works. The thing with playing a 3-4 is the players have to fit the scheme. It is easier to draft a 4-3 and make it work. There is nothing in the simple idea of the 3-4 that makes it any better or worse. Half of the teams that ran a 3-4 last year were in the top 16 and half were in the bottom 16. Everything is about personnel. 3-4 is not a savior.
|
|
Location: I like Dooley better than Lane anyway.
Registered: 03-20-2005
Posts: 8729
|
Posted
That's not true at all, in fact the 4-3 is probably harder to draft for. Really good 4-3 Ends aren't that easy to find...you have to find a guy that's quick enough and smart enough to rush the QB, but is strong enough to hold up against the run. Some guys are good at one thing but not so well at the other. Then the problem is, because those Ends are hard to find, they demand big contracts. With a 3-4, you can draft quick college DT's or those big run stuffing Ends and they make fine 3-4 Ends. Then you have to find outside LBs. Really good WLB's and SLB's don't grow on trees. The Packers know that as well as any team. It's much harder to draft a college DE and convert him to LB in a 4-3 (see Brady Poppinga or Mathias Kiwanuka). |
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
