Flipping to a 4-3 D

I think there's a compromise. The Ravens have been successful on D the last few years because they have run a hybrid 34/43. It works great because the D is flexible to adjust to whatever they're facing. 

Seattle also runs somewhat of a hybrid with Red bryant as a base DE, as does San Fran and New England.

 

Part of the issue is their corners. Williams and Shields have good man cover skills but seem to struggle at times in zone, especially Tramon, while Hayward and (should he stay there) Hyde are almost strictly zone guys.

A 4-3 can work, but boy, I think of that last year under Bob Sanders as coordinator in 2008 and that was pretty brutal.  I remember McCarthy decided after that 2008 debacle he preferred a coordinator that ran the 3-4 and that's one of the reasons he wanted Capers.

 

At first glance, the Pack does look like they have personnel more suited for a 4-3, but there's no guarantees that would be any better as that awful 2008 defense showed.  I suspect McCarthy will stick to his guns and continue to want the 3-4 which would mean Capers would stick around or he'd go get another guy to run a 3-4.   

 

The only "switch" to make at this point to me would be if Rex Ryan is canned in New York.

Mangini would not be a horrible selection as a defensive coordinator but I would prefer someone like Lovie. I would bet Lovie gets a head coaching gig next year tho.

The argument to keep Dom is getting harder to make. I don't think a 4-3 is the answer. All I ask is for just one effing season where the actual number 1's on defense play a full season together.

 

With Worthy, Perry, Richardson, Mathews and Hayward missing as much time as they have I have no idea if this defense is really crap or has potential. I seriously have no idea what kind of D this is because the players that should be starting have almost never played together for more than short stretches at a time.

I agree the argument FOR Capers is getting thin.

 

I also agree that if McCarthy makes a (coaching) change they'll stay with the 3-4.

 

 

Depends on the type of 4-3. For the cover 2 Raji and Pickett are worthless and you can expect Hawk to make a living covering deep zones. Also, not sure it is fair to play CM3 at DE. As a 3-4 LB you could still have him as a pass rush specialist. BTW, CM3 is a big LB at 6'3" 255 lbs. He could totally play on the strong side.

 

Perry will be much better at DE than at OLB and I think and Datone and Daniels would kill it at DT. That's a positive.

 

BTW, the Pack play a lot of 4 DL in the nickel.

 

BTW, one of the great advantages of the 3-4 has reached its critical point. There are too many 3-4 teams. You will start to see more 4-3 teams soon. One of the reasons the 3-4 comes and goes has to do with the availability of personnel. When there are only a few teams running the 3-4 all that 3-4 talent is available to a few teams. No competion from the 4-3 teams and 3-4 teams can get crazy talent like James Harrison as free agents.  When too many teams are running the 3-4 there is competition for those 3-4 players and teams start drafting 4-3 talent to force them into the 3-4. That square peg into round hole approach doesn't always work. If you look at the Packers, really only Datone Jones is a true 3-4 DE. The other ends are 4-3 DTs. There is such demand now for those 3-4 ends yet how many college teams have 6'5" 290lb ends that can play?

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

 

I definitely think a 43/34 hybrid would be the way to go. We could use the Broncos as a model for how to utilize Matthews at WLB (Von Miller). 

The Packer D has been built with people designed for the 3-4.  They've had a TON of injuries.  What makes you think switching to a 4-3 is better?  Who do you draft that is a GUARANTEE Pro Bowler for the 4-3?  Healthy, the Pack has a very good 3-4 defense.  Unhealthy with a 4-3, they are a subpar defense like this one.  It's NOT the scheme…it's remaining HEALTHY!

I'm still trying to figure out what in the he11 the 2008 GB 4-3 D has to do with today?!  Are you saying the 4-3 as a D is no good?  You think the same players from 2008 are still on the roster?  wha?

 

Having so many injuries makes everything more difficult, even evaluating whether or not to can the Caper or whether or not to switch to a 4-3.  So we switch to a 4-3 and the same number of people are out with injuries and it looks like garbage.  Then what? 

 

edit: @yooper- that was spooky.

I think my only frustration with Capers is that he seems a little inflexible with how he uses his guys. Take Nick Perry for instance, a college DE who feels most comfortable rushing the QB with his hand in the dirt. Why can't he do that occasionally? Terrell Suggs does it, Von Miller does it. Maybe Perry doesn't feel that way and I'm off base, but the guy made his money rushing the QB with his hand down and he hasn't done that once since coming to GB. What's the harm in trying it? The same is true for Raji, Daniels, Datone, Clay, etc. Datone got a chance to rush off the edge and he looked very good doing it, why doesn't he get more opportunities to do that?

 

Some teams match up better against the 34 or the 43, I think Capers gets a little to inflexible when he's playing a team that matches up against his 34 better. And yes I know we go with a 4 man front often, but there is a BIG difference between a 4 man front in a 34 and a 4 man front in a 43. 

I'm against the DH.

Regardless of 4-3 or 3-4, if McCarthy cans Capers in the off-season who replaces him?

 

 

 

I realize the hands in the dirt thing plays a role, but fundamentally that 4 front nickel mimics 4-3 defenses with the elephant end. Can you tell me why else it is so different? (BTW, don't be too cynical. I really value your knowledge of the game).

Great question. Would love to hear the thoughts of others on this.

Seems like three general options:

1) In house

2) Displaced head coach from around the league

3) Up and comer assistant from around league/college

 

I really hope it isn't #1. Sure, I like Kevin Green and Joe Whitt and all, but I feel like they are also part of this problem and we need a clean break. Like what would Winston Moss add as a DC that's different from his current contributions.

 

#2 could yield some interesting possibilities. It will never happen, but obviously if Rex Ryan is forced out in NY, he could be a great coordiantor. Just look at what his less respected brother has done in NO. Other guys to watch would be Gus Bradley in Jacksonville, Mike Tomlin in Pitt, and Leslie Frasier in Minnesota. All those guys are on the hot seat as a head coach but could be very good coordinators.

 

#3  I just don't know real well. Horton would have been a great find last off-season, but I assume he'll stay put in Cleveland now. One name I keep coming back to is Derek Mason of Stanford. He has some NFL experience, coached under the current 49ers DC at Stanford, and has done a pretty good job with that unit the past couple of years. Shutting down Oregon two years in a row is a nice resume builder for these new wave offenses in the NFL. But I'd be curious what other names should be on that list.

 

By the way, what happens if Joe Philbin is canned either b/c Miami doesn't make playoffs or blowback from this Martin case? Seems like GB has missed him these past couple of years, but if you bring him back, you pretty much say goodbye to Clement who is Rodgers's guy.

It's a question of creativity vs. strength in my opinion Goalline. Yes you're putting 4 men at the line in both D's and when you're sending all 4 there isn't much difference. People debate the 3-4 OLB vs. 4-3 DE and 2-point stance vs. 3-point stance, but that's a whole different issue. 

 

This is my opinion on the 4 man front in the 3-4 vs. 4-3. In a 4-3 Nickel you're taking a LB off the field, but keeping 4 true DL on the field. Those 4 DL are there to take on blockers, close off running lanes, and attack the QB...they're not covering the flat or the short zone, jamming the Slot at the line, etc. And when a team spreads them out and the OLBs have to leave the middle, you still have 4 dedicated DL to close off running lanes and attack the QB. The 43 is problematic because good 43 players are harder to find and generally more expensive. If you don't have 4 good DL then your D will get exposed a lot in the Nickel...Cincy figured that out and has 4 outstanding DL. You count on those 4 to both shut down the run and attack the QB which is a lot to ask when they're facing at least 5, sometimes 6 blockers. You better have 4 good ones.

 

In the 3-4 (at least Dom's 3-4) you're taking a DL off the field so you only have 2 true DL on the field. I know we think of our OLBs as just DE's in a 2-point stance, which is partially true, but really they're OLB's first and DL second. They have OLB responsibilities first a foremost. All the things that I mentioned as responsibilities that 4-3 DL don't have, the 3-4 OLB generally have. Not always, but when teams spread us out, the OLBs have to honor their OLB assignments before everything else (even the pass rush). Granted if the OLBs get spread out, we still have 4 in the box with the 2 ILB, but those guys aren't pass rushers and have to come from a completely different point in the field if you still want to rush 4. Or you do what Dom does and bring a DB on a blitz or combinations of those players. You're still asking your DL and OLBs to close running lanes and attack the QB, but you're asking them to do it from very different places on the field which can be problematic. You're also counting on your blitz or stunt to fool the OL and allow a free blitzer from somewhere. 

 

As I said, it's an issue of creativity vs. strength. Sure you're putting 4 men at the line in both fronts and if you're straight up rushing 4 then there really isn't a difference. That's not going to be the case every time you're in the Nickel though. If you're facing a smart OL who isn't going to be fooled by your creativity and can protect the QB with 5 or 6 guys then your 2-4-5 D is doomed. If you're facing a talented OL that won't lose 1 on 1 match ups then your 4-2-5 D is doomed. Was that a coherent response or am I rambling?

 

 

It was a coherent ramble.

Yeah, I'm with you on this one. It doesn't seem like there's that much surprise in who's coming and who's not from what other teams' guys quote so why not let him if it makes him more comfortable. Is it really negatively reinforcing a bad habit or some such?

Coordinators go through ups and downs like everyone else.

Sean McDermott was a hot name a few years back in Philly, got canned, ended up in Carolina and is now putting together a solid d.

It's cyclical. If you fire dom, what do you from there?

Who says Capers even wants to come back next year? If a change is made I'd vote Lovie just because his defenses always produced and were solid or If he's canned, Tomlin. He would at least light a fire under their butts.

Lovie's going to get another head coaching shot IMHO.

My 2 cents...

Defenses, in general, spend so much time in sub-packages according to opponent, there's not a tremendous difference for the base defense. However, I think players on DL in a 43 are more specialized than their counterparts in a 34, and may present more difficulty acquiring, as well as limiting options on those sub packages.

Excepting last year, our rush defense has been generally good over the last 3 years or more; it's the breakdowns in LB coverage and in the defensive backfield that have doomed the team. Then it becomes too predicated on pass rush, and if pressure doesn't result in sacks or errant throws, it gets ugly. Still, there's a lot of 'good' to build on with our current players.

If coaching change(s) do occur for defense, I don't see that it would be necessary to make a switch. We've drafted and are trying to develop guys to play in the current schemes, and there's no way we could just start jettisoning guys because they 'don't fit' a new scheme. FWIW, I think the Packers have a lot of athletes who would play well in any defense, but team speed at LB is what's needed before any real improvement can happen.

 In house, it would seem like Moss would have the inside track.

Hiring another coach with previous experience in a coordinator's role is fun for some to dream endlessly about, but I would just as soon have a young guy who is fresh and creative, who has had consistently good defenses, and can adapt them to our players.

 

Do any of you seriously think Lovie wants to coach for the Packers?

I suppose anything is possible, of course, but it's hard for me to imagine the guy that became a HC specifically to "beat the Packers" to now drink our Kool Aid...

There is no question that a 4-3 is hard to man. There aren't too many 4-3 ends or 3 techniques that can both rush the passer and be stout against the run. There are a lot more guys that can stand up at 6'4" 260 than put a hand down at 6'6" 285.

I don't think there has been a single game where the Packers had their ideal 11 players suit up on defense.

 

If they continue to get decimated by injuries, I don't think it matters if the Packers have a 3-4 or a 4-3.  The Packers still do not have a reliable pass rusher opposite Matthews, there has not been a reliable safety since the loss of Nick Collins, and Matthews has been injured or hobbled most of the season.  Add to it the lost season for Hayward, the injuries at linebacker, and now the injuries to Johnny Jolly, and that is a recipe for disaster. 

 

 

I did notice 96 with his hand down a few plays though...capers is mixing things up in personnel anyway.

Not that I'm for it but Lovie is a professional so I don't see how he wouldn't want to work for GB because of some perceived vendetta.

 

If Tomlin gets canned, which I highly doubt, he would get another HC gig in a second.  I think most people see the PIT roster ageing as the main problem there.

How about this for a first step……GET THE INJURED HEALED FIRST!!!

Well that doesn't give us someone to blame!! 

We aren't going to a 4-3 because MM likes the 3-4, simple as that. 

 

"Even if McCarthy were to change defensive coordinators, odds are he'd retain the  3-4 scheme. He wanted to introduce the 3-4 when hired in 2006 but Ted Thompson  overruled him on the basis of too much change.".

http://www.jsonline.com/sports...1.html#ixzz2l2eHXxpp

 

For MM's reason why, see this 2009 article:

 

"In announcing the hiring of Capers, the veteran coordinator and former head  coach of the Carolina Panthers and Houston Texans, McCarthy said he was  committed to switching defensive schemes. However, he said the changeover  wouldn't be as dramatic as it might seem.

 

Capers has run both 3-4 and 4-3 defenses and McCarthy expects him to run  variations of both depending on personnel, opponents and game situations. The  base scheme will be the 3-4 that Capers created in the early 1990s in  Pittsburgh, and the one the Steelers will use when they play in Super Bowl XLIII  in two weeks.

"It gives you the ability to utilize your personnel, the flexibility,"  McCarthy said of using outside linebackers in traditional positions or as  defensive ends. "(It) doesn't mean we won't line up in a four-man front. We'll  move in and out of both four-man and three-man fronts. It's an excellent run  defense; it creates pass rush on the quarterback.

 

McCarthy said the defense forced opposing offenses to cut their play  selection in half to deal with the combinations of defensive formations and  blitz possibilities. The three defensive linemen are generally stout run  defenders who anchor the front and allow the linebackers to move freely.

 

"From a personnel standpoint, I'm in favor of the 3-4 because it's the body  type that I think will enhance the type of football we want to play here in  Green Bay, particularly in November and December," McCarthy said.

 

http://www.jsonline.com/sports...9.html#ixzz2l2YxXOCK 

Completely agree with this. Very well said. I feel like other coordinators are much more flexible in how they use certain players. 

I think the bigger question is whether GB would want Lovie. I don't think our personnel is especially gifted at playing the Tampa 2. On top of that, I think Lovie brings similar weaknesses to the table that Capers had -- implementing a system that hasn't kept up with the times. When you see a team like Dallas bring in Kiffin to run the Tampa 2 it doesn't strike me as particluarly forward thinking.

BTW, was watching the Panthers LBs. They are so aggressive and explosive. Wished we had that at GB. Then it occurred to me. We had that in Lattimore. Why isn't he rotating at that ILB position?

** edit **

RE: Lattimore - the past few weeks the Packers have had trouble finding 46 healthy enough to be active. My guess, and it is just that, is the health at LB is impacting the ST units and there are only so many snaps for each player. I heard earlier today that the Packers used 20 different players on defense yesterday. 

 

 

I think Capers is very flexible in how he uses his players, when he has his 'A' team. He gets very conservative and inflexible when missing a Matthews, or Shields, or Tramon, or (in the past) Woodson. When he has to put House on the outside and Bush in the slot or Nate Palmer as the OLB opposite CM3 he, IMO, gets conservative/scared/nervous/call it what you want. 

Good observation. Hopefully Lattimore gets more PT when the team is a little healthier. Just wonder if he is the new Bishop.

FinnLander, why do you want to bring Tim Tebow in? 

Back-up QB & Healer.  GB needs multi-taskers.