Start of the dreaded post mortem threads.

Va. PackerMember

Please consider at least a separation if not a divorce from the 3-4 defense. That way we can do the same thing on defense that TT does on offense. Get the best football player instead of reaching for fits. Still have not found a 2nd OLB. And it isn't our rookie from USC. He's a 4-3 DE trying to convert to OLB.

1/12/1310:52 PM

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

GoallineLarge Antenna

I don't like the 3-4.

1/12/1310:53 PM

TschmackMember

how are they reaching for fits?

was Jennings or Jones a reach? how about Collins, Rodgers, CMIII, Hayward, Burnett, etc?

1/12/1310:55 PM

Va. PackerMember

quote:
Originally posted by Tschmack:
how are they reaching for fits?

was Jennings or Jones a reach? how about Collins, Rodgers, CMIII, Hayward, Burnett, etc?

Have you actually tried reading the post? What the hell would any offensive player have to do with it? I assume you aren't touting the likes of MD Jennings and Brad Jones. But I might be wrong.

1/12/1310:58 PM

macdaddyMember

quote:
Originally posted by Va. Packer:
Please consider at least a separation if not a divorce from the 3-4 defense. That way we can do the same thing on defense that TT does on offense. Get the best football player instead of reaching for fits. Still have not found a 2nd OLB. And it isn't our rookie from USC. He's a 4-3 DE trying to convert to OLB.

What are you going to do with clay if you abandon the 3-4. He is not an end and playing olb in a 4-3 would limit what he does best.

1/12/1311:01 PM

FarmDogMember

Take a chill pill and re-address in the AM.

1/12/1311:04 PM

PabloMember

3 - 4 is fine. Just fire Capers.

1/13/1312:09 AM

ammoCheese Master

Sure the 3-4 is just fine. As long as 2 of the 4 are not Walden and Hawk.

1/13/1312:27 AM

PakrzFREEZE!

Ammo speaketh the truth.

1/13/1312:30 AM

bdplantMember

quote:
Originally posted by Goalline:
I don't like the 3-4.

When all but one of your LBs suck, maybe having one less LB on the field would be a good thing. Addition by subtraction.

1/13/1312:46 AM

ammoCheese Master

Damn. I've had the 2012 Packers schedule as my desktop. Now what should I use?

1/13/1312:54 AM

bdplantMember

The 2010 schedule.

1/13/131:01 AM

EsoxMember

Sht! I think I am getting my hangover now - massive headache! I sure am goin to enjoy wearing that freakin 49ers cap all week.

1/13/131:24 AM

michiganjoeMember

Really interesting comments from Woodson after the game about the lack of adjustments. Need to put Dom's performance under the microscope and determine if a change might be in the best interest of the team.

1/13/135:22 AM

FloridarobMember

The last three playoff losses the defense has been brutalized. Capers may be done. Time for some new blood.

1/13/136:46 AM

Va. PackerMember

"I think when the game is going the way it is, you have to try something different," Woodson said. "It's hard to just continue to do the same thing over and over again when they continue to burn you.

"Going forward, we have to look at could we have done something different."

Sounds about right. If the Packers could only go against a Jay Cutler QB'd team more often. And Eric Walden had on of those blown assignments that even us novices can see. Afterward he maintained that he "played his assignment". Somebody must have disagreed because he was benched from that point.

1/13/136:59 AM

BadgemanMember

I think we need a shake-up on the defensive side of the ball, and it starts with the coordinator. I respect the hell out of Dan Compers; he has had a great career.

But how the hell could the defense show up in SF this unprepared for the read option play? How many of Colin K's yards were gained absolutely untouched? If we had a corner or safety or linebacker other than Mathews that was willing and able to come up and knock the sh*t out of these running QBs, things would change. But when it comes to tackling, our secondary is a bunch of pussies. How many god-dam times did we see Walden get sucked inside. And to make matters worse, Williams is the corner on the same side of the field. Is it any wonder teams attack-attack-attack our defensive left side? It's flag football out there with all the reaching the GB DBs do. Ridiculous.

I never again want to hear this Packers team complain about being called a finesse team. Truth hurts. They are. Physical teams kick the sh*t out of this Packers team.

1/13/137:09 AM

JohnsonMember

I thought Nick Perry showed that dreaded 'potential' before he was hurt...He reminded me very much of Tony Bennett---who had a tough first year and was nails from then on---We need middle help both at OLB and safety...Hopefully Desmond Bishop will be back and Hawk won't be.

I stick with Capers...if Hayward tackles on the blitz and Williams gets off that 'holding' block...and Welsh's kick goes wide left and they draft Lott instead of Campbell...and Kennedy stays out of Texas.....
We're not spectacular...but still very close...

1/13/137:24 AM

titmfatiedNo Code

quote:
Originally posted by Esox:
Sht! I think I am getting my hangover now - massive headache! I sure am goin to enjoy wearing that freakin 49ers cap all week.

We're just glad you made it out of that gang infested dump alive. That had to be tough to sit through. Did you stay to the very end?

1/13/137:31 AM

The NerveMember

quote:
Originally posted by Badgeman:
I think we need a shake-up on the defensive side of the ball, and it starts with the coordinator. I respect the hell out of Dan Compers; he has had a great career.

But how the hell could the defense show up in SF this unprepared for the read option play? How many of Colin K's yards were gained absolutely untouched?

We only had 3 days to prepare for something the 49ers didn't use that much during the season. That was because the 49ers had a bye and we lost against the Vikings to cost us the bye. A huge difference there, all because we couldn't stop the run. Why would they do anything but try and run on us with Kapernick after what AP did to us 2/3 times? Loss of the bye really hurt, although I agree that it may be time for a change at D-Coordinator. Offenses are changing and Dom seems a bit set in his ways.

1/13/137:57 AM

TschmackMember

ammo is right

It's not so much the scheme as it is who is playing in it

We didn't have Woodson for 2/3 of the season. We didn't have Bishop at all. I liked what I saw with Worthy and Neal and Perry but they didn't play the entire year either because of injuries.

That's a fact. It's easy to complain about how poorly they did but it's also a lot to expect from CJ Wilson and Dez Moses and Brad Jones and others. They are backups for a reason.

We all had a feeling that the Bishop injury would come back to haunt them and it did - against teams that could run the ball. Without CMIII and Perry in the lineup they strugged to get a pass rush.

Not all is lost. Hayward looks like a great young prospect. Shields stepped up. Raji (I think) had a better season and made an impact. CMIII (when healthy) is a difference maker. Woody can still make plays. Neal showed me something too. Pickett and Burnett are consistently solid.

What this D needs is another good run stuffing LB- somebody like a Willis or Bowman or Lance Briggs type to go along with Bishop. CMIII and Perry off the edges could be fun to watch but they need to be healthy.

1/13/138:03 AM

Pikes PeakMember

I was happy to hear Rajis name on the encroachment call late in the 4th....was that his only sighting? Oh, I do recall seeing his backside chasing Gore and Keapernick.

Plenty of blame to go around but my god how many rushing yds can a team give up?

1/13/138:08 AM

ScareyFast63Member

quote:
Originally posted by Badgeman:
I think we need a shake-up on the defensive side of the ball, and it starts with the coordinator. I respect the hell out of Dan Compers; he has had a great career.

But how the hell could the defense show up in SF this unprepared for the read option play? How many of Colin K's yards were gained absolutely untouched? If we had a corner or safety or linebacker other than Mathews that was willing and able to come up and knock the sh*t out of these running QBs, things would change. But when it comes to tackling, our secondary is a bunch of pussies. How many god-dam times did we see Walden get sucked inside. And to make matters worse, Williams is the corner on the same side of the field. Is it any wonder teams attack-attack-attack our defensive left side? It's flag football out there with all the reaching the GB DBs do. Ridiculous.

I never again want to hear this Packers team complain about being called a finesse team. Truth hurts. They are. Physical teams kick the sh*t out of this Packers team.

Amen --Find a D coordinator that can plan a defense on a consistent basis, make adustments as and when needed. A shot of Capers during the game shows him just sittin there, not talking to anyone, just sort of watching with a bemused look on his face which appeared to say in his mind he was thinking " What the hell do I do now"? Man, he may be a guru BUT time, I believe, may have passed him by!

1/13/138:19 AM

BILL HMember

Pathetic,just pathetic defense,after killing my case of beer with all the salt from my tears

I find myself hungover with the shi*s this morning.will TT go with defense this draft or try to get decent offensive linemen,they need lots of help in both areas.

1/13/138:27 AM

GoldieMember

1/13/138:34 AM

RochNyFanMember

This team needs a total defensive overhaul...starting with the coordinator. They disappeared in big games all year long. Could not close the deal on Indy, could not contain Peterson and sew up the #2 seed. They need help all over, primarily linebacker. I even question how much money they should spend on Matthews. I think he's a one-dimensional, speed rusher, and he was shut down by a one-armed left tackle last night. But, the coordinator never seemed able to adjust. How hard is it to preach contain on the read option play. I thought for sure they would improve after halftime, but they only got worse.

1/13/139:43 AM

bubbleboy789Member

this thread is absolutely ****ing stupid.

1/13/1311:17 AM

FandameMember

I don't know about a total D overhaul, but we may have to go to the 4-3 as a counter the new option fad. We got toasted by the newest rage in the NFL, the running QB who plays the option. The 3-4 is probably a bad fit to stop the read option. Without a fourth big guy out there on the line to help contain the run and not let the QB/back turn the corner, it's up to the LB and they are generally too light to do that against those big, mobile O linemen or they are so focused on getting up-field that they get way out of position. I would have liked to see us go to four down linemen last night. Just having the bodies up there to push back and not get turned. Even if we get another good pass rushing LB, it does nothing to stop the option -- that guy will just get sucked upfield and into those big O linemen.

What that means is the end of Capers. It was really disappointing to read that even a guy like Ponder knew exactly what we were going to do on D in certain situations. Last night was the same; they knew what we were doing. And to hear Capers say playing Webb got us ready for SF was BS. When Webb did run, he burnt us. Only when Musgrave, for some odd reason, went away from the option did we have success on D. I think if Musgrave had stuck to the option we would have been watching the Queens play last night, especially when you look at Peterson's success against us.

All in all, go back to the 4-3 and put Perry's hand in the dirt. Use Woody next year like Butler. Clay becomes an outside rusher from the LB spot. Bishop in the middle. Moses or a new guy on the other side.

Heck, you may even see situational defenses: 4-3 against option teams, 3-4 against more traditional teams.

Either way, MM has to look really hard at Capers' performance. Maybe they have the guy on staff, Jags? Greene? Something has to change.

1/13/1311:27 AM

EsoxMember

quote:
Originally posted by titmfatied:
quote:
Originally posted by Esox:
Sht! I think I am getting my hangover now - massive headache! I sure am goin to enjoy wearing that freakin 49ers cap all week.
We're just glad you made it out of that gang infested dump alive. That had to be tough to sit through. Did you stay to the very end?

It was tough Dude. I took a beating and will continue to take a beating all this next week. I am really dreading work tomorrow! Could be worse though; at least I am dealing with 49er fans and not queens fans. As for staying the entire game,I almost left when MM did not go for it on that 4th down; but the 70's and 80's have prepared me well for these situations and I TOOK DA HEAT!!!! In addition, I think the manly beers helped me out as well.

1/13/1311:39 AM

OronoMember

For those of you thought that a defense that was on the field for almost 22 minutes in the first half wasn't going to get tired and cave the second half unless the offense flipped the time of possession, you are missing something obvious.

1/13/1311:47 AM

GEEMANMember

Holy water will help relieve the burn of having to wear 9er gear this week Esox. Good on ya for sticking it out!

1/13/1311:47 AM

DH13Member

@Fandame

Nice post. At least good parts of it. I know NE was using a hybrid 43/34 D last year but I haven't paid much attention to them this year. I know Belichick likes versatility in his players. I don't know if Capers is versatile enough get successful 43 play out of his 34 players. Is he just tired?

1/13/1312:00 PM

TschmackMember

Total defensive overhaul? Really?

They have some very good players. Raji and CMIII in particular. Pickett, Shields and Woodson are also pretty solid, and if Burnett and Hayward continue to develop they could be two of the best at their positions. Perry and Worthy showed a lot of ability before they got hurt.

What's killing this D are the inside LBs. Simply put, Brad Jones and AJ Hawk are not very good players. We missed Bishop big time, but we need another thumper in there.

That's what makes SF so damn good. Willis and Bowman together are a wrecking crew and you rarely see them get burned or be out of position. How many times have we seen AJ Hawk or Brad Jones get schooled this year? Too many!

1/13/1312:17 PM

GBP1Member

I thought Jones did well last night.

But I am thinking that it is time for a new DC.

1/13/1312:21 PM

DH13Member

Woodson and Pickett are also near the end of the line.

1/13/131:18 PM

Salmon DaveMember

I don't think we need a total defensive overhaul - last year was the year we needed the total overhaul, and Ted got a good start on it. Secondary seems basically fixed in just one draft, and we added 2 players to the front 7 (Perry, Worthy) who will be at worst solid contributors and at best difference makers or even impact players. That's a lot of pieces in one draft.

We don't have the linebacker problem solved yet, obviously, and hopefully we'll get that covered this spring, and we do need another good player or two and some serious viciousness on the D-line, but I think we're pretty close to being where we need to be personnel-wise on D. Add a couple-three junkyard dogs to the front 7 and I think we're fully staffed.

The one thing I think we need to overhaul is that guy who sits upstairs in that booth every Sunday chewing his lip and trying to figure out why nothing down on the field is happening the way he planned it out. I think the game has passed him by. When we get into the second level of the playoffs, where the better coaching staffs start to shine and earn their money, he consistently gets outcoached. Two years in a row now where he has run up against a good offensive coordinator and had absolutely no answers at all. Just sits there wondering what in the world is happening to him and why his genius plan is not working. I think we need someone in there with a different approach, because his does not seem to work very well come January.

1/13/131:20 PM

Pistol GBMember

quote:
Originally posted by Fandame:
I don't know about a total D overhaul, but we may have to go to the 4-3 as a counter the new option fad. We got toasted by the newest rage in the NFL, the running QB who plays the option. The 3-4 is probably a bad fit to stop the read option. Without a fourth big guy out there on the line to help contain the run and not let the QB/back turn the corner, it's up to the LB and they are generally too light to do that against those big, mobile O linemen or they are so focused on getting up-field that they get way out of position. I would have liked to see us go to four down linemen last night. Just having the bodies up there to push back and not get turned. Even if we get another good pass rushing LB, it does nothing to stop the option -- that guy will just get sucked upfield and into those big O linemen.

What that means is the end of Capers. It was really disappointing to read that even a guy like Ponder knew exactly what we were going to do on D in certain situations. Last night was the same; they knew what we were doing. And to hear Capers say playing Webb got us ready for SF was BS. When Webb did run, he burnt us. Only when Musgrave, for some odd reason, went away from the option did we have success on D. I think if Musgrave had stuck to the option we would have been watching the Queens play last night, especially when you look at Peterson's success against us.

All in all, go back to the 4-3 and put Perry's hand in the dirt. Use Woody next year like Butler. Clay becomes an outside rusher from the LB spot. Bishop in the middle. Moses or a new guy on the other side.

Heck, you may even see situational defenses: 4-3 against option teams, 3-4 against more traditional teams.

Either way, MM has to look really hard at Capers' performance. Maybe they have the guy on staff, Jags? Greene? Something has to change.

Interesting take. A couple of things though:

1) I wouldn't call it a fad really. Joe Montana taught the NFL years ago how dangerous a QB who can run for the first down can be. It's part of the reason I'm always yelling for Rodgers to do it more. With the new rules, it's stupid not to, since your QB is way safer running and sliding than getting clobbered in a standstill anyway. It's more productive than throwing the ball away or taking a sack, and more importantly you keep the ball and you end up with insane TOP numbers in the game. And it's easier: that throw just over Jennings hands last night is a good example. Sure it would have been an awesome play, but you miss by inches and instead you have to punt. In a playoff game, where it is do or die against a quality opponent, easier is better. Move the freaking chains and let your defense rest.

The point is, running quarterbacks are extremely hard to defend no matter what the scheme. Always have been and always will be. The only "fad" is, coaches are doing it on purpose now, and I'd say it's here to stay.

2) Hand in the dirt, or not, Perry would be acting like a DE half the time anyway. The advantage of the 3-4 is versatility, and the offense doesn't know for certain what the OLB in the 3-4 is going to do. The problem is, it takes a freak of nature like Mathews to do it effectively, and guys like him are rare.

So if Perry can't do it, I like your idea of being able to rotate to a 4-3. I mean, why not? (Seriously, is it that complicated?)

1/13/131:23 PM

FandameMember

Pistol, you're right in that Montana showed how to do it, but the QBs now are faster and bigger. The unpredictability may be a factor, but what's happening is offenses are figuring out tendencies of our DC. You're right in that freaks like Matthews are hard to find, and it's even worse when he's out. We may need to go to a 4-3 with 3-4 flexibility against those teams who run more option. Denver, which has a pretty good D, plays 4-3 with 3-4 tendencies according to situation: "Fox's defensive scheme is indeed a classic 4-3 at its roots, but he uses a variety of things from that starting point. The Broncos do flash formations — particularly in their pass-rush packages, for example — that are closer to a 3-4 in both philosophy and personnel. First-year defensive coordinator Jack Del Rio also has a more traditional 3-4 look in the defensive playbook, which he could use as well if he believes the matchup calls for it in a given week."

This is the type of flexibility I think all teams will need going forward. A traditional 4-3 is not working against the great passing QBs, and the 3-4 isn't working against the running/option QBs. So, going forward I think DCs will have to have both in their playbooks.

1/13/131:56 PM

Salmon DaveMember

quote:
Originally posted by Pistol GB:

1) I wouldn't call it a fad really. Joe Montana taught the NFL years ago how dangerous a QB who can run for the first down can be. It's part of the reason I'm always yelling for Rodgers to do it more. With the new rules, it's stupid not to, since your QB is way safer running and sliding than getting clobbered in a standstill anyway. It's more productive than throwing the ball away or taking a sack, and more importantly you keep the ball and you end up with insane TOP numbers in the game. And it's easier: that throw just over Jennings hands last night is a good example. Sure it would have been an awesome play, but you miss by inches and instead you have to punt. In a playoff game, where it is do or die against a quality opponent, easier is better. Move the freaking chains and let your defense rest.

The point is, running quarterbacks are extremely hard to defend no matter what the scheme. Always have been and always will be. The only "fad" is, coaches are doing it on purpose now, and I'd say it's here to stay.

I wonder though. I keep hearing these media idiots frothing at the mouth about how much these young running QBs are "redefining" the position, but I'm not seeing it yet for a couple of reasons. First of all, there aren't that many young quarterbacks who have the skillset to be consistently effective at the read option. I can only name 3 in the game at the moment, and of those 3, one of them is already so badly injured he may not even see the field next season.

Which leads me to my second reason - do you, as a head coach, really want to expose your franchise quarterback to that kind of risk a couple of dozen times a game? Good luck with that, and make sure you're prepared to draft a new quarterback every 3 or 4 years. Right now I think this looks a lot more like a fad than a fundamental change in how the game is played.

1/13/1311:48 PM