What the Packers told us about the Bears

Didn't the Packers and Steelers play a game last year where neither defense could stop the other's offense?

Didn't the Packers lose a WC playoff game last year because they could not stop Arizona's offense?

That was last year when Todd Bell, Derrick Martin and Jarrett Bush were playing defense

One of the reasons that teams went to the 3-4 in the first place was economic

DL's make more than LBs so there was already a monetary incentive there

TT said there are only so many large body DL on the planet and because of their scarcity, its easier to find more LBs and less DL, so we have already seen this happening in some respects

Teams can run the ball on that alignment, but they often fall behind a passing team and the run game goes out the window

Disagree with a number of items.

Most teams are playing more nickel these days, not just the Packers and Steelers. Been this way for a while. Makes sense as more offenses are playing 3-WR sets or have athletic pass-catching tight ends. Yes the Packers played a large number of snaps out of the 2-4-5, but I'm guessing the Bears played a fair share of 4-2-5 as well even though they're a "4-3" team.

If the Packers played more nickel than most teams (which wouldn't surprise me) it's largely because they have 3 extremely capable corners, a claim most teams can't make. On top of that, they have a corner who also doubles as a safety/linebacker as well as anyone in the league in Woodson. This allows them to not get run off the field when in nickel. Having an offense that piles up points also helps to discourage the opposing team from running.

I agree to a point on the economic incentives. It likely is easier to find a pass rushing outside linebacker than it is to find a do-it-all defensive end that can play in the 4-3. But a major reason the Packers were able to overcome to many injuries is because they have to many good players still on their rookie contract. They're getting extremely good value out of guys like Matthews, Raji, and Shields.

Yeah although I agree with the comment about 3-4 defense being cheaper it comes down to the need for 3 good corners.

Its what crippled the packers last year when facing good passing teams.

the SB was a perfect example of this.

Rodgers exploited the steelers secondary because they didn't have the corners to match up.

thats why I hope TT goes CB early in the draft.

quote:

Originally posted by Phoenix138:
Most teams are playing more nickel these days,

I've been told the primary objective of a defense is to stop the run.

Well if you can run the football, and stop the run, that's a formula for championship success.*


*offer not valid for the past 30 years.

Perhaps I was mislead

I remember a couple of instances where the Packers had 0 DL, 5 LB and 6 DB. How does an offense plan for that?

quote:

Check out the comments section below the article. Person makes some solid points. I was trying to keep this hidden by not saying anything but it's all on tape now for the rest of the league to copycat.

No offense Boris, but I find it hard to believe that some internet commenter in Chicago would see something the rest of the league is overlooking, unless that something was wildly off the mark. No need to keep this hidden.

quote:

Originally posted by Phoenix138:
*offer not valid for the past 30 years.

Nicely played.

Fedya, The biggest change as I stated earlier was Tramon being vastly improved, Woodson being Woodson and Sam Shields instead of Bush playing nickel.

I believe that is the biggest key to the change in defense this season vs. 2009, however, we know the other guys get paid too but I don't see any sense in helping them out.

I think most of the teams don't need the help.

Chicago and Minnesota, however....

My two favorite lines from the article:

quote:

That was the key matchup, but the fear is that the raw data of Green Bay’s 41-11 pass-run ratio will become Martz’s aerial crack pipe.

quote:

Second, the Packers have actual receivers who, despite surprising drops Sunday, still run actual routes, a concept that troubles Bears receivers beyond the idea of doing a down-and-out at the trash can.

Makes me believe Cullen Jenkins will walk.

With Neal, Wilson, etc., coming back, Pack will have enough DL depth.

Very interesting concept. I credit Dom, who worked for both teams.

I was wondering why GB used the two man front so much.Thanks for the info.I thought it was due to the injuries but when Jenkins came back it was still used alot. Capers is a trendsetter and I hope he stays around for the length of MM's tenure.

They did use the 4 man front against the run on first down a few times in the Super Bowl and part of the reason it was successfull is Woodson ,Williams and Shields.

quote:

Originally posted by Boris:
That was last year when Todd Bell, Derrick Martin and Jarrett Bush were playing defense

I thought I read somewhere that it wasn't the players.

tHE vIKINGS AND bEARS ARE GOOD SOURCES FOR RUNNINGBACKS

who is this todd bell character?

I think it's Josh Bell, but Todd Bell sounds better.

Cross between Milwaukee Bucks Todd Day and Josh Bell.

Actually I screwed up and used "Todd". Todd Bell was a Bears safety in the 80's

Thanks for the correction. I can always count on x4 to help me out.

Get back on your meds, Pablo, you POS.