2023 Packers Defense Expectations?

[Yoop]

We lost 4 regular season games in 2021, 3 in 2020, and 3 in 2019.

point remains, when analytics go against perception, they suck, when they support it, there great.

Was not commenting on the point.

the point is what this convo is all about, who gives a damn about the season going from 16 to 17 games.

it's one thing for a member to make a corrective statement, it's another for you to gang bang it, rather then getting another suspension by telling you what a horses ass you are at times, I'll just let it go to you acting normal

[Pckfn23]

[mention]Yoop[/mention] I stated facts concerning our loss number after you claimed the 4th loss in 2021 was a playoff loss. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Cdragon]

Ultimately I think it is a bad strategy. If you've got a great O you want to run a lot of plays. I want to wear out the opposing D. I don't want to limit the number of possessions I get and consequently make every time you touch the ball a do or die situation. If you are better than average the more plays you run the more opportunities you have to score. And if you are playing a bad O bad things will happen to them the more chances they get. I want 12 possessions not 7 or 8.

Actually the number of drives a team gets in a game shouldn't make a difference regarding the outcome of it. The team needs to be more efficient than their opponent during those drives, no matter if they get ball seven, eight or 12 times.

Duh bares were also high up in time between plays. Nobody is leaping on their broken down band wagon. Now with SF if you've got the #1 D you can afford to take as much time as you want. The 2011 Pack had problems on D and I don't think the O's scoring early and often was one of them. Cutting Cullen Jenkins loose for a song was as much of the problem as anything. Clay going from 13 sacks to 6 was another. And too many winner's Mondays took away a lot of time players could be working on those problems. Bend don't break became bend, bend, bend then break. Offense gets you to the playoffs but you'd better be able to stop somebody when you get there.

It's smart for teams not having a good defense to limit the time that unit is on the field as well. As mentioned above, the only thing that matters is that your offense is more efficient as your defense allows the opponent to be.

A casino can make money on a roulette wheel if people just bet red or black. Green gives them the slight advantage and unlike an NFL game they have unlimited number of plays. They eventually win because of that advantage. A team's O can be better than the other guy but there is not an unlimited number of plays to make sure your advantage plays out. I want more plays to make up for the bouncing ball. The opponent may get lucky, you may fumble, the refs may blow it. I want 70 plays instead of 60 to make that advantage work.

[Yoop]

A casino can make money on a roulette wheel if people just bet red or black. Green gives them the slight advantage and unlike an NFL game they have unlimited number of plays. They eventually win because of that advantage. A team's O can be better than the other guy but there is not an unlimited number of plays to make sure your advantage plays out. I want more plays to make up for the bouncing ball. The opponent may get lucky, you may fumble, the refs may blow it. I want 70 plays instead of 60 to make that advantage work.

well CD, evidence has been brought that it works the opposite, less plays, with better production per play, is the winning formula, also, more plays has also shown to be more mistake prone, imo it's one reason very few run first teams do well, to hard to string together long drives without a penalty.

[CWIMM]

Have not been paying too close of attention to training camp, but am hearing the D is ahead of the O at this point.

This information does not come as a surprise given this is Love's first-season as the starter and defenses generally being ahead of offenses at this time of the year.

But how do fans who've been paying closer attention than I have see the D at this juncture?

Are we really going to be more aggressive? Is this going to be a top 10 unit? Do Barry and his assistants seem to have everything under control?

There was one play during Family Night on which Douglas played off coverage on a 3rd-and-3 allowing an easy completion for four yards. That has me worried that the defense won't be any more aggressive this season.

A casino can make money on a roulette wheel if people just bet red or black. Green gives them the slight advantage and unlike an NFL game they have unlimited number of plays. They eventually win because of that advantage. A team's O can be better than the other guy but there is not an unlimited number of plays to make sure your advantage plays out. I want more plays to make up for the bouncing ball. The opponent may get lucky, you may fumble, the refs may blow it. I want 70 plays instead of 60 to make that advantage work.

I don't think that roulette is a great analogy for football. In general, both offenses get either the same amount or +/-1 of drives in a game. The total number doesn't matter a whole lot, teams have to be more efficient on those chances than their opponent to win. It's as simple as that.

[TheSkeptic]

Getting back to the theme of this post ...

With Gary back way ahead of schedule, this D is substantially better than the team that held opponents to 20 points or less for 10 games last season.

It would still help to have Stokes return to 100% and someone has to step up at safety. Baring critical injuries this should be a top 5 D.

[BF004]

Getting back to the theme of this post ...

With Gary back way ahead of schedule, this D is substantially better than the team that held opponents to 20 points or less for 10 games last season.

It would still help to have Stokes return to 100% and someone has to step up at safety. Baring critical injuries this should be a top 5 D.

Maybe short of the combination of Wyatt and Slaton, there really isn’t a hole on the D anywhere without a proven good player, other than safety.

Given Gary and LVN can both likely rush inside, and we are sitting on Wyatt who has been flashing like crazy, not super worried about that DL spot.

Broken record here for 15 years now, but this D should be really good. I guess if you had to pick any position to have a weak spot on D you would choose safety. But wonder if we do win a quick few if we possibly enter the safety market before the trade deadline.

[LombardiTime]

Getting back to the theme of this post ...

With Gary back way ahead of schedule, this D is substantially better than the team that held opponents to 20 points or less for 10 games last season.

It would still help to have Stokes return to 100% and someone has to step up at safety. Baring critical injuries this should be a top 5 D.

Appreciate the effort to get the discussion back on what we might reasonably expect out of the 2023 defense.

And I am curious as to why you believe, at present, the D could be substantially better than last year's D. Is it talent or scheme or both?

I see the removal of Lowry as addition by subtraction and believe his replacement could well be a net plus. However, I think Reed was pretty effective in 2022, so I think we may see a bit of a downgrade at the other DL spot. Do folks see the DL being substantially better in 2023 despite the departure of 2 starers from 2022?

At CB, I do like that Rasul and Jaire seem to be entrenched on the outside as last year at this time I don't believe there were clearly defined roles for CBs 1-3. I am a bit concerned about the depth at CB as Stokes' return from injury is a bit of an unknown.

I could also see the CB play being substantially better if for no other reason than much of Barry has wanted to run in the past has been so thoroughly discredited that it sounds like he had no choice but to abandon it. A more aggressive approach to playing CB could very well lead to substantially better play.

At Safety I am hard-pressed to see how the D will be substantially better. I don't think Amos was very good in 2022, and I know his role was completely different, but he was still better than Savage in 2022. Are folks anticipating a breakthrough year for #26? And is there really optimism that Owens or Ford (who was very up and down in 2022) are going to be a big improvement over Amos?

(I know you said someone needs to step up at Safety, do folks see any candidates for stepping up?)

Assuming Campbell's step down in play in 2022 was due to injury as has been claimed and assuming Quay continues to improve (and mature) in 2023 and I see no reason to assume otherwise, I could easily see improvement at ILB.

Finally, at edge, if, if, if Gary returns to form by say Mid-October I see no reason why the addition of LVN should not lead to improvement at edge.

I was (unduly) optimistic about the D heading into last season and promised myself I won't get fooled again, but I can't help but feel like there is an awful lot of talent on this D (8 1st round picks + 3 fairly significant free agents).

Looking at the schedule, I see a lot of opponents with offensive question marks heading into the season.

So (again returning to the theme of this thread), do folks as of this point in training camp believe it is realistic to expect the Pack to have a top 10 D in 2023?

[CWIMM]

Getting back to the theme of this post ...

With Gary back way ahead of schedule, this D is substantially better than the team that held opponents to 20 points or less for 10 games last season.

It would still help to have Stokes return to 100% and someone has to step up at safety. Baring critical injuries this should be a top 5 D.

Unfortunately I don't believe the defense will be significantly better than last season. While they should have enough talent to field one of the top units in the league I don't have any confidence in Barry being able to have them perform up to potential. In addition the offense might put them in way more difficult situations than in the past.

Maybe short of the combination of Wyatt and Slaton, there really isn’t a hole on the D anywhere without a proven good player, other than safety.

Well, that's four out of 11 starters there's reason to be worried about. If none of them performs at a high level that will make it tough for the defense to be successful.

Appreciate the effort to get the discussion back on what we might reasonably expect out of the 2023 defense.

And I am curious as to why you believe, at present, the D could be substantially better than last year's D. Is it talent or scheme or both?

I see the removal of Lowry as addition by subtraction and believe his replacement could well be a net plus. However, I think Reed was pretty effective in 2022, so I think we may see a bit of a downgrade at the other DL spot. Do folks see the DL being substantially better in 2023 despite the departure of 2 starers from 2022?

At CB, I do like that Rasul and Jaire seem to be entrenched on the outside as last year at this time I don't believe there were clearly defined roles for CBs 1-3. I am a bit concerned about the depth at CB as Stokes' return from injury is a bit of an unknown.

I could also see the CB play being substantially better if for no other reason than much of Barry has wanted to run in the past has been so thoroughly discredited that it sounds like he had no choice but to abandon it. A more aggressive approach to playing CB could very well lead to substantially better play.

At Safety I am hard-pressed to see how the D will be substantially better. I don't think Amos was very good in 2022, and I know his role was completely different, but he was still better than Savage in 2022. Are folks anticipating a breakthrough year for #26? And is there really optimism that Owens or Ford (who was very up and down in 2022) are going to be a big improvement over Amos?

(I know you said someone needs to step up at Safety, do folks see any candidates for stepping up?)

Assuming Campbell's step down in play in 2022 was due to injury as has been claimed and assuming Quay continues to improve (and mature) in 2023 and I see no reason to assume otherwise, I could easily see improvement at ILB.

Finally, at edge, if, if, if Gary returns to form by say Mid-October I see no reason why the addition of LVN should not lead to improvement at edge.

I was (unduly) optimistic about the D heading into last season and promised myself I won't get fooled again, but I can't help but feel like there is an awful lot of talent on this D (8 1st round picks + 3 fairly significant free agents).

Looking at the schedule, I see a lot of opponents with offensive question marks heading into the season.

So (again returning to the theme of this thread), do folks as of this point in training camp believe it is realistic to expect the Pack to have a top 10 D in 2023?

In my opinion the optimism about the defense entering this season is purely based on hope that Barry will somehow figure out a way to coordinate a successful defense despite his track record indicating he won't. In addition there are some question marks on the roster as well, mainly on the defensive line aside of Clark and at safety.

At this point I have absolutely no idea how Wyatt, Slaton or anyone else will perform in comparison to Reed and Lowry. It's entirely possible that they will be able to play at a similar level though. I'm more worried about safety where the team is lacking talent in my opinion.

Depth might be an issue at several positions if injuries hit as well.

[YoHoChecko]

Thoughts?

[NCF]

Thoughts?

I read some of these reports from camp. I have my doubts that they will actually appreciably change what they want to do. Maybe match up specific, though, they will be more aggressive. The absolute worst is when we have played these deer in the headlights QB's and we sit back and let them get into a rhythm instead of blitzing the bejeezus out of them from snap 1.

[TheSkeptic]

There seems to be some worry about the Dline without Lowry and Reed. I have been skeptical about Wyatt but it was never about his ability but rather his ability to stay out of trouble in the offseason. Well the offseason is over and he is better than either Reed or Lowry. TJ is now the nose and Clark is a DE. Those 3, TJ, Wyatt and Clark are a substantial upgrade over Reed, Clark and Lowry. In addition, Brooks is a beast and so is Wooden. In addition, both Gary and LVN can play Dline in passing situations. I'd have to grade last year's Dline at a B, I think this year's will be a solid A.

The major reason the remainder of this year's D will be better than last year's comes down to 5 players. Gary, Quay, Kingsley, Nixon and LVN. Gary only played half of last season, his return is a major plus. Kingsley shows major improvement and Quay is likely to improve significantly also. Smith got over-used last season, he is going to have to fight for snaps this season. LVN may not play a lot early in the season but he is going to earn his nickname, Hercules, as a Packer and it will be earned on the field - he is a freak of nature.

Nixon is going to be in the slot. He is a game changer.

As for safety, how can it be worse, it is the same players, Savage and Ford?

[paco]

Thoughts?

I read some of these reports from camp. I have my doubts that they will actually appreciably change what they want to do. Maybe match up specific, though, they will be more aggressive. The absolute worst is when we have played these deer in the headlights QB's and we sit back and let them get into a rhythm instead of blitzing the bejeezus out of them from snap 1.

Yep, time will tell if Joe changes his ways and sticks with it. I'm hopeful. We've built a team that is designed to be aggressive. Not doing so would be counter-intuitive.

[BSA]

Here's an article on the Packers blitz rate before and after the bye week in 2022. Pretty substantial shift in philosophy

https://247sports.com/nfl/green-bay-pac ... 202069450/

"Before the bye, Green Bay had the 2nd highest blitz rate in the NFL. But in the three weeks since, they’ve had the dead LOWEST blitz rate in the league. From 42% all the way down to 10% — it’s a massive difference.

But Joe Barry calling less blitzes hasn’t exactly hindered their ability to get after the quarterback, if anything it has helped.
The theory is that additional bodies in coverage will delay opposing QBs, giving guys like Kingsley Enagbare and Preston Smith an extra half-second to get home. That’s precisely what has happened."

[BSA]

Article from packers.com talking about Kenny Clark - and his high expectations for 2023

https://www.packers.com/news/kenny-clar ... rs-in-2023

One thing he mentioned is playing fewer snaps so he's fresher in key moments. Clark played too many snaps the last few years, in part because of the dropoff when the other guys came in. Now GB has drafted/developed a few younger guys to shoulder some of the load. Clark played 782 snaps in 2021 and 807 snaps in 2022 - and that's just too many for a Big Man. You'd like to see him down around 650 snaps for the season, so TJ Slaton, Brooks, Wooden and Wyatt will have to take all the Lowry + Reed snaps + some of Clark's. That should help Clark be more impactful this year.

[RingoCStarrQB]

Article from packers.com talking about Kenny Clark - and his high expectations for 2023

https://www.packers.com/news/kenny-clar ... rs-in-2023

One thing he mentioned is playing fewer snaps so he's fresher in key moments. Clark played too many snaps the last few years, in part because of the dropoff when the other guys came in. Now GB has drafted/developed a few younger guys to shoulder some of the load. Clark played 782 snaps in 2021 and 807 snaps in 2022 - and that's just too many for a Big Man. You'd like to see him down around 650 snaps for the season, so TJ Slaton, Brooks, Wooden and Wyatt will have to take all the Lowry + Reed snaps + some of Clark's. That should help Clark be more impactful this year.

Can't recall the 60s Packers D line ever worrying about snap count.

[LombardiTime]

Fields, Ridder, Carr, Goff, Garoppolo, and R. Wilson are the first 6 QBs the defense will face in 2023.

There is an excellent chance the defense gets off to a fast start in 2023.

[RingoCStarrQB]

Fields, Ridder, Carr, Goff, Garoppolo, and R. Wilson are the first 6 QBs the defense will face in 2023.

There is an excellent chance the defense gets off to a fast start in 2023.

And I read that Kamara will miss the first 3 games for the Saints.

[BSA]

Can't recall the 60s Packers D line ever worrying about snap count.

The 60's Dline played far fewer snaps because there were only 14 games and no play clock until 1970
In 1962, the Packers defense played 759 snaps, in 2022 they played 991 snaps
In 1960's the average OL weighed only 240-250 lbs, in 2022 the OL weighs 310-325 lbs.
DL is bigger too, but its still a lot more work leading to fatigue

More snaps, less rest between plays and wrastling larger humans = snap counts matter in modern football

[Cdragon]

Article from packers.com talking about Kenny Clark - and his high expectations for 2023

https://www.packers.com/news/kenny-clar ... rs-in-2023

One thing he mentioned is playing fewer snaps so he's fresher in key moments. Clark played too many snaps the last few years, in part because of the dropoff when the other guys came in. Now GB has drafted/developed a few younger guys to shoulder some of the load. Clark played 782 snaps in 2021 and 807 snaps in 2022 - and that's just too many for a Big Man. You'd like to see him down around 650 snaps for the season, so TJ Slaton, Brooks, Wooden and Wyatt will have to take all the Lowry + Reed snaps + some of Clark's. That should help Clark be more impactful this year.

Can't recall the 60s Packers D line ever worrying about snap count.

The 60's were a stones throw away from everybody being a 60 minute man. People were probably complaining they weren't working hard enough when they went to the platoon system.