Re: Packers Defense - 2024
Posted: 10 May 2024 17:28
The Way a Packers Forum Should Be
https://packers-huddle.com/phpBB/
I'm not even a coach. But what I can tell you is that pad level translates into how much leverage you gain against an opponent. There isn't a perfect amount of level. If you get way too low, then your opponent can pummel you into the ground. But if you get low enough compared to him, then you can drive against him better. And if you are too high compared to him, then you are easy to knock off balance. So, there is an ideal level at which you must keep your pads in order to win the scrimmage battle. It's something a lineman (both offensive and defensive) need to be aware of on every play. For an easy example, watch a scrum at the goal line and see how low those guys want to get.
Sounds reasonable. So when Jerry Kramer blocked Jethro Pugh in the Ice Bowl at the goal line tieh 16 seconds left on the 16 inch line, he (and Ken Bowman) was low enough to drive Pugh backwards not allowing Pugh to pummel Kramer in to the ground.Scott4Pack wrote: ↑11 May 2024 13:24I'm not even a coach. But what I can tell you is that pad level translates into how much leverage you gain against an opponent. There isn't a perfect amount of level. If you get way too low, then your opponent can pummel you into the ground. But if you get low enough compared to him, then you can drive against him better. And if you are too high compared to him, then you are easy to knock off balance. So, there is an ideal level at which you must keep your pads in order to win the scrimmage battle. It's something a lineman (both offensive and defensive) need to be aware of on every play. For an easy example, watch a scrum at the goal line and see how low those guys want to get.
How's that?
Yeah. It isn't a static thing. The "proper" pad level can vary depending on several factors.RingoCStarrQB wrote: ↑11 May 2024 18:40Sounds reasonable. So when Jerry Kramer blocked Jethro Pugh in the Ice Bowl at the goal line tieh 16 seconds left on the 16 inch line, he (and Ken Bowman) was low enough to drive Pugh backwards not allowing Pugh to pummel Kramer in to the ground.Scott4Pack wrote: ↑11 May 2024 13:24I'm not even a coach. But what I can tell you is that pad level translates into how much leverage you gain against an opponent. There isn't a perfect amount of level. If you get way too low, then your opponent can pummel you into the ground. But if you get low enough compared to him, then you can drive against him better. And if you are too high compared to him, then you are easy to knock off balance. So, there is an ideal level at which you must keep your pads in order to win the scrimmage battle. It's something a lineman (both offensive and defensive) need to be aware of on every play. For an easy example, watch a scrum at the goal line and see how low those guys want to get.
How's that?
At the goal line some defensive linemen get low to submarine the blocker leaving the linebacker(s) ad open lane to tackle the ball carrier for little or no gain.
the add ons we see in just about every bill we get these days the leverage our suppliers have over us, urrrrr.
I have to add this, Leverage is the advantage hoped for with having DE's in a 3 point stance, that they start low and can gain leverage against the OT's, it probably has merit if there face up on each other, which is rarely ever the case though, to me it's a half truth at best, a upright rusher has plenty of time to get low and still bull rush successfully, we see that done resulting in sacks regularly every weekScott4Pack wrote: ↑15 May 2024 18:40Yeah. It isn't a static thing. The "proper" pad level can vary depending on several factors.RingoCStarrQB wrote: ↑11 May 2024 18:40Sounds reasonable. So when Jerry Kramer blocked Jethro Pugh in the Ice Bowl at the goal line tieh 16 seconds left on the 16 inch line, he (and Ken Bowman) was low enough to drive Pugh backwards not allowing Pugh to pummel Kramer in to the ground.Scott4Pack wrote: ↑11 May 2024 13:24
I'm not even a coach. But what I can tell you is that pad level translates into how much leverage you gain against an opponent. There isn't a perfect amount of level. If you get way too low, then your opponent can pummel you into the ground. But if you get low enough compared to him, then you can drive against him better. And if you are too high compared to him, then you are easy to knock off balance. So, there is an ideal level at which you must keep your pads in order to win the scrimmage battle. It's something a lineman (both offensive and defensive) need to be aware of on every play. For an easy example, watch a scrum at the goal line and see how low those guys want to get.
How's that?
At the goal line some defensive linemen get low to submarine the blocker leaving the linebacker(s) ad open lane to tackle the ball carrier for little or no gain.
It was always the go to for MM in the first few years.Half Empty wrote: ↑11 May 2024 15:30Wasn't this just a smiling shot at Mike McCarthy and HIS 'pad level' concerns?
Rodgers was right about MM, MM was not and still isn't a very good HC - and that is being generous. Proof is the playoff game in January. MM had his team poorly prepared mentally and his game plan sucked. It should have been a close game and instead the Packers dominated. Anything MM said about pad level or anything else has to be taken with a grain of salt.Cdragon wrote: ↑30 May 2024 20:07It was always the go to for MM in the first few years.Half Empty wrote: ↑11 May 2024 15:30Wasn't this just a smiling shot at Mike McCarthy and HIS 'pad level' concerns?
MM was an excellent head coach for many years here. Did you forget he won a Super Bowl? Dallas has been and will continue to be a circus as long as the GM is Jerry Jones. No coach since the 90s has been able to succeed, nor will they with JJ running the show.TheSkeptic wrote: ↑31 May 2024 00:16Rodgers was right about MM, MM was not and still isn't a very good HC - and that is being generous. Proof is the playoff game in January. MM had his team poorly prepared mentally and his game plan sucked. It should have been a close game and instead the Packers dominated. Anything MM said about pad level or anything else has to be taken with a grain of salt.Cdragon wrote: ↑30 May 2024 20:07It was always the go to for MM in the first few years.Half Empty wrote: ↑11 May 2024 15:30Wasn't this just a smiling shot at Mike McCarthy and HIS 'pad level' concerns?
one sided games like that happen all the time, one team has a game plan the other didn't expect or prepare for, and because the well prepared team is actually playing really well, the other can't make the necessary adjustments, thats all that is, blaming MM is so ridiculous, the exact same thing has happened to every coach in the league, and that includes the best.TheSkeptic wrote: ↑31 May 2024 00:16Rodgers was right about MM, MM was not and still isn't a very good HC - and that is being generous. Proof is the playoff game in January. MM had his team poorly prepared mentally and his game plan sucked. It should have been a close game and instead the Packers dominated. Anything MM said about pad level or anything else has to be taken with a grain of salt.Cdragon wrote: ↑30 May 2024 20:07It was always the go to for MM in the first few years.Half Empty wrote: ↑11 May 2024 15:30Wasn't this just a smiling shot at Mike McCarthy and HIS 'pad level' concerns?
I think it was the Hundley game at Lambeau versus the Ravens (before COVID) ............ McCarthy's coaching that day was embarrassingly disgusting. It was like the entire team was in slow motion. No energy, no pop. The Packers looked like they didn't practice all week. It was a one sided game that didn't justify being a one sided game. They seemed listless. Both teams were 5 and 5. Pack lost 23-0. Uglier than ugly. UGH!Yoop wrote: ↑31 May 2024 05:47one sided games like that happen all the time, one team has a game plan the other didn't expect or prepare for, and because the well prepared team is actually playing really well, the other can't make the necessary adjustments, thats all that is, blaming MM is so ridiculous, the exact same thing has happened to every coach in the league, and that includes the best.TheSkeptic wrote: ↑31 May 2024 00:16Rodgers was right about MM, MM was not and still isn't a very good HC - and that is being generous. Proof is the playoff game in January. MM had his team poorly prepared mentally and his game plan sucked. It should have been a close game and instead the Packers dominated. Anything MM said about pad level or anything else has to be taken with a grain of salt.
MM was and still is a excellent HC, pad level equates to better chance to win the leverage battle, it's so important almost every coach harps on it continuously every season.
when winning, then the coach is great, losing and he's pond scum, in reality, there is a lot more involved, it's never really just one thing
There were people whining in Rank the Roster that Gary is not a leader like Z, haha.BSA wrote: ↑29 Jul 2024 13:17.
Jeff Hafley says Rashan Gary didn’t like the defense’s intensity recently and asked Hafley if he could speak to the defense.
Hafley seemed pumped that Gary wanted to. Intensity picked up afterward.
“That’s something that you guys might not see, but it’s important to note.”