Packers Huddle

Bowles spent some of his early coaching career under Wade Phillips in Dallas, so I would imagine that is a big influence that relates directly to Barry's. But Bowels, that more directly describes Dom Capers defenses.

Gotta make sure if our influence is Bowels that we aren't loose.

It is officially the offseason isn't it? We've resorted to poop jokes.

When Bowels was at Lactose St. it was pretty compact.

They regularly went to the big bowl.

Packers made the Barry hire official. So last hopes for a Bowles movement are dashed.

NCF wrote: ↑

08 Feb 2021 11:27

Bowles spent some of his early coaching career under Wade Phillips in Dallas, so I would imagine that is a big influence that relates directly to Barry's. But Bowels, that more directly describes Dom Capers defenses.

whoops my point was Bowles, like Brady has coached under a lot of coaches and most have at least one scheme in common, cover 2, 4 man front, light box and 2 deep safety, and all did well when they had a bunch of talent, and not so good when they didn't, yep, sorta like Capers.

paco wrote: ↑

08 Feb 2021 14:06

Packers made the Barry hire official. So last hopes for a Bowles movement are down the toilet.

FIFY

Piggybacking off another thread about how to get pressure: Getting pressure can also go hand in hand with run defense philosophy. There are a few options when it comes to philosophy of run defense.

First, you have your 2 gap, at the line, run defenders. They can't be penetrating into the backfield and be a 2 gap run defender, so that will hinder your pass rush at the start of the down. This defender HAS TO get into the blocker one of 2 ways. They can be head up with the ability to shuck that blocker and make a tackle, or they can shade putting the blocker in 1 gap and the defender occupies the other. The latter is rarely used in the NFL because the defender gives up their leverage and gives an advantage to the blocker than they defender can only overcome by brutal strength. This is especially true with the popularity of zone blocking schemes. Ultimately this style of run defense sets up the defender for a tough transition from run defense to rushing the passer.

Second, you have you have 1 gap line defenders where the they occupy 1 gap and either anchor or surf. The defender steps into their assigned gap, usually to the hip of the blocker. If that blocker continues to block down they surf with them at the line to continue to occupy their gap. If the blocker does not block down and engages the defender, the defender must anchor to not get blocked out of their gap. This does help with the transition to pass rush as their would not be a defender in good position to pass block, but the defender has lost backfield momentum allowing a blocker to regain leverage.

Third, is your 1 gap penetrating run defender. Basically step into a gap and get into the backfield. This disrupts timing and can stop a runner before they get going. The downside is that it can open up some huge creases. From a pass rush standpoint this is the best for transition from run defense to pass rush as the defender is already in the backfield with momentum.

All 3 of these are used on every team throughout a game. It's a mix and match to keep offenses guessing. Where the differences come in is how much coordinators want to use each style. We have tended to go with first 2 much more than the 3rd. It sounds like we may be moving the pendulum more to the 3rd option now. I like that move. It is riskier, but the pay off can be huge, especially with a very good offense.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

08 Feb 2021 15:54

Third, is your 1 gap penetrating run defender. Basically step into a gap and get into the backfield. This disrupts timing and can stop a runner before they get going. The downside is that it can open up some huge creases. From a pass rush standpoint this is the best for transition from run defense to pass rush as the defender is already in the backfield with momentum.

Can a really good ILB help mitigate this risk because they have the ability to plug a crease/hole better to make up for the gash provided by the front 3 or 4 Dlinemen?

go pak go wrote: ↑

08 Feb 2021 18:12

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

08 Feb 2021 15:54

Third, is your 1 gap penetrating run defender. Basically step into a gap and get into the backfield. This disrupts timing and can stop a runner before they get going. The downside is that it can open up some huge creases. From a pass rush standpoint this is the best for transition from run defense to pass rush as the defender is already in the backfield with momentum.

Can a really good ILB help mitigate this risk because they have the ability to plug a crease/hole better to make up for the gash provided by the front 3 or 4 Dlinemen?

A really good ILB covers up a lot of things.

I mean the Fangio style defense seemed to always highlight a great ILB.

I just wonder if that is a route the Packers will actually take seriously now.

go pak go wrote: ↑

08 Feb 2021 18:34

I mean the Fangio style defense seemed to always highlight a great ILB.

I just wonder if that is a route the Packers will actually take seriously now.

This is what stood out to me too. Fast athletic ILB. Our rookies did do a good job, and hopefully can grow next year. But are they the answer? How big of need is ILB?

Also it has been awhile since the hiring. Surprised we have not had any rumors of assistant coaches coming and leaving.

kampmanfan4life wrote: ↑

08 Feb 2021 19:45

go pak go wrote: ↑

08 Feb 2021 18:34

I mean the Fangio style defense seemed to always highlight a great ILB.

I just wonder if that is a route the Packers will actually take seriously now.

This is what stood out to me too. Fast athletic ILB. Our rookies did do a good job, and hopefully can grow next year. But are they the answer? How big of need is ILB?

Also it has been awhile since the hiring. Surprised we have not had any rumors of assistant coaches coming and leaving.

All of the assistants are under contract, my guess is no news means many are staying. Mark doesnt seem like the type of guy to want to pay too many people to sit at home.

go pak go wrote: ↑

08 Feb 2021 18:34

I mean the Fangio style defense seemed to always highlight a great ILB.

I just wonder if that is a route the Packers will actually take seriously now.

Ive always thought it was a form of malpractice how little respect we have given to the ILB position over the years. I mean think about it, what great defense has not had above average ILB play? Not sure there are any at all. Yet, we play a game of trying to see how little of resources we can put into the position year after year. I love the ILB position and not being able to watch a great one on the Packers in many years has actually chapped me for years.

And its probably not ALL Guteys fault. I still remember the Presser where Pettine said he was asked what he needed..and he was given what he needed. So I guess he thought he could have a great D without a great ILB...kind of a silly thing to think.

That said, I fully expect the D will role with Barnes and maybe Martin next year, and I am actually okay with that. They showed enough in their rookie years to be given the chance to grab the position by the horns, esp with how many other needs we have.

Back in 2008 I was really adamant about moving from 4-3 to 3-4. But I think it's time to go back to pressure with the front 4. And yeah I know nowadays, it's not as black and white as 3-4 vs 4-3 anymore, but I agree with what yall have been saying about ideally getting pressure from the interior front as opposed to the edges. Which sucks, because our team is built around EDGE, and maybe we keep it that way because that's what we have the personnel for, but I think it's every team's dream to get front 4 pressure

4-3 or 3-4, it doesn't really matter when it comes to getting pressure with the front 4. In a 4-3 you know who the front 4 are at all times. In a 3-4, 1 of the 5 front guys is going to drop. If a team wants to emphasis interior pressure over EDGE pressure then a 3-4 is probably a better bet, more interior guys.

That said, it's a horse a piece. What base is, is simply a blueprint on what you are looking for in personnel, not much more these days. Even then it has become muddled. For example, our OLBs are more typical 4-3 DEs as far as body makeup is concerned.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

09 Feb 2021 00:16

4-3 or 3-4, it doesn't really matter when it comes to getting pressure with the front 4. In a 4-3 you know who the front 4 are at all times. In a 3-4, 1 of the 5 front guys is going to drop. If a team wants to emphasis interior pressure over EDGE pressure then a 3-4 is probably a better bet, more interior guys.

That said, it's a horse a piece. What base is, is simply a blueprint on what you are looking for in personnel, not much more these days. Even then it has become muddled. For example, our OLBs are more typical 4-3 DEs as far as body makeup is concerned.

Agree that the OLB's are better suited to DE. But the critical man in a 4-3 is the middle LB. The Butkus, Nitschke or Urlacher. Who do the Packers have that could play MLB?

go pak go wrote: ↑

08 Feb 2021 18:34

I mean the Fangio style defense seemed to always highlight a great ILB.

I just wonder if that is a route the Packers will actually take seriously now.

That's why I'd look for the Pack to use an early pick for an ILB, unless they find one in FA. Are there any good ones going to be available that have experience with Barry?

texas wrote: ↑

08 Feb 2021 23:55

Back in 2008 I was really adamant about moving from 4-3 to 3-4. But I think it's time to go back to pressure with the front 4. And yeah I know nowadays, it's not as black and white as 3-4 vs 4-3 anymore, but I agree with what yall have been saying about ideally getting pressure from the interior front as opposed to the edges. Which sucks, because our team is built around EDGE, and maybe we keep it that way because that's what we have the personnel for, but I think it's every team's dream to get front 4 pressure

what exactly is it that you think we do now besides pressure with the front 4? seriously that is what we do on over 90% of our rushes, and we have been single gaping our DT's, go look up Clarks pass pressures, still we have to protect our ILB's, when we use a 5 man front someone has to drop or we have to large of spaces we can't protect.

what team isn't built around edge rushers? unless you have some really good DT's which are harder to find then good edge rushers thats how you have to do it.

people act as though excellent DT's are easy to come by, Thompson spent a half doz or more high picks on D lineman, mostly misses, and thats the average around the league, even top 10 have a near 50% bust rate or never play up to draft status.

everyone wants interior pass rush, problem is the ones that actually are good interior pass rushers are few and very expensive, they don't have to be as good as Aaron Donald, but they have to be better then the ones we have not named Clark.

Yoop wrote: ↑

09 Feb 2021 08:17

what exactly is it that you think we do now besides pressure with the front 4? seriously that is what we do on over 90% of our rushes, and we have been single gaping our DT's, go look up Clarks pass pressures, still we have to protect our ILB's, when we use a 5 man front someone has to drop or we have to large of spaces we can't protect.

what team isn't built around edge rushers? unless you have some really good DT's which are harder to find then good edge rushers thats how you have to do it.

people act as though excellent DT's are easy to come by, Thompson spent a half doz or more high picks on D lineman, mostly misses, and thats the average around the league, even top 10 have a near 50% bust rate or never play up to draft status.

everyone wants interior pass rush, problem is the ones that actually are good interior pass rushers are few and very expensive, they don't have to be as good as Aaron Donald, but they have to be better then the ones we have not named Clark.

Actually I think our DT//Interior Line hit rate was really good. Let's look at them the last 10 years of picks in the first 5 rounds.

1. BJ Raji - I would still call this a win. Even if it wasn't for long. That was more on BJ and his family.
2. Jerel Worhty - This was a miss. His injury didn't help. But it was a miss.
3. Mike Daniels - Definitely a hit
4. Khrie Thornton - Definitely a miss
5. Kenny Clark - Hit
6. Montravious Adams - Miss. Primarily due to injuries. He definitely flashed.
7. Kingsley Keke - I would call it a hit at the round value.

So we are looking at 3 DEFINITE hits. 1 Hit. 3 Misses.

I would say our DE's were much of the problem.
1. Nick Perry - He was more of edge. Definitely had talent. Just injuries and poor extension.
2. Datone Jones - Miss
3. Dean Lowry - I would say the value was fine. The contract extension was where the mistake was. Should have been about 75% of the value.
4. Rashan Gary - too early but it looks like a hit.

So we are likely lookin at above 50% for DE body types.

I think the Datone Jones , Jerel Worthy, Khyrie Thornton and NIck Perry selections just set this narrative too much because it all happened really in a two year span.