2023 Packers Defense Expectations?

[LombardiTime]

With yesterday's "leave them open and hope they drop it" pass defense leading to just 20 points for the Chargers and given some of the really bad offenses still to play, there is an excellent chance GB finishes in the top 10 in scoring defense in 2023.

That, coupled with MLF's impassioned defense of Barry this past week, leads me to conclude Joe B will be back in 2024.

And that would be a shame.

While I see real reason for optimism with the young talent on offense, I do not get the same feeling on defense and I attribute that to the coaching and scheme.

[Pckfn23]

[APB]

We are not alone, Packers fans...

[wallyuwl]

We are not alone, Packers fans...

This is part of why they are 28th or whatever in defense.

[Pckfn23]

[Labrev]

I feel like I saw the vision on defense and of MLF's "complimentary football" yesterday.

We get out to a big, fast lead, make the other team abandon the run and become one-dimensional, then have guys like Gary, Clark, Wyatt, Brooks, Enagbare, Wooden all pin their ears back and get after the QB, overwhelm with our pass-rush, force them off the field and/or turnovers... that's ball game.

I hate to be a downer, but as good as it looked when realized, I question if it's a sustainable model. I believe in Love, but I think we are asking a lot of an offense run by a first-year starter at QB to consistently come out hot out of the gate. And it is not enough to just have the lead, it has to be a big lead, because if the Lions just needed a TD to win at the end, this D would have failed to stop it.

In fairness, we had a skeleton crew in the secondary, but still, if the idea is that the pass-rush will just overwhelm to create turnovers and shut down the opposing offense, that didn't exactly happen. And not all QBs are as bad against pressure as Goff.

[Yoop]

I feel like I saw the vision on defense and of MLF's "complimentary football" yesterday.

We get out to a big, fast lead, make the other team abandon the run and become one-dimensional, then have guys like Gary, Clark, Wyatt, Brooks, Enagbare, Wooden all pin their ears back and get after the QB, overwhelm with our pass-rush, force them off the field and/or turnovers... that's ball game.

I hate to be a downer, but as good as it looked when realized, I question if it's a sustainable model. I believe in Love, but I think we are asking a lot of an offense run by a first-year starter at QB to consistently come out hot out of the gate. And it is not enough to just have the lead, it has to be a big lead, because if the Lions just needed a TD to win at the end, this D would have failed to stop it.

In fairness, we had a skeleton crew in the secondary, but still, if the idea is that the pass-rush will just overwhelm to create turnovers and shut down the opposing offense, that didn't exactly happen. And not all QBs are as bad against pressure as Goff.

the difference was 3 DT's, 2 DE/OLB, and either bring all 5 or dropping one, that heavier front was not only getting pressure, but also closing run lanes, we should have been doing this all year, all last year, and for the 10 years prior to boot.

let our CB's play man coverage, less missed assignments, obviously that wont hold up with these young CB's and safety's minus quality pass rush, but that was a good offense those schemes shut down yesterday, the proof as they say is the taste test, and that tasted sweet yesterday.

[Scott4Pack]

I feel like I saw the vision on defense and of MLF's "complimentary football" yesterday.

We get out to a big, fast lead, make the other team abandon the run and become one-dimensional, then have guys like Gary, Clark, Wyatt, Brooks, Enagbare, Wooden all pin their ears back and get after the QB, overwhelm with our pass-rush, force them off the field and/or turnovers... that's ball game.

I hate to be a downer, but as good as it looked when realized, I question if it's a sustainable model. I believe in Love, but I think we are asking a lot of an offense run by a first-year starter at QB to consistently come out hot out of the gate. And it is not enough to just have the lead, it has to be a big lead, because if the Lions just needed a TD to win at the end, this D would have failed to stop it.

In fairness, we had a skeleton crew in the secondary, but still, if the idea is that the pass-rush will just overwhelm to create turnovers and shut down the opposing offense, that didn't exactly happen. And not all QBs are as bad against pressure as Goff.

the difference was 3 DT's, 2 DE/OLB, and either bring all 5 or dropping one, that heavier front was not only getting pressure, but also closing run lanes, we should have been doing this all year, all last year, and for the 10 years prior to boot.

let our CB's play man coverage, less missed assignments, obviously that wont hold up with these young CB's and safety's minus quality pass rush, but that was a good offense those schemes shut down yesterday, the proof as they say is the taste test, and that tasted sweet yesterday.

Yoop, that could perhaps be your most insightful comment in the past five years. I concur! When JoeB lets his dogs run, they usually do good things. And with a dinged up secondary, we really need that front to do good things. So why not motivate them to penetrate and make good stuff happen?

We see a real trend in our defense either way. It sucks the first half of the season and then increases intensity after October. I don't like that level of performance one bit. But now that we are in the end of November and possibly in the hunt for a playoff spot, I'm settling for being thankful that it looks like our D is playing up to or beyond acceptable levels.

[Madcity_matt]

Tough to ask of a first year starter, but I consider this entire season a freeroll. More realistic for next year though. this offense has some electric in it already, just needs more consistency.

[Labrev]

the difference was 3 DT's, 2 DE/OLB, and either bring all 5 or dropping one, that heavier front was not only getting pressure, but also closing run lanes,

I did not see them closing running lanes. Montgomery looked like he was getting close to 5 yards on every run. And upon looking it up, yes, Montgomery was running at a 4.7 ypc, Gibbs 4.9. We actually did a better job against him when they blew us out, when his ypc then was sub-4.0.

They just could not stick with the run because they felt the need to play catch-up (IMO they would have been better off being patient and running the ball, seeing as Goff is bad when he's pressured and they couldn't stop us from getting in his face).

[lupedafiasco]

I thought the difference in the run game was the players getting off blocks. People have bitched about Barry, and I’m not a fan either but players need to get off blocks and win their matchups.

I felt the LBs in particular who have been terrible this season getting downfield and beating their blocks were terrific Thursday.

[Pckfn23]

If your run defense depends on a defender getting off a block and making a play instead of scheming a one on one with the ball carrier, you are doing it wrong.

[APB]

Never would have expected Valentine to perform this well. Still not sure I trust him completely - Mahomes and Co. should provide a good test - but damn he's been a pleasant surprise thus far.

[go pak go]

Got bailed out a couple times. Especially vs the Chargers. Should have had a game winner against Valentine.

But thought he played St Brown pretty well. I was really hoping he could have found a way to rip that ball away from St Brown on that 50/50 ball.

[Yoop]

If your run defense depends on a defender getting off a block and making a play instead of scheming a one on one with the ball carrier, you are doing it wrong.

there isn't a dc in this league that would agree with that statement

[Pckfn23]

If your run defense depends on a defender getting off a block and making a play instead of scheming a one on one with the ball carrier, you are doing it wrong.

there isn't a dc in this league that would agree with that statement

I see you are in argue mode yet again, so I will let you believe your incorrect assumption.

[Yoop]

If your run defense depends on a defender getting off a block and making a play instead of scheming a one on one with the ball carrier, you are doing it wrong.

there isn't a dc in this league that would agree with that statement

I see you are in argue mode yet again, so I will let you believe your incorrect assumption.

it's not incorrect, and disagreeing with you or anyone isn't me in argue mode, quit making stupid statements and I wont call them out,
that you think 20 fronts and 2 gapping is wrong, or playing nickel when there is no way to man up every gap, is just your opinion, maybe state it as such next time.

[Pckfn23]

there isn't a dc in this league that would agree with that statement

I see you are in argue mode yet again, so I will let you believe your incorrect assumption.

it's not incorrect, and disagreeing with you or anyone isn't me in argue mode, quit making stupid statements and I wont call them out,
that you think 20 fronts and 2 gapping is wrong, or playing nickel when there is no way to man up every gap, is just your opinion, maybe state it as such next time.

I didn't say any of those things. FFS you are insufferable. Read what people write and respond to that...

[lupedafiasco]

I never said anything about the scheme depending on getting off blocks. I just stated the defenders were doing a better job of doing it and lowing up plays.

L post by the b-boy.

[Yoop]

I see you are in argue mode yet again, so I will let you believe your incorrect assumption.

it's not incorrect, and disagreeing with you or anyone isn't me in argue mode, quit making stupid statements and I wont call them out,
that you think 20 fronts and 2 gapping is wrong, or playing nickel when there is no way to man up every gap, is just your opinion, maybe state it as such next time.

I didn't say any of those things. FFS you are insufferable. Read what people write and respond to that...

alright, how is a DC going to know a run play is coming, thats why I said NO DC is going to agree with such a generic statement, unless it's a obvious run down he wouldn't know, and even if he did he might not be able to sub in a base front.

my reading issues aside, the way you and others word stuff is confusing.