Packers Huddle

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

11 Dec 2023 20:49

BF004 wrote: ↑

11 Dec 2023 20:48

D been mostly really good, but wanna see them make some impact plays here, couple of sacks and a turnover or two.

Play to force mistakes from Devito. Blitz him. Play more tight man or tight zone. Don't be afraid of the big play.

What I said at halftime. We didn't do any of it...

of course they didn't. If you force a mistake, you can't give the other offense enough opportunities to make a mistake silly. it's a sound defensive philosophy. I mean look, it allowed Saquon to make a mistake completely unforced. It's a law of averages. Just let them run enough plays, and you hope you survive them, and eventually it will work out.

Mike Daniels wants to know why we can't get above-average play on D?

It's simple, GB got swept up in the passing offense craze that they built their defense around stopping the pass, when stopping the run is actually fundamental to good defense, because even bad QBs/O-coaches can beat you an O can run with success.

So we keep building defenses on a shaky foundation. We rely on teams losing patience, needing to dig out of a hole or win a track meet.

If the game does not go that way, though, the defense will give up more than 20 points to teams with Desmond Ridder, Josh McDaniels, Kenny Pickett/Matt Canada, and Tommy Devito (would probably even lose to Danny Devito). Scoring against this D is ridiculously easy.

It doesn't even stop what it's designed to stop, either!! It doesn't protect leads that well. We let up a TD to Detroit to bring up the onside kick, when they had no choice but to pass on every play. KC got pretty close to tying it up last week. LA-C would have beaten us if Quinten Johnson didn't have stone hands.

All this focus on stopping the pass and big explosives, yet it's not even good at defending explosives in the pass.

Sure, but Savage, what are you doing?!

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

12 Dec 2023 10:09

I appreciate each and every one of your posts on this subject Pckfn23.

Please keep them coming.

LombardiTime wrote: ↑

12 Dec 2023 07:53

Up to 31st in the NFL in rushing defense and closing fast on the 32nd ranked Broncos.

https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/o ... s-per-game

DVOA ranking down to 28th.

Not good.

Why did MLF bother making a D-Coord change? This is literally no different from Pettine's philosophy: let opposing offenses run all over you as you focus pretty much exclusively on stopping the pass.

MLF just seems to like that Joe will make changes to the scheme/gameplan based on what MLF wants, but then that shows that MLF does not get what needs to be done on D, either (much like he similarly does not take the running game seriously on O).

I think this is in large part a result of decades-straight employment of offensive-minded head coaches, with the Ray Rhodes year as a blip on the radar (that probably scared them entirely away from looking in that direction).

Labrev wrote: ↑

12 Dec 2023 10:58

Why did MLF bother making a D-Coord change? This is literally no different from Pettine's philosophy: let opposing offenses run all over you as you focus pretty much exclusively on stopping the pass.

MLF just seems to like that Joe will make changes to the scheme/gameplan based on what MLF wants, but then that shows that MLF does not get what needs to be done on D, either (much like he similarly does not take the running game seriously on O).

I think this is in large part a result of decades-straight employment of offensive-minded head coaches, with the Ray Rhodes year as a blip on the radar (that probably scared them entirely away from looking in that direction).

Lafleur hired Barry knowing his defensive philosophy. Maybe this is what he likes to do?

LombardiTime wrote: ↑

12 Dec 2023 10:58

LombardiTime wrote: ↑

12 Dec 2023 07:53

Up to 31st in the NFL in rushing defense and closing fast on the 32nd ranked Broncos.

https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/o ... s-per-game

DVOA ranking down to 28th.

Not good.

Was gunna say, we haven’t played many quality offenses this year, guessing our DVOA was way worse than our aggregate ranks.

Counter take to the narrative

Maybe what we saw wasn’t prevent, but it was something

Labrev wrote: ↑

12 Dec 2023 10:58

Why did MLF bother making a D-Coord change? This is literally no different from Pettine's philosophy: let opposing offenses run all over you as you focus pretty much exclusively on stopping the pass.

MLF just seems to like that Joe will make changes to the scheme/gameplan based on what MLF wants, but then that shows that MLF does not get what needs to be done on D, either (much like he similarly does not take the running game seriously on O).

I think this is in large part a result of decades-straight employment of offensive-minded head coaches, with the Ray Rhodes year as a blip on the radar (that probably scared them entirely away from looking in that direction).

Go look up the Mike Daniels Twitter thread on this. It's very interesting.

And yes this is a LaFleur problem.

Labrev wrote: ↑

12 Dec 2023 10:58

Why did MLF bother making a D-Coord change? This is literally no different from Pettine's philosophy: let opposing offenses run all over you as you focus pretty much exclusively on stopping the pass.

MLF just seems to like that Joe will make changes to the scheme/gameplan based on what MLF wants, but then that shows that MLF does not get what needs to be done on D, either (much like he similarly does not take the running game seriously on O).

I think this is in large part a result of decades-straight employment of offensive-minded head coaches, with the Ray Rhodes year as a blip on the radar (that probably scared them entirely away from looking in that direction).

IT's not a Pettine thing to allow run yrds, or Barry, or Capers, or even Shummer, it's a passing league, hardly anyone beats another team solely on there ability to run the ball, it simply makes it harder to know how to defend them.

Barry seems like a roll the dice type cord, he guesses based on the opponents tendency's, so when the opponent does what he didn't plan on his guess is hard to fix in game with a bunch of rookies and inexperienced players.

and that imo is the crux of this, zone coverage requires play mate chemistry, everyone has to be on the same page or we having acreage of open space in our secondary.

it does no good to use a heavy front if the lbers don't fill the run gaps, or allow themselves to be blown off the ball, or we fail to keep a safety or LBer spying a mobile QB.

when you know your going to face one it makes zero sense not to plan for them to scramble, Barry imho is a late to supper coach, he is passive/reactive, when what we want is a aggressive/ attacking defense, Barry has to go.

BF004 wrote: ↑

12 Dec 2023 11:20

Counter take to the narrative

I disagree with this guys assessment of. The 1st down play they gained 9 yards was not what this guy is claiming.

Yoop wrote: ↑

12 Dec 2023 11:45

IT's not a Pettine thing to allow run yrds, or Barry, or Capers, or even Shummer, it's a passing league, hardly anyone beats another team solely on there ability to run the ball, it simply makes it harder to know how to defend them.

You always take things to extremes. Nobody has claimed that teams win "solely" on the run, just that if you run with success, it makes life so easy for the opposing offense that they don't need to pass much and even bad QBs/coaches (e.g. Desmond Ridder, Josh McDaniels, Tommy Devito, Matt Canada and Kenny Pickett) can beat you.

That it's a "passing league" is just more reason why they need to start up front and stop the run. If being poor against the run allows bad QBs to beat you, then obviously it is not going to be effective against top-tier passing offenses/QBs, either.

Which is why even when we are faced with offenses that abandon the run entirely, we still don't make stops!!

Drj820 wrote: ↑

12 Dec 2023 11:44

Maybe what we saw wasn’t prevent, but it was something

deep safety over 20 yrds off the ball on 3rd and 6, CB off the receiver 10 yrds on 3rd and and 8, why not just forfeit the down and just give them a first down, at least ya wouldn't look so inept.

BF004 wrote: ↑

12 Dec 2023 11:05

All losses.