Green Bay Packers Forum
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline MintBaconDrivel  
#1 Posted : Friday, September 20, 2013 7:51:26 PM(UTC)
LombardiAve said:
The two-headed Cincinnati Bengals tight end attack of rookie Tyler Eifert and Jermaine Gresham could present more of a problem for the Green Bay Packers' defense than wide receiver A.J. Green. There are two main reasons for this. First, Bengals QB Andy Dalton has targeted his young tight ends early and often. About 37 percent
Sponsor
Offline macbob  
#2 Posted : Friday, September 20, 2013 9:18:06 PM(UTC)
The article said there were two main reasons the TEs could give us more fits than AJ Green (Pass D would focus on Green, and two TE sets could help the Bengals running game), but then didn't really address the biggest problem--our pass D appears porous up the middle.

Don't know whether it's the scheme/coaching/players/execution, but TEs (or anybody going across the middle, for that matter) have eaten our lunch the last few years.

Because it keeps occurring year after year, I strongly suspect it's the scheme is flawed or too technically difficult to execute where the opponent is doing his best to create holes.
Offline DakotaT  
#3 Posted : Friday, September 20, 2013 9:22:03 PM(UTC)
macbob said: Go to Quoted Post
The article said there were two main reasons the TEs could give us more fits than AJ Green (Pass D would focus on Green, and two TE sets could help the Bengals running game), but then didn't really address the biggest problem--our pass D appears porous up the middle.

Don't know whether it's the scheme/coaching/players/execution, but TEs (or anybody going across the middle, for that matter) have eaten our lunch the last few years.

Because it keeps occurring year after year, I strongly suspect it's the scheme is flawed or too technically difficult to execute where the opponent is doing his best to create holes.


Why don't you just say our interior linebackers are unable to cover the modern tight ends? They are athletically inferior, and this isn't only a problem in Green Bay.
thanks Post received 3 applause.
texaspackerbacker on 9/20/2013(UTC), DoddPower on 9/20/2013(UTC), hardrocker950 on 9/20/2013(UTC)
Offline texaspackerbacker  
#4 Posted : Friday, September 20, 2013 9:31:19 PM(UTC)
DakotaT said: Go to Quoted Post
Why don't you just say our interior linebackers are unable to cover the modern tight ends? They are athletically inferior, and this isn't only a problem in Green Bay.


Exactly what I was gonna say; We'll see whether our genius defensive coordinator can devise a solution. Myself, I think I'd try using Hawk and B. Jones a lot more as blitzers.
Offline hardrocker950  
#5 Posted : Friday, September 20, 2013 9:59:15 PM(UTC)
DakotaT said: Go to Quoted Post
Why don't you just say our interior linebackers are unable to cover the modern tight ends? They are athletically inferior, and this isn't only a problem in Green Bay.


I agree -more teams have been getting burned over the middle, it isn't just the Pack. It seems like they are playing deeper zones than they should be - probably to precent the big plays. I would think more man to man would help this, or at least being more physical off the line. That extra moment gives the guys up front a better chance to get to the QB - even fractions of a second can be the difference between a sack and a TD.

This is simply a fan's view from the couch, but from memory and speculation - this seems to be the case.
Curious on other's thoughts.
Offline SINCITYCHEEZE  
#6 Posted : Saturday, September 21, 2013 12:28:06 PM(UTC)
Well here might be a novel idea Think . Cover the middle of the field maybe Confused ???????? Is it that hard of a concept to grasp [shrug] [shrug] ???? I hate to keep [horse] [horse], but isn't the definition of insanity [duh] [aiee] doing the same thing the same way over and over hoping for a different outcome?
thanks Post received 1 applause.
Wade on 9/22/2013(UTC)
Offline hardrocker950  
#7 Posted : Saturday, September 21, 2013 9:23:38 PM(UTC)
SINCITYCHEEZE said: Go to Quoted Post
Well here might be a novel idea Think . Cover the middle of the field maybe Confused ???????? Is it that hard of a concept to grasp [shrug] [shrug] ???? I hate to keep [horse] [horse], but isn't the definition of insanity [duh] [aiee] doing the same thing the same way over and over hoping for a different outcome?


Yep, couldn't agree more. The philosophy seems to be a conservative approach. You force them to take the smaller yardage plays, which seems find and dandy - except it leaves them the chance to kill you with first down after first down. A little disruption would force more bad passes whether the disruption come from the secondary or up front. Please, just try something different Dom!
Offline dhpackr  
#8 Posted : Sunday, September 22, 2013 6:23:24 AM(UTC)
SINCITYCHEEZE said: Go to Quoted Post
Well here might be a novel idea Think . Cover the middle of the field maybe Confused ???????? Is it that hard of a concept to grasp [shrug] [shrug] ???? I hate to keep [horse] [horse], but isn't the definition of insanity [duh] [aiee] doing the same thing the same way over and over hoping for a different outcome?


Cover the middle with who?

Safety is the weakest position on the Packers, I think the best way to combat Bengals dbl te set is to try and keep the Bengals Offense off the field..

Online beast  
#9 Posted : Sunday, September 22, 2013 6:40:22 AM(UTC)
dhpackr said: Go to Quoted Post
Cover the middle with who?

Safety is the weakest position on the Packers, I think the best way to combat Bengals dbl te set is to try and keep the Bengals Offense off the field..



I think that giving the defense, long drives on the beach to get breathers is always a good thing. But I think what would be best is for the Packers to get a pretty good lead where the Bengals offense isn't trying to run as much and the Packers can set free their pass rushers.


Also it seems like Capers has done a lot of all NTs (Pickett, Raji and Jolly) on run downs and a lot of No NTs (on non-run downs)... which is working, but I think it might be interesting seeing them mix it up some.

Raji, Daniels, Jolly

Daniels might not have the normal arm length for 3-4 DE, but he's still very good penetrator and getting him as a pass rushing in the Middle with two guys two gap (run stuffing) on the outside of him would be interesting and would follow Wade Phillips game plan of how he used Jay Ratliff, which worked pretty well. Though I still say Ratliff wasn't a NT, he was a pass rusher.

Jones, Pickett, Neal or Wilson

Pickett in the middle to clog the middle while pass rushers on both sides might also be interesting making it hard to run up the middle and on one side you got Datone Jones and Nick Perry coming down on you, on the other you got Clay Matthews and either Mike Neal or C.J. Wilson.

Wilson could be put in there for more of run downs, and with his run stopping / mobility might free up Matthews some if used right, so Matthews could focus more on attack and if attack the QB and the Rb gets it hopefully Wilson MIGHT be able to cover the edge if he knows he is suppost to have it with Matthews rushing up the field. Which is something I think the Ravens do at times... they plan on their inside guy getting the edge because they telling the OLB to rush up field and get into the back field even if it means you lose the edge, and have another guy move towards the edge when they call it.

Rss Feed 
Users browsing this topic
Guest
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Notification

Icon
Error


Recent Topics
2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / RaiderPride

8h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

10h / Green Bay Packers Talk / DakotaT

14h / Green Bay Packers Talk / steveishere

27-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

27-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / packerfanoutwest

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / steveishere

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / steveishere

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Smokey

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Smokey

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / DakotaT

25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann


Tweeter