Welcome Guest! You can login or register.
Login or Register.
PACKERSHOME
»
Lambeau Field
»
Green Bay Packers Talk
»
Bengals Tight ends Tyler Eifert and Jermaine Gresham Present Problems for Packers
#1
Posted
:
Friday, September 20, 2013 7:51:26 PM(UTC)
Joined: 12/11/2012(UTC)
Applause Received: 158
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
#2
Posted
:
Friday, September 20, 2013 9:18:06 PM(UTC)
Joined: 10/12/2008(UTC)
Applause Given: 382
Applause Received: 333
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.
#3
Posted
:
Friday, September 20, 2013 9:22:03 PM(UTC)
Joined: 8/18/2008(UTC)
Applause Given: 1,069
Applause Received: 2,136
macbob said: 
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.
#4
Posted
:
Friday, September 20, 2013 9:31:19 PM(UTC)
Joined: 3/4/2013(UTC)
Location: Texas
Applause Given: 670
Applause Received: 489
DakotaT said: 
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.
#5
Posted
:
Friday, September 20, 2013 9:59:15 PM(UTC)
Joined: 11/10/2009(UTC)
Applause Given: 169
Applause Received: 211
DakotaT said: 
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.
#6
Posted
:
Saturday, September 21, 2013 12:28:06 PM(UTC)
Joined: 8/7/2008(UTC)
Applause Given: 187
Applause Received: 115
Well here might be a novel idea :-k . Cover the middle of the field maybe

???????? Is it that hard of a concept to grasp

???? 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?
#7
Posted
:
Saturday, September 21, 2013 9:23:38 PM(UTC)
Joined: 11/10/2009(UTC)
Applause Given: 169
Applause Received: 211
SINCITYCHEEZE said: 
Well here might be a novel idea :-k . Cover the middle of the field maybe

???????? Is it that hard of a concept to grasp

???? 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!
#8
Posted
:
Sunday, September 22, 2013 6:23:24 AM(UTC)
Joined: 12/12/2007(UTC)
Applause Given: 36
Applause Received: 36
SINCITYCHEEZE said: 
Well here might be a novel idea :-k . Cover the middle of the field maybe

???????? Is it that hard of a concept to grasp

???? 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..
#9
Posted
:
Sunday, September 22, 2013 6:40:22 AM(UTC)
Joined: 10/5/2008(UTC)
Applause Given: 891
Applause Received: 1,188
dhpackr said: 
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.
Users browsing this topic
PACKERSHOME
»
Lambeau Field
»
Green Bay Packers Talk
»
Bengals Tight ends Tyler Eifert and Jermaine Gresham Present Problems for Packers
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.