Join Our Green Bay Packers Interactive Community!

We have been providing fans with the best source of Packers information since 2006!
Your participation is greatly anticipated!
Login or Register.
3 Pages<123>
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline nerdmann  
#26 Posted : Thursday, January 17, 2013 4:22:17 PM(UTC)
nerdmann

Rank: Most Valuable Player

Joined: 9/14/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 2,715
Applause Received: 667

Originally Posted by: DakotaT Go to Quoted Post
To me, our biggest need is DL, and that depends on the resigning of Pickett. Raji and Pickett should be platooning at the NT position, not playing next to each other, so they can stay fresh. But that would mean Mike Neal needs to stay healthy and take the next step, along with Worthy at the other DE. So I could see us picking up another DE with a high pick, and a developmental NT is definitely needed because Daniels is just not big enough to play the position. I fully expect to see Pickett resigned because I think he wants to be a Packer and will take a little less to stay. There is no such thing as being too stacked on the DL.



Assuming they don't go back to a 4-3 with Perry moving to DE.
“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”
Offline Pack93z  
#27 Posted : Thursday, January 17, 2013 4:56:52 PM(UTC)
Pack93z

Rank: Hall of Famer

PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Bronze: 2012

United States
Joined: 3/16/2007(UTC)
Location: North Central Wisconsin

Applause Given: 400
Applause Received: 1,078

Pickett has another year on his contract unless I missed something in the last couple days.

High cap number.. but still signed. Are you stating he should be reworked at a lower number?
I think when there's enough will and aggression, there's no shortage of talent either.

UserPostedImage
Offline Gaycandybacon  
#28 Posted : Thursday, January 17, 2013 4:59:37 PM(UTC)
Gaycandybacon

Rank: 4th Round Draft Pick

United States
Joined: 9/17/2012(UTC)
Location: Hanover Park, IL

Applause Given: 145
Applause Received: 178

What about Benson? Will he be back next year? Him and Arod seem very close. I wouldn't mind him and Harris splitting carries.

Message modified by user Friday, January 18, 2013 12:15:49 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Offline nerdmann  
#29 Posted : Thursday, January 17, 2013 5:51:36 PM(UTC)
nerdmann

Rank: Most Valuable Player

Joined: 9/14/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 2,715
Applause Received: 667

Originally Posted by: Gaycandybacon Go to Quoted Post
What about Benson? Will he be back next year? Him and Arod seem very close. I wouldn't him and Harris splitting carries.


Can't rely on that foot. It's been a problem before.
“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”
Offline PackFanWithTwins  
#30 Posted : Thursday, January 17, 2013 6:24:55 PM(UTC)
PackFanWithTwins

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Joined: 9/26/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 13
Applause Received: 398

Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan Go to Quoted Post
I don't see the switch happening. Management likes the 3-4 because it is easier/ cheaper to find 8 LB's than it is to find 8 DL. The 3-4 is arguably better for special teams also because you have more LB's instead of DL available.

Then there is our current roster. CM3 is a special player in the 3-4. In the 4-3, he would be wasted. Much like Aaron Kampman was in the transition the other way. The difference is CM3>>>>> Kampy. So why would you make a change that essentially nullifies your best player? It would be like installing the Wildcat on Offense. If you take Aaron Rodgers away from the ball, the other team wins. Putting Matthews as a 4-3 LB would be to the advantage of the Bears, Lions, etc.

But I've been wrong before. Lots. More than anyone else, I bet. Just ask my wife.


While I am not proposing a swith to 4-3. Matthews would not be wasted as a 4-3 LBer. He could make an outstanding MLB in a 4-3. He would be like Urlacher. His pass rush ability would allow him to keep blockers off him in run support, he has the coverage skills and his speed would work good covering sideline to sideline.
The world needs ditch diggers to Danny!!!
UserPostedImage
Offline DakotaT  
#31 Posted : Thursday, January 17, 2013 9:32:48 PM(UTC)
DakotaT

Rank: Super Bowl MVP

Joined: 8/18/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 669
Applause Received: 1,376

Originally Posted by: Pack93z Go to Quoted Post
Pickett has another year on his contract unless I missed something in the last couple days.

High cap number.. but still signed. Are you stating he should be reworked at a lower number?


I thought Pickett was up this year.
UserPostedImage
Offline QCHuskerFan  
#32 Posted : Friday, January 18, 2013 9:00:32 AM(UTC)
QCHuskerFan

Rank: 6th Round Draft Pick

Joined: 12/30/2010(UTC)

Applause Given: 96
Applause Received: 161

Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins Go to Quoted Post
While I am not proposing a swith to 4-3. Matthews would not be wasted as a 4-3 LBer. He could make an outstanding MLB in a 4-3. He would be like Urlacher. His pass rush ability would allow him to keep blockers off him in run support, he has the coverage skills and his speed would work good covering sideline to sideline.


He wouldn't be wasted, but not outstanding. Less utilized in his area of excellence.

It would be like Detroit moving Calvin Johnson to safety. Yes, he might be productive there. But why would you do that?
Offline Wade  
#33 Posted : Friday, January 18, 2013 10:22:57 AM(UTC)
Wade

Rank: All Pro

Joined: 8/1/2009(UTC)
Location: nowhere of importance

Applause Given: 684
Applause Received: 717

Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan Go to Quoted Post
He wouldn't be wasted, but not outstanding. Less utilized in his area of excellence.

It would be like Detroit moving Calvin Johnson to safety. Yes, he might be productive there. But why would you do that?


Because you're the Lions?

Big Grin

And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
thanks Post received 1 applause.
QCHuskerFan on 1/18/2013(UTC)
Offline doddpower  
#34 Posted : Friday, January 18, 2013 10:55:13 AM(UTC)
DoddPower

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Gold: 2011

United States
Joined: 9/24/2007(UTC)
Location: Visalia, CA

Applause Given: 2,097
Applause Received: 530

Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan Go to Quoted Post
He wouldn't be wasted, but not outstanding. Less utilized in his area of excellence.

It would be like Detroit moving Calvin Johnson to safety. Yes, he might be productive there. But why would you do that?


LOL, it's not even close to being that extreme of a change. CM3 would still be rushing the passer on passing downs exactly as he has been doing since he entered the league, and likely still playing defensive end on some variations of base packages, as well. He would just be utilized in different roles in a creative 4-3 hybrid scheme; sometimes a MLB, sometimes an OLB for a play or two, etc. Make no mistake about it, he would still be the teams best pass rusher, and no defense coordinator worthy of the title would not allow him to rush the passer most of the time.

I agree with the overall premise though that CM3 is ultimately likely best suited for a 3-4 OLB, but I don't think there would be that big of a difference in a 4-3 with the right coach. It's still a completely different scenario than moving Kampman to OLB. Clay already drops into coverage and spies often as it is, and he can rush the QB and play in space at an elite level. Not to mention, it can be argued that almost every other defensive player is either better suited for a hybrid 4-3 style of defense or, at the very least, as suited as they are for a 3-4. The net effect of that could easily be better defensive play around the board.

It doesn't matter though, as this discussion is just an interesting thought experiment. The Packers are sticking with a 3-4 under Dom Capers. I'm fine with that, but I think giving Ray Horton a shot at defensive coordinator would be a "risk" well worth taking.
Online Zero2Cool  
#35 Posted : Friday, January 18, 2013 12:12:14 PM(UTC)
Zero2Cool

Rank: Legend

Yahoo! Fantasy Football - Gold: 2009FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Silver: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2011ESPN NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2013

United States
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI

Applause Given: 1,969
Applause Received: 2,231

Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan Go to Quoted Post
He wouldn't be wasted, but not outstanding. Less utilized in his area of excellence.

It would be like Detroit moving Calvin Johnson to safety. Yes, he might be productive there. But why would you do that?


What? How the heck do you compare moving a WR to S equally as moving a 3 - 4 OLB to a 4 - 3 DE? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Those are vastly different sets of skills between the two, one striking difference is the requirement to go from breaking tackles to actually making tackles.




Why couldn't Clay Matthews play OLB in a 4 - 3? Why would he have to be switched to a DE? My high level understanding would be he'd benefit from having another guy on the DL which would allow him to unleash on the QB.
"I do not think there is any thrill that can go through the human heart like that felt by the inventor as he sees some creation of the brain unfolding to success... such emotions make a man forget food, sleep, friends, love, everything." - Nikola Tesla

UserPostedImage
Offline QCHuskerFan  
#36 Posted : Friday, January 18, 2013 1:37:16 PM(UTC)
QCHuskerFan

Rank: 6th Round Draft Pick

Joined: 12/30/2010(UTC)

Applause Given: 96
Applause Received: 161

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool Go to Quoted Post
What? How the heck do you compare moving a WR to S equally as moving a 3 - 4 OLB to a 4 - 3 DE? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Those are vastly different sets of skills between the two, one striking difference is the requirement to go from breaking tackles to actually making tackles.




Why couldn't Clay Matthews play OLB in a 4 - 3? Why would he have to be switched to a DE? My high level understanding would be he'd benefit from having another guy on the DL which would allow him to unleash on the QB.


The point is that every team we face would be elated if we made Matthews into a 4-3 LB. Because it would limit his pass rushing. Much like making Johnson a safety would excite every team because it would be taking him away from catching touchdowns.

Let's try again. Does Minny make a habit of splitting AP out wide? No. Why? Well, if he is split out wide, it removes the threat of him running the ball. If the defense doesn't have to defend the run with AP, is their life better? Yes. So by continually splitting him out wide, Minny would help the other team. Lining CM3 up as an outside backer in a 4-3 would be removing him from the role he performs best. Yes, I know he can still blitz. But he would not be rushing the QB as much as he does in a 3-4. It's not possible.

Let's look at the 4-3 for a second. A 4-3 is designed to pressure the QB with the DL. So don't tell me he can still rush the QB a lot, because the defense is designed to not need that. When you blitz in a 4-3 you either rush 5 and depend on 6 to cover which is a risk, or you drop a 290lb lineman into coverage, again, not ideal.

Let's not even think about CM3 as a middle backer. That's just wrong.
Offline Rockmolder  
#37 Posted : Friday, January 18, 2013 1:49:55 PM(UTC)
Rockmolder

Rank: Super Bowl MVP

FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Bronze: 2010

Netherlands
Joined: 9/14/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 161
Applause Received: 263

Didn't seem to stop Von Miller a whole lot in his first year with the Broncos.

You can use a LB in a pass rushing role very effectively in a 4-3, as well. It's not like he's always coming on the rush in the 3-4. Maybe the drop back percentage would be a bit higher, but not that crazy.

Don't know why we're having this discusson, though. If there's one thing that doesn't work, it's switching schemes every four years. Don't know why it'd be necessary to go to the 4-3, all of a sudden. Especially since everyone was jumping out of joy when we fired Sanders and went to the 3-4 with Capers.
UserPostedImage
Offline doddpower  
#38 Posted : Friday, January 18, 2013 2:12:25 PM(UTC)
DoddPower

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Gold: 2011

United States
Joined: 9/24/2007(UTC)
Location: Visalia, CA

Applause Given: 2,097
Applause Received: 530

Originally Posted by: Rockmolder Go to Quoted Post
Didn't seem to stop Von Miller a whole lot in his first year with the Broncos.

You can use a LB in a pass rushing role very effectively in a 4-3, as well. It's not like he's always coming on the rush in the 3-4. Maybe the drop back percentage would be a bit higher, but not that crazy.

Don't know why we're having this discusson, though. If there's one thing that doesn't work, it's switching schemes every four years. Don't know why it'd be necessary to go to the 4-3, all of a sudden. Especially since everyone was jumping out of joy when we fired Sanders and went to the 3-4 with Capers.


As I said earlier, it's just an interesting thought experiment, especially considering how many Packers defensive players currently on the roster seem to be much better suited for a 4-3.

Re: the previous discussion, CM3 would be rushing from a DE/OLB position on obvious passing downs, regardless of whether he was standing or had a hand in the dirt in a 3-4 or 4-3 scheme. The only difference would be is that he would play more of a "rover" role, almost like Charles Woodson has done in the past on 1st and 2nd downs in a 4-3, depending on the situation. And at times, I'm sure he would still line up as a DE in base packages, as well. I wouldn't view that as much of a problem at all, and very well could be a good thing. He already does similar things now, especially against mobile QBs when spying. I'm not sure why some think it would limit his pass rushing opportunities at all, at least with a good coordinator. But as has been said, it's nothing more than something interesting to talk about in a long season, because it's not happening. Hopefully several of these other more prototypical 4-3 can make a better transition to a 3-4 defense next season though. Or better yet, we get more appropriate 3-4 personnel, especially DL and LBs.

Offline dhazer  
#39 Posted : Sunday, January 20, 2013 8:40:17 AM(UTC)
dhazer

Rank: Pro Bowl MVP

FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Silver: 2013Yahoo! Fantasy Football - Bronze: 2009PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Bronze: 2013

Joined: 9/14/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 49
Applause Received: 204

All this talk about switching to a 4-3 and wasting CM3's talents is actually funny. You people do realize he was a DE in college right? Thats what he was drafted as and he had to learn the 3-4 scheme. I know we won't switch cuz we are in the same type of years we were in with Favre. You know the ones where we get to the playoffs but then get knocked out.
UserPostedImage

Just Imagine this for the next 6-9 years. What a ride it will be :)
Offline Rockmolder  
#40 Posted : Sunday, January 20, 2013 9:52:25 AM(UTC)
Rockmolder

Rank: Super Bowl MVP

FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Bronze: 2010

Netherlands
Joined: 9/14/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 161
Applause Received: 263

Originally Posted by: dhazer Go to Quoted Post
All this talk about switching to a 4-3 and wasting CM3's talents is actually funny. You people do realize he was a DE in college right? Thats what he was drafted as and he had to learn the 3-4 scheme. I know we won't switch cuz we are in the same type of years we were in with Favre. You know the ones where we get to the playoffs but then get knocked out.


He wasn't, actually. He played the elephant position at USC. Pretty much as stand-up hybrid DE/LB. Very similar what he plays here in Green Bay.
UserPostedImage
thanks Post received 1 applause.
Zero2Cool on 1/20/2013(UTC)
Offline Rockmolder  
#41 Posted : Sunday, January 20, 2013 10:12:53 AM(UTC)
Rockmolder

Rank: Super Bowl MVP

FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Bronze: 2010

Netherlands
Joined: 9/14/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 161
Applause Received: 263

Originally Posted by: doddpower Go to Quoted Post
As I said earlier, it's just an interesting thought experiment, especially considering how many Packers defensive players currently on the roster seem to be much better suited for a 4-3.

Re: the previous discussion, CM3 would be rushing from a DE/OLB position on obvious passing downs, regardless of whether he was standing or had a hand in the dirt in a 3-4 or 4-3 scheme. The only difference would be is that he would play more of a "rover" role, almost like Charles Woodson has done in the past on 1st and 2nd downs in a 4-3, depending on the situation. And at times, I'm sure he would still line up as a DE in base packages, as well. I wouldn't view that as much of a problem at all, and very well could be a good thing. He already does similar things now, especially against mobile QBs when spying. I'm not sure why some think it would limit his pass rushing opportunities at all, at least with a good coordinator. But as has been said, it's nothing more than something interesting to talk about in a long season, because it's not happening. Hopefully several of these other more prototypical 4-3 can make a better transition to a 3-4 defense next season though. Or better yet, we get more appropriate 3-4 personnel, especially DL and LBs.



Some are, yes. On the second part, I know it wasn't aimed at my post, but that's why I made the Von Miller reference.

Anyway, I feel like Clay would be a good fit in a 4-3, as well, but you do have to build him in. He's not as natural a fit as he is in the 3-4, so I wouldn't say that he'd fit as well in both schemes.

Nick Perry looked like more of a 4-3 DE than a 3-4 OLB in college. His build, weigth, his play, everything pointed to him being drafted by a 4-3 team, so yes, I think he'd benefit from a switch to the 4-3.

People tend to say that your 3-4 DEs would be a better fit as 4-3 UTs, but why? I don't see why a guy like Neal or Daniels would benefit from a switch to the 4-3, all that much.

Maybe you could get away with playing Neal at LE, with Perry at RE, since Matthews gives you that extra rusher off the edge, but what are you really doing in that case?

You're playing with the exact same pieces, the exact same way, with the difference being that Perry puts his hand down, Matthews essentially plays the same role, apart from him having to drop in coverage more often, since you don't rush 5 every play, Neal still won't get to the QB all by himself, since he's build like a LE/UT tweener (Aka, 3-4 DE)...

And who do you take off at the MLB/OLB positions? Bishop certainly isn't an OLB. Go back to Hawk playing OLB? Undo all the work at ILB you did with D.J. Smith and put him back at OLB?

When all is said and done, our defense has a lot of players who could function in either defense, but would changing schemes at this point in time really help us? We got spoiled when we switched to the 3-4, putting up some good numbers, because usually a switch like this takes a couple of years to really start paying dividends.

We should just stick with the 3-4. Even though that doesn't have to be with Capers, as far as I'm concerned.
UserPostedImage
Offline blueleopard  
#42 Posted : Sunday, January 20, 2013 6:21:56 PM(UTC)
blueleopard

Rank: 4th Round Draft Pick

Joined: 8/22/2008(UTC)

Applause Received: 72

I don't know about a 4-3, but I'd like to see us mix it in a little. We've had Capers for a while now and he's supposed to be a creative defensive mind. Why aren't we running a hybrid? I know our players are smart enough.
Danreb Victorio A Believer of Greg Jennings
Online Zero2Cool  
#43 Posted : Monday, January 21, 2013 6:10:53 AM(UTC)
Zero2Cool

Rank: Legend

Yahoo! Fantasy Football - Gold: 2009FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Silver: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2011ESPN NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2013

United States
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI

Applause Given: 1,969
Applause Received: 2,231

Originally Posted by: blueleopard Go to Quoted Post
I don't know about a 4-3, but I'd like to see us mix it in a little. We've had Capers for a while now and he's supposed to be a creative defensive mind. Why aren't we running a hybrid? I know our players are smart enough.


I think the problem is the defensive scheme is too complicated. When Jim Bates was with the Packers, he scaled things down and suddenly the Packers defense was playing very good. When you are spending more time thinking about what you're going to do, it slows you down. The Packers want to stay young, so they should probably try to keep their defense more simplistic. Which in turn would limit the communication issues.
"I do not think there is any thrill that can go through the human heart like that felt by the inventor as he sees some creation of the brain unfolding to success... such emotions make a man forget food, sleep, friends, love, everything." - Nikola Tesla

UserPostedImage
Offline Yerko  
#44 Posted : Tuesday, January 22, 2013 2:30:17 PM(UTC)
Yerko

Rank: 2nd Round Draft Pick

Joined: 10/15/2008(UTC)
Location: Chicago, IL

Applause Given: 160
Applause Received: 264

I play Matthews in my 4-3 scheme on Madden 13 at OLB and he does just fine...

There is your proof.


Aside from the joke, Von Miller is real proof that someone like Matthews can excel in a switch from the 3-4 to 4-3. I will agree that a lot of our players are also suited for the 4-3. Having a defensive line like Perry/Raji/Pickett/Neal with 4-3 back-ups like Wilson, Worthy, and Daniels is nothing to overlook.

How difficult would it be for a team to run a hybrid defense (3-4 and 4-3) or is that unthinkable?

Even though none of this will happen, it is a decent off season discussion...Razz
UserPostedImage
Offline Yerko  
#45 Posted : Tuesday, January 22, 2013 2:56:58 PM(UTC)
Yerko

Rank: 2nd Round Draft Pick

Joined: 10/15/2008(UTC)
Location: Chicago, IL

Applause Given: 160
Applause Received: 264

Offense:
I'd say center is the #1 priority this season. I think we would all be pretty amazed at how much better TJ Lang and Josh Sitton would be with a center capable of pass blocking and run blocking. The presence of a good center would not only help the guards, but in turn help the tackles as well.

A tight end such as Eifert would be nice to have next to Finley. However, I think Ted will stick to what we have in that position with the return of Quarless. Quarless and Finley might make a decent 1-2 tight end, but nothing close to what the Pats have.

I'm still not sold on LT, but I find it annoying to constantly put that up as an offseason need only to have it be a need the next offseason.

I'd like to put runningback as a need but I think the guys we have would excel with a center that can push the man in front of him. If Starks can stay healthy (long shot), the Packers would have a good group of 3. I think Benson is done.

Overall, if the offensive line is fixed...the offense will be fixed. Rodgers won't be hit so much and if he even comes close to having the amount of time that Brady or P. Manning has in the pocket, this offense would be untouchable.

Defense:
Safety is the #1 priority. Woodson had a go and it didn't work out, imo. Would have been nice to see a whole season with him there but with age comes injury. The guys behind Woodson arne't anything to brag about. Maybe M.D. Jennings or Richardson improve with the offseason, but why rely on that?

MLB is going to be a secret need. AJ Hawk played well this season, but he has hit his ceiling and that just isn't good enough for this defense. He doesn't have the nastiness he had at Ohio State. Should the Packers then rely on a converted Brad Jones or two players in Desmond Bishop or DJ Williams who had severe injuries? I don't think that would be a wise move.

Defensive line. Need one more big body to help the rotation of this 3 man front. Worthy is coming off ACL surgery so there is no telling how he will return. I liked what Neal and Daniels had shown this season. Daniels has an offseason on an NFL weight lifting program. This guy will be a hoss for the defensive line next season. One more able body shores this defensive line up nicely.
UserPostedImage
Offline DakotaT  
#46 Posted : Tuesday, January 22, 2013 3:00:57 PM(UTC)
DakotaT

Rank: Super Bowl MVP

Joined: 8/18/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 669
Applause Received: 1,376

Originally Posted by: Yerko Go to Quoted Post
I play Matthews in my 4-3 scheme on Madden 13 at OLB and he does just fine...

There is your proof.


Aside from the joke, Von Miller is real proof that someone like Matthews can excel in a switch from the 3-4 to 4-3. I will agree that a lot of our players are also suited for the 4-3. Having a defensive line like Perry/Raji/Pickett/Neal with 4-3 back-ups like Wilson, Worthy, and Daniels is nothing to overlook.

How difficult would it be for a team to run a hybrid defense (3-4 and 4-3) or is that unthinkable?

Even though none of this will happen, it is a decent off season discussion...Razz



I grew up in the 80's Yerko - I laugh at you spoiled boys who play Madden. :) What's more amusing is the boys in here that need some kind of statistic or sports writer column as PROOF or FACT. These things are as subjective as any of our opnions.

Anyway, if we went to a 4-3, Matthews should go to MLB and be our Brian Urlacher. We'd be stoudt against the run, but would have to blitz to get home on the pass rush.

We'll stay in the 3-4, but what needs to be replaced is playing Raji or Pickett at end. Those boys should just be rotating in and out and anchoring the nose tackle position. Neither players offers anything for pass rush, so let them do what they do and occupy blockers - just keep them fresh.
UserPostedImage
Offline PackFanWithTwins  
#47 Posted : Tuesday, January 22, 2013 3:02:47 PM(UTC)
PackFanWithTwins

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Joined: 9/26/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 13
Applause Received: 398

Originally Posted by: dhazer Go to Quoted Post
All this talk about switching to a 4-3 and wasting CM3's talents is actually funny. You people do realize he was a DE in college right? Thats what he was drafted as and he had to learn the 3-4 scheme. I know we won't switch cuz we are in the same type of years we were in with Favre. You know the ones where we get to the playoffs but then get knocked out.


While they classified what USC ran as a 4-3. If you look at the lineup, they were much closer to a 3-4. Clay played a Standup DE. Which is essentially the same as what he plays today.
The world needs ditch diggers to Danny!!!
UserPostedImage
Offline RajiRoar  
#48 Posted : Tuesday, February 12, 2013 12:23:42 PM(UTC)
Laser Gunns

Rank: 3rd Round Draft Pick

United States
Joined: 9/30/2009(UTC)

Applause Given: 43
Applause Received: 256

UPDATE: I added S, and DE to the list.

yes, im slow.


MintBaconDrivel

Dec, 11, 2012 - FOREVER!
Offline PackerTraxx  
#49 Posted : Tuesday, February 12, 2013 12:39:48 PM(UTC)
PackerTraxx

Rank: 2nd Round Draft Pick

Joined: 8/13/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 18
Applause Received: 127

Originally Posted by: DakotaT Go to Quoted Post
I grew up in the 80's Yerko - I laugh at you spoiled boys who play Madden. :) What's more amusing is the boys in here that need some kind of statistic or sports writer column as PROOF or FACT. These things are as subjective as any of our opnions.

Anyway, if we went to a 4-3, Matthews should go to MLB and be our Brian Urlacher. We'd be stoudt against the run, but would have to blitz to get home on the pass rush.

We'll stay in the 3-4, but what needs to be replaced is playing Raji or Pickett at end. Those boys should just be rotating in and out and anchoring the nose tackle position. Neither players offers anything for pass rush, so let them do what they do and occupy blockers - just keep them fresh.


I agree with you T. It would be great to get a couple of big ends like Margus Hunt and William Gholston so we could keep Pick and Raji where they belong.
Why is Jerry Kramer not in the Hall of Fame?
Offline QCHuskerFan  
#50 Posted : Tuesday, February 12, 2013 1:23:48 PM(UTC)
QCHuskerFan

Rank: 6th Round Draft Pick

Joined: 12/30/2010(UTC)

Applause Given: 96
Applause Received: 161

Originally Posted by: DakotaT Go to Quoted Post
I grew up in the 80's Yerko - I laugh at you spoiled boys who play Madden. :) What's more amusing is the boys in here that need some kind of statistic or sports writer column as PROOF or FACT. These things are as subjective as any of our opnions.

Anyway, if we went to a 4-3, Matthews should go to MLB and be our Brian Urlacher. We'd be stoudt against the run, but would have to blitz to get home on the pass rush.

We'll stay in the 3-4, but what needs to be replaced is playing Raji or Pickett at end. Those boys should just be rotating in and out and anchoring the nose tackle position. Neither players offers anything for pass rush, so let them do what they do and occupy blockers - just keep them fresh.


Jay Cutler gets sexually aroused at the thought of Matthews playing MLB.

I do agree with you regarding Raji/ Pickett. Need another big body also as 2013 is probably Pickett's last year.
Rss Feed 
Users browsing this topic
Guest
3 Pages<123>
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

Tweeter

Recent Topics
now / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / DakotaT

10h / Green Bay Packers Talk / stevegb

10h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Smokey

13h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

19h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

21h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

27-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / dhazer

27-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

27-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / nyrpack

26-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / dhazer

26-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / dhazer

26-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / rabidgopher04

26-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

26-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann