The Packers Straightforward Defense

by Brandon on Nov 28, 2009 1:03 AM CST in Analysis Comment 13 comments

From Tom Pelissero at the Press-Gazette:

This was as straightforward a game plan as Capers has put together. The Packers played 60 of 77 snaps (77.9 percent) in nickel against Scott Linehan’s three-wide offense. The rest was base (16 snaps) and a single snap of prevent — no dime, no "corner Okie," no "big Okie," not even any goal-line defense as the Packers made a pair of key red-zone stands.

The blitz package wasn’t extensive, with extra-man pressure coming on only 11 of 47 dropbacks (23.4 percent) even as the Lions threw heavily in the fourth quarter. Slot blitzes were especially rare with CB Jarrett Bush taking Woodson’s usual spot in the nickel.

The secondary did most of its damage out of basic zones, with FS Nick Collins exploding from Cover-2 to record the first of four interceptions and CBs Tramon Williams and Woodson each getting one in quarters coverage.

As good as QB Matthew Stafford looked against the Browns, Capers must have watched the game film and saw that Stafford is still playing like a rookie QB. He mixed up the coverage a little, sometimes it was cover-2 and sometimes it was man coverage, but he didn't blitz much and he let his excellent secondary wait for Stafford to make a mistake. A good job by the coach to identify that his players could beat their players, and then to let them do just that.

0 recs | Comment 13 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I agree

That whole game, it felt like one of those high school blowout wins where one team was just clearly superior to the other. The only reason Detroit got anything was because of special teams miscues. If we ever get those “cleaned up” like McCarthy’s been reiterating all year, I’d be a very happy person.

by vitaminx on Nov 28, 2009 2:36 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Tell me about it

It would be nice to imagine what our record could be if our special teams wasn’t so horrendous. They made things awfully tough for our defense against the Bengals, Vikings @Lambeau, and the Bucs. Looking at things now it really is a shame that we dropped that one to the Bengals. Had we won we’d be 8-3 and would likely have a playoff spot locked up.

by packallday555 on Nov 28, 2009 3:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

We also

could have very easily lost the Bears game. Then we’re still in the same place.

Maybe in order to understand mankind, we have to look at the word itself: "Mankind". Basically, it's made up of two separate words—"mank" and "ind". What do these words mean? It's a mystery, and that's why so is mankind.
-Jack Handey

by jobe on Nov 29, 2009 12:14 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm more peeved about the second Minnesota game.

Besides the obvious emotional reasons (and the enormous pressure on us, Rodgers, McCarthy should we happen to meet for a THIRD time in the playoffs), it squandered our chances at a divisional title, made us look pathetic in front of a national audience, and maybe even killed Rodgers’ confidence in this team with how many sacks he took and how every time he led us back, the ST and redzone D gave it up.

Hard to believe, but we have a talented enough team that we shouldn’t have been swept by any team in this division and the next week just made things even worse. Can you imagine an NFC North with the Vikes and Pack tied at 9-2 after this weekend, having split their meetings, especially with Rodgers coming back down from 24-3 to win the game? Instead, Minnesota will likely win this weekend against a weak Bears team and stay 2.5 games ahead of us, while we scrap for the wildcard and get laughed at any opportunity at being taken seriously.

Nothing’s made me more embarrassed as a Packer fan in the 16-17 years I’ve been following them. Not 4th and 26, not The Catch II, not Super Bowl XXXII, not the shellacking at home by the underwhelming Falcons in 2002, not even the 2007 NFC Championship Game (that was my Retire Already, Old Man! game).

by vitaminx on Nov 29, 2009 12:34 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Haha wow!

I guess I didn’t quite look at that 2nd game against the Vikes as being as negative as you did. I mean the o-line was just bad, and their d-line is so consistent and so good. It was really like we didn’t have a shot because at any time a drive can be stalled by a sack, which is what we had and have done pretty much all year when we haven’t been successful.

Then you add onto it that Capers decided to blitz only around 20% of the time and our special teams?

It’s hard for us not kind of be screwed in that kind of a situation. I mean in the second half the o-line did a fairly good job for Rodgers during our little spurt. Capers also called more blitzes during our scoring spurt, and they worked, and almost forced two consecutive Favre int’s. When Capers wasn’t having us basically play a conservative cover 2 or cover 3 zone, rushing only 3-4 nearly every play we had some success. Much like we have been these past three weeks since Capers has dialed up the blitzes.

And the special teams play absolutely killed any momentum we ever got in that game. I’m not positive but off the top of my head I think we gave up 2 kick returns and 2 punt returns into our own territory. Asking the defense to stop an explosive offense from only having to go no more the 40 yards 4 seperate times just isn’t realistic.

And the Crosby misses that field goal…Though it was disappointing we had to kick a FG in the first place, we had still managed to drive down the field 3 straight times against what is probably a top 5 defense in the NFL. If he makes that we’re within 2 points, which really gives us hope.

I know it’s disappointing that we’re only 7-4 with the amount of talent we have on this team but we have some big problems (o-line and special teams), and the coaches sure as hell don’t do much to help cover it up a bit For this year we’re still in the wildcard race, and actually in great shape to secure a spot. And who knows, if our o-line continues to play much better (like it has these past 3 games) and our defense continues to be unpredictable we could have a shot at putting a nice little run together.

And after this season, we just have to hope Thompson will maybe get a couple of T’s, who have at least some talent and consistency, hire a real special teams coach, and maybe sign a quicker Rb who could come in here and help establish a 2 Rb system with Grant.

I know these have always been knocks on he is starting to realize that our team should be much better record wise this year with some of the talent we have. He will need to do something about our weaknesses this offseason or he and McCarthy will surely be fired when we again next year are far to inconsistent.

by packallday555 on Nov 29, 2009 4:23 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I see what you're saying..

and I don’t totally disagree but my perennial hopes for a championship were pretty much dashed with that game since that really defined how far away we were from being a contender. A contending squad doesn’t go down just after the half 24-3 in that kind of game, especially with the QB situation involved and in a game with a hated division rival. It’d be great to see what the Packers can do if they make the playoffs (and I think they will) but more than likely we’re not going to see them make any noise there and barring a disgusting collapse @Minneapolis, it just assures that McCarthy and Thompson keep their jobs a little bit longer, which is a good or bad thing depending on your perspective.

In my opinion, we’re only a solid tackle away from having a good offensive line again, even if Tauscher and Clifton call it quits. Lang has shown that he’s more than capable at starting at RT, and I would go with (from left to right) New Tackle-Spitz-Wells-Sitton-Lang and stick with that rotation in the future. If they’re really intent on keeping Colledge there, then obviously you bench Wells and move Spitz in his place like they did this year (still one of the more puzzling moves this coaching staff has done). But the real problems lie in our depth at secondary, which is starting to show its thinness with Al Harris being out for the year now, and Ryan Grant who is maddeningly inconsistent in addition to being expensive enough that it’s difficult to want to sign someone to push him for the starting spot. Every other position is either solid or getting better every week, and that’s the mark of a good enough but not great team, I think.

by vitaminx on Nov 29, 2009 5:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Good points

I personally would attribute a lot of us being down 24-3 at halftime to McCarthy and the coaching staff. It’s obvious we have the talent to play with the Vikings but we didn’t come out ready whatsoever.

I agree we’re a good T away from having a good o-line again like we did in 07’. I don’t think we’re going to go with Lang at RT as McCarthy has said a couple of times Lang’s natural postion is LG. I wouldn’t necessarily be opposed to having new LT-Spitz-Wells-Sitton-Lang but Wells is average at best and gets pushed around far too much. I think we need new LT-Lang-Spitz-Sitton-new RT.

The secondary depth is wearing thin but Woodson will likely be in this league 2-4 more years, Williams has proven more then capable, and Lee (who is on IR) has shown some ability in the past.

I know frustration with Grant and can totally relate. I think a lot of his inconsistencies fall on our o-line but he can be inconsistent at times as well. Some weeks it looks like he is running hard and hitting the hole at full speed, and then other weeks it looks like he is out there jogging.

by packallday555 on Nov 30, 2009 2:08 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I think Detroit's (and Stafford)'s biggest problem in that game was,

their inability and lack of desire to exploit Tramon Williams and J.Bush. It felt to me like they kept picking on Woodson. Granted he was matched up on their best offensive weapon, but it seemed to me like they didnt even try to take advantage the Packers biggest defensive weakness.

Green and Gold / Black and White

by OznCoop on Nov 28, 2009 4:17 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

they didnt even try to take advantage the Packers biggest defensive weakness.

Which is, throw it at anyone but Woodson.

"Are we doing everything we can to win games, or are we doing everything we can to run a certain thing that we want to run? I want to win, and I want to do whatever it takes to win. At some point you have to take the handcuffs off and let the boys play." - Cullen Jenkins 11/01/09

by PackaCracka on Nov 28, 2009 9:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Actually

They did try and go at Williams for a bit in that game but it just wasn’t happening with him pretty much blanketing Bryant Johnson all game. Williams is much better then he is given credit for and really will probably surprise everybody by the time this year is done.

Bush was pretty horrendous as usual but it wasn’t because he wasn’t in position to defend the passes like usual. I saw 2 or 3 instances where Bush was actually in great position to undercut the pass but failed to do so because he barely even lifted up his arms. He also dropped a pick too which was actually fairly well broken up by Heller (I believe?) Who knows, maybe if he realizes you not only have to be in position to make a play, but also have to actually defend the pass when it gets there he could become a serviceable nickel for us..Doesn’t seem too likely though.

by packallday555 on Nov 29, 2009 4:30 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t see Tramon being a player to exploit. I think he’s been a starter in waiting and now he gets his chance. I think he’ll do just fine as a second CB. Now Bush…HE can be exploited but what you miss here is that the Lions receivers outside of Calvin and Pettigrew are very weak. They need players that CAN exploit either of them before it will happen.

by TrevorR on Nov 30, 2009 2:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

they tried

and Tramon picked them off too!! Bush got burned as usual ( I only saw that they put him in , in the 4th quarter) Like I said … Tramon filled in for Al last year and did well, had quite a few picks

by turd on Nov 28, 2009 10:02 PM CST reply actions 0 recs