The Run Defense
by Brandon on Nov 4, 2009 7:15 AM CST
in Analysis
21 comments
I've read a lot of negative comments/articles about the Green Bay Packers defense this week. Allowing 38 points to the Vikings can do that. And they can't give up 4 TD passes. But the special teams, and the terrible kick coverage on WR Percy Harvin, gave the Vikings a lot of great field position. It's not an excuse, but it's also one game. A very emotionally, bitter loss to swallow, but not a trend or sign of some deeper trouble.
In an attempt to turn a negative tide positive, I wanted to bring up how great the run defense has played this season. The switch to the 3-4 defense hasn't necessarily made a very good pass defense any better, or brought a dormant pass rush to life, but teams can't run against it.
In 2008, the run defense was terrible, allowing 4.6 yards/carry and 20 TDs. Through 7 games in 2009, they've allowed 3.5 yards/carry and 3 TDs. And they've done it despite having 4 games against 3 of the best RBs in the NFL: RB Adrian Peterson, RB Steven Jackson, and RB Cedric Benson.
What has stood out is how hard it is to run up the middle. Dom Capers' defense is designed to force the runner outside, where the RB can get pinned in by the sideline and CB or OLB can make the tackle. There are a lot more defensive bodies in the middle this season, with three defensive tackles (DE Johnny Jolly, NT Ryan Pickett, and DE Cullen Jenkins) usually starting on the line bunched up inside the offensive tackles. Plus the extra inside linebacker, usually Brandon Chillar lined up next to Nick Barnett.
It was quite a contrast to watch the Falcons at Saints game on Monday night. These are two contending teams, but RB Michael Turner gashed the Saints run defense for 7.6 yards/carry and 1 TD, while RB Pierre Thomas did the same to the Falcons for 6.5 yards/carry and 1 TD. On the season, the Falcons have allowed 4.5 yards/carry, and the Saints 4.4 yards/carry.
The two things any team should do is stop the run and throw the ball. If a team falls behind, they can rally because the opponent can't run out the clock and then they can move the ball quickly down the field in the air. The Packers almost did this, in both games against the Vikings: come behind from a huge deficit because the Vikings didn't control the clock and the Packers almost passed their way back.
0 recs |
21 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
What has been the biggest improvment,
has been the tackling, most notably with the corners and line backers. Finally someone has taught this team how to wrap up an opposing player and it has been quite enjoyable to see.
Green and Gold / Black and White
by OznCoop on Nov 4, 2009 8:46 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Its all about the CBs
As a Vikings fan, it has frustrated me to no end that we can’t get a consistent run game established against your team. After analyzing film I think the reason this scheme has worked so well for you is your excellent run supporting CBs. With all that garbage clogging up the middle on every down, the RB needs to bounce it to the outside, which Peterson is actually fond of doing anyway. But when he gets there he is immediately met and tackled by Harris or Woodson. Don’t take these two beasts for granted and enjoy them while you can. I’m not sure this defense would work without them.
by Jayrome007 on Nov 4, 2009 10:29 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
As long as we're on the topic...
How did Cedric Benson gouge you guys up the middle like that? It seemed that all game he just ran straight forward and picked up like 5+ yards. But for our two games with you, every time Peterson tried going straight there was a massive wall in his way. Do you think the Packers underestimated the Bengals running game but overestimated the Viking’s?
by Jayrome007 on Nov 4, 2009 10:34 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Benson
I nearly destroyed my coffee table watching the Bengals game… particularly watching Benson run all over us…
Most of my frustration from this season, however, has not come from our defense… I hate watching Aaron Rodgers get sacked… With better protection this season, I say The Packers are 6-1….
by Drew C on Nov 4, 2009 10:50 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I take it as growing pains. It was our second game of the season and probably just made some bad decisions. I almost punched threw my wall into my neighbors during one of those runs from Cedric. One of the few great things I was able to take from the Viking games was our nice run D. AP can SHRED a defense but he was held quite in check in those games (moreso the first than the second).
by TrevorR on Nov 4, 2009 11:22 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It wasn’t so much up the middle runs we got gashed on, but rather off tackle type runs. They use a lot of overrload blocking packages, and we just never were able to adjust to it. I think we had something ridiculous like 11 missed tackles that game too, which certainly didn’t help.
I think we definitely underestimated the Begals running game. It seemed we were more ready for a heavy pass attack, and that never seemed to come.
Eh, I wouldn’t say overstimated because you have to game plan to stop AP. If you don’t he’l go for 130+ with 2 TDs. I think we understimated your passing game, and really we just didn’t have good gameplans in either of our match-ups for Favre. It was clear that when we brought pressure in the game, it for the most part worked. The only problem was we only brought pressure like 30% of the time. I should probably clarify that pressure=blitzes in my comment to you.
I’m not sure if you watched our week 1 game against the Bears but our defense looked great. Capers was bringing blitzes from anywhere and everywhere. One play our CB would blitz, and then the next we would bring both OLB’s, and then we would stunt both ILB’s. We haven’t seen that since type of gameplan since, and honestly I don’t understand why.
by packallday555 on Nov 4, 2009 11:43 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
lack of Birk
I’ve already forgotten who the Bengals have up the middle, but in any case, i think the Vikings miss Birk.
by uglyfatpimplynerd on Nov 4, 2009 7:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah Birk is really good
Having him would have helped but I think Pickett and Jolly have played well this year. Jolly has had some inexcusable mistakes, but he has made some great plays too. He’s been a part of 3 turnovers so far. Not many D lineman have 2 picks so far.
I apologize for my ignorance but why did the Vikings let him go?
Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb
by verno329 on Nov 4, 2009 9:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
End of his career. They were ready to give Sulivan a chance and I think it was a money thing. Birk wanted one more nice contract and to start…
by TrevorR on Nov 4, 2009 10:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Sullivan is weak
We were skeptical of his physique in the offseason and he’s only furthered our fears during actual games. He’s just to small to play center consistently. His profile says he’s 6-4, 300 but both of those numbers are flat out lies. There is no way he’s bigger than 6-3, 285. He’s been decent at pass protect but he gets no push in the running game. Ever. I watch every Vikings game again on Tivo and have analyzed it alot. Sullivan just lacks the strength to move anything in front of him. But to be fair, I should probably include that out of our 8 games we’ve faced six 3-4 defenses with their massive nose tackles. I would like to see him matched up against a more traditional undertackle more often to see how he does.
by Jayrome007 on Nov 5, 2009 10:05 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for the info
I appreciate the perspective
Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb
by verno329 on Nov 5, 2009 12:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I was going to add to your comment about the size of the guys in the middle that you have faced but you got it out there. Those 3-4 D’s have MONSTER NTs that that should be taken into account in his evaluation. Interesting to see how he looks against a more traditional 4-3 D.
by TrevorR on Nov 5, 2009 3:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
This seems like a good place to ask this
I’ve been wondering this for a while. Who do you guys have as your primary nose tackle now? Is Raji manning that spot yet or is he still working out his rookie kinks? If not, who is holding the position down until he’s ready? Do you think your run defense will see significant improvement when Raji gets out there on a consistent basis?
by Jayrome007 on Nov 6, 2009 9:58 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Benson and Steven Jackson
Both games were fairly similar. Many good 5-10 yard carries. The personnel rotation was different in those weeks, back when Nick Barnett and Clay Matthews weren’t playing the entire game. The run defense really clicked in the first Vikings game, and by the linebacker rotation was done and Barnett and Matthews were playing the entire game. Also, Raji wasn’t playing early due to an ankle injury, so the defensive line rotation is certainly better over the past four games. But the other factor is that the Bengals and Rams are pretty good at running the ball, even if the rest of their respective teams have a lot of question marks.
by Brandon on Nov 5, 2009 12:07 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Gah
I don’t think anyone saw benson coming. Naming him a top runner in the league still sort of blows my mind. packallday had it right, if you don’t game plan, you don’t stop great running backs and we didn’t come close to even thinking about game planning for… cedric benson?
by Smeefers on Nov 4, 2009 11:53 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Good article
It was getting a little silly. (All the defense bashing and scheme bashing I mean) This defense is tough, fast, stout, and most of all, fun to watch. Not only does the scheme bring a more stout run defense and overall defensive improvement, but it brings entertainment to the team. We watch the NFL to be entertained, and this new defense is exciting. Plain and simple: it’s fun to watch these guys flow to the ball and make big plays.
I especially like you point about facing top quality running backs! The Vikings have been the #1 run defense for, what, three years? Well, they don’t have to play against AP twice a year, or ever for that matter. It speaks volumes that the Packers run defense is rated so highly, considering we’ve already played the best running back in the game twice. It was such a relief. Like I’ve mentioned, I live in the Twin Cities (not from here, just going to school), and all my roommates blabbed about what AP’s game against the Chargers, and how he gashed at 3-4 defense for 296. They insisted that he would do that to Packers who were ‘stupid’ for switching to the new alignment. Go figure: we handled, yes, handled, AP both games we played against him. He settled for quiet days and could not take over the game the way he’s accustom too.
by StephanL on Nov 4, 2009 12:54 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Ok, calm down
we handled, yes, handled, AP both games
Lets not overreact here. Peterson averaged 76 yards and 1 TD in both of those games. This is certainly below where most of us would expect him to be, but I think its a far cry to call it “handled” (twice …in bold). I guess the term is subjective but I’d use “handled” for when a defense holds a RB under 50 yards with no scores.
by Jayrome007 on Nov 5, 2009 10:16 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think
that he was handled in the first game when he only had 55 yards. I wouldn’t use the word handled in the second game, we could have a better argument to use it if we had stopped him on his two big runs of 33 and 21 but we didn’t. He didn’t have a “breakout game” in either of the contests this year, like he did last year. That alone is an improvement. But I agree with you that to say we handled him in both games is a bit much. Especially considering the 40+ yd screen pass in the 4th.
Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb
by verno329 on Nov 5, 2009 12:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
He was very much a non factor in game one but in game two he was a very big part of that game…especially when you add in his big reception on the screen play. We did NOT handle him or really anything their offense dished out in game two. That game was a pretty poor defensive effort overall…not terrible but far from good!
by TrevorR on Nov 5, 2009 3:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
finally
Thanks Brandon for helping others see this. I posted something like that on the fan post about the 3-4 where everyone seemed to be bashing DC and the D. People have to step back and realize this D may not be perfect yet, but we have made strong strides from last year! We gave up over 2,000 yards on the ground last year, 2,000!!!! We have made huge improvements on this behalf. The 3-4 has seemed to be a fit for most of the DL and hopefully now that we have the run D stout we can work on that pass rush. Not only are the yards a big difference but the rushing TDs 20-3 so far! And 2 of those 3 tds were in the hands of AP. So to say the 3-4 is a failed attempt would be ludicrous
by bizzle4 on Nov 4, 2009 1:29 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
good point...sort of
Yet this is only one positive in a whirlwind of negatives. As others may have pointed out, the Bengals game was not exactly a great game (Benson 141 yds). The Rams wasn’t too hot either (Jackson 117 yds). I wouldn’t call 97 yards and a TD by AP a great day (not to mention all the yards through the air), but to be fair, it could have been a lot worse. Also, the first Minnesota game was much better (Peterson 55 yds). So I call the AP games a tie, one game defense held him, the other…not so good.
You claim that Green Bay has done a good job against the top RBs. Yet these stats say differently. The Packers have performed well against the poor teams. That is all they can do. I doubt that is what you want to say, but that is the truth. Much like all the other parts of the Packers team, they perform well against poor competition. Take it up a little, they cannot hang with the big boys. They likely brought out a little bit more against the Vikings because they are rivals, much like they fought hard against the Bears. These teams know each other. I do not expect much more out of the Packers against above average teams down the road. I hope for more, but I doubt we will see it. Hopefully, you can all make fun of me when I am proven wrong.
I sincerely hope Rodgers injuries do not linger. He is on pace to set a team record for sacks in a season. Heck, he might set an NFL record. Who knows? I know that has nothing to do with defense, but I am worried about the Packers all around.
by starmark on Nov 4, 2009 3:46 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
