August 24, 2019, 07:24:04 AM

Author Topic: Defense: Are we a well coached team?  (Read 8346 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Twain

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3167
  • Karma: +1/-0
Re: Defense: Are we a well coached team?
« Reply #30 on: October 20, 2015, 08:40:18 AM »
I dont think its a coincidence that when Raji plays well, this defense plays well.  He had a good Super Bowl year, had a lull  in production a couple of years, and started out good this year.  Sounds like the Packer defense the past few years too.  When Raji comes to play, this defense plays much better IMO.

I agree.

With Raji this year, Capers is playing him largely in one gap assignments which is more to his strength.  IMO, coming out of Boston College his strength was his quickness for a big man.  Playing a two gap assignment nullifies that to an extent in that rather that using that quickness to beat the OL at the snap, he had to engage the OL and shed him which just isn't him.  This heavier dose of one gapping really fits Raji and Daniels natural abilities. 
"The trouble ain't that there are too many fools, but that the lightning ain't distributed right."

Offline golfman

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11870
  • Karma: +9/-1
Re: Defense: Are we a well coached team?
« Reply #31 on: November 08, 2015, 03:48:33 PM »
All I want for Christmas is a de-fense that competes! A defense that competes................. you know the rest of the song.
"Make the Packers Great Again! "

Offline dannobanano

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5233
  • Karma: +40/-2
Re: Defense: Are we a well coached team?
« Reply #32 on: November 08, 2015, 05:34:33 PM »
All I want for Christmas is a de-fense that competes! A defense that competes................. you know the rest of the song.

You want the "whistle Merry Christmas". Right!?

 ;)

Offline claymaker

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3024
  • Karma: +14/-1
Re: Defense: Are we a well coached team?
« Reply #33 on: November 09, 2015, 07:54:20 AM »
In summary, I am just wondering if we need less scheme and more time on fundamentals. I would love to see the team prove me wrong in the coming weeks.

Name one team that practices fundamentals more than Green Bay.

When watching our players in zone coverage, they clearly have been coached to keep their eyes in the backfield, reading the QB, preparing to get a break on the ball.  The problem I see is that they focus so much on the offensive backfield that they lose awareness of where the receivers are and therefore end up far enough away that they can't challenge the catch.  They can't get there in time, and the receiver has an easy time finding the open seam in the zone as our players sit on a spot. Top QB's do well due to their ability to look the DB's off of where they will throw.

That's a player execution problem not a lack of coaching fundamentals on how to play zone defense.

Coaches can coach all they want, but when the players don't execute the play usually fails. Some people might scoff at the idea of execution being more important than scheme but it is absolutely true. Scheme should be the last thing anyone is worried about. Which begs the question why does everyone always want to fire Capers? Oh that's right, you just want someone to blame and he's the perennial target.


Offline Twain

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3167
  • Karma: +1/-0
Re: Defense: Are we a well coached team?
« Reply #34 on: November 10, 2015, 06:49:57 AM »


 Which begs the question why does everyone always want to fire Capers? Oh that's right, you just want someone to blame and he's the perennial target.

Wow, digging back 2 months for a cheap shot without context?  You used to be a better poster than that.

I just disagree with your take.  Coaches are supposed to be teachers, so I believe that good ones can coach up fundamentals and improve execution. Lack of execution can be a result of poor coaching as well as poor talent.  You disagree, and thats OK.  I am not sure either of us know how much time any team spends on fundamentals, but I would point out that in the first game after the post you mentioned- the Chicago game- missed tackles were a huge issue.  With the current collective bargaining agreement, time in pads is limited so I believe fundamentals often do get overlooked.  It seems there is a tradeoff now between scheme installation and fundamental work because of these limits.

LeRoy Butler agrees with me- he pointed out that if a defensive back goes up to the line, he should try and get his hands on the receiver and obstruct his route off the line.  Are the packers currently doing that?  Maybe when the players get to the NFL they have a skill set that is set in stone and can't be taught, but I don't buy it.

The other issue with complexity of scheme, is that with practice limitations, there is also less time to drill on the decision making, to build the instant reaction to offensive action.  It increases the possibility of blown coverages.  We saw the blown coverage issue this week with subs playing for injured players.  Football eventually boils down to winning one on one matches, and scheme puts players in position to use fundamentals to win those match ups.  If scheme is too complex and coverages are blown, they never get in that position.

I don't believe I ever said fire Capers.  I believe I said I thought they needed more solid fundamentals and less scheme complexity.  Try not to put words in other people's mouths.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2015, 07:11:26 AM by Twain »
"The trouble ain't that there are too many fools, but that the lightning ain't distributed right."

Offline claymaker

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3024
  • Karma: +14/-1
Re: Defense: Are we a well coached team?
« Reply #35 on: November 10, 2015, 09:03:36 AM »


 Which begs the question why does everyone always want to fire Capers? Oh that's right, you just want someone to blame and he's the perennial target.

Wow, digging back 2 months for a cheap shot without context?  You used to be a better poster than that.

I just disagree with your take.  Coaches are supposed to be teachers, so I believe that good ones can coach up fundamentals and improve execution. Lack of execution can be a result of poor coaching as well as poor talent.  You disagree, and thats OK.  I am not sure either of us know how much time any team spends on fundamentals, but I would point out that in the first game after the post you mentioned- the Chicago game- missed tackles were a huge issue.  With the current collective bargaining agreement, time in pads is limited so I believe fundamentals often do get overlooked.  It seems there is a tradeoff now between scheme installation and fundamental work because of these limits.

LeRoy Butler agrees with me- he pointed out that if a defensive back goes up to the line, he should try and get his hands on the receiver and obstruct his route off the line.  Are the packers currently doing that?  Maybe when the players get to the NFL they have a skill set that is set in stone and can't be taught, but I don't buy it.

The other issue with complexity of scheme, is that with practice limitations, there is also less time to drill on the decision making, to build the instant reaction to offensive action.  It increases the possibility of blown coverages.  We saw the blown coverage issue this week with subs playing for injured players.  Football eventually boils down to winning one on one matches, and scheme puts players in position to use fundamentals to win those match ups.  If scheme is too complex and coverages are blown, they never get in that position.

I don't believe I ever said fire Capers.  I believe I said I thought they needed more solid fundamentals and less scheme complexity.  Try not to put words in other people's mouths.

I'm not digging, and it's perfectly in context. The defense is getting a lot of scrutiny right now. Some deserved and some not. Capers and his coaching staff are part of that.

At the start of every practice the Packers run some sort of fundamental drill, I read that on Ask Vic somewhere. Bringing up fundamentals just kinda bugs me. You said so yourself we have no way to know.

The scheme isn't that complex. They rarely are. We're going to do this. If they do this, we do that instead. The best schemes are simple.

The fire Capers comment is not towards you. It's towards everyone who is in that boat. Look around the board there are plenty of posters who have said "fire Capers." You do a much better job than most at looking for someone to blame. I don't think I've ever seen you flat out blame Capers or someone without good reasoning behind it. You'll have to forgive me for putting you in their tent. Sometimes I just quote and pretend it's from the general message of the day.

I also dislike getting into debates about this stuff. It's either the coach's fault or the players. Either way someone is not doing their job and everyone has put their blame on someone. Then we get to trying to solve the problem and one side says get better players and the other side says get better coaches. By both of those suggestions we are either getting a new 20-30 players every year or a new coaching staff. How many teams or businesses in the world do well with that much turnover?

Is it time for a new DC and defensive staff? You'll have to forgive me again, but that does seem like the general thesis of this thread. Who knows, so stop trying to prove it.

Offline Twain

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3167
  • Karma: +1/-0
Re: Defense: Are we a well coached team?
« Reply #36 on: November 10, 2015, 09:40:47 AM »

I'm not digging, and it's perfectly in context. The defense is getting a lot of scrutiny right now. Some deserved and some not. Capers and his coaching staff are part of that.

At the start of every practice the Packers run some sort of fundamental drill, I read that on Ask Vic somewhere. Bringing up fundamentals just kinda bugs me. You said so yourself we have no way to know.

The scheme isn't that complex. They rarely are. We're going to do this. If they do this, we do that instead. The best schemes are simple.

The fire Capers comment is not towards you. It's towards everyone who is in that boat. Look around the board there are plenty of posters who have said "fire Capers." You do a much better job than most at looking for someone to blame. I don't think I've ever seen you flat out blame Capers or someone without good reasoning behind it. You'll have to forgive me for putting you in their tent. Sometimes I just quote and pretend it's from the general message of the day.

I also dislike getting into debates about this stuff. It's either the coach's fault or the players. Either way someone is not doing their job and everyone has put their blame on someone. Then we get to trying to solve the problem and one side says get better players and the other side says get better coaches. By both of those suggestions we are either getting a new 20-30 players every year or a new coaching staff. How many teams or businesses in the world do well with that much turnover?

Is it time for a new DC and defensive staff? You'll have to forgive me again, but that does seem like the general thesis of this thread. Who knows, so stop trying to prove it.

You will have to forgive me, but that is clearly not the thesis of the thread. 


My thesis is that the scheme isn't that complex in Seattle.  Carroll as a former defensive back has obsessed about technique, and made it a focus of the group. They pick guys that fit their system and coach them on the details of the position- hand placement, footwork, timing- that lead to winning the one-on one battles to make them a great defense.  There is a tradeoff to complex schemes- they require much of the limited practice time teaching the scheme and that leaves less time for the fundamentals of coverage and tackling.  The time limits on practice placed by the CBA makes it worse.

In summary, I am just wondering if we need less scheme and more time on fundamentals. I would love to see the team prove me wrong in the coming weeks.

Not trying to prove anything.  Just tried to start a conversation in the pre season.  You say you don't like to debate this stuff, but you went back a found a post from preseason to start a debate, misquoted it, and ignored several interval posts which changes the context, and then offer a backhanded explanation of why your over reading of the intent is not what it is.  I posted this in rant and vent so that posters who didn't want to debate it could ignore it.

You say it yourself, the best schemes are simple, so we agree on that.

I also agree that the defense gets a lot of scrutiny lately, some deserved, some not. 

I disagree that we can't post our thoughts on it.  I have posted my thoughts on it. 

 

"The trouble ain't that there are too many fools, but that the lightning ain't distributed right."