It's considered axiomatic in the NFL that it takes 2 years to install the 3-4. Yet here we are, 6 months or so into it, and apparently playing it pretty well. What's up with that?

I claim that TT has had the 3-4 in mind for several years now, and he's been loading up on LBs and tough safeties for a few years. Other teams perhaps decide to switch, then start drafting LBs, tough safeties, and huge DLs. We've obviously been collecting these guys for a couple years - in fact, had Harrell worked out, we would look pretty much impenetrable now. Even as things stand, right now today we're looking like a top-10 defense and a top-5 offense. That's SB stuff, if true. His drafts are only making more sense now that we see where these guys fit into a 3-4.

This is now truly TT's team. He's got his pick at QB, his guy at RB, his OL, his DL, his LBs, his scheme. The flip side of this is he has nowhere to hide if we lose 10 games again.

As an aside, Bellicheck invented this 1-5-5 defense to mess with Bledsoe's head. I've always loved it, it messes with Payton's head too. I really like that Capers spent a year with the Pats and brought this here for us. Let's see how Brent is at picking up blitzers from a "defense by wandering around" backed up by a bunch of guys playing zone.

I believe the key factor is Capers. Everywhere he has gone, the Ds have improved from the beginning. He has stated that while he works with the 3-4 schemes, he fits the scheme to the players he has. With the exception of the expansion teams, he has had some talent and IMO he works to showcase and utilize the talent he has and he does an extremely good job of hiding the players weaknesses. GB has a lot of players and while not all players can play both 3-4 and 4-3, I think a lot of players that have been discussed (Kampman comes to mind) can play either. I also believe that Mr. Thompson wanted to run the 3-4 and I don't know about McCarthy, but I think that external pressure to keep "Bates" Defense in place when McCarthy was hired played a big role in keeping Sanders. This is very unfortunate, but has been fixed. GB has players (Woodson, Harris, Collins, Kampman and Jenkins and Pickett). Some have been labelled 4-3 players, but they so far has shown that was not the case.

I agree HeavyD.

Many of the pieces fit both systems. Plus there is a lot more variety to the 3-4 than most fans realize. Capers is just styling this 3-4 to match the specific talents of this roster. He is the key to its success.

I agree with Mark as well. I've been saying this since I heard that Capers was hired. I really believe that Thompson and McCarthy had talked about the 3-4 and agreed upon it before they actually made the change. Not saying that Gregg Williams and others were just smokescreen interviews, but I think the 3-4 was the plan all along. Maybe they saw Gregg out there and figured they had to do the due diligence.

Boy I dont know about that. I tend to think:

1. This is just a good staff. From top to bottom it is, IMO, one of the best defensive staffs in football(on paper) if you go by accomplishments.

2. I think the whole 'body type for a 3-4' is overrated, and a load of crapola. Always have. OLB is a different animal here, but if you have a good staff you can mix and match. If you have good FOOTBALL players it shouldn't matter that much.

I think technically we need to see the 3-4 succeed in the regular season before we can declare it a successful transition. It looks promising, though.

+1

We don't know what the regular season holds just yet.

Obviously, there's a lot to love about what we've seen from Capers and the defense so far.

I wouldn't be surprised to see TT keep building on this by drafting a safety high next year. If Bigby can come around and play like he did in December 2007, maybe that won't be necessary. But at this point it looks like that might be the weakest spot on this team.

Maybe. Only Ted knows for sure.

But I think Ted was shocked at what happened last year after going 13-3 the season before that. I think he decided to make wholesale changes and he thought Capers and a 3-4 would be a perfect fit. Whether it was by design, chance or happentance to me is unclear.

I think the defense will still take a little time and I do not see us being as dominant as the Ravens or Steelers, but I think we could do alright. I still think we need that one playmaker that sets great defenses a part from the rest of the field.

But our offense should be a thing of beauty. I wonder how the OL will fare against a very strong defensive front.

I think that, if it weren't for Harrell's starring role in The Never Ending (Injury) Story, he could have been the prototypical 3-4 DE.

Interesting thread. I've wondered the same thing, in regards to Thompson and the 3-4. I think that it's also a bit telling that TT played in the 3-4 under Bum Phillips, and Wade Phillips was reportedly very high on his list of HC candidates (remember, it's been reported by "anonymous sources close to the situation" that it wasn't just a tolken interview, as was originally speculated; and that Phillips was one of the front-runners for the job).

IMO it was just a necessity after all the injuries last year. Capers and his staff has been the difference in the transition to the 3-4.

I think some teams struggle switching to a 3-4 because they believe that the scheme is supreme and that they simply need to axe half their defense and bring new players to fit the scheme. Capers said it perfectly in his first press conference afters signing with the Packers. You can't go in with a template and force players to fit that scheme. Every player has their strengths and weaknesses and the DC's responsibility is to put players in a position to maximize their strengths and mitigate their weaknesses. If you look at how Capers is using Cullen Jenkins he is using him very similarly to how he was used in the previous scheme. He is being used to penetrate and disrupt the OL. I've also noticed that the pressure is coming from areas not usually expected from the 3-4. The CBs have been getting sacks as well as the DL. That is the beauty of Capers scheme. You don't know where the heat is coming from. It could be Charles Woodson, Jolly, Chillar, Poppinga, Jenkins, Kampman, Collins, Al Harris. You just don't know. In Sanders scheme you did. It was way too predictable.

I've said it all along. There is too much talent on this defense to see it struggle like it did last year. There is no reason why this defense with these players can't be a consistent Top 10 defense. This defense is loaded with ball hawks and athletes that just weren't being used properly. Sanders ran the most conservative defense in the NFL. That's ot joke. The Packers blitzed fewer than any other team during his tenure. Charles Woodson is a Heisman winning freak of nature that has spent the last 3 years with his back to the ball. The guy is a playmaker. Let him make plays. Sanders downfall is that you can't stick completely to the Bates scheme if you don't have the DL to pull it off. We were running 2nd rate DL last year which put Pickett and Kampman in bad positions. The right side of the DL got gashed by the run all season long and Kampman and Pickett usually got double teamed. It was a disaster and you can thank Sanders for not adding any creativity to the defense after key guys got injured.

The one thing I've noticed is that some people will bash the transition and say we don't have the players that the Ravens or Steelers have. Nobody is expecting us to transform into the #1 or #2 overnight. There is a lot of room in between fielding a an elite defense and a pathetic defense. All we need is to have a credible defense that doesn't crumble at the end of every game to make the playoffs. Not being predictable is a big part of that. That is what got us killed last year. Teams knew how to pick apart our defense when the game counted. I can't see any way that this defense won't improve. It most certainly won't be as good as the Steelers or Ravens units but it will be better. What some people forget is that our defense struggled last year anyway. So many analysts and so-called experts are saying that the 3-4 transition is the achilles heel of the Packers. How so? Our defense was absolutely terrible last year. Even if the defense has some inconistency it is better than being consistently terrible.

What?!? Are you trying to tell me that there weren't any hobbits?

I don't personally think TT planned the 3-4 thing in advance. I don't think it'd be practical to draft guys for a scheme you may never even have. But he might have had a predilection for stocking up on certain positions due to his playing experience. I just don't think it was specifically because he planned to transition to the 3-4 eventually.

I have been calling for the 3-4 for years now. It's ironic that now that they've made the switch, they actually have the personnel to play a 4-3! Kampman-Raji-Pickett-Jenkins with Jolly as the super-sub. LB, enough said there.

I'm sure they have been talking about switching to a 3-4 every year. But i don't see any personnel moves before this year that would indicate a switch.

I agree. The stat that jumps out at me from last year is this. ONE SACK in the 4th quarter of games last year. Taht's not an average of one sack in the 4th quarters of games, that's ONE SACK TOTAL in 16 games! That won't happen this year.

Will they give up big plays??? Sure, but didn't they give up big plays last year anyhow? My big question mark is consistently stopping the run. I have no doubt they'll get to the QB and get enough turnovers. But can they, for example, contain Peterson for four quarters?

The hope would be that with our 6 starting caliber LBs + 3 great rookies, we can stay fresh at least as long as Peterson.

It either makes no sense or it makes TT seem lacking. If he were drafting all along with the 3-4 in mind, why didn't he hire a 3-4 coach all along? Sorry, can't have it both ways with this.

I believe if everyone was paying attention to the Packers in the mid 2000s, it would be clear. It was an unattainable situation. Wolf retires and picks Sherman to replace him. Can't blame him, as Sherman was winning Division titles and the team was playing well. The problem with the GM retiring (as opposed to being fired, when that means the team is not playing well), a new GM will want to pick his own guy to be HC. So, Wolf, against his best judgment, tabbed Sherman to be HC. Sherman the HC & GM overextended himself and the BOD decided to replace his role as GM.

So the problem comes back. Sherman the HC, played musical chairs at DC and Slowik (I believe) was replaced by Bates. Then Sherman gets fired after one poor year. Hey, it was bound to happen. Thompson was being hamstrung by having Sherman as HC and although he tried and Sherman tried, they could not get along. So Thompson brings in his own HC and passes over Bates. Bates leaves and GB (this is where I firmly believe they made a big mistake, although I understand it) tabs Sanders to replace Bates as DC, thinking that they wanted to keep the same system in place. The D was in constant flux with new DC coming in way too often.

GB should have bit the bullet and picked a new DC to McCarthy and Thompson's liking. They didn't. In the years that followed, especially after 2007 and the playoff run, it was difficult to replace Sanders. Many of us didn't like Sanders and wanted a different DC. This year, a new DC is finally in place. A DC that McCarthy picked and Thompson agreed with. Good move, although it should have been made in 2006.

So, I believe that while Thompson wanted to run the 3-4 and maybe even McCarthy did as well, Thompson picked many of the players that could play either Defense. This year, so far has shown that GB may very well be ahead of the learning curve with Capers running the show to utilize the players he has to scheme around.

The only problem with many of these theories is that MM/TT tried hiring 2 DC's who ran a 4-3 before Capers accepted the job....

Did they actually offer the job? I don't necessarily think that either of the two candidate were offered the job. I don't think that McCarthy was set on the 3-4 either. I do think that Thompson liked it, for what ever reason and selected players that may be able to play either. Of course, who really knows. I, for one, am thrilled that Capers is the DC and not the others.

I am very hopeful about the 3-4 and the current potential of the defense.

But I do think it's perhaps premature to gush too much.

Last year's 4-3 wasn't that bad until Jenkins, Barnett, Bigby, and Harrell were all injured. How good will the 3-4 look a month from now if Woodson, Jenkins, and Kampman are all hurt? It might not look any better than last year's 4-3. To look pre-injuries this year and contrast to post-injuries last year is perhaps an imbalanced contrast.

Second, I think we should be cautious about the pre-season defensive "success." Obviously the starters had good success in keeping points off, the reserves not so.

But my impression was that the starters' success was predicated to a scary degree on the turnover. How many times did the starting D make people punt? Maybe that's just a foretaste of the real season, and the 3-4 really will be creating a turnover every quarter. But I'm a little nervous about how often we'll be able to stop teams on downs. There often seemed to be some pretty big running lanes, and the zone seemed to allow some pretty expansive pass-receiving seams. Maybe it will all be different come the real season, but I'm a little nervous about whether we'll be excessively dependent on the turnover to make stops.

You know, I was on the same page here until I went back and watched the 1st Q of the Buffalo game. Two of the turnovers they forced were on either 2nd and long or 3rd and long in that game. Buffalo probably would have ended up punting on both those possessions. It's hard to get a team to punt when you keep taking the ball away.

That being said, I'm still worried that when teams start really preparing for us, the pass rush isn't going to look so fierce. Because, really, we don't have any different pass rushing personnel ready to go at this point that is different from last season--and last season we missed (the old, good) KGB desperately. I know it wasn't the 3-4, but I felt like Sanders starting rushing LBs out of desperation in the last few games last year and none of them showed any pass rushing acumen. I sure the hell hope coaching/scheme help them out, but I worry that might just be pre-season hopefulness and not truly accurate.

I believe he drafts FOOTBALL PLAYERS.

Is Kampman a 4-3 DE or a 3-4 OLB??

We know he is the first, can he be the 2nd??
I believe he will succeed.

Can Harris function as an "off the ball" CB??
I think he can even though he is better in press coverage.

Sure certain body types and "style of play" types
function better in one system or the other.
Good football players, are good football players.

And Capers has stated numerous times,
he is going to tailor the defense to the players strengths.

Why does every issue here have to be so Black & White??


Go Pack!!

I agree. Football is a game of adjustments. I still am concerernd about depth, especially on the DL. It was posted before that we gave up leads late in the game last years and sacks were non existant. This IMO was due as much to lack of quality depth to finish games

Or a complete failure by the old DC and scheme. The D last year had injury issues, but they were never much for stopping other teams. The scheme lacked contained aggression and could not make adjustments during the game. Does most of us here believe the Capers will continue this trend?

Capers was brought here to stop the base D and total predictable nature. While some are stating the the O did not scheme for our D, I will argue the our D did not scheme for their O, only to run different packages and plays for rehersal sake. In the real games, Capers has the ability to shine and be creative with his play calling, unlike the preseason. Did not many here question the D play calling with the 2nd and 3rd string? Capers knew these players were not confortable with the entire package and he may be wanted to evaluate them as players, not tyring to allow one player glory while he was making mistakes elsewhere. Did Smith not get cut b/c he did not make sure of his assignments, but gambled too much. Sure he made plays, but also vacated areas that burned the team..

The real games start on Sunday and the real D will start showing their gile then. If Capers is what we all expect of him, then this team will rock Defensively and the other teams will have to game plan against all of our angles.... something they did not have to do for many, many years.

Like other teams, it will take the Packers 2-3 years to make the transition to the 3-4. Can they be successful in the meantime? Sure, but it'll be more due to other factors (i.e. offense, special teams) than it will to their defensive proficiency.

I don't expect to see the full benefits of the 3-4 in GB until we have some new faces in the starting lineup. Guys like Kampman, Barnett, Hawk, Harris and Poppinga will do OK because they're good athletes, but they aren't going to make this a dominating defense. We need good 3-4 players to do that, not converted 4-3 players.

Can't put square pegs in round holes.

I understand where you are coming from, but that doesn't appear to be TT's view. He always talks about finding 'football players', I doubt he cares much if they are prototypical 3-4 types, he seems to believe that if a guy can play, he can play. period.

Good post.

This is when it is so important to have great DL rotational players. If you can keep your line fresh, teams don't have a tendency to run all over you in the 2nd half.

I am not sold on our depth either and I think it was this and injuries and not a horrible DC or scheme that caused the collapse of our defense last year. Even the best coaches need solid talent and players that can play to be successful.

I think sometimes people throw too much blame at the coaches, instead of admitting that maybe the talent we have out there was not good enough to get it done. Hopefully, this has been corrected and augmented with a better staff.

My turn -

Like others Capers led defenses in their first year,
they will vault to the upper echelon of the NFL.

Who says you have to have ROUND HOLES!!!!
I think I'm REALLY gonna like our square holes!!!



Even though I agree injuries doomed our season last year.
I believe SOME kind of defensive adjustments could have
been made to help out the players that wee in there playing.

I was at the Carolina game where All-Pro C.Wood
was beaten for a game winning TD by Steve Smith.
No DC in the league would leave the deep middle open
without safety help in the last minutes of a game.
or at least no CURENT DC would do that.

Every player, no matter how great gets beat.
It's coordinators jobs to assure there is help.

We had 3 Pro-Bowl DB's last year yet lost how many games at the end.
You think they weren't good enough players????

I still say 13-3 (yes I'm an optimist)

Pack 30 Bares 13

Go Pack!!

It was due to the complete lack of the ability to call a blitz.

Agree but at the same time you need the talent to execute. I am not saying Sanders should not have been let go, but I not sold that we had the personal to blitz much anyway. When Charles Woodson is tied for #2 on the team with 3.5 sacks is there a chance we did not have the personal to blitz as much as we may have wanted? Even Kampmans sack numbers went down, he wore down. Lack of depth was a major issue last year

How do you know there was not supposed to be deep help and someone may have missed their assingment. Maybe Bigby? I go back to 4th and whatever at Philly. Barnett was SUPPOSED to drop back deep in coverage and missed his assingment. Now who's fault was that? Barnett's or the DC's. I am not defending Sanders by any means

Capers as a DC:

Pittsburgh (admittedly they played a 3-4 before he got there)
1991: 22nd points allowed
1992: 2nd (hired Capers)

Jacksonville (4-3 team)
1998: 17th
1999: 1st

Dolphins: (4-3 team)
2005: 15th
2006: 5th

Sanders needed to be let go a few years back, like when McCarthy was hired. He was retained to run Bates Defense so our D did not have to learn yet another scheme. This completely backfired and the only reason he stayed as long as he did was that 2007 magical season, which the D was not that good, IMO. They were not the complete liabilty they were that last year. Our D was soft basic and lacked any imagination and creativity. Teams did not have to worry about the D that much and knew that week in and week out, the scheme was basically the same. No in game changes that caused much issue.

Woodson was the safety on that play and it was just a great catch by Smith. Chillar was trailing and stopped him at the one yard line. When I look at the play, it looks more like Chillar screwed up (broke off prematurely) and Smith just plain beat Woodson.

It happens and I can hardly blame the coaches or play calling from the defensive side on that play.

Besides, we couldn't really stop the run that game, their WR's were generally quiet for most of the game.

I thought the same thing. At the end of the day players need to make plays. Sure Sanders was not the best DC and deserved to be let go, but players still have to execute their assingments

Again not defending Sanders but how much of that was due to lack of personal and depth?

At the start of the season and when most of the players were not banged up or on IR, that D showed no innovation. How many threads spoke of "communication breakdowns" and "pad level" and all kinds of questions about the defense. Which players did GB add to the D this year that gives you hope that the players are the difference???? Raji & Matthews have not been on the field at all. The players on the field were on the team last year and many the year before.

Injuries are part of the deal. Yes, you can not always have enough players. How many DL did we keep one year? This year, GB has what 9 LBs?? Kampman and Thompson can play DE, but not really in the 3-4. In pass rushing, ok. If a couple of injuries to the DL occur during a game, I could see GB play a lot of 2-5 or 1-6. That is why Capers is here. He was the only DC I wanted and am very happy he is here. With a few years of HC under his belt and he is getting up in age, he maybe only a DC the rest of his career, like Fritz.

Capers has not opened his playbook, IMO. His was only running his basic scheme for the 1st stringers and base D for the other players. Now that the regular season starts, he will start scheming for the Bears and will have a few tricks up his sleeve. And his defense, IMO, does not take any unnecessary risks. With any D, you will ALWAYS have holes. How you cover them will determine your success. Sanders could not cover an eraser with a beach towel. He just did not have the factor to be a DC.

A lot! Good defensive teams do not need to get "cute" or innovate.

Agree with most, but any defense that has Chillar covering
Steve Smith 40 yards down field(safety help or not) is flawed.
Especially at the end of a game.



True but aren't we debating scheme here?



Disagree.

The best defense of all time(I hate to say),
the Bares 86 defense was very innovative.

The days of lining up and running the same play
over and over again are done.
Maybe in high school but in the NFL you need talent AND SCHEME.

I'm not saying you need to run 30 trick plays a game,
but I can't believe you said teams don't need to "innovate".

Edit - just saw this posted by JAS in another thread (i did cut it down some)-
Here's another MM quote that I like, from another GBPG article:

"For the better part of eight months the Packers' coaches have been making adjustments and additions to their playbooks. With nobody showing much of anything in exhibition games, the laboratory doors swing open in September.

"I think the first two or three games is are 20 to 30% of what we called unscouted looks," McCarthy said. "So 20 to 30% of the game Sunday night, probably on both sides, will be something we haven’t seen before, and they haven’t seen before. You’re trying to find an edge."

Go Pack!!

I was bringing that into this thread...

So scheme is important, IMO as well. If you don't have good/very good players, the scheme does not really help. If you have good/very good players, then the scheme brings it to another level. If the O knows what the D is running, they can game plan for it. If the O has to consider many D options, you limit the O options.

Woodson was the main cover on Smith on that play. Chiller was not involved in coverage IMO just trailing on the play. Again I think there was a chance someone missed an his coverage. Not sure who else was one the field at the time, but again we do not know if someone messed up on coverage. Woodson was the guy who SHOULD have been on Smith. Smith also made one hell of a catch

The nice thing about this defense is in pass rush if we run low on DE we can use LB some as we have plenty of them which will be active

Woodson was on him.... and got beat. Smith made a great play and Woodson even knowledges that he had the correct coverage and should have made a better play.

So, I don't get how "scheme" could be at fault here.




Do you mean the 1985 Chicago Bears? Or do you think the 1986 Bears were better?




I don't think of teams needing to innovate once they have a good enough defense. Adjustments and fine tuning, yes, but to innovate to me is different. Teams do not "innovate" on a week to week basis. They game plan, make adjustments and fine tune. Teams that suffer a lot of injuries need to have good depth. We didn't have good depth last year and I fail to see it this year as well. But, the season has not evebn started and some guys may step up.

I would say he meant the 46 Defense, which was very innovative, cutting edge. I disagree with you about being innovative. Sure, a few teams do not have the fire power to match a very good defense, but most teams are good enough that if they know what defense you are running, they will beat it. I heard a bit ago that as a joke, on one team that the coach told the offense which set the defense was playing. The offense killed.

A good defense is only great if the offense does not know where you are coming from. Chicago's 46 Defense set a standard at the time, since they lined up and overloaded one side. The offenses around the league could not figure them out for awhile. Sure, as the team got older and their skills diminished, the team was not as effective. Equally so, is that offenses had more film to game plan against. That is why every week, the game plan changes on both offense and defense. If the offense knows what the defense is taking out and/or putting pressure, then they can stop it (most of the time) and burn the defense. No defense, not even with all-pros at every position could tell the offense where they are coming from and win.

I never said that. I just disagree with you that you think "scheme" had anything to do with Smith beating Woodson on that play.