Ever since Capers came on board, I have been questioning two things:

1. Did the players he had fit the 3-4 or 4-3 better and more effectively?

2. Would Capers understand that shifting around between the two would help the players and confuse the opponent?

Well, McGinn finally has asked these two questions. And he answered them both in the negative.

Funny, in his new article in Packer Insider, he seems to blame MM for holding back Capers.

There are two players McGinn concentrates on: Jenkins and AK. The comparisons in productivity are devastating. Especially in what he calls pressures: sacks, hurries, hits. Both have gone down drastically, especially AK. He also notes that overall that number has decreased from last year.(He touches briefly, and negatively, on Raji at DE.)

The other point he makes is that although Capers said he would incorporate a 4-3 look some of the time, that has not happened. In fact, it has not been practiced. This is something I observed fairly soon.

He seems to say that its really MM's call on this. He wanted to go 3-4 and he wants to stay 3-4. I don't really understand this, except that he may have overreacted to the Sanders/Bates scheme.

This is a point that I have talked about for a long time. And he quotes Capers as saying it also: Your players should dictate your scheme, not vica versa. Last year, Jenkins was having a great, Reggie White type year, until he got hurt. But that was in a 4-3. AK is a highly productive DE in a 4-3. He looks average at OLB. With those two guys at their best, and a rotation of Jolly, Raji, and Pickett inside, GB could have had a swarming, attacking type of 4-3 a la the late Jimmy Johnson, and Steve S. Especially since people like Charles Woodson and Chillar and Mathews could be good surprise blitzers from the back end.

Just because our roster did not fit the Bates/Sanders 4-3 scheme, did not mean you had to abandon the 4-3 altogether. To me that was throwing the baby out with the bath water. But it appears from McGinn that this is what MM wanted.

Even though--at least, right now--he is fitting a square peg into a round hole.

If MM is telling Capers how to run his defense, he needs to back off. This is Capers defense not McCarthy's. Capers knows a lot more about defense more then MM does, this limit stuff has to stop.

Cullen Jenkins has looked like a stud in the 3 - 4.

He is on pace for a career high in sacks (8) - a remarkable achievement for a DL in a 3 - 4.

He's nowhere close to being miscast.

The point Gregg is trying to make is -
He doesn't like TT.

Don't you get it by now??

Go Pack!!

The point McGinn makes is that Jenkins has tapered off since early in the season, and McGinn makes that point with stats. And recall, run defense is very important for a 3-4 DE. The overall pressure has not been as good this year as last year. Its good for a 3-4 player, not a 4-3 player. And whatever Jenkins is doing this year, it does not compared with what he did last year before he got hurt.

What TT has to do with this discussion I don't know. Since I was just reporting on what McGinn said. And TT was not discussed by either of us.

Tell us PatS 4 what did TT have to do with any of this thread?

Since he was not mentioned, why put words in someone's mouth?

I actually don't think Jenkins looked better last year.

He's making just as many plays, if not more plays right now.

Had some nice pressures today and did a nice play reading Culpepper for the pick.

The roles DL play in a 3-4 vs. 4-3 are somewhat different. I'm not sure we can judge Jenkins performance in a 3-4 based solely on stats like you can do fairly well when judging performance in a 4-3. From what i've seen and read Jenkins has been doing exceeding well in his new role on the DL, as he did in the 4-3 scheme as well, so i think he has the ability to perform well in either defense and the 3-4 scheme does not appear to hamper his ability to get the job done.

AK seems to be a different story going from DE to OLB. I know they were worried about his body type translating well to 3-4 lineman, but it would have been nice to see if he could perform as one in the 3-4 instead of experimenting as an OLB. With his workout ethic i'm sure he could have beefed up (not just fattened up) just like he was able to mold his body type to fit that of a 3-4 OLB. In the end i wonder if too much emphasis is given to body type at the expense of ability.

I agree that Kampman is a prototypical 4-3 end. No question.

I'm not so sure on Jenkins. Yes, he started well last year, but it was only 3.5 games, and that is not a full season. He has never really been a 3 down DE for the 4-3. His best use in that position moved him inside on passing downs, and put KGB on the edge due to speed.

Whether either is wasted in their current position is less certain. Yes, they are asked to do different things than before. Comparing previous years numbers to this years numbers really is an inappropriate use of statistics since you are comparing apples to oranges.

Really, what's at the heart of the question is whether we are better in the 4-3 or 3-4. I think it is too early to tell.

Trouble with the 4-3 would be the depth at defensive line in the case of injury, which puts us in the same place as last year. However, I would think it interesting to use some packages with the 4-3 as a way to cross up the offense. The occasional Kampman, Pickett, Raji, and Jenkins line I think could do well.

The point is this:

Would AK and Jenkins be better playing 4-3 defensive ends than what we have at our third and fourth linebackers?

I don't think there is any debate about that.

AK and Jenkins are Pro Bowl type players at 4-3 DE.

Not one of our LB's are Pro Bowl types. At least not right now.

Therefore you would be strengthening two positions by going to a 4-3. Addition by subtraction.

Plus you would be doing addition by addition by getting Raji in the line up as a regular

Look at it this way:

GB in a 3-4

DE : Jenkins
NT:Pickett
DE: Jolly
OLB: Brady P or Mathews
ILB Hawk and Barnett
OLB AK

GB in a 4-3

DE: Jenkins
DT: Raji
DT:Pickett
DE:AK
OLB: Mathews
MLB: Barnett or Hawk
OLB: Chillar or Brady P

To me its a no brainer. You want to get your best players on the field at their best positions.

Hard to keep Jolly off the field, he's playing well.

I think if they went the 4-3 scenario Jolly would rotate all along the line

Raji has proven very little so far to be regarded as a regular in any defensive scheme.

Jolly is outplaying him badly.

If the Packers were running a 4-3, Raji would be on the bench.

4-3
DE - Kampman
DT - Jolly
DT - Pickett
DE - Jenkins
OLB - Hawk
MLB - Barnett
OLB - Matthews

3-4
DE - Jolly
NT - Pickett
DE - Jenkins
OLB - Matthews
ILB - Hawk
ILB - Barnett
OLB - Kampman

As you can see, there is no personnel difference.

You may have an argument about AK being miscast, though.

Jolly is not a better DE than either Jenkins or AK.

He would be a good back up at DT in the 4-3 though.

Deus nova:

I think you are dead wrong about Raji.

Once he is healthy he is an ideal three tech tackle since one on one he can get consistent inside pressure plus he is huge and can stop the run. We do not have any DT like that. Plus AK is a much better DE than he is an OLB. Finally, the combination of Hawk and Barnett at ILB in the 3-4, in my view, leaves a lot to be desired. I will take the combo of Raji and Pickett over that anytime.

Plus,I would never play Hawk at starting OLB in the 4-3. He doesn't make any big plays.

Well, he does not make any big plays in any position or scheme.

Considering the money that is invested in Hawk, he should be classified as a bust.

Just my opinion, but I think the 3-4 will be fine. I think our problem is we have no depth in areas and when someone goes down we can't play the defense the way Capers wants. (see Bigbys injury)

I do think Capers should incorporate some different looks to help out AK. He rushed with his hand on the ground a few times today and looked good.

I thought they should have used a 4-4-3 look against the Vikings. We could have gotten pressure with four DL and easily sneak a LB on blitzes, and since there would be 4 LB's Favre wouldn't know where it was coming from. Peterson should also be stopped with that look.

DE- AK
DT- Pickett
DT- Jolly alternate(Raji)
DE- Jenkins

LB- Matthews
LB- Hawk
LB- Barnett
LB- Chillar

CB- Woodson
CB- Harris alternate(Williams)

S- Collins alternate(Bigby)

Actually I heard and seen a few times today..That they actually were playing a 4-6 ...Buddy Ryans Old D.....hmmm...Just Saying...That is when we saw AK hand in the dirt...I would not mind seeing that more as well...

That is not a 46.

A 46 is when you play the safety up close as a run or pass blitzer. Its eight in the box. And the blitz gets there before the QB can find someone open. Or you stuff the run in the backfield.

It was called 46 because it was named after the number of the safety Ryan experimented with as the extra guy in the box.

You know...I was just making a point...Even the friggin announcers called it Buddy Ryans Old D..... and the Packers did play the 46 today....

"The 46 defense (also known as the 46) is an American football defensive formation. The formation comprises four down linemen, three linebackers, and four defensive backs. It was popularized by Chicago Bears defensive coordinator Buddy Ryan, who later became head coach of the Philadelphia Eagles and Arizona Cardinals, and used (as of 2009) by his son, Rex, coach of the New York Jets."


O rmaybe I should have stated ...

IF the Packers played the 46 today..... That is more like it that suits your Hypothetical world...

The safety you are referring to is Doug Plank.

AK was playing more end today and looked fine when it came to rushing the QB. Kampy might be after this year so you cant change the D for one guy. Clay Matthews looks at home in the scheme and I think we will see it get better as time goes on.

We all know the 46 defense. No need to shoot someone down over a technicality, imo

Diesel...Thanks but its all Good....but maybe it would have been a better response to State "IF We all know the 46...."

One thing positive, alot Clay Matthews Jr. The future leader of The Pack.

Technicality?

Moving AK to the DL is not the same as moving your strong safety into the box.

I'm sorry if I have some respect for what I think was the greatest defense to ever play the game.

I agree that Kampman is a bit miscast as an OLB. Also Barnett seemed to be all over the place today. In fact, it seemed as if Barnett, Collins and Matthews were a lot more active when Bigby was there. We can discount the opponent, but those guys still made the plays.

I don't think our personnel would be much different in a 3 or 4 man front. Switching to a 4-3 just puts Kampman with his hand down and moves Hawk/Chillar back to a weak-side backer role. Kampman and Jenkins' assignments would be nearly the same as they were in the 34 allignment. In either alignment I think we see lots of substitutions, we seem to rotate players in the front 7 a lot under Capers.

I think a lot of our defensive woes were because Bigby was out and we were bringing Barnett and Matthews along more slowly.

Just an FYI..The Same time they moved AK to the Line with his hand in the dirt ,, at times they also moved Collins to the Line... So however you want to split hairs is pointless...the POINT of it was they had AK with his hand in the ground and at times played the 46... So go Play your IF games..You seem to be better at that....