After having had a chance to watch film from this game, I'll say this: Dom Capers unquestionably had the right approach. That is to say, I do not know how someone could rationally critique the game plan he had.
Let's start with this first: if you do not know by now that Dom's strategy is to take away the run first - making the other team 1 dimensional - and then unleash his arsenal of blitzes, then you are missing the obvious. It's his modus opperandi. When you have a team with an all-world RB and a below-average QB, then that strategy seems to be a sound one to use; make the QB beat you after shutting down the run.
Capers schemed it exactly that way. I do not recall seeing at any other game this year the sheer disregard for maintaining gaps - when someone had Peterson stopped, the closest players left their gaps and assignments to come to him. It happened on more than a handful of occasions to be mere coincidence - the players were taught to do that at least this game. Now look at AD's runs. Most of them are him bouncing it to the outside and getting into the second level. Watch the highlight videos of his longest runs - they do not come straight up the middle. Firstly, credit the D-line for playing very well and causing Peterson to often bounce it to the outside. Note, secondly, that most of the players in the 2nd level (LBs/DBs) are either blocked or simply unable to capitalize on angles they have due to poor technique. What does this do? It forces everyone to be alert and focus on tackling the RB. Go back and check out how many times the CBs were playing off-man or simply giving 3-5 yards cushion to the WRs - they are essentially no names who no decent CB should be respecting. Of course, I presume our CBs were respecting All Day, not the WRs (Easier to shed blocks / take an angle to a runner when the WR reveals his intentions to block - and the WRs / TEs of the Vikings blocked pretty damn well last game). The fact that our CBs would often make it a point to look into the backfield after the ball snapped - hence, away from their responsibility - lends credence to my presumption.
Which bring me to my point: Our coverages fell apart not because of scheme, but because of our sheer inability to execute. More specifically, our DBs became an even greater liability precisely because they could not bring down Peterson. Instead of focusing in on their man, they started peeking into the backfield. That moment's hesitation often proved advantageous for the Vikings WRs. In fact, I'm willing to bet that the threat of Peterson is the precise reason that Hayward did not follow through on his zone coverage assignment. To the point: failed execution simply became our undoing. No amount of scheming, I think, can overcome terrible fundamentals / poor effort.
The fact that we could not stop Peterson really hurt our passing game because everyone had to account for the possibility that they had to alter what their responsibility was to try and make the tackle. This is what allowed Ponder to be so good - he was an afterthought, especially to our DBs.
What I'm trying to say is that I do not think Capers can be blamed for the poor defence. He had a sensible scheme in place. I don't even blame Capers for the failed execution / effort of our LBs and DBs. That's what position coaches are for - to teach their players fundamentals and demand performance. So, I'm not sure why anyone would reasonably have their faith shaken in Capers by this performance. His game planning was not wrong. Hell, the D-line did what he probably wanted - forcing Peterson outside and buying our guys in the 2nd level a bit more time to approach and tackle Peterson. Unfortunately, no other position group on D bothered to show up.
I really hope that the OLB, ILB, CB, and S position coaches all called out their starters because this was just an atrocious performance by those groups. If they are even half-way decent this week and win 1-on-1 battles, we should be in a good position to win the game.
Originally Posted by: all_about_da_packers