ILikeThePackers39
15 years ago

Nolan is a 3-4 guy, isn't he?

"bozz_2006" wrote:




You know, this reminds me of something I was wondering when I was watching the Bolts/Colts game. Rivera's a 4-3 guy, but isn't SD a 3-4 defense?

Maybe it's not that hard to master both formations? I don't know, I'm just spit-balling.
blank
Zero2Cool
15 years ago

I didn't say or imply he did not want to be a HC or DC ever again. I said he won't be coming to GB under my opinion.

"all_about_da_packers" wrote:



And I merely pointed out that there is some evidence, even if suspect, that suggests that Nolan may well be in line for being the Packers DC.

At the end of the day though, switching from a 4-3 to a 3-4 is a huge move, but that is assuming Nolan has extensive experience only in a 3-4.

I guess I'm just trying to work out what Mike McCarthy is possibly considering, through my words...

"Zero2Cool" wrote:



You're response was attempting to contradict my opinion that he nor Crennel will come to GB uner McCarthy with stating that Nolan has went on record of saying he wants to HC or DC again. That is not relevant to my post is what I am telling you. :)

I'm sure Crennel wants to HC or DC again as well, that doesn't mean he nor Nolan want to be in GB under McCarthy though, which is what my comment was! :)


I think we have a decent core defensive roster for a 4 - 3 and the personnel changes that would entail a switch to 3 - 4 I don't feel could be done in one off season and I know we are young, but I don't see the Packers trying to essentially 'start over' on defense with two aging CB's.

I don't know wall that is required for a switch to a 3 - 4 nor do I know of any teams who have successfully done it in one off season. Who knows? Maybe our LB core is more suited for that scheme? The 4 - 3 didn't do us much good this year, except in the INT stat line.


The guy I'd like to see here is someone like Rod Marinelli. Yes, 0 - 16, but you can not deny that he had his team fighting to the last minute and in quite a few of those games. Also, I can't fault him for having a subpar defense with the players Matt Millen selected. I mean, you can't put WR's on defense every year.
UserPostedImage
ILikeThePackers39
15 years ago



I don't know wall that is required for a switch to a 3 - 4 nor do I know of any teams who have successfully done it in one off season. Who knows?

"Zero2Cool" wrote:




Didn't the Cowboys make a similar switch somewhat-recently?
blank
all_about_da_packers
15 years ago

You know, this reminds me of something I was wondering when I was watching the Bolts/Colts game. Rivera's a 4-3 guy, but isn't SD a 3-4 defense?

Maybe it's not that hard to master both formations? I don't know, I'm just spit-balling.

"ILikeThePackers39" wrote:



If I'm not mistaken, Rivera is from the Joe Johnson coaching tree, meaning he learned the 4-3 as the Eagles currently use it.

He's been with the Chargers for a couple of years now, meaning he probably got a crash course on 3-4 last year.

The interesting comparison is the LB play. River was coaching LBs prior to being promoted to DC for the Chargers, and in Johnson's system the LB play is hard, aggressive, and attacking the LOS.

I'm guessing those principles apply to the 3-4 LB play as well, so Rivera was well suited to make the transition from being a 4-3 guy to a 3-4 guy, as long as the assistants around him were well versed in 3-4, allowing Rivera support in development of scheme and players.
The NFL: Where Greg Jennings Happens.
ILikeThePackers39
15 years ago

You know, this reminds me of something I was wondering when I was watching the Bolts/Colts game. Rivera's a 4-3 guy, but isn't SD a 3-4 defense?

Maybe it's not that hard to master both formations? I don't know, I'm just spit-balling.

"all_about_da_packers" wrote:



If I'm not mistaken, Rivera is from the Joe Johnson coaching tree, meaning he learned the 4-3 as the Eagles currently use it.

He's been with the Chargers for a couple of years now, meaning he probably got a crash course on 3-4 last year.

The interesting comparison is the LB play. River was coaching LBs prior to being promoted to DC for the Chargers, and in Johnson's system the LB play is hard, aggressive, and attacking the LOS.

I'm guessing those principles apply to the 3-4 LB play as well, so Rivera was well suited to make the transition from being a 4-3 guy to a 3-4 guy, as long as the assistants around him were well versed in 3-4, allowing Rivera support in development of scheme and players.

"ILikeThePackers39" wrote:




Very interesting - good to know, thanks. Makes me wonder if fixating on the scheme a coach is currently running is a bit of a mistake. Perhaps, depending on the coach and their experience, 4-3 versus 3-4 isn't that big a deal?
blank
Zero2Cool
15 years ago

I don't know wall that is required for a switch to a 3 - 4 nor do I know of any teams who have successfully done it in one off season. Who knows?

"ILikeThePackers39" wrote:




Didn't the Cowboys make a similar switch somewhat-recently?

"Zero2Cool" wrote:

I believe two years ago they switched to it, I am not positive though.
UserPostedImage
bozz_2006
15 years ago
not that this report was highly contested, but the news is up on packers.com
UserPostedImage
porky88
15 years ago

I didn't say or imply he did not want to be a HC or DC ever again. I said he won't be coming to GB under my opinion.

"Zero2Cool" wrote:



And I merely pointed out that there is some evidence, even if suspect, that suggests that Nolan may well be in line for being the Packers DC.

At the end of the day though, switching from a 4-3 to a 3-4 is a huge move, but that is assuming Nolan has extensive experience only in a 3-4.

I guess I'm just trying to work out what Mike McCarthy is possibly considering, through my words...

"all_about_da_packers" wrote:



You're response was attempting to contradict my opinion that he nor Crennel will come to GB uner McCarthy with stating that Nolan has went on record of saying he wants to HC or DC again. That is not relevant to my post is what I am telling you. :)

I'm sure Crennel wants to HC or DC again as well, that doesn't mean he nor Nolan want to be in GB under McCarthy though, which is what my comment was! :)


I think we have a decent core defensive roster for a 4 - 3 and the personnel changes that would entail a switch to 3 - 4 I don't feel could be done in one off season and I know we are young, but I don't see the Packers trying to essentially 'start over' on defense with two aging CB's.

I don't know wall that is required for a switch to a 3 - 4 nor do I know of any teams who have successfully done it in one off season. Who knows? Maybe our LB core is more suited for that scheme? The 4 - 3 didn't do us much good this year, except in the INT stat line.


The guy I'd like to see here is someone like Rod Marinelli. Yes, 0 - 16, but you can not deny that he had his team fighting to the last minute and in quite a few of those games. Also, I can't fault him for having a subpar defense with the players Matt Millen selected. I mean, you can't put WR's on defense every year.

"Zero2Cool" wrote:



I think Mike Nolan is a class act guy and I don't think working under someone who he used to be the boss for would bother him. I think that's what you were getting at correct?

My concern is the same as yours. We just don't have the players to run a 3-4 and it would under utilize Aaron Kampman to great extent that he wouldn't be worth a long term deal any more. Not until one year in the scheme to see how he adjusts.
Packnic
15 years ago
Packnic's Favorite Coaching Candidates for the recently opened Defensive Coordinator spot. not necessarily in order.

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/37094594.html 

My main thinking here is, CONSTANT PRODUCTION. You will be hard pressed to go back and find a game where the Steeler defense and especially the linebacker group didnt come to play.

2. Mike Nolan (HC/SF) - While he obviously wasnt the most productive coach in 49er history, I did enjoy his demeanor on the sideline and a good working relationship with Mike McCarthy is never a bad thing. His defense's were pretty good in San Fran despite a dreadfully bad amount of time spent on the field due to a terrible offense.

both of those are probable switches to 3-4, but i am honesltly not calling for that. I would be very ok with a 3-4 base, 4-3 hybrid style. In a solid run game division, I think a 4-3 is going to be the most effective, so i dont htink you can completely sell out the 4-3. Something adaptable is key for me though.

3. Sean McDermott (DB/Phily) - Productive, Young, Versatile, Jim Johnson. 4 great things to have associated with your name when your a DC candidate. Really i think this would be a significant move. We stay in the base 4-3 and gain a bright football mind who has spent the last 10 years watching Jim Johnson consistently get pressure on opponents. I think with our current personell, this would be the least shock, coupled with the most production.
blank
jdog2
15 years ago
Sean McDermott I was reading up on this guy. He's learned from Jim Johnson for like 10 years. If you want our guys to blitz more he might be the guy to have.

Mike Nolan I think he could be a good DC. He ran both 3-4 and 4-3 in San Fran.
blank
Fan Shout
Mucky Tundra (6m) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv
Zero2Cool (26m) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno
beast (35m) : I agree that it's BS for fans planning on going to the game. But how does it bring in more money? I'm guessing indirectly?
packerfanoutwest (47m) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans
Zero2Cool (1h) : I see what you did there Mucky
Zero2Cool (1h) : dammit. 3:25pm
Zero2Cool (1h) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm
Mucky Tundra (1h) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground
Mucky Tundra (1h) : Yeah baby!
Zero2Cool (2h) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah
Zero2Cool (3h) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.
beast (3h) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue
Zero2Cool (4h) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's
Zero2Cool (4h) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.
packerfanoutwest (4h) : ok I stand corrected
Zero2Cool (4h) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th
Zero2Cool (4h) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?
beast (4h) : Saying no to the 6th lock.
beast (4h) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out
Zero2Cool (4h) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.
beast (4h) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games
beast (4h) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality
beast (4h) : We already have told you... if Packers lose all their games (they won't, but if they did), and Buccaneers and Falcons win all theirs
Zero2Cool (4h) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread
Zero2Cool (4h) : I literally just said it.
packerfanoutwest (4h) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't
Zero2Cool (4h) : Falcons, Buccaneers would need to win final two games.
Zero2Cool (4h) : Yes, if they win one of three, they are lock. If they lose out, they can be eliminated.
packerfanoutwest (4h) : as I just said,,gtheyh are in no matter what
Zero2Cool (4h) : Packers should get in. I just hope it's not 7th seed. Feels dirty.
packerfanoutwest (4h) : If packers lose out, no matter what, they are in
packerfanoutwest (4h) : both teams can not male the playoffs....falcon hold the tie breaker
packerfanoutwest (5h) : if bucs win out they win their division
beast (5h) : Fine, Buccaneers and Falcons can get ahead of us
packerfanoutwest (5h) : falcons are already ahead of us
beast (5h) : Packers will get in
beast (5h) : If Packers lose the rest of their games and Falcons win the rest of theirs, they could pass us... but not gonna happen
packerfanoutwest (5h) : they still are in the playoffs
packerfanoutwest (5h) : If Packers lose the remaining games,,,,at 10-7
Zero2Cool (7h) : We can say it. We don't play.
Mucky Tundra (8h) : But to say they are in is looking past the Saints
Mucky Tundra (8h) : That said, their odds are very favorable with a >99% chance of making the playoffs entering this week's games
Mucky Tundra (8h) : Packers are not in and have not clinched a playoff spot.
buckeyepackfan (9h) : Packers are in, they need to keep winning to improve their seed#.
Mucky Tundra (18h) : Getting help would have been nice, but helping ourselves should always be the plan
beast (18h) : Too bad Seahawks couldn't beat Vikings
bboystyle (18h) : We just need to win Monday night and were in
Mucky Tundra (21h) : Or ties, but let's be real here
Mucky Tundra (21h) : Other scenario was Falcons+Rams losses
Mucky Tundra (21h) : Needed a Falcons loss for a Seahawk loss to clinch
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
Vikings
Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
2m / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

23m / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

3h / Random Babble / Martha Careful

22-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / packerfanoutwest

19-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

19-Dec / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

18-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

17-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

17-Dec / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

16-Dec / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Mucky Tundra

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.