Packers' weakness: Transition to 3-4· Page 2

warhawk
Senior Member

15 years ago

I don't think it had as much to do with a 4-3 or a 3-4, but more with just picking the "Best Coach Available" type of signing. It was obvious (at least to me and our front office) that Sanders wasn't getting it done so he was fired along with the majority of our defensive staff. Next, we had to hire another coach. I don't think we were necessarily going out and looking for our next defensive coordinator to specifically run a 3-4, but just the best coach available. Obviously that consisted of Dom Capers, Mike Nolan (both 3-4 guys) and the fellow from Tennessee that went to the Saints (who runs a 4-3 I believe).

I kind of view it just like the Best Player Available strategy with the draft. Talent is talent and having an experienced, innovative, and talented coach such as Dom Capers is never a bad thing. A superb coach can overcome inexperience often with his players. It has been stated more then once in various articles that the significance of good coaching can NOT be overlooked.

But yeah, I think the whole 4-3 or 3-4 arguments are simply being thought about too much. Give me a talented coach that can get the most out of the players regardless of the scheme any day of the week. Let's not forget we have basically TWO experienced defensive coordinators on our staff, Dom and Trojak (sp?) from the Panther's.

I couldn't be more impressed with our re-alignment of our defensive coaching staff this off-season.

"Dulak" wrote:

Ya thats exactly what happened this off-season. We were going to get the best coach available for the job and it came out dom wasnt even our first choice (but I am glad now we got him). And he is the one that implemented the 3-4 - it wasnt Mike M that said we need a 3-4 D lets get a 3-4 DC

Makes perfect sense IMO to switch to the 3-4.

And ya soon after dom came in he said kampman would play with his hand down 50-60% of the time (ie 4-3).

dom also stated it will be a 3 year transition to a pure 3-4.

"doddpower" wrote:

I think the points here are what this guy is missing. Like Dom Capers is going to put Kampman in a position where he has to cover TE's more than he is going to be rushing the QB? Give me a break.

Like Porky and others here have said it would not surprise me at all to see more 4-3 than 3-4 this year and I expect that is what will happen. This is similar to what I think we will see with more of a power run game on offense being implemented when the situation calls for that too. We won't just shift over to power run offense but I have a feeling as the year goes along we will see more and more of that.

I think this guy thinks 3-4 and then evaluates personnel and starts sighting square pegs in a round hole scenario's and if that's what Capers would do or did in the past you wouldn't have seen him turn teams around like he has. I would be worried if you had to sell your soul on the 3-4 and it was an all or nothing proposition. But's it's not.

The other thing I agree with Dulak on is we have an all-star lineup of coaches on D now with Tgrovac, Perry, and, Capers. All veterans who know a little about defense. Big upgrade in coaching helps bring about big upgrades in performance I really don't care how the heck they line up.

"The train is leaving the station."

Tezzy
Senior Member

15 years ago

#12

Once again I'll ask, what's so damn dominant about the Vikes D? Ten wins, our "shitty" team managed to beat them once and lose by a point the second time, what gives? I can think of a few D's I'd rather have than the vikes. I think you lose 1 of the Williams' and it's over.

And Capers has said the transition will be slow, They won't be running a full on 3-4 this season.

"dingus" wrote:

I'll give them domination points for being the first team to ever post the best rushing D three years in a row. Funny though that even with that the highest overall defense they have had in those 3 years is #6.

On top of every beard grows a man.
"The Bears are shell-shocked... and it's breaking my heart."

dingus
Member

15 years ago

#13

"Tezzy" wrote:

"dingus" wrote:

Like I said, lose a Williams and its over! 1 Decent DB, One decent LB and the rest of the D is pedestrian.

blank

dfosterf
Veteran Member

15 years ago

#14

Like I said, lose a Williams and its over! 1 Decent DB, One decent LB and the rest of the D is pedestrian.

"dingus" wrote:

And about 50% of me wants the Vikes to lose both Venus and Serena when we play in week 4.

I still wouldn't consider it all that fair if the NFL wins in court and they have to endure those suspensions...

But I'll take it!

I'll just have to keep going with my lame "Adrian Peterson should have been penalized at the end of that game" line.

You see, Mars,Formo and others have said that the league apology for not calling that penalty is a worthless piece of paper. (they are right, but don't tell 'em)

I plan to use the same logic when they (I am sure have already planned this) to whip out the, "We would have beat you if we had the Williams Wall" excuse.

My logic is no better than theirs, so we are even on that one. :icon_smile:

millertime
Member

15 years ago

#15

If Kampman can't adjust, we could always let him go in free agency and pick up someone who fits out scheme, someone named Shawne Merrimen that the financially-strapped Chargers will likely let go, seeing as they drafted his replacement (Larry English) this year.

mi_keys
Senior Member

15 years ago

#16

I think another point to add to the one a lot of you have brought up and discussed is that Kampman played linebacker at Iowa and has the exact same build as a lot of the premier 3-4 pass rushing OLBs. He's also very athletic.

Indeed, the 6-feet-4, 288-pound Kampman turned in a solid audition in less than optimum conditions when scouts visited the Hawkeyes' campus last month. He was clocked between 4.66 and 4.70 seconds in the 40-yard dash, timed at about 4.04 seconds in the "short shuttle" drill, did a 35-inch vertical jump and a 9-feet, 9-inch long jump.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfldraft/columnist?id=1361573

Keep in mind he's also lighter now so he's probably even faster/quicker than those numbers suggest (provided those numbers were accurate to begin with).

Born and bred a cheesehead

porky88
Veteran Member

15 years ago

#17

Kampman's workout numbers > Terrell Suggs workout numbers.

Just thought I'd throw that out there.

http://www.row12.com/

Dulak
Veteran Member

15 years ago

#18

[quote="Tezzy"]
Like I said, lose a Williams and its over! 1 Decent DB, One decent LB and the rest of the D is pedestrian.

"dingus" wrote:

Jared Allen is a tough cookie <<< dont forget about him

DakotaT
Select Member

15 years ago

#19

"Tezzy" wrote:

"dingus" wrote:

Those run defense stats are distorted. Why run when you can pass all day on them. That being said, Jared Allen made a difference for them last year. I hope McCarthey learned a lesson last year on the fast track of the Metrodome. Keep a Tight End over there to chip and realease. I'm also hoping out new hammer for a fullback makes a difference in pass protection.

But Dingus is right, they are rather pedestrian in the secondary and at linebacker. I'll take our receiver matchups on them all day.

dingus
Member

15 years ago

#20

I Did forget about Jared Allen, I try not to think about that tool too much!

blank

Important Information:

The PACKERSHOME uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More Details Close

Fan Shout

Zero2Cool (6m) : I see what you did there Mucky

Zero2Cool (6m) : dammit. 3:25pm

Zero2Cool (6m) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm

Mucky Tundra (14m) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground

Mucky Tundra (14m) : Yeah baby!

Zero2Cool (35m) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah

Zero2Cool (1h) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.

beast (1h) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue

Zero2Cool (2h) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's

Zero2Cool (2h) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.

packerfanoutwest (2h) : ok I stand corrected

Zero2Cool (2h) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th

Zero2Cool (2h) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?

beast (2h) : Saying no to the 6th lock.

beast (2h) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out

Zero2Cool (3h) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.

beast (3h) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games

beast (3h) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality

beast (3h) : 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 (3h) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread

Zero2Cool (3h) : I literally just said it.

packerfanoutwest (3h) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't

Zero2Cool (3h) : Falcons, Buccaneers would need to win final two games.

Zero2Cool (3h) : Yes, if they win one of three, they are lock. If they lose out, they can be eliminated.

packerfanoutwest (3h) : as I just said,,gtheyh are in no matter what

Zero2Cool (3h) : Packers should get in. I just hope it's not 7th seed. Feels dirty.

packerfanoutwest (3h) : If packers lose out, no matter what, they are in

packerfanoutwest (3h) : both teams can not male the playoffs....falcon hold the tie breaker

packerfanoutwest (3h) : if bucs win out they win their division

beast (3h) : Fine, Buccaneers and Falcons can get ahead of us

packerfanoutwest (3h) : falcons are already ahead of us

beast (3h) : Packers will get in

beast (3h) : If Packers lose the rest of their games and Falcons win the rest of theirs, they could pass us... but not gonna happen

packerfanoutwest (3h) : they still are in the playoffs

packerfanoutwest (3h) : If Packers lose the remaining games,,,,at 10-7

Zero2Cool (5h) : We can say it. We don't play.

Mucky Tundra (6h) : But to say they are in is looking past the Saints

Mucky Tundra (6h) : That said, their odds are very favorable with a >99% chance of making the playoffs entering this week's games

Mucky Tundra (6h) : Packers are not in and have not clinched a playoff spot.

buckeyepackfan (7h) : Packers are in, they need to keep winning to improve their seed#.

Mucky Tundra (16h) : Getting help would have been nice, but helping ourselves should always be the plan

beast (16h) : Too bad Seahawks couldn't beat Vikings

bboystyle (17h) : We just need to win Monday night and were in

Mucky Tundra (20h) : Or ties, but let's be real here

Mucky Tundra (20h) : Other scenario was Falcons+Rams losses

Mucky Tundra (20h) : Needed a Falcons loss for a Seahawk loss to clinch

buckeyepackfan (20h) : Am I wring in saying if Tge Vikings beat The Seahawks, The Packers clinch?

Mucky Tundra (21-Dec) : Agreed; you stinks

Zero2Cool (21-Dec) : I'm not beating anyone. I stinks.

Mucky Tundra (21-Dec) : rough injury for tank dell. guy can't catch abreak

Please sign in to use Fan Shout

2024 Packers Schedule

Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM

Eagles

29 - 34

Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM

COLTS

16 - 10

Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM

Titans

30 - 14

Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM

VIKINGS

29 - 31

Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM

Rams

24 - 19

Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM

CARDINALS

34 - 13

Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM

TEXANS

24 - 22

Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM

Jaguars

30 - 27

Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM

LIONS

14 - 24

Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM

Bears

20 - 19

Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM

49ERS

38 - 10

Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM

DOLPHINS

30 - 17

Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM

Lions

31 - 34

Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM

Seahawks

30 - 13

Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM

SAINTS

Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM

Vikings

Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM

BEARS