Here are my thoughts on the ideas..
1) Bring in Rod MarinelliI really like the idea of bringing in a senior advisors every now and then, so on that front I like this idea.
But having family and friends around isn't always nessarily a good thing, and can be a distraction. And Marinelli has been a position coach or higher since 1973... how will he that to being just an advisor after having five decades of more hands on experience and control?
I would prefer we brought in Vic Fangio, whom basically updated this defensive system to what we see today and everyone is trying to copy, but sounds like the 49ers might be bringing in Fangio as an advisor... which is interesting, seeing as the 49ers don't run this defensive system, but the Rams do.
2) Play More Man CoverageCrazy idea is right! Yes, let's bring in a new system, that was successful, and then STOP running that successful system!
I have to say I find this idea to be pure stupidity. I get the concept, the Packers have Stokes, Alexander and Savage whom can certainly do well in man coverage and changing it up to surprise the offense can be smart, and freeing up a Safety could also seriously help out.
BUT... the basics of the current coverage scheme is to keep mixing it up between different zone schemes that match we'll together and make it hard for the offense to read until after the snap, not running any one scheme more than 40%... mixing between cover 2 and cover 4 a lot, some cover 3 and Tampa 2 mixed in. So they're already mixing it up keeping the offense guessing (and yes you can and I think they do, throw some surprise man coverage in, but it's rare).
Also while Alexander and Stokes are athletic enough to keep up with anyone, they're struggled more in one on one than in zone, so whole they can be good in man, they're even better in zone.
Also, they stated keeping King and getting rid of Douglas... umm, do I even have to say it?
And finally, almost the entire NFL has gotten away from man coverage as the college spread system have come more to the NFL and man beater routes have straight up killed the heavy man coverage system off.
The entire NFL has gone to heavy zone systems for a reason. And trust me, I seriously miss the old heavy man coverage systems, I loved them, it was a lot more straight one on one, who's better. But the spread concepts and more athletes staying at WR instead of switching over to DB in college has all hurt man coverage.
3) Use College Concepts like the Mint FrontThis concept appears based on the idea the Packers are getting rid of the Smith Brothers and now going to have two decent edge rushers, which I think that assumption is bad, as would Gute really leave the team hanging like that? Especially when this draft class seems loaded with edge rushers at the first 50 picks or so....
That being said, I think I've already noticed the Packers doing their version of this... but instead of the a DT replacing an Edge Rusher (because you don't get rid of an edge rusher in a passing league)... they had a 3rd DT replace an ILB... and so it was basically a 5-2 defensive look, or 5-1 if they had the slot guy out there. But the 3-4 DEs were on the inside of the OTs.
Also remember the Packers were supposedly going to run a lot of 3 OLBers sets, then OLBers injuries happened and that had to scrap that and then they went to 3 DTs. I think they were planning to use Za'Darius or Gary pass rushing the Center of the DL as that's what they did, with Burks as an edge rusher, for a little while, but moved away from it after a while to the three DL look.
I don't think the Packers have the right personnel for this, but another college system that I found interesting is the 3-3 defense system. Which the Panthers have run some of, and Rodgers talked about how it confused them as an offense when they first saw it.
So, since I think they're already doing their own better version of it, I don't think counts as a new idea to improve the defense.
Some Timely BlitzesAgain, he's using that bad assumptions that Gute isn't going to have good edge rushers other than Gary, that assumption seems bad.
But yes, absolutely, I totally agree with this one... and one great article I read during the season talked about one issue with Joe Berry play calling, is that he always sticks extremely close to the scheme... which while part of the scheme is switching up the coverage calls, can make the scheme very predictable.
What the article talked about, was that it didn't matter if we're playing Patrick Mahomes or rookie Justin Fields, Berry was keeping those Safeties back and playing it extremely conservative on the back end, despite mixing it up. Which against a well oiled pass machine offense can make sense... but against struggling offenses, especially a QB that can run, why not be a bit more aggressive and give the QB less time and space to read it and figure it out?
Against the Bears and Ravens mobile backup QBs (Justin Fields was a backup this season), both the Bears and Ravens put up 30 points partly because the QBs ran 70+ yards on us.
I'm theory, not playing conservative all the time can get you burned more often, but playing conservatively all the times also makes you predictable.
Against some weaker passing attacks is the perfect time to try being a bit more aggressive and showing something different, to catch them off guard and if nothing else, put it on tape and make more study work for future teams.