Carl Bradford Thread

[mradtke66]

Are you saying 7 guys in coverage isn't enough?? lol...

No, you'd need 7, which means you only 4 rushers. You put 3 down linemen + 3 linebackers. To get to 7 in the back end, 2 of you linebackers are in coverage.

Hawk or Jones can cover the TE or RB... just depends on how you want to matchup with the opponent.

This is not an OR. This is an AND. 3WR = 3CB. 1TE=1LB. 1RB = 1LB. 2 safeties deep.

How does anyone else in the league ever cover anyone - if they aren't in a 2-4??

You guys make it sound like playing anything other than a 2-4 is akin to insanity

[/quote]

4-2s or 2-4s are the norm for a reason--they provide the most people able to do the required jobs.

Get off the notion that our 2-4 is different from a 4-2. If we got a 4-3 coordinator tomorrow who preferred a 4-2 nickel, we'd line up with the personnel in nickel. Oh no, Perry and Matthews would have their hands in the dirt.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I´m actually getting tired about the discussion about the 2-4, 3-3 and 4-2 but I will try one more time to explain my point of view. It is pretty obvious that we have to commit seven guys into coverage if the opponent lines up with five receivng threats (3 WR, 1 TE, 1 RB). Those guys normally consist of 3 CBs, 2 safeties and two LBs (preferably the two ILBs if they´re capable of doing that).

So, let´s concentrate on the front four. By lining up with two down lineman and two OLBs in the nickel defense the scheme is way more flexible than playing three or four DL. In that case it is possible to either rush the front four or come up with exotic blitz packages as the OLBs could drop into coverage and you could rush a safety, corner or one of ILBs. It makes it tougher to stop the run, but that´s why you like to have OLBs that can play vs. the run as well. Playing with three or even four DL won´t allow a defense to be as flexible cause you can´t drop them into coverage.

IMO the most important thing to be able to succesfully play a nickel defense is having DL and OLBs on the roster capable of rushing the passer AND stopping the run. Having some guys capable of playing both DE and OLB should allow Capers to run it more effectively in 2014.

 

[wist43]

Good gravy guys, lol...

We stunk on defense overall; we especially stunk when we were in the 2-4. Most teams run a 3-3 or a 4-2, and we have the personnel that best suits those personnel groupings.

Not sure why this is such a mystery??

 

[News Bot]

First off, for all those University of Wisconsin football fans, Carl Bradford was not “that guy.” Not the Arizona State defender that lay on the ball for eons as the final seconds ticked away in the Sun Devils’ controversial win in September.

Source: JSOnline.com

 

[mradtke66]

Most teams run a 3-3 or a 4-2, and we have the personnel that best suits those personnel groupings.

Not sure why this is such a mystery??

Because I dispute the fact we are setup to run a 3-3 or 4-2 or any other alignment that trots out more linemen at the expense of traditional linebackers and/or moving Matthews from his normal spot is an improvement.

Lets harp on your plan.

1) Pre-Peppers, we one guy on the roster who looks the part of traditional, hand in the dirt, pass rushing end: Perry. Our linemen are tackles. Ignore that they are called "ends." Anyone else on the roster needs to play 5 technique and "lower."

Neal was a pleasant surprise, but he struggled a little bit playing outside for the first time. I suspect he would have had a harder time playing contain and maintaining outside leverage if he had his head down and not looking for the ball.

2) You haven't explained who will play coverage in your preferred nickel alignments. Can we do better than Hawk/Jones? Almost certainly. Tell me who, on our roster, can do their job in coverage better than them. I can't think of someone. Matthews might, again, he's not rushing. Why is that better?

The notion that we need to get our best players on the field is a good one, but you've gone overboard to the point of failure. You need to be schematically sound.

Six designated pass rushers on the field at the same time sounds great and would probably work in Madden, but not real football. There are run fits, flowing to the ball, playing man to man, getting depth in zone drops, and actually making plays on the ball when its in the air. Your alignments and groupings making those things worse and don't necessarily improve anything.

Should we trot out Rodgers on defense because he's our best player? No, of course not. What you are suggesting is not unlike that.

 

[TJV]

Last year, I'd have had Daniels, D. Jones, and probably Perry on the line.

And the opponent would have run it down your throat for as long as you had those three on DL, while your two run stuffers and legit NTs, Raji and Pickett, sat on the bench. Perry and Daniels are not stout enough to defend the run on the DL play after play after play. That's why Daniels was used in sub packages mostly to pressure the QB. Perry's best spot may be DE in a 4-3 but it sure as hell isn't as a DE in a base 3-4 - or 3-3. I expect Jones to be much improved this season - we were getting great reports about him before his injury derailed his progress. IMO he has a shot to be a legit DE in a 3-4, but certainly not at the beginning of last year.

The results from what Capers has been doing, and what you and the others are cheering for - has been a train wreck; yet you keep saber rattling for it. Really, it's amazing to watch you guys try to make these arguments.

It is your "analysis" that is a train wreck. No one here is arguing the Packers defense last season was good. But your focus on the 2-4 as the culprit is misplaced. You are posting as if defenders in the front 6 can't engage the OL unless they have their hand on the ground. Again, the 2-4 is a 4-2 with the DEs standing up.

 

[longtimefan]

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/pack...tml?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

ASU's Carl Bradford will move from DE to LB

Bradford, who's 6 foot 1 and 251 pounds, will now try making the switch from defensive end to outside linebacker.

"Carl's a real good athlete, really smooth, fluid athlete," said Brian Gutekunst, Green Bay's director of college scouting. "He's got a lot of twitch. He's obviously had a lot of success as a pass rusher. He's got relentless play."

 

[Pack-12]

Pass rusher is the premium position. Hard to move a guy to ILB if he proves he can get after the QB so they'll give him a chance at it.

 

[wist43]

I say I want to get away from the 2-4 b/c 1) teams run like crazy against us when we're in it - b/c Capers runs it in run/pass situations, i.e. 1st and 10, 2nd and 6, and 3rd and 3.

Those are either/or down/distances.

Depending on the opponent, more often than not, regardless of what personnel the offense trots on the field, you can handle those down/distances out of base. 3WR's, 1 TE, 1 RB - yes, your base should be able to match up with that no problem.

I went back and looked at the 2nd Detroit game the other day - they had 1st and goal at the 1, and had 3 WR's, 1 TE, and 1 RB on the field; we were in the 2-4!!! From the 1 stinking yd line, lol... Bush walked in untouched. The same thing happened against Chicago in the playoff game, Forte walked in untouched.

I say I would only run the 2-4 in obvious passing situations, and give you an alignment, and the first comeback you all have is - "teams will run against us"?? That's my #1 complaint against the alignment to begin with - regardless of whether we're in the "fat-guy 2-4", or a "pass rush 2-4".

Can't have it both ways guys... you're the ones advocated the 2-4.

2) The fat-guy 2-4. To deal with the run/pass situations - if it's a pass, your 2 inside run stuffers aren't going to generate any pass rush... they're just going to do the 'dancing bear tango with the C and 2 G's - which is what we saw all of last year.

If it is a run/pass situation, the 3-3 would be much more effective at dealing with the potential of either the run or the pass b/c you have more overall size on the field, and you have pass rushers.

3) It is permissible to both blitz and play zone.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Depending on the opponent, more often than not, regardless of what personnel the offense trots on the field, you can handle those down/distances out of base. 3WR's, 1 TE, 1 RB - yes, your base should be able to match up with that no problem.

In that case two LBs would have to cover the TE and the RB, not an ideal situation.

I went back and looked at the 2nd Detroit game the other day - they had 1st and goal at the 1, and had 3 WR's, 1 TE, and 1 RB on the field; we were in the 2-4!!! From the 1 stinking yd line, lol... Bush walked in untouched. The same thing happened against Chicago in the playoff game, Forte walked in untouched.

I agree defending the goal line with only two defensive linemen doesn´t make any sense at all.

The fat-guy 2-4. To deal with the run/pass situations - if it's a pass, your 2 inside run stuffers aren't going to generate any pass rush... they're just going to do the 'dancing bear tango with the C and 2 G's - which is what we saw all of last year.

If it is a run/pass situation, the 3-3 would be much more effective at dealing with the potential of either the run or the pass b/c you have more overall size on the field, and you have pass rushers.

Once again, lining up in the nickel with three DL theoratically improves the run defense (although after watching the film that wasn´t the case vs. the Eagles) but the pass rush would suffer as you don´t have as many pass rushers on the field.

 

[mradtke66]

3WR's, 1 TE, 1 RB - yes, your base should be able to match up with that no problem.

Occasionally, maybe. The problem is now you're bringing a safety to play man to man against a (likely) shifty slot receiver. Or sliding out a linebacker. If the linebacker has the slot, that's where the ball is going.

If the safety slides down, a competent quarterback will push it deep. Single coverage, go/fade route. Again, this is a thing that makes a quarterback excited.

Worse, you've overloaded against the run when the offense comes out in a passing formation. Your alignment is roughly 8 men in the box!

I say I would only run the 2-4 in obvious passing situations, and give you an alignment, and the first comeback you all have is - "teams will run against us"?? That's my #1 complaint against the alignment to begin with - regardless of whether we're in the "fat-guy 2-4", or a "pass rush 2-4".

Again, this is the back and forth of football. ALL NICKEL FRONTS ARE EASIER TO RUN ON. That's the whole thing. Offenses want to throw against base, run against nickel. It's all about forcing the defense to do one thing so you can do the other.

If it is a run/pass situation, the 3-3 would be much more effective at dealing with the potential of either the run or the pass b/c you have more overall size on the field, and you have pass rushers.

Two problems with that statement. You presume that having more linemen will improve the run defense. It might make it easier to engage the linemen, but that's it. Drawing it up, I see more natural running lanes from a 3-3 than a 2-4/4-2. Assuming a relatively simple offensive alignment of QB under center, single back directly behind the QB, TE inline to the offensive right, flanker out right, split wide left, and slot left, where are you lining everyone up?

Second, you still haven't explained how we're going to cover the TE and RB effectively with a 3-3 alignment.

3) It is permissible to both blitz and play zone.

It is, but it's harder. If you rush 5 or more (the definition of a blitz) then you've created another natural hole in the zone.

Remember, (good) modern QBs WANT to be blitzed. You've taken a man out of coverage and simplified their read a bit. Identify the blitzer, identify who his man should be, throw to that man.

 

[Dylan Hoppe]

I honestly just wanna say shut up. I know it's a forum for opinions but for gods sake, let it go! This is the Carl Bradford thread not the 2-4 3-4 4-2 7-3 9-6 10-1 5-4 thread. Dang, back to topic please!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Deleted member 6794]

According to sources the Packers have signed Bradford, no financial details available as of now.