How is it that Capers still has a job with the Green Bay Packers?

[easyk83]

Raji clearly lacked motivation in the past. It wasn’t because of his weight and it wasn’t because of the number of snaps and it wasn't because of his position change. Now, I should have written, Raji lost significant snaps in the nickel and dime instead of “he lost of his job”. But then, just as ‘if a tree falls in the forest…’, if a DL is on the field and never records a stat is he really out there? The context of my remark and the reason this was brought up at all was to point out to those who want to use Raji playing at DE instead of NT as an excuse for his dismal play. He lost all those snaps in the nickel and dime because of his unmotivated play, not because he was playing out of position. And that point stands.

I seem to remember him getting a lot of snaps in the nickel Defense during those years. Capers used to use a nickel with two nose tackle types in the middle against run heavy offenses on early downs a lot during those seasons. So while Raji lost time in pass situations he was seeing a lot of action in the Nickel Defenses on 1st and 2nd down.

 

[Mondio]

all I know is, I hope this inspired level of play continues throughout the season. Thru 2 games, he's held the point of attack, chased down plays along the line and from the backside, and is playing more on the other side of the LOS than he has in pretty much every year since about 2010. We'll need him again tonight and for our outside guys to hold the point, take away cut backs, and converge to make the tackle.

 

[easyk83]

all I know is, I hope this inspired level of play continues throughout the season. Thru 2 games, he's held the point of attack, chased down plays along the line and from the backside, and is playing more on the other side of the LOS than he has in pretty much every year since about 2010. We'll need him again tonight and for our outside guys to hold the point, take away cut backs, and converge to make the tackle.

Hard to solve a problem like Busari. He's a rare talent when motivated and I'd ague on par with Wilfork and Ngata. Unfortunately his motivation does not match his God given talents. I think you try to extend him to a multi year deal with high performance escalators and a low base and not much guaranteed. Of course he might refuse to sign such a contract.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I seem to remember him getting a lot of snaps in the nickel Defense during those years. Capers used to use a nickel with two nose tackle types in the middle against run heavy offenses on early downs a lot during those seasons. So while Raji lost time in pass situations he was seeing a lot of action in the Nickel Defenses on 1st and 2nd down.

The purpose of the nickel scheme is to defend the pass, so lining up in that formation doesn't make sense against a run heavy offense.

 

[easyk83]

The purpose of the nickel scheme is to defend the pass, so lining up in that formation doesn't make sense against a run heavy offense.

It can if your personnel execute well enough. You can draw an opposing team into running at the teeth of your defense and counter by playing the run heavy from a schematic standpoint. But you need two big strong DTs who can anchor against double teams and ILBs who know how to fill and safeties able to do work in run support. Its more of a bend but dont break approach, give up 4-6 yard runs, eliminate big plays and force the other team to execute. It was working in 2013... up until Rodgers was injured and Raji mailed it in.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

It can if your personnel execute well enough. You can draw an opposing team into running at the teeth of your defense and counter by playing the run heavy from a schematic standpoint. But you need two big strong DTs who can anchor against double teams and ILBs who know how to fill and safeties able to do work in run support. Its more of a bend but dont break approach, give up 4-6 yard runs, eliminate big plays and force the other team to execute. It was working in 2013... up until Rodgers was injured and Raji mailed it in.

Once again, a defense doesn't gain any advantage by replacing a DL with a DB when the offense lines up in a run formation.

 

[mradtke66]

Once again, a defense doesn't gain any advantage by replacing a DL with a DB when the offense lines up in a run formation.

In general yes. In some ways, no.

I'm okay running a nickel defense with Hyde out there against a team with a great receiving tight end.

Sometimes there's no good answer. If the opposition has a great offense that can hurt you either way with their base personnel, would you rather run a defense that is more likely to give up 5-6 yard runs (big nickel) or 25-30 yard seam routes to the tight end (3-4)?

 

[Mondio]

In general yes. In some ways, no.

I'm okay running a nickel defense with Hyde out there against a team with a great receiving tight end.

Sometimes there's no good answer. If the opposition has a great offense that can hurt you either way with their base personnel, would you rather run a defense that is more likely to give up 5-6 yard runs (big nickel) or 25-30 yard seam routes to the tight end (3-4)?

For every offensive scheme there is a defensive scheme to stop it and vice versa. Sprinkle in the quality of players and their execution of the scheme and you make for one interesting game. There is no perfect defense.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

In general yes. In some ways, no.

I'm okay running a nickel defense with Hyde out there against a team with a great receiving tight end.

Sometimes there's no good answer. If the opposition has a great offense that can hurt you either way with their base personnel, would you rather run a defense that is more likely to give up 5-6 yard runs (big nickel) or 25-30 yard seam routes to the tight end (3-4)?

Against a run heavy team I prefer the defensive back to replace one of the inside linebackers though.

 

[mradtke66]

Against a run heavy team I prefer the defensive back to replace one of the inside linebackers though.

I don't necessarily see that as better though. It just changes which gaps are the weakest.

If anything, it potentially weakens the pass rush. Now one of your two OLBs isn't rushing as a "base" call.

Or you slide one OLB inside-ish and shift the other OLB and lineman and it looks the same with two 3-technique rushers and two outside rushers, but I don't think many/any of our defensive ends are as good rushing the passer as our OLBs are, so I'd rather book end the front 4 with OLBs.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I don't necessarily see that as better though. It just changes which gaps are the weakest.

If anything, it potentially weakens the pass rush. Now one of your two OLBs isn't rushing as a "base" call.

Or you slide one OLB inside-ish and shift the other OLB and lineman and it looks the same with two 3-technique rushers and two outside rushers, but I don't think many/any of our defensive ends are as good rushing the passer as our OLBs are, so I'd rather book end the front 4 with OLBs.

I'm not advocating to use that formation as the regular nickel scheme but would like to see it once the offense lines up in a typical run formation.

 

[mradtke66]

I'm not advocating to use that formation as the regular nickel scheme but would like to see it once the offense lines up in a typical run formation.

I understand the argument, I'm just not sure I buy it.

It seems to be based on the idea the premise that a lineman is a better run defender than a linebacker, typically due to size reasons. IE, bigger = better. For interior defense, I tend to agree. For edge defenders (4-3 ends and 3-4 olbs) I typically don't. Especially with our glut of over-sized outside players.

Peppers is big for a 4-3 end, huge for a 3-4 OLB. Perry and Neal are typically sized 4-3 ends at 265-ish. All three set a perfectly fine edge in the run game, which is the primary run-defending job of an edge defender. Neal and Peppers offer enough as run defenders that both take some snaps as 3-technique tackles in dime and nickel defenses.

Consider: If there was a metaphorical gun to our heads and we were told to run a 4-3 defense with a front 4 of Peppers, Daniels, Raji, and Neal/Perry, how would you feel? Honestly, I'd feel pretty good. Why should we worry about that would be a fine base defensive front as a nickel defensive front?

I think too much is made about a supposed "soft" defense because play a lot of "linebackers." They're big dudes!

My primary concern with a 3-3 front is what I perceive as weakness in the middle. Obviously, it would depend on where the 4-3 ends lineup, but it strikes me as too easy for a Center-Guard combo block to move the nose tackle enough to create a clean enough gap for the fullback to cleanly handle the lone middle linebacker. Now the tailback is off to the races against a safety. Or cut the nose and have the Guard-Tackle combo block move the end, with the TE/FB doubling the outside linebacker. Have 1/2 of the combo leak off a clean up that MLB and again, ballcarrier is 1 on 1 vs. a safety.

The 3-3 looks to my eye, a better blitz centric pass-defense. The Bear/46 defense. 5 rushers (NT, E, E, OLB, OLB) against 5 offensive linemen.

I much, much prefer one linebacker-type per running back: The 2 ILBs in a 3-4, 4-2 nickel, 2-4 nickel, and the weak outside and middle backers in a 4-3. This lets the SILB/MLB blow up the fullback and the Weak outside/inside backer to clean up the ball carrier. There's a reason why that player is typically the smallest and fastest linebacker..

 

[Deleted member 6794]

It seems to be based on the idea the premise that a lineman is a better run defender than a linebacker, typically due to size reasons. IE, bigger = better. For interior defense, I tend to agree. For edge defenders (4-3 ends and 3-4 olbs) I typically don't. Especially with our glut of over-sized outside players.

Peppers is big for a 4-3 end, huge for a 3-4 OLB. Perry and Neal are typically sized 4-3 ends at 265-ish. All three set a perfectly fine edge in the run game, which is the primary run-defending job of an edge defender. Neal and Peppers offer enough as run defenders that both take some snaps as 3-technique tackles in dime and nickel defenses.

I didn't suggest to take any of the outside linebackers off the field.

My primary concern with a 3-3 front is what I perceive as weakness in the middle. Obviously, it would depend on where the 4-3 ends lineup, but it strikes me as too easy for a Center-Guard combo block to move the nose tackle enough to create a clean enough gap for the fullback to cleanly handle the lone middle linebacker. Now the tailback is off to the races against a safety. Or cut the nose and have the Guard-Tackle combo block move the end, with the TE/FB doubling the outside linebacker. Have 1/2 of the combo leak off a clean up that MLB and again, ballcarrier is 1 on 1 vs. a safety.

The 3-3 looks to my eye, a better blitz centric pass-defense. The Bear/46 defense. 5 rushers (NT, E, E, OLB, OLB) against 5 offensive linemen.

I much, much prefer one linebacker-type per running back: The 2 ILBs in a 3-4, 4-2 nickel, 2-4 nickel, and the weak outside and middle backers in a 4-3. This lets the SILB/MLB blow up the fullback and the Weak outside/inside backer to clean up the ball carrier. There's a reason why that player is typically the smallest and fastest linebacker..

It's mandatory to have a DB capable of tackling a RB to play a defense like that. Richardson would fit the mold but unfortunately I don't trust him covering a TE.

 

[mradtke66]

I didn't suggest to take any of the outside linebackers off the field.

True. The implication I read was that they, the OLBs, are somehow insufficient, which is why we need more defensive linemen on the field. Which leads you to 'sacrificing' an ILB.

I am arguing from the perspective that 2 typical linebackers are a very important part of a defense that is facing 2 running backs. Thus, 4-2/2-4 nickel is preferred to provide that.

I am curious if a 3-3 would be better against a 2WR, 2TE set--balanced defense against a balanced offense. If we could just get the offense to promise to keep 1 TE and WR per side of the formation and not create a stack or motion 1 TE into the backfield as an H-Back...

That is also based on the idea that 2-2-1 personnel is even appropriate to handle with base under most circumstances. With the modern NFL trending towards receiving tight ends, it wouldn't surprise me to see 2-2-1 defended the same as 3-1-1 a majority of the time.

It's mandatory to have a DB capable of tackling a RB to play a defense like that. Richardson would fit the mold but unfortunately I don't trust him covering a TE.

I'll agree with that. I'm curious if perhaps the best ideal would be doing something like bringing Burnett (when healthy) down as the nickel corner and putting Hyde back at safety. Not as good as a cover man as Hyde, not as good a tackler as Richardson, but the best compromise?

 

[TJV]

It seems to be based on the idea the premise that a lineman is a better run defender than a linebacker, typically due to size reasons. IE, bigger = better. For interior defense, I tend to agree. For edge defenders (4-3 ends and 3-4 olbs) I typically don't. Especially with our glut of over-sized outside players.
Peppers is big for a 4-3 end, huge for a 3-4 OLB. Perry and Neal are typically sized 4-3 ends at 265-ish. All three set a perfectly fine edge in the run game, which is the primary run-defending job of an edge defender. Neal and Peppers offer enough as run defenders that both take some snaps as 3-technique tackles in dime and nickel defenses.

I agree and think the idea you are arguing against - that the 2-4 is necessarily weak vs. the run - is the source of confusion by some here regarding the 2-4.

 

[HardRightEdge]

As I mentioned in the post above, there are players in Raji's weight range that played similar numbers of snaps. Now, as I mentioned, I'm not saying the number of snaps had no effect, just that the magnitude of that particular factor probably wasn't too large.

I saw what you mentioned and then provided you with simple query tool whereby you could see you're mistaken, unless by "players" you mean "2".

So, name those D-Linemen, please, with the season and percentage of defensive snaps listed, starting in 2012. That list should include all such players for a particular year, since one or two exceptions would prove the rule.

This should be easy since the Football Outsiders link I provided makes for a simple query. All you have to do is look up their weights.

 

[Half Empty]

Only to certain types of people.

 

[Croak]

Let's avoid personal shots guys. OK?

 

[Mondio]

Let's avoid personal shots guys. OK?

Did someone call me fat?

 

[pacmaniac]

Rodgers just called out Capers in his on-field post game interview- "defensively we have to shore up a few things".

 

[Carl]

Rodgers just called out Capers in his on-field post game interview- "defensively we have to shore up a few things".

Capers or the all the guys who actually play defense? Not sure how it can be pointed right to Capers.

 

[Sky King]

The blitz scenario to start the second half did not pan out very well. Smith was elusive enough to exploit it. Capers re-adjusted. That was not an untalented team with poor coaching he was trying to match-up against last night. He won his half of that battle. The score should verify that.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I saw what you mentioned and then provided you with simple query tool whereby you could see you're mistaken, unless by "players" you mean "2".

So, name those D-Linemen, please, with the season and percentage of defensive snaps listed, starting in 2012. That list should include all such players for a particular year, since one or two exceptions would prove the rule.

This should be easy since the Football Outsiders link I provided makes for a simple query. All you have to do is look up their weights.

Yeah, I mentioned two. Why are we so focused on percentage of snaps? Shouldn't we care more about absolute number of snaps? I mean, who cares if a guy played 80% vs 70% if both guys played a similar number of snaps (not all defenses play the exact same number of snaps). Pointing out though that changing from absolute number of snaps doesn't really affect the analysis too greatly in this case. I just wanted to mention that percentage doesn't really make much sense when looking at how tired a guy gets.

I was also mainly talking about 2011, when Raji was at his worst, so why would I look up 2012?

Finally, you're right. Raji played more snaps than a lot of other guys in his weight range (there were a couple in his weight range though that managed the feat). That being said, he was one of the worst starting dlineman in the NFL. His number of snaps was NOT the main contributor to that sub-par play. Raji wasn't JUST bad at the end of games or at the end of the season. Or are you of the opinion that had Raji played 600 snaps vs 842 he would have been a dominant NT?

 

[gopkrs]

A lot of people talking about how Capers went conservative in the 2nd half. Don't really see that as there seemed to be an awful lot of blitzes. My question is why do you change the defensive strategy when what you were doing was working so well? Yeah, you want to adjust. But that is only if the opponent is doing something that is working against you. Otherwise you are kind of outthinking yourself.