Interesting article by Bob McGinn about the Packers improved run defense and the reasons for it:
http://m.jsonline.com/sports/packer...s-tone-for-packers-b99593129z1-331904641.html
Interesting, if entirely one-sided.
There is little doubt that having Matthews at ILB over the lackluster Hawk would yield meaningful improvement.
McGinn says, "moving Clay Matthews from outside to inside linebacker changed everything." One would expect having an All Pro in the position would have a significant impact. If Capers D requires an All Pro at the position, then so be it because that's where we're at. Maybe that's why an ILB was not taken in a high round lo these many seasons of the defense covering for Hawk...the All Pro potential wasn't on the board. Anyhow....
...McGinn continues by putting the
entire improvement of the run defense in the replacement of Hawk, while enabling Raji and Capers in excusing themselves from culpability at the expense of the dearly departed.
Of course one wonders if McGinn might amend those opinions after Gurley's performance, especially with respect to Palmer who I'll get to in a minute. But lets say that one game is neither here nor there.
He implies that "the structural, schematic and attitudinal shifts that just might transform what had been a weak run defense the last four years" is the direct and immediate result of Hawk's departure. Really?
Question: So how does he account for the "structural, schematic and attitudinal shifts" in the
pass rush, where I personally see more improvement than in the run defense. Is that supposed to be attributable to Hawk's absence as well? I think not. Raji, to take one example, spent 2 full years playing patty cake with O-Linemen in the pass rush...he wasn't covering for Hawk then, was he? The only D-Lineman last season who showed consistent aggressiveness was Daniels, consistently shedding blocks as Trgovac is quoted as saying, though we certainly didn't need to be told that. Hawk's presence didn't stop
him from getting off blocks and making plays any less then than this season; if he doesn't need to make excuses for last season then why should we expect "Hawk excuses" from others? We shouldn't.
So, the fact this defense plays with more aggressiveness in the pass rush as well as the running game indicates there are more factors at work than Hawk being weak against the run.
Is Hawk to blame for long spells of bad tackling in the backfield or lackadaisical pursuit last season since it has been largely absent this season? Is Hawk's absence the direct cause of this newfound ability to finish games? That conclusion would be foolish.
We've already discussed the simplification of the calls which entails "less scheme", less confusion, less thinking, more football instincts. The excuse Capers gave was the game got faster so the team needs to play faster. Oh, right, that happened just last season? No it did not; Capers, perhaps at McCarthy's prompting, climbed out of the rabbit hole to discover what we've been seeing for years. Of should we even take that at face value? Perhaps it's a very belated realization that many of his players couldn't internalize his complexities, which is a different rabbit hole. Maybe both?
Further, we've already discussed McCarthy teaching defenders how to look for O-Linemen's "tells", something I would have expected to have started with these guys in college football, or at least the one's from major conference programs, let alone what they should have been taught already in Green Bay.
As for a minor point in this great scheme of things, let's consider Palmer. McGinn calls Barrington a "non-entity", which he presumably meant in the run game since that's what this piece is exclusively about. On the other hand, Palmer "has provided unexpected benefits". Frankly, you'd be hard pressed to find much to differentiate them. Barrington was a little more physical; Palmer looks to be a little smarter, but he's not very quick, makes his share of mistakes and is not immune from being taken out at the second level, actually more often than one would care to see.
If you look at the Gurley 55 yard run, Palmer initially flows to the eventual hole (and the only hole), then moves to his right as Gurley hides behind the center, bottled up. When Gurley cuts back, Palmer tries to recover and doesn't get within spitting distance. Not good. Somewhat Hawk-like, actually. And this is just the most glaring example. Better than Barrington? Maybe a little, sometimes. He looks a lot better than he is because of the guy he's playing next to.
In the passing game, not a subject of McGinn's piece, Palmer was such a liability in coverage against anybody who runs better than 4.75 that Thompson had to go out and sign his "caddy" to play dime backer. The better Thomas looks in that role, the more it reflects on Palmer's liability. The same move would have been in order with Barrington, a very similar player in coverage. I'll make the bold prediction that Palmer will eventually be added by McGinn's to his list of "non-entities", if that's what we are supposed to call them.
Replacing Hawk with an All Pro has had major benefits. But this piece is largely a faulty extrapolation that overlooks a variety of other factors at work.
