Reggie Ragland

[GreenBaySlacker]

And when you call(ed) it a 4-6, you were and are wrong about that as well as HardRightEdge pointed out at the time: The defense was named after a player’s number, not an alignment, something you apparently continue to misunderstand.

And no, I don't keep a file on your faults - [joke]I don't have the room[/joke]. But I do have a memory and there is a search feature on this forum. (BTW I'll bet I'm not the only one who remembers the attempt to school you on the 3-4 defense, which you posted you knew nothing about before Capers installed it in Green Bay.) For example, I remember you taking credit for coming up with the idea of Matthews playing inside and I remember I pointed out that you never mentioned it on this board until Matthews actually lined up inside. I could do a search but you probably remember that too.

Someone did mention that Mathews was playing inside during practice. Afterwards I started a post about moving him inside, got completely ridiculed by YOU ALL!!! I held my ground. After he actually moved inside sucessfully. The topic was brought up a long time later. While rubbing your nose in your wrongness, I admit i claimed to have thought of it. But that was a honest mistake, after weeks and months of being one of the only ones fighting for the idea. I guess i adopted the idea in that time... But regardless. I can admit i was wrong. But i have yet to hear any of you appologize for how you treated me in the debate. When the actual packers moved him inside and he did well. You admit you were wrong yet?

 

[Wynnebeck]

When football nerds start arguing about the name of defensive alignments, you know we've truly hit offseason hell.

 

[TJV]

Someone did mention that Mathews was playing inside during practice. Afterwards I started a post about moving him inside, got completely ridiculed by YOU ALL!!! I held my ground.

You are wrong once again. Go read the thread you started. The closest you came to being ridiculed for the OP was Carl posting, “Is this a joke thread?” which was immediately refuted by the next poster. And you did not hold your ground. You never posted on that thread after starting it.

After he actually moved inside sucessfully. The topic was brought up a long time later. While rubbing your nose in your wrongness, I admit i claimed to have thought of it. But that was a honest mistake, after weeks and months of being one of the only ones fighting for the idea.

You seem to post what you wish would have happened instead of what actually happened, like when you post you didn’t misunderstand Capers’ defense, or that you thought of the idea to move Matthews inside, or that you were ridiculed by ‘all of us’ in the Matthews thread you started. Since you are the one asserting for “weeks and months” you were fighting for the idea of Matthews moving inside before he actually did, show us a few posts that prove that. But you know what? You won’t be able to because you made that up too.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

You are wrong once again. Go read the thread you started. The closest you came to being ridiculed for the OP was Carl posting, “Is this a joke thread?” which was immediately refuted by the next poster. And you did not hold your ground. You never posted on that thread after starting it. You seem to post what you wish would have happened instead of what actually happened, like when you post you didn’t misunderstand Capers’ defense, or that you thought of the idea to move Matthews inside, or that you were ridiculed by ‘all of us’ in the Matthews thread you started. Since you are the one asserting for “weeks and months” you were fighting for the idea of Matthews moving inside before he actually did, show us a few posts that prove that. But you know what? You won’t be able to because you made that up too.

I went back and read the thread. It seems you lied to make me look bad. Every single person disagreed, including you who said "Mathews isnt moving to ILB on anything like a perminent basis any time soon"... WRONG!

After 4 people stating WHY put our best pass rusher out of position, and multiple agrees with the sentiment. Then the comment "This is a joke thread right?" come. then 6 posts trying to figure out what COULD be going on?

Then the ridicule starts... "now that you got a probowler playing out of position. How is that simplifying anything other than simply mystifing"
"success! one armchair QB down and now to work on the rest of the league"
"while the coaches are at it, why not try Mathews on the O-line, or TE?"
"him taking any significant number of snaps at ILB would be Illogicl, and in no way will happen."
Then a long sarcastic post by you talking about how i think the 2-4-5 doesnt work, even though it worked on the video clip provided. Classy.

this was the first topic. The debate went much deeper in a couple topics that were eventually locked. and things only got much worse....

 

[mradtke66]

But before the 4-6 code was cracked, they had arguably the best defense ever.

Stop. It's not a 4-6 defense. It was called the 46 defense because of number 46. Their box safety. He was number 46. The defense was built around him. They used base 4-3 personnel, just a unique alignment. And a super-star safety.

85 bears owned the trenches...

And yet, the 46 is largely, if not entirely dead in the league. Why? Because short, quick passes completely destroy it. In 1985, the NFL was run first, second, and third, with the occasional deep play action pass (coincidently, this is also why Montana fell in the draft. He didn't have the arm to throw regular, play action bombs). The 46 shuts this down by clogging all of the running lanes. Sounds great? Lets do that!

Well, Marino and the Dolphins happened. The 1985 Bear's one loss came at the hand of the Dolphins who were a pass-first offense. The 46 is exposed and it was just a matter of time. With the way NFL offenses work, nearly every game would end up the '85 Bears/Dolphins game.

Certain concepts survive of the 46 survive and even the Packers had a "bear" front this year: slide the ends down head up over the guards slide the OLBs in, creating a 5-man front, bring the safety down. Ta-da, it works like the 46. It was a shift, situational defense though, approximately 10 plays a game max. If you use it as your base these days, a competent quarterback (not even a good one) will carve you up with 5-7 slants all game long.

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

I KNOW it's post season and you are all bored, but can we knock it off with the name calling please ?? It's getting monotonous. Thank you so much, and now a word from our sponsors.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

Stop. It's not a 4-6 defense. It was called the 46 defense because of number 46. Their box safety. He was number 46. The defense was built around him. They used base 4-3 personnel, just a unique alignment. And a super-star safety.



And yet, the 46 is largely, if not entirely dead in the league. Why? Because short, quick passes completely destroy it. In 1985, the NFL was run first, second, and third, with the occasional deep play action pass (coincidently, this is also why Montana fell in the draft. He didn't have the arm to throw regular, play action bombs). The 46 shuts this down by clogging all of the running lanes. Sounds great? Lets do that!

Well, Marino and the Dolphins happened. The 1985 Bear's one loss came at the hand of the Dolphins who were a pass-first offense. The 46 is exposed and it was just a matter of time. With the way NFL offenses work, nearly every game would end up the '85 Bears/Dolphins game.

Certain concepts survive of the 46 survive and even the Packers had a "bear" front this year: slide the ends down head up over the guards slide the OLBs in, creating a 5-man front, bring the safety down. Ta-da, it works like the 46. It was a shift, situational defense though, approximately 10 plays a game max. If you use it as your base these days, a competent quarterback (not even a good one) will carve you up with 5-7 slants all game long.

Go back and read my posts without the warped negative air. I said I assumed without knowing that it was a 4 lineman 6 LB scheme. But the point i was making is that the bears coaches used a new scheme to utilize their best players best skills. I also mentioned it was a different era (run). So its a football evolution thing. Like any new ground breaking scheme, it only takes a couple years to crack the code. But without a coach trying, it would never exist, and football wouldnt evolve...

try hearing what im saying instead of twisting bits and pieces and ignoring the whole point.

 

[TJV]

I went back and read the thread. It seems you lied to make me look bad. Every single person disagreed, including you who said "Mathews isnt moving to ILB on anything like a perminent basis any time soon"... WRONG!

Disagreeing with you is not ridiculing you. Do you really not understand that? BTW, Matthews didn't move inside until the bye that season.

Then a long sarcastic post by you talking about how i think the 2-4-5 doesnt work, even though it worked on the video clip provided.

It didn't just work on a video clip and that "long" post was a paragraph.

this was the first topic. The debate went much deeper in a couple topics that were eventually locked. and things only got much worse....

Prove it. Prove that you were fighting for the idea of Matthews moving inside before he actually did.

I assumed without knowing that it was a 4 lineman 6 LB scheme.

Assuming a team in the modern era ran a successful defensive scheme with 4 DL, 6 LBs and one DB is not a point in your favor with respect to football knowledge.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

If you consider the fact that he had not moved inside yet in the actual game. Only in training camp. then yes. I did. But i admitted he had moved over in camp before i said it was a good idea...

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

85 might be "modern era in your time. But 31 years ago is not modern. It was still a run first NFL. By all accounts other than montana and a young marino, as you stated.

 

[TJV]

If you consider the fact that he had not moved inside yet in the actual game. Only in training camp. then yes. I did. But i admitted he had moved over in camp before i said it was a good idea...

That's not all you said which is wrong: You posted, "after weeks and months of being one of the only ones fighting for the idea" of moving Matthews inside. So after July of 2014 and before the bye week of the 2014 season, show us the "weeks and months" of posts in which you were being one of the only ones fighting for the idea. Or admit you didn't.

85 might be "modern era in your time. But 31 years ago is not modern. It was still a run first NFL.

Then name any team in any era that ever used a 4-6-1. Again, assuming a team has argues against your football "knowledge".

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

That's not all you said which is wrong: You posted, "after weeks and months of being one of the only ones fighting for the idea" of moving Matthews inside. So after July of 2014 and before the bye week of the 2014 season, show us the "weeks and months" of you being one of the only ones fighting for the idea.

where are the two topics that things got so ugly, the mods shut them down?????????????????????????? Talking about the 2-4-5, 3-4, 5-2, big dlinemen, and moving OLBs to ILB. Specifically Hubbard. Again, still not saying hubbard would be great. But he could bring beef, and a long disruptive wing span to knock down passes. That topic had a lot about the Mathews subject i believe.

Also the original topic was 2013 wasnt it? the debate continued with more optimism in 2014, AFTER the defense proved to be good with him in the middle...

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

july 27th 2014 i made the topic. Preseason before mathews moved over MONTHS later...

 

[mradtke66]

I said I assumed without knowing that it was a 4 lineman 6 LB scheme.

That. That right there is why the forum is against you. Your thesis mentions the 46 defense but you know nothing about it, so you assume how it works. Anger then comes boiling out and aimed at you because we have knowledge about how it is supposed to work.

This general theme has happened from you before and it's why your credibility has suffered.

So how do you fix that? Read. Research. Wikipedia is better than nothing. They even have an article on the 46, which you can read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/46_defense

From there, make careful, thought out arguments. This forum is asynchronous, so take your time, check your work, and make sure you're not spewing crazy.

 

[TJV]

where are the two topics that things got so ugly, the mods shut them down?????????????????????????? Talking about the 2-4-5, 3-4, 5-2, big dlinemen, and moving OLBs to ILB. Specifically Hubbard. Again, still not saying hubbard would be great. But he could bring beef, and a long disruptive wing span to knock down passes. That topic had a lot about the Mathews subject i believe.

Threads that have been shut down are still searchable, so have at it.

july 27th 2014 i made the topic. Preseason before mathews moved over MONTHS later...

Obviously, that's the thread we've discussed. That's why I wrote "after July of 2014" and before the bye week where are all your posts advocating for Matthews to move inside? And again, you didn't come up with the idea. Earlier that day, I posted a report about Matthews having moved inside for a couple of practices during TC. And in that thread you didn't "hold your ground", you didn't respond to a post on that thread.

BTW mradtke66, while I agreed with your post, you may want to edit your last sentence. I believe it should read, "you aren't" instead of "you're".

 

[mradtke66]

BTW mradtke66, while I agreed with your post, you may want to edit your last sentence. I believe it should read, "you aren't" instead of "you're".

You are indeed correct. Missing words are rough!

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

That. That right there is why the forum is against you. Your thesis mentions the 46 defense but you know nothing about it, so you assume how it works. Anger then comes boiling out and aimed at you because we have knowledge about how it is supposed to work.

This general theme has happened from you before and it's why your credibility has suffered.

So how do you fix that? Read. Research. Wikipedia is better than nothing. They even have an article on the 46, which you can read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/46_defense

From there, make careful, thought out arguments. This forum is asynchronous, so take your time, check your work, and make sure you're spewing crazy.

I mentioned the 4-6 as a side note, YEARS ago!!!!!! The point i was trying to make back then was that people need to think outside the box. push the boundries of whats considered the norm. Because last i checked, the norm makes you normal. Rewriting the rules (and winning) makes you legend... I admited back then that i didnt know a 4-6 wasnt an actual 4-6. I remember you specifically correcting me very mean. And i thanked you for teaching me. because i wasnt there to watch it, and im just going off what other people said over the years.

My credibility suffered because you guys witch hunt me. Put words in my mouth. Nitpick small points out of entire rants, and change the topic... You quit witch hunting, and listen. maybe we can come to an understanding and learn from eachother.

You need to just accept that good ideas will never come without a couple bad ones mixed in... thats called the creative process. You only remember and speak of a hand full of misunderstandings (mostly people misunderstanding what i say, and going off) from years back. And dont even listen to what i say anymore now!?!?

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

Threads that have been shut down are still searchable, so have at it. Obviously, that's the thread we've discussed. That's why I wrote "after July of 2014" and before the bye week where are all your posts advocating for Matthews to move inside? And again, you didn't come up with the idea. Earlier that day, I posted a report about Matthews having moved inside for a couple of practices during TC. And in that thread you didn't "hold your ground", you didn't respond to a post on that thread.

BTW mradtke66, while I agreed with your post, you may want to edit your last sentence. I believe it should read, "you aren't" instead of "you're".

AGAIN. Where are the long drawn out topics that the mods locked??? Thats where this went down. The Hubbard moving to ILB topic. and the others about dline, and the 3-4 which is a 2-4-5,which i thought was a 5-2-4 before capers came in.... You dont remember these long long topics where everyone ridiculed and come after me? Because i sure do...

I dont care to go back in time to reread you people being flat out disrespectful. just to prove you wrong. Its a waste of time. You know what happened...
Actually i wonder if you guys twist my words around and selectively read what i do say, because you arent really following along????

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

You are indeed correct. Missing words are rough!

I have an idea that will prove my point clearly.

Why dont you guys give a run down of the personel and scheme i have been talking about since i have know you ... In turn, I will write down the personel and scheme of the packers current 3-4 under capers... WITHOUT going back and reasearching old posts... i want to hear what you understood me to be talking about all these months and years. and claiming i dont understand the 3-4.

Game?

 

[mradtke66]

I have an idea that will prove my point clearly.

Why dont you guys give a run down of the personel and scheme i have been talking about since i have know you ... In turn, I will write down the personel and scheme of the packers current 3-4 under capers... WITHOUT going back and reasearching old posts... i want to hear what you understood me to be talking about all these months and years. and claiming i dont understand the 3-4.

What point are you trying to make?

I'm not necessarily impressed with anyone spouting things from memory, especially when the answer can easily be dug up with a site's search function or a quick trip to google. That's kind of what computers are for--quickly retrieving information. We're all humans here. Why do it the hard way when the tools to make it easier exist? I mean, all of us here, right now, are even using said tool.

Now, why have you lost credibility in my eyes? A quick sampling:

1) Your complete misunderstanding of the 46 defense (you're still using a hyphen in your most recent post mentioning. It's the 46 defense after #46, not a 4-6 alignment). This leads me to believe you don't research or even read about topics. You might be creative, but that's only half the battle. "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." Understand that quote, it'll make life easier.

2) When you said something to the effect of "the three downline men in a 3-4 need to do the job the four down linemen in a 4-3." I can't remember your exact wording, it's been a while. This is right where I conclude you don't understand how a 3-4 works, because that's not how a 3-4 works, but we've already beaten that horse to death.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

I say 4-6 because its what i was talking about in context of our argument. In fact did understnd the 4+ times you continued to correct me about the origination of the 46. Doesnt change what I was trying to say back then. Which is what

What point are you trying to make?

I'm not necessarily impressed with anyone spouting things from memory, especially when the answer can easily be dug up with a site's search function or a quick trip to google. That's kind of what computers are for--quickly retrieving information. We're all humans here. Why do it the hard way when the tools to make it easier exist? I mean, all of us here, right now, are even using said tool.

Now, why have you lost credibility in my eyes? A quick sampling:

1) Your complete misunderstanding of the 46 defense (you're still using a hyphen in your most recent post mentioning. It's the 46 defense after #46, not a 4-6 alignment). This leads me to believe you don't research or even read about topics. You might be creative, but that's only half the battle. "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." Understand that quote, it'll make life easier.

2) When you said something to the effect of "the three downline men in a 3-4 need to do the job the four down linemen in a 4-3." I can't remember your exact wording, it's been a while. This is right where I conclude you don't understand how a 3-4 works, because that's not how a 3-4 works, but we've already beaten that horse to death.

SERIOUSLY!?!? You correct me a half dozen times over the course of 3 years , and you STILL assume im too stupid to know what you are talking about???
Im saying 4-6 to put it in context of what was said 3 years ago. And you jump down my throat again?

And here is a blast of common sense reality. The 3-4 only refers to the players on the field. It states nowhere that the strategy has to be a certain way...

Now if i wanted to run a 3-4 like everyone else, i wouldnt have anything to say now would I? I would just be in the talking head group talking about how right we all are all the time...
But if you would like. I could give you a run down of the way I would like to see a 3-4 run. Since apparently I lost you on the first sentence of my strategy, 3 years ago... see what kind of actual differences im talking about, and the reasoning. Coupled with some strategy to make it possible...

 

[TeamTundra]

What the hell does this have to do with Reggie Ragland?

 

[mradtke66]

Im saying 4-6 to put it in context of what was said 3 years ago. And you jump down my throat again?

Problem of perception. You mean one thing, I don't see it that way. What I see is hubris. You're unwilling to adjust when evidence says you should. In a recent post, I missed a word. TJV had a good laugh at my expense, I admitted my mistake, and fixed my post.

Now I don't expect you to go back and edit every post you've ever made, this is just an internet forum that matters about 0.00% in real life. But adjusting your answers going forward is a sign of good faith--it's tact admission of your mistake, you've accepted it and moved on.

And here is a blast of common sense reality. The 3-4 only refers to the players on the field. It states nowhere that the strategy has to be a certain way...

While true to a point, all successful NFL defenses are very similar. They all need to accomplish A, B, and C with constraints X, Y, and Z. While it is possible that you will have a unique idea that is also schematically sound, it isn't necessarily likely.

But if you would like. I could give you a run down of the way I would like to see a 3-4 run. Since apparently I lost you on the first sentence of my strategy, 3 years ago... see what kind of actual differences im talking about, and the reasoning. Coupled with some strategy to make it possible...

You are certainly welcome to explain what you want a 3-4 to look like with our personnel, but I will happily explain the weak points as I see them. Just like I did last time. A few questions I will have immediately:

1) Will your check-to-safe coverage be cover-4, 3, or 2? If cover-2, man-2, tampa-2, or "traditional" cover-2-zone?

2) 2-gap or 1-gap or hybrid run fits? Who's doing what?

3) Against base offense, who goes with the TE if he flexes out wide? What about the HB? The FB? What if two do?

 

[mradtke66]

What the hell does this have to do with Reggie Ragland?

Well you see. We need Eddie Van Halen to join our bad. Because Football. Also Chewbacca. See: Reasons.

(In other words, I have no idea.)

 

[TJV]

AGAIN. Where are the long drawn out topics that the mods locked??? Thats where this went down. The Hubbard moving to ILB topic. and the others about dline, and the 3-4 which is a 2-4-5,which i thought was a 5-2-4 before capers came in....

Once again you struggle with a simple concept: The person who makes a statement is the one who must support it with evidence if they want to be credible; particularly one which concerns words that person allegedly typed and are still available to be quoted. Do a search and look for what you alleged. That can't be too tall a task for a mathematical wizard (your words, not mine), can it? And remember what you are looking for is not posters disagreeing with – or even ridiculing you for - your many misunderstandings of defensive schemes. You are looking for a sampling of posts in which you for "weeks and months" were being one of the only ones fighting for the idea of switching Matthews inside. That is what you said happened. I know you don’t want to search because you know, like the idea being yours in the first place, that never happened. Why not just admit it?

I have an idea that will prove my point clearly. Why dont you guys give a run down of the personel and scheme i have been talking about since i have know you ... In turn, I will write down the personel and scheme of the packers current 3-4 under capers... WITHOUT going back and reasearching old posts... i want to hear what you understood me to be talking about all these months and years. and claiming i dont understand the 3-4.Game?

Isn’t this just classic? Why don’t you guys make my argument for me and whatever you do don’t go researching old posts because I know they’re indefensible. Here’s better idea: Since by your own words you didn’t know anything about the 3-4 until Capers joined the Packers, why not go back to the drawing board and attempt to learn it? No, you won't do that either because 'thinking outside the box' without understanding the box is much easier.