Who should start at DE opposite Daniels?

[Carl]

Look at the hair you are splitting here.....
You say the nickel is 2 D-linemen and two pass rushing OLBs, one of which is Peppers and could be considered a stand up DE here... Is this correct?

Im saying we need 3 big powerful destructive D-linemen and 1 OLB named Peppers edge rushing..... So basicly we are talking about the same amount of roster spots devoted to rushing the passer. Only I prefer a 300+ pound DE equivelent to Daniels or better, rather than say Perry or Neal coming off the edge? Guion at nose could be considered a good passing down NT considering Raji needs to stay fresh... And the second of your D-linemen I would have Daniels instead of Jones..............

My starting Nickel D with only one person changed from our current nickel...

Dominant Mystery DE, say Guion, Daniels
Perry/Mathews Peppers
Hayward,Hyde, Burnett, Dix, Sheilds.

Your version, which is GBs version with last years roster...

Daniels(was it?), Jones
Perry/Mathews, Barrington/rookie dominant mystery ILB?, Mathews/Barrington, Peppers...
Hayward, Hyde,Burnett, Dix, sheilds.

To be fair I added your 1st round ILB you want, and made him dominant as well...

Now besides the slight shift in D-line size. Basicly dictated by the quality of our D-linemen and seen in our LB shift as well. How different are the two 3-4 nickel schemes??? Same rosters, but with one strategy/draft pick towards 2-4-5, and one strategy/draft pick towards 3-3-5..... Still pretty close IMO... Still rushing 4...

If rushing the passer is the goal, putting 300+ guys out there is not the way to get it done.

 

[Mondio]

what if we had 3 reggie whites?

 

[Poppa San]

what if we had 3 reggie whites?

You'd have to bench at least two of them because he played at about 300 pounds, too light for nose tackle and possibly the DE spots. Maybe stand one up in the elephant position?

 

[Poppa San]

'nother "wheels on the bus" thread it looks like.

 

[Einstein McFly]

Geez, we're reinventing the wheel here? If dlinemen are better pass rushers than your OLBs in a 3-4 it's because you've done a lousy job drafting OLBs, not because you have great dlinemen. Unless you're going to become king of the world and force JJ Watt and Geno Atkins and Suh onto the same team, you're going to want two dlinemen in nickel. If this weren't the case then that's what 32 defensive coordinators would be trying to do all the time. They're not. Beyond that, when it's a really obvious passing situation, you take off even more dlinemen. It works exactly the opposite way of what's being proposed.

If your base linemen in a 3-4 can rush the passer like Watt or Justin Smith, say, then that's gravy. But that's not the point of the 3-4. The point of 3-4 is to have run stuffers on the field to set up obvious passing situations and then pin their ears back. It's not to rush the passer on first and second down.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

Here's the thing. My point of view hasnt changed since we turned into a 3-4. I'm always going to be a defensive line fan. I've had to suffer through the (in my mind) crazy 2 man front 70% of the time apparently, and the 1 man , even zero man someone said... I mean. It made me sick. It made me wonder who, and whats the heckings going ON!?!?!?!? Meanwhile we set the all time world record for horrible defenses in history, and the future... THANKS 1 man front.....

Now the talking heads think thats what a 3-4 is... Good greif.

You call 2 down linemen a 3-4 nickel. If fact its a 2-4 nickel.
You say a 3-3 with a nickel back is NOT a 3-4 nickel.............
Then you say that the OLB is actually a DE because peppers rushes.........

Do you all see the ironic circle here?

It seems you all need to look at this a little more open minded. And quit ganging up on the only guy that seems to understand this. I guarantee you ALL there is many ways to run a 3-4 defense...

 

[TJV]

And quit ganging up on the only guy that seems to understand this.

For some ignorance is bliss.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

Did we answer the question of who should start opposite Daniels? in our make believe 3-4, thats actually a 2-4??? Nobody? Ok next topic.............

 

[Poppa San]

Did we answer the question of who should start opposite Daniels? in our make believe 3-4, thats actually a 2-4??? Nobody? Ok next topic.............

I expect Datone to finally get it and live up to 1st round status.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

Guion starting at DE opposite Daniels in base 3-4 to start OTA's apparently. Good decision.

http://espn.go.com/blog/green-bay-packers/post/_/id/20792/b-j-raji-right-back-where-he-wants-to-be

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Guion starting at DE opposite Daniels in base 3-4 to start OTA's apparently. Good decision.

http://espn.go.com/blog/green-bay-packers/post/_/id/20792/b-j-raji-right-back-where-he-wants-to-be

Don´t put too much stock into who is lining up with the 1s during OTAs. For example in 2013, Alex Green got most of the snaps with the first team offense during organized team activities with Lacy lining up with the #2 unit.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

I understand that. OTA's are mental game too. Rookies got to earn their stripes. But in this situation, 2 players were here last year. One took the others starting spot. for now.... Injuries changed that last year, and will surely do it again this year. Who's to say Guion would not have started ahead of Jones last year? If Raji hadnt gotten injured.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I understand that. OTA's are mental game too. Rookies got to earn their stripes. But in this situation, 2 players were here last year. One took the others starting spot. for now.... Injuries changed that last year, and will surely do it again this year. Who's to say Guion would not have started ahead of Jones last year? If Raji hadnt gotten injured.

I expect Guion to compete for a starting job both at NT and DE, we´ll see how that works out. BTW Datone Jones started a total of only three games last season.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

He was the starter in the base 3-4, and we run a 3-4. Do we need to go over this again? Do you want to stick to there being 1 starting DE on our defense again, since we play nickel more than not?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

He was the starter in the base 3-4, and we run a 3-4. Do we need to go over this again? Do you want to stick to there being 1 starting DE on our defense again, since we play nickel more than not?

Last season all Packers' defensive linemen combined to start a total of 43 games (Guion and Daniels 16, Boyd 4, Jones 3) during the regular season. That means that for nine games Capers only started two.

 

[TJV]

He was the starter in the base 3-4, and we run a 3-4. Do we need to go over this again?

Perhaps you do. You obviously don't realize it, but you have been in the position of the one being instructed, not the instructor when it comes to the Packers’ D. It’s one thing to advocate using 3 down linemen more than they do but it’s another to continue misunderstanding Capers' D and what others have posted.

For example, in the Barrington thread you started today (that was closed within a couple of hours), you begin by bragging you were right about the Packers playing 3 down linemen in the dime because Barrington lined up as the lone LB. (As captainWIMM pointed out that is a non-sequitur.) Then you have to ask three times who was on the field for the dime in OTAs. Do you not realize how silly that is? You brag about being right about something you almost immediately admit ignorance about. Then you misstate what the dime alignment was last season. Then you go back to misrepresenting what others posted about the 3-4. Your posts on the subject reveal nearly all the regular posters here understand it better than you. Nearly everyone understands the 2-4-5 isn’t the 3-4, it’s the way Capers played the nickel the vast majority of the time last season. Nearly everyone understands Capers’ nickel D is not the base 3-4. But you continue to post as if you are confused about it.

Perhaps in the future before bragging about being right, you should gather some facts so you won’t have to ask about them. And if you want to improve how you are viewed on this board, perhaps you should forget about bragging altogether. Perhaps you should take note that many posters here who are demonstrably more knowledgeable than you, don’t brag about being right.

 

[OldSchool101]

I know this is not protocol. But what about a 1-1-9 with Raji in front, Guion prepared to leap frog him into the pocket while hollering "Remember the Alamo!"
And then the rest feather fan out like on a fake onside immediately before the snap?

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

I know this is not protocol. But what about a 1-1-9 with Raji in front, Guion prepared to leap frog him into the pocket while hollering "Remember the Alamo!"
And then the rest feather fan out like on a fake onside immediately before the snap?

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[Mondio]

I know this is not protocol. But what about a 1-1-9 with Raji in front, Guion prepared to leap frog him into the pocket while hollering "Remember the Alamo!"
And then the rest feather fan out like on a fake onside immediately before the snap?

Call me crazy, but I think that just might work

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

ignore that the packers have Daniels, Raji, and Guion starting the base 3-4..... forget that. Just answer with childish sarcasm...

Im not impressed...

 

[TJV]

... Guion prepared to leap frog him into the pocket while hollering "Remember the Alamo!"...

But not against the Cowboys or Texans, right? What then? "Remember the Maine!"?

ignore that the packers have Daniels, Raji, and Guion starting the base 3-4..... forget that. Just answer with childish sarcasm... Im not impressed...

You don't understand enough to be impressed. BTW, it may have been posted here, but if not it certainly was speculated by Packers beat writers that Daniels, Raji, and Guion (upon his return from suspension) would start in the 3-4. Which again, is the base defense even though Capers doesn't play it the majority of the time.

Also check your thesaurus for another word. There's not a bit of sarcasm in my post above.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

wasnt talking to you specifically ThxJackVainisi.

Im working on defusing situations......

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

Perhaps you do. You obviously don't realize it, but you have been in the position of the one being instructed, not the instructor when it comes to the Packers’ D. It’s one thing to advocate using 3 down linemen more than they do but it’s another to continue misunderstanding Capers' D and what others have posted.

For example, in the Barrington thread you started today (that was closed within a couple of hours), you begin by bragging you were right about the Packers playing 3 down linemen in the dime because Barrington lined up as the lone LB. (As captainWIMM pointed out that is a non-sequitur.) Then you have to ask three times who was on the field for the dime in OTAs. Do you not realize how silly that is? You brag about being right about something you almost immediately admit ignorance about. Then you misstate what the dime alignment was last season. Then you go back to misrepresenting what others posted about the 3-4. Your posts on the subject reveal nearly all the regular posters here understand it better than you. Nearly everyone understands the 2-4-5 isn’t the 3-4, it’s the way Capers played the nickel the vast majority of the time last season. Nearly everyone understands Capers’ nickel D is not the base 3-4. But you continue to post as if you are confused about it.

Perhaps in the future before bragging about being right, you should gather some facts so you won’t have to ask about them. And if you want to improve how you are viewed on this board, perhaps you should forget about bragging altogether. Perhaps you should take note that many posters here who are demonstrably more knowledgeable than you, don’t brag about being right.

Curious why Rob Demovsky wrote an article about Barrington being the only ILB in the dime, while mathews moved outside? I asked who was on the field when Barrington was at ILB and mathews at OLB. Nobody knew. For all we know there was 3 D-linemen and 2 LBs. And if it was Peppers at OLB instead of a 3rd D-lineman. Is he strictly rushing the passer, like before?

My point with that is you all argued the opposite point last winter that Peppers was basicly a D-lineman since he almost always rushed the passer.... Now we paint the same picture where Peppers is a LB.

I did assume too much from the article. See how that works guys? Admitting I was wrong? But to be fair. NOBODY has answered the first question. WHO was on the field when Barrington was the only ILB, Mathews was OLB, and we played dime? So I havnt been proven wrong yet! And judging by last winters logic of Peppers basicly being a D-lineman in the dime... We do have 3 D-linemen finally...

 

[Mondio]

How can anyone claim any "victory" from an OTA? and what is there to win?

 

[TJV]

I asked who was on the field when Barrington was at ILB and mathews at OLB. Nobody knew.

No, you didn't. You BEGAN by BRAGGING about being right, even though you didn't know what the alignment was at OTAs. See the difference?