Packers to Remain a 3-4 Defense, Per Mike McCarthy

Meeting with local reporters on Monday, head coach Mike McCarthy confirmed the Packers would continue to run a base 3-4 despite reclassification of some coaches that gave a few observers pause.

What exactly McCarthy means by being more "multiple" is open for debate, whether that means some sort of hybrid front as suggested here in the past or perhaps a return to more specialized subpackages such as the popular but seldomly seen "Psycho" personnel grouping.

#PACKERSmicroblog

0 points

Comments (34)

Fan-Friendly This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.
jmac34's picture

February 10, 2014 at 01:56 pm

GB was never going to switch from the 3/4 this year. anyone who thought differently is kind of stupid

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Evan's picture

February 10, 2014 at 02:02 pm

Are you calling Ben stupid?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
jmac34's picture

February 10, 2014 at 02:04 pm

well......

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Jamie's picture

February 10, 2014 at 04:09 pm

If the shoe fits LaMichael James...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Evan's picture

February 10, 2014 at 04:29 pm

Haha...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RC Packer Fan's picture

February 10, 2014 at 02:06 pm

your right. they weren't switching from the 3-4.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Calabasa's picture

February 10, 2014 at 05:32 pm

I wish they would stop running a 3/4 defense, and go with a whole one!

see what I oh never mind

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
The TKstinator's picture

February 11, 2014 at 06:35 am

I like it.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
fish and crane's picture

February 12, 2014 at 01:15 am

I think the Packers played quite a bit of 2-2 last year..

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RC Packer Fan's picture

February 10, 2014 at 02:13 pm

IMO, they should stay with the 3-4.

My complaint about it has been Capers not being more flexible in the scheme. When Capers first came he would run a lot of different packages (psycho) and would mix and match the defense. The last couple of years he has stopped doing that stuff...

I would like to see a little more flexibility in the scheme. Instead of running the standard nickel do a run stopping nickel and a coverage nickel. Maybe do a 3-3 or a 3-4 with putting a CB in vs 2 safety's.
Maybe on passing situations put Mathews in the middle or on the left side and move guys around a bit, so offenses has to adjust to where they are coming from.

Maybe they could use some 4-3 looks too. I thought this year they were going to do that with moving Neal to OLB. Allowing him to put his hand down and go to a 4-3 look.

That's basically my thoughts on the defense and what I would like to see them do.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Stroh's picture

February 10, 2014 at 10:31 pm

The Packers actually do use different versions of the nickel package, just not a 3-3-5. They have a heavy/jumbo nickel w/ Pickett and Raji that is still looking to control the run game and they use the pass rushing nickel of Daniels and Jones designed to just get after the QB and not concerned much w/ stopping the run. Packers use both depending on down and distance.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RC Packer Fan's picture

February 11, 2014 at 08:34 am

You are correct. They did use various personnel in the Nickel and Dime packages.

Basically I just wanted to see a 3-3-5 as an alternative package to help stop the run.
They needed one more big body on a lot of the runs to help stop the run. The 3-3-5 would have given them that.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Drealyn Williams's picture

February 10, 2014 at 03:43 pm

In "multiple" I kind of still hope we will see 3-3-5. If Raji can come back to his '10 form,Daniels continue to grow and put Perry's ass back on the line where he should feel more comfortable this formation could really work. Especially in obvious passing downs. As for the LBs in this formation; Clay, Hawk and Lattimore (or Clay, Jones and Lattimore).

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
steven's picture

February 10, 2014 at 04:02 pm

Raji is gone. And perry played great on matthews side

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Drealyn Williams's picture

February 10, 2014 at 04:14 pm

Well,in that case....

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RC Packer Fan's picture

February 10, 2014 at 04:32 pm

I like the 3-3-5. I have said that many times before.

They could do any variations with that. A run heavy DL, a Pass oriented DL.
I just think it would give them better options for stopping the run, while using the Nickel.
I don't have the stats but I would be really curious to see how much more they were ran on in the Nickel then in base defense.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Stroh's picture

February 10, 2014 at 10:54 pm

Do you ever ask yourself why no teams employ a 3-3-5 Defense you seem to be so fond of? If it worked that well don't you think a lot of teams would be using it?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Drealyn Williams's picture

February 10, 2014 at 11:54 pm

Saints!!!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Drealyn Williams's picture

February 10, 2014 at 11:55 pm

I've seen the 49ers in it as well.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RC Packer Fan's picture

February 11, 2014 at 08:32 am

I'm not saying using it as a primary defense. I'm saying using it as an alternative package to help create different personnel packages on the defense.

Honestly, the biggest reason why I want to see it used is to get an extra bigger body in there in the Nickel defense. Basically so teams can't run all over the Packers while in the Nickel.

It seemed to me that the Packers had a very hard time stopping the run in the Nickel defense this year. So my solution was to either go to the 3-3 front or go to the 3-4 and remove a safety for a CB.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Ted Thompson's picture

February 10, 2014 at 07:04 pm

Probably what Baltimore does, 34 in base and against the run 42 with an OLB and ILB instead of our 24 with two ILBS. Get your best personnel on the field.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
WKUPackFan's picture

February 10, 2014 at 09:41 pm

Definitely happy staying with a base 3/4. Seems the best for combatting the sideline to sideline offenses so prevalent these days. More multiples would be a blessing, but we need another safety to do anything too fancy (and perhaps a new DC as well).

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
4thand1's picture

February 10, 2014 at 09:46 pm

There won't be a new DC so put that to rest.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
ray nichkee's picture

February 10, 2014 at 10:38 pm

Everybody needs to stop cutting down capers or I will personally send clay matthews over to pile drive your ass in the toilet and give you a swirlie. Without him we never would have made the playoffs in 2010 much less won the superbowl. He needs playmakers to get it done.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Stroh's picture

February 10, 2014 at 10:48 pm

Everyone seems to forget that the Packers 2 defensive weaknesses are at ILB and Safety where the Packers lost playmakers to career ending injuries. Its just not that easy to find playmakers like them and both took until their 4th year to become playmakers!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Bert's picture

February 11, 2014 at 05:41 am

To me, I could care less what alignment we adopt. We just need better players regardless of 3-4 or 4-3 or 3-3-5. We get a few more playmakers on defense and the base alignment won't matter. We don't get a few more playmakers and it still won't matter.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
The TKstinator's picture

February 11, 2014 at 06:36 am

Word.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
The TKstinator's picture

February 11, 2014 at 06:41 am

So, GB wants to be more "multiple", yet at the same time we want things simplified so that players can play "faster", more reacting, less thinking, more attacking, fewer blown assignments, fewer communication problems, and allow our drafted and developing players to contribute sooner.

Hmmmmm....

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Stroh's picture

February 11, 2014 at 07:06 am

Seems like kinda a contradiction doesn't it?! However for the Packers its more about using other aspects of Capers scheme instead of developing new things. His playbook is very complicated becuz it already includes all those things. It just about using aspects of his D that are already in place.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
The TKstinator's picture

February 11, 2014 at 08:24 pm

Here's another thought on the matter:
Isn't Belichik supposed to be a defensive guru? Applauded for his ability to maximize players' individual strengths? How's their defense been the last few years?
AND, if NE is so good at "maximizing strengths, putting players in a position to succeed", doesn't that make them PREDICTABLE? And isn't predictable BAD? So, yeah, "when so and so is in the game, he's strictly a pass rusher", etc?
It all just seems so contradictory.
So here's a truism: kick ass on defense, and we don't care how you do it! Stud players, simple scheme, jags and a complex scheme, I don't care. Just kick ass, and all sins are forgiven.

Now who's with me?!?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
4thand1's picture

February 11, 2014 at 08:47 pm

Players not plays.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
The TKstinator's picture

February 11, 2014 at 09:42 pm

You, me, and Vic.

Who else?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Jordan's picture

February 12, 2014 at 12:12 am

Dominate on 3 or 4?

1,2,3.... DOMINATE!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
gary's picture

February 12, 2014 at 07:16 am

Bert your on the money. We just need better players. When raji and pickett can't get off blocks without being double teamed you have no chance to stop the run. Your ILB look bad because the OL is getting to the next level unopposed. We need better personal , thank god raji and pickett are free agents. Please let them go.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0

Log in to comment and more!

Not a member yet? Join free.

If you have already commented on Cheesehead TV in the past, we've created an account for you. Just verify your email, set a password and you're golden.