Content
X

Create Account

Or log in with Facebook

X

Log in

Or log in with Facebook

Xs and Os: How the Packers Can Attack the Seahawks Through the Air

By Category

Xs and Os: How the Packers Can Attack the Seahawks Through the Air

Packers wide receiver Jarrett Boykin runs away from Seahawks safety Earl Thomas by Benny Sieu—USA TODAY Sports.

Packers wide receiver Jarrett Boykin runs away from Seahawks safety Earl Thomas by Benny Sieu—USA TODAY Sports.

The talent of the Seahawks defense is well-documented. Their 2013 defense was one of the best in the past ten years. As you will see below, their coverage schemes are simple, and they rarely disguise their intentions, but they execute so well. This article will specifically feature ways that the Packers can attack the Seahawks in the passing game. In terms of the offensive gameplan as a whole, the Packers will have to lean on Eddie Lacy and James Starks in the running game in order to have success.

There are three main coverages that the Seahawks like to run: “Cover 3,” “Cover 3 Buzz,” and “Cover 1 Robber”. These aren’t exotic coverages, but they run them better than anyone in the league. Aaron Rodgers and the offense will definitely have their work cut out for them. However, through the use of 1) personnel packages/formations and 2) specific route concepts, there are ways that the Packers can attack the Seahawks defense in the passing game. There are four main route concepts/combinations that the Packers should use against Seattle’s defense: “Sail,” “All Go Special,” “Curls/Seams,” and “Drive."

One thing should be pointed out, though. If the Packers offensive linemen do not play the game of their lives, none of the strategy below will really matter. Pass protection will be the key for the Packers against ferocious rushers like Michael Bennett and Cliff Avril.

 

Cover 3 out of the 4-3

The Seahawks usually like to play a basic Cover 3 out of their 4-3 base defense. Cover 3 consists of three deep defenders (both outside cornerbacks and a deep middle safety) and four underneath defenders (two “curl to flat” defenders and two “hook zone” defenders). Let’s take a look at some pictures of their Cover 3 out of their 4-3 base and how the Packers could attack this.

When Seattle plays Cover 3 out of their 4-3, Kam Chancellor usually comes down in the box as the eighth defender to play “curl to flat”. To put it simply, the “curl to flat” defender’s job is to drop back in the curl zone until he sees a threat in the flat area. Here is their Cover 3 versus a basic I formation (Chancellor had “curl to flat” at the bottom of the screen):

In this next picture, the Seahawks played Cover 3 out of their 4-3 with Earl Thomas coming down as the “curl to flat” defender (he had “curl to flat” at the top of the screen). Since this was a 2x2 formation, Thomas came down instead of Chancellor—remember this observation, Packers fans:

How the Packers could attack this: Although McCarthy likes to use “11 personnel” (1 RB, 1 TE, 3 WR) a lot, there are also times when he uses “20 personnel” (2 RB, 0 TE, 3 WR) and “12 personnel” (1 RB, 2 TE, 2 WR). According to Scott Kacsmar of Football Outsiders, Seattle led the NFL by using a base 4-3 defense 53-54% of the time in 2013. If McCarthy uses 20 or 12 personnel on early downs, Seattle will probably counter with their base 4-3.

What are some route concepts that McCarthy could use out of these personnel packages versus Seattle’s base 4-3 Cover 3? Out of “20 personnel” (with John Kuhn and James Starks or Eddie Lacy in the backfield), he should use the “Sail” concept. The Sail concept is a popular Cover 3 beater, because it floods the deep outside 1/3 of the field and puts the CB in a bind. No matter what the CB does (stay with the vertical route or jump the Corner route), he really can’t be right, because the vertical route and Corner route flood his outside 1/3.

After a lot of film study, there were two great examples of the Sail concept against Seattle’s defense. First, the Saints offense ran this concept against Seattle in Week 13 of last season. In this concept, the outside WR runs a vertical route, the TE or slot WR runs a Corner route, and the RB runs a route to the flat. The Saints did that here. The outside WR (red circle) ran a vertical route, the TE (yellow circle) ran a Corner route, and the RB (green circle) ran a route to the flat:

The RB’s route occupied the curl to flat defender, while the Corner route and vertical route flooded the outside CB’s zone. Although the pass was incomplete, Jimmy Graham (yellow circle) was wide open on the Corner route, because the CB, Byron Maxwell (black arrow), stayed with the outside WR:

Here is the Colts’ Sail concept against Seattle’s Cover 3 out of their base 4-3. The outside WR (red circle) ran a vertical route, the TE (yellow circle) ran a Corner route, and the fullback (green circle) ran a route to the flat:

The route to the flat occupied the curl to flat defender, and Richard Sherman (black arrow) bit on the Corner route by the TE in his 1/3. Since Sherman bit on the Corner route, it left the outside WR open deep for the touchdown:

Next, if McCarthy uses “12 personnel,” Seattle will likely counter with their 4-3 as well. Here is something McCarthy could do with this: Move both WRs, Jordy Nelson and Randall Cobb, inside to the slot and move both TEs to the outside, creating a 2x2 formation or 3x1 formation. He has done this before. Most notably, he did it in Super Bowl 45 on Greg Jennings’ first TD reception, and it forced Pittsburgh to stay in their base defense. Andrew Quarless and Donald Lee were lined up on the outside with Greg Jennings and Jordy Nelson lined up in the slot:

In 2014, it would probably be Andrew Quarless and Richard Rodgers outside with Nelson and Cobb inside. If it’s a 2x2 formation, it would force the rangiest safety in football, Earl Thomas, to come down as the curl to flat defender – recall the picture above where Thomas is forced to come down versus 2x2 formations in their Cover 3. This personnel package/formation would take Thomas out of the middle of the field (where he’s at his best), and put a less athletic Kam Chancellor back in the deep middle at safety. Chancellor is really good, but the Packers would rather have him back there than Thomas. The Packers can also run this out of a 3x1 formation, but a 2x2 formation forces Thomas to come down. Having both WRs in the slot is beneficial from a speed standpoint, and it also reduces Richard Sherman’s impact since the primary receivers would be in the slot.

Out of this personnel package, McCarthy can run “All Go Special” and “Curls/Seams”. “All Go Special,” commonly called “Four Verticals,” is the most popular route concept versus Cover 3, because it is difficult to defend four vertical routes when you only have three deep defenders. Here is Packers offensive coordinator, Tom Clements, explaining All Go Special (particularly pay attention up until the 1:35 mark):

In addition to All Go Special, the Packers can run a route combination that is just as effective as All Go Special, but it is not as popular. This route combination features Curl routes by the outside TEs and Seam routes by the WRs in the slot. This route concept puts the deep middle 1/3 safety in an immediate bind, because the outside 1/3 CBs are occupied by the Curl routes, and it is tough for them to react quickly enough to help out on the Seam routes. Also, this concept can be particularly effective inside the 20-yard line:

Cover 3 Buzz and Cover 1 Robber out of the Nickel

Next, we will look at Seattle’s Cover 3 Buzz and Cover 1 Robber out of their Nickel defense. Cover 3 Buzz is essentially the same as normal Cover 3 – it’s simply a variation of Cover 3 where the safety “buzzes” down underneath to be the hook zone defender instead of being the “curl to flat” defender.

There is one thing to point out. When Seattle plays their Nickel defense, their starting outside linebacker, K.J. Wright (#50), usually tells you what coverage they are playing based on his pre-snap alignment. If he is removed from the box and lined up over a WR or TE, they are going to play Cover 3 Buzz or Cover 1 Robber. Aaron Rodgers will need to locate him. Again, Seattle does not disguise their coverages very well, because they have the talent to do that.

Here are two pictures of Seattle’s Cover 3 Buzz out of their Nickel (the OLB has "curl to flat" as illustrated by the red arrow, and SS Kam Chancellor has a hook zone as illustrated by the green arrow):

Here are two pictures of Seattle’s Cover 1 Robber out of their Nickel. In this coverage, both outside CBs, the Nickel CB, and both LBs play man underneath while one safety comes down to the middle of the field as the “robber” and the other safety plays back in the deep middle (Earl Thomas is the “robber” versus 3x1 formations, and Kam Chancellor is the “robber” versus 2x2 formations):

How the Packers could attack Cover 3 Buzz and Cover 1 Robber: When an offense comes on the field with “11 personnel” (1 RB, 1 TE, 3 WR) versus Seattle, the Seahawks really like to play Cover 1 Robber. It is very difficult to throw against Seattle’s Cover 1 Robber because of three reasons: 1) their outside CBs are so good, 2) K.J. Wright is one of the best cover LBs in the NFL (great at covering TEs), and 3) the middle of the field is extremely restricted. So, even though McCarthy likes to use “11 personnel,” it would be better if he used more “10 personnel” (1 RB, 0 TE, 4 WR) against Seattle. Why? Because K.J. Wright cannot cover a WR in the slot like he could a TE. That is the key. If McCarthy uses “10 personnel,” Seattle will have to play Cover 3 Buzz, or else K.J. Wright will be at a huge disadvantage. The Packers would probably have better opportunities to complete passes against Cover 3 Buzz than Cover 1 Robber. McCarthy and Clements should see this on tape.

The Packers should run “All Go Special” and the Curls/Seams combination (refer back to the diagram above) out of “10 personnel”. This would likely force Seattle to play Cover 3 Buzz, and these two route concepts would put a lot of stress on that coverage. When you watch Tom Clements explain “All Go Special,” out of a 3x1 formation, you see how it would put Earl Thomas in a bind in the deep middle of the field. Since the #3 WR would be crossing Thomas’ face on a Post route, the #2 WR should be open in the seam area. Again, when you watch this, particularly pay attention up until the 1:35 mark:

Even though Clements explained this using “11 personnel,” it can still be run out of “10 personnel”.

However, let’s say McCarthy goes with “11 personnel” a lot like he usually does. What can he do if Seattle plays Cover 1 Robber when he chooses to use “11 personnel” (a blatant tendency of Seattle’s)? There are not many specific route concepts that can “beat” Cover 1 Robber. The main formula is to win the one-on-ones outside.

There is one route concept, however, that may work against Cover 1 Robber—the “Drive” concept. This is an old West Coast Offense concept that is still used some today. This concept, if run out of a 3x1 formation, can take Earl Thomas out of the play and use K.J. Wright’s (the man covering the TE) leverage against him. Here is what the “Drive” concept looks like (this is from Mike Holmgren’s 1997 playbook):

Since the Nickel (slot) CB would be trailing the “Drive” route by the slot WR, the “robber,” Earl Thomas, would have to help the Nickel CB with the Drive route. This would take Thomas out of the play immediately. This would clear out the middle of the field and allow the TE (maybe Richard Rodgers) to run the intermediate “In” route away from K.J. Wright. Since Wright would be playing man with outside leverage, it would allow the TE to run away from Wright to the inside. This should be a decent gain for the TE. It should be easier to create separation at the top of the route versus Wright since he is in outside leverage.

Everything above is based off Seattle’s defensive tendencies, which repeatedly show up on tape. Do they occasionally blitz, play basic Cover 1, and play Cover 2 on long-yardage situations like other defenses? Sure, but their main tendencies are featured above. Will McCarthy and Clements implement all of these specific route concepts/personnel groupings in to the gameplan? Maybe not all of them, but they should if they want to be successful in the passing game.

Thanks for reading, Packers fans. Follow me on Twitter at @RobertOlson92 for daily analysis on the Packers.

NFL Categories: 
  • Like Like
  • 13 points

Fan friendly comments only: off Comments (91) This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.

Ibleedgreenmore's picture

Just score more and we win, not asking for to much.

ZeroTolerance's picture

Excellent. You apparently must have some significant background.

The TKstinator's picture

I love this kind of stuff.
I especially appreciate the comment right up front, stating that without pass protection none of these well laid plans matter.

OK's picture

Wow, I'm pretty new to this website, but this was an awesome article. It's tough to find a lot of great 'X's & O's' articles in general, let alone specific for the Packers. Not sure if this is a staple of your in-season content, but would love to see A LOT more hardcore football articles like this all season.

packeraaron's picture

This type of article is exactly why we brought Robert on board. You'll be seeing more, trust me.

DrealynWilliams's picture

And this...is why I love football. I got to the "2x2" portion and I just got anxious while reading. In that scenario,I would hope TE 1 & TE 2 will force the defense to respect them and not just be another body on the field. Just make a few plays which would then allow Jordy & Cobb/Boykin to tear apart them Nickel CBs (since Sherman can't follow WRs)

I WANT FOOTBALL!

The TKstinator's picture

And, for all of the "enemy intel" fanatics out there, the article goes on to state that Seattle doesn't try very hard to disguise what they're doing. They are successful because they have great players executing their schemes.
As Vic says, "players, not plays".

COW's picture

So the offensive line (which includes a 2nd year 4th rounder at LT, a rookie OC in his 1st ever game, and a RT coming off a knee injury who, incidentally, gave up about 100 sacks in 1 half to this same team in this same stadium) needs to have the game of its life in order to give Finley... oops, um... Quarless time to get deep as fast as he can.

Yeah... that sounds like it oughta' work.

ZeroTolerance's picture

If the Packers win Thursday - will you go away?

COW's picture

Sure.
See ya Friday.

ZeroTolerance's picture

Maybe not, if you are also a liar.

COW's picture

no - really... if they win thursday, i'm gone.

there is zero chance of that happening. lesser teams don't usually sneak up on better teams on the first game of the year.

not only is Seattle's talent leaps and bounds better... McCarthy will be three/four steps behind Carrol from kickoff on.

ted...of bill and ted's picture

i would prefer cow stay. but i am probably alone.

Alex Tallitsch's picture

I kinda like ol' Cow.

Stroh's picture

So if the packers win on Thurs you're going to not show up anymore! Great news. Can you take someone else w/ you?

zeke's picture

Of course he's going to show up. He gets off on the attention.

ZeroTolerance's picture

i.e. - a liar?

zeke's picture

As he said several seasons ago, he realized that he got a lot more reactions when he posted the really negative stuff that is now commonplace. I would consider that being an attention whore rather than a liar, but of course your mileage may vary.

ZeroTolerance's picture

Robert - sorry about the exposure to some that post in the comment section of this excellent site to extreme negativity. It seems it can't be helped. However, your excellent post is most welcomed, and please continue this fine work. It may be best, however, to skim over, which we all should, the negative post thus referenced. Thanks again - and go PACK!

COW's picture

you, kind sir, are a teacher's pet.

never said i didn't like the article.
i actually think it's outstanding. i just don't think the Packers are capable of doing the things that are suggested need to be done.

packeraaron's picture

"i actually think it's outstanding."

God forbid you lead with that before jumping to your usual doom and gloom nonsense. But of course you can't help it. It's who you are.

RC Packer Fan's picture

This observation is based on what? The 2 total quarters we have seen of the Packers starters this preseason?

Cow, what happened buddy? You were doing so well with optimism and full of faith. Most of us were really starting to like the new Cow. Then all of a sudden the old Cow comes back and everyone is miserable again.

4thand1's picture

Is Robert POC ?

GoldFinger's picture

No Robert is someone else I believe. It was my understanding that Paul Ott Carruth was driven away by Stroh over a fight regarding a certain play they disagreed on. I think you can see why. Now he's trying to get verification on that very same play from this Robert guy. He needs to be right. I hope Robert knows what he's getting himself into. He'll be the next guy that he drives away. Just watch.

Stroh's picture

That's another cock and bull story your creating. Just like Rodgers buddy system at #2 QB and intel arguments You couldn't be more WRONG!

All this by the guy that's been banned at least 2x's now, probably more.

GoldFinger's picture

I hope Robert agrees with you on the play unlike Paul Otto Carruth. I wouldn't want to see you angry. People might not like you when you are angry. Me? I think you are super either way.

Stroh's picture

Since you were wrong about everything so far of course I would expect this from you. You even come up w/ cock and bull "theories" so you don't have to say you were wrong. Man up... Admit you were wrong.

packeraaron's picture

WHY IS IT SO HARD? WHY? THE TWO OF YOU ARE WORSE THAN MY CHILDREN.

They're 13, 8 and 6 years old, by the way. That's the level of discourse you both bring to this site.

Just so you're aware.

GBjohnny's picture

Thank You, I hate listening to these Jackwads whine and cry about each other on every post.

Stroh's picture

I'm was trying to learn when I asked Robert about something. If you can't tell he's Bernie the Baker who has been banned repeatedly w/ other aliases.

I have good conversations and hold everyone else here in high regard. I've apologized to the community a couple times. I'm aware it drags down the site. If/when I have disagreements w/ others it ends and is fine the next day.

He's had the same M.O. since he first showed up.

RC Packer Fan's picture

Is Goldfinger - Arlo?

murphy's picture

The quality of the posts is certainly similar.

RC Packer Fan's picture

thats my thinking as well..

packeraaron's picture

Robert is not POC, who, for the record, was not "driven away."

Stroh's picture

Thanks for establishing that fact.

I'm simply trying to learn. This article was excellent. On the play I referenced, I'm trying to figure out how to differentiate why its cover 3 pattern matching z zone and not man. I gave my reasons for seeing man. I would just like to know what he sees that makes it cover 3 pattern matching. The play that I asked about seems like man, if its not that's fine, but I want to know why, not just that it is.

Sorry that you know who had to trash the whole thread again. Something you can do about him? Surely you can see he's the same person as Bernie the baker that was banned previously, along w/ another alias I can't remember.

Stroh's picture

Hello Robert thank for joining the staff here. I'm going to apologize ahead of time since I'm putting you on the spot. I just want to ask you what kind of coverage this play is.

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2013122901/2013/REG17/packers@bears?icampa...

Enjoy watching the highlites from the Packers/Bears wk 17 game.

The play I'm particularly interested in is at the 3:36 mark. If you can tell me what kind of coverage you see here and why? You may have to look at all the recievers and the techniques and reactions of the DB's, as well as the pressure scheme. Don't need a comprehensive breakdown but your reasoning and why you see it.

I believe I know what it is, just want to see what you have to say, since I debated the play w/ someone else a couple months ago.

Thanks and look forward to your analysis.

robertolson's picture

The 3:36 mark in the actual game, or the 3:36 mark in the highlight video? If it's the 3:36 mark in the actual game, what quarter? The 4th quarter?

Stroh's picture

Sorrry its actually the 3:56 mark... of the video. Its in the 4th qtr.

robertolson's picture

On that play, the Packers were playing their 2-3-6 Dime, and they ran a "Cross Fire" zone pressure (Cover 3 behind it).

Stroh's picture

I would think single high man. Tramon sits at the first down mark, then turns his head to the QB (cardinal sin in zone) and runs w/ the WR on the top of the screen (Marshall?), Bush is waiting for Forte to release and picks him up in man instead of playing a zone. And I don't see playing zone behind a 5 man pressure.

And from what I can tell Shields is playing inside technique on Marhall to push him to the sideline. Had a really good diagram from Matt Bowen, not of that exact play, but one very similar.

GoldFinger's picture

Oh my God, by his reply it appears Paul Ott Carruth was right and Stroh was wrong. Robert agreed with Paul Ott and now Stroh is trying to still fight it. LMFAO. Real nice Stroh!! Maybe you might want to apologize to Paul Ott Carruth for being wrong. I doubt he'll come back here. Thanks a lot superman!!

Stroh's picture

Nothing about my reply was argumentative. I simply pointed out what I saw.

Why don't you just go away, troll who's been banned numerous times!

GoldFinger's picture

Never said it was argumentative. I am actually pissed off now that you were the guy that fought with Paul Ott over this stupid play. I loved reading what he said here and you made him disappear because you kept on him insisting you were right and he was wrong. You got the answer from another expert thinking and hoping he would agree with you and he agreed with Carruth. Both of them are experts. You had the audacity to challenge these people. That's how brazen or inflated your ego is. You think you are Penske material but you are not. You are just George Costanza. LMFAO.. Oh this made my day!!

Stroh's picture

It wasn't this site and it wasn't w/ POC, so keep your nose out of it. Troll!

GoldFinger's picture

ok Stroh (wink wink) I'll save you from further humiliation.

robertolson's picture

No, it's Cover 3. Capers runs Cover 3 behind his 5-man pressures in Nickel and Dime. It looks like Cover 1, because they are "pattern matching" (essentially a "matchup zone"). Pattern matching is necessary in zone pressures, because you don't want guys running wide open. Bush is responsible for anything to the flat on the weak side of the 3x1 formation. Bush would take Forte if he released. Tramon has the outside 1/3. Since Marshall went deep, Tramon has to run with him. Tramon was playing "off" with inside leverage and correctly flipped his hips and ran with Marshall.

Stroh's picture

Heres the link to Bowen's article on it. Particularly the off man diagram.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2032934-nfl-101-introducing-the-basic...

The diagram at snap is a carbon copy. And when the CB sits on the sticks (like Tramon did) then turns his back to the QB, it is indicative of man coverage to me. Shouldn't Tramon have stayed over the top more in zone instead of letting Marshall completely eat the cushion at the sticks? He didn't stay over the top and opened outside to stay w/ Marshall and lost sight of the QB. Seems to me he should have flipped his hips the other way to watch the QB in zone, Instead he completely turns his back on the QB which IMO is a cardinal sin in zone.

Thoughts?

GoldFinger's picture

Like I said Robert, you don't know what you are getting into. He is now continuing to challenge you. I told you. He did the same to Paul Ott Carruth and now he still doesn't believe he's wrong.

People don't understand just how crazy this guy is. I know this guy for 6 years. He's effin crazy. Nobody tells him he's wrong. I don't care who it is. 2 Experts Robert and POC proved him wrong now he's taking this to a higher court. I told you it wasn't over with!!

Stroh's picture

Noone is challenging anyone. Just discussing what I see as opposed to what he sees. You don't know me and until you showed up under a different name and subsequently got banned here, never come across you anywhere.

Leave it alone Troll.

GoldFinger's picture

and I am telling you what I see. I see a nut who refuses to admit he's wrong. I see a guy who thought Robert would tell him he was right and when he told him he was wrong I saw you now link a post to Matt Bowen thus telling Robert he's of a higher court than Robert and now he's supposed to look into that link and tell you "oh, ok Stroh, now I see. Yeah, you were right and I was wrong. That's what I see!! You are disrespecting an expert (Robert) by not accepting his answer because you refuse to believe you are wrong and are publicly humiliated at the moment.

The question is will Robert continue on or will he leave it alone. If he's smart he won't reply back to you because you won't stop until he says you are right. That's what I see!! Now be a man and take your defeat like a man. It also wouldn't hurt to apologize to Paul Ott Carruth.

J0hn Denver's Gavel's picture

You are as cocky as you are dumb. Packer nation hates Goldfinger.

robertolson's picture

I've seen this article by Matt. Cover 1 and Cover 3 can look similar. Even in zone (Cover 3 in particular), outside 1/3 CBs have to run with WRs deep like Tramon and Sam did. CBs can play "off" or in "press" when playing man or zone. Here's my advice: watch Hyde and Burnett on this play.

jeremyjjbrown's picture

Please don't be turned off by their bickering. I'm excited to read more articles like this one. It's awesome.

Stroh's picture

I get that the CB can play off in both man and zone. Burnett seems to be moving forward even before the snap to cover the TE and Hyde has the slot WR. Hyde reacts to the break of the WR then turns to run deep when he sees Cutler throw over the top. Seems he's just reacting to the throw. Burnett beyond seemingly moving up to take the TE I don't see anthing that indicates man or zone.

What do you see that's indicative? Is that more pattern matching? I understand the concept of matchup zone from Basketball, but don't recognize it as well in football. I do understand that you don't want receivers running free (especially in that down and distance, 3rd and 17 IIRC), but how do you differentiate it from man?

Sorry you had to deal w/ the sideshow. That guy is a menace to the site and been banned a couple of times, but keeps coming back.

Thanks for your discussion, its insightful and I look forward to more like it.

robertolson's picture

Burnett's job is to "wall off" the #3 WR (the TE), and he essentially has a hook zone.

Stroh's picture

So how do you differentiate pattern matching from man coverage?

Thanks again for you input. I would like to be able to recognize the difference.

GoldFinger's picture

I can only hope and pray that this answer was what Stroh wanted to hear because we lost one hell of a football guy over this stupid argument of his and his need to be right. No offense to you Robert.

Stroh's picture

Nobody cares what you have to say. Your just a troll who's been banned at least twice already!

ZeroTolerance's picture

I can't stand the suspense - who was correct?

ZeroTolerance's picture

Sorry - I just now saw the response.

GoldFinger's picture

Yep, Stroh was wrong as usual. He was solely responsible for POC leaving here because he couldn't stop fighting with him. POC left and I don't blame him. I miss him big time but Robert also is damn good. People don't realize when you argue with this guy how annoying and relentless he can be to prove he's right. I've dealt with him over 6 years. He's just a punk who likes to act like a bully but is wrong most of the time just like he was here. What I like the best was he got punked by Robert and Stroh actually was thinking he would side with him. lol He was proven wrong right in front of all of us. His worst nightmare came true.

Thank you Robert for your honesty and your expertise. This is like being in court and Robert sent Stroh to jail based on his expert testimony. lol I love it but again I feel bad for what he did to POC.

Stroh's picture

Too bad you haven't a clue as to diagnosing any sort of coverage, to even ask and debate a question like this. Go away TROLL!

The only thing you've added to this site is a troll who is always WRONG!

GoldFinger's picture

This isn't about me. This is about you diagnosing plays. You are not an expert like Robert and the late POC who you drove away. You got punked in front of a live audience and you are still trying to save yourself. I just got a bowl of popcorn right now. I want to see this movie to the end. I already know the ending by the way. I will be called a troll and you will be right once you piss off and disrespect Robert by continuing to challenge him.

Stroh's picture

I didn't say I was an expert, that's why I asked him what he sees? I asked his opinion. He may be right, but its an opinion by both. All due respect Robert, Since neither of us are experts. Being a football coach might, not a writer.

No challenge exists except in your feable mind.

GoldFinger's picture

... and there you go Robert!! There's the first dig by Stroh to you. I knew it was coming. He called you out now. You and Stroh are just the same as far as knowledge goes. Here's the dig, "since neither of us are experts". Apparently according to Stroh, you are just a writer Robert. If you were a football coach than you would be smarter than Stroh but you are just a writer.

Talk about a slap in the face Stroh. You are an ass to even say such a thing like this to Robert who's light years ahead of you. You could only dream to be in his league. I'm done now. Robert I told you. You do not want to do this. He won't stop trust me. He won't stop until you admit he was right and you were wrong. Good luck Robert!!

Stroh's picture

Robert and I are having civilized discussion. Something your incapable of.

Why is it somehow a sin to question him. I'm analytical and simply want to know why. There's no dig or anything derogatory involve. Again except in your feable mind!

GoldFinger's picture

Yes, and you had no choice after being humiliated. To continue to fight the fact you were humiliated would only make you look worse so you did the only thing you could do. Pretend you were all about learning and going back to your Mr. Nice Guy I am Innocent only trying to learn approach. Had I not come on and said what you would do you would have done exactly that. I put you in your place. You are welcome!!

By the way, why don't you apologize to Paul Ott Carruth? You drove the guy away over this stupid play that nobody but you cares about and you were even wrong in the process. You at least owe him that or is that beneath you?

Stroh's picture

Your not innocent YOUR A TROLL! Which is all your being now. One That's been banned again and again. I'm not fighting him, I'm questioning him. Just becuz I don't simply take what he says as gospel isn't derogatory. I'll give him his props if he can explain something instead of just saying whats true. Being inquisitive and analytical is how you learn and grow. Another thing your incapable of.

You just sit under a bridge w/ your keyboard. You make up cock and bull theories, like intel and for Flynn being on the roster, like being buddies w/ Rodgers.

You've been WRONG about everything we've discussed from Pennel, to Flynn and Starks. But I dont' see any apologies from you!

GoldFinger's picture

I can't believe what you just said. You just pissed on Robert again with more little jabs. "just because I don't take what he says as gospel isn't derrogatory". Jab one!! You don't belleve him period. You are still not admitting you were wrong. Just as I said you would. Jab 2 at Robert: "I'll give him his props if he can explain something instead of just saying what's true". Unbelievable Stroh. So Robert is incapable of explaining it to you to where your mind would accept the fact you are wrong. That's what you just said without saying it. Two jabs at Robert who is here because HE'S AN EXPERT!! Stroh!! and that pisses you off because in your mind you are every bit the expert as Robert is. Maybe Nagler can call you that every now and then just to make you feel good I don't know.

I told everyone you would act this way and you did and you are fighting this every step of the way not admitting to being wrong. I don't give a darn about me being wrong on Flynn. You take this stuff to an entirely insane level when you take on people like Robert and POC who do the absolute best they can only to be questioned by some arrogant nut who thinks this is all a matter of life or death to be right.

One more thing, apologize to POC for driving him away and being wrong in the end. He didn't deserve what you did to him.

Stroh's picture

I don't care if I'm wrong I'm trying to learn. That's how you get past 1st grade. Which it seems is where your development ended!

lucky953's picture

Can't you guys just agree to meet outside a bar somewhere and either get drunk and be friends or just kill each other and leave the rest of us to enjoy hanging out as Packers fans?

Oppy's picture

Ugh.

Otto's picture

Ha! I was hoping they'd go back and forth long enough their 'reply' column would be one letter wide.

murphy's picture

Give it time...

Duke Divine's picture

Mashed Potato Mike scheming again!!

The TKstinator's picture

What's "Mashed Potato Mike" supposed to mean?
And no, it's not the first time I've heard it.

Stroh's picture

Reposted so you don't have to read the troll.

Heres the link to Bowen's article on it. Particularly the off man diagram.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2032934-nfl-101-introducing-the-basic...

The diagram at snap is a carbon copy. And when the CB sits on the sticks (like Tramon did) then turns his back to the QB, it is indicative of man coverage to me. Shouldn't Tramon have stayed over the top more in zone instead of letting Marshall completely eat the cushion at the sticks? He didn't stay over the top and opened outside to stay w/ Marshall and lost sight of the QB. Seems to me he should have flipped his hips the other way to watch the QB in zone, Instead he completely turns his back on the QB which IMO is a cardinal sin in zone.

Thoughts?

jeremyjjbrown's picture

Great Job Robert! I'm going to have to read this a few times to make sure I got it all.

packeraaron's picture

Well GoldFinger and Stroh, you had a great run.

Bye.

Stroh's picture

I'm simply trying to learn. This article was excellent. On the play I referenced, I'm trying to figure out how (learn) to differentiate why its cover 3 pattern matching zone and not man. I gave my reasons for seeing man. I would just like to know what he sees that makes it cover 3 pattern matching. The play that I asked about seems like man, if its not that's fine, but I want to know why, not just that it is.

Sorry for my part in it, and that you know who had to trash the whole thread again. Something you can do about him? Surely you can see he's the same person as Bernie the baker that was banned previously, along w/ another alias I can't remember.

PackerBacker's picture

Dude, acknowledge your part. For every Trollish post he wrote, you had a response. You want to seem like the bigger man? Stop responding. Everyone will know you're better if you do that. PLus, you won't have to apologize for taking over a thread, because you WON'T TAKE OVER THE THREAD.

GoldFinger's picture

Well Aaron Nagler, all I can tell you is my side one more time. I have stayed away from this guy since that day you told the both of us to "knock it off". I never once responded to him or mentioned his name. Around last week he started on me big time mocking me, saying how stupid I was, name calling, insults etc. It was at this time I tried to call you out several times to ban him for breaking the agreement. He kept on and on and on until finally I couldn't take it anymore because you never responded back to my pleas for help.

I am a leader Nagler not a follower. That's just my nature. If I see something that I feel isn't right I will speak out on it. Stroh has been treating people like garbage for years. He was mocking me all week on the intel and friendship posts I made so when I saw here that Robert made a fool out of him I let him know about it just as he did with me all week.

Now being a leader I am willing to accept whatever the consequences of my actions are. If you banning Stroh and I will lead this forum to greater heights than I am willing to sacrifice myself for the good of everyone here. I really hope you don't do that but I understand if you do. I enjoy coming here but obviously do not enjoy his antics constantly responding to me. If you could just tell Stroh not to respond to any of my posts this would solve everything seriously. That's all I am asking because he has a problem with this.

Anyway Nagler, as I said I apologize for these little squabbles. They disrupt everyone else here and it simply can't continue I agree with you. I hope we can work something out but if not I am sure I speak for Stroh as well and we both wish this place nothing but the best this Packers season.

Otto's picture

Well done, Robert. Excellent article.

Alfredo Martinez's picture

came for the Packer article, stayed for the grown ass men arguing like little children...goddamn lol...

RC Packer Fan's picture

Robert - I really appreciate you joining us. This is a great website and looks like your going to provide a great new look on things.

My question for you is, do you think the Packers could successfully attack the Seahawks defense using 2 RB's (Lacy and Harris) together in the backfield?

Lacy has now become a threat for defenses that they have to focus on him. Where Harris has such good speed and as we have seen in the preseason he has that ability to make people miss. I really think they could be effective in the backfield together.

I don't really expect to see them use them together at the same time just based on not seeing anything like this in the preseason.
I was just wondering what your thoughts are on this.
Thanks.

robertolson's picture

I don't think I've seen McCarthy use two pure RBs together in the backfield, so I wouldn't expect to see that. When McCarthy uses two backs in the backfield, it's usually Kuhn (a fullback) and another RB. Also, this preseason, he occasionally put Richard Rodgers in the backfield with a RB when the Packers had 3 WR on the field.

When I saw your question, it reminded me of when Mike Holmgren put Edgar Bennett and Dorsey Levens on the field at the same time.

Evan's picture

Wow...looked like I missed quite the shit show last night.

If they're both really banned...it's about damn time. I think it was clear that goldfinger's sole existence was trolling Stroh (and that he had been on here previously under different names), but, jesus, Stroh just couldn't help himself and kept taking the bait.

EDIT: Great post, Robert. I understood maybe 5% of it.

RC Packer Fan's picture

Yeah, i missed something as well...

Is Goldfindger - Arlo?

Evan's picture

I don't think so...I remember Arlo as being more openly hostile to everyone on here, all us "homers," not just Stroh.

RC Packer Fan's picture

Yeah, i wasn't sure.

That is true, arlo was attacking everyone. Goldfinger just goes after stroh. Must be the Stroh-Hater guy, and other names...

packsmack's picture

What about the 5 wide set that McCarthy utilized during the Super Bowl season but has gotten away from in recent years due to O-Line instability? Do you think he brings it back against the Hawks in certain circumstances? The key to beating an agressive man-zone team is to beat them at the point of attack, and 5 guys at the point of attack have a better shot than 2 or 3. Obviously it's not a set you call a lot, because it takes Lacy off the field and puts the tackles on an island, but I have to think it's still in the book. Can you perhaps show those route concepts with 5 wide?

Log in to comment, upload your game day photos 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.

Or log in with Facebook

Packers Tickets

Quote

"I firmly believe that any man’s finest hour, the greatest fulfillment of all that he holds dear, is that moment when he has worked his heart out in a good cause and lies exhausted on the field of battle – victorious."
"A school without football is in danger of deteriorating into a medieval study hall. "
"The Bears still suck!"