ivanvamp

I'm confused. If it's easy to scheme to take out elite pass rushers (by sliding protection, etc.), how come elite pass rushers still end up with so many sacks and pressures?

While the offense is scheming to take away your best pass rusher, you're scheming to find ways to free him up. Assuming both coaches are relatively equal scheme-designers, the elite pass rushers get their sacks and pressures because, you know, they're *great* at what they do.

Sign me up for adding guys that are great at what they do.

jukes

If you can only rush the passer what good are you? If he's playing for me he's going to have to be doing alot more than rushing the passer to get on the field for me.

Look at Rob he may not be the best hair on fire type of guy, but he does alot of things well and can also drop back and cover. I think we shouldnt give up on cunningham after 1 rookie year

patsfaninpittsburgh

You miss the point.

Who cares if you hammer 10 sacks against Carolina. What can you do against elite offenses?

Did you watch the Super Bowl? Our Nov 2010 game in Pittsburgh?

Elite pass rushers are useless against elite offenses.

From my perspective, I would like to mimic the Giants and have four Dline that can bring pressure. Why people seem to think the Super Bowl translates into a OLB pass rush specialist is bizarre.

However, pass rusher is a mental disease.

ivanvamp

In the 2011 Super Bowl there were three "elite" pass rushers: Clay Matthews, James Harrison, and LaMarr Woodley. Among the three of them they got 2 sacks and 5 QB hits. I wouldn't say they were "useless".

I agree with you that we don't necessarily need an OLB pass-rushing specialist. I was simply responding to the point that it's easy to take away a pass-rushing stud. It's not. You have to devote a lot of resources and adjust your game plan to take a guy like that out of the game. And when you do that, you have fewer resources available to block other guys.

patsfaninpittsburgh

Did you watch the game?

Yeah, it was kinda useless.

The only time the Steelers "stopped" the Packers was when Packer receivers dropped passes. Eliminate unforced errors and the Packers score everytime.

Again, everybody on this site can most likely agree that we want OLB's that rush the QB. Where the disconnenct comes in the importance of that pass rushing OLB against offenses and elite offenses.

Add to this the differing concept of "pass rush" vs "pass rusher" and the concept is simple.

Clay Matthews has more untouched sacks than anyone. Why? he's a great player complimenting a great secondary.

I would also recommend reviewing the Steelers defense against great offenses or how they play without Polamalu. it's simply amazing that people are shocked at how poorly they played against the Packers or us or against New Orleans....

Finally, if our defense was filled with only veteran players, I would support the pass rushers are desperately needed. With young players, that case is academic. We may or may not but I will trust the coach on this evaluation.

I would also highly respect the opinion that we need more pressure guys based on the injuries to Wright, Pryor, and T Warren. The pressure problem in the playoffs was the result of having guys not on the field.

That's different than saying there a no guys on the roster.

ivanvamp

Yes, I watched the game. Pittsburgh didn't get to Rodgers a ton, and GB's offense is tough to stop under any circumstances. But the sack that Harrison got was important (Woodley's didn't turn out to be as relevant).

Harrison's sack came with about 10 minute left in the 3rd quarter, with GB leading 21-17. The Steelers had cut a 21-3 deficit down to 21-17, and GB had 3rd and 7 at their own 21. Harrison dropped Rodgers for a 6 yard sack, and the ensuing punt gave Pittsburgh the ball at their own 40, with a ton of momentum. (They would drive down to GB's 29 before a missed FG ended the drive)

That sack could have put the Steelers in position to take the lead in the game. It was a huge play at the time.

I don't care if who gets sacks; I do care that the Pats get sacks (or at least a lot of pressure on the QB). The Pats were pretty good in the 2nd half of the year last year with sacks, even without a stud pass rusher.

But I just don't get the argument that somehow it's not better to have a stud pass rusher.......

eom

Nobody is making the case that we actively don't want a pass rusher- -- many ARE telling you that the olb on our team has other jobs to do besides collect sack stats, that not BAL of the guys you drool over would do well on the pats, that a lot of thai is scheme and philosophy related, and that the team has many more jobs to fill than simply OMGPAAAASSSSSRUUUUUSHEEEERRRRRRR

patsfaninpittsburgh

That sack was a big play......because of all the drops earlier in the game.

You seem to agree with coach.

It's belief in resource allocation.

If our coach says "You cannot have too many good CB's", it should be no suprise that he used very valuable and scarce high draft picks on CB's.

That's different than using the same valuable resources to trade up for a "pass rusher".

Based on past history and his commentary, I see us going to a second to none secondary with big Dline guys and flexible linebackers.

That's different than having a gaggle of guys who pin their ears back and rush.

Based on football the past decade, I agree that you can never have too many good CB's.

Why

Dallas has the stud pass rusher in Ware. Didn't seem to matter.
Pittsburgh's defense is below average without Polamalu
Freeney/Mathis didn't really help against New Orleans. Saints secondary was big.
2010 Jets in playoffs
The biggest bust rate is these pass rush specialists. Vernon, Aaron, Larry, Jerry, Anthony, Robert,..........


I would love to have the option where we could get pressure with four guys. My interpretation is you can have four functional guys to do that. As such, I consider it more scheme related than "stud" related.

Also, I don't agree with the idea we need to draft pass rushers with so many young guys.

That's like saying you need to plow the field in July because you haven't seen any corn yet. If you want to plow because of factual evidence of blight or infestation, that's different. However, I have yet to see any satisfactory evidence our young guys will not develop.

eom

And if there's one thing we can BAL relate to it's a farming analogy
I've always said that guys in the locker room with a bad attitude are like boll weevils eating your crops away from the inside

ivanvamp

I agree with that last statement. I'm not torn up over not drafting an OLB/DE. I just want the Pats to get better in every possible phase of the game. Including pass rush.

Again, though, I don't understand why it's not a really good thing to have a stud pass-rusher. If they're not that important, if they're easily schemed for and it's easy to render them irrelevant, try to find out how much it would cost the Patriots to acquire Demarcus Ware from the Cowboys. I suggested back in the winter that the Pats should seek out a Mankins/Meriweather for Ware trade and got laughed off this board.

Fair enough.

But why is a trade whereby we give an all-pro OL in his prime and a 2-time pro-bowl safety not even yet in his prime years for one defensive player, at a spot that you think could easily be rendered irrelevant by good offenses, be a laughable proposition?

Answer: It's laughable because almost everyone in the NFL would prefer to have that dominant pass rusher. It really is valuable.