patfanken

Patriots This Week - 11/16/2012

Matt Chatham is a very under valued media voice in the Boston Market. I never fail to learn something new every time I get a chance to hear him. In this case its on on of the Pats own broadcasts from their web site. "Patriots this Week".

Its a conversation with Zolak, Wiggy, and Chatham. In it Chatham offers a very informative and interesting response to the oft asked question about "Why the Pats don't blitz more". In the piece he not only gives a well reasoned and informative response to why we don't, he also offers a very logical alternative that he thinks we will start to see now that Chung is healthy and Talib has joined the team. They also discuss some other interesting topics like should McCourty be moved to safety.

Of all the shows we see locally this is were I got the most football information. Zolack is becoming a very good host and keeps the show moving as well as adding his 2 cents, and Wiggins, who I normally think is a complete boob, comes off as much more knowledgeable and insightful than he usually does when he's no the radio.

Its about 15 minutes and well worth the time. I'd like to hear what people think about Chatham's response about the blitzing and what he thinks we SHOULD be doing.

Marqui

What part in the video does he talk about Talib? I can't find it.

patfanken

I'm guessing no one wants to discuss the merits of the decision to Blitz (rush more than 4) or disguise and confuse (rush just 4 but from awkward angles, overloads, and or stunts). My complaint is that we don't seem to do much of either thus far, although Chatham's explanation of why we couldn't do it during the Buffalo game was compelling.

AndyJohnson

Part of the frustration of having such a discussion is that people don't recongize issues such as what Chatham brings up. The worst thing a defense can do is blitz and not get there.
Unfortunatley much of the discourse on this board turns into blitzing is manly, conservative play is ******* football, and it just turns into a pi$$ing match.
Chathams points are valid. Blitzing a 3step drop 6 man protection is a recipe for disaster. Pretending that you can blitz to overcome a defense that can't cover with 8 really kind of amounts to whining that something not being done is proof it would have worked. His point about stopping the run is a good one too, because they ran often from a passing formation, and draws probably accounted for 2/3 of their rushing yards.
As far as disguise, I don't think you accomplish much disguising a pass rush vs 6 man protection when you aren't going to blitz and have to worry about the draw. Disguising coverage is probably where it should be focussed, but unless there is all 22 to study for hours, we aren't going to be able to judge that from here.

hovis

It's not always a "tough guy" argument when it comes to blitzing. Some fans have the opinion that failing to execute a low-risk, low-reward scheme is worse than failing to execute a high-risk, high-reward strategy. Many of us who want more blitzes and disguised rushes realize their pitfalls but also acknowledge that this particular secondary is almost routinely getting abused deep down the field. You might as well gamble a bit more until the coverage improves.

cstjohn17

I like Chatham as well, much better analyst than football player.

neuronet

start watching around 530....they mention him but don't actually talk about him as much as repercussions for rest of secondary.

Edit: at around 1250 they talk about him in more detail, wrt Reggie Wayne who is playing like a beast.

__________________
Ice_Ice_Brady writes:
The difference is that Brady calmly calls audibles while Manning flaps like a chicken, barks 11 code words, and makes sure every camera in the stadium has documented his once-in-a-generation (and patented, I believe) ability to see a defensive formation and change the play. Both have the same effect, but Manning transcends measurable human intellect while Brady merely chooses a different play.

AndyJohnson

I'm not saying it always is, just that it often turns into that and it worthless to try to discuss, just as it often turns into 'the defense has been terrible for a long time' which is simply untrue.

I think mixing in more aggressive blitz packages should be considered. I think that Chatham is 100% correct that blitzing against 6 man protection and 3 step drops is foolhardy. I think if you aren't stopping that with 8 in coverage you probably don't have a back 7 that can afford to be exposed to a picked up blitz.
Certainly there are advantages to blitzing. While you say 'many of us' recognize the pitfalls, I have never seen anyone calling for more blitizing comment on realizing that a blitz that doesn't get to the QB weakens an already struggling secondary.
I'm not sure I understand you last comment. How would gambling if the coverage is poor help? If you can't cover for long enough to get the blitz there you negate the blitz, and if you can't cover with 8 not much chance you will with 5 or 6.

AndyJohnson

There is a very good possibility that we don't blitz more because we don't have strong enough enough coverage to be able to. Calling for more blitzing is actually exposing the real problem even more if that is the case. Its like saying doubling a WR isn't working so lets leave him single and double the TE

Marqui

What they need is a lot better pass rush from the front 4.