OT: WSJ: "When the Blitz is a Bad Idea"

[Snarf]

Interesting article about the use of the blitz this season, and what some of the stats say about its effectiveness:

When Blitzing Peyton Manning Is a Bad Idea - WSJ.com

 

[Sicilian]

Re: WSJ: "When the Blitz Is a Bad Idea" (OT)

Interesting article about the use of the blitz this season, and what some of the stats say about its effectiveness:

When Blitzing Peyton Manning Is a Bad Idea - WSJ.com

Good article, but TOTAL overuse of the term "Mr. Manning"

 

[Kontradiction]

Wow, that's a good article. You can also draw comparisons between Manning and Brady from a couple of years ago. It used to be a terrible idea to blitz Brady. Defenses would get torched. Since then, our offensive line hasn't exactly been healthy/the same. You can say the same for Brady as well. And I do agree that, "Mr. Manning" is used entirely too much.

 

[BradyBranch39]

Mr. BradyBranch39 likes this article that Mr. Snarf has recommended.

 

[RayClay]

I don't think beating the blitz has anything to do with the offensive line. Blitz pickup is usually the assignment for the back. Getting rid of the ball quick and having multiple targets to take advantage of the hole in the defense.

Of course if you have an empty backfield and stare at the same two receivers waiting for them to get open...

 

[Kontradiction]

I don't think beating the blitz has anything to do with the offensive line. Blitz pickup is usually the assignment for the back. Getting rid of the ball quick and having multiple targets to take advantage of the hole in the defense.

Of course if you have an empty backfield and stare at the same two receivers waiting for them to get open...

...and are coming off a season-ending knee injury with injuries along the O-Line which forces the tight ends to stay in on blocking assignments. Personally, I expect Brady to get hit much less next year. People can spout the same stuff about Brady's sacks this season until their eyes bleed. Is it good that he didn't get sacked much? Yeah. However, he got hit A LOT. And quarterback hits are just as jarring to a passer's psyche as sacks are.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Interesing article - but mostly common sense.

Putting pressure on a QB without giving up the coverage that one loses when blitzing is obviously preferable IF you have the personnel and talent to pull it off.

It definately lends credibility to McDaniels' concern that Nolan was calling for a blitz far too much. McDaniels' forte' isn't Defense but as an offensive specialist, and student of the game like Belichick you have to assume that he's up on how an offense can beat a blitz.

Report: McDaniels told Nolan there would be less blitzing | ProFootballTalk.com

 

[Patspsycho]

Re: WSJ: "When the Blitz Is a Bad Idea" (OT)

Good article, but TOTAL overuse of the term "Mr. Manning"

Dude, what do you expect. It's the Wall Street Journal. Upper class, white-collar ****s reading this over freshly squeezed orange juice in their brooks brothers slippers.

These be the Grey Poupon folks.

 

[IcyPatriot]

I don't think beating the blitz has anything to do with the offensive line. Blitz pickup is usually the assignment for the back. Getting rid of the ball quick and having multiple targets to take advantage of the hole in the defense.

Of course if you have an empty backfield and stare at the same two receivers waiting for them to get open...

One of the reasons we won in 2001, 2003, 2004 is we had multiple backs who could pick up the blitz. Don't know about Taylor but Maroney and Morris are not to good at it. Faulk ... little guy ... he is great at it.

 

[unoriginal]

With Mr. Revis neutralizing top receivers, the Jets are free to send more calvary after the passer.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who's made this mistake. Though I guess it makes sense in a poetic sort of way.

 

[RayClay]

One of the reasons we won in 2001, 2003, 2004 is we had multiple backs who could pick up the blitz. Don't know about Taylor but Maroney and Morris are not to good at it. Faulk ... little guy ... he is great at it.

Faulk was awful, but he learned and is very good. Who were the multiple backs, not Pokey Antowain?

To me, the huge difference is we got rid of the ball lightning quick. The offense designed to protect the "game manager" resulted in the quickest passes in the league. Not a lot of deep balls though.

 

[BradyFTW!]

One of the reasons we won in 2001, 2003, 2004 is we had multiple backs who could pick up the blitz. Don't know about Taylor but Maroney and Morris are not to good at it. Faulk ... little guy ... he is great at it.

Maroney's pretty decent at it. Definitely not Faulk good, but better than Morris.

 

[JMarr]

Interesing article - but mostly common sense.

Putting pressure on a QB without giving up the coverage that one loses when blitzing is obviously preferable IF you have the personnel and talent to pull it off.

It definately lends credibility to McDaniels' concern that Nolan was calling for a blitz far too much. McDaniels' forte' isn't Defense but as an offensive specialist, and student of the game like Belichick you have to assume that he's up on how an offense can beat a blitz.

Report: McDaniels told Nolan there would be less blitzing | ProFootballTalk.com

Agree with the first statement. The only thing that is interesting is the part about the WAY certain teams scheme their blitzes--the quality of their blitzing if you will. "How often" teams blitz statistically isn't really worth discussing.

Regardless of whether you're facing Peyton Manning or Michael Vick, getting to the QB by whatever means possible is priority #1 now in the NFL: wreek havoc on the passing game b/c, against most teams, it's simply easier to stop the run if you have decent size up front. Methinks that BB realized after SB42 that getting good pressure from your D-line is far preferable than having to rely on blitzing. If your four-man or nickel front isn't getting it done, then sure, send the house once in awhile (the whole "element of surprise" thing has become underrated). Too bad the Pats didn't and don't have the personnel to transition away from the 2 gap 3-4.

As to McDaniels I don't think "blitzing" relates to their meltdown at all, contrary to what he says. Denver's D exceeded expectations this year. Their offense was putrid after their first few games and cost them the playoffs. Total scapgoating by McD, which you would expect from a guy that is SO on the hotseat already.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who's made this mistake. Though I guess it makes sense in a poetic sort of way.

Does Rex pray though?

 

[Sicilian]

Agree with the first statement. The only thing that is interesting is the part about the WAY certain teams scheme their blitzes--the quality of their blitzing if you will. "How often" teams blitz statistically isn't really worth discussing.

Good point. I mean, a 3-4 team that sends the 3 linemen plus one of their linebackers is "blitzing" while a 4-3 team that just sends the 4 linemen is not. Same number of rushers, but one is a blitz and one isn't.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Faulk was awful, but he learned and is very good. Who were the multiple backs, not Pokey Antowain?

To me, the huge difference is we got rid of the ball lightning quick. The offense designed to protect the "game manager" resulted in the quickest passes in the league. Not a lot of deep balls though.

People boo hoo'd it but it worked. The QB isn't the problem here. He can run any scheme you can block for if you just surround him with competent talent that executes consistently. The shift here to the vertical game absent an all pro OL was a disaster in the making. Once teams got a bead on the middle of that OL that became clear. My fear is if they don't shift the focus it will be MOTS and if they do shift the focus they need 4-5 bankable targets on the field AT ALL TIMES who can play effectively and willingly in the short to intermediate range and a run blocking scheme and backs who can grind out yardage in a pinch as well as catch the ball out of the backfield. That is what Manning is operating with this season, and even though the ground game has sputtered the players remain functional. It's the # of weapons in the arsenal and the level of trust the QB can build with them based on their performance, not the talent of merely one or two weapons, that great QB's can make hay with even in the face of being blitzed.

The more time scheme demands Brady buy time for, the less likely it is to succeed. Roethlisberger is living proof that shifting largely to a scheme you aren't built to block for for is utter folly. And He's a scrambler and bigger physical presence, although not nearly the mental presence... The Steelers squeaked a SB out after undertaking to make that change, but a season removed from it their OC lost his job as a result. Roethlisberger drove that train in Pittsburgh, I don't believe Brady did here. He just wanted better weapons than Reche Caldwell as his #1WR. Unfortunately the old adage be careful what you ask for comes to mind. Defense plus an offense constructed to leverage what opposing defenses give you is what wins championships.

Yesterday in one of his lucid moments Felger was talking about how this team used to be "multiple" and situational. I believe the term at the time was they are chameleons. That doesn't take elite talent. In fact it often eschews it. It takes smart, adaptable, driven players who are highly coachable. And it takes balance. The roots they need to get back to aren't to be a run first or run to pass team. It's to be "multiple".

 

[Mike the Brit]

Does Rex pray though?

I hope he suffers ...