Well worth a look

[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]

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.

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.

 

[Ring 6]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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

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.

 

[Ring 6]

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.

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.

 

[Ring 6]

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]

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

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

 

[Mike the Brit]

Excellent program -- thanks for linking. Chatham uses his eyes and his brain!

Best point: why not use more disguise and deception with a 4-man rush? Because you've got a rushing/edge-setting problem.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Rams 4th and goal from the 3 1/2. Defensive genius Rex Ryan has Jets blitz everyone. Bradford 3 step at most drop nails a wide open WR for a TD. Chatham rules.

 

[hovis]

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.

It's common sense: if you execute a blitz well enough, the quality of coverage is less relevant. It's all about how long the secondary can hold up vs how long it takes to get to the QB, whether you're blitzing or not.

 

[Ring 6]

It's common sense: if you execute a blitz well enough, the quality of coverage is less relevant. It's all about how long the secondary can hold up vs how long it takes to get to the QB, whether you're blitzing or not.

Its also common sense that if you can't cover with 8 how can you expect to cover with 5?
Blitzes get picked up. Often. We could harbor the misconception that blitzing means you get pressure and rush the throw, but in the real world, it gets picked up a lot, and you are left with even worse coverage.

As someone mentioned above, the Jets brought a blitz that created an untouched rusher (twice in that drive actually) and the coverage had to be so loose there was an easily open receiver to negate a blitz that worked perfectly.

 

[Ring 6]

Rams 4th and goal from the 3 1/2. Defensive genius Rex Ryan has Jets blitz everyone. Bradford 3 step at most drop nails a wide open WR for a TD. Chatham rules.

Same thing happened earlier in the drive on a 3rd and 3. Cromartie had to give Amendola space, and he made one quick move and it was an easy first down. Perfectly executed blitz and it failed.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

Same thing happened earlier in the drive on a 3rd and 3. Cromartie had to give Amendola space, and he made one quick move and it was an easy first down. Perfectly executed blitz and it failed.

Up to now the Pats have been judicious in their blitzing and it works when timed right, people see that and think it can work all the time if they just did it more, wrong! Lets see if they can do a bit more with Talib back there.