Being more creative, we need a zone blitz...

[Common Sense]

You do understand that "zone blitz" refers to the coverage, and not the actual blitzes, right? It has nothing to do with whether or not your middle linebacker blitzes.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

You do understand that "zone blitz" refers to the coverage, and not the actual blitzes, right? It has nothing to do with whether or not your middle linebacker blitzes.

No, coverage is half of the package. It all amounts to the same thing. You Zone Blitz to create pressure by overloading a gap or responsability. The void you leave by bringing a guy and droping off another guy is still a risk. You may be bringing a guy and dropping a DL into coverage to try and make up for the assignment but it still leaves a guy who is not great in coverage with an area responsability in your coverage scheme. You do understand that a Zone Blitz is still a Blitz right?

 

[ravidubey]

Wasn't there another thread like this?

Why do we want to resort to some gimmick Defense? I say we beat our opponents straight up.

I'm not sure I want Fergie back in coverage. That's just silly.

Ditto. The zone blitz was a silly fad that was good at confusing bad quarterbacks. Any decent team's OL and backs picked up the LB's that rushed and torched the DL that tried to cover.

I mean, can you imagine a DL in coverage...

 

[wileedog]

The elite teams are the ones I'm talking about. We played the Jags, an elite team, and got 1 sack. Sure, I'm on the skins high like everyone else, but we got to face reality that the Skins weren't a good team Sunday night. We will face better teams, especially if we get to the playoffs.

Good teams beat the blitz more than bad teams do though. Its actually riskier trying exotic packages against a solid O-line than it is against a bad one because there is a higher chance it is picked up, and a picked up zone blitz is just asking for a big play.

I don't think we will ever be the Steelers while Bill is here, its just not his philosophy. I do think we will see more of the stunts and shifts we saw against Washington though as our players mature, but I don't ever think we will adopt schemes which increase risk drastically. As Bill has said, "You a bet a little to win a lot, not a lot to win a little."

If the team has the talent we think and hope it does, it can still be a dominant defense. Bill's Giants teams sure were, and he didn't spend a lot of time trying to disguise anything.

 

[Deep_Freeze]

You do understand that "zone blitz" refers to the coverage, and not the actual blitzes, right? It has nothing to do with whether or not your middle linebacker blitzes.

Ummm, you might want to read this:

http://espn.go.com/ncf/columns/davie/1430750.html

Yes, it does have something to do with the mike LB. Would post the article, but can't transfer the pics, sue me.

 

[Stautner]

Good teams beat the blitz more than bad teams do though. Its actually riskier trying exotic packages against a solid O-line than it is against a bad one because there is a higher chance it is picked up, and a picked up zone blitz is just asking for a big play.

I don't think we will ever be the Steelers while Bill is here, its just not his philosophy. I do think we will see more of the stunts and shifts we saw against Washington though as our players mature, but I don't ever think we will adopt schemes which increase risk drastically. As Bill has said, "You a bet a little to win a lot, not a lot to win a little."

If the team has the talent we think and hope it does, it can still be a dominant defense. Bill's Giants teams sure were, and he didn't spend a lot of time trying to disguise anything.

Very good post.

 

[Common Sense]

No, coverage is half of the package. It all amounts to the same thing. You Zone Blitz to create pressure by overloading a gap or responsability. The void you leave by bringing a guy and droping off another guy is still a risk. You may be bringing a guy and dropping a DL into coverage to try and make up for the assignment but it still leaves a guy who is not great in coverage with an area responsability in your coverage scheme. You do understand that a Zone Blitz is still a Blitz right?

My point was that saying things like we need to zone blitz more so we can blitz all of our linebackers doesn't make sense because that has nothing to do with whether or not you're running a zone blitz.

 

[Common Sense]

Ummm, you might want to read this:

http://espn.go.com/ncf/columns/davie/1430750.html

Yes, it does have something to do with the mike LB.

Ummm... ok? Are you sure that YOU read it?

 

[Deep_Freeze]

Good teams beat the blitz more than bad teams do though. Its actually riskier trying exotic packages against a solid O-line than it is against a bad one because there is a higher chance it is picked up, and a picked up zone blitz is just asking for a big play.

I don't think we will ever be the Steelers while Bill is here, its just not his philosophy. I do think we will see more of the stunts and shifts we saw against Washington though as our players mature, but I don't ever think we will adopt schemes which increase risk drastically. As Bill has said, "You a bet a little to win a lot, not a lot to win a little."

If the team has the talent we think and hope it does, it can still be a dominant defense. Bill's Giants teams sure were, and he didn't spend a lot of time trying to disguise anything.

Nice post....although some would say the other Bill was running it and that Bill (Belichick) had a say in that, and he is quite creative.

I know Bill is conservative, I just hope he will open it up on defense like he is doing on offense (loved seeing us chunk it Sunday).

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

My point was that saying things like we need to zone blitz more so we can blitz all of our linebackers doesn't make sense because that has nothing to do with whether or not you're running a zone blitz.

OK, that's fine but I never said you want to Blitz all your LBs. In fact, I did not imply we needed to use a Zone Blitz. BP does it in a different way.

 

[Stautner]

OK, that's fine but I never said you want to Blitz all your LBs. In fact, I did not imply we needed to use a Zone Blitz. BP does it in a different way.

I think he may be referring to the originator of this thread who did say those things.

 

[Deep_Freeze]

I think he may be referring to the originator of this thread who did say those things.

There are plenty of people in this trend that agree with me.

 

[Stautner]

There are plenty of people in this trend that agree with me.

I wasn't commenting on right or wrong, I was only clearing up Cowboy's misconception.

If you want to argue with Cowboy about what technically constitutes a "zone blitz" be my guest.

 

[Deep_Freeze]

I wasn't commenting on right or wrong, I was only clearing up Cowboy's misconception.

If you want to argue with Cowboy about what technically constitutes a "zone blitz" be my guest.

No thanks, lol. :horse:

I just want some creativity on D like we are showing on offense, thats it.

 

[Stautner]

No thanks, lol. :horse:

I just want some creativity on D like we are showing on offense, thats it.

I hate to beat that horse any more, but do you really not think we showed a lot more creativity on defense agains the Skins than we did against the Jags?

Frankly, I think it can easily (very easily) be argued that there was more of a difference on defense than on offense.

 

[Deep_Freeze]

I hate to beat that horse any more, but do you really not think we showed a lot more creativity on defense agains the Skins than we did against the Jags?

Frankly, I think it can easily (very easily) be argued that there was more of a difference on defense than on offense.

Yes, we did show a little more creativity against the Skins, guess I'm asking for even more, lol.

That begs the question of why hold back against a better team, maybe this is your youth thing again. I know we have alot of youth on D, but none of them are rookies. I just don't see that as an excuse anymore, maybe last year, but not this year.

Yes, I still have Jag issues.......

 

[Stautner]

Yes, we did show a little more creativity against the Skins, guess I'm asking for even more, lol.

That begs the question of why hold back against a better team, maybe this is your youth thing again. I know we have alot of youth on D, but none of them are rookies. I just don't see that as an excuse anymore, maybe last year, but not this year.

Yes, I still have Jag issues.......

Someone earlier answered the question about holding back against a better team, and that is that a better team is more capable of making you pay for trying to blitz.

The other possibility may be that Parcells miscalculated and thought we could generate a pass rush without the need to expose ourselves by blitzing a lot, and after the Jags game re-evaluated that position.

As for "asking for more" - my aren't we greedy......

I have to say that "more" makes me nervous. As it was Washington had 3 good chances that I can remember to burn us when we blitzed. Two of those fortunately ended in bad throws because we pressured Brunnell, and the third seemed to be a catchable ball that someone (I think it was Cooley) misplayed. There will come a time, however, when the other team picks up the blitz well or a receiver doesn't misplay a ball if we blitz too much.

 

[Deep_Freeze]

Someone earlier answered the question about holding back against a better team, and that is that a better team is more capable of making you pay for trying to blitz.

The other possibility may be that Parcells miscalculated and thought we could generate a pass rush without the need to expose ourselves by blitzing a lot, and after the Jags game re-evaluated that position.

As for "asking for more" - my aren't we greedy......

I have to say that "more" makes me nervous. As it was Washington had 3 good chances that I can remember to burn us when we blitzed. Two of those fortunately ended in bad throws because we pressured Brunnell, and the third seemed to be a catchable ball that someone (I think it was Cooley) misplayed. There will come a time, however, when the other team picks up the blitz well or a receiver doesn't misplay a ball if we blitz too much.

I agree. I don't want us blitzing all the time, and that isn't what I have been saying. Asking for "more", I mean more creativity not more blitzes in general.

I'm not a balls to the wall, blitz every play kinda guy. Balance is better, IMO. My problem is becoming too predictable in our pass rush, especially when we are in the 3-4 with its limitless possiblities.

 

[Stautner]

I agree. I don't want us blitzing all the time, and that isn't what I have been saying. Asking for "more", I mean more creativity not more blitzes in general.

I'm not a balls to the wall, blitz every play kinda guy. Balance is better, IMO. My problem is becoming too predictable in our pass rush, especially when we are in the 3-4 with its limitless possiblities.

I think the creativity you talk about is a third tier thing with Parcells and will only come if (1) a fairly plain vanilla pass rushing game plan fails, like with Jacknsonville, and (2) the kind of blitzing we did against the Skins fails. The reason for this, and I can't say I disagree, is that with more exotic and elaborate blitz packages also comes greater risks. More people have more responsibilities - not just the blitzers themselves but for the remaining defenders that have to cover for those guys and protect against getting burned in the event the offense picks up the blitz and the QB has time to throw.

In other words, I believe Parcells will stick with the simplest thing that can still be effective.

One thing I have noticed you saying a few times is that our guys aren't rookies anymore - almost as if players don't grow and learn and mature after the first year. I know that's not what you mean, but I do believe Parcells views many of these guys as not only new to the NFL, but new to the 3-4.

Right or wrong, Parcells is a stickler for minimizing mistakes and not doing things to beat yourself, and that guides a lot of his actions.

 

[Deep_Freeze]

I think the creativity you talk about is a third tier thing with Parcells and will only come if (1) a fairly plain vanilla pass rushing game plan fails, like with Jacknsonville, and (2) the kind of blitzing we did against the Skins fails. The reason for this, and I can't say I disagree, is that with more exotic and elaborate blitz packages also comes greater risks. More people have more responsibilities - not just the blitzers themselves but for the remaining defenders that have to cover for those guys and protect against getting burned in the event the offense picks up the blitz and the QB has time to throw.

In other words, I believe Parcells will stick with the simplest thing that can still be effective.

One thing I have noticed you saying a few times is that our guys aren't rookies anymore - almost as if players don't grow and learn and mature after the first year. I know that's not what you mean, but I do believe Parcells views many of these guys as not only new to the NFL, but new to the 3-4.

Right or wrong, Parcells is a stickler for minimizing mistakes and not doing things to beat yourself, and that guides a lot of his actions.

I understand what you are saying, I just think you can learn alot in a year. Of course they will learn more and more, I say throw them in the deep end of the pool, and see if they can swim, lol.

Yeah, BP might be going with the "keep it simple, stupid" theory, a more conservative approach. I'm just ready for this team to swim against a high quality opponent.