Grizz: The Phillps 34 Playbook

[Bob Sacamano]

Ok, for the sake of argument, let's say that for a blitz to be a "zone-blitz" there are 2 requirements:

1. The secondary has to be in zone coverage.

2. There has to be some change in pass-rushing responsibility (e.g., a lineman drops into coverage and a LB rushes the passer).

Can you at least agree to this for one moment? If yes, then you'll notice that in no place in the playbook do you see a possible play in which both of those requirements are met. Hence, there are no "zone-blitzes" in the playbook.

I don't see where it isn't met, I see one of the 1st lines being he uses a man, and zone, and blitzes in any situation, which can only mean he'll blitz from a man-coverage, and a zone coverage, and a blitz from a zone coverage scheme, is a zone-blitz

 

[theogt]

I don't see where it isn't met, I see one of the 1st lines being he uses a man, and zone, and blitzes in any situation, which can only mean he'll blitz from a man-coverage, and a zone coverage, and a blitz from a zone coverage scheme, is a zone-blitz

This is incorrect. A blitz from a zone coverage scheme can be a zone-blitz, but it doesn't necessarily mean it is a zone-blitz.

Both of the sources you cited told you this. It's common knowledge, actually.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

This is incorrect. A blitz from a zone coverage scheme can be a zone-blitz, but it doesn't necessarily mean it is a zone-blitz.

Both of the sources you cited told you this. It's common knowledge, actually.

:bang2: dude, a zone-blitz allows the D to stay in a zone cover scheme

and in any event, Wade uses a zone cover scheme, and blitzes in any situation, put 2 and 2 together...

Wade will blitz when his D is in a zone cover scheme...zone-blitz

 

[theogt]

:bang2: dude, a zone-blitz allows the D to stay in a zone cover scheme

and in any event, Wade uses a zone cover scheme, and blitzes in any situation, put 2 and 2 together...

Wade will blitz when his D is in a zone cover scheme...zone-blitz

You're right. He will use zone. He will blitz. He will blitz in a zone coverage. All of this is true, and is evident from the playbook.

However, there are no zone-blitzes in the playbook. I expected to see them. Perhaps that was because of his personel in Atlanta. Who knows.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

You're right. He will use zone. He will blitz. He will blitz in a zone coverage. All of this is true, and is evident from the playbook.

However, there are no zone-blitzes in the playbook. I expected to see them. Perhaps that was because of his personel in Atlanta. Who knows.

that's a zone blitz

so I think it's safe to say that Wade does indeed employ the zone-blitz, and will do so again

 

[theogt]

that's a zone blitz

so I think it's safe to say that Wade does indeed employ the zone-blitz, and will do so again

Seriously, which part of this sentence don't you understand?

It exists in nearly limitless permutations, all of which share the common theme of confusing the offensive line by dropping pass-rushers into coverage, while at the same time blitzing players who would usually cover receivers.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Seriously, which part of this sentence don't you understand?

OMG! :bang2: :bang2:

that doesn't change the fact that the D is still in a zone-cover scheme!

a zone-blitz is to make the O think you're in a regular zone-cover scheme, only for you to switch up the D responsibilities, of who covers and who rushes, which is what you're continually harping on, after the snap, I don't know why you're hung up on only part of the facet of a zone-blitz

 

[theogt]

OMG! :bang2: :bang2:

that doesn't change the fact that the D is still in a zone-cover scheme!

If you don't have the change in responsibility, you don't have a zone blitz. Honestly, this is common football knoweldge, and I'm slightly embarassed for you that you didn't know it.

 

[Tobal]

I thumbed through and thought I saw a zone blitz, the RDE dropped back in the middle about 5 yrds and the Mo backer blitzed from that general area

 

[Bob Sacamano]

If you don't have the change in responsibility, you don't have a zone blitz. Honestly, this is common football knoweldge, and I'm slightly embarassed for you that you didn't know it.

that's the thing though, I'm not refuting that that's a zone blitz

and I'm even more embarrassed for you that you don't understand the most fundamental principle of the zone-blitz, which is a zone-cover scheme

 

[theogt]

I thumbed through and thought I saw a zone blitz, the RDE dropped back in the middle about 5 yrds and the Mo backer blitzed from that general area

I didn't see any, but the blitz page had the title of "Basic 34 Blitzes," which would make lead you to believe there were other blitz packages that weren't included in the basic playbook (which would make sense).

 

[theogt]

that's the thing, I'm not refuting that that's a zone blitz

and I'm embarrassed for you that you don't understand the most fundamental facet of the zone-blitz, which is a zone-cover scheme

What you don't get is that without the change in responsibility there is no zone-blitz. Therefore, a blitz -- even if that blitz is in zone coverage -- that does not have a change in responsibiltiy is not a zone blitz. It may be a blitz with zone coverage, but it is not a zone-blitz.

 

[big dog cowboy]

The final section of the philosophy chapter ends with this - Finally, our job is to take the ball away from the opponents offense and score or set up good field position for the offense. We must knock the ball loose, force mistakes, and cause turnovers. Turnovers win games!

Sounds like the anti-Zimmer defense. That is a very good thing.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

What you don't get is that without the change in responsibility there is no zone-blitz.

I've been recognizing the change in responsibility this whole time! never once did I say it wasn't part of a zone-blitz

the zone-blitz is self-explanatory for crying out loud, zone-blitz, hell, it was created so that you didn't have to deal w/ the complexities of playing man-coverage, and w/o the confusion of switching the responsibilities, teams could pick your zone apart all day, which is kinda what's been happening to our D for awhile now, there is no either/or, it's either you're in a zone-cover scheme, and you switch the responsibilities of who covers, and who rushes, after the snap, or you're not employing a zone-blitz, get it? please, get it, for the LOVE OF GOD!!

 

[theogt]

I've been recognizing the change in responsibility this whole time! never once did I say it wasn't part of a zone-blitz

the zone-blitz is self-explanatory for crying out loud, zone-blitz, hell, it was created so that you didn't have to deal w/ the complexities of playing man-coverage, and w/o the confusion of switching the responsibilities, teams could pick your zone apart all day, which is kinda what's been happening to our D for awhile now, there is no either/or, it's either you're in a zone-cover scheme, and you switch the responsibilities of who covers, and who rushes, after the snap, or you're not employing a zone-blitz, get it? please, get it, for the LOVE OF GOD!!

But the problem is that you think that a blitz in zone coverage without a switch in responsibility is still a zone-blitz. It is not.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

But the problem is that you think that a blitz in zone coverage without a switch in responsibility is still a zone-blitz. It is not.

when the freak did I say that? good freakin' motherfudging lawd, are you on drugs! :bang2: :bang2: :bang2: Jesus Chryst ALKJFALDKFJALDKSFJDSFJKDFJLDFJKLDSFJADKSFJKDLSFJDSKLFJASKLFJSD :bang2: :bang2: :bang2: :bang2: :bang2: :bang2: :bang2:

 

[Tobal]

My initial impressions are that are DE's and middle backers will love this defense. They should get some good shots at the QB, lots of stunts, games and not much gap control. Basically go get the QB.

 

[theogt]

when the freak did I say that? good freakin' motherfudging lawd, are you on drugs! :bang2: :bang2: :bang2: Jesus Chryst ALKJFALDKFJALDKSFJDSFJKDFJLDFJKLDSFJADKSFJKDLSFJDSKLFJASKLFJSD :bang2: :bang2: :bang2: :bang2: :bang2: :bang2: :bang2:

You said it right here:

I don't see where it isn't met, I see one of the 1st lines being he uses a man, and zone, and blitzes in any situation, which can only mean he'll blitz from a man-coverage, and a zone coverage, and a blitz from a zone coverage scheme, is a zone-blitz

That is incorrect. It is only a zone-blitz when there is a change in responsibility.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

You said it right here:

That is incorrect. It is only a zone-blitz when there is a change in responsibility.

I also said this before then...an hour ago...

what are you talking about? all a zone-blitz does is exchange the D's responsibilities for who rushes, and who drops into coverage, they still employ a zone pass coverage

and you can't have a change in responsibility unless you are in a zone, or you defeat the whole purpose of the zone-blitz

 

[theogt]

I also said this before then...an hour ago...

and you can't have a change in responsibility unless you are in a zone, or you defeat the whole purpose of the zone-blitz

Well, a zone-blitz allows you to stay in zone, but it doesn't require you to stay in zone.