"We didn't blitz that much"--Bill Parcells

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You're exactly right. This is why I said that the 5+ man definition had a few exceptions (like the zone blitz and a few others).
My definition does not depend on the individual or position of who is blitzing. This makes it concise and consistent. You apparently haven't been able to grasp my premise, so I'm not sure you could even know when it's been proven false.

You said if it was Ware that blitzed then it wouldnt be a blitz.

In a 3-3-5 (assuming Ware is one of the LBs), sending Ware to rush the QB wouldn't be a blitz.

Your words not mine. This in and of itself demonstrates your definitions dependency on the individual. You specifically state that if its Ware that blitzeds from this formation its not a blitz.

its just like Stan said once your definition has an exception then it ceases to be a definition. It certainly isnt concisenor consistent.

This has been discussed. The definition pointed out by Hos ASSUMES that 4 other linemen are already rushing the QB. The 5th person (LB or DB) is what makes it a blitz. Hence, 5 defenders rushing the QB is a blitz.

Show one shred of proof that it assumes anything about 4 lineman must be rushing. to help you out i will quote it:

I knew someone would get hung up on the number. From dictionary.com

Football. A sudden charge upon the quarterback by one or more of the linebackers or defensive backs when the ball is snapped. Also called red-dog.

It is very clear that definition has NOTHING to do with NUMBERS but is instead predicated on POSITION. If you charge on the quarterback and youre a linebacker os safety then it is by definition a blitz. Nice try to make something up.

I would also like to point out that this is a referenced cite of my definition whereas you have as of yet failed to produce anything that backs up your opinion.

Just so we're sure -- you are attempting to cite to a video game as evidence.

Nice ad hominem. Argue the point not your perception of the argument.

It is a video game that whose creative input was John Madden. The game has been out ofr 15 years and I would think had the OLB been in error it would have been changed.

Furthermore this is just one of the sources other than my opnion that backs up my position. You have ZERO other than your opinion.

If you were able to fully understand the definition given by the "dictionary" you would realize that it actually proves my "5-man" definition.

Try comprehending and refuting the arguments rather than ignoring them. It would make your posts more intelligible.

Well the defition is above and it says nothing about 4 men already rushing the passer. Seeing that the 3-4 has been around since about the time of the forward pass it would bear to reason that had your assertion been true it would have been mentioned somehow. IT IS NOT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM.

Cite something that backs your OPINION and then come back.

 

[theogt]

You said if it was Ware that blitzed then it wouldnt be a blitz.



Your words not mine. This in and of itself demonstrates your definitions dependency on the individual. You specifically state that if its Ware that blitzeds from this formation its a blitz.

In a 3-3-5 if a 4th man rushes the QB it is not a blitz. It is 4 men rushing the QB. Four men rushing the QB is not a blitz in a 3-4 or a 3-3-5.

its just like Stan said once your definition has an exception then it ceases to be a definition. It certainly isnt concisenor consistent.

There are rules and there are exceptions. Having one or two exceptions does not make the rule inconsistent.

Show one shred of proof that it assumes anything about 4 lineman must be rushing.

It is very clear that definition has NOTHING to do with NUMBERS but is instead predicated on POSITION. If you charge on the quarterback and youre a linebacker os safety then it is by definition a blitz. Nice try to make something up.

The Answer.com definition supports my argument. I'm sorry that you cannot see that the definition assumes that 4 down linemen are rushing the passer.

I cannot make you read something that is not there. It is written because it is implied. If you cannot tell that the definition implies that four down linemen are already rushing the passer, there's nothing I can do to prove it to you. That's why the term is "IMPLIED" and not "EXPLICITY STATED."

To prove the absurdity of this I will give you the following example.

If a team is in a 4-3 alignment and the 4 down linemen drop into pass coverage and only ONE SINGLE linebacker rushes the QB, your definition of "blitz" makes that play a "blitz."

If you cannot see the absurdity of this definition I am truly sorry for attempting to discuss this topic with you.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

In a 3-3-5 if a 4th man rushes the QB it is not a blitz. It is 4 men rushing the QB. Four men rushing the QB is not a blitz in a 3-4 or a 3-3-5.

There are rules and there are exceptions. Having one or two exceptions does not make the rule inconsistent.

The Answer.com definition supports my argument. I'm sorry that you cannot see that the definition assumes that 4 down linemen are rushing the passer.

I cannot make you read something that is not there. It is written because it is implied. If you cannot tell that the definition implies that four down linemen are already rushing the passer, there's nothing I can do to prove it to you. That's why the term is "IMPLIED" and not "EXPLICITY STATED."

To prove the absurdity of this I will give you the following example.

If a team is in a 4-3 alignment and the 4 down linemen drop into pass coverage and only ONE SINGLE linebacker rushes the QB, your definition of "blitz" makes that play a "blitz."

If you cannot see the absurdity of this definition I am truly sorry for attempting to discuss this topic with you.

Just went to answers.com and looked up blitz HERE

blitz (blĭts)
n.

A blitzkrieg.
A heavy aerial bombardment.
An intense campaign: a media blitz focused on young voters.
Football. A sudden charge upon the quarterback by one or more of the linebackers or defensive backs when the ball is snapped. Also called red-dog.

v., blitzed, blitz·ing, blitz·es.

Sure doesnt back you up in any way shape or form.

Implying something is done by means of allusions context clues voice inflection or something along those lines. You say that it implies 4 linemen but you do nothing to back up this assertion. Youre making it up.

I could just as easily state that it assumes 3 down linemen because up until Tom Landry and the NY Giants 50 years ago there was no 4-3. At least I use some semblance of logic to back it up, but we both know that it is false no matter how many times i repeat myself.

Im waiting for some cite of your opinion. Until you do you lose the argument.

 

[theogt]

Sorry, I meant the About.com definition.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Sorry, I meant the About.com definition.

and here is that definition:

About Football Glossary - Blitz"
From James Alder,
Your Guide to Football.
FREE Newsletter. Sign Up Now!
Definition: A defensive strategy in which a linebacker or defensive back vacates his normal responsibilities in order to pressure the quarterback. The object of a blitz is to tackle the quarterback behind the line of scrimmage or force the quarterback to hurry his pass.
Pronunciation: Blits
Also Known As: Red Dog
Examples: When a defensive line is having trouble putting pressure on the quarterback, the defensive coordinator may decide to help them out by sending one or more linebackers or defensive backs on a blitz.

Where in there does it mention or allude to having to have a prerequisite number of linemen?

 

[theogt]

Implying something is done by means of allusions context clues voice inflection or something along those lines. You say that it implies 4 linemen but you do nothing to back up this assertion. Youre making it up.

If you ask 1000 people how many linemen typically rush the passer how many do you think they would say?

They would virtually all reply that typically 4 down linemen rush the passer. The definition does not get into the nuances of defensive alignments. Instead, it assumes that in a typical scenario (4 down linemen rushing the passer) an EXTRA linebacker or defensive back is sent in to help get pressure.

This implication is devastatingly clear when you consider the example provided in the About.com definition:

Examples: When a defensive line is having trouble putting pressure on the quarterback, the defensive coordinator may decide to help them out by sending one or more linebackers or defensive backs on a blitz.

They are already assuming that a defensive line is rushing the passer. Four defensive linemen plus AT LEAST ONE linebacker or defensive back = 5 men rushing the QB.

The only argument against the 5-men definition therefore is when the line is in a 3-man front. However, anyone will tell you, Bill Parcells included, that rushing 3 linemen and a 4th linebacker IS NOT A BLITZ.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If you ask 1000 people how many linemen typically rush the passer how many do you think they would say?

They would virtually all reply that typically 4 down linemen rush the passer. The definition does not get into the nuances of defensive alignments. Instead, it assumes that in a typical scenario (4 down linemen rushing the passer) an EXTRA linebacker or defensive back is sent in to help get pressure.

This implication is devastatingly clear when you consider the example provided in the About.com definition:
They are already assuming that a defensive line is rushing the passer. Four defensive linemen plus AT LEAST ONE linebacker or defensive back = 5 men rushing the QB.

The only argument against the 5-men definition therefore is when the line is in a 3-man front. However, anyone will tell you, Bill Parcells included, that rushing 3 linemen and a 4th linebacker IS NOT A BLITZ.

The 3-4 has been around for close to 70 years. youre assuming a 4-3. Either way you are asserting something without proof.

 

[theogt]

The 3-4 has been around for close to 70 years. youre assuming a 4-3. Either way you are asserting something without proof.

I just spelled it out for you that the implication is there. You have to be one of the most obstinate people on the face of the planet not to see it.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I just spelled it out for you that the implication is there. You have to be one of the most obstinate people on the face of the planet not to see it.

You of the imaginary 1000 people polls. If the definition was contingent on already having 4 rushers it would stand to reason that it would be included.

Youre being obstinant about an implication that isnt there.

 

[theogt]

You of the imaginary 1000 people polls. If the definition was contingent on already having 4 rushers it would stand to reason that it would be included.

Youre being obstinant about an implication that isnt there.

How do you explain the example? Why do they include the defensive line in the example? How can you just imagine that away? The example states that an extra rusher is sent in to help the defensive line. Since all defensive lines are either 3 or 4 men, an extra defensive player would always be a 4th or 5th player. Since we know that a 4th player rushing the QB cannot be a blitz, it stands to reason that any time in which a 5th player is sent to rush the QB it is a blitz.

Spelled out. Cold hard logic. Ignore it all you want.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Since we know that a 4th player rushing the QB cannot be a blitz, it stands to reason that any time in which a 5th player is sent to rush the QB it is a blitz.

Spelled out. Cold hard logic. Ignore it all you want.

Thats not cold logic but instead an assertion you throw in.

I know for a fact that it is common for teams to only rush 3 out of a 3-4 set. That is the point. In a 3-4 you are only guaranteed 3 rushers. Anything more is a blitz.

Thats why it stands to reason the emphasis the definition puts on POSITION and the benig NO MENTION OF NUMBERS.

 

[theogt]

Thats not cold logic but instead an assertion you throw in.

I know for a fact that it is common for teams to only rush 3 out of a 3-4 set. That is the point. In a 3-4 you are only guaranteed 3 rushers. Anything more is a blitz.

Thats why it stands to reason the emphasis the definition puts on POSITION and the benig NO MENTION OF NUMBERS.

Look at Bill Parcells's quote in the first post in this thread. Watch the game. If 3 down linemen and one extra linebacker rushing the QB is a blitz, then we blitzed every single play. EVERY SINGLE DEFENSIVE PLAY. I guess you're attempting to tell Bill Parcells that he doesn't know what a blitz is.

 

[BigDFan5]

and here is that definition:



Where in there does it mention or allude to having to have a prerequisite number of linemen?

Since you are using James Alders definition of Blitz, and James is a friend of mine, should I ask him if 1 LB rushing in a 34 is a blitz? or if a blitz is 5+??

I believe it is 5+ but I can get you James answer if you like.

 

[BigDFan5]

Thats not cold logic but instead an assertion you throw in.

I know for a fact that it is common for teams to only rush 3 out of a 3-4 set. That is the point. In a 3-4 you are only guaranteed 3 rushers. Anything more is a blitz.

Thats why it stands to reason the emphasis the definition puts on POSITION and the benig NO MENTION OF NUMBERS.

That whole paragraph is false, a 34 One of the LBs rushes the passer on most downs. Therefore its not "common" to rush only 3.

in a 34 using a LB as a rusher is not a blitz

 

[theogt]

That whole paragraph is false, a 34 One of the LBs rushes the passer on most downs. Therefore its not "common" the rush only 3.

in a 34 using a LB as a rusher is not a blitz

It is amazing that people can watch football every weekend and post on a football message board almost daily and not understand such a basic concept of the game.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Since you are using James Alders definition of Blitz, and James is a friend of mine, should I ask him if 1 LB rushing in a 34 is a blitz? or if a blitz is 5+??

I believe it is 5+ but I can get you James answer if you like.

If this is true, then please do. have him qualify the definition.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That whole paragraph is false, a 34 One of the LBs rushes the passer on most downs. Therefore its not "common" to rush only 3.

in a 34 using a LB as a rusher is not a blitz

According to you.

Common was not the proper word. Point still stands tho. You are only guaranteed 3 rushers in a 3-4 alignment. Im still waiting for one of you to provide a definition that states blitz = 5+.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It is amazing that people can watch football every weekend and post on a football message board almost daily and not understand such a basic concept of the game.

This is such a weak take. Ive watched football for 30 years and I full well understand that in most cases 4 guys are sent. That doesnt mean a thing when it comes to actual terminology.

Fact of the matter is tha each and every one of the definitions presented talk about the positions of the players that are sent and nothing to do with the numbers.

Thus it stands to reason that a blitz is predicated by the positions sent and not numbers.

The case of a 3-3-5 safety being the only additional rusher being a blitz demonstrates how the nondline rusher = blitz definition is the most clear and concise there is.

 

[theogt]

The case of a 3-3-5 safety being the only additional rusher being a blitz demonstrates how the nondline rusher = blitz definition is the most clear and concise there is.

It is completely clear and concise, except for the fact that it means we are blitzing on every single play. There's that little problem.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It is completely clear and concise, except for the fact that it means we are blitzing on every single play. There's that little problem.

so what if according to the true definition we are blitzing someone on every play?

the blitz is sometimes coming from the right the left or the middle.