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

[superpunk]

expected is ambiguous and subjective interpretation blows.

That's the way it's gotta be, sprinkles.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I just don't see it Fuzzy when Ware rushes the passer that it would be considered a blitz IF he's joining the other 3 defensive lineman AND he's not directly on the LOS.

The other problem I have with your definition would be if a linebacker or safety came up on the LOS, filling a gap between two lineman and rushed the passer. Under your definition that would not be a blitz.

And this is my whole issue with it being the player and not the position. You may not like it but you have to go with it.

Same formation and same playcall: the one with Ware at ROLB is not a blitz but the one with Burnett is?

It is what it is.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

A blitz is when any player rushes the passer who was not expected to rush the passer, to create confusion, with or without a cupcake.

Actually that's not a bad definition.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That's the way it's gotta be, sprinkles.

qualify it then frostingboy.

 

[theogt]

An amendment:

Blitz: Any time a defender who in the standard defensive formation does not line up on the LOS rushes the passer.

My whole point for taking this approach is that each and every definition out there concentrates on position and not number.

And the other definition still doesnt account for If one of the backers rushes out of a 3-2-6, dime formation. Or really any of the 3 man line nickle formations.

In a standard 3-4 alignment, the OLBs don't necessarily line up on the LOS. Thus, any time an OLB rushes the passer it is considered a blitz. This is obviously wrong.

The best definition by far has been:

Any time (1) five or more defenders rush the QB, or (2) any time a defensive back rushes the passer.

 

[superpunk]

I always considered a true blitz when you send more rushers than there are blockers.

Could be. Or you could overload a gap, or a side. Or, send someone in from outside the box. There is no concrete definition, so trying to nail one down is futile. We know it when we see it, and we know it's purpose. That's pretty well good enough.

 

[superpunk]

qualify it then frostingboy.

I would have to be inside the QB and Center's heads. I'm not Miss Cleo.

 

[theogt]

A blitz is when any player rushes the passer who was not expected to rush the passer, to create confusion, with or without a cupcake.

The problem with this is the 3-4. No one knows which OLB is going to rush the passer. If you were to say "but they're both expected to rush the passer so it's not considered a blitz," then this means that both OLBs rushing the passer is not a blitz. That is obviously not true.

 

[dogunwo]

From the Bill Parcell's press conference today...

"We didn't blitz that much in the Colts game. A couple of things that looked like blitzes were an effort to shore up our run defense when we didn't substitute. We walked the LB's up to the line. It saved us on that last possession. We though we had to pressure Manning once in a while, but we didn't go all out and try to blitz him, he's too smart for that."

We had many lively discussions prior to the Colt's game on how the Cowboys would defense the Colts.

There were basically two schools of thought...

1. Concentrate on creating a maximum pass rush through an aggressive blitz package. OR
2. Concentrate on coverages. A "bend but don't break" philosophy.

One person, (who believes in the "30 yard slant" ) decided to "call out" those folks that supported the idea that the best way of beating the Colts was concentrating on coverages and that constant blitzes would get you beat... http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=71334 This person erroneously believed that we "blitzed" the Colts to death.

Low & behold the head head has come out and said that we did not use many blitzes.

I, along with several others that were "called out" will be expecting an apology.

But I'm sure I'll have to explain what the word "erroneous" means first.

Marcus Spears and Jay Ratliff decided to show up for the occassion. You just started a 30 page thread.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

In a standard 3-4 alignment, the OLBs don't necessarily line up on the LOS. Thus, any time an OLB rushes the passer it is considered a blitz. This is obviously wrong.

The best definition by far has been:

Any time (1) five or more defenders rush the QB, or (2) any time a defensive back rushes the passer.

Thats garbage. Ifhes not on the LOS and especially if hes lined up over a slot receiver then he is showing the offense coeverage so when he goes it is a blitz.

And that definition still doesnt cover for 3-3-5 or 3-2-6 linebackers blitzing. If the mike rushes everyone and there mother would call it a blitz yet your definition doesnt.

 

[dogunwo]

Clubs not spades......

Fuzzy....you made me throw my mouse against the wall....

I'm pleased that we are 3rd in takeaways and that we are 4th in neg. plays.

BUT, If anyone says we pressured Brunnell, E. Manning, Leftwich , just to mention a few, enough are more blind than me.

You hit it on the head here, pops.

 

[Doomsday101]

Could be. Or you could overload a gap, or a side. Or, send someone in from outside the box. There is no concrete definition, so trying to nail one down is futile. We know it when we see it, and we know it's purpose. That's pretty well good enough.

I have heard some DC say a zone blitz is not really a blitz they are just sending backers and dropping linemen into coverage so you still only have 4 rushers vs 5 blockers.

 

[theogt]

Thats garbage. Ifhes not on the LOS and especially if hes lined up over a slot receiver then he is showing the offense coeverage so when he goes it is a blitz.

If there's 3 linemen rushing and one LB rushing it is not a blitz. You can disguise the pass rush by having one OLB show rush and one OLB show coverage and then flip it after the snap, but this doesn't make it a blitz.

And that definition still doesnt cover for 3-3-5 or 3-2-6 linebackers blitzing. If the mike rushes everyone and there mother would call it a blitz yet your definition doesnt.

In a 3-35 or 3-2-6 if a LB rushes the QB it is not a blitz. 4 defenders rushing the QB is expected in both scenarios. Rarely are only 3 players sent at the QB.

 

[theogt]

I have heard some DC say a zone blitz is not really a blitz they are just sending backers and dropping linemen into coverage so you still only have 4 rushers vs 5 blockers.

Exactly. It's a quasi-blitz. Really it's just disguised pass rush. There are ways to diguise a pass rush that aren't blitzes.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

And this is my whole issue with it being the player and not the position. You may not like it but you have to go with it.

Same formation and same playcall: the one with Ware at ROLB is not a blitz but the one with Burnett is?

It is what it is.

I said at the beginning of this thread that an OLB coming off of either edge really wasn't a blitz because teams expect that BUT if both come off the edge and a 5-man rush (assuming a 3 man d-line) then that is a blitz in my opinion.

 

[superpunk]

I have heard some DC say a zone blitz is not really a blitz they are just sending backers and dropping linemen into coverage so you still only have 4 rushers vs 5 blockers.

Exactly. Numbers are irrelevant. A blitz is any assortment of passrushers sent by the defense in order to create confusion, overload a gap or side, or outnumber the blockers on offense. Any attempt at a quantitative definition is futile (19 pages) since there are so many varieties.

 

[theogt]

Exactly. Numbers are irrelevant. A blitz is any assortment of passrushers sent by the defense in order to create confusion, overload a gap or side, or outnumber the blockers on offense. Any attempt at a quantitative definition is futile (19 pages) since there are so many varieties.

Actually his post was saying that the zone blitz wasn't a blitz because only 4 defenders rushed the passer. Therefore it's the number that matters.

 

[dogunwo]

Exactly. Numbers are irrelevant. A blitz is any assortment of passrushers sent by the defense in order to create confusion, overload a gap or side, or outnumber the blockers on offense. Any attempt at a quantitative definition is futile (19 pages) since there are so many varieties.

Of course "blitz" comes from the old German word "blitzkrieg", a strategy in WWI? that they used to send "more troops and tanks than the opposition can handle" in a certain area. So you would be correct sir. I feel like such a nerd. And you are a ******, "frosting boy", lol

 

[superpunk]

Actually his post was saying that the zone blitz wasn't a blitz because only 4 defenders rushed the passer. Therefore it's the number that matters.

OK, so not exactly. But my definition is the only satisfactory one. The rest are just futile. Because you cannot define a blitz. Only what it does, or is intended to do.

 

[Vintage]

Of course "blitz" comes from the old German word "blitzkrieg", a strategy in WWI? that they used to send "more troops and tanks than the opposition can handle" in a certain area. So you would be correct sir. I feel like such a nerd. And you are a ******, "frosting boy", lol

Actually, blitzkrieg was lightning fast warfare.