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

[theogt]

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

Why would he be correct if increasing the numbers are relevant, and he replied that numbers are irrelevant?

 

[superpunk]

Why would he be correct if increasing the numbers are relevant, and he replied that numbers are irrelevant?

Because.

This thread sucks.

 

[Doomsday101]

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.

Maybe so but when a reporter question a coach on blitzing the coaches ideal may be more in line with a blitz is sending more rushers than there are blockers to pick them up. As I said most DC do not look at the zone blitz as a true blitz.

 

[theogt]

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.

Actually you can define a blitz as follows. Every situation is covered under this definition:

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

 

[NorthTexan95]

I made it ... to the end ... of ... this ... useless thread ... so ... much ... time ... wasted ... central nervous system ... shutting down ... losing conscience ... drive safely...

Actually this all seems to be getting too complicated. When I coached in high school a blitz was anytime someone other than a down lineman rushed the passer in our 4-3 defense. I guess the OLB in a 3-4 could be different since one of them is usually coming on each down but that would be a minor point determined by the terminology of the specific team.

IMO anytime one of he outside backers in a 3-4 rushes the quarterback you could call it a blitz.

One thing Parcells may have been talking about is that Newman's blitzes were not always blitzes. There were several times he looked like he was coming but instead he hung out at the line of scrimage shadowing the running back. That wasn't a blitz. Even the play where he missed the tackle probably wasn't a blitz. He may have just been shadowing the running back again ... saw the hand off and the open hole and made a move to tackle the ball carrier.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

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.

In my view if you have a 4-3 defense, if anyone other than the 4 down-lineman rush the passer it's a "blitz".

In a 3-4 defense, if anyone other than the 3 down-lineman AND one of the OLB rush the passer it's a blitz.

 

[superpunk]

Actually you can define a blitz as follows. Every situation is covered under this definition:

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

So, if I overload one side with 4 pass rushers and drop the other side into coverage or have them play contain, that isn't a blitz?

I think not.

 

[theogt]

I made it ... to the end ... of ... this ... useless thread ... so ... much ... time ... wasted ... central nervous system ... shutting down ... losing conscience ... drive safely...

Actually this all seems to be getting too complicated. When I coached in high school a blitz was anytime someone other than a down lineman rushed the passer in our 4-3 defense. I guess the OLB in a 3-4 could be different since one of them is usually coming on each down but that would be a minor point determined by the terminology of the specific team.

IMO anytime one of he outside backers in a 3-4 rushes the quarterback you could call it a blitz.

One thing Parcells may have been talking about is that Newman's blitzes were not always blitzes. There were several times he looked like he was coming but instead he hung out at the line of scrimage shadowing the running back. That wasn't a blitz. Even the play where he missed the tackle probably wasn't a blitz. He may have just been shadowing the running back again ... saw the hand off and the open hole and made a move to tackle the ball carrier.

This is why the 5-man definition settles the problem. Since 3-4 OLB rushing is not a blitz, adding a 5th man (i.e., the other OLB) makes it a blitz.

 

[theogt]

So, if I overload one side with 4 pass rushers and drop the other side into coverage or have them play contain, that isn't a blitz?

I think not.

No, it's not a blitz. It sounds like what you're talking about is a variation of the zone blitz, which is technically not a blitz.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

I made it ... to the end ... of ... this ... useless thread ... so ... much ... time ... wasted ... central nervous system ... shutting down ... losing conscience ... drive safely...

Actually this all seems to be getting too complicated. When I coached in high school a blitz was anytime someone other than a down lineman rushed the passer in our 4-3 defense. I guess the OLB in a 3-4 could be different since one of them is usually coming on each down but that would be a minor point determined by the terminology of the specific team.

IMO anytime one of he outside backers in a 3-4 rushes the quarterback you could call it a blitz.

One thing Parcells may have been talking about is that Newman's blitzes were not always blitzes. There were several times he looked like he was coming but instead he hung out at the line of scrimage shadowing the running back. That wasn't a blitz. Even the play where he missed the tackle probably wasn't a blitz. He may have just been shadowing the running back again ... saw the hand off and the open hole and made a move to tackle the ball carrier.

I agree with what you said in the bold. But apparently Parcells doesn't consider Ware coming in off the edge as a LB to be a "blitz". Rightly or wrongly.

 

[Vintage]

In my view if you have a 4-3 defense, if anyone other than the 4 down-lineman rush the passer it's a "blitz".

In a 3-4 defense, if anyone other than the 3 down-lineman AND one of the OLB rush the passer it's a blitz.

This is what I think a blitz constitutes....

 

[theogt]

In my view if you have a 4-3 defense, if anyone other than the 4 down-lineman rush the passer it's a "blitz".

In a 3-4 defense, if anyone other than the 3 down-lineman AND one of the OLB rush the passer it's a blitz.

So basically Michael what you are saying is that any time 5 or more players rush the QB it is a blitz?

 

[Screw The Hall]

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 means "lightning war" it really wasn't referring to numbers.

The idea was to overwhelm your enemy with a fast assault which included tanks and troops that would break thru enemy lines and outflank them before they had a chance to react.

Speed was the name of the game ... and it was WW2.

 

[Vintage]

So basically Michael what you are saying is that any time 5 or more players rush the QB it is a blitz?

In a 3-4, the 3 DL and a Safety come....

That is not a blitz?

 

[theogt]

In a 3-4, the 3 DL and a Safety come....

That is not a blitz?

Yes, it is. Read my definition of a blitz:

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

 

[theogt]

Actually blitzkrieg means "lightning war" it really wasn't referring to numbers.

The idea was to overwhelm your enemy with a fast assault which included tanks and troops that would break thru enemy lines and outflank them before they had a chance to react.

Speed was the name of the game ... and it was WW2.

It was referring to both speed and numbers.

 

[superpunk]

No, it's not a blitz. It sounds like what you're talking about is a variation of the zone blitz, which is technically not a blitz.

No. It's still a blitz. There are not enough blockers on that side of the line to handle the rush. It's a blitz. A zone blitz may not create a mismatch, but it does create confusion. What I'm describing is not a zone blitz, because the zones vacated by the apss rushers is not then occupied by a down lineman.

You're not going to quantify it, there's no use trying. There are too many varieties. You know what it does, you know it's purpose. That's good enough.

 

[theogt]

No. It's still a blitz. There are not enough blockers on that side of the line to handle the rush. It's a blitz. A zone blitz may not create a mismatch, but it does create confusion. What I'm describing is not a zone blitz, because the zones vacated by the apss rushers is not then occupied by a down lineman.

You're not going to quantify it, there's no use trying. There are too many varieties. You know what it does, you know it's purpose. That's good enough.

If a lineman isn't dropping into a vacated zone, what is he dropping into? Some LB's zone? This sounds like a pretty poorly designed play.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Yes, it is. Read my definition of a blitz:

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

I don't think that's bad.

However I do believe that ILB that pass rush are "blitzers" even if there are only 4 (total) pass rushers.

See I've never bought into the definition that a blitz was suppose to "out-number" the amount of pass-blockers. I look at it as a "surprise" move by the defense. Like the zone blitz. Whereas some do not consider that a true blitz, I do because the idea is to create confusion.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

No. It's still a blitz. There are not enough blockers on that side of the line to handle the rush. It's a blitz. A zone blitz may not create a mismatch, but it does create confusion. What I'm describing is not a zone blitz, because the zones vacated by the apss rushers is not then occupied by a down lineman.

You're not going to quantify it, there's no use trying. There are too many varieties. You know what it does, you know it's purpose. That's good enough.

I agree with that too. I do think a "zone blitz" is a legit blitz.