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

[MichaelWinicki]

And it took 18 pages to come to the conclusion that everyone is right and everyone is wrong because there is no real definition of "blitz" because each team can do it different ??

:laugh1:

:

This has to have set some sort of record !

I'm comfortable with what appears to be Bill Parcells' view after his comments in yesterdays press conference.

He said the Cowboys did not blitz much vs. the Colts... so in my view that means that any pass rush featuring the 3 downlineman and Ware is not a blitz (from Parcells' perspective).

 

[Hostile]

I'm comfortable with what appears to be Bill Parcells' view after his comments in yesterdays press conference.

He said the Cowboys did not blitz much vs. the Colts... so in my view that means that any pass rush featuring the 3 downlineman and Ware is not a blitz (from Parcells' perspective).

Exactly.

 

[WV Cowboy]

I'm comfortable with what appears to be Bill Parcells' view after his comments in yesterdays press conference.

He said the Cowboys did not blitz much vs. the Colts... so in my view that means that any pass rush featuring the 3 downlineman and Ware is not a blitz (from Parcells' perspective).

Me too, and it didn't take me 18 pages to come to that conclusion.

I was just making a joke about what we all do from time to time on these message boards.

This thread was like watching a dog chase it's tail.

 

[theogt]

Me too, and it didn't take me 18 pages to come to that conclusion.

I was just making a joke about what we all do from time to time on these message boards.

This thread was like watching a dog chase it's tail.

For the most part everyone had already come this conclusion years ago when we were young children learning about football. Unfortunatley, there were a few obstinate posters here that simply couldn't figure this out. Me being bored on vacation and hard headed decided to educate them.

 

[WV Cowboy]

For the most part everyone had already come this conclusion years ago when we were young children learning about football. Unfortunatley, there were a few obstinate posters here that simply couldn't figure this out. Me being bored on vacation and hard headed decided to educate them.

How'd that turn out ?

There are some hardheads here !

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Me too, and it didn't take me 18 pages to come to that conclusion.

I was just making a joke about what we all do from time to time on these message boards.

This thread was like watching a dog chase it's tail.

I'm just at a loss why some people would consider it a blitz when the 3 dlinemen rush the passer and Ware ONLY because Ware is rushing from a 2-point stance.

To me the "Blitz" is about bringing more and different people than what the offense would expect. I think every offensive coordinator on the planet knows that Ware will be coming on virtually all passing situations.

 

[Rockytop6]

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.

Whut do it mean?

 

[theogt]

How'd that turn out ?

There are some hardheads here !

Not very well, of course. Oh well, I enjoy a good X & O's discussion, even if it's as basic as this.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

For the most part everyone had already come this conclusion years ago when we were young children learning about football. Unfortunatley, there were a few obstinate posters here that simply couldn't figure this out. Me being bored on vacation and hard headed decided to educate them.

Oh nice. Take a shot at me while you know that Im not even here. Im actually quite happy that I dont come to the same conclusion as most people. I firmly believe that most people are idiots.

A couple of things.

Parcells used the word more in his sentence which is being conveniently left out. That word completely changes the dynamics of the sentence and if you really want me to bore you with discussing adverbs Ill be happy to continue.

And I still say the best standard to determine a blitz is position relative to LOS. If youre on it you are not blitzing. It subsumes everything and has no exceptions.

In the 3-4 the OLB are often in a 2 point stance on the LOS tight against the end. At least how we run it. When a player rushes from that position he is not blitzing. However if the OLB moves off that spot to say cover a WR then runs to the QB then it is a blitz.

Most concise definition is:

Blitz : Whenever a defensive player not lined up tight on the LOS rushes the QB.

It has no exceptions and it is very clear.

 

[smarta5150]

Its still going

My definition was right anyway:

Any defensive player rushing the line of scrimmage from a 2 point stance aka standing position.

Game over.




EDIT: Fuzzy's definition also works - BUT linebackers and safeties walking up to the line in the middle are blitzers. Wouldnt be with his defintion.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Its still going

My definition was right anyway:

Any defensive player rushing the line of scrimmage from a 2 point stance aka standing position.

Game over.




EDIT: Fuzzy's definition also works - BUT linebackers and safeties walking up to the line in the middle are blitzers. Wouldnt be with his defintion.

Im saying where they line up in the standard formation.

 

[smarta5150]

Im saying where they line up in the standard formation.

I like.

But mentioning the stance they are in helps clarify.

Your definiteion is the closest 1 out of everyone minus me (that I agree with that is)

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Oh nice. Take a shot at me while you know that Im not even here.

A couple of things.

Parcells used the word more in his sentence which is being conveniently left out. That word completely changes the dynamics of the sentence and if you really want me to bore you with discussing adverbs Ill be happy to continue.

And I still say the best standard to determine a blitz is position relative to LOS. If youre on it you are not blitzing. It subsumes everything and has no exceptions.

In the 3-4 the OLB are often in a 2 point stance on the LOS tight against the end. At least how we run it. When a player rushes from that position he is not blitzing. However if the OLB moves off that spot to say cover a WR then runs to the QB then it is a blitz.

Most concise definition is:

Blitz : Whenever a defensive player not lined up tight on the LOS rushes the QB.

It has no exceptions and it is very clear.

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.

 

[smarta5150]

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.

What about what I said?

I clarified it with the stance.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

I like.

But mentioning the stance they are in helps clarify.

Your definiteion is the closest 1 out of everyone minus me (that I agree with that is)

Not necessarily because I've also seen linebackers assume a 3-pt stance. Hell didn't Newman last year against the Eagles?

According to your definition that is not blitz.

The whole "LOS" thing and "Stance" thing has worms in it too.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

What about what I said?

I clarified it with the stance.

I just "unclarified" it.

You can thank me later UNC.

 

[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.

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.

 

[superpunk]

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.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

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.

expected is ambiguous and subjective interpretation blows.

 

[Doomsday101]

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.

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