DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum should we blitz less?

as fun as it was watching the Browns on D with their exotic blitzes, we got toasted. Should we go back to a conservative D like in the past?

We need our Ray Allen or John Randle or Chris Doleman--but is Jayme Mitchell the answer?

If Robaire comes back, that will help us, but at this point he's about as useful to us as a Bobby Hamilton or a Roman Phifer would be to the Patriots, who also have defense issues.

I just remember the Belichick days--we'd have a conservative D and we'd very rarely blitz. But when we did it was devastating. It reminded me of the 89-95 Cowboys or the Skins or Giants of the time...lots of conservative D but natural pressure.

I hate the 3-4...even with stud LBs, a mobile QB can run from the pocket and beat his man. In a 4-3, the QB has to step up and will get crushed if the DL is doing its job by the nature of the defense.

Exhibit A: Browns in the '90s vs. Warren Moon. Moon was a very good QB, a HoFer, but the Browns made him pay often with their 'trapping' 4-3--an "englobement" so to speak.

Pleasant-James Jones-MDP-Burnett
Backups were Bill Johnson, Dan Footman, Pio Sag, Jerry Ball

At that time, the Browns DL was like the Jax and Minny DL--more conservative than Rush and Hannity combined--and yet epically effective. Problem was, the O stunk and the D wore out between '91 and '95. I have a Lindy's for the '93 season preview and it says the Browns DL was the best unit on the team.

Thoughts? I love great DL play and 4-3 defenses. I hate the 3-4.

I think it's sort of funny that you use the early 90s Browns to make your point about the 4-3 being better than the 3-4 since both Belichick (HC) and Saban (DC) have switched to using the 3-4 for their teams afterwards (yes, obviously Belichick had used the 3-4 before with NYG, but he made sure to have 3-4 DCs when he landed another HC job w/ NE).

Obviously a defense is much better off if it has one (or great if it has two) pass rushers that can just beat there man and get consistent pressure.. then you don't have to blitz... we haven't had that. And I don't care how "exotic" the blitz packages are.. in the NFL if they KNOW you have to blitz to get pressure they may take the sack once in a while but in the end, that match-up favors the offense if you have just a halfway decent quarterback.

I am in favor of blitzing often but blitz from a point of strength and not a point of weakness. If your front 4 is a strength and wrecking havoc, a good blitzer becomes a devastating force. If your front 4 isn't able to get it done by themselves, then you are blitzing because that is the only way you can get pressure and that is usually when you get torched.

Add a Babin, Charles Johnson or a Ray Edwards and we take a pretty big step towards having a front 4 that may be able to get it done without selling out the secondary.

It's a loaded question. If we could get to the QB without blitzing ... we wouldn't need to blitz ... so yes.

BUT if you give a QB time to throw, you could drop all 11 into coverage and he will find an open guy eventually.

Blitzing isn't always about a "now" play don't forget. If you still hit him and make him feel uncomfortable like he doesn't know what's coming ... then even if you only rush 2 or 3 he might miss some wide open throws or feel the need to rush his progression and run

I don't know about that. The Jets beat the Patriots and Colts in the playoffs because they didn't really blitz anyone and dropped like eight dudes into coverage. And that was against the two best in the league.

J/C



Teams are pretty good at beating the blitz if you are known as a blitzing team.....hot reads etc.


On the other hand, we have at least 1 very good corner in Joe....so we can man up on the corner and not get beat in the first 5 feet in most cases.



I don't care if we blitz more or blitz less as long as we make stops or make sacks.

The one thing I have hated about this team over the last few years....well, one of the things but the one that possibly irritated me the most is the way we blitzed....it's like we sent everybody to the same hole where we almost blocked ourselves by creating a log jam.


Spread it out a little bit....but now with 4 down linemen rushing, unless we drop one in to a zone of some sort, we probably won't bring more than one player on the blitz very often.



We have to get lucky somewhere, but something tells me pass rushing D-linemen are going to be a priority over the next couple of years.



For some reason the Browns have been void of a top DE for a long time.


IMO the last really good DE we had was Jack Gregory, and that had to have been the late 60's, early 70's at the latest.

I'm no expert, but 34 or 43,, the difference is and always has been, the talent and the application of that talent

I really don't think it matters as long as you have the players to execute the D you've chosen to run.

I'm completely convinced that the best coach gets his guys to adjust and uses some form of both when it's called for.

So the debate seems just a bit outside reality to me..

I think you need to be able to blitz when you need to.

That they did and I shouldn't be generalizing too much ... I believe that's how we beat the Pats as well by only rushing 1 guy at times ... but to be fair Peyton still was 18 for 26 and 225 yards and they were winning the game until time expired. He had just led the Colts down to the go ahead field goal ...

Who knows what would have happened if the only wideouts catching passes weren't pierre garcon, blair white, and jacob tamme ... peyton didn't have wayne, collie, or gonzalez (not that he ever has gonzalez) or dallas clark in that game. he was playing with undrafteds and day 3 receivers.
Not that injuries are an excuse - but you know it might have been different playing a healthy team .

And the Pats? Well I would attribute that to 2 things.

1 belichik is an idiot. Going for it on 4th down and failing .. twice ... doesn't help the cause.

Also ... the Jets were pretty aggressive in that game if I recall...

I just checked the stats and they were credited with 7 QB hits and 5 sacks plus another 7 TFLs ... I want to say they were in the backfield a ton that game.

I get what you're saying but it's not always the amount of the rush it's the quality of the rushers. Blitz or not .. you just gotta hit the QB and take him out of his game.

Let me expand on that.

Belichick might be the best coach, gameplanner, strategist, mastermind and etc. around.

He knows more about football than almost any other coach, has studied all aspects of the game and knows the importance of all sides of the ball as well.

He gets almost every formation, knows how to evaluate just as good as anyone else even if not all of his recent picks have turned out ... and I would take him over *probably* any other coach in the last decade.

All of that being said ... one of the WORST characteristic traits that any good leader has is hubris. For as good as he is ... Belichick might have gave away that game against new york just like they lost to the Colts by going for it on 4th and 2 back in November of '09. It's only 7 to 3 and the New England defense was virtually stonewalling them. Heck the Jets took over on the 12 yard line from an interception return heading in ... and got 0 points.

but from their own what was it 37 yard line they fake a punt with only 2 minutes in the half left? The Jets score and go up 14 to 3 ... They were getting the ball back at halftime ANYWAY! why not punt and keep it a (hopefully) 1 score game even with the field goal?

I would rate him up towards the top for every other category. But with overconfidence comes failure. I don't really know if it was overcondifence .... but this wasn't a huge gamble like the saints onside kick. This is even if you convert the 4 yards on a running play variation of a fake punt ... you still need to travel another 25 to 30 yards just for a field goal ... and more or less 50 to 55 for the score. Why risk it there?

That was my point.

Point taken.

j/c..

I think the favoritism for the 3-4 comes from the ability to attack through disguise and also through different schemes. You can come up with so many different plays using your LB's that it will have the QB thinking more about where the blitz is coming from.

I'm not an expert with the 4-3 (or 3-4), but it seems to me that talent must prevail in the 4-3 over anything seeing that the o-line is generally going to block the guy right in front of him. I'm glad we have Rubin and Taylor in the middle. I think whoever is at MLB will love their presence as well. Hopefully the LB can shoot some gaps and make some killer plays in the backfield.

If I recall correctly... The Fake Punt against NYJ wasn't a CALLED play, they gave Pat Chung the "green light" in that situation to run it if he felt he could make it... Obviously it didn't work that time...

I honestly didn't know about that. I think the fact that it was even an option is big.

And I know you can't nitpick every decision of a game .. but it's not like this was a middlke of the field situation either ... if chung take the ball for a no gain- the jets have it on the 38 going in. 55 yard field goals aren't easy ... but if you're NE and you fail to convert your opponent has the ball in field goal range or at least in reasonable field goal attempting range.

Just an option that I question for even being on the table considering. But I know it's only my opinion and some might not agree.

Jauron usually rushes 4.

That doesn't mean that it's only the DL rushing though. He could drop that smaller LB into coverage and rush the OLB. He could slide the OLB to the middle, drop the DE, and blitz the MLB. There are any number of different "blitzes" that will still result in only 4 pass rushers.

As long as we stop blitzing corners... or teach them how to not show it WAY to early...

I remember one game specifically where Eric Wright was used very effectively as a blitzer. Also, it seems like one of Joe Haden's strengths is tackling, so I wouldn't mind blitzing him as well.

After watching Jon Gruden's QB shows I know one thing. If you think the opposing QB is in over his head, you throw some corners at him and see how he reacts.

although you are correct and yes, record-wise the team didn't fare well vs. the Oilers, I still have images of that DL sacking him and experiencing success. The DBs--not so much--hence the 8 TD and 0 INTs in that year, for instance.

Basically, we'd get pressure and englobe him with the 4-3 and be able to get it to 3rd and long. then, thanks to our lack of DBs at the time (Turner was injured 1/2 the '91 season) we'd get torched.

so yes, you are correct, but we did well up front vs the Oiler OL with that BB 4-3 DL.

As far as the Brownies going to the 4-3, I was not 100 percent sure that they were making that switch until recently. I thought they were hybridizing it (34/43 front) and not going pure 4-3 base.

Should we blitz less?

Whatever it takes to create turnovers!

This is the NFL, if the defense is doing anything less than creating turnovers then it needs to do more.

No. Blitzes can be game changers creating scores, turnovers, major field position switches. Left alone, we have seen lousy QBs to mediocre ones toast us indeed. Our blitzing was an equalizer to confuse people; we just did it poorly. Whether 34 or 43 or whatever, you hope the straight D can get pressure on the passer; we didn't. Our rush was glacial much of the time and we leaned on some folks. If you can't cover well or correctly, a blitz rolls the dice in your favor. But the loaded opinion part here is how you rate personnel. Not the package as much as the people. Ours weren't good enough to go after people less. Coaches try to compensate for mismatches even as they also try to create them. Better people make for success; the 34 is a better D or at least more popular, and works perfectly on paper (as does every play scoring in the playbook). I favor blitzing as needed to be in the game. We can't let our cover guys back there win our games all season. They need to have pressure to help them out.

Well Ryan also ran a 3-4 with us last year where you more or less have to blitz or else every one of your dlinemen face a double team (assuming a back stays home to pick up a rush). You don't find many pure pass rushers in dlinemen who are in the 3-4. I know there are some, but they are usually 300+ pound guys who collapse the pocket and eat up blockers while LB's do the pass rushing. Obviously it depends on individual team scheme and philosophy though ...

And I am interested to see how a west coast truly works if Colt can run it.

I'm not saying we will win every matchup, but if a guy like cribbs, robiskie, or maybe even haggerty or mitchell is our 3rd or 4th receiver, I trust that matchup on the relatively thin secondaries of pitt, and cincy ... and still thin secondary of baltimore despite getting some players back who are healthy and drafting smith. Besides .. Green Bay showed the way to beat blitzing linebackers and safeties was to find the mismatch and throw it to him. Pittsburgh wasn't free to stack the box and get the jump on blitzes, and that led to Jordy Nelson and James Jones (#3 and #4 I believe) combining for almost 200 yards ...