tromadz
12 years ago

Pressure does not lead to sacks. Coverage leads to sacks. Pressure leads to interceptions, especially against inexperienced QBs.

Originally Posted by: Since69 



CM3 is really good at coverage then...

(I know what you're trying to say, but it's wrong)
Zero2Cool
12 years ago
I doubt it!
UserPostedImage
Stevetarded
12 years ago

Of course some level of average coverage is needed. But if the QB only has a few seconds to throw, it makes the job of a secondary much much easier. Coverage, even the best coverage, will only last so long until someone gets open enough to catch a quick pass. With enough pass rush, a quick jam at the line could be enough to destroy a play, even if the receivers get open fairly quickly after being jammed. So of course coverage plays a role. The two cannot be separated. But if I had to choose between an elite pass rush and elite coverage, I would choose pass rush as an elite pass rush can make an average secondary look pretty damn good.

Originally Posted by: doddpower 



QBs have been getting rid of the ball very quickly this year against us and are having success doing it. I don't think anybody is saying that having good coverage is necessarily more important than having a good pass rush but they are saying that our coverage has been more problematic than anybody seems to want to admit.

These quick passes to wide open receivers have just stood out to me a lot more than any pass rush woes. I like watching Clay Matthews during the game so he's one of the guys I focus on and I can't even count how many times I've seen him get in there quick and be so close to taking the QB down only to have him unload a pass to a WR with nobody around them.
blank
zombieslayer
12 years ago

Well, I believe it's generally agreed upon that rushing three and/or prevent defenses aren't incredibly effective because regardless of coverage, SOMEONE will get open if a good QB has enough time in the pocket. That kind of goes back to my original point that a pass rush is more important than coverage. If 8 guys in coverage can't successfully defend 3-4 receivers, then another route should probably be taken. But, I suppose as long as our "bend-but-don't-break" defensive approach continues to work, it's OK. Obviously, I would rather getting the opposing teams offense off the field entirely and kill the clock with our offense. I think it's risky to depend on allowing teams to march down the field but hold them out of the end zone or depending on turnovers. It has worked so far against a few good teams and a few average ones, but I'm not sure it will consistently work against other elite teams, especially if our offense is having an off day (such as horrible weather in January at Lambeau.

I do expect our pass rush to improve, at least slightly. It just depends on the health of the team. I wish so much pressure wasn't put on Matthews to manufacture most the attention/pressure. I'm not sure what we would do without him.

Originally Posted by: doddpower 



Dodd - I just wanted to address the first point.

I don't know if everyone here agrees with you, but I agree with you. Rushing 3 is lame. Good QBs will kill you if they have time. Time is something you don't want to give a good QB.

I get pretty frustrated when Dom rushes 3 because it seems to work infrequently whereas there's nothing like a sack. A sack often kills a drive.

You said later that you'd take an elite pass rush over elite coverage. I agree with you. Contrary to popular opinion, the NFL is NOT a game of inches. It's a game of SECONDS.

Anyone who disagrees with Dodd, consider this point. What if instead of allowing an opposing QB an average of 3.5 seconds, we allow him an average of 2.5? If this happened, how do you think our coverage will fare? How will his completion percentage fare? How will his INT percentage fare?
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage
(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. ๐Ÿ‡น๐Ÿ‡น ๐Ÿ‡ฒ๐Ÿ‡ฒ ๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡ท
Zero2Cool
12 years ago
NFL Defensive coordinators feel if the QB is good, blitzing them exposes your defense to one on one coverage . That's why teams have not been blitzing the Packers Aaron Rodgers this season. Click and read.

I'd say there are only about five QB's that will consistently burn you in the NFL. Brady, Brees, Rodgers, Rivers and there's probably another one or two I'm missing.

I would rather see a blitz more than three man rush, if the blitz is getting home or making a difference. You have to be smart with your blitzes and not blitz just because a few armchair quarterbacks feel it's stupid to rush only three.
UserPostedImage
Zero2Cool
12 years ago

Anyone who disagrees with Dodd, consider this point. What if instead of allowing an opposing QB an average of 3.5 seconds, we allow him an average of 2.5? If this happened, how do you think our coverage will fare? How will his completion percentage fare? How will his INT percentage fare?

Originally Posted by: zombieslayer 



I'll answer the question, not because I disagree with doddpower, but just to kill time on my Saturday afternoon.

2.5 seconds gives the route runner ample time to run 5-10 yard slants all day long. This is something the west coast offense exploited. It is also something the Packers offense is known to exploit, hence the lack of blitzing this season.
UserPostedImage
zombieslayer
12 years ago
2.5 is just a random number.

What I'm getting at is drop the average seconds a QB has by one full second. Then measure results. Is it a difference or is it not a difference? If it is a difference, is it significant or insignificant?

As for the backhanded insult about calling us armchair QBs, that's what all historians are. Were you there when Napoleon was in Waterloo? I wasn't either. Does that mean we can't write history?

Like it or not, history has to be written by someone. It won't be written by the people who are there on the field because more often than not, they'd suck as historians. ๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡ท would throw the ball way better than I ever will. However, I can guarantee you that I can write better than he can, even though he's got an IQ within 20 points of mine (which means he's pretty fucking smart).

Or should I just say fuck it. Maybe I shouldn't have an opinion at all. Maybe the rest of my posts in the Packers section should just say "Go Packers!" and that's it.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage
(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. ๐Ÿ‡น๐Ÿ‡น ๐Ÿ‡ฒ๐Ÿ‡ฒ ๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡ท
Zero2Cool
12 years ago

2.5 is just a random number.

What I'm getting at is drop the average seconds a QB has by one full second. Then measure results. Is it a difference or is it not a difference? If it is a difference, is it significant or insignificant?

As for the backhanded insult about calling us armchair QBs, that's what all historians are. Were you there when Napoleon was in Waterloo? I wasn't either. Does that mean we can't write history?

Like it or not, history has to be written by someone. It won't be written by the people who are there on the field because more often than not, they'd suck as historians. ๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡ท would throw the ball way better than I ever will. However, I can guarantee you that I can write better than he can, even though he's got an IQ within 20 points of mine (which means he's pretty fucking smart).

Or should I just say fuck it. Maybe I shouldn't have an opinion at all. Maybe the rest of my posts in the Packers section should just say "Go Packers!" and that's it.

Originally Posted by: zombieslayer 



Obviously, you failed to read what I said and simply got bent out of shape over nothing, lol.
I said that I'd rather see a blitz than three man rush.
I also said there are maybe five quarterbacks that can defy the benefits of a blitz, which implies you should blitz the other ~26 quarterbacks.

How is us being armchair quarterbacks remotely considered as a backhanded insult? Rather than saying "fuck it", sounds more like you need to get off that high horse you mounted this morning, go back to bed, wake up on the other fucking side.

A smart person doesn't have to boast about their IQ. Just. Saying!
UserPostedImage
DoddPower
12 years ago
Well, to be fair, I'm not even really talking about blitzing. I'd like to be able to get consistent pressure with 4. I know, I know, not everything can be ideal. Want your teams coverage to look pretty frickin' sweet? Get consistent pressure with four rushing and have 7 people covering 3-4 targets. Even the "Great One" Tom Brady wasn't incredibly effective against the Giants rush in 2007. Or another example would be the Packers games vs. the Bears the past couple of seasons. Obviously, I feel as if that's quickly changing as the Bears are realizing they're not that good. But still, when you're getting that kind of pressure, for whatever reason (Dline/Oline), it's going to largely nullify a lot of QBs, even ones such as Brees, Brady, Rodgers, etc.

Speaking of the quick throws, that's one thing a nice jam at the line is good for. I don't seem to recall seeing that much anymore. But an effective jam can really disrupt those quick passes, especially if the QB just has seconds to throw. I guess that's one thing about the "blitzburg" zone scheme I'm not a huge fan of.

I'm certainly not refusing to acknowledge the secondary coverage breakdowns. I just want more pass rush because I feel like that will do more to fix the situation than anything else, especially after a bye-week to hopefully let Woodson/Williams/Shields/Burnett heal up a little. At this point, I can't imagine how bad this defense will look if we lost CM3 for any extended period of time. I think that would have a much bigger impact than losing one of our CBs, especially Woodson. ๐Ÿ˜•
DoddPower
12 years ago

Or should I just say fuck it. Maybe I shouldn't have an opinion at all. Maybe the rest of my posts in the Packers section should just say "Go Packers!" and that's it.

Originally Posted by: zombieslayer 



lulz. Classic!
Fan Shout
Martha Careful (10-May) : 1. this is true of all our linemen. 2. His run block is fine. 3. If all OL played like he has, we would win SB.
beast (10-May) : Meyers pass blocking is really good, his run blocking is really not.
Zero2Cool (9-May) : Packers have claimed DE Spencer Waege off of waivers from the 49ers and waived DT Rodney Mathews.
Zero2Cool (9-May) : And the OL protections seem to be good.
Zero2Cool (9-May) : I really don't know lol. I don't see him getting blown up.
Zero2Cool (9-May) : -3 buwahhhahaaha
Mucky Tundra (9-May) : 4th
Zero2Cool (9-May) : because he's 1st
Mucky Tundra (9-May) : Myers isn't even the 3rd best C on the roster atm
Martha Careful (9-May) : I am not sure I understand the Myers hate. He was consistently our third best lineman. RG and LT were worse.
beast (9-May) : Just saying I don't think moving Myers would help Myers.
beast (9-May) : Center is usually considered the easiest position physically if you can handle the snap stuff.
Mucky Tundra (8-May) : Bust it is then
Zero2Cool (8-May) : Context. Sounds like Myers won't be cross-trained. C or bust.
Mucky Tundra (8-May) : @BookOfEli_NFL Packers pass game coordinator, Jason Vrable said that Jayden Reed and Dontayvion Wicks shared a placed in Florida while train
Mucky Tundra (8-May) : For now...
Zero2Cool (8-May) : Packers go about evaluating their "best five," OL coach Luke Butkus makes on thing clear: "Josh Myers is our center."
beast (8-May) : Though I'm a bit surprised letting go of CBs, I thought we needed more not less
beast (8-May) : It was confusing with two DB Anthony Johnson anyways
Zero2Cool (8-May) : Packers actually had Ray Lewis on the phone.
Zero2Cool (8-May) : Packers wanted to draft Ray Lewis. Ravens stole him.
Martha Careful (6-May) : Happy 93rd Birthday to the Greatest Baseball Player of All-Time...Willie Mays
Zero2Cool (6-May) : Walter Stanely's son
buckeyepackfan (6-May) : and released CB Anthony Johnson and DL Deandre Johnson and waived/injured WR Thyrick Pitts (thigh-rick).
buckeyepackfan (6-May) : The Green Bay Packers have signed WR Julian Hicks, OL Lecitus Smith (luh-SEET-us) and WR Dimitri Stanley
Zero2Cool (6-May) : Petty, but it's annoying me how the NFL is making the schedule release an event.
Mucky Tundra (4-May) : @mattschneidman Matt LaFleur on how he tore his pec: โ€œGot in a fight with the bench press. I lost.โ€
Zero2Cool (3-May) : Jordan Love CAN sign an extension as of today. Might tak weeks/months though
TheKanataThrilla (3-May) : Packers decline 5th year option for Stokes
Mucky Tundra (3-May) : @ProFootballTalk Jaylen Warren: Steelers' special teams coach has discussed Justin Fields returning kicks.
Zero2Cool (2-May) : Season officially ending tonight for Bucks ... sad face
Zero2Cool (2-May) : Giannis Antetokounmpo is listed as out for tonight's game.
dfosterf (2-May) : Surprisingly low initially is my guess cap wise, but gonna pay the piper after that
dfosterf (2-May) : The number on Love is going to be brutal.
Zero2Cool (2-May) : May 3rd. Extension day for Jordan Love. (soonest)
Zero2Cool (1-May) : USFL MVP QB Alex McGough moved to WR. So that's why no WR drafted!
earthquake (1-May) : Packers draft starters at safety ever few years. Collins, Clinton-Dix, Savage
beast (1-May) : Why can't the rookies be a day 1 starter? Especially when we grabbed 3 of them at the position
dfosterf (1-May) : Not going to be shocked if Gilmore goes to the Lions.
dfosterf (1-May) : I hear you dhazer, but my guess would be Gilmore Colts and Howard Vikings from what little has been reported.
Mucky Tundra (30-Apr) : S learn from McKinney who learns from Hafley who learns from the fans. Guaranteed Super Bowl
Zero2Cool (30-Apr) : could*
Zero2Cool (29-Apr) : Safeties should learn from Xavier.
dhazer (29-Apr) : And what about grabbing a Gilmore or Howard at CB ? Those are all Free Agents left
dhazer (29-Apr) : out of curiosity do they try and sign Simmons or Hyde to let these young safeties learn from, they can't be day 1 starters.
Zero2Cool (29-Apr) : I miss having Sam Shields.
Zero2Cool (29-Apr) : Not that he's making excuses, just pointing it out
Zero2Cool (29-Apr) : That's for dang sure. Make our erratic kicker have no excuse!
packerfanoutwest (28-Apr) : having a great long snapper is gold
Zero2Cool (28-Apr) : LaFleur looking like he had some weight. Coachin will do that lol
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2023 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 10 @ 3:25 PM
Bears
Sunday, Sep 17 @ 12:00 PM
Falcons
Sunday, Sep 24 @ 12:00 PM
SAINTS
Thursday, Sep 28 @ 7:15 PM
LIONS
Monday, Oct 9 @ 7:15 PM
Raiders
Sunday, Oct 22 @ 3:25 PM
Broncos
Sunday, Oct 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Nov 5 @ 12:00 PM
RAMS
Sunday, Nov 12 @ 12:00 PM
Steelers
Sunday, Nov 19 @ 12:00 PM
CHARGERS
Thursday, Nov 23 @ 11:30 AM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 3 @ 7:20 PM
CHIEFS
Monday, Dec 11 @ 7:15 PM
Giants
Sunday, Dec 17 @ 12:00 PM
BUCCANEERS
Sunday, Dec 24 @ 12:00 PM
Panthers
Sunday, Dec 31 @ 7:20 PM
Vikings
Sunday, Jan 7 @ 3:25 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Jan 14 @ 3:30 PM
Cowboys
Saturday, Jan 20 @ 7:15 PM
49ers
Recent Topics
5h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

6h / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

11-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

10-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

10-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

9-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

7-May / Packers Draft Threads / Mucky Tundra

7-May / Packers Draft Threads / Mucky Tundra

5-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / greengold

5-May / Packers Draft Threads / wpr

5-May / Packers Draft Threads / wpr

5-May / Packers Draft Threads / wpr

5-May / Packers Draft Threads / beast

5-May / Packers Draft Threads / wpr

5-May / Packers Draft Threads / wpr

Headlines
Copyright ยฉ 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.comโ„ข. All Rights Reserved.