tromadz
13 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
13 years ago
I doubt it!
UserPostedImage
Stevetarded
13 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
13 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. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷
Zero2Cool
13 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
13 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
13 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. 🇦🇷 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. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷
Zero2Cool
13 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. 🇦🇷 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
13 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. 😕
DoddPower
13 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 (2h) : meh
Zero2Cool (7h) : Sounds like Walker and Wyatt will be with Packers for beyond 2026
Zero2Cool (7h) : It's so awesome.
Zero2Cool (7h) : new site fan shout post fast
wpr (10h) : Slow posting in Fan shout.
wpr (10h) : Only 4
wpr (10h) : Only 4
Zero2Cool (12h) : If only we had a topic to read about and discuss it. That's something new website must have!!!
dfosterf (13h) : Justice Musqueda over at Acme Packing put up an excellent synopsis of the Packers 1st round options this am
wpr (19-Apr) : 5 days
beast (18-Apr) : 6 days
wpr (17-Apr) : 7 days
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : sounds like Packers don't get good compensation, Jaire staying
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Nobody coming up with a keep, but at x amount
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Trade, cut or keep
dfosterf (16-Apr) : that from Jaire
dfosterf (16-Apr) : My guess is the Packers floated the concept of a reworked contract via his agent and agent got a f'
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Yes, and that is why I think Rob worded it how he did. Rather than say "agent"
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Same laws apply. Agent must present such an offer to Jaire. Cannot accept or reject without presenting it
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : I'm thinking that is why Rob worded it how he did.
dfosterf (16-Apr) : The Packers can certainly still make the offer to the agent
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Laws of agency and definition of fiduciary responsibility
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Jaire is open to a reduced contract without Jaire's permission
dfosterf (16-Apr) : The agent would arguably violate the law if he were to tell the Packers
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : That someone ... likely the agent.
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : So, Jaire has not been offered nor rejected a pay reduction, but someone says he'd decline.
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Demovksy says t was direct communication with someone familiar with Jaire’s line of thinking at that moment.
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Demovsky just replied to me a bit ago. Jaire hasn't said it.
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Of course, that depends on the definition of "we"
dfosterf (16-Apr) : We have been told that they haven't because he wouldn't accept it. I submit we don't know that
dfosterf (16-Apr) : What is the downside in making a calculated reduced offer to Jaire?
Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Packers are receiving interest in Jaire Alexander but a trade is not imminent
Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Jalen Ramsey wants to be traded. He's never happy is he?
Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : two 1sts in 2022 and two 2nd's in 2023 and 2024
Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Packers had fortunate last three drafts.
dfosterf (15-Apr) : I may have to move
dfosterf (15-Apr) : My wife just told the ancient Japanese sushi dude not enough rice under his fish
Zero2Cool (14-Apr) : I think a dozen is what I need
dfosterf (14-Apr) : Go fund me for this purpose just might work. A dozen nurses show up at 1265 to provide mental health assistance.
dfosterf (14-Apr) : Maybe send a crew of Angels to the Packers draft room on draft day.
Zero2Cool (14-Apr) : I am the Angel that gets visited.
dfosterf (14-Apr) : Visiting Angels has a pretty good reputation
Zero2Cool (14-Apr) : what
Martha Careful (14-Apr) : WINNING IT, not someone else losing it. The best victory though was re-uniting with his wife
Martha Careful (14-Apr) : The manner in which he won it was just amazing and wonderful. First blowing the lead then getting back, then blowing it. But ultimately
Zero2Cool (12-Apr) : I'm guessing since the thumb was broken, he wasn't feeling it.
dfosterf (10-Apr) : Looking for guidance. Not feeling the thumb.
Mucky Tundra (10-Apr) : If they knew about it or not
Mucky Tundra (10-Apr) : I don't recall that he did which is why I asked.
Zero2Cool (10-Apr) : Guessing they probably knew. Did he have cast or something on?
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
Vikings
Sunday, Jan 5 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
32m / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

17-Apr / Random Babble / wpr

16-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

13-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

12-Apr / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Zero2Cool

11-Apr / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Rockmolder

2-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

2-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

1-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

1-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

31-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

30-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

29-Mar / Random Babble / wpr

28-Mar / Random Babble / Martha Careful

26-Mar / Random Babble / Mucky Tundra

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.