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
Zero2Cool (14h) : Fake news. Cowboys say no
Zero2Cool (16h) : Mystery candidate in the Cowboys head coaching search believed to be Packers ST Coordinator Rich Bisaccia.
beast (23-Jan) : Also why do both NYC teams have absolutely horrible OL for over a decade?
beast (23-Jan) : I wonder why the Jets always hire defensive coaches to be head coach
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Still HC positions available out there. I wonder if Hafley pops up for one
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Trent Baalke is out as the Jaguars GM.
dfosterf (22-Jan) : Jeff Hafley would have been a better choice, fortunately they don't know that. Someone will figure that out next off season
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Aaron Glenn Planning To Take Jets HC Job
dfosterf (22-Jan) : Martha- C'est mon boulot! 😁
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Thank you
wpr (22-Jan) : Z, glad you are feeling better.
wpr (22-Jan) : My son and D-I-L work for UM. It's a way to pick on them.
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Thank you. I rarely get sick, and even more rarely sick to the point I can't work.
wpr (22-Jan) : Beast- back to yesterday, I CAN say OSU your have been Michigan IF the odds of making the playoffs were more urgent.
dfosterf (22-Jan) : Glad to hear you are feeling a bit better.
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : I've been near death ill last several days, finally feel less dead and site issues.
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : It is a big deal. This host is having issues. It's frustrating.
Martha Careful (22-Jan) : just kidding...it was down
Martha Careful (22-Jan) : you were blocked yesterday, due to a a recalcitrant demeanor yesterday in the penalty box for a recalcitrant demeanor
dfosterf (22-Jan) : Was that site shutdown on your end or mine? No big deal, just curious
beast (21-Jan) : That way teams like Indiana and SMU don't make the conference championships by simply avoiding all the other good teams in their own confere
beast (21-Jan) : Also, with these "Super Conferences" instead of a single conference champion, have 4 teams make a Conference playoffs.
beast (21-Jan) : Also in college football, is a bye week a good or bad thing?
Martha Careful (21-Jan) : The tournament format was fine. Seeding could use some work.
beast (21-Jan) : You can't assume Ohio State would of won the Michigan game...
beast (21-Jan) : Rankings were 1) Oregon 2) Georgia 3) Texas 4) Penn State 5) Notre Dame 6) Ohio State, none of the rest mattered
wpr (21-Jan) : Texas, ND and OSU would have been fighting for the final 2 slots.
wpr (21-Jan) : Oregon and Georgia were locks. Without the luxury of extra playoff berths, Ohios St would have been more focused on Michigan game.
wpr (21-Jan) : Zero, no. If there were only 4 teams Ohio State would have been one of them. Boise St and ASU would not have been selected.
Zero2Cool (21-Jan) : So that was 7 vs 8, that means in BCS they never would made it?
Martha Careful (21-Jan) : A great game. Give ND credit for coming back, although I am please with the outcome.
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : FG to make it academic
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : and there's the dagger
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : ooooo 8 point game with 4 minutes to go!
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : ooooooooohhhhhh he missed!
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Ooooo that completion makes things VERY interesting
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Game not over yet
beast (21-Jan) : Oh yeah, Georgia starting quarterback season ending elbow injury
beast (21-Jan) : Sadly something happened to Georgia... they should be playing in this game against Ohio State
beast (21-Jan) : I thought Ohio State and Texas were both better than Notre Dame & Penn State
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Notre Lame getting rolled
Martha Careful (21-Jan) : Ohio State just got punched in the gut. Lets see how they respond
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Notre Lame vs the Luckeyes, bleh
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Oh snap!!!
Zero2Cool (21-Jan) : Even Stevie Wonder can see that.
Zero2Cool (21-Jan) : Nah, you see Lions OC leaving to be HC of Bears is directly related to Packers.
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : ohhhhhhh Zero is in TROUBLE
packerfanoutwest (21-Jan) : Zero, per your orders, check Bearshome, not packershome
Zero2Cool (20-Jan) : Then he'll land with another team and flourish.
Zero2Cool (20-Jan) : Ben going to Bears. He'll be out in 3 years.
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
Sunday, Jan 12 @ 3:30 PM
Eagles
Recent Topics
22-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

22-Jan / Random Babble / packerfanoutwest

21-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

21-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

19-Jan / Random Babble / Martha Careful

18-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

17-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

17-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

17-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

16-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

16-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

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