Well you can't expect to get pressure on every single pass play. The problem is sometimes the secondary has to win some battles when the pass rush doesn't and our secondary almost never won those battles this year. The pass rush was bad for most of the year but that shouldn't be an excuse for the secondary. Almost none of our DBs had a good season.
A good example was a 3rd and 11 in the first quarter where we rushed 3. The Giants kept 7 guys to block on that play so we had 8 defenders to cover 3 receivers. Eli hit Nicks for about 15 yards and the pass wasn't even contested he just caught it and went down. The pass rush this year shouldn't get any more blame than the secondary, both were pretty awful for the most part.
For every pass play where the pressure failed to get home there was another where the DBs had a miscommunication or failed to get a jam or bit on a fake or just plain got beat. I don't know what many peoples aversion is to putting anything on our secondary but as a unit they were pretty awful this year.
Originally Posted by: Stevetarded
Yes, but how many times this year did they mount anything approaching effective rush by rushing three? And how many times did rushing three mean the opposing quarterback had enough time to read War and Peace? Regardless of how many players the opposing team kept in, GB's three-man rush was completely ineffective ALL YEAR LONG.
Sure, some times with the three man rush, the secondary failed to do their job and allowed a quick completion. But regardless of what the DBs were doing, the three-man rush virtually never worked.
If I were a betting man, every time the Packer opponent had third and long this year and the D decided on a 3-man rush, I would have bet "first down!" And I would have had enough money to buy several bottles of that expensive scotch of zombieslayer's. If they're only going to rush 3, they might as well go all the way and put all 11 in coverage. There's going to be no significant difference in the likelihood they'll get to the opposing QB.
I agree that both line and secondary were pretty awful. Both need real fixing. But if it ends up being one or the other (which, given how relatively unlikely it is for Ted Thompson to find a fix in FA, and how relatively likely the changes have to come through the draft, I think it might have to be), then I'd rather put together an improved DL and ask it to cover secondary ills than the other way around.
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)