This is conventional wisdom, and I'm here to tell ya, it's wrong. The problem wasn't that Green Bay didn't blitz enough. I remember hearing in one of their games late in the season that they actually blitzed on a higher percentage of defensive plays this year compared to last.

The problem wasn't that the Packers occasionally rushed three (fairly common for many teams in 3rd and long situations) -- it's that they didn't get pressure when they did blitz. Green Bay certainly couldn't generate pressure with 4-man rushes, the blitzes weren't effective.

Sounds like a personnel issue to me. And it's a head scratcher. The defense had a lot of the same characters, sans Jenkins and Collins. Most draftniks are putting the Pack down for a pass rushing LB.

Originally Posted by: evad04 

Watching the Giants game alone, when we rushed 3, Eli had all the time he needed to find an open receiver. When we rushed 5, we actually got him a few times and he hurried some throws.

Originally Posted by: zombieslayer 

I found it iffy. We sent a lot of blitzes and they didn't get there. His fear would be sending a blitz on say 3rd and 12 and giving up a back breaking TD on a blown tackle or coverage. Something that this defense made a name for themselves doing. So while I don't like the 3 man rush...I do know why we seen them.

Originally Posted by: Rios39 

I understand that logic but if I'm going down, I'm going down swinging, not playing safe.

You have to get inside the QBs head. Eli hurried some throws. He threw some incompletions that he would have normally completed after one of our players hit him the play before. If I remember correctly.

Also if I remember correctly, the 3 man rush never worked in that game.

Originally Posted by: zombieslayer 

According to John Madden, Fritz Shurmur told him that he'd bring five if he couldn't get pressure with four. If that didn't work, then he'd bring six or seven. Finally, if he can't get there with seven, then he'd play coverage. It’s a very aggressive philosophy, but I describe to it myself. I think pressure on the QB is the No. 1 asset a defense can have. If the Packers game plan was not to pressure Eli because of fears about their secondary, then it was a very poor game plan.

Originally Posted by: porky88 

If the Packers game plan was not to pressure Eli because of fears about their secondary, then it was a very poor game plan.

Originally Posted by: porky88 

That's fair. But I wouldn't assume that Green Bay's plan was not to pressure Eli because on occasion they rushed only 3. Think about the assets the Giants offense has -- Nicks, Cruz, and Manningham at receiver. Threat to run with Bradshaw/Jacobs in the backfield. Seven-foot cornfed boy at TE. Rushing 3 isn't the best strategy, but rushing 5-6+ when the defense ALL SEASON LONG had difficulty getting to the quarterback is defensive suicide against a 1) upper-echelon QB, and 2) tons of talent at the skill positions. Capers was damned if he did, damned if he didn't -- as far as I see it.

Originally Posted by: evad04 

Fine, but that goes back to my original argument that if you're going down, go down swinging, not playing conservative.

What Shurmur said was right on. 🇲🇲 and Sean Payton offensively are two coaches who err on the side of risk taking. I'd rather err on the side of being too aggressive than err on the side of being a wuss. Shurmur was the former. 2011 Dom is the latter.

Originally Posted by: zombieslayer 

Fine, but that goes back to my original argument that if you're going down, go down swinging, not playing conservative.

What Shurmur said was right on. 🇲🇲 and Sean Payton offensively are two coaches who err on the side of risk taking. I'd rather err on the side of being too aggressive than err on the side of being a wuss. Shurmur was the former. 2011 Dom is the latter.

Originally Posted by: zombieslayer