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
packerfanoutwest (10-Jul) : Us Padres fans love it....But it'll be a Dodgers/Yankees World Series
Zero2Cool (9-Jul) : Brewers sweep Dodgers. Awesome
Mucky Tundra (6-Jul) : And James Flanigan is the grandson of Packers Super Bowl winner Jim Flanigan Sr.
Mucky Tundra (6-Jul) : Jerome Bettis and Jim Flanigans sons as well!
Zero2Cool (6-Jul) : Thomas Davis Jr is OLB, not WR. Oops.
Zero2Cool (6-Jul) : Larry Fitzgeral and Thomas Davis sons too. WR's as well.
Mucky Tundra (5-Jul) : Kaydon Finley, son of Jermichael Finley, commits to Notre Dame
dfosterf (3-Jul) : Make sure to send my props to him! A plus move!
Zero2Cool (3-Jul) : My cousin, yes.
dfosterf (3-Jul) : That was your brother the GB press gazette referenced with the red cross draft props thing, yes?
Zero2Cool (2-Jul) : Packers gonna unveil new throwback helmet in few weeks.
Mucky Tundra (2-Jul) : I know it's Kleiman but this stuff writes itself
Mucky Tundra (2-Jul) : "Make sure she signs the NDA before asking for a Happy Ending!"
Mucky Tundra (2-Jul) : @NFL_DovKleiman Powerful: Deshaun Watson is taking Shedeur Sanders 'under his wing' as a mentor to the Browns QBs
Zero2Cool (30-Jun) : Dolphins get (back) Minkah Fitzpatrick in trade
Zero2Cool (30-Jun) : Steelers land Jalen Ramsey via Trade
dfosterf (26-Jun) : I think it would be great to have someone like Tom Grossi or Andy Herman on the Board of Directors so he/they could inform us
dfosterf (26-Jun) : Fair enough, WPR. Thing is, I have been a long time advocate to at least have some inkling of the dynamics within the board.
wpr (26-Jun) : 1st world owners/stockholders problems dfosterf.
Martha Careful (25-Jun) : I would have otherwise admirably served
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Also, no more provision for a write-in candidate, so Martha is off the table at least for this year
dfosterf (25-Jun) : You do have to interpret the boring fine print, but all stockholders all see he is on the ballot
dfosterf (25-Jun) : It also says he is subject to another ballot in 2028. I recall nothing of this nature with Murphy
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Ed Policy is on my ballot subject to me penciling him in as a no.
dfosterf (25-Jun) : I thought it used to be we voted for the whatever they called the 45, and then they voted for the seven, and then they voted for Mark Murphy
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Because I was too lazy to change my address, I haven't voted fot years until this year
dfosterf (25-Jun) : of the folks that run this team. I do not recall Mark Murphy being subject to our vote.
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Ed Policy yay or nay is on the pre-approved ballot that we always approve because we are uninformed and lazy, along with all the rest
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Weird question. Very esoteric. For stockholders. Also lengthy. Sorry. Offseason.
Zero2Cool (25-Jun) : Maybe wicked wind chill made it worse?
Mucky Tundra (25-Jun) : And then he signs with Cleveland in the offseason
Mucky Tundra (25-Jun) : @SharpFootball WR Diontae Johnson just admitted he refused to enter a game in 41° weather last year in Baltimore because he felt “ice cold”
Zero2Cool (24-Jun) : Yawn. Rodgers says he is "pretty sure" this be final season.
Zero2Cool (23-Jun) : PFT claims Packers are having extension talks with Zach Tom, Quay Walker.
Mucky Tundra (20-Jun) : GB-Minnesota 2004 Wild Card game popped up on my YouTube page....UGH
beast (20-Jun) : Hmm 🤔 re-signing Walker before Tom? Sounds highly questionable to me.
Mucky Tundra (19-Jun) : One person on Twitter=cannon law
Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : Well, to ONE person on Tweeter
Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : According to Tweeter
Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : Packers are working on extension for LT Walker they hope to have done before camp
dfosterf (18-Jun) : E4B landed at Andrews last night
dfosterf (18-Jun) : 101 in a 60
dfosterf (18-Jun) : FAFO
Zero2Cool (18-Jun) : one year $4m with incentives to make it up to $6m
dfosterf (18-Jun) : Or Lions
dfosterf (18-Jun) : Beats the hell out of a Vikings signing
Zero2Cool (18-Jun) : Baltimore Ravens now have signed former Packers CB Jaire Alexander.
dfosterf (14-Jun) : TWO magnificent strikes for touchdowns. Lose the pennstate semigeezer non nfl backup
dfosterf (14-Jun) : There was minicamp Thursday. My man Taylor Engersma threw
dfosterf (11-Jun) : There will be a mini camp practice Thursday.
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2025 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 7 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Thursday, Sep 11 @ 7:15 PM
COMMANDERS
Sunday, Sep 21 @ 12:00 PM
Browns
Sunday, Sep 28 @ 7:20 PM
Cowboys
Sunday, Oct 12 @ 3:25 PM
BENGALS
Sunday, Oct 19 @ 3:25 PM
Cardinals
Sunday, Oct 26 @ 7:20 PM
Steelers
Sunday, Nov 2 @ 12:00 PM
PANTHERS
Monday, Nov 10 @ 7:15 PM
EAGLES
Sunday, Nov 16 @ 12:00 PM
Giants
Sunday, Nov 23 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Thursday, Nov 27 @ 12:00 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 7 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Dec 14 @ 3:25 PM
Broncos
Friday, Dec 19 @ 11:00 PM
Bears
Friday, Dec 26 @ 11:00 PM
RAVENS
Saturday, Jan 3 @ 11:00 PM
Vikings
Recent Topics
10-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

10-Jul / Around The NFL / Zero2Cool

6-Jul / Random Babble / Martha Careful

4-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

2-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

2-Jul / Fantasy Sports Talk / dfosterf

1-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

29-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

25-Jun / Around The NFL / Martha Careful

23-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

20-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

20-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

20-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

18-Jun / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

16-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

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