Packers pass rush, effective or not?

[Patler]

Much has been discussed this off season about whether or not the Packers have a good pass rush. Some interesting facts for the discussion:

1. GB had at least one sack in every game except against the Jets.
2. Their lowest total of sacks + hurries was 6, vs. Buffalo and the 2nd Bear game.
3. Their lowest total of sacks + hits was 5, against the Jets.
4. Lowest total of sacks + hits + hurries was 11, vs. N.E.

I have no idea what this means, because I have nothing to compare it to for other teams. You can each decide for yourselves, with no debate from me as to whether it is good or bad.

[Tarlam!]

8-)

It's all good, Patler... :smk:

[LL2]

We should, and I’m expecting a better pass rush this year. The DL looks like it will be solid and have a good if not great LB group right behind them. This should only help the secondary too. It will be key to see how Harrell develops and holds up over the season, but even if he doesn’t have a great rookie season we still have Williams. An important thing will be the rotating of the big men on the DL and keeping their legs fresh. We have the luxury of depth.

[wist43]

I can remember a couple of years ago, the Bears didn't put up very good sack numbers, but were consistently generating one of the best pass rushes in the league.

The Packers are the exact opposite of that... good sack numbers, mediocre pass rush.

I'm sure you guys are sick of hearing (reading) me say this, but I just don't see how you can get around it - the Packers defense is entirely predicated upon getting almost all of its pass rush from the front 4; once that fails, their done.

Beyond that, the defensive linemen on this team are good, and the depth is very good, but none of them is special. Offensive coordinators don't have to work overtime trying to devise ways to slide their protection to account for an elite player.

To me, pass rush isn't about the DL - it's about scheme. The Packers pass rush is limited almost exclusively to the DL; and, since the LB's are ill suited to blitzing, sending them can do more harm than good. So, while they can be good against the poorer teams in the league, I fear they can't be good enough, especially against the upper etchelon teams.

[Packnut]

It's like the old addage in baseball, " don't tell me how many ya hit, tell me WHEN you hit em".

This really applies to sacks.

[Patler]

It's like the old addage in baseball, " don't tell me how many ya hit, tell me WHEN you hit em".

This really applies to sacks.

I'll repeat myself from my first post in answer to your question:

1. GB had at least one sack in every game except against the Jets.
2. Their lowest total of sacks + hurries was 6, vs. Buffalo and the 2nd Bear game.
3. Their lowest total of sacks + hits was 5, against the Jets.
4. Lowest total of sacks + hits + hurries was 11, vs. N.E.


..or did you mean by quarter? Since they never had fewer than 11 pressures in a game, it would seem to be somewhat evenly dispersed.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Pass rush was above average, not great, most of the year. It took off the last 4 weeks. We were 4th in the league in sacks and 3rd in interceptions. I'd like to think the two went hand and hand. After we dumped Carroll and hid Poppinga more (and Manuel to a lesser extent), things were better. I'd like to think we would have had even more sacks--if we had better coverage early. We did a pretty solid job blitzing (LBs and CBs). We got good pressure from our interior OL, great pressure from Kampman, and KGB still provided a threat on the other side. I know early in the year, despite Kampman's quick start, teams didn't start double-teaming him extensively until week 6 or 7.

[Joemailman]

I thought we had a pretty consistent pass rush last year with the exception of the Jets game (There may be others, but that one stands out). I thought our linebackers were more effective blitzing last year than in the past, which I mostly credit to the coaching of Winston Moss. Hopefully that will continue. I do think Hawk has a chance to be a great blitzer.

[Freak Out]

I think this year the coaching staff uses what they have on defense a lot better than they did last year and that alone will generate more sacks/hurries/ints. A bonus will be if Harrell can have an impact this year...or ever.

[wist43]

I thought we had a pretty consistent pass rush last year with the exception of the Jets game (There may be others, but that one stands out). I thought our linebackers were more effective blitzing last year than in the past, which I mostly credit to the coaching of Winston Moss. Hopefully that will continue. I do think Hawk has a chance to be a great blitzer.

My opinion of Hawk has been rising this offseason - he's quicker and plays with more length than I thought he could. He has a chance to be an above average blitzer.

He has a much better chance of defeating the block of a FB or TE than does Barnett... neither of them come off the edge very well. If the Packers used Hawk more agressively I think he could develop into a very disruptive defender.

If the Packers simply continue to use him in coverage in the nickel, however, and blitz him only infrequently, his chances will be limited and his overall impact will be blunted as it's more difficult to develop technique and timing with the DL, etc...

Would love to see more blitzing. And while I don't think our Backers are ideally suited to blitzing, we do have the corners to bump and run, and there is enough talent on the line that OC's have to at least pay attention to them.

More well timed, well designed blitzes from multiple fronts would go a long way toward making the defense much more effective against better offenses. Against the dregs of the NFC North, they can get the job done without having to get too creative; but, against the better offenses with better OL's, you've got to do it with scheme and game planning - and yes, talent.

[Packnut]

It's like the old addage in baseball, " don't tell me how many ya hit, tell me WHEN you hit em".

This really applies to sacks.

I'll repeat myself from my first post in answer to your question:

1. GB had at least one sack in every game except against the Jets.
2. Their lowest total of sacks + hurries was 6, vs. Buffalo and the 2nd Bear game.
3. Their lowest total of sacks + hits was 5, against the Jets.
4. Lowest total of sacks + hits + hurries was 11, vs. N.E.


..or did you mean by quarter? Since they never had fewer than 11 pressures in a game, it would seem to be somewhat evenly dispersed.

I meant that a sack in the 4th quarter that stops a game tying or game winning drive is more important than a 1st quarter sack. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I don't recall many sacks on 3rd down in key situations. In fact I'd be curious to know out of the numbers you mentioned, how many came in the 2nd half of games on 3rd down.

[Patler]

In fact I'd be curious to know out of the numbers you mentioned, how many came in the 2nd half of games on 3rd down.

Yes, I would be too. Perhaps you could look into that?

[Packnut]

In fact I'd be curious to know out of the numbers you mentioned, how many came in the 2nd half of games on 3rd down.

Yes, I would be too. Perhaps you could look into that?

I will attempt to obtain that info tomorrow.

[Packnut]

In fact I'd be curious to know out of the numbers you mentioned, how many came in the 2nd half of games on 3rd down.

Yes, I would be too. Perhaps you could look into that?

Went to all my stat sites and can't find the info. Gonna have to go back through play by play from last season. This could take a while. :cry:

[woodbuck27]

In fact I'd be curious to know out of the numbers you mentioned, how many came in the 2nd half of games on 3rd down.

Yes, I would be too. Perhaps you could look into that?

Went to all my stat sites and can't find the info. Gonna have to go back through play by play from last season. This could take a while. :cry:

If you go there. It might be a good idea to bring in lots of beer and nacho's n cheese. :)

[Packnut]

In fact I'd be curious to know out of the numbers you mentioned, how many came in the 2nd half of games on 3rd down.

Yes, I would be too. Perhaps you could look into that?

Went to all my stat sites and can't find the info. Gonna have to go back through play by play from last season. This could take a while. :cry:

If you go there. It might be a good idea to bring in lots of beer and nacho's n cheese. :)


Well I got half of your recipe. The suds are a flowing....... :lol: :wink:

[Tony Oday]

I think our pass rush was great last year. Jenkins up the gut creating havoc. Kamp out working everyone in the NFL. Pickett's fat body throwing people around like they stole his doughnuts!

I do not like a team that has to blitz for preasure. It degrades the rest of the defense and if the blitz is picked up it hurts the secondary coverage. The Pack preasured and knocked down the QB a lot last year and this year with KGB going back to what he is good at we will have 3 guys on the line that can pin their ears back and break some QBs.

[Patler]

I meant that a sack in the 4th quarter that stops a game tying or game winning drive is more important than a 1st quarter sack.

Upon reflection, I'm not sure I can agree with that.
The sack in the 4th quarter of a close game might be more exciting, more fan-pleasing and more attention-grabbing; but it is not necessarily more important than a sack earlier in the game that pins a team deep, keeps them down and allows you to get the ball and build a big lead to coast to a victory. Sacks earlier in the game can put you in a position of not needing the sack later in the game.

If you are analyzing the timing of sacks, you will have to factor in the score, not just the quarter, because how difficult or important is an end-of-the-game sack when you are up by several scores and you know the other team will be passing? :D :D

[Packnut]

I meant that a sack in the 4th quarter that stops a game tying or game winning drive is more important than a 1st quarter sack.

Upon reflection, I'm not sure I can agree with that.
The sack in the 4th quarter of a close game might be more exciting, more fan-pleasing and more attention-grabbing; but it is not necessarily more important than a sack earlier in the game that pins a team deep, keeps them down and allows you to get the ball and build a big lead to coast to a victory. Sacks earlier in the game can put you in a position of not needing the sack later in the game.

If you are analyzing the timing of sacks, you will have to factor in the score, not just the quarter, because how difficult or important is an end-of-the-game sack when you are up by several scores and you know the other team will be passing? :D :D


No surprise here as I believe we could both look at the same sky and have different opinions on what color it is. :P :wink:

Sacks in key situations can change the momentum in a game, and I think we could agee how important that big MO is. A sack in the 1st quarter can set the tone of the game, but the other team still will have several chances to negate that sack. In the 2nd half, your chances get fewer and fewer so 3rd down sacks become much more important.

It's just like my baseball example. A guy can hit .320 but if he does'nt come through in the clutch, then that .320 average is mis-leading. My point being that very few times in games last year did we get clutch sacks.

[Patler]

A sack in the 1st quarter can set the tone of the game, but the other team still will have several chances to negate that sack. In the 2nd half, your chances get fewer and fewer so 3rd down sacks become much more important.

I don't know. I'll take 4 first half sacks and a 21 point half time lead anytime!

[Packnut]

A sack in the 1st quarter can set the tone of the game, but the other team still will have several chances to negate that sack. In the 2nd half, your chances get fewer and fewer so 3rd down sacks become much more important.

I don't know. I'll take 4 first half sacks and a 21 point half time lead anytime!


Umm, that would be the 96 D your talking about. :lol:

[RashanGary]

I think they had a pretty good pass rush last year but it can and should be better with the addition of Harrell to the Dline rotation and the maturing of Hawk and Poppinga.

[red]

we were good "at times"

we got our hurries and sacks in clumps, to me it seemed like all or nothing, no in-between

i remember the days of reggie and sean jones where you could always count on preasure, the qb would not have all day to throw the ball

the pass rush needs to be more consistent