11th commandment, Never, Ever, rush 3

[channtheman]

Capers will puke this kind of stuff up now and again...

His nature is to be conservative... there never a rationale, and never justification to rush 3.

All you're doing in that situation is giving receivers time to come uncovered, and giving the QB time to find them...

It's stupid.

Of course there is, to entice a short throw in front of the first down markers. There is less of a reason to do it near your own endzone because the throw is going deep regardless. Same might be said for certain 4th down situations.

Sorry PB, but I disagree with every word, every syllable, and every letter of what you wrote there

The name of the game is pressure... if you want to FORCE (as opposed to "entice") a short throw... then put enough pressure on the QB that he has to get rid of the ball.

If he is forced to get rid of the ball either short, or trying to force it into a seam, the defenses percentages go way up.

If you leave a guy to sit back there and write a dissertation, it's only a matter of time before coverage breaks down. It is inevitable that a receiver will come free, a seam will pop open, a DB will drop coverage... given enough time, Shirley Temple could drive a team down the field.

Rushing 3 is just far too passive of an approach... as I said, forget the clock, what you need is a turnover, or 4 successive stops. Playing prevent you're taking the aggression away from your players, and simply hoping the other team screws up... that's no way to play defense.

It is all about pressure, and FORCING them into mistakes

Of course the odds go up for the D, but so do the odds of someone being uncovered as a result of the pressure. On the whole, you probably drive the completion percentage lower and the average yards per completion higher. At the end of the game where the clock is with you, that is a problem. Bring pressure and they only need to complete 1 out of every 4 throws for a first down. And the incompletions help them have more attempts.

I do agree that this doesn't apply to the Red Zone. And pressure to change the pace and shake someone free on an overload would be fine.

The problem with your argument is that we see so often a team that only rushes three lose the game.

[pbmax]

What you don't remember are teams that follow wist's logic to its full conclusion and blitz every critical series. Then you see big plays that blow up in their face.

Now, there is no reason Capers could not rush four in such situations and occasionally blitz, but you can't simply blitz every time you need a stop.

[channtheman]

What you don't remember are teams that follow wist's logic to its full conclusion and blitz every critical series. Then you see big plays that blow up in their face.

Now, there is no reason Capers could not rush four in such situations and occasionally blitz, but you can't simply blitz every time you need a stop.

Oh absolutely, I agree with that. I even wish on the psycho package that we would have a linebacker show blitz but then drop back into coverage on the TE or RB that was wide open after the first few teams we ran it.

Here's something I was thinking though. I don't know if I've seen this done ever or if coaches ever do it. But what if since rushing three is basically conceding the pass, why not drop 2 more guys into coverage and just leave one pass rusher?

[Sparkey]

On the second to last play, if Jenkins wraps up Big Ben for the sack, the game is over. No way the receivers get back in time for a spike to kill the clock.

It was there for them, just didn't get the job done.

Was a fun game to watch, a bit stressful, but fun none the less. Wouldn't it be great to see Pittsburgh/Green Bay against each other in the Super Bowl!!!

[gbgary]

Penalties on the final drive hurt more than just rushing three.

yup...but not by much. i hope they (the coaches) learn from this.

[gbgary]

It was there for them, just didn't get the job done.

Was a fun game to watch, a bit stressful, but fun none the less.

yup and like i said before, no real harm done. need to win the next two and to into the playoffs with momentum.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Wist will be thrilled to read this:

Capers was steadfast in his belief that rushing three against Roethlisberger and dropping eight in coverage was the right thing to do on the final drive. He said he stuck to mostly four-man pressures during the game after calling a blitz on the Steelers' first offensive play and watching Bush get beaten for a 60-yard touchdown.

More at: http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/79869442.html

Article also quotes McStubby as saying that "making wholesale changes in the secondary would be a blatant overreaction."

McStubby adds: "Tryouts are over."

I actually agree with him.

[mraynrand]

Wist will be thrilled to read this:

Capers was steadfast in his belief that rushing three against Roethlisberger and dropping eight in coverage was the right thing to do on the final drive. He said he stuck to mostly four-man pressures during the game after calling a blitz on the Steelers' first offensive play and watching Bush get beaten for a 60-yard touchdown.

More at: http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/79869442.html

Article also quotes McStubby as saying that "making wholesale changes in the secondary would be a blatant overreaction."

McStubby adds: "Tryouts are over."

I actually agree with him.

What the hell else can you do at this point? All teams have weaknesses and every team will game plan to expose them. Try like hell to hide them and hope that your strengths elsewhere will compensate. Hope to hell the Four D linemen are completely healthy for the playoffs - it is their play (assuming the LB play continues to be the same) that will decide whether other teams will have the time to expose 24 and 26. The dings to the D line are probably what contributed to the diminished effectiveness of the pass rush.

[Noodle]

Article also quotes McStubby as saying that "making wholesale changes in the secondary would be a blatant overreaction."

McStubby adds: "Tryouts are over."

I actually agree with him.

I agree as well. I like the way he's reacting to the secondary as well as his support for Crosby. Sure, he'd love to have better CBs and a more reliable kicker, but the reality is, those guys are not going to walk in to the locker room off the street at this point in the season.

So he shows good judgment in supporting his guys and being assertive about it. This is a good thing.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Article also quotes McStubby as saying that "making wholesale changes in the secondary would be a blatant overreaction."

McStubby adds: "Tryouts are over."

I actually agree with him.

I agree as well. I like the way he's reacting to the secondary as well as his support for Crosby. Sure, he'd love to have better CBs and a more reliable kicker, but the reality is, those guys are not going to walk in to the locker room off the street at this point in the season.

So he shows good judgment in supporting his guys and being assertive about it. This is a good thing.

That's one reason I like the nickname "McStubby." I don't have too many quarrels with McCarthy. I think on balance he's a very good coach. He's stubborn about his loyalty to his players and coaches, which is -- on balance -- a good thing. He's also stubborn about his schemes on offense and defense and he wouldn't change horses in the middle of the stream for anything. My major disagreement with him is rushing and game management on offense. And he's going to stay stubborn on that too. We'll see how far he takes us.

[gbgary]

Wist will be thrilled to read this:

Capers was steadfast in his belief that rushing three against Roethlisberger and dropping eight in coverage was the right thing to do on the final drive.

well...never mind about my hoping they learned something on that last drive.

[wist43]

Wist will be thrilled to read this:

Capers was steadfast in his belief that rushing three against Roethlisberger and dropping eight in coverage was the right thing to do on the final drive.

well...never mind about my hoping they learned something on that last drive.

Your odds are just better by being aggressive... not only from the standpoint of forcing a turnover, mistake, or 4 successive stops; but also from the standpoint that if you do give up the big play, there will likely be enough time left on the clock for your offense to get in position for a GW FG.

By playing the, lets bleed the clock, let's bleed to death game... you're essentially entering into an agreement with your opponent which says,

"... we do hereby agree to give you the ball on our 20 yard line, with 20 seconds on the clock, and allow you 4 shots into the endzone. Furthermore, we do also agree not to put any undo pressure on your QB, as this would be impolite"

Capers has a history of going conservative and playing the "prevent"... just my basic recollection of games I've watched. Whenever a team goes prevent... my first thought is "stupid"; and, more often than not, you see the result we saw on Sunday.

As many an announcer over the years has chanted, "the only thing a "prevent defense" does, is prevent you from winning.

Exhibit A: Pittsburgh 37 GB 36

[Maxie the Taxi]

Wist will be thrilled to read this:

Capers was steadfast in his belief that rushing three against Roethlisberger and dropping eight in coverage was the right thing to do on the final drive.

well...never mind about my hoping they learned something on that last drive.

Your odds are just better by being aggressive... not only from the standpoint of forcing a turnover, mistake, or 4 successive stops; but also from the standpoint that if you do give up the big play, there will likely be enough time left on the clock for your offense to get in position for a GW FG.

By playing the, lets bleed the clock, let's bleed to death game... you're essentially entering into an agreement with your opponent which says,

"... we do hereby agree to give you the ball on our 20 yard line, with 20 seconds on the clock, and allow you 4 shots into the endzone. Furthermore, we do also agree not to put any undo pressure on your QB, as this would be impolite"

Capers has a history of going conservative and playing the "prevent"... just my basic recollection of games I've watched. Whenever a team goes prevent... my first thought is "stupid"; and, more often than not, you see the result we saw on Sunday.

As many an announcer over the years has chanted, "the only thing a "prevent defense" does, is prevent you from winning.

Exhibit A: Pittsburgh 37 GB 36

I agree completely. Let's hope we don't get into such situations in the future, because Capers won't change. He's gotten away with playing it "conservative" too many times.

Sometimes it does work out. I can't remember what game it was this year, but Capers played prevent, the other team drove down to deep in our territory and then either ran out of time or we got a turnover. Can't remember which.