Should we have blitzed more?

[KYPack]

Would another speed rushing OLB opposite CM3 have made any difference? Should we bring back Kampman and use him like we used to use KGB = a situational pass rusher?

Bookend OLB's in a 3-4 are very important. Jones invisible man act allowed AZ to help and chip on CMIII. Pressure from the other side would have helped some for sure.

As far as Capers gameplan, I think it was sound. Last year, Pittsburgh blitzed the hell out of Warner in the SB, right? no. They covered Warner. Woodley and Harrison ran some very sophisticated buzzes and switches and jumped Warner's quick stuff. That play that Harrison intercepted the pass and took it back to the house was a very sneaky switch in coverage. They covered Warner the whole game. Because you have to. Warner is pretty much blitz proof.

[Maxie the Taxi]

KY,

Normally I agree with you. But not today. Yes, I think we should have brought the house just about every other play right from the start of the game. And by the "house" I mean 6 or 7 guys. Why?

1. Agreed that Warner is great against the blitz, but he isn't God and he isn't immune to pain. It's not written in stone that he'd gash us easy if we blitzed. On the other hand, he's not going to gash us every play. On the plays he doesn't, we'd get to him, maybe not sack him, but hurry him and knock him on his butt after the throw. That would keep him on his heels and, perhaps, force a mistake. Sooner or later a back and/or tight end stay in to block. Sooner or later a blitzer gets through. The chances of forcing an error go up. The chances of forcing a turnover go up.

2. We've tried the strategy of rushing with four and covering up before against Favre (twice) and Big Ben and Carson Palmer. The result all losses with these elite QB's throwing a gazillion TD passes. The point is, it was clear that our past strategy didn't work against these elites, so why do the same thing against Warner. Besides, if Warner and Whisenhunt are saavy enough to know our weakness -- whether do to scheme or personnel -- then Capers ought to know it and adjust to do something different. Bringing the house was his only alternative move.

3. I agree with Ty. We were getting beat up the middle. Warner is susceptible to pressure up the middle and we didn't give Warner pressure up the middle. The days Warner looks incompetent are the days you rattle him with pressure up the middle and knock him on his ass. Admittedly, it doesn't help that he's playing with a big lead, but we were playing with no tomorrow. So what we got to lose? Gang blitz up the middle.

4. I don't buy the fact that elite QB's are blitz-proof. We've seen Favre get rattled, and Warner too. Warner's rating against the blitz may be good, but what's his rating when he's not blitzed? These elite guys have to be put on the ground early by whatever it takes to have a chance. They have to be rattled. Then I'll take my chances.

5. It was obvious early that our LB's were either out of place or beat on just about every play, so what good is it to keep them back in "coverage." I'll take my chances sending them after Warner and hoping we force a mistake, either by Warner or his blockers.

6. Last year, if I recall right, Arizona got as far as they did in the playoffs because they consistently sent the house and got away with it. Maybe they figured they were overmatched personnel-wise and forcing turnovers was their only chance. It worked until they met their match in Big Ben.

7. We'll see what happens during the next round. We've got three "elite" QB's playing, two against each other. Either Brees or Warner has got to lose. And the Cowboys have to deal with Favre. My hunch is NO will find a way to rattle Warner and that the Cowboys will put Favre on his butt more than once. It will be interesting to see if they do it by means of the blitz because their personnel is similar to ours.

[KYPack]

I hear ya Max.

I don't agee totally, but yeah, what we did didn't work too well to say the least.

I watched some game tape finally. Not the whole thing, but about the whole second half. We blitzed a lot more than I thought we did. Woodson blitzed 3 times in the section I saw, two fire zones and an "exotic". He never got close on any of 'em. Those bunches and bubbles they ran worked like greased lightning.

Incidently, Warner is higher rated WHEN he's blitzed.

One thing that has been said, but must be mentioned is we got little help from the guys up front. Jolly, Raji, and Pickett played like dogshit. Or got handled, however you want to term it. Jenkins played hard and won some battles, but the rest of 'em played like the 3 monkeys. Hear no evil, don't push, don't shove.

Add Brad Jones to that list. He spent 90% of the game staring at his guys facemask. He played like the skinny kid he is.

You can't give all the blame to the boys on the back line. The fat boys didn't help 'em much.

We should have sent 6 or 7? Nah, but what the hell, we wudda got beat that way then.

[Maxie the Taxi]

I hear ya Max.

I don't agee totally, but yeah, what we did didn't work too well to say the least.

I watched some game tape finally. Not the whole thing, but about the whole second half. We blitzed a lot more than I thought we did. Woodson blitzed 3 times in the section I saw, two fire zones and an "exotic". He never got close on any of 'em. Those bunches and bubbles they ran worked like greased lightning.

Incidently, Warner is higher rated WHEN he's blitzed.

One thing that has been said, but must be mentioned is we got little help from the guys up front. Jolly, Raji, and Pickett played like dogshit. Or got handled, however you want to term it. Jenkins played hard and won some battles, but the rest of 'em played like the 3 monkeys. Hear no evil, don't push, don't shove.

Add Brad Jones to that list. He spent 90% of the game staring at his guys facemask. He played like the skinny kid he is.

You can't give all the blame to the boys on the back line. The fat boys didn't help 'em much.

We should have sent 6 or 7? Nah, but what the hell, we wudda got beat that way then.

I think what you're saying is that you can't win football games by "going through the motions." Football is an emotional game and if you're not "up" for the game, you won't win no matter what the scheme.

I have a theory that the team that wins is the team that keeps the other guys on their heels. You can do that by being in a higher emotional state than the other guys, but if both teams are up there are a couple other things you can do:

1. On offense, start out in big games with a rushing attack and keep at it until the other team stops you more than once. Nothing is better at keeping the other guys on their heels than the OL exploding off the ball and going right after them. This is especially important in big games when veteran guys are really pumped up, or when you have a lot of inexperienced players bursting with adrenylin. The passing game is more sophisticated and requires more timing. Rushing is basically pin back your ears and go hard. It gives the guys a chance to blow off nerves and get into the flow.

When the Packers came out throwing Sunday I almost shit my pants. That was McCarthy's error and it was a huge one. If they were gonna come out throwing instead of rushing, they should have deferred and put the defense on the field first. Let the defense give time for the guys to shake out the butterflies.

And the thing about getting back on your heels, once your on them, everything starts going bad, just like it did for the Packers at the start of th game. We gave Arizona an opening and they took it. Got us on our heels and it took a whole half before we got off of them.

2. On defense, I'm a proponent of being aggressive right from the start. Get the guys on the DL moving forward and the LB's moving forward as well. Yes, maybe even start off with a blitz or two to press the issue. Plus, no matter what the strategy, the defensive players have to be schooled to hit somebody hard at the start of the game. No finesse crap and loop-de-loops on the DL. Just straight ahead bull rushes. Knock the OL back on their heels. Take it to the blocking backs and nail the receivers on the LOS. Do it initially even if you're not planning to do it all game long.

The problem with the Packers Sunday was they weren't emotionally prepared for the Cards' intensity and got surprised and knocked back on their heels.

The other problem that cost them the game was they got suckered into a passing shootout when our rushing game was never stopped and hardly utilized. Edgar Bennett and his guys are the real, no-nonsense, no-fumble strength of this team and they were neglected and forgotten. Used right, they could have taken the ball out of Warner's hands, eliminated the turnovers by receivers and created a huge differential in time of possession and field position.

But I'm tired of beating this dead horse. McCarthy doesn't get it. He played like it was the end of the world two minutes into the game.

And the guys in this forum? Hell, they'd crucify me if I brought up the subject of rushing again.

Oh well. We're a passing team... Live by the sword. Die by the sword.

[denverYooper]

Arizona blitzed a lot and gave up 45 points. That generally won't win a game unless the other team gives up 51 .

[pbmax]

The problem with the Packers Sunday was they weren't emotionally prepared for the Cards' intensity and got surprised and knocked back on their heels.

Given a choice between an INT on the first play then a fumble on the Packers fourth offensive play, two field position and scoring gifts plus a blown coverage or two on their first three scoring drives or preparation, I don't think emotionally prepared for opponent's intensity comes into play.

But in this case I do agree about the run being underused. Given two turnovers (and the fact that one was almost predictably a receiver), the running game would have likely kept field position more balanced.

[Cheesehead Craig]

I agree on the intensity pb. To me, this is an overused term. How was the AZ D intense exactly? By giving up over 400 yds of offense and 45 pts?

The AZ offense can explode like this at any time. Was it AZ intensity that caused players to run wide open? Did the WR just run a really intense pattern with all his might that caused him to be completely uncovered? Or was it more of good scouting combined with lack of defensive adjustments perhaps?

[pbmax]

2. On defense, I'm a proponent of being aggressive right from the start. Get the guys on the DL moving forward and the LB's moving forward as well. Yes, maybe even start off with a blitz or two to press the issue. Plus, no matter what the strategy, the defensive players have to be schooled to hit somebody hard at the start of the game. No finesse crap and loop-de-loops on the DL. Just straight ahead bull rushes. Knock the OL back on their heels. Take it to the blocking backs and nail the receivers on the LOS. Do it initially even if you're not planning to do it all game long.

The problem with this strategy is that our front four pass rushers were not getting home on Warner on regular passing downs. I don't any strategy based on them getting home fast would have worked unless there was coverage early.

The only loophole I see is blitzing from the non-Matthews side when they kept a back in to chip. It guarantees you win the numbers game on the defense's left and makes it obvious who the checkdown would be (the back or TE chipping CMIII). But I am unaware if the defense can successfully predict a chip block. Perhaps if the TE is covering Matthews, but I think it would be hard to read a RB.