What The Hell Is A Blitz?

[Maxie the Taxi]

I'm still bummed by the Packers' loss, so maybe I've temporarily lost my mind.

Anyway, I'm trying to figure out the definition of a blitz.

If we run a 3-4 defense, and we send 4 guys to rush the passer (3 DL and 1 LB), is that considered a blitz?

Here's an even better question: The OL always has 5 guys blocking (OT OG C OG OT). Why do we ever rush the passer with less than 5 guys? Wouldn't less than 5 be an automatic mismatch?

It seems to me that a "blitz" should be sending 6 guys or more guys to rush the passer (1 or more defensive players than the OL has blocking).

Another question is: A typical NFL OL probably runs about 300 to 315 lbs per man. DLinemen probably run about the same, more or less. But if we send a LB on a pass rush, he likely weighs 240 to 255 lbs. So if we rush 5 players in our 3-4 defense, our pass rushers are overmatched weight-wise.

Which begs a couple more questions:

Why don't we rush at least 5 guys against the passer every play?

And why don't we play more fat guys on the DL to begin with in order to eliminate the weight mismatch and give us a strong push up the middle?

For instance, why not play a 5-2 defense pretty much all the time? Wouldn't that result in a more efficient pass rush with the same or better probability of stopping the run?

My aging, inquiring mind wants to know. I hope there are some young X and O men out there that can provide smart answers.

[gbgary]

I'm still bummed by the Packers' loss, so maybe I've temporarily lost my mind.

Anyway, I'm trying to figure out the definition of a blitz.

If we run a 3-4 defense, and we send 4 guys to rush the passer (3 DL and 1 LB), is that considered a blitz?

Here's an even better question: The OL always has 5 guys blocking (OT OG C OG OT). Why do we ever rush the passer with less than 5 guys? Wouldn't less than 5 be an automatic mismatch?

It seems to me that a "blitz" should be sending 6 guys or more guys to rush the passer (1 or more defensive players than the OL has blocking).

Another question is: A typical NFL OL probably runs about 300 to 315 lbs per man. DLinemen probably run about the same, more or less. But if we send a LB on a pass rush, he likely weighs 240 to 255 lbs. So if we rush 5 players in our 3-4 defense, our pass rushers are overmatched weight-wise.

Which begs a couple more questions:

Why don't we rush at least 5 guys against the passer every play?

And why don't we play more fat guys on the DL to begin with in order to eliminate the weight mismatch and give us a strong push up the middle?

For instance, why not play a 5-2 defense pretty much all the time? Wouldn't that result in a more efficient pass rush with the same or better probability of stopping the run?

My aging, inquiring mind wants to know. I hope there are some young X and O men out there that can provide smart answers.

if we had experienced, physical/fast, cover guys that could hold their own, then rushing 5 would be cool (if we had guys that could actually get to the qb). when we do it now it only compounds the secondary's trouble.

[Maxie the Taxi]

if we had experienced, physical/fast, cover guys that could hold their own, then rushing 5 would be cool (if we had guys that could actually get to the qb). when we do it now it only compounds the secondary's trouble.

I hear what you're saying. On the other hand I am torn. Because if we had guys that COULD get to the QB (and maybe we do if we'd rush five consistently), then wouldn't that make the CB's job easier, i.e., the QB would have to throw it more earlier than planned and maybe without accuracy?

[beveaux1]

I think any time you rush more than 4 it's considered a blitz. I believe that comes from the old 4-3 defense. All DL rushed the passer, but if an extra LB came from the strong, weak, or middle, you were blitzing and left one zone open in a zone defense. An all- out blitz is 7 rushing the passer, meaning all LBs come.

Now that the 3-4 defense is common, rushing the 3 lineman and one LB is accepted as a normal rush. The zones are the same as the 4-3. One of the two MLBs cover the zone vacated by the LB that rushes. A three man rush puts an extra man into coverage and is seen a lot with a 3-4 defense.

[texaspackerbacker]

My definition - and I think THE definition of a blitz is when somebody who is not a D Lineman penetrates into the backfield - either to rush the QB or as they are sometimes described, run blitzes. It's not the number of people coming so much as it's where they are coming from. Why is a blitz better than say lining up 4 or even 5 D Linemen head to head on 5 interior O Linemen? It's the element of surprise - somebody unexpected hopefully getting to the QB before a blocker can react. Also, it allows for loading up a particular side with several pass rushers against an O Lineman.

Anyway, you do it and it creates an advantage, but it also leaves you vulnerable somewhere. It's almost a necessity when your personnel is not all that great - like the Packers D.

[Maxie the Taxi]

I think I like Beveau's definition better.

Tex, I don't understand how blitzing by your definition leaves you vulnerable. Say you're in a 3-4 like the Pack and you blitz two LB's. A total of 5 rushing the passer. The OL still has 5 and the D still has a 6 players on the remaining 6 offensive players, assuming you play man-to-man. In fact, since the QB is occupied with the ball, you have a defensive advantage (6 on 5). So, why not blitz 6. Then you have an advantage over the 5 Olinemen, yet still have 5 guys to cover the remaining 5 offensive players.

What am I missing?

[pbmax]

Ideally, a blitz WOULD mean an unexpected body joining the pass rush. That is what it means to the DC.

But you can blitz and only send four, and that is not what most fans want to know.

People expect 4 pass rushers. They want to know when its more (or less) than that.

[hoosier]

Blitz comes from Blitzkrieg. Maybe that is why David Krieg fumbled so much.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Blitz comes from Blitzkrieg. Maybe that is why David Krieg fumbled so much.

You're reading history all wrong, hoosier.

[texaspackerbacker]

I think I like Beveau's definition better.

Tex, I don't understand how blitzing by your definition leaves you vulnerable. Say you're in a 3-4 like the Pack and you blitz two LB's. A total of 5 rushing the passer. The OL still has 5 and the D still has a 6 players on the remaining 6 offensive players, assuming you play man-to-man. In fact, since the QB is occupied with the ball, you have a defensive advantage (6 on 5). So, why not blitz 6. Then you have an advantage over the 5 Olinemen, yet still have 5 guys to cover the remaining 5 offensive players.

What am I missing?

Like pbmax said, you can blitz with only 4 going in - it ain't the number that makes it a blitz. The vulnerability has to do with how many do not blitz. A base defense generally has more LBs and DBs than there are eligible receivers, since single coverage is a lot more likely to get beat - I'm surprised somebody like you even needs an explanation of this. The more LBs and DBs you send on blitzes, the fewer you have dropping into coverage. Also, there was some discussion a day or two ago about screen passes. You have 6 or 7 guys roaring in, and the opposing QB lobs a screen pass over them, and there ain't many people left to handle a lot of blockers and make the tackle. Also, you load up one side, as we often do with Clay Matthews, and there is both a potential open area behind him and maybe a shortage of tacklers to stop a run to the opposite side.

Despite all that negative stuff, though, it's worse IMO if you don't do it - given the fact that we don't have the talent to just go head to head with a lot of opponents' offenses.

[gbgary]

I hear what you're saying. On the other hand I am torn. Because if we had guys that COULD get to the QB (and maybe we do if we'd rush five consistently), then wouldn't that make the CB's job easier, i.e., the QB would have to throw it more earlier than planned and maybe without accuracy?

MUCH easier!! that's why they have to shore up one or the other (although both would be fantastic).

[Maxie the Taxi]

Like pbmax said, you can blitz with only 4 going in - it ain't the number that makes it a blitz. The vulnerability has to do with how many do not blitz. A base defense generally has more LBs and DBs than there are eligible receivers, since single coverage is a lot more likely to get beat - I'm surprised somebody like you even needs an explanation of this. The more LBs and DBs you send on blitzes, the fewer you have dropping into coverage. Also, there was some discussion a day or two ago about screen passes. You have 6 or 7 guys roaring in, and the opposing QB lobs a screen pass over them, and there ain't many people left to handle a lot of blockers and make the tackle. Also, you load up one side, as we often do with Clay Matthews, and there is both a potential open area behind him and maybe a shortage of tacklers to stop a run to the opposite side.

Despite all that negative stuff, though, it's worse IMO if you don't do it - given the fact that we don't have the talent to just go head to head with a lot of opponents' offenses.

Contrary to what you may think I'm not the smartest guy in the room.

My point is "blitzing" is not cut-and-dried, at least in my mind. When a reporter says the Packers "blitzed" 29% of the time in a particular game, what does that mean? If it means we sent 4 guys 29% of the time, as opposed to 3, that's not good IMO. We should be "blitzing" 100% of the time.

On the other hand, if "blitzing" means we're sending 5 or 6 guys 100% of the time, that's another animal.

I'm trying to figure out why we're not getting to the QB. No one has commented on the weight mismatch between the 5 OL guys and the 3 DL guys and 2 LB's. Against a team like Atlanta we should be getting more "push" up the middle, but we weren't. I'm thinking we'd be better off drafting some good fat guys on the DL and leaving them in the game longer. Go with 4 or 5 fat guys. I think then an occasional edge blitz by a S or LB would be more effective.

Plus, it seems from what I've been reading that our guys are too stupid to play a complicated zone, especially when there are injuries. So make the D simpler. Play 5 fat guys on the DL and let the other guys play man, with maybe a S deep. Something like that.

We're not going to solve our anemic pass rush by with a sudden flood of new talent. We don't have enough high draft choices and TT ain't going to sign 2 or 3 FA fat guys for the DL. And even if we do draft a phenom edge rusher, is he going to get home in the current system any more often than Clay or Peppers or Fackrell or Elliott?

I guess I'm not as high on Dom's current magic as you are.

[vince]

Rather than stating that the Packers couldn't/didn't get to the quarterback as if it's fact, let's start with the actual facts.

First, here's the most commonly accepted definition of the term "blitz". This definition encompasses all the variants of the different types of blitzes, including the zone blitz and/or an overload blitz, which are generally accepted as blitzes even though there may be only 4 players rushing the passer.

A strategy used by a defensive unit in which they will have one or more players other than a member of the defensive line attempt to pressure the quarterback. Typically, this will result in linebackers or defensive backs attempting to find a gap in the offensive line and tackle the quarterback. Teams can choose to blitz one or more players during a play, and this usually results in five or more players attempting to reach the quarterback.

The blitz is a high risk, high reward play by the defense. Since the defense is typically bringing more players to pressure the quarterback, it increases the number of people that the offensive blockers have to account for and increases the chances of a sack or an errant pass. However, this also reduces the number of people in pass defense, so if the blitz is unsuccessful there is a higher likelihood of a completed pass. Players that are effective at blitzing can time the play well and find gaps in the offensive line and reach the quarterback.

1. Most recent 2016 statistic available is the Packers were ranked 18th in blitz percentage at 29.5%.

2. Green Bay was the 6th ranked sack team with 40 sacks for 295 yards lost.

3. They were 7th ranked in sack percentage at 6.5%.

4. The Packers were 12th ranked in defensive hurries with 104.

[woodbuck27]

In football, blitzing is a tactic used by the defense to disrupt the other teams passing game.

During a blitz..... ** a higher than usual number of defensive players ** will rush the opposing quarterback, to try to sack the quarterback or force a hurried pass attempt and thus offer an overall advantage.

** a higher than usual number of defensive players **

[Maxie the Taxi]

Rather than stating that the Packers couldn't/didn't get to the quarterback as if it's fact, let's start with the actual facts.

First, here's the most commonly accepted definition of the term "blitz". This definition encompasses all the variants of the different types of blitzes, including the zone blitz and/or an overload blitz, which are generally accepted as blitzes even though there may be only 4 players rushing the passer.


1. Most recent 2016 statistic available is the Packers were ranked 18th in blitz percentage at 29.5%.

2. Green Bay was the 6th ranked sack team with 40 sacks for 295 yards lost.

3. They were 7th ranked in sack percentage at 6.5%.

4. The Packers were 12th ranked in defensive hurries with 104.

We were also #22 in Total Defense this past season, and #31 in Pass Defense. The question is: How do we get to be a much higher number in Team Defense?*

*The end result is what matters. I'm assuming a better defense would probably make us a better team. I'm assuming the status quo is unacceptable. If you think it is, I guess we can debate that.

Now, relative to making us a better defense, I'm still confused about the "blitz" statistic. So we "blitzed" 29.5% of the time. Does that mean that 70.5% of the time we only rushed our 3 guys on the DL?