What The Hell Is A Blitz?

[pbmax]

You're reading history all wrong, hoosier.

You never know, Krieg's family might have been a long line of German military theorists.

[pbmax]

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.

I could be wrong but McGinn counts number of rushers (he has written this up before). So I am guessing his "blitz" is more than 4 pass rushers.

[pbmax]

I think vince's numbers generally agree with my observation. The Packers were better at pressure this year (esp before Perry's injury) than coverage. But pressure could not fix the injured back end.

I also expect that the pressure's effectiveness tailed off significantly toward the end of the season despite the overall turnaround.

[vince]

I agree that the status quo is unacceptable. The Packers must improve their defense. I'm just trying to establish some facts to base a realistic analysis. It's true that the pass defense was a huge problem. It's not true the the pass rush was "anemic" but there are some things that I think we can say about it...

First off, in the Packers base nickel defense with 2 interior down-linemen and 2 edge rusher/linebackers, rushing those 4 would not be considered a blitz.

Given that the Packers were in the middle of the league in blitz percentage, but generally top 10ish in pressuring the QB, that suggests that the Packers were effective when they did blitz and perhaps should have blitzed more than they did. That can't be concluded definitively based on these stats (we don't know specifically what the success rate/impact of the actual blitzes were) but the suggestion is there at minimum.

And when you look at sacks by game, there's a pretty strong correlation between sacks and defensive effectiveness/wins. The Packers were least effective getting sacks against TEN (1), WAS (2), ATL (2), DAL (2), CHI (2), HOU (2), and IND (2). With the lone exception of the first MN game (4) in which the Vikings scored only 17, those are the teams that either beat the Packers or gave them the most competitive games. All other games (except DAL playoff game (2) resulted in 3 or more sacks - and Packer wins, some decisively.

That could be due to player ineffectiveness or lack of scheme aggressiveness we can't really tell for sure. Some teams/quarterbacks are more effective against a blitz than others obviously. Matt Ryan and Eli Manning for example, were very tough to sack this year. They read defenses well and get the ball out quickly, which tends to make it tough when you blitz them.

However, while this data has a lot of holes in it, given the relationship this year between pressure and winning, and the fact that the information suggests that the Packers were generally effective in getting pressure when they blitzed, I think it's reasonable to say that the Packers should have blitzed more than they did. When you combine that with the ineffective pass defense overall, that argument becomes even stronger I'd say. They were less effective defending the pass when they didn't sack the QB for sure.

I agree with you Maxie that protecting the defensive backs by blitzing more often would have been the way to go this year. While I understand Dom's reasoning behind his soft approach was to help defend against big plays - which plagued this team all year long and blitzing schematically adds to that risk when it doesn't come home - it's pretty clear that it didn't work very well overall.

[texaspackerbacker]

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

No, Maxie, I had you pegged for second place hahahaha.

[vince]

I think vince's numbers generally agree with my observation. The Packers were better at pressure this year (esp before Perry's injury) than coverage. But pressure could not fix the injured back end.

I also expect that the pressure's effectiveness tailed off significantly toward the end of the season despite the overall turnaround.

I don't have pressures by game PB, but sack numbers were pretty consistent. Here are the splits by month.

Sep (2-1) - 10
Oct (2-2) - 9
Nov (1-3) - 9
Dec (4-0) - 10
Jan (1-0) - 2

The correlation is very strong between defensive sacks and wins. A lot can be said about the extent to which sacks cause winning or playing from ahead (winning) causes sacks but that correlation is there... I'd say it's bidirectional to at least a significant extent.

[pbmax]

I don't have pressures by game PB, but sack numbers were pretty consistent. Here are the splits by month.

Sep (2-1) - 10
Oct (2-2) - 9
Nov (1-3) - 9
Dec (4-0) - 10
Jan (1-0) - 2

I'll have to go over them more but my impression from watching the games (I only rewatched the philly game) is that pressure was maddeningly uneven at the close of the season. They might have had some games better than others. One game I know they got the QB twice late.

But the backend, if it was going to survive, needed truly frightening pressure to work.

The one big positive I took from McCarthy's season ender is that they are going to start with pass defense on the offseason and prioritize it. They have to be better at both zone and man to man to make Capers designs work. Sometimes, even with good pressure, the QB will have time.

McCarthy wasn't too happy with the pressure versus Atlanta at halftime. I wonder if he felt the same thing in the second half of the Cowboys game.

[texaspackerbacker]

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.

As I said, it's not about how many; It's about where they come from. A "zone blitz" could have an LB or two coming in and a D Lineman or two dropping into coverage, and a net of zero additional from what you have go in with the base D. I used to hate it when for decades the Packers played the blandest of defenses - hardly ever blitzing. In the Lombardi Era, we had the D personnel to pull that off, but for way too long after, our D was like it is now - not good enough to just line up and beat 'em.

You seriously want 4 or 5 fat guys - 4 or 5 Rajis? I sure as hell don't. Even if it was 4 or 5 Vince Wilforks, the other team would just go right around us.

I do tend to agree, it's more about the Capers system - drafting some phenom edge rusher might not be any better than having guys like Elliot and Fackrell out there. Don't you think that's more in favor of "Dom's magic" than against it? The question, to me, is what happens if you don't do that scheming compensating complicated shit? And I think the answer is you get beat.

It also seems like most of what Dom does - a lot of blitzing or stopping somebody's star RB or whatever - requires taking a chance on single coverage by our Corners. Therefore, what we need, obviously, more than anything else is outstanding cover Corners. They went for that drafting Randall and Rollins, but it kinda seems like didn't choose too wisely. It says something (I'm not sure what) that the best two Corners we've had recently were UDFAs (I mean Shields and Gunter). That gives me some hope that Hawkins will amount to something. Mostly, though, I'd like to see them go after a proven cover Corner - the kind of free agent we usually only dream of as Packer fans.

[Maxie the Taxi]

I agree with you Maxie that protecting the defensive backs by blitzing more often would have been the way to go this year. While I understand Dom's reasoning behind his soft approach was to help defend against big plays - which plagued this team all year long and blitzing schematically adds to that risk when it doesn't come home - it's pretty clear that it didn't work very well overall.

I'm glad that we agree on that. Now the next question is: Where (and how) do we go from here?

First off, I am not naive enough to believe that anything we say here will have any effect whatsoever on what the Packers' brain trust will actually do. I guess what we do here is basically just the equivalent of fan bar talk. The thing is the noise I hear from the powers that be at Lambeau pretty much tells me not much is going to change to that status quo that both of us think is unacceptable. If that's the case, I think it's too bad 'cause IMO a significant change is needed to bring the defense up to snuff.

That said, I'm thinking if I were in charge my first priority would be to get Daniels and Clark some significant help on the DL. I'm talking more than one cause I think I'd like to see at least four fat guys on the DL every play. We need to win the battle at the LOS.

Second off, if we use all our draft choices on defensive players, I'd be fine with that, but I'd focus on big, strong, fat linemen who can make a difference. Maybe I'd even trade up to get the premier at guy in the draft, whoever that is. If we can pick up a vet FA worth his salt, that would help. I don't think investing in a phenom edge rusher is the answer for this defense.

So it's more than just new players IMO. It's a new emphasis on the DL.

[Maxie the Taxi]

As I said, it's not about how many; It's about where they come from. A "zone blitz" could have an LB or two coming in and a D Lineman or two dropping into coverage, and a net of zero additional from what you have go in with the base D. I used to hate it when for decades the Packers played the blandest of defenses - hardly ever blitzing. In the Lombardi Era, we had the D personnel to pull that off, but for way too long after, our D was like it is now - not good enough to just line up and beat 'em.

You seriously want 4 or 5 fat guys - 4 or 5 Rajis? I sure as hell don't. Even if it was 4 or 5 Vince Wilforks, the other team would just go right around us.

I do tend to agree, it's more about the Capers system - drafting some phenom edge rusher might not be any better than having guys like Elliot and Fackrell out there. Don't you think that's more in favor of "Dom's magic" than against it? The question, to me, is what happens if you don't do that scheming compensating complicated shit? And I think the answer is you get beat.

It also seems like most of what Dom does - a lot of blitzing or stopping somebody's star RB or whatever - requires taking a chance on single coverage by our Corners. Therefore, what we need, obviously, more than anything else is outstanding cover Corners. They went for that drafting Randall and Rollins, but it kinda seems like didn't choose too wisely. It says something (I'm not sure what) that the best two Corners we've had recently were UDFAs (I mean Shields and Gunter). That gives me some hope that Hawkins will amount to something. Mostly, though, I'd like to see them go after a proven cover Corner - the kind of free agent we usually only dream of as Packer fans.

Just to be clear, by "fat guy" I don't mean Raji or Gilbert Brown EXCLUSIVELY. I'm talking athletic, strong ~300 pounders like Daniels that can get the push upfield rather than 240 pound LB's who half the time get bounced backward by big OT's and OG's.

As I posted in response to Vince, I'm sort of done with Dom's 3-4 approach. I'd like to have 6-8 really good, big guys on the DL trench that we could rotate in an out so they stay fresh. The problem with Dom's system is you need very exceptional and athletic LB's to make it work, guys like Mathews and the old version of Peppers. Those guys are hard to find (especially given our perennial draft position) and fragile.

[vince]

I'm glad that we agree on that. Now the next question is: Where (and how) do we go from here?

First off, I am not naive enough to believe that anything we say here will have any effect whatsoever on what the Packers' brain trust will actually do. I guess what we do here is basically just the equivalent of fan bar talk. The thing is the noise I hear from the powers that be at Lambeau pretty much tells me not much is going to change to that status quo that both of us think is unacceptable. If that's the case, I think it's too bad 'cause IMO a significant change is needed to bring the defense up to snuff.

That said, I'm thinking if I were in charge my first priority would be to get Daniels and Clark some significant help on the DL. I'm talking more than one cause I think I'd like to see at least four fat guys on the DL every play. We need to win the battle at the LOS.

Second off, if we use all our draft choices on defensive players, I'd be fine with that, but I'd focus on big, strong, fat linemen who can make a difference. Maybe I'd even trade up to get the premier at guy in the draft, whoever that is. If we can pick up a vet FA worth his salt, that would help. I don't think investing in a phenom edge rusher is the answer for this defense.

So it's more than just new players IMO. It's a new emphasis on the DL.

There's where we disagree.

Pass defense was clearly the Achilles' heel and that's attributable to a combination of Capers' soft zone schemes when not pressuring the QB, the perimeter defenders' inability to cover downfield without help over the top, and some blitzers' relative ineffectiveness, notably the safeties, in disguising/timing the blitz and getting home for most of the year.

Every team can always use another effective fatty inside, but I don't think more big fat d-linemen will help what ails the Packers' defense.

A more aggressive approach to pressuring the QB, a more effective perimeter pass defense, and the ability to better disguise and adjust pass defensive alignments and coverages is needed.

Capers is relatively effective in bringing pressure but for some reason that I haven't quite put my finger on, he's not effective in disguising/adjusting coverages to surprise and confuse QB's downfield. QB's seem to consistently have too easy of a time reading what the Packers defensive backfield is doing and making the adjustments and throwing the ball to the soft spots in the defense. Some of that has to do with the range of deep defenders as well and the tendency of young linebackers to bite up on play fakes, failure to get proper depth, etc., but my gut says it also has to do with being too transparent, predictable and recognizable in their coverages overall.

In the absence of a new defensive approach altogether, better cover corner play will help, as will more aggressive pressure packages but that all comes more consistently from perimeter corner play and edge rushers than the fatties.

[Maxie the Taxi]

There's where we disagree.

Pass defense was clearly the Achilles' heel and that's attributable to a combination of Capers' soft zone schemes when not pressuring the QB, the perimeter defenders' inability to cover downfield without help over the top, and some blitzers' relative ineffectiveness, notably the safeties, in disguising/timing the blitz and getting home for most of the year.

Every team can always use another effective fatty inside, but I don't think more big fat d-linemen will help what ails the Packers' defense.

A more aggressive approach to pressuring the QB, a more effective perimeter pass defense, and the ability to better disguise and adjust pass defensive alignments and coverages is needed.

Capers is relatively effective in bringing pressure but for some reason that I haven't quite put my finger on, he's not effective in disguising/adjusting coverages to surprise and confuse QB's downfield. QB's seem to consistently have too easy of a time reading what the Packers defensive backfield is doing and making the adjustments and throwing the ball to the soft spots in the defense. Some of that has to do with the range of deep defenders as well and the tendency of young linebackers to bite up on play fakes, failure to get proper depth, etc., but my gut says it also has to do with being too transparent, predictable and recognizable in their coverages overall.

In the absence of a new defensive approach altogether, better cover corner play will help, as will more aggressive pressure packages but that all comes more consistently from perimeter corner play and edge rushers than the fatties.

I respect your opinion. You may be right. Now, assuming you're right, the question becomes how do we get from here to there? And, is Dom the appropriate coach to take us there?

The Baltimore Ravens run the 3-4. They seem to be always in the top ranks for all categories of defense. I think if we had our offense and the Ravens' defense this year we'd be playing next week.

How do the Ravens do it year to year (seemingly, I haven't checked the data)? What is different about the Ravens' defense compared to ours? Is it philosophy, scheme, players? Should Dom's replacement come from the Ravens' coaching tree?

Inquiring, aged minds want to know and want to know now. Aged fans have neither the time nor inclination to wait out an elaborate rebuilding scheme.

[vince]

I respect your opinion. You may be right. Now, assuming you're right, the question becomes how do we get from here to there? And, is Dom the appropriate coach to take us there?

The Baltimore Ravens run the 3-4. They seem to be always in the top ranks for all categories of defense. I think if we had our offense and the Ravens' defense this year we'd be playing next week.

How do the Ravens do it year to year (seemingly, I haven't checked the data)? What is different about the Ravens' defense compared to ours? Is it philosophy, scheme, players? Should Dom's replacement come from the Ravens' coaching tree?

Inquiring, aged minds want to know and want to know now. Aged fans have neither the time nor inclination to wait out an elaborate rebuilding scheme.

My preference is a new DC because these problems have persisted over a number of years. I think Mccarthy has a better sense of what's happening and how they should best be addressed though. In the end a couple additions and development of some young guys may be the best course vs. Introducing a whole new program. Regardless of scheme, you gotta have enough horses to implement it well.

Shields absence and other injuries had a big impact.

[beveaux1]

Our pass rush under Capers has usually put us in the top 10 in sacks yearly. This [I]usually[I]means that our defense applies good pressure. My eyes tell me that when we play on the road, the amount of pressure is diminished. Crowd noise and playing surface could both be factors for what my eye perceives.

I've been watching the Packers for many, many years and the pass defense for the whole of this year was the worst of the Capers era by my perception even if it wasn't so statistically. We set a record in 2011 for yardage allowed, but we played with a large lead in most games. It was definitely bend but don't break and our 15-1 record attests to that. Poor safety play was the main culprit that year, but I don't remember ever seeing receivers as open as they were throughout this year.

Capers' normal blitz percentage in previous years had to be higher than this year because of the lack of availability of NFL quality personnel at the CB position and his need to protect them. In order to bring this defense back to an acceptable level, a #1 CB has to be procured through whatever means necessary. I don't believe additional blitzing or anything short of Von Miller could disguise the problems in our secondary.

[vince]

Our pass rush under Capers has usually put us in the top 10 in sacks yearly. This [I]usually[I]means that our defense applies good pressure. My eyes tell me that when we play on the road, the amount of pressure is diminished. Crowd noise and playing surface could both be factors for what my eye perceives.

I've been watching the Packers for many, many years and the pass defense for the whole of this year was the worst of the Capers era by my perception even if it wasn't so statistically. We set a record in 2011 for yardage allowed, but we played with a large lead in most games. It was definitely bend but don't break and our 15-1 record attests to that. Poor safety play was the main culprit that year, but I don't remember ever seeing receivers as open as they were throughout this year.

Capers' normal blitz percentage in previous years had to be higher than this year because of the lack of availability of NFL quality personnel at the CB position and his need to protect them. In order to bring this defense back to an acceptable level, a #1 CB has to be procured through whatever means necessary. I don't believe additional blitzing or anything short of Von Miller could disguise the problems in our secondary.

I agree about the shutdown corner. And I can look some of that up beveaux to see but it will be a bit later on.