What The Hell Is A Blitz?

[Vincenzo]

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.

Pressuring the QB will always help out a lousy secondary. Put it this way, if the Packers had generated a greater pass rush upon Matt Ryan the game would have been a different story.

[KYPack]

To my way of thinking, blitzing is when you rush 5 at the QB and cover with 6. then you get into exotic blitz packages where you send 6 rushing the QB and cover with 5. Capers did blitz early and had one exotic (S & CB) blitz, that I saw. They generated a bad play or two, but no blitzes or blitz schemes were anything you could make a living out of. We flat out didn't have the defensive troops to stop ATL. For us to win that game, we had to get a break someplace, match their offense with ours, & catch a freak score (PR or pick) to put us over the top.

We had to have a similar scenario that happened in Dallas the week before. When the offense got stymied, we were dead. Our 15 or so D players flat out were out matched by the team ATL put out on the field. Capers knows how to blitz and ain't afraid to do so. Shit, Capers invented a few NFL blitz packages. We didn't have the horses in that race and we lost.

Next year, we need a few more horses. Hopefully, the additions will be better and faster than the bunch that took the field down in Atlanta.

[vince]

Here are a host of defensive stats since 2011.

Packers Defensive Ranking by Year
QB Pressures..Sack%...Big Plays All..Takeaways..Passing Yds.All..Points All.
2016..12th...........11th..........28th........... 14th............32nd.........26th
2015..6th.............3rd...........9th........... ..16th............13th.........11th
2014..23rd............5th.........11th............ .4th.............7th...........14th
2013..10th............5th.........28th............ 20th............21st..........24th
2012..20th............4th.........13th............ 16th............10th..........13th
2011..4th..............32nd.......31st............ 2nd...........32nd...........22nd

The strongest determinant of points allowed is consistently big pass plays (25+ yds.) allowed. The Big Plays stat above is just passing plays BTW. For example, 2013 was a year the Packers had decent success pressuring and sacking the QB but the big plays allowed hurt.

As you said beveaux 2011 was a year the Packers were almost always playing with a lead, and their bend-don't-break defense allowed a lot of yards but their forced turnovers helped offset that. It's interesting that they pressured the QB well but didn't really get many sacks that year.

Hindsight's 20/20. It's unfair of me to state that pass defense has been a recurring problem because that hasn't really been the case. Capers was not successful in avoiding big pass plays this year but his approach was designed to prevent them. I think it's probably fair to say that he tried a lot of different approaches, and none of them worked with any consistency.

[vince]

I still believe that Capers needs to work on disguising coverages and timing adjustments, DB blitzes, etc. but in fairness that could be due to the youth he's dealing with as much as him needing to update the same scheme he's been running for 30 years.

[pbmax]

I don't think there was much more to be gained by blitzing more (as in sending more players than 4 more often).

With the Packers sack rate (vince's numbers as well as Football Outsiders) was ranked higher than their blitz rate (meaning when they sent people they seemed to be quite effective*), I see the temptation to read numbers as indicating that more pressure would be more effective. But the backend yielded so many big plays there was huge risk is pulling people from coverage and sending them after the QB. What we really need is to see results while pressuring with more than 4. Despite sack rate, if completions and yardage went up, then no amount of success will make them bleed less.

This thread is speaking about protecting DBs by pressuring the QB, but its only protection if three things happen:

1. Pressure forces a worse throw (or a sack)
2. DBs can hold up in coverage until pressure arrives
3. Completions that are made can be held to a reasonable yardage

Against a good QB, the backend could not hold up its end of the bargain. Too much confusion, too much cushion, too much YAC.


* One thing to keep in mind is we REALLY need sack rate while blitzing and sack rate when not to be able to suss out this option for Capers.

[pbmax]

I still believe that Capers needs to work on disguising coverages and timing adjustments, DB blitzes, etc. but in fairness that could be due to the youth he's dealing with as much as him needing to update the same scheme he's been running for 30 years.

Yeah, I would like to see it too. But there will be times with Ted that this is not possible. Its part of their disconnect.

Its why I think if you keep Ted and Dom, you start out simple and forget trying to disguise coverage. Learn to play man and zone to maximize each DB on roster because some of them are going to get hurt.

Put you disguise efforts into odd blitzes, overload and single-ing a guy up with a favorable matchup.

As the season goes on and you can add things, then maybe go to disguise later.

I want to see more Seattle and less Baltimore or Ryan Bros defense. Think you will always need veterans for the most complex schemes. Even Belichick thinned out his D playbook from earlier this decade when he had to rebuild his defense with the draft.

[pbmax]

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.

Its easier to find 260-270 edge rushers than 300 pounders that can push the pocket. Guys in the middle who can truly pass rush are the rare finds.

[vince]

I don't think there was much more to be gained by blitzing more (as in sending more players than 4 more often).

With the Packers sack rate (vince's numbers as well as Football Outsiders) was ranked higher than their blitz rate (meaning when they sent people they seemed to be quite effective*), I see the temptation to read numbers as indicating that more pressure would be more effective. But the backend yielded so many big plays there was huge risk is pulling people from coverage and sending them after the QB. What we really need is to see results while pressuring with more than 4. Despite sack rate, if completions and yardage went up, then no amount of success will make them bleed less.

This thread is speaking about protecting DBs by pressuring the QB, but its only protection if three things happen:

1. Pressure forces a worse throw (or a sack)
2. DBs can hold up in coverage until pressure arrives
3. Completions that are made can be held to a reasonable yardage

Against a good QB, the backend could not hold up its end of the bargain. Too much confusion, too much cushion, too much YAC.


* One thing to keep in mind is we REALLY need sack rate while blitzing and sack rate when not to be able to suss out this option for Capers.

Agreed. It's one of those, "whatever they did do didn't work so they should have done something different." arguments. I couldn't find blitz effectiveness data anywhere.

My impression (which is clearly unreliable), is that teams had too easy of a time finding holes when they played soft zone as well as man defense. The notion of trying to force the ball out of the QB's hand as quickly as possible in order to protect the coverage from breaking down likely had marginal success but it seems as if it wouldn't have been worse than sitting back and watching them get carved up.

In the end, after reading others' opinions and breaking down some of the actual results, I remain open to Capers' retiring but am less determined to argue for DC change than I was previously.

[pbmax]

I am just not sure there was any combo that would have worked. Maybe Rollins and Gunter in a zone, since Rollins seems to get it, but he was healthy less than Randall and he had a worse season going before that.

In retrospect, for everyone wanting to scream about being one RB short when Lacy got hurt again, the real devastation was losing both House and Hayward and having both Randall and Rollins fall apart with a Shields injury.

[vince]

The sophomore slump of these three DB's was remarkable this year. Look at those passer ratings against. It's like every QB that threw against them was Aaron Rodgers caliber. Rollins was particularly putrid after being borderline stellar as a rook.



The Packers need to solve their secondary issues this offseason.

The bottom line for the Packers is that they have a young group of coverage players that has shown the ability to play all over the map when it comes to coverage. That group was arguably the biggest determining factor in costing the team a place in the Super Bowl this season (with injuries playing a clear and important part, too), and if they don’t improve, they will remain an Achilles heel for an otherwise talented roster in 2017.

If the Packers can get this group to realize its potential and return to the promising play of 2015, they will have taken a huge step in the right direction without making a single personnel move. On the other hand, expecting that to happen may be an exercise in faith, and a gamble which could cost them dearly.

[texaspackerbacker]

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.

Glad you 'splained that about "fat guys" hahahaha. The trend around the league seems to be away from what you are wishing for and toward more speed - which generally means less size. In the case of the Packers, they haven't had much luck drafting that kind of guy either. They kinda got lucky with Daniels, who I can't recall if he was a low draft pick or UDFA, other than that, not much for a decade or more. Kenny Clark has potential, but he ain't there yet. I think the same trend exists in colleges, which makes finding quality D Linemen even more difficult. Even if we had the potential to brutalize O Lines and have a consistent push into the backfield, I'm thinking that sort of thing is too easy for O Coordinators to beat - mobile QBs getting outside or quick traps with fast RBs - you know, when the 3-4 first became popular, it was because more LBs were deemed better suited to foil the run game.

I would disagree about elite LBs being hard to find. Maybe Ted et al hasn't found them, but there certainly are a lot of outstanding rush LBs around the league. Also, just because we've had some injuries there doesn't necessarily mean it's that way all over. And of course, we have had a some D Linemen hurt too, probably as much or more considering they probably are on the field less total man minutes.

So no, you shouldn't be done with Capers' D. It's necessary the way things are now, and I think would be better than the alternative even if we miraculously managed to get better overall personnel.

[texaspackerbacker]

I am just not sure there was any combo that would have worked. Maybe Rollins and Gunter in a zone, since Rollins seems to get it, but he was healthy less than Randall and he had a worse season going before that.

In retrospect, for everyone wanting to scream about being one RB short when Lacy got hurt again, the real devastation was losing both House and Hayward and having both Randall and Rollins fall apart with a Shields injury.

The best thing to do IMO was what they did. Gunter did a pretty decent job against arguably THE 3 best wideouts in the NFC, maybe NFL. Zone D just doesn't seem to be the Packers thing, and it seems like good QBs can defeat zones in general better than man coverage. The one and only game where Randall played good, we were not in too bad shape. But not having any decent second Corner at all just was too much to overcome.

That's why going forward, I really hope we sign a proven quality cover Corner. That with Gunter as the number 2 and nickel and diming Randall and Rollins or whoever should work - assuming we get even borderline good front seven play.

[vince]

The best thing to do IMO was what they did. Gunter did a pretty decent job against arguably THE 3 best wideouts in the NFC, maybe NFL. Zone D just doesn't seem to be the Packers thing, and it seems like good QBs can defeat zones in general better than man coverage.

Tex Gunter was abused in the playoffs. He handled OBJ ok - with a ton of help - but not the other two guys - at all.

Dez Bryan had 9 catches on 12 targets for 132 and 2 TDs - both of which he manhandled Gunter.

Julio Jones also had 9 catches on 12 targets for 180 yds and 2 TD's - both of which he manhandled Gunter.

That's 18 catches for 312 yds and 4 TD's in 2 games - a 156.25 Defensive Passer Rating.

Yeah those two guys are real good but they demonstrated just how far out of their league Gunter is at this point. He was hanging on for dear life against Jones - completely abused.

[texaspackerbacker]

Tex Gunter was abused in the playoffs. He handled OBJ ok - with a ton of help - but not the other two guys - at all.

Dez Bryan had 9 catches on 12 targets for 132 and 2 TDs - both of which he manhandled Gunter.

Julio Jones also had 9 catches on 12 targets for 180 yds and 2 TD's - both of which he manhandled Gunter.

That's 18 catches for 312 yds and 4 TD's in 2 games - a 156.25 Defensive Passer Rating.

Yeah those two guys are real good but they demonstrated just how far out of their league Gunter is at this point. He was hanging on for dear life against Jones - completely abused.

To some extent, that's my point - he's the best we have (thanks Ted for that). He was "abused" more when we were in zone than man coverage, although obviously he got beat straight up sometimes too. Those receivers have similarly "abused" a lot of good Corners. Ideally we would have doubled up on them a large part of the time, but that wasn't feasible given our overall inadequate D personnel. If Ted finally gets off his ass and signs a quality cover Corner, Gunter would probably be good enough against most team's second receiver.

[vince]

Ted's a convenient scapegoat but as has been said many times, the corner depth looked very much like a strength of the team going in.

How does anyone reasonably foresee the shutdown corner sustaining a career-ending injury in game 1 - combined with the huge dropoff in play by the three 2nd year corners - who were universally touted as rising performers.

Then, once the regular season was underway, I'd say it's unrealistic to expect any GM to find a perimeter corner off the street who can reasonably be expected to step right in and succeed. If they could still cover they'd still be playing.

Ultimately it's his responsibility but there is only so much any GM can reasonably control in any single season. Now, if the same problems continue next year I'd say Ted's more than fair game.

I perceived a trend in poor pass defense but that wasn't the case. Defensive inconsistency has been an issue. One year it's poor run defense, the next they're top 10 overall, the next it's failure to pressure the QB, the next they're top 15, and the next it's coverage gaffes. I attribute that to injuries at different positions (and possibly coaching/scheme overcompensation).

Players performing one year but underperforming the next (normally due to injury) and then coming back strong the year after doesn't strike me as being a talent issue overall. Nick Perry underperformed for the better part of 4 years (You suck Ted.) due to his lack of availability, now he's a stud (Great talent eval. Ted) and everyone almost universally wants him re-signed for big money.