Blitzing and a Great Offense

So, the assumption is that blitzing might increase the chances of a punt. I think the corollary is how likely a turnover is to occur when an offense is running a lot of plays. Wouldn't another strategy be (this is "bend don't break" all over) to get as many plays as possible in order to increase the likelihood of turnovers? Especially if the offense can pretty much score anywhere on the field, so field position is a less important consideration.

I know people hate these long, grinding drives, but they might make sense statistically, especially if the team doesn't score. Consider how Michigan had many long drives last year that didn't end in a touchdown or a field goal, at which point the other team pushed ahead a little more.

I really don't get what you are saying . we should blitz all the time ? If that is true then you are very wrong about the D-Backs not having to play better because that puts everything on them . IMO the risk just isn't worth it to me . I like them having to take long drive because that is more plays that they could mess up on . I think we need to have 4 people going at the QB at all time though . 3 line is ok but the QB has alot less pressure on every play . But if you are just thinking blitz 1 i really don't count that as a blitz in a 3-3-5

As much as people complain about the "bend don't break" strategy (with some merit), I think more people would be up in arms if we were giving up big plays because our secondary was getting beat one-on-one. 

People already complain that Kovaks, Floyd and Cam Gordon are slow; doesn't putting them in man-to-man situations exacerbate the problem?

If we use an "aggressive, disruptive blitzing campaign", I think teams would start gameplanning for it (i.e. keeping in extra blockers) and start picking apart our secondary playing man-to-man.

It seems that Floyd and Rogers are pretty solid in fulfilling their responsibilties in our soft zone (i.e. don't get beat deep) but obviously occasional blitzing would help keep the offense off-balance and lead to less long drives against.  Just not sure an aggressive, Tenuta-esque defense would suit our personel well.

If we tackled better, I would feel more comfortable with your "aggressive, disrupting blitzing campaign".

But we do not.  

I also am concerned that we are not getting much penetration when we do blitz.  

But I would like to see us do more of it, especially against Indiana which I think has a suspect offensive line.

I don't get why every1 thinks Kovacs is so slow i saw him in the last game run from 5 yards back catch C.Gordon and almost save the TD he's really not that slow IMO . I think he is a top 3 player on the D right now IMO. he has the most tackles 1 pick 1 FF dude is a stud .

Someone's English teacher just jumped off of a bridge.

What do you mean by a "rational blitzing scheme"?  Whom do you want to send?  How often?  And do you want to play man behind the blitz or zone? 

Unfortunately blitzing can expose you more when you haven't established a base defense, however there have been games where I'd rather have the defense die quickly.

One of the common themes developing here is that any expected action of a defense can be defeated.  If and when we blitz, it has to be unexpected (either in terms of timing or where the pressure is coming from) in order to maximize effectiveness.  If the opposing quarterback can read the blitz ahead of time, it is way too easy to find some mismatch against out defense, whether that mean a 6'4" tight end against Kovacs, a speedy receiver against a slow corner, or a playmaker in space against Cam Gordon taking a poor angle or tackling poorly.

On the flip side, when you rush three, you are vulnerable to underneath, shorter passes with receivers finding a spot in the zone and sitting in it.  With 3 pass rushers, you are hoping to get lucky and get enough short passing gains and incompletions to at some point get a punt.  It didn't work out so well against UMass, but it worked well in the UConn game, a fair stretch of the second half against ND, and BG.  

I was encouraged by seeing some new packages against BG with extra members of the secondary.  I think this puts enough speed on the field that we certainly can experiment with bringing pressure from the corner guarding slot receivers, and we can be quicker to shut down short passing lanes.

Here is my theory:

Yes your point makes sense, however there could be two reasons we havent seen much blitzing yet:

1) We need Mouton to tackle and can't afford to blitz him all the time; the remaining blitzing candidates are weak on the blitz

2) We haven't faced the "good offense" that your theory supposses and we will at some point see GERG blitz the living hell out of someone. 

Increasing possessions does help in reducing variance, something you want if you have a signifiantly better football team.

However, with a great, consistent offense, doesn't it make sense to reduce the defensive variance? i.e., if an offense is scoring 30-40 per week, wouldn't it be better to allow 20-30 points every week than 10-20 points half the weeks and 30-40 the other half?

I see your point, but blizing is most effective when the offense is (somewhat) surprised and cannot audible to the type of play that can exploit the holes created by additional rushers.  I think the best defense is one that can generate decent pressure with a front 4, allowing more defenders to play passing lanes and create turnovers.  That is why Mike Martin is so valuable to this defense - he can split double teams and exert pressure on the QB without having to send another player, meaning you have a QB throwing on the run with additional defenders in space to tip/intercept. 

That said, this defense will be best served by the offense continuing to rack up points irrespective of TOP.  When the other team has to abandon the running game, blitzing becomes more effective, especially out of the 3-3-5 because offensive linemen won't necessarily know which players will be coming on a given down and which will fall back into coverage.

Just remember, if you "Blitz"krieg too much...you could get cut off from supplies and gasoline. Thus leaving your secondary high and dry.

The wrecking crew ....that's what is on my wish list, flying around, blitzing,scheming,ripping arms off, breaking bodies, good o smash mouth football ...holy shit where's the tylenol.

By doing so you also increase your opponents expected PPP. So, we wouldn't want to do this against a team like, say, Ohio State who is close in PPP to us and whose defense will already decrease ours.

Basically, I figure there are three ways to stop an offense:

1) String together multiple good-to-great defensive plays, actively preventing the offense from gaining yardage

2) Get a turnover

3) Allow the offense to stall, either through poor execution or penalties

I figure "bend don't break" is basically 3). It's tough for teams to consistently grind out long drives, because it requires executing properly on almost every play. Rushing 3 plays into this by making it more difficult for a pass-first team to consistently execute. You give up a lot of short plays, but force the other team to beat you with good, sustained execution and playcalling. They have more plays, so more chances to screw up. You'll also get a fair number of turnovers by increasing the number of difficult passes. This strategy worked very well against UConn and against non-Crist ND - their inconsitency killed them, causing drives to stall even if they got a lot of yards. It worked poorly against UMass, who had a solid, experienced quarterback and good running game, allowing them to sustainably execute. That said, all but the best offenses will stall a few times a game with this strategy, even against a mediocre defense (see Michigan offense v. Notre Dame). This strategy really only works if you have a dangerous offense, because you will give up points, and you will give up long drives.

Blitzing a lot is basically 1). Rather than passively waiting for the other team to blow it, you're trying to actively force an end to the drive. You hope to panic the offense and force some 2). The trouble is I think this only works consistently against inferior offenses - good QBs and smart OCs will always have a quick out to gash a blitz, and will pick it up quickly (unless your rushers consist of LaMarr Woodley and/or Brandon Graham).

So you really are left with pick your poison - if you're playing a good offense and you don't have a great defense, either strategy is going to give up a lot of points. I tend to think that "bend don't break" maximizes the effectiveness of a mediocre defense because it minimizes easy big gains for the offense, gives them more chances to screw up, and gives your defense more chances to overachieve and force a couple punts.

All that said, I definitely see some merit in your points - to me, an all-or-nothing defense allows your offense to dictate the pace of the game instead of your opponent. This seems well-suited to the spread'n'shred, since Denard has demonstrated the ability to score quickly in a fast hurry-up mode as well as grind out a long, time-killing drive. So I'm not sure what the answer is. But that's why nobody pays me to coach football.

Just look at last year's film, we would run Dog blitzes (7 coming, 5 in coverage) on 3rd down almost religously, and it still didn't help us out very much. We're not nearly reactive enough to zone blitz, and we've seen numerous highlites of what happens to us in man coverage. Our best bet is having Roh put his hand down and rush the passer. Maybe even pair him and Mike Martin as a 3 tech to his side ocassionally, that would require some awareness from either the center or QB initially. In the end, you can't do much with not a lot, we still need to recruit and grow up.

is clear evidence that the quality of the MGoBoard has not yet dipped to mlive levels.  I agree whole-heartedly with this idea, although I'm not sure that I have anything useful to add to it.