Reaching out to experienced football minds here.
The knock against blitzing, it would seem to me, is that it is a high risk, high reward tactic.
Yet, in situations where these things hold true...
- You have a great offense
- You have a marginal defense
- You have an inexperienced secondary
- You want to maximize your possessions given that you are 6th in the country in points per possession (thank you Rash)
- You want to prevent the opponent from limiting your possessions with a measured, ball-control offense
- The opponent has a great offense
- The opponent has a marginal or weak defense
...is not the downside to an aggressive, disruptive blitzing campaign relatively negligible?
- You would increase the number of possessions for your offense against a bad defense, probably yielding a higher PPP than average,
- You would decrease the need for your secondary to be better than it is, and
- You would prevent one of the few things that would give us all gray hair on Saturday: enduring long, glacial drives by Chappell that have us into the second quarter with perhaps a single TD on the board (a la UMass in the first half).
It seems Indiana and Michigan State fit the above profile perfectly.
So, expert panel, please describe the downside of this strategy against such teams. (Note: I am assuming a rational blitzing scheme, not jailbreak insanity every play.)