bring a blitz
I am glad to hear you understand. Thank you for sharing!
and opposing offensive coordinators burned us for TDs or near TDs due to the predictability.
Off the top of my head, tOSU's last touchdown, halfback middle screen, walk in. Iowa, delay to TE Moeaki, jog in. ND, halfback outside screen, ~70 yd TD subsequently limited to ~40 yd gain due to ND back barely stepping out-of-bounds.
The reason it worked so well yesterday on the last play was that Illinois chose not to plan for it.
I agree with the OP in acknowledging the dilemna.
PSU last year, as well. For that matter, Illinois burned us on an all-out blitz on their first two-point attempt, in the first quarter. I think they called the exact same play on the last one, but our blitz just got to Scheelhaase faster.
I have heard this too and have gotten tired of telling people the problem with leaving Rodgers and Avery on island. Think Gillian wil access to explosives.
People will, no doubt, point to the last play as proof that we should blitz all the time. Roh ran a great stunt, around a double team and came right up the middle clean. Someone tried to cut Mouton, but wiffed. He then nearly went too far inside, but was able to wrap up Steelehasse's (sp?) legs and make the play
However, a crossing route from the west side (Michigan side line) to the east was open right away - but kinda got blocked by the official. But for that, the ball could have been thrown over Roh's head and we would have had to hope for an amazing tackle by a sfety who was in the endzone covering someone else. A more experienced QB makes that throw. Also, another crossing route going from east to west came wide open later, but Steelehasse was too busy watching Death Roh coming right at him.
The bottom line is that we gambled and won. Big. However, it could have blown up in a million different ways. A more experienced QB makes a better read and throws sooner. A better cut on Mouton and Steelehasse is free on the outside with an open crossing route coming to him.
Of course, in that stituation, we had nothing to loose. Two points means more OT, not a loss. The recievers couldn't take off deep b/c Illinois was on the 2. It was the perfect time to blitz an inexperienced QB and try to induce panic. It worked. In the middle of the filed in the fourth quater - not so much.
when they work.
Other wise the DC is the goat. Of course GERG doesn't have much to lose there.
Thank goodness it worked!
As for running a blitz on every down, see the thread regarding on side kicks - brilliant when they work. Risky. Not something you do often.
I agree that if we blitzed every play we would get smoked more often, but the 3 man rush and drop 8 has become a gimme 3rd and long conversion for everyone we have played recently. If it doesnt work 75% of the time, the 3 man rush is probably not a good idea. Furthermore, with 8 back its just more people back there inexperienced in zone covered getting lost after 5+ seconds. Any QB can look good with 7-10 seconds to throw no matter how many are back to cover.
I agree that blitzing all the time is inadvisable, but given how bad our zone coverage is i do think we need to bring more pressure against less experienced quarterbacks. I would rather gamble and take the chance they make the wrong read or miss the throw vs giving them time and letting our zone coverage break down (which takes 3 or 4 seconds at most). Watching the blown coverage on a simple wheel-route or crossing pattern further convinced me that more pressure is needex
No, this defense shouldn't blitz all of the time. It's abundantly clear, however, that even an average QB can burn our secondary repeatedly even when our defense maximizes pass coverage. Why not mix it up with some more pressure and take the chance that you can force the QB to miss or throw too soon?
We can't cover people when we use 8 people, so let's use 7, 6, 5, 4 instead?
if the QB isn't under center they always have at least 2 seconds no matter how many people you bring. The reason we had a 3 man front for most of this year's PSU game was because TE's burned us so badly last year. That has nothing to do with the corners, that's all on the LB's.
Blitzing all the time was something that worked back when the offense only had 2 receivers. Then you could rely on your corners to cover.
when sending 4 receivers and having the RB as a 5th you can't send in 7 bodies, it's suicide.
unless they are at the 2 yard line and the lack of field allows your two safeties and your two corners to be one on one and only 3 yards off. Then you can bring 7 and hope for the best.
I'm not saying that last play wasn't awesome, it was. But it only worked because of the situation and because someway, somehow, the Michigan D just destroyed that OL protection for Illinois.
the QB ran to Mouton because Cam Gordon had the other side contained, and Roh the Destroyer was flying straight up the middle untouched.
I mean I shit myself it was so scary.
I think the logic is simply 8 isnt working, so try something else....it cant be worse than giving up a touchdown which will likely be the end result of repeatedly using the 8 in coverage.
Lets just put LBs in coverage on the edges, try to knock down all the wide outs, and see what happens. Is it likely to fail miserably...yes. Is the 8 man in coverage likely to fail miserably...yes. The difference is that one has been proven to fail time and again while the other is untested. I am by no means condoning this, although it could be funny. It is just not fun watching a team run the same play over and over with little expectation of success. Its like watching the first offensive series in Necessary Roughness over and over again.
GERG knows this; jackass MSM informed "fans" do not.
no negative nancy me, i swear! but i also call for the all-out blitz and to go-for-it all the time. i think of it as ... you know ... enthusiasm! there is nothing better than an all-out blitz or fourh down play that works!! YEAH! WHOOO!!!!!!!!
just before the last play of yesterday's game, my brother and i looked at each other.
"one play," i said.
"one play," he agreed.
over the past 24 hours, we have texted those two words to one another ... a lot.
you should order decaf next time
Men of few words are easily understood.
to blitz like the Jets do. However, there is something to be said for us always being in 4 down territory.
I also had a dude sitting in my section who kept saying (felt like after ever completed pass) "run man you can't run that zone with that cushion, you're getting burned every time." I tried twice (i think) to explain that James Rogers is the equivalent of MAC level average corner and Avery is very, very RAW. But he continued to complain that we were running a zone. "you have to change it up, its clearly not working" I tried to explain it was either zone and lots of underneath completions or man and lots of burnt crispy 50/60/70/80 yd TDs. He did not get it. I feel like he is related to your "Blitz" guy.
In his defense, 8 and 80 yard touchdowns are still touchdowns and our defense has shown little ability to induce mistakes in long drives. If we did pressure more and play press coverage we would certainly give up more big plays as any defense would, but it could/should also cause more disruption to the offense and increase the liklihood of errors. His point Im sure is simply what we are doing now is stopping noone yet we have shown no creativity in trying to find a different formula.
The issue I have with playing so passive on defense is that no football player likes sitting back and waiting to get stepped on. Week in and week out of being told to do just that would be difficult to take. I would rather die trying than standing with a cigarette in front of a firing line.
Defense pretty much validates the "four down territory". I say it as soon as the kick or punt return is safely in the hands of Gallon (wink, wink) and the offense comes on the field.
maybe not all out blitzes but maybe some more four and five man rushes.....