Less blitzing=More pressure?? | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Less blitzing=More pressure??

vinivedivichi

vinivedivichi

So you're telling me there's a chance...
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
1,133
Reaction score
1
Age
41
Anybody who watched the Raider game noticed that we had excellent pressure from our front four. For the first time all year, we basically rushed four and the LB's dropped in to coverage on passing downs. Predictably, our coverage was better. An unexpected result, however, was that our pass rush was also better.

Now some of that has to be attributable to Oakland's O-line. I don't watch them a lot, but from what I understand their line is not the best. That said, we have played poor lines in the past and not been able to generate a decent rush. Against Oakland we were getting after Collins on almost every play and we were also able to stop their rushing attack.

Are we better off without those intricate blitz packages of Saban's? By not blitzing, our linebackers are dropping into coverage and helping out probably our biggest weakness on the team (secondary). The obvious trade-off is supposed to be less of a pass rush, but last week we actually had a better pass rush. If we can get those results every week, we are obviously better off not blitzing, but can those same results be expected in the future?

Is it possible that we can have our cake, and eat it too?
 
I noticed that too.. We seriously had to stop blitzing Lbs and keeping them back in coverage.
it was nice to see coverage during a blitz
 
vinivedivichi said:
Anybody who watched the Raider game noticed that we had excellent pressure from our front four. For the first time all year, we basically rushed four and the LB's dropped in to coverage on passing downs. Predictably, our coverage was better. An unexpected result, however, was that our pass rush was also better.

Now some of that has to be attributable to Oakland's O-line. I don't watch them a lot, but from what I understand their line is not the best. That said, we have played poor lines in the past and not been able to generate a decent rush. Against Oakland we were getting after Collins on almost every play and we were also able to stop their rushing attack.

Are we better off without those intricate blitz packages of Saban's? By not blitzing, our linebackers are dropping into coverage and helping out probably our biggest weakness on the team (secondary). The obvious trade-off is supposed to be less of a pass rush, but last week we actually had a better pass rush. If we can get those results every week, we are obviously better off not blitzing, but can those same results be expected in the future?

Is it possible that we can have our cake, and eat it too?
Click to expand...

Other than the safety, the other 5 sacks were coverage sacks. More people covering gives the front 4 time to run stunts and "work" the OL. BTW Oaklands OL is pretty good.
 
RLMIAMI said:
Other than the safety, the other 5 sacks were coverage sacks. More people covering gives the front 4 time to run stunts and "work" the OL. BTW Oaklands OL is pretty good .
Click to expand...


I wouldn't say they were even good. Maybe just below average.

Oakland's line is ranked #22 in sacks allowed this year with 29 total.
 
Superself said:
I wouldn't say there were even good. Maybe just below average.

Oakland's line is ranked #22 in sacks allowed this year with 29 total.
Click to expand...
What were they ranked before JT and friends killed them on sunday?
 
It also helped that we had fast LB's on the field. Zach and Junior are fantastic linebackers, but they just don't have the foot speed to cover the short crossing routes like our younger LB's. Saying that, I still would rather have our pro-bowl LB in there than our talented rookie. :D
 
It may well be that for our group, the extra time provided by LB coverage allows more *effective* pressure than throwing the extra bodies at the QB and allowing the underneath stuff to break open more quickly. If so, as you note, we're better off chilling on a bunch of fancy-shmancy LB blitzes in most situations.
 
I was suprised we got pressure on them at all
 
They did put alot of pressure on Rich but when it was 3 and long they couldn't put enough pressure on them.... And yes I know when we give up third and longs it falls more on the DB's then the line. But besides those fore plays they put tons of pressure on Gannon all day. Congrates to JT for AFC DPOW!!!!!!
 
ffphin said:
They did put alot of pressure on Rich but when it was 3 and long they couldn't put enough pressure on them.... And yes I know when we give up third and longs it falls more on the DB's then the line. But besides those fore plays they put tons of pressure on Gannon all day. Congrates to JT for AFC DPOW!!!!!!
Click to expand...
I THINK YOU MEANT COLLLINS, BUT UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT ANYWAY!!:D
 
Yes, we definately have to blitz more. Collins was unable to make good throws in the pocket. We have to do that every week.
 
I still think we have to mix it up to keep offenses guessing, but I've wanted to see *disguised* blitzes more this year, where we fake the blitz and drop back into a short zone to pick off the hot routes. That's what just about every team did to AJ Feeley last year (lots of pick sixes), and we've blitzed so much the first half of the year that we could do well with this I think.
 
Has Miami's blitz worked at all this season? I dont think you can Blitz teams like Oakland because they have too many weapons open if you aren't able to create pressure on the Blitz like we so often cant....I'd rather just let our front for do the rushing, they are very good and i think they all knew they would be come in. It may help out our pass coverage too.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom