tromadz
13 years ago

Pressure does not lead to sacks. Coverage leads to sacks. Pressure leads to interceptions, especially against inexperienced QBs.

Originally Posted by: Since69 



CM3 is really good at coverage then...

(I know what you're trying to say, but it's wrong)
Zero2Cool
13 years ago
I doubt it!
UserPostedImage
Stevetarded
13 years ago

Of course some level of average coverage is needed. But if the QB only has a few seconds to throw, it makes the job of a secondary much much easier. Coverage, even the best coverage, will only last so long until someone gets open enough to catch a quick pass. With enough pass rush, a quick jam at the line could be enough to destroy a play, even if the receivers get open fairly quickly after being jammed. So of course coverage plays a role. The two cannot be separated. But if I had to choose between an elite pass rush and elite coverage, I would choose pass rush as an elite pass rush can make an average secondary look pretty damn good.

Originally Posted by: doddpower 



QBs have been getting rid of the ball very quickly this year against us and are having success doing it. I don't think anybody is saying that having good coverage is necessarily more important than having a good pass rush but they are saying that our coverage has been more problematic than anybody seems to want to admit.

These quick passes to wide open receivers have just stood out to me a lot more than any pass rush woes. I like watching Clay Matthews during the game so he's one of the guys I focus on and I can't even count how many times I've seen him get in there quick and be so close to taking the QB down only to have him unload a pass to a WR with nobody around them.
blank
zombieslayer
13 years ago

Well, I believe it's generally agreed upon that rushing three and/or prevent defenses aren't incredibly effective because regardless of coverage, SOMEONE will get open if a good QB has enough time in the pocket. That kind of goes back to my original point that a pass rush is more important than coverage. If 8 guys in coverage can't successfully defend 3-4 receivers, then another route should probably be taken. But, I suppose as long as our "bend-but-don't-break" defensive approach continues to work, it's OK. Obviously, I would rather getting the opposing teams offense off the field entirely and kill the clock with our offense. I think it's risky to depend on allowing teams to march down the field but hold them out of the end zone or depending on turnovers. It has worked so far against a few good teams and a few average ones, but I'm not sure it will consistently work against other elite teams, especially if our offense is having an off day (such as horrible weather in January at Lambeau.

I do expect our pass rush to improve, at least slightly. It just depends on the health of the team. I wish so much pressure wasn't put on Matthews to manufacture most the attention/pressure. I'm not sure what we would do without him.

Originally Posted by: doddpower 



Dodd - I just wanted to address the first point.

I don't know if everyone here agrees with you, but I agree with you. Rushing 3 is lame. Good QBs will kill you if they have time. Time is something you don't want to give a good QB.

I get pretty frustrated when Dom rushes 3 because it seems to work infrequently whereas there's nothing like a sack. A sack often kills a drive.

You said later that you'd take an elite pass rush over elite coverage. I agree with you. Contrary to popular opinion, the NFL is NOT a game of inches. It's a game of SECONDS.

Anyone who disagrees with Dodd, consider this point. What if instead of allowing an opposing QB an average of 3.5 seconds, we allow him an average of 2.5? If this happened, how do you think our coverage will fare? How will his completion percentage fare? How will his INT percentage fare?
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage
(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷
Zero2Cool
13 years ago
NFL Defensive coordinators feel if the QB is good, blitzing them exposes your defense to one on one coverage . That's why teams have not been blitzing the Packers Aaron Rodgers this season. Click and read.

I'd say there are only about five QB's that will consistently burn you in the NFL. Brady, Brees, Rodgers, Rivers and there's probably another one or two I'm missing.

I would rather see a blitz more than three man rush, if the blitz is getting home or making a difference. You have to be smart with your blitzes and not blitz just because a few armchair quarterbacks feel it's stupid to rush only three.
UserPostedImage
Zero2Cool
13 years ago

Anyone who disagrees with Dodd, consider this point. What if instead of allowing an opposing QB an average of 3.5 seconds, we allow him an average of 2.5? If this happened, how do you think our coverage will fare? How will his completion percentage fare? How will his INT percentage fare?

Originally Posted by: zombieslayer 



I'll answer the question, not because I disagree with doddpower, but just to kill time on my Saturday afternoon.

2.5 seconds gives the route runner ample time to run 5-10 yard slants all day long. This is something the west coast offense exploited. It is also something the Packers offense is known to exploit, hence the lack of blitzing this season.
UserPostedImage
zombieslayer
13 years ago
2.5 is just a random number.

What I'm getting at is drop the average seconds a QB has by one full second. Then measure results. Is it a difference or is it not a difference? If it is a difference, is it significant or insignificant?

As for the backhanded insult about calling us armchair QBs, that's what all historians are. Were you there when Napoleon was in Waterloo? I wasn't either. Does that mean we can't write history?

Like it or not, history has to be written by someone. It won't be written by the people who are there on the field because more often than not, they'd suck as historians. 🇦🇷 would throw the ball way better than I ever will. However, I can guarantee you that I can write better than he can, even though he's got an IQ within 20 points of mine (which means he's pretty fucking smart).

Or should I just say fuck it. Maybe I shouldn't have an opinion at all. Maybe the rest of my posts in the Packers section should just say "Go Packers!" and that's it.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage
(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷
Zero2Cool
13 years ago

2.5 is just a random number.

What I'm getting at is drop the average seconds a QB has by one full second. Then measure results. Is it a difference or is it not a difference? If it is a difference, is it significant or insignificant?

As for the backhanded insult about calling us armchair QBs, that's what all historians are. Were you there when Napoleon was in Waterloo? I wasn't either. Does that mean we can't write history?

Like it or not, history has to be written by someone. It won't be written by the people who are there on the field because more often than not, they'd suck as historians. 🇦🇷 would throw the ball way better than I ever will. However, I can guarantee you that I can write better than he can, even though he's got an IQ within 20 points of mine (which means he's pretty fucking smart).

Or should I just say fuck it. Maybe I shouldn't have an opinion at all. Maybe the rest of my posts in the Packers section should just say "Go Packers!" and that's it.

Originally Posted by: zombieslayer 



Obviously, you failed to read what I said and simply got bent out of shape over nothing, lol.
I said that I'd rather see a blitz than three man rush.
I also said there are maybe five quarterbacks that can defy the benefits of a blitz, which implies you should blitz the other ~26 quarterbacks.

How is us being armchair quarterbacks remotely considered as a backhanded insult? Rather than saying "fuck it", sounds more like you need to get off that high horse you mounted this morning, go back to bed, wake up on the other fucking side.

A smart person doesn't have to boast about their IQ. Just. Saying!
UserPostedImage
DoddPower
13 years ago
Well, to be fair, I'm not even really talking about blitzing. I'd like to be able to get consistent pressure with 4. I know, I know, not everything can be ideal. Want your teams coverage to look pretty frickin' sweet? Get consistent pressure with four rushing and have 7 people covering 3-4 targets. Even the "Great One" Tom Brady wasn't incredibly effective against the Giants rush in 2007. Or another example would be the Packers games vs. the Bears the past couple of seasons. Obviously, I feel as if that's quickly changing as the Bears are realizing they're not that good. But still, when you're getting that kind of pressure, for whatever reason (Dline/Oline), it's going to largely nullify a lot of QBs, even ones such as Brees, Brady, Rodgers, etc.

Speaking of the quick throws, that's one thing a nice jam at the line is good for. I don't seem to recall seeing that much anymore. But an effective jam can really disrupt those quick passes, especially if the QB just has seconds to throw. I guess that's one thing about the "blitzburg" zone scheme I'm not a huge fan of.

I'm certainly not refusing to acknowledge the secondary coverage breakdowns. I just want more pass rush because I feel like that will do more to fix the situation than anything else, especially after a bye-week to hopefully let Woodson/Williams/Shields/Burnett heal up a little. At this point, I can't imagine how bad this defense will look if we lost CM3 for any extended period of time. I think that would have a much bigger impact than losing one of our CBs, especially Woodson. 😕
DoddPower
13 years ago

Or should I just say fuck it. Maybe I shouldn't have an opinion at all. Maybe the rest of my posts in the Packers section should just say "Go Packers!" and that's it.

Originally Posted by: zombieslayer 



lulz. Classic!
Fan Shout
Zero2Cool (4h) : If healthy after, then thats all I care. Well, no drops would be nice
wpr (5h) : I made it through the 1st Q.
dfosterf (13h) : Just gotta figure out how.
dfosterf (13h) : Could have been a worse start, so there is that.
beast (14h) : Yeah, someone tell the Packers football season has started, seems like they weren't ready for it
Mucky Tundra (14h) : Sooooooo many penalties
Mucky Tundra (14h) : It may only be preseason, but this game is a trip to the dentist
Zero2Cool (15h) : Packers do bad -- FREAK OUT!!!!!!
Zero2Cool (15h) : Packers do good -- eh only preseason
dfosterf (15h) : Well that half was fun
Zero2Cool (16h) : Great, zayne is down
Zero2Cool (17h) : 13 minutes away from kickkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkoffff
Zero2Cool (19h) : Had Celebration of Life for my uncle up north. wicked rain hope it dont come south
Mucky Tundra (21h) : THE GREEN BAY PACKERS ARE PLAYING FOOTBALL TONIGHT!!!!!! THIS IS NOT A DRILL!!!!
Zero2Cool (22h) : Woo-hoo
TheKanataThrilla (22h) : NFL Network is broadcasting the game tonight, but not in Canada. Not sure why as no local television is showing the game.
beast (8-Aug) : But the Return from IR designations had to be applied by the 53 man cutdown.
beast (8-Aug) : It's a new rule, so it's not clear, but my understanding was that they could be IR'd at any time
Mucky Tundra (8-Aug) : *had to be IRed at 53
Mucky Tundra (8-Aug) : beast, I thought the designate return from IR players had to be IR at cutdowns to 53, not before
beast (8-Aug) : It's a brand new rule, either last season or this season, prior, all pre-season IRs were done for the season
beast (8-Aug) : But the Packers would have to use one for their return from IR spots on him, when they cut down to 53.
beast (8-Aug) : I think the NFL recently changed the IR rules, so maybe the season might not be over for OL Glover.
Zero2Cool (8-Aug) : Packers star Howton, first NFLPA prez, dies at 95 😔
dfosterf (8-Aug) : Apparently it is too complicated for several to follow your simple instructions, but I digress
dfosterf (8-Aug) : Zero- Did you see what I posted about Voice of Reason and his wife? She posted over at fleaflicker that they are both "In"
Zero2Cool (7-Aug) : Well, not crazy, it makes sense. Crazy I didn't notice/find it earlier
Zero2Cool (7-Aug) : it's crazy how one stored procedure to get data bogged everything down for speed here
dfosterf (7-Aug) : to herd cats or goldfish without a bowl. They reminded me of the annual assembly of our fantasy league
dfosterf (7-Aug) : out on a field trip, outfitting them with little yellow smocks. Most of the little folk were well behaved, but several were like trying
dfosterf (7-Aug) : Yesterday my wife and I spent the afternoon on the waterfront here in Alexandria, Va. A daycare company took about 15 three/four year olds
wpr (7-Aug) : seems faster. yay
dfosterf (7-Aug) : Wife of reason posted on the in/out thread on fleaflicker that both she and vor are in
Zero2Cool (7-Aug) : This page was generated in 0.135 seconds.
Mucky Tundra (7-Aug) : Tbh, I can never tell the difference in speed unless it's completely shitting the bed
Zero2Cool (7-Aug) : Sure does feel like site is more snappy
Zero2Cool (6-Aug) : I thought that was the Lions OL
Mucky Tundra (6-Aug) : Travis Glover placed on IR; seasons over for him
Zero2Cool (6-Aug) : found bad sql in database, maybe site faster now?
dfosterf (5-Aug) : I'm going to call that a good move.
Zero2Cool (4-Aug) : Packers sign CB Corey Ballentine
Zero2Cool (4-Aug) : I'm not sure how to kill the draft order just yet so it's not so confusing.
Mucky Tundra (4-Aug) : *to be able
Mucky Tundra (4-Aug) : and because it's not a dynasty league (which makes a lot more sense to be ability to trade picks)
Mucky Tundra (4-Aug) : Oh I know; I was just exploring and it blew my mind that you could trade picks because of the whole reordering thing
Mucky Tundra (4-Aug) : Zero, I think I preferred my offer: your 1st for my 15th rounder
Zero2Cool (4-Aug) : Keep in mind, we do a draft reorder once all members locked in
Zero2Cool (4-Aug) : You can have my 12th Rd for your 2nd round
Mucky Tundra (4-Aug) : Hey i didn't know we could trade picks in fantasy
Mucky Tundra (3-Aug) : Update: Rock has tried a cheese curd, promises it's not his last
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2025 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 7 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Thursday, Sep 11 @ 7:15 PM
COMMANDERS
Sunday, Sep 21 @ 12:00 PM
Browns
Sunday, Sep 28 @ 7:20 PM
Cowboys
Sunday, Oct 12 @ 3:25 PM
BENGALS
Sunday, Oct 19 @ 3:25 PM
Cardinals
Sunday, Oct 26 @ 7:20 PM
Steelers
Sunday, Nov 2 @ 12:00 PM
PANTHERS
Monday, Nov 10 @ 7:15 PM
EAGLES
Sunday, Nov 16 @ 12:00 PM
Giants
Sunday, Nov 23 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Thursday, Nov 27 @ 12:00 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 7 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Dec 14 @ 3:25 PM
Broncos
Friday, Dec 19 @ 11:00 PM
Bears
Friday, Dec 26 @ 11:00 PM
RAVENS
Saturday, Jan 3 @ 11:00 PM
Vikings
Recent Topics
1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

5h / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

10h / Around The NFL / Mucky Tundra

16h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

8-Aug / Around The NFL / Zero2Cool

8-Aug / Fantasy Sports Talk / packerfanoutwest

8-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

7-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

5-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

4-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

3-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

3-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

3-Aug / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Zero2Cool

2-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

2-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.